type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
1.9.2001 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning C 245/7
 Sökanden yrkar att domstolen skall Begäran om förhandsavgörande enligt beslut av franska
 Conseil d’État, tvistemålsavdelningen, av den 28 maj 2001
 i målet mellan bolaget National Farmer’s Union och
 1. fastställa att Förbundsrepubliken Tyskland har underlåtit Secrétariat général du gouvernement
 att uppfylla sina skyldigheter enligt artikel 2.2 i rådets
 direktiv 92/81/EEG av den 19 oktober 1992 om harmo-
 nisering av strukturerna för punktskatter på mineralol- (Mål C-241/01)
 jor (1) genom att vid tillämpning av § 4, första stycket,
 andra punkten, b i Mineralölsteuergesetzes inte påföra
 alla mineraloljor som är avsedda som bränsle punktskatt, (2001/C 245/13)
 Franska Conseil d’État, tvistemålsavdelningen, begär genom
 2. förplikta Förbundsrepubliken Tyskland att ersätta rätte- beslut av den 28 maj 2001, vilket inkom till domstolens kansli
 gångskostnaderna. den 22 juni 2001, att Europeiska gemenskapernas domstol
 skall meddela ett förhandsavgörande i målet mellan bolaget
 National Farmer’s Union och Secrétariat général du gouverne-
 ment beträffande följande frågor:
 Grunder och huvudargument
 1) Kan en medlemsstat, med hänsyn till den normativa
 karaktär som präglar kommissionens beslut 98/692/EG
 av den 25 november 1998 (1) och kommissionens beslut
 Talan avser bestämmelsen i § 4, första stycket, andra punkten, 99/514/EG (2) av den 23 juli 1999 och trots att fristen för
 b i den (Tyska) Mineralölsteuergesetzes, särskilt den tolkning att väcka talan mot dem har gått ut, med framgång
 som har gjorts i kungörelse av Bundesminister der Finanzen åberopa väsentliga förändringar av de faktiska eller rättsli-
 av den 2 februari 1998 (III A 1 — V03555 — 10/97). Enligt ga omständigheterna, som har inträffat efter det att fristen
 denna kungörelse avses med ”förbränning” endast medveten för att väcka talan mot dessa beslut har löpt ut, i fall där
 användning av den värmeutvecklande förmågan hos ett mate- dessa ändringar ger anledning att betvivla att besluten är
 rial, det vill säga hel eller delvis förbränning av mineralolja för giltiga?
 produktion av värme som överförs helt och hållet eller delvis
 till ett annat material. Detta andra material till vilket värmen 2) Var kommissionens ovannämnda beslut giltiga vid tid-
 överförs skall därmed tillskrivas en egenskap som ny energi- punkten för de franska myndigheternas beslut med
 eller värmebärare. Den konkreta användningen av den nya hänsyn till försiktighetsprincipen i artikel 174 i Fördraget
 värmebäraren för uppvärmning motiverar sålunda att det om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen?
 fastställs att den använda mineraloljan måste uppvärmas för
 att producera denna värmebärare. Härav följer att det inte
 förekommer någon ”förbränning” när det material som uppta- 3) Har en medlemsstat enligt artikel 30 (f.d. artikel 36) i
 ger förbränningsenergin själv är utsatt för värme för framställ- Fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen
 ning av en produkt, varvid den ändrar sin materiella beskaffen- rätt att förbjuda import av jordbruksprodukter och
 het. Detsamma borde gälla när lågan kommer i direkt kontakt levande djur på grund av att direktiven 89/662/EEG (3)
 med det material som skall bearbetas eller förstöras. Någon och 90/425/EEG (4) inte kan anses ha åstadkommit någon
 ”förbränning” skall inte heller anses föreligga när en tändlåga harmonisering av sådana åtgärder som erfordras med
 underhålls av mineralolja för att bränna giftiga gaser eller när hänsyn till det särskilda syfte att skydda människors hälsa
 mineralolja blandas i en brännkammare med gaser som skall och liv som anges i denna artikel?
 förstöras, fullständigt bränns upp.
 (1) Kommissionens beslut 98/692/EG av den 25 november 1998 om
 ändring av beslut 98/256/EG när det gäller vissa nödåtgärder vad
 Enligt kommissionen står denna tolkning i strid med den beträffar skydd mot bovin spongiform encefalopati (EGT L 328,
 bestämmelse som anges i ansökan. Det här angivna uttrycket 4.12.1998, s. 28).
 ”används som brännolja” skall tolkas självständigt inom ge- (2) Kommissionens beslut 1999/514/EG av den 23 juli 1999 om
 menskapsrätten. Ordalydelsen, syftet och systematiken med fastställande av det datum då sändningarna från Förenade kungari-
 direktivet talar för att uttrycket ”förbränning” skall tolkas ket av nötköttsprodukter som omfattas av det datumbaserade
 extensivt och att all användning av mineralolja som bränsle exportsystemet får påbörjas genom tillämpning av artikel 6.5 i
 skall anses omfattas av detta begrepp. Det förefaller särskilt rådets beslut 98/256/EG (EGT L 195, 28.7.1999, s. 42).
 vara irrelevant huruvida den producerade värmen används (3) Rådets direktiv 89/662/EEG av den 11 december 1989 om
 indirekt genom en värembärare för att värma upp ett föremål veterinära kontroller vid handeln inom gemenskapen i syfte att
 eller direkt för att sätta i gång eller fullfölja en kemisk eller fullborda den inre marknaden (EGT L 395, 30.12.1989, s. 13;
 industriell process. svensk specialutgåva, område 3, volym 31, s. 216).
 (4) Rådets direktiv 90/425/EEG av den 26 juni 1990 om veterinära
 och avelstekniska kontroller i handeln med vissa levande djur och
 varor inom gemenskapen med sikte på att förverkliga den inre
 (1) EGT L 316, 31.10.92, s. 12. marknaden (EGT L 224, 18.8.1990, s. 29; svensk specialutgåva,
 område 3, volym 33, s. 146).


type: other

text: User Manual Search LG 14D1RB LG 14CD1RBE LG 13483 LG 102909 LG 1010 KYOCERA WILD CARD KYOCERA STROBE KYOCERA SE47 KYOCERA KX9 KYOCERA KX5 KYOCERA KX160 KYOCERA KX1 KYOCERA K132 KYOCERA K127 KYOCERA K10 ROYALE KYOCERA 7135 KYOCERA 6035 KENWOOD KDC-W4044U KENWOOD KDC-W4031 KENWOOD KDC-W3041 KENWOOD KDC-W3037 KENWOOD KDC-BT6544U KENWOOD KDC-4047U KENWOOD KDC-3021 KENWOOD KDC-237 KENWOOD DNX7260BT KENWOOD DNX7200 KENWOOD DNX5240BT KENWOOD DNX520VBT JVC LT-32P679 JVC KD-SC601 JVC KD-S70R JVC KD-G722 JVC KD-G721 JVC KD-G521 JVC KD-G502 JVC KD-G501 JVC KD-G333 JVC KD-G332 JVC KD-G331 JVC KD-AVX1 JBL GTO1204BP-D-LATIN-1 JBL 1500GTI JBL 1200GTI IOMEGA CA-ARCSERVE-11-MANUAL HUMMINBIRD WIDE PORTABLE HUMMINBIRD WIDE EYE HUMMINBIRD WIDE 3D PARAMOUNT HUMMINBIRD WIDE 128 HUMMINBIRD RF35 HUMMINBIRD RF25 HUMMINBIRD RF25 SMARTCAST HUMMINBIRD PLATINUM ID 600 HUMMINBIRD NS25 HUMMINBIRD MATRIX 17 HUMMINBIRD MATRIX 12 HUMMINBIRD LCR 400 ID HUMMINBIRD LCR 2000 HUMMINBIRD 958C HUMMINBIRD 858C HUMMINBIRD 597CI-HD HUMMINBIRD 525 HUMMINBIRD 400TX HUMMINBIRD 385CI HUMMINBIRD 323 HUMMINBIRD 300TX HUMMINBIRD 200DX HUMMINBIRD 110-FISHIN-BUDDY HUMMINBIRD 100SX HTC WILDFIRE-LATIN-1 HTC TYTN II HTC TOUCH-HD-2 HTC TOUCH HD HTC TOUCH DIAMOND HTC S620 HTC HERO HTC HD7 HTC EVO-4G HTC DESIRE-HD HTC DESIRE HTC 7-MOZART HP SCANJET-N6010 HP PHOTOSMART-WIRELESS-E-ALL-IN-ONE-PRINTER-B110E HP PHOTOSMART-WIRELESS-E-ALL-IN-ONE-PRINTER-B110D HP PHOTOSMART-WIRELESS-E-ALL-IN-ONE-PRINTER-B110C HP PHOTOSMART-WIRELESS-E-ALL-IN-ONE-PRINTER-B110A HP PHOTOSMART-WIRELESS-ALL-IN-ONE-PRINTER-SPECIAL-EDITION-B109N HP PHOTOSMART-SPECIAL-EDITION-ALL-IN-ONE-PRINTER-B109F HP PHOTOSMART-PRO-B9180GP-PHOTO HP PHOTOSMART-PRO-B8350 HP PHOTOSMART-PREMIUM-E-ALL-IN-ONE-PRINTER-C310A HP PHOTOSMART-C8180-ALL-IN-ONE-PRINTER HP PHOTOSMART-C5500-ALL-IN-ONE HP PHOTOSMART-C5300 HP PHOTOSMART-C4780-ALL-IN-ONE-PRINTER HP PHOTOSMART-C4700 HP PHOTOSMART-ALL-IN-ONE-PRINTER-B109A HP PHOTOSMART-6510-E-ALL-IN-ONE-PRINTER-B211A HP PHOTOSMART-428-PORTABLE-PHOTO-STUDIO HP PHOTOSMART PRO B9180 HP PHOTOSMART PRO B8800 HP PHOTOSMART PRO B8300 HP PHOTOSMART D7400 HP PHOTOSMART D7300 HP PHOTOSMART D7145 HP PHOTOSMART D7100 HP PHOTOSMART D6160 HP PHOTOSMART D6100 HP PHOTOSMART D5300 HP PHOTOSMART D5168 HP PHOTOSMART D5160 HP PHOTOSMART D5155 HP PHOTOSMART D5145 HP PHOTOSMART D5100 HP PHOTOSMART C7200 HP PHOTOSMART C500 HP PHOTOSMART C4390 ALL-IN-ONE HP PHOTOSMART C4380 ALL-IN-ONE HP PHOTOSMART C4200 ALL-IN-ONE HP PHOTOSMART C4100 HP PHOTOSMART 8750XI HP PHOTOSMART 8750 HP PHOTOSMART 8700 HP PHOTOSMART 8453 HP PHOTOSMART 8450XI HP PHOTOSMART 8450V HP PHOTOSMART 8450 HP PHOTOSMART 8400 HP PHOTOSMART 8250 HP PHOTOSMART 8238 HP PHOTOSMART 8230 HP PHOTOSMART 8200 HP PHOTOSMART 8153 HP PHOTOSMART 8150XI HP PHOTOSMART 8150V HP PHOTOSMART 8150 HP PHOTOSMART 8100 HP PHOTOSMART 8053 HP PHOTOSMART 8050XI HP PHOTOSMART 8050V HP PHOTOSMART 8050 HP PHOTOSMART 8049 HP PHOTOSMART 8038 HP PHOTOSMART 8030 HP PHOTOSMART 8000 HP PHOTOSMART 7850XI HP PHOTOSMART 7850V HP PHOTOSMART 7850 HP PHOTOSMART 7838 HP PHOTOSMART 7830 HP PHOTOSMART 7800 HP PHOTOSMART 7700 HP PHOTOSMART 7450XI HP PHOTOSMART 7450V HP PHOTOSMART 7450 HP PHOTOSMART 7400 HP PHOTOSMART 7100 HP PHOTOSMART 475 HP PHOTOSMART 428XI HP PHOTOSMART 420 HP PHOTOSMART 3313 HP PHOTOSMART 3310XI HP PHOTOSMART 3310 HP PHOTOSMART 3300 HP PHOTOSMART 3300 ALL-IN-ONE HP PHOTOSMART 330 HP PHOTOSMART 3213 HP PHOTOSMART 3210XI HP PHOTOSMART 3210V HP PHOTOSMART 3210 HP PHOTOSMART 3200 HP PHOTOSMART 3200 ALL-IN-ONE HP PHOTOSMART 3110 HP PHOTOSMART 3100 HP PHOTOSMART 3100 ALL-IN-ONE HP PHOTOSMART 2713 HP PHOTOSMART 2710XI HP PHOTOSMART 2710 HP PHOTOSMART 2700 HP PHOTOSMART 2700 ALL-IN-ONE HP PHOTOSMART 2613 HP PHOTOSMART 2610XI HP PHOTOSMART 2610V HP PHOTOSMART 2610 HP PHOTOSMART 2605 HP PHOTOSMART 2600 HP PHOTOSMART 2600 ALL-IN-ONE HP PHOTOSMART 2575XI HP PHOTOSMART 2575V HP PHOTOSMART 2575 HP PHOTOSMART 2573 HP PHOTOSMART 2570 HP PHOTOSMART 2570 ALL-IN-ONE HP PHOTOSMART 240 HP PHOTOSMART 140 HP PHOTOSMART 1218XI HP PHOTOSMART 1215VM HP PHOTOSMART 1200 HP PHOTOSMART 1100 HP PHOTOSMART 1000 Pages« first


jurisdiction: US

text: b'UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PHYLLIS K. FONG\n\n INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n Before the\n\nSubcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food\n and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies\n\n Committee on Appropriations\n\n U.S. Senate\n\n May 9, 2013\n\x0cGood morning, Chairman Pryor, Ranking Member Blunt, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank\nyou for the opportunity to testify concerning the oversight the Office of Inspector General (OIG)\nprovides to Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs and operations. As you know, OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\nmission is to promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in the delivery of USDA\xe2\x80\x99s\nprograms.\n\nOIG conducts audits designed to ascertain if a program is functioning as intended, if program\npayments are reaching intended recipients, and if funds are achieving their intended purpose. Our\naudits make recommendations we believe will help USDA better accomplish its mission. We do not\nhave programmatic or operating authority over agencies or programs; instead, agencies are responsible\nfor implementing our recommended corrective actions. We also conduct investigations of individuals\nand entities suspected of abusing USDA programs\xe2\x80\x94these investigations can result in fines and\nimprisonment for those convicted of wrongdoing, disqualification from USDA programs, and agency\ndisciplinary actions for USDA employees found to have engaged in misconduct.\n\nIn fiscal year (FY) 2012, OIG\xe2\x80\x99s activities resulted in potential monetary results totaling over\n$1.5 billion. We issued 76 audit reports intended to strengthen USDA programs and operations,\nwhich produced about $1.4 billion in potential results. OIG investigations led to 538 convictions with\npotential results totaling over $106 million.\n\nToday I will discuss our most significant recent audits and investigations under our major strategic\ngoals, which provide a framework for prioritizing OIG\xe2\x80\x99s continually changing portfolio of oversight\nwork. We will summarize our remaining work overseeing the Department\xe2\x80\x99s administration of\nAmerican Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) funds.1 Finally, we will conclude\nwith a description of the cost saving actions that OIG is taking in FY 2013 to live within its budget\nconstraints, as well as a summary of the President\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2014 budget request for OIG.\n\nGoal 1: Strengthen USDA\xe2\x80\x99s Safety and Security Measures for Public Health\n\nTo support USDA\xe2\x80\x99s mission to ensure the wholesomeness of the U.S. food supply, OIG conducts\naudits and investigations intended to ensure that U.S. consumers purchase safe, high quality products.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009).\n 1\n\x0cThe Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and Smuggling Interdiction\n\nAPHIS\xe2\x80\x99 Smuggling, Interdiction and Trade Compliance (SITC) unit prevents the unlawful entry and\ndistribution of prohibited agricultural products that may harbor plant and animal pests, diseases, or\ninvasive species. These prohibited products and pests cause billions of dollars in lost revenue and\nmillions in cleanup costs. We found that SITC\xe2\x80\x99s control environment did not include a system of\nmanagement accountability that would foster efficiency, adequacy, or accuracy in achieving its core\nmission and reporting its results. For example, 90 percent of SITC\xe2\x80\x99s market surveys (intended to seize\nprohibited products and investigate their origins) were not successful at either seizing a prohibited\nproduct or in generating a trace back to identify the importer of a prohibited product. For the surveys\nthat were successful in these two areas, SITC did not take further action to stop future shipments for\n96 percent of the higher-risk imported prohibited products it seized. We recommended that APHIS\nassess the effectiveness of SITC\xe2\x80\x99s mission, and the agency agreed.\n\nThe Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and Meat Inspection\n\nOIG has also published several recent audits intended to help improve the quality of inspections FSIS\nperforms at meat processing plants around the country. One audit set out to determine if FSIS has\nsufficient inspection personnel to adequately monitor establishments that process meat and poultry\nproducts.2 Although FSIS requires inspectors to visit slaughter establishments at least once per day,\nand at least once per operating shift, we noted that inspectors did not always comply due to events such\nas inclement weather, traffic delays, inspector delays at prior establishments, and unscheduled leave by\ninspectors. When such unexpected events occurred, FSIS had not established mitigating procedures\nfor inspectors to use during the next scheduled visit to ensure that meat and poultry products were\nprocessed on the missed date in a safe and sanitary manner. We recommended that FSIS develop\nmitigating procedures for inspectors to perform when they miss scheduled inspections at processing\nestablishments and require supervisors to analyze data from followup visits. FSIS generally agreed\nwith our recommendations.\n\nOIG also reviewed how effectively FSIS tests boxed beef items that downstream processors used for\nground beef production and found that the agency needs to re-evaluate its E. coli testing methodology\nas it relates to the downstream processing of boxed beef products. While FSIS tests product\n\n2\n Because FSIS did not track whether establishments missed scheduled procedures due to unavailable inspectors, we were\nunable to reach a conclusion on the sufficiency of FSIS\xe2\x80\x99 inspection staff level.\n 2\n\x0cdesignated as ground beef or likely to become ground beef, it does not sample all boxed beef product.\nSome downstream processors grind such boxes of cuts of beef without sampling it for E. coli prior to\ngrinding. Similarly, \xe2\x80\x9cretail exempt establishments\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x94such as grocery stores, restaurants, hotels,\nbutcher shops\xe2\x80\x94often grind their own ground beef; but unlike Federally inspected plants, FSIS does\nnot sample and test bench trim at these establishments for E. coli. We recommended that FSIS take\nadditional steps to ensure that beef to be ground throughout the production process\xe2\x80\x94from Federally\ninspected slaughter establishments to local grocery stores\xe2\x80\x94be subject to FSIS sampling and testing for\nE. coli, and the agency agreed.\n\nSeveral recent OIG investigations have also highlighted the need for continued vigilance in the area of\nfood safety. In May 2012, a Kansas food company was convicted and sentenced to pay $480,282 in\nrestitution to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for selling misbranded meat products. From August 2006\nthrough July 2007, the manufacturer caused more than 1 million pounds of beef trim to become\nadulterated and misbranded; it then sold, transported, and delivered this beef to Federal correction\ninstitutions located in several States.\n\nOther investigations have helped protect the USDA organic label from individuals who would abuse it.\nIn April 2012, an Oregon man who sold 4.2 million pounds of conventionally grown corn falsely\nlabeled as USDA-certified organic corn was sentenced to 27 months in prison and 36 months of\nsupervised release for wire fraud. This corn had been fed to cattle, and the resulting beef and dairy\nproducts were sold to consumers as USDA-certified organic. Similarly, in November 2012, the owner\nof a large volume organic products company was sentenced in California to 78 months in Federal\nprison for selling fertilizer falsely represented as organic. He was also ordered to pay $9 million in\nrestitution.\n\nGoal 2: Strengthening Program Integrity and Improving Benefit Delivery\n\nOne of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s most important goals is helping USDA safeguard its programs and ensuring that benefits\nare reaching those they are intended to reach. Given the size of the Food and Nutrition Service\xe2\x80\x99s\n(FNS) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)\xe2\x80\x94$82 billion in FY 2012\xe2\x80\x94OIG has made\na concerted effort to oversee compliance within that program.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0cOIG continues to direct a large percentage of its investigative resources to combatting the trafficking\nof SNAP benefits.3 In FY 2012, OIG devoted about 52 percent of its investigative resources to\nSNAP-related criminal investigations, which resulted in 342 convictions and monetary results totaling\n$57.7 million. In a recent example, a north Texas grocery store owner pled guilty to SNAP trafficking,\nwire fraud, and running an illegal money transmitting business. The store owner was sentenced in\nJanuary 2013 to 57 months of imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution of $1.4 million. During the\ninvestigation, SNAP recipients admitted to exchanging SNAP benefits for cash and to using SNAP\nbenefits to wire money to friends and family members in North Africa.\n\nWe also continue to work closely with State and local law enforcement agencies to prosecute SNAP\nrecipients who abuse benefits. For instance, in March 2012, when a Texas store owner was convicted\nof trafficking $1.3 million in SNAP benefits in his convenience store, OIG worked with local\nauthorities to pursue the recipients as well. These individuals used their benefits to buy various\nineligible items including gasoline, tobacco products, and alcohol, and also to play video poker at the\nstore. To date, the local district attorney has accepted referrals of over 100 SNAP recipients for\nprosecution by the State of Texas.\n\nOIG audits have shown that FNS can improve its controls over SNAP. One audit analyzed\nSNAP-related databases at Federal and State levels to identify anomalies that may result in ineligible\nindividuals receiving SNAP benefits. We found that, while FNS and States do have tools for ensuring\napplicant eligibility and detecting fraud, States either do not make full use of the tools, or cannot rely\non the data provided by the tools to take actions related to benefits. While our data mining reviews\nfound a relatively low percentage of potentially ineligible recipients receiving SNAP benefits (just\n0.20 percent), that percentage represents large sums in a program of SNAP\xe2\x80\x99s size\xe2\x80\x94about $3.7 million\nper month. OIG recommended that FNS make full use of the fraud detection tools it already has, as\nwell as strengthen its fraud reduction efforts. FNS agreed to our recommendations.\n\nOther Food Assistance Programs\n\nOf course, SNAP is not the only food assistance program that can benefit from improved oversight.\nThe National School Lunch Program contracts with food service management companies to serve\n31 million children lunch each day, with total disbursements of approximately $11 billion. Our review\n\n3\n Trafficking is the illegal exchange of SNAP benefits for cash or other ineligible items. See 7 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 2024(b) and 7\nC.F.R. \xc2\xa7 271.2.\n 4\n\x0cof 18 school food authorities showed that 11 did not exercise sufficient management oversight to\nensure they received the full benefits of purchase discounts and rebates and the value of\nUSDA-donated foods. As a result, we questioned almost $1.7 million in unallowable costs and\nUSDA-donated foods that could not be accounted for. We recommended that FNS improve its\ncontrols over these contracts and agency officials generally agreed.\n\nAn OIG investigation revealed that an organized group of individuals opened 13 storefront operations\nin Georgia to defraud SNAP and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and\nChildren (WIC). From February 2009 to June 2011, this group illegally exchanged over $5 million in\nbenefits for cash. To date, 16 individuals have been charged with conspiracy or theft of Government\nfunds. In FY 2012, 13 individuals were sentenced to incarceration periods ranging from 9 to\n63 months and were ordered to pay a total of $6.3 million in restitution. Three individuals are\nscheduled for trial in June 2013.\n\nAn OIG audit of FNS\xe2\x80\x99 controls over vendor management and participant eligibility in WIC found that\nthe agency\xe2\x80\x99s management evaluations did not identify and correct significant issues in the vendor\nmanagement processes at two State agencies operating WIC. State agencies in Illinois and Florida\nlacked sufficient controls to track vendor violations for 42 vendors, and ensure timely and appropriate\nsanctions. As a result, these vendors were not disqualified as required by FNS regulations, and could\nredeem an estimated $6.6 million in WIC benefits during their required periods of disqualification.\nWe recommended that FNS improve its controls over WIC, and the agency generally agreed.\n\nFarm Programs\n\nOIG also works to help ensure the integrity of USDA farm programs. A recent audit reviewed how the\nFarm Service Agency (FSA) determines the soil rental rates used for payments in its Conservation\nReserve Program (CRP)\xe2\x80\x94a program that provides annual payments to producers who agree to\nmaintain conservation practices such as establishing grass cover on farms to prevent soil erosion and\nreduce chemical runoff. We found that FSA did not use the National Resources Conservation\nService\xe2\x80\x99s (NRCS) most up-to-date measure of soil productivity, which uses scientific data relating\ndirectly to the ability of soils, landscapes, and climates to foster crop productivity on non-irrigated soil.\nAdditionally, FSA did not use the National Agricultural Statistics Service\xe2\x80\x99s (NASS) statistically valid\nsurvey of county average rental rates for cropland and pastureland, and instead allowed States and\ncounties to submit alternate rates, which were not always supported. OIG questioned these rates and\n 5\n\x0cdetermined that FSA\xe2\x80\x99s rates exceeded NASS\xe2\x80\x99 by about $127 million over the 10-year life of the CRP\ncontracts. We recommended that FSA improve how it determines these rates, and the agency\ngenerally agreed.\n\nThe Risk Management Agency (RMA) and Crop Insurance\n\nOIG has recently completed work on how RMA operates the crop insurance programs that U.S.\nfarmers and ranchers rely on. One of our audits reviewed how RMA reinsures private insurance\ncompanies (known as approved insurance providers (AIP)) when they insure new producers. Such\n\xe2\x80\x9cnew producers\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x94defined as those who have no more than 2 years of history farming a specific\ncrop\xe2\x80\x94are considered higher risk and RMA therefore reinsures the AIPs at a higher rate. We\ndetermined that 154 of 176 new producer-designated crop insurance policies in our sample were sold\nto insured producers who were not eligible for new producer status\xe2\x80\x9457 of these policies resulted in\nindemnities totaling $2.4 million and $910,000 in associated costs. We recommended that RMA\nimprove how AIPs determine if a producer should be considered new or not, and the agency generally\nagreed with our recommendations.\n\nOur review of how RMA is overseeing Federal crop insurance coverage for organically produced crops\nfound that transitional yields offered to organic producers overstated actual production capabilities of\nfarmers producing crops using organic farming practices. We determined that this error resulted in\nexcessive insurance coverage and higher indemnity payments for 35 of 48 crop policies with losses.\nBecause the policies guaranteed excessive yields, at least $952,000 of the $2.56 million that RMA paid\nin indemnities were excessive. We recommended that RMA reduce transitional yields for crops\nproduced using organic farming practices, and the agency agreed.\n\nSeveral recent OIG investigations have also involved farm programs. In one case, RMA and OIG\nworked together to determine that a farmer in Illinois underreported his crop production in 2009 and\n2010, thereby defrauding the Government of more than $500,000. The farmer pled guilty to money\nlaundering and bankruptcy fraud, and was sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment and restitution\ntotaling $1.8 million.\n\nI would also like to draw the Committee\xe2\x80\x99s attention to a particularly noteworthy investigation\ninvolving widespread crop insurance fraud for tobacco in North Carolina, which has resulted in several\ncases. In one case an insurance agent was sentenced to 108 months of imprisonment and $8.3 million\n\n 6\n\x0cin restitution. In a second case a crop adjuster was sentenced to 48 months imprisonment and\n$21 million in restitution jointly and severally with the other subjects of the investigation. OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\nongoing investigation of this conspiracy has resulted in a total of 40 convictions, 28 years\xe2\x80\x99 prison time,\nand $55 million in restitution, to date.4\n\nGoal 3: OIG Work in Support of Management Initiatives\n\nOIG is also working to aid the Department in improving the processes and systems it needs to function\neffectively. Bringing its information technology (IT) systems into line with Federal standards has been\na significant challenge for USDA. Over the last 4 years, OIG has made 49 recommendations in our\nFY 2009-2012 Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) audits to improve the overall\nsecurity of USDA\xe2\x80\x99s systems.5 The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) has completed\naction to resolve 14, and USDA is taking steps to resolve the remaining recommendations.\n\nIn FYs 2010 and 2011, OCIO received about $66 million to fund additional IT security projects to\naddress some of these system weaknesses. OIG reviewed the use of these funds and found that the\noffice did not prioritize its efforts to mitigate IT security weaknesses and accomplish a manageable\nnumber of the highest priority projects before proceeding to the next set of priorities. Instead, we\nfound that several of OCIO\xe2\x80\x99s projects did not meet the purposes outlined in the Congressional request\nfor funding or address the Department\xe2\x80\x99s most critical IT security concerns. For example, OCIO\nexceeded proposed budgets for projects, did not allot sufficient funding to key security areas, and did\nnot completely implement the projects it started. We recommended that OCIO document the\nprioritization of projects Departmentwide, and the agency agreed to take the appropriate action.\n\nReducing Improper Payments at USDA\n\nThe Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA) requires OIG to determine\nwhether USDA complies with IPERA annually.6 For FY 2012, OIG determined that USDA did not\ncomply with IPERA for a second consecutive year. USDA made progress in improving its processes\nto substantially comply with IPERA, but the Department was not compliant with three of the seven\nIPERA requirements, including reporting sufficient estimates for high-risk programs, reporting error\nrates below specific thresholds, and meeting annual reduction targets. By meeting reduction targets,\n\n4\n These results include both cases.\n5\n 44 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 3541 et seq.\n6\n Pub. L. No. 111-204, 124 Stat. 2224 (2010).\n 7\n\x0cUSDA could have avoided making approximately $74 million in improper payments. As required,\nOIG must report to Congress that USDA did not comply with IPERA. For those programs that did not\ncomply for two consecutive fiscal years, USDA must consult with the Office of Management and\nBudget to discuss further actions. We briefed USDA officials on our results, and they generally\nconcurred with our findings and recommendations.\n\nAs part of the effort to eliminate payment error, waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal programs, OIG\nreviewed USDA\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with the executive order on improper payments and found that USDA\nhas made significant improvements in identifying high-dollar overpayments within its 16 high-risk\nprograms.7 However, we noted that the component agencies\xe2\x80\x99 submissions to the Department did not\nalways completely and accurately account for high-dollar overpayments and corrective actions, and\nthat the Department did not submit these reports until 23 to 99 days after the required due date. We\nrecommended that OCFO improve its oversight of this process, and the agency agreed.\n\nAt NRCS, OIG reviewed the steps the agency has taken to ensure that its conservation programs are\nreaching the intended participants and achieving their intended results. We found that NRCS has not\nimplemented a comprehensive, integrated compliance strategy designed to verify that its $3.6 billion in\nconservation programs are being used as intended. Over the past decade, a number of OIG audits have\ndemonstrated that NRCS has long-standing problems with verifying the eligibility of participants,\nparticipant compliance with conservation agreements, and the valuation of easements. We\nrecommended that NRCS perform a risk assessment of its vulnerabilities and focus its compliance\nactivities on areas of program weaknesses, such as eligibility. Agency officials generally agreed.\n\nInvestigations of Wrongdoing by USDA Employees\n\nWhen a USDA employee is accused of criminal activity, OIG is responsible for performing\ninvestigations of any wrongdoing. An OIG investigation found that a former FSA county committee\nmember and her husband conspired to defraud USDA by stealing the identities of unsuspecting parties\nand submitting false and fraudulent claims. Ultimately, they caused FSA to make approximately\n$1 million in fraudulent payments. In August 2012, the former FSA county committee member and\nher husband were sentenced to 52 and 57 months in prison, respectively. In addition, they were jointly\nordered to pay $802,490 in restitution.\n\n\n7\n Exec. Order No. 13,520, 74 Fed. Reg. 62,201 (Nov. 25, 2009).\n 8\n\x0cGoal 4: Improving USDA\xe2\x80\x99s Stewardship of Natural Resources\n\nSince USDA is entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars in fixed public assets, such as 193 million\nacres of national forests and grasslands, OIG performs reviews to ensure that the Department is acting\nas an effective steward of these natural resources. One review found that the Forest Service (FS)\nallocated Recovery Act grants for wildland fire management (WFM) activities\xe2\x80\x94such as hazardous\nfuels reduction, forest health, and ecosystem improvements\xe2\x80\x94without the necessary controls to ensure\nthat the grant funds were both properly accounted for and used for their intended purpose. These\nfindings apply not just to Recovery Act grants, but to the entire FS WFM grant program. We also\nfound that FS did not enhance its existing controls, despite the Recovery Act\xe2\x80\x99s requirements for greater\ntransparency and accountability. As a result, grant recipients charged a total of $92 million in\nunallowable and questionable costs to both Recovery Act and non-Recovery Act grants. Additionally,\nFS staff did not take necessary steps to ensure that the agency met the Recovery Act\xe2\x80\x99s overall objective\nof maximizing job creation and retention in the most cost effective manner possible. FS generally\nconcurred with all of our audit recommendations.\n\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s Oversight of Recovery Act Programs\n\nWe are working to finish our remaining oversight work directed towards ensuring that the $28 billion\nin funds USDA received from the Recovery Act served their intended purposes. Because many of our\nrecommendations concerning Recovery Act funds also apply to regular USDA programs, our work\nwill have lasting importance long after Recovery Act funding has been expended.\n\nRD\xe2\x80\x99s Single Family Housing (SFH) Guaranteed Loan Program\n\nIn order to provide low- and moderate-income people who live in rural areas with an opportunity to\nown homes, the Federal Government guarantees loans and reimburses up to 90 percent of the original\nloan amount if a borrower defaults on a loan. Given increases in such loss claims\xe2\x80\x94from $103 million\nin FY 2008 to $295 million in FY 2011\xe2\x80\x94OIG reviewed the program and determined that RD needs to\nbetter identify loans with questionable eligibility prior to paying loss claims, reduce loss claims when\nlenders improperly serviced loans, and pay lenders only for eligible expenses. We estimate that the\nagency paid about $87 million in loss claims that were at risk of improper payments due to\nquestionable loan eligibility, and paid about $254 million in loss claims for loans that were at risk of\nimproper payments due to questionable lender servicing. We recommended that RD improve its loss\n\n 9\n\x0cclaims process to address these circumstances, and the agency generally agreed with our\nrecommendations.\n\nMost of our remaining Recovery Act projects involve assessing agency determinations of program\neffectiveness through analysis of Recovery Act performance measures.\n\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2014 Budget Request\n\nOIG continues to offer Congress an excellent return on its oversight investment, per dollar spent.\nFrom FY 2007 to FY 2012, the potential dollar impact of OIG audits and investigations has been\n$6.9 billion, while our appropriations have been $508 million. For every dollar invested, we realized\npotential cost savings and recoveries of about $13.66. This calculation does not include the value of\nour food safety work and program improvement recommendations, which are extremely important to\nUSDA\xe2\x80\x99s mission and the welfare of the general public, but are not easily quantified.\n\nWe have also streamlined our operations in an effort to work as efficiently as possible. For example,\nin FY 2012, OIG conducted a functional analysis to ensure that we, as an agency, are tying our\nresources to what is most critical to meeting our mission and are positioned to operate as efficiently\nand effectively as possible. Based on this analysis, we are taking the following steps to build a leaner\nand more effective agency:\n\n \xc2\xb7 offering Voluntary Early Retirement Authority and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments\n (39 employees separated pursuant to these authorities);\n \xc2\xb7 increasing the use of video and teleconferencing to reduce travel costs;\n \xc2\xb7 reviewing leases and office structure, resulting in savings from steps such as office\n consolidation;\n \xc2\xb7 allowing employees to fill GS-14 and GS-15 positions without moving, which has reduced\n relocation costs; and\n \xc2\xb7 shifting Investigations and Audit employees away from headquarters and to the field, which\n puts more resources into activities that directly accomplish our mission.\n\nAlthough these steps have enabled OIG to continue performing its oversight role despite a restricted\nbudget, we note that OIG is presently functioning at its lowest level of authorized staffing since 1963.\nThe availability of staff and travel resources has become a key consideration in determining which\naudit and investigative matters OIG can undertake.\n 10\n\x0cWe ask that you support the President\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2014 budget request of $89.9 million for OIG, which\nwould enable us to provide effective oversight of USDA programs and help ensure that tax dollars are\nbeing well spent. The President\xe2\x80\x99s budget includes modest increases in areas where we should be able\nto produce a high-value return for a relatively small investment:\n\n \xc2\xb7 $785,000 to support statistical sampling that would accurately project the extent of improper\n payments in audits of USDA benefit programs. This multiplies our work\xe2\x80\x99s range and\n effectiveness, especially for very large programs like SNAP.\n \xc2\xb7 $620,000 to fund enhanced audit and investigations oversight of USDA\xe2\x80\x99s international\n programs.\n \xc2\xb7 $1,217,000 for investigative initiatives to address SNAP fraud on the part of both retailers and\n recipients involved in benefit trafficking.\n \xc2\xb7 $468,000 for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency by funding\n Government-wide activities to identify vulnerabilities in Federal programs.\n \xc2\xb7 $667,000 for increased pay costs to support and maintain current staffing levels to meet the\n demands and statutory requirements of OIG. Approximately 86 percent of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s budget\n supports personnel compensation.\n\nThis concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be pleased to\naddress any questions you may have.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c'


type: legislation

text:
 9.8.2013
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 214/7
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) NR 768/2013
 z dnia 8 sierpnia 2013 r.
 zmieniające rozporządzenie (WE) nr 917/2004 w sprawie szczegółowych zasad wykonania rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 797/2004 w sprawie środków mających na celu poprawę warunków produkcji i wprowadzania do obrotu produktów pszczelarskich
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 1234/2007 z dnia 22 października 2007 r. ustanawiające wspólną organizację rynków rolnych oraz przepisy szczegółowe dotyczące niektórych produktów rolnych („rozporządzenie o jednolitej wspólnej organizacji rynku”) (1), w szczególności jego art. 110 w związku z art. 4,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 Rozporządzenie Komisji (WE) nr 917/2004 (2) ustanawia przepisy niezbędne do wprowadzenia w życie krajowych programów pszczelarskich przewidzianych w art. 105 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1234/2007. Zgodnie z art. 2 ust. 2 i 3 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 917/2004 działania zawarte w programach pszczelarskich ustanawiane na każdy rok trzyletniego okresu należy zrealizować przed dniem 31 sierpnia odnośnego roku, a płatności dokonuje się w ciągu rocznego okresu realizacji ustanowionego na okres od dnia 16 października danego roku do dnia 15 października następnego roku. W rezultacie państwa członkowskie nie mogą realizować działań w dziedzinie pszczelarstwa w okresie od 1 września roku realizacji danego programu pszczelarskiego do 15 października tego samego roku.
 (2)
 W celu zlikwidowania przerwy w czasie pomiędzy realizacją a finansowaniem działań w dziedzinie pszczelarstwa odnośne daty powinny zostać zmienione, tak aby działania mogły być realizowane przez cały rok.
 (3)
 Wkład finansowy Unii w krajowe programy pszczelarskie ustalany jest w oparciu o liczbę pszczół/liczbę uli w każdym państwie członkowskim, zgodnie z załącznikiem I do rozporządzenia (WE) nr 917/2004.
 (4)
 Zgodnie z art. 109 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1234/2007 państwa członkowskie przedstawiły swoje krajowe programy pszczelarskie i uaktualniły liczbę uli, zgodnie z art. 1 lit. a) rozporządzenia (WE) nr 917/2004. Uaktualniona liczba uli powinna zostać uwzględniona w załączniku I do rozporządzenia (WE) nr 917/2004.
 (5)
 Należy zatem odpowiednio zmienić rozporządzenie (WE) nr 917/2004.
 (6)
 Zmiany przewidziane w niniejszym rozporządzeniu są zgodne z opinią Komitetu Zarządzającego ds. Wspólnej Organizacji Rynków Rolnych,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 W rozporządzeniu (WE) nr 917/2004 wprowadza się następujące zmiany:
 1)
 art. 2 ust. 2 i 3 otrzymują brzmienie:
 „2. Każdy rok realizacji programu pszczelarskiego (»rok pszczelarski«) trwa 12 kolejnych miesięcy od dnia 1 września do dnia 31 sierpnia.
 3. Działania zawarte w programach pszczelarskich, ustanawiane na każdy rok pszczelarski, należy w pełni zrealizować w danym roku pszczelarskim.
 Płatności odnoszące się do działań zrealizowanych w trakcie każdego roku pszczelarskiego dokonuje się w dwunastomiesięcznym okresie rozpoczynającym się dnia 16 października danego roku pszczelarskiego i kończącym dnia 15 października następnego roku.”;
 2)
 załącznik I zastępuje się tekstem znajdującym się w załączniku do niniejszego rozporządzenia.
 Artykuł 2
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie następnego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie stosuje się, począwszy od roku pszczelarskiego 2014, który rozpoczyna się w dniu 1 września 2013 r.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 8 sierpnia 2013 r.
 W imieniu Komisji
 José Manuel BARROSO
 Przewodniczący
 (1) Dz.U. L 299 z 16.11.2007, s. 1.
 (2) Dz.U. L 163 z 30.4.2004, s. 83.
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 „ZAŁĄCZNIK I
 Państwo członkowskie
 Liczba pszczół
 Liczba uli
 BE
 107 800
 BG
 526 014
 CZ
 540 705
 DK
 150 000
 DE
 711 299
 EE
 41 400
 IE
 15 710
 EL
 1 584 206
 ES
 2 459 292
 FR
 1 636 000
 HR
 491 481
 IT
 1 316 774
 CY
 44 953
 LV
 83 801
 LT
 144 969
 LU
 7 804
 HU
 1 088 590
 MT
 3 142
 NL
 80 000
 AT
 376 485
 PL
 1 280 693
 PT
 566 793
 RO
 1 550 000
 SI
 167 000
 SK
 254 859
 FI
 50 000
 SE
 150 000
 UK
 274 000
 UE 28
 15 704 270”


text:
BSP Rechtsanwälte Berlin - Strafrecht - Strafrecht: Sichbereiterklären zu einem Verbrechen Printversion
 Strafrecht: Sichbereiterklären zu einem Verbrechen
 Auch der selbst fest Entschlossene ist daher nicht der Verbrechensverabredung schuldig, wenn der oder die anderen den inneren Vorbehalt haben, sich tatsächlich nicht als Mittäter an der vereinbarten Tat beteiligen zu wollen.
 Das Sichbereiterklären zu einem Verbrechen ist hingegen unabhängig von der subjektiven Einstellung des Erklärungsempfängers, so dass dessen innerer Vorbehalt, die Tat nicht zu wollen, eine Strafbarkeit nach dieser Tatbestandsvariante nicht hindert.
 Neben dem Sichbereiterklären zu einem Verbrechen in der Form des Erbietens ist für eine Verurteilung wegen versuchter Anstiftung zur mittäterschaftlichen Begehung der nämlichen Tat kein Raum.
 Der Annahme des Erbietens zu einem Verbrechen steht nicht entgegen, dass das Erbieten des anderen nur zum Schein angenommen wird.
 Der Bundesgerichtshof hat in seinem Beschluss vom 23.03.2017 (3 StR 260/16) folgendes entschieden:
 Auf die Revision des Angeklagten S. wird das Urteil des Landgerichts Mönchengladbach vom 30. November 2015, soweit es ihn betrifft, im Ausspruch über die Gesamtstrafe mit der Maßgabe aufgehoben, dass eine nachträgliche gerichtliche Entscheidung nach den §§ 460 , 462 StPO, auch über die Kosten seines Rechtsmittels, zu treffen ist.
 Das Landgericht hat den Angeklagten T. wegen Verabredung zu einem Verbrechen des Mordes, die Angeklagten H. und S. wegen Annahme eines Anerbietens zum Verbrechen des Mordes verurteilt. Gegen den Angeklagten T. hat es auf eine Freiheitsstrafe von fünf Jahren, gegen die Angeklagten H. und S. jeweils unter Einbeziehung früher verhängter Einzelstrafen auf Gesamtfreiheitsstrafen von vier Jahren und neun Monaten sowie von fünf Jahren und drei Monaten erkannt. Hiergegen richten sich die jeweils auf die Rügen der Verletzung formellen und materiellen Rechts gestützten Revisionen der Angeklagten T. und S. sowie die auf die Sachrüge gestützte Revision des Angeklagten H.. Nur das Rechtsmittel des Angeklagten S. hat den aus der Entscheidungsformel ersichtlichen Teilerfolg. Im Übrigen sind die Revisionen unbegründet im Sinne von § 349 Abs. 2 StPO, wobei das Rechtsmittel des Angeklagten T. die vom Generalbundesanwalt beantragte, aus der Entscheidungsformel ersichtliche Schuldspruchänderung zur Folge hat.
 Nach den vom Landgericht getroffenen Feststellungen forderte der Angeklagte T. die mit ihm in einem Haftraum untergebrachten Angeklagten H. und S. auf, an dem von ihm geplanten Ausbruch aus der Justizvollzugsanstalt mitzuwirken. Der Plan sah zur Ermöglichung der gemeinsamen Flucht vor, zunächst einen Vollzugsbeamten bei der abendlichen Essens- oder Medikamentenausgabe mit einem noch herzustellenden Werkzeug niederzuschlagen. T. nahm billigend in Kauf, dass der Beamte sterben könnte, und machte das H. und S. gegenüber deutlich. Diese erklärten sich T. gegenüber zur Mitwirkung bereit, hatten dabei jedoch den inneren Vorbehalt, sich tatsächlich nicht an dem Vorhaben beteiligen zu wollen. Sie rechneten damit und nahmen in Kauf, dass T. ihr jeweiliges Einverständnis ernst nehmen und deshalb die Tat verwirklichen werde. Durch ihre Zustimmungen war T. nunmehr zur Tatausführung fest entschlossen.
 Revision des Angeklagten T.
 Die Verfahrensrüge des Angeklagten T. ist nicht ausgeführt und bereits aus diesem Grund unzulässig.
 Die auf Grund der allgemeinen Sachrüge veranlasste umfassende Überprüfung des Urteils hat keinen durchgreifenden Rechtsfehler zum Nachteil des Angeklagten T. ergeben. Näher einzugehen ist lediglich auf die vom Senat vorgenommene Schuldspruchberichtigung:
 Die Feststellungen tragen nicht den Schuldspruch der Verabredung zu einem Verbrechen des Mordes; vielmehr ist der Angeklagte T. des Sichbereiterklärens zu einem Verbrechen des Mordes schuldig. Daneben scheidet eine Verurteilung wegen versuchter Anstiftung zum Verbrechen des Mordes aus.
 Der Senat vermag dem Landgericht nicht darin zu folgen, dass H. s und S. s innerer Vorbehalt im Hinblick auf die Strafbarkeit des Angeklagten T. wegen Verbrechensverabredung nach § 30 Abs. 2 Variante 3 StGB irrelevant sei, weil - so das Landgericht - jedenfalls objektiv eine solche Verabredung vorliege und T. seinerseits die subjektiven Tatbestandsmerkmale erfülle, da er selbst zur Tatausführung entschlossen war.
 Strafgrund der Verbrechensverabredung ist die durch eine Willensbindung mehrerer Personen gesteigerte Gefahr für das bedrohte Rechtsgut. Die Gefährlichkeit konspirativen Zusammenwirkens Mehrerer liegt darin, dass es Gruppendynamik entfalten, die Beteiligten psychisch binden und so die spätere Ausführung der Tat wahrscheinlicher machen kann. Die Verbrechensverabredung ist Vorstufe der Mittäterschaft. Voraussetzung für die Strafbarkeit wegen Verabredung eines Verbrechens nach § 30 Abs. 2 Variante 3 StGB ist daher, dass eine Willenseinigung von jedenfalls zwei tatsächlich zur Tatbegehung entschlossenen Personen zustande gekommen ist, an der Verwirklichung eines hinreichend konkretisierten Verbrechens mittäterschaftlich mitzuwirken.
 Der Angeklagte T. hat sich jedoch nach § 30 Abs. 2 Variante 1 StGB wegen Sichbereiterklärens in der Form des Erbietens strafbar gemacht. Voraussetzung hierfür ist die ernstgemeinte, mit Bindungswillen gegenüber dem Adressaten abgegebene Kundgabe der eigenen Bereitschaft zur täterschaftlichen Verwirklichung eines Verbrechens. Dies kann entweder in der Form der Annahme einer Aufforderung oder - wie hier - als aktives Erbieten geschehen. Der Senat braucht dabei nicht zu entscheiden, ob diese zweite Alternative voraussetzt, dass der Erbietende als präsumtiver Täter seinen Tatentschluss unter die Bedingung der Annahme des Erbietens stellt, oder ob auch der bei Kundgabe seiner Bereitschaft bereits fest zur Tat Entschlossene erfasst ist. Denn das Landgericht hat ausdrücklich festgestellt, dass T. nicht von vornherein, sondern erst durch die Zustimmung H. s und S. s endgültig zur Tat entschlossen war, und dies durch eine rechtsfehlerfreie Beweiswürdigung belegt
 Das Erbieten des Angeklagten T. war ernst gemeint und auf eine Bindung gegenüber den beiden anderen Angeklagten gerichtet. T. erstrebte nicht nur S. s und H. s Zustimmung zur Tatbegehung, sondern sogar ihre Mitwirkung daran. Auf ihren inneren Vorbehalt kommt es in diesem Zusammenhang nicht an, weil das Sichbereiterklären unabhängig von der subjektiven Einstellung des Erklärungsempfängers ist.
 Der Angeklagte T. ist indes nicht wegen - tateinheitlich begangener - versuchter Anstiftung zum Verbrechen des Mordes zu verurteilen.
 Zwar versuchte T. H. und S. zu bestimmen, ein Verbrechen des Mordes zu begehen, so dass eine Strafbarkeit nach § 30 Abs. 1 Alternative 1 StGB in Betracht käme. Durch seine Aufforderung zur Mitwirkung an dem von ihm geplanten Vorhaben nahm er objektiv eine Bestimmungshandlung vor, die bei H. und S. einen Tatentschluss hervorrufen sollte. Er handelte subjektiv mit sogenanntem "doppelten Anstiftervorsatz", der sich einerseits auf das Hervorrufen des Tatentschlusses bei beiden und andererseits auf die Vollendung der Haupttat bezog.
 Neben dem Sichbereiterklären zum Verbrechen des Mordes ist jedoch für eine Verurteilung wegen versuchter Anstiftung zur mittäterschaftlichen Begehung der nämlichen Tat kein Raum. Insoweit ist für die Taten im Vorbereitungsstadium auf die für das Ausführungsstadium geltenden Grundsätze zurückzugreifen, die für das Verhältnis der Anstiftung zur Mittäterschaft maßgebend sind:
 Bestimmt ein Tatbeteiligter einen anderen zu einer rechtswidrigen Tat, die er selbst begeht, so ist er allein wegen der täterschaftlichen Tatbegehung zu belangen. Dies kann aus dem Wortlaut des § 26 StGB hergeleitet werden, nach dem Bezugspunkt des Bestimmens eine fremde Tat ist, so dass eine Anstiftung zu einer von dem Bestimmenden als Mittäter begangenen Tat bereits tatbestandlich ausgeschlossen wäre. Jedenfalls auf der Ebene der Konkurrenzen ist die Anstiftung gegenüber der schwereren Beteiligungsform der Mittäterschaft subsidiär.
 Übertragen auf die entsprechenden Beteiligungsformen im Vorbereitungsstadium nach § 30 StGB bedeutet dies, dass derjenige, der sich selbst zu einem Verbrechen bereiterklärt, nicht auch wegen versuchter Anstiftung eines anderen zu derselben Tat zu verurteilen ist. Der Senat kann dabei offen lassen, ob die versuchte Anstiftung schon auf der Tatbestandsebene ausscheidet oder erst auf der Konkurrenzebene verdrängt wird.
 Der Senat ändert infolgedessen den den Angeklagten T. betreffenden Schuldspruch in analoger Anwendung des § 354 Abs. 1 StPO in das Sichbereiterklären zu einem Verbrechen des Mordes ab. § 265 StPO steht dem nicht entgegen, weil es sich lediglich um eine andere Tatbestandsvariante des § 30 Abs. 2 StGB handelt und sich der Angeklagte T., der von seinem Schweigerecht Gebrauch gemacht hat, hiergegen nicht anders hätte verteidigen können.
 Der Strafausspruch ist unter den gegebenen Umständen von der Schuldspruchänderung nicht betroffen. Die Strafe für das Sichbereiterklären zu einem Verbrechen des Mordes ist demselben Strafrahmen zu entnehmen wie für die Verabredung hierzu.
 Entgegen dem Antrag des Generalbundesanwalts erweist sich die Verurteilung nach § 30 Abs. 2 Variante 2 StGB wegen Annahme eines Anerbietens zum Verbrechen des Mordes auf der Grundlage der Feststellungen als zutreffend.
 Diese Variante des § 30 Abs. 2 StGB setzt - als ein Sonderfall der versuchten Anstiftung - voraus, dass der Täter objektiv das Erbieten eines anderen zur Begehung eines Verbrechens annimmt und subjektiv mit doppeltem Anstiftervorsatz, jedenfalls in Form des dolus eventualis, handelt. Für den Vorsatz genügt, dass der Annehmende damit rechnet, der präsumtive Täter werde seine Erklärung ernst nehmen und ihr entsprechend handeln, und dies billigt. Hat der Annehmende diese Vorstellung, entfällt sein Vorsatz nicht dadurch, dass er die Annahme des Erbietens des anderen nur zum Schein erklärt.
 Durch die Vorspiegelung seiner Bereitschaft zur Mitwirkung an dem Fluchtvorhaben nahm H. T. s Erbieten zur Begehung eines Mordes objektiv an. Aus den in der Antragsschrift des Generalbundesanwalts dargelegten Gründen lässt sich dem Gesamtzusammenhang der Urteilsgründe noch mit ausreichender Klarheit entnehmen, dass er dabei die Möglichkeit erkannte und billigte, auf Grund seiner Zustimmung werde T. den endgültigen Entschluss zur Durchführung der Tat fassen und diese dem Plan entsprechend ausführen. Der Vorsatz des H. umfasste dabei auch diejenigen Umstände, die im Fall des Todeseintritts - von welchem er wusste, dass er T. gleichgültig war - die Bewertung der Tat als heimtückisch begangener Mord getragen hätten. Dem Vorsatz des H. steht nicht entgegen, dass er etwa davon ausgegangen wäre, falls er nicht mitwirke, hindere dies das Niederschlagen eines Vollzugsbeamten. Vielmehr nahm er an, der Plan könne auch ohne sein Zutun verwirklicht werden. Das gilt umso mehr, als auch S., dessen innerer Vorbehalt H. nicht bekannt war, die eigene Mitwirkungsbereitschaft vorspiegelte.
 Die vom Generalbundesanwalt beantragte Schuldspruchberichtigung in ein Sichbereiterklären zu einem Verbrechen des Mordes hindert den Senat nicht an der uneingeschränkten Verwerfung des Rechtsmittels gemäß § 349 Abs. 2 StPO. Die Änderung wäre nicht zu Gunsten des Angeklagten H. vorzunehmen gewesen.
 Durch die zu Unrecht vorgenommene nachträgliche Gesamtstrafenbildung ist der Angeklagte H., wie der Generalbundesanwalt in seiner Antragsschrift zutreffend ausgeführt hat, nicht beschwert.
 Die Verfahrensrüge des Angeklagten S. ist ebenfalls nicht ausgeführt und schon aus diesem Grund unzulässig.
 Seine Sachrüge ist insoweit unbegründet, als es den Schuldspruch und die wegen der abgeurteilten Tat verhängte Freiheitsstrafe betrifft. Hinsichtlich der - zutreffenden - Verurteilung wegen Annahme eines Anerbietens zu einem Verbrechen des Mordes gilt das für den Angeklagten H. Ausgeführte entsprechend. Soweit der Angeklagte S. im Einzelnen die Zumessung der Einzelstrafe beanstandet, dringt die Sachrüge aus den in der Antragsschrift des Generalbundesanwalts genannten Gründen nicht durch.
 „Der Ausspruch über die Gesamtstrafe kann indes keinen Bestand haben, weil entgegen § 55 Abs. 1 Satz 1 StGB die Rechtskraft des Urteils des Landgerichts Mönchengladbach vom 27. November 2014 nicht festgestellt ist oder sich sonst aus den Urteilsgründen erschließt und es sich auch nicht von selbst versteht, dass dieses Urteil bereits in Rechtskraft erwachsen ist. Der Aufhebung von Feststellungen bedarf es nicht, da diese von dem Rechtsfehler nicht betroffen sind."
 Strafrecht: Suizid durch Opfer der Nachstellung
 Letztes Update 28.06.2017 | Copyright© RA Dirk Streifler 2017 |