type: contracts

text:
 Fontos jogi nyilatkozat
 |
 21999D0415(08)
 Hivatalos Lap L 100 , 15/04/1999 o. 0048 - 0049
 Az EGT-Vegyesbizottság 62/98 határozata(1998. július 4.)az EGT-megállapodás II. mellékletének (műszaki előírások, szabványok, vizsgálatok és tanúsítás) módosításárólAZ EGT-VEGYESBIZOTTSÁG,tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló, az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás kiigazításáról szóló jegyzőkönyvvel módosított megállapodásra (a továbbiakban: a Megállapodás), és különösen annak 98. cikkére,mivel a Megállapodás II. mellékletét az 1997. november 12-i 80/97 EGT-vegyesbizottsági határozat [1] módosította;mivel végberendezés-interfészek nyílt hálózatellátású (ONP) kéthuzalos analóg bérelt vonalakra történő kapcsolásának általános csatlakoztatási követelményeire vonatkozó közös műszaki szabályokról szóló, 1997. július 9-i 97/486/EK bizottsági határozatot [2] be kell építeni a Megállapodásba;mivel a végberendezés-interfészek nyílt hálózatellátású (ONP) négyhuzalos analóg bérelt vonalakra történő kapcsolásának általános csatlakoztatási követelményeire vonatkozó közös műszaki szabályokról szóló, 1997. július 9-i 97/487/EK bizottsági határozatot [3] be kell építeni a Megállapodásba;mivel végberendezés-interfészek digitális, strukturált és strukturálatlan 34 Mbit/s bérelt vonalakhoz történő kapcsolásának csatlakoztatási követelményeire vonatkozó közös műszaki szabályokról szóló, 1997. szeptember 19-i 97/639/EK bizottsági határozatot [4] be kell építeni a Megállapodásba,A KÖVETKEZŐKÉPPEN HATÁROZOTT:1. cikkA Megállapodás II. mellékletének XVIII. fejezete a 4q. pontot (97/545/EK bizottsági határozat) követően a következő pontokkal egészül ki:"4r. 397 L 0486: A Bizottság 1997. július 9-i 97/486/EK határozata a végberendezés-interfészek nyílt hálózatellátású (ONP) kéthuzalos analóg bérelt vonalakra történő kapcsolásának általános csatlakoztatási követelményeire vonatkozó közös műszaki szabályokról (HL L 208., 1997.8.2., 44. o.).4s. 397 D 0487: A Bizottság 1997. július 9-i 97/487/EK határozata a végberendezés-interfészek nyílt hálózatellátású (ONP) négyhuzalos analóg bérelt vonalakra történő kapcsolásának általános csatlakoztatási követelményeire vonatkozó közös műszaki szabályokról (HL L 208., 1997.8.2., 47. o.).4t. 397 D 0639: A Bizottság 1997. szeptember 19-i 97/639/EK határozata a végberendezés-interfészek digitális, strukturált és strukturálatlan 34 Mbit/s bérelt vonalakhoz történő kapcsolásának csatlakoztatási követelményeire vonatkozó közös műszaki szabályokról (HL L 271., 1997.10.3., 16. o.)."2. cikkA 97/486/EK, a 97/487/EK és a 97/639/EK bizottsági határozat izlandi és norvég nyelvű szövegei, melyek e határozat megfelelő nyelvi változatának mellékletét képezik, hitelesek.3. cikkEz a határozat 1998. július 5-én lép hatályba, amennyiben a Megállapodás 103. cikkének (1) bekezdése szerint előírt összes értesítést eljuttatták az EGT-Vegyesbizottsághoz.4. cikkEzt a határozatot az Európai Közösségek Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-re vonatkozó részében, illetve EGT-kiegészítésében közzé kell tenni.Kelt Brüsszelben, 1998. július 4-én.az EGT-Vegyesbizottság részérőlaz elnökF. Barbaso[1] HL L 134., 1998.5.7., 9. o.[2] HL L 208., 1997.8.2., 44. o.[3] HL L 208., 1997.8.2., 47. o.[4] HL L 271., 1997.10.3., 16. o.--------------------------------------------------


type: other

text:
Du befindest dich hier: Startseite Palundu Shop Material sommerliches Bändchengarn Tahiti von Katia in Farbe 6: braun
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen mit Kundeninformationen & Informationen zum Datenschutz --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inhaltsverzeichnis ------------------ A. Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen mit Kundeninformationen ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. Geltungsbereich 2. Vertragsschluss 3. Widerrufsrecht 4. Preise und Zahlungsbedingungen 5. Liefer- und Versandbedingungen 6. Eigentumsvorbehalt 7. Mängelhaftung (Gewährleistung) 8. Anwendbares Recht 9. Alternative Streitbeilegung B. Informationen zum Datenschutz -------------------------------- 1. Information über die Erhebung personenbezogener Daten und Kontaktdaten des Verantwortlichen 2. Kontaktaufnahme 3. Datenverarbeitung zur Bestellabwicklung 4. Rechte des Betroffenen 5. Dauer der Speicherung personenbezogener Daten ---------------------------------------------------------- A. Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen mit Kundeninformationen ---------------------------------------------------------- 1) Geltungsbereich 1.1 Diese Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen (nachfolgend "AGB") der Andrea Grüner, handelnd unter "Wollehimmel" (nachfolgend "Verkäufer"), gelten für alle Verträge, die ein Verbraucher oder Unternehmer (nachfolgend „Kunde“) mit dem Verkäufer hinsichtlich der vom Verkäufer auf der Internet-Handelsplattform Palundu.de (nachfolgend „Palundu.de“) dargestellten Waren und/oder Leistungen abschließt. Hiermit wird der Einbeziehung von eigenen Bedingungen des Kunden widersprochen, es sei denn, es ist etwas anderes vereinbart. 1.2 Verbraucher im Sinne dieser AGB ist jede natürliche Person, die ein Rechtsgeschäft zu Zwecken abschließt, die überwiegend weder ihrer gewerblichen noch ihrer selbständigen beruflichen Tätigkeit zugerechnet werden können. Unternehmer im Sinne dieser AGB ist eine natürliche oder juristische Person oder eine rechtsfähige Personengesellschaft, die bei Abschluss eines Rechtsgeschäfts in Ausübung ihrer gewerblichen oder selbständigen beruflichen Tätigkeit handelt. 2) Vertragsschluss 2.1 Durch das Einstellen eines Artikels bei Palundu.de gibt der Verkäufer ein verbindliches Angebot zum Abschluss eines Vertrages über diesen Artikel ab. Der Vertrag kommt zustande, indem der Kunde die einzelnen Schritte des Bestellvorganges durchläuft und diesen anschließend mittels Betätigung des Buttons: „Zahlungspflichtig bestellen“ abschließt. 2.2 Für die Annahme des Angebots klickt der Kunde auf der Produktseite des Verkäufers bei Palundu.de auf den Button „In den Warenkorb“ und durchläuft anschließend die von Palundu.de vorgegebenen Bestellschritte. Im letzten Schritt des Bestellprozesses klickt der Kunde auf den Button „Zahlungspflichtig bestellen“, wodurch der Bestellvorgang abgeschlossen wird. 2.3 Der Vertragstext wird vom Verkäufer gespeichert und dem Kunden nach Vertragsschluss nebst den vorliegenden AGB und Kundeninformationen in Textform (z. B. E-Mail, Fax oder Brief) zugeschickt. Eine darüber hinaus gehende Zugänglichmachung des Vertragstextes durch den Verkäufer selbst findet nicht statt. 2.4 Der Kunde kann seine Eingaben vor Abgabe seiner Bestellung mit den von Palundu.de zur Verfügung gestellten technischen Mitteln korrigieren. Die Korrekturen können mittels der üblichen Tastatur- und Mausfunktionen direkt auf der Angebotsseite in den entsprechenden Eingabefeldern erfolgen. 2.5 Für den Vertragsschluss steht ausschließlich die deutsche Sprache zur Verfügung. 2.6 Die Bestellabwicklung und Kontaktaufnahme finden per E-Mail und automatisierter Bestellabwicklung statt. Der Kunde hat sicherzustellen, dass die von ihm zur Bestellabwicklung angegebene E-Mail-Adresse zutreffend ist, so dass unter dieser Adresse die vom Verkäufer versandten E-Mails empfangen werden können. Insbesondere hat der Kunde bei dem Einsatz von SPAM-Filtern sicherzustellen, dass alle vom Verkäufer oder von diesem mit der Bestellabwicklung beauftragten Dritten versandten Mails zugestellt werden können. 3) Widerrufsrecht 3.1 Verbrauchern steht grundsätzlich ein Widerrufsrecht zu. 3.2 Nähere Informationen zum Widerrufsrecht ergeben sich aus der Widerrufsbelehrung des Verkäufers. 3.3 Das Widerrufsrecht gilt nicht für Verbraucher, die zum Zeitpunkt des Vertragsschlusses keinem Mitgliedstaat der Europäischen Union angehören und deren alleiniger Wohnsitz und Lieferadresse zum Zeitpunkt des Vertragsschlusses außerhalb der Europäischen Union liegen. 4) Preise und Zahlungsbedingungen 4.1 Die vom Verkäufer angegebenen Preise sind Gesamtpreise und enthalten die gesetzliche Umsatzsteuer. Gegebenenfalls zusätzlich anfallende Liefer- und Versandkosten werden in der jeweiligen Produktbeschreibung gesondert angegeben. 4.2 Bei Lieferungen in Länder außerhalb der Europäischen Union können im Einzelfall weitere Kosten anfallen, die der Verkäufer nicht zu vertreten hat und die vom Kunden zu tragen sind. Hierzu zählen beispielsweise Kosten für die Geldübermittlung durch Kreditinstitute (z.B. Überweisungsgebühren, Wechselkursgebühren) oder einfuhrrechtliche Abgaben bzw. Steuern (z.B. Zölle). Solche Kosten können in Bezug auf die Geldübermittlung auch dann anfallen, wenn die Lieferung nicht in ein Land außerhalb der Europäischen Union erfolgt, der Kunde die Zahlung aber von einem Land außerhalb der Europäischen Union aus vornimmt. 4.3 Dem Kunden stehen verschiedene Zahlungsmöglichkeiten zur Verfügung, die im Angebot des Verkäufers bei Palundu.de angegeben werden. 4.4 Ist Vorauskasse per Banküberweisung vereinbart, ist die Zahlung sofort nach Vertragsabschluss fällig, sofern die Parteien nichts anderes vereinbart haben. 4.5 Bei Zahlung mittels einer von PayPal angebotenen Zahlungsart erfolgt die Zahlungsabwicklung über den Zahlungsdienstleister PayPal (Europe) S.à r.l. et Cie, S.C.A., 22-24 Boulevard Royal, L-2449 Luxembourg (im Folgenden: „PayPal“), unter Geltung der jeweils einschlägigen Nutzungsbedingungen von PayPal. 5) Liefer- und Versandbedingungen 5.1 Die Lieferung von Waren erfolgt auf dem Versandweg an die vom Kunden angegebene Lieferanschrift, sofern nichts anderes vereinbart ist. Bei der Abwicklung der Transaktion ist die in der Bestellabwicklung bei Palundu.de angegebene Lieferanschrift maßgeblich. 5.2 Scheitert die Zustellung der Ware aus Gründen, die der Kunde zu vertreten hat, trägt der Kunde die dem Verkäufer hierdurch entstehenden angemessenen Kosten. Dies gilt im Hinblick auf die Kosten für die Hinsendung nicht, wenn der Kunde sein Widerrufsrecht wirksam ausübt. Für die Rücksendekosten gilt bei wirksamer Ausübung des Widerrufsrechts durch den Kunden die in der Widerrufsbelehrung des Verkäufers hierzu getroffene Regelung. 5.3 Bei Selbstabholung informiert der Verkäufer den Kunden zunächst per E-Mail darüber, dass die von ihm bestellte Ware zur Abholung bereit steht. Nach Erhalt dieser E-Mail kann der Kunde die Ware nach Absprache mit dem Verkäufer am Sitz des Verkäufers abholen. In diesem Fall werden keine Versandkosten berechnet. 6) Eigentumsvorbehalt Tritt der Verkäufer in Vorleistung, behält er sich bis zur vollständigen Bezahlung des geschuldeten Kaufpreises das Eigentum an der gelieferten Ware vor. 7) Mängelhaftung (Gewährleistung) 7.1 Ist die Kaufsache mangelhaft, gelten die Vorschriften der gesetzlichen Mängelhaftung. 7.2 Abweichend hiervon gilt bei gebrauchten Waren: Mängelansprüche sind ausgeschlossen, wenn der Mangel erst nach Ablauf eines Jahres ab Ablieferung der Ware auftritt. Mängel, die innerhalb eines Jahres ab Ablieferung der Ware auftreten, können innerhalb der gesetzlichen Verjährungsfrist geltend gemacht werden. Die Verkürzung der Haftungsdauer auf ein Jahr gilt jedoch nicht - für Sachen, die entsprechend ihrer üblichen Verwendungsweise für ein Bauwerk verwendet worden sind und dessen Mangelhaftigkeit verursacht haben, - für Schadensersatz- und Aufwendungsersatzansprüche des Kunden, sowie - für den Fall, dass der Verkäufer den Mangel arglistig verschwiegen hat. 7.3 Der Kunde wird gebeten, angelieferte Waren mit offensichtlichen Transportschäden bei dem Zusteller zu reklamieren und den Verkäufer hiervon in Kenntnis zu setzen. Kommt der Kunde dem nicht nach, hat dies keinerlei Auswirkungen auf seine gesetzlichen oder vertraglichen Mängelansprüche. 8) Anwendbares Recht 8.1 Für sämtliche Rechtsbeziehungen der Parteien gilt das Recht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland unter Ausschluss der Gesetze über den internationalen Kauf beweglicher Waren. Bei Verbrauchern gilt diese Rechtswahl nur insoweit, als nicht der gewährte Schutz durch zwingende Bestimmungen des Rechts des Staates, in dem der Verbraucher seinen gewöhnlichen Aufenthalt hat, entzogen wird. 8.2 Ferner gilt diese Rechtswahl im Hinblick auf das gesetzliche Widerrufsrecht nicht bei Verbrauchern, die zum Zeitpunkt des Vertragsschlusses keinem Mitgliedstaat der Europäischen Union angehören und deren alleiniger Wohnsitz und Lieferadresse zum Zeitpunkt des Vertragsschlusses außerhalb der Europäischen Union liegen. 9) Alternative Streitbeilegung 9.1 Die EU-Kommission stellt im Internet unter folgendem Link eine Plattform zur Online-Streitbeilegung bereit: https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr Diese Plattform dient als Anlaufstelle zur außergerichtlichen Beilegung von Streitigkeiten aus Online-Kauf- oder Dienstleistungsverträgen, an denen ein Verbraucher beteiligt ist. 9.2 Der Verkäufer ist zur Teilnahme an einem Streitbeilegungsverfahren vor einer Verbraucherschlichtungsstelle weder verpflichtet noch bereit. -------------------------------- B. Informationen zum Datenschutz -------------------------------- 1) Information über die Erhebung personenbezogener Daten und Kontaktdaten des Verantwortlichen 1.1 Wir freuen uns, dass Sie unsere Website besuchen und bedanken uns für Ihr Interesse. Im Folgenden informieren wir Sie über den Umgang mit Ihren personenbezogenen Daten bei Nutzung unserer Website. Personenbezogene Daten sind hierbei alle Daten, mit denen Sie persönlich identifiziert werden können. 1.2 Verantwortlicher für die Datenverarbeitung auf dieser Website im Sinne der Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (DSGVO) ist Andrea Grüner, Wollehimmel, Theodor-Hetzer-Str. 39, 88662 Überlingen, Deutschland, Tel.: 07551/936632, E-Mail: andrea.gruener@wollehimmel.de. Der für die Verarbeitung von personenbezogenen Daten Verantwortliche ist diejenige natürliche oder juristische Person, die allein oder gemeinsam mit anderen über die Zwecke und Mittel der Verarbeitung von personenbezogenen Daten entscheidet. 2) Kontaktaufnahme Im Rahmen der Kontaktaufnahme mit uns (z.B. per Kontaktformular oder E-Mail) werden personenbezogene Daten erhoben, welche dies sind, können Sie aus dem Kontaktformular ersehen. Diese Daten werden ausschließlich zum Zweck der Beantwortung Ihres Anliegens bzw. für die Kontaktaufnahme und die damit verbundene technische Administration gespeichert und verwendet. Rechtsgrundlage für die Verarbeitung der Daten ist unser berechtigtes Interesse an der Beantwortung Ihres Anliegens gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. f DSGVO. Zielt Ihre Kontaktierung auf den Abschluss eines Vertrages ab, so ist zusätzliche Rechtsgrundlage für die Verarbeitung Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. b DSGVO. Ihre Daten werden nach abschließender Bearbeitung Ihrer Anfrage gelöscht, dies ist der Fall, wenn sich aus den Umständen entnehmen lässt, dass der betroffene Sachverhalt abschließend geklärt ist und sofern keine gesetzlichen Aufbewahrungspflichten entgegenstehen. 3) Datenverarbeitung zur Bestellabwicklung 3.1 Die von uns erhobenen personenbezogenen Daten werden im Rahmen der Vertragsabwicklung an das mit der Lieferung beauftragte Transportunternehmen weitergegeben, soweit dies zur Lieferung der Ware erforderlich ist. Ihre Zahlungsdaten geben wir im Rahmen der Zahlungsabwicklung an das beauftragte Kreditinstitut weiter, sofern dies für die Zahlungsabwicklung erforderlich ist. Sofern Zahlungsdienstleister eingesetzt werden, informieren wir hierüber nachstehend explizit. Die Rechtsgrundlage für die Weitergabe der Daten ist hierbei Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. b DSGVO. 3.2 Bei Zahlung via PayPal, Kreditkarte via PayPal, Lastschrift via PayPal oder – falls angeboten - "Kauf auf Rechnung" oder „Ratenzahlung“ via PayPal geben wir Ihre Zahlungsdaten im Rahmen der Zahlungsabwicklung an die PayPal (Europe) S.a.r.l. et Cie, S.C.A., 22-24 Boulevard Royal, L-2449 Luxembourg (nachfolgend "PayPal"), weiter. Die Weitergabe erfolgt gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. b DSGVO und nur insoweit, als dies für die Zahlungsabwicklung erforderlich ist. PayPal behält sich für die Zahlungsmethoden Kreditkarte via PayPal, Lastschrift via PayPal oder – falls angeboten - "Kauf auf Rechnung" oder „Ratenzahlung“ via PayPal die Durchführung einer Bonitätsauskunft vor. Hierfür werden Ihre Zahlungsdaten gegebenenfalls gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. f DSGVO auf Basis des berechtigten Interesses von PayPal an der Feststellung Ihrer Zahlungsfähigkeit an Auskunfteien weitergegeben. Das Ergebnis der Bonitätsprüfung in Bezug auf die statistische Zahlungsausfallwahrscheinlichkeit verwendet PayPal zum Zwecke der Entscheidung über die Bereitstellung der jeweiligen Zahlungsmethode. Die Bonitätsauskunft kann Wahrscheinlichkeitswerte enthalten (sog. Score-Werte). Soweit Score-Werte in das Ergebnis der Bonitätsauskunft einfließen, haben diese ihre Grundlage in einem wissenschaftlich anerkannten mathematisch-statistischen Verfahren. In die Berechnung der Score-Werte fließen unter anderem, aber nicht ausschließlich, Anschriftendaten ein. Weitere datenschutzrechtliche Informationen, unter anderem zu den verwendeten Auskunfteien, entnehmen Sie bitte der Datenschutzerklärung von PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/de/webapps/mpp/ua/privacy-full Sie können dieser Verarbeitung Ihrer Daten jederzeit durch eine Nachricht an PayPal widersprechen. Jedoch bleibt PayPal ggf. weiterhin berechtigt, Ihre personenbezogenen Daten zu verarbeiten, sofern dies zur vertragsgemäßen Zahlungsabwicklung erforderlich ist. 4) Rechte des Betroffenen 4.1 Das geltende Datenschutzrecht gewährt Ihnen gegenüber dem Verantwortlichen hinsichtlich der Verarbeitung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten umfassende Betroffenenrechte (Auskunfts- und Interventionsrechte), über die wir Sie nachstehend informieren: - Auskunftsrecht gemäß Art. 15 DSGVO: Sie haben insbesondere ein Recht auf Auskunft über Ihre von uns verarbeiteten personenbezogenen Daten, die Verarbeitungszwecke, die Kategorien der verarbeiteten personenbezogenen Daten, die Empfänger oder Kategorien von Empfängern, gegenüber denen Ihre Daten offengelegt wurden oder werden, die geplante Speicherdauer bzw. die Kriterien für die Festlegung der Speicherdauer, das Bestehen eines Rechts auf Berichtigung, Löschung, Einschränkung der Verarbeitung, Widerspruch gegen die Verarbeitung, Beschwerde bei einer Aufsichtsbehörde, die Herkunft Ihrer Daten, wenn diese nicht durch uns bei Ihnen erhoben wurden, das Bestehen einer automatisierten Entscheidungsfindung einschließlich Profiling und ggf. aussagekräftige Informationen über die involvierte Logik und die Sie betreffende Tragweite und die angestrebten Auswirkungen einer solchen Verarbeitung, sowie Ihr Recht auf Unterrichtung, welche Garantien gemäß Art. 46 DSGVO bei Weiterleitung Ihrer Daten in Drittländer bestehen; - Recht auf Berichtigung gemäß Art. 16 DSGVO: Sie haben ein Recht auf unverzügliche Berichtigung Sie betreffender unrichtiger Daten und/oder Vervollständigung Ihrer bei uns gespeicherten unvollständigen Daten; - Recht auf Löschung gemäß Art. 17 DSGVO: Sie haben das Recht, die Löschung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten bei Vorliegen der Voraussetzungen des Art. 17 Abs. 1 DSGVO zu verlangen. Dieses Recht besteht jedoch insbesondere dann nicht, wenn die Verarbeitung zur Ausübung des Rechts auf freie Meinungsäußerung und Information, zur Erfüllung einer rechtlichen Verpflichtung, aus Gründen des öffentlichen Interesses oder zur Geltendmachung, Ausübung oder Verteidigung von Rechtsansprüchen erforderlich ist; - Recht auf Einschränkung der Verarbeitung gemäß Art. 18 DSGVO: Sie haben das Recht, die Einschränkung der Verarbeitung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zu verlangen, solange die von Ihnen bestrittene Richtigkeit Ihrer Daten überprüft wird, wenn Sie eine Löschung Ihrer Daten wegen unzulässiger Datenverarbeitung ablehnen und stattdessen die Einschränkung der Verarbeitung Ihrer Daten verlangen, wenn Sie Ihre Daten zur Geltendmachung, Ausübung oder Verteidigung von Rechtsansprüchen benötigen, nachdem wir diese Daten nach Zweckerreichung nicht mehr benötigen oder wenn Sie Widerspruch aus Gründen Ihrer besonderen Situation eingelegt haben, solange noch nicht feststeht, ob unsere berechtigten Gründe überwiegen; - Recht auf Unterrichtung gemäß Art. 19 DSGVO: Haben Sie das Recht auf Berichtigung, Löschung oder Einschränkung der Verarbeitung gegenüber dem Verantwortlichen geltend gemacht, ist dieser verpflichtet, allen Empfängern, denen die Sie betreffenden personenbezogenen Daten offengelegt wurden, diese Berichtigung oder Löschung der Daten oder Einschränkung der Verarbeitung mitzuteilen, es sei denn, dies erweist sich als unmöglich oder ist mit einem unverhältnismäßigen Aufwand verbunden. Ihnen steht das Recht zu, über diese Empfänger unterrichtet zu werden. - Recht auf Datenübertragbarkeit gemäß Art. 20 DSGVO: Sie haben das Recht, Ihre personenbezogenen Daten, die Sie uns bereitgestellt haben, in einem strukturierten, gängigen und maschinenlesebaren Format zu erhalten oder die Übermittlung an einen anderen Verantwortlichen zu verlangen, soweit dies technisch machbar ist; - Recht auf Widerruf erteilter Einwilligungen gemäß Art. 7 Abs. 3 DSGVO: Sie haben das Recht, eine einmal erteilte Einwilligung in die Verarbeitung von Daten jederzeit mit Wirkung für die Zukunft zu widerrufen. Im Falle des Widerrufs werden wir die betroffenen Daten unverzüglich löschen, sofern eine weitere Verarbeitung nicht auf eine Rechtsgrundlage zur einwilligungslosen Verarbeitung gestützt werden kann. Durch den Widerruf der Einwilligung wird die Rechtmäßigkeit der aufgrund der Einwilligung bis zum Widerruf erfolgten Verarbeitung nicht berührt; - Recht auf Beschwerde gemäß Art. 77 DSGVO: Wenn Sie der Ansicht sind, dass die Verarbeitung der Sie betreffenden personenbezogenen Daten gegen die DSGVO verstößt, haben Sie - unbeschadet eines anderweitigen verwaltungsrechtlichen oder gerichtlichen Rechtsbehelfs - das Recht auf Beschwerde bei einer Aufsichtsbehörde, insbesondere in dem Mitgliedstaat Ihres Aufenthaltsortes, Ihres Arbeitsplatzes oder des Ortes des mutmaßlichen Verstoßes. 4.2 WIDERSPRUCHSRECHT WENN WIR IM RAHMEN EINER INTERESSENABWÄGUNG IHRE PERSONENBEZOGENEN DATEN AUFGRUND UNSERES ÜBERWIEGENDEN BERECHTIGTEN INTERESSES VERARBEITEN, HABEN SIE DAS JEDERZEITIGE RECHT, AUS GRÜNDEN, DIE SICH AUS IHRER BESONDEREN SITUATION ERGEBEN, GEGEN DIESE VERARBEITUNG WIDERSPRUCH MIT WIRKUNG FÜR DIE ZUKUNFT EINZULEGEN. MACHEN SIE VON IHREM WIDERSPRUCHSRECHT GEBRAUCH, BEENDEN WIR DIE VERARBEITUNG DER BETROFFENEN DATEN. EINE WEITERVERARBEITUNG BLEIBT ABER VORBEHALTEN, WENN WIR ZWINGENDE SCHUTZWÜRDIGE GRÜNDE FÜR DIE VERARBEITUNG NACHWEISEN KÖNNEN, DIE IHRE INTERESSEN, GRUNDRECHTE UND GRUNDFREIHEITEN ÜBERWIEGEN, ODER WENN DIE VERARBEITUNG DER GELTENDMACHUNG, AUSÜBUNG ODER VERTEIDIGUNG VON RECHTSANSPRÜCHEN DIENT. WERDEN IHRE PERSONENBEZOGENEN DATEN VON UNS VERARBEITET, UM DIREKTWERBUNG ZU BETREIBEN, HABEN SIE DAS RECHT, JEDERZEIT WIDERSPRUCH GEGEN DIE VERARBEITUNG SIE BETREFFENDER PERSONENBEZOGENER DATEN ZUM ZWECKE DERARTIGER WERBUNG EINZULEGEN. SIE KÖNNEN DEN WIDERSPRUCH WIE OBEN BESCHRIEBEN AUSÜBEN. MACHEN SIE VON IHREM WIDERSPRUCHSRECHT GEBRAUCH, BEENDEN WIR DIE VERARBEITUNG DER BETROFFENEN DATEN ZU DIREKTWERBEZWECKEN. 5) Dauer der Speicherung personenbezogener Daten Die Dauer der Speicherung von personenbezogenen Daten bemisst sich anhand der jeweiligen Rechtsgrundlage, am Verarbeitungszweck und – sofern einschlägig – zusätzlich anhand der jeweiligen gesetzlichen Aufbewahrungsfrist (z.B. handels- und steuerrechtliche Aufbewahrungsfristen). Bei der Verarbeitung von personenbezogenen Daten auf Grundlage einer ausdrücklichen Einwilligung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. a DSGVO werden diese Daten so lange gespeichert, bis der Betroffene seine Einwilligung widerruft. Existieren gesetzliche Aufbewahrungsfristen für Daten, die im Rahmen rechtsgeschäftlicher bzw. rechtsgeschäftsähnlicher Verpflichtungen auf der Grundlage von Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. b DSGVO verarbeitet werden, werden diese Daten nach Ablauf der Aufbewahrungsfristen routinemäßig gelöscht, sofern sie nicht mehr zur Vertragserfüllung oder Vertragsanbahnung erforderlich sind und/oder unsererseits kein berechtigtes Interesse an der Weiterspeicherung fortbesteht. Bei der Verarbeitung von personenbezogenen Daten auf Grundlage von Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. f DSGVO werden diese Daten so lange gespeichert, bis der Betroffene sein Widerspruchsrecht nach Art. 21 Abs. 1 DSGVO ausübt, es sei denn, wir können zwingende schutzwürdige Gründe für die Verarbeitung nachweisen, die die Interessen, Rechte und Freiheiten der betroffenen Person überwiegen, oder die Verarbeitung dient der Geltendmachung, Ausübung oder Verteidigung von Rechtsansprüchen. Bei der Verarbeitung von personenbezogenen Daten zum Zwecke der Direktwerbung auf Grundlage von Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. f DSGVO werden diese Daten so lange gespeichert, bis der Betroffene sein Widerspruchsrecht nach Art. 21 Abs. 2 DSGVO ausübt. Sofern sich aus den sonstigen Informationen dieser Erklärung über spezifische Verarbeitungssituationen nichts anderes ergibt, werden gespeicherte personenbezogene Daten im Übrigen dann gelöscht, wenn sie für die Zwecke, für die sie erhoben oder auf sonstige Weise verarbeitet wurden, nicht mehr notwendig sind. ------------------ Copyright-Hinweis: Diese AGB wurden von den Fachanwaelten der IT-Recht Kanzlei unter der DOCID: ##ITK-799a030aee5bbdd0b566aa2ad834eb9f## erstellt und sind urheberrechtlich geschuetzt (www.it-recht-kanzlei.de). Version: 201911262151
 Version: 201911262151
 Besucher im Profil: 6049
 Besucher in Produkten: 46832


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 15.12.2012
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 389/5
 Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Nemecko) 8. októbra 2012 — HARK GmbH & Co KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau/Hauptzollamt Duisburg
 (Vec C-450/12)
 2012/C 389/08
 Jazyk konania: nemčina
 Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania
 Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
 Účastníci konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom
 Žalobkyňa: HARK GmbH & Co KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau
 Žalovaný: Hauptzollamt Duisburg
 Prejudiciálne otázky
 1.
 Má sa položka 7321 kombinovanej nomenklatúry v prílohe I nariadenia Rady (EHS) č. 2658/87 z 23. júla 1987 o colnej a štatistickej nomenklatúre a Spoločnom colnom sadzobníku (1) zmeneného a doplneného nariadením Komisie (ES) č. 1031/2008 z 19. septembra 2008 (2) vykladať v tom zmysle, že súpravy dymovodov bližšie opísané v odôvodnení možno považovať za časti kachlí, kotlov s ohniskom, sporákov a kozubov?
 2.
 V prípade zápornej odpovede na prvú otázku, môžu sa súpravy dymovodov zaradiť do položky 7307?
 (1) Ú. v. ES L 256, s. 1; Mim. vyd. 02/002, s. 382.
 (2) Ú. v. EÚ L 291, s. 1.


text:
 12.6.2008
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 154/23
 DECIZIA NR. 11/2008 A COMITETULUI MIXT AL SEE
 din 1 februarie 2008
 de modificare a anexei XI (Servicii de telecomunicații) la Acordul SEE
 COMITETUL MIXT AL SEE,
 având în vedere Acordul privind Spațiul Economic European, astfel cum a fost modificat prin Protocolul de adaptare a Acordului privind Spațiul Economic European, denumit în continuare „acordul”, în special articolul 98,
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Anexa XI la acord a fost modificată prin Decizia nr. 162/2007 a Comitetului mixt al SEE din 7 decembrie 2007 (1).
 (2)
 Decizia 2007/90/CE a Comisiei din 12 februarie 2007 de modificare a Deciziei 2005/513/CE privind folosirea armonizată a spectrului radio în banda de frecvență de 5 GHz pentru punerea în funcțiune a sistemelor de acces fără fir, inclusiv rețelele radio locale (WAS/RLAN) (2) trebuie încorporată în acord.
 (3)
 Decizia 2007/116/CE a Comisiei din 15 februarie 2007 privind rezervarea seriei naționale de numere care încep cu „116” ca numere armonizate pentru servicii armonizate cu caracter social (3) trebuie încorporată în acord.
 (4)
 Decizia 2007/176/CE a Comisiei din 11 decembrie 2006 de stabilire a unei liste de standarde și/sau specificații pentru rețelele și serviciile de comunicații electronice, precum și pentru infrastructura și serviciile asociate și de înlocuire a tuturor versiunilor precedente (4) trebuie încorporată în acord,
 DECIDE:
 Articolul 1
 Anexa XI la acord se modifică după cum urmează:
 1.
 La punctul 5cs (Decizia 2005/513/CE a Comisiei), se inserează următorul text:
 „ , astfel cum a fost modificat prin:
 —
 32007 D 0090: Decizia 2007/90/CE a Comisiei din 12 februarie 2007 (JO L 41, 13.2.2007, p. 10).”
 2.
 După punctul 5cw (Decizia 2007/131/CE a Comisiei) se inserează următoarele puncte:
 „5cx.
 32007 D 0116: Decizia 2007/116/CE a Comisiei din 15 februarie 2007 privind rezervarea seriei naționale de numere care încep cu «116» ca numere armonizate pentru servicii armonizate cu caracter social (JO L 49, 17.2.2007, p. 30);
 5cy.
 32007 D 0176: Decizia 2007/176/CE a Comisiei din 11 decembrie 2006 de stabilire a unei liste de standarde și/sau specificații pentru rețelele și serviciile de comunicații electronice, precum și pentru infrastructura și serviciile asociate și de înlocuire a tuturor versiunilor precedente (JO L 86, 27.3.2007, p. 11).”
 Articolul 2
 Textele Deciziilor 2007/90/CE, 2007/116/CE și 2007/176/CE în limbile islandeză și norvegiană, care urmează să fie publicate în Suplimentul SEE la Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene, sunt autentice.
 Articolul 3
 Prezenta decizie intră în vigoare la 2 februarie 2008, cu condiția să se fi efectuat toate notificările prevăzute la articolul 103 alineatul (1) din acord către Comitetul mixt al SEE (5).
 Articolul 4
 Prezenta decizie se publică în Secțiunea SEE și în Suplimentul SEE ale Jurnalului Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Adoptată la Bruxelles, 1 februarie 2008.
 Pentru Comitetul mixt al SEE
 Președintele
 Alan SEATTER
 (1) JO L 124, 8.5.2008, p. 28.
 (2) JO L 41, 13.2.2007, p. 10.
 (3) JO L 49, 17.2.2007, p. 30.
 (4) JO L 86, 27.3.2007, p. 11.
 (5) Nu au fost semnalate obligații constituționale.


text:
| Højesteret afsiger 3 domme om ansættelsesbevisloven -
 nyheder Elmer Advokaterne Nyheder Usorteret Højesteret afsiger 3 domme om ansættelsesbevisloven Højesteret afsiger 3 domme om ansættelsesbevisloven Principperne fra 1997 dom genanvendes.
 Elmer & Partnere har for 3F ført sag i Højesteret om godtgørelsesniveauet efter ansættelsesbevisloven. I dommen tilkendes en ansat, der ikke havde modtaget noget ansættelsesbevis 10.000 kr. i godtgørelse. Højesteret lagde vægt på, at han på den ene side fik bragt klarhed over sine rettigheder ved hjælp af sin fagforening, men på den anden side havde været usikker vedrørende opsigelsesvarsel, overarbejdsbetaling og pensionsbidrag. Han havde bedt om et ansættelsesbevis, der ikke var udleveret, og var ikke den eneste i virksomheden, der ikke havde noget ansættelsesbevis. Derfor udmåltes godtgørelsen til 10.000 kr.
 Ved samme dom har Højesteret fastsat udmålingsprincipper for godtgørelser efter ansættelsesbevisloven Disse udmålingsprincipper må anses for at være retningsgivende for alle sager, der fremover afgøres af domstolene.
 Højesteret bruger præcis samme formuleringer, som Højesteret anvendte i 1997.
 Ansættelsesbevissager opdeles i bagatelsager med en godtgørelse op til 1.000 kr. efter ansættelsesbevislovens § 6, stk. 2. Herom indeholder dommen intet nyt i forhold til lovbestemmelsen.
 For øvrige sager opdeles de i tre kategorier:
 Den første kategori er de sager, hvor forholdet ikke har konkret betydning for lønmodtageren. I disse sager fastsætter Højesteret en maksimumgodtgørelse på 5.000 kr. I mangel af særlige holdepunkter for at gå op eller ned bør godtgørelsen fastsættes til 2.500 kr.
 Den anden kategori er de sager, hvor der er opstået tvist om ansættelsesforholdet eller konkret risiko herfor, som korrekt opfyldelse af oplysningspligten kunne have afværget. I disse sager sættes et loft på godtgørelserne på 10.000 kr., hvor der i mangel af særlige holdepunkter for at gå op eller ned bør fastsættes en godtgørelse på 7.500 kr.
 Den tredje kategori er de sager, hvor der foreligger skærpende omstændigheder. Her kan der udmåles godtgørelser, der dog ikke bør gå op over 25.000 kr., medmindre der foreligger særligt grove tilfælde.
 I præmisserne anfører Højesteret forskellige argumenter, der kan tale for højere eller lavere godtgørelser.
 Et af de momenter, der særligt fremhæves, er, at en godtgørelse efter omstændighederne ikke skal betales, såfremt arbejdsgiveren uden videre retter for sig, efter at forholdet er påtalt. Fra overenskomstområdet kendes ”nach-frist” regler, hvor arbejdsgiveren har 2 uger til at rette for sig, når en overtrædelse af ansættelsesbevisloven påtales. Højesteret ønsker, at der ved fastsættelsen af godtgørelsesniveauet skeles hertil. Om det i sidste ende betyder indførelsen af en egentlig nach-frist-regel for sager uden for overenskomstområdet, må vise sig.
 Højesteret afsagde samtidig to andre domme vedrørende samme lov.
 I den ene fik en advokatfuldmægtig en godtgørelse på 15.000 kr. Ansættelsesbeviset indeholdt væsentlige mangler, der bl.a. havde medført, at den ansatte uberettiget selv måtte betale meget store beløb til kurser, som arbejdsgiveren lovgivningsmæssigt var forpligtet til at betale. Herudover havde den ansatte flere gange rykket for et ansættelsesbevis. Højesteret bemærkede, at der var tale om et særegent ansættelsesforhold, der nærmest havde karakter af et samarbejde mellem erhvervsdrivende.
 I den anden sag tog Højesteret stilling til fleksjobberes krav på overenskomstmæssige forhold. Foranlediget heraf var der også mangler ved ansættelsesbeviset. Det udmålte Højesteret til en godtgørelse på 4.000 kr.
 Det er overraskende, at Højesteret på trods af en mellemliggende lovændring vender tilbage til udgangspunktet fra 1997. Ved den mellemliggende lov var forventningen, at godtgørelser skulle udmåles i uger.
 Generelt fremstår godtgørelsesniveauet som sænket i forhold til 1997 dommen. På den anden side viser den konkrete 3F sag, at der ikke skal særlig meget til for at komme op på 10.000 kr., og spørgsmålet er derfor, om der i realiteten er sket nogen væsentlig ændring af godtgørelsesniveauet i forhold til 1997 dommen.
 Det vil være nødvendigt at følge udviklingen af retspraksis i den kommende periode for at konkludere herom.
 Advokat Jacob Goldschmidt, som førte sagen for 3F, holder gå-hjem-møde tirsdag den 21. december 2010 kl. 15.00 – se separat nyhedsmail herom.


jurisdiction: US

text: b' ~l\'" --.,. -~.,\n\n\n\n\n -- ~-- "-~~- --\n\n\n\n\n NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS\n\n CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM\n\n Page 1 of 1,\n Case Number: A06070031\n\n\n\n An awardee institutionl notified us that it had completed an inquiry and was moving into an\n investigation of allegations that a graduate student2 had falsified\'data in several projects conducted\n with federal funding which included NSF awards. 3 The graduate student admitted to falsifying data\n during the inquiry. We reviewed the institution\'s inquiry and referred an investigation to the\n institution to obtain a full assessment of the breadth of the falsification involving NSF funds. The\n institution completed its investigation finding falsification in 3 published articles and 2 unpublished\n manuscripts,4 and rescinding the graduate student\'s masters degree\n 5\n\n\n The attached report of investigation and the letters of the Deputy Director summarize the\n details of this investigation.\n\n Accordingly, this case is closed.\n\n\n\n\n(\n\n\n\n\n 5 The man.u~cripts included a submitted review article.\n\n\n\n\n NSF OIG Form 2 (11102)\n\x0c \', \'. _ \'l.: ,\n \'1 ~ ..~.\n/\n\n NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION\n 4201 WILSON BOULEVARD\n ARUNGTON, VIRGINIA 22230\n\n\n\n\n OFFICE OF THE\n DEPUTY DIRECTOR\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFIED MAIL --RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\n\n Re: Debarment\n\n\n\n ,On , the National Science Foundation ("NSF") issued your client,\n , a Notice of Proposed Debannent in which NSF proposed to debar her [Tom directly or\n indirectly obtaining the benefits of Federal grants for a period of three years. The Notice sets\n forth in detail the circumstances giving rise to NSF\'s decision to propose her debannent.\n Specifically, NSF indicated in the Notice that the proposed debannent is based }lpon\n falsification of data in several journal articles and manuscripts. In that Notice, NSF\n provided her with thilty days to respond to the proposed debannent.\n\n Over thirty days have elapsed and NSF has not received a response. Accordingly,\n is debarred until . Debannent precludes her from receiving Federal financial\n and non-financial assistance and benefits under non-procurement Federal programs and activities\n unless an agency head or authorized designee makes a detennination to grant an exception in\n accordance with 2 CFR Section 180.135. Non-procurement transactions include grants,\n cooperative agreements, scholarships, fellowships, contracts of assistance, loans, loan guarantees,\n subsidies, insurance, payments for specified use, and donation agTeements.\n\n In addition, is prohibited from receiving Federal contracts or approved\n subcontracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulations ("FAR") at 48 CFR Subpart 9.4 for the\n period of this debannent. 2 CFR Section 180.140. During the debannent period, she may not\n have supervisory responsibility, primary management, substantive control over, or cr.itical\n\x0cinfluence on, a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement with any agency of the Executive\nBranch of the Federal Government\n\nLastly, please note that, in the Notice of Proposed Debannent, NSF also took the following\nactions against which continue to remain in effect:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t By is required to complete a research ethics course\n covering the proper handling and reporting of data, and must certify to NSF\'s Office of\n Inspector General ("OIG") that she has done so.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t By was required to have requested a retraction or\n correction to the published work which NSF supported. was also required\n to certify to the OIG that she had done so.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t From the end of her debarment peri.od through is\n required to tertify to the OIG that any proposals, reports, or papers she submits in\n connection with NSF-funded research do not contain plagiarized, falsified or fabricated\n j\n\n materiaL\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t From the end of her debannent period through is\n required to submit to the OIG assurances by a responsible official of her employer that\n any proposals or reports she submits in connection with NSF-funded research do not\n contain plagiarized, falsified, or fabricated material.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t is prohibited from serving as a reviewer of NSF proposals until\n\n\n\nIf you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please contact Assistant General\nCounsel, National Science Foundation, Office o[the General Counsel, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,\nRoom 1265, Arlington, Virginia, 22230. .\n\n\n\n Sincerely,\n\n \\. ~fl\xc2\xb7dt~\n Cora 13. Marrett\n Acting Deputy Director\n\x0c NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION\n 4201 WILSON BOULEVARD\n ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22230\n\n\n\n\n OFFICE OF THE\n DEPUTY DIRECTOR\n\n\n\n\nCERTIFIED MAIL --RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED\n\n\n\n\n Re:\n Notice ofProposed Debarment and Notice ofResearch Misconduct Determination\n\nDe~\n\nAs documented in the attached investigative report prepared by the National Science\nFoundation\'s ("NSF") Office of Inspector General ("OIG\'1, your client,\n intentionally falsified data in severaljoumal articles and manuscripts. In light ofher\nmisconduct, this letter serves as formal notice that the National Science Foundation ("NSF") is\nproposing to debar from directly or indirectly obtaining the benefits of Federal\ngrants for a period of three years. During her period of debarment, she will be precluded from\nreceiving Federal financial and non-financial assistance and benefits under non-procurement\nFederal programs and activities. In addition, she will be prohibited from receiving any Federal\ncontracts or approved subcontracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulations ("FAR"). Lastly,\n<during her debarment period, she will be barred from having supervisory responsibility, primary\nmanagement, substantive control over, or critical influence on, a grant, contract, <;>r cooperative\nagreement with any agency of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government:\n\nIn addition to proposing her debannent, I am taking additional administrative actions against her\nin accordance with 45 CFR Part 689. These actions are set forth on page 3 of this Notice.\n\n\n\nResearch Misconduct and Sanctions other than Debarment\n\nUnder NSF\'s regulations, "research misconduct" is defined as "fabrication, falsification, or\nplagiarism in proposing or performing research funded by NSF ..." 45 CFR 689.1 (a). NSF\ndefines "falsification" as "manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing\n\x0c Page 2\nor omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research\nrecord." 45 CFR 689.1(a)(2). A finding of research misconduct requires that:\n\n (1) \tThere be a significant departure from ~cepted\' practices of the relevant research\n community; and\n (2) The research misconduct be committed intentionally, \tor lmowingly, or recklessly;\n and\n (3) The allegation be proven by a preponderance of evidence.\n\n45 CFR 689.2(c).\n\nAs the OIG\'s report demonstrates, falsified data in several journal articles and\nmanuscripts. admitted to engaging in this misconduct. Thus, her conduct\nunquestionably constitutes falsification. I therefore conclude that her actions meet the applicable\ndefinition of"research misconduct" set forth in NSF\'s regulationS.\n\nPursuant to NSF\'s \'regulations, the Foundation must also determine whether to make afinding of\nmisconduct based on a preponderance of the evidence. 45 CFR 689.2(c). After reviewing the\nInvestigative Report, NSF has determined that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, her\nmisconduct was committed intentionally and purposefully, and constituted a significant\ndeparture from accepted practices of the relevant research community. I am, therefore, issuing a\nfinding of research misconduct against\n\nNSF\'s regulations establish three categories of actions (Group I, IT, and III) that can be taken in\nresponse to a fmding ofn:;ri.sconduct. 45 CFR689.3(a). Group I actions include issuing a letter\nof reprimand; conditioIting awards on prior approval ofparticular activities from NSF; requiring\nthat an institution or individual obtain special prior approval of particular activities from NSF;\nand requiring that an institutional representative certify as to the accuracy of reports or\ncertifications of compliance with particular requirements. 45 CFR 689.3(a)(1). Group IT actions\ninclude award suspension or restrictions on designated activities or expenditures; requiring\nspecial reviews of requests for funding; and requiring correction to the research record. 45 CFR\n689.3(a}(2). Group III actions include suspension or termination of awards; prohibitions on\nparticipation as NSF reviewers, advisors or consultants; and debarment or suspension from\npartiCipation in NSF programs. 45 CFR 689.3(a)(3).\n\n In determining the seventy of the sanction to impose for research misconduct, I have considered\n the seriousness of the misconduct; the determination that it was committed intentionally and\n.purposefully; the determination that it was part of a pattern of misconduct; and the fact that her\n conduct had an impact on the published research record. I have also considered the fact that\n cooperated with the University\'s investigation ofthis matter, and has displayed\n contrition throughout the investigative process. I have also considered all other relevant\n circumstances. 45 CFR 689.3(b).\n\x0c Page 3\nBased upon the foregoing, I take the following actions:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t By is required to complete a research ethics course\n covering the proper handling and reporting of data. She must certify to the DIG that she\n has done so. Such certification should be sent to the Associate Inspector General for\n Investigations, Office of Inspector General, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson\n Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t By is required to request a retraction or correction to the\n published work which NSF supported, and certify to the DIG that she has done so. Such\n certification should be sent to the Associate Inspector General for Investigations, Office\n of Inspector General, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington,\n VA 22230.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t For three years from the end debarment period, she is required to\n certify to NSF that any proposals, reports, or papers she submits in connection with NSF-\n funded research do not contain plagiarized, falsified, or fabricated material.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t For three years from the end debarment period, she is required to\n submit to NSF assurances by a responsible official of her employer that any proposals or\n reports she submits in connection with NSF-funded research do not contain plagiarized,\n falsified, or fabricated material.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t is prohibited from serving as a reviewer of NSF proposals until\n\n\n\n\nDebarment\n\nRegulatory Basis for Debarment\n\nPursuant to 2 CFR 180.800, debarment may be imposed for: .\n\n (b) \t Violation of the terms of a public agreement or transaction so serous as to affect\n , the integrity of an agency program, such as\n\n (1) \t A willful failure to perform in accordance with the terms of one or more\n public agreements or transactions; or\n\n\n (3) \t A willful violation of a statutory or regulatory provision or requirement\n applicable to a public agreement or transaction;\n\x0c "-t,\n\n;:\',;f,_" \'&\n\n\n\n\n Page 4\n\n\n\n\n (d) \t Any other cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects your present\n responsibility.\n\n In any debarment action, the government must establish the cause for debarment by a\n preponderance of the evidence. 2 CFR 180.850. In this case, admitted to\n falsifying data in several journal articles and manuscripts. Thus, her actions support a cause for\n debarment under 2 CFR 180.800(b) and (d).\n\n\n Length ofDebarment\n\n "Debarment must be for a period commensurate with the seriousness of the causes upon which an\n individual\'s debarment is based. 2 CFR 180.865. Generally, a period of debarment should not\n exceed three years but, where circumstances warrant, a longer period may be imposed. 2 CFR\n 180.865. Having considered the seriousness of her actions, as well as the relevant aggravating\n and mitigating factors set forth in 2 CPR 180.860, we are proposing debarment for a period of\n three years.\n\n App\xc2\xa3al Procedures for Finding of Research Misconduct and Procedures Governing\n Proposed Debarment\n\n\n Appeal Procedures for Finding ofResearch Misconduct\n\n Under NSF\'s regulations, has 30 days after receipt of this letter to submit an\n appeal of this finding, in writing, to the Director ofthe Foundation. 45 CFR 689.1O(a). Any\n appeal should be addressed to the Director at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson\n Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. Ifwe do not receive her appeal within the 30-dayperiod,\n the decision on the finding of research misconduct will become final. For\n infonnation, we are attaching a copy of the applicable regulations.\n\n\n Procedures Governing Proposed Debarment\n\n The provisions of2 CFR Sections 180.800 through 180.885 govern debarment procedures and\n decision-making. Under our regulations, has 30 days after receipt of this notice to\n submit, in person or in writing, or through a representative, infonnation and argument in\n opposition to this debarment. 2 CFR 180.820. Comments submitted within the 30-day period\n will receive full consideration and may lead to a revision ofthe recommended disposition. If\n NSF does not receive a response to this notice within the 30-day period, this debarment will\n become fmal.\n\x0c ~\n", \',A ~,.rl;.\n\n\n\n\n Page 5\n Any response should be addressed to Lawrence Rudolph, General Counsel, National Science\n Foundation, Office ofthe General Counsel, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1265, Arlington,\n Virginia 22230. For infonnation, we are attaching a copy ofthe Foundation\'s\n regulations on non-procurement debarment and FAR Subpart 9.4.\n\n Should you or have any questions about the foregoing, please contact\n AssistlUlt General Counsel, at (703) 292-5054 ...\n\n\n\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n\n Cora B. Marrett\n Acting Deputy Director\n\n\n\n Enclosures:\n Investigative Report\n Nonprocurement Debarment Regulations\n FAR Regulations\n 45 CFR Part 689\n\x0c ,\n" ,.;-,~ .. ~.. ~~#\n\n\n\n CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n\n\n Na_tional Science Founda.tion\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n C.onfidenrial\n Report of Investigation\n C.ase. NU1TIber A~06070031\n\n\n\n\n . . , .\n This Confidential Repol;1: of Inv.estigation is the ptopexty: oith!\'! NSF OIG and ma.y be disclosed outside\n NSF only by OIG under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, 5 U.S.c. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 552, 552a.\n\n NSF DIG Form 22b (11/06)\n\x0cCONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n Executive Summary\n\nAllegation: Data falsification in published research supported by NSF.\n\nOIG Inquiry: The university completed an inquiry and proposed a settlement between the\n Subject, the university, and the federal agencies involved. We reviewed the\n inquiry materials; determined that an investigation was warranted to\n determine the extent ofthe misconduct before making recommendations to\n NSF; and referred the investigation to. the university.\n\nUniversity The university completed an extensive investigation of 16 projects/papers (9\nInvestigation and NSF-funded) for which the Subject provided data and analysis as a graduate\nAction: student. Based on its review ofthe evidence and the Subject\'s admissions,\n the committee concluded the Subject falsified data appearing in 3 NSF-\n funded publications and 2 NSF-funded manuscripts (i.e., unpublished).\n\nOIG\'s \xe2\x80\xa2 \t The Act: Data falsification in 3 journal articles and 2 manuscripts.\nAssessment: \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Intent: The Subject\'s actions were intentional (purposeful).\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Standard of Proof: The preponderance of the evidence supports a\n finding of research misconduct.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Significant Departure: The Subject\'s actions significantly departed.\n from the accepted practices of the relevant research community.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Pattern: The evidence supports a pattern of misconduct outside of\n the NSF-funded activities.\n\n\nOIG \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Send the SUbject.a letter of reprimand informing her that NSF has\nRecommendation: made a finding of research misconduct; .\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Debar the Subject under both her married and maiden names for a\n period of 5 years;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Require the Subject to certify completion of research ethics training,\n including the proper handling and reporting of data;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Require the Subject to certify that she has requested a retraction or a .\n correction to the published work which NSF supported;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t For 3 years commencing with the end of the debarment period,\n require the Subject to certify each time she submits a proposal or\n report to NSF that the proposal or report does not contain plagiarized,\n fabricated, or falsified material;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t For 3 years commencing with the end ofthe debarment period,\n require the Subject submit assurances by a responsible official of her\n employer each time she submits a proposal or report to NSF that the\n proposal or report does not contain plagiarized, fabricated, or\n falsified material; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t For a period on years commencing with the end of the debarment\n period, bar the Subject from serving as a NSF reviewer, advisor, or\n consultant. \'\n\n\n 1\n\x0cCONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n ~IG\'s IOguiry\n\n The National SCience Foundation (NSF) Office of Inspector General (OIG) received\nnotification 1 from a universiti (the University) regarding an inquiry it had completed involving\nan allegation of data fabrication and/or falsification by one of its graduate students (the\nSubject).) The University Inquiry Committee recommended to the Deciding Official 4 that the\nUniversity either initiate an investigation or pursue a multi-party settlement agreement involving\nthe Subject, the University,\n 5\n and NSF. The recommendation for the settlement agreement was\npremised on the Subject\'s cooperation and admission during the inquiry to one oftwa initial\nallegations; 7 however, the Inquiry Committee noted that the Subject did not admit doing all that\nwas alleged, leaving unresolved the full scope of the falsification or fabrication ofthe data\nunknown with respect to any other projects to which she contributed ("16 potentially affected\n"projects"".)8,9, Specifically, the Subject admitted during the inquiry to "falsifying or fabricating\ndata on seven projects."\n\n We reviewed the inquiry report and determined that significantly more detail was\nnecessary to assess adequately the full scope of the alleged misconduct, which potentially\nencompassed a significant amount of published work and manuscripts in preparation Although\nthe University told us that the Subject was cooperating fully with and assisting in the\nUniversity\'S "Re-Analysis and Rectification Plan" to correct the literature, 10 we concluded that\nthe formal investigation process would be a more appropriate procedure for providing due\nprocess while ensuring evidentiary control and quality, thereby enabling us to provide complete\nand thorough recommendations to protect NSF interests. Therefore, we referred the matter to the\nUniversity for a formal investigation, II and the University accepted.\n\n\n The University\'s Investigation 12\n\n Under its research misconduct policy, IJ the University appointed an ad hoc investigation\ncommittee (the Committee) consisting of the members of the inquiry committee. 14 The\n\n\n\n\n oh~\n4 The University\'s deciding official is provost1_ _ _ _\n5 The Subject worked on projects funded not only by NSF but also by\n thereby creating mUlti-agency jurisdiction over the allegations in this case.\n6 Tab 5.A, The University Inquiry Report, pages UNIV-34 through UNIV-36.\n7 The allegations involved Project 1, to which the Subject admitted misconduct, and Project 15, for which the\nevidence ultimately did not substantiate misconduct.\nsTab 5.A, page UNIV-37.\n9 It appears that the University used the term "project" synonymously with "paper" or "manuscript" as the\nfundamental unit organizing its analysis. Our analysis uses the term \'\'project\'\' similarly in order to avoid confusion\nbetween the University\'s report and ours.\n10 Tab 5.A, page UNIV-38.\n11 Tab 2, DIG Referral Letter.\n12 Tab 3, The University Investigation Report.\n13 Tab 4, The University Research Misconduct Policy.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0cCONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n Committee relied on the inquiry phase interviews with four people l5 (including the Subject l6 )\n and conducted three additional interviews 17, (including a second interview with the Subject. 18)\n The Committee also relied on a substantial re-analysis of the data "that were certifiably\n unaltered by the [Subject].,,19 In total, the Committee reviewed data supporting 16 projects to\n which the Subject contributed. 20\n\n The Committee identified nine projects that NSF supported, at least in part, through three\n different awards. 21 Of those nine projects, all of which also involved funding, the\n Committee found that the Subject had falsified data to achieve the hypothesized results in four\n projects,22 three of which were already published 23 and a fourth which was a manuscript for a\n research article in preparation. 24 Results from two of the pro~ects (both published papers)25\n were incorporated into yet another project-a revIew article 2 for which the Subject\'s direct\n participation consisted of editing and commenting on drafts. 27 The review article was submitted\n but unpublished at the time ofthe investigation. The coauthors revised the paper and eliminated\n the Subject as a coauthor. The Committee found no misconduct in the remaining four NSF-\n supported projects. 28\n\n , In general, the misconduct found in the NSF-supported projects consisted of altering (i.e.,\n falsifYing) in data sets so as to produce the hypothesized result,29 When\n asked by the Committee about specific projects, the Subject admitted to the falsification, at least\n to the extent that she asserted that she could remember which data she had altered. 3o\n\n\n\n\n 14 The University report indicates that we "directed that the University proceed to investigate the matter" (Tab 3,\n page UNIV-8); however, at no time did we direct the University to do so. We offered to refer the investigation to\n the University for investigation, and it accepted. Although we as a matter of practice request the curricula vitae of\n the members of the investigation committee as a preliminary"step in the investigation referral process, we do so in\n order to assess at the outset whether any conflict of interests is present. We at no time during this investigation\n approved the appointment of the members of the committee as suggested by the University report (Tab 3, page\n UNIV-8).\n 15 Tabs 6.A-6.D, Interview Transcripts.\n 16 Tab 6.C.\n,17 Tabs 6.E-6.G.\n 18 Tab 6.G.\n 19 Tab 3, page UNIV-8.\n20\n\n\n\n\n Tabs 9, 10, 11, and 15 (Projects 3, 4, 5, and 9, respectively).\n23 Tabs 9, 10, and 11 (Projects 3, 4, and 5, respectively).\n24 Tab 15 (Project 9).\n25 Tabs 10 and 15 (Projects 4 and 9, respeCtively).\n26 Tab 7 (Project 1).\n27 Tab 3, page UNIV-I0.\n28 Tabs 8, 12, 13, and 14 (Projects 2, 6, 7, and 8, respectively).\n29 Tab 5.F, pages UNIV-56 through UNIV-59.\n30 Tab 3, pages UNIV-9 through UNIV-lO.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c i"\n.. i. ~- \'\\.~\n\n\n\n\n CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL\n\n Of the remaining projects (no NSF funding) the Committee reviewed, one of two\n 3\n . funded projects ! contained falsified and fabricated data.32 In this project, the Subject admitted i\n\n\n changing data, which a colleague had collected. 33 To cover up the\n falsification ofthe data, the Subject admitted to enlisting the aid o~ who is a law\n school graduate and accountant, in fabricating new survey pages (i.e., the raw d\n subjects to match the data on her spreadsheet. 34 ,35 The Subject arranged fo~o\n enter the lab by having the lab manager give_access under the guise of retrieving the\n Subject\'s computer cables. The Subject directed. .\n\n to print the (i.e., original data) sheets and told_to go and\n pull out the specific participants to match the data and change the\n front sheets of the surveys. This involved un-stapling\xc2\xb7 packets of\n raw data, pulling out response sheets, adding new blank sheets,\n filling in new values on the sheets, re-stapling the packets, re-filing\n the packets, and then taking home the original data.[36] :\n\n the original survey pages to the lab shortly after fabricating the new\n pages. other -funded project 37 contained discrepancies in the un~ublished data for\n which the Subject could not remember whether she had made alterations. 8\n\n The Committee also reviewed five unpublished, non-federally-funded projects. The\n Committee found that one project 39 contained data from two of the published NSF-funded\n projects 40 described above. The Committee did not conduct a reanalysis of this project"because\n the paper had not been submitted for publication ... and the work has been discarded.,,41 The\n Subject also admitted to misconduct in two unpublished projects. 42 The Committee did not find\n misconduct in the remaining two unpublished projects,43 although it noted that there had been an\n apparent exchange of data between collaborators involving a mock dataset instead of an actual\n dataset. 44 In general for the unpublished work, the Committee reasonably assumed data to be\n 45\n falsified when it had determined that underlying data leading to it had been falsified.\n\n\n 31 Tab 17 (Project 11).\n 32 Tab 3, page UNIV-lO.\n 33 Tab 6.C, pages UNIV-125 through 126.\n 34 Tab 3, pages UNIV-.lI through UNIV-12; Tab 5.F, page UNIV-59; and Tab 6.C, pages UNIV-125 through\n\n\n no~ employee or a recipient of NSF grant funds.\n University did not request an interview with _ _ We acknowledge that the University could not\n compel an ~h we know of no circumstance that would have prevented requesting a voluntary\n interview. _ _ _is not a member ofthe bar in and is not a certified public account\n 36 Tab 3, UNIV-H.\n 37 Tab 16 (Project 10).\n 38 Tab 3, page UNIV-lO.\n 39 Tab 20 (Project 14).\n 40 Tab 3, UNIV-1(), and Tab 5.F, UNIV-58 (noting use of data from Projects 4 and 9).\n 41 Tab 3, UNIV-I0.\n 42 Tab 18 (Project 12) and Tab 19 (Project 13).\n 43 Tab 21 (Project 15); and Tab 22 (project 16).\n 44 Tab 21 (Project 15); and Tab 5.F, page UNIV-59. See also Tab 3, page UNIV-IO.\n 45 Tab 3, page UNlV-9 through UNIV-IO.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cCONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n The\'Committee\'s findings are summarized below.\n\n NSF Other Publication Misconduct\n Proiect funding funding funding Status found\n 1 y\'ll> Y Y Submitted y*\n I 2 y47 Y Y In preparation\n 3 y48 Y Y Published Y\n 4 y4~\n Y Y Published Y\n\n R=f\n 5 y:>u Y Y Published Y\n y51\n\n D\n 6 Y Published\n 7 y~l.\n Y Published\n 8 y53 Y Published\n 9 y~4\n Y In preparation y\n 10 y. . Y In preparation I\n\n 11 Y Y nla y !\n\n\n 12 nla\n 13 M.S. Thesis Y\n 14 nla \xc2\xa7\n 15 Y nla\n 16 nla\n * Project 1 is a review paper that included falsified data and\n conclusions from Projects 4 and 9. No data analysis was involved.\n \xc2\xa7 The Committee did not conduct a reanalysis of Project 14 because\n it was unpublished and the data had been discarded. The Committee\n noted that Project 14 contained data from Projects 4 and 9.\n\n\n The Committee concluded:\n\n Based on the evidence it gathered and reviewed, and based on [the\n Subject\'s] admissions, the Committee finds, by a preponderance of\n th~ evidence, that (a) [the Subject] committed fabrication or\n falsification as defined by applicable regulations; (b) the\n fabrication or falsification constituted a significant departure from\n accepted practices of the relevant research community; (c) [the\n Subject\'s] acts were committed intentionally, knowingly and [sic]\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c.-\n CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n recklessly, and not merely carelessly; and (d) based on [the\n Subject\'s] own admissions, confirmed by the re-analyses, an\n extensive .pattern of misconduct existed. In addition, the\n Committee finds that the misconduct had a significant effect on the\n University and Respondent\'s collaborators, including but not\n limited to time and effort devoted by the collaborators, analysts\n and Committee members to the review of this matter, to the\n correction, retraction and discarding of papers and manuscripts,\n and to the re-construction and re-analysis of significant research.\n However, in view of Respondent\'s admissions and her cooperation\n in identifying falsified and fabricated data, the Committee\n recommends that the Deciding Official seek a three-way agreement\n among the University, the Federal agencies involved and\n I Respondent that would facilitate a rapid conclusion of the case and\n allow corrective action to be taken as quickly as possible.[55] .\n\n The Committee did not ascribe a specific level of intent or discuss the particular evidence\n which led to its conclusion. However as discussed below, the evidence, including the Subject\'s\n explanation for her motive behind falsifying and fabricating data, supports the Committee\'s\n conclusion that the Subject\'s _actions satisfied the intent requirement (i.e., at least reckless) for a\n finding of research misconduct.\n\n We conclude that the University\'s investigation was accurate, complete, and conducted\n with reasonable procedures. 56\n\n\n The Subject\'s Response to the University\'s Draft Investigation Report\n\n The Subject reiterated her remorse and stressed her c00peration with the investigation in\n her response to the U . \'s Draft . . Report. 57 The Subject also expressed\n who according to her own testimonyS8\n in a non-NSF as described\n withheld and\n The Committee did not make the suggested\n substitution.\n\n\n\n\n 55 Tab 3, page UNIV-12.\n 56 45 C.F.R. 689.9(a).\n 57 Tab 3, page UNIV-13.\n\n 58 Tab 6.C, page UNIV-127.\n 59- Tab 3, page UNIV-13.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c CONFiDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL\n \\"\n\n\n\n\n OIG\'s Investigation and Assessment\n\n " We notified the Subject that we had received the Committee\'s report and offered her the\n opportunity to respond with any additional comments. 65 She responded through her attorney,\n reiterating her concerns as expressed in her response to the University draft report. 66\n\n Subsequently, we wrote to the Subject asking for her response to additional questions to\n better understand her training in the responsible conductofresearch, het present deree status,\n and her employment status both during and following the university investigation. 6 She \'\n responded by providing answers to the majority of questions asked; however, she declined to\n provide information about her current employer, citing concerns about the possible release of\n information from this case to her present employer. 68 Her response confirmed that she had\n received research ethics training as part of her course work at institutions she attended\n previously. Furthermore while earning a M.A. degree at another institution, she participated on\n\n 60 Tab 23,\n 61 Tab 27, page 010.16.\n 62 Tabs 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 17 (projects 1,3,.4,5,9, and 11, respectively).\n 63 Tab 23, pages UNIV\xc2\xb71567 through UNIV-1568; and Tab 25, page 010-9.\n 64 Tab 25, page 010-9; and Tab 29, page 010-28.\n 65 Tab 24.\n 66 Tab 25.\n 67 Tab 26.\n- 68 Tab 27, pages 010-16 and 010-17.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0c r\n\n\n\nCONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\nthe honor court. 69 She admitted that prior to the allegations she had accepted an assistant\nprofessor position at a prominent institution and had included the publications with the falsified\ndata on her curriculum vita in her application. 7o She "rescinded" the position in January2006,\nafter the allegations surfaced. 71\n\n\n Subject began using her married name, instead her maiden name as she did\n~e have also learned that the Subject is currently~\n_ _ _ _in the private sector for a company (the Company) that receives federal\ncontracts.\n\n A finding of misconduct requires: (1) there be a Significant departure from accepted,\npractices of the relevant research community, (2) the research misconduct be committed\nintentionally, or kliowingly, or recklessly, and (3) the allegation be proven by a preponderance of\nthe evidence. 74\n\n The Act\n\n The Subject admitted to falsifYing data in five projects (i.e., 3 publications and\n2 manuscripts) under NSF funding. The data at issue involved the Subject\'s coded survey data\nand not the raw dataitse~f, although some data in a non-NSF project was fabricated in an attempt\nto cover-up the falsification. Data from two of those projects were incorporated in a review\npaper that the coauthors corrected prior to submission. The Committee\'s reanalysis of those\nprojects confirmed that the data were falsified to support hypotheses and thus did not support the\nreported results. Therefore, we conclude that the Subject falsified data reported in the four\npublications, some of which were incorporated into the review article mant,lscript on which she\nwas a coauthor at the time it was submitted for publication. Data falsification to support the\ndesired results is by its nature a significant departure from accepted practices in the general\nresearch community as well as the in the Subject\'s discipline.\n\n\n\n The Subject intentionally (i.e., purposefuUy) falsified the data reported in three published\npapers and one manuscript as well as data incorporated into one review article, all produced with\nNSF funding. Neither the Committee report nor the discusses any ofthe evidence\nsupporting intent, instead relying on the inference of intent from the Subject\'s admissions. The\nCommittee found that the Subject acted "intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly, and not\n\n69 Tab 27, pages 010-15 and 010-16.\n70 Tab 27, page 010-16.\n71 Tab 27, page 010-16.\n72 Tab 28, pages 010-20 through 010-26.\n73 Tab 28, pages 010-27 through 010-28. The contractor\n$1.6 million in FY 2007 and has reCI~IVfld\nThe\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cCONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n merely carelessly" without more specific characterization as to the Subject\'s intent. 75 We\n,conclude that the evidentiary record supports a conclusion of intent sufficient for a finding of\n research misconduct (i.e., at least reckless) and best characterized as intentional (i.e.,\n (\n purposeful). The Subject\'s own admissions and justification for her actions sqpport such a\n conclusion:\n\n Just/to give you a sense \'of what was going on with me for\n the last four or five years is that I have just be~n under such\n with -- the main motivation more than\n\n\n\n\n And at that time, was just the only way you ever go to a\n good school is if you have publications. The only way anyone\n respects you is you have publications.\n , And that is what was driving it. And hearing all this\n negative stuffP6) ,\n\n Therefore, we conclude that the evidence demonstrates\nneeded publications to move from the University\nfalsified the data in the NSF-funded work with the purposeful intent to achieve that result.\n\n Standard ofProof\n\n The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Subject intentionally (i.e.,\npurposefully) falsified data and conclusions reported in 3 published papers and 2 manuscripts\nunder NSF funding. Therefore, we conclude that the Subject has committed research\nmisconduct.\n\n75 Tab 3, page ONIV-I2.\n76 Tab 6.C, page ONIV-119.\n\n\n 9\n\x0c CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n\n OIG\'s Recommended Disposition\n\n When deciding what appropriate action to take upon a finding of misconduct, NSF must\n. consider:\n (1) How serious the misconduct was; (2) The degree to which the\n misconduct was knowing, intentional, or reckless; (3) Whether it\n was an isolated \'(went or part ofa pattern; (4) Whether it had a\n significant impact on the research record, research subjects, other\n researchers, institutions or the public welfare; and (5) Other\n relevant circumstances. 77\n\n Seriousness\n\n Consumers ofthe research results produced under NSF awards rely on the truthful and\n accurate reporting of data as well as the resulting conclusions. In this case, the Subject "altered"\n data (i.e., falsified) to conform to her hypothesized results and did so purposefully in five\n projects under NSF support rather than draw supportable insights from the actual data. A portion\n of this work completed under an NSF Small Grant for Exploratory Research (SGER)78 involved\n data collected and analyzed in response to a unique historical event of national consequence. 79\n Seven ofthe nine NSF-funded projects, including all five projects in which the Subject\'s\n falsified data appeared, cited the SGER award as providing support. Given the subject matter of\n the research under the SGER award, the Subject\'s actions are particularly serious.\n\n The Subject\'s admissions came only after her mentors discovered inqications of research\n misconduct and after she had accepted a position as an Assistant Professor at a prominent\n institution. 8o She rescinded her acceptance of the position in January 2006. 81 As the Subject\n said in her explanation to the Committee, "the only way you ever go to a good school is if you \'\n have publications. The only way ariyone respects you is you have publications.,,82 The Subject\n cited the pUblications containing the falsified data and results in her curriculum vita, which she\n submitted to that institution when she applied for the Assistant Professor position. 83\n\n The Subject falsified data and results as a graduate student under the mentorship of\n, faculty members of the University. Much of the original raw data for the NSF-supported studies\n appears to be unaltered because it was either archived at another location or retained as original\n\n\n/7745 C.F.R. 689.3(b).\n 18The NSF Grant Proposal Guide (June 2001) describes the SGER proposals as: "Proposals for small-scale,\n exploratory, high-risk research in the fields of science, engineering and education normally supported by NSF may\n be submitted to individual programs. Such research is characterized as: ... having a severe urgency with regard to\n availability of, or access to data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural\n disasters and similar \'"\n\n\n Tab27, page OIG-16.\n 81 Tab 27, page OIG-16.\n 82 Tab 6.C, page UNIV-119.\n 83 Tab 27, page OIG-16.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n hardcopies by the Subject\'s colleagues. 84 ,85 Yet th~ pervasiveness ofthe Subject\'s actions\n required substantial effort, particularly by her colleagues and mentors, in repeating analyses and\n correcting the published literature rather than moving the science forward. Because the majority\n of the raw data had been collected by colleagues and archived elsewhere, the University\'s "Re-\n Analysis and Rectification Plan" would likely have identified the falsified data and conclusions.\n The Subject\'s involvement in the process may have accelerated the process, but it does not\n appear to have been essential to the identification of the falsified data.\n\n Degree to which the Act was Intentional (purposeful)\n\n The evidence supports that the Subject acted with purposeful intent to falsify data and\n conclusions over multiple projects funded by multiple sources to achieve a specific goal. In fact,\n she accepted an Assistant Professor position at a prominent institution, a position she was offered\n after including the publications containing the falsifications on her curriculum vita in her\n application materials. 86 Thus, her goal came to fruition (i.e.; a faculty position at a prominent\n institution) and was spoiled only when one of her coauthors raised concerns about data in a\n single project. Although the Subject portrays her actions as being in the interest o~\n her falsification was calculated to achieve the specific end result of obtaining her Ph.D. and\n securing ~r herself. Her intent to achieve her goal is further exacerbated by her\n enlisting~aid in steps to conceal her falsification in funded project by\n fabricating the survey pages described above.\n\n It is incomprehensible that the Subject did, riot fully appreciate the gravity of her actions\n at the time she falsified the data and results. She has had instruction in research ethics as part of\n courses in her academic training as well as been a teaching assistant in such courses. 87 She was\n also a member of the honor court at an institution from which she received an M.A. prior to\n attending the University.88 Thus, we conclude that evidence demonstrates that the Subject\'s\n intent was particularly egregious with a definitive p~rpose in mind.\n\n Pattern ofBehavior\n \\\n\n The evidence demonstrates that the Subject\'s falsification and/or fabrication were not\n limited to the 5 NSF-supported publications/manuscripts. As described above, -funded work\n as well as the work funded through non-federal sources involved data which the Subject falsified\n and/or fabricated. Thus, the evidence supports an extensive pattern of behavior on the part of the\n Subject during her graduate career at the University.\n\n\n\n\n 84 Tab 5.F, page UNIV-56 through UNIV-59.\n 8S The same cannot be said for at least one project (Project 12) in which the data "cannot be verified because the data\n were collected directly onto a computer and an immediate backup copy of the data file\' was not made." Tab 5.A,\n page UNIV-37. . \'\n. 86 Tab 27, page OIG-16.\n\n 87 Tab 27, pagesOIG-13 through OIG-15 and O1G-19.\n 88 Tab 27, page OIG-16,\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cCONFIDENTIAL \t CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n Impact on the Research Record\n\n As a result of the Subject\'s actions, 3 published articles citing NSF support required\nretraction. Other work submitted for publication required revision to remove falsified material\nprior to publication.\n\n Other Concerns\n\n The Subject has asserted thanhe no longer works in academia and that has\nconfirmed that her present employer does not receive fundin~. 89 She has also asserted that\nneither she nor her employer currently receive any NSF funding. 9 The Subject has expressed\nremorse for her actions throughout the investigation and participated in the reanalysis of the\ndata. 91 However, when asked to provide her current employment information to us so that we\ncould verify those statements, she declined. She indicated that she would provide the\ninformation only with an assurance that it would only be used to determine whether her\nemployer received NSF funding and that the name of her employer would not be released in\nresponse to a FOIA request.92. We did not provide such an assurance. In determining what\nrecommendations to make to NSF, particularly with regard to debarment, it was essential for us\nto determine her employer\'s relationship with the federal government, either as a contractor or as\na grantee. Thus, we continued our investigation utilizing other resources.\n\n According to our independent investigation, the Subject is\n a federal contractor which other .\n\n\n\n The use of her married name as an employee of the\nCompany, rather than the name associated with the / 4 obscures her\nconnection to the research misconduct findings made by the University and OR!. Such behavior\non the part of the Subject poses a continued risk to the federal government through its contractual\nrelationships with the Company.\n\n Recommendations\n\n Based on the evidence, 010 recommends that NSF:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Send the Subject a lettet;, of reprimand informing her that NSF has made a finding of\n research misconduct; .\n\n\n\n89 Tab 21, page OIG-16.\n90 Tab 21, pages OIG-13 and OIG-16.\n91 Tab 3, page UNIV-12.\n92 Tab 21, pages OIG-13 and OIG-16.\n93 Tab 28, pages OIG-20 through OIG-28.\n94\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c CONFIDENTIAL \t CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Debar the Subject under both her married andmaiden names 9S for a period of 5 years\n from the date of NSF\'s finding of research misconduct; c\n\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Require the Subject to certify to the Associate Inspector General for Investigations\n (AlGI) completion of r~search ethics training, including the proper handling and\n repoI1ing of data, before applying for NSF funding or receiving NSF funding as an\n employee.of any awardee institution;96\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Require the Subject to certify to the AlGI that she has re~uested a retraction or a\n correction to the published work which NSF supported;9\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t For 3 years commencing with the end of the debarment period, require the Subject tq\n certify to the AlGI each time she submits a proposal or report to NSF that the proposal or\n report does not contain plagiarized, fabricated, or falsified material;98 .\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t For 3 years commencing with the end of the debarment period, require the Subject submit\n to the AlGI assurances by a responsible official of her employer each time she submi~s a\n proposal or report to NSF that the proposal or report does not contain plagiarized,\n fabricated, or falsified material;99 and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t a period 00 years commencing with the end ofthe debarment period, bar the\n For\n Subject from serving as a NSF reviewer, advisor, or consultant.\n\n\n The Subject\'s Response to OIG\'s Draft Investigation Report lOO\n\n The Subject raised some factual concerns, which we addressed by providing minor\n clarification in the text above. She also specifically requested that bIG not identify her,.\n _ or the Company by name in the final report, citing privacy concerns. 101 Consistent\n with our practice of providing NSF with the factual basis and context to support our\n recommendations, we have retained names in the final report and attachments, which we treat as\n investigative records under the Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA), the Privacy Act, and NSF\xc2\xb7\n regulations and policies. 102, 103 Providing a subject\'s name to NSF is essen.tial so that the agency\n can take action. In the absence of the Subject\'s identity no action could be taken.\n\n The Subject asserts that we (OIG) have rejected her offer of a settlement agreement. We\n neither endorse nor advocate a settlement agreement as a resolution to this matter. The NSF\n Office ofthe Director (OD) received the allegation, including the University\'s recommendation\n for a settlement agreement, and forwarded it to us to conduct an investigation under NSF\n regulations resulting in our recommendations.\n\n 9S\n 96 Consistent with Group I actions, 45 CFR 689.3(a)(l).\n 97 A Group II action, 45 CFR 689.3(a)(2)(iii).\n 98 Consistent with Group I actions, 45 CFR 689.3(a)(1).\n\\ 99 A Group I action, 45 CFR 689.3(a)(l )(iii).\n 100 Tab 30.\n 101 Tab 30, pages OIG-37 through OIG-38. .\n 102 45 ~ 612 and 613. .\n 103 The_identity is provided to NSF in this report just as is the names of the University Deciding Official,\n PIs and CoPls on the relevant awards, etc. are provided. It is .also customary practice in our reports to include names\n of,persons relevant to the investigation. The redaction of such information under the strictures ofFOIA and the\n Privacy Act are also customary practice in our office when releasing reports after the case has closed.\n\n\n 13\n\x0c --\nCONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL\n\n\n NSF has th~ discretion to evaluate the evidence in making its own detemination.\nThe Subject asserts that our recommendations are out of proportion based on the relative amount\n 104\nof funding she received from NSF and However, there is an inherent problem in\nassessing the seriousness of her actions based only on the amount of money paid directly to her\nas a salary/ stipend. Such an approach would negate the significance of NSF programs such as\nSGER awards or other special awards and the totality of the circumstances involved in this case.\n\n The Subject expresses concern regarding our inclusion of information related to\nProject 11,105 which involved funding but not NSF funding. Our report addresses\nProject 11 as part of the regulatory directive that NSF should consider whether the acts\ncommitted under NSF funding are "an isolated event or\' part of a pattern," 106 whether or not\nNSF-funded it, in determining its final action. 107 It is the Subject\'s extreme behavior that is at\nthe root of our concern with respect to Project 11, of her that her\nactions were motivated primarily by her concern 08.\nwhich stand in contrast to her involvement an active participant in the\nfabrication. 109 The Subject requests that we highlight her testimony of altruistic motivations\nwhile at the same time requests that we remove all reference to her directing_in attempting to\nconceal the fabrication in Project 11.\n\n The Subject as~erts that our report "dismisses both the University\'s and findings as\nto the extent and value of Respondent\'s cooperation." I 10 We acknowledge in this report the\nSubject\'s cooperation in several places. We also balance it against the immense amount of effort\nher mentors and colleagues invested in the reanalysis ,of the 16 projects reviewed. As noted\nabove, the statement "we\'d never have been able to figure out what was falsified" implies that\nthe Subject\'s assistance was essential to determining the breadth of the misconduct. However,\nwe conclude it is likely that the Subject\'s assistance was not essential. The Subject concedes in\nher comments, and we agree, that her admissions and participation "made this process much.\nsimpler and more efficient for" the parties involved. II Our recommendations reflect this and\nour consideration of all aspects ofthe Subject\'s cooperation.\n\n Finally, the Subject asserts that our recommepdation for a five-year debarment would\neffectively debar her for eight years. We are unaware of any government-wide exclusion\ncurrently applicable to the Subject. The Subject is presently eligible to apply for, receive, and\nwork under federal grants and contracts with the exception ofthe\n After consideration of the Subject\'s comments, we have not altered our\nrecommendation.\n\n I\n\n104 However, the amounts reported by the University do not reflect travel funds, materials, supplies, and the wasted\neffort of her colleagues paid under those NSF funds. For example, the PI ofthe NSF SOER award requested\nsupplemental travel funds totalin~(not included in the above total) specifically for the Subject to travel\nand present results at a conference in Europe.\n105 Tab 30, pages 010-38 through 010-40. .\n106 45 C.F.R. 689.3(b)(3).\n\n107 Pattern is not used to show that the act of research misconduct itself occurred.\n108 Tab 6.C, page VNIV-119.\n109 Tab 6.C, pages VNIV-125 through VNIV-128.\n110 Tab 30, page 010-41.\nIII Tab 30, page 010-41.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c'


text:
 20.3.2017
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 C 86/17
 Vorabentscheidungsersuchen des Korkein oikeus (Finnland), eingereicht am 13. Januar 2017 — Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp./Rajavartiolaitos
 (Rechtssache C-15/17)
 (2017/C 086/22)
 Verfahrenssprache: Finnisch
 Vorlegendes Gericht
 Korkein oikeus
 Parteien des Ausgangsverfahrens
 Rechtsmittelführerin: Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp.
 Rechtsmittelgegnerin: Rajavartiolaitos
 Vorlagefragen
 1.
 Ist der Ausdruck „Küste oder damit zusammenhängende Interessen“ in Art. 220 Abs. 6 des Seerechtsübereinkommens bzw. der Ausdruck „Küste oder die damit verbundenen Interessen“ in Art. 7 Abs. 2 der Richtlinie 2005/35/EG (1) anhand der in Art. II Nr. 4 des Internationalen Übereinkommens von 1969 über Maßnahmen auf Hoher See bei Seeverschmutzungs-Unfällen enthaltenen Definition des Ausdrucks „Küste oder verwandte Interessen“ auszulegen?
 2.
 Nach der Definition in Art. II Nr. 4 Buchst. c des in der Vorlagefrage 1 genannten Übereinkommens von 1969 bedeutet „verwandte Interessen“ u. a. das Wohl des betroffenen Gebiets einschließlich der Erhaltung der lebenden Schätze des Meeres sowie der Tier- und Pflanzenwelt. Gilt diese Vorschrift auch für die Erhaltung der lebenden Ressourcen sowie der Tier- und Pflanzenwelt in der ausschließlichen Wirtschaftszone oder betrifft diese Bestimmung des Übereinkommens nur die Erhaltung der Interessen des Küstengebiets?
 3.
 Wird die unter 1 gestellte Frage verneint: Was ist mit dem Ausdruck „Küste oder damit zusammenhängende Interessen“ in Art. 220 Abs. 6 des Seerechtsübereinkommens bzw. dem Ausdruck „Küste oder die damit verbundenen Interessen“ in Art. 7 Abs. 2 der Richtlinie 2005/35/EG gemeint?
 4.
 Was bedeutet der Ausdruck „Ressourcen des Küstenmeers oder der ausschließlichen Wirtschaftszone“ im Sinne von Art. 220 Abs. 6 des Seerechtsübereinkommens und Art. 7 Abs. 2 der Richtlinie 2005/35/EG? Sind unter lebenden Ressourcen nur nutzbare Arten zu verstehen oder fallen darunter auch mit nutzbaren Arten vergesellschaftete oder von ihnen abhängige Arten im Sinne von Art. 61 Abs. 4 des Seerechtsübereinkommens, wie etwa Pflanzen- und Tierarten, die von den nutzbaren Arten als Nahrung genutzt werden?
 5.
 Wie ist der Ausdruck „zu verursachen droht“ in Art. 220 Abs. 6 des Seerechtsübereinkommens und Art. 7 Abs. 2 der Richtlinie 2005/35/EG zu bestimmen? Ist die drohende Verursachung anhand des Begriffs der abstrakten oder der konkreten Gefahr oder in anderer Weise zu bestimmen?
 6.
 Ist bei der Bewertung der in Art. 220 Abs. 6 des Seerechtsübereinkommens und Art. 7 Abs. 2 der Richtlinie 2005/35/EG vorgesehenen Voraussetzungen der Befugnis des Küstenstaats davon auszugehen, dass die verursachten oder drohenden schweren Schäden eine schwerere Folge sind als die verursachte oder drohende erhebliche Verschmutzung der Meeresumwelt im Sinne von Art. 220 Abs. 5? Wie ist die erhebliche Verschmutzung der Meeresumwelt zu definieren, und wie ist sie bei der Bewertung der verursachten oder drohenden schweren Schäden zu berücksichtigen?
 7.
 Welche Umstände sind bei der Bewertung der Schwere der verursachten bzw. drohenden Schäden zu berücksichtigen? Sind bei der Bewertung z. B. die Dauer und die geografische Ausdehnung der nachteiligen Auswirkungen, die sich als Schäden äußern, zu berücksichtigen? Wird dies bejaht: Wie sind die Dauer und das Ausmaß von Schäden zu bewerten?
 8.
 Die Richtlinie 2005/35/EG ist eine Mindestrichtlinie und hindert die Mitgliedstaaten nicht daran, strengere Maßnahmen gegen die Meeresverschmutzung durch Schiffe im Einklang mit dem Völkerrecht zu ergreifen (Art. 2). Gilt die Möglichkeit, strengere Regelungen anzuwenden, für Art. 7 Abs. 2 der Richtlinie, wo die Befugnis des Küstenstaats, gegen ein auf der Durchfahrt befindliches Schiff einzuschreiten, geregelt ist?
 9.
 Kann den besonderen geografischen und ökologischen Gegebenheiten sowie der Empfindlichkeit des Ostseegebiets bei der Auslegung der in Art. 220 Abs. 6 des Seerechtsübereinkommens und in Art. 7 Abs. 2 der Richtlinie festgelegten Voraussetzungen der Befugnis des Küstenstaats Bedeutung zugemessen werden?
 10.
 Ist mit „eindeutiger objektiver Beweis“ im Sinne von Art. 220 Abs. 6 des Seerechtsübereinkommens und Art. 7 Abs. 2 der Richtlinie 2005/35/EG neben dem Beweis, dass ein Schiff die Verstöße, auf die sich die genannten Vorschriften beziehen, begangen hat, auch der Beweis der Folgen des Einleitens gemeint? Was für ein Beweis ist dafür, dass schwere Schäden für die Küste oder damit zusammenhängende Interessen oder für Ressourcen des Küstenmeers oder der ausschließlichen Wirtschaftszone — etwa für die Vogel- und Fischbestände sowie die Meeresumwelt in dem Gebiet — drohen, zu verlangen? Bedeutet das Erfordernis eines eindeutigen objektiven Beweises, dass z. B. die Bewertung der nachteiligen Auswirkungen des eingeleiteten Öls auf die Meeresumwelt immer auf konkreten Untersuchungen und Studien über die Auswirkungen der geschehenen Öleinleitung beruhen muss?
 (1) Richtlinie 2005/35/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 7. September 2005 über die Meeresverschmutzung durch Schiffe und die Einführung von Sanktionen, einschließlich strafrechtlicher Sanktionen, für Verschmutzungsdelikte (ABl. 2005, L 255, S. 1) in der durch die Richtlinie 2009/123/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 21. Oktober 2009 (ABl. 2009, L 280, S. 52) geänderten Fassung.


type: legislation

text:
 IV
 111th CONGRESS
 1st Session
 H. RES. 642
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 July 14, 2009
 Mr. Griffith
 submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
 Committee on House
 Administration
 RESOLUTION
 Expressing the sense of the House of
 Representatives with respect to legislation relating to changes in our Nation’s
 health care system.
 That it is the sense of the House of
 Representatives that if the House of Representatives passes a health care bill
 that contains a new Federal Government-sponsored health care program that
 provides services and coverage, and such bill is signed into law, such program
 should be adopted by the Members of the House of Representatives as their own
 personal health insurance coverage.