natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See also Section 1.13.1 on indication of urgency in SIRENE forms.
Hrvaška je k Evropski uniji pristopila 1. julija 2013.
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77).
Schengenski pravni red uporablja z odstopanjem iz Akta o pristopu iz leta 2011.
Article 10 of the Directive 2004/38/EC lists the necessary conditions for acquiring right of residence for more than 3 months in a host Member State by family members of Union citizens who are third-country nationals.
V takih primerih izvršitvena država članica obvesti državo članico izdajateljico o ponavljajočih zadetkih, država članica izdajateljica pa obravnava potrebo po ohranitvi razpisa ukrepa.
This list, which is exhaustive, does not allow for routine consultation of the SIS prior to the issuing of residence cards.
Izbris razpisov ukrepov zaradi zasega ali za zagotovitev dokazov v kazenskih postopkih
Such enquiries shall not be made as a matter of routine.
Če je potrebnih več podatkov o gibanju vozila, mora urad SIRENE države članice, ki je izdala razpis ukrepa, stopiti v stik z uradom SIRENE izvršitvene države članice, da o potrebah po podatkih razpravljata dvostransko.
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1532
Izvedbeni sklep Komisije (EU) 2017/1532
of 7 September 2017
z dne 7. septembra 2017
addressing questions regarding the comparative assessment of anticoagulant rodenticides in accordance with Article 23(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
o obravnavi vprašanj v zvezi s primerjalno oceno antikoagulantnih rodenticidov v skladu s členom 23(5) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products [1], and in particular first subparagraph of Article 23(5) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. maja 2012 o dostopnosti na trgu in uporabi biocidnih proizvodov [1] ter zlasti prvega pododstavka člena 23(5) Uredbe, ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
The questions submitted were the following: (a) Is the chemical diversity of the active substances in authorised rodenticides in the Union adequate to minimise the occurrence of resistance in the target harmful organisms?; (b) For the different uses specified in the applications for renewal, are alternative authorised biocidal products or non-chemical means of control and prevention methods available?; (c) Do these alternatives present a significantly lower overall risk for human health, animal health and the environment?; d) Are these alternatives sufficiently effective?; (e) Do these alternatives present no other significant economic or practical disadvantages?
V skladu s členom 75(1)(g) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012 je Komisija od Evropske agencije za kemikalije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Agencija) zahtevala, da pripravi mnenje, v katerem bo obravnavala vprašanja glede različnih načinov uporabe, ki se lahko dovolijo v antikoagulantnih rodenticidih, v skladu s pogoji in ukrepi za zmanjšanje tveganja iz mnenj [2], ki jih je sprejel Odbor za biocidne proizvode Agencije na svojem 16. srečanju v zvezi s podaljšanjem odobritev aktivnih snovi.
The answers to these questions are relevant for any receiving competent authority for the purpose of deciding whether the criteria in Article 23(3)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 are met and, as a consequence, whether it shall prohibit or restrict the making available on the market or the use of anticoagulant rodenticides.
Odbor za biocidne proizvode Agencije je mnenje [3] sprejel 2. marca 2017.
Pursuant to Article 75(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, the Commission requested from the European Chemicals Agency (‘Agency’) to formulate an opinion addressing the questions for the different uses that may be authorised in anticoagulant rodenticides according to the conditions and risk mitigation measures referred to in the opinions [2] adopted by the Biocidal Products Committee of the Agency at its 16th meeting for the renewal of the active substance approvals.
Iz navedenega mnenja je razvidno, da bi pri odsotnosti antikoagulantnih rodenticidov uporaba biocidnih rodenticidov, ki vsebujejo druge aktivne snovi, pomenila nezadostno kemijsko raznolikost za čim večje znižanje tveganja nastanka odpornosti v ciljnih škodljivih organizmih.
On 2 March 2017, the Biocidal Products Committee of the Agency adopted its opinion [3].
Za zadevne načine uporabe teh proizvodov se je pokazalo tudi, da prinašajo nekatere bistvene praktične ali gospodarske izgube.
According to that opinion, in the absence of anticoagulant rodenticides, the use of rodenticide biocidal products containing other active substances would lead to an inadequate chemical diversity to minimize the occurrence of resistance in the target harmful organisms.
V mnenju je bilo obravnavanih tudi več nekemičnih nadzornih ali preventivnih metod (v nadaljnjem besedilu: nekemične nadomestne možnosti), ki so v določenih okoliščinah lahko dovolj učinkovite, in sicer samostojno ali v kombinaciji.
These products also showed some significant practical or economical disadvantages for the relevant uses.
Vendar ni dovolj znanstvenih dokazov, da so glede na merila iz dogovorjenih smernic Unije [4] navedene nekemične nadomestne možnosti dovolj učinkovite, da bi se prepovedali ali omejili dovoljeni načini uporabe antikoagulantnih rodenticidov.
The opinion also considered a number of non-chemical control or prevention methods (‘non-chemical alternatives’), which may provide sufficient efficacy in certain circumstances on their own or in a combination of them.
Kljub temu Komisija ugotavlja, da glede na priporočilo v mnenju uporaba nekemičnih nadomestnih možnosti predstavlja bistveni del trajnostnega zatiranja škodljivcev za nadzor glodalcev in pravilne uporabe antikoagulantnih rodenticidov v skladu s členom 17(5) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012.
However, there is insufficient scientific evidence to prove that those non-chemical alternatives are sufficiently effective according to the criteria established in agreed Union guidance [4] with a view to prohibit or restrict the authorised uses of anticoagulant rodenticides.
Ukrepi iz tega sklepa so v skladu z mnenjem Stalnega odbora za biocidne pripravke –
Nevertheless the Commission notes the recommendation in the opinion that the use of non-chemical alternatives is a fundamental part of sustainable pest management for rodent control and proper use of anticoagulant rodenticides in accordance with Article 17(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.
SPREJELA NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Za namen člena 23(3) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012 pristojni organi prejemniki držav članic preučijo informacije iz obravnave vprašanj, predloženih Komisiji, v zvezi s primerjalno oceno antikoagulantnih biocidnih rodenticidov v Prilogi.
For the purpose of Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, the receiving competent authorities of the Member States shall consider the information addressing the questions referred to the Commission concerning the comparative assessment of anticoagulant rodenticide biocidal products provided in the Annex.
Ta sklep začne veljati dvajseti dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
Article 2
V Bruslju, 7. septembra 2017
Done at Brussels, 7 September 2017.
Predsednik
The President
Mnenje ECHA/BPC/145/2017, na voljo na naslovu: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/21680461/bpc_opinion_comparative-assessment_ar_en.pdf/bf81f0a5-3e95-6b7d-d601-37db9bb16fa5.
OJ L 167, 27.6.2012, p. 1.
Tehnična navodila o primerjalni oceni biocidnih proizvodov, na voljo na naslovu: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/d309607f-f75b-46e7-acc4-1653cadcaf7e.
Opinion ECHA/BPC/145/2017, available at https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/21680461/bpc_opinion_comparative-assessment_ar_en.pdf/bf81f0a5-3e95-6b7d-d601-37db9bb16fa5
PRILOGA
Technical guidance note on Comparative assessment of biocidal products, available at https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/d309607f-f75b-46e7-acc4-1653cadcaf7e
Informacije iz obravnave vprašanj, ki so jih države članice predložile Komisiji, v zvezi s primerjalno oceno antikoagulantnih biocidnih rodenticidov.
ANNEX
Za namen navedenih vprašanj so opredeljeni načini uporabe iz člena 23(3)(a) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012 navedeni v tabeli 1.
Information addressing the questions referred by Member States to the Commission concerning the comparative assessment of anticoagulant rodenticide biocidal products.
Tabela 1
For the purpose of those questions, the specified uses referred to in Article 23(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 are listed in Table 1.
Opredeljeni načini uporabe za antikoagulantne rodenticide
Table 1
Številka uporabe
Specified uses for anticoagulant rodenticides
Ciljni organizmi
Use number
Področje uporabe
Target organism(s)
Skupine uporabnikov
Field of use
Način uporabe
Category(ies) of users
Mus musculus (hišna miš)
Application method
(dodajo se lahko drugi ciljni organizmi)
Mus musculus (house mice)
zaprti prostori
(Other target organisms may be added)
splošna javnost
Indoor
vaba za takojšnjo uporabo pri nastavljanju vab na mestih, ki so zavarovana pred nepooblaščenimi posegi
General public
Rattus norvegicus (siva podgana)
Ready-to-use bait to be used in tamper-resistant bait stations
Rattus rattus (črna podgana)
Rattus norvegicus (brown rat)
(dodajo se lahko drugi ciljni organizmi, razen hišne miši (npr. voluharji))
Rattus rattus (black or roof rat)
na prostem okoli stavb
(Other target organisms — except house mice — may be added (e.g. voles))
strokovnjaki
Outdoor around buildings
usposobljeni strokovnjaki
Professionals
vaba za takojšnjo uporabo ali kontaktne formulacije za takojšnjo uporabo
Trained professionals
vaba za takojšnjo rabo
Ready-to-use bait or Ready-to-use contact formulations
odprti prostori na prostem
Ready-to-use bait
odlagališča odpadkov na prostem
Outdoor open areas
kanalizacija
Outdoor waste dumps
Vprašanje (a): Ali je kemijska raznolikost aktivnih snovi v dovoljenih rodenticidih v Uniji zadostna, da se čim bolj zniža tveganje nastanka odpornosti v ciljnih škodljivih organizmih?
Sewers
V biocidnih proizvodih za vrsto proizvoda 14 je pet odobrenih aktivnih snovi z načinom delovanja, ki se razlikuje od načina delovanja antikoagulantnih rodenticidov (alfakloraloza, aluminijev fosfid, ki sprošča fosfin, ogljikov dioksid, vodikov cianid in koruzni storž v prahu).
Question (a): Is the chemical diversity of the active substances in authorised rodenticides in the EU adequate to minimise the occurrence of resistance in the target harmful organisms?
Glede na mnenje za nobenega od opredeljenih načinov uporabe iz tabele 1 ni izpolnjena minimalna zahteva iz dogovorjenih smernic Unije, da morajo obstajati tri različne nadomestne možnosti z različnim načinom delovanja.
There are five approved active substances in biocidal products for product-type 14 with a mode of action different from that of anticoagulant rodenticides (alpha chloralose, aluminium phosphide releasing phosphine, carbon dioxide, hydrogen cyanide and powdered corn cob).
Zato pri odsotnosti antikoagulantnih rodenticidov ni izpolnjen pogoj iz člena 23(3)(b) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012, da je kemijska raznolikost aktivnih snovi zadostna, da se čim bolj zniža tveganje nastanka odpornosti v ciljnih škodljivih organizmih.
According to the opinion, the minimum requirement in agreed Union guidance of having three different alternatives with a different mode of action is not reached for any of the specified uses listed in Table 1.
Vprašanje (b): Ali so za različne načine uporabe, navedene v vlogah za podaljšanje, na voljo nadomestni dovoljeni biocidni proizvodi ali nekemična sredstva za nadzor in preventivne metode?
Therefore, in the absence of anticoagulant rodenticides, the condition in Article 23(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 that the chemical diversity of the active substances is adequate to minimize the occurrence of resistance in the target harmful organisms is not met.
Tabeli 2 in 3 vsebujeta pregled nadomestnih možnosti, ki so obravnavane v mnenju, za obravnavo tega vprašanja.
Question (b): For the different uses specified in the applications for renewal, are alternative authorised biocidal products or non-chemical means of control and prevention methods available?
Tabela 2
Tables 2 and 3 provide an overview of the alternatives considered in the opinion in order to address this question.
Pregled nadomestnih dovoljenih biocidnih proizvodov za opredeljene načine uporabe antikoagulantnih rodenticidov
Table 2
Številka uporabe iz tabele 1
Overview of the alternative authorised biocidal products to the specified uses of anticoagulant rodenticides
Aktivna snov v nadomestnih biocidnih proizvodih
Use number as described in Table 1
Vrsta uporabe
Active substance in the alternative biocidal products
Alfakloraloza
Application type
vaba
Alpha chloralose
samo miši
Bait
Aluminijev fosfid, ki sprošča fosfin
Only mice
hlapni pesticid
Aluminium phosphide releasing phosphine
samo za R. norvegicus
Fumigant
Ogljikov dioksid
Only for R. norvegicus
posoda za past
Carbon dioxide
Nadomestni dovoljeni biocidni proizvodi ne zajemajo vseh načinov uporabe, opredeljenih za antikoagulantne rodenticide (gl. tabelo 2).
Cannister for trapping device
Za nekatere načine uporabe (številke uporabe #2, #3, #5, #6 in #10) nadomestni dovoljeni biocidni proizvodi niso na voljo.
The alternative authorised biocidal products do not cover all the uses specified for anticoagulant rodenticides (see Table 2).
Za način uporabe #7 so na voljo nadomestni dovoljeni biocidni proizvodi samo za miši, za načina uporabe #8 in #9 pa so nadomestni dovoljeni biocidni proizvodi na voljo samo za podgane (R. norvegicus).
For some uses (uses number #2, #3, #5, #6 and #10), no alternative authorised biocidal products are available.
Tabela 3
For use #7, there are alternative authorised biocidal products only for mice, and for uses #8 and #9 there are alternative authorised biocidal products only for rats (R. norvegicus).
Pregled opredeljenih nekemičnih nadomestnih možnosti za opredeljene načine uporabe antikoagulantnih rodenticidov
Table 3
Sporočena nekemična nadomestna možnost
Overview of the identified non-chemical alternatives to the specified uses of anticoagulant rodenticides
Način delovanja
Reported non-chemical alternative
Načini uporabe, ki bi bili lahko zajeti
Mode of action
Sanacijsko tretiranje
Uses potentially covered
Električne pasti za glodalce
Curative treatments
pasti z električnim tokom, ki glodalca usmrtijo, ko se ujame v past
Electrical rodent traps
Lepljive plošče
Traps with electrical current killing the rodent entering the trap.
glodalci se ujamejo v lepilo, usmrtitev pa se mora izvesti ločeno
Glue boards
Mehanske pasti (vzmetne mišelovke)
Rodents are captured in glue, killing has to be done separately.
pasti z mehansko utežjo, ki glodalca usmrtijo, ko se ujame v past
Mechanical traps (spring traps or break-back traps)
Streljanje
Traps with mechanical weight are killing the entering rodent.
streljanje glodalcev
Shooting
Preventivno tretiranje
Shooting the rodents.
Spreminjanje habitata
Preventive treatments
preprečevanje ustalitve populacij glodalcev z omejevanjem hrane/vode/zavetij
Habitat modification
Zaščita pred glodalci
Preventing rodent populations from establishing by limiting the supply of food/water/harbourage
preprečevanje dostopa glodalcev do stavb z blokiranjem vstopnih poti
Rodent proofing
Ultrazvočni odganjalec
Preventing access of rodents to buildings by blocking entering routes.
odganjanje glodalcev z ultrazvokom jakosti 70–140 dB
Ultra-sound
Vprašanje (c): Ali so te nadomestne možnosti v splošnem bistveno varnejše za zdravje ljudi in živali ter za okolje?
Repelling rodents with an ultrasonic output at 70-140 dB.
Glede na dogovorjene smernice Unije bi bilo treba to vprašanje obravnavati samo, če so obravnavane nadomestne možnosti dovolj učinkovite in ne predstavljajo drugih bistvenih gospodarskih ali praktičnih izgub (gl. dela, ki obravnavata vprašanji (d) in (e)).
Question (c) Do these alternatives present a significantly lower overall risk for human health, animal health and the environment?
Na podlagi sklepov iz odgovorov na vprašanja (a), (b), (d) in (e) je iz mnenja razvidno, da obravnava vprašanja (c) ni bila potrebna.
According to agreed Union guidance, this question should only be addressed if the considered alternatives are sufficiently effective and do not present other significant economic or practical disadvantages (see sections addressing Questions (d) and (e)).
Vprašanje (d): Ali so te nadomestne možnosti dovolj učinkovite?
Based on the conclusions reached for questions (a), (b), (d) and (e), the opinion considered that addressing Question (c) was not necessary.
Dovoljeni biocidni proizvodi, opredeljeni pri vprašanju (b), vključujejo aktivne snovi, ki so bile odobrene in se zato štejejo za učinkovite za opredeljene načine uporabe.
Question (d): Are these alternatives sufficiently effective?
Ker je zadostna učinkovitost iz člena 19(1)(b)(i) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012 merilo za izdajo dovoljenja, se navedeni proizvodi štejejo za dovolj učinkovite.
The authorised biocidal products identified under Question (b) include active substances that have been approved and therefore considered effective for the specified uses.
V zvezi s kemičnimi nadomestnimi možnostmi, opredeljenimi pri vprašanju (b), so glede na mnenje vse nadomestne možnosti samostojno ali v kombinacijami z drugimi nadomestnimi možnostmi v določenih (morda omejenih) okoliščinah lahko dovolj učinkovite.
Since being sufficiently effective is a criterion for granting an authorisation in Article 19(1)(b)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, those products are considered as being sufficiently effective.
Vendar ni dovolj znanstvenih dokazov, da so glede na dogovorjene smernice Unije obravnavane nekemične nadomestne možnosti dovolj učinkovite (tj. da zagotavljajo podobne ravni zaščite ali nadzora populacij glodalcev v razmerah na prostem), da ne bi bili potrebni antikoagulantni rodenticidi za opredeljene načine uporabe.
Regarding the non-chemical alternatives identified under Question (b), according to the opinion each of the alternatives, on their own or in combination with other alternatives may provide sufficient efficacy in certain, perhaps limited, circumstances.
Ker pogoj zadostne učinkovitosti iz člena 23(3)(a) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012 ni izpolnjen, opredeljene nekemične nadomestne možnosti niso bile nadalje raziskane.
However, there is insufficient scientific evidence to prove that any of the non-chemical alternatives reviewed are sufficiently effective according to agreed Union guidance (i.e. providing similar levels of protection or control of rodent populations under field conditions) to negate the need for anticoagulant rodenticides for the specified uses.
Vprašanje (e): Ali te nadomestne možnosti ne predstavljajo drugih bistvenih gospodarskih ali praktičnih izgub?
As the condition of being sufficiently effective in Article 23(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 is not met, no further investigation was made for the identified non-chemical alternatives.
V skladu z dogovorjenimi smernicami Unije se ocena praktičnih in gospodarskih izgub opravi za tiste nadomestne možnosti, ki izpolnjujejo merila za upravičenost.
Question (e): Do these alternatives present no other significant economic or practical disadvantages?
Zato so bili za namen tega vprašanja ocenjeni samo dovoljeni biocidni proizvodi, ki so opredeljeni v tabeli 2.
According to agreed Union guidance, the assessment of the practical and economical disadvantages is to be done with those alternatives meeting the eligibility criteria.
V skladu z mnenjem uporaba aluminijevega fosfida, ki sprošča fosfin, in ogljikovega dioksida prinaša bistvene praktične ali gospodarske izgube v primerjavi z antikoagulantnimi rodenticidi, ker bi nadzor ciljnih organizmov zahteval veliko napora in/ali nesorazmerne stroške.
Therefore, only the authorised biocidal products identified in table 2 were assessed for the purpose of this question.
Zato za zgoraj omenjene dovoljene biocidne proizvode ni izpolnjen pogoj, da ne predstavljajo drugih bistvenih gospodarskih ali praktičnih izgub iz člena 23(3)(a) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012.
According to the opinion, the use of aluminium phosphide releasing phosphine and carbon dioxide leads to significant practical or economical disadvantages compared to anticoagulant rodenticides, as the control of target organisms would be at very high efforts and/or disproportionate cost.
Učinkovitost proizvodov iz alfakloraloze je odvisna od temperature, kar bi oslabilo uporabo te nadomestne možnosti na lokacijah, kjer ni mogoče nadzirati temperature, to pa bi pomenilo praktično izgubo za uporabo v toplih okoljih.
Therefore, the condition of presenting no other significant economic or practical disadvantage in Article 23(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 is not met for the above-mentioned authorised biocidal products.
Poleg tega ta snov ni kemijsko raznolika (gl. del, ki obravnava vprašanje (a), zato se odsvetuje nadomestitev ali omejitev uporabe antikoagulantnih rodenticidov samo s to snovjo, da se čim bolj zniža tveganje nastanka odpornosti.
Concerning alpha chloralose products, their temperature-dependent efficacy would compromise the use of this alternative in locations where the temperature cannot be controlled, resulting in a practical disadvantage for use in warm environments.
Na 60. srečanju predstavnikov organov držav članic, pristojnih za izvajanje Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012, ki je potekalo 20. in 21. maja 2015, so vse države članice Komisiji predložile več vprašanj za obravnavo na ravni Unije v okviru primerjalne ocene, ki jo je treba opraviti ob podaljšanju odobritve antikoagulantnih biocidnih rodenticidov (v nadaljnjem besedilu: antikoagulantni rodenticidi).
Moreover, considering the lack of chemical diversity (see section addressing Question (a), replacing or restricting the use of anticoagulant rodenticides with only this substance would not be advised in order to minimize the occurrence of resistance.
http://echa.europa.eu/regulations/biocidal-products-regulation/approval-of-active-substances/bpc-opinions-on-active-substance-approval.
Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2017/1534
Sklep Političnega in varnostnega odbora (SZVP) 2017/1534
on the appointment of the EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED operation SOPHIA) and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2017/681 (EUNAVFOR MED/2/2017)
o imenovanju poveljnika sil EU v vojaški operaciji Evropske unije v južnem delu osrednjega Sredozemlja (operacija EUNAVFOR MED SOPHIA) in razveljavitvi Sklepa (SZVP) 2017/681 (EUNAVFOR MED/2/2017)
Pursuant to Article 6(1) of Decision (CFSP) 2015/778, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take decisions on the appointment of the EU Force Commander for the EUNAVFOR MED operation SOPHIA (‘EU Force Commander’).
Svet je na podlagi člena 6(1) Sklepa (SZVP) 2015/778 za sprejemanje sklepov o imenovanju poveljnika sil EU v operaciji EUNAVFOR MED SOPHIA (v nadaljnjem besedilu: poveljnik sil EU) pooblastil Politični in varnostni odbor (PVO).
On 29 March 2017, the PSC adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/681 [2], appointing Rear Admiral (LH) Andrea ROMANI as EU Force Commander.
PVO je 29. marca 2017 sprejel Sklep (SZVP) 2017/681 [2], s katerim je bil za poveljnika sil EU imenovan kontraadmiral (LH) Andrea ROMANI.
The EU Operation Commander has recommended the appointment of Rear Admiral (LH) Javier MORENO SUSANNA to succeed Rear Admiral (LH) Andrea ROMANI as the new EU Force Commander for EUNAVFOR MED operation SOPHIA as from 1 September 2017.
Poveljnik operacije EU je priporočil, da se za novega poveljnika sil EU v operaciji EUNAVFOR MED SOPHIA imenuje kontraadmiral (LH) Javier MORENO SUSANNA, ki naj bi 1. septembra 2017 nasledil kontraadmirala (LH) Andreo ROMANIJA.
On 23 June 2017, the EU Military Committee supported that recommendation.
Vojaški odbor EU je 23. junija 2017 to priporočilo podprl.