text:
archive-dk.com: elmer-adv.dk - Rygersagen om Prince cigaretten ankes til Højesteret og Elmer Partnere overtager sagen - Elmer & Partnere Elmer & Partnere
 Rygersagen om Prince cigaretten ankes til Højesteret og Elmer Partnere overtager sagen - Elmer & Partnere Elmer & Partnere
 den nødvendige tid til at behandle sagen i Højesteret Der henvises i øvrigt til pressemeddelelse der i dag er udsendt Klik her Henvendelse om sagen kan ske til advokat Karsten Høj Kommentarer 0 Skriv et svar Name E Mail Website Din kommentar Anuller svar Tilmeld dig nyhedsbrev Seneste nyheder Deltid til handicappede hvor langt går pligten April 21 2016 Gratis retshjælp hos Elmer Partnere d 14 april April 06 2016 Elmer Partnere får medhold i endnu en sag om erstatning for mangelfuld sagsbehandling March 21 2016 Nyhedsarkiv Nyhedsarkiv Select Month April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 June 2008 March 2008 February 2008 December 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006
 Original URL path: http://www.elmer-adv.dk/rygersagen-om-prince-cigaretten-ankes-til-hojesteret-og-elmer-partnere-overtager-sagen/ (2016-04-26)
 Dom om ulovlig reduktion af erstatning til kræftsyg kvinde er anket til Højesteret, der allerede behandler sagen 29. maj 2012 - Elmer & Partnere Elmer & Partnere
 er den første og dermed eneste sag hvor Nævnet har taget stilling til reduktion af erstatningen med henvisning til forventet kort restlevetid hvor patienten er i live Det er muligt men helt uoplyst at Patientforsikringen som underinstans har truffet flere eller måske endda mange tilsvarende afgørelser Men det kan blot ikke begrunde at Nævnet anker dommen til Højesteret Nævnet blev oprindeligt da Elmer Partnere indgav klage opfordret til på et formandsmøde at tage principiel stilling til sagens juridiske spørgsmål Intet tyder på at det er sket Der er heller ikke noget der tyder på at beslutningen om anke af dommen til Højesteret har været forelagt alle formænd til fælles beslutning Det ligger helt fast at den af Østre Landsret underkendte afgørelse ikke hviler på noget sikkert lovgrundlag men alene på almindelige erstatningsretlige principper sådan som Nævnet også skriver i deres pressemeddelelse Det havde derfor været passende om man havde accepteret dommens klare resultat og i stedet bedt politikkerne om at godkende den af Patientforsikringen fulgte praksis ved at indføre lovregler der giver det nødvendige lovgrundlag Patientskadeankenævnets og underinstansens juridiske synspunkt er kun gangbare hvis det helt grundlæggende princip om standardiseret kapitalerstatning for en personskades varige følger ikke er gældende ret Med andre ord forudsætter rigtigheden af deres begrundelse for reduktion at Folketinget vedtager et helt andet erstatningssystem end det vi har haft siden 1 oktober 1984 Henvendelse om sagen kan fortsat ske til advokat Karsten Høj der fører sagen for kvinden Kommentarer 0 Skriv et svar Name E Mail Website Din kommentar Anuller svar Tilmeld dig nyhedsbrev Seneste nyheder Deltid til handicappede hvor langt går pligten April 21 2016 Gratis retshjælp hos Elmer Partnere d 14 april April 06 2016 Elmer Partnere får medhold i endnu en sag om erstatning for mangelfuld sagsbehandling March 21 2016 Nyhedsarkiv Nyhedsarkiv Select Month
 Original URL path: http://www.elmer-adv.dk/dom-om-ulovlig-reduktion-af-erstatning-til-kraeftsyg-kvinde-er-anket-til-hojesteret-der-allerede-behandler-sagen-29-maj-2012/ (2016-04-26)
 Patientskadeankenævnets reduktion af erstatning til kræftsyg er kendt ulovlig af Østre Landsret - Elmer & Partnere Elmer & Partnere
 på tidspunktet for fastsættelsen af erstatningen såkaldt mellemkommende død Det blev anført at det ikke gør nogen forskel at det som her er den skade som man skal have erstatning for der er årsag til den stærkt forringede overlevelsesprognose Østre Landsret fulgte kvindens argumentation til punkt og prikke Der er ikke lovgrundlag for denne reduktion idet der siden erstatningsansvarslovens vedtagelse i 1984 gjaldt klare og præcise regler for fastsættelse af godtgørelse for varigt mén og erstatning for tab af erhvervsevne og idet der med reglerne om reduktion pga skadelidtes alder er gjort endeligt op med betydningen generelt kortere levetid Tidligere retspraksis er uanvendelig da der ikke er noget i forarbejderne til 1984 loven der antyder at man har ønsket en videreførelse af praksis for en vis justering i situationer som denne Endelig fremhæver Østre Landsret at den situation hvor skadelidte er død ikke kan sammenlignes med en situation hvor dødstidspunktet som i denne sag ikke er umiddelbart forestående men derimod er usikker på grund af fortsat behandling m m Samtidig pålagde Østre Landsret Patientskadeankenævnet at anerkende at der er ret til delvis dækning af kvindens udgifter til advokatbistand ved klagesagens behandling i Nævnet Det er den første dom med det resultat Det er begrundet med sagens principielle karakter og betydning og at der først under klagesagens behandling i Nævnet af Patientforsikringen blev fremført en omfattende juridisk argumentation for deres afgørelse Kommentar Det har for kvinden været en ekstrem belastning at få sat et sikkert dødstidspunkt fast i afgørelser om erstatning Når det i litteraturen anføres at det i en situation som denne vil været stærkt stødende at reducere er det et for mildt udtryk Det er derfor meget glædeligt at Østre Landsret efter hurtig behandling af sagen har truffet en så klar og enig afgørelse om at myndighederne har taget fejl allerede fordi der ikke er hjemmel i lovgivningen for deres afgørelser Det er imidlertid tankevækkende at myndigheder der er sat til at administrere indenfor gældende ret ikke har formået at være på helt sikker juridisk grund men efter vores opfattelse har bevæget sig ud på et meget usikkert grundlag og afprøvet en end ikke fast og sikker praksis Der bør selvfølgelig kun ske reduktion af en i øvrigt fuldt dokumenteret erstatning hvis der er helt sikker hjemmel til det Det er endnu ikke afklaret om Patientskadeankenævnet anker dommen til Højesteret Spørgsmål om dommen kan rettes til advokat Karsten Høj der førte sagen for kvinden Kommentarer 0 Skriv et svar Name E Mail Website Din kommentar Anuller svar Tilmeld dig nyhedsbrev Seneste nyheder Deltid til handicappede hvor langt går pligten April 21 2016 Gratis retshjælp hos Elmer Partnere d 14 april April 06 2016 Elmer Partnere får medhold i endnu en sag om erstatning for mangelfuld sagsbehandling March 21 2016 Nyhedsarkiv Nyhedsarkiv Select Month April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014
 Original URL path: http://www.elmer-adv.dk/patientskadeankenaevnets-reduktion-af-erstatning-til-kraeftsyg-er-kendt-ulovlig-af-ostre-landsret/ (2016-04-26)
 Afgørelse fra Ankestyrelsen om årsløn tilsidesat - Elmer & Partnere Elmer & Partnere
 måneder i fleksjobbet var kvinden udsat for en arbejdsskade Ankestyrelsen havde ved årslønsfastsættelsen lagt til grund at kvindens skånehensyn på tidspunktet for arbejdsskaden svarede til at hun ville kunne have tjent halvdelen af sin tidligere indtægt hvis muligheden for et fleksjob ikke havde foreligget Retten i Svendborg ændrede ved dom af 23 december 2011 Ankestyrelsens afgørelse Retten fandt at kvinden ville kunne have haft en årsindtægt på ikke under 2 3 af indtægten i ordinær ansættelse til pasning af 4 faste børn og med sædvanlig forpligtelse til at modtage børn i gæstedagpleje Retten lagde vægt på at modtagelsen af dagplejebørn i gæstedagpleje er en ikke uvæsentlig del af arbejdet som dagplejer på ordinære vilkår men at forpligtelsen til at have gæstebørn ikke kan sidestilles med at have et fast dagplejebarn Kommentar Dommen illustrerer at en skønsmæssig fastsættelse af årsløn beror på en helt konkret vurdering og at årslønnen skal udtrykke værdien af den tilskadekomnes arbejdskraft på skadestidspunktet Yderligere oplysninger om sagen kan fås ved henvendelse til advokat Birgitte Filtenborg som førte sagen for FOA Fag og Arbejde Kommentarer 0 Skriv et svar Name E Mail Website Din kommentar Anuller svar Tilmeld dig nyhedsbrev Seneste nyheder Deltid til handicappede hvor langt går pligten April 21 2016 Gratis retshjælp hos Elmer Partnere d 14 april April 06 2016 Elmer Partnere får medhold i endnu en sag om erstatning for mangelfuld sagsbehandling March 21 2016 Nyhedsarkiv Nyhedsarkiv Select Month April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013
 Original URL path: http://www.elmer-adv.dk/afgorelse-fra-ankestyrelsen-om-arslon-tilsidesat/ (2016-04-26)
 Elmer Partnere ønsker glædelig jul og et lykkebringende nytår - Elmer & Partnere Elmer & Partnere
 sagen medvirket til et netop fremsat lovforslag om ændring af sundhedsloven Herudover har Elmer Partneres juridiske medarbejdere ført et stort antal retssager i by og landsretterne Både de og det øvrige personale skal have en stor tak for indsatsen i 2011 Vi vil i 2012 fastholde vores vision om at være det førende advokatfirma til at løse ansættelses og erstatningsretlige problemstillinger På falderebet til det nye år kan vi orientere om at advokat Jesper Rossau Jensen er ansat i erstatningsafdelingen Jesper er uddannet hos Focus Advokater i Odense og har de sidste 6 år været hos Bjørst Advokater heraf de seneste 3 år som medejer Kontoret holder lukket fra og med den 23 december og åbner igen mandag den 2 januar 2012 Jacob Goldschmidt Peter Breum Søren Kjær Jensen og Karsten Høj Kommentarer 0 Skriv et svar Name E Mail Website Din kommentar Anuller svar Tilmeld dig nyhedsbrev Seneste nyheder Deltid til handicappede hvor langt går pligten April 21 2016 Gratis retshjælp hos Elmer Partnere d 14 april April 06 2016 Elmer Partnere får medhold i endnu en sag om erstatning for mangelfuld sagsbehandling March 21 2016 Nyhedsarkiv Nyhedsarkiv Select Month April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 September 2011 August
 Original URL path: http://www.elmer-adv.dk/elmer-partnere-onsker-glaedelig-jul-og-et-lykkebringende-nytar/ (2016-04-26)
 Rollatorer og badebænke er hjælpemidler! - Elmer & Partnere Elmer & Partnere
 egne grænser for hvornår noget var et hjælpemiddel i servicelovens forstand og at det ikke havde betydning at hjælpemidlet kunne erhverves i almindelige butikker Kommunen valgte på den baggrund at vende tilbage til den hidtidige praksis Via denne bagvej blev det åbenbare altså slået fast rollatorer og badebænke er hjælpemidler som personer med et handicap har krav på støtte til Yderligere oplysninger om sagen kan fås ved henvendelse til advokat Søren Kjær Jensen skj elmer adv dk eller advokatfuldmægtig Nikolaj Nielsen nin elmer adv dk som førte sagen for Danske Handicaporganisationer Kommentarer 0 Skriv et svar Name E Mail Website Din kommentar Anuller svar Tilmeld dig nyhedsbrev Seneste nyheder Deltid til handicappede hvor langt går pligten April 21 2016 Gratis retshjælp hos Elmer Partnere d 14 april April 06 2016 Elmer Partnere får medhold i endnu en sag om erstatning for mangelfuld sagsbehandling March 21 2016 Nyhedsarkiv Nyhedsarkiv Select Month April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 December 2009 November 2009
 Original URL path: http://www.elmer-adv.dk/rollatorer-og-badebaenke-er-hjaelpemidler/ (2016-04-26)
 HR-dom tilkender erstatning for psykisk skade - Elmer & Partnere Elmer & Partnere
 at alle hendes kolleger hver for sig skulle udtale sig om hvorledes de havde det med at skulle rumme P og hendes megen fravær P skulle så kommentere hver enkeltes udsagn og dette affødte en meget ubehagelig stemning Dernæst gik lederen souschefen og supervisoren i enerum og vendte tilbage efter et stykke tid hvorefter lederen ifølge næsten enstemmige vidneforklaringer erklærede at hun havde truffet den beslutning at institutionen ikke kunne rumme P Den grædende P blev opfordret til at tage hjem men da hun var kørt med en kollega kunne hun ikke dette og måtte så gå en tur alene indtil weekenden var afsluttet Dagen efter sygemeldte hun sig efter at have været hos egen læge Sagen blev anmeldt som arbejdsskade og afvist af Arbejdsskadestyrelsen men senere anerkendt af Ankestyrelsen På dette tidspunkt havde sagen været i Byretten der nok fandt at der var handlet uforsvarligt og at der var årsagssammenhæng men ikke mente at en psykisk skade var omfattet af erstatningsansvarslovens skadesbegreb For Landsretten var skaden anerkendt som arbejdsskade og Landsretten fandt at skaden var omfattet af skadesbegrebet ligesom man fandt at der var handlet uforsvarligt at der var årsagssammenhæng og at hun havde udviklet en depression men frifandt alligevel kommunen Inden sagen blev behandlet i Højesteret havde Ankestyrelsen truffet afgørelse om at skaden havde medført et varigt men på 15 på baggrund af bl a en speciallægeerklæring fra psykiater Da P nu var tilkendt pension som følge af dels ryglidelsen og dels den psykiske skade var spørgsmålet om erhvervsevnetabserstatning sendt tilbage til Arbejdsskadestyrelsen Der er endnu ikke truffet afgørelse og derfor vedrører kravet for Højesteret alene spørgsmålet om svie smertegodtgørelse på 50 000 kr Højesterets dom Højesterets 7 dommere fandt ligesom Byret og Landsret at der var handlet uforsvarligt og fandt at en psykisk skade er omfattet af personskadebegrebet i erstatningsansvarsloven Herefter skriver Højesteret Det lægges til grund at den uforsvarlige afvikling af personaleweekenden medførte en betydelig forøgelse af risikoen for en psykisk skade af den foreliggende karakter hos en medarbejder som hvilket ledelsen må have forstået befandt sig i en psykisk anspændt situation Højesteret finder herefter at P s psykiske skade er en påregnelig følge af den uforsvarlige afvikling af personaleweekenden P er direkte skadelidt som følge af den ansvarspådragende adfærd og der er ikke grundlag for at anse den psykiske skade for at falde uden for hvad der er omfattet af kommunens erstatningspligt Dommen kan ses i sin helhed på Højesterets hjemmeside Se her Elmer og Partnere planlægger at afholde gå hjem møde om dommen i nærmeste fremtid Henvendelse kan ske til Søren Kjær Jensen der førte sagen for BUPL på vegne P Kommentarer 0 Skriv et svar Name E Mail Website Din kommentar Anuller svar Tilmeld dig nyhedsbrev Seneste nyheder Deltid til handicappede hvor langt går pligten April 21 2016 Gratis retshjælp hos Elmer Partnere d 14 april April 06 2016 Elmer Partnere får medhold i endnu en sag om erstatning for mangelfuld sagsbehandling March 21 2016 Nyhedsarkiv Nyhedsarkiv Select Month April 2016 March 2016
 Original URL path: http://www.elmer-adv.dk/hr-dom-tilkender-erstatning-psykisk-skade/ (2016-04-26)
 Anerkendelse af psykiske lidelser hos soldater - specielt PTSD - Arbejdsskadestyrelsens praksis - Elmer & Partnere Elmer & Partnere
 6 måneder Det er denne strikse håndtering af beviskravet til symptomdebut der efter vores opfattelser er problematisk Det andet kriterium fra WHO diagnosen er at man skal have været udsat for traumatiske begivenheder af en exceptionelt truende eller katastrofeagtig natur Det er efter vores opfattelse også uproblematisk at anvende dette diagnosekrav De beviskrav Arbejdsskadestyrelsen stiller er imidlertid efter vores opfattelse for strenge Arbejdsskademyndighedernes vurdering af hvad en soldat har været udsat for under sin udsendelse beror også på en helt almindelig vurdering af sagens beviser Soldaten kan naturligvis selv fortælle hvad han har været udsat for men det vil sjældent være bevis nok for arbejdsskademyndighederne Også her anlægger man en streng bevisvurdering og vil almindeligvis kun tro på soldatens beskrivelser hvis de bekræftes af Forsvaret Da forsvaret ikke skriver alting ned uanset om de har pligt til det eller ej og da der er hændelser der ikke rapporteres videre til de overordnede vil det ofte hedde at man ikke kan bekræfte soldatens oplevelser Forsvaret er i disse sager selvforsikrede og det betyder reelt at hvis ikke forsikringsselskabet bekræfter soldatens beskrivelse af de livsfarlige episoder er der ikke mulighed for erstatning Sammenfattende er det vi kritiserer således ikke at WHO diagnosekravene anvendes men derimod de beviskrav som arbejdsskademyndighederne selv har opfundet Vi finder det i øvrigt tvivlsomt om de danske domstole vil anlægge samme strenge beviskrav hvis de skulle se på sagerne Spørgsmål til ovenstående kan rettes til advokat Mads Krøger Pramming på mkp elmer adv dk eller telefon 33 67 67 53 Kommentarer 0 Skriv et svar Name E Mail Website Din kommentar Anuller svar Tilmeld dig nyhedsbrev Seneste nyheder Deltid til handicappede hvor langt går pligten April 21 2016 Gratis retshjælp hos Elmer Partnere d 14 april April 06 2016 Elmer Partnere får medhold i endnu en sag om
 Original URL path: http://www.elmer-adv.dk/anerkendelse-af-psykiske-lidelser-hos-soldater-specielt-ptsd-arbejdsskadestyrelsens-praksis/ (2016-04-26)


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 17.3.2015
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 L 72/6
 BESCHLUSS (EU) 2015/436 DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS UND DES RATES
 vom 17. Dezember 2014
 über die Inanspruchnahme des Solidaritätsfonds der Europäischen Union
 DAS EUROPÄISCHE PARLAMENT UND DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION —
 gestützt auf den Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union,
 gestützt auf die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2012/2002 des Rates vom 11. November 2002 zur Errichtung des Solidaritätsfonds der Europäischen Union (1), insbesondere auf Artikel 4 Absatz 3,
 gestützt auf die Interinstitutionelle Vereinbarung vom 2. Dezember 2013 zwischen dem Europäischen Parlament, dem Rat und der Kommission über die Haushaltsdisziplin, die Zusammenarbeit im Haushaltsbereich und die wirtschaftliche Haushaltsführung (2), insbesondere auf Nummer 11,
 auf Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission,
 in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
 (1)
 Die Europäische Union hat den Solidaritätsfonds der Europäischen Union (im Folgenden „Fonds“) errichtet, um sich mit der Bevölkerung in den von Katastrophen betroffenen Regionen solidarisch zu zeigen.
 (2)
 In Artikel 10 der Verordnung (EU, Euratom) Nr. 1311/2013 des Rates (3) ist vorgesehen, dass der Fonds bis zu einer jährlichen Obergrenze von 500 Mio. EUR (zu Preisen von 2011) in Anspruch genommen werden kann.
 (3)
 Die Voraussetzungen für die Inanspruchnahme des Fonds sind in der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2012/2002 geregelt.
 (4)
 Italien hat wegen Überschwemmungen einen Antrag auf Inanspruchnahme des Fonds gestellt.
 (5)
 Griechenland hat wegen eines Erdbebens einen Antrag auf Inanspruchnahme des Fonds gestellt.
 (6)
 Slowenien hat wegen Eisstürmen einen Antrag auf Inanspruchnahme des Fonds gestellt.
 (7)
 Kroatien hat wegen Eisstürmen, auf die Überschwemmungen folgten, einen Antrag auf Inanspruchnahme des Fonds gestellt —
 HABEN FOLGENDEN BESCHLUSS ERLASSEN:
 Artikel 1
 Im Rahmen des Gesamthaushaltsplans der Europäischen Union für das Haushaltsjahr 2014 werden aus dem Solidaritätsfonds der Europäischen Union Mittel für Verpflichtungen in Höhe von 46 998 528 EUR bereitgestellt.
 Im Rahmen des Gesamthaushaltsplans der Europäischen Union für das Haushaltsjahr 2015 werden aus dem Solidaritätsfonds der Europäischen Union Mittel für Zahlungen in Höhe von 46 998 528 EUR bereitgestellt.
 Artikel 2
 Dieser Beschluss wird im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union veröffentlicht.
 Geschehen zu Straßburg, am 17. Dezember 2014.
 Im Namen des Europäischen Parlaments
 Der Präsident
 M. SCHULZ
 Im Namen des Rates
 Der Präsident
 B. DELLA VEDOVA
 (1) ABl. L 311 vom 14.11.2002, S. 3.
 (2) ABl. C 373 vom 20.12.2013, S. 1.
 (3) Verordnung (EU, Euratom) Nr. 1311/2013 des Rates vom 2. Dezember 2013 zur Festlegung des mehrjährigen Finanzrahmens für die Jahre 2014-2020 (ABl. L 347 vom 20.12.2013, S. 884).


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21999D0171
 Afgørelse truffet af Det Blandede EØS-udvalg nr. 171/1999 af 26. november 1999 om ændring af bilag XIII (transport) til EØS-aftalen
 EF-Tidende nr. L 061 af 01/03/2001 s. 0030 - 0030
 Afgørelse truffet af Det Blandede EØS-udvalgnr. 171/1999af 26. november 1999om ændring af bilag XIII (transport) til EØS-aftalenDET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG HAR -under henvisning til aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde som tilpasset ved protokollen om tilpasning af aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde, i det følgende benævnt "aftalen", særlig artikel 98, ogud fra følgende betragtninger:(1) Bilag XIII til aftalen blev ændret ved afgørelse nr. 25/97 truffet af Det Blandede EØS-udvalg den 30. april 1997(1).(2) Kommissionens beslutning 1999/569/EF af 28. juli 1999 om grundparametrene for delsystemet "styringskontrol og signaler" til det transeuropæiske jernbanesystem for højhastighedstog(2) bør indarbejdes i aftalen -TRUFFET FØLGENDE AFGØRELSE:Artikel 1Følgende punkt indsættes efter punkt 37a (Rådets direktiv 96/48/EF) i bilag XIII til aftalen:"37b. 399 D 0569: Kommissionens beslutning 1999/569/EF af 28. juli 1999 om grundparametrene for delsystemet 'styringskontrol og signaler' til det transeuropæiske jernbanesystem for højhastighedstog (EFT L 216 af 14.8.1999, s. 23), berigtiget ved EFT L 236 af 7.9.1999, s. 38."Artikel 2Teksterne til beslutning 1999/569/EF på islandsk og norsk, som er knyttet til de respektive sproglige udgaver af denne afgørelse, er autentiske.Artikel 3Denne afgørelse træder i kraft den 27. november 1999, forudsat at Det Blandede EØS-udvalg har modtaget alle fornødne meddelelser i henhold til aftalens artikel 103, stk. 1.Artikel 4Denne afgørelse offentliggøres i EØS-afsnittet i og EØS-tillægget til De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende.Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 26. november 1999.På Det Blandede EØS-udvalgs vegneN. v. LiechtensteinFormand(1) EFT L 242 af 4.9.1997, s. 74.(2) EFT L 216 af 14.8.1999, s. 23, berigtiget ved EFT L 236 af 7.9.1999, s. 38.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
 674 A.2d 944 (1996)
 342 Md. 230
 Michael STEWART
 v.
 STATE of Maryland.
 No. 79, Sept. Term, 1995.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 April 17, 1996.
 *946 Jennifer P. Lyman, Washington, DC, for petitioner.
 Annabelle L. Lisic, Assistant Attorney General (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, on brief), Baltimore, for respondent.
 Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, BELL and RAKER, JJ.
 *945 CHASANOW, Judge.
 We are called on in this case to decide whether a prior inconsistent statement by a recanting witness in a criminal case may be admitted as substantive evidence at trial even though the party calling the witness knows beforehand that the witness intends to disavow his or her prior statement. We hold that prior inconsistent statements are admissible as substantive evidence, provided they fall within the circumscribed limitations discussed in Nance v. State, 331 Md. 549, 629 A.2d 633 (1993), regardless of whether the party calling the witness knows ahead of time that the witness intends to repudiate the prior statements.
 I.
 The petitioner, Michael Stewart, was convicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City by a jury of first degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence in connection with the shooting death of James "Man" Brandon. Brandon was shot twice and killed on July 9, 1993 in front of a house on West Lanvale Street in Baltimore. A key witness to the murder was George Booth, who was sitting on a railing in front of the house immediately before the shooting. Police interviewed Booth the day of the shooting. In his first statement to police, Booth stated that he did not see either the shooting or the person who murdered Brandon. In a second statement to police that same day, however, Booth acknowledged having seen a man running from the murder scene just after the shooting. He told police that prior to the killing he was sitting on a railing in front of a house near the crime scene. Just minutes before the shooting, Booth said a man wearing blue shorts and a sweat jacket had walked in front of the house and told Booth to leave the area. Booth told police he heard five shots as he walked away. He looked back and saw the man in the shorts and jacket running from the scene. Booth told police he did not know the man he saw. Both of Booth's statements of July 9, 1993 were reduced to writing by police and signed by him.
 Approximately three and a half months after the shooting, Booth was presented with an array of photographs by Baltimore City Police Detective Corey Belt, who asked Booth to identify Brandon's killer. Booth selected Stewart's photograph from the array and signed his name on the photo array card above Stewart's photo. On the back of the card, Booth wrote "I'm positive that he was the one that shot Man" and signed his name to the statement. That same day, Booth also appeared before the grand jury and testified that Stewart, who Booth knew as "Mike" or "Honky Tonk," was the person who shot Brandon. Booth testified that he was sitting on the railing in front of a house on West Lanvale Street with an acquaintance. Minutes before Brandon was murdered, Stewart walked up to Booth, showed him a gun and told him to leave the area. Booth left the railing and walked down a nearby alley. He testified that he heard shots, looked back and saw Stewart "doing the shooting."
 Stewart was indicted on November 23, 1993 and charged with Brandon's murder. Booth was expected to be an important witness for the State, but it soon became apparent that he was reluctant to testify. Several weeks before trial, Booth notified prosecutors that he had no intention of appearing at Stewart's trial. Booth failed to appear on the initial trial date and a bench warrant was issued. Booth was eventually located and appeared in court on April 25, 1994. At a pre-trial motions hearing, Booth offered testimony that differed substantially from his testimony before the grand jury. At the hearing, Booth testified that he had not initially selected Stewart's photo as that of the shooter. Rather, Booth claimed to have selected *947 the photograph of another person, and that police pressured him into picking Stewart's photo. After the hearing, the circuit court denied Stewart's motion to suppress Booth's out-of-court photographic identification.
 At trial the next day the State called Booth as a witness. Contrary to his earlier testimony before the grand jury, Booth testified at trial that he did not know the person who shot Brandon. He testified that the killer was someone he had never seen before. Booth stated that he did not identify Stewart's photograph from the police photo array, but rather selected another photograph. He acknowledged signing his name above Stewart's photo and writing on the back of the photo array card that he was "positive that [Stewart] was the one that shot Man," but he asserted that the police "hounded" him into doing so. The photo array card containing Booth's statement identifying Stewart as the shooter was then admitted into evidence.
 While still under direct examination, Booth acknowledged appearing before the grand jury and testifying that Stewart was the person who showed him the gun in front of the house minutes before the shooting, told him to leave the area, and shot Brandon. Booth testified that his statements before the grand jury were truthful. On cross examination, however, Booth recanted again and testified that Stewart was not the shooter. Booth's grand jury testimony was then admitted into evidence. Additionally, both of Booth's July 9 statements to police, neither of which directly implicated Stewart, were admitted into evidence without objection.
 Stewart appealed his conviction to the Court of Special Appeals, arguing, among other things, that the admission of Booth's grand jury testimony and written out-of-court statement identifying Stewart as the shooter was improper because the State's only purpose in calling Booth as a witness was to have his previous out-of-court statements implicating Stewart in the shooting admitted into evidence. The intermediate appellate court rejected Stewart's argument, and affirmed his conviction. Stewart v. State, 104 Md.App. 273, 655 A.2d 1345 (1995). We granted certiorari to consider Stewart's contention that the Court of Special Appeals erred in concluding that the statements were admissible. We affirm the ruling of the intermediate appellate court.
 II.
 As a general rule, prior statements by a witness that are inconsistent with the witness's in-court testimony are admissible to impeach the credibility of the witness. See Ali v. State, 314 Md. 295, 305, 550 A.2d 925, 930 (1988); Sun Cab Company, Inc. v. Cusick, 209 Md. 354, 361-62, 121 A.2d 188, 191 (1956); 6 LYNN MCLAIN, MARYLAND EVIDENCE, § 607.1(b) at 38 (1987). When offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statements, however, a witness's prior inconsistent statements are hearsay[1] and thus traditionally were held to be inadmissible as substantive evidence. See Ali, 314 Md. at 304-05, 550 A.2d at 929-30; 1 MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 34, at 113 (John W. Strong ed., 4th ed. 1992). See also Sun Cab, 209 Md. at 361-62, 121 A.2d at 191 ("It is an accepted rule that any statement made by a witness prior to the trial is admissible for the purpose of impeaching the witness, but not as substantive evidence.").
 In Nance, supra, however, this Court carved out an important exception to the general rule against the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence. In Nance, we held that the factual portion of a witness's out-of-court statement is admissible as substantive evidence when: (1) the out-of-court statement is inconsistent with the witness's in-court testimony; (2) the prior statement is based on the declarant's own knowledge; (3) the prior statement is *948 reduced to writing and signed or otherwise adopted by the witness;[2] and (4) the witness is subject to cross-examination at the trial where the out-of-court statement is introduced. 331 Md. at 569, 629 A.2d at 643. We also held that a witness's prior inconsistent testimony before a grand jury is admissible at trial, as long as the witness is available at trial for cross-examination. Nance, 331 Md. at 571, 629 A.2d at 644. These dictates have since been codified in the Maryland Rules of Evidence. Maryland Rule 5-802.1 provides in pertinent part:
 "The following statements previously made by a witness who testifies at the trial or hearing and who is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement are not excluded by the hearsay rule:
 (a) A statement that is inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, if the statement was (1) given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition; (2) reduced to writing and signed by the declarant; or (3) recorded in substantially verbatim fashion by stenographic or electronic means contemporaneously with the making of the statement."
 Applying these principles to Booth's out-of-court statements in the instant case, we find no error in the trial court's decision to admit them as substantive evidence of Stewart's guilt. Both Booth's signed written statement to police on the back of the photo array card identifying Stewart as the killer and his grand jury testimony met the requirements of admissibility set out in Nance.[3]
 *949 With regard to Booth's written statement that "I'm positive that he was the one that shot Man," Nance was satisfied.[4] The statement was clearly inconsistent with Booth's trial testimony, in which Booth denied knowing the person who killed Brandon. The statement was based on Booth's own knowledge of the shooting, was written down by Booth himself and signed by him. In addition, Booth was available for cross-examination.
 Similarly, Booth's grand jury testimony met the requirements of admissibility under Nance. The grand jury testimony was given under oath and was transcribed verbatim. Booth was also available at trial for cross-examination. In Nance, we explained:
 "[A] statement given before a grand jury is made in an atmosphere of formality impressing upon the declarant the need for accuracy; and it will be memorialized in a manner that eliminates concerns about whether the statement was actually made. The declarant must also, of course, be present as a witness at trial to be tested by cross-examination in regard to the former grand jury appearance and its contents. When all of these conditions have been met... [the grand jury testimony may be] considered by the jury as substantive evidence." (Citation omitted).
 331 Md. at 571, 629 A.2d at 644. Accordingly, Booth's grand jury testimony was admissible as substantive evidence of Stewart's guilt.
 III.
 Even though Nance was satisfied, Stewart argues that Booth's out-of-court statements should have been excluded because the State's only reason for calling Booth as a witness was to introduce his prior statements. Stewart contends that in order to admit Booth's prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence, the State was required to have some purpose for calling him other than getting the out-of-court statements into evidence. Stewart posits that because the State knew before trial that Booth intended to repudiate his prior statements, it should not have been allowed to call him as a witness for the exclusive purpose of introducing his prior statements pursuant to Nance.
 Stewart relies on our opinion in Spence v. State, 321 Md. 526, 583 A.2d 715 (1991), for the proposition that the State is barred from calling a witness that it knows will "contribute nothing to its case" for the sole purpose of admitting prior inconsistent statements of that witness. 321 Md. at 530, 583 A.2d at 717. In Spence, decided two and a half years before Nance, we held that it was improper for the State to call a witness that it knew would give testimony exculpating the defendant, and then use the witness's prior inconsistent statements incriminating the defendant to "impeach" that witness. 321 Md. at 530-31, 583 A.2d at 717. The witness, Vincent Cole, had made statements implicating Spence in an armed robbery. At trial, Cole told the prosecutor and the judge that, contrary to his earlier statements to police, he intended to testify that Spence was not involved in the crime. Nonetheless, the State asked that Cole be called as a witness. As expected, Cole testified that Spence was not involved in the crime. The State then impeached Cole with his prior statements to police incriminating Spence.
 We reversed Spence's conviction, explaining:
 "It is obvious that the prosecutor's sole reason for prevailing on the court to call Cole as a court's witness was to get before the jury Cole's extrajudicial hearsay statement implicating Spence. The prosecutor knew that Cole's testimony would be exculpatory as to Spence. The inescapable conclusion is that the State, over objection, prevailed on the court to call a witness who would contribute nothing to the State's case, for the sole purpose of `impeaching' *950 the witness with otherwise inadmissible hearsay.
 * * * * * *
 This blatant attempt to circumvent the hearsay rule and parade inadmissible evidence before the jury is not permissible. The State cannot, over objection, have a witness called who it knows will contribute nothing to its case, as a subterfuge to admit, as impeaching evidence, otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence."
 Spence, 321 Md. at 530, 583 A.2d at 717.
 Three years after deciding Spence, we expanded its application in Bradley v. State, 333 Md. 593, 636 A.2d 999 (1994). In Bradley, the State called a witness to establish facts relevant to its case, but then questioned the witness concerning an "independent area of inquiry" about which the witness had made prior statements implicating the defendant. 333 Md. at 601, 636 A.2d at 1003. Even though the State knew the witness would repudiate his prior statements, the State was allowed to impeach the witness with the prior out-of-court statements. In reversing Bradley's conviction, we explained:
 "The State knew that [the witness] would deny that the defendant confessed to the crime, yet still questioned him concerning the alleged confession. Thus, we are led to the `inescapable conclusion ... that the State, over objection, [questioned a witness concerning an independent area of inquiry knowing it] would contribute nothing to the State's case, for the sole purpose of "impeaching" the witness with otherwise inadmissible hearsay.' Spence, 321 Md. at 530, 583 A.2d at 717. In accordance with the Spence rationale, we hold that it is impermissible for a party in a criminal case, over objection, to venture into an independent area of inquiry solely for purposes of `circumvent[ing] the hearsay rule and parad[ing] inadmissible evidence before the jury.' Spence, 321 Md. at 530, 583 A.2d at 717." (Footnote omitted).
 Bradley, 333 Md. at 601-02, 636 A.2d at 1003.
 Stewart argues this reasoning should have been applied at his trial to bar the admission of Booth's out-of-court statements to police and before the grand jury. We disagree. As the Court of Special Appeals correctly pointed out in its opinion, the Spence rationale applies when a witness's prior inconsistent statements are admitted only for purposes of impeachment, not as substantive evidence. See Stewart, 104 Md. App. at 283, 655 A.2d at 1350. This distinction is vital to the resolution of this case.
 The purpose of impeachment evidence is not to establish guilt, but to attack the credibility of a witness who has offered detrimental testimony. 6 MARYLAND EVIDENCE, § 607.1(b), at 37. In other words, the best result the State can hope for when it tries to impeach a witness is to neutralize that witness's testimony in the mind of the factfinder. See Bradley, 333 Md. at 605, 636 A.2d at 1005. No matter how incriminating, evidence admitted exclusively for purposes of impeachment is not substantive evidence of guilt and will not support a conviction. Its only purpose is to negate prior testimony. Thus, if the State learns before trial that one of its witnesses has recanted and intends to offer testimony exculpating the defendant, the State should simply refrain from calling the witness. See Bradley, 333 Md. at 606, 636 A.2d at 1005. In so doing, the State avoids the need to neutralize the witness's testimony.
 The evil that Spence and Bradley sought to guard against was the misuse of impeachment testimony. The admission of prior inconsistent statements for impeachment creates the danger that the jury will misuse the statements as substantive evidence, despite instructions to the contrary. This danger does not exist where, as here, the prior statements are admitted as substantive evidence of guilt. Hence, there is no need to protect against a party calling a witness as a subterfuge for getting impeachment evidence before the jury. As Judge Moylan explained:
 "[Before Nance,] prior inconsistent statements were never received for their substantive content. There always lurked in the evidentiary shadows, however, the fear that the impeaching words, though not ostensibly offered for their truth, might nonetheless work, consciously or subconsciously, some spill-over substantive impact *951 on the ears of the jurors. Wily trial advocates leaped eagerly on every such opportunity. It was to forestall just such exploitation and abuse of the impeachment device that the limiting strictures of Spence were imposed.
 * * * * * *
 All of this, however, is quite beside the point when, a la Nance, the prior statements are openly offered and received as flat-out substantive evidence of guilt. There is no danger that something offered for one purpose will be misused for another and ulterior purpose. By definition, there can be no indirection or subterfuge, for the worst that could happen to a defendant is already officially authorized."
 Stewart, 104 Md.App. at 279, 283, 655 A.2d at 1348, 1350.
 Spence's prerequisite that the State be surprised by a recanting witness's testimony before inconsistent out-of-court statements can be admitted to impeach the witness was designed to prevent the misuse of the impeachment evidence by the jury. It has no applicability where, as here, a witness's prior inconsistent statements are offered as substantive evidence pursuant to Nance. As we explained in Bradley:
 "[O]ur holding does not affect Nance.... Had [the witness's] prior statement been reduced to writing and signed, thus making it admissible as substantive evidence rather than solely impeachment evidence, it would have been admissible. In the instant case, however, the prior statement by [the witness] was not reduced to a writing and signed or adopted by him and, thus, it was not admissible as substantive evidence."
 333 Md. at 607, 636 A.2d at 1006.
 In the instant case, Booth's prior written statement to police was reduced to writing by Booth and signed by him. He was available for cross-examination at trial. Similarly, Booth's grand jury testimony met the requirements set out in Nance. Both statements were admitted as substantive evidence. Hence, the State was not required to show that it was surprised by Booth's testimony, or that it had a purpose in calling Booth other than seeking to admit his prior inconsistent statements. We find no error in the admission of the statements.
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER.
 NOTES
 [1] Hearsay is defined as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Ali v. State, 314 Md. 295, 304, 550 A.2d 925, 929 (1988); Maryland Rule 5-801(c). Hence, when an out-of-court statement is offered for a purpose other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted, i.e. to impeach the witness by showing that the witness previously made statements inconsistent with his or her in-court testimony, the statement is not hearsay. Ali, 314 Md. at 304-05, 550 A.2d at 930.
 [2] In adopting Md. Rule 5-802.1, which was not in effect at the time of the trial in this case, this Court restricted the use of prior written statements by eliminating the language "or otherwise adopted" from subsection (a)(2) of the proposed rule. Hence, under Md. Rule 5-802.1(a)(2), a prior written statement is not admissible unless it is "signed by the declarant." (emphasis added).
 The draft of the rule proposed to this Court by the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure was based on a Hawaii rule cited in Nance v. State, 331 Md. 549, 568 n. 7, 629 A.2d 633, 642 n. 7 (1993). At our final hearing on the rule, this Court made several modifications to the proposal before adopting it. The adopted version of the rule, with the language we deleted from the draft in brackets and the language we added underlined, provides in part:
 "The following statements previously made by a witness who testifies at the trial or hearing and who is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement are not excluded by the hearsay rule:
 (a) A statement that is inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, if the statement was (1) given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding[s,] or in a deposition; (2) reduced to writing and signed [or otherwise adopted or approved] by the declarant; or (3) recorded in substantially verbatim fashion by stenographic[, mechanical, electrical, or other] or electronic means contemporaneously with the making of the statement...."
 Compare Md. Rule 5-802.1(a) with Memorandum from Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, at 9 (October 29, 1993). The rule took effect July 1, 1994. Our holding in the instant case would be the same under Md. Rule 5-802.1.
 [3] Since neither of Booth's July 9 statements to police directly implicated Stewart in the shooting, and Stewart did not object to their admission at trial, we need not decide whether they were admissible under Nance, supra. We note, however, that a witness's statement written down by a police officer is not per se admissible under Nance or Md. Rule 5-802.1(a) even if signed by the witness. In Nance, we made clear that the signed statements were obtained by police in a way that supported our conclusion that they were accurate:
 "[The witnesses] all were interviewed about events they said they had observed first hand. They provided full, descriptive answers, rather than responses of `Yes' or `No,' to the questions asked. The questions were not unduly leading. Detectives committed their questions and the declarants' answers to paper as literally as possible; this technique gave little room for a subjective interpretation of what was said. The witnesses expressly acknowledged the contents of the written statements to be true and accurate, and then signed them."
 331 Md. at 569, 629 A.2d at 643. Hence, a statement recorded by police, even when signed by the declarant, might not be admissible if the circumstances suggest that the declarant did not clearly intend to adopt it by signing.
 We also point out that prior inconsistent unsigned written statements are not admissible under Md. Rule 5-802.1(a)(3) as substantive evidence unless they are recorded substantially verbatim by a reliable stenographer or electronic means contemporaneously with the making of the statement. In other words, an unsigned statement taken down in a police officer's "shorthand" is not substantive evidence under Md. Rule 5-802.1(a)(3). See LYNN MCLAIN, MARYLAND RULES OF EVIDENCE § 2.802.1(4), at 227 (1994). Such a statement may, however, be admissible under Md. Rule 5-802.1(a)(2) if signed and clearly adopted by the witness.
 [4] Stewart apparently concedes that Booth's out-of-court photographic identification of Stewart as the killer, apart from the signed statement, was admissible. See Nance, 331 Md. at 560, 629 A.2d at 639 (extrajudicial identification by an eyewitness admissible as substantive evidence when "made under circumstances precluding the suspicion of unfairness or unreliability, where the out-of-court declarant is present at trial and subject to cross-examination").


type: wikipedia

text:
Folkland var vikingatida och medeltida landskap, det vill säga landområden med egen lag och lagman.
 Ordet ”landskap” fanns inte i den äldsta fornsvenskan, utan det vanliga ordet för landskap var ”land”, som i pluralis böjs ”flera land”, inte ”flera länder”. Dessutom fanns ordet ”folkland”, som särskilt syftade på de mindre landen i nuvarande Uppland.
 I nutida språkbruk har betydelserna av orden ”landskap” och ”folkland” definierats enligt en hierarkisk struktur. ”Landskap” betecknar de idag erkända landskapen, och ”folkland” betecknar mindre landområden inom några av de nutida landskapen. Ordet folkland fyller det praktiska behovet att ha en beteckning för ”landskap inom landskap” i de fall där ursprungliga ”land” eller ”folkland” slagits ihop till större enheter som Uppland och Småland.
 Folkland består i sin tur oftast av flera hundare eller flera härad. De äldre territoriella enheter som Sverige under olika tider indelats i är alltså, i storleksordning:
 landskap (på medeltiden kallade ”land”)
 folkland (inom några av de nuvarande landskapen)
 härad/hundare
 socken
 Folkland i Uppland
 I Uppland finns områden som kallas Folklanden i bevarade medeltida texter.
 De tre folklanden Attundaland, Fjädrundaland, Tiundaland var belägna inuti landet. De sammanslogs med kuststräckan Roden. Sedermera förenades de till Upplands lagsaga. De hade vardera en lagsaga och en lagman. De var indelade i hund, senare hundare, därefter härad. Hundarena benämns ”härad” från och med mitten av 1300‐talet.
 Mellan de tre folklanden, på Mora äng, valdes kungar och hölls kanske också större allting, men tingen hölls vanligen i den egna lagsagan, med egna lagar.
 1252 skrev Birger jarl och hans son kung Valdemar Birgersson brev till invånarna i Attundaland, Fjädrundaland och Tiundaland, med uppmaning att de skall erlägga en tredjedel av fattigtiondet till kyrkan i Uppsala.
 På 1290-talet tog lagmannen i Tiundaland, Birger Persson till Finsta ett initiativ.
 Han samlade "tolv redliga män" och tillsammans skrev de en ny gemensam lag, Upplandslagen, som samlade det bästa (?) från de äldre lagarna. Vid tinget därpå, år 1296, stadfästes den nya lagen som gällde i alla folklanden, vilka tillsammans bildade Upplands lagsaga. Även därefter fungerade folklanden en tid som juridiciella distrikt i speciella frågor.
 Folkland i Småland
 De små landen i Småland kallas ”folkland” av nutida forskare, men det finns ingen medeltida källa som kallar de småländska landen ”folkland”. Smålanden är Värend, Finnveden, Njudung, Tveta, Vista, Möre, Handbörd, Aspeland, Sevede, Vedbo, Tjust och Kinda. Kinda räknas nu till Östergötland.
 Folkland i Hälsingland
 De gamla folklanden Alir och Sunded/Sundhed utgör tillsammans nuvarande landskapet Hälsingland. Dessutom fanns ett tredje folkland, men det är ovisst vad det hette och var det låg. På grundval av knapphändiga och sena källor har det tredje folklandet antagits heta Nordanstig, men detta är osäkert. Det är möjligt att det tredje folklandet har utvecklats till nuvarande landskapet Medelpad. Beteckningen ”folkland” finns ej i medeltida källor om Hälsingland, men används i modern forskning av praktiska skäl.
 Referenser
 Noter
 Källor
 Birgers brev återfinnes i Svenskt Diplomatarium, Riksarkivet
 Folkland


text:
 25.6.2013
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 172/11
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) NR. 599/2013 AL COMISIEI
 din 24 iunie 2013
 de modificare a Regulamentului (UE) nr. 578/2010 în ceea ce privește sumele restituirilor la export, care nu fac obiectul unui certificat, pentru anumite produse agricole sub formă de mărfuri care nu sunt incluse în anexa I la tratat și notificarea, de către statele membre, a anumitor date aferente
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1216/2009 al Consiliului din 30 noiembrie 2009 de stabilire a regimului comercial aplicabil anumitor mărfuri rezultate din transformarea produselor agricole (1), în special articolul 8 alineatul (3) primul paragraf,
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Regulamentul (UE) nr. 578/2010 al Comisiei din 29 iunie 2010 privind punerea în aplicare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1216/2009 al Consiliului în ceea ce privește regimul de acordare a restituirilor la export pentru anumite produse agricole exportate sub formă de mărfuri care nu sunt incluse în anexa I la tratat, precum și criteriile de stabilire a cuantumurilor sumelor respective (2) prevede că micii exportatori sunt scutiți de prezentarea unui certificat de restituire până la sumele totale stabilite la nivel individual și la nivel mondial. Regulamentul prevede, de asemenea, că certificatele de restituire solicitate și, în unele cazuri, certificatele de restituire eliberate trebuie să fie comunicate Comisiei.
 (2)
 Reducerile recente ale ratelor restituirilor la export, datorate efectelor combinate ale reformei politicii agricole comune și ale evoluției prețurilor produselor agricole pe piața mondială, au dus la o diminuare a numărului cererilor de certificate de restituire sau la inexistența acestor cereri, atenuând astfel presiunea asupra bugetului Uniunii în ceea ce privește restituirile la export pentru produse care nu sunt incluse în anexa I la tratat. În astfel de situații, în care Uniunea nu riscă încălcarea angajamentelor sale internaționale, este adecvată simplificarea sistemului de acordare a restituirilor la export pentru anumite produse agricole sub forma mărfurilor care nu sunt incluse în anexa I la tratat, reducând astfel sarcina administrativă.
 (3)
 Prin urmare, este necesar să se mărească pragul de plată sub care micii exportatori sunt scutiți de obligația de a prezenta un certificat de restituire la nivel individual și la nivel mondial. Este, de asemenea, oportun să se suspende obligația autorităților competente ale statelor membre de a notifica sumele reprezentate de certificatele de restituire solicitate, în cazul în care restituirile aplicabile tuturor produselor de bază sunt suspendate, nu au fost stabilite sau sunt egale cu zero, precum și de a notifica anumite certificate de restituire emise în cazul în care nu au fost emise certificate de restituire și, în cazul în care nu este implicată nicio sumă, de a notifica anumite informații pentru a garanta funcționarea și gestionarea sistemului de certificate de restituire, precum și de a informa Comisia că nu a fost acordată nicio sumă.
 (4)
 Prin urmare, Regulamentul (UE) nr. 578/2010 ar trebui modificat în consecință.
 (5)
 Măsurile prevăzute de prezentul regulament sunt conforme cu avizul Comitetului pentru probleme orizontale referitoare la comerțul cu produse agricole prelucrate care nu sunt cuprinse în anexa I la tratat,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Regulamentul (UE) nr. 578/2010 se modifică după cum urmează:
 1.
 La articolul 42, alineatul (1) se înlocuiește cu următorul text:
 „(1) Nu sunt necesare certificate în cazul exporturilor pentru care cererile depuse de operator în cursul anului bugetar nu dau naștere la plăți de peste 200 000 EUR.”
 2.
 La articolul 43, alineatul (1) se înlocuiește cu următorul text:
 „(1) Pentru fiecare perioadă bugetară, exporturile menționate la articolul 42 alineatul (1) pot face obiectul plății unei restituiri în limitele unei rezerve globale de 80 de milioane EUR pe an bugetar.”
 3.
 Se introduce următorul articol 53a:
 „Articolul 53a
 (1) În cazul în care restituirea aplicabilă tuturor produselor de bază enumerate în anexa I a fost suspendată, nu a fost stabilită sau este egală cu zero, în cursul uneia dintre perioadele menționate la articolul 29 alineatul (1) literele (a)-(f), se suspendă obligația statelor membre de a notifica cu privire la perioada respectivă prevăzută la articolul 30 și la articolul 34 alineatul (2).
 (2) În cazul în care nu s-au eliberat certificate de restituire în cursul perioadelor menționate la articolul 51 alineatul (1) literele (c) și (d), se suspendă obligația statelor membre de a notifica prevăzută la articolul 51 alineatul (1) literele (c) și (d).
 (3) În cazul în care nu există sume implicate, se suspendă obligațiile statelor membre de a notifica prevăzute la articolul 51 alineatul (1) literele (a) și (b), la articolul 51 alineatul (2), la articolul 52 și la articolul 53 prima teză, precum și de a informa că nu s-a acordat nicio sumă prevăzută la articolul 53 a doua teză.”
 Articolul 2
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în a douăzecea zi de la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 24 iunie 2013.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) JO L 328, 15.12.2009, p. 10.
 (2) JO L 171, 6.7.2010, p. 1.


text:
 Důležité právní upozornění
 |
 52007PC0734
 Návrh nařízení Rady kterým se pro rok 2008 stanoví rybolovná práva a související podmínky pro některé populace ryb a skupiny populací ryb v Černém moři /* KOM/2007/0734 konecném znení */
 [pic] | KOMISE EVROPSKÝCH SPOLEČENSTVÍ |V Bruselu dne 20.11.2007KOM(2007) 734 v konečném zněníNávrhNAŘÍZENÍ RADYkterým se pro rok 2008 stanoví rybolovná práva a související podmínky pro některé populace ryb a skupiny populací ryb v Černém moři(předložená Komisí)DŮVODOVÁ ZPRÁVA1. Souvislosti návrhu110- Cíle návrhuPo přistoupení Bulharska a Rumunska k EU dne 1. ledna 2007 je cílem tohoto návrhu stanovit rybolovná práva členských států pro rok 2008 na populace ryb v Černém moři, které z obchodního hlediska patří mezi nejvýznamnější.120- Obecné souvislostiV souladu s nařízením Rady (ES) č. 2371/2002 ze dne 20. prosince 2002 o zachování a udržitelném využívání rybolovných zdrojů v rámci společné rybářské politiky musí společná rybářská politika zajistit využívání živých vodních zdrojů za udržitelných hospodářských, environmentálních a sociálních podmínek. K dosažení těchto cílů významně přispívá roční stanovení rybolovných práv ve formě celkových přípustných odlovů (TAC), kvót a omezení intenzity rybolovu.Stanovení rybolovných práv v Černém moři bude poprvé provedeno samostatným nařízením pro rok 2008. Záměrem je, aby toto nařízení bylo přijato v listopadu 2007. V budoucnu může být do tohoto režimu řízení zahrnuto více populací a přidána další technická opatření.Vědeckotechnický a hospodářský výbor pro rybářství (VTHVR) vydal v říjnu 2007 vědecké doporučení týkající se rybolovných práv v Černém moři pro rok 2008.Návrh obsahuje dva soubory řídících opatření, přičemž jeden stanoví celkové přípustné odlovy a kvóty a druhý stanoví související technická opatření.- Platné předpisy vztahující se na oblast návrhuŽádné. Jedná se o první návrh tohoto druhu pro Černé moře.- Soulad s ostatními politikami a cíli UnieNavržená opatření jsou v souladu s cíli společné rybářské politiky a s politikou Společenství v oblasti udržitelného rozvoje.2. Konzultace zúčastněných stran a posouzení dopadů- Konzultace zúčastněných stranBěhem jara a podzimu 2007 se uskutečnilo několik konzultačních setkání s vnitrostátními správními orgány a vědci ve dvou dotčených členských státech.- Sběr a využití výsledků odborných znalostíV září 2007 se v Rumunsku sešla pracovní skupina vědců. Tato skupina zpracovala zprávu, která popisuje situaci populací šprota obecného a pakambaly velké ve vodách Společenství v Černém moři. Tyto informace byly předány Vědeckotechnickému a hospodářskému výboru pro rybářství (VTHVR), který naopak předal své doporučení Komisi.Navrhované celkové přípustné odlovy jsou v souladu s doporučením VTHVR.- Posouzení dopadůPravděpodobný dopad tohoto návrhu na odvětví rybolovu byl zkoumán s vnitrostátními správními orgány a rovněž s odborníky a vědci z obou dotčených členských států.Protože tento návrh je v souladu s vnitrostátními opatřeními, která byla v platnosti před přistoupením Bulharska a Rumunska, jeho pravděpodobný dopad na odvětví rybolovu těchto dvou členských států nezpůsobí žádné významné změny v dotčeném odvětví rybolovu. Protože tento návrh vychází z vědeckého doporučení, dopad na dotčené populace bude v rámci udržitelnosti. Tento návrh by měl být považován za první krok k vytvoření podmínek pro dlouhodobé udržitelné využívání této oblasti a tím zlepšit dlouhodobou stabilitu odvětví rybolovu v těchto dvou členských státech.3. Právní stránka návrhu- Právní základPrávním základem tohoto návrhu je nařízení Rady (ES) č. 2371/2002, a zejména článek 20 uvedeného nařízení.4. Rozpočtové důsledkyNávrh nemá důsledky pro rozpočet Společenství.5. Další informace- PodrobnostiNávrh stanoví rybolovná práva pro členské státy lovící v Černém moři pro rok 2008. Celkové přípustné odlovy a kvóty přidělené členským státům jsou uvedeny v příloze I. Navržená čísla vycházejí z vědeckého doporučení.Technická opatření v příloze II představují doplňková opatření pro účely řízení rybolovu pakambaly velké.Komise rovněž podporuje spolupráci při řízení rybolovu s třetími zeměmi kolem Černého moře. V současné době se zkoumá možnost založení regionální organizace pro rybolov.NávrhNAŘÍZENÍ RADYkterým se pro rok 2008 stanoví rybolovná práva a související podmínky pro některé populace ryb a skupiny populací ryb v Černém mořiRADA EVROPSKÉ UNIE,s ohledem na Smlouvu o založení Evropského společenství,s ohledem na nařízení Rady (ES) č. 2371/2002 ze dne 20. prosince 2002 o zachování a udržitelném využívání rybolovných zdrojů v rámci společné rybářské politiky[1], a zejména na článek 20 uvedeného nařízení,s ohledem na nařízení Rady (ES) č. 847/1996 ze dne 6. května 1996, kterým se stanoví dodatečné podmínky pro meziroční řízení celkových přípustných odlovů a kvót[2], a zejména na článek 2 uvedeného nařízení,s ohledem na návrh Komise,vzhledem k těmto důvodům:(1) Podle článku 4 nařízení (ES) č. 2371/2002 musí Rada s přihlédnutím k dostupným vědeckým doporučením, a zejména ke zprávě vypracované Vědeckotechnickým a hospodářským výborem pro rybářství, přijmout nezbytná opatření, aby zajistila přístup do vod a ke zdrojům a udržitelné provozování rybolovných činností.(2) Podle článku 20 nařízení (ES) č. 2371/2002 má Rada stanovit rybolovná práva podle lovišť nebo skupin lovišť a přidělit tato práva členským státům.(3) Za účelem zajištění efektivního řízení rybolovných práv by měly být stanoveny zvláštní podmínky, jimiž se rybolovné činnosti řídí.(4) Článek 3 nařízení (ES) č. 2371/2002 stanoví definice použitelné pro přidělování rybolovných práv.(5) V souladu s článkem 2 nařízení Rady (ES) č. 847/96 je třeba určit populace, na něž se vztahují různá opatření uvedeného článku.(6) S cílem přispět k zachování populací ryb by měla být v roce 2008 provedena některá doplňková technická opatření týkající se rybolovných činností.(7) Rybolovná práva by měla být použita v souladu s právními předpisy Společenství v dané oblasti, zejména s nařízením Rady (EHS) č. 2847/93 ze dne 12. října 1993 o zavedení kontrolního režimu pro společnou rybářskou politiku[3] a nařízením Rady (ES) č. 850/98 ze dne 30. března 1998 o zachování rybolovných zdrojů pomocí technických opatření na ochranu nedospělých mořských živočichů[4].PŘIJALA TOTO NAŘÍZENÍ:KAPITOLA I Oblast působnosti a definiceČlánek 1 PředmětToto nařízení stanoví pro rok 2008 rybolovná práva a související podmínky pro využívání těchto rybolovných práv pro určité populace ryb a skupiny populací ryb v Černém moři.Článek 2 Oblast působnosti1. Toto nařízení se vztahuje na rybářská plavidla Společenství (plavidla Společenství) působící v Černém moři.2. Odchylně od odstavce 1 se toto nařízení nevztahuje na rybářské činnosti, které jsou prováděny výhradně za účelem vědeckého výzkumu a s povolením a pod dohledem dotčeného členského státu, po předchozím oznámení Komisi a členskému státu, v jehož vodách je tento výzkum prováděn.Článek 3 DefiniceKromě definic stanovených v článku 3 nařízení (ES) č. 2371/2002 se pro účely tohoto nařízení použijí tyto definice:a) „GFCM“ se rozumí Generální komise pro rybolov ve Středomoří;b) „Černým mořem“ se rozumí zeměpisná podoblast definovaná v usnesení GFCM/31/2007/2[5];c) „celkovým přípustným odlovem“ nebo „TAC“ se rozumí množství, které může být každý rok uloveno z každé populace a může být provedena jeho vykládka;d) „kvótou“ se rozumí část TAC přidělená Společenství, členskému státu nebo třetí zemi.KAPITOLA IIRybolovná práva a související podmínkyČlánek 4 Omezení odlovů a rozděleníOmezení odlovů, rozdělení těchto omezení mezi členské státy a další podmínky v souladu s článkem 2 nařízení (ES) 847/96 se stanoví v příloze I tohoto nařízení.Článek 5 Zvláštní ustanovení týkající se rozděleníRozdělením omezení odlovů mezi členské státy stanoveným v příloze I nesmějí být dotčeny:(1) výměny provedené podle čl. 20 odst. 5 nařízení (ES) č. 2371/2002;(2) přerozdělení provedená podle čl. 21 odst. 4, čl. 23 odst. 1 a čl. 32 odst. 2 nařízení (EHS) č. 2847/93 a čl. 23 odst. 4 druhý pododstavec nařízení (ES) č. 2371/2002;(3) dodatečné vykládky podle článku 3 nařízení (ES) č. 847/96;(4) odpočty provedené podle článku 5 nařízení (ES) č. 847/96 a čl. 23 odst. 4 první pododstavec nařízení (ES) č. 2371/2002.Článek 6 Podmínky pro úlovky a vedlejší úlovky1. Ryby populací, pro něž byla stanovena omezení odlovu, smějí být uchovávány na palubě nebo vyloženy pouze tehdy, pokud odlovy provedla plavidla členského státu, jenž má kvótu, která dosud nebyla vyčerpána.2. Všechna vyložená množství se odpočítají od kvóty nebo, pokud podíl Společenství nebyl rozdělen mezi členské státy v podobě kvót, od podílu Společenství.Článek 7 Přechodná technická opatřeníPřechodná technická opatření jsou stanovena v příloze II.KAPITOLA IIIZávěrečná ustanoveníČlánek 8 Přenos datZasílají-li členské státy Komisi data vztahující se k vykládkám objemů populací odlovených podle čl. 15 odst. 1 nařízení (EHS) č. 2847/93, musejí používat kódy populací stanovené v příloze I tohoto nařízení.Článek 9 Vstup v platnostToto nařízení vstupuje v platnost dnem vyhlášení v Úředním věstníku Evropské unie .Použije se ode dne 1. ledna 2008.Toto nařízení je závazné v celém rozsahu a přímo použitelné ve všech členských státech.V Bruselu dneZa RadupředsedaPŘÍLOHA IOmezení odlovu a související podmínky pro meziroční řízení omezení odlovů vztahující se na plavidla Společenství v oblastech, ve kterých jsou stanovena omezení odlovů podle druhu a oblastiTabulky stanoví TAC a kvóty (v tunách živé hmotnosti, není-li uvedeno jinak) podle populace, rozdělení mezi členské státy a související podmínky pro meziroční řízení kvót.V rámci každé oblasti jsou populace ryb uváděny v abecedním pořadí podle latinského názvu druhu. Pro účely těchto tabulek jsou kódy jednotlivých druhů tyto:Vědecký název | Třímístný písmenný kód | Obecný název |Psetta maxima | TUR | Pakambala velká |Sprattus sprattus | SPR | Šprot obecný |Druh: | Pakambala velká | Oblast: | Černé moře |Psetta maxima |Bulharsko Rumunsko | 45 45 | Preventivní TAC Článek 3 nařízení (ES) č. 847/96 se nepoužije. Článek 4 nařízení (ES) č. 847/96 se nepoužije. Použije se článek 5 nařízení (ES) č. 847/96. || ES | 90 |TAC | Nepoužije se |Druh: | Šprot obecný | Oblast: | Černé moře |Sprattus sprattus |Preventivní TAC Použije se článek 3 nařízení (ES) č. 847/96. Článek 4 nařízení (ES) č. 847/96 se nepoužije. Použije se článek 5 nařízení (ES) č. 847/96. |ES | 15000(1) |TAC | Nepoužije se |(1) Smí být loven pouze plavidly plujícími pod vlajkou Bulharska nebo Rumunska.PŘÍLOHA IIPřechodná technická opatření1. Od 15. dubna do 15. června se zakazuje rybolov pakambaly velké ve vodách Evropského společenství v Černém moři.2. Minimální velikost ok svislých sítí na chytání pakambaly velké za žábry nesmí být menší než 200 mm. Avšak minimální velikost ok svislých sítí na chytání pakambaly velké za žábry použitých bulharskými rybářskými plavidly nesmí být menší než 180 mm.3. Minimální velikost pro vykládku pakambaly velké nesmí být menší než 45 cm celkové délky měřené podle článku 18 nařízení 850/98.[1] Úř. věst. L 358, 31.12.2002, s. 59.[2] Úř. věst. L 115, 9.5.1996, s. 3.[3] Úř. věst. L 261, 20.10.1993, s. 1. Nařízení naposledy pozměněné nařízením (ES) č. 1954/2003 (Úř. věst. L 289, 7.11.2003, s. 1).[4] Úř. věst. L 125, 27.4.1998, s. 1. Nařízení naposledy pozměněné nařízením (ES) č. 2166/2005 (Úř. věst. L 345, 28.12.2005, s. 5).[5] Č.j.:


text:
C 135/26 IT Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea 7.6.2003
 SENTENZA DEL TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO SENTENZA DEL TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO
 3 aprile 2003
 10 aprile 2003
 nelle cause riunite T-44/01, T-119/01 e T-126/01: Eduardo
 Vieira, SA e a. contro Commissione delle Comunità
 europee ( 1)
 nella causa T-369/00: Département du Loiret contro
 Commissione delle Comunità europee (1)
 («Pesca — Accordo di pesca con l’Argentina — Contributo
 finanziario comunitario — Riduzione — Ricorso di annulla-
 mento — Ricorso per risarcimento danni»)
 («Ricorso di annullamento — Aiuti concessi dagli Stati —
 Regolamento (CE) n. 659/1999 — Articolo 15 — Termine (2003/C 135/40)
 di prescrizione — Recupero dell’aiuto — Atto interruttivo
 della prescrizione») (Lingua processuale: lo spagnolo)
 (2003/C 135/39) Nelle cause riunite T-44/01, T-119/01 e T-126/01, Eduardo
 Vieira, SA, con sede in Vigo-Pontevedra (Spagna), rappresenta-
 ta dagli avv.ti R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier e M. D. Domín-
 (Lingua processuale: il francese) guez Pérez, ricorrente nelle cause T-44/01 e T-126/01, Vieira
 Argentina, SA, con sede in Buenos Aires (Argentina), rappre-
 sentata dagli avv.ti R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier e
 M. D. Domínguez Pérez, ricorrente nella causa T-44/01,
 Pescanova, SA, con sede in Chapela (Spagna), rappresentata
 dagli avv.ti A. Creus Carreras, B. Uriarte Valiente e S. Rodríguez
 Nella causa T-369/00, Département du Loiret, rappresentato Artacho, ricorrente nella causa T-119/01, contro Commissione
 dal sig. A. Carnelutti, avocat, sostenuto da Scott S. A., con sede delle Comunità europee (agenti: signora S. Pardo Quintillán e
 in Saint-Cloud (Francia), rappresentata da Sir Jeremy Lever, signor J. Guerra Fernández), aventi ad oggetto, nella causa
 QC., dai sigg. G. Peretz, barrister, e R. Griffith, solicitor, con T-44/01, una domanda di risarcimento, ai sensi degli
 domicilio eletto in Lussemburgo, contro Commissione delle artt. 235 CE e 288, secondo comma, CE, del danno subito in
 Comunità europee (agenti: signori G. Rozet e J. Flett), avente seguito alla sospensione del versamento del saldo del contribu-
 ad oggetto una domanda di annullamento parziale della to finanziario concesso per il progetto ARG/ESP/SM/26-94
 decisione della Commissione 12 luglio 2000, 2002/14/CE, relativo alla costituzione di un’associazione temporanea di
 relativa all’aiuto di Stato concesso dalla Francia a favore di imprese nell’ambito dell’accordo tra la Comunità e la Repubbli-
 Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark (GU L 12, pag. 1), il Tribunale ca argentina sulle relazioni in materia di pesca marittima, nella
 (Quinta Sezione ampliata), composto dai sigg. J.D. Cooke, causa T-119/01, una domanda di annullamento della decisione
 presidente, R. García-Valdecasas, dalla sig.ra P. Lindh, e dai della Commissione 19 marzo 2001, che riduce il contributo
 sigg. N.J. Forwood e H. Legal, giudici, cancelliere: sig. J. Palacio accordato al progetto ARG/ESP/SM/17-94 per la costituzione
 González, amministratore principale, ha pronunciato il di un’associazione temporanea di imprese nell’ambito dell’ac-
 10 aprile 2003 una sentenza il cui dispositivo è del seguente cordo tra la Comunità e la Repubblica argentina sulle relazioni
 tenore: in materia di pesca marittima, e, nella causa T-126/01, una
 domanda di annullamento della decisione della Commissione
 19 marzo 2001, che riduce il contributo accordato al progetto
 ARG/ESP/SM/26-94 per la costituzione di un’associazione
 1) Il ricorso di annullamento dell’art. 2 della decisione della temporanea di imprese nell’ambito dell’accordo tra la Comu-
 Commissione 12 luglio 2000, 2002/14/CE, è respinto nella nità e la Repubblica argentina sulle relazioni in materia di
 parte in cui si fonda sulla violazione da parte della Commissione pesca marittima, il Tribunale (Terza Sezione), composto dai
 dell’art. 15 del regolamento (CE) del Consiglio 22 marzo 1999, sigg. K. Lenaerts, presidente, J. Azizi e M. Jaeger, giudici,
 n. 659, recante modalità di applicazione dell’articolo [88 CE]. cancelliere: sig. J. Palacio González, amministratore principale,
 ha pronunciato il 3 aprile 2003 una sentenza il cui dispositivo
 è del seguente tenore:
 2) Per il resto, il procedimento prosegue.
 1) Le cause T-44/01, T-119/01 e T-126/01 sono riunite ai fini
 3) Le spese sono riservate. della sentenza.
 2) I ricorsi sono respinti.
 3) Le ricorrenti sono condannate alle spese.
 ( 1) GU C 61 del 24.02.2001.
 (1 ) GU C 134 del 5.5.2001 e C 245 dell’1.9.2001.


type: other

text:
Tesserini in plastica (8,6x5,4cm) - Lo Stampino
 TIPOGRAFIA, Prodotti per Ufficio
 Tesserini in plastica (8,6×5,4cm)
 Mini Block notes da: 0,49€
 Post It – Foglietti adesivi (72x72mm) da: 0,49€
 da: 0,59€
 Tesserini per associazioni o simili? Formato carta di credito su richiesta anche con area per la firma e banda magnetica. I tesserini con la verniciatura UV hanno uno spessore di circa 0,6 mm. Formato 8,6 x 5,4 cm, prodotto secondo norma ISO/IEC 7810. Materiale: 650μm biglietto in PVC, verniciatura UV lucida su f/r.
 Quantità Scegli un'opzione11002505001000
 Tipologia Scegli un'opzioneStandardCon firmaCon banda magneticaCon firma + banda magnetica Annulla selezione
 COD: TIP0046 Categoria: Prodotti per Ufficio
 1, 100, 250, 500, 1000
 Standard, Con firma, Con banda magnetica, Con firma + banda magnetica
 Buste da lettera (22,9×32,4cm)
 Buste da lettera (22,9×32,4cm), stampa a colori solo fronte su carta 90gr.
 da: 188,00€
 Block Notes con incollaggio (14,8x21cm)
 Block Notes con incollaggio (14,8x21cm). Stampa a colori solo Fronte su carta 90gr. bianca. Cartoncino rinforzato grigio di 1mm.
 da: 126,00€
 Cartellette di presentazione per fogli A4
 Cartellette di presentazione (21×59,4cm) per fogli A4 personalizzate con stampa a colori solo fronte su carta 300gr.
 da: 234,00€
 Carta intestata formato A4 (21×29,7cm) su carta 90 gr. con stampa a colori solo fronte. La migliore scelta per presentarti in maniera professionale.
 Prova a posizionare la tua pubblicità direttamente sotto gli occhi dei tuoi clienti attraverso un articolo utile come il sottomano per scrivania. Cartoncino rinforzato per il retro (grigio, spessore ca. 1 mm, non stampato). Formato: A3 orizzontale (42 x 29,7 cm). Numero di fogli: 25 fogli. Materiale: 90g carta bianca. Stampa a colori solo fronte.
 da: 222,00€
 Bigliettini da visita (5,5×8,5cm)
 Bigliettini da visita (5,5×8,5cm) stampa a colori Fronte e Retro su carta 300gr.
 Pieghevoli Din Lungo (9,8x21cm)
 Pieghevoli Din Lungo (9,8x21cm) stampa a colori su carta 125gr. patinata opaca con piega a fisarmonica o a portafoglio.
 Buste da lettera (11x22cm)
 Buste da lettera (11x22cm), stampa a colori solo fronte su carta 80gr.
 Per idee o per gli appunti: facile con i mini block notes. L’incollaggio tiene insieme le pagine in modo sicuro pur permettendo di staccarle agevolmente. Cartoncino rinforzato sul retro (grigio, spessore ca. 1 mm, non stampato). Quadrato piccolo (9,8 x 9,8 cm) con 50 fogli su carta 90g bianca, stampa a colori solo fronte.
 da: 0,49€
 La tua opera d’arte nel tuo ufficio. Consegnati assemblati con cornici in legno di abete, spessore cornici 2 cm.


text:
Den albanska revolten 1910 var den första av flera stora albanska uppror mot Osmanska riket. Nya skatter under de första månaderna detta år ledde till att Isa Boletini kunde övertyga de albanska ledarna, som redan hade varit med om ett annat uppror 1909, att göra ytterligare en revolt mot Osmanska riket. De albanska attackerna mot osmanerna i Pristina, Ferizaj och Peja ledde till att osmanska regeringen införde krigslagar i området.
 Efter två veckor av hårda strider drog sig albanerna tillbaka från Drenica-regionen, medan den osmanska armén intog städerna Prizren och Gjakova. Osmanerna återtog Peja den 1 juni 1910 och två månader senare även Shkodra.
 Flera albaner avrättades och byar brändes.
 Händelser
 Under de första månaderna år 1910 försökte Isa Boletini samordna albanerna för ett nytt uppror genom att besöka de albanska klaner, som hade tagit sin tillflykt till Montenegro sedan de misslyckats med ett tidigare uppror 1909. Under tiden införde den nya guvernören Masar Bey en ny skatt på råvaror vilket inte var populärt. De albanska ledarna höll två möten där de svor en ed, "besa", att förenas mot den nya osmanska regeringens politik för centralisering. Isa Boletinis styrkor anföll de osmanska styrkorna i Pristina och Ferizaj, medan befälhavaren för de osmanska styrkorna i Peja dödades av lokalbefolkningen. Den osmanska regeringen förklarade krig och skickade en militär styrka på 16 000 man som leddes av Sevket Turgut Pasha.
 Samtidigt, under ledning av Idriz Seferi, blockerade hans 3 000 män järnvägen till Skopje i Kacanikpasset. De erövrade ett tåg med militära förnödenheter som skulle till den osmanska garnisonen i Pristina. De osmanska styrkorna anföll albanerna men motståndet var för starkt. De utökade då sin styrka till 40 000 man. Efter två veckor av hårda strider intog de osmanska styrkorna Kacanik och anföll de albanska styrkorna ledda av Isa Boletini och Hasan Budakova, som under tiden hade blockerat vägen från Ferizaj-Prizren vägen till Carravela.
 Referenser
 Albanien under 1900-talet
 Uppror i Europa
 1910 i Europa


text:
 26.3.2011
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 95/9
 Prasība, kas celta 2011. gada 24. janvārī — Air France/Komisija
 (Lieta T-63/11)
 2011/C 95/14
 Tiesvedības valoda — franču
 Lietas dalībnieki
 Prasītāja: Société Air France (Roissy Charles de Gaulle, Francija) (pārstāvji — A. Wachsmann un S. Thibault-Liger, avocats)
 Atbildētāja: Eiropas Komisija
 Prasījumi:
 Prasītājas prasījumi Vispārējai tiesai ir šādi:
 —
 atcelt, pamatojoties uz LESD 263. pantu, Eiropas Komisijas 2010. gada 9. novembra Lēmumu Nr. C(2010) 7694, galīgā redakcija, par LESD 101. panta, EEZ līguma 53. panta un Eiropas Kopienas un Šveices Konfederācijas Nolīguma par gaisa transportu 8. panta piemērošanu, lieta COMP/39.258 — Kravu aviopārvadājumi tiktāl, ciktāl tas attiecas uz Société Air France, kā arī tā rezolutīvās daļas pamatojumu;
 —
 atcelt vismaz 5. panta b) punktu 2010. gada 9. novembra Lēmumā Nr. C(2010) 7694, galīgā redakcija, ar kuru ir uzlikts naudas sods Société Air France, un tā pamatojumu, vai samazināt, pamatojoties uz LESD 261. pantu, šo naudas sodu līdz atbilstošai summai;
 —
 katrā ziņā piespriest Eiropas Komisijai atlīdzināt tiesāšanās izdevumus.
 Pamati un galvenie argumenti
 Savas prasības pamatošanai prasītāja izvirza desmit pamatus, kas būtībā ir identiski vai līdzīgi pamatiem, kas izvirzīti lietā T-62/11 Air France — KLM/Komisija.


text:
Lékaři mají mít nově 33 základních oborů. Udrží se toto číslo i po cestě sněmovnou? - Zdravotnický deník
 Úvod Právo Lékaři mají mít nově 33 základních oborů. Udrží se toto číslo i...
 Lékaři mají mít nově 33 základních oborů. Udrží se toto číslo i po cestě sněmovnou?
 Ministerstvo si od novely zákona 95/2004 slibuje, že zabrání odchodům části mladých lékařů do zahraničí. Změna má dát vzdělávání jasná pravidla a definováním kompetencí, povinností a s nimi souvisejících pojmů poskytnout mladým lékařům jistoty. Foto: Flickr
 Novela zákona o postgraduálním vzdělávání lékařů a lékárníků je jednou ze zásadních úprav, kterou si současné ministerstvo zdravotnictví vzalo na svá bedra. Slibuje si od ní, že zjednoduší a zpřehlední výchovu mladých lékařů natolik, že již nebude jedním z důvodů jejich odchodu do zahraniční. Už nyní, tedy ještě dříve, než se novela dostala na vládu, ale vzbuzuje mezi lékaři velké kontroverze. Tou vůbec největší je snížení počtu základních oborů, z nichž tak vypadnou např. praktici pro děti a dorost (kteří se spojí s dětským lékařstvím v jeden pediatrický obor, více jsme psali např. zde), nukleární medicína nebo geriatrie. Diskuse se ovšem vedou i ohledně toho, jak mají být stanoveny podmínky pro výkon vedoucích funkcí či nad časovou dosažitelností lékaře vykonávajícího odborný dozor. Další smršť výhrad (zejména od odborných společností, kterým se ruší základní obor) pak lze očekávat ve chvíli, kdy bude návrh projednávat sněmovna. Prozatím ministerstvo vypořádalo připomínky a zapracovalo také některé výtky legislativní rady vlády. Ta novelu projednávala v listopadu, nakonec ale jednání přerušila a pokračovat má příští čtvrtek, tedy 14. ledna.
 Nedostatek lékařů je problém, který už nyní začíná trápit celou Evropu a s demografickým vývojem se bude zhoršovat. V Česku ho navíc násobí fakt, že některé lékaře může vidina lepšího výdělku zlákat k práci za hranicemi. Druhým důvodem pro odchod z domoviny pak je nevhodně nastavený systém postgraduálního vzdělávání, který mnohé přinutí, aby si vzdělání dodělali v jiné zemi. Právě to je bod, který by chtěla změnit novela zákona 95/2004 o podmínkách získávání a uznávání odborné způsobilosti a specializované způsobilosti k výkonu zdravotnického povolání lékaře, zubního lékaře a farmaceuta.
 „Návrh by měl především zjednodušit postavení účastníka specializačního vzdělávání, snížit administrativní náročnost uskutečňování specializačního vzdělávání poskytovatelům zdravotních služeb a dalším oprávněným subjektům a současně jednoznačně definovat podmínky specializačního vzdělávání, například posuzování zdravotní způsobilosti lékaře, zubního lékaře a farmaceuta, přerušení výkonu povolání a povinnost následného doškolení, požadavky na školitele a garanta oboru, více reprezentativní složení atestačních komisí a akreditačních komisí,“ objasňuje se v návrhu.
 Novela byla legislativní radě vlády předložena s rozpory podané Středočeským a Zlínským krajem, Českomoravskou konfederací odborových svazů a Konfederací zaměstnavatelských a podnikatelských ČR. Středočeský kraj např. nesouhlasí, aby byl pro výkon zdravotnických povolání akceptován slovenský jazyk na roveň českého. Požaduje také mimo jiné, aby lékařům se specializovanou způsobilostí v základních oborech, které už podle novely základní nebudou, byla ze zákona přiznána příbuzná specializovaná způsobilost. Zlínský kraj nesouhlasí s ukončením vzdělávání v oboru praktický lékař pro děti a dorost, redukce počtu oborů je pak trnem v oku také Konfederaci zaměstnavatelských a podnikatelských svazů, která trvá na ponechání nukleární medicíny a cévní chirurgie mezi základními obory. Konfederace dále navrhuje, aby zákon definoval kompetence lékaře po absolvování konkrétního základního kmene, přičemž nesouhlasí s tím, aby byly důležité otázky specializačního vzdělávání řešeny prováděcími předpisy. Výhrady má i k délkám vzdělávání a nesouhlasí s definováním dosažitelnosti lékaře vykonávajícího odborný dozor. Poslední zmíněný bod se nezdá ani Českomoravské konfederaci odborových svazů, která požaduje vypuštění časového limitu pro dostupnost lékaře při odborném dozoru a dohledu.
 Rozpor s listinou základních práv MZ vyvrací
 Legislativní rada vlády pak v rámci obecných připomínek upozornila na možný rozpor s listinou základních práv a svobod (konkrétně s tím, že zákon může stanovit podmínky a omezení pro výkon určitých povolání nebo činností, článek 26, odst. 2). Důvodem je fakt, že výkon funkce vedoucího lékaře/lékárníka nebo primáře je podmíněn získáním osvědčení o splnění podmínek daných Českou lékařskou komorou, Českou stomatologickou komorou nebo Českou lékárnickou komorou podle § 2 odst. 2 písm. d) zákona č. 220/1991 o České lékařské komoře, České stomatologické komoře a České lékárnické komoře. „Nikoliv vnitřní předpis profesní komory, ale pouze zákon může stanovit podmínky a omezení pro výkon určitých povolání a činností,“ stojí v návrzích změn legislativní rady vlády.
 „Podmínky pro výkon funkce vedoucího lékaře nijak nesouvisí s podmínkami pro výkon povolání lékaře. Vedoucí funkce obsazuje dle svého uvážení zaměstnavatel, a to v zásadě bez pravidel (dle vnitřních pravidel zaměstnavatele). Česká lékařská komora dle výše citovaného zákona může stanovit podmínky, které musí splňovat její členové, chtějí-li spolu s příslušným výkonem povolání lékaře vykonávat i funkci vedoucího lékaře. Nejde ale o další podmínky výkonu povolání, protože samotný výkon povolání tímto není podmíněn. (...) Člen komory se proti vydání, resp. nevydání osvědčení může právními prostředky bránit. V této souvislosti si předkladatel dovoluje odkázat na usnesení Ústavního soudu ze dne 22. října 2001 I. ÚS 208/2000, ve kterém se Ústavní soud zabýval otázkou souladu vydávání obdobných osvědčení pro výkon povolání farmaceutům s právem na svobodnou volbu povolání dle čl. 26 LZPS. Ústavní soud neshledal rozpor této právní úpravy s ústavním pořádkem a ústavní stížnost odmítl jako zjevně neopodstatněnou,“ oponuje v důvodové zprávě ministerstvo.
 Ministerstvo od legislativní rady, respektive od komise pro hodnocení dopadů regulace, dostalo za úkol přepracovat zprávu z hodnocení dopadů regulace z důvodu její stručnosti a nedostatečnosti. Chybí v ní totiž analýza problémů i základní údaje, jako je počet lékařů odcházejících do zahraničí. Ministerstvo proto zpracovalo téměř 150 stránkový dokument, se stávajícími daty však na řadu věcí nedokáže odpovědět. Kromě údajů o průměrném věku lékařů v jednotlivých odbornostech totiž ÚZIS o zdravotnících příliš neví. Důvodem je to, že v roce 2012 zrušil Ústavní soud Národní registr zdravotnických pracovníků. Napravit by to měla novela zákona 372/2011 o zdravotních službách, která je právě ve sněmovně a která by měla umožnit fungování potřebných registrů a získání chybějících dat.
 Ubude 13 základních oborů
 Prozatím ministerstvo využilo alespoň informace České lékařské komory, která udělala průzkum mezi 6500 lékaři. Podle něj si sedm z deseti lékařů přeje snížit současný počet oborů, pouhá tři procenta by byla pro zvýšení. Tomu také ministerstvo vyhovělo – ze současných 46 základních a 50 nástavbových oborů stanovuje návrh novely zákona 18 základních kmenů trvajících 24 měsíců, po jejichž absolvování mohou mladí lékaři pracovat pod odborným dohledem, a 33 základních oborů, jejichž studium trvá tři až šest let (včetně kmene). Snížení počtu oborů má vést k lepší prostupnosti a zabránit rozdrobování medicíny.
 Ministerstvo si pak stojí i za další věcí, která se objevila v rozporech – tedy definicí odborného dozoru a dohledu, která byla dosud nejasná. „Nejednoznačnost pojmu má přímý vliv na kvalitu poskytovaných zdravotních služeb. Tato problémová situace je ještě navíc umocněna skutečností, že Česká lékařská komora zastává ve věci výkonu odborného dohledu jiný výklad než ministerstvo. Za účelem zvýšení kvality poskytovaných zdravotních služeb je dále třeba podrobněji definovat podmínky doškolení lékařů, zubních lékařů a farmaceutů, které je zákonným předpokladem pro výkon zdravotnického povolání po jeho dlouhodobém přerušení,“ zdůvodňuje ministerstvo. Na problémy, které nejednoznačnost pojmů, povinností školitelů a kompetencí mladých lékařů dosud způsobovaly, jsme upozorňovali zde.
 Jak jsou tedy termíny nově definovány? Zatímco odborný dozor je vykonáván nad lékaři absolvujícími základní kmen a obnáší fyzickou přítomnost lékaře se specializovanou způsobností do 10 minut, dohled se týká lékařů s certifikátem o absolvování základního kmene a znamená dosažitelnost „dohlížitele“ na telefonu a jeho fyzickou přítomnost do 30 minut.
 Žádostí o dotace na rezidenční místa zřejmě přibude
 Ačkoliv bude (snad) novela znamenat hlavně přínosy a případně snížení nákladů v souvislosti se zkrácením specializačního vzdělávání a také možností samostatného výkonu některých činností lékaři po základním kmeni, v některých bodech si vyžádá finance navíc.
 „Zvýšení nákladů na státní rozpočet přichází v úvahu v souvislosti se změnou náležitostí žádosti o dotaci na rezidenční místo pro vzdělávání lékaře v základním kmeni. Předpokladem je, že dojde ke zvýšení počtu podaných žádostí o tuto dotaci, a tudíž bude nezbytné alokovat více finančních prostředků z rozpočtové kapitoly ministerstva. Předpokládá se, že dojde ke zvýšení počtu podaných žádostí o tuto dotaci, a tudíž bude nezbytné alokovat více finančních prostředků. Při zachování stávající výše dotace na základní kmen deset tisíc korun měsíčně a současných podmínek jejího přidělování lze odhadovat navýšení nákladů na dotační program rezidenční místa o 60 milionů korun,“ uvádí důvodová zpráva.
 Finance si zřejmě vyžádá i zohlednění návrhu Českomoravské konfederace odborových svazů ohledně toho, že účast na vzdělávání v prvním základním kmeni a v prvním základním oboru se nově bude považovat za zvyšování kvalifikace podle zákoníku práce (v současném znění jde o prohlubování kvalifikace), na další vzdělávání pak bude pohlíženo jako na prohlubování kvalifikace. V návaznosti na tuto změnu lze očekávat zvýšení nákladů na státní rozpočet v celkové výši 300 milionů korun.
 Předchozí článekToshiba shání peníze. Musí prodat svoji zdravotnickou divizi
 Další článekHlavní hygienik ve funkci končí, rozloučil se s kolegy. O jeho místo se utkají tři ženy


text:
 9.11.2013
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 325/44
 2013 m. rugpjūčio 28 d. pareikštas ieškinys byloje Hermann Trollius prieš ECHA
 (Byla T-466/13)
 2013/C 325/72
 Proceso kalba: anglų
 Šalys
 Ieškovė: Hermann TrolliusGmbH (Briuselis, Belgija), atstovaujama advokatų M. Ahlhaus ir J. Schrotz
 Atsakovė: Europos cheminių medžiagų agentūra (ECHA)
 Reikalavimai
 Ieškovė Bendrojo Teismo prašo:
 —
 panaikinti 2013 m. sausio 31 d. ECHA sprendimą Nr. SME (2013) 0191 ir 2013 m. vasario 4 d. ECHA sąskaitą-faktūrą Nr. 10035033 ir
 —
 priteisti iš atsakovės visas bylinėjimosi išlaidas.
 Ieškinio pagrindai ir pagrindiniai argumentai
 Grįsdama ieškinį ieškovė remiasi trimis pagrindais.
 1.
 Kaip pirmas pagrindas nurodomas atsakovės įgaliojimų neturėjimas.
 —
 Ieškovė teigia, kad atsakovė neturėjo teisės priimti skundžiamą sprendimą SME (2013) 0191, nes nei Reglamentu (EB) Nr. 1907/2006 (1) nei Reglamentu (EB) Nr. 340/2008 (2) atsakovui nenumatyta teisės priimti atskiro sprendimo dėl registracijos atitikties SME kriterijams.
 2.
 Kaip antras pagrindas nurodytas REACH reglamento 104 straipsnio 1 dalies, siejamos su 1958 m. balandžio 15 d. Reglamentu Nr. 1 (3) pažeidimas.
 —
 Ieškovė teigia, kad atsakovė nevykdė savo pareigos kreiptis į valstybės narės subjektą tos valstybės oficialia kalba ir taip iš ieškovo atimta galimybė įrodyti, kad atitinka mažosios įmonės kriterijus.
 3.
 Kaip trečias pagrindas nurodyta tai, kad vadovaujantis Komisijos rekomendacija Nr. 2003/361/EC (4) ieškovas laikytinas vidutinio dydžio įmonė, taigi skundžiamame sprendime yra materialinio pobūdžio klaidų.
 (1) 2006 m. gruodžio 18 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1907/2006 dėl cheminių medžiagų registracijos, įvertinimo, autorizacijos ir apribojimų (REACH), įsteigiantis Europos cheminių medžiagų agentūrą, iš dalies keičiantis Direktyvą 1999/45/EB bei panaikinantis Tarybos reglamentą (EEB) Nr. 793/93, Komisijos reglamentą (EB) Nr. 1488/94, Tarybos direktyvą 76/769/EEB ir Komisijos direktyvas 91/155/EEB, 93/67/EEB, 93/105/EB bei 2000/21/EB (OL L 396, 2006 12 30, p. 1).
 (2) 2008 m. balandžio 16 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 340/2008 dėl Europos cheminių medžiagų agentūrai mokėtinų mokesčių pagal Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentą (EB) Nr. 1907/2006 dėl cheminių medžiagų registracijos, įvertinimo, autorizacijos ir apribojimų (REACH) (OL L 107, 2008 4 17, p. 6)
 (3) Reglamentas Nr. 1, nustatantis kalbas, kurios turi būti vartojamos Europos ekonominėje bendrijoje (OL L 17, 1958 10 6, p. 385).
 (4) 2003 m. gegužės 6 d. Komisijos rekomendacija 2003/361/EB dėl mikroįmonių, mažųjų ir vidutinių įmonių apibrėžimo.