type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 5.7.2007
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea
 L 175/31
 DEĊIŻJONI Nru 1/2007 TAL-KUNSILL TAL-MINISTRI AKP-KE
 tal-25 ta’ Mejju 2007
 dwar ir-riallokazzjoni ta’ parti mir-riżerva tal-pakkett tad-9 Fond Ewropew għall-Iżvilupp (FEŻ) għal żvilupp fit-tul għall-allokazzjoni għall-kooperazzjoni intra-AKP fil-pakkett tad-9 FEŻ għall-kooperazzjoni u l-integrazzjoni reġjonali
 (2007/460/KE)
 IL-KUNSILL TAL-MINISTRI AKP-KE,
 Wara li kkunsidra l-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija bejn il-membri tal-Grupp ta’ Stati Afrikani, tal-Karibew u tal-Paċifiku min-naħa l-waħda u l-Komunità Ewropea u l-Istati Membri tagħha min-naħa l-oħra, iffirmat f’Kotonù fit-23 ta’ Ġunju 2000 (1) kif rivedut bil-Ftehim (2) li jemenda l-imsemmi Ftehim dwar is-Sħubija AKP-KE, iffirmat fil-Lussemburgu fil-25 ta’ Ġunju 2005, u partikolarment it-8 paragrafu ta’ l-Anness I tiegħu,
 Billi:
 (1)
 Wara t-tlestija tar-reviżjonijiet fi tmien il-mandat tad-disa’ Fond Ewropew għall-Iżvilupp (“FEŻ”) skond l-Artikoli 5 u 11 ta’ l-Anness IV tal-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija AKP-KE, l-allokazzjoni tar-riżorsi għandha tiġi riveduta fid-dawl tal-ħtiġijiet u l-prestazzjoni attwali.
 (2)
 Il-fondi riżervati għall-finanzjament ta’ appoġġ għall-kooperazzjoni u l-integrazzjoni reġjonali u d-diżimpenji mistennija trasferiti f’din ir-riżerva qabel it-tmiem ta’ l-2007 huma insuffiċjenti biex jintlaħqu l-ħtiġijiet ġodda biex jiżdied l-impatt ta’ l-attivitajiet ta’ l-intra-AKP.
 (3)
 Il-fondi addizzjonali għandhom jiġu allokati biex jitwaqqaf mekkaniżmu ta’ finanzjament intra-AKP għall-FLEX għas-snin 2006 u 2007 (snin ta’ applikazzjoni 2005 u 2006 rispettivament), biex b’hekk ikun żgurat appoġġ minimu lil dawk il-pajjiżi vittmi ta’ effetti negattivi ta’ l-instabbilità fid-dħul mill-esportazzjoni huma x’inhuma l-livelli tal-bilanċi taħt il-pakketti-B nazzjonali.
 (4)
 Il-bilanċi mhux impenjati tal-pakketti-B nazzjonali jistgħu ma jkoprux il-ħtiġijiet mistennija u għandhom jiġu trasferiti fir-riżerva intra-AKP fid-data ta’ l-adozzjoni ta’ din id-Deċiżjoni, biex jinħolqu ħames pakketti-B reġjonalizzati għall-finanzjament ta’ assistenza umanitarja u ta’ emerġenza fil-futur f’kull wieħed minn dawn ir-reġjuni, abbażi tas-solidarjetà reġjonali, u riżerva intra-AKP għall-assistenza ta’ emerġenza taħt l-Artikolu 72(3)(a) u (b) tal-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija AKP-KE f’ċirkustanti eċċezzjonali fejn tali assistenza ma tkunx tista’ tiġi ffinanzjata mill-baġit Komunitarju.
 (5)
 Il-pakkett-B reġjonalizzat għall-Afrika tal-Lvant u ta’ Nofsinhar u ta’ l-Oċean Indjan hu ammont nett wara t-tnaqqis ta’ EUR 20 miljun li jikkumpensa għaż-żieda ad hoc fil-pakkett-B tas-Sudan iffinanzjat mir-riżerva għall-iżvilupp fit-tul; l-ebda pakkett-B reġjonalizzat mhu qed jinħoloq għall-Paċifiku peress li l-bilanċi tal-pakketti-B diġà ġew użati fil-parti l-kbira tagħhom għal programm mitiganti fil-każ ta’ diżastru naturali.
 (6)
 Riżorsi addizzjonali għandhom jiġu allokati biex ifornu l-Faċilità għall-Paċi Afrikana għas-sena 2007.
 (7)
 Għandhom jiġu allokati riżorsi addizzjonali għall-finanzjament ta’ parti mill-ispejjeż operattivi tas-Segretarjat ta’ l-AKP għas-sena 2008 biex ikopru l-perijodu sakemm jidħol fis-seħħ l-għaxar FEŻ.
 (8)
 Għandhom jiġu allokati riżorsi addizzjonali biex tissaħħaħ il-faċilità ta’ kooperazzjoni teknika intra-AKP, li hija primarjament użata biex tkopri ħtiġijiet ta’ assistenza teknika, speċjalment għat-tħejjija ta’ proġetti.
 (9)
 Ġiet mitluba kontribuzzjoni addizzjonali lill-Fond Globali kontra l-HIV/AIDS, it-Tuberkolożi u l-Malarja (GFATM).
 (10)
 Fil-Kunsill AKP-KE fit-2 ta’ Ġunju 2006 ġiet identifikata ħtieġa għal kontribuzzjoni ulterjuri għan-Netwerk Karibew ta’ l-Għarfien u t-Tagħlim għall-bini tal-kapaċità u l-appoġġ internazzjonali.
 (11)
 Għandha tiġi stabbilita riżerva prudenzjali żgħira biex tkun tista’ tiltlaħaq il-ħtieġa ta’ l-intra-AKP ġdida u mhux mistennija fil-perijodu sal-31 ta’ Diċembru 2007, inklużi l-ħtiġijiet ta’ riabilitizzazzjoni possibbli ta’ wara diżastru naturali fir-reġjun tal-Paċifiku li jistgħu jkunu impenjati qabel l-aħħar ta’ l-2007 u ma jistgħux ikunu koperti mill-ħtiġijiet imprevisti tal-pakkett-B reġjonalizzat, u biex jintlaħqu ħtiġijiet transizzjonali addizzjonali fl-2008.
 (12)
 Il-fondi taħt id-disa’ FEŻ, inklużi d-diżimpenji mistennija, ma jistgħux jibqgħu jiġu impenjati wara l-31 ta’ Diċembru 2007 u għandu jinstab mekkaniżmu biex jiġu impenjati bilanċi eżistenti qabel din id-data b’mod effikaċi u effettiv b’appoġġ għall-għanijiet ġenerali tal-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija AKP-KE,
 IDDEĊIEDA KIF GEJ:
 Artikolu 1
 Riforniment tar-riżerva intra-AKP fil-pakkett tal-kooperazzjoni u l-integrazzjoni reġjonali
 1. Il-fondi kollha disponibbli fir-riżera għall-iżvilupp fit-tul fil-31 ta’ Marzu 2007 u aġġustati għar-riżultati tad-deċiżjonijiet ta’ tmiem il-mandat li kienu għandhom ma ġewx ipproċessati fil-kontijiet f’dik id-data, bl-eċċezzjoni tal-fondi li jappoġġaw il-baġits taċ-Ċentru għall-Iżvilupp ta’ l-Intrapriża (CDE) u ċ-Ċentru Tekniku għall-Kooperazzjoni Agrikola u Rurali (CTA) (EUR 32 miljun) għall-2008, il-fondi għall-“programmi b’riskju għoli” f’pajjiżi b’dokument ta’ strateġija għall-pajjiż iffirmat (EUR 72,4 miljun mill-1.3.2007), il-fondi għall-prijoritajiet politiċi f’pajjiżi mingħajr dokument ta’ strateġija għall-pajjiż iffirmat (EUR 30,2 miljun mill-1.3.2007) u l-fondi għall-programm ta’ assistenza speċjali tas-Somalja (EUR 36,1 miljun), għandhom jiġu trasferiti fir-riżerva intra-AKP fil-pakkett għall-kooperazzjoni u l-integrazzjoni reġjonali.
 2. Il-fondi kollha mwarrba taħt ir-riżerva li tappoġġa l-baġits tas-CDE u s-CTA għall-2008 għall-finanzjament ta’ “programmi b’riskju għoli” f’pajjiżi b’dokument ta’ strateġija għall-pajjiż iffirmat u għall-finanzjament ta’ prijoritajiet politiċi f’pajjiżi mingħajr dokument ta’ strateġija għall-pajjiż iffirmat kif imsemmi fil-paragrafu 1 li jkunu għadhom mhux impenjati tal-31 ta’ Ottubru 2007 għandhom jiġu trasferiti fir-riżerva intra-AKP fil-pakkett għall-kooperazzjoni u l-integrazzjoni reġjonali.
 3. Id-diżimpenji kollha mid-disa’ FEŻ u FEŻ preċedenti mibdija fi-sistema ta’ kontabbiltà tal-Kummissjoni mill-1 ta’ April tal-31 ta’ Diċembru 2007 li jakkumulaw mar-riżerva għall-iżvilupp fit-tul għandhom jiġu trasferiti fir-riżerva intra-AKP fil-pakkett għall-kooperazzjoni u l-integrazzjoni reġjonali.
 4. Il-fondi kollha li jibqa’ taħt il-programmi indikattivi nazzjonali li jsiru disponibbli taħt ir-riżerva għall-iżvilupp fit-tul bejn l-1 ta’ Awwissu u l-31 ta’ Diċembru 2007 għandhom jiġu trasferiti fir-riżerva intra-AKP fil-pakkett għall-kooperazzjoni u l-integrazzjoni reġjonali.
 Artikolu 2
 Allokazzjoni tal-fondi intra-AKP
 1. Il-fondi disponibbli fir-riżerva intra-AKP għandhom jintużaw għal dawn l-għanijiet:
 (a)
 il-ħolqien ta’:
 (i)
 riżerva waħda ta’ intra-AKP miftuħa għall-Istati AKP kollha għall-assistenza ta’ emerġenza taħt l-Artikolu 72(3)(a) tal-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija AKP-KE f’ċirkostanzi eċċezzjonali fejn tali assistenza ma tistax tkun iffinanzjata mill-baġit Komunitarju; dan il-pakkett għandhom jammonta għal EUR 26 741 326 u għandu jkun kostitwit billi jittieħdu 15 % ta’ l-ammonti ta’ bilanċi mhux impenjati li jibqgħu fil-pakketti-B tal-pajjiżi kostitwenti ta’ dawk ir-reġjuni msemmija taħt il-punt (ii) fid-data li fiha daħlu fis-seħħ id-deċiżjonijiet ta’ riallokkazzjoni tat-tmiem tal-mandat;
 (ii)
 ħames pakketti-B reġjonalizzati li jammontaw għal EUR 17 511 615 għar-reġjun ta’ l-Afrika t’Isfel, EUR 48 920 391 għar-reġjun ta’ l-Afrika t’Isfel u tal-Lvant u l-Oċean Indjan, EUR 31 945 340 għar-reġjun tal-Punent ta’ l-Afrika, EUR 16 139 355 għar-reġjun taċ-Ċentru ta’ l-Afrika u EUR 35 422 478 għar-reġjun tal-Karibew, ibbażati fuq 85 % ta’ l-ammonti tal-bqija tal-bilanċi mhux impenjati fil-pakketti-B tal-pajjiżi li jiffurmaw dawn ir-reġjuni fid-data tad-dħul fis-seħħ tad-deċiżjonijiet ta’ riallokazzjoni finali;
 il-pakketti-B reġjonalizzati għandhom jiġu mobilizzati għall-kontribuzzjonijiet ta’ inizjattivi biex itaffu d-dejn approvati fuq livell internazzjonali kif stipulat fl-Artikolu 3(2)(b) ta’ l-Anness IV tal-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija AKP-KE u għall-assistenza umanitarja u ta’ emerġenza skond l-Artikoli 72 u 73 tal-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija AKP-KE abbażi tas-solidarjetà internazzjonali f’ċirkostanzi eċċezzjonali fejn tali assistenza ma tistax tiġi ffinanzjata mill-baġit Komunitarju;
 (b)
 il-ħolqien ta’ programm FLEX intra-AKP ta’ EUR 50 miljun għall-2006 (sena ta’ applikazzjoni 2005) sabiex ikun żgurat appoġġ minimu lil dawk il-pajjiżi vittma ta’ l-effetti negattivi ta’ l-instabilità fid-dħul tagħhom mill-esportazzjoni hu x’inhu l-livell tal-bilanċi mhux impenjati taħt il-pakketti-B nazzjonali qabel id-dħul fis-seħħ tad-deċiżjonijiet ta’ riallokazzjoni finali;
 (ċ)
 il-forniment tal-Faċilità għall-Paċi Afrikana għal ammont ta’ mhux aktar minn EUR 100 miljun bħala kontribuzzjoni ulterjuri tal-FEŻ diex jitnaqqas id-distakk finanzjarju sad-dħul fis-seħħ ta’ l-Għaxar FEŻ, għal diversi attivitajiet għall-appoġġ tal-paċi, taħriġ u bini tal-kapaċità, li minnu EUR 45 miljun abbażi tal-fondi intra-AKP disponibbli qabel il-forniment tiegħu msemmi fl-Artikolu 1 u EUR 35 miljun wara dan il-forniment u ammont addizzjonali ta’ 20 miljun li jista’ jiġi ffinanzjat mill-fondi mhux impenjati mir-riżervi prudenzjali msemmija fil-punti (h) u (i) jew mid-diżimpenji trasferiti għar-riżerva intra-AKP taħt l-Artikolu 1(3) u (4) f’eċċess ta’ stimi inizjali;
 (d)
 jiġi kkumplimentat l-appoġġ istituzzjonali mogħti lis-Segretarjat AKP sbiex tkun żgurata t-transizzjoni sad-dħul fis-seħħ ta’ l-għaxar FEŻ b’ammont ta’ EUR 5,5 miljuni biex jikkontribwixxu għall-ispejjeż ta’ tħaddim tas-Segretarjat AKP għas-sena 2008;
 (e)
 iż-żieda ta’ EUR 2,5 miljuni lill-faċilità ta’ kooperazzjoni teknika intra-AKP;
 (f)
 il-mobilizzazzjoni ta’ EUR 4 miljun bħala trasferiment ‘il quddiem urġenti għal programm ta’ l-eradikazzjoni tar-rinderpest (pesta ta’ l-ifrat) fl-Afrika (PACE);
 (g)
 il-kontribuzzjoni ta’ EUR 5 miljun addizzjonali għall-Fond Fiduċjarju tan-Netwerk Karibew ta’ l-Għarfien u t-Tagħlim (CKLN) għall-bini tal-kapaċità u l-appoġġ isitituzzjonali;
 (h)
 il-ħolqien ta’ riżerva prudenzjali reġjonali ta’ EUR 10 miljun biex tikkumplimenta l-programm indikattiv reġjonali għar-reġjun ta’ l-Afrika t’Isfel fil-każ li l-programm ta’ titjib fil-livell tat-triq Milange – Mocuba (il-Możambik) jiġi mħejji u ppreżentat għall-proċedura ta’ ġestjoni tal-Kumitat FEŻ qabel ta’ l-1 ta’ Awwissu 2007; jekk dan il-programm ma jkunx jista’ jitħejja fil-ħin, din ir-riżerva prudenzjali għandha tiġi trasferita għar-riżerva intra-AKP;
 (i)
 il-ħolqien ta’ riżerva prudenzjali intra-AKP ta’ EUR 15-il miljun għall-ħtiġijiet ġodda u mhux mistennija li ma jistgħux ikunu ffinanzjati mill-pakketti-B reġjonalizzati, inklużi l-programmi ta’ riabilitizzazzjoni ta’ wara d-diżastri naturali fir-reġjun tal-Paċifiku u l-ħtiġijiet possibbli transizzjonali ta’ prijorità addizzjonali fl-2008;
 (j)
 il-ħolqien ta’ programm intra-AKP FLEX, proviżorjamnet iffissati għal EUR 35 miljun għall-2007 (sena ta’ applikazzjoni 2006) biex jiġi żgurat appoġġ minimu għal dawk il-pajjiżi soġġetti għall-effetti negattivi ta’ l-instabbiltà fil-qliegħ ta’ l-esportazzjoni wara r-regolarizzazzjoni tal-pakketti-B għall-assistenza umanitarja u ta’ emerġenza msemmija fil-paragrafu 1(a); dan il-programm jista’ jiġi ssupplimentat b’sa EUR 15-il miljun mill-fondi mhux impenjati mir-riżervi prudenzjali msemmijin fil-punti (h) u (i) jew mid-diżimpenji trasferiti għar-riżerva intra-AKP taħt l-Artikolu 1(3) u (4) f’eċċess ta’ stimi inizjali u tal-ħtiġijiet biex jikkumplimentaw il-kontribuzzjoni għall-Faċilità għall-Paċi Afrikana b’EUR 20 miljun kif imsemmi fil-punt (ċ);
 (k)
 jiġi kkumplimentat l-appoġġ mogħti lill-Fond Globali kontra l-HIV/AIDS, it-Tuberkolożi u l-Malarja (GFATM) b’ammont ta’ EUR 38 miljun.
 2. Jekk l-ammonti akkumulati fir-riżerva intra-AKP ikunu insuffiċjenti biex ikopru l-ħtiġijiet kollha identifikati, il-programm imsemmi fil-paragrafu 1, punt (i) għandu jitnaqqas kif xieraq. Jekk in-nuqqas ta’ fondi jkun ikbar mill-ammont imsemmi f’punt (j), ir-riżerva prudenzjali msemmija fil-paragrafu 1, punt (i) għandha titnaqqas kif xieraq. Iktar nuqqas ta’ fondi għandu jwassal għal tnaqqis ta’ l-ammont imsemmi fil-paragrafu 1, punt (ċ).
 3. Jekk l-ammonti akkumulati fir-riżerva intra-AKP jeċċedu l-isitimi inizjali jew jekk il-fondi mmarkati fil-paragrafu 1, il-punti (ċ), (d), (e), (g) u/jew (i) jiġu sotto-użati, il-fondi addizzjonali li jsiru disponibbli ‘l fuq mil-limitu mniżżel fil-programmi msemmijin fil-paragrafu 1, il-punti (ċ) u (j) ser jiġu mobilizzati biex iżidu l-fond fiduċjarju CKLN b’ammont addizzjonali ta’ EUR 5 miljun jekk fattibbli, u sussegwentement, jekk fondi eċċessivi jkunu għadhom disponibbli, biex iżidu l-Fond Fiduċjarju ta’ l-Infrastruttura UE-AKP bħala avvanz fuq l-allokazzjonijiet previsti taħt l-10 FEŻ.
 Artikolu 3
 Talba għal appoġġ
 Skond l-Artikolu 13(2) ta’ l-Anness IV tal-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija AKP-KE, il-Kunsill tal-Ministri AKP-KE jappella lill-Kummissjoni tiffinanzja l-azzjonijiet stabbiliti fl-Artikolu 2.
 Artikolu 4
 Dħul fis-seħħ
 Din id-Deċiżjoni għandha tidħol fis-seħħ fil-jum li fih tiġi adottata.
 Magħmul fi Brussell, 25 ta’ Mejju 2007.
 Għall-Kunsill tal-Ministri AKP-KE
 Il-President
 Mohlabi K. TSEKOA
 (1) ĠU L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.
 (2) ĠU L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 27. Ftehim applikat b’mod proviżorju skond id-Deċiżjoni Nru 5/2005 (ĠU L 287, 28.10.2005, p. 1).


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &. HUMAN SERVICES \t Office of Inspector General\n\n\n Washington. D.C. 20201\n\n\n\n ()CT 122010\n\n\nTO: \t Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n Administrator\n Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services\n\n /S/\nFROM: Stuart Wright\n Deputy Inspector General\n for Evaluation and Inspections\n\n\nSUBJECT: \t Memoran~um Report: Quality Improvement Organizations' Final Responses to\n Beneficiary Complaints, OEI-OI-09-00620\n\n\nThis memorandum report provides information about Quality Improvement Organizations'\n(QIO) final responses to beneficiary complaints. Specifically, it provides information on\n(1) the number ofQIO reviews of beneficiary complaints completed between August 1,2008,\nand December 31, 2009, that included practitioner consent for disclosure; and (2) whether the\nfinal responses from QIOs met requirements for responding to complainants.\n\nWe found that QIOs completed 4,500 complaint reviews between August 1, 2008-when their\ncurrent contracts began-and December 31, 2009. As part of those reviews, QIOs made\n2,768 requests to practitioners for consent to disclosure, and 52 percent (1,449) of the\npractitioners consented.\n\nWe also reviewed in detail 120 final responses that QIOs sent to beneficiaries to determine\nwhether the responses met program requirements. Sixty responses were cases in which the\npractitioners consented to disclosure, and 60 were cases in which practitioners declined to\nconsent. We determined whether each response met the requirement that it state whether the\nbeneficiary's care met professional standards, a requirement arising from both the Centers for\nMedicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) policy and a 2003 U.S. Court of Appeals decision. All\n60 of the responses with practitioner consent met this requirement. Of the 60 responses without\npractitioner consent, all but 2 met the requirement. Our.review showed that most QIO responses\nto complainants are meeting the terms of both the court decision and the CMS criteria regarding\nprofessional standards, as well as CMS's additional criteria.\n\nWhen a practitioner consents to disclosure, CMS has two additional requirements: (1) the QIO\nresponse must contain a summary of the medical record, and (2) it must describe the corrective\naction that the QIO took in response to any confirmed quality-of-care concern. All of the\n60 responses with practitioner consent contained a summary of the medical record, and 58 of\n\n\n\nOEI-OI-09~00620 QIOs' Final Responses to Beneficiary Complaints\n\x0cPage 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\nthem described the corrective action taken. Of the two responses that did not describe the\ncorrective action, one stated that the QIO would work with the practitioner to improve future\ncare, and the other stated only that \xe2\x80\x9cappropriate action will be taken.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nOf the 60 responses without practitioner consent, 58 met the minimum standard (i.e., specifying\nwhether care met professional standards). Six of these fifty-eight responses, however, went\nbeyond the minimum\xe2\x80\x94they included information describing corrective actions that the QIOs\ntook, even though CMS does not require such information for responses when the practitioner\ndoes not consent to disclosure. According to one of the three QIOs that sent these responses, the\npractitioners involved had not objected to including this information.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nQuality Improvement Organizations\nCMS contracts with QIOs to oversee and enhance the quality of care within the Medicare\nprogram and to protect over 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. QIOs conduct different\ncategories of medical record reviews and work with health care providers on quality\nimprovement initiatives. In carrying out these functions, QIOs serve as an essential frontline\nmechanism for beneficiary protection.\n\nQIOs sign 3-year contracts with CMS to work in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto\nRico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. (Each State has one QIO, although a QIO can operate in more\nthan one State.) Each 3-year contract is governed by a scope of work (SOW). The QIOs\xe2\x80\x99\n9th SOW began on August 1, 2008, and extends through July 31, 2011. Funding for the\n9th SOW will total about $1.1 billion. 1\n\nQIOs have a statutory responsibility to review all written complaints from Medicare beneficiaries\n(or their representatives) alleging that the quality of medical services does not meet\nprofessionally recognized standards of health care. 2 The Office of Inspector General (OIG)\nexamined this function twice in the past 15 years, and both times found that the QIOs\xe2\x80\x99 final\nresponses to complainants lacked substance. 3 In its 1995 report, OIG recommended that QIOs\nrespond substantively to complainants, and identified three elements that a response must\ndescribe to be substantive:\n\n 1. what the QIO did to investigate the complaint;\n 2. what the investigation revealed, including whether a quality-of-care problem was\n confirmed and, if so, the nature of the problem; and\n\n1 Department of Health & Human Services (the Department), Fiscal Year 2010 Budget in Brief. Accessed at\nhttp://www.hhs.gov/asrt/ob/docbudget/2010budgetinbriefl.html on September 10, 2010.\n2 Social Security Act, \xc2\xa7 1154(a)(14).\n3 OIG, The Beneficiary Complaint Process of the Medicare Peer Review Organizations, OEI-01-93-00250,\nNovember 1995 and The Medicare Beneficiary Complaint Process: A Rusty Safety Valve, OEI-01-00-00060,\nAugust 2001. (Note that QIOs were previously known as \xe2\x80\x9cpeer review organizations.\xe2\x80\x9d)\n\n\nOEI-01-09-00620 QIOs\xe2\x80\x99 Final Responses to Beneficiary Complaints\n\x0cPage 3 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\n 3. what action the QIO took based on a confirmed quality concern. 4\n\nIn its comments on our 1995 report, CMS stated that it would take this recommendation under\nadvisement, but expressed concerns about balancing these responses with the rights of providers\nto refuse to consent to disclosure. 5\n\nBeneficiary Complaint Reviews\nReviews. For all written complaints, a QIO conducts a medical record review using\nnonphysician and physician reviewers. If the nonphysician reviewer identifies a potential\nquality-of-care concern, he or she refers the case to a physician. If the physician reviewer\nconfirms a quality-of-care concern, the QIO offers the practitioner who rendered that care the\nopportunity to provide additional documentation and to request two additional levels of\nphysician review. The final reviewer examines all pertinent information and makes a\ndetermination regarding the care given. 6\n\nIf the final review confirms a quality-of-care concern, the QIO may take further action with the\nprovider or practitioner, such as requiring a quality improvement plan or recommending\nalternative approaches to future care. However, CMS does not require the QIO to take further\naction unless the QIO establishes a pattern of concerns. 7 If the QIO establishes such a pattern,\nCMS instructs the QIO to work with the practitioner to identify remedial problems and develop\nan action plan. 8\n\nNotice of disclosure. When the case involves a specific practitioner, regardless of the outcome\nof the review, that practitioner may refuse to consent to the QIO\xe2\x80\x99s release of any information in\nits final response to the complainant that explicitly or implicitly identifies the practitioner. After\nthe QIO completes the review, but prior to notifying the complainant of the review\xe2\x80\x99s outcome, it\nmust provide notice of disclosure to the practitioner, who has 30 days to respond. 9\n\nFinal response to complainant. The QIO must inform the complainant of its final disposition of\nthe complaint. 10 However, the content of the response (beyond a standard introduction,\nincluding a summary of the complaint) depends on whether the practitioner consented to\ndisclosure.\n\n\n\n\n4 OIG, The Beneficiary Complaint Process of the Medicare Peer Review Organizations, OEI-01-93-00250,\nNovember 1995.\n5 Ibid.\n6 CMS, QIO Manual, Chapter 4\xe2\x80\x94Case Review, Rev. 2, 07-11-03, \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 4310\xe2\x80\x934320.\n7 Ibid. \xc2\xa7 4700.\n8 Ibid. \xc2\xa7 4705. CMS guidance does not define what constitutes a pattern of concerns.\n9 42 CFR \xc2\xa7 480.133(a)(2)(iii) and CMS, QIO Manual, Chapter 5\xe2\x80\x94Quality of Care Review, Rev. 9, 08-29-03,\n\n\xc2\xa7 5025(B).\n10 Social Security Act, \xc2\xa7 1154(a)(14).\n\n\n\n\nOEI-01-09-00620 QIOs\xe2\x80\x99 Final Responses to Beneficiary Complaints\n\x0cPage 4 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\nFinal response when practitioner consents to disclosure. If the practitioner consented to\ndisclosure, the QIO\xe2\x80\x99s response indicates whether the care received by the complainant met\nrecognized standards of quality. The response also gives a complete summary of the review\xe2\x80\x99s\nfindings and the action taken in response to any confirmed quality-of-care concern. 11\n\nFinal response when practitioner declines to consent to disclosure. If the practitioner did not\nconsent to disclosure, CMS does not require the response to include a summary of the medical\nrecord or information on any corrective actions taken. Until 2003, CMS instructed QIOs to state\nonly that they had conducted a review but could not provide any information identifying the\ninvolved practitioner. 12 Following a court decision, CMS changed its guidance (see below).\n\nPublic Citizen v. Department of Health & Human Services\nIn 2001, the advocacy group Public Citizen brought suit against the Department and CMS\nregarding the processes for notifying beneficiaries who submit complaints to a QIO. Public\nCitizen maintained that CMS\xe2\x80\x99s regulations and manual sections regarding practitioner consent\nwere contrary to the Peer Review Improvement Act of 1982, 13 which requires QIOs to inform\ncomplainants of the final disposition of their complaints. The court ruled that CMS\xe2\x80\x99s regulations\nand manual sections prohibiting disclosure of the results of investigations were invalid because\nthey were contrary to section 1145(a)(14) of the Social Security Act. The court ordered CMS to\nsend a letter to QIOs informing them that they are required to disclose the results of reviews to\ncomplainants. 14\n\nThe Department appealed the decision, and in 2003 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of\nColumbia Circuit upheld the district court\xe2\x80\x99s decision. The Court of Appeals stated that QIOs\nmust notify complainants of the results of their reviews, meaning, at a minimum, the\ndetermination as to whether the quality of the services that the beneficiary received met\n\xe2\x80\x9cprofessionally recognized standards of health care.\xe2\x80\x9d 15 The court did not require QIOs to\ninclude in the final response a summary of the medical record or to describe corrective actions\ntaken. Following the 2003 court decision, CMS required QIOs\xe2\x80\x99 final responses to state whether\na beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s care met professional standards, regardless of whether the practitioner consented\nto disclosure. 16\n\nSee Table 1 for the criteria for QIO final responses to complainants. The court decision\nmandates one element that QIOs must include in all final responses. CMS requires three\nelements when the practitioner consents to disclosure and one when the practitioner does not.\n\n\n\n11 CMS, QIO Manual, Chapter 5\xe2\x80\x94Quality of Care Review, Rev. 9, 08-29-03, \xc2\xa7 5030(A).\n12 Ibid., \xc2\xa7 5030(C).\n13 P.L. 97-248, Social Security Act, \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 1101\xe2\x80\x931183.\n14 Public Citizen, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 151 F. Supp. 2d 64 (D.D.C. 2001).\n15 Public Citizen, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 332 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 2003).\n16 CMS, Transmission of Policy System, Control Number: QIO 2003-08, August 11, 2003.\n\n\n\n\nOEI-01-09-00620 QIOs\xe2\x80\x99 Final Responses to Beneficiary Complaints\n\x0cPage 5 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\nTable 1: Summary of Criteria for QIO Final Responses\n\n Practitioner\n Practitioner\n Entity Final Response to Complainant Includes: Consent Not\n Consent Given\n Given\n\n Court of Appeals Whether care met professional standards Required Required\n\n CMS Whether care met professional standards Required Required\n\n CMS Summary of the medical record Required Not Required\n\n CMS Description of any corrective action taken Required Not Required\n\n Source: Public Citizen, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 332 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 2003); CMS, QIO Manual,\n Chapter 5\xe2\x80\x94Quality of Care Review, Rev. 9, 08-29-03, \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 5030(A) and 5030(c) and Transmission of Policy System Control Number:\n QIO 2003-08, August 11, 2003.\n\n\nMETHODOLOGY\n\nScope\nWe analyzed data on the number of beneficiary complaint reviews from QIOs for 48 States and\nthe District of Columbia. We also analyzed final responses sent from QIOs for the 20 States\nwith the largest Medicare populations. Those States are (from largest to smallest Medicare\npopulation): California, Florida, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan,\nNorth Carolina, New Jersey, Georgia, Virginia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Missouri, Indiana,\nWashington, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Alabama. In 2008, these 20 States accounted for\n75 percent of the total Medicare population.\n\nData Sources and Collection\nNumber of complaint reviews. We obtained from QIOs information on:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 the number of complaint reviews that each QIO completed between August 1, 2008,\n when the current SOW began, and December 31, 2009;\n \xef\x82\xb7 the number of requests for practitioner consent to disclosure made as part of those\n reviews; and\n \xef\x82\xb7 the number of those practitioners who consented to disclosure. 17\n\nWe received data for QIOs representing 48 States and the District of Columbia. Two QIOs did\nnot respond to our request; we made three attempts to collect the data from them.\n\nFinal responses. For the 20 States with the largest Medicare populations, we obtained from each\nQIO 6 six recent final responses sent to beneficiaries at the conclusion of a complaint review.\nSpecifically, we obtained the three most recent responses with practitioner consent to disclosure\nand the three most recent responses without practitioner consent for disclosure. This gave us\n\n17 One QIO began the 9th SOW on December 22, 2008.\n\n\nOEI-01-09-00620 QIOs\xe2\x80\x99 Final Responses to Beneficiary Complaints\n\x0cPage 6 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\n120 total responses, 60 of which included practitioner consent for disclosure and 60 of which did\nnot.\n\nData Analysis\nWe calculated the total number of complaint reviews that QIOs completed and the total number\nof practitioner disclosure requests that QIOs made as part of those reviews. We then calculated\nthe percentage of complaint reviews in which the practitioner consented to disclosure. We\ncompared the contents of each final response with the 2003 Court of Appeals decision and\nCMS\xe2\x80\x99s criteria, as summarized in Table 1.\n\nLimitations\nWe did not independently verify the QIO data on numbers of completed reviews, practitioners,\nand consent rate. The results of our analysis of whether final responses met requirements are\nlimited to the 120 letters we reviewed; we cannot project these results to the universe of final\nresponse letters.\n\nStandards\nThis study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections approved by\nthe Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.\n\nRESULTS\n\nQIOs Obtained Consent for Disclosure in About Half of Practitioner Requests\nBetween August 1, 2008\xe2\x80\x94the start of the 9th SOW\xe2\x80\x94and December 31, 2009, QIOs completed\n4,500 complaint reviews. As part of those 4,500 reviews, QIOs made 2,768 requests for\npractitioner consent to disclosure, and 52 percent (1,449) of those practitioners consented. 18\nThis means that in almost half of the cases involving specific practitioners, the beneficiaries\nreceived less information about the outcome of their complaint (e.g., no summary of their\nmedical record) than in cases that had practitioner consent. This consent rate is higher than the\nrate found in our 2001 report, which found that QIOs obtained practitioner consent in only 21\npercent of complaints when a quality-of-care concern was confirmed and in 42 percent of\ncomplaints when no concern was confirmed. 19\n\nOf the 120 Total Responses we Reviewed, 116 Met Requirements\n\nOne hundred and eighteen responses stated whether care met professional standards. Both the\n2003 court decision and CMS require all QIO final responses, regardless of whether the\npractitioner consented to disclosure, to state whether the care under review met professional\n\n\n18 Not all beneficiary complaint reviews involve a specific practitioner. Some concern only a facility; in these cases\nthe QIO would not need to seek practitioner consent for disclosure. Conversely, some complaints may involve more\nthan one practitioner; in these cases, the QIO must seek consent from each involved practitioner.\n19 OIG, The Medicare Beneficiary Complaint Process: A Rusty Safety Valve, OEI-01-00-00060, August 2001.\n\n\n\n\nOEI-01-09-00620 QIOs\xe2\x80\x99 Final Responses to Beneficiary Complaints\n\x0cPage 7 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\nstandards. In meeting this criterion, 118 of 120 responses we reviewed stated that care met\n\xe2\x80\x9cprofessionally recognized standards of care\xe2\x80\x9d or that care \xe2\x80\x9cwas appropriate.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe two responses that did not meet this requirement each concerned complaints in which the\npractitioner did not consent to disclosure, and both came from the same QIO. Each response\nstated only that the QIO completed the review and would take appropriate action if warranted,\nomitting any mention of the QIO\xe2\x80\x99s findings. This means that for these two complaints, the\nbeneficiaries who complained did not learn whether the care they received met professional\nstandards of quality.\n\nAll 60 responses with consent for disclosure contained a summary of the medical record. Each\nof the 60 responses for which the practitioner consented to disclosure contained a summary of\nthe beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s care as noted in the medical record. This summary typically included any tests\ngiven, their results, and the course of treatment.\n\nAll but 2 of the 60 responses with consent for disclosure described the corrective action taken in\nresponse to a confirmed quality-of-care concern. Responses that met the criterion for a\ndescription of the corrective action listed specific actions that the QIO took. For example, these\nresponses stated that the QIO required the provider or practitioner to complete a quality\nimprovement plan, or that the QIO\xe2\x80\x99s physician reviewer recommended alternative approaches to\nfuture care designed to address the quality-of-care concern. Of the two responses that did not\nmeet this criterion, one stated that the QIO would work with the practitioner to improve future\ncare, and the other stated only that \xe2\x80\x9cappropriate action will be taken.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nSix of the sixty responses in which the practitioner declined to consent to disclosure provided\nmore information than CMS requires. Each of these six responses included information\ndescribing corrective actions taken in response to a confirmed quality-of-care concern. In these\ncases, a typical response required the practitioner to complete a quality improvement plan.\nWhen the practitioner does not consent to disclosure, CMS does not require QIOs to include\ninformation regarding the corrective actions the QIO took. We spoke with staff at the QIO that\nsent three of these six responses. According to staff, the involved practitioners had not objected\nto including that information.\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nOur review showed that most QIO responses to complainants are meeting the terms of both the\ncourt decision and CMS criteria regarding professional standards, as well as CMS\xe2\x80\x99s additional\ncriteria. However, QIOs do not obtain consent for disclosure from almost half of the\npractitioners involved (Medicare regulations allow practitioners to decline consent). As similarly\nidentified in previous OIG reports, requiring practitioner consent remains a barrier to providing\nbeneficiaries with more complete information about their complaints.\n\n\n\n\nOEI-01-09-00620 QIOs\xe2\x80\x99 Final Responses to Beneficiary Complaints\n\x0cPage 8 \xe2\x80\x93 Donald M. Berwick, M.D.\n\n\nOur review also showed that 6 of the 60 responses exceeded CMS\xe2\x80\x99s criteria by including\ninformation on corrective actions even when the practitioner did not consent to disclosure. The\nfact that at least one QIO is already providing such a response to beneficiaries without adverse\nconsequences suggests that disclosure might not impose an undue burden on practitioners and\nthat other QIOs could make the complaint process more transparent to all beneficiaries.\nResponses providing information on corrective actions taken would likely provide some\nassurance to beneficiaries that their complaints and any underlying problems identified were\nbeing addressed.\n\nThis report is being issued directly in final form because it contains no recommendations. If you\nhave comments or questions about this report, please provide them within 60 days. Please refer\nto report number OEI-01-09-00620 in all correspondence.\n\n\n\n\nOEI-01-09-00620 QIOs\xe2\x80\x99 Final Responses to Beneficiary Complaints\n\x0c"


type: wikipedia

text:
Johann Christoph Friedrich Schiller (Marbach am Neckar, 10 november 1759 – Weimar, 9 mei 1805) was een Duits toneelschrijver, filosoof en dichter. Hij geldt als een van de grotere literatoren in de Duitse geschiedenis. In 1792 werd hij tot ereburger in Frankrijk benoemd. In 1802 werd hij in de (Duitse) adelstand verheven, vanaf dan herkenbaar aan het von, toegevoegd aan zijn naam.
 Biografie
 Schiller was de zoon van een militair en bezocht aanvankelijk een militaire kostschool in het slot Solitude. Daarna studeerde hij rechten en geneeskunde. Hij begon al vroeg met het schrijven van gedichten en is beïnvloed door de Sturm und Drang.
 In 1780 werd hij chirurgijn in Stuttgart. Vervolgens raakte hij in ongenade bij Karel Eugenius van Württemberg, de hertog van Württemberg, en Schiller vluchtte naar Mannheim en Bauerbach. Van 1784 tot 1787 was hij te gast in Weimar, Leipzig en Dresden.
 Een historische studie Geschichte des Abfalls der vereinigten Niederlande (1788) bezorgde hem een aanstelling als professor in Jena maar zonder salaris. Alhoewel in 1791 bij hem tering werd geconstateerd, ontwikkelde Schiller een bewonderenswaardige werkzaamheid. Hij schreef belangrijke werken over de Dertigjarige Oorlog, Wallenstein, Jeanne d'Arc, de Maagd van Orleans, Maria Stuart en Willem Tell.
 In 1790 trouwde hij met Charlotte von Lengefeld. In 1794 ontmoette hij Goethe. Aanvankelijk bekeken de twee grootheden elkaar jaloers, maar zij werden toch vrienden. Schiller had een passie voor roken en kaartspelen, sliep tot de middag en werkte 's nachts. In 1799 verhuisde hij opnieuw naar Weimar.
 Schiller was in zijn werk aanvankelijk revolutionair georiënteerd. Dat wil zeggen, zoals dat in die tijd gold: streven naar vrijheid en gelijkheid, het afwijzen van willekeur en onrechtvaardigheid. In later jaren was hij gematigder. Schiller is onder andere bekend van de Ode an die Freude (1785), dat hij schreef voor een vrijmetselaarsloge en dat door tijdgenoot Beethoven gedeeltelijk verwerkt werd in het slotdeel van zijn Negende Symfonie.
 Schiller overleed op 9 mei 1805 op 45-jarige leeftijd.
 Het graf van Schiller
 Schiller werd in 1805 met andere belangrijke Weimariaanse doden in een gemeenschappelijk mausoleum bijgezet. Toen de kisten in de kelder gingen rotten, rolden de knekels en de schedels over de vloer. Toen Schiller in 1827 zou worden bijgezet in de vorstelijke begraafplaats konden de mensen die de kelder openden Schillers resten niet meer herkennen. De Weimarer burgemeester Carl Leberecht Schwabe ging uit van frenologische uitgangspunten toen hij uit de stoffelijke resten de grootste schedel, passend voor een genie, en het grootste skelet koos. Schiller was een forse man geweest.
 Goethe heeft aan Schillers schedel een ode gewijd die postuum werd gepubliceerd.
 Latere deskundigen wezen op hun beurt twee andere schedels als die van Schiller aan. De drie schedels en het skelet werden naast de (originele) kist van Goethe in de vorstelijke grafkelder in Weimar bijgezet waar 60.000 bezoekers per jaar in afdalen.
 De authenticiteit bleef een omstreden zaak. Men vergeleek de schedel met het dodenmasker en zo kwam de ene geleerde tot de conclusie dat hij echt was terwijl anderen juist meenden bewijs te hebben gevonden voor het tegendeel.
 In 2008 toonde DNA-onderzoek in opdracht van de Klassik Stiftung, de beheerder van Schillers nalatenschap, aan dat geen van de drie schedels van Schiller geweest kan zijn. Het geraamte is ook niet van Schiller; het bestaat uit delen van drie onbekende personen, en deze delen passen niet bij de drie schedels.
 De sarcofaag in de vorstelijke grafkelder is sinds het onderzoek naar de stoffelijke resten leeg.
 Werken
 Drama
 Die Räuber (1781, theater)
 Kabale und Liebe (1783)
 Die Verschwörung des Fiesco zu Genua (1784)
 Don Carlos (1787, theater)
 Maria Stuart (1800, theater)
 Wallenstein, trilogie, (1800, theater)
 Die Jungfrau von Orléans (1801)
 Turandot (naar Carlo Gozzi) (1801)
 Die Braut von Messina (1803)
 Wilhelm Tell (1804, theater)
 Historische en theoretische geschriften
 Was kann eine gute stehende Schaubühne eigentlich wirken? (1784, ook bekend als Die Schaubühne als moralische Anstalt betrachtet)
 Geschichte des Abfalls der vereinigten Niederlande von der Spanischen Regierung (1788-1809, 3 dln.)
 Des Grafen Lamoral von Egmont Leben und Tod (1789)
 Geschichte des Dreissigjährigen Krieges (1790)
 Über die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen (1794-1795, brievencyclus). Vertaling: Brieven over de esthetische opvoeding van de mens, vert. Aart J. Leemhuis, tweede druk (Amsterdam: Octavo, 2017), ISBN 9789490334024.
 Merkwürdige Belagerung von Antwerpen in den Jahren 1584 und 1585 (1795)
 Über naive und sentimentalische Dichtung (1795)
 Gedichten en balladen
 Ode an die Freude (1786)
 Resignation (1786)
 Die Teilung der Erde (1795)
 Der Handschuh (1797)
 Der Taucher (1797)
 Das verschleierte Bild zu Sais
 Die Kraniche des Ibykus (1797)
 Ritter Toggenburg (1797)
 Der Ring des Polykrates (1798)
 Der Kampf mit dem Drachen (1798)
 Die Bürgschaft (1798)
 Das Lied von der Glocke (1799)
 Nänie (1800)
 Der Antritt des neuen Jahrhunderts (1800)
 Das Siegesfest (1803)
 Die Huldigung der Künste (1804)
 Das Berglied (1804)
 Musea
 Meerdere Duitse steden en gemeenten hebben een museum aan Schiller gewijd:
 In Marbach am Neckar werd in 1895 reeds de Schwäbische Schillerverein gesticht met het doel een museum in te richten. Schillers Geburtshaus, het huis waar de dichter geboren werd, is nu een museum.
 In de omgeving van Meiningen is het huis waar Schiller van december 1783 tot juli 1784 zijn toevlucht zocht sinds 1905 een museum: Schiller-Museum Bauerbach.
 In Leipzig is het huis waar Schiller in 1785 de Ode an die Freude schreef als museum ingericht Schillerhaus.
 In Weimar bevindt zich een Schiller-Museum; in hetzelfde gebouwencomplex bevindt zich ook Schillers woning in Weimar. In deze woning werkte Schiller Die Braut von Messina en Wilhelm Tell af.
 Trivia
 In Weimar, een plaats waar Schiller lang woonde, wordt hij geëerd met een standbeeld. Naast hem staat stad- en tijdgenoot Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
 In 1889 werd Schillers erfenis eigendom van de groothertogin van Saksen-Weimar-Eisenach, Sophie die het Goethe-Schiller-Archiv oprichtte.
 Een bekende uitspraak van Schiller betreffende het werk van Immanuel Kant over de noumenale vrijheid is "Je kan omdat je moet".
 In het toneelstuk Wilhelm Tell werd door Schiller de Duitse uitdrukking Was da kreucht und fleucht gemunt, een "gevleugeld woord " voor: alle dieren die bestaan.
 Literatuur
 Friedrich Schiller of de uitvinding van het Duitse idealisme. Amsterdam, Atlas, 2005. ISBN 9045013215
 Thoomes, Daan. Morele vorming (over Schiller en Pestalozzi). In: In de Waagschaal. Tijdschrift voor theologie, cultuur en politiek, vol. 31, 17 augustus 2002, nr. 11, pp. 18-20
 Zie ook
 Johann Gottfried von Herder
 Duitse en Oostenrijkse theaterpraktijk in de Nieuwste Tijd
 Externe link
 Nederlandse vertaling van Resignation
 Inleiding bij en Nederlandse vertaling van Wat kan een goede permanente schouwburg eigenlijk bewerkstelligen? (1784)
 Duits schrijver
 Duits toneelschrijver
 18e-eeuws schrijver
 19e-eeuws schrijver
 Duits filosoof
 Duits dichter
 Duits historicus
 Duitse adel


text:
 24.11.2005
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 L 306/30
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE OTSUS
 nr 100/2005,
 8. juuli 2005,
 millega muudetakse EMP lepingu II lisa (tehnilised normid, standardid, katsetamine ja sertifitseerimine)
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut, mida on muudetud Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut kohandava protokolliga, edaspidi “leping”, eriti selle artiklit 98,
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)
 Lepingu II lisa on muudetud EMP ühiskomitee 29. aprilli 2005. aasta otsusega nr 63/2005. (1)
 (2)
 Komisjoni 28. jaanuari 2005. aasta direktiiv 2005/9/EÜ, millega muudetakse nõukogu direktiivi 76/768/EMÜ kosmeetikatoodete kohta nimetatud direktiivi VII lisa kohandamiseks tehnika arenguga, (2) tuleb inkorporeerida lepingusse,
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD JÄRGMISE OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Lepingu II lisa XVI peatüki punktile 1 (nõukogu direktiiv 76/768/EMÜ) lisatakse järgmine taane:
 “—
 32005 L 0009: komisjoni direktiiv 2005/9/EÜ, 28. jaanuar 2005 (ELT L 27, 29.1.2005, lk 46).”
 Artikkel 2
 Direktiivi 2005/9/EÜ islandi- ja norrakeelne tekst, mis avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP kaasandes, on autentsed.
 Artikkel 3
 Käesolev otsus jõustub 9. juulil 2005, tingimusel et EMP ühiskomiteele on edastatud kõik lepingu artikli 103 lõikele 1 vastavad teated. (3)
 Artikkel 4
 Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.
 Brüssel, 8. juuli 2005
 EMP ühiskomitee nimel
 eesistuja
 HSH Prinz Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN
 (1) ELT L 239, 15.9.2005, lk 46.
 (2) ELT L 27, 29.1.2005, lk 46.
 (3) Põhiseadusest tulenevaid nõudeid ei ole nimetatud.


type: legislation

text:
 23.7.2014
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 217/9
 A TANÁCS 792/2014/EU VÉGREHAJTÁSI RENDELETE
 (2014. július 22.)
 a líbiai helyzetre tekintettel korlátozó intézkedések meghozataláról szóló 204/2011/EU rendelet 16. cikke (2) bekezdésének végrehajtásáról
 AZ EURÓPAI UNIÓ TANÁCSA,
 tekintettel az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződésre,
 tekintettel a líbiai helyzetre tekintettel korlátozó intézkedések meghozataláról szóló, 2011. március 2-i 204/2011/EU tanácsi rendeletre (1) és különösen annak 16. cikke (2) bekezdésére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 A Tanács 2011. március 2-án elfogadta a 204/2011/EU rendeletet.
 (2)
 A Tanács úgy véli, hogy egy személy esetében már nem indokolt, hogy szerepeljen a 204/2011/EU rendelet III. mellékletében foglalt jegyzékben.
 (3)
 A 204/2011/EU rendeletet ezért ennek megfelelően módosítani kell,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A RENDELETET:
 1. cikk
 A 204/2011/EU rendelet III. mellékletében foglalt jegyzékben szereplő alábbi személyre vonatkozó bejegyzés törlésre kerül:.
 23.
 Mohamad Ali ZIDANE
 2. cikk
 Ez a rendelet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetésének napján lép hatályba.
 Ez a rendelet teljes egészében kötelező és közvetlenül alkalmazandó valamennyi tagállamban.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2014. július 22-én.
 a Tanács részéről
 az elnök
 C. ASHTON
 (1) HL L 58., 2011.3.3., 1. o.


type: caselaw

text:
 20.7.2015
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 C 236/22
 Pedido de decisão prejudicial apresentado pelo Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Alemanha) em 30 de março de 2015 — Bundesbeauftragter für Asylangelegenheiten/N
 (Processo C-150/15)
 (2015/C 236/31)
 Língua do processo: alemão
 Órgão jurisdicional de reenvio
 Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht
 Partes no processo principal
 Recorrente: Bundesbeauftragter für Asylangelegenheiten
 Recorrida: N
 Oútra parte: República Federal da Alemanha
 Questões prejudiciais
 1)
 Deve o artigo 9.o, n.o 1, alínea a), em conjugação com o artigo 10.o, n.o 1, alínea b), da Diretiva 2011/95/EU (1), ser interpretado no sentido de que:
 a)
 se deve considerar que há uma violação grave da liberdade de religião garantida pelo artigo 10.o, n.o 1, da Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais e o artigo 9.o, n.o 1, CEDH e, por conseguinte, um ato de perseguição na aceção do artigo 9.o, n.o 1, alínea a), da diretiva, quando práticas ou comportamentos religiosos, impostos por uma doutrina religiosa que o requerente professa ativamente e que são um elemento essencial da mesma ou que são fundados nas convicções religiosas do requerente, na medida em que assumem uma importância particular para a sua identidade religiosa, são proibidos — sob pena de sanções penais — no país de origem em causa,
 ou
 b)
 é necessário que um requerente que professa ativamente uma determinada doutrina religiosa prove, além disso, que as práticas ou os comportamentos religiosos, impostos pela referida doutrina como um elemento essencial da mesma, considerados no seu país de origem uma atividade religiosa proibida sob pena de sanções penais, são «particularmente importantes» e, nesse sentido, «indispensáveis» para a preservação da sua identidade religiosa?
 2.
 Deve o artigo 9.o, n.o 3, em conjugação com o artigo 2.o, alínea d), da Diretiva 2011/95/EU, ser interpretado no sentido de que:
 para que se possa considerar que existe um receio fundado de ser perseguido e um risco real («real risk») de ser perseguido ou sujeito por um dos agentes referidos no artigo 6.o da Diretiva 2011/95/EU a uma pena ou um tratamento desumano ou degradante
 no que respeita às práticas ou aos comportamentos religiosos, impostos por uma doutrina religiosa que o requerente professa ativamente e que são um elemento essencial da mesma ou que são fundados nas convicções religiosas do requerente, na medida em que assumem uma importância particular para a sua identidade religiosa e são proibidos — sob pena de sanções penais — no seu país de origem,
 a)
 é necessário proceder a uma análise valorativa que leve em conta o número de seguidores da crença religiosa do requerente que praticam a sua fé, apesar de a mesma ser proibida, relacionando-o com o número de atos de perseguição efetivamente ocorridos no país de origem do requerente na sequência da referida atividade religiosa, devendo ser também tidos em consideração eventuais incertezas e imponderáveis no âmbito da prática estatal em matéria de ação penal,
 ou
 b)
 é suficiente que se possa provar a aplicação efetiva das disposições no âmbito da prática em matéria de ação penal do país de origem que, sob pena de sanções penais, proíbem práticas ou comportamentos religiosos, impostos por uma doutrina religiosa que o requerente professa ativamente e que constituem um elemento essencial da mesma ou que são fundados nas convicções religiosas do requerente, na medida em que assumem uma importância particular para a sua identidade religiosa?
 3.
 Uma regra de processo civil que prevê que o tribunal que conhece do mérito da causa está vinculado pela apreciação jurídica da instância de «Revision» (no presente caso, o § 144, n.o 6, VwGO) é compatível com o princípio do primado do direito da União quando o tribunal que conhece do mérito da causa pretende interpretar uma norma do direito da União de maneira diferente da instância de «Revision», estando no entanto impedido de adotar esta interpretação do direito da União em virtude da vinculação à apreciação jurídica da instância de «Revision» imposta pelo direito nacional mesmo após a apresentação de um pedido de decisão prejudicial nos termos do artigo 267.o, segundo parágrafo, TFUE?
 (1) Diretiva 2011/95/UE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 13 de dezembro de 2011, que estabelece normas relativas às condições a preencher pelos nacionais de países terceiros ou por apátridas para poderem beneficiar de proteção internacional, a um estatuto uniforme para refugiados ou pessoas elegíveis para proteção subsidiária e ao conteúdo da proteção concedida (JO L 337, p. 9).