jurisdiction: US

text: b"U.S. Department of Agriculture\n Office of Inspector General\n Midwest Region\n Audit Report\n\n\n\n\n CONTROLS OVER THE ACCESS,\n DISCLOSURE, AND USE OF\n SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS\n\n\n\n\n Report No.\n 27601-29-Ch\n FEBRUARY 2003\n\x0c UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n Washington D.C. 20250\n\n\nDATE: February 26, 2003\n\nREPLY TO\nATTN OF: 27601-0029-CH\n\nSUBJECT: Controls Over The Access, Disclosure, and Use of Social Security Numbers\n\nTO: Roberto Salazar\n Administrator\n Food and Nutrition Service\n\nATTN: Lael Lubing\n Director, Grants Management Division\n\n\nThis report presents the results of our audit of the Controls Over the Access, Disclosure,\nand Use of Social Security Numbers. The Food and Nutrition Service\xe2\x80\x99s responses to the\nofficial draft, dated January 16 and 21, 2003, are included in their entirety as exhibits B\nand C, with excerpts and the Office of Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s position incorporated into the\nFindings and Recommendations section of the report.\n\nBased on the information contained in the responses, we have reached management\ndecisions on Recommendations Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in the report. Please follow your\nagency\xe2\x80\x99s internal procedures in forwarding documentation for final action to the Office of\nthe Chief Financial Officer. We have not reached management decision on\nRecommendations Nos. 1 and 3. Management decisions can be reached when the\nFood and Nutrition Service provides the additional information outlined in the OIG\nPosition sections of the report.\n\nIn accordance with Departmental Regulation 1720-1, please furnish a reply within\n60 days describing the corrective action taken or planned and the timeframes for\nimplementation of those recommendations for which management decision has not yet\nbeen reached. Please note that the regulation requires that management decisions be\nreached on all findings and recommendations within a maximum of 6 months from the\ndate of report issuance, and final action to be taken within 1 year of each management\ndecision.\n\n\n/s/\n\nRICHARD D. LONG\nAssistant Inspector General\n for Audit\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n CONTROLS OVER THE ACCESS, DISCLOSURE AND USE OF\n SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS\n\n AUDIT REPORT NO. 27601-29-Ch\n\n\n This report presents the results of our audit of\n RESULTS IN BRIEF the Controls Over Access, Disclosure, and\n Use of Social Security Numbers (SSN\xe2\x80\x99s). We\n performed this audit in conjunction with the\n President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE). The Social Security\n Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) Office of Inspector General was the lead agency\n coordinating the audit. The audit was based on a Government Accounting\n Office study to determine how and to what extent Federal, State, and local\n Government agencies use individuals\xe2\x80\x99 SSN\xe2\x80\x99s and how they safeguard\n records and documents containing SSN\xe2\x80\x99s. The objective of our audit was\n to assess the controls over the disclosure and use of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s by third\n parties in the Food Stamp Program (FSP), one of the largest USDA\n programs using SSN\xe2\x80\x99s.\n\n Our audit disclosed that Food and Nutrition Services\xe2\x80\x99 (FNS) controls over\n the disclosure of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s to third parties, contractors\xe2\x80\x99 access and use of\n SSN\xe2\x80\x99s, requirements placed on entities receiving SSN\xe2\x80\x99s, and direct access\n to SSN\xe2\x80\x99s by other organizations were in place and functioning. However,\n we found several instances at the State and county level where controls\n over computer access and physical access of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s needed\n strengthening. Specifically, the States needed to limit access to SSN\xe2\x80\x99s\n and prevent the possibility of identity theft from unauthorized disclosure of\n FSP SSN\xe2\x80\x99s located in computer files or on written documents. We noted\n that two of four county offices visited had control weaknesses that allowed\n access to SSN\xe2\x80\x99s through the computer system. We also noted that case\n files in two county offices were kept in unlocked drawers, file cabinets, and\n boxes.\n\n We recommended that guidance be issued to\n KEY RECOMMENDATIONS the Food and Nutrition Service Regional Office\n and State offices concerning access to\n confidential information in FSP databases, and\n that confidential information be secured according to internal procedures.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page i\n\x0c FNS\xe2\x80\x99 responses to the official draft report,\n AGENCY RESPONSE dated January 16 and 21, 2003, generally\n agreed with the audit findings and\n recommendations.\n\n Based on the FNS\xe2\x80\x99 responses, management\n OIG POSITION decisions can be reached on\n Recommendations Nos. 2, 4, and\n 5. Management decisions can be reached on\n the Recommendations Nos. 1 and 3 once FNS has provided us with the\n information specified in the OIG Position sections of the report. We have\n incorporated applicable portions of FNS\xe2\x80\x99 responses, along with our\n position, in the Findings and Recommendations section of the report.\n FNS\xe2\x80\x99 responses to the official draft report are included in their entirety as\n exhibits B and C of the audit report.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page ii\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................i\n RESULTS IN BRIEF....................................................................................................i\n KEY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................i\n AGENCY RESPONSE ...............................................................................................ii\n OIG POSITION...........................................................................................................ii\nTABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................iii\nINTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1\n BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................1\n OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................2\n SCOPE .......................................................................................................................2\n METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................3\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................5\n CHAPTER 1 ...............................................................................................................5\n SAFEGUARDING OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS ............................................5\n FINDING NO. 1 ..........................................................................................................5\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 ......................................................................................8\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 ......................................................................................9\n FINDING NO. 2 .........................................................................................................9\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 ....................................................................................11\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 ....................................................................................11\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 ....................................................................................12\n EXHIBIT A \xe2\x80\x93 SITES VISITED...................................................................................13\n EXHIBIT B \xe2\x80\x93 FNS\xe2\x80\x99 NATIONAL OFFICE RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT...........14\n EXHIBIT C \xe2\x80\x93 FNS\xe2\x80\x99 REGIONAL OFFICE RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT ..........15\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page iii\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\n The Food Stamp Program (FSP) is\n BACKGROUND administered by the Food and Nutrition\n Service (FNS) through 7 Regional Offices, and\n in cooperation with 53 State welfare agencies.\n Through the State agencies, the FSP provides benefits to low-income\n people to buy eligible food in authorized retail food stores. In Fiscal Year\n (FY) 2001, the FSP provided benefits to 7.5 million households and\n 17.3 million individuals each day. Individuals must complete an\n application and meet certain income and resource criteria to receive\n benefits. It is through the application process that States obtain, verify,\n and maintain personal information for each applicant, including the social\n security numbers (SSN) for each household member participating in the\n FSP.\n\n Due to concerns over the widespread collection and sharing of personal\n information, and occurrences of identity theft, Congress asked the\n Government Accounting Office (GAO) to study how and to what extent\n Federal, State, and local government agencies use individuals\xe2\x80\x99 SSN\xe2\x80\x99s and\n how they safeguard records and documents containing SSN\xe2\x80\x99s. The\n expanded use of the SSN as a national identifier provides a tempting\n motive for many unscrupulous individuals to acquire a SSN and use it for\n illegal purposes. While no one can fully prevent SSN misuse, Federal\n agencies have some responsibility to limit the risk of unauthorized\n disclosure of SSN information. In response, the Chairman of the House\n Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security asked the Social\n Security Administration and the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and\n Efficiency (PCIE) to look across Government at the way Federal agencies\n disseminate and control the use of SSN information to third parties.\n\n As a result of this request, the U.S. Department of Agriculture\xe2\x80\x99s (USDA)\n Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated an audit of controls over the\n access, disclosure, and use of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s in the FSP, one of the largest USDA\n programs to use SSN\xe2\x80\x99s. The Privacy Act1 and other statutes regulate\n FNS\xe2\x80\x99 use of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s, while State agencies are responsible for administering\n the FSP in accordance with the Food Stamp Act2, Federal regulations3,\n and their FNS approved Plans of Operation4.\n\n\n1\n The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7552A as amended\n2\n The Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2020\n3\n 7 CFR Parts 271 through 283\n4\n The Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2020(d)\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 1\n\x0c Specifically, with regard to collecting SSN information, Section 7 of the\n Privacy Act requires any agency which requests an individual to disclose\n his/her SSN to inform them whether the disclosure is mandatory or\n voluntary, by what statutory authority or other authority the request is\n made, and how the agency will use the number. With regard to\n disclosures of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s contained in Federal record systems (i.e., records\n maintained on individuals), the Privacy Act controls the use and disclosure\n of such personal information, but without specifically addressing SSN\xe2\x80\x99s.\n For each record system maintained by an agency, a Privacy Act notice\n must be published. The notice must contain the routine uses and\n disclosures of that system\xe2\x80\x99s information, which will include the SSN if\n relevant.\n\n The Food Stamp Act of 1977, which governs the States, mirrors the\n Privacy Act. The Food Stamp Act requires disclosure of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s of all\n household members as a condition of eligibility for participation in the FSP,\n and the State agencies are authorized to use those SSN\xe2\x80\x99s in the\n administration of the FSP. Regulations require that each application form\n notify households how their information and SSN will be used5. The Food\n Stamp Act requires that States, through their Plans of Operation, provide\n safeguards that limit the use or disclosure of information obtained from the\n applicant households and enforcement of the provisions of this act6.\n\n Additionally, the Food and Agricultural Resources Act of 1990 (P.L.101-\n 624), Section 1735, requires a SSN for the officers of food and retail\n stores that redeem food stamps, and provides that the SSN\xe2\x80\x99s maintained\n will be confidential and may not be disclosed.\n\n Our objective was to assess the controls over\n OBJECTIVES the access, disclosure, and use of SSN\n information by third parties. Specifically, we\n determined whether the FSP as a whole:\n (1) Makes legal and informed disclosures of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s to third parties; (2) has\n appropriate controls over contractors\xe2\x80\x99 access and use of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s; (3) has\n appropriate controls over other entities\xe2\x80\x99 access and use of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s; and\n (4) has adequate controls over access to individuals\xe2\x80\x99 SSN\xe2\x80\x99s maintained in\n its databases.\n\n We performed audit work at the FNS National\n SCOPE Office in Alexandria, Virginia, and the FNS\n Midwest Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois.\n We judgmentally selected State offices for\n testing including one where the FSP is State administered (Illinois) and\n5\n 7 CFR, Subtitle B, Chapter II, Part 273.2(b)(4)\n6\n The Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2020(e)(8)\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 2\n\x0c one where the FSP is county administered (Wisconsin). Within each\n State, we judgmentally selected 2 county or local offices, hereinafter\n referred to as county offices, based on location and size. (See exhibit A.)\n\n We followed the audit guide set forth by the Social Security Administration\n (SSA) Office of Inspector General. This guide focused on the 4 sections\n in the GAO program questionnaire completed by the FSP offices. The\n sections included questions numbered 39 through 63 and covered the\n following four areas: (1) Disclosures of individuals\xe2\x80\x99 SSN\xe2\x80\x99s to third parties;\n (2) controls over contractors\xe2\x80\x99 access and use of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s; (3) requirements\n placed on entities receiving SSN\xe2\x80\x99s; and (4) controls over direct access to\n individuals\xe2\x80\x99 SSN\xe2\x80\x99s by other organizations.\n\n Our audit primarily covered calendar year 2001. However, calendar year\n 2002 data was reviewed where deemed necessary to accomplish the\n audit objectives. Our audit work was conducted from March 5 through\n May 20, 2002.\n\n We conducted the audit in accordance with Government Auditing\n Standards established by the Comptroller General of the United States for\n performance audits.\n\n To accomplish our objectives we:\n METHODOLOGY\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed Federal laws and regulations related to the\n collection, use and privacy of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s, including the Privacy Act and\n Food Stamp Act.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the State Plans of Operation, for the selected States.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed applicable State policies, procedures, and rules and\n regulations governing the proper safeguarding of confidential\n information.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed controls over the disclosure of, and access to, SSN\n information.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed contracts or memoranda of understanding with third party\n contractors and subcontractors.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the controls over the destruction of sensitive information.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Observed the physical security over sensitive information at the State\n and county offices.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 3\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed agency officials responsible for controlling SSN\n disclosure and access.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Verified and updated key pieces of information provided on the GAO\n questionnaires by FSP offices.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Obtained documentation supporting FSP offices\xe2\x80\x99 answers to the GAO\n questionnaire, questions 39 through 63.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 4\n\x0c FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n\n CHAPTER 1 SAFEGUARDING OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS\n\n We found several instances at the county level where confidential\n information, such as Social Security numbers (SSN\xe2\x80\x99s), of Food Stamp\n Program (FSP) applicants and participants were not sufficiently\n safeguarded to protect against unauthorized use or disclosure. We noted\n weaknesses in the controls over both computer access and physical\n access, which are intended to safeguard the confidentiality and misuse of\n FSP participants\xe2\x80\x99 SSN\xe2\x80\x99s. As a result, the SSN\xe2\x80\x99s are susceptible to theft\n and unauthorized use.\n\n We found that computer users in two of four\n FINDING NO. 1 county offices reviewed had inappropriate\n access to SSN\xe2\x80\x99s due to weaknesses in the\n COMPUTER ACCESS TO SOCIAL controls over the granting and monitoring of\n SECURITY NUMBERS WAS NOT computer access. As a result, SSN\xe2\x80\x99s were not\n ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED adequately safeguarded and kept confidential,\n which created the potential for the use of\n SSN\xe2\x80\x99s in identity theft.\n\n The Food Stamp Act requires State safeguards limiting the use and\n disclosure of FSP information. Additional regulations require States to\n have computer model plans,7 which maintain appropriate levels of\n confidentiality of program information.\n\n We obtained State security office lists of computer users in the two State\n and four county offices tested. Included on the lists were State and\n county office employees, outside contractors or subcontractors, and other\n third parties, such as outside researchers. We included users with\n access to the outside electronic benefits transfer system and to State\n systems. We interviewed employees and contractors, spoke with county\n security officials who approved access requests, State security officials\n who implemented requests, and obtained information about specific job\n duties to determine whether access was properly authorized and\n appropriately limited to users\xe2\x80\x99 duties on a need to know basis only.\n\n Based on our review, we found examples of access granted to those who\n were not authorized under Wisconsin State policy to use State or Social\n7\n 7 CFR 272.10(b)(3)(iii)\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 5\n\x0c Security Administration (SSA) databases containing individuals\xe2\x80\x99 SSN\xe2\x80\x99s,\n and found examples where access levels exceeded those necessary to\n perform job duties. For instance, in one county we determined that the\n security officer did not adequately review the computer access request\n forms, which were then forwarded to the State security office for\n activation. In addition, the State relied solely on the computer access\n form, which did not provide sufficient information or was not correctly\n completed for the State to determine if the access requested was\n appropriate. The State informed us that they generally rely on the county\n security officers\xe2\x80\x99 signature as proof that a request for access is valid;\n therefore, unless a request is grossly inappropriate it will be activated. We\n also noted that the State security office does not periodically review or\n monitor current employees\xe2\x80\x99, contractors\xe2\x80\x99 or subcontractors\xe2\x80\x99 computer\n access on a regular basis to ensure that access and security levels were\n accurate and updated properly and promptly. As a result of the various\n exceptions of inappropriate access, there is the potential for theft and\n unauthorized use of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s.\n\n At the same county office as above, we judgmentally selected 24 of the\n county office\xe2\x80\x99s 143 users to test computer access to FSP data in the State\n Client Assistance for Reemployment and Economic Support (CARES)\n system, and the county database within that system. We discovered that\n a contracted case manager who was not responsible for determining\n eligibility, had access to the SSA\xe2\x80\x99s database through CARES, which was\n prohibited by the State\xe2\x80\x99s data sharing agreement with the county. The\n county security officer confirmed that all 7 case managers, including the\n one in our sample, had access to the SSA\xe2\x80\x99s database through CARES.\n He stated that he was unaware that access to the SSA\xe2\x80\x99s database for\n outside contractors was prohibited by the data sharing agreement with the\n State.\n\n The county security officer was responsible for monitoring compliance of\n the agreement between the State and the county. In addition, he was the\n individual designated by the county to request access for individuals on\n staff and contractors from the county office. Once the access request\n forms were completed and signed, they were forwarded to the State\n security officers for review and activation. The State security officers were\n aware of the requirements of the data sharing agreement, however they\n were unaware that the case managers were contractors until we brought it\n to their attention during the audit. We determined that the computer\n access form did not identify the contractor to the State security officers, so\n they could limit their access. Six of the seven case managers wrote on\n the form that they worked for the Kenosha County Department of Human\n Services (DHS). However, the State still granted access to the one case\n manager, who correctly identified himself as a contractor. The State had\n no explanation for this and stated it was an oversight. If the State is\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 6\n\x0c relying on the county security officer signatures and not evaluating each\n request form based on the information presented, they have no way of\n determining if request for access is valid.\n\n We also interviewed the selected case manager that had Statewide\n database inquiry. She stated her duties only required countywide access\n in the State\xe2\x80\x99s database. The State security officer stated that all seven of\n the case managers, including the one tested in our sample, had Statewide\n inquiry access. The county security officer had previously stated that all\n case managers performed the same duties; therefore all seven would\n have been able to perform their job with the inquiry access limited to the\n county. The State security officer stated that Statewide access is granted\n unless the request form specifies countywide access only. However, the\n access request form does not specifically mention whether access should\n be limited to the county so county offices generally do not limit access\n when preparing a request.\n\n We also noted other instances where the users\xe2\x80\x99 level of computer access\n exceeded that required to accomplish their duties. Although this additional\n access did not give the users access to any more SSN\xe2\x80\x99s than they already\n had, we believe it is necessary for the State to ensure that the county\n offices have appropriate guidance and controls in place to ensure that\n access is commensurate with job requirements.\n\n A former county employee, now a private investigator, had access to FSP\n SSN\xe2\x80\x99s in the State\xe2\x80\x99s CARES system. The private investigator was self-\n employed and contracted to perform front-end verification of eligibility and\n fraud investigations as required. When we asked about the\n appropriateness of the private investigator\xe2\x80\x99s access to the database, the\n State security officer immediately revoked the investigator\xe2\x80\x99s access and\n stated that this can occur when the State security officer cannot\n determine, based on the computer access request form if the user should\n have access or not. In some cases, the form may indicate that the user is\n a county employee when in fact they work for an outside contractor or\n subcontractor, because the request form does not adequately identify the\n user as an outside contractor. A user may also mistakenly report that they\n are working for the county when they are contracted to perform services\n for the county. In this case, the computer access form for the private\n investigator indicated she was working for DHS. The county security\n employee believed that the investigator required access to the FSP files\n because she performed duties in the administration and enforcement of\n the FSP. However as an outside contractor, the State security officer\n stated that no outside contract private investigator should be given access\n to CARES. The security officer also said that information required by the\n investigator should be obtained on a case-by-case basis from the\n employee who assigns the case to the investigator.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 7\n\x0c In addition to the private investigator\xe2\x80\x99s access, we also found that a county\n Government user had access to FSP SSNs on the State\xe2\x80\x99s data\n warehouse to produce statistical reports for the county Government. The\n State data sharing coordinator stated that they do not require a data\n sharing agreement with the county because it is a Government agency.\n The State could not explain why access to individual SSN\xe2\x80\x99s was granted to\n the user, because the State security supervisor who granted this access\n has retired. The State security officer stated that access should not have\n been granted, since the county does not require the SSN\xe2\x80\x99s to produce the\n statistical reports. Since our audit, the State has set up a separate\n computer user access for the county Government to receive one data file\n by file transfer that contains no personal identifiers, including SSN\xe2\x80\x99s.\n\n Our review disclosed several instances where weaknesses in procedures\n and documentation of the computer access policies, created inappropriate\n computer access to SSN\xe2\x80\x99s and created the opportunity for identity theft.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 1\n\n Issue guidance to the Food and Nutrition Service Regional Offices\n (FNSRO) and State offices reminding them to ensure that access to\n confidential information in FSP databases is appropriate to the users\n duties and is sufficiently limited on a \xe2\x80\x9cneed to know basis.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Agency Response\n\n FNS officials generally agreed with the finding. They will provide more\n details of planned actions at a later date.\n\n OIG Position\n\n To reach a management decision, FNS officials need to provide us with\n the guidance that will be provided to its regional offices, and the State\n offices, and the timeframe when this action will be completed.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 8\n\x0c RECOMMENDATION NO. 2\n\n Follow-up with the State of Wisconsin to ensure that computer access\n procedures, including computer access request forms, are appropriate to\n the users assigned duties.\n\n Agency Response\n\n FNS Regional officials required the State to strengthen computer access\n procedures and documents. The State also is implementing a training\n program in this area.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We have accepted FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision for this recommendation.\n For Final Action, FNS needs to provide the Office of the Chief Financial\n Officer (OCFO) with documentation that it required the State to strengthen\n computer access procedures and documents.\n\n In one Wisconsin county office, we found that\n FINDING NO. 2 desk drawers, file cabinets, and boxes of\n papers to be shredded were not properly\n secured and locked. The county security\n PHYSICAL ACCESS TO SOCIAL\n officer stated they did not have a policy to lock\n SECURITY NUMBERS WAS NOT\n their desk drawers or file cabinets and had not\n SAFEGUARDED\n considered the possible access to data by\n other employees and custodial staff a breach\n of physical security. In an Illinois county office, a file room without locks\n contained FSP files in 35 boxes and 300 file cabinets. As a result, SSN\xe2\x80\x99s\n and other sensitive information were not adequately protected from\n unauthorized disclosure and possible use in identity theft.\n\n The Food Stamp Act and Food Stamp Regulations8 require safeguards\n which limit the use or disclosure of information obtained from applicant\n households to persons directly connected with the administration or\n enforcement of the FSP laws and regulations. In addition, regulations\n state that recipients of information released under 7 CFR 272.1(c)(1) must\n adequately protect the information against unauthorized disclosure to\n persons or for purposes not specified9. Prudent business practice would\n also suggest the use of locked desk drawers, file cabinets, or rooms as\n the proper safeguard for participant information.\n8\n 7 CFR 272.1(c)(1)(i)\n9\n 7 CFR 272.1(c)(2)\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 9\n\x0c In Wisconsin, we observed specific examples of sensitive records being\n left out unlocked on desktops or open shelves after normal working hours.\n For example, 12 case files were left on a desk or credenza in each of two\n child support workstations and about 30 case files were left on open\n shelves in another child support workstation. Child support workers verify\n the paternity of every minor included in a food stamp assistance group,\n and the security officer indicated some of the files would contain food\n stamp SSN\xe2\x80\x99s. We specifically noted that a data processing specialist,\n whom we had interviewed earlier in the day and is responsible for entering\n participant data into the county office\xe2\x80\x99s master database, left documents\n containing SSN\xe2\x80\x99s and other personal identifiers out on her desk in plain\n sight after she had left for the day.\n\n In the Economic Support work area, a caseworker stated that she always\n kept her food stamp monthly caseload report, which contains SSN\xe2\x80\x99s for all\n her cases, on an open shelf. We confirmed this during our observations\n after hours.\n\n The county security officer stated they did not have a policy to lock their\n desk drawers or file cabinets because the majority of the workers were\n located beyond a locked door and the public was always escorted within\n those areas. He did not consider the presence of after-hours custodians\n and other employees or contractors, who should not have access to\n SSN's, to be a breach of controlled physical access.\n\n The Wisconsin security manual states: \xe2\x80\x9cIt is the State\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility to\n ensure that reasonable steps are taken to safeguard sensitive and\n confidential client information. Physical access means the ability to obtain\n paper reports located in an office.\xe2\x80\x9d The manual adds: Any computer\n printouts of information, case record information, etc., must not be left\n where others can access it. This information must be secured in locked\n files.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Continuing in the Wisconsin security manual: \xe2\x80\x9cIf paper or printouts are\n used, items with client specific data should be secured when the user\n leaves their work area. By secured, a locked file cabinet may be used for\n very sensitive information (such as Food Stamp Program eligibility data) or\n a locked desk drawer might be suitable depending on how accessible the\n office is to non-staff. Confidential or sensitive information must not be left\n in a place for individuals who should not have access to it.\xe2\x80\x9d And \xe2\x80\x9cIf using\n paper or printouts, items with client specific data should be secured when\n you leave the area. Any printout with confidential information (including\n screen prints) should be filed; it must be locked up. When they are\n discarded, they must be shredded.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 10\n\x0c The State/County Data Sharing Agreement states: \xe2\x80\x9cProtection Against\n Unauthorized Access or Disclosure \xe2\x80\x93 the County agrees to comply with\n the following measures to protect the confidentiality of any information\n provided under this agreement and to protect such information against\n unauthorized access or disclosure. The information shall be stored in a\n place physically secure from access by unauthorized persons in\n conformance with the State\xe2\x80\x99s security system rules and State internal\n security rules.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n We also noted an Illinois county office where case files were stored in\n 300 unlocked filing cabinets and 35 boxes within a storage room without a\n lock. The local office administrator agreed that security over files was not\n adequate. At a minimum, the storage room should be locked. Illinois\n policy10 is broad and calls for effective control over the maintenance of\n records. As a result of the lack of physical safeguarding of access to\n SSN\xe2\x80\x99s, there is the potential of theft of SSN\xe2\x80\x99s, unauthorized disclosure,\n and identity theft.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 3\n\n Issue guidance to the FNSROs, and State offices reminding them to\n ensure that data such as SSNs is properly secured, according to internal\n procedures.\n\n Agency Response\n\n FNS officials generally agreed with the finding. They will provide more\n details of planned actions at a later date.\n\n OIG Position\n\n To reach a management decision, FNS officials need to provide us with\n the guidance that will be provided to its regional offices, and the State\n offices, and the timeframe when this action will be completed.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 4\n\n Follow-up with the State of Wisconsin to ensure county offices\xe2\x80\x99\n compliance with State security requirements over FSP SSN\xe2\x80\x99s, according\n to internal procedures.\n\n10\n Illinois Administrative Directive No. 01.05.04.030 effective 10/01/01\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 11\n\x0c Agency Response\n\n The State is publishing a joint operation memorandum for all authorized\n users of public assistance program data on CARES. The memorandum is\n a policy statement that reiterates Wisconsin\xe2\x80\x99s requirements for\n safeguarding access to sensitive records.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We have accepted FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision for this recommendation.\n For Final Action, provide documentation to OCFO that the State has\n issued the memorandum.\n\n\n\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 5\n\n Follow-up with the State of Illinois to ensure county offices\xe2\x80\x99 compliance\n with State security requirements over FSP SSN\xe2\x80\x99s, according to internal\n procedures.\n\n Agency Response\n\n The Department of Human Services has issued two new Administrative\n Directives on the subject of employee conduct, both of which cover\n security issues. The Office reviewed during the audit has since moved\n locations and now has a locked file room.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We have accepted FNS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision for this recommendation.\n For Final Action, provide documentation to OCFO that the State has\n issued the memorandums.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 12\n\x0cEXHIBIT A \xe2\x80\x93 SITES VISITED\n\n\n Office Location\nFood and Nutrition Service Headquarters Alexandria, Virginia\nFNS Midwest Regional Office Chicago, Illinois\nIllinois State Office Springfield, Illinois\nSangamon County Local Office Springfield, Illinois\nLower North (Cook County) Local Office Chicago, Illinois\nWisconsin State Office Madison, Wisconsin\nKenosha County Department of Human\n Kenosha, Wisconsin\nServices\nRichland County Health & Human Services Richland Center, Wisconsin\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 13\n\x0cEXHIBIT B \xe2\x80\x93 FNS\xe2\x80\x99 NATIONAL OFFICE RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 14\n\x0cEXHIBIT C \xe2\x80\x93 FNS\xe2\x80\x99 REGIONAL OFFICE RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 15\n\x0cUSDA/OIG-A/27601-29-Ch Page 16\n\x0cInformational copies of this report have been distributed to:\n\nOffice of the Chief Financial Officer\n Director, Planning and Accountability Division (1)\nAdministrator, FNS\n Through Agency Liaison Officer, FNS (8)\nGeneral Accounting Office (1)\nOffice of Management and Budget (1)\n\x0c"


type: wikipedia

text:
Gabriel Ramanantsoa (Antananarivo, 13 de abril de 1906 - París, 9 de mayo de 1979), militar malgache de formación francesa, fue presidente de Madagascar entre 1972 y 1975.
 Biografía
 Perteneciente a la etnia merina, mayoritaria en la meseta central de Madagascar, nació en el seno de una familia aristocrática de Antananarivo. Se formó en el ejército francés, con el que participó en la Segunda Guerra Mundial y en la Guerra de Indochina.
 Tras la proclamación de la independencia de Madagascar, en cuyas negociaciones había participado, se convirtió en el Jefe del Estado Mayor del Ejército, máximo cargo de las nuevas fuerzas armadas. La crisis del gobierno del primer presidente del país Philibert Tsiranana lo llevó al poder en mayo de 1972 al frente de un gobierno militar de transición, que se fijó el objetivo de devolver el poder a un gobierno civil tras un plazo de transición de cinco años. En ese plazo se esperaba poder sacar al país de la profunda crisis política y económica en que se encontraba.
 La etapa del gobierno militar de Ramanantsoa se caracterizó por un alejamiento de la influencia de la antigua potencia colonial. Las fuerzas francesas que aún quedaban en la isla abandonaron el país, y Madagascar abandonó el área económica del franco CFA, adoptando su propia moneda, el franco malgache. A pesar de su popularidad, la inestabilidad política le hizo abandonar la presidencia antes de cumplirse los cinco años de mandato, y cedió el puesto a su Ministro del Interior Richard Ratsimandrava, que moriría asesinado seis días después. Ramanantsoa ya no volvería a participar en la política, y moriría enfermo en París el 9 de mayo de 1979. Considerado un héroe nacional en Madagascar, fue enterrado en Antananarivo con los máximos honores del Estado.
 Presidentes de Madagascar
 Personas de Antananarivo
 Fallecidos en París
 Políticos de Madagascar del siglo XX


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 |
 52013PC0152
 Πρόταση ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟΥ για την εξουσιοδότηση των κρατών μελών να κυρώσουν, προς το συμφέρον της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, τη σύμβαση της Διεθνούς Οργάνωσης Εργασίας του 2011 σχετικά με την αξιοπρεπή εργασία για το οικιακό προσωπικό (σύμβαση αριθ. 189), /* COM/2013/0152 final - 2013/0085 (NLE) */
 ΑΙΤΙΟΛΟΓΙΚΗ
 ΕΚΘΕΣΗ
 1. ΠΛΑΙΣΙΟ
 ΤΗΣ ΠΡΟΤΑΣΗΣ
 Η
 παρούσα
 πρόταση θα
 επιτρέψει στα
 κράτη μέλη να κυρώσουν
 νομικά τη
 σύμβαση αριθ. 189
 της Διεθνούς
 Οργάνωσης
 Εργασίας (ΔΟΕ)
 του 2011 σχετικά με
 την αξιοπρεπή
 εργασία για το
 οικιακό
 προσωπικό, στο
 εξής «η σύμβαση
 αριθ. 189 για το
 οικιακό
 προσωπικό» ή «η
 σύμβαση».
 Η
 σύμβαση αριθ. 189
 για το οικιακό
 προσωπικό
 εγκρίθηκε κατά
 την 100ή σύνοδο
 της Διεθνούς
 Διάσκεψης Εργασίας
 στις 16 Ιουνίου 2011
 και αναμένεται
 να τεθεί σε ισχύ
 τον Σεπτέμβριο
 του 2013. Καθορίζει
 την παγκόσμια
 ελάχιστη
 προστασία
 εργασίας για
 το οικιακό
 προσωπικό.
 Από τον
 Δεκέμβριο του 2012,
 η σύμβαση αριθ. 189
 για το οικιακό
 προσωπικό έχει
 ήδη κυρωθεί
 από τρία κράτη
 μέρη της ΔΟΕ.
 Ανήκει στις
 συμβάσεις της
 ΔΟΕ που έχουν ταξινομηθεί
 από τη ΔΟΕ ως
 επικαιροποιημένες
 και, συνεπώς,
 προωθούνται
 ενεργά.
 Η
 Ευρωπαϊκή
 Ένωση (ΕΕ) έχει
 δεσμευτεί να
 προωθήσει την
 ατζέντα για
 την αξιοπρεπή
 εργασία τόσο
 στο εσωτερικό
 της όσο και
 στις
 εξωτερικές
 σχέσεις της. Τα
 πρότυπα που
 αφορούν την
 εργασία
 αποτελούν βασική
 συνιστώσα της
 έννοιας της
 αξιοπρεπούς
 εργασίας. Η
 κύρωση των Συμβάσεων
 της ΔΟΕ από τα
 κράτη μέλη
 αποστέλλει με τον
 τρόπο αυτό ένα
 ηχηρό μήνυμα
 όσον αφορά τη
 συνοχή της
 πολιτικής της
 Ένωσης σχετικά
 με τη βελτίωση
 των εργασιακών
 προτύπων
 παγκοσμίως.
 Επιπλέον,
 ως μέρος της
 στρατηγικής
 της ΕΕ για την
 εξάλειψη της
 εμπορίας
 ανθρώπων[1],
 η Επιτροπή
 παροτρύνει τα
 κράτη μέλη να
 κυρώσουν όλες
 τις διεθνείς
 πράξεις, τις
 συμφωνίες και
 τις νομικές
 υποχρεώσεις
 που θα
 συμβάλουν στην
 καταπολέμηση
 της εμπορίας
 ανθρώπων με
 πιο αποτελεσματικό,
 συντονισμένο
 και συνεκτικό
 τρόπο. Στα
 μέτρα αυτά
 περιλαμβάνεται
 η σύμβαση αριθ. 189
 για το οικιακό
 προσωπικό.
 Συνεπώς,
 είναι αναγκαίο
 να αρθούν
 τυχόν νομικά
 εμπόδια για
 την επικύρωση
 από τα κράτη
 μέλη σε επίπεδο
 ΕΕ για τη
 σύμβαση αριθ. 189
 για το οικιακό
 προσωπικό, οι
 οποία δεν
 αποτελεί κατ’
 ουσίαν πρόβλημα
 στο πλαίσιο
 του
 υφιστάμενου
 κεκτημένου της
 Ένωσης.
 Οι
 διατάξεις της
 σύμβασης αριθ. 189
 σχετικά με το
 οικιακό
 προσωπικό
 προορίζονται
 να συμβάλουν
 στην αντιμετώπιση
 της κατάχρησης
 και της
 εκμετάλλευσης των
 οικιακών
 βοηθών. Το
 άρθρο 1 της
 σύμβασης,
 ορίζει ως
 οικιακό
 προσωπικό
 οποιοδήποτε
 πρόσωπο ασχολείται
 με οικιακές
 εργασίες
 (εργασίες που
 πραγματοποιούνται
 σε ή για ένα
 νοικοκυριό ή
 νοικοκυριά)
 στο πλαίσιο
 μιας
 εργασιακής
 σχέσης. Η
 σύμβαση
 απαιτεί από τα
 κράτη μέλη της
 ΔΟΕ να λάβουν
 μέτρα για την
 πρόληψη της
 βίας και της
 παιδικής
 εργασίας στο
 πλαίσιο της
 οικιακής
 απασχόλησης.
 Το άρθρο 3
 προστατεύει τα
 θεμελιώδη
 εργασιακά
 δικαιώματα του
 οικιακού προσωπικού,
 ζητώντας από
 κάθε κράτος
 μέλος να λάβει
 τα μέτρα που
 ορίζονται στη
 σύμβαση να
 σέβονται, να
 προωθούν και
 να υλοποιούν
 τις
 θεμελιώδεις
 αρχές και τα δικαιώματα
 στην εργασία.
 Μεταγενέστερες
 διατάξεις
 ιδίως απαιτούν
 από τα κράτη
 μέλη της ΔΟΕ:
 ·
 να
 καθορίσουν
 ελάχιστη
 ηλικία για την
 οικιακή εργασία
 και διασφαλίσεις
 για τους
 εργαζόμενους
 ηλικίας κάτω
 των 18 ετών·
 ·
 να
 φροντίζουν για
 την πρόληψη
 της κατάχρησης
 και της βίας·
 ·
 να
 εξασφαλίζουν
 δίκαιους όρους
 και
 αξιοπρεπείς συνθήκες
 εργασίας·
 ·
 να
 εξασφαλίζουν
 ότι οι
 εργαζόμενοι
 ενημερώνονται
 σχετικά με
 τους όρους και
 τις λεπτομέρειες
 της
 απασχόλησής
 τους·
 ·
 να
 ρυθμίζουν τις
 προσλήψεις από
 το εξωτερικό
 και να
 διασφαλίζουν
 την ελευθερία
 κυκλοφορίας·
 ·
 να
 εφαρμόζουν την
 ίση
 μεταχείριση
 μεταξύ του οικιακού
 προσωπικού και
 άλλων
 εργαζομένων
 όσον αφορά την
 αποζημίωση και
 της παροχές·
 ·
 να
 ρυθμίζουν και
 να
 παρακολουθούν
 ιδιωτικά πρακτορεία
 εύρεσης
 εργασίας· και
 ·
 να
 αναπτύξουν
 ειδικό
 μηχανισμό
 καταγγελιών.
 Η
 σύμβαση αριθ. 189
 για το οικιακό
 προσωπικό
 εξετάζει
 τομείς του
 δικαίου της
 Ένωσης στους
 οποίους ο βαθμός
 ρύθμισης έχει
 ήδη φθάσει σε προχωρημένο
 στάδιο.
 Η
 σύμβαση κυρίως
 ασχολείται με
 πτυχές που
 αφορούν τον
 τομέα
 κοινωνικής
 πολιτικής,
 στον οποίο το δίκαιο
 της Ένωσης
 ορίζει
 ελάχιστες
 απαιτήσεις για
 την υγεία και
 την ασφάλεια
 κατά την
 εργασία, την προστασία
 των νέων κατά
 την εργασία,
 την προστασία
 της
 μητρότητας, τη
 γραπτή δήλωση,
 τον χρόνο
 εργασίας, τη
 μετανάστευση
 και την
 προσωρινή εργασία
 μέσω
 πρακτορείων[2].
 Η
 σύμβαση
 εξετάζει
 θέματα που
 αφορούν τον
 τομέα καταπολέμησης
 των διακρίσεων
 για τον οποίο
 το δίκαιο της
 Ένωσης ορίζει
 ελάχιστες απαιτήσεις
 σχετικά με την
 ισότητα στην
 απασχόληση, την
 ισότητα των
 φύλων και την
 προστασία της
 μητρότητας[3].
 Η
 σύμβαση
 ασχολείται
 επίσης με
 θέματα σχετικά
 με τη
 δικαστική
 συνεργασία
 στον ποινικό
 τομέα και στον
 τομέα του
 ασύλου και της
 μετανάστευσης,
 για τους οποίους
 το δίκαιο της
 Ένωσης ορίζει
 ελάχιστες απαιτήσεις
 για την
 καταπολέμηση
 της εμπορίας
 ανθρώπων και
 για κυρώσεις
 των εργοδοτών[4].
 Επιπλέον,
 το άρθρο 8 της
 σύμβασης για
 το οικιακό προσωπικό
 ασχολείται με
 την προστασία
 των μεταναστών
 οικιακών
 βοηθών, η οποία
 περιλαμβάνει
 πτυχές που
 αφορούν την
 ελεύθερη
 κυκλοφορία των
 εργαζομένων
 βάσει του
 δικαίου της
 Ένωσης[5].
 2. ΑΠΟΤΕΛΕΣΜΑΤΑ
 ΤΩΝ
 ΔΙΑΒΟΥΛΕΥΣΕΩΝ
 ΜΕ ΤΑ
 ΕΝΔΙΑΦΕΡΟΜΕΝΑ
 ΜΕΡΗ ΚΑΙ
 ΕΚΤΙΜΗΣΕΙΣ ΤΩΝ
 ΕΠΙΠΤΩΣΕΩΝ
 Άνευ
 αντικειμένου.
 3. ΝΟΜΙΚΑ
 ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΑ ΤΗΣ
 ΠΡΟΤΑΣΗΣ
 Σύμφωνα
 με τους
 κανόνες
 σχετικά με τις
 εξωτερικές
 ικανότητες που
 έχουν
 συνταχθεί από
 το Δικαστήριο
 της Ευρωπαϊκής
 Ένωσης[6],
 και ειδικότερα
 όσον αφορά τη
 σύναψη και την
 κύρωση της
 σύμβασης της
 Διεθνούς
 Οργάνωσης
 Εργασίας[7],
 τα κράτη μέλη
 δεν είναι σε
 θέση να
 αποφασίσουν
 αυτόνομα
 σχετικά με την
 κύρωση της
 σύμβασης, χωρίς
 την
 προηγούμενη
 έγκριση του
 Συμβουλίου,
 όταν πρόκειται
 για μέρη της
 σύμβασης που
 εμπίπτουν στην
 αρμοδιότητα
 της Ένωσης.
 Από την
 άλλη πλευρά, η
 Ευρωπαϊκή
 Ένωση δεν
 μπορεί από
 μόνη της να
 κυρώσει τη
 σύμβαση της
 ΔΟΕ, διότι μόνο
 κράτη μπορούν
 να είναι συμβαλλόμενα
 μέρη σε
 τέτοιου είδους
 συμβάσεις.
 Συνεπώς,
 αν το
 αντικείμενο
 της εκάστοτε
 συμφωνίας ή
 σύμβασης
 εμπίπτει εν
 μέρει στην
 αρμοδιότητα της
 Ένωσης και εν
 μέρει στην
 αρμoδιότητα τωv
 κρατών μελών,
 τα θεσμικά
 όργανα της
 Ένωσης και τα
 κράτη μέλη
 οφείλουν να
 λαμβάνουν όλα
 τα αναγκαία
 μέτρα για να
 διασφαλιστεί
 με τον
 καλύτερο
 δυνατό τρόπο η
 συνεργασία όσον
 αφορά την
 κύρωση της
 σύμβασης και
 κατά την εκτέλεση
 των
 υποχρεώσεων
 που απορρέουν
 από την εν λόγω
 σύμβαση[8].
 Όσον
 αφορά τις
 τρεις
 συμβάσεις της
 ΔΟΕ που εγκρίθηκαν
 την τελευταία
 δεκαετία, μέρη
 των οποίων
 εμπίπτουν στην
 αρμοδιότητα
 της Ένωσης, το
 Συμβούλιο εξουσιοδότησε,
 συνεπώς, τα
 κράτη μέλη να
 κυρώσουν, προς
 το συμφέρον
 της Ένωσης, τα
 μέρη εκείνα
 που εμπίπτουν
 στην
 αρμοδιότητα
 της Ένωσης[9]. Η
 Επιτροπή
 ενέκρινε
 επίσης μια
 πρόταση για
 μια τέτοια
 απόφαση του
 Συμβουλίου
 όσον αφορά τη
 σύμβαση αριθ. 170
 για τα χημικά
 προϊόντα[10].
 Ειδικά
 όσον αφορά τη
 σύμβαση αριθ. 189
 για το οικιακό προσωπικό,
 ο βαθμός
 ρύθμισης σε
 σχέση με τις
 διάφορες
 πτυχές της
 κοινωνικής
 πολιτικής και
 στους τομείς
 της
 καταπολέμησης
 των διακρίσεων,
 της δικαστικής
 συνεργασίας σε
 ποινικές υποθέσεις
 και του ασύλου
 και της
 μετανάστευσης
 που καλύπτονται
 από τη σύμβαση,
 έχει φθάσει σε
 προχωρημένο
 στάδιο, σε σημείο
 που τα κράτη
 μέλη δεν είναι
 πλέον σε θέση να
 ενεργήσουν
 κυρίαρχα στις
 εξωτερικές
 σχέσεις ως
 προς το θέμα
 αυτό[11].
 Το άρθρο 153 της
 ΣΛΕΕ αποτελεί
 την κύρια
 νομική βάση
 για το σχετικό
 δίκαιο της
 Ένωσης, η οποία
 στις περισσότερες
 περιπτώσεις
 είναι πιο λεπτομερής
 από τις
 γενικές αρχές
 που
 καθορίζονται στη
 σύμβαση αριθ. 189
 για το οικιακό
 προσωπικό. Δεν
 υπάρχει καμία
 αντίφαση
 μεταξύ των
 γενικών αρχών
 που
 προβλέπονται
 στη σύμβαση
 και το δίκαιο
 της Ένωσης, και
 δεν υπάρχει
 ασυμβατότητα
 μεταξύ των
 διατάξεων της
 σύμβασης και
 τις ελάχιστες
 απαιτήσεις σε
 αυτούς τους
 τομείς που
 προβλέπονται
 στο κεκτημένο
 της Ένωσης.
 Από το
 άρθρο 19
 παράγραφος 8
 του
 καταστατικού
 χάρτη της ΔΟΕ
 έπεται ότι η
 σύμβαση
 περιέχει
 ελάχιστα πρότυπα,
 γεγονός που
 σημαίνει ότι
 σε εθνικό
 επίπεδο μπορούν
 να υπάρξουν
 αυστηρότερα
 πρότυπα
 εφαρμογής από
 εκείνα που
 προβλέπει η
 σύμβαση.
 Δεν
 υπάρχει
 ασυνέπεια της
 προσέγγισης
 μεταξύ των
 κανόνων
 σχετικά με την
 προστασία και
 την ίση μεταχείριση
 των
 εργαζομένων
 στο πλαίσιο
 της σύμβασης
 και των
 ελάχιστων
 απαιτήσεων με
 βάση το κεκτημένο
 της Ένωσης
 στον τομέα
 αυτό. Αυτό
 σημαίνει ότι
 τα μέτρα της Ένωσης
 μπορούν να
 είναι
 αυστηρότερα
 από τα πρότυπα
 της ΔΟΕ και το
 αντίστροφο[12].
 Η
 σύμβαση αριθ. 189
 για το οικιακό
 προσωπικό
 περιέχει ένα
 άρθρο για την
 προστασία των
 μεταναστών
 οικιακών
 βοηθών (άρθρο 8)
 που θα
 μπορούσε να
 παρακωλύσει
 ενδεχομένως
 την ελεύθερη
 κυκλοφορία των
 εργαζομένων –
 ένας τομέας
 που εμπίπτει
 στην
 αποκλειστική
 αρμοδιότητα
 της Ένωσης[13].
 Ωστόσο, ο
 κύριος στόχος
 της σύμβασης
 δεν είναι να ρυθμίσει
 ένα θέμα που
 υπάγεται στην
 αποκλειστική
 αρμοδιότητα
 της Ένωσης.
 Επιπλέον, το
 άρθρο 8 παράγραφος
 2 της σύμβασης
 προβλέπει ότι
 η απαίτηση να
 λαμβάνουν
 γραπτή
 προσφορά πριν
 από τη
 διέλευση των
 εθνικών
 συνόρων δεν
 εφαρμόζεται
 στις περιοχές
 περιφερειακής
 οικονομικής
 ολοκλήρωσης. Η
 εν λόγω ρήτρα διασφάλισης
 εμποδίζει κάθε
 πιθανή
 ασυμβατότητα
 μεταξύ της
 σύμβασης και
 του κεκτημένου
 της Ένωσης
 σχετικά με την ελεύθερη
 κυκλοφορία των
 εργαζομένων
 βάσει του άρθρου
 45 ΣΛΕΕ και του
 κανονισμού
 αριθ. 492/2011. Κατά
 συνέπεια, οι
 διατάξεις της
 σύμβασης στον
 εν λόγω τομέα δεν
 είναι
 ασύμβατες με
 το κεκτημένο
 της Ένωσης.
 Ο σκοπός
 της παρούσας
 πρότασης
 είναι, συνεπώς,
 να εξουσιοδοτήσει
 τα κράτη μέλη
 να κυρώσουν,
 προς το συμφέρον
 της Ένωσης,
 εκείνα τα μέρη
 της σύμβασης αριθ.
 189 για το οικιακό
 προσωπικό που
 εμπίπτουν στην
 αρμοδιότητα
 της Ένωσης.
 Η
 πρόταση
 βασίζεται στο
 άρθρο 218
 παράγραφος 6
 της Συνθήκης
 για τη
 λειτουργία της
 Ευρωπαϊκής
 Ένωσης (ΣΛΕΕ),
 που
 εφαρμόζεται
 κατ’ αναλογία,
 σε συνδυασμό
 με το άρθρο 153 της
 ΣΛΕΕ, το οποίο παρέχει
 την κύρια
 νομική βάση
 για τη
 νομοθεσία της
 Ένωσης σχετικά
 με την
 προστασία και
 τη βελτίωση των
 συνθηκών
 εργασίας των
 εργαζομένων.
 2013/0085 (NLE)
 Πρόταση
 ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ
 ΤΟΥ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟΥ
 για την
 εξουσιοδότηση
 των κρατών
 μελών να
 κυρώσουν, προς
 το συμφέρον
 της Ευρωπαϊκής
 Ένωσης, τη σύμβαση
 της Διεθνούς
 Οργάνωσης
 Εργασίας του 2011
 σχετικά με την
 αξιοπρεπή εργασία
 για το οικιακό
 προσωπικό
 (σύμβαση αριθ. 189),
 ΤΟ
 ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ ΤΗΣ
 ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΗΣ
 ΕΝΩΣΗΣ,
 Έχοντας
 υπόψη τη
 Συνθήκη για τη
 λειτουργία της
 Ευρωπαϊκής
 Ένωσης, και
 ιδίως το άρθρο 153
 σε συνδυασμό με
 το άρθρο 218
 παράγραφος 6
 στοιχείο α)
 σημείο v) και το άρθρο
 218 παράγραφος 8
 πρώτο εδάφιο,
 Έχοντας
 υπόψη την
 πρόταση της
 Ευρωπαϊκής
 Επιτροπής,
 Έχοντας
 υπόψη την
 έγκριση του
 Ευρωπαϊκού
 Κοινοβουλίου[14],
 Εκτιμώντας
 τα ακόλουθα:
 (1) Το
 Ευρωπαϊκό
 Κοινοβούλιο,
 το Συμβούλιο
 και η Επιτροπή
 υποστηρίζουν
 την κύρωση των
 διεθνών συμβάσεων
 εργασίας που
 έχουν
 ταξινομηθεί
 από τη Διεθνή
 Οργάνωση
 Εργασίας ως
 επικαιροποιημένες,
 ως συμβολή
 στις
 προσπάθειες
 της Ευρωπαϊκής
 Ένωσης να
 προωθήσει την
 αξιοπρεπή
 εργασία για
 όλους εντός
 και εκτός της
 Ένωσης,
 σημαντική
 πτυχή της οποίας
 είναι η προστασία
 και η βελτίωση
 των συνθηκών
 εργασίας των
 εργαζομένων.
 (2) Οι
 περισσότεροι
 κανόνες στο
 πλαίσιο της
 σύμβασης αριθ. 189
 της Διεθνούς
 Οργάνωσης
 Εργασίας (ΔΟΕ)
 του 2011 σχετικά με
 την αξιοπρεπή
 εργασία για το
 οικιακό προσωπικό,
 εφεξής «η
 σύμβαση»,
 καλύπτονται σε
 μεγάλο βαθμό
 από το
 κεκτημένο της
 Ένωσης στους
 τομείς της
 κοινωνικής
 πολιτικής[15], της
 καταπολέμησης
 των διακρίσεων[16], της
 δικαστικής
 συνεργασίας σε
 ποινικές
 υποθέσεις[17] και
 του ασύλου και
 της
 μετανάστευσης[18].
 (3) Οι
 διατάξεις της
 σύμβασης που
 αφορούν την
 προστασία των
 μεταναστών
 οικιακών
 βοηθών είναι
 δυνατόν να
 επηρεάσουν την
 ελεύθερη
 κυκλοφορία των
 εργαζομένων –
 έναν τομέα που
 εμπίπτει στην
 αποκλειστική
 αρμοδιότητα
 της Ένωσης[19].
 (4) Κατά
 συνέπεια,
 ορισμένα μέρη
 της σύμβασης
 εμπίπτουν στην
 αρμοδιότητα της
 Ένωσης και τα
 κράτη μέλη δεν
 επιτρέπεται να
 αναλάβουν
 δεσμεύσεις
 σχετικά με τα
 εν λόγω μέρη
 εκτός του
 πλαισίου των
 θεσμικών
 οργάνων της
 Ένωσης[20].
 (5) Η
 Ευρωπαϊκή
 Ένωση δεν
 μπορεί να
 κυρώσει τη
 σύμβαση,
 δεδομένου ότι
 μόνο κράτη
 μπορούν να
 είναι συμβαλλόμενα
 μέρη της.
 (6) Λόγω
 αυτής της
 κατάστασης, τα
 κράτη μέλη και
 τα θεσμικά
 όργανα της
 Ένωσης πρέπει
 να
 συνεργαστούν για
 την κύρωση της
 σύμβασης.
 (7) Συνεπώς,
 το Συμβούλιο
 θα πρέπει να
 εξουσιοδοτήσει
 τα κράτη μέλη,
 τα οποία
 δεσμεύονται
 από το δίκαιο
 της Ένωσης
 σχετικά με τις
 ελάχιστες
 απαιτήσεις
 στον τομέα των
 συνθηκών
 εργασίας, να
 κυρώσουν τη
 σύμβαση προς
 το συμφέρον
 της Ευρωπαϊκής
 Ένωσης.
 ΕΞΕΔΩΣΕ
 ΤΗΝ ΠΑΡΟΥΣΑ
 ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ:
 Άρθρο 1
 Τα κράτη
 μέλη
 εξουσιοδοτούνται
 να κυρώσουν,
 όσον αφορά τα
 τμήματα που
 εμπίπτουν στην
 αρμοδιότητα
 που απονέμεται
 στην Ένωση με
 τις Συνθήκες,
 τη σύμβαση της
 Διεθνούς
 Οργάνωσης
 Εργασίας του 2011
 σχετικά με την
 αξιοπρεπή
 εργασία για το
 οικιακό
 προσωπικό
 (σύμβαση αριθ. 189).
 Άρθρο 2
 Η
 παρούσα
 απόφαση
 απευθύνεται
 στα κράτη μέλη.
 Βρυξέλλες,
 Για
 το Συμβούλιο
 Ο
 Πρόεδρος
 [1] Στρατηγική
 της ΕΕ για την
 εξάλειψη της
 εμπορίας ανθρώπων
 2012-2016, COM (2012) 286 της 19.6.2012.
 [2] Οδηγία
 89/391/ΕΟΚ, οδηγία
 94/33/ΕΟΚ, οδηγία
 91/533/ΕΟΚ, οδηγία
 2003/88/ΕΚ, οδηγία 2011/98/ΕΕ
 και οδηγία 2008/104/ΕΚ.
 [3] Οδηγία 2000/78/ΕΚ,
 οδηγία 2000/43/ΕΚ,
 οδηγία 2006/54/ΕΚ,
 οδηγία 92/85/ΕΟΚ.
 [4] Οδηγία
 2011/36/ΕΚ, οδηγία 2009/52/ΕΚ
 [5] Το άρθρο 45
 της ΣΛΕΕ,
 κανονισμός
 αριθ. 492/2011.
 [6] Απόφαση AETR
 του
 Δικαστηρίου,
 υπόθεση 22/70 της
 31ης Μαρτίου 1971,
 Συλλογή 1971, σ. 263·
 βλέπε επίσης
 άρθρο 3
 παράγραφος 2
 της ΣΛΕΕ στο
 οποίο κωδικοποιούνται
 οι αρχές αυτές.
 [7] Γνωμοδότηση
 2/91 του ΔΕΚ, της 19ης
 Μαρτίου 1993,
 σχετικά με τη
 σύμβαση αριθ. 170
 για τα χημικά
 προϊόντα,
 Συλλογή 1993-Ι, σελ.
 1061.
 [8] Γνώμη 2/91 του
 Ευρωπαϊκού
 Δικαστηρίου (ibid),
 σκέψεις 36, 37 και 38.
 [9] Την
 τελευταία
 δεκαετία το
 Συμβούλιο
 εξέδωσε τρεις
 αποφάσεις με
 τις οποίες
 εξουσιοδοτούνται
 τα κράτη μέλη
 να κυρώσουν
 τις συμβάσεις
 της ΔΟΕ: απόφαση
 του
 Συμβουλίου,
 της 14ης
 Απριλίου 2005, για
 την εξουσιοδότηση
 των κρατών
 μελών να κυρώσουν,
 προς το
 συμφέρον της
 Ευρωπαϊκής
 Κοινότητας, τη
 σύμβαση για τα
 έγγραφα
 ταυτότητας των
 ναυτικών της
 Διεθνούς
 Οργάνωσης
 Εργασίας
 (σύμβαση αριθ. 185),
 ΕΕ L 136 της 30.5.2005, σελ. 1 ·
 απόφαση του
 Συμβουλίου,
 της 7ης Ιουνίου
 2007, για την
 εξουσιοδότηση
 των κρατών
 μελών να
 επικυρώσουν,
 προς το συμφέρον
 της Ευρωπαϊκής
 Κοινότητας, τη
 σύμβαση
 ναυτικής
 εργασίας του 2006
 της Διεθνούς
 Οργάνωσης
 Εργασίας (ΕΕ L 161
 της 22.6.2007, σελ. 63)· και
 απόφαση του
 Συμβουλίου,
 της 7ης Ιουνίου
 2010, για την
 εξουσιοδότηση των
 κρατών μελών
 να κυρώσουν,
 προς το
 συμφέρον της
 Ευρωπαϊκής
 Ένωσης, τη
 σύμβαση της
 ΔΟΕ για την εργασία
 στην αλιεία
 του 2007, της
 Διεθνούς
 Οργάνωσης Εργασίας
 (σύμβαση αριθ. 188),
 ΕΕ L 145 της 11.6.2010, σελ.12.
 [10] COM (2012) 677 της 20ής
 Νοεμβρίου 2012.
 [11] Γνώμη 2/91 του
 Δικαστηρίου (ibid),
 σκέψεις 25 και 26.
 [12] Γνώμη 2/91 του
 Δικαστηρίου,
 σκέψη 18.
 [13] Το άρθρο 45
 της ΣΛΕΕ,
 κανονισμός
 αριθ. 492/2011.
 [14] ΕΕ C της , σ. .
 [15] Συμπεριλαμβανομένων
 της
 οδηγίας-πλαισίου
 89/391/ΕΟΚ για την
 υγεία και την
 ασφάλεια, της
 οδηγίας 94/33/ΕΚ
 για την
 προστασία των
 νέων κατά την
 εργασία, της
 οδηγίας 92/85/ΕΟΚ
 για την
 προστασία της
 μητρότητας,
 της οδηγίας
 91/533/ΕΟΚ για τη
 γραπτή δήλωση,
 της οδηγίας
 2003/88/ΕΚ για τον
 χρόνο
 εργασίας, και
 της οδηγίας
 2008/104/ΕΚ για την
 προσωρινή εργασία
 μέσω
 πρακτορείων.
 [16] Συμπεριλαμβανομένων
 της οδηγίας
 2000/78/ΕΚ για την ισότητα
 στην
 απασχόληση,
 της οδηγίας
 2006/54/ΕΚ για την ισότητα
 των φύλων και
 της οδηγίας
 92/85/ΕΟΚ για την
 προστασία της
 μητρότητας.
 [17] Συμπεριλαμβανομένης
 της οδηγίας
 2011/36/ΕΕ για την
 πρόληψη και
 την
 καταπολέμηση
 της εμπορίας ανθρώπων
 και για την
 προστασία των
 θυμάτων της.
 [18] Συμπεριλαμβανομένων
 της οδηγίας
 2009/52/ΕΚ για τις κυρώσεις
 εργοδοτών και
 της οδηγίας
 2011/98/ΕΕ περί
 ενιαίας
 άδειας.
 [19] Το άρθρο 45
 της ΣΛΕΕ,
 κανονισμός
 αριθ. 492/2011.
 [20] Γνωμοδότηση
 2/91 του
 Δικαστηρίου
 της Ευρωπαϊκής
 Ένωσης, της 19ης
 Μαρτίου 1993,
 Συλλογή 1993, σ. Ι-1061,
 σκέψη 26.


type: contracts

text:
 9.8.2007
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 209/26
 ROZHODNUTIE SPOLOČNÉHO VÝBORU EHP
 č. 15/2007
 z 27. apríla 2007,
 ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa príloha II (Technické predpisy, normy, skúšky a certifikácia) k Dohode o EHP
 SPOLOČNÝ VÝBOR EHP,
 so zreteľom na Dohodu o Európskom hospodárskom priestore, zmenenú a doplnenú protokolom, ktorým sa upravuje Dohoda o Európskom hospodárskom priestore, ďalej len „dohoda“, a najmä na jej článok 98,
 keďže:
 (1)
 Príloha II k dohode bola zmenená a doplnená rozhodnutím Spoločného výboru EHP č. 117/2006 z 22. septembra 2006 (1).
 (2)
 Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 907/2006 z 20. júna 2006, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 648/2004 o detergentoch s cieľom upraviť jeho prílohy III a VII (2), sa má začleniť do dohody,
 ROZHODOL TAKTO:
 Článok 1
 Bod 12u [nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 648/2004] kapitoly XV prílohy II k dohode sa dopĺňa takto:
 „, zmenené a doplnené:
 —
 32006 R 0907: nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 907/2006 z 20. júna 2006 (Ú. v. EÚ L 168, 21.6.2006, s. 5).“
 Článok 2
 Znenie nariadenia (ES) č. 907/2006 v islandskom a nórskom jazyku, ktoré bude uverejnené v dodatku EHP k Úradnému vestníku Európskej únie, je autentické.
 Článok 3
 Toto rozhodnutie nadobúda účinnosť 28. apríla 2007 pod podmienkou, že Spoločnému výboru EHP budú zaslané všetky oznámenia podľa článku 103 ods. 1 dohody (3).
 Článok 4
 Toto rozhodnutie sa uverejní v oddiele EHP Úradného vestníka Európskej únie a v dodatku EHP k Úradnému vestníku Európskej únie.
 V Bruseli 27. apríla 2007
 Za Spoločný výbor EHP
 predseda
 Alan SEATTER
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 333, 30.11.2006, s. 40.
 (2) Ú. v. EÚ L 168, 21.6.2006, s. 5.
 (3) Ústavné požiadavky sú uvedené.


text:
Hrdlička záhradná alebo hrdlička bronzová (lat. Streptopelia decaocto) je holub z čeľade holubovitých. Od roku 1936, kedy prenikla aj na Slovensko, už hniezdi a zimuje na celom území s výnimkou horských oblastí nad a súvislých lesných porastov. Podľa Medzinárodnej únie na ochranu prírody a prírodných zdrojov hrdlička záhradná patrí medzi najmenej ohrozené druhy, trend celkovej populácie je stúpajúci kvôli degradácii životného prostredia, čo vytvára pre hrdličku záhradnú nové vhodné biotopy. Stavy v Európe v rokoch 19802013 mierne vzrástli.
 Opis
 Hrdlička záhradná zastupuje u nás spolu s hrdličkou poľnou, holubom hrivnákom a holubom plúžikom tvoria podrad holubov (Columbae). Sú to vtáky strednej veľkosti a veľmi dobre lietajú. Majú mäkké ozobie (bazálnu časť vrchnej čeľuste nad nosovými otvormi) a veľký hrvoľ, na bokoch zhrubnutý, žľaznatý. Jeho výlučkom, tzv. hrvoľovým alebo holubím mliekom kŕmia v prvom týždni svoje mláďaťa, ktorých nebýva viac ako dve. Neskôr im dávajú pevnú potravu zmäkčenú v hrvoli rodičov. Holuby sú sfarbené sivomodro, o niečo menšie hrdličky sú hnedasté.
 Hrdlička záhradná má priemerne asi 200 g (150 – 292) a meria 27 – , s rozpätím krídel 47 – . Samec je o málo väčší ako samica, ktorá má na vrchu hlavy bronzovo-hnedastý nádych a na chrbte je trocha tmavšia. Samec je na hlave a krku sivý s ružovkastým nádychom. Chrbát je hnedobronzový, okraj krídla sivý, spodná strana teta belavosivá s jemným ružovkastým, na podchvostových krovkách s modrastým nádychom. Na konci spodnej strany chvosta je široká biela škvrna a nie iba úzke biele lemovanie ako pri hrdličke poľnej. Nohy sú červené, zobák čierny. Mláďatám chýba úzka tmavá polobrúčka na hornej strane krku, ako aj ružovkastý nádych na hrvoli a prsiach.
 Hlas
 Typický hlas tejto hrdličky je huhúú–hu.
 Rozšírenie
 Hrdlička záhradná, ktorej pôvodnou vlasťou bola severná Afrika, západná Ázia až po Indiu, sa v Európe objavila ako hniezdič až po roku 1900. Najprv na Balkánskom polostrove (1928) a v roku 1936 sa prvýkrát objavila na Slovensku pri Komárne. V druhej polovici 20. storočia rozšírila do celej strednej u veľkej časti západnej Európy a do roku 1954 osídlila aj celé naše územie až do nadmorskej výšky okolo . Za toto obdobie posunula svoj areál viac ako na sever a severozápad a obsadila územie väčšie ako 2 mil. km2. Na severe prenikla až do Švédska a Nórska, na východe do Moldavska a Ukrajiny.
 Rod hrdličiek zastupovala u nás až do konca tridsiatych rokov minulého storočia len hrdlička poľná, ktorá je o málo menšia ako hrdlička záhradná, a ktorej stavy v posledných desaťročiach silne poklesli – preto je chránená.
 Výskyt a stav na Slovensku
 Hrdlička záhradná hniezdi v 87,4 % mapovacích kvadrátov. V zime sa hrdličky často spájajú do veľkých kŕdľov (až 400 jedincov) pri vhodných potravných zdrojoch. Zimovanie bolo preukázané v 81,4 % mapovacích kvadrátov.
 Odhadovaný počet hniezdiacich párov je 40 000 – 80 000, zimujúcich jedincov 100 000 – 200 000. Veľkosť populácie i územie na ktorom sa vyskytuje vykazujú mierny nárast o maximálne 20 – 50%. Ekosozologický status v rokoch 1995, 1998 a 2001 žiadny. V roku 2014 LC - menej dotknutý. Stupeň ohrozenia S – vyhovujúci ochranársky status.
 Biotop
 Hrdlička záhradná žije v ľudských sídliskách a na ich okrajoch, v záhradách, sadoch, parkoch, cintorínoch a živí sa na dvoroch pri hydine a holuboch, na nádvoriach poľnohospodárskych podnikov, pri miešarňach krmív, mlynoch, stohoch a pod. Za potravou zalietava aj na polia, a to na siatiny aj do lánov dozrievajúcich plodín, na strniská a pod. Dozrievajúce obilie zbiera najmä tam, kde je poľahnuté.
 Hniezdenie
 Hrdličky záhradné žijú v lete v pároch a svoje hniezdne rajóny majú ohraničené. V toku sedí samec na vyvýšenom mieste, kde húka, vyletuje do výšky a s roztiahnutými krídlami a chvostom sa vracia nazad na svoje stanovište. Susedné samce na seba často útočia a naháňajú sa. Párik sa spolu zobáčikuje ako holuby.
 Dosť primitívne hniezdo si stavajú na stromoch. Biele vajíčka sú veľké 28 – 32 × 23 – . Mláďaťa sa liahnu po 15 dňoch inkubácie a hniezdo opúšťajú po 12 – 14 dňoch. Hniezdia viackrát do roka, od marca do októbra, výnimočne aj v zime, najmä ak je mierna.
 Potrava
 Obľubuje hrach, kukuricu, konope, slnečnicu a pod. Vysiate semená zbiera nielen na poliach, ale aj v záhradách a okrem toho môže škodiť prenášaním niektorých chorôb na hydinu. V lesoch sa nezdržiava.
 Galéria
 Referencie
 Iné projekty
 Externé odkazy
 Holubovité
 Najmenej ohrozené druhy
 Vtáky na Slovensku


text:
Reductio ad Hitlerum (ook: argumentum ad Hitlerum) is een drogreden, voor het eerst naam gegeven door de ethicus Leo Strauss. Het is een woordspeling op reductio ad absurdum.
 Een reductio ad Hitlerum is een redenering in deze vorm: "Adolf Hitler was (of de nazi's waren) X, dus X is slecht". Omdat Adolf Hitler door vrijwel iedereen als slecht wordt beschouwd, lijkt het een correcte redenering, maar de drogreden wordt duidelijk wanneer men bijvoorbeeld vegetarisme invult: "Adolf Hitler was een vegetariër, dus vegetariërs zijn slecht".
 De ongeldigheid van de bovengenoemde redenering is algemeen aanvaard. In de praktijk loopt (in overeenstemming met de wet van Godwin) een discussie over een bepaald persoon (vaak een leider of politicus) echter vaak uit op een vergelijking met Hitler of de nazi's. Het voorbeeld van de vegetariërs wordt dan wel aangehaald om de onjuistheid van het argument aan te tonen.
 De reductio ad Hitlerum is een zogeheten genetische drogreden, waarbij de oorsprong van een argument bepaalt of het argument juist is of niet.
 Zie ook
 Argumentum ad hominem
 Adolf Hitler
 Drogreden


text:
 7.5.2013
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 125/4
 VYKONÁVACIE NARIADENIE KOMISIE (EÚ) č. 414/2013
 zo 6. mája 2013,
 ktorým sa spresňuje postup autorizácie rovnakých biocídnych výrobkov v súlade s nariadením Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 528/2012
 (Text s významom pre EHP)
 EURÓPSKA KOMISIA,
 so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie,
 so zreteľom na nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 528/2012 z 22. mája 2012 o sprístupňovaní biocídnych výrobkov na trhu a ich používaní (1), a najmä na jeho článok 17 ods. 7,
 keďže:
 (1)
 V nariadení (EÚ) č. 528/2012 sa stanovujú postupy predkladania žiadostí o autorizáciu biocídnych výrobkov a udeľovania tejto autorizácie.
 (2)
 V prípade predloženia žiadosti o dve alebo viac autorizácií biocídnych výrobkov s rovnakými vlastnosťami tomu istému prijímajúcemu príslušnému orgánu alebo agentúre, možno autorizácie udeliť na základe hodnotenia samostatného výrobku a prípadne porovnávacieho posúdenia. V takýchto prípadoch je preto vhodné stanoviť upravený postup autorizácie.
 (3)
 Podmienky týkajúce sa sprístupňovania biocídnych výrobkov na trhu a ich používania by mali vychádzať z vykonaného hodnotenia výrobku. Je preto vhodné požadovať, aby sa biocídne výrobky autorizované v súlade s týmto nariadením autorizovali za rovnakých podmienok ako zhodnotené biocídne výrobky, na ktoré sa vzťahujú, s výnimkou podrobností, v ktorých sa výrobky odlišujú.
 (4)
 Vzhľadom na to, že sa v tomto nariadení spresňuje postup stanovený v nariadení (EÚ) č. 528/2012, ktoré sa uplatňuje od 1. septembra 2013, toto nariadenie by sa malo tiež uplatňovať od uvedeného dátumu.
 (5)
 Opatrenia stanovené v tomto nariadení sú v súlade so stanoviskom Stáleho výboru pre biocídne výrobky,
 PRIJALA TOTO NARIADENIE:
 Článok 1
 Predmet úpravy
 V tomto nariadení sa stanovuje postup, ktorý sa uplatňuje v prípade predloženia žiadosti o autorizáciu výrobku (rovnakého výrobku), ktorý je identický s iným biocídnym výrobkom alebo skupinou výrobkov autorizovaných alebo registrovaných v súlade so smernicou Európskeho parlamentu a Rady 98/8/ES (2) alebo s nariadením (EÚ) č. 528/2012 alebo v prípade ktorého bola predložená žiadosť o takúto registráciu alebo autorizáciu (súvisiaci referenčný výrobok), pokiaľ ide o všetky najnovšie informácie poskytnuté v súvislosti s autorizáciou alebo registráciou okrem informácií, v prípade ktorých môže dôjsť k administratívnej zmene v súlade s vykonávacím nariadením Komisie (EÚ) č. 354/2013 z 18. apríla 2013 o zmenách biocídnych výrobkov autorizovaných podľa nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 528/2012 (3).
 Článok 2
 Obsah žiadostí
 Odchylne od článku 20 ods. 1 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 528/2012 a požiadaviek na informácie v článku 43 ods. 1 uvedeného nariadenia žiadosť o autorizáciu rovnakého výrobku obsahuje tieto informácie:
 a)
 číslo autorizácie alebo v prípade ešte neschválených súvisiacich referenčných výrobkov číslo žiadosti v Registri pre biocídne výrobky, ktorá sa týka súvisiaceho referenčného výrobku;
 b)
 informácie o navrhovaných rozdieloch medzi rovnakým výrobkom a súvisiacim referenčným výrobkom a dôkazy o tom, že výrobky sú totožné vo všetkých ostatných aspektoch;
 c)
 písomné povolenia na prístup ku všetkým údajom, z ktorých vychádza autorizácia súvisiaceho referenčného výrobku, ak sa požadujú v článku 59 ods. 1 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 528/2012;
 d)
 návrh zhrnutia charakteristík biocídneho výrobku v prípade rovnakého výrobku.
 Článok 3
 Predkladanie a validácia žiadostí o vnútroštátnu autorizáciu
 1. Ak bol súvisiaci referenčný výrobok autorizovaný v rámci vnútroštátnej autorizácie alebo je predmetom žiadosti o takúto autorizáciu, žiadosti o autorizáciu rovnakého výrobku sa predkladajú v súlade s článkom 29 ods. 1 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 528/2012 príslušnému orgánu, ktorý udelil vnútroštátnu autorizáciu súvisiaceho referenčného výrobku alebo od ktorého sa toto udelenie požaduje.
 2. Odchylne od článku 29 ods. 2 a 4 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 528/2012 príslušný orgán validuje žiadosť do 30 dní od jej prijatia za predpokladu, že boli poskytnuté informácie uvedené v článku 2.
 V rámci validácie sa kontroluje to, či sa navrhované rozdiely medzi rovnakým výrobkom a súvisiacim referenčným výrobkom týkajú len informácií, v prípade ktorých môže dôjsť k administratívnej zmene v súlade s vykonávacím nariadením (EÚ) č. 354/2013.
 Článok 4
 Predkladanie a validácia žiadostí o autorizáciu Únie
 1. Ak bol súvisiaci referenčný výrobok autorizovaný v rámci autorizácie Únie alebo je predmetom žiadosti o takúto autorizáciu, žiadosti o autorizáciu rovnakého výrobku sa predkladajú v súlade s článkom 43 ods. 1 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 528/2012 agentúre.
 2. Žiadosť však nezahŕňa potvrdenie o tom, že biocídny výrobok by mal podobné podmienky používania v celej Únii, ani odkaz na hodnotiaci príslušný orgán.
 3. Na účely uplatňovania tohto článku sa článok 43 ods. 2 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 528/2012 vykladá ako povinnosť agentúry informovať len žiadateľa.
 4. Odchylne od článku 43 ods. 3 prvého a druhého pododseku nariadenia (EÚ) č. 528/2012 agentúra validuje žiadosť do 30 dní od jej prijatia za predpokladu, že boli poskytnuté informácie uvedené v článku 2.
 5. V rámci validácie sa kontroluje, či sa navrhované rozdiely medzi rovnakým výrobkom a súvisiacim referenčným výrobkom týkajú len informácií, v prípade ktorých môže dôjsť k administratívnej zmene v súlade s vykonávacím nariadením Komisie (EÚ) č. 354/2013.
 6. Na účely uplatňovania tohto článku sa všetky odkazy na hodnotiaci príslušný orgán v článku 43 ods. 3 treťom pododseku a článku 43 ods. 4 a 5 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 528/2012 považujú za odkaz na agentúru.
 Článok 5
 Hodnotenie žiadostí o vnútroštátnu autorizáciu a rozhodnutia o týchto žiadostiach
 Odchylne od článku 30 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 528/2012 prijímajúci príslušný orgán rozhoduje o udelení alebo zamietnutí autorizácie rovnakého výrobku v súlade s článkom 19 uvedeného nariadenia do 60 dní od validácie žiadosti v súlade s článkom 3 alebo prípadne do 60 dní od neskoršieho dátumu prijatia zodpovedajúceho rozhodnutia o súvisiacom referenčnom výrobku.
 Článok 6
 Hodnotenie žiadostí o autorizáciu Únie a rozhodnutia o týchto žiadostiach
 1. Odchylne od článku 44 ods. 1, 2 a 3 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 528/2012 agentúra vypracuje stanovisko k žiadosti a predloží ho Komisii do 30 dní od validácie žiadosti v súlade s článkom 4 tohto nariadenia alebo prípadne k neskoršiemu dátumu predloženia stanoviska o súvisiacom referenčnom výrobku v súlade s článku 44 ods. 3 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 528/2012.
 2. Ak agentúra odporučí autorizáciu biocídneho výrobku, stanovisko obsahuje aspoň tieto prvky:
 a)
 vyhlásenie o tom, či sú splnené podmienky stanovené v článku 19 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 528/2012, a návrh zhrnutia charakteristík biocídneho výrobku podľa článku 22 ods. 2 uvedeného nariadenia;
 b)
 v prípade potreby podrobné údaje o akýchkoľvek podmienkach, ktoré by sa mali uložiť pri sprístupňovaní biocídneho výrobku na trhu a jeho používaní.
 Článok 7
 Autorizácie a zmeny rovnakých výrobkov
 1. Rovnaký výrobok má odlišné číslo autorizácie ako súvisiaci referenčný výrobok.
 Pokiaľ ide o všetky ostatné aspekty, obsah autorizácie rovnakého výrobku sa zhoduje s obsahom autorizácie súvisiaceho referenčného výrobku okrem informácií o odlišnostiach medzi výrobkami. V Registri pre biocídne výrobky sa uvádza spojenie medzi rovnakými výrobkami a súvisiacimi referenčnými výrobkami.
 2. Zmeny rovnakého výrobku alebo súvisiaceho referenčného výrobku sa oznamujú alebo sa o ne žiada nezávisle od seba v súlade s vykonávacím nariadením Komisie (EÚ) č. 354/2013.
 Autorizácie rovnakého výrobku alebo súvisiaceho referenčného výrobku možno zmeniť alebo zrušiť nezávisle od seba.
 Pri hodnotení navrhovanej zmeny rovnakého výrobku alebo súvisiaceho referenčného výrobku však prijímajúci príslušný orgán alebo prípadne agentúra zváži primeranosť zrušenia alebo zmeny a doplnenia autorizácie ďalších výrobkov, s ktorými je výrobok spojený v Registri pre biocídne výrobky podľa druhého pododseku odseku 1.
 Článok 8
 Toto nariadenie nadobúda účinnosť dvadsiatym dňom po jeho uverejnení v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.
 Uplatňuje sa od 1. septembra 2013.
 Toto nariadenie je záväzné v celom rozsahu a priamo uplatniteľné vo všetkých členských štátoch.
 V Bruseli 6. mája 2013
 Za Komisiu
 predseda
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 167, 27.6.2012, s. 1.
 (2) Ú. v. ES L 123, 24.4.1998, s. 1.
 (3) Ú. v. EÚ L 109, 19.4.2013, s. 4.