2 49 - Europa
Table of contentsChapter 1ForewordChapter 2Executive SummaryChapter 3OverviewChapter 4Identifying the challenges now facing and likely to face theEASA SystemChapter 5Issues with the current System (including governance issues)Chapter 6Issues Concerning the AgencyChapter 7Longer-term FutureAnnex 1Panel membersAnnex 2Organisations consulted and QuestionnaireAnnex 3IntervieweesAnnex 4Overview of the EASA systemAcronymsPage 2 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
CHAPTER 1Foreword1.1Background1.1.1 Regulation (EC) No. 216 of 2008 of the European Parliament and of theCouncil (which repealed Regulation (EC) No. 1592 of 2002) sets downcommon rules in the field of safety for civil aviation in Europe. It alsoestablishes the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) which is at thecentre of the safety regulatory system in Europe. The Agency works incooperation with a number of partners (see 3.1) in what is known as theEASA system. The principal objective of Regulation 216/2008 (henceforth“the Basic Regulation”) is to establish and maintain a high uniform level ofcivil aviation safety in Europe.1.1.2 Article 62 of the Basic Regulation requires the Management Board(established in Article 33) of the Agency to commission periodically anindependent external evaluation on the implementation of the Regulation.A Panel of experts (the composition of which can be found in Annex 1) wascommissioned by the Management Board at the end of 2012 to undertakethe external evaluation. The Panel was charged with giving an interimreport by mid-September 2013 with its final report and recommendationsto be presented to the Management Board meeting in December 2013.1.2Terms of Reference1.2.1 The terms of reference given to the Panel by the Management Board were:“The evaluation will consider the EASA System as a whole, and report andmake recommendations on the following three questions:a) What are the main challenges the EASA System will face in the periodup to 2020?b) Does the present performance of the System indicate that it is fit toface these challenges?c) What steps should be taken, including possible amendments to theEASA Basic Regulation, to adapt or develop the System to meet thechallenges?Page 3 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
1.2.2 The Management Board also set down the context which the evaluationshould take into account. Two contextual elements were highlighted.These were: The budgetary and resource constraints likely to affect all actors overthe period in question; and The increasing divergence of National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) interms of aspiration and capability in the field of aviation safetyregulation.1.2.3 The Panel was also asked to consider the following: The current level of aviation safety in Europe, having regard to thetarget set out in the Commission’s 2011 White Paper to become thesafest region in the world; The capacity of the current System to move towards greateremphasis on risk-based, evidence-driven regulation; The appropriateness of the current scope of EU safety rules, takinginto account technological, regulatory and business modeldevelopments as well as results of safety analysis; The scope for efficiency gains in the System; The importance of effective partnership between different actors inthe EASA System; The interfaces between the EASA System and the Single SkyInitiative, and relations between EASA, EUROCONTROL and theSESAR Joint Undertaking; The way the EASA System addresses the external dimension, takinginto account safety requirements, competitiveness issues and PanEuropean interests; and The functioning of current governance structures as laid down in theRegulation.1.3 Methodology1.3.1 As regards work methods, it was left to the Panel to determine these. ThePanel designed a wide ranging questionnaire to elicit responses from abroad range of stakeholders. (The questionnaire and the list of thoseconsulted are in Annex 2: 65% of EASA MS replied and 70% ofOrganisations consulted replied). It also decided to interview in person aPage 4 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
representative number of figures with wide experience at seniormanagement level in civil aviation in the public and private sectors bothfrom Europe and outside Europe. The lengthy interviews were carried outon the explicit understanding that views or opinions would not beindividually attributed without the express consent of the interviewee. (Thelist of those interviewed is in Annex 3). The responses to the questionnaireand, in particular, the views expressed in the interviews were enlighteningand of great value. In addition, the Panel had regard to the previous Article62 external evaluation, examined EU Regulations and other documents,analysed EASA reports and other information and looked closely at thecurrent and future state of EU and global aviation based on a range ofreports and studies. But the Panel also relied to a significant extent on theexpertise and decades-long experience of its members in the field of civilaviation. The conclusions and recommendations that follow in thisevaluation are those of the Panel, reached after prolonged deliberation.The Panel takes full responsibility for them. The Panel took note of currentproposals to amend Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2042/2003 in relationto safety rules concerning General Aviation aircraft. In the circumstances,the Panel decided not to focus its attention on this subject in its evaluation.1.3.2 Finally, the Panel decided to apply a broad interpretation to its terms ofreference and so informed the Management Board at an early stage. Itbelieved, in particular, that given the pace of development and enactmentof EU legislation, some of its recommendations would make little sense ifconfined to the 2020 timeframe envisaged in the terms of reference. It alsobelieved strongly that it was its duty to look at the longer term institutionalaviation safety framework in Europe and indicate in broad terms how it sawthe EU’s institutional architecture potentially developing.Page 5 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
CHAPTER 2Executive Summary2.1 The members of the Panel commissioned at the end of 2012 by the EASAManagement Board under Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council are happy to present theirindependent, external evaluation in accordance with the requirements ofthat Regulation.2.2 The terms of reference for the evaluation are contained in Chapter 1 as is adescription of the Panel’s methodology.2.3 Chapter 3 contains a short overview of the EASA System itself together witha look at market developments in Europe and beyond having directimplications for the System and the EASA Agency. Chapter 3 also looksbriefly at recent developments in European air safety, providing a context forthe Panel’s evaluation.2.4 In Chapter 4, the main challenges facing the System now and likely to face itin the future are identified. This non-exhaustive list emerged from aconsultation exercise undertaken by the Panel, which included a detailedquestionnaire sent to Member States, NAAs, international organisations,trade associations, other representative bodies and the manufacturingindustry in both the public and private sectors. Representatives at seniormanagement level of a wide swathe of expert opinion in the air transportindustry both in and outside Europe, were interviewed. Finally, this list isalso a product of intense discussion amongst Panel members.2.5 Chapter 5 discusses the three major issues identified as such by the Paneland recommends to the Management Board action that the Panel considersnecessary. The emphasis is on adopting a risk-based approach in the EASASystem, a proposal for the sharing of expertise across the System insituations where Member States experience difficulty in fulfilling theiroversight responsibilities and the clarifying of institutional roles andresponsibilities.2.6 Chapter 6 focuses on the Agency itself and looks at management issues,financing and budgetary matters, the question of recruitment and relatedissues and the role of the Agency in the international arena.Page 6 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
2.7 Chapter 7 deals with the vision of the Panel for a single, integrated bodyresponsible for all aspects of aviation safety in the EU. The Panel stronglyfelt that it had a duty to look at and make recommendations on the longerterm future, given the Panel’s view, shared by many who contributed to itswork, that the present System would not be sustainable in the medium tolong term.2.8 The Panel’s advice in this report is addressed to the Management Board onthe understanding that it is for the Board to decide on the follow-up andimplementation of the recommendations, guidance, suggestions andproposals put forward by the Panel.THE PANEL’S MAIN RECOMMENDATIONSWhile the Panel has for the Management Board’s convenience listed belowits main recommendations, the Panel cannot emphasize too strongly theneed for the Board to consider the totality of this report as the source of itsadvice to the Management Board. To concentrate only on these mainrecommendations would, in the Panel’s view, not do justice to its work,nor would it enable the Management Board to derive full value from theArticle 62 evaluation exercise.1. The work of establishing a risk-based EU Safety Management System shouldbe prioritised and completed urgently. It should extend to all areas in theAgency’s remit and be mandatory involving changes to the Basic Regulation.Data collection and exchange should be accorded priority and action toimplement a just culture regime across the EU System should be stepped up.Tools for the analysis of data and shared information should be enhanced as amatter of urgency (see 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 6.2.1).2. The Agency should be mandated for the safety aspects of EU securitymeasures as well as the safety aspects of ground handling, commercial spacetransport and remotely piloted aircraft (see 5.1.2 and 5.1.3).3. Should Member States have insufficient resources to perform their oversightactivities the Panel recommends a System-wide solution, which may bevoluntary in nature but may in some cases need to be mandatory (see 5.3.2).For the voluntary solution the Agency should, by amending the BasicRegulation, be authorised to execute the national oversight duties for thoseMember States that wish to transfer their duties to the Agency. Where thePage 7 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
voluntary solution is not appropriate or practical for whatever reason but theoversight responsibilities are not being or cannot be performed, a mandatorysolution, requiring amendment of the Basic Regulation is recommended. TheAgency should be mandated to identify and report to the Commission thoseStates/NAAs failing in their oversight obligations and if a method to resolvethe problem (whether voluntary or mandatory) is not availed of by thoseStates, consideration should be given to employing whatever measures areavailable to the Commission/Agency to resolve the issue (see 5.3.3).4. The Management Board should initiate a study designed to clarify institutionalroles and responsibilities of the actors involved in the EASA System. Theoutcome of the study should lead to a common understanding – pending anyregulatory changes that may be required – amongst the EASA System actorson their institutional boundaries, responsibilities and roles. Thisunderstanding would be expressed in an agreed document (see 5.4.1).5. A method should be found of tapping into and using the pool of expertiseavailable in the European manufacturing industry. In addition, considerationshould be given to delegating self-oversight arrangements to the industry onthe basis of clear legal conditions (see 5.4.2).6. A small Executive Board should be created and responsibility delegated to itby the Management Board, empowered to enable it to do this. Amendment ofthe Basic Regulation would be required (see 6.1.3).7. The European Aviation Safety Plan should be embedded in the BasicRegulation (legally binding the Agency and Member States) and, as a rule,Agency proposals should emanate from this Plan (see 6.2.2).8. To assist in securing stable and predictable funding of the Agency, newsources of funding should be explored with a stronger emphasis on theapplication of the user pays approach. One source that should be explored isthe possibility of drawing on air navigation en route charges (see 6.3.2).9. The Management Board should recognise and accept that the current EASASystem is not sustainable in the medium to long term (see 7.1.6).10.The Management Board should acknowledge the need for early planning todevelop the present System into a genuine European Aviation Safety Systemthrough the convergence of the various existing system actors towards asingle entity, one integrated Agency, within the EU institutional architecture(see 7.1.6).Page 8 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
CHAPTER 3Overview3.1The EASA System3.1.1 The EASA System is a work in progress, with, at its heart, the EuropeanAviation Safety Agency and its relationship to the European Institutions (inparticular, the European Commission), Member States and NationalAviation Authorities (NAAs). Other important actors in the System includeEUROCONTROL and to some extent ICAO. On the regulated side, the mainactors are the aviation manufacturing and air transport industries andthese are important stakeholders in the System. The EASA Agency wasestablished in 2003 (by Regulation 1592/2002) as the successor to theJoint Aviation Authorities (JAA) which had developed the first commonstandards for aviation safety in Europe. The JAA was the first institutionalattempt at developing harmonised aviation safety rules for Europe but ithad not got the power and authority of a statutory body. Since beingestablished in Cologne in 2003, the Agency has through successive EURegulation seen its responsibilities and the scope of its work increase (arecent history of the development of the Agency and how it operates iscontained in Annex 4). The institutional architecture and the relationshipsbetween actors have also changed and these relationships, while theymay be set down in regulation, can generate confusion as to howEuropean civil aviation safety is managed in practice and as to what thedifferent roles of the various actors are. At this stage of its development itcould be argued that the regulation of civil aviation safety in Europerequires a management structure commensurate with its fundamentalimportance to European citizens and to the European air transportindustry.3.1.2 The backbone of the present System -and this will remain the caseirrespective of what future system emerges - is a set of common safetyrules designed for uniform application across the EU. Those rules applyboth to the air transport industry, persons, organizations and productsand to the civil aviation authorities of EU Member States. EASA has acrucial role in ensuring the standardised implementation of thesecommon safety rules, hence the importance of the EASA/NAAsPage 9 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
relationship. It would appear that the piecemeal, incremental approachto the development of the present System and in particular to theAgency’s functions since 2003, has led inevitably to the less than idealmodel we now have. That model needs to be improved and it is for thisreason that the Panel’s evaluation puts great emphasis on the longer termfuture of Europe’s aviation safety regime. In doing so, the Panelacknowledges that in the current economic climate, there is a huge strainon the resources of Member States, National Aviation Authorities and, ofcourse, the EASA Agency. It is incumbent on all partners in the EASASystem to strive for greater efficiency in the use of these more limitedresources and this goal underpinned the Panel’s evaluation.3.2The Air Transport Market Context3.2.1 International civil aviation is characteristically labelled a dynamic industry.Major aircraft manufacturers estimate that the total number ofcommercial aircraft will double by the year 2031. This expecteddevelopment in the world’s fleet of aircraft implies a fast growing demandfor highly qualified and trained personnel both to fly and maintain theaircraft. According to the latest estimate prepared by one majormanufacturer, the required number of such new staff at a global level willbe approximately one million over the next 20 years (Europe will requireapproximately 25% of these staff). This of course will have an impact onthe Agency which is referred to elsewhere in this report.3.2.2 The recent and current air transport market in Europe might moreaccurately be described as one which is facing challenges and changes sosignificant that the manner in which it responds to these twinthreats/opportunities could determine its longer term future. Two of thebiggest challenges facing Europe’s air transport industry are a weakeconomy which is undermining demand and the constant risk of rising fuelcosts (which typically account for between 30% and 40% of airline costs).These are also problems that are beyond the ability of the industry tocontrol or influence. Europe’s industry is also dealing with internalrestructuring of the EU market with network carriers in recent years losingabout one third of their market share to low cost carriers. In addition thePage 10 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
Gulf airlines present real competitive challenges to Europe’s networkcarriers and they appear to be less affected by pressures on the industry.3.2.3 On the basis of capacity offered, Europe is the second most importantaviation region in the world after Asia. But air transport growth in Asia isset to continue to outstrip Europe’s, and North America, with recent signsof a real economic upturn coupled with greater market consolidation thanexists in Europe, looks to have a better base for growth. In addition,Airbus and Boeing are likely in the relatively near future to face directcompetition from China in aircraft manufacturing, presumably at lowercost. The emergence of China and Japan in the manufacture of aircraftwill also have significance for the work of EASA. The importance of thisdevelopment for Airbus should not be underestimated. At present, threeAsian low cost carriers (Air Asia, Lion Air and Indigo) have orders for over1,000 Airbus and Boeing aircraft between them, with about half of theseorders due for delivery in the next two years. All European carrierscombined have fewer aircraft on order. Any tendency by Asian airlines tofavour an emerging lower cost Asian manufacturer could have significanteffects on Airbus. In Boeing’s 20 years forecast up to 2031, it is predictedthat in that period 65% of wide body long haul aircraft will be sold in theMiddle East and Asia.3.2.4 In brief, European air transport faces big market challenges. Faced withslow domestic (EU) growth, the challenges beyond Europe will include avery competitive Asian market, a protected US domestic market and thepossible emergence of large scale, lower cost aircraft manufacturing inChina. Within the European market, there will presumably continue to bechanges in market share between legacy and low-cost carriers. Inresponse to all these challenges new technological solutions and newbusiness schemes are going to impact heavily on the work content of theEASA system.3.3Safety Issues3.3.1 Over the past decade (latest figures being for 2012), the number of fatalaccidents involving EASA Member State operated aircraft (above 2,250kgsMTOW) has decreased. Since 2007 there has not been a year with morethan 1 fatal accident involving an EASA Member State operated aircraft.Page 11 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
The worldwide rate of fatal incidents for scheduled passenger and cargoflights has continued to decrease in the period 2003-2012, providing asteady improvement in aviation safety. In that period, the rate of fatalaccidents in EASA Member States is slightly lower than that in NorthAmerica (source EASA Annual Safety Review 2012). This impressive recordshould be set in context. In 2012 the number of flights in EASA MemberStates was 10.5 million, 67% of which were traditional scheduled flights,27% low cost scheduled flights and 6% charter flights. The number ofpassengers carried was 925 million and there was only 1 fatal accident.3.3.2 Accidents and serious incidents at aerodromes in EASA Member States arealso decreasing. In the period 2008-2012, there were 15 accidents andserious incidents to which the aerodrome contributed in some way.3.3.3 The rate of reported (by EUROCONTROL) ATM-related incidents between2003-2012 increased but the number of serious/ major incidentsremained stable indicating that the overall increase related to reporting.3.3.4 This largely positive picture of air safety in Europe cannot be taken forgranted and both regulators and regulated must continue to maintain andeven improve Europe’s record on air safety. In the medium to long termfuture described in earlier paragraphs as being at the very leastchallenging, any deviation from the highest standards of air safety couldhave a significant negative impact on Europe’s air transport industry.Page 12 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
CHAPTER 4Identifying the challenges now facing and likely to face the EASA System4.1Compiling the listBased on the responses to the Panel’s questionnaire, the views of thosesenior air transport figures interviewed and discussion amongst Panelmembers, the following list of challenges now facing or likely to face theEASA System was identified. While this list cannot claim to be exhaustive,it is representative of the views of a wide range of air transport expertswithin the public and private sectors in and beyond Europe. In addition,the Panel has identified what are, in its judgement, the three mostimportant challenges to the System.4.2 The challengesThe list, with in the first three places, the most important challenges in thejudgement of the Panel, is as follows: Implementing a risk- based policy across the System but in particular forAgency rule making activities and EASA/NAA oversight activities. Identifying urgently any gaps or weaknesses affecting Member States’abilities to perform their legally required oversight duties and proposinga methodology to deal with this. Enabling better cooperation throughout the System in order toeliminate waste of resources and increase overall efficiency. Need for the System to adapt to new tasks and responsibilities includingaerodromes and ATM. Need to evaluate the question of requiring the European AviationSafety Plan to be made legally binding on the Agency and MemberStates. Need to strike an effective balance between the centralising role of theAgency and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Need to achieve a balance between developing new regulations (whichshould be exclusively based in safety requirements) and fullimplementation of existing regulations.Page 13 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
Need to address the Agency’s revised procedures for consultationwith users on rule making to reassure them that theircomments/proposals will be dealt with and responded to. How to ensure a reliable, predictable and stable method of fundingthe Agency, combined with control mechanisms to protect users’interests. How to represent the overall interests of the European air transportsafety System globally, including in ICAO and with Europe’s majorinternational partners and other regional organizations. How to ensure that the management structure of the Agency,including the roles of the Executive Director and Management Boardand the relationship of the Agency with EU institutions areresponsive to changing circumstances in the regulation of Europeanair transport. Need to develop a more collaborative approach with the Commissionand NAAs based on trust, competence and respect within definedroles.Page 14 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
CHAPTER 55.1Issues with the current System (including governance issues)5.1.1 The current regulatory architecture of safety in civil aviation in Europe isunwieldy, to some extent at least because of the number of institutionswhich have a role to play. The EASA System includes the EU Institutions,notably the Commission, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),Member States and National Aviation Authorities (NAAs).Otherimportant actors include EUROCONTROL and to some extent theInternational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). In addition the EuropeanCivil Aviation Conference (ECAC) has an important but non-regulatory roleto play. The essence of the System is that the Agency prepares draft rulesfor consideration and adoption by the European Union processes,National Aviation Authorities are charged with implementing the adoptedrules and the Agency monitors their implementation. The Agency also hasa number of executive tasks, for example airworthiness certification andthird country organisation certification. All European air safety mattersmust in future be dealt with under the aegis of the EASA System. All EASAMember States are Contracting States of ICAO and have legal obligationsunder the Chicago Convention. At the core of the EASA System is therelationship between the European Commission, the Agency and NAAs.This is likely to remain the case for the period covered by this Article 62review. The Panel believes, however, that a problem does exist when itcomes to the way in which tasks in relation to oversight workload are splitbetween the Agency and NAAs. This may be primarily a question ofresources but the implications for safety oversight could be serious if notaddressed.5.1.2 The current System, whatever its imperfections, is characterised byconsistently high safety levels in European air transport and the EuropeanSystem had the lowest accident rate in the world in 2012. The Panel doesnot believe that a fundamental restructuring of the institutionalarchitecture would be possible in the period under review by the Panel.There is a considerable degree of flux in the regulatory scene in Europe atthe moment and the System (and in particular the Agency) needs time toadjust to and bed in responsibilities for safety of ATM and aerodromes,Page 15 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
provision for which is included in Regulation 216/2008 (the BasicRegulation). ATM regulation should be approached on a gradual,progressive basis and a clear sharing of responsibilities between EASA andEUROCONTROL agreed under the formal working arrangement betweenthe Agency and EUROCONTROL. In addition, the Panel is of the view thatthe security of communications between the ground and aircraft(protection from cyber-attacks for example) should be a matter for EASAsince it has clear implications for safety. The Panel believes that it makessense to add responsibility for the safety aspects of EU security measuresand EU ground handling measures to EASA’s remit. This would requireamendment of the Basic Regulation.5.1.3 With advances in technology, some issues have become increasinglyurgent to deal with. The tasks of regulating the safety aspects ofcommercial space transport and remotely piloted aircraft fall into thiscategory and they accrue to EASA and should be accorded the prioritythey deserve. The Panel notes that, in accordance with the BasicRegulation, EASA may engage in research activities in its fields ofcompetence. The Agency has funded a number of research studies andreports but the Panel would like to see increased research activity andencourages the Management Board/Agency to place more emphasis onthis area.5.1.4 At this juncture, and having pointed to the high levels of safety deliveredby the current System, the Panel wishes to add a note of caution. Theview has been expressed to the Panel on a number of occasions that thecurrent system is unsustainable in the medium to long term. The Panelshares this view. Faced with the safety demands of an increasinglycomplicated air transport industry, driven by major new players on theglobal scene and the requirements of incrementally more and integratedtechnologies, the System will sooner rather than later require a majoroverhaul very likely in the direction in the long term of a single integratedentity responsible at European institutional level for all safety matters.The Panel deals with this issue in Chapter 7.5.1.5 On balance, considering the current range of safety rules andspecifications, the Panel believes that the emphasis for now and thePage 16 of 49EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report
period covered by its mandate, should be on completion of therulemaking tasks assigned to the Agency under the Basic Regulation andon avoiding extra regulations that are not based on confirmed safety risks.Rather the approach should be to consolidate and improve the functioningof the present Regulatory System. In that regard, the Panel considers thatthe three major challenges facing the present System are:- To implement a risk based policy across the board but in particular forAgency rulemaking activities and Agency/NAA oversight activities.- To identify urgently any gaps or weaknesses affecting Member States’abilities to perform their legally required oversight duties and topropose a methodology to deal with this; and- To enable better cooperation in order to eliminate waste of resourcesand increase overall efficiency. New tools to develop such cooperationmay be proposed (see 5.4).5.2Risk-based approach5.2.1 A risk-based approach is an inherent part of a Safety Management System(SMS). SMS has been adopted by ICAO as standard international practice.The European Union is in the process of mov
Page 6 of 49 EASA Article 62 Panel Evaluation Final Report CHAPTER 2 Executive Summary 2.1 The members of the Panel commissioned at the end of 2012 by the EASA Management Board under Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council are happy to present their
002 europa league fc rostov maccabi haifa 1 - 2 v 2-3 - - - si 003 europa league djurgarden cfr 1907 cluj 0 - 1 v 0-1 - - - no 004 europa league ns mura psv 1 - 5 v 4 o - - - si 005 europa league rosenborg alanyaspor 1 - 0 l 0-1 - - - no 006 europa league willem ii rangers 0 - 4 v 4 o - - - no 010 europa league besiktas rio ave 1 - 1 e 2-3 .
UEFA Europa League –21:00– CFR 1907 Cluj v Roma (Live on ) UEFA Europa League –18:55– Maccabi Tel-Aviv v Villarreal (Live on ) UEFA Europa League –21:00– AZ Alkmaar v Real Sociedad (Live on ) UEFA Europa League –18:55– Slovan liberec v Hoffenheim (Live on )
Historia de España Tema 04: Los Borbones y la crisis del Antiguo Régimen Curso 2020/21 1 de 29 Europa en el siglo XVIII ESPAÑA EUROPA GRAN BRETAÑA población abundante en interior que en periferia (s.e. en el s. XVIII crece más en la periferia, dinámica que llega hasta hoy en día) 01
Tasmania. La cepa G3 se ha informado desde Asia y Europa, y se sabe que la cepa G4 (E. equines) se produce en Europa, el Medio Oriente y África. La cepa G5 (E. ortleppi) se ha documentado en Europa, África, partes de Asia y América del Sur. La cepa camello G6 se produce en el Medio Oriente, África, Asia y América del Sur. La
This is Dynamo's seventh UEFA Europa League round of 32 tie, four of their previous six having ended in victory, including all of the last three – against Guingamp in 2014/15 (1-2 a, 3-1 h), AEK Athens in 2017/18 (1-1 a, 0-0 h) and Olympiacos in 2018/19 (2-2 a, 1-0 h). Dynamo's home record in the UEFA Europa League round of 32 is W3 D2 L1.
ISDN 92-826-1223·6 ISDN 92-826-1224-4 La declaraci6n Schuman 1950·1990: Una idea nueva para Europa Schuman-erklrcringen: Nye planer for Europa-1950/1990 Eine neue Ordnung fur Europa-40 Jahre Schuman· Plan (1950·1990) 1950-1990: 40 XP6Vla a1t6 trt taKTjpU Tt Schuman-Mta vf.a tlif.a
But in Greco-Roman mythology, there is a striking parallel in the Europa myth. According to Apollodorus and Ovid: – Zeus sees Europa, daughter of a Phoenician king, playing with her friends at the seashore. – He disguises himself as a bull & gets Europa to climb on his b
Europa se enfrenta a grandes retos. Estos incluyen relanzar nuestra economía, adaptarnos al auge de las economías emergentes de fuera de Europa y mantener nuestra influencia en el mundo. La ATCI podría ayudarnos. En Europa, podría generar crecimiento y empleo, reducir los precios de los productos y ofrecernos mayores posibilidades de elección
