type: other

text:
5As139/2014
 5 As 139/2014-21
 Nejvy11í správní soud rozhodl v senátu slo3⁄4eném z pøedsedkynì JUDr. Lenky Matyá1ové a soudcù Mgr. Jitky Zavøelové a Mgr. Ondøeje Mrákoty v právní vìci 3⁄4alobce: Mgr. A. H., proti 3⁄4alovanému: Krajský úøad Jihomoravského kraje, se sídlem ®erotínovo nám. 3/5, 601 82 Brno, o 3⁄4alobì proti rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného ze dne 18. 3. 2013, è. j. JMK 11436/2013, sp. zn. S-JMK 11436/2013 OSP, v øízení o kasaèní stí3⁄4nosti 3⁄4alovaného proti rozsudku Krajského soudu v Brnì ze dne 30. 7. 2014, è. j. 41 A 29/2013-67,
 Rozsudek Krajského soudu v Brnì ze dne 30. 7. 2014, è. j. 41 A 29/2013-67, s e z r u 1 u j e a vìc s e v r a c í krajskému soudu k dal1ímu øízení.
 Komise k projednávání pøestupkù mìsta Ti1nov (dále jen správní orgán I. stupnì ) rozhodnutím ze dne 7. 12. 2012, è. j. MUTI 14517/2012/KPP-120/40, výrokem 1. pod bodem a) zastavila podle § 76 odst. 1 písm. a) zákona è. 200/1990 Sb., o pøestupcích, ve znìní pozdìj1ích pøedpisù (dále jen zákon o pøestupcích) øízení ve vìci pøestupkù proti obèanskému sou3⁄4ití podle § 49 odst. 1 písm. a) zákona o pøestupcích, kterých se mìla dopustit D. D., nar. X, trvale bytem ®. X (dále jen obvinìná ), ublí3⁄4ením na cti 3⁄4alobce tím, 3⁄4e ho ve dnech 24. 5. 2012 okolo 07:30 hod. na komunikaci p. è. 1087/27 v k. ú. ®., 3. 6. 2012 okolo 08:00 hod. na hranici pozemkù p. è. 1087/28 a 1087/32 v k. ú. ®., 23. 8. 2012 okolo 19:45 hod. z okna domu è. p. X v obci ®. a 27. 8. 2012 v dobì asi od 18:15 do 18:45 hod. na hranici pozemkù p. è. 1087/1 a 1087/27 v k. ú. ®., urazila neverbálními gesty vztyèených prostøedníèkù, nebo» skutky, o nich3⁄4 se vede øízení, nejsou pøestupkem.
 Výrokem 1. pod bodem b) tého3⁄4 rozhodnutí dále správní orgán I. stupnì podle § 76 odst. 1 písm. c) zákona o pøestupcích zastavil øízení ve vìci pøestupkù proti obèanskému sou3⁄4ití podle § 49 odst. 1 písm. a) zákona o pøestupcích, kterých se mìla dopustit obvinìná ublí3⁄4ením na cti 3⁄4alobce tím, 3⁄4e ho ve dnech 24. 5. 2012 okolo 07:30 hod. na komunikaci p. è. 1087/27 v k. ú. ®. a 3. 6. 2012 okolo 08:00 hod. na hranici pozemkù p. è. 1087/28 a 1087/32 v k. ú. ®., urazila opakovanými výroky èuráku , nebo» spáchání skutkù, o nich3⁄4 se vede øízení, nebylo obvinìné z pøestupkù prokázáno.
 Výrokem 2. shora uvedeného rozhodnutí správní orgán I. stupnì podle § 76 odst. 1 písm. c) zákona o pøestupcích zastavil øízení ve vìci pøestupkù proti obèanskému sou3⁄4ití podle § 49 odst. 1 písm. c) zákona o pøestupcích, kterých se mìla dopustit obvinìná úmyslným naru1ením obèanského sou3⁄4ití vyhro3⁄4ováním újmou na zdraví 3⁄4alobce tím, 3⁄4e na nìho dne 3. 6. 2012 okolo 08:00 hod. na hranici pozemkù p. è. 1087/28 a 1087/32 v k. ú. ®. zakøièela, 3⁄4e ho zabije a jiným hrubým jednáním tím, 3⁄4e dne 27. 8. 2012 v dobì asi od 18:15 do 18:45 hod. na hranici pozemkù p. è. 1087/1 a 1087/27 v k. ú. ®. lomcovala drátìným pletivem oplocení pozemku rodiny H., nebo» spáchání skutkù, o nich3⁄4 se vede øízení, nebylo obvinìné z pøestupkù prokázáno.
 ®alovaný rozhodnutím ze dne 18. 3. 2013 k odvolání 3⁄4alobce výrokem I. podle § 90 odst. 1 písm. c) zákona è. 500/2004 Sb., správní øád, ve znìní pozdìj1ích pøedpisù (dále jen správní øád ) rozhodnutí správního orgánu I. stupnì zmìnil tak, 3⁄4e z výroku 1. bod a) vypustil slova 23. 8. 2012 okolo 19:45 hod. z okna domu è. p. X v obci ®. a 27. 8. 2012 v dobì asi od 18:15 do 18:45 hod. na hranici pozemkù p. è. 1087/1 a 1087/27 v k. ú. ®. a ve zbytku 3⁄4alovaný výrok 1. rozhodnutí správního orgánu I. stupnì podle § 90 odst. 5 správního øádu potvrdil. Výrokem II. 3⁄4alovaný zamítl odvolání 3⁄4alobce proti výroku 2. rozhodnutí správního orgánu I. stupnì podle § 92 odst. 1 správního øádu jako nepøípustné.
 Proti tomuto rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného podal 3⁄4alobce u Krajského soudu v Brnì 3⁄4alobu a krajský soud rozsudkem ze dne 30. 7. 2014, è. j. 41 A 29/2013-67, rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného zru1il a vìc 3⁄4alovanému vrátil k dal1ímu øízení.
 Krajský soud se v rozsudku nejprve zabýval aktivní legitimací 3⁄4alobce a dospìl k závìru, 3⁄4e 3⁄4alobce jako navrhovatel v pøestupkovém øízení v pøípadì pøestupku proti obèanskému sou3⁄4ití podle § 49 odst. 1 písm. a) zákona o pøestupcích není nadán aktivní 3⁄4alobní legitimací podle § 65 odst. 1 s. ø. s. Dovodil v1ak, 3⁄4e 3⁄4alobci pøíslu1í aktivní 3⁄4alobní legitimace podle § 65 odst. 2 s. ø. s. V 3⁄4alobì tudí3⁄4 má právo namítat zkrácení na svých procesních právech, která jsou mu pøiznána zákonem o pøestupcích a správním øádem, pøièem3⁄4 takové zkrácení na právech musí mít za následek nezákonné rozhodnutí. Dodal, 3⁄4e v posuzované vìci tak napøíklad 3⁄4alobci svìdèí právo na to, aby správní orgán zjistil pøesnì a úplnì skuteèný stav vìci, aby rozhodnutí správního orgánu vycházelo ze skutkového stavu, který má oporu ve spisech nebo aby rozhodnutí správního orgánu bylo øádnì odùvodnìno.
 Na to se krajský soud zabýval otázkou, zda gesto spoèívající ve vztyèení prostøedníkù obvinìnou dne 24. 5. 2012 adresované 3⁄4alobci lze hodnotit jako obranné jednání dle § 2 odst. 2 písm. a) zákon o pøestupcích, kterému mìlo pøedcházet jednání 3⁄4alobce. Dospìl k závìru, 3⁄4e nikoli, co3⁄4 odùvodnil tím, 3⁄4e podstatou nutné obrany je odvracení útoku na spoleèenské vztahy chránìné zákonem, a to èinem, který by jinak byl pøestupkem namíøeným proti samotnému útoèníkovi. V daném pøípadì v1ak není zøejmé, která z hodnot chránìných zákonem o pøestupcích mìla být jednáním 3⁄4alobce (fotografováním 3⁄4alobkynì a vyhro3⁄4ováním, 3⁄4e bude udána na sociálce ) ohro3⁄4ena. Navíc v1ak krajský soud dodal, 3⁄4e i v pøípadì, 3⁄4e by jednáním 3⁄4alobce k ohro3⁄4ení nìkteré ze zákonem chránìné hodnoty do1lo, jednání spoèívající ve vztyèení prostøedníku není takového charakteru, aby bylo mo3⁄4né tímto jednáním útok 3⁄4alobce jakkoliv odvrátit. Rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného v èásti, v ní3⁄4 se opírá závìry o nutné obranì, proto krajský soud oznaèil za nezákonné. pokraèování Krajský soud se v návaznosti na 3⁄4alobní námitku týkající se existence podmínek zastavení øízení ohlednì skutku ze dne 3. 6. 2012 shledal rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného v této èásti nepøezkoumatelné, nebo» 3⁄4alovaný v nìm uvedl, 3⁄4e v pøípadì daného neverbálního gesta se o pøestupek ublí3⁄4ení na cti podle § 49 odst. 1 písm. a) zákona o pøestupcích jedná, vùbec se ji3⁄4 nevyjádøil k tomu, zda podle jeho názoru i v tomto pøípadì obvinìná jednala v nutné obranì, av1ak výrok 1. bod a) rozhodnutí správního orgánu I. stupnì. Krajský soud tedy dospìl k závìru, 3⁄4e není z logiky vìci mo3⁄4né za této situace øízení ve vìci pøestupku ze dne 3. 6. 2012 spoèívajícího v tìchto gestech zastavit podle § 76 odst. 1 písm. a) zákona o pøestupcích (tj. z dùvodu, 3⁄4e skutek, o nìm3⁄4 se vede øízení, není pøestupkem), ale nanejvý1 podle § 76 odst. 1 písm. c), tedy z dùvodu, 3⁄4e spáchání skutku, o nìm3⁄4 se vede øízení, nebylo obvinìné z pøestupkù prokázáno. Tento závìr, který vyplývá z odùvodnìní rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného, je ov1em v rozporu s výrokem 1. bod a) rozhodnutí správního orgánu I. stupnì (resp. výroku I. rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného). Jasno do toho, jakým zpùsobem ohlednì skutku ze dne 3. 6. 2012 spáchaného obvinìnou neverbálními gesty mìl 3⁄4alovaný v úmyslu rozhodnout, podle krajského soudu nevná1í ani zbývající èást odùvodnìní 3⁄4alobou napadeného rozhodnutí, kde 3⁄4alovaný uvádí, 3⁄4e souhlasí s rozhodnutím správního orgánu I. stupnì ohlednì skutkù ze dne 3. 6. 2012 (tedy s tím, 3⁄4e spáchání skutku, o nìm3⁄4 se vede øízení, nebylo obvinìné z pøestupku prokázáno), a to i pokud jde o skutek, je3⁄4 mìl být spáchán tohoto dne neverbálním gestem vztyèených prostøedníkù, o nìm3⁄4 bylo øízení zastaveno dle § 76 odst. 1 písm. a) zákona o pøestupcích. Z rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného jako celku (tzn. z výroku a odùvodnìní) tedy podle krajského soudu nelze jednoznaènì seznat, zda v pøípadì øízení o skutku ze dne 3. 6. 2012 spoèívajícím v neverbálních gestech bylo øízení zastaveno podle § 76 odst. 1 písm. a) zákona o pøestupcích (tomuto závìru odpovídá výrok, ale nikoli odùvodnìní), anebo podle § 76 odst. 1 písm. c) tého3⁄4 zákona (tomuto závìru spí1e odpovídá odùvodnìní, ale nikoli výrok). Na základì tìchto skuteèností krajský soud shledal rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného nepøezkoumatelné pro nesrozumitelnost.
 Proti tomuto rozsudku podal 3⁄4alovaný (stì3⁄4ovatel) kasaèní stí3⁄4nost, kterou opírá o dùvod podle § 103 odst. 1 písm. a) s. ø. s., tedy namítá nezákonnost spoèívající v nesprávném posouzení právní otázky krajským soudem v pøedcházejícím øízení a § 103 odst. 1 písm. c) s. ø. s., tedy namítá zmateènost øízení pøed krajským soudem spoèívající v tom, 3⁄4e chybìly podmínky øízení.
 Stì3⁄4ovatel brojí proti závìru krajského soudu, 3⁄4e 3⁄4alobci pøíslu1í aktivní 3⁄4alobní legitimace dle § 65 odst. 2 s. ø. s. ®alobce podle stì3⁄4ovatele v 3⁄4alobì netvrdí, 3⁄4e by postupem správního orgánu byl zkrácen na svých procesních právech, ale pouze polemizuje s právním názorem stì3⁄4ovatele. Námitka nesprávného hodnocení právní otázky pøíslu1ející pouze 3⁄4alobci aktivnì legitimovanému dle § 65 odst. 1 s. ø. s. Tuto aktivní 3⁄4alobní legitimaci v1ak 3⁄4alobce nemá, a proto se krajský soud mìl zabývat pouze pøípadnou (av1ak chybìjící) argumentací ohlednì zkrácení 3⁄4alobce na jeho procesních právech. Ani taková námitka by v1ak nebyla dùvodná, nebo» øízení u správního orgánu I. stupnì probìhlo v souladu se zákonem a byly dodr3⁄4eny v1echny základní zásady správního øízení. Dále stì3⁄4ovatel brojí proti postupu krajského soudu, který rozhodl i o té èásti rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného, proti nìmu3⁄4 3⁄4aloba nesmìøovala. ®alobce toti3⁄4 svou 3⁄4alobou napadl celý výrok I. rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného a proti výroku II. tohoto rozhodnutí 3⁄4alobu nepodal. Krajský soud v1ak zru1il rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného jako celek. Stì3⁄4ovatel rovnì3⁄4 brojí proti závìru krajského soudu o nesrozumitelnosti rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného. Uvádí, 3⁄4e ve vìci nebylo mo3⁄4né dospìt k jinému závìru, ne3⁄4 3⁄4e øízení o pøestupku musí být podle § 76 odst. 1 zákona o pøestupcích zastaveno, a to a» u3⁄4 z dùvodù, 3⁄4e skutek, o nìm3⁄4 se øízení vede se nestal nebo není pøestupkem [písm. a)] nebo z dùvodù, 3⁄4e spáchání skutku, o nìm3⁄4 se øízení vede, nebylo obvinìné z pøestupku prokázáno [písm. c)]. K jednání spoèívajícímu v neverbálním gestu dne 24. 5. 2012, k nìmu3⁄4 se obvinìná pøiznala stì3⁄4ovatel uvádí, 3⁄4e správní orgány obou stupòù dospìly k závìru, 3⁄4e toto jednání není pøestupkem, by» ka3⁄4dý z jiného dùvodu. V ka3⁄4dém pøípadì v1ak bylo na místì pou3⁄4ití § 76 odst. 1 písm. a) zákona o pøestupcích. K jednání, k nìmu3⁄4 mìlo dojít dne 3. 6. 2012, spoèívajícímu v neverbálním gestu stì3⁄4ovatel uvádí, 3⁄4e se nejednalo o nutnou obranu, nicménì spáchání tohoto skutku nebylo správním orgánem I. stupnì prokázáno. Jestli3⁄4e je toto gesto urá3⁄4livé, nebylo skuteènì na místì øízení zastavit podle § 76 odst. 1 písm. a) zákona o pøestupcích, ale podle § 76 odst. 1 písm. c) tého3⁄4 zákona. Zámìna písmene zákonného ustanovení v1ak podle stì3⁄4ovatele nemá vliv na samotné zastavení øízení. Pou3⁄4ití právního pøedpisu nebo jeho ustanovení, která na vìc nedopadají je dùvodem zru1ení rozhodnutí správního orgánu, pouze za pøedpokladu mohlo-li mít za následek nesprávné posouzení pro vìc rozhodujících skutkových èi právních otázek obsa3⁄4ných v námitkách. Soud v1ak nezru1í takové rozhodnutí, u nìho3⁄4 je mo3⁄4né bez rozsáhlej1ího doplòování øízení dospìt k závìru, 3⁄4e i pøes u3⁄4ití práva, které na vìc nedopadá, by výsledek øízení pøi u3⁄4ití odpovídajícího práva byl tý3⁄4 (usnesení roz1íøeného senátu roz1íøeného senátu Nejvy11ího správního soudu ze dne 28. 7. 2009, è. j. 8 Afs 51/2007-87, è. 1926/2009 Sb. NSS). U skutkù spáchaným ve dnech 24. 5. 2012 a 3. 6. 2012 slovním výrokem, její3⁄4 spáchání obvinìná nepøiznala a ani jí nebylo v rámci øízení prokázáno, bylo na místì zastavení øízení dle § 76 odst. 1 písm. c) zákona o pøestupcích.
 ®alobce ve vyjádøení ke kasaèní stí3⁄4nosti uvedl, 3⁄4e jak v 3⁄4alobì, tak v pozdìj1ích podáních uvádìl, 3⁄4e postupem správního orgánu byl zkrácen na svých procesních právech. To dokládá citací svého podání, z nìho3⁄4 je zøejmé, 3⁄4e trvá na tom, aby správní orgán zjistil pøesnì a úplnì skuteèný stav vìci a aby rozhodnutí správního orgánu vycházelo ze skutkového stavu vìci a aby rozhodnutí správního orgánu bylo øádnì odùvodnìno. K druhé kasaèní námitce 3⁄4alobce uvádí, 3⁄4e krajský soud byl vázán závìreèným návrhem (petitem) 3⁄4aloby, ve kterém 3⁄4alobce navrhoval zru1ení celého rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného. Stì3⁄4ovatelem uvádìný rozsudek Nejvy11ího správního soudu ze dne 15. 9. 2004, è. j. 2 Ads 11/2004-38, è. 435/2005 Sb. NSS, se podle 3⁄4alobce týká skutkovì odli1ného pøípadu a jeho závìry nejsou aplikovatelné. Ke tøetí stí3⁄4ní námitce, v ní3⁄4 stì3⁄4ovatel bagatelizuje zámìnu zákonných ustanovení, která byla ve vìci aplikována, 3⁄4alobce uvádí, 3⁄4e tímto pøístupem stì3⁄4ovatel zcela potlaèuje právo úèastníkù pøestupkového øízení na to, aby správní orgán pøesnì a úplnì zjistil skuteèný stav vìci, aby rozhodnutí vycházelo ze skutkového stavu vìci a aby bylo rozhodnutí správního orgánu øádnì odùvodnìno.
 Krajský soud rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného zru1il jako celek, tedy jak výrok I., kterým 3⁄4alovaný podle § 90 odst. 1 písm. c) správního øádu zmìnil èásteènì rozhodnutí správního orgánu I. ve výroku 1. bodu a) a ve zbytku výrok 1. rozhodnutí správního orgánu I. stupnì podle § 90 odst. 5 správního øádu potvrdil, tak výrok II., kterým 3⁄4alovaný zamítl odvolání 3⁄4alobce proti pokraèování výroku 2. rozhodnutí správního orgánu I. stupnì podle § 92 odst. 1 správního øádu jako nepøípustné. Stì3⁄4ovatel v1ak tvrdí, 3⁄4e tímto postupem krajský soud zatí3⁄4il své øízení zmateèností spoèívající v nedostatku podmínek øízení, nebo» výrok II. rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného 3⁄4alobou napaden nebyl.
 V úvodu 3⁄4aloby 3⁄4alobce uvádí, 3⁄4e 3⁄4alobou napadá celý výrok I. rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného a také tomu odpovídající výrok 1. rozhodnutí správního orgánu I. stupnì, pøièem3⁄4 tyto výroky pova3⁄4uje za nezákonné z následnì rozvedených konkrétních skutkových a právních dùvodù (3⁄4alobních bodù), které se v1echny obsahovì vztahují k napadenému výroku I. rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného. V petitu 3⁄4aloby 3⁄4alobce navrhuje, aby soud vydal rozsudek, kterým zru1í napadené rozhodnutí pro nezákonnost a zru1í i rozhodnutí správního orgánu I. stupnì, které mu pøedcházelo.
 Na základì takto formulované 3⁄4aloby je tøeba uèinit závìr, 3⁄4e 3⁄4alobce 3⁄4alobou skuteènì nenapadl celé rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného, ale pouze jeho èást (výrok I.). Na tom nemù3⁄4e nic zmìnit ani tvrzení 3⁄4alobce uvedené ve vyjádøení ke kasaèní stí3⁄4nosti, v nìm3⁄4 poukazuje na petit 3⁄4aloby. Ten toti3⁄4 v prvé øadì nelze vnímat izolovanì, ale pouze ve spojení s celým textem 3⁄4aloby. Proto uvádí-li 3⁄4alobce v petitu, aby soud zru1il napadené rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného, je tøeba pod oznaèením napadené rozhodnutí rozumìt rozhodnutí napadené v rozsahu, jak jej 3⁄4alobce v 3⁄4alobì vymezil. Oznaèení výrokù rozhodnutí, které 3⁄4alobce napadá, je ostatnì jednou z nále3⁄4itostí 3⁄4aloby [§ 71 odst. 1 písm. c) s. ø. s.], jejím3⁄4 úèelem je jednoznaèné vymezení pøedmìtu soudního pøezkumu. Nutno dodat, 3⁄4e 3⁄4aloba ohlednì rozsahu, ve kterém rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného napadá, nebudí pochybnosti také vzhledem k uvedeným 3⁄4alobním bodùm, z nich3⁄4 se v1echny upínají k napadenému výroku I. rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného a 3⁄4ádný se nevztahuje k výroku II. rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného. Za této situace, kdy 3⁄4aloba nevyvolává 3⁄4ádné pochybnosti ohlednì rozsahu napadení rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného, nebylo tøeba odstraòovat vady 3⁄4aloby a krajský soud byl oprávnìn rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného pøezkoumat a pøípadnì zru1it a vìc 3⁄4alovanému vrátit pouze v rozsahu výroku I. rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného. Jestli3⁄4e tak neuèinil a zru1il rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného jako celek (tj. vèetnì výroku II.), zatí3⁄4il své øízení zmateèností, nebo» základní podmínkou øízení v soudním øízení správním je existence návrhu nebo 3⁄4aloby (podle toho o jaké øízení se jedná), kterou je napadáno konkrétní rozhodnutí v konkrétnì vymezeném rozsahu. Pokud je takovou 3⁄4alobou rozsah napadení omezen pouze na èást rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného, je tøeba vycházet z toho, 3⁄4e ve zbylé èásti 3⁄4aloba podána nebyla.
 Argumentace stì3⁄4ovatele rozsudkem Nejvy11ího správního soudu ze dne 15. 9. 2004, è. j. 2 Ads 11/2004-38, è. 435/2005 Sb. NSS, kterým byl zru1en rozsudek krajského soudu pro zmateènost spoèívající v tom, 3⁄4e krajský soud zru1il správní rozhodnutí, proti nìmu3⁄4 3⁄4aloba nesmìøovala, je tedy zcela pøiléhavá. Je toti3⁄4 nepodstatné, zda chybí 3⁄4aloba proti rozhodnutí jako celku nebo jen 3⁄4aloba proti nìkterému z výrokù rozhodnutí. Nutno zdùraznit, 3⁄4e uvedené závìry platí pro výroky samostatné a vzájemnì nepodmínìné, co3⁄4 je pøípad souzené vìci.
 Tato stí3⁄4ní námitka je tedy dùvodná, pøièem3⁄4 uvedená vada øízení pøed krajským soudem je nutnì dùvodem pro zru1ení kasaèní stí3⁄4ností napadeného rozsudku krajského soudu.
 Pro úplnost Nejvy11í správní soud poznamenává, 3⁄4e i pokud by petit 3⁄4aloby vylo3⁄4il tak, jak tvrdí 3⁄4alobce ve vyjádøení ke kasaèní stí3⁄4nosti, tj. 3⁄4e ji3⁄4 v 3⁄4alobì navrhoval zru1ení celého rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného, nemohlo by zru1ení rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného jako celku obstát, nebo» pro takový výrok by v rozsudku krajského soudu chybìly dùvody a rozsudek by z tohoto dùvodu byl nepøezkoumatelný pro nedostatek dùvodù. Tyto dùvody by pøitom krajský soud po zru1ení jeho rozsudku Nejvy11ím správním soudem mohl stì3⁄4í doplnit, nebo» jak ji3⁄4 bylo shora uvedeno, ve vztahu k takovému návrhu v 3⁄4alobì zcela chybìly relevantní 3⁄4alobní body, které s ohledem na koncentraci øízení plynoucí z § 71 odst. 2 s. ø. s. nelze doplnit pozdìji ne3⁄4 v dvoumìsíèní 3⁄4alobní lhùtì.
 Krajský soud dále uèinil závìr o nepøezkoumatelnosti rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného pro nesrozumitelnost, a to ve vztahu k té èásti rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného, v ní3⁄4 se 3⁄4alovaný zabýval skutkem spáchaným obvinìnou neverbálními gesty dne 3. 6. 2012. Z rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného jako celku (tzn. z výroku a odùvodnìní) toti3⁄4 podle krajského soudu nelze jednoznaènì seznat, zda v pøípadì tohoto skutku bylo øízení zastaveno podle § 76 odst. 1 písm. a) zákona o pøestupcích (tomuto závìru odpovídá výrok, ale nikoli odùvodnìní) anebo podle § 76 odst. 1 písm. c) tého3⁄4 zákona (tomuto závìru spí1e odpovídá odùvodnìní, ale nikoli výrok). S uvedeným závìrem krajského soudu Nejvy11í správní soud souhlasí a odkazuje na nìj. Tato námitka tedy není dùvodná.
 Dùvodná není ani námitka brojící proti závìrùm krajského soudu o aktivní 3⁄4alobní legitimaci 3⁄4alobce. Krajský soud v souladu s judikaturou Nejvy11ího správního soudu (rozsudek ze dne 19. 10. 2007, è. j. 4 As 69/2006-103, www.nssoud.cz) dospìl ke správnému závìru, 3⁄4e navrhovatel v øízení o pøestupku, který lze projednat pouze na návrh [zde pøestupek proti obèanskému sou3⁄4ití podle § 49 odst. 1 písm. a) zákona o pøestupcích], je k podání 3⁄4aloby aktivnì legitimován podle § 65 odst. 2 s. ø. s. Podle tohoto ustanovení 3⁄4alobu proti rozhodnutí správního orgánu mù3⁄4e podat i úèastník øízení pøed správním orgánem, který není k 3⁄4alobì oprávnìn podle odstavce 1, tvrdí-li, 3⁄4e postupem správního orgánu byl zkrácen na právech, která jemu pøíslu1ejí, takovým zpùsobem, 3⁄4e to mohlo mít za následek nezákonné rozhodnutí. Stì3⁄4ovatel v1ak v kasaèní stí3⁄4nosti uvádí, 3⁄4e 3⁄4ádná taková tvrzení 3⁄4aloba neobsahovala a 3⁄4e 3⁄4alobce ve svých 3⁄4alobních námitkách pouze polemizoval o krajní nouzi a o podmínkách zastavení øízení o pøestupcích, tedy vyjadøoval toliko nesouhlas s právním názorem 3⁄4alovaného i správního orgánu I. stupnì. Stì3⁄4ovatel tedy zpochybòuje aktivní 3⁄4alobní legitimaci 3⁄4alobce a má za to, 3⁄4e se krajský soud nemìl 3⁄4alobou podanou 3⁄4alobcem vìcnì zabývat vùbec, pøièem3⁄4 uèinil-li tak, zatí3⁄4il své øízení zmateèností.
 K této stí3⁄4ní námitce je tøeba na úvod konstatovat, 3⁄4e 3⁄4alobci aktivnì legitimovaní podle § 65 odst. 2 s. ø. s. jsou skuteènì omezeni v rozsahu a dùvodech, z nich3⁄4 mohou napadat rozhodnutí správního orgánu. Toto omezení je pøitom soudním øádem správním definováno jako práva, která jemu (3⁄4alobci) pøíslu1ejí . K tomu, o jaká práva jde, se judikatura správních soudù opakovanì vyjadøovala. Tradiènì jsou za taková práva pova3⁄4ována procesní práva úèastníka øízení, tedy napøíklad právo navrhovat provedení dùkazù správnímu orgánu, právo seznamovat se s provedenými dùkazy a právo èinit v prùbìhu správního øízení vùèi správnímu orgánu a jeho postupu vyjádøení (rozsudek Nejvy11ího správního soudu ze dne 27. 10. 2004, è. j. 6 A 49/2002-41, www.nssoud.cz). Vedle tìchto klasických procesních práv jsou do této kategorie 3⁄4alobci pøíslu1ejících práv øazena i práva dal1í. Napøíklad podle rozsudku Nejvy11ího správního soudu ze dne 19. 10. 2007, è. j. 4 As 69/2006-103, www.nssoud.cz, 3⁄4alobci aktivnì legitimovanému podle § 65 odst. 2 s. ø. s. svìdèí také právo na to, aby správní orgány zjistily pøesnì a úplnì skuteèný stav vìci a za tím úèelem si opatøily potøebné podklady pro rozhodnutí a té3⁄4 právo na to, aby rozhodnutí správního orgánu vycházelo ze skutkového stavu, který má oporu ve spisech. Rovnì3⁄4 mu pøíslu1í právo na to, aby se správní orgány øádnì vypoøádaly s 3⁄4alobcem uplatnìnými námitkami i odvolacími dùvody. Tomu Nejvy11í správní soud v rozsudku napøíklad ze dne 6. 8. 2009, è. j. 9 As 88/2008-301, www.nssoud.cz, mimo jiné konstatoval, 3⁄4e procesní práva 3⁄4alobce v sobì zahrnují i právo na to, aby se správní orgány s jejich námitkami i odvolacími dùvody øádnì vypoøádaly; jinak by procesní právo úèasti v øízení bylo zcela holé a èistì formální, a bylo by tak okle1tìno do té míry, 3⁄4e by se stalo vyprázdnìným pojmem. Mìstský soud proto správnì posuzoval, zda a jak se s námitkami uplatnìnými 3⁄4alobcem v prùbìhu øízení správní orgány obou stupòù vypoøádaly ( ) .
 Z obsahu 3⁄4aloby plyne, 3⁄4e 3⁄4alobce brojil také proti právním závìrùm 3⁄4alovaného (v tom má stì3⁄4ovatel pravdu), av1ak tvrdil (a to jak ve vztahu k závìru 3⁄4alovaného o nutné obranì, pokraèování tak ve vztahu k zastavení øízení o skutku ze dne 3. 6. 2012), 3⁄4e tyto právní závìry byly uèinìny na základì nedostateènì zji1tìného skutkového stavu vìci a na základì nesprávného vyhodnocení jednotlivých dùkazù. To je 3⁄4alobní námitka, která 3⁄4alobci s ohledem na shora uvedené bezesporu pøíslu1í, a krajský soud byl povinen se jí zabývat. Jeho úkolem bylo posoudit, zda správní orgán soustøedil v úplnosti v1echny dùkazní prostøedky a provedl jimi dùkazy zákonným zpùsobem. Krom toho byl soud povinen zabývat se také otázkou, zda hodnocení dùkazù, provedené správním orgánem bylo v souladu s pravidly logického usuzování, jinak øeèeno, zda skutkový stav, který byl právnì kvalifikován, skuteènì z dùkazù vyplývá. Pøi tìchto úvahách se krajský soud logicky nemohl vyhnout i hodnocení hmotnìprávních závìrù 3⁄4alovaného, stejnì jako se takové argumentaci nemohl ve své 3⁄4alobì zcela vyhnout 3⁄4alobce. Pokud jde o 3⁄4alobní námitku týkající se skutku ze dne 3. 6. 2012, je tøeba uvést, 3⁄4e tato námitka je zalo3⁄4ena výhradnì na tvrzení o nedostateènì zji1tìném skutkovém stavu vìci, a proto o tom, 3⁄4e jde o námitku, která 3⁄4alobci aktivnì legitimovanému podle § 65 odst. 2 s. ø. s. pøíslu1í, nemù3⁄4e být vùbec sporu.
 Lze shrnout, 3⁄4e dùvodem pro zru1ení kasaèní stí3⁄4ností napadeného rozhodnutí je vada øízení spoèívající ve zmateènosti øízení pøed krajským soudem, nebo» krajský soud rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného zru1il jako celek, aèkoli toto rozhodnutí mìlo být zru1eno pouze v èásti, v ní3⁄4 bylo napadeno 3⁄4alobou (pouze ve výroku I.). Ostatním kasaèním námitkám Nejvy11í správní soud nepøisvìdèil a pro úplnost dodává, 3⁄4e sdílí té3⁄4 názor krajského soudu vyslovený k otázce nutné obrany. ®alovaný tedy své závìry zalo3⁄4il z èásti na nesprávné právní úvaze, kdy o nutnou obranu se z povahy vìci nemohlo jednat, a z èásti je jeho rozhodnutí nepøezkoumatelné pro nesrozumitelnost, jak bylo uvedeno shora.
 Vzhledem k tomu, 3⁄4e námitku stì3⁄4ovatele namítající zmateènost øízení pøed krajským soudem spoèívající v tom, 3⁄4e chybìly podmínky øízení, nebo» chybìla 3⁄4aloba proto výroku II rozhodnutí 3⁄4alovaného [§ 103 odst. 1 písm. c) s. ø. s.], Nejvy11í správní soud posoudil jako dùvodnou, zru1il kasaèní stí3⁄4ností napadený rozsudek krajského soudu podle § 110 odst. 1 vìta první pøed støedníkem a vìc vrátil krajskému soudu k dal1ímu øízení. V dal1ím øízení je krajský soud právním názorem vysloveným v tomto zru1ovacím rozsudku vázán (§ 110 odst. 4 s. ø. s.).


type: wikipedia

text:
Is í an Bhalúcastáin an cúige is mó de réir limistéar geografach sa Phacastáin, a chomhdhéanann thart ar 48% d'achar iomlán na tíre, sé sin, 40% den tír. Thug an daonáireamh sa bhliain 1998 le fios go raibh daonra de thart ar 6.5 milliún aici. Tá an Bhalúcastáin níos boichte agus tá a dhaonra níos ísle ná an chuid eile den Phacastáin.
 San iarthar, tá teorainn aici leis an Iaráin, san tuaisceart leis an Afganastáin agus leis an Sarhad ( Béarla: The North-West Frontier Province), san oirthear le Puinseáb agus leis an Sind. Ó dheas tá teorainn aici leis an Mhuir Arabach.
 Is iad na teangacha is mó sa chúige ná an Bhalúcais(بلوچی), an Bhrahuis(بروہی), an Phaistis( پښتو) agus an tSindis(سنڌي ).
 Is í Quetta (Paistis: ,کوټه Urdúis: کوئٹہ) a príomhchathair agus an t-aonú cathair atá aici, tá a bhailte agus a sráidbhailte eile tearcfhorbartha.
 Is iad na Balúchaigh agus na Paistigh an dhá ghrúpa eitneach is mór; tá an tríú grúpa ann freisin, grúpa eitneach atá measctha, is Sindigh iad den chuid is mó.
 Geilleagar
 Tá an Bhalúchistáin saibhir in acmhainní mianraí; is é an dara soláthraí is mór, i ndiaidh na Sinde, de gháis nádúrtha.
 Cúigí agus limistéir feidearálacha na Pacastáine
 Bhalúcastáin, An


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 23.7.2005
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 C 182/15
 DOMSTOLENS DOM
 (sjätte avdelningen)
 av den 2 juni 2005
 i mål C-68/04: Europeiska gemenskapernas kommission mot Republiken Grekland (1)
 (Fördragsbrott - Direktiv 2001/81/EG - Luftföroreningar - Nationella utsläppstak)
 (2005/C 182/28)
 Rättegångsspråk: grekiska
 I mål C-68/04, Europeiska gemenskapernas kommission (ombud: G. Valero Jordana och M. Konstantinidis) mot Republiken Grekland (ombud: N. Dafniou), angående talan om ogiltigförklaring enligt artikel 226 EG, väckt den 13 februari 2004, har domstolen (sjätte avdelningen), sammansatt av avdelningsordföranden A. Borg Barthet (referent) samt domarna A. La Pergola och A. Ó Caoimh; generaladvokat: D. Ruiz-Jarabo- Colomer, justitiesekreterare: R. Grass, den 2 juni 2005 avkunnat en dom i vilken domslutet har följande lydelse:
 1)
 Republiken Grekland har underlåtit att uppfylla sina skyldigheter enligt artikel 15.1 i Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2001/81/EG av den 23 oktober 2001 om nationella utsläppstak för vissa luftföroreningar, genom att inte anta de lagar och andra författningar som är nödvändiga för att följa direktivet,
 2)
 Republiken Grekland förpliktas att ersätta rättegångskostnaderna.
 (1) EGT C 94, 17.3.2004.


text:
 8.4.2006
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 C 86/32
 Beroep ingesteld op 24 januari 2006 — Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg tegen Commissie
 (Zaak T-24/06)
 (2006/C 86/66)
 Procestaal: Duits
 Partijen
 Verzoekster: Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg (MABB) (Berlijn, Duitsland) (vertegenwoordigers: M. Schütte en B. Immenkamp, advocaten)
 Verweerster: Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen
 Conclusies van verzoekster
 —
 nietig te verklaren beschikking C(2005) 3903 def. van de Commissie van 9 november 2005 inzake staatssteun die de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland heeft toegekend ten gunste van de invoering van digitale terrestrische televisie (DVB-T) in Berlijn-Brandenburg;
 —
 de Commissie te verwijzen in de kosten.
 Middelen en voornaamste argumenten
 Verzoekster komt op tegen beschikking C(2005) 3903 def. van de Commissie van 9 november 2005 inzake staatssteun ten gunste van de invoering van digitale terrestrische televisie (DVB-T) in Berlijn-Brandenburg. In de bestreden beschikking heeft de Commissie de door de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland toegekende steun aan de particuliere omroeporganisaties die aan DVB-T deelnemen, onverenigbaar met de gemeenschappelijke markt verklaard en de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland opgedragen de onrechtmatig ter beschikking gestelde steun van de begunstigden terug te vorderen. Verzoekster wordt in de bestreden beschikking uitdrukkelijk als steunverlener genoemd.
 Ter onderbouwing van haar beroep voert verzoekster drie middelen aan.
 In de eerste plaats stelt zij dat de bestreden beschikking blijk geeft van een verkeerde toepassing van het recht, omdat er inbreuk is gemaakt op wezenlijke vormvoorschriften. De Commissie heeft met name de motiveringsplicht geschonden, aangezien zij niet op verifieerbare wijze heeft uiteengezet waarom in casu moet worden aangenomen dat er sprake is van staatssteun.
 Met het tweede middel stelt verzoekster schending van artikel 87 EG. Enerzijds is zij ervan overtuigd dat er geen sprake is van staatssteun in de zin van artikel 87, lid 1, EG. Anderzijds stelt zij dat, zo er daadwerkelijk sprake zou zijn van staatssteun, die verenigbaar zou zijn met de gemeenschappelijke markt uit hoofde van artikel 87, lid 3, sub c en d, EG.
 Ten slotte baseert verzoekster haar beroep op schending van artikel 86, lid 2, EG door de bestreden beschikking, aangezien, voorzover er sprake zou zijn van staatssteun, die verenigbaar zou zijn met de gemeenschappelijke markt.


type: legislation

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 31966L0404
 Directive 66/404/CEE du Conseil, du 14 juin 1966, concernant la commercialisation des matériels forestiers de reproduction
 Journal officiel n° 125 du 11/07/1966 p. 2326 - 2332 édition spéciale finnoise: chapitre 3 tome 1 p. 0160 édition spéciale danoise: série I chapitre 1965-1966 p. 0141 édition spéciale suédoise: chapitre 3 tome 1 p. 0160 édition spéciale anglaise: série I chapitre 1965-1966 p. 0161 édition spéciale grecque: chapitre 03 tome 2 p. 0021 édition spéciale espagnole: chapitre 03 tome 1 p. 0203 édition spéciale portugaise: chapitre 03 tome 1 p. 0203
 DIRECTIVE DU CONSEIL du 14 juin 1966 concernant la commercialisation des matériels forestiers de reproduction (66/404/CEE) LE CONSEIL DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ ÉCONOMIQUE EUROPÉENNE, vu le traité instituant la Communauté économique européenne et notamment ses articles 43 et 100, vu la proposition de la Commission, vu l'avis de l'Assemblée (1), vu l'avis du Comité économique et social, considérant que les forêts couvrent 21,6 % du territoire de la Communauté économique européenne et que tant la régénération de ces forêts que la création de boisements neufs nécessitent une quantité croissante de matériels forestiers de reproduction; considérant que les recherches poursuivies dans le domaine de la sélection forestière démontrent la nécessité d'utiliser des matériels de reproduction de haute qualité génétique pour accroître d'une façon substantielle la production des forêts et améliorer ainsi les conditions de rentabilité de la terre; (1)JO no 109 du 9.7.1964, p. 1777/64. considérant, en outre, que plusieurs États membres appliquent depuis un certain nombre d'années des réglementations inspirées de ces principes ; que les disparités existant entre ces réglementations constituent un obstacle aux échanges entre les États membres ; qu'il est de l'intérêt de tous les États membres que soient instaurées des règles communautaires comportant des exigences aussi élevées que possible; considérant qu'il convient que ces règles soient applicables à la commercialisation aussi bien entre les États membres que sur les marchés nationaux; considérant qu'une telle réglementation doit tenir compte des besoins pratiques et limiter son objet aux essences forestières qui jouent un rôle important dans les boisements destinés à la production de bois; considérant que, dans l'état actuel de la technique forestière, l'on entend par caractères génétiques le patrimoine héréditaire des matériels de reproduction par opposition aux qualités extérieures de ces matériels ; que les problèmes relatifs à ces qualités extérieures font actuellement l'objet d'une étude qui n'a pas encore abouti ; que, dès lors, la réglementation communautaire doit être limitée pour le présent aux caractères génétiques des matériels de reproduction; considérant que, pour les matériels de reproduction de la Communauté, l'admission des matériels de base et, par voie de conséquence, la délimitation des régions de provenance constituent le fondement de la sélection ; que les États membres doivent appliquer des règles identiques et comportant des exigences aussi élevées que possible pour l'admission des matériels de base ; que seuls les matériels de reproduction qui sont issus de ces derniers peuvent être commercialisés ; que les États membres doivent établir une liste des régions de provenance précisant, lorsqu'elle est connue, l'origine des matériels de base; considérant qu'il convient que les matériels de reproduction non commercialisés soient exclus des règles communautaires étant donné leur peu d'importance économique ; que ne doit pas être affecté le droit des États membres de les soumettre à des prescriptions particulières; considérant que certaines dérogations doivent être admises pour les matériels de reproduction destinés à l'exportation ou à la réexportation vers les pays tiers; considérant qu'outre la valeur génétique, l'identité des matériels de reproduction destinés à la commercialisation ou commercialisés doit être assurée; considérant que les États membres doivent être autorisés à prescrire que les matériels de reproduction introduits sur leur territoire seront accompagnés d'un certificat officiel; considérant qu'afin de garantir que les exigences relatives à la valeur génétique et celles relatives aux dispositions assurant l'identité sont remplies lors de la commercialisation, les États membres doivent prévoir des dispositions de contrôle appropriées; considérant que les matériels de reproduction répondant à ces exigences ne peuvent être soumis qu'à des restrictions de commercialisation prévues par les règles communautaires ; que ces restrictions comprennent notamment le droit des États membres d'exclure de la commercialisation les matériels de reproduction qui ne sont pas susceptibles d'utilisation dans leur territoire; considérant que les matériels de reproduction en provenance de pays tiers ne peuvent être commercialisés à l'intérieur de la Communauté que s'ils offrent les mêmes garanties que les matériels de reproduction de la Communauté en ce qui concerne la valeur génétique de leurs matériels de base et leur identité; considérant que, pour des périodes où l'approvisionnement en matériels de reproduction de certains genres et espèces répondant aux principes de la présente directive se heurte à des difficultés passagères, il convient d'admettre provisoirement, sous certaines conditions, des matériels de reproduction soumis à des exigences réduites; considérant qu'il convient de confier à la Commission le soin de prendre certaines mesures d'application ; que, pour faciliter la mise en oeuvre des mesures envisagées, il convient de prévoir une procédure instaurant une coopération étroite entre les États membres et la Commission, au sein d'un Comité permanent des semences et plants agricoles, horticoles et forestiers, A ARRÊTÉ LA PRÉSENTE DIRECTIVE: Article premier La présente directive concerne les matériels forestiers de reproduction commercialisés à l'intérieur de la Communauté dans la mesure où leurs caractères génétiques sont en cause. Article 2 1. Sont soumis à la présente directive: a) Les matériels de reproduction de: Abies alba Mill. (Abies pectinata D.C.) Fagus silvatica L. Larix decidua Mill. Larix leptolepis (Sieb. & Zucc.) Gord. Picea abies Karst. (Picea excelsa Link.) Picea sitchensis Trautv. et Mey. (Picea menziesii Carr.) Pinus nigra Arn. (Pinus laricio Poir.) Pinus silvestris L. Pinus strobus L. Pseudotsuga taxifolia (Poir.) Britt. (Pseudotsuga douglasii Carr., Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco.) Quercus borealis Michx. (Quercus rubra Du Roi.) Quercus pedunculata Ehrh. (Quercus robur. L.) Quercus sessiliflora Sal. (Quercus petraea Liebl.) b) Les matériels de reproduction végétative de: Populus 2. N'est pas affecté le droit des États membres de soumettre les matériels de reproduction d'autres genres et espèces ainsi que les matériels de reproduction générative de Populus aux principes de la présente directive ; dans ce cas des exigences réduites peuvent être prescrites. Article 3 Au sens de la présente directive on entend par: A. Matériels de reproduction: a) Semences : les cônes, infrutescences, fruits et graines destinés à la production de plantes; b) Parties de plantes : les boutures, les marcottes et les greffons destinés à la production de plantes; c) Plants : les plantes élevées au moyen de semences ou parties de plantes ainsi que les semis naturels. B. Matériels de base: a) Les peuplements et les vergers à graines de conservation, pour les matériels de reproduction générative; b) Les clones, pour les matériels de reproduction végétative. C. Verger à graines de conservation: La plantation artificielle dérivée de matériels de reproduction issus d'un ou de plusieurs peuplements, officiellement admis, d'une même région de provenance et destinée à la production de semences. D. Provenance: Le lieu déterminé où se trouve une population d'arbres autochtone ou non autochtone. E. Origine: Le lieu déterminé où se trouve une population d'arbres autochtone, ou le lieu d'où provient primitivement une population introduite. F. Région de provenance: Pour un genre, une espèce, une sous-espèce ou une variété déterminés, le territoire ou l'ensemble des territoires soumis à des conditions écologiques suffisamment uniformes sur lesquels se trouvent des peuplements présentant des caractéristiques génétiques ou au moins morphologiques analogues et équivalentes pour la production de bois. La région de provenance des matériels de reproduction produits par un verger à graines de conservation est celle des matériels de base utilisés pour la création du verger à graines. G. Dispositions officielles : les dispositions qui sont prises, a) par des autorités d'un État ou, b) sous la responsabilité d'un État, par des personnes morales de droit public ou privé, à condition que ces personnes ne recueillent pas un profit particulier du résultat de ces dispositions. Article 4 1. Les États membres prescrivent que les matériels de reproduction ne peuvent être commercialisés que s'ils proviennent de matériels de base admis officiellement. 2. Les États membres peuvent prévoir des dérogations aux dispositions du paragraphe 1: a) pour des essais ou dans des buts scientifiques; b) pour des travaux de sélection. 3. Le paragraphe 1 ne s'applique pas aux parties de plantes et aux plants dont il est prouvé qu'ils ne sont pas destinés principalement à la production de bois. Article 5 Les États membres prescrivent que seuls les matériels de base qui, en raison de leurs qualités, semblent appropriés pour la reproduction et qui ne présentent pas de caractères défavorables en vue de la production de bois peuvent être admis officiellement. L'admission s'effectue conformément aux critères repris à l'annexe I. Article 6 Chaque État membre établit pour les différents genres et espèces une liste des matériels de base admis officiellement sur son territoire. L'origine des matériels de base est indiquée dans la mesure où elle est connue. La liste ainsi que ses diverses modifications sont immédiatement notifiées à la Commission qui les communique aux autres États membres. Article 7 Les États membres délimitent, pour les matériels de reproduction générative, des régions de provenance définies par des limites administratives ou géographiques et, le cas échéant, selon l'altitude. Article 8 1. Les États membres prescrivent que les matériels de reproduction sont, lors de la récolte, du conditionnement, du stockage, du transport et de l'élevage, tenus en lots séparés et identifiés selon les critères suivants: a) Genre et espèce ainsi que, le cas échéant, sous-espèce et variété; b) Clone, pour les matériels de reproduction végétative; c) Région de provenance, pour les matériels de reproduction générative; d) Lieu de provenance et altitude, pour les matériels de reproduction générative qui ne proviennent pas de matériels de base admis officiellement; e) Origine : autochtone ou non autochtone; f) Année de maturité, pour les semences; g) Durée d'élevage en pépinière comme semis en place ou comme plant repiqué une ou plusieurs fois, pour les plants. 2. Le paragraphe 1 ne s'applique pas aux parties de plantes et aux plants dont il est prouvé qu'ils ne sont pas destinés principalement à la production de bois. Article 9 1. Les États membres prescrivent que les matériels de reproduction ne peuvent être commercialisés qu'en livraisons conformes aux dispositions de l'article 8 et accompagnées d'un document engageant la responsabilité de son auteur et mentionnant ces critères ainsi que les indications suivantes: a) Le nom botanique des matériels de reproduction; b) La désignation du fournisseur responsable du lot; c) La quantité; d) Les mots «matériels de reproduction de verger à graines de conservation», pour les semences de vergers à graines et pour les plants élevés à partir de ces semences. 2. Le paragraphe 1 ne s'applique pas aux parties de plantes et aux plants dont il est prouvé qu'ils ne sont pas destinés principalement à la production de bois. Article 10 Les États membres prescrivent que les semences ne peuvent être commercialisées qu'en emballages fermés. Le système de fermeture est tel que lors de l'ouverture il soit rendu inutilisable. Article 11 1. Les États membres veillent à ce que l'identité des matériels de reproduction soit assurée, depuis la récolte jusqu'à la livraison au dernier utilisateur, par un système de contrôle officiel prescrit ou agréé par eux. 2. Le paragraphe 1 ne s'applique pas aux parties de plantes et aux plants dont il est prouvé qu'ils ne sont pas destinés principalement à la production de bois. Article 12 1. Les États membres peuvent prescrire que les matériels de reproduction ne sont introduits sur leur territoire que s'ils sont accompagnés d'un certificat officiel conforme au modèle de l'annexe II d'un autre État membre ou d'un certificat équivalent d'un pays tiers ; ce dernier certificat précise notamment: a) La région de provenance - ou le lieu de provenance et l'altitude - pour les matériels de reproduction générative; b) L'identité clonale pour les matériels de reproduction végétative. 2. Le paragraphe 1 ne s'applique pas aux parties de plantes et aux plants dont il est prouvé qu'ils ne sont pas destinés principalement à la production de bois. Article 13 1. Les États membres veillent à ce que les matériels de reproduction ne soient soumis, quant aux caractères génétiques de leurs matériels de base et quant aux dispositions prises pour assurer leur identité, qu'à des restrictions de commercialisation prévues par la présente directive. 2. Les États membres peuvent prendre des dispositions pour éviter que la rentabilité ou la production de bois de leurs forêts soient influencées d'une manière défavorable par des matériels de reproduction non appropriés pour leur territoire en raison de leurs caractères génétiques ; la présente disposition ne s'applique pas aux parties de plantes et aux plants dont il est prouvé qu'ils ne sont pas destinés principalement à la production de bois. 3. Dans la mesure où les dispositions visées au paragraphe 2 concernent des matériels de reproduction produits dans un autre État membre, elles font l'objet d'une consultation préalable des autres États membres et de la Commission. En cas d'urgence la consultation se limite aux États membres concernés et à la Commission. 4. Durant une période de deux ans, à compter des dates prévues à l'article 18 paragraphe 1, les États membres peuvent, dans le cas prévu au paragraphe 3 deuxième phrase, arrêter eux-mêmes les dispositions prévues au paragraphe 2 sans consultation des États membres concernés et de la Commission. Ils informent immédiatement ces États membres et la Commission de ces dispositions. Article 14 1. Sur proposition de la Commission, le Conseil, statuant à la majorité qualifiée, constate si les matériels de reproduction produits dans un pays tiers offrent, quant aux caractères génétiques de leurs matériels de base et aux dispositions prises pour assurer leur identité, les mêmes garanties que les matériels de reproduction produits dans la Communauté et répondant aux dispositions de la présente directive. 2. Jusqu'à ce que le Conseil se soit prononcé conformément aux dispositions du paragraphe 1, les États membres peuvent procéder eux-mêmes aux constatations visées audit paragraphe. Ce droit expire, pour les différents genres et espèces, cinq ans à compter des dates prévues à l'article 18 paragraphe 1. Article 15 1. Afin d'éliminer des difficultés passagères d'approvisionnement général en matériels de reproduction répondant aux exigences de la présente directive, se présentant dans au moins un État membre et insurmontables à l'intérieur de la Communauté, la Commission, sur demande d'au moins un État membre en cause, autorise, selon la procédure prévue à l'article 17, un ou plusieurs États membres à admettre à la commercialisation, pour une période qu'elle détermine, des matériels de reproduction d'une ou plusieurs espèces soumis à des exigences réduites. Dans ce cas, le document visé à l'article 9 paragraphe 1 indique qu'il s'agit de matériels de reproduction soumis à des exigences réduites. 2. Les États membres peuvent prescrire que cette indication doit figurer également sur le certificat prévu à l'article 12 paragraphe 1. Article 16 Les États membres peuvent, pour les matériels de reproduction destinés à l'exportation ou à la réexportation vers les pays tiers, prévoir des dérogations aux dispositions de la présente directive. Ils veillent à ce que soit exclu tout mélange de ces matériels de reproduction avec les matériels de reproduction répondant aux dispositions de la présente directive et commercialisés à l'intérieur de la Communauté. Article 17 1. Dans les cas où il est fait référence à la procédure définie au présent article, le Comité permanent des semences et plants agricoles, horticoles et forestiers institué par la décision du Conseil du 14 juin 1966 (1), ci-après dénommé le «Comité», est saisi par son président, soit à l'initiative de celui-ci, soit à la demande du représentant d'un État membre. 2. Au sein du Comité, les voix des États membres sont affectées de la pondération prévue à l'article 148 paragraphe 2 du traité. Le président ne prend pas part au vote. 3. Le représentant de la Commission soumet un projet des mesures à prendre. Le Comité émet son avis sur ces mesures dans un délai que (1)Voir page 2289/66 du présent Journal officiel. le président peut fixer en fonction de l'urgence des questions soumises à examen. Il se prononce à la majorité de douze voix. 4. La Commission arrête des mesures qui sont immédiatement applicables. Toutefois, si elles ne sont pas conformes à l'avis émis par le Comité, ces mesures sont aussitôt communiquées par la Commission au Conseil. Dans ce cas, la Commission peut différer d'un mois au plus, à compter de cette communication, l'application des mesures décidées par elle. Le Conseil, statuant à la majorité qualifiée, peut prendre une décision différente dans le délai d'un mois. Article 18 1. Les États membres mettent en vigueur les dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour se conformer aux dispositions de la présente directive et de ces annexes: a) Le 1er juillet 1967 au plus tard pour les semences et parties de plantes de: Abies alba Mill. Picea abies Karst. Pinus silvestris L. Pseudotsuga taxifolia Britt. b) Le 1er juillet 1969 au plus tard pour les semences et parties de plantes de: Larix decidua Mill. Larix leptolepis (Sieb. & Zucc. ) Gord. Picea sitchensis Trautv. et Mey. Pinus nigra Arn. Pinus strobus L., c) Le 1er juillet 1971 au plus tard pour les semences et parties de plantes de: Fagus silvatica L. Quercus borealis Michx. Quercus pedunculata Ehrh. Quercus sessiliflora Sal. Populus. 2. Pour les semences de genres et espèces résineux, qui ont été récoltées avant les dates fixées au paragraphe 1, les échéances peuvent être prorogées de deux années. 3. Pour les plants, les échéances sont prorogées de quatre ans à compter des dates fixées au paragraphe 1 ou sur la base du paragraphe 2. 4. Les États membres informent immédiatement la Commission de la mise en vigueur de ces dispositions. Article 19 Les États membres sont destinaires de la présente directive. Fait à Bruxelles, de 14 juin 1966. Par le Conseil Le président P. WERNER ANNEXE I Critères d'admission pour les matériels de base A. PEUPLEMENTS 1. Matériels de base - Sont admis de préférence comme matériels de base des peuplements autochtones ou des peuplements non autochtones ayant donné la preuve de leur valeur. 2. Situation - Les peuplements sont situés à une distance suffisante de mauvais peuplements de la même espèce ou de peuplements d'une espèce ou variété susceptible de s'hybrider. Le critère de situation est particulièrement important lorsque les peuplements environnants ne sont pas autochtones. 3. Homogénéité - Les peuplements présentent une variabilité individuelle normale des caractères morphologiques. 4. Production en volume - La production en volume est souvent un des critères essentiels d'admission ; dans ce cas la production en volume doit être supérieure à ce que l'on considère comme la moyenne dans les mêmes conditions écologiques. 5. Qualité technologique - La qualité est prise en considération ; dans certains cas elle pourra être un critère essentiel. 6. Forme - Les peuplements présentent des caractères morphologiques particulièrement favorables, et notamment aussi bons que possible, en ce qui concerne la rectitude de la tige, la disposition et la finesse des branches et l'élagage naturel ; la fréquence des fourches et de la fibre torse sera aussi faible que possible. 7. État sanitaire et résistance - Les peuplements sont, d'une façon générale, sains et présentent dans leur station une résistance aussi bonne que possible aux organismes nuisibles ainsi qu'aux influences extérieures défavorables. 8. Effectif de la population - Les peuplements comportent un ou plusieurs ensembles d'arbres entretenant une interfecondation suffisante. Pour éviter les effets défavorables de la consanguinité, les peuplements présentent un nombre suffisant d'individus dans une superficie minimale. 9. Age - Les peuplements comprennent, dans la mesure du possible, des arbres qui ont atteint un âge tel que les critères énumérés ci-dessus puissent être clairement appréciés. B. VERGERS À GRAINES DE CONSERVATION Les vergers à graines de conservation sont établis de telle sorte qu'il existe une garantie suffisante pour que les semences qu'ils produisent représentent au moins les qualités génétiques moyennes des matériels de base dont dérive le verger à graines. C. CLONES 1. Les points 4, 5, 6, 7 et 9 de la partie A sont applicables par analogie. 2. Les clones sont identifiables par leurs caractères distinctifs. 3. L'intérêt des clones est consacré par l'expérience ou démontré par une expérimentation suffisamment prolongée. ANNEXE II >PIC FILE= "T9000230">


text:
Idén is népszerű volt a Sziget Bíróság | BÍRÓSÁG
 Idén is népszerű volt a Sziget Bíróság
 2015. aug. 19. - 10:52, OBH-Sajto5
 A Sziget Fesztivál keretében megrendezett Civil Sziget idén sem múlhatott el Sziget Bíróság nélkül: a hagyományoknak megfelelően idén is részt vett az Országos Bírósági Hivatal a Fővárosi Törvényszékkel és a Budapest Környéki Törvényszékkel a Sziget Fesztiválon.
 Az Országos Bírósági Hivatal által meghirdetett Nyitott Bíróság program sikerét talán a számok bizonyítják a leginkább: idén első félévben már 24 ezer résztvevő vett részt az országos programban, ami a Sziget Fesztiválon is folytatódott.
 A Sziget Bíróság a Civil Sziget részeként hétfőn nyitotta meg kapuit, hogy 7 napon keresztül – a tavalyihoz hasonlóan – magyar és külföldi látogatókat fogadjon, akik játékos formában, teszteken és kvízeken keresztül ismerkedhettek meg a magyar igazságszolgáltatással: a jogrendszerrel, a bűnökkel és az értük járó büntetésekkel, vagy a drogfogyasztás következményeivel.
 A legtöbb látogató hétvégén érkezett, egy hét alatt közel 1000 feladatlapot töltöttek ki az érdeklődők.
 A hangulatról és a színes, magyar és angol nyelvű programokról az ország egész területéről érkező bírósági fogalmazók és titkárok gondoskodtak.
 A főbb hírekről, képekről és videókról a facebook.com/szigetbirosag oldalon tájékozódhattak az érdeklődők.


type: contracts

text:
 16.9.2010
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 L 244/19
 EEZ APVIENOTĀS KOMITEJAS LĒMUMS
 Nr. 67/2010
 (2010. gada 11. jūnijs),
 ar ko groza EEZ līguma II pielikumu (Tehniskie noteikumi, standarti, testēšana un sertifikācija)
 EEZ APVIENOTĀ KOMITEJA,
 ņemot vērā Līgumu par Eiropas Ekonomikas zonu, kurā grozījumi izdarīti ar Protokolu, ar ko pielāgo Līgumu par Eiropas Ekonomikas zonu, turpmāk “Līgums”, un jo īpaši tā 98. pantu,
 tā kā:
 (1)
 Līguma II pielikums ir grozīts ar EEZ Apvienotās komitejas 2010. gada 30. aprīļa Lēmumu Nr. 46/2010 (1).
 (2)
 Līgumā jāiekļauj Komisijas 2009. gada 14. aprīļa Regula (EK) Nr. 304/2009 par Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 850/2004 IV un V pielikuma grozījumiem attiecībā uz noturīgus organiskos piesārņotājus saturošu atkritumu pārstrādi termiskos un metalurģiskos procesos (2),
 IR NOLĒMUSI ŠĀDI.
 1. pants
 Līguma II pielikuma XV nodaļas 12.w punktu (Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regula (EK) Nr. 850/2004) papildina ar šādu ievilkumu:
 “—
 32009 R 0304: Komisijas 2009. gada 14. aprīļa Regula (EK) Nr. 304/2009 (OV L 96, 15.4.2009., 33. lpp.).”
 2. pants
 Regulas (EK) Nr. 304/2009 teksts īslandiešu un norvēģu valodā, kas jāpublicē Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša EEZ papildinājumā, ir autentisks.
 3. pants
 Šis lēmums stājas spēkā 2010. gada 12. jūnijā, ja EEZ Apvienotajai komitejai ir iesniegti visi paziņojumi saskaņā ar Līguma 103. panta 1. punktu (3).
 4. pants
 Šo lēmumu publicē Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša EEZ iedaļā un tā EEZ papildinājumā.
 Briselē, 2010. gada 11. jūnijā
 EEZ Apvienotās komitejas vārdā –
 priekšsēdētājs
 Alan SEATTER
 (1) OV L 181, 15.7.2010., 14. lpp.
 (2) OV L 96, 15.4.2009., 33. lpp.
 (3) Konstitucionālās prasības nav norādītas.


text:
2005 : január - február - marec - apríl - máj - jún - júl - august - september - október - november - december- →
 24. máj, 2005 (utorok)
 Letecký deň pod názvom Slovak Air Fest 2005 sa uskutoční 4. júna na letisku Sliač. SME
 23. máj, 2005 (pondelok)
 Minister spravodlivosti Daniel Lipšic navrhuje vyššie platy pre sudcov najvyššieho súdu a prokurátorov generálnej prokuratúry. SME
 22. máj, 2005 (nedeľa)
 Prezident republiky Ivan Gašparovič podpísal abdikáciu ministra kultúry Rudolfa Chmela. SME
 V pondelok sa začnú na stredných školách ústne maturitné skúšky. SME
 Katolícka cirkev si dnes pripomína sviatok Najsvätejšej Trojice, ktorú tvoria tri Božské osoby - Otec, Syn a Duch Svätý. SME
 21. máj, 2005 (sobota)
 Informovať verejnosť o možnom nebezpečenstve materských znamienok a slnečného žiarenia je cieľom druhého ročníka Európskeho dňa melanómu, ktorý pripadne na 30. mája. SME
 20. máj, 2005 (piatok)
 Národná rada SR dnes prijala moderný Trestný zákon. SME
 19. máj, 2005 (štvrtok)
 Parlament dnes vzal na vedomie správy o činnosti Slovenskej informačnej služby a plnení úloh Vojenského spravodajstva za rok 2004. SME
 18. máj, 2005 (streda)
 Rodičovský príspevok bude štát od júla tohto roka vyplácať všetkým, teda aj zamestnaným rodičom, v jednotnej výške 4 110 Sk. SME
 Na slovenský trh sa možno dostali nebezpečné divadelné líčidlá na tvár Make-up Sticks. SME
 17. máj, 2005 (utorok)
 Spoplatnenie vysokoškolského štúdia parlament ani tretíkrát neschválil. SME
 Pobočku Všeobecnej úverovej banky v Košiciach vykradol dnes predpoludním ozbrojený páchateľ. SME
 Slovensko má za sebou zlý deň na Európskom súde pre ľudské práva v Štrasburgu. Kvôli pomalým súdom prehralo päť sporov. SME
 16. máj, 2005 (pondelok)
 Líder ĽS-HZDS Vladimír Mečiar zostáva aj po sérii krajských snemov jediným kandidátom na post predsedu strany. SME
 15. máj, 2005 (nedeľa)
 Ak ANO v utorok nepodporí v parlamente zákon o študentských pôžičkách, KDH zváži svoje zotrvanie v koalícii. SME
 14. máj, 2005 (sobota)
 12,5 milióna korún vyzbieral doteraz slovenský UNICEF na pomoc južnej Ázii. SME
 13. máj, 2005 (piatok)
 Slovenskí občania cestujúci do Veľkej Británie môžu na cestu použiť aj občiansky preukaz. SME
 12. máj, 2005 (štvrtok)
 Originál posmrtnej masky slovenského kňaza a politika Andreja Hlinku vystavia od júna v Hlinkovom múzeu v ružomberskej mestskej časti Černová. SME
 11. máj, 2005 (streda)
 Slovensko dnes ako siedma krajina Európskej únie súhlasila s budúcou európskou ústavou. SME
 Traja muži zahynuli v noci z utorka na stredu pri havárii vrtuľníka Mi-24D neďaleko Sabinova. SME
 10. máj, 2005 (utorok)
 Tento týždeň by si mali občania nájsť v poštových schránkach letáky, ktoré informujú o Európskej ústave, stáli 2,5 milióna. SME
 Komunistická strana Slovenska v parlamente nepodporí ratifikáciu európskej ústavnej zmluvy. SME
 9. máj, 2005 (pondelok)
 Poslanci ANO nebudú v parlamente hlasovať za vyjadrenie dôvery ministrovi školstva Martinovi Froncovi. SME
 8. máj, 2005 (nedeľa)
 Najvyšší ústavní činitelia, predstavitelia vlády a parlamentu, diplomatického zboru, zástupcovia Slovenského zväzu protifaštických bojovníkov a odbojári si dnes pri príležitosti 60. výročia ukončenia 2. svetovej vojny na bratislavskom Slavíne pripomenuli pamiatku jej obetí. SME
 7. máj, 2005 (sobota)
 Na kúpeľnom ostrove v Piešťanoch horel v piatok o druhej nadránom jeden z liečebných domov. Požiar spôsobil škodu za vyše dva milióny korún. SME
 Položením kytice k rodnému domu si dnes predseda vlády Mikuláš Dzurinda v Košariskách uctil pamiatku generála Milana Rastislava Štefánika. SME
 6. máj, 2005 (piatok)
 Návrhom skupiny poslancov na vyslovenie nedôvery ministrovi školstva Martinovi Froncovi sa budú poslanci zaoberať v stredu 11. mája. SME
 5. máj, 2005 (štvrtok)
 Redaktor Jozef Kubáni dnes počas nakrúcania televíznej reportáže spadol do rieky Dunajec v obci Červený Kláštor. Prijali ho na oddelenie ARO v popradskej nemocnici v kritickom stave. SME
 4. máj, 2005 (streda)
 Národná protidrogová jednotka rozložila organizovanú zločineckú skupinu dílerov heroínu pôsobiacu na celom Slovensku. SME
 Vláda neschválila povinnosť pre majiteľov reštaurácií stavebne oddeliť priestory pre fajčiarov. SME
 3. máj, 2005 (utorok)
 Nový informačný portál www.infodrogy.sk oddnes poskytuje všetkým drogovo závislým, ich rodičom či učiteľom komplexné informácie. SME
 2. máj, 2005 (pondelok)
 Neznámy páchateľ dnes vylúpil pobočku Unibanky v Bratislave. Odniesol si približne 200 tisíc korún. SME
 Jeden z posledných žijúcich východoeurópskych monarchov, rumunský kráľ Michal I. navštívi v utorok a v stredu Slovensko. SME
 1. máj, 2005 (nedeľa)
 Slovenskí europoslanci hodnotia rok v EÚ väčšinou kladne. Pravda
 Na Slovensku sa oslavoval vstup do EÚ a Sviatok práce. SME
 Udalosti v minulosti
 pozri zoznam mesiacov podľa rokov pre podrobnejší zoznam.
 2005: január február marec apríl máj
 2005


jurisdiction: US

text: b'\x0cDepartment of Health and Human Services\n OFFICE OF\n INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n USE OF HEALTH RESOURCES\nAND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION\n GRANT FUNDS BY ALABAMA\nPOISON CONTROL SYSTEM, INC.\n DURING THE PERIOD\nSEPTEMBER 1, 2001, THROUGH\n AUGUST 31, 2006\n\n\n\n\n Daniel R. Levinson\n Inspector General\n\n November 2008\n A-04-06-01043\n\x0c Office of Inspector General\n http://oig.hhs.gov\n\n\n\nThe mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as\namended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)\nprograms, as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This\nstatutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and\ninspections conducted by the following operating components:\n\nOffice of Audit Services\n\nThe Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides auditing services for HHS, either by conducting\naudits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. Audits examine\nthe performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying out their\nrespective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent assessments of HHS\nprograms and operations. These assessments help reduce waste, abuse, and mismanagement and\npromote economy and efficiency throughout HHS.\n\nOffice of Evaluation and Inspections\nThe Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts national evaluations to provide HHS,\nCongress, and the public with timely, useful, and reliable information on significant issues.\nThese evaluations focus on preventing fraud, waste, or abuse and promoting economy,\nefficiency, and effectiveness of departmental programs. To promote impact, OEI reports also\npresent practical recommendations for improving program operations.\n\nOffice of Investigations\nThe Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations of\nfraud and misconduct related to HHS programs, operations, and beneficiaries. With\ninvestigators working in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, OI utilizes its resources by\nactively coordinating with the Department of Justice and other Federal, State, and local law\nenforcement authorities. The investigative efforts of OI often lead to criminal convictions,\nadministrative sanctions, and/or civil monetary penalties.\n\nOffice of Counsel to the Inspector General\nThe Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides general legal services to OIG,\nrendering advice and opinions on HHS programs and operations and providing all legal support\nfor OIG\xe2\x80\x99s internal operations. OCIG represents OIG in all civil and administrative fraud and\nabuse cases involving HHS programs, including False Claims Act, program exclusion, and civil\nmonetary penalty cases. In connection with these cases, OCIG also negotiates and monitors\ncorporate integrity agreements. OCIG renders advisory opinions, issues compliance program\nguidance, publishes fraud alerts, and provides other guidance to the health care industry\nconcerning the anti-kickback statute and other OIG enforcement authorities.\n\x0c\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nAlabama Poison Control System, Inc. (APCS) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation\nlocated in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Initially incorporated in 1982, APCS was one of two\nState-certified poison control centers providing education, prevention, and treatment\nservices to the citizens of Alabama.\n\nDuring the period September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2006, Health Resources and\nServices Administration (HRSA) awarded $635,432 in financial assistance to APCS\nunder grant number H-4-BMC-00073. The goal of the grant was to, among other things,\nstrengthen APCS\xe2\x80\x99s poisoning prevention and treatment programs and expand APCS\nservices by adding and maintaining additional staff, upgrading equipment, reinstating and\ninitiating educational and outreach programs, and improving public and professional\naccess to those services.\n\nAlthough an independent corporation, APCS maintained a close relationship with the\nAlabama Firefighters\xe2\x80\x99 Personnel Standards and Education Commission (Fire College), a\nState agency that is an organizational component of Shelton State Community College\n(Shelton State). APCS has occupied office space at the Fire College and, during the\nperiod covered by the HRSA grant, APCS\xe2\x80\x99s Managing Director also served as the\nDirector of the Poison Center Division of the Fire College. Most APCS staff members,\nincluding the Managing Director, were State employees paid from State appropriations\nand whose salary costs were charged to Fire College accounts.\n\nIn 2006, State and Federal agencies initiated criminal investigations focused on\nallegations that the Fire College Foundation (Foundation), a separate organization\nestablished and managed by a former Director of the Fire College, had been used as a\nconduit to divert State and Federal funds for the personal benefit of certain individuals.\n\nIn August 2006, at HRSA\xe2\x80\x99s request, we initiated an audit of grant funds awarded to\nAPCS. However, prior to issuance of our audit report, the Department of Justice\nrequested that we suspend our work pending completion of legal proceedings involving\ncertain Fire College officials. As requested, we suspended our audit until August 2008,\nwhen all scheduled legal proceedings had been completed.\n\nOBJECTIVE\n\nOur objective was to determine whether the $535,413 recorded in APCS\xe2\x80\x99s accounting\nsystem as costs allocable to the grant were allowable, allocable, and reasonable in\naccordance with terms of the grant and applicable laws, regulations, and policies.\n\n\n\n\n i\n\x0cSUMMARY OF FINDINGS\n\nOf the $535,413 recorded in APCS\xe2\x80\x99s accounting system as allocable to the HRSA grant\nduring the period September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2006, $406,709 had been\nexpended for goods and services that appear consistent with grant goals and objectives.\nThe remaining $128,704 was not allowable, allocable, or reasonable in accordance with\nterms of the grant or applicable laws and regulations.\n\nThe $128,704 had been transferred to the Foundation, ostensibly to reimburse the\nFoundation for costs it had incurred on behalf of APCS. However, the Foundation had\nnot actually incurred any of those costs. APCS\xe2\x80\x99s Managing Director had simply\ntransferred grant funds to the Foundation from time to time and recorded the transferred\namounts in the accounting records as if they represented salaries, wages, or other costs\nsupposedly incurred for grant activities.\n\nThese transfers of APCS funds to the Foundation were neither isolated incidents nor\nlimited to the HRSA grant. During the period covered by our audit, in fact, the Managing\nDirector transferred $470,000 of APCS funds to either the Foundation or to a Fire\nCollege official who served on the Foundation\xe2\x80\x99s board of directors. APCS provided no\ndocumentation that these payments, of either grant funds or other monies, were necessary\nto maintain or strengthen APCS\xe2\x80\x99s operations or to provide any benefit to the citizens of\nAlabama that APCS was supposed to serve.\n\nIn the OTHER MATTERS section, we discuss recent organizational changes and note\nthat APCS operations are now directed and controlled by Shelton State, that APCS has no\nauthority to obligate or expend funds from any source, and that Shelton State would\nassume responsibility for any future grants related to APCS operations.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS\n\nWe recommend that APCS:\n\n 1. revise its accounting records to show that the $128,704 transferred to the\n Foundation is no longer allocable to the HRSA grant;\n\n 2. prepare and submit Financial Status Reports (FSR) accurately accounting for its\n use of grant funds during each budget period from September 1, 2001, through\n August 31, 2006; and\n\n 3. advise HRSA formally that APCS will no longer have authority to obligate or\n expend funds from any source, will no longer request funds under grant number\n H-4-BMC-00073, and will not apply for any future grant support.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cSHELTON STATE COMMENTS\n\nShelton State Community College now directs both fiscal and programmatic operations\nof APCS. In its written comments on our draft report, Shelton State said that it is in the\nprocess of engaging a Certified Public Accounting firm to prepare accurate FSRs.\nWorking with the Certified Public Accountants, Shelton State intends to revise the APCS\nrecords to show funds not allocable to the HRSA grant and to determine how to handle\nthe non-allowed costs. However, rather than informing HRSA, as we recommended,\nShelton State has informed APCS directly that it no longer has authority to obligate or\nexpend funds and that any requests for future grant funds will come from Shelton State.\n(See the Appendix.) The complete text of Shelton State\xe2\x80\x99s comments is included as the\nAppendix.\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n PAGE\n\nINTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1\n\n BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................1\n Grants for Poison Control Centers............................................................1\n Alabama Poison Control System, Inc .......................................................1\n Alabama Fire College and Personnel Standards Commission..................2\n\n Objective, Scope and Methodology......................................................................2\n Objective ...................................................................................................2\n Scope .......................................................................................................2\n Methodology .............................................................................................3\n\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................4\n\n GRANT COSTS MUST BE ALLOWABLE, ALLOCABLE, AND\n REASONABLE ....................................................................................................4\n\n FUNDS TRANSFERRED TO THE FIRE COLLEGE FOUNDATION.............5\n\n TRANSFER OF GRANT FUNDS RECORDED AS COSTS .............................6\n\n COSTS NOT INCURRED ...................................................................................7\n\n RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................8\n\n SHELTON STATE COMMENTS .......................................................................9\n\nOTHER MATTERS .......................................................................................................9\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n SHELTON STATE COMMENTS\n\n\n\n\n iv\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nGrants for Poison Control Centers\n\nThe Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act Amendments of 2003\n(Public Law 108-194) authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration\n(HRSA) to award project grants to State-certified poison control centers. HRSA\xe2\x80\x99s grants\nprovide financial assistance to, among other things, strengthen existing poisoning\nprevention and treatment programs, improve services and expand access to those\nservices, and develop collaborative approaches between centers.\n\nAlabama Poison Control System, Inc.\n\nAlabama Poison Control System, Inc. (APCS) is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation\nlocated in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Initially incorporated in 1982, APCS was one of two\nState-certified poison control centers providing education, prevention, and treatment\nservices to the citizens of Alabama.\n\nDuring the period September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2006, HRSA awarded\n$635,432 in financial assistance to APCS under grant number H-4-BMC-00073. The\nfollowing table shows the amounts awarded to APCS for each grant budget period:\n\n Budget Period Amount\n\n 09/01/2001 \xe2\x80\x93 08/31/2002 $109,000\n 09/01/2002 \xe2\x80\x93 08/31/2003 116,857\n 09/01/2003 \xe2\x80\x93 08/31/2004 129,387\n 09/01/2004 \xe2\x80\x93 08/31/2005 140,094\n 09/01/2005 \xe2\x80\x93 08/31/2006 140,094\n\n Total $635,432\n\nThe goal of HRSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial assistance, based on grant applications from APCS, was to\nstrengthen existing poisoning prevention and treatment programs and expand services\nprovided by APCS by adding and maintaining additional staff, upgrading equipment,\nreinstating and initiating educational and outreach programs, and improving public and\nprofessional access to those services.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0cAlabama Fire College and Personnel Standards Commission\n\nAlthough an independent corporation, APCS maintained a close relationship with the\nAlabama Firefighters\xe2\x80\x99 Personnel Standards and Education Commission (Fire College), a\nState agency that is an organizational component of Shelton State Community College\n(Shelton State). APCS occupied office space at the Fire College and, during the period\ncovered by the HRSA grant, APCS\xe2\x80\x99s Managing Director also served as the Director of\nthe Poison Center Division of the Fire College. Most APCS staff members, including the\nManaging Director, were State employees who were paid from State appropriations and\nwhose salary costs were charged to Fire College accounts.\n\nIn 2006, State and Federal agencies initiated criminal investigations of certain activities\nrelated to the Fire College. These investigations focused primarily on allegations that the\nFire College Foundation (Foundation), a separate organization established and managed\nby a former Director of the Fire College, had been used as a conduit to divert State and\nFederal funds for the personal benefit of certain individuals.\n\nIn August 2006, at HRSA\xe2\x80\x99s request we initiated an audit of grant funds awarded to\nAPCS. However, prior to issuance of our audit report, the Department of Justice\nrequested that we suspend our work pending completion of legal proceedings involving a\nnumber of Fire College officials. As requested, we suspended our audit from April 2007\nuntil August 2008.\n\nAPCS did not submit annual Financial Status Reports (FSR) to account for its Federal\nfunding during the grant period. However, as of August 31, 2008, APCS\xe2\x80\x99s accounting\nrecords indicated that the organization had incurred $535,413 of costs allocable to the\nHRSA grant during the period September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2006. As shown\nin both HRSA and APCS records, the organization actually withdrew only $367,979 of\nFederal grant funds through the Payment Management System.\n\nOBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\nObjective\n\nOur objective was to determine whether the $535,413 recorded in APCS\xe2\x80\x99s accounting\nsystem as costs allocable to the grant were allowable, allocable, and reasonable in\naccordance with terms of the grant and applicable laws, regulations, and policies.\n\nScope\n\nBecause APCS had not submitted annual FSRs to account for grant revenues and\nexpenses, we based our audit on the $535,413 recorded in APCS\xe2\x80\x99s accounting system as\nallocable to the HRSA grant during the period September 1, 2001, through August 31,\n2006.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0cWe used OMB Circular A-122 \xe2\x80\x9cCost Principles for Non Profit Organizations,\xe2\x80\x9d codified\nat 2 CFR part 230 as criteria to determine the allowability of costs recorded in APCS\xe2\x80\x99s\naccounting system as allocable to the HRSA grant. We used OMB Circular A-110\n\xe2\x80\x9cUniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of\nHigher Learning, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations,\xe2\x80\x9d codified at 2 CFR part\n215 as criteria to evaluate the adequacy of APCS\xe2\x80\x99s financial management systems and\nrelated internal controls.\n\nMethodology\n\nWe performed most of our audit fieldwork from August 2006 through April 2007 at\nAPCS\xe2\x80\x99s offices in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. To accomplish our audit objective, we:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 met with APCS and Fire College management officials to gain a proper\n understanding of APCS\xe2\x80\x99s organizational structure, program operations, financial\n management systems and related internal controls, and the relationship between\n APCS, the Fire College, and the Foundation;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 reviewed APCS\xe2\x80\x99s grant applications and HRSA\xe2\x80\x99s award documents for each year\n of the audit period;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 analyzed APCS\xe2\x80\x99s accounting records, reports, and other documents related to\n revenues and expenses both from the HRSA grant and from other sources during\n the audit period; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 examined supporting documentation for the recorded revenues and expenses\n including invoices, receipts, bank statements, and cancelled checks.\n\nWe met with APCS\xe2\x80\x99s Managing Director and Shelton State representatives in August\n2008 to verify the tentative findings and conclusions resulting from our earlier work and\nensure a proper understanding of APCS\xe2\x80\x99s current organizational structure and program\noperations. We present current information from the APCS Managing Director in the\nOTHER MATTERS section of our report.\n\nWe conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government\nauditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain\nsufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and\nconclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained\nprovides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nOf the $535,413 recorded in APCS\xe2\x80\x99s accounting system as allocable to the HRSA grant\nduring the period September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2006, $406,709 had been\nexpended for goods and services that appear consistent with grant goals and objectives.\nThe remaining $128,704 was not allowable, allocable, or reasonable in accordance with\nterms of the grant or applicable laws and regulations.\n\nThe $128,704 had been transferred to the Foundation, ostensibly to reimburse the\nFoundation for costs it had incurred on behalf of APCS. However, the Foundation had\nnot actually incurred any of these costs. APCS\xe2\x80\x99s Managing Director had simply\ntransferred grant funds to the Foundation from time to time and recorded the transferred\namounts in the accounting records as if they represented salaries, wages, or other costs\nsupposedly incurred for grant activities.\n\nThese transfers of APCS funds to the Foundation were neither isolated incidents nor\nlimited to the HRSA grant. During the period covered by our audit, in fact, the Managing\nDirector transferred $470,000 of APCS funds to either the Foundation or to a Fire\nCollege official who served on the Foundation\xe2\x80\x99s board of directors. APCS provided no\ndocumentation that these payments, of either grant funds or other monies, were necessary\nto maintain or strengthen APCS\xe2\x80\x99s operations or to provide any benefit to the citizens of\nAlabama that APCS was supposed to serve.\n\nGRANT COSTS MUST BE ALLOWABLE, ALLOCABLE, AND REASONABLE\n\nOMB Circular A-122 \xc2\xa7 4.a defines a non-profit organization as one which:\n\n (1) is \xe2\x80\x9coperated primarily for scientific, educational, service, charitable, or\n similar purposes in the public interest;\n\n (2) is not organized primarily for profit; and\n\n (3) uses its net proceeds to maintain, improve, and/or expand its operations.\n\nAttachment A to OMB Circular A-122 sets forth a number of basic considerations for the\nallowability of costs under Federal grants, contracts, and other agreements with non-\nprofit organizations. Among these basic considerations is a requirement that allowable\ncosts, either direct or indirect, be both reasonable and allocable, as defined below:\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c . . . 3. Reasonable costs. A cost is reasonable if, in its nature or amount, it does\n not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the\n circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the costs . . . .\n\n In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration shall be\n given to:\n\n a. Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and\n necessary for the operation of the organization or the performance\n of the award.\n\n b. The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as\n generally accepted sound business practices, arms length\n bargaining, Federal and State laws and regulations, and terms and\n conditions of the award.\n\n c. Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the\n circumstances, considering their responsibilities to the\n organization, its members, employees, and clients, the public at\n large, and the Federal Government.\n\n 4. Allocable costs. a. A cost is allocable to a Federal award . . . if it:\n\n (1) Is incurred specifically for the award,\n\n (2) Benefits both the award and other work and can be distributed in\n reasonable proportion to the benefits received, or\n\n (3) Is necessary for the overall operation of the organization . . . .\n\nFUNDS TRANSFERRED TO THE FIRE COLLEGE FOUNDATION\n\nDuring the period September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2006, APCS\xe2\x80\x99s Managing\nDirector transferred a total of $410,000 from APCS to the Foundation and paid an\nadditional $60,000 in \xe2\x80\x9cconsulting fees\xe2\x80\x9d to a Fire College official who served on the\nFoundation\xe2\x80\x99s board of directors. As shown in the following table, the $470,000 reflected\n13 separate transactions, of which 4 transactions included $128,704 recorded in APCS\xe2\x80\x99s\naccounting records as allocable to the HRSA grant.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c Transfer Check\n Date Number Total HRSA Other\n\n10/16/2001** 1191 $20,000 -0- $20,000\n02/01/2002 1206 40,000 -0- 40,000\n02/25/2002 1224 30,000 -0- 30,000\n03/26/2002 1241 30,000 -0- 30,000\n07/09/2002 1288 35,000 $ 26,850 8,150\n11/02/2002 1370 35,000 -0- 35,000\n01/06/2003** 1390 20,000 -0- 20,000\n01/29/2003 1408 30,000 -0- 30,000\n04/14/2003 1457 30,000 13,086 16,914\n11/12/2003 1592 30,000 -0- 30,000\n01/06/2004** 1625 20,000 -0- 20,000\n05/12/2004 1698 90,000 28,768 61,232\n10/06/2004 1782 60,000 60,000 0\n\n $470,000 $128,704 $341,296\n\n**\xe2\x80\x9cConsulting fees\xe2\x80\x9d paid to a Fire College official who served on the Foundation\xe2\x80\x99s board\nof directors.\n\nThe $128,704 of HRSA grant funds transferred to the Foundation represented almost 35\npercent of the Federal funds actually drawn down from the Payment Management System\n($128,704 \xc3\xb7 $367,979), while the $341,296 of transfers and consulting fees from other\nfunding sources represented almost 49 percent of those other revenues recorded in the\naccounting records ($341,296 \xc3\xb7 $698,386). In total, more than 44 percent of APCS\xe2\x80\x99s\nrecorded revenues 1 ($470,000 of $1,066,365) were either transferred to the Foundation or\npaid out as consulting fees to a Fire College official who served on the Foundation\xe2\x80\x99s\nboard of directors.\n\nTRANSFERS OF GRANT FUNDS RECORDED AS COSTS\n\nTransfers to the Foundation of revenues from sources other than the HRSA grant were\nincluded in APCS\xe2\x80\x99s accounting records under the category \xe2\x80\x9cAlabama Fire College\nFoundation.\xe2\x80\x9d Transfers of HRSA\xe2\x80\x99s grant funds, however, were recorded in a manner to\ngive the appearance that APCS was reimbursing the Foundation for costs it had incurred\non behalf of APCS.\n\n\n\n\n1\n APCS\xe2\x80\x99s recorded revenues included drawdowns from the Payment Management System, donations and\ncharitable contributions, interest income from investments, and other miscellaneous income but did not\ninclude annual State appropriations used to pay salaries and wages for APCS staff and other operating\ncosts.\n\n\n 6\n\x0cOn April 14, 2003, for example, APCS transferred $30,000 to the Foundation, including\n$13,086 of HRSA grant funds and $16,914 from other sources. The $16,914 was\nrecorded under the cost category \xe2\x80\x9cAlabama Fire College Foundation,\xe2\x80\x9d but the $13,086\nshown as applicable to the HRSA grant was recorded as incurred for:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Computer Repairs $ 874\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Public Relations $1,000\n \xe2\x80\xa2 RN SPI 2 $7,754\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Toxicology Technicians $3,458\n\nSimilarly, APCS transferred $90,000 to the Foundation on May 12, 2004, including\n$28,768 of grant funds and $61,232 from other sources. The $61,232 was shown in the\naccounting records under the cost category \xe2\x80\x9cAlabama Fire College Foundation,\xe2\x80\x9d but the\n$28,768 was recorded as applicable to:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 RN SPI $18,692\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Toxicology Technicians $10,076\n\nCOSTS NOT INCURRED\n\nThere were no formal bills or invoices to describe the nature of the goods or services\nsupposedly provided by the Foundation or to support the Managing Director\xe2\x80\x99s decisions\nas to what \xe2\x80\x9ccosts\xe2\x80\x9d were involved in the transfers. Similarly, there were no documents to\nsupport the amount of the involved charges or to demonstrate that the payments were\njustified by any benefit to grant-funded operations.\n\nInstead, APCS\xe2\x80\x99s Managing Director told us that he periodically received instructions\nfrom the Director of the Fire College to make payments to the Foundation in various\namounts. Based solely on these conversations, without any evidence that the amounts\nwere appropriate or justified, the Managing Director would then transfer APCS funds to\nthe Foundation and, for transfers that involved HRSA grant funds, record the transferred\namounts in APCS\xe2\x80\x99s accounting records as if they represented salaries, wages, or other\ncosts supposedly incurred for grant activities.\n\nIn fact, the Foundation had not actually incurred any of the costs supposedly being\nreimbursed by APCS. Almost all APCS staff, including the registered nurse and the\ntoxicology technicians cited in the above examples, were State employees and received\ntheir salaries and wages through State appropriations. Similarly, the State directly paid\nthe costs of APCS\xe2\x80\x99s public relations activities and computer repairs with no participation\nby the Foundation. The funds transferred to the Foundation from APCS were used only\nfor the personal benefit of certain Fire College officials.\n\n\n\n\n2\n Registered Nurse, Specialist in Poison Information\n\n\n 7\n\x0cAt the same time that APCS\xe2\x80\x99s Managing Director was authorizing these unsupported and\nunjustified transfers of organizational funds to the Foundation, he was applying for\nHRSA funding based on a shortage of funding from State appropriations. In applying for\ngrant funding for the period September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2002, for example,\nthe Managing Director\xe2\x80\x99s grant application stated: \xe2\x80\x9cFunding has not increased in\nproportion to service requirements. This has resulted in limits on staffing, efficiency of\noperation, and outreach to consumers and health care professionals.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nHRSA awarded APCS $109,000 to maintain and improve its services during the period\nSeptember 1, 2001, through August 31, 2002. However, following the grant award,\nAPCS transferred $135,000 to the Foundation and paid an additional $20,000 in\nconsulting fees to a Fire College official who served on the Foundation\xe2\x80\x99s board of\ndirectors.\n\nSimilarly, in applying for HRSA funding for the period September 1, 2002, through\nAugust 31, 2003, APCS\xe2\x80\x99s grant application stated: \xe2\x80\x9c. . . proration of the [S]tate budget\nhas reduced available funds by $35,000. While services and outreach have been\nimproved, state budget proration has forced reassessment of original goals.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nHRSA awarded APCS $116,857 to expand and improve its services during the period\nSeptember 1, 2002, through August 31, 2003. During this period, however, APCS\ntransferred another $95,000 to the Foundation and paid another $20,000 in consulting\nfees to the Fire College official who served on the Foundation\xe2\x80\x99s board of directors.\n\nDuring the period September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2006, APCS withdrew\n$367,979 of grant funds from the Payment Management System with a stated goal of\nexpanding and improving its services to the citizens of Alabama. During that same\nperiod, however, APCS made unsupported and unjustified transfers of $410,000 to the\nFoundation and paid another $60,000 for consulting fees to a Foundation Director.\n\nThese audit findings reflect a basic lack of effective program management at APCS, as\nwell as a fundamental disregard for both APCS\xe2\x80\x99s mission and the goals and objectives\nestablished for HRSA\xe2\x80\x99s support of that mission.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS\n\nWe recommend that APCS:\n\n 1. revise its accounting records to show that the $128,704 transferred to the\n Foundation is no longer allocable to the HRSA grant;\n\n 2. prepare and submit FSRs accurately accounting for its use of grant funds during\n each budget period from September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2006; and\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c 3. advise HRSA formally that APCS will no longer have authority to obligate or\n expend funds from any source, will no longer request funds under grant number\n H-4-BMC-00073, and will not apply for any future grant support.\n\nSHELTON STATE COMMENTS\n\nShelton State Community College now directs both fiscal and programmatic operations\nof APCS. In its written comments on our draft report, Shelton State said that it is in the\nprocess of engaging a Certified Public Accounting firm to prepare accurate FSRs.\nWorking with the Certified Public Accountants, Shelton State intends to revise the APCS\nrecords to show funds not allocable to the HRSA grant and to determine how to handle\nthe non-allowed costs. However, rather than informing HRSA, as we recommended,\nShelton State has informed APCS directly that it no longer has authority to obligate or\nexpend funds and that any requests for future grant funds will come from Shelton State.\n(See the Appendix.) The complete text of Shelton State\xe2\x80\x99s comments is included as the\nAppendix.\n\n OTHER MATTERS\n\nAs stated earlier, we met with the APCS Managing Director and representatives of\nShelton State in August 2008 to verify the tentative findings and conclusions resulting\nfrom our earlier work and to ensure a proper understanding of APCS\xe2\x80\x99s current\norganizational structure and program operations. During these meetings, Shelton State\nrepresentatives told us the following:\n\n1. At this time, both fiscal and programmatic operations of the poison control center\n are directed by Shelton State. All current staff members are Shelton State\n employees paid through a State appropriation earmarked to cover poison control\n center salaries and other operating expenses.\n\n2. APCS still exists as a corporate entity but serves only to provide an advisory\n panel for Shelton State and as a conduit for private donations that Shelton State\n then controls. APCS is transferring its corporate assets to the control of Shelton\n State, and APCS\xe2\x80\x99s Managing Director has no authority to obligate or expend\n funds from any source.\n\n3. Instead of APCS, Shelton State will directly control and supervise any further\n grants for poison control center operations. Accordingly, Shelton State will\n assume responsibility for ensuring that any operations funded by Federal grants\n comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and grant terms.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cAPPENDIX\n\x0cAPPENDIX\n Page 1 of 2\n\x0cAPPENDIX\n Page 2 of 2\n\x0c'


text:
El USS Bainbridge (DDG-96) es un destructor de la clase Arleigh Burke en servicio con la Armada de los Estados Unidos. Fue puesto en gradas en 2003, botado en 2004 y asignado en 2005.
 Construcción
 Construido por Bath Iron Works (Bath, Maine), fue colocada su quilla el 7 de mayo de 2003, botado el 13 de noviembre de 2004 y asignado el 12 de noviembre de 2005. Su nombre USS Bainbridge fue decidido por el comodoro William Bainbridge que fuera comandante de la fragata pesada USS Constitution durante la guerra de 1812.
 Historia de servicio
 Su actual apostadero es la base naval de Norfolk, Virginia.
 Véase también
 Anexo:Destructores de la Armada de los Estados Unidos
 Referencias
 Destructores de la clase Arleigh Burke de la Armada de Estados Unidos
 Barcos de 2005
 Barcos construidos en Bath (Maine)