jurisdiction: US

text:
 321 Md. 184 (1990)
 582 A.2d 510
 BALTIMORE COUNTY COALITION AGAINST UNFAIR TAXES ET AL.
 v.
 BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND ET AL.
 No. 124, September Term, 1989.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Order December 1, 1989.
 Opinion December 4, 1990.
 H. Thomas Howell (Thomas M. Trezise, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, all on brief), Towson, for petitioners.
 Michael J. McMahon, Asst. County Atty. and Arnold Jablon, County Atty., Towson, for respondents.
 Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, ADKINS[*] and CHARLES E. ORTH, Jr., (Retired) Specially Assigned, JJ.
 ORDER
 PER CURIAM.
 For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, it is this 1st day of December, 1989
 ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring, that as to that part of the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County which declares, in paragraph 3, "That Bill 47-89 is ... not subject to referendum under the provisions of Charter Sec. 309," the judgment is affirmed with costs. Mandate to issue forthwith.
 MURPHY, Chief Judge.
 This case involves the referendum provisions of § 309(a) of the Baltimore County Charter and whether a county ordinance, imposing a tax on non-reusable sealed beverage containers, was referable to county voters at the November 1990 General Election.
 I.
 Section 309(a) of the Charter reserves to the people of Baltimore County "the power known as `The Referendum,' by petition to have submitted to the registered voters of the county, to approve or reject at the polls, any enacted law or ordinance or part of any such law or ordinance of the county council." Under this provision of the Charter, if a referendum petition is properly executed and filed, the referred law will not take effect until thirty days after its approval by the voters at the next ensuing General Election. These further provisions, which limit the scope of the referendum right, next appear in § 309(a):
 "No law making any appropriation for maintaining the county government, or for maintaining or aiding any public institution, not exceeding the next previous appropriation for the same purpose, shall be subject to rejection or repeal under this section. The increase in any such appropriation for maintaining the county government or for maintaining or aiding any public institution shall take effect only as in the case of other laws, and such increase, or any part thereof, specified in the petition may be referred to a vote of the people of the county upon petition as above provided."
 The Baltimore County beverage container tax ordinance (Bill No. 47-89) was enacted on June 9, 1989 and codified as Baltimore County Code (1978, 1988-89 Cum.Supp.), Article VIII, §§ 11-68 through 11-72. According to its title, the ordinance was "[f]or the purpose of levying and imposing a two-tier tax on non-reusable sealed beverage containers." Section 11-68 of the ordinance provided that the tax was imposed "upon every distributor who supplies to a dealer in the County nonreusable beverage containers containing beverages as defined [in § 11-69]." The tax imposed was two cents on containers of not more than sixteen fluid ounces and four cents upon containers having a greater capacity. The ordinance required distributors to collect the tax beginning December 1, 1989.
 Following passage of the tax ordinance, a petition to refer the law to the county voters under § 309 of the Charter was initiated by a number of entities and individuals (the petitioners). By opinion dated June 9, 1989, the County Solicitor advised the County that the tax ordinance was excluded from referendum under § 309 of the Charter because it was a law making an appropriation for maintaining the county government. Notwithstanding the County Solicitor's opinion, the petitioners circulated a referendum petition entitled "Petition Regarding a New Beverage Container Tax." The petition recited that the tax ordinance provided
 "additional tax revenues as part of increased General Fund appropriations included in the 1990 Annual Budget and Appropriation Ordinance of Baltimore County for, among other things, solid waste disposal and the implementation of the tax, such Act levying and imposing a two-tier tax on non-reusable sealed beverage containers as a part of the General Fund."
 The referendum petition thereafter set forth the entire text of the ordinance. The petition was executed and filed within the time prescribed by § 309(a) of the Charter and contained the requisite number of signatures to refer the law to the county voters at the November, 1990 General Election.
 Based on the County Solicitor's opinion that the ordinance was nonreferable, and thus was not suspended by the filing of the referendum petitions, the County announced its intention to enforce the provisions of the law and to collect the tax. Thereafter, on October 3, 1989, the petitioners sued for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. They sought a declaration that the tax ordinance, being the subject of a valid referendum petition filed in full compliance with § 309 of the Charter, was without effect, inoperative, and unenforceable unless and until approved by the voters. The petitioners also sought an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance and the collection of the tax pending the result of the vote on the referred law.
 Upon the County's motion to dismiss the petitioners' complaint, Judge John F. Fader, II, after an extensive hearing, issued a declaratory judgment on November 11, 1989. He declared that § 309(a) of the Charter "provides that increases in appropriations for maintaining county government are subject to the referendum process"; that § 309 "exempts from the referendum process new or initial appropriations for maintaining county government"; that the ordinance was "a new or initial appropriation bill for maintaining Baltimore County Government," rather than an "increase" in an appropriation; and that consequently the ordinance was not subject to referendum under § 309 of the Charter. Underlying Judge Fader's declaratory judgment was his expressed belief that
 "§ 309 has used the word `increase' in its sense that it means something in addition to something that has occurred before, and that the initiative, at least initially, belongs to the government to determine how the people's wherewithal shall be taxed. After that initial decision by government as to what should be taxed and how it should be taxed, the people have reserved for themselves in § 309 the power to set to referendum any increase in that initial determination."
 Upon petitioners' appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, we granted certiorari prior to argument in that court and advanced the case on the docket to promptly resolve the important issue raised in the case. By per curiam order dated December 1, 1989, a majority of the Court concurring, we affirmed only that part of the circuit court's judgment which declared "[t]hat Bill 47-89 is... not subject to referendum under the provisions of Charter Sec. 309." We now give our reasons for that determination.
 II.
 As authorized by Article XI-A of the Constitution of Maryland (the Home Rule Amendment), the Charter Board of Baltimore County was established in 1954 to prepare a Charter for the county. The voters of the county adopted the Charter in 1956. Included within it were the referendum provisions of § 309(a), as to which the Reporter to the Charter Board stated that it "reproduces almost verbatim various provisions of Article XVI of the State Constitution entitled `The Referendum,' provisions which apply to laws enacted by the General Assembly." The Reporter further stated that "[t]he only minor departure from the constitutional pattern is the provisions relating to the form of affidavit of the person securing the signatures." See Proposed Home Rule Charter For Baltimore County, Maryland with Reporter's Notes and Index, April 9, 1955, p. 100.
 Article XVI of the State Constitution, in § 1(a), reserves to the people the power "to have submitted to the registered voters of the State, to approve or reject at the polls, any Act, or part of any Act of the General Assembly." Section 2 of Article XVI limits the right of referendum in pertinent part as follows:
 "No law making any appropriation for maintaining the State Government, or for maintaining or aiding any public institution, not exceeding the next previous appropriation for the same purpose, shall be subject to rejection or repeal under this Section. The increase in any such appropriation for maintaining or aiding any public institution shall only take effect as in the case of other laws, and such increase or any part thereof specified in the petition, may be referred to a vote of the people upon petition."
 As interpreted by our cases, Article XVI, § 2 excepts from the right of referendum a "law making any appropriation for maintaining the State Government"; it authorizes a referendum petition to a law making an appropriation "for maintaining or aiding any public institution," only to the extent of the increase over the next previous appropriation for the same purpose. See Kelly v. Marylanders for Sports Sanity, 310 Md. 437, 454, 530 A.2d 245 (1987). As we said in Kelly, 310 Md. at 475, 530 A.2d 245, the language in Article XVI "`not exceeding the next previous appropriation for the same purpose,' refers to laws for maintaining or aiding any public institution, but not to laws making any appropriation for maintaining the State government."
 Notwithstanding the Charter Board Reporter's view that the referendum provision of § 309(a) of the Charter was almost a verbatim reproduction of the referendum provision set forth in Article XVI of the Maryland Constitution, § 309 contains more than a minor departure from the verbiage of Article XVI. As already observed, § 309(a) first excepts from the right of referendum a county law making "any appropriation" for maintaining the county government, "or for maintaining or aiding any public institution, not exceeding the next previous appropriation for the same purpose." By its further provisions, § 309(a) qualifies the exception by stating that "[t]he increase in any such appropriation for maintaining the county government or for maintaining or aiding any public institution ... or any part thereof, specified in a petition," may be referred to a vote of the people of the county. (Emphasis supplied.)
 Article XVI of the State Constitution thus limits the right of referendum as to "any appropriation" to an "increase" over the prior year's appropriation only for maintaining or aiding any public institution; it does not permit a referendum as to any increase in an appropriation for maintaining the state government. Section 309(a) of the Charter, on the other hand, purports to permit a referendum petition as to the "increase, or any part thereof," contained in "any appropriation" whether for (1) maintaining the county government, or (2) for maintaining or aiding any public institution which exceeds the prior year's appropriation for that institution.
 III.
 The petitioners maintain that nothing in § 309(a) supports the trial court's judgment that new or initial appropriations for maintaining the county government are exempt from referendum. The container tax ordinance, they claim, is a law which increases an appropriation for maintaining the county government within the contemplation of § 309(a). In particular, they argue that § 309(a) permits a referendum of a tax ordinance which generates an increase in revenues to maintain the county government. Although the petitioners recognize that, in a literal sense, a revenue raising tax measure does not qualify, by itself, as an "appropriation," they point cut that under our decisions interpreting the referendum provisions of Article XVI of the Maryland Constitution, an appropriation of public funds is made by a legislative enactment whose primary object is to authorize the withdrawal from the treasury of a certain sum of money for a specified public object or purpose. While they acknowledge that the container tax law does not itself authorize or require withdrawal or expenditure of money, and that the revenues collected under the ordinance are not dedicated to a specific use, object, or purpose, the petitioners emphasize that the ordinance provides a new source of revenue as an "enhancement" of the county's General Fund. They also recognize that an appropriation for maintaining the government is usually found in a budget bill or a supplementary budget bill and not in a law imposing a new tax. Thus, the petitioners reason that if the container tax ordinance is to be regarded as a law making an appropriation for maintaining the county government, it is so classifiable only because of its linkage to the county budget bill as a revenue producing component of the county's General Fund. In this, the petitioners place reliance upon certain of our cases interpreting the referendum provisions of Article XVI, which, they say, hold that revenue raising and budget measures are in pari materia and must be construed together as though they constituted one act. As a result, the petitioners argue that a measure providing revenue in support of an enacted budget constitutes a law making an "appropriation" under § 309 of the Charter.
 The petitioners contend that the drafters of the Baltimore County Charter were well aware of the essential unity of a revenue ordinance and the budget bill and intended to treat a revenue measure as an integral part of the budget bill; and, consequently, the former must be regarded as a law making an appropriation for maintaining the county government. The petitioners therefore urge that the container tax ordinance is the equivalent of a law making an appropriation for maintaining the county government. They say that § 309(a) excludes from referendum only those laws making an "appropriation" for maintaining the county government which do not exceed the next previous appropriation for the same purpose. In other words, according to the petitioners, the tax ordinance is inextricably linked to the budget; that the ordinance causes an increase in the annual appropriation for maintaining the county government beyond that in the previous year's budget; and that, as to such increase, the tax ordinance is referable in its entirety to the county voters. This is so, the petitioners suggest, because the wording of § 309(a) is different from that contained in Article XVI of the State Constitution, signifying an intentional departure from the provisions of Article XVI. They conclude that the electorate in Baltimore County may petition to referendum a tax measure which yields increased revenue for maintaining the county government by disbursements through the county budget bill.
 IV.
 The record discloses that the container tax law was enacted by the County Council on May 30, 1989 and that the annual budget ordinance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990 was enacted at approximately the same time. The budget bill contained the appropriations necessary for maintaining the county government for that budget year and was mainly funded by revenues paid into the county's General Fund. The container tax was intended to provide an enhancement of $2,125,000 to the General Fund for FY 1990. This revenue source was was one of a number of sources of revenue calculated to provide a balanced budget while providing the necessary monies to operate the county government.
 In his annual Budget Message to the County Council for FY 1990, the County Executive indicated his support for the container tax ordinance, and the revenue produced thereby, which he said would "help offset the ever-increasing costs of solid waste disposal and the cost of a planned recycling effort." In an affidavit received in evidence, the county's Deputy Director of the Budget stated that none of the monies raised by the container tax were earmarked for a separate or special purpose; but that all county tax revenues under the Charter are deposited into the county's General Fund, which constitutes the primary source from which appropriations are made to defray county expenditures for operating the county government. In this regard, the Deputy Director stated that the container tax "constitutes a financial resource which will combine with numerous other sources of revenue so as to generate monies required to balance the budget." He also said that the County Executive's Budget Message with respect to solid waste disposal and a recycling program was "merely justification for that levy; by no means does it set aside those funds for their contribution to a special, or fund other than the general fund." Specifically, the Deputy Director emphasized that "revenue sources required to balance the budget are not connected or related to any dedicated appropriation for solid waste or a planned recycling effort ...; [and] there is no direct causal linkage in the budget between the beverage container tax and the amount of appropriation for refuse collection and disposal." Otherwise stated, the Deputy Director said that the amounts of "revenue needed to balance the budget are simply unrelated to the purpose of any one or more appropriation, but are based upon the total of estimated budget costs ... [and therefore] the container tax has nothing to do with any appropriated project cost, but instead is based solely on the `bottom-line' estimated expenditures the County will have in FY 1990 with respect to providing service required by law."
 Under Article VII of the Charter entitled "Budgetary and Fiscal Procedures," the County budget consists of "the current expense budget, the capital budget and capital program and the budget message, which shall be combined as one document"; it represents "a complete financial plan for the county reflecting all receipts and disbursements from all sources, including all revenues, all expenditures, and the surplus or deficit in all general and all special funds of the county government." § 703. Section 704 requires that all estimated revenues be detailed as to source, and estimated expenditures as to program or project. Under various other provisions of Article VII of the Charter, it is provided that all disbursements of county revenues must be made pursuant to the annual budget ordinance, by budget appropriation transfers, or by supplementary or emergency appropriation measures.
 V.
 The County embraces Judge Fader's determination that the container tax ordinance constitutes a new appropriation, rather than an increase in an appropriation, and for that reason is not referable under § 309(a). The County points to the common dictionary meaning of the word "increase" as an addition or enlargement  "something that is added to the original stock by augmentation or growth." It contrasts this definition with the common meaning of the word "new" as meaning "novel or unfamiliar." Upon this premise, the County maintains that Judge Fader correctly distinguished between a new and an increased appropriation, properly excepting the former from the referendum right under § 309(a) but not the latter.
 According to the County, the appropriation process is separated into two steps, i.e., the County Council must first raise the requisite revenues and, second, it must make disbursements through the budget bill. Revenue producing measures and revenue disbursing measures, it points out, must be embodied in separate bills. Section 710(c) of the Charter prohibits the County from appropriating and spending money without simultaneously providing the means to fund such appropriations. Moreover, the County explains that the Charter requires that the proceeds of the tax ordinance be deposited in the general fund and then transferred to legislative objectives in the budget bill or in the amendments thereto.
 The County does not suggest that a revenue raising measure, considered in pari materia with the budget bill, is not to be classified as an appropriation for purposes of § 309(a). It takes this position without regard to whether the tax ordinance dedicates or earmarks the revenue which it produces for a special or particular purpose, or whether there is a direct linkage between the budget bill and the tax ordinance. The County acknowledges that the tax ordinance is a part of the "appropriation" package. It simply urges that there is no "increase" in an appropriation referable under § 309(a) due to the enactment of the container tax law, but only a new appropriation on the revenue side. It contends that the $2,125,000 estimated to be received from the tax ordinance was but a part of the overall increase in revenues over the preceding fiscal year. As a consequence, and because the container tax is a new tax, the County argues that an index for comparing increases is lacking, and thus the tax ordinance is exempt from referendum under § 309(a).
 Finally, the County points out that the petitioners have petitioned the entire tax ordinance to referendum and not merely the "increase" in an appropriation. It maintains that as § 309(a) does not permit a referendum directed at a new revenue raising ordinance, the petitioners took the wrong ordinance to referendum. It suggests that the petitioners should have undertaken to refer the annual budget bill and sought to strike the increase in budget appropriations attributable to the enactment of the tax ordinance. In this regard, the County advances the notion that only a "line-item" expenditure in the budget bill itself, representing an increase for maintaining the county government, or for maintaining or aiding a public institution, is subject to referendum. The County claims that when  as in the present case  the referendum petition fails to identify the increase with specificity, the petition is invalid.
 VI.
 Although Judge Fader was correct in concluding that the container tax law was not subject to referendum under § 309(a), we disagree with his reasoning in arriving at that result.
 Prior to the adoption of the Baltimore County Charter in 1956, our cases had considered the meaning of an "appropriation" for maintaining the state government within the context of the referendum provision of Article XVI of the Maryland Constitution. Winebrenner v. Salmon, 155 Md. 563, 142 A. 723 (1928), involved a state statute which increased the gas tax and directed that a special fund be established for the proceeds and expended only for highway construction and maintenance. The issue was whether the statute was subject to referendum under Article XVI.
 Prior to the filing of the suit in Winebrenner, then Attorney General Robinson opined that the statute was not referable. In 12 Op.Atty.Gen'l 228 (1927), he first noted that all disbursements of state revenues are made by either a budget bill or a supplementary appropriation bill. He said that the statute increasing the gas tax was an "appropriation" measure under Article XVI as it imposed a tax from which the revenue required for road construction was to be derived. Id. at 234. General Robinson observed that the word "appropriation," in the context of Article XVI, "signifies the act of setting apart or assigning to a particular use or person in exclusion of all other, that is to say, the application to a special use or purpose." Id. at 235. The Attorney General said that the exception for appropriation measures contained in Article XVI encompassed "all laws assigning public monies to a particular use or purpose, regardless of whether such law is adequate or legally sufficient to authorize the payment or disbursement of the appropriated monies." Id. at 235. Thus, he said that whether the statute sought to be referred "is regarded as separate and distinct from the budget bill or is considered in connection therewith, it must be held to be a law making an appropriation, within the meaning of Article XVI." Id. General Robinson concluded that the framers of Article XVI "had in mind that if laws making appropriations for maintaining the State government were subject to the referendum, it would be possible, through the exercise of this power by the people, to cause the State serious financial embarrassment in the performance of its various essential functions." Id. at 235-36. Finally, he said that "the broad language of the exception was intended to include all laws providing revenue for and/or appropriating monies to any organized department of the State ... [for] the exercise of State functions." Id. at 236.
 In Winebrenner, we held, consistent with the Attorney General's opinion, that the statute was not subject to referendum. We determined that the statute was "an appropriation act", and that it satisfied all requirements of a supplementary appropriation bill because it directed the Governor to make the disbursement in the budget bill for road construction. 155 Md. at 567, 142 A. 723.[1] We said that the statute and the budget had to be considered together as though they constituted one act. Id. In so holding, we noted that the purpose of the exception for appropriation bills in Article XVI "was to provide against the possibility of the government being embarrassed in the performance of its various functions." Id. at 568, 142 A. 723.
 Bickel v. Nice, 173 Md. 1, 192 A. 777, decided in 1937, involved a state statute authorizing the issuance of state bonds and requiring that the proceeds be applied to the construction of a state office building. Citing Winebrenner, we held that the statute, as an appropriation act, was not referable under Article XVI, stating that only an increase in an appropriation for maintaining or aiding a public institution was referable to the voters. We said that "the actuating purpose" for excepting appropriation bills for maintaining the state government from the referendum process was "to prevent interruptions of government." 173 Md. at 10, 192 A. 777.
 Dorsey v. Petrott, 178 Md. 230, 13 A.2d 630 (1940), involved a state statute dealing with the conservation of fisheries, a function of state government. The inquiry was whether the statute was a law making an appropriation for maintaining the state government within the contemplation of Article XVI. In the course of concluding that the statute was a "general law," and thus was referable to the voters, we made a number of observations. We recognized that statutes to raise revenues for constitutionally mandated purposes (e.g., for the School Fund and to discharge the public debt) were not subject to repeal through the referendum process of Article XVI. Id. at 240, 13 A.2d 630. We expanded upon this holding by stating:
 "Nor is there any sound basis for the construction that a law imposing or providing for a tax levy or other means of raising revenue for the maintenance of the state government is a law referable to the electorate pursuant to the terms of the Referendum Amendment." Id.
 We recognized in Dorsey that the budget bill itself does not provide the means for the raising of the revenue requisite for the payment of the appropriations made; consequently, we explained that money bills or revenue measures must be enacted to supply the funds necessary to meet the appropriations made in the budget bill. Id. at 243, 13 A.2d 630. The enactment of such legislation "gains the quality of definiteness, in the sum appropriated and the object to which it is applied, by the budget bill, of which the legislation supplying the money is an associated and necessarily component part of one fiscal system." Id. We said it follows "that revenue measures to raise the public funds to pay the appropriations of the Budget Bill are excepted from the operation of the Referendum Amendment, although the revenue thus procured is disbursed by the Treasury through the provisions of the budget without any express authorization in the money bill for its disbursement." Id. at 244, 13 A.2d 630. We concluded that "any appropriation of public funds is made by a constitutional mandate or a lawful legislative act whose primary object is to authorize the withdrawal from the state treasury of a certain sum of money for a specified public object or purpose to which such sum is to be applied." Id. at 245, 13 A.2d 630.
 These cases set forth the law of Maryland at the time the Baltimore County Charter was adopted in 1956. As earlier stated, the Reporter to the Charter Board, in his official Report, said that the referendum provisions of § 309(a) were an almost verbatim reproduction of the referendum provisions of Article XVI with only a minor departure from the "constitutional pattern" and this related to the form of an affidavit. In the Reporter's view, therefore, an "appropriation" measure within the ambit of Article XVI, and under the rationale of our decided cases, excluded a revenue raising measure from referendum, whether considered separately or together with a budget bill appropriation for maintaining the government. The Reporter thus apparently believed that the wording of § 309(a) of the Charter accomplished that same result as to Baltimore County. The importance of the Reporter's role in ascertaining the intention of a Home Rule Charter provision has been noted in our cases; indeed, we have said that the Reporter's notes are a pertinent guide to the intention of the drafters of the Charter. See Murray v. Director of Planning, 217 Md. 381, 143 A.2d 85 (1958); Tyler v. Board of Supervisors, 213 Md. 37, 131 A.2d 247 (1957).
 In proposing the adoption of § 309, the drafters of the Charter were presumed to have knowledge of and acted with respect to prior and existing law. See In re Ramont K., 305 Md. 482, 485, 505 A.2d 507 (1986); Police Comm'r v. Dowling, 281 Md. 412, 419, 379 A.2d 1007 (1977); Harden v. Mass Transit Adm., 277 Md. 399, 406-07, 354 A.2d 817 (1976). Nothing in the enactment of § 309 in 1956 suggests a purpose on the part of the drafters of the Charter to depart from the flat holding of our cases that a law imposing or providing for a tax levy for maintaining the government is not referable to the voters. See Kelly, supra, 310 Md. at 454, 458, 530 A.2d 245. Indeed, a subsequent charter revision committee "pointed out that [§ 309] closely follows the wording of the Constitution." See Minutes of Charter Revision Committee, October 31, 1961, at 5. The Commission on Charter Revision, in discussing § 309 in 1977, and finding it "adequate," discussed only questions of referenda procedure, e.g., the requisite number of signatures, the responsibility for signature verification, and the maximum number of days for signature collection. See Minutes, Commission on Charter Revision, September 13, 1977, at 5.
 Notwithstanding this background, we are unable to conclude with certainty that the Reporter, the drafters of the Charter, and its subsequent revision committees did not understand the significance of the inclusion and placement of four additional words in the last sentence of § 309(a)  words which, taken literally, permit referenda upon any appropriation increase "exceeding the next previous appropriation for the same purpose," not just for aiding or maintaining any public institution, but for "maintaining the county government" as well. The difference between the last sentence of § 309(a), and that of Article XVI which does not permit a referendum upon increases in appropriations for maintaining the state government, is indeed a most substantial one. There is, however, nothing before us to suggest that the Reporter and the framers of the Charter did not appreciate the distinction between appropriations for maintaining the government and for maintaining public institutions. In Kelly v. Marylanders for Sports Sanity, supra, 310 Md. at 475, 530 A.2d 245, we noted, referring to Attorney General Robinson's opinion in 1928, 12 Op. Att'y Gen. at 237, that the "public institution" exception in Article XVI related only to "educational and eleemosynary institutions," sometimes designated as "state-aided institutions." As to these appropriations, we observed in Kelly that it was the law of Maryland, as stated by Attorney General Robinson, as follows:
 "`The framers intended that the people should have a check upon the amount of money expended by the legislature for the maintenance or aid of public institutions, not owned or controlled by the State. Such institutions do not necessarily perform governmental functions and are largely supported by private capital. Moreover, they are not State controlled, although the State is sometimes given a voice in their management. It is, therefore, not improper, when providing a check upon legislative power, to reserve to the people the right to control any extensions or increases of State aid to such institutions. The reference of such increases could not impair the State government in the exercise of its normal functions, whereas appropriations for the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Government must be provided, in accordance with the financial needs of these departments, without hindrance or delay.'" 310 Md. at 475, 530 A.2d 245.
 VII.
 In ascertaining and effectuating the real intention of the drafters of the Charter in the enactment of § 309, we recognize the rule that a plainly worded statute must be construed without forced or subtle interpretations designed to limit its scope. State v. Intercontinental, Ltd., 302 Md. 132, 137, 486 A.2d 174 (1985); Hornbeck v. Somerset Co. Bd. of Educ. 295 Md. 597, 619, 458 A.2d 758 (1983). Thus, we may not omit words from a statute to make it express an intention not evidenced in its original form. In re Ramont K., supra, 305 Md. at 485, 505 A.2d 507; Police Comm'r v. Dowling, supra, 281 Md. at 419, 379 A.2d 1007. On the other hand, while the language of the statute is the primary source for determining the legislative intention, the plain meaning rule is not absolute, as the statute must be construed reasonably with reference to the purpose, aim, or policy of the enacting body. Tucker v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 308 Md. 69, 73, 517 A.2d 730 (1986); Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 513, 525 A.2d 628 (1987). Thus, we have said that a statute must be construed in context, because the meaning of the "plainest language may be governed by the context in which it appears." NCR Corp. v. Comptroller, 313 Md. 118, 125, 544 A.2d 764 (1988). In this regard, words in a statute must be read in a way that advances the legislative policy involved. Morris v. Prince George's Co., 319 Md. 597, 603-04, 573 A.2d 1346 (1990). Courts may, therefore, consider not only the literal or usual meaning of those words, but their meaning and effect in the context in which the words were used, and in light of the setting, the objectives, and purpose of the enactment. State v. Intercontinental, Ltd., supra, 302 Md. at 137, 486 A.2d 174; State v. Fabritz, 276 Md. 416, 422, 348 A.2d 275 (1975). Moreover, in such circumstances, courts may consider the consequences that may result from one meaning rather than another, with real intent prevailing over literal intent. Walker v. Montgomery County, 244 Md. 98, 102, 223 A.2d 181 (1966); Truitt v. Board of Public Works, 243 Md. 375, 394, 221 A.2d 370 (1966).
 Giving due regard to these precepts in determining the actual import of § 309(a)'s authorization of a referendum upon an "increase" in any "appropriation," we note that when the Charter was adopted in 1956, as now, § 706(a) provided that funds for maintaining the county government would be "appropriated" through the annual budget bill. This section requires, inter alia, that the budget contain a statement "of all revenues estimated to be received by the county during the ensuing fiscal year"; it also provided that the budget bill set forth
 "a comparative statement of the receipts and expenditures for the last completed fiscal year, the estimated receipts and expenditures of the currently ending fiscal year, and the expenditures recommended by the county executive for the ensuing fiscal year for each program or project which shall be classified by agency, character and object." (Emphasis supplied.)
 Section 712(a) of the Charter, as originally enacted and now, authorizes "supplementary appropriations" but unlike supplementary appropriation bills under Article III, § 52(8) of the State Constitution, see footnote no. 1, supra, these county supplementary appropriations could come only "from unexpended and unencumbered funds set aside for contingencies in the county budget." Thus, at the time of its adoption in 1956, an "appropriation" of money to maintain the county government could not be made under the Charter by a separate ordinance which levied a tax and directed the expenditure of the revenue thereby produced to a specific object.
 Viewing the language of § 309(a) in this perspective, and recognizing the apparent intention of the Reporter and drafters of the Charter to adhere to the constitutional model of the referendum process set forth in Article XVI, we conclude that the "increase" in an "appropriation" referable under § 309(a) would in no event implicate a law which imposed a tax, e.g., the container tax ordinance. On the contrary, the "increase" contemplated by § 309(a) as being subject to referendum is related solely to the provisions of § 706(a), which mandate that the budget bill contain a comparative statement of the appropriations for the currently ending, and next ensuing, fiscal years by "program or project ... classified by agency, character and object." The requirement in § 309(a) that the "increase" in an appropriation be "specified in the [referendum] petition" is ascertainable only by reference to items included in the budget bill itself  that the challenged increase exceeded "the next previous appropriation for the same purpose" by the amount stated in the referendum petition. It is only the "increase" in a project or program, as reflected in the budget bill, which is referable and not the tax law itself. The additional revenue produced by that law became part of the County's general funds, and along with other revenues, provided the money necessary to make the appropriations needed to maintain the county government. The County Executive's statement in his budget message that a need existed for additional revenue to defray increasing costs of solid waste disposal, and for a recycling program, finds no direct expression in the budget bill in terms of an "increase" in an appropriation for that purpose. Actually, the appropriation in the budget bill for the Department of Environmental Protection's program for solid waste management reflects a decrease in the General Fund appropriation for the 1990 fiscal year over the preceding fiscal year of $32,074 (FY 1989 appropriation for this program totalled $1,514,414; FY 1990 appropriation for this purpose was $1,482,340).
 It was upon the basis of the aforegoing reasons that we issued our per curiam order of December 1, 1989 affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County that the container tax ordinance was not subject to referendum under § 309 of the Baltimore County Charter.
 NOTES
 [*] Adkins, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court but did not participate in the decision and adoption of this opinion.
 [1] Article III, § 52(8) of the Maryland Constitution authorizes the General Assembly to enact supplementary appropriation bills after the state budget bill has been enacted; such measures must be "embodied in a separate bill limited to some single work, object or purpose" and must provide "the revenue necessary to pay the appropriation thereby made by a tax, direct or indirect to be levied and collected as shall be directed in said bill."


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 11/Sv. 121
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 32
 22005A0722(04)
 L 192/23
 SLUŽBENI LIST EUROPSKE UNIJE
 PROTOKOL
 uz Sporazum o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju između Europskih zajednica i njihovih država članica, s jedne strane, i bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije, s druge strane, o okvirnom sporazumu između Europske zajednice i bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije o općim načelima za sudjelovanje bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije u programima Zajednice
 EUROPSKA ZAJEDNICA, dalje u tekstu „Zajednica”,
 s jedne strane, i
 BIVŠA JUGOSLAVENSKA REPUBLIKA MAKEDONIJA,
 s druge strane,
 dalje u tekstu „ugovorne stranke”,
 BUDUĆI DA:
 (1)
 Sporazum o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju između Europskih zajednica i njihovih država članica, s jedne strane, i bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije, s druge strane, (dalje u tekstu: „SSP”) potpisan je razmjenom pisama u Luxembourgu 9. travnja 2001. godine, a na snagu stupa 1. travnja 2004. godine.
 (2)
 Europsko je vijeće u Kopenhagenu u prosincu 2002. godine potvrdilo europsku perspektivu zemalja zapadnog Balkana kao potencijalnih kandidata i naglasilo svoju odlučnost u pružanju potpore njihovim nastojanjima u približavanju Europskoj uniji.
 (3)
 Europsko je vijeće u Solunu u lipnju 2003. godine potvrdilo da proces stabilizacije i pridruživanja ostaje okvir za europski smjer zemalja zapadnog Balkana sve do njihova budućeg pristupanja te je potvrdilo „Solunsku agendu za Zapadni Balkan: kretanje prema europskoj integraciji” čiji je cilj daljnje jačanje povlaštenih odnosa između EU-a i zapadnog Balkana na temelju iskustava proširenja.
 (4)
 Solunska agenda je pozvala zemlje zapadnog Balkana da sudjeluju u programima i agencijama Zajednice, u skladu s načelima utvrđenima za sudjelovanje država kandidatkinja, s ciljem upoznavanja navedenih zemalja i njihovih stanovnika s politikama i radnim metodama EU-a, te time dalje učvršćujući njihovu vezu s EU-om i ohrabrivati ih na putu prema europskoj integraciji.
 (5)
 Bivša jugoslavenska republika Makedonija izrazila je želju za sudjelovanjem u nizu programa Zajednice.
 (6)
 Trebalo bi utvrditi posebne uvjete, uključujući financijski doprinos, Sporazumom između Komisije Europskih zajednica, koja nastupa u ime Zajednice, i bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije u pogledu sudjelovanja bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije u svakom pojedinom programu,
 SPORAZUMJELE SU SE KAKO SLIJEDI:
 Članak 1.
 Bivšoj jugoslavenskoj republici Makedoniji omogućava se sudjelovanje u sljedećim programima Zajednice:
 1.
 tekućim programima Zajednice koji su navedeni u Prilogu, a koji se otvaraju za sudjelovanje bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije nakon stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma (dalje u tekstu: „Sporazum”);
 2.
 programima Zajednice koji su utvrđeni ili obnovljeni nakon stupanja na snagu Sporazuma i koji sadrže uvodnu klauzulu koja predviđa sudjelovanje bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije.
 Članak 2.
 Bivša jugoslavenska republika Makedonija financijski pridonosi općem proračunu Europske unije u skladu s posebnim programima u kojima sudjeluje.
 Članak 3.
 Predstavnicima bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije dopušteno je sudjelovanje u svojstvu promatrača u vezi s točkama koje se odnose na bivšu jugoslavensku republiku Makedoniju u upravnim odborima nadležnima za praćenje programa koje bivša jugoslavenska republika Makedonija financijski podupire.
 Članak 4.
 Projekti i inicijative koje podnesu sudionici iz bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije podliježu, u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri, istim uvjetima, pravilima i postupcima koji se odnose na dotične programe i koji se primjenjuju na države članice.
 Članak 5.
 Posebni uvjeti za sudjelovanje bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije u svakom pojedinom programu, a posebno financijski doprinos koji treba platiti, utvrđuju se sporazumom u obliku Memoranduma o razumijevanju između Komisije, koja nastupa u ime Zajednice, i bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije.
 Ako bivša jugoslavenska republika Makedonija podnese zahtjev za vanjsku pomoć Zajednice na temelju Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 2666/2000. od 5. prosinca 2000., kako je izmijenjena Uredbom Vijeća (EZ) br. 2415/2001. od 10. prosinca 2001. o pomoći za Albaniju, Bosnu i Hercegovinu, Hrvatsku, Federalnu Republiku Jugoslaviju i bivšu jugoslavensku republiku Makedoniju, ili na temelju neke slične Uredbe koja predviđa vanjsku pomoć Zajednice bivšoj jugoslavenskoj republici Makedoniji, a koja bi se mogla usvojiti u budućnosti, uvjeti koji određuju korištenje pomoći Zajednice od strane bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije utvrđuju se Financijskim sporazumom.
 Članak 6.
 Memorandumom o razumijevanju utvrđuje, u skladu s Financijskom uredbom Zajednice, da financijsku kontrolu ili reviziju provode ili nadziru Europska komisija, OLAF i Revizorski sud Europskih zajednica.
 Donose se detaljne odredbe o financijskoj kontroli i reviziji, upravnim mjerama, kaznama i naplatama koje Europskoj komisiji, OLAF-u i Revizorskom sudu omogućuju dobivanje ovlasti jednakih onima koje imaju nad korisnicima ili izvođačima s poslovnim nastanom u Zajednici.
 Članak 7.
 Sporazum se primjenjuje na neodređeno razdoblje.
 Sporazum može otkazati svaka ugovorna stranka uz prethodnu pisanu obavijest upućenu drugoj ugovornoj stranci. Sporazum se prestaje primjenjivati šest mjeseci nakon dana obavješćivanja.
 Članak 8.
 Najkasnije tri godine od dana stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma, a nakon toga svake tri godine, obje ugovorne stranke provjeravaju provedbu ovog Sporazuma na temelju stvarnog sudjelovanja bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije u jednom ili nekoliko programa Zajednice.
 Članak 9.
 Ovaj se Sporazum, s jedne strane, primjenjuje na državna područja na kojima se primjenjuje Ugovor o osnivanju Europske zajednice i pod uvjetima iz toga Ugovora te, s druge strane, na državna područja bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije.
 Članak 10.
 Ovaj Sporazum stupa na snagu na dan primitka posljednje pisane obavijesti diplomatskim kanalima kojima svaka ugovorna stranka obavješćuje drugu da je završen postupak stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Članak 11.
 (1) Sporazum je sastavljen u dva primjerka na svakom od službenih jezika ugovornih stranaka, osim na malteškom jeziku.
 (2) Nakon što institucije Europske unije postanu obvezne objavljivati sve službene akte na malteškom jeziku u Službenom listu Europske unije, Sporazum se sastavlja u po dva primjerka i na malteškom jeziku.
 (3) Svi su tekstovi jednako vjerodostojni.
 Članak 12.
 Sporazum i njegov Prilog sastavni su dio SSP-a.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu dana 22. studenoga 2004.
 Za Vladu bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije
 Za Europsku zajednicu
 PRILOG
 POPIS TEKUĆIH PROGRAMA ZAJEDNICE, NAVEDENI U ČLANKU 1.
 —
 Borba protiv diskriminacije (2001. – 2006.) (1)
 —
 Borba protiv socijalne isključenosti (2002. – 2006.) (2)
 —
 Djelovanja Zajednice za pružanje potpore politici zaštite potrošača (2004. – 2007.) (3)
 —
 Program djelovanja Zajednice za promicanje tijela aktivnih na europskoj razini i podupiranje određenih aktivnosti u području obrazovanja i osposobljavanja (2004. – 2006.) (4)
 —
 Program djelovanja Zajednice za promicanje aktivnog europskog građanstva (2004. – 2006.) (5)
 —
 Program djelovanja Zajednice u području javnog zdravlja (2003. – 2008.) (6)
 —
 Program Kultura 2000. (2000. – 2006.) (7)
 —
 Program Carine (2003. – 2007.) (8)
 —
 Program Daphne II (2004. – 2008.) (9)
 —
 eContent Plus (2004. – 2008.) (10)
 —
 eLearning (2004. – 2006.) (11)
 —
 Erasmus Mundus (2004. – 2008.) (12)
 —
 Program Fiscalis (2003. – 2007.) (13)
 —
 Ravnopravnost spolova (2001. – 2006.) (14)
 —
 Program Hercule (2004. – 2006.) (15)
 —
 Inteligentna energija u Europi (2003. – 2006.) (16)
 —
 Program LIFE (2000. – 2006.) (17)
 —
 Leonardo da Vinci II (2000. – 2006.) (18)
 —
 Program Marco Polo (2003. – 2010.) (19)
 —
 Media Plus (20) /Media Training (21) (2001. – 2006.)
 —
 Sigurniji internet Plus (2005. – 2008.) (22)
 —
 Šesti okvirni program za istraživanje i tehnološki razvoj (2002. – 2006.) (23)
 —
 Socrates II (2000. – 2006.) (24)
 —
 Program Mladi (2000. – 2006.) (25)
 (1) Vidjeti Odluku Vijeća br. 2000/750/EZ od 27. studenoga 2000. o uspostavljanju akcijskog programa Zajednice za borbu protiv diskriminacije (2001.-2006.) (SL L 303, 2.12.2000., str. 23.).
 (2) Vidjeti Odluku br. 50/2002/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 7. prosinca 2001. o uspostavljanju programa djelovanja Zajednice za poticanje suradnje među državama članicama u borbi protiv socijalne isključenosti (SL L 10, 12.1.2002., str. 1.).
 (3) Vidjeti Odluku br. 20/2004/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 8. prosinca 2003. o uspostavljanju općeg okvira za financiranje djelovanja Zajednice s ciljem pružanja potpore politici zaštite potrošača u razdoblju od 2004.-2007. (SL L 5, 9.1.2004., str. 1.).
 (4) Vidjeti Odluku br. 791/2004/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 21. travnja 2004. o uspostavljanju programa djelovanja Zajednice u svrhu promicanja tijela aktivnih na europskoj razini i podupiranja određenih aktivnosti u području obrazovanja i osposobljavanja (SL L 138, 30.4.2004., str. 31.).
 (5) Vidjeti Odluku Vijeća br. 2004/100/EZ od 26. siječnja 2004. o uspostavljanju programa djelovanja Zajednice za promicanje aktivnog europskog građanstva (sudjelovanje građana) (SL L 30, 4.2.2004., str. 6.).
 (6) Vidjeti Odluku br. 1786/2002/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. rujna 2002. o usvajanju programa djelovanja Zajednice u području javnog zdravlja (2003.-2008.) (SL L 271, 9.10.2002., str. 1.).
 (7) Vidjeti Odluku br. 508/2000/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 14. veljače 2000. o uspostavi programa Kultura 2000. (SL L 63, 10.3.2000., str. 1.) i Odluku br. 626/2004/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 31. ožujka 2004. o izmjeni Odluke br. 508/2000/EZ o uspostavi programa Kultura 2000. (SL L 99, 3.4.2004., str. 3.).
 (8) Vidjeti Odluku br. 253/2003/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 11. veljače 2003. o usvajanju programa djelovanja za carine u Zajednici (Carina 2007.) (SL L 36, 12.2.2003., str. 1.).
 (9) Vidjeti Odluku br. 803/2004/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 21. travnja 2004. o uspostavi programa djelovanja Zajednice (2004.-2008.) za sprečavanje i suzbijanje nasilja nad djecom, mladima i ženama te zaštitu žrtava i ugroženih skupina (Program Daphne II) (SL L 143, 30.4.2004., str. 1.).
 (10) Nije još usvojen – vidjeti COM(2004) 96 završna verzija, 2004/0025 (COD).
 (11) Vidjeti Odluku br. 2318/2003/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 5. prosinca 2003. o usvajanju višegodišnjeg programa (2004-2006.) za učinkovitu integraciju informacijsko-komunikacijskih tehnologija (ICT) u sustave obrazovanja i strukovnog osposobljavanja u Europi (Program eLearning) (SL L 345, 31.12.2003., str. 9.).
 (12) Vidjeti Odluku br. 2317/2003/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 5. prosinca 2003. o uspostavi programa za poboljšanje kvalitete visokog obrazovanja i promidžbu međukulturnog razumijevanja kroz suradnju s trećim zemljama (Erasmus Mundus) (2004.-2008.) (SL L 345, 31.12.2003., str. 1.).
 (13) Vidjeti Odluku br. 2235/2002/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 3. prosinca 2002. o usvajanju programa Zajednice za poboljšanje djelovanja poreznih sustava na unutarnjem tržištu (Program Fiscalis 2003.-2007.) (SL L 341, 17.12.2002., str. 1.).
 (14) Vidjeti Odluku Vijeća br. 2001/51/EZ od 20. prosinca 2000. o uspostavljanju programa za okvirnu strategiju Zajednice o ravnopravnosti spolova (2001.-2005.) (SL L 17, 19.1.2001., str. 22.).
 (15) Vidjeti Odluku br. 804/2004/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 21. travnja 2004. o uspostavi programa djelovanja Zajednice za promicanje mjera u području zaštite financijskih interesa Zajednice (Program Hercule) (SL L 143, 30.4.2004., str. 9.).
 (16) br. 1230/2003/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 26. lipnja 2003. o usvajanju višegodišnjeg programa djelovanja u području energije: „Inteligentna energija – Europa” (2003.-2006.) (SL L 176, 15.7.2003., str. 29.).
 (17) Vidjeti Uredbu (EZ) br. 1655/2000 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 17. srpnja 2000. o Financijskom instrumentu za okoliš (LIFE) (SL L 192, 28.7.2000., str. 1.) kako je izmijenjena Uredbom (EZ) br. 1682/2004 (SL L 308, 5.10.2004., str. 1.).
 (18) Vidjeti Odluku Vijeća br. 1999/382/EZ od 26. travnja 1999. o uspostavljanju druge faze programa djelovanja Zajednice za strukovno osposobljavanje „Leonardo da Vinci” (SL L 146, 11.6.1999., str. 33.).
 (19) Vidjeti Uredbu (EZ) br. 1382/2003. Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 22. srpnja 2003. o dodjeli financijske pomoći Zajednice za poboljšanje okolišne učinkovitosti sustava prijevoza tereta (Program Marco Polo) (SL L 196, 2.8.2003., str. 1.).
 (20) Vidjeti ispravak Odluke Vijeća 2000/821/EZ od 20. prosinca 2000. o provedbi programa za poticanje razvoja, distribucije i promocije europskih audiovizualnih djela (MEDIA Plus razvoj, distribucija i promocija) (2001.-2005.) (SL L 336 od 30.12.2000., str. 82.) (SL L 13, 17.1.2001., str. 34.) kako je izmijenjena Odlukom Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća (SL L 157, 30.4.2004., str. 4.).
 (21) Vidjeti Odluku br. 163/2001/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 19. siječnja 2001. o provedbi programa osposobljavanja stručnjaka u europskoj industriji audiovizualnih programa (MEDIA-Osposobljavanje) (2001.-2005.) (SL L 26, 27.1.2001., str. 1.), kako je izmijenjeno Odlukom br. 845/2004 (SL L 157, 30.4.2004., str. 1.).
 (22) Nije još usvojen – vidjeti COM(2004.) 91 završna verzija, 2004/0023 (COD).
 (23) Vidjeti Odluku br. 1513/2002/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 27. lipnja 2002. u vezi sa Šestim okvirnim programom Zajednice za istraživanje, tehnološki razvoj i demonstracijske aktivnosti, kao doprinos stvaranju Europskog istraživačkog prostora i inovacijama (2002.-2006.) (SL L 232, 29.8.2002., str. 1.).
 (24) Vidjeti Odluku br. 253/2000/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 24. siječnja 2000. o uspostavljanju druge faze programa djelovanja Zajednice u području obrazovanja „Socrates” (SL L 28, 3.2.2000., str. 1.).
 (25) Vidjeti Odluku br. 1031/2000/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 13. travnja 2000. o uspostavi programa djelovanja Zajednice „Mladi” (SL L 117, 18.5.2000., str. 1.).


type: caselaw

text:
 4.4.2022
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 C 148/7
 Breithiúnas na Cúirte (an Chúirt iomlán) an 16 Feabhra 2022 – Poblacht na Polainne v Parlaimint na hEorpa, Comhairle an Aontais Eorpaigh
 (Cás C-157/21) (1)
 (Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú - Rialacháin (AE, Euratom) 2020/2092 - Córas ginearálta coinníollachta chun buiséad an Aontais Eorpaigh a chosaint - Cosaint bhuiséad an Aontais i gcás sáruithe ar phrionsabail an smachta reachta i mBallstát - Bunús dlí - Airteagal 322(1)(a) CFAE - Airteagal 311 CFAE - Airteagal 312 CFAE - Imchéimniú líomhnaithe ar Airteagal 7 CAE agus ar Airteagal 269 CFAE - Sáruithe líomhnaithe ar Airteagail 4(1), 5(2) agus 13(2) CAE, ar an dara mír d'Airteagal 296 CFAE, ar Phrótacal (Uimh. 2) maidir le prionsabail na coimhdeachta agus na comhréireachta a chur i bhfeidhm agus ar phrionsabail na tabhartha, na deimhneachta dlíthiúla, na comhréireachta agus chomhionannas na mBallstát i bhfianaise na gConarthaí - Líomhain mí-úsáid cumhachta)
 (2022/C 148/11)
 Teanga an cháis: an Pholainnis
 Páirtithe
 Iarratasóir: Poblacht na Polainne (ionadaithe: B. Majczyna agus S. Żyrek, i gcáil gníomhairí)
 Idiragraí chun tacú leis an iarratasóir: An Ungáir (ionadaithe: M. Z. Fehér agus M. M. Tátrai, i gcáil gníomhairí)
 Cosantóirí: Parlaimint na hEorpa (ionadaithe: R. Crowe, F. Drexler, U. Rösslein, T. Lukácsi agus A. Pospíšilová Padowska, i gcáil gníomhairí), Comhairle an Aontais Eorpaigh (ionadaithe: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Rebasti, A. Tamás agus A. Sikora-Kalėda, i gcáil gníomhairí)
 Idiragraithe chun tacú leis na cosantóirí: Ríocht na Beilge (ionadaithe: M. Jacobs, C. Pochet agus L. Van den Broeck, i gcáil gníomhairí), Ríocht na Danmhairge (ionadaithe: M. Søndahl Wolff agus J. Nymann-Lindegren ar dtús, agus ag M. Søndahl Wolff agus V. Pasternak Jørgensen ina dhiaidh sin, i gcáil gníomhairí), Poblacht Chónaidhme na Gearmáine (ionadaithe: J. Möller agus R. Kanitz, i gcáil gníomhairí), Éire (ionadaithe: M. Browne, J. Quaney agus A. Joyce, i gcáil gníomhairí, le cúnamh ó D. Fennelly, abhcóide), Ríocht na Spáinne (ionadaithe: J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig agus S. Centeno Huerta ar dtús, agus ag J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig agus A. Gavela Llopis ina dhiaidh sin, i gcáil gníomhairí), Poblacht na Fraince (ionadaithe: A.-L. Desjonquères, A.-C. Drouant agus E. Leclerc, i gcáil gníomhairí), Ard-Diúcacht Lucsamburg (ionadaithe: A. Germeaux agus T. Uri ar dtús, agus ag A. Germeaux ina dhiaidh sin, i gcáil gníomhairí), Ríocht na hIsiltíre (ionadaithe: M. K. Bulterman agus J. Langer, i gcáil gníomhairí), Poblacht na Fionlainne (ionadaithe: H. Leppo agus S. Hartikainen, i gcáil gníomhairí), Ríocht na Sualainne (ionadaithe: O. Simonsson, J. Lundberg, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, H. Shev, M. Salborn Hodgson, H. Eklinder agus R. Shahsavan Eriksson, i gcáil gníomhairí), an Coimisiún Eorpach (ionadaithe: D. Calleja Crespo, J.-P. Keppenne, J. Baquero Cruz agus K. Herrmann, i gcáil gníomhairí)
 An chuid oibríochtúil
 1.
 Déantar an t-achomharc a dhíbhe.
 2.
 Ordaítear do Phoblacht na Polainne, chomh maith lena costais féin, na costais arna dtabhú ag Parlaimint na hEorpa agus ag Comhairle an Aontais Eorpaigh a iompar.
 3.
 Is ar Ríocht na Beilge, Ríocht na Danmhairge, Poblacht Chónaidhme na Gearmáine, Éire, Ríocht na Spáinne, Poblacht na Fraince, Ard-Diúcacht Lucsamburg, an Ungáir, Ríocht na hÍsiltíre, Poblacht na Fionlainne, Ríocht na Sualainne agus an Coimisiún Eorpach a gcostais féin a iompar.
 (1) IO C 138, an 19.04.2021


type: legislation

text:
 27.7.2013
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 202/17
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) Nr. 725/2013
 af 26. juli 2013
 om godkendelse af ammoniumchlorid som fodertilsætningsstof til drøvtyggere, katte og hunde (indehaver af godkendelsen er BASF SE)
 (EØS-relevant tekst)
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 af 22. september 2003 om fodertilsætningsstoffer (1), særlig artikel 9, stk. 2, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 indeholder bestemmelser om godkendelse af fodertilsætningsstoffer og om grundlaget og procedurerne for meddelelse af sådanne godkendelser. Artikel 10 i nævnte forordning bestemmer, at tilsætningsstoffer, der er godkendt i henhold til Rådets direktiv 70/524/EØF (2), skal underkastes en ny vurdering.
 (2)
 Ammoniumchlorid blev i overensstemmelse med direktiv 70/524/EØF godkendt uden tidsbegrænsning som fodertilsætningsstof til katte og hunde og med tidsbegrænsning til alle selskabsdyr undtagen katte og hunde ved Kommissionens direktiv 86/525/EØF (3). Dette tilsætningsstof blev derpå opført i registret over fodertilsætningsstoffer som et eksisterende produkt, jf. artikel 10, stk. 1, i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003.
 (3)
 Der er i henhold til artikel 10, stk. 2, sammenholdt med artikel 7, i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 indgivet en ansøgning om en ny vurdering af ammoniumchlorid som fodertilsætningsstof til katte og hunde og om en ny anvendelse til drøvtyggere i henhold til forordningens artikel 7 med en anmodning om, at tilsætningsstoffet klassificeres i tilsætningsstofkategorien »teknologiske tilsætningsstoffer«. Ansøgningen var vedlagt de oplysninger og dokumenter, der kræves i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 3, i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003.
 (4)
 Den Europæiske Fødevaresikkerhedsautoritet (»autoriteten«) konkluderede i sin udtalelse af 24. maj 2012 (4), at ammoniumchlorid under de foreslåede anvendelsesbetingelser ikke har skadelige virkninger på dyrs eller menneskers sundhed eller på miljøet. Autoriteten bekræftede, at ammoniumchlorid er et kraftigt urinforsurende middel, som ved tilsætning til foder til drøvtyggere, katte og hunde sænker urinens pH-værdi. Den mener ikke, at der er behov for særlige krav om overvågning efter markedsføringen. Autoriteten har desuden gennemgået den rapport om analysemetoden for fodertilsætningsstoffet i foder, der blev forelagt af det i henhold til forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 oprettede referencelaboratorium.
 (5)
 Vurderingen af ammoniumchlorid viser, at betingelserne for godkendelse, jf. artikel 5 i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003, er opfyldt. Derfor bør anvendelsen af dette tilsætningsstof godkendes som anført i bilaget til nærværende forordning.
 (6)
 Da der ikke er sikkerhedsgrunde, som kræver øjeblikkelig anvendelse af ændringerne af betingelserne for godkendelsen, bør der indrømmes en overgangsperiode, så berørte parter kan forberede sig på at opfylde de nye krav i godkendelsen.
 (7)
 Foranstaltningerne i denne forordning er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra Den Stående Komité for Fødevarekæden og Dyresundhed —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 Godkendelse
 Det i bilaget opførte ammoniumchlorid, der tilhører tilsætningsstofkategorien »zootekniske tilsætningsstoffer« og den funktionelle gruppe »andre zootekniske tilsætningsstoffer«, tillades anvendt som fodertilsætningsstof på de betingelser, der er fastsat i bilaget.
 Artikel 2
 Overgangsforanstaltninger
 Det i bilaget opførte tilsætningsstof til katte og hunde og foder, der indeholder tilsætningsstoffet, som produceres og mærkes før 16. august 2015 i overensstemmelse med de regler, der finder anvendelse før 16. august 2013, kan fortsat markedsføres og anvendes, indtil de eksisterende lagre er opbrugt.
 Artikel 3
 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 26. juli 2013.
 På Kommissionens vegne
 José Manuel BARROSO
 Formand
 (1) EUT L 268 af 18.10.2003, s. 29.
 (2) EFT L 270 af 14.12.1970, s. 1.
 (3) EFT L 310 af 5.11.1986, s. 19.
 (4) EFSA Journal 2012;10(6):2738.
 BILAG
 Tilsætningsstoffets identifikationsnummer
 Navn på indehaveren af godkendelsen
 Tilsætningsstof
 Sammensætning, kemisk betegnelse, beskrivelse, analysemetode
 Dyreart eller -kategori
 Maksimumsalder
 Minimumsindhold
 Maksimumsindhold
 Andre bestemmelser
 Godkendelse gyldig til
 mg/kg fuldfoder med et vandindhold på 12 %
 Kategori: zootekniske tilsætningsstoffer. Funktionel gruppe: andre zootekniske tilsætningsstoffer (reduktion af urins pH-værdi)
 4d8
 BASF SE
 Ammoniumchlorid
 Tilsætningsstoffets sammensætning
 Ammoniumchlorid ≥ 99,0 %
 (i fast form)
 Aktivstoffets karakteristika
 Ammoniumchlorid ≥ 99,0 %
 NH4Cl CAS-nr.: 12125-02-9
 Natriumchlorid ≤ 0,5 %
 Fremstillet ved kemisk syntese
 Analysemetode
 (1)
 Kvantificering af ammoniumchlorid i fodertilsætningsstoffet: titrering med natriumhydroxid (Den Europæiske Farmakopé, monografi 0007) eller titrering med sølvnitrat (JECFA, monografi om ammoniumchlorid).
 Drøvtyggere
 —
 —
 10 000 i en periode på højst tre måneder
 5 000 i en periode på over tre måneder
 1.
 Tilsætningsstoffet skal anvendes i foder som forblanding.
 2.
 Sikkerhedsforanstaltninger: Åndedrætsværn, sikkerhedsbriller, handsker og beskyttelsesbeklædning skal bæres under håndteringen.
 3.
 Ved blanding af ammoniumchlorid fra forskellige kilder må det tilladte maksimumsindhold i fuldfoder til drøvtyggere ikke overskrides.
 16. august 2023
 Katte og hunde
 5 000
 (1) Nærmere oplysninger om analysemetoderne findes på referencelaboratoriets hjemmeside: http://irmm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EURLs/EURL_feed_additives/Pages/index.aspx.


type: wikipedia

text:
 Események
 Határozott dátumú események
 január 9. – II. Rákóczi György lemondatja Rhédey Ferencet és újra elfoglalja Erdély trónját.
 február 11. – X. Károly Gusztáv svéd király elfoglalja Sjælland szigetét, ezzel fenyegetve Koppenhágát.
 február 18. – A taastrupi szerződés aláírása Svédország és Dánia-Norvégia között.
 február 26. – A roskildei békeszerződés aláírása Svédország és Dánia-Norvégia között. (A békeszerződés értelmében Svédországé lesz a teljes mai dél-svédországi partvidék, azaz a már 1645-ben, a brömsebrói békében megszerzett Halland mellett Blekinge, Bohuslän, valamint Dánia egyik legfontosabb régi tartománya, Skåne is.)
 augusztus 1. – I. Lipótot német-római császárrá koronázzák.
 szeptember 5–20. – Az Erdélybe betör tatárok közel ölnek meg, hurcolnak rabságba. (A tatárok feldúlják Nagyenyedet, Tordát, Kolozsvárt és Marosvásárhelyt.)
 szeptember 2. – Török kézre kerül Jenő vára.
 szeptember 6. – a Gábor deák által vezetett székelyek Szárhegynél legyőzték a Székelyföldre támadó tatár és román rablóbandát.
 szeptember 14. – Köprülü Mehmed nagyvezír Jenő vára alatt Barcsay Ákost nevezi ki Erdély fejedelmévé.
 október 11. – A török nagyvezír parancsára az erdélyi rendek Barcsay Ákost választják II. Rákóczi György helyébe.
 november 23. – Oliver Cromwell lordprotektor állami temetése.
 december 25. – A lengyel hadak a dánok segítségével a koldingi csatában legyőzik a svédeket Dániában.
 Határozatlan dátumú események
 május – II. Rákóczi György erdélyi fejedelem Lippánál megveri a budai pasa seregét.
 az év nyara – A pálülési csatában elhunyt Elcsi Haszan temesvári pasa helyére Csengízáde Alit nevezik ki. (A tartományt áthelyezéséig, 1660-ig irányította.)
 az év folyamán – Köprülü Mehmed nagyvezír seregével megindul Erdély ellen.
 december – A megbízhatatlannak ítélt krétai hős, Deli Hüszejn helyére Kösze Alit nevezik ki az Oszmán Birodalom tengernagyává.
 Az év témái
 1658 az irodalomban
 1658 a tudományban
 Születések
 július 10. – Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli olasz földrajztudós, műgyűjtő, diplomata, utazó, tudós, hadmérnök, nyelvész-filológus, katona († 1730)
 Halálozások
 szeptember 3. – Oliver Cromwell angol államférfi, Lord Protector (* 1599)
 Jegyzetek
 17. század


text:
 26.2.2020
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 L 55/3
 FTEHIM
 bejn l-Uunjoni Ewropea u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċinadwar ċerti aspetti tas-servizzi tal-ajru
 L-UNJONI EWROPEA
 u
 L-GVERN TAR-REPUBBLIKA TAL-POPLU TAĊ-ĊINA,
 minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejħin “il-Partijiet”,
 FILWAQT LI JINNUTAW li l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea sabet li ċerti dispożizzjonijiet ta' ftehimiet bilaterali eżistenti bejn diversi Stati Membri u pajjiżi terzi mhumiex kompatibbli mal-liġi tal-Unjoni Ewropea,
 FILWAQT LI JINNUTAW li ġew konklużi għadd ta’ ftehimiet bilaterali dwar is-servizzi tal-ajru bejn diversi Stati Membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina li kellhom fihom dispożizzjonijiet simili u li hemm obbligu fuq l-Istati Membri li jieħdu l-passi kollha xierqa biex jeliminaw in-nuqqas ta’ kompatibilità bejn tali ftehimiet u t-Trattati tal-UE,
 FILWAQT LI JINNUTAW li l-Unjoni Ewropea għandha kompetenza esklużiva fir-rigward ta’ diversi aspetti li jistgħu jiġu inklużi fi ftehimiet bilaterali dwar is-servizzi tal-ajru bejn l-Istati Membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea u pajjiżi terzi,
 FILWAQT LI JINNUTAW li, skont il-liġi tal-Unjoni Ewropea, it-trasportaturi tal-ajru tal-Unjoni Ewropea stabbiliti f’xi wieħed mill-Istati Membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea għandhom id-dritt għal aċċess mhux diskriminatorju biex jipprovdu servizzi tal-ajru bejn l-Istati Membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea u pajjiżi terzi,
 FILWAQT LI JIKKUNSIDRAW il-ftehimiet bejn l-Unjoni Ewropea u ċerti pajjiżi terzi li jipprovdu l-possibbiltà għaċ-ċittadini ta’ dawn il-pajjiżi terzi li jiksbu dritt ta’ sjieda fi trasportaturi tal-ajru mogħtija liċenzja skont il-liġi tal-Unjoni Ewropea,
 FILWAQT LI JAGĦRFU li l-konsistenza bejn il-liġi tal-Unjoni Ewropea u d-dispożizzjonijiet tal-ftehimiet bilaterali dwar is-servizzi tal-ajru bejn l-Istati Membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina se tipprovdi bażi legali tajba għas-servizzi tal-ajru bejn l-Unjoni Ewropea u r-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina u tippreżerva l-kontinwità ta’ tali servizzi tal-ajru,
 FILWAQT LI JAGĦRFU li fejn Stat Membru tal-Unjoni Ewropea jkun iddeżinja trasportatur tal-ajru li l-kontroll regolatorju tiegħu jkun eżerċitat u miżmum minn Stat Membru ieħor tal-Unjoni Ewropea, id-drittijiet tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina taħt id-dispożizzjonijiet dwar is-sikurezza mogħtija fil-ftehim bejn l-Istat Membru li jkun iddeżinja t-trasportatur tal-ajru u r-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina għandhom japplikaw bl-istess mod fir-rigward ta’ dak l-Istat Membru l-ieħor,
 FILWAQT LI JINNUTAW li mhuwiex għan tal-Unjoni Ewropea, f’dan il-Ftehim, li jiżdied il-volum totali ta’ traffiku tal-ajru bejn l-Unjoni Ewropea u r-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina, li jiġi affettwat il-bilanċ bejn trasportaturi tal-ajru tal-Unjoni Ewropea u trasportaturi tal-ajru tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina jew li jipprevali fuq l-interpretazzjoni tad-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ ftehimiet bilaterali eżistenti dwar is-servizzi tal-ajru li għandhom x’jaqsmu mad-drittijiet tat-traffiku,
 FILWAQT LI JAFFERMAW MILL-ĠDID l-intenzjonijiet tagħhom li r-rikonoxximent tad-dritt tal-istabbiliment u l-adozzjoni tal-prinċipju tad-deżinjazzjoni tal-UE m’għandhomx ikunu intiżi jew interpretati bħala li jiffaċilitaw iċ-ċirkomvenzjoni u ma jipprevenux ir-rifjut tad-drittijiet tat-traffiku f’tali każ ta’ ċirkomvenzjoni,
 FTIEHMU KIF ĠEJ:
 Artikolu 1
 Dispożizzjonijiet ġenerali
 1. Għall-finijiet ta’ dan il-Ftehim, “Stati Membri” tfisser Stati Membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea u “Trattati tal-UE” tfisser it-Trattat dwar l-Unjoni Ewropea u t-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea.
 2. Ir-referenzi f’kull ftehim elenkat fl-Anness I għaċ-ċittadini tal-Istat Membru li huwa Parti għal dak il-ftehim għandhom jinftiehmu bħala referenzi għaċ-ċittadini ta' kwalunkwe wieħed mill-Istati Membri.
 3. Ir-referenzi f’kull ftehim elenkat fl-Anness I għat-trasportaturi tal-ajru jew għal-linji tal-ajru tal-Istat Membru li huwa Parti għal dak il-ftehim għandhom jinftiehmu bħala referenzi għat-trasportaturi tal-ajru jew għal-linji tal-ajru deżinjati minn dak l-Istat Membru.
 4. L-għoti tad-drittijiet tat-traffiku se jkompli jsir permezz ta’ ftehimiet bilaterali bejn ir-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina u kull Stat Membru individwali.
 Artikolu 2
 Id-deżinjazzjoni ta' trasportatur tal-ajru, l-awtorizzazzjonijiet u l-permessi, ir-rifjut, ir-revoka, is-sospensjoni jew il-limitazzjoni tal-awtorizzazzjonijiet jew tal-permessi
 1. Id-dispożizzjonijiet tal-paragrafi 2 u 3 ta’ dan l-Artikolu għandhom jieħdu post id-dispożizzjonijiet korrispondenti tal-artikoli elenkati fl-Anness II(a) u (b) rispettivament, f’dak li għandu x’jaqsam mad-deżinjazzjoni tat-trasportaturi tal-ajru mill-Istat Membru kkonċernat, l-awtorizzazzjonijiet u l-permessi mogħtija lilu mir-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina, u r-rifjut, ir-revoka, is-sospensjoni jew il-limitazzjoni ta' tali awtorizzazzjonijiet jew permessi, rispettivament.
 2. Malli tirċievi deżinjazzjoni mingħand Stat Membru, ir-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina għandha tagħti l-awtorizzazzjonijiet u l-permessi xierqa bl-inqas dewmien proċedurali, sakemm:
 (a)
 it-trasportatur tal-ajru jkun stabbilit fit-territorju tal-Istat Membru li jiddeżinjah skont it-Trattati tal-UE u f’konformità mal-liġijiet u r-regolamenti dwar l-istabbiliment tal-Istat Membru li jiddeżinjah u jkollu liċenzja operattiva valida skont il-liġi tal-Unjoni Ewropea;
 (b)
 il-kontroll regolatorju effettiv tat-trasportatur tal-ajru huwa eżerċitat u miżmum mill-Istat Membru responsabbli għall-ħruġ taċ-Ċertifikat tiegħu ta' Operatur tal-Ajru u l-awtorità aeronawtika rilevanti hija identifikata b'mod ċar fid-deżinjazzjoni;
 (c)
 it-trasportatur tal-ajru għandu l-post prinċipali tan-negozju tiegħu fit-territorju tal-Istat Membru li mingħandu jkun irċieva l-liċenzja operattiva valida; u
 (d)
 it-trasportatur tal-ajru jkun, direttament jew b’maġġoranza ta’ ishma, proprjetà ta', u jkun effettivament ikkontrollat minn, Stati Membri u/jew minn ċittadini ta' Stati Membri, u/jew minn Stati oħrajn elenkati fl-Anness III u/jew minn ċittadini ta’ tali Stati oħrajn.
 3. Ir-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina tista’ tirrifjuta, tirrevoka, tissospendi jew tillimita l-awtorizzazzjonijiet jew il-permessi ta’ trasportatur tal-ajru deżinjat minn Stat Membru f’każ li:
 (a)
 it-trasportatur tal-ajru ma jkunx stabbilit fit-territorju tal-Istat Membru li jiddeżinjah skont it-Trattati tal-UE jew ma jkollux liċenzja operattiva valida skont il-liġi tal-Unjoni Ewropea; jew
 (b)
 l-Istat Membru responsabbli għall-ħruġ taċ-Ċertifikat tal-Operatur tal-Ajru tat-trasportatur tal-ajru ma jkunx jeżerċita jew iżomm kontroll regolatorju effettiv fuqu, jew l-awtorità ajrunawtika rilevanti ma tkunx identifikata b’mod ċar fid-deżinjazzjoni; jew
 (c)
 it-trasportatur tal-ajru m’għandux il-post prinċipali tan-negozju tiegħu fit-territorju tal-Istat Membru li mingħandu jkun irċieva l-liċenzja operattiva tiegħu; jew
 (d)
 it-trasportatur tal-ajru ma jkunx, direttament jew b’maġġoranza ta’ ishma, proprjetà ta', jew ma jkunx effettivament ikkontrollat minn, Stati Membri u/jew minn ċittadini ta' Stati Membri, u/jew minn Stati oħrajn elenkati fl-Anness III u/jew minn ċittadini ta’ tali Stati oħrajn; jew
 (e)
 it-trasportatur tal-ajru jkun diġà awtorizzat li jopera taħt ftehim bilaterali bejn ir-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina u xi Stat Membru ieħor, u li, bl-eżerċizzju ta' drittijiet ta' traffiku taħt dan il-Ftehim fuq rotta li tinkludi punt f’dak l-Istat Membru l-ieħor, inkluż it-tħaddim ta’ servizz li jkun ikkumerċjalizzat bħala, jew inkella jikkostitwixxi, through service, ikun qed jevita restrizzjonijiet fuq it-tielet jew ir-raba' jew il-ħames drittijiet ta' traffiku ħieles imposti minn dak il-ftehim l-ieħor; jew
 (f)
 it-trasportatur tal-ajru deżinjat ikollu Ċertifikat ta' Operatur tal-Ajru maħruġ minn Stat Membru li miegħu ir-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina ma jkollhiex ftehim bilaterali dwar servizzi tal-ajru u dak l-Istat Membru jkun caħħad lir-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina minn drittijiet ta' traffiku.
 4. Id-drittijiet u l-obbligi taħt dan l-Artikolu ma għandhomx jiġu eżerċizzati f’manjiera li tiddiskrimina bejn it-trasportaturi tal-Unjoni Ewropea abbażi tan-nazzjonalità.
 Artikolu 3
 Is-sikurezza
 1. Id-dispożizzjonijiet tal-paragrafu 2 ta' dan l-Artikolu għandhom jikkomplimentaw id-dispożizzjonijiet korrispondenti tal-Artikoli elenkati fl-Anness II(c).
 2. Fejn Stat Membru jkun iddeżinja trasportatur tal-ajru li l-kontroll regolatorju tiegħu jkun eżerċitat u miżmum minn Stat Membru ieħor, id-drittijiet tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina taħt id-dispożizzjonijiet dwar is-sikurezza mogħtija fil-ftehim bejn l-Istat Membru li jkun iddeżinja t-trasportatur tal-ajru u r-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina għandhom japplikaw bl-istess mod fir-rigward tal-adozzjoni, l-eżerċizzju jew iż-żamma tal-istandards tas-sikurezza minn dak l-Istat Membru l-ieħor u fir-rigward tal-awtorizzazzjoni ta' operatur ta’ dak it-trasportatur tal-ajru.
 Artikolu 4
 Il-kompatibbiltà mar-regoli tal-kompetizzjoni
 1. Il-ftehimiet bilaterali dwar is-servizzi tal-ajru konklużi bejn l-Istati Membri u r-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina għandhom ikunu mingħajr preġudizzju għar-regoli tal-kompetizzjoni tal-Partijiet.
 2. Id-dispożizzjonijiet elenkati fl-Anness II(d) jitħassru u ma jibqgħux fis-seħħ.
 Artikolu 5
 L-Annessi għal dan il-Ftehim
 L-Annessi għal dan il-Ftehim jifformaw parti integrali minnu.
 Artikolu 6
 Dħul fis-seħħ
 1. Il-Partijiet għandhom jinnotifikaw lil xulxin bil-miktub permezz ta’ mezzi diplomatiċi li jkunu tlestew il-proċeduri interni rispettivi tagħhom li huma meħtieġa biex dan il-Ftehim jidħol fis-seħħ. Dan il-Ftehim għandu jidħol fis-seħħ fid-data tal-aħħar notifika.
 2. Dan il-Ftehim għandu japplika għal dawk il-ftehimiet u l-arranġamenti elenkati fl-Anness I li huma fis-seħħ.
 Artikolu 7
 Rieżami, reviżjoni jew emendar
 1. Il-Partijiet għandhom jimmonitorjaw u jirrivedu regolarment l-implimentazzjoni ta’ dan il-Ftehim. Tali rieżamijiet għandhom b’mod partikolari jivvalutaw kwalunkwe effetti negattivi u imprevisti ta’ dan il-Ftehim, kif jintgħarfu minn kwalunkwe mill-Partijiet.
 2. Jekk jiġi mitlub minn kwalunkwe wieħed minnhom, il-Partijiet għandu jkollhom konsultazzjonijiet biex jiddiskutu reazzjonijiet adatti għall-effetti imprevisti msemmija fil-paragrafu 1.
 3. Il-Partijiet jistgħu, f’kull ħin, jirrieżaminaw, jirrivedu jew jemendaw dan il-Ftehim bi qbil reċiproku.
 Artikolu 8
 It-terminazzjoni
 1. Fil-każ li jintemm xi ftehim elenkat fl-Anness I, id-dispożizzjonijiet kollha ta’ dan il-Ftehim li għandhom x’jaqsmu mal-ftehimiet ikkonċernati elenkati fl-Anness I għandhom jintemmu fl-istess ħin.
 2. Fil-każ li l-ftehimiet kollha elenkati fl-Anness I jintemmu, dan il-Ftehim għandu jintemm fl-istess ħin.
 B’XHIEDA TA’ DAN, il-firmatarji ta’ hawn taħt, billi huma debitament awtorizzati, iffirmaw dan il-Ftehim.
 Magħmul f’żewġ eżemplari, bil-Bulgaru, bil-Kroat, biċ-Ċek, bid-Daniż, bin-Netherlandiż, bl-Ingliż, bl-Estonjan, bil-Finlandiż, bil-Franċiż, bil-Ġermaniż, bil-Grieg, bl-Ungeriż, bit-Taljan, bil-Latvjan, bil-Litwan, bil-Malti, bil-Pollakk, bil-Portugiż, bir-Rumen, bis-Slovakk, bis-Sloven, bl-Ispanjol, bl-Iżvediż u biċ-Ċiniż.
 ANNESS 1
 Lista tal-ftehimiet imsemmijin fl-Artikolu 1 ta’ dan il-Ftehim
 Il-ftehimiet u l-arranġamenti l-oħra dwar is-servizzi tal-ajru bejn ir-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina u l-Istati Membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea, kif immodifikati jew emendati, li, dakinhar tal-iffirmar ta’ dan il-Ftehim, kienu ġew konklużi, iffirmati jew inizjalati:
 —
 Ftehim dwar it-Trasport bl-Ajru bejn il-Gvern Federali tal-Awstrija u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina, iffirmat f’Beijing fit-12 ta’ Settembru 1985, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Awstrija” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-Gvern tar-Renju tal-Belġju u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina marbut mas-servizzi tal-ajru, iffirmat f’Beijing fl-20 ta’ April 1975, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Belġju” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim dwar it-Trasport bl-Ajru bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Bulgarija u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina, iffirmat f’Beijing fil-21 ta’ Ġunju 1993, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Bulgarija” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim dwar is-Servizzi bl-Ajru bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Kroazja u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika taċ-Ċina, iffirmat f’Zagreb fl-20 ta’ Ġunju 2009, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Kroazja” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim dwar it-Trasport bl-Ajru bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika ta’ Ċipru u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika taċ-Ċina, inizjalat fil-5 ta’ April 2000, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Ċipru” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim dwar it-Trasport bl-Ajru bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika Soċjalista Ċekoslovakka u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina, iffirmat f’Beijing fil-25 ta’ Mejju 1988, li fir-rigward tiegħu r-Repubblika Ċeka ddikjarat li tqis lilha nnifisha marbuta bid-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ dan, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Awstrija” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim dwar is-Servizzi tal-Ajru bejn il-Gvern tar-Renju tad-Danimarka u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina, inizjalat fit-12 ta’ Marzu 2010, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u d-Danimarka” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Estonja u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina marbut mat-trasport bl-ajru ċivili, iffirmat f’Talinn fl-1 ta’ Marzu 1999, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Estonja” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Finlandja u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina marbut mat-trasport bl-ajru ċivili, iffirmat f’Beijing fit-2 ta’ Ottubru 1975, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Finlandja” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-il-Gvern tar-Repubblika ta’ Franza u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika taċ-Ċina “relatif aux communications aériennes” iffirmat f’Pariġi fl-1 ta’ Ġunju 1966, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Franza” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim dwar it-Trasport bl-Ajru Ċivili bejn il-il-Gvern Federali tal-Ġermanja u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina, iffirmat f’Beijing fil-31 ta’ Ottubru 1975, kif emendat bil-Protokoll ta’ Emenda tal-Ftehim tat-Trasport tal-Ajru Ċivili bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika Federali tal-Ġermanja u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina ffirmat f’Beijing fil-11 ta’ Diċembru 1995, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Awstrija” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-il-Gvern tar-Renju tal-Greċja u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina marbut mat-Trasport bl-Ajru Ċivili, iffirmat f’Beijing fit-23 ta’ Mejju 1973, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn ċ-Ċina u l-Greċja” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim dwar it-Trasport bl-Ajru bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Ungerija u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina, iffirmat f’Budapest fil-15 ta’ Settembru 1993, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Ungerija” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-Gvern tal-Irlanda u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina dwar it-trasport bl-ajru ċivili, iffirmat f’Beijing fl-14 ta’ Settembru 1998, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Irlanda” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim dwar it-Trasport bl-Ajru ċivili bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika Taljana u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina, iffirmat f’Beijing fit-8 ta’ Jannar 1973, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Italja” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Latvja u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina dwar it-trasport bl-ajru ċivili, iffirmat f’Riga fl-4 ta’ Marzu 1999, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Latvja fl-Anness II.
 —
 Ftehim dwar it-trasport bl-ajru ċivili bejn il-Gvern tal-Gran Dukat tal-Lussemburgu u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina, iffirmat f’Beijing fit-18 ta’ Novembru 2002, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Lussemburgu” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika ta’ Malta u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina dwar it-trasport bl-ajru ċivili, iffirmat f’Beijing fl-1 ta’ Settembru 1997, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Malta” fl-Anness II.
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-Gvern tar-Renju tan-Netherlands u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina marbut mat-trasport bl-ajru ċivili, iffirmat f’Beijing fit-23 ta’ Mejju 1966; minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u n-Netherlands” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu Pollakk u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina marbut mas-servizzi bl-ajru, iffirmat f’Beijing fl-20 ta’ Marzu 1986, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Polonja” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim dwar it-Trasport bl-Ajru bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika Portugiża u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika taċ-Ċina inizjalat fis-26 ta’ Marzu 1999, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Portugall” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika Soċjali tar-Rumanija u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina marbut mat-trasport tal-ajru ċivili, iffirmat f’Bucharest fis-6 ta’ April 1972, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u r-Rumanija” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim dwar is-Servizzi tal-Ajru bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika Slovakka u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina, inizjalat fit-12 ta’ Awwissu 2010, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u s-Slovakkja” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-Gvern tar-Repubblika Soċjalista Federali tal-Jugoslavja u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina marbut mat-Trasport bl-Ajru Ċivili, iffirmat f’Belgrad fl-14 ta’ April 1972 u li jibqa’ effettiv bejn iċ-Ċina u s-Slovenja, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u s-Slovenja” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-Gvern tar-Renju ta’ Spanja u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina iffirmat f’Beijing fid-19 ta’ Ġunju 1978, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Spanja” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim dwar is-Servizzi tal-Ajru bejn il-Gvern tar-Renju tal-Iżvezja u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina, inizjalat fit-12 ta’ Marzu 2010, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Iżvezja” fl-Anness II;
 —
 Ftehim bejn il-Gvern tar-Renju Unit tal-Gran Brittanja u l-Irlanda ta’ Fuq u l-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Poplu taċ-Ċina dwar is-servizzi tal-ajru inizjalat fl-14 ta’ April 2011, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ “il-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u r-Renju Unit” fl-Anness II;
 ANNESS II
 Lista tal-artikoli fil-ftehimiet elenkati fl-Anness I u msemmija fl-Artikoli 2 sa 4 ta’ dan il-Ftehim
 (a)
 Id-deżinjazzjoni minn Stat Membru:
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Awstrija;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Belġju;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Bulgarija;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Kroazja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Ċipru;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u r-Repubblika Ċeka;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u d-Danimarka;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Estonja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 2 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Finlandja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 2 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Franza;
 —
 l-Artikolu 2(2) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Ġermanja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Greċja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Ungerija;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Irlanda;
 —
 l-Artikolu III tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Italja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Latvja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Lussemburgu;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Malta;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u n-Netherlands;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Polonja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Portugall;
 —
 l-Artikolu 2 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u r-Rumanija;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u s-Slovakkja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 2 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u s-Slovenja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 2 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Spanja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Iżvezja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u r-Renju Unit;
 (b)
 Ir-rifjut, ir-revoka, is-sospensjoni jew il-limitazzjoni tal-awtorizzazzjonijiet jew tal-permessi:
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Awstrija;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Belġju;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Bulgarija;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Kroazja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Ċipru;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u r-Repubblika Ċeka;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u d-Danimarka;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Estonja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Finlandja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 15 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Franza;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3, il-paragrafu 1a tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Ġermanja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Greċja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Ungerija;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Irlanda;
 —
 l-Artikolu III tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Italja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Latvja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Lussemburgu;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Malta;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u n-Netherlands;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Polonja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Portugall;
 —
 l-Artikolu 2 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u r-Rumanija;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u s-Slovakkja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u s-Slovenja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 3 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Spanja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Iżvezja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 5 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u r-Renju Unit;
 (c)
 Is-sikurezza:
 —
 l-Artikolu 15 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Kroazja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 13 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u d-Danimarka;
 —
 l-Artikolu 17 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Ungerija;
 —
 l-Artikolu XIbis tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Italja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 6 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Lussemburgu;
 —
 l-Artikolu 15 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Portugall;
 —
 l-Artikolu 8 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u s-Slovakkja;
 —
 l-Anness 3 tal-Memorandum ta’ Qbil bejn iċ-Ċina u Spanja li sar f’Beijing fis-26 ta’ Novembru 2004;
 —
 l-Artikolu 13 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Iżvezja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 10 tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u r-Renju Unit;
 (d)
 Il-kompatibbiltà mar-regoli tal-kompetizzjoni:
 —
 l-Artikolu 12(2) u l-Artikolu 14 (2-4) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Bulgarija;
 —
 l-Artikolu 9(2-4) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Ċipru;
 —
 l-Artikolu 10(2-4) u l-Artikolu 12 (2-4) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u r-Repubblika Ċeka;
 —
 l-Artikolu 8(2-4) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Estonja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 7(3) u l-Artikolu 8 (2-6) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Finlandja;
 —
 Għall-Ftehim bejn Ċina u Franza;
 —
 l-aħħar sentenza tal-paragrafu 1, u l-paragrafi 2 u 3 tal-Artikolu 5,
 —
 l-ewwel żewġ sentenzi tal-paragrafu 1, l-ewwel sentenza tal-paragrafu 2 u s-subparagrafu (B) tal-paragrafu 2, fl-Artikolu 3,
 —
 il-kliem "dans la monnaie convenue entre les entreprises de transport aérien désignées des deux parties contractantes" ("fil-munita maqbula bejn il-linji tal-ajru ddeżinjati taż-żewġ Partijiet Kontraenti"), fl-Artikolu 12, kif immodifikat mill-iskambju tan-noti diplomatiċi tal-15 u tat-22 ta’ Settembru 1966,
 —
 l-Artikolu 16, kif immodifikat bl-iskambju ta’ noti diplomatiċi tas-27 ta’ Lulju u tas-7 ta’ Settembru 1973,
 —
 it-2 paragrafu tas-subparagrafu 2) tal-paragrafu II tal-iskambju tan-noti diplomatiċi tad-19 ta’ Jannar u tal-11 ta’ Marzu 1991 (li jibda b"Par ailleurs, les modalités d’exploitation de ces services..." ("Barra minn hekk, il-kundizzjonijiet operattivi ta’ dawk is-servizzi...");
 —
 Għall-Ftehim bejn Ċina u l-Ġermanja;
 —
 l-ewwel sentenza tal-Artikolu 7(3) u l-kliem "die auf diese Weise vereinbart werden" ("kif maqbul") fit-tieni sentenza,
 —
 l-ewwel sentenza tal-Artikolu 8(2) u l-kelma "Diese" ("Tali") fit- tieni sentenza,
 —
 il-kliem “so vereinbarten” (“kif maqbul”) fl-Artikolu 8(3),
 —
 il-kliem "Kann ein Tarif nicht nach Absatz 2 dieses Artikels vereinbart werden oder" (“Jekk ma jistax ikun hemm qbil dwar tariffa skont il-paragrafu 2 ta’ dan l-Artikolu, jew”) u l-kliem "nach Absatz 2 dieses Artikels vereinbarten Tarif " (“maqbul skont id-dispożizzjonijiet tal- paragrafu 2”) fl-Artikolu 8 (4);
 —
 l-Artikolu 10(2) u l-Artikolu 11 (2-5) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Ġreċja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 10(2-4) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Ungerija;
 —
 l-Artikolu 8(2-4) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Latvja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 11(2-4) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Lussemburgu;
 —
 l-Artikolu 12(2.a-b) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Malta;
 —
 l-Artikolu 8(2-4) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u n-Netherlands;
 —
 l-Artikolu 10(2) u l-Artikolu 12 (2-4) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Polonja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 17(2-5) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u l-Portugall;
 —
 l-Artikolu 4(2-3) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u s-Slovenja;
 —
 l-Artikolu 7(3) u l-Artikolu 8 (2-6) tal-Ftehim bejn iċ-Ċina u Spanja;
 ANNESS III
 Lista ta’ Stati oħrajn imsemmija fl-Artikolu 2 ta’ dan il-Ftehim
 (a)
 Ir-Repubblika tal-Iżlanda (taħt il-Ftehim dwar iż-Żona Ekonomika Ewropea);
 (b)
 Il-Prinċipat tal-Liechtenstein(taħt il-Ftehim dwar iż-Żona Ekonomika Ewropea);
 (c)
 Ir-Renju tan-Norveġja (taħt il-Ftehim dwar iż-Żona Ekonomika Ewropea);
 (d)
 Il-Konfederazzjoni Żvizzera (taħt il-Ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea u l-Konfederazzjoni Żvizzera dwar it-Trasport bl-Ajru).


text:
Hunai (iš , ) – klajoklių genčių sąjunga, susiformavusi II–IV a. iš Pauralės klajoklių genčių ugrų ir sarmatų bei tiurkų šiongnu, atvykusių ten iš Vidurinės Azijos. Iširo V a. Kad galima būtų atskirti nuo kitų hunų (žr sąrašą apačioje), dar vadinami Europiniais hunais.
 Istorija
 Kilmė
 Spėjama, kad hunai buvo vakarinė šiongnu genčių atšaka, kuri pradėjo migracijas iš Mongolijos plynaukštės, Han laikotarpio Kinijai vykdant agresyvius užkariavimus. Jie susiformavo Kazachų stepės teritorijoje, iš kur ir pradėjo savo migracijas į vakarus.
 Migracijos
 IV amžiaus 8-ame dešimtmetyje hunai ėmė keliauti į vakarus taip suteikdami impulsą Didžiajam tautų kraustymuisi. Užkariavę Šiaurės Kaukazo alanus, jie perėjo per Doną ir sumušė Šiaurės Juodosios jūros pakrantėje gyvenusius gotus. Hunams pakluso didžioji dalis ostrogotų (gyvenę Dniepro žemupyje) ir privertė visigotus pasitraukti į Trakiją (sritis rytiniuose Balkanuose, tarp Egėjo jūros, Juodosios jūros ir Marmuro jūros).
 Po to perėjo Kaukazą, nusiaubė Siriją ir Kapadokiją (Mažojoje Azijoje).
 Įsitvirtinimas Panonijoje ir Atila
 V a. pradžioje hunai įsikūrė Panonijoje (Romos provincija dešiniajame Dunojaus krante, dabartinė Vengrija), puldinėjo Bizantiją ir iki V a. buvo romėnų sąjungininkai prieš germanų gentis. Graikų autoriai hunus vadina vienaakiais, matyt, iškreipę informaciją apie siauras azijiečių akis.
 433 m. mirė hunų vadas Rugila. Valdžia atiteko jo brolio vaikams – Atilai ir Bledai.
 Valdant Atilai ir Bledai, hunų imperijos politika labai pasikeitė. 441 m. hunai įsiveržė į Balkanus ir nusiaubė 70 miestų. 445 m. Atila nužudė brolį Bledą ir ėmė valdyti vienas. 451 m. Atila įsiveržė į Graikiją. Jo kariuomenę sudarė ostgotai, gepidai, herulai, rūgai, alemanai, dalis frankų, burgundų ir tiuringų.
 Vėliau hunai sutriuškino burgundų karalystę dabartinės Prancūzijos pietuose, pasiekė Orleaną ir pasuko į šiaurės vakarus.
 Prieš Atilą stojo garsus romėnų karvedys Aecijus. Mūšyje Katalūno lauke prie Marnos, pasak įvairių vertinimų, dalyvavo pusė milijono žmonių, tačiau moksliniai skaičiavimai rodo kur kas nuosaikesnius dydžius. Trečdalis jų žuvo. Patyręs didelius nuostolius, Atila atsitraukė, o Aecijus nebeturėjo jėgų persekioti.
 452 m. Atila patraukė į Italiją, nutaręs priešus mušti po vieną. Romėnai bijojo į pagalbą kviesti tuos, kurie jiems talkininkavo Galijoje – pastarųjų bijojo ne mažiau nei hunų. Atila paėmė pačią svarbiausią Romos tvirtovę Akvilėją, nusiaubė Po upės slėnį ir patraukė prie Romos. Romėnai pasiūlė Atilai išpirką, kasmetinę duoklę ir separatinę taiką. Atila sutiko pasitraukti, nes dėl neįprasto klimato jo kariuomenėje plito ligos.
 Žlugimas
 453 m. Atila vedė burgundų princesę ir pirmąją naktį staiga mirė. Jordanas sako, kad Atila buvo išgėręs labai daug vyno. Jis paliko 70 vaikų. Ne visi galėjo pretenduoti į sostą, tačiau valstybei sužlugdyti pretendentų pakako. Įvairios gentys ėmė palaikyti skirtingus pretendentus.
 Dalis hunų buvo sutriuškinta 463 m. jiems susidūrus su gotais prie Dunojaus.
 Hunai netikėtai patyrė smūgį ir iš rytų. Pamyro kalniečiai tuomet kūrė valstybę Vidurinėje Azijoje ir pastūmėjo Pauralės bulgarus į vakarus, o šie smogė hunams. Hunų valstybė nustojo egzistuoti. 471 m. dalis hunų pasiprašė prieglobsčio Bizantijoje ir buvo apgyvendinta Dobrudžoje. Kita dalis apsistojo prie Volgos ir tapo čiuvašų protėviais. Iš Atilos sūnaus save kildino Bulgarijos valstybės kūrėjas Asparuchas. Su hunų palikuonimis, remiantis vardais, bandomi tapatinti VI a. į Europą įsiveržę avarai.
 Kiti hunai
 Hunai buvo viena iš svarbiausių klajoklių Didžiosios Stepės genčių, todėl neretai kiti panašaus laikotarpio klajokliai irgi buvo vadinami hunais. Kai kurie jų buvo giminingi, o kai kurie ne.
 Rytiniai hunai (šiongnu)
 Baltieji hunai (eftalitai)
 Raudonieji hunai (šionitai)
 Silpnieji hunai (kimakai)
 Ponto stepės istorija
 Panonijos istorija
 Senovės tiurkai