Similar Stories Tweet Long-term Voluntary Projects in Poland UNESCO/Emir Jaber Al Ahmad Al Jaber Al Sabah Prize Pocket Google Europe Scholarship for Students with Disabilities Reddit Deadline: 25 February 2014Open to: young motivated person 18-30 years old from program and partner countriesBenefits: accommodation, food and pocket money, 90% of the travel costs, health insurance, visa, language course DescriptionPolska Fundacja im Roberta Schumana from Warsaw, Poland is looking for volunteers for 2 Erasmus+EVS projects, one connected with disability and the other with European education and inter-cultural communication.Vacancies for Project no 1:1. Special Kindergarten No 245 for Visually Impaired Children in Warsaw (EI Reference Number: 2012-PL-51)1 volunteer / 10 months (starting date: September 2014)1 volunteer / 7 months (starting date : December 2014)2. The Society for Care over the Blind in Laski – near Warsaw (EI Reference Number: 2013-PL-196)1 volunteer / 10 months (starting date: September 2014)1 volunteer / 7 months (starting date : December 2014)3. Special Kindergarten No 213 in Warsaw (EI Reference Number: 2011-PL-112)2 volunteers / 10 months (starting date: September)4. Special Kindergarten No 393 in Warsaw (EI Reference Number: 2011-PL-118)2 volunteers/ 10 months (starting date: September)Vacancies for Project no 2:1. Polish Robert Schuman Foundation in Warsaw (EI Reference Number: 2013-PL-191)2 volunteers / 12 months (starting date: September 2014)2. European Integration Club at the School Complex in Wojkowice (near Katowice) (EI Reference Number: 2011-PL-260)2 volunteers / 9 months (starting date: October 2014)Read description of the vacancies HERE.EligibilityThey are looking for volunteers aged between 18 and 30 years, legally residing in one of the Program or Partner Countries. They seek a balance of varied ages, genders and nationalities. They are not looking for experienced volunteers but those that would learn a lot during the service. Apart from personal motivation of volunteers the requirement is volunteers’ strong will of learning Polish language after selection procedure successfully ends.For the vacancies within Project 1, they need volunteers to know a few crucial phrases and already have substantial vocabulary of Polish at the moment they start their EVS.For vacancies within Project 2, Communicative English will be a strong advantage, because of the character of many volunteers’ tasks and international activities of the Schuman Foundation.BenefitsThe EVS project will cover the following costs:AccommodationFood and pocket money90% of the travel costsHealth insuranceVisa costsLanguage courseApplicationFill out the application form and send it to: [email protected] Candidates can add more documents/personal presentations/motivation letters to the application form, if they want but any documents without the form will not be taken into consideration. Application DEADLINE for all candidates is 25 February 2014. They will contact only candidates they find suitable, asking for further skype or telephone interview and contact sending organizations by 5 March 2014.More details on host organizations themselves can be found HERE (use EI Reference Number to find each hosting organization). Leave a Reply Cancel ReplyYou must be logged in to post a comment. February 21, 2014 Published by tatjana +1 It’s About Art and Dance Share 0 ← Laureate Global Fellowships for Social Entrepreneurs LinkedIn 0 Participate at the UN Summer School in Tarrytown, New York! →
Please refer to the installation-specific chapters of this guide for more information and services. Or, visit The Hawaii Department of Education online at www.hawaiipublicschools.org.School Liaison Contact NumbersAir Force 808-422-3770/3771Army 808-655-8326Coast Guard 808-842-2089Marine Corps 808-257-2019Navy 808-471-3662National Guard 808-844-6462Army Reserves 808-438-1600, ext. 3549
[mappress]SBT Staff, November 26, 2013 Precious Shipping, in accordance with the company’s strategy to rejuvenate its fleet, has entered into newbuilding contracts for the construction of four bulk carriers.The company ordered two 38,500 DWT bulk carriers to be built at China Shipbuilding & Offshore International Co., Ltd. (CSOC) and Shanhaiguan Shipbuilding Industry Co., Ltd.The bulkers, estimated at $22.3 million each, are scheduled for delivery in 2015.Precious also signed the order for two 64,000 DWT bulk carriers with Sainty Marine Corporation Ltd. The estimated contract price for the two panamax vessels is $54.8 million.Delivery date for 64,000 DWT bulkers is set for June 2014.After the acquisition and delivery of these vessels and the delivery of six more vessels (ordered earlier but not yet delivered) the company’s fleet will consist of 48 vessels with an aggregate capacity of about 1,636,583 DWT.
Planning – Authorisations – Inspectors – Waste disposal The claimant quarry owner (B) applied for judicial review of a decision of an inspector appointed by the defendant secretary of state upholding the refusal of the Environment Agency to grant it a permit to dispose of inert waste at the quarry. Under regulation 10(4)(b) of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, the Environment Agency was bound to refuse a permit unless planning permission was in force in relation to the use of the site. It was common ground that there was no express conventional grant of planning permission covering the relevant use at the site. However, B’s case was that planning permission existed by virtue of general development orders. B argued that the inspector had failed to deal adequately or at all with its submission that it had the necessary planning permission for the deposit of waste by virtue of historic general development orders. Held: The reasons given by the inspector were inadequate. The issue of the historic general development orders had been fairly before her. Detailed submissions had been made by all parties, but the inspector had not dealt adequately with those submissions. It was not possible for B to know why it lost. However, as this was a reasons challenge, B would succeed only if it could show that it had genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide adequate reasons. B was applying for a permit for the whole of the area contained in a waste disposal licence granted in 1983. As there was no express grant of planning permission, it had to show under regulation 10(4)(b) that there was a deemed planning permission for the deposit of waste on the whole of the site. Before 1988, each individual deposit of waste on a site was granted planning permission by the historic general development orders where the superficial area of the deposit was extended so long as the height was not extended above the height of the surrounding land. However, the position changed as a result of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988: the general grant of planning permission enjoyed previously was revoked without any saving provision. Thereafter, any fresh deposit of waste which extended either the superficial area of the deposit or the height of the deposit above that of the adjoining land required an express grant of permission. B therefore had to show that, before 5 December 1988, it had deposited waste on the whole of the site; otherwise there would be no extant permission for those areas which extended the tipping areas beyond the areas that had been tipped on 5 December 1988. The inevitable conclusion from the inspector’s findings, which included a finding that there had been limited tipping after 1983, was that B had not established on the balance of probabilities that it had deposited waste on the whole of the site as at 5 December 1988. Indeed, it was not part of B’s case that it had. In those circumstances, there was no extant permission for the whole of the site. It followed that B could not establish the necessary prejudice for the reasons challenge to succeed. Application refused. John Barrett (instructed by Walker Morris (Leeds)) for the claimant; James Maurici (instructed by in-house solicitor) for the defendant; no appearance or representation for the interested parties. Berry & Marshall (Bolton Wood) Ltd (claimant) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (defendant) and (1) Environment Agency (2) Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council (interested parties): QBD (Admin) (Judge Behrens): 24 September 2010