text:
Respondent Landano was convicted in New Jersey state court for murdering a police officer during what may have been a gang-related robbery. In an effort to support his claim in subsequent state court proceedings that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , by withholding material exculpatory evidence, he filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for information it had compiled in connection with the murder investigation. When the FBI redacted some documents and withheld others, Landano filed this action in the Federal District Court, seeking disclosure of the requested files' contents. The FBI claimed that it withheld the information under Exemption 7(D), which exempts agency records compiled for law enforcement purposes by law enforcement authorities in the course of a criminal investigation if the records' release "could reasonably be expected to disclose" the identity of, or information provided by, a "confidential source." The court held that the FBI had to articulate case-specific reasons for nondisclosure of information given by anyone other than a regular informant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in relevant part. It held that a source is confidential if there has been an explicit assurance of confidentiality or circumstances from which such an assurance could reasonably be inferred. However, it rejected the Government's argument that a presumption of confidentiality arises whenever any individual or institutional source supplies information to the FBI during a criminal investigation, and declined to rule that a presumption may be based on the particular investigation's subject matter. Rather, it held that, to justify withholding under Exemption 7(D), the Government had to provide detailed explanations relating to each alleged confidential source.
1. The Government is not entitled to a presumption that all sources supplying information to the FBI in the course of a criminal investigation are confidential sources within the meaning of Exemption 7(D). Pp. 171-178.
(a) A source should be deemed "confidential" if the source furnished information with the understanding that the FBI would not divulge the [508 U.S. 165, 166] communication except to the extent it thought necessary for law enforcement purposes. Contrary to respondent's position, Congress could not have intended to limit the exemption to only those sources who are promised complete anonymity or secrecy, because, at the time an interview is conducted, neither a source nor the FBI ordinarily knows whether a communication will need to be disclosed. Pp. 173-174.
(b) Nonetheless, the presumption for which the Government argues in this case is unwarranted, because it does not comport with common sense and probability. During the course of a criminal investigation, the FBI collects diverse information, ranging from the extremely sensitive to the routine, from a variety of individual and institutional sources. While most individual sources may expect confidentiality, the Government offers no explanation, other than administrative ease, why that expectation always should be presumed. The justifications for presuming the confidentiality of all institutional sources are even less persuasive, given the wide variety of information that such sources are asked to give. Considerations of fairness also counsel against the Government's rule. Its presumption is, in practice, all but irrebuttable, because a requester without knowledge about the particular source or the withheld information will very rarely be in a position to offer persuasive evidence that the source had no interest in confidentiality. While Exemption 7(D)'s "could reasonably be expected to" language and this Court's decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 , may support some inferences of confidentiality, they do not support the presumption that all FBI criminal investigative sources are exempt. Nor does the FOIA's legislative history indicate that Congress intended to create such a rule. Pp. 174-178.
2. Some narrowly defined circumstances can provide a basis for inferring confidentiality. For example, it is reasonable to infer that paid informants normally expect their cooperation with the FBI to be kept confidential. Similarly, the character of the crime at issue and the source's relation to the crime may be relevant to determining whether a source cooperated with the FBI with an implied assurance of confidentiality. Most people would think that witnesses to a gang-related murder likely would be unwilling to speak to the FBI except under such conditions. The Court of Appeals erred in declining to rely on such circumstances. This more particularized approach is consistent with Congress' intent to provide workable FOIA disclosure rules. And when a document containing confidential source information is requested, it is generally possible to establish the nature of the crime and the source's relation to it. Thus, the requester will have a more realistic opportunity to develop an argument that the circumstances do not support an inference of confidentiality. To the extent that the Government's [508 U.S. 165, 167] proof may compromise legitimate interests, the Government still can attempt to meet its burden with in camera affidavits. Pp. 179-180.
956 F.2d 422 (CA3 1992), vacated and remanded.
John F. Daly argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Gerson, Deputy Solicitor General Roberts, Acting Solicitor General Bryson, Edwin S. Kneedler, and Leonard Schaitman.
Neil Mullin argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Nancy Erika Smith, Eric R. Neisser, and Alan B. Morrison.
Exemption 7(D) of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (FOIA), exempts from disclosure agency records "compiled for law enforcement purposes . . . by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation" if release of those records "could reasonably be expected to disclose" the identity of, or information provided by, a "confidential source." 552(b)(7)(D). This case concerns the evidentiary showing that the Government must make to establish that a source is "confidential" within the meaning of Exemption 7(D). We are asked to decide whether the Government is entitled to a presumption that all sources supplying information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI or Bureau) in the course of a criminal investigation are confidential sources.
Respondent Vincent Landano was convicted in New Jersey state court for murdering Newark, New Jersey, police officer John Snow in the course of a robbery. The crime received considerable media attention. Evidence at trial showed that the robbery had been orchestrated by Victor Forni and a motorcycle gang known as "the Breed." There [508 U.S. 165, 168] was testimony that Landano, though not a Breed member, had been recruited for the job. Landano always has maintained that he did not participate in the robbery, and that Forni, not he, killed Officer Snow. He contends that the prosecution withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Although his efforts to obtain state postconviction and federal habeas relief thus far have proved unsuccessful, see Landano v. Rafferty, 897 F.2d 661 (CA3), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 811 (1990); Landano v. Rafferty, 856 F.2d 569 (CA3 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1014 (1989); State v. Landano, 97 N.J. 620, 483 A.2d 153 (1984), Landano apparently is currently pursuing a Brady claim in the state courts, see Landano v. Rafferty, 970 F.2d 1230, 1233-1237 (CA3), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 955 (1992); Brief for Petitioners 3, n. 1. Seeking evidence to support that claim, Landano filed FOIA requests with the FBI for information that the Bureau had compiled in the course of its involvement in the investigation of Officer Snow's murder. Landano sought release of the Bureau's files on both Officer Snow and Forni. The FBI released several hundred pages of documents. The Bureau redacted some of these, however, and withheld several hundred other pages altogether.
Landano filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking disclosure of the entire contents of the requested files. In response, the Government submitted a declaration of FBI Special Agent Regina Superneau explaining the Bureau's reasons for withholding portions of the files. The information withheld under Exemption 7(D) included information provided by five types of sources: regular FBI informants; individual witnesses who were not regular informants; state and local law enforcement agencies; other local agencies; and private financial and commercial institutions. Superneau Declaration, App. 28. Agent Superneau explained why, in the Government's view, all such sources should be presumed confidential. [508 U.S. 165, 169] The deleted portions of the files were coded to indicate which type of source each involved. The Bureau provided no other information about the withheld materials. Id., at 33-41.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court largely rejected the Government's categorical explanations. See 751 F.Supp. 502 (NJ 1990), clarified on reconsideration, 758 F.Supp. 1021 (NJ 1991). There was no dispute that the undisclosed portions of the Snow and Forni files constituted records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation. The District Court concluded, however, that the Government had not met its burden of establishing that each withheld document reasonably could be expected to disclose the identity of, or information provided by, a "confidential source." Although the court evidently was willing to assume that regular FBI informants were confidential sources, it held that the FBI had to articulate "case-specific reasons for nondisclosure" of all other information withheld under Exemption 7(D). 751 F.Supp., at 508.
The court then addressed the Government's argument that a presumption of confidentiality arises whenever any individual or institutional source supplies information to the Bureau during a criminal investigation. As the Court of Appeals phrased it, the issue was "whether the fact that the source supplied information to the FBI in the course of a criminal investigation is alone sufficient to support an inference that the source probably had a reasonable expectation that no unnecessary disclosure of his or her cooperation would occur." Ibid. The court thought the question "close." Ibid. On one hand, the Bureau tends to investigate significant criminal matters, and the targets of those investigations are likely to resent cooperating witnesses. This is especially so where, as here, the investigation concerns a highly publicized, possibly gang-related police shooting. Id., at 434 and n. 5. On the other hand, the court recognized that "there are undoubtedly many routine FBI interviews in the course of criminal investigations that are unlikely to give rise to similar apprehensions on the part of the interviewee." Id., at 434.
The Court of Appeals recognized that a number of other courts had adopted the Government's position. See, e.g., Nadler v. United States Dept. of Justice, 955 F.2d 1479, 1484-1487 (CA11 1992); Schmerler v. FBI, 283 U.S. App. D.C. 349, 353, 900 F.2d 333, 337 (1990); Donovan v. FBI, 806 F.2d 55, 61 (CA2 1986); Johnson v. United States Dept. of Justice, 739 F.2d 1514, 1517-1518 (CA10 1984); Ingle v. Department of Justice, 698 F.2d 259, 269 (CA6 1983); Miller v. Bell, 661 F.2d 623, 627 (CA7 1981) (per curiam), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 960 (1982). Considering itself bound by its previous decision in Lame v. United States Department of Justice, 654 F.2d 917 (CA3 1981), however, the Court of Appeals took a different view. It declined to rely either on the Government's proposed presumption or on the particular subject matter of the investigation. Instead, it determined that, to justify withholding information under Exemption [508 U.S. 165, 171] 7(D), the Government had to provide "`detailed explanations relating to each alleged confidential source.'" 956 F.2d, at 435 (quoting Lame, supra, at 928).
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals over the nature of the FBI's evidentiary burden under Exemption 7(D). 506 U.S. 813 (1992).
"records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation . . ., information furnished by a confidential source." 552(b)(7)(D).
The Government bears the burden of establishing that the exemption applies. 552(a)(4)(B).
"`investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes [the production of which] would . . . disclose [508 U.S. 165, 172] the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, . . . confidential information furnished only by the confidential source.'" Id., at 622.
Congress adopted the current version of Exemption 7(D) in 1986. The 1986 amendment expanded "records" to "records or information," replaced the word "would" with the phrase "could reasonably be expected to," deleted the word "only" from before "confidential source," and clarified that a confidential source could be a state, local, or foreign agency or a private institution. See 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(D).
Landano argues that the FBI's sources in the Snow investigation could not have had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality because the Bureau might have been obliged to disclose the sources' names or the information they provided under Brady, the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500, or federal discovery rules, see Fed. Rules Crim.Proc. 16, 26.2. He also points out that some FBI witnesses invariably will be called to testify publicly at trial. Landano apparently takes the position that a source is "confidential" for purposes of Exemption 7(D) only if the source can be assured, explicitly or implicitly, that the source's cooperation with the Bureau will be disclosed to no one. We agree with the Court of Appeals that this cannot have been Congress' intent.
FOIA does not define the word "confidential." In common usage, confidentiality is not limited to complete anonymity or secrecy. A statement can be made "in confidence" even if the speaker knows the communication will be shared with limited others, as long as the speaker expects that the information will not be published indiscriminately. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 476 (1986) (defining confidential to mean "communicated, conveyed, [or] acted on . . . in confidence: known only to a limited few: not publicly disseminated"). A promise of complete secrecy would mean that the FBI agent receiving the source's information could not share it even with other FBI personnel. See Dow Jones & Co. v. Department of Justice, 286 U.S. App. D.C. 349, 357, 917 F.2d 571, 579 (1990) (Silberman, J., concurring in denial of rehearing en banc). Such information, of course, would be of little use to the Bureau.
We assume that Congress was aware of the Government's disclosure obligations under Brady and applicable procedural rules when it adopted Exemption 7(D). Congress also must have realized that some FBI witnesses would testify at trial. We need not reach the question whether a confidential source's public testimony "waives" the FBI's [508 U.S. 165, 174] right to withhold information provided by that source. See, e.g., Irons v. FBI, 880 F.2d 1446 (CA1 1989) (en banc). For present purposes, it suffices to note that, at the time an interview is conducted, neither the source nor the FBI agent ordinarily knows whether the communication will be disclosed in any of the aforementioned ways. Thus, an exemption so limited that it covered only sources who reasonably could expect total anonymity would be, as a practical matter, no exemption at all. Cf. John Doe, 493 U.S., at 152 (FOIA exemptions "are intended to have meaningful reach and application"). We therefore agree with the Court of Appeals that the word "confidential," as used in Exemption 7(D), refers to a degree of confidentiality less than total secrecy. A source should be deemed confidential if the source furnished information with the understanding that the FBI would not divulge the communication except to the extent the Bureau thought necessary for law enforcement purposes.
The Government objects to the Court of Appeals' requirement that it make an individualized showing of confidentiality with respect to each source. It argues that an assurance of confidentiality is "`inherently implicit'" whenever a source cooperates with the FBI in a criminal investigation. Brief for Petitioners 18-20 (quoting Miller v. Bell, 661 F.2d, at 627). The Government essentially contends that all FBI sources should be presumed confidential; the presumption could be overcome only with specific evidence that a particular source had no interest in confidentiality.
This Court previously has upheld the use of evidentiary presumptions supported by considerations of "fairness, public policy, and probability, as well as judicial economy." Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 245 (1988). We also have recognized the propriety of judicially created presumptions under federal statutes that make no [508 U.S. 165, 175] express provision for their use. See, e.g., ibid. But we are not persuaded that the presumption for which the Government argues in this case is warranted.
Although the Government sometimes describes its approach as "categorical," see, e.g., Superneau Declaration, App. 33-41, the proposed rule is not so much categorical as universal, at least with respect to FBI sources. The Government would have us presume that virtually every source is confidential: the paid informant who infiltrates an underworld organization; the eyewitness to a violent crime; the telephone company that releases phone records; the state agency that furnishes an address. The only "sources" that the Government is willing to state are not presumptively confidential (though they may be exempt from disclosure under other FOIA provisions) are newspaper clippings, wiretaps, and witnesses who speak to an undercover agent and therefore do not realize they are communicating with the FBI. Although we recognize that confidentiality often will be important to the FBI's investigative efforts, we cannot say that the Government's sweeping presumption comports with "common sense and probability." Basic Inc., supra, at 246.
The FBI collects information from a variety of individual and institutional sources during the course of a criminal investigation. See, e.g., Superneau Declaration, App. 35-41. The Bureau's investigations also cover a wide range of criminal matters. See 28 U.S.C. 533 (FBI authorized to investigate "crimes against the United States" and to conduct other investigations "regarding official matters under the control of the Department of Justice and the Department of State"); 540 (FBI authorized to investigate certain felonious killings of state and local law enforcement officers). In this case, the Bureau participated in the investigation of a state crime in part because of the need for interstate "unlawful flight" warrants to apprehend certain suspects. Brief for Petitioners 2, n. 1. The types of information the Bureau [508 U.S. 165, 176] collects during an investigation also appear to be quite diverse. Although the Government emphasizes the difficulty of anticipating all the ways in which release of information ultimately may prove harmful, it does not dispute that the communications the FBI receives can range from the extremely sensitive to the routine.
The Government maintains that an assurance of confidentiality can be inferred whenever an individual source communicates with the FBI because of the risk of reprisal or other negative attention inherent in criminal investigations. See Superneau Declaration, App. 37-38. It acknowledges, however, that reprisal may not be threatened or even likely in any given case. Id., at 38. It may be true that many, or even most, individual sources will expect confidentiality. But the Government offers no explanation, other than ease of administration, why that expectation always should be presumed. The justifications offered for presuming the confidentiality of all institutional sources are less persuasive. The Government "is convinced" that the willingness of other law enforcement agencies to furnish information depends on a "traditional understanding of confidentiality." Id., at 40. There is no argument, however, that disclosure ordinarily would affect cooperating agencies adversely, or that the agencies otherwise would be deterred from providing even the most nonsensitive information. The Government does suggest that private institutions might be subject to "possible legal action or loss of business" if their cooperation with the Bureau became publicly known. Id., at 41. But the suggestion is conclusory. Given the wide variety of information that such institutions may be asked to provide, we do not think it reasonable to infer that the information is given with an implied understanding of confidentiality in all cases.
Considerations of "fairness" also counsel against the Government's rule. Basic Inc., supra, at 245. The Government [508 U.S. 165, 177] acknowledges that its proposed presumption, though rebuttable in theory, is in practice all but irrebuttable. Tr. of Oral Arg. 22-23. Once the FBI asserts that information was provided by a confidential source during a criminal investigation, the requester - who has no knowledge about the particular source or the information being withheld - very rarely will be in a position to offer persuasive evidence that the source in fact had no interest in confidentiality. See Dow Jones & Co. v. Department of Justice, 286 U.S. App. D.C., at 355, 917 F.2d, at 577.
The Government contends that its presumption is supported by the phrase "could reasonably be expected to" and by our decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989). In Reporters Committee, we construed Exemption 7(C), which allows the Government to withhold law enforcement records or information the production of which "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C). We held that certain criminal "rap sheet" information was categorically exempt from disclosure because the release of such information invariably constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy. 489 U.S., at 780 . Our approval of a categorical approach was based in part on the phrase "could reasonably be expected to," which Congress adopted in 1986 to ease the Government's burden of invoking Exemption 7, see id., at 756, n. 9, and to "replace a focus on the effect of a particular disclosure `with a standard of reasonableness . . . based on an objective test,'" id., at 778, n. 22 (quoting S.Rep. No. 98-221, p. 24 (1983)). As explained more fully in Part III, below, we agree with the Government that, when certain circumstances characteristically support an inference of confidentiality, the Government similarly should be able to claim exemption under Exemption 7(D) without detailing the circumstances surrounding a particular interview. Neither the [508 U.S. 165, 178] language of Exemption 7(D) nor Reporters Committee, however, supports the proposition that the category of all FBI criminal investigative sources is exempt.
Although we have determined that it is unreasonable to infer that all FBI criminal investigative sources are confidential, we expect that the Government often can point to more narrowly defined circumstances that will support the inference. For example, as the courts below recognized, and respondent concedes, see Brief for Respondent 46, it is reasonable to infer that paid informants normally expect their cooperation with the FBI to be kept confidential. The nature of the informant's ongoing relationship with the Bureau, and the fact that the Bureau typically communicates with informants "only at locations and under conditions which assure the contact will not be noticed," Superneau Declaration, App. 36, justify the inference.
There may well be other generic circumstances in which an implied assurance of confidentiality fairly can be inferred. The Court of Appeals suggested that the fact that the investigation in this case concerned the potentially gang-related shooting of a police officer was probative. We agree that the character of the crime at issue may be relevant to determining whether a source cooperated with the FBI with an implied assurance of confidentiality. So too may the source's relation to the crime. Most people would think that witnesses to a gang-related murder likely would be unwilling to speak to the Bureau except on the condition of confidentiality.
The Court of Appeals below declined to rely on such circumstances. But several other Court of Appeals decisions (including some of those the Government cites favorably) have justified nondisclosure under Exemption 7(D) by examining factors such as the nature of the crime and the source's relation to it. See, e.g., Keys v. United States Dept. of Justice, 265 U.S. App. D.C. 189, 197-198, 830 F.2d 337, 345-346 (1987) (individuals who provided information about subject's possible Communist sympathies, criminal activity, and murder by foreign operatives would have worried about [508 U.S. 165, 180] retaliation); Donovan v. FBI, 806 F.2d, at 60-61 (on facts of this case, in which FBI investigated murder of American churchwomen in El Salvador, "it cannot be doubted that the FBI's investigation would have been severely curtailed, and, perhaps, rendered ineffective if its confidential sources feared disclosure"); Parton v. United States Dept. of Justice, 727 F.2d 774, 776-777 (CA8 1984) (prison officials who provided information about alleged attack on inmate faced "high probability of reprisal"); Miller v. Bell, 661 F.2d, at 628 (individuals who provided information about self-proclaimed litigious subject who sought to enlist them in his "anti-government crusade" faced "strong potential for harassment"); Nix v. United States, 572 F.2d 998, 1003-1004 (CA4 1978) (risk of reprisal faced by guards and prison inmates who informed on guards who allegedly beat another inmate supported finding of implied assurance of confidentiality).
We think this more particularized approach is consistent with Congress' intent to provide "`"workable" rules'" of FOIA disclosure. Reporters Committee, 489 U.S., at 779 (quoting FTC v. Grolier Inc., 462 U.S. 19, 27 (1983)); see also EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 80 (1973). The Government does not deny that, when a document containing confidential source information is requested, it generally will be possible to establish factors such as the nature of the crime that was investigated and the source's relation to it. Armed with this information, the requester will have a more realistic opportunity to develop an argument that the circumstances do not support an inference of confidentiality. To the extent that the Government's proof may compromise legitimate interests, of course, the Government still can attempt to meet its burden with in camera affidavits.
The Government has argued forcefully that its ability to maintain the confidentiality of all of its sources is vital to effective law enforcement. A prophylactic rule protecting [508 U.S. 165, 181] the identities of all FBI criminal investigative sources undoubtedly would serve the Government's objectives, and would be simple for the Bureau and the courts to administer. But we are not free to engraft that policy choice onto the statute that Congress passed. For the reasons we have discussed, and consistent with our obligation to construe FOIA exemptions narrowly in favor of disclosure, see, e.g., John Doe, 493 U.S., at 152 ; Department of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 -362 (1976), we hold that the Government is not entitled to a presumption that a source is confidential within the meaning of Exemption 7(D) whenever the source provides information to the FBI in the course of a criminal investigation.
More narrowly defined circumstances, however, can provide a basis for inferring confidentiality. For example, when circumstances such as the nature of the crime investigated and the witness' relation to it support an inference of confidentiality, the Government is entitled to a presumption. In this case, the Court of Appeals incorrectly concluded that it lacked discretion to rely on such circumstances. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
It is Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. – PETROBRAS policy to take business decisions in the best interest of the company, in a completely independent manner, vis a vis its competitors, and in compliance with the rules for the protection of free competition.
The document, which has been approved by our Executive Board on April 25, 2013, contains a summary of the applicable law in order to provide general guidance to managers and employees of the company, in line with our Code of Ethics – without prejudice to the necessary legal advice in specific situations – as well as sets out internal control procedures to ensure compliance with the principles and rules established.
PETROBRAS is convinced that respect for the laws which protect competition or antitrust is fundamental to guard and broaden the principles and socio-economic objectives of the National Energy Policy, all in conformity with the legislation pertaining to the oil, gas and energy sectors.
This Code embodies PETROBRAS commitment regarding the strict compliance with the Brazilian competition or antitrust laws as well as those compettion or antitrust laws of such foreign jurisdictions where it conducts business.
It is an individual obligation applying to all PETROBRAS administrators, employees and service providers to comply with the provisions of this Antitrust Code of Conduct.
Any violation of this Code and the guidelines established herein will subject those responsible for such violation to the relevant disciplinary and legal sanctions and may even lead to the dismissal of administrators and the imposition of the applicable labor penalties.
The purpose of this Code is to ensure that the administrators, managers, employees and all personnel hired by the Company hold a general knowledge of the relevant legislation in order to avoid the risk that specific situations which would require preventive and corrective actions are not timely identified or are brought to the attention of the Legal Department for guidance on the adoption of the appropriate measures, belatedly. In case there are any doubts regarding the Antitrust Law rules and the practical application of such legislation, the Legal Department must be previously consulted.
Compliance with the rules of this Code of Conduct is essential to avoid that penalties are imposed on PETROBRAS for breach of the Antitrust Law, as well as to prevent the Company to suffer from anticompetitive practices carried out by other agents.
In particular, concrete situations that may require assessment of possible antitrust implications notably involve markets where the Company holds a dominant position. The reason for this is that antitrust law imposes strict standards of conduct on companies that hold dominant positions in markets for products or services.
In Brazil, it is assumed that a company holds a dominant position if the company, or group of companies, is able to alter the market relations unilaterally or in a coordinated manner, or if it holds 20% or more of the market share. It is allowed for such company however, to provide evidence to the contrary.
Thus, without prejudice to the legal and statutory duties of the Board of Directors, the Executive Board and the competent managers must monitor and keep themselves informed of the Company’s competitive strategies and of those of the other economic agents in the sector, as well as their implementation in the markets where there is dominance.
The protection of free competition ensures that consumers have access to goods and services with the best quality and lowest possible price, forcing companies to invest continually in the quality of its products and in the efficiency of their productive processes. The restriction of competition has its negative effects not only on consumers but also on the economy as a whole, which is prevented from attaining efficiency.
Although Brazil has had an antitrust and competition law since 1962, the policies of state intervention in the economy in various sectors, such as the oil industry, particularly those regarding price control practices, made the free market protection rules become inapplicable, since the market was, after all, under State control.
With the movement of deregulation and liberalization of the goods and services markets, as from the 1990s, which allowed for the establishment of a regime of free pricing, and especially after the enactment of Law No. 8884, on June 11, 1994, the protection of the competition has become one of the cornerstones of the Economic Policy, besides the Fiscal, Monetary and Exchange Policies.
The market for oil and its derivatives also went through these changes with the enactment of the Amendment No. 9 to the Brazilian Constitution, dated as from November 9, 1995, and the passing of legal documents relating to the oil, gas and energy sectors, which promoted a progressive liberalization of prices and the establishment of a regime of free competition in these sectors of the economy.
Currently the Brazilian Antitrust Law , Law N o . 12.529/2011, provides for the prevention and prosecution of violations of the economic order, grounded on the constitutional principles of free enterprise and free competition, the social function of property, consumer protection and prosecutionof the abuse of economic power.
Disputes regarding antitrust matters may result in great losses of time and resources for the companies. Non-compliance with the antitrust laws may subject the company to administrative liability for infringement of the economic order, which results, among other legal sanctions, in the imposition of heavy fines and civil liability for damages and losses.
Executives and employees involved may bear not only both administrative and civil individual liability, but also depending on the offense committed criminal liability.
As far as antitrust or competition legislation is concerned, Law No. 12.529/2011 is the main document in Brazil. The Brazilian System for the Protection of the Competition (Sistema Brasileiro de Defesa da Concorrência or SBDC), is responsible for the administrative enforcement of the law and is comprised of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica or CADE) , a federal agency under the Ministry of Justice, and the Secretariat for Economic Monitoring (Secretaria de Acompanhamento Econômico or SEAE ), a federal ministerial body under the Ministry of Finance.
The CADE has the authority to hear cases and adjudicate disputes within the SBDC, and comprises the Administrative Tribunal for the Economic Defense ( Tribunal Administrativo de Defesa Econômica or TADE), the General Superintendence (Superintendência-Geral or SG) and the Department of Economic Studies (Departamento de Estudos Econômicos or DEE).
The TADE has the main authority to examine acts of economic concentration and it rules upon the administrative proceedings to impose sanctions for infringements of the economic order. On the other hand, the GS’s main powers are to instruct acts of economic concentration and to investigate breaches of the economic order, whilst the DEE, in turn, is responsible for preparing studies and providing economic advice to give support to TADE and to SG.
As per the terms of art.10, of Law No. 9.478/97, should the National Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuel Agency (Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis or ANP), in the exercise of its powers, learn of any facts which may be deemed evidence of breach of the economic order, the agency shall immediately inform such fact to the CADE, so that it may adopt the appropriate measures under the relevant legislation.
The same article establishes, in its sole paragraph, that regardless of the aforementioned communication, the CADE shall notify the ANP of the terms of its decision to apply sanctions for breach of the economic order committed by companies or individuals in the performance of activities related to the national supply of fuels so that the agency may take the pertinent legal measures within its powers. Among the legal consequences of conviction for violation of the economic order, the termination of the operating authorization with the ANP may be mentioned.
Brazilian law also provides for the criminalization of various types of antitrust infringement, pursuant to Law No. 8137, from December 27, 1990, which defines, among others, the crimes against the economic order. The enforcement of such law is attributed to the Federal and State Public Prosectuors, according to their respective competences, within the Judiciary.
It is noteworthy that several cases of cartel formation, especially as far as retailing automotive fuels are concerned, have been subject to criminal prosecution.
It should also be pointed out that the Law 12.529/2011, according to its art. 31, is applicable to individuals or to legal entities of public or private law, as well as any associations of persons or entities, existing either in fact or at law, notwithstanding temporarily, whether or not engaged in their activities under a legal monopoly. There is no provision for antitrust immunity for any sector of the economy under Brazilian law.
The aforementioned law also sets out joint and several liability of the company and its managers or administrators (art.32), of the companies, affiliated companies and entities comprising the economic group, in fact or at law (art. 33), as well as the possibility of attaining individual personal property of the breaching party, as a result of piercing the corporate veil of the company for infringement of the economic order (art. 34). The prosecution for breach of the economic order does not exclude sanctions which might be imposed for other offenses provided for at law (art. 35).
In areas under the jurisdiction of regulatory agencies, the Antitrust Law will also apply, albeit secondarily, except when the antitrust provisions conflict with the relevant regulatory provisions, in which case the latter will prevail. This is what happens, as a rule, in cases of regulation of prices, quantities or conditions for entry into the regulated market.
The Antitrust Law has imposed a preventive regime for economic concentration control (“concentration acts”), involving companies that meet certain requirements according to their economic dimensions.
According to the legal criterion , the parties involved in the operation of the economic concentration acts in which, cumulatively, (i) revenues of at least one of the groups involved in the concentration act is greater than or equal to R$750,000,000.00 (seven hundred and fifty million reais) in the year preceding the operation, and (ii) revenues of the other group involved is at least R$ 75,000,000.00 (seventy five million reais) in the year preceding the operation (art. 88, § 1 of Law No. 12.529/11 and Interministerial Ordinance No. 994/2012), must compulsorily submittd the act to CADE.
- acts through which 2 (two) or more companies enter into an association agreement, a consortium or a joint venture, unless such agreement is aimed at participating in public bidding rounds (including the agreements arising therefrom).
It is important to highlight that submission of the concentration act to the analysis of CADE is obligatorily previous to the performance of the act. According to such rule, the concentration acts in which the Company is involved may only be concluded after the parties to the act obtain the relevant approval from CADE, and the competitive conditions among the respective companies must be preserved until the final judgment. Any act contrary to such rule may be considered null and void, a fine of (R$ 60 thousand to R$ 60 millions) may be imposed and administrative proceedings may be initiated for investigation of a possible infringement of the economic order.
Thus, while the operations are not authorized by the CADE, their effects must remain legally suspended and, to this effect, an article providing for a condition precedent must be inserted in the formal instrument which binds the parties.
Furthermore, as a result of the statutory duty to preserve the competitive conditions existing between the parties, the physical structures and competitive conditions must be kept unchanged until the final evaluation of CADE. Therefore, any acts which might be considered as a premature coordination between the parties, such as the transfer of assets, the integration of operations, the use of synergies, the exercise of influence from one party over the other and exchange of competitively sensitive information not strictly necessary for the execution of the formal instrument which binds the parties are whatsoever prohibited.
According to §6º of art.88, from the Law No. 12.529/2011, the CADE may authorize such concentration acts which may restrict competition, provided that the strictly necessary limits to reach the following objectives are observed: I - cumulatively or alternatively: a) to increase productivity or competitiveness; b) to improve the quality of goods and service; or c) to promote efficiency and technological or economic development; and II – if a relevant part of the resulting benefits are passed on to consumers.
The Guide for the Economic Analysis of Horizontal Concentration Acts, approved by Joint Ordinance SEAE / SDE No. 50, from August 1, 2001, constitutes the basic reference of the procedure for applying the concentrations control regime of the Law No. 12.529/2011.
Art. 36, from Law No. 12.529/2011, defines as a violation of the economic order any act which has the purpose to or which can produce the following effects: I - limit, defraud or in any way hinder free competition or free enterprise; II - control a relevant market of goods or services; III - increase the profits arbitrarily; or IV – abuse a dominant position.
The same article points out that when a company conquers the market as a result of a natural process grounded on the major efficiency of the economic agent in relation to its competitors, such situation is not captured by the offence referred to in item II (§ 1). In other words, the mere fact that a company is dominant, because of its internal or organic growth, does not imply any infringement.
A dominant position is always presumed when a company or group of companies is able to alter unilaterally or in a coordinated manner the market conditions or when it controls 20% (twenty percent) or more of the relevant market. Such percentage may be changed by the CADE for certain specific sectors of the economy (§2º).
In this respect, the Law describes (§3º), by way of example, conducts that constitute violations of the economic order, provided that their scope is to produce some of the anticompetitive effects specified in art. 36 or that they may otherwise produce such effects.
Among the list of conducts, one may find , for example, horizontal practices regarding the formation of cartels, such as fixing prices, dividing markets or establishing agreed quotas with the competitor, obtaining or influencing the adoption of uniform business conduct among competitors and obtaining previously agreement on prices or adjusting advantages in public bidding rounds, as well as vertical practices such as fixing of resale prices, territorial and client based restraints, exclusivity agreements, refusal to negotiate, tie-in sales, price discrimination, predatory pricing and abuse of industrial property, intellectual, technology or trademark rights.
In general, the criminalization of a conduct as an economic order offense requires that the infringing company holds a dominant position in a properly defined relevant market. In fact, absent the requirement of dominance, there would be no possibility of damages to the competition, therefore antitrust law would be inapplicable.
The term relevant market may be defined as the group of products or services and the geographic area for which the sale of these products and services is economically feasible. According to the "hypothetical monopolist" test, the relevant market is defined as the smallest products or services group and the smallest geographic area necessary for a supposed monopolist to be able to impose a "small but significant and non-transitory" increase in prices.
Except for the classic cartels cases – defined in items I and II of § 3, art. 36, of Law No. 12.529/2011 – an act can only be regarded as anticompetitive after a review of its reasonableness in the economic context where it is performed, so that it may be examined whether the conduct had the purpose or the effect of impairing the competitive relationships established in the affected market, producing, albeit potentially, one of the adverse effects specified in the chapeau of that article.
By definition, those conducts which have a negative balance considering their negative and positive impacts on the competition (net effect), reducing efficiency and economic welfare (see Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Horizontal Concentration Acts, approved by Ordinance SEAE/SDE No. 50, from August 1, 2001), are harmful to the competition.
In this sense, the principle of reasonableness or the rule of reason, which informs the application of Law No. 12.529/2011 as far as conduct and control of economic concentrations are concerned, involves a complex analysis of cost and benefit of the practices which restrict competition. Those practices which generate countervailing efficiency, promoting the economic welfare in general, are admissible, even if anticompetitive. Note that the criteria set out in § 6 of art. 88 of the referred law (see item B above) for the analysis of concentration acts are applicable, by analogy, to the analysis of the cost-benefit of conducts specified in art. 36, which may or may not constitute a violation of the economic order.
It should be noted that CADE Resolution No. 20, dated June 9, 1999, clarifies the criteria for the application of the Antitrust Law in respect of violations of the economic order, and it is a guide for the evaluation of the legality of business practices subject to the law referred to before.
Antitrust laws impose strict standards of conduct for companies that occupy a dominant position in product or service markets. In Brazil, as mentioned before, dominance is presumed if a company or group of companies is able to alter market conditions unilaterally or in a coordinated manner or if it controls 20% (twenty percent) or more of the relevant market, although this percentage may be modified by CADE for specific sectors of the economy (§ 2).
Notwithstanding the Company’s policy to conduct its business according to the highest ethical standards, in situations of market dominance, it is particularly important that the Company avoids practices that may be regarded as designed to exclude or eliminate competitors illicitly.
It is important to note, however, that, under the terms of antitrust or competition law, the condition of dominance that can be experienced by the Company in any market does not restrict its subjective right to adopt legitimate competitive strategies and be an effective rival of its current or potential competitors.
In light of the complexity of antitrust analysis, the Company must obtain previous legal advice whenever its commercial policies and practices or those of third parties to the detriment of the Company are likely to fall into any of the categories of events defined as breaches of the economic order, especially including, but no limited to, the cases specified in this document. It is noteworthy that if there is an investigation, the fact that the pertinent area of the Company has consulted with Petrobras Legal Department before taking the relevant decision, strengthens the Company’s position with respect to its defense.
In addition, the Company must periodically review the policies and business practices in force for its various target markets in light of the antitrust laws.
No discussion or exchange of information whatsoever with any representative of a company competing with Petrobras related to past, current and future prices, pricing policies, discounts and promotions, royalties, sales terms and conditions, costs, choice of customers, territorial markets, production quotas, sharing of markets or customers, may be held.
Therefore, any agreement concerning such matters cannot be concluded. This includes not only oral and written contracts, but also "gentlemen agreements" or understandings of any kind. A simple exchange of information in this area, even when related to prices effectively estimated in the market may create a presumption of a cartel agreement, especially in concentrated markets. An administrator or employee of the Company shall not accept an invitation or remain in meetings where these matters are being dealt with and should move away from these discussions, recording such conduct in the minutes of the respective meeting, when these matters are raised by third parties.
It is contrary to the policy of the Company to send or to receive any kind of information about prices from or to competitors, except if the price list, prepared independently, has been published and circulated in the market to the clients according to the normal mechanisms of Company or its competitor, as the case may be.
When a competitor is a customer or a supplier of the Company, it is allowed to discuss and agree on prices for the products that will be bought or sold by such competitor.
Notwithstanding, it is not permitted to discuss and agree with a competitor prices related to other products or to the Company’s or the competitor’s transactions with third parties. It is not allowed to discuss or agree upon resale prices with the competitor either.
Prices and trade policies practiced by the Company should be established independently, taking into account the costs of the Company, the conditions of the national or international market, as applicable, and competitiveness of the prices.
As a rule, associations, unions, federations and confederations of companies play a legitimate and relevant role in the industry. Nevertheless, because they bring competitors together, such entities pose a potential risk of antitrust liability. That is why the involvement of the Company with such entities must be surrounded by the necessary precautions.
Membership of the Company to those entities is subject to prior approval of the Executive Board. The type of entity, its objectives, its members, the admission rules, its history, activities and methods of operation must be taken into account.
Periodically, the Executive Board shall reconsider the convenience of membership of the Company to the entities in question, making the Board of Directors aware of the result of this analysis.
The relevant administrators or managers shall consider the convenience of their or the Company’s employees’ participation in the meetings of any of the above entities, the agendas of which must have been defined in advance. Sending any data from the Company to such entities must also be subject to prior careful scrutiny, and it is forbidden to send information about prices or quantities of products manufactured or marketed by the Company, unless there is a favorable legal opinion to this effect issued by Petrobras Legal Department.
The Company must maintain, during the term established in the relevant laws, a file concerning each of the entities to which Petrobras is a member as well as concerning the matters discussed, especially in the meetings where the Company’s personnel is present.
Subject to any restrictions arising from the Brazilian competition or antitrust law and from the foreign jurisdictions in which it operates, as well as the applicable rules with respect to the tender of its contracts according to the specific case, the Company is free to choose its customers and suppliers, and must do so independently.
Any understanding or agreement with a party, written or oral , which has the purpose to do or refrain from doing business with a third party, is contrary to this Code. For example, it will most likely be considered illegal for a company to arrange with its competitors to boycott a supplier in order to try to force him lower his prices, save that exclusivity agreements or other arrangements of a similar nature compatible with the antitrust laws, according to the specific analysis of each case, may be admitted.
It is forbidden for the Company to get involved in mediating trade disputes between its customers - save for the exercise in the Company’s own right - or in any discussion or private plan to restrict competition, regardless of the market in question.
The Company is usually free to refuse businesses that are contrary to legitimate commercial interests such as, for example, to protect itself against credit risk, environmental risks, business reputation risks, among others.
However, there are certain cases in which antitrust law imposes mandatory negotiations. Considering that the law does not exhaustively define the cases in which a company has to enter into such mandatory negotiations, but, reversely, each case is examined individually, Petrobras Legal Department must be consulted prior to any decision by the Company to refuse to negotiate with a client or potential client, except in the cases for which orientation has been issued previously.
To minimize antitrust risks, it is mandatory that Petrobras Legal Department be consulted prior to the execution, by the Company, of distribution or supply agreements different than those approved as standards.
The Company shall adopt, with independence, commercial and prices policies concerning the products offered by it.
No product of the Company can have its sale conditioned on the purchase of another product of the Company or on the "not-purchasing" of a product from a competitor, except in cases which are compatible with the antitrust or competition law, to be considered on a case by case basis.
Fixing of resale prices occurs when one company controls or attempts to control the price whereby its client or distributor resells the products/services to consumers.
As a general rule, the Company is prohibited to suggest to its clients resale prices, discounts, payment terms, minimum or maximum amounts, profit margin or any other marketing conditions related to their businesses with third parties. The cases in which such practices may be admitted under the antitrust laws must be previously examined by Petrobras Legal Department.
It is forbidden to condition the purchase of products from a supplier on such supplier’s acquiring, in turn, certain products from the Company, except in cases where this is compatible with the antitrust laws, which must be subject to a specific opinion from Petrobras Legal Department.
It is worth highlighting that the acquisition of goods and services through a tender process, when applicable, does not imply that the rules relating to the Antitrust Law will not be applicable. Accordingly, in the Company purchases subject to tender for the award of the respective contract, the principles and rules of the Antitrust Law must be applied, in order to obtain the most advantageous contract for PETROBRAS.
The antitrust laws provide that it may constitute an infringement of the economic order to discriminate buyers or suppliers of goods or services by means of fixing different prices, sales operational conditions or services delivery.
Although a different price or a discount may be admitted by the antitrust laws in certain cases to compete with the offer of other competitors or to reflect possible cost savings, such situations require specific analysis.
The pricing policies of the Company for its various products and their future amendments must be previously revised by the Petrobras Legal Department, including as to discounts and sales promotions.
The Company will not offer undue privileges to its subsidiaries, controlled entities and associates related to prices, discounts or other benefits which are not justifiable under the Antitrust Law, without prejudice to other applicable laws.
It is Petrobras corporate policy to cooperate with investigations by domestic and foreign antitrust authorities. This, however, shall not be deemed a waiver of any rights, lawsuits or claims from the Company to defend its interests and rights.
Requests for information made to the company by antitrust authorities or any others should be answered after couselling from Petrobras Legal Department.
In compliance with this Code, it is important not only to avoid potential infringements of the antitrust laws, but also any behavior that may be considered inappropriate, suggesting non-complience with the legislation.
Accordingly, administrators, managers, employees and any other personnel hired by the Company must avoid witnessing or engaging in improper discussions which are contrary to the principles and rules laid down in this Antitrust Code of Conduct and must immediately and unequivocally move away from such discussions.
• Any other information of confidential nature.
Without prejudice to the protection of the secrets of the Company, communications or correspondence should not be treated surreptitiously by the administrators and employees of the Company, nor conducted furtively or containing language that may be misunderstood by third parties who might become aware of their content.
The sources of information about the competition and about the business decisions of the Company should be consistently documented according to the Company’s internal rules in force. Misunderstandings must be avoided and corrected when necessary.
The Company must ensure that its files are true and do not contain ambiguous words which can have unintended meanings. Regular and extraordinary internal audit work must ensure compliance with the aforementioned rules and the other provisions of this Code.
Any violations of the provisions of this Code must be reported and may, at the discretion of the person concerned, be directed to such person’s immediate boss or superior or directly to the Legal Department, provided that the confidentiality of the communications shall be maintained , in accordance with the internal rules of the Company and applicable laws.
The Executive Board is responsible for complying with and enforcing the provisions of this Antitrust Code of Conduct, and it shall approve the regulations, complementary guidelines and internal control procedures and training required for the full compliance of the present Code.
Any amendments to this Code shall be approved by the Executive Board.

matches:
art.10
art. 31
§ 1
§6
art.88
Art. 36
art. 36
§ 3
art. 36
§ 6
art. 88
art. 36


This case came before the Court on plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs are the American Maritime Association (AMA) and intervenors Shipbuilders Council, and Seafarers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO (Seafarers Union). Defendants are Michael Blumenthal, Secretary of the Treasury, and intervenor Amerada Hess Corporation (Hess). On September 2, 1977, plaintiff AMA sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the Secretary of the Treasury from permitting the Hercules, a foreign-flag vessel, or any other foreign-flag vessel from departing Valdez, Alaska, ladened with Alaskan crude oil for the Virgin Islands, where the oil will be processed and thereafter shipped to the United States mainland. Judge John H. Pratt of this Court denied the TRO on September 2, 1977. This Court ordered, with the consent of counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2), that the hearing on the motion for preliminary and final injunctive relief be consolidated. *fn1" This matter having been tried to the Court on the 3rd and 4th of October, 1977, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
Defendant-intervenor Amerada Hess Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and its subsidiaries are engaged in the exploration, production, purchase, transportation, and sale of crude oil and natural gas as well as the manufacture, purchase, transportation, and marketing of petroleum products. Of the two refineries that Hess presently owns, only the Virgin Islands refinery, with its deep-water port, is accessible by water. It has a present design capacity of about 700,000 barrels of crude oil per day and represents a capital investment of approximately $ 650,000,000. Hess owns or has under charter approximately thirty-eight foreign-flag and seven United States-flag tankers.
In 1969, after having acquired .5% Interest in the Prudhoe Bay field on the North Slope of Alaska, Hess expanded its refinery facility to increase its daily refining capacity by 160,000 barrels per day. In September of 1969, following press reports of Hess' intention to charter four foreign tankers to transport Alaskan crude oil to the Virgin Islands, Edwin Hood, President of the Shipbuilders Council of America, requested a ruling from the United States Customs Service as to whether the above-described transport would violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 883 (1970), which, in brief, requires that transportation of merchandise by water between points in the United States, "either directly or via a foreign port," be accomplished in American vessels. The Acting Commissioner of Customs responded that a formal ruling could not be issued until a specific case was presented to the agency. However, he offered a preliminary view that such transportation would not violate the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 883 (1970).
In late August of 1977, Edwin Hood was apprised of a "specific case." He informed the Customs Service that the Hercules, a foreign-flag tanker chartered by Hess, was scheduled to load at Valdez and requested a Customs ruling on this matter. The Customs Service responded on September 7, 1977, after the Hercules had departed from Valdez, that it intended to propose rulemaking on this matter.
On September 2, 1977, plaintiff American Maritime Association filed an application for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Secretary of the Treasury, Michael Blumenthal, from approving the departure of the Hercules from Valdez. The Hercules, a ship of Liberian registry, was chartered by a subsidiary of defendant Amerada Hess Corporation, the American Hess Shipping Corporation, to transport approximately 1,466,000 barrels of crude oil having a value of approximately twenty million dollars from Valdez, Alaska, to the Virgin Islands. *fn2" In particular, plaintiff sought to enjoin the Secretary from (1) issuing to the Hercules or any other foreign-flag tanker a permit, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 313 (1970), or a clearance, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 4.84 (1977), authorizing the transportation of Alaskan crude oil from Alaska to the Virgin Islands; (2) permitting the Hercules or other foreign-flag tanker carrying Alaskan crude oil from entering a port of the Virgin Islands; and (3) permitting any ship carrying Alaskan crude oil, which has been shipped to and processed in the Virgin Islands, from entering any port in the United States mainland. Judge Pratt denied plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order.
The Hercules completed loading crude oil on the 3rd of September and departed the following day. Subsequent to the departure, Shipbuilders Council and the Seafarers Union intervened as party plaintiffs, and Amerada Hess Corporation intervened as party defendant.
at an intermediate port or place other than a coastwise point (that is, at a foreign port or place, or at a port or place in a territory or possession of the United States not subject to the coastwise laws), it is manufactured or processed into a new and different product, and the new and different product thereafter is transported to a coastwise point.
42 C.F.R. § 46,068 (1977). Plaintiffs contended that the proposed rule would not adequately resolve the legal issues involved in the present case for two reasons. In order to obtain an adjudication on the specific facts presented, plaintiffs must request an advisory ruling from the Customs Service after the rulemaking process is completed. Second, as evidenced by the precedents considered in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Customs Service would not consider the effect of the Magnuson Amendment to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, 46 U.S.C. § 391a(7)(C) (Supp.1977), on the Jones Act.
No merchandise shall be transported by water, or by land and water, on penalty of forfeiture thereof, between points in the United States, including Districts, Territories, and possessions thereof embraced within the coastwise laws, either directly or via a foreign port, or for any part of the transportation, in any other vessel than a vessel built in and documented under the laws of the United States and owned by persons who are citizens of the United States.
It is declared to be the policy of the United States to do whatever may be necessary to develop and encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine . . . . (T)he Federal Maritime Commission and the Secretary of Commerce shall . . . in the making of rules and regulations, and in the administration of the shipping laws keep always in view this purpose and object as the primary end to be attained.
(T)hat the coastwise laws of the United States shall not extend to the Virgin Islands of the United States until the President of the United States shall, by proclamation, declare that such coastwise laws shall extend to the Virgin Islands and fix a date for going into effect of same.
The Virgin Islands have remained exempt from the Act, since no United States President has issued such a proclamation. This exemption applies clearly to voyages that begin or terminate in the Virgin Islands. It does not apply to all shipments between points in the United States by way of the Virgin Islands, as this sequence of shipments may be considered under some circumstances transportation between points in the United States within the meaning of the Jones Act.
The legal issue presented in this case is whether the shipment of oil from Valdez, Alaska, to the Virgin Islands and the subsequent shipment of refined products from the Virgin Islands to the United States mainland is transportation between points in the United States embraced within the coastwise laws. In order to determine this issue, the Court must resolve two questions. As a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether the Magnuson Amendment to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 391a(7) (C) (Supp.1977), implicitly amends the Virgin Islands exemption to the extent that it would not apply if the merchandise involved is Alaska oil. If the Court finds that the Magnuson Amendment does not implicitly limit the application of the Virgin Islands exemption, then the Court must determine whether this shipment of crude oil constitutes two discrete shipments of different merchandise and hence is exempt from the Jones Act, or whether it constitutes one continuous voyage and thus is subject to the Jones Act.
Defendants claim that all three plaintiffs lack standing in that they have failed to allege sufficient "injury in fact." However, it appears to the Court that each plaintiff has satisfied the requisites of standing. DP The requirements for standing applicable to this action are set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 702 (Supp.1977). Section 702 grants standing in administrative law cases to persons "suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action." The Supreme Court in Association of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S. Ct. 827, 25 L. Ed. 2d 184 (1970), articulated a two-point inquiry in cases where standing is based on Section 702 of the APA: first, the challenged action must have caused the claimant "injury, in fact, economic or otherwise." Id. at 152, 90 S. Ct. at 829. Second, the interest sought to be protected must be "arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question." Id. at 153, 90 S. Ct. at 830.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently has interpreted each of these points. In Public Citizen v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 184 U.S.App.D.C. 133, 565 F.2d 708 (1977), the court addressed the meaning of "injury in fact" as it pertains to associational plaintiffs. The injury must be palpable, concrete, and immediate. It required a claimant to "show a substantial probability that the requested relief would benefit him in some perceptible, tangible fashion." At 140, 565 F.2d at 715.
Each of the plaintiffs meets the "injury in fact" requirements set forth in Public Citizen. Plaintiff American Maritime Association is an unincorporated association of thirty-five independent United States-flag steamship companies that operate vessels in foreign and domestic trade, including those transporting crude oil by tanker from Valdez, Alaska to other ports in the United States. The AMA members presently operate about 1.5 million deadweight tons of tankers. This tonnage represents about one-half of the independent sector of the American-flag tanker fleet *fn3" and approximately one-fifth of the total unsubsidized Jones Act tanker fleet. It is true that no AMA member presently has available for Alaska trade a tanker equal in size to the Hercules, which has a capacity of 216,000 deadweight tons; however, several smaller tankers owned or operated by AMA members are currently "laid up" for lack of cargo and could be available for Alaskan trade.


text:
Comparative study of the strongest solid Lewis Acids known: ACF and HS-AlF3. B. Calvo, C.P. Marshall, T. Krahl, J. Kröhnert, A. Trunschke, G. Scholz, T. Braun, E. Kemnitz, Dalton Trans. 47 (2018) 16461-16473.
Ca-Tetrafluorophthalate and Sr-Isophthalate: Mechanochemical Synthesis and Characterization in Comparison with other Ca-and Sr-Coordination Polymers. A. Al-Terkawi, G. Scholz, F. Emmerling, E. Kemnitz, Dalton Trans. 47 (2018) 5743-5754.
On the influence of water on the mechanochemical synthesis of low F- doped Al- hydroxide fluorides. V. Scalise, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, J. Mater. Science 53 (19) (2018) 13660-13668.
BaF-benzenedicarboxylate: the first mechanochemical synthesis of a new coordination polymer with a direct Ba-F bond. S, Breitfeld, G. Scholz, F. Emmerling, E. Kemnitz, J. Mater. Science 53 (19) (2018) 13682-13689.
Catalytic features of Nb-doped nanoscopic inorganic fluorides for an efficient one-pot conversion of cellulose to lactic acid. M. Verziu, M. Serano, B. Jurca, V. I. Parvulescu, S.Coman, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, Catalysis Today 306 (2018) 102-110.
A Combined 25Mg Solid-State NMR and ab initio DFT Approach to Probe the Local Structural Differences in Magnesium Acetate Hydrates Mg(CH3COO)2 nH2O (n = 0, 1, 4). V. R. Seymour, S. Day, G.Scholz, K. Scheurell, D. Iuga, J. M. Griffin, E. Kemnitz, J. V. Hanna and M. E. Smith, Chem. Phys. Chem. 19 (2018) 1722-1732.
Barium Coordination Polymers based on Fluorinated and Fluorine-free Benzene-Dicarboxylates: Mechanochemical Synthesis and Spectroscopic Characterization. A.Al-Terkawi, G. Scholz, F. Emmerling, E. Kemnitz, Solid State Sciences 79 (2018) 99-108.
Hydrated and dehydrated Ca-coordination polymers based on benzene-dicarboxylates: mechanochemical synthesis, structure refinement, and spectroscopic characterization. A.Al-Terkawi, G. Scholz, C. Prinz, A. Zimathies, F. Emmerling, E. Kemnitz Cryst. Eng. Comm. 20 (2018) 946-961.
Synthesis and Characterization of Perovskite-type [K1-xNax]MgF3 Mixed Phases via the Fluorolytic Sol-Gel Synthesis Erhard Kemnitz *, Florian Schütz, Kerstin Scheurell, Gudrun Scholz, Linda Lange, Crystals 8 (2018) 66, doi: 10.3390.
Development of complex magnesium fluoro aluminates via the fluorolytic sol-gel synthesis. F. Schütz, M. Bäthge, K. Scheurell, G. Scholz, M. Feist, E. Kemnitz, J. Mater. Chem. C 6(1) (2017) 72-82.
A Novel Fluoride-Doped Aluminium Oxide Catalyst with Tunable Brønsted and Lewis Acidity. L. Ahrem, J. Wolf, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, Catalysis Science and Technology 8 (2018) 1404-1413.
Identification of F- species after adsorption at the surface of milled and unmilled ?-Al2O3. V. Scalise, G. Scholz, R. Bertram, E. Kemnitz, Surfaces and Interfaces 10 (2018) 117-122.
Mechanochemical synthesis, structure and properties of lead containing alkaline earth metal fluoride solid solutions MxPb1-xF2 (M: Ca, Sr, Ba). M. Heise, G. Scholz, A. Düvel, P. Heitjans, E. Kemnitz, Solid State Sciences 77 (2018) 45-53.
Sol-Gel-Synthesis of Nanoscopic Complex Metal Fluorides. A. Rehmer, K. Scheurell, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, Nanomaterials 7 (2017) 362-375.
Strontium-Coordination Polymers based on Tetrafluorophthalic and Phthalic acids: Mechanochemical Synthesis, ab initio Structures Determination, and Spectroscopic Characterization. A.Al-Terkawi, G. Scholz, F. Emmerling, E. Kemnitz, Dalton Trans. 46 (2017) 12574-12587.
Direct observation of coordinatively unsaturated sites on the surface of a fluoride-doped alumina catalyst. L. Ahrem, G. Scholz, T. Gutmann, B. Calvo, G. Buntkowski, E. Kemnitz, J. Phys. Chem. C 121 (2017) 12206-12213.
Core-shell metal fluoride nanoparticles via fluorolytic sol-gel synthesis - a fast and efficient construction kit. B. Ritter, P. Haida, T. Krahl, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, J. Mater. Chem. C 5 (2017) 5444-5450.
Mechanochemical Synthesis of PbF2 by High Energy Ball Milling. M. Heise, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, Solid State Sciences 72 (2017) 41-46.
Ca- and Sr-Tetrafluoroisophthalates: Mechanochemical Synthesis, Characterization, and ab initio Structure Determination. A.Al-Terkawi, G. Scholz, F. Emmerling, E. Kemnitz Dalton Trans. 46 (2017) 6003-6012.
Novel and easy access to highly luminescent Eu and Tb doped ultra-small CaF2, SrF2 and BaF2 nanoparticles - structure and luminescence. B. Ritter, P. Haida, F. Fink, T. Krahl, G. Scholz, K. Gawlitza, K. Rurack, E.Kemnitz, Dalton Trans. 46(9) (2017) 2925-2936.
Is Geometric Frustration-Induced Disorder a Recipe for High Ionic Conductivity? A. Düvel, P. Heitjans, P. Fedorov, R. Uecker, G. Scholz, G. Cibin, A.V. Chadwick, D.M. Pickup, S. Ramos, L.W.L. Sayle, E.K. Sayle Thi X.T. Sayle, D.C. Sayle, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 139 (2017) 5842-5848.
Sol-Gel Synthesis of Metal Fluorides - Reactivity and Mechanisms. G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, pp. 609-650, in "Modern Synthesis Processes and Reactivity of Fluorinated Compounds", Eds. H. Groult, F. Leroux, A. Tressaud, (2017) Elsevier AP, Amsterdam.
Mechanochemical Synthesis of Low-Fluorine Doped Aluminium Hydroxide Fluorides. V. Scalise, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, J. Solid State Chem. 243 (2016) 154-161.
Mechanochemical Synthesis, Structure and Properties of Solid Solutions of Alkaline Earth Metal Fluorides: Ma1-xMbxF2 (M: Ca, Sr, Ba). M. Heise, G. Scholz, A. Düvel, P. Heitjans, E. Kemnitz, Solid State Sciences 60 (2016) 65-74.
Thermal Evolution of 4- and 5-fold Coordinated Al-Sites in Aluminium Hydroxide Fluorides with low Fluorination Degree. L. Ahrem, G. Scholz, R. Bertram, E. Kemnitz, J. Phys. Chem. C 120 (2016) 9236-9244.
Local Structures of Solid Solutions Sr1-xYxF2+x with Fluorite Structure Prepared by Sol-Gel and Mechanochemical Syntheses. B. Ritter, T. Krahl, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, J. Phys. Chem. C 120 (2016) 8992-8999.
Mechanochemical Synthesis, Characterization, and Structure Determination of New Alkaline Earth Metal-Tetrafluoroterephthalate Frameworks: Ca(pBDC-F4)·4H2O, Sr(pBDC-F4)·4H2O, and Ba(pBDC-F4). A.Al-Terkawi, G. Scholz, F. Emmerling, E. Kemnitz, Crystal Growth & Design. (2016) 1923-1933.
Chemical Aspects of the Generation, Trapping and Decay of Atomic Hydrogen in AlF3 and CaF2. R. Stößer, M. Ahrens, G. Scholz, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. (2015) 4227-4236.
Mechanochemical synthesis of MgF2-MF2 composite systems (M: Ca, Sr, Ba). G. Scholz, S. Breitfeld, T. Krahl, A. Düvel, P. Heitjans, E. Kemnitz, Solid State Sciences 50 (2015) 32-41.
Nanoscopic yttrium oxide fluorides: non-aqueous fluorolytic sol-gel synthesis and structural insights by 19F and 89Y MAS NMR. G. Scholz, M. Dreger, R. Betram, E. Kemnitz, Dalton Transactions 44 (2015) 13522 - 13529.
Modification of tin oxide nanoparticles by fluorocarbon solids via a mechanochemical route. M. Senna, E. Turianicova, A. Zorkovska, P. Makreski, M. Kanuchova, G.Scholz, M. Balaz, P. Balaz, V. Sepelak, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 17(9) (2015) 376.
NbF5-AlF3 catalysts: design, synthesis and application in lactic acid synthesis from cellulose. S. M. Coman, M. Verziu, A. Tarsoaga, B. Jurca, C. Teodorescu, V. Kuncser, V. I. Parvulescu, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, ACS Catal. 5 (2015) 3013-3026.
Synthesis, structure determination and formation of a theobromine : oxalic acid 2:1 cocrystal. F. Fischer, G. Scholz, L. Batzdorf, M. Wilke, F. Emmerling, Cryst.Eng.Comm. 17(4) (2015) 824-829.
Incorporation of fluorine into SnO2 nanoparticles by co-milling with polyvinylidene fluoride M. Senna, E. Turianicova, V. Šepelák, H.-M. Bruns, G. Scholz, S. Lebedkin, C. Kübel, Di Wang, M. Kanuchová, M. Kaus, H. Hahn Solid State Sciences 30 (2014) 36-43.
Mechanochemical Synthesis and Characterization of Alkaline Earth Metal Terephthalates: M(C8H4O4).n H2O (M: Ca, Sr, Ba). G. Scholz, A. Abdulkader, E. Kemnitz, Z.Anorg.Allg.Chem. 640 (2014) 317-324.
Solid Solutions CaF2-YF3 with Fluorite Structure Prepared on the Sol-Gel Route: Investigation by Multinuclear MAS NMR Spectroscopy. T. Krahl, G.Scholz, E.Kemnitz, J. Phys. Chem. C 118 (2014) 21066-21074.
Evaluation of the formation pathways of cocrystal polymorphs in liquid-assisted syntheses. F. Fischer, G.Scholz, S. Benemann, K. Rademann, F. Emmerling, Cryst.Eng.Comm. 16 (2014) 8272 - 8278.
First-order differential equations in chemistry. G. Scholz, F. Scholz, Chemtexts (2014)1:1 (DOI:10.1007/s4ß828-014-0001-x), Supplementary material: 40828_2014_1_MOESM1_ESM.docx " Differentialgleichungen erster Ordnung in der Chemie".
Synthesis, structure determination and formation of a theobromine:oxalic acid 2:1 cocrystal. F. Fischer, G. Scholz, L. Tröbs, M. Wilke, K.-J. Wenzel, F. Emmerling, Cryst.Eng.Comm. DOI: 10.1039/c4ce02066a.
Local structure of nanoscopic magnesium hydroxide fluorides studied by natural abundance 25Mg solid state NMR. G. Scholz, D. Heidemann, E. Kemnitz, Z.Anorg.Allg.Chem. 639 (2013) 694 - 701.
Fast ion conducting nanocrystalline alkaline earth fluorides simply prepared by mixing or manual shaking. G. Scholz, K. Meyer, A. Düvel, P. Heitjans, E. Kemnitz, Z.Anorg.Allg.Chem. 639 (2013) 960 - 966.
Mechanochemical Synthesis and Characterization of Hydrated and Dehydrated Crystalline Strontium Terephthalates. G. Scholz, F. Emmerling, M. Dreger, E. Kemnitz, Z.Anorg.Allg.Chem. 639 (2013) 689 - 693.
Catalytic hydrodefluorination of fluoromethanes at room temperature by silylium-ion like surface species. Mike Ahrens, Gudrun Scholz, Thomas Braun, Erhard Kemnitz, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 52 (2013) 5328 - 5332., Angew. Chem. 125 (2013) 5436 - 5440.
Mechanistic insight into formation and changes of nanoparticles in MgF2 sols as seen by liquid and solid state NMR. M. Karg, G. Scholz, R. König, E. Kemnitz, Dalton Trans. 41 (2012) 2360 - 2366.
An easy access to nanocrystalline alkaline earth metal fluorides - just by shaking. M. Dreger, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, Solid State Sciences 14 (2012) 528 - 534.
Magnesium hydroxide fluorides: new materials with adjustable composition and properties. G. Scholz, C. Stosiek, M. Feist, E. Kemnitz, Eur.J.Inorg.Chem. (2012) 2337-2340.
Time-Optimized 15N qNMR Determination of Lewis and Brønsted Site Concentrations and Chemical Bonding of Pyridine at Brønsted Sites in Amorphous Aluminium Hydroxide Fluoride. F. Hemmann, G. Scholz, K. Scheurell, E. Kemnitz, C. Jäger, J.Phys.Chem. C 116(19) (2012) 10580 - 10585.
Preparation and stabilization of aluminium trifluoroacetate fluoride sols for optical coatings. C. Fritz, G. Scholz, M. Feist, E. Kemnitz, Dalton Trans. 41 (2012) 11351-11360.
Lokale Struktur nanoskopischer fluoridischer Festkörper. G. Scholz, Humboldt-Spektrum 2-3 (2011) 44-45.
Local fluorine environments in nanoscopic magnesium hydr(oxide) fluorides studied by 19F MAS NMR. G. Scholz, C. Stosiek, J. Noack, E. Kemnitz, J. Fluorine Chem. 132 (2011) 1079-1085.
New crystalline aluminum alkoxide fluorides: Evidence of the mechanism of the fluorolytic sol gel reaction. R. König, G. Scholz, M. Veiczi, C. Jäger, S.I. Troyanov, E. Kemnitz, Dalton Trans. 40 (2011) 8701 - 8710.
Impact of phosphorus and nitrogen on structure and catalytic performance of VZrPON oxynitrides in the ammoxidation of 3-picoline. C. Janke, M. Schneider, U. Bentrup, J. Radnik, A. Martin, G. Scholz, A. Brückner, J. Catal. 277 (2011) 196 - 207.
Nanoscopic metal fluorides as promoting sintering aids for high-performance corundum ceramics. C. Stosiek, H. Ludwig, U. Reichel, G. Scholz. E. Kemnitz, J. Ceram. Sci. Technol. 2(1)(2011) 31 - 38.
115In and 19F MAS NMR study of (NH4)3InF6 phases. G. Scholz, T. Krahl, M. Ahrens, C. Martineau, J.Y. Buzaré, C. Jäger, E. Kemnitz, J. Fluorine Chem. 132 (2011) 244 - 249.
Sol-Gel Synthesis of Nano-Scaled metal Fluorides - Mechanism and Properties. E. Kemnitz, G. Scholz, S. Rüdiger, pp. 1 - 38 in "Functionalized Inorganic Fluorides", Ed. A. Tressaud, 2010, J. Wiley Sons, Ltd, Uk.
The fluorolytic sol-gel reaction of aluminium alkoxides - A multinuclear MAS NMR study of structural influences of the synthesis parameters. R. König, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, J. Sol-Gel. Sci. 56 (2010) 145 - 156.
Structure and properties of mechanochemically synthesized aluminium hydroxide fluoride phases AlFx(OH)3-x.nH2O G. Scholz, S. Brehme, M. Balski, R. König, E. Kemnitz, Solid State Sciences 12 (2010) 1500 - 1506.
Crystalline Aluminium Hydroxy Fluorides AlFx(OH)3-x.H2O: Structural Insights from 1H and 2H Solid State NMR and Vibrational Spectroscopy. G. Scholz, S. Brehme, R. König, D. Heidemann, E. Kemnitz, J. Phys. Chem. C 114 (2010) 10535 - 10543.
Structure and properties of noncrystalline aluminium oxide-hydroxide fluorides. C. Stosiek, G. Scholz, S. Schroeder, E. Kemnitz, Chem. Mater. 22 (2010) 2347 - 2356.
Spectroscopic characterization of crystalline AlF3 phases. R. König, G. Scholz, K. Scheurell, D. Heidemann, I. Buchem, W.E.S. Unger, E. Kemnitz, J. Fluorine Chem. 131 (2010) 91 - 97.
Vernetzung von Proteinen und Polysacchariden aus nachwachsenden Rohstoffen. G.A. Morisseau-Leroy, R. Valvuena, G. Scholz, M. Burkhardt, G. Westphal, LIFIS Online [21.04.10] (2010) 1-7.
AlFx(OR)y - species identification in strongly disordered aluminium isopropoxide fluoride solids -a field dependent MAS NMR study. R. König, G. Scholz, A. Pawlik, C. Jäger, B. van Rossum, E. Kemnitz, J. Phys.Chem. C 113 (2009) 15576 - 15585.
Access to local structures of HS-AlF3 and its precursor determined by High-Resolution Solid State NMR. A. Pawlik, R. König, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, G. Brunklaus, M. Bertmer, C. Jäger, J.Phys.Chem. C 113 (2009) 16674 - 16680.
Influence of HS-AlF3 on the decomposition reaction of MgH2 J. Noack, G. Scholz, St. Rüdiger, M. Feist, E. Kemnitz, J. Alloys and Comp. 479 (2009) 82-86.
Influence of milling, sonication and fluoride doping of pseudoboehmites on their phase transformation behaviour to corundum,. C. Stosiek, S. Brehme, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, J. European Ceram. Soc. 29 (13) (2009) 2713 - 2720.
Structural characterization of amorphous hydrogenated carbon nitride (aH-CNx) film deposited by CH4/N2 dielectric barrier discharge plasma: 13C, 1H solid state NMR, FTIR and elemental analysis, A. Majumdar, G. Scholz, R. Hippler, Surf. Coat.Techn. 203 (2009) 2013-2015.
Mechanochemical synthesis of AlF3 using NH4F as fluorinating agent - does it work? G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, Solid State Sciences 11 (2009) 676 - 682.
An empirical model to calculate 19F isotropic chemical shifts in alkali-hexafluoroaluminates. M. Ahrens, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, J. Fluorine Chem. 130 (2009) 383 - 388.
Local structural changes in aluminium isopropoxide fluoride xerogels and solids as consequence of progressive fluorination degree. R. König, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, J. Phys. Chem. C 113 (2009) 6426 - 6438.
Investigation of the fluorolysis of magnesium methoxide. Stefan Wuttke, Anja Lehmann, Gudrun Scholz, Michael Feist, Anton Dimitrov,Sergey I. Troyanov, Erhard Kemnitz, Dalton Trans. (2009) 4729 - 4734.
Novel Sol-Gel Synthesis for Bronsted and/or Lewis acidic MgF2-x(OH)x materials. S. Wuttke, S.M. Coman, G. Scholz, H. Kirmse, A. Vimont, M. Daturi, S.L.M.Schroeder, E. Kemnitz, Chemistry - a European Journal 14 (2008) 11488 - 11499.
Crystalline aluminium hydroxy fluorides: Structural insights obtained by high- field solid state NMR and trend analyses. R. König, G. Scholz, A. Pawlik, C. Jäger, B.v. Rossum, H. Oschkinat, E. Kemnitz, J.Phys.Chem. C 112 (2008) 15708 - 15720.
Mechanical activation of a-AlF3: changes in structure and reactivity. G. Scholz, R. König, J. Petersen, B. Angelow, I. Dörfel, E. Kemnitz, Chemistry of Materials 10(16) (2008) 5406 - 5431.
Synthesis and crystal structure of RbKLiAlF6, the first Al-elpasolite with three different alkali metals. M. Ahrens, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, Z.Anorg.Allg.Chem. 634(15) (2008) 2978-2981.
Tunable Porosity in bridged organosilicas using precursors with self-generating mesoporosity. A. Ide, G. Scholz, A. Thomas, Langmuir 24(21) (2008) 12539 - 12546.
Crystalline aluminium hydroxy fluorides - suitable reference compounds for 19F chemical shift trend analysis of related amorphous solids. R. König, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, J. Fluorine Chem. 129 (2008) 598 - 606.
Novel synthesis and thermal behaviour of aluminium hydroxy fluoride AlFx(OH)3-x. C.Stosiek, G. Scholz, G.Eltanany, E. Kemnitz, Chemistry of Materials 20 (2008) 5687 - 5697.
On the influence of humidity on the mechanochemical reaction of NaF with AlF3. G. Scholz, M. Feist, E. Kemnitz, Solid State Sciences 10 (2008) 1640 - 1650.
Investigation of the structure of (NH4)3GaF6 by Rietveld refinement and multinuclear MAS NMR spectroscopy. T. Krahl, M. Ahrens, G. Scholz, D. Heidemann, E. Kemnitz, Inorganic Chemistry 47 (2008) 663 - 670.
Selective oxidation of isobutane over H4PVMo11O40 . x H2O: New insights on active sites by a comprehensive in situ approach. A. Brückner, M. Schneider, D. Herein, G. Scholz, D. Heidemann, U. Bentrup, M. Kant, J. Catalysis 245 (2007) 369-380.
Structural Study of VOx doped Aluminium Fluoride and Aluminium Oxide Catalysts. K. Scheurell, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, J. Solid State Chem. 180(2) (2007) 749 - 758.
Al speciation and thermal evolution of aluminas resulting from modified Yoldas sols. M. Dressler, M. Nofz, F. Malz, J. Pauli, Ch. Jäger, S. Reinsch, G. Scholz, J. Solid State Chem. 180(9)(2007) 2409 - 2419.
Local structural changes at the formation of fluoride sols and gels - a mechanistic investigation by multinuclear NMR spectroscopy. R. König, G. Scholz, N.H. Thong, E. Kemnitz, Chemistry of Materials 19(9) (2007) 2229 - 2237.
New inserts and low temperature: two strategies to overcome the bottleneck in MAS NMR on wet gels. R. König, G. Scholz, E. Kemnitz, Solid State Nuclear Magnetic Resonance 32 (2007) 78-88.
Organosilicas with chiral bridges and self-generating mesoporosity. A. Ide, R. Voss, G. Scholz, G.A. Ozin, M. Antonietti, A. Thomas, Chemistry of Materials 19(10) (2007) 2649 - 2657.
VOx doped Al2O3 and AlF3 - A Comparison of Bulk, Surface and Catalytic properties. K. Scheurell, G. Scholz, A. Pawlik, E. Kemnitz, Solid State Sciences (2007) doi:10.1016/j.solidstatesciences.2007.10.036.
Variation of Sol-Gel Synthesis Parameters and its Consequence for the Surface Area and Structure of Magnesium Fluoride. S. Wuttke, G. Scholz, S. Rüdiger, E. Kemnitz, J. Mater. Chem. 17 (2007) 4980-4988.
Fe3+ - assisted formation of -Al2O3 starting from sol-gel precursors R. Stößer, M. Nofz, M. Feist, G. Scholz, J. Solid State Chem. 179 (2006) 645 - 657.
Nanocrystalline CaF2 particles obtained by high-energy ball milling. G. Scholz, I. Dörfel, D. Heidemann, M. Feist, R. Stösser, J. Solid State Chem. 179(4) (2006) 1119 - 1128.
High-energy ball milling - a possible synthesis route for cryolite and chiolite. G. Scholz, O. Korup, Solid State Sciences 8 (2006) 678 - 684.
Easy Alkoxide Sol-Gel Route for the Preparation of Complex Fluorides. M. Ahrens, G. Scholz, M. Feist, E. Kemnitz, Solid State Sciences 8 (2006) 798 - 806.
Comparative Structural Investigation of Aluminium Fluoride Solvates E. Kemnitz, U. Groß, St. Rüdiger, G. Scholz, D. Heidemann, S.I. Troyanov, I.V. Morosov, M.-H. Lemée-Cailleau, Solid State Sciences 8 (2006) 1443 - 1452.
Thermally induced transformation of pseudoboehmite gels - comparison of effects of corundum seeding and iron doping. M. Nofz, R. Stößer, G. Scholz, I. Dörfel, D. Schultze, J. Europ. Ceram. Soc. 25 (2005) 1095 - 1107.
A magnetic resonance investigation of the process of corundum formation starting from sol-gel precursors. R. Stösser, G. Scholz, J.Y. Buzaré, G. Silly, M. Nofz, D. Schultze, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 88(10) (2005) 2913 - 2922.
Spin probes in solids with coexisting crystalline and non-crystalline regions - Aspects of local structure in fluorides and oxides of aluminium. G. Scholz Habilitationsschrift Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2004.
Structural insights on aluminum chlorofluoride (ACF). T. Krahl, R. Stösser, E. Kemnitz, G. Scholz, M. Feist, G. Silly, J.Y. Buzaré, Inorg. Chem. 42 (2003) 6474 - 6483.
Fe3+ ions as spin probes in solids with coexisting crystalline and non-crystalline regions. G. Scholz, R. Stösser, J.Y. Buzaré, G. Silly, Proc. 17th Colloque International Optique Hertzienne et Diélectriques, Calais, 3.-5.9.2003, 6 pages.
Caractérisation de l'organisation locale dans des oxydes et des fluorures paer RPE d'ions de transition (Cr3+, Fe3+, …). G. Silly, J.Y. Buzaré, C. Legein, M. Body, G. Scholz, R. Stösser, Proc. 17th Colloque International Optique Hertzienne et Diélectriques, Calais, 3.-5.9.2003, 4 pages.
Spinresonance as a bridge between material - and bioscience. R. Stösser, G. Scholz, J. Klein, A. Zehl, W. Herrmann, humboldt spectrum 10(2-3) (2003) 102 - 109.
Halogeno metallates of transition elements with cations of nitrogen-containing heterocyclic bases, IX. Moessbauer and ESR spectroscopic investigation of aquachloro - and bromoferrates (III). On the compatibility of structural information obtained by spectroscopic and diffraction methods. M. Feist, H. Mehner, R. Stößer, G. Scholz, H. Dwelk, E. Kemnitz, Solid State Sciences 4 (2002) 109 - 115.
EPR investigations of a-Al2O3 powders doped with Fe3+ ions: experiments and simulations J.Y.Buzaré, G. Silly, J.Klein, G. Scholz. R. Stösser, J.Phys.: Condensed Matter, 14 (2002) 10331 - 10348.
Local structural orders in nanostructured Al2O3 prepared by high-energy ball milling. G. Scholz, R. Stösser, J. Klein, G. Silly, J.Y. Buzaré, Y. Laligant, B. Ziemer, J. Phys.: Condensed Matter, 14 (2002) 2101 - 2117.
Atomic hydrogen as spin probe in thermally and mechanically activated materials. G. Scholz, R. Stösser, Phys.Chem.Chem.Phys. 4(22) (2002) 5448 - 5457.
Local structure of Fe3+ ions in nanostructured corundum powders - an ESR study. G. Scholz, R. Stösser, J. Klein, G. Silly, J.Y. Buzaré, B. Ziemer, Proc. of 16th Colloque International on Hertzian Optics and Dielectrics, OHD'2001, 3.-5.9.2001, p. 61 - 64, Le Mans.
Interaction of high-energy irradiation with fluoride and oxide compounds of aluminium: Formation and stabilisation of atomic hydrogen. R. Stösser, G. Scholz, A. Zehl, J. Klein, Proc. of 16th Colloque International on Hertzian Optics and Dielectrics, OHD'2001, 3.-5.9.2001, p. 69 - 72, Le Mans.
Modelling of multifrequency EPR spectra of Fe3+ ions in crystalline and amorphous materials. A simplified approach to determine statistical distributions of spin-coupling parameters. G. Scholz, R. Stösser, M. Krossner, J. Klein, Appl. Magn. Reson. 21 (2001) 105 - 123.
Structures, stabilities and vibrational frequencies of (AlF3)m ... (H2O)n adducts. A density functional study. G. Scholz, M. Krossner, A. Dummer, R. Stösser, J.Molec.Struct. (Theochem) 505 (2000) 117 - 132.
Structural Phase Transition in AlF3. An ESR Study of Doped Powder Samples. G. Scholz, R. Stösser, J.Y. Buzaré, Ch. Legein, G. Silly, Appl.Magn. Res. 18 (2000) 199 - 215.
Aluminiumfluorid als Speicher für atomaren Wasserstoff. Gudrun Scholz [*], Reinhard Stößer, Jan Alam Momand, Andrea Zehl, Jeannette Klein, Angew. Chemie, 112(14) (2000) 2570 - 2573. Angew. Chemie, Int. Ed. 39(14) (2000) 2516 - 2519.
Ab initio Hartree-Fock calculation of dimeric iron(III) chloride. G. Scholz, L.A. Curtiss, J.Molec.Struct. (Theochem) 507 (2000) 245 - 251.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.