type: contracts

text:
 11/Sv. 021
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 233
 22005A0517(02)
 L 124/22
 SLUŽBENI LIST EUROPSKE UNIJE
 14.04.2005.
 SPORAZUM
 između Europske zajednice i Republike Albanije o ponovnom prihvatu osoba bez dozvole boravka
 VISOKE UGOVORNE STRANKE,
 EUROPSKA ZAJEDNICA, u daljnjem tekstu „Zajednica” i
 REPUBLIKA ALBANIJA, u daljnjem tekstu „Albanija”,
 ODLUČNE ojačati međusobnu suradnju kako bi se učinkovitije borile protiv nezakonitih imigracija,
 ŽELEĆI ovim Sporazumom, a na temelju reciprociteta, uvesti brze i učinkovite postupke za identifikaciju te za siguran i zakonit povratak osoba koje ne ispunjavaju, ili više ne ispunjavaju uvjete za ulazak, prisutnost ili boravak na državnom području Albanije ili neke od država članica Europske unije te želeći olakšati tranzit takvih osoba u duhu suradnje,
 NAGLAŠAVAJUĆI da ovaj Sporazum ne dovodi u pitanje prava, obveze i dužnosti Zajednice, država članica Europske unije i Albanije, a koja proistječu iz međunarodnog prava te posebno Europske konvenciji za zaštitu ljudskih prava od 4. studenoga 1950. te u Konvenciji o statusu izbjeglica od 28. srpnja 1951. i njezinom Protokolu od 31. siječnja 1967. kao i u međunarodnim ugovorima o izručenju,
 UZIMAJUĆI U OBZIR da se odredbe ovog Sporazuma, iz područja primjene glave IV. Ugovora o osnivanju Europske zajednice, ne primjenjuju na Kraljevinu Dansku, u skladu s Protokolom o stajalištu Danske priloženom Ugovoru o Europskoj uniji i Ugovoru o osnivanju Europske zajednice,
 SPORAZUMJELE SU SE:
 Članak 1.
 Definicije
 U smislu ovog Sporazuma:
 (a)
 „Država članica” je svaka država članica Europske unije, osim Kraljevine Danske;
 (b)
 „Državljanin države članice” je svaka osoba koja, sukladno odredbama Zajednice, ima državljanstvo neke države članice;
 (c)
 „Državljanin Albanije” je svaka osoba koja ima državljanstvo Albanije;
 (d)
 „Državljanin treće države” je svaka osoba koja ima državljanstvo koje nije albansko ili neke od država članica;
 (e)
 „Osoba bez državljanstva” je svaka osoba koja nema državljanstvo;
 (f)
 „Dozvola boravka” je dozvola bilo koje vrste koju izdaje Albanija ili jedna od država članica, a kojom se osobi daje pravo boravka na državnom području te države. Ovo se ne odnosi na privremenu dozvolu na temelju koje osoba može ostati na njenom državnom području, a koja se izdaje u svrhu obrade zahtjeva za azil ili zahtjeva za dozvolu boravka;
 (g)
 „Viza” je odobrenje ili odluka koju donosi Albanija ili jedna od država članica, a koja je potrebna za ulazak ili tranzit državnim područjem dotične države. Ovo ne uključuje aerodromsku tranzitnu vizu.
 ODJELJAK I.
 OBVEZE ALBANIJE VEZANO UZ PONOVNI PRIHVAT
 Članak 2.
 Ponovni prihvat vlastitih državljana
 1. Na zahtjev neke države članice te bez dodatnih formalnosti, osim onih propisanih ovim Sporazumom, Albanija ponovno prihvaća sve osobe koje ne ispunjavaju, ili više ne ispunjavaju važeće uvjete za ulazak, prisutnost ili boravak na državnom području države koja ponosi zahtjev, pod uvjetom da se dokaže, ili da se može opravdano pretpostaviti na temelju dokaza prima facie, da se radi o državljanima Albanije.
 Isto se primjenjuje na osobe kojima je, po ulasku na državno područje neke države članice oduzeto albansko državljanstvo, ili koje su ga se odrekle, osim u slučajevima kad je takvim osobama barem obećano stjecanje državljanstva te države članice.
 2. Albanija, prema potrebi i bez odlaganja, izdaje osobi za koju je odobren ponovni prihvat, putnu ispravu potrebnu za njezin povratak, s rokom važenja najmanje šest mjeseci. Ako zbog pravnih ili faktičkih razloga konkretna osoba ne može biti predana unutar roka važenja putne isprave koja joj je bila prvotno izdana, Albanija u roku od 14 kalendarskih dana produljuje rok važenja putne isprave ili, kad je to potrebno, izdaje novu putnu ispravu s istim rokom važenja. Ukoliko Albanija, u roku od 14 kalendarskih dana, ne izda putnu ispravu, ili ne produži rok njezina važenja, ili, kad je potrebno, ne izda novu putnu ispravu, smatra se da, s ciljem izručenja, prihvaća korištenje standardne putne isprave Europske unije (1).
 Članak 3.
 Ponovni prihvat državljana trećih zemalja i osoba bez državljanstva
 1. Na zahtjev neke države članice i bez dodatnih formalnosti, osim onih propisanih ovim Sporazumom, Albanija ponovno prihvaća sve državljane trećih zemalja ili osoba bez državljanstva koji ne ispunjavaju ili više ne ispunjavaju uvjete koji su na snazi za ulazak, prisutnost, ili boravak na državnom području države članice koja podnosi zahtjev, ukoliko se dokaže, ili da se može opravdano pretpostaviti na temelju dokaza prima facie, da takve osobe:
 (a)
 imaju važeću vizu ili dozvolu boravka koje su izdane od strane Albanije, ili su ih male u trenutku ulaska; ili da su
 (b)
 ušle na državno područje država članica nakon što su boravile ili prolazile državnim područjem Albanije.
 2. Obveza ponovnog prihvata iz stavka 1. ne primjenjuje se ako se:
 (a)
 državljanin treće zemlje ili osoba bez državljanstva nalazila samo u zračnom tranzitu u albanskoj međunarodnoj zračnoj luci; ili ako je
 (b)
 država koja podnosi zahtjev izdala državljaninu treće zemlje ili osobi bez državljanstva vizu ili dozvolu boravka prije ili nakon ulaska na njeno državno područje osim ako:
 —
 ta osoba posjeduje vizu ili dozvolu boravka s dužim rokom važenja, izdanu od strane Albanije, ili
 —
 je viza ili dozvola boravka izdana od strane države članice koja podnosi zahtjev bila pribavljena na temelju krivotvorenih ili lažnih isprava.
 3. Albanija, po potrebi i bez odlaganja, izdaje osobi za koju je odobren ponovni prihvat, putnu ispravu potrebnu za njezin povratak, s rokom važenja najmanje šest mjeseci. Ako, zbog pravnih ili faktičkih razloga, konkretna osoba ne može biti predana unutar roka važenja putne isprave koja joj je bila prvotno izdana, Albanija u roku od 14 kalendarskih dana produljuje rok važenja putne isprave ili, kad je to potrebno, izdaje novu putnu ispravu s istim rokom važenja. Ukoliko Albanija u roku od 14 dana ne izda putnu ispravu ili ne produži rok njezina važenja ili, kad je potrebno, ne izda novu putnu ispravu, smatra se da se, u svrhu izručenja, prihvaća korištenje standardne putne isprave Europske unije.
 ODJELJAK II.
 OBVEZE PONOVNOGPRIHVATA OD STRANE ZAJEDNICE
 Članak 4.
 Ponovni prihvat vlastitih državljana
 1. Na zahtjev Albanije te bez dodatnih formalnosti, osim onih propisanih ovim Sporazumom, država članica ponovno prihvaća sve osobe koje ne ispunjavaju, ili više ne ispunjavaju uvjete koji su na snazi za ulazak, prisutnost ili boravak na državnom području Albanije, pod uvjetom da se dokaže, ili da se može opravdano pretpostaviti na temelju dokaza prima facie, da se radi o državljanima dotične države članice.
 Isto se primjenjuje na osobe kojima je, po ulasku na državni teritorij Albanije oduzeto državljanstvo neke od država članica ili koje su ga se odrekle, osim u slučajevima kad je tim osobama bilo najmanje obećano stjecanje albanskog državljanstva.
 2. Država članica, prema potrebi i bez odlaganja, izdaje osobi za koju je odobren ponovni prihvat, putnu ispravu potrebnu za njezin povratak, s rokom važenja najmanje šest mjeseci. Ako zbog pravnih ili faktičkih razloga ta osoba ne može biti predana unutar roka važenja putne isprave koja joj je bila prvotno izdana, dotična država članica, u roku od 14 kalendarskih dana, produljuje rok važenja putne isprave ili, kad je to potrebno, izdaje novu putnu ispravu s istim rokom važenja. Ukoliko ta država članica, u roku od 14 kalendarskih dana ne izda putnu ispravu, ili ne produži rok njezina važenja ili, kad je potrebno, ne nadomjesti putnu ispravu, smatra se da se u svrhu izručenja prihvaća korištenje albanske potvrde (2).
 Članak 5.
 Ponovni prihvat državljana trećih zemalja i osoba bez državljanstva
 1. Na zahtjev Albanije i bez dodatnih formalnosti, osim onih propisanih ovim Sporazumom, država članica ponovno prihvaća sve državljane trećih zemalja ili osobe bez državljanstva koje ne ispunjavaju, ili više ne ispunjavaju uvjete koji su na snazi za ulazak, prisutnost ili boravak na državnom području Albanije ukoliko je dokazano ili se može opravdano pretpostaviti na temelju dokaza prima facie da takve osobe:
 (a)
 imaju važeću vizu ili dozvolu boravka izdanu od strane države članice kojoj je zahtjev podnesen ili da su ih imale u trenutku ulaska u zemlju; ili da su
 (b)
 ušle na državno područje Albanije nakon što su boravile ili prolazile državnim područjem države članice kojoj je zahtjev podnesen.
 2. Obveza ponovnog prihvata iz stavka 1. ne primjenjuje se ako je:
 (a)
 državljanin treće zemlje ili osoba bez državljanstva boravila u zračnom tranzitu u međunarodnoj zračnoj luci države članice kojoj je zahtjev podnesen; ili ako je
 (b)
 Albanija izdala državljaninu treće zemlje ili osobi bez državljanstva vizu ili dozvolu boravka prije ili nakon ulaska na njeno državno područje, osim ako:
 —
 ta osoba posjeduje vizu ili dozvolu boravka izdanu od strane države članice kojoj je zahtjev podnesen, a koja ima duži rok važenja, ili je
 —
 viza ili dozvola boravka izdana od strane Albanije bila pribavljena na temelju krivotvorenih ili lažnih isprava.
 3. Obveza ponovnog prihvata iz stavka 1. odnosi se na državu članicu koja je izdala vizu ili dozvolu boravka. Ukoliko su vizu ili dozvolu boravka izdale dvije ili više država članica, obveza ponovnog prihvata iz stavka 1. odnosi se na državu članicu koja je izdala ispravu s dužim rokom važenja, ili ako je jednoj ili više isprava već istekao rok važenja, onda se obveza odnosi na državu čija je isprava još uvijek važeća. Ukoliko je svim ispravama već istekao rok važenja, tada se obveza ponovnog prihvata iz stavka 1. odnosi na državu članicu koja je izdala dokument s najkasnijim rokom isteka važenja. Ukoliko se ne može dati na uvid niti jedna od navedenih isprava, tada se obveza ponovnog prihvata iz stavka 1. odnosi na državu članicu posljednjeg izlaska.
 4. Država članica, po potrebi i bez odlaganja, izdaje osobi za koju je odobren ponovni prihvat, putnu ispravu potrebnu za njezin povratak, a koja važi najmanje šest mjeseci. Ako zbog pravnih ili faktičkih razloga ta osoba ne može biti predana unutar roka važenja putne isprave koja joj je bila prvotno izdana, dotična država članica, u roku od 14 kalendarskih dana, produljuje rok važenja putne isprave ili, kad je to potrebno, izdaje novu putnu ispravu s istim rokom važenja. Ukoliko dotična država članica ne izda putnu ispravu u roku od 14 dana, ili ne produži rok njezina važenja ili, kad je potrebno, ne nadomjesti putnu ispravu, smatrat se da se, u svrhu izručenja, prihvaća korištenje albanske potvrde.
 ODJELJAK III.
 POSTUPAK PONOVNOG PRIHVATA
 Članak 6.
 Načelo
 1. Podložno stavku 2., za svaku se predaju osobe koja treba biti ponovno prihvaćena na temelju neke od obveza iz članaka 2. do 5. podnosi zahtjev za ponovni prihvat nadležnom tijelu države kojoj se zahtjev upućuje.
 2. Zahtjev za ponovni prihvat može biti zamijenjen pisanim priopćenjem nadležnom tijelu države kojoj se zahtjev upućuje, a ono se podnosi u razumnom roku prije povratka dotične osobe i to pod uvjetom da osoba koja treba biti ponovno prihvaćena posjeduje važeću putnu ispravu i, prema potrebi, važeću vizu ili dozvolu boravka države kojoj se zahtjev upućuje.
 Članak 7.
 Zahtjev za ponovni prihvat
 1. U mjeri u kojoj je to moguće, zahtjev za ponovni prihvat sadržava sljedeće podatke:
 (a)
 osobne podatke osobe koja treba biti ponovno prihvaćena (npr. imena, prezimena, datum rođenja i, kad je to moguće – mjesto rođenja, očevo ime, majčino ime i posljednje mjesto boravka);
 (b)
 navod o sredstvima kojima će se osigurati dokaz ili dokaz prima facie o državljanstvu, tranzitu, uvjetima za ponovni prihvat državljana treće zemlje ili osoba bez državljanstva te dokaz o nezakonitom ulasku i boravku u zemlji.
 2. U mjeri u kojoj je to moguće zahtjev za ponovni prihvat također sadržava sljedeće podatke,:
 (a)
 izjavu u kojoj je navedeno da osoba koja treba biti predana može zatrebati pomoć ili skrb i to ukoliko je osoba o kojoj se radi izričito suglasna s tom izjavom;
 (b)
 svaku drugu zaštitnu ili sigurnosnu mjeru koja bi mogla biti potrebna u pojedinačnim slučajevima predaje.
 3. Tipski obrazac koji se koristi za zahtjev za ponovni prihvat nalazi se u Prilogu 5. ovom Sporazumu.
 Članak 8.
 Dokazna sredstva za državljanstvo
 1. Dokaz o državljanstvu, prema članku 2. stavku 1. i članku 4. stavku 1., može se posebno predočiti na temelju bilo koje od isprava navedenih u Prilogu 1. ovom Sporazumu, čak i ako je njihov rok važenja istekao. Ako takve isprave budu podnesene, države članice i Albanija uzajamno priznaju državljanstvo, bez potrebe daljnjih ispitivanja. Dokaz o državljanstvu ne može biti predočen na temelju lažnih isprava.
 2. Dokaz prima facie o državljanstvu, prema članku 2. stavku 1. i članku 4. stavku 1., može se posebno predočiti na temelju bilo koje od isprava navedenih u Prilogu 2. ovom Sporazumu, čak i ako je njihov rok važenja istekao. Ako takve isprave budu podnesene, države članice i Albanija smatraju državljanstvo utvrđenim, osim u slučaju kad mogu dokazati suprotno. Dokaz prima facie o državljanstvu ne može biti predočen na temelju lažnih isprava.
 3. Ukoliko niti jedna od isprava iz priloga 1. ili 2. ne može biti podnesena, tada nadležna diplomatska ili konzularna predstavništva Albanije ili države članice o kojoj se radi, na zahtjev i bez nepotrebnog odlaganja, dogovaraju informativni razgovor s osobom koja treba biti ponovno prihvaćena kako bi se utvrdilo njezino državljanstvo.
 Članak 9.
 Dokazna sredstva s obzirom na državljane treće zemlje ili osobe bez državljanstva
 1. Dokaz o uvjetima za predaju i prihvat državljana treće zemlje i osoba bez državljanstva propisan u članku 3. stavku 1. i članku 5. stavku 1. posebno se predočuje na temelju bilo kojeg dokaznog sredstva navedenog u Prilogu 3. ovom Sporazumu; on se ne može predočiti na temelju lažnih isprava. Svaki takav dokaz uzajamno priznaju države članice i Albanija, bez potrebe za daljnjim ispitivanjem.
 2. Dokaz prima facie o uvjetima za ponovni prihvat državljana treće zemlje i osoba bez državljanstva propisan u članku 3. stavku 1. i članku 5. stavku 1. posebno se pruža na temelju bilo kojeg dokaznog sredstva navedenog u Prilogu 4. ovom Sporazumu; on se ne može predočiti na temelju lažnih isprava. Ako se podnese takav dokaz prima facie, države članice i Albanija smatraju da su uvjeti utvrđeni, osim u slučaju da mogu dokazati suprotno.
 3. Nezakonitost ulaska, prisutnosti ili boravka utvrđuju se na temelju putnih isprava konkretne osobe u kojima nema potrebne vize ili neke druge isprave o odobrenju boravka na državnom području države koja podnosi zahtjev. Izjava od strane države koja podnosi zahtjev o tome da je utvrđeno kako dotična osoba nema potrebne putne isprave, vizu ili odobrenje boraka, ujedno služi kao dokaz prima facie o nezakonitom ulasku, prisutnosti ili boravku.
 Članak 10.
 Rokovi
 1. Zahtjev za ponovni prihvat mora se podnijeti kod nadležnog tijela države kojoj se upućuje zahtjev u roku od najviše jedne godine nakon što je nadležno tijelo države koja podnosi zahtjev došlo do saznanja da neki državljanin treće zemlje ili osoba bez državljanstva ne ispunjava, ili više ne ispunjava uvjete koji su na snazi za ulazak, prisutnost ili boravak. Ako postoje pravne ili faktičke prepreke da zahtjev bude podnesen u roku, rok se, na zahtjev države koja podnosi zahtjev, produljuje isključivo do prestanka postojanja tih prepreka.
 2. Na zahtjev za ponovni prihvat mora se odgovoriti bez nepotrebnog odlaganja te u svakom slučaju u roku od najviše 14 kalendarskih dana; u slučaju da zahtjev za ponovni prihvat bude odbijen, navode se razlozi za to. Ovaj rok počinje teći od dana primitka zahtjeva za ponovni prihvat. Ukoliko odgovor ne stigne unutar ovog roka, smatra se da je predaja osobe dogovorena.
 3. Nakon što je dana suglasnost, ili kada je to potrebno, a po isteku roka od 14 kalendarskih dana, konkretna osoba se predaje bez nepotrebnog odlaganja, a najkasnije u roku od tri mjeseca. Na zahtjev države koja podnosi zahtjev, taj rok može biti produžen za vrijeme koje je potrebno za otklanjanje pravnih ili praktičnih prepreka.
 Članak 11.
 Načini predaje i oblici prijevoza
 1. Prije nego što neka osoba bude vraćena, nadležna tijela Albanije i dotične države članice pisanim putem unaprijed dogovaraju datum prijenosa, mjesto ulaska, moguću pratnju te ostale podatke važne za prijenos.
 2. Niti jedan oblik prijevoza nije zabranjen, bilo zračni, kopneni ili morski. Vraćanje zračnim prijevozom nije ograničeno na korištenje nacionalnih prijevoznika Albanije ili neke od država članica te se može obavljati redovnim ili charter letovima. Kad se radi o vraćanju uz pratnju, takva pratnja nije ograničena na ovlaštene osobe države koja podnosi zahtjev, ukoliko se radi o ovlaštenim osobama iz Albanije ili bilo koje države članice.
 Članak 12.
 Ponovni prihvat izvršen pogreškom
 Albanija, bez odlaganja, ponovo prima bilo koju osobu koja je bila ponovno prihvaćena od strane države članice, a država članica bez odlaganja ponovno prima bilo koju osobu koju je ponovno prihvatila Albanija, ukoliko se, u roku od tri mjeseca nakon predaje konkretne osobe, utvrdi da nisu bili zadovoljeni uvjeti propisani člancima 2. do 5. ovog Sporazuma. U takvim slučajevima nadležna tijela Albanije i države članice koja je u pitanju također će razmjenjuju sve raspoložive podatke koji se odnose na stvarni identitet, državljanstvo ili rutu prijenosa osobe određene za vraćanje.
 ODJELJAK IV.
 PROVOĐENJE TRANZITA
 Članak 13.
 Načela
 1. Države članice i Albanija trebale bi ograničiti tranzit državljana trećih zemalja ili osoba bez državljanstva na slučajeve kad takve osobe ne mogu biti vraćene izravno u državu odredišta.
 2. Albanija dozvoljava tranzit državljana trećih zemalja ili osoba bez državljanstva ukoliko neka država članica to zatraži, a država članica odobrava tranzit državljanima trećih zemalja ili osobama bez državljanstva ukoliko to zatraži Albanija, ako je osigurano daljnje putovanje u moguće druge države tranzita te ponovni prihvat od države odredišta.
 3. Albanija ili država članica mogu odbiti tranzit:
 (a)
 ukoliko po državljana treće zemlje ili po osobu bez državljanstva postoji stvarni rizik da će biti izloženi mučenju ili neljudskom ili ponižavajućem postupanju, ili kažnjavanju, ili smrtnoj kazni, ili progonu zbog rase, vjeroispovijesti, nacionalnosti, pripadnosti određenoj društvenoj skupini ili zbog političkog uvjerenja u državi odredišta ili nekoj drugoj državi tranzita; ili
 (b)
 ukoliko državljanin treće zemlje ili osoba bez državljanstva podliježe kaznenom progonu ili sankcijama u državi kojoj je zahtjev podnesen ili u nekoj drugoj državi tranzita; ili
 (c)
 na temelju javnog zdravlja, nacionalne sigurnosti, javnog reda, ili zbog nekog drugog nacionalnog interesa države kojoj je zahtjev podnesen.
 4. Albanija ili neka država članica mogu opozvati bilo koje odobrenje koje je bilo izdano i to u slučaju da se naknadno pojave ili otkriju okolnosti iz stavka 3., a koje stoje na putu provođenju tranzita, ili ako se više ne može jamčiti daljnje putovanje u moguće države tranzita, ili kad država odredišta više ne može jamčiti ponovni prihvat. U tom slučaju država koja podnosi zahtjev ponovno prima državljanina treće države ili osobu bez državljanstva, po potrebi i bez odlaganja.
 Članak 14.
 Postupci vezano uz tranzit
 1. Zahtjev za provođenje tranzita pisanim se putem podnosi nadležnom tijelu države kojoj je zahtjev podnesen, a takav zahtjev sadržava sljedeće podatke:
 (a)
 vrstu tranzita (zrakom, kopnom ili morem), moguće druge države tranzita i planirano krajnje odredište;
 (b)
 osobne podatke osobe o kojoj se radi (npr. ime, prezime, djevojačko prezime, ostala imena koja se koriste, a po kojima je dotična osoba poznata ili nadimke, datum rođenja, spol i – ako je to moguće – mjesto rođenja, državljanstvo, jezik, vrstu i broj putne isprave);
 (c)
 predviđeno mjesto ulaska, vrijeme prijenosa i moguće korištenje pratnje;
 (d)
 izjavu u kojoj stoji da su, po mišljenju države koja upućuje zahtjev, ispunjeni uvjeti iz članka 13. stavka 2. te da nisu poznati nikakvi razlozi za odbijanje prema članku 13. stavku 3.
 Tipski obrazac koji treba koristiti za zahtjeve za tranzit nalazi se u Prilogu 6. ovom Sporazumu.
 2. Država kojoj je zahtjev podnesen, u roku od pet kalendarskih dana i pisanim putem, obavješćuje o prihvatu državu koja podnosi zahtjev te potvrđuje mjesto ulaska i predviđeno vrijeme prihvata ili izvješćuje o odbijanju prihvata i o razlozima takvog odbijanja.
 3. Ukoliko se tranzit provodi zračnim putem, osoba koja treba biti ponovno prihvaćena i moguća pratnja izuzimaju se od obveze pribavljanja aerodromske tranzitne vize.
 4. Nadležna tijela države kojoj je zahtjev podnesen, podložno međusobnim konzultacijama, pomažu u provođenju tranzita, a posebno nadziranjem osoba koje su u pitanju i osiguravanjem odgovarajućeg smještaja u tu svrhu.
 ODJELJAK V.
 TROŠKOVI
 Članak 15.
 Troškovi prijevoza i tranzita
 Ne dovodeći u pitanje pravo nadležnih tijela da naplate troškove vezane uz ponovni prihvat od osobe koju se ponovno prihvaća ili od trećih stranaka, sve troškove prijevoza u vezi s ponovnim prihvatom i provođenjem tranzita, sukladno ovom Sporazumu, a do granice države krajnjeg odredišta, snosi država koja podnosi zahtjev.
 ODJELJAK VI.
 ZAŠTITA PODATAKA I KLAUZULA O NEUTJECANJU
 Članak 16.
 Zaštita podataka
 Priopćavanje osobnih podataka moguće je samo u slučajevima kad je ono potrebno za provedbu ovog Sporazuma od strane nadležnih tijela Albanije ili države članice koja je u pitanju. Obrada i postupanje s osobnim podacima u vezi s nekim određenim slučajem podliježe domaćim zakonima Albanije i, tamo gdje je kontrolor nadležno tijelo neke države članice, odredbama Direktive 95/46/EZ (3) te nacionalnom zakonodavstvu te države članice, a koje je doneseno sukladno ovoj Direktivi. Osim toga, primjenjuju se sljedeća načela:
 (a)
 osobni podaci trebaju se obrađivati u dobroj vjeri i zakonito;
 (b)
 osobni podaci moraju se prikupljati za određene, eksplicitne i zakonite ciljeve provedbe ovog Sporazuma, a ne s ciljem da ih tijelo koje ih je priopćilo, ili ono koje ih je primilo, dodatno obrađuje na način koji nije sukladan njihovoj namjeni;
 (c)
 osobni podaci moraju biti primjereni, relevantni i ne preopsežni u odnosu na svrhu njihova prikupljanja i/ili daljnje obrade; kad se radi o priopćenim osobnim podacima, oni se smiju odnositi samo na sljedeće:
 —
 osobne podatke osobe koja treba biti prebačena (npr. imena, prezimena, svako ranije korišteno ime, ostala korištena imena po kojima je osoba poznata ili nadimci, spol, građanski status, datum i mjesto rođenja, sadašnje te svako ranije državljanstvo),
 —
 putovnicu, osobnu iskaznicu ili vozačku dozvolu (broj, rok važenja, datum izdavanja, tijelo koje ju je izdalo, mjesto izdavanja),
 —
 usputna zadržavanja i itinerar,
 —
 ostale podatke potrebne za identifikaciju osobe koja treba biti prebačena ili podatke koji su potrebni za ispitivanje uvjeta za ponovni prihvat sukladno ovom Sporazumu;
 (d)
 osobni podaci moraju biti točni i, kad je to potrebno, ažurirani;
 (e)
 osobne podatke treba voditi tako da se identifikacija osoba na koje se ti podaci odnose omogući tijekom razdoblja koje nije duže nego što je potrebno, a u svrhu u koju su podaci bili prikupljeni, ili u svrhu u koju su dalje obrađivani;
 (f)
 tijelo koje podatke priopćava i tijelo koje ih prima poduzimaju sve potrebne mjere da osigura odgovarajuće ispravljanje, brisanje ili blokiranje osobnih podataka u slučaju kad obrada podataka nije u skladu s odredbama ovog članka, a posebno kad ti podaci nisu primjereni, relevantni, točni ili kad su preopsežni u odnosu na svrhu obrade. To uključuje i obvezu obavještavanja druge stranke o bilo kojem ispravljanju, brisanju ili blokiranju;
 (g)
 tijelo koje prima podatke, na zahtjev, obavješćuje tijelo koje priopćava podatke o načinu korištenja priopćenih podataka i o tako dobivenim rezultatima;
 (h)
 osobni podaci smiju se priopćavati isključivo nadležnim tijelima. Za daljnje priopćavanje drugim tijelima potrebna je prethodna suglasnost tijela koje je podatke priopćilo;
 (i)
 tijela koja priopćavaju i tijela koja primaju podatke imaju obavezu vođenja pisane evidencije o davanju i primanju osobnih podataka.
 Članak 17.
 Klauzula o neutjecanju
 1. Ovaj Sporazum ne dovodi u pitanje prava, obveze i dužnosti Zajednice, država članica i Albanije, koja proistječu iz međunarodnog prava te posebno iz Europske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava od 4. studenoga 1950. te iz Konvencije o statusu izbjeglica od 28. srpnja 1951. i njezinog Protokola od 31. siječnja 1967. te iz međunarodnih ugovora o izručenju.
 2. Ništa iz ovog Sporazuma ne sprečava povratak osobe prema nekom drugom formalnom ili neformalnom sporazumu.
 ODJELJAK VII.
 PROVEDBA I PRIMJENA
 Članak 18.
 Zajednički odbor za ponovni prihvat
 1. Ugovorne stranke jedna drugoj pružaju pomoć u primjeni i tumačenju ovog Sporazuma. U tu svrhu osnivaju zajednički odbor za ponovni prihvat (u daljnjem tekstu „Odbor”) čiji zadatak će posebice biti da:
 (a)
 prati primjenu ovog Sporazuma;
 (b)
 odlučuje o načinu provedbe s ciljem jedinstvene primjene ovog Sporazuma;
 (c)
 provodi redovitu razmjenu podataka o provedbenim protokolima koje sastavljaju pojedinačne države članice i Albanija prema članku 19.;
 (d)
 odlučuju o izmjenama priloga ovom Sporazumu;
 (e)
 donose preporuke o izmjenama ovog Sporazuma.
 2. Odluke odbora obvezujuće su za ugovorne stranke.
 3. Odbor se sastoji od predstavnika Zajednice i Albanije; Zajednicu predstavlja Komisija uz podršku stručnjaka država članica.
 4. Odbor se sastaje u mjestu gdje se ukaže potreba, a na zahtjev jedne od ugovornih stranaka.
 5. Odbor utvrđuje svoj poslovnik.
 Članak 19.
 Provedbeni protokoli
 1. Albanija i država članica mogu sastaviti provedbene protokole koji se odnose na odredbe o:
 (a)
 određivanju nadležnih tijela, graničnih prijelaza i razmjeni osoba za kontakt;
 (b)
 uvjetima povratka uz pratnju, što uključuje i tranzit državljana trećih zemalja i osoba bez državljanstva, uz pratnju;
 (c)
 sredstvima i ispravama koje nisu navedene u Prilozima od 1. do 4. ovom Sporazumu.
 2. Provedbeni protokoli iz stavka 1. stupaju na snagu tek nakon što je o njima obaviješten odbor za ponovni prihvat iz članka 18.
 3. U svojim odnosima s bilo kojom drugom državom članicom, a na njezin zahtjev, Albanija je suglasna primijeniti svaku odredbu provedbenog protokola sastavljenog u suradnji s jednom državom članicom.
 Članak 20.
 Odnos prema bilateralnim sporazumima ili dogovorima država članica o ponovnom prihvatu
 Odredbe ovog Sporazuma imaju prvenstvo pred odredbama bilo kojeg bilateralnog sporazuma ili dogovora o ponovnom prihvatu osoba koje borave u zemlji bez odobrenja, a koji je bio zaključen, ili bi mogao biti zaključen, sukladno članku 19. između pojedinih država članica i Albanije.
 ODJELJAK VIII.
 ZAVRŠNE ODREDBE
 Članak 21.
 Teritorijalna primjena
 1. Sukladno stavku 2., ovaj se Sporazum primjenjuje na državnom području države u kojoj se primjenjuje Ugovor o osnivanju Europske zajednice te na državnom području Albanije.
 2. Ovaj Sporazum ne primjenjuje se na državnom području Kraljevine Danske.
 Članak 22.
 Stupanje na snagu, trajanje i prestanak Sporazuma
 1. Ovaj Sporazum potvrđuju ili prihvaćaju ugovorne stranke, svaka u skladu sa svojim postupcima.
 2. Sukladno stavku 3., ovaj Sporazum stupa na snagu prvog dana drugog mjeseca od dana međusobnog obavješćivanja ugovornih stranaka o dovršenju propisanih postupaka iz prvog stavka.
 3. Članci 3. i 5. ovog Sporazuma stupaju na snagu dvije godine nakon dana iz stavka 2.
 4. Ovaj Sporazum zaključuje se na neodređeno vrijeme.
 5. Svaka ugovorna stranka može otkazati ovaj Sporazum obavješćivanjem druge ugovorne stranke. Ovaj Sporazum prestaje se primjenjivati šest mjeseci od takve obavijesti.
 Članak 23.
 Prilozi
 Prilozi od 1. do 6. čine sastavni dio ovog Sporazuma.
 Sastavljeno u Luxembourgu četrnaestog travnja dvije tisuće pete godine u dva primjerka na češkom, danskom, nizozemskom, engleskom, estonskom, finskom, francuskom, njemačkom, grčkom, mađarskom, talijanskom, latvijskom, litavskom, malteškom, poljskom, portugalskom, slovačkom, slovenskom, španjolskom, švedskom i albanskom jeziku, s tim da je svaki tekst jednako vjerodostojan.
 Por la Comunidad Europea
 Za Evropské společenství
 For Det Europæiske Fællesskab
 Für die Europäische Gemeinschaft
 Euroopa Ühenduse nimel
 Για την Ευρωπαϊκή Κοινότητα
 For the European Community
 Pour la Communauté européenne
 Per la Comunità europea
 Eiropas Kopienas vārdā
 Europos bendrijos vardu
 az Európai Közösség részéről
 Għall-Komunità Ewropea
 Voor de Europese Gemeenschap
 W imieniu Wspólnoty Europejskiej
 Pela Comunidade Europeia
 Za Európske spoločenstvo
 za Evropsko skupnost
 Euroopan yhteisön puolesta
 På Europeiska gemenskapens vägnar
 Për Komunitetin Evropian
 Por la República de Albania
 Za Albánskou republiku
 På Republikken Albaniens vegne
 Für die Republik Albanien
 Albaania Vabariigi nimel
 Για τη Δημοκρατία της Αλβανίας
 For the Republic of Albania
 Pour la République d'Albanie
 Per la Repubblica di Albania
 Albānijas Republikas vārdā -
 Albanijos Respublikos vardu
 az Albán Köztársaság részéről
 Għar-Repubblika ta' l-Albanija
 Voor de Republiek Albanië
 W imieniu Republiki Albanii
 Për Republikën e Shqipërisë
 För Republiken Albanien
 Albanian tasavallan puolesta
 Za Republiko Albanijo
 Za Albánsku republiku
 Pela República da Albânia
 (1) Preporuka Vijeća od 30. studenoga 1994. o usvajanju standardne putne isprave za deportaciju državljana trećih zemalja (SL C 274, 19.9.1996., str. 18.).
 (2) Usvojeno od strane obnašatelja dužnosti ministra vanjskih poslova, Uputom br. 553 od 19. studenoga 2003. o izdavanju propusnice koju izdaju albanska predstavništva za povratak u Albaniju.
 (3) Direktiva 95/46/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 24. listopada 1995. o zaštiti pojedinaca pri obradi osobnih podataka i o slobodi kretanja osobnih podataka (SL L 281, 23.11.1995., str. 31.). Direktiva kako je izmijenjena Uredbom (EZ-a) br. 1882/2003 (SL L 284, 31.10.2003., str. 1.).
 PRILOG 1.
 Zajednički popis isprava čije se podnošenje smatra dokazom o državljanstvu
 (članak 2. stavak 1., članak 3. stavak 1., članak 4. stavak 1. i članak 5. stavak 1.)
 —
 putovnice svih vrsta (nacionalna putovnica, diplomatska putovnica, službena putovnica, zajednička putovnica i zamjenska putovnica, uključujući i dječju putovnicu),
 —
 osobne iskaznice svih vrsta (uključujući privremenu osobnu iskaznicu),
 —
 službene knjižice ili vojne osobne iskaznice,
 —
 pomorska knjižica i kapetanska službena kartica,
 —
 uvjerenja o državljanstvu i druge službene isprave u kojima se spominje državljanstvo ili koja odaju državljanstvo.
 PRILOG 2.
 Zajednički popis isprava čije se podnošenje smatra dokazom prima facie o državljanstvu
 (članak 2. stavak 1., članak 3. stavak 1., članak 4. stavak 1. i članak 5. stavak 1.)
 —
 fotokopije svih vrsta isprava navedenih u Prilogu 1. ovom Sporazumu,
 —
 vozačka dozvola ili fotokopija iste,
 —
 izvod iz matične knjige rođenih ili fotokopija istog,
 —
 identifikacijska iskaznica trgovačkog društva ili fotokopija iste,
 —
 izjave svjedoka,
 —
 izjave osobe o kojoj se radi i navod o jeziku kojim ta osoba govori, uključujući i rezultate služenog testa,
 —
 svaka druga isprava koja može pomoći u utvrđivanju državljanstva osobe o kojoj se radi.
 PRILOG 3.
 Zajednički popis isprava koje se smatraju dokazom uvjeta za ponovni prihvat državljana treće zemlje ili osoba bez državljanstva
 (članak 3. stavak 1. i članak 5. stavak 1.)
 —
 ulazni/izlazni pečat u putovnici ili neka slična ovjera u putnoj ispravi osobe o kojoj se radi ili neki drugi dokaz o ulasku/izlasku (npr. fotografija),
 —
 isprave, potvrde i računi svake vrste (npr. hotelski račun, predbilježba za zdravstvenu ili bolničku obradu, ulaznica za javne/privatne institucije, ugovor o najmu automobila, potvrda kreditne kartice itd.) koji jasno ukazuju na to da je osoba o kojoj se radi boravila na državnom području države kojoj je zahtjev podnesen,
 —
 karte i/ili popisi putnika u zračnom, željezničkom, autobusnom ili brodskom prijevozu koje ukazuju na prisutnost i itinerer osobe o kojoj se radi na državnom području države kojoj je zahtjev podnesen,
 —
 podaci koji dokazuju da je osoba o kojoj se radi koristila usluge kurira ili putničke agencije,
 —
 službene izjave, a posebno one koje daje službenik granične službe ili neki drugi svjedok koji može posvjedočiti da je osoba o kojoj se radi prešla granicu,
 —
 službena izjava u sudskom ili upravnom postupku osobe o kojoj se radi.
 PRILOG 4.
 Zajednički popis isprava koje se smatraju dokazom prima facie o uvjetima ponovnog prihvata državljana trećih zemalja i osoba bez državljanstva
 (članak 3. stavak 1. i članak 5. stavak 1.)
 —
 opis mjesta i okolnosti, od strane nadležnih držvnih tijela, pod kojima je osobi o kojoj se radi bio zapriječen put po ulasku na državno područje države koja podnosi zahtjev,
 —
 podaci vezani uz identitet i/ili boravak osobe, koje je pribavila neka međunarodna organizacija,
 —
 izjava osobe o kojoj se radi,
 —
 izvještaji/potvrde o podacima dobiveni od strane članova obitelji, suputnika itd.
 PRILOG 5.
 PRILOG 6.
 ZAJEDNIČKA IZJAVA O ODNOSU PREMA BUDUĆEM SPORAZUMU O STABILIZACIJI I PRIDRUŽIVANJU
 Stranke primaju na znanje da su 31. siječnja 2003. započeli pregovori o sklapanju Sporazuma o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju (SSP) između Albanije, s jedne strane i Zajednice i njezinih država članica, s druge strane, koji će također sadržavati odredbe o sprečavanju i kontroli nezakonitih imigracija i ponovnom prihvatu. Stoga su stranke suglasne da će u relevantnim odredbama SSP-a ovaj Sporazum biti uzet u obzir u cijelosti.
 ZAJEDNIČKA IZJAVA O ČLANKU 3.
 Stranke primaju na znanje da se obveza ponovnog prihvata u odnosu na državljane trećih zemalja i na osobe bez državljanstva koje imaju važeću albansku vizu (članak 3. stavak 1. točka (a) ovog Sporazuma), primjenjuje samo kad je viza bila korištena za ulazak na državno područje Albanije.
 ZAJEDNIČKA IZJAVA O ČLANKU 18.
 Sastanak Zajedničkog odbora za ponovni prihvat održava se , kad god je to moguće, u isto vrijeme kad i sastanak relevantnog pododbora osnovanog u sklopu budućeg Sporazuma o stabilizaciji i pridruživanju.
 Odbor obavještava pododbor o svom radu.
 Poslovnik Zajedničkog odbora za ponovni prihvat sukladan je s poslovnikom pododbora.
 ZAJEDNIČKA IZJAVA O DANSKOJ
 Ugovorne stranke primaju na znanje da se ovaj Sporazum ne primjenjuje na državnom području Kraljevine Danske te na državljane Kraljevine Danske. U takvim okolnostima prikladno je da Albanija i Danska zaključe sporazum o ponovnom prihvatu s istim uvjetima kakvi su sadržani u ovom Sporazumu.
 ZAJEDNIČKA IZJAVA O ISLANDU I NORVEŠKOJ
 Ugovorne stranke primaju na znanje blisku vezu između Europske zajednice i Islanda i Norveške, a posebno temeljem Sporazuma od 18. svibnja 1999. u vezi s pridruživanjem tih zemalja provedbi, primjeni i razvoju schengenske pravne stečevine. U takvim okolnostima prikladno je da Albanija zaključi sporazum o ponovnom prihvatu s Islandom i Norveškom pod istim uvjetima kakvi su sadržani u ovom Sporazumu.


type: wikipedia

text:
Una mutevole verità è un breve romanzo giallo del 2014 scritto da Gianrico Carofiglio.
 Trama
 Il Maresciallo dei Carabinieri Pietro Fenoglio, un torinese trapiantato a Bari, si trova ad indagare su un efferato omicidio in cui tutto sembra troppo chiaro fin dall'inizio: le prove, gli indizi, le testimonianze sembrano tutte convergere su un'unica persona, che tuttavia non aveva nessun movente per compiere il delitto. Solo la perseveranza e la singolare idea investigativa di Fenoglio permetteranno di trovare la soluzione al caso, che spesso, come in tale occasione, si cela dietro alle più scontate evidenze.
 Collegamenti esterni
 Romanzi di Gianrico Carofiglio
 Romanzi ambientati in Puglia


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'National Aeronautics and\nSpace Administration\n\nOffice of Inspector General\nWashington, DC 20546-0001\n\n\n May 20, 2010\n\n\nTO: Elizabeth Robinson\n Chief Financial Officer\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Senior Accountable Official\n\n Julie Pollitt\n Recovery Act Implementation Executive\n\nFROM: Paul K. Martin /signed/\n Inspector General\n\nSUBJECT: Final Memorandum on Review of Open Audit Recommendations Affecting\n Recovery Act Activities (Report No. IG-10-014; Assignment\n No. A-09-009-01)\n\n\nThe American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) provided funding to the\nNASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) for oversight of programs, grants, and projects\nfunded under the Recovery Act. This includes assessing NASA\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with\nRecovery Act mandates and with Office of Management and Budget (OMB)\nMemorandum M-09-15, \xe2\x80\x9cUpdated Implementing Guidance for the American Recovery\nand Reinvestment Act of 2009,\xe2\x80\x9d April 3, 2009 (OMB Guidance). The OMB Guidance\nsuggests that agencies develop a risk mitigation plan to identify, prioritize, and mitigate\nimplementation risks associated with use of Recovery Act funds. As part of this plan,\nagencies should determine whether final action has been taken regarding weaknesses or\ndeficiencies disclosed by prior audits and investigations in program areas under which\nRecovery Act funds are authorized.\n\nNASA officials considered risks specific to each program and project during preparation\nof the plans that provide descriptions of how they will use Recovery Act funds. To\nensure NASA properly considered previously identified weaknesses and deficiencies in\nthe programs receiving Recovery Act funds, we reviewed all open recommendations 1\nfrom prior audit reports issued by the NASA OIG, the Government Accountability Office\n(GAO), and independent auditors to identify those recommendations that could\npotentially affect NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Recovery Act activities. (See the Enclosure for details on our\nreview\xe2\x80\x99s scope and methodology.)\n\n\n1\n A recommendation remains open until NASA completes agreed-upon corrective actions and the audit\n authority verifies the sufficiency of the actions in meeting the intent of the recommendation.\n\x0c 2\n\n\n\nExecutive Summary\n\nOur review identified 13 open audit recommendations in program areas under which\nRecovery Act funds are authorized. NASA had taken steps to implement corrective\nactions for the recommendations that could potentially affect programs and projects\nreceiving Recovery Act funds. However, NASA needs to finalize the remaining steps in\norder for the recommendations to be closed. In accordance with the OMB Guidance: \xe2\x80\x9cIf\nfinal action has not been completed, agencies should: (1) expedite such action to preclude\nthe continuance of such weaknesses or deficiencies in the administration of Recovery Act\nfunded programs; or (2) provide an explanation of why such corrective actions cannot or\nshould not be taken in the administration of Recovery Act funded programs.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nAccording to NASA officials, the Agency had fully implemented corrective actions in\nresponse to 6 of the 13 open recommendations and was awaiting verification and closure\nby the appropriate audit agency.\n\nAs of April 2010, corrective actions for another three recommendations were partially\ncomplete, and NASA officials said that all actions needed to close the recommendations\nwere expected to be implemented by September 2010. NASA needs to remain on track\nand ensure the timely implementation of these actions.\n\nFor the remaining four recommendations, NASA officials were still determining whether\ncorrective actions needed to be implemented. We recommend that NASA reach a\ndecision quickly on these recommendations to ensure that the identified weaknesses they\naddress do not affect the use of Recovery Act funds.\n\nThis review describes the 13 open Recovery Act-related recommendations, grouped into\nthe following three categories: financial issues, procurement issues, and programmatic\nissues.\n\nFinancial Issues. We identified 10 open recommendations that, left unaddressed, could\nhave an adverse effect on NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Recovery Act activities: 4 in a GAO report 2 on\nimproper payments and 6 from a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) report 3\nexamining weaknesses with financial management and reporting by the Jet Propulsion\nLaboratory (JPL). Accurate financial management is essential to meet the high level of\naccountability required when reporting on use of Recovery Act funds.\n\nIn its November 2007 report, GAO made four recommendations to improve NASA\xe2\x80\x99s\nprocesses for identifying improper payments. The recommendations were for NASA to\n\n2\n \xe2\x80\x9cImproper Payments: Weaknesses in USAID\xe2\x80\x99s [U.S. Agency for International Development\xe2\x80\x99s] and\n NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Implementation of the Improper Payments Information Act and Recovery Auditing\xe2\x80\x9d\n (GAO-08-77, November 9, 2007).\n3\n \xe2\x80\x9cReport on Jet Propulsion Laboratory Compliance with Requirements Applicable to its Major Program\n and on Internal Control Over Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A-133, FY 2008 A-133\n Audit\xe2\x80\x9d (Audit Report No. 4911-2008J10110001, June 29, 2009).\n\x0c 3\n\n\n\nimplement Improper Payment Information Act (IPIA) guidance, incorporate risk\nassessments as part of that guidance, maintain documentation of work performed to\naddress IPIA requirements, and adhere to OMB\xe2\x80\x99s guidance for reporting in the annual\nPerformance and Accountability Report. NASA officials said they had taken corrective\nactions in response to all four recommendations to mitigate the risk of improper payments\nusing Recovery Act funds but the recommendations remained open as of April 2010,\npending verification and closure by GAO.\n\nIn its June 2009 report, DCAA identified two material weaknesses in JPL\xe2\x80\x99s internal\ncontrols. The first material weakness related to a lack of consistency in the allocation of\ncosts, and the two recommendations associated with this material weakness were for JPL\nto ensure proper accumulation and recording of costs. Accurate accumulation and\nrecording of costs is imperative in order to ensure that Recovery Act-related costs are\nreported accurately, allowing the full transparency required by the Act. Although NASA\nofficials stated that JPL had implemented corrective actions, the recommendations will\nremain open until DCAA verifies that the actions taken were sufficient.\n\nThe second material weakness identified by DCAA related to internal controls over cash\nmanagement. The material weakness was discussed in three audit findings and was\naddressed by four recommendations, which called for JPL to (1) ensure its cash\nmanagement system was adequate, (2) perform periodic reviews to ensure that draws on\nthe letter of credit are authorized, (3) revise the practice of biweekly cash draws on\nretirement plan contributions, and (4) establish a process to ensure that only authorized\npayments are drawn against the letter of credit. An effective cash management system is\ncrucial to ensure that JPL is properly managing and recording its use of Recovery Act\nfunds. However, JPL did not concur with these four DCAA recommendations. JPL, a\nfederally funded research and development center, is operated under contract by the\nCalifornia Institute of Technology. The NASA Management Office (NMO), which is\nresponsible for overseeing the JPL contract, has final authority to determine whether JPL\nmust implement corrective actions in response to the recommendations. As of April\n2010, NMO officials had made a determination on two of the three audit findings, JPL\nhad taken action, and the NMO had resolved the issues with JPL. However, to date, they\nhave not made a determination on the third finding; therefore, the four recommendations\nwill remain open until they make a determination on whether they agree with DCAA.\n\nProcurement Issues. A September 2009 OIG report 4 examining NASA\xe2\x80\x99s management\nof the JPL contract made two recommendations that could affect use of Recovery Act\nfunding. The recommendations focused on NASA\xe2\x80\x99s processes for evaluating JPL\xe2\x80\x99s\nannual performance and for documenting the evaluation of that performance. Since\nevaluating contractor performance is an important part of Recovery Act oversight, and\nJPL is scheduled to receive approximately $110 million in Recovery Act funds, both of\n\n\n4\n \xe2\x80\x9cNASA Should Reconsider the Award Evaluation Process and Contract Type for the Operation of the Jet\n Propulsion Laboratory\xe2\x80\x9d (IG-09-022, September 25, 2009).\n\x0c 4\n\n\n\nthese recommendations could affect NASA\xe2\x80\x99s use of Recovery Act funds. Timely\nimplementation of these recommendations will help to ensure that NASA is appropriately\nmonitoring the JPL contract. NASA officials expected to complete actions to implement\nthe recommendations by September 2010. When completed, the OIG will verify the\nsufficiency of these actions.\n\nProgrammatic Issues. We identified one open recommendation in a September 2009\nOIG report 5 on a project that received Recovery Act funding \xe2\x80\x93 the Landsat Data\nContinuity Mission (LDCM). The OIG report found that NASA\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to comply with\nthe Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 needed improvement. The report\nrecommended that NASA develop a plan for the continuous provision of Landsat-type\ndata should Landsat 7 and Landsat 5 become inoperable before LDCM is operational.\nWithout this plan, NASA runs the risk of having no alternative source to provide annual\nglobal satellite coverage. The LDCM Project is using Recovery Act funds to lower risk\nin achieving a launch date that will minimize such a potential data gap. In a joint effort\nwith the U.S. Geological Survey, NASA was in the process of addressing the\nrecommendation as of April 2010, and officials said they expected to provide the OIG\nwith a corrective action plan by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2010.\n\nIn order to ensure that Recovery Act funds are accurately reported, adequately monitored,\nand properly used in accordance with the requirements of the Recovery Act, NASA needs\nto remain on track and ensure the timely implementation of corrective actions in response\nto the open recommendations involving financial, procurement, and programmatic issues\ndiscussed in this report.\n\nBackground\n\nOn February 17, 2009, the President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment\nAct of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Recovery Act seeks to strengthen the U.S. economy\nthrough the creation of new jobs, spur technological advances in science and health, and\ninvest in infrastructure that will provide long-term benefits.\n\nNASA received $1 billion under the Recovery Act in the following mission areas:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Science: $400 million:\n\n o Astrophysics: $75 million to the James Webb Space Telescope to conduct\n observations, research, and development in support of the goals of\n discovering the origin, structure, evolution, and destiny of the universe and\n searching for Earth-like planets.\n\n\n\n5\n \xe2\x80\x9cThe Landsat Program Is Not Meeting the Goals and Intent of the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of\n 1992\xe2\x80\x9d (IG-09-021, September 2, 2009).\n\x0c 5\n\n\n\n o Earth Science: $325 million to accelerate the development of Earth\n science climate research missions and supercomputing capabilities.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Aeronautics: $150 million for system-level research, development, and\n demonstration activities related to aviation, safety, environmental impact\n mitigation, and the Next Generation Air Transportation System.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Exploration: $400 million to develop safe and robust capabilities for human\n space exploration and to stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and\n demonstrate technologies that enable commercial human spaceflight capabilities.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Cross-Agency Support: $50 million to restore NASA-owned facilities damaged\n by natural disasters in 2008.\n\nThe OIG has independent oversight responsibility for NASA and its related Recovery Act\nactivities. As part of our efforts to oversee the use of NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Recovery Act funds, we\nreviewed prior audits issued by the NASA OIG, GAO, and other independent auditors to\ndetermine whether those reports contained recommendations that involved the use of\nRecovery Act funding.\n\nWhen an audit authority issues a report with recommendations, Agency officials must\ndecide whether to concur with the recommendations. Once concurrence is reached,\nNASA develops a corrective action plan to implement the recommendations. The\nauditors subsequently review the adequacy of the corrective actions once implemented\nand, upon the auditors\xe2\x80\x99 verification, the recommendation is closed. Open\nrecommendations are those for which concurrence has not been reached, NASA has not\ncompleted corrective action, or the corrective action taken by NASA is pending review\nfrom the audit authority.\n\nOur review found 13 open recommendations that could affect programs and projects\nreceiving Recovery Act funds. In accordance with the OMB Guidance: \xe2\x80\x9cIf final action\nhas not been completed, agencies should: (1) expedite such action to preclude the\ncontinuance of such weaknesses or deficiencies in the administration of Recovery Act\nfunded programs; or (2) provide an explanation of why such corrective actions cannot or\nshould not be taken in the administration of Recovery Act funded programs.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nNASA had taken steps to implement corrective actions for the open recommendations we\nidentified, but had completed actions for only six and had not reached concurrence on the\nother four. NASA should remain on track and ensure the timely completion of corrective\nactions for the three recommendations that have not been fully implemented and make a\ndecision concerning the other four in order to ensure that Recovery Act funds are\naccurately reported, adequately monitored, and properly used.\n\x0c 6\n\n\n\nFollowing are details of the 13 open audit recommendations that we identified, grouped\ninto the following three categories: financial issues, procurement issues, and\nprogrammatic issues.\n\nFinancial Issues\n\nThe Recovery Act requires an unprecedented level of transparency and accuracy in\nfinancial reporting. We reviewed reports issued on NASA\xe2\x80\x99s financial management to\ndetermine whether any open recommendations would have an impact on Recovery Act\nfunds. During our review, we identified recommendations in one GAO report concerning\nthe Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) and one independent auditors\xe2\x80\x99\nreport (DCAA) concerning JPL that we believe could affect NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Recovery Act\nactivities.\n\n\xe2\x80\x9cImproper Payments: Weaknesses in USAID\xe2\x80\x99s and NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Implementation of the\n Improper Payments Information Act and Recovery Auditing\xe2\x80\x9d (GAO-08-77,\n November 9, 2007)\n\nNASA needs to maintain awareness of the risk of improper payments as Recovery Act\nfunds are expended. In November 2009, the President signed Executive Order 13520,\n\xe2\x80\x9cReducing Improper Payments and Eliminating Waste in Federal Programs.\xe2\x80\x9d The\npurpose of the Executive Order is to reduce improper payments by intensifying efforts to\neliminate payment error, waste, fraud, and abuse in the major programs administered by\nthe Federal Government. The order adopts a comprehensive set of policies, including\ntransparency and public scrutiny of significant payment errors. The 2007 GAO report\nrecommended that NASA implement corrective action regarding identifying improper\npayment information. NASA has since completed its corrective action and now awaits\nGAO\xe2\x80\x99s acceptance and closure of the recommendations. If the actions taken by NASA\nare deemed sufficient and the recommendations are closed, NASA will need to ensure\nthat programs and projects receiving Recovery Act funds are included in the new process.\n\nBeginning in FY 2003, Federal agencies were required to report improper payment\ninformation under the Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) and information about\ntheir efforts to recover improper payments made to contractors under Section 831 of the\nNational Defense Authorization Act, commonly known as the Recovery Auditing Act.\nGAO reviewed the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and NASA\xe2\x80\x99s\nimplementation processes for improper payments and found that both agencies needed to\nimprove their identification of improper payment information. As of April 2010, the\nfollowing recommendations remained open because, even though NASA completed the\nrecommended corrective action, the action had not yet been verified and accepted by\nGAO.\n\x0c 7\n\n\n\n Recommendation: The NASA Administrator should develop IPIA guidance to\n include detailed procedures for addressing the four key steps \xe2\x80\x93 perform risk\n assessment, estimate improper payments, implement a corrective action plan, annually\n report \xe2\x80\x93 that OMB requires agencies to perform in meeting the improper payment\n reporting requirements.\n\n Corrective Action: NASA follows detailed procedures as recommended for\n addressing the four key steps in the process. The detailed procedures are outlined in\n NASA\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cImproper Payments Information Act and OMB Circular A-123,\n Appendix C: Requirements for Effective Measurement and Remediation of Improper\n Payments.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Recommendation: As part of that guidance, incorporate the risk assessment\n methodology developed by NASA\xe2\x80\x99s consulting firm to determine whether risks exist,\n what those risks are, and the potential or actual impact of those risks on program\n operations.\n\n Corrective Action: NASA follows the recommended risk assessment methodology as\n detailed in its IPIA procedural guidance.\n\n Recommendation: Maintain documentation of actions performed to address IPIA and\n Recovery Auditing Act requirements.\n\n Corrective Action: NASA maintains centralized documentation control of its\n activities in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Quality Assurance Division.\n All appropriate documentation is located at NASA Headquarters and is available for\n review upon request.\n\n Recommendation: Adhere to OMB\xe2\x80\x99s guidance for reporting recovery auditing\n information in NASA\xe2\x80\x99s annual Performance and Accountability Report.\n\n Corrective Action: NASA completed corrective actions to comply with the IPIA and\n the Recovery Auditing Act reporting requirements and adhere to the OMB guidance\n for reporting, as shown in NASA\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report.\n\n\xe2\x80\x9cReport on Jet Propulsion Laboratory Compliance with Requirements Applicable to its\n Major Program and on Internal Control Over Compliance in Accordance with OMB\n Circular A-133, FY 2008 A-133 Audit\xe2\x80\x9d (Defense Contract Audit Agency, Audit\n Report No. 4911-2008J10110001 dated June 29, 2009)\n\nThe DCAA report identified two material weaknesses in internal controls at JPL.\nBecause JPL is receiving over $110 million in Recovery Act funding, it is important that\nNASA take the necessary steps to ensure that JPL is correctly using and reporting on\nthese funds. A discussion of the material weaknesses, recommendations, and corrective\nactions follows.\n\x0c 8\n\n\n\nNoncompliance with Title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 9904.402, \xe2\x80\x9cCost\naccounting standard \xe2\x80\x93 consistency in allocating costs incurred for the same purpose,\xe2\x80\x9d and\nContract Clause G-2, \xe2\x80\x9cCost Segregation and Reporting\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThis material weakness relates to JPL not properly recording absences of less than a full\nday of exempt employees. By not properly recording these absences, JPL was not in\ncompliance with the contractual requirement for accurate reporting of cost by major\nelements. As noted below, JPL completed corrective actions for this material weakness\nand the recommendations will be closed upon verification by the Defense Contract Audit\nAgency.\n\n Recommendation: JPL should ensure proper accumulation and recording of costs in\n accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), NASA FAR Supplement\n (NFS), and Contract NAS7-03001, such that cost reports submitted to the\n Government are current, accurate, and complete.\n\n Recommendation: JPL should revise its policies to require exempt employees to\n record both full-day and partial-day leave.\n\n Corrective Action: As of October 1, 2008, JPL had revised timekeeping policies and\n changed procedures to ensure proper accumulation and recording of costs. The NMO\n reviewed JPL\xe2\x80\x99s actions and agreed with the resolution. As of April 2010, the NMO\n was working with the Defense Contract Audit Agency in an effort to close the\n recommendations.\n\nInternal Controls over Cash Management\n\nThis second material weakness relates to internal controls over cash management; it was\ndiscussed in three audit findings and addressed by four recommendations. Without an\nadequate cash management system, JPL may not be properly recording use of Recovery\nAct funds. The audit disclosed that during FY 2008 JPL did not have adequate controls\nin place to ensure that the letter of credit draws of Federal cash were only used for\nimmediate needs. As a result, unauthorized or premature draws were made from the\nletter of credit in FY 2008. Specifically, the three audit findings were that JPL drew\ndown Federal funds based on unauthorized costs for the Phaeton Project, Research\nSupport Agreements, and the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association-College\nRetirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF) Defined Contribution Retirement Plan. NMO\nofficials said they issued a waiver to JPL for the unauthorized draw for the Phaeton\nProject, which resolved that finding. Additionally, for the Research Support Agreements,\nthe NMO increased the threshold amount and authorized JPL to draw down on the\nincreased amount, which resolved that finding.\n\nAlthough the NMO and JPL resolved the specific issues related to two of the three audit\nfindings, the following four recommendations relating to internal controls over cash\nmanagement remained open as of April 2010. NMO officials said they were in the\n\x0c 9\n\n\n\nprocess of evaluating the validity of the third finding. Once they make a determination on\nthe final finding, they will issue a memorandum as to whether they intend to implement\nthe recommendations and, if so, will direct JPL to develop corrective actions. Because\nthe four recommendations overlap all three findings, they will remain open until NMO\nmakes the final determination on the final finding.\n\n Recommendation: JPL should enhance its cash management system to ensure that\n cash draw requests for reimbursement of costs from the NASA letter of credit are\n prepared in accordance with contract terms.\n\n Recommendation: JPL should perform periodic reviews to ensure that the letter of\n credit draws are for immediate needs, authorized, and allowable under the terms of\n the contract.\n\n Recommendation: JPL should revise its practice of making biweekly cash draws on\n retirement plan contributions to the TIAA-CREF to ensure the cash draws on the\n letter of credit are only for immediate needs.\n\n Recommendation: JPL should establish a process to ensure compliance with the\n terms of the contract so that only authorized payments are drawn down against the\n letter of credit.\n\nProcurement Issues\n\nNASA faces longstanding management challenges related to systemic weaknesses in its\nacquisition and contracting processes. 6 During this review, we identified one OIG report\nwith open recommendations related to procurement issues that could potentially affect\nuse of Recovery Act funding.\n\n\xe2\x80\x9cNASA Should Reconsider the Award Evaluation Process and Contract Type for the\n Operation of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory\xe2\x80\x9d (IG-09-022, September 25, 2009)\n\nSince 1993, NASA has awarded three cost-plus-award-fee contracts to the California\nInstitute of Technology for the operation of JPL. The latest award was a 5-year base\ncontract valued at approximately $7.5 billion, awarded in November 2002. The OIG\nexamined this contract and concluded that NASA could improve its overall management\nof the JPL contract, including its processes for evaluating and documenting contractor\nperformance.\n\nJPL is scheduled to receive approximately $110 million in Recovery Act funds from\nNASA\xe2\x80\x99s Science Mission Directorate to accelerate the development of its projects. Of\n\n6\n In addition to this report, we are examining a series of procurement issues that may potentially affect use\n of Recovery Act acquisitions and expect to issue a memorandum later this fiscal year with the results of\n that review.\n\x0c 10\n\n\n\nthis amount, approximately $78 million has been awarded to date. The timely completion\nof the corrective actions described below will reduce the risk that the weaknesses\nidentified previously will affect the use of Recovery Act funds. NASA officials said they\nexpected to complete corrective actions by September 2010, at which time the OIG will\nreview the corrective actions and determine whether they are sufficient to close the\nrecommendations.\n\n Recommendation: The NMO Procurement Officer should provide in the Performance\n Evaluation Plan, or other applicable documents, specific, explicit direction to the\n Contract Performance Monitors to evaluate and document the contractor\xe2\x80\x99s annual\n performance for all of the criteria\xe2\x80\x99s metrics under the evaluation factors.\n\n Corrective Action: The Performance Evaluation Plan was updated with clarifying\n language, and the NMO conducted a briefing with both the Contract Performance\n Monitors and Primary Performance Evaluators to emphasize the importance of\n documenting the evaluation process. The NMO intends to provide further direction in\n September 2010, after which the OIG will review the corrective action and determine\n whether the recommendation can be closed.\n\n Recommendation: The NMO Procurement Officer should monitor Contract\n Performance Monitors\xe2\x80\x99 input for accuracy and completeness.\n\n Corrective Action: The NMO completed a briefing to emphasize the importance of\n documenting the evaluation process. Further, the NMO is working with the NASA\n Directorates and offices providing evaluation input to ensure completeness of the\n process. The NMO provided detailed direction for the award fee FY 2009 Final\n Evaluation call and will provide further direction in September 2010. When these\n steps are complete, the OIG will review these actions and determine whether the\n recommendation can be closed.\n\nProgrammatic Issues\n\nA 2009 OIG report contains one recommendation that remained open as of April 2010\nrelated to programmatic issues that could potentially affect the use of Recovery Act\nfunds.\n\n\xe2\x80\x9cThe Landsat Program Is Not Meeting the Goals and Intent of the Land Remote Sensing\n Policy Act of 1992\xe2\x80\x9d (IG-09-021, September 2, 2009)\n\nThe Landsat data series, begun in 1972, is the longest continuous record of changes in the\nEarth\xe2\x80\x99s surface as seen from space and is the only satellite system designed and operated\nto repeatedly observe the global land surface at moderate resolution. Landsat data are\navailable at an affordable cost, providing a unique resource for people who work in\nagriculture, geology, forestry, regional planning, education, mapping, and global change\nresearch. The Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) is the next satellite mission\n\x0c 11\n\n\n\nunder development by NASA for the U.S. Geological Survey\xe2\x80\x99s Land Remote Sensing\nProgram.\n\nThe audit report noted that NASA\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to comply with the Land Remote Sensing\nPolicy (LRSP) Act of 1992 needed improvement. Specifically, the auditors found that\nNASA\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to develop, launch, and operate a land remote sensing system to maintain\nlong-term continuity is in jeopardy because no one Federal agency has overall\nresponsibility for the Program. Further, LDCM baseline requirements changed after\ncontract award for the spacecraft, resulting in increased costs and possible launch\nschedule delays. Additionally, NASA removed and now must reinstate Landsat\xe2\x80\x99s legacy\nthermal imaging capability to satisfy the goals and intent of the LRSP Act. The\nreinstatement of the capability late in LDCM development will result in increased project\ncosts if LDCM\xe2\x80\x99s launch is further delayed. In addition, LDCM launch delays increase the\nlikelihood that both on-orbit Landsat satellites (Landsat 7 and Landsat 5) will become\ninoperable before LDCM reaches orbit, resulting in a period of time when no imaging\nwould take place.\n\nThe LDCM Project is receiving approximately $51.6 million in Recovery Act funds,\nwhich will help minimize a potential data gap due to the limited life of Landsat 7.\nSpecifically, Recovery Act funds will be used to initiate development of a thermal\ninfrared sensor (TIRS) and integrate the instrument onto the spacecraft. Thermal imaging\nwill provide important data for surface and ground water information. Since Recovery\nAct funds are being used to initiate development of TIRS, actions to address the\nfollowing open recommendation should be monitored to ensure that these funds are being\nused appropriately. As of April 2010, NASA officials said they expected to provide a\ncorrective action plan for OIG review by the end of FY 2010.\n\n Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate\n should develop a plan for continuous provision of Landsat-type data, should\n Landsat 7 and Landsat 5 become inoperable before LDCM is operational.\n\n Corrective Action: As of April 2010, NASA was in the process of coordinating with\n the U.S. Geological Survey to develop a formal plan for the partial mitigation of the\n potential data gap by the end of FY 2010.\n\nManagement Action\n\nNASA should ensure timely implementation of the open recommendations in this report.\nFailure to implement these recommendations timely could result in an increased risk of\ninaccurate reporting of Recovery Act financial data; improper payments for Recovery\nAct-funded activities; incomplete review of Recovery Act contractor performance; and\ninappropriate use of Recovery Act funds. Therefore, NASA should remain on track and\nensure the timely completion of the corrective actions to address these open\nrecommendations. In addition, NMO officials should make a final determination on\nwhether to require JPL to implement DCAA\xe2\x80\x99s four recommendations relating to the\n\x0c 12\n\n\n\ninternal controls over the cash management system. If the officials agree with the DCAA\nrecommendations, NMO should monitor JPL\xe2\x80\x99s progress in implementing them.\n\nWe provided a draft of this memorandum for review and comment on April 23, 2010. In\nNASA\xe2\x80\x99s e-mail response, received May 17, 2010, the Recovery Act Implementation\nExecutive stated that the Agency concurred with the observations noted in this\nmemorandum. The response also stated: \xe2\x80\x9cBased on the significant amount of work that\nNASA has completed surrounding corrective actions to address the recommendations, as\nalready documented to GAO, DCAA and/or OIG, the weaknesses identified in the prior\nreports will soon have been remediated, such that they are no longer expected to have an\nimpact on NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Recovery Act implementation.\xe2\x80\x9d The OIG concurs with the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s\nresponse, and no further action is required.\n\nWe appreciate the courtesies extended during our review. If you have any questions or\nneed additional information, please contact Laura B. Nicolosi, Director, Mission Support\nDirectorate, at 202-358-2562.\n\n\nEnclosure\n\x0c Scope and Methodology\nWe performed this review from June 2009 through April 2010. We conducted our work\nin accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, except as noted in\nthe following paragraph. Those standards require that we plan and perform our work to\nobtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and\nconclusions based on our objective.\n\nOur objective was to review open recommendations from prior audit reports issued by the\nNASA OIG, GAO, and other auditing organizations to identify open recommendations\nthat could potentially affect NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Recovery Act activities. Based on this limited\nobjective, we believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our\nfindings and conclusions. Because the objective of our review is limited to the\nidentification of relevant open recommendations, we did not perform testing of the design\nand operating effectiveness of NASA internal controls. In addition, we did not use\ncomputer-processed data to perform this review and, therefore, did not perform testing of\nthe design and operating effectiveness of information system controls.\n\nThere were no reports or prior coverage relevant to our review other than those discussed\nin this report.\n\n\n\n\n Enclosure\n Page 1 of 1\n\x0c'


text:
Το Solaris, είναι λειτουργικό σύστημα βασισμένο στο UNIX και σχεδιασμένο από την εταιρία Sun Microsystems. Η άδεια χρήσης του Solaris είναι κλειστή, αλλά πρόσφατα μεγάλα κομμάτια του συστήματος έχουν αλλάξει άδεια χρήσης σε ανοιχτού κώδικα (CCDL) διαμορφώνοντας το OpenSolaris. To Solaris, υποστηρίζεται στις εξής αρχιτεκτονικές:
 SPARC, x86 και x86-64. Το γραφικό περιβάλλον του συστήματος είναι το GNOME (Solaris 10), ενώ είναι διαθέσιμο και το CDE.
 Unix


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 2.4.2011
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 103/26
 2011 m. vasario 9 d. pareikštas ieškinys byloje Nath Kalsi prieš VRDT — American Clothing Associates (RIDGE WOOD)
 (Byla T-80/11)
 2011/C 103/45
 Kalba, kuria surašytas ieškinys: vokiečių
 Šalys
 Ieškovai: Dwarka Nath Kalsi ir Ajit Nath Kalsi (Agra, Indija), atstovaujami advokato J. Schmidt
 Atsakovė: Vidaus rinkos derinimo tarnyba (prekių ženklams ir pramoniniam dizainui)
 Kita procedūros Apeliacinėje taryboje šalis: American Clothing Associates NV (Evergemas, Belgija)
 Ieškovų reikalavimai
 —
 Panaikinti 2010 m. lapkričio 19 d. Vidaus rinkos derinimo tarnybos (prekių ženklams ir pramoniniam dizainui) pirmosios apeliacinės tarybos sprendimą byloje R 599/2010-1.
 —
 Priteisti iš atsakovės bylinėjimosi išlaidas.
 Ieškinio pagrindai ir pagrindiniai argumentai
 Bendrijos prekių ženklo paraišką pateikęs asmuo: ieškovai.
 Prašomas įregistruoti Bendrijos prekių ženklas: vaizdinis prekių ženklas, kuriame yra žodinis elementas „RIDGE WOOD“ 18, 24 ir 25 klasių prekėms ir paslaugoms.
 Prekių ženklo ar žymens, kuriuo grindžiamas protestas, savininkas:: American Clothing Associates NV.
 Prekių ženklas ar žymuo, kuriuo grindžiamas protestas: žodinis prekių ženklas RIVER WOODS ir vaizdiniai prekių ženklai, kuriuose yra žodinis elementas „RIVER WOODS“ ir „River Woods“ 18, 25 ir 40 klasių prekėms ir paslaugoms.
 Protestų skyriaus sprendimas: atmesti protestą.
 Apeliacinės tarybos sprendimas: tenkinti apeliaciją.
 Ieškinio pagrindai: Reglamento (EB) Nr. 207/2009 (1) 15 straipsnio 1 dalies ir 42 straipsnio pažeidimas, nes nebuvo pateikti ankstesnių prekių ženklų naudojimo iš tikrųjų įrodymai, ir Reglamento (EB) Nr. 207/2009 8 straipsnio 5 dalies pažeidimas, nes American Clothing Associates nurodytų aplinkybių nepakanka įrodyti, jog prekių ženklai turi gerą vardą, kaip jis apibrėžiamas šiame straipsnyje.
 (1) 2009 m. vasario 26 d. Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 207/2009 dėl Bendrijos prekių ženklo (OL L 78, 2009, p. 1)


text:
 Ważna informacja prawna
 |
 22002D0063
 Dziennik Urzędowy L 238 , 05/09/2002 P. 0032 - 0033
 Decyzja Wspólnego Komitetu EOGnr 63/2002z dnia 31 maja 2002 r.zmieniająca załącznik XXI (Statystyka) do Porozumienia EOGWSPÓLNY KOMITET EOG,uwzględniając Porozumienie o Europejskim Obszarze Gospodarczym, dostosowane Protokołem dostosowującym Porozumienie o Europejskim Obszarze Gospodarczym, zwane dalej "Porozumieniem", w szczególności jego artykuł 98,a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:(1) Załącznik XXI do Porozumienia został zmieniony decyzją Wspólnego Komitetu EOG nr 45/2002 z dnia 19 kwietnia 2002 r. [1].(2) Rozporządzenie Komisji (WE) nr 2163/2001 z dnia 7 listopada 2001 r. dotyczące uzgodnień technicznych dotyczących przesyłania danych dla statystyki dotyczącej przewozu drogowego rzeczy [2] należy włączyć do Porozumienia,STANOWI, CO NASTĘPUJE:Artykuł 1Po pkt 7d (decyzja Komisji 1999/35/WE) załącznika XXI do Porozumienia dodaje się pkt 7e w brzmieniu:"7e. 32001 R 2163: rozporządzenie Komisji (WE) nr 2163/2001 z dnia 7 listopada 2001 r. dotyczące uzgodnień technicznych dotyczących przesyłania danych dla statystyki dotyczącej przewozu drogowego rzeczy (Dz.U. L 291 z 8.11.2001, str. 13)."Artykuł 2Teksty rozporządzenia WE nr 2163/2001 w językach islandzkim i norweskim, które zostaną opublikowane w Suplemencie EOG do Dziennika Urzędowego Wspólnot Europejskich, są autentyczne.Artykuł 3Niniejsza decyzja wchodzi w życie z dniem 1 czerwca 2002 r., pod warunkiem że wszystkie notyfikacje na mocy w art. 103 ust. 1 Porozumienia zostały dokonane wobec Wspólnego Komitetu EOG [3].Artykuł 4Niniejsza decyzja zostaje opublikowana w Sekcji EOG i w Suplemencie EOG do Dziennika Urzędowego Wspólnot Europejskich.Sporządzono w Brukseli, dnia 31 maja 2002 r.W imieniu Wspólnego Komitetu EOGP. WesterlundPrzewodniczący[1] Dz.U. L 154 z 13.6.2002, str. 32.[2] Dz.U. L 291 z 8.11.2001, str. 13.[3] Nie wskazano wymogów konstytucyjnych.--------------------------------------------------


text:
 18.6.2011
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 C 179/2
 Hotărârea Curții (Marea Cameră) din 12 aprilie 2011 (cerere de pronunțare a unei hotărâri preliminare formulată de Cour de cassation — Franța) — DHL Express France SAS, fostă DHL International SA/Chronopost SA
 (Cauza C-235/09) (1)
 (Proprietate intelectuală - Marcă comunitară - Regulamentul (CE) nr. 40/94 - Articolul 98 alineatul (1) - Interzicerea actelor de contrafacere pronunțată de o instanță competentă în domeniul mărcilor comunitare - Domeniu de aplicare teritorial - Măsuri coercitive care însoțesc o astfel de interdicție - Efect pe teritoriul altor state membre decât cel căruia îi aparține instanța sesizată)
 2011/C 179/02
 Limba de procedură: franceza
 Instanța de trimitere
 Cour de cassation
 Părțile din acțiunea principală
 Reclamantă: DHL Express France SAS, fostă DHL International SA
 Pârâtă: Chronopost SA
 Obiectul
 Cerere de pronunțare a unei hotărâri preliminare — Cour de cassation — Interpretarea articolului 98 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 40/94 al Consiliului din 20 decembrie 1993 privind marca comunitară (JO 1994, L 11, p. 1, Ediție specială, 17/vol. 1, p. 146) coroborat cu articolele 1, 14 și 94 din același regulament — Acțiune în contrafacerea unor mărci — Domeniu de aplicare teritorial al unei interdicții pronunțate de o instanță competentă în domeniul mărcilor comunitare — Posibilitatea unei astfel de instanțe de a dispune pe lângă această interdicție măsuri coercitive aplicabile pe teritoriul tuturor statelor membre în care își produce efectele interdicția de desfășurare a actelor de contrafacere
 Dispozitivul
 1.
 Articolul 98 alineatul (1) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 40/94 al Consiliului din 20 decembrie 1993 privind marca comunitară, astfel cum a fost modificat prin Regulamentul (CE) nr. 3288/94 al Consiliului din 22 decembrie 1994, trebuie interpretat în sensul că domeniul de aplicare al interdicției de a continua acte de contrafacere sau acte care prezintă riscul de contrafacere a unei mărci comunitare, pronunțată de o instanță competentă în domeniul mărcilor comunitare a cărei competență se întemeiază pe articolul 93 alineatele (1)-(4) și pe articolul 94 alineatul (1) din acest regulament, se extinde, în principiu, la întregul teritoriu al Uniunii Europene.
 2.
 Articolul 98 alineatul (1) a doua teză din Regulamentul nr. 40/94, astfel cum a fost modificat prin Regulamentul nr. 3288/94, trebuie interpretat în sensul că o măsură coercitivă, precum plata unor penalități cu titlu cominatoriu, dispusă de o instanță competentă în domeniul mărcilor comunitare în temeiul dreptului său intern în scopul de a garanta respectarea interdicției de a continua acte de contrafacere sau acte care prezintă riscul de contrafacere pe care a pronunțat o, produce efecte în alte state membre decât cel căruia îi aparține această instanță, la care se extinde domeniul de aplicare teritorial al unei astfel de interdicții, în condițiile prevăzute în capitolul III din Regulamentul nr. 44/2001 al Consiliului din 22 decembrie 2000 privind competența judiciară, recunoașterea și executarea hotărârilor în materie civilă și comercială în ceea ce privește recunoașterea și executarea hotărârilor judecătorești. În cazul în care dreptul intern al unuia dintre aceste alte state membre nu prevede nicio măsură coercitivă analogă celei pronunțate de instanța menționată, obiectivul avut în vedere de această din urmă măsură va trebui urmărit de instanța competentă din acest stat membru prin recurgerea la dispozițiile relevante din dreptul său intern care sunt de natură să garanteze în mod echivalent respectarea interdicției menționate.
 (1) JO C 205, 29.8.2009.


text:
On the 30th day of April, 1918, a judgment by confession was entered in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County in favor of the appellees, Ignatius J. Costigan and William H. Talbott, against Juanita L.K. Frank and Charles Lee Frank, her husband, for the sum of $1,800 and costs. Upon that judgment an execution was issued on the 4th day of February, 1921, to the appellee George E. Nicholson, Sheriff of Montgomery County, and he thereunder seized and advertised for sale a parcel of land, with the improvements thereon, located in said county. The title to and the ownership of the property so seized and advertised for sale was claimed by the appellant under a conveyance to him from the said judgment debtors dated the 18th day of April, 1918, acknowledged the 18th day of June thereafter, and recorded on the 19th day of August of the same year; and he, on the 4th *Page 108
 day of May, 1921, filed his bill in which he sought, with other relief, an injunction to restrain the appellees from proceeding further with the execution of the writ of fieri facias against the property so claimed by him.
 With this bill he filed said conveyance to him from Mrs. Frank and husband, which is as follows:
 "This Deed, Made this eighteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand, nine hundred and eighteen, by and between Juanita Lincoln Kidder Frank and Charles Lee Frank, her husband, of Montgomery County, Maryland, parties of the first part, and Ludwig Frank, of Seattle, Washington, party of the second part:
 "Witnesseth, That in consideration of the sum of two thousand, two hundred dollars ($2,200.00) the said parties of the first part do grant and convey unto Ludwig Frank, party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, in fee simple, all that piece or parcel of ground situate, lying and being in Montgomery County, State of Maryland. * * *
 "Together with the buildings and improvements thereupon erected, * * *.
 "To have and to hold the said piece or parcel of land and premises above described or mentioned, * * * together with the rights, privileges, appurtenances, and advantages thereto belonging or appertaining unto and to the only proper use, benefit and behoof forever of the said Ludwig Frank, provided the consideration herein named shall have been paid to the aforesaid Juanita Lincoln Kidder Frank by the party of the second part as hereinafter set out and provided the other conditions hereinafter set out shall have happened, to wit: the said party of the second part agrees to pay to the said Juanita Lincoln Kidder Frank five hundred dollars ($500.00) at the signing of this deed, which is thereupon to be delivered in escrow to and upon the following conditions: the said party of the second part agrees to pay to the *Page 109
 said Juanita Lincoln Kidder Frank further additional sums up to and including the sum of one thousand, seven hundred dollars ($1,700.00) in such sums and at such times as the said Juanita Lincoln Kidder Frank may demand, with the express agreement between the parties hereto that when the said party of the second part shall have paid to the said Juanita Lincoln Kidder Frank the said additional sum of one thousand, seven hundred dollars, or when the encumbrance on the aforesaid property shall amount to the sum of seven thousand, eight hundred dollars, this deed shall be put of record by the party who may hold it in escrow, and the party of the second part shall become and be the owner of the herein described property, subject to the encumbrances which shall then be of record against it; provided further that before this deed shall be put of record the party of the first part shall have an opportunity to repay to the party of the second part on the demand of the said party of the second part the money which shall have been advanced by him to the said Juanita Lincoln Kidder Frank, in the manner above set forth.
 "And the said parties of the first part covenant that they will warrant specially and generally the property hereby conveyed; that they are seized of the land hereby conveyed; that they have a right to convey said land; that the said party of the second part shall quietly enjoy said land; that they have done no act to encumber said land, over and above the sum of three thousand dollars, and that they will do no act to encumber said land over and above $7,800.00 in all, and that they will execute such further assurances of said land as may be requisite.
 "Witness our hands and seals.
 "Juanita Lincoln Kider Frank. (Seal) "Charles Lee Frank. (Seal)
 "Test: S.A. Terry."
 To the deed is attached a certificate of acknowledgment before S.A. Terry, a Notary Public, dated the 18th day of *Page 110
 June, 1918, with an endorsement thereon that the said conveyance was received for record on the 19th day of August, A.D. 1918, and recorded among the Land Records of Montgomery County.
 The bill alleges the existence of an encumbrance (mortgage) of $3,000 mentioned in the conveyance, which at the time rested as a lien upon the property subsequently seized under the execution; and it further alleges that in addition to the $500 mentioned therein to be paid by the appellant at the time of the execution of the conveyance, he also at such time paid to Mrs. Frank and husband the sum of $3,000, and that he, "after the execution and delivery of said deed and before the obtention of the judgment aforesaid, advanced further and additional sums" to Mrs. Frank, "aggregating the sum of fifteen hundred dollars," and "that the total amount paid (by him to her) aggregates the sum of $5,000."
 The bill further alleges that he, the appellant, "failed to immediately record said deed because it was defectively executed and for no other reason whatsoever," and in the bill the appellees, Messrs. Costigan and Talbott, are charged with "actual notice of the execution and delivery of said deed and the payment of three thousand dollars so as aforesaid made and done."
 Upon the filing of the bill an injunction was granted as prayed, whereupon the defendants demurred to the bill and moved for a dissolution of the injunction.
 The court, by its order of the 13th day of August, 1921, dissolved the injunction, sustained the demurrer, and dismissed the bill. It is from that order that the appeal in this case was taken.
 It is disclosed by the above mentioned conveyance, which is in the nature of a mortgage, that Mrs. Frank, at the time of its alleged execution on the 18th day of April, 1918, was the owner of the property mentioned and described therein and that at that time there was a mortgage thereon of $3,000. *Page 111
 The property was valued by Mrs. Frank at $10,000. At that valuation her equity of redemption therein amounted to $7,000. In the conveyance to the appellant, the consideration to be paid by him was $2,200. Of this sum, $500 was to be paid in cash at the time of its execution, and the balance from time to time when called for by her. The sum of $2,200 and the mortgage of $3,000, which the appellant assumed to pay, amounted only to the sum of $5,200, or $4,800 less than the amount at which Mrs. Frank valued her property. The latter amount was not to be paid in cash by the appellant, but Mrs. Frank, under the agreement, was to further encumber the property for said sum of $4,800, and this, with the existing mortgage of $3,000, would encumber the property to the extent of $7,800, the payment of which, when placed thereon, was to be assumed by the appellant.
 Inasmuch as the appellant had not paid to Mrs. Frank the money that was to be paid by him, and she had not encumbered the property to the amount she was authorized, the transaction or arrangement between them was not, at the time of the execution of the conveyance, fully completed, and it was for that reason, as provided for in the conveyance, that it was delivered to the appellant in escrow to await the performance of the conditions therein contained before its delivery should become absolute. The conditions were: first, that the appellant should pay the balance of $2,200 that was to be paid by him; second, that Mrs. Frank should further encumber the property to the extent of $4,800; and third, that after the performance of these conditions, Mrs. Frank should fail to pay the advances made by appellant on demand by him. It was not until these conditions were complied with that the conveyance was to be placed upon record, and the complainant to become the owner of the property, subject to the encumbrances placed thereon by Mrs. Frank.
 The rule generally recognized, that a delivery of a deed to the grantee in escrow operates as an absolute delivery, does not apply in this case, as the conveyance upon its face imports that something besides delivery was necessary to be done in *Page 112
 order to make it complete. 13 Cyc. 564; Whitney v. Dewey,
 69 L.R.A. 579; Mudlinger v. Smith, 75 Va. 309.
 The conveyance, as we have said, is in the nature of a mortgage, for it is provided in it that, although the appellant should pay unto the grantor all that he was to pay her under the agreement, she was still to have the opportunity to repay him, on demand made upon her by him, the money so advanced and paid to her, and it was not until demand was made upon her to repay said money, and her failure to pay it, that the conveyance was to be filed for record and the property therein described to become his. The fact that she was to have the opportunity to repay the appellant that which he had paid under the agreement gives to the conveyance the characteristic of a mortgage, in that the land described therein was conveyed to secure the payment of said money.
 The paper writing may also be designated as a grant on conditions precedent, under which an estate in the lands therein described did not vest until the conditions were performed.Venable on the Law of Real Property, 107.
 One of the conditions, as we have said, was his payment to her of the $2,200. The bill alleges that he paid to her $500 when the conveyance was executed. In addition to this, however, he alleges that he paid to her at such time an additional sum of $3,000, though not alleging that it was paid upon the consideration of the conveyance, or that it had any connection with it.
 The conveyance makes no reference to the payment of the $3,000 at the time of its execution, although it was much larger than the sum of $500, which, by the term of the conveyance, was to be paid at the signing of it. From which fact, we think, it may be assumed, in the absence of any allegations to the contrary, that said sum passed from him to her, if it passed at all, in connection with other dealings between them. If he at the time paid, in addition to the $500, the sum of $3,000, which was more than he was required to pay in all by the provisions of the agreement, it is inconceivable that such fact should have been ignored in the drafting *Page 113
 and execution of the conveyance, and a consideration inserted therein altogether different therefrom.
 The bill likewise alleges that, after the execution of the conveyance, and before the entry of the judgment, the appellant from time to time paid to Mrs. Frank in the aggregate the further sum of $1,500, but this allegation, like the one we have just referred to, fails to state that it was paid as part of the consideration that he was to pay her for the property under the agreement.
 The conveyance shows that, at the time of the execution, only $500 was paid by the appellant. As we have said, Mrs. Frank was authorized to further encumber the property, and this she did by the confession of the judgment to Messrs. Costigan and Talbott for the sum of $1,800, and as the amount of the judgment did not exceed the amount to which she was authorized to increase the encumbrance upon the property, and as the appellant was to assume all authorized encumbrances placed by her upon the property, the judgment so confessed in favor of Messrs. Costigan and Talbott was an encumbrance, within the meaning of the agreement, authorized to be placed upon the property by her, which was to be assumed by the appellant if he by the performance of the other conditions ever became the owner of the property.
 To discuss the other questions raised by the appellant would, we think, prolong this opinion without serving any useful purpose, and, therefore, as we agree with the learned court below in the conclusion reached by him, the order appealed from will be affirmed.
 Order affirmed, with costs. *Page 114


text:
 26.10.2015
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 C 354/37
 Arrêt du Tribunal du 10 septembre 2015 — Laverana/OHMI (ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)
 (Affaire T-608/14) (1)
 ([«Marque communautaire - Demande de marque communautaire figurative ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION - Motif absolu de refus - Caractère descriptif - Article 7, paragraphe 1, sous c), du règlement (CE) no 207/2009»])
 (2015/C 354/44)
 Langue de procédure: l’allemand
 Parties
 Partie requérante: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Allemagne) (représentants: J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch et D. Chatterjee, avocats)
 Partie défenderesse: Office de l’harmonisation dans le marché intérieur (marques, dessins et modèles) (représentants: D. Walicka et D. Botis, agents)
 Objet
 Recours formé contre la décision de la quatrième chambre de recours de l’OHMI du 2 juin 2014 (affaire R 121/2014-4), concernant une demande d’enregistrement du signe figuratif ORGANIC WITH PLANT FLUID FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION comme marque communautaire.
 Dispositif
 1)
 Le recours est rejeté.
 2)
 Laverana GmbH & Co. KG est condamnée aux dépens.
 (1) JO C 361 du 13.10.2014.