type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'OFFICE OF AUDIT\nREGION 5\nCHICAGO, IL\n\n\n\n\n City of Chicago, IL\n\n HOME Investment Partnerships Program\n\n\n\n\n2014-CH-1011 SEPTEMBER 30, 2014\n\x0c Issue Date: September 30, 2014\n\n Audit Report Number: 2014-CH-1011\n\n\nTO: Ray E. Willis, Director of Community Planning and Development, 5AD\n\n //signed//\nFROM: Kelly Anderson, Regional Inspector General for Audit, Chicago Region, 5AGA\n\nSUBJECT: The City of Chicago, IL, Lacked Adequate Controls Over Its HOME Investment\n Partnerships Program-Funded Rental New Construction Projects and Program\n Income\n\n\n Attached is the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of\nInspector General\xe2\x80\x99s (OIG) final results of our review of the City of Chicago\xe2\x80\x99s HOME Investment\nPartnerships Program.\n\n HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4, sets specific timeframes for management decisions on\nrecommended corrective actions. For each recommendation without a management decision,\nplease respond and provide status reports in accordance with the HUD Handbook. Please furnish\nus copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.\n\n The Inspector General Act, Title 5 United States Code, section 8M, requires that OIG post its\npublicly available reports on the OIG Web site. Accordingly, this report will be posted at\nhttp://www.hudoig.gov.\n\n If you have any questions or comments about this report, please do not hesitate to call me at\n(312) 353-7832.\n\n\n\n\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c September 30, 2014\n The City of Chicago, IL, Lacked Adequate Controls Over\n Its HOME Investment Partnerships Program-Funded\n Rental New Construction Projects and Program Income\n\n\n\nHighlights\nAudit Report 2014-CH-1011\n\n\n What We Audited and Why What We Found\n\nWe audited the City of Chicago\xe2\x80\x99s Leases between the owners and the households for\nHOME Investment Partnerships Program-funded units in two projects included\nProgram. We selected the City\xe2\x80\x99s language prohibited by HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations and the\nProgram based upon our analysis of risk City\xe2\x80\x99s regulatory agreements with the owners. As a\nfactors related to Program grantees in result, the City drew down nearly $7.4 million in\nRegion 5\xe2\x80\x99s1 jurisdiction. Our objectives Program funds for two projects in which the rights of\nwere to determine whether the City 73 households were not protected.\ncomplied with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s requirements\nregarding (1) leases between rental new The City did not always follow HUD\xe2\x80\x99s requirements in\nconstruction projects\xe2\x80\x99 owners and its use and reporting of Program income. It (1)\nhouseholds, (2) use and reporting of inappropriately drew down nearly $25.2 million in\nProgram income, and (3) monitoring of Program funds from its HOME investment trust fund\nprojects. treasury account from January 1, 2012, through\n December 31, 2013, when it had available Program\n What We Recommend income, (2) inappropriately used Program income, (3)\n did not report more than $4.3 million in Program\n income in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Integrated Disbursement and\nWe recommend that the Director of Information System in a timely manner, and (4) did not\nHUD\xe2\x80\x99s Chicago Office of Community deposit Program income into its HOME investment\nPlanning and Development require the trust fund local account. As a result, (1) the U.S.\nCity to (1) ensure that leases between Treasury paid more than $30,000 in unnecessary\nthe owners and the households for interest on the Program funds that the City drew down\nProgram-funded units do not include from its treasury account when Program income was\nprohibited language; (2) reimburse its available, (2) the City had more than $9,000 less in\nProgram or HUD, for transmission to Program income to be used for eligible Program\nthe U.S. Department of the Treasury, activities, and (3) HUD and the City lacked assurance\nfrom non-Federal funds; (3) ensure regarding the amount of Program income available to\ninspected units were Program-assisted the City.\nunits; and (4) implement adequate\nprocedures and controls to address the The City did not always conduct required annual\nfindings cited in this audit report. compliance monitoring of projects in calendar year\n 2013. As a result, HUD and the City lacked assurance\n that households were (1) living in units that met\n1\n Region 5 includes the States of Illinois,\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99s property standards requirements, (2) income\nIndiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and eligible, and (3) not paying excessive rents.\nWisconsin.\n\n\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nBackground and Objectives 3\n\nResults of Audit\n Finding 1: Leases Between Rental New Construction Projects\xe2\x80\x99 Owners and\n Households Included Prohibited Language 4\n\n Finding 2: The City Did Not Always Use and Report Program Income in Accordance\n With HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Requirements 7\n\n Finding 3: The City Did Not Always Conduct Required Annual Compliance\n Monitoring of Rental New Construction Projects 10\n\nScope and Methodology 13\n\nInternal Controls 15\n\nAppendixes\n A. Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds to Be Put to Better Use 17\n B. Auditee Comments and OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Evaluation 18\n C. HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Requirements and the City\xe2\x80\x99s Regulatory Agreements 23\n D. Schedule of Program Income That Was Not Reported in a Timely Manner 25\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES\n\nThe Program. Authorized under Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing\nAct, as amended, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program is funded for the purpose of\nincreasing the supply of affordable standard rental housing; improving substandard housing for\nexisting homeowners; assisting new home buyers through acquisition, construction, and\nrehabilitation of housing; and providing tenant-based rental assistance.\n\nThe City. The City of Chicago is governed by a mayor and 50 alderman elected to 4-year terms.\nThe City\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Budget and Management manages, monitors, and enforces the grants\nmanagement processes for the City\xe2\x80\x99s Program. The City\xe2\x80\x99s Department of Planning and\nDevelopment administers the City\xe2\x80\x99s Program. The mission of the Department is to promote the\ncomprehensive growth and well-being of the City and its neighborhoods. The City\xe2\x80\x99s Program\nrecords are located at 121 North LaSalle Street, 10th Floor, Chicago, IL.\n\nThe following table shows the amount of Program funds the U.S. Department of Housing and\nUrban Development (HUD) awarded the City for Program years 2009 through 2013.\n\n Program Program\n year funds\n 2009 $32,210,131\n 2010 32,135,117\n 2011 28,453,829\n 2012 17,226,156\n 2013 16,059,598\n Totals $126,084,831\n\nOur objectives were to determine whether the City complied with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s requirements regarding\n(1) leases between rental new construction projects\xe2\x80\x99 owners and households, (2) use and\nreporting of Program income, and (3) monitoring of projects.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c RESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nFinding 1: Leases Between Rental New Construction Projects\xe2\x80\x99 Owners\n and Households Included Prohibited Language\nLeases between rental new construction projects\xe2\x80\x99 owners and the households for Program-funded\nunits in two projects included language prohibited by HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations and the City\xe2\x80\x99s\nregulatory agreements with the owners. This weakness occurred because the City lacked\nadequate procedures and controls to ensure that the leases did not contain prohibited language.\nAs a result, the City drew down nearly $7.4 million in Program funds for two projects in which\nthe rights of 73 households were not protected.\n\n\n Projects\xe2\x80\x99 Leases Included\n Prohibited Language\n\n We reviewed the leases between the projects\xe2\x80\x99 owners and the households for 23\n of the 794 Program-assisted units from the 14 projects that the City reported as\n complete in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Integrated Disbursement and Information System2 from\n January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013. The City drew down nearly $55\n million in Program funds for the 14 projects.\n\n The leases between the owners and the households for two units in two projects\n (numbers 8806 and 10289) included language prohibited by HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations at\n 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 92.253(b)(3) and the City\xe2\x80\x99s regulatory\n agreements with the owners. Project numbers 8806 and 10289 consisted of 40\n and 33 Program-assisted units, respectively. Therefore, we reviewed the leases\n for an additional 10 units in each of the two projects. These leases also contained\n prohibited language. Property managers for each of the projects stated that all of\n the leases for the Program-assisted units included the same prohibited language.\n\n The leases for the units in project number 8806 contained the following prohibited\n language.\n\n\n\n\n2\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System is the drawdown and reporting system for the Program.\n\n\n 4\n\x0c The leases for the units in project number 10289 contained the following\n prohibited language.\n\n\n\n\n The City drew down nearly $7.4 million in Program funds for the two projects\n ($4,913,961 for project number 8806 and $2,448,226 for project number 10289).\n\n In May 2014 and as a result of our audit, the City had the owner of project\n number 8806 execute lease addenda that removed the prohibited language from\n the leases for 34 of the 40 units in the project. The City also provided a new lease\n for an additional unit that did not contain prohibited language. For the remaining\n five units, three of the units were vacant, and the owner was involved in ongoing\n eviction proceedings with the households in two units. Further, in April and May\n 2014, the City had the owner of project number 10289 execute lease addenda that\n removed the prohibited language from the leases for the 33 units in the project.\n\nThe City Lacked Adequate\nProcedures and Controls\n\n The weakness described above occurred because the City lacked adequate\n procedures and controls to ensure that the leases between the projects\xe2\x80\x99 owners and\n the households did not contain language prohibited by HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations and the\n City\xe2\x80\x99s regulatory agreements with the owners. The assistant commissioner of the\n Monitoring and Compliance Division in the City\xe2\x80\x99s Department of Planning and\n Development stated that although the City did not review projects\xe2\x80\x99 standard leases\n before the projects were completed and units were leased, the Division\xe2\x80\x99s staff\n should have reviewed the projects\xe2\x80\x99 leases during the City\xe2\x80\x99s required annual\n compliance monitoring. However, the staff did not review the leases because the\n staff assumed that the owners used leases that complied with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations\n and the regulatory agreements. Further, the Division\xe2\x80\x99s long-term Program\n monitoring requirements and procedures required owners to submit leases for new\n households only and did not specify that the Division\xe2\x80\x99s staff should review the\n leases for prohibited language.\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cConclusion\n\n The City lacked adequate procedures and controls to ensure that the leases\n between the projects\xe2\x80\x99 owners and the households did not contain language\n prohibited by HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations and the City\xe2\x80\x99s regulatory agreements with the\n owners. As a result, the City drew down nearly $7.4 million in Program funds for\n two projects in which the rights of 73 households were not protected due to\n prohibited language in the leases.\n\nRecommendations\n\n We recommend that the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Chicago Office of Community\n Planning and Development require the City to\n\n 1A. Ensure that over the next year, the owner of project number 8806 does not\n execute leases that include prohibited language for the 38 units in which (1)\n the owner executed lease addenda for 34 units that removed the prohibited\n language from the current leases, (2) the owner executed a new lease for a\n unit that did not contain prohibited language, or (3) three units were vacant.\n This measure will ensure that $4,668,263 ($4,913,961 / 40 units * 38 units)\n in Program funds drawn down for the 38 units in the project was used in\n accordance with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations and the City\xe2\x80\x99s regulatory agreement\n with the owner.\n\n 1B. Ensure that for the two Program-assisted units in project number 8806 in\n which the owner is involved in ongoing eviction proceedings with the\n households, (1) the leases between the owner and the households are\n amended to remove the prohibited language if the households are not\n evicted, (2) the owner executes leases that do not include prohibited\n language with new households if the households are evicted, or (3)\n reimburse its Program from non-Federal funds for the $245,698 ($4,913,961\n / 40 units * two units) in Program funds drawn down for the two units as\n appropriate.\n\n 1C. Ensure that over the next year, the owner of project number 10289 does not\n execute leases that include prohibited language for the 33 units in which the\n owner executed lease addenda that removed the prohibited language from\n the current leases. This measure will ensure that $2,448,226 in Program\n funds drawn down for the 33 units in the project was used in accordance\n with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations and the City\xe2\x80\x99s regulatory agreement with the owner.\n\n 1D. Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that leases associated\n with Program-assisted units are reviewed to ensure that the leases do not\n contain prohibited language.\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cFinding 2: The City Did Not Always Use and Report Program Income\n in Accordance With HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Requirements\nThe City did not always follow HUD\xe2\x80\x99s requirements in its use and reporting of Program income.\nIt (1) inappropriately drew down nearly $25.2 million in Program funds from its HOME\ninvestment trust fund treasury account from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013, when\nit had available Program income, (2) inappropriately used Program income, (3) did not report\nmore than $4.3 million in Program income in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System in a timely manner, and (4) did not\ndeposit Program income into its HOME investment trust fund local account. These weaknesses\noccurred because the City lacked adequate procedures and controls to ensure that it used and\nreported Program income in accordance with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s requirements. As a result, (1) the U.S.\nDepartment of the Treasury paid more than $30,000 in unnecessary interest on the Program\nfunds that the City drew down from its treasury account when Program income was available, (2)\nthe City had more than $9,000 less in Program income to be used for eligible Program activities,\nand (3) HUD and the City lacked assurance regarding the amount of Program income available\nto the City.\n\n\n The City Inappropriately Drew\n Down Program Funds When It\n Had Program Income\n\n Contrary to regulations at 24 CFR 92.502(c)(3), the City did not always properly\n use income generated from its Program. The City inappropriately made 60\n drawdowns from its treasury account from January 1, 2012, through December\n 31, 2013, when it had available Program income. The drawdowns totaled nearly\n $25.2 million in Program funds.\n\n The City Inappropriately Used\n Program Income\n\n The City did not use Program income in accordance with regulations at 24 CFR\n 92.503(a)(1). The City received $9,200 in Program income in April 2013.\n However, in July 2013, it inappropriately reported the Program income in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\n System as Community Development Block Grant program. In September 2013,\n the City used this Program income for the expenses of two Block Grant-funded\n activities. The City\xe2\x80\x99s assistant comptroller in the Department of Finance\xe2\x80\x99s Grants\n and Project Accounting Division stated that the activities were not eligible under\n the Program.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cThe City\xe2\x80\x99s Reporting of\nProgram Income to HUD Was\nNot Timely\n\n Contrary to HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Community Planning and Development Notice 97-\n 9, the City did not report Program income in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System in a timely manner.\n The City reported in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System that it received more than $4.3 million in\n Program income from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013, through 24\n entries. However, it exceeded HUD\xe2\x80\x99s 30-day reporting requirement for all of the\n entries by 10 to 159 days. The table in appendix D of this report shows the month\n in which the City earned Program income, the amount of Program income earned,\n the date on which the City reported the Program income in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System, and\n the number of days it exceeded HUD\xe2\x80\x99s 30-day requirement.\n\n Further, the City did not deposit Program income into its HOME investment trust\n fund local account as required by regulations at 24 CFR 92.503(a)(1). Although\n the City deposited Program funds drawn down from its treasury account into its\n local account, it deposited income generated from its Program into the City\xe2\x80\x99s\n Grants and Project Accounting Division\xe2\x80\x99s bank account and tracked the Program\n income through its accounting system.\n\nThe City Lacked Adequate\nProcedures and Controls\n\n The weaknesses described above occurred because the City lacked adequate\n procedures and controls to ensure that it used and reported Program income in\n accordance with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s requirements. The assistant comptroller in the Grants\n and Project Accounting Division stated that the City mistakenly drew down\n Program funds from the treasury account rather than using available Program\n income due to staff oversight. The assistant comptroller also stated that an\n accountant, who was responsible for reporting Program income in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System,\n and the supervisor of accounting in the Division had other responsibilities.\n Therefore, ensuring that Program income was reported in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System in a\n timely manner was not their main focus. The accountant said that there were\n times when he got behind and deposited several months of Program income at one\n time rather than monthly.\n\nConclusion\n\n The City lacked adequate procedures and controls to ensure that it used and\n reported Program income in accordance with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s requirements. As a result,\n (1) the U.S. Department of the Treasury\xe2\x80\x99s paid $30,225 in unnecessary interest on\n the nearly $25.2 million in Program funds that the City drew down from its\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c treasury account when Program income was available,3 (2) the City had more than\n $9,000 less in Program income to be used for eligible Program activities, and (3)\n HUD and the City lacked assurance regarding the amount of Program income\n available to the City.\n\n Recommendations\n\n We recommend that the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Chicago Office of Community\n Planning and Development require the City to\n\n 2A. Reimburse HUD, for transmission to the U.S. Treasury, $30,225 from non-\n Federal funds for the unnecessary interest the U.S. Department of the\n Treasury paid on the Program funds that the City drew down from its\n treasury account when Program income was available.\n\n 2B. Reimburse its Program from non-Federal funds $9,200 for the Program\n income inappropriately used for two Block Grant activities.\n\n 2C. Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that it (1) uses\n available Program income for eligible housing activities before it draws\n down Program funds from its treasury account, (2) reports Program income\n in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System in a timely manner, and (3) deposits Program income into\n its local account.\n\n\n\n\n3\n See scope and methodology.\n\n\n 9\n\x0cFinding 3: The City Did Not Always Conduct Required Annual\n Compliance Monitoring of Rental New Construction Projects\nThe City did not always conduct required annual compliance monitoring of Program-funded\nrental new construction projects in calendar year 2013. This weakness occurred because the City\nlacked adequate procedures and controls for conducting annual compliance monitoring of\nprojects as required by HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations. As a result, HUD and the City lacked assurance that\nhouseholds were (1) living in units that met HUD\xe2\x80\x99s property standards requirements, (2) income\neligible, and (3) not paying excessive rents.\n\n\n The City Did Not Always\n Conduct Required Annual\n Compliance Monitoring of\n Projects\n\n We reviewed the City\xe2\x80\x99s annual compliance monitoring for the six Program-\n funded projects that the City reported as completed in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System from\n January 1 through December 31, 2012. The City drew down more than $26.3\n million in Program funds for the six projects. Each project contained more than\n 25 units.\n\n The City did not always conduct annual compliance monitoring of projects from\n January 1 through December 31, 2013, as required by regulations at 24 CFR\n 92.504(d)(1). It did not perform annual onsite inspections of Program-assisted\n units for project numbers 8806, 10288, 10289, and 10295 to determine whether\n the units complied with the property standards requirements of 24 CFR 92.251.\n Further, contrary to regulations at 24 CFR 92.252(f)(2), the City did not ensure\n that the owner of project number 10289 provided the City with information on the\n rents and occupancy of Program-assisted units to demonstrate compliance with 24\n CFR 92.252. Therefore, the City also did not perform an onsite review to verify\n the information that the owner was required to submit.\n\n In April 2014 and as a result our audit, the owner of project number 10289\n provided the City with information on the rents and occupancy of Program-\n assisted units and the City performed an onsite review to verify the information\n that the owner submitted. Further, as of August 2014, the City had performed\n onsite inspections of units in the four projects. However, it did not provide\n sufficient documentation to support that the units it inspected for project numbers\n 10288 and 10289 were Program-assisted units at the time of the inspections.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cThe City Lacked Adequate\nProcedures and Controls\n\n The weakness described above occurred because the City lacked adequate\n procedures and controls for conducting annual compliance monitoring of projects\n from January 1 through December 31, 2013, as required by HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations.\n The Construction and Compliance Division in the City\xe2\x80\x99s Department of Planning\n and Development did not have a sufficient number of rehabilitation construction\n specialists to complete the annual onsite inspections of Program-assisted units in a\n timely manner. The Department planned to hire an additional rehabilitation\n construction specialist in 2015. The deputy commissioner of the Construction and\n Compliance Division also stated that three of the six rehabilitation construction\n specialists missed a significant amount of work time due to illness and other\n issues. The assistant commissioner of the Monitoring and Compliance Division\n in the City\xe2\x80\x99s Department of Planning and Development said that the City could\n not contract for inspectors due to union issues.\n\n The assistant commissioner said that for project number 10289, the City\xe2\x80\x99s\n Multifamily Affordable Financing Division in the City\xe2\x80\x99s Department of Planning\n and Development did not provide the Monitoring and Compliance Division the\n regulatory agreement and Program-funded unit information. Although the\n Monitoring and Compliance Division requested the documentation from the\n Multifamily Affordable Financing Division, it did not follow up when it did not\n receive the documentation. Therefore, it did not know which units were Program-\n funded units and did not monitor the project.\n\nConclusion\n\n The City lacked adequate procedures and controls for conducting annual\n compliance monitoring of projects from January 1 through December 31, 2013, as\n required by HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations. As a result, HUD and the City lacked assurance\n that households were (1) living in units that met HUD\xe2\x80\x99s property standards\n requirements, (2) income eligible, and (3) not paying excessive rents.\n\nRecommendations\n\n We recommend that the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Chicago Office of Community\n Planning and Development\n\n 3A. Ensure that the units the City inspected for project numbers 10288 and\n 10289 were Program-assisted units at the time of the inspections.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cWe recommend that the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Chicago Office of Community\nPlanning and Development require the City to\n\n3B. Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that (1) it performs\n annual onsite inspections of Program-assisted units for projects with more\n than 25 units to determine whether the units complied with the HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\n property standards requirements, (2) the projects\xe2\x80\x99 owners provide the City\n with information on the rents and occupancy of Program-assisted units to\n demonstrate compliance with 24 CFR 92.252, and (3) it performs annual on-\n site inspections to verify the information submitted by the owners for\n projects with more than 25 units.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nWe performed our onsite audit work from January through April 2014 at the City\xe2\x80\x99s offices located\nat 121 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL. The audit covered the period January 2012 through\nDecember 2013 and was expanded as necessary.\n\nTo accomplish our objectives, we reviewed\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Applicable laws, regulations at 24 CFR Part 92, HUD\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cBuilding HOME: A\n Program Primer,\xe2\x80\x9d and HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Community Planning and Development\n Notice 97-9.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 The City\xe2\x80\x99s consolidated plan for 2010 through 2014, action plans for 2012 and\n 2013, single audit reports for 2011 and 2012, accounting records, data from\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System and the City\xe2\x80\x99s MITAS enterprise loan system, policies and\n procedures, Program project files, and organizational chart.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 HUD\xe2\x80\x99s files for the City.\n\nIn addition, we interviewed the City\xe2\x80\x99s and projects\xe2\x80\x99 employees and HUD\xe2\x80\x99s staff.\n\nFinding 1\n\nWe randomly selected leases between the rental new construction projects\xe2\x80\x99 owners and the\nhouseholds for 23 of the 794 Program-assisted units from the 14 projects that the City reported as\ncomplete in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013. The City drew\ndown nearly $55 million in Program funds for the 14 projects. The leases between the owners\nand the households for two units in two projects (numbers 8806 and 10289) included language\nprohibited by HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations. Project numbers 8806 and 10289 consisted of 40 and 33\nProgram-assisted units, respectively. Therefore, we reviewed the leases for an additional 10\nunits in each of the two projects.\n\nFinding 2\n\nWe were conservative in our determination of the amount of unnecessary interest that the U.S.\nTreasury paid. We based our calculation on the 10-year U.S. Treasury rate, using simple interest\non the City\xe2\x80\x99s daily balance of Program income. Further, we did not include in the City\xe2\x80\x99s daily\nbalance of Program income any Program income received during a month until the first day of\nthe following month.\n\nFinding 3\n\nWe selected the City\xe2\x80\x99s annual compliance monitoring for the six Program-funded rental new\nconstruction projects that the City reported as completed in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System from January 1\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cthrough December 31, 2012. The City drew down more than $26.3 million in Program funds for\nthe six projects. Each project contained more than 25 units.\n\nWe relied in part on data in the City\xe2\x80\x99s system and HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System. Although we did not perform\na detailed assessment of the reliability of the data, we performed minimal levels of testing and\nfound the data to be adequately reliable for our purposes.\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 objectives.\n\n\n\n\n 14\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 \xef\x82\xb7 Effectiveness and efficiency of operations,\n \xef\x82\xb7 Reliability of financial reporting, and\n \xef\x82\xb7 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 Relevant Internal Controls\n\n We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit\n objectives:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Effectiveness and efficiency of operations \xe2\x80\x93 Policies and procedures that\n management has implemented to reasonably ensure that a program meets\n its objectives.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Reliability of financial reporting \xe2\x80\x93 Policies and procedures that\n management has implemented to reasonably ensure that valid and reliable\n data are obtained, maintained, and fairly disclosed in reports.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Compliance with applicable laws and regulations \xe2\x80\x93 Policies and\n procedures that management has implemented to reasonably ensure that\n resource use is consistent with laws and regulations.\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\n not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their\n assigned functions, the reasonable opportunity to prevent, detect, or correct (1)\n impairments to effectiveness or efficiency of operations, (2) misstatements in\n financial or performance information, or (3) violations of laws and regulations on a\n timely basis.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cSignificant Deficiencies\n\n Based on our review, we believe that the following items are significant deficiencies:\n\n The City lacked adequate procedures and controls to ensure that\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 The leases between the rental new construction projects\xe2\x80\x99 owners and the\n households did not contain language prohibited by HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations and the\n City\xe2\x80\x99s regulatory agreements with the owners (see finding 1).\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 It used and reported Program income in accordance with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s requirements\n (see finding 2).\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 It conducted annual compliance monitoring of rental new construction\n projects as required by HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations (see finding 3).\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c APPENDIXES\n\nAppendix A\n\n SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS\n AND FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE\n\n Recommendation Funds to be put\n number Ineligible 1/ to better use 2/\n 1A $4,668,263\n 1B $245,698\n 1C 2,448,226\n 2A 30,225\n 2B 9,200\n Totals $285,123 $7,116,489\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. In this instance, implementation of our recommendations\n will ensure that (1) over the next year, the projects\xe2\x80\x99 owners will not execute leases that\n include prohibited language and (2) Program funds will be used in accordance with\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations and the City\xe2\x80\x99s regulatory agreements with the owners.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c Appendix B\n\n AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\nComment 2\n\n\nComments 2\n and 3\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 4\n\n\n\n\nComment 5\n\n\n\n\nComment 6\nComment 2\n\nComment 6\nComment 2\n\nComment 2\n and 6\n\n\n\n\nComment 7\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0c OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Evaluation of Auditee Comments\n\nComment 1 The City stated that it amended its existing policies and procedures regarding the\n monitoring of tenant files to specifically incorporate the review of all lease\n agreements including all riders. The City provided its Department of Planning\n and Development\xe2\x80\x99s Monitoring and Compliance Division\xe2\x80\x99s revised long-term\n Program monitoring requirements and procedures as attachment 1. The City also\n stated that its monitoring staff will review all lease agreements during the City\xe2\x80\x99s\n annual owners\xe2\x80\x99 certification process in addition to the annual onsite Program\n records inspections.\n\n We recognize that the City amended its policies and procedures regarding the\n review of leases associated with Program-assisted units. However, the revised\n long-term Program monitoring requirements and procedures stated that for the\n City\xe2\x80\x99s annual owners\xe2\x80\x99 certification process, rental new construction projects\xe2\x80\x99\n owners must submit leases for new households only and did not specify whether\n the Division\xe2\x80\x99s staff would review the leases for prohibited language. Further, the\n Division would continue to use a 20 percent sample for projects with more than\n five units during the City\xe2\x80\x99s annual onsite Program records inspections. In\n addition, the City\xe2\x80\x99s amended policies and procedures do not indicate whether a\n review of the projects\xe2\x80\x99 standard leases would occur before the projects are\n completed and units are leased. Therefore, the City should work with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\n Chicago Office of Community Planning and Development to ensure that leases\n associated with Program-assisted units do not contain prohibited language.\n\nComment 2 We did not include in appendix B the attachments that the City provided since the\n attachments were not necessary to understand the City\xe2\x80\x99s comments. We provided\n the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Chicago Office of Community Planning and Development\n with a complete copy of the City\xe2\x80\x99s written comments plus the attachments.\n\nComment 3 The City provided as attachment 1A lease addenda executed by the owner of\n project number 10289 that removed the prohibited language from the leases for\n the 33 Program-assisted units.\n\n We revised the report to state the following:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Further, in April and May 2014, the City had the owner of project number\n 10289 execute lease addenda that removed prohibited language from the\n leases for the project\xe2\x80\x99s 33 units.\n\n We also amended recommendation 1C to reflect this revision.\n\nComment 4 The City stated that it will repay any unnecessary interest incurred from\n improperly administering Program income. The City should work with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\n Chicago Office of Community Planning and Development regarding the\n reimbursement to HUD, for transmission to the U.S. Treasury, from non-Federal\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0c funds for the unnecessary interest the U.S. Department of the Treasury paid on the\n Program funds that the City drew down from its treasury account when Program\n income was available.\n\nComment 5 The City stated that it will reimburse HUD for the Program income that was\n inappropriately used. The recommendation is that the City reimburse its Program\n from non-Federal funds for the Program income that was inappropriately used for\n two Block Grant activities. Therefore, the City should work with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Chicago\n Office of Community Planning and Development to ensure that this\n recommendation is appropriately implemented.\n\nComment 6 The City provided its Department of Finance\xe2\x80\x99s Grants and Project Accounting\n Division\xe2\x80\x99s Program income process as attachment 2. The Program income\n process stated that an operations analyst in the Division will record the receipt of\n Program income in the City\xe2\x80\x99s MITAS enterprise loan system. At the end of the\n month, the operations analyst will provide to the Division\xe2\x80\x99s accountant\n responsible for the Program a report that details the Program income activity\n reflected in the MITAS enterprise loan system for the month. The accountant will\n create and submit for approval a cash receipt for the Program income. Once\n approved, the Program income will be reported in the City\xe2\x80\x99s general ledger. The\n accountant will then report the Program income in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System by the 30th day\n of the following month.\n\n We recognize that the City amended its policies and procedures regarding the use,\n reporting, and depositing of Program income. However, since the Program\n income process does not contain timeframes for the creation, submission, and\n approval of the cash receipt, it is not clear whether the reporting of the Program\n income in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System will be the 30th day of the following month from when\n the Program income was (1) received or (2) reported in the City\xe2\x80\x99s general ledger.\n Further, the City would have already determined the amount of Program income\n received by the end of each month that it was earned. Therefore, the City should\n work with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Chicago Office of Community Planning and Development to\n ensure that Program income is (1) used for eligible housing activities before it\n draws down Program funds from its treasury account and (2) reported in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\n System in a timely manner.\n\nComment 7 Although the City maintained the spreadsheet to track the annual compliance\n monitoring of projects from January 1 through December 31, 2013, it did not\n perform annual onsite inspections of Program-assisted units for project numbers\n 8806, 10288, 10289, and 10295 to determine whether the units complied with the\n property standards requirements of 24 CFR 92.251. Further, the City did not\n ensure that the owner of project number 10289 provided the City with information\n on the rents and occupancy of Program-assisted units to demonstrate compliance\n with 24 CFR 92.252 and did not perform an onsite review to verify the\n information that the owner was required to submit.\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0cAppendix C\n\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99S REQUIREMENTS AND THE CITY\xe2\x80\x99S REGULATORY\n AGREEMENTS\n\nFinding 1\n\nRegulations at 24 CFR 92.253(b)(3) state that a lease between an owner and a tenant of rental\nhousing assisted with Program funds may not contain a provision excusing the owner from\nresponsibility in which the tenant agrees to not hold the owner or the owner\xe2\x80\x99s agents legally\nresponsible for any action or failure to act, whether intentional or negligent.\n\nRegulations at 24 CFR 92.504(a) state that a participating jurisdiction is responsible for\nmanaging the day-to-day operations of its Program, ensuring that Program funds are used in\naccordance with all Program requirements and written agreements, and taking appropriate action\nwhen performance problems arise. The use of subrecipients or contractors does not relieve the\nparticipating jurisdiction of this responsibility.\n\nSections 2.15 and 2.12 of the City\xe2\x80\x99s regulatory agreements with the owners of rental new\nconstruction project numbers 8806 and 10289, respectively, state that the leases for units in the\nprojects will not contain a provision in which the tenant agrees to not hold the owner or the\nowner\xe2\x80\x99s agents legally responsible for any action or failure to act, whether intentional or\nnegligent.\n\nFinding 2\n\nRegulations at 24 CFR 92.2 define Program income as gross income received by a participating\njurisdiction directly generated from the use of Program funds or matching contributions.\nProgram income also includes interest earned on Program income pending its disposition.\n\nRegulations at 24 CFR 92.502(c)(3) state that a participating jurisdiction must disburse Program\nfunds, including Program income and recaptured Program funds, in its local account before\nrequesting Program funds from its treasury account.\n\nRegulations at 24 CFR 92.503(a)(1) state that a participating jurisdiction must use Program\nincome in accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR Part 92 and deposit Program income into\nits local account unless it permits a State recipient or subrecipient to retain the Program income\nfor additional Program projects under the written agreement required by 24 CFR 92.504.\n\nHUD\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Community Planning and Development Notice 97-9, issued September 12,\n1997, requires available Program income to be determined and recorded in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System in\nperiodic intervals not to exceed 30 days.\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0cFinding 3\nRegulations at 24 CFR 92.252 state that Program-assisted units in a rental housing project must\nbe occupied only by low-income households and meet HUD\xe2\x80\x99s maximum Program rent limits to\nqualify as affordable housing. Section 92.252(f)(2) states that project owners must annually\nprovide a participating jurisdiction with information on rents and occupancy of Program-assisted\nunits to demonstrate compliance with 24 CFR 92.252.\n\nRegulations at 24 CFR 92.504(d)(1) state that during the period of affordability, a participating\njurisdiction must perform onsite inspections of Program-assisted rental housing to determine\ncompliance with the property standards at 24 CFR 92.251 and to verify the information\nsubmitted by owners in accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR 92.252 no less than every\nyear for projects containing 26 or more units. Inspections must be based on a sufficient sample\nof units.\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0cAppendix D\n\n SCHEDULE OF PROGRAM INCOME THAT WAS NOT\n REPORTED IN A TIMELY MANNER\n\n Days over\n Month Program Program Date reported in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s 30-day\n income received income earned HUD\xe2\x80\x99s System requirement*\n Dec. 2011 Not applicable Jan. 24, 2012 Not applicable\n Jan. 2012 $29,519 Mar. 16, 2012 22\n Feb. 2012 26,752 June 25, 2012 71\n Mar. 2012 32,862 June 25, 2012 71\n Apr. 2012 30,120 Dec. 31, 2012 159\n May 2012 31,858 Dec. 31, 2012 159\n June 2012 30,578 Dec. 31, 2012 159\n July 2012 34,270 Dec. 31, 2012 159\n Aug. 2012 20,106 Dec. 31, 2012 159\n Sept. 2012 29,898 Dec. 31, 2012 159\n Oct. 2012 21,033 Dec. 31, 2012 159\n Nov. 2012 41,508 Dec. 31, 2012 159\n Dec. 2012 3,537,990 Mar. 28, 2013 57\n Jan. 2013 25,356 Aug. 5, 2013 100\n Feb. 2013 135,847 Aug. 5, 2013 100\n Mar. 2013 31,187 Aug. 5, 2013 100\n Apr. 2013 37,433 Aug. 5, 2013 100\n May 2013 28,006 Aug. 5, 2013 100\n June 2013 28,249 Oct. 10, 2013 36\n July 2013 29,464 Oct. 10, 2013 36\n Aug. 2013 28,745 Oct. 10, 2013 36\n Sept. 2013 28,396 Nov. 19, 2013 10\n Oct. 2013 28,589 Jan. 30, 2014 42\n Nov. 2013 32,734 Jan. 30, 2014 42\n Dec. 2013 51,453 May 2, 2014 62\n * The number of days after the 30th day since the City last reported Program income in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\n System.\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
C 7/24 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie 10.1.2004
 Beroep, op 30 oktober 2003 ingesteld door Commissie Hof van Justitie op 4 november 2003, in het geding tussen
 van de Europese Gemeenschappen tegen Ierland Gaston Schul Douane-Expediteur B.V. en de Minister van
 Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, het Hof van Justitie van
 (Zaak C-459/03) de Europese Gemeenschappen verzocht om een prejudiciële
 beslissing over de navolgende vragen:
 (2004/C 7/39)
 1. Is een rechterlijke instantie als bedoeld in artikel 234,
 derde alinea, EG ingevolge die bepaling ook gehouden
 zich tot het Hof van Justitie te wenden met een vraag als
 Bij het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Gemeenschappen is hierna volgend over de geldigheid van bepalingen van een
 op 30 oktober 2003 beroep ingesteld tegen Ierland door verordening, indien de ongeldigheid van overeenkomstige
 Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen, vertegenwoor- bepalingen van een andere, vergelijkbare verordening
 digd door P. J. Kuijper en B. Martenczuk als gemachtigden, door het Hof van Justitie is vastgesteld, of kan zij
 domicilie gekozen hebbende te Luxemburg. eerstbedoelde bepalingen buiten toepassing laten gelet op
 de bijzondere overeenkomsten met de ongeldig verklaar-
 de bepalingen?
 Verzoekster concludeert dat het het Hof behage:
 — vast te stellen dat Ierland, door op grond van het Verdrag 2. Is artikel 4, leden 1 en 2, van Verordening (EG) nr. 1423/
 van de Verenigde Naties inzake het recht van de Zee 95 (1) van de Commissie van 23 juni 1995 tot vaststelling
 tegen het Verenigd Koninkrijk een procedure voor de van de uitvoeringsbepalingen voor de invoer van produk-
 regeling van geschillen in te leiden met betrekking tot ten uit de sector suiker, andere dan melasse, ongeldig
 de MOX-fabriek te Sellafield, de verplichtingen niet is voorzover het bepaalt, dat het daarin genoemde aanvul-
 nagekomen die op hem rusten krachtens de artikelen 10 lende recht in beginsel wordt vastgesteld op basis van de
 en 292 EG en de artikelen 192 en 193 EA; representatieve prijs bedoeld in artikel 1, lid 2, van
 Verordening (EG) nr. 1423/95 en dat dit recht slechts op
 — Ierland te verwijzen in de kosten. basis van de cif-invoerprijs van de betrokken zending
 wordt vastgesteld, indien de importeur daarom verzoekt?
 Middelen en voornaamste argumenten (1) Verordening (EG) nr. 1423/95 van de Commissie van 23 juni
 1995 tot vaststelling van de uitvoeringsbepalingen voor de invoer
 van produkten uit de sector suiker, andere dan melasse. JO L 141,
 De Commissie stelt dat Ierland de procedure tegen het Verenigd van 24.6.1995, p. 16.
 Koninkrijk heeft ingeleid zonder rekening te houden met het
 feit dat de Europese Gemeenschap partij is bij het Verdrag van
 de Verenigde Naties inzake het recht van de Zee (Zeerechtver-
 drag). Verder is het eraan voorbijgegaan dat de door hem
 aangevoerde bepalingen van het Zeerechtverdrag alsmede
 een aantal andere door Ierland aangevoerde communautaire
 handelingen bepalingen van gemeenschapsrecht zijn. Door het
 geschil voor te leggen aan een scheidsgerecht buiten de Beroep, op 4 november 2003 ingesteld door Koninkrijk
 communautaire rechtsorde heeft Ierland de in de artikelen 292 Spanje tegen Commissie van de Europese Gemeen-
 EG en 193 EA neergelegde exclusieve bevoegdheid van het schappen
 Hof van Justitie geschonden. Bovendien heeft Ierland de
 samenwerkingsplicht op grond van de artikelen 10 EG en 192 (Zaak C-464/03)
 EA geschonden.
 (2004/C 7/41)
 Bij het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Gemeenschappen is
 Verzoek van het College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsle- op 4 november 2003 beroep ingesteld tegen Commissie
 ven, van 24 oktober 2003 om een prejudiciële beslissing van de Europese Gemeenschappen door Koninkrijk Spanje,
 in het geding tussen Gaston Schul Douane-Expediteur B.V. vertegenwoordigd door N. Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado,
 en de Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit domicilie gekozen hebbende te Luxemburg.
 (Zaak C-461/03)
 Verzoekster concludeert dat het den Hove behage:
 (2004/C 7/40)
 — verordening (EG) nr. 1438/2003 (1) van de Commissie
 van 12 augustus 2003 tot vaststelling van bepalingen ter
 uitvoering van het gemeenschappelijk vlootbeleid als
 Het College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, heeft bij het omschreven in hoofdstuk III van verordening (EG)
 vonnis van 24 oktober 2003, ingekomen ter griffie van het nr. 2371/2002 van de Raad, nietig te verklaren, en


text:
Tel. 8 650 25 500
 El. paštas almantas.razukas@lammc.lt
 1982 m. Vilniaus Salomėjos Neries vidurinė mokykla.
 1982–1987 m. studijos Lietuvos žemės ūkio akademijoje (Aleksandro Stulginsko
 universitetas), Agronomijos fakultetas. Mokslinio agronomo diplomas.
 2008 m Biomedicinos mokslų srities, agronomijos krypties Habilitacijos procedūros darbas „Bulvių selekcijos ir sėklininkystės tyrimai“.
 1991 m. Žemės ūkio mokslų srities, agronomijos krypties daktaro laipsnis. Disertacija „Meristeminės sėklininkystės taikymo ypatumai įvairaus ankstyvumo bulvių veislėms“.
 Augalų selekcija ir augalininkystė
 Nuo 2018 m. lapkričio 27 d. LAMMC Perlojos bandymų stoties direktorius
 Nuo 2002 m. LAMMC Vokės filialo vyriausiasis mokslo darbuotojas.
 Nuo 1998 m. LŽI Vokės filialo direktorius, dabar LAMMC Vokės filialo direktorius.
 1995–1998 m. LŽI Vokės filialo direktoriaus pavaduotojas mokslui.
 1991–1995 m. LŽI Vokės filialo mokslo darbuotojas.
 1987–1991 m. LŽI Vokės filialo jaunesnysis mokslo darbuotojas.
 Visos Rusijos Augalininkystės tyrimų institutas, Sankt Peterburgas, Rusija.
 Bulvių sėklininkystės centras, Oulu, Suomija.
 Wageningeno universitetas ir tyrimų centras, Nyderlandai.
 Suomijos žemės ūkio mokslinių tyrimų centras,Jokioinen, Suomija.
 Kembridžio universitetas, Jungtinė Karalystė.
 Gordon ir Innes bulvių selekcijos sėklininkystės įmonė, Škotija.
 Jameso Hutono institutas, Dundee, Škotija.
 HZPC Sadokas OY įmonė, Tyrnava, Suomija.
 Augalų selekcijos stotis Cebeco-Zaden, Nyderlandai.
 2017–2018 m. Lietuvos verslo paramos agentūros projektas „Vandens šalinimo ir sapropelio, sušaldymo į sniego kristalus būdu, technologinės įrangos pramoninio prototipo sukūrimas“, projekto vykdytojas.
 2014–2015 m. Nacionalinės mokslo programos „Sveikas ir saugus maistas“ projekto „Grikių veislių ir auginimo sąlygų atranka, technologijos funkcionaliųjų komponentų didinimui kūrimas“, projekto vykdytojas.
 Vaiva Bražinskienė „Ekologinės ir intensyvios žemdirbystės įtaka bulvių gumbų antioksidacinių junginių kiekiui“.
 Auksė Burakova „Biogeninių elementų apytaka naudojant ekologines trąšas“.
 2015 m. Sėjamųjų grikių veislė ‘VB Nojai’.
 2011 m. Sėjamųjų rugių veislė ‘VB Duoniai’.
 2010 m. Valgomosios bulvės veislė ‘VB Liepa’.
 2006 m. Valgomosios bulvės veislė ‘VB Rasa’.
 2006 m. Valgomosios bulvės veislė ‘VB Aista’.
 2006 m. Siauralapių lubinų veislė ‘VB Ugniai’.
 2006 m. Siauralapių lubinų veislė ‘VB Vilniai’.
 2006 m. Sėjamųjų grikių veislė ‘VB Vokiai’.
 2006 m. Pašarinių ridikų veislė ‘VB Gausiai’.
 2001 m. Valgomosios bulvės veislė ‘Goda’.
 2000 m. Valgomosios bulvės veislė ‘Vaiva’.
 1997 m. Valgomosios bulvės veislė ‘VB Venta’.
 Tripolskaja L., Ražukas A. 2019. Improving potato microclone productivity by exogenous application of proline, glutamic acid and stem decapitation. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 106 (2): 129–134. IF – 1,020
 Asakavičiūtė R., Bražinskienė V., Ivanauskas L., Ražukas A. 2017. Effects of organical and conventional growing on the content of biologically active compounds of potatoes. Acta Alimentaria, 46 (2): 223–230. IF – 0,357
 Tripolskaja L., Ražukas A., Šidlauskas G., Verbylienė I. 2017. Effect of fertilizers with different chemical composition on crop yield, nitrogen uptake and leaching in sandy loam Luvisol. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 104 (3): 203–208. IF – 0,644
 Brazinskiene V., Asakaviciute R., Razukas A. Ivanauskas L. 2017. Quantification of biologically active compounds in the tubers of potato varieties of different maturity. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 104 (1): 41–46. DOI: 10.13080/z-a.2017.104.006 IF – 0,579
 Romanovskaja D., Razukas A., Asakaviciute R. 2016. Impact of hydrothermal conditions on common buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum moench.) productivity. Applied ecology and environmental research, 14 (2): 137–150. DOI: 10.15666/aeer/1402_137150.IF – 0,500
 Žvikas V., Pukelevičienė V., Ivanauskas L., Pukalskas A., Ražukas A., Jakštas V. 2016. Variety-based research on the phenolic content in the aerial parts of organically and conventionally grown buckwheat. Food chemistry, 213: 660–667. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem2016.07.010 IF – 4,052
 Tripolskaja L., Baksiene E., Razukas A., Sidlauskas G. 2016. How Organic Fertilizers Change Element Leaching: Summary of the Lysimeter Studies in Lithuania, 1987-2014. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 25 (6): 2589–2599. DOI: 10.15244/pjoes/63736. IF – 0,793
 Asakaviciute R., Brazinskiene V., Ivanauskas L., Razukas A. 2015. Effect of organicaland conventional growing on the content biologically active compounds of potatoes. Acta Alimentaria, l46 (2): 223–230. DOI: 10.1556.2017.46.2.12 IF – 0,333
 Baksiene E., Asakaviciute R., Romanovskaja D., Tripolskaja L., Razukas A. 2015. EThe influence of lake sediments on sandy kiam soil properties and crop yiels. Romanian Agricultural research, 32. DOI: 2067-5720 RAR 2015-21 IF – 0,281
 Bakšienė E., Ražukas A., Repečkienė J., Titova J. 2014. Influence of different farming systems on the stability of low productivity soil in Southeast Lithuania. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 101 (2): 115–124.DOI: 10.13080/z-a.2014.101.015 IF – 0,420
 Brazinskiene V., Asakaviciute R., Miezeliene A., Alencikiene G., Ivanauskas L., Jakstas V., Viskelis P.,Razukas A. 2014. Effect of farming systems on the yield, quality parameters and sensory properties of conventionally and organically grown potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) tubers. Food Chemistry, 145: 903–909. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.09.011 IF – 3,391
 Gaivelyte k., Jakstas V., Razukas A., Janulis V. 2014. Variation of quantitative composition of phenolic compounds in rowan (Sorbus aucuparia L.) leaves during the growth season. Natural Product Research: Formerly Natural Product Letters, DOI: 10.1080/14786419.2014.902819. IF – 0,919
 Tripolskaja L., Romanovskaja D., Slepetiene A., Razukas A., Sidlauskas G. 2014. Effect of the Chemical Composition of Geen Manure Cropson Humus Formationin a Soddy-Podzolic Soil. Eurasian Soil Science, 47 (4): 310–318. DOI: 10.1134/S1064229314040097 IF – 0,628
 Brazinskiene V., Asakaviciute R., Miezeliene A., Alencikiene G., Ivanauskas L., Jakstas V., Viskelis P.,Razukas A. 2014. Effect of farming systems on the yield, quality parametrs and sensory properties of conventionally and organically grown potato (Solanumtuberosum L.) tubers. Food Chemistry, 145: 903–909. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.09.011. IF – 3,259
 Bakšienė E., Ražukas A., Repečkienė J., Titova J. 2014. Influence of different farming systems on the stability of low productivity soil in Southeast Lithuania. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 101 (2): 115–124. DOI: 10.13080/z-a.2014.101.015 IF – 0,523
 Maknickiene Z., Asakaviciute R., Baksiene E., Ražukas A. 2013. Alkaloid content variations in Lupinus luteus L. and Lupinus angustifolius. Archives of Biological Sciences, 65 (1): 107–112. DOI: 10.2298/ABS1301107М IF – 0,607
 Armoskaite V., Jakštas V., Ivanauskas L., Ražukas A., Ramanauskiene K., Briedis V. 2013. Application of HPLC-ELSD for the Quantification of 5-Aminolevulinic Acid after Penetration into Human Skin Ex Vivo. Analytical Letters, 46 (5): 717–733. DOI: 10.1080/00032719.2012.733898 IF – 0,982
 Tripolskaja L, Verbyliene I, Marcinkonis S., Razukas A., Baksienė E, Romanovskaja D. 2012. The changes of the filtration of precipitation in soil in southeastern Lithuania under the influence of climate conditions. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 10 (3&4): 1359–1363. IF – 0,517
 Romanovskaja D., Bakšienė E., Ražukas A., Tripolskaja L. 2012. Influence of Climate Change on the European Hazel (Corylus avellana L.) and Norway Maple (Acer platanoides L.) Phenology in Lithuania during the Period 1961–2010. Baltic Forestry, 18 (2). IF – 0,379
 Armoskaite V., Ramanauskiene K., Maruska A., Ražukas A., Dagilyte A., Baranauskas A., Briedis V. 2011. The anglysis of quality and antioxidant activity of green tea extracts. Lithuanian University of Health Sciences. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research, 5 (5): 811–816. IF – 2,15
 Bakšiene E., Ražukas A., Romanovskaja D. 2011. The application of sediments for the improvement of sandy loam soil properties. WFL Publisher, Science and Technology, Journal of Food. Agriculture & Environment, 9 (2): 601–606. IF – 0,517
 Raudonė L., Janulis V., Ragažinskienė O., Ražukas A. 2011. Growth Dynamics of Perilla L. Species and Their Varieties During the Vegetation Period in Middle Lithuania. Medicina – Lithuania, 47: 64–70. IF – 0,42
 Asakavičiūtė R., Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 2009. Susceptibility of new potato varieties to the potato late bligzt oomycete Phtopthora infestans (Mont.) de Bary in Lithuania. Agrociencia, 43 (6): 625–633. IF – 0,26
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J., Asakavičiūtė R. 2008. Potato cultivars susceptibility to potato late bligzt (Phytophthora infestans). Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 6 (1): 95–06
 Nedzinskienė T.-L., Asakavičiūtė R., Ražukas A. 2008. The dinamics of Elytrigia repens in different field crops in Lithuania. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, Special Issue XXI: 223–227. IF – 0,15
 Tripol’skaya L., Romanovskaya D., Shlepetene A., Razhukas A., Shidlauskas G. 2014. Vliyanie khimicheskogo sostava rastenii zelenogo udobreniya na gumusoobrazovanie v dernovo-podzolistoi pochve. Pochvovedenie, No 4, Aprel: 480–489.
 Asakavičiūtė R., Ražukas A. 2011. Oro temperatūros bei atmosferos kritulių įtaką bulvių derlingumui ir krakmolingumui Pietryčių Lietuvoje. Mokslo darbai. Sodininkystė ir daržininkystė, 30 (1): 61–70.
 Пуоджюнене Г., Кайрите В., Янулис В., Ражукас А., Барстейгене З., Рагажинскене О. 2011. Исследование количественного содержания флавоноидов в траве десмодиума канадского методом ВЭЖХ. Химико-фармацевтический журнал, 45 (2): 26–28.
 Asakavičiūtė R., Jundulas J., Ražukas A. 2010. Lietuviškos selekcijos bulvių veislių auginimo perspektyvos Lietuvoje. Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir perspektyvos, 3 (19): 159–164.
 Bakšienė E., Nedzinskienė T.-L., Ražukas A. 2009. Įvairių žemdirbystės sistemų efektyvumas mažo našumo dirvožemyje. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 96 (4): 47–61.
 Bakšienė E., Ražukas A., Nedzinskienė T.-L. 2009. Effects of organic farming and crop rotations on crop produktivity and nutrient amount in the soil. Agronomy Research, 7 (1): 183–190.
 Bakšienė E., Ražukas A., Nedzinskienė T.-L. 2009. Effects of organic sistems and crop rotation on crop produktivity and properties of haplic Luvisol. Rural Development, 4 (1): 345–350.
 Ražukas A., Jankauskienė Z., Jundulas J., Asakavičiūtė R. 2009. Research of technical crops (potato and flax) genetic resources in Lithuania. Agronomy Research, 7 (1): 59–72. .
 Jundulas J., Asakavičiūtė R., Ražukas A. 2009. Bulvių derlingumo priklausomybė nuo oro temperatūros bei atmosferos kritulių Pietryčių Lietuvoje. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 16 (1-2): 23–30.
 Bakšienė E., Ražukas A., Nedzinskienė T.-L., Salina O., Repečkienė J. 2009. Effects of organic sistems and crop rotation on crop productivity and propotries of haplic Luvisol. Rural Development, 4 (1): 345–350
 Asakavičiūtė R., Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 2008. New potato varietes research in Lithuania. Latvian journal of agronomy, 11: 18–21.
 Bakšienė E., Ražukas A., Nedzinskienė T.-L. 2008. Ekologinių žemdirbystės sistemų tyrimai lengvos granuliometrinės sudėties dirvožemiuose. Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir perspektyvos, 2 (11): 157–161.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J., Asakavičiūtė R. 2008. Potato cultivars sesceptibility to potato late bligzt (Phytophthora infestans). Applied ecology and environmental research, 6 (1): 95–106.
 Ražukas A., Nedzinskienė T.-L. 2008. Pašarinių ridikų (Raphanus satinus L. var. Oleiformis pers) ‚VB Gausiai‘ auginimas sėklai ir žaliajai masei. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 95 (1): 86–92.
 Romanovskaja D., Ražukas A.. 2008. Buckkwheat hybrids evaluation for inheritance of valuable agronomių features. Latvian Journal of Agronomy, 11: 125–129
 Трипольская Л., Романовская Д., Ражукас А. 2008. Влияние условий минерального питания на урожайность и качество сорта картофеля «Года». Картофелеводство (Сборник научных трудов), 15: 214–221
 Ražukas A. 2008. Study of acute toxicity of ibogaine and noribogaine. 2nd International Young Scientist Conference „The Vital Nature Sing“ proceedings: Technologija, 5: 19–22
 Maknickienė Z., Ražukas A. 2007. Narrow-leaved forage lupine (Lupinus angustifolius L.) breeding aspects. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 14 (3): 27–31.
 Asakavičiūtė R., Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 2007. Androgenesis in anther culture of Lithuanian potato cultivars. Potato-Growing, 12: 130–136.
 Asakavičiūtė R., Clement C., Ražukas A. 2007. Genetic aspect in anther culture of Lithuanian potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars. Biologija, 18 (1): 19–22.
 Bakšienė E., Ražukas A., Nedzinskienė L.-T., Salina O., Repečkienė J. 2007. Influence of various farming systems on agrochemical indices and amount of microorganisms in Haplic Luvisol. Agronomy Research, 5 (2): 97–107.
 Burdulis D., Ivanauskas L., Dirsė V., Kazlauskas S., Ražukas A. 2007. Study of diversity of anthocyanin composition in bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) fruits. Medicina – Lithuania, 43 (12): 971–977.
 Romanovskaja D., Ražukas A. 2007. Grikių hibridinių numerių ūkiškai naudingų požymių paveldimumo tyrimai selekcinio darbo procese. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 94 (4): 62–70.
 Asakavičiūtė D., Jundulas J., Ražukas A. 2007. Research on potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) genetic resources in Lithuania. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 94 (4): 48–55.
 Romanovskaja D., Ražukas A.. 2006. Grikių (Fagopyrum esculentum) selekcija Lietuvoje. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 1: 31–38.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 2006. Potato breeding for nematode and disease resistance. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 3: 26–29.
 Asakavičiūtė R., Jundulas J., Ražukas A. 2006. Potato breeding reserarch for resistance to nematodes and diskas. Проблемы сульского хозяйства. Международный сборник научных трудов: 111–119.
 Романовская Д., Ражукас А. 2006. Исследования новых селекционных номеров гречихи в Литве. Международный сборник научных трудов: 261–269
 Nedzinskas, Ražukas A., Jundulas J., Nedzinskienė T. 2005. Labai ankstyvos vegetacijos daigintų bulvių auginimo dinamikos tyrimai. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 2: 32–39.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 2005. Bulvių selekcijos pasiekimai Lietuvoje. Sodininkystė ir daržininkystė, 24 (3): 187–195.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 2005. Lietuviškos selekcijos bulvių veislės pasauliniame kultūriniu augalų genų fonde. Vagos, 69 (1): 32–37.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J., Čeponienė S. 2004. Tarpveislines hibridizacijos metodu sukurtos bulvių veislės ‘Rasa’ tyrimai. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 3: 28–32.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 2004. Ankstyvų veislių bulvių kokybės tyrimai. Vagos, 65 (18): 37–42.
 Valskyte, A. Razukas, Jundulas J. 2003. Research of late blight Phytophthora infestans development in different maturity potato cultivars. Sodininkystė ir daržininkystė, 22 (3): 346–353.
 Ražukas A., Čeponienė S., Repečkienė J. 2003. Potato cultivars resistance to common scab Streptomicies scabies. Sodininkystė ir daržininkystė, 22 (3): 354–361.
 Staniulis J., Ražukas A. 2003. Virus Incidence in Primary Reproductions of different Potato Cultivars. Vagos, 57 (10): 48–53.
 Ražukas A. 2002. Meristeminių bulvių linijų gumbų kokybinių ir kiekybinių rodiklių tyrimas. Sodininkystė ir daržininkystė, 21 (2): 88–97.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 2002. Achievements in Potato Breeding in Lithuania. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 78: 193–201.
 Razukas A., Jundulas J., Čeponienė S. 2002. Bulvių veislės įtaka gumbų kokybiniams rodikliams. Maisto chemija ir technologija, 36: 139–142.
 Razukas A. 2002. Effect of genotipe on distribution of diseases and virus in potato. Biology, 1: 38–42.
 Ražukas A., Čeponienė S., Jundulas J. 2001. Selection of potato species more resistant to pests and immune to main potato diseases in collection. Biologija, 4: 77–78.
 Ražukas A. 2001. Meristeminio audinio įtaka bulvių kokybiniams ir kiekybiniams rodikliams. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 1: 62–66.
 Ražukas A. 2001. Skirtingos kilmės meristeminių bulvių linijų sandėliavimo ypatumai. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 2: 44–47.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 2001. Bulvių veislė ‘Goda”. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 73: 261–266.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 2001. Atsparių įvairiems patogenams bulvių selekcija. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 75: 262–270.
 Ražukas A. 2001. Įvairaus ankstyvumo bulvių veislių atsparumas ligoms ir virusams. Sodininkystė ir daržininkystė, 20: 102–106.
 Ražukas A. 1999. Potato breeding in Lithuania. Biologija, 3: 76–77.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 1999. Primary potato seed production in Lithuania. Biologija, 3: 78-80.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 1998. Potato breeding for resistance to nematodes and diseases. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 2: 26–30.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 1998. Bulvių veislė ‘Liepa’. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 61: 211–217.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 1998. Early potatoes breeding in Lithuania. Sodininkystė ir daržininkystė. Mokslo darbai, 17: 111–121.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 1998. Bulvių veislių atsparumas ligoms. Žemdirbystė: mokslo darbai, 62: 175–181.
 Ražukas A., J. Jundulas. 1998. Bulvių veislė ‘Vaiva’. Žemdirbystė: mokslo darbai, 63: 188–193.
 Лазаускас Ю., Ражукас А. 1998. Создание нематодоустойчевых и высококачественных сортов картофеля. Аграрная наука, 6: 20–21
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 1998. Potato cultivar ‘Liepa’ resistant to potato nematode. Biologija, 1: 75–77.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 1998. Nauja bulvių veislė ‘Vaiva’. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 1: 39–41.
 Ražukas A., Čeponienė S., Jundulas J. 1997. Selekcinių ir elitinių bulvių derlingumo priklausomybė nuo meteorologinių sąlygų Pietryčių Lietuvoje. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 1: 9–12.
 Ražukas A. 1997. Ankstyvų bulvių veislių vegetacijos trukmės įtaka sėklinių gumbų kokybei. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 2: 35–38.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 1997. Ankstyva bulvių veislė ‘Venta’. Žemdirbystė: mokslo darbai, 59: 131–135.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 1997. Ankstyvų ir vidutinio ankstyvumo atsparių nematodams bulvių veislių sukūrimas. Žemdirbystė: mokslo darbai, 59: 136–145.
 Ražukas A., Čeponienė S., Jundulas J. 1997. Pradinės medžiagos bulvių selekcijai įvertinimas. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 4: 32–35.
 Ražukas A., Bujauskas A., Jundulas J. 1996. Breeding of potatoes with resistance to potato cyst nematodes. Biologija, 3: 31–32.
 Ražukas A. 1995. Influence of haulm removal and tubers size on yield and seed quality of meristemic potatoes. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 2: 57–59.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 1995. New early Lithuanian potato cultivar ‘Venta’. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 3: 52–54.
 Ražukas A. 1994. Influence of cultivar and transplanting date on meristemic potatoes growth and development. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 2: 44–48.
 Ražukas A. 1994. Influence of cultivar maturity on meristemic potato seed production. Žemės ūkio mokslai, 3: 59–62.
 Ražukas A., Bujauskas A. 1994. Meristemic potato plantlets mericlones changebility. Biologija, 2: 27–28.
 Ražukas A., Jundulas J. 1994. New Lithuanian potato cultivar ‘Mirta’. Biologija, 2: 39.
 Ražukas A., Bujauskas A. 1992. Seed potatoes in Lithuania. Eksperimentinė biologija, 3-4: 56–64.
 Monografija „Bulvės“, 2003 m.
 Monografija „Bulvininkystė Lietuvoje 1900–2000 m.“, 2001 m.
 Kartu su bendraautoriais išleista knyga „Augalų selekcija“, 1998 m.
 Kartu su bendraautoriais išleista knyga „Bulvių biologija ir jų auginimas“, 1997 m.


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22001D0022
 Decisão do Comité Misto do EEE n.° 22/2001, de 23 de Fevereiro de 2001, que altera o anexo XXI (estatísticas) do Acordo EEE
 Jornal Oficial no L 117 de 26/04/2001 p. 0030 - 0031
 Decisão do Comité Misto do EEEN.o 22/2001de 23 de Fevereiro de 2001que altera o anexo XXI (estatísticas) do Acordo EEEO COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE,Tendo em conta o Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu, alterado pelo protocolo que adapta o Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu, a seguir designado "o acordo", e, nomeadamente, o seu artigo 98.o,Considerando o seguinte:(1) O anexo XXI do acordo foi alterado pela Decisão n.o 98/2000 do Comité Misto do EEE, de 27 de Outubro de 2000(1).(2) O Regulamento (CE) n.o 452/2000 da Comissão, de 28 de Fevereiro de 2000, que fixa determinadas disposições de aplicação do Regulamento (CE) n.o 530/1999 do Conselho, relativo às estatísticas sobre a estrutura dos ganhos e dos custos da mão-de-obra no que respeita à avaliação da qualidade das estatísticas sobre os custos da mão-de-obra(2), deve ser incorporado no acordo.(3) O Regulamento (CE) n.o 530/1999 não se aplica ao Listenstaine,DECIDE:Artigo 1.oNo anexo XXI do acordo, a seguir ao ponto 18d [Regulamento (CE) n.o 530/1999 do Conselho] é aditado o seguinte ponto: "18da. 32000 R 0452: Regulamento (CE) n.o 452/2000 da Comissão, de 28 de Fevereiro de 2000, que fixa determinadas disposições de aplicação do Regulamento (CE) n.o 530/1999 do Conselho, relativo às estatísticas sobre a estrutura dos ganhos e dos custos da mão-de-obra no que respeita à avaliação da qualidade das estatísticas sobre os custos da mão-de-obra (JO L 55 de 29.2.2000, p. 53).Para efeitos do presente acordo, as disposições do regulamento são adaptadas da seguinte forma:O presente regulamento não se aplica ao Listenstaine.".Artigo 2.oFazem fé os textos do Regulamento (CE) n.o 452/2000, redigidos nas línguas islandesa e norueguesa, que serão publicados no suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias.Artigo 3.oA presente decisão entra em vigor em 24 de Fevereiro de 2001, desde que tenham sido efectuadas ao Comité Misto do EEE(3) todas as notificações, em conformidade com o n.o 1 do artigo 103.o do acordo.Artigo 4.oA presente decisão será publicada na secção EEE e no suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias.Feito em Bruxelas, em 23 de Fevereiro de 2001.Pelo Comité Misto do EEEO PresidenteP. Westerlund(1) JO L 7 de 11.1.2001, p. 27.(2) JO L 55 de 29.2.2000, p. 53.(3) Não foram indicados requisitos constitucionais.


type: legislation

text:
 14.9.2016
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 L 246/260
 BESCHLUSS (EU) 2016/1525 DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS
 vom 28. April 2016
 über die Entlastung für die Ausführung des Haushaltsplans des Europäischen Instituts für Gleichstellungsfragen für das Haushaltsjahr 2014
 DAS EUROPÄISCHE PARLAMENT,
 —
 unter Hinweis auf den Jahresabschluss des Europäischen Instituts für Gleichstellungsfragen für das Haushaltsjahr 2014,
 —
 unter Hinweis auf den Bericht des Rechnungshofs über den Jahresabschluss des Europäischen Instituts für Gleichstellungsfragen für das Haushaltsjahr 2014 mit der Antwort des Instituts (1),
 —
 unter Hinweis auf die vom Rechnungshof gemäß Artikel 287 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union für das Haushaltsjahr 2014 vorgelegte Erklärung über die Zuverlässigkeit der Rechnungsführung sowie die Rechtmäßigkeit und Ordnungsmäßigkeit der zugrunde liegenden Vorgänge (2),
 —
 unter Hinweis auf die Empfehlung des Rates vom 12. Februar 2016 zu der dem Institut für die Ausführung des Haushaltsplans für das Haushaltsjahr 2014 zu erteilenden Entlastung (05584/2016 — C8-0085/2016),
 —
 gestützt auf Artikel 319 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union,
 —
 gestützt auf die Verordnung (EU, Euratom) Nr. 966/2012 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 25. Oktober 2012 über die Haushaltsordnung für den Gesamthaushaltsplan der Union und zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1605/2002 des Rates (3), insbesondere auf Artikel 208,
 —
 gestützt auf die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1922/2006 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 20. Dezember 2006 zur Errichtung eines Europäischen Instituts für Gleichstellungsfragen (4), insbesondere auf Artikel 15,
 —
 gestützt auf die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 2343/2002 der Kommission vom 19. November 2002 betreffend die Rahmenfinanzregelung für Einrichtungen gemäß Artikel 185 der Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1605/2002 des Rates über die Haushaltsordnung für den Gesamthaushaltsplan der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (5),
 —
 gestützt auf die Delegierte Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1271/2013 der Kommission vom 30. September 2013 über die Rahmenfinanzregelung für Einrichtungen gemäß Artikel 208 der Verordnung (EU, Euratom) Nr. 966/2012 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates (6), insbesondere auf Artikel 108,
 —
 gestützt auf Artikel 94 und Anlage V seiner Geschäftsordnung,
 —
 unter Hinweis auf den Bericht des Haushaltskontrollausschusses sowie die Stellungnahme des Ausschusses für die Rechte der Frau und die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter (A8-0085/2016),
 1.
 erteilt der Direktorin des Europäischen Instituts für Gleichstellungsfragen Entlastung für die Ausführung des Haushaltsplans des Instituts für das Haushaltsjahr 2014;
 2.
 legt seine Bemerkungen in der nachstehenden Entschließung nieder;
 3.
 beauftragt seinen Präsidenten, diesen Beschluss und die als fester Bestandteil dazugehörige Entschließung der Direktorin des Europäischen Instituts für Gleichstellungsfragen, dem Rat, der Kommission und dem Rechnungshof zu übermitteln und ihre Veröffentlichung im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union (Reihe L) zu veranlassen.
 Der Präsident
 Martin SCHULZ
 Der Generalsekretär
 Klaus WELLE
 (1) ABl. C 409 vom 9.12.2015, S. 168.
 (2) Siehe Fußnote 1.
 (3) ABl. L 298 vom 26.10.2012, S. 1.
 (4) ABl. L 403 vom 30.12.2006, S. 9.
 (5) ABl. L 357 vom 31.12.2002, S. 72.
 (6) ABl. L 328 vom 7.12.2013, S. 42.


type: wikipedia

text:
Per Magnus Fosshaug, född 24 februari 1965 i Ljusdal,, är en svensk bandytränare och före detta svensk bandyspelare. Han har vunnit sex SM-guld och fem VM-guld i bandy.
 Biografi
 Fosshaug är son till bandyspelaren Örjan Modin. Han föddes i Ljusdal men växte upp i Borlänge. Fosshaug har spelat i klubbarna Borlänge Bandy, Falu BS, IFK Vänersborg, Västerås SK, Sandvikens AIK och Tillberga Bandy Västerås.
 Han gjorde 15 januari 2008 det snabbaste målet hittills i svensk elitbandy, i matchen mellan Tillberga IK Bandy och Villa-Lidköping. Målet gjordes redan efter fem sekunder, och det var tre sekunder snabbare än det tidigare rekordet som innehades av Hans Elis Johansson.
 Fosshaug är även känd för att ha varit inblandad i flera skandaler, vid sidan såväl som på bandyplanen. Han lider, enligt egen utsago, av "klockren" ADHD. Han deltog under hösten 2007 och våren 2008 i TV-dokumentären "Mitt huvud är en torktumlare" som sändes på SVT den 4 september 2008. Fosshaug har även medverkat i Sveriges Televisions program Mästarnas mästare 2009, där han slutade på femte plats samt medverkat i Mästarnas mästares jubileumssäsong 2018.
 Den 20 oktober 2007 släppte han den självbiografiska boken Bandygalen (skriven av Anders Lif). Efter säsongen 2007/2008 meddelade han att han lade av som bandyspelare på toppnivå. Istället skulle han satsa på en tränarkarriär och blev därefter tränare för Tillberga Bandy. Sedan maj 2013 är Fosshaug förbundskapten för Somalias herrlandslag i bandy . Från och med säsongen 2014/2015 är Fosshaug tillbaka i Västerås SK men nu som teknisk rådgivare till bland annat A-laget. Han har därefter varit tränare i AIK Bandy.
 Utmärkelser
 Per Fosshaug har under karriären tagit sex SM-guld med VSK samt fem VM-guld. Han utsågs till årets man i svensk bandy 1994 och är Stor grabb nummer 197. Den 28 oktober 2011, i samband med matchen Tillberga IK-Edsbyns IF i ABB Arena Syd, blev Per Fosshaug världens första bandyspelare att få sin tröja upphissad i taket.
 Meriter
 SM-guld i bandy
 1993
 1994
 1996
 1998
 1999
 2001
 (samtliga med Västerås SK)
 VM-guld i bandy
 1993
 1995
 1997
 2003
 2005
 Referenser
 Externa länkar
 Aftonbladet-artikel
 Aftonbladet-artikel
 Aftonbladet-artikel
 Födda 1965
 Svenska bandyspelare
 Levande personer
 Män
 Mottagare av Stora grabbars och tjejers märke
 Spelare i Västerås SK Bandy
 Världsmästare i bandy
 Svenska mästare i bandy
 Personer från Ljusdal
 Spelare i Falu BS BK
 Spelare i IFK Vänersborg
 Spelare i Sandvikens AIK Bandy


text:
 2021.9.8.
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 317/8
 A BIZOTTSÁG (EU) 2021/1458 VÉGREHAJTÁSI RENDELETE
 (2021. szeptember 7.)
 az egyes előmunkáltrizs-fajtákra 2021. szeptember 8-tól alkalmazandó behozatali vámok meghatározásáról
 AZ EURÓPAI BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződésre,
 tekintettel a mezőgazdasági termékpiacok közös szervezésének létrehozásáról és a 922/72/EGK, a 234/79/EGK, az 1037/2001/EK és az 1234/2007/EK tanácsi rendelet hatályon kívül helyezéséről szóló, 2013. december 17-i 1308/2013/EU európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendeletre (1) és különösen annak 183. cikke első bekezdésének a) pontjára,
 mivel:
 (1)
 A 2005/476/EK tanácsi határozattal (2) jóváhagyott, az Európai Közösség és az Amerikai Egyesült Államok között az előmunkált rizsre alkalmazott vámok kiszámítási módszerére vonatkozóan levélváltás formájában létrejött megállapodás számítási módszert határoz meg az előmunkált rizs behozatalára alkalmazott vámok tekintetében.
 (2)
 Az illetékes hatóságok által közölt információk alapján a Bizottság megállapítja, hogy a 1006 20 KN-kód alá tartozó előmunkált rizs tekintetében a 2020. szeptember 1. és 2021. augusztus 31. közötti időszakra kiadott behozatali engedélyek – a basmati rizsre vonatkozó behozatali engedélyeket figyelmen kívül hagyva – 420 172 tonna mennyiségre vonatkoznak. Következésképpen a 1006 20 KN-kód alá tartozó, a basmati rizstől eltérő előmunkált rizsre vonatkozó behozatali vámnak az (EU) 2021/401 bizottsági végrehajtási rendelet (3) által meghatározott összegét módosítani kell.
 (3)
 Az (EU) 2021/401 végrehajtási rendeletet ezért hatályon kívül kell helyezni.
 (4)
 Az alkalmazandó vámot a fent említett időszak végétől számított tíz napon belül meg kell határozni. Ezért indokolt előírni, hogy ez a rendelet haladéktalanul lépjen hatályba,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A RENDELETET:
 1. cikk
 Az 1006 20 KN-kód alá tartozó, a basmati rizstől eltérő előmunkált rizsre alkalmazandó behozatali vám összege tonnánként 42,50 EUR.
 2. cikk
 Az (EU) 2021/401 végrehajtási rendelet hatályát veszti.
 3. cikk
 Ez a rendelet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetésének napján lép hatályba.
 Ez a rendelet teljes egészében kötelező és közvetlenül alkalmazandó valamennyi tagállamban.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2021. szeptember 7-én.
 a Bizottság részéről,
 az elnök nevében,
 Wolfgang BURTSCHER
 főigazgató
 Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Főigazgatóság
 (1) HL L 347., 2013.12.20., 671. o.
 (2) A Tanács 2005/476/EK határozata (2005. június 21.) az Európai Közösség és az Amerikai Egyesült Államok között az előmunkált rizsre alkalmazott vámok kiszámítási módszerére vonatkozó, levélváltás formájában létrejött megállapodás megkötéséről, és a 2004/617/EK, a 2004/618/EK és a 2004/619/EK határozat módosításáról (HL L 170., 2005.7.1., 67. o.).
 (3) A Bizottság (EU) 2021/401 végrehajtási rendelete (2021. március 5.) az egyes előmunkáltrizs-fajtákra 2021. március 8-tól alkalmazandó behozatali vámok meghatározásáról (HL L 79., 2021.3.8., 7. o.).


text:
Rathlousdal er en herregård der ligger i udkanten af Odder i Odder Sogn i Odder Kommune. Den hed tidligere Loverstrup og er kendt fra 1500-tallet, hvor den først hørte under Bygholm ved Horsens, senere under Åkær. Den fik navnet Rathlousdal efter en af rigsdrost Joachim Gersdorffs arvingers mand, hofmester Gregorius Ratlou, som blev gift med Margrethe Gersdorff.
 Overtaget i 1771 af Joachim Otto Schack-Rathlou, som havde Rathlousdal indtil 1800. Han var medlem af statsrådet 1772-1788.
 Bygningerne
 Hovedbygningen var fra 1760'erne, men sidefløjene blev revet ned i 1910 efter en brand og erstattet med de nuværende palæer. Resten af den oprindelige hovedbygning blev revet ned i 1950. Fra 1942 til 1945 havde hovedbygningen været beslaglagt af de tyske besættelsestropper, og det havde slidt hårdt på bygningerne.
 Der har tidligere ligget en bindingsværksgård på stedet.
 Fra Odder fører en imponerende allé med 200 år gamle lindetræer ud til godset.
 Rathlousdal Gods er på 1240 hektar med Lundhof
 Rathlousdal Skov
 Rathlousdal Skov, der ligger nord for godset, er præget af sit tilhørsforhold til godset, og har delvist været brugt som park. Bl.a. ses en stor obelisk rejst i 1778 for godsejerens datter, Dorthea Sophie, der var den eneste af godsejerens 11 børn, der levede længe nok til at blive voksen. Der har også tidligere ligget et gravkapel for godsets ejere i skoven. Dette er imidlertid nu er dækket af sand.
 En af de mest aktive godsejere på Rathlousdal var Emil von Holstein-Rathlou, der i 1878 lod indrette en dyrepark i skoven bag godset. Dyreparken havde offentlig adgang og husede bl.a. bjørne, rådyr, dådyr, kronvildt og kænguruer. Fra denne tid er stadig bevaret bjørnegrotten, hvor der dog kun i ca. ti år levede bjørne. Der var tale om russiske bjørne, men da pasningen gav for store problemer for godsejeren blev de foræret til Zoologisk Have i København.
 Naturfredning
 Herregårdslandskabet ved Rathlousdal og Vejlskov syd for Odder, et 368 hektar stort område, blev fredet i 1979. Den 600 meter lange lindeallé lige ved godset blev fredet allerede i 1949. Der mangler flere lindetræer i alleen og Odder Kommune har haft ønske om at udvide vejen, fælde alleen og plante en ny, men Fredningsnævnet har pålagt kommunen at genplante de manglende træer. Der har været flere vejplaner gennem området, og fredningen blev til en mærkesag for et stort antal af Odders borgere og lokalafdelingen af Danmarks Naturfredningsforening øgede medlemstallet fra 200 til 1200 da sagen blev behandlet i slutningen af 1970'erne.
 Ejere af Rathlousdal
 (1536-1570) Kronen
 (1570-1580) Knud Mogensen Løvenbalk
 (1580-1661) Kronen
 (1661) Joachim Gersdorff
 (1661-1674) Joachim Gersdorffs dødsbo
 (1674-1681) Gregorius von Rathlou
 (1681-1698) Margrete Joachimsdatter von Gersdorff
 (1698-1710) Frederik Carl von Rathlou / Christian von Rathlou
 (1710-1752) Christian von Rathlou
 (1752-1771) Dorothea Sophie Joachimsdatter von Schack
 (1771-1800) Joachim Otto Schack Rathlou
 (1800-1828) Christian Frederik von Holstein-Rathlou
 (1828-1846) Niels Rosenkrantz von Holstein-Rathlou
 (1846-1850) Niels Rosenkrantz von Holstein-Rathlou
 (1850) Julie von Leitner
 (1850-1919) Christian Frederik Emil von Holstein-Rathlou
 (1919-1957) Adolf Viggo Rudolf Huno von Holstein-Rathlou
 (1957-1961) Viggo Rudolf Huno von Holstein-Rathlou
 (1961-1965) Edward Tesdorpf
 (1965-1970) Edward Tesdorpf / Iver Edward Tesdorpf
 (1970-2007) Iver Edward Tesdorpf
 (2007-) Iver Edward Tesdorpf / Johan Peter-Henrik Tesdorpf
 Eksterne kilder og henvisninger
 Herregårde i Århus Amt
 Stamhuse i Danmark
 Fredede arealer i Danmark
 Fredede slotte og herregårde i Danmark
 Odder
 Lokaliteter i Danmark i 2. verdenskrig
 Martin Nyrop
 Forsvundne bygninger, konstruktioner og anlæg i Danmark
 Fredede bygninger, konstruktioner og anlæg i Odder Kommune


text:
This is an appeal by the State Roads Commission from a judgment rendered upon the sustaining of a demurrer, filed by the appellee to the declaration in a suit instituted by the appellants, for and on behalf of the State of Maryland.
 The declaration is in the following language:
 Phillips Lee Goldsborough, Ovington E. Weller, Ira Remsen, William Bullock Clark, Edward E. Goslin, Walter B. Miller and Andrew Ramsey, constituting the State Roads Commission of Maryland, for and on behalf of the State of Maryland, by Leon E. Greenbaum, their attorney, sue The Postal Telegraph Cable Company, a corporation.
 For that on the 22nd day of August, in the year nineteen hundred and eleven, the Conowingo Bridge Company granted and conveyed to the State Roads Commission of Maryland, for and on behalf of the State of Maryland, in consideration of the sum of $88,000 a certain bridge in the State of Maryland over the Susquehanna River, and in said grant the right was expressly given to the State Roads Commission, for and on behalf of the State of Maryland, to collect any and all rentals and income accruing from the use of said bridge by the defendant, and that at said time and for a long number of years prior thereto the defendant had been using said bridge for the conveyance of wires thereover with the consent of the Conowingo Bridge Company, and had been paying the Conowingo Bridge Company rentals and income for the use thereof, which said rentals and tolls had amounted from the year *Page 75
 1906 to 1911 to the sum of $95.75 semi-annually in each year, for which amount bills were regularly sent by the Conowingo Bridge Company to the defendant and paid by the defendant up to and including the instalment due on the first of July, 1911, and for that since the 22nd day of August, 1911, said wires have remained on said bridge to the same number and in the same manner as theretofore and without any change in the arrangement between the parties as to the price to be paid or the use to be made by the defendant of said bridge, and that said use continued with the intention on the part of the plaintiffs that payments would be made of the same amount as had been paid to the Conowingo Bridge Company, but although bills have been sent and demand made by the plaintiffs for the instalments of $95.75 due on the first day of January, 1912, and on the first day of July, 1912, payment thereof has been refused and is still refused by the defendant, and the plaintiffs allege that the sum of $191.50 is due and owing at the present time by the defendant to the plaintiffs for the use of said bridge for its wires from the first day of July, 1911, to the first day of July, 1912.
 And the plaintiffs claim $400.00.
 The ground of the appellee's demurrer is based upon the provisions of Article 14 of the Declaration of Rights, wherein it is declared: "That no aid, charge, tax, burthen or fees ought to be rated or levied under any pretense, without the consent of the Legislature." It is not contended that the Legislature could not impose a charge for the use of a publc bridge by telegraph companies; indeed that is conceded, but it is denied, in the absence of legislative authority, that the Roads Commission has the power so to charge. That is a question about which much can be said on both sides, under the Act creating the State Roads Commission; but the declaration in the present case does not render the settlement of that question necessary for a determination of this particular case. We do not, therefore, deem it expedient, under this record, to go into the broad question as to what rights in *Page 76
 general the State Roads Commission can exercise over corporations using the public highways of the State, in carrying out their corporate purposes. We will, therefore, confine ourselves to the inquiry, whether the allegations of this declaration warrant a recovery.
 The suit was instituted in the names of the members constituting the board of the State Roads Commission "for and on behalf of the State of Maryland." If then the State is entitled to money due for use of public roads, it was proper that the agency having charge and control of that department should bring suit in its behalf. The Commission, by the terms of the Act creating it, was not in the full sense a corporate body, yet was a quasi corporation, vested with powers of control and regulation over the public highways, and charged with the duty of administering and supervising that department of the State. For all matters coming within the scope of their duties and obligations they could therefore sue, and were liable to be sued. See O'Neal v. School Commissioners, 27 Md. 227; SchoolCommissioners v. School Commissioners, 35 Md. 201; Clark v.Harford Agricultural Ass'n., 118 Md. 608; France's Principlesof Corporation Law (2nd Ed.), 19 and 20; 28 Cyc. 128.
 By Act of Assembly, 1910, Ch. 116, sect. 32P, p. 304, now section 48, Article 91 of Bagby's Code, the Commission was authorized and directed to acquire by purchase, condemnation or otherwise, the Conowingo bridge across the Susquehanna River, together with all land, roads, approaches, rights, franchises and easements belonging to any person or corporation, for the purpose of connecting the improved roads of Cecil and Harford Counties. The narr. alleges that the bridge was acquired by purchase, and that in the deed of grant, the right was expressly given to the Commission to collect all rentals, for and on behalf of the State, accruing from the use of the bridge by the appellee. It was further averred that the appellee, by virtue of a contract with the Conowingo Bridge Company, had been paying a certain annual rental *Page 77
 for the occupancy by its wires of said bridge; that this payment continued until the acquisition by the Commission of the bridge, and that, although the appellee continued to use the bridge as formerly, it had nevertheless refused to pay the plaintiff for said use since the day of acquisition. Even if we assume that under the Act creating the Commission there is no power given the Commission to impose rental charges upon new users of the public highways, what reason can there be for not permitting the charge to be made as the assignee of a private owner? There is no attempt under this narr. to enforce a new liability, but the enforcement of an old existing liability, founded upon contract, and which was acquired by the Commission as a part of the consideration of the purchase. Although it can be argued that the State never intended to authorize the charging for future privileges upon the public highways, can it be seriously contended that the Legislature, in contemplating large expenditures of money in the purchasing of private bridges and turnpikes, intended that those who were enjoying an exclusive occupancy of a portion of them, for a consideration, were to be relieved of that charge at the expense of the State? The wording of the Act shows that the Legislature knew that persons or corporations had certain rights, franchises and easements in this bridge to which the rights of the travelling public might be subject, for it authorized the Commission to acquire them. Can it be conceived that it intended to permit them to be still exercised, without being subject to whatever previous liability there might have been? It cannot be doubted but that, in fixing a price for its property, the bridge company took into consideration the value of this lease it had with the appellee and increased its price accordingly.
 We are of the opinion that under the allegations of the narr. there is a liability, and that there was error in sustaining the demurrer.
 Judgment reversed and new trial awarded, with costs to theappellant. *Page 78