type: other

text:
ΟΑΕΔ Πότε ανακοινώνονται τα τελικά αποτελέσματα για την κοινωφελή εργασία | newsontime.gr
 Home » Κοινωνία , ΟΑΕΔ , News » ΟΑΕΔ Πότε ανακοινώνονται τα τελικά αποτελέσματα για την κοινωφελή εργασία
 ΟΑΕΔ Πότε ανακοινώνονται τα τελικά αποτελέσματα για την κοινωφελή εργασία
 Written By Dimitris Kalidis on Πέμπτη, 26 Νοεμβρίου 2015 | 11:00 π.μ.
 Στο τέλος του μήνα και μετά την ολοκλήρωση του ελέγχου των ενστάσεων θα ανακοινωθούν τα οριστικά αποτελέσματα του προγράμματος κοινωφελούς εργασίας του ΟΑΕΔ για 19.101 προσλήψεις σε δημόσιο και υπουργεία.
 Συγκεκριμένα η τρίτη και τελευταία φάση του προγράμματος κοινωφελούς εργασίας ΟΑΕΔ για το 2015 τελειώνει στο τέλος του μήνα σύμφωνα με την Διοικήτρια του Οργανισμού κ. Καραμεσίνη με την ανακοίνωση των οριστικών αποτελεσμάτων της τρίτης προκήρυξης για 19.101 προσλήψεις ανέργων για απασχόληση πεντάμηνης διάρκειας.
 Ηδη όπως είναι γνωστό έχουν ανακοινωθεί τα προσωρινά αποτελέσματα και ολοκληρώθηκαν εδώ και ημέρες οι ενστάσεις.
 Το πρόγραμμα στοχεύει αφενός στην ένταξη ανέργων στην αγορά εργασίας, και αφετέρου στην υποστήριξη και βελτίωση συγκεκριμένων υπηρεσιών. Τέτοιες είναι οι υπηρεσίες εκπαίδευσης, υγείας (καθαριότητα υποδομών υγείας, εξυπηρέτηση κοινού, υποστήριξη λειτουργίας πληροφοριακού συστήματος και ψηφιακού εκσυγχρονισμού του συστήματος υγείας). Επίσης το πρόγραμμα στοχεύει στη βελτίωση των παρεχόμενων υπηρεσιών σε φορείς του δημόσιου τομέα που έχουν καθημερινή και άμεση σχέση με την εξυπηρέτηση πολιτών (πχ ασφαλιστικά ταμεία, κέντρα εξυπηρέτησης πολιτών, δικαστήρια), καθώς και δράσεων που αφορούν στην παροχή κοινωνικών υπηρεσιών κοινής ωφέλειας της δημόσιας διοίκησης προς τους πολίτες που βρίσκονται σε ανάγκη, λόγω της οικονομικής κρίσης.
 Ο προϋπολογισμός του προγράμματος ανέρχεται στα 72.327.655 ευρώ.
 Το μισθολογικό κόστος αντιστοιχεί σε:
 α) Ημερομίσθιο 19,81 ευρώ και όχι πάνω από 495,25 ευρώ για ανέργους άνω των 25 ετών.
 β)Ημερομίσθιο 17,27 ευρώ και όχι πάνω από 431,75 ευρώ για ανέργους έως 25 ετών.
 Οι ωφελούμενοι δεν λαμβάνουν οποιαδήποτε άλλη παροχή (άδεια, επίδομα αδείας, ειδικές άδειες).
 Δικαίωμα υποβολής αιτήσεων είχαν μόνο οι εγγεγραμμένοι στα μητρώα ανέργων του ΟΑΕΔ, οι οποίοι κατά τη λήξη της προθεσμίας υποβολής των αιτήσεων έχουν συμπληρώσει το 18ο έτος της ηλικίας τους.
 Ο ΟΑΕΔ έχει ορίσει επτά αντικειμενικά κριτήρια μοριοδότησης και κατάταξης όσων ανέργων υποβάλλουν αιτήσεις, τα οποία είναι:
 1) Το χρονικό διάστημα συνεχόμενης εγγεγραμμένης ανεργίας του ωφελούμενου με ανώτατο όριο τους 60 μήνες.
 2) Το χρονικό διάστημα συνεχόμενης εγγεγραμμένης ανεργίας του / της συζύγου των ανέργων της πρώτης κατηγορίας, με ανώτατο όριο τους 60 μήνες. 3) Την αναπηρία (του υποψήφιου ωφελούμενου) σε ποσοστό 50% και άνω.
 6) Τον αριθμό των ανήλικων τέκνων.
 7) Τον αριθμό εξαρτώμενων τέκνων ΑμεΑ (ανήλικων ή / και ενήλικων) με ποσοστό αναπηρίας 67% και άνω.
 Ετικέτες Κοινωνία , ΟΑΕΔ , News
 26 Νοεμβρίου 2015 - 11:21 π.μ.
 Κάνετε ένα λάθος γιατί οι δικαιούχοι του προγράμματος δικαιούνται 8 ημέρες κανονικής άδειας και 2 ημέρες γονική !!!


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 10.4.2008
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 L 100/44
 GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉNS BESLUT
 nr 135/2007
 av den 26 oktober 2007
 om ändring av bilaga I (Veterinära frågor och växtskyddsfrågor) till EES-avtalet
 GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉN HAR BESLUTAT FÖLJANDE
 med beaktande av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, ändrat genom protokollet med justeringar av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, nedan kallat avtalet, särskilt artikel 98, och
 av följande skäl:
 (1)
 Bilaga I till avtalet ändrades genom gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslut nr 99/2007 av den 28 september 2007 (1).
 (2)
 Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 av den 3 oktober 2002 om hälsobestämmelser för animaliska biprodukter som inte är avsedda att användas som livsmedel (2), rättad i EUT L 30, 3.2.2007, s. 3, bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (3)
 Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2002/33/EG av den 21 oktober 2002 om ändring av rådets direktiv 90/425/EEG och 92/118/EEG beträffande hälsokrav för animaliska biprodukter (3) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (4)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 808/2003 av den 12 maj 2003 om ändring av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 om hälsobestämmelser för animaliska biprodukter som inte är avsedda att användas som livsmedel (4) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (5)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 809/2003 av den 12 maj 2003 om övergångsbestämmelser enligt Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 avseende bearbetningskrav för kategori 3-material och naturgödsel som används i komposteringsanläggningar (5) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (6)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 810/2003 av den 12 maj 2003 om övergångsbestämmelser enligt Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 avseende bearbetningskrav för kategori 3-material och naturgödsel som används i biogasanläggningar (6) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (7)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 811/2003 av den 12 maj 2003 om tillämpning av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 avseende förbud mot återanvändning inom arten för fisk, nedgrävning och förbränning av animaliska biprodukter samt vissa övergångsbestämmelser (7) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (8)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 446/2004 av den 10 mars 2004 om upphävande av ett antal beslut om animaliska biprodukter (8) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (9)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 668/2004 av den 10 mars 2004 om ändring av vissa bilagor till Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 beträffande import av animaliska biprodukter från tredje land (9), rättad i EUT L 109, 22.4.2006, s. 12, bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (10)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 878/2004 av den 29 april 2004 om övergångsbestämmelser i överensstämmelse med förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 för vissa animaliska biprodukter som klassificerats som kategori 1- och 2-material och som är avsedda för tekniska ändamål (10) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (11)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 92/2005 av den 19 januari 2005 om tillämpning av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 avseende användning eller metoder för bortskaffande av animaliska biprodukter och ändring av bilaga VI till den förordningen avseende biogasomvandling och bearbetning av utsmälta fetter (11) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (12)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 93/2005 av den 19 januari 2005 om ändring av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 beträffande bearbetning av animaliska biprodukter från fisk och handelsdokument för transporten av animaliska biprodukter (12) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (13)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 2067/2005 av den 16 december 2005 om ändring av förordning (EG) nr 92/2005 i fråga om alternativa metoder för bortskaffande och användning av animaliska biprodukter (13) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (14)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 209/2006 av den 7 februari 2006 om ändring av förordningarna (EG) nr 809/2003 och (EG) nr 810/2003 när det gäller förlängning av giltighetstiden för övergångsbestämmelserna för komposterings- och biogasanläggningar i enlighet med Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 (14) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (15)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1192/2006 av den 4 augusti 2006 om tillämpning av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 i fråga om förteckningar över godkända anläggningar i medlemsstaterna (15) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (16)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1678/2006 av den 14 november 2006 om ändring av förordning (EG) nr 92/2005 i fråga om alternativa metoder för bortskaffande och användning av animaliska biprodukter (16) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (17)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1877/2006 av den 18 december 2006 om ändring av förordning (EG) nr 878/2004 om övergångsbestämmelser i överensstämmelse med förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 för vissa animaliska biprodukter som klassificerats som kategori 1- och 2-material och som är avsedda för tekniska ändamål (17) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (18)
 Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 2007/2006 av den 22 december 2006 om tillämpning av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 när det gäller import och transitering av vissa mellanprodukter från kategori 3-material avsedda för tekniska ändamål i medicintekniska produkter, produkter för in vitro-diagnostik och i laboratoriereagenser samt om ändring av den förordningen (18) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (19)
 Genom förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 upphävdes rådets direktiv 90/667/EEG (19), rådets beslut 95/348/EG (20) och rådets beslut 1999/534/EG (21), som är införlivade med avtalet och följaktligen bör utgå ur avtalet.
 (20)
 Genom förordning (EG) nr 446/2004 upphävdes kommissionens beslut 92/562/EEG (22), 97/735/EG (23) och 2001/25/EG (24), som är införlivade med avtalet och följaktligen bör utgå ur avtalet.
 (21)
 Det här beslutet bör inte gälla Liechtenstein.
 (22)
 Det här beslutet bör gälla Island med tillämpning av den övergångsperiod som anges i punkt 2 i inledningen till kapitel I i bilaga I för de områden som inte gällde Island före översynen av detta kapitel genom gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslut nr 133/2007 av den 26 oktober 2007.
 HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.
 Artikel 1
 Kapitel I i bilaga I till avtalet ska ändras i enlighet med bilagan till detta beslut.
 Artikel 2
 Texterna till förordningarna (EG) nr 1774/2002, rättad i EGT L 30, 3.2.2007, s. 3, (EG) nr 808/2003, (EG) nr 809/2003, (EG) nr 810/2003, (EG) nr 811/2003, (EG) nr 446/2004, (EG) nr 668/2004, rättad i EUT L 109, 22.4.2006, s. 12, (EG) nr 878/2004, (EG) nr 92/2005, (EG) nr 93/2005, (EG) nr 2067/2005, (EG) nr 209/2006, (EG) nr 1192/2006, (EG) nr 1678/2006, (EG) nr 1877/2006 och (EG) nr 2007/2006 och direktiv 2003/33/EG på isländska och norska, som ska offentliggöras i EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning, ska vara giltiga.
 Artikel 3
 Detta beslut träder i kraft den 27 oktober 2007 under förutsättning att alla anmälningar enligt artikel 103.1 i avtalet har gjorts till gemensamma EES-kommittén (25), eller samma dag som gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslut nr 133/2007 av den 26 oktober 2007 träder i kraft, beroende på vilket som inträffar senast.
 Artikel 4
 Detta beslut ska offentliggöras i EES-delen av och EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning.
 Utfärdat i Bryssel den 26 oktober 2007.
 På gemensamma EES-kommitténs vägnar
 Stefán Haukur JÓHANNESSON
 Ordförande
 (1) EUT L 47, 21.2.2008, s. 10.
 (2) EGT L 273, 10.10.2002, s. 1.
 (3) EGT L 315, 19.11.2002, s. 14.
 (4) EUT L 117, 13.5.2003, s. 1.
 (5) EUT L 117, 13.5.2003, s. 10.
 (6) EUT L 117, 13.5.2003, s. 12.
 (7) EUT L 117, 13.5.2003, s. 14.
 (8) EUT L 72, 11.3.2004, s. 62.
 (9) EUT L 112, 19.4.2004, s. 1.
 (10) EUT L 162, 30.4.2004, s. 62.
 (11) EUT L 19, 21.1.2005, s. 27.
 (12) EUT L 19, 21.1.2005, s. 34.
 (13) EUT L 331, 17.12.2005, s. 12.
 (14) EUT L 36, 8.2.2006, s. 32.
 (15) EUT L 215, 5.8.2006, s. 10.
 (16) EUT L 314, 15.11.2006, s. 4.
 (17) EUT L 360, 19.12.2006, s. 133.
 (18) EUT L 379, 28.12.2006, s. 98.
 (19) EGT L 363, 27.12.1990, s. 51.
 (20) EGT L 202, 26.8.1995, s. 8.
 (21) EGT L 204, 4.8.1999, s. 37.
 (22) EGT L 359, 9.12.1992, s. 23.
 (23) EGT L 294, 28.10.1997, s. 7.
 (24) EGT L 6, 11.1.2001, s. 16.
 (25) Konstitutionella krav finns angivna.
 BILAGA
 Kapitel I i bilaga I till avtalet ska ändras på följande sätt:
 1.
 Följande punkt ska införas i del 7.1 efter punkt 9a (rådets beslut 1999/534/EG):
 ”9b.
 32002 R 1774: Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 av den 3 oktober 2002 om hälsobestämmelser för animaliska biprodukter som inte är avsedda att användas som livsmedel (EGT L 273, 10.10.2002, s. 1. Rättad i EUT L 30, 3.2.2007, s. 3), ändrad genom
 —
 32003 R 0808: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 808/2003 av den 12 maj 2003 (EUT L 117, 13.5.2003, s. 1)
 —
 32004 R 0668: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 668/2004 av den 10 mars 2004 (EUT L 112, 19.4.2004, s. 1. Rättad i EUT L 109, 22.4.2006, s. 12)
 —
 32005 R 0092: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 92/2005 av den 19 januari 2005 (EUT L 19, 21.1.2005, s. 27)
 —
 32005 R 0093: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 93/2005 av den 19 januari 2005 (EUT L 19, 21.1.2005, s. 34)”
 2.
 Rubriken ”Animaliskt avfall, patogener” i del 7.1 ska ersättas med rubriken ”Animaliska biprodukter som inte är avsedda att användas som livsmedel”.
 3.
 Följande strecksats ska läggas till i del 1.1 punkt 2 (rådets direktiv 90/425/EEG), i del 5.1 punkt 7 (rådets direktiv 92/118/EG) och i del 8.1 punkt 16 (rådets direktiv 92/118/EG):
 ”—
 32002 L 0033: Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2002/33/EG av den 21 oktober 2002 (EGT L 315, 19.11.2002, s. 14)”
 4.
 Följande punkter ska läggas till i del 7.2 efter punkt 33 (rådets beslut 2006/478/EG):
 ”34.
 32003 R 0809: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 809/2003 av den 12 maj 2003 om övergångsbestämmelser enligt Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 avseende bearbetningskrav för kategori 3-material och naturgödsel som används i komposteringsanläggningar (EUT L 117, 13.5.2003, s. 10), ändrad genom
 —
 32006 R 0209: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 209/2006 av den 7 februari 2006 (EUT L 36, 8.2.2006, s. 32)
 35.
 32003 R 0810: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 810/2003 av den 12 maj 2003 om övergångsbestämmelser enligt Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 avseende bearbetningskrav för kategori 3-material och naturgödsel som används i biogasanläggningar (EUT L 117, 13.5.2003, s. 12), ändrad genom
 —
 32006 R 0209: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 209/2006 av den 7 februari 2006 (EUT L 36, 8.2.2006, s. 32)
 36.
 32003 R 0811: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 811/2003 av den 12 maj 2003 om tillämpning av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 avseende förbud mot återanvändning inom arten för fisk, nedgrävning och förbränning av animaliska biprodukter samt vissa övergångsbestämmelser (EUT L 117, 13.5.2003, s. 14)
 37.
 32004 R 0446: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 446/2004 av den 10 mars 2004 om upphävande av ett antal beslut om animaliska biprodukter (EUT L 72, 11.3.2004, s. 62)
 38.
 32004 R 0878: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 878/2004 av den 29 april 2004 om övergångsbestämmelser i överensstämmelse med förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 för vissa animaliska biprodukter som klassificerats som kategori 1- och 2-material och som är avsedda för tekniska ändamål (EUT L 162, 30.4.2004, s. 62), ändrad genom
 —
 32006 R 1877: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1877/2006 av den 18 december 2006 (EUT L 360, 19.12.2006, s. 133)
 39.
 32005 R 0092: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 92/2005 av den 19 januari 2005 om tillämpning av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 avseende användning eller metoder för bortskaffande av animaliska biprodukter och ändring av bilaga VI till den förordningen avseende biogasomvandling och bearbetning av utsmälta fetter (EUT L 19, 21.1.2005, s. 27), ändrad genom
 —
 32005 R 2067: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 2067/2005 av den 16 december 2005 (EUT L 331, 17.12.2005, s. 12)
 —
 32006 R 1678: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1678/2006 av den 14 november 2006 (EUT L 314, 15.11.2006, s. 4)
 40.
 32006 R 1192: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 1192/2006 av den 4 augusti 2006 om tillämpning av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 i fråga om förteckningar över godkända anläggningar i medlemsstaterna (EUT L 215, 5.8.2006, s. 10)
 41.
 32006 R 2007: Kommissionens förordning (EG) nr 2007/2006 av den 22 december 2006 om tillämpning av Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1774/2002 när det gäller import och transitering av vissa mellanprodukter från kategori 3-material avsedda för tekniska ändamål i medicintekniska produkter, produkter för in vitro-diagnostik och i laboratoriereagenser samt om ändring av den förordningen (EUT L 379, 28.12.2006, s. 98)”
 5.
 Texten i del 7.1 punkterna 9 (rådets direktiv 90/667/EEG och 9a (rådets beslut 1999/534/EG och i del 7.2 punkterna 7 (kommissionens beslut 92/562/EEG och 11 (rådets beslut 95/348/EG) ska utgå.


type: wikipedia

text:
William N. Drohan (1946 – ) was an American microbiologist and academic known for his research in the field of hematology.
 Education
 Drohan earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in bacteriology from the University of California, Los Angeles and a PhD in medical microbiology and immunology from UCLA School of Medicine.
 Career
 He was known for his commitment to improving blood safety, his work in transgenic proteins to treat hemophilia and other blood-related disorders, as well as contributions in investigating mad cow disease in the blood supply.
 His career included positions with the National Cancer Institute, the American Red Cross, and private companies that treated blood-borne disorders, most recently as chief scientific officer at Inspiration Biopharmaceuticals, and previously president and subsequently chief scientific officer of Clearant.
 He also served as a professor in the Graduate Program of the Department of Genetics at George Washington University and formerly as an adjunct professor in the Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering at the University of Maryland.
 He served on the editorial boards of several scientific journals, and was a member of the Scientific Steering Committee for Blood Products at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and chairman for the Panel on Biotechnology of the National Research Council.
 Death
 Drohan died of lung cancer at his home in Germantown, Maryland after a four-year illness. Drohan had previously lived in Springfield, Virginia and Santa Monica, California.
 References
 1946 births
 2007 deaths
 20th-century American educators
 American microbiologists
 George Washington University faculty
 University of California, Los Angeles alumni
 People from Germantown, Maryland
 People from Springfield, Virginia
 People from Santa Monica, California
 Deaths from lung cancer
 Deaths from cancer in Maryland
 American immunologists
 David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA alumni
 Scientists from Virginia


type: caselaw

text:
 10.1.2009
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 C 6/44
 A Közszolgálati Törvényszék (első tanács) 2008. november 4-i ítélete – Marcuccio kontra Bizottság
 (F-41/06. sz. ügy) (1)
 (Közszolgálat - Tisztviselők - Társadalombiztosítás - Balesetbiztosítás és foglalkozási megbetegedésekre vonatkozó biztosítás - Rokkantság - Rokkantság miatti nyugdíjazás - Indokolás - Megsemmisítés)
 (2009/C 6/88)
 Az eljárás nyelve: olasz
 Felek
 Felperes: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Olaszország) (képviselő: L. Garofalo ügyvéd)
 Alperes: az Európai Közösségek Bizottsága (képviselők: J. Currall és C. Bernardis-Kayser meghatalmazottak, segítőjük: A. Dal Ferro ügyvéd)
 Az ügy tárgya
 Egyrészt a felperes rokkantság miatti nyugdíjazására vonatkozó bizottsági határozat, valamint az e határozathoz kapcsolódó egyéb aktusok megsemmisítése, másrészt kártérítési kérelem.
 Az ítélet rendelkező része
 1)
 A Közszolgálati Törvényszék az Európai Közösségek Bizottságának 2005. május 30-i, a felperes rokkantság miatti nyugdíjazására vonatkozó határozatát megsemmisíti.
 2)
 A Közszolgálati Törvényszék kötelezi az Európai Közösségek Bizottságát, hogy L. Marcuccio részére 3 000 eurót fizessen meg.
 3)
 A Közszolgálati Törvényszék a keresetet ezt meghaladó részében elutasítja.
 4)
 Az Európai Közösségek Bizottsága viseli saját költségeit, és köteles viselni L. Marcuccio költségeinek kétharmadát.
 5)
 L. Marcuccio viseli saját költségeinek egyharmadát.
 (1) HL C 131., 2006.6.3., 54. o.


jurisdiction: US

text: b'OIG Audit Report GR-80-09-001\n\nOffice of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Grants and Office on Violence Against Women Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protective Orders Awarded to the Tulsa County Sheriff\xc2\x92s Office, Tulsa, Oklahoma\nAudit Report GR-80-09-001\nOctober 2008\nOffice of the Inspector General\n\n\nExecutive Summary\n\n\nThe Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, completed an audit of two Edward Byrne Memorial - Justice Assistance Grants (JAG Program) awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and a Grant to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protective Orders (OVW Arrest Program) awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) to the Tulsa County Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Office (TCSO), Tulsa, Oklahoma. The two awards for the JAG Program totaled $1,070,546, and the award for the OVW Arrest Program totaled $400,000.\nThe purpose of the JAG Program was to provide funding for state and local initiatives, technical assistance, training, personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, and information systems for criminal justice in any one of the following purpose areas:\n\nLaw enforcement programs\nProsecution and court programs\nPrevention and education programs\nCorrections and community corrections programs\nDrug treatment centers\nPlanning, evaluation, and technology improvements programs\n\nFurther, any law enforcement or justice initiative previously eligible for funding under the Edward Byrne Memorial or Local Law Enforcement Block Grant is eligible for JAG Program funding.\n The 2005 JAG award funds were split between TCSO and the Tulsa Police Department.1 Specifically, TCSO\xe2\x80\x99s 2005 JAG award was issued to fund the salaries of one deputy and one crime scene technician (non\xe2\x80\x91sworn officer) to work in the Criminal Investigations Unit processing crime scenes. In addition, grant funding was used to purchase supplies and equipment needed to effectively operate the crime scene program and to train personnel working in the Criminal Investigations Unit.\n The 2006 JAG award funds were split between TCSO and the Tulsa Police Department.2TCSO was to use its portion of the award to continue funding the salaries of the deputy and the crime scene technician working in the Criminal Investigations Unit. The Tulsa Police Department was to use its portion of the award to fund the salary of an officer to investigate commercial and industrial vendors in an effort to slow the sale of chemicals purchased for the use in clandestine methamphetamine production.\nThe OVW Arrest Program recognizes that domestic violence is a crime that requires the criminal justice system to hold offenders accountable for their actions through investigation, arrest, and prosecution of violent offenders and through close judicial scrutiny and management of offender behavior. The primary purpose of the OVW Arrest Program is to encourage communities to adopt a coordinated community response in the treatment of domestic violence as a serious violation of criminal law. This program challenges the entire community to listen, communicate, identify problems, and share ideas that will result in new responses to ensure victim safety and offender accountability. The OVW Arrest Program challenges victim advocates, police officers, pre-trial service personnel, prosecutors, judges and other court personnel, probation and parole officers, and faith- and community-based leaders to work together to craft solutions to overcome the problem of domestic violence. All entities must collaborate to ensure that victim safety is a paramount consideration in developing their strategies to address domestic violence.\n TCSO\xe2\x80\x99s 2005 OVW award was used in collaboration with the non\xe2\x80\x91governmental victim services provider, Domestic Violence Intervention Services, the Tulsa Police Department, and the county District Attorney\xe2\x80\x99s Office to implement a project to provide targeted resources for domestic violence victims. Targeted resources are defined as improvement in the enforcement of protection orders; expedited arrests of domestic violence perpetrators; increased domestic violence victim support; and coordination among law enforcement agencies and the non-governmental victim services provider (Domestic Violence Intervention Services). \nThe purpose of this audit was to determine whether reimbursements claimed for costs under the grants were allowable, supported, and in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the grant and to determine program performance and accomplishments. The objective of our audit was to review performance in the following areas: (1) internal control environment; (2) budget management and control; (3) drawdowns; (4) grant expenditures, including transaction testing, headcount and payroll, and accountable property; (5) program income; (6) financial status and progress reports; (7) program performance and accomplishments; and (8) monitoring of subgrantees. As shown in the following table, the TCSO was awarded $1,470,546 from two Department of Justice programs. We determined that matching costs, indirect costs, and monitoring of contractors were not applicable to these programs. \n JAG PROGRAM AND OVW ARREST PROGRAM AWARDS \n BY OVW AND BJA TO THE TCSO \n\n\n AWARD NUMBER \n AWARD DATE \n PROJECT PERIOD START DATE \n AWARD END DATE \n AWARD AMOUNT \n TOTAL AWARDED \n\n\n 2005-DJ-BX-0697(2005 JAG Program) \n 8/25/2005 \n 10/1/2004 \n 9/30/2008 \n $676,303 \n\xc2\xa0\n\n\n 2006-DJ-BX-0562 (2006 JAG Program) \n 5/4/2006 \n 10/1/2005 \n 9/30/2009 \n 394,243 \n\xc2\xa0\n\n\nAWARDED BY BJA \n $1,070,546 \n\n\n 2005-WE-AX-0056 (2005 OVW Arrest Program) \n 8/30/2005 \n 7/1/2005 \n 9/30/2007 \n 400,000 \n\xc2\xa0\n\n\n AWARDED BY OVW \n 400,000 \n\n\n TOTAL AWARDED\n $1,470,546 \n\n\nSource: Office of Justice Programs\nWe examined the TCSO\xe2\x80\x99s accounting records, financial and progress reports, and operating policies and procedures and found the following. \n\nAfter the OVW grant award period expired, $15,708 remained un-obligated. These funds should be de\xe2\x80\x91obligated and put to better use. \nTCSO improperly spent $1,685 from the 2005 JAG Program for consumable items and equipment that did not have budget approval from BJA.\nFinancial Status Reports for the 2005 and 2006 JAG Program were not accurate because they did not disclose program income of $50,695 earned by TCSO and the Tulsa Police Department. In addition, TCSO reported amounts transferred to the Tulsa Police Department, but not actual expenditures of the Tulsa Police Department for the two JAG Programs.\nOnly one of the required five Progress Reports was submitted by TCSO, and we determined that the submitted Progress Report was not accurate. In our judgment, TCSO could have submitted additional Progress Reports describing the funding of the deputy and crime scene technician assigned to crime scene investigations and the officer investigating clandestine methamphetamine production. \nTCSO informed us that they did not have an established, well\xe2\x80\x91defined baseline to measure grant performance and accomplishments for the JAG or OVW Arrest Programs. We also inquired if TCSO had developed any performance measures to evaluate the JAG Program grant awards or the OVW Arrest Program grant awards, and they had not. TCSO was required by the special conditions stipulated in both JAG awards to comply with the reporting, data collection, and evaluation requirements. The special conditions of the OVW award stipulated compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act.3\nTCSO could not provide any substantiated evidence that they had an effective grant monitoring program for the OVW grant award or the JAG grant award subgrantees.\n\nAs a result of these issues, we are questioning $68,088 in dollar\xe2\x80\x91related findings. Of the $68,088, we identified $1,685 as unauthorized expenditures that should be refunded by TCSO and $66,403 as funds to better use by the granting agencies.\n\n\n\xc2\xa0\n\nFootnotes\n\nThe 2005 JAG award was split 82 percent/18 percent, or $554,568 to the Tulsa Police Department and $121,735 to TCSO.\nThe 2006 JAG award was split 82 percent/18 percent, or $323,625 to the Tulsa Police Department and $70,618 to TCSO.\nSpecifically, Special Condition Number 13 of the 2005 JAG Program, Special Condition Number 12 of the 2006 JAG Program, and Special Condition Number 9 of the 2005 OVW Program.\n\n\n\n\n\n\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\nReturn to OIG Home Page'


text:
KSKE 7 S 8668/2010 - iSpis
 iSpis Judikatúra – KSKE 7 S 8668/2010
 KS v Košiciach, dátum 29.02.2012, sp.zn. KSKE 7 S 8668/2010
 § 47 SPR § 250j ods. 2 písm. d) OSP
 § 250j ods. 2 písm. d) OSP § 59 ods. 2 SPR § 28 ods. 1 písm. a) zákona č. 152/1995 § 6 ods. 3 písm. a) zákona č. 152/1995 § 12 ods. 1 písm. a) zákona č. 152/1995 § 18 ods. 2 zákona č. 152/1995 § 28 ods. 6 zákona č. 152/1995 § 47 ods. 1 OSP § 59 ods. 2 OSP § 2 zákona č. 152/1995 § 17 ods. 2 SPR § 247 OSP § 33 zákona č. 152/1995 § 23 ods. 5 zákona č. 152/1995 § 23 ods. 5 OSP § 28 ods. 1 písm. a) OSP § 12 ods. 1 písm. b) OSP § 250f OSP § 28 ods. 1 zákona č. 152/1995 § 31 ods. 2 zákona č. 152/1995 § 20 ods. 10 zákona č. 152/1995 § 46 SPR § 47 ods. 1 SPR § 47 ods. 2 OSP § 3 ods. 9 zákona č. 757/2004 § 250j ods. 6 OSP § 250k ods. 1 OSP § 9 zákona č. 655/2004 § 16 ods. 3 zákona č. 655/2004 § 42 ods. 3 OSP § 221 ods. 1 OSP
 Súd: Krajský súd Košice Spisová značka: 7S/8668/2010 Identifikačné číslo súdneho spisu: 7010220722 Dátum vydania rozhodnutia: 29. 02. 2012 Meno a priezvisko sudcu, VSÚ: JUDr. Tamara Sklenárová ECLI: ECLI:SK:KSKE:2012:7010220722.2
 Krajský súd v Košiciach v senáte, zloženom z predsedníčky senátu JUDr. Tamary Sklenárovej a členov senátu JUDr. Judity Jurákovej a JUDr. Jozefa Kuruca, v právnej veci žalobcu D. S. X., K.. F.. S.., J. T. Č.. XX/A, I., zast. advokátskou kanceláriou Ecker-Kán & Partners, s. r. o., Nám. Martina Benku č. 9, proti žalovanej Krajskej veterinárnej a potravinovej správe Košice, so sídlom Košice, Masarykova č. 18, v konaní o preskúmanie rozhodnutia žalovanej zo dňa 15. 04. 2010 č. k.: 318/2010 takto
 Podľa § 250j ods. 2 písm. d) O. s. p. zrušuje rozhodnutie žalovanej zo dňa 15. apríla 2010 č. k.: 318/2010 a vec jej vracia na ďalšie konanie.
 Žalobcovi priznáva právo na náhradu trov konania v sume 371,86 eur, ktoré je žalovaná povinná zaplatiť advokátskej kancelárii Ecker-Kán & Partners, s. r. o., Bratislava, Nám. Martina Benku č. 9 do troch dní odo dňa právoplatnosti tohto rozsudku.
 Rozhodnutím zo dňa 15. 04. 2010 č. k.: 318/2010 žalovaná podľa § 59 ods. 2 zák. č. 71/1967 Zb. o správnom konaní v znení neskorších predpisov zamietla odvolanie žalobcu a potvrdila rozhodnutie Regionálnej veterinárnej a potravinovej správy Spišská Nová Ves zo dňa 05. 03. 2010 č. j. 170/2010/1 a podľa § 28 ods. 1 písm. a) zák. č. 152/1995 Z. z. o potravinách uložila žalobcovi pokutu vo výške 2000,-- eur za porušenie povinností prevádzkovateľa potravinárskeho podniku stanovených v § 6 ods. 3 písm. a) bod 4 a bod 6, § 12 ods. 1 písm. a) a písm. b) cit. zákona, prílohy II kapitoly IX ods. 3, kapitoly V, ods. 1 písm. a) , kapitoly I ods. 1 a kapitoly II ods. 1 písm. a) , b) Nariadenia európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 852/2004 o hygiene potravín, ktorého sa dopustil porušením zásad, povinností a požiadaviek na hygienu výroby potravín, manipulácie s nimi a pri ich umiestňovaní na trh, za predaj potravín s poškodeným a narušeným obalom a za porušenie požiadaviek na hygienu potravín pri ich umiestňovaní na trh.
 V odôvodnení napadnutého rozhodnutia konštatovala, že rozhodnutie správneho orgánu prvého stupňa bolo vydané na základe kontroly potravín vykonanej dňa 06. 02. 2010 podľa § 18 ods. 2 zák. č. 152/1995 Z. z. v prevádzkarní S. D., K. B. Pri uvedenej kontrole bol zistený predaj potravín s poškodeným a narušeným obalom pri výrobkoch, špecifikovaných v rozhodnutí správneho orgánu prvého stupňa, ďalej boli zistené nedostatky v prevádzkovej hygiene, kde mraziaci box na uchovávanie výrobkov v predajnej časti prevádzky, hlavne v časti uloženia mrazených pečienok bol miestami výrazne znečistený zaschnutou krvavou tekutinou a časť stien a podlaha v blízkosti dverí vedúcich do skladu do chladiacich boxov na mäsové a mliečne výrobky prevažne v spodnej časti boli znečistené nánosom špiny a plesne. O výsledku vykonanej kontroly bol vyhotovený záznam dňa 06. 02. 2010 a zistené skutočnosti boli s riaditeľkou prevádzky prerokované.
 Z odôvodnenia napadnutého rozhodnutia zároveň vyplýva, že žalovaná sa stotožnila so skutkovými aj právnymi závermi obsiahnutými v napadnutom rozhodnutí správneho orgánu prvého stupňa. Pretože charakter nedostatkov a ich vecná a obsahová podstata sa týka oblasti základných hygienických pravidiel pri manipulácii a umiestňovaní potravín na trh, odvolací orgán rozhodol o uložení pokuty podľa § 28 ods. 1 písm. a) zák. č. 152/1995 Z. z. o potravinách, čo aj s uvedením konkrétnych porušení citovaného zákona uviedol vo výrokovej časti rozhodnutia o odvolaní. Výšku pokuty posudzoval vcelku, s prihliadnutím na okolnosti, mieru zavinenia, minulosť prevádzkovateľa, na veľkosť prevádzky a na ďalšie faktory ustanovené v § 28 ods. 6 cit. zákona. Použitie sankčného ustanovenia hmotno-právneho predpisu iba raz a uvedenie pokuty iba v celkovej výške nepovažuje odvolací orgán za zmenu výroku odvolaním napadnutého rozhodnutia, pretože nezistil v postupe prvostupňového správneho orgánu také nedostatky pri zisťovaní skutkového stavu veci, ktoré by mali vplyv na výsledok rozhodovania. Preto odvolaním napadnuté rozhodnutie považoval za zákonné.
 Žalovaná konštatovala po posúdení námietok účastníka obsiahnutých v odvolaní podanom proti rozhodnutiu správneho orgánu prvého stupňa, že nedostatky zistené úradnou kontrolou potravín a uvedené v rozhodnutí prvostupňového správneho orgánu sú dostatočne a vierohodne preukázaným porušením ustanovení zákona o potravinách a právne normy uvedené v časti III. odôvodnenia tohto rozhodnutia majú kogentný charakter, preto tvrdenia odvolávajúceho sa uvedené v odvolaní nie sú dôvodom na zrušenie ani na zníženie uvedenej pokuty.
 Poukázala na to, že stanovenie výšky pokuty je vecou správnej úvahy vecne a miestne príslušného orgánu úradnej kontroly potravín, pričom pri jej určení sa obligatórne prihliada na závažnosť, trvanie, mieru zavinenia, následky protiprávneho konania, minulosť prevádzkovateľa a na to, či ide o opakované protiprávne konanie. Po preštudovaní priloženej dokumentácie správny orgán prvého stupňa dospel k záveru, že pokuta vo výške 2000,-- eur, ktorá v zmysle odôvodnenia rozhodnutia bola uložená podľa § 28 ods. 1 písm. a) cit. zákona za porušenie zásad povinností a požiadaviek na hygienu potravín, manipulácie s nimi a pri ich umiestňovaní na trh, je z nadväznosti na tieto hľadiská uložená odôvodnene a stanovená správne. Pri skúmaní a posudzovaní dôvodov vedúcich k uloženiu pokuty dospela k záveru, že prvostupňový správny orgán správne aplikoval platný hmotnoprávny predpis a výšku pokuty určil dôvodne, správne a primerane v závislosti od druhu zisteného porušenia právneho predpisu a s prihliadnutím na možné riziká poškodenia zdravia. Pri určovaní výšky pokuty prihliadal na práva účastníka konania, aj na povinnosti vo verejnom záujme prihliadať na práva a právom chránené záujmy ostatných fyzických a právnických osôb. Vychádzajúc z uvedeného námietku žalobcu, týkajúcu sa neprimeranosti výšky uloženej pokuty považovala za právne irelevantnú a dôvody za neakceptovateľné.
 Včas podanou žalobou zo dňa 11. 06. 2010, podanou na Krajský súd v Košiciach faxovým podaním zo dňa 15. 06. 2010, sa žalobca domáhal zrušenia rozhodnutia žalovanej a vrátenia veci ttejto na ďalšie konanie. Zásadnou námietkou, o ktorú opieral svoju žalobu je námietka týkajúca sa nepreskúmateľnosti napadnutého rozhodnutia, pretože toto nespĺňa náležitosti stanovené v § 47 ods. 1 a 2 zákona o správnom konaní. V zmysle tohto zákonného ustanovenia výrok musí byť formulovaný jasne, stručne a určite a musí úplne vyjadrovať vyriešenie veci, ktorá je predmetom správneho konania, aby účastníci konania mohli bezpečne a bez pochybností poznať výsledok konania. Túto požiadavku napadnuté rozhodnutie podľa názoru žalobcu nespĺňa, pretože výrok je formulovaný takým spôsobom, že odvolanie účastníka sa zamieta, rozhodnutie regionálnej veterinárnej potravinovej správy sa potvrdzuje a súčasne sa účastníkovi konania ukladá pokuta vo výške 2000,-- eur. Výrokovú časť tohto rozhodnutia považuje žalobca za zmätočnú, pretože konštatuje potvrdenie prvostupňového rozhodnutia a zároveň ukladá povinnosť zaplatiť peňažnú pokutu vo výške 2000,-- eur, čím nie je jasný rozsah povinností žalobcu, najmä, či nejde o duplicitne uloženú pokutu, čo môže spôsobiť problémy v prípade exekúcie realizovanej na základe nezrozumiteľného exekučného titulu. Keďže pokuta vo výške 2000,-- eur bola uložená už vo výroku prvostupňového rozhodnutia, nie je jasné, či žalovaný správny orgán v napadnutom rozhodnutí uložil ďalšiu pokutu v tej istej výške, alebo potvrdil výšku pokuty uloženú prvostupňovým rozhodnutím.
 S poukazom na ust. § 59 ods. 2 zákona o správnom konaní, ak sú preto dôvody, odvolací orgán rozhodnutie zmení alebo zruší, inak odvolanie zamietne a rozhodnutie potvrdí. Reformačný výrok
 odvolacieho orgánu sa stáva nezávislým od výroku rozhodnutia prvého stupňa, je novým riešením predmetu veci a to spôsobom, ako vo výroku svojho rozhodnutia uvedenie odvolací orgán. Odvolací orgán teda zmenou rozhodnutia nahradzuje rozhodnutie správneho orgánu prvého stupňa. Z výroku napadnutého rozhodnutia však nie je zrejmé, či odvolací správny orgán uplatnil svoje reformačné alebo potvrdzovacie oprávnenia, teda aké boli navrhovateľovi po právoplatnom rozhodnutí vo veci uložené povinnosti. Výrok rozhodnutia musí byť jasný, zrozumiteľný, v žiadnom prípade nesmie poskytovať možnosť dvojakého výkladu, v opačnom prípade je nepreskúmateľný a nezrozumiteľný.
 Žalobca v žalobe zároveň poukázal na to, že rozhodnutie žalovanej nebolo náležitým spôsobom odôvodnené, pretože z neho, vychádzajúc z ust. § 28 ods. 6 zákona o potravinách, nie je zrejmé, či správne orgány prihliadli na závažnosť, trvanie, mieru zavinenia, následky protiprávneho konania, minulosť prevádzkovateľa, a na to, či ide o opakované protiprávne konanie. Tieto obligatórne stanovené predpoklady neboli správnym orgánom prvého stupňa vyhodnotené a nezaoberal sa nimi ani druhostupňový správny orgán. Povinnosťou správnych orgánov bolo v odôvodnení rozhodnutia uviesť, ktoré skutočnosti boli podkladom rozhodnutia a akými úvahami sa riadil pri hodnotení dôkazom a pri použití právnych predpisov, na základe ktorých rozhodoval. Podľa názoru žalobcu neobstojí argumentácia, že výška pokuty bola stanovená v rozsahu, ktorý zákon pripúšťa bez zaoberania sa všetkými hľadiskami, ktoré zákon ako predpoklad takejto úvahy stanovuje. Odvolací orgán vo svojom odôvodnení rozhodnutia správneho orgánu prvého stupňa čiastočne doplnil, avšak podľa názoru žalobcu nie dostatočným spôsobom. Tento sa nestotožňuje s konštatovaním odvolacieho správneho orgánu, že pokuta bola uložená správne a má za to, že táto bola vzhľadom na zistený skutkový stav neprimerane prísna. Podľa jeho názoru bolo povinnosťou správneho orgánu prihliadnuť na závažnosť zistených nedostatkov, ktorá vzhľadom na to, že nedošlo k ohrozeniu ani poškodeniu zdravia spotrebiteľov bola nízka, zistené nedostatky mali len krátke trvanie, povinnosťou bolo prihliadnuť na nízku mieru zavinenia (možno konštatovať, že zavinenie spočívalo v individuálnych nedbanlivostných pochybeniach zamestnancov zodpovedajúcich za hygienu jedného mraziaceho boxu a neopatrnej manipulácii) . Správne orgány sa s jednotlivými predpokladmi obligatórne stanovenými v cit. zákonnom ustanovení nevysporiadali, neuviedli, ako ich vyhodnotili a zohľadnili, preto určenie výšky pokuty nemôže byť objektívne.
 Žalobca zároveň konštatoval, že keďže ide o konanie, ktoré začal správny orgán z vlastného podnetu, jeho povinnosťou bolo zistiť skutočný stav veci, pretože zistenie skutočného stavu veci je vo verejnom záujme a dôkazné bremeno postihuje v plnom rozsahu správny orgán. Meradlom rozhodovacieho procesu v danom prípade musí byť formálne i obsahovo kvalitné rozhodnutie. Správnosť, úplnosť a presnosť zistených podkladov má zároveň viesť k presvedčivosti rozhodnutia správneho orgánu. Táto skutočnosť sa premieta predovšetkým v odôvodnení rozhodnutia. V danom prípade táto zásada zo strany správnych orgánov rešpektovaná nebola. Zdôraznil, že pri určení výšky pokút je nevyhnutné zachovávať nestrannosť a objektivitu, jednoznačne dodržiavať princíp nezneužitia uváženia, dôsledne rešpektovať v konaní a rozhodovaní princíp rozhodnosti pri aplikácii právnych noriem, rozhodovať v rozumnej, primeranej lehote a rešpektovať či prispieť svojím aktom k udržaniu právnej istoty. Zásada voľného hodnotenia dôkazov nemôže znamenať ľubovôľu zo strany správneho orgánu. Preto nestačí iba uviesť, aké dôkazy boli vykonané, ale musí byť uvedené aj ich hodnotenie. Absencia takéhoto postupu robí rozhodnutie nepreskúmateľným.
 V písomnom vyjadrení zo dňa 19. 08. 2010 navrhla žalovaná žalobu ako nedôvodnú zamietnuť zo skutkových aj právnych dôvodov obsiahnutých v napadnutom rozhodnutí žalovanej, ako aj správneho orgánu prvého stupňa. Konštatovala, že účastník konania vecne nevyvrátil zistenia správneho orgánu prvého stupňa v správnom konaní a nepreukázal, že k zisteniu porušenia právnych predpisov nedošlo, rovnako nepreukázal žiadne také objektívne skutočnosti, ktoré by ho zbavovali zodpovednosti, alebo ktoré by znižovali mieru jeho vlastného zavinenia. Námietku žalobcu o nezrozumiteľnosti výroku rozhodnutia považovala za účelovú s cieľom oddialiť zaplatenie uloženej pokuty s poukazom predovšetkým na tú skutočnosť, že účastníkovi konania je jasné, že podaním odvolania nemohlo prvostupňové rozhodnutie nadobudnúť právoplatnosť a že uloženie pokuty nie je dvojnásobné. Svojím výrokom odvolací orgán iba potvrdil pokutu uloženú prvostupňovým správnym orgánom vo výške 2000,-- eur a pri povinnosti ju zaplatiť zmenil text výroku prvostupňového orgánu z lehoty 15 dní odo dňa nadobudnutia právoplatnosti tohto rozhodnutia na text výroku odvolacieho orgánu do 10 dní odo dňa
 doručenia písomného vyhotovenia tohto rozhodnutia o odvolaní. V tejto súvislosti žalovaná poukázala na to, že doposiaľ žalobca žiadne rozhodnutie Krajskej veterinárnej a potravinovej správy Košice, ktoré malo obdobný charakter ako napadnuté rozhodnutie žalobou nenapadol, z čoho vyvodzuje záver, že obsah tohto rozhodnutia mu bol jasný a preto preňho nemohlo byť nezrozumiteľné. Obdobným spôsobom postupovala žalovaná aj v prípade ďalších zistení, konkrétne u žalobcu, ktorý uložené pokuty v predchádzajúcom období aj zaplatil, ako to vyplýva z listinných dôkazov.
 Správne orgány uložili žalobcovi pokutu v súlade s § 28 ods. 1 písm. a) cit. zákona o potravinách, v zmysle ktorého môže orgán úradnej kontroly uložiť pokutu až do výšky 33.193,-- eur v znení platnom v čase vykonania úradnej kontroly. Žalovaná poukázala na to, že uloženie pokuty vo výške uvedenej vo výrokovej časti napadnutých rozhodnutí bolo náležitým spôsobom odôvodnené, pretože v konaní bolo preukázané, že v kontrolovanej prevádzke žalobcu bolo zistené opakované porušenie základných hygienických zásad, pričom pokuty za takéto porušenia boli žalobcovi uložené už rozhodnutiami správneho orgánu prvého stupňa zo dňa 21. 10. 2008, 19. 12. 2008, 10. 09. 2009. Nad rámec týchto rozhodnutí sa žalobca ako prevádzkovateľ potravinárskeho podniku preukázateľne dopustil porušenia zákona o potravinách aj v ďalších prevádzkach, ktoré sú v územnej pôsobnosti iných orgánov úradnej kontroly potravín.
 Žalovaná zdôraznila, že orgány úradnej kontroly potravín nemôžu a nesmú čakať, až dôjde k porušeniu zdravia spotrebiteľov v dôsledku nezodpovedného prístupu prevádzkovateľov potravinárskych podnikov k plneniu si svojich základných povinností. Ak by bol takýto prípad vierohodne zistený a preukázaný, udelená pokuta by sa pohybovala v rozpätí od 10.000,-- do 30.000,-- eur a vyššie. Prvoradou úlohou orgánov úradnej kontroly potravín je rizikám predchádzať, možné nebezpečenstvá eliminovať a predovšetkým zabrániť, aby sa k spotrebiteľom dostali potraviny nespĺňajúce požiadavku zdravotnej bezpečnosti. V tejto súvislosti poukázala na ust. § 2 zákona o potravinách, z ktorého vyplýva definícia bezpečnej potraviny, skazenej potraviny, v čom spočíva riziko a nebezpečenstvo a pod.
 Poukázala tiež na to, že je nežiaducim javom, aby akýkoľvek subjekt pôsobiaci na potravinárskom trhu v rámci Slovenskej republiky a teda aj EÚ prejavil hrubú neznalosť právnych predpisov potravinového práva a dlhodobo a opakovane zanedbával povinnosti potravinárskeho podniku. Opakujúce sa prísľuby žalobcu o tom, že jeho snahou je dodržiavať predpisy a predávať iba zdraviu bezpečné potraviny sú s poukazom na uvedené len formálne a pri opakujúcich sa porušeniach zákona o potravinách pôsobia nevierohodne a zavádzajúco. Žalobca ako prevádzkovateľ potravinárskeho podniku nesie plnú zodpovednosť za zabezpečenie potravinovej bezpečnosti a za vykonávanie vlastných, resp. vnútorných kontrol zameraných na to, aby všetky ním vykonávané činnosti pri uvádzaní potravín na trh zodpovedali ustanoveniam zákona o potravinách v platnom znení.
 Poukázala tiež na nedodržanie ust. § 17 ods. 2 zák. č. 71/1967 Zb. o správnom konaní, ktoré ustanovuje, že právnická osoba koná len prostredníctvom svojich orgánov alebo prostredníctvom svojho zástupcu, a konštatovala, že aj napriek zisteným nedostatkom v tejto súvislosti žalovaná ako odvolací orgán neodmietla odvolanie účastníka konania a pri svojej úvahe vychádzala z obsahu podaného odvolania, z ktorého je zrejmý prejav vôle účastníka konania pokiaľ ide o podanie odvolania a dôvody. Týmto až nadštandardne prihliadla na záujmy žalobcu a uprednostnila zmysel a účel platného predpisu správneho práva, prihliadla na práva samotného účastníka konania, na objektívne a spravodlivé prerokovanie veci.
 Súd v konaní podľa § 247 a nasl. O. s. p. po preskúmaní žalobou napadnutého rozhodnutia žalovanej a oboznámení sa s administratívnym spisom žalovanej, ako aj správneho orgánu prvého stupňa dospel k záveru, že žaloba žalobcu je dôvodná.
 Z obsahu administratívneho spisu súd zistil, že dňa 06. 02. 2010 bola u žalobcu v jeho prevádzke v Spišskej Novej Vsi na Duklianskej vykonaná úradná kontrola potravín podľa zák. č. 152/1995 Z. z. o potravinách v znení neskorších predpisov, o priebehu ktorej bol dňa 6. 2. 2010 vyhotovený záznam, do ktorého boli zaznamenané všetky preukázané kontrolné zistenia a výsledky tejto kontroly. Na základe uvedeného záznamu bol žalobca upovedomený o začatí správneho konania podaním zo dňa 12. 02.
 2010 č. j. 170/2010, z obsahu ktorého vyplýva, že konanie bolo začaté na základe skutočností, zistených pri výkone kontroly zo dňa 06. 02. 2010 v predmetnej prevádzke so špecifikáciou jednotlivých zistení, ktoré boli následne kvalifikované ako porušenia povinností žalobcu. Týmto oznámením bol žalobca zároveň poučený o možnosti vyjadriť sa k zisteným skutočnostiam, navrhnúť dôkazy, prípadne doplnenie dokazovania v predmetnej veci v súlade s § 33 zákona o správnom konaní.
 Dňa 05. 03. 2010 pod č.j. 170/2010/1 vydala Regionálna veterinárna potravinová správa v Spišskej Novej Vsi rozhodnutie, ktorým okrem iného podľa § 23 ods. 5 a § 28 ods. 1 písm. a) zák. č. 152/1995 Z. z. za predaj potravín s poškodeným a narušeným obalom v rozpore s § 6 ods. 3 písm. a) bod 4 cit. zákona a prílohy II kapitoly IX ods. 3 nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 852/2004 o hygiene potravín uložila žalobcovi pokutu vo výške 1000,-- eur a podľa § 23 ods. 5 a § 28 ods. 1 písm. a) cit. zákona za porušenie požiadaviek na hygienu potravín pri ich umiestňovaní na trh v rozpore s § 12 ods. 1 písm. b) cit. zákona a prílohy II kapitoly V, ods. 1 písm. a) , kapitoly I ods. 1, kapitoly II ods. 1 písm. a) , b) nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 852/2004 o hygiene potravín pokutu v sume 1000,-- eur, t. j. spolu pokutu vo výške 2000,-- eur. V odôvodnení tohto rozhodnutia boli premietnuté výsledky zistení z predmetnej kontroly, na základe ktorých bolo konštatované porušenie zákonných ustanovení tak, ako to vyplýva z výrokovej časti tohto rozhodnutia. Správny orgán prvého stupňa konštatoval, že pri určení výšky pokuty prihliadol na závažnosť, trvanie, mieru zavinenia, následky protiprávneho konania, minulosť prevádzkovateľa. Pokutu vo výške 2000,--- eur považoval za primeranú zisteniam porušenia zákona s tým, že zohľadňuje charakter prevádzky a skutočnosť, že predajom potravín s poškodeným a narušeným obalom a tým, že nebola zabezpečená hygiena predaja potravín vzniká možnosť ohrozenia zdravia spotrebiteľa a že predajom potravín s poškodeným a narušeným obalom a nezabezpečenie hygieny predaja nebolo preukázané úmyselné porušenie zákona.
 O odvolaní žalobcu zo dňa 11. 3. 2010, ktorého dôvody korešpondujú s dôvodmi podanej žaloby, rozhodla žalovaná napadnutým rozhodnutím.
 Súd v predmetnej veci postupoval v súlade s ust. § 250f O. s. p.. Keďže účastníci konania na výzvu súdu či súhlasia s tým, aby súd vo veci rozhodol bez nariadenia pojednávania s tým, že v prípade, ak sa v určenej lehote nevyjadria, bude sa predpokladať, že s takýmto postupom súhlasia vyslovili svoj súhlas (žalovaná podaním zo dňa 30. 8. 2010) , resp. nereagovali, súd vo veci rozhodol rozsudkom bez nariadenia pojednávania s tým, že takýto postup nie je v rozpore s verejným záujmom.
 Podľa § 28 ods. 1 zák. č. 152/1995 Z. z. o potravinách orgán úradnej kontroly potravín uloží prevádzkovateľovi pokutu do 33.193,-- eur, ak v rozpore s týmto zákonom, potravinovým kódexom a osobitnými predpismi porušuje zásady povinnosti a požiadavky na hygienu výroby potravín, manipulácie s nimi a ich umiestňovaní na trh.
 Podľa § 31 ods. 2 cit. zákona na konanie podľa tohto zákona sa vzťahujú všeobecné predpisy o správnom konaní okrem konania podľa § 20 ods. 10.
 Podľa ods. 2 cit. zákonného ustanovenia výrok obsahuje rozhodnutie vo veci s uvedením ustanovenia právneho predpisu, podľa ktorého sa rozhodlo, prípadne aj iné rozhodnutie o povinnosti nahradiť trovy konania. Pokiaľ sa v rozhodnutí ukladá účastníkovi konania povinnosť na plnenie, správny orgán určí pre ňu lehotu; lehota nesmie byť kratšia, než ustanovuje osobitný právny predpis.
 Súd preskúmal napadnuté rozhodnutie žalovanej, správneho orgánu prvého stupňa, ako aj konanie, ktoré ich vydaniu predchádzalo v medziach podanej žaloby a dospel k záveru, že toto rozhodnutie bolo vydané v rozpore s platnou právnou úpravou, najmä s naposledy citovanými zákonnými ustanoveniami zákona o správnom konaní.
 Zakotvená zásada zákonnosti vyjadruje požiadavku, aby správne orgány v konaní a pri vydávaní rozhodnutia zachovali procesné predpisy ako aj predpisy hmotnoprávne, ktoré sa vzťahujú na prejednávanú vec.
 Výrok rozhodnutia predstavuje najdôležitejšiu časť rozhodnutia, pretože sa v ňom určujú konkrétne práva a povinnosti účastníkov správneho konania. Tento je potrebné odlíšiť od ostatných obsahových náležitostí rozhodnutia. Výrok obsahuje rozhodnutie vo veci, je teda jadrom celého rozhodnutia a preto len výrok je záväzný a schopný nadobudnúť právoplatnosť a byť vykonateľný.
 Citované ustanovenie § 47 ods. 2 zákona o správnom konaní vymedzuje povinné obsahové náležitosti výroku, pričom vždy je potrebné uviesť ustanovenie právneho predpisu, podľa ktorého sa rozhodlo. Rovnako je nevyhnutné, aby z výroku bolo jasné, kto je adresátom rozhodnutia, a čo sa rozhodnutím zakladá, mení alebo ruší, tzn. konkrétne právo alebo povinnosť, resp. autoritatívne potvrdzuje.
 Správny poriadok odvolacie konanie podrobne neupravuje. Správne konanie od jeho začatia až po rozhodnutie odvolacieho orgánu tvorí jeden celok. Ustanovenia správneho poriadku vzťahujúce sa na vydanie prvostupňového administratívneho rozhodnutia majú všeobecnú platnosť a vzťahujú sa aj na odvolacie konanie.
 Výrok musí byť formulovaný presne, určito, stručne a musí úplne vyjadrovať vyriešenie veci, ktorá je predmetom správneho konania, aby účastník konania i orgán, ktorý má rozhodnutie preskúmať, resp. vykonať, mohol bezpečne a bez pochybností poznať výsledok konania. Túto požiadavku určitosti, presnosti a zrozumiteľnosti výroku treba dôsledne rešpektovať aj pri vydávaní rozhodnutia odvolacieho orgánu, aby účastník konania mohol jednoznačne a určite poznať konečný výsledok konania.
 Výrok rozhodnutia odvolacieho orgánu musí v zmysle § 59 ods. 2 zákona o správnom konaní obsahovať rozhodnutie, či sa prvostupňové rozhodnutie potvrdzuje a odvolanie zamieta, či sa prvostupňové rozhodnutie mení a ako alebo či sa prvostupňové rozhodnutie zrušuje. Rozhodnutie prvostupňového správneho orgánu je odvolacím správnym orgánom potvrdené, ak odvolací orgán nevykonal žiadnu zmenu vo výroku rozhodnutia.
 V danom prípade žalovaný správny orgán nerešpektoval citované zákonné ustanovenie, najmä pokiaľ ide o požiadavku určitosti a zrozumiteľnosti výroku napadnutého rozhodnutia, z ktorého vyplýva, že žalovaný odvolanie žalobcu zamietol, prvostupňové rozhodnutie správneho orgánu potvrdil, a zároveň uložil žalobcovi pokutu vo výške 2000,-- eur. Výroková časť rozhodnutia odvolacieho orgánu je podľa názoru súdu nepresná a zmätočná, pretože konštatuje potvrdenie prvostupňového rozhodnutia a okrem toho ukladá povinnosť žalobcovi zaplatiť pokutu 2000,-- eur. Rovnaká pokuta bola žalobcovi uložená už vo výroku prvostupňového rozhodnutia. Tým nie je jasný a zrozumiteľný rozsah povinnosti určeného subjektu, t.j. či žalovaný správny orgán v napadnutom rozhodnutí uložil ďalšiu pokutu v tej istej výške, alebo mal na mysli iba zdôraznenie povinnosti uloženej prvostupňovým rozhodnutím. Aj keď v odôvodnení napadnutého rozhodnutia žalovaná konštatuje, že pokuta v uvedenej výške bola žalobcovi správnym orgánom prvého stupňa uložená správne a v súlade s hmotnoprávnymi predpismi, z čoho by sa dal vyvodiť záver, že nejde o duplicitné uloženie pokuty, vzhľadom na právnu záväznosť iba výroku rozhodnutia jeho nejasnosť a nezrozumiteľnosť môže spôsobiť problémy v prípade exekúcie realizovanej na základe nezrozumiteľného exekučného titulu. Výrok rozhodnutia nesmie poskytnúť možnosť dvojakého výkladu, inak je nepreskúmateľný. V tomto prípade výrok napadnutého rozhodnutia žalovaného nie je formulovaný dostatočne jasne a určite a preto súd považoval toto rozhodnutie za nepreskúmateľné pre nezrozumiteľnosť.
 Súd zvážil všetky uvedené skutočnosti a na ich základe v súlade s cit. zák. ustanoveniami § 250j ods. 2 písm. d) O. s. p. napadnuté rozhodnutie žalovanej pomerom hlasov 3:0 (§ 3 ods. 9 zák. 757/2004 Z. z. o súdoch a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení účinnom od 01. 05. 2011) zrušil pre jeho nepreskúmateľnosť pre nezrozumiteľnosť a vec jej vrátil na ďalšie konanie.
 V ďalšom konaní bude povinnosťou žalovanej postupovať v naznačenom smere, vo veci opätovne rozhodnúť a odstrániť nedostatky, týkajúce sa určitosti a zrozumiteľnosti výroku rozhodnutia tak, aby toto spĺňalo základnú podmienku jeho preskúmateľnosti.
 Podľa § 250j ods. 6 O. s. p. je správny orgán právnym názorom súdu viazaný.
 O náhrade trov konania rozhodol súd podľa § 250k ods. 1 O. s. p., v zmysle ktorého keďže žalobca bol v konaní plne úspešný, priznal mu právo na náhradu trov konania, pozostávajúcich zo žalobcom zaplateného súdneho poplatku v sume 66,-- eur a trov právneho zastupovania za dva úkony právnej pomoci (príprava a prevzatie zastúpenia 05. 05. 2010 a podanie žaloby 15. 6. 2010) a 120,23 eur, t. j. 240,46 eur vychádzajúc z § 9 a 11 ods. 4 vyhlášky č. 655/2004 Z. z. (1/6 výpočtového základu) . K tejto odmene patrí náhrada výdavkov na miestne telekomunikačné výdavky a miestne prepravné (paušálna náhrada) ku dvom úkonom právnej pomoci a 7,21 eur. Paušálna náhrada bola určená v súlade s § 16 ods. 3 cit. vyhlášky. Keďže právny zástupca žalobcu je v zmysle osvedčenia o registrácii pre daň z pridanej hodnoty (DPH) od 01. 08. 2004 registrovaný ako platiteľ DPH, patrí mu aj DPH v sume 50,98 eur (20 % zo sumy 254,88 eur) .Trovy právneho zastupovania teda zodpovedajú celkom sume 305,86 eur.
 V odvolaní sa má popri všeobecných náležitostiach (§ 42 ods. 3 O. s. p.) uviesť, proti ktorému rozhodnutiu smeruje, v akom rozsahu sa napadá, v čom sa toto rozhodnutie alebo postup súdu považuje za nesprávny a čoho sa odvolateľ domáha. Odvolanie proti tomuto rozsudku možno odôvodniť len tým, že v konaní došlo k vadám uvedeným v § 221 ods. 1, konanie má inú vadu, ktorá mohla mať za následok nesprávne rozhodnutie vo veci alebo rozhodnutie súdu vychádza z nesprávneho právneho posúdenia veci


text:
 Fontos jogi nyilatkozat
 |
 22002D0087
 Hivatalos Lap L 266 , 03/10/2002 o. 0054 - 0055
 Az EGT-Vegyesbizottság 87/2002 határozata(2002. június 25.)az EGT-megállapodás XI. mellékletének (távközlési szolgáltatások) módosításárólAZ EGT-VEGYESBIZOTTSÁG,tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló, az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás kiigazításáról szóló jegyzőkönyvvel módosított megállapodásra (a továbbiakban: a Megállapodás), és különösen annak 98. cikkére,mivel:(1) A Megállapodás XI. mellékletét a 2002. február 1-i 4/2002 EGT-vegyesbizottsági határozat [1] módosította.(2) A 95/46/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelv értelmében a személyes adatoknak a személyes információk védelméről és az elektronikus dokumentumokról szóló kanadai törvény által biztosított megfelelő védelméről szóló, 2001. december 20-i 2002/2/EK bizottsági határozatot [2] be kell építeni a Megállapodásba.(3) A 95/46/EK irányelv alapján a személyes adatoknak harmadik országbeli adatfeldolgozók részére történő továbbítására vonatkozó általános szerződési feltételekről szóló, 2001. december 27-i 2002/16/EK bizottsági határozatot [3] be kell építeni a megállapodásba,A KÖVETKEZŐKÉPPEN HATÁROZOTT:1. cikkA Megállapodás XI. melléklete az 5ed. pontot (2001/497/EK bizottsági határozat) követően a következő pontokkal egészül ki:"5ee. 32002 D 0002: A Bizottság 2001. december 20-i 2002/2/EK határozata a 95/46/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelv értelmében a személyes adatoknak a személyes információk védelméről és az elektronikus dokumentumokról szóló kanadai törvény által biztosított megfelelő védelméről (HL L 2., 2002.1.4., 13. o.).5ef. 32002 D 0016: A Bizottság 2001. december 27-i 2002/16/EK határozata a 95/46/EK irányelv alapján a személyes adatoknak harmadik országbeli adatfeldolgozók részére történő továbbítására vonatkozó általános szerződési feltételekről (HL L 6., 2002.1.10., 52. o.)."2. cikkA 2002/2/EK és a 2002/16/EK határozat izlandi és norvég nyelvű szövegei, melyeket az Európai Közösségek Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-kiegészítésében közzé kell tenni, hitelesek.3. cikkEz a határozat 2002. június 26-án lép hatályba, amennyiben a Megállapodás 103. cikkének (1) bekezdése szerint előírt összes értesítést eljuttatták az EGT-Vegyesbizottsághoz [4].4. cikkEzt a határozatot az Európai Közösségek Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-re vonatkozó részében, illetve EGT-kiegészítésében közzé kell tenni.Kelt Brüsszelben, 2002. június 25-én.az EGT-Vegyesbizottság részérőlaz elnökP. Westerlund[1] HL L 88., 2002.4.4., 7. o.[2] HL L 2., 2002.1.4., 13. o.[3] HL L 6., 2002.1.10., 52. o.[4] Alkotmányos követelmények nem merültek fel.--------------------------------------------------


text:
 18.9.2017
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 309/24
 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku koji je 30. svibnja 2017. uputio Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Njemačka) – Nisreen Sharqawi i dr. protiv Savezne Republike Njemačke
 (Predmet C-319/17)
 (2017/C 309/30)
 Jezik postupka: njemački
 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev
 Bundesverwaltungsgericht
 Stranke glavnog postupka
 Tužitelji: Nisreen Sharqawi, Yazan Fattayrji, zastupan po majci Nisreen Sharqawi kao zakonskom zastupniku, Hosam Fattayrji, zastupan po majci Nisreen Sharqawi kao zakonskom zastupniku
 Tuženik: Savezna Republika Njemačka
 Prethodna pitanja
 1.
 Protivi li se prijelaznoj odredbi iz članka 52. stavka 1. Direktive 2013/32/EU (1) primjena nacionalnog propisa u skladu s kojim je u okviru izvršavanja ovlasti iz članka 33. stavka 2. točke (a) Direktive 2013/32/EU, koja je u odnosu na prethodno uređenje proširena, zahtjev za međunarodnu zaštitu nedopušten kada je podnositelju zahtjeva u drugoj državi članici priznata supsidijarna zaštita, ako se nacionalni propis u nedostatku nacionalne prijelazne odredbe primjenjuje i na zahtjeve podnesene prije 20. srpnja 2015.?
 Omogućuje li prijelazna odredba iz članka 52. stavka 1. Direktive 2013/32/EU državama članicama posebno retroaktivno važenje proširene ovlasti iz članka 33. stavka 2. točke (a) Direktive 2013/32/EU, s posljedicom da su i zahtjevi za azil podneseni prije nego što je ta proširena ovlast prenesena u nacionalno pravo, ali koji u trenutku prenošenja nisu još konačno riješeni, nedopušteni?
 2.
 Daje li članak 33. Direktive 2013/32/EU državama članicama pravo da odaberu hoće li odbaciti zahtjev za azil kao nedopušten zbog međunarodne odgovornosti druge države članice (Uredba Dublin) ili na temelju članka 33. stavka 2. točke (a) Direktive 2013/32/EU?
 3.
 Ako je odgovor na drugo pitanje pozitivan: sprječava li pravo Unije državu članicu da, u okviru izvršavanja ovlasti iz članka 33. stavka 2. točke (a) Direktive 2013/32/EU, odbaci zahtjev za međunarodnu pravnu zaštitu kao nedopušten zbog priznavanja supsidijarne zaštite u drugoj državi članici kada
 a)
 podnositelj zahtjeva traži proširenje supsidijarne zaštite koju mu je priznala druga država članica (priznavanje statusa izbjeglice) te je postupak azila u drugoj državi članici bio zahvaćen sustavnim nedostacima, koji i dalje postoje, ili
 b)
 uređenje međunarodne zaštite, osobito životni uvjeti korisnika supsidijarne međunarodne zaštite, u toj drugoj državi članici koja je već priznala podnositelju supsidijarnu zaštitu,
 —
 povrjeđuju članak 4. Povelje odnosno članak 3. EKLJP-a ili
 —
 ne zadovoljavaju zahtjeve iz članka 20. i slj. Direktive 2011/95/EU, ali pritom ne povrjeđuju članak 4. Povelje odnosno članak 3. EKLJP-a?
 4.
 Ako je odgovor na pitanje 3.b) pozitivan: vrijedi li navedeno i u slučaju kada se korisnicima supsidijarne zaštite ne isplaćuje nikakva naknada za podmirivanje osnovnih životnih potreba ili im se u usporedbi s drugim državama članicama isplaćuje u vrlo ograničenom obujmu, pri čemu se prema njima ne postupa drugačije nego prema državljanima te države članice?
 5.
 Ako je odgovor na drugo pitanje negativan:
 a)
 Primjenjuje li se Uredba Dublin III u postupku priznavanja međunarodne zaštite ako je zahtjev za azil podnesen prije 1. siječnja 2014. ali je zahtjev za ponovni prihvat podnesen tek nakon 1. siječnja 2014. te je podnositelju već ranije (u veljači 2013.) priznata supsidijarna zaštita u zamoljenoj državi članici?
 b)
 Proizlazi li iz Dublinskih uredbi – nepisani – prijenos odgovornosti na državu članicu koja zahtijeva ponovni prihvat podnositelja zahtjeva, kada je zamoljena odgovorna država članica odbila zahtjev za ponovni prihvat u roku propisanom prema odredbama Dublinskih uredbi te je umjesto toga uputila na međudržavni sporazum o ponovnom prihvatu?
 (1) Direktiva 2013/32/EU Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 26. lipnja 2013. o zajedničkim postupcima za priznavanje i oduzimanje međunarodne zaštite, (SL L 180, str. 60.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 19., svezak 12., str. 249.)


text:
 21.9.2015
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 C 311/55
 Överklagande ingett den 14 juli 2015 av Europeiskt centrum för förebyggande och kontroll av sjukdomar (ECDC) av det beslut som personaldomstolen meddelade den 29 april 2015 i de förenade målen F-159/12 och F-161/12, CJ mot ECDC
 (Mål T-395/15 P)
 (2015/C 311/60)
 Rättegångsspråk: engelska
 Parter
 Klagande: Europeiskt centrum för förebyggande och kontroll av sjukdomar (ECDC) (ombud: J. Mannheim och A. Daume samt advokaterna D. Waelbroeck och A. Duron)
 Övrig part i målet: CJ (Agios Stefanos, Grekland)
 Yrkanden
 Klaganden yrkar att tribunalen ska
 —
 upphäva den dom som personaldomstolen meddelade den 29 april 2015 i de förenade målen F-159/12 och F-161/12, beträffande den grund som bestrids i överklagandet, och
 —
 förplikta svaranden att ersätta rättegångskostnaderna.
 Grunder och huvudargument
 Till stöd för sitt överklagande åberopar klaganden två grunder.
 1.
 Första grunden: Personaldomstolen har gjort en felaktig rättstillämpning i fråga om räckvidden av rätten att bli hörd.
 —
 Utan att hänvisa till praxis eller ge en specifik motivering antog personaldomstolen en extensiv tolkning av räckvidden av rätten att bli hörd till att omfatta inte enbart åtalspunkter gentemot en individ, men även de konsekvenser som kan tillskrivas denna individs beteende. Dessutom motsägs personaldomstolens ståndpunkt rörande räckvidden av rätten att bli hörd av sina egna slutsatser i den angripna domen.
 2.
 Andra grunden: Personaldomstolen har gjort en felaktig rättstillämpning i det ställningstagande den kom fram till i sin bedömning av huruvida förfarandet kunde ha lett till ett annat resultat i frånvaro av den påstådda oegentligheten.
 —
 Eftersom personaldomstolen medgett att det förlorade förtroendet mellan motparten och klaganden var irreparabel, hade inte frånvaron av den påstådda oegentligheten lett till något annat resultat.


text: b' SOCIAL SECURITY\nKSMEMORANDUM\n\nDate: July 1, 2009 Refer To:\n\nTo: The Commissioner\n\nFrom: Inspector General\n\nSubject: Administrative\n Expenses Incurred to Provide Economic Recovery Payments\n (A-06-09-29144)\n\n\n The attached final quick response evaluation presents the results of our review. Our\n objectives were to evaluate the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s process for identifying\n and reporting costs incurred to administer economic recovery payments authorized as\n part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.\n\n If you wish to discuss the final report, please call me or have your staff contact\n Steven L. Schaeffer, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, at (410) 965-9700.\n\n\n\n\n Patrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\n\n Attachment\n\x0cQUICK RESPONSE\n EVALUATION\n\n\n Administrative Expenses\n Incurred to Provide\nEconomic Recovery Payments\n A-06-09-29144\n\n\n\n\n July 2009\n\x0c Mis s io n\nBy c o n d u c tin g in d e p e n d e n t a n d o b je c tive a u d its , e va lu a tio n s a n d in ve s tig a tio n s ,\nwe in s p ire p u b lic c o nfid e n c e in th e in te g rity a n d s e c u rity o f S S A\xe2\x80\x99s p ro g ra m s a n d\no p e ra tio n s a n d p ro te c t th e m a g a ins t fra u d, wa s te a n d a b us e . We p ro vid e tim e ly,\nu s e fu l a n d re lia b le info rm a tio n a n d a d vic e to Ad m in is tra tio n o ffic ia ls , Co n g re s s\na n d th e p u b lic .\n\n Au th o rity\nTh e In s p e c to r Ge n e ra l Ac t c re a te d in d e p e n d e n t a u d it a n d in ve s tig a tive u n its ,\nc a lle d th e Offic e o f Ins p e c to r Ge n e ra l (OIG). Th e m is s io n o f th e OIG, a s s p e lle d\no u t in th e Ac t, is to :\n\n \xef\x81\xad Co n d u c t a n d s u p e rvis e in d e pe n d e n t a n d o b je c tive a u d its a n d\n in ve s tig a tio n s re la ting to a g e n c y p ro g ra m s a n d o p e ra tio n s .\n \xef\x81\xad P ro m o te e c o n o m y, e ffe c tive n e s s , a n d e ffic ie n c y with in th e a ge nc y.\n \xef\x81\xad P re ve n t a n d d e te c t fra u d , wa s te , a n d a b u s e in a ge n c y p ro g ra m s a n d\n o p e ra tio n s .\n \xef\x81\xad Re vie w a n d m a ke re c o m m e n d a tio n s re ga rd in g e xis tin g a n d p rop o s e d\n le g is la tio n a n d re g u la tio n s re la tin g to a g e n c y p ro g ra m s a n d o p e ra tio n s .\n \xef\x81\xad Ke e p th e a ge n c y h e a d a n d th e Co n g re s s fu lly a n d c u rre n tly in fo rm e d o f\n p ro b le m s in a g e n c y p ro g ra m s a n d o pe ra tio n s .\n\n To e n s u re o b je c tivity, th e IG Ac t e m p owe rs th e IG with :\n\n \xef\x81\xad In d e p e n d e n c e to d e te rm in e wha t re vie ws to p e rfo rm .\n \xef\x81\xad Ac c e s s to a ll in fo rm a tio n n e c e s s a ry fo r th e re vie ws .\n \xef\x81\xad Au th o rity to p u b lis h fin d in g s a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n s b a s e d o n th e re vie ws .\n\n Vis io n\nWe s trive fo r c o n tin u a l im p ro ve m e n t in S S A\xe2\x80\x99s p ro g ra m s , o p e ra tio n s a n d\nm a n a g e m e n t b y p ro a c tive ly s e e kin g n e w wa ys to p re ve n t a n d d e te r fra u d , wa s te\na n d a b u s e . We c o m m it to in te g rity a n d e xc e lle n c e b y s u p p o rtin g a n e n viro n m e n t\nth a t p ro vid e s a va lu a b le p u b lic s e rvic e while e nc o u ra g in g e m p lo ye e d e ve lo p m e n t\na n d re te n tio n a n d fo s te rin g d ive rs ity a n d in n o va tio n .\n\x0c Background\nOBJECTIVE\nOur objective was to evaluate the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) process for\nidentifying and reporting costs incurred to administer economic recovery payments1\n(ERP) authorized as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009\n(ARRA). 2\n\nBACKGROUND\nARRA was signed into law on February 17, 2009. It provides for a one-time economic\nrecovery payment of $250 to certain adult Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance\nbeneficiaries and Supplemental Security Income recipients whose address of record is\n1 of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands,\nAmerican Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands.3 SSA\xe2\x80\x99s primary responsibilities in\nimplementing ARRA are to identify and certify those eligible to receive the one-time\npayment; coordinate this information with the Railroad Retirement Board and\nDepartment of Veterans Affairs to ensure no duplicate payments are issued; and\nprovide the information needed to disburse such payments to the Secretary of the\nTreasury. 4 SSA estimates it will issue approximately $13.25 billion to 53 million\nindividuals from May 2009 through December 31, 2010, with the majority of payments\nbeing made in May 2009. Additionally, SSA identified the following key activities to\nprovide timely and accurate information about the one-time payments to the public:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 educate the public about the ERP,\n\xe2\x80\xa2 notify eligible individuals before they receive the ERP,\n\xe2\x80\xa2 provide the Secretary of the Treasury the information required to disburse payments\n to eligible individuals,\n\xe2\x80\xa2 train employees on how to respond to inquiries related to ERP issuance,\n\xe2\x80\xa2 process returned mail, and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 re-issue undelivered checks.\n\n1\n Also referred to as stimulus payments or one-time payments.\n2\n Pub. L. No. 111-5, February 17, 2009.\n3\n ARRA \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 2201(a)(1)(A) and (a)(2). Eligible individuals generally include all (1) Old-Age, Survivors and\nDisability Insurance beneficiaries except children and Medicare-only beneficiaries and (2) Supplemental\nSecurity Insurance recipients except individuals receiving Medicaid in care facilities. See ARRA \xc2\xa7\n2201(a)(1)(B).\n4\n ARRA \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 2201(a)(3) and (b).\n\n\nAdministrative Expenses Incurred to Provide Economic Recovery Payments (A-06-09-29144) 1\n\x0cTo accomplish these tasks, ARRA provided SSA with $90 million for the administrative\nexpenses incurred. 5 These funds are available for SSA\xe2\x80\x99s use beginning Fiscal\nYear (FY) 2009 through FY 2011.\n\nThe Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued two memorandums6 that provide\nguidance for carrying out and reporting on the programs and activities enacted in ARRA\nto effectively manage activities under ARRA. 7 Four critical elements of the OMB\nguidance are transparency and reporting, information collection and dissemination,\nbudget execution, and risk management. 8 For example, the information collection and\ndissemination guidance provides that agencies must ensure all funds are clearly\ndistinguishable from non-ARRA funds in all agency financial, business (that is, grant\nand contract writing systems), and reporting systems. 9 OMB also requires that\nagencies provide weekly reports that allow the Congress and taxpayers to track and\nmonitor use of the funds. 10 OMB will continue to provide updated guidance in response\nto the concerns and issues brought forth by agencies.\n\n\n\n\n5\n ARRA \xc2\xa7 2201(e)(2)(B).\n6\n M-09-10, Initial Implementing Guidance for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,\nFebruary 18, 2009 and M-09-15, Updated Implementing Guidance for the American Recovery and\nReinvestment Act of 2009, April 3, 2009.\n7\n Id.\n8\n OMB, M-09-10 \xc2\xa7 1.5.\n9\n Id.\n10\n OMB, M-09-10 \xc2\xa7 1.5 and M-09-15 \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 1.5 and 1.8.\n\n\nAdministrative Expenses Incurred to Provide Economic Recovery Payments (A-06-09-29144) 2\n\x0c Results of Review\nSSA implemented a comprehensive process to identify and report costs incurred to\nadminister the ERPs. 11 We believe SSA sufficiently addressed OMB\xe2\x80\x99s requirements,\nwhich will allow for transparency and accountability in the use of ARRA administrative\nfunds and will provide SSA the ability to identify and track these expenditures separately\nfrom its regular appropriations. SSA also timely submitted required weekly reports\nsummarizing administrative costs incurred.\n\nCONTROLS AND OVERSIGHT OVER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES\n\nThe Office of Financial Policy and Operations (OFPO), under the Deputy Commissioner\nfor Budget, Finance and Management, is the lead component in consolidating SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nERP administrative cost data. OFPO\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Program Accounting Operations\n(OPAO) is responsible for collecting all expense information (for example, staff time,\ntravel, contract expenditures) from various sources. OFPO\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Finance (OF) is\nresponsible for recording the expenses received from OPAO in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial\naccounting system and ensuring the funds remain separate, in accordance with OMB\xe2\x80\x99s\nguidance. To comply with this guidance, OF established specific ERP-related common\naccounting numbers (CAN) for components to charge their administrative expenses.\n\nSSA implemented a multi-layered process to communicate with components involved in\nthe ERP administration. The primary communications were provided at the Deputy\nCommissioner level based on SSA\xe2\x80\x99s need to identify component contacts for tracking\nstaff time, provide the general parameters for tracking the time, and indicate the Deputy\nCommissioner-level ARRA funding and resource allowances. Additionally, we found\nthat communications were sent to specific offices involved in the ERP and/or staff\nmembers with designated ERP roles. At the time of our review, SSA was not\nmaintaining a central location with all related information regarding its efforts to track the\nERP administrative expenses; however, SSA was working on such a site. This\ncentralized site will assist in consistent, continued communication of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s accounting\nand reporting process.\n\nOPAO and OF rely on information received from other components when collecting\nexpense data. OPAO and OF staff identified two primary potential risks affecting the\naccuracy of administrative cost expenditure reporting: (1) under- or over-reporting staff\ntime and (2) components improperly reporting their costs. To mitigate these risks, OF\nlimited the number of components that have access to the ARRA CAN information. If a\ncomponent needs to make a direct charge, it must submit a request and provide a\n\n11\n We did not assess the services procured or work performed by SSA employees in support of ERP\nissuance. We limited this evaluation to a review of the process SSA implemented to identify and report\nthese costs. On May 15, 2009, we issued a separate report, Economic Recovery Payments for Social\nSecurity and Supplemental Security Income Beneficiaries (A-09-09-29143), that identified several issues\nSSA needed to address to prevent issuance of duplicate or erroneous ERPs. We also plan to perform a\nseries of additional reviews of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s actual ARRA expenditures.\n\n\nAdministrative Expenses Incurred to Provide Economic Recovery Payments (A-06-09-29144) 3\n\x0cjustification to OF. For the direct charges made against the ARRA CANs, both offices\nreview the information to ensure they are proper. Additionally, to help mitigate the risk\nof under- or over-reporting, OPAO reviews the staff hours reported for inconsistencies.\nThe Office of Operations also reviews the inquiry counts collected by field offices and\nTeleservice Centers (TSC) to ensure reporting is in line with Agency activities.\n\nSSA also implemented system controls over the input of data into the ARRA tracking\nwebsite. 12 Access to the website is limited to those appointed by each component and\nauthorized by OPAO. The information retrieved from the web tracking system and input\ninto the ARRA tracking spreadsheet is also verified by a second analyst before\nmanagement review.\n\nTRACKING ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES\n\nAccording to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s initial estimates, most administrative costs associated with issuing\nthe ERP are front-end costs related to printing and mailing advance notices to ERP\nbeneficiaries, educating the public, training staff to handle inquiries, and system data\nmatches to ensure the proper individuals are identified to receive the payment. ARRA\nprovided up to $90 million to reimburse SSA for costs incurred to administer the ERPs.\nSSA initially estimated its ERP-related administrative costs as follows.\n\n\n Initial Estimate of ERP-Related\n Administrative Expenditures\n\n\n Printing and\n Mailing Costs\n ($48 Million) Systems\n Development Costs\n ($5 Million)\n\n\n\n\n Salaries\n and Benefits\n ($37 Million)\n\n\n\n\n12\n OPAO created the ARRA web tracking system to consolidate staff time information received from SSA\nHeadquarters and regional components.\n\n\nAdministrative Expenses Incurred to Provide Economic Recovery Payments (A-06-09-29144) 4\n\x0cPrinting and Mailing Costs\n\nSSA initially planned to incur approximately $48 million in costs associated with the\n(1) printing and mailing of advance notices to approximately 53 million eligible one-time\npayment recipients and (2) printing of ERP information leaflets provided to field offices\nand Wal-Mart stores. SSA will charge these expenses against an ERP-specific CAN.\nSSA originally intended to issue two separate informational mailings to ERP recipients.\nHowever, based on the urgency of making these payments, SSA revised its original\nplan and consolidated the two mailings into a single notice to all potentially eligible\nindividuals. By consolidating these mailings, SSA avoided approximately $20 million in\nprinting and mailing expenses. Consequently, SSA revised its ERP administrative\nspending plan to reflect approximately $70 million in anticipated ERP administrative\ncosts.\n\n SSA Spending Plan \xe2\x80\x93 One-time ERP\n FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011\n st\n 1 Quarter $ - $ 4,800,000 $ 60,000\n nd\n 2 Quarter $ 11,000,000 $ 4,100,000 $ 60,000\n rd\n 3 Quarter $ 44,200,000 $ 940,000 $ 60,000\n th\n 4 Quarter $ 4,800,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000\n FY Totals $ 60,000,000 $ 9,900,000 $ 240,000\n Source: Information obtained from the SSA-provided ERP Spending Plan.\n\n\nSalaries and Benefits and Systems Development Costs\n\nInterviews with various SSA staff members indicated that SSA was proactive in tracking\nstaff time and systems development costs incurred to administer the one-time payment.\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Operations accounts for and reports the field office and TSC staff\ntraining costs associated with the ERP. Field office and TSC personnel time is tracked\nbased on the number of inquiries received. The inquiry costs include the number of\ncalls to the SSA National 800-number and the number of field office calls and visits.\nThe Office of Systems (Systems) established a unique ARRA ERP code to track its\nstaffs\xe2\x80\x99 time related to specific jobs. Systems anticipated incurring expenses to conduct\nthe data matching runs with the Railroad Retirement Board and Department of Veterans\nAffairs. Additionally, Systems plans to purchase extra computer storage space needed\nto process and retain the records created by the ERP. Systems intends to charge these\ncosts against an ERP-specific CAN.\n\nTo consolidate information on staff time for Headquarters and regional personnel, SSA\ndeveloped a separate ARRA tracking website. This website allows component contacts\nto input staff hours for their respective organizations. This information is consolidated at\nthe Deputy Commissioner level. OPAO reviews all final inputs and analyzes the\ninformation for trends. If needed, OPAO requests support and/or clarification for staff\ntime inputs.\n\n\n\n\nAdministrative Expenses Incurred to Provide Economic Recovery Payments (A-06-09-29144) 5\n\x0c Matters for Consideration\nSSA took action in accordance with OMB ARRA guidance, identified potential\nadministrative costs to be incurred to provide the ERP, and implemented plans to track\nand report the identified costs. As such, we believe SSA is positioned to account for\nERP-related administrative expenditures in a manner that will allow for transparency\nand accountability of ARRA funds. We are encouraged by SSA\xe2\x80\x99s decision to\nconsolidate informational mailings and reduce overall estimated administrative\nexpenditures by approximately $20 million.\n\nSSA should continue its current efforts to centralize ARRA-related guidance to ensure\nconsistent communication to internal stakeholders. SSA should also consider providing\nperiodic updates and reminders to staff to ensure staff time and costs are properly\nreported throughout the course of the $90 million appropriation life-cycle.\n\n\n\n\nAdministrative Expenses Incurred to Provide Economic Recovery Payments (A-06-09-29144) 6\n\x0c Appendices\nAPPENDIX A \xe2\x80\x93 Acronyms\nAPPENDIX B \xe2\x80\x93 Scope and Methodology\nAPPENDIX C \xe2\x80\x93 OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments\n\n\n\n\nAdministrative Expenses Incurred to Provide Economic Recovery Payments (A-06-09-29144)\n\x0c Appendix A\n\nAcronyms\n\n ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009\n\n CAN Common Accounting Number\n\n ERP Economic Recovery Payment\n\n FY Fiscal Year\n\n OF Office of Finance\n\n OFPO Office of Financial Policy and Operations\n\n OMB Office of Management and Budget\n\n OPAO Office of Program Accounting Operations\n\n SSA Social Security Administration\n\n TSC Teleservice Center\n\n\n\n\nAdministrative Expenses Incurred to Provide Economic Recovery Payments (A-06-09-29144)\n\x0c Appendix B\n\nScope and Methodology\nTo achieve our objective, we\n\xe2\x80\xa2 reviewed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA);\n\xe2\x80\xa2 reviewed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and White House ARRA\n guidance;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 compared guidance issued by OMB to the plans developed by the Social Security\n Administration (SSA) for tracking administrative expenses associated with the\n economic recovery payments (ERP);\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 reviewed SSA supporting documents and Agency-issued guidance related to\n tracking administrative expenses associated with the ERP;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 interviewed employees from SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Offices of Operations and Budget, Finance and\n Management involved in tracking administrative expenses related to the issuance of\n one-time payments;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 interviewed 10 component contacts who report staff hours for their offices; and\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 inquired about past administrative expenses and the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008\n Economic Stimulus payment and compared it to the plans for the FY 2009 ERP.\n\nWe performed our review from March through May 2009 in Dallas, Texas. We\nconducted our review in accordance with the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and\nEfficiency\xe2\x80\x99s 1 Quality Standards for Inspections.\n\n\n\n\n1\n In January 2009, the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency was superseded by the Council of\nthe Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Inspector General Reform Act of 2008,\nPub. L. No. 110-409 \xc2\xa7 7, 5 U.S.C. App. 3 \xc2\xa7 11.\n\n\nAdministrative Expenses Incurred to Provide Economic Recovery Payments (A-06-09-29144)\n\x0c Appendix C\n\nOIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments\nOIG Contacts\n Ronald Gunia, Director, Dallas Audit Division\n\n Jason Arrington, Audit Manager\n\nAcknowledgments\nIn addition to those named above:\n\n Chasity Crawley, Program Analyst\n\nFor additional copies of this report, please visit our web site at www.ssa.gov/oig or\ncontact the Office of the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Public Affairs Staff Assistant at\n(410) 965-4518. Refer to Common Identification Number A-06-09-29144.\n\n\n\n\nAdministrative Expenses Incurred to Provide Economic Recovery Payments (A-06-09-29144)\n\x0c DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE\n\nCommissioner of Social Security\nOffice of Management and Budget, Income Maintenance Branch\nChairman and Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means\nChief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security\nMajority and Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Social Security\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Oversight and Government\nReform\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,\nEducation and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,\n House of Representatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human\nServices, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security Pensions\nand Family Policy\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging\nSocial Security Advisory Board\n\x0c Overview of the Office of the Inspector General\nThe Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of an Office of Audit (OA), Office of Investigations\n(OI), Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG), Office of External Relations (OER), and Office of\nTechnology and Resource Management (OTRM). To ensure compliance with policies and procedures, internal\ncontrols, and professional standards, the OIG also has a comprehensive Professional Responsibility and Quality\nAssurance program.\n Office of Audit\nOA conducts financial and performance audits of the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) programs and\noperations and makes recommendations to ensure program objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently.\nFinancial audits assess whether SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements fairly present SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial position, results of\noperations, and cash flow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nprograms and operations. OA also conducts short-term management reviews and program evaluations on issues\nof concern to SSA, Congress, and the general public.\n Office of Investigations\nOI conducts investigations related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in SSA programs and operations.\nThis includes wrongdoing by applicants, beneficiaries, contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing\ntheir official duties. This office serves as liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating to the\ninvestigation of SSA programs and personnel. OI also conducts joint investigations with other Federal, State,\nand local law enforcement agencies.\n Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General\nOCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters, including statutes,\nregulations, legislation, and policy directives. OCIG also advises the IG on investigative procedures and\ntechniques, as well as on legal implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material.\nAlso, OCIG administers the Civil Monetary Penalty program.\n Office of External Relations\nOER manages OIG\xe2\x80\x99s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the principal advisor on news releases\nand in providing information to the various news reporting services. OER develops OIG\xe2\x80\x99s media and public\ninformation policies, directs OIG\xe2\x80\x99s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the primary contact for\nthose seeking information about OIG. OER prepares OIG publications, speeches, and presentations to internal\nand external organizations, and responds to Congressional correspondence.\n Office of Technology and Resource Management\nOTRM supports OIG by providing information management and systems security. OTRM also coordinates\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities, and human resources. In addition, OTRM is the\nfocal point for OIG\xe2\x80\x99s strategic planning function, and the development and monitoring of performance\nmeasures. In addition, OTRM receives and assigns for action allegations of criminal and administrative\nviolations of Social Security laws, identifies fugitives receiving benefit payments from SSA, and provides\ntechnological assistance to investigations.\n\x0c'


text:
 30.3.2017
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 L 85/12
 DECISÃO DO COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE
 N.o 203/2015
 de 25 de setembro de 2015
 que altera o anexo I (Questões veterinárias e fitossanitárias) do Acordo EEE [2017/510]
 O COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE,
 Tendo em conta o Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu, a seguir designado por «Acordo EEE», nomeadamente o artigo 98.o,
 Considerando o seguinte:
 (1)
 O Regulamento de Execução (UE) 2015/661 da Comissão, de 28 de abril de 2015, relativo à autorização da preparação de endo-1,4-beta-xilanase e endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produzidas por Talaromyces versatilis sp. nov. IMI CC 378536 e Talaromyces versatilis sp. nov. DSM 26702 como aditivo em alimentos para frangos de engorda, frangas para postura e espécies menores de aves de capoeira de engorda e para postura (detentor da autorização Adisseo France S.A.S.) (1), deve ser incorporado no Acordo EEE.
 (2)
 O Regulamento de Execução (UE) 2015/662 da Comissão, de 28 de abril de 2015, relativo à autorização de L-carnitina e L-carnitina L-tartarato como aditivos em alimentos para animais de todas as espécies (2), deve ser incorporado no Acordo EEE.
 (3)
 O Regulamento de Execução (UE) 2015/722 da Comissão, de 5 de maio de 2015, relativo à autorização da taurina como aditivo em alimentos para Canidae, Felidae, Mustelidae e peixes carnívoros (3), deve ser incorporado no Acordo EEE.
 (4)
 O Regulamento de Execução (UE) 2015/723 da Comissão, de 5 de maio de 2015, relativo à autorização da biotina como aditivo em alimentos para animais de todas as espécies (4), deve ser incorporado no Acordo EEE.
 (5)
 O Regulamento de Execução (UE) 2015/724 da Comissão, de 5 de maio de 2015, relativo à autorização de acetato de retinilo, palmitato de retinilo e propionato de retinilo como aditivos em alimentos para animais de todas as espécies (5), deve ser incorporado no Acordo EEE.
 (6)
 A presente decisão refere-se a legislação relativa a alimentos para animais. A legislação relativa a alimentos para animais não é aplicável ao Listenstaine enquanto a aplicação do Acordo entre a Comunidade Europeia e a Confederação Suíça relativo ao comércio de produtos agrícolas for extensiva ao Listenstaine, tal como especificado nas adaptações setoriais do anexo I do Acordo EEE. Por conseguinte, a presente decisão não é aplicável ao Listenstaine.
 (7)
 O anexo I do Acordo EEE deve, por conseguinte, ser alterado em conformidade,
 ADOTOU A PRESENTE DECISÃO:
 Artigo 1.o
 No anexo I, capítulo II, do Acordo EEE, a seguir ao ponto 130 [Regulamento de Execução (UE) 2015/518 da Comissão] são inseridos os seguintes pontos:
 «131.
 32015 R 0661: Regulamento de Execução (UE) 2015/661 da Comissão, de 28 de abril de 2015, relativo à autorização da preparação de endo-1,4-beta-xilanase e endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produzidas por Talaromyces versatilis sp. nov. IMI CC 378536 e Talaromyces versatilis sp. nov. DSM 26702 como aditivo em alimentos para frangos de engorda, frangas para postura e espécies menores de aves de capoeira de engorda e para postura (detentor da autorização Adisseo France S.A.S.) (JO L 110 de 29.4.2015, p. 1).
 132.
 32015 R 0662: Regulamento de Execução (UE) 2015/662 da Comissão, de 28 de abril de 2015, relativo à autorização de L-carnitina e L-carnitina L-tartarato como aditivos em alimentos para animais de todas as espécies (JO L 110 de 29.4.2015, p. 5).
 133.
 32015 R 0722: Regulamento de Execução (UE) 2015/722 da Comissão, de 5 de maio de 2015, relativo à autorização da taurina como aditivo em alimentos para Canidae, Felidae, Mustelidae e peixes carnívoros (JO L 115 de 6.5.2015, p. 18).
 134.
 32015 R 0723: Regulamento de Execução (UE) 2015/723 da Comissão, de 5 de maio de 2015, relativo à autorização da biotina como aditivo em alimentos para animais de todas as espécies (JO L 115 de 6.5.2015, p. 22).
 135.
 32015 R 0724: Regulamento de Execução (UE) 2015/724 da Comissão, de 5 de maio de 2015, relativo à autorização de acetato de retinilo, palmitato de retinilo e propionato de retinilo como aditivos em alimentos para animais de todas as espécies, (JO L 115 de 6.5.2015, p. 25), tal como retificado no JO L 130 de 28.5.2015, p. 19.»
 Artigo 2.o
 Fazem fé os textos dos Regulamentos de Execução (UE) 2015/661, (UE) 2015/662, (UE) 2015/722, (UE) 2015/723 e (UE) 2015/724, tal como retificado no JO L 130 de 28.5.2015, p. 19, nas línguas islandesa e norueguesa, que serão publicados no Suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.
 Artigo 3.o
 A presente decisão entra em vigor em 26 de setembro de 2015, desde que tenham sido efetuadas todas as notificações previstas no artigo 103.o, n.o 1, do Acordo EEE (*1).
 Artigo 4.o
 A presente decisão é publicada na Secção EEE e no Suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.
 Feito em Bruxelas, em 25 de setembro de 2015.
 Pelo Comité Misto do EEE
 A Presidente
 Ingrid SCHULERUD
 (1) JO L 110 de 29.4.2015, p. 1.
 (2) JO L 110 de 29.4.2015, p. 5.
 (3) JO L 115 de 6.5.2015, p. 18.
 (4) JO L 115 de 6.5.2015, p. 22.
 (5) JO L 115 de 6.5.2015, p. 25.
 (*1) Não foram indicados requisitos constitucionais.