type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
 212 Md. 248 (1957)
 129 A.2d 375
 BASILIKO
 v.
 STATE
 [No. 50, October Term, 1956.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided February 13, 1957.
 *250 The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ., and OPPENHEIMER, J., Associate Judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, specially assigned.
 Douglas N. Sharretts, for appellant.
 Norman P. Ramsey, Deputy Attorney General, and Clayton A. Dietrich, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General, Alger Y. Barbee, State's Attorney for Montgomery County and Leonard T. Kardy, Deputy State's Attorney, on the brief, for appellee.
 BRUNE, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 Constas Gus Basiliko was convicted in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County of conspiracy to defraud the State of Maryland and certain named individuals constituting the State Roads Commission (usually referred to below, collectively, as the "State Roads Commission" or the "Commission"). He was sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of a thousand dollars. He appeals from the judgment and sentence. The questions presented on this appeal are whether or not his right to a fair trial was infringed by widespread newspaper, radio and television publicity during the course of the criminal trial growing out of the institution of a civil suit against him and others and out of its settlement by one of his co-defendants in the civil suit (but not in the criminal prosecution).
 The appellant was one of five defendants indicted on four counts which, in brief and in substance, charged, respectively, these conspiracies: (1) to defraud the State and the State Roads Commission; (2) to obtain money from the State and the Commission by false pretenses; (3) to cheat and defraud the State and the Commission; and (4) fraudulently to affect, increase and inflate values of real estate which was in the process *251 of being acquired by the State Roads Commission, for future road improvement, to the end that the conspirators might thereby gain unlawful profits.[1] The trial began on March 5, 1956 and was concluded on March 15th. At the arraignment just before the commencement of the trial, the State confessed "not guilty" as to two of the defendants named as conspirators, and granted immunity to a third in order to obtain his testimony against the remaining defendants  Basiliko, the appellant, and one Offenberg, both of whom pleaded "not guilty" and elected a jury trial. Both were found guilty. Basiliko was sentenced as above stated and appealed; Offenberg was sentenced only to pay a fine and has not appealed.[2]
 The gist of the State's case against Basiliko and Offenberg was that they had entered into a fraudulent conspiracy with one DuPre, a former employee of the Commission, to enhance the value of land which they knew (through DuPre) was to be acquired by the State Roads Commission, that they bought such land at a comparatively low price and by fake sales through strawmen sold it at a greatly inflated value to the Commission. DuPre was the defendant to whom immunity was granted. He had gone back to Mexico before the trial and returned to Maryland for the trial, at which he appeared as a witness for the State.
 The case had attracted considerable publicity before the trial began, and it received newspaper, radio and television coverage while it was in progress. This included coverage by Washington, D.C., newspapers and radio and television stations having an extensive circulation or coverage in Montgomery County, which includes a large area and population in the Washington suburban area.
 While the trial was in progress before Judges Anderson and Lawlor and a jury, the Honorable Stedman Prescott and Mrs. Prescott brought a suit in equity on March 8, 1956, against one Albert D. Misler, George Basiliko and Constas Gus Basiliko, the appellant in the present case. Very briefly stated, the *252 bill of complaint alleged: that the plaintiffs had owned a tract of about 24 acres of land in a sub-division near Rockville known as the "Wheel of Fortune", that Constas Gus Basiliko had worked out a scheme with DuPre under which use was to be made of advance information available to DuPre as an official of the State Roads Commission relating to the relocation of the Washington National Pike (U.S. Route 240) and Basiliko was to buy up properties along the new route in order to sell them at prices in excess of their real value to the State Roads Commission, thereby unjustly enriching Basiliko and DuPre; that using such knowledge and acting through Basiliko's brother, George Basiliko, a Washington real estate man, and through straw parties, Constas Gus Basiliko and/or George Basiliko acquired the plaintiffs' 24 acres at a price of $600 an acre, which was alleged to be "a fraction of its then real value", title being held in the name of Misler, a straw man; and that the plaintiffs would not have sold their land at the price stated if they had been in possession of the information corruptly furnished to the Basilikos by DuPre. Some of these allegations were based upon personal knowledge; most of them were made on information and belief. This is by no means a complete summary of the allegations of the bill. Some of them are more fully stated in the newspaper articles mentioned below.
 The bill prayed for a rescission of the sale and reconveyance of the land upon refund of the purchase price, interest, taxes, etc. (with proper adjustment on account of a loan secured by a deed of trust executed by Misler), and for temporary and permanent restraining orders against transfer of the property to others. A temporary restraining order signed by Judge Anderson was issued and was served on Constas Gus Basiliko, together with a subpoena to answer the bill, following the adjournment of court apparently on the afternoon of March 8th. (There appears to be some confusion of dates as between March 8th and 9th.)
 At the time of Basiliko's trial, the Honorable Stedman Prescott (now a Judge of this Court) was the Chief Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Maryland. Montgomery County is a part of that Circuit and Judge Prescott usually sat at *253 Rockville, which is the county seat of Montgomery County. Just why this civil suit was brought during the pendency of the criminal trial is not directly stated in the record, but it appears from newspaper articles contained in the record that Judge Prescott wished to obtain the deposition of DuPre, who was in Maryland at the time of Basiliko's trial and would presumably return to Mexico at the conclusion thereof. It may have been thought that it would be desirable to proceed under Rule 1, and not practicable to proceed under Rule 2, of our former General Rules of Practice and Procedure, Part Two, I, Depositions (now included in Rules 401 and 402, respectively, of the Maryland Rules). Rule 1 permitted the taking of a deposition at any time after jurisdiction had been obtained over any defendant; Rule 2 permitted the taking of a deposition prior to a suit being commenced, but involved possible delay while notice by publication was being given to non-resident prospective defendants. Both George Basiliko and Misler were shown by the bill to be non-residents of Maryland. Constas Gus Basiliko was said to be a resident of Maryland.
 It is evident from the record that Judge Prescott (and the Clerk of the Circuit Court, also) endeavored to avoid any publicity being given to the equity suit. These efforts were, however, not successful, and the suit received extensive publicity in three Washington newspapers, each of which had a large circulation in Montgomery County, and through radio and television broadcasts reaching the County.
 The first newspaper article in the record was published in The Washington Daily News of Friday, March 9, 1956, from which we quote the following:
 "JUDGE SAYS HE WAS GYPPED BY MD. ROAD DEAL DEFENDANT
 The `Wheel of Fortune'
 JUDGE SUES ROAD CASE DEFENDANT
 Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Stedman Prescott today has filed suit charging that Constas (Gus) Basiliko, one of the defendants in the Maryland Roads Commission conspiracy trial, gypped him *254 in a land sale involving 24 acres in the `Wheel of Fortune' subdivision.
 The Judge charged that Mr. Basiliko and others knew that the Roads Commission wanted the land for a clover leaf  which he said he didn't know  and bought it from him for a `fraction' of its value as a road site.
 Mr. Basiliko and Max Offenberg, both Washington businessmen, are on trial in another court in Rockville, on charges that they conspired to jack up prices on land sold to the state for highway building.
 WIFE SUES, TOO
 Judge Prescott and his wife filed the suit as private citizens against Mr. Basiliko, his brother George, a Washington real estate dealer, and Albert D. Misler, of 1336 Missouri av nw.
 The suit asked the Circuit Court to break the contract, to restrain the Basiliko group from selling the land if it has not already done so and to order any profits turned over to him if it has been sold.
 Judge Prescott issued a subpoena ordering Mr. Basiliko to appear in Circuit Court to answer the suit. He didn't say what judge would handle the case.
 TO CALL DU PRE
 The Judge also said he intends to call Ben DuPre, missing co-defendant in the roads conspiracy case, who turned up yesterday as a surprise prosecution witness, as a witness in his own case.
 His suit charges that Mr. DuPre and Constas Basiliko `corruptly agreed, planned and schemed to unjustly enrich themselves by buying properties at less than the real value thereof from persons who had no knowledge' of the highway route.
 He said the sale price of the property near Rockville, was $600 an acre. The suit said the Judge believes that a transaction was recorded in the land office so as to make it appear the purchase price was different.
 *255 The suit said this was part of an alleged scheme `to wrongfully acquire an excessive settlement from the State Roads Commission'.
 NEGOTIATIONS
 The alleged fictitious price `was to assist Ben DuPre in justifying the evaluations to be recommended by him in the negotiations' between the Roads Commission and the defendants, the suit said.
 It said the Judge believes both of the Basilikos `had full information concerning the wrongful information furnished by the said DuPre and full knowledge of the illegal plans and schemes.'
 Circuit Court Clerk Clayton W. Watkins refused to let The News see the original copy of the suit filed with his office. When a reporter asked why, Mr. Watkins said: `Just because you can't.'
 Mr. DuPre's appearance at the roads trial yesterday threw the court room into high excitement.
 He was fired from his Roads Commission job last July and reportedly went to his native Mexico before he was named in two Montgomery County indictments in November and one in Prince Georges County in December. Until he walked in the courtroom there had been no public knowledge that he had been contacted by state officials since then.
 He testified that Mr. Basiliko had come to Mexico City to talk to him  November.
 `I asked him how the roads case was coming along. He replied that everything was fine and there was nothing to fear as long as I remained in Mexico,' he said.
 He testified he got the following payments from Mr. Basiliko for his part in getting premium prices from the SRC for land owned by Mr. Offenberg:"
 Here followed a list of five transactions involving amounts ranging from $500 to $3,000 and aggregating $8,000.
 The Washington Post and Times Herald and The Evening Star, of Washington, both carried articles on the same subject *256 on March 10, 1956. In an effort to avoid prolonging this opinion unnecessarily, we shall quote from them only briefly.
 The Post and Times Herald stated in part:
 "Withheld the Facts, He Says
 JUDGE PRESCOTT CHARGES FRAUD IN ROAD SITE DEAL
 Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Stedman Prescott, who sold property in Rockville's `Wheel of Fortune' subdivision to two defendants in the Maryland roads fraud case, yesterday filed suit claiming the whole game was fixed.
 The jurist charged that `straw' agents for Constas and George Basiliko controlled the spin of the wheel by buying land from him while knowing the State Roads Commission wanted it for a clover leaf intersection.
 Prescott said he didn't know that was part of the game.
 He charged the agents bought a 24-acre tract along the right of way for the Washington National Pike from him for $600 an acre on Jan. 1, 1953. The judge claimed the price was a `fraction' of its value as a roads site.
 Also named as a participant in the game is Albert D. Misler of 1336 Missouri Ave., N.W.
 Prescott said the Basiliko brothers set up the game through straw parties after getting `wrongful' information from former State Roads Commission official Ben Du Pre on highway relocation plans.
 * * * Du Pre testified at length this week on his role in tipping off the Basilikos on future road plans of the Commission in Montgomery County. Prescott said he will take a deposition from Du Pre about the land deal Thursday.
 * * *
 One week after he sold the tract, Prescott's suit alleged, Alexander transferred it to Misler. A deed in the second transaction bore $21.45 in transfer *257 stamps, according to the suit, indicated a sales price of $19,500.
 Prescott said the stamps were used to build up `a fictitious value' through which the defendants could `wrongfully acquire an excessive settlement from the State Roads Commission.' * * *"
 Another edition of the same paper for the same day carried the article with the headlines: "Judge Claims Land Swindle."
 The Evening Star article included the following:
 "PRESCOTT SUES IN ROAD SCANDAL SAYS HE SOLD LAND AT FRACTION OF VALUE
 Chief Judge Stedman Prescott of Montgomery County Circuit Court has alleged that he himself had been victimized by two men now under indictment on charges of conspiracy to defraud the State Roads Commission in the sale of highway rights-of-way.
 Judge Prescott made the allegation in a civil suit to recover land he sold them three years ago. He filed the suit Thursday in Montgomery County Circuit Court at Rockville along with his wife as private citizens.
 The suit names as defendants George and Constas (Gus) Basiliko, Washington area real estate men, and Albert D. Misler of 1336 Missouri avenue N.W.
 FIGHTING EXTRADITION
 Constas Basiliko and Max Offenberg are now on trial in Montgomery County Circuit Court on charges that they conspired to jack up prices on land sold to Maryland for highway building. George Basiliko has been indicted on a similar charge but his trial is pending because he is fighting extradition from the District of Columbia.
 Judge Prescott  who is not hearing the current trial  charged that the three defendants purchased a 24-acre tract from him at a `fraction' of its worth, knowing that the State Roads Commission wanted *258 the land for a cloverleaf for the new Washington National pike.
 * * *
 The suit alleges that the defendants, through association with Ben Du Pre, former right-of-way engineer for the roads commission, learned that the State was going to need the Prescott tract for the pike, also known as relocated Route 240.
 CHARGES DETAILED
 The suit also alleges that the defendants and Du Pre `corruptly agreed, planned and schemed to unjustly enrich themselves by purchasing properties at less than their real value from persons who had no knowledge of the proposed relocation (of Route 240) and by disposing of said properties to the State Road Commission * * * at prices in excess of the real value thereof.'
 * * *
 In the conveyance to Misler, excessive tax stamps were placed on the deed, the suit alleges, in order to `build a fictitious value' on the tract and `wrongfully obtain excessive settlement with the State Roads Commission.'
 * * *
 Judge Prescott said Du Pre has been ordered to give a deposition on Thursday. The defendants have until May 3 to answer the suit."
 All of these articles appeared rather conspicuously in their respective papers.
 The Associated Press put out a news item which went to its subscribers and was used in radio and television broadcasts from Washington. It began with the statement:
 "The Chief Judge of the Montgomery County Circuit Court has filed suit against two men under indictment on charges of conspiracy to defraud the State Roads Commission."
 In very brief form it then gave information along the same *259 lines as the newspaper articles. Basiliko's first motion, to which he made affidavit, states positively that the item was broadcast on Sunday, March 11, 1956, at 1 P.M. over Washington radio station WMAL, "having a large listening audience in Montgomery County," and alleges on information and belief that it was directed over other radio and television stations broadcasting into Montgomery County.
 It should be noted that insofar as the above news items undertook to set forth the allegations in the Prescotts bill of complaint, they did so fairly. Each of the newspaper articles added a statement to the effect that Judge Prescott had said that he would take DuPre's deposition, the first article mentioned difficulty in seeing the original bill on file in the Clerk's office and every one of the articles, including the Associated Press dispatch, identified Constas Gus Basiliko as one of the defendants then on trial in the roads fraud case in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
 On Tuesday, March 13, 1956, The Washington Post and Times Herald carried another prominent article announcing the settlement of the Prescott suit by Misler, and the article stated that "It was understood that the Basilikos did not participate in the settlement."
 On Monday, March 12, 1956, when court reconvened after the week-end recess, each of the two defendants on trial in the criminal cases filed a motion for a mistrial based upon the publicity over the week-end which had been given to the Prescott suit. Attached to the motion were copies of the newspaper articles of March 9th and 10th to which we have referred and incorporated in it was the text of the Associated Press news item also mentioned above. The petition alleged, by paragraph 4, "That most, if not all, of the citizens of Montgomery County, Maryland, including the jurors now impanelled, have television and radio sets in their homes to which news is broadcast. That many of the jurors now impanelled are definitely known to be subscribers and readers of one or more of the aforementioned Washington, D.C., newspapers, and that one or more of such newspapers carrying the news items annexed hereto was delivered, pursuant to their subscriptions, to the homes of said jurors. That the said newspapers *260 were prominently displayed on news stands, on the public streets, and in places of business, such as drug stores, restaurants and other establishments where newspapers are commonly sold, all of said papers so displayed carrying the publications hereto annexed." Paragraphs 10 and 11 further state: "That because of the said wide-spread publicity and the fact that it is definitely known that one or more of the newspapers aforesaid was delivered to the homes of members of the jury impanelled, and that members of the jury impanelled have radios and televisions for the receipt of news broadcasts, the defendant believes that the news items herein mentioned did reach one or more of said jurors impanelled. For the reasons hereinabove assigned, the defendant states that the said publicity has prejudiced the jury against him, and that he verily believes that he is now unable to obtain a fair and impartial trial by the jury now impanelled because of the happening of the matters and things herein set out since the last adjournment of this Honorable Court."
 No answer or demurrer to the motion was filed by the State, but the State's Attorney orally opposed the motion. After hearing argument the Court overruled the motion and stated in an oral opinion: "We feel that in the suit that was brought that there were no allegations in the suit that was brought that hadn't been brought out in the evidence that we have heard from the witness stand in this case. Not one scintilla of evidence, or rather, of fact, as set forth in the suit that was filed hasn't come from the witness stand; and, of course, the suit went into superficial [matters] you might say, in comparison to what the evidence we have heard testified to. Certainly, of course, the defendant Offenberg was not a party to the suit. It is true that the Defendant Basiliko was a party to the suit. It is a civil action."
 There is no exact parallel to the present case among the prior decisions of this Court, but the general rules applicable thereto have been rather well defined in cases dealing with questions of removal based upon prejudice or with charges of contempt resulting from publications allegedly interfering with a fair trial.
 A request for a mistrial is, of course, addressed to the discretion *261 of the trial court; but the exercise of its discretion in such a case as the present, involving a question of prejudice infringing upon the right to a fair trial is reviewable on appeal to determine whether there has been an abuse of that discretion, and we do not understand the State to contest that proposition. See Downs v. State, 111 Md. 241, 73 A. 893, and Piracci v. State, 207 Md. 499, at 509, 115 A.2d 262, at 266, and the cases cited in the latter case. On the authority of the Piracci Case we also hold that the failure of the State to reply or demur to the defendant's motion is not a reversible procedural error in this case. Here as there, "The State did not contest the fact that the publications had been made as represented, but argued that the situation did not call for the action requested." (See 207 Md., p. 510, 115 A.2d, p. 266.)
 That, in essence, is the State's contention in the present case. It urges that, as the trial court pointed out, the allegations in the civil suit added nothing to what had already been testified to in the criminal case, and that they were, in fact, superficial  i.e., mild  by comparison with the testimony in the criminal case. The State relies upon such cases as Grammer v. State, 203 Md. 200, 100 A.2d 257, Wanzer v. State, 202 Md. 601, 97 A.2d 914, Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. v. State, 193 Md. 300, 67 A.2d 497, Newton v. State, 147 Md. 71, 127 A. 123, in support of its contention that the publicity here involved was not such as to preclude a fair trial or to infringe the defendant's right to such a trial. The State also relies upon the observation of Mr. Justice Holmes in Holt v. U.S., 218 U.S. 245, in which a talesman had read a newspaper article relating to the case, but stated that "he would decide according to the evidence or lack of evidence at the trial," that "If the mere opportunity for prejudice or corruption is to raise a presumption that they exist, it will be hard to maintain jury trial under the conditions of the present day." (218 U.S., at 251.)
 The State also relies upon Stroble v. California, 343 U.S. 181, in which highly damaging statements, including a confession, had received great newspaper publicity about six weeks before the trial of the accused for murder, yet it was held by two California courts, and the Supreme Court accepted *262 their finding, that the defendant had failed to establish prejudice; and his conviction was affirmed. Publicity during the trial was not great, and the defendant made little objection to it. That case differs from the instant case in that nearly all of the publicity objected to occurred some time before the trial. The interval allowed for a cooling off period and also allowed an opportunity to examine prospective jurors on their voir dire. They were so examined to such extent as defense counsel desired, and there was no request for a change of venue, as the Supreme Court noted.
 In Newton v. State, supra, which was also a conspiracy case, great stress was laid by this Court (a) upon the express denial made by every juror, before he was sworn, that he would be influenced in rendering his verdict as to the defendant Newton by the fact that three judges of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City had found the defendant's alleged fellow conspirators guilty and (b) upon the affirmative statement of each juror that he would base his verdict solely upon the law and evidence, uninfluenced by the action of the three judges in the case of the other alleged conspirators. This aspect of the Newton Case was commented upon in Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. v. State, supra (193 Md. at 329); and the protection afforded by the opportunity to examine prospective jurors on their voir dire was pointed out in Grammer v. State, supra (203 Md. at 212). In the instant case, no opportunity for such examination was available; the jury was impanelled and the trial was well under way before the civil suit and its attendant publicity developed. As we point out more fully below, no real equivalent of examination on the voir dire is available in the midst of a trial.
 In U.S. v. Carruthers, 152 F.2d 512, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a conviction for mail fraud, notwithstanding the fact that when the jury was polled after reaching its verdict, one juror was found to have read an inflammatory newspaper article, prejudicial to the defendant, which was published during a week-end recess. The juror stated that he recalled no more of the article than that it dealt with the denial of a defense motion. He did not apparently recall a statement in the article that the defendant had served *263 a prison term for highway robbery. The Court of Appeals said that the "publication could, under some circumstances, have brought to naught a long, tedious and expensive trial. Whether the Court should have in this instance declared a mistrial depends upon all the circumstances. A motion of this sort is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial Court."
 While that is also true here, as we have already pointed out, the exercise of that discretion is reviewable, and it is to be reviewed in the light of the circumstances of this particular case. It is quite evident that Judge Prescott recognized and tried to avoid the harmful possibilities to the defendant of publicity which might grow out of the equity suit by preventing its becoming a matter of public knowledge. Though his right to sue may be conceded, and it has been expressly conceded both by Basiliko's trial counsel and by his counsel on this appeal, the unfortunate facts remain that the suit did become a matter of public knowledge and that it did receive wide publicity in the locality where Basiliko was on trial.
 It is true that it was not shown that any individual juror had actually read or heard any of the news articles or broadcasts about the equity suit. It would have been impossible for defense counsel to have questioned the jurors about this matter in the midst of the trial without bringing it home to them in a most forceful way and in a way most damaging to his client. Nor could the trial court have examined the jurors on the subject during trial without producing much the same effect. Even a specific instruction to the jury to disregard any newspaper reports or broadcasts pertaining to the civil suit would have run the risk of emphasizing such reports, which possibly accounts for the rather guarded form of instruction to disregard newspaper articles "about this case", which was given just before adjournment on March 8th, which appears to have been the day the equity suit was actually filed and the day before it was reported in a newspaper.
 Although it was and is quite clear that the Prescotts sued as private citizens, it is also clear that the publicity attendant on their suit all referred to his official position as a Judge or as the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court. It is also clear that the equity suit charged Constas Gus Basiliko, and to a large *264 extent his brother, with substantially the same things that were charged against Constas Gus Basiliko in the criminal case in which he was then being tried in the same court. Though, of course, Judge Prescott was not sitting in the criminal case and his civil case would have had to come before some other Judge, and those facts were plainly apparent from at least the longer newspaper articles, we cannot divest ourselves of the firm belief that the effect of the publicity relating to the equity suit would have been strongly and definitely prejudicial to the defendant Constas Gus Basiliko in the mind of any juror serving in Basiliko's criminal trial who either read any of the newspaper articles or listened to any of the broadcasts. They identified the Basiliko on trial in the criminal case as one of the Basilikos named in the civil case; and the civil suit, both as filed and as truthfully reported, could have left no doubt in anyone's mind that the well known, highly respected, competent and experienced judicial officer who was one of the plaintiffs in the civil suit believed Basiliko guilty of conduct of the very kind with which he was charged in the criminal case. It amounted almost to a finding by him on the very questions on which the jury would have to pass in determining whether Basiliko was guilty.
 The facts alleged in the appellant's motion for a mistrial with regard to newspaper and broadcast coverage of Montgomery County and with regard to "many" of the jurors being known to be subscribers to and readers of one or more of the newspapers mentioned and with regard to their ownership of radio or television sets, are such as to create a strong inference that at least some of them did in fact read one or more of the articles or hear one or more of the broadcasts about the equity suit. The State does not directly controvert these allegations, but says that they are not proven. They are not proven up to the hilt, but the inference of their truth is, we think, too reasonable and too strong to be disregarded in this case. Cf. Lee v. State, 161 Md. 430, 157 A. 723, and Jones v. State, 185 Md. 481, 45 A.2d 350, in which reference was made to the "undenied allegations of fact in the petition of the accused for a change of venue" from which "there was the appearance of the kind of danger of which Chief Judge Bond *265 warned in his opinion in the Lee case, * * *" and it was held "that the Circuit Court for Dorchester County abused its discretion when it sent the case to the Circuit Court for Wicomico County for trial." (185 Md. at 487, 45 A.2d at 352-3.)
 In the present case we think that it would be requiring too much to insist that actual knowledge of the newspaper articles or broadcasts and actual prejudice in the mind of some one or more jurors resulting therefrom should be shown. The only way in which the latter could have been proven without risking disastrous consequences to the defendant, would have been by polling the jury after the verdict had been rendered  that is, by asking a juror to declare that he had read or heard and had acted upon something other than the evidence adduced at the trial.
 We are of the opinion that the trial court should have granted the defendant Basiliko's motion for a mistrial based upon the publications relating to the bringing of the civil suit. The situation which arose here in the midst of trial is comparable to that considered in Delaney v. U.S., 199 F.2d 107 (C.A., 1st Cir.), where because of publicity fanning prejudice against the defendant in a criminal case, it was held that a motion for the postponement of a case should have been granted to permit a cooling off period. In this view we find it unnecessary to consider the ruling on the second motion of the sort based upon the announcement of the settlement of the equity case by a defendant other than Constas Gus Basiliko.
 The judgment is accordingly reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial, the costs to abide the event.
 Judgment reversed and case remanded for a new trial; the costs to abide the outcome.
 NOTES
 [1] The State abandoned the 4th count on the last day of the trial.
 [2] Sentences were imposed only on the 2nd count.


jurisdiction: EU

text:
 5.12.2009
 FI
 Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
 C 297/7
 Yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen tuomio (kolmas jaosto) 15.10.2009 (Finanzgericht Baden-Württembergin (Saksa) esittämä ennakkoratkaisupyyntö) — Grundstücksgemeinschaft Busley ja Cibrian Fernandez v. Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften
 (Asia C-35/08) (1)
 (Pääomien vapaa liikkuvuus - Kiinteistöt - Tulovero - Oikeus vähentää vuokratappiot verovelvollisen veronalaisista tuloista - Degressiivisten poistojen tekeminen hankinta- tai rakentamismenoista - Kotimaassa sijaitsevien kiinteistöjen parempi verokohtelu)
 2009/C 297/03
 Oikeudenkäyntikieli: saksa
 Ennakkoratkaisua pyytänyt tuomioistuin
 Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg
 Pääasian asianosaiset
 Kantaja: Grundstücksgemeinschaft Busley ja Cibrian Fernandez
 Vastaaja: Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften
 Oikeudenkäynnin kohde
 Ennakkoratkaisupyyntö — Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — EY 18 ja EY 56 artiklan tulkinta — Kansallinen tuloverosääntely, jossa kiinteistöjen vuokrauksesta aiheutuva tappio voidaan vähentää ainoastaan kansallisella alueella sijaitsevien kiinteistöjen osalta ja jossa yksistään näihin kiinteistöihin sovelletaan edullisempaa poistojärjestelmää
 Tuomiolauselma
 EY 56 artikla on esteenä sellaiselle jäsenvaltion tuloverolainsäädännölle, jonka mukaan jäsenvaltiossa asuvilla yleisesti verovelvollisilla luonnollisilla henkilöillä on oikeus vähentää veron laskentapohjasta kiinteistöjen vuokrauksesta syntyneet tappiot niiden syntymisvuonna sekä oikeus tehdä degressiivisiä poistoja kiinteistöstä saatujen tulojen määrittämisen yhteydessä vain, jos kiinteistö sijaitsee kyseisen jäsenvaltion alueella.
 (1) EUVL C 92, 12.4.2008.


type: wikipedia

text:
Ilian Dimow Iliew (ur. 2 lipca 1968 w Warnie) – bułgarski piłkarz grający na pozycji pomocnika, oraz trener piłkarski.
 Kariera piłkarska
 Kariera klubowa
 Jest wychowankiem Czerno More Warna, w którego seniorskim zespole zadebiutował w 1986. Dwa lata później zespół z Iliewem w składzie wywalczył awans do ekstraklasy. W I lidze grał tylko dwa sezony. Na koniec rozgrywek 1989–1990 Czerno More zajął lokatę spadkową, a Iliew otrzymał propozycję przejścia do Slawii Sofia.
 Po roku, okraszonym zdobyciem trzeciego miejsca w lidze, był już zawodnikiem innego klubu ze stolicy Bułgarii, Lewskiego. Łącznie w jego barwach występował przez niecałe pięć sezonów; w tym czasie zdobył dwa tytuły mistrza kraju oraz jeden Puchar Bułgarii.
 Ponadto był zawodnikiem klubów zagranicznych: krótko grał w Turcji i Grecji, ale znacznie bardziej efektywna była sześcioletnia przygoda z zespołami portugalskimi. Z Benfiką Lizbona zdobył wicemistrzostwo oraz Puchar kraju, a z CS Marítimo dotarł do finału tych rozgrywek. Piłkarską karierę zakończył w wieku trzydziestu sześciu w Czerno More.
 Kariera reprezentacyjna
 W reprezentacji Bułgarii zadebiutował już w 1991, w pierwszym meczu selekcjonerskiej kadencji Dimityra Penewa przeciwko Turcji (w 62 minucie zmienił Jordana Leczkowa). Trzy lata później drużyna prowadzona przez Penewa zdobyła czwarte miejsce na Mundialu 1994, ale Iliew szybko stracił miejsce w zespole i nie był brany pod uwagę przy ustalaniu kadry na ten turniej. Od stycznia 1993 do września 1996 nie wystąpił w reprezentacji ani razu.
 Powrócił do niej, gdy nowym trenerem został Christo Bonew, który następnie zabrał go na Mundial 1998. Tym razem Bułgarzy odpadli już po rundzie grupowej; Iliew pojawił się na boisku we wszystkich trzech meczach. Później był jeszcze podstawowym graczem ekipy walczącej o udział w Euro 2000. Na początku eliminacji do Mundialu 2002 z jego usług zrezygnował Stojczo Mładenow.
 Kariera szkoleniowa
 Po zakończeniu kariery piłkarskiej rozpoczął pracę szkoleniową. Przez kilka miesięcy prowadził Czerno More Warna, ale w marcu 2006 złożył dymisję.
 Trzy miesiące później, po zakończeniu sezonu 2005–2006, zastąpił Petko Petkowa na stanowisku trenera Beroe Stara Zagora. Jednakże niesatysfakcjonujące wyniki w lidze sprawiły, że już w marcu 2007 został zwolniony.
 Do Beroe powrócił latem 2008, kiedy jego następca Radosław Zdrawkow nie potrafił utrzymać klubu w ekstraklasie. Po roku pracy Iliew świętował pierwszy poważny sukces w swojej karierze szkoleniowej – awans do I ligi. W kolejnym sezonie osiągnął jeszcze więcej: Beroe zdobyło Puchar Bułgarii, a on sam otrzymał nagrodę dla najlepszego trenera ligi, wyprzedzając m.in. Angeła Czerwenkowa, który doprowadził Liteks Łowecz do mistrzostwa kraju.
 Rok później w rozgrywkach 2010–2011 zajął z Beroe siódme miejsce, gwarantujące bezpieczne pozostanie w lidze.
 Sukcesy
 Kariera piłkarska
 Czerno More Warna:
 awans do ekstraklasy w sezonie 1987–1988
 Slawia Sofia:
 III miejsce w ekstraklasie w sezonie 1990–1991
 Lewski Sofia:
 mistrzostwo Bułgarii 1993 i 1995
 wicemistrzostwo Bułgarii 1992 i 1999
 Puchar Bułgarii 1992
 SL Benfica:
 wicemistrzostwo Portugalii 1996
 Puchar Portugalii 1996
 finał Pucharu Portugalii 1997
 Maritimo Funchal:
 finał Pucharu Portugalii 2001
 półfinał Pucharu Portugalii 2002
 Kariera szkoleniowa
 Beroe Stara Zagora:
 awans do ekstraklasy w sezonie 2008–2009
 Puchar Bułgarii 2010
 Indywidualnie:
 Najlepszy trener w bułgarskiej ekstraklasie, 2009–2010
 Przypisy
 Bibliografia
 Statystyki na LevskiSofia.info
 Reprezentanci Bułgarii w piłce nożnej
 Bułgarscy trenerzy piłkarscy
 Ludzie urodzeni w Warnie
 Piłkarze Czerno More Warna
 Piłkarze Sławii Sofia
 Piłkarze Altay SK
 Piłkarze SL Benfica
 Piłkarze Bursasporu
 Piłkarze AEK Ateny
 Piłkarze Lewskiego Sofia
 Piłkarze CS Marítimo
 Piłkarze SC Salgueiros
 Piłkarze Spartaka Warna
 Trenerzy piłkarzy Czerno More Warna
 Trenerzy piłkarzy Beroe Stara Zagora
 Trenerzy piłkarzy Lewskiego Sofia
 Uczestnicy Mistrzostw Świata w Piłce Nożnej 1998
 Urodzeni w 1968


text:
A lopakodó repülőgép olyan repülőgép, amelyet úgy terveztek meg, hogy elnyelje/eltérítse a radarsugarakat. Ezek a gépek nem láthatatlanok a radar számára, csak nehezebb őket észlelni. A lopakodó technológia alkalmazásának célja az, hogy a repülőgép még azelőtt, vagy akár anélkül támadhasson, hogy az ellenség észlelné.
 Bár sokan az SR–71 Blackbirdöt tartják az első valódi lopakodó repülőgépnek, igazából az F–117 Nighthawk tekinthető annak (a Blackbird sokkal nagyobb radarvisszaverő felülettel rendelkezett, bár méreteihez viszonyítva ilyen részeinek összfelülete tényleg nem sokkal nagyobb, mint a Nighthawké). Ha a Nighthawkot tekintjük az első lopakodó gépnek (a magyar szakemberek sokáig egyszerűen így is nevezték: a Lopakodó), akkor azt mondhatjuk, hogy lopakodó repülőgépeket harcban először 1988-ban, Panama inváziója során alkalmaztak, amikor is két F-117-es támadta Noriega tábornok főhadiszállását. Tömeges lopakodó-bevetésre először 1991-ben, az öbölháborúban került sor. A Blackbirdöt azonban már sokkal régebben, a hidegháború éveiben is alkalmazta az amerikai hírszerzés, elsősorban légi kémfotók készítésére. A Nighthawkot az öbölháborúban, elsődleges rendeltetésének és a terveknek megfelelően, bombázóként alkalmazták.
 A lopakodó tulajdonság okai
 Külső formai kialakítás
 A meghatározott szögben álló felületek a radarhullámokat eltérítik, így a kisugárzó lokátorba nem jut visszavert jel vagy csak minimális mennyiségben. A módszer matematikai alapjait Pjotr Ufimcsev orosz fizikus alkotta meg a hatvanas évek elején, de gyakorlati alkalmazását a nagy számításigény miatt lehetetlennek tartották, ezért a kutatásait 1964-ben nyilvánosan is publikálták. Az integrált áramkörökön alapuló számítógépek megjelenése és a Moore-törvény által előre jelzett teljesítménynövekedés segítségével az 1970-es évek közepére Amerikában lehetővé vált a számításokat síklapokkal határolt (szögletes) testekre elvégezni.
 A létrejött konstrukció (F-117 Nighthawk) olyan különleges alakú, kizárólag szögletes idomokból álló repülőgép, hogy csak bonyolult digitális számítógépes rendszerének segítségével képes repülni (a fejlesztés során a gép mindkét "Have Blue" néven ismeretes prototípusa lezuhant, pilótáik életüket vesztették).
 Az 1980-as évek végén, az 1990-es évek elején megjelent második generációs lopakodók, mint a B–2 Spirit, vagy az YF–23 Black Widow II felülete már ívelt, sima kialakítású, amit a számítógépes tervezési technika fejlődése tett lehetővé. Ezek a gépek már jóval aerodinamikusabb kialakításúak, ezért bomba és rakéta harci terhük nagyobb lehet. A vezérlésük azonban bonyolultabb lett, mivel a B-2 Spirit "csupaszárny" elrendezésű bombázó nem rendelkezik vezérsíkkal, az YF-23 pedig pillangóvezérsíkos, így a stabilizálásukról nagyrészt a fő kormányfelületek kitérítése gondoskodik, amely módszert lopakodó üzemmódban csak korlátozott mértékben lehet alkalmazni – így a digitális repülésvezérlés másodpercenkénti több százszori apró korrekciója a szükséges a levegőben maradáshoz.
 Az F–22 Raptor és F–35 Lightning II vadászrepülőgépek esetén a tervezők visszatértek a vízszintes és függőleges vezérsíkot is alkalmazó, jobb kezelhetőséget és manőverező-képességet biztosító hagyományos aerodinamikai kialakításhoz. Mivel ezek a gépek külső felfüggesztésű fegyverzetet is hordozhatnak, az olcsóbban gyártható és üzemeltethető részleges lopakodó formai kialakítás alkalmazása nem jelent különösebb hátrányt.
 Belső szerkezet
 A lopakodó repülőgépek igen vékony külső borítása alatt háromszöglapokból összeállított prizma-csapdák sora rejtőzik, amelyekbe ütközve a radarokból érkező sugárzás többször oda-vissza verődik, szétszóródik és részben elnyelődik. Mivel a lopakodó gépek külső héjszerkezete igen vékony kell, hogy legyen, a gépek nem üzemeltethetők tábori körülmények között, egyetlen fél hüvelyk (12 mm) nagyságú kavicsfelverődés okozta sérülés 25%-kal csökkenti a lopakodó képességet.
 A lopakodó gépek hajtóműveit, a nagy radar-visszaverődést okozó kompresszorlapátokat elrejtik, S alakú szívócsatornában helyezik el, így szemből sem láthatók. A sugárhajtómű kiömlőnyílását a gép tetején helyezik el, lapított fúvókákkal, amelyek nagy mennyiségű hideg levegőt kevernek az égéstermékbe, hogy az infravörös kisugárzást csökkentsék. Ennek ellenére a könnyű légvédelmi eszközök jelentette veszély miatt a lopakodók általában 4000–6000 méter körüli magasságban hajtják végre bevetéseiket.
 Felületkezelés
 A lopakodó tulajdonságot a gép speciális anyagokkal való festése is növeli, ezt a módszert már az 1980-as évek óta alkalmazzák, többek között a keleti blokkban a MiG-23MF és MiG-29 vadászgépek festésére, az igen kis méretű grafitgömböcskéket tartalmazó festék "teflonszürke" néven volt ismert. A festékrétegnek egy igen fejlett változata található a B-2 bombázókon, azonban ennek a bevonatnak a kényessége miatt a gépeket minden bevetés után részben újra kell festeni, amely csak speciális hangárban végezhető el. A globális terrorizmus elleni háború igényelte gyakoribb bevetések miatt 2003-ban a Diego Garcia szigeti támaszponton is létesült hangár a lopakodók számára, így a B-2 bombázók már nemcsak az USA kontinentális területeiről indulhatnak bevetésre.
 A lopakodók kabintetejét arannyal, irídiummal vonják be számos mikroszkopikus rétegben, hogy a bent ülő pilóták sisakja ne adjon visszavert radarjelet. Egy műszaki hiba miatt beragadt kabintetejű F-22 vadászgép szétvágott plexijét 180 ezer dollárért cserélték. A különféle felületkezelések nagyban hozzájárulnak a lopakodó repülőgép programok rendkívül magas költségeihez, a B-2 Spirit bombázók 2.12 milliárd dolláros darabára meghaladja a gép teljes súlyának színaranyban mért értékét.
 Elektronikai hadviselés
 Az F-22 ötödik generációs vadászrepülőgép aktív fázisvezérelt működési elvű radarja a nagy teljesítményű fedélzeti elektronikával képes ellenhullámú jelet küldeni az őt besugárzó radarok felé, kioltva vagy más repülőgéptípusnak álcázva ezzel a visszavert jelet. Ez lehetővé teszi, hogy a repülőgép külső bomba- és rakétafüggesztmények hordozása esetén is részlegesen megőrizhesse lopakodó képességét.
 Plazmatechnika-elmélet
 Egyes orosz elméleti kutatók az orosz hagyományos kialakítású harci repülőgépekbe több száz kilowatt teljesítményű plazmagenerátort szerelnének, amely a szárny és a törzs felületein kiképzett apró lyukakon keresztül ionizált gázt áramoltatna. A plazmafelhőbe a fizika törvényei szerint a rádióhullámok nem képesek behatolni (abszorbeálnak, azaz elnyelődnek), így a gázburokban haladó repülőgép a radarok számára láthatatlanná válna.
 Az elmélet több problémát felvet: egyrészt az orosz harcászati repülőgép-típusok (MiG–29, Szu–27 stb.) meglehetősen kevés kihasználatlan belső térrel rendelkeznek, így az ehhez szükséges berendezések csak hadászati csapásmérő repülőgép-típusokban lennének alkalmazhatóak (Tu–22M3, Tu–95, Tu–160). A másik probléma az ehhez szükséges villamos energia előállítása, illetve a plazmaburkot előállító berendezések nem csekély tömege, amely megléte a hasznos terhelés rovására menne. Harmadrészt magában az ionizáló plazmafelhőben a repülőgépek kommunikáció-képtelenekké válnának (ami az űrhajók légkörbe való behatolásakor jelentkezik), mivel a gép körüli burok visszaver mindennemű (beérkező és kiinduló) rádióhullámot. További megoldandó műszaki problémát jelent, hogy éjszakai bevetések során az ilyen radarvédelmű repülőgép optikailag jobban felderíthető, mivel az előállított plazma növelné a gép hőképét, ami a gázturbinái által egyébként sem kismértékű. Valamint a repülőgép szerkezetét komoly hőterhelés érné a burok által, ami ellen újabb, tömegnövekedéssel járó hővédelmi bevonatot kellene alkalmazni. Mindezen problémákat figyelembe véve, ez az elmélet komoly gyártás- és üzemeltetéstechnológiai problémákkal vet fel, ami napjainkban még nem megoldott.
 A lopakodók felderíthetősége
 Több ország, például Ausztrália és Oroszország is dolgozik azon, hogyan lehetne a lopakodókat nagy távolságból észlelni, különösen mióta Amerikai szervezeteket olyan vádak értek, hogy ipari kémkedést folytatnak az Európai Unió országaiban.
 Méteres hullámhosszú radarállomások használata
 Ezek az 1950-es évek műszaki színvonalát képviselő rendszerek nagy (300 méter körüli) pontatlansággal képesek a lopakodó gépek távolságának és oldalszögének észlelésére, mivel a méteres tartományba eső rádióhullámok a tárgyak belsejéből verődnek vissza – ellenük a különleges formai kialakítás és speciális bevonatok alkalmazása hatástalan. A méteres hullámhosszú radarok nem képesek magasságmérésre (valódi 3D üzemmód), sok kiegészítő felszerelést igényelnek, továbbá üzemeltetésük, többek között a megawatt nagyságrendű energiafogyasztás miatt igen költséges. A lopakodó észlelési képességük miatt mégis több haderő, így a Magyar Honvédség is rendszerben tartja, sőt korszerűsíti őket.
 Bi-statikus és multi-statikus lokátorok alkalmazása
 Ezekben a berendezésekben az adó és a vevőegység(ek)et földrajzilag egymástól elkülönítetten (néhány száz méterre – kilométerre) telepítik, így a lopakodó gépek különleges formai kialakítása következtében szétszórtan visszaverődő rádióhullámokat is képesek észlelni. Az ilyen radarrendszerek üzemeltetéséhez igen érzékeny vevőegységek és nagy számítási teljesítményű digitális elektronika szükséges.
 A polgári infrastruktúra felhasználása
 Gyakorlatilag a kereskedelmi FM-rádióadók és a mobiltelefon-hálózat minőségének változását, a lopakodó gépek okozta „rádiólyuk” által keltett igen kicsiny vételi zavarok folyamatos megfigyelését jelenti – ezzel a módszerrel a légieszköz helyzete néhány kilométeres pontossággal meghatározható. A módszer alkalmazásához a mérőpontok közti fejlett üvegszálas adatátviteli hálózat és szuperszámítógép szintű informatikai kapacitás szükséges. A Népi Kína haderejéről feltételezik, hogy ilyen rendszerrel folytat gyakorlati kísérleteket.
 Tamara-rendszer
 Ez a szovjet-csehszlovák kooperációban a Tesla cégnél kifejlesztett passzív felderítési módszer azon alapul, hogy a lopakodó repülőgépek, nagyszámú fedélzeti elektronikus rendszerükkel, többszörözött repülésirányító számítógépeikkel a legtökéletesebb elektromágneses árnyékolás esetén is bocsátanak ki bizonyos mennyiségű "hulladék" sugárzást, amelyet rendkívül érzékeny vevők segítségével detektálni lehet.
 A "Tamara" passzív radar-rendszerek gyártókapacitását a keleti blokk felbomlása után az USA megvásárolta és leszerelte. A rendszer vizsgálati tapasztalatai alapján az új amerikai lopakodó típusokban "EM-Con" rendszer került beépítésre, amely különlegesen alacsony észlelhetőséget igénylő lopakodó feladatok során a fedélzeti elektronika nem kritikus fontosságú részeit lekapcsolja, ill. teljesítményét csökkenti.
 Különlegesen gyors reakcióidejű légvédelmi rendszerek alkalmazása
 A lopakodó repülőgépek bomba- és rakétaterhüket az alacsony észlelhetőség miatt a géptörzsben rejtve szállítják, ezért fegyvereik alkalmazása előtt a bombatér-ajtók nyitásával kénytelenek felfedni magukat a radarok számára. Elektronikus sugáreltérítéssel működő légvédelmi lokátor, függőleges rakétaindító konténerek és tolóerő-vektor módszerrel kormányzott rakéták segítségével megépíthető olyan gyors közel-légvédelmi rendszer, amely az első észleléstől számított néhány másodpercen belül képes célt azonosítani és tüzet nyitni, emberi bevatkozás nélkül. A lopakodó repülőgép ez esetben még a fegyverei kioldása előtt, vagy a lézerbombák röpideje alatt megsemmisíthető, így az oltalmazott földi objektum megmenekül. Az Irán által vásárolt orosz gyártmányú "Tor" mobil rakéta-rendszerek rendelkeznek gyors tűzmegnyitási képességgel.
 Egyéb módszerek
 Egy további felderítési módszer a lopakodó repülőgép által keltett légörvényeket igyekszik felderíteni, mivel ezek megfelelő lokátor-típussal detektálhatók.
 Általánosságban elmondható, hogy a lopakodók felderítésére tett kísérletek eredménye egyelőre csak egy alacsony pontosságú korai figyelmeztető rendszer, amely óriási számítógépes kapacitást igényel az árulkodó jelek felderítéséhez, és nem alkalmas a lopakodók tűzvezető radarral történő nyomonkövetésére – azaz arra, hogy rakétával becélozzák a földről. Így ezeknek a gépeknek a felderítése egyelőre megoldatlan.
 Állítólag – bár természetesen az amerikai hadsereg nem túl bőbeszédű e gépeit tekintve – a lopakodók egyik legnagyobb technikai problémája, hogy nagyon hangosak, így bár a radar nem észleli őket, de ténykedésük szabad füllel is hallható, így csak nagy magasságokban végezhetnek hatékony munkát. Jugoszlávia amerikaiak által történő bombázása idejében egy Nighthawk lezuhant.
 Az 1999-es jugoszláviai háború már olyan időtávlatba került, hogy megtudhattuk: az F-117-es lelövése egy magyar, pontosabban székely származású szerbiai katona, jelenleg nyugállományú ezredes, Dani Zoltán érdeme.
 Dani Zoltán sokat foglalkozott a "Lopakodók" irodalmával, és arra a következtetésre jutott, hogy a gép nem láthatalan, csak rosszul látható a szokványos radarok számára. Az általuk használt radarokon olyan, jelenleg még nem publikus változtatást hajtott végre, hogy észlelték a repülőgépet, és egy rakétával annyira megrongálták, hogy a pilóta kénytelen volt katapultálni.
 Külső hivatkozások
 Jegyzetek
 Lopakodó


text:
 27.8.2011
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 C 252/37
 Жалба, подадена на 20 юни 2011 г. — TM.E./Комисия
 (Дело T-329/11)
 2011/C 252/84
 Език на производството: италиански
 Страни
 Жалбоподател: TM.E. S.p.A. — Termomeccanica Ecologia (Милано, Италия) (представители: C. Malinconico, S. Fidanzia и A. Gigliola)
 Ответник: Европейска комисия
 Искания на жалбоподателя
 Жалбоподателят иска от Общия съд:
 —
 да отмени решението на Европейската комисия от 20 април 2011 г., с което се изключва необходимостта от откриване на производство срещу Румъния за установяване на нарушение на принципите и общностните директиви за възлагане на обществени поръчки, както и на „Pratical Guide to contract procedures financed from the General Budget of the European Communities in the context of external actions“,
 —
 да осъди Европейската комисия да заплати обезщетение в размер на 18 955 106 EUR или съответната по-висока или по-ниска сума, определена по справедливост, за вредите, претърпени от TME поради нарушаване на общностното право от самата Европейска комисия,
 —
 при условията на евентуалност, да осъди Европейската комисия да заплати обезщетение в размер на 3 791 021 EUR или съответната по-висока или по-ниска сума, определена по справедливост, за пропуснатите ползи на TME,
 —
 при условията на евентуалност спрямо предходното, да осъди Европейската комисия да заплати обезщетение за вредите, настъпили в резултат от забава при упражняване на функциите ѝ, чието стойностно изражение съответства на всички направени от TME правни разноски в размер на 73 044,32 EUR или на съответната по-висока или по-ниска сума, определена по справедливост,
 —
 да осъди Европейската комисия да заплати съдебните разноски.
 Правни основания и основни доводи
 С настоящата жалба се иска отмяна на писмото на Европейската комисия от 20 април 2011 г., с което се изключва необходимостта от откриване на производство срещу Румъния за установяване на нарушение на принципите и общностните директиви за възлагане на обществени поръчки, на „Practical Guide to contract procedures for EU external actions“ [Практическото ръководство относно процедурите за обществени поръчки за външни дейности на ЕС] (наричано по-нататък „ръководството“), изготвено от самата Комисия, както и обезщетение за вредите, причинени от общностната институция при упражняване на нейните функции.
 В подкрепа на исканията си жалбоподателят излага следните правни основания:
 1.
 Първо правно основание, свързано със съществени процесуални нарушения на ръководството, както и с нарушения на Договорите или на съответните правни норми за тяхното прилагане.
 Жалбоподателят отбелязва, че с обжалваното решение Европейската комисия не изготвя мотивирано становище относно установените сериозни нарушения в рамките на процедурата за възлагане на обществена поръчка за проекта „Bucharest Wastewater Treatment Plant Rehabilitation: Stage I ISPA 2004/RO/16/P/PE/003-03“ и поради това не открива производство за установяване на нарушение срещу Румъния, както и не възстановява общностното финансиране, отпуснато по разглежданата поръчка.
 2.
 Второ правно основание, свързано със съществени процесуални нарушения и нарушения на ръководството, както и с изопачаване на фактите.
 В допълнение жалбоподателят отбелязва, че обжалваният акт е опорочен, тъй като Комисията, изопачавайки обстоятелството, което е предмет на жалбата, не отчита очевидните процесуални нарушения, допуснати от Primaria Municipiului Bucaresti. По-конкретно последната най-напред изключва офертата на жалбоподателя с твърдението, че икономическата оферта съдържа аномалия, след което, установявайки допуснатата сериозна незаконосъобразност, се опитва да обоснове вече постановеното решение с твърдение, че техническата оферта е опорочена. Освен това Комисията не отчита факта, че пред румънските съдебни органи искането за обявяване нищожността на договора не е разгледано, тъй като в очевидно нарушение на правото на защита и на общностните принципи се твърди, че не била заплатена държавна такса в размер на 7,3 милиона евро.
 3.
 Трето правно основание, свързано с непроизнасяне на Комисията по по-нататъшните обжалвани нарушения.
 Освен това жалбоподателят твърди, че в обжалваното писмо Европейската комисия не разглежда останалите въпроси, на които ѝ е обърнато внимание. По-специално по-никакъв начин не се отчита, че в първоинстанционното производство жалбоподателят е осъден от същия съдия, който бил обявил искането за недопустимо, с решение, изменено във въззивното производство, т.е. от съдия, който не е бил безпристрастен и е трябвало да се отведе, което предопределя наличието на несъмнено и явно нарушение на правото на защита, на общностните принципи и на член 6, параграф 1 от Европейската конвенция за правата на човека. Накрая, що се отнася до искането за обезщетяване на вредите, жалбоподателят изтъква, че бездействието на Комисията, както и невъзстановяването на общностното финансиране, предоставено в полза на Румъния в рамките на разглеждания проект, предопределят настъпването на значителна имуществена вреда поради неизпълнението на договора за обществена поръчка или поради пропуснатата полза от неговото възлагане, а оттам и поради вреди за забава, принудили жалбоподателя да води скъпо производство пред румънските съдебни органи.


type: legislation

text:
 15.7.2014
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 207/4
 VYKONÁVACIE NARIADENIE KOMISIE (EÚ) č. 758/2014
 z 10. júla 2014
 o zatriedení určitého tovaru do kombinovanej nomenklatúry
 EURÓPSKA KOMISIA,
 so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie,
 so zreteľom na nariadenie Rady (EHS) č. 2658/87 z 23. júla 1987 o colnej a štatistickej nomenklatúre a o Spoločnom colnom sadzobníku (1), a najmä na jeho článok 9 ods. 1 písm. a),
 keďže:
 (1)
 S cieľom zabezpečiť jednotné uplatňovanie kombinovanej nomenklatúry, ktorá tvorí prílohu k nariadeniu (EHS) č. 2658/87, je potrebné prijať opatrenia týkajúce sa zatriedenia tovaru uvedeného v prílohe k tomuto nariadeniu.
 (2)
 V nariadení (EHS) č. 2658/87 sa stanovili všeobecné pravidlá výkladu kombinovanej nomenklatúry. Tieto pravidlá sa takisto uplatňujú na akúkoľvek inú nomenklatúru, ktorá sa na kombinovanej nomenklatúre celkovo alebo čiastočne zakladá alebo ktorá k nej pridáva akékoľvek ďalšie rozdelenie a ktorá je stanovená v osobitných ustanoveniach Únie s ohľadom na uplatňovanie colných a iných opatrení vzťahujúcich sa na obchod s tovarom.
 (3)
 Podľa uvedených všeobecných pravidiel by sa tovar opísaný v stĺpci 1 tabuľky uvedenej v prílohe mal zatriediť pod číselný znak KN uvedený v stĺpci 2 na základe dôvodov uvedených v stĺpci 3 danej tabuľky.
 (4)
 Je potrebné umožniť, aby sa držiteľ záväznej informácie o nomenklatúrnom zatriedení vydanej v súvislosti s tovarom, na ktorý sa vzťahuje toto nariadenie, ktorá nie je v súlade s týmto nariadením, mohol na túto informáciu naďalej odvolávať počas určitého obdobia podľa článku 12 ods. 6 nariadenia Rady (EHS) č. 2913/92 (2). Toto obdobie by malo byť stanovené na tri mesiace.
 (5)
 Opatrenia stanovené v tomto nariadení sú v súlade so stanoviskom Výboru pre colný kódex,
 PRIJALA TOTO NARIADENIE:
 Článok 1
 Tovar opísaný v stĺpci 1 tabuľky uvedenej v prílohe sa zatriedi v rámci kombinovanej nomenklatúry podľa číselného znaku KN uvedeného v stĺpci 2 tejto tabuľky.
 Článok 2
 Na záväzné informácie o nomenklatúrnom zatriedení tovaru, ktoré nie sú v súlade s týmto nariadením, sa možno odvolávať naďalej v súlade s článkom 12 ods. 6 nariadenia (EHS) č. 2913/92 počas obdobia troch mesiacov od dátumu nadobudnutia účinnosti tohto nariadenia.
 Článok 3
 Toto nariadenie nadobúda účinnosť dvadsiatym dňom po jeho uverejnení v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.
 Toto nariadenie je záväzné v celom rozsahu a priamo uplatniteľné vo všetkých členských štátoch.
 V Bruseli 10. júla 2014
 Za Komisiu
 v mene predsedu
 Algirdas ŠEMETA
 člen Komisie
 (1) Ú. v. ES L 256, 7.9.1987, s. 1.
 (2) Nariadenie Rady (EHS) č. 2913/92 z 12. októbra 1992, ktorým sa ustanovuje Colný kódex Spoločenstva (Ú. v. ES L 302, 19.10.1992, s. 1).
 PRÍLOHA
 Opis tovaru
 Zatriedenie
 (číselný znak KN)
 Odôvodnenie
 (1)
 (2)
 (3)
 Kruhový výrobok vyrobený zo silikónu s priemerom približne od 10 do 15 mm a výškou približne 3 mm. Výrobok má v strede zárez v tvare kríža. Nemá žiadne mechanické komponenty.
 Výrobok sa používa spolu so závitovým uzáverom s viečkom. Umiestňuje sa dovnútra závitového uzáveru a celý sa priskrutkuje na hrdlo fľaše.
 Výrobok bráni vytekaniu polotekutých látok, napríklad majonézy alebo kečupu, z fľaše pri jej obrátení hore dnom. Keď sa viečko otvorí a fľaša sa otočí hore dnom, látka sa dávkuje cez zárez v tvare kríža tak, že sa na fľašu vyvinie manuálny tlak.
 Pozri obrázok. (1)
 3926 90 97
 Zatriedenie je určené všeobecnými pravidlami 1 a 6 na interpretáciu kombinovanej nomenklatúry a znením číselných znakov KN 3926, 3926 90 a 3926 90 97.
 Keďže výrobok nemôže vykonávať funkciu zátky samostatne, ale iba vtedy, ak je umiestnený vnútri závitového uzáveru, považuje sa za príslušenstvo uzáveru. Zatriedenie do položky 3923 ako zátky, viečka, uzávery fliaš a ostatné uzávery je preto vylúčené.
 Výrobok umožňuje, aby sa polotekutá látka dostala do závitového uzáveru, ale sám nekontroluje otváranie a zatváranie otvoru, a preto nereguluje tok kvapaliny otváraním a zatváraním otvoru. Zatriedenie do položky 8481 ako kohútiky, ventily a podobné zariadenia je preto vylúčené.
 Základným materiálom tohto výrobku je plast, preto sa má zatriediť pod číselný znak KN 3926 90 97 ako ostatné výrobky z plastov.
 (1) Obrázok slúži len na informačné účely.


text:
Klassifikazzjoni Xjentifika
 Subphylum (pronunzja: subfilum) fil-bijoloġija, huwa Takson fil-Klassifikazzjoni Xjentifika tal-organiżmi ħajjin li jista' jiġbor fih l-Infrafajla. Is-Subphylum fil-ġerarkija qiegħed eżatt taħt il-phylum u livell aktar 'l fuq mill-Infraphylum.
 Subphylum huwa Takson li jintuża fl-iskema ta' klassifikazzjoni fiż-żooloġija waqt li fil-botanika jintuża t-Takson ekkwivalenti is-Subdiviżjoni.
 Ftit eżempji ta' Subphyla huma;
 Phylum Arthropoda: jinqasam f'Subphila Trilobitomorpha, Chelicerata, Myriapoda, Hexapoda u Crustacea.
 Phylum Branchiopoda: jinqasam f'Subphila Linguiliformea, Craniformea u Rhychonelliformea,
 Phylum Chordata: jinqasam f'Subphila Urochordata, Cephalochordata u Vertebrata.
 Mhux il-Phyla kollha jinqasmu f'Subphila.


text:
 18.11.2006
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 281/4
 Sodba Sodišča (drugi senat) z dne 14. septembra 2006 (predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Grčija) — Elmeka NE/Ypourgos Oikonomikon
 (Združene zadeve od C-181/04 do C-183/04 ) (1)
 (Šesta direktiva o DDV - Oprostitve - Člen 15, točke 4(a), 5 in 8 - Oprostitve najema pomorskih plovil - Obseg)
 (2006/C 281/07)
 Jezik postopka: grščina
 Predložitveno sodišče
 Symvoulio tis Epikrateias
 Stranki v postopku v glavni stvari
 Tožeča stranka: Elmeka NE
 Tožena stranka: Ypourgos Oikonomikon
 Predmet
 Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe — Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Razlaga člena 15, točke (4), (5) in (8), Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih — Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (UL L 145, str. 1) — Oprostitve — Oprostitve najema pomorskih plovil — Obseg
 Izrek
 1)
 Člen 15, točka 4(a) Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih — Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero, na katerega napotuje točka 5 istega člena, kot je bil spremenjen z Direktivo Sveta 92/111/EGS z dne 14. decembra 1992, se ne nanaša samo na plovila za plovbo na odprtem morju, ki opravljajo prevoz potnikov za plačilo, ampak tudi na plovila za plovbo na odprtem morju, namenjena opravljanju komercialne, industrijske in ribiške dejavnosti.
 2)
 Člen 15, točka 8, Šeste direktive 77/388 se razlaga v smislu, da oprostitev, predvidena v tem členu, zajema storitve, ki so opravljene neposredno ladjarju za neposredne potrebe plovil na morju.
 3)
 Nacionalne davčne oblasti morajo v okviru skupnega sistema DDV spoštovati načelo varstva legitimnega pričakovanja. Predložitveno sodišče mora presoditi, ali lahko davčni zavezanec v okoliščinah, kot so v postopku v glavni stvari, razumno sklepa, da je sporno odločitev sprejel pristojni organ.
 (1) UL C 168, 26.6.2004
 UL C 201, 7.8.2004.


text:
 |
 52014PC0447
 Priekšlikums PADOMES REGULA, ar ko groza Regulu (EK) Nr. 2866/98 attiecībā uz euro maiņas kursu Lietuvai /* COM/2014/0447 final - 2014/0208 (NLE) */
 PASKAIDROJUMA RAKSTS
 1. Priekšlikuma konteksts
 Komisija 2014. gada 4. jūnijā
 pieņēma priekšlikumu Padomes lēmumam saskaņā ar
 Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību (turpmāk Līgums)
 140. panta 2. punktu, norādot, ka Lietuva ir izpildījusi
 euro ieviešanai nepieciešamos nosacījumus un ka no 2015. gada 1. janvāra
 jāatceļ Lietuvas izņēmuma statuss.
 Labvēlīga lēmuma gadījumā
 Padomei būs jāpieņem maiņas kurss starp euro un Lietuvas
 litu – šis maiņas kurss stāsies spēkā 2015. gada 1. janvārī.
 Padomes
 Regula (EK) Nr. 2866/98 par maiņas kursu starp euro un to
 dalībvalstu valūtām, kuras pieņem euro[1], nosaka nemaināmus
 maiņas kursus 18 pašreizējām euro zonas
 dalībvalstīm (Beļģija, Vācija, Igaunija,
 Grieķija, Spānija, Francija, Īrija, Itālija, Kipra,
 Latvija, Luksemburga, Malta, Nīderlande, Austrija, Portugāle,
 Slovēnija, Slovākija un Somija). Lai paplašinātu
 minētās regulas darbības jomu, piemērojot to arī
 Lietuvas litam, regulā jāiekļauj norāde uz minēto
 valūtu. Tas ir šā priekšlikuma mērķis.
 2. Apspriešanās ar ieinteresētajām
 personām un ietekmes novērtējuma rezultāti
 Oficiālā procedūra, kas veicama
 pēc Komisijas priekšlikuma iesniegšanas Padomes regulai, ietver
 apspriešanos ar ECB. Ekonomikas un finanšu komitejā, ECOFIN un
 Eurogrupā dažādu pozīciju ietvaros notiek regulāras
 apspriedes ar dalībvalstīm par tajās risināmajiem
 ekonomikas politikas uzdevumiem. Minētās apspriedes aptver
 neoficiālas apspriedes par jautājumiem, kas tieši saistīti ar
 priekšdarbiem attiecībā uz iespējamo pievienošanos eurozonai
 (tostarp, valūtas kursa politiku). Dialogs ar akadēmiskās vides
 pārstāvjiem un citām ieinteresētajām grupām
 norisinās konferenču/semināru veidā un pēc ad hoc
 principa.
 Ekonomikas procesus eurozonā un
 dalībvalstīs novērtē atbilstīgi vairākām
 ekonomikas politikas koordinācijas un uzraudzības
 procedūrām (jo īpaši saskaņā ar Līguma 121. pantu),
 kā arī Komisijai pastāvīgi uzraugot un analizējot
 procesus katrā valstī atsevišķi un eurozonā kopumā
 (tostarp, izmantojot prognozes, regulāras publikāciju sērijas,
 devumu Ekonomikas un finanšu komitejā, ECOFIN un Eurogrupā).
 Ievērojot proporcionalitātes principu un iepriekšējo praksi,
 tiek uzskatīts, ka oficiāls ietekmes novērtējums nav
 nepieciešams.
 3. Priekšlikuma juridiskie
 aspekti
 3.1. Juridiskais pamats
 Šā priekšlikuma juridiskais pamats ir
 Līguma 140. panta 3. punkts, saskaņā ar kuru Padome
 pieņem maiņas kursu, atbilstoši kuram euro aizstāj tās
 dalībvalsts valūtu, kuras izņēmuma statuss ir atcelts
 saskaņā ar Līguma 140. panta 2. punktu.
 Padome, atbilstīgi Komisijas priekšlikumam un
 apspriedusies ar ECB, rīkojas saskaņā ar lēmumu, ko
 vienprātīgi pieņem dalībvalstis, kuru valūta ir euro,
 un attiecīgā dalībvalsts.
 3.2. Subsidiaritāte un
 proporcionalitāte
 Priekšlikums ir Savienības
 ekskluzīvā kompetencē. Tāpēc subsidiaritātes
 principu nepiemēro.
 Šī iniciatīva ir samērīga ar
 tās izvirzīto mērķi, tāpēc tā atbilst
 proporcionalitātes principam.
 3.3. Juridiskā instrumenta
 izvēle
 Regula ir vienīgais piemērotais
 juridiskais instruments, ar ko izdarīt grozījumus Padomes
 Regulā (EK) Nr. 2866/98 par maiņas kursu starp euro un to
 dalībvalstu valūtām, kuras pieņem euro.
 4. Ietekme uz budžetu
 Priekšlikums neietekmē Savienības
 budžetu.
 5. Komentāri par
 atsevišķiem pantiem
 5.1. 1. pants
 Ierosinātais kurss ir šobrīd
 spēkā esošais centralizētais Lietuvas lita
 maiņas kurss valūtas kursa mehānismā (VKM II).
 Tāpat kā citām valūtām un
 atbilstīgi Padomes Regulai (EK) Nr. 1103/97 par dažiem
 noteikumiem attiecībā uz euro ieviešanu[2] kurss ir noteikts ar
 sešiem nozīmīgiem cipariem.
 5.2. 2. pants
 Ar šo pantu nosaka regulas spēkā
 stāšanos 2015. gada 1. janvārī, nodrošinot to, ka
 tā būs piemērojama atbilstoši citu ar euro pieņemšanu
 Lietuvā saistīto Padomes tiesību aktu īstenošanas grafikam,
 t. i., izņēmuma statusa atcelšanas datumam un datumam, kad
 stājas spēkā citi pasākumi, kas vajadzīgi euro
 ieviešanai Lietuvā.
 2014/0208 (NLE)
 Priekšlikums
 PADOMES REGULA,
 ar ko groza Regulu (EK) Nr. 2866/98
 attiecībā uz euro maiņas kursu Lietuvai
 EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS PADOME,
 ņemot vērā Līgumu par
 Eiropas Savienības darbību un jo īpaši tā 140. panta 3. punktu,
 ņemot vērā Eiropas Komisijas
 priekšlikumu[3],
 ņemot vērā Eiropas
 Centrālās bankas atzinumu[4],
 tā kā:
 (1) Ar Padomes Regulu (EK)
 Nr. 2866/98[5]
 ir noteikti euro maiņas kursi, kas ir spēkā no 1999. gada 1. janvāra.
 (2) Saskaņā ar 2003. gada
 Pievienošanās akta 4. pantu Lietuva ir dalībvalsts ar
 izņēmuma statusu, kā definēts Līguma 139. panta 1. punktā.
 (3) Saskaņā ar Padomes
 [...] Lēmumu 2014/.../ES[6]
 Lietuva ir izpildījusi euro ieviešanai nepieciešamos nosacījumus, un
 Lietuvas izņēmuma statusu atceļ no 2015. gada 1. janvāra.
 (4) Euro ieviešanai Lietuvā
 ir jāpieņem maiņas kurss starp euro un Lietuvas litu. Šim
 maiņas kursam vajadzētu būt 3,45280 liti pret 1 euro, kas
 atbilst šobrīd spēkā esošajam centralizētajam lita
 maiņas kursam valūtas kursa mehānismā (VKM II).
 (5) Tādēļ
 attiecīgi būtu jāgroza Regula (EK) Nr. 2866/98,
 IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO REGULU.
 1. pants
 Regulas (EK) Nr. 2866/98 1. pantā
 starp rindām ar Latvijas latam un Luksemburgas frankam piemērojamo
 maiņas kursu iekļauj šādu rindu:
 „= 3,45280
 Lietuvas liti”.
 2. pants
 Šī regula stājas spēkā 2015. gada
 1. janvārī.
 Šī regula uzliek saistības
 kopumā un ir tieši piemērojama visās dalībvalstīs.
 Strasbūrā,
 Padomes
 vārdā –
 priekšsēdētājs
 [1] OV L 359, 31.12.1998., 1. lpp.
 [2] OV L 162, 19.6.1997., 1. lpp.
 [3] OV C , ..., lpp.
 [4] OV C , ..., lpp.
 [5] Padomes Regula (EK) Nr. 2866/98 (1998. gada
 31. decembris) par maiņas kursu starp euro un to dalībvalstu
 valūtām, kuras pieņem euro (OV L 359, 31.12.1998., 1. lpp.).
 [6] Padomes Lēmums 2014/.../ES [...] par euro ieviešanu
 Lietuvā 2015. gada 1. janvārī [...].