text:
The Network of East Asia Think Tanks (NEAT) held its 25th NEAT Country Coordinators Meeting (CCM) and the 14th NEAT Annual Conference (AC) in Bangkok, Thailand on 28th - 29th July 2016. Participants were 43 representatives from ASEAN Plus Three (APT) countries.
NEAT reaffirms that the goal of community building in East Asia is to promote the welfare and well-being of its people by realising the East Asian Vision of Peace, Prosperity, and Progress. To promote peace and prosperity in the region, the East Asia community building process is to base on universal values, including good governance, the rule of law, democracy, human rights, and international laws and norms. Member countries should commit to further intensify and expand these values, laws and norms in all areas of cooperation, including cross-cutting issues such as connectivity and narrowing the development divide. In addition, the process must address emerging challenges in the areas of traditional and non-traditional security to ensure regional stability.
2016, NEAT organized two Country Coordinators Meetings (CCM), one Annual Conference, and four Working Groups (WG) on East Asia Economic Community (NEAT China), Regional Health (NEAT Japan), Institutional Sustainability (NEAT Korea) and Irregular Migration (NEAT Thailand). The detail appears in Annex. NEAT wishes to acknowledge and thank the respective NEAT member committees, supporters and participants for their highly valued efforts and contributions.
Enhanced cooperation and interaction among APT countries significantly fosters political, economic, and social development in each individual country and the region as a whole. Nevertheless, new challenges, such as natural disaster, migration and human rights, and epidemic have emerged. They have a potential to evolve into crises. To address these issues, NEAT has identified two existing challenges, i.e. irregular migration and issues relating to public health.
i. To adopt comprehensive and appropriate legal frameworks which combine preventive, protective, and prosecutorial measures in tackling issues of irregular migration.
ii. To actively and seriously engage in discussions on migration at regional forums, including ASEAN, ASEAN Region Forum, the East Asia Summit, in addition to the Bali Process.
iii. To develop a comprehensive regional data center of migrant workers who work in APT countries.
iv. To enhance regional collaboration among APT countries regarding migrants in general. This can be done through the APT Migration Network where the participation of government officials, academics and migrants themselves becomes crucial to help tackle migrant-related problems.
v. To establish workable APT migrant welfare measures in order to guarantee the social and human security of migrant workers.
i. To strengthen health care systems and universal health coverage so as to reduce health care inequities and promote sustainable universal health coverage. It should be done for each component of health care system including financing, governance, and human resource development.
ii. To jointly promote health care to prevent and detect both communicable and non-communicable diseases at early stages.
iii. To establish a cooperation framework and cross-sectoral information sharing platform in the areas of public health and health system.
iv. To promote the utilization of health data and improve its quality in collaboration with APT countries as well as other stakeholders, such as international organizations, Non-Governmental Organizations, and communities. This aims to develop and expand health database into “big data” in each country, and enhance data management and analysis capability.
v. To strengthen health services research and establish specialists networks in East Asia.
vi. To develop human resources for public health towards evidence-based health policy.
a. To developn an EAEC Blueprint by designating a High Level Task Force (HLTF) to specify the outcomes to be achieved by either 2020 or 2025 (or a two-phase arrangement).
i. Improve its competence and capacity in regional trade agreement negotiations for deeper regional integration.
ii. Set a clear goal of higher level of commitments for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) negotiations while leaving enough flexibility to the least-developed members.
iii. China, Japan, and Korea should stand and work together to provide strong support for the realization of the ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN capacity-building, especially human resource development in ASEAN member states. The two most important areas shall be regional connectivity and narrowing of the development gap.
c. To better utilise the existing cooperation frameworks and mechanisms.
d. To conclude the Cina - Japan - Korea Free Trade Agreement (CKFTA) and RCEP negotiations as soon as possible.
i. Improve regional connectivity. Assistance from Japan, China and Korea, Asian Development Bank (ADB), Asia infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as well as the Silk Road Fund, will provide necessary financial support for the execution of the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity (MPAC). The “Belt and Road Initiative” can facilitate and complement the MPAC.
ii. Promote the implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement.
iii. Deepen regional financial cooperation. Further eliminate International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionality for the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralisation (CMIM) by further raise the de-linked portion to 40% or even higher.
iv. Narrow the development gap. Further investment and cooperation shall be promoted in poverty reduction, industrial capacity improvement and human resources development.
a. To establish a NEAT secretariat by utilizing the potential cooperation funds and make modifications on NEAT operations.
b. To encourage NEAT members to co-host working group meetings based on agreements of interested countries.
c. To adopt a chairmanship rotation system of the member committees to safeguard stable participation, enhance legitimacy, and cover wider variety of regional issues.
d. To involve the APT Senior Official of the hosting country and representatives from the ASEAN Secretariat in the NEAT CCM and Annual Conference, so as to enhance institutional connectivity between Track I and Track II diplomacy.
e. To invite NEAT representative to important Track I and Track II regional forums, particularly the APT, ARF and East Asia Forum and to strengthen close communications with SOM+3, DG+3, and the APT unit at the ASEAN Secretariat.
f. To fully utilize available funds from domestic, regional, and international sources, and to develop partnership with private sector actively.
The details of NEAT Activities in 2016 and recommendations from each NEAT working group are appears in Annex.
NEAT greatly appreciates the serious consideration of the APT SOM, Ministers and Leaders to the recommendations in this Memorandum, and welcome opportunities to interact further with decision-makers on the contents. We pledge our continued support to build a vibrant and thriving East Asian community and, under the chairmanship of NEAT Korea, look forward to making greater contributions to the region as the APT marks its 20th anniversary in 2017.
a. The first WG on “Migration”, sponsored by NEAT Thailand, that had the workshop on 10th June 2016 in Bangkok, Thailand.
b. The second WG is on “Enhancement of Regional Health in East Asia with Special Reference to the Public Health and Universal Health”, sponsored by NEAT Japan. The meeting was held in Tokyo, Japan on 5th - 6th July 2016.
c. The third WG on “The Road towards the East Asia Economic Community (EAEC) 2020”, sponsored by NEAT China. The workshop was organised in Beijing China, on 1st July 2016.
d. The fourth WG is on “Institutional Sustainability of NEAT: Towards the East Asian Community”. NEAT Korea, as the sponsor, conducted the meeting on 24th June 2016 in Seoul, Korea.
i. To adopt comprehensive and appropriate legal frameworks which combine preventive, protective, and prosecutorial measures in tackling the issues of irregular migration.
ii. To actively and seriously engage in a discussion on migration at regional forums, such as ASEAN, using the Bali Process.
iii. To develop a comprehensive regional data center of migrant workers who have worked in APT countries.
iv. To enhance regional collaboration among APT countries regarding migrants. This can be done through the APT Migration Network where the participation of government officials, academics and migrants themselves becomes crucial to help tackle migrant-related problems.
v. For all AMS to ratify the ASEAN Anti-Trafficking Convention and making the national laws in line with regional and international standards.
vi. To establish workable APT migrant welfare measures in order to guarantee the social and human security of migrant workers.
vii. MOU regarding labor protection among ASEAN countries. Accelerating the process of drafting an ASEAN legally binding Instrument.
ii. Closer cooperation between source countries and the countries of transit/destination to enable legal and voluntary take-backs of those that do not qualify for refugee status. Apart from bilateral government-to-government protocols, this should be accompanied by social development projects in source countries, possibly with ASEAN Plus Three assistance.
iii. Signatories of the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol must be encouraged to measure up to their international obligations in terms of resettlement and mutual assistance. For this purpose, ASEAN and other Asian countries should collectively draft a resolution in the United Nations and engage in diplomatic overtures with recipient countries.
iv. Countries which are facing labour shortage such as Brunei, Malaysia and Thailand can offer work rights to those that have acquired refugee status. Important to note that the offer of work rights, however, are not tantamount to naturalisation and more permanent solutions must be sought.
v. Putting in place a system of registration which would be clearly advantageous from a national security point of view. A regional data centre should be considered and exchange of information should be strengthened.
i. Make full use of existing structures, such as forums like ASEAN and the Bali Process. Utilising existing frameworks will ensure that, generally, countries will be in a (much) better situation to broker more predictable and effective responses, and take preventative action.
ii. Setting up an overall mechanism to facilitate and improve maritime search and rescue in the region. The focus of addressing forced migration should, first and foremost, be on the humanitarian protection of refugees.
iii. A regional monitoring and protection mechanism on migration. This multilateral mechanism also has to respond to regional crisis and seek for regional solutions.
iv. Addressing issue of citizenship which is becoming a trans-border issue. Lack of citizenship is finally a time bomb for all societies and could be a threat to national security. Birth registration is one of the most important measures to prevent statelessness.
v. A Forum for Policy Dialogue between Track II and the ASEAN leaders in order to come up with concrete recommendations.
vi. Sharing good practices of law enforcement and legal support between APT.
i. Strengthen health systems in East Asian countries to enhance regional health, reduce health inequities, and promote health and achieve/sustain universal health coverage. It should be done for each component of health system including financing, governance and human resource with appropriate transferability.
ii. Seek the possibility of financing public health facilities either from the viewpoint of social development program at national level, or from that of basic infrastructure development program at regional level.
iii. Jointly advocate for the need of policy and program support among health and non-health sectors to address social determinants of health that have strong impact on the regional health priorities.
iv. Jointly promote health among East Asian countries for preventing and detecting both communicable and non-communicable diseases at early stages, with equitable allocation of health resources, as well as to cope with the aging society, eventually, if possible, through establishment of a regional center or its equivalent under APT framework.
v. Establish a framework of cooperation and cross-sectoral information sharing among the East-Asian countries in the areas of public health and health system.
vi. Enhance utilization of health data in collaboration with East Asian countries as well as other stakeholders such as international organizations, NGOs and communities. To improve abilities of data collection, to improve quality of data, to develop and expand health database into 'big data' in each country, and to enhance capability of data management and analysis.
vii. Strengthen health services research networks among research institutions in East Asia, and build a network of health services research specialists, eventually, if possible, through establishment of a regional committee or its equivalent under APT framework.
viii. Develop human resources for public health and health services research towards evidence-based health policy.
Apart from efforts on institutionalization of regional integration (such as the RCEP and the CJKFTA), East Asia should still give high priority to functional cooperation focusing on the following areas.
i. Improve regional connectivity. In this regard, the development assistance from the Plus Three countries, the ADB, the AIIB as well as the Silk Road Fund, will provide much needed financial support for the execution of the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity (MPAC). Especially, the “Belt and Road Initiative” shares striking similarities with the MPAC in envisaging transport connectivity as a way to bring participating countries closer to one another and to facilitate better access to trade, investment and people-to-people exchanges. Hence, the two can complement one another very well and produce effective and efficient cooperation in both hard and soft connectivity.
ii. Promote the ramification and implementation of the WTO’s TFA as soon as possible. As the first multilateral trade agreement adopted since the conclusion of Uruguay Round in 1994, the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) represents a landmark achievement for the WTO. According to World Trade Report 2015, full implementation of the TFA will reduce global trade costs by an average of 14.3 per cent and is expected to add around 2.7 per cent per year to world export growth and more than half a per cent per year to world GDP growth. Developing countries have the most to gain from swift and full implementation of the TFA, as both their exports and GDP growth will increase at higher rates than those of developed countries. Taking open regionalism as its doctrine, East Asia welcomes any achievement in the WTO. What’s more, trade facilitation provisions in the WTO and in the AEC and even the EAEC almost converge.
iii. Deepen regional financial cooperation. In order to make the CMIM a more effectively-functioning financial safety net within Asia’s regional financial architecture, it is quite necessary to further eliminate IMF conditionality by further raising the de-linked portion to 40% or even higher. In the area of regional development finance, more channels for financing development projects should be encouraged. At the same time, collaboration between the existing institutions such as the WB, the ADB, the AIIB as well as the BRICSDB, should also be encouraged to contribute to the region’s development projects, especially infrastructure and environmental projects. In the area of regional financial system stability, the AMRO, as a regional macroeconomic surveillance unit of the CMIM, urgently needs to be strengthened in interior governance structure and its regional supervision function.
iv. Narrow the development gap. Equitable economic development and the narrowing down of the development gap in East Asia are necessary for regional peace, stability, and the long-term goal of an East Asia community. In order to achieve a balanced growth, APT countries need to further cooperate in poverty reduction, industrial capacity improvement and human resources development in less-developed countries by sharing expertise and technical know-how and promoting investment in a responsible manner. In order to ensure the stability of the supply of food in the region, the EAVG II’s proposal on expanding the coverage of the APT Emergency Rice Reserve (APTERR) to include other staple food in times of emergency in the region should also be supported.
Against the backdrop of a series of profound and complex changes of regional and global environments, NEAT is at a crossroad as it has to cope with such a new situation. Fundamentally, NEAT should strengthen its function by enhancing institutional capacity to ensure the sustainability of both its organizational development and contributions to East Asian integration. Through the discussions of the working group on “Institutional Sustainability of NEAT: Towards the East Asian Community”, participants collected and suggested policy recommendations listed below.
i. Establish the NEAT secretariat. It is agreed that NEAT need to make some modifications on its operation mode to adapt itself to the evolving regional environment. In addition, participants strongly recommend the establishment of the NEAT secretariat that can serve as a coordinator covering communication, documentation, management of official NEAT website, and other related works.
ii. Second, improve the chairmanship system. For those member countries that could not host Working Group meetings, it is encouraged to employ the method of co-hosting at present stage upon agreement of the co-hosts. We already have some cases of successful co-hosting of working group meeting and research. The accumulation of experience and know-how will help NEAT’s adoption of new system of hosting WG meetings. In the long run, NEAT may consider shifting the chairmanship system of the meeting from voluntary bids to a rotational system of the whole member states to safeguard stable participation, to enhance legitimacy, and to cover wider variety of regional issues.
iii. Enhance institutional connectivity between Track I and Track II. NEAT proposes the regular attendance of a SOM member of hosting country as well as representatives from the ASEAN Secretariat to the Annual Conference. Feedback, advice, or guidance to the NEAT recommendations is expected to be delivered by participated Track I and ASEAN secretariat. In a similar vein, NEAT need to seek representation at important Track I and Track II regional forums, and strengthen close communications with those groups through regular meetings and discussions especially with SOM+3 or DG+3 and the APT unit at the ASEAN Secretariat. Only through institutionalized and close communications with Track I, policy recommendations will have higher possibility of implementation.
iv. Interact more with other APT Track II initiatives. NEAT is supposed to enhance its horizontal networking by encouraging and facilitating exchanges of personnel with all other parties related to the processes of APT Track II initiatives, in particular, East Asia Forum. NEAT suggests that NEAT chair to be regularly invited to EAF to share and discuss the ideas and knowledge they collected to contribute to the processes of East Asian community building.


text:
1. Where, by a state statute, the charter of a street railroad company was repealed, and its franchises and track were transferred to another, and the company refuses to seek a remedy, a stockholder who asks an injunction on the ground that the statute impairs the obligation of a contract will have a standing in a court of equity.
2. Such a statute impairs the obligation of a contract unless the legislature reserved the right to repeal the statute conferring the charter.
"Every act of incorporation passed after the eleventh day of March, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal at the pleasure of the legislature."
4. The origin of this and similar clauses of reservation in the statutes of the states stated.
5. By the exercise of the repealing power reserved by such a clause, the charter no longer exists, and whatever validity transactions entered into and authorized by it while it was in force may possess, there can be no new transactions dependent on the special power conferred by the charter. Such power is abrogated when the law granting it is repealed.
6. Neither the rights of the shareholders to the real and personal property of the corporation nor rights of contract or chosen in action are destroyed by such repeal, and if the legislature has provided no specific mode of enforcing and protecting such rights, the courts will do so by the means within their power.
7. If the legislature has the power to repeal the statute under which a company was organized, it can charter a new one and confer the same powers on it as the former possessed, and so far as the property or franchises of the old company are necessary to the public use, it can authorize the new one to take them on making due compensation therefor.
8. A statute which under this power repeals an act of incorporation and at the same time creates a new one with similar powers, the use of which requires the exercise of the right of eminent domain, is not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States if it provides for compensation for the property of the extinct corporation so taken by the new one.
The appellant, Greenwood, a citizen of the New York, brought his bill of complaint against the Union Freight Railroad Company, a corporation established by the laws of Massachusetts; against the Marginal Freight Railroad Company, likewise a Massachusetts corporation; against the City of Boston, its mayor and aldermen by name;	and against the directors of the Marginal Freight Railroad Company -- all citizens of Massachusetts.
The Union Freight Railroad Company demurred to the bill, and the demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed. It is this decree which we are called on to review on appeal taken by complainant.
"with all the privileges and subject to all the duties, restrictions, and liabilities set forth in the general laws, which now are or may hereafter be in force, relating to street railway corporations, so far as they are applicable."
The right of way of this company for part of its route lay over the line of a railway previously granted to the Commercial Freight Railroad Company, and the Marginal Company, by virtue of a provision in its charter, purchased and paid the Commercial Company for the joint use of its track, so far as it ran through the same streets. Afterwards, on May 6, 1872, the Legislature of Massachusetts incorporated, by an act of that date, the Union Freight Railroad Company, which, by virtue of its charter and the authority of the Board of Aldermen of Boston, was authorized to run its track through the same streets and over the same ground covered by the track of the Marginal Company, and to take possession of the track of that and any other street railroad company, on payment of compensation. This latter act also repealed the charter of the Marginal Company.
"SEC. 4. Said corporation may, within its authorized limits and for the purposes of this act, enter upon and use any part of the tracks of any other street railroad, and may suitably strengthen and improve such tracks, and if the corporations cannot agree upon the manner and conditions of such entry and use, or the compensation to be paid therefor, the same shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the thirty-eighth section of chapter three hundred and eighty-one of the acts of the year eighteen hundred and seventy-one."
"SEC. 6. Said corporation shall, within four months from the passage of this act, take the tracks, or any part thereof, of the Marginal Freight Railway Company, subject to the laws relating to the taking of land by railroad companies and the compensation to be made therefor."
"SEC. 7. Chapter one hundred and seventy of the acts of the year eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, entitled an 'Act to incorporate the Marginal Freight Railway Company,' and so mach of chapter four hundred and sixty-one of the acts of the year eighteen hundred and sixty-nine as relates to said Marginal Freight Railway Company, are hereby repealed."
The bill avers that the Union Freight Railroad Company has been organized, and is about to proceed in such a manner under this act that the Marginal Company will be utterly destroyed, and its several contracts, franchises, rights, easements, and properties will be impaired and destroyed, and the stock of complainant in said company will be destroyed and made valueless, and he will sustain irreparable damage and mischief.
against all the defendants, to prevent these acts so injurious to the rights of the Marginal Freight Railroad Company.
The first ground of demurrer to this bill is that the complainant, whose interest is merely that of a stockholder in the Marginal Company, shows no right to sustain this bill, the object of which is to assert rights that are those of the corporation, which is itself under no disability to sue.
This whole subject was fully considered in the recent opinion of the Court in Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450 , in the decision of which we had the benefit of the able argument of counsel in this case, which was argued before that was decided. We refer to that opinion for the principles which must govern this branch of the present case. It is sufficient to say that this bill presents so strong a case of the total destruction of the corporate existence, and of the annihilation of all corporate powers under the act of 1872, that we think complainant as a stockholder comes within the rule laid down in that opinion, and which authorizes a shareholder to maintain a suit to prevent such a disaster where the corporation peremptorily refuses to move in the matter.
As none of the defendants is charged with a purpose to exercise any power or to perform any acts not authorized by the terms of the Act of May 6, 1872, the remaining question to be decided is whether the features of that act to which complainant objects in his bill are beyond the power of the Legislature of Massachusetts or are forbidden by anything in the Constitution of the United States.
1. The repeal of the charter of the Marginal Company.
2. The authority vested in the Union Company to take its track for the use of the latter company.
It is the argument of counsel, pressed upon us with much vigor, that the two, taken together, constitute a transfer of the property of the one corporation to the other, and with it all the corporate franchises, rights, and powers belonging to the elder corporation.
"subject to all the duties; restrictions, and liabilities set forth in the general laws, which now are or may hereafter be in force, relating to street railway corporations, so far as they may be applicable."
"Every act of incorporation passed after the eleventh day of March in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal at the pleasure of the legislature."
It would be difficult to supply language more comprehensive or expressive than this.
Such an act may be amended -- that is, it may be changed by additions to its terms or by qualifications of the same. It may be altered by the same power, and it may be repealed. What is it may be repealed? It is the act of incorporation. It is this organic law on which the corporate existence of the company depends which may be repealed, so that it shall cease to be a law, or the legislature may adopt the milder course of amending the law in matters which need amendment, or altering it when it needs substantial change. All this may be done at the pleasure of the legislature. That body need give no reason for its action in the matter. The validity of such action does not depend on the necessity for it or on the soundness of the reasons which prompted it. This expression, "the pleasure of the legislature," is significant, and is not found in many of the similar statutes in other states.
we cannot doubt the authority of the Legislature of Massachusetts to repeal that charter. Nor is this seriously questioned by counsel for appellant, and it may therefore be assumed that if the repealing clause of the act of May 6, 1872, stood alone, its validity must be conceded. Crease v. Babcock, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 334; Erie & N.E. Railroad Co. v. Casey, 26 Pa.St. 287; Pennsylvania College Cases, 13 Wall. 190; 2 Kent Com. 306.
It is argued, however, that the act is to be examined as a whole, and that as the earlier sections of the statute bestow upon the Union Company the right to seize the track and other property of the Marginal Company, this repealing clause is inserted merely to aid in the general purpose of transferring a valuable property and its appurtenant franchise from one corporation to another.
Whether this is sufficient to invalidate that branch or feature of the statute may depend somewhat upon the effect of the repealing clause upon the rights of the Marginal Company, as well as upon other matters; but we do not doubt the validity of the repealing clause of that act, whatever may have been the reasons which influenced the legislature to enact it, for the exercise of this power is by express terms declared to be at the pleasure of the legislature.
"that no act of incorporation shall be repealed unless for some violation of its charter or other default, when such charter shall contain an express provision limiting the duration of the same."
So that charters subject to the pleasure of the legislative will were only those of perpetual duration. This proviso was, however, either repealed by express enactment or intentionally left out in subsequent revisions of the statutes, for it is not found in that of 1860, known as the General Statutes of Massachusetts, nor in that of the present year, just published, called the Public Statutes of Massachusetts.
What is the effect of the repeal of the charter of a corporation like this?
may give to transactions into which the corporation entered and which were authorized by the charter while in force, it can originate no new transactions dependent on the power conferred by the charter. If the corporation be a bank, with power to lend money and to issue circulating notes, it can make no new loan nor issue any new notes designed to circulate as money.
If the essence of the grant of the charter be to operate a railroad and to use the streets of the city for that purpose, it can no longer so use the streets of the city and no longer exercise the franchise of running a railroad in the city. In short, whatever power is dependent solely upon the grant of the charter, and which could not be exercised by unincorporated private persons under the general laws of the state, is abrogated by the repeal of the law which granted these special rights.
Personal and real property acquired by the corporation during its lawful existence, rights of contract, or choses in action so acquired and which do not in their nature depend upon the general powers conferred by the charter, are not destroyed by such a repeal, and the courts may, if the legislature does not provide some special remedy, enforce such rights by the means within their power. The rights of the shareholders of such a corporation to their interest in its property are not annihilated by such a repeal, and there must remain in the courts the power to protect those rights.
And while we are conscious that no definition at once comprehensive and satisfactory can be here laid down of what those rights and powers are that remain to the stockholders and the creditors of such a corporation after the act of repeal, we are of opinion that the foregoing observations are sufficient for the case before us.
A short reference to the origin of this reservation of the right to repeal charters of corporations may be of service in enabling us to decide upon its office and effect when called into operation by the legislative exercise of the power.
controlled or destroyed by any subsequent statute unless a power for that purpose be reserved to the legislature in the act of incorporation."
In Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, decided in 1819, this Court announced principles on the subject of the protection that the charters of private corporations were entitled to claim, under the clause of the federal Constitution against impairing the obligation of contracts which, though received at the time with some dissatisfaction, have never been overruled in this Court. The opinion in that case carried the protection of the constitutional provision somewhat in advance of what had been decided in Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, and the preceding cases, and held that it applied not only to contracts between individuals and to grants of property made by the state to individuals or to corporations, but that the rights and franchises conferred upon private as distinguished from public corporations by the legislative acts under which their existence was authorized, and the right to exercise the functions conferred upon them by the statute, were, when accepted by the corporators, contracts which the state could not impair.
we have already quoted from the case of Wales v. Stetson, 2 Mass. 143.
It would seem that the states were not slow to avail themselves of this suggestion, for while we have not time to examine their legislation for the result, we have in one of the cases cited to us as to the effect of a repeal, McLaren v. Pennington, 1 Paige (N.Y.) 102, in which the Legislature of New Jersey, when chartering a bank with a capital of $400,000 in 1824, declared by its seventeenth section that it should be lawful for the legislature at any time to alter, amend, and repeal the same. And Kent (2 Com. 307), speaking of what is proper in such a clause, cites as an example a charter by the New York Legislature, of the date of Feb. 25, 1822. How long the Legislature of Massachusetts continued to rely on a special reservation of this power in each charter as it was granted it is unnecessary to inquire, for in 1831 it enacted as a law of general application that all charters of corporations thereafter granted should be subject to amendment, alteration, and repeal at the pleasure of the legislature, and such has been the law ever since.
This history of the reservation clause in acts of incorporation supports our proposition that whatever right, franchise, or power in the corporation depends for its existence upon the granting classes of the charter is lost by its repeal.
This view is sustained by the decisions of this Court and of other courts on the same question. Pennsylvania College cases, supra; 82 U. S. Jessup, 15 Wall. 454; Railroad Company v. Maine, 96 U. S. 499 ; Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700 ; Railroad Company v. Georgia, 98 U. S. 359 ; McLaren v. Pennington, supra; Erie & N.E. Railroad v. Casey, supra; Miners' Bank v. United States, 1 Greene (Iowa), 553; 2 Kent Com. 306-307.
person of right, and were vested in defendants only by virtue of the repealed charter.
It was therefore in the power of the Massachusetts Legislature to grant to another corporation, as it did, the authority to operate a street railroad through the same streets and over the same ground previously occupied by the Marginal Company. Whether this action was oppressive or unjust in view of the public good, or whether the legislature was governed by sufficient reason in thus repealing the charter of one company and in chartering another at the same time to perform as part of its functions the duties required of the first, is not, as we have seen, a judicial question in this case. It may well be supposed, if answer were required to the complainant's bill, that it was made to appear that the Marginal Company had shown its incapacity to fulfill the objects for which it was created, and that another corporation, embracing larger area, connecting with more freight depots and wharves, and with more capital, could better serve the public in the matter for which both franchises were given.
That in creating the later corporation, whose object was to fulfill a public use, it could authorize it to take such property of other corporations as might be necessary to that use, as well as that of individuals, can hardly admit of question. Sec. 4 of the act gives this power to the Union Company with reference to the tracks of all street railroads in the city, and provides that in the event of an inability to agree with the owners of these tracks as to compensation, that shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of general laws previously enacted on that subject. To this there can be no valid legal objection. The property of. corporations, even including their franchises, when that is necessary, may be taken for public use under the power of eminent domain on marking due compensation. West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507; Central Bridge Corporation v. City of Lowell, 4 Gray (Mass.) 474; Boston Water power Co. v. Boston & Worcester Railroad Corporation, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 360; Richmond &c.; Railroad Co. v. Louisa Railroad Co., 13 How. 71.
the Union Freight Company, within four months from the passage of the act, shall take the tracks, or any part thereof, of the Marginal Freight Company, subject to the laws relating to taking land by railroad companies and the compensation therefor. If, as the language seems to imply, the new company is bound to take so much of the track of the old one as it shall need or elect to use, and pay for it within four months, it is a requirement favorable to this company in preference to others, and with especial reference to the fact that its power to use the track for railroad purposes has ceased. If it is merely a permission to take the track on payment of compensation, it is still a favor to the Marginal Company to require this to be done within four months.
A suggestion is made that the Marginal Company acquired by purchase, for $15,000, the right to the use of the track of the Commercial Freight Company, and that this property stands on different grounds from the remainder of its track.
We are unable to discover any difference in principle. If the new company takes this track, or takes the Marginal Company's right to use it, we suppose the latter will be entitled to compensation for its interest in it, as for other property taken for a public use.
In fact, in regard to the whole question discussed as to the mode of making compensation and its sufficiency to indemnify the Marginal Company for what is taken, it seems to us to be premature, for whenever the attempt to adjust the compensation is made, the question of its sufficiency and its compliance with the law on that subject may arise, and it can then be decided.
Nor are we satisfied of the soundness of the argument of counsel that the clause in the Marginal Company's charter which declares it to be subject to tine restrictions and liabilities contained in the general laws relating to street railways withdraws it from the operation of the forty-first section of chapter 68 of the General Laws of the state. The latter clause declares all acts of incorporation subject to its provisions. This subjection is not impaired by the fact that a particular corporation is made by its charter subject to other laws also of a general character.
We are of opinion that the question of the repeal of the charter of the Marginal Company is to be decided by the construction of the general statute, whose effect and history we have discussed.
These considerations require the affirmance of the decree of the circuit court sustaining the demurrer to appellant's bill.

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


text:
Decree below affirmed on the authority of the cases named in the opinion of the Court.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Bill to quiet title to certain waters, water rights, and works connected therewith. Bill dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and question of jurisdiction certified. Reported below, 82 F. 114; 76 F. 148.
Decree affirmed on authority of (1) Phillips v. Mound City Association, 124 U. S. 605; California Powder Works v. Davis, 151 U. S. 389, 151 U. S. 395; New Orleans v. DeArmas, 9 Pet. 224; Borgmeyer v. Idler, 159 U. S. 408; Muse v. Arlington Hotel Company, 168 U. S. 430; (2) Robinson v. Anderson, 121 U. S. 522; Florida Central Railroad v. Bell, 176 U. S. 330; Gold Washing Company v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199; Tennessee v. Union and Planters' Bank, 152 U. S. 454; New Orleans v. Benjamin, 153 U. S. 411, 153 U. S. 424.

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


Defendant Guajardo-Hernandez pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). His sentence of fifty-seven months imprisonment included an enhancement because defendant had previously been deported for an aggravated felony conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2); U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Defendant objected to the presentence report, arguing his sentence should not have exceeded the two-year maximum prison term for mere unlawful reentry by an alien because his prior deportation for an aggravated felony conviction was not charged in the indictment. His objection was overruled, and on appeal he challenges the use of a sentence enhancement based on that factor, arguing that his resulting sentence is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
In Apprendi, the Supreme Court held that "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 490.
Defendant acknowledges that his argument runs counter to recent decisions of this Court. In United States v. Martinez-Villalva, 232 F.3d 1329 (10th Cir. 2000), we rejected a nearly identical post-Apprendi claim as foreclosed by the Supreme Court's holding in Almandarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).
[An] exception was carved out of the Apprendi holding to account for the Court's holding in Almandarez-Torres. . . .
Almendarez-Torres held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which mandates an increased sentence for violation of § 1326(a) if the previous deportation was after commission of an aggravated felony, was not a separate element of the offense that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, but was, instead, merely a sentencing factor based on recidivism. We are bound by that case to hold that the fact of defendant's prior felony conviction is not an element of the offense with which he was charged by indictment, but is, instead, a sentencing factor. Consequently, the indictment in this case, which did not separately charge defendant with a prior aggravated felony conviction, did not violate defendant's constitutional rights.
Martinez-Villalva, 232 F.3d at 133132 (citations omitted). Like that case, defendant's sentence "falls squarely within the exception to the Apprendi holding and is governed by Almendarez-Torres." Id. at 1331; see also United States v. Dorris, 236 F.3d 582, 587 (10th Cir. 2000) (reaffirming that Almendarez-Torres is not overruled by Apprendi), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1635 (2001) .
We reject defendant's argument that "[b]ecause the Apprendi decision casts a pall over the validity of Almendarez-Torres, . . . this Court can and should vacate Guajardo's sentence." (Appellant's Br. at 7.) Contrary to defendant's assertion that "stare decisis does not bar this Court from ruling contrary to the holding in Almendarez-Torres," we are bound both by the Supreme Court's holding in Almendarez-Torres and by this Court's recognition that "[t]he Apprendi Court specifically declined to revisit or overrule Almendarez-Torres." Martinez-Villalva, 232 F.3d at 1331. In light of that precedent, defendant's indictment and sentence did not violate his constitutional rights.
Defendant brings this appeal in part to preserve his argument for review by the Supreme Court. With the acknowledgment that he has done so, we AFFIRM defendant's sentence.


text:
David I. Rosen has practiced labor and employment law on behalf of management clients since 1977. He handles employment litigation in the federal and state courts, before administrative agencies and through arbitration and mediation, and has broad experience with wrongful dismissal and employment discrimination claims, having successfully defended employers following jury and bench trials. His litigation experience extends to the enforcement and defense of restrictive covenants, NLRB unfair labor practice trials and appellate advocacy. Mr. Rosen also represents employers in labor arbitrations and at the collective bargaining table, represents employers at NLRB representation proceedings, and provides legal advice to management on labor law issues relating to union pre-election campaigns.
Independent of his litigation practice, Mr. Rosen provides day-to-day advice and counsel on a myriad of federal and state labor and employment laws (such as the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act), conducts independent investigations of employment law claims, prepares and reviews employee handbooks and a variety of personnel policies, negotiates and drafts employment contracts and employee separation agreements, counsels employers on limiting their exposure to legal claims and counsels companies on staff reorganizations and reductions-in-force.
Mr. Rosen also frequently provides in-house training on various labor and employment law topics (such as harassment and diversity, the administration of collective bargaining agreements and effective disciplinary policies and procedures).
Mr. Rosen has extensive experience representing health care and hospitality clients, companies within the shipping container and freight forwarding industries, pharmaceutical companies, warehouse and distribution businesses, manufacturers, financial services firms and institutions, Asian-owned and operated businesses, garment industry businesses, radio broadcasters, law firms, construction firms, and not-for-profit agencies.
Represented major home improvement chain as lead trial attorney in whistleblower CEPA jury trial in Morris County Superior Court; claims arose following plaintiff's discharge. 6-day trial resulted in complete defense verdict.
Represented major New Jersey acute care hospital as lead trial attorney in employment law "false imprisonment" jury trial in Bergen County Superior Court, in which State of NJ was a co-defendant. 7-day trial resulted in a complete defense verdict.
Represented national manufacturer as lead trial attorney in age discrimination civil action arising under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, filed in the EDNY. 6-day jury trial resulted in complete defense verdict.
Represented major New York City acute care hospital as lead trial attorney in Title VII race discrimination civil action filed in the EDNY. 3-day bench trial resulted in a complete defense judgment.
Represented major defense contractor as lead trial attorney in Title VII race discrimination civil action filed in DNJ. 3-day bench trial resulted in complete defense judgment.
Represented Long Island-based nursing home as lead trial attorney in Title VII gender-based discrimination civil action filed in EDNY. 5-day bench trial resulted in a complete defense judgment.
Chen v. Antel Communications, LLC, 14-CV-6629 (E.D.N.Y. 2015), aff’d, Case No. 15-3475 (2d Cir. 2016): District court partially granted defendant’s pre-answer motion to dismiss plaintiff’s breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, unpaid bonus and severance pay, and post-termination salary and benefits claims, holding that alleged contract relied upon by plaintiff was nullified by reason of his later employment agreement, and that plaintiff’s termination without cause was permitted under the later employment agreement based on his at-will status. Second Circuit affirmed dismissal in all respects.
Newman v. Pall Corporation, No. 1:12-cv-00654 (D. MD. 2013): District court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing in its entirety plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Maryland human rights law. Court reasoned that because plaintiff was unable to perform the essential functions of his full-time job, with or without a reasonable accommodation, he was not a "qualified individual with a disability" within the meaning of the ADA.
Workneh v. Pall Corporation, No. 2:10-cv-03479 (E.D.N.Y. 2012): District court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing in their entirety plaintiff's promotional and compensation race discrimination and retaliation claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
Partners Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Halbert, Docket No. C-72-09 (NJ Superior Court, Union County, 2012): Denied defendants' motion to enforce purported settlement agreement, and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to strike defendants' motion papers, holding, pursuant to the provisions of the NJ Uniform Mediation Act, that defendants were barred from proving the existence of a verbal settlement agreement allegedly reached in restrictive covenant enforcement action because defendants relied on inadmissible, privileged "mediation communications" for purposes of same.
Jiang v. Flushing Center, Inc., 357 Fed. Appx. 391 (2d Cir. 2009): Affirmed district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing failure to promote, disciplinary discrimination, unequal pay, and retaliation claims arising under federal law.
Eckerd Corp. v. J&S, Inc., 647 F. Supp. 2d 388 (D.N.J. 2009): District court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, barring defendant, either as the agent or assignee of pension fund, from pursuing withdrawal liability claim against plaintiff.
Einhorn v. J&S, Inc., 577 F. Supp. 2d 752 (D.N.J. 2008): District court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendants' "joint employer" claims arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act ("MPPAA"), as well as motion to compel contractual arbitration of defendants' NJ common law breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and breach of covenant of good faith claims. [All such common law claims subsequently dismissed by arbitrator following 2-day hearing].
Staff v. Pall Corporation, 233 F. Supp. 2d 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2002): District court granted defendant's summary judgment motion dismissing plaintiff's race, color and national origin, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims arising under federal and New York State human rights laws.
Preda v. Nissho Iwai American Corporation, 128 F.3d 789 (2d Cir. 1997): Affirmed district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim arising under federal Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act ("VRRA"), based on defendant's failure to reinstate him following his discharge from military service; court held that plaintiff engaged in job-related misbehavior immediately prior to his military leave, which rendered him "unqualified," within meaning of VRRA, for reinstatement.
Local 617, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Hudson Bergen Trucking Co., 440 A. 2d 18 (NJ App. Div. 1981): In action to enforce adverse labor arbitration award, NJ Appellate Division held that plaintiff's service of process of summons on defendant's attorney was defective because plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proving that attorney was authorized to accept service of process on defendant's behalf. [Cited in Comment to R. 4:4-4, Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey (2012 ed., Pressler & Verniero)].
“Top 100 Labor Attorneys in America”* by the Labor Relations Institute, Inc.


text:
Chad Hutchinson is an experienced litigator and trial attorney who has defended clients in the pharmaceutical and medical device industry the majority of his career. He has successfully tried cases to verdict and assisted trial teams for cases in multi-district litigation and various state courts all over the country. Chad recently received the 2018 Burton Award for his published work. He is listed in Best Lawyers in America® and Super Lawyers® and is AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell.
As part of his experience, Chad has also handled the defense of Attorney General enforcement actions, toxic tort exposure cases, and medical malpractice cases. In addition to preparing and defending company witnesses and corporate 30(b)(6) representatives, Chad focuses his work on expert witnesses in the fields of polymer science, chemistry, biomaterials, epidemiology, toxicology, industry standards and regulatory affairs. He has taken the lead in all work-up phases for experts, including preparation of the witnesses (including mock crosses), defending their depositions, and directing their testimony at trial. He also deposed numerous Plaintiffs’ experts in these fields, several of which concluded with successful Daubert challenges that limited or excluded the admissibility of their opinions.
In 2018, a client selected Chad as its “Attorney of the Year.” He is a member of the Trial Attorneys of America and graduated from the prestigious International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) Trial Academy where he will now serve as a facilty member this fall. He is active in a number of industry organizations, including IADC, where he serves as the Vice Chair of Programs and Projects and is a member of the Drug, Device & Biotechnology Committee.
Cheryl Lankston v. Ethicon Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; Houston Division; No. 4:17-CV- 00323; November 9, 2017; Trial Team Member; defense verdict.
Kimberly Adkins v. Ethicon Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania; No. 130700919; June 9, 2017; Trial Team Member; defense verdict.
Keckley v. Estes Equipment Corp. et al., In the Circuit Court of Rankin County, Mississippi; Cause No. 2014-46; May 15, 2017; summary judgment.
Pilot Travel Centers, LLC v. Mid-Continent Cas. Comp., 2016 WL 1633060, USDC of S. Miss; April 21, 2016; summary judgment.
Whitener v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., USDC of E.D. LA; Apr. 22, 2014; summary judgment.
James Orams v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi; Civil Action No. 251-09-6909; August 15, 2013; summary judgment.
Suzanna Davis v. The Young Men’s Christian Association, Circuit Court of Rankin County, Mississippi; Civil Action No. 2012-653; April 23, 2013; summary judgment.
Lyles v. Maselle & Associates et al.; Mississippi Arbitration Association; April 2, 2013; Lead Trial Counsel; defense verdict.
Magee v. Covington County School Dist., 96 So.3d 742 (Miss. App. Ct. 2012); summary judgment affirmed.
Mayers v. Burke Handling Systems, Inc,; Circuit Court of Scott County, Mississippi; May 31, 2011; Lead Trial Counsel; directed verdict.
Marie Ellison et al. v. CareGivers, LLC d/b/a Clarksdale Nursing Home, Circuit Court of Coahoma County, Mississippi; Civil Action No. 14-CI-02-0141; August 30, 2010; summary judgment.
Derse, Inc. v. Haas Outdoors, Inc. dba Mossy Oak; August 17, 2010; American Arbitration Association; No. 69 152 00513; Lead Trial Counsel; judgment for client for full amount requested.
State Farm Auto Ins. Co. v. Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc., Caddo Parish, LA; June 1, 2009; summary judgment.
Thelma Mitchell, et al. v. Nutrition & Management Services, Inc., et al., Circuit Court of Coahoma County, Mississippi; Civil Action No. 14-CI-03-0063; February 17, 2009; summary judgment.
McIntosh v. Dillards Department Stores; S.D. Miss.; February 12, 2008; Lead Trial Counsel; defense verdict.
Veal v. J.P. Morgan Trust Co., N.A., 955 So.2d 843 (Miss. 2007).
Eaton Vance Municipals Trust v. Conegie, 2007 WL 1484539 (N.D. Miss. 2007).
McKenzie v. Highland Home Nursing Center, et al.; Rankin County Circuit Court; Cause No. 2002-393; September 17, 2003; obtained first order from a Mississippi trial court compelling arbitration in a nursing home case.
Smith v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 286 F.Supp.2d 777 (S.D. Miss. 2003).
Backwell v. Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc.; Circuit Court of Smith County, Miss.; Trial Counsel; defense verdict.
Beare/Gaffney v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen, No. 196-10MT Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division; Atlantic County; 2011 – defense verdict.
Thomas Gaines v. McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; No. CGC-06-457600 –Superior Court of California; County of San Francisco; 2010 – defense verdict.
Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. v. Bailey, 878 So.2d 31 (Miss. 2004), a Mississippi Supreme Court ruling in favor of client.
Speaker, “Strategies for Trial Success,” Pharmaceutical/Medical Device Seminar Presentation, Santa Fe, N.M., June 15, 2018.
Speaker, “Strategies for Minimizing the Likelihood of a Punitive Damages Verdict,” International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) Drug, Medical Device and Biotec Committee Presentation, Palm Springs, Calif., February 12, 2018.
Author, “Epidemiology for Lawyers,” Trial Attorneys of America, June 2017.
Co-Author, “Epidemiology and the NFL Collide,” Pro Te: Solutio, Vol. 10 No. 1 (2017).
Speaker, “Epidemiology – What Trial Lawyers and Jurors Really Need to Know;” International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) Drug, Medical Device and Biotec Committee Seminar Presentation, Scottsdale, Ariz., February 19, 2017.
Speaker, “Epidemiology by Lawyers for Lawyers;” Defense Research Institute (DRI), Webinar, December 15, 2016.
Co-Author, “Voir Dire,” International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) Defense Counsel Training Manual, Third Edition, 2016.
Speaker, "Effective Use of Epidemiology in the Courtroom,” Pharmaceutical/Medical Device Seminar Presentation, La Jolla, Calif., June 2016.
Speaker, "Drug and Medical Device Litigation: Recent Trends in Products Liability Litigation," Pharmaceutical/Medical Device Seminar Presentation, Sea Island, Ga., June 2015.
Speaker, "Recent Developments in the Pharmaceutical/Product Liability Industry," In-house Client Presentation, New Brunswick, N.J., May 2013.
Speaker, "Epidemiology Concepts and Applications," In-house Seminar Presentation, August 2012.
Speaker, "Drug and Medical Device Litigation: Navigating the Social Media Maze," Panel Counsel Seminar Presentation, Lake George, N.Y., June 2012.
Author, "The Path to Aggregate Settlements," American Bar Association Mass Torts Litigation, Vol. 10 No. 3, Spring 2012.
Author, “The Final Rule: FDA's Security Reporting Requirements for Investigational New Drug Applications," Pro Te: Solutio, Vol. 5 No. 1, 8-11, February 2012.
Speaker, "Tips for Impeaching and Discrediting Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses," ACI Long Term Care Conference, Miami, Fla., April 2011.
Speaker, "Sanctions for Failure to Properly Preserve Electronic Evidence," In-house Client Presentation, Whitehouse Station, Pa., June 2010.
Speaker, "ABA’s Ethics Opinion on Aggregate Settlements," Professional Liability Seminar, New York, N.Y., May 2010.
Author, “Understanding the Inherent Risks of Dual Representation in Internal Investigations and Civil Litigation,” Pro Te: Solutio, Vol. 2 No. 4, Fall 2009.
Author "Caves: Clarity or Confusion?" Mississippi Defense Lawyers Association Quarterly, April 2009.
Author, “Oops! The Dog Ate My Pacemaker, A Lower Standard of Spoliation Claims,” Pro Te: Solutio, Fall 2008.
Speaker, "Advanced Expert Witness Deposition Tactics," National Business Institute Seminar, October 2008.
Speaker, "Advanced Deposition and Trial Techniques for Cross-Examining the Combative Plaintiff’s Expert Witness," DRI’s Nursing Home/ALF Litigation Seminar, September 2008.
Author, "Cross-Examinations of Lay Witness," In-house Defense Quarterly, Winter 2006.

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


§ 2. The notice does not cover the products listed in Chapter 22-33, introduced via other Member States of the European Union and released for free circulation. If these products are subsequently released for free circulation in Denmark, are your products covered by the provisions of the Ordinance for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. Notice provisions concerning Division of parties of two or more parties under section 33 shall, however, continue.
Paragraph 10. At the designated points of import means the places through which all imports into the community of the foods that are provided for in Chapter 22-33, must be carried out.
Paragraph 11. By snails originating in or consigned from Madagascar understood national nail of the species Helix pomatialinné, Helix aspersamuller and Helix lucorum and species of the family achatinidae, there is chilled, frozen, shelled, cooked, prepared or preserved.
§ 4. Reception on trade of slaughtered, non-cleaned salmon (Salmo salar), sea trout (Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) originating in the Faroe Islands may only occur if the item is accompanied by a health certificate corresponding to the specimen in annex II of decision 2003/71/EC and its subsequent amendments, see. However, paragraph 5.
2) item is accompanied by a health certificate corresponding to the specimen in annex I of decision 2003/71/EC as amended.
(4). Reception in the course of trade of live gametes from Salmonidae originating in the Faroe Islands may only happen if the party is accompanied by a health certificate corresponding to the specimen in annex I of decision 2003/71/EC as amended.
(6). The parties referred to in paragraph 4 must be detained at the border inspection post or on one of the border veterinarian designated for storage until the border veterinarian rejects the lot or shall notify the authorization for that party may be imported.
§ 7. It is forbidden to introduce crustaceans intended for human consumption from Bangladesh.
(2). Paragraph 1 shall not apply to consignments at importation is accompanied by the results of the analytical tests carried out at the place of origin to ensure that krebs animals do not constitute a risk to human health. The analytical tests should be carried out, with particular regard to detect chloramphenicol, metabolites of nitrofurans, tetracycklin, Malachite Green, Crystal violet in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 2377/90 and decision 2002/657/EC.
(3). Lots of shellfish for human consumption from Bangladesh, which is not accompanied by the results referred to in paragraph 2, may be admitted, provided that each consignment of the products in question undergo a special inspection on arrival at the EU's external border in order to ensure that the parties did not constitute a risk to human health.
(4). Border controls must take samples of each of the parties referred to in paragraph 3 and shall submit these to a chemical test in order to detect chloramphenicol, metabolites of nitrofurans, tetracycklin, Malachite Green, Crystal violet.
(5). The parties referred to in paragraph 4 must be detained at the border inspection post or on one of the border veterinarian designated for storage until the border veterinarian rejects the lot or shall notify the authorization for that party may be imported.
(6). All expenses in connection with paragraphs 2 to 5 shall be borne by the person responsible for the party.
§ 8. It is because of the avian influenza disease be prohibited to introduce meat of farmed birds, including poultry, which are farmed as domestic animals, but which are not considered as domestic animals, with the exception of ratites, wild that are hunted for human consumption, meat of ratites and meat preparations and meat products consisting of or containing meat of the abovementioned species from areas in Canada specified in annex 1.
§ 9. This provision shall apply to the importation of certain animal products from Chile.
4) fish oil for human consumption as well as for uses other than human consumption.
(4). The parties referred to in paragraph 2 must be detained at the border inspection post or on one of the border veterinarian designated for storage until the border veterinarian rejects the lot or shall notify the authorization to the batch may be introduced.
(5). All expenses in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 4 shall be borne by the person responsible for the party.
§ 10. This provision shall apply to the importation of fishery products for human consumption imported from Gabon.
(2). Border controls makes control of all parties with fishery products for human consumption from Gabon in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 601/2008 of 25. June 2008 concerning certain protective measures relating to fishery products imported from Gabon and intended for human consumption.
(3). The parties referred to in paragraph 2 must be detained at the border inspection post or on one of the border veterinarian designated for storage until the border veterinarian rejects the lot or shall notify the authorization to the batch may be introduced.
(4). All expenses in accordance with paragraph 2-3 shall be borne by the person responsible for the party.
§ 11. It is forbidden to introduce fishery products intended for human consumption from the Republic of Guinea.
§ 12. This provision shall apply to fishery products imported from Indonesia and intended for human consumption. It shall not, however, apply to aquaculture products.
(2). Border veterinarian shall take samples of all batches of the fishery products referred to in paragraph 1. Samples must be taken for the systematic control of the content of heavy metals in order to ensure that the fishery products concerned do not present a hazard to humans. The analysis must ensure that the content of heavy metals do not exceed the limit values laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 1881/2006.
(4). All expenses in connection with paragraphs 2 to 3 shall be borne by the person responsible for the party.
§ 13. It is forbidden to introduce food of animal origin originating in or consigned from China.
§ 14. It is because of the avian influenza disease be prohibited to introduce fresh poultry meat, meat products and meat preparations consisting of or containing poultrymeat and eggs for human consumption originating in or consigned from China.
(2). Paragraph 1 shall not apply to poultry meat products, meat products used in poultry when it has undergone a treatment in a hermetically sealed container to a Fo value of 3.00 (preserved), or for poultry meat products from the Chinese province of Shandong a heat treatment of at least 70 ° c is reached throughout the meat during the processing.
§ 15. It is forbidden to introduce composite products originating in or consigned from China containing milk, milk products, soya or soya products intended for a particular nutritional use for infants and young children, see. Council Directive No. 89/398/EEC of 3. May 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses.
§ 16. Notwithstanding the provisions in the Ordinance on veterinary checks on imports of food of animal origin, all composite products originating in or consigned from China containing milk, milk products, soya or soya products, but which are not covered by section 14, and arriving from third countries introduced into Denmark via one of the border inspection posts listed in annex 2, where products must be subjected to control before the products may enter in the EUROPEAN UNION. Similarly for all batches of Ammonium bicarbonate originating in or consigned from China for use in food and feed.
(2). Composite products covered by paragraph 1, which have not been subject to verification by one of the border inspection posts listed in annex 2, seized by food region, as requiring the importer to return or destroy the party.
(3). The responsible party must give border control at the border inspection post where the products will be introduced in Denmark prior notification about the expected arrival date and time of the import of the products referred to in paragraph 1. The notification must be border controls not later than the last working day (Monday to Friday) prior to importation.
(4). Paragraphs 1 to 3 shall also apply to products imported via Denmark to other EU countries.
§ 17. Border controls will be conducting document-, identity and physical checks and take samples for laboratory analysis of all parties of the in section 15, paragraph 1, the products are intended for use as food or feed. The checks shall in particular ensure that the levels of melamine in the products does not exceed 2.5 mg of melamine per kg of product.
(2). Referred to in paragraph 1, the Parties shall be detained at the border inspection post or on one of the border veterinarian designated for storage until the border veterinarian rejects the lot or shall notify the authorization to the batch may be introduced.
(3). Parties, which contains over 2.5 mg of melamine per kg of product, must be destroyed.
(4). All expenses in connection with paragraphs 1-3 and section 16, paragraph 2, shall be borne by the person responsible for the party.
§ 18. It is because of the disease highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1, prohibited the introduction of fresh meat, minced meat, meat preparations and mechanically separated meat of wild feathered game and meat products consisting of, or containing meat of wild feathered game originating in or consigned from all areas in Croatia, for which the competent Croatian authorities officially apply protection measures that are equivalent to those laid down in decision 2006/563/EC.
§ 19. It is forbidden to introduce products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, originating in Madagascar and snails.
§ 20. Border veterinarian shall take samples of all batches of fresh meat and meat products of equidae originating in or consigned from Mexico. Samples shall be taken for verification of the content of substances having a hormonal action and beta-agonists used as growth promoters.
§ 21. Border veterinarian shall take samples of all batches of crustaceans or foods made from or with crustaceans originating in or consigned from Myanmar. Samples for systematic control of the content of chloramphenicol in order to ensure that the products concerned do not present a hazard to humans.
§ 22. It is forbidden to introduce bivalve molluscs, as defined in point 2.1 of Annex i to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 853/2004, which are imported from Peru and intended for human consumption. The ban applies to all batches of live bivalve molluscs which are received at border inspection posts, regardless of whether the parties are produced, stored or certified in the country of origin before the 17. November 2008.
2) bivalve molluscs, which have undergone heat treatment in accordance with Title VII, chapter II, part A, point 5, point (b)), in annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 853/2004.
§ 23. It is because of the disease highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1, prohibited the introduction of fresh meat, minced meat, meat preparations and mechanically separated meat of wild feathered game and meat products consisting of, or containing meat of wild feathered game originating in or consigned from all areas in Switzerland, for which the Swiss competent authorities officially apply protection measures that are equivalent to those laid down in decision 2006/415/EC and 2006/563/EC.
§ 24. It is forbidden to introduce eggs for human consumption originating in or consigned from Korea.
§ 25. Border veterinarian shall take samples of all batches of crustacean, poultry meat or foods made from or with crustaceans or poultry meat, accompanied by a health certificate issued before the 21st century. September 2002 originating in or consigned from Thailand. Samples for systematic control of the content of antimicrobial substances and in particular nitrofurans and their metabolites in order to ensure that the products concerned do not present a hazard to humans.
section 26. It is because of the avian influenza disease be prohibited to introduce fresh meat of poultry, ratites, farmed and wild feathered game, meat products and meat preparations consisting of or containing meat of the abovementioned species and eggs for human consumption originating in or consigned from Thailand.
§ 27. The products referred to in Chapter 22-33 must imports directly from a third country is introduced via Danish ports or airports.
section 28. Prior to the introduction of the chapter 22-33 products imported directly from third countries shall be the person responsible for the party review introduction to food region in the area of food imported into Denmark. The notification shall be food region not later than the last working day (Monday to Friday) prior to importation.
section 29. Chapter 22-27 shall not apply to consignments of food with a gross weight of 5 kg or less.
(2). The rules on processed and compound foodstuffs in Chapter 22-27 applies only if the food items account for at least 10 per cent of the food.
section 30. The import of food items is only permitted, if the parties are accompanied by the results of sampling and analysis for aflatoxin and an animal health certificate drawn up following the model set out in annex I of decision 2006/504/EC, as amended, and which is completed, signed and verified by the competent authority of the country of origin.
(2). The party must not be transformed before it is released by the food the region after checking, see. section 32 (3).
section 31. The documentary check shall be carried out at the place where the food the first time entering the community. Food region under throws parties documentary checks to ensure that they are in section 30, paragraph 1, referred to requirements concerning the results of sampling and analysis and health certificate are met.
section 32. Food the region set aside at the designated point of import/receive activities in accordance with Annex 1 to Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 401/2006 a test sample of batches, see. sampling frequencies in Chapter 22-27, and examines it for aflatoxin B1 and total aflatoxin contamination before the party is released for free circulation from the community's designated point of import.
(3). Food the region's control of the Party shall be documented by completing the joint document, see. the model set out in annex III of decision 2006/504/EC as amended, which is copied to the back of the accompanying certificate, see. section 30, paragraph 1.
(4). Food region fills the common document for control of foods covered by Chapter 22-27.
section 33. If a party to be divided into two or more parties, copies of the health certificate referred to in article 6. section 30, paragraph 1, as well as the accompanying document referred to in article 6. section 32 (4), follow each of the new parties up to and including the wholesale stage. Decreases on the authenticity must be confirmed by the endorsement on the copy by the competent authority of the EU country in which the splitting has taken place, and the Division must not take place before the control.
(2). The competent authority in Brazil is with by the Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, see. section 30, paragraph 1.
(4). Food region carries out sampling of each lot, see. section 32.
(2). Food region carries out sampling of 50 per cent of the parties referred to in article 6. section 32.
(3). sections 30 and 32 shall not apply to imports of the products referred to in paragraph 1 originating in or consigned from Brazil.
§ 36. All costs resulting from sampling, analysis and storage, as well as the issuing of accompanying official documents and copies of the health certificate and accompanying documents referred to in article 6. section 30 and section 32 concerning foodstuffs from Brazil, which is referred to in this chapter, shall be borne by the undertaking responsible for the party.
(2). The competent authority in Iran is the Iranian Ministry of Health, without prejudice. section 30, paragraph 1.
(3). Food region carries out sampling of each lot, see. section 32.
section 38. All costs resulting from sampling, analysis and storage, as well as the issuing of accompanying official documents and copies of the health certificate and accompanying documents referred to in article 6. section 30 and section 32 concerning foodstuffs from Iran, which is referred to in this chapter, shall be borne by the undertaking responsible for the party.
(2). The competent authority in China is the State Administration for Entry-Exit inspection and Quarantine of the people's Republic of China, see. section 30, paragraph 1.
(3). Food region carries out sampling of 10% of the consignments for each category, see. section 32.
§ 40. All costs related to official measures taken by the competent authorities as regards food from China, as referred to in this chapter, which does not comply with food-item legislation, shall be borne by the undertaking responsible for the party.
(2). The competent authority in Turkey is the General Directorate of Protection and Control of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, see. section 30, paragraph 1.
(3). Food region carries out sampling of approximately 5 per cent of the parties of each of the hazelnut categories with CN codes referred to in paragraph 1, no. 2 and 4-8, and products derived from such hazelnuts and about 10 per cent of the lots of other food categories, see. section 32.
§ 42. All costs related to official measures taken by the competent authorities as regards foodstuffs from Turkey, as referred to in this chapter, which does not comply with food law, shall be borne by the undertaking responsible for the party.
(2). The competent authority in the United States is the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), see. section 30, paragraph 1.
(5). Notwithstanding section 30 can foods that are covered by paragraph 4, imported into the EU without being accompanied by the results of sampling and analysis and health certificate.
(6). As far as the analysis referred to in article 30 shall be carried out by a laboratory which is or is about to be approved for aflatoxin analysis of USDA, and accredited in accordance with EN ISO/IEC 17025.
(8). The health certificate accompanying consignments referred to in paragraph 3 foods, see. section 30, shall include a reference to the voluntary sampling plan for aflatoksinkontrol.
§ 44. All costs resulting from sampling, analysis and storage, as well as the issuance of official documents and copies of accompanying health certificate and accompanying documents referred to in article 6. section 30 and section 32 concerning the foods from the United States, see. section 43, paragraph 4, which does not comply with food law, shall be borne by the undertaking responsible for the party.
(2). The competent authority in Egypt is the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture and forestry, in accordance with article 3. section 30, paragraph 1.
(3). Food region carries out sampling of 20% or more of the parties referred to in article 6. section 32.
(8). The food referred to in paragraph 7 shall be retained under official supervision for a period not exceeding 60 days, after which food region Announces permission for free circulation. Food the region's permission must be granted only when the food the region has found that the report of the carried out analysis, see. paragraph 7 has been endorsed by a representative of the competent authority of the country in which the laboratory is located.
(9). In paragraphs 2 and 7 listed analyses must be carried out on samples taken from a representative sample of the lot in accordance with Directive 2002/63/EC. Sampling must be carried out with an acidic solvent, and the analysis must be carried out in accordance with the amended version of the QuEChERS method, as described on the website of the Community reference laboratories for pesticider2).
23) Peptones and their derivatives; other protein substances and their derivatives, not elsewhere specified or included; hudpulver, also treated with chromsalt, falling within CN code 3504 000 000.
(6). Where the products referred to in paragraph 1 does not contain, consist of or are produced from rice, can the original analytical report will be replaced by a declaration by the person responsible for placing the product on the market in the EU, which indicates that the food either contains, consists of or is produced from rice. This declaration must be drawn up in a language that the person responsible for placing on the market of the product in the EUROPEAN UNION understand, so he is aware of the scope of the Declaration, he writes. The Declaration shall be presented at the Danish or English, and in a language understood by the importer.
Paragraph 10. There are certain restrictions on imports of those referred to in paragraph 1, no. 12 and 13 referred to products containing eggs, see. sections 13 and 14.
section 48. This provision shall apply to the import of sunflower oil falling within CN code 1512 11 91 or 1512 19 90 10 originating in or consigned from Ukraine.
(3). Paragraph 2 shall not apply to parties who are accompanied by a valid certificate issued by the competent Ukrainian authorities, and which, on the one hand, certifies that the oil does not contain more than 50 mg/kg mineral oil, on the other hand, contains the results of sampling and analysis for the detection of mineral oil.
(4). Food region shall carry out sampling and analysis of all batches of sunflower oil originating in or consigned from Ukraine, which is accompanied by the valid certificate referred to in paragraph 3, and as presented for importation, in order to ensure that the content of mineral oil in the consignment in question is in accordance with what is specified in the certificate.
(5). Food region shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the sunflower oil originating in or consigned from Ukraine, which contain more than 50 mg/kg mineral oil, not put into circulation for use as food or feed.
(6). Food region shall every three months report acceptable results of the analyses referred to in paragraph 4. The alert sent to the veterinary and Food Administration 3. Office before 10. in the month following each quarter, IE. April, July, October and January.
(7). Expenditure pursuant to paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be borne by the person responsible for the party.
17) broken rice covered by CN code 1006 40 000, which are not certified as being free of long-grain rice.
2) an original version of the analytical report issued by a laboratory which complies with the requirements of annex 3, with confirmation that the products do not contain genetically modified RICE LL RICE 601 ' '. The analysis report will be accompanied by an official document issued by the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) under the United States Department of agriculture (USDA) in accordance with the Protocol set out in annex 3.
§ 51. This provision shall apply to imports of certain sponges for human consumption originating in certain third countries as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
2) Regulation (EC) No. 1635/2006 of 6. November 2006 on detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 737/90 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
(3). Expenses in accordance with paragraph 2 shall be chargeable to the person responsible for the party.
§ 52. Notwithstanding section 30, paragraph 1, allows the import of consignments of food the region has left the country of origin before 1 May 2004. October 2006 and are accompanied by a health certificate as provided for in decision 2000/49/EC as regards food from Egypt, decision 2002/79/EC as regards food from China, decision 2002/80/EC as regards foodstuffs from Turkey, decision 2003/493/EC as regards food from Brazil and decision 2005/85/EC as regards foodstuffs from Iran.
3) overrides terms laid down under section 4, paragraph 5, article 6, paragraph 6, article 7, paragraph 5, article 12, paragraph 4, article 13, paragraph 5-6, § 17, paragraphs 2-3, article 20, paragraph 2, article 21, paragraph 2, article 25, paragraph 2, section 30, paragraph 2, or 5, article 34, paragraph 5, article 46, paragraph 7-8, § 47, (7) or section 50, paragraph 5.
§ 54. Unless a higher penalty is inflicted upon the rest of the law is punishable by a fine anyone who violates article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 733/2008 of 15. July 2008 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
2 article 3, paragraph 3).
4) article 3, paragraph 1.
(2). Unless a higher penalty is inflicted upon the rest of the law is punishable by a fine anyone who fails to comply with the injunction in accordance with article 1, paragraph 4, of the regulation referred to in paragraph 1.
section 56. Unless a higher penalty is inflicted upon the rest of the law is punishable by a fine anyone who violates article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 601/2008 of 25. June 2008 concerning certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery products imported from Gabon and intended for human consumption.
§ 57. The notice shall enter into force on 16 September. January 2009.
(2). At the same time repealed Executive Order No. 1271 by 16. December 2008 on the importation of food, etc. with special restrictions.
Purpose and application. This annex is based on recommendation 2004/787/EC (Official Journal L 348, 2004 p. 8). Particular account shall be taken of the fact that the available methods are qualitative, and that the annex relates to the detection of a prohibited GMOS, which is not fixed tolerance threshold. Samples intended for the official control of that rice products do not contain LL RICE 601, shall be taken in accordance with the methods described below. Collect the samples considered representative of the lots, they are taken from.
1) Ordinance contains provisions that implement the following acts or parts of these European Union: Commission decision 2002/248/EC of 27. March 2002 concerning protection measures in relation to aquaculture products for human consumption and imported from Myanmar (the official journal of the European communities 2002 L 84 s. 73) Commission decision 2002/251/EC of 27. March 2002 on protection measures with regard to poultrymeat and certain fishery and aquaculture products intended for human consumption imported from Thailand (Official Journal of the European communities 2002 L 84 p. 77), as last amended by Commission decision 2003/895/EC of 19. December 2003 (Official Journal L 333 2003 p. 92) Commission decision 2002/994/EC of 20. December 2002 on the safeguard measures across from products of animal origin imported from China (the official journal of the European communities 2002 L 348 p. 154), as last amended by Commission decision 2008/639/EC of 30. July 2008 (the official journal of the European communities 2008 L 207 s. 30), Commission decision 2003/71/EC of 29 April 2004. January 2003 concerning protective measures across from infectious salmon anaemia in the Faroe Islands (Official Journal of the European Communities 2003 L 26, p. 80), as last amended by Commission decision 2003/392/EC of 23. May 2003 (Official Journal L 135 s. 27 2003), Commission decision 2004/225/EC of 2. March 2004 on protective measures with regard to certain live animals and animal products originating in or coming from Albania (Official Journal 2004 L 68 s. 34), Commission decision 2005/61/EC of 27. January 2005 concerning protection measures in relation to Newcastle disease in Bulgaria and repealing decision 2004/908/EC (Official Journal of the European communities 2005 L 25, p. 69), Commission decision 2005/402/EC of 23. May 2005 on emergency measures regarding chilli, chilli products, Curcuma and palm oil (Official Journal L 135, 2005 p. 34), Commission decision 2005/648/EC concerning protection measures in relation to Newcastle disease in Bulgaria (Official Journal 2005 L238 p. 16), as last amended by Commission decision 2007/10/EC of 20. December 2006 (Official Journal 2007 L 7 s. 17), Commission decision 2005/692/EC of 6 May 2003. October 2005 concerning certain protection measures in relation to avian influenza in certain third countries (Official Journal 2005 L263 p. 20), as last amended by Commission decision 2009/6/EC of 17 May 2006. December 2008 (the official journal of the European communities 2009 L 4 s. 15), Commission decision 2005/710/EC concerning protection measures in relation to avian influenza in Romania (the official journal of the European communities 2005 L 269 p. 42), as last amended by Commission decision 2006/435/EC of 23. June 2006 (Official Journal 2006 L 173 s. 31), Commission decision 2005/749/EC concerning certain protection measures in relation to suspected highly pathogenic avian influenza in Croatia (Official Journal L 280, 2005 s. 23), Commission decision 2006/27/EC laying down special conditions for meat and meat products of equidae imported from Mexico and intended for human consumption (Official Journal of the European communities 2005 L 19 p. 30) , Commission decision 2006/236/EC of 21. March 2006 on special conditions governing fishery products imported from Indonesia and intended for human consumption (Official Journal of the European communities 2006 L 83 p. 16), as last amended by Commission decision 2008/660/EC of 31. July 2008 (the official journal of the European communities 2008 L 215 p. 6), Commission decision 2006/241/EC on certain protection measures with regard to certain products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, originating in Madagascar (Official Journal 2006 L 88 s. 63), as amended by Commission decision 2008/825/EC of 23. October 2008 (the official journal of the European communities 2008 L 290 p. 23), Commission decision 2006/247/EC of 27. March 2006 concerning certain protection measures with regard to imports from Bulgaria in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in that third country (Official Journal L 158, 2006 p. 14), Commission decision 2006/264/EC of 27. March 2006 concerning protection measures in relation to Newcastle disease in Romania (2006 Official Journal L 95 p. 6), as amended by Commission decision 2006/501/EC of 14. July 2006 (Official Journal 2006 L 198 s. 38), Commission decision 2006/532/EC of 28 June 1999. July 2006 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in South Africa (Official Journal 2006 L 212 s. 16), Commission decision 2006/504/EC of 12. July 2006 laying down special conditions for the import of certain foodstuffs from certain third countries due to the risk of aflatoxin contamination of those products (Official Journal 2006 L 199 p. 21), as last amended by Commission decision 2007/759/EC of 19. November 2007 (Official Journal 2007 L 305 s. 56), Commission decision 2006/601/EC of 5. September 2006 on emergency measures regarding the non-authorised genetically modified organism LL RICE 601 (2006 Official Journal L 244 p. 27), as amended by Commission decision 2006/754/EC of 6 May 2003. November 2006 (Official Journal 2006 L 306 s. 17), Commission decision 2007/82/EC of 2. February 2007 on emergency measures suspending imports from the Republic of Guinea of fishery products intended for human consumption (Official Journal 2007 L 28 p. 25) Commission decision 2007/642/EC of 4. October 2007 on emergency measures regarding fishery products imported from Albania intended for human consumption (Official Journal 2007 L 260, p. 21), Commission decision 2007/693/EC of 26. October 2007 concerning protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in Canada (Official Journal 2007 L 283 p. 72), Commission decision 2008/289/EC of 3. April 2008 on emergency measures regarding the non-authorised genetically modified organism Bt 63 «» in rice products (Official Journal of the European communities 2008 L 96 s. 29), Commission decision 2008/352/EC of 29 April 2004. April 2008 on special conditions governing guar gum originating in or consigned from India due to the risk that such products may be contaminated with pentachlorophenol and dioxins (Official Journal L 117 2008 s. 42), Commission decision 2008/433/EC of 10. June 2008 laying down special conditions on the import of sunflower oil originating in or consigned from Ukraine due to contamination risks by mineral oil (Official Journal 2008 L 151 s. 55), Commission decision 2008/555/EC of 26. June 2008 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N1 in Croatia and Switzerland (Official Journal 2008 L 179 s. 14), Commission decision 2008/630/EC of 24. July 2008 on emergency measures regarding crustaceans imported from Bangladesh for human consumption (Official Journal of the European communities 2008 L 205 p. 49), Commission decision 2008/798/EC of 14. October 2008 laying down specific import conditions for products that contain milk or milk products originating in or consigned from China, and repealing Decision 2008/757/EC (Official Journal L 273, 2008 p. 18), as amended by decision 2008/921/EC of 9. December 2008 (the official journal of the European communities 2008 L 273 s. 18) and Commission decision 2008/866/EC of 12. November 2008 on emergency measures suspending imports from Peru of certain bivalve molluscs intended for human consumption (Official Journal L 307/2008 p. 9). The Ordinance contains provisions that complement the Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 733/2008 of 15. July 2008 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (Official Journal L 201/2008 p. 1), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 1635/2006 of 6. November 2006 on detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 737/90 on the conditions governing imports of agricultural products originating in third countries as a result of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (the official journal of the European communities 2006 L 306 s. 3) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. 601/2008 of 25. June 2008 concerning certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery products imported from Gabon and intended for human consumption (Official Journal of the European communities 2008 L 165 s. 3).