type: other

text:
Nemzeti Jogvédő Alapítvány - Hatályában fenntartotta a Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság az ún. "Gatya ügyben" Fáber Károlyra kiszabott pénzbírságot gyülekezési joggal visszaélés szabálysértés miatt Nemzeti Jogvédő Alapítvány
 Hatályában fenntartotta a Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság az ún. "Gatya ügyben" Fáber Károlyra kiszabott pénzbírságot gyülekezési joggal visszaélés szabálysértés miatt
 2007. december 7. napján a Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság egymást követően két szabálysértési ügyben tartott tárgyalást, melyben az eljárás alá vont személy, Fáber Károly a Rendszerváltó Fórum képviselője volt, akit az ügyben védőként dr. Gyurta Tibor Roland, a Nemzeti Jogvédő Alapítvány együttműködő ügyvédje képviselt. 1. Az első ügy az ún. „Gatya ügy” volt, amelyben eljárás alá vont személyként érintett volt még a dr. Balsai Szabolcs, a Nemzeti Jogvédő Alapítvány együttműködő ügyvédje által képviselt Tatár József is, szintén a Rendszerváltó Fórum tagjaként.
 A „Gatya ügy” lényege: 2007. február 27. napján a két eljárás alá vont személy performance keretében a Parlament köré húzott fémkordonra egy alsóneműkkel, gatyákkal, zoknikkal, pólókkal felfűzött madzagot akasztott ki, azzal a mottóval, hogy „kiteregetjük a Magyar Nemzet szennyesét”. A performance-ról a korábban a médiában megjelent tájékoztató alapján a média részéről megjelent néhány újságíró, akik a helyszínen fényképezgettek és a látott performance jelentéstartalmáról kérdezték az eljárás alá vont személyeket. Az eljárás alá vont személyek kizárólag ketten jelentek meg a helyszínen és a performance-t is ők ketten hajtották végre, majd kb. 13 perc után távoztak.
 A Kossuth téri kordon akkori rendőrparancsnoka ezt követően feljelentést tett köztisztasági szabálysértés elkövetése miatt a Budapest Főváros V. kerületi Önkormányzat Szabálysértési Hatóságához, amely visszaküldte az ügyet a BRFK V. kerületi Rendőrkapitányságra azzal, hogy álláspontjuk szerint gyülekezési joggal visszaélés szabálysértés történt.
 A törvényességi felügyeletet ellátó ügyészség állásfoglalása alapján végül gyülekezési joggal visszaélés miatt indult szabálysértési eljárás, amelynek eredményeképpen a BRFK V. Kerületi Rendőrkapitányság, mint Szabálysértési Hatóság az eljárás alá vont személyekkel szemben fejenként 80.000,-Ft pénzbírságot szabott ki.
 Az eljárás alá vont személyek a határozattal szemben jogorvoslattal éltek, melynek eredményeképpen a Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság 2007. december 7. napján tárgyalta az ügyet.
 A bírósági tárgyaláson az eljárás alá vont személyek cselekményüket egyfajta véleménynyilvánításként fogalmazták meg, és kifejezetten elhatárolták azt bárminemű demonstrációtól, így elmondták, hogy a helyszínre nem hívtak senkit, a sajtót is csak értesítették, továbbá a kordonnál felszólalás nem történt, zászló, transzparens nem volt, sajtótájékoztatót nem hívtak össze. Mindezek alapján cselekményük kizárólag egy performance jellegű véleménynyilvánítás volt.
 Az ügyben meghallgatásra került tanúként a Kossuth téri helyszín rendőrparancsnoka, aki megerősítette, hogy „a teregetésben a két feljelentett személy vett részt”, ezen túlmenően csak a sajtó képviselői voltak jelen, a járókelők pedig nem álltak meg.
 A bizonyítási eljárás – amelyen az erről készült újságcikk, valamint fényképfelvételek kerültek még ismertetésre, továbbá dr. Balsai Szabolcs hasonló performance előadásokat tartalmazó, internetes újságcikkeket csatolt – befejezését követően Fáber Károly védőjeként dr. Gyurta Tibor Roland ügyvéd fejtette ki álláspontját a következők szerint:
 A gyülekezési jogról szóló 1989. évi III. tv. 2. § (1) bekezdése szerint a gyülekezési jog gyakorlása keretében békés összejövetelek, felvonulások és tüntetések (a továbbiakban együtt: rendezvény) tarthatók, amelyeken a résztvevők véleményüket szabadon kinyilváníthatják. A performance jellegű művészi megnyilvánulás – amely egyébként a közéletben mindennapos, ld.: utcai élőszobrok, zenészek – egy szimbolikus véleménynyilvánítás volt, amely ilyen értelemben nem tartozik a gyülekezési törvény szerinti rendezvény fogalmába.
 Ezzel kapcsolatban kiemelte a szabad véleménynyilvánítási jog tartalma vonatkozásában az Alkotmánybíróság két nagy jelentőségű értelmező határozatát, amelyek egyértelműen leszögezik a véleménynyilvánítás tartalma és formája tekintetében:
 „A szabad véleménynyilvánításhoz való jog a véleményt annak érték és igazságtartalmára tekintet nélkül védi. Egyedül ez felel meg annak az ideológiai semlegességnek...
 Az Alkotmány a szabad kommunikációt - az egyéni magatartást és a társadalmi folyamatot - biztosítja, s nem annak tartalmára vonatkozik a szabad véleménynyilvánítás alapjoga. Ebben a processzusban helye van minden véleménynek, jónak és károsnak, kellemesnek és sértőnek egyaránt, különösen azért, mert maga a vélemény minősítése is e folyamat terméke” /30/1992. (V.26.) AB határozat/.
 A fentiek szerint tehát helye van még a kellemetlen véleménynyilvánításnak is, amelyet a közhatalmat gyakroló személyek, közszereplők a rájuk vonatkozó magasabb tűréshatár miatt elviselni kötelesek:
 „A szabad véleménynyilvánításhoz való jog által védett, alkotmányosan nem büntethető véleménynyilvánítás köre azonban a közhatalmat gyakorló személyekkel, valamint a közszereplő politikusokkal kapcsolatos véleménynyilvánítást tekintve tágabb, mint más személyeknél” /36/1994. (VI. 24.) AB határozat/.
 Az előadottak alapján tehát az említett cselekmény nem a gyülekezési jog hatálya alá eső megnyilvánulás, hanem a véleménynyilvánítás egy formája, amely a jelenlevők száma és tevékenysége miatt sem minősülhetett „gyülekezésnek”, hanem egy performance utcai előadásnak. A védő erre tekintettel indítványozta szabálysértés hiányában az eljárás megszüntetését, másodsorban szintén annak megszüntetését tévedés címén, mivel az eljáró rendőrhatóság sem tudta jogalkalmazóként minősíteni a cselekményt, harmadrészt a cselekmény társadalomra veszélyességének hiányában a felelősségre vonás mellőzését, és végül amennyiben a bíróság nem osztaná a fenti álláspontot, a pénzbírságot mérsékelje.
 Dr. Balsai Szabolcs a másik eljárás alá vont személy védője az előadottakhoz csatlakozott és kiemelte, hogy a Kossuth téri helyszín rendőrparancsnoka az események kezdetét nem látta és ő sem tudott mit kezdeni a látottakkal, ezért ő maga is csak köztisztasági szabálysértésként kezelte az ügyet. A cselekmény vonatkozásában előadta, hogy az internetről becsatolt újságcikkek olyan esetekről számoltak be, amikor a perbelihez hasonló véleménynyilvánítások történtek közterületen, amelyekkel kapcsolatban nincs tudomása szabálysértési vagy más jellegű felelősségrevonásról. Indítványában Fáber Károly védőjéhez csatlakozva nyilatkozott.
 A bíróság ezt követően végzésében a 80.000,-Ft pénzbírságot mindkét eljárás alá vont személy tekintetében fenntartotta, a szóbeli indoklás szerint a fent leírt cselekmény a gyülekezési törvény hatálya alá esik, mert azt demonstrációnak minősítette, ezért azt legalább három nappal korábban a rendőrségnek be kellett volna jelenteni a törvény szerinti formában.
 Alapítványunk meglepve értesült a bíróság említett döntéséről, mivel Fáber Károly és Tatár József cselekménye a kialakult gyakorlat szerint sem minősül a gyülekezési jog gyakorlásának, ezzel szemben a véleménynyilvánítási jog nemzetközi egyezményekben (1993. évi XXXI. törvénnyel becikkelyezett Római Egyezmény, az 1976. évi 8. tvr.-rel becikkelyezett Polgári és Politikai Jogok Nemzetközi Egyezségokmánya) garantált magas szintű védelmet élvező alapvető emberi jog. A véleménynyilvánítási jog ekörben nem korlátozható sem annak formája (szóbeli, írásbeli, művészi, stb.), sem pedig annak bíráló, kellemetlen, közszereplőkre vonatkozó tartalma miatt. Erre tekintettel a bírósági végzést tágan értelmezve azt is tiltott rendezvénynek lehetne tekinteni, ha két személy egy téren mutató és középső ujjukkal V alakot formálva véleményüket fejezné ki, ami egy demokratikus jogállamban nyilvánvalóan nem elfogadható.
 A fentiek miatt az üggyel kapcsolatos további jogorvoslat lehetőségét Alapítványunk is vizsgálja és támogatja.
 2. A második ügyben kizárólag Fáber Károly volt érintve, amelynek lényege: 2007. május 9. napján a Budapest, V. kerület Belgrád rakparton az MSZP budapesti tanácsa, míg a Budapest, V. kerület Kossuth tér, Kovács Béla szobor előtti területen a Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom tartott bejelentett rendezvényt. Az eljárás alá vont személy ismerőseivel érkezett és a Belgrád rkp. Kovács Béla szobor felőli feljárója felső részénél álltak meg, és figyelték a rendezvényeket. Az eljárás alá vont személy kezében egy Árpád-házi csíkos zászló volt, egyebekben csendesen szemlélte a rendezvényt. Kis idő múlva egy rendőri csoport érkezett a helyszínre és felszólította, hogy a zászlót tekerje össze, vagy távozzon a helyszínről. Az eljárás alá vont személy ezt követően előadta, hogy a nála tartott zászló nem önkényuralmi jelkép és tudomása szerint nem tilalmazott, ezért összetekerni nem kívánja azonban biztosította, hogy békés és nem zavaró magatartással jelent meg. Ezt követően a rendőrség újabb felszólítására, majd igazoltatására és előállítására került sor.
 Az ügyben szabálysértési eljárás indult, amelyben a BRFK V. ker. Rendőrkapitányság az eljárás alá vont személlyel szemben 50.000,-Ft pénzbírságot szabott ki jogszerű intézkedéssel szembeni engedetlenség szabálysértése miatt.
 Az eljárás alá vont személy a határozattal szemben jogorvoslattal élt, melynek eredményeképpen a Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság 2007. december 7. napján tárgyalta az ügyet.
 A bírósági tárgyaláson az eljárás alá vont személy a fenti tényállást adta elő vallomásában, amelyet követően a rendőrség igazoltatást végző két rendőr tanúja került meghallgatásra, akik az intézkedés indokára, valamint az elhangzott beszélgetésre nem tudtak nyilatkozni tekintve, hogy azt parancsnokuk végezte.
 A bíróság erre, valamint a beszélgetést a helyszínen halló a védő által bejelentett és meghallgatni indítványozott tanúk meghallgatásának szükségességére tekintettel a tárgyalást elhalasztotta, amelyre az említett rendőrtanú, valamint a védő által idézett tanúkat megidézni rendelte. A bíróság az ügyben a következő tárgyalást 2008. február 21. 8 óra 30perckor tartja, amely tárgyalás nyilvános, azon bármely érdeklődő részt vehet.
 Alapítványunk kifejezi azon reményét, hogy a bíróság a történelmi zászlók közé tartozó zászló viselését nem fogja a véleménynyilvánítási jog és a nemzeti érzés egyfajta megnyilvánulásán túlmenően valami másnak, jogsértő cselekménynek értékelni, továbbá a perbeli szabálysértés vonatkozásában Alapítványunk által az Alkotmánybíróság elé, annak megsemmisítése iránt tett indítvány figyelembevételével fogja értékelni a tényállást, különösen annak figyelemmel kísérése mellett, hogy csak jogszerű rendőri intézkedés esetében valósulhat meg ez a szabálysértés.


type: legislation

jurisdiction: US

text:
 I
 111th CONGRESS
 1st Session
 H. R. 1161
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 February 24, 2009
 Mr. Price of North
 Carolina (for himself, Ms. Corrine Brown
 of Florida, Mr. Watt,
 Mr. Gordon of Tennessee,
 Mr. McIntyre,
 Mr. Honda,
 Mr. Lewis of Georgia,
 Ms. Bordallo,
 Mr. Walz, Mr. Clay, Mr.
 Etheridge, Mr. Miller of North
 Carolina, Mr. Hastings of
 Florida, Mr. Kissell,
 Mr. Butterfield,
 Mr. Shuler,
 Mr. Cohen,
 Mr. Donnelly of Indiana,
 Mr. Moran of Virginia,
 Mr. Meeks of New York, and
 Ms. Hirono) introduced the following
 bill; which was referred to the Committee
 on Education and Labor
 A BILL
 To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
 1965 to provide grants for innovative teacher retention
 programs.
 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the
 Keep Teachers Teaching Act of
 2009.
 2.FindingsThe Congress makes the following
 findings:
 (1)The United States
 faces an increasing need for high-quality educators.
 (2)Approximately
 1/3 of teachers leave the profession within 5 years of
 being hired because of poor working conditions, low pay, low morale, or lack of
 a pathway for professional advancement. In some schools, the five-year
 attrition rate reaches 50 percent.
 (3)Effective teacher
 retention programs to address this problem are already at work in school
 districts around the country, and many more innovative programs could be
 advanced if additional resources were available.
 (4)Efforts to address
 the teacher shortage demands a national strategy to support the development and
 implementation of innovative teacher retention programs.
 (5)The United States
 Department of Education can play an important role in facilitating the
 identification of the most promising teacher retention approaches and
 disseminating information about them to States and local educational
 agencies.
 3.Grants for innovative
 teacher retention programsSection 2151 of the Elementary and Secondary
 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6651) is amended by adding at the end the
 following:
 (g)Teacher
 retention activities
 (1)In
 generalThe Secretary shall establish and carry out a teacher
 retention program to assist State educational agencies and local educational
 agencies in developing and implementing innovative teacher retention programs.
 The program shall support the development of model programs and best practices
 in retaining quality teachers in the classroom and shall facilitate the
 dissemination of innovative teacher retention programs to local educational
 agencies throughout the United States.
 (2)GrantsThe
 Secretary shall carry out paragraph (1) by making grants to eligible entities
 to develop and implement innovative teacher retention programs, including
 activities such as—
 (A)professional
 development programs;
 (B)teacher mentoring
 programs;
 (C)advanced
 certification or advanced credentialing;
 (D)research, travel,
 or fellowship opportunities; and
 (E)pairing of teachers
 with professionals in research or industry.
 (3)Eligible
 entitiesIn this subsection, the term eligible
 entity includes—
 (A)local educational
 agencies;
 (B)State educational
 agencies; and
 (C)partnerships of
 local educational agencies, nonprofit organizations, and institutions of higher
 education.
 (4)Grant
 termsGrants under this
 subsection shall be awarded for periods of not more than 5 years and on a
 competitive basis. Grants awarded under this subsection may be renewed.
 (5)Secretary’s duty
 to identify most promising teacher retention approachesThe Secretary shall identify the most
 promising teacher retention approaches, including those already working and
 those developed through grants funded under this subsection, and disseminate
 information about those approaches to States and local educational agencies
 around the country. The Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Education
 and Labor of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health,
 Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, not later than 9 months after the
 date of the enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter, a report
 that describes the methodology by which the most promising teacher retention
 programs are identified and the Secretary’s efforts to disseminate information
 regarding such programs to State departments of education and local educational
 agencies throughout the United
 States.
 .


type: wikipedia

text:
La Serie A 2014-2015 è stata il ventiseiesimo campionato di Serie A e la trentaduesima manifestazione nazionale che assegnasse il titolo di campione d'Italia. La stagione regolare ha preso avvio il 27 settembre 2014, e si è conclusa il 18 aprile 2015 prolungandosi fino al 15 giugno con la disputa delle partite di spareggio. Anche in questa edizione il numero delle formazioni partecipanti è cambiato, passando a 11 squadre: per la prima volta nella storia della competizione, è stato introdotto il turno di riposo. A parità di punteggio fra due o più squadre, la graduatoria finale sarà determinata in base alla classifica avulsa (stesso parametro valevole anche al termine del girone d'andata, per definire le 8 formazioni qualificate alla Coppa Italia). I criteri imposti seguiti sono: punti ottenuti negli scontri diretti, differenza reti negli scontri diretti, differenza reti generale, reti realizzate in generale, sorteggio. È rimasta invariata sia la formula dei play-off (con le prime otto classificate che accedono direttamente agli spareggi-scudetto) sia quella dei play-out che interessano le ultime due squadre classificate e decretano l'unica retrocessione in Serie A2. Tuttavia, questi non saranno necessari se al termine del girone di ritorno vi siano undici, o più punti in classifica tra la penultima e l'ultima classificata che retrocederà direttamente. Anche per questa stagione il pallone ufficiale del campionato è il Bola Futsal fornito da AGLA, sponsor tecnico della Divisione.
 Avvenimenti
 Sorteggio dei calendari
 La Divisione Calcio a 5 ha divulgato un primo calendario del campionato nella notte del 10 agosto. Tuttavia, non rispettando l'identica distribuzione per ciascuna società del numero delle gare da disputare in trasferta ed in casa, esso è stato ritirato nello stesso giorno. Il calendario definitivo è stato ufficializzato tre giorni più tardi. Nella stesura dei calendari è stato imposto il seguente criterio:
 Verrà disposto l'eventuale anticipo per la Luparense, qualora dovesse ottenere il passaggio del turno allélite round della Coppa UEFA (calcio a 5), nel mese di novembre.
 Novità
 L'obbligo di impiegare almeno cinque giocatori formati in Italia (ovvero tesserati per la FIGC prima del compimento del diciottesimo anno d'età) rappresenta la più importante novità introdotta nell'edizione corrente, volta a stimolare l'utilizzo di giocatori italiani. La modifica dei limiti di partecipazione dei giocatori condiziona l'intero mercato, costringendo la maggioranza delle squadre a vere e proprie rivoluzioni dell'organico o a cessioni dolorose come quelle di Zanchetta, beniamino dell'Acqua e Sapone e fedelissimo del mister Bellarte. La squadra campione in carica è la Luparense, che grazie all'affermazione della scorsa edizione, ha raggiunto la Roma RCB in quanto a numero di scudetti vinti. In questa edizione è assente una delle formazioni protagoniste dell'ultimo decennio: la Marca Futsal, retrocessa al termine della scorsa stagione, non ha presentato domanda di iscrizione in nessuno dei campionati FIGC, risultando di fatto inattiva; anche l'L.C. Five Martina e la neopromossa New Team non prenderanno parte alla categoria. Oltre alla formazione friulana, dalla Serie A2 sono state promosse Latina e Sestu. Completa l'organico il Fabrizio, che grazie al quarto ripescaggio consecutivo, in altrettante stagioni è passato dalla Serie C1 regionale alla Serie A senza aver mai vinto un campionato. Il numero delle regioni rappresentate nel torneo aumenta quest'anno a nove: quella maggiormente rappresentata è il Lazio con 3 squadre (Lazio, Latina e Real Rieti), segue l'Abruzzo con due formazioni (Acqua&Sapone e Pescara) mentre Campania, Calabria, Emilia-Romagna, Piemonte, Sardegna e Veneto hanno ciascuna ai nastri di partenza una sola rappresentante.
 Soste
 Per questa stagione sono previste numerose soste, tra gli impegni della Nazionale campione d'Europa e gli appuntamenti consolidati con la Coppa Italia e la Winter Cup. Il campionato si fermerà il 25 ottobre, il 20 e 27 dicembre, il 3 e 24 gennaio, il 28 febbraio e, infine, nella settimana dal 14 al 21 marzo, quest'ultima per le qualificazioni a Euro2016 in cui sarà impegnata la formazione guidata da Roberto Menichelli.
 Squadre partecipanti
 Allenatori e primatisti
 Stagione regolare
 Classifica
 Verdetti
 Pescara campione d'Italia 2014-2015 e qualificato alla Coppa UEFA 2015-16
 Sestu retrocesso in Serie A2 2015-16 dopo i play-out.
 Calendario e risultati
 Statistiche e record
 Classifica marcatori
 Capoliste solitarie
 Dalla 3a alla 5a giornata: Luparense
 Dalla 5a alla 6a giornata: Lazio
 Dalla 11a alla 12a giornata: Lazio
 Dalla 13a giornata alla 14a giornata: Asti
 Dalla 15a giornata alla 17a giornata: Luparense
 Dalla 19a giornata alla 21a giornata: Luparense
 Record
 Maggior numero di vittorie: Luparense, Pescara (11)
 Minor numero di vittorie: Sestu (2)
 Maggior numero di pareggi: Real Rieti (9)
 Minor numero di pareggi: Latina (1)
 Maggior numero di sconfitte: Fabrizio, Latina (12)
 Minor numero di sconfitte: 3 squadre (4)
 Miglior attacco: Real Rieti (90)
 Peggior attacco: Sestu (48)
 Miglior difesa: Asti, Pescara (48)
 Peggior difesa: Fabrizio (84)
 Miglior differenza reti: Asti, Luparense (+23)
 Peggior differenza reti: Fabrizio (-31)
 Miglior serie positiva: Real Rieti (12)
 Maggior numero di vittorie consecutive: Asti (5)
 Maggior numero di sconfitte consecutive: Sestu (5)
 Partita con maggiore scarto di gol: Kaos-Sestu 9-2, Luparense-Lazio 8-1 (7)
 Partita con più reti: Real Rieti-Fabrizio 9-7 (16)
 Maggior numero di reti in una giornata: 3a (45)
 Minor numero di reti in una giornata: 8a (24)
 Play-off
 Regolamento
 I play-off valevoli per lo scudetto si svolgeranno a partire dal 1o maggio per terminare il 12 giugno 2015. Gli incontri dei quarti di finale e delle semifinali sono a eliminazione diretta con gare di andata e ritorno. Gli incontri di ritorno saranno effettuati in casa delle squadre meglio classificate al termine della "stagione regolare". Al termine degli incontri saranno dichiarate vincenti le squadre, che nelle due partite di andata e di ritorno, avranno ottenuto il maggior punteggio.
 In caso di parità di punti tra le due squadre al termine delle due gare, indipendentemente dalla differenza reti, si disputerà una terza gara di spareggio da giocarsi sempre sul campo della migliore classificata al termine della stagione regolare. In caso di parità al termine della terza gara si giocheranno due tempi supplementari di 5 minuti ciascuno. Qualora anche al termine di questi le squadre fossero in parità sarà considerata vincente la squadra in migliore posizione di classifica al termine della "stagione regolare". La finale si disputerà al meglio delle cinque gare secondo l’ordine di seguito evidenziato: 1a gara in casa della squadra meglio classificata al termine della "stagione regolare"; 2a e 3a gara in casa della squadra peggio classificata al termine della “stagione regolare”; 4^ (eventuale) e 5a gara (eventuale) in casa della squadra meglio classificata al termine della "stagione regolare". Al termine degli incontri saranno dichiarate vincenti le squadre, che avranno ottenuto il
 maggior punteggio. In caso di parità al termine della prima gara, della seconda gara, della terza gara e della eventuale quarta gara, si procederà direttamente all'effettuazione dei tiri di rigore. In caso di parità al termine della (eventuale) quinta gara si giocheranno due tempi
 supplementari di 5 minuti ciascuno. Qualora anche al termine di questi le squadre fossero in parità si procederà all’effettuazione dei
 tiri di rigore.
 Tabellone
 Risultati
 Quarti di finale
 Gara 1
 Gara 2
 Gara 3
 Semifinali
 Gara 1
 Gara 2
 Gara 3
 Finale
 Gara 1
 Gara 2
 Gara 3
 Gara 4
 Squadra vincitrice
 Classifica marcatori play-off
 Play-out
 Formula
 Le squadre che hanno concluso il campionato alla decima e all'undicesima posizione si affronteranno in un doppio spareggio (andata e ritorno, la prima partita verrà giocata in casa dell'ultima classificata) per determinare l'unica squadra a retrocedere in Serie A2. Al termine degli incontri sarà dichiarata vincente la squadra che nelle due partite (di andata e di ritorno) avrà ottenuto il maggior punteggio ovvero a parità di punteggio la squadra che avrà realizzato il maggior numero di reti. Nel caso di parità gli arbitri della gara di ritorno faranno disputare due tempi supplementari di 5 minuti ciascuno. Qualora anche al termine di questi le squadre fossero in parità sarà considerata vincente la squadra in migliore posizione di classifica al termine della stagione regolare. Le due partite sono programmate rispettivamente per il 2 e l'8 maggio 2015.
 Risultati
 Andata
 Ritorno
 Supercoppa italiana
 La diciassettesima edizione ha posto di fronte i campioni d'Italia della Luparense e i detentori della Coppa Italia dell'Acqua&Sapone, in una sorta di remake della precedente finale scudetto. L'incontro si è disputato martedì 11 novembre presso il PalaBruel di Bassano del Grappa, in diretta su Rai Sport 1.
 Copertura televisiva
 Come già avvenuto nelle passate stagioni, Rai Sport trasmetterà le partite di Serie A in diretta ed in esclusiva, proponendo settimanalmente una gara del sabato e un posticipo alla domenica, attraverso i canali Rai Sport 1 e Rai Sport 2, trasmettendo integralmente o in differita come di consueto anche la finale della Supercoppa Italiana, le Final Eight della Coppa Italia e tutte le sfide più avvincenti e interessanti degli incontri dei play-off-scudetto, sino alle finali comprese.
 Note
 Voci correlate
 Coppa UEFA 2014-2015 (calcio a 5)
 Collegamenti esterni
 Campionato italiano di calcio a 5 Serie A
 Calcio a 5 nel 2014
 Calcio a 5 nel 2015


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21995D1230(04)
 Décision n° 3/95 du Conseil d'association entre les Communautés européennes et leurs États membres, d'une part, et la République de Bulgarie, d'autre part, du 20 décembre 1995, concernant l'exportation de certains produits sidérurgiques CECA de la Bulgarie vers la Communauté
 Journal officiel n° L 325 du 30/12/1995 p. 0037 - 0050
 DÉCISION N° 3/95 DU CONSEIL D'ASSOCIATIONentre les Communautés européennes et leurs États membres, d'une part, et la république de Bulgarie, d'autre partdu 20 décembre 1995concernant l'exportation de certains produits sidérurgiques CECA de la Bulgarie vers la Communauté(95/573/CECA)LE CONSEIL D'ASSOCIATION, considérant que le groupe de contact visé à l'article 11 du protocole 2 de l'accord européen établissant une association entre les Communautés européennes et leurs États membres, d'une part, et la république de Bulgarie, d'autre part (1), qui est entré en vigueur le 1er février 1995, s'est réuni le 30 octobre 1995 pour examiner l'évolution des importations des produits CECA de la Bulgarie dans la Communauté et a reconnu la nécessité d'une procédure administrative destinée à permettre une information rapide sur l'évolution des courants d'échanges afin d'assurer que la réalisation des objectifs de l'accord n'est pas compromise; considérant qu'une telle procédure administrative contribuerait à accroître la transparence et à éviter d'éventuels détournements de trafic; considérant que le groupe de contact est dès lors convenu de recommander au Conseil d'association institué par l'article 105 de l'accord que le système de double contrôle introduit en 1995 par la décision n° 2/95 (2) du Conseil d'association soit prorogé pour la période du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 1996; considérant que les parties sont désireuses de promouvoir le développement ordonné et équitable des échanges d'acier entre la Communauté et la Bulgarie; considérant que le Conseil d'association, au vu de toutes les informations utiles qui lui ont été fournies, a estimé que la solution acceptable pour les deux parties et la moins susceptible de perturber le bon fonctionnement de l'accord consiste à proroger, pour la période du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 1996, le système de double contrôle, sans limites quantitatives, des importations dans la Communauté de certains produits sidérurgiques relevant du traité CECA, DÉCIDE: Article premier 1. Pendant la période du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 1996, l'importation dans la Communauté des produits sidérurgiques originaires de Bulgarie qui sont énumérés à l'annexe I est subordonnée à la présentation d'un document d'importation conforme au modèle reproduit à l'annexe II; délivré par les autorités communautaires. 2. Le classement des produits visés par la présente décision se fonde sur la nomenclature tarifaire et statistique de la Communauté, ci-après dénommée «nomenclature combinée» ou, dans sa forme abrégée, «NC». L'origine de ces produits est déterminée conformément aux règles en vigueur dans la Communauté. 3. Pendant la période du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 1996, l'importation dans la Communauté des produits sidérurgiques originaires de Bulgarie qui sont énumérés à l'annexe I est en outre subordonnée à la délivrance d'un document d'exportation par les autorités bulgares compétentes. L'importateur est tenu de présenter l'original du document d'exportation au plus tard le 31 mars de l'année suivant celle de l'expédition des marchandises couvertes par le document. L'expédition est considérée comme ayant eu lieu à la date de chargement sur le moyen de transport utilisé pour l'exportation. 4. Le document d'exportation doit être conforme au modèle reproduit à l'annexe III. Il est valable pour les exportations à destination de l'ensemble du territoire douanier de la Communauté. 5. La république de Bulgarie notifie à la Commission les noms et adresses des autorités gouvernementales bulgares habilitées à délivrer et à contrôler les documents d'exportation et lui fait parvenir en même temps un modèle des sceaux et des signatures qu'elles utilisent. Elle notifie également à la Commission tout changement intervenu dans ces éléments. 6. Certaines dispositions techniques relatives à la mise en oeuvre du système de double contrôle figurent à l'annexe IV. Article 2 1. La république de Bulgarie s'engage à fournir à la Communauté des statistiques précises sur les documents d'exportation délivrés par les autorités bulgares en application de l'article 1er. Ces données sont transmises à la Communauté à la fin de la période suivant le mois auquel elles se rapportent. 2. La Communauté s'engage à fournir aux autorités bulgares des statistiques précises sur les documents d'importation délivrés par les États membres pour les produits énumérés à l'annexe I. Ces données sont transmises aux autorités bulgares à la fin de la période suivant le mois auquel elles se rapportent. Article 3 Pour autant que de besoin, les parties se consultent, à la demande de l'une d'entre elles, sur tout problème découlant du fonctionnement de la présente décision. Les consultations ont lieu sans délai. Les deux parties les abordent dans un esprit de coopération et avec la volonté de régler le différend qui les oppose. Article 4 Les notifications prévues par la présente décision doivent être adressées: - pour ce qui concerne la Communauté, à la Commission des Communautés européennes (DG I/D/2 et DG III/C/2), - pour ce qui concerne la Bulgarie, à la mission de la république de Bulgarie auprès des Communautés européennes et au ministère du commerce et de la coopération économique extérieure de la république de Bulgarie. Article 5 La présente décision est obligatoire pour la Communauté et la république de Bulgarie, qui prennent les mesures nécessaires à son exécution. Article 6 La présente décision entre en vigueur le jour de sa signature. Elle est applicable à partir du 1er janvier 1996. Fait à Bruxelles, le 20 décembre 1995. Par le Conseil d'associationLe présidentL. ATIENZA SERNA(1) JO n° L 358 du 31. 12. 1994, p. 3. (2) Voir page 27 du présent Journal officiel. ANNEXE I BULGARIE Liste des produits soumis au double contrôle (1996) 7202 11 207202 11 807202 99 117203 90 007206 10 007206 90 007208 10 007208 25 007208 26 007208 27 007208 36 007208 37 107208 37 907208 38 107208 38 907208 39 107208 39 907208 40 107208 40 907208 51 107208 51 307208 51 507208 51 917208 51 997208 52 107208 52 917208 52 997208 53 107208 53 907208 54 107208 54 907208 90 107209 15 007209 16 107209 16 907209 17 107209 17 907209 18 107209 18 917209 18 997209 25 007209 26 107209 26 907209 27 107209 27 907209 28 107209 28 907209 90 107210 11 107210 12 117210 12 197210 20 107210 30 107210 41 107210 49 107210 50 107210 61 107210 69 107210 70 317210 70 397210 90 317210 90 337210 90 387211 13 007211 14 107211 14 907211 19 207211 19 907211 23 107211 23 517211 29 207211 90 117212 10 107212 10 917212 20 117212 30 117212 40 107212 40 917212 50 317212 50 517212 60 117212 60 917213 10 007213 20 007213 91 107213 91 207213 91 417213 91 497213 91 707213 91 907213 99 107213 99 907214 20 007214 30 007214 91 107214 91 907214 99 107214 99 317214 99 397214 99 507214 99 617214 99 697214 99 807214 99 907215 90 107216 10 007216 21 007216 22 007216 31 117216 31 197216 31 917216 31 997216 32 117216 32 197216 32 917216 32 997216 33 107216 33 907216 40 107216 40 907216 50 107216 50 917216 50 997216 99 107219 11 007219 12 107219 12 907219 13 107219 13 907219 14 107219 14 907219 21 107219 21 907219 22 107219 22 907219 23 007219 24 007219 31 007219 32 107219 32 907219 33 107219 33 907219 34 107219 34 907219 35 107219 35 907219 90 107220 11 007220 12 007220 20 107220 90 117220 90 317221 00 107221 00 907222 11 117222 11 197222 11 217222 11 297222 11 917222 11 997222 19 107222 19 907222 30 107222 40 107222 40 307225 11 007225 19 107225 19 907225 20 207225 30 007225 40 207225 40 507225 40 807225 50 007225 91 107225 92 107225 99 107226 11 107226 19 107226 19 307226 20 207226 91 107226 91 907226 92 107226 93 207226 94 207226 99 207227 10 007227 20 007227 90 107227 90 507227 90 957228 10 107228 10 307228 20 117228 20 197228 20 307228 30 207228 30 417228 30 497228 30 617228 30 697228 30 707228 30 897228 60 107228 70 107228 70 317228 80 107228 80 907301 10 00 ANNEXE II >PICTURE> ANNEXE III >PICTURE>LICENCE D'EXPORTATION (Produits CECA)1. Exportateur (nom, adresse complète, pays)2. Numéro3. Année4. Catégorie de produits5. Destinataire (nom, adresse complète, pays)6. Pays d'origine7. Pays de destination8. Lieu et date d'embarquement - Moyen de transport9. Indications complémentaires10. Description des marchandises - Fabricant11. Code NC12. Quantité (1)13. Valeur fob (2)14. DÉCLARATION DE L'AUTORITÉ COMPÉTENTE15. Autorité compétente (nom, adresse complète, pays)>PICTURE>Fait à., le . (Signature)(Cachet)>PICTURE>(1) Poids net en kilogrammes ou quantité dans l'unité prévue pour la catégorie si cette unité n'est pas le poids net. (2) En monnaie du contrat de vente. ANNEXE IV BULGARIE ANNEXE TECHNIQUE POUR LE SYSTÈME DE DOUBLE CONTRÔLE 1. Les documents d'exportation mesurent 210 mm sur 297. Le papier utilisé doit être du papier blanc à lettre encollé ne contenant pas de pâte mécanique et pesant au minimum 25 grammes par mètre carré. Ils sont imprimés en anglais. S'ils sont établis à la main, ils doivent être remplis à l'encre et en caractères d'imprimerie. Les documents d'exportation peuvent comporter des copies supplémentaires dûment désignées comme telles. Lorsqu'ils comportent plusieurs copies, le premier feuillet est seul à constituer l'original. Ce feuillet est revêtu de la mention «original» et les autres feuillets de la mention «copie». Les autorités communautaires compétentes n'acceptent que l'original pour contrôler l'exportation vers la Communauté conformément aux dispositions du système de double contrôle. 2. Chaque document est revêtu d'un numéro de série standard imprimé ou non destiné à l'individualiser. Ce numéro est composé des éléments suivants: - deux lettres identifiant le pays exportateur comme suit: BG, - deux lettres identifiant l'État membre prévu pour le dédouanement comme suit: BE - BelgiqueDK - DanemarkDE - AllemagneEL - GrèceES - EspagneFR - FranceIE - IrlandeIT - ItalieLU - LuxembourgNL - Pays-BasAT - AutrichePT - PortugalFI - FinlandeSE - SuèdeGB - Royaume-Uni, - un numéro à un chiffre indiquant l'année correspondant au dernier chiffre du millésime, par exemple 6 pour 1996, - des numéros à deux chiffres allant de 01 à 99 identifiant le bureau de délivrance du pays exportateur, - des numéros à cinq chiffres allant de 00001 à 99999 attribués à l'État membre prévu pour le dédouanement. 3. Les documents d'exportation sont valables pendant quatre mois à compter de la date de leur délivrance. Ils peuvent être renouvelés ou prorogés. 4. Chaque document d'importation peut être utilisé pour un ou plusieurs envois des produits en question. Toufefois, étant donné que l'importateur est tenu de présenter l'original du document d'exportation lorsqu'il demande un document d'importation, les documents d'exportation devraient, dans la mesure du possible, être délivrés pour des transactions commerciales distinctes et non globales. 5. La république de Bulgarie n'est pas tenue de faire figurer sur le document d'exportation des données de prix à caractère strictement confidentiel. En pareil cas, il convient d'indiquer dans la case 9 du document d'exportation la raison de la non-divulgation de ces données de prix et de mentionner qu'elles peuvent être fournies sur demande aux autorités communautaires compétentes. 6. Les documents d'exportation peuvent être délivrés après l'expédition des produits auxquels ils se rapportent. En pareil cas, ils doivent être revêtus de la mention «délivré a posteriori». 7. En cas de vol, de perte ou de destruction d'un document d'exportation, l'exportateur peut réclamer à l'autorité gouvernementale compétente qui l'a délivré un duplicata établi sur la base des documents d'exportation qui sont en sa possession. Le duplicata ainsi délivré doit être revêtu de la mention «duplicata». Il doit reproduire la date du document d'exportation. 8. Les autorités communautaires compétentes sont informées sans délai du retrait ou de la modification d'un document d'exportation et, le cas échéant, des raisons du retrait ou de la modification. 9. La république de Bulgarie entend indiquer la classification des produits (produits de premier ou second choix ou produits déclassés) dans la case 10 du document d'exportation.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 11951K/PRO/CJ/13
 VERDRAG TOT OPRICHTING VAN DE EUROPESE GEMEENSCHAP VOOR KOLEN EN STAAL ( EGKS ), PROTOCOL BETREFFENDE HET STATUUT VAN HET HOF VAN JUSTITIE VAN DE EUROPESE GEMEENSCHAP VOOR KOLEN EN STAAL, TITEL II: ORGANISATIE, ADVOCATEN-GENERAAL, ARTIKEL 13
 ++++Artikel 13 De bepalingen van de artikelen 2 tot 5 en 8 zijn van toepassing op de advocaten-generaal . De advocaten-generaal kunnen niet van hun ambt ontheven worden , tenzij zij hebben opgehouden aan de vereiste voorwaarden te voldoen . De beslissing hieromtrent wordt door de Raad eenstemming genomen , nadat advies van het Hof is ingewonnen .


text: b' O FFICE OF A UDIT S ERVICES , R EGION II\n J ACOB K. J AVITS F EDERAL B UILDING\nMay 2, 2012 26 F EDERAL P LAZA , R OOM 3900\n N EW Y ORK, NY 10278\n\n\n\nReport Number: A-02-11-01018\n\nDr. Robert H. Greenspan\nChief Executive Officer\nThe New York Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association\n of New York City, Inc., Health Benefits Fund\n305 West 44th Street\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nDear Dr. Greenspan:\n\nEnclosed is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Inspector\nGeneral (OIG), final report entitled The New York Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association\nof New York City, Inc., Health Benefits Fund Reported Unallowable Costs on its Final 2009\nMedicare Cost Report. We will forward a copy of this report to the HHS action official noted on\nthe following page for review and any action deemed necessary.\n\nThe HHS action official will make final determination as to actions taken on all matters reported.\nWe request that you respond to this official within 30 days from the date of this letter. Your\nresponse should present any comments or additional information that you believe may have a\nbearing on the final determination.\n\nSection 8L of the Inspector General Act, 5 U.S.C. App., requires that OIG post its publicly\navailable reports on the OIG Web site. Accordingly, this report will be posted at\nhttp://oig.hhs.gov.\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this report, please do not hesitate to call me, or\ncontact Glenn H. Richter, Audit Manager, at (518) 437-9390, extension 227, or through email at\nGlenn.Richter@oig.hhs.gov. Please refer to report number A-02-11-01018 in all\ncorrespondence.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n\n /James P. Edert/\n Regional Inspector General\n for Audit Services\nEnclosure\n\x0cPage 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Dr. Robert H. Greenspan\n\n\nDirect Reply to HHS Action Official:\n\nTimothy Love, Acting Deputy Director\nCenter for Medicare\nCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Services\nMail Stop C5-01-14\n7500 Security Boulevard\nBaltimore, MD 21244-1850\n\x0c Department of Health and Human Services\n OFFICE OF\n INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n THE NEW YORK HOTEL TRADES\n COUNCIL AND HOTEL ASSOCIATION\n OF NEW YORK CITY, INC.,\nHEALTH BENEFITS FUND REPORTED\n UNALLOWABLE COSTS ON ITS\nFINAL 2009 MEDICARE COST REPORT\n\n\n\n\n Daniel R. Levinson\n Inspector General\n\n May 2012\n A-02-11-01018\n\x0c Office of Inspector General\n http://oig.hhs.gov\n\n\n\nThe mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as amended, is\nto protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) programs, as well as the\nhealth and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This statutory mission is carried out\nthrough a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and inspections conducted by the following\noperating components:\n\nOffice of Audit Services\n\nThe Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides auditing services for HHS, either by conducting audits with\nits own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. Audits examine the performance of\nHHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying out their respective responsibilities and are\nintended to provide independent assessments of HHS programs and operations. These assessments help\nreduce waste, abuse, and mismanagement and promote economy and efficiency throughout HHS.\n\nOffice of Evaluation and Inspections\nThe Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts national evaluations to provide HHS, Congress,\nand the public with timely, useful, and reliable information on significant issues. These evaluations focus\non preventing fraud, waste, or abuse and promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of\ndepartmental programs. To promote impact, OEI reports also present practical recommendations for\nimproving program operations.\n\nOffice of Investigations\nThe Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations of fraud and\nmisconduct related to HHS programs, operations, and beneficiaries. With investigators working in all 50\nStates and the District of Columbia, OI utilizes its resources by actively coordinating with the Department\nof Justice and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities. The investigative efforts of OI\noften lead to criminal convictions, administrative sanctions, and/or civil monetary penalties.\n\nOffice of Counsel to the Inspector General\nThe Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides general legal services to OIG, rendering\nadvice and opinions on HHS programs and operations and providing all legal support for OIG\xe2\x80\x99s internal\noperations. OCIG represents OIG in all civil and administrative fraud and abuse cases involving HHS\nprograms, including False Claims Act, program exclusion, and civil monetary penalty cases. In\nconnection with these cases, OCIG also negotiates and monitors corporate integrity agreements. OCIG\nrenders advisory opinions, issues compliance program guidance, publishes fraud alerts, and provides\nother guidance to the health care industry concerning the anti-kickback statute and other OIG enforcement\nauthorities.\n\x0c Notices\n\n\n THIS REPORT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC\n at http://oig.hhs.gov\n\n Section 8L of the Inspector General Act, 5 U.S.C. App., requires\n that OIG post its publicly available reports on the OIG Web site.\n\nOFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES FINDINGS AND OPINIONS\n\n The designation of financial or management practices as\n questionable, a recommendation for the disallowance of costs\n incurred or claimed, and any other conclusions and\n recommendations in this report represent the findings and\n opinions of OAS. Authorized officials of the HHS operating\n divisions will make final determination on these matters.\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY \n\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nPursuant to Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, the Medicare program provides health\ninsurance for people aged 65 and over and those who are disabled or have permanent kidney\ndisease. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administers the program.\n\nThe Medicare Part C program offers beneficiaries managed care options through the Medicare\nAdvantage program. Under the program, CMS contracts with private health insurance plans to\nprovide covered Part B services. Medicare Advantage plans include Health Care Prepayment\nPlans (HCPP), which are union- or employer-sponsored plans that contract with CMS to provide\nor arrange for some or all Medicare Part B services.\n\nOn a monthly basis, CMS pays HCPPs an interim rate for each Medicare beneficiary enrolled in\ntheir plan. Pursuant to 42 CFR \xc2\xa7 417.810(b), HCPPs must submit a final cost report to CMS\nwithin 120 days after the close of the contract period. CMS reconciles the final reported costs to\nthe previously made interim payments to determine the payment amounts due the HCPPs or the\nMedicare trust fund, which funds the Part C program. Pursuant to 42 CFR \xc2\xa7 417.802, HCPPs are\nentitled to reimbursement only for costs that are reasonable and allowable.\n\nThe New York Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association of New York City, Inc., Health\nBenefits Fund (the Fund) is an HCPP that provides Medicare Part B services to eligible New\nYork City hotel industry employees and their families. In addition, the Fund offers non-\nMedicare services to other plan members. The Fund provides services to plan members at four\nhealth centers and contracts with outside providers for services not offered by the health centers.\n\nOn its final cost report for calendar year (CY) 2009, the Fund reported Medicare Part B costs\ntotaling $8,204,307 for services provided to 3,180 plan members. CMS requested that we\nperform a limited scope review to determine if Medicare Part B costs reported by the Fund were\nfor Medicare-eligible services provided to Medicare-eligible plan members, excluded costs for\nservices billed to Medicare by contracted providers, and excluded Medicare coinsurance.\n\nOBJECTIVE\n\nOur objective was to determine whether Medicare Part B costs reported by the Fund on its final\nCY 2009 cost report were reasonable and allowable.\n\nSUMMARY OF FINDINGS\n\nThe Fund\xe2\x80\x99s final CY 2009 cost report included Medicare Part B costs totaling $236,943 that\nwere not reasonable and allowable. Specifically, the Fund reported costs for services to plan\nmembers that were not Medicare-eligible ($181,189), costs for services that were billed to both\nthe Fund and Medicare by contracted providers ($48,784), and costs for services not eligible for\nMedicare reimbursement ($6,970).\n\n\n\n\n i\n\x0cRECOMMENDATIONS\n\nWe recommend that the Fund:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t refund $236,943 to the Federal Government,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t strengthen procedures for verifying plan members\xe2\x80\x99 Medicare eligibility,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t establish procedures for verifying that reported Medicare Part B costs do not include\n services billed to Medicare by contracted providers, and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t ensure that only Medicare-eligible services are included in reported Medicare Part B\n costs.\n\nFUND COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL RESPONSE\n\nIn written comments on our draft report, the Fund concurred with our findings related to plan\nmembers not eligible for Medicare and services not eligible for Medicare reimbursement, and\ndescribed steps it had taken to address our related recommendations. The Fund did not concur\nwith our finding related to duplicate payments; however, it stated that it will refund these\npayments. The Fund\xe2\x80\x99s comments appear in their entirety as the Appendix.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n\n Page\n\nINTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1\n\n\n\n BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................1\n\n\n Medicare Program........................................................................................1\n\n\n Health Care Prepayment Plans.....................................................................1\n\n\n The New York Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association \n\n of New York City, Inc., Health Benefits Fund .........................................1\n\n\n\n OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ....................................................2\n\n\n Objective ......................................................................................................2\n\n\n Scope............................................................................................................2\n\n\n Methodology................................................................................................2\n\n\n\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................3\n\n\n\n UNALLOWABLE COSTS .....................................................................................3\n\n\n Plan Members Not Medicare-Eligible .........................................................3\n\n\n Duplicate Payments .....................................................................................3\n\n\n Services Not Eligible for Medicare Reimbursement ...................................3\n\n\n\n RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................4\n\n\n\n FUND COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF\n\n\n INSPECTOR GENERAL RESPONSE ...................................................................4\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n FUND COMMENTS\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\n\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nMedicare Program\n\nPursuant to Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, the Medicare program provides health\ninsurance for people aged 65 and over and those who are disabled or have permanent kidney\ndisease. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administers the program.\n\nHealth Care Prepayment Plans\n\nThe Medicare Part C program offers beneficiaries managed care options through the Medicare\nAdvantage program. Under the program, CMS contracts with private health insurance plans to\nprovide covered Part B services. Medicare Advantage plans include Health Care Prepayment\nPlans (HCPP), which are union- or employer-sponsored plans that contract with CMS to provide\nor arrange for some or all Medicare Part B services.\n\nOn a monthly basis, CMS pays HCPPs an interim rate for each Medicare beneficiary enrolled in\ntheir plan. Pursuant to 42 CFR \xc2\xa7 417.810(b), HCPPs must submit a final cost report to CMS\nwithin 120 days after the close of the contract period. CMS reconciles the final reported costs to\nthe previously made interim payments to determine the payment amounts due the HCPPs or the\nMedicare trust fund, which funds the Part C program. Pursuant to 42 CFR \xc2\xa7 417.802, HCPPs are\nentitled to reimbursement only for costs that are reasonable and allowable.\n\nThe New York Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association\nof New York City, Inc., Health Benefits Fund\n\nThe New York Hotel Trades Council and Hotel Association of New York City, Inc., Health\nBenefits Fund (the Fund) is an HCPP that provides Medicare Part B services to eligible New\nYork City hotel industry employees and their families. In addition, the Fund offers non-\nMedicare services to other plan members. The Fund provides services to plan members at four\nhealth centers and contracts with outside providers for services not offered by the health centers.\n\nOn its final cost report for calendar year (CY) 2009, the Fund reported Medicare Part B costs\ntotaling $8,204,307 for services provided to 3,180 plan members.\n\nCMS requested that we perform a limited scope review to determine if Medicare Part B costs\nreported by the Fund were for Medicare-eligible services provided to Medicare-eligible plan\nmembers, excluded costs for services billed to Medicare by contracted providers, and excluded\nMedicare coinsurance.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n\n\x0cOBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\nObjective\n\nOur objective was to determine whether Medicare Part B costs reported by the Fund on its final\nCY 2009 cost report were reasonable and allowable.\n\nScope\n\nThis review was performed based upon a limited scope request from CMS. Therefore, we did\nnot perform an overall assessment of the Fund\xe2\x80\x99s internal control structure. Rather, we reviewed\nonly the internal controls that pertained directly to our objectives.\n\nWe conducted fieldwork at the Fund\xe2\x80\x99s administrative offices in New York, New York from June\nthrough August 2011.\n\nMethodology\n\nTo accomplish our objective, we:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t reviewed applicable Federal laws and regulations;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t interviewed the Fund officials to gain an understanding of the Fund\xe2\x80\x99s policies and \n\n procedures for verifying and reporting Medicare Part B costs;\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t reconciled the Fund\xe2\x80\x99s CY 2009 Medicare Part B cost report to supporting financial\n records;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t reviewed the CMS Services, Tracking, Analysis & Reporting System database to\n\n\n determine if the Fund\xe2\x80\x99s plan members were Medicare-eligible;\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t reviewed the CMS National Claims\xe2\x80\x99 History database to determine if CMS paid\n Medicare claims to providers contracted and paid by the Fund for Medicare-eligible plan\n members;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t reviewed the Fund\xe2\x80\x99s Medicare Part B plan member claims to determine if the services\n were eligible for Medicare reimbursement;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t verified that costs reported by the Fund excluded Medicare coinsurance; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t discussed our results with the Fund officials.\n\nWe conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government\nauditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain\nsufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions\nbased on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis\n\n\n 2\n\n\n\x0cfor our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\n FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nThe Fund\xe2\x80\x99s final CY 2009 cost report included Medicare Part B costs totaling $236,943 that\nwere not reasonable and allowable. Specifically, the Fund reported costs for services to plan\nmembers that were not Medicare-eligible ($181,189), costs for services that were billed to both\nthe Fund and Medicare by contracted providers ($48,784), and costs for services not eligible for\nMedicare reimbursement ($6,970).\n\nUNALLOWABLE COSTS\n\nPlan Members Not Medicare-Eligible\n\nPursuant to 42 CFR \xc2\xa7 406, an individual is entitled to Medicare benefits if he/she has attained\nage 65, is under the age of 65 with certain disabilities, or is of any age and has end-stage renal\ndisease.\n\nThe Fund confirmed that plan members were Medicare-eligible by checking applicants\xe2\x80\x99\nMedicare cards at the time of enrollment. However, the Fund did not verify Medicare eligibility\nsubsequent to enrollment. The Fund officials stated that, during a conversion to a new computer\nsystem, Medicare enrollment information for primary plan members was also assigned to\nprimary plan members\xe2\x80\x99 family, regardless of their actual Medicare eligibility. As a result, the\nFund reported unallowable costs totaling $181,189.\n\nDuplicate Payments\n\nPursuant to 42 CFR \xc2\xa7 417.802, to be allowable for reimbursement, costs reported by an HCPP\nmust be reasonable. In addition, CMS\xe2\x80\x99s Medicare Managed Care Manual (the Manual), Pub.\nNo. 100\xe2\x80\x9016, chapter 17, subchapter B, section 300, states that duplicate payment detection is the\nresponsibility of the HCPP. The Manual further states that the HCPP \xe2\x80\x9cshould perform several\nduplicate check functions after it receives paid claims information.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe Fund reported unallowable costs, totaling $48,784, for duplicate payments to contracted\nproviders who billed the Fund and Medicare for the same services. To prevent duplicate\npayments, the Fund\xe2\x80\x99s contracts with these providers contain a clause directing the providers not\nto bill Medicare for the Fund plan members. However, the Fund did not have procedures for\nverifying that reported Medicare Part B costs did not include services directly billed to Medicare\nby contracted providers.\n\nServices Not Eligible for Medicare Reimbursement\n\nPursuant to 42 CFR \xc2\xa7 411.15, certain services, including vision and hearing examinations related\nto the fitting of glasses and hearing aids, cosmetic surgery, and specified immunizations are not\neligible for Medicare reimbursement. To prevent the improper billing of excluded services,\nCMS developed the National Correct Coding Initiative Coding Policy Manual for Medicare\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\n\x0cServices, which contains a listing of all procedure codes that may be used to support covered\nMedicare Part B services.\n\nThe Fund reported unallowable costs, totaling $6,970, for services (e.g., placement of an\nintrauterine device) not eligible for Medicare reimbursement. The Fund officials stated that\nthese errors occurred because staff improperly coded the services.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS\n\nWe recommend that the Fund:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t refund $236,943 to the Federal Government,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t strengthen procedures for verifying plan members\xe2\x80\x99 Medicare eligibility,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t establish procedures for verifying that reported Medicare Part B costs do not include\n services billed to Medicare by contracted providers, and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t\t ensure that only Medicare-eligible services are included in reported Medicare Part B\n costs.\n\nFUND COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL RESPONSE\n\nIn written comments on our draft report, the Fund concurred with our findings related to plan\nmembers not eligible for Medicare and services not eligible for Medicare reimbursement, and\ndescribed steps it had taken to address our related recommendations. The Fund did not concur\nwith our finding related to duplicate payments; however, it stated that it will refund these\npayments. The Fund\xe2\x80\x99s comments appear in their entirety as the Appendix.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\n\n\x0cAPPENDIX\n\n\n\x0c Page 1 of 2\n\n\n APPENDIX: FUND COMMENTS\n\n\n\n\n ~" ... ,w roo. "0\'\'. TO Af\'" C"C"\'C"\n HE ALTH BENEFITS FUND\n T". It""" ...,x:,~11""\'" \' ...\'" roo. ~IT\', \' \' I\'".\n 305We$l""" SIrefIt \xe2\x80\xa2 New YOJ1<. NY 1003& \xe2\x80\xa2 (~12) 58&-6400 \xe2\x80\xa2 F.... (212) S!l1 \xc2\xb7fj107 . ",,\xc2\xb7.w.HoIe4FU\'I(1S OIl!\n\n\n April 17, 2012\n\nJames P. Edert\nDepartment of Health and Human Services\nOffice of Inspector General\nOffice of Audit Services, Region II\nJacob K. Javits Federal Building\n26 Federal Plaza, Room 3900\nNew York, NY 10278\n\n Re: Report Number: A-02-11-01018\n\nDear Mr. Edert:\n\n We are in receipt of the draft report dated March 26, 2012 for the New York Hotel\nTrades Council and Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund for\nreported unallowable costs on its final 2009 Medicare Cost Report. As per your\ninstructions, below are our responses to the three areas of findings outrined in your\nreport.\n\n Plan Members not Medicare Eligible\n As stated in the report, there was an issue that arose during the conversion to a\nnew computer system where plan type for dependents was derived from former Union\nmembers (the primary Plan Members). Therefore, If a member had enrolled and\nassigned the Plan their Medicare benefits, the encounters of their dependents were also\nincluded in the Medicare statistics even though they were not Medicare Eligible. The\n:ssue <:Isc occurred on the i.... verse, thai is. if tile primary Plan member was not\nMedicare eligible but was eligible through other coverage (I.e. Cobra, Retiree\nContinuation etc.) and the dependents were Medicare eligible and had assigned it to the\nPlan, those encounters were not originally included the Cost Report Medicare Statistics.\nWe concur with this finding and have corrected the programming issue.\n\n Duplicate Payments\n As also noted in the report, the Fund contracts with outside providers to perform\nservices not rendered in the Health Centers. Those contracts contain language\nprohibiting those providers from billing Medicare for services that are referred by the\nFund for Medicare Members. We are not aware of any system or database assessable\nto us to verify what payments were paid by Medicare to specific providers. Even if such\na system was available, there could not be a procedure established to insure that\nMedicare does not pay for Services the Fund already has. We do not concur\n\x0c Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 2\nApril 17, 2012\nJames P.p . Edert\n\n\n retum the payments 10\nbut will retum to Medicare. We are in recent receipt from your offICe\n office of\nthe list of these overpayments by provider which wen\\W!II be utilized to cancel our contracts\n providers as well as attempl\nwith these prov:ders attempt recovery.\n recovety.\n\nServices Not Eligible For Medicare Reimbursement\n\n providers improperty coded services as they performed them in\nWe concur that a few provklers\nthe Health Centers. W\n Wee have instituted routine re-training sessions in proper coding for\nan\nan medical staff.\n\nShould you have any questions on our response or should you require any additional\n p&ease do not hesitate to contad me. Thank you for your assistance.\ninformation. please\ninformation,\n\n\nVery Truly Yours,\n Yours.\n o\n\n\\k\n\'Jt\nDr.\nOr. Ro Greenspan\n G reenspan\n Officer\nChief Executive Officef\n\x0c'


text:
Az ÖBB 1072 sorozat egy osztrák 1'B1 tengelyelrendezésű, 15 kV 16,7 Hz áramrendszerű villamosmozdony-sorozat volt.
 Az LWP Ewp (később ÖBB 1072 sorozat az Elektrische Lokalbahn Wien-Landesgrenze nächst Hainburg (L.W.P.) 1'B1 tengelyelrendezésű, 15 kV 16,7 Hz áramrendszerű villamosmozdony-sorozata volt, amelyet a Pressburgi vasúton használtak. 1914-ben és 1916-ban gyártotta az SGP. Összesen nyolc db készült belőle. Az ÖBB 1975-ben selejtezte a sorozatot.
 Története
 A mozdonyokat 1913-tól szállították le. A pozsonyi vasút 1914-es megnyitásakor kezdetben hat, 1-től 6-ig számozott gép állt rendelkezésre, a 6-os számú a Pozsony Országhatárszéli Helyiérdekű Villamos Vasút (P.O.H.É.V.) magyar alvállalaté volt. 1916-ban további két mozdonyt szállítottak le 7-es és 8-as számmal. 1921-től az Osztrák Szövetségi Vasutak (BBÖ) vette át a vonal üzemeltetését, a mozdonyokat BBÖ 1005.01-08-as mozdonyoknak nevezték el, és az akkori Groß-Schwechat vonatszállító állomáson állomásoztak.
 Ausztria 1938. március 12-i Német Birodalomhoz való csatolása után a BBÖ-t beolvasztották a Deutsche Reichsbahn (DR) vállalatba, amely a mozdonyoknak az DRB E 72-es sorozatjelzést adta.
 1953-tól a mozdonyok ÖBB 1072-es sorozatúak lettek. Az 1950-es évek végén a háború után megmaradt hat mozdonyt modernizálták. Új hegesztett karosszériát, új áramszedőket és vákuumfékek helyett légfékeket kaptak.
 Ezek a gépek 56 tonnás üzemi tömegükkel és 60 km/h maximális sebességükkel tipikus helyi vasúti mozdonyok voltak, és már nem illettek bele a "modern korba". Ennek ellenére 1975-ig még vontatási szolgálatot teljesítettek, majd fokozatosan felváltották őket az ÖBB 4030 sorozat többrészes motorvonatai.
 Az 1072.04 1975-ben az 1072.01 téves számot kapta. A forgalomból való kivonása után 1977-től 1986-ig Weilheim in Oberbayern állomás mozdonyházában tárolták. 1977-től 1986-ig a mozdonyt a Vasutak Barátainak Egyesülete (VEF) egy német vasúti gyűjtőtől vásárolta meg, és 2014. szeptember 21-én a Strasshofi Vasúttörténeti Múzeumból egy segédvonattal együtt a Schwechati Vasúttörténeti Múzeumba szállították. 2018 januárjáig az 1072.05 nem állt nyilvánosan Marcheggben, és a műszaki múzeum megbízásából az említett időszakban selejtezték. Ez azt jelenti, hogy ebből a sorozatból már csak egy mozdony maradt fenn.
 Irodalom
 Alfred Horn: „60 Jahre“ – Die Preßburgerbahn. Bohmann Verlag, Wien 1974,
 Hufnagl Wolfdieter: Die Niederösterreichischen Landesbahnen Transpress Verlag 2003 .
 Alfred Horn: Preßburgerbahn – 75 Jahre in Bildern. Bohmann Verlag, Wien 1989, .
 Richard Rotter, Helmut Petrovitsch: Triebfahrzeuge österreichischer Eisenbahnen – Elektrische Lokomotiven und Triebwagen. alba Verlag, Düsseldorf 1990, .
 Markus Inderst: Bildatlas der ÖBB-Lokomotiven. Alle Triebfahrzeuge der Österreichischen Bundesbahnen. GeraMond, München 2010, .
 További információk
 Foto der 1072.01 mit altem Kasten
 Foto der 1072.01 mit neuem Kasten
 Osztrák villamos mozdonyok


text:
Από 1 Απριλίου η καταβολή των οικογενειακών επιδομάτων, ΟΑΕΔ - ΑΣΠΕ
 Από 1 Απριλίου η καταβολή των οικογενειακών επιδομάτων, ΟΑΕΔ
 Από 1 Απριλίου η καταβολή των οικογενειακών επιδομάτων 30/3/09
 Αρχίζει την ερχόμενη Τετάρτη 1 Απριλίου 2009 η υποβολή αιτήσεων και η κατάθεση δικαιολογητικών στον ΟΑΕΔ για την καταβολή των οικογενειακών επιδομάτων (του Διανεμητικού Λογαριασμού Οικογενειακών Επιδομάτων Μισθωτών - ΔΛΟΕΜ).
 Η καταβολή του οικογενειακού επιδόματος θα γίνει με πίστωση των τραπεζικών λογαριασμών των δικαιούχων, μετά από διασταύρωση των στοιχείων των δικαιούχων μέσω του Ολοκληρωμένου Πληροφοριακού Συστήματος του ΟΑΕΔ.
 Η υποβολή των αιτήσεων και η κατάθεση των δικαιολογητικών για την είσπραξη του οικογενειακού επιδόματος θα ξεκινήσει: την Τετάρτη 1 Απριλίου 2009 για τους δικαιούχους με τρία ή περισσότερα παιδιά και τη Δευτέρα 4 Μαΐου 2009 για τους δικαιούχους με ένα και δύο παιδιά.Ειδικότερα, από 1 Απριλίου 2009 θα ξεκινήσει η παραλαβή από τις Υπηρεσίες του ΟΑΕΔ των δικαιολογητικών που προσκομίζονται απευθείας από τον εργοδότη του δικαιούχου.
 Από την ίδια ημέρα οι υπηρεσίες ΟΑΕΔ θα παραλαμβάνουν δικαιολογητικά και αιτήσεις που υποβάλλονται μέσω του ταχυδρομείου ή μέσω των Κέντρων Εξυπηρέτησης Πολιτών, ανεξάρτητα από τον αριθμό παιδιών του δικαιούχου. Η τελευταία ημέρα κατάθεσης των δικαιολογητικών για το οικογενειακό επίδομα του 2008 είναι, για όλες τις κατηγορίες των δικαιούχων, η 31η Ιανουαρίου 2010.
 Οι δικαιούχοι προσκομίζουν στις υπηρεσίες του ΟΑΕΔ ή μέσω των Κέντρων Εξυπηρέτησης Πολιτών βεβαίωση εργοδότη (υπογεγραμμένη και σφραγισμένη) ή Απόσπασμα Ατομικού Λογαριασμού Ασφαλισμένου (με τουλάχιστον 50 ημέρες ασφάλισης κατά το προηγούμενο της επιδότησης έτος) σε περιπτώσεις οικοδόμων και ημερομισθίων εργατών.
 Επιδεικνύουν επίσης το θεωρημένο ατομικό και οικογενειακό βιβλιάριο ασθενείας των παιδιών (όπου φαίνεται ο αριθμός των προστατευόμενων μελών), λογαριασμό της ΕΤΕ με αριθμό ΙΒΑΝ, βιβλιάριο ασθενείας συζύγου όταν ανήκει σε άλλο ταμείο από το ΙΚΑ και αστυνομική ταυτότητα. Όταν και οι δύο γονείς είναι δικαιούχοι οικογενειακού επιδόματος υποβάλλουν κοινή δήλωση για το ποιος εκ των δύο θα εισπράξει το επίδομα, στην οποία αναγράφεται ο Αριθμός Μητρώου ΙΚΑ καθώς και ο ΑΦΜ και των δύο.
 Το ποσό του οικογενειακού επιδόματος για το 2009 ξεκινά από τα 98,64 ευρώ ετησίως, για δικαιούχους με ένα παιδί, φθάνει στα 843,72 ευρώ για δικαιούχους με 4 παιδιά (μαζί με το επίδομα τρίτου παιδιού) και κλιμακώνεται ανάλογα με τον αριθμό των προστατευόμενων τέκνων. Επίσης, το επίδομα προσαυξάνεται κατά 44,04 ευρώ ετησίως για κάθε παιδί, στις εξής περιπτώσεις:
 - για ορφανά και από τους δύο γονείς,
 - για ανάπηρα παιδιά,
 - για παιδιά εκτός γάμου μη αναγνωρισθέντα και
 - όταν πρόκειται για δικαιούχο της οποίας ο σύζυγος υπηρετεί στις Ένοπλες Δυνάμεις.
 Δικαιούχοι του επιδόματος είναι οι μισθωτοί που παρέχουν εξαρτημένη εργασία με σχέση ιδιωτικού δικαίου σε οποιονδήποτε εργοδότη της χώρας. Απαραίτητη προϋπόθεση για τη λήψη του επιδόματος είναι η πραγματοποίηση 50 ημερών εργασίας κατά το προηγούμενο της επιδότησης ημερολογιακό έτος (2008) ή δίμηνη τακτική επιδότηση λόγω ανεργίας ή δίμηνη συνεχής ανικανότητα για εργασία.Τα παιδιά για τα οποία καταβάλλεται επίδομα, πρέπει:
 α) να έχουν ηλικία μέχρι 18 ετών, ή μέχρι 22 ετών εάν σπουδάζουν,
 β) να είναι άγαμα,
 γ) να διαμένουν στην Ελλάδα ή σε χώρα μέλος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και
 δ) αν είναι ανίκανα για εργασία, όσο χρόνο διαρκεί η ανικανότητα.
 Αντίθετα, δεν δικαιούνται επιδόματος παιδιών οι μισθωτοί, που βάσει συλλογικής σύμβασης εργασίας, νόμου, κανονισμού επιχείρησης ή άλλων διατάξεων, λαμβάνουν από τον εργοδότη τους ποσό επιδόματος παιδιών μεγαλύτερο από εκείνο που χορηγεί ο ΔΛΟΕΜ.Σχετικός είναι ο πίνακας που ακολουθεί.
 ΠΙΝΑΚΑΣ ΟΙΚΟΓΕΝΕΙΑΚΩΝ ΕΠΙΔΟΜΑΤΩΝ ΕΤΟΥΣ 2009
 Αριθμός Παιδιών* Ετήσιο Ποσό Ετήσιο Ποσό + Επίδομα 3ου παιδιού
 1 98,64 133,80
 2 295,80 330,96
 3 665,64 700,80
 4 808,56 843,72
 5 944,16 979,32
 6 1.079,76 1.114,92
 7 1.215,36 1.250,52
 8 1.350,84 1.386,00
 9 1.486,44 1.521,60
 10 1.622,04 1.657,20
 11 1.757,64 1.792,80
 12 1.893,24 1.928,40
 13 2.028,72 2.063,88
 14 2.164,32 2.199,48
 * Αριθμός τέκνων για τα οποία ο δικαιούχος λαμβάνει επίδομα. Το δικαίωμα επιδότησης για το τρίτο παιδί διατηρείται ακόμα και όταν ο δικαιούχος παύει να λαμβάνει επίδομα για τα δύο πρώτα τέκνα. Για κάθε παιδί πέρα από τα τέσσερα έχει προστεθεί το ποσό των 11,298 ευρώ.


text:
Theodor Mathieu (* 14. März 1919 in Hohenkammer; † 8. September 1995 in Bamberg) war ein deutscher Jurist und Politiker (CSU).
 Leben
 Nach seiner Schulzeit in Augsburg am Gymnasium bei St. Stephan und in Bamberg am Neuen Gymnasium, sowie dem Abitur 1937 am St. Benno-Gymnasium in Dresden nahm Mathieu ein Studium der Rechtswissenschaft an der Universität Erlangen auf, das er mit der Promotion zum Dr. jur. beendete. Während seines Studiums wurde er 1947 Mitglied der katholischen Studentenverbindung K.D.St.V. Gothia Erlangen im CV und später auch Mitglied der katholischen Studentenverbindung K.D.St.V. Fredericia Bamberg im CV. Er arbeitete von 1952 bis 1958 als Richter am Landgericht Bamberg und hatte von 1952 bis 1954 eine Tätigkeit beim Bundesministerium der Justiz inne. 1957/58 wirkte er als Dozent an der Bayerischen Rechtspflegeschule.
 Mathieu trat nach 1945 in die CSU ein und amtierte vom 1. Mai 1958 bis zum 30. April 1982 als Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Bamberg. Während seiner Amtszeit wurden die Städtepartnerschaften mit Rodez (1970), Villach (1973) und Bedford (1977) begründet. Von 1976 bis 1981 war er außerdem Mitglied des Bayerischen Senates.
 Ehrungen
 Bundesverdienstkreuz I. Klasse
 Bayerischer Verdienstorden
 Verdienstorden der Italienischen Republik, 1976
 Ehrenring der Stadt Villach, 1974
 Ehrenring der Stadt Feldkirchen
 Großes Goldenes Ehrenzeichen für Verdienste um die Republik Österreich
 Gregoriusorden
 Ehrensenatorwürde der Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, 1980
 Ehrenbürgerschaft der Stadt Bamberg, 1984
 Ehrenbürgerschaft der Stadt Bedford, 1984
 Bürgermeister (Bamberg)
 Mitglied des Bayerischen Senats
 Träger des Bundesverdienstkreuzes 1. Klasse
 Träger des Bayerischen Verdienstordens
 Träger des Großen Goldenen Ehrenzeichens für Verdienste um die Republik Österreich
 Träger des Verdienstordens der Italienischen Republik (Komtur)
 Träger des Gregoriusordens (Ausprägung unbekannt)
 Ehrenbürger von Bamberg
 Ehrenbürger in England
 Ehrenringträger der Stadt Villach
 Korporierter im CV
 CSU-Mitglied
 Ehrensenator der Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg
 Deutscher
 Geboren 1919
 Gestorben 1995
 Mann


text:
 15.12.2016
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 L 341/34
 DECISIÓN DEL COMITÉ MIXTO DEL EEE
 N.o 145/2015
 de 11 de junio de 2015
 por la que se modifica el anexo II (Reglamentaciones técnicas, normas, ensayos y certificación) del Acuerdo EEE [2016/2180]
 EL COMITÉ MIXTO DEL EEE,
 Visto el Acuerdo sobre el Espacio Económico Europeo, en lo sucesivo, «Acuerdo EEE», y en particular su artículo 98,
 Considerando lo siguiente:
 (1)
 Debe incorporarse al Acuerdo EEE el Reglamento (UE) 2015/391 de la Comisión, de 9 de marzo de 2015, que deniega la autorización de determinadas declaraciones de propiedades saludables de los alimentos relativas al desarrollo y la salud de los niños (1).
 (2)
 Debe incorporarse al Acuerdo EEE el Reglamento (UE) 2015/403 de la Comisión, de 11 de marzo de 2015, que modifica el anexo III del Reglamento (CE) n.o 1925/2006 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo en lo relativo al género Ephedra y a Yohimbe [Pausinystalia yohimbe (K. Schum) Pierre ex Beille] (2).
 (3)
 Debe incorporarse al Acuerdo EEE el Reglamento (UE) 2015/414 de la Comisión, de 12 de marzo de 2015, por el que se modifica la Directiva 2002/46/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo en lo referente al ácido (6S)-5-metiltetrahidrofólico, sal de glucosamina, utilizado en la fabricación de complementos alimenticios (3).
 (4)
 La presente Decisión se refiere a legislación relativa a productos alimenticios. Dicha legislación no se aplicará a Liechtenstein mientras la aplicación del Acuerdo entre la Comunidad Europea y la Confederación Suiza sobre el comercio de productos agrícolas se extienda a dicho país, tal y como recoge la introducción del capítulo XII del anexo II del Acuerdo EEE. La presente Decisión no es, por tanto, aplicable a Liechtenstein.
 (5)
 Procede, por tanto, modificar en consecuencia el anexo II del Acuerdo EEE.
 HA ADOPTADO LA PRESENTE DECISIÓN:
 Artículo 1
 El capítulo XII del anexo II del Acuerdo EEE queda modificado como sigue:
 1)
 En el punto 54zzi (Directiva 2002/46/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo), se añade el siguiente guion:
 «—
 32015 R 0414: Reglamento (UE) 2015/414 de la Comisión, de 12 de marzo de 2015 (DO L 68 de 13.3.2015, p. 26).».
 2)
 En el punto 54zzzu [Reglamento (CE) n.o 1925/2006 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo] se añade el siguiente guion:
 «—
 32015 R 0403: Reglamento (UE) 2015/403 de la Comisión, de 11 de marzo de 2015 (DO L 67 de 12.3.2015, p. 4).».
 3)
 Después del punto 94 [Reglamento (UE) n.o 1229/2014 de la Comisión], se inserta el siguiente punto:
 «95.
 32015 R 0391: Reglamento (UE) 2015/391 de la Comisión, de 9 de marzo de 2015, que deniega la autorización de determinadas declaraciones de propiedades saludables de los alimentos relativas al desarrollo y la salud de los niños (DO L 65 de 10.3.2015, p. 15).».
 Artículo 2
 Los textos de los Reglamentos (UE) 2015/391, (UE) 2015/403 y (UE) 2015/414 en lenguas islandesa y noruega, que se publicarán en el Suplemento EEE del Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea, son auténticos.
 Artículo 3
 La presente Decisión entrará en vigor el 12 de junio de 2015, siempre que se hayan transmitido todas las notificaciones previstas en el artículo 103, apartado 1, del Acuerdo EEE (*1).
 Artículo 4
 La presente Decisión se publicará en la sección EEE y en el Suplemento EEE del Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea.
 Hecho en Bruselas, el 11 de junio de 2015.
 Por el Comité Mixto del EEE
 El Presidente
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) DO L 65 de 10.3.2015, p. 15.
 (2) DO L 67 de 12.3.2015, p. 4.
 (3) DO L 68 de 13.3.2015, p. 26.
 (*1) No se han indicado preceptos constitucionales.