type: other

text:
Sodna praksa (odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi s ponudbo nove)
 SODNA PRAKSA V ZVEZI Z ODPOVEDJO POGODBE S PONUDBO NOVE POGODBE O ZAPOSLITVI PRI DRUGEM DELODAJALCU V ZADEVI OPR. ŠT. PDP 206/2009 je tožena stranka tožnici odpovedala pogodbo o zaposlitvi iz poslovnega razloga in ji v podpis ponudila novo pogodbo o zaposlitvi pri drugem delodajalcu. Tožnica ponudbe ni sprejela, ker je menila, da je odpoved nezakonita, ponujena zaposlitev pri drugem delodajalcu pa neustrezna.
 Sodišče prve stopnje je na podlagi izvedenih dokazov ugotovilo, da je bila odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi zakonita in je zahtevek za ugotovitev nezakonitosti odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi ter za vrnitev nazaj na delo s priznanjem vseh pravic iz pogodbe o zaposlitvi zavrnilo. Sodišče je ugotovilo tudi, da ponudba zaposlitve pri drugem delodajalcu ni bila ustrezna – zaradi oddaljenosti, ki bi terjala več kot triurno vožnjo na delo in z dela dnevno in zaradi tega, ker v ponujeni pogodbi o zaposlitvi ni bilo zaveze novega delodajalca o upoštevanju delovne dobe pri obeh delodajalcih glede minimalnega odpovednega roka in odpravnine ter je ugodilo podrednemu zahtevku za plačilo odpravnine.
 Višje delovno in socialno sodišče je potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje in pri tem izpostavilo: »Res je, kar navaja tožnica v odgovoru na pritožbo, namreč da obstaja bistvena razlika med posledicami, ki nastopijo, če delavec odkloni zaposlitev pri istem delodajalcu ali če odkloni zaposlitev pri drugem delodajalcu ... V skladu s 3. odstavkom 90. člena ZDR delavec nima pravice do odpravnine, če ne sprejme ponudbe delodajalca za ustrezno zaposlitev za nedoločen čas. Gre za določbo, ki se nanaša na ponudbo ustrezne zaposlitve pri istem delodajalcu, torej delodajalcu, ki odpoveduje pogodbo o zaposlitvi... Pravice do odpravnine nima tudi v primeru, ki ga izrecno določa 90. a člen ZDR, to pa je v primeru, če delavec sprejme ponujeno ustrezno zaposlitev pri drugem delodajalcu za nedoločen čas in če drugi delodajalec v pogodbi o zaposlitvi zaveže, da bo glede minimalnega odpovednega roka in pravice do odpravnine upošteval delovno dobo pri obeh delodajalcih.
 Tožnici je bila ponujena zaposlitev pri drugem in ne pri istem delodajalcu in ker ponudbe ni sprejela, je vprašanje ustreznosti ponujene zaposlitve brezpredmetno. Glede na zakonsko ureditev odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi s ponudbo nove je namreč delavec, ki mu delodajalec odpoveduje pogodbo o zaposlitvi, upravičen brez posledic odkloniti ponudbo nove pogodbe o zaposlitvi pri drugem delodajalcu, ne glede na to, ali gre za ustrezno ali neustrezno zaposlitev. Z odklonitvijo zaposlitve pri drugem delodajalcu ne izgubi pravice do odpravnine, saj izgubi te pravice ZDR veže le na odklonitev ustrezne zaposlitve pri istem delodajalcu. Tožnica je zaposlitev pri drugem delodajalcu odklonila, pri toženi stranki pa ji je delovno razmerje iz poslovnega razloga prenehalo, zato je upravičena do odpravnine, ki ji jo je prisodilo sodišče prve stopnje.«
 V zadevi opr. št. Pdp 24/2013 je tožena stranka tožniku poleg odpovedi iz poslovnega razloga vročila še obvestilo, da se je s podjetjem A, d.o.o., dogovorila, da tožnika zaposlijo z določenim datumom, pri čemer pa do takšne zaposlitve nato ni prišlo in je vse ostalo v fazi dogovarjanja. Sodišče prve stopnje je najprej razsodilo, da je tožena stranka tožniku dolžna plačati odpravnino z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi in mu povrniti nastale pravdne stroške.
 Pritožbeno sodišče je potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje in ob tem izpostavilo: »Zakon o delovnih razmerjih v 90. a členu ureja odpoved s ponudbo nove pogodbe pri drugem delodajalcu. Gre za situacijo, ko delodajalec delavcu odpove pogodbo o zaposlitvi, nato pa delavcu v času odpovednega roka delodajalec ali Zavod za zaposlovanje ponudi novo ustrezno zaposlitev pri drugem delodajalcu za nedoločen čas v skladu s tretjim odstavkom 90. člena ZDR ... Če delavec sklene pogodbo o zaposlitvi, mu delodajalec ni dolžan izplačati odpravnine po 109. členu ZDR pod nadaljnjim pogojem, če se drugi delodajalec v pogodbi o zaposlitvi zaveže, da bo glede minimalnega odpovednega roka in pravice do odpravnine upošteval delovno dobo delavca pri obeh delodajalcih. Iz določbe 90. a člena ZDR torej izhaja, da mora delavec prejeti novo pogodbo o zaposlitvi, kar je bistven predpogoj za nadaljnje odločanje v okviru instituta ponudba nove pogodbe pri drugem delodajalcu. Iz pogodbe je namreč razvidno, ali gre za ustrezno zaposlitev za nedoločen čas v skladu s tretjim odstavkom 90. člena ZDR, ter ali se je drugi delodajalec zavezal, da bo glede minimalnega odpovednega roka in pravice do odpravnine upošteval delovno dobo delavca pri obeh delodajalcih.«
 Sodišče še doda: »Ob ugotovitvi, da je dogovarjanje tožene stranke z družbo A d.o.o. o zaposlitvi tožnika ostalo le v fazi dogovorov, tožniku pa pogodba o zaposlitvi do konca odpovednega roka ni bila ponujena, je sodišče prve stopnje utemeljeno ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku za izplačilo zahtevane odpravnine. Pritožbene navedbe v zvezi s tem so zato neutemeljene.«
 V zadevi opr. št. Pdp 1347/2014 je Višje delovno in socialno sodišče potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje, ki je toženi stranki naložilo, da tožniku plača odpravnino za devet let delovne dobe z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi ter mu povrne stroške postopka. V tej zadevi je tožena stranka ves čas postopka uveljavljala, da tožnik ni upravičen do odpravnine, ker mu je delovno razmerje prenehalo zaradi odklonitve zaposlitve pri drugem delodajalcu in ker mu pred tem pogodba o zaposlitvi ni bila odpovedana iz poslovnega razloga ali razloga nesposobnosti (ampak je tožena stranka tožniku le izdala sklep o prenehanju delovnega razmerja, ker tožnik ni sprejel nove pogodbe o zaposlitvi za ustrezno delo in za nedoločen čas).
 Višje delovno in socialno sodišče v zvezi s tem izpostavlja: »V skladu s 1. odstavkom 109. člena ZDR je odpravnino delavcu dolžan izplačati delodajalec, ki pogodbo o zaposlitvi odpove iz poslovnih razlogov ali iz razloga nesposobnosti. Res je, da v tem sporu nobena od strank ni predložila odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi iz poslovnega razloga, vendar pa je celotno postopanje tožene stranke takšno, da ga je sodišče prve stopnje utemeljeno ocenilo kot odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi iz poslovnega razloga s ponudbo nove pogodbe pri drugem delodajalcu. Tožena stranka je namreč tožniku najprej vročila obvestilo o nameravani odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi iz poslovnega razloga. Sodišče prve stopnje je pravilno ugotovilo, da je iz obvestila z dne 19. 4. 2012 razvidno, da je pri toženi stranki prišlo do prenehanja potreb po delu tožnika, s čimer je bila podana pravna podlaga za odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi iz poslovnega razloga. Tožena stranka je nato tožniku 24. 4. 2012 ponudila zaposlitev pri drugem delodajalcu ... in nato tožnikovo odklonitev ponujene zaposlitve sankcionirala s sklepom po katerem je tožniku s 25. 5. 2012 prenehalo delovno razmerje pri toženi stranki, ker ni sprejel nove pogodbe o zaposlitvi. Tožena stranka je tako dejansko izvedla celoten postopek odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi s ponudbo nove pogodbe pri drugem delodajalcu, pri čemer delavcu ni vročila odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi, vročila pa mu je ponudbo nove pogodbe, ta ponudbo ja bila vezana na predhodno ugotovitev o prenehanju potreb po opravljanju dela tožnika pod pogoji iz sklenjene pogodbe o zaposlitvi, odklonitev ponujene pogodbe pa je za tožnika imela enake posledice kot jih ima odklonitev v primeru odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi s ponudbo nove pogodbe, tj. prenehanje delovnega razmerja. Da je v konkretnem primeru v resnici šlo za uporabo instituta odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi s ponudbo nove pogodbe je razvidno tudi iz tega, da je tožena stranka v ponudbi nove pogodbe o zaposlitvi navedla, da tožniku v primeru odklonitve te ponudbe ugasne pravica do odpravnine in da nima pravice do denarnega nadomestila po Zakonu o zaposlovanju in zavarovanju za primer brezposelnosti.«
 Sodišče nadaljuje: »Zmotno je stališče tožene stranke, da bi tožnik moral izpodbijati prenehanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi, če bi hotel uspeti z zahtevkom za plačilo odpravnine. Pravna podlaga za plačilo odpravnine niso morebitne nepravilnosti delodajalca pri prodaji odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi, temveč dejstvo, da je bila odpoved podana iz poslovnih razlogov in da se tožena stranka te obveznosti ni razbremenila s tem, ko je tožniku ponudila zaposlitev pri drugem delodajalcu. Bilo bi v nasprotju z načelom vestnosti in poštenja, ki velja tudi v odnosih med delodajalci in delavci, če bi tožniku pravico do odpravnine odrekli zgolj na podlagi dejstva, da ni mogel predložiti formalne odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi iz poslovnega razloga s ponudbo nove pogodbe, čeprav je tožena stranka dejansko izvedla vsa ostala dejanja, ki so potrebna za takšno odpoved.«
 In še: »Sodišče je pravilno uporabilo materialno pravo, ko je štelo, da se tožena stranka s ponudbo nove pogodbe o zaposlitvi pri drugem delodajalcu ni razbremenila obveznosti plačila odpravnine tožniku, čeprav tožnik ponudbe ni sprejel. Pravilno je stališče sodišča prve stopnje, da ni možno enačiti instituta odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi s ponudbo nove pogodbe po 90. členu ZDR in instituta odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi s ponudbo nove pogodbe o zaposlitvi pri drugem delodajalcu po 90. a členu ZDR. V konkretnem primeru je šlo za odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi s ponudbo nove pogodbe o zaposlitvi pri drugem delodajalcu. V takšnem primeru pa delodajalec delavcu ni dolžan izplačati odpravnine po 109. členu ZDR le v primeru, če delavec takšno ponudbo sprejme in če se drugi delodajalec v pogodbi o zaposlitvi zaveže, da bo glede minimalnega odpovednega roka in pravice do odpravnine upošteval delovno dobo delavca pri obeh delodajalcih. V primeru, ko delavec sklenite take pogodbe odkloni, pa je kljub temu upravičen do odpravnine... Zmotno je pritožbeno stališče, da iz 90. a člena ZDR izhaja, da delodajalec ni dolžan izplačati odpravnine, če delavec v času odpovednega roka ne sprejme ponujene nove ustrezne zaposlitve pri drugem delodajalcu. Kakor je že razloženo zgoraj je ravno obratno.«


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 19.12.2009
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 312/16
 Lūgums sniegt prejudiciālu nolēmumu — izteikts ar Arbeidshof te Brussel (Beļģija) 2009. gada 25. septembra rīkojumu — Maurits Casteels/British Airways plc
 (Lieta C-379/09)
 2009/C 312/25
 Tiesvedības valoda — holandiešu
 Iesniedzējtiesa
 Arbeidshof te Brussel
 Lietas dalībnieki pamata procesā
 Prasītājs: Maurits Casteels
 Atbildētāja: British Airways plc
 Prejudiciālie jautājumi
 1)
 Vai privātpersona strīdā ar privātā sektora darba devēju valsts tiesā var pamatoties uz EKL 42. pantu, ja Padome šajā sakarā nav rīkojusies?
 2)
 Vai EKL 39. pants līdz laikam, kad spēkā stājās 1998. gada 29. jūnija Direktīva 98/49/EK (1), un EKL 42. pants atsevišķi vai abi panti kopā nepieļauj, ka
 darba ņēmējs, kuru nodarbina viena un tā pati juridiskā persona kā darba devējs un kurš netiek pārcelts uz citu darbvietu, secīgi tiek nodarbināts šī darba devēja dažādās filiālēs dažādās dalībvalstīs un katrreiz viņam piemēro šajās filiālēs spēkā esošos papildu pensijas plānus,
 —
 nosakot laika posmu, pēc kura iegūst pilnīgas tiesības uz papildu pensijas pabalstu (pamatojoties uz darba ņēmēja un darba devēja iemaksām) noteiktā dalībvalstī, netiek ņemts vērā ne nodarbinātības laiks, kas nostrādāts citā dalībvalstī pie šī paša darba devēja, ne arī dalība šīs dalībvalsts papildu pensijas sistēmā,
 —
 darba devēja pārcelšana ar viņa piekrišanu uz tā paša darba devēja filiāli citā dalībvalstī tiek pielīdzināta pensiju sistēmas noteikumos paredzētam gadījumam, kad darba ņēmējs brīvprātīgi aiziet no filiāles, līdz ar ko tiesības uz papildu pensiju tiek ierobežotas paša darba ņēmēja veikto iemaksu apmērā,
 —
 un šāda situācija rada nelabvēlīgas sekas, ka darba ņēmējs zaudē tiesības uz papildu pensijas pabalstu saistībā ar savu darbu šajā dalībvalstī, kas nenotiku, ja viņš sava darba devēja labā strādātu tikai vienā dalībvalstī un paliktu šīs dalībvalsts papildu pensijas sistēmas dalībnieks?
 (1) Padomes 1998. gada 29. jūnija Direktīva 98/49/EK par papildu pensijas tiesību saglabāšanu darbiniekiem un pašnodarbinātām personām, kas pārvietojas Kopienā (OV L 209, 46. lpp.).


type: legislation

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 52003PC0732
 Förslag till Europaparlamentets och rådets beslut om vissa tredje länders verksamhet på området för sjötransporter av gods (kodifierad version) /* KOM/2003/0732 slutlig - COD 2003/0285 */
 Förslag till EUROPAPARLAMENTETS OCH RÅDETS BESLUT om vissa tredje länders verksamhet på området för sjötransporter av gods (kodifierad version)(framlagt av kommissionen)MOTIVERING1. Inom "Medborgarnas Europa" fäster kommissionen stor vikt vid att gemenskapsrätten förenklas och förtydligas så att den blir mer tillgänglig och begriplig för medborgarna och därmed ger dem nya möjligheter och tillfällen att utöva de särskilda rättigheter som de kan åberopa.Ett hinder för att uppnå detta mål är dock att ett stort antal bestämmelser som har ändrats flera gånger och ofta på ett väsentligt sätt finns spridda i såväl den ursprungliga rättsakten som i senare ändringsrättsakter. För att kunna fastställa vilka bestämmelser som gäller fordras därför att ett stort antal rättsakter kontrolleras och jämförs.Gemenskapsrättens klarhet och överskådlighet är därför beroende av att ofta ändrade bestämmelser kodifieras.2. Genom sitt beslut av den 1 april 1987 gav kommissionen [1] sina avdelningar i uppdrag att kodifiera rättsakter senast efter det att de ändrats för tionde gången, samtidigt som den underströk att detta var en minimiregel, och att avdelningarna i syfte att uppnå en klar och begriplig gemenskapslagstiftning borde sträva efter att med ännu kortare mellanrum kodifiera de texter som de har ansvar för.[1] KOM(1987) 868 PV.3. Detta bekräftades i ordförandeskapets slutsatser från Europeiska rådet i Edinburgh [2] i december 1992, där också betydelsen av en kodifiering betonades, eftersom den garanterar rättssäkerhet i fråga om vilken lag som är tillämplig vid en viss tidpunkt i en viss fråga.[2] Se bilaga 3 till del A i slutsatserna.Kodifieringen skall genomföras i enlighet med gemenskapens normala lagstiftningsförfarande.Eftersom rättsakterna inte får ändras i sak vid en kodifiering har Europaparlamentet, rådet och kommissionen i ett interinstitutionellt avtal av den 20 december 1994 enats om en påskyndad arbetsmetod i syfte att snabbt kunna anta kodifierade rättsakter.4. Detta förslag avser en kodifiering av Europaparlamentets och rådets beslut 78/774/EEG av den 19 september 1978 om vissa tredje länders verksamhet på området för sjötransporter av gods [3]. Det nya beslutet ersätter de olika rättsakter som omfattas av kodifieringen [4]. Förslaget följer de kodifierade texterna vad beträffar innehållet i sak och begränsar sig därmed till att föra samman texterna, vilket innebär att de ändringar som krävs till följd av kodifieringen endast är av formell karaktär.[3] Genomfört i enlighet med kommissionens meddelande till Europaparlamentet och rådet - Kodifiering av gemenskapens regelverk, KOM(2001) 645 slutlig.[4] Bilaga I, till detta förslag.5. Detta förslag till kodifiering har utarbetats på grundval av en föregående konsolidering på alla officiella språk av texten i beslut 78/774/EEG och i ändringsrättsakterna, som genomförts av Byrån för Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella publikationer med hjälp av ett databehandlingssystem. I de fall artiklarna har numrerats om framgår förhållandet mellan de gamla och de nya artikelnumren av en tabell i bilaga II till det kodifierade beslutet.2003/0285 (COD) 78/774/EEG (anpassad)Förslag till EUROPAPARLAMENTETS OCH RÅDETS BESLUT om vissa tredje länders verksamhet på området för sjötransporter av godsEUROPAPARLAMENTET OCH EUROPEISKA UNIONENS RÅD HAR FATTAT DETTA BESLUTmed beaktande av Fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, särskilt artikel 80.2 i detta,med beaktande av kommissionens förslag,med beaktande av Europeiska ekonomiska och sociala kommitténs yttrande [5],[5] EGT C [...], [...], s. [...].med beaktande av Regionkommitténs yttrande [6][6] EGT C [...], [...], s. [...].i enlighet med förfarandet i artikel 251 i fördraget [7], och[7] EGT C [...], [...], s. [...].av följande skäl:.(1) Rådets beslut 78/774/EEG av den 19 september 1978 om vissa tredje länders verksamhet på området för sjötransporter av gods [8] har ändrats flera gånger [9] på ett väsentligt sätt. För att skapa klarhet och överskådlighet bör det beslutet kodifieras.[8] EGT L 258, 21.9.1978, s. 35. Beslutet ändrat genom beslut 89/242/EEG (EGT L 97, 11.4.1989, s. 47).[9] Se bilaga I.78/774/EEG skäl 1 (anpassad)(2) Informationssystem bör upprättas som kan hålla gemenskapens institutioner informerade om den verksamhet som bedrivs av flottor från tredje land som är skadlig för medlemsstaternas sjöfartsintressen, särskilt om denna verksamhet negativt påverkar konkurrenskraften hos de medlemsstaters flottor som deltar i internationell handels sjöfart. Dessa informationssystem bör underlätta samråd på gemenskapsnivå.78/774/EEG skäl 2(3) Det bör skapas möjligheter att på gemenskapsnivå fatta de beslut som är nödvändiga för att medlemsstaterna gemensamt skall kunna vidta motåtgärder mot vissa tredje länders verksamhet på området för sjötransporter av gods.78/774/EEG (anpassad)HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE:Artikel 1Varje medlemsstat skall vidta alla nödvändiga åtgärder för att upprätta ett system som gör det möjligt att samla in information om den verksamhet som bedrivs av flottor från tredje land som är skadlig för medlemsstaternas sjöfartsintressen, särskilt om denna verksamhet negativt påverkar konkurrenskraften hos de medlemsstaters flottor som deltar i internationell handelssjöfart.Detta system skall, i den utsträckning som är nödvändig för att uppnå de mål som avses i första stycket, göra det möjligt för varje medlemsstat att samla in information om följande:a) Omfattningen av de sjötransporttjänster av gods som bjuds ut.b) Slag, volym, värde, ursprung och destination för de varor som lastas eller lossas i berörda medlemsstater av de fartyg som används för dessa tjänster.c) Nivån på fraktraterna för sådana tjänster.78/774/EEGArtikel 289/242/EEG artikel 11. Rådet skall med kvalificerad majoritet besluta om vilka tredje länders flottor som informationssystemet gemensamt skall tillämpas på.78/774/EEG (anpassad)2. Det beslut som avses i punkt 1 skall ange vilken typ av sjötransporter av gods som informationssystemet skall tillämpas på, tidpunkten för införande av systemet, hur ofta informationen skall hämtas in samt vilka av de uppgifter som anges i artikel 1 andra stycket som skall samlas in.3. Varje medlemsstat skall periodvis eller på begäran av kommissionen vidarebefordra till denna den information som hämtats in genom medlemsstatens informationssystem.4. Kommissionen skall sammanställa informationen för gemenskapen som helhet. Artikel 4 i rådets beslut 77/587/EEG av den 13 september 1977 [10] skall tillämpas på denna information.[10] EGT L 239, 17.9.1977, s. 23.Artikel 3Inom ramen för det samrådsförfarande som införs genom beslut 77/587/EEG och på grundval av bland annat den information som hämtas in genom det informationssystem som avses i artikel 1, skall medlemsstaterna och kommissionen regelbundet undersöka den verksamhet som bedrivs av flottor från de tredje länder som anges i de beslut som avses i artikel 2 .1.Artikel 4Rådet får enhälligt besluta att medlemsstaterna, inom ramen för sin nationella lagstiftning, gemensamt skall vidta lämpliga motåtgärder gentemot tredje land eller grupp av tredje länder som omfattas av ett beslut enligt artikel 2 .1.78/774/EEGArtikel 5Medlemsstaterna skall behålla rätten att ensidigt använda sina nationella informationssystem och vidta motåtgärder.Artikel 6Beslut 78/774/EEG skall upphöra att gälla.Hänvisningar till det upphävda beslutet skall anses som hänvisningar till detta beslut och skall läsas enligt jämförelsetabellen i bilaga II.78/774/EEGArtikel 7Detta beslut riktar sig till medlemsstaterna.Utfärdat i Bryssel den [...]På Europaparlamentets vägnar På rådets vägnarOrdförande Ordförande[...] [...]BILAGA IUpphävt beslut och ändringar av det i kronologisk ordningRådets beslut 78/774/EEG // (EGT L 258, 21.9.1978, s. 35)Rådets beslut 89/242/EEG // (EGT L 97, 11.4.1989, s. 47)BILAGA IIJämförelsetabellBeslut 78/774/EEG // Detta beslutArtikel 1.1 // Artikel 1, första stycketArtikel 1.2, inledande meningen // Artikel 1, andra stycket inledande meningenArtikel 1.2, första strecksatsen // Artikel 1, andra stycket aArtikel 1.2, andra strecksatsen // Artikel 1, andra stycket bArtikel 1.2, tredje strecksatsen // Artikel 1, andra stycket cArtikel 2 - 5 // Artikel 2 - 5Artikel 6 // ---- // Artikel 6Artikel 7 // Artikel 7-- // Bilaga I-- // Bilaga II


jurisdiction: US

text: b' U.S. Department of Agriculture\n\n Office of Inspector General\n Great Plains Region\n\n\n\n\n Audit Report\n\n Food and Nutrition Service\nNational School Lunch Program\n Odessa R-VII School District\n Odessa, Missouri\n\n\n\n\n Report No. 27010-19-KC\n February 2004\n\x0c UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL - AUDIT\n Great Plains Region\n 8930 Ward Parkway, Suite 3016\n Kansas City, Missouri 64114-3302\n TEL: 816.926.7667 FAX: 816.926.7676\n\n\n\n\nDATE: February 18, 2004\n\nREPLY TO\nATTN OF: 27010-19-KC\n\nSUBJECT: National School Lunch Program \xe2\x80\x93 Odessa R-VII School District, Odessa, Missouri\n\nTO: Darlene Barnes\n Regional Administrator\n Food and Nutrition Service\n 1244 Speer Boulevard, Suite 903\n Denver, CO 80204\n\n\nThis report presents the results of the subject audit. Your written response, dated\nFebruary 5, 2004, to the official draft report has been incorporated into the Findings and\nRecommendations section of the report, where appropriate. The text of the response is attached\nas exhibit C. Your reply expressed agreement with the recommendations; however, we were\nunable to reach management decisions on the recommendations. The Findings and\nRecommendations section of the report explains those actions necessary for us to consider\nmanagement decisions on Recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. In general, we will need to be\nadvised of the specific actions completed or planned along with acceptable and specific dates for\ncompleting the recommended actions. In addition, the claim amounts determined to be improper\nmust be recovered or an accounts receivable established.\n\nIn accordance with Departmental Regulation 1720-1, please furnish a reply within 60 days\ndescribing corrective actions taken, or planned, and the timeframes for accomplishing final\naction. Please note that the regulation requires management decisions to be reached on all\nfindings and recommendations within 6 months from the date of report issuance, and final action\nshould be completed within 1 year of management decision.\n\nWe appreciate the assistance provided to us during our review.\n\n\n/s/\n\nDENNIS J. GANNON\nRegional Inspector General\n for Audit\n\x0cExecutive Summary\nFood and Nutrition Service, National School Lunch Program, Odessa, Missouri\n(Audit Report No. 27010-19-KC)\n\nResults in Brief This report presents the results of our audit of the National School Lunch\n Program (NSLP)1 as operated by Odessa R-VII School District. This district\n served as the local school food authority (SFA) under an agreement with the\n Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, which served\n as the State agency. The United States Department of Agriculture\xe2\x80\x99s (USDA)\n Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) served as the funding agency. For school\n year 2001/2002 operations, the SFA claimed about $229,000 in FNS\n NSLP/SBP reimbursement and about $5,800 in State agency reimbursement.\n\n Our objectives were to evaluate the SFA\xe2\x80\x99s meal accountability, procurement,\n accounting systems, and management controls that were designed to provide\n reasonable assurance as to the accuracy of its meal claims and reimbursement\n for school years 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 through December 31, 2002.\n\n We found the SFA had not effectively monitored meal accountability\n procedures for the meals claimed for the children participating in the daycare\n program. As a result, the SFA received about $1,200 in Federal\n reimbursement funds for excess meals. The SFA did not have procedures in\n place to ensure the food service program received proper credit for\n USDA-donated commodities. The SFA\xe2\x80\x99s accounting procedures did not\n include crediting a pro rata share of interest earned from investments to the\n food service account.\n\nRecommendations\nIn Brief We recommend that FNS instruct the State agency to require the SFA to\n (1) establish procedures and monitor meal claims to ensure only eligible meals\n are reported for reimbursement, (2) correct the overclaim, (3) perform\n beginning and ending inventory counts and reconciliations to ensure the SFA\n receives proper credit for donated commodities used by the Food Service\n Management Company (FSMC), and (4) establish procedures to credit the\n school food service account with a prorated share of the investment income.\n\nFNS Response Although the agency response showed FNS officials concurred with the\n recommendations, it did not provide sufficient information to reach\n management decisions on any of the recommendations. We incorporated\n their comments in the applicable sections of the report and attached a copy of\n the comments as exhibit C.\n\n\n\n1\n Also includes the School Breakfast Program (SBP).\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page i\n\x0cOIG Position The Findings and Recommendations section of the report explains those\n actions necessary for us to consider management decisions on\n Recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. In order to reach management\n decisions, we will need to be advised of the specific actions completed or\n planned along with acceptable dates for completing the contemplated actions\n and evidence of actions taken to recover the improper claims.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page ii\n\x0cAbbreviations Used in This Report\n\n\nthe Act Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act\nCFR Code of Federal Regulations\nFNS Food and Nutrition Service\nFSMC Food Service Management Company\nNSLP National School Lunch Program\nOIG Office of Inspector General\nPOS Point of Service\nRFP Requests for Proposal\nSBP School Breakfast Program\nSFA School Food Authority\nUSDA United States Department of Agriculture\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page iii\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\nExecutive Summary .................................................................................................................................i\n\nAbbreviations Used in This Report ......................................................................................................iii\n\nBackground and Objectives ................................................................................................................... 1\n\nFindings and Recommendations............................................................................................................ 3\n\n Section 1. Internal Controls Over the NSLP/SBP.......................................................................... 3\n\n Finding 1 Internal Controls Needed to be Strengthened.......................................................... 3\n Recommendation No. 1.................................................................................... 5\n Recommendation No. 2.................................................................................... 6\n Recommendation No. 3.................................................................................... 6\n Finding 2 Procedures Were Not in Effect to Prorate Investment Income to the Food\n Service Fund............................................................................................................ 6\n Recommendation No. 4.................................................................................... 7\n\nScope and Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 8\n\nExhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Summary of Monetary Results ....................................................................................... 10\nExhibit B \xe2\x80\x93 Reconciliation of Daycare Meals ..................................................................................... 11\nExhibit C \xe2\x80\x93 FNS Reply to Official Draft............................................................................................. 12\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page iv\n\x0cBackground and Objectives\nBackground On June 4, 1946, Congress passed the National School Lunch Act,2 now the\n Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (the Act), which authorizes\n Federal school lunch assistance. The intent of the Act, as amended\n December 29, 2001, is to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation\xe2\x80\x99s\n children by providing them with nutritious foods and to encourage the\n domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities and other foods.\n This is accomplished by assisting States, through grants-in-aid and other\n means, in providing an adequate supply of food and facilities for the\n establishment, maintenance, operation, and expansion of nonprofit school\n lunch programs.\n\n The Act, as amended, authorizes the payment of general and special\n assistance funds to States based upon the number and category of lunches\n served. Section 4 of the Act authorizes general cash assistance payment for\n all lunches served to children in accordance with the provisions of the\n National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and additional special cash\n assistance for lunches served under the NSLP to children determined eligible\n for free or reduced-price lunches. The States are reimbursed at various rates\n per lunch, depending on whether the child was served a free, reduced-price,\n or full-price (paid) lunch. Eligibility of children for free or reduced-price\n lunches is based upon their family\xe2\x80\x99s household size and income, as listed in\n the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) Income Eligibility Guidelines, which\n are reviewed annually.\n\n FNS is the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) agency\n responsible for administering the NSLP/School Breakfast Program (SBP).\n FNS is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, and has seven regional offices\n nationwide. The FNS Mountain Plains Regional Office, located in Denver,\n Colorado, is responsible for monitoring and overseeing operations in\n Missouri. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary\n Education, Division of Administrative and Financial Services \xe2\x80\x93 School\n Foods, serves as the State agency and is responsible for overseeing program\n operations within Missouri. The School Food Authority (SFA) located in\n Odessa, Missouri, is responsible for operating the NSLP in accordance with\n regulations. Each State agency is required to enter into a written agreement\n with FNS to administer the NSLP/SBP, and each State agency enters into\n agreements with SFAs to oversee day-to-day operations. The SFA\n administered the NSLP/SBP in four public schools and operated a daycare\n program at one of the schools. The SFA contracted with a commercial Food\n Service Management Company (FSMC) to prepare the meals.\n\n\n2\n 42 U.S. Code 1751.\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page 1\n\x0c The fiscal year 2002 funding for the NSLP was $6 billion for meal\n reimbursements of approximately 4.7 billion lunches. The Missouri State\n agency received approximately $104.5 million for the NSLP, $28.7 million\n for the SBP, $1 million for the after school snack program, and $400,000 for\n the special milk program in Federal reimbursements for school year\n 2001/2002. For school year 2001/2002, Missouri provided State funds of\n approximately $2.3 million to SFAs. For school year 2001/2002 operations,\n the SFA received about $229,000 in FNS NSLP/SBP reimbursement and\n about $5,800 in State agency reimbursement.\n\n The general NSLP requirements are codified in Title 7, Code of Federal\n Regulations (CFR) 210. Requirements for determining eligibility for free and\n reduced-price meals and free milk are codified in 7 CFR 245. In accordance\n with 7 CFR 250, USDA also provides donated foods to SFAs to assist in\n operating the nonprofit lunch program. The Missouri State agency provides\n actual commodities to each public school participating in the NSLP/SBP,\n with the exception of one district. Generally, schools must collect\n applications on an annual basis from households of enrolled children and\n make annual determinations of their eligibility for free or reduced-price\n meals. These schools must also count the number of free, reduced-price, and\n paid meals served at the point of service (POS) on a daily basis.\n\nObjectives The objectives of our review were to evaluate controls over the\n administration of the NSLP and SBP. We evaluated policies and procedures\n over meal accountability and oversight of program operation. To accomplish\n this, we evaluated (1) the accuracy of collections and accounting for\n reimbursed meals, (2) the accounting and use of program funds relating to the\n SFA\xe2\x80\x99s procurement of goods and services, and (3) the accounting for the\n SFA\xe2\x80\x99s school food service account.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page 2\n\x0cFindings and Recommendations\nSection 1. Internal Controls Over the NSLP/SBP\n\nFinding 1 Internal Controls Needed to be Strengthened\n\n The SFA claimed Federal reimbursement for excess meals served to children\n participating in the daycare program. This occurred because SFA officials did\n not perform a POS3 count for the meals obtained for the daycare children. As\n a result, the SFA collected about $1,200 in Federal reimbursement funds for\n meals not eligible for reimbursement during the 2001/2002 and 2002/2003\n school years. In addition, the SFA lacked adequate internal controls to\n ensure the FSMC properly credited the food service program for the value of\n USDA-donated commodities. This occurred because the SFA allowed the\n FSMC to perform the beginning and ending inventories and determine the\n credits without performing oversight or independent reconciliations.\n\n a. Excess Meals Claimed for Federal Reimbursement.\n\n The SFA claimed reimbursement for excess meals served to children\n participating in the daycare program. This occurred because SFA officials\n did not perform a POS count for daycare program meals obtained at the\n McQuerry Elementary School. Further, SFA officials did not monitor the\n claims for reimbursement for the daycare children at any point in the\n claims process. As a result, the SFA received about $1,200 in Federal\n reimbursements for the questionable meals claimed during the 2001/2002\n and 2002/2003 school years.\n\n Federal regulations require the SFA to ensure that Claims for\n Reimbursement do not request payment for any excess lunches produced,\n or non-Program lunches (i.e., a la carte or adult lunches), or for more than\n one meal supplement per child per day.4 Federal regulations state SFAs\n should plan and prepare breakfasts on the basis of participation trends,\n with the objective of providing one breakfast per child per day.5 Federal\n regulations state the State agency may authorize alternatives to the POS\n lunch counts provided that such alternatives result in accurate, reliable\n counts of the number of free, reduced-price, and paid lunches served,\n respectively, for each serving day.6\n\n\n\n\n3\n The POS is defined as the point in the food service operation where a determination can accurately be made that a\nreimbursable free, reduced-price, or paid lunch has been served to an eligible child.\n4\n 7 CFR 210.7(c)(1)(ii)(B)(v).\n5\n 7 CFR 220.9(a).\n6\n 7 CFR 210.7(c)(2)(i).\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page 3\n\x0c SFA officials did not include a review of the meals served at the daycare\n during the required onsite review, and there were no other internal\n controls in place for verifying the number of meals actually served to the\n daycare children. Normally, the daycare ordered meals from the FSMC\n and picked up the meals at the elementary school. Daycare personnel\n said that additional meals were ordered and combined into a family-style\n serving. The meal counts were based on meals ordered rather than\n eligible children actually in attendance and eating. We found that the\n SFA did not use a POS count or monitor the meals ordered by the daycare\n to ensure that only one meal per eligible child in attendance was ordered\n and claimed for reimbursement.\n\n The SFA did not plan and prepare breakfasts on the basis of participation\n trends, in that daycare personnel ordered more meals per day than actual\n students who were enrolled in the daycare program. For example, during\n the month of April 2002, 34 eligible students were enrolled in the daycare\n program. During this month, 39 meals were ordered every day for\n breakfast and lunch, with an excess of at least 5 breakfasts and 5 lunches\n ordered per day. In some cases, meals were ordered and claimed for\n students with an established practice of arriving after breakfast was\n served or leaving before lunch was served. We obtained documentation\n of attendance (by name) for the audit period to determine how many\n meals were served to eligible children in attendance at the daycare. We\n questioned about $1,200 in Federal reimbursement funds for meals not\n supported by attendance records (see exhibits A and B). Our questioned\n costs include all breakfasts claimed which exceeded the actual attendance\n of eligible students because the daycare consistently ordered more\n breakfasts than there were eligible students expected to eat.7\n\n b. The SFA Did Not Monitor Credits for USDA-Donated Commodities.\n\n The SFA did not follow or monitor contract stipulations related to use of\n donated commodities used by the FSMC. The SFA had no procedures in\n place to conduct physical inventories of commodities or perform\n independent reconciliations to verify that it received proper credit for the\n commodities. As a result, the SFA was not following the terms of the\n amended contract8 (which had been approved by the State agency) and\n was relying solely on the FSMC to determine the amount of the credit for\n commodities with an estimated value of $49,000 received during the year.\n\n7\n The Agency noted that SFAs are to plan for and prepare breakfasts on the basis of participation trends, with the objective\nof providing one breakfast per child per day. Further, any excess breakfasts that are prepared may be served to eligible\nchildren and may be claimed for reimbursement.\n8\n A contract addendum, dated August 5, 2002, provided that a yearend reconciliation shall be conducted by the SFA to\nensure and verify that the correct and proper credit has been received for the full value of all USDA-donated foods used by\nthe FSMC. The addendum also provided for the SFA to conduct annual reviews of storage facilities, including a physical\ninventory reconciled with the inventory records maintained by the SFA and FSMC.\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page 4\n\x0c We did not review activities prior to the 2002/2003 school year because\n this issue was reported in Audit Report No. 27601-12-KC issued in\n May 2001.\n\n Federal regulations require that the SFA shall ensure that all\n federally-donated foods received by the SFA and made available to the\n FSMC accrue only to the benefit of the SFA\xe2\x80\x99s nonprofit school food\n service and are fully utilized therein.9 Federal regulations require that the\n contract between the SFA and FSMC shall expressly provide that any\n donated foods received by the SFA and made available to the FSMC shall\n be utilized solely for the purpose of providing benefits for the SFA\xe2\x80\x99s food\n service operation, and it shall be the responsibility of the SFA to\n demonstrate that the full value of all donated foods is used solely for the\n benefit of the SFA.10 Federal regulations require grantees and subgrantees\n to maintain a contract administration system which ensures that contractors\n perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their\n contracts or purchase orders.11\n\n It is the SFA\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility to perform a reconciliation of the inventory\n counts and have documentation of resolution of any discrepancies. Our\n analysis of available records for the value of donated commodities\n compared to the credit given to the SFA was inconclusive, due to the lack of\n documentation and independent inventory counts.\n\nRecommendation No. 1\n\n Instruct the State agency to require the SFA to correct the overclaim for the\n daycare meals that were ineligible for reimbursement.\n\n FNS Response.\n\n FNS concurred with Recommendation No. 1.\n\n OIG Position.\n\n In order to consider management decision, we need to be notified of the\n proposed dates when the recommended actions to be taken by the SFA will\n be completed and provided evidence the improper costs have been recovered\n or established as an accounts receivable.\n\n\n\n\n9\n 7 CFR 210.16(a)(6).\n10\n 7 CFR 250.12(d).\n11\n 7 CFR 3016.36(b)(2).\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page 5\n\x0cRecommendation No. 2\n\n Instruct the State agency to provide instructions to the SFA on requirements and\n actions to be taken to establish a POS or appropriate alternative POS at the\n daycare meal-serving site. Instruct the State agency to require the SFA to\n include the daycare meal-serving site as part of the onsite reviews to ensure that\n reimbursement is not claimed for ineligible meals.\n\n FNS Response.\n\n FNS concurred with Recommendation No. 2.\n\n OIG Position.\n\n In order to consider management decision, we need to be notified of the\n proposed dates when the recommended actions to be taken by the SFA will\n be completed.\n\nRecommendation No. 3\n\n Instruct the State agency to require the SFA to perform independent\n beginning and ending commodity inventory counts. Require the SFA to\n reconcile the beginning and ending commodity inventory counts with the\n FSMC and State agency inventory records and to ensure proper credits have\n been received from the FSMC. Instruct the State agency to require the SFA\n to restore any deficiencies in commodity credits for the 2002/2003 school\n year to the food service account, dependent on available records.\n\n FNS Response.\n\n FNS concurred with Recommendation No. 3.\n\n OIG Position.\n\n In order to consider management decision, we need to be notified of the\n proposed dates when the recommended actions to be taken by the SFA will\n be completed and provided evidence of the recovered costs for the\n unaccounted commodities.\n\nFinding 2 Procedures Were Not in Effect to Prorate Investment Income to\n the Food Service Fund\n\n The school food service account was not being credited a prorated share of\n interest earned from investments. According to SFA officials, this occurred\n because the State agency did not provide instructions to the SFA to allocate\n investment income to the school food service account. As a result, the funds\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page 6\n\x0c received for the benefit of the school lunch program are creating revenue\n (interest income) from balances maintained in the food service fund, but such\n revenue is not reflected in the food service accounts.\n\n Federal regulations12 require that a prorated share of interest earned from\n investments should be credited to the school food service account.\n\n We noted the district\xe2\x80\x99s general fund checking account earned monthly\n interest rates ranging from 2.02 percent to 2.53 percent. Also, a money\n market checking account yielded 2.00 percent interest. The closing cash\n balance for the school food service fund for school year 2001/2002 was\n $188,574, which would have earned monthly interest of $314 using a\n 2.00 percent rate. SFA officials stated the school district did not transfer\n general funds to the food service program; however, the district did not\n charge the food service program for indirect costs (i.e., gas, electric, trash\n service, etc.). Therefore, we did not determine the questioned costs for the\n interest income attributable to the food service fund. However, we believe\n the district should have procedures in place to credit the school food service\n fund for its share of the investment income.\n\nRecommendation No. 4\n\n Instruct the State agency to require the SFA to establish procedures to credit\n the school food service account with a pro rata share of the school district\xe2\x80\x99s\n investment income.\n\n FNS Response.\n\n FNS concurred with Recommendation No. 4.\n\n OIG Position.\n\n In order to consider management decision, we need to be notified of the\n proposed dates when the recommended actions to be taken by the SFA will\n be completed.\n\n\n\n\n12\n The Federal regulation\xe2\x80\x99s definition of revenue shows that a prorated share of interest earned from investments should be\ncredited to the school food service\xe2\x80\x99s account (7 CFR 210.2).\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page 7\n\x0cScope and Methodology\n Our review primarily covered NSLP/SBP operations July 1, 2001, to\n May 31, 2003, concentrating on operations since July 1, 2002. However,\n records for other periods were reviewed, as deemed necessary. We\n performed audit work at the FNS Regional office and the SFA in Odessa,\n Missouri. We selected Odessa R-VII School District based on its location\n and because the SFA used an FSMC. Fieldwork was performed during the\n period May through July 2003.\n\n In school years 2001/2002 and 2002/2003 there were two elementary schools,\n a daycare within the elementary school, one middle school, and one high\n school. We reviewed NSLP/SBP claims at all four schools and the daycare\n and made observations at each elementary school, the daycare, the middle\n school, and the high school. Our audit was performed in accordance with\n Government Auditing Standards.\n\n To accomplish our review objectives, we reviewed FNS, State agency, and\n SFA regulations, policies, procedures, manuals, and instructions governing\n NSLP/SBP operations. We also reviewed the State agency\xe2\x80\x99s most recent\n administrative review of the SFA\xe2\x80\x99s NSLP/SBP operations and the SFA\xe2\x80\x99s\n corrective actions taken in response to the administrative review findings and\n recommendations. The following audit procedures were also performed:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed officials from the State agency, SFA, and FSMC, in order to\n obtain an overview of their method of operation for the NSLP/SBP;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Evaluated the SFA\xe2\x80\x99s procedures used to gather and consolidate monthly\n meal claims and whether reports are verified for accuracy;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Evaluated edit check controls used to assure the reasonableness of claims\n for reimbursement when daily meal counts, by category, exceeded\n average daily attendance;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the SFA\xe2\x80\x99s accounting system, which included a review of\n program funds and interest on those funds;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Analyzed the monitoring efforts of the SFA through a review of the\n onsite accountability reviews conducted during school years 2001/2002\n and 2002/2003;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the SFA\xe2\x80\x99s procedures for issuing Requests for Proposal (RFP)\n and contracts with the FSMC to operate the nonprofit food service;\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page 8\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the most recent RFP/contract and addendum with the FSMC,\n including the credit given for commodities;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Compared the number of meals claimed (for the audit period) by the SFA\n to the State agency to the number of meals billed by the FSMC on their\n monthly invoices; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Compared the amount of commodities used by the FSMC to the amount\n of credit given to the SFA for commodities.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page 9\n\x0cExhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Summary of Monetary Results\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n Finding No. Description Amount Category\n 1 SFA Overclaimed Meals for Daycare $1,209 1/\n\n\n1/ Unsupported Costs, Recovery Recommended.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page 10\n\x0cExhibit B \xe2\x80\x93 Reconciliation of Daycare Meals\n Exhibit B \xe2\x80\x93 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n Daycare Overclaimed Reimbursements\n2001/2002 Meals Claimed for Actual Difference in Meal Rate Total*\nSchool Year Reimbursement Attendance Attendance and (Difference times\n Claimed Rate)\nLunch 6,660 4,094 2,566 $0.20 $513\nBreakfast 6,549 3,982 2,567 $0.21 $539\n $1052\n2002/2003\nSchool Year\nLunch 2,042 1,257 785 $0.20 $157\n Total Overclaimed Reimbursement $1,209\n\n*Rounded.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page 11\n\x0cExhibit C \xe2\x80\x93 FNS Reply to Official Draft\n Exhibit C \xe2\x80\x93 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/27010-19-KC Page 12\n\x0c'


type: wikipedia

text:
Dit is een lijst van oorlogen van het Groothertogdom Luxemburg vanaf zijn onafhankelijkheid van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in 1890.
 Zie ook
 Lijst van oorlogen in de Lage Landen tot 1560 voor oorlogen van het graafschap Luxemburg en het hertogdom Luxemburg tot 1560
 Lijst van oorlogen in de zuidelijke Lage Landen (1560–1829) voor oorlogen van het hertogdom Luxemburg en het groothertogdom Luxemburg van 1560 tot 1829
 Lijst van oorlogen van Nederland voor oorlogen van het groothertogdom Luxemburg van 1830 tot 1890
 Oorlog in Europa
 Luxemburg
 Oorlogen


text:
AVVISO Obblighi possesori cani | Portale istituzionale del Comune di Sant'Oreste
 Home › AVVISO Obblighi possesori cani
 AVVISO Obblighi possesori cani
 COMUNE DI SANT'ORESTE Provincia di Roma
 Che con deliberazione n° 67 del 18.11.2009 il Consiglio Comunale ha approvato il regolamento comunale per la detenzione,la tutela ed il controllo dei cani sul territorio comunale.
 L'amministrazione comunale invita tutti i proprietari e detentori di cani ad un rigoroso rispetto delle normative emanate nel regolamento, al fine di garantire la dovuta sicurezza alla cittadinanza e il giusto decoro ed igiene dei luoghi pubblici.
 Si invitano tutti gli interessati a prendere visione, presso i competenti uffici comunali, del suddetto regolamento ,del quale si riportano sinteticamente alcuni dei principale articoli :
 Cani liberi di girare ( art. 5 comma 2 sanzione da Euro 25 ,00 a 150,00)
 Mancato utilizzo di guinzaglio- non superiore a mt 1,50 ( art. 5 comma 1 sanzione da Euro 25,00 a 150,00)
 Mancato Utilizzo Museruola e/o guinzaglio- in caso di cani a rischio elevato o considerati impegnativi (art 5comma 1 lett.c sanzione da Euro 100,00 a 600,00)
 Mancato Utilizzo Museruola nei luoghi previsti-( art. 11sanzione da Euro 25,00 a 150,00)
 I cani di grossa taglia( peso>di 30 kg o altezza al garrese >60 cm) nelle aree pubbliche devono essere condotti con guinzaglio e museruola( art. 6 comma 2 sanzione da Euro 50,00 a 300,00)
 Gestione e raccolta deiezioni solide e liquide ( art. 4 sanzione da Euro 25,00 a 150,00)
 Per opportuna conoscenza si comunica a tutti i proprietari o detentori di cani che la Legge Regionale n° 34 /97 obbliga:
 1)tutti i proprietari, possessori, detentori a qualsiasi titolo di cani sono tenuti ad iscrivere l'animale all'anagrafe canina tenuta presso la competente azienda ASL, entro il termine di 3 mesi dalla nascita o comunque dall'acquisizione del possesso o della detenzione ( art .12 sanzione amministrativa da Euro 77,47 a 154,94);
 2)tutti i cani iscritti all'anagrafe canina devono essere o contrassegnati da un apposito codice di riconoscimento,tatuaggio / microchip che viene apposto tra il quarto e l'ottavo mesi di vita oppure entro tre mesi dall'acquisizione del possesso o della detenzione( art 13 sanzione amministrativa da Euro 77,47 a 154,94
 Inoltre,al fine di risolvere l'annoso problema dei cani liberi di girare nell'abitato si proceder' nei prossimi giorni ad attivare , un servizio di accalappiacani che di supporto al Locale Ufficio di Polizia Locale, catturerà i cani liberi di girare .
 I cani catturati dotati di apposito codice di riconoscimento saranno riconsegnati al proprietario con contestuale elevazione delle sanzioni amministrative previste dalla vigente normativa.
 I cani catturati senza codice di riconoscimento saranno dotati di apposito codice identificativo ( microchip) e trasferiti nel canile sito in Rieti loc. Colle Arpea snc gestito dalla ditta Tecnovett, che da tempo custodisce i cani randagi catturati nel territorio comunale.
 I proprietari o detentori dei cani catturati, ai quali saranno applicate le sanzioni amministrative previste, potranno richiedere gli animali presso il suddetto canile, previo rilascio da parte dell'Ufficio di Polizia Locale di Sant'Oreste di apposita autorizzazione e dopo aver assolto al pagamento degli oneri di mantenimento dell'animale e delle operazioni effettuate( iscrizione anagrafe, installazione microchip ).
 Dalla Residenza Municipale 21.7.2010 Il Sindaco
 avviso obblighi possessori cani.txt 3.4 KB