jurisdiction: US

text: b'TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n The Planning and Implementation of Changes\n to the Recruiting and Hiring Process Could\n Be Improved\n\n\n\n September 2005\n\n Reference Number: 2005-10-183\n\n\n\n\n This report has cleared the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration disclosure review process\n and information determined to be restricted from public release has been redacted from this document.\n\n\n\n Web Site | http://www.tigta.gov\n\x0c DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY\n WASHINGTON, D.C. 20220\n\n\n\n\nTREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL\n FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n\n September 30, 2005\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER\n\n\n\n FROM: Pamela J. Gardiner\n Deputy Inspector General for Audit\n\n SUBJECT: Final Audit Report \xe2\x80\x93 The Planning and Implementation of Changes to\n the Recruiting and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n (Audit # 200410029)\n\n This report presents the results of our review of the Internal Revenue Service\xe2\x80\x99s (IRS) ability to\n recruit and hire to meet its workforce needs. This audit was conducted as part of the Treasury\n Inspector General for Tax Administration\xe2\x80\x99s Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Audit Plan.\n\n Synopsis\n A major responsibility of a Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) is to set and oversee the\n workforce strategy of the agency. The CHCO is currently in the process of finalizing the IRS\n Human Capital Strategic Plan to set forth the strategies to ensure the IRS builds and maintains\n the workforce needed to carry out its mission. We asked about the status of the IRS efforts to\n realign its workforce to place more employees in \xe2\x80\x9cfront-line\xe2\x80\x9d service, compliance, and\n enforcement positions. Human Capital Office (HCO) officials advised us that the HCO staff\n does not track this information. Furthermore, the HCO had difficulty in providing information\n on the planning and implementation of its own restructuring. We plan to perform further audit\n work to assess this reorganization and whether it has achieved its intended goal of realigning the\n workforce to place more employees in front-line service, compliance, and enforcement positions.\n The plans and cost-benefit analysis for implementing the new recruiting and hiring system were\n inadequate. The IRS entered into an agreement with QuickHire\xc2\xae for a system known as\n CareerConnector in 2002. The system has an estimated cost of $8.6 million over a 7-year period,\n and to date the IRS has incurred approximately $2.5 million in internal costs to implement and\n operate this system. HCO officials stated they do not know the amount of savings that will result\n from the implementation of CareerConnector. A cost-benefit analysis for the web-based version\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\nof the CareerConnector system was not performed before it was implemented. The limited cost\nsavings data to date do not appear to indicate the savings will be greater than the costs when the\nsystem is fully implemented. Furthermore, some Federal Government agencies have\nexperienced significant problems with QuickHire\xc2\xae because of capacity limitations. One Federal\nGovernment agency terminated its contract because of the extent of the problems. The IRS is\nworking with the contractor to ensure the system has the capacity needed and is properly tested\nbefore full implementation.\nSome steps are being taken to improve the recruiting and hiring process. The IRS is using\ncategory ratings to improve its ability to hire the most qualified job candidates. It has also\nrefined its assessments of applicants for mission critical occupations, such as the revenue agent\nand revenue officer occupations. While there are no specific data to show the effect of the new\nprocesses, the business unit staff we interviewed believes these enhancements have led to better\nhiring decisions.\nSince May 2004, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has advocated that all Federal\nGovernment agencies strive to complete their hiring actions within 45 days, measured from the\ndate a job vacancy announcement closes to the date an offer of employment is made. The IRS\ncannot measure the time it takes to complete an external hiring until CareerConnector is fully\nimplemented. Furthermore, the HCO staff does not believe meeting the OPM 45-Day Hiring\nModel is feasible for some positions because of the additional actions necessary for these\npositions. The HCO has instead established a goal of providing a certificate to the selecting\nofficial within 21 days of a vacancy announcement closing, which is the portion of the hiring\nprocess for which they are directly responsible. Nonetheless, to help in progressing toward the\nOPM\xe2\x80\x99s 45-day goal, we believe the CHCO should work with individual business units to\nestablish reasonable goals for the external hiring process, including the period from the date a job\nvacancy announcement closes to the date an offer of employment is made.\n\nRecommendations\nWe recommended the CHCO establish policies and procedures to ensure the progress of\nworkforce realignment is adequately assessed by the HCO. HCO officials should review\nperformance measurements on a monthly basis as the HCO downsizing continues, to evaluate the\nimpact of staff reductions and to ensure staffing is adequate to timely process vacancy\nannouncements. The CHCO, in coordination with the Department of the Treasury, should\nperform an analysis to evaluate the impact CareerConnector will have on HCO staff reductions\nas well as the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 hiring efforts. This information should be used to complete a cost-benefit\nanalysis to determine if the system will provide benefits to the IRS which exceed the costs of\ncompleting the implementation and then operating and maintaining the system. Lastly, for job\ncategories in which the hiring process takes longer than 45 days, the CHCO should work with\n\n\n 2\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\nthe business units to set appropriate goals and periodically evaluate the process to assess where\nfurther improvements could be made.\n\nResponse\nHCO management stated they have effectively monitored the progress of the HCO portion of the\nResource Optimization workforce realignment. Management will review HCO policies and\nprocedures to determine whether additional action is necessary to ensure adequate assessment of\ntheir workforce realignment. Management believes they adequately monitor hiring measures and\nwill continue to review performance measurements to evaluate the timeliness of vacancy\nannouncement processing. The HCO plans to conduct a workload analysis once\nCareerConnector has been fully deployed. As new occupations are added to CareerConnector,\nthe HCO is collecting return on investment data that document the old and new processes and\nproject cost and time savings from the new process. The IRS has established service agreements\nfor external hiring supported by CareerConnector consistent with the Department of the Treasury\npolicy and has a workgroup developing IRS policy and implementation procedures.\nManagement supports the OPM 45-Day Hiring Model and its goals but noted that the Model was\ndeveloped without consideration of the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 multiphase processes, high-volume hiring, and need\nto sequence external hiring with internal placement actions. Management\xe2\x80\x99s complete response to\nthe draft report is included as Appendix IV.\n\nOffice of Audit Comment\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s response does not adequately address our recommendation to establish policies\nand procedures to ensure the progress of workforce realignment is adequately assessed by the\nHCO. Management\xe2\x80\x99s response appears to be limited to assessing the HCO\xe2\x80\x99s realignment. We\nbelieve the HCO should ensure it has the information needed to assess the progress of the overall\nIRS workforce realignment. The IRS response also does not adequately address our\nrecommendation to establish baselines for positions that require extensive assessments and to\nmeasure and evaluate the process for further improvement. From the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 response, it is unclear\nwhether the workgroup developing IRS policy and implementation procedures will work toward\nestablishing baselines with which to evaluate the hiring processes for these positions. We have\nalso included Office of Audit comments to specific issues in management\xe2\x80\x99s general discussion of\nthe report as Appendix V.\nCopies of this report are also being sent to the IRS managers affected by the report\nrecommendations. Please contact me at (202) 622-6510 if you have questions or\nDaniel R. Devlin, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Headquarters Operations and Exempt\nOrganizations Programs), at (202) 622-8500.\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\nBackground ..........................................................................................................Page 1\n\nResults of Review ...............................................................................................Page 3\n Resource Optimization Planning Information Was Incomplete ...................Page 3\n Recommendations 1 and 2: ..............................................Page 4\n\n The Plans and Cost-Benefit Analysis for Implementing\n the New Recruiting and Hiring System Were Inadequate ............................Page 4\n Recommendation 3:........................................................Page 8\n\n Some Steps Are Being Taken to Improve the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process ........................................................................................Page 8\n The Timeliness of the External Hiring Process Should Be\n Measured and Appropriate Goals Set ...........................................................Page 11\n Recommendation 4:........................................................Page 12\n\n\nAppendices\n Appendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology ........................Page 13\n Appendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Major Contributors to This Report ........................................Page 14\n Appendix III \xe2\x80\x93 Report Distribution List .......................................................Page 15\n Appendix IV \xe2\x80\x93 Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report ......................Page 16\n Appendix V \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Audit Comments on Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response......Page 22\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n\n Background\n\nThe Internal Revenue Service\xe2\x80\x99s (IRS) Strategic Plan states the IRS will realign its workforce to\nplace more employees in \xe2\x80\x9cfront-line\xe2\x80\x9d service, compliance, and enforcement positions. One\nstrategy the IRS indicates it will use to achieve the resources needed for this increase is to reduce\nstaffing and implement process improvements in areas such as its internal support functions.\nThe IRS has a number of efforts underway to achieve these reductions and process\nimprovements. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2002, the IRS Commissioner directed IRS executives to\nreduce the number of personnel offices and to consolidate employment operations. As a result,\nthe IRS performed a Resource Optimization Study of its human resource support functions. This\nstudy concluded that these functions could be streamlined to reduce duplications. The Resource\nOptimization Study recommendations were adopted by the Commissioner in October 2003.\nUntil the end of October 2003, the responsibility for human resource issues was included in what\nwas known as the IRS Strategic Human Resources Division. While this office was responsible\nfor policy matters and provided some human resources support, each of the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 operating\ndivisions and functional units also had a human resources staff. In November 2003, the Human\nCapital Office (HCO) was established, which replaced the IRS Strategic Human Resources\nDivision and took over some of the personnel functions performed by the IRS Agency-Wide\nShared Services Division.\nBased on the Resource Optimization Study, Table 1: Planned FTE Reductions for\nthe IRS plans to eliminate a total of Human Resources Support\n741 Full-Time Equivalents (FTE)1 from Staff\nhuman resources support in its Business or Functional Unit\n Reduction\nHeadquarters and field offices. Most of\nthis reduction comes from the HCO and Human Capital Office 330\nAgency-Wide Shared Services Division. Agency-Wide Shared Services 313\nTable 1 shows the planned reductions of Small Business/Self-Employed Division 55\nhuman resources staff. According to the\n All Other Divisions and Functions 43\nHCO, as of April 29, 2005, it had achieved\na reduction of 172 (52 percent) of the Total 741\nplanned 330 FTEs. The Chief Human Source: IRS HCO Staff.\nCapital Officer (CHCO) expects to\ncomplete the restructuring by October 2005.\n\n\n\n1\n A measure of labor hours in which 1 FTE is equal to 8 hours multiplied by the number of compensable days in a\nparticular fiscal year. For FY 2005, 1 FTE is equal to 2,088 hours.\n Page 1\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\nMost of the reductions in the HCO come from its Talent, Hiring, and Recruitment Division,\nwhich has the primary responsibility for meeting the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 hiring needs. This Division is\nreducing its staff from 925 FTEs down to 634 FTEs, a reduction of 291 FTEs. Despite this\n31 percent reduction in staff, the Talent, Hiring, and Recruitment Division must maintain its\nability to process all of the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 hiring actions. Over the last 3 fiscal years, the IRS processed\nan average of 310,000 job applications annually and hired or promoted an average of\n33,000 employees IRS-wide. Most of these are temporary or seasonal employees who are hired\nto meet the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 peak workload during the filing season for individual tax returns from January\nthrough April. The number of seasonal employees hired is decreasing each year as more\ntaxpayers file electronic returns. Nonetheless, as the nature of the work in the IRS changes, the\nIRS is hiring more workers with professional or paraprofessional skills. Furthermore, the IRS\nmust replace its retiring workforce. About 25 percent of all IRS employees are either currently\neligible for retirement or will be eligible by 2006.2\nThe IRS planned to achieve the significant reductions in personnel devoted to hiring and\nrecruiting by standardizing and automating its hiring and recruiting processes. In 2002, the IRS\nselected QuickHire\xc2\xae, a commercial, web-based system tailored to fit the Federal Government\nrecruitment process, as the system it would use to standardize and automate its hiring and\nrecruiting processes. This system is now being implemented throughout the Department of the\nTreasury, in addition to the IRS, and is referred to as CareerConnector.\nWe performed this audit to evaluate the implementation of the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 hiring and recruiting system\nand its processes to meet its hiring and recruiting needs with reduced support staff. This review\nwas performed at the IRS National Headquarters in the office of the CHCO during the period\nOctober 2004 through May 2005. Site visits were made to IRS offices in Holtsville, New York;\nPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania; and Atlanta, Georgia. The audit was conducted in accordance with\nGovernment Auditing Standards. Detailed information on our audit objective, scope, and\nmethodology is presented in Appendix I. Major contributors to the report are listed in\nAppendix II.\n\n\n\n\n2\n IRS Oversight Board Annual Report 2004.\n Page 2\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n\n Results of Review\n\nResource Optimization Planning Information Was Incomplete\n\nA major responsibility of a CHCO is to set and oversee the workforce strategy of the agency.\nThe CHCO is currently in the process of finalizing the IRS Human Capital Strategic Plan to set\nforth the strategies to ensure the IRS builds and maintains the workforce needed to carry out its\nmission. We asked about the status of the IRS efforts to realign its workforce to place more\nemployees in front-line service, compliance, and enforcement positions. HCO officials advised\nus that the HCO staff does not track this information. That responsibility is left to the individual\nbusiness units and the IRS Chief Financial Officer because the HCO is not involved in deciding\nwhich positions are needed and how the positions will be funded. They explained there is no\npractical way to determine which positions are filled as the result of initiatives, realignment, or\nhiring replacements to fill regular attrition as it occurs. The HCO could not report on the overall\nstaffing reductions recommended in the Resource Optimization Study; it could only report on\nthose 330 positions within its own offices.\nFurthermore, there was a lack of data needed to identify how the HCO expects to accomplish\nrecruiting and hiring for the IRS with the significant reduction in its own staff. After the\nreorganization, the staff will be reduced by 31 percent to about 634 FTEs and will be expected to\nhandle an increased volume of hiring actions. The 330-position reduction in the HCO included\nabout 291 in the Talent, Hiring, and Recruitment Division. As of March 2005, 153 employees\nhad gone, with the balance to be off the rolls by October 1, 2005. During the audit, we requested\ndocuments to show how the proposed overall reduction of 330 positions and the 291 in the\nTalent, Hiring, and Recruitment Division was determined. We were advised that the goal was\nestablished at the request of the prior IRS Commissioner to be more in line with the human\nresource support ratios of other organizations. While the HCO staff was able to provide briefing\ndocuments and a study performed by a contractor which indicated that some type of staff\nreductions could be achieved, none of the documents contained any numerical data involving\nworkload inventories, production rates, or other data normally developed and documented to\nsupport such a significant reorganization.\nBecause the HCO was unable to provide information needed to evaluate the new organization,\nprocesses, and workload capacity, we are unable to determine whether the IRS will be able to\nmeet all of its hiring needs with the reduced staff it expects to have as of October 2005.\nAlthough we did not find any conclusive indications that the HCO has not been able to meet its\nhiring and recruiting workload with the reductions that have taken place to date, the HCO\xe2\x80\x99s\nFY 2005 third quarter business results report indicates that, compared with the third quarter of\nFY 2004, it is taking about 2 more days to process internal job applications to the point of getting\n\n Page 3\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\nthem ready for ranking (a 12 percent increase).3 There are a number of factors which may have\ncaused this increase; however, these measurements should be monitored closely to ensure\nadequate service levels can be maintained despite the reduction in staff.\nDue to the lack of data available to evaluate the basis for the IRS reorganization resulting from\nits Resource Optimization Study, we plan to perform further audit work to assess this\nreorganization and whether it has achieved its intended goal of realigning the workforce to place\nmore employees in front-line service, compliance, and enforcement positions.\n\n\nRecommendations\nRecommendation 1: The CHCO should establish policies and procedures to ensure the\nprogress of workforce realignment is adequately assessed by the HCO.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: HCO management stated they have effectively monitored\n the progress of the Resource Optimization workforce realignment. However, they will\n review their policies and procedures to determine whether additional action is necessary\n to ensure adequate assessment of their workforce realignment.\n Office of Audit Comment: Management\xe2\x80\x99s response does not adequately address our\n recommendation. Our recommendation is not limited to the HCO\xe2\x80\x99s realignment. We\n believe the HCO should ensure it has the information needed to assess the progress of the\n overall IRS workforce realignment.\nRecommendation 2: HCO officials should review performance measurements on a monthly\nbasis as the HCO downsizing continues to evaluate the impact of staff reductions and to ensure\nstaffing is adequate to timely process vacancy announcements.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: HCO officials stated that, in FY 2005, the IRS met or\n exceeded initial goals for all major compliance and campus hiring initiatives and made\n 21,489 selections through June 30. The IRS monitors its hiring measures on a weekly\n basis and will continue to review its performance measurements to evaluate the\n timeliness of vacancy announcement processing.\n\n\nThe Plans and Cost-Benefit Analysis for Implementing the New\nRecruiting and Hiring System Were Inadequate\n\nIn selecting an automated hiring and recruiting system, the IRS sought a system in which all\nfunctions associated with the hiring and recruiting process could be performed online, including\n\n\n3\n See page 8 of this report for a description of the hiring process.\n Page 4\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\njob vacancy announcements, job applications, rating and ranking, and referral to the selecting\nofficial. The system also had to allow for knowledge and ability-based assessments and interface\nwith the Office of Personnel Management\xe2\x80\x99s (OPM) automated system \xe2\x80\x93 USAJobs. Based on\nthese requirements, IRS officials selected QuickHire\xc2\xae as the software for the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 new\nCareerConnector system, which is also being implemented throughout the Department of the\nTreasury. This system is not yet fully implemented at the IRS, and the total cost savings the\nsystem is expected to deliver have not been determined.\nFrom the time CareerConnector was first used in November 2003 and through March 31, 2005,\nonly 32 of the approximately 18,000 announcements posted by the IRS were processed using\nCareerConnector. Notwithstanding its limited use to date, Talent, Hiring, and Recruitment\nDivision officials advised us that CareerConnector implementation is on schedule. Before the\nsystem is fully implemented, they want to ensure the following:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 HCO staff is adequately trained.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Content has been developed for the appropriate job series.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 All IRS employees have access to a computer.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Agreement with the National Treasury Employees Union on how the system will be used.\nAs of May 2005, CareerConnector can be used to process eight of the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 job series; over\none-half of all IRS employees are in one of these eight occupations. The HCO is working to\ndevelop the content such as the critical skills and rating factors for the remaining IRS job series\nand intends to have all series ready by the end of Calendar Year 2005.\nAccording to IRS officials, CareerConnector has met most of its expectations in the limited use\nthat it has had so far. Applicants searching the OPM web site for IRS jobs can be automatically\nredirected to the CareerConnector system. CareerConnector accepts applicant resumes online\nand allows applicants to update their information when necessary. Once applicants complete the\nonline application, the system ranks the applicants and identifies which applicants qualify for the\nposition. It allows the HCO to send system-generated email to request additional information\nfrom applicants or inform them if they qualify for the position, to schedule interviews, and to\ncommunicate on such matters as job offers and preemployment activities.\nThe system does not yet provide certain functions such as fax imaging, a standing register,4 or\nad hoc reports and queries. These features are currently being tested by the HCO. Release of the\nfinal phase of CareerConnector is on hold until they can be sure the system will integrate with\nthe OPM\xe2\x80\x99s new e-government system known as Recruitment One Stop. Recruitment One Stop\nprovides a search engine for searching on more than 100 Federal Government agency sites and a\nresume builder to create a basic resume that can be used to apply for positions across the Federal\n\n4\n A standing register provides a list of interested and qualified candidates ready to be certified for current and future\nvacancies. It provides flexibility to meet large-volume recruitment needs such as campus hiring for the IRS.\n Page 5\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\nGovernment. The HCO is not certain when the final phase of CareerConnector will be\nimplemented.\n\nA cost-benefit analysis was not performed before the CareerConnector system\nwas implemented\n\nThe IRS entered into the agreement with QuickHire\xc2\xae for CareerConnector in 2002. The system\nhas an estimated cost of $8.6 million over a 7-year period, which includes the cost of operations,\nmaintenance, training, hosting facility costs, equipment costs, costs for developing special\nreports, and fees for special modules. QuickHire\xc2\xae provides the application server for this\nsystem. In addition to the $8.6 million expected to be paid to QuickHire\xc2\xae, there have also been\napproximately $2.5 million in internal IRS costs such as staff hours and travel in support of the\nproject.\nIRS guidance states that a business case analysis should be performed to provide comprehensive\njustification for investment in a capital asset.5 The analysis should provide a model of what the\nIRS expects to be able to achieve by pursuing a specific course of action. It should contain a\nspending summary, project justification (including benefits and return on investment) and cost,\nschedule, and performance goals. However, HCO officials stated that they do not know the\namount of savings that will result from the implementation of CareerConnector. A cost-benefit\nanalysis for the web-based version of the CareerConnector system was not performed before it\nwas implemented. The HCO staff has only been able to estimate the cost savings for two IRS\ncampus positions, data transcribers and clerks. They used the savings associated with those\n2 announcements at 1 IRS campus to project the potential savings for all 10 campuses.\nDuring FY 2004, the IRS hired over Table 2: Savings Associated With\n7,000 employees for those 2 positions and estimated the Use of CareerConnector\nan overall cost savings of over $111,000 could have Expense Type Dollars Saved\nbeen achieved had CareerConnector been used when\nhiring all 7,000 employees. See Table 2 for the Testing Sessions $37,440\nsavings projected. The $111,000 divided by the Printing Costs 17,306\n7,000 employees indicates a savings of $15.86 per\n Fingerprinting 50,232\nemployee hired. The IRS also expects to be able to\nreduce its support costs to the OPM of about Postage 6,317\n$800,000 annually by approximately $386,000 a Total Savings $111,295\nyear once CareerConnector is fully implemented.\n Source: IRS HCO Staff.\nThese savings include the elimination of costs for\ncertain notices, booklets, and inventory maintenance fees for the revenue officer occupation.\n\n\n5\n Business Cases, An Executive Briefing, IRS (June 30, 2000).\n Page 6\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\nThese projections do not appear to indicate that the savings from CareerConnector once it is fully\nimplemented will justify the cost. We asked HCO officials to provide information on whether\nany of the staff reductions can be attributable to the implementation of the CareerConnector\nsystem. HCO officials advised us the staff reductions were planned independently of the\nimplementation of the CareerConnector system. While they believe the CareerConnector system\nwill be an integral component of the overall efficiencies gained, they do not attribute any of the\nstaff reductions directly to the implementation of the system.\n\nSome Federal agencies have experienced problems using QuickHire\xc2\xae\n\nThere are indications that problems could occur as the IRS increases its use of the\nCareerConnector system. The IRS requires the CareerConnector system to allow a large number\nof screening questions and not limit the number of vacancy announcements on the system.\nHowever, at least two Federal Government agencies have had significant problems with\nQuickHire\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xae ability to handle a large number of announcements and applicants\xe2\x80\x99 information.\nBoth agencies had to discontinue using the software system.\nThe Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services were\ntold by QuickHire\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xae parent company, Monster Government Solutions, that the problems were\ncaused by the large number of announcements the agencies had on the system, the large number\nof questions on the applications (or where the applicants had to respond to questions with large\namounts of data), and the high volume of applicants. A representative from the Department of\nHomeland Security stated that, when the problems with QuickHire\xc2\xae started occurring in\nJanuary 2005, there were 300 job vacancy announcements open. Because of the problems, about\n232,000 applications were lost. The Department of Health and Human Services also posts a\nlarge number of announcements; over 700 were open on 1 day in April 2005. That is\napproximately the same number of announcements the IRS had open 1 day in April 2005;\nhowever, very few were on CareerConnector.\nBoth the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services\ntook their job sites down in early March 2005. The Department of Homeland Security has since\nhad to hire staff to process new applications by hand. The Department of Health and Human\nServices6 is still working with Monster Government Solutions to resolve the problem affecting\nQuickHire\xc2\xae. However, in June 2005, the Department of Homeland Security terminated its\ncontract with Monster Government Solutions. The \xe2\x80\x9ctermination for cause\xe2\x80\x9d notification stated,\n\xe2\x80\x9cThe system failed repeatedly. Specifically, employees accessing the system were involuntarily\nexited from the system or were unable to access the system at all. During the failures, the system\n\n\n6\n The Department of Health and Human Services uses a different version of QuickHire\xc2\xae from the one that is used by\nthe IRS and the Department of Homeland Security.\n Page 7\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\x98froze\xe2\x80\x99 and then displayed an error message.\xe2\x80\x9d The system the Department of Homeland Security\nwas using was the web-based QuickHire Xi\xc2\xae, the same system that is being used by the IRS.\nOfficials from the Department of the Treasury7 and the IRS met with Monster Government\nSolutions to discuss their concerns over the system\xe2\x80\x99s ability to handle increasing volumes of\napplicants. Monster Government Solutions has been making upgrades and adding enhancements\nto the system and plans to perform tests to evaluate the system\xe2\x80\x99s ability to handle increased\nvolume. Representatives from Monster Government Solutions have stated that they will make\nadjustments to server capacity, hardware, and software performance based on the results of the\ntests.\nBy bringing the software system up slowly and limiting the number of announcements as\nCareerConnector is being tested and certified, the IRS hopes to avoid some of the problems\nexperienced by other agencies. The IRS will need to monitor this closely. The staff reductions\nthat are taking place in the HCO would limit the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 ability to manually process applications.\n\n\nRecommendation\nRecommendation 3: The CHCO, in coordination with the Department of the Treasury,\nshould perform an analysis to evaluate the impact CareerConnector will have on HCO staff\nreductions as well as the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 hiring efforts. This information should be used to complete a\ncost-benefit analysis to determine if the system will provide benefits to the IRS and the\nDepartment of the Treasury which exceed the costs of completing the implementation and then\noperating and maintaining the system.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The HCO plans to conduct a workload analysis once\n CareerConnector has been fully deployed. As new occupations are added to\n CareerConnector, the HCO is collecting return on investment data that document the old\n and new processes and project cost and time savings from the new process.\n\n\nSome Steps Are Being Taken to Improve the Recruiting and Hiring\nProcess\n\nThe IRS has taken a number of actions to improve the recruiting and hiring process. The IRS is\nusing category ratings and has improved its screening process of the number of highly qualified\n\n\n7\n The Department of the Treasury and the IRS agreed to integrate CareerConnector into the Department of the\nTreasury\xe2\x80\x99s HR Connect suite of services effective for FY 2003. CareerConnector was not operational for use by any\nDepartment of the Treasury bureau until November 2003 when it was first used by the IRS.\n Page 8\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\ncandidates hired. The hiring process used by the IRS and most Federal Government agencies\ninvolves five basic steps:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Vacancy Posting \xe2\x80\x93 employees and the general public are made aware of job vacancies.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Qualification Validation \xe2\x80\x93 applicants\xe2\x80\x99 packages are reviewed for completeness and some\n information, like college transcripts or Certified Public Accountant qualifications, are\n verified.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Rating and Ranking \xe2\x80\x93 individual applications are rated and applicants are scored or grouped\n into categories. This will occur after any job assessments have been completed.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Certification \xe2\x80\x93 a list of the best-qualified applicants is provided to the individual responsible\n for selecting which applicants will be hired.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Applicant Notification \xe2\x80\x93 the process of actually notifying the job applicant.\nTo improve the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 ability to hire the most-qualified job candidates, the IRS Restructuring and\nReform Act of 19988 allowed the IRS to use category ratings for job applicants.9 The new\nauthority does away with the restriction to hire from only the candidates whose job application\npackages were rated as the top three based on a system to score factors such as education and\nexperience.10 With category rating, job candidates can be separated into two or more categories,\nwith anyone in the top category eligible for selection.11\nThe IRS classifies job candidates into three categories. Candidates respond to questions about\ntheir education, skills, prior work experience, and professional certifications. Based on their\nanswers, eligible applicants are rated as potential A (Superior), B (Highly Qualified), or C\n(Qualified) candidates. The process of separating ineligible candidates from eligible candidates,\nand then rating the eligible candidates, can be completed in a shorter period of time using the\nIRS recruiting and hiring software, CareerConnector, than the established manual process.\nApplications in the top category (A) are then adjudicated, which involves verifying the\napplicants\xe2\x80\x99 transcripts, substantiating courses and semester hours, and prior work experience.\nBecause applications rated as B and C are not adjudicated, there is some savings due to the\nreduction in time that would have been spent on these applications. The IRS plans to continue to\nadjudicate category A applications because, in two recent job announcements, less than one-half\nof the candidates who were initially rated in the top category remained in this category after the\ninformation they provided was adjudicated. The Talent, Hiring, and Recruitment Division staff\n\n\n8\n Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 2 U.S.C., 5 U.S.C. app.,\n16 U.S.C., 19 U.S.C., 22 U.S.C., 23 U.S.C., 26 U.S.C., 31 U.S.C., 38 U.S.C., and 49 U.S.C.).\n9\n Category rating was first employed by the IRS to facilitate the hiring of over 350 revenue agents in FY 2001.\n10\n The Rule of Three is a requirement that selection must be made from the three highest-rated eligible candidates\nwho are available for the job for which they applied.\n11\n Subject to veterans\xe2\x80\x99 preference requirements.\n Page 9\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\nbelieves the high fallout rate is attributed to the advanced and specific educational requirements\nassociated with the revenue agent job series. The revenue officer job series does not have such a\nhigh fallout rate.\nThe category rating process is approved for revenue agent and revenue officer positions, which\naccount for approximately 17 percent of the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 total staffing. The IRS has identified two other\npositions, customer service representative and tax examiner, for which it is considering the use of\ncategory ratings. These 2 additional job series account for about 29 percent of the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 total\nstaffing. Category rating is best suited to professional and technical occupations with clearly\ndefined qualifications that allow for classification into category groups and where the employer\nwants the flexibility to select from a wide pool of candidates. The IRS intends to use category\nrating to the greatest extent possible.\nA study of the IRS use of the category rating process performed by an independent organization\nin 2003 concluded the category rating process had \xe2\x80\x9cincreased the applicant pool, reduced the\nlength of the hiring cycle, and facilitated the hiring of high-quality applicants for key positions,\nthereby contributing to the success of the recruitment initiative.\xe2\x80\x9d12\n\nAssessment screening\n\nThe IRS has refined its assessments of applicants for mission critical occupations, such as the\nrevenue agent and revenue officer occupations. The process is different for each of the\noccupations. For example, revenue agent candidates who are rated in the top category are given\nan accounting test to measure the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s understanding of accounting principles. An outside\ncontractor hired by the IRS then performs an assessment over the telephone to evaluate the\napplicant\xe2\x80\x99s general competencies such as problem solving, decision making, and interpersonal\nskills. In contrast, revenue officer candidates are given an online assessment to evaluate their\nskills in areas such as decision making, financial management analysis, flexibility, and integrity\nwhen they are completing the application process on CareerConnector. Their scores on this\nassessment are considered when they are rated into the rating categories. Candidates in the top\ncategory must then undergo a second assessment similar to that of the revenue agent candidates.\nBoth revenue agent and revenue officer candidates that pass the assessment screening are then\ninterviewed by managers from the business units to evaluate and decide which applicants should\nbe hired. While there is no specific data to show the effect of the new processes, the business\nunit staff we interviewed believes this enhanced assessment process has led to better hiring\ndecisions.\n\n\n\n12\n Modernizing Human Resource Management in the Federal Government: The IRS Model (IBM Endowment for\nthe Business of Government, dated April 2003).\n Page 10\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n\nThe Timeliness of the External Hiring Process Should Be Measured\nand Appropriate Goals Set\n\nSince May 2004, the OPM has advocated that all Federal Government agencies strive to\ncomplete their external hiring actions within 45 days, as measured from the date a job vacancy\nannouncement closes to the date an offer of employment is made. Historically, the IRS has not\nbeen able to measure the time it takes to complete an external hiring action. HCO staff informed\nus that only those job vacancies processed on CareerConnector can be measured. Service\nsupport agreements for two business units we reviewed note:\n Right now, the HCO can only measure external hiring cycle time with\n CareerConnector and has no real benchmark for external hiring cycle times.\nThe HCO staff does not believe meeting the OPM 45-Day Hiring Model is feasible for some\npositions because of the additional actions necessary for these positions. For example, some of\nthe prehiring screening processes (particularly those related to the revenue agent, revenue officer,\nand the criminal investigator positions) and the criminal background check common to most\npositions can significantly extend the time needed to hire an applicant. Once this process is\ncompleted, some positions also require tax compliance reviews before an offer of employment\ncan be made.\nFor these reasons, HCO officials advised us that the HCO has established a goal of providing a\ncertificate to the selecting official within 21 days of a vacancy announcement closing. They\nchose this goal because they believe they should only be held accountable for the portion of the\nhiring process for which they are directly responsible. However, not all of the service support\nagreements provided to us were consistent with respect to timeliness goals. While 3 clearly\nstated the 21-day goal for delivering the certificate, 5 did not include this goal. Those\nagreements without the 21-day goal stated that the HCO staff would work with the business unit\nto develop an action plan.\nHCO officials anticipate that automating the qualification, rating, and ranking process will\nsignificantly reduce the time it takes to deliver the certificate to the selecting official, which in\nturn may allow the IRS to meet the 45-day goal as defined by the OPM. To help in progressing\ntoward this goal, we believe the CHCO should work with individual business units to establish\nreasonable goals for the external hiring process. For the majority of its hiring efforts, the IRS\nshould attempt to achieve the OPM goal of 45-days. For the positions which require extensive\nassessments and testing, baselines should be established and appropriate goals set.\n\n\n\n\n Page 11\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n\nRecommendation\nRecommendation 4: For job categories in which the hiring process takes longer than\n45 days, the CHCO should work with the business units to set appropriate goals and periodically\nevaluate the process to assess where further improvements could be made.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The IRS has established service agreements for external\n hiring supported by CareerConnector consistent with the Department of the Treasury\n policy and has a workgroup developing IRS policy and implementation procedures.\n Management supports the OPM 45-Day Hiring Model and its goals but noted that the\n Model was developed without consideration of the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 multiphase processes, high-\n volume hiring, and need to sequence external hiring with internal placement actions.\n Office of Audit Comment: The IRS response does not adequately address our\n recommendation. We recommended that baselines be established for positions that\n require extensive assessments and tests and that appropriate overall hiring timeline goals\n be established, measured, and evaluated for further improvement. From the IRS\xe2\x80\x99\n response, it is unclear whether the workgroup developing IRS policy and implementation\n procedures will work toward establishing baselines with which to evaluate the hiring\n processes for these positions.\n\n\n\n\n Page 12\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n Appendix I\n\n Detailed Objective, Scope, and Methodology\n\nThe overall objective of this review was to assess the Internal Revenue Service\xe2\x80\x99s (IRS) ability to\nrecruit and hire to meet its workforce needs. To accomplish this objective, we:\nI. Interviewed Human Capital Office (HCO) officials to determine their level of interaction\n with other IRS functional units in developing a strategic approach to the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 human\n capital needs.\nII. Determined if the HCO has established an adequate strategy and has developed sufficient\n processes to enable the IRS to meet its hiring needs.\n A. Reviewed the Human Resource Optimization study on which the realignment of the\n recruiting and hiring functions was based.\n B. Evaluated the progress of the HCO in accomplishing its plans to reorganize and\n whether it is on schedule to meet its goals.\n C. Identified the measures the HCO uses to determine the success of its hiring efforts.\n D. Determined how the HCO plans to meet the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 long-term strategic recruiting and\n hiring needs.\nIII. Evaluated whether the implementation of CareerConnector will achieve the efficiencies\n necessary for the HCO to recruit and hire with a smaller staff without a decrease in the\n quality of the work performed.\n A. Requested the business case for the implementation of CareerConnector to determine\n if the assumptions were reasonable.\n B. Determined the current status of CareerConnector and the degree of functionality\n achieved through phase 4 and efficiency gained to date. We determined what\n additional functionality and efficiency is expected from phases 5 and 6 and the cost to\n complete these phases.\n C. Determined the date CareerConnector will be fully implemented and the number of\n job series which will eventually be included in CareerConnector.\n D. Identified problems associated with the use of CareerConnector and the actions taken\n and planned to resolve those problems.\n\n\n\n\n Page 13\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n Appendix II\n\n Major Contributors to This Report\n\nDaniel R. Devlin, Assistant Inspector General for Audit (Headquarters Operations and Exempt\nOrganizations Programs)\nMichael E. McKenney, Director\nKevin P. Riley, Audit Manager\nSusan A. Price, Lead Auditor\nGene A. Luevano, Senior Auditor\nYasmin Ryan, Senior Auditor\n\n\n\n\n Page 14\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n Appendix III\n\n Report Distribution List\n\nCommissioner C\nOffice of the Commissioner \xe2\x80\x93 Attn: Chief of Staff C\nDeputy Commissioner for Operations Support OS\nChief Counsel CC\nNational Taxpayer Advocate TA\nDirector, Office of Legislative Affairs CL:LA\nDirector, Office of Program Evaluation and Risk Analysis RAS:O\nOffice of Management Controls OS:CFO:AR:M\nAudit Liaison: Chief Human Capital Officer OS:CFO\n\n\n\n\n Page 15\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n Appendix IV\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response to the Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n Page 16\n\x0cThe Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n\n Page 17\n\x0cThe Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n\n Page 18\n\x0cThe Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n\n Page 19\n\x0cThe Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n\n Page 20\n\x0cThe Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n\n Page 21\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n Appendix V\n\n Office of Audit Comments on Management\xe2\x80\x99s\n Response\n\nIn response to our draft report, the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) included some general\ncomments and assertions we believe warrant additional comment. We have included portions of\nmanagement\xe2\x80\x99s response and our related comments below.\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The initial objective of this review was to assess the Internal\nRevenue Service\xe2\x80\x99s (IRS) ability to recruit and hire to meet its workforce needs. However, the\nscope was expanded to include the planning and implementation of HCO\xe2\x80\x99s Resource\nOptimization Study and the cost-benefits of CareerConnector.\n Office of Audit Comment: Both of these issues were part of the original scope of this\n audit. They are both important facets of the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 recruiting and hiring efforts. The\n planning and implementation of the Human Capital Office\xe2\x80\x99s (HCO) Resource\n Optimization Study resulted in significant reductions in the HCO Talent, Hiring, and\n Recruitment Division. Furthermore, one of the objectives of the Resource Optimization\n Study was to reduce support staff so the workforce could be realigned to front-line\n service and enforcement positions. The CareerConnector system was an important\n component of the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 effort to standardize and automate its hiring and recruiting\n processes. We believe the projected costs and benefits of the system should have been\n estimated early on in the process to better understand its impact on the recruiting and\n hiring processes.\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response: TIGTA\xe2\x80\x99s primary concern appears to be HCO\xe2\x80\x99s inability to point\nto Mission Critical Occupation (MCO) hires that have resulted from HCO\xe2\x80\x99s downsizing. HCO\xe2\x80\x99s\noptimization savings of 330 FTEs and $8 million were permanently taken from our base funding\nbeginning in FY 05. This assessment was reallocated corporately for unfunded budget\ninitiatives, unfunded pay raises, and prior year annualizations, among other uses. With effective\ncorporate management of all funds, the IRS increased tax law enforcement as a percent of total\nFTE by 2.05% since 2003.\n Office of Audit Comment: We are concerned with the HCO\xe2\x80\x99s inability to provide\n information on the number of front-line service and enforcement hires that have resulted\n from the downsizing in human resource support staff. We believe the HCO should be in\n a position to assess the status of the IRS-wide workforce realignment. The CHCO states\n the optimization savings of 330 Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) and $8 million were\n reallocated and used for unfunded budget initiatives, unfunded pay raises, and prior year\n annualizations, among other uses. However, the authorization to make these staffing\n reductions through buyouts and early-outs to employees was based on realigning the\n Page 22\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n workforce to front-line service and enforcement positions. While HCO management\n states that tax law enforcement has increased as a percentage of total FTEs by\n 2.05 percent since 2003, they were unable to provide information needed to evaluate the\n progress of IRS workforce restructuring compared to its goals.\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response: In FY 2005, IRS met or exceeded initial goals for all major\ncompliance and campus hiring initiatives and made 21,489 selections for all hiring through\nJune 30, 2005. Since Modernization, we have met 100% of our hiring goals, even as our staffing\nhas decreased substantially and our employment branches have been consolidated from 23 to 9.\nWe monitored capacity to ensure the HCO could continue to meet hiring demands as resources\ndeclined. Two separate workload balancing analyses were conducted to enable us to balance\nemployment staff resources with workload indicators. The workload balancing was based on\nclient base, applications processed, and selections made using a weighted formula.\n Office of Audit Comment: While overall staffing has generally declined over the past\n few years, the IRS Commissioner\xe2\x80\x99s goal has been to redistribute at least 10 percent of the\n IRS workforce to front-line service, compliance, and enforcement activities. This would\n involve approximately 10,000 positions, most if not all of which would be realigned\n through the competitive hiring process overseen by the HCO. Although HCO\n management asserts that two workload analyses were conducted, management did not\n provide this information to us during our audit or after we provided them with a\n preliminary copy of our report. Management provided only a single spreadsheet that they\n referred to as a \xe2\x80\x9ccapacity study.\xe2\x80\x9d The study indicated that, if the IRS were placed in a\n position to conduct routine hiring efforts and simultaneously had to handle what it termed\n Transition work (conduct any Reduction in Force associated with other restructuring\n efforts), the IRS would have to temporarily hire a contractor to meet the workload\n evaluated in the study. The study indicated the IRS could face a significant staffing gap\n of as many as 100 HCO employees in the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2005. While that\n did not occur, the IRS\xe2\x80\x99 own calculations indicated staffing shortages might be\n encountered well before the HCO office is fully downsized.\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response: The IRS has not encountered the severe capacity issues with the\nQuickHire Xi (CareerConnector) product recently reported in the press and highlighted by\nTIGTA. We have concern with the importance being given to the problems reported by a very\nsmall percentage of the 40 Federal agencies successfully using the system. In fact, the results of\na recent performance test of the system shows[sic] that the latest release of the product should\nsupport 19,000 applicants per 15-hour day with 400 HR users. The IRS has taken a very careful\napproach in our transition from CareerConnector pilot to full implementation. We are on track\nwith our rollout of the software to our employment offices. Since the TIGTA audit was\nconducted, the IRS has expanded Campus recruiting using CareerConnector to include\nadditional occupations and 6 employment offices. We have also implemented a scheduler pilot\nin tandem with the increase in Campus recruiting.\n\n Page 23\n\x0c The Planning and Implementation of Changes to the Recruiting\n and Hiring Process Could Be Improved\n\n\n\n Office of Audit Comment: The test described in management\xe2\x80\x99s response was not\n completed at the time we conducted our fieldwork. As such, we did not assess the results\n of the test to evaluate whether it was an adequate indicator of the capacity of the system.\n We reported the issue to ensure HCO officials were aware of the problems encountered\n by other large Federal Government agencies with QuickHire\xc2\xae. If the system fails to\n perform adequately, we believe the risks are heightened at the IRS because of the\n significant reductions in human resource support staff.\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Response: We believe the methodology TIGTA used to determine return on\ninvestment for CareerConnector is flawed and plan to conduct a workload analysis once\nCareerConnector is fully deployed. The analysis will consider the impact of CareerConnector,\nnew hiring strategies, and evolving customer hiring needs such as the impact of electronic filing.\nWe will not solely measure the value of CareerConnector in terms of costs and impact of staff\nresource needs. This is important because the decision to adopt an automated hiring system and\nthe choice to use CareerConnector were not driven by cost savings. Rather, IRS leadership\ndirected the Human Resources functions to obtain and use a single automated system for\nrecruitment and hiring to achieve qualitative improvements.\n Office of Audit Comment: We did not perform a cost-benefit analysis or determine\n the return on investment for CareerConnector. That is the responsibility of the\n Department of the Treasury and IRS management; a cost-benefit analysis should have\n been completed before the decision was made to acquire the system. We did note in our\n report that the limited cost savings projections IRS management was able to provide were\n not sufficient to indicate that the savings from CareerConnector, once it is fully\n implemented, will justify the cost.\n\n\n\n\n Page 24\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
C 121/16 EL ∂ÈãÛËÌË ∂ÊËÌÂÚÈã‰· ÙˆÓ ∂ ̆Úˆ·ÈåÎã̂ Ó ∫ÔÈÓÔÙËãÙˆÓ 1.5.1999
 ¶ƒø∆√¢π∫∂π√
 ¶ÚÔÛÊ ̆ÁËã-·ÁˆÁËã ÙÔ ̆ Miguel Vicente Nuñez Î·Ù·ã ∂ÈÙÚÔËã ̃ ÙˆÓ ∞ÈÙÈÔÏÔÁã̂ ÓÙ· ̃ ÙÔ ·ÈãÙËÌ·ã ÙÔ ̆ ÁÈ· Î·Ù·‚ÔÏËã ·Ô ̇ËÌÈã̂ ÛÂˆ ̃, Ô
 ∂ ̆Úˆ·ÈåÎã̂ Ó ∫ÔÈÓÔÙËãÙˆÓ, Ô ̆ ·ÛÎËãıËÎÂ ÛÙÈ ̃ 16 π·ÓÔ ̆·ÚÈãÔ ̆ 1999 ÚÔÛÊÂã̆ ÁˆÓ-ÂÓ·ãÁˆÓ ̆ÔÛÙËÚÈã ̇ÂÈ ÔãÙÈ, Î·Ù·ã ·ãÁÈ· ÓÔÌÔÏÔÁÈã·, Ë ÂÎ
 ÌÂãÚÔ ̆ ̃ ÙË ̃ ‰ÈÔÈÎËãÛÂˆ ̃ ÂÎÚÔãıÂÛÌË Î·Ù·ãÚÙÈÛË ÂÎıÂãÛÂˆ ̃ ‚·ıÌÔÏÔ-
 (ÀÔãıÂÛË ∆-10/99) ÁÈã· ̃ Û ̆ÓÈÛÙ·ã, ÔãÙ·Ó ÙÔ ÂÚÔãıÂÛÌÔ · ̆ÙÔã ‰ÂÓ ÌÔÚÂÈã Ó· Î·Ù·ÏÔÁÈÛıÂÈã
 ÛÙÔÓ ̆·ãÏÏËÏÔ, ̆ËÚÂÛÈ·ÎÔã Ù·ÈãÛÌ· ‰ ̆Ó·ãÌÂÓÔ Ó· ÚÔÎ·ÏÂãÛÂÈ
 ÛÙÔÓ ÂÓ‰È·ÊÂÚÔãÌÂÓÔ ËıÈÎËã ‚Ï·ã‚Ë ÏÔãÁˆ ÙË ̃ ·‚Â‚·ÈÔãÙËÙ· ̃ Î·È ÙË ̃
 (1999/C 121/37) ·ÓËÛ ̆ ̄Èã· ̃ ÛÙËÓ ÔÔÈã· · ̆ÙÔã ̃ ÂÚÈ·ãÁÂÙ·È ÂÍ·ÈÙÈã· ̃ ÙˆÓ ·Ú·Ù ̆Èã̂ Ó
 Î·È ÙˆÓ ·ÙÂÏÂÈã̂ Ó Ô ̆ Âã ̄Ô ̆Ó Û ̄ÂãÛË ÌÂ ÙÔÓ ·ÙÔÌÈÎÔã ÙÔ ̆ Ê·ãÎÂÏÔ.
 (°Ïã̂ ÛÛ· ‰È·‰ÈÎ·ÛÈã· ̃: Ë Á·ÏÏÈÎËã)
 √ Miguel Vicente Nuñez, Î·ãÙÔÈÎÔ ̃ Kraainem (μÂãÏÁÈÔ), ÂÎÚÔÛˆÔã̆ ÌÂ-
 ÓÔ ̃ ·Ôã ÙÔÓ Marc-Albert Lucas, ‰ÈÎËÁÔãÚÔ §ÈÂãÁË ̃, ÌÂ ÙÔãÔ ÂÈ‰ÔãÛÂˆÓ
 ÛÙÔ §Ô ̆ÍÂÌ‚Ôã̆ ÚÁÔ Ù· ÁÚ·ÚÂÈã· ÙË ̃ Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 30 Rue de ¶ÚÔÛÊ ̆ÁËã ÙË ̃ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂÈã· ̃ ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd Î·Ù·ã ∂ÈÙÚÔ-
 Cessange, ·ãÛÎËÛÂ ÂÓã̂ ÈÔÓ ÙÔ ̆ ¶ÚˆÙÔ‰ÈÎÂÈãÔ ̆ ÙˆÓ ∂ ̆Úˆ·ÈåÎã̂ Ó Ëã ̃ ÙˆÓ ∂ ̆Úˆ·ÈåÎã̂ Ó ∫ÔÈÓÔÙËãÙˆÓ, Ô ̆ ·ÛÎËãıËÎÂ ÛÙÈ ̃ 27 π·ÓÔ ̆·-
 ∫ÔÈÓÔÙËãÙˆÓ, ÛÙÈ ̃ 16 π·ÓÔ ̆·ÚÈãÔ ̆ 1999, ÚÔÛÊ ̆ÁËã-·ÁˆÁËã Î·Ù·ã ÚÈãÔ ̆ 1999
 ∂ÈÙÚÔËã ̃ ÙˆÓ ∂ ̆Úˆ·ÈåÎã̂ Ó ∫ÔÈÓÔÙËãÙˆÓ.
 (ÀÔãıÂÛË ∆-31/99)
 √ ÚÔÛÊÂã̆ ÁˆÓ-ÂÓ·ãÁˆÓ ̇ËÙÂÈã· ·Ôã ÙÔ ¶ÚˆÙÔ‰ÈÎÂÈãÔ:
 — Ó· ·Î ̆Úã̂ ÛÂÈ ÙÈ ̃ ÚÔÛ‚·ÏÏÔãÌÂÓÂ ̃ ·ÔÊ·ãÛÂÈ ̃, (1999/C 121/38)
 — Ó· ̆Ô ̄ÚÂã̂ ÛÂÈ ÙËÓ Î·ıËã ̃ Ó· ÙÔ ̆ Î·Ù·‚·ãÏÂÈ, Î·Ù·ã ÚÔÛˆÚÈÓËã (°Ïã̂ ÛÛ· ‰È·‰ÈÎ·ÛÈã· ̃: Ë ·ÁÁÏÈÎËã)
 ÂÎÙÈãÌËÛË, ÙÔ ÔÛÔã ÙˆÓ 50 000 ‚ÂÏÁÈÎã̂ Ó ÊÚ·ãÁÎˆÓ ˆ ̃ ·Ô ̇Ë-
 ÌÈãˆÛË ÁÈ· ̆ÏÈÎÂã ̃ ̇ËÌÈãÂ ̃,
 ∏ ÂÙ·ÈÚÂÈã· ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd, ÌÂ Âã‰Ú· ÙË ∑ ̆ÚÈã ̄Ë (∂Ï‚ÂÙÈã·),
 — Ó· ̆Ô ̄ÚÂã̂ ÛÂÈ ÙËÓ Î·ıËã ̃ Ó· ÙÔ ̆ Î·Ù·‚·ãÏÂÈ ÙÔ ÔÛÔã ÙˆÓ 50 000 ÂÎÚÔÛˆÔã̆ ÌÂÓË ·Ôã ÙÔ ̆ ̃ Andreas Weitbrecht Î·È Sven B. Völcker,
 ˆ ̃ ÈÎ·ÓÔÔÈãËÛË ÏÔãÁˆ ËıÈÎËã ̃ ‚Ï·ã‚Ë ̃, ‰ÈÎËÁÔãÚÔ ̆ ̃ μÂÚÔÏÈãÓÔ ̆, ÌÂ ·ÓÙÈãÎÏËÙÔ ÛÙÔ §Ô ̆ÍÂÌ‚Ôã̆ ÚÁÔ ÙÔÓ
 ‰ÈÎËÁÔãÚÔ Marc Loesch, ÙÔ ̆ ‰ÈÎËÁÔÚÈÎÔã̆ ÁÚ·ÊÂÈãÔ ̆ Loesch & Wolter,
 — Ó· Î·Ù·‰ÈÎ·ãÛÂÈ ÙËÓ Î·ıËã ̃ ÛÙ· ‰ÈÎ·ÛÙÈÎ·ã ÂãÍÔ‰·. 11, rue Goethe, ·ãÛÎËÛÂ ÂÓã̂ ÈÔÓ ÙÔ ̆ ¶ÚˆÙÔ‰ÈÎÂÈãÔ ̆ ÙˆÓ ∂ ̆Úˆ·ÈåÎã̂ Ó
 ∫ÔÈÓÔÙËãÙˆÓ, ÛÙÈ ̃ 27 π·ÓÔ ̆·ÚÈãÔ ̆ 1999, ÚÔÛÊ ̆ÁËã Î·Ù·ã ∂ÈÙÚÔËã ̃
 ÙˆÓ ∂ ̆Úˆ·ÈåÎã̂ Ó ∫ÔÈÓÔÙËãÙˆÓ.
 πÛ ̄ ̆ÚÈÛÌÔÈã Î·È Îã̆ ÚÈ· ÂÈ ̄ÂÈÚËãÌ·Ù·
 ∏ ÚÔÛÊÂã̆ ÁÔ ̆Û· ̇ËÙÂÈã ·Ôã ÙÔ ¶ÚˆÙÔ‰ÈÎÂÈãÔ:
 ∆Ô ÔãÓÔÌ· ÙÔ ̆ ÚÔÛÊÂã̆ ÁÔÓÙÔ ̃-ÂÓ·ãÁÔÓÙÔ ̃, ̆·ÏÏËãÏÔ ̆ ÌÂ ‚·ıÌÔã ∞6,
 ‰ÂÓ ÂÚÈÏ·Ì‚·ÓÔãÙ·Ó Ôã̆ ÙÂ ÛÙÔÓ ÈãÓ·Î· ÙˆÓ ̆·ÏÏËãÏˆÓ Ô ̆ ÂÈã ̄·Ó — Ó· ·Î ̆Úã̂ ÛÂÈ ÙÔ ·ãÚıÚÔ 3 ÙË ̃ ·ÔÊ·ãÛÂˆ ̃ ÙË ̃ ∂ÈÙÚÔËã ̃, ÙË ̃
 ÎÚÈıÂÈã ˆ ̃ ÔÈ ‰È·ıÂãÙÔÓÙÂ ̃ Ù· ÂÚÈÛÛÔãÙÂÚ· ÚÔÛÔãÓÙ· ÁÈ· ÚÔ·ÁˆÁËã 21Ë ̃ √ÎÙˆ‚ÚÈãÔ ̆ 1998 ( ̆ÔãıÂÛË IV/35.691/∂-4: TMˆÏËãÓÂ ̃ ıÂÚ-
 ÛÙÔ ‚·ıÌÔã ∞5 Ôã̆ ÙÂ ÛÙÔÓ ÈãÓ·Î· ÙˆÓ ̆·ÏÏËãÏˆÓ Ô ̆ ÂÈã ̄·Ó ÚÔ· ̄ıÂÈã Ì·ãÓÛÂˆ ̃ ÌÂ ÚÔå̆·ãÚ ̄Ô ̆Û· ÌÔãÓˆÛË ÛÙÔ ÌÂãÙÚÔ Ô ̆ · ̆ÙËã ·ÊÔÚ·ã
 ÛÙÔ ‚·ıÌÔã ∞5, ÔãÛÔÓ ·ÊÔÚ·ã ÙÔ ÂãÙÔ ̃ ÚÔ·ÁˆÁã̂ Ó, ·Ôã ÛÙ·‰ÈÔ‰ÚÔÌÈã· ÙËÓ ÚÔÛÊÂã̆ ÁÔ ̆Û·,
 ÛÂ ÛÙ·‰ÈÔ‰ÚÔÌÈã·, 1998.
 — Ó· ÌÂÈã̂ ÛÂÈ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎ·ã ÙÔ ÂÈ‚ÏËıÂãÓ Û’· ̆ÙËãÓ ÚÔãÛÙÈÌÔ Î·È
 ¶ÚÔ ̃ ÛÙËãÚÈÍË ÙË ̃ ÚÔÛÊ ̆ÁËã ̃-·ÁˆÁËã ̃ ÙÔ ̆, Ô Miguel Vicente Nuñez
 ÂÈÎ·ÏÂÈãÙ·È: — Ó· Î·Ù·‰ÈÎ·ãÛÂÈ ÙËÓ ∂ÈÙÚÔËã ÛÙ· ‰ÈÎ·ÛÙÈÎ·ã ÂãÍÔ‰·.
 — ÙËÓ ·Ó ̆·ÚÍÈã· Ëã ÙÔÓ ·Ú·ãÓÔÌÔ ̄·Ú·ÎÙËãÚ· ÙË ̃ Û ̆ÁÎÚÈÙÈÎËã ̃
 ÂÍÂÙ·ãÛÂˆ ̃ ÙˆÓ ÚÔÛÔãÓÙˆÓ Î·È ÙˆÓ ÂÎıÂãÛÂˆÓ ‚·ıÌÔÏÔÁÈã· ̃ ÙÔ ̆
 ÌÂ · ̆ÙÂã ̃ ÙˆÓ ÏÔÈã̂ Ó ÚÔ ̃ ÚÔ·ÁˆÁËã ̆Ô„ËÊÈãˆÓ, Î·È ÙÔã̆ ÙÔ πÛ ̄ ̆ÚÈÛÌÔÈã Î·È Îã̆ ÚÈ· ÂÈ ̄ÂÈÚËãÌ·Ù·
 ÏÔãÁˆ ÙÔ ̆ ÔãÙÈ Î·Ù·ã ÙË ÏËã„Ë ÙˆÓ ÂÈ‰ÈãÎˆÓ ·ÔÊ·ãÛÂˆÓ ‰ÂÓ
 ̆ÊÈãÛÙ·ÓÙÔ Ôã̆ ÙÂ Ô ÚÔÛˆÈÎÔã ̃ ÙÔ ̆ Ê·ãÎÂÏÔ ̃ Ôã̆ ÙÂ Ë ÙÂÏÂ ̆Ù·Èã· ∏ ÚÔÛÊÂã̆ ÁÔ ̆Û· ̆ÔÛÙËÚÈã ̇ÂÈ ÔãÙÈ Ë ·ÔãÊ·ÛË ÙË ̃ ∂ÈÙÚÔËã ̃ ·ãÛ ̄ÂÈ
 ÂãÎıÂÛË ‚·ıÌÔÏÔÁÈã· ̃ ÙÔ ̆, Î·ıã̂ ̃ Î·È ·Ú·ã‚·ÛË ÙÔ ̆ ·ãÚıÚÔ ̆ 45 ·Ôã Ù· ÂÍËã ̃ ÂÏ·ÙÙã̂ Ì·Ù·:
 ·Ú·ãÁÚ·ÊÔ ̃ 1 ÙÔ ̆ ∫À∫,
 — ÙËÓ ·Óã̆ ·ÚÎÙË Ëã ·ÓÂ·ÚÎËã ·ÈÙÈÔÏÔÁÈã· ÙˆÓ ÂÈ‰ÈãÎˆÓ ·ÔÊ·ã- 1. ¶ · Ú ·ã ‚ · Û Ë Ô ̆ Û È ˆ ‰ ã̂ Ó ‰ È · ‰ È Î · Û Ù È Î ã̂ Ó
 ÛÂˆÓ Î·ıã̂ ̃ Î·È ·Ú·ã‚·ÛË ÙÔ ̆ ·ãÚıÚÔ ̆ 25 ‰Âã̆ ÙÂÚÔ Â‰·ãÊÈÔ ÙÔ ̆ Î · Ó Ôã Ó ˆ Ó : Ë ∂ÈÙÚÔËã ·ÚÂã‚Ë Ô ̆ÛÈã̂ ‰ÂÈ ̃ ‰È·‰ÈÎ·ÛÙÈÎÔã̆ ̃
 ∫À∫, Î·ÓÔãÓÂ ̃ Î·Ù·ã ÙË ‰ÈÂÍ·ÁˆÁËã ÙË ̃ ‰È·‰ÈÎ·ÛÈã· ̃ Ô ̆ Î·ÙÂãÏËÍÂ ÛÙËÓ
 ·ÔãÊ·ÛË. ¶ÈÔ Û ̆ÁÎÂÎÚÈÌÂãÓ·,
 — ·Ú·ã‚·ÛË ÙÔ ̆ ·ãÚıÚÔ ̆ 45 ·Ú·ãÁÚ·ÊÔ ̃ 1 ÙÔ ̆ ∫À∫, ÛÙÔ ÌÂãÙÚÔ
 Ô ̆ ÔÈ ÚÔÛ‚·ÏÏÔãÌÂÓÂ ̃ ·ÔÊ·ãÛÂÈ ̃ ‰ÂÓ ÂÏËãÊıËÛ·Ó ‚·ãÛÂÈ ÙˆÓ — Ë ∂ÈÙÚÔËã ÛÙÂãÚËÛÂ ÙËÓ ÚÔÛÊÂã̆ ÁÔ ̆Û· ÙÔ ̆ ‰ÈÎ·Èã̂ Ì·ÙÔ ̃
 ·ÓÙÈÛÙÔÈã ̄ˆÓ ÚÔÛÔãÓÙˆÓ ÙˆÓ ̆Ô„ËÊÈãˆÓ ÁÈ· ÚÔ·ÁˆÁËã ̆·Ï- Ó· Ùã̆ ̄ÂÈ ·ÎÚÔ·ãÛÂˆ ̃,
 ÏËãÏˆÓ ·ÏÏ·ã ‚·ãÛÂÈ ÂÓÔã ̃ Î·ÓÔãÓ· Î·Ù·ã ÙÔÓ ÔÔÈãÔ Ô ÚÔÙÂÈÓÔãÌÂÓÔ ̃
 ÁÈ· ‰Âã̆ ÙÂÚË ÊÔÚ·ã ÁÈ· ÚÔ·ÁˆÁËã ·Ôã ÙË ¢ÈÂã̆ ı ̆ÓÛËã ÙÔ ̆ ̆·ãÏÏË- — Ë ∂ÈÙÚÔËã ÛÙËÚÈã ̄ıËÎÂ ÂÈã ÌË ·Ô‰Â‰ÂÈÁÌÂãÓˆÓ ÁÂÁÔÓÔã-
 ÏÔ ̃ ÚÂãÂÈ Ó· ÚÔÙÂÈãÓÂÙ·È ·Ôã ÙË °ÂÓÈÎËã ¢ÈÂã̆ ı ̆ÓÛËã ÙÔ ̆. ÙˆÓ,


type: legislation

text:
 2021.11.10.
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 396/27
 A BIZOTTSÁG (EU) 2021/1936 VÉGREHAJTÁSI RENDELETE
 (2021. november 9.)
 az (EU) 2018/2019 végrehajtási rendeletnek a Ficus carica L. és a Persea americana Mill. bizonyos Izraelből származó, ültetésre szánt növényei tekintetében történő módosításáról, az (EU) 2020/1213 végrehajtási rendeletnek az említett, ültetésre szánt növények Unió területére történő behozatalára vonatkozó növényegészségügyi intézkedések tekintetében történő módosításáról és az utóbbi végrehajtási rendelet helyesbítéséről
 AZ EURÓPAI BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződésre,
 tekintettel a növénykárosítókkal szembeni védekező intézkedésekről, a 228/2013/EU, a 652/2014/EU és az 1143/2014/EU európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelet módosításáról, valamint a 69/464/EGK, a 74/647/EGK, a 93/85/EGK, a 98/57/EK, a 2000/29/EK, a 2006/91/EK és a 2007/33/EK tanácsi irányelv hatályon kívül helyezéséről szóló, 2016. október 26-i (EU) 2016/2031 európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendeletre (1) és különösen annak 42. cikke (4) bekezdésének harmadik albekezdésére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 Az (EU) 2018/2019 bizottsági végrehajtási rendelet (2) előzetes értékelés alapján megállapítja a magas növényegészségügyi kockázatot jelentő növények, növényi termékek és egyéb anyagok jegyzékét.
 (2)
 Az (EU) 2018/2018 bizottsági végrehajtási rendelet (3) különös szabályokat állapít meg a magas növényegészségügyi kockázatot jelentő növények, növényi termékek és egyéb anyagok tekintetében az (EU) 2016/2031 rendelet 42. cikkének (4) bekezdésében említett kockázatértékelés elvégzése érdekében követendő eljárásra vonatkozóan.
 (3)
 Az előzetes kockázatértékelést követően 35, bármely harmadik országból származó, ültetésre szánt növényt vettek fel az (EU) 2018/2019 végrehajtási rendelet mellékletébe magas kockázatú növényként, köztük a Ficus carica L. fajt és a Persea Mill. nemzetséget.
 (4)
 Az (EU) 2016/2031 rendelet értelmében, amennyiben egy kockázatértékelés alapján megállapítást nyer, hogy az érintett harmadik országból, harmadik országok csoportjából vagy az érintett harmadik ország meghatározott területéről származó növény, növényi termék vagy egyéb anyag a károsítók tekintetében elfogadhatatlan kockázatot jelent, de ez a kockázat bizonyos intézkedések alkalmazásával elfogadható szintre csökkenthető, a Bizottság törli az adott növényt, növényi terméket vagy egyéb anyagot az (EU) 2018/2019 végrehajtási rendelet melléklete által megállapított jegyzékből, és felveszi az (EU) 2016/2031 rendelet 41. cikkének (2) bekezdésében említett jegyzékbe.
 (5)
 Az (EU) 2020/1213 bizottsági végrehajtási rendelet (4) meghatározza az (EU) 2018/2019 végrehajtási rendelet mellékletével létrehozott jegyzékből törölt egyes növények, növényi termékek és egyéb anyagok Unió területére történő behozatalára vonatkozó növényegészségügyi intézkedéseket.
 (6)
 2019. szeptember 18-án Izrael kérelmet nyújtott be a Bizottsághoz a Ficus carica L. fajhoz tartozó, szabadgyökerű, nyugalmi állapotú, levelek nélküli, a szár aljánál legfeljebb 2 cm átmérőjű, ültetésre szánt egyéves növényeknek, valamint termesztőközegben lévő, levelek nélküli, a szár aljánál legfeljebb 1 cm átmérőjű, ültetésre szánt egyéves gyökeres dugványoknak az Unióba történő kivitelére vonatkozóan. Ezt a kérelmet a megfelelő szakmai dokumentációval alátámasztották.
 (7)
 2020. november 26-án az Európai Élelmiszerbiztonsági Hatóság (a továbbiakban: Hatóság) tudományos szakvéleményt fogadott el az Izraelből származó, ültetésre szánt Ficus carica L. növények árukockázatának értékeléséről (5). A Hatóság az említett ültetésre szánt növények releváns károsítóiként azonosította az Aonidiella orientalis, a Colletotrichum siamense, az Euwallacea fornicatus sensu lato, a Hypothenemus leprieuri, az Icerya aegyptiaca, a Neocosmospora euwallaceae, a Neoscytalidium dimidiatum, a Nipaecoccus viridis, az Oligonychus mangiferus, a Phenacoccus solenopsis, a Plicosepalus acaciae, a Retithrips syriacus, a Russellaspis pustulans, a Scirtothrips dorsalis és a Spodoptera frugiperda károsítókat, értékelte a dokumentációban a szóban forgó károsítókra vonatkozóan leírt kockázatcsökkentő intézkedéseket, és megbecsülte e növények esetében a károsítótól való mentesség valószínűségét.
 (8)
 2019. szeptember 1-jén Izrael kérelmet nyújtott be a Bizottsághoz a Persea americana Mill. termesztőközegben lévő, gyökeres, levelekkel rendelkező és a szár aljánál legfeljebb 1 cm átmérőjű, ültetésre szánt oltott növényeinek és ültetésre szánt, nem gyökeres dugványainak az Unióba történő kivitele iránt. A kérelemhez csatolták a megfelelő szakmai dokumentációt.
 (9)
 2020. november 26-án a Hatóság tudományos szakvéleményt fogadott el az Izraelből származó, ültetésre szánt Persea americana Mill. növények árukockázatának értékeléséről (6). A Hatóság az említett ültetésre szánt növények releváns károsítóiként azonosította az Aonidiella orientalis, az Aulacaspis tubercularis, az Avocado sunblotch viroid, a Bemisia tabaci, a Colletotrichum aenigma, a Colletotrichum alienum, a Colletotrichum fructicola, a Colletotrichum perseae, a Colletotrichum siamense, a Colletotrichum theobromicola, az Euwallacea fornicatus, az Icerya aegyptiaca, a Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, a Maconellicoccus hirsutus, a Milviscutulus mangiferae, a Neocosmospora euwallaceae, a Neoscytalidium dimidiatum, a Nipaecoccus viridis, az Oligonychus perseae, a Paracoccus marginatus, a Penthimiola bella, a Pseudococcus cryptus, a Pulvinaria psidii, a Retithrips syriacus, a Scirtothrips dorsalis és a Tetraleurodes perseae károsítókat, értékelte a dokumentációban a szóban forgó károsítókra vonatkozóan leírt kockázatcsökkentő intézkedéseket, és megbecsülte e növények esetében a károsítótól való mentesség valószínűségét.
 (10)
 Ezenkívül az említett szakvélemények alapján a meghatározott károsítók jelentette kockázat kezeléséhez szükséges intézkedéseket növényegészségügyi behozatali követelményekként kell meghatározni annak biztosítása érdekében, hogy a meghatározott növények Unióba történő behozatalából fakadó növényegészségügyi kockázat elfogadható szintre csökkenjen. Ezért az Izraelből származó, a Ficus carica L. fajhoz tartozó, szabadgyökerű, nyugalmi állapotú, levelek nélküli, a szár aljánál legfeljebb 2 cm átmérőjű, ültetésre szánt egyéves növényekre és a Ficus carica L. fajhoz tartozó, termesztőközegben lévő, levelek nélküli, a szár aljánál legfeljebb 1 cm átmérőjű, ültetésre szánt egyéves gyökeres dugványokra, valamint az Izraelből származó, a Persea americana Mill. fajhoz tartozó, termesztőközegben lévő, gyökeres, levelekkel rendelkező, a szár aljánál legfeljebb 1 cm átmérőjű ültetésre szánt oltott növényekre és a Persea americana Mill. fajhoz tartoz növények ültetésre szánt nem gyökeres dugványaira vonatkozó bejegyzést törölni kell az (EU) 2018/2019 végrehajtási rendelet mellékletéből, az (EU) 2020/1213 végrehajtási rendelet mellékletét pedig ki kell egészíteni a szükséges növényegészségügyi behozatali intézkedésekkel.
 (11)
 Az egyes meghatározott növények tekintetében azonosított károsítók nagy számára és a Hatóság által azonosított bizonytalanságokra tekintettel a Bizottság úgy ítéli meg, hogy az Izrael által a dokumentációban javasolt intézkedések kizárólagos alkalmazásával nem csökkenthető elfogadható szintre a meghatározott növények Unióba történő behozatalából eredő kockázat. A növényegészségügyi kockázat elfogadható szintre való csökkentése érdekében és az (EU) 2019/2072 bizottsági végrehajtási rendelet (7) VII. mellékletében meghatározott behozatali követelmények sérelme nélkül az említett növények tekintetében elő kell írni, hogy azokat károsítóktól mentes és a meghatározott rovarkártevők behurcolása elleni fizikai védelemmel ellátott termőhelyeken kell termeszteni, valamint e károsítók kimutatását célzó hivatalos vizsgálatnak kell alávetni. Ezenkívül a Persea americana Mill. növényeinek Izraelből származó, ültetésre szánt nem gyökeres dugványai tekintetében, amelyekre vonatkozóan a szár aljánál mért maximális átmérő nem szerepel a dokumentációban, az Unióba történő behozatalra szánt ilyen növények esetében a szár aljánál mért legfeljebb 2 cm átmérőt kell elfogadni. Emellett az Izrael által benyújtott dokumentációkban jelzett ellenőrzéshez képest szigorítani kell a meghatározott növények szállítmányainak a kivitelt közvetlenül megelőző ellenőrzését.
 (12)
 Az (EU) 2019/2072 végrehajtási rendelet II. melléklete az uniós zárlati károsítók között felsorolja a Bemisia tabaci, az Euwallacea fornicatus sensu lato (a Scolytidae családjához tartozó [nem európai]), a Hypothenemus leprieuri (a Scolytidae családjához tartozó [nem európai]), a Scirtothrips dorsalis és a Spodoptera frugiperda károsítókat. Az (EU) 2019/2072 végrehajtási rendelet II. mellékletében az uniós zárlati károsítók jegyzékében még nem szerepel az Aonidiella orientalis, az Aulacaspis tubercularis, az Avocado sunblotch viroid, a Colletotrichum aenigma, a Colletotrichum alienum, a Colletotrichum fructicola, a Colletotrichum perseae, a Colletotrichum siamense, a Colletotrichum theobromicola, az Icerya aegyptiaca, a Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, a Maconellicoccus hirsutus, a Milviscutulus mangiferae, a Neocosmospora euwallaceae, a Neoscytalidium dimidiatum, a Nipaecoccus viridis, az Oligonychus mangiferus, az Oligonychus perseae, a Paracoccus marginatus, a Penthimiola bella, a Phenacoccus solenopsis, a Plicosepalus acaciae, a Pseudococcus cryptus, a Pulvinaria psidii, a Retithrips syriacus, a Russellaspis pustulans és a Tetraleurodes perseae károsító, de a teljes körű kockázatértékelés rámutathat, hogy teljesítik a jegyzékbe foglalás követelményeit. Ezért a teljes körű kockázatértékelés elvégzéséig az említett károsítókra vonatkozóan is szükség van a fent említett növényegészségügyi intézkedésekre.
 (13)
 Az (EU) 2018/2019 és az (EU) 2020/1213 végrehajtási rendeletet ezért ennek megfelelően módosítani kell.
 (14)
 Az (EU) 2020/1213 végrehajtási rendelet melléklete több hibát tartalmaz, amelyek más uniós növényegészségügyi jogszabályokra történő hivatkozásokat érintenek.
 (15)
 Az (EU) 2020/1213 végrehajtási rendeletet ezért ennek megfelelően helyesbíteni kell.
 (16)
 Az egészségügyi és növényegészségügyi intézkedések alkalmazásáról szóló WTO-megállapodásból eredő uniós kötelezettségeknek való megfelelés érdekében ezen áruk behozatalát a lehető legrövidebb időn belül folytatni kell. Ezért ennek a rendeletnek az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetését követő harmadik napon kell hatályba lépnie.
 (17)
 Az e rendeletben előírt intézkedések összhangban vannak a Növények, Állatok, Élelmiszerek és Takarmányok Állandó Bizottságának véleményével,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A RENDELETET:
 1. cikk
 Az (EU) 2018/2019 végrehajtási rendelet módosításai
 Az (EU) 2018/2019 végrehajtási rendelet melléklete e rendelet I. mellékletének megfelelően módosul.
 2. cikk
 Az (EU) 2020/1213 végrehajtási rendelet módosításai és helyesbítései
 Az (EU) 2020/1213 végrehajtási rendelet melléklete e rendelet II. mellékletének megfelelően módosul és helyesbítésre kerül.
 3. cikk
 Hatálybalépés
 Ez a rendelet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetését követő harmadik napon lép hatályba.
 Ez a rendelet teljes egészében kötelező és közvetlenül alkalmazandó valamennyi tagállamban.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2021. november 9-én.
 a Bizottság részéről
 az elnök
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1) HL L 317., 2016.11.23., 4. o.
 (2) A Bizottság (EU) 2018/2019 végrehajtási rendelete (2018. december 18.) az (EU) 2016/2031 rendelet 42. cikke értelmében magas növényegészségügyi kockázatot jelentő növények, növényi termékek és egyéb anyagok ideiglenes jegyzékének és az Unióba való behozatal tekintetében az említett rendelet 73. cikkében előírt növényegészségügyi bizonyítvány követelménye alól mentesülő növények jegyzékének létrehozásáról (HL L 323., 2018.12.19., 10. o.).
 (3) A Bizottság (EU) 2018/2018 végrehajtási rendelete (2018. december 18.) az (EU) 2016/2031 európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelet 42. cikkének (1) bekezdése szerinti, a magas növényegészségügyi kockázatot jelentő növényekre, növényi termékekre és egyéb anyagokra vonatkozó kockázatértékelés elvégzése érdekében követendő eljárásra vonatkozó különleges szabályok megállapításáról (HL L 323., 2018.12.19., 7. o.).
 (4) A Bizottság (EU) 2020/1213 végrehajtási rendelete (2020. augusztus 21.) az (EU) 2018/2019 végrehajtási rendelet mellékletéből törölt egyes növények, növényi termékek és egyéb áruk Unióba történő behozatalára vonatkozó növényegészségügyi intézkedésekről (HL L 275., 2020.8.24., 5. o.).
 (5) EFSA PLH Panel (European Food Safety Authority Panel on Plant Health), Scientific Opinion on the commodity risk assessment of Ficus carica plants from Israel (Az Európai Élelmiszerbiztonsági Hatóság növényegészségügyi tudományos testülete: Tudományos szakvélemény az Izraelből származó Ficus carica növények árukockázatának értékeléséről), EFSA Journal 2021;19(1):6353, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6353
 (6) EFSA PLH Panel, Scientific Opinion on the commodity risk assessment of Persea americana from Israel (Tudományos szakvélemény az Izraelből származó Persea americana árukockázatának értékeléséről), EFSA Journal 2021;19(2):6354, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6354
 (7) A Bizottság (EU) 2019/2072 végrehajtási rendelete (2019. november 28.) a növénykárosítókkal szembeni védekező intézkedésekről szóló (EU) 2016/2031 európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelet egységes végrehajtási feltételeinek megállapításáról, valamint a 690/2008/EK bizottsági rendelet hatályon kívül helyezéséről és az (EU) 2018/2019 bizottsági végrehajtási rendelet módosításáról(HL L 319., 2019.12.10., 1. o.).
 I. MELLÉKLET
 Az (EU) 2018/2019 végrehajtási rendelet mellékletének 1. pontjában szereplő táblázat „Leírás” című második oszlopa az alábbiak szerint módosul:
 1.
 A „Ficus carica L.” bejegyzés szövegének helyébe a következő szöveg lép:
 „Ficus carica L., az Izraelből származó, Ficus carica L. fajhoz tartozó, szabadgyökerű, nyugalmi állapotú, levelek nélküli, a szár aljánál legfeljebb 2 cm átmérőjű, ültetésre szánt egyéves növények, valamint termesztőközegben lévő, levelek nélküli, a szár aljánál legfeljebb 1 cm átmérőjű, ültetésre szánt egyéves gyökeres dugványok kivételével”.
 2.
 A „Persea Mill.” bejegyzés szövegének helyébe a következő szöveg lép:
 „Persea Mill., a Persea americana Mill. Izraelből származó, termesztőközegben lévő, gyökeres, levelekkel rendelkező és a szár aljánál legfeljebb 1 cm átmérőjű, ültetésre szánt oltott növényei, valamint ültetésre szánt, legfeljebb 2 cm átmérőjű nem gyökeres dugványai kivételével”.
 II. MELLÉKLET
 A. RÉSZ
 Az (EU) 2020/1213 végrehajtási rendelet mellékletében szereplő táblázat az alábbiak szerint módosul:
 1.
 Az Albizia julibrissin Durazzini ültetésre szánt, legfeljebb 2,5 cm átmérőjű, szabadgyökerű, nyugalmi állapotú oltott növényeire vonatkozó második bejegyzés után a következő bejegyzés kerül beillesztésre:
 „Növények, növényi termékek vagy egyéb anyagok
 KN-kód
 Származási harmadik országok
 Intézkedések
 Ficus carica L., szabadgyökerű, nyugalmi állapotú, levelek nélküli, a szár aljánál legfeljebb 2 cm átmérőjű, ültetésre szánt egyéves növények, valamint termesztőközegben lévő, levelek nélküli, a szár aljánál legfeljebb 1 cm átmérőjű, ültetésre szánt egyéves gyökeres dugványok
 ex 0602 20 20
 ex 0602 20 80
 ex 0602 90 45
 ex 0602 90 46
 ex 0602 90 48
 ex 0602 90 50
 ex 0602 90 70
 Izrael
 (a)
 Hatósági nyilatkozat arról, hogy
 (i)
 a növények mentesek az Aonidiella orientalis, a Colletotrichum siamense, az Euwallacea fornicatus sensu lato, a Hypothenemus leprieuri, az Icerya aegyptiaca, a Neocosmospora euwallaceae, a Neoscytalidium dimidiatum, a Nipaecoccus viridis, az Oligonychus mangiferus, a Phenacoccus solenopsis, a Plicosepalus acaciae, a Retithrips syriacus, a Russellaspis pustulans, a Scirtothrips dorsalis és a Spodoptera frugiperda károsítóktól;
 (ii)
 a növényeket egész életciklusuk alatt olyan termőhelyen termesztették, amelyet – az annak részét képező termesztési helyekkel együtt – a származási ország nemzeti növényvédelmi szervezete nyilvántartásba vett és felügyel;
 (iii)
 a növényeket egész életciklusuk alatt az Aonidiella orientalis, az Icerya aegyptiaca, a Nipaecoccus viridis, az Oligonychus mangiferus, a Phenacoccus solenopsis, a Retithrips syriacus és a Russellaspis pustulans ellen fizikai védelemmel ellátott helyen termesztették, amelyet 45 naponta hatósági vizsgálatnak vetettek alá, és amelyet az i. alpontban felsorolt összes károsítótól mentesnek találtak; az i. alpontban felsorolt bármely károsító termesztési helyen való jelenlétének gyanúja esetén megfelelő kezeléseket végeztek a károsítóktól való mentesség biztosítása érdekében; és
 (iv)
 a növények szállítmányain közvetlenül a kivitelt megelőzően hatósági vizsgálatot végeztek az Aonidiella orientalis, az Icerya aegyptiaca, a Nipaecoccus viridis, az Oligonychus mangiferus, a Phenacoccus solenopsis, a Plicosepalus acaciae, a Retithrips syriacus és a Russellaspis pustulans jelenlétének kimutatása céljából, és a vizsgált minta mérete lehetővé tette a legalább 1 %-os szintű fertőzöttség 99 %-os megbízhatósággal történő kimutatását, valamint a Colletotrichum siamense és a Neoscytalidium dimidiatumjelenlétének kimutatása céljából véletlenszerű mintavételt és a növények laboratóriumi vizsgálatát is magában foglaló hatósági vizsgálatot végeztek;
 (b)
 az e növényekre vonatkozó növényegészségügyi bizonyítványok a »Kiegészítő nyilatkozat« rovatban a következőket tartalmazzák:
 (i)
 a következő nyilatkozat: »A szállítmány megfelel az (EU) 2020/1213 bizottsági végrehajtási rendeletnek.«;
 (ii)
 a nyilvántartásba vett termesztési hely(ek).”
 2.
 A Jasminum polyanthum Franchet növényeinek ültetésre szánt, nem gyökeres dugványaira vonatkozó bejegyzés után a következő bejegyzések kerülnek beillesztésre:
 „Növények, növényi termékek vagy egyéb anyagok
 KN-kód
 Származási harmadik országok
 Intézkedések
 a Persea americana Mill. termesztőközegben lévő, gyökeres, levelekkel rendelkező és a szár aljánál legfeljebb 1 cm átmérőjű, ültetésre szánt oltott növényei
 ex 0602 90 41
 ex 0602 90 45
 ex 0602 90 48
 ex 0602 90 50
 Izrael
 (a)
 Hatósági nyilatkozat arról, hogy
 (i)
 a növények mentesek az Aonidiella orientalis, az Aulacaspis tubercularis, az Avocado sunblotch viroid, a Bemisia tabaci, a Colletotrichum aenigma, a Colletotrichum alienum, a Colletotrichum fructicola, a Colletotrichum perseae, a Colletotrichum siamense, a Colletotrichum theobromicola, az Euwallacea fornicatus sensu lato, az Icerya aegyptiaca, a Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, a Maconellicoccus hirsutus, a Milviscutulus mangiferae, a Neocosmospora euwallaceae, a Neoscytalidium dimidiatum, a Nipaecoccus viridis, az Oligonychus perseae, a Paracoccus marginatus, a Penthimiola bella, a Pseudococcus cryptus, a Pulvinaria psidii, a Retithrips syriacus, a Scirtothrips dorsalis és a Tetraleurodes perseae károsítóktól;
 (ii)
 a növényeket egész életciklusuk alatt olyan termőhelyen termesztették, amelyet – az annak részét képező termesztési helyekkel együtt – a származási ország nemzeti növényvédelmi szervezete nyilvántartásba vett és felügyel;
 (iii)
 a növényeket egész életciklusuk alatt az Aonidiella orientalis, az Aulacaspis tubercularis, az Icerya aegyptiaca, a Maconellicoccus hirsutus, a Milviscutulus mangiferae, aNipaecoccus viridis, az Oligonychus perseae, a Paracoccus marginatus, a Penthimiola bella, a Pseudococcus cryptus, a Pulvinaria psidii, a Retithrips syriacus és a Tetraleurodes perseae ellen fizikai védelemmel ellátott helyen termesztették, amelyet 45 naponta hatósági vizsgálatnak vetettek alá, és amelyet az i. alpontban felsorolt összes károsítótól mentesnek találtak; az i. alpontban felsorolt bármely károsító termesztési helyen való jelenlétének gyanúja esetén megfelelő kezeléseket végeztek a károsítóktól való mentesség biztosítása érdekében; és
 iv.
 a növények szállítmányain közvetlenül a kivitelt megelőzően hatósági vizsgálatot végeztek az Aonidiella orientalis, az Aulacaspis tubercularis, az Icerya aegyptiaca, a Maconellicoccus hirsutus, a Milviscutulus mangiferae, aNipaecoccus viridis, az Oligonychus perseae, a Paracoccus marginatus, a Penthimiola bella, a Pseudococcus cryptus, a Pulvinaria psidii, a Retithrips syriacus és a Tetraleurodes perseae jelenlétének kimutatása céljából, és a vizsgált minta mérete lehetővé tette a legalább 1 %-os szintű fertőzöttség 99 %-os megbízhatósággal történő kimutatását, valamint az Avocado sunblotch viroid, a Colletotrichum aenigma, a Colletotrichum alienum, a Colletotrichum fructicola, a Colletotrichum perseae, a Colletotrichum siamense, a Colletotrichum theobromicola, a Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, a Neoscytalidium dimidiatum jelenlétének kimutatása céljából véletlenszerű mintavételt és a növények laboratóriumi vizsgálatát is magában foglaló hatósági vizsgálatot végeztek;
 (b)
 az e növényekre vonatkozó növényegészségügyi bizonyítványok a »Kiegészítő nyilatkozat« rovatban a következőket tartalmazzák:
 (i)
 a következő nyilatkozat: »A szállítmány megfelel az (EU) 2020/1213 bizottsági végrehajtási rendeletnek.«;
 (ii)
 a nyilvántartásba vett termesztési hely(ek).
 a Persea americana Mill. növényeinek ültetésre szánt, legfeljebb 2 cm átmérőjű, nem gyökeres dugványai
 ex 0602 10 90
 Izrael
 (a)
 Hatósági nyilatkozat arról, hogy
 (i)
 a növények mentesek az Aonidiella orientalis, az Aulacaspis tubercularis, az Avocado sunblotch viroid, a Colletotrichum aenigma, a Colletotrichum alienum, a Colletotrichum fructicola, a Colletotrichum perseae, a Colletotrichum siamense, a Colletotrichum theobromicola, az Euwallacea fornicatus sensu lato, az Icerya aegyptiaca, a Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, a Maconellicoccus hirsutus, a Milviscutulus mangiferae, a Neocosmospora euwallaceae, a Neoscytalidium dimidiatum, a Nipaecoccus viridis, az Oligonychus perseae, a Paracoccus marginatus, a Pseudococcus cryptus, a Pulvinaria psidii, a Retithrips syriacus és a Scirtothrips dorsalis károsítóktól;
 (ii)
 a növényeket egész életciklusuk alatt olyan termőhelyen termesztették, amelyet – az annak részét képező termesztési helyekkel együtt – a származási ország nemzeti növényvédelmi szervezete nyilvántartásba vett és felügyel;
 (iii)
 a növényeket egész életciklusuk alatt az Aonidiella orientalis, az Aulacaspis tubercularis, az Icerya aegyptiaca, a Maconellicoccus hirsutus, a Milviscutulus mangiferae, a Nipaecoccus viridis, az Oligonychus perseae, a Paracoccus marginatus, a Pseudococcus cryptus, a Pulvinaria psidii, és a Retithrips syriacus ellen fizikai védelemmel ellátott helyen termesztették, amelyet 45 naponta hatósági vizsgálatnak vetettek alá, és amelyet az i. alpontban felsorolt összes károsítótól mentesnek találtak; az i. alpontban felsorolt bármely károsító termesztési helyen való jelenlétének gyanúja esetén megfelelő kezeléseket végeztek a károsítóktól való mentesség biztosítása érdekében; és
 (iv)
 a növények szállítmányain közvetlenül a kivitelt megelőzően hatósági vizsgálatot végeztek az Aonidiella orientalis, az Aulacaspis tubercularis, az Icerya aegyptiaca, a Maconellicoccus hirsutus, a Milviscutulus mangiferae, a Nipaecoccus viridis, az Oligonychus perseae, a Paracoccus marginatus, a Pseudococcus cryptus, a Pulvinaria psidii és a Retithrips syriacus jelenlétének kimutatása céljából, és a vizsgált minta mérete lehetővé tette a legalább 1 %-os szintű fertőzöttség 99 %-os megbízhatósággal történő kimutatását, valamint az Avocado sunblotch viroid, a Colletotrichum aenigma, a Colletotrichum alienum, a Colletotrichum fructicola, a Colletotrichum perseae, a Colletotrichum siamense, a Colletotrichum theobromicola, a Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, a Neoscytalidium dimidiatum jelenlétének kimutatása céljából véletlenszerű mintavételt és a növények laboratóriumi vizsgálatát is magában foglaló hatósági vizsgálatot végeztek;
 (b)
 az e növényekre vonatkozó növényegészségügyi bizonyítványok a »Kiegészítő nyilatkozat« rovatban a következőket tartalmazzák:
 (i)
 a következő nyilatkozat: »A szállítmány megfelel az (EU) 2020/1213 bizottsági végrehajtási rendeletnek.«;
 (ii)
 a nyilvántartásba vett termesztési hely(ek).”
 B. RÉSZ
 Az (EU) 2020/1213 végrehajtási rendelet mellékletében szereplő táblázat az alábbiak szerint helyesbítésre kerül:
 1.
 Az Acer japonicum Thunberg, az Acer palmatum Thunberg és az Acer shirasawanum Koidzumi ültetésre szánt, egy- és hároméves közötti, szabadgyökerű, nyugalmi állapotú, levelektől mentes, oltott vagy szemezett növényeire vonatkozó két bejegyzésben a negyedik, „Intézkedések” című oszlop b) pontjának i. alpontjában az „(EU) 2020/1362 bizottsági végrehajtási rendeletnek” szavak helyébe a következő szöveg lép: „(EU) 2020/1213 bizottsági végrehajtási rendeletnek”.
 2.
 A Jasminum polyanthum Franchet növényeinek ültetésre szánt, nem gyökeres dugványaira vonatkozó bejegyzésben a negyedik, „Intézkedések” című oszlop b) pontjának i. alpontjában az „(EU) 2021/419 bizottsági végrehajtási rendeletnek” szavak helyébe a következő szöveg lép: „(EU) 2020/1213 bizottsági végrehajtási rendeletnek”.


type: wikipedia

text:
18. aprill on Gregoriuse kalendri 108. (liigaastal 109.) päev. Juliuse kalendri järgi 5. aprill (1901–2099).
 Sündmused
 Eestis
 1583 – Tartus alustas tegevust jesuiitide gümnaasium. See oli Eesti esimene täieliku õppekavaga gümnaasium.
 1865 – kehtima hakkas uus tsensuurikorraldus.
 1875 – asutati Kuressaare aurulaevaselts "Osilia".
 1900 – kinnitati Peterburi Eesti Jõukarastuse Seltsi "Kalev" põhikiri.
 1928 – asutati Välis-Eesti Ühing.
 1941 – taludele kehtestati kohustuslikud põllumajandussaaduste müümise normid.
 1989 – Lüganusel asutati Eesti kodanike komitee – viies omataoline Eestis.
 Maailmas
 1881 – Londonis avati loodusmuuseum Natural History Museum.
 1945 – Teine maailmasõda: USA väed hõivasid Düsseldorfi ja Magdeburgi.
 1946 – Rahvasteliit saatis end laiali, kuna eelmisel aastal oli asutatud ÜRO.
 1949 – Dublinis kuulutati välja Iiri Vabariik.
 1951 – Pariisis sõlmiti Euroopa Söe- ja Teraseühenduse asutamisleping.
 1955 – Bandungi konverents: Egiptuse riigipea Gamal Abdel Nasseri, India riigipea Jawaharlal Nehru ja Jugoslaavia riigipea Josip Broz Tito initsiatiivil kohtusid Indoneesias Bandungis 23 Aasia ja 6 Aafrika riigi esindajad. Osalenud riikides elas üle poole maailma rahvastikust. Konverentsil kasutasid poliitikud esimest korda mõistet "Kolmas Maailm", tähistamaks Esimese ja Teise Maailma poliitilistest blokkidest väljapoole jäävaid riike. Konverents pani aluse kuus aastat hiljem asutatud Mitteühinemisliikumisele.
 1972 – asutati Jaapani ettevõte Roland.
 1976 – umbes 40 000 iisraellast marssis Jordani Läänekaldale ja nõudis, et Iisrael annekteeriks selle territooriumi.
 1980 – Suurbritannia tunnustas Zimbabwe iseseisvust.
 Sündinud
 1772 – David Ricardo, inglise majandusteadlane
 1882 – Leopold Stokowski, dirigent
 1884 – Jaan Anvelt, jurist, revolutsionäär, kirjanik
 1894 – Ernst Koppel, eesti arst ja mesinik
 1819 – Franz von Suppé, austria helilooja
 1890 – Marius Fabre, prantsuse kabetaja
 1924 – Leida Rammo, eesti näitleja
 1934 – Arne Mikk, eesti lavastaja
 1940 – Enno Ootsing, eesti graafik
 1966 – Trine Hattestad, norra odaviskaja
 1968 – Piret Bristol, eesti proosakirjanik ja luuletaja
 1973 – Haile Gebrselassie, Etioopia kergejõustiklane
 1973 – Juhan Ulfsak, eesti näitleja
 1976 – Melissa Joan Hart, ameerika näitleja
 1980 – Priit Võigemast, eesti näitleja
 Surnud
 1802 – Erasmus Darwin, Briti botaanik
 1873 – Justus von Liebig, saksa keemik
 1898 – Gustave Moreau, prantsuse kunstnik
 1947 – Jozef Tiso, slovaki poliitik ja katoliku preester (hukati)
 1949 – Leonard Bloomfield, USA keeleteadlane
 1955 – Albert Einstein, juudi päritolu füüsik
 2002 – Thor Heyerdahl, norra maailmarändur
 Pühad
 Zimbabwe iseseisvuspäev
 Rahvusvaheline muinsuskaitsepäev
 Ilmarekordid
 ...
 Viited
 Aprill 18


text:
 24.9.2011
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 282/35
 Tožba, vložena 26. julija 2011 – Elti proti delegaciji Evropske unije v Črni gori
 (Zadeva T-395/11)
 2011/C 282/69
 Jezik postopka: angleščina
 Stranki
 Tožeča stranka: Elti d.o.o. (Gornja Radgona, Republika Slovenija) (zastopnik: N. Zidar Klemenčič, odvetnica)
 Tožena stranka: Evropska unija, ki jo zastopa delegacija Evropske unije v Črni gori
 Predlogi
 —
 Ugotovi naj se, da je tožena stranka kršila člena 2 in 30(3) Direktive 2004/18/ES (1);
 —
 postopek s pogajanji, voden v okviru postopka javnega razpisa „Podpora za digitalizacijo javne radiotelevizije v Črni gori – dobava opreme, Črna gora“ (referenčna št. dokumenta EuropaAid/129435/C/SUP/ME-NP) (UL 2010/S 178-270613) naj se razveljavi, ker tožeča stranka ni bila obravnavana enakopravno in zaradi tega ni mogla popraviti/pojasniti svoje ponudbe;
 —
 odločba o oddaji javnega naročila, sprejeta v okviru zgoraj navedenega postopka javnega razpisa, naj se razglasi za nično;
 —
 če je bila pogodba že sklenjena, naj se razglasi za nično;
 —
 podredno, če bo pogodba, ko bo Sodišče izdalo sodbo, že izpolnjena, ali če odločbe ni več mogoče razglasiti za nično, naj se ugotovi, da je tožena stranka kršila člena 2 in 30(3) Direktive 2004/18/ES, in naj se ji naloži, da mora tožeči stranki plačati odškodnino v višini 172 541,56 EUR kot nadomestilo izgube, ki ji je nastala v zvezi s tem postopkom; in
 —
 toženi stranki naj se naloži plačilo vseh stroškov, vključno s stroški morebitnih intervenientov.
 Tožbeni razlogi in bistvene trditve
 Tožeča stranka v utemeljitev tožbe navaja en tožbeni razlog.
 1.
 Tožbeni razlog: tožena stranka naj bi kršila člena 2 in 30(3) Direktive 2004/18/ES, ker:
 —
 informacije, pomembne za predložitev ponudbe, vsem udeležencem postopka za oddajo javnega naročila niso bile dane na voljo na enak način in v enakem obsegu.
 —
 so bile izbranemu ponudniku informacije dane na voljo na diskriminatoren način, zaradi česar je dobil prednost, ker je lahko popravil svojo ponudbo; in
 —
 je bil postopek s pogajanji voden tako, da je tožena stranka vplivala na izid postopka, ker je zahtevala dodatne informacije ali pojasnila le od nekaterih udeležencev, s čimer je kršila načeli prepovedi diskriminacije in preglednosti.
 (1) Direktiva 2004/18/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil gradenj, blaga in storitev (UL 2004, L 134, str. 114).