type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 1.7.2014
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 192/42
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) NR. 727/2014 AL COMISIEI
 din 30 iunie 2014
 de deschidere a unei reexaminări în ceea ce privește un nou exportator a Regulamentului (UE) nr. 1389/2011 al Consiliului de instituire a unei taxe antidumping definitive la importurile de acid tricloroizocianuric originar din Republica Populară Chineză, de abrogare a taxei cu privire la importurile care provin de la un exportator din această țară și de impunere a obligativității de înregistrare a acestor importuri
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1225/2009 al Consiliului din 30 noiembrie 2009 privind protecția împotriva importurilor care fac obiectul unui dumping din partea țărilor care nu sunt membre ale Comunității Europene (1) (denumit în continuare „regulamentul de bază”), în special articolul 11 alineatul (4),
 după informarea statelor membre,
 întrucât:
 1. SOLICITARE
 (1)
 Comisia Europeană (denumită în continuare „Comisia”) a primit o cerere de reexaminare în ceea ce privește un nou exportator, în conformitate cu articolul 11 alineatul (4) din regulamentul de bază.
 (2)
 Cererea a fost depusă la 4 ianuarie 2014 de către Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. Ltd. (denumită în continuare „solicitantul”), un producător-exportator din Republica Populară Chineză (denumită în continuare „RPC”) de acid tricloroizocianuric.
 2. PRODUSUL
 (3)
 Produsul în cauză este acidul tricloroizocianuric și preparatele realizate pe baza acestuia (TCCA), cunoscut și sub denumirea de „simclosen” în conformitate cu denumirea comună internațională (DCI), încadrat în prezent la codurile NC ex 2933 69 80 și 3808 94 20 (coduri TARIC 2933698070 și 3808942020) și originar din RPC (denumit în continuare „produsul care face obiectul reexaminării”).
 3. MĂSURILE EXISTENTE
 (4)
 Măsurile care sunt în prezent în vigoare se prezintă sub forma unei taxe antidumping definitive instituite prin Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 1389/2011 al Consiliului (2), care prevede că importurile în Uniune ale produsului în cauză, originar din RPC, inclusiv produsul în cauză fabricat de solicitant, sunt supuse unei taxe antidumping definitive de 42,6 %, cu excepția câtorva societăți desemnate în mod expres la articolul 1 alineatul (2) din regulamentul menționat cărora li se aplică niveluri de taxe individuale.
 4. MOTIVELE
 (5)
 Solicitantul susține că nu a exportat produsul în cauză în Uniune în cursul perioadei de anchetă pe care s-au bazat măsurile antidumping, cuprinsă între 1 aprilie 2003 și 31 martie 2004 (denumită în continuare „perioada anchetei inițiale”).
 (6)
 În plus, solicitantul susține că nu este afiliat niciunui producător-exportator al produsului care face obiectul reexaminării supus măsurilor antidumping sus-menționate.
 (7)
 Solicitantul afirmă, de asemenea, că a început să exporte produsul care face obiectul reexaminării în Uniune după sfârșitul perioadei de anchetă inițiale.
 5. PROCEDURA
 (8)
 Producătorii din Uniune cunoscuți ca fiind vizați au fost informați cu privire la cererea de reexaminare și au avut ocazia de a formula observații.
 (9)
 În urma examinării elementelor de probă disponibile, Comisia concluzionează că există elemente de probă suficiente care justifică deschiderea unei reexaminări în ceea ce privește un nou exportator, în conformitate cu articolul 11 alineatul (4) din regulamentul de bază, pentru a stabili marja de dumping individuală a solicitantului și, în cazul în care se stabilește existența unui dumping, nivelul taxei la care trebuie supuse importurile în Uniune ale produsului în cauză.
 (10)
 Dacă se stabilește că solicitantul întrunește condițiile pentru a i se fixa o taxă individuală, este posibil să fie necesară modificarea nivelului taxei la care sunt supuse în prezent importurile de produs în cauză provenite de la societăți care nu sunt menționate în mod individual la articolul 1 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 1389/2011.
 (a) Chestionare
 (11)
 În vederea obținerii informațiilor pe care le consideră necesare pentru anchetă, Comisia va trimite un chestionar solicitantului.
 (b) Colectarea informațiilor și desfășurarea audierilor
 (12)
 Toate părțile interesate sunt invitate să își prezinte în scris punctele de vedere și să aducă elemente de probă pentru susținerea acestora.
 (13)
 De asemenea, Comisia poate audia părțile interesate, cu condiția ca acestea să prezinte o solicitare scrisă din care să reiasă că au motive speciale pentru care ar trebui să fie audiate.
 (c) Alegerea țării cu economie de piață
 (14)
 Întrucât solicitantul a renunțat în mod expres la dreptul de a susține că în cazul său prevalează condițiile unei economii de piață, valoarea normală se stabilește pe baza articolului 2 alineatul (7) litera (a) din regulamentul de bază. Prin urmare, va fi utilizată o țară cu o economie de piață corespunzătoare în scopul stabilirii valorii normale în ceea ce privește RPC. Comisia intenționează să folosească din nou Japonia în acest scop, așa cum s-a procedat și în cazul anchetei care a dus la instituirea măsurilor aplicabile importurilor de produs în cauză din RPC. Părțile interesate sunt invitate să prezinte observații privind oportunitatea acestei alegeri în termenul specific prevăzut la articolul 4 alineatul (3) din prezentul regulament. Conform informațiilor de care dispune Comisia, pot exista alți furnizori ai Uniunii care funcționează în condițiile unei economii de piață, printre altele, în Elveția, Malaysia și Indonezia. Comisia va examina dacă există producție și vânzări ale produsului care face obiectul reexaminării în acele țări terțe cu economie de piață în cazul cărora există indicii că are loc producția produsului care face obiectul reexaminării.
 6. ABROGAREA TAXEI ÎN VIGOARE ȘI ÎNREGISTRAREA IMPORTURILOR
 (15)
 În conformitate cu articolul 11 alineatul (4) din regulamentul de bază, taxa antidumping în vigoare vizând importurile de produse în cauză fabricate și vândute la export în Uniune de către solicitant ar trebui abrogată. În același timp, importurile în cauză ar trebui înregistrate în conformitate cu articolul 14 alineatul (5) din regulamentul de bază, astfel încât, în cazul în care reexaminarea constată existența unui dumping din partea solicitantului, taxele antidumping să poată fi percepute retroactiv de la data de deschidere a prezentei reexaminări. Valoarea unei eventuale taxe care ar putea fi impusă în viitor solicitantului nu poate fi estimată în acest stadiu al procedurii.
 7. TERMENE
 (16)
 În vederea unei bune administrări, ar trebui să se stabilească termene în care:
 —
 părțile interesate să se facă cunoscute Comisiei, să prezinte acesteia în scris punctele lor de vedere și să transmită orice informații care trebuie să fie luate în considerare pe parcursul anchetei;
 —
 părțile interesate să poată să solicite în scris audierea lor de către Comisie;
 —
 părțile interesate pot să își prezinte observațiile privind oportunitatea alegerii Japoniei ca țară cu economie de piață în vederea stabilirii valorii normale.
 —
 Trebuie remarcat faptul că părțile interesate nu își pot exercita majoritatea drepturilor procedurale enunțate în regulamentul de bază decât în cazul în care s-au făcut cunoscute în termenele indicate la articolul 4 din prezentul regulament.
 8. COMUNICAREA CU PĂRȚILE INTERESATE
 (17)
 Părțile interesate sunt invitate să prezinte toate documentele și solicitările prin e-mail, inclusiv împuterniciri și certificări scanate, cu excepția răspunsurilor voluminoase care trebuie să fie transmise pe suport CD-ROM sau DVD prin înmânare directă sau prin scrisoare recomandată. Utilizarea e-mailului va constitui un acord pentru comunicarea prin e-mail și acceptarea normelor prevăzute în comunicarea instrucțiunilor cu părțile interesate care sunt publicate pe site-ul internet al Direcției Generale Comerț: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/june/tradoc_148003.pdf. Părțile interesate trebuie să indice numele, adresa, numărul de telefon și o adresă de e-mail valabilă și trebuie să se asigure că adresa de e-mail furnizată este o adresă de e-mail oficială funcțională care este verificată zilnic. După furnizarea datelor de contact, Comisia va comunica cu părțile interesate exclusiv prin e-mail, cu excepția cazului în care acestea solicită în mod explicit să primească toate documentele din partea Comisiei printr-un alt mijloc de comunicare sau cu excepția cazului în care natura documentului care trebuie să fie trimis necesită utilizarea unei scrisori recomandate. Pentru norme și informații suplimentare privind corespondența cu Comisia, inclusiv principiile care se aplică documentelor transmise prin e-mail, părțile interesate ar trebui să consulte instrucțiunile privind comunicarea cu părțile interesate menționate anterior.
 (18)
 Toate observațiile prezentate în scris, inclusiv informațiile solicitate în prezentul regulament, răspunsurile la chestionar și corespondența părților interesate, furnizate cu titlu confidențial, trebuie să poarte mențiunea „Limited” (acces limitat) și să fie însoțite, în conformitate cu articolul 19 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1225/2009, de o versiune neconfidențială care trebuie să poarte mențiunea „For inspection by interested parties” (versiune destinată consultării de către părțile interesate).
 Adresa Comisiei pentru corespondență este următoarea:
 European Commission
 Directorate-General for Trade
 Directorate H
 Office: N105 8/21
 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel
 BELGIQUE/BELGIË
 E-mail: trade-tcca-review-bis@ec.europa.eu
 9. LIPSA COOPERĂRII
 (19)
 În cazul în care o parte interesată nu permite accesul la informații sau nu furnizează informațiile necesare în termenul prevăzut sau obstrucționează în mod semnificativ ancheta, concluziile, pozitive sau negative, pot fi stabilite pe baza datelor disponibile, în conformitate cu articolul 18 din regulamentul de bază.
 (20)
 Dacă se constată că o parte interesată a furnizat informații false sau înșelătoare, aceste informații nu se iau în considerare și se pot folosi datele disponibile.
 (21)
 Dacă o parte interesată nu cooperează sau cooperează doar parțial și, în consecință, concluziile sunt stabilite pe baza datelor disponibile în conformitate cu articolul 18 din regulamentul de bază, rezultatul anchetei poate fi mai puțin favorabil acelei părți decât dacă aceasta ar fi cooperat.
 (22)
 Faptul că nu se transmite un răspuns pe suport electronic nu este considerat refuz de a coopera, cu condiția ca partea respectivă să demonstreze că prezentarea unui răspuns în forma cerută ar putea antrena sarcini sau costuri suplimentare excesive. Partea interesată trebuie să contacteze imediat Comisia.
 10. CALENDARUL ANCHETEI
 (23)
 În conformitate cu articolul 11 alineatul (5) din regulamentul de bază, ancheta se va încheia în termen de nouă luni de la data deschiderii prezentei reexaminări.
 11. PRELUCRAREA DATELOR CU CARACTER PERSONAL
 (24)
 Se menționează faptul că toate datele cu caracter personal colectate pe parcursul prezentei anchete vor fi utilizate în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 45/2001 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 18 decembrie 2000 privind protecția persoanelor fizice cu privire la prelucrarea datelor cu caracter personal de către instituțiile și organele comunitare și privind libera circulație a acestor date (3).
 12. CONSILIERUL-AUDITOR
 (25)
 Părțile interesate pot solicita intervenția consilierului-auditor al Direcției Generale Comerț. Consilierul-auditor acționează drept intermediar între părțile interesate și serviciile Comisiei responsabile cu ancheta. Consilierul-auditor examinează cererile de acces la dosar, litigiile privind confidențialitatea documentelor, cererile de amânare a termenelor și cererile terților de a fi audiați. Consilierul-auditor poate organiza o audiere cu o anumită parte interesată și poate acționa drept mediator pentru a asigura exercitarea pe deplin a drepturilor la apărare ale părților interesate. Consilierul-auditor va oferi, de asemenea, părților implicate posibilitatea să fie audiate, pentru a permite confruntarea diferitelor puncte de vedere și prezentarea unor contraargumente.
 (26)
 Orice cerere de audiere de către consilierul-auditor ar trebui efectuată în scris și motivată. Pentru audierile privind aspectele referitoare la etapa inițială a anchetei, cererea trebuie transmisă în termen de 15 zile de la data intrării în vigoare a prezentului regulament. Ulterior, orice solicitare de audiere trebuie transmisă în termenele specifice stabilite de Comisie în comunicarea sa cu părțile.
 (27)
 Pentru mai multe informații și date de contact, părțile interesate pot consulta paginile internet dedicate consilierului-auditor de pe site-ul internet al Direcției Generale Comerț: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/degucht/contact/hearing-officer,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Se deschide reexaminarea Regulamentului de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 1389/2011, în conformitate cu articolul 11 alineatul (4) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1225/2009, în vederea determinării dacă și în ce măsură importurile de acid tricloroizocianuric și preparatele realizate pe baza acestuia, cunoscut și sub denumirea de „simclosen” în conformitate cu denumirea comună internațională (DCI), încadrat în prezent la codurile NC ex 2933 69 80 și ex 3808 94 20 (codurile TARIC 2933698070 și 3808942020), originar din Republica Populară Chineză, produs și vândut la export în Uniune de către Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. Ltd. (cod adițional TARIC A101), ar trebui supuse taxelor antidumping instituite prin Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 1389/2011.
 Articolul 2
 Taxa antidumping instituită de Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 1389/2011 se abrogă în cazul importurilor specificate la articolul 1 din prezentul regulament.
 Articolul 3
 În conformitate cu articolul 11 alineatul (4) și cu articolul 14 alineatul (5) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1225/2009, autoritățile vamale sunt invitate să ia măsurile corespunzătoare pentru a înregistra importurile în Uniune identificate la articolul 1 din prezentul regulament.
 Înregistrarea expiră la nouă luni de la data intrării în vigoare a prezentului regulament.
 Articolul 4
 (1) Pentru ca demersurile lor să fie luate în considerare în timpul anchetei, părțile interesate trebuie să se facă cunoscute contactând Comisia și, în lipsa unor dispoziții contrare, să își prezinte punctele de vedere în scris și să transmită răspunsurile la chestionarul menționat la considerentul 11 din prezentul regulament și orice alte informații în termen de 37 de zile de la data publicării prezentului regulament.
 (2) Părțile interesate pot solicita să fie audiate de serviciile Comisiei responsabile cu ancheta. Orice cerere de audiere trebuie să fie formulată în scris și să precizeze motivele care stau la baza acesteia. Pentru audierile privind aspectele referitoare la etapa inițială a anchetei, cererea trebuie transmisă în termen de 15 zile de la data intrării în vigoare a prezentului regulament. Ulterior, orice solicitare de audiere trebuie transmisă în termenele specifice stabilite de Comisie în comunicarea sa cu părțile.
 (3) Părțile participante la anchetă care doresc să prezinte observații cu privire la oportunitatea alegerii Japoniei ca țară terță cu economie de piață în sensul stabilirii valorii normale pentru Republica Populară Chineză trebuie să prezinte aceste observații în termen de 10 zile de la intrarea în vigoare a prezentului regulament.
 Articolul 5
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în ziua următoare datei publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 30 iunie 2014.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) JO L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.
 (2) JO L 346, 30.12.2011, p. 6.
 (3) JO L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.


text:
 16.3.2013
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 74/1
 РЕГЛАМЕНТ ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ (ЕС) No 232/2013 НА КОМИСИЯТА
 от 15 март 2013 година
 за определяне за Съюза на цените на изтегляне от пазара и на продажните цени на рибните продукти, изброени в приложение I към Регламент (ЕО) No 104/2000 на Съвета, за риболовната 2013 година
 ЕВРОПЕЙСКАТА КОМИСИЯ,
 като взе предвид Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз,
 като взе предвид Регламент (ЕО) No 104/2000 на Съвета от 17 декември 1999 г. относно общата организация на пазарите на рибни продукти и продукти от аквакултури (1), и по-специално член 20, параграф 3 и член 22 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 В Регламент (ЕО) No 104/2000 се предвижда, че за Съюза продажните цени и цените на изтегляне от пазара за всеки от продуктите, изброени в приложение I към регламента, се определят въз основа на състоянието, размера или теглото и представянето на продукта, като се прилага коефициент на преобразуване за категорията продукти с цел да не се надхвърлят 90 % от съответната ориентировъчна цена.
 (2)
 Цените на изтегляне от пазара могат да бъдат умножени по коефициенти на адаптиране в зоните на разтоварване на риба на сушата, които са много отдалечени от основните потребителски центрове на Съюза. Ориентировъчните цени за риболовната 2013 година са определени за всички продукти, посочени в Регламент (ЕС) No 1242/2012 на Съвета (2).
 (3)
 С цел да не се възпрепятства функционирането на интервенционната система през 2013 г. настоящият регламент следва да се прилага със задна дата, считано от 1 януари 2013 г.
 (4)
 Мерките, предвидени в настоящия регламент, са в съответствие със становището на комитета, създаден съгласно Регламент (ЕО) No 104/2000,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ:
 Член 1
 Коефициентите на преобразуване, използвани за изчисляването за Съюза на продажните цени и на цените на изтегляне от пазара в съответствие с членове 20 и 22 от Регламент (ЕО) No 104/2000 за риболовната 2013 година за продуктите, изброени в приложение I към същия регламент, са определени в приложение I към настоящия регламент.
 Член 2
 Цените на изтегляне от пазара и продажните цени за риболовната 2013 година и продуктите, за които се отнасят те, са определени за Съюза в приложение II.
 Член 3
 Цените на изтегляне от пазара за риболовната 2013 година в зоните на разтоварване на риба на сушата, които са много отдалечени от основните потребителски центрове на Съюза, коефициентите на адаптиране, използвани за изчисляване на тези цени, и продуктите, за които се отнасят те, са определени в приложение III.
 Член 4
 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила в деня след публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Той се прилага от 1 януари 2013 г.
 Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави членки.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 15 март 2013 година.
 За Комисията
 Председател
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) ОВ L 17, 21.1.2000 г., стр. 22.
 (2) ОВ L 352, 21.12.2012 г., стр. 6.
 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ I
 Коефициенти на преобразуване за продуктите, изброени в части А, Б и В от приложение I към Регламент (ЕО) No 104/2000
 Вид
 Размер (1)
 Коефициенти на преобразуване
 Изкормени риби с глави (1)
 Цели риби (1)
 Екстра, А (1)
 Екстра, А (1)
 Херинга от вида
 Clupea harengus
 1
 0,00
 0,47
 2
 0,00
 0,72
 3
 0,00
 0,68
 4a
 0,00
 0,43
 4b
 0,00
 0,43
 4c
 0,00
 0,90
 5
 0,00
 0,80
 6
 0,00
 0,40
 7a
 0,00
 0,40
 7b
 0,00
 0,36
 8
 0,00
 0,30
 Сардини от вида
 Sardina pilchardus
 1
 0,00
 0,51
 2
 0,00
 0,64
 3
 0,00
 0,72
 4
 0,00
 0,47
 Котешка акула
 Squalus acanthias
 1
 0,60
 0,60
 2
 0,51
 0,51
 3
 0,28
 0,28
 Котешка акула
 Scyliorhinus spp.
 1
 0,64
 0,60
 2
 0,64
 0,56
 3
 0,44
 0,36
 Морски костур
 Sebastes spp.
 1
 0,00
 0,81
 2
 0,00
 0,81
 3
 0,00
 0,68
 Треска от вида
 Gadus morhua
 1
 0,72
 0,52
 2
 0,72
 0,52
 3
 0,68
 0,40
 4
 0,54
 0,30
 5
 0,38
 0,22
 Американска треска
 Pollachius virens
 1
 0,72
 0,56
 2
 0,72
 0,56
 3
 0,71
 0,55
 4
 0,61
 0,30
 Пикша
 Melanogrammus aeglefinus
 1
 0,72
 0,56
 2
 0,72
 0,56
 3
 0,62
 0,43
 4
 0,52
 0,36
 Меджид
 Merlangius merlangus
 1
 0,66
 0,50
 2
 0,64
 0,48
 3
 0,60
 0,44
 4
 0,41
 0,30
 Молва
 Molva spp.
 1
 0,68
 0,56
 2
 0,66
 0,54
 3
 0,60
 0,48
 Скумрия от вида
 Scomber scombrus
 1
 0,00
 0,72
 2
 0,00
 0,71
 3
 0,00
 0,69
 Испанска скумрия от вида
 Scomber japonicus
 1
 0,00
 0,77
 2
 0,00
 0,77
 3
 0,00
 0,63
 4
 0,00
 0,47
 Аншоа
 Engraulis spp.
 1
 0,00
 0,68
 2
 0,00
 0,72
 3
 0,00
 0,60
 4
 0,00
 0,25
 Морска писия
 Pleuronectes platessa
 1
 0,75
 0,41
 2
 0,75
 0,41
 3
 0,72
 0,41
 4
 0,52
 0,34
 Мерлуза от вида
 Merluccius merluccius
 1
 0,90
 0,71
 2
 0,68
 0,53
 3
 0,68
 0,52
 4
 0,56
 0,43
 5
 0,52
 0,41
 Мегрим
 Lepidorhombus spp.
 1
 0,68
 0,64
 2
 0,60
 0,56
 3
 0,54
 0,49
 4
 0,34
 0,29
 Лиманда
 Limanda limanda
 1
 0,71
 0,58
 2
 0,54
 0,42
 Писия
 Platichthys flesus
 1
 0,66
 0,58
 2
 0,50
 0,42
 Бял тон или дългопер тон
 Thunnus alalunga
 1
 0,90
 0,81
 2
 0,90
 0,77
 Сепии
 Sepia officinalis и
 Rossia macrosoma
 1
 0,00
 0,64
 2
 0,00
 0,64
 3
 0,00
 0,40
 Вид
 Размер (2)
 Коефициенти на преобразуване
 Цели риби
 Обезглавени риби (2)
 Изкормени риби с глави (2)
 Екстра, A (2)
 Екстра, A (2)
 Морски дявол
 Lophius spp.
 1
 0,61
 0,77
 2
 0,78
 0,72
 3
 0,78
 0,68
 4
 0,65
 0,60
 5
 0,36
 0,43
 Всички видове представяне
 Екстра, A (2)
 Скариди от вида
 Crangon crangon
 1
 0,59
 2
 0,27
 Сварени във вода
 Пресни или охладени
 Екстра, A (2)
 Екстра, A (2)
 Дълбоководни едри скариди
 Pandalus borealis
 1
 0,77
 0,68
 2
 0,27
 —
 Цели (2)
 Морски раци
 Cancer pagurus
 1
 0,72
 2
 0,54
 Цели (2)
 Опашки (2)
 E' (2)
 Екстра, A (2)
 Екстра, A (2)
 Норвежки омар
 Nephrops norvegicus
 1
 0,86
 0,86
 0,81
 2
 0,86
 0,59
 0,68
 3
 0,77
 0,59
 0,50
 4
 0,50
 0,41
 0,41
 Изкормени риби с глави (2)
 Цели риби (2)
 Екстра, A (2)
 Екстра, A (2)
 Морски език
 Solea spp.
 1
 0,75
 0,58
 2
 0,75
 0,58
 3
 0,71
 0,54
 4
 0,58
 0,42
 5
 0,50
 0,33
 (1) Категориите преснота, размер и представяне са тези, определени в съответствие с член 2 от Регламент (ЕО) No 104/2000.
 (2) Категориите преснота, размер и представяне са тези, определени в съответствие с член 2 от Регламент (ЕО) No 104/2000.
 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ II
 Цени на изтегляне от пазара и продажни цени в Съюза на продуктите, изброени в части А, Б и В от приложение I към Регламент (ЕО) No 104/2000
 Вид
 Размер (1)
 Цена на изтегляне от пазара
 (EUR/t)
 Изкормени риби с глави (1)
 Цели риби (1)
 Екстра, A (1)
 Екстра, A (1)
 Херинга от вида
 Clupea harengus
 1
 0
 136
 2
 0
 208
 3
 0
 197
 4a
 0
 124
 4b
 0
 124
 4c
 0
 260
 5
 0
 231
 6
 0
 116
 7a
 0
 116
 7b
 0
 104
 8
 0
 87
 Сардини от вида
 Sardina pilchardus
 1
 0
 300
 2
 0
 376
 3
 0
 423
 4
 0
 276
 Котешка акула
 Squalus acanthias
 1
 694
 694
 2
 590
 590
 3
 324
 324
 Котешка акула
 Scyliorhinus spp.
 1
 451
 422
 2
 451
 394
 3
 310
 253
 Морски костур
 Sebastes spp.
 1
 0
 996
 2
 0
 996
 3
 0
 836
 Треска от вида
 Gadus morhua
 1
 1 161
 839
 2
 1 161
 839
 3
 1 097
 645
 4
 871
 484
 5
 613
 355
 Американска треска
 Pollachius virens
 1
 595
 463
 2
 595
 463
 3
 587
 455
 4
 504
 248
 Пикша
 Melanogrammus aeglefinus
 1
 702
 546
 2
 702
 546
 3
 605
 419
 4
 507
 351
 Меджид
 Merlangius merlangus
 1
 599
 454
 2
 580
 435
 3
 544
 399
 4
 372
 272
 Молва
 Molva spp.
 1
 800
 659
 2
 776
 635
 3
 706
 564
 Скумрия от вида
 Scomber scombrus
 1
 0
 242
 2
 0
 239
 3
 0
 232
 Испанска скумрия от вида
 Scomber japonicus
 1
 0
 226
 2
 0
 226
 3
 0
 185
 4
 0
 138
 Аншоа
 Engraulis spp.
 1
 0
 875
 2
 0
 927
 3
 0
 772
 4
 0
 322
 Морска писия
 Pleuronectes platessa
 —
 от 1 януари до 30 април 2013 г.
 1
 762
 417
 2
 762
 417
 3
 732
 417
 4
 528
 345
 —
 от 1 май до 31 декември 2013 г.
 1
 1 053
 576
 2
 1 053
 576
 3
 1 011
 576
 4
 730
 477
 Мерлуза от вида
 Merluccius merluccius
 1
 2 912
 2 297
 2
 2 200
 1 715
 3
 2 200
 1 682
 4
 1 812
 1 391
 5
 1 682
 1 326
 Мегрим
 Lepidorhombus spp.
 1
 1 625
 1 529
 2
 1 433
 1 338
 3
 1 290
 1 171
 4
 812
 693
 Лиманда
 Limanda limanda
 1
 564
 461
 2
 429
 334
 Писия
 Platichtys flesus
 1
 333
 293
 2
 253
 212
 Бял тон или дългопер тон
 Thunnus alalunga
 1
 2 149
 1 898
 2
 2 149
 1 804
 Сепии
 Sepia officinalis и Rossia macrosoma
 1
 0
 1 169
 2
 0
 1 169
 3
 0
 730
 Цели риби
 Обезглавени риби (1)
 Изкормени риби с глави (1)
 Екстра, A (1)
 Екстра, A (1)
 Морски дявол
 Lophius spp.
 1
 1 765
 4 632
 2
 2 257
 4 331
 3
 2 257
 4 090
 4
 1 880
 3 609
 5
 1 041
 2 586
 Всички видове представяне
 Екстра, A (1)
 Скариди от вида
 Crangon crangon
 1
 1 443
 2
 660
 Сварени във вода
 Пресни или охладени
 Екстра, A (1)
 Екстра, A (1)
 Дълбоководни едри скариди
 Pandalus borealis
 1
 5 394
 1 114
 2
 1 891
 —
 Вид
 Размер (2)
 Продажни цени
 (EUR/t)
 Цели (2)
 Морски раци
 Cancer pagurus
 1
 1 237
 2
 928
 Цели (2)
 Опашки (2)
 E' (2)
 Екстра, A (2)
 Екстра, A (2)
 Норвежки омар
 Nephrops norvegicus
 1
 4 491
 4 491
 3 370
 2
 4 491
 3 081
 2 829
 3
 4 021
 3 081
 2 080
 4
 2 611
 2 141
 1 706
 Изкормени риби с глави (2)
 Цели риби (2)
 Екстра, A (2)
 Екстра, A (2)
 Морски език
 Solea spp.
 1
 5 183
 4 008
 2
 5 183
 4 008
 3
 4 907
 3 732
 4
 4 008
 2 903
 5
 3 456
 2 281
 (1) Категориите преснота, размер и представяне са тези, определени в съответствие с член 2 от Регламент (ЕО) No 104/2000.
 (2) Категориите преснота, размер и представяне са тези, определени в съответствие с член 2 от Регламент (ЕО) No 104/2000.
 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ III
 Цени на изтегляне от пазара в зоните на разтоварване на риба на сушата, които са много отдалечени от основните потребителски центрове
 Вид
 Зони на разтоварване на риба на сушата
 Регулиране Фактор
 Размер (1)
 Цена на изтегляне от пазара
 (EUR/t)
 Изкормени риби с глави (1)
 Цели риби (1)
 Екстра, A (1)
 Екстра, A (1)
 Херинга от вида
 Clupea harengus
 Крайбрежни райони и острови на Ирландия
 0,90
 1
 0
 122
 2
 0
 187
 3
 0
 177
 4a
 0
 112
 Крайбрежни райони на Източна Англия от Беруик до Дувър
 0,90
 1
 0
 122
 Крайбрежни райони на Шотландия от Портпатрик до Аймаут и островите, разположени на запад и на север от тези райони
 2
 0
 187
 3
 0
 177
 Крайбрежни райони на Каунти Даун (Северна Ирландия)
 4a
 0
 112
 Скумрия от вида
 Molva molva
 Крайбрежни райони и острови на Ирландия
 0,96
 1
 0
 232
 2
 0
 229
 3
 0
 223
 Крайбрежни райони и острови на Корнуел и Девън в Обединеното кралство
 0,95
 1
 0
 230
 2
 0
 227
 3
 0
 220
 Мерлуза от вида
 Merluccius merluccius
 Крайбрежни райони от Труун (в Югозападна Шотландия) до Уик (в Североизточна Шотландия) и островите, разположени на запад и на север от тези райони
 0,75
 1
 2 184
 1 723
 2
 1 650
 1 286
 3
 1 650
 1 262
 4
 1 359
 1 043
 5
 1 262
 995
 Бял тон или дългопер тон
 Thunnus alalunga
 Азорските острови и Мадейра
 0,48
 1
 1 032
 911
 2
 1 032
 866
 Сардини от вида
 Sardina pilchardus
 Канарски острови
 0,48
 1
 0
 144
 2
 0
 181
 3
 0
 203
 4
 0
 133
 Крайбрежни райони и острови на Корнуел и Девън в Обединеното кралство
 0,74
 1
 0
 222
 2
 0
 278
 3
 0
 313
 4
 0
 205
 Атлантическите крайбрежни райони на Португалия
 0,93
 2
 0
 350
 0,81
 3
 0
 343
 (1) Категориите преснота, размер и представяне са тези, определени в съответствие с член 2 от Регламент (ЕО) No 104/2000.


type: contracts

text:
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 C 202/251
 PRÓTACAL (Uimh. 5)
 AR REACHT AN BHAINC EORPAIGH INFHEISTÍOCHTA
 TÁ NA hARDPHÁIRTITHE CONARTHACHA,
 ÓS MIAN LEO Reacht an Bhainc Eorpaigh Infheistíochta dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 308 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh a chinneadh,
 TAR ÉIS COMHAONTÚ ar na forálacha seo a leanas, a chuirfear i gceangal leis an gConradh ar an Aontas Eorpach agus leis an gConradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh:
 Airteagal 1
 Comhdhéantar leis seo an Banc Eorpach Infheistíochta a bunaíodh le hAirteagal 308 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh (dá ngairtear an "Banc" anseo feasta); comhlíonfaidh sé a fheidhmeanna agus déanfaidh sé a ghníomhaíochtaí de réir fhorálacha na gConarthaí agus an Reachta seo.
 Airteagal 2
 Sainítear le hAirteagal 309 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh an cúram a bheidh ar an mBanc.
 Airteagal 3
 I gcomhréir le hAirteagal 308 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, is iad na Ballstáit comhaltaí an Bhainc.
 Airteagal 4
 1. Is é is caipiteal don Bhanc 233 247 390 000 EUR, arna shuibscríobh ag na Ballstáit mar a leanas:
 An Ghearmáin
 37 578 019 000
 An Fhrainc
 37 578 019 000
 An Iodáil
 37 578 019 000
 An Ríocht Aontaithe
 37 578 019 000
 An Spáinn
 22 546 811 500
 An Bheilg
 10 416 365 500
 An Ísiltír
 10 416 365 500
 An tSualainn
 6 910 226 000
 An Danmhairg
 5 274 105 000
 An Ostair
 5 170 732 500
 An Pholainn
 4 810 160 500
 An Fhionlainn
 2 970 783 000
 An Ghréig
 2 825 416 500
 An Phortaingéil
 1 820 820 000
 Poblacht na Seice
 1 774 990 500
 An Ungáir
 1 679 222 000
 Éire
 1 318 525 000
 An Rómáin
 1 217 626 000
 An Chróit
 854 400 000
 An tSlóvaic
 604 206 500
 An tSlóivéin
 560 951 500
 An Bhulgáir
 410 217 500
 An Liotuáin
 351 981 000
 Lucsamburg
 263 707 500
 An Chipir
 258 583 500
 An Laitvia
 214 805 000
 An Eastóin
 165 882 000
 Málta
 98 429 500
 Ní bheidh na Ballstáit faoi dhliteanas ach amháin go feadh méid a scaire den chaipiteal a suibscríobhadh agus nár íocadh.
 2. Má ligtear isteach comhalta nua bhéarfaidh sin méadú ar an gcaipiteal suibscríofa i gcomhréir lena dtabharfaidh an comhalta nua de chaipiteal isteach.
 3. Féadfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí, ag gníomhú dó d'aon toil, a chinneadh go méadófar an caipiteal suibscríofa.
 4. Ní féidir scair chomhalta sa chaipiteal suibscríofa a aistriú, a chur i ngeall ná a astú.
 Airteagal 5
 1. Íocfaidh na Ballstáit an caipiteal suibscríofa go feadh 5 % ar mheán na méideanna a shonraítear in Airteagal 4(1).
 2. I gcás méadú a theacht ar an gcaipiteal suibscríofa, socróidh an Bord Gobharnóirí, ag gníomhú dó d'aon toil, an céatadán a bheidh le híoc agus modh a íoctha. Déanfar na híocaíochtaí in airgead tirim go heisiach in euro.
 3. Féadfaidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí a cheangal go ndéanfar iarmhéid an chaipitil shuibscríofa a íoc, a mhéad is gá don Bhanc chun freastal dá oibleagáidí.
 An íocaíocht a bheidh le déanamh amhlaidh ag gach Ballstát, beidh sí i gcomhréir lena scair den chaipiteal suibscríofa.
 Airteagal 6
 (sean-Airteagal 8)
 Beidh an Banc á stiúradh agus á bhainistiú ag Bord Gobharnóirí, Bord Stiúrthóirí agus Coiste Bainistíochta.
 Airteagal 7
 (sean-Airteagal 9)
 1. Is iad a bheidh ar an mBord Gobharnóirí na hAirí a bheidh ceaptha ag na Ballstáit.
 2. Leagfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí síos treoracha ginearálta do bheartas creidmheasa an Bhainc, i gcomhréir le cuspóirí an Aontais. Féachfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí chuige go gcuirfear na treoracha sin i ngníomh.
 3. Ina theannta sin déanfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí mar a leanas:
 (a)
 cinnfidh sé an bhfuil an caipiteal suibscríofa le méadú de réir Airteagal 4(3) agus Airteagal 5(2);
 (b)
 chun críocha Airteagal 9(1), cinnfidh sé na prionsabail is infheidhme ar na hoibríochtaí maoinithe a ghabhfar ar láimh faoi chuimsiú chúram an Bhainc;
 (c)
 feidhmeoidh sé na cumhachtaí dá bhforáiltear in Airteagail 9 agus 11 maidir le comhaltaí an Bhord Stiúrthóirí agus an Choiste Bainistíochta a cheapadh agus lena scor go héigeantach, mar aon leis na cumhachtaí a fhoráiltear sa dara fomhír d'Airteagal 11(1);
 (d)
 glacfaidh sé cinntí maidir le maoiniú a dheonú le haghaidh oibríochtaí infheistíochta atá le cur i gcrích, go hiomlán nó go páirteach, lasmuigh de chríocha na mBallstát i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 16(1);
 (e)
 formheasfaidh sé tuarascáil bhliantúil an Bhord Stiúrthóirí;
 (f)
 formheasfaidh sé an clár comhardaithe bliantúil maille leis an gcuntas sochair agus dochair;
 (g)
 feidhmeoidh sé na cumhachtaí agus na feidhmeanna dá bhforáiltear sa Reacht seo;
 (h)
 formheasfaidh sé rialacha nós imeachta an Bhainc.
 4. Faoi chuimsiú na gConarthaí agus an Reachta seo, beidh an Bord Gobharnóirí inniúil ar aon chinntí a ghlacadh, ag gníomhú dó d'aon toil, a bhaineann le fionraí oibríochtaí an Bhainc agus, dá dtarlódh sin, lena leachtú.
 Airteagal 8
 (sean-Airteagal 10)
 Mura bhforáiltear a mhalairt sa Reacht seo, is trí thromlach dá chomhaltaí a dhéanfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí cinntí. Ní mór an tromlach sin a bheith in ionannas le 50 % ar a laghad den chaipiteal suibscríofa.
 Is gá ocht vóta dhéag agus 68 % den chaipiteal suibscríofa ina fhabhar do thromlach cáilithe.
 Ní chuirfidh staonadh ó vótáil ag comhaltaí a bheidh i láthair go pearsanta nó a mbeidh ionadaithe ag feidhmiú thar a gceann cosc ar chinntí a ghlacadh.
 Airteagal 9
 (sean-Airteagal 11)
 1. Glacfaidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí cinntí maidir le maoiniú a dheonú, go háirithe i bhfoirm iasachtaí agus ráthaíochtaí, agus maidir le hiasachtaí a chruinniú; socróidh sé na rátaí úis ar iasachtaí a dheonófar agus an coimisiún agus muirir eile. Féadfaidh sé cuid dá fheidhmeanna a tharmligean chuig an gCoiste Bainistíochta ar bhonn cinnidh arna ghlacadh trí thromlach cáilithe. Cinnfidh sé na téarmaí agus na coinníollacha do tharmligean den sórt sin agus maoirseoidh sé a fhorghníomhú.
 Féachfaidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí chuige go bhfuil an Banc á rith mar is cuí; áiritheoidh sé go bhfuil an Banc á bhainistiú i gcomhréir le forálacha na gConarthaí agus an Reachta agus i gcomhréir leis na treoracha ginearálta a leagfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí síos.
 I ndeireadh na bliana airgeadais, cuirfidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí tuarascáil faoi bhráid an Bhord Gobharnóirí agus foilseoidh sé í tar éis a formheasta.
 2. Naoi stiúrthóir is fiche agus naoi stiúrthóir mhalartacha déag a bheidh ar an mBord Stiúrthóirí.
 Déanfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí na stiúrthóirí a cheapadh go ceann cúig bliana, stiúrthóir amháin arna ainmniú ag gach Ballstát, agus stiúrthóir amháin arna ainmniú ag an gCoimisiún.
 Déanfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí na malartaigh a cheapadh go ceann cúig bliana mar a thaispeántar thíos:
 —
 beirt mhalartach arna n-ainmniú ag Poblacht Chónaidhme na Gearmáine,
 —
 beirt mhalartach arna n-ainmniú ag Poblacht na Fraince,
 —
 beirt mhalartach arna n-ainmniú ag Poblacht na hIodáile,
 —
 beirt mhalartach arna n-ainmniú ag Ríocht Aontaithe na Breataine Móire agus Thuaisceart Éireann,
 —
 malartach amháin arna ainmniú de thoil a chéile ag Ríocht na Spáinne agus ag Poblacht na Portaingéile,
 —
 malartach amháin arna ainmniú de thoil a chéile ag Ríocht na Beilge, ag Ard-Diúcacht Lucsamburg agus ag Ríocht na hÍsiltíre,
 —
 beirt mhalartach arna n-ainmniú de thoil a chéile ag Ríocht na Danmhairge, ag an bPoblacht Heilléanach, ag Éirinn agus ag an Rómáin,
 —
 beirt mhalartach arna ainmniú de thoil a chéile ag Poblacht na hEastóine, ag Poblacht na Laitvia, ag Poblacht na Liotuáine, ag Poblacht na hOstaire, ag Poblacht na Fionlainne agus ag Ríocht na Sualainne,
 —
 ceathrar malartach arna n-ainmniú de thoil a chéile ag Poblacht na Bulgáire, ag Poblacht na Seice, ag Poblacht na Cróite, ag Poblacht na Cipire, ag Poblacht na hUngáire, ag Poblacht Mhálta, ag Poblacht na Polainne, ag Poblacht na Slóivéine agus ag Poblacht na Slóvaice,
 —
 malartach amháin arna ainmniú ag an gCoimisiún.
 Comhthoghfaidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí seisear saineolaithe gan ceart vótála: triúr mar chomhaltaí agus triúr mar mhalartaigh
 Féadfar ceapacháin na stiúrthóirí agus na malartach a athnuachan.
 Leagfar síos leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta na socruithe maidir le bheith rannpháirteach i gcruinnithe den Bhord Stiúrthóirí agus na forálacha is infheidhme ar mhalartaigh agus ar shaineolaithe arna gcomhthoghadh.
 Beidh Uachtarán an Choiste Bainistíochta nó, má bhíonn sé as láthair, duine dá Leas-Uachtaráin, i gceannas ar chruinnithe den Bhord Stiúrthóirí, ach ní vótálfaidh sé.
 Roghnófar comhaltaí an Bhord Stiúrthóirí as daoine nach bhfuil a neamhspleáchas ná a n-inniúlacht inchurtha in amhras; ní bheidh siad freagrach ach amháin don Bhanc.
 3. Ní fhéadfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí stiúrthóir a scor go héigeantach ach amháin sa chás nach bhfuil na coinníollacha is gá chun a dhualgais a dhéanamh á gcomhlíonadh aige a thuilleadh; ní foláir don Bhord gníomhú trí thromlach cáilithe.
 Mura dtugtar formheas ar an tuarascáil bhliantúil, éireoidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí as oifig.
 4. Aon fholúntas a tharlóidh trí bhás comhalta, nó trína éirí as oifig dá dheoin féin, nó trína éirí as go héigeantach, nó trí chomhaltaí d'éirí as d'aon bhuíon, líonfar é de réir mhír 2 den Airteagal seo. Ach amháin i gcás an Bord Stiúrthóirí ar fad a athrú, gabhfar ionad comhalta go ceann a bhfuil fágtha dá théarma oifige.
 5. Cinnfidh an Bord Gobharnóirí an luach saothair do chomhaltaí an Bhord Stiúrthóirí. Leagfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí síos cad iad na gníomhaíochtaí nach luíonn le dualgais stiúrthóra nó mhalartaigh.
 Airteagal 10
 (sean-Airteagal 12)
 1. Beidh vóta amháin ag gach stiúrthóir ar an mBord Stiúrthóirí. Féadfaidh sé a vóta a tharmligean i ngach cás, ar an modh a leagfar sios le rialacha nós imeachta an Bhainc.
 2. Mura bhforáiltear a mhalairt sa Reacht seo, is trí thromlach trian ar a laghad dá chomhaltaí atá i dteideal vótáil agus iad in ionannas le caoga faoin gcéad ar a laghad den chaipiteal suibscríofa a dhéanfaidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí cinntí. Do thromlach cáilithe is gá ocht vóta dhéag ina fhabhar agus seasca a hocht faoin gcéad den chaipiteal suibscríofa. Leagfar síos i rialacha nós imeachta an Bhainc an córam is gá chun gur bailí iad cinntí an Bhord Stiúrthóirí.
 Airteagal 11
 (sean-Airteagal 13)
 1. Beidh ar an gCoiste Bainistíochta Uachtarán agus ochtar Leas-Uachtarán arna gceapadh ag an mBord Gobharnóirí go ceann tréimhse sé bliana ar thogra ón mBord Stiúrthóirí. Féadfar na ceapacháin sin a athnuachan.
 Féadfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí, ag gníomhú dó d'aon toil, líon na gcomhaltaí ar an gCoiste Bainistíochta a athrú.
 2. Ar thogra ón mBord Stiúrthóirí arna ghlacadh trí thromlach cáilithe, féadfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí, ag gníomhú dó trí thromlach cáilithe freisin, comhalta den Choiste Bainistíochta a scor go héigeantach.
 3. Beidh an Coiste Bainistíochta freagrach i ngnóthaí reatha an Bhainc, faoi údarás an Uachtaráin agus faoi mhaoirseacht an Bhord Stiúrthóirí.
 Ullmhóidh sé cinntí an Bhord Stiúrthóirí, go háirithe cinntí i dtaobh iasachtaí a chruinniú agus i dtaobh iasachtaí agus maoiniú a dheonú, go háirithe i bhfoirm iasachtaí agus ráthaíochtaí; féachfaidh sé chuige go gcuirfear na cinntí sin i ngníomh.
 4. Gníomhóidh an Coiste Bainistíochta trí thromlach ag tabhairt tuairimí dó ar thograí chun iasachtaí a chruinniú nó maoiniú a dheonú, go háirithe i bhfoirm iasachtaí agus ráthaíochtaí.
 5. Cinnfidh an Bord Gobharnóirí luach saothair comhaltaí an Choiste Bainistíochta agus leagfaidh síos cad iad na gníomhaíochtaí nach luíonn lena ndualgais.
 6. Feidhmeoidh an tUachtarán nó, mura féidir dó é, Leas-Uachtarán, ar son an Bhainc in ábhair dhlíthiúla agus in ábhair eile.
 7. Beidh foireann an Bhainc faoi údarás an Uachtaráin. Is é a fhostóidh agus a scoirfidh iad. Chun foireann a roghnú, cuirfear san áireamh ní hamháin cumas agus cáilíochtaí pearsanta ach ina theannta sin ionadaíocht chothromais náisiúnaigh na mBallstát. Cinnfear leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta cad é an comhlacht is inniúil chun forálacha a bheidh infheidhme maidir leis an bhfoireann a ghlacadh.
 8. Ní bheidh Coiste Bainistíochta agus foireann an Bhainc freagrach ach don Bhanc amháin agus beidh siad neamhspleách ar fad i gcomhlíonadh a ndualgas.
 Airteagal 12
 (sean-Airteagal 14)
 1. Déanfaidh Coiste ar a mbeidh sé chomhalta, arna gceapadh ag an mBord Gobharnóirí ar bhonn a n-inniúlachta, a fhíorú gach bliain go gcomhlíonann gníomhaíochtaí an Bhainc dea-chleachtas baincéireachta agus beidh sé freagrach as a chuntais a iniúchadh.
 2. Déanfaidh an Coiste dá dtagraítear i mír 1 a chinntiú gach bliain gur seoladh oibríochtaí an Bhainc agus gur coimeádadh a leabhair ar mhodh cuí. Chuige sin, fíoróidh sé go ndearnadh oibríochtaí an Bhainc a sheoladh ar cothrom leis na foirmiúlachtaí agus na nósanna imeachta dá bhforáiltear leis an Reacht seo agus leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta.
 3. Daingneoidh an Coiste dá dtagraítear i mír 1 go dtugann na ráitis airgeadais mar aon le gach faisnéis airgeadais eile dá bhfuil sna cuntais bhliantúla arna dtarraingt suas ag an mBord Stiúrthóirí léargas fíorcheart ar riocht airgeadais an Bhainc i dtaca lena shochair agus a dhochair, agus ar thorthaí a chuid oibríochtaí agus a shreafaí airgid thirim don bhliain airgeadais faoi bhreithniú.
 4. Sonrófar leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta na cáilíochtaí atá riachtanach do chomhaltaí an Choiste agus leagfaidh sé síos na téarmaí agus na coinníollacha do ghníomhaíocht an Choiste dá dtagraítear i mír 1.
 Airteagal 13
 (sean-Airteagal 15)
 Déileálfaidh an Banc le gach Ballstát tríd an údarás a bheidh ceaptha ag an Stát sin. Ag seoladh a oibríochtaí airgeadais dó, rachaidh an Banc ar iontaoibh bhanc ceannais náisiúnta an Bhallstáit atá i gceist nó institiúidí eile airgeadais a bheidh formheasta ag an Stát sin.
 Airteagal 14
 (sean-Airteagal 16)
 1. Comhoibreoidh an Banc le gach eagraíocht idirnáisiúnta atá gníomhach i réimeanna cosúil lena chuid féin.
 2. Féachfaidh an Banc le comhtheagmhálacha cuí a bhunú ar mhaithe leis an gcomhoibriú le hinstitiúidí baincéireachta agus airgeadais sna tíortha a sroicheann a oibríochtaí chucu.
 Airteagal 15
 (sean-Airteagal 17)
 Arna iarraidh sin do Bhallstát nó don Choimisiún, nó uaidh féin, déanfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí, de réir na gcoinníollacha céanna a bhain lena nglacadh, na treoracha a bheidh leagtha síos aige faoi Airteagal 7 den Reacht seo a léiriú nó a fhorlíonadh.
 Airteagal 16
 (sean-Airteagal 18)
 1. Faoi chuimsiú an chúraim atá leagtha amach in Airteagal 309 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, deonóidh an Banc maoiniú, go háirithe i bhfoirm iasachtaí agus ráthaíochtaí dá chomhaltaí nó do ghnóthais phríobháideacha nó phoiblí le haghaidh infheistíochtaí a bheidh le cur in éifeacht i gcríocha Ballstát, sa mhéid nach bhfuil cistí le fáil ó fhoinsí eile ar théarmaí réasúnta.
 Ach trí chinneadh ón mBord Gobharnóirí, ag gníomhú dó trí thromlach cáilithe ar thogra ón mBord Stiúrthóirí, féadfaidh an Banc maoiniú a dheonú le haghaidh infheistíochtaí a bheidh le cur in éifeacht, go hiomlán nó go páirteach, lasmuigh de chríocha Ballstát.
 2. Chomh fada agus is féidir, ní dheonófar iasachtaí ach ar an gcoinníoll go n-úsáidfear foinsí eile airgeadais freisin.
 3. Nuair a bheidh iasacht á deonú aige do ghnóthas nó do chomhlacht seachas Ballstát, cuirfidh an Banc de choinníoll leis an iasacht sin go bhfaighfear ráthaíocht ón mBallstát ar ina chríoch atá an infheistíocht le cur in éifeacht nó go bhfaighfear ráthaíochtaí leormhaithe eile nó go mbeidh láidreacht airgeadais ag an bhféichiúnaí.
 Fairis sin, i gcomhréir leis na prionsabail arna mbunú ag an mBord Gobharnóirí de bhun Airteagal 7(3)(b), agus nuair is gá sin chun na tionscadail dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 309 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh a chur chun feidhme, socróidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí, ag gníomhú dó trí thromlach cáilithe, téarmaí agus coinníollacha aon oibríochta um maoiniú a bhfuil próifíl riosca shonrach ag gabháil léi agus a mheastar mar sin mar ghníomhaíocht speisialta.
 4. Féadfaidh an Banc iasachtaí a ráthú a thógfaidh gnóthais phoiblí nó phríobháideacha nó a thógfaidh comhlachtaí eile chun tionscadail dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 309 de na Conarthaí a chur in éifeacht.
 5. An méid comhiomlán a bheidh amuigh tráth ar bith d'iasachtaí agus de ráthaíochtaí ón mBanc, ní mó é ná 250 % dá chaipiteal suibscríofa, dá chúlchistí, dá sholáthairtí neamhchionroinnte agus den bharrachas ón gcuntas brabúis agus caillteanais. Laghdófar an méid comhiomlán sin méid is ionann agus an méid atá suibscríofa, bíodh nó ná bíodh sé íoctha isteach, i gcomhair aon rannpháirtíocht cothromais de chuid an Bhainc.
 Méid na rannpháirtíochtaí cothromais de chuid an Bhainc atá íoctha amach, ní mó é tráth ar bith ná méid is comhfhreagrach le hiomlán a chaipitil shuibscríofa atá íoctha isteach, a chúlchistí, a sholáthairtí neamhchionroinnte agus a bharrachas ón gcuntas brabúis agus caillteanais.
 Mar eisceacht, beidh ag gníomhaíochtaí speisialta an Bhainc, arna gcinneadh ag an mBord Gobharnóirí agus ag an mBord Stiúrthóirí i gcomhréir le mír 3, cionroinnt shonrach cúlchiste.
 Beidh feidhm ag an mír seo freisin maidir le cuntais chomhdhlúite an Bhainc.
 6. Cosnóidh an Banc é féin in aghaidh fiontair malairte trí cibé clásail is cuí leis a chur isteach i gconarthaí le haghaidh iasachtaí agus ráthaíochtaí.
 Airteagal 17
 (sean-Airteagal 19)
 1. Déanfar na rátaí úis ar iasachtaí ón mBanc agus coimisiún agus muirir eile a oiriúnú do na coinníollacha atá i dtreis ar mhargadh an chaipitil agus iad a ríomh ar dhóigh go gcuirfidh an t-ioncam astu ar chumas an Bhainc freastal dá oibleagáidí, a chaiteachais agus a rioscaí a ghlanadh agus cúlchiste a thiomargadh mar a fhoráiltear in Airteagal 22.
 2. Ní dheonóidh an Banc aon laghdú ar rátaí úis. I gcás inar cosúil gur mhaith an rud é an t-ús a laghdú mar gheall ar an saghas infheistíochta atá le maoiniú, féadfaidh an Ballstát atá i gceist nó gníomhaireacht éigin eile cabhair a thabhairt chun íoctha an úis, sa mhéid go luífidh sin le hAirteagal 107 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 Airteagal 18
 (sean-Airteagal 20)
 Ina oibríochtaí i ndáil le maoiniú, urramóidh an Banc na prionsabail seo a leanas:
 1.
 Féachfaidh sé chuige go n-úsáidfear a chistí ar an gcuma is réasúnaí is féidir ar mhaithe le leasanna an Aontais.
 Ní fhéadfaidh sé iasachtaí ná ráthaíochtaí a thabhairt ach amháin:
 (a)
 más rud é, i gcás infheistíochtaí atá á gcur in éifeacht ag gnóthais in earnáil an táirgthe, go bhfuil íocaíochtaí in aghaidh úis agus amúchta á gcumhdach as brabúis oibriúcháin nó, i gcás infheistíochtaí eile, trí oibleagáidí faoina ndeachaigh an Stát a bhfuil an infheistíocht á cur in éifeacht ann nó ar mhodh éigin eile; agus
 (b)
 más rud é go gcuidíonn feidhmiú na hinfheistíochta le méadú ar an táirgiúlacht eacnamaíoch i gcoitinne agus go gcuireann sé gnóthú an mhargaidh inmheánaigh ar aghaidh.
 2.
 Ní cead dó aon leas a fháil i ngnóthas ná aon fhreagracht a ghlacadh ina bhainistíocht, mura gá sin le go gcosnófaí cearta an Bhainc chun a áirithiú go bhfaighfear ar ais cistí a tugadh ar iasacht.
 Ar a shon sin, i gcomhréir leis na prionsabail arna mbunú ag an mBord Gobharnóirí de bhun Airteagal 7(3)(b), agus nuair is gá sin chun na hoibríochtaí dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 309 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh a chur chun feidhme, socróidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí, ag gníomhú dó trí thromlach cáilithe, na téarmaí agus na coinníollacha a bhaineann le rannpháirtíocht cothromais a ghlacadh i ngnóthas tráchtála, de ghnáth mar chomhlánú ar iasacht nó ar ráthaíocht, a mhéid is gá sin chun infheistíocht nó clár a mhaoiniú.
 3.
 Féadfaidh sé a chuid éileamh a dhíol ar an margadh caipitil agus, chun na críche sin, féadfaidh sé a cheangal ar a fhéichiúnaithe bannaí nó urrúis eile a eisiúint.
 4.
 Ní fhorchuirfidh an Banc ná na Ballstáit coinníollacha á cheangal cistí a fuarthas ar iasacht ón mBanc a chaitheamh i gcríoch Bhallstáit shonraithe.
 5.
 Féadfaidh an Banc é a chur de choinníoll le hiasachtaí uaidh go ndéanfar socrú le haghaidh iarrataí idirnáisiúnta ar thairiscintí.
 6.
 Ní mhaoineoidh an Banc, go hiomlán ná go páirteach, aon infheistíocht a bhfuil cur ina choinne ag an mBallstát ar ina chríoch atá sí le cur in éifeacht.
 7.
 Mar chomhlánú ar a ghníomhaíocht um iasachtú, féadfaidh an Banc seirbhísí cabhrach teicniúla a chur ar fáil i gcomhréir leis na téarmaí agus na coinníollacha arna leagan síos ag an mBord Gobharnóirí, ag gníomhú dó trí thromlach cáilithe, agus i gcomhlíonadh an Reachta seo.
 Airteagal 19
 (sean-Airteagal 21)
 1. Féadfaidh aon ghnóthas, nó aon eagras poiblí nó príobháideach, iarratas ar mhaoiniú a dhéanamh go díreach chun an Bhainc. Féadfar iarratais a dhéanamh freisin tríd an gCoimisiún nó tríd an mBallstát ar ina chríoch atá an infheistíocht le cur in éifeacht.
 2. Iarratais a dhéanfar tríd an gCoimisiún, cuirfear iad faoi bhráid an Bhallstáit ar ina chríoch atá an infheistíocht le cur in éifeacht, d'fhonn tuairim a fháil. Iarratais a dhéanfar trí Bhallstát, cuirfear faoi bhráid an Choimisiúin iad le tuairim a fháil. Iarratais a dhéanfaidh gnóthas go díreach, cuirfear iad faoi bhráid an Bhallstáit lena mbaineann agus faoi bhráid an Choimisiúin.
 Tabharfaidh an Ballstát lena mbaineann agus an Coimisiún a dtuairimí laistigh de dhá mhí. Mura bhfaighfear freagra laistigh den tréimhse sin, féadfaidh an Banc glacadh leis nach bhfuil aon chur i gcoinne an tionscadail.
 3. Tabharfaidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí rialú ar oibríochtaí maoinithe a chuirfidh an Coiste Bainistíochta faoina bhráid.
 4. Scrúdóidh an Coiste Bainistíochta na hoibríochtaí maoinithe a cuireadh faoina bhráid féachaint an gcomhlíonann siad forálacha an Reachta seo, go háirithe Airteagail 16 agus 18. Má bhíonn an Coiste Bainistíochta i bhfabhar na hoibríochta maoinithe, cuirfidh sé an togra comhfhreagrach faoi bhráid an Bhord Stiúrthóirí. Féadfaidh an Coiste cibé coinníollacha is fíor-riachtanach leis a chur lena thuairim fhabhrach. Má bhíonn an Coiste Bainistíochta in aghaidh an maoiniú a dheonú, cuirfidh sé na doiciméid iomchuí faoi bhráid an Bhord Stiúrthóirí mar aon lena thuairim.
 5. Má thugann an Coiste Bainistíochta tuairim neamhfhabhrach, ní fhéadfaidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí an maoiniú áirithe a dheonú mura gcinnfidh sé é sin d'aon toil.
 6. Má thugann an Coimisiún tuairim neamhfhabhrach, ní fhéadfaidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí an maoiniú áirithe a dheonú mura gcinnfidh sé é sin d'aon toil, gan an stiúrthóir a bheidh ainmnithe ag an gCoimisiún a bheith páirteach sa vótáil.
 7. Má thugann an Coiste Bainistíochta agus an Coimisiún araon tuairim neamhfhabhrach, ní fhéadfaidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí an maoiniú a dheonú.
 8. Más gá oibríocht maoinithe a bhaineann le hinfheistíocht fhormheasta a athstruchtúrú chun cearta agus leasanna an Bhainc a chosaint, glacfaidh an Coiste Bainistíochta gan mhoill na bearta éigeandála a mheasann sé is gá, faoi réir an Bord Stiúrthóirí a chur ar an eolas faoi láithreach.
 Airteagal 20
 (sean-Airteagal 22)
 1. Gheobhaidh an Banc ar iasacht ar na margaí caipitil na cistí is gá chun a chúraimí a chomhlíonadh.
 2. Féadfaidh an Banc iasachtaí a fháil ar mhargaí caipitil na mBallstát, de réir na bhforálacha dlíthiúla a bhaineann leis na margaí sin.
 Ní fhéadfaidh údaráis inniúla Ballstáit a bhfuil maolú aige de réir bhrí Airteagal 139(1) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh cur ina choinne sin ach amháin nuair is baolach suaitheadh tromchúiseach a theacht ar mhargadh caipitil an Stáit sin.
 Airteagal 21
 (sean-Airteagal 23)
 1. Féadfaidh an Banc aon chistí dá chuid atá ar fáil agus nach bhfuil de dhíth air láithreach chun freastal dá oibleagáidí a úsáid mar a leanas:
 (a)
 féadfaidh sé infheistiú ar na margaí airgid;
 (b)
 féadfaidh sé, faoi réir fhorálacha Airteagal 18(2), urrúis a cheannach agus a dhíol;
 (c)
 féadfaidh sé aon oibríochtaí eile airgeadais a bhfuil baint acu lena chuspóirí a dhéanamh.
 2. Gan dochar d'fhorálacha Airteagal 23, ní dhéanfaidh an Banc, ag bainistí a infheistíochtaí dó, páirt a ghabháil in aon airbeatráiste airgid reatha nach gá go díreach chun a oibríochtaí iasachtúcháin a dhéanamh nó chun oibleagáidí a chomhlíonadh a d'éirigh as iasachtaí a thóg sé nó as ráthaíochtaí a thug sé.
 3. Sna réimeanna atá faoi thrácht san Airteagal seo, gníomhóidh an Banc i gcomhaontacht le húdaráis inniúla nó le banc ceannais náisiúnta an Bhallstáit atá i gceist.
 Airteagal 22
 (sean-Airteagal 24)
 1. Déanfar cúlchiste go feadh 10 % den chaipiteal suibscríofa a thiomargadh go comhleanúnach. Má bhíonn call leis mar gheall ar an staid ina bhfuil dliteanais an Bhainc, féadfaidh an Bord Stiúrthóirí cinneadh ar chúlchistí breise a chur ar bun. Go dtí go mbeidh an cúlchiste tiomargtha go hiomlán, cothófar é:
 (a)
 le hús a fuarthas ar iasachtaí a dheonaigh an Banc as suimeanna is iníoctha ag na Ballstáit de bhun Airteagal 5,
 (b)
 le hús a fuarthas ar iasachtaí a dheonaigh an Banc as cistí a fuarthas de thoradh aisíoc na n-iasachtaí dá dtagraítear i bhfomhír (a),
 sa mhéid nach bhfuil an t-ioncam sin ag teastáil faoi chomhair oibleagáidí an Bhainc nó chun a chaiteachais a íoc.
 2. Déanfar acmhainní an chúlchiste a infheistiú ar dhóigh go mbeidh siad ar fáil tráth ar bith faoi chomhair chuspóir an chiste.
 Airteagal 23
 (sean-Airteagal 25)
 1. Beidh teideal ag an mBanc gach tráth a shócmhainní in airgead reatha Ballstáit nach bhfuil an euro mar airgeadra aige a aistriú isteach chun oibríochtaí airgeadais a chur i gcrích a fhreagraíonn don chúram atá leagtha amach in Airteagal 309 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, ag cur forálacha Airteagal 21 den Reacht seo san áireamh. Seachnóidh an Banc, oiread agus is féidir, aistriú dá leithéid sin, má bhíonn airgead tirim nó sócmhainní leachtacha aige san airgead reatha atá ag teastáil.
 2. Ní fhéadfaidh an Banc a shócmhainní in airgead reatha Ballstáit nach bhfuil an euro mar airgeadra aige a shóinseáil go hairgead reatha tríú tír, gan chomhaontú an Bhallstáit sin.
 3. Féadfaidh an Banc úsáid a dhéanamh gan bhac den chuid sin dá chaipiteal atá íoctha, agus d'aon airgead reatha a fuarthas ar iasacht ar mhargaí lasmuigh den Aontas.
 4. Gabhann na Ballstáit orthu féin go gcuirfidh siad ar fáil d'fhéichiúnaithe an Bhainc an t-airgead reatha is gá chun aisíoctha an chaipitil agus chun íoctha an úis ar iasachtaí nó an choimisiúin ar ráthaíochtaí arna dtabhairt ag an mBanc le haghaidh infheistíochtaí atá le cur in éifeacht ina gcríoch.
 Airteagal 24
 (sean-Airteagal 26)
 Mura bhfreastalóidh Ballstát dá oibleagáidí mar chomhalta de dhroim an Reachta seo, agus go háirithe an oibleagáid chun a scair den chaipiteal suibscríofa a íoc nó na hiasachtaí a fuair sé a sheirbhísiú, féadfar deonú iasachtaí nó ráthaíochtaí don Bhallstát sin nó dá náisiúnaigh a fhionraí le cinneadh ón mBord Gobharnóirí.
 Ní shaorfaidh an cinneadh sin an Stát ná a náisiúnaigh óna n-oibleagáidí i leith an Bhainc.
 Airteagal 25
 (sean-Airteagal 27)
 1. Má chinneann an Bord Gobharnóirí oibríochtaí an Bhainc a fhionraí, stadfaidh a ghníomhaíochtaí uile láithreach, ach amháin na cinn is gá chun a áirithiú go ndéanfar a shócmhainní a réadú, a chosaint agus a chaomhnú agus a dhliteanais a shocrú mar is cuí.
 2. I gcás a leachtaithe, ceapfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí na leachtaitheoirí agus tabharfaidh teagaisc dóibh chun an leachtú a chur in éifeacht. Áiritheoidh sé go ndéanfar cearta bhaill na foirne a chosaint.
 Airteagal 26
 (sean-Airteagal 28)
 1. I ngach ceann de na Ballstáit, beidh ag an mBanc an inniúlacht dhlítheanach is fairsinge atá ar fáil faoina ndlíthe ag daoine dlítheanacha; féadfaidh sé, go háirithe, maoin shochorraithe nó maoin dhochorraithe a fháil nó a dhiúscairt agus féadfaidh sé bheith ina pháirtí in imeachtaí dlíthiúla.
 2. Beidh maoin an Bhainc díolmhaithe ó fhoréileamh nó díshealbhú de chineál ar bith.
 Airteagal 27
 (sean-Airteagal 29)
 Aon díospóidí a tharlóidh idir an Banc ar thaobh amháin, agus a chreidiúnaithe, a fhéichiúnaithe nó duine ar bith eile ar an taobh eile, cinnfidh na cúirteanna náisiúnta inniúla iad, ach amháin mar a bhfuil dlínse tugtha do Chúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh. Féadfaidh an Banc socrú le haghaidh eadrána a fhoráil i gconradh.
 Beidh seoladh le haghaidh seirbheála i ngach Ballstát ag an mBanc. Féadfaidh sé áfach seoladh áirithe le haghaidh seirbheála a shonrú in aon chonradh.
 Ni fhéadfar sócmhainní agus maoin an Bhainc a astú ná iad a urghabháil trí fhorghníomhú ach amháin le cinneadh cúirte.
 Airteagal 28
 (sean-Airteagal 30)
 1. Féadfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí, ag gníomhú dó d'aon toil, a chinneadh fochomhlachtaí nó eintitis eile a bhunú a mbeidh pearsantacht dhlítheanach agus uathriail airgeadais acu.
 2. Bunóidh an Bord Gobharnóirí Reachtanna na gcomhlachtaí dá dtagraítear i mír 1 trí chinneadh d'aon toil. Saineofar leis na Reachtanna go háirithe a gcuspóirí, a struchtúr, a gcaipiteal, a gcomhaltas, a suíomh, a n-acmhainní airgeadais, a modhanna idirghabhála agus a socruithe iniúchóireachta maille leis an ngaol idir iad agus orgáin an Bhainc.
 3. Féadfaidh an Banc a bheith rannpháirteach i mbainistíocht na gcomhlachtaí sin agus ranníocaíocht a dhéanamh i leith a gcaipitil shuibscríofa go feadh méid arna shainiú ag an mBord Gobharnóirí, ag gníomhú dó d'aon toil.
 4. Beidh feidhm ag an bPrótacal ar phribhléidí agus díolúintí an Aontais Eorpaigh maidir leis na comhlachtaí dá dtagraítear i mír 1 a mhéid a bheidh siad corpraithe faoi dhlí an Aontais, le comhaltaí a n-orgán i gcomhlíonadh a ndualgas sa cháil sin dóibh agus lena bhfoireann, faoi na téarmaí agus na coinníollacha céanna is infheidhme maidir leis an mBanc.
 Ar a shon sin, na díbhinní, na gnóthachain chaipitiúla nó na saghsanna eile ioncaim a thig ó chomhlachtaí den sórt sin a mbeidh na comhaltaí, seachas an tAontas Eorpach agus an Banc, ina dteideal, fanfaidh siad faoi réir fhorálacha fioscacha na reachtaíochta is infheidhme.
 5. Laistigh de na teorainneacha atá leagtha síos anseo thíos, beidh dlínse ag Cúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh i ndíospóidí a bhaineann le bearta arna nglacadh ag orgáin chomhlachta atá corpraithe faoi dhlí an Aontais. Féadfaidh aon chomhalta de chomhlacht den sórt sin ina cháil mar chomhalta nó na Ballstáit imeachtaí i gcoinne bearta den sórt sin a thionscnamh faoi na coinníollacha atá leagtha síos in Airteagal 263 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 6. Féadfaidh an Bord Gobharnóirí, ag gníomhú dó d'aon toil, a chinneadh foireann comhlachtaí atá corpraithe faoi dhlí an Aontais a ligean isteach i scéimeanna comhpháirteacha leis an mBanc, ar cothrom leis na nósanna imeachta inmheánacha faoi seach.


type: caselaw

text:
 21.12.2013
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 C 377/11
 Решение на Общия съд от 8 ноември 2013 г. — Kessel/СХВП — Janssen-Cilag (Premeno)
 (Дело T-536/10) (1)
 (Марка на Общността - Производство по възражение - Заявка за словна марка на Общността „Premeno“ - По-ранна национална словна марка „Pramino“ - Доказателство за реалното използване на по-ранната марка - Член 42, параграфи 2 и 3 от Регламент (ЕО) No 207/2009 - Ограничаване на стоките, посочени в заявката за марка - Член 43, параграф 1 от Регламент No 207/2009)
 2013/C 377/26
 Език на производството: немски
 Страни
 Жалбоподател: Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH (Mörfelden-Walldorf, Германия) (представители: първоначално S. Bund, впоследствие A. Jacob, avocats)
 Ответник: Служба за хармонизация във вътрешния пазар (марки, дизайни и модели) (представители: първоначално B. Schmidt, впоследствие D. Walicka)
 Друга страна в производството пред апелативния състав на СХВП, встъпила в производството пред Общия съд: Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Neuss, Германия) (представител: M. Wenz, avocat)
 Предмет
 Жалба срещу решението на четвърти апелативен състав на СХВП от 21 септември 2010 г. (дело R 708/2010-4) относно производство по възражение между Janssen-Cilag GmbH и Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH
 Диспозитив
 1.
 Отменя решението на четвърти апелативен състав на Службата за хармонизация във вътрешния пазар (марки, дизайни и модели) (СХВП) от 21 септември 2010 г. (дело R 708/2010 4).
 2.
 СХВП понася направените от нея съдебни разноски, както и тези на Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH.
 3.
 Janssen-Cilag GmbH понася направените от него съдебни разноски.
 (1) ОВ C 30, 29.1.2011 г.


type: wikipedia

text:
 1149 (MCXLIX) a fost un an obișnuit al calendarului iulian.
 Evenimente
 11 ianuarie: Ultima rezistență a almoravizilor din Spania, condusă de Yahya Ben Ghania, este zdrobită de almohazi pe câmpurile Granadei; generalul almohad Barraz capturează pe ultimii susținători ai almoravizilor și totodată respinge încercările creștinilor de a prelua noi așezări din Andalusia.
 29 iunie: Bătălia de la Font-Muret (Inab): Nur ad-Din, emirul de Alep, și Shirkuh (unchiul lui Saladin) înfrâng pe cruciații din Principatul Antiohiei; principele Raymond de Poitiers cade în luptă, iar capul lui este trimis ca trofeu califului din Bagdad.
 26 iulie: Capitularea cruciaților din Apamea; atabegul de Alep, Nur ad-Din încheie recuperarea fostului comitat al Edessei și preia de la principatul de Antiohia ultimele stăpâniri cruciate de dincolo de Orontes (Apamea, Albara, Artah).
 27 iulie: Cneazul Iuri Dolgoruki de Rostov-Suzdal atacă Kievul, declanșând lupta cu nepotul său, marele cneaz Iziaslav al II-lea.
 28 iulie: Conducătorii Cruciadei a doua decid să revină în Europa.
 29 iulie: Întors din cruciadă, regele Ludovic al VII-lea al Franței debarcă în Calabria.
 august: Întâlnirea de la Potenza dintre regele Ludovic al VII-lea al Franței și regele Roger al II-lea al Siciliei; Franța este atrasă de perspectivele unei cruciade împotriva Bizanțului, abatele Suger și Bernard de Clairvaux făcând planuri pentru aceasta; momentan, opinia publică din Occident se menține reticentă față de această inițiativă.
 23 august: Victorios asupra marelui cneaz Iziaslav al II-lea, Iuri Dolgoruki ocupă Kievul; mitropolitul de Kiev, Klim, părăsește orașul.
 9-10 octombrie: Papa Eugeniu al III-lea se întâlnește la Frascati cu regele Ludovic al VII-lea al Franței și cu regina Eleanor de Aquitania, căutând să îi reconcilieze.
 24 octombrie: Creștinii din Spania recuceresc Lerida de la mauri.
 25 decembrie: Împăratul Manuel I Comnen încheie o alianță cu împăratul Conrad al III-lea de Hohenstaufen, cel din urmă obligându-se să îi atace pe normanzii lui Roger al II-lea.
 Nedatate
 Ala Al-Din Al-Husayn întemeiază dinastia gurizilor în Ghor (Afghanistan).
 Autoproclamat drept campion al Islamului, emirul Nur ad-Din al Alepului ia numeroase măsuri împotriva șiiților, pe care îi acuză de colaborare cu cruciații.
 Împăratul Manuel I Comnen al Bizanțului recuperează Corfu de la normanzii lui Roger al II-lea, cu sprijinul aliaților săi venețieni.
 Orașul danez Aarhus obține privilegii.
 Răscoală a sârbilor și ungurilor împotriva Bizanțului, cu sprijin financiar din partea regelui Roger al II-lea al Siciliei.
 Arte, științe, literatură și filozofie
 15 iulie: Este inaugurat Sfântul Mormânt din Ierusalim, aflat în curs de reconstrucție.
 Bernard de Clairvaux începe redactarea tratatului De Consideratione, dedicate papei Eugeniu al III-lea.
 Emirul de Alep, Nur ad-Din, întemeiază numeroase școli (medrese).
 Geoffrey of Monmouth scrie Vita Merlini.
 Înscăunări
 28 august: Mujir ad-Din Abaq, regent al Damascului.
 Ala Al-Din Al-Husayn, rege al dinastiei Ghurid (1149-1161).
 Nașteri
 Alberto Avogadro, patriarh latin de Ierusalim (d. 1214).
 Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, teolog și filosof persan (d. 1209).
 Decese
 27 iunie: Raymond de Poitiers, principe de Antiohia (n. 1099)
 28 august: Muinaddin Unur, regent al Damascului (n. ?)
 Vezi și
 Listă de conducători de stat din 1149
 1149


text:
 22.5.2014
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 L 154/39
 DECISIONE DEL COMITATO MISTO SEE
 N. 236/2013
 del 13 dicembre 2013
 che modifica l'allegato XIII (Trasporti) dell'accordo SEE
 IL COMITATO MISTO SEE,
 visto l'accordo sullo Spazio economico europeo (in seguito denominato «l'accordo SEE»), in particolare l'articolo 98,
 considerando quanto segue:
 (1)
 Occorre integrare nell'accordo SEE il regolamento di esecuzione (UE) n. 1207/2011 della Commissione, del 22 novembre 2011, che stabilisce requisiti di prestazione e interoperabilità per la sorveglianza del cielo unico europeo (1).
 (2)
 Occorre pertanto modificare opportunamente l'allegato XIII dell'accordo SEE,
 HA ADOTTATO LA PRESENTE DECISIONE:
 Articolo 1
 Dopo il punto 66wk [Regolamento di esecuzione (UE) n. 923/2012 della Commissione] dell'allegato XIII dell'accordo SEE è inserito il seguente punto:
 «66wl.
 32011 R 1207: Regolamento di esecuzione (UE) n. 1207/2011 della Commissione, del 22 novembre 2011, che stabilisce requisiti di prestazione e interoperabilità per la sorveglianza del cielo unico europeo (GU L 305 del 23.11.2011, pag. 35)».
 Articolo 2
 I testi del regolamento di esecuzione (UE) n. 1207/2011 nelle lingue islandese e norvegese, da pubblicare nel supplemento SEE della Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea, fanno fede.
 Articolo 3
 La presente decisione entra in vigore il 14 dicembre 2013, a condizione che siano pervenute tutte le notifiche previste dall'articolo 103, paragrafo 1, dell'accordo SEE (2), oppure, se successivo, il giorno in cui entra in vigore la decisione del Comitato misto SEE n. 228/2013 del 13 dicembre 2013 (3).
 Articolo 4
 La presente decisione è pubblicata nella sezione SEE e nel supplemento SEE della Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea.
 Fatto a Bruxelles, il 13 dicembre 2013
 Per il Comitato misto SEE
 Il presidente
 Thórir IBSEN
 (1) GU L 305 del 23.11.2011, pag. 35.
 (2) Non è stata comunicata l'esistenza di obblighi costituzionali.
 (3) Cfr. Pag 25 della presente Gazzetta ufficiale.


jurisdiction: US

text:
This suit was brought in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, on March 3, 1943. The plaintiff is the receiver of the Eastern Mutual Casualty Co., and the defendants, who are the appellants here, are policy holders of that Company, upon whom an assessment of once the amount of the annual premiums called for by their policies had been made. The suit was to collect the assessments on four policies. Appellants filed a general issue plea, and a general plea of limitation, and subsequently, by leave of Court, an additional plea setting up the provisions of the Act of 1941, Chapter 296, codified as Section 155A of Article 48A of the 1943 Supplement to Flack's Annotated Code. This section provides that no action shall be brought against the policy holder of a domestic or foreign mutual insurance company for the purpose of enforcing an assessment more than one year after the termination of said policy, unless such policy holder shall have been notified of such assessment within one year after the termination of his policy. A demurrer was filed to this additional plea, but on January 5, 1944, by leave of Court, plaintiff filed an amended declaration. The original declaration alleged that an assessment against the policy holders had been ratified by order of *Page 693
 the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, on March 4, 1940. The amended declaration set out that the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, on the fourth day of March, 1940, passed an order making an assessment upon each policy holder and further set out that this order had been reviewed by this Court and held to be valid. The reference is to the case of Joyce v. Abrams, 178 Md. 535,16 A.2d 296, in which it was held that directors could not validly make an assessment against members after the affairs of the company were in receivership, but that the chancellor who had assumed jurisdiction over the corporation, possessed that power. The result of that case was that the order of March 4, 1940, was reinstated as an action of the chancellor making the assessment, instead of an action of the chancellor ratifying the directors' assessment.
 The appellants filed four pleas to the amended declaration. The first was the general issue; the second, the ordinary three-year plea of limitations; the third, that the cause of action did not accrue within three years prior to the date of the filing of the amended declaration; and the fourth, that defendants were not notified of the assessments made against them within one year after the termination of their policies. Demurrers were filed to pleas 3 and 4 and were sustained by the lower Court. This action of the Court we are asked to review.
 The case proceeded to trial and resulted in issues being submitted to the jury, and answered by them on January 13, 1944. Subsequently, on January 20, 1944, judgment was entered in favor of the appellee against the appellants for $576.05 with interest and costs of suit. This amount was admittedly arrived at by the Court by taking the total of the annual premiums on three of the policies sued on, and adding interest at six per cent. Claim on the fourth policy was abandoned during the trial. Appellants objected to the action of the Court in entering this judgment, and filed a motion in arrest thereof. The ground of the motion was that they had asked for a trial by jury, and the action of the Court in entering judgment *Page 694
 after the jury responded to issues which did not include fixing any amount was a denial of that right. This motion was overruled both because it came too late under the rules of the Court, and because the Court found no merit in it. Numerous exceptions apparently were taken during the course of the trial to rulings on evidence and to prayers, and to the issues submitted to the jury by the Court. These are embodied in the bill of exceptions, which is objected to by the appellee because it was filed after the term at which the verdict was given, and there was no extension by the Court within such term of the time of signing such bill of exceptions. A motion to dismiss was filed based upon this ground. In this complicated state of affairs, it becomes advisable for us, first, to examine the record to see what is before us on this appeal.
 The Court below certified that the case was tried on January 13, 1944, during the October term, 1943, and the jury's verdict was rendered on that day; that the October term, 1943, was finally adjourned on Monday, January 17, 1944; that the 29th Rule of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County provides that in every case, unless otherwise expressly allowed by the Court, the bill of exceptions shall be prepared and submitted to the Court during the term at which such exceptions are taken; that on February 26, 1944, counsel for the defendants (appellants here) requested him to sign an order extending the time for signing the bill of exceptions, which he refused to sign; that the bill of exceptions were not presented to him until April 4, 1944, and that he signed it on April 13, 1944, "over the protest of the plaintiff's counsel". The harshness of the application of the rule of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County is exemplified in this case by the fact that only four days elapsed from the date of the verdict to the adjournment of the term. Nevertheless, the rule is one under which the Court operated, and the decisions of this Court are clear that if the time is not extended within the original time limited, the Court has no power to sign *Page 695
 the bill of exceptions after the original time, and that a bill of exceptions so signed cannot be considered by this Court.Nicholson v. Walters, 153 Md. 16, 137 A. 357. It is true that such bills of exception may be signed if the parties consent, and such consent may be express on inferred. The appellee may be held to have waived his objection or to be estopped from making any.Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Reeley, 179 Md. 35, 16 A.2d 904; Morganv. Toot, 182 Md. 601. 35 A.2d 641. In the case before us, however, the appellee neither consented nor waived the objection he actually made, and the Court signed the bill of exceptions over his protest. We must, therefore, apply the rule and decline to consider any of the matters raised by the bill of exceptions.
 A motion in arrest of judgment, under the 28th rule of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, as certified by the trial Court, must be filed during the term at which the verdict is rendered, and within three days after the day on which the verdict is rendered. The verdict in this case, as already stated, was rendered on January 13, 1944. Motion in arrest was filed on February 14, 1944. This motion, therefore, came to late and the Court below was correct in overruling it on this ground.
 However, the question raised involves one of our own rules, which gives the right of appeal, and the decision of the lower Court is before us, not on the ruling on the motion in arrest but on direct appeal.
 The contention is that the Court submitted issues under Rule 7 of Part Three, Section III, of the General Rules of Practice and Procedure of this Court, 1941, that such issues did not constitute a complete trial by jury, as elected by the defendants, and that the entry of the judgment by the Court, where the docket entries show no verdict for a specific sum, did not constitute a final and effective judgment. Rule 7 provides for the submission of written questions. If, in such questions, the Court omits any issue of fact raised by the pleas, or by the evidence, each party waives his right to a trial by jury of the issue so omitted, unless before the jury retires, *Page 696
 he demands its submission to the jury. "As to an issue omitted without such demand, the Court may make a finding; or if it fails to do so, it shall be deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict. Upon the return of the special verdict of the jury the Court shall direct the entry of the appropriate judgment in accordance with this rule". It appears from the certificate of the trial Court that appellants did not request any issues on the amount of the annual premiums, or on the allowance of interest thereon, to be submitted to the jury. Therefore, under the rule the Court had authority to enter a judgment after the special findings of the jury had been received. The judgment is reviewable in the same way as a judgment in a case tried before a Court without a jury, under Rule 9, subsection (c), according to the specific direction of Rule 7, subsection (b). Therefore it is correctly before us on this appeal.
 There was no dispute as to the amount of the premiums. Where there is a contract or obligation for the payment of a definite sum of money, the measure of damages is the amount of money promised to be paid with legal interest, and the allowance of interest is a matter of legal right. Poe's Pleading, Tiffany's Edition, par. 584C, and cases cited. The Court, in allowing interest, did not exceed its discretion, under the circumstances, and its action in entering the judgment, as it did, does not constitute error. The judgment, therefore, should be affirmed if this is the only objection to it.
 The remaining questions before us are the right of the trial Court to permit an amended declaration to be filed, and its ruling on the demurrer to the appellants' third and fourth pleas to this declaration. The right of amendment at law is contained in Flack's Annotated Code, 1939, Volume 2, Art. 75, § 39. It is there provided that in all suits at law, any of the proceedings may be amended so that such case may be tried on its real merits, and the purposes of justice subserved. Under this section, the plaintiff may amend his declaration at *Page 697
 any time before the jury retires, and the allowance of an amendment, provided it is within the power of the trial Court, is not subject to appeal. It is stated in Poe's Practice,
 Tiffany's Edition, Chapter XI, Sec. 185, that the general rule is that returns of summons and all subsequent proceedings may be amended, and even that cases may, by amendment, be changed from one form of action to another. In Section 190 it is said, "* * * it appears to be more or less settled that from the action of the lower Court in granting an amendment in cases within their power or in refusing to grant it, no appeal will lie. Such action is held to be within the discretion of the Court and not subject to review". See cases cited under this section and Frisch v.Baltimore, 156 Md. 310, 144 A. 478, and Noellert v. Noellert,169 Md. 559, 182 A. 427. The contention of the appellants is that the amended declaration is laid on a new cause of action, because the first declaration was upon an assessment made by the directors and ratified by the Court, whereas, the second declaration is based upon an assessment made by the Court. But the difficulty with this contention is that the case of Joyce v.Abrams, supra, held that the order of March 4, 1940, while not good as a ratification, was good as an original assessment. The original declaration in this case, and the amended declaration, both declare on this order, and therefore the amendment does not substitute a new and different cause of action. We think it was within the power of the lower Court to allow this amendment, and that no appeal lies from the exercise of the Court's discretion with respect to it.
 The demurrer to the third plea was properly sustained because it alleges that the cause of action did not accrue within three years prior to the date of the filing of the amended declaration. The period of limitation must elapse prior to the date of the filing of the suit, unless the cause of action is changed. (Zierv. Chesapeake R. Co., 98 Md. 35, pages 40, 41, 56 A. 385.) The cause of action here is the same.
 The fourth plea brings up a construction of Chapter 296 of the Acts of 1941, Code Supp. 1943, Art. 48A, *Page 698
 Sec. 155A. This section was construed in the case of Kelch v.Keehn, 183 Md. 141, 36 A.2d 544. In that case a plea was filed by the policy holder, to the effect that he was not notified of any assessment within one year after the termination date of his policy, and the suit was not filed until more than a year after June 1, 1941, when the Chapter 296 took effect. The policies terminated in 1935 and 1936. The question in that case, raised by the policy holder's plea, was whether the action begun on March 19, 1943, was barred by limitations, by reason of the Act of 1941. This Court said that, except for Chapter 296, the period of limitation applicable would be three years from the date of the assessment. This Court further said that in the case before it, the notice provisions in Chapter 296 could not apply, as notification of the assessment within one year after the termination of the policies was impossible on June 1, 1941, the effective date of the statute. As the notice could not be given, the case did not come within the exception, but there was ample time from June 1, 1941, until June 1, 1942, to bring the action. As the action was not brought within one year, the plea set up a complete defense. In the case at bar, the assessment was made on the 4th day of March, 1940. One policy sued on is alleged to have been received and accepted on January 3, 1939, which would make its termination date January 3, 1940. Another was accepted on September 6, 1939, which would makes its termination date October 2, 1939. The third was accepted October 2, 1938, and its termination date would be October 2, 1939. It was therefore impossible for the appellants to be notified of the assessment on two of these policies after June 1, 1941, and within one year after their termination. If they had not been notified as provided by the Act then suits had to be brought within one year after June 1, 1941 (Kelch v. Keehn, supra). The suit was not brought until March 3, 1943. As to two of the policies, therefore, the suit was not brought in time, and as to the third one, it was not brought in time, unless the appellants were *Page 699
 notified prior to September 5, 1941, of the assessment on it. The appellants, therefore, have a complete bar by way of limitations to two of these policies, and a possible bar to the third, depending on the facts.
 Appellants' fourth plea is not as full as the similar plea in the case of Kelch v. Keehn, supra. In the case before us, the plea recites that the defendants were not notified of the assessments within one year after the termination of the policies, but it does not further set out the suit was not filed within a year after June 1, 1941, when Chapter 296 of that year took effect. Pleas of limitation are not favored in the law and must be strictly construed. They cannot be amended, Code 1939, Art. 75, § 47. They must be filed in the manner and at the times provided by rules of Court, and they must contain sufficient information to act as a bar to the action, if the facts alleged are proved. The omission from the plea in this case, of the allegation that the suit was not filed within one year after June 1, 1941, is not, however, fatal. That fact is one which is before the Court from the docket entries and from its own records. The pleaders had a right to assume that the Court could look at the record in the case before it, and see whether the case had been brought within the time limited by the act, if notice of the assessment had not been given. All that was necessary for the pleaders to do, therefore, was to state in their plea the facts which did not appear from the record and which they would have to prove to sustain their plea. Pleas of limitations do not deny the right of action, but only the exercise of that right within the time provided by law. For that reason Courts have been strict in their construction. Nevertheless, these pleas are based upon a sound legal principle which is that after the specified lapse of time the Legislature feels that the difficulty of making a defense is so enhanced that a defendant ought not to be required to answer. If the defendants show by their plea, coupled with the indisputable fact of the date of the filing of the suit in which the plea is entered, that the suit is too late, it would not promote the ends of justice *Page 700
 to say that the plea is bad, because one fact which is to be found in the record is left out of the plea. We do not so say. We think the plea is good, and that the demurrer to it should have been overruled.
 The purpose of pleading was stated by this Court in the case ofGott v. State, 44 Md. 319, at page 336, in the following words: "Substance is to be considered the purpose of pleading — whilst the forms prescribed by the Code, or any other of like character, to suit the facts of the case, may be used; the Courts must have regard to the substance of the pleading — facts only are to be stated, not arguments, inferences, or matter of law or evidence, or of which the Court will take notice, ex officio." This case has been approved with special reference to pleas of limitations in the cases of Wallace v. Schaub, 81 Md. 594, page 597, 32 A. 324, and Brooks v. Preston, 106 Md. 693, at page 704,68 A. 294.
 Had the demurrer been overruled, the plea would have offered an absolute defense to two of the policies, because, as we have said, and as was said in the case of Kelch v. Keehn, it was impossible for notification of the assessment on these policies to have been made within one year after their termination on the effective date of the statute, that one-year period having expired prior thereto. As to the other policy, it is possible that notice was given, in which case the time for prosecuting the suit would have been within three years after the date of the assessment. If such notice was given after June 1, 1941, and before September 5, 1941, the suit was brought within time. The question whether or not notice was given as to this policy is, therefore, a matter of fact for the jury. While the judgment must be reversed, the plaintiff is entitled to a new trial, in order to have an opportunity to contest the allegations of the plea as to this policy.
 Judgment reversed and new trial awarded with costs to theappellants.


type: other

text:
OK at anvende forkortet opsigelsesvarsel
 En arbejdsgiver er ikke forpligtet til at acceptere en sygemeldt medarbejders tilbud om at vende tilbage på deltid. Derfor er arbejdsgiverens afvisning af et sådant tilbud også uden betydning for beregningen af antal sygedage efter 120-dagesreglen.
 En klinikassistent blev den 8. november 2013 sygemeldt fra sit fuldtidsarbejde hos en tandlæge. Den 19. december 2013 meddelte klinikassistenten, at hun kunne vende tilbage til sit arbejde på deltid den 6. januar 2014. Dette afviste tandlægen imidlertid med henvisning til klinikkens drift. Klinikassistenten genoptog sit arbejde den 3. februar 2014, men blev sygemeldt igen den 13. februar 2014. Tandlægen opsagde herefter klinikassistenten den 21. marts 2014 med henvisning til 120-dagesreglen i funktionærlovens § 5, stk. 2.
 Højesteret tog under sagen stilling til, om tandlægens afslag på klinikassistentens tilbud om at vende tilbage på deltid i perioden 6. januar – 3. februar 2014 havde betydning for opgørelsen af klinikassistentens sygedage i denne periode.
 Tandlægen havde beregnet sygedagene i perioden på baggrund af klinikassistentens faktiske fuldtidssygefravær. Klinikassistenten mente derimod, at hendes sygefravær i perioden skulle beregnes, som omhun havde arbejdet på deltid.
 Højesteret udtalte, at en arbejdsgiver ikke har pligt til at acceptere, at en funktionær, som er delvis uarbejdsdygtig på grund af sygdom, arbejder på nedsat tid.
 Højesteret kom derfor frem til, at en arbejdsgivers afslag på et sådant tilbud heller ikke kan medføre, at funktionærens sygefravær ikke kan medregnes fuldt ud i beregningen af sygedage efter 120-dagesreglen.
 Højesteret tog herefter stilling til, om klinikassistenten havde ret til godtgørelse for usaglig afskedigelse efter funktionærlovens § 2 b.
 Højesteret udtalte, at en opsigelse efter 120-dagesreglen som udgangspunkt må anses for rimeligt begrundet, og at det derfor kræver ganske særlige omstændigheder for at tilkende godtgørelse. Højesteret anså ikke, at der var tale om ganske særlige omstændigheder i sagen.
 Højesteret frifandt på denne baggrund tandlægen.
 Dommen er udtryk for, at en arbejdsgiver ikke er forpligtet til at acceptere en delvis sygemelding fra en medarbejder, og at arbejdsgivers afvisning af en medarbejders deltidssygemelding som alternativ til fuldtidssygemelding indebærer, at sygefraværet skal medtælles fuldt ud – som en fuldtidssygemelding – ved optællingen af de 120 sygedage.
 Læs Højesterets dom af den 22. november 2017.