text:
Řízení o koncesi - Portál POHODA
 §50 (1) Osoba, která hodlá provozovat koncesovanou živnost, podá žádost o vydání koncese u živnostenského úřadu.
 §50 (2) Pro náležitosti žádosti o koncesi platí ustanovení § 45 odst. 2, 3 a 5 a § 46 obdobně. Předmět podnikání je třeba v žádosti o koncesi uvést v úplném nebo částečném rozsahu podle přílohy č. 3.
 §50 (3) Jsou-li pro provozování živnosti stanoveny podmínky odborné nebo jiné způsobilosti, k žádosti o koncesi přiloží:
 §50 (4) Žadatel v žádosti o koncesi je povinen uvést též údaje podle zvláštních předpisů a doložit je doklady, které jsou nezbytné k zaujetí stanoviska příslušného orgánu státní správy podle § 52 odst. 1 tohoto zákona.
 k zákonu č. 169/2012 Sb.
 §52 (1) Je-li k provozování živnosti podle zvláštních předpisů nebo přílohy č. 3 zákona nutné oprávnění nebo souhlas nebo povolení nebo vyjádření orgánu státní správy, živnostenský úřad mu předloží žádost o koncesi, nebo pokud to zvláštní právní předpis vyžaduje, žádost o schválení ustanovení odpovědného zástupce, spolu se všemi doklady předloženými žadatelem o koncesi, které jsou nezbytné k zaujetí stanoviska; tento orgán je povinen zaujmout stanovisko do 30 dnů od doručení žádosti, pokud v příloze č. 3 není stanoveno jinak. Jeho stanoviskem je živnostenský úřad vázán. Toto stanovisko živnostenský úřad nevyžaduje v případě, že orgán uvedený v příloze č. 3 k tomuto zákonu vydal rozhodnutí o udělení souhlasu s podnikáním podle zvláštního právního předpisu.
 §52 (2) Podala-li žádost o koncesi zahraniční fyzická osoba, která je povinna doložit též doklad o povolení k pobytu podle § 5 odst. 5, postupuje živnostenský úřad podle § 47 odst. 7 a 8 přiměřeně.
 §53 (1) Před rozhodnutím o koncesi živnostenský úřad zjišťuje, zda jsou splněny všeobecné a zvláštní podmínky pro provozování živnosti a zda netrvá překážka provozování živnosti.
 §53 (2) Není-li splněna některá z podmínek podle odstavce 1 nebo nesouhlasí-li s udělením koncese orgán státní správy příslušný podle přílohy č. 3 k tomuto zákonu, živnostenský úřad žádost zamítne.
 §53 (3) Je-li současně se žádostí o udělení koncese předkládáno živnostenskému úřadu ke schválení ustanovení odpovědného zástupce a splňuje-li navržená osoba podmínky stanovené zákonem, rozhodne živnostenský úřad o ustanovení odpovědného zástupce v rozhodnutí o udělení koncese.
 §53 (4) Osobě uvedené v § 5 odst. 5 živnostenský úřad udělí koncesi na dobu povoleného pobytu.
 §53 (5) Pro náležitosti rozhodnutí o udělení koncese se použije ustanovení § 47 odst. 2 písm. a) až e) a § 47 odst. 3 písm. a) až c) obdobně. V rozhodnutí o udělení koncese živnostenský úřad stanoví podmínky provozování živnosti podle § 27 odst. 3.
 §54 (1) Živnostenský úřad do pěti pracovních dnů ode dne nabytí právní moci rozhodnutí o udělení koncese provede zápis do živnostenského rejstříku a podnikateli vydá výpis.
 §54 (2) Pro vydání výpisu se použije ustanovení § 47 odst. 2, 3 a 11 obdobně.
 §54 (3) Pokud zahraniční fyzická osoba, která je podle § 5 odst. 5 povinna doložit doklad o povolení k pobytu ve lhůtě podle § 47 odst. 8, tento doklad nedoloží, má se za to, že nesplnila podmínky pro vznik živnostenského oprávnění. Živnostenský úřad tuto skutečnost poznamená do spisu a zapíše do živnostenského rejstříku.
 §54 (4) Zjistí-li živnostenský úřad, že zápis do živnostenského rejstříku nebyl proveden v souladu s rozhodnutím o udělení koncese, nebo že údaje, které se zapisují do živnostenského rejstříku a nejsou obsahem rozhodnutí o udělení koncese, neodpovídají skutečnosti, provede opravu zápisu v živnostenském rejstříku a podle okolností vydá výpis nebo informuje podnikatele o opravě zápisu.
 §55 (1) Informační povinnosti živnostenského úřadu podle § 48 platí obdobně.
 §55 (2) Živnostenský úřad zašle stejnopis pravomocného rozhodnutí o udělení koncese, o její změně nebo o jejím zrušení, údaje o přerušení nebo o pozastavení provozování živnosti, výpis, popřípadě jiným dohodnutým způsobem sdělí údaje o koncesované živnosti a o podnikateli též orgánu, který je příslušný k vydání stanoviska podle § 52 odst. 1.
 §56 (1) Podnikatel je povinen oznámit živnostenskému úřadu všechny změny a doplnění týkající se údajů a dokladů, které jsou stanoveny jako náležitosti žádosti o koncesi, a předložit o nich doklady do 15 dnů ode dne jejich vzniku; to neplatí, pokud se jedná o změny a doplnění již zapsané v základních registrech, (Pozn. č. 28d: Zákon č. 111/2009 Sb., o základních registrech.) v obchodním rejstříku nebo v informačním systému evidence obyvatel, (Pozn. č. 38e: Zákon č. 133/2000 Sb., o evidenci obyvatel a rodných číslech a o změně některých zákonů (zákon o evidenci obyvatel), ve znění pozdějších předpisů.) pokud je podnikatel občanem České republiky, anebo v informačním systému cizinců, (Pozn. č. 31g: § 158 zákona č. 326/1999 Sb., o pobytu cizinců na území České republiky a o změně některých zákonů, ve znění zákona č. 227/2009 Sb.) pokud je podnikatel cizincem. Změny a doplnění údajů získaných z těchto registrů, systémů nebo z obchodního rejstříku zapíše živnostenský úřad bez zbytečného odkladu do živnostenského rejstříku. Předloží-li podnikatel doklady uvedené v § 46 odst. 1 písm. a), b), d) a f) a v odstavci 2 písm. a), b), d), f) a g), postupuje živnostenský úřad podle § 46 odst. 7 obdobně.
 §56 (2) Pro předkládání dokladů k oznámení změn a doplnění podle odstavce 1 věty první platí § 46 odst. 6 přiměřeně.
 §56 (3) Na základě oznámení podle odstavce 1 živnostenský úřad podle okolností případu změní rozhodnutí o udělení koncese, provede zápis změn do živnostenského rejstříku, vydá výpis (§ 47 odst. 2 nebo 3) nebo informuje podnikatele o provedeném zápisu nebo rozhodne o pozastavení provozování živnosti nebo o zrušení živnostenského oprávnění. Nesplní-li podnikatel oznamovací povinnost podle odstavce 1, a živnostenský úřad změnu údajů prokazatelně zjistí, zapíše ji bez zbytečného odkladu do živnostenského rejstříku.
 §56 (4) Změny týkající se rozsahu předmětu podnikání a podmínek provozování živnosti provede živnostenský úřad změnou rozhodnutí o udělení koncese z vlastního nebo jiného podnětu. Následně provede zápis do živnostenského rejstříku a vydá výpis se změněnými údaji ve lhůtě podle § 54 odst. 1.
 §56 (5) Na řízení o změně rozhodnutí o udělení koncese se vztahuje přiměřeně ustanovení § 52 a 53. Řízení o změně podmínek uložených v rozhodnutí o udělení koncese podle § 27 odst. 3 zahajuje živnostenský úřad z vlastního nebo jiného podnětu.
 §56 (6) Změní-li se bydliště podnikatele a podnikatel oznámil živnostenskému úřadu, že při změně bydliště požaduje změnit sídlo na stejnou adresu, jako je adresa bydliště, není povinen při změně bydliště změnu sídla živnostenskému úřadu oznamovat.
 §56 (7) Pro opravu chybného zápisu změny nebo doplnění údajů do živnostenského rejstříku živnostenský úřad přiměřeně použije ustanovení § 54 odst. 4 nebo § 47 odst. 11.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 9.2.2008
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 37/2
 Odwołanie od postanowienia Sądu Pierwszej Instancji (druga izba) wydanego w dniu 29 sierpnia 2007 r. w sprawie T-186/05 SELEX Sistemi Integrati przeciwko Komisji Wspólnot Europejskich, wniesione w dniu 2 listopada 2007 r. przez SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA, wcześniej Alenia Marconi Systems SpA
 (Sprawa C-481/07 P)
 (2008/C 37/02)
 Język postępowania: włoski
 Strony
 Wnoszący odwołanie: Sistemi Integrati SpA, wcześniej Alenia Marconi Systems SpA (przedstawiciele: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone i A. Neri, avvocati)
 Druga strona postępowania: Komisja Wspólnot Europejskich
 Żądania wnoszącego odwołanie
 —
 uchylenie postanowienia Sąd Pierwszej Instancji wydanego w dniu 29 sierpnia 2007 r. w sprawie T-186/05 i skierowanie sprawy do ponownego rozpoznania przez Sąd Pierwszej Instancji w celu wydania przezeń rozstrzygnięcia z uwzględnieniem dostarczonych przez Trybunał Sprawiedliwości wskazówek;
 —
 obciążenie Komisji kosztami niniejszego postępowania oraz kosztami postępowania w sprawie T-186/05.
 Zarzuty i główne argumenty
 Żądania swe wnosząca odwołanie opiera na następujących zarzutach:
 a)
 bezprawnego wykluczenia z zakresu pojęcia możliwej do naprawienia szkody kosztów prawnych poniesionych w związku z postępowaniem w sprawie T-155/04; w opinii wnoszącej odwołanie Sąd Pierwszej Instancji:
 —
 błędnie uznał, że skarga odszkodowawcza dotycząca tych kosztów stanowi próbę „stwierdzenia nieważności zawartego w [dotyczącym sprawy T-155/04 wyroku] rozstrzygnięcia w przedmiocie kosztów”;
 —
 dokonał błędnej wykładni art. 87 i nast. regulaminu Sądu w zakresie dotyczącym zasad przyznawania odszkodowania;
 —
 błędnie uznał, że w niniejszym przypadku ma zastosowanie orzecznictwo związane ze sprawą Montorio;
 b)
 popełnionego przez Sąd Pierwszej Instancji błędu polegającego na wykluczeniu z zakresu pojęcia możliwej do naprawienia szkody kosztów prawnych poniesionych w związku z poprzedzającym niniejsze postępowanie sądowe postępowaniem administracyjnym; zdaniem wnoszącej odwołanie błąd Sądu Pierwszej Instancji polega na wykładni i zastosowaniu art. 87 i nast. regulaminu Sądu z punktu widzenia skargi o odszkodowanie, która to skarga jest pozbawiona jakiegokolwiek związku z zakresem stosowania tych przepisów;
 c)
 wypaczenia i błędnej wykładni przedstawionych przez wnoszącą odwołanie dowodów; ta ostatnia stoi na stanowisku, że Sąd Pierwszej Instancji nie przeprowadził odpowiedniej analizy dostarczonej przez nią dokumentacji i zawartych w niej argumentów;
 d)
 nielogicznego i wewnętrznie sprzecznego uzasadnienia i naruszenia zasad wynikających ze wspólnotowego orzecznictwa dotyczącego odszkodowań; Sąd Pierwszej Instancji nie zastosował bowiem właściwie zasad ustanowionych w wyrokach w sprawie Mulder (sprawy połączone C-104/89 i C-37/90) (1) i Agraz (C-243/05 P) (2).
 e)
 naruszenia art. 44 regulaminu Sądu Pierwszej Instancji; zdaniem wnoszącej odwołanie, przepisy te, właściwie zinterpretowane, nie stawiają wymogu, aby skarga „koniecznie” zawierała środki dowodowe, lecz przeciwnie, przepis ten opiera się na pojęciu takiej „możliwości” w sensie zobowiązania strony do dostarczenia dowodów tylko w takim przypadku, gdy jest to możliwe;
 f)
 braku uzasadnienia dotyczącego odszkodowania za straty poniesione przez wnoszącą odwołanie wskutek naruszenia zasady rozsądnego czasu trwania postępowania administracyjnego; Sąd Pierwszej Instancji nie uzasadnił bowiem nieuwzględnienia żądania odszkodowania z punktu widzenia takiego zarzucanego przez wnoszącą odwołanie naruszenia;
 g)
 błędnej wykładni podniesionych argumentów i dowodów oraz uzasadnienia, które jest nielogiczne i sprzeczne z orzecznictwem wspólnotowym w dziedzinie odszkodowania za poniesione krzywdy; Sąd Pierwszej Instancji nie mógł wykorzystać argumentów dotyczących jedynie wyłączenia zamówień publicznych na dostawy lub ich nieudzielenia, aby nie uwzględnić żądania odszkodowania związanego z naruszeniem zasady rozsądnego czasu trwania postępowania administracyjnego lub niewywiązaniem się przez Komisję z ciążących na niej w zakresie nadzoru obowiązków.
 (1) Wyrok z dnia 27 stycznia 2000 r., Rec. str. I-203.
 (2) Wyrok z dnia 9 listopada 2006 r., Zb. Orz. str. I-10833.


type: wikipedia

text:
Le terme romane erano edifici pubblici dotati di impianti che oggi si chiamerebbero igienico-sanitari. Rappresentavano uno dei principali luoghi di ritrovo durante l'antica Roma, a partire dal II secolo a.C. Alle terme poteva avere accesso quasi chiunque, anche i più poveri, in quanto in molti stabilimenti l'entrata era gratuita o quasi.
 Le numerose terme erano un luogo di socializzazione, di rilassamento e di sviluppo di attività vive per uomini e donne, in spazi e orari separati.
 Origine
 Le prime terme nacquero in luoghi dove era possibile sfruttare le sorgenti naturali di acque calde o dotate di particolari doti curative. Col tempo, soprattutto in età imperiale, si diffusero anche dentro le città, grazie allo sviluppo di tecniche di riscaldamento delle acque sempre più evolute. Al riscaldamento dell'acqua provvedevano i focolari sotterranei che diffondevano aria calda dagli ipocausti, gli spazi sottostanti alle pavimentazioni sospese (suspensùra) dei vani da riscaldare. Il funzionamento delle terme richiedeva una numerosa schiera di schiavi, che venivano addetti nei locali sotterranei al rifornimento della legna da ardere e alla regolazione del fuoco per scaldare l'acqua.
 Struttura
 Le terme erano veri e propri monumenti o addirittura piccole città all'interno della città stessa; esistevano due classi di terme: una più povera, destinata alla plebe, e una più fastosa, destinata ai patrizi.
 Lo sviluppo interno tipico era quello di una successione di stanze, con all'interno una vasca di acqua fredda, la sala del frigidario, solitamente circolare e con copertura a cupola e acqua a temperatura bassa, seguita all'esterno dal calidario, generalmente rivolto a mezzogiorno, con bacini di acqua calda. Tra il frigidario e il calidario vi era probabilmente una stanza mantenuta a temperatura moderata, il tepidario, stanza adiacente al calidario in cui veniva creato un raffreddamento artificiale. Assieme al calidario veniva usata quella che ai nostri giorni viene chiamata la sauna finlandese, ovvero il passaggio repentino dal caldo al freddo e viceversa. Le natationes erano invece le vasche utilizzate per nuotare.
 Attorno a questi spazi principali, si sviluppavano gli spazi accessori: lapodyterium (uno spazio non riscaldato adibito agli spogliatoi), la sauna, la sala di pulizia, la palestra. All'interno delle terme più sontuose (come le terme di Caracalla) si poteva trovare spazio anche per piccoli teatri, fontane, mosaici, statue e altre opere d'arte, biblioteche, sale di studio e addirittura negozi.
 Abitudini
 Una delle abitudini legate all'uso delle terme era quella di gettare nell'acqua profumi e vini speziati (similmente agli antichi Egizi, che mescolavano nell'acqua varie sostanze).
 Per lavarsi, i Romani usavano la pietra pomice, la sabbia o la cenere di faggio (sostanze che portavano all'inaridimento della pelle), oppure una pasta composta da polvere d'equiseto (leggermente abrasiva), argilla e olio d'oliva. Dopo il bagno, i fruitori delle terme potevano spostarsi nelle sale adibite ai massaggi, che venivano praticati con oli e unguenti profumati, i cui ingredienti venivano importati anche da Paesi lontani.
 Patologie legate all'utilizzo delle terme
 Oltre alle controindicazioni igieniche, i continui sbalzi di temperatura cui erano sottoposti i frequentatori delle terme dall'acqua calda all'acqua fredda in rapida successione, potevano generare nei canali auricolari e nasali dei fruitori delle neoformazioni ossee globulari (tipiche ancora oggi nei nuotatori), che potevano portare alla sordità o a una deviazione del setto nasale (ne sono state riscontrate diverse durante lo studio di crani appartenuti ad antichi Romani). Spesso anche gli schiavi addetti alle terme si ammalavano per il pesante lavoro.
 Elenco delle terme romane
 Le rovine di decine di terme romane sono state individuate nelle più disparate aree dell'Impero romano e la presenza di molte altre è attestata da iscrizioni e altre fonti storiche. Sono oltre cinquanta.
 Note
 Voci correlate
 Apodyterion
 Architettura romana
 Hammam
 Calidario
 Frigidario
 Stazione termale
 Tecnica edilizia romana
 Terme di Cluny
 Terme di Canosa antica
 Terme Erculee
 Tepidario
 Thermae Romae
 Juliomagus
 Altri progetti
 Collegamenti esterni


text:
Rusi su narod koji pripada istočnoslavenskoj jezičnoj grupi s oko 134 milijuna pripadnika nastanjenih širom svijeta. U Rusiji živi oko 79.8% građana koji se izjašnjavaju etničkim Rusima. Rusi imaju utjecajne manjine u više europskih država, a posebno je značajna manjina u Latviji, Bjelorusiji i Ukrajini. Izvan granica Europe Rusi se u većem broju nalaze u Kazahstanu i SAD-u.
 Rusi su najveći slavenski narod (slijede ih Ukrajinci i Poljaci) i najmnogoljudniji narod Europe. Tijekom višestoljetnog širenja srednjovjekovne ruske države prema središnjoj i istočnoj Aziji, Rusi su dolazili u doticaj s raznim euroazijskim narodima, često turkijskog, ugro-finskog i drugog porijekla. U istom razdoblju veći broj tih rasno raznovrsnih plemena asimilirao se s ruskim etnosom koji je nastao u procesu multikulturalnog prožimanja slavenskih i ugro-finskih plemena na prostorima središnje Rusije.
 Rusi su danas najsrodniji Ukrajincima, Bjelorusima, Baltima, i nešto manje Poljacima i Fincima. Međutim, u mnogoljudnom ruskom narodu danas se nalaze karakteristike mnogih drugih neeuropskih naroda čije se genetske karakteristike ne susreću u tolikoj mjeri među drugim istočnoeuropskim narodima. To je prvenstveno posljedica položaja autohtonog ruskog prostora u široj okolici Moskve i širenja ruske države preko 5. stoljeća iz istočne Europe skroz do prostranstva istočne Azije i Aljaske.
 Ruski identitet i polemike
 Danas postoji nekoliko povijesnih polemika koji se odnose na početak stvaranja moderne ruske nacije i prava na kulturno-političko nasljeđe Kijevske Rus'i iz 9. odnosno 10. stoljeća. Za ruske povjesničare posebno je problematična polemika i pitanje: jesu li Kijevsku Rus' formirali Vikinzi, Ukrajinci ili Rusi. Pojedini ruski znanstvenici danas i dalje često tumače da su Ukrajinci dio velikog ruskog nacionalnog korpusa ne bi li time ojačali vlastiti slavenski identitet, čemu se ukrajinski povjesničari argumentirano opiru navodeći da su Rusi svoju nacionalnu povijest započeli u Velikoj kneževini Moskvi tek u 14. stoljeću. Duga povijesna borba za dokazivanje slavenskog karaktera Moskovske Države i Ruskog Imperija simbolizira svojevrstan kompleks manje vrijednosti što ga Rusi odavno osjećaju prema Zapadu, zbog čega su Rusi razvijali svoju produhovljenost, vojnu snagu i autoritet u bližem i daljem okruženju kroz više stoljeća.
 Ruski povijesni dokumenti upućuju da ruska plemena sve do 14. stoljeća nisu imala vlastito kolektivno ime. U početku opisni naziv «ruski», kojeg i danas koriste u etničkom smislu, stekli su u sklopu Kijevske Rus'i, a nadjenuli su ga kijevski kneževi iz 9. stoljeća tada poznati kao Rusini-Rusiči. Ruska plemena Vjatiči, Kriviči, Radimiči, Meri, Muromi, Meščeri, Goljad i druga, na kijevskom dvoru su nazvani «rus'kie ljude» čime ih se označavalo da pripadaju koloniziranom dijelu države pod kontrolom srednjovjekovnog Kijeva. Prvi kolektivni naziv koji su nadjenuli moskovski vladari za današnje Ruse bio je «narod Moskva» prema kneževini Moskvi. Pod velikom reformacijom cara Petra Velikog u 18. stoljeću ponovno je usvojen naziv «Ruski», u Hrvatskoj poznato kao «Rusi».
 Druga važna polemika, koja je također usredotočena na Kijevsku Rus' govori o međusobnim kulturološkim odnosima između Rusije i Ukrajine odnosno Moskovije i Rus'i. Za golemu većinu Rusa, Kijevska Država je bila prva ruska država jer se Ukrajinci smatraju dijelom ruskog nacionalnog korpusa. S druge strane, za Ukrajince je Kijevska Rus' bila prva ukrajinska država osnovana uz pomoć Vikinga i njihovog najmnogoljudnijeg plemena Poljana. Razlog tim zavrzlamama i neriješenim polemikama prvenstveno prate okolnosti iz 17. i 18. stoljeća, kada je ruski car Petar Veliki iz političkih razloga želio objediniti ruski i ukrajinski narod na etničkoj, kulturološkoj i drugoj osnovi.
 Povijest ruskih plemena
 Prva plemena na teritoriju buduće Moskve javljaju se u neolitiku. Najstarija naselja datiraju iz trećeg tisučljeća pr. Kr., a otkrivena su na širem području oko današnjeg grada Moskve.
 Prva istočnoslavenska plemena koja su sigurno vezana za današnje Ruse jesu Vjatiči, Kriviči, Ilmenski Slaveni i Radimiči koji su u neposrednom kontaktu s ugro-finskim plemenima poput Merija, Muroma, Mokša i Meščera živjeli u sklopu Kijevske Rus'i. Ta plemena stvorila su bazu za rusku naciju koja se nakon 14. i 15. stoljeća nadopunjavala u sklopu teritorijalnog širenja Moskovskog odnosno Ruskog Carstva. Pritom vrijedi napomenuti da su današnji Rusi, sve do 18. stoljeća, u povijesnim dokumentima često bilježeni kao Moskalji ili Moskoviti. To je posljedica formiranja Velike kneževine Moskve u 14. stoljeću i sve jače dominacije novog centraliziranog euroazijskog središta Moskve. Prvo spominjanje Moskve, kao grada, zabilježeno je u starom manuskriptu iz 1147. godine. Godine 1156., knez Jurij Dolgorukij podigao je utvrdu oko naseljenog mjesta i opkružio je jarkom.
 Zbog nešto izraženije multikulturalnosti u sklopu višestoljetnog širenja ruske države, ruski nacionalni identitet danas je do neke mjere u previranju s obzirom na to da su drugi narodi koje su Rusi osvojili tijekom 17., 18. i 19. stoljeća, izašli iz komunizma s određenim posljedicama, ali su im osnovne nacionalne tradicije i identiteti donekle ostali očuvani, posebno kada je riječ o Poljacima, Gruzijcima i baltičkim narodima. Rusi su se kao imperijalni narod zaista ponosili Sovjetskim Savezom kao vlastitom tvorevinom za razliku od primjerice baltičkih državica, Poljaka pa čak i Ukrajinaca, koji su također znatno doprinijeli u njegovu razvoju, ali pod svojevrsnom prisilom.
 U sklopu carskog i sovjetskog načina života ruski jezik ostao je donekle izložen transformaciji s obzirom na to da je bio pod utjecajem mnogih drugih naroda, posebno s Dalekog istoka. Ruska kultura je doista šarolika s obzirom na to da obuhvaća više desetaka različitih kultura, no također postoje neke specifičnosti prema kojima su Rusi prepoznatljivi.
 Etnogeneza ruskog naroda
 U sastavu moderne ruske nacije nalazi se nekoliko bivših slavenskih i ugro-finskih plemena koje sa smatraju temeljnim čimbenikom u formiranju ruskog etnosa kroz više od 5. stoljeća. U kulturološkom smislu posebno su značajna slavenska plemena: Vjatiči, Kriviči, Ilmenski Slaveni, Radimiči; zatim u etnogenološkom smislu također su značajna ugro-finska plemena: Mordvini, Mokša, Meščeri, Muromani, Mari, Udmurti, Čudi, Čuhni, Vepsi, Permjački Finci, Jugri, Pečorci i drugi.
 Nakon napada Mongola u 13. stoljeću, mnogi ruski vladari i plemstvo imali su doticaja i srodnosti s mongolskim. Nakon 17. stoljeća, moderni Rusi susreću se u velikom omjeru s istočnoeuropskim narodima posebno s Ukrajincima, Poljacima, Bjelorusima, Baltima i nešto manje Fincima. Također postoje značajni doticaji s germanskim, židovskim te kavkaškim narodima. Danas ne postoji karakteritičan ruski izgled iako u ruskoj fizionomiji dominiraju plava i svjetlo smeđa kosa, te plave ili svijetlo smeđe oči. Te karakteritsitke su posebno značajne za središnju Rusiju u okolici grada Moskve odnosno prostoru koji se smatrao autohtonim za razdoblja formiranja modernog ruskog etnosa.
 Sažeta povijest
 Današnji Rusi u 10. i 11. stoljeću bili su sastavni dio prve istočnoslavenske države Kijevske Rus'i. Tijekom 8. stoljeća, na europski dio današnje Rusije i Ukrajine počinju dolaziti skandinavska plemena koja prate vodene tokove baltičkog i crnomorskog sliva. Sva istočnoslavenska plemena i nekoliko ugro-finskih bit će ujedinjena širenjem kršćanstva u 10. i 11. stoljeću. Kršćanstvo prihvaća i širi kijevski knez Vladimir, praunuk Olgin, rođen 956. i preobraćen 988. godine. Tijekom 11. stoljeća sva moć centralizirana je u Kijevu, a u 12. stoljeću s istoka počinje prijetiti opasnost od Mongola i drugih nomadskih plemena. Godine 1240. Kijev i ostala ključna središta staroruskih vladara razorili su Mongoli predvođeni vojskovođom Batu Kanom. Razoreni su gotovo svi ključni gradovi Kijevske Rus'i, osim Novgoroda, Pskova i još nekih važnih gradova u zapadnoj Ukrajini. Do 14. stoljeća svi će staroruski gradovi izgubiti suverenitet osim onih u Galičko-Volinjskom Kneževstvu.
 Mongolsko Carstvo raširilo se preko azijskog kontinenta i današnje središnje Rusije pod vladavinom Zlatne Horde. Staroruski teritorij bit će rascjepkan na brojne manje kneževine, a u predjelu središnje Rusije pod mongolskim protektoratom dominirat će Kneževina Vladimir-Suzdalj. Rusi će 1328. pod novim protektoratom svoje središte iz staroruskog grada Vladimira prebaciti u Moskvu. Grad Moskva u 14. stoljeću vojno jača i pod carigradskim odobrenjem postaje provincijalno središte pravoslavne Crkve. U 15. stoljeću knez Ivan III. osvojio je u bitkama staroruske gradove Novgorod i Tver. Ovdje je zanimljivo spomenuti da su ovi sukobi tema povijesnih kontroverzi jer dio povjesničara tvrdi da je autonomna Novgorodska Republika štitla svoju neovisnost pred novim moskovitskim te mongolskim vladarima. Ivan IV. Grozni (1533-84), prvi moskovski car, osniva Veliku kneževinu Moskvu, kasnije formiranu kao Moskovsku Državu. Ista država ilio carstvo ostaje usmjereno na vojno-političke sukobe s Mongolima i drugim euroazijskim narodima što se odrazilo na stagnaciju razvoja ruske kulture i društva sve do Petra Velikog (1689. – 1725.), unuka Mihajla Romanova (1613. – 1645.). Mihajlo Romanov navodno je zabranjivao pušenje i imao vrlo oštre sankcije za prekršitelje. Prvi puta bi to bilo 60 udaraca po tabanima. Drugi puta krivcu bi odjekli nos. Treća kazna: izgon u Sibir. Petar Veliki je bio vrlo nemilosrdan i prema svim okolnim narodima, posebno Ukrajincima odnosno njihovom vojno-političkom staležu ukrajinskim kozacima.
 Petar Veliki uvodi reforme i pobjedom u bici kod Poltave 1709., širi moskovske granice na zapad. Objedinjuje osvojen multietnički teritorij u Ruski Imperij (rus. Rossijaskaja imperija) koji je obuhvatio i staru Rus' odnosno Ukrajinu kao važno kuzlturno-političko i povijesno središte svih Istočnih Slavena. Katarina II. Velika (1762-96) nastavila je Petrovu imperijalnu politiku šireći teritorij prema crnomorskoj Ukrajini i istočnoj Poljskoj.
 U vrijeme Aleksandra I. (1801. – 25.) Napoleon Bonaparte vodi golemu vojsku na Ruski Imperij, njegove trupe doživjele su poraz 1812. Dvije vojske susretoše se na polju Borodino, a Ruse predvodi maršal Kutuzov. Ovdje je oko 108,000 vojnika poginulo. U Parizu, jesen 1815. ruski car Aleksandar I., austrijski Franjo I. i pruski kralj Fridrik Vilim III. potpisuju Svetu alijansu. Taj su dokument kasnije potpisali svi europski monarsi osim britanskoga regenta, sultana i pape. Ona govori o podršci koju će potpisnici pružiti jedna drugoj u bilo kojem trenutku. Aleksandar II. granice Rusije širi sve do Pacifika i središnje Azije. Tada pak slijedi rat s Japanom u kojoj Rusi gube flotu i gotovo sve bitke.
 U vrijeme Nikole II. završena je izgradnja trans-sibirske pruge (1916.), a u državi jača boljševizam. Nesretnog cara Nikolu i njegovu obitelj nakon abdikacije ubijaju boljševici u Jekaterinburgu (1918.), a Sergej Mihajlovič Prokudin-Gorski (rođen u Muromu; Сергей Михайлович Прокудин-Горский) napušta Rusiju, i preko Norveške odlazi za Englesku da bi patentirao prvu kolor kameru.
 U Rusiji boljševici vrše nasilje i ubijaju, a nakon Ruske revolucije 1917. zavladali su komunisti. Dva dana prije Nove 1923. godine stvoren je SSSR, 30. 12. 1922., za dvije godine umrijet će i Lenjin, a Trocki će morat pobjeći u Meksiko, ali i tamo će ga stići ruka agenta, umrijet će nasilno u Mexico Cityju 1940. godine. Ruse kao i druge sovjetske narode čeka još jedan svjetski rat u kojem će izgubiti između 10 i 12 milijuna ljudi. Sovjetski vođa Staljin također otvara logore u Sibiru gdje će biti pritvoreni mnogi ruski intelektualci. Rusi i sve ostale narodnosti slabo će životariti na području SSSR-a. Tek svrgavanjem komunizma i sovjetske tvorevine u posljednjem desetljeću 20. stoljeća sovjetski narodi, pa s njima i Rusi, naći će se na novoj prekretnici u kojoj će se suočavati s novim društvenim, političkim i drugim problemima. Rusija i zemlje SSSR-a 1991. postale su nezavisne države.
 Etnografija
 Glazba i ples
 Rusi su zbog dugotrajne mongolske okupacije bili svakako pod kulturnim utjecajem svojih slavenskih susjeda, posebno Ukrajinaca i Bjelorusa, što se vidi i u materijalnoj i duhovnoj kulturi. Kozački utjecaj vidljiv je od 15. do 20. stoljeća. Najpoznatiji ruski odnosno ukrajinski ples «Hopak» porijeklom je od Ukrajinaca, popularan je među ruskim seljacima, kao i čuvenim kompozitorima Musorgskim i Čajkovskim. Od kozaka sa Tereka je i «Lezginka», dok je popularni «Čardaš» mađarskog porijekla, Mađari ga poznaju od 9. stoljeća i plešu ga uz «Tárogató», moguće je da su ga oni posudili od Roma. Ovaj ples preuzeše i Židovi (tzv. Židovski čardaš, a Rusi su ga sa sobom prenjeli i u SAD. Popularni plesovi su također «Barynya», «Drobushki» (step ples) uz tradicionalna glazbala garmoška, trešotki, ložki ili balalajku. Korobuška ili «Korobeiniki» je lirska narodna pjesma i ples, star oko 150 godina.
 Poznata ruska glazbala imaju također različita podrijetla: balalajka, domra, gusle, koljosnaja lira, donsloj rilej, autentični ruski hurdi-gurdi, gudok, rožok, žaleika, volinka, svirel, kugikli, ložki, treščotki, kaliuki.
 Balalajka (rus. балалайка); Balalajka je ruska narodna gitara triangularnog oblika s tri ili šest žica koje idu od klinova za podešavanje sve do baze instrumenta. Ona se spominje prvi puta u dokumentima iz 17. stoljeća (1688).
 Gudok (rus. гудок); je staro glazbalo s tri žice, od kojih je jedna postavljena nešto više, i lukom. Gudok je poznat negdje od 12 stoljeća. Možda i ranije, u 14. stoljeću je modificiran.
 Treščotka (rus. трещотка); vrsta su udaraljki, u stvari niz malenih pločica na uzici koje udaraju jedna u drugu i klepeću.
 Rožok (rus. рожок); je narodna trublja (trumpet) učinjen od goveđeg roga ili brezove kore.
 Žalejka (rus. жалейка) je klarinet ili rog s cijevi, najuobičajeniji autentični ruski duhački instrument.
 Svirelj (rus. свирель); je ruska zviždaljka ili flauta.
 Ložki (rus. ложки); su vrsta udaraljki, posebno ukrašenih drvenih žlica.
 Kuhinja
 O ruskoj kuhinji, koja također liči ukrajinskoj, može se govoriti tamo od 9. stoljeća kada je slavenska populacija naučila peći kruh od raži i kvasca za dizanje. Zapise o prvim receptima ostavili su nam redovnici koji su u manastirima morali živjeti od plodova svoga rada. Obrađivali su tlo, lovili ribe, sakupljali gljive, bilje i voće, ali su i zapisivali svoje recepte u knjigu kuhanja. Jedno od najpoznatijih ruskih jela je juha od kupusa poznata kao šči (rus. Щи), u koju se po današnjem receptu stavljaju još i mrkva, korijen celera, luk, krumpir i drugo. Od tradicionalnih pića najpoznatija su im kvas i votka.
 Staroruska kuhinja sastojala se uglavnom od mesa, ribe, divljači, povrća i sakupljačkih plodova, kao što su gljive i divlje voće i bobice. Raž je tradicionalna u pripremi kruha, dok se pšenica koristi tek u novije vrijeme. Juhe su veoma popularne, uz šči, tu je i rassoljnik (rus. Рассольник). Riba je također popularna, u staroj ruskoj kuhinji slatkovodna riba bila je gost samo na carskim i bojarskim stolovima, delicije napose bijahu losos i jesetra. Posebno je na cijeni kavijar, kojega je narod jeo s octom, paprom i lukom. Najčešće jelo starih Rusa bijaše crveno meso (govedina), te bravetina i svinjetina. Konzumacija nekih vrsta mesa u to vrijeme bila je striktno zabranjena, nepose meso divljeg zeca, no zato su na raspolaganju imali meso divljih ptica, među kojima i labuda i ždrala, crnog tetrijeba i jarebica.
 Moskovski period: U vrijeme takozvane Moskovije i Moskalja, bile su dvije kuhinje, ona za bogate, i jedna za siromašne. Hrana običnih ljudi bila je jednostavna, no zato su sofisticirani boari uživali u posebnim specijalitetima, osobito u vrijeme kakvih blagdana.
 Novije doba: U vrijeme Petra Velikog i Katarine Velike počinje njihova kulinarska tradicija ali i počinju prihvaćati neka zapadnoeuropska jela, kao što su sendviči, francuski i nizozemski sirevi, šunka ,etc.
 Seoska arhitektura
 Tradicionalno rusko selo sastoji se od drvenih kuća. Drvo je najuobičajeniji materijal za gradnju jer Rusija njime i obiluje. Od drveta se grade i crkve, i kuće za kupanje i drugi gospodarski objekti. Tipična kuća na farmi 'izba' javlja se u 3 regionalna tipa, gospodarske zgrade prave četvrtasto dvorište i ograđene su niskom drvenom ogradom. U sjevernim dijelovima Rusije sporedne strukture vežu se na glavnu, dok su na jugu svaka zasebno. Varijacije izbe se očitavaju u broj veličini i broju zidova. Piatstenok (peterozidni) ima ekstra zid koji dijeli dnevni od skladišnog prostora. Glavna soba ima i veliku glinenu peć koja zagrijava jedinu prostoriju kuće, a koju nema «klet», građevina s četiri zida, vrlo jednostavne drvene strukture.
 Populacija
 U drugim državama-slijednicama SSSRa postoje velike ruske manjine, kao na primjer u Ukrajini, Bjelorusiji, Kazahstanu, Kirgistanu, Latviji, Litvi, Estoniji kao i u SADu i Australiji. U Narodnoj Republici Kini su Rusi službeno priznati kao manjina, oni tamo žive već generacijama. Oni u Kini žive na sjeveru Xinjianga (uključujući Ürümqi) i u Heilongjiangu.
 Od kraja SSSR-a dolazi ponovo do velikih useljavanja, kako Rusa u Kinu, tako i Kineza u Rusiju. U vrijeme Carske Rusije kao i za vrijeme Sovjetskog Saveza, poticano je naseljavanje Rusa na cijelo područje tadašnje države. Nakon sloma, Rusi se polako vraćaju na područje današnje Ruske Federacije. Rusi imaju posebno značajnu manjinu u Ukrajini gdje ih živi oko 8 milijuna.
 Izvori
 Vanjske poveznice
 Introduction to Russian Culture (Linkovi)
 Istočni Slaveni
 Etničke grupe Bjelorusije
 Etničke grupe Ukrajine
 Etničke grupe Uzbekistana
 Etničke grupe Estonije
 Etničke grupe Kazahstana
 Etničke grupe Njemačke
 Etničke grupe Kirgistana
 Etničke grupe Tadžikistana
 Etničke grupe Litve
 Etničke grupe Latvije
 Etničke grupe Moldavije
 Etničke grupe Azerbajdžana
 Etničke grupe Sibira


type: contracts

text:
25 . 2 . 74 Journal officiel des Communautés européennes N° L 53 / 11
 ACCORD
 entre la Communauté économique européenne et l'empire d'Ethiopie relatif à la
 fourniture de froment tendre à titre d'aide alimentaire
 LE CONSEIL DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES ,
 d'une part,
 LE GOUVERNEMENT DE L' EMPIRE D' ÉTHIOPIE,
 d'autre part,
 ONT DÉCIDÉ - de conclure le présent accord et ont désigné à cet effet comme plénipoten
 tiaires :
 LE CONSEIL DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES :
 LE GOUVERNEMENT DE L' EMPIRE D' ÊTHIOPIE :
 LESQUELS SONT CONVENUS DES DISPOSITIONS QUI SUIVENT :
 Article 1 rance du produit livré depuis les ports de débarque'
 ment jusqu'aux lieux de destination .
 Dans le cadre de son programme d' aide alimentaire
 en céréales pour l' année 1972/ 1973 , la Communauté
 économique européenne, ci-après dénommée Article V
 « Communauté », fournit, à titre de don , à l'empire
 d'Éthiopie, ci-après dénommé « pays destinataire », Le pays destinataire s'engage à utiliser à des fins de
 une quantité de 5 000 tonnes de froment tendre. consommation le produit reçu à titre d'aide et à le
 distribuer gratuitement aux populations nécessiteuses.
 Article II
 Les livraisons sont effectuées caf ports de débarque Article VI
 ment du pays destinataire, en sacs de jute neufs
 d' un poids net de 50 kilogrammes chacun . Les parties contractantes s'engagent à exécuter le
 présent accord de manière à éviter tout préjudice à
 Article III la structure normale de la production nationale et
 du commerce international . À cette fin, elles pren
 Les obligations et responsabilités de la Commu nent les mesures nécessaires pour assurer que les
 nauté et du pays destinataire, concernant notam fournitures à titre d' aide s'ajoutent, et ne se substi
 ment la livraison et la prise en charge, sont définies tuent pas, aux opérations commerciales raisonnable
 à l'annexe, qui fait partie intégrante du présent ment prévisibles en l' absence de telles fournitures.
 accord .
 Article IV Article VU
 Le pays destinataire s'engage à prendre toutes les Le pays destinataire prend toutes les mesures utiles
 dispositions nécessaires pour le transport et l'assu pour empêcher :
 ---pagebreak--- N0 L 53 / 12 Journal! officiel des Communautés européennes 25 . 2 . 74
 — la reexportation du produit reçu à titre d'aide déchargé, date à laquelle le déchargement a été
 ainsi que des produits et sous-produits en résul achevé ;
 tant,
 — tous les 3 mois, jusqu'à l'utilisation complète des
 — l'exportation commerciale et non commerciale, quantités reçues à titre d' aide : quantités distri
 pendant une période de 6 mois à compter de la buées, nombre et qualité des bénéficiaires, lieu et
 dernière livraison, tant du produit obtenu locale mode de distribution .
 ment qui serait de même nature que celui reçu à
 titre d' aide, que des produits et sous-produits en
 Article IX
 résultant .
 À la demande de l'une d'entre elles, les parties
 Article VIII contractantes se consultent sur toutes les questions
 concernant l' application du présent accord .
 Le pays destinataire s'engage à informer la Commu
 nauté des conditions d'exécution du présent accord.
 À cette fin , il communique à la Commission des Article X
 Communautés européennes les données suivantes : Le présent accord est rédigé en double exemplaire
 — 30 jours au plus tard après le déchargement de en langues allemande, anglaise, danoise, française,
 chaque cargaison : port et date d'arrivée du italienne et néerlandaise, chacun de ces textes fai
 navire ; nature, quantité et qualité du produit sant foi .
 ANNEXE
 Dispositions prévues à l'article III de l'accord
 Article premier
 La livraison se trouve effectuée et les risques passent de la Communauté au pays destinataire
 au moment où la marchandise est effectivement appréhendée dans la cale du navire au port
 de débarquement .
 Le pays destinataire supporte tous les frais en aval de la livraison de la marchandise, y com
 pris les frais de déchargement (tels que désarrimage, hissage, réception ) et les frais éventuels
 d'allège .
 Les frais éventuels de surestaries ou la prime éventuelle de célérité ( dispatch money ) au port
 de débarquement sont à la charge ou au bénéfice du pays destinataire. Leurs taux et leurs
 modalités, fixés dans le contrat entre le mandataire de la Communauté visé à l' article 5 et le
 transporteur, doivent avoir été préalablement convenus entre ce mandataire et le réceptionnaire
 du pays destinataire visé à l'article 5 .
 Article 2
 La Communauté adresse au pays destinataire, dans les meilleurs délais après la mise a bord
 de la marchandise, un avis portant désignation du navire et indiquant la date de chargement,
 la quantité et la qualité de la marchandise constatées à l'embarquement, ainsi que le port
 de débarquement .
 Article J
 La Communauté informe le pays destinataire au moins 10 jours francs à l'avance de la date
 présumée de l' arrivée du navire au port de débarquement .
 Elle fait insérer dans la charte-partie l'obligation pour le capitaine d' informer le pays destina
 taire au moins 72 heures à l' avance de la date probable de l'arrivée du navire au port de
 débarquement .
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 2 . 74 Journal officiel des Communautés européennes N0 L 53 / 13
 Article 4
 À la livraison de la marchandise, il est admis une tolérance de 5 °/o en moins de la quantité
 prévue à l'article I de l'accord .
 Article S
 Pour l'exécution des dispositions de la présente annexe, la Communauté désigné un manda
 taire, dont elle fait connaître en temps utile le nom et l'adresse au pays destinataire.
 Le pays destinataire désigne, pour chaque port de débarquement, un réceptionnaire, dont il
 fait connaître le nom et l'adresse à la Communauté préalablement à l'exécution de l'accord.
 Information relative à la signature de l'accord de fourniture d'aide alimentaire entre
 la Communauté économique européenne et l'empire d'Éthiopie
 L' accord entre la Communauté économique européenne et PÉthiopie relatif à la
 fourniture de froment tendre à titre d'aide alimentaire, que le Conseil a décidé de
 conclure le 10 décembre 1973 , a été signé à Bruxelles le 20 décembre 1973 ,
 au nom du Conseil des Communautés européennes par M. Niels Ersboll , ambassadeur
 extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire, président du Comité des représentants permanents
 ainsi que par M. Hans-Broder Krohn, directeur général du développement et de la
 coopération de la Commission des Communautés européennes,
 au nom du gouvernement de PÉthiopie par M. Michaël Imru, ambassadeur extra
 ordinaire et plénipotentiaire, chef de la mission de ce pays auprès de la Communauté
 économique européenne.


text:
 30.11.2013
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 352/8
 Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Bundesgerichtshof (Nemčija) 19. septembra 2013 – Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH proti AOK Sachsen-Anhalt
 (Zadeva C-503/13)
 2013/C 352/14
 Jezik postopka: nemščina
 Predložitveno sodišče
 Bundesgerichtshof
 Stranki v postopku v glavni stvari
 Tožena stranka in revidentka: Boston Scientific Medizintechnik GmbH
 Tožeča stranka in nasprotna stranka v postopku z revizijo: AOK Sachsen-Anhalt
 Vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
 1.
 Ali je treba člen 6(1) Direktive Sveta z dne 25. julija 1985 o približevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic v zvezi z odgovornostjo za proizvode z napako (85/374/ES) (1) razlagati tako, da ima proizvod, kadar gre za medicinski proizvod, ki je vstavljen v človeško telo (v obravnavanem primeru: srčni spodbujevalnik), napako že, če za naprave iz iste skupine proizvodov velja občutno višje tveganje odpovedi, napaka naprave, ki je bila v konkretnem primeru vstavljena, pa ni ugotovljena?
 2.
 Če je odgovor na prvo vprašanje pritrdilen:
 ali so stroški operacije za odstranitev proizvoda in vstavitev drugega srčnega spodbujevalnika škoda, ki jo povzroči telesna poškodba, v smislu členov 1 in 9(1)(a) Direktive 85/374/EGS?
 (1) UL, posebna izdaja v slovenščini, poglavje 15, zvezek 1, str. 257.


text:
 11.3.2006
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 60/9
 SODBA SODIŠČA
 (peti senat)
 z dne 12. januarja 2006
 v zadevi C-69/05: Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Velikemu vojvodstvu Luksemburg (1)
 (Neizpolnitev obveznosti države - Uredba (ES) št. 659/1999 - Državne pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju - Predstavitev letnih poročil med letoma 2000 in 2001 - Smernice za preizkus nacionalnih pomoči)
 (2006/C 60/18)
 Jezik postopka: francoščina
 V zadevi C-69/05, Komisija Evropskih skupnosti (zastopnici: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart in A. Stobiecka-Kuik) proti Velikemu vojvodstvu Luksemburg (zastopnik: S. Schreiner), zaradi tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti države na podlagi člena 226 ES, vložene 11. februarja 2005, je Sodišče (peti senat), v sestavi R. Silva de Lapuerta, v funkciji predsednice petega senata, G. Arestis (poročevalec) in J. Klučka, sodnika, generalni pravobranilec: M. Poiares Maduro, sodni tajnik: R. Grass, 12. januarja 2006 razglasilo sodbo, katere izrek se glasi:
 1.
 Veliko vojvodstvo Luksemburg s tem, da pred 1. julijem 2001 in najpozneje pred 30. junijem 2002, ni poslalo letnih poročil o vseh veljavnih shemah državnih pomoči med leti 2000 in 2001 v kmetijskem sektorju, ni izpolnilo obveznosti iz člena 88(1) Pogodbe ES in člena 21 Uredbe Sveta (ES) 659/1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena [88 ES], kot se izvaja na podlagi obvestila Komisije z naslovom „Smernice Skupnosti na področju državnih pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju“, objavljenem v Uradnem listu Evropskih Skupnosti dne 1. februarja 2000.
 2.
 Velikemu vojvodstvu Luksemburg se naloži plačilo stroškov.
 (1) UL C 106, 30.4.2005.


text:
 29.6.2006
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 L 175/99
 DECISIONE DEL COMITATO MISTO SEE
 N. 49/2006
 del 28 aprile 2006
 che modifica l’allegato XX (Ambiente) dell’accordo SEE
 IL COMITATO MISTO SEE,
 visto l’accordo sullo Spazio economico europeo, modificato dal protocollo che adegua l’accordo sullo Spazio economico europeo (di seguito «l’accordo»), in particolare l’articolo 98,
 considerando quanto segue:
 (1)
 L’allegato XX dell’accordo è stato modificato dalla decisione del Comitato misto SEE n. 36/2006 (1).
 (2)
 Occorre integrare nell’accordo la direttiva 2005/33/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 6 luglio 2005, che modifica la direttiva 1999/32/CE (2),
 DECIDE:
 Articolo 1
 L’allegato XX dell’accordo è modificato come segue:
 1)
 al punto 21ad (direttiva 1999/32/CE del Consiglio) viene aggiunto il testo seguente:
 «, modificata da:
 —
 32005 L 0033: direttiva 2005/33/CE del Parlamento e del Consiglio (GU L 191 del 22.7.2005, pag. 59).»;
 2)
 nel testo di adattamento del punto 21ad (direttiva 1999/32/CE del Consiglio) viene aggiunto il testo seguente:
 «All’articolo 2, paragrafo 3 terdecies, dopo la parola “trattato” sono inserite le parole “, e l’Islanda, con riguardo a tutto il suo territorio”.»
 Articolo 2
 I testi della direttiva 2005/33/CE nelle lingue islandese e norvegese, da pubblicare nel supplemento SEE della Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea, fanno fede.
 Articolo 3
 La presente decisione entra in vigore il 29 aprile 2006, a condizione che tutte le notificazioni previste dall’articolo 103, paragrafo 1, dell’accordo siano pervenute al Comitato misto SEE (3).
 Articolo 4
 La presente decisione è pubblicata nella sezione SEE e nel supplemento SEE della Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea.
 Fatto a Bruxelles, il 28 aprile 2006.
 Per il Comitato misto SEE
 Il presidente
 R. WRIGHT
 (1) GU L 147 dell’1.6.2006, pag. 55.
 (2) GU L 191 del 22.7.2005, pag. 59.
 (3) Non è stata comunicata l’esistenza di obblighi costituzionali.


text:
14 pr. n. št. je bilo po julijanskem koledarju navadno leto, ki se je začelo na četrtek ali petek oz. prestopno leto, ki se je začelo na sredo, četrtek ali petek (različni viri navajajo različne podatke). Po proleptičnem julijanskem koledarju je bilo navadno leto, ki se je začelo na torek.
 V rimskem svetu je bilo znano kot leto konzulstva Krasa in Lentula, pa tudi kot leto 740 ab urbe condita.
 Oznaka 14 pr. Kr. oz. 14 AC (Ante Christum, »pred Kristusom«), zdaj posodobljeno v 14 pr. n. št., se uporablja od srednjega veka, ko se je uveljavilo številčenje po sistemu Anno Domini.
 Dogodki
 Cesar Avgust ustanovi provinco Primorske Alpe
 Rojstva
 Agripina Starejša, rimska plemkinja, hči Marka Vipsanija Agripe († 33)
 Druz Julij Cezar, rimski prestolonaslednik, sin cesarja Tiberija († 23)
 Ma Juan, kitajski general († 49)
 Smrti


type: other

text:
Unità organizzativa TutteDIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVOSETTORE FINANZIARIOSETTORE TECNICO
 SETTORE FINANZIARIO 14 06/07/2020
 Fornitura del servizio sostitutivo di mensa mediante buoni pasto elettronici - Prima ricarica tessere - Liquidazione fattura a favore della ditta Ditta Repas Lunch Coupon S.r.l..
 num.part. 14 del 06/07/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 96 03/07/2020
 Acquisto mediante ODA su Me.Pa. Acquisto badge rilevatore presenze. - ODA 5258405 - Liquidazione fattura a favore della ditta Halley Sardegna.
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO
 num.part. 96 del 03/07/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 95 03/07/2020
 Liquidazione compenso prestazioni professionali relative al nucleo di valutazione - Dr. Puledda Antonino - periodo 01.01.2020 - 30.06.2020
 num.part. 95 del 03/07/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 94 03/07/2020
 Corsi di formazione del personale anno 2020. Aggiornamento in materia di "Il rendiconto 2019 per gli enti locali dopo la legge di bilancio 2020" Liquidazione fattura a favore di Myo S.p.A.
 num.part. 94 del 03/07/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 93 03/07/2020
 Liquidazione compenso prestazioni professionali relative al nucleo di valutazione - Dr. Puledda Antonino - periodo 01.07.2019 - 31.12.2019
 num.part. 93 del 03/07/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 92 02/07/2020
 Gestione e assistenza triennale portale istituzionale in conformità alle Linee Guida AgID. Liquidazione anno 2020 a favore della ditta Simula Giovanni Battista di Ittiri.
 num.part. 92 del 02/07/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 91 02/07/2020
 CORSO DI FORMAZIONE E AGGIORNAMENTO DEL PERSONALE ANNO 2020 - PARTECIPAZIONE AL CORSO " PRIMI PASSI IN ANAGRAFE DALLO SPORTELLO AL BACK-OFFICE". IMPEGNO SPESA A FAVORE DI ANUSCA s.r.l.
 num.part. 91 del 02/07/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 90 02/07/2020
 Impegno di spesa per i componenti esterni esperti il Nucleo di Valutazione con funzioni OIV dell'Unione dei Comuni del Coros e dei Comuni aderenti per il triennio 2019/2021. Impegno 2020 e 2021.
 num.part. 90 del 02/07/2020
 SETTORE TECNICO 18 01/07/2020
 SERVIZIO DI RACCOLTA E SMALTIMENTO DEI RR.SS.UU 2019-2025 IMPEGNO DI SPESA PER SERVIZIO AGGIUNTIVO DI PULIZIA CADITOIE - COMUNE DI OSSI
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 89 30/06/2020
 Appalto triennale servizio di pulizia locali Unione Coros. Liquidazione mensilità mese di giugno 2020 alla ditta Paser srl società di servizi unipersonale di Sassari
 num.part. 89 del 30/06/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 88 29/06/2020
 Acquisto di DPI e prodotti igienizzanti necessari per fronteggiare emergenza epidemiologica da covid-19, mediante affidamento diretto ai sensi dell'art. 36, comma 2,lett. a, del D.Lgs. n. 50/2016. Impegno spesa a favore della ditta RECA ITALIA - Gazzolo d'Arcole (VR).
 num.part. 88 del 29/06/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 87 29/06/2020
 Programma annuale 2020 di formazione e aggiornamento professionale a beneficio del personale dipendente dei comuni aderenti all'Unione Coros. Organizzazione seminario di formazione in materia di "Gli strumenti di bilancio degli enti locali a sostegno di famiglie e imprese, dopo i decreti cura Italia, liquidità e rilancio" - affidamento diretto servizi Myo spa.
 num.part. 87 del 29/06/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 86 29/06/2020
 Corsi di formazione del personale anno 2020. Aggiornamento in materia di " PEF e TARI: le disposizioni legislative e gli interventi di Arera" in modalità webinar. Impegno di spesa a favore della Scuola di Perfezionamento post Laurea di M.C. Pillolla s.a.s.
 num.part. 86 del 29/06/2020
 SETTORE TECNICO 17 23/06/2020
 RESTITUZIONE DIRITTI ISTRUTTORIA PRATICA SUAPE
 num.part. 17 del 23/06/2020
 SETTORE FINANZIARIO 13 23/06/2020
 Adesione alla convenzione Consip per la fornitura del servizio sostitutivo di mensa mediante buoni pasto elettronici - ODA 5575091 - Impegno spesa a favore della ditta Ditta Repas Lunch Coupon S.r.l..
 num.part. 13 del 23/06/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 85 19/06/2020
 Corsi di formazione del personale anno 2020. "Master breve: il responsabile per la transizione al digitale" in modalità webinar. Impegno di spesa a favore della ditta Maggioli S.P.A.
 num.part. 85 del 19/06/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 84 19/06/2020
 Corsi di formazione del personale anno 2020. Aggiornamento in materia di " Tributi locali: Scadenze 2020, la Riforma della riscossione e la Nuova IMU" in modalità webinar. Liquidazione fattura a favore della Scuola di Perfezionamento post Laurea di M.C. Pillolla s.a.s.
 num.part. 84 del 19/06/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 83 16/06/2020
 Servizio di telefonia fissa, mobile e internet edifici dell'Unione. Ditta Vodafone Italia S.p.A. Liquidazione fattura n° AM10988200 del 12.06.2020 - periodo 09.04.2020 08.06.2020.
 num.part. 83 del 16/06/2020
 SETTORE TECNICO 16 10/06/2020
 POR FESR Sardegna 2014-2020, Asse Prioritario II Agenda Digitale Azione 2.2.2:"Soluzioni tecnologiche per la realizzazione di servizi di e-Government interoperabili, integrati (joined-up services) e progettati con cittadini e imprese, soluzioni integrate per le smart cities andcommunities" - Intervento SUAPE-I2 - Potenziamento della interoperabilità e integrazione dati eservizi per il sistema SUAPE - Accertamento in Entrata.
 num.part. 16 del 10/06/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 82 09/06/2020
 Associazione Culturale Janas Meeting itinerante "La discriminazione delle donne madri nel mondo del lavoro come concausa di impoverimento delle famiglie". (Delib Giunta n. 59_2019). - Impegno di spesa e liquidazione parziale contributo anno 2020.
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 81 08/06/2020
 Utilizzo e valorizzazione automezzi per l'implementazione del trasporto locale. Liquidazione N. 2 per spese vive sostenuta a favore dell'Associazione Avis di Uri.
 num.part. 81 del 08/06/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 80 05/06/2020
 Fornitura Computer e Monitor ufficio di progettazione. Ordine diretto di acquisto (ODA) MEPA. Liquidazione fattura
 num.part. 80 del 05/06/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 79 04/06/2020
 Servizi e attività di comunicazione istituzionale a supporto degli organi istituzionali. Approvazione terzo certificato di pagamento prestazioni professionali. Liquidazione fattura a favore della D.ssa Mura Alessandra, periodo 01/03/2020 al 31/05/2020
 num.part. 79 del 04/06/2020
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 78 03/06/2020
 Corsi di formazione del personale anno 2020. Aggiornamento in materia di " Tributi locali: Scadenze 2020, la Riforma della riscossione e la Nuova IMU" in modalità webinar. Impegno di spesa a favore della Scuola di Perfezionamento post Laurea di M.C. Pillolla s.a.s.
 DIRIGENZIALE - SETTORE AMMINISTRATIVO 77 03/06/2020
 SERVIZIO DI AMMINISTRATORE INFORMATICO DI SISTEMA DELL'UNIONE DEI COMUNI DEL COROS. LIQUIDAZIONE PERIODO DAL 01.05.2020 AL 31.05.2020 ALLA DITTA INFORMATICA AMICA DI SECHI ADELMO DI SASSARI.
 num.part. 77 del 03/06/2020


type: legislation

text:
 25.8.2015
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 L 222/5
 REGOLAMENTO DI ESECUZIONE (UE) 2015/1422 DELLA COMMISSIONE
 del 24 agosto 2015
 recante fissazione dei valori forfettari all'importazione ai fini della determinazione del prezzo di entrata di taluni ortofrutticoli
 LA COMMISSIONE EUROPEA,
 visto il trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea,
 visto il Regolamento (UE) n. 1308/2013 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 17 dicembre 2013, recante organizzazione comune dei mercati dei prodotti agricoli e che abroga i regolamenti (CEE) n. 922/72, (CEE) n. 234/79, (CE) n. 1037/2001 e (CE) n. 1234/2007 del Consiglio (1),
 visto il regolamento di esecuzione (UE) n. 543/2011 della Commissione, del 7 giugno 2011, recante modalità di applicazione del regolamento (CE) n. 1234/2007 del Consiglio nei settori degli ortofrutticoli freschi e degli ortofrutticoli trasformati (2), in particolare l'articolo 136, paragrafo 1,
 considerando quanto segue:
 (1)
 Il regolamento di esecuzione (UE) n. 543/2011 prevede, in applicazione dei risultati dei negoziati commerciali multilaterali dell'Uruguay round, i criteri per la fissazione da parte della Commissione dei valori forfettari all'importazione dai paesi terzi, per i prodotti e i periodi indicati nell'allegato XVI, parte A, del medesimo regolamento.
 (2)
 Il valore forfettario all'importazione è calcolato ciascun giorno feriale, in conformità dell'articolo 136, paragrafo 1, del regolamento di esecuzione (UE) n. 543/2011, tenendo conto di dati giornalieri variabili. Pertanto il presente regolamento entra in vigore il giorno della pubblicazione nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea,
 HA ADOTTATO IL PRESENTE REGOLAMENTO:
 Articolo 1
 I valori forfettari all'importazione di cui all'articolo 136 del regolamento di esecuzione (UE) n. 543/2011 sono quelli fissati nell'allegato del presente regolamento.
 Articolo 2
 Il presente regolamento entra in vigore il giorno della pubblicazione nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea.
 Il presente regolamento è obbligatorio in tutti i suoi elementi e direttamente applicabile in ciascuno degli Stati membri.
 Fatto a Bruxelles, il 24 agosto 2015
 Per la Commissione,
 a nome del presidente
 Jerzy PLEWA
 Direttore generale dell'Agricoltura e dello sviluppo rurale
 (1) GU L 347 del 20.12.2013, pag. 671.
 (2) GU L 157 del 15.6.2011, pag. 1.
 ALLEGATO
 Valori forfettari all'importazione ai fini della determinazione del prezzo di entrata di taluni ortofrutticoli
 (EUR/100 kg)
 Codice NC
 Codice dei paesi terzi (1)
 Valore forfettario all'importazione
 0702 00 00
 MA
 117,6
 ZZ
 117,6
 0709 93 10
 TR
 125,7
 ZZ
 125,7
 0805 50 10
 AR
 146,8
 BO
 152,6
 CL
 151,3
 UY
 97,5
 ZA
 153,8
 ZZ
 140,4
 0806 10 10
 EG
 225,3
 TR
 165,8
 ZZ
 195,6
 0808 10 80
 AR
 124,0
 BR
 102,5
 CL
 142,6
 NZ
 150,9
 US
 163,7
 UY
 170,8
 ZA
 115,8
 ZZ
 138,6
 0808 30 90
 AR
 70,6
 CL
 151,5
 CN
 85,3
 NZ
 206,2
 TR
 130,7
 ZA
 121,6
 ZZ
 127,7
 0809 30 10, 0809 30 90
 MK
 53,8
 TR
 131,9
 ZZ
 92,9
 0809 40 05
 BA
 42,2
 MK
 24,5
 XS
 57,7
 ZZ
 41,5
 (1) Nomenclatura dei paesi stabilita dal Regolamento (UE) n. 1106/2012 della Commissione, del 27 novembre 2012, che attua il regolamento (CE) n. 471/2009 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, relativo alle statistiche comunitarie del commercio estero con i paesi terzi, per quanto riguarda l'aggiornamento della nomenclatura dei paesi e territori (GU L 328 del 28.11.2012, pag. 7). Il codice «ZZ» corrisponde a «altre origini».


jurisdiction: US

text:
The contention in this case is between the holders of what is called preferred stock and creditors of an insolvent corporation.
 The stockholders of the Chesapeake Guano Company, a corporation formed under the general corporation laws of this State, voted some years ago to increase the company's capital by the issue of sixty thousand dollars of preferred stock. Without pausing at this point to examine whether the method pursued was the proper one or not, it suffices for the present to say that the authorized shares were all taken. Subsequently the company contracted the debts due to unsecured creditors and thereafter became insolvent, and its property and assets were placed in the hands of receivers. The funds now for distribution arose from sources that will be named hereafter. As the discussion requires, and the ultimate decision of the controversy involves, for *Page 608
 the first time, a judicial interpretation of the statutes under the provisions of which this stock was issued, the enactments, though somewhat lengthy, will be set forth in full. They are contained in Sec. 294, Art. 23, of the Code. This section is made up of two Acts of Assembly passed at different periods. They are the Act of 1868, ch. 471, sec. 219, and the Act of 1880,
 ch. 474. In transcribing them below the terms of the later Act will be put in italics, so that they may be easily distinguished; and more especially, so that the radical changes they made in the substance of the thing with which the Legislature had dealt under the earlier, may be more readily perceived. The following are the words of the Code: "Every corporation incorporated under the laws of this State, which has the power to issue bonds as evidences of indebtedness, and to secure the same by mortgage of the property of such corporation, or which has the power to obtain such money upon mortgage, may, whenever in the judgment of said corporation it is expedient to do so, in place of issuing such bonds and securing the same by a mortgage of the property of said corporation, or instead of obtaining money upon mortgage, issue a preferred stock for any amount for which said corporation may be authorized to issue its bonds, or for any amount which the said corporation may be authorized to obtain upon mortgage of its property, and may dispose of the said stock by sale, on such terms as it may prescribe, or by permitting the same to be subscribed for, as in the judgment of said corporation may be deemed expedient; and every corporation creating such preferred stock as aforesaid, may execute as agreement under seal, to beacknowledged as conveyances of land are required to beacknowledged, and recorded in the office of the Clerk of theCircuit Court for the county where the principal office of suchcorporation shall be situated, or in the office of the Clerk ofthe Superior Court of Baltimore City, in case such office shallbe situated in said city, guaranteeing to the purchasers of, or subscribers to, such preferred stock, a perpetual dividend of six per centum per *Page 609
 annum out of the profits of the said corporation, payable yearly or half-yearly, as said corporation shall determine, before any dividend is distributed to any of the stockholders of the said corporation, other than the holders of said preferred stock so created; and the holders thereof shall have all the incidents, rights, privileges and immunities, and liabilities, to which the capital stock of said corporation, or the holders thereof, may be entitled or subject; provided, however, that no corporation shall exercise any power under this section, unless the creation of such preferred stock shall be authorized by a general meeting of the stockholders of such corporation; and the said preferredstock shall be and constitute a lien on the franchises andproperty of such corporation, and have priority over anysubsequently created mortgage, or other incumberance." The provision requiring an agreement to be executed and to be placed on record was strictly complied with. The certificates were issued and the amount subscribed was fully paid. Thereafter the debts which it is claimed ought to be paid out of the fund now in Court for distribution, were contracted. The fund arose in this way: The improvements on the company's property — that is, the buildings and machinery — together with the stock in trade, were insured by the corporation against loss by fire. After the receivers had been appointed these improvements and this stock, or some of it, were burned. The receivers collected the insurance. This constitutes part of the fund. The rest is made up of book-accounts and rents collected by the receivers. No part of the property, real or personal, except, perhaps, stock in trade, appears to have been sold. The holders of the preferred stock — or of what is called preferred stock — issued under the above quoted section of the Code, claim that they are, as holders of those shares and in virtue of the terms of the statute, preferred creditors and entitled, in consequence, to be paid back out of these funds the amount paid in by them on their shares, whilst the persons who became creditors of the company after the recording of the *Page 610
 agreement already alluded to, insist that they are entitled to be paid the debts due to them before any distribution is made to the stockholders. Thus this feature of the controversy is sharply defined.
 If this stock is preferred stock, pure and simple, the contention of the creditors is right. The law is perfectly well settled that as between creditors and ordinary preferred stockholders, the latter, as owners of the property of an insolvent corporation, are, upon a distribution of its assets, entitled to nothing until its creditors are first fully paid. There is a palpable difference between the relation of a stockholder and a creditor to the corporate property. Stock, whether preferred or common, is capital; and generally speaking, a certificate of stock merely evidences the amount which the holder has contributed to or ventured in the enterprise. Such a certificate, representing nothing more than the extent of his ownership in the capital, cannot well be treated as indicating that he is, by virtue of it alone, also to the same extent a creditor who may compete with other creditors in the distribution of the fund arising from a conversion of the corporation's assets into money. He cannot, if he is simply an ordinary preferred stockholder, in the nature of things, so far as third persons are concerned, be at one and the same time and by force of the same certificate, both part-owner of the property and creditor of the company for that portion of its capital which stands in his name. His certificate, therefore, in such circumstances, merely measures the quantum of his ownership. As his chance of gain throws on the stockholder, as respects creditors, the entire risk of the loss of his contribution to the capital, it is a fixed characteristic of capital stock that no part of it can be withdrawn for the purpose of repaying the principal of the capital until the debts of the corporation are satisfied.Warren v. King, 108 U.S. 389; Cook on Stock, c., sec. 271;Hamlin v. Toledo, St. L. K.R.R. Co., 47 U.S. App. 422;S.C., 36 L.R.A. 826. Whether this characteristic may be modified by statute will be considered *Page 611
 later on. To be strictly accurate, we ought to say there is a sense in which a shareholder is a creditor. In that sense every corporation includes its capital stock amongst its liabilities, but it is a liability which is postponed to every other liability. And as to the matured and unpaid guaranteed dividends due on preferred stock, the relation of creditor undoubtedly exists. B. O.R.R. Co. v. State, 36 Md. 541.
 But, after all, is this particular stock, technically speaking, ordinary preferred stock, and subject consequently to the legal incidents and characteristics of that species of property?
 If you call it preferred stock, and it is what you call it, then the law is perfectly clear that it has no priority over the contesting creditors. If you call it preferred stock, and it isnot preferred stock, then, obviously, it is not governed by the principles applicable to preferred stock, but by those relating to the thing that it really is. The mere naming of it does not make it that which it is named, if, in fact, it is something else. Its properties and qualities determine what it is. If the statute calls it what its properties and qualities show that it is not, surely it does not thereby become what it is misnamed, and cease to be what it essentially is. Calling stock preferred stock does not per se define the rights in such stock, but these depend on the statute or contract under which it was issued. Elkins v. Cam. A.R. Co., 36 N.J. Eq. 233. As said by the Supreme Court of Ohio: "To call a thing a wrong name does not change its nature. A mortgage creditor, although denominated a preferred stockholder, is a mortgage creditor nevertheless; and interest is not changed into a dividend by calling it a dividend. Nothing is more common in the construction of statutes and contracts than for the Court to correct such self-evident misnomers by supplying the proper words. To use the language of the Court in Corcoran v. Powers, 6 Ohio St. 19, `The question in such cases is, not what did the parties call it, but what do the facts and circumstances *Page 612
 require the Court to call it.'" Burt v. Rattle, 31 Ohio St. 116. Courts are not influenced by mere names. They look beyond these and give to the subject dealt with the character — thestatus — which its properties denote it possesses. The qualities and properties of a thing are its essentials — they define and mark what it is — the name is purely accidental — it is no part of the thing named. If, then, the thing which the statute contemplates, possesses the characteristics and qualities of preferred stock — and possesses none other — it is
 preferred stock; but if, on the other hand, it possesses characteristics and qualities that are entirely foreign to preferred stock as strictly defined, and that are descriptive of something else, then the thing is obviously either not ordinary preferred stock, or not preferred stock at all, even though it be called preferred stock, and have in addition to its own qualities some of the characteristics that do pertain to preferred stock. Precisely because preferred stock has no lien on the company's property and cannot be repaid in advance of general creditors, it is necessarily true that a security which is, by express and emphatic legislative enactment, entitled to just such a lien and just such priority, is not preferred stock technically speaking, though called by that name and though having many features incident to preferred stock. The whole ingenious and exceedingly able argument for the appellants proceeded upon the assumption that this is ordinary preferred stock, because called preferred stock, and because it possesses the incidents of such stock (but it ignored the fact that it has a quality which preferred stock has not), and the conclusion thence deduced was, that being that kind of stock it has no preferential lien. Now, the converse is exactly true. If the statute plainly gives a lien and a preference, then this so-called preferred stock is not ordinary preferred stock at all, no matter what it is called and no matter what incidents it may have in common with preferred stock, and therefore, it has not that particular characteristic which, if it were ordinary preferred stock, would defer it to the *Page 613
 claims of unsecured creditors. Brushing aside the name, let us see what are the essential qualities of this statutory creation.
 The Act of 1868, ch. 471, sec. 219, authorized corporations to issue preferred stock. It was an alternative method of obtaining money. Any corporation which, under its charter, had authority to borrow money and issue bonds therefor, and secure the payment of the bonds by mortgage, might, instead of resorting to that method, issue preferred stock. In issuing it the companies were empowered to execute an agreement guaranteeing to the purchasers of, or subscribers to, such preferred stock, a perpetual dividend of six per cent. out of the profits of the corporation before any dividend could be paid to the holders of the common stock. The holders of such preferred stock were given all the incidents, rights, privileges and immuninities, and made subject to all the liabilities to which the holders of common stock were entitled or subject. This was strictly and technically ordinary preferred stock. It had no priority over creditors or over subsequent mortgages or incumbrances, and it had no lien on the franchises or the property of the corporation. It merely guaranteed a dividend of six per cent. out of the profits — that is the net profits — and if there were no profits there would be no dividend. Its priority was simply a priority over the usual rights and interest of another, but subordinate, class of stockholders. That is the kind of preferred stock authorized by the Act of 1868, as a mere glance at its provisions — quoted in the beginning of this opinion, omitting the lines in italics — will demonstrate. In the language of the Supreme Court Warren. v. King, supra, "It would be difficult to say that these statutory provisions allowed any preference in shares of capital stock, except a preference amongst classes of shares, or any preference of any class over creditors. * * * * There is nothing in the certificate that clothes them with a single attribute of a creditor." The stock authorized by the Act of 1868, was not only called preferred stock, but *Page 614
 it had every incident of stock, and none that was not. For twelve years the statute remained unchanged. Shares issued under it were, as we have said, essentially shares of capital with none of the qualities of an evidence of debt, and shareholders were simply owners of the capital, with none of the rights of creditors of the company. But in 1880 the statute was amended by the addition of the words in italics. By the provision requiring the agreement to be recorded no change was effected in the relation of the preferred to the common shareholder — the former was given no greater right over the latter than he had before the agreement was required to be recorded — and the relation of the preferred shareholder to the company's subsequent creditors was not disturbed unless the last clause, giving the shareholder a lien and declaring a preference in his favor, altered the nature of the preferred stock and made it something that it had not been under the Act of 1868. If the clause giving the shareholder a lien and a priority did not create a new species of preferred stock, or a security differing radically from ordinary preferred stock, it is difficult, if not impossible to assign any reason for the adoption of the Act of 1880. The clause specifically declaring that "the said preferred stock
 shall be and constitute a lien on the franchises andproperty of such corporation, and have priority over any subsequently created mortgage or other incumbrance," essentially changed the whole nature of the thing antecedently described as preferred stock, and the statutory lien converted it into something wholly different. The statute says "said preferred stock" — not the guaranteed dividend thereon — shall be and constitute a lien on the property and franchises of the company. If you say the lien only extends to the dividend, then you say the stock shall not be a lien, though the Legislature said it should be.
 Preferred stock under the Act of 1868 had no lien whatever; this statutory preferred stock, under the Act of 1880 — "The said preferred stock" — has a lien on franchises and on property. Preferred stock under the Act of 1868 had *Page 615
 no priority over creditors; this statutory preferred stock under the Act of 1880 has priority over subsequent mortgages and incumbrances. The two are therefore intrinsically different, and the argument that gives to the latter no greater effect or wider range than the former possessed, simply because of the identity in the name applied to both, must totally ignore and in fact expunge the clause of the statute expressly creating the lien. If this statutory preferred stock has a lien, then it differs from ordinary preferred stock in that it has the lien. If, because it is called preferred stock, it has no lien, though the statute says it shall have, then the name controls the substance, and the lien expressly given is simultaneously taken away by the name conferred. Either the name or the substance must yield and certainly the latter cannot be made subordinate to the former.
 Giving to the holder of what the Act of 1880 designates preferred stock, a lien is not without precedent. It can be done and the ultimate question always is, has it been done? That it can be done a few citations will show. In Elliott onRailroads, sec. 85, the general rule is thus stated: "Unless a preference in payment of capital invested has been specially contracted for (Re Bangor, c. Co., L.R. 20, Eq. 59; ReBridgewater Nav. Co., L.R. 39 Ch. Div. 1), or is given bystatute (McGregor v. Home Ins. Co., 33 N.J. Eq. 181), the holder of the preferred stocks hares equally with the common shareholders in a distribution of assets upon dissolution * * * *. This results from the rule that he is a stockholder and not a creditor." "But much," the same author proceeds to observe inSec. 86, "will necessarily depend upon the language used, and where the interest is guaranteed absolutely and the corporation also agrees to liquidate the principal at a specified time, orthe like, so that the so-called stock is in reality an interest-bearing debenture, the relation created thereby will be that of debtor and creditor, and the holder will not be merely a stockholder as he would be if it were preferred or interest-bearing stock *Page 616
 payable only out of the profits (Burt v. Rattle, 31 Ohio St. 116;West Chester R.R. v. Jackson, 77 Pa St. 321; Totten v.Tison, 54 Ga. 139). Its validity, therefore, would depend upon some other power than the power to issue preferred stock." And inCook on Stock, c., Sec. 271, it is said: "A mortgage to secure preferred stock and dividends thereon has been upheld in a few cases. In other cases that which was called preferred stock was nothing more than income bonds with a voting power." In the case of Garrett et al. v. May et al., 19 Md. 191, the late Mr. Reverdy Johnson, in his argument, spoke of the "income bonds," which were there the subject of controversy, as equivalent to preferred stock. As the interest and principal of the bonds were payable out of income, it meant net income. "The holder," he said, "is thus made only a preferred stockholder." "Occasionally, however," remarks Mr. Cook, sec. 271 Stock, c.," a mortgage is given by the corporation to secure the payment of dividends on preferred stock and to give it a preference in payment over subsequent debts of the corporation upon insolvency or dissolution. It is difficult to see how such a mortgage could be legal except when it is issued under express statutoryauthority." In West Chester R.R. v. Jackson, supra, it was said by JUDGE WOODWARD, speaking for the Court, "A corporation may issue new shares and give them a preference as a mode of borrowing money, where it has power to borrow on bond and mortgage, as preferred stock is only a form of mortgage." InSkiddy v. Atl. R.R., 3 Hughes, 355, it was held that where preferred stock had been issued, reciting that the stipulated interest was a lien on all the property of the corporation after the first mortgage, the lien would be upheld by the Court as against subsequent mortgages and general creditors, though such lien had not been secured by any mortgage.
 There ought, then, be no doubt that this method of creating a lien in favor of a stockholder can be resorted to, if the Legislature sees fit to authorize it. That it has authorized *Page 617
 it by the terms of the Act of 1880, hereinbefore transscribed and put in italics, is, it seems to us, perfectly clear. The General Assembly has, in plain and unmistakable words, declared that this particular kind of stock — the "said preferred stock" — shall be and constitute a lien on the company's property. No language could be more explicit; and, most certainly, Courts have no authority to reject or to disregard it. Stock issued under this Act is consequently a lien on the property of the company issuing it, and entitled to the preference which the statute gives it.
 It is no answer to say that the giving of such a lien is nugatory by reason of a lien being inconsistent with the properties and qualities of stock; because it is quite obvious that after a lapse of twelve years the Legislature, by adopting the Act of 1880, intended to do just what it did do, even though in doing it the nature of the thing dealt with was changed and a new and entirely different statutory preferred stock was created. That it had the power to do this cannot be disputed. There was neither physical nor legal impossibility in the way; and no principle of sound and enlightened public policy was invaded. The substance of the thing was changed, the name was retained.
 Much was said in the argument, and something is to be found in the books, about such liens in favor of stockholders being void because against public policy; but SIR GEORGE JESSEL, M.R., in dealing with that indefinite and variable quantity called public policy, said in Printing and Numerical Reg. Co. v. Sampson,
 L.R. 19 Eq. 465, "It must not be forgotten that you are not to extend arbitrarily those rules which say that a given contract is void as being against public policy, because if there is one thing which more than another public policy requires, it is that men of full age and competent understanding shall have the utmost liberty of contracting, and that their contracts when entered into freely and voluntarily shall be held sacred, and shall be enforced by Courts of Justice. Therefore, you have this paramount public policy to consider — that you are not *Page 618
 lightly to interfere with this freedom of contract. Now, there is no doubt public policy may say that a contract to commit crime, or a contract to give a reward to another to commit crime, is necessarily void. The decisions have gone further, and contracts to commit an immoral offence, or to give money or reward to another to commit an immoral offence, or to induce another to do something against the general rules of morality, though far more indefinite than the previous class, have always been held to be void. I should be sorry to extend the doctrine much further." In the case of U.S. v. Trans-Mo. Freight Ass., 166 U.S. 290, the Supreme Court had under review the Act of Congress of July 2d 1890, enacted "to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies." It was argued that the impolicy of giving to the Act the construction which its language plainly conveyed, was so clear that it could not be supposed Congress intended the natural import of the words it had used; but a majority of the Court, speaking through MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, said: "The public policy of the government is to be found in its statutes, and when they have not directly spoken, then in the decisions of the Courts and the constant practice of the government officials; but when the law-making power speaks upon a particular subject, over which it has constitutional power to legislate, public policy in such a case is what the statuteenacts." It is impossible to see how the lien given to this peculiar preferred stock can be treated as invalid on the ground that it contravenes public policy, since the explicit words of the statute declare a policy with which the lien that is given is essentially in accord. It must be, said this Court in TrustEstate of Woods, Weeks Co., 52 Md. 520, a very plain case to justify a Court in holding a contract to be against public policy. We are dealing now, not with a contract, but with astatute.
 None of the cases cited by the appellant's counsel arose uponstatutes containing such a provision as is set forth in theAct of 1880. They are for that reason distinguishable *Page 619
 from this case. They all dealt with ordinary preferred stock — and not with stock issued under a special legislative enactment declaring that stock created thereunder shall be and constitute a lien on the company's property and shall have priority over subsequent mortgages and incumbrances.
 If this statutory preferred stock has priority over any subsequently created mortgage or incumbrance, it must have priority over the claims which such subsequently created mortgage would itself have precedence over. It would be a solecism — an incongruity — to say that the stock shall have priority over subsequently created mortgages and of course, therefore, over those claims which would be deferred to such mortgage, where there is one; and yet shall have no priority over the same claims where there is no mortgage. Obviously, the statute means a priority over subsequent mortgages and over such claims as such subsequent mortgages would have preference over. Suppose these claims were secured by a mortgage executed after the issue of the stock. Would not the mortgage be postponed, by the express terms of the statute, to the prior lien of the stock? Can claims, when unsecured by a mortgage, take precedence of the stock to which they would be subordinate if they were in the form of a mortgage? If they can, it must be solely because when unsecured they are given a priority which is denied them when they are secured; thus reversing the ordinary rule and placing an unsecured claim in advance of a secured one. The statute cannot be interpreted in a way to produce such a result.
 We now come to the inquiry as to whether the stock was properly issued. The statute prohibits the issue of this kind of stock "unless the creation of such preferred stock shall be authorized by a general meeting of the stockholders of" the corporation. It is objected that a general meeting of stockholders was not properly called, because, first, the meeting which did assemble, was called by the directors and not by the stockholders; and secondly, because notice was given in but one instead of intwo newspapers. This *Page 620
 objection is founded on Sec. 6, Art. 23 of the Code, and altogether disregards Sec. 76 of the same Article. Sec. 6 permits stockholders to call a general meeting only when the president and directors refuse to call it after being required by the stockholders to do so. The notice prescribed by Sec 6 isten days, and when the corporation is located in Baltimore City, this notice must be published in two newspapers. Upon turning to Sec. 76 it will be found that provision is made for calling a meeting of the stockholders for the purpose of increasing or diminishing the amount of the capital stock. This notice must be given by the directors or a majority of them; it must be published in one paper and a copy must be mailed to each stockholder; and the length of the notice must be four weeks. All the provisions of Sec. 76 were strictly complied with. WhilstSec. 6 provides generally for calling meetings of stockholders,Sec. 76 provides specially for the case of a meeting called for a particular purpose. The general provision must yield to the particular, when the thing to be done is that which the latter has relation to. The proviso requiring a general meeting of stockholders to authorize the issue of preferred stock was contained in the Act of 1868, before the amendment of 1880. The issue of preferred stock under the Act of 1868 was necessarily an increase of the capital, and the proper method to be pursued in calling a meeting of the stockholders to determine whether such preferred stock should be issued was the one pointed out inSec. 76. The changes made by the Act of 1880 in the characteristics of this stock did not change the mode to be followed in securing the sanction of the stockholders to its issue. As that mode — the one designated in Sec. 76 — was strictly followed, the objection founded on the failure to comply with Sec. 6 must fall.
 This brings us to the only other question in the case; and that is whether the sums collected by the receivers from the various sources indicated above, can be claimed by the holders of this preferred stock, or must be paid to *Page 621
 the unsecured creditors. If the fund collected from the insurance companies is payable to the stockholders rather than to the unsecured creditors, it must be so payable, because the lien on the franchises and property of the company is, by reason of its being a lien on the franchises and property, a lien on the money paid by the insurance companies to the receivers, under the policies indemnifying the Guano Company against loss by fire. But since the decision by LORD CHANCELLOR KING, in the case of Lynchv. Dalzel, 3 Bro. Par. Cas. 497, it has never been disputed that a policy of insurance against loss by fire is only a personal contract of indemnity against a possible loss on account of the interest of the insured in the thing mentioned in the policy. Such personal contracts of indemnity do not attach to the realty or in any manner go with the same, as incident, by any conveyance or assignment, unless there is, in addition, some special stipulation to that effect between the insurer and the insured.Wash. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 32 Md. 441; Wheeler v. Ins.Co., 101 U.S. 442; Ins. Co. v. Stinson, 103 U.S. 29; PalmerSav. Bk. v. Ins. Co. North Amer., 166 Mass. 189; S.C., 32 L.R.A. 615. Consequently a mortgagee, and for the same reason any other lien creditor, has no right to claim the benefit of a policy underwritten for the mortgagor or owner of the property, unless there is an express agreement permitting it. The insolvency of the mortgagor or debtor cannot operate to expand the lien held by the mortgagee or creditor; or bring within the scope of that lien a fund which, according to settled principles, is not subject to its operation. If the proceeds of such a policy are not covered by the lien which the creditor holds, the subsequent insolvency of the debtor cannot bring them under the lien; because, mere insolvency can, of itself, in no instance, amplify a lien, whose existence and extent depend wholly upon the terms of the contract creating the lien. There is no pretence that there was any special stipulation between the Guano Company and the preferred stockholders appropriating to the latter, in the event of a *Page 622
 loss by fire, the funds which might be realized under the policies of insurance; and it of course follows, that these stockholders have no lien upon those funds, and having no lien upon them they have no claim to them; because these stockholders are not general creditors, and have no right to appropriate to the payment of their stock any assets other than those which the statute specifically subjects to their lien, until the general and other creditors are first fully paid.
 With regard to the book-accounts collected by the receivers the record discloses very little. Presumably these book-accounts represent sums due to the company for merchandise sold by it. It does not appear at what time this merchandise was acquired, but it was probably long after the creation of the preferred stock. However this may be, it cannot be held that the money when collected was covered by the lien given by the statute unless the merchandise sold for that money was itself subject to that lien when sold. It cannot be successfully contended that the lien attached to merchandise which the company was engaged in making for sale, without at the same time conceding that every article sold went into the possession of the purchaser charged with the lien. In a manufacturing concern engaged, as the name implies, in the sale of fertilizers, it could never have been the purpose of the statute to attach the lien to the articles produced for sale, as such a lien would effectually prevent any sale and would at once, as a consequence, stop the very business which the company was organized to conduct.
 Lastly, with respect to the rents. The lien given by the statute attaches to the franchises and property. Were the lien that of a mortgage on land, the specific thing pledged would be the land. Rents, unless specifically included, would not be conveyed by a pledge of the land; "they belong to the tenant in possession, whether a mortgagor or a third person claiming under him." Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Co., 107 U.S. 378. InFreedmen's Saving and Trust Co. v. Shepherd, 127 U.S. 494, it appeared that one Bradley executed *Page 623
 a deed of trust pledging to the Savings and Trust Company certain real estate. The rent accruing from this property was claimed by the Trust Company and by other creditors of Bradley. In denying the claim of the Trust Company the Supreme Court said: "Bradley's deed pledged the property, not the rents accruing therefrom, as security for the payment of his notes." See also Gilman v.Ill. M. Tel. Co., 91 U.S. 603. It is true that when possession is taken by a receiver in behalf of the mortgagee the rents may be appropriated to the payment of the mortgage debt (Teal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 242), but this lien given under the statute to a preferred shareholder is not the lien of a mortgage, and cannot be expanded so as to include anything more than the Legislature designated — namely, franchises and property.
 From what has been said it results that, in our opinion, the so-called preferred stock is a lien on the company's franchises and property owned at the time the stock was issued; but that it is not a lien on the funds now in the hands of the receivers and arising from the sources hereinbefore indicated. In so far as the decree below declared the preferred stock a lien on the franchises and property of the Chesapeake Guano Company, it is affirmed; but in so far as it awarded the funds collected from the insurance companies, from the book-accounts and from the rents of the property, to the preferred stockholders, it will be reversed.
 Decree affirmed in part and reversed in part and causeremanded that a new decree conforming to this opinion may besigned. The costs to be equally divided between each side.
 (Decided June 22d 1899). *Page 624


text:
Teletenne was de merknaam van Telenet voor een Vlaams netwerk voor de verspreiding van digitale televisie via de ether in Vlaanderen en Brussel.
 De hiervoor gebruikte standaard was Digital Video Broadcasting Terrestrial 2de generatie. Via dit netwerk waren 18 zenders uiteindelijk beschikbaar tegen betaling. Hoewel Teletenne ook de VRT video programma's (geëncrypteerd) bevatte, stond dit product verder los van de gratis te ontvangen DVB-T uitzendingen voor VRT.
 Geschiedenis
 In februari 2010 heeft Telenet een akkoord gesloten met Norking voor de verspreiding van digitale signalen via hun netwerk. Telenet zou een commercieel aanbod brengen en de zenders van VRT (Eén, Canvas, Ketnet/OP12, radiozenders) zouden gratis beschikbaar blijven. Na meer dan twee jaar kwam het bericht naar buiten dat Telenet met de uitzendingen zou starten. Het project kreeg de naam 'Teletenne'. Vanaf de start op 2 juli 2012 waren er 13 zenders te verkrijgen.
 De zenders van het mediabedrijf Medialaan, met onder andere het populaire kanaal VTM, zijn nooit beschikbaar geweest in het zenderpakket. Teletenne zond uit via het DVB-T-netwerk van Norking. Deze signalen werden geüpgraded naar DVB-T2 in de lente van 2013. In de lente van 2013 werd het aanbod uitgebreid naar 17 zenders. Op 14 augustus 2013 werd het signaal van Libelle ook toegevoegd aan het zenderpakket.
 Op 13 februari 2014 kondigde Telenet aan per 31 maart 2014 te stoppen met Teletenne wegens gebrek aan belangstelling.
 De smartcards zijn uitgeschakeld maar de zenders nog niet. Het is onduidelijk waarom deze nog steeds de signalen doorgeven, aangezien er niemand meer naar kan kijken (althans niet via een betaald abonnement).
 Norkring meldt op hun site ook nog steeds dat ze in België DVB-T2 gebruiken, wat op die manier feitelijk juist is.
 Settopbox en antenne
 De meeste televisietoestellen hebben een ingebouwde dvb-t-ontvanger. Hiermee kan men ongeëncrypteerde uitzendingen zoals deze van openbare omroep VRT ontvangen. Voor de ontvangst van Teletenne was een specifieke door Telenet goedgekeurde settopbox nodig die uitgerust was om DVB-T2 te ontvangen. Naast de settopbox was ook een antenne en smartcard nodig om de nodige signalen om te zetten.
 Tv-zenders
 Eén, Canvas, Ketnet/OP12 werden in Teletenne geëncrypteerd uitgezonden maar zijn ook nog gratis te ontvangen via DVB-T. Klanten van Teletenne ontvingen de tv-zenders van VRT dus dubbel. Door de stopzetting van Teletenne waren dit dan ook de enige nog beschikbare kanalen via DVB-T in Vlaanderen.
 Belgisch telecommunicatiebedrijf
 Belgische televisie
 Telenet