text:
 EVROPSKÁ KOMISE
 V Bruselu dne 27.7.2017
 COM(2017) 392 final
 2017/0171(NLE)
 Návrh
 ROZHODNUTÍ RADY
 o uzavření Dohody mezi Evropskou unií a Antiguou a Barbudou, kterou se mění Dohoda mezi Evropským společenstvím a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty
 DŮVODOVÁ ZPRÁVA
 1.SOUVISLOSTI NÁVRHU
 Nařízení (EU) č. 610/2013 ze dne 26. června 2013
 1
 pozměnilo Úmluvu k provedení Schengenské dohody
 2
 , nařízení (ES) č. 562/2006
 3
 (Schengenský hraniční kodex) a nařízení (ES) č. 810/2009
 4
 (vízový kodex) a mimo jiné změnilo definici pojmu „krátkodobý pobyt“ pro státní příslušníky třetích zemí v schengenském prostoru. Ode dne 18. října 2013 platí pro státní příslušníky třetích zemí (bez ohledu na to, zda se na ně vztahuje vízová povinnost, či jsou od ní osvobozeni), kteří chtějí cestovat do schengenského prostoru za účelem krátkodobého pobytu, maximální doba povoleného pobytu „90 dnů během jakéhokoliv období 180 dnů“. Na rozdíl od definice ve znění platném do 18. října 2013 (tři měsíce během období šesti měsíců ode dne prvního vstupu) je nový pojem přesnější, neboť stanoví uvedenou dobu ve dnech, a nikoli v měsících. Kromě toho bylo z definice vypuštěno spojení „ode dne prvního vstupu“, které vedlo k mnoha nejasnostem a otázkám.
 Nařízení (EU) č. 610/2013 zavedlo veškeré nezbytné změny do acquis EU v oblasti víz a hranic, tj. do Schengenské úmluvy, Schengenského hraničního kodexu, vízového kodexu a nařízení (ES) č. 539/2001
 5
 . Pojem „krátkodobý pobyt“ je však zakotven také v mezinárodních dohodách, které Evropská unie uzavřela. Při vymezování doby pobytu bez vízové povinnosti na původní definici („tři měsíce během šestiměsíčního období následujícího po dni prvního vstupu“
 6
 ) stále odkazují dohody o zrušení vízové povinnosti uzavřené s Antiguou a Barbudou
 7
 , Bahamami
 8
 , Barbadosem
 9
 , Brazílií
 10
 , Mauriciem
 11
 , Svatým Kryštofem a Nevisem
 12
 a Seychelami
 13
 .
 Dne 16. července 2014 přijala Komise doporučení pro rozhodnutí Rady o zmocnění k zahájení jednání o změně dohod o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty mezi Evropskou unií a výše uvedenými zeměmi
 14
 , které Rada přijala dne 9. října 2014
 15
 . Účelem bylo zavést ve vztahu k těmto sedmi zemím novou definici krátkodobého pobytu podle nařízení (EU) č. 610/2013. Kromě toho vymezení „krátkodobého pobytu“ v dohodách o zrušení vízové povinnosti s použitím dnů namísto měsíců umožňuje snazší ověřování a výpočet pomocí elektronických nebo IT prostředků, a je tedy vhodnější pro centralizované systémy správy hranic, jako je například navrhovaný systém vstupu/výstupu (EES)
 16
 .
 V návaznosti na zmocnění Rady zahájila Komise jednání o změně dohod o zrušení vízové povinnosti s uvedenými sedmi zeměmi (Antiguou a Barbudou, Bahamami, Barbadosem, Brazílií, Mauriciem, Svatým Kryštofem a Nevisem a Seychelami).
 Jednání s Antiguou a Barbudou byla úspěšně uzavřena parafováním pozměňující dohody dne 28. října 2016. Obě strany se dohodly, že přijmou novou definici „krátkodobého pobytu“ v rámci dohody o zrušení vízové povinnosti mezi EU a Antiguou a Barbudou. Kromě toho dohoda zahrnuje úpravu několika technických detailů (viz níže), ale všechny změny jsou z hlediska cestujícího nevýznamné.
 Zvláštní situace Spojeného království a Irska je zohledněna v preambuli dohody.
 2.PRÁVNÍ ZÁKLAD, SUBSIDIARITA A PROPORCIONALITA
 •Právní základ
 Dohoda vyžaduje souhlas obou smluvních stran v souladu s jejich příslušnými postupy. Na straně Unie to vyžaduje rozhodnutí Rady o podepsání a uzavření dohody.
 Tento návrh se předkládá Radě za účelem zmocnění k uzavření dohody o změně Dohody mezi Evropským společenstvím a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty.
 Tato dohoda zajišťuje právní soudržnost a harmonizaci mezi členskými státy tím, že zavádí novou definici krátkodobého pobytu, jak je uvedena v nařízení (EU) č. 610/2013, což vede k jednoznačnému výkladu pojmu „krátkodobý pobyt“.
 Právním základem tohoto návrhu je čl. 77 odst. 2 písm. a) Smlouvy o fungování Evropské unie (SFEU) ve spojení s článkem 218 uvedené smlouvy.
 Unie nemá pravomoc ke změně dohod o zrušení vízové povinnosti, jež by zavazovala čtyři země, které jsou přidruženy k provádění schengenského acquis, včetně společné vízové politiky. V zájmu zajištění harmonizovaného přístupu a provádění ustanovení týkajících se doby povoleného pobytu v schengenském prostoru obsahuje dohoda společné prohlášení, v němž se uvádí, že je žádoucí, aby Antigua a Barbuda na jedné straně a Island, Lichtenštejnsko, Norsko a Švýcarsko na straně druhé odpovídajícím způsobem upravily své stávající dvoustranné dohody o zrušení vízové povinnosti.
 Připojený návrh představuje právní nástroj pro uzavření dohody. Rada rozhodne kvalifikovanou většinou po podpisu dohody jménem Unie osobou jmenovanou předsednictvím Rady a po obdržení souhlasu Evropského parlamentu v souladu s čl. 218 odst. 6 druhým pododstavcem písm. a) Smlouvy o fungování Evropské unie.
 •Subsidiarita (v případě nevýlučné pravomoci)
 Pokud je jednou ze smluvních stran mezinárodní dohody Evropská unie, nemohou žádnou změnu této dohody legálně provést členské státy samy. Dohodu o zrušení vízové povinnosti s Antiguou a Barbudou uzavřela Evropská unie. Proto je nutné opatření na úrovni Unie.
 Kromě toho by uzavření dohod o zrušení vízové povinnosti členskými státy mělo dopad na acquis Unie v oblasti víz (čl. 3 odst. 2 SFEU).
 •Proporcionalita
 Tento návrh nepřekračuje rámec toho, co je nezbytné k dosažení sledovaného cíle, tj. změně stávající dohody o zrušení vízové povinnosti mezi Antiguou a Barbudou a Unií.
 3.ROZPOČTOVÉ DŮSLEDKY
 Tento návrh neobnáší dodatečné náklady pro rozpočet EU.
 4. VÝSLEDKY HODNOCENÍ EX POST, KONZULTACÍ SE ZÚČASTNĚNÝMI STRANAMI A POSOUZENÍ DOPADŮ
 •Konzultace se zúčastněnými stranami
 Dne 9. října 2014 přijala Rada směrnice pro jednání, v nichž Komisi zmocnila, aby zahájila jednání s Antiguou a Barbudou o změně dohody o zrušení vízové povinnosti mezi těmito dvěma stranami. Členské státy byly informovány o pokroku jednání na zasedáních Pracovní skupiny pro víza.
 5.OSTATNÍ PRVKY
 •Výsledek jednání
 Komise se domnívá, že cílů, které Rada stanovila ve svých směrnicích pro jednání, bylo dosaženo a že návrh dohody je pro Unii přijatelný.
 Konečný obsah dohody lze shrnout takto:
 a. Délka pobytu
 Dohodou se zavádí režim bezvízového styku pro občany Evropské unie a občany Antiguy a Barbudy, kteří cestují na území druhé smluvní strany na dobu nejvýše 90 dnů během jakéhokoli období 180 dnů (namísto doby nejvýše tří měsíců během šestiměsíčního období následujícího po dni prvního vstupu). Tato nová definice platí v celém znění Dohody mezi Evropskou unií a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty.
 b. Závěrečné ustanovení – pozastavení uplatňování dohody (čl. 8 odst. 4)
 Dohoda upravuje čl. 8 odst. 4 poslední větu takto: „Smluvní strana, která pozastavila provádění této dohody, bezodkladně uvědomí druhou smluvní stranu, jakmile důvody pozastavení pominou, a pozastavení zruší.“ Doplněním slov „a pozastavení zruší“ ke stávajícímu znění pozměněná dohoda vyjasňuje, že pozastavení uplatňování dohody o zrušení vízové povinnosti se skutečně zruší, pokud důvody, které k pozastavení vedly, pominou. V tomto bodě vede změna ke sladění znění dohody o zrušení vízové povinnosti s Antiguou a Barbudou se zněním všech ostatních dohod o zrušení vízové povinnosti, jež Unie podepsala v letech 2015 a 2016. Dne 14. června 2016 byla ohledně této změny konzultována Pracovní skupina pro víza a žádný členský stát nevznesl námitky.
 c. Nahrazení pojmu „Společenství“ pojmem „Unie“
 Od vstupu Lisabonské smlouvy v platnost dne 1. prosince 2009 Evropská unie sama získala konsolidovanou právní subjektivitu. Nicméně pojem „Evropské společenství“ je stále ještě zakotven v mezinárodních dohodách, které vstoupily v platnost před Lisabonskou smlouvou; tak je tomu i v případě Dohody mezi Evropským společenstvím a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty. Pozměňující dohoda proto nahrazuje pojem „Společenství“ pojmem „Unie“ v celém znění dohody o zrušení vízové povinnosti.
 d. Společná prohlášení
 K dohodě se připojují dvě společná prohlášení:
 – k výkladu 90 dnů během jakéhokoli období 180 dnů a
 – týkající se Islandu, Lichtenštejnska, Norska a Švýcarska.
 e. Vstup v platnost
 Tato dohoda vstoupí v platnost prvním dnem šestého měsíce následujícího po dni, kdy poslední smluvní strana vyrozumí druhou stranu o tom, že byly dokončeny ratifikační postupy. Dostatečně dlouhé přechodné období je nutné k tomu, aby byla zajištěna právní jistota a cestujícím bylo umožněno pochopit právní předpis a splnit příslušné požadavky. Jakmile bude ratifikace dokončena, budou moci cestující ukončit během šestiměsíčního období své krátkodobé pobyty, které se budou stále celé počítat podle staré definice, než vstoupí v platnost nová definice krátkodobého pobytu a související referenční historické období 180 dnů.
 Žádných ostatních ustanovení stávající Dohody mezi Evropským společenstvím a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty ani její územní působnosti se pozměňující dohoda nijak nedotkne.
 6.ZÁVĚR
 S ohledem na výše uvedené výsledky Komise navrhuje, aby Rada po obdržení souhlasu Evropského parlamentu Dohodu mezi Evropskou unií a Antiguou a Barbudou, kterou se mění Dohoda mezi Evropským společenstvím a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty, schválila.
 2017/0171 (NLE)
 Návrh
 ROZHODNUTÍ RADY
 o uzavření Dohody mezi Evropskou unií a Antiguou a Barbudou, kterou se mění Dohoda mezi Evropským společenstvím a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty
 RADA EVROPSKÉ UNIE,
 s ohledem na Smlouvu o fungování Evropské unie, a zejména na čl. 77 odst. 2 písm. a) ve spojení s čl. 218 odst. 6 druhým pododstavcem písm. a) bodem v) této smlouvy,
 s ohledem na návrh Evropské komise,
 s ohledem na souhlas Evropského parlamentu
 17
 ,
 vzhledem k těmto důvodům:
 (1)Rozhodnutím ze dne 30. listopadu 2009 Rada uzavřela Dohodu mezi Evropským společenstvím a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty. Dohodou se zavádí režim bezvízového styku pro občany Evropské unie a občany Antiguy a Barbudy, kteří mohou pobývat na území druhé smluvní strany „po dobu nejvýše tří měsíců během šestiměsíčního období“.
 (2)Nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU) č. 610/2013
 18
 zavedlo horizontální změny v acquis Unie v oblasti víz a hranic a definovalo krátkodobý pobyt jako nejvýše 90 dnů během jakéhokoliv období 180 dnů.
 (3)Je nezbytné, aby byla do dohody mezi Unií a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty zavedena tato nová definice, a to v zájmu úplné harmonizace režimu Unie pro krátkodobé pobyty.
 (4)Komise vyjednala jménem Unie dohodu s Antiguou a Barbudou, kterou se mění Dohoda mezi Evropským společenstvím a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty (dále jen „dohoda“).
 (5)Dohoda byla podepsána v souladu s rozhodnutím Rady (EU) 2017/[...].
 (6)Toto rozhodnutí rozvíjí ta ustanovení schengenského acquis, kterých se neúčastní Spojené království v souladu s rozhodnutím Rady 2000/365/ES
 19
 . Spojené království se tedy nepodílí na jeho přijímání a toto rozhodnutí pro ně není závazné ani použitelné.
 (7)Toto rozhodnutí rozvíjí ta ustanovení schengenského acquis, kterých se neúčastní Irsko v souladu s rozhodnutím Rady 2002/192/ES
 20
 . Irsko se tedy nepodílí na jeho přijímání a toto rozhodnutí pro ně není závazné ani použitelné.
 (8)Dohoda by proto měla být schválena,
 PŘIJALA TOTO ROZHODNUTÍ:
 Článek 1
 Dohoda mezi Evropskou unií a Antiguou a Barbudou, kterou se mění Dohoda mezi Evropským společenstvím a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty (dále jen „dohoda“), se jménem Unie schvaluje.
 Znění dohody se připojuje k tomuto rozhodnutí.
 Článek 2
 Předseda Rady provede jménem Unie oznámení uvedené v článku 2 dohody
 21
 .
 Článek 3
 Toto rozhodnutí vstupuje v platnost dnem přijetí.
 V Bruselu dne
 Za Radu
 předseda/předsedkyně
 (1)
 Úř. věst. L 182, 29.6.2013, s. 1.
 (2)
 Úř. věst. L 239, 22.9.2000, s. 19.
 (3)
 Úř. věst. L 105, 13.4.2006, s. 1.
 (4)
 Úř. věst. L 243, 15.9.2009, s. 1.
 (5)
 Úř. věst. L 81, 21.3.2001, s. 1.
 (6)
 Viz „Účel“ a „Délka pobytu“ v dohodách.
 (7)
 Úř. věst. L 169, 30.6.2009, s. 3.
 (8)
 Úř. věst. L 169, 30.6.2009, s. 24.
 (9)
 Úř. věst. L 169, 30.6.2009, s. 10.
 (10)
 S Brazílií EU uzavřela dvě dohody. Jednu pro držitele běžných cestovních pasů (Úř. věst. L 255, 21.9.2012, s. 4) a jednu samostatnou pro držitele diplomatických, služebních a úředních cestovních pasů (Úř. věst. L 66, 12.3.2011, s. 2).
 (11)
 Úř. věst. L 169, 30.6.2009, s. 17.
 (12)
 Úř. věst. L 169, 30.6.2009, s. 38.
 (13)
 Úř. věst. L 169, 30.6.2009, s. 31.
 (14)
 COM(2014) 468 final.
 (15)
 Rozhodnutí Rady, kterým se Komise zmocňuje k zahájení jednání o změně dohod o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty uzavřených mezi Evropskou unií/Společenstvím a Antiguou a Barbudou, Bahamským společenstvím, Barbadosem, Brazilskou federativní republikou, Mauricijskou republikou, Federací Svatý Kryštof a Nevis a Seychelskou republikou, přijaté Radou dne 9. října 2014.
 (16)
 COM(2016) 194 final.
 (17)
 Souhlas udělen dne [...].
 (18)
 Nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU) č. 610/2013 ze dne 26. června 2013, kterým se mění nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 562/2006, kterým se stanoví kodex Společenství o pravidlech upravujících přeshraniční pohyb osob (Schengenský hraniční kodex), Úmluva k provedení Schengenské dohody, nařízení Rady (ES) č. 1683/95 a (ES) č. 539/2001 a nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 767/2008 a (ES) č. 810/2009 (Úř. věst. L 182, 29.6.2013, s. 1).
 (19)
 Rozhodnutí Rady 2000/365/ES ze dne 29. května 2000 o žádosti Spojeného království Velké Británie a Severního Irska, aby se na ně vztahovala některá ustanovení schengenského acquis (Úř. věst. L 131, 1.6.2000, s. 43).
 (20)
 Rozhodnutí Rady 2002/192/ES ze dne 28. února 2002 o žádosti Irska, aby se na ně vztahovala některá ustanovení schengenského acquis (Úř. věst. L 64, 7.3.2002, s. 20).
 (21)
 Den vstupu dohody v platnost zveřejní v Úředním věstníku Evropské unie generální sekretariát Rady.
 ---documentbreak---
 EVROPSKÁ KOMISE
 V Bruselu dne 27.7.2017
 COM(2017) 392 final
 PŘÍLOHA
 návrhu rozhodnutí Rady
 o uzavření Dohody mezi Evropskou unií a Antiguou a Barbudou, kterou se mění Dohoda mezi Evropským společenstvím a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty
 PŘÍLOHA
 DOHODA
 mezi Evropskou unií a Antiguou a Barbudou, kterou se mění Dohoda mezi Evropským společenstvím a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty
 EVROPSKÁ UNIE
 na jedné straně a
 ANTIGUA A BARBUDA
 na straně druhé,
 společně dále jen „smluvní strany“,
 S OHLEDEM na Dohodu mezi Evropským společenstvím a Antiguou a Barbudou o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty (dále jen „dohoda“), která vstoupila v platnost dne 1. května 2010,
 ZNOVU POTVRZUJÍCE význam usnadnění mezilidských kontaktů,
 BEROUCE NA VĚDOMÍ, že dohoda přispívá ke spokojenosti občanů smluvních stran,
 BEROUCE V ÚVAHU, že definice krátkodobých pobytů podle dohody (tři měsíce během šestiměsíčního období následujícího po datu prvního vstupu) není dostatečně přesná, a zejména pojem „den prvního vstupu“ může vést k nejasnostem a otázkám,
 MAJÍCE NA PAMĚTI, že nařízení (EU) č. 610/2013 ze dne 26. června 2013 zavedlo horizontální změny ve „vnitřním“ acquis EU v oblasti víz a hranic a vymezilo krátkodobý pobyt jako „90 dnů během jakéhokoliv období 180 dnů“,
 BEROUCE V ÚVAHU, že systém vstupu/výstupu, který má Evropská unie v úmyslu zavést, vyžaduje využití jednotné a jednoznačné definice pro krátkodobý pobyt, která je použitelná pro všechny státní příslušníky třetích zemí,
 PŘEJÍCE SI zajistit plynulý tok cestujících na hraničních přechodech smluvních stran,
 ZNOVU POTVRZUJÍCE, že dohoda platí pro občany všech členských států Evropské unie s výjimkou Spojeného království a Irska,
 BEROUCE V ÚVAHU Protokol o postavení Spojeného království a Irska s ohledem na prostor svobody, bezpečnosti a práva a Protokol o schengenském acquis začleněném do rámce Evropské unie, připojené ke Smlouvě o Evropské unii a ke Smlouvě o fungování Evropské unie, a potvrzujíce, že ustanovení této dohody se nevztahují na Spojené království a Irsko,
 SE DOHODLY TAKTO:
 Článek 1
 Dohoda se mění v souladu s ustanoveními tohoto článku:
 (1)V názvu a v čl. 3 odst. 5, čl. 6 odst. 1 a čl. 8 odst. 7 se slovo „Společenství“ nahrazuje slovem „Unie“.
 (2)V článku 1 se slova „tří měsíců během šestiměsíčního období“ nahrazují slovy „90 dnů během jakéhokoliv období 180 dnů“.
 (3)Ustanovení čl. 4 odst. 1 se nahrazuje tímto:
 „Občané Evropské unie smějí pobývat na území Antiguy a Barbudy po dobu nejvýše 90 dnů během jakéhokoliv období 180 dnů.“
 (4)Ustanovení čl. 4 odst. 2 se nahrazuje tímto:
 „Občané Antiguy a Barbudy smějí pobývat na území členských států, které v plném rozsahu uplatňují schengenské acquis, po dobu nejvýše 90 dnů během jakéhokoliv období 180 dnů. Tato doba se počítá bez ohledu na délku pobytu v těch členských státech, které dosud schengenské acquis v plném rozsahu neuplatňují.
 Občané Antiguy a Barbudy smějí pobývat na území každého z členských států, které dosud schengenské acquis v plném rozsahu neuplatňují, po dobu nejvýše 90 dnů během jakéhokoliv období 180 dnů, bez ohledu na dobu pobytu vypočtenou pro území členských států uplatňujících schengenské acquis v plném rozsahu.“
 (5)V čl. 4 odst. 3 se slova „tři měsíce“ nahrazují slovy „90 dnů“ a slovo „Společenství“ se nahrazuje slovem „Unie“.
 (6)V čl. 8 odst. 4 se poslední věta nahrazuje tímto:
 „Smluvní strana, která pozastavila provádění této dohody, bezodkladně uvědomí druhou smluvní stranu, jakmile důvody pozastavení pominou, a pozastavení zruší.“
 Článek 2
 Smluvní strany ratifikují nebo schválí tuto dohodu v souladu se svými příslušnými postupy a tato dohoda vstoupí v platnost prvním dnem šestého měsíce následujícího po dni, kdy poslední strana oznámí druhé straně dokončení zmíněných postupů.
 Sepsáno v [...] dne [...] dva tisíce sedmnáct ve dvou vyhotoveních v jazyce anglickém, bulharském, českém, dánském, estonském, finském, francouzském, chorvatském, italském, litevském, lotyšském, maďarském, maltském, německém, nizozemském, polském, portugalském, rumunském, řeckém, slovenském, slovinském, španělském a švédském, přičemž všechna znění mají stejnou platnost.
 Za Evropskou unii
 Za Antiguu a Barbudu
 SPOLEČNÉ PROHLÁŠENÍ TÝKAJÍCÍ SE ISLANDU, NORSKA, ŠVÝCARSKA A LICHTENŠTEJNSKA
 Je žádoucí, aby orgány Norska, Islandu, Švýcarska a Lichtenštejnska na jedné straně a Antiguy a Barbudy na straně druhé bezodkladně pozměnily stávající dvoustranné dohody o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty za podmínek, jaké stanoví tato dohoda.
 Společné prohlášení o výkladu doby 90 dnů během jakéhokoliv období 180 dnů
 Smluvní strany se dohodly, že dobou nejvýše 90 dnů během jakéhokoliv období 180 dnů podle článku 4 dohody se rozumí nepřetržitý pobyt nebo několik po sobě jdoucích návštěv, jejichž trvání během jakéhokoliv období 180 dnů nepřekročí 90 dnů.
 Slovo „jakýkoliv“ znamená, že se použije „pohyblivé“ referenční období 180 dnů a zpětně se započítá každý den pobytu v posledním období 180 dnů, aby se ověřilo, že je i nadále splňován požadavek 90 dnů v jakémkoliv období 180 dnů. To znamená mimo jiné, že nepřítomnost po dobu 90 po sobě jdoucích dnů opravňuje k novému pobytu v délce až 90 dnů.
 ________


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 EUROPSKA KOMISIJA
 Bruxelles, 17.6.2016.
 COM(2016) 400 final
 2016/0186(COD)
 Prijedlog
 ODLUKE EUROPSKOG PARLAMENTA I VIJEĆA
 o izmjeni Odluke br. 445/2014/EU o uspostavljanju inicijative Unije za Europske prijestolnice kulture u razdoblju od 2020. do 2033.
 (Tekst značajan za EGP)
 OBRAZLOŽENJE
 1.KONTEKST PRIJEDLOGA
 Odluka br. 445/2014/EU
 1
 temelj je za naslove inicijative Europska prijestolnica kulture (EPK) u razdoblju od 2020. do 2033. U Prilogu Odluci nalazi se kronološki popis u kojem je naznačeno kad koja država članica ima pravo biti domaćinom inicijative (dvije države članice svake godine). Natječaji za dodjelu naslova Europske prijestolnice kulture počinju šest godina prije godine naslova time što relevantno nacionalno tijelo objavi poziv za podnošenje prijava.
 Za razliku od prethodne, Odluke br. 1622/2006/EZ
 2
 , u Odluci br. 445/2014/EU inicijativa je proširena na zemlje kandidatkinje i potencijalne kandidate za članstvo u Europskoj uniji ako oni na datum objave poziva za podnošenja prijava sudjeluju u programu Kreativna Europa ili u kasnijim programima Unije za potporu kulture. Zbog toga svake treće godine od 2021. (tj. 2021., 2024., 2027., 2030. i 2033.) gradovi u zemljama kandidatkinjama ili potencijalnim kandidatima mogu nositi naslov. Ti natječaji također počinju najmanje šest godina prije godine naslova time što Komisija objavi poziv na podnošenje prijava.
 Međutim, Odluka br. 445/2014/EU ne obuhvaća zemlje Europskog udruženja slobodne trgovine koje su stranke Sporazuma o Europskom gospodarskom prostoru (dalje u tekstu: zemlje EFTA-e EGP-a) (Norveška, Island i Lihtenštajn). Zbog toga gradovi u tim zemljama ne mogu nositi naslov EPK između 2020. i 2033.
 Kako bi se osnažile kulturne veze između Europske unije i zemalja EFTA-e EGP-a, predložena je izmjena Odluke br. 445/2014/EU kako bi se gradovima iz zemalja EFTA-e EGP-a koji sudjeluju u programu Kreativna Europa ili kasnijim programima Unije za potporu kulture omogućilo prijavljivanje za naslov EPK-a.
 Ta bi izmjena bila u skladu s člankom 167. stavkom 3. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije prema kojemu Unija i države članice podupiru suradnju s trećim zemljama [...] u području kulture [...].
 Uz to, uključivanje zemalja EFTA-e EGP-a bilo bi u skladu s člankom 81. Sporazuma o EGP-u i člankom 13. Protokola 31 o suradnji u posebnim područjima izvan četiriju sloboda.
 2.PRAVNA OSNOVA, SUPSIDIJARNOST I PROPORCIONALNOST
 Ovim se prijedlogom mijenja Odluka br. 445/2014/EU o uspostavljanju inicijative Unije za Europske prijestolnice kulture u razdoblju od 2020. do 2033. pa je stoga njezina pravna osnova ista, članak 167. stavak 5. UFEU-a.
 •Supsidijarnost
 Budući da je Odluka br. 445/2014/EU pravni akt EU-a, može se izmijeniti samo jednakovrijednim pravnim aktom. Države članice ne mogu djelovati pojedinačno.
 •Proporcionalnost
 Vidjeti gore. Nema drugih mogućnosti kojima bi se gradovima iz zemalja EFTA-e EGP-a omogućilo sudjelovanje u inicijativi EPK.
 •Odabir instrumenta
 Vidjeti gore. Predloženi instrument: odluka.
 •Javno savjetovanje
 Komisija je u pripremi prijedloga odluke za inicijativu EPK za naslove od 2020. do 2033. organizirala javno savjetovanje od 27. listopada 2010. do 12. siječnja 2011. Primila je 212 odgovora. Među ostalim, postavljeno je pitanje može li se inicijativa EPK otvoriti zemljama koje nisu države članice EU-a.
 3
 Budući da je bilo pozitivnih i negativnih mišljenja o toj ideji, Komisija je tada odlučila predložiti djelomično otvaranje inicijative zemljama koje nisu članice EU-a, ali ograničiti ga na zemlje koje žele punopravno članstvo u EU-u.
 Komisija smatra da nisu potrebna dodatna savjetovanja jer je cilj prijedloga nove odluke samo (malo) proširiti pristup inicijativi EPK tako da ona obuhvati zemlje EFTA-e EGP-a.
 3.UTJECAJ NA PRORAČUN
 Kao što je bilo i dosad na temelju Odluke br. 445/2014/EU, prijedlog Komisije ne utječe izravno na proračun jer su nagrada „Melina Mercouri” i trošak članova stručnog povjerenstva koje imenuju tijela i institucije EU-a ili obuhvaćeni postojećim sredstvima programa Kreativna Europa za financijski okvir 2014. – 2020. ili će za godine nakon 2020. biti obuhvaćeni kasnijim programima Unije za potporu kulture. Nadalje, na temelju prijedloga neće se povećati broj Europskih prijestolnica kulture u razdoblju od 2020. do 2033. jer će se gradovi iz zemalja EFTA-e EGP-a natjecati s gradovima iz država kandidatkinja i potencijalnih kandidata koji već sudjeluju u natječaju.
 4.OSTALI ELEMENTI
 Komisija u prijedlogu predlaže:
 otvaranje inicijative EPK za sudjelovanje gradova iz zemalja EFTA-e EGP-a koji na datum objave poziva za podnošenja prijava sudjeluju u programu Kreativna Europa ili u kasnijim programima Unije za potporu kulture;
 u tom kontekstu, proširivanje otvorenog natječaja za gradove iz država kandidatkinja i potencijalnih kandidata na gradove iz zemalja EFTA-e EGP-a;
 mogućnost da grad iz države kandidatkinje, potencijalnog kandidata ili zemlje EFTA-e EGP-a nosi naslov EPK 2028. umjesto 2027. kako bi se tim zemljama omogućilo pregovaranje o sudjelovanju u programu Unije za potporu kulture koji će uslijediti nakon programa Kreativna Europa u razdoblju od 2021. do 2027. prije nego što Komisija objavi odgovarajući poziv za podnošenje prijava najmanje šest godina prije godine naslova;
 mijenjanje kalendara u Prilogu Odluci br. 445/2014/EU u skladu s navedenim.
 2016/0186 (COD)
 Prijedlog
 ODLUKE EUROPSKOG PARLAMENTA I VIJEĆA
 o izmjeni Odluke br. 445/2014/EU o uspostavljanju inicijative Unije za Europske prijestolnice kulture u razdoblju od 2020. do 2033.
 (Tekst značajan za EGP)
 EUROPSKI PARLAMENT I VIJEĆE EUROPSKE UNIJE,
 uzimajući u obzir Ugovor o funkcioniranju Europske unije, a posebno njegov članak 167. stavak 5.,
 uzimajući u obzir prijedlog Europske komisije,
 nakon dostavljanja nacrta zakonodavnog akta nacionalnim parlamentima,
 uzimajući u obzir mišljenje Odbora regija
 4
 ,
 djelujući u skladu s redovnim zakonodavnim postupkom,
 budući da:
 (1)Cilj je Odluke br. 445/2014/EU Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća
 5
 zaštita i promicanje kulturne raznolikosti i naglašavanje zajedničkih obilježja tih kultura uz povećavanje osjećaja građana da pripadaju zajedničkom kulturnom prostoru. Cilj je te Odluke i poticanje kulturnog doprinosa dugoročnom razvoju gradova u skladu s njihovim strategijama i prioritetima.
 (2)U članku 3. Odluke br. 445/2014/EU propisuje se da pristup inicijativi Unije Europska prijestolnica kulture imaju samo gradovi iz država članica, zemalja kandidatkinja, potencijalnih kandidata ili zemalja koje pristupaju Uniji u okolnostima utvrđenima u članku 3. stavku 5. te Odluke.
 (3)Inicijativa Unije trebala bi biti otvorena, podložno određenim uvjetima, gradovima iz zemalja Europskog udruženja slobodne trgovine koje su stranke Sporazuma o Europskom gospodarskom prostoru (dalje u tekstu: zemlje EFTA-e EGP-a) radi jačanja kulturnih veza između tih zemalja i Europske unije u skladu s člankom 81. Sporazuma o Europskom gospodarskom prostoru.
 (4)Međutim, tijekom razdoblja obuhvaćenog tom Odlukom, odnosno od 2020. do 2033., zbog jednakosti s gradovima iz država članica, gradovi iz zemalja EFTA-e EGP-a smiju sudjelovati samo u jednom natječaju za naslov. Također, svakoj bi zemlji EFTA-e EGP-a trebalo dopustiti da nosi naslov samo jedanput tijekom tog razdoblja.
 (5)Država kandidatkinja, potencijalni kandidat ili zemlja EFTA-e EGP-a trebala bi biti domaćinom Europske prijestolnice kulture 2028. umjesto 2027. kako bi se tim zemljama omogućilo pregovaranje o sudjelovanju u programu Unije za potporu kulture koji će uslijediti nakon programa Kreativna Europa u razdoblju od 2021. do 2027. prije nego što se objavi odgovarajući poziv za podnošenje prijava najmanje šest godina prije godine naslova.
 (6)Odluku br. 445/2014/EU trebalo bi stoga na odgovarajući način izmijeniti,
 DONIJELI SU OVU ODLUKU:
 Članak 1.
 Odluka br. 445/2014/EU mijenja se kako slijedi:
 1. članak 3. mijenja se kako slijedi:
 (a) stavak 2. zamjenjuje se sljedećim:
 „2. Broj gradova nositelja naslova u određenoj godini („godina naslova”) ne može biti veći od tri.
 Naslov se dodjeljuje svake godine najviše jednom gradu u svakoj od dviju država članica navedenih u kalendaru u Prilogu („kalendar”) te, u odgovarajućim godinama, jednom gradu iz zemlje EFTA-e EGP-a ili jednom gradu iz zemlje kandidatkinje ili potencijalnog kandidata ili jednom gradu iz zemlje koja pristupa Uniji u okolnostima određenima stavkom 5.”;
 (b) stavak 4. zamjenjuje se sljedećim:
 „4. Gradovi u zemljama EFTA-e EGP-a, zemljama kandidatkinjama i potencijalnim kandidatima koji sudjeluju u programu Kreativna Europa ili kasnijim programima Unije koji podupiru kulturu na dan objave poziva za podnošenje prijava navedenog u članku 10. stavku 2. mogu se prijaviti za naslov na godinu dana u okviru otvorenog natječaja koji se organizira svake tri godine u skladu s kalendarom.
 Gradovi u zemljama EFTA-e EGP-a, zemljama kandidatkinjama i potencijalnim kandidatima smiju sudjelovati samo u jednom natječaju tijekom razdoblja od 2020. do 2033.
 Svaka zemlja EFTA-e EGP-a, zemlja kandidatkinja ili potencijalni kandidat smije nositi naslov samo jedanput tijekom razdoblja od 2020. do 2033.”;
 2. članak 10. mijenja se kako slijedi:
 (a) naslov se zamjenjuje sljedećim:
 „Predodabir i odabir u zemljama EFTA-e EGP-a, zemljama kandidatkinjama i potencijalnim kandidatima”;
 (b) stavak 1. zamjenjuje se sljedećim:
 „1. Komisija je odgovorna za organizaciju natječaja u gradovima zemalja EFTA-e EGP-a, zemalja kandidatkinja i potencijalnih kandidata.”;
 (c) u stavku 6., prvi podstavak zamjenjuje se sljedećim:
 „6. Povjerenstvo objavljuje izvješće o odabiru prijava gradova kandidata koji su ušli u uži izbor zajedno s preporukom za imenovanje najviše jednog grada u jednoj zemlji EFTA-e EGP-a, zemlji kandidatkinji ili potencijalnom kandidatu.”;
 3. u članku 11., stavak 2. zamjenjuje se sljedećim:
 „2. U slučaju zemalja EFTA-e EGP-a, zemalja kandidatkinja i potencijalnih kandidata, Komisija imenuje jedan grad koji će nositi naslov u odgovarajućim godinama na temelju preporuka navedenih u izvješću o odabiru koje sastavlja povjerenstvo, i o tom imenovanju, najkasnije četiri godine prije početka godine naslova, izvješćuje Europski parlament, Vijeće, Komisiju i Odbor regija.”;
 4. članak 13. mijenja se kako slijedi:
 (a) u stavku 2. drugi podstavak zamjenjuje se sljedećim:
 „Država članica ili zemlja EFTA-e EGP-a ili zemlja kandidatkinja ili potencijalni kandidat može imenovati jednog promatrača da prisustvuje tim sastancima.”;
 (b) u stavku 3. drugi podstavak zamjenjuje se sljedećim:
 „Povjerenstvo svoja izvješća o praćenju šalje Komisiji te imenovanim gradovima i s njima povezanoj državi članici ili zemlji EFTA-e EGP-a ili zemlji kandidatkinji ili potencijalnom kandidatu.”;
 5. Prilog se zamjenjuje tekstom u Prilogu ovoj Odluci.
 Članak 2.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu dvadesetog dana od dana objave u Službenom listu Europske unije.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu
 Za Europski parlament
 Za Vijeće
 Predsjednik
 Predsjednik
 (1)
 Odluka br. 445/2014/EU Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. travnja 2014. o uspostavljanju inicijative Unije za Europske prijestolnice kulture u razdoblju od 2020. do 2033. i o stavljanju izvan snage Odluke br. 1622/2006/EZ (SL L 132, 3.5.2014., str. 1.).
 (2)
 Odluka br. 1622/2006/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 24. listopada 2006. o utvrđivanju djelovanja Zajednice za manifestaciju Europska prijestolnica kulture za godine od 2007. do 2019. (SL L 304, 3.11.2006., str. 1.).
 (3)
 Analiza rezultata savjetovanja:
 http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/creative-europe/actions/documents/ecoc/consultation-analysis-results_en.pdf
 (4)
 SL C , , str. .
 (5)
 Odluka br. 445/2014/EU Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. travnja 2014. o uspostavljanju inicijative Unije za Europske prijestolnice kulture u razdoblju od 2020. do 2033. i o stavljanju izvan snage Odluke br. 1622/2006/EZ (SL L 132, 3.5.2014., str. 1.).
 ---documentbreak---
 EUROPSKA KOMISIJA
 Bruxelles, 17.6.2016.
 COM(2016) 400 final
 PRILOG
 Prijedlogu ODLUKE EUROPSKOG PARLAMENTA I VIJEĆA o izmjeni Odluke br. 445/2014/EU o uspostavljanju inicijative Unije za Europske prijestolnice kulture u razdoblju od 2020. do 2033.
 PRILOG
 Prijedlogu ODLUKE EUROPSKOG PARLAMENTA I VIJEĆA o izmjeni Odluke br. 445/2014/EU o uspostavljanju inicijative Unije za Europske prijestolnice kulture u razdoblju od 2020. do 2033.
 KALENDAR
 2020.
 Hrvatska
 Irska
 2021.
 Rumunjska
 Grčka
 Zemlja kandidatkinja ili potencijalni kandidat
 2022.
 Litva
 Luksemburg
 2023.
 Mađarska
 Ujedinjena Kraljevina
 2024.
 Estonija
 Austrija
 Zemlja EFTA-e EGP-a, zemlja kandidatkinja ili potencijalni kandidat
 1
 2025.
 Slovenija
 Njemačka
 2026.
 Slovačka
 Finska
 2027.
 Latvija
 Portugal
 2028.
 Češka
 Francuska
 Zemlja EFTA-e EGP-a, zemlja kandidatkinja ili potencijalni kandidat
 2029.
 Poljska
 Švedska
 2030.
 Cipar
 Belgija
 Zemlja EFTA-e EGP-a, zemlja kandidatkinja ili potencijalni kandidat
 2031.
 Malta
 Španjolska
 2032.
 Bugarska
 Danska
 2033.
 Nizozemska
 Italija
 Zemlja EFTA-e EGP-a, zemlja kandidatkinja ili potencijalni kandidat
 (1)
 Ako ova Odluka stupi na snagu prije vremena za objavu poziva na podnošenje prijava za natječaj za 2024., dakle šest godina prije godine naslova.


text:
 Svarbus teisinis pranešimas
 |
 52006PC0111
 Pasiūlymas Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas iš dalies keičiantis Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 417/2002 dėl dvigubo korpuso arba lygiaverčių dizaino reikalavimų greitesnio įvedimo viengubo korpuso naftos tanklaiviams ir dėl Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 2978/94 panaikinimo /* KOM/2006/111 galutinis - COD 2006/0046 */
 TREN/[...]/2006[pic] | EUROPOS BENDRIJŲ KOMISIJA |Briuselis, xxxKOM(2006) yyy galutinis2006/aaa (COD)PasiūlymasEUROPOS PARLAMENTO IR TARYBOS REGLAMENTASiš dalies keičiantis Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 417/2002 dėl dvigubo korpuso arba lygiaverčių dizaino reikalavimų greitesnio įvedimo viengubo korpuso naftos tanklaiviams ir dėl Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 2978/94 panaikinimo(pateiktas Komisijos)AIŠKINAMASIS MEMORANDUMASPriimto Reglamento (EB) Nr. 417/2002 tikslas – nustatyti dvigubo korpuso arba lygiaverčius dizaino reikalavimus viengubo korpuso naftos tanklaiviams, siekiant sumažinti užteršimo angliavandeniliais pavojų.Imdamasi neatidėliotinų veiksmų paskendus naftos tanklaiviui Prestige , 2002 m. gruodžio 20 d. Komisija nusprendė pasiūlyti iš dalies pakeisti Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 417/2002, siekdama pagreitinti pradinį viengubo korpuso naftos tanklaivių laipsniško eksploatavimo nutraukimo planą ir nedelsiant uždrausti sunkiųjų naftos produktų vežimus viengubo korpuso naftos tanklaiviais į Europos Sąjungos valstybės narės uostus arba iš jų.Iki 2003 m. birželio svarbiausioms Komisijos sprendimo dalims pritarė Europos Parlamentas ir Taryba. Todėl 2003 m. spalio 21 d. įsigaliojo Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1726/2003, iš dalies keičiantis Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 417/2002.Tuo pačiu metu Komisija ir valstybės narės sutelkė visas pastangas, kad šios naujosios taisyklės galėtų būti pripažintos tarptautiniu lygiu iš dalies pakeičiant 1973 m Tarptautinę konvenciją dėl teršimo iš laivų prevencijos ir jos 1978 m. protokolą (MARPOL 73/78).2003 m. gruodyje Tarptautinės jūrų organizacijos IMO Jūrų aplinkos apsaugos komitetas MEPC pagal Europos Sąjungos priimtas priemones priėmė MARPOL 73/78 I priedo pataisymus. Tačiau šiuose pataisymuose yra tam tikrų išimčių, numatytų 13G[1] taisyklės 7 dalyje dėl viengubo korpuso naftos tanklaivių eksploatavimo nutraukimo plano ir 13H[2] taisyklės 5, 6 ir 7 dalyse dėl sunkiųjų naftos produktų vežimo viengubo korpuso naftos tanklaiviais uždraudimo.Pagal iš dalies pakeistą Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 417/2002 laivams plaukiojantiems su valstybės narės vėliava negali būti taikomos 13G taisyklės išimtys.Tačiau su valstybės narės vėliava plaukiojantiems laivams 13H taisyklės išimtys galėtų būti taikomos su sąlyga, jei jie neįplauktų į Bendrijos jurisdikcijos uostus ar atviroje jūroje esančius terminalus ir atitiktų iš dalies pakeisto Reglamento (EB) Nr. 417/2002 nuostatas.Europos Sąjungai pirmininkaujanti Italijos delegacija MEPC plenariniame posėdyje 15 valstybių narių ir Komisijos vardu, siekdama pranešti visoms MARPOL 73/78 susitariančioms šalims pareiškė, kad valstybės narės su jų vėliavomis plaukiojantiems tanklaiviams neleis pasinaudoti kuria nors viena iš išimčių. Ji taip pat pareiškė, kad valstybės narės taikys abiejų taisyklių 13G ir 13H 8b dalies nuostatas, kad tanklaiviams, kuriems laikinai buvo leista nukrypti nuo tarptautiniu lygiu pripažintos normos nebus leidžiama įplaukti į jų uostus ar atviroje jūroje esančius terminalus[3].Todėl nuo 2005 m. balandžio 5 d. įsigaliojus MARPOL 73/78 I priedo pataisymams, Bendrijos teisės aktų nuostatos panašios į visiems laivams, nepriklausomai nuo to su kokia vėliava jie plaukioja ir jų paskirties, taikomas tarptautines normas. Bet su valstybės narės vėliava plaukiojantiems ir į Europos Sąjungos uostus neįplaukiantiems viengubo korpuso naftos tanklaiviams numatyta galimybė taikyti 13H taisyklės išimtis.Komisija mano, kad ši teisinė galimybė nepriimtina politiniu požiūriu trečiųjų šalių, kurios yra MARPOL 73/78 susitariančiosios šalys atžvilgiu, ir kurioms Europos Sąjungos valstybės narės oficialiai įsipareigojo šių išimčių netaikyti. Pabrėžtina, kad su trečiųjų šalių vėliava plaukiojantiems laivams neleidžiama įplaukti į Bendrijos jurisdikcijos uostus ar atviroje jūroje esančius terminalus, jei jiems taikomos šios išimtys.Be to, 2003 m. gruodžio mėnesį valstybių narių vardu priimta pozicija atspindi daugelį kartų įvairios sudėties Tarybos ir Europos Vadovų Tarybos pareikštą politinę valią.Iš tikrųjų 2002 m. gruodžio 6 d. Transporto Ministrų Taryba, „sveikindama po ERIKA avarijos Bendrijos viduje ir Tarptautinės jūrų organizacijos IMO sutelktas, pilnas ryžto pastangas, pabrėždama visišką valstybės su kurios vėliava plaukiojama atsakomybę, įskaitant veiksmingą, jų vardu veiklą vykdančių, klasifikacinių bendrovių kontrolę, ir manydama, kad uosto valstybės veiksmingai taikomos sustiprintos kontrolės priemonės, įskaitant draudimą eksploatuoti laivus, suteikia ypač didelės svarbos iš eksploatavimo šalinant normų neatitinkančius laivus,“ susitarė, kad „sunkiuosius naftos produktus[4] privaloma vežti tik dvigubo korpuso naftos tanklaiviais.“Aplinkos Ministrų Taryba 2002 m. gruodžio 9 d. dar kartą patvirtino „2002 m. gruodžio 6 d. Transporto Ministrų Tarybos išvadas dėl laivų ir apsaugos nuo taršos, kuriomis siekiama sustiprinti laivybos saugą jūroje ir apsaugą nuo tanklaivių sukeliamos taršos“ ir ypač pritarė „priemonėms, kuriomis siekiama greičiau laipsniškai šalinti iš eksploatavimo viengubo korpuso naftos tanklaivius, uždrausti viengubo korpuso tanklaivių naudojimą sunkiesiems naftos produktams vežti ...“.Galiausiai, 2002 m. gruodžio 12 ir 13 d. Europos Vadovų Taryba Kopenhagoje patvirtino, kad „Sąjunga pasiryžusi imtis visų būtinų priemonių, kad panašios avarijos nepasikartotų ir džiaugiasi greitu Tarybos ir Komisijos atsaku. Siekdama šio tikslo, Sąjunga ir toliau imsis lemiamo vaidmens telkdama pastangas tarptautiniu lygiu, konkrečiai pačioje IMO. 2002 m. gruodžio 6 d. Transporto Ministrų Tarybos ir 2002 m. gruodžio 9 d. Aplinkos Ministrų Tarybos išvados turi būti įgyvendintos nedelsiant ir visais atžvilgiais.“Todėl atrodytų, kad Bendrijos norma, kuria laivams, plaukiojantiems su valstybės narės vėliava, ne Bendrijos vandenyse veiklą leidžiama vykdyti pagal išimtį sudarančias sąlygas, neatitinka šių priimtų politinių pozicijų.Todėl Reglamentas (EB) Nr. 417/2002 turi būti iš dalies pakeistas, kad būtų užtikrintas valstybių narių priimtų politinių įsipareigojimų laikymasis tarptautiniu lygiu ir, kad būtų užtikrinta Bendrijos jūrų saugumo politikos darna.Pirmuoju straipsniu numatoma iš dalies pakeisti 4 straipsnio 3 dalį. Šiuo daliniu pakeitimu išplečiama minėto reglamento reikalavimų, keliamų sunkiųjų naftos produktų vežimui laivais, plaukiojančiais su Europos Sąjungos valstybės narės vėliava, taikymo sritis. Juo uždraudžiamas sunkiųjų naftos produktų vežimas visais viengubo korpuso laivais, plaukiojančiais su valstybės narės vėliava, nepriklausomai nuo uostų, jūroje esančių terminalų ar jūros zonos, kurioje jie vykdo veiklą, jurisdikcijos.2006/aaa (COD)PasiūlymasEUROPOS PARLAMENTO IR TARYBOS REGLAMENTAS[data]iš dalies keičiantis Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 417/2002 dėl dvigubo korpuso arba lygiaverčių dizaino reikalavimų greitesnio įvedimo viengubo korpuso naftos tanklaiviams ir dėl Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 2978/94 panaikinimo(Tekstas svarbus EEE)EUROPOS PARLAMENTAS IR EUROPOS SĄJUNGOS TARYBA,atsižvelgdami į Europos bendrijos steigimo sutartį, ypač į jos 80 straipsnio 2 dalį,atsižvelgdama į Komisijos pasiūlymą[5],atsižvelgdami į Ekonomikos ir socialinių reikalų komiteto nuomonę[6],atsižvelgdami į Regionų komiteto nuomonę[7],laikydamiesi Sutarties 251 straipsnyje nustatytos tvarkos[8],kadangi:1. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentu (EB) Nr. 417/2002[9] numatytas greitesnis dvigubo korpuso arba lygiaverčių dizaino reikalavimų, nustatytų 1973 m Tarptautine konvencija dėl teršimo iš laivų prevencijos su pakeitimais, padarytais 1978 m. protokolu (toliau – MARPOL 73/78), viengubo korpuso naftos tanklaiviams įvedimas, siekiant sumažinti atsitiktinį Europos vandenų užteršimo angliavandeniliais pavojų.2. Minėtu reglamentu buvo pradėtos taikyti sunkiųjų naftos produktų vežimą į Europos Sąjungos uostus arba iš jų viengubo korpuso tanklaiviais draudžiančios nuostatos.3. Po valstybių narių ir Komisijos veiksmų Tarptautinėje jūrų organizacijoje (TJO), šis draudimas buvo pripažintas tarptautiniu lygiu iš dalies pakeičiant MARPOL 73/78 I priedą.4. Minėto priedo 13H taisyklės dėl sunkiųjų naftos produktų vežimo viengubo korpuso naftos tanklaiviais uždraudimo 5, 6 ir 7 dalyse numatytos jos taikymo išimtys. Italijos pirmininkavimo Europos Sąjungai metu paskelbtoje deklaracijoje, įtrauktoje į oficialią TJO Jūrų aplinkos apsaugos komiteto (MEPC 50) ataskaitą, išreikštas politinis įsipareigojimas šiomis išimtimis nesinaudoti.5. Remiantis Reglamentu (EB) Nr. 417/2002 su valstybės narės vėliava plaukiojantiems laivams 13H taisyklės išimtys galėtų būti taikomos su sąlyga, jei jie neįplauktų į Bendrijos jurisdikcijos uostus ar atviroje jūroje esančius terminalus ir atitiktų minėto reglamento nuostatas.6. Todėl Reglamentas (EB) Nr. 417/2002 turėtų būti atitinkamai iš dalies pakeistas,PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ REGLAMENTĄ:1 straipsnisReglamento (EB) Nr. 417/2002 4 straipsnyje įterpiama tokia 3a dalis:„3a. Visiems, išskyrus dvigubo korpuso naftos tanklaiviams, vežantiems sunkiuosius naftos produktus draudžiama plaukioti su valstybės narės vėliava.“2 straipsnisŠis reglamentas įsigalioja dvidešimtą dieną nuo jo paskelbimo Europos Sąjungos oficialiajame leidinyje .Šis reglamentas yra privalomas visas ir tiesiogiai taikomas visose valstybėse narėse.Priimta Briuselyje, [data]Europos Parlamento vardu Tarybos varduPirmininkas Pirmininkas[...] [...] [1] 20 taisyklė pagal naują MARPOL 73/78 pakeisto I priedo numeraciją[2] 21 taisyklė pagal naują MARPOL 73/78 pakeisto I priedo numeraciją[3] Jūrų aplinkos apsaugos komiteto ataskaita apie penkiasdešimtosios sesijos darbą, dokumentas MEPC 50/3, VI priedas, p. 1.[4] Jiems priskiriami: sunkusis mazutas, degutas, bitumas ir sunkioji nevalyta nafta.[5] OL C [...], [...], p. [...].[6] OL C [...], [...], p. [...].[7] OL C [...], [...], p. [...].[8] OL C [...], [...], p. [...].[9] OL L 64, 2002 3 7, p. 1. Reglamentas su paskutiniais pakeitimais, padarytais Reglamentu (EB) Nr. 2172/2004 (OL L 371, 2004 12 18, p. 26).


type: wikipedia

text:
November måned er opkaldt efter novem, latin for "9" (idet marts i sin tid var årets første måned). Ældre dansk navn er slagtemåned.
 November i Danmark
 Normaltal for november
 Middeltemperatur: 5,5 °C
 Nedbør: 70 mm
 Soltimer: 53
 Vejrrekorder for november måned
 1902 – Den tørreste med kun 13 mm nedbør.
 1919 – Den koldeste november med en middeltemperatur på 0,7 °C. Max- og minimumtemperaturen var hhv. 10,1 og -16,1 °C.
 1968 - Den højeste lufttemperatur målt i november: 18,5 °C i Faksinge.
 1969 – Den vådeste med hele 155 mm nedbør.
 1973 - Den laveste lufttemperatur målt i november: -21,3 °C i Egvad ved Tarm.
 1989 – Den solrigeste med hele 88 soltimer.
 1993 – Den solfattigste med kun 19 soltimer.
 2006 – Den varmeste november med en middeltemperatur på 8,1 °C. Max- og minimumtemperaturen var hhv. 16,6 og -6,7 °C .
 Ekstern henvisning
 Dmi: Månedens vejr
 Måneder


text:
Maitinimas krūtimi () – kūdikio maitinimas (žindymas) krūtimi, kur pieno liaukose gaminasi pienas. Kūdikiai gimsta turėdami čiulpimo instinktą, kurio dėka naujagimis per pirmąsias valandas pradeda žįsti krūtį.
 Mokslininkai nustatė, kad vaiką maitinant krūtimi, jo intelekto koeficientas gali būti aukštesnis.
 Žindymo istorija
 Antropologai, ištyrę archeologų radinius, teigia, jog labai tolimoje senovėje vaikai buvo žindomi kelerius metus. Tokia informacija rasta Mesopotamijos, Egipto ir kitų senovės civilizacijų šaltiniuose. Kai kurios primatų rūšys žindydavo savo jauniklius iki tol, kol jiems išdygdavo pirmasis nuolatinis dantis. Tačiau žmonių smegenys yra itin didelės, todėl joms reikia daugiau maistinių medžiagų, todėl vaikai yra anksčiau supažindinami su paprastu maistu. Pavyzdžiui, senovės Indijoje buvo rekomenduojama maitinti vaikus motinos pienu vienerius metus, po to motinos pienu ir solidžiu maistu iki 2 gimtadienio, ir tik tada palaipsniui nutraukti žindymą. Industrializacijos metu alternatyvūs kūdikių maitinimo būdai tapo itin populiarūs. Moterys kūdikius maitindavo tik kelis mėnesius, vėliau jais rūpindavosi senos moterys arba jaunos merginos, nes motinos turėdavo grįžti atgal į darbą, todėl žindymas būdavo nutraukiamas. Nors pasaulinė žmogaus sveikatos organizacija rekomenduoja kūdikius maitinti bent pirmuosius 6 mėn., dauguma moterų pasirenka grįžti į darbą, todėl toks maitinimo modelis populiarus ir dabar.
 Žindymo nauda motinai
 Sėkmingas žindymas, suderintas su tinkama motinos mityba, lemia ir geresnę motinos sveikatą. Tuoj po gimdymo pridėtų prie krūties naujagimių net ir silpnas žindimas skatina hormono oksitocino išsiskyrimą, kuris skatina gimdos raumenų susitraukimą, t. y. pagerina ir pagreitina placentos atsiskyrimą ir sumažina kraujavimo pavojų bei apsaugo nuo geležies netekimo. Taip pat žindymas padeda numesti per nėštumą priaugtą svorį, kadangi maitinant krūtimi sunaudojama itin daug energijos, t. y. kalorijų. Be to, žindymas nors 2 mėnesius sumažina tikimybę susirgti kiaušidžių vėžiu 25%, 3 mėnesius žindžiusios motinos 2 kartus rečiau serga krūties vėžiu. Žindymas taip pat saugo nuo per ankstyvo, neplanuoto nėštumo, o osteoporozės tikimybė sumažėja 50 %.
 Žindymo nauda kūdikiui
 Natūralaus maitinimo privalumus pirmiausiai nulemia unikali motinos pieno sudėtis. Jame yra:
 Apsauginiai faktoriai – imunoglobulinai, baltieji kraujo kūneliai, oligosacharidai, lipidai, laktoferinas, lizocimas ir daug kitų naudingų medžiagų.
 Brandinantys faktoriai – augimo faktorius, imunomoduliatoriai, nukleotidai.
 Kompensuojantys faktoriai – virškinimo fermentai, hormonai.
 Mitybos faktoriai – riebalai, baltymai, angliavandeniai, vitaminai, mineralai.
 Visi šie motinos pieno komponentai sudaro palankias sąlygas geram kūdikio vystymuisi. Motinos pienas ne tik idealus vitaminų bei maisto medžiagų mišinys, bet ir lengvai virškinamas ir įsisavinamas kūdikio maistas. Motinos piene yra antikūnų, kurie padeda vaikui kovoti su virusais ir bakterijomis. Žindymas sumažina kūdikio astmos ar alergijos riziką. Kūdikiai, kurie yra maitinami krūtimi pirmuosius šešis mėnesius, mažiau serga ausų infekcijomis, kvėpavimo ligomis, pilvo diegliais, viduriavimu, cukriniu diabetu, rečiau nutunka, išsivysto insulino rezistencija, cholesterolio metabolizmo sutrikimai.
 Šaltiniai
 Nuorodos
 www.kruties-vezys.lt
 www.webmd.com
 K. Vitkauskas MEDICINOS ĮTAKA ŽINDYMO TRUKMEI LIETUVOJE
 Žmogaus reprodukcija
 Mityba


type: contracts

text:
 30.3.2017
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 L 85/59
 DEĊIŻJONI TAL-KUMITAT KONĠUNT TAŻ-ŻEE
 Nru 232/2015
 tal-25 ta' Settembru 2015
 li temenda l-Anness XXI (Statistika) tal-Ftehim ŻEE [2017/539]
 IL-KUMITAT KONĠUNT TAŻ-ŻEE,
 Wara li kkunsidra l-Ftehim dwar iż-Żona Ekonomika Ewropea (“il-Ftehim ŻEE”), u b'mod partikolari l-Artikolu 98 tiegħu,
 Billi:
 (1)
 Ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2015/245 tas-16 ta' Frar 2015 li jimplimenta r-Regolament (KE) Nru 1177/2003 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill li jirrigwarda l-istatistika Komunitarja dwar l-introjtu u l-kondizzjonijiet tal-għixien (UE-SILC) fir-rigward tal-lista tal-2016 tal-fatturi varjabbli sekondarji fil-mira dwar l-aċċess għas-servizzi (1) għandu jiġi inkorporat fil-Ftehim ŻEE.
 (2)
 Għalhekk, l-Anness XXI tal-Ftehim ŻEE għandu jiġi emendat skont dan,
 ADOTTA DIN ID-DEĊIŻJONI:
 Artikolu 1
 Il-punt li ġej jiddaħħal wara l-punt 18id (Ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (UE) Nru 112/2013) tal-Anness XXI tal-Ftehim ŻEE:
 “18ie.
 32015 R 0245: Ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2015/245 tas-16 ta' Frar 2015 li jimplimenta r-Regolament (KE) Nru 1177/2003 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill li jirrigwarda l-istatistika Komunitarja dwar l-introjtu u l-kondizzjonijiet tal-għixien (UE-SILC) fir-rigward tal-lista tal-2016 tal-fatturi varjabbli sekondarji fil-mira dwar l-aċċess għas-servizzi (ĠU L 41, 17.2.2015, p. 11).”
 Artikolu 2
 It-testi tar-Regolament (UE) 2015/245 bil-lingwa Iżlandiża u b'dik Norveġiża, li għandhom jiġu ppubblikati fis-Suppliment taż-ŻEE ta' Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea, għandhom ikunu awtentiċi.
 Artikolu 3
 Din id-Deċiżjoni għandha tidħol fis-seħħ fis-26 ta' Settembru 2015, bil-kundizzjoni li jkunu saru n-notifiki kollha skont l-Artikolu 103(1) tal-Ftehim ŻEE (*1).
 Artikolu 4
 Din id-Deċiżjoni għandha tiġi ppubblikata fit-Taqsima taż-ŻEE ta' Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea, u fis-Suppliment tiegħu dwar iż-ŻEE.
 Magħmul fi Brussell, il-25 ta' Settembru 2015.
 Għall-Kumitat Konġunt taż-ŻEE
 Il-President
 Ingrid SCHULERUD
 (1) ĠU L 41, 17.2.2015, p. 11.
 (*1) L-ebda rekwiżiti kostituzzjonali ma huma indikati.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' Issue Date\n September 22, 2009\n Audit Report Number\n 2009-KC-1010\n\n\n\n\nTO: Frances M. Cleary, Deputy Director, Office of Public Housing, 7APH\n\n //signed//\nFROM: Ronald J. Hosking, Regional Inspector General for Audit, 7AGA\n\nSUBJECT: The Kansas City, Kansas, Housing Authority Inappropriately Spent Federal\n Funds for Nonfederal Development Activities\n\n\n HIGHLIGHTS\n\n What We Audited and Why\n\n We reviewed the development activities of the Kansas City, Kansas, Housing\n Authority (Authority) to determine whether the Authority improperly spent\n federal public housing funds when developing and operating nonfederal\n developments. We conducted the audit because of a citizen complaint received\n by our office.\n\n What We Found\n The Authority inappropriately spent federal funds for nonfederal development\n activities. It transferred nearly $1 million from its public housing general fund\n bank account to the Community Housing Investment Group\xe2\x80\x99s (the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s\n nonprofit affiliate) bank account between January 2002 and December 2006. It\n also inappropriately spent federal funds for payroll costs when staff worked on\n nonfederal development activities. None of the nonfederal developments that\n staff worked on were projects covered by the annual contributions contract, nor\n had HUD approved the use of public housing funds for these activities.\n\x0cWhat We Recommend\n We recommend that HUD require the Authority to repay its public housing\n program nearly $184,000 from nonfederal sources for federal funds that were\n inappropriately used and not yet repaid and to implement adequate procedures to\n ensure that it does not spend HUD assets on nonfederal activities without HUD\n approval. Additionally, HUD should require the Authority to provide\n documentation to support payroll costs allocated to HUD programs or reimburse\n its HUD programs from nonfederal sources for costs that it cannot adequately\n support. HUD should also require the Authority to implement an acceptable\n method for allocating future payroll costs.\n\n For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and\n provide status reports in accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-3.\n Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the\n audit.\n\nAuditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n The Authority generally agreed with our conclusions and recommendations but\n disagreed with our calculation of questioned payroll costs. We provided the draft\n report to the Authority on August 20, 2009, and requested a response by\n September 11, 2009. It provided written comments on September 11, 2009.\n\n The complete text of the auditee\xe2\x80\x99s response, along with our evaluation of that\n response, can be found in appendix B of this report.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nBackground and Objective 4\n\nResults of Audit\n Finding 1: The Authority Inappropriately Spent Federal Funds for Nonfederal 6\n Development Activities\n\n Finding 2: The Authority Inappropriately Spent Federal Funds for Payroll Costs 9\n When Staff Worked on Nonfederal Development Activities\n\nScope and Methodology 12\n\nInternal Controls 13\n\nAppendixes\n A. Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds to Be Put to Better Use 15\n B. Auditee Comments and OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Evaluation 16\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE\n\nThe Kansas City, Kansas, Housing Authority (Authority) was chartered by the State of Kansas in\n1957. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s mission is to help families and individuals with low and moderate\nincomes by providing safe, affordable, quality housing; partnering with community services and\nagencies; and promoting economic opportunity. The Authority is governed by a 12-member\nboard of commissioners that provides oversight to the agency and its staff.\n\nThe Authority owns and operates 2,045 public housing units that provide housing options for the\ndisabled, elderly, and families whose income meets U.S. Department of Housing and Urban\nDevelopment (HUD) guidelines. The Authority also administers a Section 8 Housing Choice\nVoucher program that enables 1,469 low-income families to rent from a private landlord with\nrental assistance administered by the Authority. The Authority received $6.2 million for its\npublic housing program and $8.4 million for its Section 8 program for fiscal year 2008.\n\nTo participate in HUD\xe2\x80\x99s public housing programs, the Authority executed an annual\ncontributions contract with HUD on January 23, 1996. The annual contributions contract defines\nthe terms and conditions under which the Authority agreed to develop and operate all projects\nunder the agreement. The contract defines a project as any public housing developed, acquired,\nor assisted by HUD under the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended. The contract\nstates that the Authority may withdraw public housing funds only for the payment of the costs of\ndevelopment and operation of the projects under the contract or other purposes approved by\nHUD.\n\nDue to concerns about housing authority development activities nationwide, on June 20, 2007,\nHUD\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) issued Notice PIH 2007-15 (HA),\n\xe2\x80\x9cApplicability of Public Housing Development Requirements to Transactions between Public\nHousing Agencies and their Related Affiliates and Instrumentalities.\xe2\x80\x9d This notice reaffirmed the\nrequirements of public and Indian housing programs, including the annual contributions contract,\nthat apply to public housing development activities.\n\nIn accordance with its agency plan, a public housing agency may form and operate wholly\nowned or controlled subsidiaries or other affiliates. Such wholly owned or controlled\nsubsidiaries or other affiliates may be directed, managed, or controlled by the same persons who\nconstitute the board of directors or similar governing body of the public housing agency or who\nserve as employees or staff of the public housing agency but remain subject to other provision of\nlaw and conflict-of-interest requirements. Further, a public housing agency, in accordance with\nits agency plan, may enter into joint ventures, partnerships, or other business arrangements with\nor contract with any person, organization, entity, or governmental unit with respect to the\nadministration of the programs of the public housing agency such as developing housing or\nproviding supportive/social services subject to either Title I of the United States Housing Act of\n1937, as amended, or state law.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cThe Authority set up a nonprofit\naffiliate, Community Housing\nInvestment Group, in 2001 so the\nAuthority could develop mixed-\nfinanced properties to create new\npublic housing for low-income\nfamilies. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s board of\ncommissioners\xe2\x80\x99 chairman and the\nexecutive director sit on the board\nof directors for the nonprofit\naffiliate. The nonprofit affiliate\ntried to develop four different\nprojects, but only Delaware\nHighlands Assisted Living was\ncompleted.\n Delaware Highlands Assisted Living\n\nDelaware Highlands Assisted Living is a 121-unit property that began development in 2003 and\nopened in September 2006. It was not constructed using mixed financing, nor does it contain\npublic housing units. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s executive director has managed the daily operations of the\nproperty since September 2008.\n\nOur audit objective was to determine whether the Authority improperly spent federal public\nhousing funds when developing and operating nonfederal developments.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c RESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nFinding 1: The Authority Inappropriately Spent Federal Funds for\n Nonfederal Development Activities\nThe Authority inappropriately spent federal funds for nonfederal development activities. This\ncondition occurred because the executive director relied on consultants, who told him it was\nacceptable to spend public housing funds on nonfederal development and repay the funds when\npermanent financing was in place. As a result, the Authority did not have nearly $1 million of its\npublic housing funds available for the intended purpose, which was to provide decent and safe\nhousing for low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.\n\n\n\n Authority Used Public Housing\n Funds to Pay Nonfederal\n Development Expenses\n\n The Authority inappropriately spent HUD public housing funds for nonfederal\n development activities. According to the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s annual contributions\n contract with HUD, the Authority may withdraw money from its public housing\n fund only for the payment of the costs and operation of the projects covered under\n the contract. The nonfederal developments were not approved projects under the\n contract.\n\n The Authority transferred nearly $1 million from its public housing general fund\n bank account to the Community Housing Investment Group\xe2\x80\x99s (the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s\n nonprofit affiliate) bank account between January 2002 and December 2006. In\n addition to the transfers, the Authority wrote a $500 check from its public housing\n general fund account for an application to the Internal Revenue Service for\n nonprofit status on behalf of the nonprofit affiliate. When the nonprofit affiliate\n received bond sale proceeds and construction loans in March 2005, it repaid the\n Authority nearly $803,000 but later used another $23,000 in federal funds. The\n nonprofit affiliate still owed about $184,000 to the public housing general fund as\n of May 2009.\n\n Public housing\n Calendar year funds used Balance\n 2002 (includes $500 check) $163,367 $163,367\n 2003 $81,832 $245,199\n 2004 $676,262 $921,461\n 2005 (January through March) $42,349 $963,810\n 2005 (March repayment) ($802,835) $160,975\n 2005 (April through December) $5,272 $166,247\n 2006 $17,654 $183,901\n\n 6\n\x0c The nonprofit affiliate used the inappropriately transferred money to pay\n predevelopment costs for two planned developments. Only one of the two\n planned developments materialized, Delaware Highlands Assisted Living. The\n predevelopment expenses included the land purchase for Delaware Highlands\n Assisted Living and fees for attorneys, architects, and appraisers.\n\nExecutive Director Relied on\nConsultants\n\n The executive director relied on consultants, who told him it was acceptable to\n spend public housing funds on nonfederal development and repay the funds when\n permanent financing was in place. The executive director stated that the\n consultants told him the Authority could use the HUD funds as long as the\n Authority accounted for and repaid the funds when it obtained other sources of\n financing. The executive director relied on this information and presented it in\n the same way to the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s board of commissioners. The commissioners\n also relied on this advice.\n\n In addition, the executive director told us that the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s independent auditor\n did not consider the debt owed by the nonprofit affiliate to the Authority to be a\n reportable finding. He told us that because the consultants and the independent\n auditor thought this practice was acceptable, he relied on their advice as experts in\n their respective fields.\n\nPublic Housing Funds Were\nNot Available for Intended\nPurposes\n\n Beginning in 2002 and continuing through May 2009, the Authority had not had\n nearly $1 million of its public housing funds available for the intended purpose,\n which was to provide decent and safe housing for low-income families, the\n elderly, and persons with disabilities.\n\n In addition, as of May 2009, the nonprofit affiliate owed the Authority about\n $184,000, with no apparent ability to repay the funds until the Delaware\n Highlands Assisted Living facility generates sufficient funds to begin repayment.\n The facility\xe2\x80\x99s audited financial information, for the period ending December 31,\n 2008, showed that the facility had an operating loss of nearly $1 million since it\n opened in September 2006. Therefore, persons intended to benefit from the\n public housing funds will receive less assistance than they would have until the\n Authority secures funds to repay the public housing program.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cRecommendations\n\n We recommend that the Deputy Director, Office of Public Housing, require the\n Authority to\n\n 1A. Repay its public housing program from nonfederal sources for any federal\n funds inappropriately used, including $183,901 owed by the Community\n Housing Investment Group as of March 31, 2009.\n\n 1B. Implement adequate procedures to ensure that it does not spend HUD\n funds on nonfederal programs and activities without HUD approval.\n These procedures should include following Notice PIH 2007-15, which\n addresses spending HUD-related assets in relation to development\n activities.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cFinding 2: The Authority Inappropriately Spent Federal Funds for\n Payroll Costs When Staff Worked on Nonfederal\n Development Activities\nThe Authority inappropriately spent federal funds for payroll costs when staff worked on\nnonfederal development activities. This condition occurred because the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s executive\ndirector did not understand the requirements. As a result, public housing tenants did not receive\nthe full benefit of Authority employees\xe2\x80\x99 time and efforts for which the Authority paid nearly $1.5\nmillion in payroll costs.\n\n\n\n Authority Spent Federal Funds\n on Nonfederal Activities\n\n\n The Authority inappropriately paid payroll costs (salaries and benefits) from its\n federal public housing funds for staff that worked on nonfederal development\n activities. The annual contributions contract between the Authority and HUD\n allows the Authority to use public housing funds only for the costs of\n development and operation of the projects under the contract or other purposes\n approved by HUD. None of the nonfederal developments that staff worked on\n beginning in January 2002 was covered by the annual contributions contract, nor\n had HUD approved the use of public housing funds for payroll costs when staff\n worked on these nonfederal efforts.\n\n Five Authority employees spent a portion of their time working on nonfederal\n development activities beginning in January 2002. Beginning in January 2003,\n staff worked on developing Delaware Highlands Assisted Living, a nonfederal\n development, which opened in September 2006. After the facility opened, two\n additional staff members began spending time on nonfederal activities.\n\n\n Authority Did Not Track Time\n for Nonfederal Activities\n\n Authority staff that worked on nonfederal development activities did not track\n their time spent on federal or nonfederal activities. The annual contributions\n contract requires the Authority to maintain records that identify the source and use\n of funds in a way that allows HUD to determine that all funds are and have been\n spent in accordance with each specific program requirement. Further, Office of\n Management and Budget Circular A-87 states that when employees work on\n multiple activities, the employer must support salary distributions with personnel\n activity reports or equivalent documentation.\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c The executive director and department heads were primarily the employees who\n worked on nonfederal development activities. The Authority did not require its\n managers to keep detailed records of their activities. As a result, the Authority\n had no records of staff time spent on federal or nonfederal activities and,\n therefore, could not support payroll costs charged to the public housing program\n during the nonfederal development period.\n\n In addition, the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s executive director began managing the daily\n operations of Delaware Highlands Assisted Living in September 2008. The\n nonfederal development had incurred losses of nearly $1 million since opening in\n 2006. The nonprofit affiliate\xe2\x80\x99s board members fired three management agents\n during this period. As a result, the nonprofit affiliate\xe2\x80\x99s board members instructed\n the executive director to manage Delaware Highland Assisted Living\xe2\x80\x99s daily\n operations in an attempt to make the nonfederal development profitable. The\n executive director told us that he expected to manage the nonfederal development\n for at least the next year.\n\nAuthority Management Did Not\nUnderstand Requirements\n\n The executive director did not understand HUD requirements. He believed that it\n was the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility to pay salaries for Authority staff working on\n nonfederal developments because the board of commissioners instructed him to\n carry out the development activities.\n\n The board of commissioners\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Created a nonprofit to develop low-income housing,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Appointed the executive director as a member of the nonprofit board, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Expected the executive director to aggressively pursue developing low-\n income housing.\n\n The executive director told us that he believed it was his responsibility to carry\n out the board of commissioners\xe2\x80\x99 wishes and in hindsight he should have kept\n track of the time he and other staff spent on the nonfederal activities. He also told\n us that he tried to work on the nonfederal activities outside the normal 40-hour\n work week but had no documentation to support this assertion. In addition, he\n told us that he tried to limit the amount of time his staff spent on the nonfederal\n development activities.\n\nAuthority Tenants May Have\nBeen Underserved\n\n Public housing tenants did not receive the full benefit of Authority employees\xe2\x80\x99\n time and efforts for which the Authority paid nearly $1.5 million in payroll costs.\n\n 10\n\x0c Further, without an acceptable method of allocating such costs, the Authority will\n pay at least $194,000 in unsupported payroll costs, excluding benefits, from\n federal funds within the next year. When the Authority used federal funds to pay\n for employee time spent on activities other than public housing activities, it\n deprived the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s public housing tenants of funds that should have been\n spent on their needs.\n\nRecommendations\n\n We recommend that the Deputy Director, Office of Public Housing, require the\n Authority to\n\n 2A. Provide documentation to support payroll costs allocated to HUD\n programs or reimburse its HUD programs from nonfederal sources for\n costs that it cannot adequately support. These costs should include\n $1,452,462 allocated from April 1, 2002, to March 31, 2009.\n\n 2B. Implement an acceptable method for allocating future payroll costs, such\n as daily activity reports or equivalent documentation, for services\n performed. This measure will ensure that an estimated $194,079 in\n payroll costs that will be allocated in the next year will be put to better\n use.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nOur review generally covered the period January 2002 through February 2009 and was expanded\nas necessary. We performed on-site work from March through July 2009 at the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s\noffice located at 1124 North 9th Street, Kansas City, Kansas.\n\nTo achieve our audit objective, we conducted interviews of the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s staff and members of\nits board of commissioners. We also conducted interviews of HUD staff at the Kansas City,\nKansas, Office of Public Housing. We reviewed the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s policies and procedures,\ndevelopment files, general ledgers, payable files, payroll files, and audited financial statements.\nWe also reviewed the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s annual plan, board of commissioners meeting minutes,\ncorrespondence with HUD, annual contributions contracts, bank statements, and bank loan\ndocuments. In addition, we reviewed federal regulations and HUD requirements.\n\nWe reviewed reports generated from the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s computerized accounting system for\nevidence of spending public housing assets without prior HUD approval. We used the\ncomputerized data for background information purposes only; therefore, we did not conduct tests\nof the data or controls governing the data. We did not use the data to support audit conclusions\nbut used only original source documents to reach our conclusions.\n\nWe assigned a value to the potential savings to the Authority if HUD implements our\nrecommendations. If HUD implements recommendation 2B requiring the Authority to\nimplement an acceptable method for allocating future payroll costs, it will protect an estimated\n$194,079 in salaries for staff who will likely work on nonfederal development activities in the\nnext fiscal year. The estimate will be a recurring benefit; however, our estimate reflects only the\ninitial year of this benefit.\n\nWe conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.\nThose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\nevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings\nand conclusions based on our audit objective.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c INTERNAL CONTROLS\n\nInternal control is an integral component of an organization\xe2\x80\x99s management that provides\nreasonable assurance that the following controls are achieved:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Program operations,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Relevance and reliability of information,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Safeguarding of assets and resources.\n\nInternal controls relate to management\xe2\x80\x99s plans, methods, and procedures used to meet its\nmission, goals, and objectives. They include the processes and procedures for planning,\norganizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the systems for measuring,\nreporting, and monitoring program performance.\n\n\n\n Relevant Internal Controls\n We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit\n objectives:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Controls to ensure that the Authority complied with its annual\n contributions contract with HUD regarding the use of federal funds.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Controls to ensure that the Authority complied with Office of\n Management and Budget Circular A-87, \xe2\x80\x9cCost Principles for State, Local,\n and Indian Tribal Governments,\xe2\x80\x9d regarding support for payroll costs and\n funding sources used for these costs.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Controls to ensure adequate oversight of the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s daily operations.\n\n We assessed the relevant controls identified above.\n\n A significant weakness exists if management controls do not provide reasonable\n assurance that the process for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling\n program operations will meet the organization\xe2\x80\x99s objectives.\n\n Significant Weakness\n\n Based on our review, we believe that the following item is a significant weakness:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Authority did not have adequate controls in place to ensure that its\n spending of federal funds complied with federal regulations and its annual\n contributions contract with HUD (findings 1 and 2).\n 13\n\x0cSeparate Communication of\nMinor Deficiencies\n\n We reported a minor internal control issue to the auditee in a separate memorandum,\n dated September 8, 2009.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c APPENDIXES\n\nAppendix A\n\n SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS\n AND FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE\n\n Recommendation Ineligible 1/ Unsupported Funds to be put\n number 2/ to better use 3/\n 1A $183,901\n 2A $1,452,462\n 2B $194,079\n\n\n1/ Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or activity\n that the auditor believes are not allowable by law; contract; or federal, state, or local\n policies or regulations.\n\n2/ Unsupported costs are those costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program\n or activity when we cannot determine eligibility at the time of the audit. Unsupported\n costs require a decision by HUD program officials. This decision, in addition to\n obtaining supporting documentation, might involve a legal interpretation or clarification\n of departmental policies and procedures.\n\n3/ Recommendations that funds be put to better use are estimates of amounts that could be\n used more efficiently if an Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommendation is\n implemented. These amounts include reductions in outlays, deobligation of funds,\n withdrawal of interest, costs not incurred by implementing recommended improvements,\n avoidance of unnecessary expenditures noted in preaward reviews, and any other savings\n that are specifically identified.\n\n If HUD requires the Authority to implement an acceptable method for allocating future\n payroll costs, it will protect future payroll costs for staff that will likely work on\n nonfederal development activities in the next fiscal year. The estimate will be a recurring\n benefit; however, our estimate reflects only the initial year of this benefit.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cAppendix B\n\n AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cComment 1\n\n\n\n\n **We redacted names to protect the individual\xe2\x80\x99s or entity\xe2\x80\x99s privacy.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cComment 1\n\n\nComment 2\n\n\n\nComment 3\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0cComment 4\n\n\n\n\nComment 5\n\n\n\nComment 6\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cComment 7\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0c21\n\x0c22\n\x0c23\n\x0c OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments\n\nComment 1 Notice PIH 2007-15 of June 2007, reiterated HUD restrictions on federal funding\n that already existed in annual contributions contracts between public housing\n authorities and HUD. The Authority entered into an annual contributions contract\n with HUD on January 23, 1996, well before OIG issued audit report 2004-AT-\n 0001 in 2004. The contract stated the Authority may withdraw public housing\n funds only for the payment of development and operation costs of the projects\n under the contract or other purposes approved by HUD. Delaware Highlands\n Assisted Living did not contain public housing units, was not covered under the\n contract, nor was it approved by HUD.\n\nComment 2 We disagree that HUD changed its guidelines as a result of OIG audit report\n 2004-AT-0001. The OIG report pointed out to HUD an apparent misconception\n by public housing authorities regarding how such entities could use federal funds\n in development activities. HUD subsequently reminded public housing\n authorities of federal funding use restrictions that already existed in their annual\n contributions contract.\n\nComment 3 Our report did not detail the makeup of the $184,901 in federal funds\n inappropriately used for development activities. The $183,901 due from the\n nonprofit affiliate to the Authority was made up of $163,367 for Bethany Hospital\n development efforts and $20,534 for Delaware Highlands Assisted Living.\n\nComment 4 The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s annual plans described development activities in vague terms and\n stated that the Authority intended to pursue replacement of public housing units\n and development of assisted housing. The annual plans did not state that the\n Authority intended to use public housing funds for developments that did not\n contain public housing units.\n\nComment 5 The Authority accurately reported the amount due from its nonprofit affiliate in its\n annual audited financial statements. However, the Authority did not disclose in\n the notes to the financial statements that the amount due from the affiliate\n represented federal funds spent for nonfederal development activities.\n\nComment 6 We agree that the Authority was not without use of $1 million during the entire\n audited time period. However, nearly $1 million of the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s funds were\n not available for the intended purpose as of March 2005. The chart on page 7 of\n this audit report demonstrates the flow of federal funds to/from nonfederal\n development activities between January 2002 and December 2006.\n\nComment 7 The $1.5 million questioned represents payroll costs for employees that spent time\n working on federal and nonfederal activities during periods of the development\n efforts. These employees did not track the time they spent on federal or\n nonfederal activities. Therefore, we questioned their payroll costs for those\n periods in which they worked on both types of activities.\n\n 24\n\x0c'


text:
 9.11.2013
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 299/20
 UITVOERINGSVERORDENING (EU) Nr. 1118/2013 VAN DE COMMISSIE
 van 6 november 2013
 tot goedkeuring van een niet-minimale wijziging van het productdossier van een benaming die is opgenomen in het register van beschermde oorsprongsbenamingen en beschermde geografische aanduidingen [Miel de Corse – Mele di Corsica (BOB)]
 DE EUROPESE COMMISSIE,
 Gezien het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie,
 Gezien Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 21 november 2012 inzake kwaliteitsregelingen voor landbouwproducten en levensmiddelen (1), en met name artikel 52, lid 2,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 Overeenkomstig artikel 53, lid 1, eerste alinea, van Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012 heeft de Commissie een door Frankrijk ingediend verzoek beoordeeld om goedkeuring van een wijziging van het productdossier van de beschermde oorsprongsbenaming „Miel de Corse – Mele di Corsica”, die bij Verordening (EG) nr. 1187/2000 van de Commissie (2) is geregistreerd.
 (2)
 Aangezien de betrokken wijziging niet minimaal is in de zin van artikel 53, lid 2, van Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012, heeft de Commissie de wijzigingsaanvraag overeenkomstig artikel 50, lid 2, onder a), van die verordening bekendgemaakt in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 (3).
 (3)
 Aangezien de Commissie geen enkel bezwaar overeenkomstig artikel 51 van Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012 heeft ontvangen, moet de wijziging worden goedgekeurd,
 HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 De in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie bekendgemaakte wijziging van het productdossier met betrekking tot de in de bijlage bij deze verordening vermelde benaming wordt goedgekeurd.
 Artikel 2
 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de twintigste dag na die van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 6 november 2013.
 Voor de Commissie, namens de voorzitter,
 Dacian CIOLOȘ
 Lid van de Commissie
 (1) PB L 343 van 14.12.2012, blz. 1.
 (2) PB L 133 van 6.6.2000, blz. 19.
 (3) PB C 134 van 14.5.2013, blz. 39.
 BIJLAGE
 In bijlage I bij het Verdrag genoemde landbouwproducten voor menselijke consumptie:
 Categorie 1.4. Andere producten van dierlijke oorsprong (eieren, honing, diverse zuivelproducten met uitzondering van boter, enz.)
 FRANKRIJK
 Miel de Corse - Mele di Corsica (BOB)