type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 2.2.2015
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 C 34/37
 A Törvényszék 2014. december 11-i ítélete – Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp kontra OHIM – Vincci Hoteles (NAMMU)
 (T-498/13. sz. ügy) (1)
 ((„Közösségi védjegy - Törlési eljárás - A NAMMU közösségi szóvédjegy - Viszonylagos kizáró ok - A korábbi védjegy tényleges használatának bizonyítéka - A 207/2009/EK rendelet 57. cikkének (2) és (3) bekezdése, valamint a 2868/95/EK rendelet 22. szabályának (2) – (4) bekezdése”))
 (2015/C 034/43)
 Az eljárás nyelve: angol
 Felek
 Felperes: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bréma, Németország) (képviselők: A. Nordemann, T. Boddien és M. Maier ügyvédek)
 Alperes: Belső Piaci Harmonizációs Hivatal (védjegyek és formatervezési minták) (OHIM) (képviselő: J. Crespo Carrillo meghatalmazott)
 A másik fél a fellebbezési tanács előtti eljárásban: Vincci Hoteles, SA (Alcobendas, Spanyolország)
 Az ügy tárgya
 Az OHIM első fellebbezési tanácsának a Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG és a Vincci Hoteles, SA közötti törlési eljárással kapcsolatban 2013. június 27-én hozott határozata (R 611/2012-1. sz. ügy) ellen benyújtott kereset.
 Az ítélet rendelkező része
 1)
 A Törvényszék a keresetet elutasítja.
 2)
 A Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG-t kötelezi a költségek viselésére.
 (1) HL C 344., 2013.11.23.


type: wikipedia

text:
 1845 (MDCCCXLV) a fost un an obișnuit al calendarului gregorian, care a început într-o zi de miercuri.
 Evenimente
 Februarie
 3 februarie: Karl Marx este somat să părăsească Parisul din cauza activităților sale revoluționare. Se refugiază la Bruxelles unde organizează și dirijează o rețea de grupuri revoluționare împrăștiate în toată Europa și cunoscute sub numele de Comitete de comuniști de corespondență.
 28 februarie: Congresul Statelor Unite aprobă anexarea Texasului.
 Martie
 3 martie: Florida este admis ca cel de-al 27-lea stat al SUA.
 4 martie: James Knox Polk îi succede lui John Tyler ca al XI-lea președinte al Statelor Unite.
 Mai
 18 mai: Infantele Carlos, Conte de Molina renunță la drepturile sale asupra tronului Spaniei în favoarea fiului său cel mare, Carlos.
 Octombrie
 10 octombrie: Se fondează Academia Navală a SUA.
 Noiembrie
 10 noiembrie: Sora mai mare a Contelui de Chambord, pretendentului legitimist la tronul Franței, Luisa Maria Tereza de Bourbon-Artois, se căsătorește cu Ferdinando de Bourbon-Parma, viitorul Duce de Parma.
 Decembrie
 10 decembrie: A fost patentată prima anvelopă pneumatică, creată de inginerul britanic Robert Thompson.
 Nedatate
 Declanșată de apariția manei de cartof, în Irlanda începe Marea Foamete. Populația Irlandei a culminat cu 8,3 milioane de locuitori. Ca urmare a foametei și a emigrării, scade la 6,9 milioane în 1850 și 6 milioane în 1855.
 Dimitrie Bolintineanu pleacă la studii la Paris, având o bursă oferită de "Societatea literară".
 Eftimie Murgu este arestat pentru a doua oară, în urma denunțului preotului Ioan Blidariu din Gavojdia că ar agita spiritele românești împotriva ungurilor și integrității statului. Este trimis sub escortă la închisoarea ”Neugebaude” din Buda. Va fi condamnat la 4 ani de închisoare însă va fi eliberat în aprilie 1848.
 Arte, științe, literatură și filozofie
 Alexandre Dumas (tatăl) publică "După douăzeci de ani", "Regina Margot" și "Contele de Monte-Cristo"
 Apare nuvela Carmen de Prosper Mérimée, care va deveni foarte populară după ce va fi adaptată sub formă de libret în 1875 pentru opera Carmen de Georges Bizet.
 Are loc premiera Concertului pentru vioară a lui Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy. Concertul a fost foarte bine primit încă de la început și a devenit unul dintre cele mai bune concerte pentru vioară din istorie
 "Corbul" (The Raven), de Edgar Allan Poe, este publicat pentru prima dată în "New York Evening Mirror"
 Efectul Doppler a fost testat pentru undele sonore de catre olandezul Buys Ballot.
 Eugène Delacroix pictează Sultanul Marocului
 Friedrich Engels și Karl Marx publică lucrarea Sfânta familie
 Nicolae Bălcescu și August Treboniu Laurian publică prima revistă de istorie românească, numită „Magazin istoric pentru Dacia”.
 Richard Wagner scrie opera sa, Tannhauser
 Robert Schumann scrie Concert pentru pian în la minor
 Soeren Kierkegaard scrie Etape pe drumul vieții
 Nașteri
 7 ianuarie: Regele Ludwig al III-lea al Bavariei (d. 1921)
 17 februarie: Infanta Antónia a Portugaliei, fiica reginei Maria a II-a a Portugaliei și mama regelui Ferdinand al României (d. 1913)
 3 martie: Georg Cantor, matematician german (d. 1918)
 10 martie: Țarul Alexandru III al Rusiei (d. 1894)
 15 martie: Prințesa Sofia de Saxonia (d. 1867)
 16 martie: George C. Cantacuzino-Râfoveanu, ministru de finanțe al României (d. 1898)
 25 martie: Ettore Ferrari, sculptor italian (d. 1929)
 27 martie: Wilhelm Röntgen, fizician german, laureat al primului Premiu Nobel (d. 1923)
 1 aprilie: Prințesa Eugenia Maximilianovna de Leuchtenberg (d. 1925)
 24 aprilie: Carl Spitteler, poet, nuvelist, romancier, dramaturg, critic și eseist elvețian, laureat al Premiului Nobel (d. 1924)
 12 mai: Henri Brocard, matematician francez (d. 1922)
 12 mai: Gabriel Fauré, compozitor francez (d. 1924)
 30 mai: Amadeo al Spaniei, rege al Spaniei (d. 1890)
 15 iulie: Arhiducesa Maria Theresa de Austria (d. 1927)
 18 iulie: Tristan Corbière, poet francez (d. 1875)
 8 august: Ludwig August de Saxa-Coburg-Kohary (d. 1907)
 10 august: Abai Kunanbaev, scriitor și poet iluminist kazah (d. 1904)
 16 august: Gabriel Lippmann, fizician francez, laureat al Premiului Nobel (d. 1921)
 22 august: Wilhelm, Prinț de Wied (d. 1907)
 25 august: Ludwig al II-lea al Bavariei (d. 1866)
 9 septembrie: Ignác Acsády (Ignác Adler), scriitor, publicist și istoric maghiar de origine evreiască (d. 1906)
 21 septembrie: Ernest Augustus, Prinț de Hanovra, prinț moștenitor de Hanovra (d. 1923)
 11 noiembrie: Vasile Stroiescu, cărturar de frunte, om politic basarabean, filantrop (d. 1926)
 15 noiembrie: Vasile Conta, filosof, scriitor, ministru român (d. 1882)
 17 noiembrie: Prințesa Marie de Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, sora regelui Carol I al României (d. 1912)
 24 decembrie: George I al Greciei (d. 1913)
 Decese
 28 ianuarie: Marea Ducesă Elisabeta Mihailovna a Rusiei, 18 ani (n. 1826)
 13 martie: John Frederic Daniell, 55 ani, om de știință britanic (n. 1790)
 17 martie: Pierre François Marie Auguste Dejean, 64 ani, entomolog francez (n. 1780)
 7 aprilie: Marie Julie Bonaparte (n. Julie Clary), 73 ani, regină a Spaniei (n. 1771)
 3 mai: Thomas Hood, 45 ani, poet și umorist britanic (n. 1799)
 11 mai: Carl Filtsch, 14 ani, pianist și compozitor român de etnie sas (n. 1830)
 12 mai: August Wilhelm Schlegel, 77 ani, poet, istoric, critic și teoretician literar german (n. 1767)
 15 mai: George al II-lea, Prinț de Waldeck și Pyrmont (n. Georg Friedrich Heinrich), 55 ani (n. 1789)
 26 mai: Jónas Hallgrímsson, 37 ani, scriitor și naturalist islandez (n. 1807)
 8 iunie: Andrew Jackson, 78 ani, președinte al Statelor Unite (n. 1767)
 17 iulie: Charles Grey, 81 ani, politician britanic, prim-ministru (1830-1834), (n. 1764)
 21 august: Vincent-Marie Viénot de Vaublanc, 89 ani, conte de Vaublanc, om politic, scriitor francez (n. 1756)
 18 octombrie: Dominique, conte de Cassini, 97 ani, astronom francez (n. 1748)
 Vezi și
 Listă de conducători de stat din 1845
 1845


text:
 25.10.2008
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 272/10
 Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari magħmula mill-Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (l-Olanda) fil-21 ta' Lulju 2008 — X Holding BV vs Staatssecretaris van Financiën
 (Kawża C-337/08)
 (2008/C 272/15)
 Lingwa tal-kawża: L-Olandiż
 Qorti tar-rinviju
 Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
 Partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali
 Rikorrenti: X Holding BV.
 Konvenut: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
 Domanda preliminari
 L-Artikolu 43 KE, moqri flimkien mal-Artikolu 48 KE, għandu jkun interpretat fis-sens li dan jipprekludi li l-leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali ta' Stat Membru [...], skont liema kumpannija parent u s-sussidjarja tagħha jistgħu jagħżlu li t-taxxa tkun miġbura fil-konfronti tagħhom mingħand il-kumpannija parent stabbilita f'dan l-Istat Membru daqs li kieku kienu persuna taxxabbli waħda, tirriserva din l-għażla lill-kumpanniji li, għat-tassazzjoni tal-profitti tagħhom, jaqgħu taħt il-ġurisdizzjoni fiskali tal-Istat Membru inkwistjoni?


text:
Вѝдлица е село в Северозападна България. То се намира в община Георги Дамяново, област Монтана.
 География
 Намира се в близост (на 3 км) до язовир „Огоста“, 12 км от гр. Монтана, 5 км от Лопушанския манастир, в непосредствена близост до терен с проект за развитие на голф игрище.
 Разположено е в гориста местност и в район с голямо развитие на лозаро-винарството.
 Личности
 Стоян Сандов (1901-1975), български полицай, генерал-майор
 Села в област Монтана
 Населени места в община Георги Дамяново


text:
 21.7.2007
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 C 170/27
 Иск, предявен на 16 май 2007 г. — Professional Tennis Registry/СХВП — Registro Profesional de Tenis (PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY)
 (Дело T-168/07)
 (2007/C 170/55)
 Език, на който е изготвен искът: английски
 Страни
 Ищец: Professional Tennis Registry, Inc. (Hilton Head Island, САЩ) [представители: M. Vanhegan, Barrister]
 Ответник: Служба за хармонизация във вътрешния пазар (марки и дизайни)
 Друга страна в производството пред апелативния състав: Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL (Мадрид, Испания)
 Искания на ищеца
 —
 да се отмени точка 1 от решението на Първи апелативен състав от 28 февруари 2007 г. (Дело R 1050/2005-1), с което заявление No 2 826 709 на ищеца във връзка с марка на Общността за стоки и услуги в класове 16 и 41 е отхвърлена,
 —
 да се разпореди възражението срещу заявление на ищеца No 2 826 709 за марка на Общността да бъде отхвърлено изцяло,
 —
 да се разпореди заявлението на ищеца No 2 826 709 за марка на Общността да бъде уважено за всички стоки и услуги в класове 16, 25 и 41 и
 —
 да се осъди СХВП да заплати съдебните разноски на ищеца пред апелативния състав и пред Първоинстанционния съд.
 Правни основания и основни доводи
 Заявител на марката на Общността: Ищецът
 Марка на Общността, предмет на спора: Фигуративна марка „PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY“ за стоки и услуги в класове 16, 25 и 41 — заявление No 2 826 709
 Притежател на марката или знака, на който е направено позоваване в процедурата по възражението: Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL
 Марка или знак, на който е направено позоваване в подкрепа на възражението: Национални фигуративни марки „RPT Registro Profesional de Tenis S.L“ и „RPT European Registry of Professional Tennis“ за услуги в клас 41
 Решение на отдела по споровете: Пълна отмяна на възражението
 Решение на апелативния състав: Частична отмяна на решението на отдела по споровете и отхвърляне на заявлението за марка за стоки и услуги в класове 16 и 41.
 Изложени правни основания: Нарушение на член 8, параграф 1, буква б) от Регламент на Съвета No 40/94 като Апелативният състав е решил, че има наличие на вероятност от объркване между между заявената от ищеца марка на Общността и по-раншните марки на Registro Profesional de Tenis. Апелативният състав не е преценил правилно приложимите към комбинирани марки принципи.


text:
 5.9.2016
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 326/15
 Lūgums sniegt prejudiciālu nolēmumu, ko 2016. gada 21. jūnijā iesniedza Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgārija) – Balgarska energiyna borsa AD (BEB)/Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)
 (Lieta C-347/16)
 (2016/C 326/26)
 Tiesvedības valoda – bulgāru
 Iesniedzējtiesa
 Administrativen sad Sofia-grad
 Pamatlietas puses
 Prasītāja: Balgarska energiyna borsa AD (BEB)
 Atbildētāja: Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)
 Prejudiciālie jautājumi
 1)
 Vai atbilstoši Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2009. gada 13. jūlija Direktīvas 2009/72/EK (1) par kopīgiem noteikumiem attiecībā uz elektroenerģijas iekšējo tirgu un par Direktīvas 2003/54/EK atcelšanu 9. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunkta i) un ii) punktam ir atļauta situācija, kad viena un tā pati persona ir vienīgais neatkarīgā pārvades sistēmas operatora un tādas sabiedrības akcionārs, kura galvenokārt nodarbojas ar elektroenerģijas ražošanu un pārvadi?
 2)
 Vai atbilstoši Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2009. gada 13. jūlija Direktīvas 2009/72/EK par kopīgiem noteikumiem attiecībā uz elektroenerģijas iekšējo tirgu un par Direktīvas 2003/54/EK atcelšanu 9. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunkta i) un ii) punktam ir atļauta situācija, kad viena un tā pati persona tieši vai netieši kontrolē neatkarīgo pārvades sistēmas operatoru un uzņēmumu, kas ražo un piegādā elektroenerģiju?
 3)
 Vai atbilstoši Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2009. gada 13. jūlija Direktīvas 2009/72/EK par kopīgiem noteikumiem attiecībā uz elektroenerģijas iekšējo tirgu un par Direktīvas 2003/54/EK atcelšanu 9. panta 1. punkta c) un d) apakšpunktam ir atļauta situācija, kad viena un tā pati persona ieceļ neatkarīgā pārvades sistēmas operatora Uzraudzības padomes (kas savukārt ievēl tā valdi) locekļus un uzņēmuma, kas ražo un piegādā elektroenerģiju, direktoru padomes locekļus?
 4)
 Vai atbilstoši Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2009. gada 13. jūlija Direktīvai 2009/72/EK par kopīgiem noteikumiem attiecībā uz elektroenerģijas iekšējo tirgu un par Direktīvas 2003/54/EK atcelšanu, Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2009. gada 13. jūlija Regulai (EK) Nr. 714/2009 (2) par nosacījumiem attiecībā uz piekļuvi tīklam elektroenerģijas pārrobežu tirdzniecībā un par Regulas (EK) Nr. 1228/2003 (3) atcelšanu, [Komisijas 2015. gada 24. jūlija] Regulai (ES) 1222/2015 (4), ar ko izveido jaudas piešķiršanas un pārslodzes vadības vadlīnijas, [kā arī] Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2011. gada 25. oktobra Regulai (ES) Nr. 1227/2011 (5) par enerģijas vairumtirgus integritāti un pārredzamību ir atļauts ierobežot to personu skaitu, kurām konkrētā teritorijā tiek izsniegta elektroenerģijas pārvades licence?
 5)
 Ja uz iepriekšējiem jautājumiem tiek atbildēts apstiprinoši un [ņemot vērā to, ka] saskaņā ar [Zakon na energetikata (Elektroenerģijas likuma)] 43. panta 1. punkta 1) apakšpunktu Bulgārijas Republikas teritorijā ir izsniegta tikai viena licence: vai ir jāpieņem, ka ir konstatējams interešu konflikts Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2009. gada 13. jūlija Direktīvas 2009/72/EK par kopīgiem noteikumiem attiecībā uz elektroenerģijas iekšējo tirgu un par Direktīvas 2003/54/EK atcelšanu [preambulas 12. apsvēruma] izpratnē?
 6)
 Vai ir jāpieņem, ka [Elektroenerģijas likuma] 43. panta 1. punkta 1) apakšpunktā ietvertā valsts tiesību norma, kurā ir paredzēts, ka valsts teritorijā var tikt izsniegta tikai viena elektroenerģijas pārvades licence, LESD 101. panta un 102. panta izpratnē ierobežo konkurenci?
 (1) OV 2009, L 211, 55. lpp.
 (2) OV 2009, L 211, 15. lpp.
 (3) Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2003. gada 26. jūnija Regula (EK) Nr. 1228/2003 par nosacījumiem attiecībā uz pieeju tīklam elektroenerģijas pārrobežu tirdzniecībā (OV 2003, L 176, 1. lpp.).
 (4) OV 2015, L 197, 24. lpp.
 (5) OV 2011, L 326, 1. lpp.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'OIG FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ANNUAL REPORT \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011\nI. BASIC INFORMATION REGARDING REPORT\n 1. Name, title, address, and telephone number of person(s) to be contacted with\n questions about the Report.\n Robin Brooks\n Director, Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Division\n Office of the Inspector General\n United Sates Department of Health and Human Services\n 330 Independence Ave, S.W., Suite 1062\n Washington D.C. 20201\n (202) 619-2541\n 2. ELECTRONIC ADDRESS FOR THIS REPORT ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB:\n\n\n 3. ADDRESS FOR PAPER COPIES OF THIS REPORT\n Contact Robin Brooks at the address or telephone number listed above, or the link shown:\n http://oig.hhs.gov/foia.html\n\n\nII. HOW TO MAKE A FOIA REQUEST\n Requests may be submitted electronically at: http://oig.hhs.gov/foia/submit.asp\n\n Office of Inspector General (OIG)\n Freedom of Information Officer\n Cohen Building, Suite 1062\n 330 Independence Ave, S.W.\n Washington, D.C. 20201\n Phone: 202-619-2541\n\n\n 1. Brief description of why some requests are not granted: Documents requested were\n protected by an exemption and release would have caused harm to the interest protected\n by the exemption. Information withheld may include home addresses and phone\n numbers, social security numbers, medical records, proprietary business records,\n investigatory records, that if released may interfere with open investigations, and drafts of\n documents.\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 1\n\x0cIII. ACRONYMS, DEFINITIONS, AND EXEMPTIONS:\n 1. Agency-specific acronyms or other terms:\n HHS - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services\n OPDIVs - Operating Divisions of HHS\n OS - Office of the Secretary, HHS\n OASPA - Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, HHS\n AoA - Administration on Aging\n ACF - Administration for Children and Families\n AHRQ - Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality\n ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry\n CDC - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\n FDA - Food and Drug Administration\n HRSA - Health Resources and Services Administration\n IHS - Indian Health Service\n NIH - National Institutes of Health\n OIG \xe2\x80\x93 Office of the Inspector General\n OPHS - Office of Public Health and Science\n PHS - Public Health Service\n PRO - Professional Review Organization\n PSC - Program Support Center\n SAMHSA - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration\n 2. Basic terms (from FOIA UPDATE, Summer 1997):\n a. Administrative Appeal \xe2\x80\x93 a request to a federal agency asking that it review at a\n higher administrative level a FOIA determination made by the agency at the\n initial request level.\n b. Average Number \xe2\x80\x93 the number obtained by dividing the sum of a group of\n numbers by the quantity of numbers in the group. For example, of 3, 7, and 14,\n the average number is 8.\n c. Backlog \xe2\x80\x93 the number of requests or administrative appeals that are pending at an\n agency at the end of the fiscal year that are beyond the statutory time period for a\n response.\n d. Component \xe2\x80\x93 for agencies that process requests on a decentralized basis, a\n \xe2\x80\x9ccomponent\xe2\x80\x9d is an entity, also sometimes referred to as an Office, Division,\n Bureau, Center, or Directorate, within the agency that processes FOIA requests.\n The FOIA now requires that agencies include in their annual report data for both\n the agency overall and for each principal component of the agency.\n\n Freedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 2\n\x0c e. Consultation \xe2\x80\x93 the procedure whereby the agency responding to a FOIA request\n first forwards a record to another agency for its review because that agency has an\n interest in the document. Once the agency in receipt of the consultation finishes\n its review of the record, it responds back to the agency that forwarded it. That\n Agency, in turn, will then respond to the FOIA requester.\n f. Exemption 3 Statute \xe2\x80\x93 a federal statute that exempts information from disclosure\n and which the agency relies on to withhold information under subsection (b)(3) of\n the FOIA.\n g. FOIA Request \xe2\x80\x93 a FOIA request is generally a request to a federal agency for\n access to records concerning another person (i.e., a \xe2\x80\x9cthird-party\xe2\x80\x9d request), or\n concerning an organization, or a particular topic of interest. FOIA requests also\n include requests made by requesters seeking records concerning themselves (i.e.,\n \xe2\x80\x9cfirst-party\xe2\x80\x9d requests) when those requesters are not subject to the Privacy Act,\n such as non-U.S. citizens. Moreover, because all first-party requesters should be\n afforded the benefit of both the access provisions of the FOIA as well as those of\n the Privacy Act, FOIA requests also include any first-party requests where an\n agency determines that it must search beyond its Privacy Act \xe2\x80\x9csystems of records\xe2\x80\x9d\n or where a Privacy Act exemption applies, and the agency looks to FOIA to\n afford the greatest possible access. All requests which require the agency to\n utilize the FOIA in responding to the requester are included in this Report.\n Additionally, a FOIA request includes records referred to the agency for\n processing and direct response to the requester. It does not, however, include\n records for which the agency has received a consultation from another agency.\n (Consultations are reported separately in Section XII of this Report.)\n h. Full Grant - an agency decision to disclose all records in full in response to a\n FOIA request.\n i. Full Denial - an agency decision not to release any records in response to a FOIA\n request because the records are exempt in their entireties under one or more of the\n FOIA exemptions, or because of a procedural reason, such as when no records\n could be located.\n j. Median Number - Median Number \xe2\x80\x93 the middle, not average, number. For\n example, of 3, 7, and 14, the median number is 7.\n k. Multi-Track Processing \xe2\x80\x93 a system in which simple requests requiring relatively\n minimal review are placed in one processing track and more voluminous and\n complex requests are placed in one or more other tracks. Requests granted\n expedited processing are placed in yet another track. Requests in each track are\n processed on a first in/first out basis.\n (A) Expedited Processing \xe2\x80\x93 an agency will process a FOIA request on an\n expedited basis when a requester satisfies the requirements for expedited\n processing as set forth in the statute and in agency regulations.\n (B) Simple Request \xe2\x80\x93 a FOIA request that an agency using multi-track\n processing places in its fastest (non-expedited) track based on the low\n volume and/or simplicity of the records requested.\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 3\n\x0c (C) Complex Request \xe2\x80\x93 a FOIA request that an agency using multi-track\n processing places in a slower track based on the high volume and/or\n complexity of the records requested.\n l. Partial Grant/Partial Denial \xe2\x80\x93 in response to a FOIA request, an agency\n decision to disclose portions of the records and to withhold other portions that are\n exempt under the FOIA, or to otherwise deny a portion of the request for a\n procedural reason.\n m. Pending Request or Pending Administrative Appeal \xe2\x80\x93 a request or\n administrative appeal for which an agency has not taken final action in all\n respects.\n n. Perfected Request \xe2\x80\x93 a request for records which reasonably describes such\n records and is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place,\n fees (if any) and procedures to be followed.\n o. Processed Request or Processed Administrative Appeal \xe2\x80\x93 a request or\n administrative appeal for which an agency has taken final action in all respects.\n p. Range in Number of Days \xe2\x80\x93 the lowest and highest number of days to process\n requests or administrative appeals.\n q. Time Limits \xe2\x80\x93 the time period in the statute for an agency to respond to a FOIA\n request (ordinarily twenty working days from receipt of a perfected FOIA\n request).\n 3. Concise descriptions of the nine FOIA exemptions:\n a. Exemption 1: classified national defense and foreign relations information\n b. Exemption 2: internal agency rules and practices\n c. Exemption 3: information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal\n law\n d. Exemption 4: trade secrets and other confidential business information\n e. Exemption 5: inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by\n legal privileges\n f. Exemption 6: information involving matters of personal privacy\n g. Exemption 7: records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to\n the extent that the production of those records\n (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,\n (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial\n adjudication,\n (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of\n personal privacy,\n (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential\n source,\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 4\n\x0c (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement\n investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law\n enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or\n (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of\n any individual\n h. Exemption 8: information relating to the supervision of financial institutions\n i. Exemption 9: geological information on wells\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 5\n\x0cIV. EXEMPTION 3 STATUTES\n Number of Total Number\n Type of Times Relied of Times Relied\n Information upon per upon by\n Statute Withheld Case Citation Component Agency\n OIG 0 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\n Freedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 6\n\x0cV. FOIA Requests\n A. Received, Processed, and Pending FOIA Requests\n Number of Number of\n Requests Number of Number of Requests\n Pending as of Requests Requests Pending as of\n Start of Fiscal Received in Processed in End of Fiscal\n Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year\nOIG 18 729 737 10\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 7\n\x0c B. (1) Disposition of all FOIA Requests \xe2\x80\x93 All Processed Requests\n Number of Full Denials Based on Reasons Other than Exemptions\n Number\n of\n Number of All Records Improper\n Partial Full Referred to FOIA Other\n Number Grants/ Denials another Fee- Records not Request Not \xe2\x80\x9cExplain\n of Full Partial Based on No Component Request Related Reasonably for Other Agency Duplicate in chart\n Grants Denials Exemption Record or Agency Withdrawn Reason Described Reason Record Request below\xe2\x80\x9d Total\nOIG 166 180 33 101 16 42 2 5 61 99 12 20 737\n\n\n\n\n Freedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 8\n\x0c B. (2) Disposition of FOIA Requests \xe2\x80\x93 Other Reasons for \xe2\x80\x9cFull Denials Based on\n Reasons Other than Exemptions\xe2\x80\x9d from Section V, B (1)\n Description of \xe2\x80\x9cOther\xe2\x80\x9d\n Reasons for Denials from\n Chart B (1) & Number of\n Times Those Reasons Were\nComponent Relied upon TOTAL\nOIG No Response from Requestor 18\n Administratively Closed 2\n\n\n\n\nOIG Total 20\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 9\n\x0c B. (3) Disposition of FOIA Requests - Number of times exemptions applied\n\n Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex.\n Ex. 1 Ex.2 Ex.3 Ex.4 Ex.5 Ex.6 7(A) 7(B) 7(C) 7(D) 7(E) 7(F) 8 9\nOIG 0 1 0 63 63 164 29 0 124 1 27 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 10\n\x0cVI. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OF INITIAL DETERMINATIONS OF FOIA\n REQUESTS\n A. Received, Processed, and Pending Administrative Appeals\n Number of\n Number of Number of Appeals\n Appeals Pending Number of Appeals Pending as of\n as of Start of Appeals Received Processed in End of Fiscal\n Fiscal Year in Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year\n OIG 0 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\n B. Disposition of Administrative Appeals \xe2\x80\x93 All Processed Appeals\n Number Partially Number of\n Number Affirmed & Appeals\n Affirmed Partially Number Completely Closed for\n on Reversed/Remanded Reversed/Remanded Other\n Appeal on Appeal on Appeal Reasons TOTAL\n OIG 0 0 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\n C. (1) Reasons for denial on Appeal \xe2\x80\x93 Number of Times Exemptions applied\n\n Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex. Ex.\n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7(A) 7(B) 7(C) 7(D) 7(E) 7(F) 8 9\n OIG\n\n\n\n\n Freedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 11\n\x0c C. (2) Reasons for denial on Appeal \xe2\x80\x93 Reasons other than exemptions\n Appeal\n Based\n Solely on\n Records Improper Denial of Other\n Referred Records Request Duplicate Request Explain\n at Initial Fee- Not For Not Request Request For in\n No Request Request Related Reasonably Other Agency Or In Expedited Chart\n Records Level Withdrawn Reason Described Reasons Record Appeal Litigation Processing Below\nOIG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\n Freedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 12\n\x0c C. (3) Reasons for denial on Appeal \xe2\x80\x93 Other:\n Description of \xe2\x80\x9cOther\xe2\x80\x9d Reasons for Denial on Appeal\n from Chart C (2) & Number of Times Those Reasons\n Were Relied upon TOTAL\nOIG 0 0\n\n\n\n\n C. (4) Response time for administrative appeals (See chart)\n Median Number Average Lowest Number Highest Number\n of Days Number of Days of Days of Days\nOIG 0 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 13\n\x0c C. (5) Ten Oldest Pending Appeals (See Chart)\n 10th\n Oldest Oldest\n Appeal 9th 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd Appeal\nOIG Date of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n Receipt\n of Ten\n Oldest\n Appeals\n Number\n of Days\n Pending\n Date of\n Receipt\n of Ten\n Oldest\n Appeals\n Number\n of Days\n Pending\n Date of\n Receipt\n of Ten\n Oldest\n Appeals\n Number\n of Days\n Pending\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 14\n\x0c VII. FOIA REQUESTS: RESPONSE TIME FOR PROCESSED AND PENDING REQUESTS\n A. Processed Requests \xe2\x80\x93 Response Time for Perfected Requests in Which Information Was Granted\n Simple Complex Expedited Processing\n Median Average Lowest Highest Median Average Lowest Highest Median Average Lowest Highest\n Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number\n of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days\nOIG 1 3 1 23 14 24 1 170 0 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\n Freedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 15\n\x0c B. Processed Requests \xe2\x80\x93 Response Time for Perfected Requests in Which Information Was Granted\n Simple Complex Expedited Processing\n Median Average Lowest Highest Median Average Lowest Highest Median Average Lowest Highest\n Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number\n of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days of Days\nOIG 2 5 1 23 23 31 1 170 0 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\n Freedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 16\n\x0c C. Processed Requests \xe2\x80\x93 Response Time in Day Increments\n 1. Simple Requests\n 41\xe2\x80\x93 61\xe2\x80\x93 81- 101- 121- 141- 161- 181- 201- 301-\n 1\xe2\x80\x9320 21-40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 300 400 401+\n Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days TOTAL\nOIG 466 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 468\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 17\n\x0c 2. Complex Requests\n 81- 101- 121- 141- 161- 181- 201- 301-\n 1\xe2\x80\x9320 21-40 41\xe2\x80\x9360 61\xe2\x80\x9380 100 120 140 160 180 200 300 400 401+\n Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days TOTAL\nOIG 150 74 21 9 7 1 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 269\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 18\n\x0c 3. Requests Granted Expedited Processing\n 81- 101- 121- 141- 161- 181- 201- 301-\n 1\xe2\x80\x9320 21-40 41\xe2\x80\x9360 61\xe2\x80\x9380 100 120 140 160 180 200 300 400 401+\n Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days TOTAL\nOIG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 19\n\x0c D. Pending Requests \xe2\x80\x93 All Pending Perfected Requests\n Simple Complex Expedited Processing\n Median Average Median Average Median Average\n Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number\n Pending of Days of Days Pending of Days of Days Pending of Days of Days\nOIG 2 1 8 8 14 41 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 20\n\x0c E. Pending Requests \xe2\x80\x93 Ten Oldest Pending Perfected Requests\n 10th\n Oldest Oldest\n Request Request\n and and\n Number Number\n of Days of Days\n Pending 9th 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd Pending\nOIG 9/20/11 9/19/9 9/19/11 9/19/11 9/9/11 9/9/11 8/23/11 07/08/11 06/02/11 03/24/11\n 6 9 9 9 11 11 28 60 86 128\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 21\n\x0cVIII. REQUESTS FOR EXPEDITED PROCESSING AND REQUESTS FOR FEE WAIVER\n A. Requests for Expedited Processing\n Number\n Median Average Adjudicated\n Number of Number of Within Ten\n Number Number Days to Days to Calendar\n Granted Denied Adjudicate Adjudicate Days\n OIG 0 0 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\n Freedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 22\n\x0c B. Requests for Fee Waiver\n Median Average\n Number Number of Days Number of Days\n Granted Number Denied to Adjudicate to Adjudicate\nOIG 0 1 1 1\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 23\n\x0cIX. FOIA PERSONNEL AND COSTS\n Personnel Costs\n Total\n Number of Number\n Number of \xe2\x80\x9cEquivalent of Full-\n \xe2\x80\x9cFull-Time Full-Time Time Litigation-\n FOIA FOIA FOIA Processing Related Total\n Employees\xe2\x80\x9d Employees\xe2\x80\x9d Staff Costs Costs Costs\n OIG 3 2 5 $100688 $0 $100688\n\n\n\n\n Freedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 24\n\x0cX. FEES COLLECTED FOR PROCESSING REQUESTS\n\n Total Amount of Fees\n Collected Percentage of Total Costs\n OIG $15,317 15.21%\n\n\n\n\nXI. FOIA REGULATIONS\n http://www.hhs.gov/foia/45cfr5.html\n\n\n\n\n Freedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 25\n\x0cXII. BACKLOGS, CONSULTATIONS, AND COMPARISONS\n A. Backlogs of FOIA Requests and Administrative Appeals\n Number of Backlogged Number of Backlogged\n Requests as of End of Fiscal Appeals as of End of Fiscal\n Year Year\n OIG 4 0\n\n\n\n\n Freedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 26\n\x0c B. Consultations on FOIA Requests \xe2\x80\x93 Received, Processed, and Pending Consultations\n Number of Number of Number of\n Consultations Consultations Consultations\n Received from Received from Received from\n Other Agencies Number of Other Agencies Other Agencies\n that Were Consultations that Were that Were\n Pending at Your Received from Processed by Pending at Your\n Agency as of Other Agencies Your Agency Agency as of\n Start of the During the During the End of the\n Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year\nOIG 0 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 27\n\x0c C. Consultations on FOIA Requests \xe2\x80\x93 Ten Oldest Consultations Received from Other\n Agencies and Pending at Your Agency\n 10th\n Oldest Oldest\n Request Request\n and and\n Number Number\n of Days of Days\n Pending 9th 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd Pending\nOIG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 28\n\x0c D. Comparison of Numbers of Requests from Previous and Current Annual Report \xe2\x80\x93\n Requests Received, Processed, and Backlogged\n (1) Requests Received and Processed\n Number of Requests Number of Requests\n Received Processed\n Number Number Number Number\n Received Received Processed Processed\n During During During During\n Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year\n from Last from from Last from\n Year\xe2\x80\x99s Current Year\xe2\x80\x99s Current\n Annual Annual Annual Annual\n Report Report Report Report\nOIG 563 729 569 737\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 29\n\x0c (2) Requests Backlogged\n\n Number of Backlogged Requests Number of Backlogged Requests\n as of End of the Fiscal Year as of End of the Fiscal Year from\n from Previous Annual Report Current Annual Report\nOIG 11 4\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 30\n\x0c E. Comparison of Numbers of Administrative Appeals from Previous and Current\n Annual Report \xe2\x80\x93 Appeals Received, Processed, and Backlogged\n (1) Appeals Received, Processed\n Number of Appeals Received Number of Appeals Processed\n Number Number Number Number\n Received Received Processed Processed\n During Fiscal During Fiscal During Fiscal During Fiscal\n Year from Last Year from Year from Last Year from\n Year\xe2\x80\x99s Annual Current Annual Year\xe2\x80\x99s Annual Current Annual\n Report Report Report Report\nOIG 0 0 0 0\n\n\n\n\n (2) Appeals Backlogged\n Number of Backlogged Number of Backlogged\n Administrative Appeals as of Administrative Appeals as of End\n End of the Fiscal Year from of the Fiscal Year from Current\n Previous Annual Report Annual Report\nOIG 0 0\n\n\n\n\nFreedom of Information Annual Report \xe2\x80\x94 FY 2011 31\n\x0c'


type: contracts

text:
 5.4.2018
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 89/10
 DECIZIA NR. 208/2016 A COMITETULUI MIXT AL SEE
 din 28 octombrie 2016
 de modificare a anexei II (Reglementări tehnice, standarde, încercări și certificare) la Acordul privind SEE [2018/529]
 COMITETUL MIXT AL SEE,
 având în vedere Acordul privind Spațiul Economic European („Acordul privind SEE”), în special articolul 98,
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Regulamentul delegat (UE) 2016/127 al Comisiei din 25 septembrie 2015 de completare a Regulamentului (UE) nr. 609/2013 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului în ceea ce privește cerințele specifice privind compoziția și informarea pentru formulele de început și formulele de continuare și în ceea ce privește cerințele privind informațiile privitoare la alimentația sugarilor și a copiilor de vârstă mică (1) trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (2)
 Regulamentul (UE) 2016/479 al Comisiei din 1 aprilie 2016 de modificare a anexei II la Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1333/2008 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului în ceea ce privește utilizarea glicozidelor derivate din steviol (E 960) ca îndulcitor în anumite băuturi cu valoare energetică redusă sau fără adaos de zahăr (2) trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (3)
 Regulamentul (UE) 2016/127 abrogă, începând de la 22 februarie 2020, Directiva 2006/141/CE a Comisiei (3), care este încorporată în Acordul privind SEE și care, prin urmare, trebuie abrogată în conformitate cu acordul, începând de la 22 februarie 2020.
 (4)
 Prezenta decizie se referă la legislația privind produsele alimentare. Legislația privind produsele alimentare nu se aplică Liechtensteinului atât timp cât aplicarea Acordului dintre Comunitatea Europeană și Confederația Elvețiană privind schimburile comerciale cu produse agricole este extinsă la Liechtenstein, astfel cum se prevede în partea introductivă a capitolului XII din anexa II la Acordul privind SEE. Prin urmare, prezenta decizie nu se aplică Liechtensteinului.
 (5)
 Prin urmare, anexa II la Acordul privind SEE ar trebui modificată în consecință,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTA DECIZIE:
 Articolul 1
 Capitolul XII din anexa II la Acordul privind SEE se modifică după cum urmează:
 1.
 După punctul 77a [Regulamentul delegat (UE) 2016/128 al Comisiei] se introduce următorul punct:
 „77b.
 32016 R 0127: Regulamentul delegat (UE) 2016/127 al Comisiei din 25 septembrie 2015 de completare a Regulamentului (UE) nr. 609/2013 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului în ceea ce privește cerințele specifice privind compoziția și informarea pentru formulele de început și formulele de continuare și în ceea ce privește cerințele privind informațiile privitoare la alimentația sugarilor și a copiilor de vârstă mică (JO L 25, 2.2.2016, p. 1).
 În sensul prezentului acord, dispozițiile regulamentului se citesc cu următoarele adaptări:
 (a)
 în anexa VI partea A se adaugă următorul text:
 —
 în limba islandeză: «Ungbarnablanda» și «Stoðblanda»;
 —
 în limba norvegiană: «Morsmelkerstatning» și «Tilskuddsblanding»;
 (b)
 în anexa VI partea B se adaugă următorul text:
 —
 în limba islandeză: «Ungbarnamjólk» și «Mjólkurstoðblanda»;
 —
 în limba norvegiană: «Morsmelkerstatning basert på melk» și «Tilskuddsblanding basert på melk».”
 2.
 La punctul 54zzzzr [Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1333/2008 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului] se adaugă următoarea liniuță:
 „—
 32016 R 0479: Regulamentul (UE) 2016/479 al Comisiei din 1 aprilie 2016 (JO L 87, 2.4.2016, p. 1).”
 3.
 Textul de la punctul 54zzzv (Directiva 2006/141/CE a Comisiei) se elimină începând de la 22 februarie 2020.
 Articolul 2
 Textele Regulamentului delegat (UE) 2016/127 și ale Regulamentului (UE) 2016/479 în limbile islandeză și norvegiană, care urmează să fie publicate în suplimentul SEE la Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene, sunt autentice.
 Articolul 3
 Prezenta decizie intră în vigoare la 29 octombrie 2016, cu condiția să se fi efectuat toate notificările prevăzute la articolul 103 alineatul (1) din Acordul privind SEE (*1).
 Articolul 4
 Prezenta decizie se publică în secțiunea SEE și în suplimentul SEE ale Jurnalului Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Adoptată la Bruxelles, 28 octombrie 2016.
 Pentru Comitetul mixt al SEE
 Președintele
 Bergdís ELLERTSDÓTTIR
 (1) JO L 25, 2.2.2016, p. 1.
 (2) JO L 87, 2.4.2016, p. 1.
 (3) JO L 401, 30.12.2006, p. 1.
 (*1) Nu au fost semnalate obligații constituționale.


text:
Bizonyítás a munkaügyi perek során az új Pp.-ben - Jogászvilág - Jogászvilág
 Bizonyítás a munkaügyi perek során az új Pp.-ben - Jogászvilág
 Kezdőlap » Bizonyítás a munkaügyi perek során az új Pp.-ben
 Bizonyítás a munkaügyi perek során az új Pp.-ben
 Dátum: 2018. április 10.
 A 2018. január 1-jén hatályba lépett új polgári perrendtartás a korábbi törvényhez képest számtalan eltérő rendelkezést tartalmaz. Az új jogszabály új jogintézményeket vonultat fel, a régiek egy része némileg átalakult formában él tovább vagy kivezették őket. A perbeli bizonyításra vonatkozó szabályozás ugyan nem változott meg teljes mértékben, de ebben a körben is találunk említésre méltó módosításokat, melyek a bizonyítás gyakorlatára kihatással lesznek.
 Habár az új polgári perrendtartásról szóló 2016. évi CXXX. törvény (új Pp.) 2018 első napján lépett hatályba, azzal párhuzamosan egy ideig az addigi, a polgári perrendtartásról szóló 1952. évi III. törvény (korábbi Pp.) is alkalmazandó majd. Az új kódex a hatálybalépését követően indult eljárásokban alkalmazandó, míg a 2018. január 1-jét megelőzően benyújtott keresetlevéllel kezdődő perek a korábbi Pp. rendelkezései alapján fejeződnek majd be.
 Az új Pp. bizonyítással kapcsolatos egyik leglényegesebb újítása a bizonyítási indítványok megtételéhez kapcsolódik. A jogvita elbírálásához szükséges jelentős tények felsorakoztatása és az állítások alátámasztására szolgáló bizonyítékok rendelkezésre bocsátása – ha törvény eltérően nem rendelkezik – továbbra is a peres feleket terheli [új Pp. 4. § (2) bek.]. A felek ezek alapján nem csupán jogosultak, de kötelesek is arra, hogy a per eldöntéséhez szükséges valamennyi bizonyítékot a bíróság elé terjesszék. A korábbi Pp. szerint bizonyítási indítványt a felek – a szándékos késedelmet leszámítva – a másik fél beleegyezésével a per során bármikor jogosultak voltak előterjeszteni [korábbi Pp. 389. § (5) bekezdés]. Ezzel szemben az új törvény jóval szigorúbb rendelkezéseket tartalmaz a bizonyítási indítványok megtételére vonatkozóan. Ha a felek perfelvételi nyilatkozata nem terjed ki bizonyos lényeges tények bizonyítására, illetve a felek közt vita támad annak kérdésében, hogy az adott tényt kinek kell bizonyítania, a bíróság közrehat abban, hogy a fél hiányos nyilatkozatát kiegészítse, ellenmondó nyilatkozatát kijavítsa, valamint tájékoztatja a feleket a nem elégséges bizonyítás perjogi jogkövetkezményeiről [új Pp 237. § (1) és (2) bek.].
 Ugyanakkor kiemelten fontos, hogy a felek perfelvételi nyilatkozatukban felsorakoztassák az összes, az igazukat alátámasztó lényeges tényt és azok bizonyítékait, hiszen a per későbbi szakaszaiban tett újabb bizonyítási indítvány a perfelvételi nyilatkozat megváltoztatásának minősül. Azt a felet pedig, aki perfelvételi nyilatkozatát annak ellenére változtatja meg, hogy a változtatásnak megfelelő tartalmú perfelvételi nyilatkozat előterjesztésére már a perfelvételi szakaszban vagy a tárgyalás korábbi szakaszaiban is lehetősége lett volna, a bíróság pénzbírsággal sújtja [új Pp. 183. § (5) bek.]. A felek perre való megfelelő felkészülése, a tényállás perindítás előtti kimerítő felderítése és a bizonyítás alapos előkészítése az új Pp. szabályai szerinti tehát kulcsfontosságú. A bizonyítási indítványok pertaktikai késleltetése a jövőben már nem lesz kifizetődő.
 Az új szabályozás a bizonyítás körében fokozottabb megfontoltságot és magasabb felkészültséget igényel a peres felek részéről. Ha ugyanis nem járnak el elég körültekintően a bizonyítási indítványok megtétele során, könnyen pénzbírság, vagy egy vesztett per elébe nézhetnek
 Dacára annak, hogy az új törvény első ízben kihirdetett szövege tartalmazott egy olyan rendelkezést, mely szerint teljes bizonyító erejű magánokirat tanúzása esetén a tanúk adatait (név és lakcím) is a tanúknak saját kezűleg kellett az iratra felvezetniük, a törvény végül hatályba lépett szövegéből e szabály kikerült. A változtatásnak köszönhetően a tanúk adatainak előzetes feltüntetése, nyomtatása – a korábbi Pp. szerinti eljáráshoz hasonlóan – továbbra sem érinti a teljes bizonyító erejű magánokirat bírósági eljárásban való felhasználhatóságát.
 Az új Pp. a bizonyítási teher fordulat helyett, a bizonyítási érdek fogalmat használja. Az erre vonatkozó rendelkezések szerint a perben jelentős tényeket általában annak a félnek kell bizonyítania, akinek érdekében áll, hogy azokat a bíróság valónak fogadja el. A bizonyítás sikertelenségének vagy elmaradásának következményeit is az a fél viseli, akinek oldalán a bizonyítási érdek fennáll [új Pp. 265. § (1) bek.]. Az új Pp. vezette be a bizonyítási szükséghelyzet fogalmát is. Az erre vonatkozó szabályok szerint a fél akkor kerül bizonyítási szükséghelyzetbe, ha valószínűsíti, hogy az ő érdekében álló bizonyításhoz szükséges adatokkal kizárólag az ellenérdekű fél rendelkezik, egyben igazolja, hogy az adatok megszerzése iránt minden szükséges intézkedést megtett, vagy a tényállítás bizonyítása a fél számára lehetetlen, de az ellenérdekű féltől elvárható, hogy az állított tények fenn nem állását bizonyítsa, valamint a bizonyítás sikerességét az ellenérdekű fél neki felróhatóan hiúsította meg [új Pp. 265. § (2) bek.]. A fentiek alapján bizonyítási szükséghelyzetben van a munkavállaló például a munkáltató által birtokolt béradatokat illetően egy egyenlő bánásmód megsértésével kapcsolatos perben, illetve ha a munkáltató a szükséges iratokat valamilyen okból nem adta át a munkavállalónak. Bizonyítási szükséghelyzet esetén a bizonyítandó tényt a bíróság bizonyítás nélkül is valósnak fogadhatja el, ha annak kapcsán kételye nem merül fel [új Pp 265. § (3) bek.], vagy a bizonyíték bemutatására a másik felet kötelezheti.
 Munkaügyi perek esetében az új Pp. különös bizonyítási szabályokat is alkalmaz. Az ilyen szabályok érvényesülése esetében bizonyításra az egyébként irányadó bizonyítási érdektől függetlenül a munkáltató köteles. A fentiek szerint munkaügyi perben a munkáltatónak kell bizonyítania a kollektív szerződés, az igény elbírálásához szükséges belső szabályzatok, utasítások és a jogvita eldöntéséhez szükséges, a munkáltató működési körében keletkezett okiratok tartalmát, az igényelt juttatásokkal összefüggő számítások helyességét, amennyiben az vitatott, valamint bérvita esetén a juttatás kifizetésének megtörténtét [új Pp. 522. § (1) bek.].
 Az új szabályozás tehát a bizonyítás körében fokozottabb megfontoltságot és magasabb felkészültséget igényel a peres felek részéről. Amennyiben a felek nem járnak el elég körültekintően a bizonyítási indítványok megtétele során, könnyen pénzbírság, vagy egy vesztett per elébe nézhetnek.
 Jótékony jótékonykodás
 A civil szervezetek tevékenysége alapvető jelentőségű igényként jelenik meg a modern társadalmakban, hiszen az államok sem szervezetileg, és sok esetben szakmailag sem tudnak ellátni minden olyan, elsősorban szociális szükségletként jelentkező feladatot, amelyre ugyanakkor égető igény mutatkozik.
 Csökkentette a Bayer bírságát a GVH
 A versenyhivatal jelentős kedvezményeket nyújt a kiszabandó bírság összegéből a jogsértésüket elismerő, tevőleges jóvátételt tanúsító vagy megfelelési programot kidolgozó vállalkozásoknak.
 Alternatív vitarendezés a digitális kihívások kapujában
 A 2018. december 3-4 között megrendezett III. Alternatív Vitarendezési Konferencia fókuszában a digitalizáció állt. A Magyar Nemzeti Bank, az Országos Bírósági Hivatal, a Pénzügyi Békéltető Testület, valamint a Wolters Kluwer Hungary Kft. által szervezett rendezvénynek idén is a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia adott otthont.
 A NAIH közzétette, hogy a GDPR 35. Cikk (4) bekezdése szerinti adatvédelmi hatásvizsgálatot milyen esetekben kötelező elvégeznie az adatkezelőknek.
 Jótékony jótékonykodás 2018. december 13.
 A legtöbb cég, szervezet, amely társadalmi felelősségvállalásban gondolkodik, ezt elsősorban...
 Társasházi nyilvántartási hiányosságok 2018. november 29.
 Nyilvántartása van az ingatlanoknak, a cégeknek. Nyilvántartása van a gépjárműveknek,...
 Volt haszonbérlő – eltérő bírói értelmezés 2018. november 22.
 A mező- és erdőgazdasági földek forgalmáról szóló 2013. évi CXXII....
 Jövőre indul az ügyvédek kötelező továbbképzéseDátum: december 18
 Az online jegyvásárlás buktatóiDátum: december 17
 Megerőszakolta négyéves kislányátDátum: december 17
 Az ENSZ migrációs csomagjaDátum: december 18
 2015. évi cikkíró-pályázat 2016. évi cikkíró-pályázat adócsalás Alkotmánybíróság Ars Boni jogi folyóirat autóteszt Buday Dénes börtön diákmunka dr. Dénesné dr. Orcsik Judit dr. Pál Edith ECOVIS Ecovis Hungary Legal EJEB emberölés EUB Európai Bizottság Európai Unió Bírósága Európa Tanács Falus Tamás filmajánló Fővárosi Főügyészség GDPR GVH Igazságügyi Minisztérium illegális bevándorlás internet jogellenes felmondás jogeset könyvajánló közbeszerzés Kúria munkaerőhiány munka törvénykönyve munkaviszony jogellenes megszüntetése munkavédelem NGM OBH Ptk. módosítás Pál Edith rablás Schönherr Hetényi Ügyvédi Iroda Siegler Ügyvédi Iroda új Be. új Pp.


text:
Poli Iași și CSM Pașcani câștigătoarele etapei de Rugby 7 feminin | Stiri Pascani - inPascani.ro
 LEGAT DE SUBIECTELE:campionatcsmechipefemininiasipolitehnicarugby
 Sâmb?t?, drug 17 octombrie 2015, sales la Ia?i s-a disputat o nou? etap? comun? a senioarelor ?i junioarelor din cadrul Campionatului Na?ional de Rugby 7 feminin, echipele c??tig?toare fiind Politehnica Ia?i, respectiv CSM Pa?cani.
 Competi?ia senioarelor a revenit pentru prima dat? în acest sezon fetelor de la Politehnica Ia?i care prin punctele ob?inute au egalat în clasamentul general pe CSU Cluj, astfel c? lupta pentru titlul de campioan? devine din ce în ce mai pasionant?.
 Practic cele trei echipe angrente s-au întâlnit de câte dou? ori, partidele contând pentru Etapa a a IV-a, respectiv a V-a, surpriza pl?cut? numindu-se Agronomia Bucure?ti care a reu?it s? treac? de CSU Cluj, ardelencele fiind învinse ?i de Politehnica Ia?i.
 În ceea ce prive?te întrecerea junioarelor, CSM Pa?cani a ob?inut patru victorii din tot atâtea partide disputate. Aceasta a fost Etapa a VI-a, iar în clasamenetul general CSM Pa?cani o devanseaz? pe Ariesul Mihai Viteazu cu 12 puncte.
 Rezultate, marcatoare, clasamente:
 Politehnica Ia?i-Agronomia Bucure?ti 21-10
 Sava-e, Paunas-e, Vizitiu-e, tr, respectiv Dinita-2e
 CSU Cluj-Politehnica Ia?i 5-19
 Budalacean-e, respectiv Vizitiu-e, 2tr, Sava-e, Sandu-e
 Agronomia Bucure?ti-CSU Cluj 12-7
 Mitachescu-2e, tr respectiv Ilies-e, Dinca-tr
 Agronomia Bucure?ti-Politehnica Ia?i 5-7
 Bunici-e, respectiv Vizitiu-e, tr
 CSU Cluj-Agronomia Bucure?ti 14-0
 Dinca-e, Ilies-e, Crisan-2tr
 Politehnica Ia?i-CSU Cluj 12-12
 Sandu-e, Paunas-e, Vizitiu-tr respectivIlies-e, Dinca-e, Crisan-tr
 Politehnica Ia?i: Alina Paunas, Gabriela Citea, Maria Atomi, Larisa Galca, Gabriela Lepciuc, Roxana Anghel, Emilia Vizitiu, Ana-Maria Sandu, Iuliana Sava, Brandusa Balcan, Andreea Branza, Roxana Apostol
 CSU Cluj: Irina Hirjete, Monica Rusu, Georgeta Budalacean, Anca Hau, Bianca Crisan, Roxana Ilies, Alina Dinca, Georgiana Vizitiu, Andreea Delean, Linda Matei
 Agronomia Bucure?ti: Alina Dinita, Madalina Radu, Mitachescu, Simona Ungureanu, Elena Norbert, Oxana Bunici, Laris Ene, Teodora Bulgaru, Diana Calinoiu, Ana Voicu, Ioana Bitica
 1.Politehnica Ia?i-11p
 2.CSU Cluj-7p
 3.Agronomia Bucure?ti-6p
 Clasament general dup? cinci etape: 1.CSU Cluj-23p, 2.CS Politehnica Iasi-23p, 3.CS Agronomia Bucure?ti-14p
 Ariesul Mihai Viteazu-CS CLB Parohial 40-0
 M.Dragan-3e, 5tr, Varga-2e, Oltean-e
 CSM Pa?cani-CS CLB Parohial 29-0
 Buciumanu-4e, 2tr, Dimache-e
 CSM Pa?cani-Ariesul Mihai Viteazu 12-5
 Buciumanu-e, tr, Slatineanu-e / A.Dragan-e
 CS CLB Parohial-Ariesul Mihai Viteazu 0-14
 A.Dragan-2e, 2tr
 CSM Pa?cani-CS CLB Parohial 17-5
 Sefciuc-2e, Slatineanu-e, tr respectiv Adam-e
 Ariesul Mihai Viteazu–CSM Pascani 0-24
 Slatineanu-3e, 2tr, Sefciuc-e
 CSM Pa?cani:Florentina Suhan, Gabriela Buciumanu, M?d?lina Cozma, Andreea Nechifor, Cristina Sefciuc, Carmen Stratila, Ana-Maria Slatineanu, Ioana Panciuc, M?d?lina Nutu, Alexandra Targovatu, M?d?lina Vasile, Mirela Dimache
 Ariesul Mihai Viteazu: Ioana Ostafie, Anca Ratiu, Daniela Misaras, Irina Hiriscau, Gabriela Varga, Andreea Dragan, Malina Dragan, Denisa Oltean, Szende Rostas
 CS CLB Parohial: Ana Paraschiv, Nicoleta Rotaru, Ana-Maria Teodorie, Cristina Pop, Ionela Alecu, Gabriela Adam, Janina Olaru, Andreea Ilie, Catalina Picui
 1.CSM Pa?cani-12p
 2.Ariesul Mihai Viteazu-8p
 3.CS CLB Parohial-4p
 1.CSM Pa?cani-72p,
 2.Ariesul Mihai Viteazu-60p,
 3.CS CLB Parohial ?tefan cel Mare ?i Sfânt-40p
 (CS Gold Ro?ia Montan?, RC Gringos Transilvaniasi RC Buz?u s-au retras din competi?ie).
 Echipa CSM Pașcani s-a calificat la turneul semifinal și final
 De ultimă oră, Diverse, Evenimente
 Caravana super-distracției, Impact FM Dance Tour, ajunge la Iași!
 Unui condamnat pentru o crimă și 2 violuri din Cotnari i-a fost redusă pedeapsa cu 6 ani și jumătate
 Concursuri, Evenimente, Știri, Unde ieșim?
 Se dă drumul la shopping de noapte!


type: legislation

text:
 27.9.2017
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 248/1
 РЕГЛАМЕНТ ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ (ЕС) 2017/1756 НА КОМИСИЯТА
 от 26 септември 2017 година
 за отмяна на Регламент (ЕС) No 1013/2010 за установяване на правила за прилагане на политиката на Съюза по отношение на флота, определена в глава III от Регламент (ЕО) No 2371/2002 на Съвета
 (текст от значение за ЕИП)
 ЕВРОПЕЙСКАТА КОМИСИЯ,
 като взе предвид Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз,
 като взе предвид Регламент (ЕС) No 1380/2013 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 11 декември 2013 г. относно общата политика в областта на рибарството, за изменение на регламенти (ЕО) No 1954/2003 и (ЕО) No 1224/2009 на Съвета и за отмяна на регламенти (ЕО) No 2371/2002 и (ЕО) No 639/2004 на Съвета и Решение 2004/585/ЕО на Съвета (1), и по-специално член 23, параграф 2 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 Преди влизането в сила на Регламент (ЕС) No 1380/2013 адаптирането на риболовния капацитет беше уредено в глава III от Регламент (ЕО) No 2371/2002 на Съвета (2). С Регламент (ЕС) No 1013/2010 на Комисията (3) бяха определени правила за прилагане на посочената глава по отношение на референтните равнища за риболовните флотове, контрола на записванията и отписванията, събирането на данни, обмена на информация и годишното докладване.
 (2)
 Регламент (ЕО) No 2371/2002 беше отменен с Регламент (ЕС) No 1380/2013, а адаптирането и управлението на риболовния капацитет вече се уреждат в част IV от Регламент (ЕС) No 1380/2013. По-специално пределните граници за риболовния капацитет на отделните държави членки вече са посочени в приложение II към Регламент (ЕС) No 1380/2013, а правилата за организирането на вписването и отписването на кораби от националните флотове, както и правилата за събирането и обмена на данни сега са посочени съответно в членове 22, 23 и 24 от Регламент (ЕС) No 1380/2013.
 (3)
 В резултат на това разпоредбите в Регламент (ЕС) No 1013/2010 са заменени с тези в Регламент (ЕС) No 1380/2013.
 (4)
 С цел прилагане на член 23 от Регламент (ЕС) No 1380/2013 е целесъобразно правната рамка, в която се прилага посоченият член, да се изчисти от всички неактуални разпоредби, установени в Регламент (ЕС) No 1013/2010.
 (5)
 Поради това Регламент (ЕС) No 1013/2010 следва да се отмени, считано от началната дата на прилагане на Регламент (ЕС) No 1380/2013.
 (6)
 Мерките, предвидени в настоящия регламент, са в съответствие със становището на Комитета по рибарство и аквакултури,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ:
 Член 1
 Отмяна
 Регламент (ЕС) No 1013/2010 се отменя, считано от 1 януари 2014 г.
 Член 2
 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила на десетия ден след деня на публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави членки.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 26 септември 2017 година.
 За Комисията
 Председател
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) ОВ L 354, 28.12.2013 г., стр. 22.
 (2) Регламент (ЕО) No 2371/2002 на Съвета от 20 декември 2002 г. относно опазването и устойчивата експлоатация на рибните ресурси в рамките на общата политика в областта на рибарството (ОВ L 358, 31.12.2002 г., стр. 59).
 (3) Регламент (ЕС) No 1013/2010 на Комисията от 10 ноември 2010 година за установяване на правила за прилагане на политиката на Съюза по отношение на флота, определена в глава III от Регламент (ЕО) No 2371/2002 на Съвета (ОВ L 293, 11.11.2010 г., стр. 1).


text:
 Tähtis õiguslik teade
 |
 22003D0020
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja L 094 , 10/04/2003 Lk 0082 - 0083
 EMP Ühiskomitee otsusnr 20/2003,31. jaanuar 2003,millega muudetakse EMP lepingu XVII lisa (intellektuaalomand)EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut, nagu seda on muudetud Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut kohandava protokolliga, edaspidi "leping", eriti selle artiklit 98,ning arvestades järgmist:(1) Lepingu XVII lisa on muudetud EMP Ühiskomitee 6. detsembri 2002. aasta otsusega nr 171/2002. [1](2) Lepingusse tuleb lisada Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 6. juuli 1998. aasta direktiiv 98/44/EÜ biotehnoloogialeiutiste õiguskaitse kohta. [2](3) Direktiiv 98/44/EÜ tugineb nõukogu määruses (EÜ) nr 2100/94 [3] sisalduvale määratlusele ning viitele sellele määrusele, mis ei ole aga lepingusse lisatud,ON VASTU VÕTNUD JÄRGMISE OTSUSE:Artikkel 1Lepingu XVII lisa punkti 9c (Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv 2001/84/EÜ) järele lisatakse järgmine punkt:"9d. 398 L 0044: Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv 98/44/EÜ, 6. juuli 1998, biotehnoloogialeiutiste õiguskaitse kohta (EÜT L 213, 30.7.1998, lk 13).Käesolevas lepingus loetakse selle direktiivi sätteid järgmises kohanduses:Pidades silmas Liechtensteini ja Šveitsi vahelist patendiliitu, ei väljasta Liechtenstein mingeid käesoleva direktiiviga ettenähtud patente."Artikkel 2Direktiivi 98/44/EÜ islandi- ja norrakeelne tekst, mis avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP kaasandes, on autentne.Artikkel 3Käesolev otsus jõustub 1. veebruaril 2003 tingimusel, et EMP Ühiskomiteele on esitatud kõik lepingu artikli 103 lõikes 1 ettenähtud teated. [4]Artikkel 4Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.Brüssel, 31. jaanuar 2003EMP Ühiskomitee nimeleesistujaP. Westerlund[1] EÜT L 38, 13.2.2003, lk 36.[2] EÜT L 213, 30.7.1998, lk 13.[3] EÜT L 227, 1.9.1994, lk 1.[4] Põhiseadusest tulenevatest nõuetest ei ole teatatud.--------------------------------------------------


text:
Jordan Grand Prix (parasti saukta par Jordan, latviski tiek izrunāta kā Džordan Gran Prī) bija Formula 1 autosacīkšu komanda, kuru dibināja īrs Edijs Džordans. F1 Jordan piedalījās no 1991. līdz 2005. gadam. Tā ir vienīgā komanda no Īrijas, kura jebkad ir startējusi F1. Komanda bija pazīstama ar "rokenrolīgu" attieksmi, kas tai veidoja savdabīgu tēlu 1990. gadu Formula 1 sabiedrībā. Jordan ir viena no retajām komandām, kura visās sezonās ir izcīnījusi kaut vienu punktu.
 2005. gadā Jordan Grand Prix tika pārdota investēšanas koncernam Midland, un tika izveidota komanda ar nosaukumu MF1 Racing. Tā, savukārt, gadu vēlāk tika pārdota nīderlandiešu autobūves uzņēmumam Spyker, kuri komandu pārsauca par Spyker F1. 2007. gada septembrī puse komandas tika pārdota indiešu miljardierim Vidžajam Maljam. Kopš 2008. gada tā piedalās ar nosaukumu "Force India".
 Vēsture
 Priekšvēsture
 Edijs Džordans (komandas dibinātājs) 1970. gados īsu periodu pats bija sacīkšu braucējs. 1980. gados beigās viņš vadīja veiksmīgu Formula 3 un Formula 3000 komandu, kuras nosaukums bija "Eddie Jordan Racing Team". 1988. gadā tika Martins Donelijs kopvērtējumā ierindojās augstajā trešajā vietā. Veiksmīgi tosezon startēja arī viņa komandas biedrs Džonijs Herberts, kuram pa spēkam bija uzvaras pirmajās divās sacīkstēs. 1989. gadā Žans Alezī izcīnīja F3000 titulu.
 Debija F1 un pirmie gadi (1991—1996)
 Jordan formulas pirmo reizi Formula 1 sacensībās piedalījas 1991. gadā. Tās sākotnēji vadīja Andrea de Čezariss un Bertrāns Gašo. Lai gan de Čezariss piedalījās visās tās sezonas sacīkstēs, Gašo beidza braukt Jordan pēc Ungārijas GP, jo starp sacīkstēm izraisīja incidentu (aplēja taksistu ar asaru gāzi un tika arestēts). Līdz sezonas beigām viņa vietā brauca Mihaels Šumahers, Robertu Morenu un Alesandro Zanardi.
 Otrajā sezonā komanda piedzīvoja pamatīgas izmaiņas: Ford dzinēju vietā tika lietoti Yamaha motori, un tika nomainīti piloti. Sezonu uzsāka un pabeidza Stefano Modena un Maurisiu Guželmins. Atšķirībā no punktiem bagātās 1991. gada sezonas, 1992. gadā komanda izcīnīja tikai vienu punktu.
 1993. gadā komanda lietoja Hart dzinējus. Pirmajā sacīkstē Jordan formulas vadīja Rubenšs Barikello un Ivans Kapelli, tomēr jau pēc diviem posmiem par Barikello komandas biedru kļuva Tjerī Butsēns, kurš šo vietu ieņēma lielāko daļu sezonas. Tās nobeigumā par otro pilotu kļuva arī Marko Apičella, Emanuele Naspeti un Edijs Irvains.
 1994. gadā komanda turpināja lietot Hart dzinējus un paturēja darbā Barikello un Irvainu. Tiesa gan, pēdējais tika diskvalificēts uz trim sacīkstēm, tāpēc tajā laikā viņa vietā brauca Aguri Sudzuki un Andrea de Čezariss. Sezona kopumā bija ļoti veiksmīga — atkārtota labākā vieta konstruktoru kausa ieskaitē, visvairāk punktu sezonā tās vēsturē un pirmais pjedestāls.
 1995. gadā komanda sāka lietot Peugeot dzinējus un atstāja abus pilotus savās vietās. Kanādas GP bija īpaši veiksmīgs, jo Barikello finišēja otrais, bet Irvains — trešais.
 1996. gadā komandu pameta Irvains, jo viņš devās uz Ferrari. Par Rubenša Barikello komandas biedru kļuva Martins Brandls. Lai arī piloti ne reizi nebija uz pjedestāla, viņi pārspēja iepriekšējā gada rezultātu.
 Rezultātu uzlabošanās (1997—2000)
 1997. gadā komanda bija spiesta mainīt abus pilotus, jo Barikello devās uz jaunizveidoto Stewart, bet Brandls beidza karjeru. Par Jordan pilotiem kļuva tolaik divkārtējā pasaules čempiona Mihaela Šumahera brālis Ralfs un pirms gada debitējušais itālis Džankarlo Fizikella. Argentīnas GP komanda gandrīz izcīnīja dubultuzvaru (turklāt, savā divsimtajā sacīkstē), tomēr pēc sadursmes Šumahers atkrita uz trešo vietu, bet Fizikella izstājās. Fizikellam bija vēl viena laba iespēja uzvarēt Vācijā, tomēr tehniskās problēmas viņu atmeta uz vienpadsmito vietu. Sezona kopumā bija ļoti veiksmīga, un iezīmēja Jordan augšupejas sākumu.
 1998. gadā Fizikellas vietā komanda sāka izmantot eksčempiona Deimona Hila pakalpojumus. Komandas neapšaubāmi labākais sniegums tosezon bija lietainajā Beļģijas GP, kad komanda izcīnīja dubultuzvaru. Tāpat kā citi notikumi trasē todien, tas bija liels pārsteigums.
 1999. gadā R. Šumahers devās uz Williams, tāpēc par Hila komandas biedru kļuva vācietis Haincs Haralds Frencens. Frencens spīdoši brauca visas sezonas gaitā un, pēc paša vārdiem, nekļuva par čempionu tikai tādēļ, ka izstājās Sanmarīno un Eiropā. Ar divām uzvarām un vēl četrām reizēm uz pjedestāla Frencens bija trešais kopvērtējumā tikai aiz Irvaina un Hakinena. Hils, savukārt, aizvadīja savu pēdējo sezonu, un retu reizi ieguva punktus. Konstruktoru kausā Jordan bija trešie ar 61 punktu. Hila vietu aizņēma Jarno Trulli.
 2000. gadā komanda brauca vairāk vai mazāk atzīstami, tomēr pabāli salīdzinājumā ar 1999. gadu. Tā arī sāka lietot Honda dzinējus.
 Rezultātu pasliktināšanās (2001—2004)
 2001. gadā Frencens un Trulli saglabāja savas vietas Jordan. Gada gaitā Rikardu Zonta arī sēdās pie stūres, jo Frencens bija savainots pēc smagās avārijas Monako. Zonta vēlreiz bija izsaukts uz sacīksti Vācijā, jo Frencenu atlaida no darba Jordan komandā. Jau pēc sacīkstes šī vieta tika iedota francūzim Žanam Alezī, kurš aizvadīja savu pēdējo sezonu.
 2002. gadā komanda nomainīja abus pilotus — tagad tajā brauca japāņu debitants Takuma Sato un itālis Džankarlo Fizikella, kurš jau iepriekš brauca ar Jordan. Viņi abi izcēlās Malaizijas GP, kad formulas sadūrās.
 2003. gadā Sato tika nomainīts ar Fērmanu, turklāt tagad komanda lietoja Ford dzinējus. Džankarlo Fizikella uzvarēja Brazīlijas GP, pārsteidzot visu F1 pasauli. Tiesa gan, viņa uzvaru atzina apmēram divas nedēļas pēc sacīkstes, jo sakarā ar tehnisku kļūmi tā sākumā tika piešķirta Reikenenam. Ralfs Fērmans tika savainots Ungārijas GP treniņos, tādēļ viņu divas sacīkstes aizvietoja ungārs Žolts Baumgartners.
 2004. gadā komanda nomainīja abus pilotus, un izmantoja vācieša Nika Heidfelda un itāļa Džordžo Pantano pakalpojumus. Pantano sponsoru maksātnespējas dēļ vairākas sacīkstes tika aizvietots ar Timo Gloku. No šīs trijotnes vienīgi Pantano neizcīnīja punktus.
 Komandas pārdošana un pēdējā sezona (2005)
 Vairāk lasiet rakstā MF1 Racing.
 2005. gada sākumā tika paziņots par to, ka Midland koncerns nopērk Jordan komandu, tomēr pirmo sezonu atstās Jordan vārdu. Dzeltenās formulas vadīja portugālis Tiagu Monteiru un indietis Narains Kartikejans. Viņi abi debitēja F1. Komandas labākais rezultāts bija 3. (Monteiro) un 4. (Kartikejans) vieta skandalozajā ASV GP. Pēdējā sacīkstē finišēja tikai portugālis, viņš bija vienpadsmitais. Kartikejans piedzīvoja smagu avāriju un izstājās.
 2006. gadā MF1, Jordan pēctecis, tika pārdots nīderlandiešu uzņēmumam Spyker. Tika izveidota komanda Spyker F1, kura F1 piedalās kopš 2007. gada. 2007. gada nogalē puse Spyker komandas tika pārdota indiešu miljardierim Vidžajam Maljam, kurš komandu pārsauca par "Force India". Džordanam joprojām pieder īpašumi ap komandas bāzi Silverstonā, no kuriem viņš vēlas atbrīvoties. Tā kā Force India atteicās tos nopirkt, Džordans bloķēja komandas pieeju fabrikai, uz piebraucamā ceļa (kas arī pieder viņam) izgāžot kravu betona.
 2006. gadā Starptautiskā Automobiļu Federācija paziņoja, ka tiks rīkots konkurss uz 12. komandas vietu 2008. gada F1 sezonā. Lai gan vietu ieguva Prodrive F1, vēlāk tika paziņots, ka starp citiem kandidātiem bija arī Edijs Džordans, kurš vēlējās atjaunot Jordan Grand Prix komandu.
 Sponsori
 Pirmajā Jordan sezonā komandas galvenais sponsors bija citronlaima dzēriens 7Up. No 1992. līdz 1994. gadam komandas spēkratus rotāja dienvidāfrikāņu ķīmijas, dabasgāzes un naftas kompānijas Sasol logotips, savukārt 1995. gadā par reklāmu uz Jordan formulām maksāja Francijas naftas uzņēmums Total. No 1996. līdz 2005. gadam Jordan galvenais sponsors bija cigarešu marka Benson & Hedges. Izņēmums bija vienīgi 2002. gads, kad DHL kļuva par tādu. Sacīkstēs, kurās tabakas reklāma bija aizliegta, komanda lietoja dažādus uzrakstus, kas asociējas ar kompānijas nosaukumu (atšķirībā no lielas daļas citu komandu, kuras vienkārši aizkrāsoja uzrakstus). Pirmajos gados, kad komandas talismans bija čūska Šņāčošais Sids () formulas rotāja uzraksts "Bitten Hisses" (Sadzeltie Šņācieni), tad "Buzzin Hornets" (Dūcošie Sirseņi), kamēr talismans bija vārdā nenosaukts sirsenis, "Bitten Heroes" (Sakostie Varoņi) vienu sacīksti pēc 2001. gada 11. septembra uzbrukumiem ASV un, visbeidzot, "Be On Edge" (Esi Uz Robežas), kad vienkārši tika izdzēsti burti no uzraksta "BENSON&HEDGES". Karikatūrās dažkārt tika izķēmoti šie uzraksti.
 2003. gada jūnijā Jordan iesūdzēja mobilo telefonu sakaru kompāniju Vodafone tiesā, mēģinot piedzīt 150 miljonus GBP, apgalvojot, ka kompānija mutiski sarunāja trīs gadu sponsorēšanas līgumu, tomēr vēlāk to parakstīja ar Ferrari. Divus mēnešus vēlāk Jordan atsauca šo lietu un piekrita samaksāt Vodafone tēriņus šajā lietā. No šī finansiālā trieciena komanda neatguvās. Tiesnesis ļoti kritizēja Ediju Džordanu, apgalvojot, ka sūdzība bija "bez pamatojuma un nepatiesa".
 Formula 1 rezultāti
 Rezultāti treknrakstā nozīmē, ka pilots izcīnīja pirmo starta vietu. Valstu apzīmēšanai izmantoti ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 kodi.
 Atsauces
 Ārējās saites
 Force India mājaslapa
 Formula 1 komandas


text:
Bodrogvécs () Szomotor településrésze Szlovákiában, a Kassai kerület Tőketerebesi járásában.
 Fekvése
 Királyhelmectől 13 km-re nyugatra, a Bodrog bal partján fekszik. Egybeépült Szomotorral.
 Története
 Területén a korai bronzkorban a hallstatti kultúra települése állt.
 Közvetlenül a honfoglalás után lakott település volt, amint azt az itt feltárt, leletekben gazdag 10. századi ősmagyar temető bizonyítja. Első írásos említése 1214-ben történt, 1263-ban Péter magiszter birtoka volt. 1381-ben helyi nemeseké, a 18. században a Vécsey családé és másoké. 1715-ben 5 lakatlan és egy házas jobbágytelke volt. 1787-ben 30 házában 149 lakos élt.
 Vályi András szerint: „VECS. Magyar falu Zemplén Várm. földes Urai B. Vécsey, és Mezősy Uraságok, lakosai reformátusok, fekszik Szomotorhoz 600 lépésnyire; határja jó, ’s mindent megterem, Bodrog vize körűl follya, erdeje kitsiny, ’s fiatal, piatza Újhelyben 3 órányira.”
 A 19. század végén a Kozma családé. 1828-ban 42 háza és 316 lakosa volt. Lakói mezőgazdasággal, szőlőtermesztéssel foglalkoztak.
 Fényes Elek szerint: „Vécs, Zemplén vmegyében, magyar falu, a Bodroghközben, a Bodrogh bal partján, Zemplénhez egy órányira: 34 romai, 166 gör. kath., 182 ref., 14 zsidó lak., 352 hold szántófölddel. F. u. b. Vécsey. Ut. post. Ujhely.”
 Borovszky Samu monográfiasorozatának Zemplén vármegyét tárgyaló része szerint: „Bodrogvécs, a Bodrog közelében fekszik. Magyar kisközség; 60 háza van, nagyobbára ev. ref. vallású, 420 lakossal. E község már V. Istvánnak egyik 1263-ik évi határjárásában szerepel, melyet Péter mester javára rendelt el, midőn Zomotor földjét Gera, Zompa és Mátyás halála után neki adományozza. 1381-ben Hidvégveycze alakban Hidvégvécsei Agata birtokaként van említve. 1440-ben már a Szerdahelyiek az urai. Ez időben, valamint korábban is, a zempléni vár tartozéka volt. A Szerdahelyiekről a Bocskayakra szállott, és 1764-ben a báró Vécseyek kaptak rá királyi adományt. 1512-ben Csebi Pogány Zsigmond is birtokosa, az 1598-iki összeíráskor pedig Csapy Ferencz, Bacskay Miklós, Paczoth Ferencz, Soós István, Ferencz és Albert özvegye. 1629-ben még mindig szerepelnek a Csapyak, 1663-ban pedig, a mikor Vécsszög néven van említve, Soós György is. 1764-től kezdve a báró Vécseyeken kívül még a Mezőssy, Klobusitzky, Súghó, báró Balassa s a Szerencsy családok az urai, most pedig Kozma Mihálynak van itt nagyobb birtoka. A XIX. század végén a község három ízben elpusztult. Révecske nevű dülője azt bizonyítja, hogy ott hajdan révje volt. Templom nincs a községben, melynek postája, távírója és vasúti állomása Szomotor. Ide tartozik Teréztanya is.”
 1910-ben 487-en, túlnyomórészt magyarok lakták. 1920-ig Zemplén vármegye Bodrogközi járásához tartozott. 1938 és 1945 között újra Magyarország része. 1943 előtt önálló község volt, azóta Szomotorhoz tartozik. (1943 és 1945 között az egyesített település Szomotorvécs néven szerepelt.)
 Képtár
 Kapcsolódó szócikkek
 Szomotor
 Kisújlak
 További információk
 A bodrogvécsi tarsolylemez
 E-obce.sk
 Irodalom
 Alexander Ruttkay 1975: Waffen und Reiterausrüstung des 9. bis zur ersten Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts in der Slowakei I. Slovenská archeológia XXIII-1, 178.
 Szendrei János 1898: A bodrogvécsi honfoglaláskori lelet. Arch. Ért. 18, 7-14.
 Jegyzetek
 Bodrogvecs
 Zemplén vármegye települései