type: wikipedia

text:
La meseta de Millevaches (en francés Plateau de Millevaches, en occitano Miuvachas), a veces llamada "montaña de Limousin", es una gran meseta granítica francesa situada en la región histórica de Limousin de Nueva Aquitania, de la que es la parte más elevada.
 Se extiende sobre una gran parte de la zona nororiental del departamento de Corrèze, también ocupa la parte sur de Creuse y se extiende hasta el extremo sureste del Alto Vienne
 Presentación
 Ocupa la parte oriental de las montañas de Limousin y domina las mesetas y montañas de La Marche al norte, la meseta de Courtine y Combrailles al este, el valle del Dordoña y el altiplano de Correze al sur y las más bajas mesetas de Limousin hacia el oeste. Con una altitud total de entre 500 y 900 metros, culmina a 977 m en el monte Bessou. A veces se la llama "la torre de agua de Francia" por sus lagos y turberas y por los numerosos ríos que desembocan en ella, como el Vézère, el Vienne, el Corrèze y el Creuse.
 Creado en 2004, el parque natural regional de Millevaches en Limousin abarca toda la meseta y varios territorios vecinos.
 Geografía
 Delimitación
 La meseta de Millevaches no corresponde a ninguna delimitación administrativa, cultural o histórica precisa. Se han propuesto algunas divisiones.
 En 2005, la Agencia del Paisaje de Folléa-Gautier y la Dirección Regional de Medio Ambiente (DREAL), en colaboración con la Universidad de Limoges, elaboraron un Atlas de los paisajes de la región del Lemosín. Esta obra, que enumera treinta y dos unidades de paisaje que abarcan toda la región del Lemosín y que se basan principalmente en aspectos geomorfológicos y naturales, define la "meseta de Millevaches" como una entidad de forma rómbica, cuyos ángulos agudos unen Felletin al norte con Egletons al sur, y los obtusos Nedde al oeste con Ussel al este.
 La reforma cantonal de 2014 estableció un cantón de Plateau de Millevaches en el norte del departamento de Corrèze, que reúne a 33 municipios en un sentido geográfico bastante amplio pero relativamente conforme a la meseta real en su parte de Correze.
 Topografía y geomorfología
 La forma de la meseta implica una superficie plana u ondulada separada de las zonas vecinas por valles marcados, y cuyos valles interiores tienen pendientes más o menos claras. La zona conocida como la meseta de Millevaches no reúne todas estas características. Así, más que una meseta perfecta, puede presentarse como un "conjunto accidentado y en forma de cuenco".
 La meseta de Millevaches es, de hecho, una vasta zona con límites borrosos y un "relieve confuso", un verdadero "mar de colinas boscosas", resultado de una sucesión de valles, colinas e interfluvios planos. A pesar de esta relativa confusión, el patrón de panal aparece como una unidad de paisaje estructurante.
 La meseta de Millevaches no tiene montañas muy altas ya que la máxima altitud se alcanza en el monte Bessou ( ). Junto con la meseta de Courtine y el macizo de Monédières, es una de las tres áreas geográficas de Lemosín que superan los 900 m. Otras montañas alcanzan o superan los 900 metros. Se extienden en cadena de norte a sur, a lo largo de 34 kilómetros, entre Groscher (906 m), en el municipio de Gentioux-Pigerolles, y Freytuvert (908 m), en el municipio de Péret-Bel-Air.
 Hidrografía
 Los ríos más importantes son:
 En la cuenca del Loira: el Vienne y sus afluentes el Creuse, el Taurion y el Maulde.
 En la cuenca del Dordoña: el Vézère y su afluente el Corrèze.
 El Vienne que alimenta la central nuclear de Civaux, a unos 180 km de su fuente.
 La zona está salpicada de varios estanques artificiales y embalses. El más importante, y el más grande de la región Limousin es el de Vassivière, a caballo entre los departamentos de Creuse y Haute-Vienne, en Maulde .
 Los otros lagos principales son el lago de Lavaud-Gelade, en el Thaurion, cerca de Saint-Marc-à-Loubaud en Creuse, que permite abastecer el lago de Vassivière, el lago de Chammet, entre Creuse y Corrèze, el lago de Bariousses en Treignac y la presa de Monceaux, ambos en el Vézère.
 Clima
 El clima de la meseta de Millevaches es frío y húmedo en invierno, con nevadas a menudo intensas y a veces tardías. En verano hace calor, pero pueden producirse rápidamente tormentas. El otoño es colorido y a menudo se ve afectado por el veranillo, que trae una breve pausa de tiempo soleado y muy suave.
 Es importante señalar que llueve más en la parte occidental de la meseta de Millevaches (Vassivière), con casi 1.400 mm al año, frente a los 1.000 a 1.100 mm de la parte oriental de la meseta (Crocq).
 Paisajes
 El éxodo rural, el declive competitivo de la lana de oveja del Lemosín y, por extensión, la modificación de las prácticas y actividades agrícolas y la presión urbana y turística han contribuido a amplificar una inversión del paisaje desde finales del siglo XIX y durante el siglo XX.
 Si antes, las alturas de la meseta presentaban grandes horizontes despejados, amplísimas superficies abiertas y herbáceas, el abandono de estos espacios por parte de la ganadería se hizo en beneficio de la silvicultura y de los eriales, lo que condujo a un cierre de las perspectivas paisajísticas, sinónimo de pérdida de actividad y de cierre social para los autóctonos, mientras que, al mismo tiempo, los espacios inferiores adyacentes a la meseta han perdido parte de su red de bocage, abriéndose para dar paso al paisaje conocido como campagne-parc.
 El perfil de la meseta (una confusa sucesión de valles, interfluvios más o menos planos y colinas en torno a la forma de panal) llevó a P. Jousset a decir en 1918 que el horizonte evoca "un remolino de olas petrificadas sobre el que se elevan el monte Audouze, el monte Bessou y las Monédières". En efecto, todos los relieves, ya sean mesetas o macizos, parecen converger hacia este techo del Lemosín. Visualmente, los paisajes contemporáneos de la meseta de Millevaches pueden resumirse como una sucesión de "volúmenes imponentes, pesados y compactos", donde la superficie forestal es la cubierta ultradominante, más aún cerca de los valles, a pesar de los horizontes abiertos ocasionales. El horizonte de la meseta está claramente marcado por los "relieves" creados por estas masas boscosas.
 El Atlas del paisaje de Limousin publicado en 2005 por la DREAL y la Universidad de Limoges ofrece una división regional en unidades de paisaje. La meseta de Millevaches, tal y como se trata en este artículo, está dividida casi en su totalidad entre dos de estas unidades, la unidad de la Meseta de Millevaches, que incluye la parte correspondiente a Corrèze de la meseta de Millevaches y la parte oriental de la meseta de Gentioux, y la unidad del País de Vassivière, que incluye la parte occidental de la meseta de Gentioux y las colinas de Maulde y Taurion, el suave extremo norte de la "gran" zona de la meseta de Millevaches.
 En general, el paisaje de la región de Vassivière, que se encuentra a menor altitud (entre 500 y 800 metros), es más cerrado que el de la meseta de Millevaches, en Correze: los bosques de coníferas y los terrenos baldíos (retamas, abedules, etc.) están muy presentes.
 Demografía
 Según la tipología de municipios elaborada y utilizada por el INSEE, el 74% de los municipios de la meseta están calificados como "municipios aislados fuera de la influencia de los centros" (20% a escala nacional), es decir, municipios rurales que no están significativamente influidos por la influencia económica y demográfica de los centros urbanos (Limoges, Tulle, Egletons, Ussel, Aubusson, etc.).
 El perfil típico de los municipios de la meseta de Millevaches cumple, por tanto, con los siguientes calificativos: pueblos rurales y aislados.
 La tasa de cambio de la población ha sido continuamente negativa desde la década de 1960, aunque esta disminución ha tendido a disminuir desde la década de 1990. El saldo migratorio se mantuvo negativo durante mucho tiempo, justificándose la emigración por la pobreza del altiplano, pero desde la década de 1990 se observa una reversión del fenómeno. La amortiguación del descenso de la tasa de variación global se debe, por tanto, a un renovado atractivo de la población: al igual que Limousin, que ha experimentado un renacimiento demográfico desde la década de 1990 debido a la migración neta, la meseta ha visto invertirse la tendencia del éxodo.
 Patrimonio natural
 Flora
 En cuanto a la vegetación potencial, predomina el haya, por delante de la serie del roble común, y en menor medida del roble albar. Emblema regional, el castaño está casi ausente del territorio de la meseta, raro por encima de los 500 m de altitud.
 Desde mediados del siglo XX, con el abandono de las tierras de cultivo y páramos, y en ocasiones sobre áreas boscosas de madera dura, se ha producido una reforestación masiva y artificial de maderas blandas en la meseta. Si el pino silvestre estuvo inicialmente presente en el Lemosín, especies americanas como el abeto de Vancouver, el abeto de Douglas o la pícea de Sitka son ahora recurrentes en el paisaje.
 La meseta de Millevaches es un área donde todavía existen páramos (especialmente páramos de brezo) en algunos lugares, incluso si la reforestación y las tierras en barbecho los han erosionado en gran medida.
 Fauna
 Los humedales albergan una fauna rica, específica y frágil. Entre los reptiles, la lagartija vivípara o lagartija roquera. Las zonas de especial protección resultantes de la Directiva de Aves y que forman parte de la Red Natura 2000, albergan numerosas especies de murciélagos ( grandes murciélagos, y aves (incluidas varias rapaces), mirlo acuático, alcaudón gris, milano negro, gavilán, aguilucho pálido, chotacabras europeo, bisbita de las praderas, herrerillo común o águila culebrera, comunes en toda Europa. Varios insectos son monitoreados por su rareza y fragilidad, como el doncella de ondas rojas o varias libélulas como el Sympetrum danae o la Somatochlora. Entre los mamíferos, la rata de agua o la liebre común.
 Difícil de observar pero viendo aumentar su número después de haber casi desaparecido, la nutria europea es un símbolo de la meseta de Millevaches, representado en el logotipo oficial del parque natural regional.
 Protección del entorno natural
 Varias leyes regulan la gestión de los espacios naturales considerados singulares y dignos de protección específica. Existen diferentes estados; en el territorio de la meseta de Millevaches, encontramos:
 Espacios clasificados de la red Natura 2000 de interés comunitario, cuyos objetivos son la protección del patrimonio natural y la biodiversidad. Los situados en el territorio del parque natural son directamente cogestionados por éste.
 Espacios naturales de interés ecológico, faunístico y florístico gestionados por los departamentos regionales de medio ambiente, planificación y vivienda en asociación con varias organizaciones como la oficina forestal nacional, la oficina francesa de biodiversidad o el Conservatoire du littoral, actores en la preservación del medio ambiente dentro del PNR.
 Desde " sitios con litoral», en este caso lagos, adquiridos y coordinados por el Conservatoire du littoral que delega su gestión en varios organismos.
 Reservas naturales nacionales y reservas naturales regionales clasificadas por el Estado a través del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente para las primeras, por la Región para las demás, pero gestionadas por varios organismos según el caso bajo la coordinación de la ONG Réserves Naturelles de France .
 Cabe señalar que el Conservatorio Regional de los Espacios Naturales de Limousin (CRENL), que también gestiona la reserva nacional de la turbera de Dauges, en las montañas de Ambazac, también es responsable de la protección de entornos como la turbera de Longéroux, los más grandes de Limousin , ya están protegidos por la red Natura 2000. En general, el CRENL se ocupa de varios sitios de tamaño variable en el territorio del PNR.
 El parque natural comarcal
 Un parque natural regional en Francia es una agrupación de municipios, clasificada como zona protegida, cuyo ámbito de competencia es la protección del patrimonio natural y cultural. Desde la creación de este estatus, se ha hecho hincapié en el desarrollo sostenible y la concienciación sobre la naturaleza, más que en una forma estricta de protección de la misma. De hecho, el PNR no tiene ningún poder coercitivo, sino que se basa en una carta aprobada por todos los socios. El parque natural regional de Millevaches, en Lemosín, fue creado por decreto de 18 de mayo de 2004 y abarca 113 municipios y una superficie de 300.000 hectáreas con 38.000 habitantes. Desde 2018, una nueva carta ha permitido ampliarlo a 124 municipios, el parque estaba, en ese momento, poblado por 38.950 habitantes.
 Red Natura 2000
 Los lugares son Lugares de Interés Comunitario (LIC), nombre original de la propuesta, o Zonas Especiales de Conservación (ZEC), cuya designación es el último paso del proceso de designación. Las ZEC son complementarias a las Zonas de Especial Protección para las Aves, y las ZEC y las ZEPA son los últimos eslabones de la red Natura 2000.
 El territorio de la meseta está incluido casi en su totalidad en el perímetro de una de las tres ZEPAs del Lemosín, la ZEPA de la Meseta de Millevaches, que abarca el 50% de Creuse, el 47% de Corrèze y el 3% de Haute-Vienne, entre 650 y 977 metros de altitud. Esta ZEPA contiene varios LICs o propuestas de LICs.
 ZNIEFF
 El altiplano alberga alrededor de 85 áreas naturales de interés ecológico, faunístico y florístico, algunas de las cuales se extienden a lo largo de dos o tres departamentos. Son unas cincuenta en Corrèze, unas treinta en Creuse, 5 en Haute-Vienne.
 Sitios con litoral
 El Conservatorio es responsable de varias costas lacustres francesas, además de muchas costas marítimas. Como propietario de zonas bien delimitadas, tiene un ámbito de intervención más amplio que le permite gestionar los humedales en su totalidad. En Lemosín, ha delegado la gestión de dos emplazamientos a orillas del lago Vassivière al sindicato mixto de Vassivière:
 El sitio de Soumeix ( 140 ha ), en la ciudad de Royère-de-Vassivière (Creuse)
 El sitio Sous les chemins ( 114 ha), en la ciudad de Beaumont-du-Lac (Alto Vienne)
 Las reservas naturales
 No existe una reserva natural nacional dentro del parque natural de Millevaches en Limousin. Por otro lado, existen dos reservas regionales :
 La reserva natural regional del estanque de Coudert, en la ciudad de Saint-Rémy (Corrèze), que cubre y contiene un hábitat de nutrias.
 La reserva natural regional del Domaine de Gioux, en las localidades de Correze de Saint-Rémy y Sornac, se extiende sobre que comprenden entornos representativos de la región.
 El parque natural regional de Millevaches, en Lemosín, también ha definido 28 lugares de gran interés ecológico (SIEM), que se supone que "representan una "muestra" del notable patrimonio natural del territorio del Parque". Entre ellos se encuentran las turberas, los páramos, los estanques y los bosques.
 Historia
 La historia de la meseta de Millevaches no puede estar determinada por los acontecimientos. Es más bien la historia de la ocupación humana de este exigente entorno debido a la dureza del clima y, hasta el siglo XIX, a la escasez, o incluso ausencia, de vías de comunicación. La agricultura y, sobre todo, la ganadería han seguido siendo las actividades dominantes hasta hoy.
 Orígenes y época antigua
 Los primeros rastros de una presencia humana, que se remontan al Paleolítico medio, no son, por tanto, del todo significativos. Dan testimonio de campamentos temporales de cazadores-recolectores y no de un asentamiento duradero.
 Según los análisis de polen realizados en las turberas, entre el 4000 y el 2000 a.C., los agricultores y ganaderos neolíticos se asentaron, pero sin un desbroce significativo. Algunos monumentos megalíticos pueden relacionarse con este periodo..
 Ningún progreso significativo de la ocupación humana es perceptible en la Edad del Bronce (principios del II milenio VIII octavo siglo AV. J.-C. ).
 En la Galia, la Segunda Edad del Hierro (a partir del siglo III a.C.) supuso un importante avance en la fabricación de herramientas agrícolas. Se considera que fue durante este periodo cuando se pusieron en marcha las herramientas esenciales que se encontrarían en nuestro campo hasta el siglo XIX, e incluso para la agricultura tradicional de la Meseta, hasta mediados del siglo XX. Fue sobre todo la aparición de la guadaña la que, al permitir un aumento considerable de las reservas de forraje, favoreció el desarrollo de la ganadería. A pesar de la dureza del clima, las nuevas herramientas permitieron el asentamiento permanente de agricultores y ganaderos, y a partir de entonces las huellas de la ocupación se hicieron verdaderamente significativas. La importancia de este desbroce está verificada por el análisis del polen, que sugiere un paisaje abierto dominado por los brezales en los periodos galo y galo-romano.
 Numerosos testimonios de la Edad del Hierro, por lo tanto, salpican la meseta, como el túmulo de Plane (municipio de La Nouaille ) o el más antiguo de los túmulos de Tarnac. En ese momento, la meseta formaba parte del territorio de la ciudad de Lémovices, pueblo de civilización celta que dejó su nombre tanto en Limoges como en Limousin. Es la parte más alta de la misma. Muchos otros túmulos salpican la meseta, en particular en Sornac, Saint-Setiers, Millevaches, Chavanac, Pérols-sur-Vézère, Bugeat, etc. Sin embargo, por falta de datación, parece difícil relacionarlos con la Edad del Hierro más que con el período galo-romano, como lo demuestra el escalonamiento cronológico de los túmulos de Tarnac, los más recientes de los cuales son del II al III siglo.
 De la época galo-romana quedan los restos de la residencia aristocrática de Les Cars y sus dos mausoleos en Saint-Merd-les-Oussines o, más modestamente, la villa romana (en realidad una simple granja de ovejas) de La Valette, en la comuna de Gioux. Cabe destacar que ambos lugares quedaron desiertos en la segunda mitad del siglo III. Este abandono parece afectar a toda la meseta y está vinculado a la inseguridad debida a las primeras incursiones germánicas en el Imperio Romano y a los desórdenes internos de éste. Además, durante este periodo coexistieron dos prácticas funerarias muy distintas: por un lado, se perpetuó la inhumación bajo túmulo y, por otro, existen múltiples testimonios de incineración. Esta convivencia queda por interpretar.
 Cristianización
 Durante la Antigüedad tardía y la Alta Edad Media, la meseta no se convirtió en un desierto, como demuestran las supervivencias toponímicas celtas o galorromanas, que sólo podían mantenerse si estaban, si no habitadas, al menos regularmente frecuentadas. Así, Gioux, cuyo nombre deriva de Jovem (acusativo de Júpiter), Tarnac, derivado de la raíz celta taro (que cruza), Drouillat, derivado de uno de los nombres galos del roble, dervos. Además, ya en el siglo IX, el nombre de Tarnac aparece en las fuentes escritas como vicaria (subdivisión administrativa de un condado carolingio) y el de Sornac (topónimo de origen galorromano) está atestiguado a principios del siglo X. A finales del siglo X parece haberse establecido una red de parroquias muy amplias de varios miles de hectáreas cada una.
 Edad Media
 Hacia el año 1000, los montes del Lemosín, es decir, la meseta, estaba dividida entre dos vizcondados, el de Aubusson al norte y el de Comborn al sur. El límite parece estar bastante cerca de la divisoria de aguas entre los afluentes del Loira y el Dordoña. Durante el siglo XI, el vizcondado de Comborn se subdividió y la antigua parte oriental se convirtió en el vizcondado de Ventadour.
 La reocupación más masiva de la meseta se debió en gran parte a la instigación de las órdenes religiosas, los benedictinos, de la Chaise-Dieu, pero también, más tarde, de las órdenes militares, los Hospitalarios de San Juan de Jerusalén y los Templarios. Estos últimos fueron responsables de la creación de trece parroquias: Sainte-Anne, Bellechassagne, Chavanac, Comps, Courteix, La Vinadière, Boucheresse, Charrières, Féniers, Malleret, Le Mas-d'Artige, Monteil-Guillaume y Gentioux, esta última, según algunos, anterior a ellos. La arquitectura religiosa de esta época ha permanecido en forma de iglesias con campanario, típicas de las montañas del Lemosín.
 Por otro lado, los vestigios o las atestaciones de arquitectura militar son extremadamente raros. Están situadas más bien en su periferia (antiguo castillo de Felletin, hoy desaparecido, murallas perimetrales de Eymoutiers, Egletons, Meymac, etc.). No obstante, podemos citar la fortaleza medieval de Puy Murat, en Tarnac, que controlaba el acceso a la montaña Limousin desde el oeste.
 Durante la Guerra de los Cien Años, a pesar de su escaso interés estratégico, la meseta sufrió el ataque de Juan de Lancaster en 1373.
 Período contemporáneo
 La evolución económica reciente de esta región no puede entenderse sin mencionar la considerable contribución financiera debida, a partir de 1840 aproximadamente, al desarrollo de la profesión de comerciante de vinos de Burdeos, agricultores que adquirían vinos, incluso prestigiosos, de los châteaux del Médoc, Saint-Emilion, Saint-Estèphe, etc., y que pasaban a venderlos a particulares de Normandía, el norte de Francia y Bélgica. En 1900, ciudades como Meymac (3.000 habitantes) contaban con varios centenares de négociants, que aportaron respetables fortunas a la región. Muchos de estos comerciantes se convirtieron en propietarios de châteaux, tanto de primera clase como de "grand cru bourgeois". Pero su actividad permitió un enriquecimiento del sector que sigue presente hoy en día por la importancia de las plantaciones de madera (abeto de Douglas entre otras) que llevaron a cabo y cuya explotación se ha convertido en esencial para la actividad de la meseta.
 Economía
 En total, la meseta tenía 17.941 empleos en 2009.
 Agricultura
 En contra de la creencia popular, la meseta de Millevaches, muy rural, no es extremadamente agrícola: en 2009, el sector primario sólo empleaba al 9,0% de la población activa a través de algo menos de 1.000 explotaciones. No obstante, esta cifra es significativamente superior a las medias regional (6,0%) y nacional (3,0%).
 El superficie agrícola útil promedio de las fincas es de , significativamente mayor que el promedio regional ( ), lo que se explica por el menor número de fincas (área disponible relativamente grande, área forestal notoria que restringe las áreas agrícolas potenciales, pocos trabajadores agrícolas ). La SAU total aumentó en 2% entre 2000 y 2010.
 La cría de carne de vacuno Limousin sigue siendo la actividad agrícola predominante, ya que es la orientación técnica y económica dominante de 57 de los 74 municipios de la meseta.
 El territorio de la meseta está incluido casi en su totalidad en la pequeña región agrícola (PRA) Plateau de Millevaches. Algunas franjas pertenecen al noroeste y suroeste a la PRA Haut-Limousin, y al norte a la PRA Marche.
 Silvicultura
 Con el bosque ocupando aproximadamente dos tercios del área de la meseta, la silvicultura es una actividad importante en el territorio, simbolizada por empresas especializadas en la fabricación de muebles (Ozoo en La Courtine, en el centro de madera de Tralebos en Égletons ) o (Maison Bois Limousin en Eymoutiers ).
 Industria
 En 2009, el sector industrial empleaba a cerca del 15,5% de la población activa. El sector de la construcción emplea al 9,0%.
 Servicios
 El 66,5% de la población activa trabaja en el sector servicios.
 Notas y referencias
 Notas
 Referencias
 Bibliografía
 En su libro Du pays et de l'exil, un abécédaire de la littérature du Limousin, publicado por Les Ardents Éditeurs en 2008, el escritor Laurent Bourdelas evoca a los autores de la meseta que han escrito sobre ella y/o se han instalado en ella (prólogo de Pierre Bergounioux).
 Mesetas de Francia
 Montañas de la región de Nueva Aquitania


type: other

text:
Kunnioitusta, antirasismia ja yhdenvertaisuutta vaihtoehtolajien parissa – Tieteestä ja taiteesta
 Vaihtoehtolajien arvot kertovat siitä, mitä valtavirtakulttuurista puuttuu. Perinteisen urheilumaailman järjestykset eivät vallitse skeittauksen kaltaisten vaihtoehtolajien keskuudessa. Määrittelyvalta on kuitenkin yhä usein valkoisilla heteromiehillä, kertoo aiheesta väitellyt tutkija Anni Rannikko Itä-Suomen yliopistosta.
 Tutkija Anni Rannikko kiinnostui skeittauksesta, scoottauksesta ja roller derbystä, kun hän työskenteli aihetta koskevassa tutkimushankkeessa.
 “Esimerkiksi skeittaus kiehtoi minua, koska siinä on vahva arvomaailma. Skeittaajat karsastavat kilpailua ja autoritäärisyyttä. He vastustavat rasismia jopa siinä määrin, että skeittaajien ja uusnatsien välillä oli 90-luvulla konflikteja”, Rannikko kertoo.
 Myös skeittaajilta itseltään voi kuulla saman tyyppistä palautetta: “Monen skeittaajan mielestä perinteiset kilpaurheilun piirteet eivät kuulu skeittaamiseen. Jopa ammattilaistasolla ilmapiiri on lähes päinvastainen, kuin jonkun toisen yksilöurheilulajin huipputasolla. Taitavaksi skeittaajaksi tuleminen ei myöskään edellytä kilpailemista. Koska skeittauksessa ei ole sääntöjä tai rajoitteita, sen arvosteleminen ja pisteytys on joidenkin mielestä ongelmallista, tai jopa turhaa”, eräs skeittari toteaa.
 Rannikko on tehnyt tutkimusta etnografisesti havainnoimalla ja haastattelemalla lajin harrastajia. 15-29 -vuotiaat harrastajat suhtautuivat tutkijaan avoimen suopeasti, koska tutkimus lisää lajien legitimiteettiä. Katulajit ovat perinteisesti esimerkiksi kaupunkisuunnittelun kannalta altavastaajan asemassa.
 “Akateeminen kiinnostus tuo lajeille uskottavuutta ja edesauttaa esimerkiksi uusien liikuntapaikkojen rakennuttamista.”
 Yhdenvertaisista periaatteista huolimatta harrastajien välillä vallitsee hierarkioita. Roller derbyä lukuunottamatta Rannikon tutkimat lajit ovat miesvaltaisia ja harrastajien keskuudessa vallitsee hetero-oletus. Kaatuvaa skeittaria saatetaan yhä haukkua homoksi.
 “Kun kysyin haastateltavilta, miten he suhtautuisivat skeittaavaan homoon, moni sanoi, että homous ei olisi tietenkään ongelma. Kukaan ei kuitenkaan sanonut tuntevansa yhtään skeittaavaa homoa.”
 Naisharrastajien homoseksuaalisuutta ei koettu yhtä uhkaavana, pikemminkin “lesbous” yhdistettiin urheilulliseen kyvykkyyteen. Toisaalta sateenkaarevuus ja queer ovat oleellinen osa roller derby -kulttuuria.
 Rannikko huomasi sukupuoliroolien vanhakantaisuuden naisoletettuja skeittaajia haastatellessaan. Skeittipaikalla liikkuvien naisten ei lähtökohtaisesti oleteta skeittaavan. Miespuoliset skeittaajat ajattelevat, että tytöt ovat saapuneet paikalle heidän takiaan.
 “Naisskeittarit kertoivat, että ‘skeittityttöystävän’ roolista voi päästä irti vain silloin, jos on taitava. Monilla naisilla on skeittipaikalla niin kovia suorituspaineita, että he menevät harjoittelemaan aikoina, jolloin siellä on mahdollisimman tyhjää. Tämä johtuu siitä, että naisskeittarit kokevat, että heitä arvioidaan koko sukupuolensa edustajana. Kun naisskeittari on taitava, häneen saatetaan yhä suhtautua niin, että vitsi, että olet hyvä...tytöksi.”
 Skeittarit ajattelevat, että skeittaus kuuluu kaikille. Ideaali, oletusarvoinen skeittari on kuitenkin edelleen hyvässä fyysisessä kunnossa oleva nuori mies. Yleisesti ottaen tämän kaltaiset henkilöt saavat määrittää sen, mitä skeittaus on ja vaikuttaa esimerkiksi siihen, millaisia liikuntapaikkoja rakennetaan.
 Määrittelyvalta on alakulttuurien hierarkkisuuden ytimessä. Se, kuka saa ja uskaltaa kertoa, mitä skeittaus on, “hallitsee” lajia.
 Katulajeissa tehdään tilapolitiikkaa. Scoottaajat eli potkulautailijat ovat tyypillisesti skeittaajia nuorempia, joten he ottavat tilan haltuunsa menemällä paikalle isolla porukalla. Tällainen tilapolitiikka ei ole kuitenkaan yhtä arvostettua kun rauhallinen argumentointi.
 Vaihtoehtolajien harrastajat pyrkivät siihen, että kaikki ovat tervetulleita mukaan yhteisöihin. Aina he eivät tasavertaisten rakenteiden muodostamisessa kuitenkaan onnistu.
 Harrastajat viljelevät sanoja ‘kunnioitus’ ja ‘yhdenvertaisuus’. Lajit halutaan pitää tyypillisestä kilpailusta vapaina alueina.
 “Kertoo jotain uusliberalistisesta ajastamme, jos kunnioitusta ja yhdenvertaisuutta pitää erikseen vaalia alakulttuureissa. Käytäntöjä voidaan muuttaa vasta sitten kun ne tunnetaan. Joku viisas sanoi jossain, että utopia ei ole ‘tila’, johon voitaisiin päästä vaan prosessi,” Rannikko sanoo.
 Kuvien skeittarit eivät liity tutkimukseen.
 Anni Rannikko sai 22 000 euron apurahan Pohjois-Karjalan rahastosta vuonna 2014 vaihtoehtoisia liikuntalajeja ja niiden sisällä muotoutuvia moraalisia järjestyksiä käsittelevään väitöskirjatyöhön.
 5.6.2018 5.6.2018 , Anna Bui.
 Teemat Humanistinen tutkimus, Yhteiskuntatieteet, Yleinen


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 7.10.2010
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 C 271/25
 Дело, заведено на 26 юли 2010 г. от Надзорния орган на ЕАСТ срещу Исландия
 (Дело E-8/10)
 2010/C 271/05
 На 26 юли 2010 г. в Съда на ЕАСТ беше заведено дело срещу Исландия от Надзорния орган на ЕАСТ, представляван от Xavier Lewis и Markus Schneider, в качеството им на агенти на Надзорния орган на ЕАСТ, с адрес: rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.
 Надзорният орган на ЕАСТ иска от Съда на ЕАСТ да постанови, че:
 1.
 с неприемането или с неуведомяването в предвидения срок на Надзорния орган относно мерките, необходими за пълното транспониране в националното законодателство на акта, посочен в точка 1 от приложение VII към Споразумението за ЕИП (Директива 2005/36/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 7 септември 2005 година относно признаването на професионалните квалификации), адаптиран към Споразумението за ЕИП с Протокол 1 към него, Република Исландия не е изпълнила своите задължения съгласно член 63, параграф 1 от директивата и съгласно член 7 от Споразумението за ЕИП;
 2.
 Република Исландия поема разходите по съдебното производство.
 Правен и фактически контекст и правни аргументи, приведени в подкрепа:
 —
 искът се отнася до неспазването от страна на Исландия на мотивираното становище, издадено от Контролния орган на ЕАСТ, относно неприемането или неуведомяването на Органа относно всички необходими мерки за пълното прилагане на акта на ЕИП, съответстващ на Директива 2005/36/ЕО на Европейския съюз относно признаването на професионалните квалификации, изменена,
 —
 мерките, които Исландия трябва да предприеме за приемането на национални разпоредби относно специфични секторни правила за признаване на професионалните квалификации, получени в други държави от ЕИП,
 —
 Надзорният орган на ЕАСТ твърди, че не е получил информация от Исландия, според която актът е напълно транспониран в националното право, нито разполага с някаква друга информация, която да му позволи да стигне дo това заключение,
 —
 исландското правителство не оспори факта, че е закъсняло да транспонира напълно акта.


type: contracts

text:
 13.9.2012
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 L 248/34
 DÉCISION DU COMITÉ MIXTE DE L’EEE
 No 96/2012
 du 30 avril 2012
 modifiant l’annexe XX (Environnement) de l’accord EEE
 LE COMITÉ MIXTE DE L’EEE,
 vu l’accord sur l’Espace économique européen, modifié par le protocole portant adaptation de cet accord, ci-après dénommé l’«accord», et notamment son article 98,
 considérant ce qui suit:
 (1)
 L’annexe XX de l’accord a été modifiée par la décision du Comité mixte de l’EEE no 71/2012 du 30 mars 2012 (1).
 (2)
 La décision 2010/769/UE de la Commission du 13 décembre 2010 établissant des critères pour l’utilisation, par les transporteurs de gaz naturel liquéfié, de méthodes techniques en remplacement de l’utilisation de combustibles marins à faible teneur en soufre remplissant les conditions de l’article 4 ter de la directive 1999/32/CE du Conseil concernant une réduction de la teneur en soufre de certains combustibles liquides, modifiée par la directive 2005/33/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil en ce qui concerne la teneur en soufre des combustibles marins (2) doit être intégrée dans l’accord,
 A ADOPTÉ LA PRÉSENTE DÉCISION:
 Article premier
 Le point suivant est inséré après le point 21ad (directive 1999/32/CE du Conseil) de l’annexe XX de l’accord:
 «21ada.
 32010 D 0769: décision 2010/769/UE de la Commission du 13 décembre 2010 établissant des critères pour l’utilisation, par les transporteurs de gaz naturel liquéfié, de méthodes techniques en remplacement de l’utilisation de combustibles marins à faible teneur en soufre remplissant les conditions de l’article 4 ter de la directive 1999/32/CE du Conseil concernant une réduction de la teneur en soufre de certains combustibles liquides, modifiée par la directive 2005/33/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil en ce qui concerne la teneur en soufre des combustibles marins (JO L 328 du 14.12.2010, p. 15).»
 Article 2
 Les textes de la décision 2010/769/UE, en langues islandaise et norvégienne, à publier dans le supplément EEE du Journal officiel de l’Union européenne, font foi.
 Article 3
 La présente décision entre en vigueur le 1er mai 2012, pour autant que toutes les notifications prévues à l’article 103, paragraphe 1, de l’accord aient été faites au Comité mixte de l’EEE (3).
 Article 4
 La présente décision est publiée dans la partie EEE et dans le supplément EEE du Journal officiel de l’Union européenne.
 Fait à Bruxelles, le 30 avril 2012.
 Par le Comité mixte de l’EEE
 Le président faisant fonction
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) JO L 207 du 2.8.2012, p. 50.
 (2) JO L 328 du 14.12.2010, p. 15.
 (3) Pas d’obligations constitutionnelles signalées.


jurisdiction: US

text:
 684 A.2d 1331 (1996)
 344 Md. 57
 SYCAMORE REALTY CO., INC.
 v.
 PEOPLE'S COUNSEL OF BALTIMORE COUNTY, Relay Improvement Association, Louisa Vanderbeek, Herbert Plitt and John Heinrichs.
 No. 130, Sept. Term, 1995.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 November 21, 1996.
 Thomas M. Wood, IV (Jeffrey T. Bubier, Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, on brief, Baltimore; Edward C. Covahey, Jr., Anthony J. DiPaula, Covahey and Boozer, P.A., on brief) Baltimore, for Petitioner.
 Peter Max Zimmerman, People's Counsel for Baltimore County; (Carole S. DeMilio, Deputy People's Counsel, J. Carroll Holzer, Holzer and Lee, all on brief) Towson, for Respondent.
 Argued before MURPHY,[*] C.J. and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, BELL, and RAKER, JJ.
 CHASANOW, Judge.
 In this case, we are called upon to decide whether Baltimore County should be estopped from enforcing a new zoning scheme, enacted during the County's quadrennial rezoning process, against a property owner whose property was under reservation for potential acquisition by the County at the time it was downzoned. For the following reasons we hold that the County should not be estopped.
 I.
 The facts in this case are simply stated. Petitioner, Sycamore Realty Co., Inc., is the *1332 owner of Hilltop Place, a 24.37 acre parcel of land in Baltimore County. On December 4, 1990, Petitioner filed a development plan with the Baltimore County Review Group (the "CRG") seeking permission to erect a 220-unit townhome complex on the site. At the time the development plan was filed, 18.21 acres of the site were zoned density residential (DR) 10.5, and 6.16 acres of the site were zoned DR 5.5. The 220-unit townhome complex would have been compatible with this zoning scheme.
 Obtaining the approval of the CRG was only the first requirement that Petitioner had to fulfill in order to begin its project. Petitioner would then have had to apply for and receive a building permit authorizing Petitioner to proceed with the project. A site planning and engineering expert estimated that, in the usual course of events, it takes up to 3 months to obtain CRG approval, and approximately 12 months for a project to move from CRG approval to the beginning of construction.
 This project, however, did not proceed in the usual fashion. On July 1, 1991, while the CRG was considering the merits of Petitioner's development plan, the Baltimore County Council reserved the 24.37 acre parcel, pursuant to Baltimore County Code § 26-66, for potential future acquisition by the Baltimore County Department of Recreation and Parks. Section 26-66 allows the County to reserve property for up to eighteen months for potential acquisition or condemnation. Baltimore County Code § 26-66(b), (c), (g) (1988). No structure may be erected on the property while it is under reservation. Baltimore County Code § 26-66(e). If, at the end of the reservation period, the property has not been acquired, or if condemnation proceedings have not been instituted, § 26-66 allows any aggrieved person to recover "actual damages sustained ... by reason of the ... reservation, together with reasonable attorney's fees and expert witness fees as may be approved by the court." Baltimore County Code § 26-66(h).
 It is undisputed that Baltimore County followed all the proper procedures concerning the reservation of the property,[1] and that Petitioner's taxes were abated throughout the reservation period pursuant to Baltimore County Code § 26-66(f). During the time that the property was under reservation, Petitioner did not ever request that the property be released, perhaps, in part, because of the abatement of taxes.
 Even before the property was reserved, representatives of Baltimore County had been engaged in negotiations with Petitioner to purchase the parcel. Two independent appraisers, working on the County's behalf, valued the land at $560,000. Representatives of Baltimore County made one offer to purchase the land at that price. Petitioner's asking price for the property, however, was between $4,000,000 and $8,000,000. No agreement was ever reached concerning the sale of the parcel, partly because the parties disagreed on the price, and partly because representatives of Baltimore County learned that they could not afford to purchase the parcel, even at the price of $560,000. By December 31, 1991, representatives of Baltimore County knew that they would not be able to acquire the property. Nevertheless, the property was not released from reservation until November 19, 1992, nearly a year later.
 On October 15, 1992, while the property was still under reservation, the parcel was downzoned to entirely DR 5.5 as a result of Baltimore County's quadrennial, county-wide rezoning process.[2] The *1333 198-unit[3] townhome complex that Petitioner wished to build was not compatible with this zoning scheme. The new zoning, which went into effect December 1, 1992, would allow Petitioner to construct only a 132-unit complex on the parcel.
 The CRG approved Petitioner's development plan on July 8, 1993. Although the approval was granted more than eight months after the new, lower density scheme became effective, the CRG approved the Petitioner's plan under the higher density zoning scheme that had been in effect during 1990. The CRG's approval was based on a letter from Arnold Jablon, the Director of Zoning Administration and Development Management. The letter, dated December 3, 1992, stated that Petitioner "had been prejudiced by the County's use of the reservation process and subsequent rezoning," and that Petitioner should be allowed to proceed under the higher density, 1990 zoning scheme for an additional eighteen months.
 The People's Counsel of Baltimore County ("People's Counsel")[4] appealed the CRG's decision to the County Board of Appeals (the "CBA") and argued that the appropriate zoning scheme for Petitioner's townhome complex was the new, lower density scheme. The CBA stated: "It is the opinion of this Board that Baltimore County's actions in holding the Sycamore property in reservation for almost a year, at the least, when it clearly knew it had no funds to purchase it, and when it knew the property was in the process of being downzoned, bordered upon being arbitrary and capricious." On February 16, 1994, the CBA "affirm[ed] the CRG's approval of the Hilltop Place plan under the original 10.5 zoning because the County was estopped from enforcing the new zoning." The CBA relied on Offen v. County Council, 96 Md. App. 526, 625 A.2d 424 (1993), rev'd 334 Md. 499, 639 A.2d 1070 (1994), the first reported opinion in Maryland to apply the doctrine of zoning estoppel.
 People's Counsel petitioned the Circuit Court for Baltimore County for review of the CBA decision, arguing that zoning estoppel was not recognized in Maryland and that the CRG plan should be denied. On November 18, 1994, Judge J. William Hinkel affirmed the decision of the CBA. By that date, this Court had reversed the Court of Special Appeals's decision in Offen. Judge Hinkel, nevertheless, based his decision on the theory of zoning estoppel. Judge Hinkel found that the Court of Appeals reversed Offen "because the issue of zoning estoppel was not properly briefed nor argued, and was beyond the Court of Special Appeals'[s] scope of review," but that "the Court of Appeals in that decision did not preclude the future consideration and use of the concept of zoning estoppel in Maryland." He then stated: "the CBA properly applied the doctrine of zoning estoppel as it is to be applied in Maryland; [and] ... under the doctrine, the County is estopped from enforcing the new zoning restrictions...."
 People's Counsel appealed the decision of the circuit court to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the decision of the circuit court but did not hold that the use of the doctrine of zoning estoppel by the three decision-making bodies below was improper. In fact, the Court of Special Appeals based its reversal of the circuit court on the doctrine of zoning estoppel.
 The Court of Special Appeals, however, did not apply the same zoning estoppel test that the three lower decision-making bodies had. The court instead articulated a narrower theory of zoning estoppel and based its decision on the new, narrower theory. The Court of *1334 Special Appeals explained that the facts in the instant case did not present an estoppel under its new, narrower theory. The court, therefore, reversed the decision of the circuit court and remanded the case with instructions to reverse the decision of the CBA.
 We granted the Petitioner's request for a writ of certiorari and People's Counsel's conditional cross-petition for the same to determine whether the lower density, 1992 zoning scheme may be enforced against Petitioner and whether any theory of zoning estoppel should be applied to this case. We shall affirm the decision of the Court of Special Appeals that the County is not estopped from enforcing the lower density, 1992 zoning scheme against Petitioner and that the CRG plan must be denied. We shall not, however, adopt the narrow theory of zoning estoppel enunciated by the Court of Special Appeals. Any decision whether we should enunciate some, still narrower theory of zoning estoppel need not be decided in the instant case.
 II.
 Equitable estoppel has been defined as:
 "the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from asserting rights which may have otherwise existed, either of property, of contract or of remedy, against another person who has in good faith relied upon such conduct and has been led thereby to change his position for the worse, and who on his part acquired some corresponding right either of property, of contract or of remedy."
 Fitch v. Double "U" Sales Corp., 212 Md. 324, 338, 129 A.2d 93, 101 (1957). Zoning estoppel is the theory of equitable estoppel applied in the context of zoning disputes. Courts in several jurisdictions use the theory of zoning estoppel to achieve equitable results in zoning disputes between the government and its property owners. David G. Heeter, Zoning Estoppel: Application of the Principles of Equitable Estoppel and Vested Rights to Zoning Disputes, URB.L.ANN. 63 (1971) (discussing the many jurisdictions that have applied zoning estoppel.)
 A typical zoning estoppel scenario arises when the government issues a permit to a citizen that allows him or her to develop property in some way. Commonly, after the citizen has incurred some expense or has changed his or her position in reliance upon the permit, the property for which the permit was granted is rezoned so that the citizen's intended use is illegal. In such a situation, many courts allow the citizen to assert zoning estoppel as a defense to the government's attempt to enjoin the property use that violates the new zoning scheme.
 The traditional, "black-letter" definition of zoning estoppel is:
 "A local government exercising its zoning powers will be estopped when a property owner,
 (1) relying in good faith,
 (2) upon some act or omission of the government,
 (3) has made such a substantial change in position or incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights which he ostensibly had acquired."
 David G. Heeter, Zoning Estoppel: Application of the Principles of Equitable Estoppel and Vested Rights to Zoning Disputes, URB. L.ANN. 63, 66 (1971). Zoning estoppel was derived from equity principles and was intended to prevent the government from repudiating its prior conduct to the detriment of the property owner who relied on that conduct. URB.L.ANN. at 64-65. "The cases in which zoning estoppel is most often invoked and allowed ... fall into four factual categories. They involve reliance upon (1) a validly issued permit; (2) the probability of issuance of a permit; (3) an erroneously issued permit; or (4) the non-enforcement of a zoning violation." URB.L.ANN. at 67.
 In the instant case, Petitioner argues that Maryland should adopt the black-letter definition *1335 of zoning estoppel, and Respondent argues that Maryland should not adopt the doctrine at all. In Richmond Corp. v. Bd. of Co. Comm'rs, 254 Md. 244, 256, 255 A.2d 398, 404 (1969), this Court declined to express an opinion on whether zoning estoppel should be adopted in Maryland. In Richmond, a developer spent approximately $400,000 acquiring property in Prince George's County and had prepared plans, leases, and specifications to build a shopping center and parking lot. 254 Md. at 246-47, 255 A.2d at 399. Before construction began, the applicable zoning ordinance was amended to require a special exception for the developer's project. Richmond, 254 Md. at 247, 255 A.2d at 399-400. The developer's applications for special exceptions were denied. Richmond, 254 Md. at 249, 255 A.2d at 401.
 One of the questions that this Court discussed was whether the county should be estopped by equitable considerations from requiring that the developer comply with the new zoning ordinance. Richmond, 254 Md. at 256, 255 A.2d at 404. We stated, however, that the facts would not raise an estoppel against the county even if the doctrine of estoppel were available in Maryland, because Richmond was aware of the proposed zoning change and had sufficient time to begin construction before the zoning ordinance was amended. Richmond, 254 Md. at 256-57, 255 A.2d at 404. We expressed no opinion, however, as to whether the doctrine of zoning estoppel was available in Maryland. Richmond, 254 Md. at 256, 262, 255 A.2d at 404, 407.
 Twenty-five years later, in County Council v. Offen, 334 Md. 499, 639 A.2d 1070 (1994), this Court was again asked to determine the applicability of the theory of zoning estoppel. In 1966, Dr. J. Allen Offen bought property in order to build a 118,000 square foot "medical mall" facility. Offen, 334 Md. at 501, 639 A.2d at 1071. After twenty-five years, during which Dr. Offen, among other things, got his property rezoned, obtained an improved water and sewer service category, met with various engineers and architects to create a detailed site plan, and obtained provisional approval for his site plan, his property was downzoned pursuant to a comprehensive rezoning plan passed by the Prince George's County Council. Offen, 334 Md. at 501-03, 639 A.2d at 1071-72. Dr. Offen challenged the adoption of the comprehensive rezoning plan in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. Offen, 334 Md. at 503-04, 639 A.2d at 1072.
 The doctrine of zoning estoppel was raised, for the first time in the litigation, by the Court of Special Appeals, sua sponte. Offen, 334 Md. at 505, 639 A.2d at 1073. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and remanded the case because the circuit court had failed to discuss the applicability of zoning estoppel. Id. We granted certiorari solely to determine the propriety of the Court of Special Appeals's actions in raising the issue of zoning estoppel sua sponte and in remanding the case for application of that doctrine. Offen, 334 Md. at 508, 639 A.2d at 1074. Our holding, that the Court of Special Appeals exceeded its authority by raising the issue of zoning estoppel, when it had been neither argued nor briefed, did not require us to reach the issue of whether the doctrine of zoning estoppel should be adopted in Maryland. Offen, 334 Md. at 505 n. 4, 639 A.2d at 1073 n. 4.
 The instant case, however, does require us to examine the issue. Generally, courts are loath to impose estoppel against the government when it is acting in a governmental capacity. Salisbury Beauty Schools v. St. Bd., 268 Md. 32, 63-64, 300 A.2d 367, 385-86 (1973). A few exceptions exist in Maryland, however. For example, in City of Baltimore v. Crane, 277 Md. 198, 352 A.2d 786 (1976), we held that Baltimore City was "estopped from attempting to enforce [a comprehensive] zoning ordinance" because the Cranes, in accepting an offer from the City, had changed their position substantially enough that they acquired a vested contractual interest in the existing zoning. 277 Md. at 207, 352 A.2d at 790. See also, e.g., Permanent Fin. Corp. v. Montgomery Cty., 308 Md. 239, 518 A.2d 123 (1986) (holding county equitably *1336 estopped from imposing zoning ordinance's height controls where builder designed and constructed building in reliance on building permit and long-standing, reasonable interpretation by county as to how to calculate height).
 We have never adopted zoning estoppel in Maryland. Instead, we, like all of the other courts that have declined to adopt zoning estoppel "recognize a legal defense cast in terms of whether the property owner acquired `vested rights' to use his land without governmental interference." David G. Heeter, Zoning Estoppel: Application of the Principles of Equitable Estoppel and Vested Rights to Zoning Disputes, URB.L.ANN. 63, 64 (1971). Whereas zoning estoppel is derived from principles of equity and "focuses upon whether it would be inequitable to allow the government to repudiate its prior conduct," vested rights is derived from principles of common and constitutional law and focuses upon "whether the owner acquired real property rights which cannot be taken away by governmental regulation." David G. Heeter, Zoning Estoppel: Application of the Principles of Equitable Estoppel and Vested Rights to Zoning Disputes, URB.L.ANN. 63, 64-65 (1971).
 Thus, although downzoning is generally permissible, under Maryland's vested rights theory, "`when a property owner obtains a lawful building permit, commences to build in good faith, and completes substantial construction on the property, his right to complete and use that structure cannot be affected by any subsequent change of the applicable building or zoning regulations.'" PG County v. Sunrise Dev., 330 Md. 297, 312, 623 A.2d 1296, 1304 (1993) (quoting Prince George's Co. v. Equitable Tr., 44 Md. App. 272, 278, 408 A.2d 737, 741 (1979)).
 "In Maryland it is established that in order to obtain a `vested right' in the existing zoning use which will be constitutionally protected against a subsequent change in the zoning ordinance prohibiting or limiting that use, the owner must (1) obtain a permit or occupancy certificate where required by the applicable ordinance and (2) must proceed under that permit or certificate to exercise it on the land involved so that the neighborhood may be advised that the land is being devoted to that use."
 Richmond, 254 Md. at 255-56, 255 A.2d at 404.
 III.
 In the case at bar, Petitioner had not obtained a permit to erect the townhome complex under a combination of DR 10.5 and DR 5.5 zoning. Thus, it is clear that Petitioner acquired no vested right in the existing zoning that would protect it against the subsequent change in the zoning ordinance. Richmond, 254 Md. at 256, 255 A.2d at 404. Petitioner will have to comply with the lower density, DR 5.5 zoning unless Petitioner can persuade this Court to recognize its version of the doctrine of zoning estoppel. The Court of Special Appeals discussed the applicability of that doctrine in its decision below, Relay v. Sycamore, 105 Md.App. 701, 661 A.2d 182 (1995).
 The Court of Special Appeals stated that "the broad, black-letter doctrine of zoning estoppel ... is incompatible with Maryland's vested rights rule." Relay, 105 Md.App. at 726, 661 A.2d at 194. We agree. In fact, we have avoided discussions of zoning estoppel in cases where we have permitted downzoning and where the black-letter doctrine conceivably could have applied. See, e.g., Sunrise, 330 Md. 297, 623 A.2d 1296 (1993) (developer obtained permit, poured one footing and spent over two million dollars in total project expenses but did not acquire vested rights); Ross v. Montgomery County, 252 Md. 497, 250 A.2d 635 (1969) (developer obtained permit, poured one footing and spent over $56,000 but did not acquire vested rights).
 Instead of limiting its discussion to the incompatibility of the theory of vested rights and the traditional theory of zoning estoppel, the Court of Special Appeals formulated a new, narrower zoning estoppel test. "[W]e adopt a narrow version of zoning estoppel, *1337 with a distinct set of requirements." Relay, 105 Md.App. at 727, 661 A.2d at 194. Those requirements are: "(1) the local government acts, or fails to act, in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner, (2) with deliberate intent to delay construction, and (3) the conduct at issue is the primary and proximate cause of the landowner's inability to vest his or her rights before a change in zoning occurs." Relay, 105 Md.App. at 736, 661 A.2d at 199. Whereas the black-letter definition of zoning estoppel was incompatible with Maryland's vested rights rule, the Court of Special Appeals stated that its new, narrower test "supplements the vested rights rule by recognizing that the strict application of that rule may sometimes be unjust or unreasonable." Relay, 105 Md.App. at 727, 661 A.2d at 194. "In effect, our narrow version of zoning estoppel operates as an equitable, `bad faith' exception to the vested rights rule." Relay, 105 Md.App. at 727, 661 A.2d at 195.
 The Court of Special Appeals then analyzed the facts of the instant case to see whether it was a case to which the new, narrower zoning estoppel theory applied. Relay, 105 Md.App. at 739-42, 661 A.2d at 200-02. The court determined that it was not. Relay, 105 Md.App. at 739, 661 A.2d at 200. The court found three shortcomings in the opinion of the CBA. Id. First, the second prong of the new, narrower zoning estoppel test was not satisfied because "the CBA did not expressly find that the County acted with a deliberate intent to delay Sycamore's proposed development until the new zoning could be enacted." Relay, 105 Md. App. at 739, 661 A.2d at 200-01. Second, the Court of Special Appeals stated that the CBA's conclusion that, "if the County had released the reservation in December of 1991, `Sycamore would reasonably have had time to obtain CRG approval and begin construction prior to downzoning,'" was not supported by substantial evidence. Relay, 105 Md.App. at 740, 661 A.2d at 201. Finally, the court stated that Petitioner's failure to request that the parcel be released from reservation to be "inexcusable," especially in light of the fact that Petitioner benefitted from the abatement of local taxes in the interim. Relay, 105 Md.App. at 742, 661 A.2d at 202.
 We agree with the Court of Special Appeals that the facts in this case do not satisfy its new zoning estoppel test. We disagree, however, that even the theory articulated by the intermediate appellate court is compatible with Maryland's vested rights rule. We therefore do not adopt the test enunciated by the Court of Special Appeals. While there may be some, still narrower theory of zoning estoppel that may be compatible with our vested rights rule, we need not decide that issue today because the facts in this case do not raise any form of zoning estoppel that this Court would recognize. Petitioner's application to the CRG for approval of its development plan fell far short of what is required to vest property rights under Maryland law. The reservation of Petitioner's land by the county merely placed the process on hold. Because any theory of zoning by estoppel that we might recognize in the future would be inapplicable to the facts in the instant case, we need not remand this case to the Court of Special Appeals.
 We hold that the appropriate zoning to be applied to Petitioner's project is DR 5.5, the zoning that was adopted during the comprehensive rezoning process. Because Petitioner had not obtained a permit and had not proceeded to construction prior to the downzoning, Petitioner's rights did not vest, and Petitioner was not protected against the subsequent change in the zoning ordinance. Petitioner's remedy, if any exists, is to seek recovery of any "actual damages sustained... by reason of the ... reservation, together with reasonable attorney's fees and expert witness fees as may be approved by the court." Baltimore County Code § 26-66(h).
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER.
 NOTES
 [*] Murphy, C.J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court, after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and the adoption of the opinion.
 [1] No one has raised a constitutional challenge to Baltimore County Code § 26-66 suggesting that it works a taking without providing just compensation. Section 26-66 allows for the recovery of damages caused by the reservation. Baltimore County Code § 26-66(h) (1988). Apparently the Baltimore County Council believes that the provision for damages would make the statute constitutional.
 [2] Four years have passed since this dispute began, and on October 8, 1996, Baltimore County completed another county-wide review of its zoning. Petitioner requested that the County Council rezone 16.8 acres of Hilltop Place to DR 10.5. The County Council, however, accepted the recommendation of the Planning Board and continued the parcel's zoning at its current status, DR 5.5.
 [3] The number of units to be built had to be decreased from 220 to 198 as a result of deforestation regulations that were passed during the reservation period.
 [4] The Respondents in this action are the People's Counsel of Baltimore County, the Relay Improvement Association, and several interested individuals. Throughout this opinion, they will be referred to, collectively, as People's Counsel because they are advancing the same argument.


text:
 11.10.2007
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 L 266/10
 DECISÃO DO COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE
 N.
 o 52/2007
 de 8 de Junho de 2007
 que altera o Anexo XIII (Transportes) do Acordo EEE
 O COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE,
 Tendo em conta o Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu, tal como alterado pelo Protocolo que adapta o Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu, a seguir designado «o Acordo», e, nomeadamente, o seu artigo 98.o,
 Considerando o seguinte:
 (1)
 O Anexo XIII do Acordo foi alterado pela Decisão do Comité Misto do EEE n.o 44/2007, de 27 de Abril de 2007 (1).
 (2)
 O Regulamento (CE) n.o 1891/2006 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 18 de Dezembro de 2006, relativo ao financiamento plurianual das actividades da Agência Europeia da Segurança Marítima no domínio do combate à poluição causada por navios e que altera o Regulamento (CE) n.o 1406/2002 (2), tal como rectificado no JO L 30 de 3.2.2007, p. 11, deve ser incorporado no Acordo,
 DECIDE:
 Artigo 1.o
 O Anexo XIII do Acordo é alterado do seguinte modo:
 1.
 A seguir ao ponto 56o (Regulamento (CE) n.o 1406/2002 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho) é inserido o seguinte ponto:
 «56oa.
 32006 R 1891: Regulamento (CE) n.o 1891/2006 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 18 de Dezembro de 2006, relativo ao financiamento plurianual das actividades da Agência Europeia da Segurança Marítima no domínio do combate à poluição causada por navios e que altera o Regulamento (CE) n.o 1406/2002 (JO L 394 de 30.12.2006, p. 1), tal como rectificado no JO L 30 de 3.2.2007, p. 11.»
 2.
 A seguir ao ponto 56o (Regulamento (CE) n.o 1406/2002 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho) é inserido o seguinte travessão:
 «—
 32006 R 1891: Regulamento (CE) n.o 1891/2006 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 18 de Dezembro de 2006 (JO L 394 de 30.12.2006, p. 1), tal como rectificado no JO L 30 de 3.2.2007, p. 11.»
 Artigo 2.o
 Fazem fé os textos do Regulamento (CE) n.o 1891/2006, tal como rectificado no JO L 30 de 3.2.2007, p. 11, nas línguas islandesa e norueguesa, que serão publicados no Suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.
 Artigo 3.o
 A presente decisão entra em vigor em 9 de Junho de 2007, desde que tenham sido efectuadas ao Comité Misto do EEE todas as notificações previstas no n.o 1 do artigo 103.o do Acordo (3).
 Artigo 4.o
 A presente decisão será publicada na Secção EEE e no Suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.
 Feito em Bruxelas, em 8 de Junho de 2007.
 Pelo Comité Misto do EEE
 O Presidente
 Alan SEATTER
 (1) JO L 209 de 9.8.2007, p. 80.
 (2) JO L 394 de 30.12.2006, p. 1.
 (3) Não foram indicados requisitos constitucionais.
 Declaração Conjunta das Partes Contratantes
 relativa à Decisão do Comité Misto do EEE n.o 52/2007 que incorpora o Regulamento (CE) n.o 1891/2006 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho no Acordo EEE
 A incorporação do Regulamento (CE) n.o 1891/2006 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho efectua-se sem prejuízo do facto de o Regulamento fazer referência a actos que não estão incorporados no Acordo EEE.


text:
In de antieke versleer is epode [Grieks ἐπῳδός (στίχος)] een technische term die in verschillende betekenissen wordt gebruikt:
 de tweede versregel van een distichon (verspaar), als deze korter is dan de voorafgaande eerste versregel;
 een gedicht dat geheel bestaat uit disticha, en waarvan de even versregels steeds korter zijn dan de oneven; dit verstype is reeds in gebruik sinds Archilochus (7e eeuw v.Chr.) en heeft zijn naam gegeven aan de "Epoden" van de Romeinse dichter Horatius, waarvan er vele de jambische trimeter afwisselen met de jambische dimeter...
 in de strofische koorlyriek (vb. in de koorzangen van de Attische tragedie) het derde couplet van een triade die bestond uit strofe, antistrofe en epode
 Dichtvorm
 Oudgriekse literatuur


text:
 1.12.2011
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 L 318/43
 DÉCISION DU COMITÉ MIXTE DE L’EEE
 No 105/2011
 du 30 septembre 2011
 modifiant l’annexe XXI (Statistiques) de l’accord EEE
 LE COMITÉ MIXTE DE L’EEE,
 vu l’accord sur l’Espace économique européen, modifié par le protocole portant adaptation de cet accord, ci-après dénommé «l’accord», et notamment son article 98,
 considérant ce qui suit:
 (1)
 L’annexe XXI de l’accord a été modifiée par la décision du Comité mixte de l’EEE no 89/2011 du 1er juillet 2011 (1).
 (2)
 Le règlement (CE) no 471/2009 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 6 mai 2009 concernant les statistiques communautaires relatives au commerce extérieur avec les pays tiers et abrogeant le règlement (CE) no 1172/95 du Conseil (2) doit être intégré dans l’accord.
 (3)
 Le règlement (CE) no 471/2009 abroge, avec effet au 1er janvier 2010, le règlement (CE) no 1172/95 du Conseil (3), qui est intégré dans l’accord mais doit continuer de s’appliquer aux États de l’AELE avant d’être supprimé de l’accord avec effet au 1er janvier 2012,
 A ADOPTÉ LA PRÉSENTE DÉCISION:
 Article premier
 L’annexe XXI de l’accord est modifiée comme suit:
 1)
 Le point 8 [règlement (CE) no 1172/95 du Conseil] est renuméroté 8a.
 2)
 Le point suivant est inséré avant le nouveau point 8a [règlement (CE) no 1172/95 du Conseil]:
 «8.
 32009 R 0471: règlement (CE) no 471/2009 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 6 mai 2009 concernant les statistiques communautaires relatives au commerce extérieur avec les pays tiers et abrogeant le règlement (CE) no 1172/95 du Conseil (JO L 152 du 16.6.2009, p. 23).
 Aux fins du présent accord, les dispositions du règlement sont adaptées comme suit:
 a)
 Les États de l’AELE prennent les mesures nécessaires pour se conformer au présent règlement d’ici au 1er janvier 2012 au plus tard.
 b)
 Pour les États de l’AELE, toutes les références au système de compensation centralisé et les dispositions y afférentes sont sans objet.
 c)
 En ce qui concerne le Liechtenstein, le texte de l’article 2, point a), doit être interprété comme suit:
 “ ‘biens’, tous les biens mobiliers, à l’exclusion de l’électricité;”.
 d)
 Le texte de l’article 2, point b), est remplacé par le texte suivant:
 “ ‘territoire statistique de l’EEE’, en principe, les territoires douaniers des parties contractantes. Les parties contractantes définissent leurs territoires statistiques en conséquence.
 Pour la Norvège, Svalbard et Jan Mayen sont inclus dans le territoire statistique.
 Le Liechtenstein est dispensé de collecter les données relatives au commerce entre la Suisse et le Liechtenstein. Le Liechtenstein procède uniquement à la collecte des données sur les importations et les exportations directes, à l’exclusion des entrepôts et des entrepôts en franchise.
 Pour l’Islande, le territoire statistique correspond au territoire douanier.”
 e)
 Le Liechtenstein est dispensé de collecter les données visées à l’article 5, paragraphe 1, point e).
 f)
 Les dispositions de l’article 5, paragraphe 1, points f) et k), ne s’appliquent pas aux États de l’AELE.
 g)
 La nomenclature visée à l’article 5, paragraphe 1, point h), est appliquée, au moins au niveau des six premiers chiffres.
 h)
 L’article 5, paragraphe 1, point l), ne s’applique pas au Liechtenstein.
 i)
 L’article 5, paragraphe 1, point m) ii), ne s’applique pas aux États de l’AELE.
 j)
 L’article 5, paragraphe 1, point m) iii), ne s’applique pas au Liechtenstein.
 k)
 L’article 6 ne s’applique pas aux données statistiques que les États de l’AELE sont dispensés de collecter en application de l’article 5.
 l)
 L’article 7 ne s’applique pas aux États de l’AELE.
 m)
 L’article 9, paragraphe 2, ne s’applique pas au Liechtenstein.
 n)
 En ce qui concerne le Liechtenstein, les statistiques visées par l’article 10 qui peuvent permettre l’identification indirecte d’un exportateur ou d’un importateur ne sont pas diffusées, même si l’intéressé ne l’a pas demandé, et seules des données à 2 chiffres du système harmonisé sont diffusées.»
 3)
 Le texte du nouveau point 8a [règlement (CE) no 1172/95 du Conseil] est supprimé avec effet au 1er janvier 2012.
 Article 2
 Les textes du règlement (CE) no 471/2009 en langues islandaise et norvégienne, à publier dans le supplément EEE du Journal officiel de l’Union européenne, font foi.
 Article 3
 La présente décision entre en vigueur le 1er octobre 2011, pour autant que toutes les notifications prévues à l’article 103, paragraphe 1, de l’accord aient été faites au Comité mixte de l’EEE (4).
 Article 4
 La présente décision est publiée dans la partie EEE et dans le supplément EEE du Journal officiel de l’Union européenne.
 Fait à Bruxelles, le 30 septembre 2011.
 Par le Comité mixte de l’EEE
 Le président
 Kurt JÄGER
 (1) JO L 262 du 6.10.2011, p. 61.
 (2) JO L 152 du 16.6.2009, p. 23.
 (3) JO L 118 du 25.5.1995, p. 10.
 (4) Pas d’obligations constitutionnelles signalées.


text:
 19.10.2017
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 270/20
 SKLEP SKUPNEGA ODBORA EGP
 št. 52/2016
 z dne 18. marca 2016
 o spremembi Priloge II (Tehnični predpisi, standardi, preskušanje in certificiranje) in Priloge IV (Energetika) k Sporazumu EGP [2017/1882]
 SKUPNI ODBOR EGP JE –
 ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum EGP) in zlasti člena 98 Sporazuma EGP,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Uredbo Komisije (EU) 2015/1095 z dne 5. maja 2015 o izvajanju Direktive 2009/125/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede zahtev za okoljsko primerno zasnovo profesionalnih hladilnih omar za shranjevanje, omar za hitro hlajenje in zamrzovanje, kondenzacijskih enot in procesnih ohlajevalnikov (1) je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
 (2)
 Prilogi II in IV k Sporazumu EGP bi bilo zato treba ustrezno spremeniti –
 SPREJEL NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
 Člen 1
 Za točko 6n (Uredba Komisije (EU) 2015/1189) poglavja IV Priloge II k Sporazumu EGP se vstavi naslednja točka:
 „6o.
 32015 R 1095: Uredba Komisije (EU) 2015/1095 z dne 5. maja 2015 o izvajanju Direktive 2009/125/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede zahtev za okoljsko primerno zasnovo profesionalnih hladilnih omar za shranjevanje, omar za hitro hlajenje in zamrzovanje, kondenzacijskih enot in procesnih ohlajevalnikov (UL L 177, 8.7.2015, str. 19).“
 Člen 2
 Za točko 26o (Uredba Komisije (EU) 2015/1189) Priloge IV k Sporazumu EGP se vstavi naslednja točka:
 „26p.
 32015 R 1095: Uredba Komisije (EU) 2015/1095 z dne 5. maja 2015 o izvajanju Direktive 2009/125/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede zahtev za okoljsko primerno zasnovo profesionalnih hladilnih omar za shranjevanje, omar za hitro hlajenje in zamrzovanje, kondenzacijskih enot in procesnih ohlajevalnikov (UL L 177, 8.7.2015, str. 19).“
 Člen 3
 Besedilo Uredbe (EU) 2015/1095 v islandskem in norveškem jeziku, ki se objavi v Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije, je verodostojno.
 Člen 4
 Ta sklep začne veljati 19. marca 2016 pod pogojem, da so bila predložena vsa uradna obvestila v skladu s členom 103(1) Sporazuma EGP (*1).
 Člen 5
 Ta sklep se objavi v sklopu EGP Uradnega lista Evropske unije in Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije.
 V Bruslju, 18. marca 2016
 Za Skupni odbor EGP
 Predsednik
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) UL L 177, 8.7.2015, str. 19.
 (*1) Navedena ni nobena ustavna zahteva.


type: legislation

text:
 2.7.2019
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 177/81
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) 2019/1126
 af 25. juni 2019
 om registrering af en betegnelse i registret over beskyttede oprindelsesbetegnelser og beskyttede geografiske betegnelser »Jambon du Kintoa« (BOB)
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 1151/2012 af 21. november 2012 om kvalitetsordninger for landbrugsprodukter og fødevarer (1), særlig artikel 52, stk. 2, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Frankrigs ansøgning om registrering af betegnelsen »Jambon du Kintoa« er blevet offentliggjort i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende (2), jf. artikel 50, stk. 2, litra a), i forordning (EU) nr. 1151/2012.
 (2)
 Da Kommissionen ikke har modtaget indsigelser, jf. artikel 51 i forordning (EU) nr. 1151/2012, bør betegnelsen »Jambon du Kintoa« registreres —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 Betegnelsen »Jambon du Kintoa« (BOB) registreres.
 Betegnelsen i stk. 1 henviser til et produkt i kategori 1.2. Kødprodukter (opvarmet, saltet, røget m.m.) i bilag XI til Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 668/2014 (3).
 Artikel 2
 Denne forordning træder i kraft på tyvendedagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 25. juni 2019.
 På Kommissionens vegne
 For formanden
 Phil HOGAN
 Medlem af Kommissionen
 (1) EUT L 343 af 14.12.2012, s. 1.
 (2) EUT C 36 af 29.1.2019, s. 19.
 (3) Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 668/2014 af 13. juni 2014 om fastlæggelse af regler for anvendelsen af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 1151/2012 om kvalitetsordninger for landbrugsprodukter og fødevarer (EUT L 179 af 19.6.2014, s. 36).


text:
5.2.2011
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 C 38/18
 Sentenza del Tribunale della funzione pubblica (Terza Sezione) 15 dicembre 2010 — Almeida Campos e a./Consiglio
 (Causa F-14/09) (1)
 (Funzione pubblica - Funzionari - Promozione - Esercizio di promozione 2008 - Scrutinio per merito comparativo tra amministratori che occupano posti da linguisti e amministratori che occupano posti da generalisti)
 2011/C 38/34
 Lingua processuale: il francese
 Parti
 Ricorrente: Ana Maria Almeida Campos (Bruxelles, Belgio) e altri (rappresentanti: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis e É. Marchal, avocats)
 Convenuto: Consiglio dell’Unione europea (rappresentanti: M. Bauer, G. Kimberley, agenti)
 Oggetto
 L’annullamento della decisione dell’APN di non promuovere le ricorrenti nel grado AD 12 per l’esercizio di promozione 2008 e, per quanto necessario, delle decisioni di promuovere in tale grado, per lo stesso esercizio di promozione, i funzionari i cui nomi sono menzionati nell’elenco dei promossi pubblicato nella CP (comunicazione al personale) 21 aprile 2008, n. 72/08
 Dispositivo
 1)
 Le decisioni con le quali il Consiglio dell’Unione europea ha negato la promozione nel grado AD 12 alle sig.re Almeida Campos, Dariol, Morello e Verstreken a titolo dell’esercizio di promozione 2008 sono annullate.
 2)
 Il ricorso è respinto per il resto.
 3)
 Il Consiglio dell’Unione europea sopporterà la totalità delle spese.
 (1) GU C 90 del 18.4.2009, pag. 40.


text:
Solomon Burke (Filadelfia, 21 de marzo de 1940 — Haarlemmermeer, 10 de octubre de 2010) fue un músico pionero del soul y del country y miembro del prestigioso museo Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Empezó su vida adulta como predicador en Filadelfia, y muy pronto pasó a realizar un show radiofónico gospel. En la década de los 60 firmó un contrato musical con Atlantic Records y empezó a dedicarse a la música de carácter más secular. Su primer éxito fue Just Out Of Reach Of My Open Arms, una versión de una canción country. Aunque obtuvo gran aceptación en el círculo artístico y entre los críticos, alcanzando algunos éxitos en los géneros de Rythm & Blues y de pop, Burke nunca consiguió llegar a las grandes masas tal y como hicieron Sam Cooke y Otis Redding. Su mayor éxito fue una versión de Proud Mary, de Creedence Clearwater Revival. Tal vez otra de sus canciones más conocidas es Cry to Me, usada en la famosa escena del baile de seducción en la película Dirty Dancing.
 En 1964 escribió y grabó Everybody Needs Somebody to Love, su apuesta más prominente en el soul duradero. Además de la inmediata versión de The Rolling Stones, esta canción fue también adaptada por Wilson Pickett, y casi una década y media después, en 1980, fue utilizada en la banda sonora de la película The Blues Brothers.
 Su carrera resucitó de algún modo en 2002, con la publicación de Don't Give Up On Me, donde interpreta las composiciones escritas especialmente para el álbum de algunos de los mejores artistas mundiales, como Bob Dylan, Brian Wilson, Van Morrison, Elvis Costello y Tom Waits.
 Burke ha realizado diversas colaboraciones tanto en la pequeña como en la gran pantalla, y sus giras llegan a colgar el cartel de "no hay entradas", como ocurrió en el Royal Albert Hall de Londres durante su gira de otoño a Reino Unido.
 Burke fue padre de 21 hijos (14 hijas y 7 hijos), tuvo 90 nietos y 19 biznietos. Algunos de sus hijos y nietos se dedican profesionalmente en diferentes campos de la industria musical, aunque ninguno ha conseguido el renombre de su patriarca.
 En septiembre de 2006, Burke volvió a sus raíces country con la publicación de un álbum de 14 canciones bajo el nombre de Nashville, producido por Buddy Miller. Algunas de las voces invitadas incluyen a Emmylou Harris, Dolly Parton, Patty Griffin, Gillian Welch y Patty Loveless.
 En 2008 la revista Rolling Stone situó a Burke en el puesto 89 de la lista de los 100 mejores artistas de todos los tiempos.
 El domingo 10 de octubre de 2010, murió en el aeropuerto Schiphol de Ámsterdam, mientras volaba en un avión desde Los ángeles, que acababa de aterrizar en esa ciudad en la cual iba a brindar un concierto junto a la banda De Dijk el 12 de octubre. De acuerdo a su familia, Burke murió de causas naturales.
 Fue enterrado en el cementerio Forest Lawn Memorial Park de Los Ángeles.
 Discografía
 1962 - Solomon Burke (Kenwood)
 1964 - Rock 'n' Soul (Atlantic)
 1965 - The Best of Solomon Burke (Atlantic Records)
 1968 - I Wish I Knew (Atlantic)
 1968 - King Solomon (Sequel)
 1969 - Proud Mary
 1972 - King Heavy
 1972 - Electronic Magnetism
 1974 - I Have a Dream
 1975 - Back to My Roots
 1975 - Music to Make Love By
 1979 - Sidewalks, Fences & Walls
 1979 - Lord We Need a Miracle (Savoy Records)
 1979 - Get up and Do Something
 1981 - King of Rock 'n' Soul
 1983 - Take Me, Shake Me [live]
 1985 - Soul Alive!
 1986 - A Change Is Gonna Come
 1987 - Love trap
 1990 - Into My Life You Came
 1990 - This Is His
 1990 - Homeland
 1993 - Soul of the Blues
 1994 - Live at House of Blues
 1997 - Definition of Soul
 1998 - We Need a Miracle
 1999 - Not by Water But Fire This Time
 2002 - Soulman
 2002 - Don't Give Up On Me
 2002 - The Incredible Solomon Burke at His Best
 2003 - The Apollo Album
 2005 - Make Do With What You Got
 2005 - Rock 'N' Soul
 2006 - Nashville
 2007 - Blue and Soulful
 2007 - I Almost lost my mind
 2008 - Like a Fire
 2009 - To Thee
 2009 - The Commitment
 2010 - Hold on tight
 Referencias
 Enlaces externos
 thekingsolomonburke.com
 Make Do With What You Got TracksMusic Review
 Make Do With What You Got The Music Box Review
 Fabchannel.com - Free video stream of Solomon Burke's Soul Service
 Fabchannel.com - Free video stream of a Solomon Burke concert at Paradiso, Ámsterdam
 Cantantes de Pensilvania
 Músicos de soul
 Artistas de Rounder Records
 Artistas de Anti- Records
 Fallecidos por causas naturales
 Nacidos en Filadelfia


text:
 16.11.2013
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 306/12
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) št. 1158/2013
 z dne 15. novembra 2013
 o določitvi uvoznih dajatev v sektorju žit, ki se uporabljajo od 16. novembra 2013
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1234/2007 z dne 22. oktobra 2007 o vzpostavitvi skupne ureditve kmetijskih trgov in o posebnih določbah za nekatere kmetijske proizvode (Uredba o enotni SUT) (1),
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe Komisije (EU) št. 642/2010 z dne 20. julija 2010 o pravilih za uporabo (uvoznih dajatev za sektor žit) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1234/2007 (2), zlasti člena 2(1) Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Člen 136(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1234/2007 določa, da je uvozna dajatev za proizvode z oznakami KN 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (navadna pšenica, semenska), ex 1001 99 00 (visokokakovostna navadna pšenica, razen semenske), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 in 1007 90 00 enaka veljavni intervencijski ceni za te proizvode ob uvozu, povečani za 55 % in zmanjšani za uvozno ceno CIF zadevne pošiljke. Ta dajatev ne sme presegati stopnje dajatev skupne carinske tarife.
 (2)
 Člen 136(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1234/2007 določa, da se za izračun uvozne dajatve iz odstavka 1 navedenega člena za zadevne proizvode redno določajo reprezentativne uvozne cene CIF.
 (3)
 V skladu s členom 2(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 642/2010 je cena za izračun uvozne dajatve za proizvode z oznakami KN 1001 19 00, 1001 11 00, ex 1001 91 20 (navadna pšenica, semenska), ex 1001 99 00 (visokokakovostna navadna pšenica, razen semenske), 1002 10 00, 1002 90 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00, 1007 10 90 in 1007 90 00 enaka dnevni reprezentativni uvozni ceni CIF v skladu z metodo iz člena 5 navedene uredbe.
 (4)
 Uvozne dajatve, ki se uporabljajo do začetka veljavnosti nove določitve se določijo za obdobje od 16. novembra 2013.
 (5)
 Ker je treba zagotoviti, da se ta ukrep uporablja čim prej po tem, ko se zagotovijo ažurirani podatki, mora ta uredba začeti veljati na dan objave –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Od 16. novembra 2013 se uvozne dajatve v sektorju žit iz člena 136(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1234/2007 določijo v Prilogi I k tej uredbi na podlagi podatkov iz Priloge II.
 Člen 2
 Ta uredba začne veljati na dan objave v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 15. novembra 2013
 Za Komisijo V imenu predsednika
 Jerzy PLEWA
 Generalni direktor za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja
 (1) UL L 299, 16.11.2007, str. 1.
 (2) UL L 187, 21.7.2010, str. 5.
 PRILOGA I
 Uvozne dajatve za proizvode iz člena 136(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1234/2007, ki se uporabljajo od 16. novembra 2013
 Oznaka KN
 Opis blaga
 Uvozna dajatev (1)
 (EUR/t)
 1001 19 00
 1001 11 00
 trda PŠENICA, visokokakovostna
 0,00
 srednjekakovostna
 0,00
 nizkokakovostna
 0,00
 ex 1001 91 20
 navadna PŠENICA, semenska
 0,00
 ex 1001 99 00
 navadna PŠENICA, visokokakovostna, razen semenske
 0,00
 1002 10 00
 1002 90 00
 RŽ
 0,00
 1005 10 90
 semenska KORUZA, razen hibridne
 0,00
 1005 90 00
 KORUZA, razen semenske (2)
 0,00
 1007 10 90
 1007 90 00
 SIREK v zrnju, razen hibridnega, za setev
 0,00
 (1) V skladu s členom 2(4) Uredbe (EU) št. 642/2010 je lahko uvoznik upravičen do znižanja uvozne dajatve za:
 —
 3 EUR/t, če se pristanišče raztovarjanja nahaja v Sredozemlju (onstran Gibraltarske ožine) ali Črnem morju in če blago prihaja po Atlantskem oceanu ali Sueškem kanalu,
 —
 2 EUR/t, če se pristanišče raztovarjanja nahaja na Danskem, Irskem, v Estoniji, Latviji, Litvi, Poljski, na Finskem, Švedskem, v Veliki Britaniji ali na atlantski obali Iberskega polotoka ter če blago prihaja v Unijo po Atlantskem oceanu.
 (2) Uvoznik je upravičen do pavšalnega znižanja 24 EUR/t, če izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 3 Uredbe (EU) št. 642/2010.
 PRILOGA II
 Podatki za izračun dajatev iz Priloge I
 1.11.2013-14.11.2013
 1.
 Povprečje za referenčno obdobje iz člena 2(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 642/2010:
 (EUR/t)
 Navadna pšenica (1)
 Koruza
 Trda pšenica, visokokakovostna
 Trda pšenica, srednjekakovostna (2)
 Trda pšenica, nizkokakovostna (3)
 Borza
 Minnéapolis
 Chicago
 —
 —
 —
 Kotacija
 208,10
 125,00
 —
 —
 —
 Cena FOB ZDA
 —
 —
 223,68
 213,68
 193,68
 Premija za Zaliv
 —
 27,25
 —
 —
 —
 Premija za Velika jezera
 38,02
 —
 —
 —
 —
 2.
 Povprečje za referenčno obdobje iz člena 2(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 642/2010:
 Prevozni stroški: Mehiški zaliv–Rotterdam:
 18,22 EUR/t
 Prevozni stroški: Velika jezera–Rotterdam:
 50,75 EUR/t
 (1) Pozitivna premija 14 EUR/t (člen 5(3) Uredbe (EU) št. 642/2010).
 (2) Negativna premija 10 EUR/t (člen 5(3) Uredbe (EU) št. 642/2010).
 (3) Negativna premija 30 EUR/t (člen 5(3) Uredbe (EU) št. 642/2010).


text:
 29.3.2021
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 108/15
 РЕГЛАМЕНТ ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ (ЕС) 2021/540 НА КОМИСИЯТА
 от 26 март 2021 година
 за изменение на Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 809/2014 по отношение на някои задължения за уведомяване, проверки на място във връзка със заявления за помощ за добитък и искания за плащане по мерките за подпомагане за животни, както и по отношение на подаването на единното заявление, заявленията за помощ или исканията за плащане
 ЕВРОПЕЙСКАТА КОМИСИЯ,
 като взе предвид Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз,
 като взе предвид Регламент (ЕС) No 1306/2013 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 17 декември 2013 г. относно финансирането, управлението и мониторинга на общата селскостопанска политика и за отмяна на регламенти (ЕИО) No 352/78, (ЕО) No 165/94, (ЕО) No 2799/98, (ЕО) No 814/2000, (ЕО) No 1290/2005 и (ЕО) No 485/2008 на Съвета (1), и по-специално член 62, параграф 2, първа алинея, букви а) и б) и член 78, първа алинея, букви б) и в) от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 В съответствие с член 9, параграф 3 от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 809/2014 на Комисията (2) до 15 юли всяка година държавите членки трябва да представят на Комисията доклади относно предприетите мерки за администриране и контрол на доброволното обвързано с производството подпомагане за предходната календарна година. Опитът показва, че в контекста на действащата интегрирана система за администриране и контрол досегашното изискване за представяне на ежегодни уведомления за тези мерки вече не е актуално. От съображения за опростяване това изискване следва да бъде заличено.
 (2)
 Когато се извършват проверки чрез мониторинг в съответствие с член 40а от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 809/2014, държавите членки получават информация, която може да показва потенциално неспазване на изискванията и при схемите за помощ и мерките за подпомагане, по отношение на които се извършват стандартните проверки на място. Тази информация следва да се използва, за да се осигури спазването на изискванията и да се подобри точността на данните в системата за управление и контрол. Наред с това на бенефициерите следва да се даде възможност да изменят своето единно заявление, заявление за помощ или искане за плащане, така че да могат да коригират неточности и да избегнат санкции. От съображения за опростяване и по-голяма увереност тази възможност следва да бъде отразена в член 11, параграф 4 от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 809/2014.
 (3)
 Опитът показва, че на държавите членки следва да се предостави по-голяма гъвкавост при определянето на крайните срокове за подаване на единното заявление, заявленията за помощ или исканията за плащане, посочени в член 13, параграф 1 от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 809/2014, за да се отчетат по-добре техните специфични особености, и по-специално променящите се климатични и метеорологични условия. Този подход следва да се прилага и по отношение на сроковете за представяне на изменения по член 15, параграф 2 от същия регламент.
 (4)
 Когато държава членка прилага системата без подаване на искания, бенефициерите следва да бъдат уведомени, че при изчисляването на подпомагането и прилагането на административни санкции следва да се вземе предвид неспазването на изискванията по отношение на идентифицирането и регистрирането на потенциално допустимите животни в системата за идентификация и регистрация на едър рогат добитък, овце и кози за всички потенциално допустими животни. Случаите на неспазване на изискванията обаче следва да се подлагат на оценка с оглед на специфичните правила, определени в член 30, параграф 4 от Делегиран регламент (ЕС) No 640/2014 на Комисията (3), и в съответствие с член 31 от посочения регламент относно налагането на административни санкции.
 (5)
 Като се има предвид, че последващите проверки, изисквани съгласно член 33а, параграф 1 от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 809/2014, може да се отнасят до много малки суми, като същевременно водят до несъразмерна административна тежест, на държавите членки следва да се разреши да ограничат броя на земеделските стопани, които подлежат на такива последващи проверки. Като прозрачен и недискриминационен референтен показател в това отношение следва да се използва прагът, предвиден в член 54, параграф 3, първа алинея, буква а) от Регламент (ЕС) No 1306/2013, под който не се търси възстановяване на средства.
 (6)
 Опитът показва, че постепенното въвеждане на проверки чрез мониторинг, извършвани съгласно член 40а от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 809/2014, може да продължи над две години в зависимост от размера на съответната площ или сложността на процеса. Поради това на държавите членки следва да се предостави повече време, така че постепенно да напреднат с въвеждането на такива проверки на цялата си територия.
 (7)
 За да се окаже по-пълноценна помощ на държавите членки при изготвяне на техните решения за прилагане на проверките чрез мониторинг, е необходимо да се предостави допълнително време за подготовка на съответните уведомления. Съответно крайният срок за подаване на тези уведомления следва да бъде удължен по отношение както на проверките на условията за допустимост, така и на проверките на кръстосаното съответствие.
 (8)
 За да се осигури ефективност на проверките на място по отношение на схемите, свързани с животни, е необходимо да се гарантира, че когато дадена държава членка не прилага период на задържане, когато периодът на задържане не може да бъде определен предварително или когато той започва преди подаването на заявление за помощ или искане за плащане, тези проверки се извършват през периода, през който животните се считат за отговарящи на изискванията за плащане или подпомагане. Наред с това в член 42, параграф 1 от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 809/2014 следва да се поясни, че при необходимост посоченото задължение се прилага и по отношение на проверките на място, извършвани в резултат на увеличението на броя на проверките съгласно предвиденото в член 35 от същия регламент.
 (9)
 Поради това Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 809/2014 следва да бъде съответно изменен.
 (10)
 С цел да се осигури максимална ефикасност на правилата, предвидени в настоящия регламент, той следва да се прилага по отношение на заявленията за помощ, заявленията за подпомагане и исканията за плащане, които се подават за референтните години или премийните периоди, започващи от 1 януари 2021 г.
 (11)
 Мерките, предвидени в настоящия регламент, са в съответствие със становището на Комитета за директните плащания и на Комитета за развитие на селските райони,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ:
 Член 1
 Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 809/2014 се изменя, както следва:
 1.
 в член 9 параграф 3 се заличава;
 2.
 в член 11, параграф 4, първа алинея второто и третото изречение се заменят със следното:
 „Резултатите се съобщават на бенефициерите своевременно, за да ги подпомогнат при изпълнението на критериите за допустимост, ангажиментите и другите задължения. Държавите членки могат да използват предварителните резултати на ниво парцел, посочени в член 40а, параграф 1, първа алинея, буква г), като информация, която е от значение за предварителните проверки на схемите за помощ и мерките за подпомагане, неподлежащи на проверки чрез мониторинг. Когато държава членка реши да използва тази възможност, член 40а, параграф 4 не се прилага по отношение на информацията, съобщена на бенефициерите в рамките на предварителните проверки.“;
 3.
 в член 13, параграф 1, първа алинея второто и третото изречение се заличават;
 4.
 в член 15 параграф 2 се изменя, както следва:
 a)
 първата алинея се заменя със следното:
 „Измененията, направени в съответствие с параграф 1, се съобщават на компетентния орган преди крайния срок, определен от държавата членка.“;
 б)
 във втората алинея първото изречение се заличава;
 5.
 в член 21, параграф 4, трета алинея буква б) се заменя със следното:
 „б)
 бенефициерът е наясно, че всички потенциално допустими животни, за които се констатира, че не са правилно идентифицирани или регистрирани в системата за идентификация и регистрация на животни, се считат за неустановени животни в съответствие с член 31 от Делегиран регламент (ЕС) No 640/2014, освен ако не са обхванати от специфичните правила, определени в член 30, параграф 4 от същия регламент.“;
 6.
 в член 33а, параграф 1 се добавя следната алинея:
 „Държавите членки могат да решат да изключат от последващите проверки на място бенефициерите, чиято намалена административна санкция би съответствала на сумите, за които държавите членки могат да решат да не изискват възстановяване в съответствие с член 54, параграф 3, първа алинея, буква а) от Регламент (ЕС) No 1306/2013.“;
 7.
 в член 40а, параграф 3 втората алинея се заменя със следното:
 „Компетентният орган може да вземе решение да прилага проверки чрез мониторинг по отношение на бенефициери по схема за помощ или мярка за подпомагане в площи, избрани въз основа на обективни и недискриминационни критерии. С всяка поредна година той разширява значително тези площи.“;
 8.
 член 40б се заменя със следното:
 „Член 40б
 Уведомления
 До 1 февруари всяка календарна година държавите членки уведомяват Комисията за решението си да използват проверки чрез мониторинг през същата календарна година, като посочват всички схеми, мерки или видове операции, както и всички площи, подлежащи на проверки чрез мониторинг.
 До 1 ноември всяка календарна година Комисията предоставя образец за подаване на уведомленията с подробно описание на елементите, които трябва да бъдат включени в съответното уведомление.“;
 9.
 в член 42, параграф 1 втората алинея се заменя със следното:
 „Когато държавата членка е определила период в съответствие с член 21, параграф 1, буква г), най-малко 50 % от минималния брой проверки на място, предвидени съответно в членове 32, 33 и 35, се разпределят през този период за съответната схема за помощ за животни или мярка за подпомагане за животни. Когато обаче не се прилага период на задържане, когато периодът на задържане не може да бъде определен предварително или когато той започва преди подаването на заявление за помощ или искане за плащане, всички проверки на място, посочени в членове 32, 33 и 35, се разпределят през периода, през който дадено животно се счита за отговарящо на изискванията за плащане или подпомагане.“;
 10.
 член 70б се заменя със следното:
 „Член 70б
 Уведомления
 Държавите членки уведомяват Комисията за решението си да използват проверки чрез мониторинг в съответствие с член 70а до 1 февруари на календарната година, през която ще започнат да извършват такива проверки чрез мониторинг.“
 Член 2
 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила на третия ден след деня на публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Той се прилага по отношение на заявленията за помощ, заявленията за подпомагане и исканията за плащане, които се подават за референтните години или премийните периоди, започващи от 1 януари 2021 г.
 Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави членки.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 26 март 2021 година.
 За Комисията
 Председател
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1) ОВ L 347, 20.12.2013 г., стр. 549.
 (2) Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 809/2014 на Комисията от 17 юли 2014 г. за определяне на правила за прилагането на Регламент (ЕС) No 1306/2013 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета по отношение на интегрираната система за администриране и контрол, мерките за развитие на селските райони и кръстосаното съответствие (ОВ L 227, 31.7.2014 г., стр. 69).
 (3) Делегиран регламент (ЕС) No 640/2014 на Комисията от 11 март 2014 г. за допълнение на Регламент (ЕС) No 1306/2013 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета по отношение на интегрираната система за администриране и контрол и условията за отказ или оттегляне на плащанията и административните санкции, приложими към директните плащания, подпомагането на развитието на селските райони и кръстосаното съответствие (ОВ L 181, 20.6.2014 г., стр. 48).