text:
 24.11.2005
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 306/21
 AZ EGT-VEGYESBIZOTTSÁG
 96/2005 határozata
 (2005. július 8.)
 az EGT-megállapodás II. mellékletének (Műszaki előírások, szabványok, vizsgálatok és tanúsítás) módosításáról
 AZ EGT-VEGYESBIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás kiigazításáról szóló jegyzőkönyvvel módosított, az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodásra (a továbbiakban: a megállapodás) és különösen annak 98. cikkére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 A megállapodás II. mellékletét a 2005. június 10-i 77/2005 EGT-vegyesbizottsági határozat (1) módosította.
 (2)
 Az emberi fogyasztásra szánt gyorsfagyasztott élelmiszerek hőmérsékletének a szállítóeszközökben, raktárakban és tárolókban történő ellenőrzéséről szóló, 2005. január 12-i 37/2005/EK bizottsági rendeletet (2) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (3)
 A 2002/26/EK irányelvnek egyes élelmiszerek ochratoxin-A-tartalmának hatósági ellenőrzésére szolgáló mintavételi és vizsgálati módszerek tekintetében történő módosításáról szóló, 2005. január 26-i 2005/5/EK bizottsági irányelvet (3) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (4)
 Az élelmiszerek benzo(a)pirén-tartalmának hatósági ellenőrzésére szolgáló mintavételi és vizsgálati módszerek megállapításáról szóló, 2005. február 4-i 2005/10/EK bizottsági irányelvet (4) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (5)
 Az egyes élelmiszerekben előforduló policiklikus aromás szénhidrogének értékeinek további vizsgálatairól szóló, 2005. február 4-i 2005/108/EK bizottsági ajánlást (5) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (6)
 A 37/2005/EK rendelet hatályon kívül helyezi a megállapodásba foglalt 92/1/EGK bizottsági irányelvet (6), amelyet ebből következően a megállapodás értelmében hatályon kívül kell helyezni,
 A KÖVETKEZŐKÉPPEN HATÁROZOTT:
 1. cikk
 A megállapodás II. mellékletének XII. fejezete a következőképpen módosul:
 1.
 Az 54zx. pontba (2002/26/EK bizottsági irányelv) a következő francia bekezdést kell beilleszteni:
 „—
 32005 L 0005: A Bizottság 2005. január 26-i 2005/5/EK irányelve (HL L 27., 2005.1.29., 38. o.).”
 2.
 Az 54zzq. pont (1452/2003/EK bizottsági rendelet) után az alábbi pontokat kell beilleszteni:
 „54zzr.
 32005 R 0037: A Bizottság 2005. január 12-i 37/2005/EK rendelete az emberi fogyasztásra szánt gyorsfagyasztott élelmiszerek hőmérsékletének a szállítóeszközökben, raktárakban és tárolókban történő ellenőrzéséről (HL L 10., 2005.1.13., 18. o.).
 54zzs.
 32005 L 0010: A Bizottság 2005. február 4-i 2005/10/EK irányelve az élelmiszerek benzo(a)pirén-tartalmának hatósági ellenőrzésére szolgáló mintavételi és vizsgálati módszerek megállapításáról (HL L 34., 2005.2.8., 15. o.).”
 3.
 A 3. rész 59. pontja (C/345/93/3. o. bizottsági közlemény) után a következő pontot kell beilleszteni:
 „60.
 32005 H 0108: A Bizottság 2005. február 4-i 2005/108/EK ajánlása az egyes élelmiszerekben előforduló policiklikus aromás szénhidrogének értékeinek további vizsgálatairól (HL L 34., 2005.2.8., 43. o.).”
 4.
 Az 54c. pont (92/1/EGK bizottsági irányelv) szövegét törölni kell.
 2. cikk
 A 37/2005/EK rendelet, valamint a 2005/5/EK és 2005/10/EK irányelv, valamint a 2005/108/EK ajánlás izlandi és norvég nyelvű szövege, amelyet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-kiegészítésében kell kihirdetni, hiteles.
 3. cikk
 Ez a határozat 2005. július 9-én lép hatályba, amennyiben a megállapodás 103. cikkének (1) bekezdése szerint előírt összes értesítést eljuttatták az EGT-Vegyesbizottsághoz (7).
 4. cikk
 Ezt a határozatot az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-re vonatkozó részében és EGT-kiegészítésében kell közzétenni.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2005. július 8-án.
 az EGT-Vegyesbizottság részéről
 az elnök
 Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN herceg
 (1) HL L 268., 2005.10.13., 7. o.
 (2) HL L 10., 2005.1.13., 18. o.
 (3) HL L 27., 2005.1.29., 38. o.
 (4) HL L 34., 2005.2.8., 15. o.
 (5) HL L 34., 2005.2.8., 43. o.
 (6) HL L 34., 1992.2.11., 28. o.
 (7) Alkotmányos követelmények fennállását nem jelezték.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' Department of Veterans Affairs\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n Office of Healthcare Inspections\n\nReport No. 13-00026-327\n\n\n\n\n Community Based Outpatient \n\n Clinic Reviews \n\n at \n\n Chalmers P. Wylie \n\n Ambulatory Care Center \n\n Columbus, OH \n\n\n\n\n\nSeptember 26, 2013\n\n Washington, DC 20420\n\x0c Why We Did This Review\nThe VA OIG is undertaking a systematic review of the VHA\xe2\x80\x99s CBOCs to assess\nwhether CBOCs are operated in a manner that provides veterans with\nconsistent, safe, high-quality health care.\n\nThe Veterans\xe2\x80\x99 Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 was enacted to\nequip VA with ways to provide veterans with medically needed care in a\nmore equitable and cost-effective manner. As a result, VHA expanded the\nAmbulatory and Primary Care Services to include CBOCs located throughout\nthe United States. CBOCs were established to provide more convenient\naccess to care for currently enrolled users and to improve access opportunities\nwithin existing resources for eligible veterans not currently served.\n\nVeterans are required to receive one standard of care at all VHA health care\nfacilities. Care at CBOCs needs to be consistent, safe, and of high quality,\nregardless of model (VA-staffed or contract). CBOCs are expected to comply\nwith all relevant VA policies and procedures, including those related to quality,\npatient safety, and performance.\n\n To Report Suspected Wrongdoing in VA Programs and Operations\n Telephone: 1-800-488-8244\n E-Mail: vaoighotline@va.gov\n (Hotline Information: http://www.va.gov/oig/hotline/default.asp)\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\n\n Glossary\n C&P credentialing and privileging\n CBOC community based outpatient clinic\n CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\n EHR electronic health record\n EOC environment of care\n FPPE Focused Professional Practice Evaluation\n FY fiscal year\n MH mental health\n MSEC Medical Staff\xe2\x80\x99s Executive Committee\n NC noncompliant\n NCP National Center for Health Promotion and\n Disease Prevention\n OIG Office of Inspector General\n VHA Veterans Health Administration\n VISN Veterans Integrated Service Network\n WH women\xe2\x80\x99s health\n\n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\n\n Table of Contents \n\n Page \n\nExecutive Summary ................................................................................................... i\n\n\nObjectives and Scope ................................................................................................ 1\n\n Objectives ............................................................................................................... 1\n\n Scope and Methodology ......................................................................................... 1\n\n\nCBOC Profiles ............................................................................................................ 3\n\n\nWH and Vaccination EHR Reviews \xe2\x80\x93 Results and Recommendations.................. 4\n\n WH.......................................................................................................................... 4\n\n Vaccinations ........................................................................................................... 5\n\n\nOnsite Reviews \xe2\x80\x93 Results and Recommendations.................................................. 7\n\n CBOC Characteristics ............................................................................................. 7\n\n C&P ........................................................................................................................ 8\n\n EOC and Emergency Management ........................................................................ 9\n\n\nAppendixes\n A. VISN 10 Director Comments ............................................................................. 11\n\n B. Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center Director Comments ...................... 12\n\n C. OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ......................................................... 15\n\n D. Report Distribution ............................................................................................. 16\n\n\n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\n\n Executive Summary \n\nPurpose: We evaluated select activities to assess whether the CBOCs operated in a\nmanner that provides veterans with consistent, safe, high-quality health care.\n\nWe conducted an onsite inspection of the CBOCs during the week of August 12, 2013.\n\nThe review covered the following topic areas:\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 WH\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Vaccinations\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 C&P\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 EOC\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Emergency Management\n\nFor the WH and vaccinations topics, EHR reviews were performed for patients who\nwere randomly selected from all CBOCs assigned to the respective parent facilities.\nThe C&P, EOC, and emergency management onsite inspections were only conducted\nat the randomly selected CBOC (see Table 1).\n\n VISN Facility CBOC Name Location\n Chalmers P. Wylie\n 10 Zanesville CBOC Zanesville, OH\n Ambulatory Care Center\n Table 1. Site Inspected\n\nReview Results: We made recommendations in three review areas.\n\nRecommendations: The VISN and Facility Directors, in conjunction with the\nrespective CBOC managers, should take appropriate actions to:\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Ensure that patients with normal cervical cancer screening results are notified of\n results within the required timeframe and that notification is documented in the EHR.\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Ensure that clinicians administer pneumococcal vaccinations when indicated.\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Ensure that clinicians document all required tetanus vaccine administration elements\n and that compliance is monitored.\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Develop a local policy for MH emergencies that reflects the CBOC\xe2\x80\x99s capability and\n that staff is trained in the procedural steps of the MH emergency plan.\n\n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections i\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\nComments\nThe VISN and Facility Directors agreed with the CBOC review findings and\nrecommendations and provided acceptable improvement plans. (See Appendixes\nA and B, pages 11\xe2\x80\x9314, for the full text of the Directors\xe2\x80\x99 comments.) We consider\nrecommendations 1 and 3 closed. We will follow up on the planned actions for the open\nrecommendations until they are completed.\n\n\n\n\n JOHN D. DAIGH, JR., M.D.\n Assistant Inspector General for\n Healthcare Inspections\n\n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections ii\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\n\n Objectives and Scope \n\nObjectives\n\xef\x82\xb7\t Evaluate whether CBOCs comply with selected VHA requirements regarding the\n provision of cervical cancer screening, results reporting, and WH liaisons.\n\xef\x82\xb7\t Evaluate whether CBOCs properly provided selected vaccinations to veterans\n according to CDC guidelines and VHA recommendations.\n\xef\x82\xb7\t Determine whether CBOC providers are appropriately credentialed and privileged in\n accordance with VHA Handbook 1100.19.1\n\xef\x82\xb7\t Determine whether CBOCs are in compliance with standards of operations\n according to VHA policy in the areas of environmental safety and emergency\n planning.2\n\nScope and Methodology\nScope\n\nWe reviewed selected clinical and administrative activities to evaluate compliance with\nrequirements related to patient care quality and the EOC. In performing the reviews, we\nassessed clinical and administrative records as well as completed onsite inspections at\nrandomly selected sites. Additionally, we interviewed managers and employees. The\nreview covered the following five activities:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7\t WH\n\n \xef\x82\xb7\t Vaccinations\n\n \xef\x82\xb7\t C&P\n\n \xef\x82\xb7\t EOC\n\n \xef\x82\xb7\t Emergency Management\n\nMethodology\n\nTo evaluate the quality of care provided to veterans at CBOCs, we conducted EHR\nreviews for the WH and vaccinations topic areas. For WH, the EHR reviews consisted\nof a random sample of 50 women veterans (23\xe2\x80\x9364 years of age). For vaccinations, the\nEHR reviews consisted of random samples of 75 veterans (all ages) and 75 additional\nveterans (65 and older), unless fewer patients were available, for the tetanus and\n\n\n\n1\n VHA Handbook 1100.19, Credentialing and Privileging, November 14, 2008.\n\n2\n VHA Handbook 1006.1, Planning and Activating Community-Based Outpatient Clinics, May 19, 2004. \n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 1\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\npneumococcal reviews, respectively. The study populations consisted of patients from\nall CBOCs assigned to the parent facility.3\n\nThe C&P, EOC, and emergency management onsite inspections were only conducted\nat the randomly selected CBOCs. One CBOC was randomly selected from the\n56 sampled parent facilities, with sampling probabilities proportional to the numbers of\nCBOCs eligible to be inspected within each of the parent facilities.4\n\nIn this report, we make recommendations for improvement. Recommendations pertain\nto issues that are significant enough to be monitored by the OIG until corrective actions\nare implemented.\n\nWe conducted the inspection in accordance with Quality Standards for Inspection and\nEvaluation published by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and\nEfficiency.\n\n\n\n\n3\n Includes all CBOCs in operation before October 1, 2011.\n\n4\n Includes 96 CBOCs in operation before October 1, 2011, that had 500 or more unique enrollees.\n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 2\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\n\n CBOC Profiles \n\nTo evaluate the quality of care provided to veterans at CBOCs, we designed reviews with an EHR component to capture data for\npatients enrolled at all of the CBOCs under the parent facility\xe2\x80\x99s oversight.5 The table below provides information relative to each\nof the CBOCs under the oversight of the respective parent facility.\n\n Uniques FY Visits FY\nVISN Parent Facility CBOC Name Locality6 CBOC Size8\n 20127 20127\n Franklin County\n Urban 3,433 13,552 Mid-Size\n (Grove City, OH)\n Marion\n Rural 2,491 13,846 Mid-Size\n Chalmers P. Wylie (Marion, OH)\n 10\n Ambulatory Care Center Newark\n Urban 3,302 18,639 Mid-Size\n (Newark, OH)\n Zanesville\n Rural 3,532 21,194 Mid-Size\n (Zanesville, OH)\n Table 2. Profiles\n\n\n\n\n5\n Includes all CBOCs in operation before October 1, 2011.\n\n6\n http://vaww.pssg.med.va.gov/\n\n7\n http://vssc.med.va.gov\n\n8\n Based on the number of unique patients seen as defined by VHA Handbook 1160.01, Uniform Mental Health Services in VA Medical Centers and Clinics, \n\nSeptember 11, 2008, the size of the CBOC facility is categorized as very large (> 10,000), large (5,000-10,000), mid-size (1,500-5,000), or small (< 1,500).\n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 3\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\n\n WH and Vaccination EHR Reviews \n\n Results and Recommendations \n\nWH\nCervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women worldwide.9 Each year,\napproximately 12,000 women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer.10\nThe first step of care is screening women for cervical cancer with the Papanicolaou test\nor \xe2\x80\x9cPap\xe2\x80\x9d test. With timely screening, diagnosis, notification, and treatment, the cancer is\nhighly preventable and associated with long survival and good quality of life.\n\nVHA policy outlines specific requirements that must be met by facilities that provide\nservices for women veterans.11 We reviewed EHRs, meeting minutes and other\nrelevant documents, and interviewed key WH employees. Table 3 shows the areas\nreviewed for this topic. The review element marked as NC needed improvement.\nDetails regarding the finding follow the table.\n\n NC Areas Reviewed\n Cervical cancer screening results were entered into the\n patient\xe2\x80\x99s EHR.\n The ordering VHA provider or surrogate was notified of results\n within the defined timeframe.\n X Patients were notified of results within the defined timeframe.\n Each CBOC has an appointed WH Liaison.\n There is evidence that the CBOC has processes in place to\n ensure that WH care needs are addressed.\n Table 3. WH\n\nThere were 32 patients who received a cervical cancer screening at the Chalmers P.\nWylie Ambulatory Care Center\xe2\x80\x99s CBOCs.\n\nPatient Notification of Normal Cervical Cancer Screening Results. VHA requires that\nnormal cervical cancer screening results must be communicated to the patient in terms\neasily understood by a layperson within 14 days from the date of the pathology report\nbecoming available. We reviewed 31 EHRs of patients who had normal cervical cancer\nscreening results and determined that 9 patients were not notified within the required\n14 days from the date the pathology report became available.\n\n\n\n\n9\n World Health Organization, Comprehensive Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control: A Healthier Future for \n\nGirls and Women, Retrieved (4/25/2013): http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/cancers/en/index.html.\n\n10\n U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group, United States Cancer Statistics: 1999-2008 Incidence and Mortality Web-\n\nbased report.\n\n11\n VHA Handbook 1330.01, Health Care Services for Women Veterans, May 21, 2010. \n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 4\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\nRecommendations\n\n1. We recommended that managers ensure that patients with normal cervical cancer\nscreening results are notified of results within the required timeframe and that\nnotification is documented in the EHR.\n\nVaccinations\nThe VHA NCP was established in 1995. The NCP establishes and monitors the clinical\npreventive services offered to veterans, which includes the administration of vaccines.12\nThe NCP provides best practices guidance on the administration of vaccines for\nveterans. The CDC states that although vaccine-preventable disease levels are at or\nnear record lows, many adults are under-immunized, missing opportunities to protect\nthemselves against tetanus and pneumococcal diseases.\n\nAdults should receive a tetanus vaccine every 10 years. At the age of 65, individuals\nwho have never had a pneumococcal vaccination should receive one. For individuals\n65 and older who have received a prior pneumococcal vaccination, one-time\nrevaccination is recommended if they were vaccinated 5 or more years previously and\nwere less than 65 years of age at the time of the first vaccination.\n\nWe reviewed documentation of selected vaccine administrations and interviewed key\npersonnel. Table 4 shows the areas reviewed for this topic. The review elements\nmarked as NC needed improvement. Details regarding the findings follow the table.\n\n NC Areas Reviewed\n Staff screened patients for the tetanus vaccination.\n Staff administered the tetanus vaccine when indicated.\n Staff screened patients for the pneumococcal vaccination.\n X Staff administered the pneumococcal vaccine when indicated.\n X Staff properly documented vaccine administration.\n Table 4. Vaccinations\n\nPneumococcal Vaccination Administration for Patients with Pre-Existing Conditions.\nThe CDC recommends that at the age of 65, individuals that have never had a\npneumococcal vaccination should receive one.13 For individuals 65 and older who have\nreceived a prior pneumococcal vaccination, a one-time revaccination is recommended if\nthey were vaccinated 5 or more years previously and were less than 65 years of age at\nthe time of the first vaccination. We reviewed the EHRs of four patients with pre-\nexisting conditions who received their first vaccine prior to the age of 65. We did not\nfind documentation in any of the EHRs indicating that their second vaccinations had\nbeen administered.\n\nDocumentation of Tetanus Vaccination. Federal Law requires that documentation for\nadministered vaccines include specific elements, such as the vaccine manufacturer and\n12\n VHA Handbook 1120.05, Coordination and Development of Clinical Preventive Services, October 13, 2009.\n13\n Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/.\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 5\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\nlot number of the vaccine used.14 We reviewed the EHRs of seven patients who\nreceived a tetanus vaccine administration at the parent facility or its associated CBOCs\nand did not find documentation of all the required information related to tetanus vaccine\nadministration in any of the EHRs.\n\nRecommendations\n\n2. We recommended that managers ensure that clinicians administer pneumococcal\nvaccinations when indicated.\n\n3. We recommended that managers ensure that clinicians document all required\ntetanus vaccine administration elements and that compliance is monitored.\n\n\n\n\n14\n Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (PL 99 660) sub part C, November 16, 2010.\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 6\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\n\n Onsite Reviews \n\n Results and Recommendations \n\n CBOC Characteristics\n We formulated a list of CBOC characteristics that includes identifiers and descriptive\n information for the randomly selected CBOC (see Table 5).\n\n Zanesville\n\n VISN 10\n\n Parent Facility Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n Licensed Clinical Social Worker\n Optometrist\n Pharmacist\n Types of Providers\n Primary Care Physician\n Psychiatrist\n Psychologist\n Number of MH Uniques, FY 2012 531\n\n Number of MH Visits, FY 2012 2,299\n\n MH Services Onsite Yes\n Optometry\n Specialty Care Services Onsite\n WH\n Electrocardiogram\n Ancillary Services Provided Onsite\n Laboratory\n Audiology\n Cardiology\n Dermatology\n Tele-Health Services MH\n 15\n MOVE!\n Retinal Imaging\n Surgery\n Table 5. Characteristics\n\n\n\n\n15\n VHA Handbook 1120.01, MOVE! Weight Management Program For Veterans, March 31, 2011.\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 7\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\nC&P\nWe reviewed C&P folders, scopes of practice, meeting minutes, and VetPro information\nand interviewed senior managers to determine whether facilities had consistent\nprocesses to ensure that providers complied with applicable requirements as defined by\nVHA policy.16 Table 6 shows the areas reviewed for this topic.\n\n NC Areas Reviewed\n Each provider\xe2\x80\x99s license was unrestricted.\n New Provider\n Efforts were made to obtain verification of clinical privileges\n currently or most recently held at other institutions.\n FPPE was initiated.\n Timeframe for the FPPE was clearly documented.\n The FPPE outlined the criteria monitored.\n The FPPE was implemented on first clinical start day.\n The FPPE results were reported to the MSEC.\n Additional New Privilege\n Prior to the start of a new privilege, criteria for the FPPE were\n developed.\n There was evidence that the provider was educated about FPPE\n prior to its initiation.\n FPPE results were reported to the MSEC.\n FPPE for Performance\n The FPPE included criteria developed for evaluation of the\n practitioners when issues affecting the provision of safe, high-\n quality care were identified.\n A timeframe for the FPPE was clearly documented.\n There was evidence that the provider was educated about FPPE\n prior to its initiation.\n FPPE results were reported to the MSEC.\n Privileges and Scopes of Practice\n The Service Chief, Credentialing Board, and/or MSEC list\n documents reviewed and the rationale for conclusions reached for\n granting licensed independent practitioner privileges.\n Privileges granted to providers were setting, service, and provider\n specific.\n The determination to continue current privileges was based in part\n on results of ongoing professional practice evaluation activities.\n Table 6. C&P\n\nThe CBOC was compliant with the review areas; therefore, we made no\nrecommendations\n\n\n16\n VHA Handbook 1100.19.\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 8\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\nEOC and Emergency Management\nEOC\n\nTo evaluate the EOC, we inspected patient care areas for cleanliness, safety, infection\ncontrol, and general maintenance. We reviewed relevant documents and interviewed\nkey employees and managers. Table 7 shows the areas reviewed for this topic.\n\n NC Areas Reviewed\n The CBOC was Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant, including:\n parking, ramps, door widths, door hardware, restrooms, and\n counters.\n The CBOC was well maintained (e.g., ceiling tiles clean and in good\n repair, walls without holes, etc.).\n The CBOC was clean (walls, floors, and equipment are clean).\n Material safety data sheets were readily available to staff.\n The patient care area was safe.\n Access to fire alarms and fire extinguishers was unobstructed.\n Fire extinguishers were visually inspected monthly.\n Exit signs were visible from any direction.\n There was evidence of fire drills occurring at least annually.\n Fire extinguishers were easily identifiable.\n There was evidence of an annual fire and safety inspection.\n There was an alarm system or panic button installed in high-risk\n areas as identified by the vulnerability risk assessment.\n The CBOC had a process to identify expired medications.\n Medications were secured from unauthorized access.\n Privacy was maintained.\n Patients\xe2\x80\x99 personally identifiable information was secured and\n protected.\n Laboratory specimens were transported securely to prevent\n unauthorized access.\n Staff used two patient identifiers for blood drawing procedures.\n Information technology security rules were adhered to.\n There was alcohol hand wash or a soap dispenser and sink available\n in each examination room.\n Sharps containers were less than 3/4 full.\n Safety needle devices were available for staff use (e.g., lancets,\n injection needles, phlebotomy needles).\n The CBOC was included in facility-wide EOC activities.\n Table 7. EOC\n\nThe CBOC was compliant with the review areas; therefore, we made no\nrecommendations.\n\n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 9\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\nEmergency Management\nVHA policy requires each CBOC to have a local policy or standard operating procedure\ndefining how medical and MH emergencies are handled.17 Table 8 shows the areas\nreviewed for this topic. The review elements marked as NC needed improvement.\nDetails regarding the findings follow the table.\n\n NC Areas Reviewed\n There was a local medical emergency management plan for this\n CBOC.\n The staff articulated the procedural steps of the medical emergency\n plan.\n The CBOC had an automated external defibrillator onsite for cardiac\n emergencies.\n X There was a local MH emergency management plan for this CBOC.\n The staff articulated the procedural steps of the MH emergency\n plan.\n Table 8. Emergency Management\n\nMH Emergency Policy. Zanesville CBOC did not have a local plan or policy to instruct\nstaff on how to respond to and manage a MH emergency.\n\nRecommendations\n\n4. We recommended that managers develop a local policy for MH emergencies that\nreflects the CBOC\xe2\x80\x99s capability and that staff is trained in the procedural steps of the MH\nemergency plan.\n\n\n\n\n17\n VHA Handbook 1006.1.\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 10\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n Appendix A\n VISN 10 Director Comments\n\n\n Department of\n Veterans Affairs Memorandum\n\n\n Date: September 6, 2013\n\n From: Director, VISN 10 (10N10)\n\n Subject: CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n To: Director, 54BA Healthcare Inspections Division (54BA)\n\n Acting Director, Management Review Service (VHA 10AR MRS\n OIG CAP CBOC)\n\n\n\n 1. Thank you for the opportunity to review the report on the Community\n Based Outpatient Clinic reviews at the Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care\n Center, Columbus, Ohio. As always, I appreciate the opportunity to\n continuously improve services.\n\n 2. I have reviewed the document and concur with the recommendations.\n Corrective actions have been established with planned completion dates, as\n detailed in the attached report. Should you have any questions, please feel\n free to contact Ms. Jane Johnson, Deputy Quality Management Officer, at\n (513) 247-4631.\n\n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 11\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n Appendix B\n Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n Director Comments\n\n\n\n Department of\n Veterans Affairs Memorandum\n\n\n Date: September 4, 2013\n\n From: Director, Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center (757/00)\n\n Subject: CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n To: Director, VISN 10 (10N10)\n\n\n\n\n 1. Thank you for the opportunity to review the report on the Community\n Based Outpatient Clinic reviews at the Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care\n Center, Columbus, Ohio.\n\n 2. I have reviewed the document and concur with the recommendations.\n Corrective actions have been established with planned completion dates, as\n detailed in the attached report.\n\n\n\n\n Keith Sullivan, FACHE\n Director\n\n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 12\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\n Comments to OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Report\n\nThe following Director\xe2\x80\x99s comments are submitted in response to the recommendations\nin the OIG report:\n\nOIG Recommendations\n\n1. We recommended that managers ensure that patients with normal cervical cancer\nscreening results are notified of results within the required timeframe and that\nnotification is documented in the EHR.\n\nConcur\n\nTarget date for completion: August 30, 2013\n\nIn November 2012, changes were implemented to ensure timeframes for compliance\nwith results reporting and notification were met. Process changes provide immediately\navailable and visible results in CPRS with alerts to the provider. The notification of\nnormal PAP results by mail to Veterans was implemented in December 2012. The\nnotification letter becomes part of the Veteran\xe2\x80\x99s record, visible in CPRS. Audits were\ninitiated in January 2013 and continue to ensure compliance with the process.\n\n2. We recommended that managers ensure that clinicians administer pneumococcal\nvaccinations when indicated.\n\nConcur\n\nTarget date for completion: March 2014\n\nWe are in compliance with CDC recommendations for screening and/or administration\nof an initial pneumococcal vaccine. The current process for screening and\nadministration of the pneumococcal revaccination will be strengthened and monitoring\nwill take place for one quarter following the revised process to ensure compliance.\nOngoing periodic monitoring will occur to ensure sustained results.\n\n3. We recommended that managers ensure that clinicians document all required\ntetanus vaccine administration elements and that compliance is monitored.\n\nConcur\n\nTarget date for completion: August 30, 2013\n\nA new process to ensure compliance with documentation of all required tetanus vaccine\nadministration elements was implemented February 25, 2013. Audits began in March\n2013 and continue to show 100% compliance with documentation of all required\nelements for tetanus vaccine administration. Regular monitoring will be completed by\n\n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 13\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n\n\nAugust 30, 2013 to ensure compliance with periodic monitoring to continue to ensure\nsustained compliance.\n\n4. We recommended that managers develop a local policy for MH emergencies that\nreflects the CBOC\xe2\x80\x99s capability and that staff is trained in the procedural steps of the MH\nemergency plan.\n\nConcur\n\nTarget date for completion: December 1, 2013\n\nThe current CBOC Scope of Services policy and processes will be revised to ensure the\nCBOC response to MH emergencies is clearly outlined and education of all CBOC staff\nto ensure compliance will be provided.\n\n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 14\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n Appendix C\n\n\n OIG Contact and Staff Acknowledgments\nContact For more information about this report, please contact the OIG\n at (202) 461-4720.\nOnsite Melanie Oppat, MEd., LDN, Project Leader\nContributors Terri Julian, Ph.D., Team Leader\n Donald Braman, RN, BSN\nOther Shirley Carlile, BA\nContributors Margie Chapin, RT (R), JD\n Jennifer Christensen, DPM\n Lin Clegg, PhD\n Marnette Dhooghe, MS\n Matt Frazier, MPH, MBA\n Cynthia Gallegos\n Jennifer Reed, RN, MSHI\n Victor Rhee, MHS\n Patrick Smith, M. Stat\n Marilyn Stones, BS\n Mary Toy, RN, MSN\n Jarvis Yu, MS\n\n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 15\n\x0c CBOC Reviews at Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center\n Appendix D\n\n\n Report Distribution\nVA Distribution\n\nOffice of the Secretary\nVeterans Health Administration\nAssistant Secretaries\nGeneral Counsel\nDirector, VISN 10 (10N10)\nDirector, Chalmers P. Wylie Ambulatory Care Center (757/00)\n\nNon-VA Distribution\n\nHouse Committee on Veterans\xe2\x80\x99 Affairs\nHouse Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and\n Related Agencies\nHouse Committee on Oversight and Government Reform\nSenate Committee on Veterans\xe2\x80\x99 Affairs\nSenate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and\n Related Agencies\nSenate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs\nNational Veterans Service Organizations\nGovernment Accountability Office\nOffice of Management and Budget\nU.S. Senate: Sherrod Brown, Rob Portman\nU.S. House of Representatives: Joyce Beatty, Jim Jordan, Patrick Tiberi, Steve Stivers\n\n\nThis report is available at www.va.gov/oig.\n\n\n\n\nVA OIG Office of Healthcare Inspections 16\n\x0c'


text:
Vj-6/2009/28
 2.Kf.27.435/2011/8.
 A Fővárosi Ítélőtábla a Dr. Cziráki és Dr. Icsu Ügyvédi Iroda (ügyintéző: dr. Icsu Róbert ügyvéd) pártfogó ügyvéd által képviselt B. G. (Budapest,) I.r., és a dr. S. Zs. jogtanácsos által képviselt Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zrt. (Budapest) II.r. felpereseknek a dr. László Ildikó Katalin ügyvéd által képviselt Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Budapest; hivatkozási szám; Vj-006-028/2009.) alperes ellen versenyügyben hozott közigazgatási határozat felülvizsgálata iránt indult perében a Fővárosi Bíróság 2011. évi május hó 20. napján kelt 3.K.34.438/2009/11. számú ítélete ellen az I.r. felperes által 12. sorszám alatt előterjesztett fellebbezés folytán az alulírott helyen 2012. évi január hó 25. napján megtartott nyilvános tárgyalás alapján meghozta a következő
 Kötelezi az I. r. felperest arra, hogy 15 napon belül fizessen meg az alperesnek és a II. r. felperesnek külön-külön 10.000 (azaz tízezer) - 10.000 (azaz tízezer) forint másodfokú perköltséget.
 Az I. r. felperest képviselő pártfogó ügyvéd díját az állam viseli.
 Az I.r. felperes bejelentése folytán az alperes annak vizsgálatára indított versenyfelügyeleti eljárást a II.r. felperes ellen, hogy a mobil-internet szolgáltatási csomagjainak a népszerűsítése során alkalmazott marketing kommunikációs tevékenységével megsértette-e a tisztességtelen piaci magatartás és a versenykorlátozás tilalmáról szóló 1996. évi LVII. törvény (a továbbiakban: Tpvt.) III. fejezetének rendelkezéseit, és a fogyasztókkal szembeni tisztességtelen kereskedelmi gyakorlat tilalmáról szóló 2008. évi XLVII. törvény (a továbbiakban: Fttv.) előírásait.
 Az alperes eljárása eredményeként a 2009. július 07. napján kelt Vj-6/2009/26. számú határozatában megállapította, hogy a II.r. felperes a mobil-internet szolgáltatási csomagjai népszerűsítése során a 2008. augusztusában és 2008. szeptember 1. - 2008. december 31-e közötti időszakban tanúsított magatartásával megsértette a Tpvt. 8.§-ának (2) bekezdés a) pontját, és az Fttv. 3.§-ának (3) és 7.§-ának (1) bekezdésére figyelemmel az Fttv. 3.§-ának (1) bekezdésébe ütközően a fogyasztókkal szembeni tisztességtelen kereskedelmi gyakorlatot folytatott. Ezért 10.000.000 forint bírság megfizetésére kötelezte. A jogsértő tájékoztatások megjelentetésével kapcsolatban felmerült ismert költségekből kiindulva a bírság összegének meghatározásakor figyelemmel volt a II.r. felperes piaci helyzetére, és arra, hogy a jogsértő tartalommal bíró kommunikációs eszközök nem csak jogsértő állítást tartalmaztak. Enyhítő körülményként értékelte, hogy a fogyasztók előtt a végső döntések meghozatalát és a szerződés megkötését megelőzően ismertté válhattak a pontos részvételi, szerződési feltételek. Súlyosító körülményként vette figyelembe a korábbi jogsértések miatti marasztalásokat és azt, hogy mint jelentős piaci részesedéssel bíró vállalkozás a jogsértő magatartást felróhatóan és hosszú időn keresztül tanúsította.
 Az I.r. felperes keresetében elsődlegesen az alperesi határozat hatályon kívül helyezését és a versenyhatóság új eljárásra kötelezését, másodlagosan a II.r. felperes terhére kiszabott bírság összegének 1.5 milliárd forintra való felemelését kérte. A keresetindítási jogosultságát előfizetői és bejelentői minőségére alapította azzal, hogy jogos érdeke fűződik ahhoz, hogy a versenyhatóság a tényállást teljeskörűen feltárja és további jogsértésektől visszatartó erővel bíró szankciót alkalmazzon. Kiemelte, hogy az alperes már több esetben marasztalta a II.r. felperest a fogyasztók megtévesztése miatt, azonban ezen ügyekben is aránytalanul állapította meg a bírságok összegeit.
 A II.r. felperes az alperesi határozat felülvizsgálatára irányuló keretében állította, hogy magatartása következtében a gazdásági verseny a legcsekélyebb mértékben sem sérült. Az alperes nem megfelelően értékelte marketing kommunikációját, emiatt a vele szemben alkalmazott szankció sem megalapozott, különös tekintettel arra, hogy jelentős releváns enyhítő körülmények nem kerültek figyelembevételre.
 Az alperes a határozatában foglaltak fenntartása mellett a felperesek keresetének az elutasítását kérte. Hangsúlyozta, hogy az I.r. felperes kereshetőségi jogának hiányában nem kérheti, hogy a versenyhatóság tovább vizsgálódjon és a döntésében meghatározott bírságösszeget jelentősen megemelje, mert ezt az I.r. felperes előfizetői és bejelentői mivolta nem alapozza meg, mivel e körben közvetlen és nyilvánvaló érdekeltsége nem nyert igazolást. Állította, hogy határozata megalapozott és jogszerű, a II.r. felperes által vitatott kérdéseket érintően a tényállást tisztázta, és az így megállapított jogsértések miatt mérlegeléssel kiszabott bírság összege nem aránytalan, a szankcionálás célját megfelelően szolgálja.
 Az elsőfokú bíróság ítéletével a felperesek keresetét elutasította. Indokolása szerint az I.r. felperes keresetét érdemben - a kereshetőségi jogosultsága igazolásának hiányában - nem vizsgálta. E körben kiemelte, hogy az I.r. felperes nem tudott olyan közvetlen és nyilvánvaló anyagi jogi, vagy törvényes érdeken alapuló érintettséget igazolni, amely alapján kereshetőségi joga fennállna a tekintetben, hogy a versenyhatóság a II.r. felperesi magatartást tovább vizsgálja, valamint magasabb összegű bírságot határozzon meg. Az egyértelműen össztársadalmi érdekként megfogalmazható elvárásokat (tisztességes eljárás, jogszerű és "igazságos döntés") az alkalmazandó jogszabályi rendelkezések hivatottak garantálni, és nem a jogorvoslathoz való jognak az I.r. felperes kiterjesztő (a reklámokkal találkozó, valamennyi fogyasztót magába foglaló) értelmezése. Az alperes határozatával szemben a bárki által a köz érdekében indítható kereset előterjesztésének nincsen helye. Megállapította, hogy az alperes a tényállást feltárta, mérlegelése a polgári perrendtartásról szóló 1952. évi III. törvény (a továbbiakban: Pp.) 339/B.§-ában megfogalmazott követelményeket kielégíti. A Tpvt. 78.§-a szerinti szempontokat az alperes számba vette, azokat értékelte és így a bírság összege arányban áll a generál- és speciál preventív célokkal. A II.r. felperes a mérlegelés jogszerűségét megdöntő érveket nem tudott felsorakoztatni.
 Az I.r. felperes fellebbezésében elsődlegesen kereseti kérelmének megfelelően az elsőfokú bíróság ítéletének a megváltoztatását kérte. Másodlagos kérelme arra irányult, hogy a Fővárosi Ítélőtábla az elsőfokú bíróság ítéletét helyezze hatályon kívül és az elsőfokú bíróságot utasítsa újabb határozat hozatalára. Kereshetőségi jogával összefüggésben a közigazgatási hatósági eljárás és szolgáltatás általános szabályairól szóló 2004. évi CXL. törvény (a továbbiakban: Ket.) 15. és 109.§-ának (1) bekezdésére utalt. A fogyasztói, előfizetői és eljárást kezdeményező bejelentői státuszát hangsúlyozva hivatkozott a Tpvt. 43/G.§-ában és 82.§-ában foglaltakra, valamint az Alkotmány 50.§-ának (2) bekezdésére és az 57.§-ának (5) bekezdésében írtakra. Álláspontja szerint a jelen perben kereshetőségi joga nem vitatható, mert a jelen ügy jogát, jogos érdekét érinti, életkörülményeit hátrányosan befolyásolja. A törvény által biztosított joga, hogy a piacellenes tevékenységgel szembeni eljárást kezdeményezzen és az ennek eredményeként meghozott alperesi döntés felülvizsgálatát kérje; a jogsértések feltárásával indokoltnak tartja az alacsony összegben meghatározott bírság felemelését. Állította, hogy a BH 2007. 248. számú eseti döntésben kifejtettek helyes értelmezésével mindenképpen megilleti az ügyfél jogállása, akárcsak az eljárást bejelentéssel kezdeményező versenytársat is.
 A II.r. felperes fellebbezéssel nem élt.
 Az alperes az elsőfokú bíróság ítéletének a helybenhagyását kérte arra hivatkozással, hogy az elsőfokú bíróság helytállóan állapította meg, hogy az I.r. felperesnek a döntésével szemben nincs kereshetőségi joga. Utalt arra, hogy eljárásában a Tpvt.-ben meghatározott önálló ügyfélfogalom él, ezért a Tpvt. 44.§-ára is figyelemmel a Ket. 15.§-a nem volt alkalmazható.
 A II.r. felperes perköltséget igényélve az elsőfokú bíróság ítéletének a helyes indokainál fogva történő helybenhagyását kérte; az alperesi fellebbezési ellenkérelemben kifejtettekkel terjes mértékben egyetértett.
 Az I.r. felperes fellebbezése nem alapos.
 A Fővárosi Ítélőtábla a Pp. 253.§-ának (3) bekezdése alapján az elsőfokú bíróság ítéletét az I.r. felperes fellebbezése, valamint a II.r. felperes és az alperes ellenkérelmének korlátai között - kizárólag az I.r. felperes kereshetőségi jogát érintően - bírálta felül. Megállapította, hogy az elsőfokú bíróság a Pp. 206.§-ában foglaltaknak megfelelően a szükséges körben, a rendelkezésre álló peradatok alapján, a tényállást helyesen rögzítette. Az abból levont és az I.r. felperes keresetét a kereshetőségi joga hiányában elutasító döntése, az azt megalapozó következtetései megfeleltek a vonatkozó jogszabályi előírásoknak. A másodfokú bíróság egyetértett az elsőfokú bíróság döntésével, amellyel szemben az I.r. felperes az elsőfokú ítélet jogszerűségét megdöntő olyan indokokat, amelyek fellebbezése kedvező elbírálását eredményezhették volna, nem hozott fel,
 Az elsőfokú bíróság törvényi kötelezettségének eleget téve járt el, amikor vizsgálta az I.r. felperes keresetindítási, kereshetőségi jogát; az e körben tett ítéleti megállapításokkal összefüggésben az I.r. felperes fellebbezésében írtakra figyelemmel, a másodfokú bíróság a következőket hangsúlyozza.
 Az alperes által is hivatkozott Tpvt 44.§-a szerinti kizáró rendelkezés folytán a Tpvt. 52.§-ában meghatározott ügyfél fogalom mellett nem vehető figyelembe az ügyféli minőség tekintetében a Ket. 15.§-a. Az I.r. felperes által megjelölt Tpvt. szerinti jogintézmények (Tpvt. 43/G.§, 82.§) összhangban vannak a Tpvt. 52.§-ának a bejelentőt ügyfélként nem megjelölő rendelkezésével, így nem alapozzák meg az I.r. felperes keresetindítási jogát a II.r. felperes ellen hivatalból megindított és folytatott eljárásban-meghozott döntés elleni bíróság előtti fellépéshez.
 Az alperes vizsgálata eredményeként perbeli határozatával a II.r. felperes terhére a megállapított jogsértések miatt 10.000.000 forint bírságot szabott ki. Az ez ellen benyújtott felperesi keresetek alapján indult bírósági eljárás során - a Tpvt. 83.§-ában meghatározott eltérésekkel - a Pp. XX. fejezete az irányadó. A közigazgatási perekben a Pp. 324.§-ának (1) bekezdése alapján alkalmazandó Pp. 3.§-ának (1) bekezdése szerint keresetlevelet a jogvitában érdekelt fél terjeszthet elő, míg a Pp. 327.§-ának (1) bekezdés b) pontja alapján a közigazgatási per megindítására az jogosult, akinek jogát, vagy jogos érdekét a közigazgatási határozat közvetlenül érinti.
 Az I.r. felperes a versenyfelügyeleti eljárásban nem volt ügyfél, bejelentői státuszához igazodva őt a Tpvt. 52.§-a szerinti ügyfél jogai nem illették és kötelezettségei sem terhelték. Emiatt az I.r. felperesnek, mivel a versenyhivatali eljárásban nem volt ügyfél, azt kellett volna igazolnia, hogy bár az alperesi határozat reá közvetlenül rendelkezést nem tartalmazott, a részéről a perben vitatott körben keresetindítási joga van: kétség kívül fennáll a közvetlen és nyilvánvaló jogi érdekeltsége az alperesi döntés felülvizsgálatára irányulóan az ügyfél terhére kiszabott bírság felemelése iránt.
 Nem vitatottan az I.r. felperesnek - előfizetői jogviszonya alapján is - fennállt az érdekeltsége a II.r. felperes mobil-internet szolgáltatási csomagjainak népszerűsítése során alkalmazott marketing kommunikációs tevékenységével kapcsolatban. Ez azonban nem teremt közvetlen jogi érdekeltséget ahhoz, hogy közigazgatási perben a versenyhatóság által megállapított jogsértések miatt a II.r. felperes terhére kiszabott bírság felemelését kérve támadja az alperesi határozatot. A verseny tisztaságának megőrzése az alperes feladatát képezi, a felperesnek a versenyhatósági feladat teljesülését célozva a reklámok potenciális címzettjeként (előfizetőként) való fellépése a perindításhoz a közvetlen "jogi érdekeltségét" nem támasztja alá. A Legfelsőbb Bíróság BH 1997.199. számú eseti döntése szerint sincs perbeli legitimációja annak, aki saját nevébe "más" jogát kívánja - törvényi felhatalmazás hiányában - bíróság előtt indított perben érvényesíteni. Az I.r. felperesnek mint egyedi előfizetőnek a kereshetőségi joga az elvi jogsérelem orvoslására nem terjed ki, figyelemmel arra, hogy a keresetindítási, kereshetőségi jog fennálltához a törvényes érdeknek a jogi védelemhez fűződő mértéket el kell érnie, vagyis azt, hogy az a versenyjogi szabályokkal védett érdekeket közvetlenül és nyilvánvalóan érintse. Az I.r. felperes által a fellebbezésében analógiaként hivatkozott BH.2007.248. számú eseti döntésében a Legfelsőbb Bíróság azt mondta ki, hogy a fogyasztók megtévesztésén alapuló versenyfelügyeleti eljárásban hozott határozattal szemben (abban az ügyben) az eljárást bejelentéssel kezdeményező versenytársat is megilleti a kereshetőségi jog, azonban a szerződéses jogviszonyból, illetve a versenytársi minőségből fakadó jogos érdek részben nem azonos, részben önmagában nem elégséges hivatkozás.
 Az I.r. felperes a jelen ügyben a Pp. 164.§-ának (1) bekezdésében foglaltaknak megfelelően (konkrét, egyedi releváns tényekkel) nem tudta bizonyítani közvetlen jogi érdekeltségét, ami érdemben a keresetindítási, kereshetőségi jogát igazolta volna megalapozva, hogy az alperes és az II.r. felperes között létrejött közigazgatási jogviszony eredményeként hozott döntés jogszerűségét vitassa. Helyesen állapította meg az elsőfokú bíróság, hogy az I.r. felperes kereshetőségi jogának hiányában a keresetében megjelölt körben az alperesi határozati megállapítások vizsgálatára a perben nem kerülhetett sor, arra jogszerűen nem volt mód a fentebb kifejtettek szerint.
 Mindezekre figyelemmel a Fővárosi Ítélőtábla a Pp. 253.§-ának (2) bekezdése alapján az elsőfokú bíróság ítéletének fellebbezéssel nem támadott rendelkezéseit nem érintve, az I.r. felperes által fellebbezéssel támadott rendelkezéseit helybenhagyta.
 A sikertelenül fellebbező I.r. felperest a másodfokú bíróság a Pp. 78.§-ának (1) bekezdése alapján kötelezte, hogy külön-külön fizesse meg az alperesnek és a II.r. felperesnek a másodfokú eljárásban felmerült költségeit. Az I.r. felperes részére engedélyezett személyes költségmentesség folytán a fellebbezési illetéket a bírósági eljárásban alkalmazandó költségmentességről szóló 6/1986. (VI.26.) IM rendelet 14.§-a alapján az állam viseli. A pártfogó ügyvédet megillető díj viseléséről a Pp. 87.§-ának (2) bekezdése alapján a rendelkező részben írtak szerint döntött a másodfokú bíróság. A pártfogó ügyvéd díjának összegét a jogi segítségnyújtás igénybevételének részletes szabályairól szóló 56/2007. (XII.22.) IRM rendelet 87-89.§-ainak megfelelően - az elsőfokú bíróság értesítése alapján - az illetékes igazságügyi szolgálat állapítja meg [288/2010. (XII.21.) Korm. rendelet 2.§ (1) bekezdés 3, pontja.].
 Budapest, 2012. évi január hó 25. napján
 Vj-006/2009/26
 2009. 07. 07
 Versenyhivatali eljárás indult a Vodafone ellen
 2009. 02. 02