type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 29.11.2018
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 L 305/15
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE OTSUS
 nr 51/2017
 17. märts 2017
 millega muudetakse EMP lepingu I lisa „Veterinaar- ja fütosanitaarküsimused“ ning II lisa „Tehnilised normid, standardid, katsetamine ja sertifitseerimine“ [2018/1815]
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut (edaspidi „EMP leping“), eriti selle artiklit 98,
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)
 EMP lepingusse tuleb inkorporeerida komisjoni 13. oktoobri 2016. aasta määrus (EL) 2016/1822, millega muudetakse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 396/2005 II, III ja V lisa seoses aklonifeeni, deltametriini, fluasinaami, metomüüli, sulkotriooni ja tiodikarbi jääkide piirnormidega teatavates toodetes või nende pinnal (1).
 (2)
 EMP lepingusse tuleb inkorporeerida komisjoni 17. oktoobri 2016. aasta määrus (EL) 2016/1866, millega muudetakse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 396/2005 II, III ja V lisa seoses 3-detseen-2-ooni, atsibensolaar-S-metüüli ja heksaklorobenseeni jääkide piirnormidega teatavates toodetes või nende pinnal (2).
 (3)
 Käesolevas otsuses käsitletakse sööda ja toiduainetega seotud õigusakte. Sööta ja toiduaineid käsitlevaid õigusakte ei kohaldata Liechtensteini suhtes seni, kuni Liechtensteinile laieneb Euroopa Ühenduse ja Šveitsi Konföderatsiooni vaheline põllumajandustoodetega kauplemise kokkulepe, nagu see on sätestatud EMP lepingu I lisa valdkondlikes kohandustes ning EMP lepingu II lisa XII peatüki sissejuhatuses. Seetõttu käesolevat otsust Liechtensteini suhtes ei kohaldata.
 (4)
 Seetõttu tuleks EMP lepingu I ja II lisa vastavalt muuta,
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 EMP lepingu I lisa II peatüki punkti 40 (Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 396/2005) lisatakse järgmised taanded:
 „—
 32016 R 1822: komisjoni 13. oktoobri 2016. aasta määrus (EL) 2016/1822 (ELT L 281, 18.10.2016, lk 1),
 —
 32016 R 1866: komisjoni 17. oktoobri 2016. aasta määrus (EL) 2016/1866 (ELT L 286, 21.10.2016, lk 4).“
 Artikkel 2
 EMP lepingu II lisa XII peatüki punkti 54zzy (Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 396/2005) lisatakse järgmised taanded:
 „—
 32016 R 1822: komisjoni 13. oktoobri 2016. aasta määrus (EL) 2016/1822 (ELT L 281, 18.10.2016, lk 1),
 —
 32016 R 1866: komisjoni 17. oktoobri 2016. aasta määrus (EL) 2016/1866 (ELT L 286, 21.10.2016, lk 4).“
 Artikkel 3
 Määruste (EL) 2016/1822 ja (EL) 2016/1866 islandi- ja norrakeelsed tekstid, mis avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP kaasandes, on autentsed.
 Artikkel 4
 Käesolev otsus jõustub 18. märtsil 2017, tingimusel et kõik EMP lepingu artikli 103 lõike 1 kohased teated on edastatud (*1).
 Artikkel 5
 Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.
 Brüssel, 17. märts 2017
 EMP ühiskomitee nimel
 eesistuja
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) ELT L 281, 18.10.2016, lk 1.
 (2) ELT L 286, 21.10.2016, lk 4.
 (*1) Põhiseadusest tulenevaid nõudeid ei ole nimetatud.


type: legislation

text:
11 . 2 . 82 Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee N. L 40 / 1
 I
 (Atti per i quali la pubblicazione è una condizione di applicabilità)
 REGOLAMENTO ( CEE ) N. 296 / 82 DELLA COMMISSIONE
 del 5 febbraio 1982
 relativo alla fornitura di varie partite di butteroil a titolo di aiuto alimentare
 LA COMMISSIONE DELLE COMUNITÀ EUROPEE , per la fornitura di latte scremato in polvere e di butter
 oil a titolo di aiuto alimentare ( 3 ), modificato da ultimo
 dal regolamento ( CEE ) n . 3474 / 80 ( 4 ) ; che è necessario
 visto il trattato che istituisce la Comunità economica in particolare precisare i termini e le modalità di conse
 europea , gna , nonché la procedura che gli organismi d'intervento
 devono applicare per determinare le relative spese ;
 visto il regolamento ( CEE ) n . 804 / 68 del Consiglio , del
 27 giugno 1968 , relativo all'organizzazione comune dei considerando che le misure previste dal presente regola
 mercati nel settore del latte e dei prodotti lattiero-casea mento sono conformi al parere del comitato di gestione
 ri (*), modificato da ultimo dall'atto di adesione della per il latte e i prodotti lattiero-caseari ,
 Grecia , in particolare l'articolo 6 , paragrafo 7 ,
 visto il regolamento ( CEE ) n . 1401 / 81 del Consiglio , HA ADOTTATO IL PRESENTE REGOLAMENTO :
 del 19 maggio 1981 , che stabilisce le regole generali
 relative alla fornitura di grassi nel latte , nel quadro del
 programma di aiuto alimentare per il 1981 , a taluni Articolo 1
 paesi in via di sviluppo e ad alcuni organismi specializ
 zati ( 2 ), in particolare l'articolo 7 , Gli organismi d'intervento di cui all'allegato provvedo
 no affinché si proceda , in conformità del regolamento
 considerando che nel quadro dei programmi di aiuto ( CEE ) n . 303 / 77 , alla fornitura di butteroil a titolo
 alimentare adottati con i regolamenti del Consiglio di aiuto alimentare alle condizioni specificate nell'
 citati nell'allegato , taluni paesi terzi e taluni organismi allegato .
 beneficiari hanno chiesto la fornitura dei quantitativi di
 butteroil parimenti indicati nell'allegato ;
 Articolo 2
 considerando che è pertanto opportuno procedere a tale
 fornitura in conformità delle norme previste dal regola Il presente regolamento entra in vigore il terzo giorno
 mento ( CEE ) n . 303 / 77 della Commissione , del 14 successivo alla sua pubblicazione nella Gazzetta ufficiale
 febbraio 1977 , recante modalità generali d'applicazione delle Comunità europee.
 Il presente regolamento è obbligatorio in tutti i suoi elementi e direttamente applicabile in
 ciascuno degli Stati membri .
 Fatto a Bruxelles , il 5 febbraio 1982 .
 Per la Commissione
 Poul DALSAGER
 Membro della Commissione
 ( J ) GU n . L 148 del 28 . 6 . 1968 , pag. 13 . ( 3 ) GU n . L 43 del 15 . 2 . 1977 , pag . 1 .
 ( 2 ) GU n . L 141 del 27 . 5 . 1981 , pag . 5 . ( 4 ) GU n . L 363 del 31 . 12 . 1980 , pag. 50 .
 ---pagebreak--- N. L 40 / 2 Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee 11 . 2 . 82
 ALLEGATO f 1 )
 Designazione della partita A B
 1. Regolamenti del Consiglio
 applicati :
 a ) fondamento giuridico ( CEE ) n. 1401 / 81 ( programma 1981 )
 b) assegnazione ( CEE ) n. 1402 / 81
 2. Beneficiario PAM
 3. Paese di destinazione Egitto Pakistan
 4. Quantitativo totale della partita 147 t 42 t
 5. Organismo d'intervento incari Belga
 cato della fornitura
 6. Provenienza del butteroil Da produrre con burro o con crema acquistati sul mercato della Comunità
 7. Caratteristiche e / o imballaggio In scatole da 5 kg, rivestite internamente di una vernice idonea al contatto con gli alimenti
 particolari ( 2 ) ovvero sottoposte ad un trattamento che offra garanzie equivalenti
 8. Iscrizioni sull'imballaggio « Egypt 644 Exp / Butteroil / Alexandria « Pakistan 2149 / Butteroil / Karachi /
 / Gift of the European Economic Com Gift of the European Economic Com
 munity / Action of World Food munity / Action of World Food
 Programme » Programme »
 9. Termine di consegna Consegna il più presto possibile ed al più Consegna nel marzo 1982
 tardi il 28 febbraio 1982
 10 . Fase e luogo di consegna Porto d'imbarco comunitario avente regolari collegamenti con il paese destinatario
 11 . Rappresentante del benéficiario
 incaricato della presa in con
 segna ( 3 )
 12 . Procedura da applicare per de Trattativa privata
 terminare le spese di fornitura
 13 . In caso di gara , data del termine
 ultimo per la presentazione delle
 offerte , alle ore 12
 ---pagebreak--- 11 . 2 . 82 Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee N. L 40 / 3
 Designazione della partita C D
 1. Regolamenti del Consiglio
 applicati :
 a ) fondamento giuridico ( CEE ) n. 1401 / 81 ( programma 1981 )
 b ) assegnazione ( CEE ) n. 1402 / 81
 2. Beneficiario
 r Comore
 3. Paese di destinazione
 4. Quantitativo totale della partita 60 t 40 t
 5. Organismo d'intervento incari Olandese
 cato della fornitura
 6. Provenienza del butteroil Da produrre con burro o con crema acquistati sul mercato della Comunità
 7. Caratteristiche e / o imballaggio In scatole da 5 kg, rivestite internamente di una vernice idonea al contatto con gli alimenti
 particolari ( 2 ) ovvero sottoposte ad un trattamento che offra garanzie equivalenti
 8. Iscrizioni sull'imballaggio « Butteroil / Don de la Communauté économique européenne aux Comores »
 9. Termine di consegna Imbarco nel marzo 1982
 10 . Fase e luogo di consegna Porto di sbarco Moroni ( deposito su Porto di sbarco Mutsamudu (deposito su
 banchina o alleggio ) banchina o alleggio )
 11 . Rappresentante del beneficiario Ministère de l'économie, des finances et du plan , Service de la gestion des aides
 incaricato della presa in con internationales , Moroni , Grande Comore , télex : 219 MAERFIC KO )
 segna ( 3 )
 12 . Procedura da applicare per de Trattativa privata
 terminare le spese di fornitura
 13 . In caso di gara , data del termine
 ultimo per la presentazione delle
 offerte , alle ore 12
 ---pagebreak--- N. L 40 / 4 Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee 11 . 2 . 82
 Designazione della partita E
 1. Regolamenti del Consiglio
 applicati :
 a ) fondamento giuridico ( CEE ) n. 1401 / 81 (programma 1981 )
 b ) assegnazione ( CEE ) n. 1402 / 81
 2. Beneficiario
 r Guinea-Bissau
 3. Paese di destinazione J
 4. Quantitativo totale della partita 175 t
 5. Organismo d'intervento incari Tedesco
 cato della fornitura
 6. Provenienza del butteroil Da produrre con burro o con crema sul mercato della Comunità
 7. Caratteristiche e / o imballaggio In scatole da 5 kg , rivestite internamente di una vernice idonea al contatto con gli alimenti
 particolari ( 2 ) ovvero sottoposte ad un trattamento che offra garanzie equivalenti
 8. Iscrizioni sull'imballaggio « Butteroil / Don da Comunidade Econòmica Europeia à República de Guiné-Bissau »
 9. Termine di consegna Imbarco il più presto possibile e al più tardi il 28 febbraio 1982
 10 . Fase e luogo di consegna Porto di sbarco Bissau (desposito su banchina o alleggio )
 11 . Rappresentante del beneficiario Comissário de Estado Industria e Artesanato , Caixa Postal 85 , Bissau
 incaricato della presa in con
 segna ( 3 )
 12 . Procedura da applicare per de Trattativa privata
 terminare le spese di fornitura
 13 . In caso di gara , data del termine ~
 ultimo per la presentazione delle
 offerte , alle ore 12
 ---pagebreak--- 11 . 2 . 82 Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee N. L 40 / 5
 Designazione della partita F G
 1. Regolamenti del Consiglio
 applicati :
 a) fondamento giuridico ( CEE ) n. 1401 / 81 (programma 1981 )
 b) assegnazione ( CEE ) n. 1402 / 81
 2. Beneficiario UNRWA
 3. Paese di destinazione Israele Giordania
 4. Quantitativo totale della partita 75 t 90 t
 5. Organismo d'intervento incari Francese
 cato della fornitura
 6. Provenienza del butteroil D>a produrre con burro o con crema acquistati sul mercato della Comunità
 7. Caratteristiche e / o imballaggio C)
 particolari ( 2 )
 8. Iscrizioni sull'imballaggio « Butteroil / Gift of the European Economic Community to UNRWA / For free distribution
 to Palestine refugees »
 9. Termine di consegna Imbarco nel marzo 1982
 10 . Fase e luogo di consegna Porto di sbarco Ashdod ( 5 ) (deposito su Porto di sbarco Agaba ( deposito su ban
 banchina o alleggio) china o alleggio
 11 . Rappresentante del beneficiario General Superintendance Co . on behalf of Field Supply and Transport Officer,
 incaricato della presa in con UNRWA , Ashdod , Israël Jordan PO Box 484 , UNRWA ,
 segna ( 3 ) Amman , Jordan
 12 . Procedura da applicare per de Trattativa privata
 terminare le spese di fornitura
 13 . In caso di gara , data del termine
 ultimo per la presentazione delle
 offerte , alle ore 12
 ---pagebreak--- N. L 40 / 6 Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee 11 . 2 . 82
 Note
 ( ! ) Il presente allegato , unitamente al bando pubblicato nella Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee
 n. C 95 del 19 aprile 1977 , pagina 7 , funge da gara degli organismi d'intervento interessati , nel
 caso si proceda ad una gara in conformità del punto 12 .
 ( 2 ) Diversi da quelli indicati nell'allegato II del regolamento ( CEE ) n . 303 / 77 .
 ( 3 ) Unicamente in caso di consegna « nel porto di sbarco » e « reso destinazione » ; articoli 5 e 13 ,
 paragrafo 1 , ultimo trattino , del regolamento (CEE ) n . 303 / 77.
 ( 4 ) In fusti metallici nuovi di contenuto di 190 kg a 200 kg ( da precisare nell'offerta ) rivestiti
 internamente di una vernice idonea al contatto con gli alimenti o sottoposti ad un trattamento che
 dia garanzie equivalenti, muniti di cocchiume, completamente pieni ed ermeticamente chiusi in
 atmosfera di azoto . La resistenza del fusto agli urti deve essere sufficiente per sopportare un lungo
 trasporto marittimo . I fusti metallici non devono , per loro natura , essere nocivi alla salute umana o
 provocare un cambiamento di colore , di sapore o di odore del loro contenuto. La chiusura dei fusti
 deve essere assolutamente ermetica .
 ( s ) Il prodotto deve essere consegnato dall'aggiudicatario in contenitori lunghi 20 piedi .


type: caselaw

text:
 16.10.2017
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 347/45
 Žaloba podaná 18. augusta 2017 – CheapFlights International/EUIPO – Momondo Group (Cheapflights)
 (Vec T-565/17)
 (2017/C 347/59)
 Jazyk, v ktorom bola podaná žaloba: angličtina
 Účastníci konania
 Žalobkyňa: CheapFlights International Ltd (Speenoge, Írsko) (v zastúpení: A. von Mühlendahl a H. Hartwig, advokáti)
 Žalovaný: Úrad Európskej únie pre duševné vlastníctvo (EUIPO)
 Ďalší účastník konania pred odvolacím senátom: Momondo Group Ltd (Londýn, Spojené kráľovstvo)
 Údaje týkajúce sa konania pred EUIPO
 Prihlasovateľ spornej ochrannej známky: ďalší účastník konania pred odvolacím senátom.
 Dotknutá sporná ochranná známka: obrazová ochranná známka Európskej únie obsahujúca slovné prvky „Cheapflights“ – prihláška č. 3 485 349.
 Konanie pred EUIPO: námietkové konanie.
 Napadnuté rozhodnutie: rozhodnutie veľkého odvolacieho senátu EUIPO z 1. júna 2017 vo veci R 1893/2011-G.
 Návrhy
 Žalobkyňa navrhuje, aby Všeobecný súd:
 —
 zrušil napadnuté rozhodnutie,
 —
 uložil EUIPO a Momondo Group Limited, ak vstúpi do konania, povinnosť nahradiť trovy konania.
 Uvádzané žalobné dôvody
 —
 porušenie článku 64 ods. 6 nariadenia č. 207/2009,
 —
 porušenie článku 75 nariadenia č. 207/2009,
 —
 porušenie článku 8 ods. 3 nariadenia Komisie (ES) č. 216/96,
 —
 napadnuté rozhodnutie obsahuje vyjadrenia, ktoré spochybňujú alebo priamo popierajú platnosť ochranných známok žalobkyne. Napadnuté rozhodnutie poškodzuje záujmy žalobkyne ako majiteľky platne zapísaných ochranných známok, ktoré ani nepatria do právomoci žalovaného.


text:
 Pomembno pravno obvestilo
 |
 22003D0066
 Uradni list L 257 , 09/10/2003 str. 0004 - 0007
 Sklep Skupnega odbora EGPšt. 66/2003z dne 20. junija 2003o spremembi Priloge I (Veterinarske in fitosanitarne zadeve) k Sporazumu EGPSKUPNI ODBOR EGP JE -ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru, spremenjenega s Protokolom o prilagoditvi Sporazuma o evropskem gospodarskem prostoru, v nadaljnjem besedilu "Sporazuma" in še zlasti člena 98 tega sporazuma,ob upoštevanju naslednjega:(1) Priloga I k Sporazumu je bila spremenjena s Sklepom Skupnega odbora EGP št. 31/2003 z dne 14. marca 2003 [1].(2) Uredbo (ES) št. 999/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. maja 2001 o določitvi pravil za preprečevanje, nadzor in izkoreninjenje določenih prenosljivih spongiformnih encefalopatij [2] je treba vključiti v Sporazum.(3) Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1248/2001 z dne 22. junija 2001 o spremembi Prilog III, X in XI k Uredbi (ES) št. 999/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede epidemiološkega nadzora in laboratorijskih preiskav glede prenosljivih spongiformnih encefalopatij [3] je treba vključiti v Sporazum.(4) Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1326/2001 z dne 29. junija 2001 o določitvi prehodnih ukrepov, ki bi omogočili prehod na Uredbo (ES) št. 999/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o določitvi pravil za preprečevanje, nadzor in izkoreninjenje določenih prenosljivih spongiformnih encefalopatij ter o spremembi Prilog VII in XI k tej uredbi [4], je treba vključiti v Sporazum.(5) Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 270/2002 z dne 14. februarja 2002 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 999/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede snovi s specifičnim tveganjem in epidemiološkega nadzora prenosljivih spongiformnih encefalopatij ter o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1326/2001 glede krmljenja živali in dajanja v promet ovc in koz ter njihovih proizvodov [5], je treba vključiti v Sporazum.(6) Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1494/2002 z dne 21. avgusta 2002 o spremembi Prilog III, VII in XI k Uredbi (ES) št. 999/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede spremljanja bovine spongiformne encefalopatije, izkoreninjenja prenosljive spongiformne encefalopatije, odstranitve snovi s specifičnim tveganjem in pravil za uvoz živih živali ter proizvodov živalskega izvora [6], je treba vključiti v Sporazum.(7) Odločbo Komisije 2002/1003/ES z dne 18. decembra 2002 o določitvi minimalnih zahtev za pregled genotipov prionskih proteinov pri ovčjih čredah [7], je treba vključiti v Sporazum.(8) Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 260/2003 z dne 12. februarja 2003 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 999/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede izkoreninjenja prenosljivih spongiformnih encefalopatij pri ovcah in kozah in pravil za trgovanje z živimi ovcami in kozami ter govejimi zarodki [8], je treba vključiti v Sporazum.(9) Uredba (ES) št. 1248/2001 razveljavlja Odločbo Komisije 98/272/ES [9], ki je vključena v Sporazum in jo je zato treba črtati iz Sporazuma.(10) Uredba (ES) št. 1326/2001 razveljavlja Odločbi Komisije 94/381/ES [10] in 94/474/ES [11], ki sta vključeni v Sporazum in ju je zato treba črtati iz Sporazuma.(11) Uredba (ES) št. 260/2003 razveljavlja Odločbo Komisije 92/290/EGS [12], ki je vključena v Sporazum in jo je zato treba črtati iz Sporazuma.(12) Ta odločba ne velja za Lihtenštajn in Islandijo -SKLENIL:Člen 1Poglavje I Priloge I k Sporazumu se spremeni, kot sledi:1. V točki 11 (Odločba Sveta 2000/766/ES) se v del 7.1 vstavi naslednja alinea:"— 32001 R 1326: Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1326/2001 z dne 29. junija 2001 (UL L 177, 30.6.2001, str. 60)."2. Za točko 11 (Odločba Sveta 2000/766/ES) se v del 7.1 vstavi naslednje:"TSE nadzor (prenosljivih spongiformnih encefalopatij)12. 32001 R 0999: Uredba (ES) št. 999/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. maja 2001 ki predpisuje pravila za preprečevanje, nadzor in izkoreninjenje določenih prenosljivih spongiformnih encefalopatij (UL L 147, 31.5.2001, str. 1), kakor je bila spremenjena z:- 32001 R 1248: Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1248/2001 z dne 22. junija 2001 (UL L 173, 27.6.2001, str. 12),- 32001 R 1326: Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1326/2001 z dne 29. junija 2001 (UL L 177, 30.6.2001, str. 60),- 32002 R 0270: Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 270/2002 z dne 14. februarja 2002 (UL L 45, 15.2.2002, str. 4),- 32002 R 1494: Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1494/2002 z dne 21. avgusta 2002 (UL L 225, 22.8.2002, str. 3),- 32003 R 0260: Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 260/2003 z dne 12. februarja 2003 (UL L 37, 13.2.2003, str. 7).Določbe Uredbe se za namene tega sporazuma razumejo z naslednjimi spremembami:A. V Prilogi III, poglavju A, delu I, točki 2.3 je treba za besedo"Švedska".vstaviti naslednje:"in Norveška.".B. V Prilogi III, poglavju A, delu II, točki 2 je treba dodati:"Norveška | 42500.". |C. V Prilogi III, poglavju A, delu II, točki 3 je treba dodati:"Norveška | 6000.". |D. V Prilogi X, poglavju A, točki 3 je treba dodati:"Norveška: | VeterinærinstituttetPostboks 8156 Dep.N-0033 OsloNorveška.".". |3. Za točko 16 (Odločba Komisije 2001/9/ES) se v del 7.2 vstavi naslednje:"17. 32001 R 1326: Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1326/2001 z dne 29. junija 2001 o določitvi prehodnih ukrepov, ki bi omogočili prehod na Uredbo (ES) št. 999/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta ki predpisuje pravila za preprečevanje, nadzor in izkoreninjenje dolčenih prenosljivih spongiformnih encefalopatij ter o spremembi Prilog VII in XI k tej uredbi (UL L 177, 30.6.2001, str. 60), kakor je bila spremenjena z:- 32002 R 0270: Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 270/2002 z dne 14. februarja 2002 (UL L 45, 15.2.2002, str. 4).""18. 32002 D 1003: Odločbo Komisije 2002/1003/ES z dne 18. decembra 2002 o določitvi minimalnih zahtev za pregled genotipov prionskih proteinov pri ovčjih čredah (UL L 349, 24.12.2002, str. 105)."4. Besedilo točk 7 (Odločba Komisije 92/290/EGS), 26 (Odločba Komisije 94/381/ES), 27 (Odločba Komisije 94/474/ES) ter 78 (Odločba Komisije 98/272/ES) v delu 1.2 se črta.Člen 2Besedila Uredb (ES) št. 999/2001, 1248/2001, 1326/2001, 270/2002, 1494/2002 in 260/2003 ter Odločbe 2002/1003/ES v norveškem jeziku, ki jih je treba objaviti v Dodatku EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije, so verodostojna.Člen 3Ta odločba začne veljati dne 21. junija 2003, pod pogojem da se vsa uradna obvestila predložijo Skupnemu odboru EGP v skladu s členom 103(1) Sporazuma [13].Člen 4Ta odločba se objavi v rubriki EGP in v Dodatku EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije.V Bruslju, 20. junija 2003Za Skupni odbor EGPPredsednikP. Westerlund[1] UL L 137, 5.6.2003, str. 30.[2] UL L 147, 31.5.2001, str. 1.[3] UL L 173, 27.6.2001, str. 12.[4] UL L 177, 30.6.2001, str. 60.[5] UL L 45, 15.2.2002, str. 4.[6] UL L 225, 22.8.2002, str. 3.[7] UL L 349, 24.12.2002, str. 105.[8] UL L 37, 13.2.2003, str. 7.[9] UL L 122, 24.4.1998, str. 59.[10] UL L 172, 7.7.1994, str. 23.[11] UL L 194, 29.7.1994, str. 96.[12] UL L 152, 4.6.1992, str. 37.[13] Utavne zahteve niso sporočene.--------------------------------------------------


text:
 11.10.2008
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 260/3
 Sodba Sodišča (prvi senat) z dne 10. julija 2008 (predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu) – Alicja Sosnowska proti Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu
 (Zadeva C-25/07) (1)
 (DDV - Direktivi 67/227/EGS in 77/388/EGS - Nacionalna zakonodaja, ki določa podrobna pravila za vračilo preveč plačanega DDV - Načeli davčne nevtralnosti in sorazmernosti - Posebni ukrepi za odstopanje)
 (2008/C 260/04)
 Jezik postopka: poljščina
 Predložitveno sodišče
 Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu
 Stranki v postopku v glavni stvari
 Tožeča stranka: Alicja Sosnowska
 Tožena stranka: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu
 Predmet
 Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe – Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu – Razlaga člena 5(3) ES, člena 2 Direktive Sveta 67/227/EGS z dne 11. aprila 1967 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih (UL 71, str. 1301) ter členov 18(4) in 27(1) Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (UL L 145, str. 1) – Nacionalna ureditev na področju prometnih davkov, ki v zvezi z rokom povrnitve presežkov, določa manj ugodna pravila za davčne zavezance, ki so začeli opravljati obdavčljive transakcije in so registrirani kot zavezanci, ki opravljajo dobave znotraj Skupnosti – Načelo davčne nevtralnosti in sorazmernosti.
 Izrek
 1)
 Člen 18(4) Šeste direktive Sveta 77/388/EGS z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 2005/92/ES z dne 12. decembra 2005, in načelo sorazmernosti nasprotujeta nacionalni ureditvi, kot je obravnavana v sporu o glavni stvari, ki zaradi omogočanja nadzora, nujnega za preprečevanje davčnih utaj in izogibanja davkom, določa, da lahko nacionalni davčni urad določeni skupini davčnih zavezancev vrne preveč plačani DDV v roku od 60 do 180 dni, šteto od dneva, ko je davčni zavezanec vložil napoved DDV, razen če so ti položili varščino v višini 250 000 PLN.
 2)
 Določbe, kot se obravnavajo v sporu o glavni stvari, ne veljajo za „posebne ukrepe, ki odstopajo“, za preprečevanje nekaterih vrst davčnih utaj ali izogibanja davkom v smislu člena 27(1) Šeste direktive 77/388, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2005/92.
 (1) UL C 69, 24.3.2008.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' Office of Inspector Ge\n Corporation for\n\n\n\n\n Pre-Audit Survey of the\nMontana Commission on Community Service\n OIG Report Number 04-18\n\n\n\n\n Prepared by:\n\n COTTON & COMPANY LLP\n 333 North Fairfax Street, Suite 401\n Alexandria, Virginia 22314\n\n\nThis report was issued to Corporation management on August 23, 2004. Undelr\nthe laws and regulations governing audit follow-up, the Corporation is to makb\nfinal management decisions on the report\'s findings and recommendations no\nlater than February 23, 2005, and complete its corrective actions by August 23,\n2005. Consequently, the reported findings do not necessarily represent the\nfinal resolution of the issues presented.\n\x0c COT &COMPANYLLP\n auditors + advisors\n\n\n\n\nMay 2 1,2004\n\n\nOffice of Inspector General\nCorporation for National and Community Service\n\n\nCotton & Company LLP performed a pre-audit survey of the Montana Commission on\nCommunity Service (Commission). We performed this pre-audit survey in accordance with the\nterms of the statement of work dated February 23,2004, by and between Cotton & Company and\nthe Office of Inspector General (OIG), Corporation for National and Community Service.\n\nThe primary survey objectives were to evaluate the adequacy of the:\n\n rn internal controls over grant management;\n\n pre-award selection process;\n\n administration of grant funds; and\n\n evaluation and oversight of subgrantees.\n\nWe conducted our procedures in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued by the\nComptroller General of the United States. We were not engaged to and did not conduct an audit\nof financial statements, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion.\nAccordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Further, our procedures were not sufficient to\nexpress an opinion on the Commission\'s internal control or on its compliance with laws,\nregulations, contracts, and grants. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we\nperformed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have\nbeen reported.\n\nThis report is intended solely for the information and use of the OIG and is not intended to be,\nand should not be, used by anyone other than the OIG.\n\nCOTTON& COMPANY\n LLP\n\n\n\nMichael W. Gillespie, CPA, CFE\nPartner\n\x0c Contents\n\nSection page\nSummary of Results ................................................................................ 1\n\nBackground .......................................................................................... 2\n Corporation for National and Community Service .......................................... 2\n Montana Commission on Community Service .............................................. 3\n\nObjectives. Scope. and Methodology ............................................................. 4\n\nResults of Fieldwork ............................................................................... 4\n Internal Controls ................................................................................. 4\n Selecting Subgrantees .......................................................................... 6\n Administering Grant Funds ................................................................... 7\n Evaluating and Monitoring Grants ........................................................... 8\n\nAppendix A: Funding Hierarchy Flowcharts\n\nAppendix B: Detailed Engagement Objectives and Methodology\n\nAppendix C: Montana Commission on Community Service Response\n\nAppendix D: Corporation Response\n\x0c PRE-AUDIT\n SURVEY OF THE\n MONTANA\n COMMISSIONON COMMUNITYSERVICE\n\n\nSUMMARY OF RESULTS\n\nCotton & Company LLP was engaged by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Corporatioln for\nNational and Community Service (Corporation), to provide an assessment of systems and\nprocedures in place at the Montana Commission on Community Service (Commission) for\nadministering AmeriCorps grants and monitoring the fiscal activity of subgrantees. The priqary\npurposes of the pre-audit survey were to evaluate the adequacy of the: I\n\n\n internal controls over grant management;\n\n pre-award selection process;\n\n administration of grant funds; and\n\n evaluation and oversight of subgrantees.\n\nBased on results of procedures performed, we offer the following preliminary assessments\nregarding the Commission\'s systems for administering AmeriCorps grants:\n\n The Commission did not have procedures to reconcile the cumulative balances of\n Financial Status Report (FSR) expenditures, Payment Management System\n (PMS) cash drawdowns, and State accounting records.\n\n The Commission did not document its consideration of past performance or\n financial risk assessments during the subgrantee selection process.\n\n The Commission did not close out its Competitive, Formula, and Administrative\n grants on time.\n\n The Commission did not adequately document its review of subgrantee expense\n documentation, member files, and member interviews.\n\n The Commission did not use the results of risk assessments in its subgrantee\n monitoring and evaluation process.\n\x0c The Commission did not adequately document its review of subgrantee audig\n reports.\n\n The Commission did not maintain grant file documents in accordance with\n record-retention policies.\n\nThe findings and recommendations presented in this report describe these matters in detail.\n\nDuring the period of our pre-audit survey, the Commission\'s AmeriCorps grants were not\naudited as a major program under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-1 33.\n\nBased on results of our preliminary assessment, we do not recommend performing a full-scope\naudit for Program Years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. We recommend that the Corporation follow\nup with the Commission to determine that appropriate corrective actions have been taken to\naddress conditions reported herein, and that the Corporation consider these conditions in its\nfuture oversight and monitoring of the Commission.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nCorporation for National and Community Service\n\nThe National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, which amended the National and\nCommunity Service Act of 1990, established the Corporation for National and Community\nService. The Corporation funds opportunities for Americans to engage in service that fosters\ncivic responsibility, strengthens communities, and provides educational opportunities for those\nwho make a substantial commitment to service.\n\nThe Corporation awards grants and cooperative agreements to State commissions, nonprofit\nentities, tribes, and territories to assist in creating full-time and part-time national and community\nservice programs. Through these grants, AmeriCorps members perform service to meet\neducational, human, environmental, and public safety needs throughout the nation, with special\nattention focused on needs related to poverty. In return for their service, program participants\nmay receive a living allowance and a monetary award for educational purposes.\n\nThe Corporation awards approximately 75 percent of its AmeriCorps funds to State\ncommissions. State commissions are responsible for developing and communicating a vision\nand ethic of service throughout their States.\n\nAdditionally, State commissions distribute funds to subgrantees to administer service programs.\nState commissions are responsible for monitoring subgrantee compliance with grant\nrequirements. The commissions are also responsible for providing training and technical\nassistance to service programs. State commissions are, however, prohibited from directly\noperating service programs.\n\x0cMontana Commission on Community Service\n\nMontana AmeriCorps programs are administered by the Governor\'s Office of Community\nService, a State agency which is the administrative arm of the Montana Commission on\nCommunity Service (Commission). The Commission is attached to the State Department of\nLabor and Industry (DLI) for administrative purposes only.\n\nThe Commission operates with an executive director, program manager, and administrative\nassistant. To adequately segregate duties with limited resources, many of the financial functions\nof the Commission, such as payments to subgrantees and cash management activities, are\nhandled by the Fiscal Support Bureau (FSB) of DLI.\n\nAs part of the Montana State Government, the Commission is included in the biannual OM\nCircular A-133 audit. In the past four fiscal years, however, the Corporation\'s grants have ot\nbeen selected as major programs, and the Commission has not received any other audits or\nreviews by the State. The State\'s OMB Circular A-133 audit has received an unqualified opinion\n t\nfor the past four years, indicating that the State\'s documented control environment is adequate\nfor Federal grants management.\n\nDuring our review, we noted that the Commission followed State procedures and internal\ncontrols. Additionally, DL1 has been subject to audits and reviews performed by the same\nagency that performs the OMB Circular A-133 audits. These reports did not identify any\nweaknesses in controls over grants management that would affect the Commission. Therefore,\nwhile Commission grants were not specifically tested, controls established by the State and used\nby the Commission appeared to be adequate for administering Federal awards.\n\nThe Commission provided the following information for Program Years 2001-2002 and 2002-\n2003 :\n\n Program Years\n 2001-2002 2001-2002 2002-2003 2002-2003\nFunding Source and Type Budget Actual Budget Actual\nAdministrative Grant $ 135,319 $ 135,319 $ 133,316 $ 133,316\nPDAT 111,000 11 1,000 lO3,OOO lO3,OOO\nDisability 64,386 44,709 67,405 72,235\nAmeriCorps-Competitive 294,406 1,482,074 573,275 1,459,438\nAmeriCorps-Formula 1 76,74 1 144,406 69 1,220 575,471\nState Matching Fund 1,226,629 1,419,241 1,585,213 1,39$,533\nTotal Funding $3.73 $993\n\x0cOBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\nThe Office of Inspector General engaged Cotton & Company to assess systems and proced&es\nin place at the Commission for administering AmeriCorps grants and monitoring subgranteq\nfiscal activity. The primary purpose of this pre-audit survey was to evaluate the adequacy of the:\n\n internal controls over grant management;\n\n pre-award selection process;\n\n administration of grant funds; and\n\n evaluation and oversight of subgrantees, including fiscal monitoring of\n AmeriCorps subgrantees, monitoring of program accomplishments and other\n performance statistics, and monitoring of AmeriCorps member eligibility and\n service-hour reporting.\n\nOur survey included the following procedures:\n\n Reviewing applicable laws, regulations, grant agreements, and provisions; the\n Corporation\'s State Administrative Standards Tool; and other information to gain\n an understanding of legal, statutory, and programmatic requirements.\n\n Reviewing the State\'s recent OMB Circular A-133 reports and other audit and\n review reports for DLI.\n\n Obtaining information from Commission management to complete the flowcharts\n in Appendix A, which show disbursement of Corporation funding to the\n Commission for Program Years 200 1-2002 and 2002-2003.\n\n To the extent possible, conducting inquiries, observations, investigations, and\n examinations of a limited sample of source documents to meet the objectives and\n methodology specified in Appendix B.\n\nThe findings and recommendations presented in this report summarize the results of our work.\nWe discussed all findings with Commission management during an exit conference on May 2 1,\n2004. We also provided a draft of this report to the Commission and the Corporation for their\nresponses, which are included as Appendices C and D, respectively.\n\nRESULTS OF FIELDWORK\n\nInternal Controls\n\nAccording to 45 CFR 5 2541.200(b)(l), which prescribes standards for financial\nsystems, the Commission must maintain systems that provide "[alccurate,\ndisclosure of the financial results of financially assisted activities."\n\x0cCommission to provide "[elffective control and accountability . . . for all grant and subgrant\ncash, real and personal property, and other assets."\n\nAs a Montana State entity, the Commission follows State accounting policies and procedure/s and\nother guidance. Additional procedures are documented in the Commission\'s Guide to\nAmeriCorps Program Management which contains all of the grant management policies relkted\nto Corporation grants.\n\nThe FSB provides support to the Commission by managing of Corporation funds and provides\nadditional segregation of duties. The FSB processes subgrantee payments, other accounts\npayable, and drawdowns; it also performs cash management functions. The State accounti\nsystem has separate codes specific to each Federal grant to track Commission activity and t\ntrack payments to each subgrantee.\n\nTo initiate a payment, the Commission must provide an approved payment request to the F9B.\nThe FSB ensures that payments are made to subgrantees only with proper approval and available\ngrant funds. The FSB also is responsible for drawdowns and prepares periodic drawdown\nrequests based on expenditures incurred in each grant code. The Commission does not draw\ndown Federal funds in advance of disbursement, but may approve a one-month advance of start-\nup funds for subgrantees.\n\nIssue: The Commission did not have procedures to reconcile the cumulative balances of\nFSR expenditures, PMS cash drawdowns, and State accounting records.\n\nThe Commission did not reconcile cumulative expenditures reported on FSRs to the State\naccounting system records and on the Department of Health and Human Services\' PMS cash\ndrawdown balances. The Commission reported cumulative expenditures of $1,358,070 on its\nFormula FSR, compared to State accounting system records and PMS cash down balances af\n$812,396. A material difference of $545,674 exists.\n\nOMB Circular A-102, Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governmehts,\nAttachment, Paragraph (3)(b), states that continuing Federal awards must be reconciled at least\nannually, and program performance and financial reports must be evaluated. The Circular\nrequires the following items to be reviewed:\n\n (1) A comparison of the recipient\'s work plan to its progress reports and\n project outputs;\n\n (2) The Financial Status Report (SF-269);\n\n (3) Request(s) for payment;\n\n (4) Compliance with any matching, level of effort or maintenance of effort\n requirement; and\n\n (5) A review of federally-owned property.\n\x0cThe difference is the result of a problem in the Web Based Reporting System (WBRS). WUen\nthe first Formula FSR was prepared in August 2001, WBRS erroneously reported past\nexpenditures on the competitive grant of $545,674 as the beginning balance of the first Formula\nFSR. The Commission had internal controls in place to ensure that individual drawdowns were\nsupported by claimed expenditures. It did not, however, realize the importance of reconcili~g\ncumulative expenditures to cash drawdowns on a regular basis, which would have identified and\ncorrected this error earlier.\n\nExpenditures reported on FSRs were not properly supported by the State accounting system and\nwere not the actual expenditures incurred under this grant. Periodic reconciliation is important to\nensure that amounts reported to the Corporation are accurate, overpayments to subgrantees are\nidentified, requests for additional obligations or deobligations can be made promptly, and\nofficials with first-hand knowledge are still available to make decisions or respond to questions.\n\nRecommendation: We recommend that a formal policy be developed to ensure that perioqc\nreconciliations be performed of cumulative claimed costs. The policy should include procedures\nrequiring that differences be investigated and resolved with explanations documented.\n\nSelecting Subgrantees\n\nAccording to 45 CFR 5 2550.80(b)(l), State commissions are required to "[aldminister a\ncompetitive process to select national service programs to be included in any application to the\nCorporation for funding. "\n\nThe Commission administered an open, competitive process to select national service\nsubgrantees. It provided notification of available funding through a variety of sources, in\naccordance with its Guide to AmeriCorps Program Management. The Commission also held\ninformational meetings for new program applicants to provide them with basic information\nregarding the AmeriCorps program, including programmatic requirements and grant review\ncomponents.\n\nThe Commission\'s review committee was comprised of one commissioner and three\nprofessionals from the nonprofit community who had prior grant experience. Each review\ncommittee member independently scored each application. Then, the committee members\ndiscussed the applications and ranked them. Commission employees also reviewed new\nproposals to analyze peer review results and further scrutinize the strengths and weaknesses of\nall proposals. The review committee did not typically conduct reviews for continuation\nproposals. For these, Commission employees conducted reviews of past performance and future\nplans.\n\nCommissioners make final funding decisions based on the results of the reviews. Successful and\nunsuccessful applicants are notified of the results, and evaluation documents are available fqr\nreview after the award process is complete.\n\x0cIssue: The Commission did not document its consideration of past performance or\nfinancial risk assessments during the subgrantee selection process.\n\nThe Commission did not document its consideration of past performance or financial risk\nassessments for new proposals submitted by subgrantees that had been previously funded. Pre-\nAward and Financial Risk Assessment and Past Performance Review forms were not comp$ted\n\n i\nfor previously funded subgrantees. Without adequate documentation, we are unable to dete mine\nif past performance and financial risk assessments were utilized during the subgrantee selec ion\nprocess.\n\nAccording to 45 CFR 3 2522.410(b)(2), Organizational Capacity, \'"tlhe Corporation will aliso\nconsider an organization\'s capacity to carry out the program based on . . . the past performance\nof the organization or program."\n\nRecommendation: We recommend that the Commission utilize the Pre-Award and Financial\nRisk Assessment and Past Performance Review forms during the subgrantee selection process\nfor all subgrantees, regardless of whether they have been previously funded.\n\nAdministering Grant Funds\n\nAccording to 45 CFR fj 2550.80(d), State commissions "will be responsible for administering the\ngrants and overseeing and monitoring the performance and progress of funded programs.\'\'\n\nThe Commission provided reporting guidance for FSRs, Periodic Expense Reports (PERs), and\nQuarterly Progress Reports to subgrantees. Subgrantee reporting due dates were set to allow the\nCommission to report to the Corporation in a timely manner. Late or incorrectly submitted\nreports resulted in a one percent penalty of total accrued expenditures upon a second offense.\nThe Commission reconciled subgrantee FSR balances to cumulative expenditures as reported on\nthe Payment Request submitted by the subgrantees, to ensure the accuracy of FSRs.\n\nThe Commission communicated document-retention requirements to subgrantees at orientation\nsessions as well as during the grant closeout process.\n\nAs noted above, the Commission had adequate controls and segregation of duties for reimbursing\nsubgrantee expenditures.\n\nIssue: The Commission did not close out its Competitive, Formula, and Administrative\ngrants on time.\n\nThe Commission did not close out its Competitive, Formula, and Administrative grants within 90\ndays of the end of each project period, as required. The Commission stated that it was waiting\nfor Corporation notice to close out the grants.\n\nAccording to 45 CFR 5 2541 SOO(b) Closeout-reporting, the grantee must submit all financial,\nperformance, and other reports required as a condition of the grant within 90 days of grant\nexpiration or termination.\n\x0cProject period and close-out due dates for each grant are summarized as follows:\n - - --\n\n\n Close-Out\n Grant Project Period Due Date\n Competitive 0910 1/2000-1213112003 0313012004\n (Amendment No. 12)\n Formula 0910 1/2000-11/30/2003 02/28/2004\n (Amendment No. 3)\n Administrative 01/01/2001-12/31/2003 03130/2004\n (Amendment No. 3)\n\nThe Commission was not in compliance with the Corporation\'s grant closeout requirements. If\nthe programs are not properly closed out in time, the Corporation cannot know the status ofithe\nprograms and whether any additional funding will be requested.\n\nRecommendation: We recommend that the Commission immediately close out its overdue\nCompetitive, Formula and Administrative grants.\n\nEvaluatin~and Monitoring Grants\n\nThe Commission monitors subgrantee performance, evaluates program operations, and regulates\ncompliance by conducting formal site visits of the subgrantees\' offices at least once a year. The\nCommission also conducts site visits of the subgrantees\' operating sites. Prior to conducting site\nvisits, the Commission contacts subgrantees to discuss the purpose of the site visit. The\nCommission also reviews subgrantee progress reports, prior site visit reports, and other grant\nmaterials prior to conducting the site visit.\n\nThe Commission documents its site visit using the Montana Program Review Instrument\n(MPRI). The MPRI consists of five modules that cover AmeriCorps laws, provisions, and other\nFederal requirements. The five modules include reporting and communication compliance,\nmember documentation compliance, financial compliance, policies and procedures compliance,\nand program effectiveness compliance. The Commission usually completes two or three\nmodules in one year and completes the remaining modules in the following year.\nWhen reviewing member compliance, the Commission selects a judgmental sample of member\nfiles and reviews the files to ensure that members are eligible to perform services, service hours\nare only accumulated for authorized activities, members are being paid according to established\nguidelines, members receive orientation and training, and members are not performing\nprohibited activities.\n\nWhen reviewing for financial compliance, the Commission reconciles FSR expenditures to\nsubgrantee accounting records and selects a judgmental sample of expenditures to test for\nallowability and proper support. The Commission also conducts interviews and administers1\n i\nsurveys with program staff, members, and service recipients during site visits. The Commi sion\nuses the questionnaires and surveys to provide additional information for its assessment of ;\nprogram effectiveness. Upon completion of the site visit, the Commission sends the subgradtee a\n 8\n\x0csummary of the site visit, including names of staff members that participated, statements\nsummarizing comments of members interviewed, and any findings that were identified.\n\nThe Commission ensures that subgrantees comply with the requirements of OMB Circular A-1 33\nby obtaining and reviewing subgrantee audit reports.\n\nIssue: The Commission did not adequately document its review of subgrantee expense1\ndocumentation, member files, and member interviews.\n\nThe Commission did not maintain documentation to support all subgrantee monitoring effohs\nduring the subgrantee monitoring site visits. Specifically:\n\n The Commission stated it reconciled FSR expenditures to subgrantee accounting\n records and selected a judgmental sample of expenditures to test for allowability\n and proper support. No evidence exists to indicate whether discrepancies between\n FSR and subgrantee accounting records were identified and resolved, or to\n indicate the type of expenditure and expense documents reviewed during site\n visits.\n\n The Commission stated that it reviewed a judgmental sample of member files for\n compliance during site visits; however, there was no evidence to indicate the\n number of member files that were selected for review during the site visit or\n whether any problems were noted.\n\n The Commission stated that it conducted interviews with members. It did not,\n however, document the names of those members or specific discussion topics.\n\nAccording to 45 CFR 5 2541.400(a), Monitoring by grantees, grantees are responsible for\nmanaging the day-to-day operations of grant and subgrant supported activities. Grantees must\nmonitor grant and subgrant supported activities to ensure compliance with applicable Federal\nrequirements and that performance goals are being achieved. Grantee monitoring must cover\neach program, function, or activity. Additionally, section 4.3 of the Reference Manual for\nCommission Executive Directors states that the commission must evaluate whether the\nsubgrantees comply with legal, reporting, financial management, and grant requirements and\nfollow through on issues of noncompliance.\n\nThe Commission did not realize the importance of adequately documenting all of its monitoring\nefforts during the site visits.\n\nWithout documenting this information, the Commission cannot readily provide documentation to\nshow that certain monitoring efforts were made. As a result, we were unable to determine if the\nCommission has adequate procedures to ensure allowability of costs claimed, member eligibility,\nand accuracy of member service hours. In addition, we could not determine if interviews were\nconducted, what information was discussed during the interviews, and whether any specific\nissues were identified. Thus, we could not ensure that key topics, such as prohibited activit es\nand training support, were discussed during the member interviews. fI\n\x0cRecommendation: We recommend that the Commission document the expenditure and member\nfiles sampled, which aspects are reviewed, contents of interviews with members, the names of\nthose interviewed, the results of the review, and follow-up actions on identified issues.\n\nIssue: The Commission did not use the results of risk assessments in its subgrantee\nmonitoring and evaluation process.\n\nThe Commission did not monitor and evaluate subgrantees using the results of risk assessm$nts.\nWhile the Commission utilizes pre-award and financial risk assessments in the new subgrantee\nselection process, the Commission does not use the results of these assessments in the subgrpntee\nmonitoring process. The Commission uses the same monitoring techniques for all\nregardless of whether they are new and in the first year of operation or a\nin the fifth year of operation. In addition, the Commission does not\nsize of the subgrantee, amount awarded to the subgrantee, or past\nmonitoring and evaluating subgrantees.\n\nPer 45 CFR \xc2\xa7 2541.400(a), Monitoring by grantees, grantees are responsible for managing the\nday-to-day operations of grant and subgrant supported activities. Grantees must monitor grant\nand subgrant supported activities to ensure compliance with applicable Federal requirements and\nthat performance goals are being achieved. Grantee monitoring must cover each program,\nfunction, or activity.\n\nThe Commission was unaware that it should be using risk assessments or results of risk\nassessments in the subgrantee monitoring and evaluation process. Without use of the risk\nassessments or the results of risk assessments in the subgrantee monitoring and evaluation\nprocess, subgrantees may not be adequately monitored. For example, high-risk areas may not be\ncovered during site visits, potentially resulting in problems remaining unidentified and\nunresolved.\n\nRecommendation: We recommend that the Commission utilize risk assessments in the\nsubgrantee monitoring and evaluation process.\n\nIssue: The Commission did not adequately document its review of subgrantee audit\nreports.\n\nThe Commission did not have detailed documentation of its desk reviews of subgrantee audit\nreports. The only documentation of the Commission\'s reviews of a subgrantee audit report were\nthree completed lines on the Grant File Review Checklist. \'The three lines indicated whether an\nA-1 33 or equivalent audit report had been received, whether findings or actions had been\nidentified, and whether further action and responses from the subgrantee were required.\n\nAccording to 45 CFR 5 2541.400(a), grantees are required to monitor grant and subgrant\nsupported activities to ensure compliance with applicable Federal requirements and that\nperformance goals are being achieved. Additionally, Section 4.3 of the Reference Manualfir\nCommission Executive Directors requires the Commission to evaluate whether the subgrant~es\n\x0ccomply with legal, reporting, financial management, and grant requirements, and the\nCommission must ensure follow through on issues of noncompliance.\n\nThe Commission considered its documentation on the Grant File Review Checklist sufficiedt to\nsupport its review of the subgrantee audit reports. Without adequate documentation of revidw of\nsubgrantee audit reports, we cannot easily determine if the possible presence of material\nweaknesses, reportable conditions, findings, and questioned costs related to the Corporation\ngrant.\nRecommendation: We recommend that the Commission improve documentation of its review\nof subgrantee audit reports to include information about material weaknesses, reportable\nconditions, findings, and questioned costs identified in the audit reports related to Corporation\nfunding and take appropriate follow-up actions to address identified issues.\n\nIssue: The Commission did not maintain grant file documents in accordance with record-\nretention policies.\n\nThe Commission did not ensure that all grant files were maintained as required by Corporation\nrecord-retention policies, as identified in the AmeriCorps provisions. Specifically, the\nCommission was unable to provide the following documents:\n\n Conflict of Interest (COI) Certification for one peer reviewer for Program Year\n 2003-2004.\n\n rn OMB Circular A- 133 audit report for one subgrantee for the fiscal year ending\n June 30,2002.\n\n Press releases from the Governor\'s office announcing availability of Commi$sion\n funds for the Program Year 2003-2004 subgirantee selection processes.\n\nAmeriCorps General Provision 26, Retention of Records, requires grantees to retain and make\navailable all financial records, supporting documentation, s1:atistical records, evaluation and\nprogram performance data, member information, and personnel records for three years from the\ndate of the final FSR.\n\nThe Commission did not know why the COI certification and OMB Circular A- 133 report were\nmissing from its files, but thought that the OMB Circular A-1 33 report had been submitted to the\nCorporation. The Commission stated that the Governor\'s office was attempting to locate the\nannouncement.\n\nWithout these documents, the Commission was unable to provide evidence that all subgrantee\nselection reviewers were free of conflicts, all available OM B Circular A- 133 reports were\nobtained and reviewed, and the availability of funds for Program Year 2003-2004 was properly\nadvertised.\nRecommendation: We recommend that the Commission strengthen current record-retentio\npolices to ensure that all grant documents are retained.\n n\n 11\n\x0c\x0c APPENDIX A\n Page 1 of 2\n Office of Inspector General\n Corporation for National and Community Service\n State Commission Pre-Audit Survey\n Funding Hierarchy Flowchart\n\n\n\n Corporation for National and Community Service\n Funding to the Montana Commission on Community Service\n For Program Year 200 1-2002\n\n\n\n\n T\n A- L\n AmeriCorps\n Formula\n AmeriCorps\n Competitive\n Disability\n Funds\n PDAT\n Funds\n I-Administrative\n Funds\n Funds Funds\n\n $l76,74 1 $294,406 $135,319\n\n Match\n $98,544\n Match\n $990,340\n Match\n $1 37,745 I\n +\n Total Corporation Funds Retained by the Commission: $256,3 19\n Total Commission Matching Funds: $1,226,629\n\n Total Corporation Funds Awarded to Subgrantees: $1,796,693 \'\n\n f f-\n A\n AmeriCorps\n Formula\n AmeriCorps\n Competitive\n Disability PDAT\n\n -l Administrative\n\n\n\n\n Match Match Match\n $90,206 $1,133,914 $195,121\n\n Total # of SUBS Total # of SUBS Total # of SUI3S Total # of SUBS Total # of SUBS\n -I- -5 - -1- -0- -0-\n Total # of Sites Total # of Sites Total # of Sites Total # o f Sites Total # of 3ites\n -1- -28- -1 - -0- -0-\n\n\n\nNote 1: Due to the carry over of Corporation funds from the previous program year, the amount of Corporation funds\nsubgrantees exceeds the funds obtained from the Corporation during the current program year.\n\x0c Office of Inspector General\n Corporation for National and Community Service\n State Commission Pre-Audit Survey\n Funding Hierarchy Flowchart\n\n\n Corporation for National and Community Service\n Funding to the Montana Commission on Community Service\n For Program Year 2002-2003\n\n\n\n L\n AmeriCorps AmeriCorps Administrative\n Formula Competitive Funds Funds\n Funds Funds\n\n $691,220 $1 03,000\n\n Match\n 1 Match\n $1,127,374\n Match\n $160,379\n\n\n\n +\n Total Corporation Funds Retained by the Commission: $246,3 16\n\n Total Commission Matching Funds: $1,585,213\n\n Total Corporation Funds Awarded to Subgrantees: $2,235,673\'\n\n\n\n L L\n Formula\n ArneriCorps\n Competitive\n Disability PDAT I Administrative\n\n\n\n $1,459,438 $133,316\n\n Match Match Match\n $3 12,689 $1,009,330 $73,5142\n\n Total # of SUBS Total # of SUBS Total # of SUBS Total # of SUBS Total # of SUBS\n -4 - -3 - -1 - -0 -\n Total # of Sites Total # of Sites Total # of S ites Total # of Sites\n -29- -25- -1 - -0 -\n\n\n\nNote 1: Due to the carry over of Corporation funds from the previous program year, the amount of Corporation funds awarded to\nsubgrantees exceeds the funds obtained from the Corporation during the clxrent program year.\nNote 2: The Commission cumulative match contribution met the minimurn matching requirement.\n\x0c\x0c APPENTX\n Page of 4\n\n Office of Inspector General\n Corporation for National and Community Service\n State Commission Pre-Audit Survey\n Montana Commission on Community Service\n Detailed Engagement Objectives and Methodology\n\n\nINTERNAL CONTROL\n\nOur objective was to assess the adequacy of financial systems and documentation maintained by\nthe Commission to provide reasonable assurance that transactions were properly recorded and\naccounted for to: (1) permit preparation of reliable financial statements and Federal reports; (2)\nmaintain accountability over assets; and (3) demonstrate compliance with laws, regulations, and\nother compliance requirements.\n\nTo achieve these objectives, we reviewed promulgated guid.ance as well as identified internal\ncontrol objectives and characteristics related to the Commission\'s ability to ensure compliance\nwith Federal laws, regulations, and program requirements. We interviewed Commission a d\nFiscal Support Bureau (FSB) staff, and reviewed related documents, including the Commission\'s\nGuide to AmeriCorps Management, to gain an understanding of the control environment. We\nalso reviewed operating procedures in place regarding allovlrable costs, eligibility, cash\nmanagement, matching, period of availability of Corporation funds, procurement, suspensian and\ndebarment, program income, and Commission reporting to the Corporation.\n\nWe reviewed reports prepared by both the Commission and the FSB, such as accounting revenue\nand expenditures status reports, and in-kind contribution reports, for accuracy and completeness.\nWe compared internal documents to financial reports submitted to the Corporation as well as\nreports submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for drawdown activities.\nWe reviewed subgrantee expenditure reports and Commission financial reports to note controls\non matching requirements.\n\nSELECTING SUBGRANTEES\n\nOur objective was to determine if the Commission had an open, competitive process to select\nnational service subgrantees. We examined policies and procedures related to assessing the\nadequacy of potential subgrantee financial systems, subgrantee controls to administer a Federal\ngrant program, and processes for preventing conflicts of interest in the selection process at the\nCommission. We also determined if the Commission\'s systems and controls for selecting\nsubgrantees appeared to be functioning as designed.\n\nTo achieve these objectives, we interviewed key Commissitm management and documente\nprocedures performed by the Commission during the pre-award financial and programmati risk 1\n\x0c 1\n\nassessment of potential subgrantees. We also interviewed key Commission management a$\ndocumented procedures performed by the Commission to select subgrantees. Next, we obtdined\nand reviewed guidance provided to selection officials and documentation supporting the\nevaluation and grant awards process. We reviewed policies for selecting subgrantees in the\nCommission\'s Policies and Procedures Manual.\n\nTo test whether the Commission\'s systems and controls related to selecting subgrantees we e\nfunctioning as designed, we took a judgmental sample of applicants, including new award , si\nrecipients, renewals, and those denied funding. We then reviewed all supporting document$tion,\nincluding conflict-of-interest forms, risk assessment tools, evaluation committee packages, \'\ncorrespondence, memorandums, and e-mails.\n\nADMINISTERING GRANT FUNDS\n\nOur objectives were to:\n\n Assess the adequacy of systems and controls used by the Commission to maintain\n appropriate financial management systems to disburse funds and track\n Commission and program expenses according to legal and grant requirements.\n\n Determine if the Commission\'s organizational structure, staffing level, and\n staffing mix were conducive to effective grant administration.\n\n Determine if the Commission provided adequate guidance to subgrantees for\n maintaining financial systems, records, and supporting documentation and\n reporting subgrantee activity.\n\n Assess the adequacy of financial systems and Commission documentation to\n support oversight of subgrantees and required reporting to the Corporation, such\n as FSRs, enrollment and exit forms, change-of-status forms, and audit reports.\n\n Determine if the Commission had procedures in place to verify the accuracy and\n timeliness of reports submitted by subgrantees.\n\nTo achieve the above objectives, we interviewed key Commission and FSB managers and\ndocumented policies and procedures used to administer grant funds. We also gained an\nunderstanding of both manual and automated systems used by Commission and FSB persoqnel\nto administer grant funds. We obtained and reviewed the Commission\'s official policies and\nprocedures related to administering grant funds, as established in its Guidance to AmeriCorJs\nProgram Management.\n\x0c APPENdIX B\n 4\n Page of 4\n\nWe then discussed controls over grant expenditures and subgrantee match information with\nCommission management. We reviewed documents supporting established controls over\nmatching. We also tested whether the Commission\'s systems and controls related to\nadministering grant funds were functioning as designed. We reviewed FSRs for a judgment@\nsample of subgrantees to test for timeliness of submission. We also compared amounts repdrted\non FSRs to cash drawdowns by the Commission for any material discrepancies.\n\nEVALUATING AND MONITORING GRANTS\n\nOur objectives were to:\n\n Identify and assess the adequacy of systems and controls used by the Commission\n to implement a comprehensive evaluation and monitoring process for its\n subgrantees.\n\n Determine if the Commission had an established subgrantee site visit program in\n place and assess the effectiveness of its design in achieving monitoring objectives.\n\n Determine the adequacy of Commission procedures to assess subgrantee\n compliance with Corporation regulations (e.g., eligibility of members, service-\n hour reporting, prohibited activities, payment of living allowances to members,\n and allowability of costs claimed under grani:s by subgrantees).\n\n Assess the adequacy of Commission procedures for obtaining, reviewing, and\n following up on findings included in subgrantee single audit reports, where\n applicable.\n\n Determine if program goals were established, and if program results and\n performance statistics were accurately reported and compared to these goals.\n\n Assess the adequacy of procedures in place to evaluate whether subgrantee\n programs were achieving their intended purposes.\n\nTo achieve these objectives, we interviewed key Commission managers and documented palicies\nand procedures used by the Commission for monitoring and evaluating subgrantees, including\ncontrols over obtaining and reviewing subgrantee OMB Circular A-133 reports. We obtained\nand reviewed Commission policies and procedures related to monitoring and evaluating\nsubgrantees, as established in its Guide to AmeriCorps Program Management.\n\nTo determine if established controls were in place, we judgmentally selected a sample of\nsubgrantees and reviewed monitoring documentation, including site visit monitoring tools. w e\n\x0c A P P E N ~ I XB\n Page 4 of 4\n\nalso reviewed training documents and member contracts to determine if proper monitoring of\nprohibited member activities was being conducted. We tested the Commission\'s processes and\ncontrols related to evaluating and monitoring subgrantees to determine if they were functioning\nas designed. Our testing methodology included selecting a.judgmenta1 sample of subgrantee\nfiles and reviewing documentation to verify that policies and procedures were in place and\nfunctioning properly. We further determined if the Commission had received and reviewedl\nOMB Circular A-1 33 audit reports from subgrantees. I\n\n\n\n\nWe then discussed the Corporation\'s Government Performance and Results Act goals with\nCommission management. For a judgmental sample, we reviewed subgrantee evaluation files to\nensure that they included program accomplishment information.\n\x0c\x0cStuart Axenfeld\nAudit Manager\nCorporation for National and Community Service\n1210 New York Avenue NW\nWashington, DC 20525\n\nDear Mr. Axenfeld:\n\nI am writing in response to the Pre-Audit Survey of the Montana Commission orl\nCommunity Service - Draft Report prepared by Ccltton and Company. I have\ntried to address each of the Issues identified in the draft report in a positive\nmanner.\n\nISSUE\n . The Commission did not have procetJures to reconcile the\n cumulative balances of Financial Status Reporf (FSR)\n expenditures, Payment Managemen]\'System (PMS) cash\n drawdowns, and State accounting records.\n Montana Commission Response: We thank you for bringing this issue to\n our attention. Even though the cause of this problem was a technical\n issue with the WBRS system we acknowledge the need to develop a\n process that will identify problems like this in the future. We will institute la\n policy of comparing Financial Status Reporls (FSR) and Payment\n Management System (PMS) totals on a quarterly basis and reconciling\n any discrepancies in a timely fashion.\n\nISSUE\n . The Commission did not document its consideration of past\n performance or financial risk assessments during the subgrantee\n selection process.\n Montana Commission Response: We agree with this issue. We will\n amend our Guide to AmeriCorps Program Management to include a Pre-\n Award and Financial Risk Assessment and Past Performance Review\n forms for the review of continuation requests. We will continue to use this\n process with all new applicants\n\nISSUE\n . The Commission did not close out its: Competitive, Formula, and\n Administrative grants on time.\n Montana Commission Response: We acknowledge the misunderstandin~g\n about the deadline for closing out grants. It was our understanding that the\n Corporation would issue a formal notice of the deadline for closeouts. We\n have complete the closeout on the Competitive and Formula grants on\n July 30, 2004, and will have the Administrative Grant closed out by ~ u g u b t\n 31, 2004.\n\x0cISSUE\n The Commission did not adequately document its review of\n subgrantee expense documentation, member files, and member\n interviews.\n Montana Commission Response: We agree with this recommendation.\n The Commission will enhance our Guide to AmeriCorps Program\n Management to include the necessary documentation of the expenditure\n and member files sampled.\n\nISSUE\n The Commission did not use the resirlts of risk assessments in its i\n subgrantee monitoring and evaluation process.\n Montana Commission Response: We agree with this issue. We will 1\n develop and implement policies to incorporate risk assessment in our\n Guide to Program Management which governs our subgrantee monitorin$\n and evaluation process.\n\nISSUE\n The Commission did not adequately document its review of\n subgrantee audit reports.\n Montana Commission Response: We agree with this issue. We will\n expand the questions on our existing monitoring instruments to reflect\n information about material weaknesses, reportable conditions, findings,\n and questioned costs identified in the audit reports. We will also enlist\n support from the Fiscal Support Bureau of the Dept. of Labor and Industry\n to assist in the review of these audits.\n\nISSUE\n The Commission did not maintain grant file documents in\n accordance with record-retention po1,icies.\n Montana Commission Response: We conc11Jrwith the recommendation\n that Commissions have strong record reten1:ion policies in place and we\n will continuie to monitor the proper retentior of all records under the\n purview of the Commission.\n\n Please feel free to contact me if you need additional information or\nclarification of these issues.\n\nSincerely,\n\n\nSteve P. Nelsen\nExecutive Director\nMontana Commission on Community Service.\nCc George Dennison, Chair\n\x0c\x0c Corporation for A\n\n\n\n\nTo:\n\nFrom:\n\nCc: Michelle ~uillermin,Chief ~ikancialOfficer\n Rosie Mauk, Director of ArneriCorps\n\nDate: August 5,2004\n\nSubject: Response to OIG Draft Audit Report 04- 18, Pre-Audit Survey of the\n Montana Commission on Community Service\n\n\nWe have reviewed the draft Pre-Audit Survey of the Montana Commission on\nCommunity Service. Due to the limited timeframe for response, we have not thoroughly\nreviewed the report. However, we discussed the report with the Commission and agree\nwith the auditor\'s recommendations. The Commission has agreed to implement\ncorrective action as recommended. Within the next four months, the Corporation will\nfollow up with the Commission to confirm that implementation is complete.\n\n\n\n\n 1201 New York Avenue, NW t W;~shington,DC 20525\n 202-606-5000 * www.nationalservice.org\n Senior Corps * ArneriCorps * Learn and Serve America Freedom Corps\n *\n The Prcstdent\'s Call to Service\n\x0c'


text:
 16.11.2013
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 336/19
 Rozsudok Všeobecného súdu zo 16. septembra 2013 — Rovi Pharmaceuticals/ÚHVT — Laboratorios Farmaceuticos Rovi (ROVI Pharmaceuticals)
 (Vec T-97/11) (1)
 (Ochranná známka Spoločenstva - Námietkové konanie - Prihláška slovnej ochrannej známky Spoločenstva ROVI Pharmaceuticals - Skoršia obrazová ochranná známka Spoločenstva ROVI a skoršia národná slovné ochranná známka ROVIFARMA - Relatívny dôvod zamietnutia - Pravdepodobnosť zámeny - Článok 8 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia (ES) č. 207/2009 - Rovnosť zaobchádzania)
 2013/C 336/37
 Jazyk konania: angličtina
 Účastníci konania
 Žalobkyňa: Rovi Pharmaceuticals GmbH (Schlüchtern, Nemecko) (v zastúpení: M. Berghofer, advokát)
 Žalovaný: Úrad pre harmonizáciu vnútorného trhu (ochranné známky a vzory) (v zastúpení: J. Crespo Carrillo, splnomocnený zástupca)
 Ďalší účastník konania pred odvolacím senátom ÚHVT a vedľajší účastník v konaní pred Všeobecným súdom: Laboratorios Farmaceuticos Rovi, SA (Madrid, Španielsko) (v zastúpení: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda a G. Macias Bonilla, advokáti)
 Predmet veci
 Žaloba podaná proti rozhodnutiu druhého odvolacieho senátu ÚHVT zo 7. decembra 2010 (vec R 500/2010-2) týkajúcemu sa námietkového konania medzi Laboratorios Farmaceuticos Rovi, SA, a Rovi Pharmaceuticals GmbH
 Výrok rozsudku
 1.
 Žaloba sa zamieta.
 2.
 Rovi Pharmaceuticals GmbH je povinná nahradiť trovy konania, vrátane trov konania, ktoré vynaložila Laboratorios Farmacéuticos Rovi, SA, v konaní pred odvolacím senátom.
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ C 120, 16.4.2011.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21995A1230(07)
 Aftale i form af brevveksling om midlertidig anvendelse af protokollen om fastsættelse af de fiskerimuligheder og den finansielle modydelse, der er omhandlet i aftalen mellem Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab og regeringen for Republikken Guinea-Bissau om fiskeri ud for Guinea-Bissaus kyst, for perioden 16. juni 1995 til 15. juni 1997
 EF-Tidende nr. L 322 af 30/12/1995 s. 0003 - 0003
 AFTALE I form af brevveksling om midlertidig anvendelse af protokollen om fastsættelse af de fiskerimuligheder og den finansielle modydelse, der er omhandlet i aftalen mellem Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab og regeringen for Republikken Guinea-Bissau om fiskeri ud for Guinea-Bissaus kyst, for perioden 16. juni 1995 til 15. juni 1997 A. Brev fra Guinea-Bissaus regering Hr. . . .,Under henvisning til den protokol, der blev paraferet den 7. juni 1995, og som vedrører fastsættelsen af fiskerimulighederne og den finansielle modydelse for perioden 16. juni 1995 til 15. juni 1997, har jeg den ære at meddele Dem, at Guinea-Bissaus regering er rede til at anvende protokollen midlertidigt fra den 16. juni 1995, indtil den træder i kraft i henhold til artikel 9, forudsat at Fællesskabet er rede til at gøre det samme.Det er i så fald en forudsætning, at den første årlige rate af den finansielle godtgørelse, der er fastsat i protokollens artikel 2, bliver betalt inden den 31. december 1995.Jeg ville være Dem taknemmelig, såfremt De over for mig vil bekræfte, at Fællesskabet er indforstået med en sådan midlertidig anvendelse.Modtag hr. . . ., forsikringen om min mest udmærkede højagtelse.For regeringen forRepublikken Guinea-BissauB. Brev fra Fællesskabet Hr. . . .,Jeg har den ære at anerkende modtagelsen af Deres brev af dags dato med følgende ordlyd:»Under henvisning til den protokol, der blev paraferet den 7. juni 1995, og som vedrører fastsættelsen af fiskerimulighederne og den finansielle modydelse for perioden 16. juni 1995 til 15. juni 1997, har jeg den ære at meddele Dem, at Guinea-Bissaus regering er rede til at anvende protokollen midlertidigt fra den 16. juni 1995, indtil den træder i kraft i henhold til artikel 9, forudsat at Fællesskabet er rede til at gøre det samme.Det er i så fald en forudsætning, at den første årlige rate af den finansielle godtgørelse, der er fastsat i protokollens artikel 2, bliver betalt inden den 31. december 1995.Jeg ville være Dem taknemmelig, såfremt De over for mig vil bekræfte, at Fællesskabet er indforstået med en sådan midlertidig anvendelse.«Jeg har den ære over for Dem at bekræfte, at Fællesskabet er indforstået med en sådan midlertidig anvendelse.Modtag hr. . . ., forsikringen om min mest udmærkede højagtelse.På vegne afRådet for Den Europæiske Union


text:
 31.10.2016
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 C 402/38
 Решение на Общия съд от 15 септември 2016 г. — European Dynamics Luxembourg и Evropaïki Dynamiki/Комисия
 (Дело T-698/14) (1)
 ((Обществени поръчки за услуги - Процедура за възлагане на обществени поръчки - Външни услуги по разработване, проучване и поддръжка на информационни системи (ESP DESIS III) - Класиране на оферент в процедурата съгласно механизма за възлагане на поръчката по реда на класиране на кандидатите - Задължение за мотивиране - Оферти с необичайно ниска стойност - Принцип на свободна конкуренция - Извъндоговорна отговорност))
 (2016/C 402/42)
 Език на производството: гръцки
 Страни
 Жалбоподатели: Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Етелбрюк, Люксембург) и Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Атина, Гърция) (представители първоначално V. Christianos, I. Ampazis и M. Sfyri, впоследствие M. Sfyri, avocats)
 Ответник: Европейска комисия (представители: S. Delaude и S. Lejeune подпомагани първоначално от E. Petritsi, E. Roussou и K. Adamantopoulos, впоследствие от E. Roussou и K. Adamantopoulos, avocats)
 Предмет
 От една страна искане на основание член 263 ДФЕС за отмяна на решенията на Комисията да класира на четвърто и на трето място съгласно механизма за възлагане на поръчката по реда на класиране на кандидатите представените от жалбоподателите оферти за лотове No 1 и 3 на процедурата за възлагане на обществена поръчка DIGIT/R2/PO/2013/029 — ESP DESIS III за „Външни услуги по разработване, проучване и поддръжка на информационни системи“ (ОВ 2013/S 19-0380314) и да отхвърли тяхната оферта за лот No 2 на посочената процедура за възлагане на обществени поръчки, и от друга страна, искане на основание 268 ДФЕС за обезщетение на вредите, които жалбоподателите твърдят, че са претърпели.
 Диспозитив
 1)
 Отхвърля жалбата.
 2)
 Осъжда European Dynamics Luxembourg SA и Evropaïki Dynamiki —Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE да заплатят съдебните разноски.
 (1) ОВ C 448, 15.12.2014 г.