Bulgarian lev

 


Choice of the instrument.

Central Bank Rates


A requirement for e-retailers to publish the prices they pay to delivery operators was also discarded. Requiring all operators to notify national regulatory authorities of any price changes in advance was rejected due to administrative burdens and the possible deterrent to investment and innovation.

The impact assessment recommended a package of measures to improve the transparency of tariffs of universal service providers and strengthen the regulatory oversight of all parcel service delivery providers, complementing wider work to improve the quality and accessibility of cross-border delivery services.

The preferred options would have no direct or indirect negative social impacts. Indirectly, increased e-commerce due to improved affordability of cross-border delivery prices would impact positively on growth and jobs and consumer welfare, particularly for vulnerable users in peripheral areas.

No direct environmental impacts are expected. Indirectly, enhanced market efficiency due to increased price transparency may balance possible negative environmental impacts e. No negative impact on fundamental rights is expected. The proposal is based on Article of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as it relates to the internal market of parcel delivery services and its functioning.

Cross-border delivery by its very nature involves delivery services in more than one Member State and therefore cannot be overseen by national regulatory authorities acting independently of each other and without information about the cost of delivery in other Member States, such as for example terminal rates that the operator in the destination Member State charges to the operator in the originating Member State.

Measures at Union level are needed to tackle the underlying causes of the problem. National Regulatory Authorities will be responsible for assessing whether cross-border services are affordable, in light of market conditions in the relevant Member State. Measures at Union level are needed in order to set minimum requirements for the regulatory oversight of all postal operators across the Union and therefore to avoid regulatory fragmentation The principle of subsidiarity is respected as Union intervention is necessary to remove specified internal market barriers.

Union action proposed by this Regulation is limited to what is necessary to achieve the objectives identified. Self-regulation by parcel service delivery operators has not led to changes in regulatory oversight, transparency of tariffs and tangible improvements in the affordability of cross-border parcel delivery services for small senders.

The measures to improve transparency of tariffs are proportionate as they are limited and primarily target the segments of the market where there is evidence of limited choice, which, together with structural characteristics of the cross-border parcel delivery markets e.

The individual commercially negotiated prices mainly used by larger e-retailers and also offered by operators other than universal service providers are outside the scope of the price transparency measure, although ex-post competition controls will continue to cover all operators and all market segments.

Small and micro enterprises delivery operators with fewer than 50 employees which are only established in one Member State will be exempt from this in order to minimise administrative burdens on the smallest companies who do not operate cross-border.

For those who are within the scope of the measure, this Regulation will bring improved certainty about legal obligations and avoid fragmentation across the Union. Choice of the instrument. The Commission proposes a Regulation as this ensures the removal of single market barriers by complementing the existing regulatory framework for postal services.

This notably includes specific, directly-applicable obligations for national regulatory authorities and for parcel delivery service providers; it also includes a mechanism at the European level to establish transparency and assess the affordability of cross-border parcel delivery tariffs.

Furthermore, a Regulation allows swift action and minimises the transposition-related administrative burden for Member States, while preventing any further regulatory fragmentation that could result from other legal instruments such as a Directive. Structure of the proposal and main rights and obligations. Subject matter and scope, definitions Article 1 and 2. Articles 1 and 2 contain the general provisions on the subject matter and scope including relevant definitions.

As laid down in the relevant provisions adopted by the UPU the term terminal rates is used so to encompass both terminal dues that are applicable for letter mail items 40 and inward land rates that apply to parcels In line with relevant practice of parcel service providers and Member States parcels considered for the scope of this Regulation are those with a maximum weight of Therefore, this Regulation will not apply to logistics; it will also not apply to transport alone, that is when it is not undertaken in conjunction with clearance, sorting or distribution This provision clarifies that the provision of information to national regulatory authorities, applies to all parcel delivery service providers beyond the threshold of 50 employees, and those who are established in more than one Member State.

It obliges national regulatory authorities to monitor the market and gather a limited set of statistical data. Only larger operators in addition to those established in more than one Member State and thus providing cross-border services would be included so to ensure that national regulatory authorities have the core data on the range of parcels that are used for e-commerce.

The provision obliges all parcel delivery providers with over 50 employees to annually submit a limited set of information. The aim is to unify and clarify the currently fragmented regulatory competences and build on existing best practice. Furthermore, these more consistent obligations are also in the interest of pan-European parcel delivery service providers, who are currently subject to differing information requests from different Member States.

Although the basic information requirements are defined in Article 3, the form as such would be adopted by implementing act. In this regard, technical advice should be provided by the ERGP, while it would be for the Commission to establish the form. Transparency of tariffs and terminal rates Article 4 and Annex. Article 4 1 contains a targeted obligation only for universal service providers to annually submit on 31 January at the latest to the national regulatory authority the public list of tariffs applicable on 1 January of each calendar year for a specific set of services contained in the Annex.

The 15 postal items provided by universal service providers contained in the Annex are the most relevant and used ones for individual customers and small businesses. Other parcel delivery services providers are not in the scope of this targeted provision, given also that they in principle focus on different market segments namely business-to-business services and larger e-retailers. While not all of the items contained in points a to o of the Annex might be provided by all universal service providers, the list contains the most relevant non-express items that are used in national and cross-border e-commerce and that are in principle available for all Union citizens, independent from their location.

This provision of regular tariff information to national regulatory authorities provides an indisputable data set for a the publication on a dedicated website hosted by the Commission and b their assessment of affordability under Article 5. This obligation is limited to public list of tariffs and does therefore not include any discounted tariffs or individually negotiated tariffs that are subject to commercial considerations. This website is not commercial in character and is not primarily intended to contain data from other providers, including express delivery service providers.

However, delivery service providers other than universal service providers may also voluntarily have tariffs of their delivery services included on the website, as long as that the delivery services in question are comparable and subject to delivery at the home or the premises of the addressee, and as long as other applicable criteria are met see also Recital Furthermore, under Article 4 3 and 4 the universal service providers should submit to the national regulatory authorities — and in turn to the Commission - annually their terminal rates i.

Since these data is of a commercially sensitive character it will not be published and will constitute an input for the overall tariffs only. However, it is essential that national regulatory authorities and the Commission have access to and knowledge about the terminal rates as they provide necessary information for the assessment of affordability under Article 5. Both the provision of tariffs and terminal rates constitute a very limited administrative burden for universal service providers.

Article 5 1 is to oblige national regulatory authorities to assess the affordability of the tariffs of universal service providers obtained under Article 4 1 on the basis of objective elements. The most common and important input elements for this assessment are subject of a non-exhaustive list in points a to c.

These include common criteria such as the domestic tariffs of the universal service providers or origin and destination or the level of terminal rates. They may be complemented by other criteria of particular relevance for explaining the tariffs in question, such as specific transportation or handling costs or bilateral volumes between delivery service providers. The deadlines set are operational and are intended to avoid delaying providing information or justification paragraph 1, 3 and 4.

In accordance with Article 5 4 the assessment together with the justification, if applicable, are to be communicated not only to the Commission but also to the other national regulatory authorities.

Furthermore, the assessment should also be communicated to the relevant authorities entrusted with the implementation of competition law, who are equally bound by confidentiality obligations. This enhanced transparency should create significant pressure to modify those tariffs that are substantially higher and that might be considered non-affordable or even prohibitive.

The Union wide transparency should be ensured through Article 5 4 that foresees the publication by the Commission on the same dedicated website of a non-confidential version of the assessments and the justifications, which should be provided to it by the relevant national regulatory authorities.

This publication would allow all interested parties, including the authorities entrusted with the implementation of consumer law, to be regularly informed about this issue. National regulatory authorities should ensure that tariffs for universal services are in line with these principles. National regulatory authorities however focus more on domestic markets than they do on cross-border ones, including when ensuring the affordability of services within the universal service.

The present article will thus explicitly extend the regulatory oversight of the national regulators to a set of cross-border services provided by the universal services provider, that are largely similar but not equivalent to the universal service obligation in all Member States.

Transparency and non-discriminatory cross-border access Article 6. It should provide legal certainty for universal service providers — which are the addressees of this provision — and other parcel delivery services providers that might want to access cross-border services. It is necessary for reasons of legal security and to apply the non-discrimination and the transparency principles to grant competing alternative postal operators equal access to the terminal rates applicable to the parties i.

Subject to a case-by-case assessment it may be justified that terminal rates payable by third-party postal operators, in some cases, exceed those payable by universal service providers. This may the case where the parties are able to demonstrate that the cost of setting up, operating and administering the agreement, the extra cost incurred by accepting and handling items from non-designated postal operators and other such costs are not covered by the terminal rates paid by the originating operator.

The point at which access is provided is in principle the inward office of exchange determined by the universal service provider. It is also important that the cross-border access should include all related associated network elements, notwithstanding the difference to downstream access at large, including notably software and information elements paragraph 2 and 3 — as they constitute an integral part of the agreements currently under way such as Interconnect and any similar potential future agreements.

This is a standard provision aiming at providing the national regulatory authorities with effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for breaches of EU law.

Article 8 contains a regular review obligation for the Commission. This review notably contains not only the issues related directly to the Regulation lit.

The proposed Regulation has no implications for the budget of the Union. Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article thereof,. Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,. After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,.

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 46 ,. Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,. This has a direct negative impact on users seeking cross-border parcel delivery services, especially in the context of e-commerce. This has been confirmed by a joint report 48 prepared by the European Regulators Group for Postal Services and the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, who concluded that national regulatory authorities need the appropriate regulatory powers to intervene and that such powers do not seem to be present in all Member States.

While an accurate estimate has not been made, the total mass of the colony may be as much as tons. If this colony is considered a single organism, it is the largest known organism in the world by area, and rivals the aspen grove " Pando " as the known organism with the highest living biomass. In , a relative of the Strawberry Mountains clone was discovered in southwest Washington state. It covers about 2. Another "humongous fungus" is a specimen of Armillaria gallica found at a site near Crystal Falls, Michigan , which covered 37 acres 0.

A tree is diagnosed with this parasitic fungus once the following characteristics are identified:. It has similar mushrooms, but only if mycelial fans are not present. Dead and diseased trees usually occur in disease centers, which appear as openings in the canopy. GPS tracking can aid in the monitoring of these areas.

However, sometimes distinct centers will be absent and diseased trees are scattered throughout the stand. Armillaria can remain viable in stumps for 50 years. Chemical treatments do not eradicate the fungus entirely, and they are not cost-effective.

The most frequent and effective approach to managing root disease problems is to attempt to control them at final harvest by replanting site-suited tree species that are disease tolerant.

In eastern Washington that typically means replacing Douglas-fir or true fir stands with ponderosa pine , western larch , western white pine , lodgepole pine , western red cedar , alder , or spruce. Species susceptibility varies somewhat from location to location. All trees in the disease center as well as uninfected trees within 50 feet should be cut. No tree from a highly susceptible species should be planted within feet of a disease center.

The use of another fungus, Hypholoma fasciculare has been shown in early experiments to competitively exclude Armillaria ostoyae in both field and laboratory conditions, but further experimentation is required to establish the efficacy of this treatment. Another more expensive alternative to changing species is to remove diseased stumps and trees from the site by pushing them out with a bulldozer. The air will dry and kill the fungus. Any small roots left underground will decay before they can reinfect the new seedlings, so it is not necessary to burn the stumps.

After stump removal, any species may be planted. The removal of stumps stumping has been used to prevent contact between infected stumps and newer growth resulting in lower infection rates. It is unknown if the lower infection rates will persist as roots of young trees extend closer to the original inoculate from the preceding stand.

The most important control measure after planting is to manage for reduced tree stress. This includes regulating species composition, maintaining biological diversity, and reducing the chances for insect pest buildup. Mixed-species forests are more resistant to insect defoliation, and also slow the spread of species-specific pests such as dwarf mistletoe, which are both predisposing agents for Armillaria.

Edit Read in another language Armillaria ostoyae. Armillaria ostoyae Scientific classification Kingdom: In , banknotes were introduced in denominations of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 and 50 leva. The 1 lev note has been nearly completely replaced in everyday use by the 1 lev coin.

The 2 leva note was replaced in everyday use by a coin on December 7, The fourth lev was pegged to the German mark at par from the start. With the replacement of the Deutsche Mark by the euro , the lev's peg effectively switched to the euro at the rate of 1. This rate is unlikely to change before the lev's eventual retirement.

Bulgaria committed to adopting the euro as part of its joining the EU. On 25 April , when the country's EU accession treaty was signed, the BNB issued a commemorative coin with the face value of 1.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For the Slovakian town, see Levice. Bulgaria and the euro. Commemorative coins of Bulgaria. Bulgaria needs a managed floating exchange rate". Archived from the original on Retrieved 5 January Press release 19 November Standard Catalog of World Coins: Standard Catalog of World Paper Money: Bruce II and Neil Shafer editors 7th ed.

Proposed eurobonds Reserve currency Petroeuro World currency. Andorra Monaco San Marino Vatican. British pound sterling incl. Euro portal European Union portal Numismatics portal. Armenian dram Azerbaijani manat Belarusian ruble Georgian lari Moldovan leu Kazakhstani tenge Russian ruble Transnistrian ruble unrecognised Ukrainian hryvnia. Albanian lek Bosnian convertible mark Macedonian denar Maltese scudo unrecognised Serbian dinar Turkish lira.

Retrieved from " https: Articles containing Bulgarian-language text Commons category link is locally defined. Views Read Edit View history. In other projects Wikimedia Commons. This page was last edited on 24 December , at By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Value, year, twelve stars as symbol of Europe. Country name, saint Ivan Rilski.