jurisdiction: US

text:
 307 Md. 631 (1986)
 516 A.2d 586
 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
 v.
 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL.
 No. 18, September Term, 1986.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 November 7, 1986.
 Melvin J. Sykes of Baltimore (Charles E. Stoner, Stoner, Preston & Boswell, Chartered, on the brief), Westminster, for appellant.
 Charles N. Ketterman (Douglas M. Scheller, Donahue, Ehrmantraut & Montedonico, Chartered, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellees.
 Argued before MURPHY, C.J., ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, and ADKINS, JJ., and MARVIN H. SMITH, Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland (retired) Specially Assigned.
 ADKINS, Judge.
 In Jennings v. Government Employees Ins., 302 Md. 352, 488 A.2d 166 (1985), we held that the "household exclusion" clause of an automobile liability insurance policy was invalid. We reasoned that the exclusion was contrary to the public policy expressed in Maryland's compulsory automobile liability insurance law. We are now asked to decide a question that was neither raised nor expressly addressed in Jennings: Whether the "household exclusion" is wholly invalid, or whether its invalidity extends only to the amount of the minimum liability coverage required by the compulsory insurance law. We adopt the latter position and reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court for Carroll County.
 The facts are undisputed. On 17 March 1982 appellant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, issued an automobile liability insurance policy to Robert E. Carroll, Jr. The policy, approved by the insurance commissioner, limited bodily injury coverage to $100,000 for any one person and $300,000 for any one accident. Carroll was the named insured. The policy excluded coverage for injury to "any insured or any member of an insured's family residing in the insured's household."[1]
 Carroll owned a 1978 AMC Jeep. In June 1982, the vehicle, operated (with Carroll's permission) by his friend, Christina Glass, and occupied by Carroll and another friend as passengers, went off the road and overturned. Glass and the other friend were killed; Carroll was injured. Glass was insured by appellee, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The Nationwide policy insured her, among other things, against liability for any accident involving her use of a motor vehicle belonging to someone who, like Carroll, was not a member of her household.
 Carroll sued Glass's estate, claiming damages for his injuries. Later, Nationwide brought the present action against State Farm and Carroll. It sought a declaration that the "household exclusion" in State Farm's policy was void as against public policy. State Farm, for its part, asked the trial court to uphold the exclusion and to declare Nationwide to be the primary insurer. Carroll adopted a neutral position: one of the insurers should pay him; he was indifferent as to which.
 While the declaratory judgment action was pending in the Circuit Court for Carroll County, we decided Jennings. The parties agreed that Jennings, if applicable to this case, eliminated State Farm's argument that the exclusion was entirely valid. The issues in the trial court, therefore, were (1) the retrospective application of Jennings and (2) whether the exclusion was valid as to State Farm's coverage above and beyond the statutory minimum personal injury coverage of $20,000/$40,000 prescribed by the compulsory insurance law, Md.Transp.Code Ann., § 17-103(b)(1). See Md. Ann. Code, Art. 48A, § 541(a).
 The circuit court (Heise, J.) decided both issues against State Farm. State Farm appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, raising only the question of the effect of public policy on the "household exclusion."[2] We issued the writ of certiorari while the case was pending in the intermediate appellate court. 305 Md. 683, 506 A.2d 254 (1986).
 State Farm now argues that if a contract provision is to be invalidated on the basis of conflict with public policy, the invalidation should extend no further than the demands of that policy: in this case, that motorists have liability coverage in the minimum amounts of $20,000/$40,000 with respect to personal injury. Since public policy, as statutorily promulgated, requires no more coverage than that, an insurance exclusion should be given effect as to larger sums. It views Jennings as being perfectly consistent with this approach. Nationwide, on the other hand, points out that Jennings held "that the household exclusion is invalid." 302 Md. at 362, 488 A.2d at 171. That being so, it contends the entire exclusion should be excised from the insurance contract; the document should be read as if the exclusion were not there. To place these contentions in context, we briefly review some of the history recited in Jennings.
 As Jennings notes, 302 Md. at 357, 488 A.2d at 168, in or before 1972, this Court had considered the "household exclusion" in a number of cases. Most of them dealt with construction and application of the exclusion; its validity was not questioned. See, e.g., Hicks v. Hatem, 265 Md. 260, 289 A.2d 325 (1972); Parker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 263 Md. 206, 282 A.2d 503 (1971); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Briscoe, 245 Md. 147, 225 A.2d 270 (1967). Absent a statute to the contrary, Maryland followed the general rule, which was to uphold the validity of the exclusion. See Annot., 46 A.L.R.3d. 1024 (1972); Annot., 50 A.L.R. 2d 131 (1956). Maryland had held that the exclusion was not invalidated by the public policy expressed in the motor vehicle financial responsibility law (then Code, Art. 66 1/2, § 131 (1957)). Kelsay v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 242 Md. 528, 219 A.2d 830 (1966).
 "Beginning in 1972, however, the General Assembly substantially changed the public policy of this State with regard to motor vehicle insurance and reparations for damages caused by motor vehicle accidents." Jennings, 302 Md. at 357-358, 488 A.2d at 168. That change, of course, was the mandating of compulsory automobile insurance with required minimum coverages. Among those provisions are subsections (a) and (b) of § 541, Art. 48A, which in pertinent part provide:
 "(a) ... Nothing in this subtitle [Motor Vehicle Casualty Insurance  Required Primary Coverage] affects or limits the provisions of Title 17 of the Transportation Article, and every policy of motor vehicle liability insurance issued, sold, or delivered in this State shall provide the minimum liability coverage specified therein.
 "(b) ... Nothing in this subtitle or in Title 17 of the Transportation Article prevents an insurer from issuing, selling, or delivering a policy of motor vehicle liability insurance providing liability coverage in excess of the requirements of the Maryland Vehicle Law...."
 Title 17 of the Transportation Article, to which these subsections refer, calls for minimum coverage for liability "for bodily injury or death arising from an accident of up to $20,000 for any one person and up to $40,000 for any two or more persons, in addition to interest and costs." Section 17-103(b)(1).
 These and related statutes were before us in Jennings. Judge Eldridge, for the Court, observed that "a clause in an insurance policy, which is contrary to `the public policy of this State, as set forth in ... the Insurance Code' or other statute, is invalid and unenforceable." 302 Md. at 356, 486 A.2d at 168 (quoting Guardian Life Ins. v. Ins. Comm'r, 293 Md. 629, 643, 446 A.2d 1140 (1982)). We base our consideration of the question presented in this case on that established principle. Despite Nationwide's arguments to the contrary, however, Jennings does not provide the answer Nationwide seeks.
 It is true, as we have already noted, that Jennings speaks in broad terms of the invalidity of the household exclusion because of its violation of the statutory compulsory liability insurance policy. But Nationwide reads Jennings too sweepingly. While the opinion does not deal explicitly with the issue now before us, it appears that appellant Jennings argued for essentially the result now sought by State Farm. In his brief he contended that "where minimum insurance coverage is statutorily mandated, any provision of an insurance policy which causes there to be less than the statutory amount is void." Brief and Appendix for Appellant Jennings at 13. And in explaining our holding in that case, Judge Eldridge wrote (quoting Bishop v. Allstate Ins. Co., 623 S.W.2d 865, 866 (Ky. 1981)):
 "`An exclusionary clause in an insurance contract which reduces below minimum or eliminates either of these coverages [basic reparation benefits and liability coverage] effectively renders a driver uninsured to the extent of the reduction or elimination. Because the stated purpose of the MVRA is to assure that a driver be insured to a minimum level, such an exclusion provision contravenes the purpose and policy of the compulsory insurance act.'"
 302 Md. at 362, 488 A.2d at 171.
 We agreed with this and similar reasoning set forth in other cases cited in the opinion. Read in the light of this language, which immediately precedes the holding in Jennings, that case does not foreclose the argument now made by State Farm; rather, it supports that argument.
 Put simply, what the legislature has prohibited is liability coverage of less than the minimum amounts required by § 17-103(b)(1) of the Transportation Article. That is the plain import of Art. 48A, § 541(a). See also § 541(c)(2).[3] The "household exclusion" violates public policy only to the extent it operates to prevent this mandatory minimum coverage.
 Nationwide seeks to avoid this conclusion by arguing that the compulsory insurance law does not authorize the "household exclusion." It is true that this exclusion is not among those expressly permitted by § 541. It also is true that in DeJarnette v. Federal Kemper Ins. Co., 299 Md. 708, 725, 475 A.2d 454, 463 (1984), we said that "`[w]here a statute expressly provides for certain exclusions, others shall not be inserted.'" (quoting Pennsylvania Nat'l. Mut. v. Gartelman, 288 Md. 151, 156, 416 A.2d 734, 737 (1980)). Those cases, however, involved personal injury protection [PIP] coverage required by Art. 48A, § 539. Both involved attempts to avoid PIP coverage by the use of exclusions not authorized by § 545. Had the exclusions considered in the two cases been valid, PIP coverage for the injured person would not have existed. The cases hold only that an exclusion that eliminates mandatory coverage is invalid as against public policy. They are apposite here only insofar as they demonstrate that an exclusion that would avoid mandatory minimum liability coverage is invalid  a point conceded by State Farm. They do not address the problem of an exclusion that affects liability coverage in excess of the mandatory minimum.
 Nationwide persuaded Judge Heise that to uphold the exclusion as to coverage above the statutory minimum would somehow deprive the insured of a contractual benefit for which he had paid. The judge found that "The insured has already paid additional premiums in order to purchase the additional coverage." Memorandum of Opinion and Decree at E-90. The record, however, is silent as to how much Carroll paid for his State Farm policy, or how the premium was computed. It could just as readily be inferred that the premium took account of the exclusion contained in the policy. In any case, Judge Heise's finding, being without evidentiary support, is clearly erroneous. Md.Rule 886; see Stuart Kitchens, Inc. v. Stevens, 248 Md. 71, 234 A.2d 749 (1967).
 Additionally, Nationwide seems to have convinced Judge Heise that "virtually all the courts in the many jurisdictions which have invalidated the household exclusion clause have defined the resulting liability of the insurer to extend to the policy limits." Memorandum of Opinion and Decree, E-89. It makes the same argument to us: "[State Farm] sold the additional coverage even though it knew the Courts were unanimous in jurisdictions throughout the United States in voiding the `household exclusion'...." Nationwide's Brief at 10. To suggest that other jurisdictions have unanimously invalidated the "household exclusion" with respect to liability coverage above the required statutory minimum is simply incorrect. As we shall demonstrate, the weight of authority is otherwise. Nevertheless, there are some decisions that support Nationwide's contention. We turn, now, to the two chiefly relied upon by Nationwide.
 The first of these is Meyer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 689 P.2d 585 (Colo. 1984) (en banc). There, despite a strong dissent, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that "where the household exclusion clause has been held invalid because it violates the [Automobile Reparations] Act, the limits of the carrier's liability are those provided by the policy and not the lesser limits required by the statutory standard." 689 P.2d at 592. The Colorado court declared the exclusion invalid partly because it saw little reason for the exclusion, in view of that state's abolition of the doctrine of intra-family immunity in tort.[4] The court then addressed whether the exclusion would be valid above statutory minimums. Fundamental to the court's choice "between two equally compelling arguments," id., was what it viewed as explicitly stated legislative purposes to maximize insurance coverage and to "avoid inadequate compensation to victims of automobile accidents...." Id. And see Colo. Rev.Stat. § 10-4-702 (1973). While the Maryland compulsory insurance statutes contain no such language, we have ascribed to them the "purpose of assuring recovery for innocent victims of motor vehicle accidents." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Maryland Auto. Ins. Fund., 277 Md. 602, 604, 356 A.2d 560, 562 (1976). But we do not view that purpose as extending beyond the prescribed statutory minimum coverage, so far as the "household exclusion" is concerned. We do not find Meyers persuasive.
 The second case advanced by Nationwide is Kish v. Motor Club of America Ins. Co., 108 N.J. Super. 405, 261 A.2d 662, cert. denied, 55 N.J. 595, 264 A.2d 68 (1970). The New Jersey intermediate appellate court looked to a New Jersey Supreme Court decision, Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. Zullo, 48 N.J. 362, 225 A.2d 570 (1966), which stated that "there may no departure from the omnibus coverage described in Section 46 of the Security-Responsibility Act...." 48 N.J. at 374, 225 A.2d at 577. On the strength of this, the Kish court concluded that Motor Club could not rely upon the "household exclusion" to relieve it "from the [full] monetary limits of coverage it has stipulated in its policy." 108 N.J. Super. at 411, 261 A.2d at 666. In our view, this decision fails to explain why such a broad ruling is required by a public policy that requires only a specified minimum amount of compulsory liability insurance. This was the case in Kish as it is here. We do not accept Kish's reasoning. We have previously pointed out that New Jersey's approach to insurance differs from Maryland's. Nat. Grange Life Ins. Co. v. Pinkney, 284 Md. 694, 706, 399 A.2d 877, 882-883 (1979).
 A few cases in addition to Meyers and Kish have held the exclusion totally unenforceable, rejecting arguments that unenforceability should be limited to the extent of statutory minimum coverage. These include Farmers Ins. Group v. Reed, 109 Idaho 849, 712 P.2d 550 (1985) (3-2 decision on this issue) and Hughes v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 236 N.W.2d 870 (N.D. 1975). And in Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Royle, 202 Mont. 173, 656 P.2d 820 (1983) and Estep v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 103 N.M. 105, 703 P.2d 882 (1985), the condemnation of the exclusion is so broad that one may conclude that it was held totally invalid despite the lack of consideration of the minimum coverage argument. These decisions, however, occupy a minority position and are no more persuasive than Meyer and Kish.[5]
 The majority of jurisdictions that squarely address the issue before us has reached a result consistent with ours in this case. That position is well expressed in DeWitt v. Young, 229 Kan. 474, 480, 625 P.2d 478, 483 (1981):
 "Finally, we must determine whether the exclusions are void as to the minimum coverage required by statute or whether they extend beyond the statutory minimum and limit any excess coverage provided by the policy. The minimum coverage required to be contained in each motor vehicle liability insurance policy is provided in K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 40-3107(e). The Act also allows motor vehicle liability insurance policies to contain coverage exceeding that required under the Act. K.S.A. 1980 Supp. 40-3120.
 "Generally, it is held that exclusions in liability insurance policies are valid and enforceable as to amounts exceeding coverage required in financial responsibility laws.... We adhere to this general rule and find the exclusions void only as to the minimum coverage required by statute. The K[ansas] A[utomobile] I[nsurance] R[eparations] A[ct] does not preclude application of the household and garage shop exclusions or any other exclusion to motor vehicle liability insurance coverage in excess of statutorily required limits." [citations omitted][6]
 Decisions reaching the same result are Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 541 F. Supp. 755 (N.D.Miss. 1982) (applying Mississippi law); Arceneaux v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 113 Ariz. 216, 550 P.2d 87 (1976); Bishop v. Allstate Ins. Co., 623 S.W.2d 865 (Ky. 1981); Estate of Neal v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 93 Nev. 348, 566 P.2d 81 (1977); Allstate Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 619 P.2d 329 (Utah 1980); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wyoming Ins. Dept., 672 P.2d 810 (Wyo. 1983); Clarke v. Progressive American Ins. Co., 469 So. 2d 319 (La. App. 1985); Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Parker, 382 S.C. 546, 320 S.E.2d 458 (S.C. App. 1984).[7] To this list we add a brace of decisions that have reached the same results in cases not involving the "household exclusion" but a provision analogous to it so far as enforceability above statutory minimum coverage is concerned. They are Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Neese, 254 Ga. 335, 329 S.E.2d 136 (1985) (exclusion of insured who is attempting to avoid apprehension or arrest), and American Tours, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 315 N.C. 341, 338 S.E.2d 92 (1986) (attempt to avoid coverage for youthful agent contractually prohibited from using vehicle). And see Kirshbaum v. Govt. Emp. Ins. Co., 607 F. Supp. 40, 42 (E.D.Pa. 1984) (dictum).
 We align ourselves with this majority. As a general rule, parties are free to contract as they wish. Gardiner v. Gardiner, 200 Md. 233, 88 A.2d 481 (1952). A contractual provision that violates public policy is invalid, but only to the extent of the conflict between the stated public policy and the contractual provision. Ins. Comm'r v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 296 Md. 334, 340 n. 6, 463 A.2d 793, 796 (1983); Reese v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 285 Md. 548, 552 n. 1, 403 A.2d 1229, 1231 (1979). See also American Weekly v. Patterson, 179 Md. 109, 16 A.2d 912 (1940) (overly-broad covenant not to compete restricted to proper breadth and enforced to that extent); Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 184(2) comment b (1981). The public policy involved here is that all automobile liability policies shall contain bodily injury or death liability coverage in at least the amount of $20,000/$40,000. To permit the "household exclusion" to operate within those limits would be to "deprive injured persons of the protection which the Legislature intended to provide," Keystone Mut. Cas. Co. v. Hinds, 180 Md. 676, 682, 26 A.2d 761, 763 (1942), and would violate public policy. Jennings. But liability coverage in excess of that minimum is expressly authorized. "Nothing in this subtitle or in Title 17 of the Transportation Article prevents an insurer from issuing, selling, or delivering a policy of motor vehicle liability insurance providing liability coverage in excess of the requirements of the Maryland Vehicle Law." Art. 48A, § 541(b). "There shall be available to the insured the opportunity to contract for higher amounts than those provided under Title 17 of the Transportation Article...." Art. 48A, § 541(c)(2). The General Assembly has not restricted the ability of parties to contract for or to limit coverage with respect to that "excess" or those "higher amounts." The public policy embodied in the compulsory insurance law extends only to liability coverage up to and including the statutory minimum coverage.
 We hold, therefore, that the "insured" segment of a "household exclusion" clause in an automobile liability insurance policy is invalid to the extent of the minimum statutory liability coverage. So far as the public policy evidenced by the compulsory insurance law is concerned, it is a valid and enforceable contractual provision as to coverage above that minimum. Since the Circuit Court for Carroll County declared otherwise with respect to the excess coverage, we reverse the judgment of that court.
 JUDGMENT REVERSED. CASE REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF A DECLARATION CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLEE NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
 NOTES
 [1] The "household exclusion" before us in this case involves two distinct components. One is the exclusion of the insured. The second is the exclusion of family members residing in the insured's household. The facts before us implicate only the first of these components.
 [2] As a consequence, the retrospective application of Jennings is not before us. Md.Rule 813 b. We express no views on that point.
 [3] Art. 48A, § 541(c)(2) provides:
 "In addition to any other coverage required by this subtitle, every policy of motor vehicle liability insurance issued, sold, or delivered in this State .. . shall contain coverage, in at least the amounts required under Title 17 of the Transportation Article, for damages which the insured is entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injuries sustained in an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of such uninsured motor vehicle."
 [4] In the negligent motor tort context, parent-child immunity still exists in Maryland, Frye v. Frye, 305 Md. 542, 505 A.2d 826 (1986), although spousal immunity does not, Boblitz v. Boblitz, 296 Md. 242, 462 A.2d 506 (1983). In any event, since the case before us deals only with the "insured" portion of the "household exclusion," see n. 1, supra, the intrafamily immunity concerns that were considered by the Colorado court have no pertinence here.
 [5] A number of decisions have held the exclusion invalid but, like our Jennings, have not discussed the question of its validity as to coverage above the statutory minimum. See, e.g., Dowdy v. Allstate Ins. Co., 68 Or. App. 709, 685 P.2d 444 (1984); Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Wiscomb, 25 Wash. App. 841, 611 P.2d 1304, aff'd, 95 Wash.2d 373, 622 P.2d 1234 (1980), on motion for reconsideration, 97 Wash.2d 203, 643 P.2d 441 (1982); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Anzalone, 119 Misc. 2d 222, 462 N.Y.S.2d 738 (Sup. 1983). The situation in Michigan is unclear. In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Shelly, 394 Mich. 448, 231 N.W.2d 641 (1975), the Supreme Court of Michigan held an exclusionary clause void as against public policy, but only to the extent of the statutory minimum coverage. Later, in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sivey, 404 Mich. 51, 272 N.W.2d 555 (1978), the same court again held that the household exclusion was void as against public policy. It did not discuss statutory minimum coverage nor did it cite Shelly. Still later, the Michigan Court of Appeals, reviewing both Shelly and Sivey, concluded that the household exclusion was totally void. Detroit Auto. Inter. Ins. Exchange v. Parmelee, 135 Mich. App. 567, 355 N.W.2d 280 (1984).
 Still other states have addressed the issue by statute. For example, California statutorily permits a form of "household exclusion." Cal. Ins.Code § 11580.1(c)(5) (West 1972, 1986 Supp.). Minnesota statutorily forbids the "household exclusion." See Minn. Stat. Ann. § 65B.46(2) (West 1986). Wisconsin prohibits the exclusion of "persons related by blood or marriage to the insured...." Wis. Stat. Ann. § 632.32(6)(b)1 (West 1980). And Kansas, after the decision in DeWitt, infra, statutorily restored the named insured component of the "household exclusion." See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 40-3107(i)(1) (1981).
 [6] As noted in n. 5, supra, the Kansas legislature responded to DeWitt by statutorily authorizing the named insured exclusion. That legislative change of policy, while it may express disagreement with the DeWitt result, does not vitiate the case's reasoning on the issue now before us.
 [7] The Utah decision in Allstate Ins. Co. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty, supra, held the named insured component of the "household exclusion" unenforceable only to the extent of statutory minimum coverage. In a subsequent case, Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Call, 712 P.2d 231 (Utah 1985), the Supreme Court of Utah considered the household members component of the exclusion. It reiterated the Allstate holding, but because it voided the household member provision on other grounds, it expressly did not address the question of its validity as to coverage above the statutory minimum. 712 P.2d at 236. Since the Allstate decision involved the same segment of the "household exclusion" that is now before us, we count Utah as one of the majority jurisdictions on this issue.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 30.11.2013
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 C 352/7
 A Törvényszék (harmadik tanács) T-106/12. sz., Cytochroma Development, Inc. kontra Belső Piaci Harmonizációs Hivatal (védjegyek és formatervezési minták) (OHIM) ügyben 2013. július 3-án hozott ítélete ellen a Cytochroma Development, Inc. által 2013. szeptember 13-án benyújtott fellebbezés
 (C-490/13. P. sz. ügy)
 2013/C 352/13
 Az eljárás nyelve: angol
 Felek
 Fellebbező: Cytochroma Development, Inc. (képviselők: S. Malynicz Barrister, A. Smith Solicitor)
 A többi fél az eljárásban: Belső Piaci Harmonizációs Hivatal (védjegyek és formatervezési minták) (OHIM), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
 A fellebbező kérelmei
 A fellebbező azt kéri, hogy a Bíróság:
 —
 helyezze hatályon kívül a Törvényszék T-106/12. sz. ügyben 2013. július 3-án hozott ítéletét;
 —
 az OHIM-ot kötelezze a saját és a fellebbező költségeinek viselésére.
 Jogalapok és fontosabb érvek
 A fellebbező azt állítja, hogy a megtámadott ítéletet a következő okok miatt hatályon kívül kell helyezni:
 —
 a Törvényszék megsértette a közösségi védjegyrendelet (1) 65. cikkének (6) bekezdését, és a 216/96 rendelet (2) 1d. cikke (1) bekezdését, a Törvényszék ítéletének az OHIM által történő végrehajtása érdekében tett intézkedéseket illetően;
 —
 a Törvényszék megsértette a jogbiztonság elvét, valamint az EU Alapjogi Chartájának 17. cikkét.
 (1) A közösségi védjegyről szóló, 2009. február 26-i 207/2009/EK tanácsi rendelet (HL L 78, 1. o.)
 (2) A Belső Piaci Harmonizációs Hivatal (védjegyek és formatervezési minták) fellebbezési tanácsainak eljárási szabályzatáról szóló, 1996. február 5-i 216/96/EK bizottsági rendelet (HL L 28., 11.o.; magyar nyelvű különkiadás 17. fejezet, 1. kötet, 221. o.)


type: legislation

text:
 109 HRES 1072 IH: Urging the Government of Nigeria to conduct a thorough judicial review of the Ken Saro-Wiwa case.
 U.S. House of Representatives
 2006-09-29
 text/xml
 EN
 Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
 IV
 109th CONGRESS
 2d Session
 H. RES. 1072
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 September 29, 2006
 Ms. McKinney (for herself, Mr. Owens, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. McGovern, and Ms. Kaptur) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
 RESOLUTION
 Urging the Government of Nigeria to conduct a thorough judicial review of the Ken Saro-Wiwa case.
 Whereas, on November 10, 1995, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Nigerian writer, environmental activist, and nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, along with 8 colleagues, together known as the Ogoni 9, were hanged by the military government of Nigeria, based on charges widely regarded as false;
 Whereas the Ogoni 9 had been nonviolently campaigning for improved living standards and a clean environment for the Ogoni People, whose Niger Delta land, air, and water was, and remains, severely polluted from oil extraction, and whose standard of living, despite the great mineral wealth their land has yielded since the early 1960s, is among the lowest in the world;
 Whereas the international condemnation that followed the executions included the suspension of Nigeria from the British Commonwealth of Nations;
 Whereas, in 1996, a United Nations mission to Nigeria found the military tribunal in contravention of international and domestic law, and recommended financial relief for the survivors of the Ogoni 9 and improvements in the socioeconomic conditions of the Ogoni and other minorities in the Delta;
 Whereas 10 years later, none of the United Nations recommendations have been implemented, and the environmental and social situations have deteriorated for the Ogoni and other Delta communities;
 Whereas the Ogoni 9 remain convicted of a crime of which they were unfairly tried;
 Whereas Ogoniland remains severely polluted and gas flaring continues unabated;
 Whereas the security and stability in the Niger Delta are threatened by a proliferation of small arms, armed gangs, and black market oil bunkering;
 Whereas despite these pressures, Ogoniland remains an island of nonviolence, and the Ogoni voted in high numbers in the 1999 elections;
 Whereas stability in the Niger Delta is necessary to prevent an increase in global oil costs; and
 Whereas in the interest of the protection of human rights, justice, and stability in the Delta, redress should be given to the Ogonis and their use of nonviolent means should be recognized: Now, therefore, be it
 That the House of Representatives—
 (1)urges the Government of Nigeria to conduct a thorough judicial review of the trial of the Ogoni 9 and to provide just compensation to the survivors of the Ogoni 9 if a miscarriage of justice is found;
 (2)urges the Government of Nigeria, international donors, and international oil companies operating in the Niger Delta to increase assistance significantly to improve the lives of the Ogoni and other affected communities and for pollution abatement and cleanup in the Niger Delta region, in close consultation with local communities;
 (3)urges the Government of Nigeria to ensure that all members of the security forces receive training in international standards on the use of force and firearms, particularly the 1979 United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the 1990 United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Fire Arms by Law Enforcement Officials;
 (4)calls upon the Secretary of State to seek urgently to ensure that United States oil companies operating in the Niger Delta comply, at a minimum, with the Voluntary Principles for Security and Human Rights; and
 (5)urges the Secretary General of the United Nations to institute a 10-year followup mission to Ogoniland.


type: contracts

text:
 26.10.2012
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 326/1
 PROTOCOLO (no 11)
 SOBRE EL ARTÍCULO 42 DEL TRATADO DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA
 LAS ALTAS PARTES CONTRATANTES,
 TENIENDO EN CUENTA la necesidad de aplicar plenamente las disposiciones del apartado 2 del artículo 42 del Tratado de la Unión Europea,
 TENIENDO EN CUENTA que la política de la Unión con arreglo al artículo 42 no afectará al carácter específico de la política de seguridad y de defensa de determinados Estados miembros, respetará las obligaciones derivadas del Tratado del Atlántico Norte para determinados Estados miembros que consideran que su defensa común se realiza dentro de la OTAN y será compatible con la política común de seguridad y de defensa establecida en dicho marco,
 HAN CONVENIDO en la siguiente disposición, que se incorporará como anexo al Tratado de la Unión Europea y al Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea:
 La Unión Europea elaborará, junto con la Unión Europea Occidental, acuerdos de cooperación más intensa entre sí.


type: wikipedia

text:
Mamach mara is ea an Mór-rón a dtugtar an rón le cluasa nó an rón mór air freisin. Cosúil leis an bhfíor-rón, ach cluasa beaga seachtracha air. Ar an talamh, iompaíonn sé a lapaí fada cúil chun tosaigh faoin gcolainn agus gluaiseann go tapa le barr na colainne ardaithe ón talamh. Snámhann sé leis na géaga tosaigh den chuid is mó. Caitheann sé i bhfad níos mó ama ar talamh ná an fíor-rón. Cuid acu, na róin fhionnaitheacha le fochóta tiubh fionnaidh, déantar seilg orthu ar bhonn trádálach.
 Mamaigh


text:
 14.8.2015
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 215/6
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) 2015/1390
 af 13. august 2015
 om 233. ændring af Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 881/2002 om indførelse af visse specifikke restriktive foranstaltninger mod visse personer og enheder, der har tilknytning til Al-Qaida-organisationen
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 881/2002 af 27. maj 2002 om indførelse af visse specifikke restriktive foranstaltninger mod visse personer og enheder, der har tilknytning til Al-Qaida-organisationen (1), særlig artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a), og stk. 5, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Bilag I til forordning (EF) nr. 881/2002 indeholder en liste over de personer, grupper og enheder, der ifølge forordningen er omfattet af indefrysningen af pengemidler og økonomiske ressourcer.
 (2)
 I perioden fra den 22. maj til den 15. juni 2015 besluttede FN's Sikkerhedsråds sanktionskomité ved fire afgørelser, der blev truffet henholdsvis den 22. maj 2015, den 15. juni 2015, den 26. juni 2015 og den 10. juli 2015, at ændre seks punkter på listen over fysiske personer, som indefrysningen af pengemidler og økonomiske ressourcer skal finde anvendelse på, og fem enheder på listen. Den 6. august 2015 besluttede sanktionskomitéen at tilføje en enhed til listen.
 (3)
 Bilag I til forordning (EF) nr. 881/2002 bør derfor ajourføres.
 (4)
 For at sikre, at foranstaltningerne i denne forordning er effektive, bør denne forordning træde i kraft straks —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 Bilag I til forordning (EF) nr. 881/2002 ændres som angivet i bilaget til nærværende forordning.
 Artikel 2
 Denne forordning træder i kraft dagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 13. august 2015.
 På Kommissionens vegne
 For formanden
 Chef for Tjenesten for Udenrigspolitiske Instrumenter
 (1) EFT L 139 af 29.5.2002, s. 9.
 BILAG
 Bilag I til forordning (EF) nr. 881/2002 ændres således:
 1)
 Følgende punkter under overskriften »Fysiske personer« ændres:
 a)
 Punktet »Aiman Muhammed Rabi Al-Zawahiri (alias a) Ayman Al-Zawahari, b) Ahmed Fuad Salim, c) Al Zawahry Aiman Mohamed Rabi Abdel Muaz, d) Al Zawahiri Ayman, e) Abdul Qader Abdul Aziz Abdul Moez Al Doctor, f) Al Zawahry Aiman Mohamed Rabi, g) Al Zawahry Aiman Mohamed Rabie, h) Al Zawahry Aiman Mohamed Robi, i) Dhawahri Ayman, j) Eddaouahiri Ayman, k) Nur Al Deen Abu Mohammed, l) Ayman Al Zawahari, m) Ahman Fuad Salim, n) Abu Fatma, o) Abu Mohammed). Titel: a) Doktor, b) Dr. Fødselsdato: 19.6.1951. Fødested: Giza, Egypten. Nationalitet: Egyptisk. Pasnr.: a) 1084010 (egyptisk pas), b) 19820215. Andre oplysninger: a) Tidligere operationel og militær leder af en gruppe under Egyptisk Islamisk Jihad, nu nær samarbejdspartner med Usama Bin Laden, b) Menes at opholde sig i grænseområdet mellem Afghanistan og Pakistan. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 25.1.2001.« under overskriften »Fysiske personer« affattes således:
 »Aiman Muhammed Rabi Al-Zawahiri (alias a) Ayman Al-Zawahari, b) Ahmed Fuad Salim, c) Al Zawahry Aiman Mohamed Rabi Abdel Muaz, d) Al Zawahiri Ayman, e) Abdul Qader Abdul Aziz Abdul Moez Al Doctor, f) Al Zawahry Aiman Mohamed Rabi, g) Al Zawahry Aiman Mohamed Rabie, h) Al Zawahry Aiman Mohamed Robi, i) Dhawahri Ayman, j) Eddaouahiri Ayman, k) Nur Al Deen Abu Mohammed, l) Ayman Al Zawahari, m) Ahman Fuad Salim, n) Abu Fatma, o) Abu Mohammed). Titel: a) doktor, b) dr. Fødselsdato: 19.6.1951. Fødested: Giza, Egypten. Nationalitet: egyptisk. Pasnr.: a) 1084010 (egyptisk pas), b) 19820215. Andre oplysninger: a) tidligere operationel og militær leder af en gruppe under Egyptisk Islamisk Jihad, var nær samarbejdspartner til Usama Bin Laden (død), c) menes at opholde sig i grænseområdet mellem Afghanistan og Pakistan. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 25.1.2001.«
 b)
 Punktet »Yasser Mohamed Ismail Abu Shaweesh (alias Yasser Mohamed Abou Shaweesh). Adresse: Tyskland. Fødselsdato: 20.11.1973. Fødested: Benghazi, Libyen. Nationalitet: statsløs palæstinenser. Pasnr.: a) 939254 (egyptisk rejsebevis), b) 0003213 (egyptisk pas), c) 981358 (egyptisk pas), d) C00071659 (erstatningspas udstedt af Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland). Andre oplysninger: (a) fængslet i Tyskland, (b) hans bror er Ismail Mohamed Ismail Abu Shaweesh. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 6.12.2005.« under overskriften »Fysiske personer« affattes således:
 »Yasser Mohamed Ismail Abu Shaweesh (alias Yasser Mohamed Abou Shaweesh). Adresse: Tyskland (i fængsel). Fødselsdato: 20.11.1973. Fødested: Benghazi, Libyen. Nationalitet: statsløs palæstinenser. Pasnr.: a) 939254 (egyptisk rejsedokument), b) 0003213 (egyptisk pas), c) 981358 (egyptisk pas), d) C00071659 (erstatningspas udstedt af Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland). Andre oplysninger: a) idømt 5 år og 6 måneders fængsel i Tyskland den 6. december 2007. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 6.12.2005.«
 c)
 Punktet »Nasir 'Abd-Al-Karim 'Abdullah Al-Wahishi (alias a) Nasir al-Wahishi, b) Abu Basir Nasir al-Wahishi, c) Naser Abdel Karim al-Wahishi, d) Nasir Abd al-Karim al-Wuhayshi, e) Abu Basir Nasir Al-Wuhayshi, f) Nasser Abdul-karim Abdullah al-Wouhichi, g) Abu Baseer al-Wehaishi, h) Abu Basir Nasser al-Wuhishi, i) Abdul Kareem Abdullah Al-Woohaishi, j) Nasser Abdelkarim Saleh Al Wahichi, k) Abu Basir, l) Abu Bashir). Fødselsdato: a) 1.10.1976, b) 8.10.1396 (Hijri-kalenderen). Fødested: Yemen. Nationalitet: yemenitisk. Pasnr.: 40483 (yemenitisk pasnr. udstedt den 5.1.1997). Andre oplysninger: var fængslet i Yemen mellem 2003 og 2006. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 19.1.2010.« under overskriften »Fysiske personer« affattes således:
 »Nasir 'Abd-Al-Karim 'Abdullah Al-Wahishi (alias a) Nasir al-Wahishi, b) Abu Basir Nasir al-Wahishi, c) Naser Abdel Karim al-Wahishi, d) Nasir Abd al-Karim al-Wuhayshi, e) Abu Basir Nasir Al-Wuhayshi, f) Nasser Abdul- karim Abdullah al-Wouhichi, g) Abu Baseer al-Wehaishi, h) Abu Basir Nasser al-Wuhishi, i) Abdul Kareem Abdullah Al-Woohaishi, j) Nasser Abdelkarim Saleh Al Wahichi, k) Abu Basir, l) Abu Bashir). Fødselsdato: a) 1.10.1976, b) 8.10.1396 (Hijri-kalenderen). Fødested: Yemen. Nationalitet: yemenitisk. Pasnr.: 40483 (yemenitisk pasnr. udstedt den 5.1.1997). Andre oplysninger: a) siden 2007 leder af Al-Qaida i Yemen (AQY), b) siden januar 2009 leder af Al-Qaida på den Arabiske Halvø, som opererer i Yemen og Saudi-Arabien c) tilknytning til højtstående Al-Qaida-ledere, d) hævder at have været sekretær for Usama Bin Laden (død) inden 2003, e) arresteret i Iran og udleveret til Yemen i 2003, hvor han i 2006 flygtede fra fængslet, og hvor han pr. januar 2010 fortsat var på flugt. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 19.1.2010.«
 d)
 Punktet »Ibrahim Hassan Tali Al-Asiri (alias a) Ibrahim Hassan Tali Asiri, b) Ibrahim Hasan Talea Aseeri, c) Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, d) Ibrahim Hasan Tali Asiri, e) Ibrahim Hassan Tali Assiri, f) Ibrahim Hasan Tali'A« Asiri, g) Ibrahim Hasan Tali al-»Asiri, h) Ibrahim al-«Asiri, i) Ibrahim Hassan Al Asiri, j) Abu Saleh, k) Abosslah, l) Abu-Salaah). Adresse: Yemen. Fødselsdato: a) 19.4.1982, b) 18.4.1982, c) 24.6.1402 (Hijri-kalenderen). Fødested: Riyadh, Saudi-Arabien. Nationalitet: Saudiarabisk. Pasnr.: F654645 (Saudiarabisk pas udstedt den 30.4.2005, udløb den 7.3.2010, udstedelsesdato i Hijri-kalenderen 24.6.1426, udløbsdato i Hijri-kalenderen 21.3.1431). Nationalt identifikationsnr.: 1028745097 (Saudiarabisk civilt identifikationsnummer). Andre oplysninger: a) Al-Quaidas operative og primære bombefremstiller i Den Arabiske Halvø; b) Menes at skjule sig i Yemen siden marts 2011; c) Eftersøgt af Saudi-Arabien; d) Interpol har givet ham en »INTERPOL Orange Notice (file #2009/52/OS/CCC, #81)«; e) Knyttet til Nasir »abd-al-Karim Abdullah Al-Wahishi, Said Ali al-Shihri, Qasim Yahya Mahdi al-Rimi og Anwar Nasser Abdulla Al-Aulaqi. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 24.3.2011.« under overskriften »Fysiske personer« affattes således:
 »Ibrahim Hassan Tali Al-Asiri (alias a) Ibrahim Hassan Tali Asiri, b) Ibrahim Hasan Talea Aseeri, c) Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri, d) Ibrahim Hasan Tali Asiri, e) Ibrahim Hassan Tali Assiri, f) Ibrahim Hasan Tali'A 'Asiri, g) Ibrahim Hasan Tali al-'Asiri, h) Ibrahim al-'Asiri, i) Ibrahim Hassan Al Asiri, j) Abu Saleh, k) Abosslah, l) Abu-Salaah). Adresse: Yemen. Fødselsdato: a) 19.4.1982, b) 18.4.1982, c) 24.6.1402 (Hijri-kalenderen). Fødested: Riyadh, Saudi-Arabien. Nationalitet: saudiarabisk. Pasnr.: F654645 (saudiarabisk pasnr., udstedt den 30.4.2005, udløbet den 7.3.2010, udstedelsesdato i Hijri-kalenderen 24.6.1426, udløbsdato i Hijri-kalenderen 21.3.1431). Nationalt identifikationsnr.: 1028745097 (saudiarabisk civilt identifikationsnummer). Andre oplysninger: a) Al-Quaidas operative og primære bombefremstiller på Den Arabiske Halvø, b) menes at have skjult sig i Yemen siden marts 2011, c) eftersøgt af Saudi-Arabien, d) også tilknytning til Nasir 'abd-al-Karim 'Abdullah Al-Wahishi, Qasim Yahya Mahdi al-Rimi og Anwar Nasser Abdulla Al-Aulaqi. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 24.3.2011.«
 e)
 Punktet »Adil Muhammad Mahmud Abd Al-Khaliq (alias a) Adel Mohamed Mahmoud Abdul Khaliq, b) Adel Mohamed Mahmood Abdul Khaled). Fødselsdato: 2.3.1984. Fødested: Bahrain. Nationalitet: bahrainer. Pasnr.: 1632207 (Bahrain). Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 10.10.2008.« under overskriften »Fysiske personer« affattes således:
 »Adil Muhammad Mahmud Abd Al-Khaliq (alias a) Adel Mohamed Mahmoud Abdul Khaliq, b) Adel Mohamed Mahmood Abdul Khaled). Fødselsdato: 2.3.1984. Fødested: Bahrain. Nationalitet: Bahrainisk. Pasnr.: 1632207 (bahrainisk). Andre oplysninger: a) har ageret på vegne af og ydet finansiel, materiel og logistisk støtte til Al-Qaida og gruppen Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), b) arresteret i De Forenede Arabiske Emirater (UAE) i januar 2007 under anklage for at være medlem af Al-Qaida og LIFG, c) efter dommen i UAE i slutningen af 2007 blev han overført til Bahrain i starten af 2008 for at afsone resten af dommen, d) efter at han blev løsladt i 2008, genoptog han fundraising-aktiviteterne for Al-Qaida, i hvert fald i løbet af 2012, e) han har også indsamlet penge til Taliban. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 10.10.2008.«
 f)
 Punktet »Ibrahim Ali Abu Bakr Tantoush (alias a) Abd al-Muhsin, b) Ibrahim Ali Muhammad Abu Bakr, c) Abdul Rahman, d) Abu Anas, e) Ibrahim Abubaker Tantouche, f) Ibrahim Abubaker Tantoush, g) Abd al-Muhsi, h) Abd al-Rahman, i) Al-Libi). Adresse: Johannesburg, South Africa. Fødselsdato: 1966. Fødested: al Aziziyya, Libyen. Nationalitet: Libysk. Pasnr.: 203037 (libysk pas udstedt i Tripoli). Andre oplysninger: a) Tilknytning til Afghan Support Committee (ASC), Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS) og Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 11.1.2002.« under overskriften »Fysiske personer« affattes således:
 »Ibrahim Ali Abu Bakr Tantoush (alias a) Abd al-Muhsin, b) Ibrahim Ali Muhammad Abu Bakr, c) Abdul Rahman, d) Abu Anas, e) Ibrahim Abubaker Tantouche, f) Ibrahim Abubaker Tantoush, g) Abd al-Muhsi, h) Abd al- Rahman, i) Abdel Ilah Sabri (falsk identitet i forbindelse med falsk sydafrikansk identifikationsnr. 6910275240086, som er knyttet til sydafrikansk pasnr. 434021161, begge dokumenter er blevet konfiskeret). Adresse: Tripoli, Libyen (pr. februar 2014). Fødselsdato: 2.2.1966. Fødested: al Aziziyya, Libyen. Nationalitet: libysk. Pasnr.: a) Libysk pasnr. 203037, udstedt i Tripoli, Libyen, b) Libysk pasnr. 347834, udstedt under navnet Ibrahim Ali Tantoush, udløb den 21. februar 2014). Andre oplysninger: a) tilknytning til Afghan Support Committee (ASC), Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS) og Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). Foto og fingeraftryk kan medtages i INTERPOL-UNSC Special Notice. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 11.1.2002.«
 g)
 Punktet »Zulkifli Abdul Hir (alias a) Musa Abdul Hir, b) Muslimin Abdulmotalib, c) Salim Alombra, d) Armand Escalante, e) Normina Hashim, f) Henri Lawi, g) Hendri Lawi, h) Norhana Mohamad, i) Omar Salem, j) Ahmad Shobirin, k) Bin Abdul Hir Zulkifli, l) Abdulhir Bin Hir, m) Hassan, n) Hogalu, o) Hugalu, p) Lagu, q) Marwan). Adresse: Seksyen 17, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia. Fødselsdato: (a) 5.1.1966, (b) 5.10.1966. Fødested: Muar Johor, Malaysia. Nationalitet: malaysisk. Pasnr.: A 11263265. Nationalt identifikationsnr.: 660105-01-5297. Andre oplysninger: (a) moderens navn er Minah Binto Aogist Abd Aziz, (b) Kørekortsnummer D2161572 udsted i Californien, USA. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 9.9.2003.« under overskriften »Fysiske personer« affattes således:
 »Zulkifli Abdul Hir (alias a) Musa Abdul Hir, b) Muslimin Abdulmotalib, c) Salim Alombra, d) Armand Escalante, e) Normina Hashim, f) Henri Lawi, g) Hendri Lawi, h) Norhana Mohamad, i) Omar Salem, j) Ahmad Shobirin, k) Bin Abdul Hir Zulkifli, l) Abdulhir Bin Hir, m) Hassan, n) Hogalu, o) Hugalu, p) Lagu, q) Marwan (bedst kendt som)). Adresse: a) Seksyen 17, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia (tidligere adresse), b) Maguindanao, Filippinerne (pr. januar 2015). Fødselsdato: a) 5.1.1966, b) 5.10.1966. Fødested: Muar Johor, Malaysia. Nationalitet: malaysisk. Pasnr.: a) A 11263265, b) nationalt identifikationsnummer: 660105-01-5297, c) kørekortnummer D2161572, udstedt i Californien, USA. Andre oplysninger: a) retten for det nordlige distrikt i Califonien, USA, udstedte en arrestordre på ham den 1. august 2007, b) bekræftet at være afgået ved døden i Maguindanao, Filippinerne i januar 2015, c) moderens navn er Minah Binto Aogist Abd Aziz. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 9.9.2003.«
 2)
 Følgende punkter under overskriften »Juridiske personer, grupper og enheder« ændres:
 a)
 Punktet »Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (alias a) Jamiat Ihia Al-Turath Al-Islamiya, b) Revival of Islamic Society Heritage on the African Continent, c) Jamia Ihya Ul Turath, d) RIHS). Adresse: a) Pakistan, b) Afghanistan. Andre oplysninger: a) det er kun denne enheds kontorer i Pakistan og Afghanistan, der er udpeget, b) tilknytning til Abu Bakr al-Jaziri og Afghan Support Committee (ASC). Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 11.1.2002.« under overskriften »Juridiske personer, grupper og enheder« affattes således:
 »Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (alias a) Revival of Islamic Society Heritage on the African Continent, b) Jamia Ihya ul Turath, c) RIHS, d) Jamiat Ihia Al-Turath Al-Islamiya, e) Al-Furqan Foundation Welfare Trust, f) Al-Furqan Welfare Foundation. Adresse: a) Pakistan, b) Afghanistan. Andre oplysninger: a) det er kun denne enheds kontorer i Pakistan og Afghanistan, der er udpeget, b) tilknytning til Abu Bakr al-Jaziri og Afghan Support Committee (ASC). Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 11.1.2002.«
 b)
 Punktet »Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation (Somalia). Adresse: Somalia. Andre oplysninger: grundlægger og tidligere leder er Aqeel Abdulaziz Aqeel al-Aqeel. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 13.3.2002.« under overskriften »Juridiske personer, grupper og enheder« affattes således:
 »Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation (Somalia). Adresse: Somalia. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 13.3.2002.«
 c)
 Punktet »Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (alias a) AQAP, b) Al-Qaida of Jihad Organization in the Arabian Peninsula, c) Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Jazirat al-Arab, d) Al-Qaida Organization in the Arabian Peninsula, e) Al-Qaida in the South Arabian Peninsula, f) Ansar al-Shari'a, g) AAS, h) Al-Qaida in Yemen, i) AQY). Andre oplysninger: Lokation: Yemen eller Saudi-Arabien. Ansar al-Shari'a blev dannet i starten af 2011 af AQAP. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 19.1.2010.« under overskriften »Juridiske personer, grupper og enheder« affattes således:
 »Al-Qaida på Den Arabiske Halvø (alias a) AQAP, b) Jihad-organisationen Al-Qaida på Den Arabiske Halvø, c) Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Jazirat al-Arab, d) Al-Qaida-organisationen på Den Arabiske Halvø, e) Al-Qaida på Den Sydarabiske Halvø, f) Ansar al-Shari'a, g) AAS, h) Al-Qaida i Yemen, i) AQY). Andre oplysninger: a) Område: Yemen eller Saudi-Arabien (2004–2006), b) dannet i januar 2009, da Al-Qaida i Yemen slog sig sammen med saudiarabiske Al-Qaida-agenter, c) lederen af AQAP er Nasir 'abd-al-Karim 'Abdullah Al-Wahishi, d) Ansar al-Shari'a blev dannet i starten af 2011 af AQAP og har taget ansvar for adskillige angreb i Yemen både mod statslige mål og civile mål. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 19.1.2010.«
 d)
 Punktet »Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) (alias a) Tehrik-I-Taliban Pakistan, b) Tehrik-e-Taliban, c) Pakistani Taliban, d) Tehreek-e-Taliban). Andre oplysninger: a) Tehrik-e Taliban har til huse i stammeområderne langs grænsen mellem Afghanistan og Pakistan; b) blev dannet i 2007 og ledes af Hakimullah Mehsud; c) Wali Ur Rehman er TTP's emir for Sydwaziristan. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 29.7.2011.« under overskriften »Juridiske personer, grupper og enheder« affattes således:
 »Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) (alias a) Tehrik-I-Taliban Pakistan, b) Tehrik-e-Taliban, c) Taliban i Pakistan, d) Tehreek-e-Taliban). Andre oplysninger: a) Tehrik-e Taliban har til huse i stammeområderne langs grænsen mellem Afghanistan og Pakistan, b) blev dannet i 2007 og ledes af Maulana Fazlullah. Den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 29.7.2011.«
 3)
 Følgende punkt tilføjes under overskriften »Juridiske personer, grupper og enheder«:
 a)
 »The Army Of Emigrants And Supporters (alias: a) Battalion of Emigrants and Supporters, b) Army of Emigrants and Supporters organization, c) Battalion of Emigrants and Ansar, d) Jaysh al-Muhajirin wal-Ansar (JAMWA). Adresse: Jabal Turkuman-området, Lattakia-provinsen, Den Syriske Arabiske Republik; Andre oplysninger: dannet af udenlandske terrorister i 2013. Område: Den Syriske Arabiske Republik. Tilknyttet Den Islamisk Stat i Irak og Levanten, opført som Al-Qaida i Iraq og Al-Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, den i artikel 2a, stk. 4, litra b), omhandlede dato: 6.8.2015.«


type: other

text:
Kodėl turėtumėte naudoti šias paslaugas?
 NissanConnect EV Naujasis NissanConnect
 „NISSANCONNECT EV“ – ĮVADAS
 Naudodami „NissanConnect EV“, galite valdyti savo „Nissan LEAF“ iš savo kompiuterio ar mobiliojo telefono. Galite patikrinti įkrovos lygį, pradėti įkrovimą, patikrinti, kada įkrovimas užbaigtas, valdyti oro kondicionierių ir peržiurėti numatomą važiavimo atstumą. Naudojant „NissanConnect EV“ galima analizuoti statistinius vairavimo duomenis ir paversti keliones bei įkrovimą paprastu ir efektyviu procesu.
 „NissanConnect EV“ programėlę galite atsisiųsti „iOS“ ir „Android“ sistemoms.
 Sutaupykite laiko ir valdykite savo „Leaf“ per atstumą,
 naudodami išmanųjį telefoną.
 „NISSANCONNECT EV“ – „PLAN MY ROUTE“ ir „MY CAR FINDER“
 „NissanConnect EV“ funkcijos „Plan My Route“ ir „Find my car“ pateikia paprastą funkcijų rinkinį, palengvinantį važiavimo patirtį. Planuokite savo kelionę, ieškokite artimiausių įkrovimo taškų ir net raskite savo automobilį, jei užmiršote, kur pastatėte.
 „NISSANCONNECT EV“ – NUOTOLINIS VALDYMAS ir STATISTIKA
 Dar niekad nebuvo taip lengva važiuoti elektriniu automobiliu. Programėlėje „NissanConnect EV“, įdiegtoje jūsų išmaniajame telefone, arba „Your+Nissan“ portale galite rasti įkrovimo stotis, stebėti akumuliatoriaus naudojimo efektyvumą ir net reguliuoti kondicionierių naudodami nuotolinį valdymą.
 • ĮKROVIMO LAIKMATIS: Nuspręskite, kada norite įkrauti savo „Nissan Leaf“, net jeigu nesate netoliese, ir naudokitės jums palankiausiais elektros tarifais.
 • KLIMATO VALDYMAS: Programuokite oro kondicionierių iš savo kompiuterio ar išmaniojo telefono, kad jūsų „Nissan LEAF“ būtų visada paruoštas, kai jums jo reikia.
 • MANO VAŽIAVIMO ISTORIJA: Gaukite išsamią savo vairavimo stiliaus ataskaitą ir sužinokite, kur dar galite sutaupyti.
 Atsisiųsti trumpą naudojimo instrukciją
 NAUJOJI „NISSANCONNECT“ – ĮVADAS
 Su naująja sistema „NissanConnect“ skaitmeninėmis technologijomis naudokitės daug paprasčiau! Išmaniojo telefono integracija, „Bluetooth“ laisvų rankų ryšio ir garso funkcijos, išmanioji navigacija ir integruotos transporto priemonės taikomosios programos – visa tai transporto priemonę pavers neatsiejama jūsų gyvenimo būdo dalimi. Jei jūsų automobilyje yra ši įranga, prisiregistruokite „You+Nissan“ ir aktyvinkite naująją „NissanConnect“ parinktį, leisiančią mėgautis išskirtinėmis paslaugomis. Be to, kad būtų paprasčiau prisiregistruoti ir išnaudoti visus galimus kelionės automobiliu pranašumus, čia rasite visus reikiamus patarimus ir informaciją, kaip naudotis naująja „NissanConnect“ sistema ir jos funkcijomis!
 Vairavimas – rimta ir atsakinga veikla. NissanConnect paslaugomis naudokitės tik tada, kai tai yra saugu. Norint naudotis NissanConnect paslaugomis reikalinga prenumerata, tačiau šios paslaugos bus teikiamos nemokamai 2 metus nuo garantijos pradžios datos. Paslauga ir programos teikiamos tik tam tikrose Europos šalyse ir tam tikruose Nissan modeliuose. Programas gali teikti bendrovei Nissan nepavaldžios trečiosios šalys. Taip pat programos gali būti keičiamos, be išankstinio bendrovės Nissan arba jos agentų įspėjimo, neprisiimant už tai jokios atsakomybės (trečiųjų šalių teikiamų paslaugų laikinas arba visiškas nutraukimas, kiti paslaugų teikimo sąlygų pakeitimai). Norint naudotis kai kuriomis nuotolinio ryšio funkcijomis būtina turėti suderinamą telefoną arba prietaisą, kuris neįeina į standartinio automobilio komplekto sudėtį. Mobiliojo ryšio paslaugas teikia mobiliojo ryšio bendrovės, bendrovė Nissan neturi galimybės tokių paslaugų kontroliuoti. Mobilusis ryšys veikia ne visose vietovėse. Gali būti imamas mokestis už tarptinklinį ryšį ir (arba) duomenų perdavimą. Bendrovė Nissan neatsako už jokius teikiamų paslaugų pasikeitimus, naudojamai įrangai keliamų reikalavimų pokyčius ir kitas su atnaujinimais susijusias išlaidas, kurias gali patirti vartotojas, norintis toliau naudotis teikiama paslauga.


text:
70 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 11/24. kd
 21996A0330(17)
 30.3.1996 EUROOPA ÜHENDUSTE TEATAJA L 81/311
 AGREEMENT
 in the form of an Exchange of Letters amending the Additional Protocol on trade in textile products
 between the European Community and the Republic of Bulgaria
 Letter from the Council of the European Union
 Sir,
 1. I have the honour to refer to the negotiations held on 27–28 November 1995 between our respective
 Delegations with a view to amending the Additional Protocol on trade in textile products between the
 European Community and the Republic of Bulgaria, applied since 31 December 1993, as last amended by the
 Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters initialled on 6 December 1994. These negotiations were held
 in the context of Article 1, paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Additional Protocol.
 2. During these negotiations both Parties noted with satisfaction the way in which the Additional Protocol has,
 in general, been implemented. Moreover, the European Community noted with satisfaction the progress being
 made in the opening of the Bulgarian market and in particular the Bulgarian undertaking to accelerate its tariff
 concessions in favour of textiles and clothing products originating within the European Community and
 exported to the Republic of Bulgaria as outlined in Appendix 1 attached, with application from 1 January
 1996. The Republic of Bulgaria undertakes to inform the European Community before 1 January 1996 that
 the necessary steps have been taken to implement the concessions outlined in Appendix 1.
 3. In order to foster the development of further mutually beneficial trade flows it was agreed to amend the
 Additional Protocol as follows:
 3.1. The first subparagraph of Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Protocol is replaced by the following:
 “3. The origin of the products covered by this Protocol shall be determined in accordance with the rules of
 non-preferential origin in force in the Community.”
 3.2. Article 2, paragraph 3 of Appendix A is replaced by the following:
 “The certificate of origin referred to in paragraph 1 above is not required for the importation of goods covered
 by a movement certificate EUR1 or a form EUR2 issued in conformity with Protocol 4 to the Europe
 Agreement in cases where those documents clearly establish that the Republic of Bulgaria is to be considered
 as the country of origin on the basis of the rules on non-preferential origin in force in the Community.”
 3.3. Annex II (EU direct quotas) is replaced by Appendix 2 attached.
 3.4. The Annex to Appendix B concerning outward processing traffic is replaced by Appendix 3 attached (OPT
 quotas).
 4. I should be obliged if you would kindly confirm the acceptance of your Government of the foregoing. Should
 this be the case, this letter, completed by its Appendices and your written confirmation, will constitute an
 Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the Community and the Republic of Bulgaria. This
 Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the month following that in which the European Community
 and the Republic of Bulgaria notify each other that they have completed the necessary internal procedures to
 this effect. In the meantime, the amendments to the Additional Protocol will apply on a provisional basis from
 1 January 1996, provided that they are applied on a reciprocal basis.
 Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.
 For the Council of the European Union
 ---pagebreak--- 11/24. kd ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 71
 Appendix 1
 Bulgarian tariff undertaking
 The Government of the Republic of Bulgaria undertakes to implement the following tariff concessions in favour of textiles and
 clothing products originating within the European Community and imported into the Republic of Bulgaria, to be applied from
 1 January 1996.
 a) The products listed below are transferred from Annex VI to Annex IV of the Europe Agreement:
 51 01 11 00 53 01 10 00 53 02 10 00
 51 01 19 00 53 01 21 00
 53 01 29 00
 b) The products listed below are transferred from Annex V to Annex IV of the Europe Agreement:
 51 01 21 00 53 03 10 00 54 03 31 00
 51 01 29 00 53 03 90 00 56 04 90 00
 51 05 30 00 54 02 43 00 63 01 10 00
 c) The products listed below are transferred from Annex VI to Annex V of the Europe Agreement:
 53 06 10 00 58 01 34 00 61 09 90 20 58 01 33 00
 53 06 20 00 58 01 35 00 61 11 10 00 61 06 90 00
 55 15 11 00 58 01 36 00 61 15 91 00 51 02 10 00
 55 15 13 00 58 04 29 00 61 15 92 00
 55 15 99 00 58 06 10 00 62 11 12 90
 55 16 11 00 60 01 10 00 62 16 00 90
 55 16 23 00 60 01 21 00 63 02 10 00
 55 16 43 00 60 02 10 00 63 03 11 00
 58 01 22 00 60 02 92 90 63 03 19 00
 58 01 24 00 60 02 93 90 63 04 11 00
 58 01 25 00 61 01 10 00 63 04 91 00
 ---pagebreak--- 72 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 11/24. kd
 Appendix 2
 ANNEX II
 (The full product descriptions of the categories listed in this Annex are to be found in Annex I to the Protocol)
 Community quantitative limits
 (in tonnes or 1 000 pieces)
 Category Unit 1996 1997
 2 tonnes 4 722 4 816
 2a tonnes 1 495 1 525
 5 pieces 5 185 5 418
 6 pieces (*) 2 500 2 625
 7 pieces 1 909 1 995
 8 pieces 5 662 5 860
 73 pieces 3 388 3 591
 (*) For the purpose of setting off exports against the agreed quantitative limits a conversion rate of 5 garments (other than babies’ garments) of a
 maximum commercial size of 130 cm, for 3 garments whose commercial size exceeds 130 cm may be applied for up to 5 % of the quantitative
 limits. The export licence concerning these products must bear, in box 9, the words “The conversion rate for garments of a commercial size of
 not more than 130 cm must be applied”.
 Appendix 3
 ANNEX TO APPENDIX B
 (The full product descriptions of the categories listed in this Annex are to be found in Annex I to the Protocol)
 OUTWARD PROCESSING TRAFFIC
 Community quantitative limits
 (in 1 000 pieces)
 Category Unit 1996 1997
 5 pieces 6 492 6 930
 6 pieces 9 251 9 945
 7 pieces 13 286 14 183
 8 pieces 6 223 6 550
 73 pieces 3 375 3 679
 ---pagebreak--- 11/24. kd ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 73
 Letter from the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria
 Sir,
 I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of ................................. which reads as follows:
 “Sir
 1. I have the honour to refer to the negotiations held on 27–28 November 1995 between our respective
 Delegations with a view to amending the Additional Protocol on trade in textile products between the
 European Community and the Republic of Bulgaria, applied since 31 December 1993, as last amended by
 the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters initialled on 6 December 1994. Theses negotiations
 were held in the context of Article 1, paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Additional Protocol.
 2. During these negotiations both Parties noted with satisfaction the way in which the Additional Protocol
 has, in general, been implemented. Moreover, the European Community noted with satisfaction the
 progress being made in the opening of the Bulgarian market and in particular the Bulgarian undertaking
 to accelerate its tariff concessions in favour of textiles and clothing products originating within the
 European Community and exported to the Republic of Bulgaria as outlined in Appendix 1 attached, with
 application from 1 January 1996. The Republic of Bulgaria undertakes to inform the European
 Community before 1 January 1996 that the necessary steps have been taken to implement the concessions
 outlined in Appendix 1.
 3. In order to foster the development of further mutually beneficial trade flows it was agreed to amend the
 Additional Protocol as follows:
 3.1. The first subparagraph of Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Protocol is replaced by the following:
 “3. The origin of the products covered by this Protocol shall be determined in accordance with the rules
 of non-preferential origin in force in the Community.”
 3.2. Article 2, paragraph 3 of Appendix A is replaced by the following:
 “The certificate of origin referred to in paragraph 1 above is not required for the importation of goods
 covered by a movement certificate EUR1 or a form EUR2 issued in conformity with Protocol 4 of the
 Europe Agreement in cases where those documents clearly establish that the Republic of Bulgaria is to be
 considered as the country of origin on the basis of the rules on non-preferential origin in force in the
 Community.”
 3.3. Annex II (EU direct quotas) is replaced by Appendix 2 attached.
 3.4. The Annex to Appendix B concerning outward processing traffic is replaced by Appendix 3 attached (OPT
 quotas).
 4. I should be obliged if you would kindly confirm the acceptance of your Government of the foregoing. Should
 this be the case, this letter, completed by its Appendices and your written confirmation, will constitute an
 Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the Community and the Republic of Bulgaria. This
 Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the month following that in which the European
 Community and the Republic of Bulgaria notify each other that they have completed the necessary internal
 procedures to this effect. In the meantime, the amendments to the Additional Protocol will apply on a
 provisional basis from 1 January 1996, provided that they are applied on a reciprocal basis.
 Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.”
 I have the honour to confirm that my Government is in agreement with the contents of your letter.
 Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.
 For the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria
 ---pagebreak--- 74 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 11/24. kd
 Appendix 1
 Bulgarian tariff undertaking
 The Government of the Republic of Bulgaria undertakes to implement the following tariff concessions in favour of textiles and
 clothing products originating within the European Community and imported into the Republic of Bulgaria, to be applied from
 1 January 1996.
 a) The products listed below are transferred from Annex VI to Annex IV of the Europe Agreement:
 51 01 11 00 53 01 10 00 53 02 10 00
 51 01 19 00 53 01 21 00
 53 01 29 00
 b) The products listed below are transferred from Annex V to Annex IV of the Europe Agreement:
 51 01 21 00 53 03 10 00 54 03 31 00
 51 01 29 00 53 03 90 00 56 04 90 00
 51 05 30 00 54 02 43 00 63 01 10 00
 c) The products listed below are transferred from Annex VI to Annex V of the Europe Agreement:
 53 06 10 00 58 01 34 00 61 09 90 20 58 01 33 00
 53 06 20 00 58 01 35 00 61 11 10 00 61 06 90 00
 55 15 11 00 58 01 36 00 61 15 91 00 51 02 10 00
 55 15 13 00 58 04 29 00 61 15 92 00
 55 15 99 00 58 06 10 00 62 11 12 90
 55 16 11 00 60 01 10 00 62 16 00 90
 55 16 23 00 60 01 21 00 63 02 10 00
 55 16 43 00 60 02 10 00 63 03 11 00
 58 01 22 00 60 02 92 90 63 03 19 00
 58 01 24 00 60 02 93 90 63 04 11 00
 58 01 25 00 61 01 10 00 63 04 91 00
 ---pagebreak--- 11/24. kd ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 75
 Appendix 2
 ANNEX II
 (The full product descriptions of the categories listed in this Annex are to be found in Annex I to the Protocol)
 Community quantitative limits
 (in tonnes or 1 000 pieces)
 Category Unit 1996 1997
 2 tonnes 4 722 4 816
 2a tonnes 1 495 1 525
 5 pieces 5 185 5 418
 6 pieces (*) 2 500 2 625
 7 Pieces 1 909 1 995
 8 Pieces 5 662 5 860
 73 Pieces 3 388 3 591
 (*) For the purpose of setting off exports against the agreed quantitative limits a conversion rate of 5 garments (other than babies’
 garments) of a maximum commercial size of 130 cm, for 3 garments whose commercial size exceeds 130 cm may be applied
 for up to 5 % of the quantitative limits. The export licence concerning these products must bear, in box 9, the words “The
 conversion rate for garments of a commercial size of not more than 130 cm must be applied”.
 Appendix 3
 ANNEX TO APPENDIX B
 (The full product descriptions of the categories listed in this Annex are to be found in Annex I to the Protocol)
 OUTWARD PROCESSING TRAFFIC
 Community quantitative limits
 (in 1 000 pieces)
 Category Unit 1996 1997
 5 pieces 6 492 6 930
 6 pieces 9 251 9 945
 7 pieces 13 286 14 183
 8 pieces 6 223 6 550
 73 pieces 3 375 3 679
 ---pagebreak--- 76 ET Euroopa Liidu Teataja 11/24. kd
 Joint Declaration
 In the context of the negotiations held on 27–28 November 1995 in accordance with Article 1, paragraph 3 of
 the Additional Protocol to the Europe Agreement on Trade in Textile Products between the European Community
 and the Republic of Bulgaria, the following declarations were made:
 a) the Delegation of the Republic of Bulgaria declared that the Republic of Bulgaria is prepared to accelerate by
 one year its tariff dismantling for products of Chapters 50–63 of the Bulgarian Customs Tariff listed in Annex
 VI to the Europe Agreement, to reach zero duty on 1 January 2001, provided that the European Community
 reduces its preferential customs duties to a rate equal to two-sevenths of the basic duty rate from 1 January 1996
 and
 b) the Commission of the European Communities declared that it was willing to give careful consideration to the
 Bulgarian proposal outlined in a) above.


text:
 1.6.2006
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 L 147/61
 ROZHODNUTÍ SMÍŠENÉHO VÝBORU EHP
 č. 39/2006
 ze dne 10. března 2006,
 kterým se mění Protokol 31 k Dohodě o EHP o spolupráci v některých oblastech mimo čtyři svobody
 SMÍŠENÝ VÝBOR EHP,
 s ohledem na Dohodu o Evropském hospodářském prostoru ve znění Protokolu o úpravě Dohody o Evropském hospodářském prostoru (dále jen „Dohoda“), a zejména na články 86 a 98 této dohody,
 vzhledem k těmto důvodům:
 (1)
 Protokol 31 k Dohodě byl změněn rozhodnutím Smíšeného výboru EHP č. 43/2005 ze dne 11. března 2005 (1).
 (2)
 Rozhodnutí Rady 2001/51/ES ze dne 20. prosince 2000, kterým se zavádí akční program týkající se strategie Společenství pro rovnost žen a mužů (2001–2005) (2) bylo začleněno do protokolu 31 k Dohodě rozhodnutím Smíšeného výboru EHP č. 88/2001 ze dne 19. června 2001 (3).
 (3)
 Je vhodné rozšířit spolupráci smluvních stran Dohody, aby zahrnovala rozhodnutí Evropského parlamentu a Rady č. 1554/2005/ES ze dne 7. září 2005, kterým se mění rozhodnutí Rady 2001/51/ES, kterým se zavádí akční program týkající se strategie Společenství pro rovnost žen a mužů, a rozhodnutí č. 848/2004/ES o zavedení akčního programu Společenství na podporu organizací působících na evropské úrovni v oblasti rovnosti žen a mužů (4).
 (4)
 Protokol 31 k Dohodě by proto měl být změněn tak, aby umožňoval tuto rozšířenou spolupráci s účinkem od 1. ledna 2006.
 (5)
 Začlenění rozhodnutí č. 1554/2005/ES do protokolu 31 k Dohodě se vztahuje pouze k rozhodnutí Rady 2001/51/ES,
 ROZHODL TAKTO:
 Článek 1
 Ve čtvrté odrážce (rozhodnutí Rady 2001/51/ES) čl. 5 odst. 8 protokolu 31 k Dohodě se doplňují slova:
 „ ve znění:
 —
 32005 D 1554: rozhodnutí Evropského parlamentu a Rady č. 1554/2005/ES ze dne 7. září 2005 (Úř. věst. L 255, 30.9.2005, s. 9).“
 Článek 2
 Toto rozhodnutí vstupuje v platnost prvním dnem poté, co je Smíšenému výboru EHP učiněno poslední oznámení podle čl. 103 odst. 1 Dohody (5).
 Použije se ode dne 1. ledna 2006.
 Článek 3
 Toto rozhodnutí bude zveřejněno v oddíle EHP a v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropské unie.
 V Bruselu dne 10. března 2006.
 Za Smíšený výbor EHP
 předseda
 R. WRIGHT
 (1) Úř. věst. L 198, 28.7.2005, s. 45.
 (2) Úř. věst. L 17, 19.1.2001, s. 22.
 (3) Úř. věst. L 238, 6.9.2001, s. 43.
 (4) Úř. věst. L 255, 30.9.2005, s. 9.
 (5) Nebyly oznámeny žádné ústavní požadavky.


text:
 2.2.2015
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 C 34/54
 Klage, eingereicht am 8. Dezember 2014 — ZZ/Kommission
 (Rechtssache F-137/14)
 (2015/C 034/67)
 Verfahrenssprache: Deutsch
 Parteien
 Kläger: ZZ (Prozessbevollmächtigter: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)
 Beklagter: Kommission
 Streitgegenstand und Beschreibung des Rechtsstreits
 Aufhebung der Entscheidung des Europäischen Auswärtigen Diensts vom 29.01.2014, das unbefristete Beschäftigungsverhältnis des Klägers zu kündigen und Antrag des Klägers auf Schadenersatz für den ihm entstandenen moralischen und immateriellen Schaden.
 Anträge
 Der Kläger beantragt,
 —
 die mit Schreiben des EAD vom 29.01.2014 dem Kläger mitgeteilte Entscheidung des EAD, wonach das Beschäftigungsverhältnis des Klägers unter Anwendung einer 7-monatigen Kündigungsfrist am 31.08.2014 um Mitternacht endet, aufzuheben,
 —
 den EAD zu verurteilen, an den Kläger eine Schadensersatzzahlung in angemessener, in das Ermessen des Gerichts gestellter Höhe für den durch die in Antrag 1. genannte Entscheidung des EAD bei ihm entstandenen moralischen und immateriellen Schaden zu leisten,
 —
 den EAD dazu zu verurteilen, dem Kläger den ihm entstandenen materiellen Schaden umfassend zu ersetzen, insbesondere durch Auszahlung aller ausstehender Bezüge und aller sonstigen durch das rechtswidrige Verhalten des EAD beim Kläger verursachten Aufwendungen (abzüglich von erhaltenem Arbeitslosengeld bzw. durch Verwendung der Arbeitskraft erzieltem Einkommen),
 hilfsweise für den Fall, dass aus rechtlichen oder tatsächlichen Gründen eine Wiedereingliederung des Klägers in den Dienst und/oder Weiterbeschäftigung unter den bisherigen Bedingungen nicht erfolgt, den EAD dazu zu verurteilen, an den Kläger für den durch die rechtswidrige Beendigung seiner Tätigkeit entstandenen materiellen Schaden eine Schadensersatzzahlung in Höhe der Differenz zwischen seinem tatsächlich zu erwartenden Lebenseinkommen im Vergleich zu dem Lebenseinkommen, das der Kläger erzielt hätte, würde der Vertrag weiterlaufen, unter Berücksichtigung der Pensionsleistungen und sonstigen Ansprüche zu leisten, und
 —
 die Kosten des Verfahrens dem EAD aufzuerlegen.


text:
Kirjoittamisesta: muistelmia leipätyöstä () on kirjailija Stephen Kingin kirjoittama kirja, jossa hän kertoo kirjailijantyöstään ja myös antaa kirjoitusohjeita aloitteleville kirjoittajille. Kirja on julkaistu Suomessa kahdella eri nimellä: vuonna 2000 nimellä Kirjoittamisesta: muistelmia leipätyöstä (ISBN 951-31-2031-7) ja vuonna 2006 nimellä Kirjoittamisesta: muistelma leipätyöstä (ISBN 952-459-693-8).
 Stephen Kingin korkein käsky on: lue paljon, kirjoita paljon. Toinen käsky on: kirjoita mistä ikinä haluat, kunhan olet rehellinen. King analysoi kerronnan perusasioita kepeän perusteellisesti. Hyvän kirjoittamisen vaiheet hän oppi paikallislehden päätoimittajalta.
 – Kun kirjoitat jutun, sinä kerrot sen itsellesi. Kun kirjoitat jutun uudestaan, tärkein tehtäväsi on karsia kaikki, mikä ei siihen kuulu. Kirjoita ovi kiinni ja toimita ovi auki.
 Käsikirjoituksen ensimmäinen versio on tarkoitettu kirjoittajalle itselleen. Tämän jälkeen hyvä kirjoittaja soveltaa Aristoteleen perusoppia, jonka mukaan kaikki turha on karsittava. Ernest Hemingway on kuvannut vaihetta sanoin ”kill your darlings”. Kun teksti on toimitettu, kirjoittaja ”astuu ulos”, teksti kuuluu kaikille, jotka haluavat sen lukea tai sitä arvostella.
 King lisää prosessiin kolmannen vaiheen: tekstin viimeistelyn. Karsi lujalla kädellä pois turhat adjektiivit, adverbit ja passiivit.
 – Kymmenen prosenttia tekstistä pois, King sanoo.
 Suomennos
 Aiheesta muualla
 Markku Soikkeli: Kauhun kingi opastaa kirjoittajia. Satakunnan kansa 2001.
 Stephen Kingin teokset
 Vuoden 2000 kirjat
 Omaelämäkerrat
 Kirjat kirjallisuudesta


text:
 26.9.2009
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 233/15
 Auto del Tribunal de Primera Instancia de 9 de julio de 2009 — infeurope/Comisión
 (Asunto T-176/08) (1)
 («Recursos por omisión, de anulación y de indemnización - Contratos públicos de servicios - Licitación relativa al mantenimiento de los sistemas informáticos de la OAMI - Recurso administrativo ante la Comisión - Decisión desestimatoria presunta de la Comisión - Pretensiones nuevas - Relación entre el recurso por omisión y el recurso de indemnización - Inadmisibilidad manifiesta»)
 2009/C 233/27
 Lengua de procedimiento: inglés
 Partes
 Demandante: infeurope (Luxemburgo) (representante: O. Mader, abogado)
 Demandada: Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas (representantes: N. Bambara y E. Manhaeve, agentes)
 Objeto
 En primer lugar, con carácter principal, petición de que se declare la omisión de la Comisión en la medida en que se abstuvo ilegalmente de anular la decisión de adjudicación de los contratos marco, a raíz del procedimiento de licitación AO/042/05 de la Oficina de Armonización del Mercado Interior (Marcas, Dibujos y Modelos) (OAMI) para el mantenimiento de los programas informáticos relativos a los sistemas de la actividad principal de la OAMI en materia de marcas, dibujos y modelos, así como de terminar los acuerdos específicos celebrados por efecto de dichos contratos marco y, con carácter subsidiario, la anulación de la supuesta decisión presunta de la Comisión por la que se desestima el recurso administrativo de la demandante de 2 de diciembre de 2007 en dicho procedimiento de licitación, y, en segundo lugar, petición de indemnización del perjuicio pretendidamente sufrido como consecuencia de las supuestas omisiones ilegales de la Comisión.
 Fallo
 1)
 Desestimar el recurso.
 2)
 Condenar a infeurope al pago de sus propias costas, así como de las causadas por la Comisión.
 3)
 Sobreseer la solicitud de intervención de European Dynamics, SA.
 4)
 infeurope, la Comisión y European Dynamics cargarán con las costas causadas por cada una de ellas, respectivamente, en relación con la solicitud de intervención.
 (1) DO C 171, de 5.7.2008.