jurisdiction: US

text:
This is an appeal from an order of the Orphans' Court of Montgomery County ratifying an account filed by the appellees as executors and trustees under the will of Charles H. Parker, deceased. The record shows that a caveat to that will was filed by Benjamin H. Parker, Mareb R. McKimmie and Mable T. O'Donnell, three of the appellants, who together with Thomas C. Parker and Grace M. Heiston, the other appellants, are five of the nine children of Charles H. Parker. Eva J. Turner, formerly Eva J. Dolan, one of the *Page 411
 appellees, and three minors are the other children. Four issues were framed and sent to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, which, as abbreviated, were as follows: 1. Did the testator execute the paper writing purporting to be his last will and testament in accordance with the form required by the laws of Maryland? 2. Were the contents of the paper writing read to or by the said Charles H. Parker, or known to him at or before the time of the alleged execution thereof? 3. Was he at the time of the execution of the paper writing of sound and disposing mind and capable of executing a valid deed or contract? 4. Was the execution of the paper writing procured by undue influence exercised and practised upon said Charles H. Parker?
 On December 22d 1916, a jury found in favor of the caveators on the first, second and third issues, and in favor of the caveatees on the fourth issue. An appeal was taken by the caveatees, but it was dismissed by them on February 24th, 1917. The verdict was certified to the Orphans' Court, which on March 8th, 1917, passed a decree in accordance with the verdict on the issues, that the paper writing "is not the last will and testament of the said Charles H. Parker and probate thereof is hereby revoked." The decree also provided that all costs of that Court and of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County arising out of the framing, transmission and determination of the issues be paid out of the estate of the deceased.
 On March 8th, 1917, an account of the appellees as executors and trustees was filed in the Orphans' Court and objections to it were filed by the appellants, which were overruled and the account was ratified. From that action of the Court this appeal was taken. It is contended by the appellants: 1. That the evidence offered by them, which was rejected, showed the absence of jurisdictional facts, the existence of which was essential to the jurisdiction of the Orphans' Court in making an order of probate; that the order of probate was therefore void and the will was never probated, and hence the executors can not be allowed the expenses of defending the caveat, or *Page 412
 other items of the account. 2. That the evidence offered tended to show that the appellees knew that the alleged will was false and not entitled to probate; that they acted in bad faith, undertook to establish as a genuine will a paper which they knew to be false, and therefore can not be allowed the account or the items thereof.
 First — It appears from the record that Charles H. Parker died August 12th, 1915. On the 18th of that month Ernestine F. Terflinger made an affidavit as to the custody of the will, that she obtained it from B.F. Leighton, attorney for the decedent, on or about the 14th of August, 1915. On September 10th, 1915, a certificate of the Register of Wills was made and filed that the two subscribing witnesses to the will had appeared before him "and in the presence of Almighty God, solemnly and truly declared that they were present and did see the testator therein named sign and seal this will, that they heard him publish, pronounce and declare the same to be his last will and testament, that at the time of his so doing he was, to the best of their apprehension, of sound and disposing mind, memory and understanding, and that they respectively subscribed their names as witnesses to this will in the presence of the testator, at his request, and all in the presence of each other."
 On the 16th day of September, 1915, the Orphans' Court passed an order admitting the will to probate.
 It appears therefore from the record that the Court admitted the will to probate and although there was some criticism at the argument of the form of the certificate of the register as to proof by the witnesses, it was a sufficient compliance with section 350 of Article 93 of the Annotated Code. On September 28th, 1915, the Court approved the bond presented by the appellees and ordered that letters testamentary be granted to them upon taking the usual oath. Some objection was made that letters testamentary were not issued in the form prescribed by section 51 of Article 93, but there is a certificate of the register that letters testamentary were issued, and the mere fact that they were not precisely in the *Page 413
 form prescribed by that section could not invalidate or effect the proceedings of the executors. In Decker v. Fahrenholtz,107 Md. 515, it was said: "The statutes in this State do not prescribe any particular form in which the judgment of probate shall be expressed, nor do the statutes elsewhere so far as we are informed. In 16 Enc. Pl. Pr. 1043, it is said to be sufficient if it appear from the minutes of the Court that the will was proved and allowed, and that a formal judgment or decree admitting the will to probate is not necessary." In this case there was a formal decree, but we quote the above to show the position this Court has taken with reference to proceedings in the Orphans' Court.
 Coming then to the question whether the omission to show that some of the "next relations of the deceased" attended or that notice appears to have been given affected the jurisdiction of the Court to grant the probate, we find nothing in the record to show that such notice as is contemplated by the statute was not given to some of the next relations of the deceased. In Stanley
 v. Safe Deposit Company, 88 Md. 401, we said that sections 327 and 328 (now sections 343 and 344) of Article 93 do not contemplate a formal notice such as a summons or something in the nature of an order of publication, as section 329 (now 345) provides for that character of notice in the event of the other not appearing to have been given, "but they refer to a notice to be given by the executor or other person exhibiting the will to the Court for probate, and if it appeared to the Court that such reasonable notice was given as provided for in section 327 (343), it unquestionably had jurisdiction to proceed to take probate of the will. Having the jurisdiction to decide that question, and having decided it, as we must presume it did unless we assume that it wholly disregarded the express provisions of the law, which we would not be justified in doing, its decision can not be reviewed in the way now attempted." We held in that case that it was not a proper matter for issues as the law conferred jurisdiction on and imposed the duty on that Court to determine that preliminary question. *Page 414
 We will not quote the proffer of the appellants to prove certain facts by the Register of Wills, but we have examined that proffer very carefully and find that it falls far short of negativing what was said to be sufficient in Stanley v. SafeDeposit Co., supra. Everything contained in that proffer may be true and still the executors may have informed some of the near relations that the will would be offered for probate at the time it was.
 Although section 343 of Article 93 authorizes the Register of Wills to take the probate of a will in the recess of Court, this will was admitted by the Orphans' Court itself under section 344. The Register of Wills under and by virtue of section 350 took the "deposition," as it is called in that section, of the two subscribing witnesses, which he or his deputy, when directed by the Orphans' Court, is authorized to do wherever he may find witnesses to a will who can not conveniently attend at the office of the register, whether within or without the State, and the proof so taken is as valid as if all the witnesses had appeared before and been examined by the Orphans' Court for the Register. That having been done in this case the Orphans' Court admitted the will to probate as shown above.
 In reference to the question of notice to the next relations the case of Lederer v. Johannsen, 124 Md. 453, is conclusive. In that case Mrs. Parker was appointed executrix and Paul Johannsen executor of Mrs. Lederer. The question of notice was raised — the appellant contending that notice was not given to him and that without it the Orphans' Court had no jurisdiction to admit the will to probate. JUDGE THOMAS quoted in full sections 343, 344 and 345 of Article 93 of the Code, and on page 459 said: "The facts of this case bring it clearly within the provisions of sections 343 and 344. Mrs. Parker, who was one of the daughters of the deceased, and, therefore, one of `the next relations of the deceased' was present in the Orphans' Court when the will was offered for probate. The language of section 344 is `any of the next relations of the deceased,' and no exception is *Page 415
 made in case such relation happens to be the executor or executrix, or a witness to the will. As Mrs. Parker was present when the will was exhibited in the Orphans' Court, and as no caveat or objection was filed, the Orphans' Court was authorized to admit the will to probate without it being made to appear that reasonable notice had been given to the near relations of the deceased of the time when the will would be exhibited in that Court." That would seem to be conclusive of the question, but another reason may be given which is equally so. It will be remembered that this contest is raised by objections to the account of the executors and trustees filed after the will had been set aside as the result of the caveat. In Stanley v. SafeDeposit Co., 88 Md. 401, it was held, quoting from the syllabus for convenience, that: "When a party attacks the probate of a will on the ground that notice thereof had not been given to near relations as required by statute, he must file his petition within a reasonable time after acquiring knowledge of that fact, and, in analogy with the time limited for taking appeals from orders of the Orphans' Court, this should be within thirty days after the grant of probate." In considering the question we said what is very applicable to the appellants in this case who filed a caveat, that "the facts as to notice were as much within the knowledge of the appellants when they filed the original caveat to the will, as they were when they filed this petition, as they knew whether they were present or had notice that the will would be offered for probate."
 It is therefore thoroughly established that the will was admitted to probate and the validity of the probate is not an open question. That conclusion reached by us disposes of many of the objections urged by the appellants — particularly as to the items of expense connected with the trial of the caveat. Before taking up the items in the account which are objected to, it will be proper however to consider the second of the main contentions of the appellants stated above, — as to the alleged bad faith of the appellees in procuring the *Page 416
 probate of the will which they knew to be false, and hence can not be allowed the account or the items thereof.
 The evidence in the record and that offered to be proven are not sufficient to sustain that charge. The only authority in this State cited by the appellants is Pleasants v. McKenney,109 Md. 277, it being said on page 292, that: "Whether all persons interested in the will are actual parties or not, the finding of the jury is binding and conclusive upon them as to all questions covered by the issues actually submitted to the jury for its determination." That is a well established principle of law, but to hold that because a jury found for the caveators on such issues as those in this case, the executors are to be treated as convicted of fraud and of having acted in bad faith in procuring the probate of the will is not sustained by any decision in this State, if there be any elsewhere. Everyone familiar with the trials of caveats to wills knows how difficult it is to prevent the jury from being influenced by their own ideas of what the testator should have done. Sometimes the jury will be influenced by the eloquence of the attorneys, and at other times they may be deceived by witnesses, but whatever the reasons for their verdict may be, it should not be given such effect as is sought to be given it in this case. As to the first issue the witnesses to the will swore to such facts as apparently showed it to have been executed in accordance with the form required by the laws of Maryland, yet the jury found in the negative. Those witnesses also swore as to the capacity of the testator to make a will. Are they to be condemned as perjurers or guilty of fraud because the jury found contrary to their statements?
 But the question is settled in this State. In Glass v.Ramsay, 9 Gill, 456, one of the issues was whether the execution of the paper was procured by fraud or fraudulent misrepresentations of the executors, or either of them, or by others acting for them or by their direction. The jury found in favor of the caveators, and the probate of the will and letters testamentary were revoked. The executors then exhibited an account, in which they claimed an allowance for counsel fees, *Page 417
 costs and expenses incurred by them in support of the will, and also commissions. The Court said that: "It is certainly true that this finding of the jury is to be treated as conclusive with respect to all questions touching the validity of the will. * * * But when upon a new and different issue, founded on a claim for costs and expenses incurred by the appellees in the discharge of the duties imposed upon them as executors by the letters testamentary, the finding of the jury upon the caveat is collaterally introduced to affect the propriety or legality of such claims, it is like all other evidence of that character, open to explanation." The Court then went on to say that "taking the depositions furnished by the counsel of the caveators, or the trial before the Orphans' Court, into consideration, the conduct of Hugh Jenkins, one of the executors, is relieved from all imputation of fraud, so that the order of the Orphans' Court, allowing to the appellees counsel fees and costs, is covered by the opinion of this Court in the case of Compton v. Barnes, 4 Gill, 55." The Court also said that there was no ground for disputing the correctness of the order of the Orphans' Court allowing commissions to the appellees.
 It is settled by a long line of decisions in this State that when a will is admitted to probate before the caveat, it is the right and duty of the executors to defend the will, and they are allowed for attorneys' fees, costs, etc. Compton v. Barnes,supra; Townshend v. Brooks, 9 Gill, 90; Glass v. Ramsay,supra; Miller v. Gehr, 91 Md. 709, and others might be cited. They have never been made to depend upon the result of the caveats. In the case of Kengla v. Randall, 22 Ap. D.C. 469, cited by the appellants, the will had not been admitted to probate when the caveat was filed, and there is nothing in the case of Tuohy v. Hanlon, 18 Ap. D.C. 225, contrary to our conclusion.
 In this case the verdict on the issue of undue influence was in favor of the appellees, which of itself would go very far towards exculpating them. The attorneys for the appellants laid great stress on the fact that by the fifth clause of *Page 418
 the will there was left to William Parker, a nephew of the testator, a farm in Chester County, Pa., for life "and upon his death, the remainder in fee to his brother, William Parker," but such a mistake does not seem to us to have the significance that they attach to it. The attorney who prepared the will did not notice it, and it was just one of those mistakes which sometimes occur. If, as the jury found, the testator was not mentally capable of making a will, his failure to notice a mistake of that kind, if the will was read to or by him, would not be strange.
 Second — The conclusion reached by us as to the probate of the will disposes of the appellants' objections to many of the items. By section 36 of Article 93 it is provided that: "All acts done by any executor or administrator according to law, before any actual or implied revocation of his letters, shall be valid and effectual." In Pacy v. Cosgrove's Executor, 113 Md. 315, where a will had been admitted to probate in common form without contest, a sale of real estate by the executor in pursuance of a power in the will was held to be valid, although a caveat was then pending. In passing on the questions raised by the objections to the account, which we will now do, that section and the decision in Pacy v. Cosgrove's Executor must be kept in mind.
 The expenses connected with the trial of the caveat were properly allowed in accordance with the cases cited above, unless there be some items objectionable on other grounds. The account of Vernon Beall for $27.93 is perhaps the most questionable of the items connected with the trial, but it was not an unreasonable payment to make if Beall sustained the loss in an effort to aid the caveatees. There was no reversible error in the allowance of any of the other items connected with that trial, and as there are objections to so many items of the account we can not attempt to discuss or refer to each one separately. There can be no doubt about the correctness of the items connected with the probate of the will, the funeral expenses and the physician's bill. Nor is there any ground for objection to the commissions on the personal *Page 419
 property. The amount allowed was within the discretion given the Orphans' Court by the statute. There can be no question about the taxes paid and allowed in the account. Taxes are not required to be passed by the Orphans' Court or proven as provided by the statute. Bonaparte v. State, 63 Md. 465.
 There are a number of small bills, amounting in all to about $200.00 which we understand to be claimed to be debts due by the deceased. It was agreed by counsel in the Orphans' Court that none of them were supported by formal proof or affidavits, or passed by the Orphans' Court. Section 83 of Article 93 provides that: "No administrator shall discharge any claim against the decedent (otherwise than at his own risk) unless the same be first passed by the Orphans' Court granting the administration, or unless the said claim shall be proved according to the following rules." Sections 84 to 96, inclusive, relate to the kind of proof required for different claims, and then section 97 provides that: "No administrator shall be allowed in his account for any claim discharged by him unless he produce the claim passed by the Orphans' Court, or proven as herein directed." It was said in Bowie v. Ghiselin, 30 Md. 553, that "The objects of these provisions are two-fold; to secure the estates of deceased persons from unjust and unfounded claims by requiring them to be supported by vouchers and proof; and also to protect the executor from liability where he honestly pays a claim which has been approved and passed by the Court." It was suggested by the appellees' attorneys that as no objection was pointed out to any of those claims, beyond the fact that they were not passed or proven, the decree of the Orphans' Court ratifying the account should not be disturbed, but the difficulty is that the language of the statute is imperative. The appellants objected to them on that specific ground, and their objection was overruled, although it was conceded that none of them had been passed or proven. Persons interested in estates may not know whether claims are correct, and have the right to require the proof provided for by law, and not merely *Page 420
 to depend upon the administrator or executor being satisfied that they are justly due. When the question was raised in the Orphans' Court evidence might then have been produced sufficient to enable the Court to pass them, or proof might have been obtained in accordance with the statute — for which purpose an adjournment of the proceedings could have been had, if necessary. The testamentary laws of the State are not intended to take undue advantage of administrators and executors, and where such defects as these exist they should have the opportunity to correct them, if they can, but it would be setting a dangerous precedent to allow these claims although not passed or proven. Of course the sections referred to do not apply to debts incurred by the executors in the course of the administration or in defense of the caveat to the will, but only to claims against the decedent. There was error, therefore, in allowing the claims against the decedent which had not been passed or proven.
 Third — It is contended that the executors had no right to sell the real estate in Washington, referred to in the account, because they had not been authorized to sell it by the Orphans' Court, and the will did not authorize them to sell it without obtaining that authority. The appellants rely on section 284 of Article 93, and the decision in Brooks v. Bergner,83 Md. 352, which construes section 287 of Article 93 to mean that the will must state that the executor shall have power to sell without obtaining an order of the Orphans' Court. But those provisions of the Code have no application to the sale in question, as we understand the record. It was made by the appellees as trustees, not as executors, and they were clearly authorized by the will to sell as trustees. The record is very meager as to the sale, but it was made as early as August 24, 1916, as the note secured by a deed of trust bore that date according to the account. The testator died in August, 1915, and the will was probated September 16, 1915. The caveat was not filed until September 12, 1916, and the verdict of the jury was rendered December 22, 1916, but the will not declared invalid and the letters revoked until March 8th, 1917. The *Page 421
 sale was therefore made while the will was in effect, and even before the caveat was filed. Having made the sale it was the duty of the trustees to account for the proceeds, and as, so far as shown by the record, jurisdiction of the trust had not been assumed by a Court of Equity, and the executors had not yet settled their account, there can be no valid objection to their settling it in the Orphans' Court. It purports to be an account of the appellees as executors and trustees. As they had authority to sell the property, no objection to the allowance of the commission on the sale can be sustained.
 The testator left in his will an annuity of $25.00 a month to Miss Iva Van Horn during her lifetime, and directed his executors and trustees to pay said annuity quarterly from the time of his decease. He also left to Eva J. Dolan, who is now Mrs. Turner, one of the appellees, a house in Washington "for a home for herself during her life and my three minor children" until the youngest arrived at the age of twenty-one years or was married, and he also left to her and each of the three minor children $75.00 per month until the youngest became of age, to be paid to Mrs. Dolan for herself and as testamentary guardian of the minor children, for her maintenance and support, and the maintenance, support and education of the minor children. The testator appointed Mrs. Dolan testamentary guardian of the minor children. In the account the appellees ask credit for the payment of those sums to Miss Van Horn, Mrs. Turner and Mrs. Turner, guardian. Those payments continued until August, 1916, and we can see no objection to them; nor to the distribution to each of the nine children in accordance with the provisions of the will leaving the rest of the income to be divided between them until the youngest became of age.
 There can be no objection to the allowance of commissions on the rents, as the will provides for them. The appellants, however, ask that the appellees be charged with $667.20 under the following circumstances. The decedent owned sixty odd houses in the City of Washington. He had organized a real estate company known as the C.H. Parker Company, *Page 422
 but sold his interest in it to Mrs. Turner, excepting one share which he retained as he remained president of the company until his death. Mrs. Turner then owned all except two shares, and the one formerly held by her father was bought by Benjamin H. Parker, one of the appellants, who became president, and Mrs. Turner was secretary and treasurer of the company. The company had charge of Mr. Parker's real estate in Washington at his death, and continued in charge of it afterwards. It collected the rents, made the repairs, etc. It continued to charge five per cent. for its services — three per cent. of which was paid to Benjamin H. Parker and the remaining two per cent. to Mrs. Turner. The testimony shows that Benjamin H. Parker attended to the outside matters and Mrs. Turner to those in the office, keeping accounts, etc. The company would deduct the five per cent. commissions, the amount paid for repairs, etc., and send to Mr. Leighton the net amount. The amounts charged in the account are the net sums paid over by the company, and on these the appellees have charged five per cent. commissions. They contend that the will authorized them to adopt that course, but we do not so understand it. The will provided that the trustees should collect the rents, issues and profits, and manage and control the property, as they may deem most for the interest and advantage of the beneficiaries of the will. It provided that out of the rents, issues and profits they should pay all reasonable costs and expenses attending the management of the property and the collection of rents, "including a commission of five per centum to themselves for administering said trust." From the net residue of the income they were directed to pay the taxes, make such repairs as they deemed necessary and keep the property insured. It would seem to be clear that the testator expected the trustees to perform the services which they employed the company to do for the five per cent. commissions, and they were not entitled to pay commissions to that company, and then get five per cent. themselves. *Page 423
 But Benjamin H. Parker, one of the appellants who are now asking that the appellees be surcharged with the amount so paid, received three-fifths of the commissions deducted from the rents collected by the company, and he should be required to return what he received. Mr. Leighton got no part of that, and it would be a great injustice to hold him responsible for it at the instance of Benjamin H. Parker and his co-objectors, while Parker retains three-fifths of it. The Orphans' Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction, but it is not without all power to do justice. By section 235 of Article 93 it is provided that, "The Court shall have full power to * * * direct the conduct and accounting of executors and administrators, superintend the distribution of estates of intestates, secure the rights of orphans and legatees, and administer justice in all mattersrelating to the affairs of deceased persons," etc. Section 236 provides that: "The Orphans' Court shall have full power, authority and jurisdiction to examine, hear and decree upon all accounts, claims and demands existing between wards and their guardians, and between legatees or persons entitled to any distributive share of an intestate's estate and executors and administrators, and may enforce obedience to and execution of their decrees in the same ample manner as the courts of equity in this State." The uncontradicted evidence, offered by the appellants themselves, is to the effect that Benjamin H. Parker did receive three-fifths of these commissions for which he and his co-objectors now seek to hold the appellees, and it would be manifestly unjust to charge the appellees with what he has actually received — especially at the instance of him and his co-objectors.
 Under the peculiar circumstances we are of the opinion that the Orphans' Court should refuse to surcharge the account and charge the appellees with the amount asked for in the motion of Benjamin H. Parker and his co-objectors, and should overrule that motion, unless said Parker pays or secures to the appellees the three-fifths received by him within such time as the Court may fix. As the other four appellants *Page 424
 have united with him in the motion, they are asking the Court to do what would manifestly be unjust unless he does pay back or secure the money. Of course the Court should require Mrs. Turner to return the two-fifths retained by her, so as to protect her co-trustees.
 It follows that the decree ratifying the account must be reversed in part and affirmed in part. An opportunity to furnish proper proof of the items objected to as not passed or proven should be given, and such as are satisfactorily proven should be allowed. We will reverse the decree of the lower Court in so far as the claims not proven or passed were allowed and in regard to the commissions on the rents paid the C.H. Parker Company, and will affirm it in all other respects. We will direct that each side pay one-half of the costs of transmitting and printing the record, and that they pay their own costs except those.
 Decree reversed in part and affirmed in part, and causeremanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.Each side to pay one-half of the costs of transmitting andprinting the record, and to pay their own costs outside ofthose. *Page 425


type: wikipedia

text:
Га̀ра Орѐшец е село в Северозападна България, област Видин, община Димово.
 География
 Селото се намира на 4 километра североизточно от Белоградчик, на 8 км южно от общинския център гр. Димово, на 48 км южно от областния център Видин.
 Западно, северозападно и северно протича река Скомля, близо е и нейният язовир „Скомля“. Край селото има вилна зона Башовица, където местните жители отглеждат лозя. Природата на селото е много красива.
 История
 Според Националния регистър на населените места на НСИ населеното място съществува към датата на Освобождението на България (1878). Разраства се покрай строежа на железопътния участък между Видин и столицата София през 1912 г. Жителите на с. Гара Орешец са преселници от близкото село Орешец.
 Железопътната гара обслужва прилежащия район, включително и близкия гр. Белоградчик, развива се като местен център на автомобилния транспорт. Създава се трудово кооперативно земеделско стопанство, откриват се предприятия и заводи.
 Селището край гарата се разраства. Със статут на гара (вид населено място) е център на едноименната Община Гара Орешец (28.09.1949 – 26.12.1978), придобива статут на село от 18 юли 1995 г.|
 Забележителности
 В селището на гарата има читалище „Народен будител“, основано в с. Орешец през 1927 г. Помещава се в специална сграда, разполага с библиотека и компютърна зала. Местният хор и танцов състав често участват в национални фестивали.
 На 2,2 километра западно-югозападно от с. Гара Орешец по пътя за Белоградчик е пещерата Живанина дупка, наричана и Козарника. Според археолозите там са живели хора преди 1 600 000 години. Български археолози от БАН и френски учени от гр. Бордо намират най-старите в Европа кости на животни, за които се смята, че са отглеждани от хора и възниква хипотезата, че там са живели първите европейци.
 Икономика
 При колективизацията в селото е създадено ТКЗС „Вълко Червенков“ по името на комунистическия лидер Вълко Червенков.. Имало е свинеферма и птицеферма.
 В село Гара Орешец е имало също завод за телефони, дървообработващ завод „Венец Орешец“, асфалтова база, каменодобивна кариера „Печ“, държавно автомобилно предприятие, складове на Оръжния кооперативен съюз. Пожарната служба съществува и до днес. Северно от селото функционира фотоволтаична електроцентрала.
 Железопътната гара Орешец е на линията от Видин за Мездра. Обслужва жителите на съседния град Белоградчик чрез автобусни линии за влаковете. Ежедневно има влакове от и до София (3), Видин (3), Мездра (1), Брусарци (1).
 Други
 Футболният клуб на селото е „Венец“, създаден през 1926 г. Името му е „Бенковски“ до 2000 г., а оттогава се казва „Венец“, по името на рида Венеца (от Западна Стара планина) до селото. Отборът се състезава във Видинската областна група („А“ ОФГ). Най-големите успехи на отбора са в турнирите за Купата на България, като достига до 1/16-финалите през 1999 и 2000 година. На турнира през 1999 г. отборът отстранява последователно „Свобода“ (Милковица) и „Металург“ (Радомир), преди да отпадне от ЦСКА София с 0:4. На турнира през 2000 година повтаря успеха си, като побеждава „Чардафон“ (Габрово) и „Бдин“ (Видин); после губи с 1:8 от „Литекс“ (Ловеч), който впоследствие печели турнира.
 В село гара Орешец има ловна дружинка, наброяваща над 50 членове.
 В селото има 4 магазина, от които 2 в центъра и 2 в периферията на селото. Има и 2 кафенета.
 Източници
 Външни препратки
 Официален сайт на с. Гара Орешец
 Села в област Видин
 Населени места в община Димово


type: other

text:
§ 36 L-BG (Salzburger Landes-Beamtengesetz 1987), § 36 - JUSLINE Österreich
 § 36 L-BG § 36
 (1) Ein Beamter darf wegen einer Dienstpflichtverletzung nicht mehr bestraft werden, wenn nicht innerhalb folgender Fristen gegen ihn eine Disziplinarverfügung erlassen oder ein Disziplinarverfahren eingeleitet wurde:
 innerhalb von sechs Monaten, gerechnet von dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem der Disziplinarbehörde die Dienstpflichtverletzung zur Kenntnis gelangt ist; oder
 innerhalb von drei Jahren, gerechnet von dem Zeitpunkt der Beendigung der Dienstpflichtverletzung.
 (2) Drei Jahre nach der an den beschuldigten Beamten erfolgten Zustellung der Entscheidung, gegen ihn ein Disziplinarverfahren durchzuführen, darf eine Disziplinarstrafe nicht mehr verhängt werden.
 (3) Der Lauf der in den Abs 1 und 2 genannten Fristen wird gehemmt, wenn der der Dienstpflichtverletzung zugrundeliegende Sachverhalt Gegenstand der Anzeige oder eines der folgenden Verfahren ist:
 für den Zeitraum zwischen der Erstattung der Anzeige und dem Einlangen einer der folgenden Mitteilungen bei der Dienstbehörde:
 Mitteilung über die Beendigung des Strafverfahrens nach der StPO, vor der Verwaltungsbehörde, einem Landesverwaltungsgericht oder dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht;
 Mitteilung der Staatsanwaltschaft über die Einstellung des Strafverfahrens;
 Mitteilung der Verwaltungsbehörde über das Absehen von der Einleitung eines Verwaltungsstrafverfahrens;
 für die Dauer des Strafverfahrens nach der StPO, vor der Verwaltungsbehörde, einem Landesverwaltungsgericht oder dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht;
 für den Zeitraum zwischen der rechtskräftigen Beendigung oder auch nur vorläufigen Einstellung eines Strafverfahrens und dem Einlangen einer diesbezüglichen Mitteilung bei der Dienstbehörde oder
 für die Dauer eines Verfahrens vor dem Verfassungs- oder Verwaltungsgerichtshof oder einem Verwaltungsgericht.
 (4) Der Lauf der in den Abs 1 und 2 genannten Fristen wird weiters gehemmt in den Fällen des § 23 Abs 6 des Salzburger Landes-Personalvertretungsgesetzes für den Zeitraum ab Antragstellung der Disziplinarbehörde auf Erteilung der Zustimmung bis zur Entscheidung durch das zuständige Organ der Personalvertretung.
 (5) Hat der Sachverhalt, der einer Dienstpflichtverletzung zugrunde liegt, zu einer strafgerichtlichen Verurteilung geführt und ist die strafrechtliche Verjährungsfrist länger als die im Abs 1 Z 2 genannte Frist, so tritt an die Stelle dieser Frist die strafrechtliche Verjährungsfrist.
 0 Kommentare zu § 36 L-BG
 Sie können den Inhalt von § 36 L-BG selbst erläutern, also einen kurzen eigenen Fachkommentar verfassen. Klicken Sie einfach einen der nachfolgenden roten Links an!
 0 Entscheidungen zu § 36 L-BG
 0 Diskussionen zu § 36 L-BG
 Sie können zu § 36 L-BG eine Frage stellen oder beantworten. Klicken Sie einfach den nachfolgenden roten Link an!
 § 27 L-BG§ 27a L-BG§ 28 L-BG § 28§ 29 L-BG § 29§ 30 L-BG § 30§ 31 L-BG § 31§ 32 L-BG§ 33 L-BG§ 34 L-BG § 34§ 35 L-BG § 35§ 36 L-BG § 36§ 37 L-BG § 37§ 38 L-BG § 38§ 39 L-BG § 39§ 40 L-BG § 40§ 41 L-BG § 41§ 42 L-BG§ 43 L-BG§ 44 L-BG§ 45 L-BG§ 46 L-BG
 § 35 L-BG
 § 37 L-BG


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21984A0316(01)
 Abkommen in Form eines Briefwechsels zwischen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Demokratischen Volksrepublik Algerien zur Festsetzung des vom 1. November 1983 bis 31. Oktober 1984 geltenden Zusatzbetrags, der bei der Einfuhr in die Gemeinschaft von nicht behandeltem Olivenöl mit Ursprung in Algerien von der Abschöpfung abzuziehen ist
 Amtsblatt Nr. L 073 vom 16/03/1984 S. 0002
 ***** ABKOMMEN in Form eines Briefwechsels zwischen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Demokratischen Volksrepublik Algerien zur Festsetzung des vom 1. November 1983 bis 31. Oktober 1984 geltenden Zusatzbetrags, der bei der Einfuhr in die Gemeinschaft von nicht behandeltem Olivenöl mit Ursprung in Algerien von der Abschöpfung abzuziehen ist Schreiben Nr. 1 Sehr geehrter Herr . . . . . ! In Anhang B des Kooperationsabkommens zwischen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Demokratischen Volksrepublik Algerien ist vorgesehen, daß - zur Berücksichtigung bestimmter Faktoren und nach den jeweiligen Marktbedingungen - bei nicht behandeltem Olivenöl der Tarifstelle 15.07 A I des Gemeinsamen Zolltarifs der Betrag, der nach Artikel 16 Absatz 1 Buchstabe b) des Kooperationsabkommens vom Abschöpfungsbetrag abzuziehen ist, unter den gleichen Bedingungen und nach den gleichen Modalitäten, wie sie für die Anwendung der genannten Vorschriften vorgesehen sind, um einen Zusatzbetrag erhöht wird. Ich beehre mich, Ihnen mitzuteilen, daß die Gemeinschaft auf der Grundlage der in dem vorgenannten Anhang vorgesehenen Kriterien für die Zeit vom 1. November 1983 bis 31. Oktober 1984 die erforderlichen Maßnahmen treffen wird, damit der Zusatzbetrag 12,09 ECU je 100 kg beträgt. Ich wäre Ihnen dankbar, wenn Sie mir den Eingang dieses Schreibens und das Einverständnis Ihrer Regierung mit dem Inhalt dieses Schreibens bestätigen wollten. Genehmigen Sie, sehr geehrter Herr . . . . . , den Ausdruck meiner ausgezeichnetsten Hochachtung. Im Namen des Rates der Europäischen Gemeinschaften Schreiben Nr. 2 Sehr geehrter Herr . . . . . .! Ich beehre mich, den Eingang Ihres heutigen Schreibens mit folgendem Wortlaut zu bestätigen: »In Anhang B des Kooperationsabkommens zwischen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Demokratischen Volksrepublik Algerien ist vorgesehen, daß - zur Berücksichtigung bestimmter Faktoren und nach den jeweiligen Marktbedingungen - bei nicht behandeltem Olivenöl der Tarifstelle 15.07 A I des Gemeinsamen Zolltarifs der Betrag, der nach Artikel 16 Absatz 1 Buchstabe b) des Kooperationsabkommens vom Abschöpfungsbetrag abzuziehen ist, unter den gleichen Bedingungen und nach den gleichen Modalitäten, wie sie für die Anwendung der genannten Vorschriften vorgesehen sind, um einen Zusatzbetrag erhöht wird. Ich beehre mich, Ihnen mitzuteilen, daß die Gemeinschaft auf der Grundlage der in dem vorgenannten Anhang vorgesehenen Kriterien für die Zeit vom 1. November 1983 bis 31. Oktober 1984 die erforderlichen Maßnahmen treffen wird, damit der Zusatzbetrag 12,09 ECU je 100 kg beträgt. Ich wäre Ihnen dankbar, wenn Sie mir den Eingang dieses Schreibens und das Einverständnis Ihrer Regierung mit dem Inhalt dieses Schreibens bestätigen wollten." Ich bestätige Ihnen das Einverständnis meiner Regierung mit dem Inhalt des vorstehenden Schreibens. Genehmigen Sie, sehr geehrter Herr . . . . . ., den Ausdruck meiner ausgezeichnetsten Hochachtung. Für die Regierung der Demokratischen Volksrepublik Algerien


type: legislation

text:
 Důležité právní upozornění
 |
 52006PC0383(01)
 Návrh nařízení Rady kterým se mění nařízení (ES) č. 2424/2001 o vývoji Schengenského informačního systému druhé generace (SIS II) /* KOM/2006/0383 konecném znení - CNS 2006/0125 */
 [pic] | KOMISE EVROPSKÝCH SPOLEČENSTVÍ |V Bruselu dne 12.7.2006KOM(2006) 383 v konečném znění2006/0125 (CNS)2006/0126 (CNS)NávrhNAŘÍZENÍ RADYkterým se mění nařízení (ES) č. 2424/2001 o vývoji Schengenského informačního systému druhé generace (SIS II)NávrhROZHODNUTÍ RADYkterým se mění rozhodnutí 2001/886/SVV o vývoji Schengenského informačního systému druhé generace (SIS II)(předložené Komisí)DŮVODOVÁ ZPRÁVA 1) SOUVISLOSTI NÁVRHU |110 | Odůvodnění a cíle návrhu Rada nařízením ES č. 2424/2001 a rozhodnutím 2001/886/SVV pověřila Komisi vývojem Schengenského informačního systému druhé generace (SIS II). Cílem těchto návrhů je pozměnit výše uvedené nařízení a rozhodnutí, aby byla prodloužena lhůta pro vývoj SIS II do 31. prosince 2007 a aby bylo umožněno přidělení nezbytných prostředků. Kromě toho je stanoveno, že systém bude během svého vývoje umístěn ve Francii a Rakousku. |120 | Obecné souvislosti Schengenský informační systém (SIS) vytvořený v souladu s hlavou IV Úmluvy z roku 1990 k provedení Schengenské dohody ze dne 14. června 1985 o postupném odstraňování kontrol na společných hranicích představuje základní nástroj pro používání ustanovení schengenského acquis začleněného do rámce Evropské unie. Současný SIS však nebyl koncipován pro zvětšující se počet členských států po rozšíření Evropské unie a pro další země, které budou připojeny k SIS II. Aby bylo možné využít nejnovější vývoj v oblasti informační technologie a umožnit zavedení nových funkcí, bylo v roce 2001 rozhodnuto, že bude vyvinut nový Schengenský informační systém druhé generace (SIS II). Potřebu prodloužení mandátu, který Rada udělila Komisi, o jeden rok vysvětluje několik faktorů, například dočasné přerušení činností v důsledku rozhodnutí Soudu prvního stupně (T-447/04) o procesu zadávání veřejných zakázek na vývoj SIS II, které bylo následně odloženo; komunikační infrastruktura S-Testa financovaná v rámci programu IDABC, která nebude zprovozněna během počáteční zkušební fáze, jak bylo plánováno; nedostatečná připravenost a nejistota týkající se míst vývoje a složitosti projektu samotného měly také negativní vliv na plánování. Volba míst pro vývoj systému ve Francii a Rakousku vyplynula z závěrů Rady ze dne 29. dubna 2004, kdy se členové Rady dohodli na tomto: „1. Ústřední část SIS II bude umístěna ve Štrasburku a provozní řízení této lokality a odpovědnost za styky s Komisí bude příslušet Francii. 2. Havarijní systém bude umístěn v Salcburku s výhradou některých opatření, která budou nezbytná předtím, než systém zahájí provoz. V tomto případě bude provozní řízení této lokality a odpovědnost za styky s Komisí příslušet Rakousku.“ |130 | Platné předpisy vztahující se na oblast návrhu - Úmluva k provedení Schengenské dohody (články 92 - 119) - Nařízení Rady (ES) č. 871/2004 ze dne 29. dubna 2004 o zavedení některých nových funkcí v Schengenském informačním systému, včetně boje proti terorismu - Rozhodnutí Rady 2005/211/SVV ze dne 24. února 2005 o zavedení některých nových funkcí v Schengenském informačním systému, včetně boje proti terorismu - Nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1160/2005 ze dne 6. července 2005, kterým se mění Úmluva k provedení Schengenské dohody ze dne 14. června 1985 o postupném odstraňování kontrol na společných hranicích, pokud jde o přístup služeb členských států příslušných pro vydávání osvědčení o registraci vozidel do Schengenského informačního systému. Tato úmluva a tři výše uvedené právní akty tvoří současný právní rámec SIS, který bude nahrazen budoucím SIS II. Komise předložila návrhy nařízení a rozhodnutí o zřízení, provozu a využití SIS II, dokumenty KOM (2005) 230 a 236 a další návrh nařízení týkající se přístupu služeb členských států příslušných pro vydávání osvědčení o registraci vozidel k SIS II, dokument KOM (2005) 237. |141 | Soulad s ostatními politikami a cíli Unie Nevztahuje se na tento návrh. |2) KONZULTACE ZÚčASTNěNÝCH STRAN A POSOUZENÍ DOPADů |Konzultace zúčastněných stran |211 | Metody konzultací, hlavní cílová odvětví a obecný profil respondentů Odborníci členských států se přímo podílejí na vývoji SIS II, zejména v rámci výboru SIS II. |212 | Shrnutí odpovědí a způsob, jakým byly vzaty v úvahu Nevztahuje se na tento návrh. |Sběr a využití výsledků odborných konzultací |229 | Nebylo třeba využít externích odborných konzultací. |230 | Posouzení dopadů Pro tento návrh, který není v pracovním programu Komise na rok 2006, není požadováno posouzení dopadů. |3) PRÁVNÍ STRÁNKA NÁVRHU |305 | Shrnutí navrhovaných opatření Cílem návrhů je pozměnit nařízení (ES) 2424/2001 a rozhodnutí 2001/886/SVV, aby byla prodloužena lhůta pro vývoj SIS II do 31. prosince 2007 a určena místa pro instalaci a konečný vývoj SIS II. To zahrnuje také povinnost pro příslušné členské státy poskytnout infrastrukturu a prostředky pro provoz systému, na což mohou od Společenství získat grant. |310 | Právní základ Právním základem nařízení je článek 66 Smlouvy o založení Evropského společenství. Jedná se o stejný odkaz na Smlouvu jako v případě právního aktu, který má být pozměněn. Právním základem rozhodnutí je čl. 30 odst.1 písm. a), čl. 31 odst.1 písm. a) a b) a článek 34 odst. 2 písm. c) Smlouvy o Evropské unii. Jedná se o stejný odkaz na Smlouvu jako v případě právního aktu, který má být pozměněn. |320 | Zásada subsidiarity |321 | Členské státy nemohou individuálně dosáhnout cíle navrhovaného opatření, konkrétně zřízení společného informačního systému, který se týká určitých kategorií osob a předmětů, pomocí počítačového informačního systému. |324 | SIS II je nezbytný pro provádění společných politik Evropské unie. Je zejména základním předpokladem pro zaručení prostoru bez kontrol na vnitřních hranicích. |327 | Úkol Společenství je omezen na vývoj ústřední části SIS II a jeho komunikační infrastruktury. Členské státy jsou odpovědné za rozvoj svých vnitrostátních systémů, které mají zajistit přístup konečných spotřebitelů ke službám poskytovaným SIS II. |Návrhy jsou proto v souladu se zásadou subsidiarity. |Zásada proporcionality Návrh je v souladu se zásadou proporcionality z tohoto důvodu: |331 | Členské státy mohou volně uvážit, jaká správní a finanční opatření zvolí pro realizaci svých vnitrostátních systémů. Přípravy na vnitrostátní úrovni však musí být přizpůsobeny celkovému plánování rozvoje SIS II. Komise stanoví technické specifikace pro vnitrostátní rozhraní, které umožní hladké připojení a bezproblémovou výměnu údajů mezi vnitrostátními systémy a SIS II. |332 | Nařízení (ES) 2424/2001 a rozhodnutí 2001/886/SVV, která mají být pozměněna, stanovují regulativní postupy pro opatření k provedení SIS II, které mají závažný finanční dopad na rozpočty členských států a které jsou nadále použitelné. |Volba nástrojů |341 | Navrhované nástroje: nařízení a rozhodnutí. |342 | Jiné prostředky by nebyly přiměřené z tohoto důvodu: Cílem navrhovaného nařízení je pozměnit jiné nařízení a cílem navrhovaného rozhodnutí je změnit jiné rozhodnutí, proto musí pozměňující právní akt dle principu „formálního souběhu" mít stejnou formu jako pozměňovaný právní akt. |4) ROZPOčTOVÉ DůSLEDKY |401 | Prodloužení mandátu a dokončení vývoje SIS II v roce 2007 si vyžádá další finanční prostředky, s kterými se již počítá v předběžném návrhu rozpočtu 2007. Dodatečné náklady se budou týkat sítě, rozšíření ústředního systému a podpory lokalit, kde bude systém vyvíjen. |2006/0125 (CNS)NávrhNAŘÍZENÍ RADYkterým se mění nařízení (ES) č. 2424/2001 o vývoji Schengenského informačního systému druhé generace (SIS II)RADA EVROPSKÉ UNIE,s ohledem na Smlouvu o založení Evropského společenství, a zejména na článek 66 této Smlouvy,s ohledem na návrh Komise[1],s ohledem na stanovisko Evropského parlamentu[2],vzhledem k těmto důvodům:(1) Společně s rozhodnutím Rady 2001/886/SVV ze dne 6. prosince 2001 o vývoji Schengenského informačního systému druhé generace (SIS II) představuje nařízení (ES) č. 2424/2004 potřebný právní základ, který umožní zahrnout nezbytné finanční položky na vývoj SIS II do rozpočtu Evropské unie a plnit tuto část rozpočtu. Platnost nařízení (ES) č. 2424/2001 i rozhodnutí 2001/886/SVV končí 31. prosince 2006.(2) Protože vývoj SIS II bude trvat déle, než bylo původně předpokládáno, musí být finanční prostředky dostupné i po 31. prosinci 2006.(3) Proto je nezbytné prodloužit dobu platnosti nařízení (ES) č. 2424/2001, tak aby Komise mohla plnit rozpočet v roce 2007 a aby byl dokončen projekt vývoje SIS II včetně vytvoření komunikační infrastruktury.(4) V souladu se závěry Rady ze dne 29. dubna 2004 bude pro vývojovou fázi SIS II ústřední část SIS II umístěna ve Štrasburku a havarijní systém s výhradou některých opatření, která budou nezbytná, než systém zahájí provoz, bude umístěn v Salcburku. Provozní řízení a odpovědnost za styky s Komisí budou příslušet Francii případně Rakousku.(5) Tímto nařízením není dotčeno přijetí budoucích právních aktů o zřízení, provozu a využití SIS II.(6) Dánsko se v souladu s články 1 a 2 Protokolu o postavení Dánska, připojeného ke Smlouvě o Evropské unii a ke Smlouvě o založení Evropského společenství, neúčastní přijímání tohoto nařízení, a proto pro ně není závazné ani použitelné. Vzhledem k tomu, že toto rozhodnutí navazuje na schengenské acquis podle hlavy IV části třetí Smlouvy, rozhodne se Dánsko v souladu s článkem 5 uvedeného protokolu do šesti měsíců poté, co Rada přijala toto rozhodnutí, zda je provede ve svém vnitrostátním právu.(7) Toto nařízení a účast Spojeného království a Irska při přijímání a uplatňování tohoto nařízení se nedotýká opatření pro dílčí účast Spojeného království a Irska v schengenském acquis, která byla stanovena rozhodnutím Rady 2000/365/ES ze dne 29. května 2000[3] a rozhodnutím Rady 2002/192/ES ze dne 28. února 2002[4].(8) Ve vztahu k Islandu a Norsku je nařízení rozpracováním ustanovení schengenského acquis ve smyslu dohody uzavřené mezi Radou Evropské unie a Islandskou republikou a Norským královstvím o přidružení těchto dvou států k provádění, uplatňování a rozvoji schengenského acquis[5], které spadá do oblasti uvedené v čl. 1 bodu G rozhodnutí Rady 1999/437/ES ze dne 17. května 1999 o některých opatřeních pro uplatňování této dohody.(9) Ve vztahu ke Švýcarsku je toto nařízení rozpracováním ustanovení schengenského acquis ve smyslu dohody podepsané mezi Evropskou unií, Evropským společenstvím a Švýcarskou konfederací o přidružení Švýcarské konfederace k provádění, uplatňování a rozvoji schengenského acquis. Toto rozpracování spadá do oblasti uvedené v čl. 1 bodu G rozhodnutí Rady 1999/437/ES ve spojení s čl. 4 odst. 1 rozhodnutí Rady 2004/860/ES o podpisu dohody jménem Evropského společenství a o prozatímním uplatňování některých ustanovení uvedené dohody[6].(10) Toto nařízení je aktem navazujícím na schengenské acquis nebo s ním jinak souvisejícím ve smyslu čl. 3 odst. 1 aktu o přistoupení z roku 2003,(11) Nařízení (ES) č. 2424/2001 by tedy mělo být odpovídajícím způsobem pozměněno,PŘIJALA TOTO NAŘÍZENÍ:Článek 1Nařízení (ES) č. 2424/2001 se mění takto:(1) Vkládá se článek 4a, který zní:„Článek 4a1. Aniž je dotčena odpovědnost Komise za vývoj SIS II, bude ústřední jednotka SIS II během vývoje systému umístěna ve Štrasburku (Francie) a havarijní systém ve městě Sankt Johann im Pongau (Rakousko).2. Francie a Rakousko připraví během vývoje systému vhodnou infrastrukturu a prostředky pro umístění ústřední jednotky případně havarijního systému SIS II.3. Vnitrostátní orgán, který poskytne infrastrukturu a prostředky zmiňované v odstavci 2, může od Společenství obdržet finanční podporu na přípravu a údržbu místa nebo na poskytování dalších služeb nezbytných pro umístění SIS II během jeho vývoje.“(2) V článku 7 se druhý odstavec nahrazuje tímto:„Je použitelné do dne 31. prosince 2007“.Článek 2Toto nařízení vstupuje v platnost dvacátým dnem po zveřejnění v Úředním věstníku Evropské unie.Toto nařízení je závazné v celém rozsahu a je přímo použitelné ve všech členských státech v souladu se Smlouvou o založení Evropského společenství.V Bruselu dne [...].Za Radupředseda[...]2006/0126 (CNS)NávrhROZHODNUTÍ RADYkterým se mění rozhodnutí 2001/886/SVV o vývoji Schengenského informačního systému druhé generace (SIS II)RADA EVROPSKÉ UNIE,s ohledem na Smlouvu o Evropské unii, a zejména na čl. 30 odst. 1 písm. a) a b), čl. 31 odst. 1 písm. a) a b) a čl. 34 odst. 2 písm. c) uvedené Smlouvy,s ohledem na návrh Komise[7],s ohledem na stanovisko Evropského parlamentu[8],vzhledem k těmto důvodům:(1) Rozhodnutí 2001/886/SVV tvoří společně s nařízením Rady (ES) č. 2424/2001 ze dne 6. prosince 2001 o vývoji Schengenského informačního systému druhé generace (SIS II) potřebný právní základ, který umožní zahrnout nezbytné finanční položky na vývoj SIS II do rozpočtu Evropské unie a plnit tuto část rozpočtu. Platnost rozhodnutí 2001/886/SVV i nařízení (ES) č. 2424/2001 končí 31. prosince 2006.(2) Protože vývoj SIS II bude trvat déle, než bylo původně předpokládáno, musí být finanční prostředky dostupné i po 31. prosinci 2006.(3) Proto je nezbytné prodloužit dobu platnosti rozhodnutí (ES) 2001/886/SVV tak, aby Komise mohla plnit rozpočet v roce 2007 a aby byl dokončen projekt vývoje SIS II včetně vytvoření komunikační infrastruktury.(4) V souladu se závěry Rady ze dne 29. dubna 2004 bude pro vývojovou fázi SIS II ústřední část SIS II umístěna ve Štrasburku a havarijní systém s výhradou některých opatření, která budou nezbytná, než systém zahájí provoz, bude umístěn v Salcburku. Provozní řízení a odpovědnost za styky s Komisí budou příslušet Francii případně Rakousku.(5) Tímto rozhodnutím není dotčeno přijetí budoucích právních aktů o zřízení, provozu a využití SIS II.(6) Spojené království se účastní tohoto rozhodnutí v souladu s článkem 5 Protokolu o začlenění schengenského acquis do rámce Evropské unie, připojeného ke Smlouvě o EU a Smlouvě o ES, a v souladu s čl. 8 odst. 2 rozhodnutí Rady 2000/365/ES ze dne 29. května 2000 o žádosti Spojeného království Velké Británie a Severního Irska, aby se na ně vztahovala některá ustanovení schengenského acquis[9].(7) Irsko se účastní tohoto rozhodnutí v souladu s článkem 5 Protokolu o začlenění schengenského acquis do rámce Evropské unie, připojeného ke Smlouvě o EU a Smlouvě o ES, a v souladu s čl. 5 odst. 1 a čl. 6 odst. 2 rozhodnutí Rady 2002/192/ES ze dne 28. února 2002 o žádosti Irska, aby se na ně vztahovala některá ustanovení schengenského acquis[10].(8) Ve vztahu k Islandu a Norsku je toto rozhodnutí rozpracováním ustanovení schengenského acquis ve smyslu dohody uzavřené mezi Radou Evropské unie a Islandskou republikou a Norským královstvím o přidružení těchto dvou států k provádění, uplatňování a rozvoji schengenského acquis, které spadá do oblasti uvedené v čl. 1 bodu G rozhodnutí Rady 1999/437/ES ze dne 17. června 1996[11] o některých opatřeních pro uplatňování dané dohody.(9) Ve vztahu ke Švýcarsku je toto rozhodnutí rozpracováním ustanovení schengenského acquis ve smyslu dohody podepsané mezi Evropskou unií, Evropským společenstvím a Švýcarskou konfederací o přidružení Švýcarské konfederace k provádění, uplatňování a rozvoji schengenského acquis. Toto rozpracování spadá do oblasti uvedené v čl. 1 bodu G rozhodnutí Rady 1999/437/ES ve spojení s čl. 4 odst. 1 rozhodnutí Rady 2004/849/ES o podpisu dohody jménem Evropské unie a o prozatímním uplatňování některých ustanovení uvedené dohody[12].(10) Toto rozhodnutí je aktem navazujícím na schengenské acquis nebo s ním jinak souvisejícím ve smyslu čl. 3 odst. 1 aktu o přistoupení z roku 2003.(11) Rozhodnutí 2001/886/SVV by proto mělo být odpovídajícím způsobem změněno.ROZHODLA TAKTO:Článek 1Rozhodnutí 2001/886/SVV se mění takto:(1) Vkládá se článek 4a, který zní:„Článek 4 a1. Aniž je dotčena odpovědnost Komise za vývoj SIS II bude ústřední jednotka SIS II během vývoje systému umístěna ve Štrasburku (Fracie) a havarijní systém ve městě Sankt Johann im Pongau (Rakousko).2. Francie a Rakousko připraví během vývoje systému vhodnou infrastrukturu a prostředky pro umístění ústřední jednotky případně havarijního systému SIS II.3. Vnitrostátní orgán, který poskytne infrastrukturu a prostředky zmiňované v odstavci 2, může od Společenství obdržet finanční podporu na přípravu a údržbu místa nebo na poskytování dalších služeb nezbytných pro umístění SIS II během jeho vývoje.“(2) V článku 7 se druhý odstavec nahrazuje tímto:„Jeho použitelnost končí dnem 31. prosince 2007.“Článek 2 [...]Toto rozhodnutí vstupuje v platnost dvacátým dnem po zveřejnění v Úředním věstníku Evropské unie.V Bruselu dne [...].Za Radupředseda[...PŘÍLOHALEGISLATIVNÍ FINANČNÍ VÝKAZ1. NÁZEV NÁVRHU:Návrhy nařízení Rady pozměňující nařízení (ES) č. 2424/2001 a rozhodnutí Rady pozměňující rozhodnutí (SVV) č. 886/2001 o vývoji schengenského informačního systému druhé generace (SIS II).2. RÁMEC ABM / ABBOblast politiky a související činnosti, kterých se návrh týká: Oblast svobody, bezpečnosti a práva – solidarita –vnější hranice – vízová politika – volný pohyb osob3. ROZPOČTOVÉ LINIE3.1. Rozpočtové linie (provozní linie a související linie na technickou a administrativní pomoc) (ex – linie B.A) včetně okruhů:PNR 18 02 04 (dříve 18 08 02)3.2. Doba trvání akce a finančního dopadu:20073.3. Rozpočtové charakteristiky (v případě potřeby doplňte řádky):Rozpočtová linie | Druh výdajů | Nové | Příspěvek ESVO | Příspěvky od kandidátských zemí | Okruh ve finančním výhledu |18 02 04 | Nepov. | Rozl.[13] | ne | ne | ne | č. 3 písm. a) |4. SHRNUTÍ ZDROJŮ4.1. Finanční zdroje4.1.1. Shrnutí položek závazků (PZ) a položek plateb (PP)v milionech EUR (zaokrouhleno na 3 desetinná místa)Druh výdajů | oddíl č. | Rok 2007 | 2008 | Celkem |Provozní výdaje[14] |Položky závazků (PZ) | 8.1. | a | 9,000 |Položky plateb (PP) | b | 7,000 | 2,000 | 9,000 |Administrativní výdaje jako součást referenční částky[15] |Technická a administrativní pomoc (NP) | 8.2.4. | c |CELKOVÁ REFERENČNÍ ČÁSTKA |Položky závazků | a+c | 9,000 | 9,000 |Položky plateb | b+c | 7,000 | 2,000 | 9,000 |Administrativní výdaje nezahrnuté do referenční částky[16] |Lidské zdroje a související výdaje (NP) | 8.2.5. | d | 1,404 | 1,404 |Administrativní náklady, kromě nákladů na lidské zdroje a souvisejících nákladů, nezahrnuté do referenční částky (NP) | 8.2.6. | e | 0,186 | 0,186 |Celkové orientační finanční náklady zásahu |PZ CELKEM včetně nákladů na lidské zdroje | a+c+d+e | 10,590 | 10,590 |PP CELKEM včetně nákladů na lidské zdroje | b+c+d+e | 8,590 | 2,000 | 10,590 |4.1.2. SOULAD S FINANčNÍM PLÁNEMX Návrh je v souladu se stávajícím finančním plánem.( NÁVRH SI VYžÁDÁ ZMěNU PLÁNU A ÚPRAVU PřÍSLUšNÉHO OKRUHU FINANčNÍHO VÝHLEDU.( NÁVRH MůžE VYžADOVAT POUžITÍ USTANOVENÍ INTERINSTITUCIONÁLNÍ DOHODY[17] (TJ. NÁSTROJE PRO FLEXIBILITU NEBO REVIZI FINANčNÍHO VÝHLEDU).4.1.3. Finanční dopady na straně příjmů( Návrh nemá žádné finanční dopady na příjmyX Návrh má finanční dopady na příjmy s následujícím účinkem:v milionech EUR (zaokrouhleno na 1 desetinné místo)Před akcí(Rok n-1) | Situace po akci |Celkový objem lidských zdrojů | 13 |5. CHARAKTERISTIKY A CÍLE5.1. Potřeba, která má být uspokojena v krátkodobém nebo dlouhodobém horizontuCílem návrhu je změna výše uvedeného nařízení a rozhodnutí, aby:1. byla prodloužena lhůta pro vývoj SIS II do 31. prosince 2007 a umožněno přidělení rozpočtových prostředků potřebných pro dokončení vývoje SIS II včetně vytvoření komunikační infrastruktury;2. byla určena místa pro ústřední jednotku (Štrasburk, Francie) a havarijní systém (Sankt Johann im Pongau, Rakousko) včetně povinnosti příslušných členských států poskytnout infrastrukturu a prostředky; za tím účelem mohou od Společenství získat finanční podporu.5.2. Přidaná hodnota zásahu ze strany Společenství, provázanost návrhu s dalšími finančními nástroji a možná synergieNávrh se týká pokračování vývoje SIS II, který byl Komisí započat roku 2002.5.3. Cíle, očekávané výsledky a související ukazatele návrhu v kontextu rámce ABMCelkovým cílem je dokončení projektu vývoje SIS II na určených místech v roce 2007, některá opatření předpokládaná na rok 2006 budou proto pokračovat v roce 2007. Dále je plánováno několik dalších opatření, aby se dopad zpoždění způsobeného různými faktory, například soudními řízeními nebo složitostí projektu, snížil na minimum. To se týká zejména zvýšených nákladů na síť, nákladů na dodatečné zdroje a pověření členských států přípravnými pracemi. Nakonec by mohla být zvýšena kapacita počítačového hardwaru, aby se přihlédlo k výsledkům studií provedených na začátku vývoje. Pro rok 2007 jsou předpokládána tato opatření:Opatření 1: SíťPodle výsledků požadované analýzy provedené během fáze návrhů musí být zvýšena kapacita sítě, aby bylo v dané lhůtě možné odpovědět na otázky ohledně SIS II. Síť s větší šířkou pásma bude vyžadovat dodatečné finanční zdroje.Protože síť S-Testa nabyla včas k dispozici, musela být nalezena alternativní prozatímní řešení, jak SIS II vyzkoušet. Přechod od prozatímní sítě ke konečné síti bude taktéž vyžadovat dodatečné finanční náklady.Opatření 2: Odborné technické znalosti a doplňkové studieK dosažení potřebné úrovně znalostí IT jsou nutné další zdroje. Vzhledem k omezeným vnitřním zdrojům bude třeba na sledování, audit a hodnocení využít vysoce kvalifikovaných externích pracovníků. Dále jsou nezbytné doplňující studie a externí odborné znalosti, zejména co se týče otázek bezpečnosti a sítě.Opatření 3: Podpora a průběžná příprava stanoviště během vývojové fáze.Přípravy na místech ve Francii a Rakousku začaly během vývojové fáze a vyžadují značné finanční zdroje. Některé úkoly v souvislosti s přípravou nebudou prováděny přímo zaměstnanci Komise, nýbrž budou převedeny na členské státy, ve kterých jsou systémy umístěny během vývojové fáze. Na pokrytí odhadovaných potřeb v této oblasti bude potřeba dodatečných rozpočtových prostředků.5.4. Způsob provádění (orientační)X Centralizované řízeníX přímo ze strany Komise( nepřímo na základě pověření pro:( výkonné agentury( subjekty, které Společenství zřídilo, uvedené v článku 185 finančního nařízení( vnitrostátní veřejné subjekty / subjekty pověřené veřejnou službou( Sdílené nebo decentralizované řízení( spolu s členskými státy( spolu se třetími zeměmi( Společné řízení s mezinárodními organizacemi (uveďte s kterými)Příslušné poznámky:Aby byla financována příprava stanovišť pro umístění systémů nebo komunikační infrastruktura, může být část rozpočtu na rok 2007 vyčleněna členským státům nebo vnitrostátním veřejným subjektům buď cestou pověření nebo jako finanční podpora.6. MONITOROVÁNÍ A HODNOCENÍ6.1. Monitorovací systémKaždý pokrok bude pravidelně hodnocen a plnění měřeno předepsanými standardy a předem stanovenými kritérii. Tím má být prokázáno, že investice přináší požadované výsledky.6.2. Hodnocení6.2.1. Hodnocení ex antenení6.2.2. Opatření přijatá po průběžném / následném hodnocení (ex-post) (na základě podobných zkušeností z minulosti)není6.2.3. Podmínky a periodicita budoucího hodnocenínení7. Opatření proti podvodůmPro zadávání zakázek budou použity postupy Komise, které jsou v souladu s předpisy Společenství o zadávání veřejných zakázek.8. PODROBNOSTI O ZDROJÍCH8.1. Cíle návrhu z hlediska jejich finanční náročnostiPoložky závazků v milionech EUR (zaokrouhleno na 3 desetinná místa)(Je třeba uvést cílové okruhy, akce a výstupy) | Druh výstupu | Prům. nákl. | Rok 2007 | CELKEM |Počet výstupů | Náklady celkem | Počet výstupů | Náklady celkem |Opatření 1 Síť | přechod od zkušební ke konečné síti vyšší kapacita sítě | 5,000 | 5,000 |Opatření 2 Odborné technické znalosti & doplňující studie | odborné znalosti; analýzy & studie | 1,000 | 1,000 |Opatření 3 Podpora a příprava stanoviště během fáze vývoje | externí lidské zdroje přípravné práce na místě, | 3,000 | 3,000 |NÁKLADY CELKEM | 9,000 | 9,000 |8.2. Administrativní výdaje8.2.1. Počet a druh lidských zdrojůPracovní místa | Zaměstnanci využití k řízení akce ze stávajících a/nebo dodatečných zdrojů (počet pracovních míst/plných pracovních úvazků) |Rok 2007 | Rok n+1 | Rok n+2 | Rok n+3 | Rok n+4 | Rok n+5 |Úředníci nebo dočasní zaměstnanci[20] (XX 01 01) | A*/AD | 4,5 |B*, C*/AST | 2,5 |Zaměstnanci financovaní[21] podle čl. XX 01 02 | 6 |Ostatní zaměstnanci[22] financovaní podle čl. XX 01 04/05 |CELKEM | 13 |8.2.2. Popis úkolů vyplývajících z opatřeníŘízení projektu a koordinace vývoje SIS II.8.2.3. Původ lidských zdrojů (statutární pracovní místa)x Pracovní místa vyčleněná v současnosti na řízení programu, který má být nahrazen nebo prodloužen.( Pracovní místa předběžně vyčleněná v rámci procesu RSP / PNR na rok n( Pracovní místa, o něž je třeba požádat v příštím procesu RSP / PNR( Pracovní místa, jež mají být obsazena převedením stávajících zdrojů v rámci řídícího útvaru (interní přeobsazování)( Pracovní místa požadovaná pro rok n, avšak neplánovaná v procesu RSP / PNR dotyčného roku8.2.4. Další administrativní výdaje zahrnuté v referenční částce ( XX 01 04/05 – Výdaje na správu a řízení)v milionech EUR (zaokrouhleno na 3 desetinná místa)Rozpočtová linie (číslo a okruh) | Rok 2007 | Rok n+1 | Rok n+2 | Rok n+3 | Rok n+4 | Rok n+5 a násl. | CELKEM |Další technická a administrativní pomoc |- interní (intra muros) |- externí (extra muros) |Technická a administrativní pomoc celkem |8.2.5. Finanční náklady na lidské zdroje a související náklady nezahrnuté v referenční částcev milionech EUR (zaokrouhleno na 3 desetinná místa)Druh lidských zdrojů | Rok 2007 | Rok n+1 | Rok n+2 | Rok n+3 | Rok n+4 | Rok n+5 a násl. |Úředníci nebo dočasní zaměstnanci (XX 01 01) | 0,756 |Zaměstnanci financovaní podle čl. XX 01 02 (pomocní pracovníci, přidělení národní odborníci, smluvní zaměstnanci, atd.) (upřesněte rozpočtovou linii) | 0,648 |Náklady na lidské zdroje a související náklady celkem (NEZAHRNUTÉ do referenční částky) | 1,404 |Výpočet – Úředníci a dočasní zaměstnanci7x108 000 (osobu/rok) = 756 000 EURVýpočet – Zaměstnanci financovaní podle článku XX 01 026x108 000 (osobu/rok) = 648 000 EUR8.2.6. Další administrativní výdaje nezahrnuté do referenční částky v milionech EUR (zaokrouhleno na 3 desetinná místa) |Rok 2007 | Rok n+1 | Rok n+2 | Rok n+3 | Rok n+4 | Rok n+5 a násl. | CELKEM |XX 01 02 11 01 – Služební cesty | 0,022 |XX 01 02 11 02 – Schůze a konference | 0,014 |XX 01 02 11 03 – Výbory[24] (výbor SIS II/VIS) | 0,150 |XX 01 02 11 04 – Studie a konzultace |XX 01 02 11 05 – Informační systémy |2 Ostatní výdaje na řízení celkem (XX 01 02 11) |3 Ostatní výdaje administrativního charakteru (upřesněte i s odkazem na rozpočtovou linii) |Administrativní výdaje celkem, kromě nákladů na lidské zdroje a souvisejících nákladů (NEZAHRNUTÉ do referenční částky) | 0,186 |Výpočet – Další administrativní výdaje nezahrnuté do referenční částky10 (počet schůzí) x 15 000 (schůze 25 členů výboru) = 150 000 EUR[1] Úř. věst. C [...], [...], s. [...].[2] Úř. věst. C [...], [...], s. [...].[3] Úř. věst. L 131, 1.6.2000, s. 43[4] Úř. věst. L 64, 7.3.2002, s. 20[5] Úř. věst. L 176, 10.7.1999, s. 31[6] Úř. věst. L 370, 17.12.2004, s. 78[7] Úř. věst. C [...], [...], s. [...].[8] Úř. věst. C [...], [...], s. [...].[9] Úř. věst. L 131, 1.6.2000, s. 43[10] Úř. věst. L 64, 7.3.2002, s. 20[11] Úř. věst. L 176, 10.7.1999, s. 31[12] Úř. věst. L 368, 15.12.2004, s. 26[13] Rozlišené položky[14] Výdaje, které nespadají pod kapitolu xx 01 příslušné hlavy xx.[15] Výdaje v rámci článku xx 01 04 hlavy xx.[16] Výdaje v rámci kapitoly xx 01 kromě článků xx 01 04 nebo xx 01 05.[17] Viz body 19 a 24 interinstitucionální dohody.[18] V případě potřeby, např. potrvá-li akce déle než 6 let, je třeba doplnit další sloupce.[19] Úř. věst. L 176, 10. 7.1999, s. 36[20] Tyto náklady NEJSOU zahrnuty v referenční částce.[21] Tyto náklady NEJSOU zahrnuty v referenční částce.[22] Tyto náklady jsou zahrnuty do referenční částky.[23] Měl by být uveden odkaz na konkrétní legislativní finanční výkaz dotyčných výkonných agentur.[24] Uveďte přesně druh výboru a skupinu, do níž náleží.


text:
 VI
 112th CONGRESS
 1st Session
 S. 447
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
 March 2, 2011
 Mrs. Feinstein
 introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
 Committee on the
 Judiciary
 A BILL
 For the relief of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela
 Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez.
 1.Adjustment of status
 (a)In
 generalNotwithstanding any other provision of law, for the
 purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Jose
 Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez shall
 each be deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and remained in, the United
 States, and shall be eligible for adjustment of status to that of an alien
 lawfully admitted for permanent residence under section 245 of the Immigration
 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an application for such
 adjustment of status.
 (b)Application and
 payment of feesSubsection (a) shall apply only if the
 application for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later
 than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
 (c)Reduction of
 immigrant visa numbersUpon the granting of permanent resident
 status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene
 Martinez, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by
 3, during the current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant
 visas that are made available to natives of the country of the birth of Jose
 Alberto Martinez Moreno, Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez under
 section 202(e) or 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
 1152(e) and 1153(a)), as applicable.
 (d)PAYGOThe
 budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory
 Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest
 statement titled Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation for this
 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the
 Senate Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior
 to the vote on passage.


text:
 Tähtis õiguslik teade
 |
 52008PC0891
 Ettepanek Nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr .../..., [...], ühtse viisavormi kohta (kodifitseeritud versioon) /* KOM/2008/0891 lõplik - CNS 2008/0265 */
 [pic] | EUROOPA ÜHENDUSTE KOMISJON |Brüssel 19.12.2008KOM(2008) 891 lõplik2008/0265 (CNS)EttepanekNÕUKOGU MÄÄRUS (EÜ) nr .../...,[...],ühtse viisavormi kohta (kodifitseeritud versioon)(komisjoni esitatud)2008/0265 (CNS)EttepanekNÕUKOGU MÄÄRUS (EÜ) nr .../...,[...],ühtse viisavormi kohta(kodifitseeritud versioon)SELETUSKIRI1. Kodanike Euroopa jaoks peab komisjon oluliseks ühenduse õigust lihtsustada ja selgemaks muuta, nii et see oleks kodanikule loetavam ja kättesaadavam; see annab kodanikule parema võimaluse talle antud õigusi kasutada.Seda eesmärki ei ole võimalik saavutada, kuni arvukad sätted, mida on korduvalt ja sageli oluliselt muudetud, asuvad laiali, osad esialgses õigusaktis ja osad muutvates õigusaktides. Nii tuleb kehtiva õiguse kindlakstegemiseks uurida ja võrrelda suurt hulka õigusakte.Muudetud õigusaktide kodifitseerimine on seega oluline ühenduse õiguse selguse ja loetavuse saavutamiseks.2. 1. aprillil 1987. aastal otsustas[1] komisjon anda oma talitustele ülesande kodifitseerida kõik õigusaktid hiljemalt kümnenda muudatuse järel. Komisjon rõhutas, et see on minimaalne nõue ning et ühenduse õiguse arusaadavuse ja selguse jaoks tuleks talitustel püüda nende vastutusalas olevaid tekste kodifitseerida veel tihedamini.3. Seda kinnitati Edinburghi Euroopa Ülemkogu eesistuja järeldustega detsembris 1992[2], rõhutades kodifitseerimise tähtsust, mis annab õiguskindlust konkreetsel ajahetkel asjas kohaldamisele kuuluva õiguse osas.Kodifitseerides tuleb täpselt järgida ühenduse tavapärast seadusloomemenetlust.Kuna kodifitseeritavatesse õigusaktidesse ei või teha sisulisi muudatusi, otsustasid Euroopa Parlament, nõukogu ja komisjon 20. detsembri 1994. aasta institutsioonidevahelises kokkuleppes, et kodifitseeritavate õigusaktide kiiremaks vastuvõtmiseks võib kasutada kiirendatud menetlust.4. Käesoleva ettepaneku eesmärk on kodifitseerida nõukogu 29. mai 1995. aasta määrus (EÜ) nr 1683/95 ühtse viisavormi kohta[3]. Uus määrus asendab sellesse inkorporeeritud õigusaktid[4]; käesolevas ettepanekus on säilitatud kodifitseeritud õigusaktide sisu ja nende kokkupanemisel on tehtud ainult kodifitseerimiseks vajalikud vormilised muudatused .5. Kodifitseerimise ettepanek on koostatud määruse (EÜ) nr 1683/95 ja selle muutmisaktide eelneva konsolideerimise alusel kõikides ametlikes keeltes, mis on teostatud Euroopa Ühenduste Ametlike Väljaannete talituse poolt andmetöötluse abil. Juhul kui artiklitele on antud uued numbrid, siis vastavus vanade ja uute numbrite vahel on näidatud tabelis, mis on kodifitseeritud määruse III lisas.Ettepanekê 1683/95 (kohandatud)(COD)NÕUKOGU MÄÄRUS (EÜ) nr .../...,[...],ühtse viisavormi kohta (kodifitseeritud versioon)EUROOPA LIIDU NÕUKOGU,võttes arvesse Euroopa Ühenduse asutamislepingut, eriti selle artikli Ö 62 punkti 2 alapunkti b alapunkti iii Õ,võttes arvesse komisjoni ettepanekut,võttes arvesse Euroopa Parlamendi arvamust[5],ning arvestades järgmist:ê(1) Nõukogu 29. mai 1995. aasta määrust (EÜ) nr 1683/95 ühtse viisavormi kohta[6] on korduvalt oluliselt muudetud[7]. Selguse ja otstarbekuse huvides tuleks kõnealune määrus kodifitseerida.ê 334/2002 põhjendus 4 ja 1683/95 põhjendus 2(2) Ühtse viisavormi kehtestamine on viisapoliitika ühtlustamise oluline osa. Asutamislepingu artiklis 14 on sätestatud, et siseturg hõlmab sisepiirideta ala, mille ulatuses vastavalt asutamislepingu sätetele tagatakse isikute vaba liikumine.ê 1683/95 põhjendus 3(3) On oluline, et ühtne viisavorm sisaldaks kogu vajalikku informatsiooni ja vastaks väga kõrgetele tehnilistele nõudmistele, eriti järeletegemist ja võltsimist välistavate kaitsemeetmete osas. See peaks sobima kasutamiseks kõikides liikmesriikides ja olema varustatud üldiselt äratuntavate turvaelementidega, mis on palja silmaga selgesti nähtavad.ê 334/2002 põhjendus 5(4) Lisaks, on vaja sätestada ühtse viisavormi kasutamisega seotud ühisstandardid, eelkõige vormi täiendamiseks kasutatavate tehniliste vahendite ja standardite kohta.ê 334/2002 põhjendus 6 (kohandatud)(5) Kõrgete turvastandardite kohaselt teostatud foto lisamine on esimene samm selliste elementide kasutamise suunas, mis looksid kindlama seose ühtses vormis viisa ja selle omaniku vahel, mis omakorda on oluliseks tagatiseks, et ühtne viisavorm on kaitstud kuritarvitamise eest. Arvesse tuleks võtta ICAO (Rahvusvahelise Tsiviillennundusorganisatsiooni) dokumendis 9303 sätestatud masinloetavate viisade spetsifikaati.ê 1683/95 põhjendus 4 (kohandatud)(6) Käesoleva määrusega sätestatakse üksnes need turvaelemendid, mis ei ole salajased. Neile tuleb lisada täiendavad turvaelemendid, Ö mille puhul peaks olema võimalik otsustada, et need jäävad Õ salajasteks, et takistada järeletegemist ja võltsimist, ega tohi sisaldada isikuandmeid või viiteid isikuandmetele. Täiendavate turvaelementide kehtestamise õigus tuleks anda komisjonile.ê(7) Meetmed, mis on vajalikud käesoleva määruse rakendamiseks, tuleks vastu võtta kooskõlas nõukogu 28. juuni 1999. aasta otsusega 1999/468/EÜ, millega kehtestatakse komisjoni rakendusvolituste kasutamise menetlused[8].ê 1683/95 põhjendus 5(8) Tagamaks, et nimetatud info ei muutu kättesaadavaks enamatele isikutele kui vaja, on tähtis, et iga liikmesriik määraks ainult ühe ühtse viisavormi trükkimise eest vastutava asutuse, kusjuures liikmesriigile jääb õigus seda asutust vajaduse korral vahetada. Turvalisuse tagamiseks peaks iga liikmesriik teatama kõnealuse pädeva asutuse nime komisjonile ja teistele liikmesriikidele.ê 1683/95 põhjendus 6 (kohandatud)(9) Tõhususe huvides peaks käesolev määrus kehtima kõikide Ö käesolevas määruses nimetatud Õ viisade kohta. Liikmesriikidel peaks olema õigus kasutada ühtset viisavormi ka viisade puhul, mida kasutatakse muuks otstarbeks kui Ö käesolevas määruses nimetatud Õ, tingimusel et on lisatud palja silmaga nähtavad erinevused, mis muudavad võimatuks segiajamise ühtse viisaga.ê 1683/95 põhjendus 7(10) Käesoleva määruse I lisa alusel ühtsesse viisavormi isikuandmete sisestamisel tuleks tagada kooskõla liikmesriikide andmekaitsenormidega ja ühenduse asjakohaste õigusaktidega.ê 334/2002 põhjendus 10(11) Käesoleva määrusega ettenähtud meetmed ei tohiks mõjutada reisidokumentide kehtivuse tunnustamist praegu reguleerivaid eeskirju.ê 856/2008 põhjendus 5(12) Islandi ja Norra puhul kujutab käesolev määrus endast nende Schengeni acquis’ sätete edasiarendamist Euroopa Liidu Nõukogu ning Islandi Vabariigi ja Norra Kuningriigi vahel sõlmitud lepingu (viimase kahe riigi osalemiseks Schengeni acquis’ sätete rakendamises, kohaldamises ja edasiarendamises)[9] tähenduses, mis kuuluvad nimetatud lepingu teatavaid rakenduseeskirju käsitleva nõukogu otsuse 1999/437/EÜ[10] artikli 1 punktis B osutatud valdkonda.ê 856/2008 põhjendus 6(13) Šveitsi puhul kujutab käesolev määrus endast nende Schengeni acquis’ sätete edasiarendamist Euroopa Liidu Nõukogu, Euroopa Ühenduse ja Šveitsi Konföderatsiooni vahel allkirjastatud lepingu (Šveitsi Konföderatsiooni ühinemise kohta Schengeni acquis’ sätete rakendamise, kohaldamise ja edasiarendamisega) tähenduses, mis kuuluvad otsuse 1999/437/EÜ artikli 1 punktis A osutatud valdkonda, koostoimes nõukogu otsuste 2004/849/EÜ[11] ja 2004/860/EÜ[12] artikli 4 lõikega 1.ê 856/2008 põhjendus 7(14) Liechtensteini puhul kujutab käesolev määrus endast nende Schengeni acquis’ sätete edasiarendamist Euroopa Liidu, Euroopa Ühenduse, Šveitsi Konföderatsiooni ja Liechtensteini Vürstiriigi vahel allakirjutatud protokolli tähenduses, mis käsitleb Liechtensteini Vürstiriigi ühinemist Euroopa Liidu, Euroopa Ühenduse ja Šveitsi Konföderatsiooni vahel sõlmitud lepinguga, mis käsitleb Šveitsi Konföderatsiooni ühinemist Schengeni acquis’ sätete rakendamise, kohaldamise ja edasiarendamisega, mis on seotud valdkonnaga, millele on osutatud otsuse 1999/437/EÜ artikli 1 punktis A, mida loetakse koostoimes nõukogu otsuse 2008/261/EÜ[13]artikliga 3.ê 856/2008 põhjendus 8(15) Euroopa Liidu lepingule ja Euroopa Ühenduse asutamislepingule lisatud Ühendkuningriigi ja Iirimaa seisukohta käsitleva protokolli artikli 1 kohaselt ei osale Ühendkuningriik ja Iirimaa käesoleva määruse vastuvõtmisel. Seetõttu ning piiramata nimetatud protokolli artikli 4 kohaldamist, ei kuulu käesolev määrus nende suhtes kohaldamisele,ê 1683/95ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA MÄÄRUSE:Artikkel 1Vastavalt artiklile 2 liikmesriikide poolt väljaantud viisad valmistatakse ühtses vormis (kleebisena).Nende turvaelemendid peavad vastama lisas I sätestatud kirjeldusele.ê 1683/95 artikkel 5Artikkel 2Käesolevas määruses tähendab “viisa” liikmesriigi luba või otsust, mis on vajalik tema territooriumile sisenemiseks, et:a) plaanipäraselt viibida selles liikmesriigis või mitmes liikmesriigis kokku kuni kolm kuud;b) läbida selle või mitme liikmesriigi territooriumi või selle või mitme liikmesriigi lennujaama transiitalasid.ê 334/2002 artikkel 1 punkt 1Artikkel 31. Artikli 6 lõikes 2 nimetatud korras kehtestatakse ühtse viisavormi täiendav tehnospetsifikaat järgmiselt:a) täiendavad osad ja turvanõuded, sealhulgas tugevdatud võltsimis- ja järeletegemisvastased standardid;b) ühtse viisavormi täitmise tehnilised standardid ja viisid.2. Viisakleebise värvilahendust võib muuta artikli 6 lõikes 2 osutatud korras.ê 856/2008 artikkel 1 punkt 1 (kohandatud)3. Artikli 6 lõikes 2 nimetatud korras võidakse otsustada, et Ö käesoleva artikli Õ lõikes 1 osutatud spetsifikaat on salajane ja seda ei avaldata. Sel juhul tehakse see kättesaadavaks üksnes liikmesriikide määratud asutustele, kes vastutavad trükkimise eest, ning liikmesriigi või komisjoni poolt nõuetekohaselt volitatud isikutele.ê 1683/95 artikkel 3Artikkel 4Iga liikmesriik määra b ühe asutuse, kes vastutab viisade trükkimise eest. Liikmesriik teatab selle asutuse nime komisjonile ja teistele liikmesriikidele. Kaks või enam liikmesriiki võivad sel eesmärgil nimetada ühe ja sama asutuse. Igal liikmesriigil on õigus enda määratud asutust vahetada. Liikmesriik teatab vastavatest muudatustest komisjonile ja teistele liikmesriikidele.ê 1683/95 artikkel 4Artikkel 51. Isikul, kellele viisa on välja antud, on õigus kontrollida viisale kantud isikuandmeid ja vajaduse korral nõuda paranduste tegemist või kustutamist, ilma et see piiraks vastavate laialdasemate andmekaitsesätete kohaldamist.2. Ühtsel viisavormil ei näidata andmeid masinloetaval kujul, välja arvatud juhud, kui need esinevad ka I lisa punktides 6 ja 12 kirjeldatud lahtrites või vastaval reisdokumendil.ê 334/2002 artikkel 1 punkt 2Artikkel 61. Komisjoni abistab komitee.2. Kui viidatakse käesolevale lõikele, kohaldatakse otsuse 1999/468/EÜ artikleid 5 ja 7.Otsuse 1999/468/EÜ artikli 5 lõike 6 kohaseks tähtajaks kehtestatakse kaks kuud.ê 1683/95Artikkel 7Kui liikmesriigid kasutavad ühtset viisavormi muudel eesmärkidel, kui on sätestatud artiklis 2, tuleb võtta asjakohaseid meetmeid selleks, et segiajamine artiklis 2 nimetatud viisaga ei oleks võimalik.êArtikkel 8Määrus (EÜ) nr 1683/95 tunnistatakse kehtetuks.Viiteid kehtetuks tunnistatud määrusele käsitatakse viidetena käesolevale määrusele kooskõlas III lisas esitatud vastavustabeliga.ê 1683/95 artikkel 8 (kohandatud)Artikkel 9Käesolev määrus jõustub Ö 1. mail 2009 Õ .ê 1683/95Käesolev määrus on Euroopa Ühenduse asutamislepingu kohaselt tervikuna siduv ja vahetult kohaldatav kõikides liikmesriikides.Brüssel, [...]Nõukogu nimeleesistuja[...] ê 856/2008 artikkel 1 punkt 3 (kohandatud)I LISA[pic]Turvaelemendid1. Rangete turvastandardite kohaselt tehtud ja viisakleebisesse sulandatud foto.2. Sellel väljal asetseb optiliselt muutuv tähis („kinegramm” või muu sellega samaväärne tähis). Sõltuvalt vaatenurgast muutuvad nähtavaks erinevates suurustes ja värvides 12 tähte, kirjatäht „E” ja maakera.3. Sellel väljal asetseb peidetud kujutisega logo, mis koosneb viisa välja andnud liikmesriiki tähistavast kirjatähest või -tähtedest (või tähtedest „BNL” Beneluxi riikide, s.t Belgia, Luksemburgi ja Madalmaade puhul). Rõhtsalt hoidmisel on see logo hele, 90kraadise nurga all aga tume. Kasutatakse järgmisi tähiseid: A – Austria, BG – Bulgaaria, BNL – Beneluxi riigid, CY – Küpros, CZE – Tšehhi Vabariik, D - Saksamaa, DK – Taani, E – Hispaania, EST – Eesti, F – Prantsusmaa, FIN - Soome, GR – Kreeka, H – Ungari, I – Itaalia, IRL – Iirimaa, LT – Leedu, LVA – Läti, M – Malta, P – Portugal, PL – Poola, ROU – Rumeenia, S – Rootsi, SK – Slovakkia, SVN – Sloveenia, UK – Ühendkuningriik.4. Selle välja keskel asetseb optiliselt muutuvates värvides ja suurtähtedega kirjutatud sõna „viisa”. Sõltuvalt vaatenurgast on see kas roheline või punane.5. Selles lahtris asetseb eelnevalt valmistrükituna riiklik viisakleebise üheksakohaline number. Kasutatakse spetsiaalset trükikirja.5a. Selles lahtris asetseb kolmetäheline riigi kood vastavalt ICAO dokumendile nr 9303 masinloetavate reisidokumentide kohta[14], mis tähistab viisa välja andnud liikmesriiki.Viisakleebise numbri moodustab lahtris 5a asetsev kolmetäheline riigi kood ja lahtris 5 asetsev riigi antav number.Täidetavad lahtrid6. See lahter algab sõnaga „kehtiv”. Viisat välja andev asutus märgib piirkonna või piirkonnad, kus viisa kehtib.7. See lahter algab sõnaga „alates” ning kaugemal samal real asetseb sõna „kuni”. Viisat välja andev asutus märgib siia viisa kehtivuse aja.8. See lahter algab sõnadega „viisa liik”. Viisat välja andev asutus märgib siia viisa liigi artiklitele 2 ja 7. Kaugemal samal real on sõnad „sissesõitude arv”, „viibimise kestus” (s.t taotleja kavatsetava viibimise kestus) ja seejärel sõna „päeva”.9. ee lahter algab sõnadega „välja antud” ja seda kasutatakse väljaandmise koha märkimiseks.10. See lahter algab väljaandmise kuupäevaga, mille täidab viisat välja andev asutus, ja kaugemal samal real asetsevad sõnad „passi number”, kuhu kirjutatakse viisa omaniku passi number.11. See lahter algab sõnaga „Perekonnanimi, eesnimi”.12. See lahter algab sõnaga „märkused”. Viisat välja andev asutus kasutab seda vajalikuks peetava täiendava teabe märkimiseks tingimusel, et see on kooskõlas artikliga 5. Järgmised kaks ja pool rida jäetakse selliste märkuste jaoks tühjaks.13. Selles lahtris asetseb masinloetav teave välispiiridel toimuva kontrolli hõlbustamiseks. Masinloetaval alal asetseb taustatrükina trükitud tekst, mis tähistab dokumendi välja andnud liikmesriiki. Tekst ei tohi kahjustada masinloetava ala tehnilisi omadusi ega selle loetavust.Paber on loomulikku värvi, punaste ja siniste märkidega.Lahtreid tähistavad sõnad on kirjutatud inglise ja prantsuse keeles. Viisat välja andev liikmesriik võib lisada kolmanda keele, mis kuulub ühenduse ametlike keelte hulka. Sõna „viisa” ülemisel real võib olla ükskõik millises ühenduse ametlikus keeles._________________éII LISAKehtetuks tunnistatud määrus koos muudatustegaNõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 1683/95 (EÜT L 164, 14.7.1995, lk 1) |Nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 334/2002 (EÜT L 53, 23.2.2002, lk 7) | Ainult artikkel 1 ja 3 |2003. aasta ühinemisakt II lisa punkt 18. B.1 (ELT L 236, 23.9.2003, lk 718) |Nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 1791/2006 (ELT L 363, 20.12.2006, lk 1) | Ainult artikkel 1 lõike 1 üheteistkümnes taane, mis puudutab määrust 1683/95 ja lisa, osa 11 punkt B.1 |Nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 856/2008 (ELT L 235, 2.9.2008, lk 1) |______________ III LISAVastavustabelMäärus (EÜ) nr 1683/95 | Käesolev määrus |Artikkel 1, esimene lause | Artikkel 1, esimene lõik |Artikkel 1, teine lause | Artikkel 1, teine lõik |Artikkel 2 | Artikkel 3 |Artikkel 3 lõige 2 | Artikkel 4 |Artikkel 4 | Artikkel 5 |Artikkel 5, sissejuhatavad sõnad | Artikkel 2, sissejuhatavad sõnad |Artikkel 5, esimene taane | Artikkel 2, punkt a |Artikkel 5, teine taane | Artikkel 2, punkt b |Artikkel 6, lõiked 1 ja 2 | Artikkel 6, lõiked 1 ja 2 |Artikkel 6, lõige 3 | __ |Artikkel 7 | Artikkel 7 |__ | Artikkel 8 |Artikkel 8, esimene lõik | Artikkel 9 |Artikkel 8, teine lõik | __ |Artikkel 8, kolmas lõik | __ |Lisa | Lisa I |__ | Lisa II |__ | Lisa III |_____________[pic][pic][pic][1] KOM(87) 868 PV.[2] Vt järelduste A osa 3. lisa.[3] Teostatud vastavalt komisjoni teatisele Euroopa Parlamendile ja nõukogule - acquis communautaire ’i kodifitseerimisest KOM(2001) 645 lõplik.[4] Vt käesoleva ettepaneku II lisa.[5] ELT C [...], [...], lk [...].[6] EÜT L 164, 14.7.1995, lk 1.[7] Vt lisa II.[8] EÜT L 184, 17.7.1999, lk 23.[9] EÜT L 176, 10.7.1999, lk 36.[10] EÜT L 176, 10.7.1999, lk 31.[11] ELT L 368, 15.12.2004, lk 26.[12] ELT L 370, 17.12.2004, lk 78.[13] ELT L 83, 26.3.2008, lk 3.[14] Erandiks on Saksamaa, kelle kood vastavalt ICAO dokumendile 9303 masinloetavate reisidokumentide kohta on „D”.


text:
 28.2.2007
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 61/15
 UREDBA KOMISIJE (ES) št. 206/2007
 z dne 27. februarja 2007
 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 2247/2003 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo v sektorju govejega in telečjega mesa Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2286/2002 o ureditvi, ki se uporablja za kmetijske proizvode in blago, pridobljeno s predelavo kmetijskih proizvodov s poreklom iz afriških, karibskih in pacifiških držav (držav AKP)
 KOMISIJA EVROPSKIH SKUPNOSTI JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2286/2002 z dne 10. decembra 2002 o ureditvi, ki se uporablja za kmetijske proizvode in blago, pridobljeno s predelavo kmetijskih proizvodov s poreklom iz afriških, karibskih in pacifiških držav (države AKP), ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 1706/98 (1) in zlasti člena 5 Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 2247/2003 (2) odpira na večletni podlagi za obdobja od 1. januarja do 31. decembra kvote za uvoz nekaterih proizvodov v sektorju govejega in telečjega mesa s poreklom iz držav AKP. Proizvodi, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje za uvoz na podlagi te kvote, so navedeni v Prilogi I k navedeni uredbi.
 (2)
 Člen 6(1) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1301/2006 z dne 31. avgusta 2006 o določitvi skupnih pravil za upravljanje uvoznih tarifnih kvot za kmetijske proizvode, ki se upravljajo s sistemom uvoznih dovoljenj (3), določa, da vlagatelji zahtevkov za izdajo uvoznega dovoljenja ne vložijo več kot enega zahtevka za isto zaporedno številko kvote za obdobje ali podobdobje uvozne tarifne kvote. Poleg tega člen 5(1) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1445/95 z dne 26. junija 1995 o pravilih za uporabo uvoznih in izvoznih dovoljenj za goveje in telečje meso ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe (EGS) št. 2377/80 (4) določa, da je treba zahtevke za izdajo dovoljenja brez poseganja v podrobnejše določbe vložiti za proizvode po podštevilki enotne kombinirane nomenklature ali eni od skupin podštevilk enotne kombinirane nomenklature (KN) iz Priloge I k navedeni uredbi. Glede na razpon proizvodov, ki se jih lahko uvozi na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 2247/2003, morajo biti vlagatelji upravičeni do tega, da razdelijo svoj enoten zahtevek za isto zaporedno številko kvote po oznaki KN ali skupini oznak KN.
 (3)
 Zaradi statističnih namenov je treba v dovoljenjih, izdanih na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 2247/2003, zadevne količine podrobno navesti po oznaki KN ali skupini oznak KN.
 (4)
 Uredbo (ES) št. 2247/2003 je zato treba ustrezno spremeniti.
 (5)
 Ukrepi, predvideni s to uredbo, so v skladu z mnenjem Upravljalnega odbora za govedino in teletino –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Uredba (ES) št. 2247/2003 se spremeni:
 1.
 Členu 4(2) se doda naslednji pododstavek:
 „Ne glede na člen 5(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1445/95 lahko zahtevki za isto zaporedno številko kvot obsegajo enega ali več proizvodov, ki jih zajemajo oznake KN ali skupine oznak KN iz Priloge I k navedeni uredbi. Če zahtevki obsegajo več oznak KN, se podrobno navede zadevna količina, za katero je vložen zahtevek po oznaki KN ali skupini oznak KN. V vseh primerih se vse oznake KN navedejo v polje 16 in njihova poimenovanja v polje 15 zahtevka in dovoljenja.“
 2.
 Členu 5(2) se doda naslednji pododstavek:
 „V vsakem dovoljenju se podrobno navede zadevno količino po oznaki KN ali skupini oznak KN.“
 Člen 2
 Ta uredba začne veljati dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 27. februarja 2007
 Za Komisijo
 Mariann FISCHER BOEL
 Članica Komisije
 (1) UL L 348, 21.12.2002, str. 5.
 (2) UL L 333, 20.12.2003, str. 37. Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 1965/2006 (UL L 408, 30.12.2006, str. 27), Popravljena različica v UL L 47, 16.2.2007, str. 21.
 (3) UL L 238, 1.9.2006, str. 13.
 (4) UL L 143, 27.6.1995, str. 35. Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 1965/2006.


type: caselaw

text:
C 299/26 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 16.10.1999
 — dat de Commissie zich niet heeft gehouden aan de C. meer subsidiair,
 verplichting om haar handelingen met redenen te om-
 kleden. het schrijven van Commissie van 29-04-1999, B/51839,
 DG IV-H-3/KSo D (99), waarbij verzoekers inzage in de
 stukken werd geweigerd, nietig te verklaren.
 Middelen en voornaamste argumenten
 Verzoekers zijn exploitanten van hotels in de thermale bad-
 Beroep, op 5 juli 1999 ingesteld door Thermenhotel plaats Loipersdorf (deelstaat Stiermarken).
 Stoiser Franz GesmbH & Co. KG, Vier-Jahreszeiten Hotel-
 BetriebsgesmbH & Co. KG, Franz Kowald en Thermal-
 hotel Leitner GesmbH tegen Commissie van de Europese Bij het bestreden besluit werd een steunmaatregel van de
 Gemeenschappen deelstaat Stiermarken ten bedrage van EUR 1.703.873,- als
 regionale economische steun verenigbaar met het EG-Verdrag
 verklaard. De steun bestaat uit een bijdrage in de projectkosten
 (Zaak T-158/99) voor een door een dochteronderneming van Siemens AG
 Österreich te Loipersdorf te realiseren hotelproject en met
 (1999/C 299/37) subsidie gelijk te stellen voordeel bij een onroerend-
 goedtransactie (van Thermalquelle Loipersdorf GesmbH & Co.
 KG, die staatseigendom is, en de deelstaat Stiermarken werd
 grond verkregen tegen een gunstige prijs). Het hotel zal het
 (Procestaal: Duits) internationale 5-sterrenniveau krijgen en over 300 kamers
 (600 bedden) beschikken. Voorts is tussen de hotelonder-
 Bij het Gerecht van eerste aanleg van de Europese Gemeen- neming en Thermalquelle Loipersdorf een overeenkomst geslo-
 schappen is op 5 juli 1999 beroep tegen de Commissie van ten waarin laatstgenoemde zich er onder meer toe verplicht,
 de Europese Gemeenschappen ingesteld door Thermenhotel gedurende een periode van 3 jaar dagelijks 50 kamers te
 Stoiser Franz GesmbH & Co. KG e.a. te Loipersdorf (Oosten- boeken, een bepaald gedeelte van de recreatieruimte uit te
 rijk), vertegenwoordigd door G. Eisenberger, Rechtsanwalt- breiden tot 200 ligplaatsen die uitsluitend voor de hotelgasten
 sozietät Eisenberger-Herzog-Nierhaus-Forcher & Partner, Graz, zijn bestemd, en tot 1-1-2003 geen ander hotel toe te staan
 domicilie gekozen te Luxemburg ten kantore van G. Osch, een rechtstreekse verbinding met het bad tot stand te brengen.
 advocaat aldaar Boulevard Royal 49. Als tegenprestatie verbindt het hotel zich ertoe, dagelijks ten
 minste 200 ligplaatsen te boeken.
 Verzoeker concludeert dat het het Gerecht behage:
 Volgens verzoekers moet het bestreden besluit derhalve nietig
 A. primair, worden geacht, aangezien
 1. het beroep ontvankelijk en gegrond te verklaren; — zij in het kader van het onderzoek in de zin van artikel 88,
 lid 2, EG (ex artikel 93, lid 2, EG-Verdrag) niet in de
 2. bijgevolg, gelegenheid zijn gesteld hun opmerkingen te maken;
 a) het besluit van de Commissie van 02-03-1999, SG — de Commissie haar motiveringsverplichting heeft ge-
 (99) D/1523 waarbij de staatssteun aan Siemens schonden;
 AG Österreich voor het hotelproject te Loipersdorf,
 Oostenrijk, overeenkomstig art. 92, lid 3, sub c — verzoekers’ recht op informatie en inzage in de stukken is
 (thans art. 87, lid 3, sub c, EG), verenigbaar met de geschonden.
 gemeenschappelijke markt werd verklaard, nietig
 te verklaren; Een en ander levert een schending van primair gemeenschaps-
 recht op, omdat de Commissie enkel de bijdrage in de
 b) verweerster te verwijzen in de kosten van het projectkosten en de betrokken onroerend-goedtransactie als
 geding; staatssteun in de zin van artikel 87 EG (ex artikel 92 EG-
 Verdrag) heeft aangemerkt, doch niet de gegeven boekings-
 B. subsidiair, garantie, de kosteloze terbeschikkingstelling van 200 ligplaat-
 sen en de exclusieve rechtstreekse verbinding met het bad voor
 1. het beroep ontvankelijk te verklaren; een periode van vijf jaar tot en met 1-1-2003. De Commissie
 is daarmee ten onrechte uitgegaan van een bruto subsidie-
 2. vóór de beslissing inzake de gegrondheid verweerster te equivalent van 4,5 % ofschoon dit met toepassing van de
 gelasten de in het besluit van de Commissie genoemde „market investor rule” in feite 25,4 % bedraagt. Met deze
 studies van HVS International, Parnell Kerr Forster onjuiste juridische beoordeling van deze verkapte steun heeft
 Associates en van het Institut für Technologie- und de Commissie zich bovendien schuldig gemaakt aan misbruik
 Regionalpolitik over te leggen, alsmede een termijn van bevoegdheid.
 vast te stellen waarbinnen verweerster schriftelijk haar
 standpunt dient te bepalen en een contraexpertise op
 hetzelfde vaktechnische niveau moet overleggen;