type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'.Department of Health and Human Services\n1\nADMIN STRATION ON AG NG\n AND\n OFFICE OF\n INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\nSTATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE\nOMBUDSMAN REQUIREMENTS OF\n THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT\n\x0c ADMINIS\xe2\x80\x99IIU130N ON AGING\n\nThe Administration on Aging (AoA) is the principal Federal agency designed to carry out the\nprovisions of the Older Americans Act (OAA). It advises the Secretary of Health and Human\nSetices and other Federal agencies on the characteristics, circumstances and needs of older\nindividuals. Further, it develops policies, plans, and programs designed to promote their\nwelfare.\n\nAoA administers three grant programs under the Older Americans Act. The largest program -\n- Title III of the Act -- consist of formula grants to States to establish State and community-\nbased programs for older individuals with the purpose of preventing the premature\ninstitutionalization of older individuals. The second program -- Title VI -- consists of\ndiscretionary grants with the same purpose as Title III, but to meet the unique needs of older\nNative Americans. The third program -- Tkle IV -- is also discretionary. Its purpose is to fund\nresearch, demonstration, and training activities to elicit knowledge and techniques to improve\nthe circumstances of older Americans. (The 1992 Amendments to the OPA created a fourth\nprogram -- Title VII -- which provides funds for State activities to protect the rights of\nvulnerable older people. Prior to the 1992 Amendments, Title III of the OAA provided the\nfunds for these activities.)\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECI\xe2\x80\x99OR GENERAL\n\nThe mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as\namended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Semites\xe2\x80\x99 (HHS)\nprograms as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries sewed by those programs. This\nstatutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and\ninspections conducted by three OIG operating components: the Office of Audit Services, the\nOffice of Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections. The OIG also informs\nthe Secretary of HHS of program and management problems and recommends courses to\ncorrect them.\n\nThe OIG\xe2\x80\x99S Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and\nprogram evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department.\nthe Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection\nreports generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability,\nand effectiveness of departmental programs.\n\n THIS REPORT\n\nThis report is the result of a joint effort between AoA and OIG/OEI to assess the\nimplementation of Title III of the Older Americans Act. OIG staff in the New York and\nDallas regional offices provided technical support to the joint project. AoA staff in New York\nand Dallas directed the project with all regional offices participating in the development of\ninstruments and data collection.\n\nFor additional information, please contact:\n\nAoA John Dia~ Regional Program Director-Dallas\nOIG Jack Molnar, Project Leader-New York\n\x0c Department of Health and Human Services\n\nADMINISTRATION ON AGING\n\n AND\n\n OFFICE OF\n\n INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n\n STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF TI=\n OMBUDSW REQUIREMENTS OF\n THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT\n\n\n\n\n APRIL 1993 OEI-02-91-01516\n\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\nPURPOSE\nTo review State Units\xe2\x80\x99 on Aging (SUA) implementation of the ombudsman\nrequirements of Title III of the Older Americans Act (OAA).\n\nBACKGROUND\nIn an effort to strengthen its stewardship of the 0~ the Commissioner of\nAdministration on Aging (AoA) requested technical assistance from the Office of\nInspector General (OIG) in designing a review of their primary Title III grantees --\nSUAS. After reviewing traditional and current ombudsman activities and discussing\npotential approaches for future efforts, we agreed that a review of individual States\nwould be instituted in such a way as to provide the Commissioner with an overview of\nhow States are implementing key components of Title 111. Since this review was\nconducted, the Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program has been moved from Title III\nto Title VII of the OAA. All references in this report are to the program as it was\ndefined under Title III, prior to the enactment of the 1992 Amendments of the OAA.\nIn order to conserve limited travel funds the reviews would be conducted on a sample\nof States and would focus on only five programmatic areas -- stewardship> targeting>\nombudsman, nutrition, and financial management.\n\nThis report on Ombudsmen addresses the requirement that States establish an Office\nof Ombudsman to investigate and resolve complaints regarding older individuals\nresiding in long-term care facility. It focuses on issuing guidance on and monitoring\nimplementation of the key ombudsman requirements of Title III of the OAA,\nincluding the area planning process.\n\nMETHODOLOGY\nThe reviews were conducted in a stratified, random sample of 20 States based upon\nthe population of individuals over 60 years of age in each State. In the first step of\nthe sampling process, States were divided into four strata based upon the number of\nolder individuals in each State. In the second step, five States were selected from\neach stratum. This stratified, random sample permits USto generalize findings from\nthe 20 sample States to the Nation.\n\nFINDINGS\n\nwhile l%e ~anization of State ()/&x Of (hnbudwnan Vati Only S@@&, Sta@g\nVaries Greatly\n\n \xef\xbf\xbd\n Most Ombudsmen are located in the State agency, use sub-State offices, and have\n laws establishing their authority\n \xef\xbf\xbd\n Professional staffing is directly proportional to the population of older Americans\n\n\n\n\n i\n\x0cCoordination Between ombudsmen And Other State Agencies Ex&ts, But Wtih A Fm\nI%obkms\n\n \xef\xbf\xbd Most Ombudsman use joint meetings, referrals, and written agreements to\n coordinate activities with other agencies\n \xef\xbf\xbd One-quarter report coordination problems, usually with adult protection services\n or the legal services developer\n\nWhiZe Ombudkman Authodies To P~orm llieu Jobs Axe Based In State Law,\nRegukztibq Or Ikmdi.ue; Zkere Are Some l%oblems\n\n \xef\xbf\xbd Some Ombudsmen lacking a State law, rely on the Older Americans Act for\n authority to perform their duties\n \xef\xbf\xbd\n Half of the Ombudsmen have reported difficulty with gaining access to LTC\n facilities\n\nLong-Term Care Facility Vi\xe2\x80\x9dtation Varies Si&zificantly, Possib& Due TO Sta@g\nConcentrations\n\n \xef\xbf\xbd Only half of the Ombudsmen visit all of their nursing homes annually\n \xef\xbf\xbd Most Ombudsman include licensed board and care facilities in their visitation\n program\n\nOmbudsmen Have Many Method To Increase l%eir Vi\xe2\x80\x9dbility\n\n \xef\xbf\xbd Virtually all Ombudsmen use posters in LTC facilities and the media to increase\n their visibility\n \xef\xbf\xbd Complaints usually come to Ombudsmen from family and friends, or during visits\n\nSome States G\xe2\x80\x9cte Roblenw With Legal Counsel\n\n \xef\xbf\xbd One-third of Ombudsmen report problems with availability of legal counsel\n \xef\xbf\xbd Ombudsmen must compete with other State agencies for State attorneys or\n contract out for legal services\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n PAGE\n\n 1\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMAR\xe2\x80\x9d r \xef\xbf\xbd 0..... . ..0.00 . ...**. \xef\xbf\xbd ****** \xef\xbf\xbd *\xe2\x80\x9d*\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9d\n 1\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCI\xe2\x80\x99ION ..... \xef\xbf\xbd *..... . ...... .O*O*OO \xef\xbf\xbd ****** \xef\xbf\xbd *0*\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9d \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\x9c\n 1\n\n\n\n\n Organization OfState Offices Of Ombudsman Is Similar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n\n Most Ombudsmen Coordinate With Other State Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6\n\n Ombudsmen Have Power To Perform Their Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7\n\n Nursing Home Visitation Varies Significantly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9\n\n Ombudsmen Seek To Increase Their Visibility ................... ... \xef\xbf\xbd \xef\xbf\xbd 10\n\n Some Ombudsmen Report Problems With Legal Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10\n\n\nAPPENDICES\n\nA Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-l\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\nPURPOSE\n\nTo review State Units\xe2\x80\x99 on Aging (SUA) implementation of the ombudsman\nrequirements of Title III of the Older Americans Act (OAA). (Since this report was\nconducted, the 1992 Amendments to the OAA have moved the Ombudsman program\nfrom Title III to Title VII of the OAA.) In this report, the term \xe2\x80\x9combudsman\xe2\x80\x9d refers\nto the requirement that States establish an Office of Ombudsman to investigate and\nresolve complaints regarding older individuals residing in long-term care facilities.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nUnder the 0~ the Administration on Aging (AoA) serves as the principal Federal\nadvocate for older individuals, providing national leadership in the development of\nprograms to address their needs. Through Title III of OAA (Grants for State and\nCommunity Programs on Aging), AoA encourages and assists SUAS and area agencies\non aging (&lAs) to implement a system of coordinated community-based services to\nprevent the premature institutionalization of older individuals by allowing them to\nremain in their own community.\n\nUnder Title III, AoA distributes approximately $765 million in formula grants to States\nbased on the age 60+ population within each State. The SUAS use about 5 percent\nof the grant on administration and then fund AAAs, who then contract for the\nsupportive services, nutrition services and multipurpose senior centers. The single\nlargest component of Title III, the nutrition program, provides approximately $450\nmillion for congregate and home-delivered meals. Other key program components\ninclude supportive services (i.e., access services, in-home services and legal assistance)\nand the Ombudsman Program which serves as an advocate for residents in long term\ncare facilities.\n\nOne of AoA\xe2\x80\x99s major administrative responsibilities is to provide stewardship over the\nStates\xe2\x80\x99 implementation of the Title III program. I-Iowever, AoA\xe2\x80\x99s capacity to carry out\nits stewardship responsibilities declined substantially during the 1980\xe2\x80\x99s due to a\nsignificant reduction in resources. More specifically, AoA sustained a 47 percent\nreduction in staff and 75 percent reduction in travel funds. Each regional office had\nonly $2,000 annually for travel. Because they could not monitor SUAS, AoA became\nfurther and further removed from the activities of the SUAS and their area agencies\non aging.\n\nIn efforts to strengthen its stewardship of the OAA, the Commissioner of AoA\nrequested technical assistance from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) in\ndesigning a review of their primary Title III grantees -- SUAS. In response to the\nCommissioner\xe2\x80\x99s request, OIG staff met with key AoA headquarters and regional staff\nto identi~ traditional and current stewardship activities and to discuss potential\n\n\n 1\n\x0capproaches for future efforts. As a result, we agreed that the review of individual\nStates would be instituted in such a way as to provide the Commissioner with an\noverview of how States are implementing key components of Title III. The OIG\nagreed to assist AoA in developing national, standardized review instruments for key\ncomponents of Title III and in writing a report summarizing States\xe2\x80\x99 implementation of\nthe Act. We also agreed that in order to conserve limited travel funds the reviews\nwould be conducted on a sample of States and would focus on only five programmatic\nareas -- stewardship, targeting, ombudsman, nutrition, and financial management.\n\nDesigning the review began with the meeting of a review team of OIG and selected\nAoA regional staff. They brainstormed approaches, identified Federal reporting and\noperating requirements for SUAS and AAAs, and drafted instruments containing the\nreview questions and criteria. The draft instruments were shared with AoA\nheadquarters staff and each regional office for comments, and then revised to reflect\ncomments.\n\nThe OIG/AoA review teams pre-tested the instruments and data collection\nmethodology by conducting reviews for each of the five instruments in six States\nlocated in four different Federal regions. The pre-test identified that a great deal of\ntime was lost explaining criteria (interpreting law and regulation) and searching for\ndocumentation. Accordingly, the review team modified each of the instruments and\nchanged the data collection methodology. The most significant change to the\nmethodology required the sharing of the review instruments with the States prior to\nthe site visit in the belief that if States are aware of and understand the review criteria\nbeing used during the review, they will be better prepared to provide required\ndocumentation and to discuss specific issues.\n\n\nMETHODODGY\n\nThe reviews were conducted in a stratified, random sample of 20 States based upon\nthe population of individuals over 60 years of age in each State. These are the same\ndata used to allocate Title III funds among States. In the first step of the sampling\nprocess, States were divided into four strata based upon the number of older\nindividuals in each State. In the second step, we selected five States from each\nstratum. This stratified, random sample permits us to generalize findings from the 20\nsample States to the Nation. Table I indicates those States selected for the review\nprocess (See Table I).\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c TABLE I\n\n\n SAMPLE STATES\n Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3 Stratum 4\n California Michigan Wisconsin New Hampshire\n Pennsylvania Indiana Colorado North Dakota\n New York Massachusetts Oklahoma Nevada\n Texas Georgia Maine District\n Florida North Oregon of Columbia\n Carolina Montana\n\nThe data collection was conducted in two phases -- an AoA regional office desk\nreview and an on-site review at the SUA. During the desk review phase, we looked at\nprogram instructions. Following the desk review, each State was sent a proposed\nagenda for the site visit, copy of the ombudsman review instrument (Appendix A), and\nthe findings from the desk review to be discussed during the site visit. The review\ninstrument focused on the nature and operation of the Office of Ombudsman and on\nkey requirements of Title III. The instruments also focus on the issues of SUA\noperating procedures and on training and technical assistance activities.\n\nWe entered data from the ombudsman review instruments into one database that\ncontained the responses to the open- and closed-ended questions on the instrument.\nThe percentages cited in this report are based on the responses to specific questions\ncontained in the review instrument. The responses are weighted to reflect the sampling\nplan and are projected to the Nation. The precision at the 90-percent confidence\nintervals vary for each question from plus or minus 6 to 21 percent based upon the\nnature of the question (categorical or continuous) and the number of respondents to\neach question.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c FINDINGS\n\nWHILE THE ORGANIZATION OF STATE OFFICES OF OMBUDSMAN\nVARIES ONLY SLIGHTLY, STAFFING VARIES GREATLY\n\nStates have taken similar approaches in setting-up their Offices of Ombudsman. Most\nOmbudsman offices are located in the SU~ while 18 percent are located in either\nindependent agencies or in other agencies with their relationship to the State Agency\nestablished in a contract or memorandum of understanding. Most Ombudsman offices\nare not located in the agency responsible for licensinglong-term care (LTC) facilities.\nOnly four percent of States are in a licensing agency. In these instances, the licensing\nagency is an umbrella human service agency.\n\nStates (76 percent) that utilize sub-State Ombudsmen have different organizational\napproaches in establishing these offices. Half of the State Ombudsmen who use sub-\n\nState Ombudsmen contract out to the area agencies on aging (AA/is) to act as the\n\nsub-State Ombudsman. Twenty-nine percent of the time they contract with other\n\ncommunity-based organizations. Some States (18 percent) do not contract out. For\n\nthese, State employees act as the sub-State Ombudsmen.\n\n\nAll Offices of Ombudsman have State laws that outline their responsibilities and\n\nauthorities. Also, all of the State Ombudsmen work full-time as the Ombudsman.\n\nHowever, in one instance, two part-time employees share the full-time position.\n\nThe staffing levels for each State differ greatly. Total statewide staffing (professional,\n\nsupport and volunteer) ranges from 3 to 1323, for an average of 216. The median\n\nnumber of staff is 58, which indicates most are smaller than the average. Full-time\n\nprofessional staff range from 1 to 65, with an average of 14. Each State has an\n\naverage of 16 part-time professional staff, with a range from 1 to 131. On the whole,\n\nOmbudsman offices do not have many support personnel. They average only 2.5\n\nclerical or support staff. Lastly, 45 percent of Ombudsmen rely on full-time staff and\n55 percent on part-time staff.\n\nStafmg Levelk Vary By Popzdation\n\nThe number of professional statewide staff tends to correlate with the 60-plus\npopulation of the State, with a few exceptions. Generally, States with a smaller\nnumber of older individuals have a lower number of professional staff. States whose\n60-plus population is under half a million have six or less full-time professional staff\nmembers. Those with an older population of over a million employ at least ten full-\ntime professionals. One State, with one of the largest older populations, has 65 full-\ntime professionals. However, two States are an exception to this pattern. They show\nthree and four professional staff members respectively but have older populations of\n2.4 and .9 million.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cThe number of volunteers statewide does not, however, correlate with the 60-plus\npopulation of a State. Unlike the relationship between professional staff and 60-plus\npopulation, some States that have older populations under half a million have more\nvolunteers than States with older populations of over 1.5 million. One State, with a\n60-plus population of slightly over a million has the most volunteers (1323). Another\nState which has a 60-plus population of 3.2 million has only 455 volunteers. One State\nhas 50 volunteers and a 60-plus population of 102,984, while another State has 59\nvolunteers and an older population of 1.5 million.\n\nSta~g Leveik Do Not Effect Visitation Rates\n\nThe size of a State\xe2\x80\x99s staff does not insure that all its nursing homes will be visited\nannually. States that visited 100 percent of the nursing homes in their States varied\ngreatly in the amount of professional staff and volunteers. One, which visited all\nnursing homes, has 22 professional staff (full and part-time included) and 1,300\nvolunteers. Another, with three professional staff members and no volunteers, also\nvisited all its nursing homes. This State contracts with its AAA\xe2\x80\x99s to provide sub-State\nOmbudsman programs; these programs visit the nursing homes. Some States with\nlarge staffs do not visit all of their nursing homes annually. One only visited half of its\nnursing homes although it has 57 professionals and 455 volunteers.\n\nAs with nursing homes, the size of the staff does not insure that all of a State\xe2\x80\x99s\nlicensed board and care facilities will be visited. States are not currently required to\nvisit these facilities (unless a complaint against a facility is received by the\nOmbudsman), but most make some visits. The States that visited all their board and\ncare facilities had some of the smaller professional staffing levels (3 to 54 members).\nIn contrast, some States with larger staffs did not visit any board and care facilities.\n\nVolunteem\n\nEighty percent of the States use volunteers in their Ombudsman program. The\nnumber of volunteers range from 3 to 1,300, for an average of 246. While all States\nthat use volunteers train them, nineteen percent do not formally certify them.\nGenerally, volunteers are certified after they received training and after it has been\ndetermined that they do not present a conflict of interest. Some must pass a written\nexam, while others sign contracts stating that they understand their responsibilities.\n\nOmbudsmen who use volunteers would like more volunteers and believe a more active\nrecruitment and screening process is needed. The States also mention the need for\nbetter supervision over and better retention tactics for volunteers. They feel that\nmore training may help to improve retention. Also, having funds for administrative\nsupport and for reimbursement of expenses that the volunteers incur (i.e., mileage to\nand from the LTCS, lunch) would help. Finally, some of the States that do not certi@\nvolunteers believe a certification process would improve the quality of volunteers.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cThe use of volunteers has helped Ombudsman programs. Most States indicate that\nvolunteers allow for more visits to LTCS. They help to handle more resident\ncomplaints in a cost effective, timely manner. The increased visitation to the LTCS\nhas helped give the Ombudsman programs greater visibility with the residents and\nstaff. This, in turn, has helped both groups to better understand residents\xe2\x80\x99 rights.\n\nThe States that do not use volunteers (20 percent) offer three reasons: their State\nlegislatures prohibit the use of volunteers; their AAAs are not convinced that\nvolunteers can do the job; or they believe it is too difficult to train and manage\nvolunteers.\n\nCOORDINATION BETWEEN OMBUDSMEN AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES\nEXISTS, BUT WITH A FEW PROBLEMS\n\nCoordination\n\nThe Older Americans Act requires the Ombudsman Program to coordinate activities\nwith other agencies and individuals. These include protection and advocacy agencies\nfor individuals with developmental disabilities and mental illness, adult protective\nservices, long term care licensing agencies, and the Legal Service Developer. The\nOmbudsmen rely on a few approaches to meet these requirements; in many situations\nthey use more than one of these approaches to facilitate coordination. Some of the\nmore common approaches for coordination are joint meetings, joint training,\nmemoranda of understanding (MOU), and referrals.\n\nJoint meetings (37 percent) and MOUS (33 percent) are the most often used methods\nof coordination between the Ombudsmen and the protection and advocacy agency for\nindividuals with developmental disabilities and mental illness. Joint training between\nthe agencies is used about a quarter of the time. Eighteen percent of the\nOmbudsman offices report that they refer cases to the protection and advocacy\nagency. (Thirteen percent of the Ombudsmen are actually located within the same\nagency that houses the protection and advocacy agency).\n\nMost Ombudsmen (58 percent) report using referrals in their coordination with adult\nprotective services. Almost half (46 percent) use joint training to accomplish\ncoordination, and 27 percent have MOUS that establish the relationship between the\ntwo agencies.\n\nSixty-four percent of the Ombudsmen use joint meetings to coordinate operations with\nlong term care (LTC) licensing agencies. Other methods are referrals (26 percent),\nMOUS (23 percent), and joint training (19 percent).\n\nThe Ombudsmen use a few methods to coordinate with the Legal Service Developer\n(LSD). For 10 percent of the States the LSD is the Ombudsman\xe2\x80\x99s attorney, and for\n28 percent the Ombudsman and the LSD are co-located in the Ombudsman programs.\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cFor those Ombudsmen not co-located with the LSD, joint training is frequently used\n(32 percent) to achieve coordination.\n\nState Ombudsmen also coordinate with citizen advocacy groups. This coordination is\nachieved mostly by public education by the Ombudsmen (43 percent). The\nOmbudsmen also hold joint meetings with such groups (32 percent). Citizen groups\nserve as advisory committees to 30 percent of the States. Often these two groups\nmeet to discuss nursing home reforms. This type of coordination on legislative matters\nhas reportedly helped form a good working relationship between the two groups.\n\ntibkms\n\nOne quarter of all Ombudsmen report problems with coordination. They tend not to\nhave formal agreements with the developmental disabilities protection and advocacy\nsystems and, therefore, find coordination difficult. Some report making referrals by\nphone and then not receiving return calls. One State is particularly frustrated. Its\nOmbudsman feels that the protection and advocacy agency has the funds to actively\nwork in the nursing homes, but chooses not to since the agency feels there are not\nmany developmentally disabled and mentally ill residents.\n\nSome Ombudsmen (14 percent) report problems with coordination with adult\nprotective services. A common complaint is that adult protective services in some of\nthese States do not have enough funds to conduct investigations in nursing homes.\nNursing homes are not a priority because adult protective services focuses on family\nabuse. Since these States lack formal agreements with adult protection semices, it is\nhard to make LTC facilities a priority. One Ombudsman believes that the adult\nprotective service program in & State does not consider nursing homes to be part of\nits domain. Protective Sexvices believes that the nursing homes should deal with\nquestions of abuse.\n\nTwenty-three percent of the Ombudsmen report they have no LSD in their State.\nThey consider the lack of a LSD a problem.\n\nWHILE OMBUDSMAN AUTHORITIES TO PERFORM THEIR JOBS ARE\nBASED IN STATE LAW, REGULATION, OR PROCED~, THERE ARE\nSOME PROBLEMS\n\nThe OAA requires the Ombudsmen to have certain authorities. These authorities\nhelp them to perform their duties by resolving conflicts of interest, protecting staff\nfrom law suits, and by giving staff access to LTC facilities and LTC residents\xe2\x80\x99 files.\nOmbudsmen tend to use State laws, procedures and regulations to meet the\nrequirements of the OAA. However, some report problems in meeting these\nobligations.\n\nThe OAA requires that the State ensure that \xe2\x80\x9cno individual involved in the designation\nof the LTC ombudsman\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cthat no officer, employee, or other representative of the\n\n\n 7\n\x0c(Ombudsman) Office is subject to a conflict of interest.\xe2\x80\x9d To guarantee no conflict, the\nOmbudsmen use State procedures, which may include employees filing forms stating\nthey have no conflict of interest (43 percent of the time). The remaining States have\npassed State regulations (31 percent) and State laws (17 percent) to cover this\nprovision.\n\nA representative of the Ombudsman office cannot be held liable for actions while\nacting in good faith in performing their official duties. Most States (80 percent) have\npassed laws to protect employees from liability. However, seven percent lack such\nprotection and use insurance policies to protect Ombudsman staff. Thirteen percent\nof the Offices report problems with this issue, mainly the lack of a State statute\nspecifically protecting Ombudsmen. Some of these States report State employees are\ncovered simply because they are State employees, but the status of volunteers is\nquestionable.\n\nSeventy-three percent of the States have laws that make it unlawful for any person to\nwillfully interfere with a representative of an Ombudsman office. However, five\npercent of the States don\xe2\x80\x99t have a State law and rely on the OAA to protect staff from\ninterference. Many States (22 percent) have had problems with this provision. Some\nStates simply do not have laws or regulations that would prevent willful interference.\nOther States use community access laws that do not provide as much protection as the\nOAA requires.\n\nOmbudsman representatives are required to have full access to facilities and files to\nperform their duties. Eighty percent of the States have laws that specifically ensure\naccess. Other States use State regulations to guarantee access. The laws and the\nregulations have not guaranteed easy access for Ombudsmen. Forty-eight percent of\nthe States reported incidents where they have had difficulty with gaining access to a\nLTC facility. In a few cases, Ombudsmen used their sanction authority which resulted\nin fines for the facility. Fines ranged from $500 to $1,000. Following the fine, the\nOmbudsman was allowed into the facility. The local law enforcement agency has had\nto be brought in to gain access in some States. Ombudsmen have also talked to the\nadministrator and, after explaining the Ombudsman\xe2\x80\x99s authority, gained access.\n\nBoth residents and the staff of LTC facilities need to be protected from retaliation for\nreporting a case to an Ombudsman. State laws (\xe2\x80\x9970 percent) and State regulations (18\npercent) prohibit retaliation on residents and staff of LTC facilities who report\nviolations to the Ombudsman. Further, Ombudsmen do not identi~ any complainant\nwithout their permission (and without due cause). State laws (46 percent), State\nprocedures (26 percent), and State regulations (11 percent) guarantee a complainant\xe2\x80\x99s\nconfidentiality. There have been instances when complainants have been identified.\nThirty-seven percent of the States report incidents where they have identified\ncomplainants due to abuse, fraud, or court cases.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cA resident\xe2\x80\x99s and Ombudsman\xe2\x80\x99s files are also confidential information. Fifty-seven\n\npercent of the States protect the confidentiality of files through State law. Other\n\nStates use State procedures (22 percent) and State regulations (11 percent).\n\n\nThe OAA requires the State to provide Ombudsmen with sanction authority if any of\n\nthese provisions are violated. Eighteen percent of the Ombudsmen report they do not\n\nhave State authorized sanction authority. They consider this as a significant problem\n\nand feel they have no muscle backing them Up if necessary. For those who have this\n\nauthority, the authority is either legislated (58 percent) or regulated (18 percent).\n\nThirty percent of Ombudsmen do report using their sanction authority.\n\n\nLTC VISITATION VARIES SIGNIFICANTLY, POSSIBLY DUE TO STAFFING\n\nCONCENTRATIONS\n\n\nSome Ombudsmen do not visit all of their LTC facilities. Only half of the\n\nOmbudsmen report visiting all of their nursing homes annually. Regarding these\n\nStates, 38 percent visit at least annually and 53 percent visit at least quarterly. Another\n\n9 percent manage to visit all facilities, but only because all facilities had residents who\n\nissued complaints that the Ombudsmen had to respond to. Among the States which\n\ndo not visit all of their nursing homes annually, most (69 percent) visit at least 70\n\npercent of them. The remaining States visit from a quarter to half of their facilities.\n\n\nSome Ombudsmen say that visitation rates are a function of staffing and that staffing\n\nvaries across their State. Accordingly, there are States that do not visit 100 percent of\n\ntheir nursing homes, but the homes they do visit are visited frequently. One large\n\nState only visits half its nursing homes at least annually, but they visit these half\n\nweekly. Another visits 70 percent of its nursing homes weekly, but does not visit the\n\nremaining 30 percent at all. Ombudsmen report that variation of staff across a State\n\n(i.e., some areas of the State are fully staffed while other parts are partially staffed)\n\nmakes it possible for some areas to get weekly visits while other areas are not visited.\n\n\nWhile Ombudsmen are not currently required (unless a complaint is brought against a\n\nfacility) to visit licensed board and care facilities, many do make such visits. Eighty-\n\nnine percent include licensed board and care facilities in their visitation programs. Of\n\nthose who include these facilities in their visits, 29 percent visit all of them and 13\n\npercent visit at least 90 percent. Most of the remaining Ombudsmen visit less than a\n\nthird of their board and care facilities.\n\n\nSome Ombudsman patterns of visitation to licensed board and care facilities mirror\n\ntheir patterns of visitation to nursing homes. Some visit some of their licensed board\n\nand care facilities frequently, while not visiting others at all. One Ombudsman office\n\nvisits 28 percent of these facilities weekly, but does not visit the remaining 72 percent\n\nat all. Another visits 20 percent weekly, while not visiting the other 80 percent. Like\n\nnursing homes, some Ombudsmen attribute this pattern of visitation to the various\n\nstaffing levels across a State. Most of a State\xe2\x80\x99s Ombudsman staff may be concentrated\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0caround certain key cities, so certain areas of a State have a 100 percent visitation rate\nand other areas are not visited at all.\n\n\n\n\nOMBUDSMEN HAVE MANY METHODS TO INCREASE THEIR VISIBILITY\n\nMany methods are used to make residents and staff of LTC facilities aware of\nOmbudsman programs. The most commonly used method is the placement of posters\nin facilities (91 percent). Half of the Ombudsmen use the media to make facility staff\nand residents aware of their programs. Site visits by Ombudsmen (20 percent) and\nhotlines (11 percent), a phone line to a Ombudsman office, are other ways. Other\nfrequently mentioned methods include pamphlets, Residents\xe2\x80\x99 Bill of Rights, and\nattending LTC conferences.\n\nComplaints are most often brought to the attention of the Ombudsman from family\nand friends (50 percent) of the residents of LTC facilities and through site visits by a\nrepresentative of an Ombudsman (51 percent). Residents also bring forth complaints\n(45 percent). Many complaints come over the phone (27 percent), often over hotlines.\n\nSeventy-seven percent of the Ombudsmen prioritized complaints. In these States, all\nuse \xe2\x80\x9clife threatening\xe2\x80\x9d as a criterion. Fifteen percent also list \xe2\x80\x9cthreat of discharge\xe2\x80\x9d.\n\nSOME STATES CITE PROBLEMS WITH LEGAL COUNSEL\n\nThirty percent of the Ombudsman report problems with the availability of legal\ncounsel. Many of these States mention a lack of funds for an attorney as a major\nbarrier to legal counsel. The high price for legal services puts a strain on budgets.\nAnother problem cited is the competition for limited legal staff. For the Ombudsman\nprograms that use their State attorney general or an attorney in an umbrella agency,\nthey must often compete with other agencies and concerns. They do not have a\nlawyer they can count on. They must follow the schedules or workloads of people\noutside of their office. In these instances, the bare minimum of litigation is handled.\nAlso, attorneys from outside the Ombudsman programs often do not understand the\nOmbudsman program and its problems.\n\nLegal counsel for the Ombudsman most often (44 percent) comes from an attorney in\ntheir agency. In some cases the attorney is the Legal Service Developer. Thirty-four\npercent use their State Attorney General. Others contract out for legal services or\naccept pro bono counsel.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0co\n\x0c OMBUDSMAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW\n\n Department of Health and Human Services\n Administration on Aging\n\n\n\nState Date\n\nPrimary Respondent Telephone\n\nReview Team Leader Telephone\n\n\n --------- ----------- ------- ------- -------- ------- ----------\n\n\n\n\n1. Is the Office of the Long-Term Care ombudsman located in the State Agency on Aging?\n (Hereafier the St&e Agency on Aging will be referred to as the State Agency)\n\n Yes (IJ Yes, go to question 2)\n B. No (If 1~0):\n\n (1) Where is it located?\n\n\n\n\n (2) Is there a contract between this agent y and the State Agent y?\n\n (a) Yes (If Yes, get copy)\n (b) No\n (c) Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check if applicable)\n\n2. Is the agency that sponsors [houses) the ombudsman responsible for licensing long-term\n care (LTC) facilities or an association affiliated with LTC facilities?\n\n a. Yes (If Yes, discuss):\n\n\n\n\n b. No\n\n A-1\n\x0c3. Is there a State law governing the Ombudsman Program?\n\n a. Yes (If Yes, get copy)\n b. No\n c. Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check if applicable)\n\n4. Does the Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman utilize sub-State ombudsmen?\n\n Yes (If Yes, go to question 5)\n :: No (If No, go to question 7)\n\n5. Describe the organizational relationship between the sub-State ombudsmen and the State\n Office of the Ombudsman.\n\n\n\n\n6. Are there an~ reporting or operations problems with sub-State ombudsman? (Probe both)\n\n\n\n\n A-2\n\x0c3. Is there a State law governing the Ombudsman Program?\n\n Yes (If Yes, get copy)\n :; No\n c. Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check Zyapplicable)\n\n4. Does the Office of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman utilize ombudsmen?\n\n a. Yes (If Yes, go to question 5)\n b. No (If No, go to quest-ion 7)\n\n5. Describe the organizational relationship between the sub-State ombudsmen and the State\n Office of the Ombudsman.\n\n\n\n\n6. Are there any reporting operations problems with sub-State ombudsman? (Probe both)\n\x0c7.\t How does the State Agency solicit comments and recommendations from area agencies,\n older individuals, and provider agencies regarding the planning and operation of the\n ombudsman program? [Sec. 307(a) (12)(E)]\n\n\n\n\n8.\t Does the State Ombudsman (Do you) work full-time on ombudsman responsibilities as\n outlined in the Older Americans Act? [Sec. 307(a) (12)(A)]\n\n a. Yes\n b. No, Why not?\n\n\n\n\n c. Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check if applicable)\n\n\n9.\t What is the total number of staff in the State office of the Ombudsman, including any sub-\n State program? Include in the total number, clerical and administrative personnel as well as\n full-time, part-time, and volunteer staff.\n\n a. (Indicae total number)\n b. Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check if applicable)\n\n\n\n\n A-3\n\n\x0c10* Of that total (number provided in question 9), how many professional and support staff are:\n (Complete question using a, b, and c)\n\n\n PROFESS1ONAL SUPPORT DON\xe2\x80\x99TKNOW\n (Indicate Number) (Indicate Number) (Check inapplicable)\n\n a. Full-time employees?\n b. Part-time employees?\n c. Volunteers?\n\n\nIf the respondent indicties no volunteers are used, ask question 11. Otherwise skip to question\n12.\n\n11. Why aren\xe2\x80\x99t volunteers used to meet the requirements of the Older American\xe2\x80\x99s Act? (Probe\n forjidl explim~\xe2\x80\x9don. For example, if the respondent indicates no volunteers are used\n because a state law prohibits use of volunteem, get an explan~\xe2\x80\x9don of th~ sttie lhw.)\n\n\n\n\n12?. What procedures are in place to assure that Ombudsman employees and volunteers, if any,\n are qualified and trained prior to investigating complaints? [See. 307(a)( 12)(K)] (Probe for\n stanhzis for both employees and volunteers, where approptie)\n\n\n\n\n A-4\n\x0c13. Does the Ombudsman program formally certify volunteers?\n\n\n a. Yes (If Yes, go to question 14)\n\n b. No (If No, go to question 15)\n\n\n\n14. What are the requirements for certification?\n\n\n\n\n\n15. What are the most significant accomplishment(s) of your use of volunteers?\n\n\n\n\n\n16. What improvements, if any, are needed in the use of volunteers?\n\n\x0c17. Did staff training, conducted in the last year, include topics such as:\n\n\n Yes No Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check applicable response)\n\n a. Federal laws, regulations, and policies regarding LTC\n facilities, (If No): When was the last time training was\n conducted?\n\n\n b. State laws, regulations, and policies regarding LTC\n facilities, (If No): When was the last time training was\n conducted?\n\n\n c. Local laws, regulations, and policies regarding LTC\n facilities, (If No): When was the last time training was\n conducted?\n\n\n d. Investigative techniques, (Zf No): When was the last\n time training was conducted?\n\n\n\n18. Is there a formal (written) in-service training curriculum for employees?\n\n a. Yes (If Yes, get copy)\n b. No\n\x0c19. What are examples of the types of training provided in the last year to: (Complete question\n using a, b, and c)\n\n a. paid full-time staff?\n\n\n\n\n b. paid part-time staff?\n\n\n\n\n c. volunteers?\n\n\n\n\n20. HOW do yOU activities with the protection and advocacy systems for individuals\n with developmental disabilities and mental illness? [Sec. 307(a)( 12)(H)(v)] (Get examples)\n\n\n\n\n ,\n\n\n\n\n21. How do you coordinate activities with adult protective services? (Get examples)\n\n\n\n\n22. How do you coordinate with the State agency responsible for licensing and ceflifying LTC\n\x0c facilities?\n\n\n\n\n23. How do you coordinate activities with the legal services developer?\n\n\n\n \\\n\n\n\n\n24. How do you encourage the participation by citizen organizations in the Ombudsman\n program? [307(A) (12)(A) (ii)]\n\n\n\n\n A-8\n\x0c25. How does the State Agency identify and resolve any potential conflicts of interest affecting\n the Ombudsman, or any employee or representative of the Office of the Ombudsman?\n [Sec. 307(a) (12)(F) (i), (ii), (iii)]\n\n\n\n\n26. How does the State ensure that no representative of the Office of the Ombudsman will be\n held liable for the performance of official duties? [Sec. 307(a) (12)(I)]\n\n\n\n\n27. How does the State ensure that willful interference with representatives of the Office of the\n Ombudsman in carrying out their duties shall be considered unlawful?\n [Sec. 307(a) (12)(J)(i)]\n\x0c28. What steps has the State undertaken to prohibit retaliation and reprisals by a LTC facility\n on any resident or employee for fding a complaint or for providing information to the Office\n of the Ombudsman? [Sec. 307(a) (12)(J) (ii)]\n\n\n\n\n29. What State sanction authority is in place regarding interference, retaliation, and reprisals?\n [Sec. 307(a) (12(J) (iii)]\n\n\n\n\n30. Have any sanctions ever been to any individual or entity?\n\n a. Yes (If Yes):\n\n Describe the circumstances, the sanction applied,\n -- and the results of the sanction.\n\n CIRCUMSTANCES SANCTION RESULTS OF\n APPLIED SANCTION\n (1)\n\n\n (2)\n\n\n (3)\n\n\n @)\n\n\n (If adiiitional space is required, use the back of the previous page)\n\n b. No\n\n\n A-10\n\x0c31. How do you ensure residents of LTC facilities, throughout the State, are made aware of the\n Office of the Ombudsman?\n\n\n\n\n32. What percent of the nursing homes inthe State are visited annually?\n\n (Indic&e percentage)\n :: Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check if applicable)\n\n33. How often are nursing homes visited?\n\n a. regularly; How many times per year?\n b. in response to a complaint only\n c. other (Speci~ and obtain frequency)\n\n\n\n\n34. What percent of the licensed board and care faciliti~ in the State are visited annually?\n\n a. \xe2\x80\x94 (Indictie percentage)\n\n (If more than 5%): How often are licensed board and care facilities visited?\n\n (1) regularly; How man y times per year?\n (2) in response to a complaint only\n (3) other (Specifi and obtain j7equency)\n\n\n\n\n b. Don\xe2\x80\x99t know (Check inapplicable) -\n\n\n r\xe2\x80\x99 A-n\n \xef\xbf\xbd\n\n\n\n\n .\n\x0c35. Who routinely performs the annual visits to licensed board and care facilities?\n\n\n\n36. List, in order, the most prevalent ways in which complaints are brought\n the Office of the Ombudsman.\n\n\n\n\n37. Do you prioritize complaints?\n\n a. Yes (1! Yes), How are complaints prioritized? (Probe for process, definitions\n used, etc.)\n\n\n\n\n b. No\n\n\n38. How do you ensure your staffs access to LTC facilities, residents. and residents records?\n \xef\xbf\xbd\n\n\n\n\n [Sec. 307(a) (12)(B),QQ]\n\x0c39. Have any incidents occurred when the Ombudsman has attempted to gain access to a facility\n or to obtain residents\xe2\x80\x99 records?\n\n a. Yes (If Yes), What were the incidents which occumed. and what did the\n Office of the Ombudsman take?\n\n\n INCIDENT ACTION TAKEN J\n\n\n\n\n (1)\n\n\n\n (2)\n\n\n\n (3)\n\n \xe2\x80\x94\n I I II\n (4)\n\n\n\n\n (If additional space is required, use the back of the previous page)\n\n b. No\n\n\n40. How do you protect the confidentiality of residents\xe2\x80\x99 records and Ombudsman files?\n [Sec. 307(a) (12)(B),(D)]\n\n\n\n\n A-13\n\n\n\n . .4\xe2\x80\x99.!\n ~-\n\x0c41. How do you ensure that the identity of any complainant or resident of a facility will not be\n disclosed? [Sec. 307(a) (12)(D)]\n\n\n\n\n42. Has your Office had to identify the complainant or resident of a facility without\n permission?\n\n a. Yes (If Yes), Please discuss the circumstances and under what grounds the\n OffIce disclosed this information.\n\n\n\n\n b. No\n\n\n43. HOW is legal counsel made available to the Office of the Ombudsman?\n\n\n\n\n A-14\n\x0c44. In the past year, have there been any problems with the availability of legal counsel?\n\n a. Yes (If Yes): What were these obstacles, and how were they overcome?\n\n\n\n\n b. No\n\n45. In the past year, what type of issues and cases required legal counsel?\n\n\n\n\n46. Describe your statewide uniform reporting system. elements and procedures)\n\n\n\n\n A-15\n\x0c47. What was the date of your last annual report? [Sec. 307(a)(12)(H)]\n\n / /\n\n (?i$e \xe2\x80\x9cannual repoti\xe2\x80\x9d petiains to Ombudsman repoti as per Sec. 307(a) (12MU\n\n\n\n48. Were policy, regulatory, and legislative recommendations made in this report?\n\n a. Yes\n b. No\n\n\n49.\t Was the annual report submitted to the State agency responsible for licensing or certifying\n LTC facilities?\n\n a. Yes\n b. No\n\n\n50. Was it submitted to the State legislature?\n\n a. Yes\n b. No\n\n\n51. In general, who else routinely receives the report?\n\n\n\n\n A-16\n\x0c52. What has the State Agency done to ensure that the Ombudsman has the ability to pursue\n administrative, legal, and other remedies on behalf of LTC residents?\n [Sec. 307(a) (12)(G) (ii)]\n\n\n\n\n53. Are there any Federal requirements causing you operational or financial problems? (Probe\n both)\n\n\n\n\n/INTERVIEW COMPLETED]\n\n\n\n\n A-17\n\x0c Department of Health and Human Services\n\nADMIN STRATION ON AG NG\n\n AND\n\n OFFICE OF\n\n INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n\n STATE IMPLEMENTA~ON OF=\n OMBUDSW REQUIREMENTS OF\n THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT\n\n\n\n\n APRIL 1993\n\n\x0c ADMINISTRATION ON AGING\n\nThe Administration on Aging (AoA) k the principal Federal agency designed to carry out the\nprovisions of the O1der Americans Act (OPA). It advises the Secretary of Health and Human\nSemites and other Federal agencies on the characteristics, circumstances and needs of older\nindividuals. Further, it develops policies, plans, and programs designed to promote their\nwelfare.\n\nAoA administers three grant programs under the Older Americans Act. The largest program -\n- Title III of the Act -- consist of formula grants to States to establish State and community-\nbased programs for older individuals with the purpose of preventing the premature\ninstitutionalization of older individual. The second program -- Title VI -- consists of\ndiscretionary grants with the saxne purpose as Title Iu, but to meet the unique needs of older\nNative Americans. The third program -- Title IV -- is also discretionary. Its purpose is to fund\nresearch, demonstration, and training activities to elicit knowledge and techniques to improve\nthe circumstances of older Americans. (The 1992 Amendments to the OAA created a fourth\nprogram -- Title VII -- which provides funds for State activities to protect the rights of\nvulnerable older people. Prior to the 1992 Amendments, Title III of the OAA provided the\nfunds for these activities.)\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENEIWL\n\nThe mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as\namended, k to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services\xe2\x80\x99 (HHS)\nprograms as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries sexved by those programs. This\nstatutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and\ninspections conducted by three OIG operating components: the Office of Audit Sewices, the\nOffice of Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections. The OIG also informs\nthe Secretary of HHS of progrmn and management problems and recommends courses to\ncorrect them.\n\nThe OIG\xe2\x80\x99S Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and\nprogram evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Departrncnt,\nthe Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection\nreports generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability,\nand effectiveness of departmental programs.\n\n THIS REPORT\n\nThis report is the result of a joint effort between AoA and OIG/OEI to assess the\nimplementation of Title III of the O1der Americans Act. OIG staff in the New York and\nDallas regional offices provided technical support to the joint project. AoA staff in New York\nand Dallas directed the project with ail regional offices participating in the development of\ninstruments and data collection.\n\nFor additional information, please contact:\n\nAoA John Dia~ Regional Program Director-Dallas 214-767-2971\nOIG Jack Molnar, Project Leader-New York 212-264-1998\n\x0c'


type: wikipedia

text:
Živecas apriņķis () ir teritoriāli administratīvā iedalījuma vienība Silēzijas vojevodistē, Polijas dienvidos, pie Slovākijas robežas. Apriņķa administratīvais centrs atrodas vienīgajā pilsētā — Živecā, 64 km uz dienvidiem no reģiona centra Katovices. Apriņķis robežojas ar Silēzijas vojevodistes Cešinas un Belsko apriņķiem, Belsko-Bjalu, Mazpolijas vojevodistes Vadovices un Suhas apriņķiem, kā arī Slovākiju.
 Apskates objekti
 Živecas katedrāle (Konkatedra Narodzenia Najświętszej Maryi Panny w Żywcu)
 Živecas Vecā pils (Stary Zamek w Żywcu)
 Galerija
 Ārējās saites
 Živecas Vecā pils
 Silēzijas vojevodistes apriņķi


text:
ECLI:SI:VSRS:2018:II.IPS.107.2018
 VS00014461
 Jan Zobec (preds.), mag. Nina Betetto (poroč.), Vladimir Horvat, dr. Mateja Končina Peternel, Janez Vlaj
 kolektivno upravljanje avtorske in sorodnih pravic - kolektivne organizacije - kabelska retransmisija avdiovizualnih del - razmerje med filmsko in predobstoječo glasbo - javna priobčitev glasbenih del - nadomestilo za uporabo avtorskega dela - tarifa za uporabo avtorskih del - višina nadomestila - Pravilnik o javni priobčitvi glasbenih del - primernost tarife - neobstoj veljavne tarife - enotna sodna praksa - dopuščena revizija
 V nasprotju z načelom enakega urejanja primerljivih položajev pa bi bilo, če bi sodišča v sporih med tožnikom in kabelskimi operaterjih vsakič znova iskala primerno tarifo. To bi zaradi variabilnosti postavk, na katerih temelji ocena Vrhovnega sodišča nujno pomenilo, da bi bili različni zneski, ki bi jih morali kabelski operaterji plačati tožniku za posamezno naročniško razmerje. Neenotna sodna praksa v zvezi z višino nadomestila na naročnika bi ponudnike postavljala v nepredvidljiv in negotov položaj.
 I. Reviziji tožeče stranke se delno ugodi ter se sodba sodišča druge stopnje spremeni tako, da se v točki I. izreka znesek „5.377,7 EUR“ nadomesti z zneskom „6.125,40 EUR.“
 IV. Vsaka stranka sama krije svoje stroške revizijskega postopka.
 1. Tožnik zahteva od toženke, ki je kabelska operaterka, plačilo za kabelsko retransmisijo glasbenih del v obdobju od julija do novembra 2012. V tem obdobju je imela toženka 6502 naročnikov mesečno. Za kabelsko retransmisijo glasbe v tem obdobju je tožniku že plačala 311,58 EUR.
 2. 12. 3. 1998 je tožnik pridobil stalno dovoljenje Urada za intelektualno lastnino (UIL) za kolektivno upravljanje malih glasbenih pravic, med katere spada tudi pravica kabelske retransmisije glasbenih del. 23. 1. 2001 pa mu je bilo podeljeno začasno dovoljenje za kolektivno upravljanje pravic kabelske retransmisije avdiovizualnih del.
 3. Tožnik je sprejel Pravilnik o javni priobčitvi glasbenih del, ki je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu, št. 29/1998 (v nadaljevanju Pravilnik 1998). Prvi odstavek II. poglavja tarife iz tega pravilnika je določal: „Višina avtorskega honorarja za javno radiodifuzijo se določi s pogodbo z uporabniki ali z njihovimi združenji. Pri določanju višine plačila se upoštevajo standardi, ki jih je sprejela Mednarodna konfederacija avtorskih društev (CISAC) in priporočila Svetovne organizacije za intelektualno lastnino (WIPO), in sicer: a) da je plačilo avtorskih pravic sorazmerno pomembnosti uporabe avtorskih del v dejavnosti uporabnika; b) da se za uporabo 100 % zaščitenega repertoarja plača 10 % avtorskih pravic.“ V drugem odstavku II. poglavja te tarife pa je bilo zapisano: „Če iz dokumentacije ni možno določiti prihodkov, ki se nanašajo na dejavnost radijske postaje ali so le-ti v nesorazmerju z običajnimi stroški radijskega programa, bo A. določil plačilo avtorskega honorarja glede na vrsto postaje in področje slišnosti radijskega ali televizijskega programa oziroma razsežnost kabelskega omrežja, in sicer: 7. Kabelska retransmisija - minimalni avtorski honorar je 42 SIT (sedaj 0,175 EUR) po naročniku. Avtorski honorar se plača mesečno. Navedeni kriteriji se upoštevajo tudi v primeru, če razmerja med A. in uporabnikom še niso pogodbeno urejena.“
 5. Plačevanje pravic kabelske retransmisije je bilo v praksi urejeno z leta 1999 sklenjenim Memorandumom o ureditvi avtorskih in sorodnih pravic za televizijske in radijske programe, retransmisirane v kabelskih sistemih v Sloveniji (Memorandum). Na strani imetnikov pravic so pri njegovi sklenitvi nastopali tožnik in tuji zastopniki imetnikov pravic: AGICOA kot zastopnik producentov avdiovizualnih del, EBU kot zastopnik javnih televizijskih organizacij ter VPRT kot zastopnik zasebnih televizijskih organizacij. Na strani uporabnikov je sodelovalo Združenje kabelskih operaterjev Slovenije (ZKOS), katerega član je tudi toženka. Dne 1. 8. 2002 je bil sklenjen Aneks k Memorandumu, ki so ga z ZKOS sklenili tožnik, AGICOA, EBU in VG Media, nato pa z veljavnostjo od 1. 1. 2007 še Dodatek k Memorandumu. Pravdni stranki sta na podlagi Memoranduma in njegovih dopolnitev sklenili tri licenčne pogodbe, s katerimi so bile na toženko neizključno prenesene pravice, ki jih ta potrebuje za kabelsko retransmisijo avtorskih del (prvi odstavek 74. člena Zakona o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah, ZASP).
 6. Dne 11. 10. 2010 je UIL Zavodu AIPA podelil stalno dovoljenje za kolektivno upravljanje pravic kabelske retransmisije za soavtorje avdiovizualnih del. Posledično je razpadel sistem podeljevanja licenc za kabelsko retransmisijo po načelu „vse-na-enem-mestu“, ki je temeljil na Memorandumu, njegovem Aneksu in Dodatku. ZKOS je odstopil od krovnega sporazuma, toženka pa od licenčnih pogodb.
 7. Med ZKOS in Zavodom AIPA je bil 7. 12. 2011 v zvezi s pravicami kabelske retransmisije avdiovizualnih del sklenjen skupni sporazum, ki je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu RS, št. 106/11. V njem je bilo za obračunsko leto 2012 določeno mesečno nadomestilo 0,44 EUR oziroma 0,45 EUR za posamezno aktivno uporabniško razmerje. Pravdni stranki pa nista mogli določiti sporazumne tarife za pravice kabelske retransmisije glasbenih del.
 8. Sodišče prve stopnje je tožbeni zahtevek v celoti zavrnilo. Menilo je, da Memoranduma ni mogoče uporabiti, ker je bilo z njim določeno enotno plačilo za kabelsko retransmisijo več vrst pravic, delilna razmerja pa niso bila znana, niti ni mogoče uporabiti tarife iz Pravilnika 1998, saj v njem ni zapisanega merila, ki bi omogočal razmejitev avtorskih del, ki jih ščiti tožnik, od tistih, ki jih ščiti Zavod AIPA.
 9. Sodišče druge stopnje je delno ugodilo tožnikovi pritožbi in toženki naložilo plačilo 5.377,7 EUR, v presežku, glede neumaknjene glavnice v višini 13.461,8 EUR, pa je tožbeni zahtevek zavrnilo. Višino nadomestila je obračunalo glede na minimalno tarifo za kabelsko retransmisijo glasbenih del iz Pravilnika 1998 (0,175 EUR na naročnika mesečno), odštelo pa je 311,58 EUR, ki jih je toženka že poravnala. Utemeljilo je, da je minimalna tarifa iz Pravilnika 1998 z uveljavitvijo novele ZASP-B v skladu s četrtim odstavkom njenega 26. člena pridobila naravo veljavnega skupnega sporazuma. Nanj je sodišče vezano v skladu s sedmim odstavkom 157. člena ZASP. Ni se strinjalo s stališčem sodišča prve stopnje, da se ta tarifa nanaša tudi na glasbo iz avdiovizualnih del, ki jih je v relevantnem obdobju ščitil Zavod AIPA, saj je tožnik ustrezno dovoljenje za to glasbo pridobil šele leta 2001.
 10. Vrhovno sodišče je s sklepom II DoR 266/2017 z dne 28. 9. 2017 dopustilo tožnikovo revizijo glede materialnopravnega preizkusa pravilnosti določitve višine avtorskega honorarja. S sklepom II DoR 251/2017 z dne 28. 9. 2017 pa je dopustilo toženkino revizijo glede naslednjih vprašanj: 1) ali sme tožnik kolektivno upravljati s predobstoječo glasbo v avdiovizualnih delih, 2) ali tarifni del Pravilnika 1998 zajema tudi glasbo, ki se priobči v avdiovizualnem delu in je bila zanj posebej ustvarjena, ter 3) ali je sodišče pristojno in dolžno presojati primernost veljavne tarife, če so podane okoliščine, ki izkazujejo njeno pomembno odstopanje od tarif za istovrstne pravice in primere v drugih državah EU in druge okoliščine, ki izkazujejo njeno pretirano višino?
 12. Tožnik se v reviziji zavzema za to, da je treba pri višini plačila za kabelsko retransmisijo glasbenih del kot običajno plačilo uporabiti zadnja plačila, ki so temeljila na licenčnih pogodbah, sklenjenih na podlagi Memoranduma ter Dodatka. Sodišči nižjih stopenj se nista opredelili do meril primernosti tarife, določenih v ZASP, niti nista upoštevali, da je bil ZASP večkrat spremenjen, predvsem glede kriterijev za oblikovanje tarife in pogojev ter vsebine sporazuma. Tarifa mora temeljiti predvsem na celotnem bruto prihodku, ki se doseže z uporabo avtorskega dela. V judikatu II Ips 325/2016 je Vrhovno sodišče že pojasnilo, da je v Pravilniku 1998 pravna praznina glede pravic iz 30. in 31. člena ZASP. To pa pomeni, da ni tarife. Ni bil namen ustavne odločbe U-I-165/03, da bi minimalno plačilo nadomestilo splošno tarifo. Ker omogoča plačilo zgolj minimalnega honorarja, sodišče tolmači tarifo v nasprotju z Ustavo in v njej zagotovljenim varstvom pravic iz ustvarjalnosti (60. člen Ustave). Tožnik se sklicuje tudi na Bernsko konvencijo za varstvo književnih in umetniških del (Bernska konvencija), ki v drugem odstavku 11. bis člena določa, da avtorju iz naslova javnega predvajanja njegovih avtorskih del pripada pravično plačilo ter da pogoji, ki jih država predpiše za izvrševanje pravic, te avtorjeve pravice ne smejo prizadeti.
 13. Toženka v svoji reviziji meni, da je pravilna odločitev sodišč nižje stopnje o veljavnosti minimalne tarife, vendar je ta vsebovala nadomestilo tudi za glasbo, ki se priobči v avdiovizualnih delih. Meni, da se tožnikovo še veljavno dovoljenje ne nanaša na to glasbo. Ta del nadomestila bi bilo zato treba odšteti. V njegovem začasnem dovoljenju z dne 24. 1. 2001 je bilo izrecno zapisano, da se prejšnje dovoljenje v zvezi s pravicami iz glasbenih del ne nanaša na uveljavljanje pravic glede avdiovizualnih del. Avdiovizualno delo je samostojna nedeljiva celota. ZASP taksativno določa, kdo so tisti ustvarjalci, ki z nastankom novega dela pridobijo avtorskopravna upravičenja pri njegovem izkoriščanju. Pri uporabi avdiovizualnega dela ne govorimo istočasno tudi o samostojni uporabi vseh prispevkov, ki so tvorili njegov nastanek. Predobstoječa glasba je z vključitvijo vanj postala njegov nedeljivi sestavni del in se zato ne more upravljati ločeno od avdiovizualnega dela. Sklicuje se na četrti odstavek 107. člena ZASP, po katerem imajo avtorji prispevkov pravico, da svoje prispevke k avdiovizualnem delu posebej uporabljajo, če s tem niso prizadete pravice filmskega producenta. A contrario tako nimajo pravice uporabe prispevkov, ki se priobčijo kot sestavni del avdiovizualnega dela. Avtorji prispevkov uresničujejo pravice kot veliko pravico neposredno v odnosu s producentom avdiovizualnega dela. Prav tako 108. člen ZASP izrecno določa pravico do nadomestila soavtorjem, ne pa tudi avtorjem prispevkov. S tem se slednjim ne odvzema avtorskopravnih upravičenj, saj ti v pogodbi s producentom dogovorijo pogoje, pod katerimi bodo dovolili uporabo svojega dela v okviru avdiovizualnega dela. Sklicuje se tudi na judikat X Ips 97/2012 z dne 19. 9. 2012, po katerem pojem nedeljive celote pomeni, da se pravice na takšnem delu upravljajo le v okviru avdiovizualnega dela in po eni kolektivni organizaciji. Bernska konvencija v 14.bis členu prepušča državam članicam ureditev položaja avtorjev, ki so prispevali k stvaritvi avdiovizualnega dela. V komentarju ZASP je zastopano stališče, da se za avtorje, ki so umetniško prispevali k stvaritvi kinematografskega dela, šteje, da so privolili v določene načine izkoriščanja. Opozarja, da je glasbeno delo običajno sestavljeno iz besedila in melodije, ki vsaka zase predstavljata samostojno avtorsko delo. ZAMP upravlja pravice na samostojnem literarnem delu, ko je besedilo vključeno v glasbeno delo, pa kolektivno upravljanje prevzame tožnik.
 14. V zvezi z drugim dopuščenim vprašanjem pa toženka uveljavlja, da je tožnik s Pravilnikom 1998 določil tarifo za pravice na vsej glasbi, tudi predobstoječi oziroma filmski. To je razvidno že iz 2. člena točke f) Pravilnika 1998, ki določa, da sestavlja tožnikov repertoar tudi glasba iz avdiovizualnih del. Nepravilnost zaključkov sodišč nižjih stopenj izhaja že iz okoliščine, da je tožnik ves čas vztrajal, da sme kot glasbena kolektivna organizacija kolektivno upravljati tudi vso glasbo oz. pravice vseh avtorjev glasbe, ki se predvaja v okviru avdiovizualnih del, saj je takšna praksa in ureditev uveljavljena v tujini.
 15. V zvezi s tretjih dopuščenim vprašanjem pa toženka izpostavlja, da mora sodišče presojati tudi primernost tarife, če ta bistveno odstopa od tarif v drugih državah članicah. Minimalna tarifa je glede na tarife v drugih državah članicah bistveno previsoka, še toliko bolj pa to velja, če upoštevamo, da v Sloveniji upravlja Zavod AIPA pravice skladateljev filmske glasbe, ne pa tožnik. V drugih državah pravice vseh avtorjev glasbe ščiti le glasbena kolektivna organizacija in ne kolektivna organizacija za avdiovizualna dela. Čeprav se pri veljavnih tarifah domneva njihova primernost, pa je v primeru bistvenega odstopanja sodišče dolžno presoditi tarifo tudi z vidika njene primernosti. Določanje bistveno previsoke tarife namreč pomeni zlorabo prevladujočega položaja na trgu in je prepovedano. Tudi po sodni praksi Sodišča EU morajo biti plačila za avtorske pravice primerljiva med državami članicami.
 16. Vsaka revizija je bila vročena nasprotni stranki, ki je nanjo odgovorila. Tožnik meni, da za dopuščena vprašanja ni pristojno redno sodišče, temveč Svet za avtorsko pravo (SAP). Podredno nasprotuje njenim revizijskim ugovorom in predlaga, da Vrhovno sodišče revizijo kot neutemeljeno zavrne. Meni, da gre pri sporni tarifi za minimalni avtorski honorar, ne za splošnega. Poleg tega ni namen 105. člena ZASP, da bi skladateljem glasbe, ustvarjene posebej za avdiovizualno delo, odvzel avtorske pravice na njihovi glasbi in jih nadomestil s pravicami na avdiovizualnem delu. Ta člen dodatno varuje legitimne interese teh avtorjev tako, da njihovo obstoječo pravico na glasbenih delih dopolni še z upravičenji na avdiovizualnem delu kot celoti. Gre za avtorjeva dodatna moralna in materialna upravičenja, ki se raztezajo na avdiovizualno delo kot celoto. Toženka pa v odgovoru na revizijo uveljavlja, da pri nadomestilu po Memorandumu ne gre za običajno plačilo. ZKOS ni zastopal vseh kabelskih operaterjev, temveč izključno svoje člane. Vztraja, da je veljavna minimalna tarifa iz Pravilnika 1998, ki pa jo je treba zmanjšati. Če veljavne tarife ni, je treba uporabiti kriterije primernosti po 156. členu ZASP.
 17. Tožnikova revizija je delno utemeljena, toženkina pa ni utemeljena.
 18. Toženkinih revizijskih navedb, ki se nanašajo na bistvene kršitve določb pravdnega postopka, Vrhovno sodišče ni upoštevalo, ker revizija v zvezi s tem ni bila dopuščena.
 19. Vrhovno sodišče se je, potem ko sta obe pravdni stranki vložili revizijo, v judikatih II Ips 219/2017 z dne 18. 4. 2018, II Ips 43/2018 z dne 9. 4. 2018, II Ips 100/2018 z dne 7. 6. 2018 in II Ips 52/2018 z dne 7. 6. 2018 že opredelilo do vseh bistvenih revizijskih vprašanj v tem postopku. Tudi pooblaščenca sta v vseh zadevah ista. Pravdni stranki v tem postopku ne odpirata novih vprašanj. Zato bo Vrhovno sodišče v tem postopku navedlo zgolj bistvene razloge za odločitev.
 20. Tožnik od toženke ni upravičen zahtevati plačila za kabelsko retransmisijo filmske glasbe, ki se predvaja v okviru avdiovizualnega dela, za katerega je bila ustvarjena. V dovoljenju, ki ga je UIL podelil Zavodu AIPA, je zapisano, da velja za kolektivno upravljanje pravic kabelske retransmisije avdiovizualnih del za vse soavtorje, med njimi pa je izrecno naveden tudi skladatelj filmske glasbe. Toženka mora z Zavodom AIPA urediti razmerja do vseh soavtorjev avdiovizualnih del, tudi do skladatelja filmske glasbe. Za kabelsko retransmisijo filmske glasbe ni dolžna plačati nadomestila tožniku kot organizaciji, ki kolektivno upravlja male glasbene pravice. Skladatelj filmske glasbe namreč ne more zahtevati od uporabnika dvojno plačilo za isto priobčitev filmske glasbe (torej za isto dejanje - predvajanje filma v TV programu), in sicer najprej kot avtor glasbenega dela, nato pa še kot soavtor avdiovizualnega dela.
 21. Zavod AIPA pa ne upravlja s pravicami avtorjev predobstoječe glasbe kot avtorjev prispevkov, saj ti v njegovem dovoljenju niso niti omenjeni. Toženka s plačilom nadomestila Zavodu AIPA ne more urediti razmerja do avtorjev predobstoječe glasbe. Tožnik v skladu z dovoljenjem z dne 12. 3. 1998 upravlja pravice kabelske retransmisije glasbenih del in je zato upravičen zahtevati plačilo za kabelsko retransmisijo predobstoječe glasbe.
 23. Niso utemeljeni toženkini revizijski ugovori, da je avdiovizualno delo skupaj z glasbo po naravi stvari nedeljiva celota in da se zato lahko avtorske pravice oseb, ki so sodelovale pri nastanku tega dela, uveljavljajo zgolj skupaj, po eni organizaciji. Še ona sama s sklicevanjem na Trampuža opozarja na stalno prakso v tujini, da se pravice na glasbi uveljavljajo ločeno od pravic na avdiovizualnem delu.2 Delitev upravljanja pravic skladateljev glasbe med dve kolektivni organizaciji je posebnost našega sistema avtorskega prava. Iz tega spora je razvidno, da takšna rešitev v praksi ni najboljša, saj razmejitev med obsegom pravic, ki jih upravljata tožnik in Zavod AIPA, ni jasno in nedvoumno razvidna.
 24. Minimalna tarifa iz drugega odstavka II. poglavja tarife Pravilnika 1998 z uveljavitvijo ZASP-B ni pridobila narave skupnega sporazuma. Splošna tarifa za kabelsko retransmisijo glasbenih del, ki je bila določena v prvem odstavku, je bila preveč nedorečena, da bi lahko pomenila podlago za izračun primernega nadomestila. Zato tudi pred njeno razveljavitvijo s strani Ustavnega sodišča ni bila uporabljiva. Minimalna tarifa pa se brez splošne tarife ne more uporabljati, saj pomeni le njeno dopolnitev v skrajnih primerih. Samo splošna tarifa lahko izraža dejansko vrednost izkoriščanja avtorskih del.
 26. Utemeljeni so tožnikovi revizijski ugovori, da sta sodišči nižje stopnje Memorandum z Dodatki napačno obravnavali kot običajno licenčno pogodbo. Ustavno sodišče RS je v odločbi U-I-240/10-15 z dne 16. 5. 2013 že pojasnilo, da temelji kolektivno uveljavljanje pravic na pogodbenem načelu.3 Z Memorandumom kot krovno pogodbo je predstavnik slovenskih kabelskih operaterjev s predstavniki imetnikov pravic sporazumno vzpostavil celosten sistem plačevanja nadomestil v zvezi s kabelsko retransmisijo. Ta je nadomestil enostransko določen sistem po Pravilniku 1998. Toženka je nato z licenčnimi pogodbami pridobila pravice po načelu „vse-pravice-na-enem-mestu“ (one-stop-shop). Stališče, da je bil Memorandum več kot le običajna dvostranska licenčna pogodba, je sprejeto tudi v pravni teoriji: Trampuž ga uvršča med sporazumne tarife oziroma na seznam skupnih sporazumov, sklenjenih v Sloveniji.4
 27. Napačno je stališče sodišča druge stopnje, da dejanska uporaba ne vpliva na veljavnost tarife. Okoliščina, da so bila razmerja med pravdnima strankama, tako kot med ostalimi člani ZKOS in tožnikom, več kot deset let urejena v skladu z Memorandumom in njegovimi dopolnitvami, je v tem sporu zelo pomembna. Skrajno neživljenjsko bi bilo, da bi se ob takšnih dejanskih okoliščinah kot v tem sporu kot primerna tarifa upošteval znesek, ki je bil enostransko sprejet 14 let pred spornim obdobjem. To bi bilo tudi v nasprotju z načelom, uveljavljenim v avtorskem pravu, da mora biti avtor primerno (ne pa le v minimalnem obsegu) udeležen na koristih iz svojih avtorskih stvaritev.5
 30. Ustavno sodišče je v odločbi U-I-240/10 z dne 16. 5. 2013 že pojasnilo, da je treba, kadar pogajanja o opredelitvi ali spremembi pogodbenih pogojev zastanejo, predvideti izhod, ki bo pripeljal do odločitve o primerni tarifi ne glede na spor med strankama. V skladu z ZASP je to naloga SAP. Vendar tarifa s strani SAP še ni pravnomočno določena, niti ni SAP določil začasne tarife za čas trajanja postopka. V takem primeru jo mora določiti sodišče. Drugače bi avtorji ostali brez primernega nadomestila, kar bi bilo v nasprotju z varstvom pravic iz ustvarjalnosti (60. člen Ustave). Če pa bi lahko v takem primeru kolektivna organizacija sama določila nadomestilo, bi lahko zaradi svojega monopolnega položaja določila previsoke zneske, kar bi preveč poseglo v svobodo gospodarske pobude uporabnikov (74. člen Ustave).
 31. Primernost tarife je dosežena, ko je bila vsaka od udeleženih strank s svojimi pravicami in potrebami upoštevana in je prejela to, kar se ji dolguje.7 Primernost tarife se zato najlažje izrazi s soglasjem volje: tega soglasja pa med strankama ni. Ugotavljanje, kakšna bi bila primerna tarifa kolektivne organizacije, ki edina na slovenskem trgu daje licence za določene načine izkoriščanja avtorskih del, pa pomeni ugotavljanje vsebine in vrednosti avtorske pravice, kar je nadvse težavno. Ker ni mogoče določiti stroškov intelektualnega ustvarjanja, tudi ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali so ti stroški in tarife v sorazmerju. Prav tako je težko ugotoviti ekonomsko vrednost intelektualnega ustvarjanja glasbenih del, saj je njihova uporaba samo del celotne storitve kabelskih operaterjev.8 Primerna tarifa je tako vselej le ocena določenih okoliščin, ki po naravi stvari dopuščajo tudi določene odmike. Navedeno je jasno razvidno iz pravnega pravila, ki se nanaša na podoben primer, in sicer iz Skupnega sporazuma, sklenjenega med ZKOS in Zavodom AIPA. V njem je bilo za leti 2010 in 2011 določeno nadomestilo 0,40 EUR na naročniško razmerje, to nadomestilo pa se je nato do leta 2014 povečalo za cca 30 odstotkov (na 0,54 EUR in 0,57 EUR).
 32. Vrhovno sodišče se pri zapolnitvi nastale praznine ni oprlo na zneske, ki jih je tožnik prejemal na podlagi Memoranduma in Dodatkov. Cena licence v paketu se namreč lahko razlikuje od cene, določene zgolj za eno pravico kabelske retransmisije. Poleg tega je znesek, ki ga zahteva tožnik (ta glede na višino iztoževane glavnice 18.839,5 EUR znaša 0,579 EUR na naročnika mesečno), pretiran, saj je celo večji od nadomestil, ki so tedaj skupno pripadali vsem soavtorjem avdiovizualnih del.
 33. V judikatih II Ips 219/2017 z dne 18. 4. 2018 in II Ips 43/2018 z dne 9. 4. 2018 je Vrhovno sodišče ocenilo, da znaša primerno nadomestilo za kabelsko retransmisijo glasbenih del 0,198 EUR na naročnika. Pri oceni je upoštevalo, 1) kakšen delež od nadomestil, ki jih pobere Zavod AIPA, bi primeroma pripadal skladateljem filmske glasbe, kakšen pa ostalim soavtorjem; 2) razmerje med avdiovizualnimi deli (brez filmske glasbe) in glasbo (vključno s filmsko), ter 3) kakšen delež nadomestila bi glede na tisto, kar so dobili skladatelji filmske glasbe, pripadal skladateljem druge glasbe, ki se retransmitira po kablu. Pri tem se je zavedalo, da obstajajo tudi drugi postopki določanja primernega nadomestila in da bi posamezne postavke, ki jih je uporabilo, lahko tudi variirale. To pomeni, da bi lahko bila primerna tudi nekoliko višja oziroma nižja tarifa. Glede na zneske, ki jih toženka plačuje za pravice soavtorjev avdiovizualnih del, bi bila po oceni Vrhovnega sodišča lahko povsem primerna tarifa tudi nekoliko nižja ali višja tarifa, celo v razponu nekaj deset odstotkov. Ne bi bilo v nasprotju z načelom primernosti niti, če bi se pri izračunu upoštevalo toženkine bruto prihodke. Iz vsebine Skupnega sporazuma, sklenjenega med ZKOS in Zavodom AIPA, in iz Pravilnika 1998 pa je razvidno, da so na področju kabelske retransmisije običajna nadomestila, ki so odvisna od števila naročnikov (s tem pa le posredno od bruto prihodkov, saj so ti ob večjem številu naročnikov večji).
 34. V nasprotju z načelom enakega urejanja primerljivih položajev pa bi bilo, če bi sodišča v sporih med tožnikom in kabelskimi operaterji vsakič znova iskala primerno tarifo. To bi zaradi variabilnosti postavk, na katerih temelji ocena Vrhovnega sodišča, nujno pomenilo, da bi bili različni zneski, ki bi jih morali kabelski operaterji plačati tožniku za posamezno naročniško razmerje. Neenotna sodna praksa v zvezi z višino nadomestila na naročnika bi ponudnike postavljala v nepredvidljiv in negotov položaj. To bi bilo v nasprotju z odločbo Ustavnega sodišča U-I-165/03. V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča EU z dne 19. aprila 2018, zadeva C-525/16, Meo-Serviços de Comunicações e Multimédia, lahko razlike v nadomestilih, ki jih zahtevajo kolektivne organizacije, vplivajo na konkurenčnost uporabnikov in povzročijo izkrivljanje konkurence.
 35. Iz navedenih razlogov je treba za tega ter druge obstoječe in bodoče spore v zvezi s kabelsko retransmisijo glasbenih del uporabiti tarifo, ki je bila določena v judikatih II Ips 219/2017 z dne 18. 4. 2018 in II Ips 43/2018 z dne 9. 4. 2018, dokler veljavna tarifa ne bo pravnomočno določena ali sporazumno dogovorjena. V konkretni zadevi stranki nista podali prepričljivih niti nedvoumnih argumentov, da takšna tarifa v konkretnem primeru ne bi bila primerna v smislu, da je občutno oziroma bistveno prenizka ali previsoka.
 36. Toženka je imela v iztoževanem obdobju (od julija do novembra 2012) 6502 naročnikov mesečno. Ob upoštevanju tarife 0,198 EUR na naročnika je torej dolžna za kabelsko retransmisijo glasbe v tem obdobju plačati 5 x 6502 x 0,198 EUR, skupno torej 6.436,98 EUR. Ta znesek pa je treba znižati za 311,58 EUR, ki jih je tožniku že plačala. Toženka je tako tožniku dolžna plačati še 6.125,40 EUR.
 37. Ker sta sodišči nižje stopnje ob sicer popolno ugotovljenem dejanskem stanju zmotno uporabili materialno pravo, je revizijsko sodišče tožnikovi reviziji delno ugodilo in sodbi sodišč prve in druge stopnje spremenilo tako, da je v točki I. izreka drugostopenjske sodbe znesek „5.377,7 EUR“ nadomestilo z zneskom „6.125,4 EUR.“ V preostalem delu je tožnikovo revizijo zavrnilo (prvi odstavek 380. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku, ZPP).
 38. Ker razlogi, zaradi katerih je bila vložena toženkina revizija, niso vplivali na znižanje s strani sodišča druge stopnje že prisojenega nadomestila, je Vrhovno sodišče toženkino revizijo zavrnilo (378. člen ZPP).
 39. Ker je bilo tožnikovi reviziji ugodeno le v manjšem delu, toženkina revizija pa je bila zavrnjena, je Vrhovno sodišče odločilo, da krije vsaka stranka svoje stroške revizijskega postopka. Zato tudi ni spremenilo odločitve o stroških postopka na prvi in drugi stopnji (154. člen v zvezi z drugim odstavkom 165. člena ZPP).
 3 Obrobna št. 30 odločbe.
 5 Glej judikat II Ips 196/2017 z dne 30. 11. 2017.
 P2RvYy0yMDE1MDgxMTExNDIxNTg1


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 29.11.2018
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 305/23
 SKLEP SKUPNEGA ODBORA EGP
 št. 56/2017
 z dne 17. marca 2017
 o spremembi Priloge II (Tehnični predpisi, standardi, preskušanje in certificiranje) k Sporazumu EGP [2018/1820]
 SKUPNI ODBOR EGP JE –
 ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum EGP) in zlasti člena 98 Sporazuma EGP,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/1978 z dne 11. novembra 2016 o odobritvi osnovne snovi sončnično olje v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1107/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o dajanju fitofarmacevtskih sredstev v promet ter o spremembi Priloge k Izvedbeni uredbi Komisije (EU) št. 540/2011 (1) je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
 (2)
 Prilogo II k Sporazumu EGP bi bilo zato treba ustrezno spremeniti –
 SPREJEL NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
 Člen 1
 Poglavje XV Priloge II k Sporazumu EGP se spremeni:
 1.
 v točki 13a (Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 540/2011) se doda naslednja alinea:
 „—
 32016 R 1978: Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1978 z dne 11. novembra 2016 (UL L 305, 12.11.2016, str. 23).“;
 2.
 za točko 13zzzzzzq (Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1429) se vstavi naslednja točka:
 „13zzzzzzr.
 32016 R 1978: Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1978 z dne 11. novembra 2016 o odobritvi osnovne snovi sončnično olje v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1107/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o dajanju fitofarmacevtskih sredstev v promet ter o spremembi Priloge k Izvedbeni uredbi Komisije (EU) št. 540/2011 (UL L 305, 12.11.2016, str. 23).“
 Člen 2
 Besedilo Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1978 v islandskem in norveškem jeziku, ki se objavi v Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije, je verodostojno.
 Člen 3
 Ta sklep začne veljati 18. marca 2017 pod pogojem, da so bila predložena vsa uradna obvestila v skladu s členom 103(1) Sporazuma EGP (*1).
 Člen 4
 Ta sklep se objavi v sklopu EGP Uradnega lista Evropske unije in Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije.
 V Bruslju, 17. marca 2017
 Za Skupni odbor EGP
 Predsednik
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) UL L 305, 12.11.2016, str. 23.
 (*1) Navedena ni nobena ustavna zahteva.