type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' MEMORANDUM REPORT 01-IT-M-082 - REDACTED\n Senior Management Attention Needed to Ensure Effective\n Implementation of the Government Information Security Reform Act\n September 2001\n\n\n In response to the Government Information Security Reform Act (GISRA), Public Law\n106-398, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an independent evaluation of the\ninformation security program and practices of the Department of State (Department). The\nGovernment Information Security Reform Act provides: (1) a comprehensive framework for\nestablishing and ensuring the effectiveness of controls over information resources; and (2) a\nmechanism for improved oversight of Federal agency information security programs. The\nobjective of our review was to determine whether the Department is effectively implementing\nkey requirements of GISRA, including those pertaining to security planning and risk\nmanagement, information security roles and responsibilities, training, and performance\nmeasures.\n\nRESULTS IN BRIEF\n\n OIG\xe2\x80\x99s evaluation of the effectiveness of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security program\nfound mixed results. Specifically, OIG concluded that information security weaknesses continue\nto threaten Department operations, both here and abroad. Both OIG and Bureau of Diplomatic\nSecurity (DS) evaluation reports over the past 2 years identified weak information security\nmanagement practices at dozens of overseas posts. For example, only 10 of the 35 posts in one\ngeographic region reviewed by OIG security teams in 1999 and 2000 were reported to have\nadequate information security procedures in place. Further, according to OIG\xe2\x80\x99s survey\nquestionnaire, although 59 percent of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s 371 systems are reported to have risk\nassessments, only 10 percent are reported to have security plans, as required by GISRA.\n\n On the other hand, the Department has made progress in implementing a key GISRA\nprovision\xe2\x80\x94establishing the agency\xe2\x80\x99s Chief Information Officer (CIO) as the central management\nfocal point for information security activities. In mid-August 2001, OIG provided the\nDepartment a draft of this report, which discussed our concern at that time that the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\nsenior leadership had not agreed on what functional and organizational changes needed to be\nmade to comply with the law. In response to the draft report, the Under Secretary for\nManagement promptly reassessed the relative senior management roles and responsibilities of\nthe Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM) and DS in managing information\nsecurity and directed actions consistent with GISRA requirements. Specifically, on August 20,\n2001, on the recommendation of the Under Secretary for Management, the Deputy Secretary\nissued a Delegation of Authority to the CIO to administer the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security\nprogram. The CIO\xe2\x80\x99s new role as the administrator of this program establishes the central\nmanagement focus on information security that is required by the law and puts the Department in\na better posture to protect its information technology assets from security risks. In its response to\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s draft report, the Department stated that it believes that its actions will resolve the issues\nraised in the report, while recognizing that a number of details implementing the changes remain\nto be worked out over a 30-day period.\n\x0c Although the Department has not developed performance measures for its information\nsecurity program, which are required by both GISRA and the Government Performance and\nResults Act (Public Law 103-62), in response to a draft of this report, the Under Secretary for\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s office said that by October 15, 2001, IRM, working with DS, will develop\nmeasurable and meaningful performance measures for the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security\nprogram. This is important because without useable performance measures, the Department is\nunable to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of information security policies and procedures.\nFurther, it is hindered in its efforts to implement a results-based information security\nmanagement program.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\n Information security is an important goal for any organization that depends on\ninformation systems and computer networks to carry out its mission. The dramatic expansion in\ncomputer interconnectivity and the rapid increase in the use of the Internet are changing the way\nour government, the nation, and much of the world communicate and conduct business.\nHowever, without proper safeguards, these developments pose enormous risks that make it easier\nfor people and groups with malicious intent to intrude into inadequately protected systems and\nuse such access to obtain sensitive information, commit fraud, disrupt operations, or launch\nattacks against other computer networks and systems. Further, the number of people with\ncomputer skills is increasing, and intrusion techniques and tools are readily available and\nrelatively easy to use. The rash of cyber attacks launched in February 2000 against major U.S.\nfirms and the global disruption caused by the \xe2\x80\x9cILOVEYOU\xe2\x80\x9d virus in May 2000 illustrate the\nrisks associated with this new electronic age.\n\n Computer-supported government operations, including those at the Department, are also\nat risk. Previous OIG and DS reports have identified persistent computer security weaknesses\nthat place a variety of critical and mission-essential Department operations at risk of disruption,\nfraud, and unauthorized disclosure. The Department has been able to close four material\nweaknesses previously reported under the Federal Manager\xe2\x80\x99s Financial Integrity Act of 1982\n(Public Law 97-255), and it has been able to close all recommended actions resulting from a\n1998 General Accounting Office (GAO) audit of information security (GAO 98-145). However,\nthe Department recognizes that much more must be done to develop fully and ensure continuity\nof its Systems Security Program.\n\n Faced with growing concerns about information security risks to the Federal\nGovernment, the Congress passed and the President signed GISRA into law in late 2000.\nGISRA provides: (1) a comprehensive framework for establishing and ensuring the effectiveness\nof controls over information resources that support Federal operations and assets; and (2) a\nmechanism for improved oversight of Federal agency information security programs.\nSpecifically, GISRA requires agencies to:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 identify, use, and share best security practices;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 develop an agency-wide information security plan;\n\n\n 2\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 incorporate information security principles and practices throughout the life cycles of the\n agency\xe2\x80\x99s information systems; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ensure the information security plan is practiced throughout all life cycles of the agency\xe2\x80\x99s\n information systems.\n\n In addition, GISRA assigns the agency\xe2\x80\x99s CIO authority and responsibility to administer\nkey functions under the statute, including:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 designating a senior agency information security official who shall report to the CIO;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 developing and maintaining an agency-wide information security program;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ensuring that the agency effectively implements and maintains information security\n policies, procedures, and control techniques; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 training and overseeing personnel with significant responsibilities for information\n security.\n\n Finally, in addition to a number of other provisions, GISRA requires each agency to have\nperformed an independent evaluation of its information security program and practices. The\nInspector General or the independent evaluator performing a review may use any audit,\nevaluation, or report relating to effectiveness of the agency\xe2\x80\x99s information security program to do\nso. The agency is required to submit the independent evaluation, along with its own assessment,\nto the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as part of its annual budget request.\n\nOverview of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Management Approach to Information Security\n\n The Department provides an overview of its management approach to information\nsecurity in its FY 2001 Systems Security Program Plan (the Plan) issued in May 2001. The\nPlan\xe2\x80\x94the first developed by the CIO and issued to the Department\xe2\x80\x94was not revised to address\nrequirements resulting from GISRA\xe2\x80\x99s enactment in late 2000 and does not reflect more recent\nchanges and delegations of authority within the Department to meet GISRA requirements.\nHowever, the Plan establishes a baseline for the Department to build on in organizing its\ninformation security program. It identifies the authorities and fundamental principles guiding\nInformation Technology (IT) security in the Department, outlines the roles and responsibilities of\nthe Department\xe2\x80\x99s bureaus in the realm of IT, and briefly addresses the strategies for achieving\nand maintaining a desirable IT security posture for the Department. The Plan applies to all\nclassified, unclassified, and sensitive but unclassified systems throughout the Department, its\ndomestic bureaus, offices, annexes, and posts worldwide.\n\n According to the Plan, three senior management officials have key roles in the\nimplementation and governance of security policy. Specifically:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The Under Secretary for Management is responsible for the control of all management\n resources, organizational structure, and assignment of functions within the Department.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The CIO is the senior accountable official for IT security. The establishment of the CIO as\n the focal point for IT security in the Department is intended to facilitate the life cycle\n management of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s IT security program. This official is also the Designated\n\n 3\n\x0c Approving Authority responsible for making risk acceptance determinations for\n information technology on behalf of the Department.1 Based on mission criticality, the\n Designated Approving Authority may accept risk and grant either an approval to operate or\n an interim approval to operate if the system does not meet requirements. Also, the CIO\n promulgates IT security policy in concert with DS and oversees its implementation\n throughout the Department.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security serves as the principal adviser to the\n Secretary of State and the Under Secretary for Management on all security matters. DS is\n responsible for defining threat levels relevant to IT assets and for developing IT security\n policy and standards consistent with threat level, national policy, and the National Institute\n for Standards and Technology\xe2\x80\x99s guidelines in conjunction with the CIO. Also, the DS\n Deputy Assistant Secretary for Countermeasures and Information Security reports to the CIO\n on all matters regarding information security.2\n\nAccording to the Plan, the CIO and DS need to work together to ensure that IT security is\nadequately developed and implemented throughout the Department.\n\nPURPOSE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\n Section 3535 of GISRA directs each agency to conduct an annual independent evaluation\nof its information security program and practices beginning in FY 2001. In response to GISRA,\nOIG conducted a review with the specific objectives of: (1) identifying the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\npolicies and procedures for securing information on its information systems; and (2) determining\nif the Department is in compliance with GISRA with regard to establishing and ensuring the\neffectiveness of controls over information resources.\n\n To fulfill our review objectives, we developed two data collection surveys, which we\nused to obtain general information about the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security program. Our\nfirst survey determined the Department\xe2\x80\x99s universe of systems. We sent a questionnaire to all\nidentified system owners at the Department asking general information security questions. The\nowners were also asked to update the Department\xe2\x80\x99s list of information systems to the best of\ntheir knowledge. The second survey narrowed in on 16 major applications, facilities, and nodes3\nto the Department\xe2\x80\x99s infrastructure. Criteria for selection included: (1) mission criticality; (2)\nPresidential Decision Directive 63 identification;4 and, (3) documentation availability. The\n\n1\n On August 20, 2001, the Deputy Secretary of State delegated the Designated Approving Authority responsibilities\nto the CIO.\n2\n On August 20, 2001, the CIO designated the DS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Countermeasures and Information\nSecurity as the Senior Agency Information Security Official. The Senior Agency Information Security Official\nreports directly to the CIO regarding the implementation and maintenance of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security\nprogram and security policies.\n3\n Node\xe2\x80\x94A system connected to a network.\n4\n Presidential Decision Directive 63 established a national effort to ensure the security of the critical infrastructure of\nthe United States. Under this Directive, the Department of State is responsible for protecting those of its facilities,\npeople, and systems that it deems essential to the national critical infrastructure, and for being the Foreign Affairs\nLead Agency.\n\n\n 4\n\x0cquestions in the questionnaire came directly from the National Institute of Standards and\nTechnology\xe2\x80\x99s Self-Assessment Guide for Information Technology Systems, which OIG edited to\ncover risk/vulnerability assessments, security controls, life cycle, certification and accreditation,\ninformation system security plans, personnel security, contingency plans, data integrity,\ndocumentation, and incident response capability. We interviewed the owners of the 16 systems\nto collect documentation regarding their information systems security program. We did not\nindependently verify the information collected from the two surveys.\n\n To learn more about information system security at the Department, we reviewed OIG\nand DS inspection reports, the OIG Presidential Decision Directive 63 audit, and General\nAccounting Office reports on the Department. Our analysis grouped the recommendations in the\nOIG and DS inspections into five major categories to report on areas that need more attention at\nposts.\n\n In the Department, we also interviewed officials in DS, the Foreign Service Institute, and\nthe Bureaus of Financial Management and Policy, Information Resource Management, Consular\nAffairs, and International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs regarding their efforts for\nsecuring their information systems.\n\n We did not test the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security controls during this evaluation, but\ninstead relied on the results of previous OIG reviews, General Accounting Office reports, and DS\ninspections. Except as noted above regarding our use of data collection surveys, we followed\ngenerally accepted government auditing standards and conducted such tests and procedures as\nwere considered necessary for the assignment. We obtained written comments on a draft of this\nreport from the Department and revised the report where appropriate. The Department\xe2\x80\x99s\ncomments are included in Appendix A. Staff from our Information Technology Division\nperformed this evaluation from February 2001 through July 2001. Contributors to this report\nwere Frank Deffer, James Davies, Tim Fitzgerald, Robert Taylor, Anthony Carbone, Sharon\nHunter, Chris Watson, and Matthew Worner. Comments or questions about the report can be\ndirected to Mr. Deffer at defferf@state.gov or at (703) 284-2715 or to Mr. Davies at\ndaviesj@state.gov or at (703) 284-2673.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cAUDIT FINDINGS\n\nDEPARTMENT INFORMATION SECURITY WEAKNESSES IDENTIFIED\nIN OIG AND DS EVALUATION REPORTS\n\n OIG and DS evaluation reports in 1999 and 2000 identified information security\nweaknesses at the Department\xe2\x80\x99s overseas posts, as well as at headquarters in Washington, DC.\nSpecifically, OIG reported on information security readiness at 35 overseas posts and on the\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s progress in implementing its Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan under\nPresidential Decision Directive 63. DS conducted 54 evaluations on information security at\noverseas posts between January 1999 and November 2000.\n\nOIG Information Security Reports\n\n In FYs 1999 and 2000, as part of its comprehensive security inspection efforts, OIG\nevaluated the information security programs and practices at 35 posts under the supervision of\none geographic bureau. OIG consolidated the results of these reviews in its classified May 2001\ncapping report (01-SEC-R-005). The results of the OIG inspections, as indicated in the capping\nreport, were mixed. OIG determined that 26 of the 35 posts inspected were adequately training\ntheir U.S. systems users. However, in terms of effective information security procedures, most\nof the posts fell short of Department standards. Specifically, only 10 posts had adequate (or\nbetter) information security procedures in place, 24 had minimal security procedures, and 1 was\ninadequate. OIG is currently following up on this report to determine the extent to which the\nproblems identified have been resolved.\n\n OIG identified additional weaknesses in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s management of information\nsecurity in its June 2001 report5 on critical infrastructure protection. The report assesses the\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s progress in developing and implementing its cyber-based critical infrastructure\nprotection plan, as mandated by Presidential Decision Directive 63. Specifically, OIG reported\nthat the Department\xe2\x80\x99s:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 international outreach strategy is unnecessarily constrained, and, thus, does little to\n encourage the development of preventative measures needed to enhance global critical\n infrastructure protection;6\n\xe2\x80\xa2 critical infrastructure protection plan provided a suitable framework for addressing\n minimum-essential infrastructure. However, the plan falls short because it does not address\n potential cyber vulnerabilities in its foreign operations or in its interagency connections (i.e.,\n such as between the Foreign Service National Payroll System and the Treasury Department);\n and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 policies and programs concerning information security training awareness were not sufficient\n to ensure that employees are properly trained to secure the agency\xe2\x80\x99s information systems.\n5\n Critical Infrastructure Protection: The Department Can Enhance Its International Leadership and Its Own Cyber\nSecurity (Report Number 01-IT-R-044)\n6\n The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement had responsibility for the critical infrastructure\nprotection outreach strategy at the time of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s June 2001 report.\n\n 6\n\x0c The OIG report contains a number of recommendations to strengthen the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\napproach to critical infrastructure protection planning. The recommendations include:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 assessing the vulnerability of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s foreign operations to cyber-based disruptions;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 scheduling and conducting security controls evaluations of all minimum-essential cyber\n infrastructures at least once every 3 years;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 strengthening information security training policies and procedures through changes to\n appropriate sections of the Foreign Affairs Manual; and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 expanding the Department\xe2\x80\x99s international outreach approach to include a wide range of\n friendly countries requesting such assistance.\n\nDS Information Security Reports\n\n The Office of Information Security Technology in DS conducted 54 readiness\nevaluations on information security at overseas posts in 1999 and 2000. DS assessed the extent\nto which posts were complying with Department information security requirements in a number\nof key areas, including: (1) Security Program Planning and Management; (2) Access Controls\nEffectiveness; (3) Application Software: Installation, Development, and Storage; (4) Security of\nOperating System Software; and (5) Service Continuity Planning. The number of\nrecommendations in each category is shown in Table 1 below.\n Table 1\n Summary of DS Computer Security\n Report Recommendations\n\n Recommendation\n Number of Recommendations\n Category\n Unclassified Classified Combined\n\n 1. Security Program Planning\n 149 16 165\n and Management\n 2. Access Controls\n 580 153 733\n Effectiveness\n 3. Application Software:\n Installation, Development, and 12 11 23\n Storage\n 4. Security of Operating\n 92 13 105\n System Software\n\n 5. Service Continuity Planning 104 29 133\n\n TOTALS 937 222 1159\n\n\n Generally, DS reports on post information security readiness provide a mixed picture.\nDS made the fewest number of recommendations (23) in the area of Application Software:\n\n 7\n\x0cInstallation, Development, and Storage, which suggests that posts were managing this area with\nrelatively few problems. DS made the largest number of recommendations in the area of Access\nControls, namely 733, or more than 63 percent of all the recommendations it developed in the\n2-year period. The specific problems DS found at posts in this evaluation area include:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 (REDACTED) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n \xe2\x80\xa2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n \xe2\x80\xa2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n \xe2\x80\xa2 emergency power-off controls related to air conditioning in the computer rooms are\n inaccessible or not installed; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 access privileges of each application user are not being reviewed by post supervisors\n annually to verify that the privileges originally granted are still appropriate.\n\nAccording to DS, periodic compliance reviews of its reports have consistently shown that many\nof the reported issues are systemic in nature and require a change in culture of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\nsystems management and users to be resolved. Further, the Assistant Secretary for DS reported\nto OIG that in order to bring about this change, and add a strong element of accountability across\nall levels of users, DS is developing strategies to allow senior management to interject\naccountability into the information systems operations and management.\n\nMIXED RESULTS FROM OIG\xe2\x80\x99S INFORMATION\nSECURITY MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE\n\n OIG developed two data collection surveys that were used to determine general\ninformation about the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security program. The purpose of the first\nquestionnaire was to identify the universe of systems operating throughout the Department and\nto obtain information on IT security plans, assessments, and determinations that are required by\nthe OMB guidance, prior information security laws, and also by GISRA. Specifically, our first\nquestionnaire included requests for information on the following:\n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 Risk assessments\xe2\x80\x94The identification and analysis of possible risks in meeting the agency\xe2\x80\x99s\n objectives, which forms a basis for managing the risks identified and implementing\n deterrents.\n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 Security level determinations\xe2\x80\x94Assessments that identify the specific security levels that\n should be maintained for IT systems hardware, software, and the information maintained or\n processed on systems.\n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 System security plan\xe2\x80\x94A written plan that clearly describes the entity\xe2\x80\x99s security program\n and policies and procedures that support it. The plan and related policies should cover all\n major systems and facilities and outline the duties of those who are responsible for\n overseeing security as well as those who own, use, or rely on the entity\xe2\x80\x99s computer resources.\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c\xe2\x99\xa6 Certification and accreditation\xe2\x80\x94Attests that an information system meets documented\n security requirements and will continue to maintain the approved security posture throughout\n its life-cycle.\n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 Tests of security controls\xe2\x80\x94Assessments of controls designed to protect computer facilities,\n computer systems, and data stored on computer systems or transmitted via computer\n networks from loss, misuse, or unauthorized access.\n\n According to our survey, the Department has 371 systems. Further, the survey indicates\nthere is significant room for improvement in information security management throughout the\nDepartment. As Table 2 below indicates, nearly 70 percent of systems were reported to have\nsecurity level determinations, only 10 percent were reported to have security plans, and just 5\npercent were reported to have been certified and accredited. See Appendix B for detailed survey\nresults.\n\n Table 2\n Department Survey Results:\n Key Information Systems Security Elements\n\n\n Department of State\xe2\x80\x94OIG\n GISRA Questionnaire Results\n Summary Totals (Total Systems 371)\n Number Percentage\n\n Systems with Risk Assessments\n 219 59%\n Systems with Security Level\n 256 69%\n Determinations\n Systems with Security Plans\n 38 10%\n Systems Certified and Accredited\n 18 5%\n Systems with Tested Security\n 162 44%\n Controls\n\n\n Our second questionnaire focused on 15 of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s 83 mission-critical systems\nand 1 mission-critical asset (the Beltsville Information Management Center, SA-26).7 We\nselected these systems based on the guidance from the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office\nand related assessments. Specifically, our questions covered risk/vulnerability assessments,\nsecurity level determinations, system security plans, certification and accreditation, and system\n\n7\n Responses to OIG\xe2\x80\x99s first questionnaire reported 83 mission-critical systems out of the total of 371 systems\nidentified.\n\n 9\n\x0csecurity controls. Also, in our second questionnaire, we asked about personnel security,\ncontingency plans, virus detection practices, hardware and software documentation, and incident\nresponse capability.\n\n Overall, OIG\xe2\x80\x99s second survey questionnaire results were mixed. As shown in Table 3\nbelow, while 75 percent of the systems reported having done a risk assessment, only 13 percent\nreported having a security plan in place, 44 percent reported that they had tested security\ncontrols, and only 31 percent reported that they had been certified and accredited.\n\n Table 3\n Mission-Critical System Survey Results\n\n Security Tested\n Risk Security Certified and\n Level Security\n Assessment Plans Accredited\n Determined Controls\n\n American Citizen Services Yes Yes No No No\n CableXpress Yes Yes No No No\n\n Classified Network No No No No No\n Consular Lookout and\n Support System - Yes No No No No\n Enhanced\n Electronic Certification\n Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes\n System\n Foreign Service National\n No No No No No\n Payroll System\n Guard Yes Yes No Yes Yes\n INS Allocation\n Yes No No No No\n Management System\n Intelligence Research\n Yes Yes No Yes Yes\n Information System\n International Narcotics and\n Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes\n Law Enforcement System\n Open Sensitive but\n Unclassified Intra- Yes No No No No\n Network\n Overseas Financial\n No No No No No\n Management System\n Overseas Security\n Advisory Council Yes Yes No No Yes\n Electronic Database\n Principal Officers\n Executive Management Yes Yes No No Yes\n System\n State Annex 26 Yes Yes No Yes Yes\n State Transportation and\n No No No No No\n Tracking System\n TOTAL YES\n 75% 56% 13% 31% 44%\n (PERCENTAGE)\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c On a more positive note, Table 4 below shows that 100 percent of the systems reported\nhaving an incident response capability, 94 percent reported an active virus detection program, 88\npercent reported having necessary hardware and software documentation, and 69 percent were\nreported to have accurate position security reviews.\n\n Table 4\n Mission-Critical System Survey Results\n\n Accurate\n Contingency Automatic Hardware and Incident\n Security\n Plans Tested Virus Software Response\n Position\n and Updated Detection Documentation Capability\n Description\n\n American Citizen Services Yes No Yes Yes Yes\n CableXpress No No Yes Yes Yes\n\n Classified Network Yes No Yes Yes Yes\n Consular Lookout and\n Support System - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes\n Enhanced\n Electronic Certification\n Yes No Yes Yes Yes\n System\n Foreign Service National\n Yes No Yes Yes Yes\n Payroll System\n Guard Yes No No Yes Yes\n INS Allocation\n Yes No Yes Yes Yes\n Management System\n Intelligence Research\n No No Yes Yes Yes\n Information System\n International Narcotics and\n Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes\n Law Enforcement System\n Open Sensitive but\n Unclassified Intra- Yes No Yes No Yes\n Network\n Overseas Financial\n Yes No Yes Yes Yes\n Management System\n Overseas Security\n Advisory Council No Yes Yes Yes Yes\n Electronic Database\n Principal Officers\n Executive Management No Yes Yes Yes Yes\n System\n State Annex 26 Yes No Yes Yes Yes\n State Transportation and\n No No Yes No Yes\n Tracking System\n TOTAL YES\n 69% 25% 94% 88% 100%\n (PERCENTAGE)\n\n\n\nRecommendation 1: We recommend that the Chief Information Officer in coordination with\nthe Bureau of Diplomatic Security develop a strategy and timetable for ensuring that all of the\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s systems/applications address each of the key system security elements identified in\n\n 11\n\x0cthe tables above. This strategy and timetable should be completed by October 15, 2001, in order\nfor it to be included in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security remediation plan, which is due to\nthe Office of Management and Budget by October 31, 2001.\n\nPROGRESS MADE IN THE DEPARTMENT\xe2\x80\x99S REASSESSMENT OF INFORMATION\nSECURITY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES\n\n Managing the increased risks associated with a highly interconnected computing\nenvironment demands increased central coordination to ensure that weaknesses in one part of the\norganization do not place the entire organization\xe2\x80\x99s information assets at undue risk. Further,\ncentralized information security management can help ensure that: (1) information security risks\nare considered in both planned and ongoing operations; and (2) senior management is fully\ninformed about security-related issues and activities affecting the organization. Toward that end,\nGISRA establishes the agency\xe2\x80\x99s CIO as the central management focal point for information\nsecurity activities. In addition to modifying existing requirements, GISRA adds new\nrequirements to the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security programs\xe2\x80\x94all of which require a\nreappraisal of information security management throughout the agency. The Department has\nmade progress in assessing information security roles and responsibilities, and has taken action\nto meet GISRA requirements; however, a number of details remain to be worked out to ensure\nfull and effective implementation of the law.\n\n In mid-August 2001, OIG provided the Department a draft of this report, which discussed\nits concern that the Department\xe2\x80\x99s senior leadership had not agreed on what functional and\norganizational changes need to be made to comply with the law. OIG recommended that the\nUnder Secretary for Management assess the Department\xe2\x80\x99s organizational structure for managing\ninformation security and identify the changes needed to comply with GISRA. In response to the\nissues raised in the draft report, the Under Secretary for Management promptly reassessed the\nrelative senior management roles and responsibilities of IRM and DS in managing information\nsecurity and directed actions consistent with GISRA requirements. Subsequently, on August 20,\n2001, the Department took the following key steps:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The Deputy Secretary issued a Delegation of Authority to the CIO empowering him to\n administer the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security program;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The CIO designated the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Countermeasures and Information\n Security as Senior Agency Information Security Official. This official will report directly to\n the CIO regarding the implementation and maintenance of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information\n security program and security policies; and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The Under Secretary for Management designated the CIO as the designated approving\n authority, responsible for making risk acceptance determinations for information technology\n on behalf of the Department.\n\nThe Department believes that these actions will resolve the issues raised in OIG\xe2\x80\x99s draft report\nregarding the agency\xe2\x80\x99s information security program. The Department also recognizes that\nfurther details implementing the new organizational arrangement remain to be worked out.\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c The Department\xe2\x80\x99s current operating approach to information security roles and\nresponsibilities grew out of its response to a May 1998 General Accounting Office report8 that\noutlined major information security weaknesses in the Department. The General Accounting\nOffice recommended that the Department establish a central information security unit to\nfacilitate, coordinate, and oversee information security in the Department. In January 2000, the\nUnder Secretary for Management issued a memorandum that: (1) named IRM as the authority\nfor the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security program; and (2) designated DS as responsible for\ndeveloping information security policy, with promulgating authority held jointly by DS and\nIRM. Further, the memorandum laid out agreed-upon roles and responsibilities for DS and IRM\nin four areas: IT security policy and implementation; information security awareness;\nmonitoring and evaluation; and risk assessments. This memorandum was superseded on August\n20, 2001, by the Deputy Secretary of State\xe2\x80\x99s delegation to the CIO of the authority to administer\nall functions under GISRA.\n\n Under GISRA, many of the existing roles and responsibilities regarding information\nsecurity management remain unchanged. For example, DS will continue to: provide worldwide\ncomputer security support; provide computer security training for security officers and systems\nstaff; and act in an advisory capacity to the CIO on IT security issues. IRM will continue its\nvirus protection role and operational monitoring of Department networks. However, the law and\nthe recent delegation of authority to the CIO significantly expand the role of the CIO in\nmanaging the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security program. With the reporting relationship now\nestablished between the DS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Countermeasures and Information\nSecurity and the CIO, relative roles and responsibilities are being institutionalized. Specifically\nin line with GISRA requirements, the CIO now has the delegated authority to administer all\ninformation security functions, including:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 designating a senior agency information security official who shall report to the CIO;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 developing and maintaining an agency-wide information security program;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 ensuring that the agency effectively implements and maintains information security policies,\n procedures, and control techniques;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 training and overseeing personnel with significant responsibilities for information security;\n and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 assisting senior agency officials concerning information security aspects of their respective\n program areas.\n\nThe CIO\xe2\x80\x99s new role establishes the central management focus on information security that is\nrequired by the law and puts the Department in a better posture to protect its information\ntechnology assets from security risks.\n\n These new CIO responsibilities may necessitate additional organizational changes within\nthe Department as demonstrated by the CIO\xe2\x80\x99s designation of the DS Deputy Assistant Secretary\nfor Countermeasures and Information Security to be the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Senior Agency\nInformation Security Official. This designation requires the incumbent DS Deputy Assistant\n\n8\n Computer Security: Pervasive, Serious Weaknesses Jeopardize State Department Operations, GAO/AIMD-98-\n145, May 1998.\n\n 13\n\x0cSecretary to report directly to the CIO regarding the implementation and maintenance of the\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s information security program and security policies. These newly-created, cross-\nbureau responsibilities may require a reallocation of information security resources to support the\nCIO. For example, the requirement that the CIO have responsibility for developing and\nmaintaining the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security program may require the transfer of specific\npolicy and planning resources from DS to IRM.\n\nRecommendation 2: We recommend that the Under Secretary for Management ensure that the\nBureaus of Information Resource Management and Diplomatic Security resolve any remaining\nissues regarding the establishment of the Chief Information Officer as the Department\xe2\x80\x99s central\nmanagement focal point for information security and the appointment of a Senior Agency\nInformation Security Official. This effort should include an assessment of both the resources\nand the reporting structure needed to support the newly-delegated Chief Information Officer\nauthorities and responsibilities. This completed effort should be included in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\ninformation security remediation plan, which is due to the Office of Management and Budget by\nOctober 31, 2001.\n\nDepartment Response\n\n In commenting on a draft of this report (see Appendix A), the Department states that it\nhas assessed its organization and made determinations that will resolve the issues raised in the\nreport regarding the Department\xe2\x80\x99s information security program. The Department cites its recent\nactions (discussed above) as evidence that the Department is now complying with GISRA.\nFurther, the Department states in its comments that it does not agree that Recommendation 2\nshould remain in the report.\n\nOIG Comment\n\n We agree that the Department\xe2\x80\x99s recent actions to assign roles and responsibilities over its\ninformation security program represent significant progress toward GISRA compliance, and we\nhave revised our draft report accordingly. We also agree that Recommendation 2 should not\nremain as it was originally drafted; however, there are a number of significant details that need to\nbe addressed in order fully to implement the recommended changes to the agency\xe2\x80\x99s information\nsecurity program. For example, the Department needs to determine the extent to which\norganizational resources may need to be transferred between DS and IRM, as a result of GISRA\nrequirements. Further, the Department needs to assess how the specific DS and IRM roles and\nresponsibilities established by the January 2000 memorandum need to be revised in order to\ncomply with GISRA. In its response to our draft report, the Department acknowledges that\nfurther details need to be worked out and it pledges to complete that work within 30 days.\nBecause of these outstanding issues related to the Department\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to implement GISRA, we\nhave revised Recommendation 2 to reflect the need for the Under Secretary for Management to\ncontinue his oversight of DS and IRM efforts to resolve these issues by October 31, 2001.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cINFORMATION SECURITY TRAINING\n\n Training is a key element in reducing risk and enhancing the Department\xe2\x80\x99s risk-based\nmanagement approach for IT security. The Department of State\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2001 Systems Security\nProgram Plan recognizes the importance of training and notes that the most comprehensive and\nlogical IT security program will prove ineffective in the absence of adequate and regularly\nscheduled education and awareness efforts. It goes on to state that education and awareness\nefforts ensure that users, IT professionals, managers, and senior executives understand and\nappreciate both the complexity of this discipline and also its unique contribution to the success of\noverall IT security efforts. We found that the Department conducts information security training\nat all user levels, carries out an aggressive awareness program, and supports a complete range of\ncomputer-based training tools. As shown in Table 5 below, DS has provided training to more\nthan 13,000 employees in the past 3 years to support information assurance and security.\n\n Table 5\n EMPLOYEES TRAINED BY DS:\n IN SUPPORT OF INFORMATION ASSURANCE AND SECURITY\n\n\n Domestic Overseas Executive Totals\n End Users End Users Management\n\n FY1999 2232 1638 778 4648\n FY2000 2481 1820 865 5166\n FY2001 1861 1315 649 3825\n\n Total number of personnel trained in FY 1999-2001 13,639\n\n\n\n However, the results of our evaluation show that adjustments in training curriculum could\nfurther improve the Department\xe2\x80\x99s training program and thereby reduce additional risk through\nbetter understanding and awareness. For example, we were informed that inclusion of IT\nsecurity in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Managing State Projects curriculum would require minor revision\nthat would improve the Department\xe2\x80\x99s management of information systems security projects. All\nDepartment project managers are encouraged to take this 5-day intensive workshop, which,\naccording to the Foreign Service Institute course guide, provides a solid entry into the field of\nproject management.\n\nCIO NEEDS TO DEVELOP INFORMATION SECURITY\nPERFORMANCE MEASURES\n\n OIG found that the Department has not developed information security performance\nmeasures to support strategic goals\xe2\x80\x94key requirements of both the Government Performance and\nResults Act and GISRA. Two important Government Performance and Results Act factors in\nestablishing measures are that each performance measure should be an indicator mainly used by\nmanagers as they direct and oversee how a program is carried out, and should help managers\nrespond when problems arise. Without meaningful and measurable performance measures, the\n\n 15\n\x0cDepartment will be unable to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of information security\npolicies and procedures effectively; further, it will be hindered in its efforts to implement a\nresults-based information security management program.\n\n In response to a draft of this report, the Under Secretary for Management\xe2\x80\x99s office has\ndirected that IRM and DS incorporate Government Performance and Results Act requirements\ninto their GISRA compliance efforts. According to the executive assistant to the Under\nSecretary for Management, information security performance measures are to be established\nprior to October 15, 2001.\n\nRecommendation 3: We recommend that the Chief Information Officer ensure that program\nmanagers develop and use Government Performance and Results Act and Government\nInformation Security Reform Act performance measures in support of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\ninformation systems security program.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cBureau of\nPopulations,\n 2 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%\nRefugees, and\nMigrations\nOffice of the Secretary 75 75 100% 75 100% 0 0% 0 0% 74 99%\nTotals 370 219 59% 256 69% 38 10% 18 5% 162 44%\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c'


type: legislation

text:
 I
 112th CONGRESS
 1st Session
 H. R. 2720
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 August 1, 2011
 Mr. Culberson
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
 Committee on Veterans’
 Affairs
 A BILL
 To clarify the role of the Department of Veterans Affairs
 in providing a benefit or service related to the interment or funeral of a
 veteran, and for other purposes.
 1.Provision of funeral services
 by Department of Veterans Affairs
 (a)Role of VA in
 veterans funeralsIn
 providing a deceased veteran with any benefit or service related to the
 interment or funeral, memorial service, or ceremony of the deceased veteran,
 the authority and responsibility of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is
 limited to providing—
 (1)the deceased
 veteran with the benefits that the veteran earned by serving the United States,
 including the provision of funeral expenses, headstones, markers, burial
 receptacles, plot allowances, and interment in national cemeteries, as provided
 by law, including chapters 23 and 24 of title 38, United States Code;
 (2)any necessary maintenance of national
 cemeteries and other facilities under the control of the National Cemetery
 Administration; and
 (3)any necessary security or traffic control
 with respect to the funeral, memorial service, or ceremony of the veteran at a
 national cemetery under the control of the National Cemetery
 Administration.
 (b)Access to
 suitable chapelIn carrying
 out chapters 23 and 24 of title 38, United States Code, or in otherwise
 providing any benefit or service related to the interment or funeral, memorial
 service, or ceremony of a deceased veteran at a national cemetery under the
 control of the National Cemetery Administration, the Secretary of Veterans
 Affairs shall ensure that—
 (1)a
 chapel is provided to the family of the deceased at such national cemetery;
 and
 (2)such
 chapel—
 (A)is suitable for
 the use of the family and visitors as a place for recollection and mourning;
 and
 (B)displays the
 appropriate religious symbols chosen by the family for the purpose of such
 funeral, memorial service, or ceremony.
 (c)Access to VA
 facilitiesThe Secretary of
 Veterans Affairs shall provide to any honor guard or other non-governmental
 group that provides services to veterans access to—
 (1)national cemeteries and other facilities
 under the control of the National Cemetery Administration if such access is
 requested by the family or agent of a deceased veteran whose funeral, memorial
 service, or ceremony is being held in such cemetery or facility; and
 (2)health care
 facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs if such access is requested by
 a veteran receiving care in such facility or the family or agent of such
 veteran.
 (d)Required
 qualification of VA cemetery directorNotwithstanding any other
 provision of law, each cemetery director of the Department of Veterans Affairs
 shall be an individual who is a veteran.
 2.Prohibition on
 interference of funerals by Federal GovernmentThe Congress reaffirms the inviolable
 individual zone of privacy that each American possesses, including the deeply
 private act of choosing the content and creed of an individual’s funeral,
 memorial service, or ceremony, as protected by the Constitution. In light of
 such inviolable individual zone of privacy, no official of the Federal
 Government, including the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, may interfere with the
 content and creed of the funeral, memorial service, or ceremony of a deceased
 individual, as expressed by the last will and testament of the individual or as
 determined by the family or agent of the individual, as provided under State
 law.


text:
EUR-Lex - 32000R1347 - EN - EUR-Lex
 EUR-Lex - 32000R1347 - EN
 Document 32000R1347
 Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1347/2000 z dne 29. maja 2000 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo
 Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses
 OJ L 160, 30.6.2000, p. 19–36 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)
 Special edition in Czech: Chapter 19 Volume 001 P. 209 - 226
 Special edition in Estonian: Chapter 19 Volume 001 P. 209 - 226
 Special edition in Latvian: Chapter 19 Volume 001 P. 209 - 226
 Special edition in Lithuanian: Chapter 19 Volume 001 P. 209 - 226
 Special edition in Hungarian Chapter 19 Volume 001 P. 209 - 226
 Special edition in Maltese: Chapter 19 Volume 001 P. 209 - 226
 Special edition in Polish: Chapter 19 Volume 001 P. 209 - 226
 Special edition in Slovak: Chapter 19 Volume 001 P. 209 - 226
 Special edition in Slovene: Chapter 19 Volume 001 P. 209 - 226
 No longer in force, Date of end of validity: 28/02/2005; razveljavil 32003R2201 . Latest consolidated version: 01/05/2004
 ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2000/1347/oj
 Language 1 Spanish (es) Czech (cs) Danish (da) German (de) Estonian (et) Greek (el) English (en) French (fr) Italian (it) Latvian (lv) Lithuanian (lt) Hungarian (hu) Maltese (mt) Dutch (nl) Polish (pl) Portuguese (pt) Slovak (sk) Slovenian (sl) Finnish (fi) Swedish (sv)
 Language 2 Please choose Spanish (es) Czech (cs) Danish (da) German (de) Estonian (et) Greek (el) English (en) French (fr) Italian (it) Latvian (lv) Lithuanian (lt) Hungarian (hu) Maltese (mt) Dutch (nl) Polish (pl) Portuguese (pt) Slovak (sk) Slovenian (sl) Finnish (fi) Swedish (sv)
 Language 3 Please choose Spanish (es) Czech (cs) Danish (da) German (de) Estonian (et) Greek (el) English (en) French (fr) Italian (it) Latvian (lv) Lithuanian (lt) Hungarian (hu) Maltese (mt) Dutch (nl) Polish (pl) Portuguese (pt) Slovak (sk) Slovenian (sl) Finnish (fi) Swedish (sv)
 29/05/2000; Datum sprejetja
 01/03/2001; začetek veljavnosti glej člen 46
 28/02/2005; razveljavil 32003R2201
 starševske dolžnosti
 pravo zakonske zveze
 pravosodno sodelovanje v civilnih zadevah (EU)
 pravosodno sodelovanje v civilnih zadevah
 19.20.00.00 Območje svobode, varnosti in pravice / Pravosodno sodelovanje v civilnih zadevah
 1999/0110/CNS
 DG23, DG15, SANCO
 51999PC0220 Adopted on: 29/05/2000
 Corrected by 32000R1347R(01) (DA)
 Amended by 32002R1185 sprememba priloga 1 10/07/2002
 Repealed by 32003R2201 01/03/2005
 Amended by 12003TN02/18/A zamenjava člen 40.4 01/05/2004
 Amended by 12003TN02/18/A dopolnitev priloga 3 01/05/2004
 Amended by 12003TN02/18/A sprememba priloga 3 01/05/2004
 Amended by 12003TN02/18/A dopolnitev priloga 1 01/05/2004
 Amended by 12003TN02/18/A dopolnitev člen 40.3 01/05/2004
 Amended by 12003TN02/18/A dopolnitev priloga 2 01/05/2004
 Amended by 32004R1804 sprememba priloga 3 26/10/2004
 Amended by 32004R1804 sprememba priloga 2 26/10/2004
 Amended by 32004R1804 sprememba priloga 1 26/10/2004
 člen 2 Interpreted by 62008CA0168
 člen 2.1 Interpreted by 62009CB0312
 člen 42 Interpreted by 62009CB0312
 člen 46 Interpreted by 62009CB0312
 člen 2.1 interpretation requested by 62009CN0312
 člen 42 interpretation requested by 62009CN0312
 člen 46 interpretation requested by 62009CN0312
 Interpreted by 62009CO0312
 11997D/PRO/04
 11997D/PRO/05
 31998F0716(01)
 42001X0228(01) Relation
 42001X0228(01)
 32000R1347
 Uradni list L 160 , 30/06/2000 str. 0019 - 0036
 Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1347/2000
 z dne 29. maja 2000
 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti in zlasti člena 61(c) ter člena 67(1) Pogodbe,
 ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije [1],
 ob upoštevanju mnenja Evropskega parlamenta [2],
 ob upoštevanju mnenja Ekonomsko-socialnega odbora [3],
 (1) Države članice so si za cilj določile ohranjati in razvijati Unijo kot območje svobode, varnosti in pravice, kjer je osebam zagotovljeno prosto gibanje. Skupnost mora za vzpostavitev takega območja med drugim sprejeti ukrepe na področju sodelovanja sodstva v civilnih zadevah, ki so potrebni za pravilno delovanje notranjega trga.
 (2) Pravilno delovanje notranjega trga zahteva izboljšanje in poenostavljanje prostega pretoka sodnih odločb v civilnih zadevah.
 (3) To področje je urejeno v členu 65 Pogodbe.
 (4) Razlike med nekaterimi nacionalnimi predpisi, ki urejajo pristojnost in izvrševanje sodnih odločb, ovirajo prosto gibanje oseb in usklajeno delovanje notranjega trga. Obstajajo torej razlogi za sprejetje določb za poenotenje nasprotujočih si predpisov o pristojnosti v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo, da bi poenostavili postopke za hitro in enostavno priznavanje in izvrševanje sodnih odločb.
 (5) V skladu z načeli subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti, opredeljenimi v členu 5 Pogodbe, države članice ne morejo zadovoljivo doseči ciljev te uredbe in jih zato lahko bolje doseže Skupnost. Ta uredba ne sega preko tega, kar je potrebno za doseganje teh ciljev.
 (6) Svet je z Aktom [4] z dne 28. maja 1998 sestavil Konvencijo o pristojnosti, priznavanju in izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in državam članicam priporočil, da jo sprejmejo v skladu s svojo ustavno ureditvijo. Treba je zagotoviti nepretrganost rezultatov pogajanj za sklenitev Konvencije. Vsebina te uredbe je v veliki meri prevzeta iz Konvencije, vendar pa ta uredba vsebuje številne nove določbe za zagotovitev dosledne skladnosti z nekaterimi določbami predlagane Uredbe o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah, ki v Konvenciji niso zajete.
 (7) Za prosti pretok sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo znotraj Skupnosti je potrebno in primerno, da se čezmejno priznavanje pristojnosti in sodnih odločb v zvezi s prenehanjem zakonske zveze in v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo za otroke obeh zakoncev ureja z obveznim in neposredno uporabljivim pravnim aktom Skupnosti.
 (8) Za omogočanje najširšega gibanja ljudi morajo biti ukrepi, določeni s to uredbo, dosledni in enotni. Zato bi ta uredba morala veljati tudi za državljane držav nečlanic, ki so dovolj tesno povezani z ozemljem ene izmed držav članic, v skladu z naveznimi okoliščinami za določitev pristojnosti, določenimi s to uredbo.
 (9) Področje uporabe te uredbe bi moralo zajemati pravdne in nepravdne postopke v zakonskih sporih v določenih državah ter izključevati postopke, ki veljajo le v okviru verskih skupnosti. Zato je treba zagotoviti, da pojem "sodišče" vključuje vse sodne in izvensodne organe, pristojne za odločanje v zakonskih sporih.
 (10) Ta uredba velja samo za postopke v zvezi z razvezo, prenehanjem življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitvijo zakonske zveze. Priznanje sodnih odločb o razvezi in razveljavitvi vpliva samo na prenehanje zakonske zveze; vsebina Uredbe se kljub medsebojni povezanosti ne nanaša na vprašanja o krivdi zakoncev, premoženjskih posledicah zakonske zveze, preživninski obveznost ali drugih vprašanjih, povezanih s prenehanjem zakonske zveze.
 (11) Ta uredba ureja tudi vprašanja starševske odgovornosti za otroke obeh zakoncev v zadevah, tesno povezanih s postopki za razvezo, prenehanjem življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitvijo zakonske zveze.
 (12) Osnova za določitev pristojnosti v tej uredbi temelji na načelu, da mora obstajati dejanska povezanost med prizadeto stranko in državo članico, ki pristojnost izvaja; odločitev za vključitev določenih naveznih okoliščin odraža dejstvo, da te obstajajo v različnih nacionalnih pravnih sistemih in so jih sprejele druge države članice.
 (13) Eno od tveganj, ki ga je treba upoštevati v zvezi z zaščito otrok obeh zakoncev v zakonski krizi, je, da utegne eden od staršev odpeljati otroka v drugo državo. Zato je predvsem v skladu s Haaško konvencijo o civilnopravnih vidikih mednarodne ugrabitve otrok z dne 25. oktobra 1980 treba varovati otrokove koristi. Tako se zakonito običajno prebivališče ohranja kot navezna okoliščina, po kateri se določa pristojnost v primerih, ko pride do dejanske spremembe običajnega prebivališča, ker je bil otrok preseljen ali ker protipravno ni bil vrnjen.
 (14) Ta uredba sodiščem države članice ne preprečuje v nujnih primerih sprejetja začasnih ukrepov in ukrepov zavarovanja glede oseb ali premoženja, ki se nahajajo v tej državi.
 (15) Pojem "sodna odločba" se nanaša samo na odločbe o razvezi, prenehanju življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitvi zakonske zveze. Listine, ki so bile uradno sestavljene ali registrirane kot javne listine v eni od držav članic, se štejejo za enakovredne "sodnim odločbam".
 (16) Priznanje in izvrševanje sodnih odločb, izdanih v posamezni državi članici, temelji na načelu medsebojnega zaupanja. Razlogi za nepriznavanje so omejeni na kar najmanjši obseg. Ti postopki morajo vsebovati določbe za zagotavljanje spoštovanja javnega reda v zaprošeni državi ter varovanje pravic obrambe in pravic strank, vključno z individualnimi pravicami vsakega udeleženega otroka, in zavrniti priznanje v primeru nezdružljivih sodnih odločb.
 (17) Zaprošena država ne sme preverjati pristojnosti države izvora ali ugotovljenega dejanskega stanja.
 (18) V posamezni državi članici se za spremembo podatkov o osebnem stanju v uradnih evidencah na podlagi pravnomočne sodne odločbe, izdane v drugi državi članici, ne sme predpisati nikakršnega posebnega postopka.
 (19) Konvencija, ki so jo leta 1931 sklenile nordijske države, bi morala veljati v okvirih, postavljenih s to uredbo.
 (20) Španija, Italija in Portugalska so sklenile konkordate, preden so zadeve, urejene s to uredbo, prišle v področje uporabe Pogodbe: treba je zagotoviti, da te države ne kršijo svojih mednarodnopravnih obveznosti do Svetega sedeža.
 (21) Države članice bi morale ohraniti možnost medsebojnega svobodnega sprejemanja praktičnih ukrepov za uporabo Uredbe, dokler Skupnost v ta namen ne sprejme ukrepov.
 (22) Komisija mora Priloge I do III, ki se nanašajo na sodišča in pravna sredstva, dopolnjevati na temelju sprememb, ki jih posreduje prizadeta država članica. Spremembe Prilog IV in V je treba sprejeti v skladu z Sklepom Sveta 1999/468/ES z dne 28. junija 1999 o določitvi postopkov za uresničevanje Komisiji podeljenih izvedbenih pooblastil [5].
 (23) Komisija mora najkasneje pet let po začetku veljavnosti te uredbe preveriti njeno uporabo in predlagati potrebne spremembe.
 (24) Združeno kraljestvo in Irska sta v skladu s členom 3 Protokola o stališču Združenega kraljestva in Irske, priloženega k Pogodbi o Evropski uniji in Pogodbi o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, izjavili, da želita sodelovati pri sprejetju in uporabi te uredbe.
 (25) Danska v skladu s členoma 1 in 2 Protokola o stališču Danske, priloženega k Pogodbi o Evropski uniji in Pogodbi o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, ne sodeluje pri sprejemanju te uredbe in jo zato ta ne zavezuje niti se zanjo ne uporablja –
 POGLAVJE I
 1. Ta uredba se uporablja za:
 (a) civilnopravne postopke v zvezi z razvezo, prenehanjem življenjske skupnosti in razveljavitvijo zakonske zveze;
 (b) civilnopravne postopke v zvezi z razmerji med starši in otroki, povezane s postopki iz (a).
 2. Drugi postopki, uradno priznani v posamezni državi članici, se štejejo enakovredni sodnim postopkom. Izraz "sodišče" vključuje vse organe oblasti, pristojne za navedene zadeve v državah članicah.
 3. V tej uredbi pomeni izraz "država članica" vse države članice razen Danske.
 POGLAVJE II
 Oddelek 1
 Razveza, prenehanje življenjske skupnosti in razveljavitev zakonske zveze
 1. V zadevah v zvezi z razvezo, prenehanjem življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitvijo zakonske zveze so pristojna sodišča države članice:
 (a) na ozemlju katere:
 - zakonca običajno prebivata ali
 - sta zakonca nazadnje običajno prebivala, če eden od njiju še vedno prebiva tam ali
 - nasprotna stranka običajno prebiva ali
 - v primeru skupne vloge, običajno prebiva eden od zakoncev ali
 - vlagatelj običajno prebiva, če je prebival tam najmanj leto dni neposredno pred vložitvijo vloge ali
 - vlagatelj običajno prebiva, če je bival tam najmanj šest mesecev neposredno pred vložitvijo vloge in je bodisi državljan te države članice ali pa ima, v primeru Združenega kraljestva in Irske, tam svoj domicile;
 (b) katere državljana sta oba zakonca ali, v primeru Združenega kraljestva in Irske, kjer imata oba zakonca svoj domicile.
 2. Za namen te uredbe ima domicile enak pomen kot v pravnih sistemih Združenega kraljestva in Irske.
 1. Sodišča države članice, ki so v skladu s členom 2 pristojna za odločanje o razvezi, prenehanju življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitvi zakonske zveze, so pristojna tudi za odločanje o starševski odgovornosti za otroka obeh zakoncev, kadar ima otrok običajno prebivališče v tej državi članici.
 2. Če otrok nima običajnega prebivališča v državi članici, navedeni v odstavku 1, so sodišča te države pristojna za take zadeve, če ima otrok običajno prebivališče v eni od držav članic in:
 (a) ima vsaj eden od zakoncev starševsko odgovornost glede otroka;
 (b) zakonca sprejemata pristojnost sodišč in je ta v korist otroka.
 3. Pristojnost iz odstavkov 1 in 2 preneha takoj, ko:
 (a) postane pravnomočna sodna odločba o razvezi, prenehanju življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitvi zakonske zveze;
 (b) v primerih, ko postopki v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo na dan iz točke (a) še niso končani, ko postane sodna odločba v teh postopkih pravnomočna;
 (c) so postopki iz točk (a) in (b) končani iz drugih razlogov.
 Člen 4
 Ugrabitev otroka
 Sodišča s pristojnostjo iz člena 3 izvajajo svojo pristojnost v skladu s Haaško konvencijo z dne 25. oktobra 1980 o civilnopravnih vidikih mednarodne ugrabitve otrok, predvsem s členoma 3 in 16.
 Člen 5
 Nasprotni zahtevek
 Sodišče, pristojno za odločanje na podlagi členov 2 do 4, je pristojno tudi za odločanje o nasprotnem zahtevku, če ta sodi na področje uporabe te uredbe.
 Člen 6
 Pretvorba prenehanja življenjske skupnosti v razvezo
 Brez poseganja v člen 2 sodišče države članice, ki je izdalo sodno odločbo o prenehanju življenjske skupnosti, lahko odloči tudi o spremembi te sodne odločbe v odločbo o razvezi, če tako določa zakonodaja te države članice.
 Člen 7
 Izključni značaj pristojnosti po členih 2 do 6
 Proti zakoncu, ki:
 (a) običajno prebiva na ozemlju države članice;
 (b) je državljan države članice ali ima — v primeru Združenega kraljestva in Irske — na ozemlju ene od teh dveh držav članic domicile,
 se lahko začne postopek v drugi državi članici samo v skladu s členi 2 do 6.
 Člen 8
 Subsidiarna pristojnost
 1. Kadar po členih 2 do 6 ni pristojno nobeno sodišče države članice, se pristojnost v vsaki državi članici določi v skladu z zakonodajo te države.
 2. Proti nasprotni stranki, ki nima običajnega prebivališča in ni državljan države članice niti — v primeru Združenega kraljestva in Irske — na ozemlju ene od teh dveh držav članic nima domicile, se lahko vsak državljan države članice z običajnim prebivališčem na ozemlju druge države članice sklicuje na predpise o pristojnosti, ki se uporabljajo v tej drugi državi, tako kot njeni državljani.
 Oddelek 2
 Preizkus pristojnosti in dopustnosti
 Člen 9
 Preizkus pristojnosti
 Če je sodišču predložena zadeva, za katero po tej uredbi ni pristojno in za katerega je po tej uredbi pristojno sodišče druge države članice, se po uradni dolžnosti izreče za nepristojno.
 Člen 10
 Preizkus dopustnosti
 1. Če se nasprotna stranka, ki nima običajnega prebivališča v državi, v kateri proti njej poteka postopek, ne spusti v postopek, pristojno sodišče prekine postopek, dokler se ne ugotovi, da je bilo nasprotni stranki omogočeno prejeti pisanje o začetku postopka ali enakovredno pisanje pravočasno, da je lahko pripravila obrambo, ali da so bili storjeni vsi potrebni koraki v tej smeri.
 2. Če je treba v skladu s to uredbo poslati iz ene države članice v drugo državo članico pisanje o začetku postopka ali drugo enakovredno pisanje, se namesto določb iz odstavka 1 uporabi člen 19 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1348/2000 z 29. maja 2000 o vročanju sodnih in zunajsodnih pisanj v civilnih ali gospodarskih zadevah v državah članicah [6].
 3. V primeru, da se določbe Uredbe (ES) št. 1348/2000 ne uporabljajo, se uporabi člen 15 Haaške konvencije o vročanju sodnih in zunajsodnih pisanj v civilnih ali gospodarskih zadevah z dne 15. novembra 1965, če je treba vročiti pisanje o začetku postopka ali enakovredno pisanje v skladu s to konvencijo.
 Oddelek 3
 Litispendenca in sorodne pravde
 Člen 11
 1. Če pred sodišči različnih držav članic tečejo postopki z istim zahtevkom med istima strankama, sodišče, ki je drugo začelo postopek, po uradni dolžnosti prekine svoj postopek, vse dokler se ne ugotovi pristojnost sodišča, ki je prvo začelo postopek.
 2. Če pred sodišči različnih držav članic teče več postopkov za razvezo, prenehanje življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitev zakonske zveze med istimi strankami, vendar ne glede istega zahtevka, sodišče, ki je drugo začelo postopek, po uradni dolžnosti prekine postopek, vse dokler se ne ugotovi pristojnost sodišča, ki je prvo začelo postopek.
 3. Ko se ugotovi pristojnost sodišča, ki je prvo začelo postopek, se sodišče, ki je drugo začelo postopek, izreče za nepristojno v korist prvega sodišča.
 V tem primeru lahko stranka, ki je začela postopek pred sodiščem, ki je drugo začelo postopek, začne ta postopek pred sodiščem, ki je prvo začelo postopek.
 4. Za namene tega člena se šteje, da je sodišče začelo postopek:
 (a) v trenutku, ko je pisanje o začetku postopka ali enakovredno pisanje vloženo na sodišču, pod pogojem, da vlagatelj kasneje ni opustil dejanj, ki bi jih moral opraviti v zvezi z vročitvijo pisanja nasprotni stranki;
 (b) če je treba vročiti pisanje še pred vložitvijo na sodišče, v trenutku, ko ga prejme organ, ki je odgovoren za vročitev, pod pogojem, da vlagatelj kasneje ni opustil dejanj, ki bi jih moral opraviti v zvezi z vložitvijo pisanja na sodišče.
 Oddelek 4
 Člen 12
 Določbe te uredbe v nujnih primerih sodiščem države članice ne preprečujejo sprejetja začasnih ukrepov ali ukrepov zavarovanja glede v tej državi nahajajočih se oseb ali premoženja, ki jih predvideva pravo te države članice, tudi v primeru, ko je po tej uredbi za odločanje o glavni stvari pristojno sodišče druge države članice.
 POGLAVJE III
 PRIZNAVANJE IN IZVRŠITEV
 Člen 13
 1. Za namene te uredbe pomeni "sodna odločba" vsako odločbo o razvezi, prenehanju življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitvi zakonske zveze, ki jo izda sodišče države članice, vključno s sodno odločbo v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo zakoncev, izdano v zakonskem sporu, ne glede na njeno poimenovanje, vključno s sklepom ali odločbo.
 2. Določbe tega poglavja se uporabljajo tudi za določitev stroškov postopka po tej uredbi in za izvršitev vsake odločitve v zvezi s takimi stroški.
 3. Za namene izvajanja te uredbe se listine, ki so bile uradno sestavljene ali registrirane kot javne listine in so izvršljive v eni od držav članic, in poravnave, ki so bile sklenjene pred sodiščem in so izvršljive v državi članici, v kateri so bile sklenjene, priznajo in se razglasijo za izvršljive pod istimi pogoji kot sodne odločbe iz odstavka 1.
 Člen 14
 Priznanje sodne odločbe
 1. Sodna odločba, izdana v državi članici, se v drugih državah članicah prizna, ne da bi bilo potrebno za priznanje začeti kakršenkoli poseben postopek.
 2. Brez poseganja v odstavek 3 za vpis spremembe osebnega stanja v uradne evidence države članice na podlagi sodne odločbe o razvezi, prenehanju življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitvi zakonske zveze, izdane v drugi državi članici, proti kateri po pravu te države ni možno vložiti nadaljnjega pravnega sredstva, predvsem ni potrebno začeti kakršnega koli posebnega postopka.
 3. Vsaka zainteresirana stranka lahko v skladu s postopkom iz oddelkov 2 in 3 tega poglavja zahteva izdajo odločbe o priznanju oz. nepriznanju sodne odločbe.
 4. Kadar je priznanje sodne odločbe pred sodiščem posamezne države članice postavljeno kot predhodno vprašanje, lahko o tem vprašanju odloči to sodišče.
 Člen 15
 Razlogi za nepriznanje
 1. Sodna odločba, ki se nanaša na razvezo, prenehanje življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitev zakonske zveze, se ne prizna:
 (a) če bi bilo njeno priznanje v očitnem nasprotju z javnim redom v državi članici, v kateri se zahteva priznanje;
 (b) če nasprotni stranki, ki se ni spustila v postopek, ni bilo vročeno pisanje o začetku postopka ali enakovredno pisanje pravočasno in na tak način, da bi lahko pripravila obrambo, razen če je ugotovljeno, da se nasprotna stranka s sodno odločbo nedvoumno strinja;
 (c) če je nezdružljiva s sodno odločbo, izdano v postopku med istima strankama v državi članici, v kateri se zahteva priznanje;
 (d) če je nezdružljiva s predhodno sodno odločbo, izdano v drugi državi članici ali v tretji državi glede istega zahtevka med istima strankama, pod pogojem, da predhodna sodna odločba izpolnjuje pogoje za priznanje v državi članici, v kateri se zahteva priznanje.
 2. Sodna odločba v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo zakoncev, izdana v zakonskem sporu v skladu s členom 13, se ne prizna:
 (a) če bi bilo njeno priznanje v očitnem nasprotju z javnim redom v državi članici, v kateri se zahteva priznanje, z upoštevanjem otrokovih koristi;
 (b) če je bila izdana, razen v nujnih primerih, ne da bi bila otroku dana možnost zaslišanja in so bila kršena temeljna načela postopka države članice, v kateri se zahteva priznanje;
 (c) če zadevni osebi, ki se ni spustila v postopek, ni bilo vročeno pisanje o začetku postopka ali enakovredno pisanje pravočasno in na tak način, da bi lahko pripravila obrambo, razen če je ugotovljeno, da se ta oseba s sodno odločbo nedvoumno strinja;
 (d) na zahtevo osebe, ki zatrjuje, da sodna odločba posega v njeno starševsko odgovornost, če je bila izdana ne da bi bila tej osebi dana možnost zaslišanja;
 (e) če je nezdružljiva s poznejšo sodno odločbo o starševski odgovornosti, izdano v državi članici, v kateri se zahteva priznanje;
 (f) če je nezdružljiva s poznejšo sodno odločbo o starševski odgovornosti, izdani v drugi državi članici ali državi nečlanici, kjer ima otrok običajno prebivališče, pod pogojem, da poznejša sodna odločba izpolnjuje pogoje, potrebne za njeno priznanje v državi članici, kjer se zahteva priznanje.
 Člen 16
 Sporazumi s tretjimi državami
 Sodišče države članice lahko na podlagi sporazuma o priznavanju in izvrševanju sodnih odločb ne prizna sodne odločbe, izdane v drugi državi članici, kadar je v primerih iz člena 8 pristojnost temeljila le na naveznih okoliščinah, ki jih ne določajo členi od 2 do 7.
 Člen 17
 Prepoved preverjanja pristojnosti sodišča izvora
 Pristojnosti sodišča države članice izvora se ne sme preverjati. Preizkusa javnega reda iz člena 15(1)(a) in (2)(a) ni dovoljeno uporabiti glede pravil o pristojnosti, določenih v členih 2 do 8.
 Člen 18
 Razlike v zakonodajah
 Priznanje sodne odločbe v zvezi z razvezo, prenehanjem življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitvijo zakonske zveze se ne sme zavrniti zato, ker zakonodaja države članice, v kateri se tako priznanje zahteva, na podlagi ugotovljenega dejanskega stanja ne dovoljuje razveze, prenehanja življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitve zakonske zveze.
 Člen 19
 Izključitev preverjanja vsebine sodne odločbe
 Pod nobenimi pogoji tuje sodne odločbe ni dovoljeno preverjati glede vsebine.
 Člen 20
 Mirovanje postopka
 1. Sodišče države članice, v kateri se zahteva priznanje sodne odločbe, izdane v drugi državi članici, lahko prekine postopek, če je zoper sodno odločbo vloženo redno pravno sredstvo.
 2. Sodišče države članice, v kateri se zahteva priznanje sodne odločbe, izdane na Irskem ali v Združenem kraljestvu, lahko prekine postopek, če je izvršitev v državi članici izvora začasno zadržana zaradi odločanja o pravnem sredstvu.
 Izvršitev
 Člen 21
 Izvršljive sodne odločbe
 1. Sodna odločba o izvajanju starševske odgovornosti glede otroka obeh strank, izdana v državi članici in ki je izvršljiva v tej državi članici ter je bila vročena, se izvrši v drugi državi članici, ko je na zahtevo katere koli od zainteresiranih strank razglašena za izvršljivo v tej državi.
 2. Vendar se v Združenem kraljestvu taka sodna odločba izvrši v Angliji in Walesu, na Škotskem ali na Severnem Irskem po tem, ko je bila na zahtevo ene od zainteresiranih strank registrirana za izvršitev v zadevnem delu Združenega kraljestva.
 Člen 22
 Krajevno pristojna sodišča
 1. Zahteva za razglasitev izvršljivosti se vloži pri sodišču iz seznama v Prilogi I.
 2. Krajevna pristojnost se določi po kraju običajnega prebivališča osebe, proti kateri se zahteva izvršitev ali po običajnem prebivališču katerega koli otroka, na katerega se zahteva nanaša.
 Kadar v državi članici, kjer se zahteva izvršitev, ni mogoče najti nobenega od krajev, navedenih v pododstavku 1, se krajevna pristojnost določi po kraju izvršitve.
 3. V zvezi s postopkom iz člena 14(3) se krajevna pristojnost določi v skladu z notranjim pravom države članice, v kateri se začne postopek za priznanje oz. nepriznanje sodne odločbe.
 Člen 23
 Postopek za izvršitev
 1. Za postopek vložitve zahteve se uporablja pravo države članice, v kateri se zahteva izvršitev.
 2. Vlagatelj zahteve mora na območju pristojnosti sodišča, pri katerem je bila vložena zahteva, izbrati naslov za vročitve. Če pa pravo države članice, v kateri se zahteva izvršitev, ne predpisuje tovrstnega naslova, imenuje vlagatelj zahteve pooblaščenca za vročitve.
 3. Zahtevi se priložijo listine iz členov 32 in 33.
 Člen 24
 Odločba sodišča
 1. Sodišče, pri katerem se vloži zahteva, odloči takoj. Oseba, proti kateri se zahteva izvršitev, v tej fazi postopka nima možnosti podajati kakršnih koli izjav glede zahteve.
 2. Zahteva se lahko zavrne samo zaradi enega od razlogov iz členov 15, 16 in 17.
 3. Pod nobenimi pogoji tuje sodne odločbe ni dovoljeno preverjati glede vsebine.
 Člen 25
 Obvestilo o odločbi
 Pristojni uradnik sodišča v skladu s postopkom, predpisanim po pravu države članice, v kateri se zahteva izvršitev, o izdani odločbi nemudoma obvesti vlagatelja zahteve.
 Člen 26
 Pravno sredstvo proti odločbi o izvršitvi
 1. Obe stranki lahko zoper odločbo v zvezi z razglasitvijo izvršljivosti vložita pravno sredstvo.
 2. Pravno sredstvo se vloži pri sodišču iz seznama v Prilogi II.
 3. Pravno sredstvo se obravnava v kontradiktornem postopku.
 4. Če vloži pravno sredstvo vlagatelj zahteve za razglasitev izvršljivosti, se stranko, proti kateri se zahteva izvršitev, pozove, naj se spusti v postopek pred sodiščem, ki odloča o pravnem sredstvu. Če se zadevna oseba ne spusti v postopek, se uporabljajo določbe člena 10.
 5. Pravno sredstvo zoper razglasitev izvršljivosti je treba vložiti v enem mesecu po njeni vročitvi. Če stranka, proti kateri se zahteva izvršitev, nima običajnega prebivališča v državi članici, v kateri je bila razglašena izvršljivost, temveč v drugi državi članici, je rok za pravno sredstvo dva meseca in začne teči od dne vročitve njej osebno ali na njenem običajnem prebivališču. Tega roka ni dovoljeno podaljšati na račun oddaljenosti.
 Člen 27
 Sodišča, pristojna za pravno sredstvo in izpodbijanje odločitev o pravnem sredstvu
 Odločitev, izdana v zvezi s pravnim sredstvom, se lahko izpodbija samo v postopku iz Priloge III.
 Člen 28
 Prekinitev postopka
 1. Sodišče, pri katerem je vloženo pravno sredstvo v skladu s členoma 26 ali 27, lahko na zahtevo stranke, proti kateri se zahteva izvršitev, prekine postopek, če je bilo vloženo redno pravno sredstvo v državi članici izvora ali če se rok za to pravno sredstvo še ni iztekel; v slednjem primeru sodišče lahko določi rok za vložitev tega pravnega sredstva.
 2. Če je bila sodna odločba izdana na Irskem ali v Združenem kraljestvu, se vsako pravno sredstvo, ki je na razpolago v državi članici izvora, za namene odstavka 1 šteje za redno pravno sredstvo.
 Člen 29
 Delna izvršitev
 1. Če je tuja sodna odločba odločila o več zahtevkih, pa izvršljivosti ni mogoče razglasiti glede vseh zahtevkov, sodišče razglasi izvršljivost glede enega ali več izmed teh zahtevkov.
 2. Vlagatelj zahteve lahko zahteva, da se razglasitev izvršljivosti omeji na del izreka sodne odločbe.
 Člen 30
 Če je bila vlagatelju zahteve v državi članici izvora odobrena popolna ali delna brezplačna pravna pomoč ali oprostitev stroškov postopka, je ta upravičen v postopkih, predvidenih v členi 22 do 25, do kar najširše brezplačne pravne pomoči ali oprostitve stroškov postopka, ki ju dopušča pravo zaprošene države članice.
 Člen 31
 Varščina ali depozit
 Od stranke, ki v eni od držav članic vloži zahtevo za izvršitev sodne odločbe, izdane v drugi državi članici, ni dovoljeno zahtevati nobene oblike varščine ali depozita iz naslednjih razlogov:
 (a) ker ta stranka nima običajnega prebivališča v državi članici, v kateri se zahteva priznanje; ali
 (b) ker je ta stranka bodisi tuj državljan ali, če se zahteva izvršitev v Združenem kraljestvu ali na Irskem, v eni od teh dveh držav nima svojega domicile.
 Skupne določbe
 Člen 32
 1. Stranka, ki zahteva ali izpodbija priznanje sodne odločbe ali vloži zahtevo za razglasitev izvršljivosti, mora predložiti:
 (a) izvod sodne odločbe, ki izpolnjuje pogoje, potrebne za potrditev njegove verodostojnosti;
 (b) potrdilo iz člena 33.
 2. Stranka, ki zahteva priznanje sodne odločbe ali vloži zahtevo za razglasitev izvršljivosti, mora v primeru zamudne sodne odločbe predložiti tudi:
 (a) izvirnik ali overjen prepis listine, ki potrjuje, da je bilo nasprotni stranki vročeno pisanje o začetku postopka ali enakovredno pisanje;
 (b) katerokoli listino, ki dokazuje, da se nasprotna stranka s sodno odločbo nedvoumno strinja.
 Člen 33
 Druge listine
 Pristojno sodišče ali organ države članice, v kateri je bila izdana sodna odločba, izda na zahtevo ene od zainteresiranih strank potrdilo na standardnem obrazcu iz Priloge IV (sodne odločbe v zakonskih sporih) ali iz Priloge V (sodne odločbe v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo).
 Člen 34
 Pomanjkljivosti v listinah
 1. Če listine, navedene v členu 32(1)(b) ali (2) niso predložene, lahko sodišče določi rok za njihovo predložitev, sprejme enakovredne listine ali, če je mnenja, da razpolaga z zadostnimi podatki, stranko oprosti predložitve.
 2. Če to zahteva sodišče, je treba listine predložiti v prevodu. Prevod mora overiti v eni izmed držav članic za to pooblaščena oseba.
 Člen 35
 Uradna potrditev ali podobna formalnost
 Za listine iz členov 32, 33 in 34(2) ali za pooblastilo za pravdo se ne zahteva nikakršna uradna potrditev ali podobna formalnost.
 POGLAVJE IV
 Člen 36
 Razmerje do drugih pravnih aktov
 1. Ob upoštevanju določil členov 38 in 42 ter odstavka 2 tega člena ta uredba med državami članicami nadomesti v trenutku začetka veljave obstoječe konvencije, ki so bile sklenjene med dvema ali več državami članicami ter se nanašajo na zadeve, ki jih ureja ta uredba.
 2. (a) Finska in Švedska imata možnost izjaviti, da se bo Konvencija z dne 6. februarja 1931 med Dansko, Finsko, Islandijo, Norveško in Švedsko, ki vsebuje določbe mednarodnega zasebnega prava o zakonski zvezi, posvojitvi in skrbništvu, skupaj s pripadajočim Sklepnim protokolom v celoti ali delno uporabljala v njihovih medsebojnih odnosih namesto pravil te uredbe. Take izjave se priložijo tej uredbi in se objavijo v Uradnem listu Evropskih skupnosti. Navedene države [7] jih lahko kadarkoli v celoti ali delno prekličejo.
 (b) Spoštuje se načelo nediskriminacije glede na državljanstvo med državljani Unije.
 (c) Pravila o pristojnosti v vseh prihodnjih mednarodnih sporazumih, sklenjenih med državami članicami iz pododstavka (a), ki se nanašajo na zadeve, urejene s to uredbo, morajo biti usklajena s pravili, določenimi v tej uredbi.
 (d) Sodne odločbe, izdane v kateri od nordijskih držav, ki so podale izjavo v skladu s pododstavkom (a), s strani sodišča, ki je utemeljilo svojo pristojnost na navezni okoliščini, ki ustreza tistim iz Poglavja II, se priznajo in izvršijo v drugih državah članicah v skladu s pravili iz Poglavja III.
 3. Države članice pošljejo Komisiji:
 (a) kopijo mednarodnih sporazumov in poenotenih zakonov, ki prenašajo sporazume iz odstavkov 2(a) in (c);
 (b) odpovedi ali spremembe teh mednarodnih sporazumov ali poenotenih zakonov.
 Člen 37
 Razmerje do določenih večstranskih konvencij
 S to uredbo so med državami članicami nadomeščene naslednje konvencije, v kolikor se nanašajo na zadeve, urejene s to uredbo:
 - Haaška konvencija z dne 5. oktobra 1961 o pristojnosti in pravu, ki se uporablja, v zvezi z zaščito mladoletnih oseb,
 - Luksemburška konvencija z dne 8. septembra 1967 o priznavanju odločb o veljavnosti zakonskih zvez,
 - Haaška konvencija z dne 1. junija 1970 o priznavanju razvez in prenehanju življenjskih skupnosti,
 - Evropska konvencija z dne 20. maja 1980 o priznavanju in izvršitvi odločb o skrbništvu nad otroki in ponovnem vzpostavljanju skrbništva nad otroki,
 - Haaška konvencija z dne 19. oktobra 1996 o pristojnosti, pravu, ki se uporabi, priznavanju, izvršitvi in sodelovanju na področju starševske odgovornosti in ukrepov za zaščito otrok, v kolikor prizadeti otrok običajno prebiva v državi članici.
 Člen 38
 Področje nadaljnjega učinkovanja
 1. Sporazumi in konvencije iz členov 36(1) in 37 še naprej učinkujejo na pravnih področjih, za katera se ta uredba ne uporablja.
 2. Še naprej učinkujejo tudi v zvezi s sodnimi odločbami, ki so bile izdane, in listinami, ki so bile uradno sestavljene ali registrirane kot javne listine, še pred začetkom veljavnosti te uredbe.
 Člen 39
 Sporazumi med državami članicami
 1. Dve ali več držav članic lahko sklenejo sporazume za dopolnitev določb te uredbe ali za olajšanje njene uporabe.
 Države članice pošljejo Komisiji:
 (a) kopijo osnutkov sporazumov;
 (b) vse odpovedi teh sporazumov ali njihove spremembe.
 2. V nobenem primeru sporazumi ne smejo odstopati od Poglavja II ali III.
 Člen 40
 Pogodbe s Svetim sedežem
 1. Ta uredba se uporablja brez poseganja v mednarodno pogodbo (konkordat) med Svetim sedežem in Portugalsko, podpisano v Vatikanu dne 7. maja 1940.
 2. Vsaka odločba o neveljavnosti zakonske zveze, izdana v skladu s pogodbo iz odstavka 1, se prizna v državah članicah v skladu s pogoji, določenimi v Poglavju III.
 3. Določila iz odstavkov 1 in 2 se uporabljajo tudi za naslednje mednarodne pogodbe (konkordate) s Svetim sedežem:
 (a) Lateransko pogodbo z dne 11. februarja 1929 med Italijo in Svetim sedežem, spremenjena s sporazumom, ki vsebuje Dodatni protokol, podpisanim v Rimu dne 18. februarja 1984;
 (b) Sporazum med Svetim sedežem in Španijo o pravnih zadevah z dne 3. januarja 1979.
 4. Za priznanje odločb iz odstavka 2 lahko v Španiji in Italiji veljajo isti postopki in ista preverjanja, kot se uporabljajo za odločbe cerkvenih sodišč, ki so izdane v skladu z mednarodnimi pogodbami iz odstavka 3, sklenjenimi s Svetim sedežem.
 5. Države članice pošljejo Komisiji:
 (a) kopijo pogodb iz odstavkov 1 in 3;
 (b) vse odpovedi teh pogodb ali njihove spremembe.
 Člen 41
 Države članice z dvema ali več pravnimi sistemi
 Glede države članice, v kateri se v različnih ozemeljskih enotah uporabljata dva ali več pravnih sistemov ali sklopov pravnih pravil v zvezi z zadevami, ki jih ureja ta uredba:
 (a) se vsako sklicevanje na običajno prebivališče v tej državi članici šteje za sklicevanje na običajno prebivališče v posamezni ozemeljski enoti;
 (b) se vsako sklicevanje na državljanstvo ali — v primeru Združenega kraljestva — na domicile šteje za sklicevanje na ozemeljsko enoto, določeno z zakonodajo te države;
 (c) se vsako sklicevanje na upravne organe države članice, ki je prejela vlogo za razvezo ali prenehanje življenjske skupnosti ali razveljavitev zakonske zveze, šteje za slicevanje na upravne organe ozemeljske enote, ki je prejela tako vlogo;
 (d) se vsako sklicevanje na pravna pravila zaprošene države članice šteje za sklicevanje na pravna pravila ozemeljske enote, v kateri se uveljavlja pristojnost, priznanje ali izvršitev.
 POGLAVJE V
 PREHODNE DOLOČBE
 Člen 42
 1. Določbe te uredbe se uporabljajo samo za postopke, listine, ki so bile uradno sestavljene ali registrirane kot javne listine, in sodne poravnave, začete, sestavljene oz. sklenjene po začetku veljavnosti te uredbe.
 2. Sodne odločbe, izdane po dnevu začetka veljavnosti te uredbe v postopkih, začetih pred tem dnem, se priznajo in izvršijo v skladu z določbami Poglavja III, če je pristojnost temeljila na pravilih, ki so skladna z določbami Poglavja II te uredbe ali z določbami konvencije, sklenjene med državo članico izvora in zaprošeno državo članico, ki je veljala v trenutku uvedbe postopka.
 POGLAVJE VI
 KONČNE DOLOČBE
 Člen 43
 Presoja
 Najkasneje 1. marca 2006 in potem vsakih pet let Komisija predloži Evropskemu parlamentu, Svetu in Ekonomsko-socialnemu odboru poročilo o uporabi te uredbe, predvsem členov 36, 39 in 40(2). Poročilu se po potrebi priložijo predlogi za prilagoditve te uredbe.
 Člen 44
 Spremembe seznamov pristojnih sodišč in pravnih sredstev
 1. Države članice Komisijo uradno obvestijo o besedilih, ki spreminjajo sezname pristojnih sodišč in pravnih sredstev iz Prilog I do III. Komisija priloge ustrezno prilagodi.
 2. Ažuriranje ali tehnične prilagoditve standardnih obrazcev, določenih v Prilogah IV in V, se sprejme v svetovalnem postopku iz člena 45(2).
 Člen 45
 1. Komisiji pomaga odbor.
 2. V primeru sklicevanja na ta odstavek se uporabljata člena 3 in 7 Sklepa 1999/468 ES.
 3. Odbor sprejme svoj poslovnik.
 Člen 46
 Začetek veljavnosti
 Ta uredba začne veljati 1. marca 2001.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah v skladu s Pogodbo o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti.
 V Bruslju, 29. maja 2000
 [1] UL C 247, 31.8.1999, str. 1.
 [2] Mnenje z dne 17. novembra 1999 (še ni objavljeno v Uradnem listu).
 [3] UL C 368, 20.12.1999, str. 23.
 [4] UL C 221, 16.7.1998; str. 1. Istega dne, kot je bila sestavljena Konvencija, se je Svet seznanil z obrazložitvenim poročilo h Konvenciji, ki ga je pripravil prof. Alegría Borrás. To obrazložitveno poročilo je podano na strani 27 zgoraj omenjenega Uradnega lista.
 [5] UL L 184, 17.7.1999, str. 23.
 [6] UL L 160, 30.6.2000, str. 37.
 [7] Nobena od teh držav članic ni podala take izjave, ko je bila uredba sprejeta.
 PRILOGA 1
 Zahteve, ki jih predvideva člen 22, se predložijo naslednjim sodiščem:
 - v Belgiji
 - v Nemčiji:
 - v okrožju "Kammergericht" (Berlin),, "Familiengericht Pankow/Weissensee"
 - v okrožjih preostalih "Oberlandesgerichte",."Familiengericht", ki se nahaja na sedežu ustreznega "Oberlandersgericht"
 - v Grčiji "Μονομελές Πρωτοδικείο"
 - v Španiji, "Juzgado de Primera Instancia",
 - v Franciji predsedniku "tribunal de grande instance",
 - na Irskem "High Court",
 - v Italiji "Corte d'apello",
 - v Luksemburgu predsedniku "Tribunal d'arrondissement",
 - na Nizozemskem predsedniku "arrondissementsrechtbank",
 - v Avstriji "Bezirksgericht"
 - na Portugalskem, "Tribunal de Comarca" ali "Tribunal de Familia,"
 - na Finskem
 - na Švedskem, "Svea hovrätt",
 - v Združenem kraljestvu:
 (a) v Angliji in Walesu "High Court of Justice";
 (b) na Škotskem "Court of Session";
 (c) na Severnem Irskem, "High Court of Justice";
 (d) na Gibraltarju "Supreme Court".
 PRILOGA II
 Pravno sredstvo, ki ga predvideva člen 26, se predloži spodaj navedenim sodiščem:
 - v Belgiji:
 (a) oseba, ki zahteva razglasitev izvršljivosti, lahko vloži pravno sredstvo na "cour d'appel" ali "hof van beroep";
 (b) oseba, proti kateri se zahteva izvršitev, lahko vloži ugovor pri
 "tribunal de première instance"
 "rechtbank van eerste aanleg"
 "erstinstanzliches Gericht"
 - v Nemčiji "Oberlandesgericht",
 - v Grčiji "Εφετείο",
 - v Španiji "Audiencia Provincial",
 - v Franciji "Cour d'appel",
 - v Italiji "Corte d'appello",
 - v Luksemburgu "Cour d'appell",
 - na Nizozemskem:
 (a) če vloži pravno sredstvo vlagatelj zahteve ali nasprotna stranka, ki se je spustila v postopek: "gerechtshof";
 (b) če vloži pravno sredstvo nasprotna stranka, proti kateri je bila izdana zamudna sodba: "arrondissementsrechtbank";
 - v Avstriji "Bezirksgericht",
 - na Portugalskem "Tribunal de Relação",
 - na Švedskem "Svea hovrätt"
 (a) v Angliji in Walesu
 "High Court of Justice"
 (b) na Škotskem
 "Court of Session"
 (c) na Severnem Irskem
 (d) na Gibraltarju
 "Court of Appeal"
 PRILOGA III
 Pravna sredstva, ki jih predvideva člen 27, se lahko vložijo samo:
 - v Belgiji, Grčiji, Španiji, Italiji, Luksemburgu in na Nizozemskem s kasacijsko pritožbo,
 - v Nemčiji z "Rechtsbeschwerde",
 - na Irskem s pravnim sredstvom v zvezi s pravnim vprašanjem na "Supreme Court",
 - v Avstriji z "Revisionsrekurs",
 - na Portugalskem z "recurso restrito à matéria de direito",
 - na Finskem s pravnim sredstvom na
 - na Švedskem s pravnim sredstvom na "Högsta domstolen",
 - v Združenem kraljestvu eno samo pravno sredstvo, ki je omejeno na pravna vprašanja.
 PRILOGA IV
 Potrdilo iz člena 33 glede sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih
 1. Država izvora ...
 2. Sodišče ali organ, ki izdaja potrdilo
 2.1 Ime ...
 2.2 Naslov ...
 2.3 Tel.:/faks/e-pošta ...
 3. Zakonska zveza
 3.1 Žena
 3.1.1 Polno ime ...
 3.1.2 Država in kraj rojstva ...
 3.1.3 Datum rojstva ...
 3.2 Mož
 3.2.1 Polno ime ...
 3.2.2 Država in kraj rojstva ...
 3.2.3 Datum rojstva ...
 3.3 Država, kraj (kjer je na voljo) in datum sklenitve zakonske zveze
 3.3.1 Država sklenitve zakonske zveze ...
 3.3.2 Kraj sklenitve zakonske zveze (kjer je na voljo) ...
 3.3.3 Datum sklenitve zakonske zveze ...
 4. Sodišče, ki je izdalo sodno odločbo
 4.1 Ime sodišča ...
 4.2 Kraj sodišča ...
 5. Sodna odločba
 5.1 Datum ...
 5.2 Opravilna številka ...
 5.3 Vrsta sodbe
 5.3.1 | Razveza | |
 5.3.2 | Razveljavitev zakonske zveze | |
 5.3.3 | Prenehanje življenjske skupnosti | |
 5.4 Ali je bila izdana zamudna sodba?
 5.4.1 | Ne | |
 5.4.2 | Da | |
 6. Imena strank, ki jim je bila odobrena brezplačna pravna pomoč ...
 7. Ali je proti sodni odločbi možno nadaljnje pravno sredstvo po zakonodaji države članice izvora?
 7.1 | Ne | |
 7.2 | Da | |
 8. Datum pravnomočnosti v državi članici, kjer je bila sodna odločba izdana
 8.1 Razveza ...
 8.2 Prenehanje življenjske skupnosti ...
 V ..., dne ... | Podpis in/ali žig |
 PRILOGA V
 Potrdilo iz člena 33 glede sodnih odločb v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo
 2.3 Tel.:/faks/e- pošta ...
 3. Starši
 3.1 Mati
 3.2.2 Datum in kraj rojstva ...
 3.2 Oče
 5.3 Ali je bila izdana zamudna sodba?
 5.3.1 | Ne | |
 5.3.2 | Da | |
 6. Otroci, ki jih zajema sodba [2]
 6.1 Polno ime in datum rojstva ...
 6.2 Polno ime in datum rojstva ...
 6.3 Polno ime in datum rojstva ...
 6.4 Polno ime in datum rojstva ...
 7. Imena strank, ki jim je bila odobrena brezplačna pravna pomoč ...
 8. Potrjevanje izvršljivosti in vročitve
 8.1 Ali je sodba izvršljiva v skladu z zakonodajo države članice izvora?
 8.1.1 | Da | |
 8.1.2 | Ne | |
 8. 2 Ali je bila sodba vročena stranki, proti kateri se zahteva izvršitev?
 8.2.1 | Da | |
 8.2.1.1 Polno ime stranke ...
 8.2.1.2 Datum vročitve ...
 8.2.2 | Ne | |
 [2] Če zajema več kot štiri otroke, uporabite še en obrazec.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 21.3.2009
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 69/29
 Recurso interpuesto el 30 de enero de 2009 — Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas/República Helénica
 (Asunto C-44/09)
 (2009/C 69/54)
 Lengua de procedimiento: griego
 Partes
 Demandante: Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas (representantes: M. van Beek y M. Karanasou-Apostolopoulou)
 Demandada: República Helénica
 Pretensiones de la parte demandante
 —
 Que se declare que la República Helénica ha incumplido las obligaciones que le incumben en virtud de la Directiva del Consejo 2004/113/CE (1), de 13 de diciembre de 2004, por la que se aplica el principio de igualdad de trato entre hombres y mujeres al acceso a bienes y servicios y su suministro, al no haber adoptado las disposiciones legales, reglamentarias y administrativas necesarias para dar cumplimiento a dicha Directiva o, en cualquier caso, al no haber comunicado tales disposiciones a la Comisión.
 —
 Que se condene en costas a la República Helénica.
 Motivos y principales alegaciones
 El plazo de adaptación del Derecho interno a la Directiva 2004/113/CE expiró el 21 de diciembre de 2007.
 (1) DO L 272, p. 37.


text: b' OIG Recovery Act Monthly Report\n\n Monthly\xc2\xa0Update\xc2\xa0Report\xc2\xa0Data\xc2\xa0(sheet\xc2\xa02\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa04)\xc2\xa0Version\xc2\xa04.0a\n Reporting\xc2\xa0OIG: Amtrak\xc2\xa0\xe2\x80\x90\xc2\xa0OIG\n Month\xc2\xa0Ending\xc2\xa0Date: 11/30/2009\n\n FTE\xc2\xa0Working\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0Recovery\n Testimonies:\n Fiscal\xc2\xa0Year 2009 2010 Cumulative\n Newly\xc2\xa0Hired\xc2\xa0FTE\xc2\xa0\n 0.38 0.67 1.05 Provided\xc2\xa0(monthly): 0\n (cumulative):\n\n FTE\xc2\xa0Funded\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0Recovery\xc2\xa0\n 0.38 0.67 1.05 Provided\xc2\xa0(cumulative): 0\n Act\xc2\xa0Funds\xc2\xa0(cumulative):\n\n FTE\xc2\xa0Not\xc2\xa0Funded\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0\n Recovery\xc2\xa0Act\xc2\xa0Funds\xc2\xa0 0.74 0.64 1.38\n (cumulative):\n\n Audits\xc2\xa0/\xc2\xa0Inspections\xc2\xa0/\xc2\xa0Evaluations\xc2\xa0/\xc2\xa0\n Complaints Whistleblower\xc2\xa0Reprisal\xc2\xa0Allegations Investigations Training\xc2\xa0/\xc2\xa0Outreach\n Reviews\n Monthly\xc2\xa0Data Monthly\xc2\xa0Data Monthly\xc2\xa0Data Monthly\xc2\xa0Data Monthly\xc2\xa0Data\n\n Training\xc2\xa0Sessions\xc2\xa0\n Received: 0 Received: 0 Opened\xc2\xa0(this\xc2\xa0month): 0 Initiated\xc2\xa0(this\xc2\xa0month): 1 0\n Provided:\n\n Active\xc2\xa0(as\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0end\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0 In\xc2\xa0Process\xc2\xa0(as\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0end\xc2\xa0\n Accepted: 0 2 5 Individuals\xc2\xa0Trained: 0\n the\xc2\xa0month): of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0month):\n Completed\xc2\xa0Final\xc2\xa0\n Hours\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Training\xc2\xa0\n Pending\xc2\xa0Decision: 0 Published\xc2\xa0Work\xc2\xa0 0 0\n Provided:\n Products:\n Priority\xc2\xa0Interim\xc2\xa0\n Outreach\xc2\xa0Sessions\xc2\xa0\n Closed\xc2\xa0without\xc2\xa0Action: 0 Published\xc2\xa0Work\xc2\xa0 0 0\n Conducted:\n Products:\n Accepted\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0 Unpublished\xc2\xa0Work\xc2\xa0\n 0 0\n Prosecution: Products*:\n Prosecution\xc2\xa0Denied: 0\n\n Referred\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0Alternative\xc2\xa0\n 0\n Resolution:\n Cumulative\xc2\xa0Data\xc2\xa0Since\xc2\xa02/17/2009 Cumulative\xc2\xa0Data\xc2\xa0Since\xc2\xa02/17/2009 Cumulative\xc2\xa0Data\xc2\xa0Since\xc2\xa02/17/2009 Cumulative\xc2\xa0Data\xc2\xa0Since\xc2\xa02/17/2009 Cumulative\xc2\xa0Data\xc2\xa0Since\xc2\xa02/17/2009\n Completed\xc2\xa0Final\xc2\xa0\n Training\xc2\xa0Sessions\xc2\xa0\n Received: 0 Received: 0 Closed\xc2\xa0without\xc2\xa0Action: 0 Published\xc2\xa0Work\xc2\xa0 0 0\n Provided:\n Products:\n Priority\xc2\xa0Interim\xc2\xa0\n Accepted\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0\n Accepted: 0 0 Published\xc2\xa0Work\xc2\xa0 0 Individuals\xc2\xa0Trained: 0\n Prosecution:\n Products:\n Unpublished\xc2\xa0Work\xc2\xa0 Hours\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Training\xc2\xa0\n Prosecution\xc2\xa0Denied: 0 3 0\n Products*: Provided:\n\n Referred\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0Alternative\xc2\xa0 Outreach\xc2\xa0Sessions\xc2\xa0\n 0 Cumulative\xc2\xa0Total: 3 0\n Resolution: Conducted:\n\n Cumulative\xc2\xa0Total: 0\n\n\n*These work products were not published because they contain proprietary or other sensitive information that cannot be made available to the public. AmtrakOIGRecoveryActFinancialandActivityRPTNov2009113009.xls\n\x0c'