type: legislation

text:
 |
 52013PC0578
 Proposta għal REGOLAMENT TAL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U TAL-KUNSILL li jemenda r-Regolament (KE) Nru 638/2004 fuq l-istatistiċi Komunitarji rigward il-kummerċ ta' merkanzija bejn Stati Membri rigward l-għoti ta’ setgħat iddelegati u implimentattivi lill-Kummissjoni għall-adozzjoni ta’ ċerti miżuri, il-komunikazzjoni ta’ informazzjoni mill-amministrazzjoni tad-dwana, l-iskambju ta’ dejta kunfidenzjali bejn l-Istati Membri, kif ukoll id-definizzjoni tal-valur statistiku. /* COM/2013/0578 final - 2013/0278 (COD) */
 MEMORANDUM TA’ SPJEGAZZJONI
 1. IL-KUNTEST
 TAL-PROPOSTA
 It-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni
 Ewropea (TFUE) jiddistingwi bejn is-setgħat li jistgħu jingħataw
 lill-Kummissjoni biex tadotta atti mhux leġiżlattivi ta'
 applikazzjoni ġenerali biex tissupplimenta jew temenda ċerti elementi
 mhux essenzjali ta' att leġiżlattiv partikolari, kif stabbilit
 fl-Artikolu 290(1) tat-TFUE (atti delegati), u s-setgħat ta'
 implimentazzjoni li għandhom jingħataw lill-Kummissjoni meta jkun
 hemm bżonn kundizzjonijiet uniformi għall-atti ta' implimentazzjoni
 tal-Unjoni legalment vinkolanti, kif stabbilit fl-Artikolu 291(2) tat-TFUE
 (atti ta' implimentazzjoni).
 Fid-dawl tal-adozzjoni tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 182/2011 tal-Parlament
 Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tas-16 ta' Frar 2011 li jistabbilixxi
 r-regoli u l-prinċipji ġenerali dwar il-modalitajiet ta' kontroll
 mill-Istati Membri tal-eżerċizzju mill-Kummissjoni tas-setgħat
 ta' implimentazzjoni,[1],
 il-Kummissjoni ntrabtet li fid-dawl tal-kriterji stabbiliti fit-Trattat, [2] teżamina atti
 leġiżlattivi li bħalissa fihom referenzi
 għall-proċedura regolatorja bi skrutinju.
 L-għan ġenerali huwa li sa tmiem
 is-seba' mandat tal-Parlament (Ġunju 2014), jitneħħew
 id-dispożizzjonijiet kollha li jirreferu għall-proċedura
 regolatorja bi skrutinju mill-istrumenti leġiżlattivi kollha.
 Fil-kuntest tal-allinjament tar-Regolament
 (KE) Nru 638/2004 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tal-31 ta' Marzu
 2004 fuq l-istatistiċi Komunitarji rigward il-kummerċ ta' merkanzija
 bejn Stati Membri u li jħassar ir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KEE) Nru 3330/91[3] mar-regoli l-ġodda
 tat-TFUE, is-setgħat ta' implimentazzjoni li bħalissa mogħtija
 lill-Kummissjoni b'dak ir-Regolament, għandhom jiġu previsti billi
 l-Kummissjoni tingħata s-setgħat biex tadotta atti delegati u/jew atti
 ta' implimentazzjoni.
 Barra minn hekk, xi bidliet oħra qed
 jiġu proposti sabiex tittejjeb il-produzzjoni tal-istatistika
 tal-kummerċ ġewwa l-UE.
 2. IR-RIŻULTATI
 TAL-KONSULTAZZJONIJIET MAL-PARTIJIET INTERESSATI U L-VALUTAZZJONIJIET
 TAL-IMPATT
 Il-Kumitat dwar l-istatistika dwar il-kummerċ tal-merkanzija bejn
 l-Istati Membri, u l-Kumitat Ewropew tas-Sistema tal-Istatistika ġew
 ikkonsultati.
 Ma kienx hemm bżonn valutazzjoni
 tal-impatt.
 3. L-ELEMENTI
 LEGALI TAL-PROPOSTA
 Sommarju tal-azzjoni proposta
 · (i) Allinjament
 Il-proposta għandha l-għan li
 temenda r-Regolament (KE) Nru 638/2004 sabiex tallinjah mal-kuntest
 istituzzjonali l-ġdid.
 B'mod partikolari, l-għan hu li jiġu
 identifikati s-setgħat mogħtija lill-Kummissjoni u li tidħol
 fis-seħħ il-proċedura xierqa biex jiġu adottati miżuri
 skont dawn is-setgħat.
 Fir-rigward tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 638/2004,
 huwa propost li l-Kummissjoni tingħata s-setgħa li tadotta atti
 ddelegati fir-rigward tal-adozzjoni ta’ regoli differenti jew
 speċifiċi li japplikaw għal merkanzija speċifika jew
 għal movimenti speċifiċi, l-adattament tal-perjodu ta’
 referenza, l-adattament tar-rati ta’ kopertura tal-Intrastat,
 l-ispeċifikazzjoni tal-kundizzjonijiet li jiddefinixxu l-livelli msemmijin
 fl-Artikolu 10(4), id-definizzjoni tal-kundizzjonijiet biex jissimplifikaw
 l-informazzjoni li għandha tingħata għal tranżazzjonijiet
 żgħar individwali, id-definizzjoni tad-dejta aggregata u
 d-definizzjoni tal-kriterji li magħhom għandhom ikunu konformi r-riżultati
 tal-estimi.
 Barra minn hekk, huwa propost li jiġu
 kkonferiti setgħat ta’ implimentazzjoni lill-Kummissjoni li jippermettulha
 tadotta, skont il-proċedura ta’ eżaminazzjoni stabbilita
 fl-Artikolu 5 tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 182/2011, l-arranġamenti
 għall-ġbir ta’ tagħrif tal-Intrastat, b’mod partikolari rigward
 il-kodiċijiet li għandhom jintużaw, id-dispożizzjonijiet
 tekniċi biex tinġabar l-istatistika annwali dwar il-kummerċ
 permezz tal-karatteristiċi tan-negozju u kwalunkwe miżura
 neċessarja biex tiżgura l-kwalità tal-istatistika trażmessa konformement
 mal-kriterji tal-kwalità.
 · (ii) Bidliet addizzjonali
 Simplifikazzjonijiet ta’ skemi ta’
 approvazzjoni doganali wasslu għal nuqqas ta’ disponibbiltà, fil-livell
 ta’ dwana, ta’ tagħrif statistiku dwar merkanzija li tgħaddi minn
 proċeduri doganali ta' proċessar. Sabiex tkun assigurata l-kwalità u
 l-kopertura tal-istatistika tal-kummerċ ġewwa l-UE, huwa propost li
 tinġabar informazzjoni dwar il-movimenti ta’ dawn il-prodotti permezz
 tas-sistema tal-Intrastat.
 Barra minn hekk, l-istatistika tal-kummerċ
 ġewwa l-UE tista', f’termini ta’ kwalità tal-istatistika u
 l-effiċjenza tas-sistema, tibbenefika wkoll minn żieda ta' skambju
 ta’ dejta kunfidenzjali bejn l-awtoritajiet nazzjonali rilevanti tal-Istati
 Membri. Dawn l-iskambji għal skopijiet ta’ statistika biss, għandhom
 għalhekk jiġu permess b’mod espliċitu.
 Definizzjoni uniformi tal-element tad-dejta
 “valur statistiku” huwa meħtieġ f’kull statistika tan-negozju
 f'merkanzija fil-livell tal-Unjoni. Għalhekk huwa propost li tiġi
 armonizzata d-definizzjoni attwali ta’ dan l-element tad-dejta fl-istatistika
 tal-kummerċ li jsir ġewwa l-UE ma’ dak tal-istatistika
 ta-kummerċ li jsir barra l-UE.
 · (iii) Razzjonalizzazzjoni tas-Sistema Ewropea tal-Istatistika
 Ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 223/2009 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill
 tal-11 ta' Marzu 2009 dwar l-Istatistika Ewropea[4] jiddefinixxi s-Sistema Ewropea
 tal-Istatistika (ESS) bħala s-sħubija bejn l-awtorità Ewropea
 tal-istatistika, li hija l-Kummissjoni (il-Eurostat), u l-istituti nazzjonali
 tal-istatistika (NSIs) u awtoritajiet nazzjonali oħra responsabbli f'kull
 Stat Membru mill-iżvilupp, il-produzzjoni u t-tixrid tal-istatistika
 Ewropea.
 Il-Kumitat tas-Sistema Ewropea tal-Istatistika (ESSC), stabbilit
 mill-Artikolu 7 tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 223/2009, jitqies bħala l-kumitat
 ġeneriku fi ħdan l-ESS. Dan jassisti lill-Kummissjoni biex
 teżerċita s-setgħat ta' implimentazzjoni tagħha
 f'ċerti oqsma tal-istatistika. Dawn jeskludu l-istatistika tan-negozju internazzjonali
 tal-merkanzija.
 F'dan il-qasam, il-Kumitat
 għall-istatistika dwar il-kummerċ tal-merkanzija bejn l-Istati Membri
 (il-Kumitat tal-Intrastat) jassisti lill-Kummissjoni, skont l-Artikolu 14
 tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 638/2004.
 Il-Kummissjoni qed tipproponi struttura ġdida tal-ESS biex
 ittejjeb il-koordinazzjoni u s-sħubija fi struttura piramida ċara fi
 ħdan l-ESS, u bl-ESSC bħala l-ogħla korp strateġiku. Aspett
 wieħed tar-razzjonalizzazzjoni huwa li jinġabru s-setgħat
 komitoloġiċi f'idejn l-ESSC. Fi Frar 2012,[5], il-KSSE appoġġja dan
 l-approċċ ġdid..
 Għalhekk hu propost ukoll li jiġi
 emendat ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 638/2004 billi jinbidlu r-referenzi
 għall-kumitat tal-BOP b'referenza għall-ESSC.
 · Bażi legali
 L-Artikolu 338(1) tat-Trattat dwar
 il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea.
 · L-għażla ta’ strument
 Regolament tal-Parlament Ewropew u
 tal-Kunsill.
 4. IMPLIKAZZJONI
 BAĠITARJA
 Il-proposta ma għandha l-ebda
 implikazzjoni fuq il-baġit tal-UE.
 5. ELEMENTI FAKULTATTIVI
 Xejn.
 · Żona Ekonomika Ewropea
 MA
 2013/0278 (COD)
 Proposta għal
 REGOLAMENT TAL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U TAL-KUNSILL
 li jemenda r-Regolament (KE) Nru 638/2004
 fuq l-istatistiċi Komunitarji rigward il-kummerċ ta' merkanzija bejn
 Stati Membri rigward l-għoti ta’ setgħat iddelegati u implimentattivi
 lill-Kummissjoni għall-adozzjoni ta’ ċerti miżuri,
 il-komunikazzjoni ta’ informazzjoni mill-amministrazzjoni tad-dwana, l-iskambju
 ta’ dejta kunfidenzjali bejn l-Istati Membri, kif ukoll id-definizzjoni
 tal-valur statistiku.
 IL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U L-KUNSILL
 TAL-UNJONI EWROPEA,
 Wara li kkunsidraw it-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament
 tal-Unjoni Ewropea, u b'mod partikolari l-Artikolu 338(1) tiegħu,
 Wara li kkunsidraw il-proposta
 mill-Kummissjoni Ewropea,
 Wara t-trażmissjoni tal-abbozz tal-att
 leġiżlattiv lill-Parlamenti nazzjonali,
 Filwaqt li jaġixxu skont
 il-proċedura leġiżlattiva ordinarja.
 Billi:
 (1) Minħabba d-dħul
 fis-seħħ tat-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 ("it-Trattat"), is-setgħat mogħtija lill-Kummissjoni
 għandhom jiġu allinjati mal-Artikoli 290 u 291 tat-Trattat.
 (2) Fid-dawl tal-adozzjoni tar-Regolament
 (UE) Nru 182/2011 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill
 tas-16 ta' Frar 2011 li jistabbilixxi r-regoli u
 l-prinċipji ġenerali dwar il-modalitajiet ta' kontroll mill-Istati
 Membri tal-eżerċizzju mill-Kummissjoni tas-setgħat ta'
 implimentazzjoni,[6] , il-Kummissjoni ntrabtet[7] li fid-dawl tal-kriterji
 stabbiliti fit-Trattat, tirrevedi atti leġiżlattivi li bħalissa
 fihom referenzi għall-proċedura regolatorja bi skrutinju.
 (3) Ir-Regolament (KE)
 Nru 638/2004 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tal-31 ta' Marzu 2004 fuq
 l-istatistiċi Komunitarji rigward il-kummerċ ta' merkanzija bejn
 Stati Membri u li jħassar ir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KEE) 3330/91[8] ,jagħti s-setgħat
 lill-Kummissjoni sabiex timplimenta xi wħud mid-dispożizzjonjiet ta'
 dan ir-Regolament.
 (4) Fil-kuntest li jiġi
 allinjat ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 638/2004 mar-regoli l-ġodda
 tat-Trattat, is-setgħat ta' implimentazzjoni li bħalissa
 mogħtija lill-Kummissjoni għandhom jiġu previsti billi
 l-Kummissjoni tingħata s-setgħat biex tadotta atti delegati u/jew ta'
 implimentazzjoni.
 (5) Sabiex tipprovdi rreazzjoni
 li tissodisfa l-bżonnijiet tal-utenti tal-informazzjoni statistika
 mingħajr ma’ jiġu imposti piżijiet żejda fuq l-operaturi
 ekonomiċi, biex jitqiesu t-tibdiliet meħtieġa għal raġunijiet
 metodoloġiċi u l-ħtieġa li tiġi stabbilita sistema
 effiċjenti għall-ġbir tad-dejta u l-kumpilazzjoni
 tal-istatistika, is-setgħa biex l-atti delegati jiġu adottati skont
 l-Artikolu 290 tat-Trattat għandha tiġi ddelegata lill-Kummissjoni
 fir-rigward tal-adozzjoni ta’ regoli differenti jew speċifiċi li
 japplikaw għal merkanzija speċifika jew għal movimenti
 speċifiċi, l-adattament tal-perjodu ta’ referenza, l-adattament
 tar-rati ta’ kopertura tal-Intrastat, l-ispeċifikazzjoni tal-kundizzjonijiet
 li jiddefinixxu l-livelli msemmijin fl-Artikolu 10(4), id-definizzjoni
 tal-kundizzjonijiet biex jissimplifikaw l-informazzjoni li għandha
 tingħata għal tranżazzjonijiet żgħar individwali,
 id-definizzjoni tad-dejta aggregata u d-definizzjoni tal-kriterji li
 magħhom għandhom ikunu konformi r-riżultati tal-estimi.
 (6) Huwa partikolarment
 importanti li l-Kummissjoni twettaq il-konsultazzjonijiet xierqa matul
 ix-xogħol ta’ tħejjija tagħha, inkluż fil-livell
 tal-għarfien espert. Meta tħejji u tfassal l-atti ddelegati,
 il-Kummissjoni għandha tiżgura t-trasmissjoni simultanja,
 fil-ħin u xierqa tad-dokumenti rilevanti lill-Parlament Ewropew u
 lill-Kunsill.
 (7) Il-Kummissjoni għandha
 tiżgura li dawn l-atti ddelegati ma jimponux piż amministrattiv
 addizzjonali sinifikanti fuq l-Istati Membri u fuq l-unitajiet li jwieġbu.
 (8) Sabiex jiġu żgurati
 kundizzjonijiet uniformi għall-implimentazzjoni tar-Regolament (KE)
 Nru 638/2004, għandhom jiġu kkonferiti setgħat
 implimentattivi lill-Kummissjoni li jippermettulha li tadotta
 l-arranġamenti għall-ġbir tal-informazzjoni, b’mod partikolari
 rigward il-kodiċijiet li għandhom jintużaw,
 id-dispożizzjonijiet tekniċi biex tinġabar l-istatistika annwali
 dwar il-kummerċ permezz tal-karatteristiċi tan-negozju u kwalunkwe
 miżura neċessarja biex tiżgura li l-kwalità tal-istatistika
 trażmessa hija konformi mal-kriterji tal-kwalità. Dawn is-setgħat
 għandhom jiġu eżerċitati skont ir-Regolament (UE)
 Nru 182/2011.
 (9) Il- Kumitat għall-istatistika dwar
 il-kummerċ tal-merkanzija bejn l-Istati Membri (Intrastat) msemmija
 fl-Artikolu 14 tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 638/2004 jipprovdi pariri
 lill-Kummissjoni u jassistiha fl-eżerċizzju tal-poteri ta’
 implimentazzjoni tagħha..
 (10) Bl-istrateġija għal
 struttura ġdida tas-Sistema Ewropea tal-Istatistika (minn hawn 'il quddiem
 imsejħa ESS) maħsuba biex ittejjeb il-koordinazzjoni u s-sħubija
 fi struttura piramida ċara fi ħdan l-ESS, il- Kumitat
 tas-Sistema Ewropea tal-Istatistika (ESSC), stabbilit bir-Regolament (KE)
 Nru 223/2009 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill
 tal-11 ta' Marzu 2009 dwar l-Istatistika Ewropea,[9], għandu jaqdi rwol
 konsultattiv u jassisti lill-Kummissjoni waqt li tkun qed teżerċita
 s-setgħat ta' implimentazzjoni tagħha.
 (11) Ir-Regolament (KE)
 Nru 638/2004 għandu jiġi emendat bis-sostituzzjoni tar-referenza
 lill-Kumitat tal-Intrastat b’referenza għall-ESSC.
 (12) Simplifikazzjonijiet ta’ skemi
 ta’ approvazzjoni doganali wasslu għal nuqqas ta’ disponibbiltà,
 fil-livell ta’ dwana, ta’ tagħrif statistiku dwar merkanzija li
 tgħaddi minn proċeduri doganali ta' proċessar. Biex tiġi
 żgurata l-kopertura tad-dejta, il-movimenti ta’ dik il-merkanzija
 għandhom jiġu inklużi fis-sistema tal-Intrastat.
 (13) L-iskambju ta’ dejta kunfidenzjali
 relatata mal-istatistika dwar il-kummerċ ġewwa l-UE għandu
 jitħalla jsir bejn l-Istati Membri bil-għan li jkun hemm iktar
 effiċjenza fl-iżvilupp, fil-produzzjoni u fit-tixrid ta’ din
 l-istatistika jew għat-titjib tal-kwalità tagħha.
 (14) Id-definizzjoni ta’ valur
 statistiku għandha tiġi ċċarata u allinjata
 mad-definizzjoni ta’ dan l-element tad-dejta skont l-istatistika dwar
 il-kummerċ barra l-UE.
 (15) Skont il-prinċipju ta’
 proporzjonalità, huwa neċessarju u xieraq li jiġu stabbiliti regoli
 dwar il-komunikazzjoni ta’ informazzjoni mill-amministrazzjoni tad-dwana,
 l-iskambju ta’ dejta kunfidenzjali bejn l-iSM u d-definizzjoni ta’ valur
 statistiku fil-qasam tal-istatistika tal-kummerċ ġewwa l-UE. Dan
 ir-Regolament ma jmurx lil hinn minn dak li hu meħtieġ biex jinkiseb
 dak l-għan, skont l-Artikolu 5(4) tat-Trattat dwar l-Unjoni Ewropea.
 (16) Sabiex tkun żgurata
 ċ-ċertezza legali, il-proċeduri għall-adozzjoni
 tal-miżuri li nbdew iżda ma tlestewx qabel id-dħul
 fis-seħħ ta' dan ir-Regolament, ma għandhomx jintlaqtu b'dan
 ir-Regolament.
 (17) Għaldaqstant
 ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 638/2004 għandu jiġi emendat skont dan.
 ADOTTAW DAN IR-REGOLAMENT:
 Artikolu 1
 Ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 638/2004 hu emendat kif ġej:
 (1) Fl-Artikolu 3, il-paragrafu 4 jinbidel b'dan li ġej:
 "4. Il-Kummissjoni għandha tingħata
 s-setgħa li tadotta, b’konformità mal-Artikolu 13a, atti ddelegati
 dwar regoli differenti jew speċifiċi li japplikaw għal
 merkanzija speċifika jew għal movimenti speċifiċi.”
 (2)
 L-Artikolu 5 huwa emendat kif ġej:
 (a) Fil-paragrafu 1,
 il-kelma 'Komunità' tħassret.
 (b) Il-paragrafu 2 huwa sostitwit
 b’dan li ġej:
 "2. L-informazzjoni statistika dwar
 id-dispaċċi u l-wasliet ta’ merkanzija li jkunu s-suġġett
 ta’ dokument amministrattiv wieħed għall-finijiet doganali jew fiskali
 għandha tkun ipprovduta direttament mid-dwana lill-awtoritajiet
 nazzjonali, ta’ lanqas darba fix-xahar.”
 (c) Għandu
 jiddaħħal il-paragrafu 2a li ġej:
 '2a. L-amministrazzjoni doganali responsabbli
 f’kull Stat Membru għandha, fuq inizjattiva tagħha jew fuq talba
 tal-awtorità nazzjonali, tagħti lill-awtorità nazzjonali kull tagħrif
 disponibbli li jista’ jtejjeb il-kwalità tal-istatistika.”
 (3) Fl-Artikolu 6, il-paragrafu 2 huwa sostitwit b’dan
 li ġej:
 "2. Il-Kummissjoni għandha tingħata s-setgħa li tadotta,
 b’konformità mal-Artikolu 13a, atti ddelegati biex tadatta l-perjodu ta’
 referenza sabiex titqies ir-rabta mat-taxxa tal-valur miżjud (VAT) u
 l-obbligazzjonijiet tad-dwana.”
 (4) Fl-Artikolu 9(1),
 it-tieni subparagrafu huwa ssostitwit b’dan li ġej:
 ‘Id-definizzjonijiet tad-dejta ta' statistika msemmija fil-punti minn
 (e) sa (h) qed jidhru fl-Anness. Il-Kummissjoni se tadotta, permezz ta' atti
 ta' implimentazzjoni, l-arranġamenti biex tinġabar din
 l-informazzjoni, partiklarment il-kodiċi li jridu jintużaw.
 Dawn l-atti ta’
 implimentazzjoni għandhom jiġu adottati skont il-proċedura ta’
 eżami msemmija fl-Artikolu 14(2)."
 (5) Għandu
 jiddaħħal l-Artikolu 9a li ġej:
 'Artikolu 9a
 Skambju
 ta' dejta kunfidenzjali
 L-iskambju ta’ dejta kunfidenzjali, kif iddefinit
 bl-Artikolu 3(7) tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 223/2009 tal-Parlament Ewropew u
 tal-Kunsill tal-11 ta’ Marzu 2009 dwar l-Istatistika Ewropea (*), għandu
 għal skopijiet ta’ statistika biss, jkun permess bejn l-awtoritajiet
 nazzjonali rispettivi ta’ kull Stat Membru, fejn l-iskambju jservi
 l-iżvilupp effiċjenti, il-produzzjoni u d-disseminazzjoni
 tal-istatistika Ewropea rigward il-kummerċ ta’ merkanzija bejn l-Istati
 Membri jew itejjeb il-kwalità tagħhom.
 L-awtoritajiet
 nazzjonali li jkunu kisbu d-dejta kunfidenzjali għandhom jittrattaw din
 l-informazzjoni bħala kunfidenzjali u għandhom jużawha
 esklussivament għal għanijiet ta' statistika.’
 (*) ĠU L 87, 31.3.2009, p. 164.'
 (6) L-Artikolu 10
 huwa emendat kif ġej:
 (a) Fil-paragrafu 3,
 it-tieni subparagrafu jinbidel b'dan li ġej:
 “Il-Kummissjoni għandha tingħata s-setgħa li tadotta,
 b’konformità mal-Artikolu 13a, atti ddelegati biex tadatta dawn ir-rati
 ta’ kopertura tal-Intrastat għall-iżviluppi tekniċi u
 ekonomiċi kull meta jkun possibbli tnaqqashom, filwaqt li żżomm
 statistika li tissodisfa l-indikaturi tal-kwalità u l-istandards
 fis-seħħ.”
 (b) Fil-paragrafu 4,
 it-tieni subparagrafu jinbidel b'dan li ġej:
 “Il-Kummissjoni għandha tingħata s-setgħa li tadotta,
 b’konformità mal-Artikolu 13a, atti ddelegati biex tispeċifika
 l-kundizzjonijiet li jiddefinixxu dawk il-limiti.”
 (c) Il-paragrafu 5
 huwa sostitwit b’dan li ġej:
 "5. L-Istati Membri jistgħu, taħt ċerti
 kundizzjonijiet li jilħqu r-rekwiżiti ta’ kwalità, jissimplifikaw
 it-tagħrif li għandu jingħata għal tranżazzjonijiet
 żgħar individwali. “Il-Kummissjoni għandha tingħata
 s-setgħa li tadotta, b’konformità mal-Artikolu 13a, atti ddelegati
 biex tiddefinixxi dawn il-kundizzjonijiet.”
 (7) L-Artikolu 12
 huwa emendat kif ġej:
 (a) Fil-paragrafu 1,
 il-punt (a) għandu jinbidel b'li ġej:
 '(a) 40 jum kalendarju wara t-tmiem tax-xahar ta’ referenza
 għad-dejta miġbura biex tiġi definita mill-Kummissjoni.
 “Il-Kummissjoni għandha tingħata s-setgħa li tadotta,
 b’konformità mal-Artikolu 13a, atti ddelegati biex tiddefinixxi din id-dejta
 miġbura.”
 (b) Il-paragrafu 2
 huwa sostitwit b’dan li ġej:
 "2. Fejn jeħtieġ, l-Istati Membri għandhom
 jagħtu lill-Kummissjoni (Ewrostat) ir-riżultati ta' kull xahar li
 jkopru l-kummerċ totali tagħhom tal-merkanzija billi jużaw
 estimi. Il-Kummissjoni għandha tingħata s-setgħa li tadotta,
 b’konformità mal-Artikolu 13a, atti ddelegati sabiex tiddefinixxi
 l-kriterji li magħhom għandhom jikkonformaw ir-riżultati
 tal-estimi.”
 (c) Fil-paragrafu 4,
 it-tielet subparagrafu għandu jinbidel b'dan li ġej:
 “Permezz ta’ atti ta’ implimentazzjoni, il-Kummissjoni għandha
 tadotta dispożizzjonijiet tekniċi għal kumpilazzjoni ta’ din
 l-istatistika.
 Dawn l-atti ta’ implimentazzjoni għandhom jiġu adottati skont
 il-proċedura ta’ eżami msemmija fl-Artikolu 14(2)."
 (8) Fl-Artikolu 13, il-paragrafu 4 huwa sostitwit
 b’dan li ġej:
 "4. Il-Kummissjoni għandha tadotta, permezz ta’ atti ta’
 implimentazzjoni, kwalunkwe miżura neċessarja biex tiżgura
 l-kwalità tal-istatistika trażmessa konformement mal-kriterji tal-kwalità.
 Dawn l-atti ta’
 implimentazzjoni għandhom jiġu adottati skont il-proċedura ta’
 eżami msemmija fl-Artikolu 14(2)."
 (9) Għandu jiddaħħal
 l-Artikolu 13 a li ġej:
 "Artikolu 13a
 Eżerċizzju tad-delega
 1. Is-setgħa ta’ adozzjoni ta’
 atti ddelegati hija mogħtija lill-Kummissjoni soġġetta
 għall-kundizzjonijiet stabbiliti f'dan l-Artikolu.
 2. Meta teżerċita
 s-setgħat delegati fl-Artikolu 3(4), 6(2), 10(3) (4) u (5), 12(1)(a)
 u (2), il-Kummissjoni għandha tiżgura li l-atti ddelegati ma jimponux
 piż amministrattiv addizzjonali sinifikanti fuq l-Istati Membri u fuq
 il-parteċipanti.
 3. Is-setgħa ta’ adozzjoni
 tal-atti ddelegati msemmija fl-Artikolu 3(4), 6(2), 10(3) (4) u (5),
 12(1)(a) u (2) għandha tiġi kkonferita lill-Kummissjoni għal
 perjodu ta’ żmien indeterminat minn [(Uffiċċju tal-pubblikazzjonijiet:
 jekk jogħġbok daħħal id-data preċiża
 tad-dħul fis-seħħ tar-Regolament ta' emenda)].
 4. Id-delega tas-setgħat
 imsemmija fl-Artikoli 3(4), 6(2), 10(3) (4) u (5), 12(1)(a) u (2) tista’
 tiġi rrevokata fi kwalunkwe waqt mill-Parlament Ewropew jew mill-Kunsill.
 Deċiżjoni ta' revoka għandha ttemm is-setgħa mogħtija
 speċifikata f'dik id-Deċiżjoni. Din għandha tidħol
 fis-seħħ l-għada tal-pubblikazzjoni tad-deċiżjoni f'Il-Ġurnal
 Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea jew f'data aktar tard speċifikata
 fiha. Din ma għandhiex taffettwa l-validità ta' xi atti ddelegati
 diġà fis-seħħ.
 5. Malli tadotta att delegat,
 il-Kummissjoni għandha tgħarraf simultanjament b'dan lill-Parlament
 Ewropew u lill-Kunsill.
 6. Att iddelegat adottat skont
 l-Artikoli 3(4), 6(2), 10(3) (4) u (5), 12(1)(a) u (2) għandu
 jidħol fis-seħħ biss jekk ma tiġi espressa l-ebda
 oġġezzjoni għalih mill-Parlament Ewropew jew mill-Kunsill fi
 żmien xahrejn minn meta dak l-att jiġi nnotifikat lill-Parlament
 Ewropew u lill-Kunsill jew jekk, qabel ma jiskadi dak il-perjodu, il-Parlament
 Ewropew u l-Kunsill it-tnejn ikunu informaw lill-Kummissjoni li mhumiex ser
 joġġezzjonaw. Dan il-perjodu għandu jiġi estiż
 b’xahrejn fuq l-inizjattiva tal-Parlament Ewropew jew tal-Kunsill."
 (10) L-Artikolu 14 jinbidel b'dan li
 ġej:
 “Artikolu 14
 Il-Kumitat
 1. Il-Kummissjoni għandha
 tiġi megħjuna mill-Kumitat tas-Sistema Statistika Ewropea stabbilit
 bir-Regolament (KE) Nru 223/2009. Dan il-kumitat għandu jkun kumitat
 fis-sens tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 182/2011 tal-Parlament Ewropew u
 tal-Kunsill tas-16 ta’ Frar 2011 li jistabbilixxi r-regoli u
 l-prinċipji ġenerali dwar il-modalitajiet ta’ kontroll mill-Istati
 Membri tal-eżerċizzju mill-Kummissjoni tas-setgħat ta’
 implimentazzjoni(*).
 2. Meta ssir referenza għal dan
 il-paragrafu, għandu japplika l-Artikolu 5 tar-Regolament (UE)
 Nru 182/2011.
 _________________________
 (*) ĠU L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.'
 (11) Fl-Anness, il-punt 3(b) huwa
 ssostitwit b’dan li ġej:
 '(b) il-valur statistiku, li huwa l-valur
 ikkalkulat fil-fruntieri nazzjonali tal-Istati Membri. Għandu jkun
 ibbażat fuq l-ammont taxxabbli jew, fejn japplika, il-valur li
 jissostitwih. Dan jinkludi biss infiq inċidentali (ħlasijiet
 tal-ġarr tal-merkanzija, l-assigurazzjoni), fil-każ tad-dispaċċi,
 fil-parti tal-vjaġġ li ssir fit-territorju tal-Istat Membru
 tad-dispaċċ u, fil-każ tal-wasliet, fil-parti
 tal-vjaġġ li ssir barra mit-territorju tal-Istat Membru tal-wasla.
 Jgħidulu l-valur fob (free on board) għad-dispaċċi, u
 l-valur CIF (kost, assigurazzjoni, ġarr) għall-wasliet.”
 Artikolu 2
 Dan ir-Regolament ma għandux jaffettwa
 l-proċeduri għall-adozzjoni tal-miżuri previsti fir-Regolament
 (KE) Nru 638/2004 li jkunu nbdew iżda ma tlestewx qabel id-dħul
 fis-seħħ ta' dan ir-Regolament.
 Artikolu 3
 Dan ir-Regolament għandu jidħol
 fis-seħħ fl-20 jum wara l-pubblikazzjoni tiegħu f'Il-Ġurnal
 Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea.
 Dan
 ir-Regolament għandu jorbot fl-intier tiegħu u japplika direttament
 fl-Istati Membri kollha.
 Magħmul fi Brussell,
 Għall-Parlament Ewropew Għall-Kunsill
 Il-President Il-President
 [1] ĠU
 L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.
 [2] ĠU L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 19.
 [3] ĠU L 102, 7.4.2004, p. 1.
 [4] ĠU L 87, 31.3.2009, p. 164.
 [5] It-12-il laqgħa tal-ESSC,
 it-12 ta' Frar 2012.
 [6] ĠU
 L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.
 [7] ĠU L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 19.
 [8] ĠU L 102,7.4.2004, p. 1.
 [9] ĠU L 87, 31.3.2009, p. 164.


type: other

text:
Biuletyn Informacji Publicznej - Urząd Gminy Tarnowo Podgórne | przebudowa drogi powiatowej 2417P Lusowo-Zakrzewo (od ul. Nowej do ul. Przylesie) w zakresie uzupełnienia chodnika
 przebudowa drogi powiatowej 2417P Lusowo-Zakrzewo (od ul. Nowej do ul. Przylesie) w zakresie uzupełnienia chodnika
 Ogłoszenie nr 351481 - 2016 z dnia 2016-11-25 r.
 Tarnowo Podgórne: przebudowa drogi powiatowej 2417P Lusowo-Zakrzewo (od ul. Nowej do ul. Przylesie) w zakresie uzupełnienia chodnika
 Adres profilu nabywcy: www.tarnowo-podgorne.pl
 II.1) Nazwa nadana zamówieniu przez zamawiającego: przebudowa drogi powiatowej 2417P Lusowo-Zakrzewo (od ul. Nowej do ul. Przylesie) w zakresie uzupełnienia chodnika
 Numer referencyjny: ZP.271.67.2016
 II.4) Krótki opis przedmiotu zamówienia (wielkość, zakres, rodzaj i ilość dostaw, usług lub robót budowlanych lub określenie zapotrzebowania i wymagań ) a w przypadku partnerstwa innowacyjnego - określenie zapotrzebowania na innowacyjny produkt, usługę lub roboty budowlane: 1. Przedmiotem zamówienia jest przebudowa drogi powiatowej 2417P Lusowo-Zakrzewo (od ul. Nowej do ul. Przylesie) w zakresie uzupełnienia chodnika. 2. Zakres rzeczowy zadania będącego przedmiotem przetargu opisany jest szczegółowo w dokumentacji projektowej, specyfikacji technicznej wykonania i odbioru robót, oraz przedmiarze robót. Ewentualne pozycje katalogowe podano wyłącznie dla ułatwienia sporządzenia kalkulacji - stosowanie ich do wyceny nie jest obligatoryjne. Specyfikacja techniczna, przedmiar robót i projekt stanowi załącznik do niniejszej specyfikacji. 3. Zamawiający wymaga by przedmiot zamówienia był objęty minimum 60 miesięcznym okresem gwarancji. Zamawiający wymaga by przedmiot zamówienia był objęty 60 miesięcznym okresem rękojmi. 4. Wykonawca sporządzi dokumentację powykonawczą. 5. Wykonawca musi wskazać w ofercie, które elementy zamówienia zamierza powierzyć do wykonania podwykonawcom. 6. Przedmiot zamówienia został określony we Wspólnym Słowniku Zamówień symbolem: 45000000-7, 45233123-7. 7. Do obowiązku i na koszt Wykonawcy należy także: a) Koszty badań laboratoryjnych, b) opłaty składowiskowe związane z odwozem gruntu i nadmiaru urobku, c) opłaty za czasowe składowiska urobku, d) naprawy dróg i ulic zniszczonych w czasie trwania robót przez środki transportu i maszyny budowlane, zatrudnione na budowie oraz pojazdy korzystające z objazdów, e) likwidacja skutków oddziaływania procesu budowlanego na otoczenie budowy, f) koszty zrzutu wody po próbach szczelności i oczyszczania namułu rowów ( kolektorów ) po płukaniu rurociągów i wpustów. g) koszty wycięcia drzew i krzewów h) odszkodowania za zniszczenie upraw i zieleni i) obsługa geodezyjna wraz z inwentaryzacją powykonawczą i ewentualną korektą rzędnych celem dostosowania do istniejących wjazdów, j) opracowanie i wdrożenie projektu ruchu drogowego na czas trwania robót k) nadzór archeologiczny, l) sporządzenie księgi obmiaru. 8. Wykonawca zastosuje materiały o parametrach technicznych, konstrukcyjnych i użytkowych nie gorszych od podanych w specyfikacji technicznej i projekcie. 9. Zamawiający stosownie do art. 29 ust. 3a ustawy Pzp, wymaga zatrudnienia przez wykonawcę lub podwykonawcę na podstawie umowy o pracę osób wykonujących następujące czynności w zakresie realizacji zamówienia, których wykonanie polega na wykonywaniu pracy w sposób określony w art. 22 § 1 ustawy z dnia 26 czerwca 1974r. - Kodeks pracy (Dz.U. z 2014r. poz. 1502, z późn. zm.). Art. 22 § 1 ustawy z dnia 26 czerwca 1974r. - Kodeks pracy : Przez nawiązanie stosunku pracy pracownik zobowiązuje się do wykonywania pracy określonego rodzaju na rzecz pracodawcy i pod jego kierownictwem oraz w miejscu i czasie wyznaczonym przez pracodawcę, a pracodawca - do zatrudnienia pracownika za wynagrodzeniem. 9.1. Sposób i okres wymaganego zatrudnienia osób realizujących czynności w zakresie realizacji zamówienia. Zamawiający wymaga, aby osoby realizujące przedmiot zamówienia, które wykonywać będą czynności faktycznie związane z przedmiotem zamówienia opisane w specyfikacji istotnych warunków zamówienia były zatrudnione na podstawie umowy o pracę, w wymiarze czasu pracy 1 etat. Wymagana liczba zatrudnionych osób - minimum 5 osób. Wykonawca lub podwykonawca zatrudni wyżej wymienione osoby na okres realizacji zamówienia. W przypadku rozwiązania stosunku pracy przed zakończeniem tego okresu, zobowiązuje się do niezwłocznego zatrudnienia na to miejsce innej osoby. 9.2. Rodzaj czynności niezbędnych do realizacji zamówienia, których dotyczą wymagania zatrudnienia na podstawie umowy o pracę przez wykonawcę lub podwykonawcę osób wykonujących czynności w trakcie realizacji zamówienia: Czynności robotnika opisane w przedmiarze robót. 9.3. Uprawnienia Zamawiającego w zakresie kontroli spełniania przez wykonawcę wymagań, o których mowa w art. 29 ust. 3a ustawy Pzp, oraz sankcji z tytułu niespełnienia tych wymagań: a) sposób udokumentowania zatrudnienia ww. osób: a1) roboty budowlane będą świadczone przez osoby wymienione w wykazie pracowników wykonujących czynności w trakcie realizacji zamówienia, a2) wykonawca w terminie do 5 dni roboczych licząc od dnia zawarcia umowy będzie zobowiązany do przedstawienia Zamawiającemu dokumentów potwierdzających sposób zatrudnienia ww. osób: oświadczenie wykonawcy zawierające: imię i nazwisko zatrudnionego, czas zatrudnienia, czas pracy, zakres obowiązków pod rygorem kar umownych za podanie nieprawdziwych danych lub braku aktualizacji listy pracowników w przypadku wystąpienia zmian osobowych. a3) wykonawca na każde pisemne żądanie Zamawiającego w terminie do 5 dni roboczych przedkładał będzie Zamawiającemu raport stanu i sposobu zatrudnienia ww. osób, przedkładał dowody odprowadzenia składek ZUS, przez cały okres realizacji zamówienia lub kopię dowodu potwierdzającego zgłoszenie pracownika przez pracodawcę do ubezpieczeń, zanonimizowaną w sposób zapewniający ochronę danych osobowych pracowników, zgodnie z przepisami ustawy z dnia 29 sierpnia 1997r. o ochronie danych osobowych. b) Sankcje z tytułu niespełnienia wymagań w zakresie zatrudnienia: b1) W przypadku nie przedstawienia w terminie informacji, o której mowa w pkt. 9.3. ppkt. a2) i a3) SIWZ lub podanie nieprawdziwych danych lub braku aktualizacji listy pracowników w przypadku wystąpienia zmian osobowych, wykonawca będzie każdorazowo płacił Zamawiającemu karę w wysokości 2 000zł. b2) W przypadku dwukrotnego nie wywiązania się z obowiązku wskazanego w pkt. 9.3. ppkt. a2) i a3) lub zmiany sposobu zatrudnienia wskazanych osób, Zamawiający ma prawo od umowy odstąpić i naliczy dodatkowo kary umowne wskazane we wzorze umowy jak za nienależyte wykonanie zamówienia. b3) W przypadku niezatrudnienia przy realizacji zamówienia liczby osób wymaganej przez Zamawiającego, wykonawca będzie zobowiązany do zapłacenia kary umownej Zamawiającemu, w wysokości 1% całkowitego wynagrodzenia, za każdą niezatrudnioną osobę poniżej liczby wymaganej przez Zamawiającego, b4) W uzasadnionych przypadkach, z przyczyn nieleżących po stronie wykonawcy, możliwe jest zastąpienie ww. osoby lub osób innymi osobami pod warunkiem, że spełnione zostaną wszystkie powyższe wymagania co do sposobu zatrudnienia na okres realizacji zamówienia określone przez wykonawcę w ofercie. b5) W przypadku uzasadnionych wątpliwości co do przestrzegania prawa pracy przez wykonawcę lub podwykonawcę, zamawiający może zwrócić się o przeprowadzenie kontroli przez Państwową Inspekcję Pracy.
 Określenie przedmiotu, wielkości lub zakresu oraz warunków na jakich zostaną udzielone zamówienia, o których mowa w art. 67 ust. 1 pkt 6 lub w art. 134 ust. 6 pkt 3 ustawy Pzp: Zamawiający przewiduje możliwość udzielenia zamówienia uzupełniającego na zasadach określonych w art. 67 ust 1 pkt 6 ustawy Prawo zamówień publicznych do 20% wartości zamówienia podstawowego, polegających na powtórzeniu podobnych robót budowlanych, w szczególności wykonanie zjazdów, nawierzchni wraz z konstrukcją, elementów kanalizacji deszczowej np. przykanaliki, wpusty, elementów dróg np. krawężniki, oporniki, przedłużenie chodników, zjazdów, muru oporowego.
 II.9) Informacje dodatkowe: 1. Zamówienie należy wykonać w terminie do 12 tygodni od przekazania placu budowy.
 Określenie warunków: 2a) Wykonawca spełni warunek jeżeli wykaże, że w okresie ostatnich 5 lat przed upływem terminu składania ofert, a jeżeli okres prowadzenia działalności jest krótszy - w tym okresie wykonał co najmniej 2 roboty polegające na budowie lub przebudowie dróg, parkingów, ścieżek lub chodników o wartości minimum 400 000,00 zł brutto każda, oraz potwierdzą, że roboty te zostały wykonane zgodnie z zasadami sztuki budowlanej i prawidłowo ukończone; 2b) Wykonawca spełni warunek jeżeli wykaże, że dysponuje kierownikiem (kierownikami) budowy posiadającym stosowne uprawnienia budowlane (wymagane są uprawnienia: drogowe). 2. W przypadku wykonawców wspólnie ubiegających się o udzielenie zamówienia warunek dotyczący zdolności technicznej lub zawodowej, o którym mowa powyżej w rozdziale VII pkt. 1 ppkt. 2a) SIWZ zostanie spełniony wyłącznie, jeżeli jeden z wykonawców spełni warunek samodzielnie.
 1. Oferta musi zawierać następujące oświadczenia i dokumenty: 1) wypełniony formularz ofertowy sporządzony z wykorzystaniem wzoru stanowiącego Załącznik nr 1 do SIWZ, zawierający w szczególności: łączną cenę ofertową brutto, zobowiązanie dotyczące terminu realizacji zamówienia, okresu gwarancji i warunków płatności, oświadczenie o okresie związania ofertą oraz o akceptacji wszystkich postanowień SIWZ i wzoru umowy bez zastrzeżeń, a także informację którą część zamówienia Wykonawca zamierza powierzyć podwykonawcy; 2) oświadczenia wymienione w rozdziale VIII pkt. 1-4 niniejszej SIWZ. 3) kosztorys ofertowy zawierający wszystkie pozycje przedmiarów robót. Zamawiający dopuszcza sporządzenie kosztorysu ofertowego metodą kalkulacji szczegółowej lub uproszczonej. 2. W przypadku podpisania oferty oraz poświadczenia za zgodność z oryginałem kopii dokumentów przez osobę niewymienioną w dokumencie rejestracyjnym (ewidencyjnym) Wykonawcy, należy do oferty dołączyć stosowne pełnomocnictwo w oryginale lub kopii poświadczonej notarialnie. 3. Wykonawcy wspólnie ubiegający się o zamówienie publiczne muszą ustanowić pełnomocnika do reprezentowania ich w występowaniu o udzielenie zamówienia albo reprezentowania w postępowaniu i zawarcia umowy w sprawie zamówienia publicznego. 4. Wykonawca w terminie 3 dni od dnia zamieszczenia na stronie internetowej informacji, o której mowa w art. 86 ust. 5 ustawy Pzp, przekaże Zamawiającemu oświadczenie o przynależności lub braku przynależności do tej samej grupy kapitałowej, o której mowa w art. 24 ust. 1 pkt. 23 ustawy Pzp. Wraz ze złożeniem oświadczenia, wykonawca może przedstawić dowody, że powiązania z innymi wykonawcą nie prowadzą do zakłócenia konkurencji w postępowaniu o udzielenie zamówienia. Wzór oświadczenia stanowi załącznik nr 4 do SIWZ.
 Liczba odsłon: 4460377 | Ostatnia aktualizacja Biuletynu:


jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Tärkeä oikeudellinen huomautus
 |
 52006PC0457
 Ehdotus neuvoston asetus asetuksen (EY) N:o 1907/90 muuttamisesta munien pesemistä koskevan poikkeuksen osalta /* KOM/2006/0457 lopull. */
 [pic] | EUROOPAN YHTEISÖJEN KOMISSIO |Bryssel 14.8.2006KOM(2006) 457 lopullinenEhdotusNEUVOSTON ASETUSasetuksen (EY) N:o 1907/90 muuttamisesta munien pesemistä koskevan poikkeuksen osalta(komission esittämä)PERUSTELUTTietyistä munien kaupan pitämisen vaatimuksista annetussa neuvoston asetuksessa (ETY) N:o 1907/90 säädetään perusteet poikkeukseen, jolla pakkaamot voivat jatkaa munien pesemistä 31. päivään joulukuuta 2006.Maatalouslainsäädännön yksinkertaistamisen yhteydessä neuvosto hyväksyi 19. kesäkuuta 2006 uuden neuvoston asetuksen, joka korvaa neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 1907/90 ja joka tulee voimaan 1. heinäkuuta 2007. Siihen asti kunnes munien kaupan pitämisen vaatimuksista annettua uutta neuvoston asetusta sovelletaan, olisi jatkettava 31. joulukuuta 2006 asti säädetyn munien pesemistä koskevan tilapäisen poikkeuksen voimassaoloaikaa 1. heinäkuuta 2007 asti.EhdotusNEUVOSTON ASETUSasetuksen (EY) N:o 1907/90 muuttamisesta munien pesemistä koskevan poikkeuksen osaltaEUROOPAN UNIONIN NEUVOSTO, jokaottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen,ottaa huomioon muna-alan yhteisestä markkinajärjestelystä 29 päivänä lokakuuta 1975 annetun neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2771/75[1] ja erityisesti sen 2 artiklan 2 kohdan,ottaa huomioon komission ehdotuksen,sekä katsoo seuraavaa:1. Tietyistä munien kaupan pitämisen vaatimuksista 26 päivänä kesäkuuta 1990 annetussa neuvoston asetuksessa (ETY) N:o 1907/90[2] säädetään perusteet poikkeukseen, jolla pakkaamot voivat jatkaa munien pesemistä 31 päivään joulukuuta 2006.2. Kyseinen poikkeus on tähän mennessä myönnetty yhdeksälle pakkaamolle Ruotsissa ja yhdelle pakkaamolle Alankomaissa. Siihen asti kunnes munien kaupan pitämisen vaatimuksista 19 päivänä kesäkuuta 2006 annettua neuvoston asetusta (EY) N:o 1028/2006[3] aletaan soveltaa 1 päivästä heinäkuuta 2007, olisi jatkettava munien pesemistä koskevaa poikkeusta kyseiseen päivään asti.3. Sen vuoksi asetusta (ETY) N:o 1907/90 olisi muutettava,ON ANTANUT TÄMÄN ASETUKSEN:1 artiklaKorvataan asetuksen (ETY) N:o 1907/90 6 artiklan 4 kohdan ensimmäisessä alakohdassa oleva ilmaisu ”31 päivään joulukuuta 2006” ilmaisulla ”30 päivään kesäkuuta 2007”.2 artiklaTämä asetus tulee voimaan seitsemäntenä päivänä sen jälkeen, kun se on julkaistu Euroopan unionin virallisessa lehdessä .Tämä asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sitä sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa.Tehty Brysselissä ...Neuvoston puolestaPuheenjohtaja[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic][pic] [1] EYVL L 282, 1.11.1975, s. 49. Asetus sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 679/2006 (EUVL L 119, 4.5.2006, s. 1).[2] EYVL L 173, 6.7.1990, s. 5. Asetus sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 1039/2005 (EUVL L 172, 5.7.2005, s. 1).[3] EUVL L 186, 7.7.2006, s. 1.


jurisdiction: US

text: b" Issue Date\n February 8, 2011\n Audit Report Number\n 2011-LA-1006\n\n\n\n\nTO: Maria F. Cremer, Acting Director, San Francisco Office of Community Planning\n and Development, 9AD\n\n\n\nFROM: Tanya E. Schulze, Regional Inspector General for Audit, Region IX, 9DGA\n\nSUBJECT: The City of Mesa, AZ, Needs To Improve Its Procedures for Administering\n Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grant\n\n HIGHLIGHTS\n\n What We Audited and Why\n\n We audited the City of Mesa\xe2\x80\x99s (grantee) Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP1)\n grant.\n\n The audit was started primarily because the Office of Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s (OIG) audit\n plan includes objectives to review Housing and Economic Recovery Act grantees and\n because staff from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development\xe2\x80\x99s (HUD)\n Office of Community Planning and Development raised general concerns about the\n nonprofit subgrantee selected by the grantee to administer housing counseling,\n downpayment assistance, and single-family housing acquisition and rehabilitation. The\n grantee awarded $2.8 million (29 percent) of its more than $9.6 million NSP1 grant to\n this entity.\n\n The objective of the audit was to determine whether the grantee administered its NSP1\n grant in accordance with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s program requirements.\n\x0cWhat We Found\n\n The grantee did not ensure that NSP1 program requirements were met. Specifically, it\n (1) did not implement adequate controls over construction contractor draw requests, (2)\n failed to ensure the eligibility of labor costs claimed by its subrecipient, (3) did not ensure\n that payment and performance bonds were obtained for construction contracts as\n required, (4) charged ineligible employee salary costs to the NSP1 grant, and (5) did not\n properly enforce the program\xe2\x80\x99s continued affordability requirements.\n\n\nWhat We Recommend\n\n We recommend that the Acting Director of the San Francisco Office of Community\n Planning and Development require the grantee to implement procedures to ensure that\n NSP1 requirements are met and reimburse its NSP1 grant for ineligible costs charged to\n the grant.\n\n For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and provide\n status reports in accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-3. Please furnish us\n copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.\n\nAuditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n\n We received the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s written response to the audit report on February 4, 2011. The\n grantee generally agreed with the audit report finding and described actions it has taken\n or plans to take to address the deficiencies outlined in the audit report\n\n The complete text of the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s response can be found in appendix B of this report.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nBackground and Objective 4\n\nResults of Audit\n Finding: The Grantee Did Not Comply With NSP1 Requirements 5\n\nScope and Methodology 11\n\nInternal Controls\n 12\nAppendixes\n\n A. Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds To Be Put to Better Use 13\n B. Auditee Comments 14\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE\n\nThe Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP1) was authorized under Division B, Title III, of\nthe Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) and provides grants to all States and\nselected local governments on a formula basis. HERA appropriated $3.92 billion in NSP1 funds\nfor emergency assistance for redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed-upon and residential\nproperties. NSP1 was established for the purpose of stabilizing communities that have suffered\nfrom foreclosures and abandonment. Generally, the NSP1 funds must be used to buy,\nrehabilitate, and resell foreclosed-upon and abandoned homes. As long as the funds are used for\nthis purpose, grantees may decide how to use the funds and what specific redevelopment\nactivities to undertake.\n\nThe City of Mesa (grantee) was awarded approximately $9.6 million in NSP1 grant funds. The\ngrantee\xe2\x80\x99s planned use of the funds is shown in the chart below.\n\n Downpayment Home buyer\n assistance, counseling,\n Administration, $500,000 $98,000 Acquisition\n $861,665\n rehabilitation -\n Demolition & home\n reconstruction, ownership,\n $1,000,000 $4,600,000\n\n\n Acquisition\n rehabilitation - Grantee's\n rental,\n planned use of\n $2,600,000\n NSP1 grant funds\n\n\nAs of September 30, 2010, the grantee had drawn down more than $4.7 million in NSP1 funds\nand $562,656 in program income. The program funds drawn down represent 49.55 percent of\nthe total grant.\n\nThe grantee\xe2\x80\x99s Neighborhood Services Department was in charge of administering its NSP1\nactivities. The grantee entered into a subgrantee agreement on July 29, 2009, with Housing Our\nCommunities, a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-approved\nnonprofit housing counseling agency. The agreement awarded $2.8 million of the grant to\nHousing Our Communities to manage the HUD-certified housing counseling and education\nportion of the program, manage the forgivable downpayment loan assistance portion of the\nprogram, and acquire and resell housing in partnership with the grantee.\n\nThe objective of the audit was to determine whether the grantee administered its NSP1 grant in\naccordance with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s program requirements.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c RESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nFinding: The Grantee Did Not Comply With NSP1 Requirements\n\nThe grantee\xe2\x80\x99s procedures for administering its NSP1 grant were not adequate to ensure that\nHUD\xe2\x80\x99s program requirements were met. The grantee (1) did not maintain adequate controls over\nconstruction contractor draw requests, (2) failed to ensure the eligibility of labor costs claimed\nby its subrecipient, (3) did not require payment and performance bonds for construction contracts\nas required, (4) charged unsupported employee salary costs to the NSP1 grant, and (5) failed to\nproperly enforce the program\xe2\x80\x99s continued affordability requirements. These problems occurred\nprimarily because the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s staff was not sufficiently familiar with the program requirements\nrelated to each deficiency and the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s procedures were not adequate to ensure that program\nrequirements were met. As a result of the deficiencies, $22,344 in NSP1 funds was used for\nineligible expenses, and a portion of the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s NSP1 grant funds were at risk. Also,\nindividuals who purchased rehabilitated homes from the grantee could be required to repay\nexcessive amounts to release the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s liens if they attempt to sell their properties.\n\n\n\n\n Controls Over Contractor\n Draw Requests Were Not\n Adequate\n\n The grantee did not implement sufficient controls to ensure that payments to construction\n contractors were adequately supported. Grantee staff responsible for reviewing the draw\n requests estimated the percentage of project completion when approving draw requests\n and did not sufficiently document how the claimed amounts were validated. The draw\n requests did not include an updated schedule of values or other comparison of budgeted\n to actual amounts or activities completed to support the claimed percentage of work\n completed. The files did contain evidence of inspections by a grantee official; however,\n the documentation supporting these inspections did not include sufficient detail to\n support the claimed percentage of completion.\n\n The grantee\xe2\x80\x99s procedures also did not require construction contractors to approve or\n certify the draw requests. The grantee prepared the draw documentation using forms that\n were signed by the contractors in advance. This procedure circumvented the contractor\xe2\x80\x99s\n signatory approval as a control procedure. These practices were not consistent with\n NSP1 program requirements including Office of Management and Budget (OMB)\n Circular A-871 and 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 85.20,1 which require grantees\n to adequately document costs and maintain effective internal controls to protect grant\n\n1\n Compliance with OMB Circular No. A-87, OMB Circular No. A-122, and 24 CFR 85.20 is required according to\n24 CFR 570 subpart J, compliance with which is required according to the NSP1 notice (Federal Register Volume\n73, Number 194, dated October 6, 2008).\n\n\n 5\n\x0c assets. The procedures also did not comply with the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s written policies and\n procedures, which require its staff to validate the claimed percentage of construction\n completion for draw requests by checking off and totaling the amount of completed work\n using the line item budgeted values from the contractor\xe2\x80\x99s bid.\n\n The grantee staff members responsible for processing the draw requests indicated that\n they were not aware that detailed information was required to support the percentage of\n completion claimed on draw requests. Because the documentation in the files was not\n adequate, supervisory or audit review of the draw request documentation could not\n readily determine whether the percentage of work claimed as completed was\n appropriately determined and reasonable. Therefore, HUD and the grantee did not have\n adequate assurance that payment amounts to construction contractors were determined\n appropriately. Additionally, if amounts claimed are not properly validated, it may create\n unnecessary risk to the program if contractors are paid prematurely and then fail to\n complete the associated work. At the time of our audit, the grantee had 17 construction\n contracts on NSP1 projects for amounts totaling $1,929,959 that were not yet complete\n and would, therefore, be subject to additional risk due to this deficiency.\n\nSubgrantee Salary Costs Were\nNot Supported\n\n The grantee did not ensure that labor costs claimed by its subgrantee were determined in\n accordance with applicable cost principles. OMB Circular A-1221 requires that\n subgrantees account for the actual costs incurred (including direct and indirect salary\n costs) to determine the amount that can be charged to the grant. This circular does not\n include provisions for charging profit or other increments above cost to Federal grants.\n The grantee did not ensure that these requirements were met since it agreed to hourly\n labor rates for subgrantee counseling and construction services but did not ensure that\n these rates were consistent with the subgrantee\xe2\x80\x99s actual costs. Grantee staff members\n stated that they were not aware that subgrantees were required to account for their actual\n costs. Further, it appeared that the amounts billed by the subgrantee for employee salary\n costs did not represent the subgrantee\xe2\x80\x99s actual cost for each employee. Information we\n received from the subgrantee indicated that its housing counselors who worked on the\n NSP1 grant were paid varying salaries; however, the hourly rates billed to the NSP1 grant\n were the same for each employee regardless of his or her salary amount. Therefore, it\n appeared that the amounts billed did not directly correlate to the subgrantee\xe2\x80\x99s actual cost\n for each employee.\n\n Because the grantee approved draw requests for payment of subgrantee labor expenses\n without properly determining whether the costs were supported, HUD and the grantee did\n not have assurance that the costs were eligible under NSP1 program requirements. At the\n time of our audit fieldwork, the subgrantee had billed the NSP1 $12,939 for counseling\n services and $24,559 for acquisition services.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c During the audit, we notified the grantee that its subgrantee labor costs did not appear to\n be adequately supported, and the grantee then requested additional labor cost detail from\n its subgrantee. The information provided was not sufficient to substantiate the amounts\n billed to the grant or to determine the amount of these expenses that was not eligible\n under NSP1 requirements. To determine the amount of ineligible subgrantee labor costs,\n the grantee would need to review detailed payroll documentation from its subgrantee,\n such as time cards and pay stubs, and compare the subgrantee\xe2\x80\x99s actual costs to the\n amounts charged to the grant.\n\n The Grantee Did Not Require\n Payment and Performance\n Bonds\n\n\n The grantee did not ensure that construction contractors obtained payment and\n performance bonds as required. For contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition\n threshold (set at $100,000 during the audit period), HUD regulations at 24 CFR 85.36(h)2\n require that grantees obtain (1) a bid guarantee from each bidder equivalent to 5 percent\n of the bid price, (2) a performance bond on the part of the contractor for 100 percent of\n the contract price, and (3) a payment bond on the part of the contractor for 100 percent of\n the contract price.\n\n The construction contracts for 10 of the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s NSP1 properties (totaling\n approximately $1.7 million) exceeded the current simplified acquisition threshold, yet the\n grantee did not require contractors for these properties to obtain payment and\n performance bonds. This problem occurred because the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s staff was not familiar\n with the applicable program regulations. As a result, the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s NSP1-funded projects\n were at risk and could be subject to unnecessary costs or liens if subcontractors were not\n paid or if the contractors failed to complete the projects. This risk could be particularly\n significant for the grantee since, as noted above, the grantee did not have adequate\n controls to ensure that the percentage of work claimed as part of the draw requests was\n properly supported. At the time of our audit, construction work was still in progress for\n five of the involved construction contracts valued at approximately $930,000, and,\n therefore, funds associated with these contracts were still at risk due to the lack of\n payment and performance bonds. Further, any future contracts executed by the grantee\n that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold will be at risk if the grantee does not\n implement new procedures to correct this deficiency.\n\n\n\n\nCompliance with 24 CFR 85.36(h) is required according to 24 CFR part 570 subpart J, compliance with which is\nrequired according to the NSP1 notice (Federal Register Volume 73, Number 194, dated October 6, 2008). 24 CFR\n85.36(h) states that the awarding agency may accept the bonding policy and requirements of the grantee or\nsubgrantee provided the awarding agency has made a determination that the awarding agency\xe2\x80\x99s interest is\nadequately protected. No exception was provided to the grantee, so this provision for alternate requirements was not\napplicable.\n\n\n 7\n\x0c The Grantee Charged Ineligible\n Salary Costs\n\n\n The grantee charged ineligible employee salary costs to the NSP1 grant for time spent\n working on other projects that were not related to the NSP1 grant. For the period July\n through September 2009, the grantee initially charged $23,036 (including $3,250 in\n \xe2\x80\x9cadministrative\xe2\x80\x9d costs and $19,787 in \xe2\x80\x9cproject delivery\xe2\x80\x9d costs) to the NSP1 grant for\n hours claimed as having been worked by two of its employees. Then in March 2010, the\n grantee made an accounting adjustment to bill an additional $22,344 in \xe2\x80\x9cadministrative\xe2\x80\x9d\n labor costs to the grant for these employees for this same period. However, information\n obtained from grantee staff indicated that the involved employees worked on other\n projects during this period and did not work the additional hours on the NSP1 grant as\n claimed. Because the involved employees apparently did not work the additional hours\n claimed as part of the accounting adjustment, the added charge of $22,344 was not an\n eligible program expense. This problem occurred because grantee officials did not\n follow program requirements including those specified in OMB Circular A-87, which\n states that direct costs for employee compensation must be for time devoted and\n identified specifically to the performance of the award and that personnel activity reports\n or equivalent documentation is required for employees that work on multiple activities or\n cost objectives.\n\n\nThe Grantee Did Not Properly\nEnforce Continued\nAffordability Requirements\n\n The grantee placed excessive liens on NSP1-assisted properties when attempting to\n enforce the program\xe2\x80\x99s continued affordability requirements. These requirements were\n enacted to ensure that assisted properties remained affordable for individuals or families\n that met specified income requirements. For properties that are rehabilitated and sold by\n the grantee, HUD regulations at 24 CFR 92.254(a)(5)(ii)(a)(5) define the amount that is\n subject to recapture by the grantee if a homeowner sells the NSP1-assisted property\n before the defined affordability period expires. It states that the amount subject to\n recapture \xe2\x80\x9cincludes any HOME [HOME Investment Partnerships Program] assistance\n that reduced the purchase price from fair market value to an affordable price, but\n excludes the amount between the cost of producing the unit and the market value of the\n property (i.e. the development subsidy).\xe2\x80\x9d\n The grantee did not comply with these standards because it included the \xe2\x80\x9cdevelopment\n subsidy\xe2\x80\x9d as part of the recapture amount specified in deed restrictions it used to enforce\n the continued affordability requirements. For example, one of the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s single-family\n home purchasers paid the full appraised value of $102,500 for a single-family house and\n received $15,000 in downpayment assistance. In addition to a lien for the downpayment\n assistance amount, the grantee placed a lien on this property for the development subsidy,\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c which would be approximately $48,200 (47 percent of the property value). Grantee staff\n members stated that they were not aware that the development subsidy should have been\n excluded from the calculated recapture amount. As a result of this deficiency, individuals\n that purchased NSP1-assisted properties at full market value could be subject to\n repayment on excessive liens if they sell the property. Since the borrowers paid full\n market price for the property and did not receive any benefit associated with the\n development subsidy, this practice is inappropriate.\n\n Additionally, the recorded liens included a definition of the recapture amount, yet did not\n specify the actual amount subject to recapture. Accordingly, when the borrower attempts\n to transfer the property, this omission could create confusion regarding the actual amount\n needed to release the lien and could also potentially limit the enforceability of the lien.\n\n Based upon cost and appraisal amounts provided by the grantee, the excessive liens for nine\n properties already resold by the grantee totaled approximately $317,000. If the grantee\n continues this practice, excessive liens for the 14 properties that were completed and not yet\n resold will total at least $532,920. If the grantee does not correct this deficiency, there will\n likely be additional excessive lien amounts for the remaining 14 home-ownership units\n under development and any additional units developed using NSP1 program income.\n\n In another case, the grantee did not properly secure a deed restriction that was needed to\n enforce the NSP1\xe2\x80\x99s continued affordability requirements. The grantee provided $141,610\n in assistance to a homeowner to demolish and rebuild a house. The property\n rehabilitation was started in March of 2010, yet at the time of our audit, the grantee had\n not recorded a deed restriction to ensure that funds would be recaptured as required if the\n property was sold. During the audit, we notified the grantee of this problem and the\n grantee provided us its agreement with the homeowner documenting that the homeowner\n agreed to the resale restrictions in March of 2010. However, because a deed restriction\n was not recorded with the County Recorder\xe2\x80\x99s Office, the NSP1 funds remained at risk\n because there was no assurance that the funds would be recaptured if the property was\n sold or transferred. Further, the amounts specified in the resale restriction documents did\n not account for $23,966 in additional NSP1 assistance used for construction change\n orders and grantee labor costs for this property.\n\nConclusion\n\n The grantee did not comply with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s program requirements, and as a result, a portion\n of the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s NSP1 grant funds was at risk, and HUD did not have assurance that\n NSP1 funds were used for eligible costs. Also, individuals that purchased rehabilitated\n homes from the grantee could be subjected to excessive liens. These problems occurred\n because the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s staff was not familiar with the applicable program requirements and\n the grantee did not implement appropriate procedures to ensure that these requirements\n were met.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cRecommendations\n\n We recommend that the Acting Director, San Francisco Office of Community Planning\n and Development, require the grantee to\n\n 1A. Implement adequate controls over construction contractor draw requests including\n procedures to require an updated and detailed schedule of values at the time of\n each draw. Contractors should be required to certify as to the accuracy of the\n draw amount and work claimed as having been completed.\n\n 1B. Implement procedures to ensure the eligibility of labor costs claimed by its\n subrecipient.\n\n 1C. Reimburse its NSP1 grant for any ineligible subrecipient labor costs that were\n paid using NSP1 funds. To determine the eligibility of the unsupported costs,\n HUD should require the grantee to provide detailed documentation regarding the\n costs including subgrantee payroll records (such as pay stubs to determine hourly\n rates and time cards to determine the number of hours worked). These records\n should be compared to the amounts billed to the NSP1 grant to determine the\n amount of the unsupported costs that was an not eligible program expense.\n\n 1D. Implement procedures to require construction contractors to obtain payment and\n performance bonds for contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold\n and reimburse the NSP1 grant using non-Federal funds for any costs that result\n from the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s failure to obtain payment and performance bonds. The\n recommended actions will address the risk of loses from the unexpended balance\n of $186,597 associated with existing contracts.\n\n 1E. Reimburse the NSP1 grant $22,344 from non-Federal funds for the ineligible\n grantee labor costs that were charged to the NSP1 grant.\n\n 1F. Implement procedures to ensure that excessive liens are not placed on NSP1-\n assisted properties.\n\n 1G. Remove the excessive liens that were recorded against its NSP1-assisted\n properties that have already been sold and record appropriate deed restrictions on\n these properties in accordance with HUD program requirements.\n\n 1H. Take action to ensure the enforceability of the NSP1\xe2\x80\x99s continued affordability\n requirements for the one property that was assisted with $141,610 in NSP1 funds\n and did not have recorded deed restrictions.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nWe performed our audit from August to December 2010 at the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s offices at 20 East Main\nStreet, Mesa, AZ. The audit covered the period March 2009 to September 2010.\n\nTo achieve our objectives, we\n\n Reviewed HUD handbooks, the Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Registers, OMB\n circulars, and other requirements and directives that govern NSP1.\n Reviewed HUD\xe2\x80\x99s recent monitoring report for the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s HOME program.\n Reviewed grantee accounting records, policies and procedures, and project files.\n Reviewed the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s NSP1 agreement with HUD.\n Reviewed the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s subrecipient agreement with Housing Our Communities.\n Reviewed a nonstatistical sample of four grantee files for properties purchased, rehabilitated,\n and resold by the grantee using NSP1 funds. For these transactions, we evaluated whether\n the property was eligible for program assistance; the applicant was eligible for program\n assistance; contracting procedures were performed as required; and the activity\xe2\x80\x99s expenses\n were eligible and adequately documented and complied with NSP1 requirements.\n Interviewed grantee staff and HUD Office of Community Planning and Development\n program staff.\n Conducted site visits to three rehabilitation properties to confirm their existence and\n evaluate the completeness of the rehabilitation.\n Researched the Lexis-Nexis database and Arizona Corporation Commission Web site for\n possible affiliations and conflicts of interest.\n Researched the Lexis-Nexis database and Maricopa County Recorder\xe2\x80\x99s Web site for\n recorded deeds and mortgages on NSP-assisted properties.\n Examined payment invoices submitted by Housing Our Communities for counseling and\n acquisition services. We examined all of the payment invoices, totaling more than\n $37,000, that were billed for the period March 19 through September 1, 2010.\n Evaluated whether the subgrantee\xe2\x80\x99s labor costs charged complied with OMB requirements.\n\nWe were unable to determine the amount of the subgrantee\xe2\x80\x99s ineligible labor costs because detailed\ndocumentation regarding the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s actual cost was not available for us to review and validate at\nthe time of the audit.\n\nWe conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.\nThose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\nevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings\nand conclusions based on our audit objective.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c INTERNAL CONTROLS\n\nInternal control is a process adopted by those charged with governance and management,\ndesigned to provide reasonable assurance about the achievement of the organization\xe2\x80\x99s mission,\ngoals, and objectives with regard to\n\n Effectiveness and efficiency of operations,\n Reliability of financial reporting, and\n Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.\n\nInternal controls comprise the plans, policies, methods, and procedures used to meet the\norganization\xe2\x80\x99s mission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and\nprocedures for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the\nsystems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance.\n\n\n\n Relevant Internal Controls\n\n We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit objective:\n\n Policies and procedures to ensure that program activities comply with\n applicable laws and regulations.\n Policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that funds are used\n only for authorized purposes.\n\n We assessed the relevant controls identified above.\n\n A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not\n allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned\n functions, the reasonable opportunity to prevent, detect, or correct (1) impairments to\n effectiveness or efficiency of operations, (2) misstatements in financial or performance\n information, or (3) violations of laws and regulations on a timely basis.\n\n Significant Deficiency\n\n Based on our review, we believe that the following item is a significant deficiency:\n\n The grantee did not have controls in place to ensure compliance with HUD\n program requirements related to construction contractor draw requests, cost\n eligibility, construction contractor bonding, and continued affordability\n restrictions (see finding 1).\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c APPENDIXES\n\nAppendix A\n\nSCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS AND FUNDS TO BE PUT\n TO BETTER USE\n\n Recommendation Ineligible 1/ Funds to be\n number put to better\n use 2/\n 1D $186,597\n 1E $22,344\n 1H $141,610\n\n\n1/ Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or activity\n that the auditor believes are not allowable by law; contract; or Federal, State, or local\n policies or regulations.\n\n2/ Recommendations that funds be put to better use are estimates of amounts that could be\n used more efficiently if an Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommendation is\n implemented. These amounts include reductions in outlays, deobligation of funds,\n withdrawal of interest, costs not incurred by implementing recommended improvements,\n avoidance of unnecessary expenditures noted in preaward reviews, and any other savings\n that are specifically identified.\n\n The funds to be put to better use for recommendation 1D represent the amount of funds\n not yet expended on incomplete projects with contracts that exceeded the simplified\n acquisition threshold and did not have required payment and performance bonds. These\n funds remain at risk because the grantee did not implement procedures to require\n contractors to obtain payment and performance bonds. Note that the funds associated\n with existing contracts for incomplete projects would also be at risk due to the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s\n insufficient controls over construction contractor draw requests (recommendation 1A);\n however, we did not include an amount in the table above for this recommendation to\n avoid duplicate reporting of the amounts potentially at risk. The funds to be put to better\n use for recommendation 1H represent the amount of NSP1 funds used for the one\n property that did not have recorded deed restrictions necessary to enforce the program\xe2\x80\x99s\n continued affordability requirements.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cAppendix B\n\n AUDITEE COMMENTS\n\n\n Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c15\n\x0c16\n\x0c17\n\x0c18\n\x0c"


text:
Vorliegen einer wirksamen Bekanntgabe für und gegen eine Wohnungseigentümergemeinschaft i.R.d. Zustellung der Verfügung zwar an die persönliche Anschrift des Hausverwalters; Inanspruchnahme der Wohnungseigentümergemeinschaft als Inhaltsadressatin der in der Verfügung ausgesprochenen Pflichten; Anordnungen zur Durchsetzung bestandskräftiger Auflagen einer Baugenehmigung für Gebäudeteile
 VGH Bayern (15 CS 19.1050) | Datum: 26.07.2019
 VGH Bayern (10 CE 18.769, 10 CS 18.773) | Datum: 30.07.2018
 Ist die Abschiebung schon vollzoge, ist die Aussetzung einer Abschiebung durch ihre Durchführung objektiv unmöglich geworden.
 VGH Bayern (19 CE 17.1541) | Datum: 18.12.2017
 BVerwG, Beschluss vom 13.09.2005 - Aktenzeichen 1 VR 5.05
 DRsp Nr. 2005/18465
 1. Nachdem der Antragsteller wegen unerlaubten Handeltreibens mit Betäubungsmitteln rechtskräftig zu einer Gesamtfreiheitsstrafe von zwei Jahren und zehn Monaten verurteilt worden war, wurde er durch Verfügung des Antragsgegners vom 14. November 2002 unter Anordnung der sofortigen Vollziehung aus der Bundesrepublik Deutschland ausgewiesen. Das von ihm beim Verwaltungsgericht angestrengte Verfahren auf Gewährung von vorläufigem Rechtsschutz blieb ohne Erfolg. Der Antragsteller wurde daraufhin im April 2003 aus der Strafhaft in die Türkei abgeschoben. Seither hält er sich dort auf. Seine Klage gegen die Ausweisungsverfügung blieb in erster und zweiter Instanz erfolglos. Wenige Tage vor der mündlichen Verhandlung über seine Revision (BVerwG 1 C 7.05) begehrt er mit dem vorliegenden Antrag, die Wiederherstellung der aufschiebenden Wirkung seiner Klage gegen die Ausweisungsverfügung vom 14. November 2002 und die Anordnung der Aufhebung der Vollziehung dieses Bescheides durch die Abschiebung in die Türkei. Eine Begründung enthält die Antragsschrift nicht.
 2. Der Antrag des Antragstellers ist nach § 80 Abs. 7 i.V.m. Abs. 5 Satz 3 VwGO zulässig. Aufgrund dieser Bestimmung kann das Gericht der Hauptsache Beschlüsse über Anträge auf Anordnung oder Wiederherstellung der aufschiebenden Wirkung jederzeit ändern oder aufheben. Jeder Beteiligte kann die Änderung oder Aufhebung wegen veränderter oder im ursprünglichen Verfahren ohne Verschulden nicht geltend gemachter Umstände beantragen. Das Bundesverwaltungsgericht, bei dem das Revisionsverfahren hinsichtlich der Ausweisungsverfügung anhängig ist, ist als Gericht der Hauptsache gemäß § 80 Abs. 5 Satz 1 VwGO berufen, über diesen Antrag zu entscheiden. Das erforderliche Rechtsschutzinteresse für das vorliegende Begehren kann dem Antragsteller nicht deshalb abgesprochen werden, weil er nach der negativen Eilentscheidung des Verwaltungsgerichts abgeschoben worden ist (vgl. zuletzt Beschluss des Senats vom 17. Mai 2004 - BVerwG 1 VR 1.04 - Buchholz 310 § 80 VwGO Nr. 68 = InfAuslR 2005, 103; a.A. VGH Mannheim, Beschluss vom 12. Mai 2005 - 13 S 195/05 - InfAuslR 2005, 313 m.w.N.). Solange über die Ausweisung und Abschiebungsandrohung nicht unanfechtbar entschieden ist, ist Eilrechtsschutz im vorrangigen Aussetzungsverfahren nach § 80 VwGO zu gewähren.
 Der Antrag ist allerdings unbegründet. Eine Abänderung des bisher für die sofortige Vollziehung der Ausweisung maßgeblichen Beschlusses des Verwaltungsgerichts, mit dem die Wiederherstellung bzw. Anordnung der aufschiebenden Wirkung der Klage abgelehnt wurde, ist nicht geboten. Veränderte Umstände im Sinne des § 80 Abs. 7 VwGO sind schon deshalb nicht hinreichend glaubhaft gemacht, weil der Antragsteller seinen Abänderungsantrag nicht begründet und daher nicht dargetan hat, dass eine wesentliche Änderung der für die Eilentscheidung des Verwaltungsgerichts damals maßgebend gewesenen Umstände eingetreten ist. Der Senat hat gleichzeitig mit der Entscheidung über den Abänderungsantrag des Antragstellers den Rechtsstreit in der Hauptsache an das Berufungsgericht zurückverwiesen, um zu klären, ob dem Antragsteller ein Aufenthaltsrecht nach Art. 6 bzw. Art. 7 des Beschlusses 1/80 des Assoziationsrats EWG-Türkei zusteht und ob bei ihm ein dringender Fall im Sinne des Art. 9 der Richtlinie 64/221/EWG vorlag. Der Ausgang des Verfahrens ist damit nach wie vor offen. Im Hinblick hierauf ist nicht ersichtlich, dass nunmehr überwiegende private Interessen des Antragstellers bestehen, die eine Abänderung des Eilbeschlusses rechtfertigen (vgl. Beschluss vom 17. Mai 2004 a.a.O.).
 3. Die Kostenentscheidung folgt aus § 154 Abs. 1 VwGO . Die Streitwertfestsetzung für das Abänderungsverfahren beruht auf § 52 Abs. 1 und § 53 Abs. 3 Nr. 2 GKG .
 Zitieren: BVerwG - Beschluss vom 13.09.2005 (1 VR 5.05) - DRsp Nr. 2005/18465


type: contracts

text:
30.5.2013
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 L 144/15
 EEE JUNGTINIO KOMITETO SPRENDIMAS
 Nr. 11/2013
 2013 m. vasario 1 d.
 kuriuo iš dalies keičiami EEE susitarimo II priedas (Techniniai reglamentai, standartai, tyrimai ir sertifikavimas) ir IV priedas (Energija)
 EEE JUNGTINIS KOMITETAS,
 atsižvelgdamas į Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą (toliau – EEE susitarimas), ypač į jo 98 straipsnį,
 kadangi:
 (1)
 į EEE susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2010 m. lapkričio 10 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1015/2010, kuriuo įgyvendinant Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvą 2009/125/EB nustatomi buitinių skalbyklių ekologinio projektavimo reikalavimai (1), su pataisymais, padarytais OL L 298, 2010 11 16, p. 87;
 (2)
 Į EEE susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2010 m. lapkričio 10 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1016/2010, kuriuo įgyvendinant Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvą 2009/125/EB nustatomi buitinių indaplovių ekologinio projektavimo reikalavimai (2);
 (3)
 į EEE susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2011 m. kovo 30 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 327/2011, kuriuo įgyvendinant Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvą 2009/125/EB nustatomi ventiliatorių, varomų 125 W–500 kW įėjimo galios elektros varikliais, ekologinio projektavimo reikalavimai (3);
 (4)
 todėl EEE susitarimo II ir IV priedai turėtų būti atitinkamai iš dalies pakeisti,
 PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ SPRENDIMĄ:
 1 straipsnis
 EEE susitarimo II priedo IV skyriuje po 6a punkto (Komisijos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 206/2012) įterpiami šie punktai:
 „6b.
 32010 R 1015: 2010 m. lapkričio 10 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1015/2010, kuriuo įgyvendinant Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvą 2009/125/EB nustatomi buitinių skalbyklių ekologinio projektavimo reikalavimai (OL L 293, 2010 11 11, p. 21), su pataisymais, padarytais OL L 298, 2010 11 16, p. 87.
 6c.
 32010 R 1016: 2010 m. lapkričio 10 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1016/2010, kuriuo įgyvendinant Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvą 2009/125/EB nustatomi buitinių indaplovių ekologinio projektavimo reikalavimai (OL L 293, 2010 11 11, p. 31).
 6 d.
 32011 R 0327: 2011 m. kovo 30 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 327/2011, kuriuo įgyvendinant Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvą 2009/125/EB nustatomi ventiliatorių, varomų 125 W–500 kW įėjimo galios elektros varikliais, ekologinio projektavimo reikalavimai (OL L 90, 2011 4 6, p. 8).“
 2 straipsnis
 EEE susitarimo IV priede po 26b punkto (Komisijos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 206/2012) įterpiami šie punktai:
 „26c.
 32010 R 1015: 2010 m. lapkričio 10 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1015/2010, kuriuo įgyvendinant Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvą 2009/125/EB nustatomi buitinių skalbyklių ekologinio projektavimo reikalavimai (OL L 293, 2010 11 11, p. 21), su pataisymais, padarytais OL L 298, 2010 11 16, p. 87.
 26 d.
 32010 R 1016: 2010 m. lapkričio 10 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1016/2010, kuriuo įgyvendinant Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvą 2009/125/EB nustatomi buitinių indaplovių ekologinio projektavimo reikalavimai (OL L 293, 2010 11 11, p. 31).
 26e.
 32011 R 0327: 2011 m. kovo 30 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 327/2011, kuriuo įgyvendinant Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvą 2009/125/EB nustatomi ventiliatorių, varomų 125 W–500 kW įėjimo galios elektros varikliais, ekologinio projektavimo reikalavimai (OL L 90, 2011 4 6, p. 8).“
 3 straipsnis
 Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE priede skelbtini reglamentų (ES) Nr. 1015/2010 su pataisymais, padarytais OL L 298, 2010 11 16, p. 87, (ES) Nr. 1016/2010 ir (ES) Nr. 327/2011 tekstai islandų ir norvegų kalbomis yra autentiški.
 4 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas įsigalioja 2013 m. vasario 2 d., jei buvo pateikti visi pranešimai pagal Susitarimo 103 straipsnio 1 dalį (4).
 5 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas skelbiamas Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE skyriuje ir EEE priede.
 Priimta Briuselyje 2013 m. vasario 1 d.
 EEE jungtinio komiteto vardu
 Pirmininkas
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) OL L 293, 2010 11 11, p. 21.
 (2) OL L 293, 2010 11 11, p. 31.
 (3) OL L 90, 2011 4 6, p. 8.
 (4) Konstitucinių reikalavimų nenurodyta.


type: caselaw

text:
 20.6.2009
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 141/41
 Rozsudek Soudu prvního stupně ze dne 5. května 2009 — ars Parfum Creation & Consulting v. OHIM (Tvar rozprašovače)
 (Věc T-104/08) (1)
 („Ochranná známka Společenství - Přihláška trojrozměrné ochranné známky Společenství - Tvar rozprašovače - Absolutní důvod pro zamítnutí - Nedostatek rozlišovací způsobilosti - Povinnost uvést odůvodnění - Článek 7 odst. 1 písm. b), článek 73 a čl. 74 odst. 1 nařízení (ES) č. 40/94“)
 2009/C 141/84
 Jednací jazyk: němčina
 Účastníci řízení
 Žalobkyně: ars Parfum Creation & Consulting GmbH (Kolín nad Rýnem, Německo) (zástupci: A. Späth a G. Hasselblatt, advokáti)
 Žalovaný: Úřad pro harmonizaci na vnitřním trhu (ochranné známky a vzory) (zástupce: R. Pethke, zmocněnec)
 Předmět věci
 Žaloba podaná proti rozhodnutí prvního odvolacího senátu OHIM ze dne 8. listopadu 2007 (věc R 1656/2006-1), týkajícímu se zápisu trojrozměrného označení tvořeného tvarem rozprašovače jako ochranné známky Společenství
 Výrok
 1)
 Žaloba se zamítá.
 2)
 ars Parfum Creation & Consulting GmbH se ukládá náhrada nákladů řízení.
 (1) Úř. věst. C 107, 26.4.2008.