text:
The question presented by this appeal arises on an exception to an auditor's account filed in the Circuit Court for Talbot County, and involves the construction of one of the clauses of the will of Isaac Davis Clark of that county.
 The testator gave his dwelling house and all the lands "thereto attached" to his wife, Jane F. Clark, during her life, and the will provided that at her death "they shall revert to my heirs in direct descent, as a common estate the right of each therein, to be according to existing laws regulating inheritances in this State." He also gave her all the furniture in his dwelling house, and all farming implements, cattle and crops on the premises, and provided that said "legacies" and the trust thereinafter created for her benefit were in lieu of her "dower right" in his remaining real estate and "her distributive share" of his personal estate.
 He gave to Robert B. Dixon of Talbot County the sum of $80,000 and the further sum of $8,000, in trust to invest the same and to pay the net income from the $80,000 to his wife during her life, and the net income from the $8,000 to his cousin, Emily S. Maddox, during her life. The next clause of the will and the one with which we are particularly concerned is as follows: "These trusts shall cease at the death of my said wife and my said cousin as they shall respectively *Page 147
 occur, and the principal sums of said trust funds together with any and all interest and income which shall not have been paid to them while living shall be paid by said trustee to my heirs in direct descent, to be distributed and paid to them in the same shares as though it was the balance of an intestate's personal estate."
 The testator also gave to Robert B. Dixon the sum of $25,000 "in special trust and confidence" to use the whole or any part thereof in defending any suit instituted to set aside his will or "disputing any of its provisions," and provided that said trust should continue until his estate was finally closed and distributed by his executor therein named, and that "then all of said fund in case of no suit or any balance in case of a suit with any interest that said fund may have earned shall be due and payable to my heirs in direct descent to be distributed to them as though it was the balance of an intestate's personal estate; provided however that if any such heir shall have been a party to any suit to disturb this will he, she or they shall have no share in this fund, and shall be excluded in its distribution."
 The rest and residue of his estate was given to the testator's "heirs in direct descent the same to be shared according to laws existing in this State regulating inheritance and distribution." The will provided how the partition of his real estate and the distribution of the residue of his personal estate should be made; that his daughter, Sallie S. Brian, should be charged with $10,000 advanced to her at the time of her marriage, and then appointed Robert B. Dixon executor.
 The will was dated February 5th, 1883, and by a codicil thereto, executed on the 17th of December, 1887, the testator revoked the bequest of $25,000 to be used in defending his will, and gave "all that portion" of his estate bequeathed and devised to his daughter, Sallie S. Brian, to Robert B. Dixon, in trust to pay the income therefrom to his said daughter during her life, and at her death, leaving a child or children surviving her, to deliver the real estate and to *Page 148
 pay the principal sum given him in trust for his said daughter to her child or children. The codicil contained the further provision: "But should my aforesaid daughter die without issue surviving then it is my will that all my estate real and personal by this codicil bequeathed unto Robert B. Dixon in trust for my daughter Sallie shall revert to my legal heirs then living and shall be distributed among them as by law now provided in the case of a person dying intestate."
 It appears by the "agreed statement of facts" that the testator died in 1888 leaving surviving him his wife, Jane F. Clark, who died in 1895, and four children, viz: Sallie S. Brian, May Clark, Nellie B. Clark and James F. Clark, as his only heirs at law and next of kin. Sallie S. Brian, who is still living, was at the death of the testator thirty-four years of age, and had been married to James Brian for more than six years. They had no children and James Brian has since died without leaving any child or descendants. May Clark, at the death of the testator, was twenty-four years of age and unmarried. After his death she married J. Edward Tylor and died in 1896 "intestate and without issue." Nellie B. Clark after the death of the testator married Thomas W. Greenley, and she and her husband have since died leaving two children, Lenore C. Greenley, who married J. Rowland Chaffinch, and Alexander C. Greenley. James F. Clark is still living. Emily S. Maddox, cousin of the testator, died in 1915 at the age of seventy-six years. It further appears from the agreed statement of facts that the will was drawn by Charles R. Mullikin, Esq., "an ex-register of wills" of Talbot County, and that the codicil thereto is in the handwriting of Colonel James C. Mullikin, a member of the Talbot bar.
 In the account to which the exception was filed the auditor distributed the legacy of $8,000: One-third thereof to Sallie S. Brian, one-third to James F. Clark and the remaining one-third to Lenore C. Chaffinch and Alexander C. Greenley, children of Nellie B. Clark, as the heirs of the testator at *Page 149
 the death of Emily S. Maddox, and the account was excepted to by J. Edward Tylor, the surviving husband of May Clark, on the ground that he is entitled to the one-fourth his wife would have received if she had survived Emily S. Maddox. The learned Court below sustained the exception, and this appeal is from its order directing the fund to be distributed: One-fourth to Robert B. Dixon, trustee of Sallie S. Brian; one-fourth to James F. Clark; one-fourth to the administrator of Nellie B. Greenley, and the remaining one-fourth to J. Edward Tylor.
 The only objection urged to the order appealed from is to the allowance of one-fourth of the legacy to J. Edward Tylor, the contention of the appellants being that the fund should be distributed to those who were the "heirs." etc., of the testator at the time of the death of Emily S. Maddox, while the appellee contends that it goes to those who were his "heirs," etc., at the time of his death. In other words, the sole question raised by the respective contentions of the parties is, When did the estates in this fund bequeathed to the testator's "heirs in direct descent" vest? The answer to that question must depend upon when Isaac Davis Clark intended them to vest. Where the intention of the testator is made clear by the terms of the will his wishes must prevail unless in conflict with some settled principle of law. But where the words employed are of doubtful meaning, courts in an effort to arrive at the testator's intention must seek the aid of settled rules of construction. Here there are two periods to which the words "my heirs in direct descent" might refer, namely, the death of the testator and the death of Emily S. Maddox, and in the absence of an intention on the part of the testator, plainly expressed, to postpone the vesting of the estates until the latter period, this Court, in accordance with the established rule of construction and in furtherance of the presumed intention of the testator, must adopt the earlier one.
 In the case of Meyer v. Eisler, 29 Md. 28, CHIEF JUDGE BARTOL quotes the language of the Court in Snively v. *Page 150 Beavans, 1 Md. 208: "The law is said to favor the vesting of legacies, and hence to defeat a bequest of this kind, it must appear from the nature and circumstances of the case, that the time of payment was made the substance of the gift, and that the testator meant that time as the period when the legacy should vest," and the statement of the general rule by Mr. Jarman (Vol. 1, 727), "that where a testator creates a particular estate and then goes on to dispose of the ulterior interest, expressly in an event which will determine the prior estate, the words descriptive of such event, occurring in the latter devise, will be construed as referring merely to the period of the determination of the possession or enjoyment under the prior gift, and not as designed to postpone the vesting," and then says: "The rule is, if the legatee be capable of taking, `no mere postponement of the time of payment, will prevent his having a vested and transmissible interest.' Here there is nothing on the face of the will to indicate the intention of the testator to postpone the vesting of the estate till the happening of the event named; that is not of the substance of the gift, but points merely to the period of possession or enjoyment." In Tayloe v.Mosher. 29 Md. 443, JUDGE MILLER said: "It is very difficult, in any case, to gather the intention of the testator from the language employed in the will, where events have occurred which probably were not in his contemplation when the will was executed, and the present case is surrounded with more than usual embarrassment and doubt. The intention is certainly in every case the object of ascertainment; but, wherever there is doubt and difficulty, the Courts must resort for aid to settled rules of construction. The most important of these and indeed the only one which seems to be general, definite and fixed is that the law favors the vesting of estates, and where words of futurity are employed they are not to be regarded as importing contingency or as postponing the period of vesting, if they point merely to deferred possession or enjoyment." After referring to the argument of counsel against the vestings that the devise in that case was to trustees *Page 151
 to pay and transfer at a future period to a class of individuals "with provision that the income shall in the meantime accumulate," he said further: "But it makes no difference as to the vesting, whether the legal estate be devised to trustees who are required to convey according to the directions of the will, or whether the interest is provided to take effect without the intervention of trustees, nor that the trust provides for the accumulation of income until the period of payment or distribution arrives. These propositions are settled by numerous authorities in England, as well as by the recent decisions of this Court." In the case of Crisp v. Crisp, 61 Md. 149, the testator devised his farm to trustees, in trust that his wife should be permitted to enjoy the same and receive therefrom the rents and profits until such time as the trustees should have an offer therefor of $100,000 and directed that $50,000 of the proceeds of such sale should be invested and the income therefrom paid to his wife during her life, and that at her death the "said $50,000 * * * shall go to and become the property and estate of such person or persons as would, by the now existing laws of the State of Maryland, be entitled to take an estate in fee simple in lands by descent from me, and the heirs, executors and administrators of such person or persons per stirpes and notper capita." All the rest and residue of his property he gave to his "legal heirs under the laws of the State of Maryland, in the same way as it would without a will; subject, however, to the dower interest and distributive share of my wife." The farm was sold for $100,000 and the widow and those who were the heirs at law of the testator at the time of his death wished to divide the $50,000 allotted to the widow between them. The Court, after stating that the only question to be decided was whether the remainder in this $50,000 vested in the heirs of Richard O. Smith (the testator) at the time of his death or at the termination of the life estate of the widow, said: "The Court of Appeals has long since announced in the broadest terms the general rule, that the law favors the vesting of estates, and that to make *Page 152
 an estate contingent, it must appear from the language used and the nature of the circumstances of the case, that the time for payment was made the substance of the gift. The estates will be held to be vested whenever it can be fairly done without doing violence to the language of the will, and to make them contingent there must be plain expressions to that effect, or such intent must be so plainly inferrible from the terms used as to leave no room for construction. Tayloe v. Mosher, 29 Md. 443, adopted in Fairfax v. Brown, 60 Md. 50. If the law thus favors the vesting of property it necessarily favors its vesting at the earliest period. Every postponement of vesting renders it contingent and uncertain at least as to the person who is to take. No reason can be assigned as to the vesting itself that will not apply to the earliest period. In the absence of plain expressions or intent plainly inferrible from the terms of the will, the earliest time for the vesting will be adopted where there is more than one period mentioned in the will. It is a question of intention and the testator has ample power to fix the period of vesting to suit himself (always within the time the rule of law fixes), but he must indicate his wish with reasonable certainty, for if he does not the law will presume he intended the earliest time. Tested by the above rules there can, we think, be no doubt that the interest in the property became vested at the death of the testator in those who were his heirs at that time. * * * That the testator did not intend or desire for any reason personal to them to postpone or defer his living brother and his deceased brother's children to persons that might probably be in existence at the death of his wife, is shown conclusively, we think, by the fact that by the residuary clause of his will, he gives them the residue of his property. By this residuary clause he gives the residue to `be divided among my legal heirs under the laws of the State of Maryland in the same way that it would without a will.' This residue certainly vested at the death of the testator. The legacy of $50,000 on the death of his wife was to `go to and become the property and estate of such persons as would by the now existing *Page 153
 laws of the State of Maryland be entitled to take an estate in fee simple in lands by descent from me.' There is no really substantial difference in the meaning of these two forms of expression, and as the first points with unerring certainty to an immediate vesting, we conclude that the other does also. In the clause of the will that speaks of what is to become of the farm if not sold within the eighteen years the testator also says: `That said farm shall go to and become the property of such persons as would by the now existing laws of the State of Maryland, be entitled to take an estate in fee simple in lands by descent from me.' No persons answer this description except the heirs existing at the time of the death of the testator, for no others could take an estate by descent from him." In the case ofMercer v. Safe Deposit Co., 91 Md. 102, the Court was construing a deed of trust from Samuel H. Mercer for the purpose of determining whether those who answered the description of his heirs at the time of his death took, at his death, a vested interest under the following provision: "If the said Samuel H. Mercer shall leave a widow at the time of his death and leave no children or descendants living at the time of his death, then the said trustees shall hold said property with the same powers in the trustees for the use and benefit of said widow during her life or widowhood, and at her death, or on her marriage again, then said trustees shall hold said property to and for the use and benefit of the right heirs of the said Samuel H. Mercer, according to the laws of the State of Maryland." The Court held that those who were the grantor's heirs at law at the time of his death, leaving a widow and no children, took vested interests in the property. After repeating what we have quoted from Tayloe
 v. Mosher, supra, and Crisp v. Crisp, supra, JUDGE JONES said: "Now looking to the language of the deed we are construing, we look in vain for the `plain expressions' that `leave no room for construction,' and indicate `with reasonable certainty' that the earliest time for the vesting of the interest which his heirs were to take, in the contingency that has happened, *Page 154
 was not intended by the grantor therein." He said further: "There would seem to be no good reason for imputing to him a purpose, when limiting his property over, after the main object of his deed had been subserved, of having a care for remote and uncertain objects of his bounty, rather than of providing that the limitations should have the effect to immediately vest his property in those who were nearest to him in blood and kinship, and who would more naturally be the objects of his consideration." In the case of Hoover v. Smith, 96 Md. 393, the will in controversy contained the following provisions: "Item 1st. I devise and bequeath to my beloved wife, Elizabeth, all my property, real, personal and mixed, to have and to hold the same during her natural life, or as long as she shall continue to be my widow. After either of the above events the property to be sold and divided equally among my lawful heirs. The children of deceased heirs shall inherit the full portion as their parents would have done if living." The testator died in 1874, leaving surviving him a widow, two sons, a daughter, two grandchildren, children of a deceased daughter, and a granddaughter, Elizabeth Wolf, who died in the lifetime of the testator's widow, and the question was whether Elizabeth Wolf took, upon the death of the testator, a vested interest in his estate, which, upon her death, passed to her representatives. The Court held that she did, and in disposing of the question JUDGE BOYD said: "The law favors the early vesting of estates and `Courts will, in the absence of plain expressions, or an intent plainly inferrible from the terms of the will, adopt the earliest time for the vesting where there is more than one period mentioned.' Straus v. Rost,67 Md. 476. It is a well recognized rule of construction that in doubtful cases the interest shall be deemed to be vested in the first instance, rather than contingent, unless the instrument under consideration does not admit of such construction. When a testator has employed terms in his will which in their ordinary signification are in accord with such familiar and fixed rules of law, it should require very clear expressions elsewhere in *Page 155
 the will to justify the Court in giving such terms some other and unusual meaning. When, therefore, a testator directs that after his wife's death or marriage his property is to be sold and divided equally among his `lawful heirs' and makes no other disposition of the remainder after his wife's death or marriage, when and in whom does such remainder vest? At common law an heir is `he who is born or begotten in lawful wedlock and upon whom the law casts the estate in lands, tenements or hereditamentsimmediately upon the death of his ancestor.' In 15 Ency. ofLaw (2nd Ed.), 322, it is said: `A devise to heirs, whether to one's own heirs or to the heirs of a third person, designates not only the persons who are to take, but the manner and proportion in which they are to take. Where there are no words to control the presumption, the law presumes the intention to be that they take as heirs would take by the rules of descent.' And again it is there said: `It is well settled that a gift to the heirs of one will be construed as referring to those who are such at the time of the ancestor's death.' If then we adopt the ordinary meaning of the term used by the testator (lawful heirs), we find that he presumably intended that those who would be entitled to his real estate at the time of his death should get the benefit of the proceeds of the sale. It can not be successfully contended that merely because he gave his wife an estate for life, or as long as she continued to be his widow, the vesting of the estate given the heirs should be postponed until the widow's interest ceased. If he had said: `After either of the above events the property to be sold and divided equally among those who are entitled to it by the rules of descent at the time of my death,' there could be no question about it. And when he used a term which has that meaning, in the absence of some intention expressed to the contrary, must it not be given to it? It is true that this will speaks of real and personal property and the record does not show how much there was of either, but the word `heirs' has been held to include `next of kin,' when used in such connection as it could be seen such was the intention." *Page 156
 We have quoted at length from the cases referred to because the rule applied and the reasoning of the Court seem especially applicable to the will we are now considering. Here there is not a word in the particular clause involved, or in the will to show that the testator intended to postpone the vesting of the interest of his heirs in the fund in question until the death of Emily S. Maddox. He had at the time the will was executed and at the time of his death four children, and there is nothing in the will or the circumstances of the case to warrant the inference that he preferred more "remote and uncertain objects of his bounty" to those "nearest to him on blood and kinship." Indeed, in addition to the fact that the natural meaning of the wordheirs is those who are "such at the time of the ancestor's death," the will itself indicates that the testator, when he used the words "my heirs in direct descent" had in mind his children as the persons who would take at his death, for in the residuary clause, which makes a similar disposition of his property, he directs that $10,000 is to be deducted from Mrs. Brian's share. That he did intend his children to take at his death the estates limited in his will to his "heirs in direct descent," subject to the life estates therein provided, is further evidenced by the codicil, in which Mrs. Brian's share was left in trust for her benefit during her life, with the remainder to her children, and a limitation over, in the event of her dying without leaving children, to his "legal heirs then living." The use of such appropriate terms in the codicil to express his intention to give the remainder to those who were his heirs at the death of his daughter, without children, etc., shows that he did not intend the limitation to his "heirs," etc., subject to the life estate of Emily S. Maddox, to have the same effect. It was suggested in the argument that this difference between the terms used in the codicil and those of the clause we are considering is explained by the fact that the codicil was prepared by a lawyer while the will was not. But it is reasonable to assume that Colonel Mullikin explained the provision of the codicil to the testator, and that if he had *Page 157
 intended the terms used in his will to have the same effect he would have had the will changed accordingly.
 The appellant argues that the added words, "to be distributed and paid to them in the same shares as though it was the balance of an intestate's personal estate," show that the testator intended the distribution to be made to those who were his heirs at the time of the distribution. But the testator was disposing of personal property, and these words, we think, refer only to the shares his heirs are to take. If they have any other significance they can only mean that the fund is to be distributed to such of his descendants as would have taken it at his death if he had died intestate.
 The cases cited and relied on by the appellant are readily distinguished from the case at bar. They are cases like Demill
 v. Reid, 71 Md. 175, where the remainder was limited upon the happening of a contingency to a class, and was held to have vested only in those answering the description when thecontingency happened; or where a contingent remainder of inheritance was held to vest only in the heirs of the contingent remainderman in esse at the time the contingency happened and the estate fell into possession as in Buck v. Lantz,49 Md. 439; Garrison v. Hill, 79 Md. 75, and Jenkins v. Bonsal,116 Md. 629; or where the Court held that the use of the words "from and immediately after," or words of like import, plainly indicated that the testator had selected the latter period mentioned in the will as the time for the vesting of the estate, as in Larmour v. Rich, 71 Md. 369; Poultney v. Tiffany,112 Md. 630.
 In the clause here in question the remainder to Mr. Clark's "heirs in direct descent" was not made dependent upon acontingency, but the enjoyment of it was postponed until the death of the life tenant, and unless we are to depart from the settled rule of construction, or impute to the testator an intention not expressed in his will and contrary to the natural meaning of the terms employed, those who were his heirs at the time of his death took vested remainders. *Page 158
 It follows from what has been said that we agree with the conclusion reached by the lower Court upon the only question argued by counsel, and would affirm the decree but for the fact that at the time of Mrs. Tylor's death the Act of 1892, Chapter 571, was in force. That Act provided: "If the intestate be a married woman, and shall leave no child or children or descendants all her personal property including therein all choses in action, shall devolve upon her husband absolutely; and it shall not in such case be necessary for him to administer upon her estate in order to pass title to him, unless she shall be liable in law for debts owing by her; but no title whatever to such personal property or choses in action shall pass to the said husband when administration is not necessary except by an order of the Orphans' Court declaring the same. Upon application of the said husband the Court shall pass an order nisi, which shall be published in such manner and for such time as the Court in its discretion may prescribe, and which after the expiration of said notice shall be finally ratified by said Court unless cause to the contrary has been shown," etc. The record in the case does not show that proceedings were taken in accordance with the provisions quoted, so we will remand the case, without affirming or reversing the decree, in order that such proceedings may be taken, in case the provisions of the Act have not already been complied with.
 Case remanded, without affirming or reversing the decree, thecosts in this Court and in the Court below to be paid by theappellants. *Page 159


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 19.2.2005
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 L 48/28
 BESCHLUSS DES RATES
 vom 17. Februar 2005
 zur Verlängerung der Maßnahmen des Beschlusses 2002/148/EG zur Einstellung der Konsultationen mit Simbabwe nach Artikel 96 des AKP-EG-Partnerschaftsabkommens
 (2005/139/EG)
 DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION —
 gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, insbesondere auf Artikel 300 Absatz 2 Unterabsatz 2,
 gestützt auf das Interne Abkommen über die zur Durchführung des am 23. Juni 2000 in Cotonou unterzeichneten AKP-EG-Partnerschaftsabkommens (im Folgenden: „AKP-EG-Abkommen“) (1) zu treffenden Maßnahmen und die dabei anzuwendenden Verfahren, insbesondere auf Artikel 3,
 auf Vorschlag der Kommission,
 in Erwägung der nachstehenden Gründe:
 (1)
 Mit dem Beschluss 2002/148/EG (2) wurden die Konsultationen mit der Republik Simbabwe nach Artikel 96 Absatz 2 Buchstabe c) des AKP-EG-Abkommens eingestellt und die in dem Schreiben im Anhang des genannten Beschlusses aufgeführten geeigneten Maßnahmen getroffen.
 (2)
 Mit dem Beschluss 2003/112/EG (3) wurde die Geltungsdauer der genannten Maßnahmen bis zum 20. Februar 2004 und mit dem Beschluss 2004/157/EG (4) bis zum 20. Februar 2005 verlängert.
 (3)
 Die in Artikel 9 des AKP-EG-Abkommens genannten wesentlichen Elemente werden durch die Regierung Simbabwes nach wie vor verletzt, und die Achtung der Menschenrechte, der demokratischen Grundsätze und des Rechtsstaatsprinzips ist unter den derzeit in Simbabwe herrschenden Bedingungen nicht gewährleistet.
 (4)
 Die Geltungsdauer der in Artikel 2 des Beschlusses 2002/148/EG genannten Maßnahmen sollte daher verlängert werden —
 BESCHLIESST:
 Artikel 1
 Die Geltungsdauer der in Artikel 2 des Beschlusses 2002/148/EG genannten Maßnahmen wird bis zum 20. Februar 2006 verlängert. Die Maßnahmen werden anhand einer eingehenden Bewertung der Lage unter Berücksichtigung der in Simbabwe für März 2005 vorgesehenen Parlamentswahlen überprüft.
 Das Schreiben im Anhang wird an den Präsidenten Simbabwes gerichtet.
 Artikel 2
 Dieser Beschluss tritt am Tag seiner Veröffentlichung im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union in Kraft.
 Geschehen zu Brüssel am 17. Februar 2005.
 Im Namen des Rates
 Der Präsident
 J.-C. JUNCKER
 (1) ABl. L 317 vom 15.12.2000, S. 376.
 (2) ABl. L 50 vom 21.2.2002, S. 64.
 (3) ABl. L 46 vom 20.2.2003, S. 25.
 (4) ABl. L 50 vom 20.2.2004, S. 60.
 ANHANG
 Brüssel, den ...
 SCHREIBEN AN DEN PRÄSIDENTEN SIMBABWES
 Die Europäische Union misst Artikel 9 des AKP-EG-Partnerschaftsabkommens größte Bedeutung bei. Die Achtung der Menschenrechte, der demokratischen Institutionen und des Rechtsstaatsprinzips sind wesentliche Elemente des Partnerschaftsabkommens und bilden als solche die Grundlage unserer Beziehungen.
 Mit Schreiben vom 19. Februar 2002 teilte die Europäische Union Ihnen ihren Beschluss mit, die Konsultationen nach Artikel 96 des AKP-EG-Partnerschaftsabkommens einzustellen und „geeignete Maßnahmen“ im Sinne des Artikels 96 Absatz 2 Buchstabe c) jenes Abkommens zu ergreifen.
 Mit Schreiben vom 19. Februar 2003 und 19. Februar 2004 teilte die Europäische Union Ihnen mit, dass sie diese geeigneten Maßnahmen nicht aufheben und die Geltungsdauer dieser Maßnahmen bis zum 20. Februar 2004 bzw. bis zum 20. Februar 2005 verlängern werde.
 Heute, nach einem erneuten Zwölfmonatszeitraum, ist die Europäische Union der Auffassung, dass die demokratischen Grundsätze in Simbabwe nach wie vor nicht geachtet werden und dass in den fünf im Beschluss des Rates vom 18. Februar 2002 genannten Bereichen (Beendigung der politisch motivierten Gewalt, freie und faire Wahlen, Medienfreiheit, Unabhängigkeit der Justiz, Beendigung der illegalen Besetzungen der landwirtschaftlichen Betriebe) von der Regierung Ihres Landes keine spürbaren Fortschritte erzielt worden sind.
 Die Maßnahmen können angesichts der vorstehend genannten Elemente nach Auffassung der Europäischen Union nicht aufgehoben werden und sie hat entschieden, ihre Geltungsdauer bis März 2006 zu verlängern. Diese Maßnahmen werden anhand einer eingehenden Bewertung der Lage unter Berücksichtigung der in Simbabwe für März 2005 vorgesehenen Parlamentswahlen überprüft.
 Die Europäische Union möchte unterstreichen, dass sie der Abhaltung freier und fairer Parlamentswahlen besondere Bedeutung beimisst, und sie hofft, dass Sie und Ihre Regierung in diesem Sinne alles tun werden, was in Ihrer Macht steht, um ein entsprechendes politisches und wahlbezogenes Umfeld zu gewährleisten, das der Abhaltung freier und fairer Wahlen zuträglich ist. Dies würde ermöglichen, in einen Dialog auf der Grundlage des AKP-EG-Partnerschaftsabkommens einzutreten, der dazu führen könnte, die Aussetzung der Unterzeichnung des nationalen Richtprogramms für Simbabwe im Rahmen des 9. EEF aufzuheben und so die Aufnahme aller Kooperationsinstrumente in naher Zukunft gestatten.
 Hochachtungsvoll
 Für die Kommission
 Im Namen des Rates


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS\n\n CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM\n\nTO: AIGI 1 File Number: 194010001 I Date: 12 March 2002\n\nSubject: Closeout Memo Page 1 of 1\n\n\n There was no closeout written at the time this case was closed. The following information was\n extracted from the file in conformance with standard closeout documents.\n\n Our office was informed that the subject1admitted he had dumped several hundred pieces of NSF\n mail. The subject resigned in lieu of termination.\n\n Accordingly this case is closed.\n\n\n\n\n Prepared by: Cleared by:\n\n Agent: Attorney: Supervisor: AIGI\n Name:\n\n\n\n Signature &\n date:\n\x0c'


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 51998PC0131(02)
 Rådets förordning (EG) om Europeiska regionala utvecklingsfonden /* KOM/98/0131 slutlig - SYN 98/0114 */
 Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning nr C 176 , 09/06/1998 s. 0035
 Förslag till RÅDETS FÖRORDNING (EG) om Europeiska regionala utvecklingsfonden (98/C 176/02) KOM(98) 131 slutlig 98/0114(SYN)(Framlagd av kommissionen den 19 mars 1998)EUROPEISKA UNIONENS RÅD HAR ANTAGIT DENNA FÖRORDNINGmed beaktande av Fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, särskilt artikel 130e i detta,med beaktande av kommissionens förslag,med beaktande av Ekonomiska och sociala kommitténs yttrande,med beaktande av Regionkommitténs yttrande,i enlighet med det förfarande som anges i artikel 189c i fördraget i samarbete med Europaparlamentet, ochmed beaktande av följande:(1) I artikel 130c i fördraget föreskrivs att Europeiska regionala utvecklingsfondens (ERUF) syfte skall vara att bistå med att avhjälpa de viktigaste regionala obalanserna i gemenskapen.(2) I rådets förordning (EG) nr . . ./. . av den . . . om allmänna bestämmelser för strukturfonderna föreskrivs i artikel 2.2 att ERUF skall ha som viktigaste uppgift att stödja mål 1 och 2 i enlighet med artikel 1 i den förordningen. I artiklarna 18 och 19 i samma förordning föreskrivs att ERUF skall bidra till att genom gemenskapsinitiativ finansiera transnationellt, gränsöverskridande och interregionalt samarbete. I artikel 20-21 i den nämnda förordningen föreskrivs att fonden skall stödja nyskapande åtgärder på gemenskapsnivå och ge tekniskt bistånd.(3) Gemensamma bestämmelser för strukturfonderna fastställs i rådets förordning (EG) nr . . ./. .. Det är lämpligt att närmare ange de typer av åtgärder under mål 1 och 2, i gemenskapsinitiativ och i fråga om nyskapande åtgärder som kan finansieras av ERUF.(4) Det är lämpligt att närmare ange hur ERUF, inom ramen för sin uppgift att främja den regionala utvecklingen, kan bidra till en harmonisk, balanserad och hållbar utveckling av ekonomiska verksamheter, en stärkt konkurrenskraft, en hög sysselsättningsgrad, jämlikhet mellan män och kvinnor och till en hög nivå när det gäller att skydda och förbättra miljön.(5) Det är lämpligt att ERUF inom ramen för sin uppgift stöder företagens, särskilt de små och medelstora företagens, produktionsvillkor och konkurrenskraft, en ekonomisk utveckling på lokal nivå, forskning och teknisk utveckling, utbyggnad av de transeuropeiska näten i fråga om infrastrukturer för transporter, telekommunikationer och energi, skydd och förbättring av miljön med hänsyn tagen till principen om varsamhet och förebyggande åtgärder och till principerna om att i möjligaste mån komma till rätta med en miljöpåverkan redan vid dess källa och om att det är förorenaren som skall betala. Fonden bör också främja en ren och effektiv energianvändning, en utveckling av förnyelsebara energikällor samt jämlikhet mellan män och kvinnor i arbetslivet.(6) ERUF bör spela en framträdande roll i den ekonomiska utvecklingen på lokala nivå, särskilt genom att främja territoriella sysselsättningspakter, vilket tar sig uttryck i bättre livsbetingelser och i en regional utveckling.(7) De åtgärder i gemenskapens intressen som vidtas på kommissionens initiativ har en viktig funktion att fylla när det gäller att uppnå de övergripande mål för gemenskapens strukturpolitik som avses i artikel 1 i förordning (EG) nr . . ./. ..(8) ERUF bör bidra med stöd till nyskapande åtgärder och ge tekniskt bistånd i enlighet med artiklarna 21 och 22 i förordning (EG) nr . . ./. ..(9) Befogenheten att besluta om tillämpningsföreskrifter och vissa övergångsbestämmelser bör fastställas.(10) Rådets förordning (EEG) nr 4254/88 av den 19 december 1988 om genomförandebestämmelser till förordning (EEG) nr 2052/88 vad gäller Europeiska regionala utvecklingsfonden (1), ändrad genom förordning (EEG) nr 2083/93 (2), bör upphävas.HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.Artikel 1 Uppgift Vid tillämpningen av artikel 130c i fördraget och av förordning (EG) nr . . ./. . skall Europeiska regionala utvecklingsfonden (ERUF) medfinansiera sådana insatser som avses i artikel 9.1 i den nämnda förordningen i syfte att främja ekonomisk och social sammanhållning genom att avhjälpa regionala obalanser och genom att medverka till en utveckling och omställning i regionerna. I samma syfte skall ERUF även bidra till att främja en hållbar utveckling och till att sysselsättningstillfällen skapas.Artikel 2 Räckvidd (1) Inom ramen för den uppgift som anges i artikel 1 skall ERUF medfinansiera följande:a) Produktiva investeringar som leder till att varaktig sysselsättning kan skapas eller bevaras.b) Investeringar i infrastruktur.i) 1 mål 1-områden skall ERUF medfinansiera sådana investeringar i infrastrukturer som bidrar till en höjning av regionernas ekonomiska potential, till deras utveckling och strukturanpassning, inklusive investeringar som bidrar till att bygga upp och bygga ut transeuropeiska nät när detgäller transporter, telekommunikationer och energi.ii) Inom områden eller zoner som omfattas av mål 1 eller mål 2 eller av det gemenskapsinitiativ som avses i artikel 29.1 i förordning (EG) nr . . ./. . kan ERUF medfinansiera sådana investeringar i infrastruktur som avser en förnyelse av industriområden på tillbakagång, upprustning av eftersatta stadsområden och som vill ge nytt liv och bryta isoleringen i landsbygdsområden och områden som är beroende av fiske. Fonden kan också medfinansiera investeringar som medför att en modernisering eller en utvecklingsplanering skapar förutsättningar för att sysselsättningsskapande ekonomiska verksamheter kan komma igång eller utvecklas, inklusive förbindelser via infrastrukturer för kommunikationer och på andra områden där dessa leder till att sådana verksamheter kan utvecklas.c) Insatser för att utveckla en inneboende potential, genom åtgärder för att stimulera och stödja lokala utvecklings- och sysselsättningsinitiativ samt små och medelstora företag, vilket särskilt innebäri) stöd till företagstjänster, särskilt i fråga om företagsledning, marknadsstudier och marknadsundersökningar samt gemensamma tjänster för flera företag,ii) tekniköverföring, särskilt insamling och spridande av information samt genomförande av nyskapande åtgärder i företagen,iii) att hitta och utveckla lämpliga finansieringslösningar så att företagen lättare får tillgång till finansiering och krediter,iv) direkta stöd för sådana investeringar som avses i artikel 27.3 i förordning (EG) nr . . ./. . om en särskild stödordning inte finns,v) satsningar på infrastruktur i mindre skala,vi) stöd till ett nät av tjänster i närmiljön i syfte att skapa nya sysselsättningstillfällen, med undantag för de åtgärder som finansieras av ESF.d) Sådana åtgärder för tekniskt stöd som avses i artikel 22 i förordning (EG) nr . . ./. ..I mål 1-områden kan ERUF medfinansiera investeringar som leder till en strukturanpassning inom utbildning och hälsovård.(2) Vid tillämpningen av första stycket skall det stöd som ERUF:s medfinansiering innebär särskilt inriktas på följande områden:a) Företagsklimatet, särskilt för att stärka företagens, i synnerhet de små och medelstora företagens, konkurrenskraft och för att öka deras hållbara investeringar, samt för att höja regionernas attraktionskraft genom att i synnerhet höja utrustningsnivån i fråga om infrastruktur.b) Forskning och teknisk utveckling i syfte att främja ett införande av ny teknik och innovationer eller i syfte att öka resurserna för forskning och teknisk utveckling när detta visar sig nödvändigt för att en region skall kunna utvecklas.c) Det framväxande informationssamhället.d) Skydd och förbättring av miljön, med hänsyn tagen till principerna om varsamhet och förebyggande åtgärder till stöd för den ekonomiska utvecklingen samt ren och effektiv energianvändning och utveckling av förnybar energi.e) Jämlikhet mellan män och kvinnor i arbetslivet, i synnerhet genom att nya företag startas och att det går att förena familjeliv och yrkesliv.f) Ett transnationellt, gränsöverskridande och interregionalt samarbete på det regionala utvecklingsområdet.Artikel 3 Gemenskapsinitiativ (1) Vid tillämpningen av artikel 19 i förordning (EG) nr . . ./. . skall ERUF enligt artikel 20.1 i den förordningen medverka i genomförandet av det gemenskapsinitiativ som avser gränsöverskridande, transnationellt och interregionalt samarbete och som syftar till att stimulera en utvecklingsplanering och en harmonisk och balanserad regional utveckling på europeisk nivå.(2) I enlighet med artikel 20.2 i förordning (EG) nr . . ./. . skall genom fondernas beslut om medfinansiering den räckvidd som anges i punkt 1 i denna artikel utsträckas till att även omfatta åtgärder som kan finansieras i enlighet med rådets förordning (EG) nr . . ./. ., (EG) nr . . ./. . och (EG) nr . . ./. . (ESF-, EUGFJ- och FFU) i syfte att genomföra alla de åtgärder som ingår i programmet för gemenskapsinitiativet i fråga.Artikel 4 Nyskapande åtgärder (1) I enlighet med artikel 21.1 i förordning (EG) nr . . ./. . kan ERUF medfinansiera följande:a) Studier på kommissionens initiativ i syfte att analysera och identifiera problem och lösningar i samband med regional utveckling, särskilt när det gäller regional utvecklingsplanering och regional utvecklingsplanering i ett europeiskt perspektiv.b) Pilotprojekt som upptäcker eller lägger fram nya lösningar i fråga om regional utveckling som efter det att de prövats kan användas på andra insatser.c) Utbyte av nyskapande erfarenheter i syfte att tillvarata och överföra de erfarenheter som vunnits på regionalutvecklingens område.(2) I enlighet med artikel 21.2 i förordning (EG) nr . . ./. . skall genom fondernas beslut om medfinansiering den räckvidd som anges i punkt 1 utsträckas till att även omfatta åtgärder som kan finansieras i enlighet med förordningarna (EG) nr . . ./. ., (EG) nr . . ./. . och (EG) nr . . ./. . (ESF-, EUGFJ- och FFU) i syfte att genomföra alla de åtgärder som ingår i programmet för pilotprojektet i fråga.Artikel 5 Tillämpningsföreskrifter Tillämpningsföreskrifter till denna förordning skall antas av kommissionen i enlighet med det förfarande som anges i artikel 47 i förordning (EG) nr . . ./. ..Artikel 6 Upphävande Förordning (EEG) nr 4254/88 skall upphöra att gälla den 1 januari år 2000.Hänvisningar till den upphävda förordning skall anses som hänvisningar till denna förordning.Artikel 7 Översynsklausul På förslag från kommissionen skall rådet senast den 31 december 2006 göra en översyn av denna förordning.Rådet skall fatta beslut om kommissionens förslag i enlighet med det förfarande som anges i artikel 130d i fördraget.Artikel 8 Övergångsbestämmelser De övergångsbestämmelser som anges i artikel 52 i förordning (EG) nr . . ./. . skall i tillämpliga delar gälla även för denna förordning.Artikel 9 Ikraftträdande Denna förordning träder i kraft den tredje dagen efter det att den har offentliggjorts i Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning.Denna förordning är till alla delar bindande och direkt tillämplig i alla medlemsstater.Utfärdad i Bryssel den . . .På rådets vägnar. . .(1) EGT L 374, 31.12.1988, s. 15.(2) EGT L 193, 31.7.1993, s. 34.


type: caselaw

text:
 18.6.2011
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 C 179/21
 Προσφυγή-αγωγή της 8ης Μαρτίου 2011 — ZZ κατά Συμβουλίου
 (Υπόθεση F-26/11)
 2011/C 179/35
 Γλώσσα διαδικασίας: η γαλλική
 Διάδικοι
 Προσφεύγων-ενάγων: ZZ (Βρυξέλλες, Βέλγιο) (εκπρόσωποι: S. Rodrigues και C. Bernard-Glanz, δικηγόροι)
 Καθού-εναγόμενο: Συμβούλιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 Αντικείμενο και περιγραφή της διαφοράς
 Αίτημα ακυρώσεως της αποφάσεως να μην περιληφθεί ο προσφεύγων-ενάγων στον κατάλογο των προαγομένων στον βαθμό AD13 στο πλαίσιο της περιόδου προαγωγών 2010, καθώς και αίτημα να υποχρεωθεί το καθού-εναγόμενο να καταβάλει στον προσφεύγοντα-ενάγοντα ένα χρηματικό ποσό προς ικανοποίηση της ηθικής βλάβης που υπέστη
 Αιτήματα του προσφεύγοντος-ενάγοντος
 Ο προσφεύγων-ενάγων ζητεί από το Δικαστήριο Δημόσιας Διοίκησης:
 —
 να ακυρώσει την απόφαση της αρμόδιας για τους διορισμούς αρχής (ΑΔΑ) να μην περιλάβει τον προσφεύγοντα στον κατάλογο των προαγομένων στον βαθμό AD 13 στο πλαίσιο της περιόδου προαγωγών 2010, όπως η απόφαση αυτή προκύπτει από την ανακοίνωση προς το προσωπικό no 80/10 της 26ης Απριλίου 2010 και την ανακοίνωση προς το προσωπικό no 81/10 της 26ης Μαΐου 2010·
 —
 να ακυρώσει, εφόσον απαιτείται, την απόφαση της ΑΔΑ περί απορρίψεως της ενστάσεως του προσφεύγοντος·
 —
 να ακυρώσει εφόσον απαιτείται, την απόφαση περί προαγωγής των υπαλλήλων AD 12 στο βαθμό AD 13 στο πλαίσιο της περιόδου προαγωγών 2010 (ανακοίνωση προς το προσωπικό no 80/10 της 26ης Απριλίου 2010 και ανακοίνωση προς το προσωπικό no 81/10 της 26ης Μαΐου 2010)·
 —
 να υποχρεώσει το καθού-εναγόμενο να καταβάλει στον προσφεύγοντα-ενάγοντα ποσό 150 000 ευρώ προς ικανοποίηση της ηθικής βλάβης που υπέστη·
 —
 να καταδικάσει το Συμβούλιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στα δικαστικά έξοδα.


type: wikipedia

text:
Valdemar I, Valdemar "den store", född 14 januari 1131, död 12 maj 1182 i Vordingborg, Danmark, var kung av Danmark 1157-1182. Han föddes som postum son till hertig Knut Lavard och Ingeborg av Kiev.
 Valdemar kämpade år 1154–57 om kronan med Knut Magnusson och Sven Grate. År 1157 delade de riket varvid Jylland tillföll Valdemar. Men Sven lät strax efteråt mörda Knut och dödades själv i samband med ett slag mot Valdemar, som blev ensam kung i riket.
 Han råkade snart i strid med ärkebiskop Eskil som krävde oberoende för kyrkan och denne tvangs år 1161 till flera års exil. Däremot fick Valdemar under hela sin regering helhjärtat stöd in- och utrikespolitiskt av Roskildebiskopen Absalon Hvide som år 1177 blev Eskils efterträdare på ärkestolen. Bland annat angrep de i samverkan de hedniska venderna och intog år 1169 Rügen, en början till den expansion längs Östersjöns sydkust som fullföljdes av Valdemars söner Knut VI och Valdemar Sejr. Valdemar lyckades 1169 få sin far Knut Lavard helgonförklarad.
 Valdemar tillhör tillsammans med sina söner de så kallade Valdemarerna.
 Gift 23 oktober 1157 i Viborg, Danmark, med Sofia av Minsk.
 Barn:
 Knut VI, född 1163, kung av Danmark.
 Valdemar Sejr, född 1170, kung av Danmark.
 Helena, gift 1202 med greve Wilhelm den fete av Lüneburg.
 Rikissa, gift med svenske kungen Erik Knutsson.
 Sofia, gift med Siegfried III av Orlamünde.
 Margarete, nunna i Roskilde.
 Marie, nunna i Roskilde.
 Ingeborg, född cirka 1175, gift 1193 med Filip II August av Frankrike.
 Valdemar 01
 Personer i Danmark under 1100-talet
 Födda 1131
 Avlidna 1182
 Män


text:
 Důležité právní upozornění
 |
 52006PC0813
 Návrh nařízení Rady o kontrole opatření tvořících součást systému financování Evropského zemědělského orientačního a záručního fondu, prováděné členskými státy (Kodifikované znění) /* KOM/2006/0813 konecném znení - CNS 2006/0265 */
 [pic] | KOMISE EVROPSKÝCH SPOLEČENSTVÍ |V Bruselu dne 19.12.2006KOM(2006) 813 v konečném znění2006/0265 (CNS)NávrhNAŘÍZENÍ RADYo kontrole opatření tvořících součást systému financování Evropského zemědělského orientačního a záručního fondu, prováděné členskými státy (Kodifikované znění)(předložený Komisí)DŮVODOVÁ ZPRÁVA1. V souvislosti s konceptem „Evropa občanů“ přikládá Komise značnou důležitost zjednodušení a přehlednějšímu uspořádání práva Společenství, aby se stalo srozumitelnějším a přístupnějším pro řadového občana, který pak může lépe uplatňovat jednotlivá práva, které mu přiznává.Tohoto cíle nelze dosáhnout, dokud zůstanou jednotlivá ustanovení, která byla často několikrát podstatným způsobem změněna, roztroušena jak v původním předpisu, tak v pozdějších novelách. Je nutno proto vynaložit notné úsilí při vyhledávání a porovnávání jednotlivých předpisů, aby bylo lze nalézt právě platná ustanovení.Z tohoto důvodu je rovněž kodifikace často měněné právní úpravy nutná pro zachování její srozumitelnosti a průhlednosti.2. Komise proto svým rozhodnutím ze dne 1. dubna 1987[1] uložila svým útvarům, aby přistoupily ke kodifikaci jakéhokoli právního aktu nejpozději po jeho desáté změně, přičemž zdůraznila, že se jedná o minimální pravidlo a jednotlivé útvary by se měly v zájmu srozumitelnosti a přehlednosti předpisů Společenství snažit kodifikovat akty, za něž nesou odpovědnost, i v kratších intervalech.3. Závěry předsednictví Evropské rady z Edinburku (prosinec 1992) toto potvrdily[2] a zdůraznily význam kodifikace , neboť skýtá právní jistotu ohledně otázky, která právní norma se v určitém okamžiku použije na daný právní vztah.Kodifikace musí proběhnout v plném souladu s obvyklým legislativním postupem Společenství.S ohledem na skutečnost, že v aktech podrobených kodifikaci nemohou být prováděny žádné podstatné změny, se Evropský parlament, Rada a Komise dohodly prostřednictvím interinstitucionální dohody ze dne 20. prosince 1994 na zkráceném postupu pro rychlé přijímání kodifikovaných aktů.4. Účelem tohoto návrhu je provedení kodifikace nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 4045/89 ze dne 21. prosince 1989 o kontrole opatření tvořících součást systému financování záruční sekcí Evropského zemědělského orientačního a záručního fondu (EZOZF), prováděné členskými státy, a o zrušení směrnice 77/435/EHS[3]. Nařízení nahradí různé akty, které jsou do něj začleněny[4]; zcela zachovává jejich obsah, a omezuje se tak pouze na jejich spojení a zapracování pouze takových formálních změn , které vyžaduje samotná kodifikace.5. Tento kodifikační návrh byl vypracován na základě předchozího konsolidovaného znění nařízení (EHS) č. 4045/89 a jeho následných změn vyhotoveného ve všech úředních jazycích Úřadem pro úřední tisky Evropských společenství pomocí systému na zpracování dat . V případech, že bylo změněno číslování článků, je vztah mezi dřívějším a novým číslováním představen ve srovnávací tabulce uvedené v příloze II kodifikovaného nařízení. 4045/89 (přizpůsobený)2006/0265 (CNS)NávrhNAŘÍZENÍ RADYo kontrole opatření tvořících součást systému financování Evropského zemědělského orientačního a záručního fondu, prováděné členskými státyRADA EVROPSKÉ UNIE,s ohledem na Smlouvu o založení Evropského společenství, a zejména na článek 37 této smlouvy,s ohledem na návrh Komise,s ohledem na stanovisko Evropského parlamentu[5],vzhledem k těmto důvodům:1. Nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 4045/89 ze dne 21. prosince 1989 o kontrole opatření tvořících součást systému financování záruční sekcí Evropského zemědělského orientačního a záručního fondu (EZOZF), prováděné členskými státy, a o zrušení směrnice 77/435/EHS[6] bylo několikrát podstatně změněno[7]. Z důvodu srozumitelnosti a přehlednosti by mělo být uvedené nařízení kodifikováno. 4045/89 bod odůvodnění 1 (přizpůsobený)2. Podle článku 9 nařízení Rady (ES) č. 1290/2005 ze dne 21. června 2005 o financování společné zemědělské politiky[8], členské státy mají přijímat opatření nezbytná k zajištění účinné ochrany finančních zájmů Společenství, a zejména ke kontrole skutečného a řádného provádění operací financovaných Evropským zemědělským záručním fondem (EZZF) a Evropským zemědělským fondem pro rozvoj venkova (EZFRV) , k zabránění nesrovnalostem a jejich postihování a k zpětnému získání ztrát, které nastaly v důsledku nesrovnalostí nebo nedbalosti. 4045/89 bod odůvodnění 23. Kontrola obchodní dokumentace podniků, které přijímají nebo provádějí platby, může být velmi účinným prostředkem dohledu nad operacemi tvořícími součást financování z EZZF. Tato kontrola doplňuje ostatní kontroly prováděné členskými státy. Tímto nařízením navíc nejsou dotčeny vnitrostátní předpisy týkající se kontroly, která jsou širší než ustanovení tohoto nařízení. 4045/89 bod odůvodnění 54. Dokumenty, na jejichž základě se uskutečňuje dotyčná kontrola, by měly být určeny tak, aby byla umožněna úplná kontrola. 4045/89 bod odůvodnění 6 (přizpůsobený)5. Podniky, které mají být kontrolovány, by měly být vybrány zejména s ohledem na povahu operací prováděných v jejich odpovědnosti a rozložení podniků přijímajících anebo provádějících platby podle jejich finančního významu v systému financování EZZF. 4045/89 bod odůvodnění 7 (přizpůsobený)6. Dále je nutné stanovit minimální počet kontrol obchodní dokumentace: Tento počet by měl být stanoven způsobem, který vylučuje podstatné rozdíly mezi jednotlivými členskými státy v důsledku rozdílné skladby jejich výdajů v rámci EZZF. Tento způsob lze stanovit na základě počtu podniků o určitém stupni finančního významu v systému financování EZZF. 4045/89 bod odůvodnění 87. Je třeba vymezit pravomoci úředníků pověřených prováděním kontrol, jakož i povinnost podniků zpřístupnit jim po určitou dobu obchodní dokumentaci a podávat jim informace, které si vyžádají. Též by mělo být stanoveno, že obchodní dokumentace může být v některých případech zabavena. 4045/89 bod odůvodnění 9 (přizpůsobený)8. S ohledem na mezinárodní skladbu obchodu se zemědělskými produkty a s výhledem na fungování vnitřního trhu je nezbytné organizovat spolupráci mezi členskými státy. Je rovněž nezbytné vytvořit na úrovni Společenství centralizovaný dokumentační systém, podchycující podniky přijímající anebo uskutečňující platby usazené ve třetích zemích. 4045/89 bod odůvodnění 109. Zatímco přijímání programů kontroly náleží na prvním místě členským státům, je nutné sdělovat tyto programy Komisi, aby mohla převzít koordinační a dohlížecí úlohu a zajistit, že tyto programy jsou přijímány na základě vhodných kriterií. Kontroly lze tudíž soustředit na odvětví a podniky, u nichž je nebezpečí zpronevěr vysoké. 4045/89 bod odůvodnění 11 (přizpůsobený)10. Orgány vykonávající kontroly podle tohoto nařízení by měly být organizovány nezávisle na orgánech provádějících kontroly před vyplacením. 4045/89 bod odůvodnění 1211. Je nezbytné, aby každý členský stát měl zvláštní orgán pověřený sledováním uplatňování tohoto nařízení a koordinací kontrol prováděných na jeho základě. Zástupci tohoto orgánu mohou provádět kontroly podniků na základě tohoto nařízení. 4045/89 bod odůvodnění 1512. Na informace získané v průběhu kontrol obchodní dokumentace se musí vztahovat služební tajemství. 4045/89 bod odůvodnění 1613. Je třeba zavést výměnu informací na úrovni Společenství, aby výsledků uplatňování tohoto nařízení bylo možno využívat s vyšší účinností, 4045/89PŘIJALA TOTO NAŘÍZENÍ:Článek 1 2154/2002 čl. 1 bod 1 písm. a) (přizpůsobený)1. Toto nařízení se týká kontroly obchodní dokumentace subjektů nebo jejich zástupců, dále jen «podniky», které přijímají nebo provádějí platby, které se přímo nebo nepřímo vztahují k systému financování Evropským zemědělským záručním fondem (EZZF), za účelem zjištění, zda byla opatření tvořící součást systému financování EZZF skutečně a řádně provedena. 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 2 (přizpůsobený)2. Toto nařízení se nevztahuje na opatření, na které se vztahuje integrovaný administrativní a kontrolní systém zřízený nařízením Rady (ES) č. 1782/2003 [9]. V souladu s postupem uvedeným v čl. 41 odst. 2 nařízení (ES) č. 1290/2005 vypracuje Komise seznam ostatních opatření, na která se toto nařízení nevztahuje. 2154/2002 čl. 1 bod 1 písm. b) (přizpůsobený)3. U kontrol opatření pro rozvoj venkova a projektů, které nejsou výslovně vyňaty z oblasti působnosti těchto kontrol na základě přílohy nařízení Komise (ES) č. 2311/2000[10], je třeba především dbát na zvláštní podmínky, které platí pro provádění uvedených opatření. 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 1 (přizpůsobený)4. Pro potřeby tohoto nařízení se použijí následující definice: a) „obchodní dokumentací“ se rozumějí všechny účetní knihy, evidence, záznamy a související podpůrné dokumenty, účetnictví a korespondence související s obchodní činností podniku, jakož i obchodní údaje v jakékoli podobě včetně elektronické, pokud tyto dokumenty a údaje souvisejí přímo anebo nepřímo s operacemi uvedenými v odstavci 1; 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 2 (přizpůsobený) b) „třetí“ osobou" se rozumí každá fyzická nebo právnická osoba, která má přímý nebo nepřímý vztah k operacím prováděným v rámci systému financování EZZF. 4045/89 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 3 2154/2002 čl. 1 bod 2 písm. a)Článek 21. Členské státy provádějí kontroly obchodní dokumentace podniků, s přihlédnutím k povaze operací, jichž se kontrola týká. Členské státy zajistí, aby výběr podniků ke kontrole poskytoval nejlepší záruku účinnosti opatření pro předcházení nesrovnalostí v systému financování EZZF a jejich vyšetřování. Výběr přihlíží mimo jiné k finančnímu významu podniků v této oblasti a k ostatním rizikovým faktorům.2. Kontroly uvedené v odstavci 1 jsou během každého kontrolního období uvedeného v odstavci 7 prováděny v počtu podniků, který nesmí být menší než polovina počtu podniků, které v rozpočtovém roce EZZF předcházejícím počátku daného kontrolního období obdržely nebo vyplatily v rámci systému financování EZZF více než 150 000 EUR . 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 53. Pro každé kontrolní období a aniž jsou dotčeny jejich závazky vymezené v odstavci 1, vybírají členské státy podniky ke kontrole podle výsledků analýzy rizik uplatněné na oblast, vývozních náhrad a všech ostatních opatření, na která ji lze použít. Členské státy předloží Komisi své návrhy na využití analýzy rizik. Návrhy budou obsahovat všechny užitečné informace související s navrhovaným postupem, technikami, kritérii a metodou zavádění. Musí být předloženy nejpozději k 1. prosinci roku předcházejícího začátek kontrolního období, na které se mají vztahovat. Členské státy přihlédnou k připomínkám, které Komise podá k jejich návrhům do osmi týdnů po obdržení daného návrhu. 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 5 2154/2002 čl. 1 bod 2 písm. b)4. Pokud jde o opatření, o nichž členské státy usoudí, že na ně nelze metodu analýzy rizik použít, musí být kontrolovány podniky, u nichž výše příjmů nebo výdajů nebo součtu příjmů a výdajů v rámci systému financování EZZF přesahuje 350 000 EUR a které nebyly kontrolovány podle tohoto nařízení v průběhu některého ze dvou předcházejících kontrolních období. 4045/89 2154/2002 čl. 1 bod 2 písm. c)5. Podniky, které obdržely nebo vyplatily méně než 40 000 EUR , jsou kontrolovány podle tohoto nařízení pouze na základě kritérií, které uvedou členské státy ve svém ročním programu uvedeném v článku 10 anebo Komise v jakémkoliv návrhu na změnu tohoto programu.6. Ve vhodných případech bude kontrola uvedená v odstavci 1 rozšířena i na fyzické a právnické osoby, s nimiž jsou podniky ve smyslu článku 1 ve spojení, a na všechny další fyzické a právnické osoby, které mohou mít zájem na sledování cílů stanovených v článku 3.7. Kontrolní období trvá od 1. července do 30. června následujícího roku. 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 7Kontrola se týká období alespoň dvanácti měsíců, které končí v průběhu předcházejícího kontrolního období; může být rozšířena na období stanovené členským státem, která předcházejí nebo následují toto dvanáctiměsíční období. 4045/89 (přizpůsobený) 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 88. Kontrolami prováděnými podle tohoto nařízení nejsou dotčeny kontroly prováděné na základě článku 6 nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 595/91[11] ani kontroly prováděné na základě článků 36 a 37 nařízení (ES) č. 1290/2005 . 4045/89Článek 3 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 91. Přesnost základních údajů podrobených kontrole je ověřována křížovými kontrolami, včetně porovnání s obchodní dokumentací třetích osob, jejichž počet je dostatečný s ohledem na úroveň rizika a které zahrnují zejména:a) porovnávání s obchodní dokumentací dodavatelů, zákazníků, dopravců a jiných třetích osob;b) případně fyzické kontroly množství a povahy zásob; 4045/89c) porovnání s účetnictvím finančních toků předcházejících nebo následujících příslušným operacím prováděným v rámci systému financování EZZF, a 2154/2002 čl. 1 bod 3d) prověrky vedení účetnictví nebo záznamy o finančních pohybech, ze kterých v době provádění kontroly vyplývá, že podklady, které má platební agentura k dispozici jako doklad výplaty podpor ve prospěch příjemce, jsou správné. 4045/892. Zejména mají-li podniky povinnost vést zvláštní účetnictví v souladu s předpisy Společenství nebo vnitrostátními předpisy, zahrne kontrola tohoto účetnictví, je-li to vhodné, porovnání s obchodní dokumentací a případně se skutečným stavem zásob. 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 103. Při výběru operací ke kontrole se plně přihlíží k existující úrovni rizika. 4045/89Článek 4Podniky uchovávají obchodní dokumentaci po dobu minimálně tří let od konce roku, v němž byla vystavena.Členské státy mohou stanovit delší dobu uchovávání této dokumentace.Článek 5 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 111. Osoby odpovědné za chod podniků nebo třetí osoba zajistí, aby byly úředníkům pověřeným prováděním kontroly anebo osobám k tomu zmocněným předána veškerá obchodní dokumentace a doplňující informace. Informaticky uchovávané údaje se poskytují na vhodném nosiči. 4045/892. Úředníci pověření prováděním kontroly anebo osoby k tomu zmocněné si mohou vyžádat předání výtahů nebo kopií dokumentace uvedené v odstavci 1. 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 123. Pokud je v průběhu kontroly prováděné podle tohoto nařízení obchodní dokumentace uchovávaná podnikem shledána nepřiměřenou pro účely kontroly, je podnik požádán, aby v budoucnu vedl dokumentaci podle pokynů členského státu příslušného ke kontrole, aniž jsou dotčeny povinnosti vymezené v ostatních nařízeních týkajících se této oblasti.Členské státy určí den, od nějž musí být dokumentace pořízena.Pokud se veškerá obchodní dokumentace, která má být předmětem kontroly prováděné na základě tohoto nařízení, nebo její část nachází v podniku téže obchodní skupiny, téže společnosti nebo téhož sdružení podniků řízených na jednotném základě s kontrolovaným podnikem bez ohledu na to, zda se nachází na území Společenství nebo mimo ně, je kontrolovaný podnik povinen danou dokumentaci poskytnout úředníkům pověřeným provedením kontroly, a to na místě a v den, které určí členský stát příslušný k provedení kontroly. 4045/89Článek 61. Členské státy zajistí, že úředníci pověření prováděním kontroly jsou oprávněni zabavit nebo dát zabavit obchodní dokumentaci. Toto právo je třeba vykonávat v souladu s odpovídajícími vnitrostátními předpisy a není jím dotčeno použití předpisů trestního řízení o zajištění dokumentů.2. Členské státy přijmou přiměřená opatření umožňující potrestání fyzických anebo právnických osob, které neplní své povinnosti vyplývající z tohoto nařízení. 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 13 (přizpůsobený)Článek 71. Členské státy si navzájem poskytují pomoc při provádění kontrol uvedených v článcích 2 a 3 v těchto případech :a) jsou-li podnik nebo třetí osoba usazeny v jiném členském státě, než ve kterém byla anebo měla být vyplacena nebo obdržena dotyčná částka.b) jsou-li podnik nebo třetí osoba usazeny v jiném členském státě, než ve kterém se nachází daná dokumentace a informace nezbytné k provedení kontroly.Komise může koordinovat společné činnosti zahrnující vzájemnou pomoc mezi dvěma nebo více členskými státy. Předpisy pro tuto koordinaci budou vypracovány v souladu s postupem uvedeným v čl. 41 odst. 2 nařízení (ES) č. 1290/2005 . 2154/2002 čl. 1 bod 4 písm. a) (přizpůsobený)Zahrnou-li dva nebo více členských států do programu sděleného Komisi podle čl. 10 odst. 2 návrh na společné opatření, které vyžaduje značnou vzájemnou pomoc, může Komise na žádost povolit dotyčným členským státům snížení minimálního počtu kontrol stanoveného v čl. 2 odst. 2 až 5 o nejvýše 25 %. 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 13 (přizpůsobený)2. V průběhu prvního čtvrtletí následujícího po rozpočtovém roce EZZF, v němž byla vyplacena a/nebo obdržena dotyčná částka, předají členské státy seznam podniků uvedený v odst. 1 písm. a) každému členskému státu, v němž je podnik usazen. Seznam obsahuje všechny podrobnosti umožňující oslovenému členskému státu zjistit totožnost podniků a splnit své kontrolní povinnosti. Oslovený členský stát je příslušný k provádění kontrol podniků v souladu s článkem 2. Opis každého seznamu je předán Komisi.Členský stát, ve kterém byla vyplacena nebo obdržena finanční částka, může v souladu s článkem 2 požádat členský stát, v němž je podnik usazen, o kontrolu některých podniků, které jsou uvedeny v seznamu, s uvedením důvodů této žádosti a zejména rizik, která jsou s ní spojena.Členský stát, který obdrží tuto žádost, náležitě přihlédne k rizikům spojeným s tímto podnikem, která mu sdělil členský stát, jenž o kontrolu požádal.Dožádaný členský stát uvědomí členský stát, který o kontrolu požádal, o opatřeních, která učinil po obdržení jeho žádosti. Provede-li kontrolu některého z podniků uvedených v seznamu, uvědomí žádající členský stát, který kontrolu provedl, o výsledcích kontroly členský stát, který danou žádost vznesl, a to nejpozději do tří měsíců po skončení kontrolního období. 2154/2002 čl. 1 bod 4 písm. b)Přehled těchto žádostí se čtvrtletně zasílá Komisi, a to do jednoho měsíce po uplynutí každého čtvrtletí. Komise může požadovat předložení kopií jednotlivých žádostí. 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 133. V průběhu prvého čtvrtletí následujícího po rozpočtovém roce EZZF, v němž byla provedena platba, zašlou členské státy Komisi seznam podniků usazených ve třetí zemi, pro něž byla nebo měla být vyplacena nebo obdržena částka v tomto členském státě. 2154/2002 čl. 1 bod 4 písm. c)4. Požadují-li se v jiném členském státě doplňující informace jako součást kontroly podniku v souladu s článkem 2, a zejména křížových kontrol prováděných v souladu s článkem 3, je možné vypracovat zvláštní kontrolní žádosti s uvedením důvodů. Přehled těchto zvláštních žádostí se čtvrtletně zasílá Komisi, a to do jednoho měsíce po uplynutí každého čtvrtletí. Komise může požadovat předložení kopií jednotlivých žádostí.Žádost o kontrolu bude splněna nejpozději do šesti měsíců od jejího obdržení; výsledky kontroly budou neprodleně sděleny dožadujícímu členskému státu a Komisi. Sdělení se zasílá Komisi čtvrtletně, a to do jednoho měsíce po uplynutí každého čtvrtletí. 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 13 (přizpůsobený)5. V souladu s postupem uvedeným v čl. 41 odst. 2 nařízení (ES) č. 1290/2005 stanoví Komise obsah minimálních požadavků kladených na obsah žádostí uvedených v odstavcích 2 a 4 tohoto článku . 4045/89Článek 81. Na informace získané v průběhu kontroly obchodní dokumentace podle tohoto nařízení se vztahuje služební tajemství. Nesmějí být sděleny jiným osobám kromě těch, které je musí znát pro výkon povinností vyplývajících z jejich postavení v členských státech anebo v orgánech Společenství.2. Tímto článkem nejsou dotčeny vnitrostátní předpisy o soudním řízení.Článek 91. Do 1. ledna roku následujícího po kontrolním období zašlou členské státy Komisi podrobnou zprávu o uplatňování tohoto nařízení.Tato zpráva musí uvést veškeré obtíže, s nimiž se kontrola setkala, jakož i opatření přijatá k jejich překonání, a musí obsahovat případné návrhy na zlepšení.2. Členské státy a Komise si pravidelně vyměňují své názory na uplatňování tohoto nařízení. 4045/89 (přizpůsobený)3. Komise každoročně vyhodnotí dosažený pokrok ve své výroční zprávě o správě fondu uvedeného v článku 43 nařízení (ES) č. 1290/2005 . 4045/89 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 15Článek 101. Členské státy vypracují program kontrol, které budou prováděny, v souladu s článkem 2 v průběhu následujícího kontrolního období.2. Do 15. dubna každého roku sdělí členské státy Komisi svůj program uvedený v odstavci 1 a blíže určía) počet podniků, v nichž bude provedena kontrola, a jejich rozčlenění podle odvětví s ohledem na související částky;b) kritéria sledovaná při vypracování programu.3. Programy vypracované členskými státy a sdělené Komisi provádějí členské státy, pokud k nim Komise nepodá ve lhůtě osmi týdnů připomínky.4. Na změny programů provedené členskými státy se vztahuje stejný postup.5. Ve výjimečných případech si Komise může na kterémkoliv stupni vyžádat zařazení určité kategorie podniků do programu kontrol jednoho či více členských států. 4045/89Článek 111. V každém členském státě je zvláštní orgán pověřen sledováním uplatňování tohoto nařízení a:a) prováděním kontrol podle něj úředníky přímo zaměstnanými tímto zvláštním orgánem, anebob) koordinací a obecným dohledem nad kontrolami prováděnými úředníky zaměstnanými jinými orgány.Členské státy mohou rovněž stanovit, že kontroly prováděné podle tohoto nařízení jsou rozděleny mezi zvláštní orgán a jiné vnitrostátní orgány, pokud zvláštní orgán zajišťuje jejich koordinaci.2. Orgán nebo orgány pověřené uplatňováním tohoto nařízení musí být organizovány tak, aby byly nezávislé na orgánech anebo odděleních orgánů pověřených platbami a předběžnou kontrolou.3. Zvláštní orgán uvedený v odstavci 1 učiní veškeré potřebné podněty a opatření, aby zaručil správné uplatňování tohoto nařízení.4. Zvláštní orgán dále zajišťuje:a) školení vnitrostátních úředníků pověřených prováděním kontrol podle tohoto nařízení určené k tomu, aby jim umožnilo získat znalosti dostatečné k výkonu jejich povinností;b) zpracovávání zpráv o provedených kontrolách a dalších dokumentů souvisejících s prováděnými kontrolami, pokud tak stanoví toto nařízení;c) zpracovávání a projednávání zpráv podle čl. 9 odst. 1 a programů podle článku 10.5. Zvláštnímu orgánu svěří příslušný členský stát veškerou pravomoc nezbytnou k výkonu úkolů uvedených v odstavcích 3 a 4.Tvoří jej dostatečný počet úředníků, kteří jsou vhodným způsobem odborně vzděláni k výkonu těchto úkolů.6. Tento článek se nepoužije, je-li minimální počet podniků, které mají být kontrolovány na základě čl. 2 odst. 2 až 5, menší než 10. 4045/89 (přizpůsobený)Článek 12Částky v eurech uváděné v tomto nařízení se podle potřeby přepočítávají na národní měny za použití směnných kurzů platných k prvnímu pracovním dni kalendářního roku, ve kterém začíná kontrolní období, a zveřejněných v řadě C Úředního věstníku Evropské unie .Článek 13Prováděcí pravidla k tomuto nařízení se stanoví postupem uvedeným v čl. 41 odst. 2 nařízení (ES) č. 1290/2005 .Článek 14Pro kontrolu konkrétních výdajů hrazených Společenstvím na základě tohoto nařízení se použijí články 36 a 37 nařízení (ES) č. 1290/2005 . 4045/89 (přizpůsobený) 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 18 písm. a)Článek 15 1. V souladu s příslušnými ustanoveními vnitrostátních právních předpisů mají zástupci Komise přístup ke všem dokumentům vypracovaným v souvislosti s kontrolami uskutečněnými na základě tohoto nařízení nebo v jejich důsledku, jakož i ke shromážděným údajům, včetně údajů uložených v informačních systémech. Tyto údaje jsou na požádání poskytnuty na vhodném nosiči. 3094/94 čl. 1 bod 18 písm. b)2. Kontroly uvedené ve článku 2 provádějí úředníci členského státu.Úředníci Komise se mohou těchto kontrol účastnit. Nemohou však vykonávat kontrolní pravomoci vnitrostátních úředníků; mají však přístup do týchž prostor a k téže dokumentaci jako úředníci členského státu.3. Probíhají-li kontroly způsoby uvedenými v článku 7, mohou být úředníci členského státu, který o kontrolu požádal, přítomni se souhlasem dožádaného státu při kontrolách prováděných v dožádaném členském státě a mohou mít přístup do týchž prostor a k téže dokumentaci jako úředníci tohoto členského státu.Úředníci žádajícího členského státu přítomní při provádění kontrol v dožádaném členském státě, musí být vždy schopni prokázat svou úřední způsobilost. Kontrolu však vždy provádějí úředníci dožádaného členského státu.4. Pokud vnitrostátní předpisy o trestním řízení vyhrazují některé úkony činitelům zvlášť určeným vnitrostátními právními předpisy, úředníci Komise ani úředníci členského státu uvedení v odstavci 3 se tohoto úkonu neúčastní. V žádném případě se neúčastní domovních prohlídek a formálních výslechů osob, které jsou prováděny na základě trestního práva daného členského státu. Mají však přístup k takto získaným informacím.Článek 16Nařízení (EHS) č. 4045/89 se zrušuje.Odkazy na zrušené nařízení se považují za odkazy na toto nařízení v souladu se srovnávací tabulkou obsaženou v příloze II. 4045/89 (přizpůsobený)Článek 17Toto nařízení vstupuje v platnost dvacátým dnem po vyhlášení v Úředním věstníku Evropské unie .Toto nařízení je závazné v celém rozsahu a přímo použitelné ve všech členských státech.V Bruselu dne [...]Za Radupředseda / předsedkyně[...] PŘÍLOHA IZrušené nařízení a jeho následné změnyNařízení Rady (EHS) č. 4045/89 (Úř. věst. L 388, 30.12.1989, s. 18) |Nařízení Rady (ES) č. 3094/94 (Úř. věst. L 328, 20.12.1994, s. 1) |Nařízení Rady (ES) č. 3235/94 (Úř. věst. L 338, 28.12.1994, s. 16) | Pouze čl. 1 odst. 1 |Nařízení Rady (ES) č. 2154/2002 (Úř. věst. L 328, 5.12.2002, s. 4) |_____________ PŘÍLOHA IISrovnávací tabulkaNařízení (EHS) č. 4045/89 | Toto nařízení |Článek 1, odstavec 1 | Článek 1, odstavec 1 |Článek 1, odstavec 2 | Článek 1, odstavec 4, úvodní slova a článek 1, odstavec 4, písmeno a) |Článek 1, odstavec 3 | Článek 1, odstavec 4, písmeno b) |Článek 1, odstavec 4 | Článek 1, odstavec 2 |Článek 1, odstavec 5 | Článek 1, odstavec 3 |Článek 2, odstavec 1 | Článek 2, odstavec 1 |Článek 2, odstavec 2, první pododstavec | Článek 2, odstavec 2 |Článek 2, odstavec 2, druhý pododstavec | Článek 2, odstavec 3 |Článek 2, odstavec 2, třetí pododstavec | – |Článek 2, odstavec 2, čtvrtý pododstavec | Článek 2, odstavec 4 |Článek 2, odstavec 2, pátý pododstavec | Článek 2, odstavec 5 |Článek 2, odstavec 3 | Článek 2, odstavec 6 |Článek 2, odstavec 4 | Článek 2, odstavec 7 |Článek 2, odstavec 5 | Článek 2, odstavec 8 |Článek 3, odstavec 1, úvodní věta | Článek 3, odstavec 1, úvodní věta |Článek 3, odstavec 1, první odrážka | Článek 3, odstavec 1, písmeno a) |Článek 3, odstavec 1, druhá odrážka | Článek 3, odstavec 1, písmeno b) |Článek 3, odstavec 1, třetí odrážka | Článek 3, odstavec 1, písmeno c) |Článek 3, odstavec 1, čtvrtá odrážka | Článek 3, odstavec 1, písmeno d) |Článek 3, odstavec 2 | Článek 3, odstavec 2 |Článek 3, odstavec 3 | Článek 3, odstavec 3 |Článek 4 | Článek 4 |Článek 5 | Článek 5 |Článek 6 | Článek 6 |Článek 7, odstavec 1, první pododstavec, úvodní věta | Článek 7, odstavec 1, první pododstavec, úvodní věta |Článek 7, odstavec 1, první pododstavec, první odrážka | Článek 7, odstavec 1, první pododstavec, písmeno a) |Článek 7, odstavec 1, první pododstavec, druhá odrážka | Článek 7, odstavec 1, první pododstavec, písmeno b) |Článek 7, odstavec 1, druhý pododstavec | Článek 7, odstavec 1, druhý pododstavec |Článek 7, odstavec 1, třetí pododstavec | Článek 7, odstavec 1, třetí pododstavec |Článek 7, odstavce 2, 3, 4 a 5 | Článek 7, odstavce 2, 3, 4 a 5 |Článek 8 | Článek 8 |Článek 9, odstavec 1 | Článek 9, odstavec 1, první pododstavec |Článek 9, odstavec 2 | Článek 9, odstavec 1, druhý pododstavec |Článek 9, odstavec 3 | Článek 9, odstavec 2 |Článek 9, odstavec 4 | Článek 9, odstavec 3 |Článek 9, odstavec 5 | – |Článek 10, odstavec 1 | Článek 10, odstavec 1 |Článek 10, odstavec 2, úvodní věta | Článek 10, odstavec 2, úvodní věta |Článek 10, odstavec 2, první odrážka | Článek 10, odstavec 2, písmeno a) |Článek 10, odstavec 2, druhá odrážka | Článek 10, odstavec 2, písmeno b) |Článek 10, odstavce 3, 4 a 5 | Článek 10, odstavce 3, 4 a 5 |Článek 11, odstavec 1, první pododstavec, úvodní věta | Článek 11, odstavec 1, první pododstavec, úvodní věta |Článek 11, odstavec 1, první pododstavec, první odrážka | Článek 11, odstavec 1, první pododstavec, písmeno a) |Článek 11, odstavec 1, první pododstavec, druhá odrážka | Článek 11, odstavec 1, první pododstavec, písmeno b) |Článek 11, odstavec 1, druhý pododstavec | Článek 11, odstavec 1, druhý pododstavec |Článek 11, odstavce 2 a 3 | Článek 11, odstavce 2 a 3 |Článek 11, odstavec 4, úvodní věta | Článek 11, odstavec 4, úvodní věta |Článek 11, odstavec 4, první odrážka | Článek 11, odstavec 4, písmeno a) |Článek 11, odstavec 4, druhá odrážka | Článek 11, odstavec 4, písmeno b) |Článek 11, odstavec 4, třetí odrážka | Článek 11, odstavec 4, písmeno c) |Článek 11, odstavce 5 a 6 | Článek 11, odstavce 5 a 6 |Článek 18 | Článek 12 |Článek 19 | Článek 13 |Článek 20 | Článek 14 |Článek 21 | Článek 15 |Článek 22 | – |– | Článek 16 |Článek 23 | Článek 17 |– | Příloha I |– | Příloha II |_____________[1] KOM(87) 868 PV.[2] Viz část A příloha 3 uvedených závěrů.[3] Prováděno v souladu se sdělením Komise Evropskému parlamentu a Radě – Kodifikace acquis communautaire , KOM(2001) 645 v konečném znění.[4] Viz příloha I tohoto návrhu.[5] Úř. věst. C [...] .[6] Úř. věst. L 388, 30.12.1989, s. 18. Nařízení naposledy pozměněné nařízením (ES) č. 2154/2002 (Úř. věst. L 328, 5.12.2002, s. 4).[7] Viz příloha I.[8] Úř. věst. L 209, 11.8.2005, s. 1. Nařízení ve znění nařízení (ES) č. 320/2006 (Úř. věst. L 58, 28.2.2006, s. 42) .[9] Úř. věst. L 270, 21.10.2003, s. 1 .[10] Úř.věst. L 265, 19.10.2000, s. 10.[11] Úř. věst. L 67, 14.3.1991, s. 11.