Introduction Clausole campione

Introduction. This document constitutes a base prospectus pursuant to Article 5, paragraph (4) of Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 as amended from time to time (the "Prospectus Directive") and as implemented into German law by § 6 of the German Securities Prospectus Act (tÉêíé~éáÉêéêçëéÉâíÖÉëÉíò Ó "WpPG") in connection with Regulation (EC) No. 809/2004 of 29 April 2004 as amended from time to time (the "Base Prospectus" or the "Prospectus"). The subject matter of the Base Prospectus is the issuance of or the increase of issued Constant Leverage Certificates (the "Securities") which either will be publicly offered or will be placed in application of an exceptional case pursuant to § 3 paragraph 2 WpPG and at the same time admitted to trading on a regulated market. The Issuer has made an application for approval of the Base Prospectus to the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (_ìåÇÉë~åëí~äí ÑΩê cáå~åòÇáÉåëíäÉáëíìåÖë~ìÑëáÅÜí – "BaFin") as competent authority. The BaFin approved the Base Prospectus after completing a review of this document for completeness, including a review of the coherence and comprehensibility of the information provided pursuant to § 13 paragraph 1 sentence 2 WpPG. Following the date of approval of the Base Prospectus, events and changes may occur, which render the information contained in the Base Prospectus incorrect and/or incomplete. The Issuer will publish a supplement to the Base Prospectus in accordance with § 16 WpPG in case of a significant new factor or a material mistake or inaccuracy with respect to the information contained in the Base Prospectus. In order to be able to conduct a public offer and/or a listing of the Securities on a regulated market (within the meaning of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004) in Italy, the Issuer has applied for the notification of the Base Prospectus into Italy pursuant to §§ 17, 18 WpPG. The Issuer reserves the right to apply for the notification of the Base Prospectus into further member states of the European Economic Area. The Base Prospectus must be read in connection with the information contained in (i) the registration document of the Issuer and the registration document of the Guarantor which are incorporated by reference into the Base Prospectus (see chapter XIII. on page 187 of the Base Prospectus), (ii) the respective final terms of the offer as drawn up in connection with the Securities (t...

Introduction. No-one should purchase the Securities without having detailed knowledge of their method of operation, the total costs involved and the related risk factors. Only those who are in no doubt about the risks and are financially able to bear the losses that may be associated with them should purchase these types of Securities. Potential investors should therefore carefully read the whole Base Prospectus, in particular the risk factors including any supplements thereto as well as the respective Final Terms, understand the terms and conditions of the issue in detail and assess the suitability of the relevant investment, in each case taking into account their own financial, tax and other circumstances. In cases of doubt potential investors should seek advice by a competent investment, legal or tax advisor.

Introduction. The company Air Liquide Sanità Service S.p.A. with registered office in Milan, Via Calabria, no. 31, Tax Code 01738810975 and VAT Code 12906300152 and headquarters in Xxxxxx (XX), Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxxx X0, Xxx xxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, 0 (hereinafter, the "Company"), in its capacity of data controller, informs you that the personal data of the data subject (in the case of a natural person or a sole proprietorship), of your employees or persons in charge, provided for the development of the negotiations relating to the agreement to which this notice is annexed (hereinafter the "Agreement") between the Company and the counterparty of the Agreement (hereinafter, the "Supplier") and in the course of the execution of the same and of the activities related to the same (hereinafter the "Personal Data", while the individuals to whom the personal data refer are defined below the "Data Subjects"), will be processed in accordance with this notice on the processing of Personal Data and within the meaning of the Legislative Decree No. 196/2003 (the "Privacy Code") and of the European Regulation No. 679/2016 concerning the protection of the personal data (the "European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)").

Introduction. These General Conditions (unless otherwise established pursuant to express written agreement signed between the parties) shall govern the parties’ obligations pursuant to any contractual agreements stipulated between the Customer (Principal of the Shipment) and the Freight Forwarder BOLLORE’ Logistics Italy Spa. The parties therefore acknowledge and accept that any single "Shipping Order" by the Principal, as well as any "Quotation" by Freight Forwarder are strictly subject to the application of these General Terms and Conditions. The Principal therefore expressly accepts that the present General Conditions find full and immediate application to all contractual relationships arising with the Freight Forwarder Bolloré Logistics Italy, as well as all actions and / or claims that could be exercised against this latter.

Introduction. This manual has been prepared with the scope of supplying all the instructions required for the correct use of the appliance and to maintain it in optimal condition. It also contains important user safety information. The following professional roles are explained in order to define the responsibilities of each:

Introduction. A contract is a binding agreement stipulated between two or more parties, which dictates their rights and their duties, and the penalties each party has to pay in case the contract is not honoured. In the current practice of information technology, contracts are not that different from those legal agreements traditionally enforced in courts of law. Both software and services commit themselves to re- spect some (typically weak, if not “without any expressed or implied warranty”) service level agreement. In the case this is not honoured, the only thing the user can do is to take legal steps against the software vendor or service provider. Since legal disputes may require a lot of time, as well as relevant expenses, such kinds of contracts serve more as an instrument to discourage users, rather than making easier for users to demand their rights. Recent research has then addressed the problem of devising new kinds of contracts, to be exploited for specifying and automatically regulating the interaction among users and service providers. See e.g. [6, 8, 11, 13, 20], to cite a few. A contract subordinates the behaviour promised by a client (e.g. “I will pay for a service X”) to the behaviour promised by a service (e.g. “I will provide you with a service Y”), and vice versa. The crucial problems are then how to formalise the concept of contract, how to understand when a set of contracts gives rise to an agreement among the stipulating parties, and how to actually enforce this agreement in an open, and possibly unreliable, environment. In the Concurrent Constraint Programming (CCP) paradigm [23, 24], concurrent processes commu- nicate through a global constraint store. A process can add a constraint c to the store through the tell c primitive. Dually, the primitive ask c makes a process block until the constraint c is entailed by the store. Very roughly, such primitives may be used to model two basic operations on contracts: a tell c is for publishing the contract c, and an ask c′ is for waiting until one has to fulfill some duty c′. While this may suggest CCP as a good candidate for modelling contract-based interactions, some important features seem to be missing. Consider e.g. a set of parties, each offering her own contract. When some of the contracts at hand give rise to an agreement, all the involved parties accept the contract, and start interacting to accomplish it. A third party (possibly, an “electronic” court of law) may later on join these parties, so ...

Introduction. The deterioration of public finance and the increase in global competition have forced governments and public institutions to obtain “the best value for money” through the purchase of goods, works and services in the form of procurement contracts. Efficient public procurement contracts (henceforth PPCs) are thus emerging as a “core necessity for ... the public’s sector effectiveness in obtain- ing resources for social spending and/or lower taxes” (Xxxxxxx et al., 2006). These contracts have recently recorded a rapid increase both in number and in value, reaching 16% of GDP in the EU, and around 20% in the United States.1 However, PPCs have both costs and benefits: their benefits (i.e. allocative and productive efficiency) can be quickly erased by the costs (i.e. inefficiency) which often arise from contractual incompleteness and all the issues that ensue therefrom.2 In this paper we specifically address the source of inefficiency which pertains to delays in PPC execution times3 by investigating the optimal penalty design which should provide the right incentive to prevent delays. Indeed, delays in de- livery dates in PPCs may negatively affect all the actors involved, i.e. they may determine direct costs for the procurer, lower firms’ profits (i.e. firms other than the contractor) and reduce consumers’ utility. The typical illustrative example in this regard is provided by a PPC for roadway resurfacing, rehabilitation and restoration: if these activities are undertaken in heavily urbanized areas, they may cause extreme traffic congestion and severe inconvenience to the travelling public and the business community. Thus, delays in the completion of these works prolong the negative impact on users (i.e. a social cost), and also cause overruns in the planned execution costs.4 There is evidence that delays in delivery dates have been particularly large and harmful in the recent Italian experience of PPCs. The data-base compiled by the Italian Authority in charge of controlling PPCs (Autorità per la Vigi- xxxxx xxx Contratti Pubblici di Lavori, Servizi e Forniture - AVLP ) records all contracts of a value between 150,000 and 15,000,000 euros awarded by munic- 1 Note that between 1995 and 2002 PPCs in the EU underwent a 31% increase in value (Xxxxxxx, et al., 2006: Ch. 1). See also: xxxx://xxxxxx.xx.xxx/xxxx/xxxxxxxx_xxxxxx/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/xxxxx_xx.xxx 2 The economic and engineering literatures give different explanations for the main issues arising in PPCs. M...

Introduction. Supplies comprehend only what specified in the order confirm acceptation by the Supplier and are ruled by the present conditions, exceptions coming from an explicit written agreement. Eventual changes or new communication during the period of supply do not constitute novation of the contract. The agreed supply conditions have an indicative and not mandatory value. The supply could be suspended at any time in case of changes in the Ordering party patrimonial standing as stated in art. 1461 of the Italian Civil code.

Introduction. 1. The purpose of the present note is to seek endorsement of the final compromise text on the proposal for a Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online (TCO). The text is the outcome of the sixth political trilogue with the European Parliament (EP) which took place on 10 December 2020. 2. What is illegal offline should also be illegal online. The objective of the Regulation is to have terrorist content removed within a maximum of one hour, and online platforms should play a more active role in ensuring the removal of such content. The current text provides a clear legal framework that sets out the responsibilities for Member States and service providers. Recent years' terrorist attacks, including those committed during the past months, show how important it is to combat terrorism via the Internet and radicalisation through terrorist content online. 3. It is high time to adopt the draft Regulation more than two years after the proposal1 was submitted, following the call from the European Council of June 2018 for legislation to improve the detection and removal of content inciting hatred and to commit terrorist acts. The European Council Conclusions of 11 December 20202 in point 25 calls for "swiftly adopting the proposal on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online", and the "Joint Statement by the EU Home Affairs Ministers on the recent terrorist attacks in Europe", adopted on 13 November 20203, did the same.

Introduction. 1. The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Luxembourg in the pro- ceedings Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx v Etat du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg has given the Court of Justice of the European Union the opportunity to express itself for the second time, in its decision of 15 March 20111, on the interpretation of the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations of 19 June 1980 (the Rome Convention), and for the first time on its Article 6 which determines the law governing employment contracts. As already in the first proceedings2, this time again the Court was asked to clarify the provi- sions indicating the applicable law in the absence of a choice by the parties. The question is of particular importance for the relationship between employees and employers; although Article 6 of the Rome Convention —like the corresponding Article 8 of the Rome I Regulation into which, as is well known, the Convention has recently been transformed3— maintains in respect to that category of relationships, as in respect to all contracts, the possibility to choose the applicable law4, it guarantees that this choice does not deprive the employee of the protection provided by the mandatory rules of the law which would be applicable in the absence of a choice5. Thus it is always necessary to identify which law would govern the contract according to the «objective» connecting factors in order to compare its substantive content to that of the law selected by the parties6. 1 Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 15 March 2011, c. X-00/00, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx v État du Grand-Duché de Lux- embourg. 2 Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 6 October 2009, c. X-000/00, Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx XX (XXX) v. Balkenen- de Oosthuizen BV and MIC Operations BV; see X. XxxxxxxxX xxxxxxxxX, «El derecho aplicable al contrato en ausencia de elección por las partes: el asunto Intercontainer Interfrigo y su repercusión en el reglamento Roma I», Cuadernos de derecho transnacional, 2011, p. 302; J. re, «La Corte di giustizia e l’art. 4 della Convenzione di Roma: il caso ICF», Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale, 2010, p. 407. 3 Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), which has replaced the Rome Convention. This Regulation applies to contracts concluded after 17 December 2009. It does not apply to Denmark which continues therefore to apply the Rome Convention...