type: wikipedia

text:
Pavel Kubina (* 15. apríl 1977, Čeladná) je bývalý český reprezentant v ľadovom hokeji.
 Klubový hokej
 Pavel Kubina hrával na pozícií obrancu. Je 196 cm vysoký a váži 106 kg. Od sezóny 1997/98 hral v NHL za Tampa Bay Lightning. V roku 2004 získal s týmto klubom Stanley Cup. Počas lockoutu v NHL v sezóne 2004/05 hral za HC Vítkovice Steel v českej hokejovej extralige. Na sezónu 2005/06 mal s Tampou uzavretú zmluvu na 2,584 mil. dolárov. Pred ďalším ročníkom podpísal kontrakt s Torontom Maple Leafs. Nosil dres číslo 13. V roku 2009 ukončil angažmán v Toronte a upísal sa na rok Atlante Thrashers. V roku 2010 sa dohodol s Tampou Bay na dvojročnej zmluve. Následne pôsobil vo Philadelphia Flyers a švajčiarskej Genève-Servette HC. V NHL odohral spolu 970 zápasov, v decembri 2013 ohlásil koniec svojej hráčskej kariéry.
 Reprezentácia
 Pavel Kubina získal s reprezentáciou Česka tri tituly majstra sveta na majstrovstvách sveta v rokoch 1999, 2000 a v 2005 a zároveň aj bronzovú olympijskú medailu na Zimných olympijských hrách 2006 v Turíne. Obliekal reprezentačný dres s číslom 13.
 Zimné olympijské hry 2006
 Česko získalo na Zimných olympijských hrách 2006 bronzové medaily. Úvod olympiády českej reprezentácii nevyšiel, keď v základnej skupine skončila až na štvrtom, poslednom postupovom mieste, po prehrách so Švajčiarskom 2:3, Fínskom 2:4 a Kanadou 2:3. Vo štvrťfinále Česko vyradilo Slovensko. V semifinále ich vyradili neskorší zlatí medailisti Švédi a v boji o bronzové medaily porazili Rusko 3:0.
 Štatistika na ZOH
 Referencie
 Externé odkazy
 Pavel Kubina na stránke Tampa Bay Lightning
 Českí hokejisti
 Bronzoví olympijskí medailisti v ľadovom hokeji
 Českí bronzoví olympijskí medailisti
 Víťazi Stanleyho pohára
 Účastníci MS v hokeji 1999
 Účastníci MS v hokeji 2001
 Účastníci MS v hokeji 2002
 Účastníci MS v hokeji 2005
 Majstri sveta v ľadovom hokeji
 Hráči HC Vítkovice
 Hráči Tampa Bay Lightning
 Hráči Toronto Maple Leafs
 Hráči Atlanta Thrashers
 Hráči Philadelphia Flyers
 Hokejisti draftovaní klubom Tampa Bay Lightning


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 12.6.2015
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 147/14
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) 2015/898
 z dne 11. junija 2015
 o določitvi standardnih uvoznih vrednosti za določitev uvozne cene za nekatere vrste sadja in zelenjave
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) št. 1308/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. decembra 2013 o vzpostavitvi skupne ureditve trgov kmetijskih proizvodov in razveljavitvi uredb Sveta (EGS) št. 922/72, (EGS) št. 234/79, (ES) št. 1037/2001 in (ES) št. 1234/2007 (1),
 ob upoštevanju Izvedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) št. 543/2011 z dne 7. junija 2011 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1234/2007 za sektorja sadja in zelenjave ter predelanega sadja in zelenjave (2) ter zlasti člena 136(1) Izvedbene uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 543/2011 na podlagi izida večstranskih trgovinskih pogajanj urugvajskega kroga določa merila, po katerih Komisija določi standardne vrednosti za uvoz iz tretjih držav za proizvode in obdobja iz dela A Priloge XVI k tej uredbi.
 (2)
 Standardna uvozna vrednost se izračuna vsak delovni dan v skladu s členom 136(1) Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 543/2011 ob upoštevanju spremenljivih dnevnih podatkov. Zato bi morala ta uredba začeti veljati na dan objave v Uradnem listu Evropske unije –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Standardne uvozne vrednosti iz člena 136 Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 543/2011 so določene v Prilogi k tej uredbi.
 Člen 2
 Ta uredba začne veljati na dan objave v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 11. junija 2015
 Za Komisijo
 V imenu predsednika
 Jerzy PLEWA
 Generalni direktor za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja
 (1) UL L 347, 20.12.2013, str. 671.
 (2) UL L 157, 15.6.2011, str. 1.
 PRILOGA
 Standardne uvozne vrednosti za določitev uvozne cene za nekatere vrste sadja in zelenjave
 (EUR/100 kg)
 Oznaka KN
 Oznaka tretje države (1)
 Standardna uvozna vrednost
 0702 00 00
 MA
 137,1
 MK
 79,0
 TR
 72,4
 ZZ
 96,2
 0707 00 05
 MK
 39,4
 TR
 121,3
 ZZ
 80,4
 0709 93 10
 TR
 116,1
 ZZ
 116,1
 0805 50 10
 AR
 127,6
 BO
 147,7
 BR
 107,1
 TR
 111,0
 ZA
 165,1
 ZZ
 131,7
 0808 10 80
 AR
 163,0
 BR
 101,0
 CL
 133,2
 NZ
 149,0
 US
 177,5
 ZA
 140,3
 ZZ
 144,0
 0809 10 00
 TR
 214,0
 ZZ
 214,0
 0809 29 00
 TR
 354,0
 ZZ
 354,0
 (1) Nomenklatura držav, določena v Uredbi Komisije (EU) št. 1106/2012 z dne 27. novembra 2012 o izvajanju Uredbe (ES) št. 471/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o statistiki Skupnosti o zunanji trgovini z državami nečlanicami v zvezi s posodabljanjem nomenklature držav in ozemelj (UL L 328, 28.11.2012, str. 7). Oznaka „ZZ“ predstavlja „druga porekla“.


text:
Millicent Mary Chaplin (1790 – 1858) was an English-born amateur artist mainly known for her watercolours depicting 19th century Canada.
 Life
 She was born Millicent Mary Reeve in Leadenham, Lincolnshire and came to Lower Canada with her husband Thomas Chaplin of the Coldstream Guards in 1838. Over the next four years, she painted landscapes of Ottawa, Quebec City and the Canadian Maritimes, as well as depictions of the local people. She also copied works by artists such as James Hope-Wallace, Henry William Barnard and Philip John Bainbrigge.
 Chaplin died in Normanby Park, Lincolnshire in 1858.
 Her work is held in the collections of the National Archives of Canada and the Royal Ontario Museum.
 A collection of her watercolours and journals from her visit to Canada was published as Drawing on the Land: The New World Watercolours and Diaries (1838-1942) of Millicent Mary Chaplin (edited by Jim Burant) in 2004. (}}
 References
 1790 births
 1858 deaths
 Canadian watercolourists


text:
 30.11.2021
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 427/169
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) 2021/2093
 af 29. november 2021
 om godkendelse af dinatrium-5'-guanylat som fodertilsætningsstof til alle dyrearter
 (EØS-relevant tekst)
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 af 22. september 2003 om fodertilsætningsstoffer (1), særlig artikel 9, stk. 2, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 indeholder bestemmelser om godkendelse af fodertilsætningsstoffer og om grundlaget og procedurerne for udstedelse af sådanne godkendelser.
 (2)
 Der er i overensstemmelse med artikel 7 i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 indgivet en ansøgning om godkendelse af dinatrium-5'-guanylat. Ansøgningen var vedlagt de oplysninger og dokumenter, der kræves i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 3, i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003.
 (3)
 Ansøgningen vedrører godkendelse af dinatrium-5'-guanylat som fodertilsætningsstof til alle dyrearter med klassificering i kategorien »sensoriske tilsætningsstoffer« og den funktionelle gruppe »aromastoffer«.
 (4)
 Ansøgeren har anmodet om, at dinatrium-5'-guanylat ligeledes godkendes til anvendelse i drikkevand. I henhold til forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 kan »aromastoffer« imidlertid ikke godkendes til anvendelse i drikkevand. Dinatrium-5'-guanylat bør derfor ikke godkendes til anvendelse i drikkevand.
 (5)
 Den Europæiske Fødevaresikkerhedsautoritet (»autoriteten«) konkluderede i sin udtalelse af 5. maj 2021 (2), at dinatrium-5'-guanylat på de foreslåede anvendelsesbetingelser ikke har skadelige virkninger på dyrs eller menneskers sundhed eller på miljøet.
 (6)
 Autoriteten konkluderede endvidere, at dinatrium-5'-guanylat er effektivt som smagstilsætningsstof i foder. Autoriteten har også verificeret den rapport om metoderne til analyse af fodertilsætningsstoffet i foder, der blev forelagt af det ved forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 oprettede referencelaboratorium.
 (7)
 Vurderingen af dinatrium-5'-guanylat viser, at betingelserne for godkendelse, jf. artikel 5 i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003, er opfyldt. Anvendelsen af dette stof bør derfor godkendes som anført i bilaget til nærværende forordning.
 (8)
 Der bør fastsættes visse betingelser for at muliggøre bedre kontrol. Det anbefalede indhold bør angives på etiketten til fodertilsætningsstoffet. Hvis et sådant indhold overskrides, bør der angives visse oplysninger på etiketten til forblandinger.
 (9)
 Det forhold, at dinatrium-5'-guanylat ikke må anvendes som aromastof i drikkevand, udelukker ikke anvendelse heraf i foderblandinger, der gives via vand.
 (10)
 Foranstaltningerne i denne forordning er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra Den Stående Komité for Planter, Dyr, Fødevarer og Foder —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 Det i bilaget opførte stof, som tilhører tilsætningsstofkategorien »sensoriske tilsætningsstoffer« og den funktionelle gruppe »aromastoffer«, godkendes som fodertilsætningsstof på de betingelser, der er fastsat i bilaget.
 Artikel 2
 Denne forordning træder i kraft på tyvendedagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 29. november 2021.
 På Kommissionens vegne
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 Formand
 (1) EUT L 268 af 18.10.2003, s. 29.
 (2) EFSA Journal 2021;19(6):6619.
 BILAG
 Tilsætningsstoffets identifikationsnummer
 Navn på indehaveren af godkendelsen
 Tilsætningsstof
 Sammensætning, kemisk betegnelse, beskrivelse og analysemetode
 Dyreart eller -kategori
 Maksimumsalder
 Minimumsindhold
 Maksimumsindhold
 Andre bestemmelser
 Godkendelse gyldig til
 mg aktivstof/kg fuldfoder med et vandindhold på 12 %
 Kategori: sensoriske tilsætningsstoffer
 Funktionel gruppe: aromastoffer
 2b627i
 —
 Dinatrium-5'-guanylat
 Tilsætningsstoffets sammensætning
 Dinatrium-5'-guanylat (GMP).
 Pulver
 Aktivstoffets karakteristika
 Dinatrium-5'-guanylat (i hydratform) produceret med Corynebacterium stationis KCCM 10530 og Escherichia coli K-12 KFCC 11067.
 Produceret ved fermentering
 Renhed: minimum 97 %
 Kemisk formel:
 C10H12N5Na2O8P
 CAS-nr.: 5550-12-9
 Einecs-nr.: 226-914-1
 Analysemetode
 (1)
 Til bestemmelse af dinatrium-5'-guanylat (GMP) i fodertilsætningsstoffet:
 —
 FAO JECFA-monografi »dinatrium-5'-guanylat«.
 Til bestemmelse af dinatrium-5'-guanylate (GMP) i fodertilsætningsstoffet, i aromagivende forblandinger og i vand:
 —
 højtryksvæskekromatografi i kombination med UV-påvisning (HPLC-UV).
 Alle dyrearter
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 Tilsætningsstoffet anvendes i foder som forblanding.
 2.
 I brugsvejledningen for anvendelsen af tilsætningsstoffet og forblandingerne angives oplagringsbetingelser og stabilitet over for varmebehandling.
 3.
 Følgende angives på etiketten til tilsætningsstoffet:
 »Anbefalet maksimumsindhold af aktivstoffet alene eller i kombination med andre godkendte ribonucleotider i fuldfoder med et vandindhold på 12 % er 50 mg/kg.«
 4.
 Funktionel gruppe, identifikationsnummer, navn på aktivstoffet og tilsat mængde skal angives på etiketten til forblandingen, hvis det anvendelsesniveau, der er angivet på etiketten til forblandingen, ville medføre overskridelse af det i punkt 3 omhandlede indhold af aktivstoffet pr. kg fuldfoder.
 20. december 2031
 (1) Nærmere oplysninger om analysemetoderne findes på referencelaboratoriets hjemmeside: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eurl/feed-additives/evaluation-reports


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" OFFICE OF\n THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\nSOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS CLAIMED\n BY THE NEBRASKA DISABILITY\n DETERMINATION SERVICES\n\n June 2008 A-07-07-17170\n\n\n\n\nAUDIT REPORT\n\x0c Mission\nBy conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations and investigations,\nwe inspire public confidence in the integrity and security of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s programs and\noperations and protect them against fraud, waste and abuse. We provide timely,\nuseful and reliable information and advice to Administration officials, Congress\nand the public.\n\n Authority\nThe Inspector General Act created independent audit and investigative units,\ncalled the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The mission of the OIG, as spelled\nout in the Act, is to:\n\n \xef\x81\xad Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and\n investigations relating to agency programs and operations.\n \xef\x81\xad Promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency.\n \xef\x81\xad Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and\n operations.\n \xef\x81\xad Review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed\n legislation and regulations relating to agency programs and operations.\n \xef\x81\xad Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of\n problems in agency programs and operations.\n\n To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers the IG with:\n\n \xef\x81\xad Independence to determine what reviews to perform.\n \xef\x81\xad Access to all information necessary for the reviews.\n \xef\x81\xad Authority to publish findings and recommendations based on the reviews.\n\n Vision\nWe strive for continual improvement in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s programs, operations and\nmanagement by proactively seeking new ways to prevent and deter fraud, waste\nand abuse. We commit to integrity and excellence by supporting an environment\nthat provides a valuable public service while encouraging employee development\nand retention and fostering diversity and innovation.\n\x0c SOCIAL SECURITY\nMEMORANDUM\n\nDate: June 19, 2008 Refer To:\n\nTo: Michael W. Grochowski\n Regional Commissioner\n Kansas City\n\nFrom: Inspector General\n\nSubject: Administrative Costs Claimed by the Nebraska Disability Determination Services\n (A-07-07-17170)\n\n\n OBJECTIVE\n\n Our objectives were to evaluate the Nebraska Disability Determination Services\xe2\x80\x99\n (NE-DDS) internal controls over the accounting and reporting of administrative costs,\n determine whether costs claimed by the NE-DDS were allowable and properly allocated\n and funds were properly drawn, and assess limited areas of the general security control\n environment. Our audit included the administrative costs claimed by the NE-DDS\n during Federal Fiscal Years (FY) 2005 and 2006.\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n The Disability Insurance (DI) program, established under Title II of the Social Security\n Act (Act), provides benefits to wage earners and their families in the event the wage\n earner becomes disabled. The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program,\n established under Title XVI of the Act, provides benefits to financially needy individuals\n who are aged, blind, and/or disabled.\n\n The Social Security Administration (SSA) is responsible for implementing policies for\n the development of disability claims under the DI and SSI programs. Disability\n determinations under both DI and SSI are performed by disability determination\n services (DDS) in each State and other responsible jurisdictions. Such determinations\n are required to be performed in accordance with Federal law and underlying\n regulations. 1 In carrying out its obligation, each DDS is responsible for determining\n claimants\xe2\x80\x99 disabilities and ensuring that adequate evidence is available to support its\n determinations.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 421; 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1601 et seq. and 416.1001 et seq.\n\x0cPage 2 - Michael W. Grochowski\n\nTo assist in making proper disability determinations, each DDS is authorized to\npurchase medical examinations, x-rays, and laboratory tests on a consultative basis to\nsupplement evidence obtained from the claimants\xe2\x80\x99 physicians or other treating sources.\n\nSSA reimburses the DDS for 100 percent of allowable reported expenditures up to its\napproved funding authorization. The DDS withdraws Federal funds through the\nDepartment of the Treasury\xe2\x80\x99s (Treasury) Automated Standard Application for Payments\n(ASAP) system to pay for program expenditures. Funds drawn down must comply with\nFederal regulations 2 and intergovernmental agreements entered into by Treasury and\nStates under the Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990. 3\n\nAn advance or reimbursement for costs under the program must comply with the Office\nof Management and Budget\xe2\x80\x99s (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and\nIndian Tribal Governments. At the end of each quarter of the FY, each DDS is required\nto submit a State Agency Report of Obligations for SSA Disability Programs\n(SSA-4513) to account for program disbursements and unliquidated obligations. 4 The\nSSA-4513 reports expenditures and unliquidated obligations for personnel service\n 5\ncosts, medical costs, indirect costs, and all other nonpersonnel costs.\n\nThe Nebraska Department of Education is the NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 parent agency. The NE-DDS\nis located in Lincoln, Nebraska.\n\nRESULTS OF REVIEW\nOther than the areas discussed in this report, the NE-DDS had effective controls over\nthe accounting and reporting of administrative costs. With the exception of paying\nconsultative examination (CE) providers for missed CE appointments without SSA\napproval, the costs claimed by the NE-DDS during our audit period were allowable,\nproperly allocated, and funds were properly drawn. We found that the NE-DDS needed\nto improve controls over its CE provider sanction process and inventory controls.\nRegarding general security control, NE-DDS did not comply with SSA policies for\nafter-hours cleaning services, its security plan was incomplete, and its disaster recovery\nplan (DRP) had not been tested.\n\n\n\n\n2\n 31 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 205.1 et seq.\n3\n Pub. L. No. 101-453, 104 Stat. 1058, in part amending 31 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 3335, 6501, and 6503 (1990).\n4\n SSA, POMS, DI 39506.201 and 202. POMS, DI 39506.200 B.4 provides, in part, that \xe2\x80\x9cUnliquidated\nobligations represent obligations for which payment has not yet been made. Unpaid obligations are\nconsidered unliquidated whether or not the goods or services have been received.\n5\n SSA, POMS, DI 39506.201 and 202.\n\x0cPage 3 - Michael W. Grochowski\n\nCE PROVIDERS PAID FOR MISSED APPOINTMENTS\n\nThe NE-DDS paid CE providers a fee when claimants missed their CE appointments.\nSpecifically, the NE-DDS paid the CE provider up to 50 percent of the fee for the\nmissed CE. As a result, SSA reimbursed the NE-DDS $229,519 for payments to CE\nproviders for missed CE appointments during FYs 2005 and 2006. The payments\nrepresented more than 7 percent of total CE expenses during the same timeframe.\nSSA had not approved the payments for missed CE appointments, as required.\n\nIn response to a prior audit, SSA adopted a no-pay policy for missed CE\n 6\nappointments. In April 2000, SSA clarified its no-pay policy and stated that, on an\nindividual case basis, the DDS may request an exemption. 7,8 To obtain an exemption,\nthe DDS is instructed to work with its SSA regional office (RO) to reach agreement on\npayments to CE providers for missed appointments. After an agreement is reached,\nthe RO would then submit the request, along with supporting documentation, to the\nOffice of Disability Determinations (ODD) for exemption consideration. However, we\nfound that the NE-DDS did not work with the Kansas City RO on an exemption. Rather,\nit implemented a payment policy for missed CE appointments without requesting SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\napproval.\n\nNE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 administrator stated that he believes CE providers should be compensated for\nthe loss of revenue resulting from missed CE appointments. We recommend SSA\ninstruct the NE-DDS to refund $229,519 for missed CE appointments unless it can\nprovide acceptable evidence that paying for these missed CE appointments is\nappropriate. We also recommend that SSA instruct the NE-DDS to immediately stop\npayments to providers for missed CE appointments until an exemption is requested and\napproved.\n\nSANCTION LISTING\n\nThe NE-DDS did not review the Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector\nGeneral, (HHS/OIG) List of Excluded Individuals/Entities to ensure CE providers it\nintended to utilize were not sanctioned from participation in any Federal or federally\nassisted program. SSA policy indicates that a qualified medical source must not be\n\n\n\n\n6\n Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Payments Under the Disability\nDetermination Program for Medical Appointments Made by Claimants of Disability Insurance and\nSupplemental Security Income Benefits (A-01-87-02004), December 1987.\n7\n SSA, Office of Disability, DDS Administrators' Letter No. 536, April 25, 2000.\n8\n SSA, POMS, DI 39545.275.\n\x0cPage 4 - Michael W. Grochowski\n\nsanctioned from participation in Federal programs. 9 Underlying SSA procedures\nrequire that, before using the services of any CE provider, DDSs must review the Listing\nof Excluded Individuals/Entities for each CE provider at least annually. 10\n\nThe NE-DDS is at-risk of contracting with CE providers whose services have been\nsanctioned by other Federal agencies if it does not review the HHS/OIG sanction listing.\nThe NE-DDS stated it was unaware of the requirement to review the HHS/OIG sanction\nlisting. Since learning of this requirement, NE-DDS stated it has reviewed the HHS/OIG\nsanction listing and incorporated this procedure in its CE provider review process. We\nrecommend SSA ensure the NE-DDS continues to review the HHS/OIG List of\nExcluded Individuals/Entities as part of its CE provider background check process.\n\nINVENTORY CONTROL\n\nThe NE-DDS did not maintain accurate and complete inventory records of computer\nequipment.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We could not locate two servers and two laptop computers that were listed on\n the official inventory records. After our on-site inventory review, NE-DDS\n management reported that one of the laptops was located and the other laptop\n had been surplused. We do not know whether the servers contained personally\n identifiable information (PII). However, the NE-DDS stated the PII would have\n been erased since the equipment was out of service. 11\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 official inventory records did not include desktop and laptop\n computers that SSA purchased and shipped directly to the NE-DDS.\n\nThe NE-DDS did not record this computer equipment stating it believed SSA was\nresponsible for maintaining the inventory of computer equipment SSA purchased for the\nNE-DDS. Furthermore, the NE-DDS stated that, although SSA policy requires the\ninventory of equipment, this policy defines equipment as having a minimum per unit\n 12\nacquisition cost of $5,000. The NE-DDS believes it does not need to inventory\ncomputer equipment purchased with SSA-applied funds.\n\nWe do not agree with the NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 assertions that they are exempt from documenting\nSSA supplied computer into their inventory system. Although SSA policy defines\nequipment using a minimum per unit acquisition cost, this same policy also makes a\nclear distinction that computer equipment is to be considered separately from other\n\n9\n SSA, POMS, DI 39569.300 A.\n10\n SSA, POMS, DI 39569.300 B.1 and 2.\n11\n We notified the Kansas City RO of the missing computer equipment. Within 24 hours of the notification,\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s RO informed the NE-DDS Administrator to send a report of suspected loss of PII to the National\nComputer Service Center, and he did so.\n12\n SSA, POMS, DI 39530.001.B.\n\x0cPage 5 - Michael W. Grochowski\n\nequipment. 13 Additional SSA policy requires an appropriate inventory and control\nmechanism to account for all property used for disability program purposes. 14 It is\nnoteworthy that Nebraska Department of Education\xe2\x80\x99s inventory policy, issued in\nMarch 2007, specifically requires that the NE-DDS record and account for computer\nequipment regardless of per unit acquisition cost, and its tracking system must also\nidentify the current employee assigned accountability for specific computers. 15\nTherefore, according to SSA and State policy, a minimum per unit acquisition cost does\nnot apply regarding the inventory of computer equipment.\n\nThe NE-DDS also states that it does not own the computer equipment purchased for it\nby SSA. We do not agree with the NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 assertions regarding the ownership of\nSSA-supplied computer equipment. SSA\xe2\x80\x99s inventory policy clearly states the title to\nequipment rests with the State, and the State is responsible for maintenance and\ninventory of all equipment whether purchased through SSA or the State. 16\n\nNot maintaining adequate inventory records hinders detection of stolen or misplaced\nequipment. By creating an appropriate inventory system for computer equipment, the\nNE-DDS will create security controls to protect records created by the State in\n 17\nperforming the disability determination function, as required by SSA policy. We\nrecommend SSA instruct the NE-DDS to immediately establish and maintain equipment\ninventory in compliance with the policies of SSA and the Nebraska Department of\nEducation. We also recommend that SSA verify the NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 new inventory system\ncomplies with appropriate policies.\n\nACCESS CONTROLS\n\nThe NE-DDS did not comply with SSA policies for cleaning services, which require that\nall offices implement a clean-desk policy or daytime cleaning, 18 and that non-Agency\nemployees, such as cleaning personnel, must not have access to claimant data, and\n 19\nany computer equipment used for data input or storage. NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 cleaning services\nwere provided during nonwork hours, and the NE-DDS did not practice a clean-desk\n\n\n\n\n13\n SSA, POMS, DI 39530.001 A. 4.\n14\n SSA, POMS, DI 39563.200.\n15\n Nebraska Department of Education Administrative Memorandum #303, March 2007.\n16\n SSA, POMS, DI 39530.001 A. 2. and SSA, POMS, DI 39530.020 A.1.\n17\n SSA, POMS, DI 39563.200.\n18\n SSA, POMS, DI 39566.010 B.2.a. and B.6.e.\n19\n SSA, POMS, DI 39566.030 B.\n\x0cPage 6 - Michael W. Grochowski\n\npolicy. Therefore, cleaning personnel could gain unauthorized access to sensitive\ninformation and computer equipment. A lack of access controls increases the risk of\nunauthorized access and loss of sensitive information and equipment.\n\nThe NE-DDS stated that cleaning during regular working hours is disruptive and\ndiminishes the quality of service to the public since it is required to assist the public by\ntelephone. We recommend SSA instruct the NE-DDS to either implement cleaning\nservices during work hours or adhere to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s clean desk policy and other limitations\non access to claimant data.\n\nINCOMPLETE SECURITY PLAN\n\nThe NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 security plan did not adhere to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s policy requiring a security plan\n 20\nconsisting of eight parts, with each part containing specific information. We found\nthat the NE-DDS security plan was missing three of the eight required parts: (1) the\nDDS Systems Interconnection Access Security Plan, (2) the Violations Reports and\nResolution Plan, and (3) the Risk Assessment.\n\nFurthermore, essential information was missing in the other five parts of the security\nplan.\n\n1. The Physical DDS Security Description/Profile was missing a line of succession or\n authority in the event of a disaster.\n2. The Systems Security Awareness and Training Plan was missing information on\n how newly hired employees and contractors are trained.\n3. The Tri-Annual Systems Review/Recertification Plan was missing the tri-annual\n recertification process, the DDS policy on platform security, and the instructions for\n the comprehensive integrity review process.\n4. The Continuity of Operations Plan was missing a description of SSA and NE-DDS\n responsibilities and a description of workload and workflow of the NE-DDS.\n5. The DRP did not quantify what local resources are needed to operate the NE-DDS\n in the event of a disaster.\n\nBecause there was no complete security plan, there was a risk that critical business\nprocesses were not protected or would not recover timely in the event of a disaster. A\ndelay in creating a complete security plan could result in a longer recovery period\nfollowing a catastrophic event. NE-DDS personnel stated that conversion to electronic\nfolders was given priority over the security plan, and, since the conversion is complete,\nthe NE-DDS plans to create a new security plan in accordance with SSA\xe2\x80\x99s policy. We\nrecommend SSA assist the NE-DDS in the timely creation of a security plan in\naccordance with its policy.\n\n\n\n20\n SSA, POMS, DI 39566.120 C.\n\x0cPage 7 - Michael W. Grochowski\n\nDRP NOT TESTED\n 21\nThe NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 DRP was not tested as set forth in SSA policy. The DRP documents\nDDS data and personnel information involved in restoring system operations that are\nvital to disaster recovery. As a result of not testing the DRP, there was a risk that\ncritical business processes were not protected or would not recover timely in the event\nof a disaster. NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 delay in testing the DRP could result in a longer recovery period\nfollowing a catastrophic event. We recommend SSA work with the NE-DDS to ensure\nthe timely testing of the DRP.\n\nCONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nOther than the areas discussed in this report, the NE-DDS had effective controls over\nthe accounting and reporting of administrative costs. With the exception of paying CE\nproviders for missed CE appointments without SSA approval, the costs claimed by the\nNE-DDS during our audit period were allowable, properly allocated, and funds were\nproperly drawn. We found that the NE-DDS needed to improve controls over its CE\nsanctioned provider process and inventory controls. Regarding general security control,\nNE-DDS did not comply with SSA policies for after hours cleaning services, its security\nplan was incomplete, and its DRP had not been tested.\n\nWe recommend the SSA Regional Commissioner:\n\n 1. Instruct the NE-DDS to refund $229,519 for missed CE appointments unless it\n can provide acceptable evidence that paying for these missed CE appointments\n is appropriate.\n\n 2. Instruct the NE-DDS to immediately stop payments to providers for missed CE\n appointments until an exemption is requested and approved.\n\n 3. Ensure the NE-DDS continues to review the HHS/OIG List of Excluded\n Individuals/Entities as part of its consultative examiner background check\n process.\n\n 4. Instruct the NE-DDS to immediately establish and maintain proper equipment\n inventory in compliance with policies of SSA and the Nebraska Department of\n Education.\n\n 5. Verify the NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 new inventory system complies with appropriate policies.\n\n\n\n21\n SSA, POMS, DI 39566.120 C.7.b. In accordance with this SSA policy, the testing will be performed with\nheadquarters hardware in the National Computer Center\xe2\x80\x99s Disaster Test Facility. The policy provides that\nthe Office of Telecommunications and Systems Operations, an SSA component, performs this in\nconjunction with DDS systems staff and vendors who provide disaster recovery resources, and they will\nschedule the DDSs for backup and recovery testing.\n\x0cPage 8 - Michael W. Grochowski\n\n 6. Instruct the NE-DDS to either implement cleaning services during work hours or\n adhere to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s clean-desk policy during nonwork hours and other limitations on\n access to claimant data.\n\n 7. Assist the NE-DDS in the timely creation of a security plan in accordance with its\n policy.\n\n 8. Work with the NE-DDS to ensure the timely testing of NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 DRP.\n\nAGENCY COMMENTS\nIn commenting on our draft report, SSA agreed with all of our recommendations. See\nAppendix C for the full text of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s comments.\n\nNEBRASKA DISABILITY DETERMINATION SERVICES\xe2\x80\x99 COMMENTS\n\nIn commenting on our draft report the NE-DDS agreed with three of the eight\nrecommendations in our audit report. See Appendix D for the full text of the NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99\ncomments.\n\nThe NE-DDS disagreed with Recommendations 1 and 2 stating in part that paying for\nmissed CE appointments is a good business practice; consistent with its parent agency\npractice; consistent with standard business practice in the community; and contributes\nto making accurate determinations. The NE-DDS also stated that SSA\xe2\x80\x99s attempt to\ncollect reimbursement of nearly a quarter of a million dollars constitutes a threat to the\ncontinuation of the state-federal relationship in Nebraska.\n\nThe NE-DDS also disagreed in part with Recommendations 4 and 5 citing a different\ninterpretation of the SSA inventory policies and procedures than what we outlined in our\nreport. However, the NE-DDS commented that it will agree to conform to SSA\ninventory requirements once the requirements are stated.\n\nThe NE-DDS disagreed with Recommendation 6 stating that SSA policy gives the NE-\nDDS discretion as to whether it chooses to implement cleaning services during work\nhours and adhere to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s clean desk policy.\n\nOIG RESPONSE\n\nThe SSA Regional Office has already taken actions to implement Recommendations\n1 and 2. Following the issuance of our draft report, SSA worked with the NE-DDS to\ndevelop a request for exemption of payment for missed appointments, allowing for\nreduced reimbursement instead of paying the CE provider up to 50 percent of the fee\nfor the missed CE during our audit period. This exemption has been approved by the\nOffice of Disability Determinations. The NE-DDS plans to implement this new\n\x0cPage 9 - Michael W. Grochowski\n\nprocedure on June 2, 2008. Since SSA reached agreement on the exemption, it does\nnot plan to request a refund of the funds paid for missed appointments. Therefore,\nSSA has taken appropriate actions to address these recommendations and the\nconcerns stated in the NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 comments are no longer applicable.\n\nWe remain committed to Recommendations 4 and 5 which require the NE-DDS to\nestablish and maintain proper equipment inventory in compliance with policies of SSA\nand the Nebraska Department of Education and instruct SSA to verify the NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 new\ninventory system complies with appropriate policies. However, the NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 comments\nto our draft report indicates that it may not fully understand SSA requirements for the\ninventory process. Therefore, SSA should discuss the inventory requirements with the\nNE-DDS as part of its process for taking corrective actions on our recommendations.\n\nWe also remain committed to our recommendation that the NE-DDS either implement\ncleaning services during work hours or adhere to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s clean-desk policy.\nImplementation of this recommendation is necessary for the protection of disability\nclaimants\xe2\x80\x99 PII that is not protected by computer PINS and passwords. The minimal\neffort required on the part of the NE-DDS to implement a clean-desk policy is far\noutweighed by the protection it would provide disability claimants.\n\nOTHER MATTER\n\nPersonally Identifiable Information\n\nDisability claimants of the NE-DDS had PII routinely disclosed to vendors. The NE-\nDDS processes over 18,000 disability determinations each FY. During the disability\ndetermination process, the NE-DDS purchases services that include medical evidence\n(CE and medical evidence of record) and claimant travel. Our review of medical and\napplicant travel invoices revealed that these documents contained PII including name,\naddress, date of birth, Social Security number, and telephone number. Although we\nhave no reason to believe this information has been abused, this practice could\npotentially result in abuse of claimant\xe2\x80\x99s PII.\n\nFederal guidance dictates that agencies should reduce their current holdings of all PII\nto the minimum necessary for the proper performance of a documented agency\nfunction. 22 Agencies must also review their use of Social Security numbers in agency\nsystems and programs to identify instances in which collection or use of the Social\nSecurity number is superfluous. 23\n\n\n\n\n22\n OMB Memorandum M-07-16, Attachment 1 \xc2\xa7 B.1.a. This Memorandum (page 2) also indicates a few\nsimple and cost effective steps to greatly reduce the risks related to a data breach of PII, such as limiting\naccess to only those individuals who must have such access. Access is defined as the ability or\nopportunity to gain knowledge of PII.\n23\n OMB Memorandum M-07-16, Attachment 1 \xc2\xa7 B.2.a.\n\x0cPage 10 - Michael W. Grochowski\n\nOn October 5, 2007, SSA ODD informed ROs that DDS\xe2\x80\x99 should review their processes\nto eliminate the use of the Social Security numbers on correspondence where possible.\nThe NE-DDS informed us that it has begun the process of removing the Social Security\nnumber from documents where it is not absolutely necessary.\n\n\n\n\n Patrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\n\x0c Appendices\nAPPENDIX A \xe2\x80\x93 Acronyms\nAPPENDIX B \xe2\x80\x93 Scope and Methodology\nAPPENDIX C \xe2\x80\x93 Agency Comments\nAPPENDIX D \xe2\x80\x93 Nebraska Disability Determination Services Comments\nAPPENDIX E \xe2\x80\x93 OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments\n\x0c Appendix A\n\nAcronyms\nAct Social Security Act\nASAP Automated Standard Application for Payments\nCE Consultative Examination\nC.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations\nDDS Disability Determination Services\nDI Disability Insurance\nDRP Disaster Recovery Plan\nFY Fiscal Year\nHHS Health and Human Services\nNE-DDS Nebraska Disability Determination Services\nODD Office of Disability Determinations\nOIG Office of Inspector General\nOMB Office of Management and Budget\nPII Personally Identifiable Information\nPOMS Program Operations Manual System\nPub. L. No. Public Law Number\nRO Regional Office\nSSA Social Security Administration\nSSA-4513 State Agency Report of Obligations for SSA Disability Programs\nSSI Supplemental Security Income\nTreasury Department of the Treasury\nU.S.C. United States Code\n\x0c Appendix B\n\nScope and Methodology\nSCOPE\n\nTo achieve our objective, we:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed applicable Federal laws and regulations, pertinent parts of the Social\n Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) Program Operations Manual System and other\n criteria relevant to administrative costs claimed by the Nebraska Disability\n Determination Services (NE-DDS), and the draw down of SSA program\n appropriations.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed staff at the Nebraska Department of Education and the NE-DDS.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed State policies and procedures related to personnel, medical services,\n and all other nonpersonnel costs.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Evaluated, tested, and documented internal controls regarding accounting, financial\n reporting, and cash management activities.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reconciled State accounting records to the administrative costs reported by the\n NE-DDS on the State Agency Report of Obligations for SSA Disability Programs\n (SSA-4513) for Federal Fiscal Years (FY) 2005 through 2006.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Examined specific administrative expenditures (personnel, medical services, and all\n other nonpersonnel costs) incurred and claimed by the NE-DDS for FYs 2005 and\n 2006 on the SSA-4513. We used statistical sampling to select expenditures to test\n for support of the medical service and all other nonpersonnel costs as discussed in\n the following methodology section of this appendix.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Examined the indirect costs claimed by NE-DDS for FYs 2005 through 2006.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Compared the amount of SSA funds drawn for support of program operations to\n the expenditures reported on the SSA-4513.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Determined whether selected funds from cancelled warrants were properly returned\n to SSA.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Determined whether unliquidated obligations were properly supported.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the NE-DDS\xe2\x80\x99 general security control.\n\n\n\n\n B-1\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed Office of Management and Budget guidance related to safeguarding\n personally identifiable information.\n\nWe determined that the data provided by Nebraska Department of Education and\nNE-DDS used in our audit were sufficiently reliable to achieve our audit objectives. We\nassessed the reliability of the data by reconciling it with the costs claimed on the\nSSA-4513. We also conducted detailed audit testing on selected data elements in the\nelectronic data files.\n\nWe performed work at the NE-DDS, and the Kansas City, Missouri, Office of Audit. We\nconducted fieldwork from June 2007 through January 2008. The audit was conducted\nin accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.\n\nMETHODOLOGY\n\nSAMPLING METHODOLOGY\n\nThe sampling methodology encompassed the four general areas of costs reported on\nthe SSA-4513: (1) personnel, (2) medical, (3) indirect, and (4) all other nonpersonnel\ncosts. We obtained a data extract of all costs and the associated invoices for FYs\n2005 through 2006 for use in statistical sampling. This was obtained from the\naccounting systems used in the preparation of the SSA-4513.\n\nPersonnel Costs\n\nWe randomly selected 1 pay period, the month of August, in FY 2006 for review. We\nthen selected a random sample of 50 regular employees for review and testing of the\npayroll records. For medical consultant costs, we also selected the month of August, in\nFY 2006, for review. We then selected all 19 medical consultants for review and testing\nof the payroll records.\n\nMedical Costs\n\nWe sampled 100 items (50 items from each of FY 2005 and 2006) using a stratified\nrandom sample of medical costs based on the proportion of medical evidence of record\nand consultative examination costs to the total medical costs claimed.\n\n\n\n\n B-2\n\x0cIndirect Costs\n\nNE-DDS indirect costs are computed by applying a federally approved rate to a cost\nbase. 1 This methodology was approved by the United States Department of Education,\nwhich is the Federal agency designated to negotiate and approve the indirect cost rate.\nOn the final SSA-4513s, the NE-DDS claimed indirect costs of $460,944 for FY\n2005 and $511,934 for FY 2006. We reviewed the FY 2005 and 2006 indirect cost\ncalculations to ensure the correct rate was applied.\n\nAll Other Nonpersonnel Costs\n\nWe sampled 100 items (50 expenditures from FY 2005 and 50 from FY 2006) using a\nstratified random sample. The random sample was based on the proportion of costs in\neach of the cost categories to the total costs claimed.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Total direct costs including the remunerations of medical consultants less items of equipment, alterations\nand renovations flow-through, food, other medical costs and the portion of each competitive bid sub-award\nin excess of $25,000 regardless of the period covered by that sub-award.\n\n\n B-3\n\x0c Appendix C\n\nAgency Comments\n\x0cSent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 4:36 PM\nSubject: Signed Draft Report (A-07-07-17170) - Kansas City Response\n\nTo: Inspector General\n\nFrom: Regional Commissioner\n Kansas City Region\n\nSubject: Administrative Costs Claimed by the Nebraska Disability Determination Services\n (A-07-07-17170) - Response\n\nThank you for sharing the draft report of the administrative audit for fiscal years 2005 and 2006\nconducted at the Nebraska Disability Determination Services (DDS). The preliminary findings\nillustrate that overall the Nebraska DDS has effective controls over the accounting and reporting\nof administrative costs. The auditors did identify the following recommendations that require\ncorrective action or improved processes. I agree with the recommendations outlined in the draft\nreport. We will work with the DDS to correct these findings.\n\nRecommendations:\n1. Instruct the Nebraska DDS to refund $229,519 for missed CE appointments unless it can\n provide acceptable evidence that paying for these missed CE appointments is appropriate.\n2. Instruct the DDS to immediately stop payments to providers for missed CE appointments\n until an exemption is requested and approved.\n\n Action Pending: The Regional Office worked with the Nebraska DDS to develop a request\n for exemption of payment for missed appointments, allowing for reduced reimbursement.\n This exemption has been approved by the Office of Disability Determination. The DDS\n plans to implement this new procedure on June 2, 2008, which will allow the DDS enough\n time to inform their consultative examination panelists of the change in their policy. Since\n we have now come to an agreement on this exemption, the Region does not plan to request a\n refund of DDS funds paid for missed appointments.\n\n3. Ensure the DDS continues to review the HHS/OIG List of Excluded Individuals/Entities as\n part of its consultative examiner background check process.\n\n Action Pending: The DDS is now aware of the requirement to review the HHS/OIG\n sanction listing and will incorporate this into their CE provider review process. The Center\n for Disability Professional Relation's Officer will follow-up with the DDS during\n Professional Relations visits to ensure this is being done on a regular basis.\n\n4. Instruct the DDS to immediately establish and maintain proper equipment inventory in\n compliance with policies of SSA and the Nebraska Department of Education.\n5. Verify the DDS\xe2\x80\x99 new inventory system complies with appropriate policies.\n\n\n\n\n C-1\n\x0c Action Pending: The Center for Disability Programs will work with the DDS to see that\n they establish proper equipment inventory and verify the new system complies with\n appropriate policies.\n\n6. Instruct the DDS to either implement cleaning services during work hours or adhere to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\n clean-desk policy during non-work hours and other limitations on access to claimant data.\n\n Action Pending: The DDS is evaluating options to comply with SSA policies for cleaning\n services.\n\n7. Assist the DDS in the timely creation of a security plan in accordance with its policy.\n\n8. Work with the DDS to ensure the timely testing of the DDS\xe2\x80\x99 Disaster Recovery Plan.\n\n Action Pending: The Center for Disability Programs will work with the DDS to develop a\n complete security plan that adheres to SSA's policy requirements. The Office of Disability\n Determination, Division of DDS Systems, will be contacted regarding the possibility of\n testing the Nebraska DDS Disaster Recovery Plan.\n\nOTHER MATTER\n\nPersonally Identifiable Information (PII)\nDisability claimants of the DDS had PII routinely disclosed to vendors. Review of medical and\napplicant travel invoices revealed that these documents contained PII including name, address,\ndate of birth, Social Security number, and telephone number.\n\n Action Pending: The DDS is working to remove the Social Security number from all\n documents where it is not absolutely necessary.\n\nWe appreciate the auditor's exceptional communication and cooperation with the DDS and\nRegional Office during the course of the audit process. We hope to have all matters addressed by\nthe time the final audit report is received. If you have questions, please contact me at 816-936-\n5700. If your staff needs additional assistance or information, they may contact Linda Kerr-\nDavis, Disability Program Administrator for Nebraska, at 816-936-5685.\n\n /s/\n Michael W. Grochowski\n\n\n\n\n C-2\n\x0c Appendix D\n\nNebraska Disability Determination Services\nComments\n\x0c NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION\n Disability Determinations Section\n Mailing Address: PO Box 82530 - Lincoln, Nebraska 68501-2530 - Phone (402) 471-2961\n FAX # 402-471-3626\n Determinations for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income Disability\n\n\n May 14, 2008\n\nPatrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\nOffice of Inspector General\nSocial Security Administration\nBaltimore, MD 21235-0001\n\nDear Mr. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll:\n\n Re: Audit A-07-07-17170\n\nBy letter dated April 14, 2008, your office conveyed a draft Audit Report relative to the\nadministrative costs claimed by the Nebraska Disability Determinations Services. The\naudit covered fiscal years 2005 and 2006. You requested written comments on each of\nthe recommendations contained in the draft report. This letter serves as the response of\nthe Nebraska Department of Education.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nThe relevant statutes and regulations create an opportunity for the state and federal\ngovernments to maintain a partnership in the administration of the Social Security\nDisability Program. Participation is voluntary for the states. SSA may terminate its\nrelationship with a state in the presence of performance that persistently falls below\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s established standards.\n\nAll states presently participate in the program which is evidence that the states and SSA\nfeel that there are mutual advantages in doing so. For SSA, the advantages are tangible\nand obvious. They most notably include having exclusive access to points of business\npresence in every state and to a trained and experienced state workforce whose\ncompensation is far less than would be the case if the work were performed by federal\nemployees. Simply and significantly, SSA saves a lot of money by having the disability\ndetermination function performed by the states.\n\nFor the states, the benefits are less concrete, and the financial incentive, if any, is small.\nSSA does fund all operational expenses. Additionally, SSA reimburses the states for\nthe administrative overhead (indirect costs) associated with participating in the\nprogram. But since the state does not \xe2\x80\x9ckeep\xe2\x80\x9d any of the funding for operational\n\n\n\n D-1\n\x0cexpenses and since the indirect costs are fair in terms of the added expense to the state,\nthere is little or nothing resembling a \xe2\x80\x9cprofit\xe2\x80\x9d for the states.\n\nWhat each state does experience from the partnership is an opportunity to play a role in\nassuring that its residents receive an acceptable level of service in the administration of\nthe program. Service to its citizens and fair and appropriate regard for state\ngovernment in general and the state business community are the incentives for state\nparticipation in the program.\n\nIn Nebraska, DDS management is sometimes asked by other officials in state\ngovernment --- legislators, their staffs, budget analysts, and a former governor\xe2\x80\x99s chief\nof staff --- \xe2\x80\x9cwhy is this a state program? why not just turn this over to SSA? is keeping\nthis program really worth the risk from a PR and liability point of view?\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe structure and nature of the state federal partnership has evolved over the history of\nthe program in ways that are relevant to some of the findings of this audit. Before the\nenactment of Public Law 96-265 in 1980, the business relationships between the state\nand federal components were determined by individually negotiated contracts. This\nenabled each state to declare and negotiate the terms under which it would perform\nfunctions on behalf of SSA. Under 96-265, the contracts were invalidated and SSA\nwas empowered to issue regulations that would define the business relationship. Such\nregulations were issued on May 29, 1981. The fundamental understanding was that\nSSA would provide the policies, workload, performance expectations, funding, and\noversight while the states would provide a business environment, business rules, and\npersonnel.\n\nTwo citations from the original regulation are relevant:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe (SSA) do not intend to become involved in the State\xe2\x80\x99s ongoing\n management of the program except as necessary and in accordance with these\n regulations\xe2\x80\x9d.\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cThe States will have control over management of their operations as long as\n their performance is adequate under the standards which we set\xe2\x80\x9d.\n\nBut as time has passed, SSA has increasingly sought to determine business rules,\nadministrative procedures, etc. within the DDSs. This observation is made here because\nit becomes relevant to some of the specific findings of the audit. At least a theoretical\npossibility exists that the trend in SSA determination and enforcement of administrative\nand business rules would so compromise a state\xe2\x80\x99s reason for being in the program as to\ncompel reexamination of the state\xe2\x80\x99s position.\n\n\n\n\n D-2\n\x0cRESULTS OF THE REVIEW\n\nPAYMENT TO CE PROVIDERS FOR MISSED APPOINTMENTS\n\nOIG observed that the DDS has a practice of paying health care providers a fee when\nclaimants fail to appear for their scheduled appointments, that this practice had not\nbeen approved by SSA, and that this is not consistent with SSA instructions. OIG\nrecommends that SSA instruct the DDS to immediately stop paying such a fee and to\nrefund $229,519.\n\n\nDDS disagrees with OIG\xe2\x80\x99s recommendation for the following reasons:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 paying such a fee is a good business practice;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 it is consistent with the parent agency practice;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 it is consistent with standard business practice in the community;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 it contributes to our highest priority of making accurate determinations;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 permitting the DDS to exercise its own discretion on this matter (and potentially\n on other matters) is consistent with the fundamental understanding in having a\n state-federal partnership;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 SSA may lack the regulatory authority to impose its requirement on this matter;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 attempting to effectuate a payment of nearly a quarter of a million dollars\n constitutes a threat to the continuation of the state-federal relationship in\n Nebraska.\n\nPaying the fee is a good business practice. When DDS schedules an appointment with\na medical provider, that provider blocks out time that could otherwise have been \xe2\x80\x9csold\xe2\x80\x9d\nto another purchaser. This is particularly important in the case of psychologists who\nschedule an hour or more of their time to the exclusion of all other activities. When our\nclaimant fails to appear for the examination, the time and business opportunity is lost.\nAsking the provider to take this risk with no opportunity for compensation is unfair and\nunreasonable. Our examination providers are our business partners, the success of our\noperations depend upon them, and we value their good will. The OIG recommendation\nis not consistent with maintaining good business relationships.\n\nIt is consistent with the parent agency practice. In comparable situations, most notably\nthe contracting for translation services, the parent agency pays a fee to professional\nservice provider when he or she is present and ready to provide the service but the\nclient fails to appear and a business opportunity is consequently lost. When SSA\nchooses to do business with us, especially under a regulation which states an intention\nto defer to local business practices, it gives up its absolute right to unilaterally dictate\nbusiness practices. If exercise of such an absolute right is essential in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s view, then\nwe acknowledge SSA\xe2\x80\x99s option to make arrangements with some other entity to\nschedule and pay for consultative examinations.\n\n\n\n D-3\n\x0cIt is consistent with standard business practice in the community.\n\nMedical practitioners generally assess charges to patients who make appointments and\nwho do not appear for the appointments without having given adequate notice of\ncancellation. Expecting practitioners to treat DDS differently than their patients is not\nreasonable.\n\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s recommendation runs counter to our highest objective. The top priority of the\nDDS is to make correct and accurate determinations of eligibility for disability benefits.\nDoing so requires that we attempt to recruit the best and most competent sources for\nmedical examinations. Not surprisingly, the best sources are those in highest demand.\nNot paying a fee for missed appointments will cause us to lose the opportunity to do\nbusiness with providers who are in highest demand.\n\nSSA may lack the regulatory authority to require that no fees be paid in these\ncircumstances.\n\nIn the current CFR, SSA states its basic intent as follows:\n\xc2\xa7404.1603 Basic responsibilities for us and the State.\n\n(a) General. We will work with the State to provide and maintain an effective system for processing claims of those\nwho apply for and who are receiving benefits under the disability program. We will provide program standards,\nleadership, and oversight. We do not intend to become involved in the State's ongoing management of the\nprogram except as is necessary and in accordance with these regulations. The State will comply with our\nregulations and other written guidelines.\n\nWith regard to payment for medical purchases, the CFR states:\n\xc2\xa7404.1624 Medical and other purchased services.\n\nSubject to the provisions of \xc2\xa7405.805(b)(2) of this chapter in claims adjudicated under the procedures in part 405 of\nthis chapter, the State will determine the rates of payment to be used for purchasing medical or other services\nnecessary to make determinations of disability. The rates may not exceed the highest rate paid by Federal or other\nagencies in the State for the same or similar type of service. The State will maintain documentation to support the\nrates of payment it uses.\n\nClearly, payment for missed appointments falls under the heading of purchased medical\nservices and clearly the CFR defers to the state practice. While OIG or SSA may quote\nother much more general phraseology (such as, \xe2\x80\x9cthe DDS will follow our guidelines),\ndeference must go to the more specific language.\n\nThreatening to attempt to recover money paid for missed appointments could have\nundesired consequences for the future of the state federal relationship. As mentioned in\nthe previous section, there is little in the way of tangible benefit for the state in this\npartnership. For SSA to threaten to recover a large amount of money (or any amount of\nmoney), would further weaken the rationale. It would create the appearance of a\nsituation in which the best the state could do would be to have the federal partner cover\n\n\n\n\n D-4\n\x0cthe expenses of doing federal work but in which there would be a potential penalty in\nwhich the state would have to provide its own funding should a mistake be made.\nMany reasonable state policy makers would oppose such an arrangement.\n\nAny decision should be made by weighing the probable benefits against the probable\nrisks. When applied to the question of deciding whether or not OIG will recommend\nrecovery of funds, there are no benefits and there are many risks. There are no benefits\nbecause this recovery of funds simply will not happen. The Nebraska legislature is not\ngoing to appropriate Nebraska taxpayer dollars to pay SSA for having done SSA work.\nNeither will the threat intimidate the DDS into following SSA directions for which\nSSA lacks regulatory authority. There are no other benefits. Meanwhile, there is\nconsiderable risk. The recommendation is inflammatory and without any possible\nconstructive consequence. Therefore DDS recommends that the OIG draft report be\namended to exclude any reference to recovery of funds.\n\nSANCTION LISTING\n\nOIG observed that DDS had only recently been reviewing the HHS OIG List of\nExcluded Individuals/Entities to make sure that we are not doing business with health\ncare providers who have been sanctioned by other federal agencies. OIG recommended\nthat DDS continue to use this listing.\n\nDDS agrees with the OIG finding and recommendation.\n\nINVENTORY CONTROL\n\nDDS disagrees with a number of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s observations and recommendations regarding\ninventory control.\n\nOIG Statement DDS Response\nDDS could not locate two out of service DDS did recover both laptops.\nlaptops, but later located one.\n\n\xe2\x80\x9cWe do not agree with the NE DDS\xe2\x80\x99 DDS made no such assertion. DDS believes\nassertions that they are exempt from that it must abide by the POMS\ndocumenting SSA supplied computer requirements for inventory control for all\nequipment into their inventory system.\xe2\x80\x9d equipment including computer equipment.\n POMS 39530.020 requires that DDS\nThese statements are made in the context inventory all equipment whether purchased\nof determining whether or not DDS must by SSA or by the state with SSA funds.\nmaintain a formal inventory of computer DDS does follow this instruction. But\nequipment supplied by SSA with a unit POMS 39530.001 D defines \xe2\x80\x9cequipment\xe2\x80\x9d as\ncost of less than $5000. an article having an acquisition cost of\n $5000 or more.\n\nAlthough POMS 39530.001D does The POMS quoted by OIG does indeed say\n\n\n D-5\n\x0cdefine equipment using a minimum per that computer equipment must be\nunit acquisition cost, this same policy considered separately. But it does not say\nsays that computer equipment must be that it must be inventoried.\nconsidered separately.\n\nAdditional policy requires (POMS Yes, but it does not define what an\n39563.200) requires an appropriate appropriate system would be. This\ninventory and control mechanism to reference is very general and we must defer\naccount for all property used for to the more specifically worded sections\ndisability program purposes. that, taken together, say that items costing at\n least $5000 must be inventoried.\n\nOIG has an opinion about what should be But the POMS does not back up that\ninventoried. opinion. If SSA has specific requirements it\n should state them clearly in POMS and then,\n provided that they do not conflict with a\n higher authority, DDS will comply.\n\nDDSs contention that it does not own the That is one fact in support of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\ncomputer equipment is wrong. SSA\xe2\x80\x99s interpretation. But there are others. First,\npolicy says that title rests with the state. every piece of computer equipment that\n SSA ships to DDS bears a sticker that says\n \xe2\x80\x9cSSA \xe2\x80\x93 Property of the Federal\n Government\xe2\x80\x9d. Second, if it were truly the\n property of the state, it could be reassigned\n from DDS to some other agency of state\n government. Does OIG think that SSA\n would stand still for that?\n\nWe recommend that SSA instruct the NE To the extent that OIG is recommending\nDDS to immediately establish and that SSA require DDS to conform to SSA\nmaintain equipment inventory in requirements (once they are stated so that\ncompliance with the policies of SSA and everyone knows what they are), DDS\nthe Nebraska Department of Education. agrees. But the OIG recommendation seems\nWe also recommend that SSA verify the to go further and to recommend that SSA\nNE DDS\xe2\x80\x99 new inventory system interject itself into the supervision of state\ncomplies with appropriate policies. employees by taking actions to inspect state\n compliance with state instructions. If this is\n the intended meaning, then DDS strongly\n disagrees that SSA should get involved in\n state supervision of state practices.\n\nACCESS CONTROLS\n\nDDS does not agree with some of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s observations and recommendations regarding\naccess controls and concludes that OIG\xe2\x80\x99s recommendations are not support by POMS\n\n\n\n\n D-6\n\x0cOIG Statement DDS Response\nDDS does not comply with SSA policies OIG has mischaracterized and overstated\nfor cleaning services which require either what the POMS actually says. 39566.010A\na \xe2\x80\x9cclean desk\xe2\x80\x9d policy or daytime prefaces all succeeding guidelines by saying\ncleaning. OIG cites POMS that the contents of the section are\n39566.010B2a and B6e as its source. discretionary. The specific sections\n referenced by OIG say \xe2\x80\x9coffices should\n implement a clean desk policy or daytime\n cleaning\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cthe office should be cleaned\n during work hours\xe2\x80\x9d. DDS believes that SSA\n chose the term \xe2\x80\x9cshould\xe2\x80\x9d when the term\n \xe2\x80\x9cmust\xe2\x80\x9d was available and intentionally\n labeled the guidelines as discretionary.\n POMS does not support the OIG\n recommendation.\n\nNon agency employees such as DDS feels that the use of PINs and\ncleaning personnel must not have passwords is sufficient to prevent non\naccess to claimant data and computer agency personnel access to the sensitive\nequipment used for data input or information.\nstorage per POMS 39566.030B.\n\nINCOMPLETE SECURITY PLAN\n\nOIG observed that the DDS security plan was incomplete and recommended the\ndevelopment of a security plan in accordance with SSA policy.\n\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s requirements for security planning have been something of a moving target and\nDDS has not been able to keep up. DDS does accept this finding and will work with\nthe SSA RO to update and complete our security plan.\n\nDRP NOT TESTED\n\nOIG observed that the DDS disaster recovery plan has not been tested and\nrecommended that SSA and DDS work together to test the DRP.\n\nDDS agrees with the OIG finding and recommendation.\n\nThank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft. Depending on the extent to\nwhich the language in the final report is modified in view of these comments, DDS\nrequests that these comments be included as an appendix to the final audit report.\n\nSincerely,\n\nDouglas Willman\nDDS Administrator\n\n\n D-7\n\x0c Appendix E\n\nOIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments\nOIG Contacts\n\n Mark Bailey, Director, Kansas City Audit Division, (816) 936-5591\n\n Ken Bennett, Information Technology Specialist, (816) 936-5593\n\nAcknowledgments\n\nIn addition to those named above:\n\n Doug Kelly, Auditor-in-Charge\n\nFor additional copies of this report, please visit our web site at\nwww.socialsecurity.gov/oig or contact the Office of the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Public\nAffairs Specialist at (410) 965-3218. Refer to Common Identification Number\nA-07-07-17170.\n\x0c DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE\n\nCommissioner of Social Security\nOffice of Management and Budget, Income Maintenance Branch\nChairman and Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means\nChief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security\nMajority and Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Social Security\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Oversight and Government\nReform\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,\nEducation and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,\n House of Representatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human\nServices, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security Pensions\nand Family Policy\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging\nSocial Security Advisory Board\n\x0c Overview of the Office of the Inspector General\nThe Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of an Office of Audit (OA), Office of Investigations\n(OI), Office of the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General (OCCIG), Office of External Relations (OER), and\nOffice of Technology and Resource Management (OTRM). To ensure compliance with policies and\nprocedures, internal controls, and professional standards, the OIG also has a comprehensive Professional\nResponsibility and Quality Assurance program.\n Office of Audit\nOA conducts financial and performance audits of the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) programs and\noperations and makes recommendations to ensure program objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently.\nFinancial audits assess whether SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements fairly present SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial position, results of\noperations, and cash flow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nprograms and operations. OA also conducts short-term management reviews and program evaluations on issues\nof concern to SSA, Congress, and the general public.\n Office of Investigations\nOI conducts investigations related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in SSA programs and operations.\nThis includes wrongdoing by applicants, beneficiaries, contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing\ntheir official duties. This office serves as liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating to the\ninvestigation of SSA programs and personnel. OI also conducts joint investigations with other Federal, State,\nand local law enforcement agencies.\n Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General\nOCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters, including statutes,\nregulations, legislation, and policy directives. OCIG also advises the IG on investigative procedures and\ntechniques, as well as on legal implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material.\nAlso, OCIG administers the Civil Monetary Penalty program.\n Office of External Relations\nOER manages OIG\xe2\x80\x99s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the principal advisor on news releases\nand in providing information to the various news reporting services. OER develops OIG\xe2\x80\x99s media and public\ninformation policies, directs OIG\xe2\x80\x99s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the primary contact for\nthose seeking information about OIG. OER prepares OIG publications, speeches, and presentations to internal\nand external organizations, and responds to Congressional correspondence.\n Office of Technology and Resource Management\nOTRM supports OIG by providing information management and systems security. OTRM also coordinates\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities, and human resources. In addition, OTRM is the\nfocal point for OIG\xe2\x80\x99s strategic planning function, and the development and monitoring of performance\nmeasures. In addition, OTRM receives and assigns for action allegations of criminal and administrative\nviolations of Social Security laws, identifies fugitives receiving benefit payments from SSA, and provides\ntechnological assistance to investigations.\n\x0c"


type: contracts

text:
 4.8.2016
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 L 211/27
 DECISIÓN DEL COMITÉ MIXTO DEL EEE
 N.o 90/2015
 de 30 de abril de 2015
 por la que se modifica el anexo II (Reglamentaciones técnicas, normas, ensayos y certificación) del Acuerdo EEE [2016/1273]
 EL COMITÉ MIXTO DEL EEE,
 Visto el Acuerdo sobre el Espacio Económico Europeo, en lo sucesivo denominado «el Acuerdo EEE», y en particular su artículo 98,
 Considerando lo siguiente:
 (1)
 Debe incorporarse al Acuerdo EEE el Reglamento (UE) n.o 1342/2014 de la Comisión, de 17 de diciembre de 2014, por el que se modifica el Reglamento (CE) n.o 850/2004 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, sobre contaminantes orgánicos persistentes, en lo que se refiere a los anexos IV y V (1).
 (2)
 Procede, por tanto, modificar en consecuencia el anexo II del Acuerdo EEE.
 HA ADOPTADO LA PRESENTE DECISIÓN:
 Artículo 1
 En el punto 12w [Reglamento (CE) n.o 850/2004 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo] del capítulo XV del anexo II del Acuerdo EEE, se añade el siguiente guion:
 «—
 32014 R 1342: Reglamento (UE) n.o 1342/2014 de la Comisión, de 17 de diciembre de 2014 (DO L 363 de 18.12.2014, p. 67).».
 Artículo 2
 Los textos del Reglamento (UE) n.o 1342/2014 en lenguas islandesa y noruega, que se publicarán en el Suplemento EEE del Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea, son auténticos.
 Artículo 3
 La presente Decisión entrará en vigor el 1 de mayo de 2015, siempre que se hayan transmitido al Comité Mixto del EEE todas las notificaciones previstas en el artículo 103, apartado 1, del Acuerdo EEE (*).
 Artículo 4
 La presente Decisión se publicará en la sección EEE y en el Suplemento EEE del Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea.
 Hecho en Bruselas, el 30 de abril de 2015.
 Por el Comité Mixto del EEE
 El Presidente
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) DO L 363 de 18.12.2014, p. 67.
 (*) No se han indicado preceptos constitucionales.


text:
MLB World Series je najcjenjeniji trofej u bejzbolu. World Series igraju pobjednici MLBovih liga American League i National League te se prvi takav održao 1903. Jedino nije bilo finala 1904. i 1994. zbog štrajka igrača (lock-out). Finale se igra na četiri dobijene utakmice (nekad i pet).
 Završnice
 - članovi American League
 - članovi National League
 Pobjednici i finalisti - ukupno
 stanje zaključno s 2014.
 Povezani članci
 Major League Baseball
 National League
 American League
 Popis klubova u Major League Baseball
 Major League Baseball


text:
Putin stärker greppet - Kvartal
 Xinhua /TT
 Vladimir Putin förbereder att sitta kvar länge som president.
 Putin stärker greppet
 Av Anders Fogelklou • 16 april 2020
 Den 22 april skulle den nya ryska konstitutionen ha röstats igenom, men nu har man i och med coronapandemin skjutit på detta. Mycket tyder på att Vladimir Putin nu ytterligare stärker sitt grepp om Ryssland. Att den nya konstitutionen skulle ge Putin rätt att sitta till 2036 har fått en del uppmärksamhet, men det finns mer att berätta om. Anders Fogelklou, professor emeritus i östeuropeisk rätt vid Uppsala universitet, ger en bakgrund till Rysslands nya författning.
 Vi se en rörelse mot ökat auktoritärt styre i länder som Turkiet, Brasilien, Indien och Filippinerna. Även i Ungern har Victor Orban passat på att i coronavirusets spår få igenom en fullmaktslag som gör det möjligt att styra genom regeringsdekret på obestämd tid. Gemensamt för dessa stater är idén om en icke-liberal demokrati. Detta gäller även Ryssland.
 I skuggan av uppmärksamheten kring coronaviruset har Putin gjort något som mest liknar en konstitutionell statskupp.
 För drygt tjugo år sedan, den 26 mars 2000, valdes Vladimir Putin till rysk president. Nu vill han stanna kvar till 2036. I skuggan av uppmärksamheten kring coronaviruset har Putin gjort något som mest liknar en konstitutionell statskupp.
 Ryssland kommer att få en starkt förändrad grundlag. Förändringen av 1993 års konstitution är långtgående och har både maktpolitiska och ideologiska motiv.
 En avgörande punkt i den nya konstitutionen är att den person som för närvarande innehar presidentämbetet kan ställa upp på nytt när den förändrade grundlagen trätt i kraft. Med denna reform säkrar Putin sitt maktinnehav efter 2024, samtidigt som han också passat på att föra in sin ideologiska vision i konstitutionen.
 Sovjetisering av konstitutionen
 Detta är en fortsättning av en tendens av vad man kan kalla en sovjetisering av den ryska konstitutionen. Denna började redan när Putin kom till makten år 2000.
 Ryssland har ringa erfarenhet av konstitutionalism – idén om en rättslig begränsning av statsmakten. Det gamla Ryssland var ett envälde. Fram till 1905 hade Ryssland ingen konstitution och inget parlament. Först 1905 tvingades tsar Nikolaj II utfärda det så kallade oktobermanifestet till följd av revolutionära oroligheter med åtföljande krav på demokrati. Detta ledde till skapandet av en konstitution och upprättandet av ett parlament, duman. Men parlamentarismens införande i Ryssland åtföljdes av svårigheter. Nikolaj II såg sig i första hand som självhärskare och duman upplöstes flera gånger. Med första världskriget och februarirevolutionen fick duman en viktigare roll men denna försvann genom Lenins statskupp 1917.
 Erfarenheterna av en verkningslös skenkonstitution medförde att den ryska grundlagstiftaren ville ha en stark konstitution efter kommunismens fall.
 Sovjetunionen, liksom alla kommunistiska stater, hade förstås en konstitution, men den hade endast en formell roll. Partidiktaturen kontrollerade sovjeterna (råden) i de olika republikerna. Stalinkonstitutionen från 1936, som följdes av Leonid Brezjnevs grundlag från 1977, hade bara formell betydelse. Makten låg hos kommunistpartiet.
 Det sedvanliga sättet att göra en konstitution stark är att inrätta en författningsdomstol. Detta skedde också i Ryssland. Ett annat sätt att skydda de konstitutionella normerna och principerna, är att göra konstitutionen svår att ändra.
 Konstitutionens tillkomst genom folkomröstning den 12 december 1993 bådade dock inte gott. Den hade föregåtts av en maktkamp mellan president Boris Jeltsin och det dåvarande parlamentet. Jeltsin upplöste parlamentet, något som han formellt sett inte hade rätt till. Detta ledde till ett våldsamt motstånd från upproriska, nationalbolsjevikiska medlemmar av parlamentet som besvarades med ett militärt angrepp mot parlamentsbyggnaden.
 Läs mer: Att svänga runt med Donald Trump
 Individens skydd
 När grundlagen var på plats kan man konstatera att den fyllde uppgiften att att skydda individens frihet, som är central för varje grundlag givet att staten har ett våldsmonopol. Utövande av detta monopol måste ske genom tydligt lagstöd. Individen sägs vara det högsta konstitutionella värdet. De grundläggande principerna utgörs av demokrati, individens frihet, rättsstat, förbud mot bestämd statsideologi, sekularism, maktdelning och federalism. Internationell rätt går före inomstatlig rätt, i fall av kollision.
 Den ryska konstitutionens överhöghet i rättssystemet skyddas genom författningsdomstolen.
 Men de ändringar som Putin nu genomdriver skulle kunna strida mot grunderna i grundlagen, och då skulle han behöva ändra konstitutionen genom att sammankalla en konstituerande församling. Putin föredrar emellertid det enklare förfarandet och begärde därför ett utlåtande av författningsdomstolen med frågan om ändringarna står i strid med de allmänna principerna om konstitutionell ändring. Domstolen har nu fastslagit att de nya normerna inte står i strid med de relevanta delarna av grundlagen.
 Dessutom skulle ändringspaketet bekräftas genom en folkomröstning. Denna juridiskt sett onödiga folkomröstning har för närvarande uppskjutits på grund av coronakrisen.
 Manipulation av grundlagen
 Genom detta förfarande har Putin manipulerat grundlagen igen. Liksom han gjort tidigare då han återkom till makten 2012 efter att ha avgått 2008. Att författningsdomstolen godkänt hans möjlighet att ställa upp en femte gång igen visar att demokratiprincipen, maktdelningsprincipen och rättsstatsprincipen har ringa betydelse för domstolen.
 Det främsta skyddet för den ryska grundlagen skulle vara författningsdomstolen som inrättades före grundlagens tillkomst 1991. Dess förste ordförande var juristen och professorn Valerij Zorkin som leder domstolen än idag. Han och domstolens majoritet har blivit ett viktigt instrument för Putins avdemokratiseringsprojekt.
 Den ryska författningsdomstolen eller dess majoritet har fram till Putins makttillträde undvikit kollision med presidentmakten. Efter Putins tillträde har domstolens skydd för centrala delar av konstitutionen kraftigt urholkats. Domstolen har till exempel godkänt bestämmelsen om förbud mot propaganda för icke-traditionellt sex bland minderåriga (antigaylagen) samt ett antal repressiva, frihetsfientliga lagar.
 Slutligen har nu domstolen godkänt hela paketet av förändringar som Putin har föreslagit.
 Historien och fosterlandet ska vördas. Den ryska federationen ses som arvtagare både till sovjetimperiet och den ryska staten.
 Ändringarna är omfattande. Ingen motivering ges för ändringarna. Genom att godkänna ändringarna och hävda att de inte bryter mot de grundläggande principerna har författningsdomstolen faktiskt satt centrala liberala delar av konstitutionen ur spel.
 En nationalistisk statsideologi skrivs in i konstitutionen trots förbudet mot just en statsideologi. Historien och fosterlandet ska vördas. Den ryska federationen ses som arvtagare både till sovjetimperiet och den ryska staten. Det ryska folkets bedrifter i försvaret av fosterlandet får inte nedvärderas. I den ryska federationen tror man ”på Gud” står det nu i konstitutionen, trots kravet på sekularism. Det gamla begreppet från det kalla kriget: ”fredlig samexistens” återkommer.
 Också det ryska språkets roll framhävs i skapandet av en enhetlig stat.
 Ideologiska bestämmelser är relativt ovanliga mitt i konstitutioner– de brukar i normalfallet återfinnas i grundlagarnas företal. Men Putin har inte motstått frestelsen att skriva in sin nationalkonservativa statsuppfattning i grundlagen.
 Ökad presidentmakt
 Presidentmakten har i den gällande konstitutionen alltid haft en dominerande roll. Men presidentens makt har nu ökat på regeringens bekostnad. För att kandidera till den ryska presidentposten får man aldrig ha haft ett annat medborgarskap än det ryska och inte äga utländska bankkonton. Liknande men mindre långtgående bestämmelser gäller för alla högre statstjänstemän.
 Beslut från internationella organ (som till exempel Europadomstolen för mänskliga rättigheter) i enlighet med konventioner som Ryssland undertecknat, ska inte verkställas om de anses strida mot den ryska grundlagen.
 Författningsdomstolens självständighet och möjlighet att skydda medborgarnas rättigheter minskar nu väsentligt
 Presidenten får genom förslaget en möjlighet att sända 30 egna representanter till Federationsrådet, som annars består av representanter från regionerna. Ryssland är i realiteten inte längre en federal stat.
 Dessutom inskränks medborgarnas klagomöjligheter. Presidenten får större möjlighet att begära avsättning av domare. Författningsdomstolens självständighet och möjlighet att skydda medborgarnas rättigheter minskar nu väsentligt. Två institutioner knutna till presidentmakten, som statsrådet och säkerhetsrådet, får nu konstitutionellt stöd.
 Alla förändringar har inte redogjorts för här. Men genom att författningsdomstolen godkänt ändringarna får de grundläggande principerna i 1993 års konstitution allt svagare normativ kraft.
 Putin har i det fördolda skrivit en ny rysk grundlag som öppnar upp för ett personligt, autokratiskt styre. Det bådar inte gott.
 Anders Fogelklou är professor emeritus i östeuropaforskning, särskilt östeuropeisk rätt vid Uppsala universitet. Åren 2000–04 arbetade han som professor i Comparative Constitutional Law vid Riga Graduate School of Law.


type: caselaw

text:
 5.6.2010
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 148/28
 Rozsudok Všeobecného súdu z 21. apríla 2010 — Peek & Cloppenburg a van Graaf/ÚHVT — Queen Sirikit Institute of Sericulture (Thai Silk)
 (Vec T-361/08) (1)
 („Ochranná známka Spoločenstva - Námietkové konanie - Prihláška obrazovej ochrannej známky Spoločenstva Thai Silk - Skoršia národná obrazová ochranná známka zobrazujúca vtáka - Prípustnosť žaloby - Relatívny dôvod zamietnutia - Pravdepodobnosť zámeny - Článok 8 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia (ES) č. 40/94 [teraz článok 8 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia (ES) č. 207/2009]“)
 2010/C 148/50
 Jazyk konania: nemčina
 Účastníci konania
 Žalobcovia: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Nemecko) a van Graaf GmbH & Co. KG (Viedeň, Rakúsko) (v zastúpení: v zastúpení: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T. Dolde a J. Pause, advokáti)
 Žalovaný: Úrad pre harmonizáciu vnútorného trhu (ochranné známky a vzory) (v zastúpení: S. Schäffner, splnomocnený zástupca)
 Ďalší účastník konania pred odvolacím senátom ÚHVT a vedľajší účastník v konaní pred Všeobecným súdom: The Queen Sirikit Institute of Sericulture, Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand (Thajsko) (Bangkok, Thajsko), ktorému bolo povolené nahradiť Office of the Permanent Secretary, The Prime Minister’s Office, Thailand (Thajsko) (v zastúpení: A. Kockläuner, advokát)
 Predmet veci
 Žaloba podaná proti rozhodnutiu štvrtého odvolacieho senátu ÚHVT z 10. júna 2008 (vec R 1677/2007-4) týkajúcemu sa námietkového konania medzi Peek & Cloppenburg a Office of the Permanent Secretary, The Prime Minister’s Office, Thailand
 Výrok rozsudku
 1.
 Žaloba sa zamieta.
 2.
 Peek & Cloppenburg, ako aj van Graaf GmbH & Co. KG sú povinní nahradiť trovy konania.
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ C 301, 22.11.2008.


text:
Il Mutua Madrid Open 2021 è stato un torneo di tennis disputato sulla terra rossa. È stata la 19a edizione ATP, facente parte della categoria ATP Tour Masters 1000 nell'ambito dell'ATP Tour 2021, e la 12a edizione WTA dell'evento facente parte della categoria WTA Tour 1000 nell'ambito del WTA Tour 2021. Entrambe le competizioni, maschile e femminile, si sono tenute alla Caja Mágica di Madrid, in Spagna, dal 27 aprile al 9 maggio 2021.
 Partecipanti ATP
 Teste di serie
 * Ranking al 26 aprile 2021.
 Altri partecipanti
 I seguenti giocatori hanno ricevuto una wild card per il tabellone principale:
 Carlos Alcaraz
 Pedro Martínez
 Jaume Munar
 Fernando Verdasco
 I seguenti giocatori sono entrati nel tabellone principale passando dalle qualificazioni:
 Federico Delbonis
 Marcos Giron
 Carlos Taberner
 Pierre-Hugues Herbert
 Marco Cecchinato
 Alexei Popyrin
 Pablo Andújar
 Ritiri
 Prima del torneo
 Marin Čilić → sostituito da Tommy Paul
 Borna Ćorić → sostituito da Jérémy Chardy
 Novak Đoković → sostituito da Alejandro Davidovich Fokina
 Roger Federer → sostituito da Miomir Kecmanović
 David Goffin → sostituito da Lloyd Harris
 Gaël Monfils → sostituito da Guido Pella
 Milos Raonic → sostituito da Cameron Norrie
 Lorenzo Sonego → sostituito da Dominik Koepfer
 Stan Wawrinka → sostituito da Albert Ramos-Viñolas
 Durante il torneo
 Cameron Norrie
 Partecipanti ATP doppio
 Teste di serie
 * Ranking al 26 aprile 2021.
 Altri partecipanti
 Le seguenti giocatrici hanno ricevuto una wild card per il tabellone principale:
 Alejandro Davidovich Fokina / Fernando Verdasco
 Marc López / Jaume Munar
 Petros Tsitsipas / Stefanos Tsitsipas
 Partecipanti WTA
 Teste di serie
 * Ranking al 19 aprile 2021.
 Altri partecipanti
 Le seguenti giocatrici hanno ricevuto una wild card per il tabellone principale:
 Paula Badosa
 Sorana Cîrstea
 Victoria Jiménez Kasintseva
 Sara Sorribes Tormo
 Venus Williams
 Le seguenti giocatrici sono entrate in tabellone grazie al ranking protetto:
 Jaroslava Švedova
 Elena Vesnina
 Le seguenti giocatrici sono passate dalle qualificazioni:
 Anastasija Sevastova
 Kristina Mladenovic
 Laura Siegemund
 Ajla Tomljanović
 Misaki Doi
 Tamara Zidanšek
 Kateryna Kozlova
 Ana Bogdan
 Vera Zvonarëva
 Irina-Camelia Begu
 Bernarda Pera
 Nina Stojanović
 Ritiri
 Prima del torneo
 Bianca Andreescu → sostituita da Zheng Saisai
 Danielle Collins → sostituita da Magda Linette
 Fiona Ferro → sostituita da Elena Vesnina
 Sofia Kenin → sostituita da Shelby Rogers
 Barbora Strýcová → sostituita da Jaroslava Švedova
 Serena Williams → sostituita da Nadia Podoroska
 Donna Vekić → sostituita da Sloane Stephens
 Durante il torneo
 Garbiñe Muguruza
 Partecipanti WTA doppio
 Teste di serie
 Altri partecipanti
 Le seguenti giocatrici hanno ricevuto una wild card per il tabellone principale:
 Paula Badosa / Sara Sorribes Tormo
 Aliona Bolsova / Danka Kovinić
 Marta Kostjuk / Aryna Sabalenka
 Le seguenti giocatrici sono entrate in tabellone grazie al ranking protetto:
 Oksana Kalašnikova / Alla Kudrjavceva
 Makoto Ninomiya / Jaroslava Švedova
 Elena Vesnina / Vera Zvonarëva
 Punti
 Montepremi
 Campioni
 Singolare maschile
 Alexander Zverev ha sconfitto in finale Matteo Berrettini con il punteggio di 68-7, 6-4, 6-3.
 È il quindicesimo titolo in carriera per Zverev, il secondo della stagione.
 Singolare femminile
 Aryna Sabalenka ha sconfitto in finale Ashleigh Barty con il punteggio di 6-0, 3-6, 6-4.
 Doppio maschile
 Marcel Granollers / Horacio Zeballos hanno sconfitto in finale Nikola Mektić / Mate Pavić con il punteggio di 1-6, 6-3, [10-8].
 Doppio femminile
 Barbora Krejčíková / Kateřina Siniaková hanno sconfitto in finale Gabriela Dabrowski / Demi Schuurs con il punteggio di 6-4, 6-3.
 Collegamenti esterni
 Mutua Madrid Open 2021


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21994A0103(67)
 Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte - Bijlage XVII - Intellectuele eigendom - Lijst bedoeld in artikel 65, lid 2
 Publicatieblad Nr. L 001 van 03/01/1994 blz. 0482 - 0483
 BIJLAGE XVIIINTELLECTUELE EIGENDOM Lijst bedoeld in artikel 65, lid 2INLEIDINGWanneer de in deze bijlage genoemde besluiten, begrippen bevatten of betrekking hebben op procedures die specifiek zijn voor de communautaire rechtsorde, zoals: - preambules; - degenen tot wie de communautaire besluiten zijn gericht; - verwijzingen naar gebieden of talen van de EG; - verwijzingen naar de rechten en verplichtingen van de Lid-Staten van de EG, hun overheidsorganen, ondernemingen of personen in relatie tot elkaar; en- verwijzingen naar informatie- en kennisgevingsprocedures, is Protocol 1 betreffende horizontale aanpassingen van toepassing, tenzij in deze bijlage anders is bepaald. VERMELDE BESLUITEN1. 387 L 0054: Richtlijn 87/54/EEG van de Raad van 16 december 1986 betreffende de rechtsbescherming van topografieën van halfgeleiderprodukten (PB nr. L 24 van 27.1.1987, blz. 36). De bepalingen van de richtlijn worden voor de toepassing van de Overeenkomst als volgt gelezen: a) In artikel 1, lid 1, onder c), wordt de verwijzing naar artikel 223, lid 1, onder b) van het EEG-Verdrag vervangen door een verwijzing naar artikel 123 van de EER-Overeenkomst. b) Artikel 3, leden 6 tot en met 8, is niet van toepassing. c) Artikel 5, lid 5, wordt vervangen door: "Het exclusieve recht om de in lid 1, onder b), genoemde handelingen toe te staan of te verbieden geldt niet wanneer deze handelingen worden verricht nadat de topografie of het halfgeleiderprodukt in een overeenkomstsluitende partij in het verkeer is gebracht door toedoen van of met toestemming van de persoon die gerechtigd is toestemming te verlenen om deze topografie of dit halfgeleiderprodukt in de handel te brengen.". 2. 390 D 0510: Eerste Beschikking 90/510/EEG van de Raad van 9 oktober 1990 betreffende de uitbreiding van de rechtsbescherming van topografieën van halfgeleiderprodukten tot personen uit bepaalde landen of gebieden (PB nr. L 285 van 17.10.1990, blz. 29). De bepalingen van de beschikking worden voor de toepassing van de Overeenkomst als volgt gelezen: a) De verwijzingen naar Oostenrijk en Zweden in de bijlagen komen te vervallen. b) Bovendien is het volgende van toepassing: Wanneer een land of een gebied, dat genoemd wordt in de Bijlage, niet dezelfde bescherming aan personen uit een overeenkomstsluitende partij verleent als in die beschikking bepaald is, maken de overeenkomstsluitende partijen zich sterk om genoemd land of gebied uiterlijk één jaar na de inwerkingtreding van deze Overeenkomst een dergelijke bescherming te doen verlenen aan genoemde overeenkomstsluitende partij. 3. a) 390 D 0511: Tweede Beschikking 90/511/EEG van de Raad van 9 oktober 1990 betreffende de uitbreiding van een rechtsbescherming van topografieën van halfgeleiderprodukten tot personen uit bepaalde landen of gebieden (PB nr. L 285 van 17.10.1990, blz. 31). b) 390 D 0541: Beschikking 90/541/EEG van de Commissie van 26 oktober 1990 overeenkomstig Beschikking 90/511/EEG van de Raad tot vaststelling van de landen wier vennootschappen of andere rechtspersonen rechtsbescherming van topografieën van halfgeleiderprodukten genieten (PB nr. L 307 van 7.11.1990, blz. 21). Naast deze twee beschikkingen is het volgende van toepassing: De EVA-Staten verbinden zich om voor de toepassing van deze Overeenkomst Beschikking 90/511/EEG van de Raad en de Beschikking genomen door de Commissie overeenkomstig voornoemde beschikking van de Raad in hun nationale wetgeving te verwerken, indien de toepassing ervan na 31 december 1992 wordt verlengd. Latere wijzigingen of vervangingen moeten vóór de inwerkingtreding van de Overeenkomst zijn aangenomen. 4. 389 L 0104: Eerste Richtlijn 89/104/EEG van de Raad van 21 december 1988 betreffende de aanpassing van het merkenrecht der Lid-Staten (PB nr. L 40 van 11.2.1989, blz. 1). De bepalingen van de richtlijn worden voor de toepassing van de Overeenkomst als volgt gelezen: a) In artikel 3, lid 2, zal "merkenrechtelijke" worden verstaan als betrekking hebbende op het merkenrecht dat in een overeenkomstsluitende partij van toepassing is. b) De bepalingen betreffende het Gemeenschapsmerk in artikel 4, lid 2, onder a), punt i), lid 2, onder b), en lid 3, en de artikelen 9 en 14, zijn niet van toepassing op EVA-Staten, tenzij het Gemeenschapsmerk zich uitstrekt tot deze EVA-Staten. c) Artikel 7, lid 1, wordt vervangen door: "Het aan het merk verbonden recht staat de houder niet toe het gebruik daarvan te verbieden voor waren die onder dit merk door de houder of met zijn toestemming in een overeenkomstsluitende partij in de handel zijn gebracht.". 5. 391 L 0250: Richtlijn 91/250/EEG van de Raad van 14 mei 1991 betreffende de rechtsbescherming van computerprogramma's (PB nr. L 122 van 17.5.1991, blz. 42). De bepalingen van de richtlijn worden voor de toepassing van de Overeenkomst als volgt gelezen: Artikel 4, onder c), wordt vervangen door: "elke vorm van distributie, met inbegrip van het verhuren, van een oorspronkelijk computerprogramma of kopieën daarvan onder het publiek. De eerste verkoop in een overeenkomstsluitende partij van een kopie van een programma door de rechthebbende of met diens toestemming leidt tot verval van het recht om controle uit te oefenen op de distributie van die kopie in de overeenkomstsluitende partijen, met uitzondering van het recht om controle uit te oefenen op het verder verhuren van een programma of een kopie daarvan.".


text:
 8.11.2011
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 289/12
 VYKONÁVACIE NARIADENIE KOMISIE (EÚ) č. 1120/2011
 z 31. októbra 2011,
 ktorým sa do Registra chránených označení pôvodu a chránených zemepisných označení zapisuje názov [Carciofo Brindisino (CHZO)]
 EURÓPSKA KOMISIA,
 so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie,
 so zreteľom na nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 510/2006 z 20. marca 2006 o ochrane zemepisných označení a označení pôvodu poľnohospodárskych výrobkov a potravín (1), a najmä na jeho článok 7 ods. 4 prvý pododsek,
 keďže:
 (1)
 V súlade s článkom 6 ods. 2 prvým pododsekom nariadenia (ES) č. 510/2006 bola žiadosť o zápis názvu „Carciofo Brindisino“ do registra, ktorú predložilo Taliansko, uverejnená v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie
 (2).
 (2)
 Komisii nebola v súlade s článkom 7 nariadenia (ES) č. 510/2006 oznámená žiadna námietka, tento názov sa preto musí zapísať do registra,
 PRIJALA TOTO NARIADENIE:
 Článok 1
 Názov uvedený v prílohe k tomuto nariadeniu sa zapisuje do registra.
 Článok 2
 Toto nariadenie nadobúda účinnosť dvadsiatym dňom po jeho uverejnení v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.
 Toto nariadenie je záväzné v celom rozsahu a priamo uplatniteľné vo všetkých členských štátoch.
 V Bruseli 31. októbra 2011
 Za Komisiu v mene predsedu
 Dacian CIOLOȘ
 člen Komisie
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 93, 31.3.2006, s. 12.
 (2) Ú. v. EÚ C 29, 29.1.2011, s. 27.
 PRÍLOHA
 Poľnohospodárske výrobky určené na ľudskú spotrebu, uvedené v prílohe I k zmluve:
 Trieda 1.6. Ovocie, zelenina a obilniny bez ďalšieho spracovania alebo spracované
 TALIANSKO
 Carciofo Brindisino (CHZO)


text:
 7.11.2016
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 410/24
 Žaloba podaná 17. septembra 2016 – Márquez Alentà/EUIPO – Fiesta Hotels & Resorts (Vyobrazenie mravca)
 (Vec T-657/16)
 (2016/C 410/34)
 Jazyk, v ktorom bola podaná žaloba: španielčina
 Účastníci konania
 Žalobca: Marc Márquez Alentà (Cervera, Španielsko) (v zastúpení: J. Carbonell Callicó, advokát)
 Žalovaný: Úrad Európskej únie pre duševné vlastníctvo (EUIPO)
 Ďalší účastník konania pred odvolacím senátom: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (Ibiza, Španielsko)
 Údaje týkajúce sa konania pred EUIPO
 Prihlasovateľ: žalobca.
 Dotknutá sporná ochranná známka: obrazová ochranná známka Európskej únie (vyobrazenie mravca) – prihláška č. 12 715 661.
 Konanie pred EUIPO: námietkové konanie.
 Napadnuté rozhodnutie: rozhodnutie prvého odvolacieho senátu EUIPO z 30. júna 2016 vo veci R 1242/2015-1.
 Návrhy
 Žalobca navrhuje, aby Všeobecný súd:
 —
 zrušil napadnuté rozhodnutie v časti, v ktorej sa týka čiastočnému vyhoveniu rozhodnutia R 1242/2015-1 a námietky voči určitým prihlasovaným výrobkom triedy 16 a službám triedy 35,
 —
 následne potvrdil rozhodnutie námietkového oddelenia, a tým aj zápis prihlasovanej ochrannej známky pre všetky prihlasované tovary a služby tried 16, 35, 41 a 43,
 —
 uložil žalovanému v súlade s článkom 87 ods. 2 nariadenia o ochrannej známke Spoločenstva povinnosť nahradiť trovy konania.
 Uvádzaný žalobný dôvod
 —
 porušenie článku 8 ods. 1 písm. a) a písm. b) nariadenia č. 207/2009.