type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avviso legale importante
 |
 22006A0224(01)
 Accordo in forma di scambio di lettere tra la Comunità europea e la Repubblica del Cile che modifica l’accordo sul commercio dei vini allegato all’accordo che istituisce un’associazione tra la Comunità europea e i suoi Stati membri, da una parte, e la Repubblica del Cile, dall’altra
 Gazzetta ufficiale n. L 054 del 24/02/2006 pag. 0024 - 0027
 Accordoin forma di scambio di lettere tra la Comunità europea e la Repubblica del Cile che modifica l’accordo sul commercio dei vini allegato all’accordo che istituisce un’associazione tra la Comunità europea e i suoi Stati membri, da una parte, e la Repubblica del Cile, dall’altraA. Lettera della ComunitàBruxelles,Egregio Signore,Mi pregio riferirmi alle riunioni del comitato congiunto istituito dall’articolo 30 dell’allegato V dell’accordo di associazione (accordo sul commercio dei vini). Il comitato congiunto ha raccomandato l’inserimento di modifiche nell’accordo sul commercio dei vini (di seguito "l’allegato V") per tenere conto dell’evoluzione delle disposizioni legislative intervenuta dopo la sua adozione.Nel corso della recente riunione del comitato congiunto, svoltasi a Madrid il 13 e 14 giugno 2005, è stato raggiunto un accordo in merito alla necessità di modificare non soltanto le appendici, ma anche il testo dell’accordo al fine di aggiornarlo. Mi pregio pertanto proporre che, a decorrere dalla data della firma, l’allegato V sia modificato come indicato nell’appendice acclusa alla presente.Le sarei grata se volesse confermarmi l’accordo del Suo governo sul contenuto della presente.Voglia gradire i sensi della mia alta considerazione.A nome della Comunità europeaAppendiceL’allegato V è modificato come segue.1) All’articolo 5, il paragrafo 2 è sostituito dal seguente:"2. Le denominazioni di cui all’articolo 6 sono riservate esclusivamente ai prodotti originari della Parte ai quali si applicano."2) L’articolo 7 è modificato come segue:a) il paragrafo 2 è sostituito dal seguente:"2. In base al registro cileno dei marchi commerciali istituito il 10 giugno 2002, i marchi commerciali elencati nell’appendice VI.A sono soppressi entro dodici anni per quanto riguarda l’uso sul mercato interno ed entro cinque anni per quanto riguarda l’uso all’esportazione a decorrere dalla data di entrata in vigore del presente accordo.";b) dopo il paragrafo 2 è inserito il seguente paragrafo:"2 bis. In base al registro cileno dei marchi commerciali istituito il 10 giugno 2002, i marchi commerciali elencati nell’appendice VI.B possono essere utilizzati, alle condizioni stabilite nella presente appendice, esclusivamente sul mercato interno e sono soppressi entro dodici anni dalla data di entrata in vigore del presente accordo."3) L’articolo 8 è modificato come segue:a) al paragrafo 5, la lettera b) è sostituita dalla seguente:"b) se una dicitura tradizionale o una menzione di qualità complementare di cui all’appendice III o IV è omonima di una denominazione di un vino non originario del territorio delle Parti, quest’ultima denominazione può essere utilizzata per descrivere e presentare un vino soltanto se tale uso è riconosciuto dalla normativa interna del paese d’origine e non costituisce una concorrenza sleale e se il consumatore non è tratto in inganno riguardo all’origine, alla natura o alla qualità del vino;"b) al paragrafo 5, la lettera c) è abrogata.4) L’articolo 9 è modificato come segue:a) la lettera a) è sostituita dalla seguente:"a) per quanto riguarda il vino originario della Comunità, quelle elencate nell’appendice III;"b) la lettera b) è sostituita dalla seguente:"b) per quanto riguarda il vino originario del Cile, quelle elencate nell’appendice IV."5) L’articolo 10 è modificato come segue:a) il paragrafo 1 è sostituito dal seguente:"1. La registrazione in una parte del marchio commerciale di un vino che è identico, simile, o contiene una dicitura tradizionale o una menzione di qualità complementare dell’altra Parte di cui all’appendice III o IV è rifiutata qualora essa riguardi l’uso di tale dicitura tradizionale o menzione di qualità complementare per descrivere o presentare la o le categorie di vino per le quali detta dicitura tradizionale o menzione di qualità complementare figura nell’appendice III o IV.";b) il paragrafo 2 è sostituito dal seguente:"2. In deroga al paragrafo 1, la registrazione in una Parte del marchio commerciale di un vino che è identico, simile, o contiene una dicitura tradizionale o una menzione di qualità complementare di tale Parte di cui all’appendice III o IV non deve necessariamente essere rifiutata qualora essa riguardi l’uso di tale dicitura tradizionale o menzione di qualità complementare per descrivere o presentare la o le categorie di vino per le quali essa figura nell’appendice III o IV.";c) il paragrafo 3 è abrogato.6) L’articolo 11 è modificato come segue:a) il paragrafo 1 è sostituito dal seguente:"1. In base al registro cileno dei marchi commerciali istituito il 10 giugno 2002, le Parti dichiarano di non essere a conoscenza di marchi commerciali diversi da quelli di cui all’articolo 7, paragrafi 2 e 2 bis, e all’articolo 10, paragrafo 4, che siano identici, simili, o contengano le indicazioni geografiche o le diciture tradizionali o le menzioni di qualità complementari di cui agli articoli 6 e 10, rispettivamente.";b) il paragrafo 2 è sostituito dal seguente:"2. A norma del paragrafo 1, nessuna Parte nega il diritto di usare un marchio commerciale figurante nel registro cileno dei marchi commerciali del 10 giugno 2002, ad eccezione di quelli di cui all’articolo 7, paragrafi 2 e 2 bis, e all’articolo 10, paragrafo 4, per il fatto che tale marchio commerciale è identico, simile, o contiene un’indicazione geografica di cui all’appendice I o II o una dicitura tradizionale o una menzione di qualità complementare di cui all’appendice III o IV."7) All’articolo 30, il paragrafo 3 è sostituito dal seguente:"3. In particolare, il comitato congiunto può formulare raccomandazioni per il raggiungimento degli obiettivi del presente accordo. Esso è gestito secondo il regolamento interno dei comitati speciali."B. Lettera della Repubblica del CileSantiago del Cile/Bruxelles,Gentile Signora,Mi pregio comunicarLe di aver ricevuto la Sua lettera in data odierna così redatta:"Mi pregio riferirmi alle riunioni del comitato congiunto istituito dall’articolo 30 dell’allegato V dell’accordo di associazione (accordo sul commercio dei vini). Il comitato congiunto ha raccomandato l’inserimento di modifiche nell’accordo sul commercio dei vini (di seguito "l’allegato V") per tenere conto dell’evoluzione delle disposizioni legislative intervenuta dopo la sua adozione.Nel corso della recente riunione del comitato congiunto, svoltasi a Madrid il 13 e 14 giugno 2005, è stato raggiunto un accordo in merito alla necessità di modificare non soltanto le appendici, ma anche il testo dell’accordo al fine di aggiornarlo. Mi pregio pertanto proporre che, a decorrere dalla data della firma, l’allegato V sia modificato come indicato nell’appendice acclusa alla presente.Le sarei grata se volesse confermarmi l’accordo del Suo governo sul contenuto della presente.".Mi pregio confermarLe l’accordo della Repubblica del Cile sul contenuto della Sua lettera.Voglia gradire i sensi della mia alta considerazione.Per la Repubblica del Cile--------------------------------------------------


type: caselaw

text:
6.8.2011
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 C 232/5
 Domstolens dom (Anden Afdeling) af 22. juni 2011 — Staat der Nederlanden mod Denkavit Nederland BV, m.fl. (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse fra Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage — Nederlandene)
 (Sag C-346/09) (1)
 (Landbrug - dyresundhed - direktiv 90/425/EØF - midlertidig national lovgivning til bekæmpelse af bovin spongiform encephalopati ved forbud mod produktion og markedsføring af forarbejdede animalske proteiner bestemt til foder til husdyr - anvendelse af denne lovgivning før ikrafttrædelsen af beslutning 2000/766/EF, der indeholder et sådant forbud - anvendelse af denne lovgivning på to produkter, der er undtaget fra forbuddet i nævnte beslutning - forenelighed med direktiv 90/425/EØF og beslutning 94/381/EF og 2000/766/EF)
 2011/C 232/07
 Processprog: nederlandsk
 Den forelæggende ret
 Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage
 Parter i hovedsagen
 Sagsøger: Staat der Nederlanden
 Sagsøgt: Denkavit Nederland BV, Cehave Landbouwbelang Voeders BV, Arie Blok BV og Internationale Handelsmaatschappij »Demeter« BV
 Sagens genstand
 Anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse — Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage — fortolkning af Rådets direktiv 90/425/EØF af 26. juni 1990 om veterinærkontrol og zooteknisk kontrol i samhandelen med visse levende dyr og produkter inden for Fællesskabet med henblik på gennemførelse af det indre marked (EFT L 224, s. 29), Kommissionens beslutning 94/381/EF af 27. juni 1994 om bestemte beskyttelsesforanstaltninger med hensyn til bovin spongiform encephalopati og opfodring af protein af pattedyr (EFT L 172, s. 23), Rådets beslutning 2000/766/EF af 4. december 2000 om en række beskyttelsesforanstaltninger over for overførbare spongiforme encephalopatier og fodring med animalsk protein (EFT L 306, s. 32), og Kommissionens beslutning 2001/9/EF af 29. december 2000 om kontrolforanstaltninger, der er nødvendige for gennemførelsen af Rådets beslutning 2000/766/EF om en række beskyttelsesforanstaltninger over for overførbare spongiforme encephalopatier og fodring med animalsk protein (EFT L 2, s. 32) — nationale retsforskrifter der forbyder produktion af og handel med animalske proteiner forarbejdet til foder til husdyr — ikrafttrædelsesdato og overgangsperiode
 Konklusion
 EU-retten, i særdeleshed Rådets direktiv 90/425/EØF af 26. juni 1990 om veterinærkontrol og zooteknisk kontrol i samhandelen med visse levende dyr og produkter inden for Fællesskabet med henblik på gennemførelse af det indre marked samt Kommissionens beslutning 94/381/EF af 27. juni 1994 om bestemte beskyttelsesforanstaltninger med hensyn til bovin spongiform encephalopati og opfodring af protein af pattedyr og Rådets beslutning 2000/766/EF af 4. december 2000 om en række beskyttelsesforanstaltninger over for overførbare spongiforme encephalopatier og fodring med animalsk protein, er ikke til hinder for en national lovgivning, der med henblik på beskyttelse mod bovin spongiform encephalopati nedlagde et midlertidigt forbud mod produktion og markedsføring af forarbejdede animalske proteiner i foder til husdyr, for så vidt som situationen i den berørte medlemsstat var så akut, at det berettigede, at der blev truffet sådanne øjeblikkelige foranstaltninger på grund af tungtvejende hensyn til menneskers og dyrs sundhed. Det tilkommer den forelæggende ret at undersøge, om den sidste betingelse er opfyldt, og om proportionalitetsprincippet er overholdt.
 (1) EUT C 282 af 21.11.2009.


text:
 19.2.2005
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 45/10
 TEISINGUMO TEISMO SPRENDIMAS
 (penktoji kolegija)
 2004 m. gruodžio 16 d.
 Byloje C-528/03
 Europos Bendrijų Komisija prieš Nyderlandų Karalystę
 (1)
 (Valstybės įsipareigojimų neįvykdymas - Direktyva 2002/35/EB - Jūrų transportas - Žvejybos laivų saugumas)
 (2005/C 45/20)
 Proceso kalba: olandų
 Byloje C-528/03 Europos Bendrijų Komisija, atstovaujama W. Wils ir K. Simonsson, prieš Nyderlandų Karalystę, atstovaujamą H. G. Sevenster ir C. A. H. M. ten Dam, dėl 2003 m. gruodžio 18 d. pareikšto ieškinio pagal EB sutarties 226 straipsnį dėl įsipareigojimų neįvykdymo, Teisingumo Teismas (penktoji kolegija), susidedantis iš kolegijos pirmininkės R. Silva de Lapuerta, teisėjų J. Makarczyk ir P. Kūris (pranešėjas); generalinis advokatas: M. Poiares Maduro, sekretorius: R. Grass, 2004 m. gruodžio 16 d. priėmė sprendimą, kurio rezoliucinėje dalyje nurodyta:
 1)
 Nepriimdama visiškai 2002 m. balandžio 25 d. Komisijos direktyvą 2002/35/EB, iš dalies keičiančią Tarybos direktyvą 97/70/EB, nustatančią suderintus saugumo reikalavimus 24 metrų ilgio ir ilgesniems žvejybos laivams įgyvendinančių įstatymų ir kitų teisės aktų, Nyderlandų Karalystė neįvykdė savo įsipareigojimų pagal šią direktyvą.
 2)
 Priteisti iš Nyderlandų Karalystės bylinėjimosi išlaidas.
 (1) OL C 59, 2004 3 6.


type: other

text:
ECLI:SI:USRS:1997:U.II.55.97
 Za odločanje o zahtevi Zveze hranilno-kreditnih služb Slovenije in Slovenske zadružne kmetijske banke za denacionalizacijo nepremičnin, vpisanih v zemljiškoknjižnem vložku št. 386 k.o. Maribor - Grad (v času sklenitve darilne pogodbe vpisanih v zemljiškoknjižnem vložku št. 180 k.o. Grajska vrata), v naravi Narodnega doma v Mariboru (dom JNA) s stavbiščem in dvoriščem, je pristojno sodišče.
 Za odločanje o zahtevi za denacionalizacijo je v primeru, ko je prešla lastninska pravica na državo na podlagi pravnega posla (darilna pogodba) na podlagi 56. člena ZDen pristojno sodišče.
 Spor o pristojnosti med rednim sodiščem in upravnim organom.
 Denacionalizacija na podlagi 67. člena Zakona o zadrugah.
 Pravni posel kot pravna podlaga za prehod lastninske pravice na državo.
 Zakon o denacionalizaciji (ZDen), 3., 4., 5., 56. čl.
 Splošni zakon o zadrugah (SZZ), 46. čl.
 Zakon o zadrugah (ZZ), 67. čl.
 Zakon o Ustavnem sodišču (ZUstS), 21., 4. odst. 61. čl.
 U-II-55-97.pdf
 U-II-55/97-3
 Ustavno sodišče je v postopku za rešitev spora o pristojnosti na zahtevo Ministrstva za kulturo na seji dne 16. septembra 1997
 Za odločanje o zahtevi Zveze hranilno-kreditnih služb Slovenije in Slovenske zadružne kmetijske banke za denacionalizacijo nepremičnin, vpisanih v zemljiškoknjižnem vložku št. 386 k.o.
 Maribor - Grad (v času sklenitve darilne pogodbe vpisanih v zemljiškoknjižnem vložku št. 180 k.o. Grajska vrata), v naravi Narodnega doma v Mariboru (dom JNA) s stavbiščem in dvoriščem, je pristojno sodišče.
 1. Ministrstvo za kulturo vlaga zahtevo za odločitev v sporu o pristojnosti v zadevi denacionalizacije nepremičnin predlagateljev Zveze hranilno- kreditnih služb Slovenije in Slovenske zadružne - kmetijske banke (v nadaljevanju: predlagateljici).
 2. Vlagatelj zahteve navaja, da sta predlagateljici na podlagi 67. člena Zakona o zadrugah (Uradni list RS, št. 13/92 - v nadaljevanju: ZZ) na Ministrstvo za finance vložili zahtevo za denacionalizacijo nepremičnin, vpisanih v zemljiškoknjižnem vložku (v nadaljevanju: zk vložek) št. 386 k.o. Maribor - Grad (ob prehodu v državno last dne 3. oktobra 1946 vpisanih v zk vložku 180 k.o. Grajska vrata). Nepremičnine, katerih denacionalizacijo predlagateljici uveljavljata, je Posojilnica Narodni dom v Mariboru (v nadaljevanju: Posojilnica) z darilno pogodbo, sklenjeno dne 3. oktobra 1946, podarila Jugoslovanski armadi. Predlagateljici v zahtevi navajata, da je Posojilnico kot darovalko brez vsakega pooblastila zastopal predstavnik Ministrstva za finance, medtem ko pa je vse pristojbine in stroške v zvezi s pogodbo poravnal Mestni ljudski odbor v Mariboru. Predlagateljici menita, da daritev Posojilnice ni bila prostovoljna, da pa predlagateljici kot pravni osebi ne moreta uveljavljati zahtevka z dokazovanjem sile, zvijače ali zmote pri sklepanju darilne pogodbe.
 3. Člen 67 ZZ po prepričanju predlagateljic omogoča vračilo vsega premoženja, ki je bilo po 9. maju 1945 brez nadomestila preneseno na državo ali druge uporabnike. Narodni dom je bil prenesen na Jugoslovansko armado brez nadomestila, zato naj bi bili podani razlogi za vrnitev tega premoženja, ne da bi bilo potrebno ugotavljati pristnost darilne pogodbe.
 4. Z nepremičnino, katere vrnitev zahtevata predlagatelja, naj bi po odhodu Jugoslovanske armade iz Slovenije upravljala Republika Slovenija, dejanski zavezanec pa naj bi bilo Ministrstvo za obrambo.
 5. Ministrstvo za finance je menilo, da je bilo premoženje Posojilnici odvzeto oziroma preneseno na državo z darilno pogodbo in da je na podlagi 5. člena Zakona o denacionalizaciji (Uradni list RS, št. 27/91 in 31/93 - v nadaljevanju: ZDen) za vodenje postopka pristojno sodišče, zato se je izreklo za nepristojno in zadevo dne 4. februarja 1994 odstopilo sodišču.
 6. Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru, Enota v Mariboru, je v zvezi s pritožbo upravičenk na sklep o določitvi sodne pristojnosti št.
 Nz št. 610/94 z dne 21. junija 1994 odločilo, da je za reševanje zahtevka predlagateljic pristojna Komisija za denacionalizacijo pri Občini Maribor oziroma upravni organ za stanovanjske zadeve občine Maribor (sklep št. Nz 636/94 z dne 13. septembra 1994). V obrazložitvi sklepa se sodišče sklicuje na revizijsko odločbo Vrhovnega sodišča št. Ips 378/93 z dne 10. februarja 1994.
 7. Z Odlokom o razglasitvi kulturnih in zgodovinskih spomenikov na območju Občine Maribor (MUV, št. 5/92) je bil Narodni dom razglašen za kulturni spomenik, zato je Upravna enota Maribor kot pravni naslednik prejšnjih občinskih upravnih organov dne 19. aprila 1996 zahtevo predlagateljic odstopila v reševanje Ministrstvu za kulturo.
 8. Ministrstvo za kulturo v zahtevku za odločitev v sporu o pristojnosti meni, da je na podlagi 5. točke 54. člena ZDen pristojno za vodenje denacionalizacijskih postopkov za vrnitev premičnin, ki so po predpisih o varstvu naravne in kulturne dediščine predmeti kulturne in naravne dediščine (drugi odstavek 17. člena ZDen) in nepremičnin, ki so po predpisih o varstvu naravne in kulturne dediščine razglašene za kulturne spomenike ali naravne znamenitosti (tretji odstavek 18. člena). V zvezi z zahtevkom predlagateljic za denacionalizacijo Narodnega doma v Mariboru pa navaja, da je Narodni dom prešel v državno last na podlagi darilne pogodbe, zato naj bi bilo za odločanje o zahtevi pristojno sodišče. Pri tem se Ministrstvo sklicuje na 5. člen v zvezi s 56. členom ZDen. Po citiranih določbah naj bi bila za vodenje postopkov denacionalizacije premoženja, podržavljenega na podlagi pravnega posla, sklenjenega zaradi grožnje, sile ali zvijače državnega organa oziroma predstavnika oblasti, pristojna sodišča. Po mnenju Ministrstva upravni organi ne morejo izvajati dokazov o uporabi sile, grožnje ali zvijače pri sklepanju pravnih poslov.
 9. Ministrstvo predlaga, naj Ustavno sodišče na podlagi 160. člena in na podlagi osme alinee prvega odstavka 21. člena Zakona o Ustavnem sodišču (Uradni list RS, št. 15/94 - v nadaljevanju: ZUstS) odloči, kateri organ je pristojen za vodenje postopka denacionalizacije Narodnega doma v Mariboru.
 10. Ustavno sodišče je na podlagi 8. alinee prvega odstavka 21. člena ZUstS pristojno, da odloča o sporih o pristojnosti med sodišči in drugimi državnimi organi. Negativni spor o pristojnosti ureja drugi odstavek 61. člena ZUstS. Na njegovi podlagi lahko zahteva rešitev spora o pristojnosti organ, ki mu je bila zahteva odstopljena, pa meni, da zanjo ni pristojen. To je v obravnavanem primeru Ministrstvo za kulturo.
 11. ZDen razmejuje pristojnost za odločanje o zahtevah za denacionalizacijo med upravne organe in sodišča. Za vodenje postopkov denacionalizacije so pristojni upravni organi, če je bilo premoženje podržavljeno s predpisi, določenimi v 3. in 4. členu ZDen, če pa je premoženje prešlo v državno last na podlagi pravnega posla, sklenjenega zaradi grožnje, sile ali zvijače državnega organa oziroma prestavnika oblasti, so za odločanje o zahtevi za denacionalizacijo po 56. členu ZDen pristojna sodišča.
 12. Določitev pristojnosti za reševanje konkretne denacionalizacijske zadeve je torej odvisna od vprašanja, kateri akt je bil dejanska podlaga za prenos lastninske pravice na predmetu, ki je predmet denacionalizacije, torej akt (odločba) državnega organa ali posamičen pravni posel.
 13. Ljudska skupščina FLRJ je dne 18. julija 1946 sprejela Splošni zakon o zadrugah (Uradni list FLRJ, št. 59/46 - v nadaljevanju: SZZ). Zakon je v 46. členu takrat delujočim zadrugam naložil, da morajo svoja pravila in delovanje uskladiti z njim v roku 6 mesecev od njegove uveljavitve. Dne 21. avgusta 1946 je zakonodajalec sprejel Zakon o ureditvi in delovanju kreditnega sistema (Uradni list FLRJ, št. 68/46 - v nadaljevanju: ZUDKS), ki je kreditne zadruge opredelil kot zadružna kreditna podjetja, katerih naloga je bila, da s sodelovanjem in vzajemnostjo zadovoljujejo kreditne potrebe svojih članov. Obstoječih kreditnih zadrug Zakon ni ukinil, uzakonil pa je obveznost, da si morajo za nadaljevanje izvajanja dejavnosti pridobiti dovoljenje Ministrstva za finance. Uredbo o likvidaciji kreditnih zadrug (Uradni list LRS, št. 16/47 - v nadaljevanju: Uredba), je Vlada LRS, sklicujoč se na določbo 2. člena ZUDKS) in na 46. člen SZZ, sprejela 17. aprila 1947.
 14. Darilna pogodba, na podlagi katere je država FLRJ pridobila lastnino na Narodnem domu, je bila sklenjena pred potekom roka za uskladitev pravil in delovanja zadrug po SZZ in v času, ko so zadružna kreditna podjetja po ZUDKS imela možnost, da si pri Ministrstvu za finance izposlujejo dovoljenja za svoj nadaljnji obstoj. Uredba Vlade, sprejeta v aprilu 1947, je imela učinek za tiste kreditne zadruge, ki si v skladu z ZUDKS niso pridobile dovoljenja za nadaljnje izvajanje dejavnosti.
 15. Iz predložene dokumentacije izhaja, da je bil edini pravni temelj za prehod lastninske pravice na Narodnem domu v Mariboru na državo, katerega vrnitev na podlagi 67. člena ZZ zahtevata predlagateljici, dne 3. oktobra 1946 med Posojilnico in Jugoslovansko armado sklenjena darilna pogodba. Iz listinskih dokazov ni mogoče preizkusiti trditve predlagateljic, da delegat Ministrstva za finance D. V., ki je pri sklepanju darilne pogodbe zastopal Posojilnico, za zastopanje ni imel veljavnega pooblastila, iz 4. točke pogodbe pa je razvidno, da je odločitev o odstopu (daritvi) Narodnega doma Jugoslovanski armadi dne 22. septembra 1946 sprejela skupščina Posojilnice.
 16. Sprejem SZZ in ZUDKS je sicer lahko vplival na to, da je Posojilnica podarila Narodni dom Jugoslovanski armadi, neposrednega učinka na prehod lastnine na državo pa zakona nista imela. V sklepu št. Nz 636/94 z dne 13. septembra 1994, s katerim je Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru ugotovilo, da je za vodenje denacionalizacijskega postopka pristojen upravni organ, se sodišče sklicuje na revizijsko odločbo Vrhovnega sodišča RS št. Ips 378/93 z dne 10. 2. 1994. Sklicevanje sodišča na revizijsko odločbo v tem primeru ni utemeljeno. V odločbi št. Ips 378/94 je Vrhovno sodišče namreč ugotovilo, da sta upravičenca osebi, ki jima je bilo premoženje odvzeto na podlagi odločbe komisije za nacionalizacijo z dne 10. septembra 1959, in da sta za tem, to je 28. septembra 1959, z občino sklenili še menjalno pogodbo in na njeni podlagi v zameno za zgornjo etažo nacionalizirane poslovne stavbe pridobili v last enonadstropno stanovanjsko hišo. Razliki, ki bi jima pripadala za nacionalizirani del poslovne stavbe, pa sta se upravičenca z isto pogodbo odpovedala. Pravni temelj za nacionalizacijo dela stavbe, za katero sta se upravičenca odpovedala plačilu odškodnine, je po ugotovitvi Vrhovnega sodišča bila Uredba o postopku za izvedbo nacionalizacije najemnih zgradb in gradbenih zemljišč (Uradni list FLRJ, št. 4/54) in na njeni podlagi pred sklenitvijo menjalne pogodbe izdana odločba komisije za nacionalizacijo. V obravnavanem primeru pa je bila darilna pogodba sklenjena pred sprejemom in uveljavitvijo Uredbe o likvidaciji zadružnih kreditnih podjetij. Samo dejstvo, da je ZUDKS uzakonil zahtevo po pridobitvi dovoljenja za nadaljnje poslovanje zadružnih kreditnih podjetij, med katera je spadala tudi Posojilnica, ni zadostna opora za zaključek, da je Narodni dom prešel v državno last na podlagi 4. člena ZDen.
 17. Na podlagi navedenih okoliščin Ustavno sodišče zaključuje, da so nepremičnine, navedene v izreku te odločbe, prešle v državno last na podlagi pravnega posla (darilne pogodbe). V skladu s 5. členom ZDen je zato za odločanje o zahtevi za denacionalizacijo teh nepremičnin pristojno sodišče, ki bo ob presoji utemeljenosti zahteve za denacionalizacijo ugotovilo, ali je bila darilna pogodba sklenjena pod vplivom grožnje, sile ali zvijače državnega organa oziroma predstavnika oblasti.
 18. Ustavno sodišče je sprejelo to odločbo na podlagi četrtega odstavka 61. člena ZUstS v sestavi: predsednik dr. Lovro Šturm in sodniki dr. Peter Jambrek, dr. Tone Jerovšek, mag. Matevž Krivic, mag. Janez Snoj, dr. Janez Šinkovec, Franc Testen, dr. Lojze Ude in dr. Boštjan M. Zupančič. Odločbo je sprejelo soglasno.
 Ur. list RS, št. 62/97 in OdlUS VI, 112
 US18484


type: wikipedia

text:
, também escrito como (184212) 2004 PB112, é um objeto transnetuniano (TNO) que está localizado no cinturão de Kuiper, uma região do Sistema Solar. Este objeto é classificado como um cubewano. O mesmo possui uma magnitude absoluta (H) de 7,2 e, tem um diâmetro com cerca de 160 km, por isso existem poucas chances que possa ser classificado como um planeta anão, devido ao seu tamanho relativamente pequeno.
 Descoberta
 foi descoberto no dia 13 de agosto de 2004 por Marc W. Buie.
 Órbita
 A órbita de tem uma excentricidade de 0.671, possui um semieixo maior de 108,44 UA e um período orbital de cerca de 412 466. O seu periélio leva o mesmo a uma distância de 35.346 UA em relação ao Sol e seu afélio a 181,536 UA.
 Objetos do disco disperso
 Objetos transnetunianos
 Objetos astronômicos descobertos em 2004


jurisdiction: US

text:
John J. Moylan, Incorporated, owns some property at at the southeast corner of Roland Avenue and Deepdene *Page 318
 Road in Baltimore, improved by a two-story building, Nos. 5123, 5125, 5127 and 5129, containing three storerooms, with apartments on the second floor. It used the center store-room in connection with a curb gas filling station on Roland Avenue. In the rear and to the east of the gas pumps is a one-story garage, which is not affected by this case. The curb station had three gasoline tanks. A building, No. 5121 Roland Avenue, owned by one named Jeppi, and now used as a store for the distribution and sale of dairy products, has been acquired by the appellant, and it is proposed to tear down the two-story building on its lot, and the one-story building on No. 5121 and erect a modern automobile service station.
 The appellant had made an application to the Board of Zoning Appeals, in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance of 1937, No. 318, for the installation of additional tanks at its station, and on January 4, 1941, the application having been approved by the proper departments of the city, and no protests filed, the application was approved. It was stated in the application that the tanks and pumps were to be moved back (north) ten feet from the front or south line of the lot. The appellant then made an application to remove the buildings which were built flush with the sidewalk, with a frontage of eighty-three feet and to substitute a modern service station with a frontage of forty-six feet and a depth of twenty-six feet. In this building, gasoline will not and cannot be sold. The proposal is to substitute a modern "drive-in" gasoline station for the antiquated, makeshift now in use. The gasoline tanks and pumps will be away from the driveway in the street, and to this extent will eliminate a traffic hazard, by having cars filled with gasoline on private property, instead of on public streets.
 When the appellant made its application for the erection of the service station, it was referred, in accordance with Orinance No. 318, to the Fire, Health and Police Departments and approved by all of them, the Police Commissioner saying the proposed construction "will in *Page 319
 no way interfere with the free movement of traffic in that vicinity."
 Notice of the application was given by the Board of Zoning Appeals and the School Board and ten residents protested against the granting of the permit, and after a hearing the Board of Zoning Appeals granted it, and from this decision, the protestants appealed to the City Court, and from the decision of that court, reversing the Board of Zoning Appeals, the applicant, Moylan, Inc., appeals.
 The district in which this station is located is a First Commercial Use District.
 The present service station has been in use since the year 1919. It was provided by the Zoning Ordinance of 1923, No. 922, and the amendments thereto, that any business or uses then existing should not be affected or disturbed. On January 16, 1937, an ordinance was passed regulating the granting of permits for "gasoline filling stations, and/or pumps," etc., by which the location of any stations was prohibited within 300 feet of a school. Long after the gasoline station was established and after the passage of the ordinance, the Roland Park Public School was erected, the rear portion of which is within 300 feet of the station. The station did not come to the school; the school went to the station. The present buildings are located on the building line on the east side of Roland Avenue; the proposed station will be set back from the building line thirty-three feet. The station will be forty-six feet in its extreme width, and will, therefore, leave thirty-seven feet of unoccupied space now covered by the two structures to be removed. The district is a First Commercial Use District; and unless the building to be erected is of a lower classification or for a prohibited use, there can be no valid objection to the change of any of the present uses to another of the same classification. Landay v. Board of Zoning Appeals,173 Md. 460, 196 A. 293, 114 A.L.R. 984; Roach v. Board of ZoningAppeals, 175 Md. 1, 199 A. 812; Parr v. Bradyhouse,177 Md. 245, 9 A.2d 751. *Page 320
 The first reason assigned by the protestants, appellees, is that the proposed buildings are within 300 feet of Public School No. 233, and their alteration is prohibited by Ordinance No. 318.
 It is conceded that the school is within 300 feet of the proposed station. It is also undisputed that the gasoline tank and pumps were so located before the school was erected, and that the permit for the additional tanks and change in location of pumps was granted without protest. The gasoline tanks and pumps are, therefore, not involved in this case at all. This leaves only the matter of the demolition of the building containing the old service station, and its replacement by a modern service station.
 It is evident, and not disputed, that the proposed use is not for the sale of "gasoline or any other motor fuel." The grant of a permit, without protest, on January 14, 1941, for the alteration of the present gasoline station and the installation of additional tanks, leaves the only question here involved whether the proposed use is of the same class as those to be abandoned or altered. The protestants, aside from the School Board, complain that a filling station threatens the safety of children playing on the sidewalk, handicaps the real estate business and depreciates property values near the station, in other words, they do not want a gasoline station in the neighborhood and thus seek the removal of one already lawfully there.
 The answer to all the objections would be worthy of consideration if this were an application for an original permit. But this is for the alteration and improvement of an existing station. The stricture imposed on gasoline stations applies to gasoline pumps and tanks, which cannot be applied in this case, for the tanks and pumps and their alteration have been authorized and are lawful. The only question here involved is whether the building for which a permit has been applied and granted is for a first commercial use and not for the sale of "gasoline or other motor fuel." The gasoline tanks and pumps *Page 321
 are away from the building, which is to be used as a motor vehicle service station, where, cars will be serviced and accessories sold, and this is a use permitted in a first commercial zone.
 The appellees' second reason is that No. 5121 Roland Avenue, known as the Jeppi property, "has never been used in connection with a filling station for the sale of gasoline," and that the portions of the Moylan building used as a dress shop, dyeing and cleaning establishment and apartments "have never been arranged, designed or used for a filling station." These statements are true, but the present uses are of the same classification as the business to be carried on in the proposed building, and the change of business or use is permissible so long as the new business or use is not non-conforming. Supra.
 Being of the opinion that the use applied for is not prohibited and conforms to the businesses now carried on in all the buildings and store-rooms, the permit applied for should be granted.
 Order reversed, with costs to the appellant.


text:
 18.11.2006
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 281/1
 Rozsudok Súdneho dvora (veľká komora) z 12. septembra 2006 (návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg – Nemecko) – Industrias Nuxleares do Brasil SA, Siemens AG/UBS AG (C-123/04), Texas Utilities Electric Corporation (C-124/04)
 (Spojené veci C-123/04 a C-124/04) (1)
 (Zmluva ESAE - Zásobovanie - Vlastníctvo - Obohatenie uránu na území Spoločenstva štátnym príslušníkom tretieho štátu)
 (2006/C 281/02)
 Jazyk konania: nemčina
 Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania
 Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg
 Účastníci konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom
 Žalobcovia: Industrias Nuxleares do Brasil SA, Siemens AG
 Žalovaní: UBS AG (C-123/04), Texas Utilities Electric Corporation (C-124/04)
 Predmet veci
 Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania – Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg – Výklad článkov 73, 75, 86 a 87 AE – Zmluva o pôžičke zabezpečená záložným právom na urán, ktorý je vo vlastníctve podniku tretej krajiny a ktorý je obohatený a skladovaný v Spoločenstve
 Výrok rozsudku
 1.
 Článok 75 prvý odsek AE sa má vykladať v tom zmysle, že pojmy „spracovanie“„premena“ alebo „úprava“ uvedené v zmienenom ustanovení zahŕňajú tiež obohatenie uránu.
 2.
 Článok 196 písm. b) AE sa má vykladať v tom zmysle, že podnik, ktorého sídlo sa nenachádza na územiach členských štátov, nevykonáva v zmysle uvedeného ustanovenia všetky alebo niektoré zo svojich činností na uvedených územiach, ak udržiava s podnikom, ktorého sídlo sa nachádza na tých istých územiach, obchodné vzťahy, ktoré majú za cieľ buď dodanie materiálov na účely výroby obohateného uránu a zásobovanie obohateným uránom, alebo skladovanie uvedeného obohateného uránu.
 3.
 Článok 75 prvý odsek písm. c) AE sa má vykladať v tom zmysle, že materiály dodané na účely ich spracovania, premeny alebo úpravy nemusia byť zhodné s materiálmi, ktoré sú následne vrátené, a že stačí, aby vrátené materiály zodpovedali po kvalitatívnej a kvantitatívnej stránke dodaným materiálom bez toho, aby bolo možné prípadne viazať dodané materiály na vrátené materiály. Z iného hľadiska sa toto ustanovenie má vykladať v tom zmysle, že skutočnosť, že podnik poverený spracovaním nadobúda vlastnícke právo k materiálom – surovinám v čase ich dodania a musí v dôsledku tejto skutočnosti previesť na druhú zmluvnú stranu vlastnícke právo k obohatenému uránu, potom čo ho spracoval, nie je v rozpore s článkom 75 prvým odsekom písm. c) AE.
 4.
 Článok 196 písm. b) AE sa má vykladať v tom zmysle, že podnik nevykonáva všetky alebo niektoré zo svojich činností na území členských štátov v zmysle uvedeného ustanovenia, ak predáva alebo nadobúda obohatený urán, ktorý je tu skladovaný.
 5.
 Článok 73 AE sa má vykladať v tom zmysle, že sa neuplatňuje na zmluvy, ktorých predmetom je obohatený urán skladovaný na území Európskeho spoločenstva atómovej energie a ktorých zmluvnými stranami sú výlučne štátni príslušníci tretích štátov.
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ C 106, 30.4.2004.


text:
 Fontos jogi nyilatkozat
 |
 21996D1003(04)
 Hivatalos Lap L 251 , 03/10/1996 o. 0029 - 0029
 Az EGT-Vegyesbizottság 59/95 határozata(1995. július 18.)az EGT-megállapodás II. mellékletének (műszaki előírások, szabványok, vizsgálatok és tanúsítás) módosításárólAZ EGT-VEGYESBIZOTTSÁG,tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló, az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás kiigazításáról szóló jegyzőkönyvvel módosított megállapodásra (a továbbiakban: a Megállapodás), és különösen annak 98. cikkére,mivel a Megállapodás II. mellékletét az 1994. október 28-i 15/94 EGT-vegyesbizottsági határozat [1] módosította;mivel az egyes veszélyes vegyi anyagok kiviteléről és behozataláról szóló 2455/92/EGK rendelet I. mellékletének módosításáról szóló, 1994. december 15-i 3135/94/EK tanácsi rendeletet [2] be kell építeni a Megállapodásba,A KÖVETKEZŐKÉPPEN HATÁROZOTT:1. cikkA Megállapodás II. melléklete XV. fejezetének 12c. pontja (2455/92/EGK tanácsi rendelet) a következő francia bekezdéssel egészül ki:"- 394 R 3135: A Tanács 1994. december 15-i 3135/94/EK rendelete (HL L 332., 1994.12.22., 1. o.)".2. cikkA 3135/94/EK tanácsi rendelet izlandi és norvég nyelvű szövegei, melyek e határozat megfelelő nyelvi változatának mellékletét képezik, hitelesek.3. cikkEz a határozat 1995. augusztus 1-jén lép hatályba, amennyiben a Megállapodás 103. cikkének (1) bekezdése szerint előírt összes értesítést eljuttatták az EGT-Vegyesbizottsághoz.4. cikkEzt a határozatot az Európai Közösségek Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-re vonatkozó részében, illetve EGT-kiegészítésében közzé kell tenni.Kelt Brüsszelben, 1995. július 18-án.az EGT-Vegyesbizottság részérőlaz elnökE. Berg[1] HL L 325., 1994.12.17., 66. o.[2] HL L 332., 1994.12.22., 1. o.--------------------------------------------------


text:
Elaine Feinstein (imwielda Elaine Cooklin; 24 ta’ Ottubru 1930 - 23 ta’ Settembru 2019) kienet poetessa, rumanziera, kittieba ta’ novelli, drammaturga, bijografa u traduttriċi. Hija ngħaqdet mal-Kunsill tar-Royal Society of Literature fl-2007.
 Karriera letterarja
 Feinstein iżżewġet u kellha tliet subien ma’ żewġha, Arnold Feinstein. Hekk kif qabdet tikteb mill-ġdid, “reġgħet ħadet il-ħajja”. Bdiet iżżomm id-djarji, tgawdi l-proċess tal-qari u tal-kitba tal-poeżija, u tikkomponi xi xogħlijiet biex jgħinuha tagħmel sens minn din l-esperjenza. Hi kkummentat li riedet “propożizzjonijiet sempliċi, linji li ħarġu jkantaw mill-poeżiji bi frażijiet perfetti donnhom linji tal-mużika.” Il-poeżija ta' Marina Tsvetayeva spiratha sabiex tittraduċi xi poeżiji minn tagħha. Dawn il-poeżiji ġew ippubblikati mill-Oxford University Press u Penguin Books fl-1971. Hi rċeviet tliet premijiet għat-traduzzjoni mill-Kunsill tal-Arti.
 Wara li fl-1980 saret membru tar-Royal Society of Literature, il-kitba saret ix-xogħol primarju tagħha. Fl-1990, irċeviet il-Cholmondeley Award għall-Poeżija u Dottorat Onorarju mill-Università ta’ Leicester. Kultant kienet iżżur ir-Russja biex tagħmel riċerka għall-kotba tagħha, filwaqt li żżur ukoll xi ħbieb, fosthom Yevgeny Yevtushenko. Ix-xogħlijiet tagħha jinkludu erbatax-il rumanz, ħafna radju drammi, drammi televiżivi u ħames bijografiji, fosthom A Captive Lion: The Life of Marina Tsvetaeva (1987) u Pushkin (1998). Ted Hughes: The Life of a Poet (2001) ġie nnominat għall-Marsh Biography Prize, premju li jingħata darbtejn f’sena. Il-bijografija li kitbet fuq Anna Akhmatova, Anna of all the Russias, ħarġet fl-2005 u ġiet tradotta fi tnax-il lingwa Ewropea, inkluż ir-Russu.
 Meta reċentament, f’intervista ma’ Alma Books, ġiet mistoqsija liema tliet kotba tagħżel li ssalva kieku darha kellha tieħu n-nar, Feinstein irrispondiet, “Kieku nieħu l-iPad.”
 Mewt
 Elaine Feinstein mietet b’kanċer f’Londra fit-23 ta’ Settembru 2019 fl-età ta’ 88 sena. Warajha ħalliet tliet ulied u sitt neputijiet.
 Referenzi


text:
 7.3.2014
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 L 67/7
 DECISÃO N.o 1/2014 DO COMITÉ DE EMBAIXADORES ACP-UE
 de 7 de fevereiro de 2014
 relativa à nomeação dos membros do Conselho de Administração do Centro de Desenvolvimento Empresarial (CDE)
 (2014/121/UE)
 O COMITÉ DE EMBAIXADORES ACP-UE,
 Tendo em conta o Acordo de Parceria entre os membros do Grupo de Estados da África, Caraíbas e Pacífico, por um lado, e a Comunidade Europeia e os seus Estados-Membros, por outro, assinado em Cotonu em 23 de junho de 2000 (1), modificado pela primeira vez no Luxemburgo em 25 de junho de 2005 (2) e pela segunda vez em Uagadugu em 22 de junho de 2010 (3), nomeadamente o artigo 2.o, n.o 6, do seu Anexo III;
 Tendo em conta a Decisão n.o 8/2005 do Comité de Embaixadores ACP-CE de 20 de julho de 2005 relativa aos estatutos e ao regulamento interno do Centro de Desenvolvimento Empresarial (CDE) (4), nomeadamente o seu artigo 9.o, n.o 1;
 Considerando o seguinte:
 (1)
 O artigo 9.o dos estatutos e regulamento interno do Centro de Desenvolvimento Empresarial (CDE), adotado pela Decisão n.o 8/2005,, estipula que o Comité de Embaixadores está encarregado de nomear os membros do Conselho de Administração por um período máximo de cinco anos;
 (2)
 O mandato dos três membros atuais do Conselho de Administração do Centro de Desenvolvimento Empresarial, nomeados pela Decisão n.o 3/2013 do Comité de Embaixadores ACP-UE (5), expira em 6 de março de 2014,
 DECIDE:
 Artigo 1.o
 Sem prejuízo de posteriores decisões que o Comité possa vir a tomar no âmbito das suas prerrogativas, o mandato dos três membros da UE do Conselho de Administração do Centro de Desenvolvimento Empresarial é prorrogado por um período de seis meses.
 Por conseguinte, o Conselho de Administração do Centro de Desenvolvimento Empresarial tem a seguinte composição:
 —
 Adebayo AKINDEINDE
 —
 Giovannangelo MONTECCHI PALAZZI
 —
 Vera VENCLIKOVA,
 cujo mandato expira em 6 de setembro de 2014, e
 —
 John Atkins ARUHURI
 —
 Maria MACHAILO-ELLIS
 —
 Félix MOUKO,
 cujo mandato expira em 6 de setembro de 2018.
 Artigo 2.o
 A presente decisão entra em vigor na data da sua adoção, podendo ser revista em qualquer momento em função da situação do Centro.
 Feito em Bruxelas, em 7 de fevereiro de 2014.
 Pelo Comité de Embaixadores ACP-UE
 O Presidente
 Th. N. SOTIROPOULOS
 (1) JO L 317 de 15.12.2000, p. 3.
 (2) Acordo que revê o Acordo de parceria entre os Estados de África, das Caraíbas e do Pacífico, por um lado, e a Comunidade Europeia e os seus Estados-Membros, por outro, assinado em Cotonu, em 23 de junho de 2000 (JO L 209 de 11.8.2005, p. 27).
 (3) Acordo que altera pela segunda vez o Acordo de Parceria entre os Estados de África, das Caraíbas e do Pacífico, por um lado, e a Comunidade Europeia e os seus Estados-Membros, por outro, assinado em Cotonu, em 23 de junho de 2000, alterado pela primeira vez no Luxemburgo em 25 de junho de 2005 (JO L 287 de 4.11.2010, p. 3).
 (4) JO L 66 de 8.3.2006, p. 16.
 (5) JO L 263 de 5.10.2013, p. 18.


text:
Power metal je hudební styl, který kombinuje heavy metal a speed metal. Existují však dva příbuzné styly: jeden ze Severní Ameriky s tvrdším zvukem, blízkým speed metalu a později druhý, populární, původem z Německa a Skandinávie. V dnešní době se termín „power metal“ vztahuje hlavně na ten evropský styl. Často se v této hudbě objevují klávesy.
 Charakteristické znaky
 V současnosti se „power metal“ spojuje se zvukem, který je typický i pro speed metal. Jedinečnost textů spočívá v tom, že se nezaměřují na „skutečný svět“ – osobní zkušenosti, historické události, společenské problémy. Místo toho se věnují náboženství, sci-fi nebo fantazii a většinou se spojují s optimismem, s výjimkou textů skupiny Sabaton které se zaměřují na historii.
 Při tomto druhu heavy metalu hraje důležitou úlohu „čistý“ zpěv, na rozdíl od hrdelního zpěvu v death metalu a black metalu. Zpěváci většinou jdou ve stopách takových legend heavymetalového zpěvu jako Bruce Dickinson či Rob Halford. Většina zpěváků zpívá ve vysokých tónech, až na některé výjimky; např. Matt Barlow (bývalý frontman Iced Earth) nebo Joakim Brodén (frontman skupiny Sabaton) zpívají v barytónu. Další muzikanti, např. Hansi Kürsch (Blind Guardian) vycházejí z dědictví hardrockového Queenu.
 Kytaristi a basáci hrají extrémně krátké a rychlé riffy, akordy se mění poměrně pomalu, a celkově jsou skladby hrané v harmonickém tempu. Zaručena jsou také rychlá a technicky náročná kytarová sóla. Mnoho bubeníků používá dvojkopákové bicí, čímž docilují zvýšenou rychlost a rytmiku.
 Power metal je oblíbený především v Evropě, Japonsku, v některých latinskoamerických zemích (Brazílie, Venezuela, Chile), menší popularitu zažívá v Severní Americe (obzvlášť v kanadské provincii Québec, kde má silnou základnu fanoušků).
 Význam kláves
 Důležité jsou také klávesové nástroje, i když ne každá kapela jich využívá stejně. Někdy jen dotvářejí atmosféru, jinde jsou důležitou součástí celkového projevu, jako např. u italské Rhapsody of Fire, která naplno využívá symfonické elementy. Klávesy se hlavně používají pro doprovod, dotváření atmosféry, ale také hrají velmi rychlá sola, která často ani nelze zahrát na kytaru. Kromě klasických kláves se používá také tzv. keytar, jako to je např. u kapel Sonata Arctica nebo Dragonforce.
 Typy power metalu
 Evropský power metal
 V polovině 80. let, evropské skupiny jako němečtí Helloween a švedští Europe do zvuku skladeb dodaly ještě více melodičnosti. I když se skupina Europe později rozvinula spíše do hard rocku, tak jsou jejich první alba pro vývoj power metalu důležitá a pravidelně jsou citována novými powermetalovými skupinami jako vlivná. Skupina Helloween smíchala rychlé speed metalové riffy s melodií a dodala silný zpěv, podobný skupině Iron Maiden, což později určilo jejich zvuk. Jejich alba Keeper of the Seven Keys Part 1 (1987) a Keeper of the Seven Keys Part 2 (1988) jsou označovány za milníky tohoto žánru. Následovně se evropský styl („happy metal“) rozšířil po celém kontinentu (hlavně ve Finsku) a také celosvětově, i když je v USA, Spojeném království a dalších anglicky mluvicích zemích poměrně nepopulární.
 Americký power metal
 Americký power metal je, podobně jako evropský, ovlivněn skupinami jako Rainbow (viz také Dio), Queen, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Savatage a Queensrÿche. Proto jsou americké skupiny Iced Earth, Nevermore a Symphony X považovány za následovníky tohoto stylu, ale další tvrzení říkají, že jejich tempo skončilo nebo splynulo se styly, které jsou známé jako thrash metal a evropský power metal. Skupiny z 80. let jako Lizzy Borden na jedné straně se Savage Grace a na straně druhé se Sanctuary, Crimson Glory, Liege Lord, Jag Panzer a dalšími představují americký power metal. Jiné hlasy tvrdí, že mezi průkopníky žánru v Americe patří spíš Manowar a Virgin Steele nebo Symphony X z New Jersey.
 Epický metal
 Epic metal je styl power metalu, který se vyvinul z tradičního heavy metalu ve spojení s prvky klasického rocku 70. let. I když se na první pohled může zdát, že styl je velmi podobný tradičnímu heavy metalu, má v sobě mnoho jiných prvků: může byt rychlý a rytmický jako thrash metal, pomalý jako doom metal nebo podobný stylu Nové vlny britského heavy metalu.
 Texty, které jsou důležitou částí žánru, způsobily, že mnohé kapely se řadí k epicmetalové scéně, i když nemají žádné prvky epického metalu (např. Blind Guardian, Rhapsody of Fire a Gamma Ray, které se většinou pohybují v powermetalové scéně).
 Mezi základní témata textů epického metalu patří boje, válka, čest a odvaha bojovníka. Lehce je také možné narazit na fantazijní texty. Také je možné najít texty o vznešených předcích, i když to spíš patří do Viking metalu (Bathory, Falkenbach, Doomsword, Vintersorg). Na druhé straně může být z hlediska textového i hudebního Viking metal považován za odnož epického metalu.
 Symfonický power metal
 Pod termínem Symfonický power metal se rozumí power-metalové kapely, které ve velkém využívají klávesy nebo nástroje běžně používané při vážné hudbě či v symfonickém heavy metalu.
 Symfonický power metal je někdy považovaný stejně za symfonický metal jako i power metal, především kvůli sporům mezi fanoušky okolo používání výrazu „symfonický power metal“. Například Nightwish má prvky symfonického metalu, zatímco Sonata Arctica má více power-metalových elementů.
 Externí odkazy
 Podžánry heavy metalu


text:
Ceoltóir, cumadóir agus aisteoir Seapánach is ea Ichiro Mizuki (水木一郎, Mizuki Ichirou) (rugadh Toshio Hayakawa (早川俊夫, Hayakawa Toshio) ar 7 Eanáir, 1948 i dTóiceo, An tSeapáin). Bhí cúpla amhrán an-rathúil aige, mar shampla Mazinger Z, Babel II, Great Mazinger, Steel Jeeg, Combattler V agus Captain Harlock. Bhain sé cáil amach sna 2000í ina phríomh-amhránaí agus liriceoir sa bhanna JAM Project.
 I 1968, chuaigh Mizuki go Tóiceo, agus bhuail sé leis an cumadóir Kanae Wada. Mhol Wada dul ag caint le Nippon Columbia. Shínigh Mizuki conradh ceoil leo. Sheol sé amach a chéad singil, darbh ainm Kimi ni sasageru Boku no Uta, i mí Meán Fómhair 1968.
 Dioscliosta
 Albaim
 1989 OTAKEBI Sanjou! Hoeru Otoko Ichiro Mizuki Best (OTAKEBI参上!吠える男 水木一郎ベスト)
 1990 Ichiro Mizuki OTAKEBI 2 (水木一郎 OTAKEBI2)
 1990 Ichiro Mizuki All Hits Vol.1 (水木一郎 大全集Vol.1)
 1991 Ichiro Mizuki All Hits Vol.2 (水木一郎 大全集Vol.2)
 1991 Ichiro Mizuki Ballade Collection ~SASAYAKI~ Vol.1 (水木一郎バラード・コレクション~SASAYAKI~Vol.1)
 1991 Ichiro Mizuki All Hits Vol.3 (水木一郎 大全集Vol.3)
 1992 Ichiro Mizuki All Hits Vol.4 (水木一郎 大全集Vol.4)
 1992 Ichiro Mizuki All Hits Vol.5 (水木一郎 大全集Vol.5)
 1993 Dear Friend
 1994 Ichiro Mizuki no Tanoshii Asobi Uta (水木一郎のたのしいあそびうた)
 1995 Ichiro Mizuki Best & Best (水木一郎 ベスト&ベスト)
 1997 ROBONATION Ichiro Mizuki Super Robot Complete (ROBONATION 水木一郎スーパーロボットコンプリート)
 1998 Neppuu Densetsu (熱風伝説)
 1999 Neppuu Gaiden -Romantic Master Pieces- (熱風外伝-Romantic Master Pieces-)
 2001 Aniki Jishin ~30th Anniversary BEST~ (アニキ自身~30th Anniversary BEST~)
 2004 Ichiro Mizuki Best of Aniking -Red Spirits- (水木一郎 ベスト・オブ・アニキング -赤の魂-)
 2004 Ichiro Mizuki Best of Aniking -Blue Spirits- (水木一郎 ベスト・オブ・アニキング -青の魂-)
 Singil
 1968 - Kimi ni sasageru Boku no Uta (君にささげる僕の歌)
 1970 - Dare mo inai Umi (誰もいない海)
 1990 - Natsukashi Kutte Hero ~I'll Never Forget You!~ (懐かしくってヒーロー~I'll Never Forget You!~)
 1992 - Natsukashi Kutte Hero PartII ~We'll Be Together Forever!~ (懐かしくってヒーロー・PartII~We'll Be Together Forever!~)
 1994 - SEISHUN FOR YOU ~Seishun no Uta~ (SEISHUN FOR YOU~青春の詩~)
 1997 - 221B Senki Single Version (221B戦記 シングルバージョン)
 1999 - Golden Rule ~Kimi wa mada Maketenai!~ (Golden Rule~君はまだ負けてない!~) / Miage te goran Yoru no Hoshi wo (見上げてごらん夜の星を)
 Liosta de téamamhrán
 Anime
 Genshi Shounen Rju (Genshi Shounen Ryuu ga Yuku)
 Mazinger Z (Mazinger Z; Bokura no Mazinger Z)
 Babel II (Babel Nisei; Seigi no Chou Nouryoku Shounen)
 Great Mazinger (Ore wa Great Mazinger; Yuusha wa Mazinger)
 Tekkaman: The Space Knight (Tekkaman no Uta; Space Knights no Uta)
 Steel Jeeg (Koutetsu Jeeg no Uta; Hiroshi no Theme)
 Combattler V (Combattler V no Theme; Yuke! Combattler V)
 Magne Robo Gakeen (Tatakae! Gakeen; Takeru to Mai no Uta)
 Mechander Robo (Try Attack! Mechander Robo; Sasurai no Hoshi Jimmy Orion)
 Hyouga Senshi Guyslugger (Hyouga Senshi Guyslugger)
 Voltes V (Chichi wo Motomete)
 Baratack (Choujin Sentai Baratack)
 Arrow Emblem Grand Prix no Taka (Grand Prix no Taka; Laser Blues)
 Captain Harlock (Captain Harlock; Warera no Tabidachi)
 Lupin III (Lupin Sansei Ai no Theme)
 Golion (Tatakae! Golion; Gonin de Hitotsu)
 Game Center Arashi (Game Center Arashi)
 Hero Hero-kun (Mawari Himawari Hero Hero-kun)
 The SoulTaker (SOULTAKER)
 Godannar (Sangou no Hitsugi; ENGAGE!!! Godannar)
 Koutetsushin Jeeg (STORMBRINGER)
 Cluichí ríomhaire
 Ganbare Goemon ~Neo Momoyama Bakufu no Odori~ (Double Impact)
 Super Robot Wars Alpha (Ara buru Damashii; STEEL SOUL FOR YOU; Tomo yo ~Super Robot Wars Alpha~; Wa ni Teki Nashi)
 Tatsunoko Fight (Denkou Sekka Volder)
 Taiko no Tatsujin Tobikkiri! Anime Special (Gattai! Donranger Robo; Kitto Motto Zutto; Hibike! Taiko no Tatsujin)
 Tokusatsu
 Choujin Barom One (Bokura no Barom One; Yuujou no Barom Cross)
 Henshin Ninja Arashi (Arashi yo Sakebe; Warera wa Ninja)
 Android Kikaider (Hakaider no Uta; Saburou no Theme)
 Kamen Rider V3 (Shounen Kamen Rider Tai no Uta)
 Robot Keiji (Robot Keiji; Susume Robot Keiji)
 Shiro Shishi Kamen (Shiro Shishi Kamen no Uta)
 Inazuman (Chest! Chest! Inazuman)
 Kamen Rider X (Setup! Kamen Rider X; Ore wa X Kaizorg)
 Inazuman F (Inazuman Action)
 Ganbare!! Robocon (Ganbare Robocon; Oira Robocon Robot dai!; Oira Robocon Sekai Ichi; Robocon Ondou; Hashire!! Robcon Undoukai; Robocon Gattsuracon)
 Bouken Rockbat (Bouken Rockbat; Tetsu no Prince Blazer)
 Kamen Rider Stronger (Kamen Rider Stronger no Uta; Kyou mo Tatakau Stronger; Stronger Action)
 Shounen Tantei Dan (Yukuzo! BD7; Shounen Tantei Dan no Uta)
 Akumaizer 3 (Shouri da! Akumaizer 3; Susume Zaiderbeck)
 The Kagestar (Kagayaku Taiyou Kagestar; Star! Star! Kagestar)
 Ninja Captor (Tatakae! Ninja Captor; Oozora no Captor)
 Kaiketsu Zubat (Jigoku no Zubat; Otoko wa Hitori Michi wo Yuku)
 Daitetsujin 17 (Oh!! Daitetsujin One Seven; One Seven Sanka)
 Kyouryuu Sentai Koseidon (Kyouryuu Sentai Koseidon; Koseidon March)
 Battle Fever J (Battle Fever Dai Shutsugeki; Battle Fever Sanka)
 Honoo no Choujin Megaloman (Yuke! Yuke! Megaloman; Waga Kokoro no Rozetta Hoshi)
 Kamen Rider (Skyrider) (Moero! Kamen Rider; Otoko no Na wa Kamen Rider; Haruka naru Ai ni Kakete; Kagayake! 8-Nin Rider)
 Kamen Rider Super 1 (Junior Rider Tai no Uta)
 Taiyou Sentai Sun Vulcan (Ashita ga Arusa; Kagayake! Sun Vulcan; Kimi wa Panther; Taiyou March; Umi ga Yondeiru)
 Andro Melos (Andro Melos; Kaette Koiyo Andro Melos)
 Jikuu Senshi Spielvan (Jikuu Senshi Spielvan; Kimi on Nakama da Spielvan; Kesshou da! Spielvan)
 Choujinki Metalder (Time Limit)
 Kamen Rider BLACK RX (Eien no Tameni Kimi no Tameni)
 Tokkei Winspector (Just Gigastreamer; Yume mo Hitotsu no Nakama-Tachi; Yuusha Winspector)
 Voicelugger (Hoero! Voicelugger)
 Hyakujuu Sentai Gaoranger (Hyakujuu Gattai! Gaoking; Samba de Gaoren)
 Juuken Sentai Gekiranger (Tao)
 Ról
 Anime
 Koraru no Tanken - Rat Hector
 Space Carrier Blue Noah - Gruppenkommandeur
 Dangaioh (OVA) - Yoldo
 Happy Lucky Bikkuriman - La☆Keen
 Tokusatsu
 Jikuu Senshi Spielvan - Dr. Ben
 Voicelugger - Voicelugger Gold
 Chou Ninja Tai Inazuma!! SPARK - Shouryuusai Mizuki
 Fís-cluichí
 Super Robot Wars Alpha 3 - Keisar Ephes
 Litríocht
 Hitoshi Hasebe: "Anison - Kashu Ichiro Mizuki Sanjuu Shuunen Kinen Nekketsu Shashinshuu" (兄尊(アニソン)―歌手水木一郎三十周年記念熱血写真集) (1999, Oakla Publishing) ISBN 4-87278-461-8
 Ichiro Mizuki & Project Ichiro: "Aniki Damashii ~Anime Song no Teiou / Mizuki Ichirou no Sho~" (アニキ魂~アニメソングの帝王・水木一郎の書~) (2000, Aspect) ISBN 4-7572-0719-0
 Naisc sheachtracha
 Ichiro Mizuki - Suíomh oifigiúil
 Ichiro Mizuki - Anison Database
 Ichiro Mizuki - Anime News Network
 Ichiro Mizuki - Henshin Hall of Fame
 Tagairtí
 Mizuki, Ichiro
 Mizuki, Ichiro
 Mizuki, Ichiro
 Daoine beo


text:
 224 Md. 121 (1961)
 167 A.2d 111
 REESE ET AL.
 v.
 MANDEL ET UX.
 [No. 106, September Term, 1960.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided January 13, 1961.
 *123 The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
 Robert M. Thomas, with whom were Venable, Baetjer & Howard on the brief, for appellants.
 Richard C. Murray, with whom were Michael Paul Smith, James F. Offutt, Jr. and Smith & Harrison on the brief, for appellees.
 PRESCOTT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 After the Zoning Commissioner of Baltimore County and the County Board of Appeals (Board) had denied a request for zoning reclassification, the Circuit Court reversed the action of the Board, and directed that the reclassification be granted. Nearby property owners, who had been granted leave to intervene below, have taken this appeal.
 The appellees, the Mandels, are the owners of a 35-acre tract of land located about a mile and a half north of Towson in the Eighth Election District. It is bounded on the northeast by Pot Spring Road, on the east by Dulaney Valley Road, on the south by Seminary Avenue, and on the west and northwest by an irregular line that finally joins the northeasterly boundary on Pot Spring Road. All of the property was zoned R-40 in the new comprehensive zoning map of the Ninth Election District adopted in 1955,[1] with a small exception not here involved. Approximately 23 acres of the 35 acres are sought to be reclassified from R-40 to R-20 zoning in this proceeding.
 The appellees made no attempt to show "a change in the neighborhood," nor that a failure to grant their request would deny them all reasonable use of the property, to support their petition, but relied on a claim that a mistake in regard to their property had been made when the new comprehensive map *124 was adopted. The trial court sustained this contention and held there was "no substantial evidence to support the finding [that the appellees had failed to establish a mistake had been made in the comprehensive map] and order of the Board in denying the petition for reclassification * * * from R-40 to R-20." He therefore concluded the action of the Board was arbitrary, reversed its decision and order, and remanded the proceedings to the Board for an order in accordance with his memorandum opinion.
 The testimony adduced was quite lengthy and the appellants have raised several questions, but, in the view that we take of the case, the testimony may properly be concisely summarized, and only one of the appellant's contentions need be considered at any length.
 Julius Mandel stated his reasons for requesting the change in zoning were that there was a greater demand for half-acre lots than for acre lots, and the half-acre lots were more economical from the standpoint of both the owner and the developer. He frankly admitted that his property, if rezoned, would be surrounded on all sides, except one, by R-40 zoning, a fact clearly shown by a map of the proposed change.
 Milton J. Dance, a real estate expert, testified concerning certain nearby R-20 subdivisions, and stated that, in his opinion, the granting of the reclassification would not have any depreciatory effect on adjoining properties, provided the improvements were in keeping with the general area.
 A portion of the minutes of the Baltimore County Planning Board of December 19, 1957, was read into the record. It disclosed that the Planning Board, an advisory body, had, on November 6, 1957, appointed a committee of three of its members to study the petition for reclassification. The committee concluded that the proposal to reclassify the property was appropriate and logical. After discussion, the Planning Board, itself, agreed that an error had been made by the County Commissioners in the adoption of the Eighth and Ninth Districts zoning maps, subsequent to the approval of those maps by the Planning Board. This conclusion was based upon a statement that the zoning plans approved by the latter had established a broad band of R-20 zoning easterly of *125 the band of R-10 zoning alongside of Charmuth Road for transition to the R-40 zone adjacent to Dulaney Valley and Pot Spring Roads. The maps, as finally adopted by the Commissioners, shifted the R-10 zone line easterly, but failed to make corresponding adjustments to the eastern boundaries of the R-20 zone, resulting, in the opinion of the Planning Board, in an illogical boundary between the R-20 and R-40 zones.
 Malcomb H. Dill, Director of Planning, stated that based upon the particular subdivision plan as presented it would be difficult to demonstrate that the R-40 properties in the vicinity would be depreciated in value, but said, "it is conceivable that this [subject] property could be developed in half-acre lots in such a way as definitely to affect the neighborhood unfavorably." He was in general accord with the conclusion reached by the Planning Board, which has been stated above.
 Augustine J. Muller, who served as one of the County Commissioners and also as an ex-officio member of the Planning Board at the time of the adoption of the new comprehensive map in 1955, was called as an expert witness by the appellees, and testified that he agreed with the conclusion of the Planning Board, as stated in the minutes of its meeting of December 19th, and for the same reasons.
 The protestants called quite a number of nearby property owners, among whom were a lawyer, a banker, and a registered architect, who had been a contractor and builder for some thirty years. All of these witnesses were in general agreement that there was no error in the R-40 zoning of the Mandel property when the comprehensive map was adopted, that the property could be properly and profitably developed in the R-40 classification, and that its reclassification to an R-20 zoning would depreciate the value and desirability of nearby properties, many of which, although zoned R-40, contained much larger areas for single residences than the one-acre requirement of that classification.
 We shall elaborate, briefly, upon the testimony of three of these witnesses. J. Nicholas Shriver, Jr., was authorized to appear in behalf of the Board of Directors of the Carmelite Sisters of Baltimore, whose property, consisting of 27 acres, *126 is just across the road south of the subject property. Their property and the improvements, when completed, will represent an investment of some $300,000. The Carmelite Sisters of Baltimore, a corporation, is a cloistered order of nuns, and before purchasing the property, due to the fact that the nuns do not leave the property, a survey was made to find a location that would be close to a source of supply of necessaries, and, at the same time, afford the privacy desired. To use Mr. Shriver's words, the property was selected, "because it was in the center of an area with the highest zoning requirements that existed in Baltimore County, and which seemed to be such a well stabled area that it didn't appear that any zoning changes could be anticipated."[2]
 Pietro Persico is the graduate architect, and contractor and builder of thirty years' experience. He is the owner of forty-two acres, across Pot Spring Road and directly to the north of the subject property, which he is developing on an R-40 basis, with homes in the $40,000 to $45,000 class. It was his opinion that the R-40 classifications of his property and that of the Mandels were proper, that he saw no reason why the Mandel property could not be developed on an R-40 basis, and that it was his opinion, from experience, that development of the Mandel property on an R-20 basis would have a tendency to depreciate value of his own R-40 property.
 Charles F. Reese said that he had lived on the southeast corner of Seminary Avenue and Dulaney Valley Road for 18 years, in a home that was located on a rising slope (zoned R-40), which looked directly across to the Mandel property. He thought that the R-40 classification of the Mandel property on the zoning map was "certainly" an appropriate one, and he was of the very definite opinion that its proposed reclassification, if permitted, would be detrimental to the surrounding property in the area. He also testified that he was treasurer of the Dulaney Valley Protective Association, representing some one hundred and five families in the general *127 neighborhood, and the association had met and had voted unanimously to oppose the reclassification.
 The appellants earnestly suggest that a basic and very significant piece of evidence, which supports their main contention in the case, is the zoning map, itself, and we agree. The Board of Appeals based its denial of the reclassification squarely upon the conclusion that the legislative body, the County Commissioners, had not made a mistake with reference to the subject property, when the comprehensive map was adopted. The map demonstrates that the property sought to be reclassified from R-40 to R-20 is completely surrounded on all sides by R-40 zoning, except for 500 feet in the extreme southwestern corner, which adjoins an R-20 zone to the west. Mr. Muller, one of the appellees' expert witnesses, admitted the subject property, if rezoned, would constitute "an irregular rectangular peninsula of R-20 jutting out into an otherwise R-40 zone."
 The map also shows that the subject property is in the midst of a broad band of R-40 zoning running along the western side of Dulaney Valley Road to a depth of between 2000 to 3000 feet (except at the very southern end where it is reduced to approximately 800 feet) all the way from the northern edge of the map to a point just north of the Baltimore County Beltway on the south. Thus, R-40 extends approximately one-half mile to the south of the Mandel property and for a distance of at least one mile to the north (to the edge of this particular map), and possibly beyond that on the next adjacent map.
 The eastern side of Dulaney Valley Road is similarly protected by the Loch Raven Reservoir watershed area on the northeast and by a broad band of R-40 property running from the southern boundary of the watershed area, just north of Seminary Avenue, at least to St. Francis Road on the south.
 There can be little doubt that in Maryland it is no business of the courts to zone or rezone property. We have stated, and repeatedly restated, that this is a legislative function, and, in reviewing the action of the zoning authorities, it is the duty of the courts to decide only whether such action is arbitrary, whimsical, discriminatory, or illegal. Kroen v. Bd. of Zoning *128 Appeals, 209 Md. 420, 427, 121 A.2d 181; Montgomery Co. Council v. Scrimgeour, 211 Md. 306, 127 A.2d 528; Missouri Realty, Inc. v. Ramer, 216 Md. 442, 446, 140 A.2d 655. These are only a few of the Maryland decisions to this effect.
 In testing the action of the Board of Appeals herein, we start off with a strong presumption of the validity of the classifications made when the comprehensive map was adopted, and those who attack the classifications bear a heavy burden of overcoming the presumption of their validity  heavier in the case of comprehensive zoning than in the case of piecemeal reclassification. Missouri Realty, Inc. v. Ramer, supra; Hewitt v. County Com'rs of Baltimore County, 220 Md. 48, 151 A.2d 144; City of Baltimore v. N.A.A.C.P., 221 Md. 329, 157 A.2d 433; and authorities cited in these cases.
 The appellees, we think, failed to meet and overcome this burden. Even if we assume that there was some substantial evidence before the Board to the effect that an original mistake had been made, the remainder of the testimony clearly made that issue, at least, fairly debatable. Cf. Renz v. Bonfield Holding Co., 223 Md. 34, 158 A.2d 611. The statement of Mr. Muller that he thought an error had been made was not conclusive of that fact, even though he was a member of the legislative body that adopted the map. Bd. of County Com'rs of Talbot County v. Troxell, 214 Md. 135, 139, 132 A.2d 845. Cf. Mettee v. County Com'rs of Howard County, 212 Md. 357, 366, 129 A.2d 136. And neither were the minutes of the Planning Board (the same recommendation had been made to and considered by the County Commissioners), nor the opinion of Mr. Dill binding upon the Board of Appeals. This evidence was, of course, proper for the Board to weigh and consider, but, when it is considered with the protestants' evidence to the contrary, especially that of Mr. Persico, an architect and a contractor and builder with years of experience, and the comprehensive zoning map, itself, we cannot hold that the Board's conclusion that no error had been made on the map in regard to the subject property was not fairly debatable, and therefore arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or illegal.
 The Board may well have concluded that the map demonstrated that the rezoning of the Mandel property to R-20 *129 would be totally incompatible with an otherwise consistent pattern of low density R-40 zoning for a substantial depth on either side of Dulaney Valley Road, both north and south of the subject property.[3] And it may have inferred that the map disclosed a basic plan of the legislative body that adopted it oriented around the two major traffic arteries converging on Towson from the north: York Road approaching from the northwest and passing through an industrial, commercial and densely populated residential area, and Dulaney Valley Road approaching from the northeast and passing through a low density residential area bordering on Loch Raven Reservoir. The Board may have decided that the pattern of the map indicated a basic plan on the part of the County Commissioners to preserve York Road as a high density area and Dulaney Valley Road as a low density area, and, although the land between the two areas was zoned to make the transition as reasonable as possible, the exact pattern of the intermediate transitional zoning was not a matter of the same high priority as the preservation of high density along York Road and low density along Dulaney Valley Road.
 When the validity of the action taken by the Board is reasonably and fairly debatable, as we have stated was the case here, the courts have no authority to overturn that action by substituting their judgment for that of the Board. Renz v. Bonfield Holding Co., supra, and the many Maryland cases there cited.
 There remains one minor contention that gives us little difficulty: it is the question as to who shall pay the costs. The Baltimore County Code (1958), Section 34-7 (Ch. 634, Acts of the General Assembly of 1953) provided that in the appeal of zoning cases "the Court of Appeals shall not award costs of the appeal against any party to the appeal except the appellant." Maryland Rule 882 a, effective as of January 1, *130 1957, states: "In all cases in this Court [the Court of Appeals] the awarding of costs shall be in the discretion of this Court, but unless it is otherwise ordered by this Court costs shall be awarded against the losing party." We held in the Renz case, supra, 223 Md. 45-46, that as repeals by implication are not favored and local laws are not repealed by general laws unless such purpose is clearly indicated, the local law of Baltimore County, Section 34-7, prevailed, at that time, over Rule 882 a.
 However, since the ruling in Renz, said Section 34-7 has been repealed by Bill No. 80, which was passed by the Baltimore County Council, and became effective July 25, 1960. The Bill has no saving clause in regard to the payment of costs in this type of appeal in zoning cases (compare Section 23-38 of the new law relating to appeals from decisions of the Planning Board), but, in this respect, it is completely silent.
 The appeal herein was filed on May 21, 1960, prior to the repeal of Section 34-7 of the Baltimore County Code by Bill No. 80, mentioned above.
 "Costs," generally, are allowances in the nature of incidental damages awarded by law to reimburse the prevailing party for expenses necessarily incurred in the assertion, or defence, of his rights in court; they are purely statutory, and at common law were unknown.[4]Peyton v. William C. Peyton Corp., 8 A.2d 89, 91 (Del. Ch.). Cf. Weiner v. Swales, 217 Md. 123, 125, 141 A.2d 749; Gray, Law of Costs, p. 1.
 It is almost universally held that the law in respect to costs existing at the time of the judgment that ends the controversy between the parties (in the absence of a saving clause or clear indication in the new statute or rule of court to the contrary) prevails over the law as it existed at the time when the action was commenced, and such holdings do not impinge upon the constitutional inhibition against impairing the obligation of contracts. 14 Am. Jur. Costs, ¶ 4; 20 C.J.S., Costs, ¶ 3 (b); Shielcrawt v. Moffett, 61 N.E.2d 435 (N.Y.); Hogan v. *131 Ingold, 243 P.2d 1 (Cal.); and for a long list of the authorities holding likewise, see the Annotation in 96 A.L.R. beginning at page 1429. And the same rule applies to costs on appellate review. 14 Am. Jur., Costs, ¶¶ 4, 91; Annotation 96 A.L.R. 1434-1435. We, therefore, hold that Rule 882 a is controlling in the instant case, and, accordingly, we shall award the costs in such manner as we deem meet and proper.
 Order reversed, and cause remanded for the entry of an order sustaining the decision of the board of appeals, the appellees to pay the costs.
 NOTES
 [1] R-40 zoning is residential, one-acre lots; R-20, residential, one-half acre lots. The subject property is located on the edge of the Eighth Election District, but was included in the Ninth Election District zoning map.
 [2] Although the western portion of this property is zoned R-20, it was so zoned in the comprehensive map, and the Carmelites have no present intention of doing anything other than keeping the property intact for their own use.
 [3] The appellees made the argument that the peninsula shaped projection of their R-20 property (if rezoned) into the R-40 zone could be corrected by the simple expedient of granting additional R-20 reclassification. It, apparently, was unpersuasive to the Board. Cf. Renz v. Bonfield Holding Co., supra, 223 Md. at page 41, 158 A.2d 613.
 [4] Costs were not given at common law, eo nomine, although, in reality, they were considered and included in the amount of damages, in such actions where damages were recoverable. 2 Poe, Pleading and Practice, ¶ 840, n. 5.