type: legislation

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 51995PC0371
 Ehdotus neuvoston asetukseksi (EY) yleisistä säännöistä yhteisön vähävaraisimmille henkilöille jaettavaksi tarkoitettujen elintarvikkeiden luovuttamisesta interventiovarastoista tietyille järjestöille annetun asetuksen (ETY) N:o 3730/87 muuttamisesta
 Virallinen lehti nro C 260 , 05/10/1995 s. 0018
 Ehdotus neuvoston asetukseksi (EY) yleisistä säännöistä yhteisön vähävaraisimmille henkilöille jaettavaksi tarkoitettujen elintarvikkeiden luovuttamisesta interventiovarastoista tietyille järjestöille annetun asetuksen (ETY) N:o 3730/87 muuttamisesta (95/C 260/08) KOM(95) 371 lopull. - 95/0198(CNS)(Komission esittämä 24 päivänä heinäkuuta 1995)EUROOPAN UNIONIN NEUVOSTO, jokaottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen ja erityisesti sen 43 artiklan,ottaa huomioon komission ehdotuksen,ottaa huomioon Euroopan parlamentin lausunnon,sekä katsoo, ettäneuvoston asetuksella (ETY) N:o 3730/87 (1) käyttöön otettu järjestelmä elintarvikkeiden toimittamiseksi yhteisön vähävaraisimmille henkilöille perustuu interventioelinten tiettyjen yhteisten markkinajärjestelyjen mukaisesti toteuttamien ostotoimenpiteiden seurauksena käytettävissä oleviin julkisiin varastoihin; on osoittautunut, että elintarvikkeiden toimituksia koskevan vuotuisen suunnitelman täytäntöönpano saattaa vaikeutua sen vuoksi, ettei tiettyjä perustuotteita ole vuoden mittaan tilapäisesti saatavissa interventiovarastoista; kyseistä vaaraa ovat omiaan lisäämään toimenpiteet, joita on toteutettu markkinoiden hallinnan parantamiseksi ja tuotannon mukauttamiseksi entistä paremmin tarpeisiin; näissä olosuhteissa vaikuttaa aiheelliselta väliaikaisena toimenpiteenä ja toimituksia koskevien ohjelmien toteutuksen vaarantumisen välttämiseksi säätää mahdollisuudesta hankkia kyseiset tuotteet yhteisön markkinoilta kuitenkin sellaisin edellytyksin, ettei tuotteiden interventiovarastoista luovuttamista koskevaa periaatetta saateta kyseenalaiseksi,järjestelmän moitteettoman hallinnan varmistamiseksi on niin ikään aiheellista säätää kyseisen kaltaisesta yhteisön markkinoilta hankkimisen mahdollisuudesta siinä tapauksessa, että ottaen huomioon julkisten varastojen maantieteellisen sijainnin yhteisössä toimituksia koskevan vuotuisen suunnitelman täytäntöönpano edellyttäisi interventiotuotteiden siirtelemistä pieninä määrinä jäsenvaltiosta toiseen, jaolisi säädettävä tämän asetuksen säännösten soveltamisesta heti toimituksia koskevan vuotuisen suunnitelman täytäntöönpanokauden alusta alkaen,ON ANTANUT TÄMÄN ASETUKSEN:1 artikla Lisätään asetuksen (ETY) N:o 3730/87 1 artiklaan kaksi kohtaa seuraavasti:"Jos jotain tuotetta ei ole tilapäisesti saatavissa yhteisön interventiovarastoista edellisessä kohdassa tarkoitetun vuotuisen suunnitelman täytäntöönpanokauden aikana tai sen saatavuus ei ole riittävä mahdollistamaan kyseisen suunnitelman toteuttamisen yhdessä tai useammassa jäsenvaltiossa, kyseinen tuote voidaan hankkia yhteisön markkinoilta. Yhteisön markkinoilta hankkimiseen voidaan myös turvautua, jos suunnitelman toteuttaminen edellyttäisi muussa jäsenvaltiossa kuin siinä, jossa tuotetta tarvitaan, interventiossa olevien tuotteiden yhteisön sisäistä siirtämistä pieninä määrinä.Yhteisön markkinoilta hankkimisen edellytykset vahvistetaan 6 artiklassa säädettyä menettelyä noudattaen."2 artikla Tämä asetus tulee voimaan kolmantena päivänä sen jälkeen, kun se on julkaistu Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisessa lehdessä.Sitä sovelletaan 1 päivästä lokakuuta 1995.Tämä asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sitä sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa.(1) EYVL N:o L 352, 15.12.1987, s. 1


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 30.10.2014
 EN
 Official Journal of the European Union
 L 310/17
 DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
 No 72/2014
 of 16 May 2014
 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement
 THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
 Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,
 Whereas:
 (1)
 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1275/2013 of 6 December 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum levels for arsenic, cadmium, lead, nitrites, volatile mustard oil and harmful botanical impurities (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
 (2)
 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1334/2013 of 13 December 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2008 as regards the name of the holder of the authorisation and as regards the recommended dose of a preparation of Lactobacillus rhamnosus (CNCM-I-3698) and Lactobacillus farciminis (CNCM-I-3699) (2) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
 (3)
 This Decision concerns legislation regarding feedingstuffs. Legislation regarding feedingstuffs shall not apply to Liechtenstein as long as the application of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products is extended to Liechtenstein, as specified in the sectoral adaptations to Annex I to the EEA Agreement. This Decision is therefore not to apply to Liechtenstein.
 (4)
 Annex I to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,
 HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
 Article 1
 Chapter II of Annex I to the EEA Agreement shall be amended as follows:
 (1)
 the following indent is added in point 1zzzzzd (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1290/2008):
 ‘—
 32013 R 1334: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1334/2013 of 13 December 2013 (OJ L 335, 14.12.2013, p. 12).’
 ;
 (2)
 the following indent is added in point 33 (Directive 2002/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council):
 ‘—
 32013 R 1275: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1275/2013 of 6 December 2013 (OJ L 328, 7.12.2013, p. 86).’
 .
 Article 2
 The texts of Regulation (EU) No 1275/2013 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1334/2013 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.
 Article 3
 This Decision shall enter into force on 17 May 2014, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (3).
 Article 4
 This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.
 Done at Brussels, 16 May 2014.
 For the EEA Joint Committee
 The President
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) OJ L 328, 7.12.2013, p. 86.
 (2) OJ L 335, 14.12.2013, p. 12.
 (3) No constitutional requirements indicated.


text:
 19.11.2011
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 302/32
 РЕГЛАМЕНТ ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ (ЕС) No 1192/2011 НА КОМИСИЯТА
 от 18 ноември 2011 година
 за определяне на фиксирани стойности при внос за определяне на входната цена на някои плодове и зеленчуци
 ЕВРОПЕЙСКАТА КОМИСИЯ,
 като взе предвид Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз,
 като взе предвид Регламент (ЕО) No 1234/2007 на Съвета от 22 октомври 2007 г. за установяване на обща организация на селскостопанските пазари и относно специфични разпоредби за някои земеделски продукти („Общ регламент за ООП“) (1),
 като взе предвид Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 543/2011 на Комисията от 7 юни 2011 г. за определяне на подробни правила за прилагането на Регламент (ЕО) No 1234/2007 на Съвета по отношение на секторите на плодовете и зеленчуците и на преработените плодове и зеленчуци (2), и по-специално член 136, параграф 1 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 в изпълнение на резултатите от Уругвайския кръг от многостранни търговски преговори Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 543/2011 посочва критериите за определяне от страна на Комисията на фиксирани стойности при внос от трети страни за продуктите и периодите, посочени в приложение XVI, част A към същия регламент,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ:
 Член 1
 Фиксираните стойности при внос, посочени в член 136 от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 543/2011, са определени в приложението към настоящия регламент.
 Член 2
 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила на 19 ноември 2011 година.
 Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави-членки.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 18 ноември 2011 година.
 За Комисията, от името на председателя,
 José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
 Генерален директор на Генерална дирекция „Земеделие и развитие на селските райони“
 (1) ОВ L 299, 16.11.2007 г., стр. 1.
 (2) ОВ L 157, 15.6.2011 г., стр. 1.
 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ
 Фиксирани стойности при внос за определяне на входната цена на някои плодове и зеленчуци
 (EUR/100 kg)
 Код по КН
 Кодове на трети страни (1)
 Фиксирана вносна стойност
 0702 00 00
 AL
 49,9
 MA
 48,9
 MK
 64,0
 TR
 86,5
 ZZ
 62,3
 0707 00 05
 AL
 64,0
 EG
 161,4
 TR
 101,9
 ZZ
 109,1
 0709 90 70
 MA
 57,3
 TR
 133,9
 ZZ
 95,6
 0805 20 10
 MA
 91,7
 ZA
 65,5
 ZZ
 78,6
 0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70, 0805 20 90
 HR
 43,0
 IL
 74,8
 MA
 53,5
 TR
 77,6
 UY
 42,7
 ZA
 62,9
 ZZ
 59,1
 0805 50 10
 TR
 56,4
 ZA
 43,5
 ZZ
 50,0
 0806 10 10
 BR
 224,5
 CL
 70,8
 EC
 65,7
 LB
 293,6
 PE
 261,2
 TR
 143,7
 US
 270,3
 ZA
 85,0
 ZZ
 176,9
 0808 10 80
 CA
 114,3
 CL
 90,0
 MK
 41,0
 NZ
 76,3
 TR
 95,1
 US
 111,1
 ZA
 104,2
 ZZ
 90,3
 0808 20 50
 AR
 43,9
 CL
 73,3
 CN
 54,3
 TR
 85,0
 ZA
 73,2
 ZZ
 65,9
 (1) Номенклатура на страните, определена с Регламент (ЕО) No 1833/2006 на Комисията (ОВ L 354, 14.12.2006 г., стр. 19). Код „ZZ“ означава „друг произход“.


type: caselaw

text:
 15.1.2011
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 13/27
 Žaloba podaná dne 11. října 2010 — Francie v. Komise
 (Věc T-488/10)
 ()
 2011/C 13/53
 Jednací jazyk: francouzština
 Účastnice řízení
 Žalobkyně: Francouzská republika (zástupci: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues a N. Rouam, zmocněnci)
 Žalovaná: Evropská komise
 Návrhové žádání žalobkyně
 —
 zrušit napadené rozhodnutí v celém rozsahu,
 —
 uložit Komisi náhradu nákladů řízení.
 Žalobní důvody a hlavní argumenty
 Žalobkyně se dožaduje zrušení rozhodnutí Evropské komise K(2010) 5229 ze dne 28. července 2010 o částečném zrušení příspěvku z Evropského fondu pro regionální rozvoj (EFRR) na základě jednotného programového dokumentu cíle 1 pro strukturální pomoc Společenství v oblasti Martiniku ve Francii. Toto rozhodnutí zrušuje veškerou účast EFRR, která byla poskytnuta ve prospěch velkého projektu „Village de vacances Club Méditerranée-Les Boucaniers“ ve výši 12 460 000 eur.
 Žalobkyně na podporu své žaloby vznáší čtyři žalobní důvody.
 Ve svém prvním žalobním důvodu žalobkyně tvrdí, že Komise porušila čl. 2 odst. 1 směrnice Rady 93/37/EHS ze dne ze dne 14. června 1993 o koordinaci postupů při zadávání veřejných zakázek na dodávky (1) tím, že se domnívala, že veřejné zakázky na dodávky, které byly uzavřeny pro obnovu a rozšíření „Club Méditerranée-Les Boucaniers“, představovaly veřejné zakázky na dodávky přímo subvencované ve výši přesahující 50 % veřejnými zadavateli. Tyto zakázky totiž byly subvencovány pouze do výše 29,92 % nákladů projektu. Daňové úlevy, které byly soukromým společnostem poskytnuty na základě jejich investic do projektu údajně nemohou představovat subvenci ve smyslu čl. 2 odst. 1 směrnice 93/37/EHS.
 Ve svém druhém žalobním důvodu, který se dělí na dvě části, žalobkyně tvrdí, že Komise porušila čl. 2 odst. 2 směrnice 93/37/EHS tím, že se domnívá, že veřejné zakázky na dodávky pro obnovu a rozšíření „Club Méditerranée-Les Boucaniers“ týkaly výstavby sportovních, rekreačních a volnočasových zařízení ve smyslu tohoto ustanovení.
 Na jedné straně má žalobkyně za to, že Komise měla zohlednit Všeobecnou klasifikaci ekonomických činností v rámci Evropských společenství (NACE), stanovenou nařízením č. 3037/90 (2), na kterou odkazuje čl. 2 odst. 2 směrnice 93/37/EHS. Tato klasifikace rozlišuje na jedné straně ubytovací a restaurační činnosti a na druhé straně rekreační, kulturní a sportovní činnosti.
 Na druhé straně se žalobkyně domnívá, že čl. 2 odst. 2 směrnice 93/37/EHS se týká veřejných zakázek, které svou povahou spadají do oblasti tradiční poptávky veřejných zadavatelů, a tudíž se vztahuje na sportovní, rekreační a volnočasová zařízení otevřená všem, a nikoli na zařízení, která jsou vyhrazena soukromým zákazníků.
 Ve svém třetím žalobním důvodu žalobkyně tvrdí, že Komise porušila povinnost uvést odůvodnění stanovenou v čl. 296 druhém pododstavci SFEU tím, že jasně a jednoznačně neuvedla důvody, ze kterých se práce na obnově a rozšíření „Club Méditerranée-Les Boucaniers“ týkaly výstavby sportovních, rekreačních a volnočasových zařízení ve smyslu čl. 2 odst. 2 směrnice 93/37/EHS.
 Ve svém čtvrtém žalobním důvodu žalobkyně podpůrně tvrdí, že Komise porušila zásadu proporcionality tím, že použila na subvenci EFRR opravnou sazbu ve výši 100 %, ačkoli práce týkající se sportovních a volnočasových zařízení představují méně než 10 % projektu.
 (1) Úř. věst. L 199, s. 54; Zvl. vyd. 06/02, s. 163.
 (2) Nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 3037/90 ze dne 9. října 1990 o statistické klasifikaci ekonomických činností v Evropském společenství (Úř. věst. L 293, s. 1; Zvl. vyd. 02/04, s. 177).


text:
 2.7.2011
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 194/19
 Žaloba podaná 4. mája 2011 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland a PAN Europe/Komisia
 (Vec T-232/11)
 2011/C 194/31
 Jazyk konania: angličtina
 Účastníci konania
 Žalobcovia: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland (Amsterdam, Holandsko) a Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brusel, Belgicko) (v zastúpení: B. Kloostra, advokát)
 Žalovaná: Európska komisia
 Návrhy
 Žalobcovia navrhujú, aby Všeobecný súd:
 —
 rozhodol, že rozhodnutie Komisie z 1. marca 2011 (Ares(2011)223668) je v rozpore s nariadením č. 1367/2006/ES (1),
 —
 zrušil rozhodnutie Komisie z 1. marca 2011 [Ares(2011)223668],
 —
 uložil Komisii povinnosť vecne preskúmať žiadosť o opätovné interné preskúmanie z 20. decembra 2010 v lehote stanovenej Súdom prvého stupňa a
 —
 zaviazal Komisiu na náhradu trov konania.
 Dôvody a hlavné tvrdenia
 Na podporu svojej žaloby, žalobkyňa uvádza dva žalobné dôvody.
 1.
 Prvým žalobným dôvodom žalobcovia tvrdia, že žalovaná mala povinnosť opätovne interne preskúmať v súlade s ich žiadosťou smernicu 2010/77/EÚ (2), keďže uvedená smernica sa neuplatňuje všeobecne, ako tvrdí žalovaná, ale predstavuje skôr akt obsahujúci konkrétne a samostatné rozhodnutia založené na viacerých jednotlivých žiadostiach dotknutých výrobcov.
 2.
 Druhým žalobným dôvodom žalobcovia tvrdia, že napadnuté rozhodnutie je v rozpore s nariadením č. 1367/2006/ES tým, že smernica 2010/77/EÚ obsahuje viaceré správne úkony, ktoré sa týkajú samostatných rozhodnutí o jednotlivých žiadostiach. Okrem toho, keďže Komisia neprijala smernicu v rámci svojej normotvornej právomoci, žalobcovia sa domnievajú, že s ohľadom na túto smernicu musia mať možnosť prístupu k spravodlivosti.
 (1) Nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1367/2006 zo 6. septembra 2006 o uplatňovaní ustanovení Aarhuského dohovoru o prístupe k informáciám, účasti verejnosti na rozhodovacom procese a prístupe k spravodlivosti v záležitostiach životného prostredia na inštitúcie a orgány Spoločenstva (Ú. v. EÚ L 264, s. 13).
 (2) Smernica Komisie 2010/77/EÚ z 10. novembra 2010, ktorou sa mení a dopĺňa smernica Rady 91/414/EHS, pokiaľ ide o dátumy skončenia platnosti zaradenia určitých účinných látok do prílohy I (Ú. v. EÚ L 293, s. 48).


type: wikipedia

text:
Бъ̀рзина е село в Северозападна България. То се намира в община Хайредин, област Враца.
 География
 Граничи със селата Рогозен, Манастирище и Ботево, всичките към община Хайредин. Близо до селото тече река Бързица, а в долната част се простира язовира на Бързина.
 История
 След 1864 г. в селото са настанени значително число черкезки семейства, бежанци от Кавказ. Поради това преди Освобождението селото носи името Бързински черкези, или Бързински соват. Черкезите от селото, притежаващи огнестрелно оръжие, са едни от най-активните участници в гонитбата на Ботевата чета през май 1876 г.
 След 1878 г. по силата на Берлинския мирен договор черкезите от селото се изселват, и с указ 161 от 25 юни 1884 г. то се именува Ботьово. През 1956 г. името му е осъвременено на Бързина.
 При избухването на Балканската война в 1912 година един човек от Бързина е доброволец в Македоно-одринското опълчение.
 През лятото на 1950 година, в разгара на колективизацията, горянска група в селото подпалва снопите по време на вършитба.
 Редовни събития
 В края на юли или началото на август е Събора (сбора)/ на селото.
 Източници
 Външни препратки
 С. Бързина -карта на guide-bulgaria
 Села в област Враца
 Населени места в община Хайредин


text:
 15.2.2016
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 C 59/34
 Talan väckt den 2 december 2015 – Makhlouf mot rådet
 (Mål T-714/15)
 (2016/C 059/39)
 Rättegångsspråk: franska
 Parter
 Sökande: Rami Makhlouf (Damaskus, Syrien) (ombud: advokaten E. Ruchat)
 Svarande: Europeiska unionens råd
 Yrkanden
 Sökanden yrkar att tribunalen ska
 —
 pröva talan i sak och bifalla den,
 —
 följaktligen förplikta Europeiska unionen att ersätta samtliga skador som sökanden lidit till ett belopp som tribunalen finner skäligt,
 —
 förplikta Europeiska unionens råd att ersätta rättegångskostnaderna.
 Grunder och huvudargument
 Till stöd för sin talan åberopar sökanden en enda grund som avser den ideella skada som sökanden påstås ha orsakats av att vederbörandes rykte skadats, vilken har ett direkt kausalt samband med de åtgärder som antagits av Europeiska unionens råd, för vilka rådet bär ansvaret.


text:
02/Zv. 4 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 117
 21989A1013(05)
 L 295/29 URADNI LIST EVROPSKIH SKUPNOSTI 13.10.1989
 DODATNI PROTOKOL
 k Sporazumu med Evropsko gospodarsko skupnostjo in Švicarsko konfederacijo o odpravi obstoječih in
 preprečitvi novih količinskih omejitev, ki vplivajo na izvoze ali ukrepe z enakim učinkom
 EVROPSKA GOSPODARSKA SKUPNOST
 na eni strani in
 ŠVICARSKA KONFEDERACIJA
 na drugi strani, STA SE
 OB UPOŠTEVANJU Sporazuma med Evropsko gospodarsko skupnostjo in Švicarsko konfederacijo, podpisanega v Bruslju
 22. julija 1972, v nadaljnjem besedilu „Sporazum“, in zlasti člena 32 Sporazuma,
 OB SKLICEVANJU na cilj oblikovanja Evropskega gospodarskega prostora v skladu s Skupno deklaracijo, ki so jo sprejeli ministri
 držav EFTA in držav članic Skupnosti ter Komisija Evropskih skupnosti v Luxembourgu dne 9. aprila 1984,
 UPOŠTEVAJOČ potrebo po razvijanju trgovinskih odnosov v interesu obeh njunih gospodarstev z odpravo obstoječih in
 preprečevanjem novih ovir, ki vplivajo na izvoze izdelkov, ki jih zajema Sporazum,
 ZAVEDAJOČ SE kljub temu, da je pod nekaterimi izjemnimi okoliščinami lahko pogodbenica prisiljena, da sprejme zaščitne
 ukrepe pri izvozih in je v ta namen treba uvesti posebne predpise,
 ODLOČILI SKLENITI NASLEDNJI PROTOKOL:
 Člen 1 Člen 24a
 Če izpolnjevanje določb iz členov 7 in 13a povzroči:
 V Sporazum se vstavijo naslednji členi:
 1. ponovni izvoz v tretjo državo, proti kateri pogodbenica
 izvoznica za zadevni izdelek ohranja količinske omejitve
 „Člen 13a izvoza, izvozne dajatve ali ukrepe in dajatve z enakim učin-
 kom; ali
 1. V trgovini med Skupnostjo in Švico se ne uvedejo nobene 2. resno pomanjkanje ali grožnjo z resnim pomanjkanjem
 nove količinske omejitve pri izvozu ali ukrepi z enakim učin- izdelka, ki je nujno potreben pogodbenici izvoznici;
 kom.
 in če zgoraj navedene razmere povzročijo ali bi lahko povzro-
 čile večje težave za pogodbenico izvoznico, lahko navedena
 2. Količinske omejitve pri izvozu in vse ukrepe z enakim učin- pogodbenica sprejme primerne ukrepe pod pogoji in v skladu
 kom se odpravi 1. januarja 1990, razen tistih, določenih s postopki iz člena 27.“
 1. januarja 1989 za izdelke, navedene v Protokolu 6, ki se
 odpravijo v skladu z določbami navedenega Protokola.
 Člen 2
 Člen 13b 1. Odstavek 2 člena 7 Sporazuma se nadomesti z:
 „2. pri izdelkih, naštetih v Prilogi III, se carine pri izvozu in
 Pogodbenica, ki razmišlja o spreminjanju ukrepov, ki se dajatve z enakim učinkom znižajo v skladu z določbami
 nanašajo na izvoze v tretje države, o tem uradno obvesti navedene Priloge.“
 Skupni odbor najmanj 30 dni pred uveljavitvijo predlagane
 spremembe, če je to izvedljivo. Zabeleži vse opombe druge
 pogodbenice o motnjah, ki bi lahko zaradi tega nastale. 2. Priloga III k Sporazumu se nadomesti z:
 ---pagebreak--- 118 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 02/Zv. 4
 „PRILOGA III
 Seznam izdelkov iz člena 7 Sporazuma
 Carinske stopnje, ki jih uporablja Švica za izvoz spodaj naštetih proizvodov v Skupnost, se znižajo v skladu z
 naslednjim časovnim razporedom.
 Številka harmonizi-
 Poimenovanje izdelka Datum odprave
 ranega sistema
 ex 26.20 Pepel in ostanki, ki vsebujejo pretežno aluminij 1. januar 1993
 74.04 Odpadki in ostanki iz bakra 1. januar 1993
 76.02 Odpadki in ostanki aluminija 1. januar 1993“
 Člen 3 Če zadevna pogodbenica ne uspe odpraviti nezaželene
 prakse v roku, ki ga določi Skupni odbor, ali če se v Skup-
 nem odboru ne doseže dogovor v treh mesecih od datuma
 prejetja zadeve, lahko zadevna pogodbenica sprejme vse
 zaščitne ukrepe, ki so po njenem mnenju potrebni za
 Besedilo člena 27 Sporazuma se nadomesti z: reševanje resnih težav, ki izhajajo iz zadevne prakse; zlasti
 lahko prekliče tarifne koncesije.
 „Člen 27
 (b) V zvezi s členom 24 se težave, ki izhajajo iz situacije,
 navedene v tem členu, posredujejo v preučitev Skupnemu
 odboru, ki lahko sprejme vsako odločitev, potrebno za
 1. Če pogodbenica za izvoz izdelkov, ki bi lahko povzročili odpravo takšnih težav.
 težave, navedene v členih 24, 24a in 26, uvede upravni
 postopek, katerega namen je zagotoviti hitre informacije o
 gibanju trgovinskih tokov, o tem obvesti drugo pogodbenico.
 Če Skupni odbor ali pogodbenica izvoznica v 30 dneh od
 2. V primerih, navedenih v členih 22 do 26, pred sprejetjem prejetja zadeve ni sprejela sklepa, ki bi odpravil težave,
 ukrepov, predvidenih v njih, ali v primerih, kjer se uporablja sme pogodbenica uvoznica za uvoženi izdelek obračunati
 odstavek 3(e), takoj ko je mogoče, zadevna pogodbenica Skup- kompenzacijsko dajatev.
 nemu odboru predloži vse podatke, ki jih potrebuje za teme-
 ljito preučitev situacije z namenom, da poišče rešitev, ki bo
 sprejemljiva za obe pogodbenici. Pri izbiri ukrepov imajo
 prednost tisti, ki najmanj motijo uresničevanje Sporazuma.
 Kompenzacijska dajatev se izračuna v skladu z učinkom
 tarifnih razlik na vrednost zadevnega blaga glede na suro-
 vine ali vmesne izdelke, ki so vdelane v izdelek.
 O zaščitnih ukrepih se takoj uradno obvesti Skupni odbor, ki
 se o njih tudi redno posvetuje, zlasti z namenom, da se ti
 ukrepi odpravijo, takoj ko to omogočajo okoliščine.
 (c) V zvezi s členom 24a se težave, ki izhajajo iz situacije,
 navedene v tem členu, posredujejo v preučitev Skupnemu
 3. Za izvajanje odstavka 2 se uporabljajo naslednje določbe: odboru. Glede na pododstavek (ii) člena 24a, je potrebno
 grožnjo s pomanjkanjem ustrezno dokazati z ustreznimi
 količinskimi in cenovnimi indikatorji.
 (a) V zvezi s členom 23 lahko katera koli Pogodbenica posre-
 duje zadevo Skupnemu odboru, če meni, da je dana
 praksa nezdružljiva s pravilnim uresničevanjem Spora-
 zuma v smislu člena 23(1).
 Skupni odbor lahko sprejme kateri koli sklep, potreben za
 odpravljanje težav. Če Skupni odbor takšnega sklepa ne
 Pogodbenici Skupnemu odboru predložita vse potrebne sprejme v 30 dneh od dne, ko mu je bila zadeva predlo-
 podatke in mu pomagata pri preučevanju primera ter, kjer žena, lahko pogodbenica izvoznica uporabi primerne
 je ustrezno, pri odpravi prakse, kateri se nasprotuje. začasne ukrepe za izvoz zadevnega proizvoda.
 ---pagebreak--- 02/Zv. 4 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 119
 (d) V Skupnem odboru potekajo v zvezi s členom 25 posve- neposreden in takojšnji učinek na trgovino, takoj uporabi
 tovanja preden zadevna pogodbenica sprejme ustrezne previdnostne ukrepe, ki so potrebni za odpravo težav.“
 ukrepe.
 (e) Če zaradi izjemnih okoliščin, ki zahtevajo takojšnje ukre-
 panje, predhodna preučitev ni mogoča, lahko zadevna Člen 4
 pogodbenica v primerih, navedenih v členih 24, 24a, 25
 in 26 ter tudi v primeru izvoznih pomoči, ki imajo Naslednje besedilo se doda k Sporazumu kot Protokol 6:
 „PROTOKOL 6
 o odpravi nekaterih količinskih omejitev pri izvozih
 Količinske omejitve, ki jih Skupnost uporablja za izvoze spodaj naštetih izdelkov v Švico, se odpravijo najkasneje
 na navedene datume.
 Številka harmo-
 niziranega Poimenovanje izdelka Datum odprave
 sistema
 74.04 Odpadki in ostanki iz bakra 1.1.1993
 ex 44.01 Les za ogrevanje, iz iglavcev, borovcev in jelkinega skobjlenca 1.1.1993
 ex 44.03 Grobo obdelan les, olubljen ali ne, ali samo grobo tesan
 — Drugo, razen topolov 1.1.1993
 Les, grobo obdelan ali razpolovljen, a ne nadalje obdelan
 — Drugo, razen topolov 1.1.1993
 ex 44.07 Les, vzdolžno žagan, rezan ali luščen, a ne nadalje obdelan, debeline več kot 6 mm
 — Iz lesa neiglavcev brez majhnih plošč za proizvodnjo škatel, sit ali rešet in podob- 1.1.1993
 nega
 ex 41.01 Surove kože goveda mase pod 6 kg za kožo 1.1.1992
 ex 41.02 Surove kože ovc in jagnjet 1.1.1992
 ex 41.03 Surove kože koz ali kozličkov 1.1.1992
 ex 43.01 Surove zajčje kože 1.1.1992“
 Člen 5 Če se pogodbenici do tega datuma uradno ne obvestita, da so
 Ta dodatni protokol se prav tako uporablja za Kneževino zaključeni njuni postopki, se ta protokol začasno uporablja od
 Lihtenštajn, dokler velja Pogodba z dne 29. marca 1923 o 1. januarja 1990.
 vzpostavitvi carinske unije med Švicarsko konfederacijo in
 Kneževino Lihtenštajn.
 Člen 6 Člen 7
 Ta dodatni protokol odobrijo pogodbenice v skladu s svojimi
 lastnimi postopki. Ta dodatni protokol je sestavljen v dveh izvodih v danskem,
 Veljati začne 1. januarja 1990, pod pogojem, da sta se nizozemskem, angleškem, francoskem, nemškem, grškem,
 pogodbenici pred tem datumom medsebojno uradno obvestili, da italijanskem, portugalskem in španskem jeziku, pri čemer je vsako
 so bili dokončani vsi za ta namen potrebni postopki. od teh besedil enako verodostojno.
 ---pagebreak--- 120 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 02/Zv. 4
 Hecho en Bruselas, a doce de julio de mil novecientos ochenta y nueve.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den tolvte juli nitten hundrede og niogfirs.
 Geschehen zu Brüssel am zwölften Juli neunzehnhundertneunundachtzig.
 Έγινε στις Βρυξέλλες, στις δώδεκα Ιουλίου χίλια εννιακόσια ογδόντα εννέα.
 Done at Bruxssels on the twelfth day of July in the year one thousand nine hundred and eighty-nine.
 Fait à Bruxelles, le douze juillet mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-neuf.
 Fatto a Bruxelles, addì dodici luglio millenovecentottantanove.
 Gedaan te Brussel, de twaalfde juli negentienhonderd negenentachtig.
 Feito em Bruxelas, em doze de Julho de mil novecentos e oitenta e nove.
 Por el Consejo de las Comunidades Europeas
 For Rådet for De Europæiske Fælesskaber
 Für den Rat der Europäischen Gemeinschaften
 Για το Συμβούλιο των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων
 For the Council of the European Communities
 Pour le Conseil des Communautés européennes
 Per il Consiglio delle Comunità europee
 Voor de Raad van de Europese Gemeenschappen
 Pelo Conselho das Comunidades Europeias
 ---pagebreak--- 02/Zv. 4 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 121
 Por el Gobierno de la Confederación Suiza
 For regeringen for Schweiz
 Für die Regierung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft
 Για την κυβέρνηση της Ελβετικής Συνομοσπονδίας
 For the Governement of the Swiss Confederation
 Pour le gouvernement de la Confédération suisse
 Per il governo della Confederazione svizzera
 Voor de Regering van de Zwitserse Bondsstaat
 Pelo Governo da Confederação Suíça
 ---pagebreak--- 122 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 02/Zv. 4
 SKUPNA IZJAVA POGODBENIC
 k Dodatnemu protokolu k Sporazumu med Evropsko gospodarsko skupnostjo in Švicarsko
 konfederacijo o odpravi obstoječih in preprečitvi novih količinskih omejitev, ki vplivajo na
 izvoze ali ukrepe z enakim učinkom
 Pogodbenici izjavljata, da se členi 7, 13a in 13b Sporazuma uporabljajo za izdelke, določene v členu 2 Sporazuma,
 — vključno z naftnimi derivati, določenimi v členu 14 Sporazuma,
 — razen proizvodov, ki jih zajema Sporazum med državami članicami Evropske skupnosti za premog in jeklo in
 Evropsko skupnostjo za premog in jeklo na eni strani in Švicarsko konfederacijo na drugi strani.


text:
 14.3.2022
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 C 119/3
 Breithiúnas na Cúirte (an dara Dlísheomra) an 20 Eanáir 2022 (iarraidh ar réamhrialú ón Højesteret – an Danmhairg) – Apcoa Parking Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet
 (Cás C-90/20) (1)
 (2022/C 119/08)
 Teanga an cháis: an Danmhairgis
 Tionscnaíodh an cás seo roimh an 1 Eanáir 2022, dáta deiridh an mhaolaithe ar an nGaeilge.
 (1) IO C 161, 11.05.2020


text:
Zahájení představuje počáteční fázi šachové partie, během níž se obě strany snaží co nejlépe vyvinout figury a připravit se na následný boj ve střední hře. Obvykle se o zahájení mluví jako o prvních 15–20 tazích partie.
 Na počátku zmíněná obecná definice však nemusí být příliš přesná, neboť existují „superostré“ varianty zahájení (jako je například Traxlerův protiútok), kde boj propuká prakticky bezprostředně, bez větších příprav. Mnoho z nich patří mezi tzv. gambity – zahájení, v nichž jedna ze stran obětuje materiál, aby urychlila svůj vývin a získala poziční převahu.
 Podrobné znalosti úvodních tahů partie dnes představují nutnou výzbroj každého šachového profesionála, bez nichž se v silném turnaji nelze obejít. Čím lépe má hráč svá zahájení zažitá, tím větší má šanci získat v úvodní fázi partie nad svým soupeřem převahu. Soubor zahájení, která pak šachista používá, se nazývá jeho repertoár zahájení.
 V turnajových partiích se obvykle zahájení odtahá rychle. Výjimku představují případy, kde je jeden ze soupeřů nepřipraven, nebo pokud jeden ze soupeřů přijde s novým, dosud nepoužitým pokračováním (tzv. teoretická novinka).
 Základní dělení
 Šachová zahájení se dělí na otevřená (1. e4 e5), polootevřená (1. e4 ne e5) a zavřená (ne 1. e4). Každá z těchto třech základních skupin pak obsahuje množství jednotlivých zahajovacích systémů, které se dále dělí na jednotlivé varianty a subvarianty, z nichž řada nese své jméno.
 Otevřené hry
 Táhne-li bílý 1.e2-e4 a černý odpoví rovněž královským pěšcem o dvě pole (1...e7-e5), nabude hra otevřený charakter. Boj se pak často a někdy i hodně dlouho vede o pole e5, na něž může bílý vyvíjet tlak např. tahy 2. Jg1-f3, 2. d2-d4.
 Polozavřené hry
 Odpoví-li černý na tah 1. e2-e4 jinak než 1...e7-e5, vzniknou polozavřené hry. V nich dochází k asymetrickým pozicím, což umožňuje a většinou i vynucuje, že protivníci jsou aktivní na různých úsecích šachovnice. Důsledkem toho bývá převážně ostrý a komplikovaný průběh hry, při němž oboustranné šance závisí na tom, kdo pracuje důrazněji a rychleji.
 Zavřené hry
 Všechna zahájení s jiným prvním tahem než 1. e2-e4 jsou zahrnuta do skupiny zavřených her. Patří sem zejména dámský gambit, královská a Nimcovičova indická obrana, anglická hra a řada dalších. Hra zpravidla nabývá zavřený charakter, soupeři musí prokázat především své technické znalosti a poziční cit.
 Pojmenování zahájení
 Pojmenování zahájení nebo zahajovacích systémů vznikala v průběhu mnoha let vývoje různými způsoby. Některá zahájení nebo varianty byly například pojmenovány po významných šachistech, kteří je objevili, používali ve svých partiích, případně je nějakým způsobem zpopularizovali. Mezi ty můžeme zahrnout například Opočenského hru, Sokolského hru, Aljechinovu hru, Marshallův gambit atd. Někdy bylo jedno zahájení pojmenováno dokonce po více hráčích najednou (např. Caro-Kannova obrana nesoucí své jméno po dvou šachistech Carovi a Kannovi, kteří se jí v minulosti hlouběji zabývali).
 Velmi často pak nese zahájení pojmenování po nějaké zemi, území, nebo městě jehož šachisté ho používali (španělská hra, lotyšský gambit, sicilská hra, londýnská varianta, berlínská obrana, ruská hra, holandská hra, italská hra, anglická hra ...).
 Dalším častým případem je, že zahájení získalo své jméno podle jeho čistě šachového obsahu, např. hra dvou jezdců v obraně, střelcova hra, hra čtyř jezdců, dámské fiancheto.
 Někdy však šachové systémy získávají svá jména i dosti kuriózním způsobem. Systém Orangutan získal své označení na základě žertu velmistra Tartakowera, který prohlásil, že v tomto zahájení mu postupující b pěšec připomíná šplhajícího orangutana. Varianta smažená játra je pojmenovaná podle italského rčení „mrtvý jako smažená játra“, kdy je při hře dvou jezdců v obraně král brzy vyštván ke středu šachovnice a je těžké ho pak zachraňovat.
 Systematický přehled
 Protože používání slovních názvů je z mnoha důvodů dost nepřehledné, protože řada zahájení má vícero jmen a i názvy dílčích variant jsou někdy víceznačné, neboť byly např. po daném šachistovi pojmenovány varianty v různých zahájeních, takže by je bylo třeba rozepisovat mnoha slovy. Proto existuje v oblasti šachových zahájení ještě mezinárodní kód označovaný ECO, který zařazuje jednotlivé varianty pod mezinárodní kombinaci písmene a čísel. Sdělí-li například jeden znalý šachista svému protějšku z druhé strany zeměkoule kód B33, ten ví nebo si vyhledá, že jeho protějšek má na mysli Svěšnikovovu variantu v sicilské hře a již nezáleží na tom, jak oba hráči tuto variantu slovně nazývají ve svých zemích.
 Literatura
 Související články
 Seznam šachových zahájení
 Externí odkazy


text:
 29.11.2012
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 329/12
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) NR 1114/2012
 z dnia 26 listopada 2012 r.
 dotyczące klasyfikacji niektórych towarów według Nomenklatury scalonej
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Rady (EWG) nr 2658/87 z dnia 23 lipca 1987 r. w sprawie nomenklatury taryfowej i statystycznej oraz w sprawie Wspólnej Taryfy Celnej (1), w szczególności jego art. 9 ust. 1 lit. a),
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 W celu zapewnienia jednolitego stosowania Nomenklatury scalonej, stanowiącej załącznik do rozporządzenia (EWG) nr 2658/87, konieczne jest przyjęcie środków dotyczących klasyfikacji towaru określonego w załączniku do niniejszego rozporządzenia.
 (2)
 Rozporządzeniem (EWG) nr 2658/87 ustanowiono Ogólne reguły interpretacji Nomenklatury scalonej. Reguły te stosuje się także do każdej innej nomenklatury, która jest w całości lub w części oparta na Nomenklaturze scalonej, bądź która dodaje do niej jakikolwiek dodatkowy podpodział i która została ustanowiona szczególnymi przepisami unijnymi, w celu stosowania środków taryfowych i innych środków odnoszących się do obrotu towarowego.
 (3)
 Stosownie do wymienionych wyżej ogólnych reguł towar opisany w kolumnie 1 tabeli zamieszczonej w załączniku należy klasyfikować do kodu CN wskazanego w kolumnie 2, na mocy uzasadnień określonych w kolumnie 3 tej tabeli.
 (4)
 Należy zagwarantować, aby wiążąca informacja taryfowa wydana przez organy celne państw członkowskich odnośnie do klasyfikacji towarów w Nomenklaturze scalonej, która nie jest zgodna z niniejszym rozporządzeniem, mogła być nadal przywoływana przez otrzymującego przez okres trzech miesięcy, zgodnie z art. 12 ust. 6 rozporządzenia Rady (EWG) nr 2913/92 z dnia 12 października 1992 r. ustanawiającego Wspólnotowy Kodeks Celny (2).
 (5)
 Środki przewidziane w niniejszym rozporządzeniu są zgodne z opinią Komitetu Kodeksu Celnego,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 Towar opisany w kolumnie 1 tabeli zamieszczonej w załączniku klasyfikuje się w Nomenklaturze scalonej do kodu CN wskazanego w kolumnie 2 tej tabeli.
 Artykuł 2
 Wiążąca informacja taryfowa wydana przez organy celne państw członkowskich, która nie jest zgodna z niniejszym rozporządzeniem, może być nadal przywoływana przez okres trzech miesięcy, zgodnie z art. 12 ust. 6 rozporządzenia (EWG) nr 2913/92.
 Artykuł 3
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie dwudziestego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 26 listopada 2012 r.
 W imieniu Komisji, za Przewodniczącego,
 Algirdas ŠEMETA
 Członek Komisji
 (1) Dz.U. L 256 z 7.9.1987, s. 1.
 (2) Dz.U. L 302 z 19.10.1992, s. 1.
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 Opis towarów
 Klasyfikacja
 (kod CN)
 Uzasadnienie
 (1)
 (2)
 (3)
 Pojazd gąsienicowy do transportu towarów (tak zwany „mini-trac”), z silnikiem tłokowym wewnętrznego spalania o zapłonie samoczynnym o pojemności skokowej cylindra 479 cm3, masie brutto pojazdu 2 085 kg i wymiarach w przybliżeniu 265cm × 95cm × 202 cm.
 Pojazd składa się z podwozia z platformą przechylną, otwieraną z trzech stron oraz z otwartej kabiny z siedziskiem dla kierowcy.
 Masa pojazdu bez obciążenia wynosi 840 kg, a jego maksymalna ładowność – 1 200 kg. Maksymalna prędkość pojazdu wynosi w przybliżeniu 6km/h.
 Pojazd, który jest przeznaczony do transportu i do wysypywania materiałów wydobytych lub innych materiałów na krótkich odcinkach na nierównym terenie, nie jest przeznaczony do użytku na drogach publicznych.
 (1) Zob. fotografia.
 8704 10 10
 Klasyfikacja wyznaczona jest przez reguły 1 i 6 Ogólnych reguł interpretacji Nomenklatury scalonej oraz brzmienie kodów CN 8704, 8704 10 i 8704 10 10.
 Pojazd przeznaczony jest do użytku poza drogami publicznymi na nierównym terenie, do transportu i wysypywania materiałów wydobytych lub innych materiałów. Ponadto pojazdy lekkie w rodzaju używanych na budowach klasyfikowane są jako pojazdy samowyładowcze (zob. również Noty wyjaśniające do HS do pozycji 8704 oraz Noty wyjaśniające do CN do kodów CN 8704 10 10 i 8704 10 90).
 Fakt, że pojazd jest wyposażony w platformę przechylną oraz gąsienice zamiast kół, nie wyklucza klasyfikacji jako pojazdu samowyładowczego (zob. również wyrok Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej w sprawie C-396/02).
 Zatem pojazd należy klasyfikować do kodu CN 8704 10 10 jako pojazd samowyładowczy zaprojektowany do stosowania poza drogami publicznymi.
 (1) Fotografia ma charakter wyłącznie informacyjny.


text:
 19.6.2010
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 C 161/30
 A Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Olaszország) által 2010. április 2-án benyújtott előzetes döntéshozatal iránti kérelem — Patrizia Banchetti kontra Ministero dell’Interno
 (C-166/10. sz. ügy)
 (2010/C 161/40)
 Az eljárás nyelve: olasz
 A kérdést előterjesztő bíróság
 Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
 Az alapeljárás felei
 Felperes: Patrizia Banchetti
 Alperes: Ministero dell’Interno
 Az előzetes döntéshozatalra előterjesztett kérdés:
 Összeegyeztethető-e az a nemzeti szabályozás (a 2006. augusztus 4-i 248. sz. törvénnyé alakított 2006. július 4-i 223. sz. rendelettörvény, a Bersani-rendelet elfogadásától kezdődően) az EK-Szerződés 43. és 49. cikkével, amely „olyan nemzeti rendszer, amely többek között az alábbiakat írja elő:
 a)
 egy korábbi időszakban az olyan eljárás lefolytatását követően kiadott koncessziók jogosultjainak általános védelme, amely eljárás jogellenesen zárta ki a gazdasági szereplők egy részét;
 b)
 olyan rendelkezések megléte, amelyek valójában a megszerzett kereskedelmi pozíciók fenntartását biztosítják (mint például annak megtiltása a koncessziók új jogosultjai számára, hogy értékesítő pultjaikat a már meglévőktől bizonyos meghatározott távolságon belül helyezzék el);
 c)
 a koncesszió megszűnése esetének szabályozása, abban az esetben, ha a koncesszió jogosultja közvetlenül vagy közvetetten a koncesszió tárgyát képezőhöz hasonló, határokon átnyúló játéktevékenységeket folytat.”


jurisdiction: US

text:
Belair Road, for the purpose of this case, will be considered to run north and south. Eierman Avenue, which is twenty-four feet two inches wide from curb to curb, runs to the west side of this road, and opposite this intersection on the east side is an alley nineteen feet two inches wide, which intersects Belair Road. The north side of Eierman Avenue, if projected across the road, would enter this alley at a little to the south of its center. One hundred and twenty feet north of the intersection of this alley and the Belair Road, and parallel with the alley, Nicholas Avenue enters from the east, but does not cross over Belair Road. It is twenty-three feet six inches wide from curb to curb. At this location the Belair Road is seventy-two feet and one-half inch from curb to curb. It is a modern, well-paved highway. In the middle of the road are two electric car tracks, the one to the west carries southbound traffic and the one to the east northbound traffic. From the west *Page 43
 rail of the northbound track to the east rail of the southbound track is about six feet and seven and one-half inches. Eighteen feet north of a line drawn from the northeast corner of the road and the aforesaid alley is a pylon and immediately north of the pylon, paralleling the east rail of the northbound track, is a safety zone about eighty-one feet long and three feet eight inches wide. From the west line of this safety zone to the east rail of the northbound track is about two and one-half feet and from the east curb of Belair Road to the east rail of the northbound track is a distance of twenty-three feet. On the west side of the road, paralleling the west rail of the southbound track, there is a similar safety zone, the pylon being at the north end thereof. At the northeast corner of Nicholas Avenue and Belair Road is a fruit stand. This location is in northeast Baltimore.
 Percy Winfield Baker lived on Seidel Avenue and at about 11 o'clock on the night of January 22, 1942, he left his home to go to a plant in southwest Baltimore, where he was employed. The night was clear and the street dry. He walked to Nicholas Avenue, thence west to the corner of that avenue and Belair Road, where he stopped for a few minutes. He could see, several blocks to the north, sparks caused by contact of the trolley pole with the wire and knew a southbound car was approaching before he could see it due to a hill that intervened. His intention was to take a southbound electric car and he usually boarded the car at the south end of the safety zone on the west side of the road as passengers were taken on in the front end of the car at that point. He walked to the north end of the safety zone on the east side of the road, down the safety zone to three feet north of the pylon at the southern end of the zone. While at that point he saw an automobile, its lights burning, traveling north, and it was at that time, he estimates, one hundred and twenty-five to one hundred and fifty feet from the pylon. He does not know how fast *Page 44
 it was approaching, but the uncontradicted evidence in the case is that it was running thirty miles an hour, which was the speed limit at that time. He says that the left-hand wheels of this automobile, when he first saw it, were on the east rail of the northbound track. It thus appears if its course had not been changed it would have hit the pylon. Running at thirty miles an hour an automobile travels forty-four feet per second, so that when he first saw this automobile, if we translate the speed to time, it was less than four seconds from him. The machine was traveling at a lawful rate of speed to the right of the center of the road and was in a place on the road where it had a right to be. The whole of the safety zone was between this alley on the south and Nicholas Avenue to the north. So that at the time the plaintiff saw this automobile he was in a safety zone, a place of safety erected for pedestrians to board electric cars, and this safety zone was between street intersections. The witness further stated that when he saw the automobile its front end deviated slightly to the right and he thought that it was going to pass to the right of the safety zone and not to the left. He further states that acting upon his assumption that the automobile would pass to the right of the safety zone, he left his position of safety behind the pylon and started to cross to the west side of the road. When he had taken one or two steps out, he testified, this automobile swerved suddenly to the left when it was twenty-five feet from him. He spun around in an effort to get back in the safety zone, was struck by the right fender of the car, his leg was broken and he was severely injured. There were only two witnesses to this accident and they are the driver of the car (the defendant here) and the plaintiff himself. The car travelled down near the fruit stand at Nicholas Avenue and stopped. The defendant got out of his car and went back to the plaintiff. At that time a gentleman and his wife, who lived in that block, having heard the impact, came out and were with the plaintiff. *Page 45
 An ambulance was called and he was taken to the hospital.
 The negligence upon which this case is grounded is charged to be the passing of this safety zone at the left, thus surprising the plaintiff who thought it was going to pass to the right. The plaintiff urges that he was not required to wait in a place of safety for five or six seconds when this car would have passed him and the accident would not have happened, but that under these circumstances he had a right, with this automobile only one hundred and fifty feet at most from him, to proceed across the Belair Road between intersections where the right of the motorist is preferred over the pedestrian, and it was negligence on the part of the motorist to pass the safety zone to the left and that the plaintiff was perfectly free of negligence contributing to the accident. We know of no authority that substantiates this contention. According to the plaintiff's own testimony he saw this car traveling in such a position along that road, which if continued it would have struck the pylon. He must have known, considering his testimony to be the true version of the accident, that the motorist would change the course of his car and thus avoid striking the pylon. He first said that the left wheels of this automobile were on the east rail of the northbound track; then that the front of it was pointing a little to the right and he left his place of safety upon the assumption that the car would go to the right of the pylon. When he had taken one or two steps from the place of safety, thus placing himself in a place of peril, he says, when this car was twenty-five feet from him it swerved to the left and thus caused the accident. So that the contention is that the operation of the automobile by the defendant mislead him and he started to cross the road. It seems to us to be quite extraordinary that a motorist operating his car at thirty miles an hour, when he gets one hundred and fifty feet from a pylon, would run directly towards it, shift a little to the right and then *Page 46
 suddenly swing to the left without coming into contact with the pylon.
 To lay down a rule of law that one who is in a place of safety upon the highway and sees an automobile, which, measured in time, is less than four seconds from him, could leave his place of safety upon the assumption that the motorist having the right of way would go to the right instead of to the left of the safety zone, and if the motorist surprised the pedestrian and took a course that the pedestrian thought that he would not take, that this would be negligence, would result in many more traffic accidents, which are now too many, and would be against public policy which labors for safety.
 The doctrine of the last clear chance has no application, for there was no evidence in the case whatever that the defendant, by the exercise of ordinary care and caution, saw the plaintiff in time to prevent the accident. It is one of those cases where one in a place of safety steps into a position of peril and is injured. Without passing upon the question of primary negligence, we consider the act of the plaintiff, under the circumstances in this case, in stepping from a place of safety into a place of peril, was so distinct, prominent and decisive as to amount to contributory negligence as a matter of law. Taxicab Co. ofBaltimore v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246, 93 A. 807; Jones v. Wayman,169 Md. 670, 182 A. 417; Bozman v. State, 177 Md. 151, 155, 9. A.2d 60; State v. Brandau, 176 Md. 584, 6 A.2d 233;Webb-Pepploe v Cooper, 159 Md. 426, 151 A. 235 State v.Insley, 181 Md. 347, 29 A.2d 904.
 The defendant's "B" prayer asked the court to instruct the jury "that from the uncontradicted evidence in this case the plaintiff was guilty of negligence directly contributing to the accident complained of and, therefore, their verdict must be for the defendant." This prayer should have been granted and the case withdrawn from the jury.
 Judgment reversed, with costs to appellant, without a newtrial *Page 47


text:
 12.6.2019
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 L 154/35
 REGOLAMENTO DI ESECUZIONE (UE) 2019/955 DELLA COMMISSIONE
 del 22 maggio 2019
 che conferisce la protezione di cui all'articolo 99 del regolamento (UE) n. 1308/2013 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio alla denominazione «Vallegarcía» (DOP)
 LA COMMISSIONE EUROPEA,
 visto il trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea,
 visto il regolamento (UE) n. 1308/2013 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 17 dicembre 2013, recante organizzazione comune dei mercati dei prodotti agricoli e che abroga i regolamenti (CEE) n. 922/72, (CEE) n. 234/79, (CE) n. 1037/2001 e (CE) n. 1234/2007 del Consiglio (1), in particolare l'articolo 99,
 considerando quanto segue:
 (1)
 Ai sensi dell'articolo 97, paragrafi 2 e 3, del regolamento (UE) n. 1308/2013, la domanda di registrazione della denominazione «Vallegarcía» presentata dalla Spagna è stata esaminata dalla Commissione e pubblicata nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea (2).
 (2)
 Alla Commissione non è pervenuta alcuna dichiarazione di opposizione ai sensi dell'articolo 98 del regolamento (UE) n. 1308/2013.
 (3)
 Ai sensi dell'articolo 99 del regolamento (UE) n. 1308/2013 la denominazione «Vallegarcía» dovrebbe essere protetta e registrata nel registro di cui all'articolo 104 dello stesso regolamento.
 (4)
 Le misure di cui al presente regolamento sono conformi al parere del comitato per l'organizzazione comune dei mercati agricoli,
 HA ADOTTATO IL PRESENTE REGOLAMENTO:
 Articolo 1
 La denominazione «Vallegarcía» (DOP) è protetta.
 Articolo 2
 Il presente regolamento entra in vigore il ventesimo giorno successivo alla pubblicazione nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea.
 Il presente regolamento è obbligatorio in tutti i suoi elementi e direttamente applicabile in ciascuno degli Stati membri.
 Fatto a Bruxelles, il 22 maggio 2019
 Per la Commissione,
 a nome del presidente
 Phil HOGAN
 Membro della Commissione
 (1) GU L 347 del 20.12.2013, pag. 671.
 (2) GU C 57 del 13.2.2019, pag. 10.


text:
 Conceito
 Rifa é um método tradicional de jogo de apostas onde o organizador da campanha de arrecadação oferece um brinde para ser sorteado entre os apoiadores em retribuição ao apoio recebido.
 Origem
 A rifa é popular na América do Sul, especialmente no Brasil, além de ser conhecida e utilizada em Portugal e na Itália. Apesar da ausência de documentação histórica sobre a rifa, acredita-se que ela tenha surgido em um restaurante no sul da Itália. O dono do restaurante, que estava em grave crise financeira, resolveu solicitar ajuda aos amigos e clientes para manter o estabelecimento aberto. Assim, ele pediu 30 contribuições (registradas sequencialmente em papel, de 1 a 30). Como agradecimento pelo apoio recebido, realizou um sorteio onde um dos doadores recebeu um prato de macarrão. Com o sucesso dessa campanha de arrecadação, os moradores da região passaram também a utilizar esse tipo de campanha, que logo se espalhou pelo resto da Itália e outros países. A rifa chegou ao Brasil provavelmente com a imigração italiana, que teve seu ápice no período entre 1880 e 1930.
 Distinção entre rifa e sorteio como jogo de azar
 Há muita confusão entre rifa e sorteio como jogo de azar. Mas o que diferencia a rifa do sorteio como jogo de azar é a motivação e o objetivo. A motivação da rifa é beneficente e seu objetivo não lucrativo. Desde sua origem, a rifa tem sido utilizada como um modo de angariar apoio financeiro dos amigos e conhecidos para superar um momento difícil, ou para manter um projeto ou ação sem fins lucrativos em curso.Outra configuração de financiamento coletivo na vida social é a ação entre amigos, a famosa rifa. O sistema em geral é o mesmo: diversos números são vendidos e alguns prêmios são sorteados no final. Porém o que move as pessoas a participar da rifa não é apenas o sorteio de uma recompensa material (ainda que seja um importante incentivo), mas sim a participação na construção de algo coletivo, na solução de um problema ou na realização de um sonho.Porém, não são todos que se sentem confortáveis em pedir sem dar nada em troca. Esse constrangimento em pedir e receber ajuda pode ter relação com cultura de voluntariado pouco desenvolvida em países latinos, assim como o baixo capital social. Por isso, as pessoas se sentem mais confortáveis em pedir ajuda quando podem oferecer algo em troca, mesmo com valor simbólico. Sendo a motivação beneficente, as pessoas apoiam uma campanha de arrecadação por meio de rifa não por causa do brinde, mas para poder ajudar um amigo, conhecido ou causa social. O que move os doadores é a solidariedade, sendo o brinde uma característica lúdica da campanha de arrecadação.
 Já o sorteio como jogo de azar, a motivação é o ganho e o objetivo é o lucro. Jogos de azar tem objetivo lucrativo, e muitas vezes estão organizados como atividade econômica/comercial contínua, como loterias. O que leva as pessoas a participarem de um sorteio é a possibilidade de ganhar algo, independente do que está por detrás da realização do sorteio. As pessoas que participam de loterias e jogos de azar não estão preocupadas com o destino do valor arrecadado pela venda de bilhetes. Para elas, a única motivação e interesse é a possibilidade aleatória do ganho. Nos jogos de azar o brinde é o ponto central da motivação, não havendo sentimento de solidariedade ou responsabilidade social.
 Ver também
 Loteria
 Bingo
 Tômbola
 Jogos


text:
Is í an Chasacstáin (Béarla: Kazakhstan, Casaicis: Қазақстан/Qazaqstan, Rúisis: Казахстан/Kazakhstán) an tír is mó i lár na hÁise. Is í Nur-Sultan príomhchathair na tíre. Cathair nua atá ann nach bhfuil ina príomhchathair ach ón mbliain 1997 anuas. Is í Almaty an iar-phríomhchathair. Bhain an tír amach an neamhspleáchas sa bhliain 1991, agus is é Nursultan Nazarbaev atá ina Uachtarán ón am sin anuas. Sna toghcháin i Mí na Nollag 2005, fuair Nazarbaev níos mó ná 90 % de na vótaí, ach má fuair féin, cháin na monatóirí idirnáisiúnta an toradh seo, agus iad den bharúil nár comhlíonadh an caighdeán idirnáisiúnta ó thaobh an daonlathais de.
 Is í an Chasaicis "teanga stáit" na tíre, ach san am céanna, is í an Rúisis an "teanga oifigiúil", agus í á labhairt go forleathan sa tír, go háirithe mar fhrancbhéarla idir na dreamanna eitneacha éagsúla.
 Tíreolaíocht
 Sroicheann an Chasacstáin ó bhruach na hEorpa go lár na hÁise. Tír Eoráiseach í, mar sin. Is féidir a rá go bhfuil an chuid is mó den tír suite san Áise, ar an taobh thoir d'Abhainn Ural. Tá an Chasacstáin ag críochantaíocht leis an Rúis, leis an tSín, leis an Tuircméanastáin, leis an Úisbéiceastáin agus leis an gCirgeastáin. Is í an Chasacstáin an naoú tír is mó sa domhan, ach san am céanna, níl cónaí ach ar 15.9 milliún duine ansin. Is é is cúis leis sin gur fásaigh atá i 44% thailte na tíre - is é sin, fásach nach bhfuil ach corrdhuine ina chónaí ansin. Tá an 11ú fásach ba mhó sa domhain, Kyzyl Kum (298,000 ciliméadar chearnach)le fáil i nDeisceart na tíre. Tá Khan Tangiri Shyngy mar an sliabh is airde sa tír (7,995m) agus deirtear gur cheann de na sléibhte is áille sa domhain toisc go bhfuil sé déanta as marmar dearg agus an siméadracht foirfe atá aige. Don chuid is mó is plána ollmhór í an Chasacstáin atá idir 200 agus 300 méadair ach thart timpeall ar an Mhuir Chaisp feictear cheann de na píosaí talún ba ísle sa domhain ar nós Vpadina Kaundy atá -132 méadair.Sna 1970dí bhfuair muintir an Aontas Sóivéadach amach go raibh a lán ór, airgid, chopar, ola, gás nádúrtha, alúmanam agus úráiniam le fáil ann. Cé nach bhfuil aon bealach isteach chuig an fharraige ag an tír, tá trí lochanna ollmhóra sa tír, Loch Balkash, an Mhuir Aral agus an Mhuir Chaisp a úsáideann siad chun iascaireacht agus i gcás an Mhuir Chaisp, roinnt mhaith trádáil chomh mhaith.
 Stair
 Tá áitreabh daonna sa Chasacstáin ón gClochaois anuas. Sa chuid ba mhó den tír, ba lucht fáin iad na cónaitheoirí, agus iad ag taisteal timpeall ar lorg féaraigh dá gcuid ainmhithe. Is é is dóigh lena lán staraithe gurb anseo ba thúisce a ceansaíodh an capall. Cé go raibh seanchathracha cosúil le Taraz agus Hazrat-e-Turkestan ina stáisiúin thábhachtacha acu siúd a bhí ag leanúint Bhóthar an tSíoda i dtreo na Síne, níor thosaigh an comhdhlúthú polaitiúil i ndáiríre sula ndearna na Mongólaigh ionradh ar na bólaí seo i dtús na tríú haoise déag. Faoi cheannas na Mongólach, roinneadh an Chasacstáin ina cúigí nó ina ceantair riaracháin, agus sa deireadh, tháinig Mathshlua Ak, nó Cánacht na gCasacach, ar an bhfód, mar chineál stát.
 San am seo, bhí na Casacaigh ag cloí lena sean-nósanna traidisiúnta ag fánaíocht timpeall sa steip. Sa chúigiú haois déag, thosaigh cineál comhfhéiniúlachta nó féiniúlacht náisiúnta ag forbairt i measc na dtreibheacha fánacha. Nuair a meascadh na canúintí Turcacha éagsúla tri chéile leis an gCasaicis a dhéanamh, bhí an fhorbairt seo críochnaithe. Mar sin féin, bhí an réigiún ina chnámh spairne idir na taoisigh dhúchasacha agus lucht labhartha na Peirsise ó dheas. I dtús na seachtú haoise déag, bhí an tír á streachailt as a chéile agus na treibheacha, nó na Mathshluaite, éagsúla in achrann a chéile. D'fhág an t-easaontas polaitiúil seo na Casacaigh an-lag, agus tháinig na treibheacha eile ag glacadh a mbuntáiste féin air seo. Sna 1720idí, d'ionsaigh na Dzungáraigh, treibh Mhongólach, an Chasacstáin, ach bhí Abul Khair Khan agus an Mathshlua Beag, a bhí faoina cheannas, - bhí siad ábalta an cath a bhriseadh ar na hionsaitheoirí.
 Sa naoú haois déag, thosaigh Impireacht na Rúise ag cúngú isteach ar na Casacaigh. Sna blianta 1813-1907, bhí an Rúis agus Impireacht na Breataine araon ag iarraidh tionchar polaitiúil a imirt ar Lár na hÁise - b'í sin tréimhse an Chluiche Mhóir, mar a thugtaí uirthi. I mblianta an Chluiche Mhóir, chuir na Rúisigh trúpaí armtha ar garastún ar fud na Casacstáin, agus thosaigh siad ag coilíniú na tíre agus ag cur a gcóras riaracháin féin i bhfeidhm uirthi. Níor thaithin seo leis na Casacaigh ar aon nós, nó bhí siad den tuairim gur chuir an míntíreachas isteach ar a seanbhealach maireachtála mar threibheacha fáin. Bhí na coilínithe agus na Casacaigh ag iomaíocht faoi uisce is faoi thailte, agus iad in achrann a chéile go minic. Sa bhliain 1916, d'éirigh na Casacaigh amach, agus iad ag marú Rúisigh gan an sibhialtach a aithint thar an saighdiúir. D'agair na Rúisigh díoltas cruálach orthu. Tháinig fórsa mór saighdiúirí a cuir d'fhiachaibh ar na Casacaigh cúlú go dtí na sléibhte agus a fhad leis an tSín, agus nuair a d'fhéach cuid acu filleadh abhaile sa bhliain a bhí chugainn, mharaigh na saighdiúirí Rúiseacha na mílte acu. Sna blianta 1921-22, bhí gorta mór sa tír, agus fuair milliún Casacach bás le hocras.
 Nuair a thit Impireacht na Rúise as a chéile, bhí cineál féinrialtais nó neamhspleáchais ag na Cosacaigh ar feadh tamaill, ach ansin, b'éigean dóibh glacadh le forlámhas na Rúise Sóivéadaí. Sa bhliain 1920, bronnadh stádas na Poblachta Féinrialaithí uirthi taobh istigh den stát Sóivéadach. Rinne na Sóivéadaigh sléacht ar na scothaicmí traidisiúnta agus chomhshealbhaigh siad na tailte, rud a rinne praiseach den churadóireacht, ionas gur tháinig gorta nua ar an tír. Sna blianta 1926-1939, glactar leis gur cailleadh beagnach duine as gach ceathrar de dheasca an fhoréigin, an ocrais agus na himirce. Mar sin féin, ghlac na daoine leor leis an gcumhacht Shóivéadach, agus chrom an brainse áitiúil de Pháirtí Cumannach an Aontais Shóivéadaigh ar an tír a Shóivéadú. Sa bhliain 1936, bhain an Chasacstáin amach stádas na Poblachta Sóivéadaí.
 Sna tríochaidí agus sna daichidí, tháinig na milliúin de dhaoine go dtí an Chasacstáin ó na poblachtaí Sóivéadacha ní b'fhaide siar. Daoine a bhí ina lán acu a díbríodh as iarthar na tíre ar chúiseanna polaitiúla nó creidimh - b'fhéidir go raibh baint acu le grúpa eitneach éigin nach raibh ag taithneamh le Stailín, b'fhéidir go raibh siad ina mbaill de sheict reiligiúnda éigin a bhí ródhíograiseach ag cur in aghaidh aindiachas oifigiúil an Stáit Shóivéadaigh - agus is iomaí duine acu a coinníodh i mbraighdeanas sna campaí daorbhroide. Bhí campaí móra den chineál sin sa Chasacstáin, cosúil le Kengir, áit ar éirigh na príosúnaigh amach sa bhliain 1954, nó Ekibastuz, áit ar chaith Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn cuid mhaith dá théarma príosúnachta féin.
 Sa bhliain 1947, bunaíodh ionad tástála buamaí adamhacha in aice le Semipalatinsk (inniu, Semey). B'é an t-ionad tástála ba tábhachtaí den chineál sin san Aontas Sóivéadach. Pléascadh an chéad bhuama adamhach Sóivéadach ansin sa bhliain 1949, agus thit cuid mhaith den astitim núicléach anuas ar shráidbhailte Casacacha nach raibh a muintir aslonnaithe.
 I ndiaidh bhás Stailín, chrom Nikita Khrushchev ar scéim uaillmhianach mhíntíreachais le steip na Casacstáine a iompú ina machaire méith curadóireachta. Níor éirigh leis an scéim ach go lagmheasartha, ach mar sin, ba tús é don fhorbairt mhór a rinneadh ar earnáil na talmhaíochta sa Chasacstáin ina dhiaidh sin, agus is í an talmhaíocht an tslí bheatha is tábhachtaí sa tír i gcónaí.
 Sna hochtóidí, bhí an mhíshástacht ag dul i méadaíocht sa tír, agus an ghlúin óg, ach go háirithe, ag cur in aghaidh an rialtais Shóivéadaigh. I Mí na Nollag 1986, d'iompaigh léirsithe na mac léinn in Almaty ina scliúchais, agus chuir na trúpaí Rúiseacha an míshuaimhneas faoi chois go míthrócaireach. Fuair níos mó ná céad duine óg bás, agus cimíodh cuid mhór eile. Is gnách "Zheltoqsan" a thabhairt ar an gceannairc seo, ós é sin an focal Casaicise a chiallaíonn "Mí na Nollag".
 Timpeallacht
 Tá a lán truailliú tar éis tarlú sa Chasacstáin thar na mblianta ach go háirithe sa 20ú haois faoi cheannasaíocht an A.P.S.S.. Ceann de na fadhbanna ba shoiléire atá tar éis teacht chun cinn le déanaí ná an laghdú ollmhór ar méid an uisce sa Mhuir Aral, i 1993 bhí laghdú 60% tar éis teacht ar méid an uisce sa loch. Mar gheall ar seo tá an tionscal iascaireachta sa réigiúin tar éis theipeadh go hiomlán go fíor tapaidh. Tharla seo nuair a méidigh Nikita Kruschev agus Leonid Brezhnev méid feirmeoireachta gCasacstáin toisc go raibh an chóras uisciú ag teacht go huil is go hiomlán ón Syr Darya agus Amu Darya, an dá abhaineacha a raibh ag líonadh an loch ar feadh na mílte bliain. Anois tá fadhb mór sa réigiún le stoirm deannaigh ag loite na háite toisc go bhfuil méid mhór sallann a raibh san uisce ach anois atá ag meascadh le hithir na háite, mar gheall ar seo níl siad ábalta iascaracht nó feirmeoireacht a dhéanamh.
 Ag an am chéanna tá an Mhuir Chaisp ag méadú gan chúis chinnte dar le heolaithe agus tá a lán tuillte ag tarlú thart timpeall ar an mhuir ag scriosann bailte iascaireachta na háite. Deirtear go mbeidh an chuid is mó den talamh timpeall na mara, 88 bailte agus cathracha móra agus chuid mhaith olacheantaracha ina measc, faoi uisce i gceann tamaill.
 Fadhb eile timpeallachta ollmhór ná na buamaí núicléacha a phléasc na Sóivéadaigh sa fásaigh i Casacstáin gan fiú rá le muintir na háite cad a raibh á dhéanamh acu. Phléasc siad beagnach 500 buamaí sa réigiúin idir 1944 agus 1990 ag scriosadh talamh na háite agus saoil muintir na háite mar gheall ar na ghalair atá siad tar éis tabhairt dóibh ar nós nimhiú raidíochta agus leoicéime.
 Chomh maith le seo tarlaíonn roinnt mhaith tubaistí nádúrtha i gCasacstáin. I ndeiscart na tíre feictear roinnt mhaith creathanna talún go minic agus in Almaty, sean phríomhchathair an Chasacstáin, tarlaíon chuid mhaith sleamhnú láibe dáinséireacha.
 Cultúr
 Tá cultúr suimiúil tar éis teacht chun cinn i Casacstáin toisc an nascadh idir cultúir na Casacstáine, cultúr na Rúise agus cultúr na tSíne. Ó thaobh bia de itear béilte déanta suas as caoireoil agus capall. An béile a fheictear ba mhinicí i gCasacstáin ná Besbarmak, béile ina itear chuid is mó de caora le daoine áirithe ag ithe codanna áirithe den caora, ar nós itheann na pháistí na duáin agus an chroí. Itheann siad ispíní déanta as feoil chapaill go minic darbh ainm kazy nó shuzhuk.
 Tá cúrsaí na meán fíor chonspóideach go hidirnáisiúnta le hiriseoirí toisc cé go bhfuil sé i bhfad níos saoire ná tíortha eile sa réigiún, cheaptar gur bhréag í seo agus nach bhfuil mórán saoirseacht ag na meán. Chúis amháin go gcreideann daoine seo ná gur leis iníon Narsultan Nazabayev, Dariga Nazarbayeva, an chuid is mó de na meáin. Tá chuid mhaith cinsireachta ar siúl ar an idirlíon sa tír.
 Gné mhór i saol mhuintir na Casacstáine ná a gceol. Cloistear ceol traidisiúnta go minic sa tír, ach go háirithe faoin tuath. Gléas an coitianta sa cheol traidisiúnta ná an dombra mar a fheictear sa pictiúr den stampa. Tá muintir na Chasacstáine ag seinnt an dombra, liúit fada le dhá sreanga. Gléas eile a fheictear i gCasacstáin go minic ná fidil darbh ainm an Qobyz. Tá athbheochan cheoil traidisiúnta ar siúl le déanaí agus tá ag éirí go maith leis. Is gá go ndéanfadh siad seo toisc gur bhunaigh na Rúisigh agus na Sóivéadaigh roinnt mhaith ceoláraisí claisiceacha timpeall na tíre.
 I ndiaidh dóibh neamhspleáchas a fháil, bhí an chuid deacrachtaí acu foireann spóirt rathúil a chur chun cinn, ach le dornáilíocht tá siad tar éis spórt a aimsiú a tá roinnt dóibh iontach aige agus tá siad tar éis clú agus cáil a fháil toisc a scil ag dornálaíocht. I 1996 agus 2004 bhuaigh Chasacstánaigh an Chorn Val Barker, Chorn a thugtar don dornálaí is sciliúil sna Cluichí Oilimpeacha. I 2000 Bhuaigh dornáilithe na Casacsaine dhá bhonn óir agus dhá bhonn airgid.
 Litríocht
 As Béarla
 Baipakov, K., 1998, "The Medieval Towns and Settlements of Kazakstan in the VI-XVIII cc." i A.K. Akhmetov, History of Kazakstan, Essays, CH. CH. Valikhanov History and Ethnology Institute agus Gylym Publishing House, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 15-19.
 Kadyrbaev, A., 1998, "Kazakhstan in the time of the Mongolian Conquest" i A.K. Akhmetov, History of Kazakstan, Essays, CH. CH. Valikhanov History and Ethnology Institute agus Gylym Publishing House, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 38-42.
 Féach ar
 An Áise
 Tagairtí
 An Chasacstáin
 C


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21999D0410(03)
 Decision No 2/1999 of the Association Council between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part of 16 March 1999 adopting the necessary rules for the implementation of Article 64(1)(i) and (ii) and Article 64(2) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part, and the rules for the implementation of Article 9(1)(1) and (2) and Article 9(2) of Protocol 2 on ECSC products to the same Agreement
 Official Journal L 096 , 10/04/1999 P. 0022 - 0025
 DECISION No 2/1999 OF THE ASSOCIATION COUNCILbetween the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other partof 16 March 1999adopting the necessary rules for the implementation of Article 64(1)(i) and (ii) and Article 64(2) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part, and the rules for the implementation of Article 9(1)(1) and (2) and Article 9(2) of Protocol 2 on ECSC products to the same Agreement(1999/249/EC, ECSC, Euratom)THE ASSOCIATION COUNCIL,Having regard to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part(1), and in particular Article 64(3) thereof,Having regard to Protocol 2 on ECSC products to the said Europe Agreement, and in particular Article 9(3) thereof,Whereas Article 64(3) of the Europe Agreement lays down that the Association Council shall, within three years of the entry into force of the Agreement, adopt by decision the necessary rules for the implementation of paragraphs 1 and 2 of that Article;Whereas Article 9(3) of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement lays down that the Association Council shall, within three years of the entry into force of the Agreement, adopt by decision the necessary rules for the implementation of paragraphs 1 and 2 of that Article,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Sole ArticleThe necessary rules for the implementation of Article 64(1)(i) and (ii) and Article 64(2) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part, and the rules for the implementation of Article 9(1)(1) and (2) and Article 9(2) of Protocol 2 on ECSC products to the Europe Agreement, as set out in the Annex to this Decision, are hereby adopted.Done at Brussels, 16 March 1999.For the Association CouncilThe PresidentJ. FISCHER(1) OJ L 357, 31.12.1994, p. 2.ANNEXIMPLEMENTING RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE COMPETITION PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO UNDERTAKINGS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 64(1)(i) AND (ii) AND ARTICLE 64(2) OF THE EUROPE AGREEMENT AND ARTICLE 9(1)(1) AND (2) AND ARTICLE 9(2) OF PROTOCOL 2 ON ECSC PRODUCTS TO THAT AGREEMENTArticle 1General principleCases relating to agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices between undertakings which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition and cases relating to abuses of a dominant position in the territories of the Community or of Romania as a whole or in a substantial part thereof, which may affect trade between the Community and Romania, shall be settled according to the principles contained in Article 64(1) and (2) of the Europe Agreement.For this purpose, the cases are dealt with by the Commission of the European Communities (DG IV) ("Commission") on the Community side and the Competition Office and the Competition Council (COCC) on the Romanian side.The competences of the Commission and the COCC to deal with these cases shall flow from the existing rules of the respective legislation of the Community and Romania, including where these rules are applied to undertakings located outside the respective territory.Both authorities shall settle the cases in accordance with their own substantive rules, and having regard to the provisions set out below. The relevant substantive rules of the authorities are the competition rules of the Treaty establishing the European Community as well as of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community including the competition-related secondary legislation, for the Commission, and the Romanian Competition Law No 21 of 10 April 1996, for the COCC.ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES UNDER THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITYArticle 2Competence of both competition authoritiesCases under Article 64 of the Europe Agreement which may affect both the Community and the Romanian market and which may fall under the competence of both competition authorities shall be dealt with by the Commission and the COCC, according to the rules under this Article.1. Notification(a) The competition authorities shall notify to each other those cases they are dealing with, which, according to the general principle laid out in Article 1, appear to fall also under the competence of the other authority.(b) This situation may arise in particular in cases concerning activities that:- involve anti-competitive activities carried out in the other authority's territory,- are relevant to enforcement activities of the other competition authority,- involve remedies that would require or prohibit conduct in the other authority's territory.(c) Notification under this Article shall include sufficient information to permit an initial evaluation by the recipient Party of any effects on its interests. Copies of the notifications shall be submitted on a regular basis to the Association Council under the Europe Agreement.(d) Notification shall be made in advance, as soon as possible and at the latest at the stage of an investigation still far enough in advance of the adoption of a settlement or decision, so as to facilitate comments or consultations and to enable the proceeding authority to take into account the other authority's views, as well as to take such remedial action it may find feasible under its own laws, in order to deal with the case in question.2. Consultation and comityWhenever the Commission or the COCC considers that anti-competitive activities carried out on the territory of the other authority are substantially affecting important interests of the respective Party, it may request consultation with the other authority, or it may request that the other Party's competition authority initiate any appropriate procedures with a view to taking remedial action under its legislation on anti-competitive activities. This is without prejudice to any action under the requesting Party's competition law and does not hamper the full freedom of ultimate decision of the authority so addressed.3. Finding of an understandingThe competition authority so addressed shall give full and sympathetic consideration to such views and factual materials as may be provided by the requesting authority and, in particular, to the nature of the anti-competitive activities in question, the enterprises involved and the alleged harmful effects on the important interests of the requesting Party.Without prejudice to any of their rights or obligations, the competition authorities involved in consultations under this Article shall endeavour to find a mutually acceptable solution in the light of the respective important interests involved.Article 3Competence of one competition authority only1. Cases falling under the exclusive competence of one competition authority, in accordance with the principle laid down in Article 1, which may affect important interests of the other Party shall be handled having regard to the provisions set out in Article 2, taking account of the principles set out below.2. In particular, whenever one of the competition authorities undertakes an investigation or proceeding in a case which is found to affect important interests of the other Party, the proceeding authority shall notify this case to the other authority, without formal request by the latter.Article 4Request for informationWhenever the competition authority of a Party becomes aware of the fact that a case, falling also or only under the competence of the other authority, appears to affect important interests of the first Party, it may request information about this case from the proceeding authority.The proceeding authority shall give sufficient information to the extent possible and at a stage of its proceedings far enough in advance of the adoption of a decision or settlement to enable the requesting authority's views to be taken into account.Article 5Secrecy and confidentiality of information1. Having regard to Article 64(7) of the Europe Agreement, neither competition authority is required to provide information to the other authority if disclosure of that information to the requesting authority is prohibited by the law of the authority possessing the information, or would be incompatible with important interests of the Party whose authority is in possession of the information.2. Each authority agrees to maintain, to the fullest extent possible, the confidentiality of any information provided to it in confidence by the other authority.Article 6Block exemptionsIn the application of Article 64 of the Europe Agreement as provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of these Implementing Rules, the competition authorities shall ensure that the principles contained in the block exemption regulations in force in the Community shall be applied in full. The COCC shall be informed of any procedure related to the adoption, abolition or modification of block exemptions by the Community.Where such block exemption regulations encounter serious objections on the Romanian side, and having regard to the approximation of legislation as foreseen in the Europe Agreement, consultations shall take place in the Association Council, in accordance with the provisions contained in Article 9.The same principles shall apply regarding other significant changes in the Community or Romanian competition policies.Article 7Merger controlWith regard to mergers which fall within Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings(1), and which have a significant impact on the Romanian economy, the COCC shall be entitled to express its view in the course of the procedure, taking into account the time limits as provided for in the aforementioned Regulation. The Commission shall give due consideration to that view, without prejudice to any action under the Parties' respective competition laws.Article 8Activities of minor importance1. Anti-competitive activities whose effects on trade between the Parties or on competition are negligible do not fall under Article 64(1) of the Europe Agreement and, therefore, are not to be treated under Articles 2 to 6 of these implementing rules.2. Negligible effects within the meaning of paragraph 1 are generally presumed to exist when:- the aggregate annual turnover of the participating undertakings does not exceed ECU 200 million, and- the goods or services which are the subject of the Agreement together with the participating undertakings' other goods or services which are considered by users to be equivalent in view of their characteristics, price and intended use, do not represent more than 5 % of the total market for such goods or services in the area of the common market affected by the Agreement, and the Romanian market affected by the Agreement.Article 9Association Council1. Whenever the procedures provided for in Articles 2 and 3 above do not lead to a mutually acceptable solution, as well as in other cases explicitly mentioned in these implementing rules, an exchange of views shall take place in the Association Council at the request of one Party within 3 months following the request.2. Following this exchange of views, or after expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 1, the Association Council may make appropriate recommendations for the settlement of these cases, without prejudice to Article 64(6) of the Europe Agreement. In these recommendations, the Association Council may take into account any failure of the requested authority to give its point of view to the requesting authority within the period referred to in paragraph 1.3. These procedures in the Association Council are without prejudice to any action under the respective competition laws in force in the territory of the Parties.Article 10Negative conflict of competenceWhen both the Commission and the COCC consider that neither of them is competent to handle a case on the basis of their respective legislation, an exchange of views shall take place on request in the Association Council. The Community and Romania shall endeavour to find a mutually acceptable solution in the light of the respective important interests involved with the support of the Association Council, which may make appropriate recommendations, without prejudice to Article 64(6) of the Europe Agreement, and the rights of individual Member States of the European Communities on the basis of their competition rules.ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES UNDER THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY (ECSC)Article 11ECSC TreatyThe provisions contained in Articles 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 above shall apply with respect to the coal and steel sector as referred to in Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement.ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCEArticle 12LanguagesThe Commission and the COCC shall provide for practical arrangements, for mutual assistance or any other appropriate solution concerning in particular the question of translations.(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 (OJ L 180, 9.7.1997, p. 1 ).


text:
 3.10.2015
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 258/1
 UITVOERINGSVERORDENING (EU) 2015/1770 VAN DE COMMISSIE
 van 29 september 2015
 tot goedkeuring van een niet-minimale wijziging van het productdossier van een benaming die is opgenomen in het register van beschermde oorsprongsbenamingen en beschermde geografische aanduidingen (Laguiole (BOB))
 DE EUROPESE COMMISSIE,
 Gezien het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie,
 Gezien Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 21 november 2012 inzake kwaliteitsregelingen voor landbouwproducten en levensmiddelen (1), en met name artikel 52, lid 2,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 Overeenkomstig artikel 53, lid 1, eerste alinea, van Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012 heeft de Commissie zich gebogen over de aanvraag van Frankrijk tot goedkeuring van een wijziging van het productdossier van de beschermde oorsprongsbenaming „Laguiole”, die is geregistreerd bij Verordening (EG) nr. 1107/96 van de Commissie (2), als gewijzigd bij Verordening (EG) nr. 782/2008 van de Commissie (3).
 (2)
 Aangezien de betrokken wijziging niet minimaal is in de zin van artikel 53, lid 2, van Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012, heeft de Commissie de wijzigingsaanvraag overeenkomstig artikel 50, lid 2, onder a), van die verordening bekendgemaakt in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 (4).
 (3)
 Aangezien de Commissie geen enkel bezwaar overeenkomstig artikel 51 van Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012 heeft ontvangen, moet de wijziging van het productdossier worden goedgekeurd,
 HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 De in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie bekendgemaakte wijziging van het productdossier met betrekking tot de benaming „Laguiole” (BOB) wordt goedgekeurd.
 Artikel 2
 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de twintigste dag na die van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 29 september 2015.
 Voor de Commissie,
 namens de voorzitter,
 Phil HOGAN
 Lid van de Commissie
 (1) PB L 343 van 14.12.2012, blz. 1.
 (2) Verordening (EG) nr. 1107/96 van de Commissie van 12 juni 1996 betreffende de registratie van de geografische aanduidingen en oorsprongsbenamingen in het kader van de procedure van artikel 17 van Verordening (EEG) nr. 2081/92 van de Raad (PB L 148 van 21.6.1996, blz. 1).
 (3) Verordening (EG) nr. 782/2008 van de Commissie van 5 augustus 2008 tot goedkeuring van niet-minimale wijzigingen van het productdossier voor een benaming die is opgenomen in het register van beschermde oorsprongsbenamingen en beschermde geografische aanduidingen (Laguiole (BOB)) (PB L 209 van 6.8.2008, blz. 3).
 (4) PB C 156 van 12.5.2015, blz. 10.


text:
 25.4.2013
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 118/33
 ROZSUDEK SOUDU
 ze dne 11. prosince 2012
 ve věci E-2/12
 HOB-vín ehf. v. Islandská státní alkoholová a tabáková společnost (ÁTVR)
 (volný pohyb zboží – směrnice 2000/13/ES – zahrnutí výrobků – označování potravin – zavádějící označení – neoznámení vnitrostátního opatření Kontrolnímu úřadu ESVO – odůvodnění – odpovědnost státu)
 2013/C 118/09
 Ve věci E-2/12 HOB-vín ehf. v. Islandská státní alkoholová a tabáková společnost (ÁTVR) – ŽÁDOST o stanovisko Soudního dvora podle článku 34 Dohody mezi státy ESVO o zřízení Kontrolního úřadu a Soudního dvora předložená soudem Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (okresním soudem v Reykjavíku) ohledně otázky, zda jsou s dohodou o EHP slučitelná vnitrostátní pravidla, podle nichž podnik, který má státní monopol na maloobchodní prodej alkoholu, může za určitých podmínek odmítnout prodávat alkoholické nápoje legálně vyrobené a na trh uváděné v jiném státě EHP – Soud ve složení Carl Baudenbacher (předseda), Per Christiansen (soudce-zpravodaj) a Páll Hreinsson (soudce) vynesl dne 11. prosince 2012 rozsudek, jehož výrok zní:
 1)
 Článek 18 směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady 2000/13/ES ze dne 20. března 2000 o sbližování právních předpisů členských států týkajících se označování potravin, jejich obchodní úpravy a související reklamy zakazuje takový předpis, jakým je článek 5.10 pravidel pro výběr výrobků, jímž ÁTVR odmítá prodej alkoholických nápojů, které jsou legálně vyrobené a prodávané v jiném státě EHP, na základě toho, že příslušný štítek obsahuje zavádějící nebo nesouvisející informace o výrobku.
 Skutečnost, zda se pravidla pro výběr výrobků uplatňují stejně na domácí i zahraniční výrobky, nemá v tomto směru žádný význam.
 2)
 Vnitrostátní předpis, jako je článek 8 islandského nařízení č. 828/2005 o komerční produkci, dovozu a velkoobchodním prodeji alkoholu, který vyžaduje, aby se na balení nápojů s obsahem alkoholu vyšším než 1,2 % uváděla kromě skutečného objemového obsahu alkoholu zmínka, že nápoj obsahuje alkohol, nelze považovat za účinný a nelze umožnit, aby tato podmínka představovala pro jednotlivce a hospodářské subjekty zátěž, byla-li přijata bez ohledu na postup vyplývající z článku 19 směrnice 2000/13/ES.
 3)
 Jednotlivci a hospodářské subjekty, kteří byli poškozeni nesprávným uplatňováním směrnice 2000/13/ES, se mohou odvolávat na volný pohyb zboží s cílem povolat stát k odpovědnosti za porušení práva EHP.
 Škoda způsobená vnitrostátním opatřením, jaké je popsáno v první otázce, vyvolává odpovědnost státu, pokud vnitrostátní soud zjistí, že uplatňováním vnitrostátních právních nebo správních předpisů se dostatečně závažně porušuje právo EHP a že existuje přímá příčinná souvislost mezi porušením povinnosti tohoto státu a škodou způsobenou dotčené straně.
 Porušení práva EHP je dostatečně závažné tehdy, je-li škoda způsobena takovým vnitrostátním opatřením, jaké je popsáno ve druhé otázce, a jestliže vnitrostátní právní a správní předpisy nemohou být považovány za účinné z toho důvodu, že členský stát přijetí tohoto předpisu neoznámil podle článku 19 směrnice 2000/13/ES. Takové porušení povolává stát k odpovědnosti, pokud vnitrostátní soud zjistí přímou příčinnou souvislost mezi porušením povinnosti, která je uložena státu, a škodou způsobenou dotčené straně.


text:
 1772 (MDCCLXXII) a fost un an bisect al calendarului gregorian, care a început într-o zi de marți.
 Evenimente
 Arte, știință, literatură și filozofie
 Nașteri
 3 februarie: Pierre Claude Pajol, general francez (d. 1844)
 7 aprilie: Charles Fourier, filosof utopist și economist francez (d. 1837)
 15 august: Johann Nepomuk Maelzel, inventator german (d. 1838)
 24 august: William I (Willem Frederik Prins van Oranje-Nassau), rege al Olandei (d. 1843)
 Decese
 Vezi și
 Listă de conducători de stat din 1772


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22002D0619
 2002/619/CE: Decisión n° 2/2002, de 20 de junio de 2002, del Comité mixto creado de conformidad con el Acuerdo sobre el reconocimiento mutuo entre la Comunidad Europea y Japón, relativa a la creación de un subcomité para el anexo sectorial sobre normas correctas de fabricación (NCF) para los medicamentos
 Diario Oficial n° L 197 de 26/07/2002 p. 0050 - 0052
 Decisión no 2/2002de 20 de junio de 2002del Comité mixto creado de conformidad con el Acuerdo sobre el reconocimiento mutuo entre la Comunidad Europea y Japón, relativa a la creación de un subcomité para el anexo sectorial sobre normas correctas de fabricación (NCF) para los medicamentos(2002/619/CE)EL COMITÉ MIXTO,Visto el Acuerdo sobre el reconocimiento mutuo entre la Comunidad Europea y Japón y, en particular, el apartado 2 de su artículo 8,Considerando que el apartado 6 del anexo sectorial sobre normas correctas de fabricación (NCF) para los medicamentos prevé la creación de un subcomité.DECIDE:1. Por la presente se crea un subcomité del Comité mixto para el anexo sectorial sobre normas correctas de fabricación (NCF) para los medicamentos. El subcomité funcionará de conformidad con el reglamento adjunto.2. La presente Decisión, hecha por duplicado, será firmada por los copresidentes y surtirá efecto a partir de la fecha de la última firma.Tokio, el 6 de junio de 2002Bruselas, el 20 de junio de 2002En nombre de JapónJun ShimmiEn nombre de la Comunidad EuropeaPhilippe MeyerANEXOREGLAMENTOdel subcomité para el anexo sectorial sobre normas correctas de fabricación (NCF) para los medicamentos1. IntroducciónEl cometido del subcomité (SC) para el anexo sectorial sobre normas correctas de fabricación para los medicamentos (anexo) al Acuerdo sobre el reconocimiento mutuo entre la Comunidad Europea y Japón será, de conformidad con el apartado 6 del anexo, supervisar el progreso de los trabajos, tanto en la fase preparatoria como en la operativa. Para asegurar el funcionamiento eficaz del SC, la descripción que figura en el anexo se completa del siguiente modo en cuanto a sus responsabilidades, composición, y procedimientos2. CompetenciasLas responsabilidades del SC farmacéutico serán las siguientes:a) informar con al Comité mixto y comunicar con el mismo;b) coordinar las actividades conjuntas;c) supervisar el progreso del trabajo preparatorio del anexo y del funcionamiento del mismo;d) facilitar la colaboración y las comunicaciones reguladoras entre las autoridades competentes japonesas y comunitarias;e) establecer un procedimiento de coordinación de la equivalencia de las NCF para productos concretos o tipos de productos;f) discutir y resolver, siempre que sea posible, cualquier problema importante que surja y presentar al Comité mixto las cuestiones que no puedan resolverse;g) establecer y mantener una lista de puntos de contacto para cada Parte;y en especial, por lo que se refiere a la fase preparatoria:h) asegurarse de que se comunica a los organismos apropiados la documentación e información necesarias para reconfirmar la equivalencia;i) acordar procedimientos de alerta detallados;j) reconfirmar la equivalencia de las NCF y su aplicación;k) identificar productos y clases de productos que responden a la definición de medicamentos en el ámbito del anexo;l) preparar, para su adopción por el Comité mixto, la definición de casos de urgencia y las modalidades de visitas a las fábricas en estos casos;m) desarrollar procedimientos para el intercambio de documentos e información;n) preparar los procedimientos detallados para la aplicación del anexo, que deberán ser decididos por el Comité mixto.3. Composición de los SCEl SC se compondrá del siguiente modo:a) Cada Parte designará a un representante que presidirá, conjuntamente con el representante designado por la otra Parte, las reuniones del SC. La participación de cada Parte en el SC deberá ser equilibrada en cuanto al número de componentes de sus delegaciones respectivas.b) No participarán en las reuniones del subcomité elementos externos, tales como representantes de la industria, las asociaciones comerciales, o la prensa. Todos los asistentes a las reuniones estarán sujetos a los mismos imperativos que los empleados de la autoridad reguladora en lo que se refiere a confidencialidad, conflictos de intereses y discreción. La Parte a la que represente una determinada persona garantizará la sujeción de esa persona a los mencionados imperativos.4. Desarrollo de las reunionesa) Salvo decisión en contrario, las reuniones del subcomité no serán públicas.b) El SC se reunirá como mínimo una vez al año personalmente, o por teleconferencia con el acuerdo de ambas Partes. Si así lo requiriera el funcionamiento eficaz del anexo, y a instancia de cualquiera de las Partes, se celebrarán reuniones adicionales.c) El SC se reunirá cuatro veces durante los 18 meses de la fase preparatoria, salvo decisión en contrario.d) Los copresidentes fijarán de común acuerdo la fecha y el lugar exacto de las futuras reuniones.e) El proyecto de orden del día para cada reunión será elaborado por la copresidencia anfitriona de la misma y se distribuirá a los participantes, junto con la lista de participantes, con la debida antelación.f) Los copresidentes se pondrán de acuerdo sobre el proyecto de orden del día.g) Cada Parte se esforzará en distribuir los trabajos e informes, que deberán presentarse al menos dos semanas antes de cada reunión.h) En el plazo de dos semanas a contar desde el fin de cada reunión, la Parte anfitriona elaborará y distribuirá un cuadro de las acciones acordadas; en el plazo de un mes a contar desde el fin de cada reunión, elaborará y distribuirá el proyecto de acta resumida de la misma.i) El proyecto de acta resumida y el cuadro de las acciones acordadas deberán estar concluidos y firmados por ambos copresidentes en el plazo de otras cuatro semanas.j) El SC celebrará reuniones ad hoc a solicitud de cualquiera de las Partes y con la frecuencia que ambas estimen necesaria para cumplir las obligaciones establecidas en el anexo.k) Las cuestiones logísticas correrán a cargo de la Parte anfitriona. Las reuniones convocadas por videoconferencia o teleconferencia correrán a cargo de la copresidencia que solicitó la reunión.l) Régimen lingüístico:- la comunicación escrita entre las copresidencias se realizará en inglés,- en cada reunión del SC, la Parte anfitriona proporcionará interpretación entre el japonés y el inglés y se hará cargo del coste de la misma.5. Adopción de documentosEl SC:a) adoptará el orden del día en cada reunión;b) revisará en cada reunión el cuadro de acciones acordadas en la reunión anterior;c) adoptará la documentación que se haya de presentar al Comité mixto;d) adoptará los documentos por consenso. En caso de divergencia de las Partes respecto a un tema determinado, se podrá elaborar un documento para exponer las respectivas posiciones.6. Información al Comité mixto sobre los AcuerdosEl SC:a) informará por escrito al Comité mixto sobre el resultado de la fase preparatoria;b) transmitirá al Comité mixto copias de los órdenes del día adoptados y de las actas resumidas, al menos de los de sus reuniones anuales formales.7. Comunicaciones a otras Partes interesadasa) Al final de cada reunión, las Partes elaborarán una declaración común sobre la situación y funcionamiento del anexo, según el caso.b) Esta comunicación exterior se habrá de publicar a la mayor brevedad después de cada reunión; cada Parte distribuirá la declaración común del modo que considere adecuado.