type: contracts

text:
 Svarīgs juridisks paziņojums
 |
 21978A0927(02)
 Oficiālais Vēstnesis L 303 , 28/10/1978 Lpp. 0026 - 0040 Speciālizdevums somu valodā: Nodaļa 11 Sējums 8 Lpp. 0027 Speciālizdevums zviedru valodā: Nodaļa 11 Sējums 8 Lpp. 0027 Speciālizdevums grieķu valodā Nodaļa 11 Sējums 13 Lpp. 0150 Speciālizdevums spāņu valodā: Nodaļa 11 Sējums 11 Lpp. 0188 Speciālizdevums portugāļu valodā Nodaļa 11 Sējums 11 Lpp. 0188
 Nolīgumsvēstuļu apmaiņas formā, ar ko groza Eiropas Ekonomikas kopienas un Šveices Konfederācijas nolīgumu1. vēstuleBriselē, ...Jūsu ekselence!No 1978. gada 1. janvāra ieviešot Muitas sadarbības padomes 1976. gada 18. jūnija ieteikumu par grozījumiem muitas tarifu preču klasifikācijas nomenklatūrā un dažiem atsevišķiem grozījumiem kopējā muitas tarifā un Šveices muitas tarifā, jāpielāgo nomenklatūra dažām tarifu specifikācijām Eiropas Ekonomikas kopienas un Šveices Konfederācijas nolīgumā, kas parakstīts 1972. gada 22. jūlijā.Turklāt, lai vienkāršotu nākotnē ievērojamo procedūru tarifu specifikāciju pielāgošanai gadījumos, kad tiek grozīts vienas vai otras Līgumslēdzējas puses muitas tarifs, nolīgumā iekļauj 12.a pantu.Minētie grozījumi ir pievienoti pielikumā.Man ir tas gods apstiprināt Kopienas piekrišanu minētajiem grozījumiem, un kā šo grozījumu spēkā stāšanās datumu es iesaku 1978. gada 1. janvāri.Būšu pateicīgs, ja apstiprināsiet, ka Jūsu valdība piekrīt visam iepriekšminētajam.Ekselence, lūdzu, pieņemiet manus visdziļākās cieņas apliecinājumus.Eiropas Kopienu Padomes vārdā2. vēstuleBriselē, ...Godātais kungs!Man ir tas gods apstiprināt, ka ir saņemta Jūsu šodienas vēstule, kuras teksts ir šāds:"No 1978. gada 1. janvāra ieviešot Muitas sadarbības padomes 1976. gada 18. jūnija ieteikumu par grozījumiem muitas tarifu preču klasifikācijas nomenklatūrā un dažiem atsevišķiem grozījumiem kopējā muitas tarifā un Šveices muitas tarifā, jāpielāgo nomenklatūra dažām tarifu specifikācijām Eiropas Ekonomikas kopienas un Šveices Konfederācijas nolīgumā, kas parakstīts 1972. gada 22. jūlijā.Turklāt, lai vienkāršotu nākotnē ievērojamo procedūru tarifu specifikāciju pielāgošanai gadījumos, kad tiek grozīts vienas vai otras Līgumslēdzējas puses muitas tarifs, nolīgumā iekļauj 12.a pantu.Minētie grozījumi ir pievienoti pielikumā.Man ir tas gods apstiprināt Kopienas piekrišanu minētajiem grozījumiem, un kā šo grozījumu spēkā stāšanās datumu es iesaku 1978. gada 1. janvāri.Būšu pateicīgs, ja apstiprināsiet, ka Jūsu valdība piekrīt visam iepriekšminētajam."Varu apstiprināt, ka mana valdība piekrīt visam iepriekšminētajam.Godātais kungs, lūdzu, pieņemiet manus visdziļākās cieņas apliecinājumus.Šveices Konfederācijas valdības vārdā--------------------------------------------------PIELIKUMSGROZĪJUMI EIROPAS EKONOMIKAS KOPIENAS UN ŠVEICES KONFEDERĀCIJAS NOLĪGUMĀI. Pēc 12. panta iekļauj šādu 12.a pantu:Ja groza vienas vai abu Līgumslēdzējas pušu muitas tarifu nomenklatūru nolīgumā minētajām precēm, Apvienotā komiteja var pielāgot šo preču tarifu nomenklatūru nolīgumā, tā lai panāktu atbilstību šiem grozījumiem, pienācīgi ievērojot principu, ka ir jāsaglabā no nolīguma izrietošās priekšrocības.II. No 1978. gada 1. janvāra nolīguma II pielikuma pozīcijas Nr. 3706.01 un 3707.20/22 groza šādi:Šveices Muitas tarifu pozīcija Nr. | Apraksts | Likvidējamais aizsardzības elements (CHF/m) |3707. | Eksponētas un attīstītas kinematogrāfa filmas ar vai bez skaņu ieraksta celiņa vai arī filma tikai ar skaņu ierakstu celiņu, negatīvi vai pozitīvi: | |06 | —Filma, kas sastāv tikai no skaņas celiņa | || —Citas: | || —Citas, ar platumu: | |20 | —35 mm un vairāk | |22 | —mazāk par 35 mm | |III. No 1978. gada 1. janvāra 1. protokola 1. panta 1., 2. un 3. punktu groza šādi:1. Ievedmuitas nodokli, kuru uzliek sākotnējā Kopienā importētajām precēm, kuras atbilst kopējā muitas tarifa 48. vai 49. nodaļai, pakāpeniski likvidē saskaņā ar šādu grafiku:Grafiks | Preces, kas atbilst pozīcijai vai apakšpozīcijai Nr. 48.01 C II, 48.01 F, 48.07 C, 48.13 vai 48.15 B | Citi izstrādājumi |Piemērojamā muitas nodokļa likme procentos | Piemērojamā nodokļa pamatlikme procentos |1978. gada 1. janvāris | 8 | 65 |1979. gada 1. janvāris | 6 | 50 |1980. gada 1. janvāris | 6 | 50 |1981. gada 1. janvāris | 4 | 35 |1982. gada 1. janvāris | 4 | 35 |1983. gada 1. janvāris | 2 | 20 |1984. gada 1. janvāris | 0 | 0 |2. Ievedmuitas nodokli, kuru uzliek Īrijā importētajām precēm, kuras minētas 1. punktā, pakāpeniski likvidē saskaņā ar šādu grafiku:Grafiks | Piemērojamā nodokļu pamatlikme procentos |1978. gada 1. janvāris | 20 |1979. gada 1. janvāris | 15 |1980. gada 1. janvāris | 15 |1981. gada 1. janvāris | 10 |1982. gada 1. janvāris | 10 |1983. gada 1. janvāris | 5 |1984. gada 1. janvāris | 0 |3. Atkāpjoties no nolīguma 3. panta, Dānija un Apvienotā Karaliste piemērā šādus muitas nodokļus 1. punktā minēto preču importam, kuru izcelsmes valsts ir Šveice.Grafiks | Preces, kas atbilst pozīcijai vai apakšpozīcijai Nr. 48.01 C II, 48.01 F, 48.07 C, 48.–13 vai 48.15 B | Citi izstrādājumi |Piemērojamā nodokļu pamatlikme procentos | Piemērojamā kopējā muitas tarifa nodokļu likme procentos |1978. gada 1. janvāris | 8 | 65 |1979. gada 1. janvāris | 6 | 50 |1980. gada 1. janvāris | 6 | 50 |1981. gada 1. janvāris | 4 | 35 |1982. gada 1. janvāris | 4 | 35 |1983. gada 1. janvāris | 2 | 20 |1984. gada 1. janvāris | 0 | 0 |IV. No 1978. gada 1. janvāra 1. protokola 2. panta 2. punkta tabulu groza šādi:KMT pozīcijas Nr. | Apraksts |ex 73.02 | (bez izmaiņām) |līdz |81.03 |81.04 | B.(bez izmaiņām) || C.(bez izmaiņām) || D.Hroms: || I.Neapstrādāts; atgriezumi un lūžņi: || b)Citi || II.Citi || E.līdz R. (bez izmaiņām) |V. No 1978. gada 1. janvāra 1. protokola 5. panta 1., 2. un 3. punktu groza šādi.1. No 1978. gada 1. janvāra ievedmuitas nodokli par tādu preču importu Šveicē, kuru izcelsme ir sākotnējā Kopienā un Īrijā un kuras ir minētas šā protokola C pielikuma uzskaitījumā, pakāpeniski likvidē saskaņā ar šādu grafiku:Grafiks | Piemērojamā nodokļu pamatlikme procentos |1978. gada 1. janvāris | 65 |1979. gada 1. janvāris | 50 |1980. gada 1. janvāris | 50 |1981. gada 1. janvāris | 35 |1982. gada 1. janvāris | 35 |1983. gada 1. janvāris | 20 |1984. gada 1. janvāris | 0 |2. Ievedmuitas nodokli par tādu preču importu Šveicē, kas atbilst Muitas sadarbības padomes nomenklatūras pozīcijai Nr. 4418 un kuru izcelsme ir sākotnējā Kopienā un Īrijā, pakāpeniski likvidē saskaņā ar šādu grafiku:Grafiks | Piemērojamā nodokļu pamatlikme procentos |1978. gada 1. janvāris | 65 |1979. gada 1. janvāris | 50 |1980. gada 1. janvāris | 40 |1981. gada 1. janvāris | 20 |1982. gada 1. janvāris | 0 |3. No 1978. gada 1. janvāra, atkāpjoties no nolīguma 3. panta, Šveice, ņemot vērā ekonomiskās vajadzības un administratīvos apsvērumus, saglabā tiesības piemērot šādus muitas nodokļus C pielikumā minēto preču importam, kuru izcelsmes valstis ir Dānija un Apvienotā Karaliste.Grafiks | Piemērojamā nodokļu pamatlikme procentos |1978. gada 1. janvāris | 65 |1979. gada 1. janvāris | 50 |1980. gada 1. janvāris | 50 |1981. gada 1. janvāris | 35 |1982. gada 1. janvāris | 35 |1983. gada 1. janvāris | 20 |1984. gada 1. janvāris | 0 |VI. No 1978. gada 1. janvāra 1. protokola 6. pantu groza šādi:Precēm, kas atbilst muitas sadarbības padomes nomenklatūras pozīcijām Nr. 4418, 4801 un 4807, Šveice saglabā tiesības nopietnu grūtību gadījumā noteikt maksimālo apjomu saskaņā ar šā protokola 3. pantā noteiktajām procedūrām. Ievestajām precēm, kas pārsniedz noteikto apjomu, var noteikt muitas nodokļus, kas nepārsniedz tās likmes, kuras noteiktas trešām valstīm.VII. No 1978. gada 1. janvāra 1. protokola A pielikuma nomenklatūru groza šādi:KMT pozīcijas Nr. | Apraksts |48. nodaļa | (bez izmaiņām) |48.01 | Papīrs un kartons (tostarp celulozes vate), ruļļos vai sloksnēs: || C.(bez izmaiņām) || ex II.(bez izmaiņām) || ex F.Citi: || —Vārdnīcu papīrs, kopiju papīrs (plāns papīrs drukāšanai); cits papīrs drukāšanai un cits rakstāmpapīrs, kas nesatur mehānisko koksnes celulozi vai kura mehāniskās koksnes celulozes saturs nepārsniedz 5 % || —Tapešu pamats |48.03 | (bez izmaiņām) |48.07 | Papīrs un kartons, piesūcināts, ar pārklājumu, ar virsmas krāsojumu, dekorējumu vai iespiedumu (kas nav 49. nodaļā minētie iespieddarbi), ruļļos vai loksnēs: || C.Citi: || —Krītots iespiedpapīrs vai rakstāmpapīrs || —Citi |48.16 | Papīra vai kartona kārbas, maisi un citi iesaiņojumi; mapes, vēstuļu turētāji un tamlīdzīgi izstrādājumi no papīra vai kartona izmantošanai iestādēs, veikalos un tamlīdzīgi: || A.Papīra vai kartona kārbas, maisi un citi iesaiņojumi |48.21 | Citi izstrādājumi no papīra masas, papīra, kartona vai celulozes vates: || B.Autiņbiksītes zīdaiņiem, sagatavotas mazumtirdzniecībai || D.Citi. |ex 48. | nodaļa Citas preces, kas atbilst 48. nodaļai, izņemot preces, kas atbilst apakšpozīcijai 48.01 A |ex 49. nodaļa | (bez izmaiņām) |VIII. No 1978. gada 1. janvāra 1. protokola C pielikuma nomenklatūru groza šādi:Šveices Muitas tarifu pozīcija Nr. | Apraksts |4 801 | Papīrs un kartons (tostarp celulozes vate) ruļļos vai sloksnēs |4 803.20 | (bez izmaiņām) |4 807 | Papīrs un kartons, piesūcināts, ar pārklājumu, ar virsmas krāsojumu, dekorējumu vai iespiedumu (kas nav 49. nodaļā minētie iespieddarbi), ruļļos vai loksnēs |4 815.22 | (bez izmaiņām) |4 821.20 | (bez izmaiņām) |IX. No 1978. gada 1. janvāra 2. protokola I tabulu groza šādi:EIROPAS EKONOMIKAS KOPIENAKMT pozīcijas Nr. | Apraksts | Muitas nodokļu pamatlikmes | Nodoklis, kas piemērojams no 1977. gada 1. jūlija |15.10 | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |līdz |18.06 |19.02 | Iesala ekstrakts; miltu, rupja maluma miltu, cietes vai iesala ekstrakta izstrādājumi, kurus lieto kā pārtiku zīdaiņiem vai diētas vai kulinārijas mērķiem un kura saturā kakao ir mazāk par 50 %: | | |A.Iesala ekstrakts | 8 % + vc | vc |B.Citi | 11 % + vc | vc |19.03 | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |līdz |19.05 |19.07 | Maize, galetes un citi parasti maizes un konditorejas izstrādājumi, kas nesatur pievienotu cukuru, medu, olas, taukus, sieru vai augļus; hostijas, tukšas kapsulas, kuras izmanto farmācijā, zīmogvafeles, rīspapīrs un tamlīdzīgi izstrādājumi: | | |A.Sausmaizītes | 9 % + vc ar maks. 24 % + adf | vc |B.Macas | 6 % + vc ar maks. 20 % + adf | vc |C.Hostijas, oblātas farmācijai, zīmogvafeles, rīspapīrs un tamlīdzīgi izstrādājumi | 7 % + vc | vc |D.Citi | 14 % + vc | vc |19.08 | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |21.02 | Kafijas, tējas un mate ekstrakti, esences un koncentrāti un izstrādājumi, kuru pamatā ir šādi ekstrakti, esences un koncentrāti: grauzdēti cigoriņi un citi grauzdēti kafijas aizstājēji un to ekstrakti, esences un koncentrāti: | | |C.Grauzdēti cigoriņi un citi grauzdēti kafijas aizstājēji: | | |II.Citi | 8 % + vc | vc |D.Grauzdētu cigoriņu un citu grauzdētu kafijas aizstājēju ekstrakti, esences un koncentrāti: | | |II.Citi | 14 % + vc | vc |21.04. | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |līdz |21.06. |21.07 | Pārtikas izstrādājumi, kas nav minēti vai iekļauti citur: | | |A.(bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |B.(bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |C.(bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |D.(bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |E.(bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |G.Citi: | | |I.kas nesatur piena taukus vai satur tos mazāk par 1,5 %: | | |a)kas nesatur saharozi vai satur mazāk nekā 5 % saharozes (tostarp invertcukuru, kas izteikts kā saharoze): | | |ex 1.kas nesatur cieti vai satur cieti mazāk par 5 %: | | |–Proteīnu hidrolizāti; rauga autolizāti | 20 % | 6 % |2kas satur 5 % vai vairāk cietes | 13 % + vc | vc |b)kas satur 5 % vai vairāk, bet mazāk nekā 15 % saharozes (tostarp invertcukuru, kas izteikts kā saharoze) | 13 % + vc | vc |c)kas satur 15 % vai vairāk, bet mazāk nekā 30 % saharozes (tostarp invertcukuru, kas izteikts kā saharoze) | 13 % + vc | vc |d)kas satur 30 % vai vairāk, bet mazāk nekā 50 % saharozes (tostarp invertcukuru, kas izteikts kā saharoze) | 13 % + vc | vc |e)kas satur 50 % vai vairāk, bet mazāk nekā 85 % saharozes (tostarp invertcukuru, kas izteikts kā saharoze) | 13 % + vc | vc |f)kas satur 85 % vai vairāk saharozes (tostarp invertcukuru, kas izteikts kā saharoze) | 13 % + vc | vc |II.ar piena tauku saturu 1,5 % vai vairāk, bet mazāk nekā 6 % | 13 % + vc | vc |III.ar piena tauku saturu 6 % vai vairāk, bet mazāk nekā 12 % | 13 % + vc | vc |IV.ar piena tauku saturu 12 % vai vairāk, bet mazāk nekā 18 % | 13 % + vc | vc |V.ar piena tauku saturu 18 % vai vairāk, bet mazāk nekā 26 % | 13 % + vc | vc |VI.ar piena tauku saturu 26 % vai vairāk, bet mazāk nekā 45 %: | | |–tiešajā iepakojumā ar neto ietilpību 1 kg vai mazāk | 13 % + vc | vc |–Citi | 13 % + vc | 6 % + vc |VII.ar piena tauku saturu 45 % vai vairāk, bet mazāk nekā 65 %: | | |–tiešajā iepakojumā ar neto ietilpību 1 kg vai mazāk | 13 % + vc | vc |–Citi | 13 % + v | 6 % + vc |VIII.ar piena tauku saturu 65 % vai vairāk, bet mazāk nekā 85 %: | | |—tiešajā iepakojumā ar neto ietilpību 1 kg vai mazāk | 13 % + vc | vc |—Citi | 13 % + vc | 6 % + vc |IX.ar piena tauku saturu 85 % vai vairāk: | | |—tiešajā iepakojumā ar neto ietilpību 1 kg vai mazāk | 13 % + vc | vc |—Citi | 13 % + vc | 6 % + vc |22.02. | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |līdz |39.06. |X. No 1978. gada 1. janvāra 2. protokola II tabulu groza šādi:ŠVEICEŠveices Muitas tarifu pozīcija Nr. | Apraksts | Nodokļu pamatlikmes (CHF/kg bruto) | Nodokļi, kas piemērojami no 1978. gada 1. janvāra (CHF/kg bruto) |1 510. | | | |ex 20 | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |1 704. | Cukura konditorejas izstrādājumi, kas nesatur kakao: | | |–košļājamā gumija, kuras cukura saturs ir: | | |20 | – –vairāk nekā 70 % | 41 + vc ar maks. 70 | vc |22 | – –vairāk nekā 60 %, bet ne vairāk kā 70 % | 41 + vc ar maks. 70 | vc |24 | – –60 % vai mazāk | 41 + vc ar maks. 70 | vc |30 | –Baltā šokolāde | 53 + vc ar maks. 90 | vc |32 | –Visu veidu cukura konditorejas izstrādājumi, kas satur augļus (tai skaitā augļu pastas), nugu, marcipānu un līdzīgas sastāvdaļas | 53 + vc ar maks. 90 | vc |34 | –Visu veidu cukura konditorejas izstrādājumi no lakricas sulas, kas satur vairāk kā 10 % saharozes | 53 + vc ar maks. 90 | vc |–Konfektes, dražejas, pastilas un citi formēti cukura konditorejas izstrādājumi: | | |– –kas nesatur ne sviestskābes taukus, ne augu taukvielas, un kuru saharozes saturs ir: | | |40 | – – –vairāk nekā 70 % | 53 + vc ar maks. 90 | vc |42 | – – –vairāk nekā 50 %, bet ne vairāk kā 70 % | 53 + vc ar maks. 90 | vc |44 | – – –50 % vai mazāk | 53 + vc ar maks. 90 | vc |46 | – –kas satur augu taukus | 53 + vc ar maks. 90 | vc |48 | – –kas satur sviestskābes taukus | 53–1 vc ar maks. 90 | vc |– –Citi (preces, kas neatbilst pozīcijai Nr. 1704.10/48), kuru saharozes saturs ir: | | |50 | – –vairāk nekā 70 % | 53 + vc ar maks. 90 | vc |52 | – –vairāk nekā 50 %, bet ne vairāk kā 70 % | 53 + vc ar maks. 90 | vc |54 | – –50 % vai mazāk | 53 + vc ar maks. 90 | vc |1 806. | Šokolāde un citi pārtikas izstrādājumi ar kakao piedevu: | | |10 | –Saldējums (ieskaitot saldējuma pulverus) | 50 | 47–50 |30 | –Citi (preces, kas neatbilst pozīcijai Nr. 1806.10/20) | 50 | 40 |1 902. | Iesala ekstrakts; miltu, rupja maluma miltu, cietes vai iesala ekstrakta izstrādājumi, kurus lieto kā pārtiku zīdaiņiem vai diētas vai kulinārijas mērķiem un kas satur mazāk par 50 % kakao: | | |–Iesala ekstrakts, kura sausā ekstrakta saturs ir: | | |02 | – –vairāk nekā 80 % | 20 + vc | vc |03 | – –80 % vai mazāk | 20 + vc | vc |–Izstrādājumi, kuros dominē kartupeļu milti, neatkarīgi no tā, vai tie ir mannas putraimu, pārslu vai citā formā, un izstrādājumi, kas satur piena pulveri: | | |– –kas satur ne vairāk kā 12 % sviestskābes tauku, iepakojumos pa: | | |08 | – – –2 kg vai mazāk | 10 + vc | vc |– –kas nesatur sviestskābes taukus vai satur mazāk nekā 12 % sviestskābes tauku: | | |10 | – – –Zīdaiņu barība | 10 + vc | vc |– – –Citi: | | |14 | – – – –kas satur vairāk nekā 80 % kartupeļu | 10 + vc | vc |16 | – – – –kas satur vairāk nekā 50 %, bet ne vairāk kā 80 % kartupeļu | 10 + vc | vc |18 | – – – –Citi | 10 + vc | vc |–Citi izstrādājumi: | | |– –Kas satur ne vairāk kā 12 % sviestskābes tauku, iepakojumos pa: | | |22 | – – –2 kg vai mazāk | 20 + vc ar maks. 40 | vc |– –Kas nesatur sviestskābes taukus vai satur mazāk nekā 12 % sviestskābes tauku: | | |– – –Zīdaiņu barība: | | |30 | – – – –kas satur cukuru | 20 + vc ar maks. 40 | vc |32 | – – – –kas nesatur cukuru | 20 + vc ar maks. 40 | vc |– – –Citi: | | |– – – –kuru pamatā ir labības milti, cietes, labības rupja maluma milti vai iesala ekstrakts: | | |40 | – – – – – kas satur taukus | 20 + vc ar maks. 40 | vc |42 – | – – – – kas nesatur taukus | 20 + vc ar maks. 40 | vc |– – – –Citi: | | |50 – | – – – –kas satur taukus | 20 + vc ar maks. 40 | vc |– – – – –kas nesatur taukus | | |52 | – – – – – –kas satur cukuru vai olas | 20 + vc ar maks. 40 | vc |70 | – – – – – –Citi | 20 + vc ar maks. 40 | vc |1 903.01 | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |uz |1 905.01 |1 907. | Maize, galetes un citi parasti maizes un konditorejas izstrādājumi, kas nesatur pievienotu cukuru, medu, olas, taukus, sieru vai augļus; hostijas, tukšas kapsulas, kuras izmanto farmācijā, zīmogvafeles, rīspapīrs un tamlīdzīgi izstrādājumi: | | |–Maize, galetes un citi parasti maizes un konditorejas izstrādājumi: | | |10 | – –Neiesaiņoti pārdošanai | 5 | 4 |– –Jebkādā veidā iesaiņoti pārdošanai: | | |20 | – –Kraukšķīgā maize | 15 + vc ar maks. 35 | vc |22 | – – –Neraudzēta maize (maca) | 15 + vc ar maks. 35 | vc |30 | – – –Citi | 15 + vc ar maks. 35 | vc |50 | –Citi | 40 | 32 |1 908. | Mīklas izstrādājumi, cepumi, kūkas un citi konditorejas izstrādājumi, kas satur vai nesatur kakao jebkurā attiecībā: | | |–kas nav saldināti un nesatur kakao vai šokolādi: | | |10 | – –Cepumi | 27 + vc ar maks. 55 | vc |12 | – –Vafeles | 27 + vc ar maks. 55 | vc |14 | – –Sausiņi | 27 + vc ar maks. 55 | vc |16 | – –Citi konditorejas izstrādājumi | 27 + vc ar maks. 55 | vc |–Saldināti vai satur kakao vai šokolādi: | | |– –Cepumi: | | |20 | – – –kas satur sviestskābes taukus | 60 + vc ar maks. 100 | vc |22 | – – –Citi | 60 + vc ar maks. 100 | vc |30 | – –Vafeles | 60 + vc ar maks. 100 | vc |40 | – –Sausiņi | 60 + vc ar maks. 100 | vc |50 | – –Kūkas | 60 + vc ar maks. 100 | vc |– –Citi konditorejas izstrādājumi: | | |70 | – – –kas satur sviestskābes taukus | 60 + vc ar maks. 100 | vc |72 | – – –kas satur citus taukus | 60 + vc ar maks. 100 | vc |76 | – – –kas nesatur taukus | 60 + vc ar maks. 100 | vc |ex 2 102 | Grauzdēti cigoriņi un citi grauzdēti kafijas aizvietotāji un to ekstrakti, esences un koncentrāti: | | |ex 20 | –Grauzdēti kafijas aizstājēji, veseli vai gabalos, izņemot grauzdētus cigoriņus | 2 | 1–60 |ex 22 | –Citi, izņemot grauzdētu cigoriņu produktus | 21 + vc ar maks. 50 | vc |2 104. | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |līdz |2 106. |ex 20 |2 107. | Pārtikas izstrādājumi, kas nav minēti vai uz kuriem attiecas šādas grupas: | | |–Bezalkoholiskas augu ekstraktu un koncentrātu mikstūras: | | |– –Saldinātas, kurās cukura saturs ir: | | |10 | – – –vairāk nekā 60 % | 120 + vc | vc |11 | – – –vairāk nekā 50 %, bet ne vairāk kā 60 % | 120 + vc | vc |12 | – – –50 % vai mazāk | 120 + vc | vc |14 | – –Nesaldinātas | 120 + vc | vc |16 | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |līdz |26 |30 | –Saldējums (ieskaitot saldējuma pulverus) | 110 | 100 |32 | –Olbaltumvielu hidrolizāti un autolizēts raugs | 110 | 30 |34 | –Gatavs jogurts | 110 | 100 |50 | –Itāļu pelmeņi un līdzīgi miltu izstrādājumi, termiski apstrādāti un pildīti | 44 + vc | vc |54 | –Izstrādājumi, šķidri vai cieti, kas satur 10 % vai vairāk tauku, kas nav sviestskābes tauki, un ko izmanto maizes vai konditorejas izstrādājumu ražošanā | 44 –1– vc | vc |58 | –Košļājamā gumija un konfektes, dražejas, pastilas un līdzīgi izstrādājumi (nesaldināti) | 44 –1– vc | vc |–Citi pārtikas izstrādājumi (uz kuriem neattiecas pozīcija Nr. 21 07.02/58): | | |– –kuros sviestskābes tauku saturs ir: | | |60 | – – –vairāk nekā 50 % | 44 + vc | vc |62 | – – –vairāk nekā 20 %, bet ne vairāk kā 50 % | 44 + vc | vc |64 | – – –vairāk nekā 3 %, bet ne vairāk kā 20 % | 44 + vc | vc |66 | – – –3 % vai mazāk | 44 + vc | vc |70 | – –kas satur citus taukus | 44 + vc | vc |– –kas nesatur taukus: | | |– – –kuru cukura saturs ir: | | |80 | – – – –vairāk nekā 50 % | 44 –f– vc | vc |82 | – – – –50 % vai mazāk | 44 + vc | vc |84 | – – –kas satur graudaugu produktus, iesala ekstraktu vai olas (nesaldināti) | 44 + vc | vc |90 – | – –Citi | 44 + vc | vc |2 202. | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |līdz |3 506. |ex 20 |3 507. | Fermenti; gatavi fermenti, kas citur nav minēti un iekļauti: | | |ex 30 | – –Citi: | | |– –Gatavi fermenti, kas satur pārtikas rūpniecības ražojumus | 44 + vc | vc |ex 3 812.01 | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) | (bez izmaiņām) |līdz |3 906. |ex 42 |Šveices Muitas tarifu pozīcija Nr. | Apraksts |2707. | (bez izmaiņām) |līdz |3105. |ex 10 |3809. | Koka darva; koka darvas eļļas (izņemot šķīdinātāju maisījumus un atšķaidītājus pozīcijā Nr. 3818); koksnes kreozots; koksnes darva; acetoneļļa; visa veida augu piķis; alus darīšanas piķis un tamlīdzīgi produkti uz sveķu, sveķu skābju vai augu piķa pamata; liešanas serdeņu saistvielas uz dabisko sveķu izstrādājumu bāzes: |ex 20 | —Koka darvas eļļas |--------------------------------------------------


jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22004D0018
 Beschluss des Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschusses Nr. 18/2004 vom 19. März 2004 zur Änderung des Anhangs II (Technische Vorschriften, Normen, Prüfung und Zertifizierung) des EWR-Abkommens
 Amtsblatt Nr. L 127 vom 29/04/2004 S. 0120 - 0121
 Beschluss des Gemeinsamen EWR-AusschussesNr. 18/2004vom 19. März 2004zur Änderung des Anhangs II (Technische Vorschriften, Normen, Prüfung und Zertifizierung) des EWR-AbkommensDER GEMEINSAME EWR-AUSSCHUSS -gestützt auf das Abkommen über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum, geändert durch das Anpassungsprotokoll zum Abkommen über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum, nachstehend "Abkommen" genannt, insbesondere auf Artikel 98,in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:(1) Anhang II des Abkommens wurde durch den Beschluss des Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschusses Nr. 170/2003 vom 5. Dezember 2003(1) geändert.(2) Die Richtlinie 2003/76/EG der Kommission vom 11. August 2003 zur Änderung der Richtlinie 70/220/EWG des Rates über Maßnahmen gegen die Verunreinigung der Luft durch Emissionen von Kraftfahrzeugen(2) ist in das Abkommen aufzunehmen.(3) Richtlinie 2003/77/EG der Kommission vom 11. August 2003 zur Änderung der Richtlinien 97/24/EG und 2002/24/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die Typgenehmigung für zweirädrige oder dreirädrige Kraftfahrzeuge(3) ist in das Abkommen aufzunehmen -BESCHLIESST:Artikel 1Anhang II Kapitel I des Abkommens wird wie folgt geändert:1. Unter Nummer 3 (Richtlinie 70/220/EWG des Rates) wird folgender Gedankenstrich angefügt:"- 32003 L 0076: Richtlinie 2003/76/EG der Kommission vom 11. August 2003 (ABl. L 206 vom 15.8.2003, S. 29)."2. Nach Nummer 45x (Richtlinie 97/24/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates) wird folgender Gedankenstrich angefügt:"- 32003 L 0077: Richtlinie 2003/77/EG der Kommission vom 11. August 2003 (ABl. L 211 vom 21.8.2003, S. 24)."3. Vor den Anpassungen wird in Nummer 45za (Richtlinie 2002/24/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates) wird Folgendes eingefügt:", geändert durch:- 32003 L 0077: Richtlinie 2003/77/EG der Kommission vom 11. August 2003 (ABl. L 211 vom 21.8.2003, S. 24)."Artikel 2Der Wortlaut der Richtlinien 2003/76/EG und 2003/77/EG in isländischer und norwegischer Sprache, der in der EWR-Beilage des Amtsblatts der Europäischen Union veröffentlicht wird, ist verbindlich.Artikel 3Dieser Beschluss tritt am 20. März 2004 in Kraft, sofern dem Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschuss alle Mitteilungen nach Artikel 103 Absatz 1 des Abkommens vorliegen(4).Artikel 4Dieser Beschluss wird im EWR-Abschnitt und in der EWR-Beilage des Amtsblatts der Europäischen Union veröffentlicht.Geschehen zu Brüssel am 19. März 2004.Für den Gemeinsamen EWR-AusschussDer PräsidentP. Westerlund(1) ABl. L 88 vom 25.3.2004, S. 41.(2) ABl. L 206 vom 15.8.2003, S. 29.(3) ABl. L 211 vom 21.8.2003, S. 24.(4) Ein Bestehen verfassungsrechtlicher Anforderungen wurde nicht mitgeteilt.


type: other

text:
Après deux ans de bataille judiciaire, la Cour de cassation a annulé ce mardi la condamnation pour incitation à la haine de l'ancienne ministre du Logement, Christine Boutin, selon Libération.
 Dans un entretien au magazine Charles paru en avril 2014 sous le titre «Je suis une pécheresse», la pasionaria de la droite conservatrice et catholique affirmait : «L'homosexualité est une abomination. Mais pas la personne. Le péché n'est jamais acceptable, mais le pécheur est toujours pardonné».
 En décembre 2015, le tribunal correctionnel de Paris l’avait condamnée pour provocation à la haine ou à la violence contre les homosexuels et 5000 euros d'amende. Une condamnation confirmée en appel le 2 novembre 2016. Elle avait également été condamnée à verser 2 000 euros de dommages et intérêts aux associations Mousse, Le Refuge et Inter-LGBT (Lesbienne, gay, bi et trans) qui s'étaient constitué parties civiles.
 «Pas d’appel à la haine», selon les juges
 L'ex-présidente du Parti chrétien démocrate avait formé un pourvoi en cassation. Dans l’arrêt consulté mardi par le quotidien, les juges estiment que «le propos incriminé, s’il est outrageant, ne contient néanmoins pas, même sous une forme implicite, d’appel ou d’exhortation à la haine ou à la violence à l’égard des personnes homosexuelles», et par conséquent que, «la cour d’appel a méconnu le sens et la portée du texte susvisé et du principe ci-dessus énoncé» en condamnant Christine Boutin.
 « Je suis heureuse d'être blanchie par cet arrêt de la plus haute cour française», a réagi Christine Boutin. «Je suis surtout satisfaite de constater que la Cour de cassation a confirmé que la liberté d'expression et la liberté de conscience existaient toujours dans notre pays», a-t-elle ajouté.
 Le terme «abomination» est récurrent dans l'Ancien testament. Le Lévitique qualifie comme telles les relations sexuelles entre hommes. « Mon opinion s'inscrit dans la tradition chrétienne», avait justifié l'ancienne députée des Yvelines, tout en précisant qu'elle avait regretté ses propos par la suite.
 La suite. Il parait qu’un avocat – qui ?- prétend qu’elle aurait pu être condamnée pour injure.
 «Je suis très déçu de cette décision car elle affirme qu'on peut libérer une parole homophobe très présente en France», a réagi dans Libération Me Etienne Deshoulières, avocat de l'association LGBT Mousse.
 «Si les associations LGBT avaient agi sur le fondement de l'injure et non de l'incitation à la haine, Christine Boutin aurait été condamnée. C'est prescrit. Mais si demain quelqu'un redit cela, les associations auront entendu l'enseignement de la Cour de cassation et poursuivront pour injure», a-t-il estimé par ailleurs.
 Stop Homophobie regrette que «la Cour de cassation n’ait pas suivi les décisions» de la cour d’appel.
 Mon commentaire : pour l’injure, c’est nettement plus compliqué que cela ...
 Car, Paul ROBERT en mains, l’abomination, c’est l’horreur inspirée par ce qui est impie (« cette ville profane est en abomination à notre saint prophète », MONTHERLANT), figuré, le comble d’un mal. (dans la Bible, « le sacrilège s’ajoutant à la dévastation »)
 Par bernard.kuchukian le 09/01/18
 Et bien non, une fois encore, la Q.P.C. a été la plus forte, évidemment transmise non par la frileuse Cour de cassation, mais par le Conseil d’Etat.
 Ce jour, décision2017-683 du 9 janvier 2018, le Conseil constitutionnel dit contraire à la constitution le droit de préemption des communes, parce que le souci de maintien dans les lieux du locataire n’est pas assuré, et parce qu'à défaut d'accord amiable, le prix est fixé par le juge de l’expropriation. tandis qie le propriétaire ne peut reprendre la libre disposition de son bien en l'absence de paiement, qu'à l'échéance d'un délai de six mois après la décision de la commune d'acquérir ce bien au prix demandé, la décision définitive de la juridiction d'expropriation ou la date de l'acte ou du jugement d'adjudication.
 Le Conseil constitutionnel retient alors l’atteinte disproportionnée au droit de propriété. Et précise que ce seul grief suffit à établir sa conviction.
 On n’a pas fini de parler de cette sage décision, vous verrez.
 ARMENORUM : CELEBRATION CE JOUR DU NOEL APOSTOLIQUE ARMENIEN
 Par bernard.kuchukian le 06/01/18
 Plus conforme à la tradition de l’église avant Chalcédoine. Ainsi donc ce jour le 6 janvier.
 Joyeux Noel à nos frères arméniens apostoliques.
 ARMENORUM : QUAND LE PRESIDENT FRANÇAIS RECOIT LE GRAND TURC
 On ne parle pas bien sur des cadavres dans les placards, ceux du génocide arménien de 1915 et du génocide pontique de 1922.
 La cause arménienne on s’en fout, et on a bien raison. Tout le monde s’en fout, sauf à considérer qu’elle est le point de départ d’un tout, bien actuel.
 DROIT PENAL : ESSAI SUR LA FRAUDE DOUANIERE A TROTINETTE
 Les hasards me font travailler sur un dossier où on parle, à tort d’ailleurs, de l’art. 415 du Code des douanes.
 « « Seront punis d'un emprisonnement de deux à dix ans, de la confiscation des sommes en infraction ou d'une somme en tenant lieu lorsque la saisie n'a pas pu être prononcée, de la confiscation des biens et avoirs qui sont le produit direct ou indirect de l'infraction et d'une amende comprise entre une et cinq fois la somme sur laquelle a porté l'infraction ou la tentative d'infraction ceux qui auront, par exportation, importation, transfert ou compensation, procédé ou tenté de procéder à une opération financière entre la France et l'étranger portant sur des fonds qu'ils savaient provenir, directement ou indirectement, d'un délit prévu au présent code ou d'une infraction à la législation sur les substances ou plantes vénéneuses classées comme stupéfiants. » »
 Vous avez compris qu’on traite ici essentiellement du trafic de stupéfiants avec le numéraire correspondant.
 Mais il faut continuer la lecture du même Code et passer à la suite, c’est facile, à son délicieux art. 416 :
 « « Sont passibles de la confiscation de l'objet de fraude, de la confiscation des moyens de transport, de la confiscation des objets servant à masquer la fraude, d'une amende comprise entre une et trois fois la valeur des objets confisqués et d'un emprisonnement de six mois à trois ans :
 1° Les délits de contrebande commis soit par plus de six individus, soit par trois individus ou plus, à cheval ou à vélocipède, que tous portent ou non des marchandises de fraude.
 2° Les délits de contrebande par aéronef, par véhicule attelé ou autopropulsé, par navire ou embarcation de mer de moins de 100 tonneaux de jauge nette ou 500 tonneaux de jauge brute ou par bateau de rivière. » »
 On a compris que l’art. 415 est dans une rédaction plus contemporaine que l’art. 416, ou parce que la recherche des trafiquants au nombre de six à pied, et seulement de trois, mais alors à cheval ou à vélo, on n’est plus dans le coup.
 P.S. Le Vélosolex est-il classé dans les vélos ou dans les véhicules autopropulsés ? Idem pour les vélos électriques voire les trottinettes électriques.
 pour vos conditions d’exercice ; pour l’égalité des chances ; pour l’égalité homme-femme ; pour la défense du secret professionnel ; pour la conquête de nouveaux marchés ; pour votre pouvoir d’achat ; pour la maîtrise des enjeux numériques.


type: wikipedia

text:
Skåne (câteodată cunoscută ca Scania) este o provincie a Suediei.
 {| align="right"
 |-----
 |
 {| border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" align="right" width="300px"
 |+ Skåne
 |-----
 | style="background:#ffffff;" align="center" colspan="2" |
 |-----
 | valign="top" | Regiune
 Götaland
 |-----
 | valign="top" | Județe
 |
 Skåne
 |-----
 | Suprafață || 10.939 km2
 |-----
 | Cel mai înalt punct || Söderåsen, 212 m
 |-----
 | Cel mai mare lac || Ivösjön
 |}
 |-----
 | align="center" |
 |}
 Demografice
 Județe
 Orașe
 Legături externe
 Skåne
 Eponime ale asteroizilor


jurisdiction: US

text: b'COMPILATION OF THE FY 1996ARMY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS\n AT THE DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE\n INDIANAPOLIS CENTER\n\n\n\nReport Number 98-120 April 23 1998\n\n\n\n\n Office of the Inspector General\n Department of Defense\n\x0c Additional Information and Copies\n\n To obtain additional copies of this audit report, contact the Secondary Reports\n Distribution Unit of the Analysis, Planning, and Technical Support Directorate at\n (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or FAX (703) 604-8932 or visit the Inspector\n General, DOD, Home Page at: WWW.DODIG.OSD.MIL.\n\n Suggestions for Audits\n\n To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Planning and Coordination\n Branch of the Analysis, Planning, and Technical Support Directorate at\n (703) 604-8908 (DSN 664-8908) or FAX (703) 604-8932. Ideas and requests\n can also be mailed to:\n\n OAIG-AUD (ATI\xe2\x80\x99N: APTS Audit Suggestions)\n Inspector General, Department of Defense\n 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)\n Arlington, Virginia 22202-2884\n\n Defense Hotline\n\n To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact the Defense Hotline by calling\n (800) 4249098; by sending an electronic message to Hotline@DODIG.OSD.MIL; or\n by writing to the Defense Hotline, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20301-1900.\n The identity of each writer and caller is fully protected.\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms\n\nCFO Chief Financial Officers\nDBOF Defense Business Operations Fund\nDFAS Defense Finance and Accounting Service\nGLAC General Ledger Account\nSGL Standard General Ledger\nUSD(C) Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)\nAAA Army Audit Agency\n\x0c INSPECTOR GENERAL\n DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE\n 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE\n ARLINGTON. VIRGINIA 22202\n\n\n\n\n April 23, 1998\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)\n DIRECTOR, DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING\n SERVICE\n AUDITOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY\n\nSUBJECT: Audit Report on the Compilation of the FY 1996 Army Financial Statements\n at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis Center (Report\n No. 9% 120)\n\n\n We are providing this report for review and comment. This audit was performed\nin response to the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal\nFinancial Management Act of 1994.\n\n DOD Directive 7650.3 requires that all recommendations be resolved promptly.\nThe Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and the Director, Defense Finance and\nAccounting Service Indianapolis Center, did not comment on a draft of this report.\nAccordingly, we request that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and the\nDirector, Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis Center, provide comments\non the final report by June 22, 1998.\n\n We appreciate the courtesies extended to the audit staff. Questions on the\naudit should be directed to Mr. Richard B. Bird, Audit Program Director, at\n(703) 604-9175 (DSN 664-9175) or e-mail RBird@DODIG.OSD.MIL, or Mr. John J.\nVietor, Audit Project Manager, at (3 17) 5 1O-3855 (DSN 699-3 855) or e-mail\nJVietor@DODIG.OSD.MIL. See Appendix D for the report distribution. The audit team\nmembers are listed on the inside back cover.\n\n\n\n\n David K. Steensma\n Deputy Assistant Inspector General\n for Auditing\n\x0c\x0c Offke of the Inspector General, DOD\n\nReport No. 98-120 April 23, 1998\n (Project No. 6FI-2023)\n\n Compilation of the FY 1996Army Financial Statements at the\n Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis Center\n\n\n Executive Summary\n\nIntroduction. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Indianapolis\nCenter maintains the Army departmental accounting records and compiles the Army\nGeneral Fund financial statements.\n\nThis audit was performed in response to the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as\namended by the Federal Financial Management Act of 1994. The Chief Financial\nOfficers Act requires the Inspector General, DOD, to audit the financial statements of\nDOD organizations in accordance with applicable generally accepted Government\nauditing standards but allows the delegation of the audit work. The Inspector General,\nDOD, delegated the audit of the FY 1996 Army General Fund financial statements to\nthe Army Audit Agency and assisted by performing the required audit work at the\nDFAS Indianapolis Center. The Army Audit Agency disclaimed an opinion on the\nFY 1996 Army General Fund financial statements, and we concurred with the\ndisclaimer.\n\nThe Army FY 1996 General Fund financial statements included the Statement of\nFinancial Position and the Statement of Operations and Changes in Net Position, along\nwith the supporting footnotes, supplementary schedules, and a management overview.\nThe FY 1996 Statement of Financial Position reported total assets of $201 billion and\ntotal liabilities of $25.3 billion as of September 30, 1996. The Statement of Operations\nand Changes in Net Position reported total revenues of $62.3 billion and total expenses\nof $64.7 billion for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996.\n\nAudit Objectives. Our audit objective was to determine whether the DFAS\nIndianapolis Center consistently and accurately compiled financial information from\nfield activities and other sources into the FY 1996 Consolidated Financial Statements of\nthe Army General Fund. We evaluated the processes, including internal controls and\nmethods that the DFAS Indianapolis Center used to compile the Army FY 1996\nGeneral Fund financial statements. In addition, we reviewed the adequacy of the\ninternal control program as it applied to our objectives.\n\nAudit Results. The DFAS Indianapolis Center compiled financial data from field\nentities and other sources into the FY 1996 Army General Fund financial statements in\na manner generally consistent with applicable laws and regulations. However, the\nfinancial statements were inaccurate in several material respects, and the procedures\nand internal controls used to compile the financial statements needed improvement.\nSee Appendix A for details on the internal control program.\n\n o The DFAS Indianapolis Center needed to improve its process for compiling\nthe Army General Fund financial statements. The process that was used to prepare 265\n\x0cadjustments to the departmental general ledger data for about $298.9 billion could have\nbeen more efficient or better controlled. Departmental general ledger adjustments were\nmade for many reasons, including changing General Ledger Accounts (GLACs) to\nmatch certified status data, recording auditors\xe2\x80\x99 adjustments, recording information on\nammunition assets received from external sources, or correcting errors made by field\naccounting entities. Also, at the end of FY 1996, the DFAS Indianapolis Center was\nrequired to make 17,312 correcting adjustments to data on the status of appropriations\nfor about $1.5 billion that would not have been necessary if existing policies had been\nenforced. The DFAS Indianapolis Center completed research and documentation\nsupporting 43 Treasury reconciliation adjustments for about $122.4 million; however,\nthe DFAS Indianapolis Center did not complete the research and documentation to\nsupport an additional 5 Treasury reconciliation adjustments for about $7 million. In\naddition, the DFAS Indianapolis Center could not determine the correct balance for\nNon-Entity Assets Fund Balance With Treasury, Army Suspense Account\n(Appropriation 21-X-6875). As a result, the compilation of the financial statements\nwas prone to error, and the statements were subject to material misstatement. The\nStatement of Operations and Changes in Net Position (FYs 1996 and 1995 balances)\nand the Statement of Financial Position (FY 1995 balances) were misstated by at least\n$15.2 billion because of an error in posting a single general ledger adjustment. Also,\nthe negative $133 million reported as Non-Entity Assets Fund Balance With Treasury\nfor FY 1996 was both abnormal and inaccurate (Finding A).\n\n o Army general ledger accounts did not accurately reflect the value of assets\ntransferred to or from the Army. As a result, the balances recorded for assets\ntransferred to or from the Army were not supportable, and the Army will not be able to\nmeet the expanded financial reporting requirements effective for FY 1998 yearend\nreporting (Finding B).\n\nPart I of this report provides the details of our audit.\n\nSummary of Recommendations. We recommend that the Director, DFAS\nIndianapolis Center, improve the efficiency of and control over the process that the\nDFAS Indianapolis Center uses to adjust departmental general ledger data, enforce the\nexisting\n the actual FY 1996 yearend balance of the Army Suspense\nAccount (Appropriation 21-X-6875), and report the correct FY 1996 Non-Entity Fund\nBalance With Treasury as a prior-period correction on the FY 1997 Army General\nFund financial statements.\n\nWe also recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) revise the DOD\nStandard General Ledger Chart of Accounts to permit Army general ledger accounts to\naccurately reflect the value of assets transferred to or from the Army, and that the\nDirector, DFAS Indianapolis Center, determine the correct balances to be recorded for\ntransferred assets.\n\nManagement Comments. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the\nDirector, DFAS Indianapolis Center, did not respond to a draft of this report. We\nrequest that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and the Director, DFAS\nIndianapolis Center,\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\n\nExecutive Summary i\n\nPart I - Audit Results\n Audit Background\n Audit Objectives\n Finding A. Compiling the FY 1996 Army General Fund Financial\n Statements\n Finding B. Adjustments to General Fund Invested Capital 1;\n\nPart II - Additional Information\n Appendix A. Audit Process\n Scope and Methodology\n Management Control Program Review :;\n Appendix B. Summary of Prior Coverage 21\n Appendix C. Process Used to Prepare the Army General Fund\n Financial Statements\n Appendix D. Report Distribution\n\x0c\x0cPart I - Audit Results\n\x0cAudit Results\n\n\n\nAudit Background\n Chief Financial Officers Act. audit was in response the Chief\n Officers Act CFO Act) 1990, as by the Financial\n Management of 1994. CFO Act the annual and audit\n financial statements trust funds, funds, and commercial\n activities of Executive departments and agencies, as well as Government\n corporations. The CFO Act also requires the Inspectors General, or appointed\n external auditors, to audit financial statements in accordance with generally\n accepted Government auditing standards and other standards established by the\n Office of Management and Budget.\n\n Role of the DFAS Indianapolis Center. The Defense Finance and Accounting\n Service (DFAS) Indianapolis Center provides finance and accounting support to all\n DOD organizations, but especially to the Army and Defense agencies. Support\n includes maintaining departmental accounting records and preparing financial\n statements from general ledger trial balances and financial data on the status of\n appropriations, both submitted by DOD field accounting entities and other sources.\n However, the compilation process is complicated because financial data submitted\n to the DFAS Indianapolis Center were not generated by integrated, transaction-\n driven general ledger systems. See Appendix C, \xe2\x80\x9cProcess Used to Prepare the\n Army General Fund Financial\n\x0c Audit Results\n\n\n\nAudit Objectives\n The audit objective was to determine whether the DFAS Indianapolis Center\n consistently and accurately compiled financial information from field activities and\n other sources into the FY 1996 Consolidated Financial Statements of the Army\n General Fund. We evaluated the processes, including internal controls and\n methods that the DFAS Indianapolis Center used to compile the Army FY 1996\n General Fund financial statements. In addition, we reviewed the adequacy of the\n internal control program as it applied to our objectives.\n\n See Appendix A for a discussion of the audit process, the DFAS Indianapolis\n Center\xe2\x80\x99s internal control program, and the material internal control weaknesses\n identified during our review. See Appendix B for a summary of prior audit\n coverage at the DFAS Indianapolis Center related to the audit objective.\n\x0c Finding A. Compiling the FY 1996 Army\n General Fund Financial Statements\n The Indianapolis Center to\n the General Fund financial The used to\n to the departmental general data for\n $298.9 billion could been more efficient and better\n Departmental general adjustments were made for\n including General Ledger (GLACs) to certified\n status recording adjustments, recording on\n ammunition received from external sources, or correcting errors\n made by field accounting entities Also at the end of FY 1996, the DFAS\n Indianapolis Center made 17,3 12 correcting adjustments, valued at $1.5\n billion, to data on the status of appropriations. Research and\n documentation supporting 43 Department of the Treasury reconciliation\n adjustments for about $122.4 million was late, and the research and\n documentation needed to support an additional 5 adjustments for about $7\n million was not completed. In addition, the DFAS Indianapolis Center\n inaccurately reported an abnormal negative balance of $134.3 million for\n Non-Entity Assets Fund Balance With Treasury because of posting errors.\n These problems existed because the DFAS Indianapolis Center had not\n developed a formal plan to analyze and control departmental general ledger\n adjustments and did not follow existing guidance for adjustments to status\n data. Also, an automated process that transfers cross disbursements\n generated and posted the wrong transactions to a suspense account\n supporting the Non-Entity Assets Fund Balance With Treasury. All the\n resulting errors were not corrected. As a result, the process of compiling\n the financial statements was inefficient, and the statements were subject to\n material misstatement. The Statement of Operations and Changes in Net\n Position (FYs 1996 and 1995 balances) and the Statement of Financial\n Position (FY 1995 balances) were misstated by at least $15.2 billion.\n\n\nDepartmental Adjustments\n\n The DFAS Indianapolis Center makes many adjustments to both general ledger\n trial balances (general ledger data) and data on the status of appropriations (status\n data). Data submitted by field accounting entities are subjected to basic data edits\n and balancing routines. Status data recorded by the DFAS Indianapolis Center\n during the fiscal year are adjusted to match yearend reports on the status of\n appropriations certified by responsible officials. The adjusted status data are\n referred to as certified status data. The DFAS Indianapolis Center then makes\n departmental adjustments to general ledger and certified status data.\n\n Departmental General Ledger Adjustments. To present the Army General\n Fund financial data on the FY 1996 financial statements, the DFAS Indianapolis\n Center prepared 260 manual adjustment vouchers and 5 automated adjustment\n vouchers for about $298.9 billion. Individual vouchers ranged in value from $.Ol\n\n 4\n\x0cFinding A. Compiling the FY 1996 Army General Fund Financial Statements\n\n\n\nto about $74.9 billion. In comparison, the preparation of the FY 1995 financial\nstatements required 172 vouchers for about $238 billion. Auditors identified 32\ndifferent purposes for general ledger adjustments, such as changing General\nLedger Accounts (GLACs) to match certified status data, recording auditors\xe2\x80\x99\nadjustments, recording information on ammunition assets received from external\nsources, or correcting errors made by field accounting entities. Table 1 lists the\ntypes of departmental general ledger adjustments.\n\n Table 1. FY 1996 Departmental General Ledger Adjustments\n\n\n\n\n I I\n\n\n\nAutomated vouchers were used to change general ledger accounts to match\ncertified status data, to record appropriated capital used, and to make intra-agency\neliminations. All other adjustments were made using manual journal vouchers.\n\nTypes of Status Data Adjustments. The DFAS Indianapolis Center makes two\ntypes of departmental adjustments to status data. The first type is bulk\nadjustments, which are applied mechanically to address deficiencies in the\naccounting system and in the reporting by field accounting entities. The second\ntype is individual adjustments, which are manually prepared to correct errors and\nto meet accounting or reporting requirements. Individual adjustments are also\nused to eliminate differences that are detected during the yearend reconciliation of\nthe net expenditures recorded by the DFAS Indianapolis Center and those\nrecorded by the Treasury (Treasury reconciliation adjustments). The Treasury\nreconciliation adjustments ensure that the status data reported by the field\naccounting entities and recorded by the DFAS Indianapolis Center agree with the\nappropriation balances on record at the Treasury. DFAS Indianapolis Center\nstandard operating procedures require that the causes for the differences eliminated\n\n\n 5\n\x0cFinding A. Compiling the FY 1996 Army General Fund Financial Statements\n\n\n\n by the Treasury reconciliation adjustments should be researched and documented\n before adjustments are made. Research and documentation ensure that the\n Treasury reconciliation adjustments are appropriate and correct. The Treasury\n reconciliation adjustments are critical to the preparation of the Army financial\n statements because status data, as reconciled with the Treasury, are the basis for\n the Fund Balance With Treasury reported for the Army General Fund.\n\n\nGeneral Ledger Adjustments\n The DFAS Indianapolis Center had not developed and documented a formal plan\n to control the departmental general ledger adjustment process. The process that\n the DFAS Indianapolis Center used to adjust departmental general ledger data was\n not efficient or well controlled. Preparation of the departmental general ledger\n adjustments was a large, complex task, with significant effects on the FY 1996\n Army General Fund financial statements. Further, DFAS Indianapolis Center\n personnel had not sufficiently determined which adjustments could be eliminated or\n designed the most accurate and efficient method of making the adjustments that\n could not be eliminated.\n\n Changing General Ledger Accounts to Match Certified Status Data. For\n FY 1996, the DFAS Indianapolis Center prepared three automated vouchers for\n about $127.8 billion to change general ledger accounts to match certified status\n data. For financial resources and liabilities such as accounts receivable and\n accounts payable, the DFAS Indianapolis Center considers certified status data to\n be more reliable than general ledger data. Review of the adjustments identified the\n following problems.\n\n Use of Status Data. At the DFAS Indianapolis Center, financial\n statements are not prepared using a transaction-driven, integrated accounting\n system that is based on general ledger accounting. Using status data is an\n acceptable substitute only until reliable general ledger data are available. Also, the\n magnitude of the differences between general ledger balances and status data calls\n the reliability of both into question. For example, the unadjusted FY 1996 general\n ledger balance for accounts payable was about $27 billion, but the corresponding\n status data balance was $3 billion. However, the DFAS Indianapolis Center has\n not taken effective actions to identify and correct the causes of the differences\n between the general ledger balances and status data. Each month, DFAS\n Indianapolis Center personnel identify the differences between general ledger\n balances and status data, and they require field accounting entities to reconcile and\n explain the differences. However, few field accounting entities complete these\n tasks, and the DFAS Indianapolis Center performs limited followup. DFAS\n Indianapolis Center made no systematic attempt to use the monthly process to\n identify and elite the causes of the differences between general ledger balances\n and status data.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cFinding A. Compiling the FY 1996 Army General Fund Financial Statements\n\n\n\n Computation of Accounts Payable Adjustments. The database\napplication used to prepare the automated vouchers computed the adjustments to\naccounts payable and did not differentiate between FY 1996 payables of\n$1.8 billion due to the public and FY 1996 payables of $2.1 billion due to other\nFederal organizations. The status data used to compute the adjustments included\nthe information necessary to differentiate, but the DFAS Indianapolis Center made\nadjustments only to payables due to other Federal activities. This error not only\nmade the financial statement line item balances reported for accounts payable\nunreliable, but also resulted in abnormal balances in accounts payable due to other\nFederal activities for some appropriations. The abnormal balances had to be\nindividually corrected with 44 additional manual vouchers for about $2.1 billion. If\nthe DFAS Indianapolis Center properly analyzed accounts payable adjustments, the\napplication could be modified to correct this deficiency.\n\n Timing of Adjustments. The DFAS Indianapolis Center did not test\nstatus data that were used to compute the adjustments for completeness and\naccuracy before making the adjustments. As a result, an additional automatic\nadjustment for $136.9 million had to be made to reflect changes in the status data.\nIf the status data had been reconciled first, the extra adjustments could have been\navoided.\n\nThe $127.8 billion adjustment that the DFAS Indianapolis Center made to force\ngeneral ledger accounts to match certified status data was the largest general\nledger adjustment made at yearend, and should be very carefUlly controlled until it\ncan be eliminated.\n\nRecording Appropriated Capital Used. For FY 1996, the DFAS Indianapolis\nCenter prepared an automated voucher for about $55.2 billion to adjust GLAC\n5700 to reflect appropriated capital used. Field accounting entities should record\nan entry in GLAC 5700 whenever an expense is entered into the accounting\nrecords. However, field accounting entities do not make the required entries, and\nthe DFAS Indianapolis Center must prepare a departmental adjustment to negate\nthis omission. The DFAS Indianapolis Center has not taken action to ident@ and\neliminate the cause for this problem.\n\nRecording Auditors\xe2\x80\x99 Adjustments. The DFAS Indianapolis Center did not\nproperly record adjustments prepared by the AAA. The AAA prepared an\nadjustment to record prior-period contingent liabilities of about $15.22 billion.\nHowever, the proposed journal voucher that the AAA provided to the DFAS\nIndianapolis Center displayed the recommended adjustment amount of\n$15.22 billion rounded to the nearest thousand ($15,220,000). None of the other\n32 adjustments that the AM proposed for FY 1996 used rounded values, so\nDFAS Indianapolis Center personnel did not recognize that the recommended\namount was rounded and recorded the adjustment as $15.22 million. This error\nwas not detected until after the financial statements were completed. Table 2\nshows the effect of this error on the FY 1996 Army General Fund financial\nstatements.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cFinding A. Compiling the FY 1996 Army General Fund Financial Statements\n\n\n\n Table 2. Effects of Prior-Period Adjustment Error\n\n FY 1996 FY 1995\n\n Statement of Onerations\n 21. Net Position, Beginning Balance Over\xe2\x80\x99\n 23. Non-Operating Changes Unde? Over\n 24. Net Position Ending Balance Over\n\n Statement of Financial Position\n 5.b.5. Other Unfunded Governmental Liabilities Under\n Total Liabilities Not Covered by Budget Under\n :*; Invested Capital Over\n 7:c: Cumulative Results of Operations Over\n 7.e. Future Funding Requirements Under\n 7.f Total Net Position Over\n Error Amount: $15,214,780,000\n\n \xe2\x80\x98Overstated\n \xe2\x80\x98Understated\n\n Also, the error resulted in a variance of about $13.4 billion between the\n FY 1996 and FY 1995 balances for Statement of Financial Position, line 5.b.5.,\n Other Unfunded Governmental Liabilities. This material variance should have\n been detected by the DFAS Indianapolis Center during quality control reviews and\n filly explained in the footnotes to the financial statements.\n\n The DFAS Indianapolis Center will continue to make large yearend general ledger\n adjustments to correct accounting system deficiencies and incorrect accounting\n practices unless each type of adjustment is analyzed and the causes of problems are\n identified and eliminated. If the adjustments must be made because of systemic\n problems that cannot be corrected in legacy accounting systems, the DFAS\n Indianapolis Center should ensure that the problems are avoided in migratory\n accounting systems such as the Defense Joint Accounting System - Army. After\n comprehensively analyzing the adjustments, the DFAS Indianapolis Center should\n establish and document a detailed plan to control the identification, documentation,\n and implementation of departmental general ledger adjustments. Such a plan will\n help to avoid duplication of effort, ensure that automatically prepared adjustments\n are correctly computed, and control the form and timing of adjustments by third\n parties.\n\n\nAdjustments To Status Data\n\n At FY 1996 yearend, the DFAS Indianapolis Center made 17,3 12 avoidable\n adjustments to status data. Reconciliation and research supporting 43 Treasury\n reconciliation adjustments for about $122.4 million were late, and research and\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c Finding A. Compiling the FY 1996 Army General Fund Financial Statements\n\n\n\n documentation needed to support an additional five adjustments for about\n $7 million was not completed because DFAS Indianapolis Center personnel did not\n follow existing guidance.\n\n Deobligation Adjustments. The DFAS Indianapolis Center made unnecessary\n adjustments to status data because DFAS Indianapolis Center managers rescinded\n valid accounting policy. DFAS Indianapolis Center personnel were making a large\n number of automatic adjustments to correct a common error made by Army\n accounting entities. The DOD requires that adjustments to prior year obligations\n should be recorded as recoveries, but Army accounting entities consistently\n reported such adjustments as credit obligations. In June 1995, the DFAS\n Indianapolis Center issued a message instructing Army accounting entities to\n comply with the Treasury requirements for recording recoveries and credit\n obligations. However, the message was rescinded in July because some Army\n entities used the data on recoveries and credit obligations for management\n purposes and objected to the correct accounting procedures. The U.S. Army\n Forces Command stated, \xe2\x80\x9cThis proposed policy is certain to overstate our true\n deobligations.\xe2\x80\x9d At the end of FY 1996, the DFAS Indianapolis Center was forced\n to make 17,3 12 adjustments to correct errors valued at about $1.5 billion. The\n DFAS Indianapolis Center should enforce Treasury accounting policy.\n\n Treasury Reconciliation Adjustments. Research and documentation supporting\n 43 Treasury reconciliation adjustments for about $122.4 million were late, and the\n research and documentation needed to support an additional five adjustments for\n about $7 million were not completed. The DFAS Indianapolis Center made the 48\n required Treasury reconciliation adjustments for about $129.4 million at the end of\n October 1996. However, contrary to established guidance and practice, the\n research and documentation needed to support the adjustments were not\n completed before the adjustments were made. Formerly, the Treasury\n reconciliation adjustments, including the research and documentation necessary to\n support the adjustments, were finished in late October. However, for FY 1996,\n the research and documentation needed to support 43 adjustments were not\n completed until December 7, 1996, and the research needed to support the\n remaining 5 adjustments for about $7 million was not completed. The status data\n reports used to determine the Fund Balance With Treasury reported for the Army\n General Fund were completed about November 7, 1996. If the research and\n documentation needed to support the Treasury reconciliation adjustments are not\n completed before the adjustments are made, there is no assurance that the\n adjustments are accurate and complete.\n\n\nNon-Entity Fuhd Balance With Treasury\n The DFAS Indianapolis Center could not determine the correct balance for the\n Army FY 1996 Non-Entity Fund Balance With Treasury because of posting errors\n made to a supporting suspense account.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cFinding A. Compiling the FY 1996 Army General Fund Financial Statements\n\n\n\n The Army Suspense Account. Non-Entity Fund Balance With Treasury\n included the yearend balance of the Budget Clearing Account (Suspense) for the\n Department of the Army (Appropriation 2 1-X-6875, the Army Suspense\n Account). For FY 1996, the Army reported the Non-Entity Fund Balance With\n Treasury as a negative $134.3 million and the fiscal yearend balance of the Army\n Suspense Account as a negative $188 million. Both are abnormal account\n balances. The DFAS Indianapolis Center uses the Army Suspense Account to\n record differences between cross-disbursing transaction amounts reported to the\n Treasury and the amounts reported to the DFAS Indianapolis Center for the same\n transactions, if the differences cannot be resolved within 12 months.\n A cross-disbursing transaction occurs when a Federal entity other than the Army\n disburses Army funds. For example, the State Department disburses $3 million\n from an Army construction appropriation and reports this disbursement to the\n Treasury correctly. However, the detailed record of the disbursement, which the\n State Department sends to the DFAS Indianapolis Center, incorrectly shows that\n the disbursement was for $2 million. DFAS Indianapolis Center personnel would\n attempt to reconcile this $1 million difference ($3 million minus $2 million), but if\n they were not successful after 12 months, the difference would be removed from\n the Army construction appropriation and recorded in the Army Suspense Account.\n The transfer to the Army Suspense Account is automated.\n\n Automated Process. At the end of FY 1996, the Army Suspense Account had an\n abnormal balance of a negative $188 million. DFAS Indianapolis Center personnel\n determined that the abnormal balance existed because the automated process that\n transfers cross-disbursing differences over 12 months old was generating incorrect\n transactions. The DFAS Indianapolis Center recently began processing cross-\n disbursing transactions for other DOD organizations. Cross-disbursing differences\n over 12 months old that arise from DOD transactions should be recorded in the\n DOD Suspense Account (Appropriation 97-X-6875). However, the automated\n process was recording DOD cross-disbursing differences in the Army Suspense\n Account. The automated process has been discontinued.\n\n As of February 1997, the DFAS Indianapolis Center was unable to determine the\n actual fiscal yearend balance of the Army Suspense Account. As a result, DFAS\n Indianapolis Center personnel could not determine or report the actual Army Non-\n Entity Fund Balance With Treasury for FY 1996. Instead, the DFAS Indianapolis\n Center reported an abnormal balance amount that included the erroneous Army\n Suspense Account balance and disclosed that the true balance for the Non-Entity\n Fund Balance With Treasury was unknown. The DFAS Indianapolis Center\n should determine the actual fiscal yearend balance of the Army Suspense Account\n as soon as possible.\n\n\nConclusion\n The DFAS Indianapolis Center will continue to make large yearend general ledger\n adjustments to correct accounting system deficiencies and incorrect accounting\n practices unless each type of adjustment is analyzed and the causes of problems are\n identified and eliminated. If the adjustments must be made because of systemic\n problems that cannot be corrected in legacy accounting systems, the DFAS\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c Finding A. Compiling the FY 1996 Army General Fund Financial Statements\n\n\n\n Center should ensure that the problems are avoided in migratory\n accounting systems, such as the Defense Joint Accounting System - Army.\n Furthermore, the DFAS Indianapolis Center could avoid unnecessary status data\n adjustments and properly support Treasury reconciliation adjustments if it enforced\n existing policy and guidance. Also, the DFAS Indianapolis Center will not be able\n to report accurate balances for Non-Entity Fund Balance With Treasury until the\n correct balance for the Army Suspense Account is determined.\n\n\nRecommendations for Corrective Action\n A. We recommend that the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service\n Indianapolis Center:\n\n 1. Establish procedures to improve the efficiency of and control over the\n process used to adjust departmental general ledger data. Specific improvements\n should include the following:\n\n a. Analyze all general ledger adjustments made at yearend. Where\n possible, identity and eliminate the causes of yearend adjustments that are due to\n accounting errors or system deficiencies. If the cause of a type of adjustment\n cannot be eliminated because of restrictions on changes to legacy accounting\n systems, ensure that the developers of migratory accounting systems are aware of\n the systemic problems that cause the adjustments so that changes can be made to\n the systems.\n\n b. Determine the most accurate and efficient method for preparing\n general ledger adjustments that cannot be eliminated.\n\n 2. Enforce existing guidance for status data adjustments, including:\n\n a. Reissue and enforce Department of the Treasury policy guidance\n requiring the correct reporting of deobligations.\n\n b. Complete the research and documentation needed to support\n Department of the Treasury reconciliation adjustments before making the\n adjustments.\n\n 3. Determine the actual FY 1996 yearend balance of the Army Suspense\n Account (Appropriation 2 1-X-6875) and report the correct FY 1996 Non-Entity\n Fund Balance With Treasury as a prior-period correction.\n\n 4. Review the compilation process for the Army General Fund financial\n statements as part of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service self-evaluation.\n Appendix A gives details on the adequacy of management\xe2\x80\x99s self-evaluation.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cFinding A. Compiling the FY 1996 Army General Fund Financial Statements\n\n\n\nManagement Comments Required\n The Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis Center, did\n not comment on the draft report. We request that the Director, Defense Finance\n and Accounting Service Indianapolis Center, provide comments on this report.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c Finding B. Adjustments to General\n Fund Invested Capital\n Army general ledger accounts did not accurately reflect the value of\n assets transferred to or from the Army. This occurred because the DOD\n Standard General Ledger Chart of Accounts did not provide the General\n Ledger Accounts needed to record adjustments to General Fund invested\n capital. As a result, the balances of $208.4 billion recorded for assets\n transferred to the Army and $40.3 billion recorded for assets from the\n Army were not supportable, and the Army will not be able to meet\n changing and more detailed fmancial reporting requirements in FY 1998.\n\n\n\nGeneral Ledger Accounts\n Standard General Ledgers. The U.S. Government Standard General Ledger\n (SGL) Chart of Accounts, published by the Department of the Treasury\n Financial Management Service, defines the GLACs that all Federal agencies\n must use when recording accounting transactions. The USD(C) issued the DOD\n SGL Chart of Accounts as a supplement that defines additional GLACs. The\n additional GLACs allow DOD accounting entities to maintain more detailed\n accounting records than the U.S. Government SGL alone would permit. Both\n the U.S. Government SGL and the DOD SGL define GLACs as accounts to be\n used when recording transactions (\xe2\x80\x9cposting accounts\xe2\x80\x9d) or accounts to be used to\n summarize the contents of subordinate GLACs (\xe2\x80\x9csummary accounts\xe2\x80\x9d). Because\n the DOD SGL includes more detail than the U.S. Government SGL, accounts\n that are defined as posting accounts in the U.S. Government SGL are often\n defined as summary accounts in the DOD SGL.\n\n F\xe2\x80\x99inancial Reporting. Current instructions to Federal agencies on the use of\n GLACs to construct financial reports are in Office of Management and Budget\n Bulletin No. 94-01, \xe2\x80\x9cForm and Content of Agency Financial Statements?\xe2\x80\x9d\n November 16, 1993, as modified by Treasury Financial Manual Transmrttal\n Letter No. S2-96-01. DOD normally issues annual interpretations of the Office\n of Management and Budget Bulletin. For example, the USD(C) issued its\n \xe2\x80\x9cGuidance on Form and Content of Financial Statements for FY 1996 Financial\n Activity\xe2\x80\x9d in October 1996. However, the Office of Management and Budget\n Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts Number 2, \xe2\x80\x9cEntity and\n Display,\xe2\x80\x9d June 6, 1995, defines an entirely new set of five financial statements\n for all Federal agencies. Office of Management and Budget Bulletin No. 97-01,\n \xe2\x80\x9cForm and Content of Agency Financial Statements,\xe2\x80\x9d October 16, 1996, states\n that the provisions of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts\n Number 2 are to be implemented in the preparation of financial statements for\n the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cFinding B. Adjustments to General Fund Invested Capital\n\n\n\nAdjustments to Equity Accounts\n The DOD SGL does not include the GLACs necessary to record appropriated\n fund capital investments correctly.\n\n Capital Investment GLACs. The U.S. Government SGL defines GLAC 3210,\n Capital Investments, as a posting account used to record initial investment to\n commence operations, results of operations, and funds returned to Treasury.\n The DOD SGL defines GLAC 3210 as a summary account and defines several\n subordinate GLACs for various types of capital investments. However, the\n DOD SGL does not define a subordinate capital investment GLAC for\n appropriated funds. The U.S. Government SGL also defines GLAC 3220 as a\n posting account for recording the value of assets transferred in from others\n without reimbursement, and GLAC 3230 as a posting account for recording the\n value of assets transferred out to others without reimbursement. The DOD SGL\n defines these accounts in the same way, except that GLAC 3230 is defined as a\n summary account with two subordinates, one for transfers within the\n Government (GLAC 3231) and one for transfers to all others (GLAC 3232).\n\n Capital Investment Adjustments. During the compilation of the Army\n General Fund financial statements, DFAS Indianapolis Center personnel must\n often make departmental general ledger adjustments to appropriated funds\n invested capital. However, because the DOD SGL does not include a posting\n account for appropriated funds invested capital, the USD(C) directed the DFAS\n Indianapolis Center to make invested capital adjustments to the transfer accounts\n (GLACs 3220 and 3231). As a result, these two accounts are subject to large\n volumes of adjustments and have large balances. For FY 1996, the DFAS\n Indianapolis Center made 69 adjustments for about $27.4 billion to GLAC 3220\n and another 75 adjustments for $29.5 billion to GLAC 323 1. The ending\n balances for the two accounts were $208.4 billion and $40.3 billion,\n respectively. However, these adjustments and balances are not related to the\n actual transfer of assets to and from the Army. For example, while recording\n auditor-recommended adjustments for FY 1996, the DFAS Indianapolis Center\n posted about $2 billion to GLAC 3220 and about $20.1 billion to GLAC 323 1.\n None of these adjustments was related to the transfer of assets to or from the\n Army. As a result of these and similar adjustments, the true balances that\n should be recorded in the transfer accounts cannot be determined.\n\n Effect on l?hancial Statements. Because current guidance for financial\n statements requires that invested capital, transfers in, and transfers out to be\n reported on the same financial statement line, the improper use of the transfer\n accounts has no adverse effect on the FY 1996 financial statements. However,\n the practice of making unrelated adjustments to the transfer accounts has\n rendered the true balance of these accounts unauditable. In addition, starting in\n FY 1998, the provisions of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts\n Number 2 require that transfers in and transfers out be reported separately in the\n Statement of Changes in Net Position. Improper use of the transfer accounts\n will prevent accurate reporting and will have a material negative effect on\n financial reporting beginning in FY 1998.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c Finding B. Adjustments to General Fund Invested Capital\n\n\n\n The USD(C) should revise the DOD SGL to eliminate this problem. The DFAS\n Indianapolis Center should make a special study to determine the actual balances\n that should be recorded in the transfer accounts and make appropriate\n adjustments to the general ledger.\n\n\n\nRecommendations for Corrective Action\n B. 1. We recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) revise\n the DOD Standard General Ledger Chart of Accounts to permit adjustments to\n appropriated fund invested capital.\n\n B.2. We recommend that the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting\n Service Indianapolis Center, determine the correct balances to be recorded for\n assets transferred to and from the Army General Fund and make appropriate\n adjustments to the general ledger.\n\n\n\nManagement Comments Required\n The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Director, Defense\n Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis Center, did not comment on the\n draft report. We request that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and\n the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis Center,\n provide comments on this report.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c\x0cPart II - Additional Information\n\x0cAppendix A. Audit Process\n\n\nScope and Methodology\n Audit Work Performed. We limited our audit of the compilation of the Army\n FY 1996 General Fund financial statements to examining the DFAS Indianapolis\n Center\xe2\x80\x99s processes for consolidating departmental status and general ledger data.\n These data were used to prepare the version of the Army financial statements that\n was submitted to the auditors on December 19, 1996. Our audit included a review\n of the following processes:\n\n l establishing beginning account balances;\n\n l reporting and certifying yearend data, including the controls over\n yearend status data, the Treasury trial balance, and the general ledger\n reconciliations;\n\n l making adjustments directly to the Financial Statement Database file;\n and\n\n l transferring the status-adjusted general ledger data to the Financial\n Statement Database and to the Army financial statements.\n\n Limitations to Audit Scope. Because our audit was limited to work performed\n at the DFAS Indianapolis Center, we did not examine the accuracy of data that\n originated at DOD field accounting entities or other sources, or attempt to\n reconcile the data with subsidiary records maintained by field accounting entities.\n However, we did compare the Fund Balance With Treasury recorded by the\n Treasury for the Army General Fund to the Fund Balance With Treasury reported\n in the Army General Fund financial statements. We also reviewed the closing\n positions for Army General Fund appropriations for deficit balances and the\n general ledger trial balances for reasonableness.\n\n To achieve the audit objective, we relied primarily on computer-processed data in\n the Departmental Budget and Accounting Reporting System and the General\n Ledger Database. We accomplished a limited assessment of the reliability of this\n data using the GAO systems audit approach designed for generalists. Our limited\n review determined that the internal controls and methods used were adequate. We\n also conducted tests of the data and concluded that the computer-processed data\n were sufficiently reliable to complete the audit objective. However, field-level\n systems were not included in the review; therefore, we can comment only on the\n reliability of data processed after receipt by the DFAS Indianapolis Center.\n\n Audit Type, Dates, Locations, and Standards. We performed this financially\n related audit at the DFAS Indianapolis Center from May 1996 through\n August 1997. The audit was conducted in compliance with the auditing standards\n\n 18\n\x0c Appendix A. Audit Process\n\n\n\n established by the Comptroller General, as implemented by the Inspector General,\n DOD, and with Office of Management and Budget guidance. The audit included\n such tests of management controls and management compliance with laws and\n regulations as we considered necessary.\n\n Contacts During the Audit. We visited or contacted individuals and\n organizations within the DOD. Further details are available upon request.\n\n\nManagement Control Program Review\n DOD Directive 50 10.3 8, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Control (MC) Program,\xe2\x80\x9d\n August 26, 1996, requires DOD organizations to implement a comprehensive\n system of management controls that provide reasonable assurance that programs\n are operating as intended and to evaluate the adequacy of the controls.\n\n Scope of the Review of the Management Control Program. We reviewed the\n adequacy of the DFAS Indianapolis Center management controls for consolidating\n the status and general ledger data for preparation of the Army financial statements.\n We reviewed management\xe2\x80\x99s self-evaluation applicable to those controls.\n\n Adequacy of Internal Controls. We identified material internal control\n weaknesses at the DFAS Indianapolis Center for consolidating the status and\n general ledger data for preparation of the Army financial statements, as defined by\n DOD Directive 50 10.38. The DFAS Indianapolis Center internal controls were not\n adequate to ensure that the process of adjusting departmental general ledger data\n was efficient or well controlled, that unnecessary status data adjustments were\n avoided, that research and documentation needed to support Treasury\n reconciliation adjustments were completed before making the adjustments, or that\n the balance for Non-Entity Assets Fund Balance With Treasury was correctly\n determined. The internal control weaknesses that we identified, and our\n recommendations for improvements, are discussed in Part I. Recommendations\n A. l., A.2., A.3., and A.4., if implemented, will improve DFAS Indianapolis Center\n processes for consolidating the status and general ledger data for preparation of\n the Army financial statements. A copy of the report will be provided to the senior\n official responsible for internal controls at the DFAS Indianapolis Center.\n\n Adequacy of Management\xe2\x80\x99s Self-Evaluation. Management\xe2\x80\x99s self-evaluation\n was not adequate. DFAS Indianapolis Center officials identified the components\n of the financial statement compilation as assessable units, but the DFAS\n Indianapolis Center did not perform three internal control reviews that were\n scheduled. The DFAS Indianapolis Center\xe2\x80\x99s inventory of assessable units listed\n four assessable units that provide critical data to the reporting process for Army\n General Fund financial statements. Three of the assessable units were scheduled to\n perform internal control reviews, but none of the reviews was performed. The\n DFAS Indianapolis Center reorganized and the internal control program\n coordinator developed a new inventory of assessable units. Because the\n reorganization eliminated the divisions corresponding to the three assessable units\n that were to perform the reviews, the internal control program coordinator\n determined that the reviews were no longer necessary. However,\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cAppendix A. Audit Process\n\n\n\n DFAS 5010.38-R does not support this determination. Also, the Management\n Control Division, USD(C), has stated that the determination that reorganization\n eliminates the requirement to complete scheduled control reviews is not\n appropriate. DFAS 5010.38-R requires risk assessments of newly established\n assessable units. If the program coordinator had scheduled the required risk\n assessments and the responsible managers had conducted them, the coordinator\n would have determined that a single assessable unit had been established that\n encompassed the duties and functions of the three eliminated assessable units. The\n scheduled reviews should have been performed.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cAppendix B. Summary of Prior Coverage\n Inspector General, DOD, Report No. 96-161, \xe2\x80\x9cCompilation of the FY 1995\n and F\xe2\x80\x99Y 1996 DOD Financial Statements at the Defense Finance and\n Accounting Service, Indianapolis Center,\xe2\x80\x9d June 13, 1996. The Inspector\n General, DOD, delegated the issuance of an audit opinion to the MA and\n assisted the AAA by performing the required audit work at the DFAS\n Indianapolis Center. The Inspector General, DOD, concluded that the DFAS\n Indianapolis Center consistently and accurately compiled financial data from\n field entities and other sources into the FY 1995 Consolidated Financial\n Statements for the Army General Fund. The efficiency and internal control\n environment of the compilation process had significantly improved since\n FY 1993. However, further improvements in the compilation process were\n needed. The DFAS Indianapolis Center could have better explained that\n variances of up to $6 billion occurred in financial statement line items from year\n to year because FY 1995 financial data were not comparable to FY 1994\n financial data. Footnotes were incomplete. Also, controls over making 15\n auditor-recommended adjustments for about $19.5 billion and preparing 165\n accounting adjustment vouchers needed improvement. The auditors made four\n recommendations to improve disclosure and footnotes and to strengthen internal\n control procedures. The DFAS Indianapolis Center concurred with all\n recommendations. As of fiscal yearend 1996, all recommended actions were\n complete.\n\n Inspector General, DOD, Report No. 94-168, \xe2\x80\x9cDefense Finance and\n Accounting Service Work on the Army\xe2\x80\x99s FY 1993 Financial Statements,\xe2\x80\x9d\n July 6, 1994. This audit combined the results of audit work on the Army\n FY 1993 General Fund and the Defense Business Operations Fund (DBOF)\n financial statements. The Inspector General, DOD, delegated the issuance of an\n audit opinion to the AAA and assisted the AAA by performing the required\n audit work at the DFAS Indianapolis Center. The Inspector General, DOD,\n concluded that the Army DBOF financial statements for FY 1993 were\n misstated by about $2.2 billion and the Army General Fund financial statements\n were misstated by about $2.7 billion because the DFAS Indianapolis Center\n failed to detect or correct errors in the financial data submitted to the Army\n departmental general ledger. Additionally, the DFAS Indianapolis Center did\n not adequately document about $9.8 billion of the status data adjustments\n reviewed and about $48.3 billion of the departmental general ledger adjustments\n reviewed. DBOF inventory accounting was not correct, and inputs and\n adjustments to the departmental general ledger were not properly organized and\n controlled. The auditors made 10 recommendations to strengthen internal\n control procedures and to address detection and correction procedures for\n general ledger accounts. The DFAS Indianapolis Center concurred with or\n provided acceptable alternative actions for all recommendations.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0cAppendix\n -- C. Process Used to Prepare the Army\nGeneral Fund Financial Statements\n The DFAS Indianapolis Center prepares the Army financial statements from\n unconsolidated financial data. However, neither the DFAS Indianapolis Center\n Headquarters Accounting and Reporting System nor its supporting accounting\n subsystems conform to the general ledger method of accounting. In addition,\n the financial data submitted to the DFAS Indianapolis Center were not generated\n by integrated, transaction-driven general ledgers. As a result, the DFAS\n Indianapolis Center uses a complex process to combine financial information\n from many accounting subsystems and to compile the Army financial\n statements.\n\n Beginning Balances. To establish correct beginning balances for the general\n ledger accounts, the field accounting entities transfer any direct adjustments\n from the prior year that affected general ledger balances, such as auditor\n adjustments, to the General Ledger Data Base.\n\n Yearend Status Data Certification. The status data accumulated in the\n Departmental Budgetary Accounting and Reporting System during the fiscal\n year are corrected to match certified status reports. At the end of the fiscal\n year, certified status of funds reports are transmitted to the Departmental\n Budgetary Accounting and Reporting System for all operating agencies\n supported by the DFAS Indianapolis Center. The certified reports are then\n compared to the corresponding status data, and the status data are adjusted to\n match the certified reports.\n\n Reconciliation to the Treasury Trial Balance. The status data are reconciled\n to the net expenditures recorded by the Treasury. DFAS Indianapolis Center\n personnel extract current-year data on net collections and disbursements from\n the Departmental Budgetary Accounting and Reporting System by\n appropriation, creating the Balance Forward file. The same data are then\n obtained from the Treasury using an interactive system, the Government On-line\n Accounting Link System. Each month, four Government On-line Accounting\n Link System reports are available: all activity for each appropriation by month\n for receipts (Treasury Reports 6654 and 6655 Receipts); all activity for each\n appropriation by month for disbursements (Treasury Report 6653\n Disbursements); and the ending balance for each appropriation by month for\n disbursements (Treasury Report No. 6654 Disbursements). Government On-\n line Accounting Link System reports are generally available 16 days after the\n end of the reporting period. DFAS Indianapolis Center personnel compare the\n status data to the Treasury data. All differences are researched and reconciled.\n\n Adjustments to Status Data. DFAS Indianapolis Center personnel make\n departmental adjustments to the certified status data. The adjustments allow\n status data to show the effect of in-transit and unmatched transactions on\n accounts payable and accounts receivable; correct bulk errors caused by\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0c Appendix C. Process Used to Prepare the Army\n General Fund F\xe2\x80\x99inancial Statements\n\n\ndeficiencies in accounting systems; meet special reporting requirements; and add\ndepartment-level information not available to or accounted for by the field\naccounting systems.\n\nCreation of the Financial Statement Database Files. DFAS Indianapolis\nCenter personnel consolidate the financial data that are reported directly to the\ndepartmental general ledger from the field accounting activities and stored in the\nGeneral Ledger Data Base in a microcomputer database, the Financial Statement\nDatabase. The Financial Statement Data Base contains two files. The first file,\nSOURCE2 1, is a summary-level database used to prepare the Army financial\nstatements. The second file, SOURCEOA, is a more detailed database,\nrecorded at the fisca station and allotment level for Army General Fund\nappropriations, which is used only for research purposes.\n\nDirect Adjustments. DFAS Indianapolis Center personnel make adjustments\ndirectly to the SOURCE21 database. The direct adjustments are used to enter\n&a-agency eliminations; estimates for future expenses, such as Worker\xe2\x80\x99s\nCompensation Act payments; information on nonfinancial resources received as\nhard copy or electronically from activities such as the Army Materiel Command\nor the National Guard Bureau; and department-level expenditures for receipt\naccounts. Direct adjustments are also used to change the financial information\nin the general ledger so that the financial resources reported in the Army\nstatements agree with Departmental Budgetary Accounting and Reporting\nSystem and Treasury reports.\n\nPreparation of the Basic Financial Statements. A microcomputer program\nknown as the Comprehensive Reporting System converts the SOURCE21 file\ninto the Army financial statements. The application uses three other files to\nperform the conversion: a list of appropriations to be included in the Army and\nDefense agency statements (the Group table); a crosswalk that directs general\nledger accounts to the correct financial statement line for each set of statements\n(the Map table); and the fixed-text portion of each set of financial statements\n(the Lines table).\n\nProduction of the Initial Financial Report. DFAS Indianapolis Center\npersonnel add footnotes, supplementary schedules, and an overview section to\nthe basic financial statements produced by the Comprehensive Reporting System\nto create the initial version submitted for audit.\n\nProduction of the Audited Financial Statements. The initial version of the\nArmy statements is subsequently modified to show adjustments caused by the\naudit, and to include the audit opinion and other changes. This version\n(Version II) then becomes the audited submission.\n\nThe DFAS Indianapolis Center has used this process to prepare the Army\nfinancial statements since FY 1993.\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0cAppendix D. Report Distribution\n\nOffke of the Secretary of Defense\n Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)\n Deputy Chief Financial Officer\n Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget)\n Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)\n Director, Defense Logistics Studies Information Exchange\n\nDepartment of the Army\n Auditor General, Department of the Army\n\nDepartment of the Navy\n Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller)\n Auditor General, Department of the Navy\n\nDepartment of the Air Force\n Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management and Comptroller)\n Auditor General, Department of the Air Force\n\nOther Defense Organizations\n Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency\n Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service\n Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Indianapolis Center\n Director, Defense Logistics Agency\n Director, National Security Agency\n Inspector General, National Security Agency\n Inspector General, Defense Intelligence Agency\n\nNon-Defense Federal Organizations and Individuals\n Office of Management and Budget\n Technical Information Center, National Security and International Affairs Division,\n General Accounting Office\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0c Appendix D. Report Distribution\n\n\n\n\nNon-Defense Federal Organizations and Individuals (cont\xe2\x80\x99d)\nChairman and ranking minority member of each of the following congressional\ncommittees and subcommittees:\n\n Senate Committee on Appropriations\n Senate Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\n Senate Committee on Armed Services\n Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs\n House Committee on Appropriations\n House Subcommittee on National Security, Committee on Appropriations\n House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight\n House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and\n Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight\n House Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal\n Justice, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight\n House Committee on National Security\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0c\x0cAudit Team Members\n\nThis report was prepared by the Finance and Accounting Directorate, Office of\nthe Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, DOD.\n\nF. Jay Lane\nRichard B. Bird\nJohn J. Vietor\nPaul C. Wenzel\nCraig W. Zimmerman\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0c\x0c'


type: caselaw

text:
 15.2.2016
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 C 59/32
 Αγωγή της 3ης Δεκεμβρίου 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund κατά Συμβουλίου
 (Υπόθεση T-709/15)
 (2016/C 059/35)
 Γλώσσα διαδικασίας: η γαλλική
 Διάδικοι
 Ενάγουσα: Almashreq Investment Fund (Δαμασκός, Συρία) (εκπρόσωπος: E. Ruchat, δικηγόρος)
 Εναγόμενο: Συμβούλιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 Αιτήματα
 Η ενάγουσα ζητεί από το Γενικό Δικαστήριο:
 —
 να κρίνει παραδεκτή και βάσιμη την αγωγή που άσκησε η ενάγουσα·
 —
 συνακόλουθα, να υποχρεώσει την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να αποκαταστήσει τη συνολική ζημία που υπέστη η ενάγουσα, καθορίζοντας κατά δίκαιο τρόπο το ύψος του ποσού της αποζημιώσεως·
 —
 να διατάξει τον διορισμό πραγματογνώμονα προκειμένου να προσδιορισθεί το συνολικό εύρος της ζημίας που υπέστη η ενάγουσα·
 —
 να καταδικάσει το Συμβούλιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στα δικαστικά έξοδα.
 Λόγοι και κύρια επιχειρήματα
 Προς στήριξη της αγωγής της, η ενάγουσα προβάλλει έναν μόνο λόγο αντλούμενο από την ηθική βλάβη, συγκεκριμένα δε την προσβολή της φήμης της, που υπέστη κατά άμεση αιτιώδη συνάφεια προς τα μέτρα τα οποία έλαβε το Συμβούλιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και για τα οποία αυτό φέρει την ευθύνη.


text:
 5.7.2008
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 171/52
 Prasība, kas celta 2008. gada 27. aprīlī — Ortega Serrano/Komisija
 (Lieta F-48/08)
 (2008/C 171/105)
 Tiesvedības valoda — spāņu
 Lietas dalībnieki
 Prasītājs: Antonio Ortega Serrano, Cádiz (Spānija) (pārstāvis — A. Ortega Serrano, advokāts)
 Atbildētāja: Eiropas Kopienu Komisija
 Priekšmets un lietas apraksts
 Lūgums atcelt konkursa EPSO/AD/26/05 atlases komisijas lēmumu neiekļaut prasītāja uzvārdu atlasīto personu sarakstā
 Prasītāja prasījumi:
 —
 atcelt lēmumus, kas prasītājam liedz tikt iekļautam konkursa EPSO/AD/26/05 rezerves sarakstā un nedod iespēju atkārtoti kārtot mutvārdu eksāmenu;
 —
 uzlikt Komisijai pienākumu noteikt jaunu datumu mutvārdu eksāmena kārtošanai;
 —
 noteikt Komisijai pienākumu norādīt Lēmuma EPSO/900 R pamatojumu;
 —
 noteikt Komisijai dot prasītājam iespēju iepazīties ar mutvārdu eksāmena dokumentiem;
 —
 noteikt Komisijai dot prasītājam iespēju iepazīties ar visiem dokumentiem, kas atrodas viņa lietas materiālos;
 —
 ļaut prasītājam, kas ir Spānijas tiesās praktizējošs advokāts, pārstāvēt sevi pašam;
 —
 pārbaudīt visu konkursu izturējušo sarakstā iekļauto kandidātu lietu materiālus, lai pārbaudītu, vai visiem ir diploms, kas apliecina, ka persona ir ieguvusi izglītību vismaz trīs gadus ilgā universitātes tiesību zinātņu programmā, un ka tas ir iesniegts laicīgi un pareizā veidā;
 —
 pieņemt pielikumā iesniegtos dokumentus franču un angļu valodās;
 —
 piespriest atbildētājai atlīdzināt tiesāšanās izdevumus.