type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n Payments Made at the\n Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and\n Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n September 2005\n\n Reference Number: 2005-40-148\n\n\n\n\n This report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process\n and information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted from this document.\n\n\n\n Web Site / http://www.tigta.gov\n\x0c DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\n\n\n\n\nTREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL\n FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n September 28, 2005\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR COMMISSIONER, WAGE AND INVESTMENT DIVISION\n\n\n\n FROM: Pamela J. Gardiner\n Deputy Inspector General for Audit\n\n SUBJECT: Final Audit Report \xe2\x80\x93 Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance\n Centers Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n (Audit # 200540032)\n\n This report presents the results of our review of whether Internal Revenue Service (IRS) controls\n ensure timely and accurate processing of taxpayer payments made at Taxpayer Assistance\n Centers (TAC).\n\n Synopsis\n The IRS has local offices called TACs that assist taxpayers in interpreting tax laws and\n regulations, preparing certain individual tax returns, resolving inquiries on taxpayer accounts,\n accepting payments, and providing various other services designed to minimize the burden on\n taxpayers in satisfying their tax obligations. The Field Assistance Office in the Wage and\n Investment (W&I) Division has responsibility for overseeing the TACs.\n During Fiscal Year 2004, the TACs received over 977,000 payments from taxpayers, including\n both cash and noncash remittances. A review of a judgmental sample of 698 cash and noncash\n payments received during Calendar Years 2002 through 2005 for 14 selected TACs showed that\n 688 (99 percent) were appropriately posted to the taxpayers\xe2\x80\x99 accounts. We could not determine\n if 10 were posted because we did not have sufficient information to research the taxpayers\xe2\x80\x99\n accounts (either the taxpayers did not have identification numbers assigned yet or we could not\n determine the correct identification numbers).\n We did not identify missing payments or significant control breakdowns in the processing of\n payments received by the TACs. However, we identified instances when internal controls were\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\nnot always effective (e.g., internal controls over the security of assets and the documentation of\ntransactions). This happened because employees were not following procedures.\nIn 253 instances involving 219 of the 698 reviewed payments, TAC employees did not follow\nprescribed procedures associated with payment documentation. Twenty-five (69 percent) of\n36 employees1 did not follow guidelines concerning proper security over taxpayer payments.\nThe dollar value of the 219 payments identified with 1 or more errors was $5,721,324.95.\nHowever, no taxpayers were adversely affected by these errors.\nWe also determined the Integrated Data Retrieval System2 profiles for 23 (66 percent) of\n35 employees with open Receipt for Payment of Taxes (Form 809) receipt books in the 14 TACs\nvisited had access to sensitive command codes. Nine of the 23 employees used the sensitive\ncommands to access 93 taxpayer accounts; 6 of the 9 were located in 1 TAC. This occurred\nbecause management did not ensure the profiles for employees with open Form 809 receipt\nbooks had been appropriately restricted and were not monitoring the command codes used by\nthese employees. We did not identify any specific improprieties from these accesses.\n\nRecommendations\nThe Commissioner, W&I Division, should reinforce the importance of complying with internal\ncontrols over payments and ensure the Integrated Data Retrieval System profiles of all\nemployees with open Form 809 receipt books are appropriately restricted.\n\nResponse\nThe IRS agreed with our recommendations and appreciated our acknowledgement that payments\nmade at the TACs are generally timely and accurately processed. They stated this underscores\nthe IRS\xe2\x80\x99 strong commitment to ensure internal controls over processing payments in its TACs\nare effective and operating as intended. The IRS will provide additional training to all TAC\nmanagers that will include the proper use of the restrictive IDRS command code and definer\ncodes. Management will also periodically emphasize adherence to procedures. In addition, the\nIRS has corrected the profiles of the employees who had open Form 809 receipt books and\naccess to sensitive command codes. After completion of training, all Field Assistance Areas will\nbe required to certify that all employees with open Form 809 receipt books have restricted IDRS\nprofiles. Management\xe2\x80\x99s complete response to the draft report is included as Appendix VI.\n\n\n\n1\n Included in the 36 employees is 1 employee interviewed who was not assigned a Receipt for Payment of Taxes\n(Form 809) receipt book but who accepted noncash payments.\n2\n The Integrated Data Retrieval System is the IRS computer system capable of retrieving or updating stored\ninformation; it works in conjunction with a taxpayer\xe2\x80\x99s account records.\n 2\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n\nOffice of Audit Comment\nIRS management disagreed with the outcome measure reported for the deviations from required\nsecurity procedures affecting 219 payments totaling $5,721,324.95. The IRS believes this is not\na valid representation because our review reflected that no taxpayers were adversely affected and\nthe deviations did not impact the timely and accurate processing of the payment. However, we\nbelieve these deviations denote an increased risk of theft, loss, or misuse for the payments\naffected during the time the procedures were not being followed.\nCopies of this report are also being sent to the IRS managers affected by the report\nrecommendations. Please contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or\nMichael R. Phillips, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Wage and Investment Income\nPrograms), at (202) 927-0597.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\nBackground ..........................................................................................................Page 1\n\nResults of Review ...............................................................................................Page 4\n The Majority of Payments Accepted at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Were Timely and Accurately Processed, but Internal Controls Could\n Be Strengthened ............................................................................................Page 4\n Recommendation 1:..........................................................Page 6\n\n Employees With Open Form 809 Receipt Books Have Access\n to Sensitive Command Codes .......................................................................Page 7\n Recommendations 2 and 3: ................................................Page 8\n\n\nAppendices\n Appendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology ........................Page 9\n Appendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Major Contributors to This Report ........................................Page 12\n Appendix III \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution List .......................................................Page 13\n Appendix IV \xe2\x80\x93 Outcome Measures...............................................................Page 14\n Appendix V \xe2\x80\x93 Taxpayer Assistance Centers Visited and the\n Selection Criteria and Methodology .............................................................Page 16\n Appendix VI \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report ......................Page 18\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n\n Background\n\nDuring Fiscal Year 2004, taxpayers chose to walk into local Internal Revenue Service (IRS)\noffices called Taxpayer Assistance Centers (TAC)1 to make over 977,000 payments on their\nindividual and business accounts. Payments were made in cash, checks, and money orders and\nallowed taxpayers to meet their tax obligations relating to outstanding tax balances due on tax\nreturns and the Heavy Highway Vehicle Use Tax Return (Form 2290). Form 2290 is required to\nfile tax due on highway motor vehicles over a taxable gross weight of 55,000 pounds used during\nthe period.\nWhen payments are made at the TACs, employees must process the payments and send them to\nthe IRS Submission Processing sites, the IRS data processing centers. Figure 1 provides the flow\nof payments from the TACs to taxpayer accounts (Submission Processing site is abbreviated as\nSPS).\n Figure 1: Taxpayer Payment Flow\n\n\n\n\n Source: IRS Manual of guidelines and procedures.\n\nFor payments made at the TACs, the IRS has established specific procedures and internal\ncontrols to ensure the security of the payments and the accurate posting of the monies to the\nappropriate tax accounts.\n\n1\n The TACs assist taxpayers by interpreting tax laws and regulations, preparing certain individual tax returns,\nresolving inquiries on taxpayer accounts, accepting payments, and providing various other services designed to\nminimize the burden on taxpayers in satisfying their tax obligations.\n Page 1\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The Receipt for Payment of Taxes (Form 809) is the only official receipt for payment of\n taxes. Forms 809 must be issued for all cash payments and may be issued for\n noncash payments such as checks or money orders if the taxpayer insists on receiving an\n official receipt. Only authorized employees may accept cash payments and issue the\n Forms 809. To reduce the potential for fraud or embezzlement, employees with an open\n Form 809 receipt book should not have the ability to also adjust taxpayer accounts using the\n Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS).2\n The Form 809 is a 4-part form. Part 2 is given to the taxpayer after completion, Parts 1 and 3\n are sent to the Submission Processing site with the payment, and Part 4 is retained by the\n TAC for its records.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 A cash payment must be converted to a money order or cashier\xe2\x80\x99s check prior to shipment to a\n Submission Processing site for processing and posting to the taxpayer\xe2\x80\x99s account. Employees\n must convert a cash payment to a money order or cashier\xe2\x80\x99s check on the day the payment is\n received or as soon as possible the next business day.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Employees accepting a payment must prepare a posting document if one is not received from\n the taxpayer with the payment,3 record the payment on a Daily Report of Collection Activity\n (Form 795), and immediately place the payment in a locked container. Payments and\n Forms 795 should be listed on a Document Transmittal (Form 3210), when there are multiple\n Forms 795 in a remittance package, and sent to the Submission Processing sites on the day\n the payments were received or no later than the next business day via traceable, overnight\n mail.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Each Submission Processing site should acknowledge receipt of the remittance package\n within 5 workdays. If the TAC does not receive an acknowledgement, it should investigate\n within 10 workdays to determine the status of the shipment.\nIRS guidelines require that at least one employee in each TAC be able to accept cash payments.\nHowever, the IRS granted a deviation to some TACs with only one or two employees because it\ndetermined that adjusting taxpayer accounts was needed more than accepting cash payments.\nMost offices granted a deviation from accepting cash payments reported receiving few cash\npayments in the past.\nThe Field Assistance Office in the Wage and Investment (W&I) Division has responsibility for\noverseeing the TACs. This review was performed at the W&I Division Headquarters in\nAtlanta, Georgia, and at 14 TACs nationwide during the period December 2004 through\n\n\n2\n The IDRS is the IRS computer system capable of retrieving or updating stored information; it works in conjunction\nwith a taxpayer\xe2\x80\x99s account records.\n3\n The posting document can be either a tax return or form, the tear-off portion of a notice sent to the taxpayer, a\npayment voucher, a Payment Posting Voucher (Form 3244), or a Form 809.\n Page 2\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\nMay 2005.4 This audit focused only on the procedures and controls at the TACs and did not test\nthe procedures and controls at the Submission Processing sites. The audit was conducted in\naccordance with Government Auditing Standards. Detailed information on our audit objective,\nscope, and methodology is presented in Appendix I. Major contributors to the report are listed in\nAppendix II.\n\n\n\n\n4\n See Appendix V for a list of the TACs visited.\n Page 3\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n\n Results of Review\n\nThe Majority of Payments Accepted at the Taxpayer Assistance\nCenters Were Timely and Accurately Processed, but Internal Controls\nCould Be Strengthened\n\nWe did not identify missing payments or significant control breakdowns with the processing of\npayments received by the TACs. A review of a judgmental sample of 698 payments (345 cash\nand 353 noncash, such as checks and money orders) received by the TACs during\nCalendar Years 2002 through 2005 for 14 selected TACs showed that 688 (99 percent) payments\nwere posted to taxpayers\xe2\x80\x99 accounts. We could not determine if 10 payments were posted\nbecause we did not have sufficient information to research the taxpayers\xe2\x80\x99 accounts (either the\ntaxpayers did not have identification numbers assigned yet or we could not determine the correct\nidentification numbers).\nAll 34 Form 809 receipt books, all 1,700 Form 809 receipts, and cash payments were accounted\nfor in 13 of the 14 TACs visited. In one TAC visited, the employee with the Form 809 receipt\nbook was not there the day of our visit and no one else in the office had access to the receipt\nbook.\nIn addition, some offices have implemented practices that appear to help save resources, provide\nbetter security over cash payments, or help ensure payments are posted accurately. For example,\noffices with large volumes of cash consolidate their cash conversions to save conversion costs\nand employee time. Another office has a reviewer compare all payment-related documentation\nto help ensure all required information was recorded correctly.\nAlthough procedures and internal controls are in place to ensure payments are timely processed\nand accurately posted, we identified instances when internal controls were not always effective\n(e.g., internal controls over the security of assets and the documentation of transactions). This\nhappened because employees were not following procedures.\nThe Government Accountability Office has also reported instances of internal control\nweaknesses that affect the safeguarding of taxpayer receipts and information at the TACs.5\nSpecifically, it reported that some offices did not follow procedures to safeguard taxpayer\n\n\n5\n Management Report: Improvements Needed in IRS\xe2\x80\x99s Accounting Procedures and Internal Controls\n(GAO-02-746R, dated July 2002), Management Report: Improvements Needed in IRS\xe2\x80\x99s Internal Controls\n(GAO-03-562R, dated May 2003), and Management Report: Improvements Needed in IRS\xe2\x80\x99s Internal Controls and\nAccounting Procedures (GAO-04-553R, dated April 2004).\n Page 4\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\nreceipts and information. In addition, in one of two TACs visited, employees were allowed to\nstore personal belongings with cash payments and Form 809 receipts books. Additionally, the\nGovernment Accountability Office reported that some TACs did not display signs advising\ntaxpayers of the services provided or that exact change is needed when making cash payments.\n\nProcedural requirements were not always followed; however, these errors did not\naffect the timely and accurate processing of the payments\n\nIn 253 instances involving 698 reviewed payments, TAC employees did not follow prescribed\nprocedures associated with payment documentation. Twenty-five (69 percent) of 36 employees6\ndid not follow guidelines concerning proper security over taxpayer payments. In addition,\nreceipts of remittance packages were not always monitored. While the employees did not\nconsistently follow all established procedures, these deviations did not affect the timely and\naccurate processing of the payments:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 For the 698 payments tested, TAC employees:\n o Could not provide all payment documentation for 118 (17 percent) payments.\n o Either did not record any or did not record all the required cash conversion information\n on Part 4 of the Form 809 for 122 (35 percent) of 345 cash payments.\n o Did not record all of the required information on the Forms 795 or the information\n recorded was incorrect for 13 (2 percent) payments.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Of the 35 employees with open Form 809 receipt books and 1 employee interviewed who\n accepted noncash payments, 25 (69 percent) did not secure either the Form 809 receipt book,\n cash, checks, or money orders as prescribed by IRS guidelines. Those guidelines state that\n proper security over taxpayer payments \xe2\x80\x9crequires a locked perimeter and a locked container.\xe2\x80\x9d\n A locked container is defined as \xe2\x80\x9cany metal container with riveted or welded seams which is\n locked and to which keys and combinations are controlled.\xe2\x80\x9d The Form 809 receipt book\n carries the same security requirements as cash payments. These 25 employees were located\n in 7 of the 14 TACs visited; 15 of them were located in 1 office.\n o One employee placed checks and money orders received from taxpayers in a manila\n folder and placed it next to the employee\xe2\x80\x99s computer until time to prepare the shipping\n package.\n o One employee stored the checks and money orders loose in an unlocked desk drawer\n until time to prepare the shipping package.\n\n\n6\n Included in the 36 employees is 1 employee interviewed who was not assigned a Form 809 receipt book but who\naccepted noncash payments.\n Page 5\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n o Three employees in one TAC did not secure cash payments in the safe overnight.\n o Five employees did not properly secure the Form 809 receipt books. Four did not secure\n the Form 809 receipt books in the safe overnight, and one secured the Form 809 receipt\n book in a canvas bag in a locked overhead cabinet. Neither the canvas bag nor the\n overhead cabinet meets the IRS specifications for an appropriately locked container.\n o Fifteen employees in one TAC stored the checks and money orders in a locked canvas\n bag in a work station\xe2\x80\x99s overhead cabinet. Neither the canvas bag nor the overhead\n cabinet meets IRS specifications for an appropriately locked container.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Timely acknowledgement of the remittance packages by the Submission Processing site was\n not monitored in 8 (57 percent) of 14 offices. The Submission Processing sites should\n acknowledge receipt of the remittance package within 5 workdays; if this acknowledgement\n is not received, the TAC should follow up within 10 workdays to determine if the package\n was received.\nThe dollar value of the 219 payments identified with 1 or more errors was $5,721,324.95.\nAlso, in 5 (36 percent) of 14 offices, the TACs did not display proper signs advising taxpayers\nthat exact change was needed when making cash payments or advising of the services available\nat the TAC. The TAC is required to display signs in both English and Spanish advising\ntaxpayers of the services available at the TAC and that, if a cash payment is being made, exact\nchange is needed.\nWhile some internal control procedures were not followed in every TAC visited, there are\ncompensating controls built into the payment process that should reduce the risk. For example,\nthe Submission Processing sites review the remittance packages and issue a Teller\xe2\x80\x99s Error\nAdvice (Form 5919) to alert the TAC managers of any errors or delays identified. However,\ngood internal controls ensure:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Security over assets such as cash, which is vulnerable to risk of loss or unauthorized use.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 All transactions and other significant events are clearly documented, all documentation and\n records are properly managed and maintained, and the documentation is readily available for\n examination.\nWhen a control environment diminishes, the risk increases that payments can be lost, stolen,\nmisused, or destroyed.\n\n\nRecommendation\n\nRecommendation 1: The Commissioner, W&I Division, should reinforce and emphasize the\nimportance of complying with internal controls over payments through alerts and additional\ntraining.\n Page 6\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management stated additional training would be\n provided to all TAC managers and they would periodically emphasize adherence to\n procedures. IRS management disagreed with the outcome measure reported for the\n deviations from required security procedures affecting 219 payments totaling\n $5,721,324.95. The IRS believes this is not a valid representation because our review\n reflected that no taxpayers were adversely affected and the deviations did not impact the\n timely and accurate processing of the payment.\n Office of Audit Comment: We believe the 219 payments totaling $5,721,324.95\n indicate an increased risk of theft, loss, or misuse of the payments affected during the\n time the procedures were not being followed.\n\n\nEmployees With Open Form 809 Receipt Books Have Access to\nSensitive Command Codes\n\nField Assistance Office management did not ensure employees assigned an open Form 809\nreceipt book had limited access to taxpayer accounts on the IDRS. In the 14 offices visited,\n23 (66 percent) of 35 employees with open Form 809 receipt books had access to sensitive\ncommand codes that could be used to adjust taxpayer accounts on the IDRS. Based on research\nof the IDRS, we determined that, during the period January 3 through February 11, 2005, 9 of\nthe 23 employees with sensitive commands in their profiles used the sensitive command codes to\naccess (i.e., research or adjust) 93 taxpayer accounts. Six of the nine employees were located in\none TAC.\n This happened because TAC managers were not limiting\n employees\xe2\x80\x99 access to sensitive command codes and were not\n monitoring the use for employees with open Form 809 receipt\n books. In addition, Field Assistance Office management did not\n identify this situation in IRS-provided managerial reviews for\n 5 (36 percent) of 14 offices. Internal guidelines require that\n employees with open Form 809 receipt books not be given\n sensitive IDRS command codes. This ensures employees\n responsible for accepting and processing payments do not also\n have the capability to record them.\nManagers must ensure only appropriate employees have Form 809 receipt books and those\nemployees with open Form 809 receipt books have only research command codes in their\nIDRS profiles. A command code is considered \xe2\x80\x9csensitive\xe2\x80\x9d if it can be used to adjust account\nbalances, change the status of a tax module account, or affect the tax liability.\n\n\n\n Page 7\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\nTo address the issue of employees with open Form 809 receipt books having access to sensitive\ncommand codes, the W&I Division, in conjunction with the IDRS Security Program Office,\ndeveloped a new IDRS control that automatically restricts employees\xe2\x80\x99 access to only\nnonsensitive command codes. As of December 2004, TAC managers had access to this new\nrestrictive command code. Managers input a definer code to an employee\xe2\x80\x99s IDRS profile that\nrestricts the use of those commands that have previously been identified as sensitive and should\nbe restricted from use by those with open Form 809 receipt books.\nHowever, some managers had trouble using the restrictive IDRS command code or used the\nwrong definer (which would not restrict the use of the correct, sensitive command codes). One\noffice manager reported that attempts to use the restrictive command code in November were\nunsuccessful and no further attempts were made. That manager was manually deleting\ninappropriate IDRS command codes but had not identified and removed all the sensitive\ncommand codes.\nAlthough we did not identify any specific improprieties associated with the accesses to the\n93 taxpayer accounts, the risk for fraud or embezzlement increases when employees accept cash\npayments and have the ability to adjust taxpayer accounts. Management needs to ensure\nmonitoring of internal controls over assets is consistent with this risk.\n\n\nRecommendations\nThe Commissioner, W&I Division, should:\n\nRecommendation 2: Require Field Assistance Office management to provide additional\ntraining or guidance on the use of the restrictive IDRS command code and the definer code, to\nensure all TAC managers understand how to appropriately use the command code, and\nemphasize the importance of properly restricting the profiles for employees with open\nForm 809 receipt books.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management stated the training provided to all TAC\n managers would include the proper use of the restrictive IDRS command code and\n definer codes.\nRecommendation 3: Ensure all TAC managers have verified that all employees with open\nForm 809 receipt books have restricted IDRS profiles.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: IRS management stated they have corrected the profiles\n of the employees who had open Form 809 receipt books and access to sensitive command\n codes. After completion of the training, all Field Assistance Areas will be required to\n certify that all employees with open Form 809 receipt books have restricted IDRS\n profiles.\n\n\n Page 8\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n Appendix I\n\n Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology\n\nThe overall objective of this review was to determine whether Internal Revenue Service (IRS)\ncontrols ensure timely and accurate processing of taxpayer payments made at the Taxpayer\nAssistance Centers (TAC).1 To accomplish this objective, we:\nI. Determined whether adequate controls over payments made at the TACs had been\n established.\n A. Discussed procedures with Field Assistance Office2 management to determine the\n established policies and procedures or whether any new guidelines had been issued.\n B. Obtained and analyzed the established policies and procedures for accepting and\n processing payments received at the TACs.\n C. Determined how TAC managers should be using a new Integrated Data Retrieval\n System (IDRS)3 command code to restrict access by employees with Receipt for\n Payment of Taxes (Form 809) receipt books. We also determined when the new\n IDRS restrictive command code was made available for managers to use.\n D. Determined the requirement for operational reviews by local and national managers.\n We obtained and reviewed a judgmental sample of the operational reviews for\n Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 that were provided by the IRS. We did not determine\n how many reviews were actually performed; however, we requested the most recent\n review for the office visited. Some local offices could not provide the requested\n copies and those copies were requested from Field Assistance management.\n\n\n\n\n1\n The TACs assist taxpayers by interpreting tax laws and regulations, preparing certain individual tax returns,\nresolving inquiries on taxpayer accounts, accepting payments, and providing various other services designed to\nminimize the burden on taxpayers in satisfying their tax obligations.\n2\n The Field Assistance Office in the Wage and Investment Division has responsibility for overseeing the TACs.\n3\n The IDRS is the IRS computer system capable of retrieving or updating stored information; it works in conjunction\nwith a taxpayer\xe2\x80\x99s account records.\n\n Page 9\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n E. Followed up on the corrective actions the IRS has implemented to address\n weaknesses in security and processing of payments previously identified by the\n Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)4 and the Government\n Accountability Office.5\n\nII. Evaluated the controls over and accountability for cash payments.\n A. Selected a judgmental sample of 14 TACs from a universe of over 400.6 See\n Appendix V for a listing of TACs visited and the criteria and methodology for\n selection.\n B. Discussed office policy and procedures for accepting, recording, and submitting cash\n payments with the TAC manager or the employee assigned the Form 809 receipt\n book.\n C. Conducted unannounced Form 809 receipt book verifications at the selected TACs,\n determined controls over the receipt and assignment of the Form 809 receipt books,\n and assessed the security over cash payments. We copied all Forms 809 issued from\n the assigned open Form 809 receipt books. Some employees had their books\n assigned to them for several years, so the 402 receipts issued for cash and noncash\n payments that we copied and researched were made during Calendar Years 2002\n through 2005. One TAC received large amounts of cash; therefore, we selected a\n judgmental sample of nine employees and copied their issued Forms 809.\n D. Performed IDRS research on all selected Forms 809 to determine whether the\n payments were processed to the correct account in the proper amount.\nIII. Evaluated the controls over and accountability for noncash payments (checks and money\n orders).\n A. Discussed with the group manager or TAC employee policies and procedures used for\n receipt of noncash payments.\n\n\n4\n Taxpayer Remittances Were Generally Safeguarded Within the Cincinnati Submission Processing Site;\nHowever, Perimeter Security Needs Improvement (Reference Number 2004-30-183, dated September 2004),\nThe Internal Revenue Service Needs to Improve Oversight of Remittance Processing Operations (Reference\nNumber 2003-40-002, dated October 2002), The Internal Revenue Service Needs to Ensure Remittance Processing\nControls Are Being Followed (Reference Number 2002-30-103, dated May 2002), and Controls Over Houston\nReceipts Left Taxpayer Cash Payments Vulnerable to Embezzlement (Reference Number 2001-40-149, dated\nAugust 2001).\n5\n Management Report: Improvements Needed in IRS\xe2\x80\x99s Accounting Procedures and Internal Controls\n(GAO-02-746R, dated July 2002), Management Report: Improvements Needed in IRS\xe2\x80\x99s Internal Controls\n (GAO-03-562R, dated May 2003), Management Report: Improvements Needed in IRS\xe2\x80\x99s Internal Controls and\nAccounting Procedures (GAO-04-553R, dated April 2004).\n6\n The IRS could not provide us with the exact number of TACs.\n\n Page 10\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n B. Obtained the most recent Daily Report of Collection Activity (Form 795) at each\n TAC visited to research and compare to the issued Forms 809.\n C. Obtained a judgmental sample of at least 10 Forms 7957 acknowledged as received by\n a Submission Processing site (an IRS data processing center) and any Teller\xe2\x80\x99s Error\n Advice (Form 5919) associated with the Forms 795 and determined how the\n managers used the Forms 5919 to improve cash/noncash payment operations. We\n selected the 174 Forms 795 by pulling a sample of forms from file drawers and\n folders provided by the IRS or by asking the TAC to provide the requested copies.\n We attempted to select at least 10 Forms 795 for Fiscal Year 2004 from each of the\n 14 TACs visited; however, we discovered some of the copied Forms were for\n Fiscal Year 2005. We included those in our sample.\n D. Selected a judgmental sample of 296 payments from the Forms 795 selected in\n Step III.C. and performed IDRS research to determine whether the payments were\n applied to the correct taxpayer accounts in the correct amount. Since this would be a\n sample of payments from a sample of Forms 795, we did not use any specific\n sampling criteria. We used our judgment to select the payments researched.\nIV. Obtained an extract of 173,901 IDRS accesses for the period January 3 to\n February 11, 2005. Researched that extract for any accesses made by the 35 employees\n identified with Form 809 receipt books assigned to them. We also obtained a printout of\n the employee\xe2\x80\x99s IDRS profile and determined if the employee\xe2\x80\x99s profile had been\n appropriately restricted for access to sensitive command codes.\nV. Contacted the TIGTA Office of Investigations to determine whether there were any\n allegations or reports of missing or stolen payments. We had planned to use this\n information to help plan which offices to include in our field visits. However, there were\n no current taxpayer complaints or reports of missing or stolen payments.\nVI. Discussed discrepancies with appropriate TAC managers.\n\n\n\n\n7\n We selected a judgmental sample because the size of the universe of Forms 795 could not be determined. This is a\npaper-based system that would require visiting each Submission Processing site and manually counting the\nForms 795 to get a total.\n\n Page 11\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n Appendix II\n\n Major Contributors to This Report\n\nMichael R. Phillips, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Wage and Investment Income\nPrograms)\nAugusta R. Cook, Director\nPaula W. Johnson, Audit Manager\nSharon Shepherd, Lead Auditor\nLynn Faulkner, Senior Auditor\nJack Forbus, Senior Auditor\nJerome Antoine, Auditor\nJean Bell, Auditor\nGeraldine Vaughn, Auditor\n\n\n\n\n Page 12\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n Appendix III\n\n Report Distribution List\n\nCommissioner C\nOffice of the Commissioner \xe2\x80\x93 Attn: Chief of Staff C\nDeputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement SE\nDeputy Commissioner, Wage and Investment Division SE:W\nDirector, Customer Assistance, Relationships, and Education, Wage and Investment Division\nSE:W:CAR\nActing Director, Strategy and Finance, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:S\nActing Chief, Performance Improvement, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:S:PI\nDirector, Field Assistance, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:CAR:FA\nActing Director, Stakeholder Partnerships, Education, and Communication, Wage and\nInvestment Division SE:W:CAR:SPEC\nChief Counsel CC\nNational Taxpayer Advocate TA\nDirector, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA\nDirector, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O\nOffice of Management Controls OS:CFO:AR:M\nAudit Liaison: Acting Senior Operations Advisor, Wage and Investment Division SE:W:S\n\n\n\n\n Page 13\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n Appendix IV\n\n Outcome Measures\n\nThis appendix presents detailed information on the measurable impact that our recommended\ncorrective actions will have on tax administration. These benefits will be incorporated into our\nSemiannual Report to the Congress.\n\nType and Value of Outcome Measure:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Protection of Resources \xe2\x80\x93 Potential; 219 taxpayer payments totaling $5,721,324.95 affected\n (see page 4).\n\nMethodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefits:\n\nWe tested a judgmental sample of 698 cash and noncash payments received at 14 TACs during\nCalendar Years 2002 through 2005. We selected the offices visited based on Treasury Inspector\nGeneral for Tax Administration resources and the volume of payments received by the TACs.\nWe copied and researched all Receipts for Payment of Taxes (Form 809) issued from the current\nopen Form 809 receipt books held by the employees present in 11 of the 14 TACs visited\n(1 employee with open Form 809 receipt books was out the day of our visit). In one TAC,\nbecause of the large number of employees with Form 809 receipt books, we selected a\njudgmental sample of Form 809 receipt books and copied all issued receipts. In another office,\nwe selected a sample of the issued receipts from the two open Form 809 receipt books.1 We also\nselected and researched a judgmental sample of payments recorded on a judgmental sample of\nDaily Reports of Collection Activity (Form 795) for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005.\nWe classified as errors those payments that were not shipped timely to the appropriate\nSubmission Processing site (an Internal Revenue Service data processing center), were not\ntimely posted to the taxpayer\xe2\x80\x99s account, or were not posted to the taxpayer\xe2\x80\x99s account in the same\namount or to the same tax period indicated on the Form 809 or the Form 795. We also classified\nas errors instances in which the documents did not contain the required information, the recorded\ninformation was incorrect, payments were not properly secured, or other processing time periods\nwere not met (e.g., Forms 809 that did not contain the conversion data, Forms 809 on which the\n\n\n1\n In the remaining 1 of 14 TACs visited, the employee with the Form 809 receipt book was not there the day of our\nvisit and no one else in the office had access to the receipt book.\n\n Page 14\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\ntaxpayer\xe2\x80\x99s identification number or other information was incorrect, or when the TAC did not\nmonitor the acknowledgement by the Submission Processing site that the remittance package had\nbeen received).\nOf the 698 payments researched, 219 contained at least 1 error. In addition, 25 employees in\n7 of the TACs did not properly secure the Form 809 receipt book, cash, or noncash payments in a\nrequired locked metal container during the day or in a safe overnight.\n\nType and Value of Outcome Measure:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Taxpayer Privacy and Security \xe2\x80\x93 Potential; 93 taxpayers affected (see page 7).\n\nMethodology Used to Measure the Reported Benefit:\n\nWe identified the employees with open Form 809 receipt books in the 14 TACs visited and\nresearched their Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS)2 accesses for the period January 3 to\nFebruary 11, 2005. Using the table of sensitive command codes identified by the Internal\nRevenue Service that employees with open Form 809 receipt books should not have access to,\nwe identified those employees who had access to sensitive command codes and those who used\nsensitive command codes. We also obtained printouts of the IDRS profiles which showed the\ncommand codes the employees had access to and whether their profiles had been appropriately\nrestricted.\nWe identified 23 out of 35 employees with open Form 809 receipt books whose profiles had not\nbeen appropriately restricted and who had access to sensitive command codes. Further, we\nidentified 9 employees who actually used sensitive command codes to access 93 taxpayer\naccounts.\n\n\n\n\n2\n The IDRS is the IRS computer system capable of retrieving or updating stored information; it works in conjunction\nwith a taxpayer\xe2\x80\x99s account records.\n\n Page 15\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n Appendix V\n\n\n Taxpayer Assistance Centers Visited\nand the Selection Criteria and Methodology\n\n\n Las Vegas,\n Nevada Chicago Ridge,\n Illinois Lancaster,\n Pennsylvania\n Morton Grove,\n Illinois\n\n\n\n\n Cherry Hill,\n New Jersey\n\n\n\n\n El Monte, California\n Long Beach, California\n Los Angeles, California Birmingham,\n Alabama\n\n\n\n Houston NW, Atlanta (Koger\n Texas Center), Georgia\n Houston SE, Atlanta (Summit\n Texas Building), Georgia\n Gainesville,\n Georgia\n\n\n\n\n Page 16\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n\nSelection Criteria and Methodology\n\nWe used the following criteria when selecting the Taxpayer Assistance Centers (TAC) for\ntesting.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 TACs visited during another Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)\n audit.1\n Cherry Hill, New Jersey.\n Chicago Ridge, Illinois.\n Houston (Northwest Office), Texas.\n Houston (Southeast Office), Texas.\n Lancaster, Pennsylvania.\n Morton Grove, Illinois.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Coverage in all five Area Offices. The TACs are the responsibility of the Field Assistance\n Office in the Customer Assistance, Relationships, and Education function within the Wage\n and Investment Division and are organized into five Area Offices.\n AREA 1: Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Lancaster, Pennsylvania.\n AREA 2: Chicago Ridge and Morton Grove, Illinois.\n AREA 3: Atlanta (Koger Center and Summit Building) and Gainesville, Georgia;\n Birmingham, Alabama.\n AREA 4: Houston (Northwest and Southeast Offices), Texas.\n AREA 5: El Monte, Long Beach, and Los Angeles, California; Las Vegas, Nevada.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Volume of payments received.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Proximity to the TIGTA Atlanta, Georgia, office.\nWe also contacted the TIGTA Office of Investigations to determine if there were any open or\nclosed investigations that would prohibit testing in a TAC.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Coordination and Monitoring Is Needed for Continued Improvement in the Tax Return Preparation Process\nat the Taxpayer Assistance Centers (Reference Number 2005-40-147, dated September 2005).\n\n Page 17\n\x0c Payments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n Appendix VI\n\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n Page 18\n\x0cPayments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n\n Page 19\n\x0cPayments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n\n Page 20\n\x0cPayments Made at the Taxpayer Assistance Centers\n Are Generally Timely and Accurately Processed\n\n\n\n\n Page 21\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 4.2.2012
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 C 32/14
 Eelotsusetaotlus, mille on esitanud Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgia) 21. novembril 2011 — DKV Belgium versus Association delge des consommateurs test-achats ASBL
 (Kohtuasi C-577/11)
 2012/C 32/25
 Kohtumenetluse keel: prantsuse
 Eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus
 Cour d’appel de Bruxelles
 Põhikohtuasja pooled
 Apellant: DKV Belgium
 Vastustaja: Association delge des consommateurs test-achats ASBL
 Eelotsuse küsimused
 Kas ühelt poolt direktiivi 92/49/EMÜ (1) artikli 29 [teist lõiku] ja artikli 39 [lõiget] 3 ning direktiivi 73/239/EMÜ (2) artikli 8 lõike 3 [kolmandat lõiku] ja teiselt poolt ELTL artikleid 49 ja 56 tuleb tõlgendada nii, et need keelavad liikmesriikidel selliste ravikindlustuslepingute raames, mis ei ole seotud kutsetegevusega, kehtestada õigusnorme, mille kohaselt kindlustusmakset, maksuvabastust ja kindlustushüvitist saab iga-aastase kindlustusmakse päeval kohandada üksnes:
 —
 tarbijahinnaindeksi alusel;
 —
 ühe või mitme konkreetse näitaja alusel ja nende teenustega seotud kulude suhtes, mis on kaetud eraõiguslike ravikindlustuslepingutega [nn meditsiinilised näitajad], juhul kui selle näitaja või nende näitajate muutumine ületab tarbijahinnaindeksit;
 —
 loa alusel, mille võib anda kindlustusettevõtjaid kontrolliv ametiasutus, kelle poole asjaomane kindlustusselts on pöördunud, kui see ametiasutus tuvastab, et selle ettevõtja kindlustusmakse tariif, olenemata eelmistes punktides nimetatud näitajate alusel arvutatud muudatustest, põhjustab või võib põhjustada kahju, võimaldades tal seega võtta meetmeid nende tariifide tasakaalustamiseks, mis võivad sisaldada kindlustuskaitse tingimuste muutmist.
 (1) Nõukogu 18. juuni 1992. aasta direktiiv 92/49/EMÜ otsekindlustustegevusega, välja arvatud elukindlustustegevusega seotud õigusnormide kooskõlastamise kohta, millega muudetakse direktiive 73/239/EMÜ ja 88/357/EMÜ (kolmas kahjukindlustuse direktiiv) (EÜT L 228, lk 1; ELT eriväljaanne 06/01, lk 346).
 (2) Esimene Nõukogu 24. juuli 1973. aasta direktiiv otsekindlustustegevuse, välja arvatud elukindlustustegevuse alustamise ja jätkamisega seotud õigus- ja haldusnormide kooskõlastamise kohta (EÜT L 228, lk 3; ELT eriväljaanne 06/01, lk 14).


type: legislation

text:
 8.3.2012
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 69/3
 A BIZOTTSÁG 186/2012/EU VÉGREHAJTÁSI RENDELETE
 (2012. március 7.)
 egy elnevezésnek az oltalom alatt álló eredetmegjelölések és földrajzi jelzések nyilvántartásába való bejegyzéséről [Schwäbische Spätzle / Schwäbische Knöpfle (OFJ)]
 AZ EURÓPAI BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződésre,
 tekintettel a mezőgazdasági termékek és élelmiszerek földrajzi jelzéseinek és eredetmegjelöléseinek oltalmáról szóló, 2006. március 20-i 510/2006/EK tanácsi rendeletre (1) és különösen annak 7. cikke (4) bekezdésének első albekezdésére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 Az 510/2006/EK rendelet 6. cikke (2) bekezdésének első albekezdésével összhangban a Bizottság közzétette az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában Németország kérelmét a „Schwäbische Spätzle / Schwäbische Knöpfle” elnevezés bejegyzésére (2).
 (2)
 A Bizottsághoz nem érkezett az 510/2006/EK rendelet 7. cikke szerinti kifogás, ezért az említett elnevezést be kell jegyezni,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A RENDELETET:
 1. cikk
 Az e rendelet mellékletében szereplő elnevezés bejegyzésre kerül.
 2. cikk
 Ez a rendelet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetését követő huszadik napon lép hatályba.
 Ez a rendelet teljes egészében kötelező és közvetlenül alkalmazandó valamennyi tagállamban.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2012. március 7-én.
 a Bizottság részéről, az elnök nevében,
 Dacian CIOLOȘ
 a Bizottság tagja
 (1) HL L 93., 2006.3.31., 12. o.
 (2) HL C 191., 2011.7.1., 20. o.
 MELLÉKLET
 A rendelet I. mellékletében említett élelmiszerek:
 2.7. osztály: Tészta
 NÉMETORSZÁG
 Schwäbische Spätzle / Schwäbische Knöpfle (OFJ)


text:
24.6.2000 EL Επι ́σημη Εφημερι ́δα των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των C 176/11
 2. Μη ́πως η λειτουργι ́α της ενδεικτικη ́ς τιμη ́ς για το γα ́λα που Αι ́τηση για την ́εκδοση προδικαστικη ́ς αποφα ́σεως που υπε ́-
 καθορι ́ζει το Συμβου ́λιο βα ́σει του κανονισμου ́ (ΕΟΚ) 804/68 βαλε το Verwaltungsgerichtshof με δια ́ταξη της
 απαγορευ ́ει σε κρα ́τος με ́λος 30η ́ς Μαρτι ́ου 2000 στις συνεκδικαζο ́μενες υποθε ́σεις Solida
 Raiffeisen Immobilien Leasing GmbH και Tech Gate
 α) να χρησιμοποιει ́ την ενδεικτικη ́ τιμη ́ ως δει ́κτη των τρεχου- Vienna Wissenschafts- und Technologiepark GmbH κατα ́
 σω ́ν μεταβολω ́ν των τιμω ́ν που οφει ́λονται στην κοινη ́ της Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und
 αγροτικη ́ πολιτικη ́ και Burgenland
 β) να θεωρει ́ ο ́τι το γεγονο ́ς ο ́τι ́ενας συνεταιρισμο ́ς γαλακτο-
 παραγωγω ́ν στο κρα ́τος αυτο ́ ́εχει επιτυ ́χει για τα με ́λη του (Υπο ́θεση C-138/00)
 τιμε ́ς γα ́λακτος κατω ́τερες της ενδεικτικη ́ς τιμη ́ς, αλλα ́
 εγγυ ́τερες στην ενδεικτικη ́ τιμη ́ σε μια χρονικη ́ περι ́οδο
 απ' ο ́,τι σε μια α ́λλη, στηρι ́ζει το συμπε ́ρασμα ο ́τι ο (2000/C 176/19)
 συνεταιρισμο ́ς ́εχει ισχυρη ́ θε ́ση στην αγορα ́ πρα ́γμα που
 συμβα ́λλει στο να διατηρου ́νται οι τιμε ́ς σε υψηλο ́τερο
 επι ́πεδο απο ́ αυτο ́ που θα ει ́χαν φθα ́σει υπο ́ πιο αντα- Με δια ́ταξη της 30η ́ς Μαρτι ́ου 2000, η οποι ́α περιη ́λθε στη
 γωνιστικου ́ς ο ́ρους. Γραμματει ́α του ∆ικαστηρι ́ου των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των στις
 10 Απριλι ́ου 2000, το Verwaltungsgerichtshof, στο πλαι ́σιο της
 3. Πρε ́πει τα α ́ρθρα 28 ́εως 30, ΕΚ (πρω ́ην α ́ρθρα 30, 34 και 36) διαφορα ́ς μεταξυ ́ Solida Raiffeisen Immobilien Leasing GmbH
 και τα α ́ρθρα 49 και 55 (πρω ́ην α ́ρθρα 59 και 66) να και Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts- und Technologiepark
 ερμηνευθου ́ν υπο ́ την ́εννοια ο ́τι απαγορευ ́ουν σε κρα ́τος GmbH, αφενο ́ς, και της Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
 με ́λος να εφαρμο ́ζει εθνικη ́ νομοθεσι ́α ο ́πως τον Fair Trading Niederösterreich und Burgenland, αφετε ́ρου, που εκκρεμει ́
 Act 1973 και τον Competition Act 1998 κατα ́ τρο ́πο που ενω ́πιο ́ν του, ζητει ́ απο ́ το ∆ικαστη ́ριο την ́εκδοση προδικαστικη ́ς
 να απαγορευ ́εται σε συνεταιρισμο ́ γαλακτοπαραγωγω ́ν, που αποφα ́σεως επι ́ του εξη ́ς ερωτη ́ματος:
 κατε ́χει ισχυρη ́ θε ́ση στην αγορα ́, να στε ́λνει γα ́λα που
 παρα ́γεται απο ́ τα με ́λη του προκειμε ́νου να μεταποιηθει ́ απο ́
 συμβεβλημε ́νες εταιρι ́ες επ' ονο ́ματι ́ του, καθω ́ς και σε α ́λλα «Συνιστου ́ν οι παροχε ́ς, στις οποι ́ες προβαι ́νει ́ενας μη εται ́ρος σε
 κρα ́τη με ́λη, ως ενε ́ργεια στην οποι ́α προβαι ́νει ο συνεταιρισμο ́ς μια κεφαλαιουχικη ́ εταιρι ́α προκειμε ́νου να αποκτη ́σει δικαιω ́ματα
 προκειμε ́νου να εκμεταλλευθει ́ προς ο ́φελο ́ς του τη θε ́ση του καρπω ́σεως, “πα ́σης φυ ́σεως αγαθα ́ τα οποι ́α ́εχουν εισφερθει ́ η ́
 στην αγορα ́; πρε ́πει να εισφερθου ́ν” κατα ́ την ́εννοια του α ́ρθρου 5,
 παρα ́γραφος 1, στοιχει ́ο α', της οδηγι ́ας του Συμβουλι ́ου, της
 4. Στην περι ́πτωση που υφι ́στανται καθε ́τως οργανωμε ́νοι 17ης Ιουλι ́ου 1969, περι ́ των εμμε ́σων φο ́ρων των επιβαλλομε ́νων
 γαλακτοπαραγωγικοι ́συνεταιρισμοι ́στους οποι ́ους επιτρε ́πεται επι ́ των συγκεντρω ́σεων κεφαλαι ́ων (69/335/ΕΟΚ) (1);»
 να λειτουργου ́ν σε α ́λλα κρα ́τη με ́λη, πρε ́πει η γενικη ́ αρχη ́ της
 απαγο ́ρευσης των διακρι ́σεων, ει ́τε κατα ́ τρο ́πο ανεξα ́ρτητο ει ́τε
 ως ́ενα δεδομε ́νο συγκεκριμε ́νο αποτε ́λεσμα των α ́ρθρων 12 (1) EE L 249, σ. 25.
 η ́/και 34 ΕΚ (πρω ́ην α ́ρθρα 6 και 40), να ερμηνευθει ́ υπο ́ την
 ́εννοια ο ́τι απαγορευ ́ει σε κρα ́τος με ́λος να εφαρμο ́ζει εθνικη ́
 νομοθεσι ́α ο ́πως τον Fair Trading Act 1973 και τον
 Competition Act 1998 προκειμε ́νου να απαγορευ ́σει σε
 συνεταιρισμο ́ γαλακτοπαραγωγω ́ν που κατε ́χει ισχυρη ́ θε ́ση
 στην αγορα ́:
 α) την κτη ́ση η ́ ανε ́γερση και α ́λλων εγκαταστα ́σεων για τη
 μεταποι ́ηση του γα ́λακτος που παρα ́γουν τα με ́λη του, οι
 οποι ́ες θα δω ́σουν στον συνεταιρισμο ́ τη δυνατο ́τητα να
 εκμεταλλευθει ́ προς ο ́φελο ́ς του ́ετι περαιτε ́ρω τη θε ́ση του Προσφυγη ́ της Επιτροπη ́ς των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ ν Κοινοτη ́των κατα ́
 στην αγορα ́ η ́ του Ηνωμε ́νου Βασιλει ́ου της Μεγα ́λης Βρετανι ́ας και της
 Βο ́ρειας Ιρλανδι ́ας, που ασκη ́θηκε στις 12 Απριλι ́ου 2000
 β) την αποστολη ́ γα ́λακτος που παρα ́γουν τα με ́λη του
 προκειμε ́νου να μεταποιηθει ́ απο ́ συμβεβλημε ́νες μαζι ́ του
 εταιρι ́ες, ει ́τε εντο ́ς του οικει ́ου κρα ́τους με ́λους ει ́τε σε (Υπο ́θεση C-140/00)
 α ́λλα κρα ́τη με ́λη, ως ενε ́ργεια στην οποι ́α προβαι ́νει ο
 συνεταιρισμο ́ς προκειμε ́νου να εκμεταλλευθει ́ προς ο ́φελο ́ς
 (2000/C 176/20)
 του τη θε ́ση του στην αγορα ́;
 (1) ΕΟΚ Συμβου ́λιο: Κανονισμο ́ς 26 περι ́ εφαρμογη ́ς ορισμε ́νων κανο ́νων Η Επιτροπη ́ των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των, εκπροσωπου ́μενη απο ́
 ανταγωνισμου ́ στην παραγωγη ́ και την εμπορι ́α γεωργικω ́ν προϊο ́ντων τους Thomas van Rijn, νομικο ́ συ ́μβουλο, και Keir Fitch, δημο ́σιο
 [ΕΕ 30 της 20.4.1962, σ. 993 (ΕΕ ειδ. ́εκδ. 03/001, σ. 35)]. υπα ́λληλο κρα ́τους με ́λους αποσπασμε ́νο στη Νομικη ́ Υπηρεσι ́α
 (2) Κανονισμο ́ς (ΕΟΚ) 804/68 του Συμβουλι ́ου, της 27ης Ιουνι ́ου 1968, της Επιτροπη ́ς, με αντι ́κλητο στο Λουξεμβου ́ργο τον Carlos
 περι ́ κοινη ́ς οργανω ́σεως αγορα ́ς στον τομε ́α του γα ́λακτος και των Gómez de la Cruz, με ́λος της Νομικη ́ς Υπηρεσι ́ας της Επιτροπη ́ς,
 γαλακτοκομικω ́ν προϊο ́ντων [EE L 148, 28.6.1968, σ. 13 (ΕΕ ειδ. Centre Wagner, α ́σκησε ενω ́πιον του ∆ικαστηρι ́ου των Ευρωπαϊ-
 ́εκδ. 03/003, σ. 82)].
 κω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των, στις 12 Απριλι ́ου 2000, προσφυγη ́ κατα ́ του
 Ηνωμε ́νου Βασιλει ́ου της Μεγα ́λης Βρετανι ́ας και της Βο ́ρειας
 Ιρλανδι ́ας.


type: wikipedia

text:
Toto je oborový seznam fakult českých veřejných a státních vysokých škol. Fakulty jsou přiřazeny k oborům, v nichž poskytují vzdělání. Jedna fakulta může poskytovat vzdělání ve více oborech a v jednom oboru může poskytovat vzdělání více fakult téže vysoké školy.
 Společenskovědní obory
 Ekonomie
 Národohospodářská fakulta VŠE, Praha
 Fakulta podnikohospodářská VŠE, Praha
 Fakulta sociálních věd UK, Praha
 Ekonomicko-správní fakulta MU, Brno
 Fakulta podnikatelská VUT, Brno
 Ekonomická fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Fakulta ekonomická ZČU, Plzeň
 Fakulta sociálně ekonomická UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Ekonomická fakulta TUL, Liberec
 Fakulta informatiky a managementu UHK, Hradec Králové
 Fakulta ekonomicko-správní UPa, Pardubice
 Ekonomická fakulta VŠB-TUO, Ostrava
 Obchodně podnikatelská fakulta SU, Karviná
 Fakulta managementu a ekonomiky UTB, Zlín
 Provozně ekonomická fakulta ČZU, Praha
 Provozně ekonomická fakulta MENDELU, Brno
 Filozofie
 Filozofická fakulta UK, Praha
 Fakulta humanitních studií UK, Praha
 Filozofická fakulta MU, Brno
 Filozofická fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Filozofická fakulta UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Fakulta přírodovědně-humanitní a pedagogická TUL, Liberec
 Filozofická fakulta UHK, Hradec Králové
 Fakulta filozofická UPa, Pardubice
 Filozofická fakulta OU, Ostrava
 Fakulta filozofická ZČU, Plzeň
 Historie
 Filozofická fakulta UK, Praha
 Fakulta sociálních věd UK, Praha
 Katolická teologická fakulta UK, Praha
 Filozofická fakulta MU, Brno
 Filozofická fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Filozofická fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Fakulta filozofická ZČU, Plzeň
 Fakulta pedagogická ZČU, Plzeň
 Filozofická fakulta UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Fakulta přírodovědně-humanitní a pedagogická TUL, Liberec
 Filozofická fakulta UHK, Hradec Králové
 Fakulta filozofická UPa, Pardubice
 Filozofická fakulta OU, Ostrava
 Filozoficko-přírodovědecká fakulta SU, Opava
 Politologie
 Filozofická fakulta UK, Praha
 Fakulta sociálních věd UK, Praha
 Fakulta sociálních studií MU, Brno
 Filozofická fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Fakulta filozofická ZČU, Plzeň
 Filozofická fakulta UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Filozofická fakulta UHK, Hradec Králové
 Fakulta mezinárodních vztahů VŠE, Praha
 Právo
 Právnická fakulta MU, Brno
 Právnická fakulta UK, Praha
 Právnická fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Fakulta právnická ZČU, Plzeň
 Psychologie
 Filozofická fakulta UK, Praha
 Pedagogická fakulta UK, Praha
 Filozofická fakulta MU, Brno
 Fakulta sociálních studií MU, Brno
 Filozofická fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Fakulta pedagogická ZČU, Plzeň
 Pedagogická fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Zdravotně sociální fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Filozofická fakulta OU, Ostrava
 Sociologie
 Filozofická fakulta UK, Praha
 Fakulta sociálních věd UK, Praha
 Fakulta sociálních studií MU, Brno
 Filozofická fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Fakulta filozofická ZČU, Plzeň
 Filozofická fakulta UHK, Hradec Králové
 Fakulta filozofická UPa, Pardubice
 Teologie
 Katolická teologická fakulta UK, Praha
 Evangelická teologická fakulta UK, Praha
 Husitská teologická fakulta UK, Praha
 Cyrilometodějská teologická fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Teologická fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Tělovýchova
 Fakulta tělesné výchovy a sportu UK, Praha
 Fakulta sportovních studií MU, Brno
 Fakulta tělesné kultury UP, Olomouc
 Pedagogická fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Fakulta pedagogická ZČU, Plzeň
 Pedagogická fakulta UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Fakulta přírodovědně-humanitní a pedagogická TUL, Liberec
 Pedagogická fakulta OU, Ostrava
 Uměnovědy
 Filozofická fakulta UK, Praha
 Katolická teologická fakulta UK, Praha
 Filozofická fakulta MU, Brno
 Filozofická fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Filozofická fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Filozofická fakulta OU, Ostrava
 Přírodovědecké obory
 Biologie
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UK, Praha
 Přírodovědecká fakulta MU, Brno
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Přírodovědecká fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Fakulta pedagogická ZČU, Plzeň
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Pedagogická fakulta UHK, Hradec Králové
 Přírodovědecká fakulta OU, Ostrava
 Dozimetrie a aplikace ionizujícího záření
 Fakulta jaderná a fyzikálně inženýrská ČVUT, Praha
 Ekologie
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UK, Praha
 Fakulta životního prostředí ČZU, Praha
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Přírodovědecká fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Fakulta životního prostředí UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Fakulta chemicko-technologická UPa, Pardubice
 Přírodovědecká fakulta OU, Ostrava
 Fakulta elektrotechnická ZČU, Plzeň
 Farmacie
 Farmaceutická fakulta UK, Hradec Králové
 Farmaceutická fakulta MU, Brno
 Fakulta vojenského zdravotnictví UO, Hradec Králové
 Fyzika
 Fakulta jaderná a fyzikálně inženýrská ČVUT, Praha
 Matematicko-fyzikální fakulta UK, Praha
 Přírodovědecká fakulta MU, Brno
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Přírodovědecká fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Fakulta pedagogická ZČU, Plzeň
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Fakulta přírodovědně-humanitní a pedagogická TUL, Liberec
 Pedagogická fakulta UHK, Hradec Králové
 Přírodovědecká fakulta OU, Ostrava
 Filozoficko-přírodovědecká fakulta SU, Opava
 Fakulta aplikovaných věd ZČU, Plzeň
 Geografie
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UK, Praha
 Přírodovědecká fakulta MU, Brno
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Pedagogická fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Fakulta pedagogická ZČU, Plzeň
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Fakulta přírodovědně-humanitní a pedagogická TUL, Liberec
 Přírodovědecká fakulta OU, Ostrava
 Fakulta aplikovaných věd ZČU, Plzeň
 Fakulta ekonomická ZČU, Plzeň
 Geologie
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UK, Praha
 Přírodovědecká fakulta MU, Brno
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Hornicko-geologická fakulta VŠB-TUO, Ostrava
 Chemie
 Fakulta jaderná a fyzikálně inženýrská ČVUT, Praha
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UK, Praha
 Fakulta chemicko-inženýrská VŠCHT, Praha
 Přírodovědecká fakulta MU, Brno
 Fakulta chemická VUT, Brno
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Přírodovědecká fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Fakulta pedagogická ZČU, Plzeň
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Fakulta chemicko-technologická UPa, Pardubice
 Přírodovědecká fakulta OU, Ostrava
 Fakulta technologická UTB, Zlín
 Informatika
 Fakulta jaderná a fyzikálně inženýrská ČVUT, Praha
 Matematicko-fyzikální fakulta UK, Praha
 Fakulta informatiky MU, Brno
 Fakulta informačních technologií ČVUT, Praha
 Fakulta informačních technologií VUT, Brno
 Fakulta aplikované informatiky UTB, Zlín
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Přírodovědecká fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Fakulta aplikovaných věd ZČU, Plzeň
 Fakulta pedagogická ZČU, Plzeň
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Fakulta informatiky a managementu UHK, Hradec Králové
 Fakulta elektrotechniky a informatiky UPa, Pardubice
 Fakulta mechatroniky, informatiky a mezioborových studií TUL, Liberec
 Přírodovědecká fakulta OU, Ostrava
 Fakulta elektrotechniky a informatiky VŠB-TUO, Ostrava
 Ekonomická fakulta VŠB-TUO, Ostrava
 Filozoficko-přírodovědecká fakulta SU, Opava
 Fakulta informatiky a statistiky VŠE, Praha
 Lékařství
 1. lékařská fakulta UK, Praha
 2. lékařská fakulta UK, Praha
 3. lékařská fakulta UK, Praha
 Lékařská fakulta UK, Plzeň
 Lékařská fakulta UK, Hradec Králové
 Lékařská fakulta MU, Brno
 Lékařská fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Fakulta veterinárního lékařství VFU, Brno
 Fakulta vojenského zdravotnictví UO, Hradec Králové
 Lékařská fakulta OU, Ostrava
 Matematika
 Fakulta jaderná a fyzikálně inženýrská ČVUT, Praha
 Matematicko-fyzikální fakulta UK, Praha
 Přírodovědecká fakulta MU, Brno
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UP, Olomouc
 Přírodovědecká fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Fakulta aplikovaných věd ZČU, Plzeň
 Fakulta pedagogická ZČU, Plzeň
 Přírodovědecká fakulta UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Fakulta přírodovědně-humanitní a pedagogická TUL, Liberec
 Přírodovědecká fakulta OU, Ostrava
 Technické obory
 Architektura
 Fakulta architektury ČVUT, Praha
 Fakulta architektury VUT, Brno
 Fakulta umění a architektury TUL, Liberec
 Fakulta stavební ČVUT, Praha
 Fakulta stavební VŠB-TUO, Ostrava
 Doprava
 Fakulta dopravní ČVUT, Praha
 Dopravní fakulta Jana Pernera UPa, Pardubice
 Technická fakulta ČZU, Praha
 Elektrotechnika
 Fakulta elektrotechnická ČVUT, Praha
 Fakulta elektrotechniky a komunikačních technologií VUT, Brno
 Fakulta elektrotechniky a informatiky VŠB-TUO, Ostrava
 Fakulta elektrotechnická ZČU, Plzeň
 Fakulta mechtroniky, informatiky a mezioborových studií TUL, Liberec
 Fakulta elektrotechniky a informatiky UPa, Pardubice
 Jaderné inženýrství
 Fakulta jaderná a fyzikálně inženýrská ČVUT, Praha
 Hornictví
 Hornicko-geologická fakulta VŠB-TUO, Ostrava
 Hutnictví
 Fakulta materiálově-technologická VŠB-TUO, Ostrava
 Stavebnictví
 Fakulta stavební ČVUT, Praha
 Fakulta stavební VUT, Brno
 Fakulta stavební VŠB-TUO, Ostrava
 Fakulta aplikovaných věd ZČU, Plzeň
 Strojírenství
 Fakulta strojní ČVUT, Praha
 Fakulta strojního inženýrství VUT, Brno
 Fakulta strojní VŠB-TUO, Ostrava
 Fakulta strojní ZČU, Plzeň
 Fakulta strojního inženýrství UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Fakulta strojní TUL, Liberec
 Textil
 Fakulta textilní TUL, Liberec
 Zemědělské obory
 Lesnictví
 Fakulta lesnická a dřevařská ČZU, Praha
 Lesnická a dřevařská fakulta MENDELU, Brno
 Rybářství
 Fakulta rybářství a ochrany vod JU, České Budějovice
 Zahradnictví
 Fakulta agrobiologie, potravinových a přírodních zdrojů ČZU, Praha
 Zahradnická fakulta MENDELU, Lednice
 Zemědělství
 Fakulta agrobiologie, potravinových a přírodních zdrojů ČZU, Praha
 Agronomická fakulta MENDELU, Brno
 Zemědělská fakulta JU, České Budějovice
 Umění
 Hudební a taneční fakulta AMU, Praha
 Divadelní fakulta AMU, Praha
 Filmová a televizní fakulta AMU, Praha
 Hudební fakulta JAMU, Brno
 Divadelní fakulta JAMU, Brno
 Fakulta výtvarných umění VUT, Brno
 Fakulta umění a designu UJEP, Ústí nad Labem
 Fakulta umění a architektury TUL, Liberec
 Fakulta restaurování UPa, Litomyšl
 Fakulta umění OU, Ostrava
 Filozoficko-přírodovědecká fakulta SU, Opava
 Fakulta multimediálních komunikací UTB, Zlín
 Fakulta designu a umění Ladislava Sutnara ZČU, Plzeň
 Vojenství a policie
 Fakulta vojenského leadershipu UO, Brno
 Fakulta vojenských technologií UO, Brno
 Fakulta bezpečnostně právní PA ČR, Praha
 Fakulta bezpečnostního inženýrství VŠB-TUO, Ostrava
 Fakulta bezpečnostního managementu PA ČR, Praha
 Reference
 Související články
 Seznam fakult podle vysokých škol v Česku
 Seznam vysokých škol v Česku
 Oblast vzdělávání
 Vysoké školy v Česku
 Fakulty


text:
Jane Seymour, właśc. Joyce Penelope Wilhelmina Frankenberg (ur. 15 lutego 1951 na przedmieściu Londynu (Hayes, Hillingdon)) – brytyjska aktorka i producentka telewizyjna i filmowa, najlepiej znana z filmu z serii o Jamesie Bondzie Żyj i pozwól umrzeć (1973), melodramatu Gdzieś w czasie (1980), miniserialu ABC Na wschód od Edenu (1981), telefilmu Onassis – najbogatszy człowiek świata (1988), miniserialu ABC Wojna i pamięć (1988–89), filmu historycznego Rewolucja francuska (1989) jako Maria Antonina Austriaczka, komedii romantycznej Polowanie na druhny (2005) oraz amerykańskiego serialu CBS Doktor Quinn (1993–98), zdobywczyni nagrody Emmy, dwukrotna laureatka statuetki Złoty Glob, ma swoją gwiazdę na Hollywood Walk of Fame. W 2000 otrzymała Order Imperium Brytyjskiego.
 Życiorys
 Wczesne lata
 Urodziła się w Hayes na przedmieściu Londynu w gminie London Borough of Hillingdon jako córka holenderskiej pielęgniarki Mieke (z domu van Tricht; ur. 30 stycznia 1914 w Deventer, zm. 3 października 2007 w Middlesex) i lekarza położnika Johna Benjamina Frankenberga (zm. 1990). Przodkowie jej ojca pochodzili z Polski (Nowe Trzepowo) i Niemiec, byli Żydami. Jej dziadek pochodził z Płocka. Jej matka w latach II wojny światowej była pielęgniarką w Indonezji, później więźniarką japońskiego obozu jenieckiego, gdzie niosła pomoc rannym w skrajnie trudnych warunkach (m.in. brak lekarstw). Po wojnie osiadła w Anglii i wyszła za mąż za Johna Frankenberga, z którym oprócz córki Joyce (późniejszej Jane Seymour) miała jeszcze dwie córki: Anne Gould i Sally.
 Seymour uczęszczała do Arts Educational School w Tring w hrabstwie Hertfordshire. Marzyła o karierze baletnicy. Debiutowała jako 13-latka na London Festival Ballet, jednak kontuzja kolana przekreśliła plany. Postanowiła więc spróbować aktorstwa. W tym celu wymyśliła sobie pseudonim „Jane Seymour” na wzór królowej Anglii, trzeciej żony Henryka VIII.
 Kariera
 W 1969 roku debiutowała na ekranie jako chórzystka w filmie muzycznym Richarda Attenborough Och, jaka piękna wojna! (Oh! What a Lovely War) z Maggie Smith i Dirkiem Bogarde’em. Rok później otrzymała pierwszą główną rolę Lillian Stein, Żydówki szukającej schronienia przed nazistowskimi prześladowaniami w dramacie wojennym The Only Way (1970). W biograficznym dramacie wojennym Richarda Attenborough Młodość Winstona (Young Winston, 1972) wystąpiła jako Pamela Plowden, kochanka Winstona Churchilla.
 Stała się rozpoznawalna jako Emma Callon w serialu BBC The Onedin Line (1973). Wkrótce została obsadzona w roli dziewczyny Jamesa Bonda – Solitaire w filmie Guya Hamiltona Żyj i pozwól umrzeć (Live and Let Die, 1973) u boku Rogera Moore’a oraz jako siostra Kasima – Farah w filmie przygodowym Raya Harryhausena Sindbad i oko tygrysa (Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger, 1977) z udziałem Patricka Wayne’a, syna legendarnego ekranowego kowboja Johna Wayne’a. Za rolę Marjorie Chisholm Armagh w miniserialu NBC Kapitanowie i królowie (Captains and the Kings, 1976) z Perrym Kingiem, Patty Duke, Robertem Vaughnem i Richardem Jordanem była nominowana do nagrody Emmy. Można ją było potem zobaczyć w telefilmie ABC Historia Dawida (The Story of David, 1976) z Timothym Bottomsem jako Batszebę, serialu science fiction ABC Battlestar Galactica (1978) jako Serinę oraz komedii Niebiański pies (Oh, Heavenly Dog!, 1980) z Chevy Chase w roli Jackie.
 W 1980 Seymour zagrała sceniczną rolę Constanze Weber, żony Mozarta (Tim Curry) w przedstawieniu Petera Shaffera Amadeusz u boku Iana McKellena (jako Antonio Salieri). Spektakl odniósł sukces na Broadwayu, był wystawiany 1181 razy i nominowany do siedmiu nagród Tony Award, z czego otrzymał pięć. Jej kreacja młodej aktorki teatralnej Elise McKenna w melodramacie fantasy Jeannota Szwarca Gdzieś w czasie (Somewhere in Time, 1980) z Christopherem Reeve’em zdobyła nominację do nagrody Saturna w kategorii najlepsza aktorka drugoplanowa. Za rolę antagonistki Kate Trask / Cathy Ames w miniserialu ABC Na wschód od Edenu (East of Eden, 1981) wg powieści Johna Steinbecka otrzymała Złoty Glob.
 W filmie CBS Clive’a Donnera Szkarłatny kwiat (The Scarlet Pimpernel, 1982) wg powieści Emmuski Orczy z Anthony Andrewsem zagrała postać francuskiej aktorki Marguerite Blakeney (z domu St. Just). W filmie przygodowo-sensacyjnym Lassiter (1984) z Tomem Selleckiem jako Sara Wells wystąpiła nago. W 1987 pozowała do magazynu „Playboy”. Kreacja Marii Callas w filmie telewizyjnym ABC Onassis – najbogatszy człowiek świata (Onassis: The Richest Man in the World, 1988) z Raúlem Julią przyniosła jej nagrodę Emmy. Za rolę Natalie Henry, amerykańskiej Żydówki uwięzionej w Europie w czasie II wojny światowej w miniserialu ABC Wojna i pamięć (War and Remembrance, 1988-89) była nominowana do Złotego Globu i Emmy. W 1989 z okazji 200. rocznicy Rewolucji Francuskiej, Seymour pojawiła się jako skazana francuska królowa Maria Antonina Austriaczka w filmie telewizyjnym Rewolucja francuska (La Révolution française), nakręconym w języku francuskim i angielskim. Popularność, uznanie krytyki i kolejny Złoty Glob (1996) zdobyła jako dr Michaela „Mike” Quinn w serialu CBS Doktor Quinn (Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, 1993–2001).
 W 2007 wzięła udział w V edycji Tańca z gwiazdami, gdzie zajęła 6 miejsce z Tonym Dovolanim.
 Życie prywatne
 Była czterokrotnie zamężna. 10 lipca 1971 roku poślubiła Michaela Attenborough, syna Richarda, z którym się rozwiodła w roku 1973. W latach 1977–1978 była żoną Victora Geoffreya Planera. 18 lipca 1981 roku po raz trzeci wyszła za mąż za Davida Flynna, z którym miała dwoje dzieci: córkę Katherinę (ur. 7 stycznia 1982) i syna Seana (ur. 31 lipca 1985). W 1992 doszło do rozwodu. 15 maja 1993 poślubiła aktora, reżysera i producenta filmowego Jamesa Keacha, z którym miała bliźniaki: Johna Stecyego i Kristophera Stevena (ur. 30 listopada 1995). Zamieszkała w Malibu i zabytkowym domu w Anglii. Wspólnie z Keachem reżyserowała i produkowała filmy, w których zagrała, w tym Nowe przygody szwajcarskiej rodziny Robinsonów, Zapisane w sercu czy odcinki serialu Dr Quinn. 16 grudnia 2015 roku rozwiodła się.
 Zaangażowana w działalność UNICEF, malowała obrazy, pisała książki.
 Filmografia
 1972 – The Strauss Family
 1973 – Żyj i pozwól umrzeć (Live and Let Die)
 1977 – Sindbad i oko tygrysa (Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger)
 1978 – Love's Dark Ride
 1980 – Gdzieś w czasie (Somewhere in Time)
 1981 – Na wschód od Edenu (East of Eden) [TV, miniserial]
 1983 – The Phantom of the Opera
 1983 – Oberża na pustkowiu (Jamaica Inn) [TV, miniserial]
 1985 – Romans z zamężną kobietą (Obsessed with a Married Woman)
 1988 – Onassis – najbogatszy człowiek świata (Onassis: The Richest Man in the World) [TV]
 1988–89 – Wojna i pamięć (War and Remembrance) [TV, miniserial]
 1989 – Rewolucja francuska (La Révolution française)
 1993 – Heidi
 1993–1998 – Doktor Quinn (Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman) [TV, serial]
 1998 – Nowe przygody szwajcarskiej rodziny Robinsonów (The New swiss family Robinson)
 2000 – Wczorajsze dzieci
 2005 – Polowanie na druhny (The Wedding Crashers)
 2006 – Tajemnice Smallville (Smallville)
 2008 – Dear Prudence
 2011 – Perfectly Prudence
 2011 – Gry małżeńskie (Love, Wedding, Marriage)
 Bibliografia
 Boing!: No Bouncing on the Bed. This One 'N That One series. With James Keach. Putnam Juvenile, 1999.
 Gus Loved His Happy Home. With Seymour Fleishman. Linnet Books, 1989.
 Jane Seymour's Guide to Romantic Living. Macmillan Publishers, 1986. ASIN: B003JFVAKC.
 Making Yourself at Home: Finding Your Style and Putting It All Together. DK Adult, 2007.
 Remarkable Changes: Turning Life's Challenges into Opportunities. New York: HarperEntertainment, 2003.
 Splat!: The Tale of a Colorful Cat. This One 'N That One series. With James Keach. Turtleback Books, 2001.
 Two at a Time: Having Twins: The Journey Through Pregnancy and Birth. With Pamela Patrick Novotny. Atria Books, 2002.
 Yum!: A Tale of Two Cookies. This One 'N That One series. With James Keach. Angel Gate, 1998.
 Przypisy
 Linki zewnętrzne
 Brytyjskie aktorki telewizyjne
 Brytyjskie aktorki filmowe
 Amerykańskie aktorki filmowe
 Amerykańskie aktorki telewizyjne
 Brytyjskie aktorki teatralne
 Amerykańskie aktorki teatralne
 Amerykańscy producenci telewizyjni
 Laureaci nagrody Emmy
 Laureatki Złotego Globu dla najlepszej aktorki w serialu dramatycznym
 Laureatki Złotego Globu dla najlepszej aktorki w miniserialu lub filmie telewizyjnym
 Amerykanie pochodzenia żydowskiego
 Angielscy Żydzi
 Brytyjscy Żydzi
 Brytyjczycy pochodzenia holenderskiego
 Urodzeni w 1951


text:
 1.8.2015
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 L 206/26
 REGOLAMENTO DI ESECUZIONE (UE) 2015/1330 DELLA COMMISSIONE
 del 31 luglio 2015
 recante duecentotrentaquattresima modifica del regolamento (CE) n. 881/2002 del Consiglio che impone specifiche misure restrittive nei confronti di determinate persone ed entità associate alla rete Al-Qaeda
 LA COMMISSIONE EUROPEA,
 visto il trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea,
 visto il regolamento (CE) n. 881/2002 del Consiglio, del 27 maggio 2002, che impone specifiche misure restrittive nei confronti di determinate persone ed entità associate alla rete Al-Qaeda (1), in particolare l'articolo 7, paragrafo 1, lettera a), e l'articolo 7 bis, paragrafo 5,
 considerando quanto segue:
 (1)
 Nell'allegato I del regolamento (CE) n. 881/2002 sono elencate le persone, i gruppi e le entità i cui fondi e risorse economiche sono congelati in base a tale regolamento.
 (2)
 Il 20 luglio 2015 il Comitato per le sanzioni del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite (CSNU) ha approvato la soppressione di una voce relativa a una persona fisica dall'elenco del Comitato per le sanzioni contro Al-Qaeda in cui figurano le persone, i gruppi e le entità a cui si applica il congelamento dei capitali e delle risorse economiche. Il 20 luglio 2015 il Comitato per le sanzioni del CSNU ha inoltre deciso di modificare una voce dell'elenco.
 (3)
 Occorre pertanto aggiornare opportunamente l'allegato I del regolamento (CE) n. 881/2002,
 HA ADOTTATO IL PRESENTE REGOLAMENTO:
 Articolo 1
 L'allegato I del regolamento (CE) n. 881/2002 è modificato conformemente all'allegato del presente regolamento.
 Articolo 2
 Il presente regolamento entra in vigore il giorno successivo alla pubblicazione nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea.
 Il presente regolamento è obbligatorio in tutti i suoi elementi e direttamente applicabile in ciascuno degli Stati membri.
 Fatto a Bruxelles, il 31 luglio 2015
 Per la Commissione,
 a nome del presidente
 Capo del Servizio degli strumenti di politica estera
 (1) GU L 139 del 29.5.2002, pag. 9.
 ALLEGATO
 L'allegato I del regolamento (CE) n. 881/2002 è così modificato:
 1)
 la voce seguente dell'elenco «Persone fisiche» è soppressa:
 «Aliaskhab Alibulatovich Kebekov (Алиaсхаб Алибулатович Кебеков) (alias: a) Sheikh Abu Muhammad, b) Ali Abu Muhammad, c) Abu Muhammad Ali Al-Dagestani). Data di nascita: 1.1.1972. Luogo di nascita: villaggio di Teletl, distretto di Shamilskiy, Repubblica del Dagestan, Federazione russa. Cittadinanza: russa. N. del passaporto: 628605523 (passaporto russo per l'estero, rilasciato il 4.7.2006 dal Servizio federale Migrazione della Federazione russa, scade il 16.7.2016). Numero di identificazione nazionale: 8203883123 (passaporto nazionale russo rilasciato il 16.7.2005 dal dipartimento Affari interni (OVD), distretto di Kirovskiy, Repubblica del Dagestan, Federazione russa, scade l'1.1.2017). Indirizzo: Shosse Aeroporta, 5 Ap. 7 Makhachkala, Repubblica del Dagestan, Federazione russa. Altre informazioni: a) descrizione fisica: colore degli occhi: castani; colore dei capelli: grigi; statura: 170-175 cm; corporatura: robusta, viso ovale, barba; b) nome del padre: Alibulat Kebekovich Kebekov, nato nel 1927; c) foto disponibile per l'inserimento nella Special Notice INTERPOL-Consiglio di sicurezza dell'ONU. Data di designazione di cui all'articolo 2 bis, paragrafo 4, lettera b): 23.3.2015.»;
 2)
 la voce «Mohammed Al Ghabra. Indirizzo: East London, Regno Unito. Data di nascita: 1.6.1980. Luogo di nascita: Damasco, Siria. Nazionalità: britannica. N. passaporto: 094629366 (Regno Unito). Altre informazioni: a) il nome del padre è Mohamed Ayman Ghabra; b) il nome della madre è Dalal. Data di designazione di cui all'articolo 2 bis, paragrafo 4, lettera b): 12.12.2006.» dell'elenco «Persone fisiche» è sostituita da quanto segue:
 «Mohammed Al Ghabra. [alias: a) Mohammed El' Ghabra b) Danial Adam] Indirizzo: East London, Regno Unito. Data di nascita: 1.6.1980. Luogo di nascita: Damasco, Siria. Cittadinanza: britannica. N. passaporto: 094629366 (Regno Unito). Altre informazioni: a) il nome del padre è Mohamed Ayman Ghabra; b) il nome della madre è Dalal. Data di designazione di cui all'articolo 2 bis, paragrafo 4, lettera b): 12.12.2006.»


text:
Seirbhísí teagascóra spóirt (beart 1) agus fisiteiripeora (beart 1) a sholáthar ...
 Seirbhísí teagascóra spóirt (beart 1) agus fisiteiripeora (beart 1) a sholáthar don seomra corpacmhainne ag Ard-Rúnaíocht na Comhairle.
 Seirbhísí a sholáthar don seomra corpacmhainne i bhfoirgnimh Rúnaíocht Chomhairle an Aontais Eorpaigh: beart 1: le haghaidh 4 x 2 uair in aghaidh na seachtaine, déanfaidh an teagascóir spóirt corpacmhainn úsáideoirí an tseomra corpacmhainne a sheiceáil; taispeánfaidh sé dóibh conas an trealamh a úsáid go ceart; déanfaidh sé cláir traenála a fhorbairt a bheidh in oiriúint do riachtanais an úsáideora; cinnteoidh sé go ndéantar an seomra corpacmhainne a reáchtáil go maith ionas go leanann na húsáideoirí dá chuid na treoracha úsáide a tugadh dóibh, go háirithe; beart 2: le haghaidh 3 x 2 uair in aghaidh na seachtaine, déanfaidh an fisiteiripeoir na tascanna céanna a chlúdach agus a chlúdaíonn an teagascóir agus tabharfaidh sé tacaíocht freisin do na húsáideoirí sin ag a bhfuil fadhbanna sláinte.
 Beart 1 Seirbhísí teagascóra spóirt a sholáthar Beart 1: le haghaidh 4 x 2 uair in aghaidh na seachtaine, déanfaidh an teagascóir spóirt corpacmhainn úsáideoirí an tseomra corpacmhainne a sheiceáil; taispeánfaidh sé dóibh conas an trealamh a úsáid go ceart; déanfaidh sé cláir traenála a fhorbairt a bheidh in oiriúint do riachtanais an úsáideora; cinnteoidh sé go ndéantar an seomra corpacmhainne a reáchtáil go maith ionas go leanann na húsáideoirí dá chuid na treoracha úsáide a tugadh dóibh, go háirithe. Soláthrófar na seirbhísí i rith na dtréimhsí ama a leanas: 12:00–14:00, Luan go hAoine agus 17:00–19:00, Luan go Déardaoin.
 Beart 2 Seirbhísí fisiteiripeora a sholáthar Beart 2: le haghaidh 3 x 2 uair in aghaidh na seachtaine, déanfaidh an fisiteiripeoir na tascanna céanna a chlúdach agus a chlúdaíonn an teagascóir agus tabharfaidh sé tacaíocht freisin do na húsáideoirí sin ag a bhfuil fadhbanna sláinte. Soláthrófar na seirbhísí i rith na dtréimhsí ama a leanas: 12:00–14:00, Luan go hAoine agus 17:00–19:00, Luan go Déardaoin.
 2016/S 214-389315 Fógra Conartha 05/11/2016 00:00


text:
Landgericht Köln Urteil vom 15.09.2009 - 33 O 126/09 - Werbung mit dem Hinweis auf Originalware ist nicht wettbewerbswidrig
 LG Köln v. 15.09.2009: Werbung mit dem Hinweis auf Originalware ist nicht wettbewerbswidrig
 Das Landgericht Köln (Urteil vom 15.09.2009 - 33 O 126/09) hat entschieden:
 Ebenso wie im Fall der Werbung mit sonstigen Selbstverständlichkeiten nach § 5 UWG ist für die Bejahung einer unlauteren Werbung im Sinne der Nr. 10 entscheidend, dass der Verkehr in der herausgestellten Eigenschaft der beworbenen Ware oder Leistung irrtümlich einen Vorteil sieht, den er nicht ohne Weiteres, insbesondere auch nicht bei Bezug der gleichen Ware oder Leistung bei der Konkurrenz erwarten kann. Dies ist bei der Bewerbung von Produkten als Originalware nicht der Fall, weil diese Werbung ohnehin den Erwartungen der Verbraucher entspricht.
 Wir bestätigen, dass alle bei Traumdüfte angebotenen Parfumprodukte oder Artikel mit einem angegebenen Markennamen absolut ECHT, ORIGINAL, AUTHENTISCH und von frischer Qualität sind. Dies garantieren wir ausdrücklich. (...)”.
 Der Antragsteller ist der Ansicht, es handele sich dabei um eine unlautere Werbung mit Selbstverständlichkeiten, da mit gesetzlichen Grundpflichten geworben werde. Dies führe zu einer „Abwärtsspirale dergestalt, dass ehrliche Onlinehändler alles nur erdenkliche garantieren” müssten. Außerdem werde eine Garantie gewährt, ohne dass Einzelheiten beschrieben würden, was einen Verstoß gegen § 4 Nr. 11 UWG i. V. m. § 477 BGB darstelle.
 [Die einstweilige Verfügung vom 07.05.2009 wird aufgehoben und der auf ihren Erlass gerichtete Antrag zurückgewiesen.
 Das Urteil ist vorläufig vollstreckbar. Der Antragsteller kann die Vollstreckung gegen Sicherheitsleistung in Höhe von 120 % des zu vollstreckenden Betrages abwenden, sofern nicht der Antragsgegner vor der Vollstreckung Sicherheit in gleicher Höhe leistet.]
 Damit weiß der Verkehr, dass es sich bei der Bewerbung der Originalqualität - in Bezug auf die Konkurrenz innerhalb derselben Produktgruppe - um eine Werbung mit einer Selbstverständlichkeit handelt. Eine Irreführung scheidet aus, wenn der Verkehr erkennt, dass es sich bei der betonten Eigenschaft um etwas Selbstverständliches handelt (vgl. Hefermehl/Köhler/Bornkamm, UWG, 27. Aufl., § 5 Rn. 2.115).
 Es liegt auch kein Verstoß gegen § 4 Nr. 11 UWG i. V. m. § 477 BGB vor, weil etwa detaillierte Angaben zu Art und Umfang der ausgesprochenen Garantie fehlten. Auch insoweit erkennt der Verkehr, dass es sich nicht um eine ernst gemeinte Garantiezusage i. S. d. §§ 477, 443 Abs. 1 BGB handelt. Eine hier nur in Frage kommende Beschaffenheitsgarantie liegt vor, wenn für den Fall, dass die Kaufsache eine bestimmte Beschaffenheit nicht aufweist, dem Käufer vertragliche Rechte eingeräumt werden, die er nach dem Gesetz nicht hat (vgl. Erman-B. Grunemwald, BGB 11. Aufl., Bd. I, § 443 Rn. 2). Vorliegend wird zwar eine Beschaffenheit „garantiert”, jedoch nicht derart, dass dem Käufer zusätzliche Rechte gewährt würden, so dass § 477 BGB nicht einschlägig ist.


text:
Orban vrea sesizarea CCR în cazul amânării în Senat a anchetei penale împotriva lui Tăriceanu | Newsweek Romania
 Orban vrea sesizarea CCR în cazul amânării în Senat a anchetei penale împotriva lui Tăriceanu
 DE Adelina Sahlean | Actualizat: 02.04.2019 - 17:25
 Ludovic Orban. Foto Inquam Photos/Virgil Simionescu
 justitie eveniment csm CCR dosar orban pnl Tăriceanu lia savonea
 Liderul PNL, Ludovic Orban, îi cere președintei Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii (CSM), Lia Savonea, să sesizeze Curtea Constituțională (CCR) în cazul amânării de către Senat a anchetei împotriva lui Călin Popescu Tăriceanu.
 Liderul PNL reamintește că DNA a solicitat, în urmă cu cinci luni, în noiembrie 2018, aprobarea cererii de începere a urmării penale în cazul fostului prim-ministru, Călin Popescu Tăriceanu, actual președinte al Senatului, pentru infracțiuni de luare de mită.
 Orban subliniază că senatorii PNL au cerut în repetate rânduri punerea în dezbatere a solicitării în cauză și supunerea la vot în plenul Senatului, dar majoritatea PSD-ALDE a blocat în mod sistematic această procedură, tergiversând în mod intenționat răspunsul față de cererea înaintată de DNA.
 ”Este străveziu faptul că PSD și ALDE utilizează în mod politic majoritatea parlamentară pentru a sabota parcursul firesc al unei anchete penale, făcând scut în jurul dnului Tăriceanu și afectând în mod nepermis atribuțiile autorității judecătorești. (...) Pe cale de consecință, în toate cazurile solicitările înaintate Parlamentului trebuie să fie acceptate tocmai pentru a oferi ocazia instanțelor de judecată de a decide, persoanelor în cauză de a se apăra, iar organelor de cercetare penală de a realiza anchetele pe care le consideră întemeiate.”, a mai precizat Orban în scrisoarea deschisă transmisă președintei CSM.
 ”În calitate de președinte al CSM apreciez că este de datoria dumneavoastră exercitarea atribuției prevăzută de Legea 47/1992, Articolul 34, respectiv de a sesiza Curtea Constituțională pentru soluționarea conflictului juridic de natură constituțională dintre autoritățile publice, respectiv dintre Senatul României și Ministerul Public — Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție”, a conchis Orban.


text:
 21.12.2013
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 377/11
 Sentencia del Tribunal General de 8 de noviembre de 2013 — Kessel/OAMI — Janssen-Cilag (Premeno)
 (Asunto T-536/10) (1)
 (Marca comunitaria - Procedimiento de oposición - Solicitud de marca comunitaria denominativa Premeno - Marca nacional denominativa anterior Pramino - Prueba de uso efectivo de la marca anterior - Artículo 42, apartados 2 y 3, del Reglamento (CE) no 207/2009 - Limitación de los productos designados en la solicitud de marca - Artículo 43, apartado 1, del Reglamento no 207/2009)
 2013/C 377/26
 Lengua de procedimiento: alemán
 Partes
 Demandante: Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH (Mörfelden-Walldorf, Alemania) (representantes: inicialmente S. Bund, posteriormente A. Jacob, abogados)
 Demandada: Oficina de Armonización del Mercado Interior (Marcas, Dibujos y Modelos) (representantes: inicialmente B. Schmidt, posteriormente D. Walicka, agentes)
 Otra parte en el procedimiento ante la Sala de Recurso de la OAMI, coadyuvante ante el Tribunal General: Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Neuss, Alemania) (representante: M. Wenz, abogado)
 Objeto
 Recurso interpuesto contra la resolución de la Cuarta Sala de Recurso de la OAMI de 21 de septiembre de 2010 (asunto R 708/2010-4) relativa a un procedimiento de oposición entre Janssen-Cilag GmbH y Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH.
 Fallo
 1)
 Anular la resolución de la Cuarta Sala de Recurso de la Oficina de Armonización del Mercado Interior (Marcas, Dibujos y Modelos) (OAMI) de 21 de septiembre de 2010 (asunto R 708/2010-4).
 2)
 La OAMI cargará con sus propias costas y con las de Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH.
 3)
 Janssen-CilagGmbH cargará con sus propias costas.
 (1) DO C 30, de 29.1.2011.


text:
5.7.2003 PT Jornal Oficial da União Europeia C 158/21
 Cancelamento do processo C-395/01 (1) Cancelamento do processo C-426/01 ( 1)
 (2003/C 158/36) (2003/C 158/38)
 Por despacho de 19 de Março de 2003, o Presidente do Por despacho de 27 de Março de 2003, o Presidente do
 Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias ordenou o Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias ordenou o
 cancelamento, no registo do Tribunal, do processo C-395/01 cancelamento, no registo do Tribunal, do processo C-426/01
 (pedido de decisão prejudicial apresentado pelo Unabhängiger (pedido de decisão prejudicial apresentado pelo Tribunal
 Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg): Herbert Bregenzer. d’Instance de Vienne): ACCEA Finances SA contra Christian
 Giner.
 ( 1) JO C 3, de 5.1.2002.
 (1 ) JO C 3, de 5.1.2002.
 Cancelamento do processo C-417/01 (1)
 Cancelamento do processo C-432/01 ( 1)
 (2003/C 158/37)
 (2003/C 158/39)
 Por despacho de 25 de Março de 2003, o Presidente do
 Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias ordenou o
 cancelamento, no registo do Tribunal, do processo C-417/01 Por despacho de 25 de Março de 2003, o Presidente do
 (pedido de decisão prejudicial apresentado pelo Unabhängiger Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Europeias ordenou o
 Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg): Herbert Bregenzer. cancelamento, no registo do Tribunal, do processo C-432/01
 (pedido de decisão prejudicial apresentado pelo Unabhängiger
 Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg): Helmut Gunz.
 ( 1) JO C 3, de 5.1.2002.
 (1 ) JO C 3, de 5.1.2002.