type: other

text:
A Kúria 2016. január 18-i Teljes Ülése | K Ú R I A
 A Kúria jövőbeli székházában – jelenleg a Néprajzi Múzeum épülete - 10:00 órakor kezdődő határozatképes Teljes Ülésen a Kúria elnöke ismertette a 2016. évi tudományos és elméleti munkára vonatkozó terveket. Ennek során bemutatta a Kúria és a más bíróságok munkakapcsolatának új módszereit, az együttes kollégiumi ülések terveit, illetve az új Ptk. könyvenkénti feldolgozásának közös metódusát.
 A Kúria elnökhelyettese, dr. Kónya István előadást tartott a Kúria tevékenysége és a nyilvánosság kapcsolatáról, megállapítva, hogy a Kúria feletti társadalmi ellenőrzés leghatékonyabb eszköze a nyilvánosság. Az utóbbi években mind szélesebb körben és sokrétűen kerül az ítélkező tevékenység bemutatásra. A sajtótitkárság munkájának eredményeképpen a társadalmi érdeklődésre számot tartó ügyekben szervezett és megfelelő szakmai színvonalú a médiában a Kúria ítélkezési tevékenységének megjelenése. Ez segíti az ítéletek társadalmi elfogadottságát. A jövőre vonatkozóan keresni kell a kapcsolattartás további új eszközeit.
 A 2016. évre vonatkozóan a joggyakorlat elemző csoportok vezetői bemutatták a vizsgálandó jogterületet, a vizsgálat módszerét, az elemző csoportok megalakítását, tagjait. Részletesen a joggyakorlat elemző csoportok munkájáról itt olvashatnak: http://www.kuria-birosag.hu/hu/sajto/kuriai-joggyakorlat-elemzes-kiemelt....
 Dr. Bóka János docens a főtanácsadói tevékenységről tartott előadást. Bemutatta a főtanácsadók jelenleg ellátott feladatait, amely a Kúriához érkezett jogszabálytervezetek véleményezésében, igazgatási szervezési feladatokkal kapcsolatban, illetőleg a bírók részére a döntés előkészítésben való közreműködésben, az európai bíróságok tevékenységének értékelésében és bemutatásában valósul meg. Álláspontja szerint helyesebb volna a főtanácsadói tevékenységet a döntés-előkészítésre és a bírósági ítélkezés bemutatására korlátozni, tekintettel arra, hogy a jogszabály előkészítésben a jogalkotó a bírák gyakorlati tapasztalataira kíváncsi az igazgatási tevékenységet pedig a főtanácsadók természetszerűleg nem ismerhetik kellő mélységben.
 Bódiné dr. Beliznai Kinga jogtörténész, az ELTE jogtudományi karának adjunktusa Csemegi Károly életútjának empatikus bemutatása során kitért Csemegi Károly kora társadalmi környezetének ismertetésére is. Részletesen taglalta az értékes életút legfontosabb állomásait.
 Dr. Márki Zoltán, a Kúria Büntető Kollégiumának tanácselnöke előadásában Csemegi Károly kúriai tanácselnökként végzett több évtizedes büntető bírói tevékenységét mutatta be. Kitért a tudományos és kodifikációs munkáira is.
 Dr. Molnár Ambrus, a Kúria Polgári Kollégiumának tanácselnöke a Kúria nem érdemi döntéseit elemző munkacsoport összefoglaló jelentését ismertette. A vizsgálat a Kúria több mint 5400 döntésének 18%-át képezte, feltárta és bemutatta a jogszabályi hátteret és az ezzel kapcsolatos gyakorlatot. Hozzászólásában dr. Wellmann György kollégiumvezető jelezte, hogy az összefoglalót a Polgári Kollégium kollégiumi ülésen tárgyalja tovább. Ezt követően a Teljes Ülés az összefoglalót egyhangúlag elfogadta.
 A Kúria Teljes ülése előtt jelentette be dr. Darák Péter, hogy a 2015. év bírája dr. Balogh Zsolt Péter a Közigazgatási Kollégium Önkormányzati Tanácsának bírája és a 2015. év tisztviselője Farkasné Bajnóczi Mária.
 Az 1892-ben alapított kúriai szakkönyvtár 2016. január 18-tól „A Kúria Tőry Gusztáv Jogi Szakkönyvtára” elnevezéssel működik tovább.
 13:30-kor munkája befejezésével Darák Péter elnök úr a Teljes Ülést berekesztette.
 MTI- Darák Péter: a Kúria megállapítja és megújítja a jogot
 Dr. Darák Péter úr nyilatkozata. Forrás: InfoRádió.
 Dr. Vékás Lajos professor emeritus nyilatkozata. Forrás: InfoRádió.
 Bódiné dr. Beliznai Kinga, az ELTE adjunktusa "Csemegi Károly" című előadása itt olvasható.
 Dr. Bóka János, a Nemzeti Közszolgálati Egyetem docense a "Főtanácsadók a Kúrián" című előadása itt olvasható.
 Dr. Márki Zoltán a Kúria Büntető Kollégiuma tanácselnökének előadása itt olvasható.
 A tudósításokat a forrásban megjelölt szerkesztőség engedélyével tesszük közzé.
 Az eseménnyel foglalkozott még az M1 Híradó, ATV, TV2, MR 180 perc, stop.hu, Magyar Hírlap, mandiner.hu.
 Képi összefoglaló a Kúria 2016. január 18-i Teljes Üléséről, itt megtekinthető.


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 202/319
 PROTOKOL (č. 34)
 O ZVLÁŠTNÍ ÚPRAVĚ VZTAHUJÍCÍ SE NA GRÓNSKO
 Jediný článek
 1. Zacházení s dovozem produktů, které podléhají společné organizaci trhu s produkty rybolovu a které pocházejí z Grónska, zahrnuje, při dodržování mechanismů společné organizace trhu, osvobození od cel a poplatků s rovnocenným účinkem a nepřítomnost množstevních omezení a opatření s rovnocenným účinkem, jsou-li možnosti přístupu do grónských zón rybolovu, které jsou Unii zaručeny na základě dohody mezi Unií a příslušným orgánem Grónska, pro Unii uspokojivé.
 2. Veškerá opatření týkající se úpravy dovozu těchto produktů, včetně opatření týkajících se přijímání uvedených opatření, se přijímají postupem podle článku 43 Smlouvy o fungování Evropské unie.


type: legislation

text:
 30.6.2011
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 170/34
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) št. 639/2011
 z dne 29. junija 2011
 o spremembi reprezentativnih cen in dodatnih uvoznih dajatev za nekatere proizvode v sektorju sladkorja, določenih z Uredbo (EU) št. 867/2010, za tržno leto 2010/11
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1234/2007 z dne 22. oktobra 2007 o vzpostavitvi skupne ureditve kmetijskih trgov in o posebnih določbah za nekatere kmetijske proizvode („Uredba o enotni SUT“) (1),
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 951/2006 z dne 30. junija 2006 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za izvajanje Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 318/2006 glede trgovine s tretjimi državami v sektorju sladkorja (2) in zlasti drugega stavka drugega pododstavka člena 36(2) Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Reprezentativne cene in dodatne uvozne dajatve za beli in surovi sladkor ter nekatere sirupe za tržno leto 2010/11 so bile določene z Uredbo Komisije (EU) št. 867/2010 (3). Navedene cene in dolžnosti so bile nazadnje spremenjene z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) št. 629/2011 (4).
 (2)
 Glede na podatke, ki so trenutno na voljo Komisiji, je treba navedene cene in dajatve spremeniti v skladu s pravili in postopki iz Uredbe (ES) št. 951/2006 –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Reprezentativne cene in dodatne uvozne dajatve za proizvode iz člena 36 Uredbe (ES) št. 951/2006, določene z Uredbo (EU) št. 867/2010 za tržno leto 2010/11, se spremenijo v skladu s Prilogo k tej uredbi.
 Člen 2
 Ta uredba začne veljati 30. junija 2011.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 29. junija 2011
 Za Komisijo V imenu predsednika
 José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
 Generalni direktor za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja
 (1) UL L 299, 16.11.2007, str. 1.
 (2) UL L 178, 1.7.2006, str. 24.
 (3) UL L 259, 1.10.2010, str. 3.
 (4) UL L 169, 29.6.2011, str. 25.
 PRILOGA
 Spremenjene reprezentativne cene in dodatne uvozne dajatve za beli in surovi sladkor ter proizvode z oznako KN 1702 90 95, ki se uporabljajo od 30. junija 2011
 (EUR)
 Oznaka KN
 Reprezentativna cena na 100 kg neto zadevnega proizvoda
 Dodatna uvozna dajatev na 100 kg neto zadevnega proizvoda
 1701 11 10 (1)
 51,67
 0,00
 1701 11 90 (1)
 51,67
 0,00
 1701 12 10 (1)
 51,67
 0,00
 1701 12 90 (1)
 51,67
 0,00
 1701 91 00 (2)
 53,59
 1,39
 1701 99 10 (2)
 53,59
 0,00
 1701 99 90 (2)
 53,59
 0,00
 1702 90 95 (3)
 0,54
 0,20
 (1) Določitev za standardno kakovost, kot je določena v točki III Priloge IV k Uredbi (ES) št. 1234/2007.
 (2) Določitev za standardno kakovost, kot je določena v točki II Priloge IV k Uredbi (ES) št. 1234/2007.
 (3) Določitev na 1 % vsebnosti saharoze.


jurisdiction: US

text: b"AUDIT OF BORROWER ELIGIBILTY FOR GULF\n\n COAST DISASTER LOANS \n\n\n Report Number: 9-09\n\n Date Issued: March 31, 2009 \n\n\n\n\n\n Prepared by the \n\n Office of Inspector General \n\n U. S. Small Business Administration\n\x0c 2\n\n\n\n\n\n U.S. Small Business Administration\n Office of Inspector General Memorandum\n To: \t Steven Smith, Chief, Executive Office of Disaster Date: March 31, 2009\n Strategic Planning and Operations\n\n Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator\n Office of Disaster Assistance\n\n From: \t /s/ original signed\n\n Debra S. Ritt \n\n Assistant Inspector General for Auditing \n\n\nSubject: \t Audit of Borrower Eligibility for Gulf Coast Hurricane Disaster Loans, Report\n No. 9-09\n\n This final report summarizes the results of our audit of Borrower Eligibility for\n Gulf Coast Hurricane Disaster Loans. The objective of the audit was to determine\n whether the Small Business Administration (SBA) had controls in place to prevent\n ineligible applicants from receiving disaster loans for properties that were not their\n primary residences.\n\n To address the audit objective, we reviewed 35 sampled disaster home loans to\n Grand Isle, Louisiana applicants that were referred to us by our Investigations\n Division. These loans were disbursed between October 2005 and October 2008.\n\n To determine whether individuals received loans for properties that were not their\n primary residences, we compared address information contained in the sampled\n loan applications to residences claimed on Federal income tax returns, and\n reported in Louisiana voter registration and homestead exemption databases. We\n also reviewed entries in SBA\xe2\x80\x99s Disaster Credit Management System (DCMS) to\n determine whether SBA adequately verified applicant residences reported in loan\n documents as required by Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 30 5, which\n was in effect at the time that the sampled applications were processed. We also\n interviewed Office of Disaster Assistance (ODA) staff assigned to the Fort Worth\n Loan Processing and Disbursement Center (PDC) to gain an understanding of the\n loan approval process for borrowers who owned multiple properties.\n\n We conducted the audit between June and December 2008, in accordance with\n Government Auditing Standards as prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United\n States.\n\x0c 2\n\n\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nIn 2005, Gulf Coast Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma caused more than\n$118 billion in estimated property damage. Many of the disaster victims were\neligible for SBA physical disaster loans. As of November 2008, approximately\n$6.6 billion in loans had been disbursed to assist these disaster victims.\nIndividuals are eligible to apply for a home loan if they own and occupy their\nprimary residence and have suffered a physical loss to that residence. Home\nowners and renters can apply for loans for personal property losses.\n\nBased on SOP 50 30 5, Disaster Assistance Program, 1 loan applicants are\nrequired to complete a Disaster Home Loan Application (SBA Form 5C) to begin\nthe loan application process. Applicants are instructed to list any properties they\nown or rent on their applications. SOP guidance states that although some\napplicants may have more than one residence, applicants may receive a home loan\nfor only their primary residence. If the applicant owns more than one property,\nloan officers must verify whether the property is the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence\nby checking homestead exemption and voter registration databases, among other\nsources. The homestead exemption database is a registry maintained by the state\nof Louisiana, which lists the addresses and property values of all homes registered\nwithin the state. While these sources may not definitively show proof of a\nperson\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence, they are good indicators of where borrowers reside the\ngreatest percentage of the year. Borrowers are also required to complete a Tax\nInformation Authorization Form (IRS Form 8821) and give SBA access to their\nFederal income tax filings to verify income.\n\nRESULTS IN BRIEF\n\nODA did not have adequate controls in place to ensure that borrowers were\neligible to receive disaster home loans. Specifically, of the 35 loans in our sample,\n29, or 83 percent, were approved without adequately verifying whether the\nproperty was the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence. Further, ODA did not obtain\nproof of ownership for one loan applicant. A list of the 29 loans is provided in\nAppendix I.\n\nWe found that 8 of 29 properties may not have been the applicants\xe2\x80\x99 primary\nresidences. ODA had disbursed $683,200 on these 8 loans. Because the 8\napplicants potentially made false claims, we have referred these loans to our\nInvestigations Division.\n\n\n\n1\n This SOP has since been replaced by SOP 50 30 6.\n\x0c 3\n\n\n\nIn determining primary residence eligibility, ODA did not follow policy guidance,\nwhich directs loan officers to check relevant homestead exemption databases,\nvoter registration records, or Federal tax returns when a residency is questioned.\nInstead, ODA reviewed the National Emergency Management Information System\n(NEMIS), maintained by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),\nwhich shows only occupancy data, and may be dated.\n\nWhile checking sources listed in the SOP is more reliable than NEMIS, it is more\ntime-consuming and may not provide conclusive evidence of a borrower\xe2\x80\x99s primary\nresidence. Consequently, ODA will need to identify a more reliable method of\nconfirming applicant primary residency.\n\nFinally, one borrower received a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Road\nHome Grant for approximately $19,000 after he received an SBA disaster loan for\n$38,900, resulting in a duplicate benefit.\n\nWe recommended that ODA instruct loan officers to follow the SOP requirements\nfor residency verification until a revised method can be developed, and take steps\nto revise its current procedures for verifying an applicant\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence,\nincluding considering the use of either Choice Point or other credit bureau\ndatabases. We also recommended that ODA request remittance from HUD for the\nRoad Home Grant amount that duplicated disaster benefits awarded under the\nSBA loan.\n\nManagement disagreed that 83 percent of the loans were not properly reviewed to\njustify the primary residence determination. Management also believes that 17 of\nthe 29 loans the audit identified as lacking adequate verification of the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s\nprimary residence were appropriately verified, and provided a spreadsheet\n(Appendix V) citing reasons for its position. We believe ODA inappropriately\nrelied on NEMIS data, which is not sufficient for making primary residence\ndeterminations. Further, the additional sources that ODA listed in Appendix V\nwere identified in response to the report, and not done at the time of loan approval.\nTherefore, the report is accurate in stating that ODA did not adequately verify\napplicant residency needed for eligibility determination at the time it approved the\n17 disputed loans.\n\nFinally, management concurred with our three recommendations. Because\nmanagement did not identify specific actions it plans to take on the first and\nsecond recommendations, or provide target dates for implementation, we do not\nconsider management\xe2\x80\x99s comments to be fully responsive to any of the\nrecommendations.\n\x0c 4\n\n\n\nRESULTS\n\nODA Did Not Adequately Verify Applicant Residences on 83 Percent of the\nLoans Reviewed\n\nODA did not have adequate controls in place to ensure that properties approved\nfor loans were the applicants\xe2\x80\x99 primary residences. Questions about residency\nusually arise during loan closing when the applicant identifies other properties that\nhe/she owns that will be used as collateral for the loan. When there is a question\nof residency, SOP 50 30 5 requires that various sources be checked to determine\nwhich property is the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence. These sources include the\nhomestead exemption database, voter registration records, or Federal tax returns,\namong other sources. Despite this requirement, the audit disclosed that ODA did\nnot adequately verify applicant residences on 29, or 83 percent, of the 35 loans\nsampled.\n\nFor 21 of the 29 loans, applicants listed multiple properties during the loan closing\nprocess. A comparison of the addresses claimed on these 29 loan applications\nagainst those claimed in voter registration databases, tax filings, and homestead\nexemption databases revealed that 8 properties may not have been the applicants\xe2\x80\x99\nprimary residences. For example:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t One borrower, who applied for a loan in 2005, listed his primary residence\n as Grand Isle, Louisiana and reported two other properties within the state\n that were located in Gretna and Luling. However, the borrower was not\n listed in the homestead exemption database for Grand Isle, indicating that\n he may not have had a primary residence there. Additionally, the address\n reported on the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s 2004 Federal tax returns differed from that\n listed as the primary residence on the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s loan application.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Another borrower, who owned three properties, received a loan in 2006,\n although the damaged property listed on the loan application was not\n reported in homestead exemption and voter registration records.\n Furthermore, the address on the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s 2005 tax returns was different\n than the address of the damaged property listed on the loan application.\n\nBecause borrowers for the eight loans may have made false claims in applying for\ntheir SBA loans, we have referred these cases to our Investigations Division for\npotential criminal prosecution.\n\nAlthough ODA loan officers were aware of the SOP guidance for verifying\nquestionable residences, they did not believe that the procedures outlined in the\nSOP were mandatory. Instead they said it was ODA\xe2\x80\x99s practice to use NEMIS,\n\x0c 5\n\n\n\nwhich is a centralized system maintained by FEMA that tracks all individuals who\nhave applied for disaster assistance. According to FEMA, NEMIS provides\ninsufficient information upon which to verify an individual\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence\nbecause it does not provide the length of occupancy, and the occupancy data may\nbe dated. For example, during an inspection, FEMA officials told us that NEMIS\nidentified an individual as residing in Texas, although the applicant had not lived\nthere for 10 years.\n\nWhile checking multiple data sources listed in the SOP is a more reliable process\nthan relying on NEMIS, it is more time-consuming and may not provide\nconclusive evidence of a borrower\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence. For example, borrowers\nmay not be listed in voter registration records if they did not register to vote, or in\nthe homestead exemption data base if they did not file for homestead exemption.\nConsequently, ODA will need to identify a more reliable method of confirming\napplicant primary residency. For example, ODA may want to consider using\nChoice Point or reports from credit bureaus, which provide residency information.\n\nODA Approved One Loan without Proof of Property Ownership\n\nVerification of property ownership is an important internal control to help prevent\nimproper disbursement of disaster funds to individuals who may be attempting to\nfraudulently qualify for disaster loans. Property deeds generally establish real\nestate ownership and loan eligibility. According to SOP 50 30 5, when deeds are\nnot available, ODA may use: (1) reports of damaged property from FEMA;\n(2) information from Choice Point or a similar data base of property owners;\n(3) property titles; (4) recorded land installments or contracts; (5) wills; (6) court\ndocuments; (7) affidavits from county officials; (8) property tax records;\n(9) insurance policy documents; or (10) mortgage company records as proof of\nproperty ownership.\n\nWhile the loans reviewed generally were supported by property ownership\ndocumentation, we identified one loan for $50,500 that was approved without\nevidence that the borrower owned the property that he claimed as his primary\nresidence on his loan application. The borrower stated that he owned a mobile\nhome, but not the property upon which the home was located.\n\nOTHER MATTERS\n\nIn addition to the eight loans that may have been inappropriately awarded, we\nidentified one loan that duplicated benefits received from a HUD Road Home\nGrant. The HUD grant was for approximately $19,000, and was awarded after the\nSBA loan was made to the borrower. After HUD notified ODA of the grant, ODA\ndid not request a remittance of the grant amount, as required. Consequently, SBA\n\x0c 6\n\n\n\ndid not get reimbursed, as required, for the HUD grant it inappropriately gave to\nthe loan recipient.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS\n\nWe recommended that the Chief, Executive Office of Disaster Strategic Planning\nand Operations direct the Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance to:\n\n 1. Instruct loan officers to follow the SOP requirements for residency\n verification until a revised method is developed.\n\n 2. Revise its current procedures for verifying an applicant\xe2\x80\x99s primary\n residence to ensure that a more reliable method is used than that provided\n in the SOP. For example, ODA should consider using either Choice Point\n or other credit bureau databases.\n\n 3. Request remittance from HUD for the approximately $19,000 associated\n with the Road Home Grant that duplicated disaster benefits awarded\n under the SBA loan.\n\nAGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\nRESPONSE\n\nOn February 6, 2009, we provided a draft of the report to ODA for comment. On\nMarch 6, 2009, ODA submitted its formal response, which is contained in its\nentirety in Appendix II. On March 6, 2009, the Chief of the Executive Office of\nDisaster Strategic Planning and Operations also submitted his endorsement of\nODA\xe2\x80\x99s comments, which is shown in Appendix III. Management concurred with\nrecommendations 1 and 2 and partially concurred with recommendation 3. ODA,\nhowever, disagreed with our interpretation of the primary residence requirements\nstated in the SOP and with our findings on 17 of the 29 loans that were reported as\nbeing made without adequate verification of the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence.\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s comments and our evaluation of them are summarized in the\nfollowing paragraphs, listed by the headings in ODA\xe2\x80\x99s response.\n\x0c 7\n\n\n\n\nManagement Comment 1 \xe2\x80\x93 The OIG\xe2\x80\x99s interpretation of ODA\xe2\x80\x99s requirements for\nprimary residence determinations is inaccurate.\n\nManagement stated that the OIG believes that ODA was required to check all\nsources listed in SOP 50 30 5 when making a primary residence determination,\nwhich is a misinterpretation of the SOP. Instead, ODA stated that any one of the\nsources listed could possibly justify a primary residence determination. ODA\nmanagement also referred to subsection (f) of the SOP, which authorizes the use of\nother similar sources that can be used, and advised that its reliance on NEMIS data\nmet the requirements of the SOP. Therefore, ODA believes the report is incorrect\nin saying that ODA did not adequately verify primary residences on 83 percent of\nthe loans reviewed.\n\nOIG Response\n\nWe disagree with management\xe2\x80\x99s assessment of our findings. The audit report\ndoes not state that all sources must be checked. Rather, the OIG looked for\ndocumentation that could lead to a conclusion that the application related to a\nborrower\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence. ODA relied almost exclusively on NEMIS data,\neven though according to FEMA, NEMIS only establishes occupancy and does not\nshow the length of occupancy needed to make a determination on primary\nresidence.\n\nManagement Comment 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Finding multiple properties on flood maps is not an\nadequate basis for questioning the primary residence of loan applicants\n\nManagement stated that merely finding more than one address per applicant from\nflood maps is not an adequate basis to question a borrower\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence. A\nmore thorough review of each loan file is needed to fully understand the reason for\nmultiple properties being flood mapped.\n\nManagement also disagreed with 17 of the 29 residence verifications that were\nidentified as being inadequate primarily because the NEMIS database showed the\napplicants had at one time occupied the residences claimed. After receiving our\ndraft report and in response to the exceptions found, ODA researched applicant\nresidences and provided our office with a spreadsheet showing additional sources\nof information documenting the addresses of applicants at the time of loan\napproval (provided in Appendix V).\n\x0c 8\n\n\n\n\nOIG Response\n\nBecause flood mapping identifies multiple properties either owned or used as\naddresses by the applicant, it serves as an indicator to alert the Agency to conduct\nfurther research to confirm the primary residence of loan applicants. Therefore,\nwe agree that further research is needed, as management suggests, to establish the\napplicant\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence. However, when flood maps identified multiple\nproperties, ODA did not perform additional research to confirm that the property\nclaimed was the individual\xe2\x80\x99s main residence. Instead, ODA relied solely on\nNEMIS data, which shows occupancy, but not the length of time the applicant\noccupied the property.\n\nBased on the spreadsheet accompanying management\xe2\x80\x99s response to the draft\nreport (shown in Appendix V), ODA acknowledged that it relied on NEMIS to\nmake the eligibility determinations. However, the spreadsheet also lists additional\nsources of information on applicant residences, which incorrectly suggests that\nthese sources were checked at the time of the eligibility determination. This is not\ntrue and very misleading. The additional sources of information were identified in\nresponse to the draft report and were not used to verify residency at the time of\nloan approval. We also wish to note that the majority of the applicants listed on\nthe spreadsheet provided only Post Office box address, which increases the risk of\nfraud and elevates the need to verify where these individuals resided at the time of\nthe disaster. Provided below is our rationale for why the information ODA\nprovided was not sufficient to dispute our findings on the 17 loans:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #8 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA did not adequately verify the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s residence even\n though the address provided was a Post Office box. Credit bureau reports\n and Federal tax returns were not reviewed at the time of the eligibility\n determination. ODA claimed it relied on the address used for insurance\n recoveries, which was insufficient as individuals can have insurance on\n multiple properties.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #9 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility determination was based on NEMIS, which\n does not establish length of residency. Other sources cited were not\n reviewed at the time of the eligibility determination.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #11 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA\xe2\x80\x99s determination was based solely on NEMIS.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #12 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA\xe2\x80\x99s determination was based on the driver\xe2\x80\x99s license of one\n of the applicants. However, the applicants were husband and wife, who\n had separate addresses. Further, the DCMS loan file showed that the\n borrowers had received a Road Home grant to repair property they owned,\n\x0c 9\n\n\n\n while they presented themselves as renters for the disaster loan. Therefore, \n\n there were red flags in the loan file that should have prompted ODA to \n\n further research the applicants\xe2\x80\x99 primary residence. [FOIA ex. 7(A) \n\n ]. \n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #13 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA made its determination based on the address used for\n insurance recoveries. However, because an individual can have multiple\n properties insured, this source was insufficient to establish the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s\n primary residence.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #15 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA\xe2\x80\x99s determination was based on NEMIS data, which was\n insufficient to establish the individual\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence. The pay stub in\n the loan file showed a Post Office box address.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #16 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA made its determination based solely on NEMIS data.\n Other documents cited listed Post Office box addresses and were not\n considered in the eligibility determination.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #17 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA made its determination based solely on NEMIS data.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #18 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA relied on the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s driver\xe2\x80\x99s license which was not\n sufficient to show the length of time the individual resided at the address\n needed to establish the property as the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #19 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA made its determination based solely on NEMIS data.\n Other documents cited were not considered for loan approval, and all listed\n a Post Office box address.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #21 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA made its determination based solely on NEMIS data.\n Other documents cited were not analyzed at the time of loan approval.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan # 22 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA approved the loan even though the applicant used a Post\n Office box address, which was also used on other documents that ODA\n researched. The death certificate for the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s spouse showed the\n residence as being the address of the spouse in 2004; however, by itself the\n certificate does not demonstrate that the applicant lived there at the\n residence at the time of the disaster.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #23 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA made its determination based on NEMIS and insurance\n data. NEMIS is insufficient as a source as it does not show length of\n occupancy, and insurance documents are inadequate as individuals can\n insure multiple properties.\n\x0c 10 \n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #24 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA approved the loan based on the Post Office box address\n and did not establish that the applicant lived in Grand Isle. In fact, the\n applicant also owned another property in Baton Rouge. Other documents\n that ODA researched after loan approval also disclosed a Post Office box\n address for the applicant.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #25 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA determined the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility based solely on\n NEMIS data. ODA should have taken additional steps to verify the\n residence as the applicant claimed the damaged property was the primary\n residence, but had represented the property as a business when applying for\n two prior disaster loans.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan # 26 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA considered the damaged property to be the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s\n primary residence, even though the applicant reported it as a seasonal\n dwelling that he was staying in until his primary residence, which was\n damaged by an unrelated fire, was repaired. The damaged property could\n have been considered the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence, if the applicant\n intended on permanently staying there; however the applicant informed\n ODA that it planned to move out of the damaged property once the primary\n residence was restored.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Loan #28 \xe2\x80\x93 ODA made its determination based solely on NEMIS data.\n\x0c 11 \n\n\n\nManagement Comment 3 - OIG Use of Commercial Services and External Web\nSites for Verification Purposes\n\nManagement questioned the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s use of Louisiana voter registration and\nhomestead exemption databases because these sources, at the time of the review,\ncould have shown data that was different from what existed when ODA originally\nprocessed the loans. According to ODA, the differences could have been due to\nrelocations, legitimate changes in primary residence, or other facts and\ncircumstances that may have occurred in the intervening years since loan approval.\nManagement also stated that loan officers did not have access to voter registration\nand homestead exemption records while processing the Gulf Coast Hurricane\nloans. ODA also believes that Choice Point and other credit bureau databases\nverify ownership only, and not residency.\n\nOIG Response\n\nWe agree with management that voter registration and homestead exemption\nrecords are not the best sources to use for verifying an individual\xe2\x80\x99s primary\nresidence, which is one of the audit findings. Because these sources do not\nprovide conclusive proof of residence, we recommended that SBA revise its SOP\nto identify other sources, such as Choice Point or other credit bureau databases.\nSince SBA\xe2\x80\x99s SOP instructs loan officers to use these sources for verification, we\nused them as well to determine whether addresses recorded in these databases\ndiffered from that claimed by applicants. In doing so, we reviewed information\nfor the same time period in which the loans were processed. Therefore, ODA\xe2\x80\x99s\nconcern that we relied on information that was different from that at the time of\nloan approval is not valid.\n\nFurther, we believe management\xe2\x80\x99s claim that loan officers did not have access to\nthe voter registration and homestead exemption databases illustrates that ODA did\nnot have proper controls in place to adequately safeguard taxpayer dollars.\nFinally, if ODA did not believe that voter registration records and homestead data\nwere sufficient, we question why it believes that any one of these sources could be\nused to justify the primary residence determination. Additionally, if loan officers\ndo not have access to these sources of data, we question why ODA listed them in\nits SOP as sources that should be checked when determining eligibility. Further,\nChoice Point and other credit bureau databases are simply suggested sources that\nODA may want to further research to determine whether they can be used to verify\nan individual\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence.\n\x0c 12 \n\n\n\nRecommendation 1\n\nManagement Comments\n\nManagement agrees to instruct loan officers in the interim to follow the SOP\nrequirements for residency verification. ODA previously provided instructions\nand training to all loan officers on the current SOP requirements to satisfy this\nrecommendation.\n\nOIG Response\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s comments are partially responsive to the recommendation. We\ncommend ODA for issuing a memo (shown in Appendix IV) to loan processing\nstaff and conducting training. However, once ODA revises its method for\nverifying primary residences as recommended, it should re-train loan officers and\nnotify our office that the action has been completed.\n\nRecommendation 2\n\nManagement Comments\n\nManagement agrees to research alternative methods for determining and verifying\nan applicant\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence to see if a revised procedure would be more\nreliable.\n\nOIG Response\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s comments are not fully responsive to our recommendation since it\ndid not provide a target completion date or agree to inform our office of its\nfindings and decision.\n\nRecommendation 3\n\nManagement Comments\n\nManagement agrees that there was an error in the duplicate benefit calculation.\nODA has requested the loan file from the servicing office in order to re-evaluate\nloan eligibility in light of the grant information. ODA agrees to collect any\nduplicate assistance from the appropriate party, which may be the borrower,\nversus HUD.\n\x0c 13 \n\n\n\nOIG Response\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s planned actions are responsive to the recommendation. However,\nit did not provide a target completion date needed to consider its comments fully\nresponsive.\n\nACTIONS REQUIRED\n\nWe request that you submit written comments identifying (1) target completion\ndates for all recommendations and (2) your actions proposed or taken in response\nto recommendations 2 and 3. We would appreciate receiving your additional\ncomments within 15 days of the final report date.\n\nWe appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of the Chief, Executive Office of\nDisaster Strategic Planning and Operations, the Office of Associate Administrator\nfor Disaster Assistance, and the DCMS Operations Center representatives during\nthe audit. If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202)\n205-[FOIA ex. 2] or Pamela Steele-Nelson, Director, Disaster Assistance Group,\nat (202) 205-[FOIA ex. 2].\n\x0c 14 \n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I \n\n LISTING OF EXCEPTIONS FROM SAMPLE LOAN REVIEW\n\nNumber Loan # Approved Amount Disbursed Amount\n\n\n 1 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 155,900.00 $ 80,000.00\n\n 2 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 111,800.00 $ 72,500.00\n\n 3 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 150,000.00 $ 135,000.00\n\n 4 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 101,100.00 $ 101,100.00\n\n 5 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 85,600.00 $ 10,000.00\n\n 6 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 182,900.00 $ 109,000.00\n\n 7 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 83,100.00 $ 83,100.00\n\n 8 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 33,800.00 $ 33,800.00\n\n 9 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 89,700.00 $ 86,300.00\n\n 10 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 168,600.00 $ 119,500.00\n\n 11 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 98,000.00 $ 96,200.00\n\n 12 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 40,000.00 $ 20,000.00\n\n 13 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 48,600.00 $ 10,000.00\n\n 14 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 48,100.00 $ 10,000.00\n\n 15 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 128,300.00 $ 118,300.00\n\n 16 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 90,600.00 $ 66,900.00\n\n 17 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 75,300.00 $ 75,300.00\n\n 18 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 80,900.00 $ 80,900.00\n\n 19 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 150,000.00 $ 75,000.00\n\n 20 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 108,000.00 $ 108,000.00\n\n 21 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 68,300.00 $ 68,300.00\n\n 22 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 23,000.00 $ 10,000.00\n\x0c 15 \n\n\n\n23 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 79,800.00 $ 79,800.00\n\n24 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 202,200.00 $ 86,000.00\n\n25 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 104,300.00 $ 74,300.00\n\n26 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 187,700.00 $ 137,900.00\n\n27 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 68,800.00 $ 50,500.00\n\n28 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 97,000.00 $ 76,100.00\n\n29 [FOIA ex. 2] $ 81,400.00 $ 81,400.00\n $ 2,942,800.00 $ 2,155,200.00\n\x0c 16 \n\nAPPENDIX II. AGENCY RESPONSE \n\n U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION\n\n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20416\n\n\n\n\n\n Date:\n\n To: Debra S. Ritt\n Assistant Inspector General for Auditing\n\n Thru: Steven G. Smith\n Chief, EODSPO\n\n From: Herbert L. Mitchell\n Associate Administrator\n Office of Disaster Assistance\n\n Subject: OIG Draft Report \xe2\x80\x93 The Audit of Borrower Eligibility for Gulf Coast\n Disaster Loans (Project No. 8407)\n\n We have reviewed the draft audit report regarding The Audit of Borrower Eligibility for\n Gulf Coast Disaster Loans. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the\n Small Business Administration (SBA) had controls in place to prevent ineligible\n applicants from receiving disaster loans for properties that were not their primary\n residences. The Office of Disaster Assistance (ODA) would like to thank the OIG for the\n opportunity to respond to the Draft Report.\n\n I. OIG\xe2\x80\x99s interpretation of ODA\xe2\x80\x99s SOP 50 30 5, specifically, paragraph 19, is not \n\n accurate. \n\n\n The audit report makes an erroneous conclusion as to what is required by a loan officer in\n determining primary residence eligibility. Contrary to the plain meaning of the language\n in this paragraph, it appears from the statements and conclusions in the audit that OIG is\n viewing Paragraph 19 as an all inclusive list requiring that all factors listed be present in\n order to find eligibility as a primary residence. This is evidenced by the third paragraph\n of the RESULTS IN BRIEF section of the draft report. The paragraph reads: \xe2\x80\x9cIn\n determining primary residence eligibility, ODA did not follow policy guidance, which\n directs loan officers to check relevant homestead exemption databases, voter registration\n records, or Federal tax returns. Instead, ODA reviewed the National Emergency\n\x0c 17 \n\n\n\nManagement Information System (NEMIS), maintained by the Federal Emergency\nManagement Agency (FEMA), which shows only occupancy data, and may be dated.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nIt s further evidenced by the fact that the report indicates that 29 out of 35 loans reviewed\nor 83 percent did not include all the factors listed in Paragraph 19.\n\nThe SOP does not require all listed factors be applied to a primary residence eligibility\ndetermination, nor is it an inclusive list of all factors that can be applied. Particularly in\nsection 19 a(2), guidelines are offered if a primary residence is not easily determined\nfrom reviewing the information contained in the application processing file.\n\nThe SOP states:\n\n19. \t PRIMARY RESIDENCE ELIGIBILITY\n Although some applicants may have more than one residence, for SBA disaster\n loan eligibility purposes, an applicant can have only one primary residence [see\n limited exception at subparagraph 13.n.(2)].\n a. \t Determination of a Primary Residence.\n (1) \t For either a homeowner or a renter, a damaged residence (e.g.,\n house, apartment, condominium, manufactured home, etc.) is\n eligible only if it is the applicant's primary residence.\n (2) \t Generally, every applicant has only one primary residence. This\n becomes an eligibility issue when the applicant owns more than\n one piece of real property, or rents more than one apartment or\n home simultaneously. In these cases, the information in the loan\n application package will frequently provide the necessary\n explanations. For example, if an application indicates ownership\n of two residences, but one of them is clearly substantiated by\n Federal Income Tax Returns (FTR) as rental income property, no\n further inquiry is necessary to establish the other home as the\n primary residence. However, if you cannot readily determine\n which is the applicant's primary residence use the following\n factors.\n (a) \t An applicant has filed for homestead exemption or similar\n filing in those states that permit these filings. Similarly, in\n some tax jurisdictions, an applicant's home may be taxed at\n a preferred rate based on owner-occupancy status, which\n confirms primary residence status.\n (b) \t Address used for voting purposes.\n (c) \t Address used for identifying the school district to which\n children are assigned.\n (d) \t Address used on FTR.\n\x0c 18 \n\n\n\n (e) The residence used the greatest percentage of the year.\n (f) Other similar factors.\n\nAny one of these factors can contribute to, or fully justify, a primary residence\ndetermination. In addition, sub-section (f) authorizes the use of \xe2\x80\x9cOther similar factors\xe2\x80\x9d\nwhich guidance and training to loan officers defines as including FEMA NEMIS Reports\n(which verifies both ownership and occupancy).\n\nThe inclusion of sub-section (f) in the list, and the very nature of disaster lending, makes\na conclusion that the SOP requires all of the factors to be applied to a primary residence\ndetermination inappropriate. That sub-section (f) invites the identification of other\nfactors, and the fact that the availability of the data on listed factors will vary greatly\nfrom among the over 55 jurisdictions in which ODA makes loans, is indicative of the\nparagraph\xe2\x80\x99s meaning to offer options for making use of available information to make a\ndetermination.\n\nIn addition, in the Loan Officer Home Loan Processing Module, SBA instructs Loan\nOfficers to utilize NEMIS for determining primary residences.\n\nII. It appears that the Legend of Exception provided by the OIG concludes that\nbecause several of the accounts reviewed had multiple properties flood mapped, that\nthis should have been an indicator of eligibility problems. This is an incorrect\nassumption.\n\nParagraph 51 of the Disaster Assistance Program SOP requires the flood mapping of\nrelocation properties purchased after the disaster, temporary addresses if personal\nproperty funds are being allowed, and additional collateral properties (including\nbusinesses if the RE is unavailable or not owned by the applicant). Accordingly, merely\nfinding more than one address, per application, that was subject to flood mapping is not a\nbasis for drawing the conclusion that the primary residence was in question. To fully\nunderstand the reason for multiple properties being flood mapped, a more thorough\nreview of each file must be completed. For example, of the files audited, ten properties\nwere flood mapped because they were temporary addresses; five properties were\ndetermined to be properties the borrowers were relocating to; and seven of the properties\nwere additional addresses owned by the applicants; and one was a commercial property\nused as additional collateral.\n\nIII. OIG Use of Commercial Services and External Web Sites for Verification\nPurposes\n\nIn conducting this audit the OIG used residence addresses reported in the Louisiana voter\nregistration and homestead exemption databases. It is possible that the results that the\nOIG received from these sources at the time of their review would have been different\nfrom when ODA originally processed these loans. Reasons for any such differences could\n\x0c 19 \n\n\n\ninclude: relocations, legitimate changes of primary residence or other facts and\ncircumstances that may have occurred in the intervening years since approval.\n\nAdditionally, ODA loan officers did not have access to these databases while processing\nthe Gulf Coast Hurricane files.\n\nOIG also suggests that ODA utilize Choice Point or Equifax credit bureau databases. It is\nODA\xe2\x80\x99s understanding that these databases merely verify ownership, not residency.\nFEMA, through NEMIS, currently utilizes Choice Point as part of their identity\nownership verification check and to confirm address verification data.\n\nThe expectation that this data should have contributed to the initial eligibility decision is\nspeculative. Also the conclusions made based upon findings in evidence when the audit\nwas completed versus the time of application are of questionable value and relevance.\n\nODA knows the importance of determining eligibility for the disaster loan program. Our\nProcessing and Disbursement Center (PDC) has recently taken the following steps to help\naddress how loan officers establish primary residence eligibility:\n\n 1.\t Issued Application Processing Memo #08-13, Primary Residence Determination\n dated December 17, 2008 was issued to PDC Loan Processing Staff.\n\n 2.\t Conducted Eligibility Training on February 11, 2009, at the PDC with\n approximately 260 loan officers attending to review, in part, How to Determine\n Primary Residence. The training included:\n\n -\t Primary Residence Eligibility, Paragraph 19, SOP\n -\t Ineligible Applicants/Property, Paragraph 15 and 32, SOP\n -\t Review of Application Processing Memo #08-13, Primary\n Residence Determination\n -\t Indicators of possible Primary Residence eligibility issues for\n Home Loans (Spotting and reconciling conflicting indicators).\n -\t Factors to consider if you cannot readily determine primary\n residence under Paragraph 19, SOP.\n -\t SOP Paragraph 88 b and c, Eligibility for Renters, and\n Establishing Real Estate Eligibility for Unsecured Loans.\n\nAs part of this response, ODA is also including two attachments:\n\n Attachment 1 \xe2\x80\x93Legend of Exception Excel spreadsheet that includes a\n detailed response to each specific exception noted in the OIG findings for\n each application number. Of this sampling ODA has agreed with 12 and\n disagreed with 17 of OIG\xe2\x80\x99s determinations.\n\n Attachment 2 \xe2\x80\x93 copy of PDC Application Processing Memo #08-13, titled\n \xe2\x80\x9cPrimary Residence Determination\xe2\x80\x9d dated December 17, 2008.\n\x0c 20 \n\n\n\nOIG RECOMMENDATIONS AND AGENCY RESPONSE\n\n 1.\t Instruct loan officers to follow the SOP requirements for residency\n verification until a revised method is developed.\n ODA Response: ODA agrees to instruct the loan officers to follow the SOP\n requirements for residency verification. ODA has previously provided\n instructions and training to all loan officers of the current requirements of\n the SOP in this matter (memo attached).\n\n 2.\t Revise its current procedures for verifying an applicant\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence\n to ensure that a more reliable method is used than that provided in the SOP.\n For example, ODA should consider using either Choice Point or Equifax\n databases.\n\n ODA Response: ODA agrees to research alternative methods of\n determining and verifying an applicant\xe2\x80\x99s primary residence to see if a\n revised procedure would be more reliable.\n\n 3.\t Request remittance from HUD for the $19,000 associated with the Road\n Home grant that duplicated disaster benefits awarded under the SBA loan.\n\n ODA Response: ODA partially agrees. ODA agrees that there was an error\n in the DOB calculation. ODA has requested the loan file from the servicing\n office in order to re-evaluate the eligibility and grant information. ODA\n agrees to collect any duplicated assistance from the appropriate party, which\n may be the borrower, not HUD.\n\n\n\n\n[FOIA ex. 2]- Audit of Borrower Eligibility for Gulf Coast Disaster Loans response final\ndraft\n[FOIA ex. 2]\n\x0cAPPENDIX III. ENDORSEMENT OF AGENCY RESPONSE \n\n 21 \n\n\n\n U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION\n\n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20416\n\n\n\n\n\n Date: \t March 5, 2009\n To: \t Debra S. Ritt\n Assistant Inspector General for Auditing\n From:\t Steven G. Smith\n Chief, Executive Office of Disaster Strategic Planning\n and Operations\n Subject: \t OIG Draft Report \xe2\x80\x94 The Audit of Borrower Eligibility\n for Gulf Coast Disaster Loans (Project No. 8407)\n\n I have reviewed the draft report regarding the Audit of Borrower\n Eligibility for Gulf Coast Disaster Loans and the response from the Office\n of Disaster Assistance. The ODA response is complete and on point. In\n the conduct of this audit it appears that OIG made assumptions that were\n not in accordance with SOP and then audited to these assumptions rather\n than to SOP. If auditors disagree with the soundness of the SOP itself, an\n explanation as to why, and a recommendation to review and justify the\n SOP is warranted.\n\n As it is currently presented the draft report generates a misleading\n conclusion that ODA did not verify residency on 83% of loans when in\n fact residency for many of these loans was verified in compliance with\n SBA policy\n\n I recommend against the release of this report with the finding as currently\n presented.\n\n EODSPO will work with ODA to implement the recommendations in this\n report and to insure a more comprehensive and statistically valid annual\n quality assurance review that will include a residency verification\n component.\n\n In addition to the corrective steps outlined in the ODA response, my office\n and ODA are continuously exploring means to automate data searches\n within the Disaster Credit Management System with the twofold goal of\n increasing loan processing throughput during surge conditions such as\n created by the 2005 Gulf hurricanes and improving the accuracy of the\n\x0c 22 \n\n\n\ndata employed during underwriting. Your suggestions regarding Choice\nPoint and other databases will be factored into this search.\n\n\nAttachments.\n\nCopy to:\nActing Administrator\nChief of Staff\nAssociate Administrator Disaster Assistance\n\x0c 23 \n\n\nAPPENDIX IV. AP MEMORANDUM 08-13 \n\n\x0c24 \n\n\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c"


type: caselaw

text:
 12.9.2016
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 C 335/18
 Urteil des Gerichtshofs (Erste Kammer) vom 13. Juli 2016 (Vorabentscheidungsersuchen des Verwaltungsgerichts Düsseldorf — Deutschland) — Joachim Pöpperl/Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
 (Rechtssache C-187/15) (1)
 ((Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Art. 45 AEUV - Freizügigkeit der Arbeitnehmer - Beamter eines Mitgliedstaats, der aus dem öffentlichen Dienst ausgeschieden ist, um eine Beschäftigung in einem anderen Mitgliedstaat auszuüben - Nationale Regelung, die für diesen Fall den Verlust des im öffentlichen Dienst erworbenen Anspruchs auf Ruhegehalt und die Nachversicherung in der gesetzlichen Rentenversicherung vorsieht))
 (2016/C 335/23)
 Verfahrenssprache: Deutsch
 Vorlegendes Gericht
 Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf
 Parteien des Ausgangsverfahrens
 Kläger: Joachim Pöpperl
 Beklagter: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
 Tenor
 1.
 Art. 45 AEUV ist dahin auszulegen, dass er einer nationalen Regelung wie der im Ausgangsverfahren in Rede stehenden entgegensteht, nach der eine in einem Mitgliedstaat verbeamtete Person, die auf eigenen Wunsch aus dem Beamtenverhältnis ausscheidet, um eine Beschäftigung in einem anderen Mitgliedstaat auszuüben, ihre Ansprüche auf Ruhegehalt aus der Beamtenversorgung verliert und in der gesetzlichen Rentenversicherung nachversichert wird, wobei die daraus folgenden Altersrentenansprüche niedriger als die Ruhegehaltsansprüche sind.
 2.
 Art. 45 AEUV ist dahin auszulegen, dass es dem nationalen Gericht obliegt, für die volle Wirksamkeit dieses Artikels Sorge zu tragen und den Arbeitnehmern in einem Fall wie dem im Ausgangsverfahren in Rede stehenden Ruhegehalts- bzw. Altersrentenansprüche zuzuerkennen, die jenen von Beamten vergleichbar sind, die trotz eines Dienstherrenwechsels der ruhegehaltsfähigen Dienstzeit entsprechende Ruhegehaltsansprüche behalten, indem es das innerstaatliche Recht im Einklang mit diesem Artikel auslegt oder, falls eine solche Auslegung nicht möglich ist, entgegenstehende Vorschriften des innerstaatlichen Rechts unangewendet lässt, um dieselbe Regelung anzuwenden, die für diese Beamten gilt.
 (1) ABl. C 245 vom 27.7.2015.


type: wikipedia

text:
Юлиана (пълно име Juliana Louise Emma Marie Wilhelmina van Oranje-Nassau), принцеса на Оранж-Насау, херцогиня на Мекленбург-Шверин (30 април 1909 г. – 20 март 2004 г.) е управляваща кралица на Нидерландия от 6 септември 1948 г. до 30 април 1980 г.
 Биография
 Ранни години и образование
 Принцеса Юлиана е родена на 30 април 1909 г. в двореца Нордейнде в Хага. Тя е единствено и дългоочаквано дете на принц Хендрик, херцог на Мекленбург-Шверин и кралица Вилхелмина Нидерландска (раждането на Юлиана идва след няколко неуспешни бременности на майка ѝ).
 Юлиана прекарва детството си в двореца Хет Ло в Апелдорн и дворците Нордейнде и Хойс тен Бос в Хага. По съвета на образователен специалист в двореца Хойс тен Бос е сформиран малък клас, така че шестгодишната принцеса да получи началното си образование заедно с деца на своята възраст. Средното си образование получава от частни преподаватели.
 С навършване на 18 години (30 април 1927 г.) според конституцията на Нидерландия, Юлиана става пълнолетна и при необходимост може да поеме кралските правомощия. Два дни по-късно майка ѝ я прави член на Държавния съвет.
 През 1927 г. принцеса Юлиана постъпва в университета в Лайден, където до 1930 г. изучава предмети, свързани с бъдещите ѝ задължения на държавен глава и с личните ѝ интереси в областта на литературата и религията. Участва в различни студентски дейности. Получава почетен докторат по литература и философия.
 След завършване на образованието си, принцеса Юлиана се ангажира с разрешаването на някои социални проблеми. Оглавява специална комисия, основана за подпомагане на жертвите на икономическата криза в Нидерландия в началото на 30-те години. След смъртта на баща си, тя заема неговото място като президент на нидерландския Червен кръст.
 Брак и семейство
 През 1936 г. по време на Зимните Олимпийски игри в Германия, Юлиана се запознава с Бернхард, принц на Липе-Бистерфелд. Годежът между двамата е обявен на 8 септември 1936 г. Преди да сключат брак, Бернхард получава нидерландско гражданство. Сватбата се състои на 7 януари 1937 г. (на същата дата се навършват 58 години от сватбата на бабата и дядото на Юлиана – Вилхелм III Нидерландски и кралица Ема). Юлиана и Бернхард се установяват в двореца Сустдейк в Баарн.
 До началото на Втората световна война им се раждат две дъщери – Беатрикс и Ирене. Германската инвазия на 10 май 1940 г. принуждава Юлиана и Бернхард да напуснат страната заедно с децата си. Те отиват в Обединеното кралство, а месец по-късно принцесата отвежда дъщерите си в Канада, където живеят в Рокклиф, предградие на Отава. По-време на войната Юлиана работи активно за нидерландския Червен кръст и поддържа контакти с нидерландските колонии в Канада и САЩ. Принц Бернхард, който остава в Лондон, заедно с кралица Вилхелмина, успява да посети семейството си в Канада няколко пъти. В Отава се ражда и третата дъщеря на двамата – Маргрит. Един от кръстниците ѝ е Франклин Рузвелт.
 През април 1945 г. принцеса Юлиана и кралица Вилхелмина се връщат в освободената част на Нидерландия; цялото семейство се събира отново на нидерландска земя през август същата година. Веднага след завръщането си в страната, принцесата се включва в операция за подпомагане на хората в северната част на страната, където гладът предишната зима е взел много жертви. След капитулацията на Германия през май, същата година, Юлиана участва в различни дейности за оказване на помощ на жертвите от войната. Оглавява Изпълнителния комитет на Съвета за реабилитиране на нидерландския народ. През пролетта на 1946 г. посещава заедно със съпруга си страни, помогнали на Нидерландия по време на окупацията.
 През 1947 г. се ражда четвъртата дъщеря на Юлиана и Бернхард – Мария Христина (Марейке). По време на бременността Юлиана боледува от рубеола и детето се ражда със силно увредено зрение, което впоследствие се подобрява.
 Кралица на Нидерландия
 Принцеса Юлиана изпълнява за известно време функциите на регент през есента на 1947 г. и през 1948 г., когато по здравословни причини кралица Вилхелмина е възпрепятствана при изпълнението на задълженията си. Вилхелмина обявява решението си да абдикира и на 4 септември 1948 Юлиана става новата кралица на Нидерландия. Управлението ѝ е белязано от драматични събития.
 През 1949 г. тя подписва акт, с който обявява независимостта на Индонезия след 346 години колониално управление. През 1953 г. големи наводнения в страната вземат много жертви и кралицата лично посещава всички засегнати райони и предприема мерки да се осигури международна помощ. Въпреки трудностите, през първата декада от управлението на Юлиана страната постига икономически напредък. Създаден е Бенелюкс; страната се присъединява към NATO и една от шестте, подписали Договора от Рим, поставил началото на Европейската икономическа общност. През 1975 г. кралица Юлиана подписва акта за независимостта на Суринам.
 През годините Юлиана се занимава активно с дейности, свързани със социалната сфера. Прави чести посещения в различни здравни и социални институции. В международен план работи за разрешаване на проблемите в развиващите се страни, за подпомагане на бежанците и за децата по света. Нееднократно прави големи дарения за каузи в полза на децата и младежта. За дейността си в полза на обществото, кралица Юлиана става доктор хонорис кауза на социалните науки на Грьонингенския университет през 1964 г.
 Абдикация, късни години и смърт
 На 31 януари 1980 г. Юлиана обявява официално решението си да абдикира в полза на дъщеря си Беатрикс на 30 април същата година (71-вия ѝ рожден ден). В деня, когато Беатрикс се възкачва на престола, обявява, че в знак на почит към майка си желае 30 април да се празнува като официален рожден ден на кралицата (и национален празник). Официалната титла на Юлиана след абдикацията е „Нейно величество кралицата-майка на Нидерландия“, но тя предпочита обръщението „Принцеса Юлиана Нидерландска“.
 Принцеса Юлиана още известно време е социално ангажирана, като от началото на 90-те постепенно се оттегля от публичния живот. До 1994 г. всяка зима заедно с принц Бернхард ходят на ски, обикновено в Австрия.
 Умира на 20 март 2004 г. в замъка Сустдейк, Баарн. Погребана е на 30 март в кралската крипта в Новата църква в Делфт.
 Бернхард Нидерландски умира на 1 декември същата година и е погребан до нея.
 Потомство
 Юлиана Нидерландска и принц Бернхард имат четири деца:
 Беатрикс (р. 31 януари 1938 г., кралица на Нидерландия след 30 април 1980)
 Ирене (р. 5 август 1939 г.)
 Маргрит (р. 19 януари 1943 г.)
 Мария Христина (р. 18 февруари 1947 г.)
 Източници
 Крале на Нидерландия
 Жени държавни глави
 Родени в Хага
 Носители на награда „Нансен“
 Носители на Ордена на Бялата роза
 Починали от пневмония


text:
George Martin Lott (ur. 16 października 1906 w Springfield, zm. 2 grudnia 1991 w Chicago) – amerykański tenisista, zwycięzca Wimbledonu, mistrzostw USA i mistrzostw Francji w grze podwójnej, reprezentant w Pucharze Davisa.
 Kariera tenisowa
 W czasie studiów na University of Chicago poza tenisem uprawiał baseball.
 Między 1924 a 1934 rokiem dziewięciokrotnie został sklasyfikowany w czołowej dziesiątce rankingu amerykańskiego, w tym w 1931 roku na pozycji wicelidera. Na czele rankingu w tymże roku znajdował się Ellsworth Vines, który pokonał Lotta w finale mistrzostw USA. Finał mistrzostw USA okazał się największym sukcesem singlowym w karierze Lotta, który ponadto mógł się szczycić tytułem mistrza USA na kortach ziemnych (1932, po finale z Bryanem Grantem).
 W grze podwójnej i mieszanej George Lott odniósł łącznie dwanaście zwycięstw wielkoszlemowych. W mistrzostwach USA triumfował pięć razy w deblu, z trzema różnymi partnerami (Johnem Doegiem, Lesem Stoefenem i Johnem Henneseyem) oraz trzy razy w mikście (dwukrotnie z Betty Nuthall i raz z Helen Jacobs). W 1931 roku w parze z Johnem Van Rynem wygrał mistrzostwa Francji. Był w trzech deblowych finałach Wimbledonu, z których wygrał dwa, za każdym razem pokonując francuskich „Muszkieterów Tenisa” – w 1931 w parze z Van Rynem zwyciężył z Jacques’em Brugnonem i Henrim Cochetem, a w 1934 roku z Lesem Stoefenem pokonał Jacques’a Brugnona i Jeana Borotrę. W finale w 1930 roku, występując z Johnem Doegiem, musiał uznać wyższość innej amerykańskiej pary, Johna Van Ryna i Wilmera Allisona. W 1931 roku triumfował w wimbledońskim mikście w parze z Anną McCune Harper.
 Lott wygrywał również mistrzostwa USA w deblu w hali (1932 z Van Rynem, 1934 ze Stoefenem) i na nawierzchni ziemnej (1932 z Grantem).
 W latach 1928–1934 występował w reprezentacji USA w Pucharze Davisa (poza 1932) i pozostał niepokonany w deblu (11 wygranych spotkań), w singlu uzyskując bilans 7 zwycięstw i 4 porażek. W żadnej z edycji z udziałem Lotta Amerykanom nie udało się triumfować w Pucharze Davisa. Dwukrotnie przegrane pojedynki Lotta przesądzały losy rywalizacji na korzyść Francji – w 1929 Amerykanin uległ w piątym meczu finału przeciwko Cochetowi, a rok później w czwartym spotkaniu finału przegrał z Borotrą.
 W 1934 roku Lott dołączył do grona tenisistów zawodowych i uczestniczył w meczach pokazowych. Zdobył również dwukrotnie deblowe mistrzostwo USA profesjonalistów, w 1935 w parze z Lesem Stoefenem i w 1937 z Vincentem Richardsem.
 Był tenisistą praworęcznym, skutecznym woleistą, z różnorodnymi zagraniami taktycznymi. Stosował zmienne rotacje w zagraniach. Po zakończeniu kariery zawodniczej pracował jako trener zespołu akademickiego na Loyola University, do późnej starości.
 W 1964 roku został uhonorowany miejscem w Międzynarodowej Tenisowej Galerii Sławy.
 Finały w turniejach wielkoszlemowych
 Gra pojedyncza (0–1)
 Gra podwójna (8–1)
 Gra mieszana (4–1)
 Bibliografia
 Bud Collins, Tennis Encyclopedia, Visible Ink Press, Detroit 1997
 Martin Hedges, The Concise Dictionary of Tennis, Mayflower Books Inc, Nowy Jork 1978
 Profil na stronie International Tennis Hall of Fame
 Amerykańscy tenisiści
 Członkowie Międzynarodowej Tenisowej Galerii Sławy
 Urodzeni w 1906
 Zmarli w 1991