text:
 |
 52011PC0600
 Priekšlikums EIROPAS PARLAMENTA UN PADOMES REGULA ar ko īsteno divpusējo aizsargpasākumu klauzulu un stabilizācijas mehānismu banāniem Tirdzniecības nolīgumā starp Eiropas Savienību un Kolumbiju un Peru /* COM/2011/0600 galīgā redakcija - 2011/0262 (COD) */
 PASKAIDROJUMA RAKSTS
 1. PRIEKŠLIKUMA KONTEKSTS
 Priekšlikuma pamatojums un mērķi
 Šis priekšlikums attiecas uz
 nolīgumā ar Kolumbiju un Peru paredzētās
 aizsargpasākumu klauzulas un stabilizācijas mehānisma
 iestrādi Eiropas Savienības tiesību aktos.
 Vispārīgais konteksts
 Padome 2009. gada
 19. janvārī pilnvaroja Komisiju sākt sarunas ar Andu
 Kopienas dalībvalstīm, kuru rezultātā tika noslēgts
 Tirdzniecības nolīgums ar Kolumbiju un Peru. Nolīgumu
 parafēja 2011. gada 23. martā.
 Nolīgums ietver divpusēju aizsargpasākumu
 klauzulu, kas paredz iespēju atkārtoti ieviest vislielākās
 labvēlības nodokļa likmi, ja tirdzniecības
 liberalizācijas dēļ imports notiek tādā
 palielinātā apjomā un ar tādiem nosacījumiem, ka rodas
 nopietns kaitējums (vai nopietna kaitējuma draudi) Savienības
 nozarei, kura ražo līdzīgus vai tieši konkurējošus ražojumus.
 Turklāt nolīgumā iekļauts
 stabilizācijas mehānisms banāniem, saskaņā ar kuru
 līdz 2020. gada 1. janvārim var atcelt atviegloto muitas
 nodokli, ja tiek sasniegts noteikts importa apjoms.
 Lai šie pasākumi varētu darboties,
 aizsargpasākumu klauzula un stabilizācijas mehānisms
 jāiestrādā Eiropas Savienības tiesību aktos, un
 jānorāda to piemērošanas procesuālie aspekti, kā
 arī ieinteresēto personu tiesības.
 2. APSPRIEŠANĀS AR
 IEINTERESĒTAJĀM PERSONĀM UN IETEKMES NOVĒRTĒJUMI
 Šā priekšlikuma īstenošanas regulai
 pamatā ir nolīguma ar Kolumbiju un Peru teksts.
 Tādējādi nav vajadzīgas atsevišķas apspriešanās
 ar ieinteresētajām personām, kā arī ietekmes novērtējums.
 Tas galvenokārt balstās uz esošajām īstenošanas
 regulām.
 3. PRIEKŠLIKUMA JURIDISKIE
 ASPEKTI
 Ierosināto pasākumu kopsavilkums
 Pievienotais Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes
 regulas projekts ir juridisks instruments, ar ko īstenot BTN starp ES un
 Kolumbiju un Peru paredzēto aizsargpasākumu klauzulu un
 stabilizācijas mehānismu.
 Juridiskais pamats
 Līguma par Eiropas Savienības
 darbību 207. panta 2. punkts.
 2011/0262 (COD)
 Priekšlikums
 EIROPAS PARLAMENTA UN PADOMES REGULA
 ar ko īsteno divpusējo
 aizsargpasākumu klauzulu un stabilizācijas mehānismu
 banāniem Tirdzniecības nolīgumā starp Eiropas
 Savienību un Kolumbiju un Peru
 EIROPAS
 PARLAMENTS UN EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS PADOME,
 ņemot
 vērā Līgumu par Eiropas Savienības darbību un jo
 īpaši tā 207. panta 2. punktu,
 ņemot
 vērā Eiropas Komisijas priekšlikumu,
 pēc
 leģislatīvā akta projekta nosūtīšanas dalībvalstu
 parlamentiem,
 saskaņā ar
 parasto likumdošanas procedūru[1],
 tā kā:
 (1)
 Padome 2009. gada 19. janvārī
 pilnvaroja Komisiju Eiropas Savienības vārdā veikt sarunas par
 daudzpusēju tirdzniecības nolīgumu ar Andu Kopienas
 dalībvalstīm, kuras vēlējās noslēgt
 vērienīgu, visaptverošu un līdzsvarotu tirdzniecības
 nolīgumu.
 (2)
 Minētās sarunas ir pabeigtas, un
 Tirdzniecības nolīgums starp Eiropas Savienību un Kolumbiju un
 Peru (turpmāk tekstā “nolīgums”) tika parafēts
 2011. gada 23. martā, un saskaņā ar Padomes [..]
 Lēmumu Nr. .../2011/ES[2]
 nolīgums parakstīts Eiropas Savienības vārdā [..],
 ievērojot tā noslēgšanu vēlākā datumā.
 Attiecībā uz nolīgumu [..] saņemta Eiropas Parlamenta
 piekrišana. Pēc tam Padome pieņēma Padomes [..] Lēmumu
 Nr. .../2011[3]
 par nolīguma noslēgšanu.
 (3)
 Ir jāpieņem procedūra par to,
 kā piemērot konkrētus nolīguma noteikumus, kas attiecas uz
 divpusējo aizsargpasākumu klauzulu, un stabilizācijas
 mehānismu banāniem, par kuru ir vienošanās ar Kolumbiju un Peru.
 (4)
 Būtu jādefinē termini “nopietns
 kaitējums”, “nopietna kaitējuma draudi” un “pārejas laiks”, kas
 minēti nolīguma 48. pantā.
 (5)
 Aizsargpasākumi apsverami tikai tad, ja
 attiecīgo ražojumu importē Savienībā tādā
 palielinātā daudzumā absolūtā izteiksmē vai attiecībā
 pret Savienības produkciju un ar tādiem nosacījumiem, ka rodas
 nopietns kaitējums vai nopietna kaitējuma draudi Savienības
 ražotājiem, kuri ražo līdzīgus vai tieši konkurējošus
 ražojumus, kā noteikts nolīguma 48. pantā.
 (6)
 Aizsargpasākumiem vajadzētu būt
 vienā no veidiem, kas minēti nolīguma 50. pantā.
 (7)
 Izmeklēšana un iespējama
 aizsargpasākumu piemērošana būtu jāveic pēc
 iespējas pārredzamāk.
 (8)
 Būtu jāizstrādā sīki
 noteikumi par procedūras sākšanu. Dalībvalstīm Komisijai
 būtu jāiesniedz informācija, tostarp pieejamie
 pierādījumi par visām importa tendencēm, kas varētu
 liecināt, ka aizsargpasākumi ir vajadzīgi.
 (9)
 Ja ir pietiekami daudz pirmšķietamu
 pierādījumu, lai pamatotu procedūras sākšanu, Komisijai
 būtu jāpublicē paziņojums Eiropas Savienības
 Oficiālajā Vēstnesī, kā paredzēts
 nolīguma 51. pantā.
 (10)
 Būtu jāizstrādā sīki
 noteikumi par izmeklēšanas sākšanu, par to, kā
 ieinteresētās personas var piekļūt savāktajai
 informācijai un to pārbaudīt, par iesaistīto personu uzklausīšanu
 un minētajām personām dotajām iespējām iesniegt
 savu viedokli, kā paredzēts nolīguma 51. pantā.
 (11)
 Komisijai būtu rakstiski jāinformē
 Kolumbija un Peru par izmeklēšanas sākšanu un jāapspriežas ar
 Kolumbiju un Peru, kā paredzēts nolīguma 49. pantā.
 (12)
 Tāpat saskaņā ar nolīguma
 51. panta 4. punktu ir jānosaka izmeklēšanas sākšanas
 termiņi, kā arī termiņi lēmuma pieņemšanai par
 to, vai pasākumi ir piemēroti, lai nodrošinātu to, ka šādus
 lēmumus pieņem ātri, un lai attiecīgie
 uzņēmēji gūtu lielāku tiesisko noteiktību.
 (13)
 Pirms visu aizsargpasākumu piemērošanas
 būtu jāveic izmeklēšana, ievērojot, ka Komisijai ir
 atļauts piemērot pagaidu pasākumus kritiskos
 apstākļos, kas minēti nolīguma 53. pantā.
 (14)
 Aizsargpasākumi būtu jāpiemēro
 tikai tādā apjomā un uz tādu laikposmu, kas vajadzīgs,
 lai novērstu nopietnu kaitējumu un atvieglotu pielāgošanos.
 Būtu jānosaka aizsargpasākumu piemērošanas maksimālais
 ilgums un būtu jāparedz īpaši noteikumi par šo pasākumu
 pagarināšanu un pārskatīšanu, kā noteikts nolīguma
 52. pantā.
 (15)
 Nolīguma divpusējo aizsargpasākumu
 klauzulas īstenošana paredz, ka jāpieņem vienoti nosacījumi
 pagaidu un galīgo aizsargpasākumu pieņemšanai, iepriekšējas
 uzraudzības pasākumu piemērošanai, izmeklēšanas izbeigšanai
 bez pasākumu piemērošanas un tāda atvieglotā muitas
 nodokļa pagaidu atcelšanai, kas noteikts stabilizācijas
 mehānismā banāniem, par kuru ir vienošanās ar Kolumbiju un
 Peru. Komisijai minētie pasākumi būtu jāpieņem
 saskaņā ar Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2011. gada 16. februāra
 Regulu (ES) Nr. 182/2011, ar ko nosaka normas un vispārīgus principus
 par dalībvalstu kontroles mehānismiem, kuri attiecas uz Komisijas
 īstenošanas pilnvaru izmantošanu[4].
 (16)
 Uzraudzības un pagaidu pasākumu
 pieņemšanai ir atbilstīgi izmantot konsultēšanās
 procedūru, ņemot vērā šo pasākumu ietekmi un
 loģisko saistību ar galīgo aizsargpasākumu pieņemšanu.
 Ja pasākumu piemērošanas kavēšanās varētu radīt
 grūti labojamu kaitējumu, jāļauj Komisijai pieņemt
 tādus pagaidu pasākumus, kurus piemēro nekavējoties.
 (17)
 Šī regula būtu jāpiemēro
 vienīgi ražojumiem, kuru izcelsme ir Savienībā un
 Kolumbijā, un Peru,
 IR PIEŅĒMUŠI ŠO REGULU.
 I nodaļa –aizsardzības noteikumi
 1. pants
 Definīcijas
 Šajā regulā
 lieto šādas definīcijas:
 (a)
 “ražojumi” ir preces, kuru izcelsme ir
 Savienībā vai Kolumbijā, vai Peru. Ražojums, uz kuru attiecas
 izmeklēšana, var ietilpt vienā vai vairākās tarifu
 pozīcijās vai to apakšgrupā atkarībā no
 konkrētiem apstākļiem tirgū, vai jebkādā
 vispārpieņemtā Savienības ražošanas nozares ražojumu
 segmentācijā;
 (b)
 “ieinteresētās personas” ir personas,
 kuras ietekmē noteikta ražojuma imports;
 (c)
 “Savienības ražošanas nozare” ir
 līdzīgu vai tieši konkurējošu ražojumu Savienības
 ražotāji kopumā, kas darbojas Savienības teritorijā, vai
 arī tādi Savienības ražotāji, kuru ražoti līdzīgi
 vai tieši konkurējoši ražojumi kopā veido lielāko daļu no kopējās
 minēto ražojumu produkcijas Savienībā. Ja līdzīgs vai
 tieši konkurējošs ražojums ir tikai viens no vairākiem ražojumiem,
 kurus ražo Savienības ražošanas nozares uzņēmumi, ražošanas
 nozari definē kā līdzīga vai tieši konkurējoša
 ražojuma ražošanas īpašas darbības;
 (d)
 “nopietns kaitējums” ir ievērojama
 vispārēja Savienības ražotāju stāvokļa
 pasliktināšanās;
 (e)
 “nopietna kaitējuma draudi” ir nopietns
 kaitējums, kas nav novēršams. Nopietna kaitējuma draudus nosaka,
 pamatojoties uz pārbaudāmiem faktiem, nevis tikai uz apgalvojumiem,
 pieņēmumiem vai maznozīmīgu iespēju. Nosakot, vai
 pastāv nopietna kaitējuma draudi, cita starpā būtu
 jāņem vērā prognozes, aprēķini un analīzes,
 kas veiktas, pamatojoties uz 4. panta 5. punktā minētajiem
 faktoriem;
 (f)
 “pārejas periods” ir 10 gadu ilgs laikposms
 pēc nolīguma piemērošanas attiecībā uz ikvienu
 ražojumu, kam Tarifu atcelšanas tabulā noteiktais tarifu atcelšanas
 periods ir mazāks nekā 10 gadi. Attiecībā uz ražojumiem,
 kam Tarifu atcelšanas tabulā noteiktais tarifu atcelšanas periods ir 10
 gadi vai vairāk, “pārejas periods” ir tabulā noteiktais tarifu
 atcelšanas periods ražojumam plus trīs gadi.
 2. pants
 Principi
 1.
 Aizsargpasākumu var piemērot
 saskaņā ar šīs regulas noteikumiem, ja, īstenojot tarifu
 koncesijas attiecībā uz nolīgumā minēto ražojumu,
 Kolumbijas vai Peru izcelsmes ražojums Savienībā tiek importēts
 tādā palielinātā daudzumā absolūtā
 izteiksmē vai attiecībā pret Savienības produkciju, un ar
 tādiem nosacījumiem, ka tiek radīts nopietns kaitējums vai
 nopietna kaitējuma draudi Savienības ražošanas nozarei, kas ražo
 līdzīgus vai tieši konkurējošus ražojumus.
 2.
 Aizsargpasākumi var būt vienā no
 šādiem veidiem:
 a) attiecīgā ražojuma muitas
 nodokļa likmes, kas noteikta Eiropas Savienības tarifu atcelšanas
 tabulā nolīguma I pielikumā, turpmākas
 pazemināšanās apturēšana;
 b) muitas nodokļa paaugstināšana
 attiecīgajam ražojumam līdz apmēram, kas nepārsniedz
 mazāko no šādiem nodokļiem:
 –
 vislielākās labvēlības (“VL”)
 muitas nodokļa likmi ražojumam, kas ir spēkā pasākuma
 īstenošanas laikā vai
 –
 pamatlikmi, kas noteikta Eiropas Savienības
 tarifu atcelšanas tabulā nolīguma I pielikumā.
 3. pants
 Procedūras sākšana
 1.
 Izmeklēšanu sāk pēc
 dalībvalsts, jebkuras juridiskas personas vai asociācijas, kas nav
 juridiska persona un kas rīkojas Savienības ražošanas nozares
 vārdā, pieprasījuma vai Komisija pēc savas
 iniciatīvas, ja Komisija uzskata, ka ir pietiekami daudz pirmšķietamu
 pierādījumu, kuri konstatēti, pamatojoties uz 4. panta
 5. punktā minētajiem faktoriem, un kuri pamato izmeklēšanas
 sākšanu.
 2.
 Pieprasījumā sākt izmeklēšanu
 iekļauj pierādījumus, ka ir ievēroti 2. panta
 1. punktā noteiktie aizsargpasākumu piemērošanas
 nosacījumi. Prasībā iekļauj šādu informāciju:
 attiecīgā ražojuma importa pieauguma temps un apjoms
 absolūtā un relatīvā izteiksmē, pieaugušā importa
 aizņemtā iekšzemes tirgus daļa un pārdošanas apjoma,
 ražošanas apjoma, ražīguma, jaudas izmantošanas, peļņas un
 zaudējumu, kā arī nodarbinātības izmaiņas.
 3.
 Izmeklēšanu var sākt arī tad, ja
 importa pieaugums koncentrējas vienā vai vairākās dalībvalstīs,
 un ar nosacījumu, ka ir pietiekami daudz pirmšķietamu
 pierādījumu tam, ka ir izpildīti nosacījumi
 izmeklēšanas sākšanai, kuri konstatēti, pamatojoties uz
 4. panta 5. punktā minētajiem faktoriem.
 4.
 Ja šķiet, ka tendences attiecībā uz
 importu no Kolumbijas vai Peru liecina, ka ir vajadzīgi
 aizsargpasākumi, dalībvalsts informē Komisiju. Minētā
 informācija ietver pieejamos pierādījumus, kuri konstatēti,
 pamatojoties uz 4. panta 5. punktā minētajiem faktoriem.
 Komisija minēto informāciju nodod visām dalībvalstīm.
 5.
 Ja tiek noskaidrots, ka ir pietiekami daudz pirmšķietamu
 pierādījumu, kuri konstatēti, pamatojoties uz 4. panta
 5. punktā minētajiem faktoriem un kuri pamato procedūras
 sākšanu, Komisija publicē paziņojumu Eiropas Savienības
 Oficiālajā Vēstnesī. Procedūru sāk
 mēneša laikā pēc tam, kad ir saņemts pieprasījums vai
 informācija atbilstīgi 1. punktam.
 6.
 Paziņojumā, kas minēts
 5. punktā:
 a) sniedz saņemtās
 informācijas kopsavilkumu un nosaka, ka visa svarīgā
 informācija jāiesniedz Komisijai;
 b) nosaka termiņu, kurā
 ieinteresētās personas var rakstiski paust savu viedokli un iesniegt
 informāciju, ja šis viedoklis un informācija ņemami
 vērā izmeklēšanā;
 c) nosaka termiņu, kurā
 ieinteresētās personas var pieteikties, lai Komisija tās mutiski
 uzklausītu saskaņā ar 4. panta 9. punktu.
 4. pants
 Izmeklēšana
 1.
 Pēc procedūras sākšanas Komisija
 sāk izmeklēšanu. Panta 3. punktā minētais laikposms
 sākas dienā, kad Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā
 Vēstnesī publicē lēmumu par izmeklēšanas
 sākšanu.
 2.
 Komisija var pieprasīt, lai dalībvalstis
 tai nodrošina informāciju, un dalībvalstis veic visus vajadzīgos
 pasākumus, lai apmierinātu jebkuru šādu pieprasījumu. Ja
 minētā informācija izraisa vispārēju interesi un nav
 konfidenciāla 11. panta nozīmē, to iekļauj
 datnēs, kas nav konfidenciālas, atbilstīgi 8. punkta
 noteikumiem.
 3.
 Ja vien iespējams, izmeklēšanu pabeidz
 sešu mēnešu laikā pēc tās sākšanas. Īpašos
 gadījumos, tādos kā neparasti liela iesaistīto pušu skaita
 vai sarežģītas tirgus situācijas gadījumā, minēto
 termiņu var pagarināt vēl par trim mēnešiem. Komisija
 informē visas ieinteresētās personas par šādu termiņa
 pagarinājumu un izskaidro tā iemeslus.
 4.
 Komisija iegūst visu informāciju, ko
 tā uzskata par vajadzīgu, lai izdarītu konstatējumu
 attiecībā uz 2. panta 1. punktā izklāstītajiem
 nosacījumiem, un, ja uzskata par vajadzīgu, cenšas
 pārbaudīt minēto informāciju.
 5.
 Izmeklēšanā Komisija novērtē
 visus objektīvi un kvantitatīvi nosakāmos atbilstošos faktorus,
 kuri ietekmē Savienības ražošanas nozares situāciju, jo
 īpaši attiecīgā ražojuma importa pieauguma tempu un apjomu
 absolūtā un relatīvā izteiksmē, pieaugušā importa
 aizņemto iekšzemes tirgus daļu un pārdošanas apjoma, ražošanas
 apjoma, ražīguma, jaudu izmantošanas, peļņas un zaudējumu
 un nodarbinātības izmaiņas. Šis uzskaitījums nav
 visaptverošs, un Komisija, konstatējot nopietnu kaitējumu vai
 nopietna kaitējuma draudus, var ņemt vērā arī citus
 atbilstīgus faktorus, piemēram, akcijas, cenas, kapitāla
 peļņu, naudas plūsmas un citus faktorus, kas Savienības
 ražošanas nozarei izraisa vai varēja izraisīt nopietnu kaitējumu
 vai rada nopietna kaitējuma draudus.
 6.
 Ieinteresētās personas, kas
 pieteikušās saskaņā ar 3. panta 6. punkta
 b) apakšpunktu, un Kolumbijas vai Peru pārstāvji pēc
 rakstiska lūguma var pārbaudīt visu informāciju, kas
 Komisijai darīta zināma saistībā ar izmeklēšanu,
 izņemot iekšējo dokumentāciju, ko sagatavojušas Savienības
 vai tās dalībvalstu iestādes, ar nosacījumu, ka
 minētā informācija ir būtiska viņu lietas
 izklāstā un nav konfidenciāla 11. panta nozīmē,
 un ka Komisija to izmanto izmeklēšanā. Ieinteresētās
 personas, kas pieteikušās, var Komisijai darīt zināmu savu
 viedokli par attiecīgo informāciju. Minēto viedokli ņem
 vērā, ja ir pietiekami daudz pirmšķietamu pierādījumu.
 7.
 Komisija nodrošina, lai visi izmeklēšanā
 izmantotie dati un statistika būtu pieejama, saprotama, pārredzama un
 pārbaudāma.
 8.
 Tiklīdz pieņemts vajadzīgais
 tehniskais regulējums, Komisija nodrošina ar paroli aizsargātu
 tiešsaistes piekļuvi nekonfidenciālai datnei (“tiešsaistes
 platforma”), kuru tā pārvalda un caur kuru izplata informāciju,
 kas ir būtiska un nav konfidenciāla 11. panta nozīmē.
 Izmeklēšanā ieinteresētās personas, kā arī
 dalībvalstis un Eiropas Parlaments saņem piekļuvi minētajai
 tiešsaistes platformai.
 9.
 Komisija uzklausa ieinteresētās personas,
 jo īpaši, ja tās termiņā, kas noteikts Eiropas
 Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī publicētajā
 paziņojumā, iesniegušas rakstisku pieteikumu ar norādi, ka
 izmeklēšanas iznākums faktiski var ietekmēt šīs personas un
 ka pastāv īpaši iemesli tās uzklausīt.
 Komisija šīs personas uzklausa
 arī turpmāk, ja ir īpašs pamatojums to darīt.
 10.
 Ja informāciju neiesniedz Komisijas
 noteiktajā termiņā vai tiek būtiski kavēta
 izmeklēšana, atzinumus var sniegt, pamatojoties uz pieejamajiem faktiem.
 Ja Komisija konstatē, ka kāda ieinteresētā persona vai
 trešā persona tai sniegusi nepatiesu vai maldinošu informāciju, tā
 neņem vērā minēto informāciju un izmanto pieejamos
 faktus.
 11.
 Komisija rakstiski informē Kolumbiju vai Peru
 par izmeklēšanas sākšanu un pagaidu vai galīgo pasākumu
 piemērošanu.
 5. pants
 Iepriekšējas
 uzraudzības pasākumi
 1.
 Ja kādas Kolumbijas vai Peru izcelsmes
 ražojuma importa tendences liecina, ka varētu rasties kāda no 2. un
 3. pantā minētajām situācijām, minētā
 ražojuma importam var piemērot iepriekšējas uzraudzības
 pasākumus.
 2.
 Iepriekšējas uzraudzības pasākumus
 Komisija pieņem saskaņā ar 12. panta 2. punktā
 minēto konsultēšanās procedūru.
 3.
 Iepriekšējas uzraudzības pasākumi ir
 spēkā ierobežotu laiku. Ja vien nav paredzēts citādi, tie
 zaudē spēku otrā sešu mēnešu perioda beigās pēc
 pirmajiem sešiem mēnešiem, kurā šie pasākumi ieviesti.
 6. pants
 Pagaidu
 aizsargpasākumu piemērošana
 1.
 Pagaidu aizsargpasākumus piemēro
 kritiskos apstākļos, ja kavēšanās radītu
 zaudējumus, kurus būtu grūti labot, saskaņā ar
 iepriekšēju konstatējumu, kas pamatojas uz 4. panta 5. punktā
 minētajiem faktoriem un nosaka, ka pastāv pietiekami daudz pirmšķietamu
 pierādījumu tam, ka, mazinot vai atceļot muitas nodokli
 saskaņā ar nolīguma I pielikumā esošo Eiropas
 Savienības Tarifu atcelšanas tabulu, Kolumbijas vai Peru izcelsmes
 ražojumu imports ir pieaudzis un ka šāds imports nopietni kaitē vai
 rada nopietna kaitējuma draudus Savienības ražošanas nozarei.
 Pagaidu pasākumus pieņem Komisija
 saskaņā ar 12. panta 2. punktā minēto
 konsultēšanās procedūru. Ārkārtas gadījumos,
 tostarp 2. punktā minētajā gadījumā, Komisija
 saskaņā ar 12. panta 4. punktā minēto
 procedūru pieņem pagaidu aizsargpasākumus, kurus var
 piemērot nekavējoties.
 2.
 Ja dalībvalsts pieprasa Komisijas
 tūlītēju iejaukšanos un ja ir izpildīti 1. punkta
 nosacījumi, Komisija piecu darba dienu laikā pēc
 pieprasījuma saņemšanas pieņem lēmumu.
 3.
 Pagaidu pasākumus nepiemēro ilgāk
 par 200 dienām.
 4.
 Ja pagaidu aizsargpasākumus atceļ, jo
 izmeklēšana liecina, ka nav izpildīti 2. panta 1. punkta
 nosacījumi, minēto pagaidu pasākumu dēļ iekasētos
 muitas nodokļus atmaksā automātiski.
 5.
 Šajā pantā minētos pasākumus
 piemēro visiem ražojumiem, kas laisti brīvā apgrozībā
 pēc šo pasākumu stāšanās spēkā. Tomēr
 šādi pasākumi neierobežo tādu ražojumu laišanu brīvā
 apgrozībā, kas ir jau ceļā uz Savienību, ar noteikumu,
 ka šādu ražojumu galamērķi nevar mainīt.
 7. pants
 Izmeklēšanas un procedūras izbeigšana bez pasākumu noteikšanas
 1.
 Ja galīgi konstatētie fakti liecina, ka
 nav izpildīti 2. panta 1. punkta nosacījumi, Komisija
 pieņem lēmumu par izmeklēšanas un procedūras izbeigšanu
 saskaņā ar 12. panta 3. punktā minēto pārbaudes
 procedūru.
 2.
 Komisija, pienācīgi ņemot
 vērā konfidenciālas informācijas aizsardzību
 11. panta nozīmē, publicē ziņojumu, kurā sniedz
 konstatējumus un pamatotus secinājumus, kas izdarīti par visiem
 attiecīgajiem faktiskajiem un juridiskajiem jautājumiem.
 8. pants
 Galīgo pasākumu noteikšana
 1.
 Ja galīgi konstatētie fakti liecina, ka
 ir ievēroti 2. panta 1. punkta nosacījumi, Komisija
 Kolumbijas vai Peru varas iestādes aicina apspriesties saskaņā
 ar nolīguma 49. pantu. Ja 45 dienu
 laikā nav panākts apmierinošs risinājums, Komisija var
 pieņemt lēmumu par galīgo aizsargpasākumu noteikšanu
 saskaņā ar 12. panta 3. punktā minēto
 pārbaudes procedūru.
 2.
 Komisija, pienācīgi ņemot
 vērā konfidenciālas informācijas aizsardzību
 11. panta nozīmē, publicē ziņojumu ar to būtisko faktu
 un apsvērumu kopsavilkumu, kas attiecas uz aizsargpasākumu
 noteikšanu.
 9. pants
 Aizsargpasākumu ilgums un pārskatīšana
 1.
 Aizsargpasākums saglabājas
 spēkā tikai tik ilgi, cik vajadzīgs, lai novērstu vai
 labotu nopietnu kaitējumu vai atvieglotu pielāgošanos. Minētais
 laikposms nepārsniedz divus gadus, ja vien tas netiek pagarināts
 saskaņā ar 3. punktu.
 2.
 Termiņa pagarinājuma laikā
 aizsargpasākums aizvien ir spēkā, kamēr nav zināms
 3. punktā minētās pārskatīšanas iznākums.
 3.
 Sākotnējo aizsargpasākuma
 termiņu izņēmuma kārtā var pagarināt
 maksimāli par diviem gadiem, ja ir noteikts, ka aizsargpasākums
 joprojām ir vajadzīgs, lai novērstu vai labotu nopietnu
 kaitējumu un atvieglotu pielāgošanos, un ja ir pierādījumi,
 ka Savienības ražošanas nozare pielāgojas.
 4.
 Pirms ikviena pagarinājuma atbilstīgi
 3. punktam jāveic izmeklēšana, ko veic pēc
 dalībvalsts, jebkuras juridiskas personas vai asociācijas, kas nav
 juridiska persona un kas rīkojas Savienības ražošanas nozares
 vārdā, pieprasījuma vai pēc Komisijas iniciatīvas, ja
 ir pietiekami daudz pirmšķietamu pierādījumu, kuri
 konstatēti, pamatojoties uz 4. panta 5. punktā
 minētajiem faktoriem, un kuri apliecina, ka ir izpildīti
 3. punkta nosacījumi.
 5.
 Paziņojumu par izmeklēšanas sākšanu
 publicē saskaņā ar 3. panta 5. un 6. punktu.
 Izmeklēšanu veic un lēmumus par pagarinājumu atbilstīgi
 3. punktam pieņem saskaņā ar 4., 7. un 8. pantu.
 6.
 Aizsargpasākuma kopējais ilgums
 nepārsniedz četrus gadus, termiņā ieskaitot visus pagaidu
 pasākumus.
 7.
 Aizsargpasākumu nedrīkst piemērot
 pēc pārejas perioda beigām.
 8.
 Tādu ražojumu importam, kuriem jau iepriekš
 piemērots aizsargpasākums, šādus pasākumus drīkst
 piemērot tikai vienu reizi un uz laikposmu, kas atbilst pusei no šāda
 pasākuma iepriekšējas piemērošanas laikposma, un ar noteikumu,
 ka pasākums netiek piemērots vismaz vienu gadu.
 10. pants
 Attālākie
 Eiropas Savienības reģioni
 Ja Kolumbijas vai
 Peru izcelsmes ražojumus importē tādā palielinātā
 daudzumā un ar tādiem nosacījumiem, ka tiek pasliktināta
 vai draud pasliktināties ekonomiskā situācija vienā vai
 vairākos Savienības attālākajos reģionos, kas
 minēti 349. pantā Līgumā par Eiropas Savienības
 darbību, var noteikt aizsargpasākumu saskaņā ar šajā
 nodaļā izklāstītajiem noteikumiem.
 11. pants
 Konfidencialitāte
 1.
 Saskaņā ar šo regulu saņemto
 informāciju izmanto tikai tam mērķim, kuram tā
 pieprasīta.
 2.
 Bez informācijas sniedzēja īpašas
 atļaujas neizpauž nedz konfidenciālu informāciju, nedz arī
 konfidenciāli sniegtu informāciju, kas saņemta saskaņā
 ar šo regulu.
 3.
 Katrā lūgumā ievērot
 konfidencialitāti norādāmi iemesli, kāpēc
 informācija ir konfidenciāla. Taču, ja informācijas
 sniedzējs nevēlas to darīt publiski pieejamu, kā arī
 neatļauj to izpaust ne kopumā, ne arī konspektīvi un ja
 tiek uzskatīts, ka konfidencialitātes pieprasījums nav pamatots,
 tad attiecīgo informāciju var neņemt vērā.
 4.
 Informāciju katrā ziņā uzskata
 par konfidenciālu, ja tās izpaušana varētu būtiski
 negatīvi ietekmēt informācijas sniedzēju vai šādas
 informācijas avotu.
 5.
 Šā panta 1. līdz 4. punkts neliedz
 Savienības iestādēm atsaukties uz vispārpieejamu
 informāciju un jo īpaši uz iemesliem, pamatojoties uz kuriem
 pieņemti lēmumi saskaņā ar šo regulu. Minētās
 iestādes tomēr ņem vērā attiecīgo fizisko un
 juridisko personu likumīgās intereses neatklāt noslēpumus,
 kas saistīti ar to uzņēmējdarbību.
 12. pants
 Komitejas procedūra
 1.
 Komisijai palīdz komiteja, kas izveidota
 saskaņā ar 4. panta 1. punktu Padomes 2009. gada
 26. februāra Regulā (EK) Nr. 260/2009 par
 kopējiem importa noteikumiem[5].
 Minētā komiteja ir komiteja Regulas (ES) Nr. 182/2011 nozīmē.
 2.
 Ja ir atsauce uz šo punktu, piemēro Regulas
 (ES) Nr. 182/2011 4. pantu.
 3.
 Ja ir atsauce uz šo punktu, piemēro Regulas
 (ES) Nr. 182/2011 5. pantu.
 4.
 Ja ir atsauce uz šo punktu, piemēro Regulas
 (ES) Nr. 182/2011 8. pantu kopā ar tās 4. pantu.
 II nodaļa – Stabilizācijas mehānisms
 banāniem
 13. pants
 Stabilizācijas
 mehānisms banāniem
 1.
 Stabilizācijas mehānismu Nr. 1
 Kombinētās nomenklatūras 0803.00.19. sadaļā
 iekļautajiem banāniem (svaigi banāni, izņemot miltu
 banānus), kuru izcelsme ir Kolumbija vai Peru un kuri uzskaitīti
 pakāpju kategorijā “BA” Eiropas Savienības tarifu atcelšanas
 tabulā nolīguma I pielikumā, piemēro līdz
 2020. gada 1. janvārim.
 2.
 Attiecībā uz 1. punktā
 minēto ražojumu importu ir noteikts atsevišķs importa apjoma
 robežlīmenis, kas norādīts šīs regulas pielikuma tabulas
 trešajā un ceturtajā ailē. Ja attiecīgajā
 kalendārajā gadā ir sasniegts Kolumbijas vai Peru izcelsmes
 importa apjoma robežlīmenis, Komisija saskaņā ar 12. panta
 3. punktā minēto pārbaudes procedūru
 attiecīgās izcelsmes ražojumiem attiecīgajā gadā uz
 laiku, kas nepārsniedz trīs mēnešus un neilgst ilgāk
 kā līdz kalendārā gada beigām, var noteikt
 atvieglotā muitas nodokļa pagaidu atcelšanu.
 3.
 Ja Komisija nolemj atcelt spēkā esošu
 atviegloto muitas nodokli, tā piemēro zemāko muitas nodokļa
 pamatlikmi vai vislielākās labvēlības muitas nodokļa
 likmi, kas ir spēkā šādas darbības īstenošanas
 laikā.
 4.
 Ja Komisija īsteno 2. un 3. punktā
 minētos pasākumus, tā nekavējoties sāk pārrunas
 ar attiecīgo valsti (Kolumbiju vai Peru, vai abām), lai, pamatojoties
 uz faktiski pieejamajiem datiem, analizētu un novērtētu
 situāciju.
 5.
 Pasākumus, kas minēti 2. un
 3. punktā, piemēro tikai līdz 2019. gada
 31. decembrim.
 III nodaļa – Nobeiguma noteikumi
 14. pants
 Stāšanās spēkā
 Šī regula
 stājas spēkā nākamajā dienā pēc tās
 publicēšanas Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā
 Vēstnesī.
 To piemēro no
 nolīguma piemērošanas dienas, kā paredzēts tā
 330. pantā. Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā
 Vēstnesī publicē paziņojumu, kurā norāda
 nolīguma piemērošanas dienu.
 Šī
 regula ir saistoša kopumā un tieši piemērojama visās
 dalībvalstīs.
 [Vieta]
 Eiropas Parlamenta
 vārdā — Padomes vārdā —
 priekšsēdētājs priekšsēdētājs
 Pielikums
 Importa apjoma robežļīmeņu
 tabula I pielikuma I papildinājuma B sadaļā
 paredzētā stabilizācijas mehānisma banāniem
 īstenošanai: attiecībā uz Kolumbiju — 1A apakšnodaļas
 1. punkta n) apakšpunkts un Peru — 2A apakšnodaļas
 1. punkta i) apakšpunkts
 Gads || Kolumbijas izcelsmes importa apjoma robežlīmenis || Peru izcelsmes importa apjoma robežlīmenis
 No 2010. gada 1. janvāra līdz 31. decembrim || 1 350 000 t || 67 500 t
 No 2011. gada 1. janvāra līdz 31. decembrim || 1 417 500 t || 71 250 t
 No 2012. gada 1. janvāra līdz 31. decembrim || 1 485 000 t || 75 000 t
 No 2013. gada 1. janvāra līdz 31. decembrim || 1 552 500 t || 78 750 t
 No 2014. gada 1. janvāra līdz 31. decembrim || 1 620 000 t || 82 500 t
 No 2015. gada 1. janvāra līdz 31. decembrim || 1 687 500 t || 86 250 t
 No 2016. gada 1. janvāra līdz 31. decembrim || 1 755 000 t || 90 000 t
 No 2017. gada 1. janvāra līdz 31. decembrim || 1 822 500 t || 93 750 t
 No 2018. gada 1. janvāra līdz 31. decembrim || 1 890 000 t || 97 500 t
 No 2019. gada 1. janvāra līdz 31. decembrim || 1 957 500 t || 101 250 t
 No 2020. gada 1. janvāra || Nepiemēro || Nepiemēro
 [1] Eiropas
 Parlamenta 2011. gada 17. februāra Nostāja (Oficiālajā
 Vēstnesī vēl nav publicēta) un Padomes [..]
 Lēmums.
 [2]
 [3]
 [4] OV L 55, 28.2.2011., 13. lpp.
 [5] OV L 84, 31.3.2009., 1. lpp.


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 14.4.2005
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 95/44
 Az AKCS–EK MINISZTEREK TANÁCSÁNAK 1/2005 HATÁROZATA
 (2005. március 8.)
 az AKCS–EK Miniszterek Tanácsa eljárási szabályzatának elfogadására vonatkozóan
 (2005/297/EK)
 AZ AKCS–EK MINISZTEREK TANÁCSA,
 tekintettel a 2000. június 23-án Cotonou-ban aláírt AKCS-EK partnerségi megállapodásra és különösen annak 15. cikke (5) bekezdésére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 Az AKCS-EK Nagykövetek Bizottsága 2001. január 30-i 1/2001 határozatával elfogadta az AKCS-EK Miniszterek Tanácsának eljárási szabályzatát hatáskör-átruházással.
 (2)
 Bizonyos módosításokra szükség van az új tagállamoknak az Európai Unióhoz való csatlakozásának figyelembevételéhez.
 (3)
 Ennek megfelelően az AKCS-EK Miniszterek Tanácsának a botswanai Gaborone-ban 2004. május 6-án tartott 29. ülésén határozat született az eljárási szabályzat módosítására vonatkozóan,
 A KÖVETKEZŐKÉPPEN HATÁROZOTT:
 1. cikk
 Az ülések ideje és helye
 (1) Amint azt az AKCS-EK partnerségi megállapodás (a továbbiakban: AKCS-EK megállapodás) 15. cikke (1) bekezdése előírja, az AKCS-EK Miniszterek Tanácsa (a továbbiakban: a Tanács) rendszerint évente egy alkalommal ülésezik, illetve szükség esetén valamely fél kérésére.
 (2) A Tanácsot az elnöke hívja össze. Az ülések idejét a felek közös megállapodással állapítják meg.
 (3) A Tanács üléseire – a Tanács határozatának megfelelően – vagy az Európai Unió Tanácsa üléseinek szokásos helyszínein, vagy az AKCS-államcsoport Titkárságának székhelyén, vagy valamely AKCS-állam területén fekvő egyik városban kerül sor.
 2. cikk
 Az ülések napirendje
 (1) Az elnök minden ülés előtt összeállítja az előzetes napirendet. Ezt az ülés előtt legalább 30 nappal a Tanács többi tagjával közölni kell. Az előzetes napirend azon kérdéseket tartalmazza, amelyek tekintetében a napirendre tűzésre vonatkozó kérést az elnök az ülés kezdete előtt legalább 30 nappal megkapja.
 Az előzetes napirendben feltüntetendő kérdések azok lehetnek, amelyek vonatkozásában a dokumentációt a Tanács Titkársága időben megkapta ahhoz, hogy továbbíthassa a Tanács tagjainak, valamint az AKCS-EK Nagykövetek Bizottsága (a továbbiakban: bizottság) tagjainak, az ülés kezdete előtt legalább 21 nappal.
 (2) A napirendet a Tanács az egyes ülések kezdetén fogadja el. Sürgős esetben a Tanács határozhat úgy – az AKCS-államok vagy a Közösség kérésére –, hogy napirendre tűz olyan kérdéseket is, amelyek tekintetében az (1) bekezdésben meghatározott határidők betartása nem történt meg.
 (3) Az előzetes napirend felosztható „A”, „B”, illetve „C” részre.
 Az „A” részbe azon kérdések tartoznak, amelyeket a Tanács vita nélkül jóváhagyhat.
 A „B” részbe tartozó kérdéseket jóváhagyásuk előtt a Tanácsnak meg kell vitatnia.
 A „C” részbe tartozó kérdések megvitatása informális véleménycsere keretében történik.
 3. cikk
 Eljárások
 (1) A Miniszterek Tanácsa – az AKCS-EK megállapodás 15. cikke (3) bekezdésével összhangban – a felek közös megállapodásával hozza meg határozatait.
 (2) A Tanács eljárásai kizárólag akkor érvényesek, ha azokban részt vesz az Európai Unió Tanácsa tagjainak legalább a fele, továbbá az Európai Közösségek Bizottságának (a továbbiakban: a Bizottság) egy tagja, valamint az AKCS-államok kormányait képviselő tagok kétharmada.
 (3) Akadályoztatás esetén a Tanács minden tagja képviseltetheti magát az üléseken. Ez esetben az elnököt értesíteniük kell és meg kell nevezniük a képviseletükre felhatalmazott személyt vagy delegációt. A képviselő az akadályoztatott tagot teljes joggal képviseli.
 (4) A Tanács tagjai tanácsadóikkal együtt is részt vehetnek az üléseken.
 (5) Az elnökkel minden egyes ülést megelőzően valamennyi delegáció összetételét ismertetni kell.
 (6) Az Európai Beruházási Bank – a továbbiakban: a bank – képviselője jelen lehet a Tanács ülésein, amennyiben a bankot érintő ügyek szerepelnek a napirenden.
 4. cikk
 Írásbeli eljárás
 A Tanács határozhat úgy, hogy sürgős ügyekben levélváltás útján hoz határozatokat. Ezen eljárás jóváhagyása tanácsi ülés vagy a bizottság keretében történhet.
 Ugyanakkor, amikor ezen eljárásról határoznak, ki lehet kötni a határidőt is a válaszok megadására vonatkozóan. A határidő lejártával a Tanács elnöke határoz arról, vajon – a Tanács két titkárának jelentése alapján, az érkezett válaszok figyelembevételével – tekinthető-e úgy, hogy sikerült közös megállapodást elérni.
 5. cikk
 Bizottságok és munkacsoportok
 A Tanács bizottságokat és munkacsoportokat állíthat fel a szükségesnek vélt munka ellátására, különösen, adott esetben, az együttműködés vagy a partnerség sajátos vonatkozásairól szóló eljárásai előkészítése tekintetében.
 Ezen bizottságok és munkacsoportok munkájának felügyelete átruházható a Bizottságra.
 6. cikk
 Miniszteri alcsoportok
 A Tanács – az 5. cikk rendelkezéseinek sérelme nélkül – üléseinek folyamán átruházhatja paritásos alapon megalakult miniszteri alcsoportokra az ülések menetének, illetve a napirenden szereplő meghatározott kérdésekre vonatkozó következtetéseinek az előkészítését.
 7. cikk
 Miniszteri bizottságok
 (1) Az AKCS-EK megállapodás 83. cikkével összhangban létrejön az AKCS-EK Fejlesztésfinanszírozási Együttműködési Bizottság. A Tanács elfogadja ezen bizottság eljárási szabályait.
 (2) A Tanács megvizsgálja az AKCS-EK megállapodás 38. cikke értelmében létrejött AKCS-EK miniszteri szintű kereskedelmi vegyes bizottság által felvetett kereskedempolitikai kérdéseket és jelentéseket.
 8. cikk
 Megfigyelői státussal jelen lévő államok
 (1) Az AKCS–EK megállapodás azon aláíró államainak képviselői, melyek a megállapodás hatálybalépésének napjáig még nem teljesítették a 93. cikk (1) és (2) bekezdésében említett eljárásokat, megfigyelőként részt vehetnek a Tanács ülésein. Ez esetben felhatalmazást kaphatnak arra, hogy részt vegyenek a tanácsi vitákban.
 (2) Ugyanezen szabály alkalmazandó az AKCS–EK megállapodás 93. cikke (6) bekezdésében említett országokra.
 (3) A Tanács felhatalmazhatja az AKCS–EK megállapodáshoz csatlakozni kívánó országok képviselőit arra, hogy a Tanács eljárásaiban megfigyelőként részt vegyenek.
 9. cikk
 Titkosság és hivatalos kiadványok
 (1) Ellenkező határozat hiányában a Tanács a nyilvánosság kizárásával ülésezik. A Tanács ülésein történő részvétel engedélyhez kötött.
 (2) Egyéb vonatkozó rendelkezések sérelme nélkül a Tanács tanácskozásaira a szakmai titoktartási kötelezettség vonatkozik, amennyiben a Tanács másképp nem határoz.
 (3) Minden fél határozhat arról, hogy a Tanács határozatait, állásfoglalásait, ajánlásait és véleményeit saját vonatkozó hivatalos kiadványaiban kihirdeti.
 10. cikk
 Nem kormányzati szereplőkkel folytatott párbeszéd
 (1) A Tanács felkérheti az AKCS és az Európai Unió államai civil társadalmának gazdasági és társadalmi képviselőit, hogy vegyenek részt véleménycserében a rendes ülések mellett a célból, hogy tájékoztassa őket, illetve meghallgassa véleményeiket és javaslataikat a napirenden szereplő kérdésekre vonatkozóan.
 (2) A civil társadalom képviselőivel folytatandó véleménycserét a Tanács Titkársága szervezi. E feladatot – a Bizottsággal egyetértésben – átruházhatja a civil társadalmat képviselő szervezetekre. A Tanács Titkársága különösen az AKCS és EK civil társadalom gazdasági és társadalmi képviselőivel folytatandó véleménycserével kapcsolatos munkát átruházhatja az Európai Közösségek Gazdasági és Szociális Bizottságára.
 (3) A nem kormányzati szereplőkkel megvitatandó napirendi kérdéseket az elnök határozza meg, a Tanács Titkárságának javaslata alapján. Ezeket a kérdéseket a Tanács többi tagjával az egyes ülésekre vonatkozó előzetes napirenddel egyidejűleg kell közölni.
 11. cikk
 Regionális és szubregionális szervezetek
 Az AKCS regionális és szubregionális szervezetek – a Tanáccsal kötött előzetes megállapodás függvényében – megfigyelőkként képviseltethetik magukat a Tanács és a bizottság ülésein.
 12. cikk
 Közlemények és az ülések jegyzőkönyve
 (1) Ezen eljárási szabályzatban előírt valamennyi közleményt továbbítani kell a Tanács Titkárságán keresztül az AKCS-államok képviselőinek, az AKCS-államcsoport titkárságának, a tagállamok állandó képviselőinek, az Európai Unió Tanácsa Főtitkárságának és a Bizottságnak.
 A közleményeket a bank elnökéhez is meg kell küldeni, amennyiben azok a bankot érintik.
 (2) Minden egyes ülésről jegyzőkönyv készül, mely különösen a Tanács által meghozott határozatokat tartalmazza.
 A Tanács jóváhagyását követően, a hivatalban lévő elnök, valamint a Tanács két titkára aláírásával ellátja a jegyzőkönyvet, amelyet aztán elhelyeznek a Tanács irattárában. A jegyzőkönyv egy példányát megküldik az (1) bekezdésben említett címzetteknek.
 13. cikk
 Dokumentálás
 Egyéb határozat hiányában a Tanács a felek hivatalos nyelvein készült dokumentumok alapján folytatja tanácskozásait.
 14. cikk
 Jogi aktusok formája
 (1) Az AKCS-EK megállapodás 15. cikke (3) bekezdése értelmében a határozatok, állásfoglalások, ajánlások és vélemények cikkekre osztandók.
 A „kelt ...-ban/ben, ... (napon)” záróformulát kell befejezésül használni, ahol a keltezés napja a Tanács általi elfogadás napját jelenti.
 (2) Az AKCS-EK megállapodás 15. cikke (3) bekezdése értelmében meghozott határozat címe „Határozat”, melyet a sorszám, az elfogadás időpontja, valamint a tárgy megjelölése követ.
 A határozatoknak rögzíteniük kell hatálybalépésük dátumát. Tartalmazniuk kell továbbá a következő mondatot: „Az AKCS-államok, a Közösség és tagállamai tekintetében elvárt, hogy tegyék meg a maguk részéről a szükséges intézkedéseket ezen határozat végrehajtására vonatkozóan.”
 (3) Az AKCS-EK megállapodás 15. cikke (3) bekezdése értelmében az állásfoglalások, nyilatkozatok, ajánlások és vélemények címe „Állásfoglalás”, „Nyilatkozat”, „Ajánlás”, illetve „Vélemény”, melyet a sorszám, az elfogadás időpontja, valamint a tárgy megjelölése követ.
 (4) Az elnök aláírásával ellátja a Tanács által elfogadott jogi aktusokat, amelyeket aztán elhelyeznek a Tanács irattárában.
 Ezen jogi aktusok a Tanács két titkárán keresztül továbbítandók a 12. cikk (1) bekezdésében említett címzetteknek.
 15. cikk
 Az elnökség
 Az elnöki hivatal ellátása felváltva a következőképpen történik:
 —
 április 1-től szeptember 30-ig valamely AKCS-állam kormányának egy tagja,
 —
 október 1-től március 31-ig az Európai Unió Tanácsának egy tagja.
 16. cikk
 A bizottság
 (1) A Tanács – az AKCS-EK megállapodás 15. cikke (4) bekezdésével összhangban – bizonyos hatásköreit átruházhatja a bizottságra.
 (2) A bizottsági ülések feltételeit a bizottsági eljárási szabályok határozzák meg.
 (3) A bizottság felel a Tanács üléseinek előkészítéséért és a Tanács által rábízott feladatok elvégzéséért.
 17. cikk
 Részvétel a közös parlamenti közgyűlésen
 A közös parlamenti közgyűlési üléseken történő tanácsi részvétel esetén a Tanácsot az elnök képviseli.
 Az elnök – akadályoztatása esetén – kijelöli a maga helyett részt vevő tagot.
 18. cikk
 A közösségi politikák összhangja és a végrehajtás hatásaaz AKCS-EK megállapodás tekintetében
 (1) Amennyiben az AKCS-államok az AKCS-EK megállapodás 12. cikkének megfelelően konzultációt kérnek, úgy e konzultációt sürgősen meg kell tartani, rendszerint a kéréstől számított 15 napon belül.
 (2) A felelős testület lehet a Tanács vagy a bizottság, illetve a 7. cikkben említett két miniszteri bizottság egyike, vagy egy ad hoc munkacsoport.
 19. cikk
 A titkárság
 A Tanács és a bizottság titkársága két titkár közös vezetésével működik.
 A két titkár – az egyik az AKCS-államok, a másik a bizottság révén történő – kinevezésére közös konzultációt követően kerül sor.
 A titkárok feladataik ellátása során teljesen függetlenül járnak el, kizárólag a megállapodás érdekeire tekintettel, és nem kérhetnek vagy fogadhatnak el utasításokat egyetlen kormánytól, szervezettől, illetve hatóságtól sem – a Tanács, illetve a bizottság kivételével.
 A Tanácsnak szóló levelezést a Tanács Titkárságának székhelyére, az elnöknek kell megküldeni.
 20. cikk
 Ezen határozat megsemmisíti és felváltja az AKCS–EK Nagykövetek Bizottságának az AKCS-EK Miniszterek Tanácsa eljárási szabályzatának elfogadásáról szóló, 2001. január 30-i 1/2001 határozatát.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2005. március 8-án.
 az AKCS–EK Miniszterek Tanácsa részéről
 az elnök
 J. ASSELBORN


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Washington County as a Court of Equity, and the principal question arises upon the construction and effect of the following agreement between the appellee, Harry E. Lorshbaugh, and Malinda Ridenour, deceased, whose heirs at law are the appellants.
 "This memorandum of agreement made this day of August, 1903, by Malinda Ridenour, of Hagerstown, Maryland, witnesseth, that whereas Harry E. Lorshbaugh has advanced unto me, Malinda Ridenour, the sum of $100, the receipt of which I hereby acknowledge, as part of the purchase price of the property recently purchased by me of Charles T. Semler, which said property is situated on the south side of Liberty Street, in Hagerstown, and is now occupied by Pinkney Cramer as tenant, and whereas the said Lorshbaugh has advanced divers other *Page 564
 sums to be used in improvements on the said property; now, therefore, this is to certify to all therein concerned that I, the said Malinda Ridenour, have agreed with the said Harry E. Lorshbaugh that in consideration of the said sums of money to me advanced I will not alienate the said property without the consent of the said Lorshbaugh, and without paying him the sums of money advanced to me, with interest thereon; and I have further agreed that in case of my death the said property shall become the absolute property of the said Harry E. Lorshbaugh, free from all claims of all who may attempt to claim under me; it being the intent thereof that in consideration of certain moneys paid me, I have agreed that, in case the said Lorshbaugh survives me, all my interest in the said property shall become the interest of the said Harry E. Lorshbaugh. Witness my hand and seal.
 Test: MALINDA RIDEN. (Seal)."
 Malinda Ridenour died intestate about December 19th, 1908, seized of a house and lot in Hagerstown, upon which there was a mortgage of $300, held by Alexander Armstrong, dated August 15th, 1903, and leaving as her heirs at law a brother, a sister and a niece, named in the proceedings.
 A short time after her death, Harry E. Lorshbaugh filed a creditors' bill in the Circuit Court for Washington County against the heirs of the said Malinda Ridenour, and against the executors of said Alexander Armstrong, then deceased, alleging that she was in her life time indebted to him in the sum of $407.25, as set out in an account filed with the bill as an exhibit, the items therein being money loaned August 15th, 1908, $130; money advanced to pay interest on Armstrong mortgage, $90; money to repair house, $71.00; expenses, sickness and burial, $116.25, and alleging that she left no personal estate of any value. The heirs of Malinda Ridenour answered admitting her death intestate and that she died seized of the house and lot mentioned, but denied that she left no personal estate, and that she was indebted in any manner to said Lorshbaugh. They also admitted the execution of the Armstrong mortgage, but demanded proof *Page 565
 that it was still unpaid. The executors of Alexander Armstrong answered, claiming that the mortgage was still due and unpaid with interest from August 15th, 1908, and consented the property should be sold as prayed, provision to be made for the payment of their mortgage out of the proceeds of sale.
 Proof was made as to who were the heirs at law as stated in the bill, and that Malinda Ridenour died seized of the house and lot mentioned, and a copy of the Armstrong mortgage was put in evidence, with a copy of a deed from Charles T. Semler and wife to Malinda Ridenour of even date with the mortgage. Semler testified that the negotiations for the lot were conducted by Lorshbaugh, that the price was $400, which he received by a check of Alexander Armstrong, and he made the conveyance to Malinda Ridenour by Lorshbaugh's direction. An agreement of counsel was filed showing that Lorshbaugh and Malinda Ridenour kept house together and lived together as husband and wife in Hagerstown from 1884 to 1885 to the time of her death.
 Robert D. Kochenour testified that he had known both those persons ever since he could remember, and remembered the purchase of the Semler property, and that Lorshbaugh sold a house he had owned, not long before the Semler purchase. He identified the agreement first mentioned herein as a paper he had seen before, and testified that in the spring following the purchase of the Semler property, Lorshbaugh called to him on the street, and he went over to the house where Lorshbaugh and Malinda then were, and had that paper, and that Lorshbaugh told him he wanted him to see that paper signed and told him to read it; that he read it to them, and Malinda said she was going to sign, and he saw her sign it and deliver it to Lorshbaugh. He said Malinda thought there was not room enough on the paper for her full name, and that was why her full name does not appear; that he told her that did not matter; he did not think they would ever have occasion to use it, and that he meant by that, *Page 566
 he always thought Harry would die first. He said she told him that Harry was paying the interest on the mortgage, and was giving her five dollars a week to put away to pay on the mortgage.
 Mrs. Semler testified that Malinda told her Lorshbaugh had paid part of the purchase money and was to get it back out of the property. There was no testimony offered by the defendants.
 In January, 1910, Alexander Armstrong, Jr., to whom the mortgage had been assigned by the executors of his father, obtained an order of Court, authorizing him, on account of the failure of the parties to the cause, to bring the case to a hearing, to sell the property under the power in the mortgage, and directing him after payment of the mortgage debt, interest, costs and commissions, to hold the residue of the proceeds of sale subject to the further order of the Court, and the property was so sold February 22d 1910, for $540, and the sale was ratified September 5th, 1910.
 There was no evidence sustaining the three last items in the account filed with the bill, and the Court so found in the opinion filed in the case. The learned judge of the Circuit Court held that the agreement mentioned showed that Lorshbaugh had advanced $100 part of the purchase money and was entitled to be repaid said sum with interest from August 15th, 1903, and so decreed, and directed the auditor in stating an account in the case where the sale was made, after payment of the mortgage debt, interest, commissions and costs of sale, to distribute the surplus, first to the payment of costs in the creditors bill case, and then to the payment of the $100 with interest from August 15th, 1903, and directed a copy of said order to be filed in the sale case also.
 The learned judge of the Circuit Court, without referring to adjudged cases, rested this conclusion upon the general statement in Cyc., Vol. 27, p. 855, that an action for money had and received will lie to recover money paid by plaintiff to defendant for a consideration which has wholly failed, *Page 567
 and of the correctness of that doctrine we think there can be no doubt.
 But he also said there was another view which, in his judgment, entitled the plaintiff to relief in the premises, and that was, that the agreement mentioned, operated, under the existing circumstances, as an equitable assignment to Lorshbaugh of all her interest in the property, and in our opinion this ground is the proper ground, and affords the proper measure of relief upon principle.
 It will be seen that the agreement provided for two contingencies, in either of which the plaintiff was entitled to some remedy, but the remedy was not the same in the two contingencies. The first contingency was that if she alienated the property, as she might legally do without his concurrence, then, and upon that condition only, there was an express, rather than an implied, promise on her part to pay him not only the $100 advanced as part of the purchase money, but also the other sums not definitely named but capable of exact ascertainment, which the agreement states he had advanced for repairs and improvements. This contingency could only occur in her lifetime, and until it did occur she came under no obligation to pay the sums so advanced. Where there is an express promise to pay upon a certain contingency only, there can be no implied promise to pay without regard to the contingency.
 The second contingency was that if she died seized of that property, and he survived her, all her interest therein should become his absolute property. This contingency could only occur on her death.
 The deed to Malinda and the mortgage to Armstrong were both executed on August 15th, 1903, and the agreement under consideration was apparently prepared for execution on the same date, as it reads: "This agreement made this . . . . . . . . . . day of August, 1903," etc., though it appears from Kochenour's testimony that it was actually signed the following spring. But however, this may be the only interest she ever had in the property was the equity of redemption, *Page 568
 the legal estate conveyed to her by the deed passing at the same moment to Armstrong by the mortgage, which was delivered concurrently with the delivery of the deed. It is true that the agreement can not operate as a deed or as a will, nor is it a formal conveyance or legal assignment of the equity of redemption. As the property has been sold, by order of the Court in this cause under the power contained in the mortgage, since the filing of the bill, there is nothing upon which a decree for sale could operate; but the equity of redemption is represented by the surplus proceeds of sale in the hands of the assignee of the mortgage, and the agreement operates as a good equitable assignment of the fund representing the equity of redemption. In 4 Cyc. 46, the author of the article on Assignments, JUDGE ROMBAUER, of St. Louis, says: "Any words or transaction which show an intention on one side to assign, and on the other to receive, if there is a valuable consideration, will operate as an effective equitable assignment," and there is no necessity that the assignee should formally accept the assignment. 1 Amer. andEng. Enc. 835-6-7.
 In Sanguinnett v. Webster, 153 Mo. 370, the Court said: "Any language or act which makes an appropriation of the fund, amounts to an equitable assignment of that fund."
 In Holmes v. Evans, 129 N.Y. 140, JUDGE ANDREWS said: "An equitable assignment has been defined to be such an assignment as gives the assignee a title, which, although not cognizable at law, equity will recognize and protect. Such an assignment passes an immediate equitable interest in the subject, although it is not essential to the creation of the interest that it should be immediately enforceable by suit for specific performance to recover the interest assigned. * * * There must undoubtedly be a purpose to pass a present interest, but that interest may be absolute, or qualified, a right to the immediate possession or enjoyment, or a right to such enjoyment, postponed until the happening of some future event. In other words, the assignment may be made, subject to limitations, qualifications, andconditions, such *Page 569
 as might be inserted in the conveyance or assignment of the legal estate in the same subject." The learned judge of the Circuit Court has given in his opinion, a very clear illustration of this view of the case, saying: "Suppose the agreement had been made in consideration of said advancements and payments made by said Lorshbaugh, that the said Malinda had agreed that at the end offive years all the interest of said Malinda in said property should become the interest of said Lorshbaugh; could there have been any question of the right of said Lorshbaugh, at the end of said time, to the execution of such a paper as would have been necessary and proper under the law to pass such interest from said Malinda to him? I do not think so. Under such an agreement, after the expiration of said five years, the said Malinda would have held said interest in trust for said Lorshbaugh, and he would have been entitled to the aid of a Court of equity, if necessary, to secure him his rights in the premises. I can see no difference between the case supposed, and the case under consideration." Nor can we discover any difference in principle. Her heirs at law have no other or greater rights in this equity of redemption than she could have had in the case supposed. The legal title may be in them, but they hold it in trust for him, and he is entitled as against them to the aid of a Court of equity to enforce his right in the most expeditious available proceeding. This view would have somewhat increased the amount allowed by the decree to the appellee but as he has not appealed the decree will be affirmed in the form in which it was passed.
 Decree affirmed, costs to be paid by the appellant. *Page 570