type: wikipedia

text:
С++ (произнася се , ) е език за програмиране от високо ниво, който има възможности за програмиране на Операционни системи, големи програмни системи, с високо ниво на функционалност, представяне и ефикасност. Той е обектно ориентиран език със статични типове. От 1990-те C++ е един от най-популярните комерсиални езици за програмиране.
 Датският програмист Бярне Строуструп разработва C++ през 1983 г. в Лабораториите „Бел“ като разширение на езика C – езикът е базиран на C, но в него са добавени редица допълнителни възможности и са направени няколко промени. Основната разлика между C и C++ е, че C++ съдържа вградена в езика поддръжка на обектно ориентирано програмиране. В C++ са добавени класове, множествено наследяване, виртуални функции, overloading, шаблони (templates), обработка на изключения (exceptions) и вградени оператори за работа с динамична памет. Езиковият стандарт на C++ е ратифициран през 1998 като ISO/IEC 14882:1998, през 2003 година има преразглеждане на стандарта – ISO/IEC 14882:2003, а от 2011 стандартът се обновява на всеки три години. Последната ревизия е от 2020.
 Повечето програми на C могат директно или със съвсем малки модификации да бъдат компилирани с компилатор за езика C++. Поради заимстване на множество концепции от C++ езикът Java има много общи черти със C++.
 Една голяма част от приложните програми на много операционни системи, както и някои от самите операционни системи, са написани на този език.
 Програмиране на С++
 Всяко програмиране има своето начало или Hello, World!
 Една примерна програма „Hello, World!“, реализирана на С++, изглежда така:
 #include <iostream>
 using namespace std;
 int main()
 {
 cout << "Hello, World!" << endl;
 return 0;
 }
 Работа с прости обекти
 #include <iostream>
 #include <string>
 using namespace std;
 //обект реализиращ книга в книжарница
 class Book
 {
 public:
 string name;
 double price;
 int year;
 void ShowInfo() const
 {
 cout << "Заглавие: " << name << "\n";
 cout << "Цена: " << price << "\n";
 cout << "Година на издаване: " << year << "\n";
 }
 };
 int main()
 {
 Book book;
 cout << "Въведете заглавие: ";
 getline(cin, book.name); //прочитаме ред от стандартния вход
 cout << "Въведете цена: ";
 cin >> book.price;
 cout << "Въведете дата на издаване: ";
 cin >> book.year;
 book.ShowInfo(); //извеждаме получените данни
 return 0;
 }
 Философията на езика
 Като основа на философията на езика С++ в The Design and Evolution of C++ (1994) Бярне Строуструп изяснява някои от правилата, според които той е моделирал C++:
 C++ е моделиран като статичен език за общи цели, като запазва ефикасността и преносимостта на C
 C++ е създаден да поддържа множество стилове на програмиране (процедурно програмиране, абстракция на данните, обектно-ориентирано програмиране и обобщено програмиране)
 C++ е създаден да дава избор на програмиста, дори той да е неправилен
 C++ е моделиран като умерен преход от C
 C++ избягва функции, които са платформенозависими
 C++ е създаден да работи без сложна среда за разработка
 Познаването на правилата помага за правилното разбиране на C++. Много повече за езика може да бъде открито в The Design and Evolution of C++.
 Компилатори
 Стандарти
 Езикът е международно стандаритизиран със стандарта ISO/IEC 14882. Различните версии на езика представляват обновявания на стандартизационния документ и за разлика от други езици, които имат обикновени числови версии, е прието версиите на С++ да се наричат на годината на издаване.
 След 2011 стандартизационният комитет се ангажира да обновява версията на езика на всеки три години. Съответно следващата версия на езика се очаква през 2020 под името C++20.
 Външни препратки
 За C++ от Бярне Строуструп
 C++ справочник (bg)
 Класова йерархия в С++ (bg)
 Езици за програмиране на високо ниво


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 31969L0062
 Directive 69/62/CEE du Conseil, du 18 février 1969, modifiant la directive du Conseil, du 14 juin 1966, concernant la commercialisation des plants de pommes de terre
 Journal officiel n° L 048 du 26/02/1969 p. 0007 - 0008 édition spéciale danoise: série I chapitre 1969(I) p. 0050 édition spéciale anglaise: série I chapitre 1969(I) p. 0055 édition spéciale grecque: chapitre 03 tome 4 p. 0086 édition spéciale espagnole: chapitre 03 tome 3 p. 0068 édition spéciale portugaise: chapitre 03 tome 3 p. 0068 édition spéciale finnoise: chapitre 3 tome 2 p. 0171 édition spéciale suédoise: chapitre 3 tome 2 p. 0171
 DIRECTIVE DU CONSEIL du 18 février 1969 modifiant la directive du Conseil, du 14 juin 1966, concernant la commercialisation des plants de pommes de terre (69/62/CEE) LE CONSEIL DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES, vu le traité instituant la Communauté économique européenne, et notamment ses articles 43 et 100, vu la proposition de la Commission, vu l'avis de l'Assemblée (1), vu l'avis du Comité économique et social, considérant qu'il est opportun de modifier certaines dispositions de la directive du Conseil, du 14 juin 1966, concernant la commercialisation des plants de pommes de terre (2); considérant qu'il convient de compléter les dispositions transitoires et de permettre l'utilisation de plants de stades antérieurs aux plants de base; considérant qu'il convient de modifier une indication de l'étiquette ainsi que la couleur de celle-ci s'il s'agit de plants d'une catégorie soumise à des exigences réduites, A ARRÊTÉ LA PRÉSENTE DIRECTIVE: Article premierLa directive du Conseil, du 14 juin 1966, concernant la commercialisation des plants de pommes de terre est modifiée comme il est stipulé aux articles suivants. Article 2 1. L'article 2 devient l'article 2 paragraphe 1. 2. Le texte de l'article 2 paragraphe 1 partie B littera a) est remplacé par le texte suivant: «a) qui proviennent directement de plants de base ou de plants certifiés, ou de plants d'un stade antérieur aux plants de base qui, lors d'un examen officiel, ont répondu aux conditions prévues pour les plants de base;» 3. A l'article 2, le paragraphe 2 suivant est ajouté: «2. Les États membres peuvent: a) pendant une période transitoire de deux ans au plus après la mise en vigueur des dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour se conformer aux dispositions de la présente directive et en dérogation au paragraphe 1 partie B certifier en tant que plants certifiés des plants provenant directement de plants officiellement contrôlés dans un État membre selon le système actuel et offrant les mêmes garanties que celles données par les plants certifiés «plants de base» ou «plants certifiés», selon les principes de la présente directive; b) prévoir jusqu'au 30 juin 1972 que les examens officiels concernant le respect des conditions prévues à l'annexe II ne sont pas effectués sur tous les lots lors de la certification sauf s'il existe un doute quant au respect de ces conditions. L'examen doit cependant porter sur au moins 20 % de tous les lots. » Article 3A l'article 7, le mot «livraison» est remplacé par le mot «lot». Article 4A l'article 8, le mot «livraisons» est remplacé par le mot «lots». Article 5Le texte de l'article 9 paragraphe 2 est remplacé par le texte suivant: «2. Il ne peut être procédé à une ou plusieurs nouvelles fermetures qu'officiellement. Dans ce cas, il est également fait mention sur l'étiquette prévue à l'article 10 paragraphe 1, de la dernière nouvelle fermeture, de sa date et du service qui l'a effectuée.» Article 6Le texte de l'article 10 paragraphe 1 littera b) est remplacé par le texte suivant: (1) JO no C 108 du 19.10.1968, p. 30. (2) JO no 125 du 11.7.1966, p. 2320/66. «b) contiennent, à l'intérieur, une notice officielle de la couleur de l'étiquette reproduisant les indications prévues à l'annexe III partie A points 3, 4 et 6 pour l'étiquette ; cette notice n'est pas indispensable lorsque ces indications sont imprimées de manière indélébile sur l'emballage.» Article 7A l'article 15 paragraphe 2, la date figurant à la dernière phrase est remplacée par celle du 1er juillet 1970. Article 8A l'article 16 paragraphe 2, les mots «jaune foncé» sont remplacés par le mot «brune». Article 91. Le texte de l'annexe III partie A points 1 et 2 est remplacé par le texte suivant: «1. «Règles et normes C.E.E.» 2. Service de certification et État membre ou leur sigle. » 2. Toutefois, les étiquettes portant l'indication prescrite à l'annexe III partie A point 1 de la directive du Conseil, du 14 juin 1966, concernant la commercialisation des plants de pommes de terre peuvent être utilisées jusqu'au 30 juin 1970 au plus tard. Article 10Les États membres mettent en vigueur le 1er juillet 1969 au plus tard, les dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour se conformer aux dispositions de la présente directive. Ils en informent immédiatement la Commission. Article 11Les États membres sont destinataires de la présente directive. Fait à Bruxelles, le 18 février 1969. Par le Conseil Le président J.P. BUCHLER


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
 204 Md. 485 (1954)
 105 A.2d 207
 SHERWOOD BROTHERS, INC.
 v.
 ECKARD, USE OF SELF AND PENNSYLVANIA THRESHERMEN & FARMERS' MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
 [No. 136, October Term, 1953.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided May 21, 1954.
 *487 The cause was argued before DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
 D. Eugene Walsh, with whom were George B.P. Ward, Charles O. Fisher and Walsh and Fisher, on the brief, for appellant.
 Wilbur D. Preston, Jr., with whom were David H. Taylor, W. Hamilton Whiteford and Due, Nickerson, Whiteford & Taylor, on the brief, for appellee.
 HAMMOND, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 A corporate landlord of a filling station appeals from a judgment on the verdict of a jury, which found it liable to a salesman calling on the tenant and hurt when an automobile, being greased by the tenant, rolled from a hydraulic greasing lift. Suit was brought by the injured man, Richard C. Eckard, the appellee, to his own use and to the use of an insurance carrier, against Roy H. Cutsail, lessee and operator of the station, and the appellant, Sherwood Brothers, the owner and lessor. The jury found a verdict for the lessee.
 The filling station consists of the pumps and surrounding area, an office, a storeroom, and the adjoining greasing room, in which the lift was located. Cars were driven onto its two metal tracks and the lift was then raised by hydraulic pressure so that the greasing could be done from beneath. A sign at the entrance to the greasing room read "Danger  Keep Out". Under *488 the terms of the lease, the tenant had full control of all leased land, buildings, equipment, appliances and other real and personal property, and was solely responsible for maintenance and repairs. A sales agreement, complementary to the lease, required the tenant to sell gasoline, oil and other products of the landlord. Cutsail had operated the filling station for four years before the accident. At the time of the original leasing in 1948, there were no automatic safety devices on the lift to keep cars from rolling off and none were installed. Cutsail used wooden chocks, one at a front wheel and one at a rear wheel, to prevent cars from rolling off. This had been effective, the testimony being that no car had rolled off the lift during Cutsail's tenancy, although it had been in daily operation. The testimony suggested further that in the six years before Cutsail had taken over, no car had rolled from the lift in its constant operation.
 In 1952, the appellee came to the station to deliver chains he had previously sold Cutsail. He complained of feeling ill and sat in a chair near the air station outside of the greasing room, at Cutsail's suggestion. In a few minutes, he told Cutsail that he was going to sit in the back of the greasing room in the shade because of the heat of the sun. He testifies that Cutsail, then under the lift, getting ready to grease a car, replied "O.K." While the appellee was sitting in the greasing room, the car rolled off the lift and pinned his right leg to the wall, seriously injuring it. The appellee blames his injury upon the condition of the lift, which he says was defective because it lacked automatic safety devices to prevent cars from rolling off. He finds support for that view in Cutsail's statement to him that the accident occurred because of the lack of safety devices. An official of an engineering company, who for fifteen years had supervised the installation and maintenance of automobile lifts, testified that the manufacturer of the make of lift in question had never manufactured one without an automatic safety device to prevent automobiles *489 from moving from the lift. No explanation was given by either side as to what happened to the automatic safety devices on the lift, if any ever were on it. It is not claimed that there was any other defect in the lift.
 The appellee predicates the liability of the appellant on the theory that the leased premises constituted a place of business to which the general public was invited as patrons, and when leased, had on it unsafe equipment, with the result that the landlord's liability continues despite the lease because he knew of the unsafe condition. To this basic premise, he adds that he was a business visitor at the time of the accident  an invitee of standing equal to that of members of the general public invited to go on the premises for the purchase of gasoline and oil. The appellant made a motion for a directed verdict at the end of the plaintiff's case and renewed it at the end of the whole case. It contended below, as it does here, that the appellee was not an invitee but a bare licensee, and that under the lease, the lessee had full control of the premises and full obligation to maintain the lift in good condition and to repair it if necessary. Further, it urged and urges that a gasoline station is not a public place within the meaning of the cases which have imposed liability on landlords for faulty conditions on premises to which patrons are invited and which they may be expected to visit in large numbers.
 The general rule is that the landlord is liable for injuries to persons on leased premises, such as guests or customers of the lessee, only to the same extent as he is to the tenant himself. Accordingly, in the ordinary case, the landlord is not liable for injuries caused by defects existing at the time of the lease except as he may have failed to inform the lessee of defects known to him, and not apparent to the lessee. Tiffany, Real Property, 3rd Ed., Vol. 1, Sec. 107; Smith v. State, Use of Walsh, 92 Md. 518; Sezzin v. Stark, 187 Md. 241, 248. There has been recognized an exception to this rule where the leased premises are to be used for public *490 or quasi public purposes, so that large numbers of patrons may be expected to visit the premises. In such case, the landlord has been held to an obligation to use ordinary diligence to see that the property leased is in a reasonably safe condition at the time of the lease. Tiffany, work and section cited. Restatement, Torts, Sec. 359, states that where a lessor leases his land for a purpose which involves admission of a large number of persons as patrons of his lessee, he is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to them by an artificial condition existing when the lessee took possession, if the lessor knew or should have known of the condition and realized, or should have realized the unreasonable risk to them involved therein and had reason to expect that the lessee would admit his patrons before the land was put in reasonably safe condition for their reception. The comment points out that liability is limited to patrons who are admitted for the particular purpose for which the land was leased and excludes business invitees on the land for their own purposes. Examples of such leases given are for an exhibition rink, a baseball park, a steamship wharf and a bathing beach.
 One of the early cases which involved the exception is Albert v. State, Use of Ryan, 66 Md. 325. There, the owner of a wharf, the only means of ingress and egress to a summer resort where crowds were invited to come, leased it to a tenant and at the time knew, or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known that it was unsafe for the use to which it would be put. An accident happened, as a consequence of the defective condition, to one lawfully on the wharf at the time. The landlord was held liable. The Court relied on Owings v. Jones, 9 Md. 108, where a passerby fell into a hole in a public way which the adjoining property owner had protected by an insufficient cover. The Court in that case held: "... where the owner leases premises which are a nuisance, or must in the nature of things become so by their user, and receives rent, then, whether in or out of possession, he is liable." Reliance was also *491 put on Swords v. Edgar, 59 N.Y. 28, where the owner of a pier, knowing it to be in an unsafe condition, had leased it. The New York Court held that the pier need not be considered: "... a public place or highway in the fullest sense of these terms... Though private property, it was held as such for public objects." Later the Court said: "As to the defendants, then, the plaintiff's intestate was lawfully upon the pier, and as to them, it was to him as if a public place or highway, upon which he had right to go, ..." The New York Court concluded that the pier was a nuisance, the leasing of which gave rise to liability of the owner. This Court, in the Albert case, characterized the wharf as a nuisance.
 The early cases which either involved or were fairly analogous to nuisances on streets or public ways, led to the exception to the general rule which has been discussed. The cases have applied it most often to places of amusement and hotels. The Courts of the country have divided on the question of a further extension of the exception, often reaching opposite results as to the same type of use. See 93 Univ. of Pa. Law Review, 102, 104. This Court refused to apply the exception in the case of a rooming house. Smith v. State, Use of Walsh, supra. There, the Court, in summarizing the applicable law, said that a landlord may be liable to strangers if he rents the property for use of a public character while it is in unsafe condition. Although the public use cases have often characterized the unsafe condition of the premises as a nuisance, and made it the ground of liability of the landlord, the opinion in the Smith case seemingly characterized the leasing of a nuisance as an additional liability of the landlord, regardless of the character of the use of the leased premises, because it repeated the language of Owings v. Jones, supra, that a landlord may become liable to strangers on leased premises: "... which are a nuisance or which must become so by their user ...", as well as referring to the public use exceptions. *492 In Burkert v. Smith, 201 Md. 452, the Court did not discuss or even refer to the exception, although it held a landlord of premises leased for use as a tavern liable to one injured by a fall down a negligently located flight of stairs. In Brittain v. Atlantic Refining Co., (N.J.) 19 A.2d 793, where the factual situation was very similar to the present case, the plaintiff urged that the ordinary rule should not apply but rather, the exception, because the service station was designed for public or semi-public use and the landlord must have contemplated that large numbers of people would come upon the premises. The Court held that regardless of the validity of the argument as applied to the filling station as a whole, it could not be sound when applied to the greasing room into which the public were not intended to come and which was not devoted to public use within the meaning of the exception. Consequently, the injury caused by the rolling of a car from the greasing lift could not become the basis of liability on the part of the landlord. See also Marx v. Standard Oil Co. (N.J.) 69 A.2d 748.
 We think the holding of the Brittain case was sound. The greasing room of a filling station may not be reasonably considered or held to be a place where patrons are invited or in which they may be expected to congregate. At the entrance to the one in this case was the sign "Danger  Keep Out". Assuming, then, for the argument, that the hydraulic lift without automatic safety devices amounted to imperfect equipment, and so to premises not in reasonably safe condition known to be such at the time of the leasing, we hold that the premises on which it was located were not such as would come within the exception, but are to be governed by the general rule. The condition of the lift at the time of the lease, and thereafter, was as fully known to the tenant as it was to the landlord, and this being so, under the general rule, the landlord owed the tenant no duty in respect of it, and as a consequence, owed no duty to an invitee of the tenant. This ruling makes it unnecessary *493 to pass on the conclusion of the Restatement that an injured business invitee may not recover in cases where a patron of a place of public character could.
 The appellee urges that the lift at the time it was leased amounted to a nuisance which, under the statement of Smith v. State, Use of Walsh, supra, made the landlord responsible to one lawfully on the premises and injured because of it. Traditionally, a nuisance is a thing or condition on the premises, or adjacent to the premises, offensive or harmful to those who are off the premises. The term "nuisance" in cases involving the condition of leased property and its relation to those on the property, is not used with precision in many instances. It has been adopted from cases like those of Swords v. Edgar and Albert v. State, both supra, which followed the rule as to true nuisances on streets or ways, as a convenient term of reference to an unsafe condition. The cases fail often to distinguish between violation of the duty which creates a nuisance and violation of a duty which constitutes negligence. Compare, for example, Oxford v. Leathe (Mass.) 43 N.E. 92, where Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Court, referred to various nuisance cases but put the liability of the landlord for a defective condition of the premises causing injury (a horse show rink) on the ground of negligence  foreseeable negligence. A nuisance exists because of a violation of an absolute duty so that it does not rest on the degree of care used but rather on the degree of danger existing with the best of care. Negligence, on the other hand, is the violation of a relative duty for failure to use a degree of care required under particular circumstances. The wharf in the Albert case was unsafe and potentially dangerous in the very and only use to which it would be put, regardless of the degree of care used in that use, and so, might properly be termed a nuisance. The lift in the present case was not dangerous or potentially dangerous, unless it was negligently used. It is true that there was testimony that the lessee in the present case used wooden chocks *494 and that the accident occurred in spite of their use. Nevertheless, it must be obvious that the real and proximate cause of the accident was the lessee's failure either to use blocks of an adequate size or type or to put adequate blocks properly and securely in place. The advantage of automatic safety devices over movable blocks is that the operator occasoinally may fail to block the car while the automatic device presumably would not, or at least, not as often. This cannot constitute a basis for holding the landlord liable. It would be hardly contended that an elevator with automatic doors which were not working but which could readily be opened and closed manually, was a nuisance because injury ensued when an experienced operator forgot to properly close the door. In other words, the lift in this case was not then, properly used, any more potentially dangerous than if it had been equipped with the safety device, and cannot be held to be a nuisance. As the New York Court said in Swords v. Edgar, supra: "A lessor of premises, not per se a nuisance, but which becomes so only by the manner in which they are used by the lessee, is not liable therefor... But that rule may not apply here. A pier so defective and insecure when it is leased, as that a subsequent injury, received in the proper use of it as if sound, is consequent upon its original condition, is, for the purposes of such an action as this, per se a nuisance. Its effect upon third parties is not the result of the manner of the use of it by the lessee." In Whitmore v. Orono Pulp & Paper Co. (Me.) 39 A. 1032, a pulp mill operated by a lessee, contained a digester, a large cylinder of deoxidized bronze, which exploded as a result of its inability to resist the usual pressure of steam used. It was urged that the digester, in its defective condition, constituted a nuisance. The Court held that: "To constitute any particular thing a legal nuisance per se (apart from statute nuisances), as between lessor and lessee and the servants of the lessee, the thing itself must work some unlawful peril to health or safety of person or property,  as defective *495 cesspools, imperfect sewers and drains, walls and chimneys liable to fall, unguarded excavations, etc. A fixed, inert mass of metal, upon a solid foundation upon one's own land, like this digester, was not in itself dangerous to any one... The danger arose only when the lessee, the employer, began to make use of the digester without first ascertaining its tensile strength, and gauging the applied force accordingly."
 We think the reasoning expressed by the last two quotations is applicable to the case before us. The real danger in the lift was not in its failure to have safety bars when it was leased, but rather, the manner of its use by the tenant. We find no liability on the part of the landlord and the appellant's prayer for a directed verdict should have been granted.
 Judgment reversed, with costs.


type: contracts

text:
5 . 2 . 75 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 32/ 11
 AGREEMENT
 between the European Economic Community and the United Nations Children's Fund
 (UNICEF) on the supply of skimmed-milk powder as food aid
 THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
 ot the one part,
 THE UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S FUND ( UNICEF),
 of the other part,
 HAVE DECIDED to conclude this Agreement, and to this end have designated as their
 Plenipotentiaries :
 THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES :
 THE UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S FUND ( UNICEF):
 WHO HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS :
 Article 1 approval of the Community shall be given in the
 shortest possible time after receipt of the request.
 The European Economic Community, hereinafter
 referred to as 'the Community' shall supply by way
 of gift to the United Nations Childrtfh's Fund Article IV
 (UNICEF), hereinafter referred to as the 'recipient
 body', a quantity of 2 250 metric tons of skimmed The obligations and responsibilities of the
 milk powder. Community and of the recipient body concerning
 delivery and acceptance, whether cif or 'free-at
 frontier', are set out in the Annex, which forms an
 Article 11 integral part of this Agreement.
 The specifications and packaging of the product
 Article V
 shall be agreed between the recipient body and the
 Community.
 The recipient body undertakes to ensure that all
 arrangements needed for transport of the product
 from points of delivery to places of distribution shall
 Article 111
 be made either by the recipient body itself or by the
 government of the country where distribution is to
 The recipient body undertakes to use the product take place. In any event, in case of loss unless caused
 received as aid for the purposes of consumption and by acts of war the recipient body undertakes to
 to distribute it free of charge .to groups of people ensure replacement of the product so as to restore
 covered by its assistance programme, each operation the contribution of the Community.
 to have been previously approved by the
 Community.
 Article VI
 The deliveries shall be made following the provisions
 to be approved by the Community. The recipient body undertakes to inform the
 Community of how this Agreement is implemented.
 For emergency operations involving not more than To this end it shall forward to the Community the
 100 metric tons of skimmed-milk powder the following information :
 ---pagebreak--- No L 32/ 12 Official Journal of the European Communities 5 . 2 . 75
 1 . not more than 30 days after the arrival of each Article Vlll
 shipment at the place of delivery : the places and
 dates of delivery, the nature, quantity and quality Should new circumstances arise the Contracting
 of the product delivered, and the date on which Parties shall together decide on any amendments to
 delivery was fully completed; be made to this Agreement.
 2. one month after completion of the delivery, then In such an event, the approval of the Community
 every four months until the quantities received as shall be given in the shortest possible time after
 aid have been fully used : the quantities receipt of the request when the matter concerns
 distributed ; number and description of the operations involving not more than 100 metric tons
 beneficiaries; the places, timetable and method of of skimmed-milk powder.
 distribution.
 Article IX
 Article VII
 The Contracting Parties shall at the request of either This Agreement is drawn up in two copies in
 consult each other on all matters concerning the Danish, Dutch, English, French, German and Italian,
 application of this Agreement. each of these texts being authentic.
 ANNEX
 Provisions for delivery and acceptance
 Article 1 recorded at time of loading, the port of discharge, and
 where delivery is made 'free-at-frontier\ the frontier
 Delivery shall be effected and all risk shall pass from the point and the methods of transportation used for
 Community to the recipient body: bringing the goods to the frontier point.
 — in the case of delivery cif, once the goods are
 effectively set down on the quayside or onto lighter as Article 5
 the case may be;
 — in the case of delivery 'free-at-frontier' of the In the case of delivery cif, the Community shall inform
 country of destination, once the goods actually reach the recipient body of the estimated date of arrival of the
 the frontier point. vessel at the port of discharge at least 10 clear days
 before that date. It shall insert in the charter-party a
 clause requiring the captain to inform the recipient body
 Article 2 at least 72 hours in advance of the probable date of
 arrival of the vessel in port.
 The recipient body shall bear all costs subsequent to
 delivery including the costs of reception of the goods In the case of delivery 'free-at-frontier', the Community
 and, where delivery is made 'free-at-frontier', the costs shall without delay inform the recipient body of the date
 of discharge. of arrival of the goods at the port of discharge and shall
 in any case make known at least 10 clear days in
 advance the estimated date of arrival at the frontier
 Article 3 point.
 In the case of delivery cif, any demurrage costs at the Article 6
 port of discharge resulting from delays attributable to the
 recipient body shall be borne by that body. The rates and
 the detailed arrangements applying thereto, fixed in the To implement the provisions of this Annex, the
 contract between the Community agent referred to in Community shall appoint an agent whose name and
 Article 6 and the carrier, must have been agreed in address it shall make known in good time to the
 advance by that agent and the receiving agent of the recipient body.
 recipient body referred to in Article 6. The recipient body shall appoint a receiving agent for
 In the case of delivery 'free-at-frontier' any costs each place of delivery, whose name and address it shall
 resulting from delays in taking delivery of the goods make known to the Community before implementation
 which are attributable to the recipient body shall be of the Agreement.
 borne by the latter.
 jArticle 7
 Article 4
 On delivery of the goods the recipient body or its
 The Community shall, as soon as possible, notify the receiving agent referred to in Article 6 shall hand to the
 recipient body of the name of the vessel, the date of Community's agent referred to in the same Article a
 loading, the quantity and the quality of the goods as certificate of acceptance for the quantities involved.


type: other

text:
Højesterets dom om bevis for tab ved overdragelse af virksomhed til påstået underpris - ledelsesansvar
 Højesterets dom af 14. marts 2018
 Fiskbæk Lastvogns-Service A/S overdrog sin virksomhed til Fiskbæk ApS for ca. 8,1 mio. kr. Som led i berigtigelsen af købesummen overtog anpartsselskabet sikrede og privilegerede fordringer. Det overtog ikke de usikrede fordringer i aktieselskabet. Fiskbæk Lastvogns-Service blev efterfølgende taget under konkursbehandling.
 Spørgsmålet var om overdragelsen af virksomheden skete til underpris. Spørgsmålet var også om en advokat som rådgiver og om to personer der var ejere samt ledelse af begge selskaber (altså på en og samme tid sælger og køber) var erstatningsansvarlige over for sælger det senere konkursbo (Fiskbæk Lastvogns-Service).
 Under sagen gjorde appellanten – konkursboet – bl.a. gældende, at sagen var principiel, fordi den vedrørte spørgsmålet om værdiansættelse ved insolvente selskabers overdragelse af virksomheder, og fordi resultatet i de forrige instanser stred mod det resultat, Højesteret nåede frem til i dommene U.2005.2235H samt U.2011.963H. Der var efter konkursboets opfattelse meget stor forskel på, om man tilbyder en investering i en igangværende virksomhed med aktiver og forpligtelser, eller om man alene tilbyder en investering i virksomhedens aktiver og aktiviteter, men til i øvrigt fortsat uændret drift med samme formål, kunder, medarbejdere, ledelse osv. og at vurderingen skærpes når der er tale om salg mellem nærtstående, jf. bl.a. U.2015.2219H.
 De indstævnet gjorde bl.a. gældende, at der ikke var udvist ansvarspådragende adfærd, og at de øvrige erstatningsbetingelser ikke var opfyldt. De gjorde i den forbindelse gældende at bevisbyrden for, at samtlige erstatningsbetingelser (herunder at der er lidt et tab) var opfyldt, påhvilede konkursboet og ikke var løftet og at der ikke belæg var for at bevisbyrden vendes – heller ikke i forhold til spørgsmålet om værdiansættelse.
 Højesteret lagde til grund, at overdragelsen skete med henblik på fortsat drift altså som en ”going concern”. Fiskbæk Lastvogns-Service havde i flere år forud for virksomhedsoverdragelsen haft store underskud og havde i slutningen af 2013 en betydelig negativ egenkapital og en meget anstrengt likviditet.
 Højesteret bemærkede, at i en situation, hvor medlemmer af et nødlidende selskabs ledelse medvirker til at overdrage selskabets virksomhed til et andet selskab (køber), som de ejer, påhviler der disse en udvidet forpligtelse til at sikre, at overdragelsen sker på markedsmæssige vilkår. Højesteret bemærkede også at der gælder en tilsvarende forpligtelse for den advokat, der medvirker ved en sådan overdragelse. Således var Højesteret enig i, at vurderingen skærpes når der er tale om salg mellem nærtstående, jf. netop U.2015.2219H.
 Højesteret fandt, at vurderingerne af selskabets faste ejendom, driftsmidler, varelager, inventar mv. ikke fremstod som en værdiansættelse af virksomheden som sådan og vurderingerne kunne ikke tillægges særlig vægt ved stillingtagen til værdien af den overdragne virksomhed. Overdragelsen fandt dog sted efter, at Fiskbæk Lastvogns-Service og dets ejere i længere tid forgæves havde undersøgt mulighederne for at tilvejebringe et styrket kapitalgrundlag. Højesteret lagde til grund, at der var foretaget alle relevante undersøgelser af mulighederne herfor og af forklaringer afgivet af personer med kendskab til branchen, og som for så vidt var interesseret i virksomheden, fremgik at ingen af dem var indstillet på at købe den for 8 mio. kr. og at flere af dem i deres forklaringer havde nævnt beløb på omkring halvdelen heraf. Efter bevisførelsen fandt Højesteret herefter, at det måtte lægges til grund, at markedsværdien som ”going concern” af Fiskbæk Lastvogns-Services virksomhed i januar 2014 ikke oversteg overdragelsessummen og dermed var det senere konkursbo ikke påført et tab.


text:
TEST Konsolidat: 32002R0178 — MT — 01.07.2018
 02002R0178 — MT — 01.07.2018 — 006.001
 (ĠU L 031 1.2.2002, p. 1)
 IR-REGOLAMENT (KE) Nru 1642/2003 TAL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U TAL-KUNSILL tat-22 ta' Lulju 2003
 REGOLAMENT TAL-KUMMISSJONI (KE) Nru 575/2006 tas-7 ta’ April 2006
 REGOLAMENT TAL-KUMMISSJONI (KE) Nru 202/2008 ta' l-4 ta’ Marzu 2008
 REGOLAMENT (KE) Nru 596/2009 TAL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U TAL-KUNSILL tat-18 ta’ Ġunju 2009
 REGOLAMENT TAL-KUMMISSJONI (UE) 2017/228 tad-9 ta' Frar 2017
 Rettifika, ĠU L 327, 12.11.2014, p. 9 (178/2002)
 Rettifika, ĠU L 098, 14.4.2016, p. 7 (Nru 202/2008)
 Rettifika, ĠU L 227, 20.8.2016, p. 5 (Nru 178/2002)
 Definizzjoni ta' “ikel”
 Għall-għanijiet ta' dan ir-Regolament, “ikel” (jew “oġġetti ta' l-ikel”) tfisser kull sustanza jew prodott, sew jekk ipproċessat, parzjalment ipproċessat jew mhux ipproċessat, maħsub li jkun, jew raġonevolment mistenni li jittiekel mill-bniedem.
 “Ikel” tinkludi xorb, chewing gum u kull sustanza oħra, inkluż ilma, intenzjonalment inkorporati fl-ikel matul il-manifattura tiegħu, tħejjija jew trattament. Tinkludi ilma wara l-punt ta' konformità kif definit fl-Artikolu 6 tad-Direttiva 98/83/KE u mingħajr preġudizzju għall-ħtiġijiet tad-Direttivi 80/778/KEE u 98/83/KE.
 “Ikel” m'għandux jinkludi:
 (d) prodotti mediċinali skond it-tifsira tad-Direttivi tal-Kunsill 65/65/KEE ( 1 ) u 92/73/KEE ( 2 );
 (e) kosmetiċi skond it-tifsira tad-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 76/768/KEE ( 3 );
 (e) tabakk u prodotti tat-tabakk skond it-tifsira tad-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 89/622/KEE ( 4 );
 1. “liġi dwar l-ikel” tfisser il-liġijiet, regolamenti u dispożizzjonijiet amministrattivi li jirregolaw l-ikel b'mod ġenerali, u s-sigurtà ta'l-ikel b'mod partikolari, sew f'livell tal-Komunità kemm f'dak nazzjonali; tkopri wkoll l-istadju tal-produzzjoni, ipproċessar u t-tqassim ta' l-ikel, kif ukoll l-għalf prodott għal, jew mitmugħ lill-annimali li jipproduċu l-ikel;
 2. “negozju ta' l-ikel” tfisser kull intrapriża, sew għall-profitt sew jekk le u sew pubblika kemm privata, li twettaq xi waħda mill-attivitajiet relatati ma’ xi stadju ta' produzzjoni, ipproċessar jew tqassim ta' l-ikel;
 3. “operatur ta' negozju ta' l-ikel” tfisser persuni naturali jew legali responsabbli li jiżguraw li l-ħtiġijiet tal-liġi dwar l-ikel jiġu mħarsa fin-negozju ta' l-ikel taħt il-kontroll tagħhom;
 4. “għalf” (jew “għalf għall-ikel”) tfisser kull sustanza jew prodott, inklużi addittivi, sew jekk ipproċessati, parzjalment ipproċessati jew mhux ipproċessati maħsuba biex jintużaw għat-tmiegħ mill-ħalq lill-annimali;
 ►C1 5. “negozju fl-għalf” tfisser ◄ kull intrapriża sew bi profitt sew jekk le u kemm pubblika jew privata, li twettaq xi operazzjoni ta' produzzjoni, manifattura, ipproċessar, ħażna, trasport jew tqassim ta' l-għalf inkluż kull produttur li jipproduċi, jipproċessa jew jaħżen għalf għat-tmiegħ lill-annimali fir-razzett tiegħu;
 6. “operatur ta' negozju fl-għalf” tfisser persuni naturali jew legali responsabbli li jiżguraw li l-ħtiġijiet tal-liġi dwar l-ikel jiġu mħarsa fin-negozju fl-għalf taħt il-kontroll tagħhom;
 7. “bejjiegħ bl-imnut” tfisser l-immaniġġjar u/jew l-ipproċessar ta' ikel u l-ħażna tiegħu fil-punt tal-bejgħ jew twassil lill-konsumatur finali, u tinkludi stazzjonijiet ta' distribuzzjoni, operazzjonijiet ta' catering, canteens ta' fabbriki, catering istituzzjonali, u operazzjonijiet simili ta' servizzi ta' l-ikel, ħwienet, ċentri ta' tqassim ta' supermarkets u ħwienet li jbiegħu bl-ingrossa;
 8. “tqegħid fis-suq” tfisser iż-żamma ta' ikel jew għalf għall-għanijiet ta' bejgħ, inkluża l-offerta għall-bejgħ jew xi forma oħra ta' trasferiment, sew jekk bi ħlas sew jekk le, u l-bejgħ, tqassim u xi forma oħra tat-trasferiment innifsu;
 9. “riskju” tfisser funzjoni tal-probabilità ta' effetti kuntrarji fuq is-saħħa u s-severità ta' dawk l-effetti, b'konsegwenza ta' dak il-perikolu;
 10. “analiżi tar-riskju” tfisser il-proċess li jikkonsisti fi tliet komponenti interkonnessi: l-istima tar-riskju, l-amministrazzjoni tar-riskju u l-komunikazzjoni tar-riskju;
 11. “stima tar-riskju” tfisser proċess ibbażat xjentifikament li jkun jikkonsisti f'erba’ stadji: l-identifikazzjoni tal-perikolu, il-karatterizzazzjoni tal-perikolu, l-istima ta' l-esponiment u l-karatterizzazzjoni tar-riskju;
 12. “amministrazzjoni tar-riskju” tfisser il-proċess, distint mill-istima tar-riskju, tal-konsiderazzjoni ta' alternattivi b'konsultazzjoni mal-partijiet interessati, bil-konsiderazzjoni ta' l-istima tar-riskju u fatturi oħra leġittimi, u, fejn meħtieġ, bl-għażla adattata ta' prevenzjoni u għażla ta' kontrolli;
 13. “komunikazzjoni tar-riskju” tfisser il-bdil interattiv ta' tagħrif u opinjonijiet matul il-proċess ta' l-analiżi tar-riskju fir-rigward ta' perikoli u riskji, fatturi relatati mar-riskju u perċezzjoni tar-riskju, fost l-assessuri tar-riskju, l-amministraturi tar-riskju, il-konsumaturi, negozji ta' l-għalf u l-ikel, il-komunità akkademika u partijiet oħra interessati, inkluża l-ispjegazzjoni tas-sejba ta' l-istima tar-riskju u l-bażi tad-deċiżjonijiet ta' l-amministrazzjoni tar-riskju;
 14. “perikolu” tfisser aġent bijoloġiku, kimiku jew fiżiku fi, jew kondizzjoni ta', ikel jew għalf bil-potenzjal li joħloq effetti kuntrarji fuq is-saħħa;
 15. “traċċabilità” tfisser il-kapaċità li jiġi ntraċċat u segwit ikel, għalf, annimal li jipproduċi ikel jew sustanza maħsuba biex tkun, jew mistennija li tkun inkorporata fl-ikel jew fl-għalf, matul l-istadji kollha ta' produzzjoni, ipproċessar u tqassim;
 16. “stadji ta' produzzjoni, ipproċessar u tqassim” tfisser kull stadju, inkluża l-importazzjoni, minn u inkluża l-produzzjoni primarja ta' ikel, sa u inkluż il-ħażna tiegħu, trasport, bejgħ jew provvista lill-konsumatur finali u, fejn relevanti, l-importazzjoni, produzzjoni, manifattura, ħażna, trasport, tqassim, bejgħ u provvista ta' għalf;
 17. “produzzjoni primarja” tfisser il-produzzjoni, trobbija, jew tkabbir ta' prodotti primarji inkluż il-ħsad, annimali tal-ħalib u produzzjoni ta' annimali fl-irziezet qabel il-qatla. Tinkludi wkoll il-kaċċa u s-sajd u l-ħsad ta' prodotti selvaġġi;
 18. “konsumatur finali” tfisser il-konsumatur finali ta' oġġett ta' l-ikel li ma jużax l-ikel bħala parti minn xi tħaddim jew attività ta' negozju ta' l-ikel.
 — jkollu effett kuntraju fuq is-saħħa tal-bniedem jew ta' l-annimali;
 — jagħmel l-ikel miksub minn annimali li jipproduċu ikel mhux tajjeb għall-konsum uman.
 ►C1 2. Operatur ta' negozju fl-għalf responsabbli ◄ għal attivitajiet ta' bejgħ bl-imnut u tqassim li ma jaffettwax l-imballaġġ, tikkettjar, sigurtà jew integrità ta' l-għalf għandu, fil-limiti ta' l-attivitajiet rispettivi tiegħu, jibda proċeduri biex jirtira mis-suq il-prodotti li ma jkunux jikkonformaw mal-ħtiġijiet tas-sigurtà ta' l-għalf u għandu jieħu sehem fil-kontribuzzjoni lejn is-sigurtà ta' l-ikel billi jgħaddi t-tagħrif relevanti meħtieġ biex jiġi rintraċċat l-għalf, waqt li jikkoopera fl-azzjoni meħuda mill-produtturi, proċessaturi, manifatturi u/jew awtoritajiet kompetenti.
 ►C1 4. L-operaturi ta' negozji fl-għalf għandhom ◄ jikkollaboraw ma’ l-awtoritajiet kompetenti dwar azzjoni meħuda biex jiġu evitati riskji maħluqa minn għalf li jipprovdu jew li jkunu pprovdew.
 Id-dispożizzjonijiet ta' dan il-Kapitolu għandhom ikunu mingħajr preġudizzju għad-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 85/374/KEE tal-25 ta' Lulju 1985 dwar l-approssimazzjoni tal-liġijiet, regolamenti u dispożizzjonijiet amministrattivi ta' l-Istati Membri li jikkonċernaw ir-responsabbiltà għal prodotti difettużi ( 5 ).
 1. Awtorità Ewropea dwar is-Sigurtà ta' l-ikel, hawnhekk iżjed ’il quddiem imsejħa l-“Awtorità”, hija b'dan stabbilita.
 1. Il- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ għandu jkun magħmul minn 14-il membru maħtura mill-Kunsill b'konsultazzjoni mal-Parlament Ewropew minn lista mħejjija mill-Kummissjoni li tkun tinkludi numru ta' kandidati sostanzjalment ogħla minn numru ta' membri li għandhom jinħatru, miżjuda b'rappreżentant tal-Kummissjoni. Erba’ mill-membri għandu jkollhom l-isfond tagħhom f'organizzazzjonijiet li jirrappreżentaw il-konsumaturi u interessi oħra fil-katina ta' l-ikel.
 3. Il- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ għandu jadotta r-regoli interni ta' l-Awtorità fuq il-bażi ta' proposta mid-Direttur Eżekuttiv. Dawn ir-regoli għandhom ikunu pubbliċi.
 4. Il- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ għandu jeleġġi wieħed mill-membri tiegħu bħala President għal żmien ta' sentejn, li għandu jkun jista’ jiġi mġedded.
 5. Il- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ għandu jadotta r-regoli tiegħu ta' proċedura.
 Kemm-il darba ma jkunx ipprovdut mod ieħor, il- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ għandu jaġixxi b'maġġoranza tal-membri tiegħu.
 6. Il- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ għandu jiltaqa' fuq invit tal-President jew fuq talba minn ta' l-anqas terz tal-membri tiegħu.
 7. Il- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ għandu jiżgura li l-Awtorità twettaq il-missjoni tagħha u twettaq ix-xogħlijiet assenjati lilha taħt il-kondizzjonijiet imniżżla f'dan ir-Regolament.
 8. Qabel il-31 ta' Jannar ta' kull sena, il- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ għandu jadotta l-programm tax-xogħol ta' l-Awtorità għas-sena ta' wara. Għandu wkoll jadotta programm multi-annwali li jkun jista’ jiġi rivedut. Il- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ għandu jiżgura li dawn il-programmi jkunu konsistenti mal-leġislazzjoni tal-Komunità u l-politika ta' prijoritajiet fil-qasam tas-sigurtà ta' l-ikel.
 Qabel it-30 ta' Marzu ta' kull sena, il- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ għandu jadotta r-rapport ġenerali dwar l-attivitajiet tas-sena ta' qabel ta' l-Awtorità.
 9. Ir-regoli finanzjarji li japplikaw għall-Awtorità għandhom jiġu adottati mill-Bord ta' Ġestjoni wara li tkun ġiet ikkonsultata l-Kummissjoni. Ma jistgħux jitilqu mir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE, Euratom) Nru 2343/2002 td-19 ta' Novembru 2002 dwar ir-Regolament Finanzjarju qafas għall-korpi imsemmija fl-Artikolu 185 tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE, Euratom) Nru 1605/2002 dwar ir-Regolament Finanzjarju li japplika għall-budget ġenerali tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej ( 6 ) għajr jekk dan it-tluq ikun meħtieġ speċifikament għall-ħidma ta' l-Awtorità u għajr jekk il-Kummissjoni tkun tat il-kunsens tagħha bil-quddiem.
 10. Id-Direttur Eżekuttiv għandu jieħu sehem fil-laqgħat tal- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ , mingħajr drittijiet tal-vot u għandu jipprovdi s-segretarjat. Il- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ għandu jistieden lill-President tal-Kumitat Xjentifiku biex jattendi il-laqgħat tiegħu mingħajr drittijiet tal-vot.
 1. Id-Direttur Eżekuttiv għandu jiġi maħtur mill- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ , fuq il-bażi ta' lista ta' kandidati proposti mill-Kummissjoni wara kompetizzjoni miftuħa, wara l-pubblikazzjoni fil-Ġurnal Uffiċċjali tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej u bnadi oħra għal sejħa ta' dikjarazzjoni ta' interess, għal żmien ta' ħames snin li għandu jkun jista’ jiġġedded. Qabel il-ħatra l-kandidat innominat mill- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ għandu jiġi mistieden mingħajr dewmien biex jagħmel dikjarazzjoni quddiem il-Parlament Ewropew u jwieġeb għall-mistoqsijiet magħmula mill-membri ta' din l-istituzzjoni. Id-Direttur Eżekuttiv jista’ jitneħħa mill-kariga b'maġġoranza tal- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ .
 (ċ) l-implimentazzjoni tal-programmi ta' xogħol u d-deċiżjonijiet adottati mill- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ ;
 (f) it-tħejjija ta' l-abbozz tal-prospett ta' l-Awtorità dwar l-estimi tad-dħul u tan-nefqa, u t-twettiq tal-budget tagħha;
 3. Kull sena d-Direttur Eżekuttiv għandu jissottometti lill-Bord ta' Ġestjoni għall-approvazzjoni:
 (a) abbozz ta' rapport ġenerali li jkopri l-attivitajiet kollha ta' l-awtorità għas-sena ta' qabel;
 (b) l-abbozz tal-programmi tax-xogħol.
 Id-Direttur Eżekuttiv għandu, wara l-adozzjoni mill-Bord ta' Ġestjoni, jibgħat il-programmi tax-xogħol lill-Parlament Ewropew, lill-Kunsill, lill-Kummissjoni u lill-Istati Membri, u għandu jordna li jiġu ppubblikati.
 Id-Direttur Eżekuttiv għandu, wara l-adozzjoni mill-Bord ta' Ġestjoni u sal-15 ta' Ġunju, jibgħat ir-rapport ġenerali ta' l-Awtorità lill-Parlament Ewropew, lill-Kunsill, lill-Kummissjoni, lill-Qorti ta' l-Awdituri, lill-Kumitat Ekonomiku u Soċjali Ewropew u lill-Kumitat tar-Reġjuni, u għandu jordna li jiġu ppubblikati.
 Id-Direttur Eżekuttiv għandu jibgħat kull sena lill-awtrorità tal-budget t-tagħrif kollu rilevanti dwar ir-riżultat tal-proċeduri tal-valutazzjoni.
 (a) il-Bord dwar l-addittivi tal-ikel u l-aromatizzanti;
 (c) il-grupp tal-prodotti farmaċewtiċi għall-pjanti u r-residwi tagħhom;
 (e) il-Bord dwar in-nutrizzjoni, l-ikel ġdid u l-allerġeni tal-ikel;
 (h) il-Bord dwar is-saħħa u l-welfare ta' l-annimali;
 (i) il-grupp tas-saħħa tal-pjanti;
 (j) il-Bord dwar il-materjali li jiġu f'kuntatt mal-ikel, l-enzimi u l-għajnuna għall-ipproċessar.
 In-numru u l-ismijiet tal-Bordijiet Xjentifiċi għandhom ikunu adattati fid-dawl tal-iżvilupp tekniku u xjentifiku mill-Kummissjoni, fuq talba tal-Awtorità. Dawk il-miżuri, imfassla biex jemendaw l-elementi mhux essenzjali ta’ dan ir-Regolament billi jissupplimentawh, għandhom jiġu adottati f’konformità mal-proċedura regolatorja bi skrutinju msemmija fl-Artikolu 58(3).
 6. Ir-regoli ta’ implimentazzjoni għall-applikazzjoni ta’ dan l-Artikolu għandhom jiġu stabbiliti mill-Kummissjoni, wara li tikkonsulta mal-Awtorità. Dawn ir-regoli għandhom jispeċifikaw b’mod partikolari:
 (b) il-linji ta’ gwida li jirregolaw il-valutazzjoni xjentifika ta’ sustanzi, prodotti jew proċessi li huma suġġetti taħt il-leġislazzjoni tal-Komunità għal sistema ta’ awtorizzazzjoni minn qabel jew għad-dħul fuq lista pożittiva, b’mod partikolari fejn il-leġislazzjoni tal-Komunità tipprovdi għal dan, jew tawtorizza dan, id-dossier, li għandu jiġi ppreżentat għal dan il-għan mill-applikant.
 Il-miżura msemmja f’punt a), imfassla biex temenda l-elementi mhux essenzjali ta’ dan ir-Regolament billi tissupplimentah, għandha tiġi adottata f’konformità mal-proċedura regolatorja bi skrutinju msemmija fl-Artikolu 58(3).
 Il-linji ta’ gwida msemmija f’punt b) għandhom jiġu adottati f’konformità mal-proċedura regolatorja msemmija fl-Artikolu 58(2).
 5. Fi żmien sena mid-dħul fis-seħħ ta' dan ir-Regolament, il-Kummissjoni għandha tippublika inventarju tas-sistemi tal-ġbir ta'data li jeżistu fil-livell tal-Komunità fl-oqsma fil-kompetenza ta' l-Awtorità.
 2. Il- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ , waqt li jaġixxi fuq proposta mid-Direttur Eżekuttiv, għandu jħejji lista li għandha tiġi ppubblikata ta' l-organizzazzjonijiet kompetenti nnominati mill-Istati Membri li jistgħu jgħinu lill-Awtorità, jew individwalment jew f'networks, fil-missjoni tagħha. L-Awtorità tista' tafda lil dawn l-organizzazzjonijiet b'ċertu xogħlijiet, b'mod partikolari b'xogħol ta' tħejjija għal opinjonijiet xjentifiċi, għajnuna xjentifika u teknika, ġbir ta' data u l-identifikazzjoni tar-riskji li joħorġu. Xi wħud minn dawn ix-xogħlijiet jistgħu jkunu eliġibbli għal appoġġ finanzjarju.
 3. Il-Kummissjoni, wara li tikkonsulta l-Awtorità, għandha tistipula l-kriterji għad-dħul ta’ istitut fuq il-lista ta’ organizzazzjonijiet kompetenti nnominati mill-Istati Membri, arranġamenti biex jitniżżlu ħtiġijiet armonizzati ta’ kwalità u regoli finanzjarji li jirregolaw kull appoġġ finanzjarju. Dawk il-miżuri mfassla biex jemendaw l-elementi mhux essenzjali ta’ dan ir-Regolament, inter alia, billi jissupplimentawh, għandhom jiġu adottati f’konformità mal-proċedura regolatorja bi skrutinju msemmija fl-Artikolu 58(3).
 Il-Kummissjoni għandha tistabbilixxi regoli oħra ta’ implimentazzjoni għall-applikazzjoni tal-paragrafi 1 u 2 wara li tikkonsulta mal-Awtorità, f’konformità mal-proċedura regolatorja msemmija fl-Artikolu 58(2).
 (d) id-dikjarazzjonijiet ta' interess ta' kull sena mill- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ , id-Direttur Eżekuttiv, il-membri tal-Forum ta' Konsulenza u l-membri tal-Kumitat Xjentifiku u l-Bordijiet Xjentifiċi, kif ukoll id-dikjarazzjonijiet ta' interess magħmula in relazzjoni mal-partiti fuq l-aġendi tal-laqgħat;
 2. Il- ►C3 Bord ta' Ġestjoni ◄ għandu jżomm il-laqgħat tiegħu fil-pubbliku sakemm, waqt li jaġixxi fuq proposta mid-Direttur Eżekuttiv, jiddeċiedi mod ieħor minħabba punti speċifiċi amministrattivi ta' l-aġenda tiegħu, u jista’ jawtorizza rappreżentanti tal-konsumatur jew partijiet oħra interessati li josservaw il-proċedimenti ta' xi wħud mill-attivitajiet ta' l-Awtorità.
 L-aċċess għad-dokumenti
 1. Ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 1049/2001 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tat-30 ta' Mejju 2001 li jirrigwarda l-aċċess għad-dokumenti tal-Parlament Ewropew, tal-Kunsill u tal-Kummissjoni ( 7 ) għandu japplika għad-dokumenti miżmuma mill-Awtorità.
 2. Il-Bord ta' Ġestjoni għandu jadotta l-arranġamenti prattiċi sabiex jimplimenta r-Regolament (KE) Nru 1049/2001 fi żmien sitt xhur wara d-dħul fis-seħħ tar-Regolament Nru 1642/2003 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tat-22 ta' Lulju 2003 li jemenda r-Regolament (KE) Nru 178/2002 li jistabbilixxi l-prinċipji u l-ħtiġiet prinċipali tal-liġijiet dwar l-ikel, li jistabbilixxi l-Awtorità Ewropea dwar is-Sigurtà ta' l-ikel u li jistabbilixxi l-proċeduri fil-materji tas-sigurtà ta' l-ikel ( 8 )
 3. Id-Deċiżjonijiet meħuda mill-Awtorità skond l-Artikolu 8 tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 1049/2001 jistgħu jiffurmaw is-suġġett ta' lment lill-Ombudsman jew ta' azzjoni quddiem il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, taħt il-kondizzjonijiet stabbiliti fl-Artikoli 195 u 230 tat-Trattat rispettivament.
 3. Id-Direttur Eżekuttiv għandu jfassal, fi żmien f'waqtu qabel id-data imsemmija fil-paragrafu 5, abbozz tal-prospett ta' l-estimi tad-dħul u n-nefqa ta' l-Awtorità għas-sena finanzjarja ta' wara u għandu jibgħatu lill-Bord ta' Ġestjoni, flimkien mal-pjan ta' l-istabbiliment.
 4. Id-dħul u n-nefqa għandhom jibbilanċjaw lil xulxin.
 5. Kull sena l-Bord ta' Ġestjoni, fuq il-bażi ta' abbozz tal-prospett ta' l-estimi dwar id-dħul u n-nefqa, għandu jipproduċi prospett ta' l-estimi tad-dħul u n-nefqa ta' l-Awtorità għas-sena finanzjarja ta' wara. Dan il-prospett tal-budget, li għandu jinkludi abbozz tal-pjan ta' l-istabbiliment flimkien mal-programmi proviżorji tax-xogħol, għandhom jiġu mibgħuta l-iktar tard sal-31 ta' Marzu mill-Bord ta' Ġestjoni lill-Kummissjoni u lill-pajjiżi li magħhom il-Komunità tkun ikkonkludiet ftehim skond l-Artikolu 49.
 6. Il-prospett tal-budget għandu jintbagħat mill-Kummissjoni lill-Parlament Ewropew u lill-Kunsill (minn issa ‘l quddiem imsemmija bħala l-awtorità tal-budget) flimkien ma’ l-abbozz preliminari tal-budget ġenerali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea.
 7. Fuq il-bażi tal-prospett dwar l-budget, il-Kummissjoni għandha ddaħħal fl-abbozz preliminari tal-budget ġenerali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea l-budget li tqis meħtieġa għall-pjan ta' l-istabbiliment u l-ammont tas-sussidju li jrid jiġi impost fuq l-budget ġenerali, li l-Kummissjoni għandha tqiegħed quddiem l-awtorità tal-budget skond l-Artikolu 272 tat-Trattat.
 8. L-awtorità tal-budget għandha tawtorizza l-approprjazzjonijiet għas-sussidju lill-Awtorità.
 L-awtorità tal-budget finanzjari għandha tadotta l-pjan ta' l-istabbiliment għall-Awtorità.
 9. L-budget għandhom jiġu adottati mill-Bord ta' Ġestjoni. Għandhom isiru finali wara l-adozzjoni finali tal-budget ġenerali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea. Meta xieraq, għandhom jiġu aġġustati kif jixraq.
 10. Il-Bord ta' Ġestjoni għandu, malajr kemm jista’ jkun, jinnotifika lill-awtorità tal-budget finanzarji dwar l-intenzjoni tiegħu li jimplimenta kull proġett li jista jkollu implikazzjonijiet finanzjarji sinifikanti għall-finanzjament tal-budget, b'mod partikolari kull proġett li jkollu x'jaqsam mal-proprjetà bħalma huma l-kiri jew ix-xiri tal-bini. Għandu jgħarraf b'dan lill-Kummissjoni.
 Meta fergħa ta' l-awtorità tal-budget tkun innotifikat l-intenzjoni tagħha li tagħti opinjoni, għandha tibgħat l-opinjoni tagħha lill-Bord ta' Ġestjoni f'perjodu taż-żmien ta' sitt ġimgħat mid-data tan-notifika tal-proġett.
 L-implimentazzjoni tal-budget ta' l-Awtorità
 2. L-iktar tard sa’ l-1 ta' Marzu wara kull sena finanzjarja, l-uffiċjal tal-kontijiet ta' l-Awtorità għandu jikkomunika l-kontijiet proviżorji lill-uffiċjal tal-kontijiet tal-Kummissjoni flimkien ma’ rapport dwar il-ġestjoni ta' l-budget ġenerali u finanzjarja għal dik is-sena finanzjarja. L-uffiċjal tal-kontijiet tal-Kummissjoni għandu jikkonsolida l-kontijiet proviżorji ta' l-istituizzjonijiet u tal-korpi ddeċentralizzati skond l-Artikolu 128 tar-Regolament Finanzjarju ġenerali.
 3. L-iktar tard sa’ l-1 ta' Marzu wara kull sena finanzjarja, l-uffiċjal tal-kontijiet tal-Kummissjoni għandu jibgħat il-kontijiet proviżorji lill-Qorti ta' l-Awdituri, flimkien ma’ rapport dwar il-ġestjoni tal-budget u l-ġestjoni finanzjarja għal dik is-sena finanzjarja. Ir-rapport dwar il-ġestjoni tal-budget u l-ġestjoni finanzjarji għas-sena finanzjarja għandhom ukoll jintbagħtu lill-Parlament Ewropew u lill-Kunsill.
 4. Malli jirċievi l-osservazzjonijiet tal-Qorti ta' l-Awdituri dwar il-kontijiet proviżorji ta' l-Awtorità skond l-Artikolu 129 tar-Regolament Finanzjarju ġenerali, id-Direttur Eżekuttiv għandu jfassal il-kontijiet finali ta' l-Aworità fuq ir-responsabbiltà tiegħu nnifsu u jissottomettihom lill-Bord ta' Ġestjoni għal opinjoni.
 5. Il-Bord ta' Ġestjoni għandu jagħti opinjoni dwar il-kontijiet finali ta' l-Awtorità.
 6. Id-Direttur Eżekuttiv għandu jibgħat, l-iktar tard sa’ l-1 ta' Lulju wara kull sena finanzjarja, il-kontijiet finali lill-Parlament Ewropew, lill-Kunsill, lill-Kummissjoni u lill-Qorti ta' l-Awdituri, flimkien ma’ l-opinoni tal-Bord ta' Ġestjoni.
 8. Id-Direttur Eżekuttiv għandu jibgħat lill-Qorti ta' l-Awdituri tweġiba għall-osservazzjonijiet tagħha l-iktar tard sat-30 ta' Settembru. Għandu jibgħat ukoll it-tweġiba tiegħu lill-Bord ta' Ġestjoni.
 9. Id-Direttur Eżekuttiv għandu jissottometti lill-Parlament Ewropew, fuq it-talba ta' dan ta' l-aħħar, it-tagħrif kollu meħtieġ sabiex tiġi applikata bla xkiel il-proċedura tar-rilaxx għas-sena finanzjarja fil-kwistjoni, kif stabbilit fl-Artikolu 146(3) tar-Regolament Finanzjarju ġenerali.
 10. Il-Parlament Ewropew, fuq rakkomandazzjoni mill-Kunsill huwa u jaġixxi b'maġġoranza kkwalifikata, għandu, qabel it-30 ta' April tas-sena N +2, jagħti r-rilaxx lid-Direttur Eżekuttiv rigward l-implimentazzjoni tal-budget għas-sena N.
 (i) is-sospensjoni ta' l-importazzjonijiet ta' l-ikel jew l-għalf in kwistjoni mill-pajjiż terz kollu jew dik il-parti tiegħu kkonċernata u, fejn japplika, mill-pajjiż terz ta' transitu;
 (iii) kull miżura oħra interim adattata.
 1. Il-Kummissjoni għandha tħejji, b'kooperazzjoni mill-qrib ma’ l-Awtorità u l-Istati Membri, pjan ġenerali għall-imanniġġjar ta' kriżi fil-qasam tas-sigurtà ta' l-ikel u l-għalf (hawnhekk iżjed ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-pjan ġenerali”).
 1. Il-Kummissjoni għandha tkun megħjuna minn Kumitat Permanenti dwar il-Pjanti, l-Annimali, l-Ikel u l-Għalf, minn hawn ‘il quddiem jissemma bħala il-“Kumitat”. Dak il-Kumitat għandu jkun kumitat fis-sens tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 182/2011 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill ( 9 ). Il-Kumitat għandu jkun organizzat f’taqsimiet biex jiġu indirizzati l-kwistjonijiet kollha rilevanti.
 Ir-referenzi kollha fid-dritt tal-Unjoni għall-Kumitat Permanenti dwar il-Katina Alimentari u s-Saħħa tal-Annimali għandhom jitqiesu bħala referenzi għall-Kumitat imsemmi fl-ewwel subparagrafu.
 2. Fejn issir referenza għal dan il-paragrafu, għandhom japplikaw l-Artikoli 5 u 7 tad-Deċiżjoni 1999/468/KE, filwaqt li jiġu kkunsidrati d-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Artikolu 8 tagħha.
 Il-perjodu stipulat fl-Artikolu 5(6) tad-Deċiżjoni 1999/468/KE għandu jkun stabbilit għal tliet xhur.
 3. Fejn issir referenza għal dan il-paragrafu, għandhom japplikaw l-Artikoli 5a(1) sa (4), u l-Artikolu 7 tad-Deċiżjoni 1999/468/KE, filwaqt li jiġu kkunsidrati d-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Artikolu 8 tagħha.
 3. Għall-għan tal-paragrafi 1 u 2, “leġislazzjoni tal-Komunità” għandha tfisser ir-Regolamenti, Direttivi u Deċiżjonijiet kollha tal-Komunità.
 Dan ir-Regolament għandu jkun mingħajr preġudizzju għall-kompetenza konferita fuq l-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Valutazzjoni ta' Prodotti Mediċinali bir-Regolament (KEE) Nru 2309/93, Regolament (KEE) Nru 2377/90, Direttiva tal-Kunsill 75/319/KEE ( 10 ) u d-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 81/851/KEE ( 11 ).
 L-Artikoli 29, 56, 57 u 60 u l-Artikolu 62(1) għandhom jgħoddu mid-data tal-ħatra tal-Kumitat Xjentifiku u l-Bordijiet Xjentifiċi li għandhom jitħabbru permezz ta' avviż fis-Serje “C” tal-Ġurnal Uffiċjali.
 ( 1 ) ĠU 22, tad-9.2.1965, p. 369. Direttiva kif l-aħħar emendata bid-Direttiva 93/39/KEE (ĠU L 214, ta' l-24.8.1993, p. 22).
 ( 2 ) ĠU L 297, tat-13.10.1992, p. 8.
 ( 3 ) ĠU L 262, tas-27.9.1976, p. 169. Direttiva kif l-aħħar emendata bid-Direttiva tal-Kummissjoni 2000/41/KE (ĠU L 145, ta' l-20.6.2000, p. 25).
 ( 4 ) ĠU L 359, tat-8.12.1989, p. 1. Direttiva kif l-aħħar emendata bid-Direttiva 92/41/KEE) (ĠU L 158, tal-11.6.1992, p. 30).
 ( 5 ) ĠU L 210, tas-7.8.1985, p. 29. Direttiva kif l-aħħar emendata bid-Direttiva 1999/34/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill (ĠU L 141, ta' l-4.6.1999, p. 20).
 ( 6 ) ĠU L 357, tal-31.12.2002, p. 72; corrigendum fil-ĠU L 2, tas-7.1.2003, p.39.
 ( 7 ) ĠU L 145, tal-31.5.2001, p. 43.
 ( 8 ) ĠU L 245, tad-29.9.2003, p. 4.
 ( 9 ) Regolament (UE) Nru 182/2011 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tas-16 ta’ Frar 2011 li jistabbilixxi r-regoli u l-prinċipji ġenerali dwar il-modalitajiet ta’ kontroll mill-Istati Membri tal-eżerċizzju mill-Kummissjoni tas-setgħat ta’ implimentazzjoni (ĠU L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).
 ( 10 ) ĠU L 147, tad-9.6.1975, p. 13. Direttiva kif emendata bid-Direttiva 2001/83/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill (ĠU L 311, tat-28.11.2001, p. 67).
 ( 11 ) ĠU L 317, tas-6.11.1981, p. 1. Direttiva emendata bid-Direttiva 2001/82/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill (ĠU L 311, tat-28.11.2001, p. 1).


text:
 15.7.2006
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 165/28
 2006 m. gegužės 4 d. pareikštas ieškinys byloje Sonia Rykiel Création et Diffusion de Modèles prieš VRDT — Cuadrado (SONIA SONIA RYKIEL)
 (Byla T-131/06)
 (2006/C 165/55)
 Kalba, kuria surašytas ieškinys: anglų
 Šalys
 Ieškovė: Sonia Rykiel Création et Diffusion de Modèles (Paryžius, Prancūzija), atstovaujama advokato E. Baud
 Atsakovė: Vidaus rinkos derinimo tarnyba (prekių ženklams ir pramoniniam dizainui) (VRDT).
 Kita proceso šalis Apeliacinėje taryboje: Cuadrado S.A. (Paterna, Ispanija)
 Ieškovės reikalavimai
 —
 Panaikinti 2006 m. sausio 30 d. Vidaus rinkos derinimo tarnybos (prekių ženklams ir pramoniniam dizainui) pirmosios apeliacinės tarybos sprendimą byloje R 329/2005–1.
 —
 Priteisti bylinėjimosi išlaidas iš atsakovės ir, prireikus, iš į bylą įstojusios šalies.
 Ieškinio pagrindai ir pagrindiniai argumentai
 Bendrijos prekių ženklo paraišką pateikęs asmuo: Sonia Rykiel Création et Diffusion de Modèles.
 Prašomas įregistruoti Bendrijos prekių ženklas: figūrinis prekių ženklas SONIA SONIA RYKIEL 3, 9, 14, 18 ir 25 klasių prekėms (Bendrijos prekių ženklo registracijos paraiškos Nr. 1035625).
 Ženklo ar žymens, kuriuo remiamasi protesto procese, savininkas: Cuadrado, S.A.
 Ženklas ar žymuo, kuriuo remiamasi protesto procese: nacionalinis prekių ženklas SONIA 24 ir 25 klasių prekėms.
 Protestų skyriaus sprendimas: atmesti protesto dalį, susijusią su 25 klasės prekėmis.
 Apeliacinės tarybos sprendimas: panaikinti protestų skyriaus sprendimą ir atmesti Bendrijos prekių ženklo paraišką visoms 25 klasės prekėms.
 Ieškinio pagrindai: Reglamento Nr. 40/94 43 straipsnio 3 dalies ir 8 straipsnio 1 dalies b punkto pažeidimas.