text:
 Avviż Legali Importanti
 |
 52005PC0381(01)
 Proposta għal Deċiżjoni tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill li tintroduċi reġim simplifikat għall-kontroll ta’ persuni fuq il-fruntieri esterni li jkun ibbażat fuq l-għarfien unilaterali mir-Repubblika Ċeka, l-Estonja, Ċipru, il-Latvja, il-Litwanja, l-Ungerija, Malta, il-Polonja, s-Slovenja u is-Slovakkja ta’ ċerti dokumenti bħala ekwivalenti għall-viżi nazzjonali tagħhom għal skopijiet ta’ tranżitu mit-territorji tagħhom /* KUMM/2005/0381 finali - COD 2005/0158 */
 [pic] | KUMMISSJONI TAL-KOMUNITAJIET EWROPEJ |Brussel 22.8.2005KUMM(2005) 381 finali2005/0158 (COD)2005/0159 (COD)Proposta għalDEĊIŻJONI TAL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U TAL-KUNSILLli tintroduċi reġim simplifikat għall-kontroll ta’ persuni fuq il-fruntieri esterni li jkun ibbażat fuq l-għarfien unilaterali mir-Repubblika Ċeka, l-Estonja, Ċipru, il-Latvja, il-Litwanja, l-Ungerija, Malta, il-Polonja, s-Slovenja u is-Slovakkja ta’ ċerti dokumenti bħala ekwivalenti għall-viżi nazzjonali tagħhom għal skopijiet ta’ tranżitu mit-territorji tagħhomProposta għalDEĊIŻJONI TAL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U TAL-KUNSILLli tistabbilixxi reġim simplifikat għall-kontroll ta’ persuni fuq il-fruntieri esterni li jkun ibbażat fuq l-għarfien unilaterali mill-Istati Membri ta’ ċerti permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa mill-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein għal skopijiet ta’ tranżitu mit-territorji tagħhom.(preżentati mill-Kummissjoni)MEMORANDUM TA’ SPJEGAZZJONI1. DAĦLAL-għarfien reċiproku tad-dokumenti ta’ l-ivvjaġġar li jinħarġu minn Stati Membri oħra huwa wieħed mill-prinċipji bażiċi tal-ħolqien ta’ żona mingħajr fruntieri interni. L-għan ta’ dan il-prinċipju huwa li jkun possibbli għal ċittadin ta’ pajjiż terz li jkollu fil-pussess tiegħu ċerti dokumenti maħruġa minn Stat Membru li jkun qed jipparteċipa b’mod sħiħ fiż-żona komuni li jidħol u/jew jgħix b’mod ħieles fl-ispazju komuni mingħajr ma jkun soġġett għal xi kriterji addizzjonali oħrajn. Il-prekundizzjonijiet biex dan il-prinċipju jkun implimentat b’suċċess huma l-preżenza ta’ fiduċja u konfidenza bejn l-imsieħba f’dak li għandu x’jaqsam mas-sigurtà tad-dokument u l-istħarriġ xieraq tal-persuni li jkun ibbażat fuq kriterji u proċeduri komuni ħalli jkun evitat kwalunkwe riskju marbut mal-mobilità ta’ din il-kategorija ta’ persuni.L-“ acquis ” ta’ Schengen preżenti jistabbilixxi l-prinċipju ta’ l-għarfien komuni ta’ viża uniformi (Art.10 tal-Konvenzjoni tad-19 ta’ Ġunju 1990 li timplementa t-Trattat ta’ Schengen ta’ l-14 ta’ Ġunju 1985 bejn il-gvernijiet ta’ l-Istati ta’ l-unjoni ekonomika tal-Benelux, ir-Repubblika Federali tal-Ġermanja u r-Repubblika Franċiża dwar l-abolizzjoni gradwali tal-kontrolli fuq il-fruntieri komuni tagħhom (minn hawn 'il quddiem “il-Konvenzjoni ta' Schengen”)[1], li huwa kkonfermat bl-Artikolu 2 tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 539/2001[2] li jgħid li viża maħruġa minn Stat Membru tal-Konvenzjoni ta’ Schengen hija valida wkoll biex wieħed jaqsam, għal perjodu qasir jew għal tranżitu, il-fruntieri esterni ta’ Stat Membru ieħor li huwa msieħeb fil-Konvenzjoni ta’ Schengen. Id-dispożizzjonijiet preżenti ta’ Schengen (l-Artikoli 18 u 21 tal-Konvenzjoni ta’ Schengen) jipprevedu wkoll sistema ta’ għarfien reċiproku ta’ viżi u permessi ta’ residenza għal perjodi twal li jinħarġu mill-Istati Membri li jimplimentaw b’mod sħiħ l- acquis ta’ Schengen. Din is-sistema ta’ għarfien reċiproku tkopri t-tranżitu (l-Artikolu 18) kif ukoll ir-residenza għal perjodi qosra (l-Artikolu 21).Sa fejn l-Istati Membri l-ġodda huma kkonċernati, dak li jissejjaħ “il-proċess ta’ implimentazzjoni f’żewġ stadji ta’ Schengen” ikkontemplat fl-Artikolu 3 ta’ l-Att tas-Sħubija, jimplika fir-rigward tad-dispożizzjonijiet tal-viża, li għalkemm dawn iridu japplikaw, sa mis-sħubija tagħhom, id-dispożizzjonijiet tar-Regolament (KE) 539/2001, u għalhekk jimponu fuq iċ-ċittadini tal-pajjiżi terzi mniżżla fl-Anness 1 il-bżonn ta’ viża, dawn iridu jkomplu joħorġu l-viżi nazzjonali tagħhom sa l-adozzjoni tad-Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill li tawtorizza l-integrazzjoni sħiħa tagħhom fiż-żona ta’ Schengen.Id-definizzjoni tal-viża ta’ Schengen fl-Artikolu 2 tar-Regolament Nru 539/2001 teskludi l-possibiltà li viża għal perjodu qasir u maħruġa minn Stat li jimplimenta b’mod sħiħ l- acquis ta’ Schengen tkun tista’ titqies bħala waħda ekwivalenti għal viża nazzjonali maħruġa minn Stat Membru ieħor li ma jkunx integra ruħu b’mod sħiħ fiż-żona komuni. Dan biex l-Istat Membru ta’ l-aħħar ma jkunx jista’, fuq il-bażi ta’ dan in-nuqqas ta' ekwivalenza, jawtorizza t-tranżitu u r-residenza fit-territorju tiegħu ta’ ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi b’obbligu ta’ viża mingħajr ma jitlob il-viża nazzjonali tiegħu stess. Barra minn hekk, ir-Regolament ma jipprevedix l-ewkivalenza bejn il-permessi ta’ residenza u l-viżi.Aktar minn hekk, ir-regoli ta’ l-għarfien ta’ Schengen li jgħoddu għal tranżitu u residenza ta’ perjodu qasir ma japplikawx mas-sħubija ta’ l-Istati Membri l-ġodda bl-istess mod kif japplikaw għall-Istati Membri l-qodma. Għalhekk, l-Istati Membri l-ġodda għandhom l-obbligu li mas-sħubija tagħhom joħorġu viżi nazzjonali għad-dħul fi u għat-tranżitu mit-territorju tagħhom, għal ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi b’obbligu ta’ viża taħt ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 539/2001, anke jekk il-persuni kkonċernati jkollhom permess ta’ residenza jew viża ta’ Schengen jew inkella jkollhom viżi nazzjonali għal perjodu twil maħruġa minn Stat ta’ Schengen.Għalkemm id-dispożizzjonijiet kollha ta’ l-“ acquis ta’ Schengen” fuq il-fruntieri esterni, inkluż l-Artikolu 5(3) tal-Konvenzjoni Schengen, tpoġġew fil-kategorija tad-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ Schengen biex ikunu applikati mas-sħubija mill-Istati Membri l-ġodda fir-relazzjonijiet reċiproċi tagħhom u fir-relazzjonijiet ta’ bejn l-Istati Membri l-ġodda u dawk qodma[3], dan fih innifsu ma jimplikax reġim ta’ għarfien reċiproku obbligatorju ta’ permessi ta’ residenza għall-qsim tal-fruntieri esterni. Dan minħabba li element bażiku indispensabbli għal dan ir-reġim ta’ għarfien reċiproku – jiġifieri l-lista ta’ permessi ta’ residenza kkonċernati u pprovduta mill-Anness XI tal-Manwal Komuni – kien eskluż deliberatament u espliċitament mill-kategorija I (id-dispożizzjonijiet li jgħoddu mas-sħubija). Dan huwa konsistenti mal-fatt li d-dispożizzjonijiet kollha ta’ l- acquis ta’ Schengen li jistabbilixxu reġim ta’ għarfien reċiproku ta’ dokumenti (viżi, permessi ta’ residenza,...) tpoġġew fil-kategorija II (dispożizzjonijiet li għandhom jibdew jgħoddu minn data li għandha tkun stabbilita mill-Kunsill). L-Artikolu 5(3) jiddefinixxi u jillimita biss il-kundizzjonijiet għad-dħul li jeħtieġ ikun ikkontrollat.Bl-istess mod, l-Artikolu 5(1) għandu x’jaqsam mal-kundizzjonijiet għad-dħul ta’ ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi li jkunu jeħtieġu viża, mingħajr ma jistabbilixxi l-għarfien reċiproku ta’ viżi għal perjodu qasir. L-Artikolu 5(1) jibni fuq is-sistema ta’ għarfien reċiproku obbligatorju għall-viża għal perjodu qasir li hija stabbilita bl-Artikolu 10 tal-Konvenzjoni ta’ Schengen. Dan l-Artikolu 5(1), li jgħodd ukoll għall-Istati Membri l-ġodda mid-data tas-sħubija, ma jobbligax lill-Istati Membri l-qodma ta’ Schengen biex jagħrfu viżi maħruġa mill-Istati Membri l-ġodda; lanqas ma jobbliga lill-Istati Membri l-ġodda biex jagħrfu l-viżi ta’ Schengen.Barra minn hekk, l-Artikolu 5(3) jgħodd biss għal ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi li jkollhom permess ta’ residenza u li jkunu jridu jgħaddu minn fuq it-territorju ta’ Stat Membru ieħor biex imorru lura lejn il-post tar-residenza tagħhom; dan ma jgħoddx għal dawk il-persuni li jkunu jridu jgħaddu minn fuq it-territorju ta’ Stat Membru biex jivvjaġġaw mill-Istat Membru tar-residenza lejn pajjiż terz. Il-faċilità li hemm fl-Artikolu 5(3) lanqas ma tapplika għal dawk il-persuni li jkollhom viża ta’ żjara qasira. Għalhekk, din id-dispożizzjoni ma tagħtix soluzzjoni xierqa għal ħafna mill-problemi deskritti hawn fuq.Qabel is-sħubija tagħom fl-Unjoni Ewropea, ċerti Stati Membri ġodda, minħabba l-pożizzjoni ġeografika tagħhom fuq it-toroq ewlenin ta’ tranżitu, fil-prattika għarfu l-viżi uniformi ta’ perjodu qasir, il-viżi ta’ żjara twila u l-permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa mill-istati ta’ Schengen għat-tranżitu u/jew għal għan ta’ perjodu qasir bħala li huma ekwivalenti għall-viżi nazzjonali tagħhom. L-għarfien ta’ dawn id-dokumenti kien ibbażat fuq il-ftehim bilaterali li kienu ntlaħqu bejn l-Istati Membri l-ġodda u l-pajjiżi terzi jew inkella fuq deċiżjonijiet nazzjonali unilaterali[4]. L-Istati Membri l-ġodda saħqu dwar id-diffikultajiet amministrattivi li qed jiffaċċjaw minn mindu ssieħbu fl-Unjoni Ewropea meta dawn kellhom jibdlu l-prattika preżenti ta’ l-għarfien b’reġim ġdid li jobbligahom joħorġu viżi nazzjonali għal tranżitu jew għal żjarat qosra lil ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi li jkollhom viża ta’ Schengen jew inkella permess ta’ residenza jew viża ta’ żjara twila maħruġa minn Stat ta’ Schengen. B’mod speċjali, dawn jisħqu fuq il-piż amministrattiv kbir u żejjed li jkun hemm għall-Ambaxxati u l-Uffiċċji Konsolari tagħhom li jkunu jinsabu fl-Istati Membri. Dawn saħqu wkoll li l-persuni kkonċernati b’dawn il-faċilitajiet ma jirrappreżenatw l-ebda riskju għall-Istati Membri l-ġodda, minħabba li dawn ikunu ġew sottomessi għal diversi kontrolli stretti u stħarriġ mill-Istati ta’ Schengen qabel ma dawn jinħarġulhom il-viżi, il-permessi ta’ residenza jew inkella l-viżi nazzjonali ta’ Schengen.Barra minn hekk, ir-regoli preżenti ma jippermettux lill-pajjiżi ta’ Schengen li jagħrfu permessi ta’ residenza ta’ pajjiżi terzi, bħalma huma dawk maħruġa mill-Isvizzera jew il-Liechtenstein, għal tranżitu jew żjarat qosra fit-territorju ta’ Schengen. Dan ifisser li ċ-ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi, persuni li jkollhom permess ta’ residenza maħruġ mill-Isvizzera jew il-Liechtenstein, li jkunu suġġetti għall-obbligu ta’ viża, għandhom japplikaw għal viża meta dawn ikunu fi tranżitu miż-żona komuni biex jirritornaw lejn il-pajjiż tagħhom ta’ l-oriġini. Meta wieħed iqis il-mobilità importanti f’ċerti staġuni (i.e. matul il-perjodu tal-btajjel tas-sajf) l-uffiċċji Konsolari ta’ ċerti Stati Membri fl-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein, li huma kkonċernati l-aktar b’dan il-movimenti minħabba l-pożizzjoni ġeografika tagħhom, qed ikollhom jiffaċċjaw piż amministrattiv qawwi minħabba l-ħtieġa biex jinħarġu l-viżi meħtieġa fiż-żmien matul il-perjodi msemmija. Skond stħarriġ mir-Reġistru Ċentrali ta’ Ċittadini Barranin ta’ l-Isvizzera, f’April 2003 kien hemm 514.250 persuna li kienu affettwati b’dan it-tranżitu staġonali. L-istess problemi jgħoddu wkoll għat-tranżitu ta’ persuni li jkollhom permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa mil-Liechtenstein, għalkemm il-figuri huma iżgħar[5].Dwar l-awtoritajiet Svizzeri, bħalissa dawn qed jeżentaw mill-viża (permezz ta’ liġi li daħlet fis-seħħ f’Lulju 2000) lil dawk il-persuni li jkollhom permess ta’ residenza maħruġ minn Stat Membru ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea. Dan l-għarfien unilaterali mill-Isvizzera dwar permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa mill-Istati Membri ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea, bħala ekwivalenti għall-viżi nazzjonali tagħhom, ikopri t-tranżitu kif ukoll għanijiet ta’ żjara qasira. Aktar fit-tul, il-kwistjoni ta’ l-għarfien tal-permessi ta’ residenza ta’ l-Isvizzera se tissolva bil-Ftehim iffirmat fil-25/10/2004 fid-dawl ta’ l-assoċjazzjoni ta’ l-Isvizzera ma’ l- acquis ta’ Schengen. Madankollu, l-iffirmar u – aktar tard – ir-ratifikazzjoni xorta se jieħdu xi ftit taż-żmien. Barra minn hekk, jeħtieġ issir valutazzjoni tal-prekundizzjonijiet meħtieġa kollha għall-implimentazzjoni tal-Ftehim, qabel ma l-Isvizzera tkun tista’ tieħu sehem b’mod sħiħ fl- acquis ta’ Schengen. Minkejja dan, il-problema preżenti teħtieġ soluzzjoni rapida biex ikunu moqdija l-interessi ta’ l-Istati Membri.Fin-nuqqas ta’ dispożizzjonijiet speċifiċi fl-“ acquis ”, li jippermettu reazzjoni pożittiva għall-kwistjonijiet imqajma, u biex tkun indirizzata l-ħtieġa ta’ l-Istati Membri għal soluzzjoni xierqa, il-Kummissjoni stħarrġet il-possibbiltà li tadotta sistema speċifika li tkun ibbażata fuq metodu ta’ għarfien unilaterali.2. ŻEWĠ PROPOSTIBiex ikunu indirizzati s-sitwazzjonijiet deskritti hawn fuq, il-Kummissjoni qieset il-ħtieġa għal soluzzjoni xierqa li tiżgura livell għoli ta’ sigurtà u li tevita li jiġu mhedda l-prinċipji essenzjali kif ukoll l-operat tajjeb taż-żona ta’ Schengen.Għalhekk, qed jiġu proposti hawnhekk żewġ strumenti:F’dak li jikkonċerna l-Istati Membri l-ġodda, Deċiżjoni tal-PE u l-Kunsill li tistabbilixxi reġim simplifikat għall-kontroll tal-persuni fuq il-fruntieri esterni, li jkun ibbażat fuq l-għarfien unilaterali mill-Istati Membri l-ġodda, matul perjodu ta’ transizzjoni, ta’ ċerti dokumenti maħruġa mill-Istati ta’ Schengen, u li tipprevedi wkoll il-possibbiltà li jkun estiż ir-reġim ta’ għarfien biex ikunu inklużi dokumenti maħruġa minn Stati Membri ġodda oħra (il-punt 2.1 e).Għal dan il-għan, il-Kummissjoni ħadet f’kunsiderazzjoni:- il-ħtiġiet speċifiċi ta’ l-Istati Membri l-ġodda fil-qasam tal-viża matul il-perjodu transitorju sa l-integrazzjoni sħiħa tagħhom fiż-żona ta’ Schengen meta r-regoli ta’ l-għarfien reċiproku previsti fl- acquis jibdew jgħoddu għalihom;- il-kontrolli stretti u l-istħarriġ li għalihom ġew sottomessi ċ-ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi qabel ma jinħarġulhom id-dokumenti ta’ Schengen jew nazzjonali mill-awtoritajiet kompetenti ta’ l-Istati Membri;- ir-riskju pjuttost baxx li din il-kategorija ta’ persuni tirrappreżenta għall-Istati Membri l-ġodda.F’dak li jikkonċerna l-permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa mill-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein, Deċiżjoni tal-PE u l-Kunsill li tistabbilixxi reġim simplifikat għall-kontroll tal-persuni fuq il-fruntieri esterni, li jkun ibbażat fuq l-għarfien unilaterali ta’ ċerti permessi ta’ residenza li jinħarġu mill-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein bħala ekwivalenti għall-viża maħruġa mill-Istati Membri għall-għan ta’ tranżitu mit-territorju tagħhom (il-punt 2.2).Biex tiddefinixxi r-reġim speċifiku, il-Kummissjoni ħadet f’kunsiderazzjoni:- id-diffikultajiet amministrattivi kroniċi li ssemmew minn ċerti uffiċċji Konsolari ta’ l-Istati Membri fl-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein, liema problemi huma marbuta mal-ħruġ ta’ viżi lil ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi li jkunu qed jgħixu u jaħdmu legalment f’dawn il-pajjiżi;- il-livell ta’ riskju baxx għall-Istati Membri rrappreżentat minn persuni li jkollhom permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa mill-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein u li jgħaddu minn fuq it-territorju tagħhom.2005/0158 (COD)Proposta għalDEĊIŻJONI TAL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U TAL-KUNSILLli tintroduċi reġim simplifikat għall-kontroll ta’ persuni fuq il-fruntieri esterni li jkun ibbażat fuq l-għarfien unilaterali mir-Repubblika Ċeka, l-Estonja, Ċipru, il-Latvja, il-Litwanja, l-Ungerija, Malta, il-Polonja, s-Slovenja u is-Slovakkja ta’ ċerti dokumenti bħala ekwivalenti għall-viżi nazzjonali tagħhom għal skopijiet ta’ tranżitu mit-territorji tagħhomIL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U L-KUNSILL TA’ L-UNJONI EWROPEA,Wara li kkunsidraw it-Trattat li jistabbilixxi l-Komunità Ewropea, u l-aktar l-Artikolu 62(2) tiegħu,Wara li kkunsidraw il-proposta mill-Kummissjoni[6],Waqt li jaġixxu skond il-proċedura stabbilita fl-Artikolu 251 tat-TrattatBilli:(1) Skond l-Artikolu 3(1) ta’ l-Att tas-Sħubija ta’ l-2003, l-Istati Membri li ssieħbu fl-Unjoni fl-1 ta’ Mejju 2004 huma meħtieġa minn dik id-data li jissottomettu liċ-ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi, li jidhru fil-lista ta’ l-Anness I tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 539/2001 tal-15 ta’ Marzu 2001 li jsemmi dawk il-pajjiżi terzi li ċ-ċittadini tagħhom għandhom ikollhom viża meta jaqsmu l-fruntieri esterni u dawk iċ-ċittadini li huma eżenti minn dan il-bżonn[7], għall-obbligu ta’ viża.(2) Skond l-Artikolu 3 (2) ta’ l-Att tas-Sħubija ta’ l-2003, id-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ l-acquis ta’ Schengen fuq il-kundizzjonijiet u l-kriterji għall-ħruġ ta’ viżi uniformi ta’ perjodu qasir, kif ukoll id-dispożizzjonijiet dwar l-għarfien reċiproku ta’ viżi u dwar l-ekwivalenza bejn il-permessi ta’ residenza u l-viżi jibdew japplikaw biss fl-Istati Membri l-ġodda wara l-adozzjoni tad-Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill f’dak is-sens. Madankollu, huma jorbtu lil dawk l-Istati Membri mid-data tas-sħubija tagħhom.(3) L-Istati Membri l-ġodda huma, għalhekk, meħtieġa li joħorġu viżi nazzjonali, għad-dħul jew it-tranżitu mit-territorju tagħhom, lil dawk iċ-ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi li jkollhom viża uniformi jew viża ta’ residenza ta’ żjara twila jew inkella permess ta’ residenza maħruġ minn Stat Membru li jimplimenta b’mod sħiħ l-acquis ta’ Schengen jew dokument simili maħruġ minn Stati Membri ġodda oħra.(4) Il-persuni li jkollhom dokumenti maħruġa mill-Istati Membri li jimplimentaw b’mod sħiħ l-acquis ta’ Schengen u mill-Istati Membri l-ġodda ma jirrappreżentaw l-ebda riskju għall-Istati Membri l-ġodda, minħabba li dawn ikunu ġew soġġetti għall-kontrolli meħtieġa kollha minn Stati Membri oħra. Biex ikun evitat li jiġu imposti piżijiet amministrattivi żejda li ma jkunux ġustifikati fuq l-Istati Membri l-ġodda, għandhom ikunu adottati regoli komuni li jkunu jawtorizzaw lill-Istati Membri l-ġodda biex jagħrfu unilateralment dawk id-dokumenti bħala ekwivalenti għall-viża nazzjonali tagħhom, u biex jistabbilixxu reġim simplifikat għall-kontrolli ta’ persuni fuq il-fruntieri esterni, liema reġim ikun ibbażat fuq din l-ekwivalenza unilaterali.(5) Ir-regoli komuni għandhom ikunu adottati għal perjodu transizzjonali, sad-data li għandha tkun stabbilita f’Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill, kif imsemmi fl-ewwel sotto-paragrafu ta’ l-Artikolu 3 (2) ta’ l-Att tas-Sħubija ta’ l-2003.(6) L-għarfien ta’ dokument għandu jkun limitat għall-għan ta’ tranżitu mit-territorju ta’ wieħed mill-Istati Membri l-ġodda jew aktar, mingħajr ma jaffettwa l-possibbiltà li l-Istati Membri l-ġodda joħorġu viżi nazzjonali għal żjarat qosra. Il-parteċipazzjoni fis-sistema komuni m’għandhiex tkun obbligatorja u m’għandhomx jiġu imposti obbligi żejda fuq l-Istati Membri l-ġodda kif definit bl-Att tas-Sħubija ta’ l-2003.(7) Ir-regoli komuni għandhom jgħoddu għall-viżi uniformi ta’ perjodu qasir, viżi ta’ perjodu twil u għall-permessi ta’ residenza li jinħarġu mill-Istati Membri li jimplimentaw b’mod sħiħ l-acquis ta’ Schengen, kif ukoll għal viżi ta’ perjodu qasir, viżi ta’ perjodu twil u permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa minn Stati Membri ġodda oħra.(8) Il-kundizzjonijiet tad-dħul stabbiliti fl-Artikolu 5(1) tal-Konvenzjoni tad-19 ta’ Ġunju 1990 li timplementa t-Trattat ta’ Schengen ta’ l-14 ta’ Ġunju 1985 bejn il-gvernijiet ta’ l-Istati ta’ l-unjoni ekonomika tal-Benelux, ir-Repubblika Federali tal-Ġermanja u r-Repubblika Franċiża dwar l-abolizzjoni gradwali tal-kontrolli fuq il-fruntieri komuni tagħhom (minn hawn 'il quddiem “il-Konvenzjoni ta' Schengen”)[8], intlaħqu, ħlief għal 5(1)(b). Dan sakemm din id-Deċiżjoni tistabbilixxi reġim ta’ għarfien unilaterali bejn il-viżi nazzjonali ta’ tranżitu maħruġa minn Stat Membru ġdid u ċerti dokumenti maħruġa minn Stati Membri li jimplimentaw b’mod sħiħ l- acquis ta’ Schengen kif ukoll dokumenti simili maħruġa minn Stati Membri ġodda oħra.(9) Minħabba li l-għan ta’ l-azzjoni proposta li għandha tittieħed, jiġifieri l-introduzzjoni ta’ reġim ta’ għarfien unilaterali li għandu jkun applikat mill-Istati Membri l-ġodda, ma jistgħux jintlaħqu biżżejjed mill-Istati Membri u għalhekk, minħabba l-iskala u l-effetti ta’ l-azzjoni, dawn jistgħu jintlaħqu aħjar fuq livell ta’ Komunità, il-Komunità tista’ tadotta miżuri, skond il-prinċipju tas-sussidjarjetà kif stabbilit fl-Artikolu 5 tat-Trattat. Skond il-prinċipju tal-proporzjonalità, kif stabbilit f’dak l-Artikolu, din id-Deċiżjoni ma tmurx lil hinn minn dak li huwa meħtieġ biex jintaħaq dan l-għan.ADOTTAW DIN ID-DEĊIŻJONI:Artikolu 1Din id-Deċiżjoni tintroduċi reġim simplifikat għall-kontroll ta’ persuni fuq il-fruntieri esterni, ibbażat li jippermetti lir-Repubblika Ċeka, lill-Estonja, lil Ċipru, lil-Latvja, lil-Litwanja, lill-Ungerija, lil Malta, lill-Polonja, lis-Slovenja u lis-Slovakkja (minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejħa l-Istati Membri l-ġodda) biex jagħrfu unilateralment bħala ekwivalenti għall-viżi nazzjonali tagħhom għal skop ta’ tranżitu, ċerti dokumenti maħruġa mill-Istati Membri li jkunu qed jimplimentaw b’mod sħiħ l-acquis ta’ Schengen, kif ukoll dokumenti maħruġa minn Stati Membri ġodda oħra lil ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi b’obbligu ta’ viża skond ir-Regolament (KE) 539/2001Artikolu 21. Stat Membru ġdid jista’ jqis bħala ekwivalenti għall-viża nazzjonali tiegħu għal skop ta’ tranżitu d-dokumenti li ġejjin maħruġa mill-Istati Membri li jimplimentaw b’mod sħiħ l-acquis ta’ Schengen, irrispettivament miċ-ċittadinanza tal-possessuri kkonċernati:(i) “viża uniformi” kif imsemmi fl-Artikolu 10 tal-Konvenzjoni li timplimenta t-Trattat ta’ Schengen;(ii) “viża għal perjodu twil” kif imsemmi fl-Artikolu 18 tal-Konvenzjoni li timplimenta t-Trattat ta’ Schengen;(iii) “permess ta’ residenza” kif inkluż fl-Anness IV ta’ l-Istruzzjonijiet Konsolari Komuni.2. Jekk Stat Membru ġdid jiddeċiedi li japplika din id-Deċiżjoni, dan irid jagħraf id-dokumenti kollha msemmija fil-paragrafu 2 maħruġa mill-Istati Membri li jimplimentaw b’mod sħiħ l-acquis ta’ Schengen, irrispettivament mill-Istat li joħroġ id-dokument.Artikolu 3Barra minn hekk, Stat Membru ġdid li japplika l-Artikolu 2 jista’ jagħraf viżi nazzjonali ta’ perjodu qasir, viżi ta’ perjodu twil u permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa minn Stat Membru ġdid wieħed jew aktar bħala ekwivalenti għall-viżi nazzjonali tiegħu għal skopijiet ta’ tranżitu.Id-dokumenti maħruġa mill-Istati Membri l-ġodda, li jistgħu jkunu rikonoxxuti skond din id-Deċiżjoni, huma mniżżla fl-Anness.Artikolu 4L-Istati Membri jistgħu jagħrfu biss dawk id-dokumenti bħala ekwivalenti għall-viżi nazzjonali tagħhom għal skop ta’ tranżitu, jekk il-perjodu tat-tranżitu taċ-ċittadin ta’ pajjiż terz mit-territorju ta’ l-Istati Membri l-ġodda ma jkunx ta’ iktar minn ħamest ijiem.Il-perjodu tal-validità tad-dokumenti msemmija fl-Artikoli 2 u 3 għandu jkopri l-perjodu tat-tranżitu.Viża uniformi li tkun tippermetti dħul wieħed u li tkun intużat għad-dħul fi Stat Membru li jkun qed jimplimenta b’mod sħiħ l-acquis ta’ Schengen, għandha tkun valida sal-vjaġġ lura tal-persuna li jkollha l-viża meta din tkun qed tgħaddi lura fi tranżitu mit-territorju ta’ l-istess Stat Membru ġdid.Artikolu 5L-Istati Membri l-ġodda għandhom javżaw lill-Kummissjoni fi żmien 10 ijiem ta’ xogħol dwar id-dħul fis-seħħ ta’ din id-Deċiżjoni, jekk dawn jiddeċiedu li japplikaw din id-Deċiżjoni.Il-Kummissjoni għandha tippubblika l-pubblikazzjoni komunikata mill-Istati Membri l-ġodda fil-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea.Artikolu 6Din id-Deċiżjoni għandha tidħol fis-seħħ fl-għoxrin jum wara dak tal-pubblikazzjoni tagħha fil-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea.Din għandha tkun tgħodd sad-data li għandha tkun definita mill-Kunsill f’Deċiżjoni adottata skond l-Artikolu 3(2) ta’ l-Att tas-Sħubija ta’ l-2003.Artikolu 7Din id-Deċiżjoni hija indirizzata lir-Repubblika Ċeka, l-Estonja, Ċipru, il-Latvja, il-Litwanja, l-Ungerija, Malta, il-Polonja, s-Slovenja u is-Slovakkja.Magħmula fi Brussell,Għall-Parlament Ewropew Għall-Kunsill Il-President l-PresidentANNESSLista ta’ dokumenti maħruġa mill-Istati Membri l-ġoddaIR-REPUBBLIKA ĊEKAViżi- Vízum k pobytu do 90 dnů – ( viża għal perjodu qasir )- Vízum za účelem převzetí povolení k pobytu VR – ( viża bl-għan li wieħed jiġbor permess ta’ residenza)- Vízum k pobytu nad 90 dnů – ( viża għal perjodu twil )- Diplomatické vízum – ( viża diplomatika )- Zvláštní vízum – ( viża speċjali )- Vízum za účelem strpění VS – ( Viża biex wieħed ikun jista’ jikseb permess speċjali biex jibqa’ )- Vstupní vízum VV – ( viża tad-dħul)- Vízum za účelem dočasné ochrany VG – ( Viża għall-protezzjoni temporanja )Permessi ta’ residenza- Prukaz o povoleki k pobytu pro statniko prislusnika ( permessi ta’ residenza għall-barranin )[9]- Permess ta’ residenza għal perjodu twil (validu – sad-data li fiha jiskadi – għal massimu ta’ sena, b’possibbiltà li jiġġedded)- Permess ta’ residenza permanenti (Maħruġ lil barranin li jkunu qed jgħixu fit-territorju tar-Repubblika Ċeka għal aktar minn 10 snin. Il-kundizzjoni taż-żmien ma tgħoddx jekk il-barrani jkun membru tal-familja immedjata ta’ ċittadin Ċek (għaqda ta’ familja), jew jekk il-barrani jkun għex fit-territorju tar-Repubblika Ċeka għal iktar minn 8 snin u jkun osserva kundizzjonijiet addizzjonali stipulati bil-liġi (par. 66 ta’ l-Att dwar il-Barranin tar-Repubblika Ċeka - nru. 326/1999 Col.)ĊIPRUViżi- Viżi ta’ tranżitu ta’ l-ajruport- Viżi ta’ tranżitu- Viżi ta’ l-ivvjaġġar (dħul wieħed, dħul doppju, dħul ta’ ħafna drabi)Permessi ta’ residenza- Permess ta’ residenza temporanja (xogħol, viżitatur, student)- Permess ta’ dħul (xogħol, student)- Permess ta’ immigrazzjoni (permess permanenti)IR-REPUBBLIKA TAL-LATVJAViżi- Latvijas vīza - Kategorija C ( viża għal perjodu qasir )- Latvijas vīza - Kategorija D ( viża għal perjodu twil )Permessi ta’ residenza- Pastāvīgās uzturēšanās atļauja ( permessi ta’ residenza permanenti ) [10]- Termiņuzturēšanās atļauja ( permess ta’ residenza temporanja; il-validità tvarja minn sitt xhur sa għaxar snin )- Uzturēšanās atļauja ( permessi ta’ residenza )[11]- Termiņa (permess ta’ residenza temporanja; il-validità tvarja minn sitt xhur sa għaxar snin)- Atļaujas veids – pastāvīgās (permess ta’ residenza permanenti)IR-REPUBBLIKA TAL-LITWANJAViżi- Trumpalaikė viza ( viża għal perjodu qasir)- Ilgalaikė viza ( viża għal perjodu twil )Permessi ta’ residenza- Leidimas laikinai gyventi Lietuvos Respublikoje (permess ta’ residenza temporanja; il-validità tvarja minn sena sa ħames snin)- Leidimas nuolat gyventi Lietuvos Respublikoje (permess ta’ residenza permanenti)L-UNGERIJAViżi- Rövid időtartamú beutazóvízum ( viża għal perjodu qasir )- Tartózkodási vízum ( viża għal perjodu twil )Permessi ta’ residenza- Tartózkodási engedély (Permess ta’ residenza; il-validità tvarja minn sena sa erba’ snin, bil-possibbiltà li jiġġedded)- Letelepedési engedély (Permess ta’ residenza għal perjodu indefinit; il-possessur ikollu d-dritt li jgħix fl-Ungerija għal perjodu indefinit, bil-validità tad-dokument tkun ta’ 5 snin)- Bevándorlási engedély (Permess ta’ immigrazzjoni)[12]MALTAViżi- Viżi ta’ tranżitu ta’ l-ajruport- Viżi ta’ tranżitu (ta’ mhux aktar minn 5 ijiem)- Viżi ta’ perjodu qasir jew ta’ l-ivvjaġġar (viżi għal dħul wieħed jew iktar)- Viżi ta’ perjodu twil ( din tintitola liċ-Ċittadini ta’ Pajjiżi Terzi li jkunu qed ifittxu li jidħlu fit-territorju nazzjonali ta’ Malta, għal raġunijiet għajr l-immigrazzjoni, biex jagħmlu żjara li tkun ta’ iktar minn 90 ġurnata )- Viżi ta’ Grupp (residenza sa 30 ġurnata)IL-POLONJAViżi- Wiza wjazdowa ( viża tad-dħul , ġeneralment b’residenza ta’ ġimagħtejn, valida sa sena)- Wiza pobytowa krotkoterminowa (viża għal perjodu qasir, residenza sa tliet xhur, valida sa ħames snin, iżda ġeneralment għal sena)- Wiza pobytowa dlugoterminowa (viża għal perjodu twil, residenza sa sena, valida sa ħames snin, iżda ġeneralment għal sena)- Wiza dyplomatyczna (viża diplomatika, residenza sa tliet xhur f’perjodu ta’ sitt xhur, valida sa ħames snin, iżda ġeneralment sa sitt xhur)- Wiza sluzbowa (viża ta’ servizz, residenza sa tliet xhur f’perjodu ta’ sitt xhur, valida sa ħames snin, iżda ġeneralment sa sitt xhur)- Wiza kurierska (viża għal couriers diplomatiċi, residenza sa 10 ijiem, valida sa sitt xhur)Permessi ta’ residenza- Karta pobytu (karta ta’ residenza permanenti, serje ‘PL’, maħruġa mill-ewwel ta’ Lulju 2001, valida sa għaxar snin, għal barranin li jkunu kisbu permess ta’ residenza temporanja, permess ta’ residenza permanenti, stat ta’ refuġjat, permess għal żjara tollerata)- Karta stalego pobytu (Karta ta’ residenza permanenti, serje ‘XS’, maħruġ qabel it-30 ta’ Ġunju 2001, għal barranin li jkunu kisbu permess ta’ residenza permanenti; validu għal għaxar snin; l-aħħar karta ta’ din l-edizzjoni hija valida sad-29 ta’ Ġunju 2011)- Legitymacja dyplomatyczna (Karta diplomatika- beige, maħruġa lill-ambaxxaturi akkreditati u lil membri ta’ l-istaff diplomatiku li jkunu fuq missjoni)- Legitymacja konsularna (zielona) (Karta Konsolari – ħadra, maħruġa għall-kapijiet ta’ postijiet konsolari u lil membri ta’ staff konsolari)- Legitymacja sluzbowa (Karta tas-Servizz, maħruġa lill-membri ta’ staff amministrattiv, tekniku u tas-servizz li jkunu fuq missjoni)IS-SLOVENJAViżi- Vizum za vstop ( viżi tad-dħul )- Vizum za kratkoročno bivanje C – (viża għal perjodu qasir)- Vizum za daljše bivanje D – (viża għal perjodu twil)Permessi ta’ residenza- Dovoljenje za stalno prebivanje ( Permessi ta’ residenza permanenti )- Dovoljenje za začasno prebivanje ( Permess ta’ residenza temporanja; il-validità tkun ta’ massimu ta’ sena, sakemm ma jkunx stipulat mod ieħor fl-Att dwar il-Barranin tas-Slovenja )IR-REPUBBLIKA TAS-SLOVAKKJAViżi- Krátkodobé vízum ( viża għal perjodu qasir )- Dlhodobé vízum ( viża għal perjodu twil )Permessi ta’ residenza- Prechodný pobyt (permess ta’ residenza temporanja; maħruġ għal barranin li jkunu qed jgħixu fir-Repubblika tas-Slovakkja, validu għal massimu ta’ sena u bil-possibbiltà li jiġġedded sa massimu ta’ ħames snin)- Trvalý pobyt (permess ta’ residenza permanenti; fil-bidu validu għal tliet snin u wara fuq bażi permanenti)2005/0159 (COD)Proposta għalDEĊIŻJONI TAL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U TAL-KUNSILLli tistabbilixxi reġim simplifikat għall-kontroll ta’ persuni fuq il-fruntieri esterni li jkun ibbażat fuq l-għarfien unilaterali mill-Istati Membri ta’ ċerti permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa mill-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein għal skopijiet ta’ tranżitu mit-territorji tagħhom.IL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U L-KUNSILL TA’ L-UNJONI EWROPEA,Wara li kkunsidraw it-Trattat li jistabbilixxi l-Komunità Ewropea, u b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 62(2) tiegħu,Wara li kkunsidraw il-proposta mill-Kummissjoni [13],Waqt li jaġixxu skond il-proċedura stabbilita fl-Artikolu 251 tat-TrattatBilli:(1) L-Artikolu 21 tal-Konvenzjoni tad-19 ta’ Ġunju 1990 li timplementa t-Trattat ta’ Schengen ta’ l-14 ta’ Ġunju 1985 bejn il-gvernijiet ta’ l-Istati ta’ l-unjoni ekonomika tal-Benelux, ir-Repubblika Federali tal-Ġermanja u r-Repubblika Franċiża dwar l-abolizzjoni gradwali tal-kontrolli fuq il-fruntieri komuni tagħhom (minn hawn 'il quddiem “il-Konvenzjoni ta' Schengen”)[14] jipprevedi li l-permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa mill-Istati Membri li jimplimentaw b’mod sħiħ l- acquis ta’ Schengen huma rikonoxxuti reċiprokament bħala ekwivalenti għall-viża uniformi.(2) Ir-regoli preżenti tal-Komunità, madankollu, ma jipprevedux reġim simplifikat għall-kontroll ta’ persuni fuq il-fruntieri esterni, li bis-saħħa ta’ dan il-permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa minn pajjiżi terzi jkunu jistgħu jitqiesu bħala ekwivalenti għall-viża uniformi għall-għan ta’ tranżitu miż-żona komuni jew ta’ żjara qasira fiha.(3) Iċ-ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi li jkollhom permess ta’ residenza maħruġ mill-Isvizzera u li huma suġġetti għall-obbligu ta’ viża taħt ir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 539/2001 tal-15 ta’ Marzu 2001, li jsemmi dawk il-pajjiżi terzi li ċ-ċittadini tagħhom għandu jkollhom viżi meta jkunu qed jaqsmu l-fruntieri esterni, kif ukoll dawk iċ-ċittadini li huma eżentati minn dak il-kriterju[15], għandhom japplikaw għal viża meta dawn jgħaddu fi tranżitu miż-żona komuni meta jkunu qed jirritornaw lejn il-pajjiż tagħhom ta’ l-oriġini . L-uffiċċji Konsolari ta’ l-Istati Membri fl-Isvizzera, għalhekk, qed ikollhom jittrattaw numru kbir ta’ applikazzjonijiet ta’ viżi li jkunu ġew sottomessi minn ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi. Kien hemm diffikultajiet simili f’dak li jikkonċerna l-applikazzjonijiet għal viżi li jkunu saru minn persuni li jkollhom permess ta’ residenza maħruġ mil-Liechtenstein.(4) Bħala riżultat ta’ l-implimentazzjoni f’żewġ stadji ta’ l- acquis ta’ Schengen, l-Istati Membri l-ġodda li ssieħbu fl-Unjoni Ewropea fl-1 ta’ Mejju 2004 huma meħtieġa li minn dik id-data jibdew joħorġu viżi nazzjonali lil ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi li jkollhom permess ta’ residenza maħruġ mill-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein u li jkunu suġġetti għall-obbligu ta’ viża taħt ir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 539/2001. Uħud mill-Istati Membri l-ġodda urew it-tħassib tagħhom dwar il-piż amministrattiv żejjed li dan se joħloq għall-konsolati tagħhom fl-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein.(5) Ma jidhirx li huwa ta’ ħtieġa għall-Istati Membri li din il-kategorija ta’ persuni jkollhom viża, minħabba li dawn jirrappreżentaw riskju baxx ħafna ta’ immigrazzjoni illegali għall-Istati Membri.(6) Biex tkun indirizzata s-sitwazzjoni fl-uffiċċji konsolari fl-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein, kemm ta’ l-Istati Membri li jimplimentaw b’mod sħiħ l- acquis ta’ Schengen kif ukoll ta’ l-Istati Membri l-ġodda, għandu jiġi introdott reġim simplifikat għall-kontroll ta’ persuni fuq il-fruntieri esterni li jkun ibbażat fuq l-għarfien unilaterali ta’ ċerti permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa mill-awtoritajiet ta’ l-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein bħala li huma ekwivalenti għall-viżi uniformi jew nazzjonali.(7) L-għarfien għandu jkun limitat għall-għan ta’ tranżitu, mingħajr ma jaffettwa l-possibbiltà li l-Istati Membri joħorġu viżi għal żjara qasira.(8) L-applikazzjoni tar-reġim ta’ għarfien għandu jkun obbligatorju għall-Istati Membri li jimplimentaw b’mod sħiħ l- acquis ta’ Schengen, iżda mhux għall-Istati Membri l-ġodda li japplikaw id-Deċiżjoni.... matul il-perjodu transizzjonali sad-data li għandha tiġi stabbilita mill-Kunsill, skond l-ewwel sotto-paragrafu ta’ l-Artikolu 3 (2) ta’ l-Att tas-Sħubija ta’ l-2003.(9) Il-kundizzjonijiet tad-dħul stabbiliti fl-Artikolu 5(1) tal-Konvenzjoni ta’ Schengen għandhom jintlaħqu, ħlief għal 5(1)b, sakemm din id-Deċiżjoni tistabbilixxi reġim ta’ ekwivalenza bejn il-viża ta’ tranżitu u l-permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa mill-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein.(10) Minħabba li l-għan ta’ l-azzjoni li għandha tittieħed direttament tolqot lill-“ acquis ” tal-Komunità f‘dak li jikkonċerna l-viżi, u din ma tistax tintlaħaq tajjeb mill-Istati Membri waħedhom, u għalhekk, minħabba l-iskala u l-effetti ta’ din l-azzjoni, din tkun tista’ tintlaħaq aħjar fuq livell ta’ Komunità, il-Komunità tista’ tadotta miżuri, skond il-prinċipju tas-sussidjarjetà kif stabbilit fl-Artikolu 5 tat-Trattat. Skond il-prinċipju tal-proporzjonalità, kif stabbilit f’dak l-Artikolu, din id-Deċiżjoni ma tmurx lil hinn minn dak li hu meħtieġ biex jintlaħaq dak l-għan.(11) Dwar ir-Repubblika ta’ l-Islanda u r-Renju tan-Norveġja, din id-Deċiżjoni ssawwar żvilupp tad-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ l- acquis ta’ Schengen, u għalhekk taqa’ fiż-żona ddefinita fl-Artikolu 1(a) tad-Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill 1999/437/KE tas-17 ta’ Mejju 1999 fuq ċerti arranġamenti għall-applikazzjoni tal-Ftehim iffirmat bejn il-Kunsill ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea u r-Repubblika ta’ l-Islanda u r-Renju tan-Norveġja dwar l-assoċjazzjoni ta’ dawn iż-żewġ Stati ma’ l-implimentazzjoni, l-applikazzjoni u l-iżvilupp ta’ l- acquis ta’ Schengen [16].(12) Skond l-Artikolu 1 u 2 tal-Protokoll dwar il-pożizzjoni tad-Danimarka, mehmuż mat-Trattat dwar l-Unjoni Ewropea u mat-Trattat li jistabbilixxi l-Komunità Ewropea, id-Danimarka mhux qed tieħu sehem fl-adozzjoni mill-Kunsill ta’ din id-Deċiżjoni, u għalhekk mhix marbuta biha jew suġġetta għall-applikazzjoni tagħha. Madankollu, minħabba li din id-Deċiżjoni tibni fuq l- acquis ta’ Schengen taħt it-Titolu IV tal-Parti Tlieta tat-Trattat li jwaqqaf il-Komunità Ewropea, id-Danimarka, skond l-Artikolu 5 tal-Protokoll, għandha tiddeċiedi, f’perjodu ta’ sitt xhur wara li l-Kunsill ikun adotta din id-Deċiżjoni, jekk hi tkunx se timplimentaha jew le fil-liġi nazzjonali tagħha.(13) Din id-Deċiżjoni tikkostitwixxi żvilupp ta’ l- acquis ta’ Schengen, li fih ir-Renju Unit mhux qed jieħu sehem skond l-Artikoli 4 u 5 tal-Protokoll li jintegra l- acquis ta’ Schengen fil-qafas ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea, u li huwa mehmuż mat-Trattat fuq l-Unjoni Ewropea u mat-Trattat li jwaqqaf il-Komunità Ewropea. B’hekk, ir-Renju Unit mhux qed jieħu sehem fl-adozzjoni ta’ din id-Deċiżjoni u mhuwiex marbut biha jew suġġett għall-applikazzjoni tagħha.(14) Din id-Deċiżjoni tikkostitwixxi żvilupp ta’ l- acquis ta’ Schengen, li fih l-Irlanda mhix qed tieħu sehem skond l-Artikoli 4 u 5 tal-Protokoll li jintegra l- acquis ta’ Schengen fil-qafas ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea, u li huwa mehmuż mat-Trattat fuq l-Unjoni Ewropea u mat-Trattat li jwaqqaf il-Komunità Ewropea. B’hekk, l-Irlanda mhix qed tieħu sehem fl-adozzjoni ta’ din id-Deċiżjoni u mhix marbuta biha jew suġġetta għall-applikazzjoni tagħha.ADOTTAW DIN ID-DEĊIŻJONI:Artikolu 1Din id-Deċiżjoni tistabbilixxi reġim simplifikat għall-kontroll ta’ persuni fuq il-fruntieri esterni li huwa bbażat fuq l-għarfien unilaterali mill-Istati Membri ta’ permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa mill-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein lil ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi b’obbligu ta’ viża skond ir-Regolament (KE) 539/2001 bħala li huma ekwivalenti għall-viża uniformi jew nazzjonali tagħhom għall-għan ta’ tranżitu.Artikolu 2L-Istati Membri li jimplimentaw b’mod sħiħ l- acquis ta’ Schengen għandhom jagħrfu unilateralment il-permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa mill-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein u li qed jidhru fl-Anness.L-Istati Membri l-ġodda li japplikaw din id-Deċiżjoni ..., li jintroduċu reġim simplifikat għall-kontroll ta’ persuni fuq il-fruntieri esterni u bbażat fuq l-għarfien unilaterali mir-Repubblika Ċeka, l-Estonja, Ċipru, il-Latvja, il-Litwanja, l-Ungerija, Malta, il-Polonja, s-Slovenja u is-Slovakkja ta’ ċerti dokumenti bħala li huma ekwivalenti għall-viżi nazzjonali tagħhom għal skopijiet ta’ tranżitu mit-territorji tagħhom, jistgħu jirrikonoxxu unilatermalment il-permessi ta’ residenza mniżżla fl-Anness għal din id-Deċiżjoni bħala li huma ekwivalenti għall-viża ta’ tranżitu nazzjonali tagħhom. Dan l-għarfien għandu jibqa’ jseħħ sad-data li għandha tkun stabbilita mill-Kunsill skond l-Artikolu 3(2) ta’ l-Att tas-Sħubija ta’ l-2003.Artikolu 3Il-perjodu tat-tranżitu taċ-ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi mit-territorju ta’ l-Istat(i) Membru(i) m’għandux ikun ta’ iktar minn ħamest ijiem.Il-perjodu tal-validità tad-dokumenti mniżżla fl-Anness għandu jkopri l-perjodu tat-tranżitu.Artikolu 4L-Istati Membri l-ġodda għandhom javżaw lill-Kummissjoni fi żmien 10 ijiem ta’ xogħol dwar id-dħul fis-seħħ ta’ din id-Deċiżjoni, jekk dawn jiddeċiedu li japplikaw din id-Deċiżjoni.Il-Kummissjoni għandha tippubblika l-informazzjoni komunikata mill-Istati Membri l-ġodda fil-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea.Artikolu 5Din id-Deċiżjoni għandha tidħol fis-seħħ fl-għoxrin jum wara dak tal-pubblikazzjoni tagħha fil-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea.Article 6This Decision is addressed to Member States.Magħmula fi Brussell,Għall-Parlament Ewropew Għall-Kunsill Il-President l-PresidentANNESS 1Lista ta’ permessi ta’ residenza maħruġa mill-Konfederazzjoni Svizzera u l-Liechtenstein imsemmija fl-Artikolu 2(e)A. PERMESSI TA’ RESIDENZA MAĦRUĠA MILL-ISVIZZERA- Ausländerausweis B / Livret pour étrangers B / Libretto per stranieri B / Legitimaziun d’esters B(Permess ta’ residenza temporanja tat-tip B. Maħruġ fil-verżjonijiet ta’ tliet jew erba’ lingwi)(Gray)- Ausländerausweis C / Livret pour étrangers C / Libretto per stranieri C(Permess ta’ residenza permanenti tat-tip C) (Aħdar)- Ausländerausweis Ci / Livret pour étrangers Ci / Libretto per stranieri Ci(Permess ta’ residenza tat-tip Ci għall-membri tal-familja ta’ uffiċjali li jaħdmu f’organizzazzjonijiet intergovernattivi u f’rappreżentazzjonijiet barranin għall-Federazzjoni ta’ l-Isvizzera. Dan jikkonċerna lis-sieħeb li jakkumpanja u lil tfal ta’ taħt il-21 sena) (Aħmar)B. PERMESSI TA’ RESIDENZA MAĦRUĠA MIL-LIECHENSTEIN- Jahresaufenthaltsbewilligung (Permess ta’ residenza temporanja)- Niederlassungs bewilligung (Permess ta’ stabbiliment li l-validità tiegħu ma tkunx limitata fiż-żmien).GENERAL ANNEX1. LEGAL ANALYSIS:1.1 EP and Council Decision introducing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas for the purposes of transit through their territories.The proposed Decision is based on Article 62(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and is addressed to the new Member States. According to Article 62 (2), the Community can adopt measures on the crossing of the external borders of the Member States: first of all (point 2a), measures establishing “standards and procedures to be followed by Member States in carrying out checks on persons at such borders”; these measures deal in particular with the conditions for entry in view of a short stay in or transit through the area without internal borders; secondly (point 2b), measures on rules on visas for intended stays of no more than three months – including transit – in the Schengen area, i.e. on the prior authorisation required or not for crossing the external borders.Article 62 (2) (a) deals with the procedures for the carrying out of checks on persons crossing the external borders. This includes the control on required visas and authorisations; Article 62 (2) (b) deals with the matter of the uniform visa. One of the basic principles underlying the creation of an area without internal borders is that an authorisation given by one Member State being part of this area is also valid for crossing the external borders of the other Member States that are part of that area without internal borders. In an area without internal frontiers, such a mutual recognition of visa is compulsory. This is also true for the principle of the equivalence between a residence permit issued by another Member State and a visa issued by national authorities.As long as some Member States are applying the Schengen provisions on the crossing of external borders (point 2a) and on the visa lists (point 2b(i)), without being part of the area without internal borders, the compulsory mutual recognition cannot be imposed. However, it can be envisaged that a simplified regime can be established as regards the controls by the new Member States on certain persons crossing the external borders. This is the case as regards those third country nationals who hold visas and residence permits issued by Schengen Member States or another new Member State. These third country nationals having gone through strict screening either by a Schengen Member State or by another new Member State are not considered to present a threat to public policy or to represent a risk of illegal immigration. This being so, Member States not yet participating in the area without internal borders should be allowed to unilaterally recognise visa and residence permits issued by Schengen states or by another new Member State. -The regime will thus allow new Member States to simplify the control at the external borders by unilaterally recognising certain documents issued by Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis as well as similar national documents issued by other new Member States. The regime will be applicable till the end of the transitory period and the full participation of the new Member States in the area without internal borders, date from which the mutual recognition of such documents becomes compulsory.The recognition regime would be limited to the purpose of transit through the territory of new Member States. Such a limitation is necessary in order to avoid any risk of confusion or bad implementation of the current Schengen rules on visa which define the state responsible for a visa application (it is the State in whose territory is located the main destination of the visit or the State of the first entry). In fact, the correct implementation of the Schengen rules regarding the State responsible for issuing a visa could be challenged if, on the basis of a visa issued by a Schengen State, a third country national was authorized to enter the territory of a new Member State for a short stay of up to 90 days.The documents selected for the recognition regime are:- the uniform visa issued by a Schengen State in compliance with the common rules laid down in the Common Consular instructions (transit, short term or travel, group visa);- national long stay visas issued by a Schengen State according to their national legislation;- residence permits issued by a Schengen State and which are included in Annex IV of the Common Consular Instructions which lists the documents entitling their holders to enter the Schengen area without a visa ;- the national short term and long term visas as well as the residence permits issued by another new Member State.Taking into account the existing rules on transit visas in the Common Consular Instructions as well as the geographical situation of new Member States, the duration of the transit period may not exceed five days. The introduction of a unilateral recognition regime by a Community instrument would not impose any new obligations to new Member States in addition to those listed in the 2003 Act of Accession and would thus not constitute a derogation from the 2003 Act of Accession. The purpose of the proposed rules is to allow unilateral recognition of certain documents (issued by Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis or new Member States) by new Member States keen to avoid administrative difficulties that would accompany the issue of national visas for third country nationals, holders of such documents. The proposed regime will be implemented on an optional basis: new Member States have the possibility either to implement the new instrument or to continue issuing national visas as required by the Accession Act.Should they opt for the implementation of the common regime, new Member States will have to accept all documents issued by Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis, thus avoiding any distinction as regards the issuing Authority. The extension of the recognition rules to the documents issued by other new Member States is possible for new Member States participating in the unilateral recognition regime of Schengen documents.New Member States have to communicate their decision to the Commission. The Commission will publish this information and ensure in this way that the whole system is transparent. A new Member State could nevertheless refuse entry to third country nationals whose names are on its national list of alerts.The proposed system is limited to the transit purpose. Thus, it is not aimed at replacing the issuing of national visas by new Member States for short stay. Consequently, in compliance with the existing rules, new Member States have the possibility to issue multi-entry national visas for short stay which could be valid for one or more years in order to facilitate the mobility of third country nationals, holders of Schengen documents, who need to travel frequently to a new Member State.This instrument will be adopted by co-decision.1.2. EP and Council Decision establishing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by the Member States of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein for the purpose of transit through their territory.The Decision proposed is based on Article 62(2) (a) of the Treaty establishing the European Community. As stated above, Article 62 (2) (a) deals with measures establishing “standards and procedures to be followed by Member States in carrying out checks on persons at such borders. The introduction of a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders is based on the compulsory unilateral recognition of residence permits issued by a third country as a valid authorisation to cross the external borders of the Member States. Again as regards a third country national who is in possession of a resident permit from Switzerland or Liechtenstein, it is to be considered that such a person would not be a threat to public policy or would not represent a risk of illegal immigration.The proposed Decision thus foreseeing the establishment of a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition regime by Member States fully participating in the common area and by new Member States for which the Schengen acquis is legally binding upon accession. The recognition is limited to the transit purpose. The implementation of the recognition regime is mandatory for Member States fully participating in the common area. For new Member States participating in the EP and Council Decision allowing the unilateral recognition by them of documents issued by Schengen States and other new Member States as equivalent to national visa for the transit purpose, the implementation of the present instrument is optional during the transitory period till the date to be decided by the Council for their full integration into the Schengen area. This distinction is necessary in order to avoid imposing upon new Member States additional obligations during this period.Prior to their full integration within the common area, new Member States have the possibility to decide whether they will participate in the recognition regime and they have to notify their decision to the European Commission. The Commission will ensure the publication of the relevant information. The recognition regime will be applicable to all third country nationals, submitted to a visa obligation according to Annex 1 of Regulation 539/2001, who are holders of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein. A list of these documents is annexed to the Decision. The system proposed does not in any way affect the rules of the Schengen acquis as regards procedures and verifications required for crossing the external borders.As the proposed system is limited to transit, it does not affect the possibility of Member States to issue multi-entry visas for short stay, valid for one or more years in order to facilitate the mobility of third country nationals, holders of residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein.Pursuant to Council Decision (EC) 2004/927 this instrument will be adopted by co-decision.2. SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITYArticle 5 of the EC Treaty provides that “action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty”. Action taken by the Community must be the simplest form of action possible that enables the proposal to attain its objective and to be implemented as efficiently as possible. In this spirit the proposed legal instruments chosen to establish common principles for the introduction of a unilateral recognition regime are:- A Decision allowing new Member States to recognise unilaterally certain documents issued by Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis as well as similar national documents issued by other new Member States during the transitory period till the full integration of new Member States into the common area. Participation in the regime is optional.- A Decision on the unilateral recognition by Member States of the certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein as equivalent to visa for the transit purpose. The aim is to facilitate transit via the territory of the Member States by forgoing the need for transit visas for the holders of such residence permits issued by these two countries. The proposed regime is mandatory for Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis. Participation in the recognition regime is optional for new Member States during the transitory period till the date of their full integration into the common area, date from which the recognition regime becomes compulsory.The objective pursued by the above mentioned proposals, that is the introduction on a temporary basis of common rules on unilateral recognition of certain documents by new Member States as well as the introduction of a common regime for unilateral recognition by Member States of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein, can only be attained through action at the Community level, as no Member State would have the possibility to adopt purely national measures achieving the desired effect.The Community action has opted for measures that would allow the proposal to attain its objective and be implemented as efficiently as possible. In this spirit, two different legal instruments have been chosen taking into account the objectives foreseen. For the first proposal, an EP and Council Decision is the appropriate legal instrument for the optional implementation by new Member States of common unilateral recognition rules which constitute a temporary derogation of the existing rules for mutual recognition. For the second proposal, an EP and Council Decision is chosen in view of the fact that the proposed provisions foresee the setting up of a permanent regime of derogation from the current mutual recognition rules, allowing the unilateral recognition by all Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein.3. CONSEQUENCES IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS PROTOCOLS ANNEXED TO THE TREATYThe first proposed EP and Council Decision is addressed exclusively to new Member States introducing a specific transitory regime allowing them to unilaterally recognise certain documents issued by Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis and similar documents issued by other new Member State(s). The proposed Decision is optional and would be applicable by a new Member State till the date to be decided by the Council in compliance with Article 3 paragraph 2 of the 2003 Act of Accession. By its own nature, the regime established by this proposal can not imply the variable situation as laid down by the protocols on the position of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark.The proposed EP and Council Decision concerning the unilateral recognition by Member States of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein as equivalent to the transit visa falls within Title IV of the Treaty and is therefore affected by the “variable geometry” arising from the Protocols on the positions of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark. The proposal for a Decision builds upon the Schengen acquis . Consideration must therefore be given to certain consequences arising from the various Protocols:United Kingdom and IrelandPursuant to Articles 4 and 5 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which are not bound by the Schengen acquis , “may at any time request to take part in some or all of the provisions of the acquis ”. The proposal for a Decision constitutes a development of a part of the Schengen acquis , in which the United Kingdom and Ireland do not take part, in accordance with Council Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Council Decision 2002/192/EC of 28 February 2002 concerning Ireland's request to take part in some of the provisions of the Schengen acquis . The United Kingdom and Ireland are therefore not taking part in its adoption and are not bound by it or subject to its application.DenmarkUnder the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the EC Treaty, Denmark does not take part in the adoption by the Council of measures pursuant to Title IV of the EC Treaty, with the exception of “measures determining the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a visa when crossing the external borders of the Member States” or “measures relating to a uniform format for visas” (former Article 100c). Where, however, as in this case, the proposals constitute a development of the Schengen acquis , Article 5 of the Protocol states that, “Denmark shall decide within a period of six months after the Council has decided on a proposal or initiative to build upon the Schengen acquis under the provisions of Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community, whether it will implement this decision in its national law”.Norway and IcelandPursuant to the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis , an Agreement was signed on 18 May 1999 between the Council, Norway and Iceland in order to associate these two countries with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis .[17] Article 1 of this Agreement states that Norway and Iceland are associated with the activities of the EC and the EU in the fields covered by the provisions referred to in Annexes A (provisions of the Schengen acquis ) and B (provisions of European Community acts which have replaced corresponding provisions of — or were adopted pursuant to — the Schengen Convention) to the Agreement, and their further development. Under Article 2 of the Agreement, Norway and Iceland implement and apply the provisions of all acts or measures taken by the European Union amending or building upon the integrated Schengen acquis (Annexes A and B).The present proposal builds upon the Schengen acquis as defined in Annex A to the Agreement. The matter must therefore be discussed in the "Mixed Committee" provided for in Article 4 of the Agreement to allow Norway and Iceland "to explain the problems they encounter in respect of" the measure and "to express themselves on any questions concerning the development of provisions of concern to them or the implementation thereof".4. ARTICLE-BY-ARTICLE COMMENTARY4.1 EP and Council Decision (EU) No ..... introducing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas for the purposes of transit through their territoriesArticle 1The Article specifies the purpose of the Decision, which is to introduce a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on allowing the new Member States to recognise unilaterally, as equivalent to their national visas, documents issued by Member States fully participating in the common area and documents issued by other new Member States. This derogation from the current recognition rules in the acquis is limited to transit through the territory of the new Member States. The regime is applicable to all third country nationals submitted to the visa requirement according to Regulation 539/2001. Family Members of citizens of the Union who have exercised their right to free movement within the EU are also beneficiaries of the common rules .Article 2The proposal follows an optional approach allowing the new Member States to decide whether they use the derogation regime or continue implementing the current rules. New Member States opting for the implementation of the common rules unilaterally recognize certain documents issued by Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis. The list of documents issued by Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis covers the uniform visa and the long term national visa as described in the Articles 10 and 18 of the Schengen Implementation Convention respectively, and all the residence permits issued by these countries listed in the Annex IV of the Common Consular Instructions. All documents issued by all Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis without any distinction as regards the issuing Member State are covered by the recognition regime. The objective pursued is to preserve the equal value of all documents issued by the Schengen States.Article 3New Member States that have decided to implement the common rules recognizing the documents issued by the Schengen States may, in addition, opt for the recognition of documents issued by other new Member State(s). In an Annex to this Decision there is a list of the documents issued by the new Member States which could be subject of such recognition.Article 4Inspired by the duration of the transit mentioned in the Common Consular Instructions, the proposed duration of the transit period has been set at five days. This period should be sufficient for covering any transit requirement through the territory of a new Member State. Since the recognition regime concerns different categories of Schengen and national documents of varying lengths of validity, the proposed system opts for a general framework defining the minimum acceptable length of validity of the documents concerned. Consequently, the period of validity has to exceed five days from the day of entry into the territory of the new Member State. As concerns the uniform visa allowing one entry (and short stay), it is foreseen that once used for entry to the common area, it can be used again as valid authorisation for purposes of transit through the territory of a new Member State on the return-trip of the holder back to the country of origin.Article 5New Member States have the obligation to communicate to the Commission, within a specific time period, their position concerning their eventual participation in the common recognition regime. All relevant information submitted by the new Member States, will be published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union.Article 6Standard provisionTaking account of the “two step Schengen implementation procedure”, the proposed recognition regime will cover the whole transitory period until the date specified in the Council Decision which will be adopted in conformity with Article 3(2) of the 2003 Act of Accession.Article 7Standard provision.4.2. EP and Council Decision (EU) No ..... establishing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by the Member States of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein for the purpose of transit through their territoryArticle 1The Article specifies the purpose of the Decision, which is to establish a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition of residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein as equivalent to their visa. The purpose of this recognition is limited to the transit through the Schengen territory or the territory of the new Member States.Article 2The proposal follows two different implementation mechanisms:(a) Member States that have fully implemented the Schengen acquis are obliged to unilaterally recognise all residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein which are listed in the Annex;(b) New Member States that have decided to implement the Decision ... and recognised unilaterally the documents issued by Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis, may chose to participate during the transitory period till their full integration into the Schengen area (“optional participation”). In particular, new Member States that have already opted for the unilateral recognition of the documents issued by Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis and documents issued by other new Member State(s), could in addition decide to recognise all the residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein which are listed in the Annex. The common recognition rules will become mandatory for them after their full integration into the common area.Article 3Inspired by the duration of the transit mentioned in the Common Consular Instructions, the proposed duration of the transit period has been set at five days. This period should be sufficient for covering any transit requirement through the territory of Member State(s). The validity of the documents listed in the annex has to exceed five days from the moment of entry, thus covering the whole period afforded for transit.Article 4New Member States have the obligation to communicate to the Commission, within a specific time period, their position concerning their eventual participation in the common recognition regime. All relevant information submitted by the new Member States will be published by the Commission in the Official Journal of the European Community.Articles 5 and 6Standard provision[1] ĠU L 239, 22.09.2000, p.19.[2] Ir-Regolament (KE) 539/2001 tal-15 ta’ Marzu 2001 li jelenka l-pajjiżi terzi li ċ-ċittadini tagħhom għandu jkollhom viża meta jkunu qed jaqsmu l-fruntieri esterni, kif ukoll il-pajjiżi li ċ-ċittadini tagħhom ikunu eżenti minn dak il-kriterju, ĠU L 81, 21.3.2001, p.1. Dan ir-Regolament kien l-aħħar immodifikat bir-Regolament (KE) 851/2005 ĠU L 141, 04.06.2005, p.3.[3] Skond dan l-Artikolu 5(3), “barranin li jkollhom permess ta’ residenza maħruġ minn waħda mill-Partijiet Kontraenti ...għandhom ikunu awtorizzati biex jidħlu minħabba raġunijiet ta’ tranżitu, sakemm l-ismijiet tagħhom ma jkunux jidhru fuq il-lista ta’ twissijiet tal-Parti Kontraenti li l-persuni jkunu qed jippruvaw jaqsmu l-fruntieri esterni tagħha.”[4] Per eżempju, fil-ftehim bilaterali ffirmati suċċessivament mill-Polonja ma’ l-Ukrajina, il-Belarus u r-Russja, hemm dispożizzjoni li tippermetti liċ-ċittadini ta’ dawn il-pajjiżi, li jkollhom viża jew permessi ta’ residenza ta’ Schengen biex ikunu jistgħu jgħaddu fi tranżitu mill-Polonja mingħajr il-kriterju li jkollhom viża ta’ tranżitu Pollakka. Għas-Slovenja, il-bażi legali għall-għarfien ta’ tali dokument għal tranżitu u għal żjarat qosra ħadet il-forma ta’ deċiżjoni tal-gvern ibbażata fuq ftehim bilaterali informali mat-Turkija, il-FYROM, il-Bosnja-Ħerzegovina, is-Serbja-Montenegro u r-Russja. L-Ungerija kienet iffirmat ftehim bilaterali mas-Serbja-Montenegro u ma’ l-Ukrajina b’dispożizzjonijiet simili.[5] Wara l-ewwel perjodu ta’ diskussjonijiet fuq din il-kwistjoni fil-grupp ta’ ħidma relevanti tal-Kunsill, l-Istati Membri ppruvaw isolvu l-problema fil-qafas tad-dispożizzjonijiet eżistenti fuq il-viża ta’ tranżitu (l-Istruzzjonijiet Konsolari Komuni, il-punt 1.2.1.2), billi użaw il-possibilita` li joħorġu viżi ta’ tranżitu b’perjodu twil ta’ validità (sena jew sentejn) u billi jippermettu iktar minn tranżitu wieħed. Madankollu, dan l-arranġament prattiku ma wassalx għal soluzzjoni xierqa. B’mod speċjali, dan ma ġiex implimentat b’mod sistematiku u koerenti mill-Istati Membri kkonċernati u l-effett ta’ dan li jnaqqas in-numru ġenerali ta’ l-applikazzjonijiet għall-viżi kien wieħed pjuttost limitat. Fil-fatt, il-persuni kkonċernati fil-prinċipju jiċċaqalqu darba fis-sena, u għalhekk viża ta’ tranżitu għal dħul ta’ aktar minn darba li tkun valida għal sena mhix l-aktar strument xieraq biex jitħaffef il-moviment ta’ dawn il-persuni. Minħabba l-perjodu tal-permessi ta’ residenza Svizzeri, li l-validità tagħhom hija limitat għal sena bil-possibbiltà li tiġġedded, l-uffiċċji Konsolari tal-post ma jistgħux joħorġu viżi ta’ tranżitu b’validità ta’ perjodu itwal ta’ żmien. Mill-esperjenza li nkisbet, l-Istati Membri ħadu pożoizzjoni favur soluzzjoni ta’ perjodu itwal għal din il-kwistjoni, waqt li qiesu l-fatt li l-persuni kkonċernati b’din il-faċilità ma jirrappreżentawx riskju, minħabba li dawn qed jgħixu u jaħdmu legalment fl-Isvizzera u l-Liechtenstein.[6] ĠU C , , p. .[7] ĠU L 81, 21.3.2001, p.1 Regolament kif l-aħħar emendat bir-Regolament (KE) Nru 851/2005 (ĠU L 141, 04.06.2005, p.3)[8] ĠU L 239, 22.09.2000, p.19.[9] L-istess tip ta’dokument għall-varjanti kollha, bil-validità murija fuq it-tikketta.[10] Maħruġa qabel l-1 ta’ Mejju 2004[11] Maħruġa qabel l-1 ta’ Mejju 2004[12] Dan il-permess ma nħariġx aktar wara l-1 ta’Jannar 2002, madankollu l-permessi li kienu ħarġu qabel għadhom validi; dawn il-barranin għandhom karta ta’ l-identità.[13] ĠU C , , p.[14] ĠU L 239, 22.09.2000, p.19.[15] ĠU L 81, il-21.3.2001, p.1 Regolament kif emendat l-aħħar bir-Regolament (KE) Nru 851/2005 (ĠU L 141, it-04.06.2005, p.3)[16] ĠU L 176, 10.7.1999, p.31.[17] OJ L 176, 10.7.99, p. 35.


type: wikipedia

text:
Ангеларий Охридски () е средновековен книжовник, почитан като светец от Българската православна църква, един от светите седмочисленици.
 Той е сред учениците на архиепископ Методий, съумeли да намерят убежище в България след разгрома на кирило-методиевото дело във Велика Моравия. Затова е почитан сред светите Седмочисленици, култът към които с голяма вероятност е поставен през първата половина на XIII век от охридския архиепископ Димитър Хоматиан.
 Писмените сведения за живота на този православен светец са дотолкова оскъдни и лишени от по-конкретни факти, че някои автори се съмняват в това дали Ангеларий е реална историческа личност. В Белград (дн. Берат) в старата българска област Кутмичевица се пазят мощите на българските просветители учениците на Кирил и Методий – Свети Горазд и Свети Ангеларий.
 През 868 г. в Рим той и Сава са ръкоположени за дякони от епископите Формоза и Гаудерик, докато Горазд, Климент и Наум са ръкоположени за свещеници от същите епископи. През 885 г. папа Стефан V издава папска була, за да забрани използването на славянска литургия, а през 886 г. князът на Великоморавия Святопол I прогонва учениците на двамата братя. Пътят на Сава и останалите четири от тях до Първото българско царство остава неясен. Те се заселват в България, където са посрещнати от княз Борис I и им е възложено да създадат духовни училища.
 Не е известно кога Ангеларий е причислен към кръга от български светци. Интересното е, че не са открити никакви податки за религиозна почит към него преди да бъде развит култът към св. Седмочисленици. Ангеларий не е почетен със самостоятелно житие, нито са познати похвално слово или друг тип творба, писани в негова чест през Средновековието. Името му не се среща в нито едно старобългарско съчинение от периода IX-Х вв., а и датата на неговата смърт не влиза в българския църковен календар. Тези факти са доста учудващи предвид огромната популярност, с която неговата личност би трябвало да се ползва през Първата българска държава. Ангеларий умира в Плиска в 886 г. малко, след като Методиевите ученици пристигат при княз Борис и ситуацията предполага той да бъде превърнат от тях в един от първите собствено български светци. Нещо повече: култът към него би трябвало да е доста разпространен – ако не в цяла България, то поне в района около столичния град, тъй като са налице неговите мощи. В същото време старобългарските църковни дейци Климент Охридски, Наум Охридски, епископ Константин, Йоан Екзарх и др. полагат неимоверни усилия да наложат в България религиозното преклонение към славянските първоапостоли Константин-Кирил Философ и архиепископ Методий. Като се има предвид, че през разглежданата епоха култът към даден светец е неразривно свързан с неговите мощи, а тези на Константин-Кирил и Методий са извън пределите на страната, техният наистина успешен опит да превърнат двамата братя в основни символи на Българската църква буди огромно възхищение, но пълното „нехайство“ към светеца Ангеларий изглежда още по-странно.
 Първият средновековен автор, който изобщо споменава Ангеларий, е Теофилакт Охридски през втората половина на XI век в своята най-популярна днес творба – Пространното житие на Климент Охридски. Ето какво пише архиепископът:
 "...те (Константин-Кирил Философ и Методий) открили славянската азбука, превели боговдъхновителните Писания от елински език на български и се постарали да предадат божествените знания на по-способните си ученици. Сред тях избраните и „корифеите на хора“ били Горазд, Климент, Наум, Ангеларий и Сава... (След като били прогонени от Велика Моравия) Климент заедно с Наум и Ангеларий, като поели по пътя... стигнали до Белград, най-прочут от дунавските градове, те се явили при боритаркана, който тогава го пазел, и понеже той искал да узнае, му разказали всичко за себе си. Като научил това, той разбрал, че тези хора са велики и близки до Бога и решил, че трябва да изпрати чужденците при владетеля на България Борис, чийто подстратег бил, понеже знаел, че отдавна жадува за такива хора... Като пристигнали при Борис и били посрещнати с почит и както подобава на уважавани във всяко отношение и достопочтени хора, помолили ги да разкажат за себе си. Те описали всичко от начало докрай, като не пропуснали нищо. Като чул това, владетелят горещо благодарил на бога, че изпратил такива свои служители за благодетели на България и че го дарил с такива учители и строители на вярата – не случайни хора, а изповедници и мъченици. Като им дал одежди, подходящи за свещеници, и ги приел с всевъзможни почести, той наредил да им се дадат жилища, определени за първите му приятели. Той задоволил техните нужди с голяма разточителност... Него пък самия го обхванало силно желание всекидневно да беседва с тях и да научава от тях стари истории и жития на светци и да чете чрез техните уста Писанията... Затова един българин, на име Есхач, по чин сампсис, като дошъл при княза, помолил да приеме в дома си преподобния Наум и пресветия Климент. А той, понеже просителят му бил драг, с готовност се съгласил... От пребиваването на Ангеларий се осветил и домът на Чеслав, който помолил да приеме този учител и князът му оказал тази милост. Но Чеслав не можал дълго време да се наслаждава на неговото присъствие между живите, понеже Ангеларий живял при него известно време и не без радост издъхнал в ръцете на светите ангели."
 На това място разказът за Ангеларий свършва и Теофилакт Охридски пропуска да опише дори неговото погребение. Не е трудно да се забележи, че той съобщава за ученика на Методий без задължителните за един житиен текст възторжени описания, хиперболи, славословия и агиографски похвати, които включват истории с чудеса, извършени от мощите на светеца. Ангеларий просто е една маргинална личност, спътник на истински интересуващия Теофилакт духовник – свети Климент.
 Както е известно, Теофилакт Охридски съставя своето произведение за св. Климент на гръцки език. На практика Пространното житие на Климент Охридски е представител на византийската литература. Във времето на Втората българска държава житието не е преведено на български език и поради това остава изолирано и напълно непознато. Вероятно това е причината известно време, след като Теофилакт завършва творбата си, Ангеларий все още да не е популярен сред българското общество. Така например през 1211 г. името му е пропуснато при изготвянето на един официален документ на Българската църква – Синодика на цар Борил. Включеното в този паметник славословие за учениците на Методий гласи: „На Климент, неговия (на Методий) ученик, епископ на велика Морава и на учениците му Сава, Горазд и Наум, защото те много се потрудиха за славянските книги – вечна им слава.“ Отсъствието на Ангеларий се приема от учените за механична грешка на авторите. Това едва ли е вярно, след като друг български книжовен паметник от същата епоха – т. нар. Второ житие на Наум Охридски (първ. пол. на XIII век) – също съдържа информация за Методиевите ученици, но отново не споменава Ангеларий. В това житие четем: „Той (папа Адриан II) ръкоположи и Климент и Наум с останалите свещеници и дякони... Наум и Климент дойдоха в илирийските и лихнидските земи...“. Това произведение повтаря разказа за прекосяването на река Дунав, но, както личи, в предлаганата от неговия автор версия действащи лица са само Климент и Наум, а Ангеларий не съществува.
 Между 1216 и 1234 гг. Охридската архиепископия се оглавява от Димитър Хоматиан, който също като своя предшественик Теофилакт е дълбок почитател на Климент и неговото духовно дело. Йерархът на Охрид написва на свой ред житийна творба за най-значимия светец на своя град, която в много отношения е повлияна от произведението на Теофилакт. В неговото Кратко житие на Климент Охридски името на Ангеларий естествено се появява: „Пръв (Климент) заедно с божествения Наум, Ангеларий и Горазд усърдно изучил Свещеното писание...“. Не може да бъде пренебрегната онази подробност, че Димитър Хоматиан е автор и на една Служба за Климент Охридски, която съпровожда Краткото житие. В него той вмъква следния стих: „Ти си тръгнал от Рим, Клименте блажени, заедно с божествените мъже и твои съратници Методий, Горазд, Наум и Сава...“. Липсва задоволителен отговор на въпроса по каква причина Димитър Хоматиан оставя Ангеларий настрани от останалите светци. Краткото житие на Климент от Димитър Хоматиан много скоро бива преведено на български език и се разпространява из цялата страна. Много е вероятно едва тогава българските книжовници и църковни дейци да научават за Ангеларий. Факт е, че малко по-късно – през вт. пол. или края на XIII век – на бял свят се появява първото българско произведение, използвано днес като извор за Методиевия последовател Ангеларий. Става дума за Краткото житие на Кирил, известно като „Успение Кирилово“. В него, както може да се очаква, не откриваме никакви нови данни за Ангеларий, а само една кратко споменаване на Методиевите следовници, сред които е включен и той. С това списъкът на средновековните творби, от които можем да почерпим някакви данни за светеца, е изчерпан.
 Изключителната непопулярност на Ангеларий в сравнение с вековната почит към Климент и Наум Охридски може да се корени в преждевременната му смърт в Плиска, при която не остават следи от неговото духовно и просветно дело. Но известно основание има и предположението, че той е плод на творческата изобретателност на Теофилакт Охридски и поради това му е отредено едно почти анонимно битуване в българските литература и църковен живот между IX и XIV в.
 Според Теофилакт Охридски след смъртта на архиепископ Методий източнофранкското духовенство в Моравия залавя неговите последователи и провежда публични дебати за т. нар. filioque, т.е. дали творческото начало е единствено у Отца или и у Сина. Дебатите имат за цел единствено да бламират учениците на Методий, след което те са хвърлени в тъмница и се подлагат на мъчения. Тук се намесва Господ и спомага за освобождаването на Климент, Наум и Ангеларий. Те са пуснати голи и боси на моравската югоизточна граница, след което преминават р. Дунав и се отправят към най-близкото българско селище Белград. Интересно е да се отбележи, че тази история се появява за пръв път у охридския архиепископ. Когато става въпрос за установяването на Методиевите ученици в България, произведенията от Първата българска държава, изглежда, предлагат съвсем друга версия. Т. нар. Най-старо житие на Наум Охридски от началото на Х век. свидетелства за това, че източнофранкският клир продава всички ученици на починалия архиепископ Методий в робство. Те са заведени във Венеция, за да бъдат препродадени и там са разпознати и закупени от един византийски сановник, който ги изпраща при император Василий I. Василевсът им връща свободата и ги поставя на служба към Константинополската патриаршия, но една част от тях решават да заминат за България. Василий I им предоставя тази възможност.
 В житието, което се приема като изключително ценен и достоверен източник за живота на Наум и Климент, няма и една дума за това, че двамата светци достигат Плиска по друг път. За неговия неизвестен нам автор Ангеларий изобщо не съществува, но той съобщава за други следовници на славянския апостол Методий, които пристигат в държавата на княз Борис. С това той предава един доказан исторически факт, тъй като един такъв ученик, неупоменат в никое от цитираните тук жития, е известен на науката – това е епископ Константин (Преславски). Исторически вярно изглежда и сведението, че учениците на Методий пристигат първо във византийската столица и по-късно преминават българо-византийската граница като служители на Патриаршията. През 80-те години на IX век основаната Българска архиепископия все още се намира в незавидното положение на подчинена спрямо константинополския патриарх и тази зависимост се изразява в редовното инфилтриране на византийски свещенослужители в България. По този начин в българския диоцез са изпращани архиепископът и епископите на България, свещеници и монаси. Най-силният аргумент срещу Теофилактовия вариант на събитията е собственото му съобщение за окаяния вид, в който Климент и съратниците му достигат Белград и фактът, че според него други последователи на Методиевото учение не успяват да достигнат Плиска. Как тогава в България попадат най-старият превод на Евангелието, писан на глаголица, житията на Константин-Кирил и Методий, Константиновите произведения „Написание за правата вяра“ и „Слово за откриване мощите на св. Климент“? Повече от ясно е, че учениците на Методий донасят тези трудове със себе си.
 И така как славянските учители, променили завинаги облика на Българската църква, се озовават в столицата Плиска? Въпросът е основателен, тъй като, ако се гласува доверие на Теофилактовата версия, трябва също така да се приеме, че и неговата информация за Ангеларий е достоверна. Сред изследователите се е наложила практиката двата предадени тук разказа да бъдат събирани в един и така да се изтъква, че повечето свещеници, обучени от Методий, пристигат в България, минавайки през Константинопол. Съвсем самостоятелно от тях тримата му най-изявени ученици напускат Велика Моравия през Дунава и достигат двора на княз Борис по-рано. Тази хипотеза не може да бъде потвърдена от който и да е наративен източник, тъй като никъде двете пътувания не са предадени като паралелно случили се събития. По всичко личи, че разказът на Теофилакт измества онзи от IX-Х век и просто променя историята.
 Разискваният тук исторически въпрос трябва да се приеме за все още неразрешен. Дори Ангеларий да е просто изобретен от Теофилакт Охридски и българската история в действителност да е лишена от един свой виден представител, в съзнанието и вярата на българите той е бил жив и е свещенодействал, макар и за кратко, из българските земи. Заедно с останалите Седмочисленици Ангеларий е символ на непобедимата сила на духа и на изконната жажда за знания и просвета.
 Литература
 ŠKOVIERA, Andrej. Svätí slovanskí sedmopočetníci. 1. vyd. Bratislava: Slovenský komitét slavistov – Slavistický ústav Jána Stanislava SAV, 2010. 247 s. ISBN 978-80-89489-02-2.
 Andrej Škoviera: Svätý sedmopočetník Angelár – náš neznámy apoštol. In: Život slova v dejinách a jazykových vzťahoch. (K sedemdesiatinám profesora Jána Doruľu). Ed. Peter Žeňuch. Bratislava: Slavistický kabinet SAV, 2003, s.134 – 141.
 Външни препратки
 Ангеларий Охридский – В: „Православная Энциклопедия“
 Andrej Škoviera: Свети седмопочетници
 Родени през 9 век
 Християнски светци от IX век
 Средновековни български светци
 Седмочисленици
 Чешки светци
 Личности (Берат)
 Починали в Плиска


text:
Provoca é um programa da TV Cultura apresentado pelo jornalista Marcelo Tas. É um programa de entrevistas instigantes e provocativas, com grande ênfase no entrevistado.
 Durante quinze anos foi apresentado por Antônio Abujamra com o nome de Provocações. O apresentador também lia textos e recitava poemas de pessoas famosas ou não. Além disso, havia o quadro "Vozes das ruas", no qual transeuntes expressavam suas opiniões acerca de diversos assuntos. A trilha sonora de abertura foi elaborada pelo filho de Abujamra, o músico e ator André Abujamra.
 O programa estreou em 6 de agosto de 2000. A primeira fase foi encerrada em 28 de abril de 2015, devido à morte do apresentador Antônio Abujamra. Por meio do canal próprio do programa, foram publicadas as entrevistas que haviam sido gravadas e não transmitidas pela TV Cultura (ep. 696 - 702). O filho do apresentador reuniu pessoas próximas ao programa e ao apresentador, encerrando a série Provocações em um especial em três partes (ep. 703, 704 e 705).
 O retorno, com Marcelo Tas
 Em março de 2019 a emissora anunciou a retomada do programa sob o comando do Marcelo Tas, que tem um histórico com a TV Cultura por ter interpretado personagens para programas infanto-juvenis, e também por ter apresentado o programa de variedades Vitrine. A 16a temporada do programa, a primeira com o Tas, estreou em 14 de maio de 2019, tendo como entrevistado o ex-governador e ex-ministro Ciro Gomes. Na nova fase, em que enfatiza a interação com as redes sociais, o programa recebeu o nome de Provoca.
 Prêmios e indicações
 Ligações externas
 Provocações no YouTube
 Programas da TV Cultura
 Programas de entrevistas do Brasil
 Programas de televisão do Brasil que estrearam em 2000
 Programas de televisão do Brasil encerrados em 2015
 Programas de televisão em língua portuguesa


type: other

text:
ebaseadusliku menetleja lahend
 otsuse lõpposa järelduste puudused
 3-1-1-92-15 Riigikohus 21.10.2015
 VTMS § 120 lg 3
 Kui kohtumenetluse pool leiab, et tal ei ole võimalik kirjalikus menetluses oma seisukohti piisavalt kaitsta, on tal õigus kirjaliku menetlusega mitte nõustuda. Seeläbi saab ta muu hulgas kasutada VTMS § 19 lg 1 p-des 3 ja 4 ette nähtud õigusi olla kohtus oma väärteoasja arutamise juures ning anda ütlusi, esitada tõendeid ja taotlusi. Menetlusaluse isiku taotlus arutada väärteoasja kohtuistungil on maakohtule VTMS § 120 lg 1 kohaselt siduv. Kui väärteoasi on siiski lahendatud kirjalikus menetluses, on menetlusaluse isiku VTMS § 19 lg 1 p-dega 3 ning 4 tagatud õigusi rikutud. (p 8) VTMS § 120 lg-s 3 nähakse ette, et kui kohtumenetluse pool on koos kaebusega maakohtule esitanud uue tõendi, mille kohus vastu võtab, võib asja lahendada kirjalikus menetluses vaid siis, kui kohtumenetluse pooled ei taotle uue tõendi uurimiseks kohtuistungi korraldamist. Kaitseõiguse tagamiseks tuleb VTMS § 120 lg-s 3 märgitut kohaldada ka juhul, kui tegemist on kohtuvälise menetleja esitatud või kohtu enda kogutud uute tõenditega (vt RKKKo 3-1-1-16-06, p 14.3). (p 9) VTMS § 120 lg-te 1 ja 3 nõuete eiramine on hinnatav väärteomenetlusõiguse olulise rikkumisena VTMS § 150 lg 2 mõttes, mis toob kaasa maakohtu otsuse tühistamise ja väärteoasja saatmise uueks arutamiseks samale maakohtule teises kohtukoosseisus. (p 10) VTMS § 150 lg 1 p-s 3 kirjeldatud väärteomenetlusõiguse olulise rikkumisena saab käsitada neid juhtumeid, mil kohus on eiranud kohtumenetluse poole kohtuistungi toimumise ajast ja kohast teavitamise nõudeid (vt nt RKKKo 3-1-1-8-08, p-d 9–10). Selles sättes kirjeldatud rikkumisega ei ole aga tegemist juhul, kui maakohus arutas VTMS § 120 lg-s 1 märgitut eirates väärteoasja kirjalikus menetluses. (p 10)
 Kui kohtumenetluse pool leiab, et tal ei ole võimalik kirjalikus menetluses oma seisukohti piisavalt kaitsta, on tal õigus kirjaliku menetlusega mitte nõustuda. Seeläbi saab ta muu hulgas kasutada VTMS § 19 lg 1 p-des 3 ja 4 ette nähtud õigusi olla kohtus oma väärteoasja arutamise juures ning anda ütlusi, esitada tõendeid ja taotlusi. Menetlusaluse isiku taotlus arutada väärteoasja kohtuistungil on maakohtule VTMS § 120 lg 1 kohaselt siduv. Kui väärteoasi on siiski lahendatud kirjalikus menetluses, on menetlusaluse isiku VTMS § 19 lg 1 p-dega 3 ning 4 tagatud õigusi rikutud. (p 8)
 VTMS § 120 lg-te 1 ja 3 nõuete eiramine on hinnatav väärteomenetlusõiguse olulise rikkumisena VTMS § 150 lg 2 mõttes, mis toob kaasa maakohtu otsuse tühistamise ja väärteoasja saatmise uueks arutamiseks samale maakohtule teises kohtukoosseisus. (p 10)
 VTMS § 150 lg 1 p-s 3 kirjeldatud väärteomenetlusõiguse olulise rikkumisena saab käsitada neid juhtumeid, mil kohus on eiranud kohtumenetluse poole kohtuistungi toimumise ajast ja kohast teavitamise nõudeid (vt nt RKKKo 3-1-1-8-08, p-d 9–10). Selles sättes kirjeldatud rikkumisega ei ole aga tegemist juhul, kui maakohus arutas VTMS § 120 lg-s 1 märgitut eirates väärteoasja kirjalikus menetluses. (p 10)
 Põhistatud kohtuotsus peab kandma otsuse lõpposa kuulutamise kuupäeva (vt RKKKo 3-1-1-13-05, p 10). (p 11)
 3-1-1-8-08 Riigikohus 28.03.2008
 VTMS § 110
 Isiku teavitamine kohtuistungi toimumise ajast ja kohast on vajalik ka juhul, kui isik on avaldanud, et ta ei soovi kohtuistungist osa võtta. See on vajalik, et tagada menetlusalusele isikule võimalus seisukoha muutumisel siiski istungil osaleda. VTMS sätestatust muu teavitamisviisi kasutamisel ei ole tegemist ilmtingimata väärteomenetlusõiguse olulise rikkumisega, kui on üheselt tuvastatav, et isikule on teatatud kohtuistungi toimumise aeg ja koht. Kui kutse nõutaval viisil saatmata jätmise tõttu ei ole võimalik üheselt tuvastada, kas menetlusalust isikut on teavitatud tema asja arutamise ajast ja kohast, siis on tegemist väärteomenetlusõiguse olulise rikkumisega VTMS § 150 lg 1 p 3 tähenduses.
 VTMS § 123 lg 2 kohaselt arutab maakohus väärteoasja täies ulatuses, sh lahendab kohustuslikus korras VTMS §-s 133 loetletud küsimused. (Vt RKKKo nr 3-1-1-8-03, p 7.3 ja nr 3-1-1-62-06, p 5). Kooskõlas VTMS §-ga 110 peab kohtuotsuse põhiosast nähtuma nii tõendite analüüs kui see, millised asjaolud on kohus lugenud tõendatuks ja millele on kohus tuginenud otsuse tegemisel, s.o kohtuotsus peab olema põhistatud. Kohtu mõttekäik peab olema kohtuotsuse põhjal jälgitav ja järelduste tegemine seostatud tuvastatud asjaoludega. Nimetatud nõuetele mittevastava kohtuotsuse tegemine on väärteomenetlusõiguse oluline rikkumine VTMS § 150 lg 1 p 7 mõttes.


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 18.3.2017
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 73/9
 VYKONÁVACIE NARIADENIE KOMISIE (EÚ) 2017/474
 zo 17. marca 2017,
 ktorým sa stanovuje prideľovací koeficient, ktorý sa má uplatňovať na množstvá, na ktoré sa vzťahujú žiadosti o dovozné povolenia podané od 1. marca do 7. marca 2017 v rámci colných kvót otvorených nariadením (ES) č. 533/2007 v odvetví hydinového mäsa
 EURÓPSKA KOMISIA,
 so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie,
 so zreteľom na nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1308/2013 zo 17. decembra 2013, ktorým sa vytvára spoločná organizácia trhov s poľnohospodárskymi výrobkami, a ktorým sa zrušujú nariadenia Rady (EHS) č. 922/72, (EHS) č. 234/79, (ES) č. 1037/2001 a (ES) č. 1234/2007 (1), a najmä na jeho článok 188 ods. 1 a 3,
 keďže:
 (1)
 Nariadením Komisie (ES) č. 533/2007 (2) sa otvorili ročné colné kvóty na dovoz výrobkov z odvetvia hydinového mäsa.
 (2)
 Množstvá, na ktoré sa vzťahujú žiadosti o dovozné povolenia podané od 1. marca do 7. marca 2017 na čiastkové obdobie od 1. apríla do 30. júna 2017, sú v prípade niektorých kvót vyššie ako dostupné množstvá. Malo by sa teda určiť, do akej miery sa môžu dovozné povolenia vydávať, a to stanovením prideľovacieho koeficientu, ktorý sa má uplatniť na požadované množstvá a ktorý sa vypočíta v súlade s článkom 7 ods. 2 nariadenia Komisie (ES) č. 1301/2006 (3).
 (3)
 S cieľom zaistiť účinnosť opatrenia by toto nariadenie malo nadobudnúť účinnosť v deň jeho uverejnenia v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie,
 PRIJALA TOTO NARIADENIE:
 Článok 1
 Na množstvá, na ktoré sa vzťahujú žiadosti o dovozné povolenia podané podľa nariadenia (ES) č. 533/2007 na čiastkové obdobie od 1. apríla do 30. júna 2017, sa uplatňujú prideľovacie koeficienty uvedené v prílohe k tomuto nariadeniu.
 Článok 2
 Toto nariadenie nadobúda účinnosť dňom jeho uverejnenia v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.
 Toto nariadenie je záväzné v celom rozsahu a priamo uplatniteľné vo všetkých členských štátoch.
 V Bruseli 17. marca 2017
 Za Komisiu
 v mene predsedu
 Jerzy PLEWA
 generálny riaditeľ
 Generálne riaditeľstvo pre poľnohospodárstvo a rozvoj vidieka
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 347, 20.12.2013, s. 671.
 (2) Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 533/2007 zo 14. mája 2007, ktorým sa otvárajú colné kvóty a zabezpečuje sa ich správa v odvetví hydinového mäsa (Ú. v. EÚ L 125, 15.5.2007, s. 9).
 (3) Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 1301/2006 z 31. augusta 2006, ktorým sa ustanovujú všeobecné pravidlá pre správu dovozných colných kvót pre poľnohospodárske produkty spravovaných prostredníctvom systému dovozných licencií (Ú. v. EÚ L 238, 1.9.2006, s. 13).
 PRÍLOHA
 Poradové číslo
 Prideľovací koeficient – žiadosti podané na čiastkové obdobie od 1. apríla do 30. júna 2017
 (v %)
 09.4067
 —
 09.4068
 0,365823
 09.4069
 0,137403
 09.4070
 —


text:
PROTECT rūko generatorius | PROTECT rūko apsauga/sistema
 Jeigu tai būtų
 Jūsų parduotuvė...
 apsaugotumėte?
 Kaip ją
 Jūsų sandėlys...
 Jeigu tai būtų Jūsų bankomatas...
 Kaip jį apsaugotumėte?
 Jeigu tai būtų Jūsų vaistinė...
 Kaip ją apsaugotumėte?
 Jeigu tai būtų Jūsų bankas...
 Jeigu tai būtų Jūsų IT centras...
 Apsaugota per sekundes
 Jūsų naujas rūko generatorius aktyvuosis nedelsiant po įsilaužimo.
 Per sekundes didelio tankio rūkas užpildys patalpą ir išgąsdins įsilaužėlius.
 Niekas nepavogta ir greičiausiai šis lankytojas nebegriš
 PROTECT rūko apsauga sustabdo įsilaužėlį per kelias sekundes.
 Kiekvienas verslas didelis ar mažas turi apsaugos sistemas turtui apsaugoti.Deja, dažnai jų nepakanka įsilaužimui išvengti.Tik PROTECT rūko apsaugos sistema apsaugos Jūsų turtą nuo vagystės arba sugadinimo.
 Patekę į Jūsų įprastu būdu saugomas patalpas, vagys turi galimybę pavogti vertingus daiktus.PROTECT apsaugos rūko generatoriai užpildys patalpas didelio tankio rūku ir padarys vertybes nematomas-taigi vagys nematys, ką vogti.Tiek laiko pakanka policijai atvažiuoti.Rūkas yra nežalingas sveikatai ir nekenkia turtui.
 PROTECT rūko apsaugos Sistema turi platų rūko apsaugos generatorių pasirinkimą,kurie yra sukurti ir pritaikyti visoms verslo rūšims ir yra skirtingų pajėgumų.Dauguma mūsų modelių gali būti tvirtinami prie sienos arba lubų.
 PROTECT apsaugos rūko Sistema buvo išbandyta ir patikrinta daugelyje pasaulio šalių ir šiuo metu mes esame lyderiaujantys pasaulyje rūko apsaugos srityje.Mes garantuojame, kad tai naudinga investicija
 Atvejai patalpinti vaizo galerijoje
 Sustabdo įsilaužimą, vagystę, užpuolimą arba vandalizmą.
 Garantuoja Jums ramybę
 Mažesnė rizika -mažesnės draudimo įmokos
 Rūkas yra nekenksmingas ir nepalieka pėdsakų
 Nereikalingos papildomos apsaugos sistemos


type: caselaw

text:
 25.4.2016
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 145/6
 Presuda Suda (četvrto vijeće) od 25. veljače 2016. (zahtjev za prethodnu odluku koji je uputio Symvoulio tis Epikrateias – Grčka) – Elliniko Dimosio protiv Stefanosa Stroumpoulisa i dr.
 (Predmet C-292/14) (1)
 ((Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku - Direktiva 80/987/EEZ - Usklađivanje zakonodavstava država članica o zaštiti zaposlenika u slučaju insolventnosti poslodavca - Područje primjene - Nepodmirena potraživanja po osnovi plaća pomoraca koji rade na brodu koji vijori zastavu treće zemlje - Poslodavac s registriranim sjedištem u toj trećoj zemlji - Ugovor o radu na koji se primjenjuje pravo te treće zemlje - Insolventnost poslodavca proglašena u državi članici u kojoj ima stvarno sjedište - Članak 1. stavak 2. - Prilog, točka II.A - Nacionalno zakonodavstvo koje predviđa jamstvo za nepodmirena potraživanja po osnovi plaće pomoraca primjenjivo jedino u slučaju njihova napuštanja u inozemstvu - Stupanj zaštite koji nije jednak onomu iz Direktive 80/987))
 (2016/C 145/06)
 Jezik postupka: grčki
 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev
 Symvoulio tis Epikrateias
 Stranke glavnog postupka
 Tužitelj: Elliniko Dimosio
 Tuženici: Stefanos Stroumpoulis, Nikolaos Koumpanos, Panagiotis Renieris, Charalampos Renieris, Ioannis Zacharias, Dimitrios Lazarou, Apostolos Chatzisotiriou
 Izreka
 1.
 Direktivu 80/987/EEZ od 20. listopada 1980. o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica o zaštiti zaposlenika u slučaju insolventnosti njihova poslodavca treba tumačiti na način da, ne dovodeći u pitanje eventualnu primjenu njezina članka 1. stavka 2., pomorci s prebivalištem u državi članici i koje je u toj državi zaposlilo društvo s registriranim sjedištem u trećoj zemlji, ali sa stvarnim sjedištem u toj državi članici, za rad kao zaposlenici na kruzeru u vlasništvu tog društva koji vijori zastavu te treće zemlje, u skladu s ugovorom o radu koji kao primjenjivo pravo određuje pravo te treće zemlje, moraju, nakon što je sud države članice o kojoj je riječ proglasio insolventnost tog društva prema pravu te države, moći ostvariti zaštitu koju predviđa ta direktiva u pogledu neplaćenih potraživanja plaća koja imaju u odnosu na to društvo.
 2.
 Članak 1. stavak 2. Direktive 80/987 treba tumačiti na način da, u odnosu na radnike u situaciji poput one tuženika u glavnom postupku, zaštita poput one predviđene u članku 29. Zakona 1220/1981 o izmjeni i dopuni zakonodavstva o tijelu za upravljanje lukom Pirej u slučaju napuštanja pomoraca u inozemstvu nije „stupanj zaštite jednak onomu koji proizlazi iz [te] direktive” u smislu te odredbe.
 (1) SL C 282, 25. 8. 2014.


text:
La Serbie du Sud () est une province (pokrajina) du Royaume des Serbes, des Croates et des Slovènes (Yougoslavie) qui exista entre 1919 et 1922. Il comprenait les territoires modernes du Sandjak (certaines parties de la Serbie et du Monténégro), du Kosovo et de la Macédoine du Nord. Le nom de « Vieille Serbie et Macédoine », ou simplement « Vieille Serbie », a été historiquement utilisé dans la politique, la littérature et la science serbes pour désigner les territoires de la province. Après la dissolution de cette dernière, le terme a continué à être utilisé pour la banovine du Vardar et la banovine de la Zeta.
 Histoire
 La province a été créée en 1919, après la création de la Yougoslavie le . La Serbie a considérablement élargi ses frontières pendant les guerres balkaniques. La province a été dissoute en 1922 et ses territoires ont été réorganisés en deux banovines : la banovine du Vardar et la banovine de la Zeta. Le terme a ensuite été familièrement utilisé pour ces territoires.
 Économie
 La province de Serbie du Sud étant une région principalement montagneuse, elle a des conditions favorables pour le développement de l'élevage, comme le montrent les statistiques sur l'augmentation du nombre de têtes de bétail. Le nombre d'animaux a dépassé 13 % du nombre total de l'ensemble de la Yougoslavie. La restauration de l'élevage, qui avait été détruit pendant les années de guerre, était le principal objectif du ministère de l'Économie.
 Démographie
 En 1921, la province comptait environ 1,7 million d'habitants.
 Références
 Sources
 Yougoslavie
 Division administrative disparue en 1922
 Division administrative fondée en 1919
 Relations entre la Macédoine du Nord et la Serbie