type: other

text:
zákon o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii - KS-SR/Judikáty.info
 Nájdené rozsudky pre výraz: zákon o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii
 Približný počet výsledkov: 1264 (zobraziť štatistiku vyhľadávania)
 vyhľadávací dotaz: zákon o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii
 zakon nájdené 3821832 krát v 366518 dokumentoch
 konkurz nájdené 147574 krát v 19905 dokumentoch
 Najvyšší súd SR 289 dokumentov
 Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky 277 dokumentov
 Merito Je nelogické a celkom proti zmyslu inštitútu odporovateľnosti právnym úkonom zaoberať sa tým, či celkový majetok dlžníka postačuje na uspokojenie jednej konkrétnej pohľadávky veriteľa dlžníka.
 Kľúčové slová: právo odporovať právnemu úkonu podľa Zákona o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii, odporovanie ukracujúcemu právnemu úkonu, odporovateľnosť právneho úkonu, ukrátenie veriteľa
 Právna veta: Pri posudzovaní ukrátenia veriteľov podľa zák. č. 7/2005 Z. z. je vždy potrebné skúmať pomer celkového majetku dlžníka pred a po účinnosti napadnutého úkonu a výšku jeho záväzkov pred a po účinnosti tohto úkonu. Ak dlžník už pred vykonaním tohto úkonu nemá dostatok majetku na uspokojenie majetku všetkých svojich veriteľov, predstavuje úkon, ktorým sa uspokojenie veriteľov ešte zmenší, ďalšie ukrátenie ich pohľadávok, a to ukrátenie v takom rozsahu, v akom sa znížením majetku zníži potenciálna kvóta uspokojenia týchto pohľadávok v konkurze. Je nelogické a celkom proti zmyslu inštitútu odporovat ...Právna veta je skrátená. Pre zobrazenie celej právnej vety sa zaregistrujte na 14 dní bezplatne alebo prihláste.
 Súd: Spisová značka: Identifikačné číslo súdneho spisu: Dátum vydania rozhodnutia: Meno a priezvisko sudcu, VSÚ: ECLI: Krajský súd Trnava 21CoKR/6/2017 2116212786 29. 10. 2018 JUDr. Božena Husárová ECLI:SK:KSTT:2018:2116212786.1 ROZSUDOK V MENE SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY Krajský súd v Trnave v senáte zloženom z predsedníčky senátu JUDr. Boženy Husárovej a sudcov JUDr. Róberta Foltána a Mgr. Michala Novotného v sporovej veci žalobcu: JUDr. Erik Bilský, IČO: 40 046 966, Pekárska 11, Trnava, správca úpadcu: RAC .
 ... , ktorú dňa 10.5.2012 podal správca konkurznej podstaty nemá charakter odporovacej žaloby v zmysle § 57 až § 63 Zákona o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii č. 7/2005 Z.z.. Jedná sa o súdne konanie začaté na návrh správcu podľa § 47 ods. 4 uvedeného .
 ... vyhlásení konkurzu alebo po povolení reštrukturalizácie správca dane postupuje podľa osobitného predpisu. 33. Podľa § 113 ods. 3 vety prvej zákona o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii (ďalej aj „ZKR“) o začatí reštrukturalizačného konania súd vydá uznesenie, ktoré bezodkladne zverejní v Obchodnom vestníku; zverejnením uznesenia v Obchodnom .
 ... 29.06.2013. Na základe uvedených skutočností a zákonného ustanovenia súd postupoval podľa § 16 ods. 1 zákona o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii a konanie zastavil pre povolenie reštrukturalizácie dlžníka. O vrátení preddavku na úhradu odmeny a výdavkov predbežného správcu ... , súd rozhodol podľa § 21 ods. 3 štvrtá veta zákona o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii a vrátil navrhovateľovi preddavok na úhradu odmeny a výdavkov predbežného správcu v sume 1.659,70 eura, .
 Právna veta: Správca je osobou, ktorá koná s odbornou starostlivosťou, túto predpokladá Zákon o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii a z hľadiska praktického je známe, že správcovia zapísaní v zozname správcov sú odborníkmi v oblasti správy majetku, ako aj v oblasti uplatňovania práv súvisiacich s majetkom, v tomto smere sú preškoľovaní. Je potrebné si všimnúť predovšetkým ustanovenie § 86 ods. 4 ZKR, z ktorého vyplýva, že správca v zásade pokračuje vo výkone činností súvisiacich s podnikateľskou činnosťou úpadcu za predpokladu zamedzenia zmenšenia hodnoty majetku podliehajúceho konkurzu alebo zvýšenia hodnoty to ...Právna veta je skrátená. Pre zobrazenie celej právnej vety sa zaregistrujte na 14 dní bezplatne alebo prihláste.
 ... resp. správcu konkurznej podstaty úpadcu. Je totiž potrebné poukázať tiež na to, že účelom Zákona o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii nie je umožnenie ľubovoľnej podnikateľskej činnosti pre správcu konkurznej podstaty, ale len pokračovanie v tej podnikateľskej ... resp. správcu konkurznej podstaty úpadcu. Je totiž potrebné poukázať tiež na to, že účelom Zákona o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii nie je umožnenie ľubovoľnej podnikateľskej činnosti pre správcu konkurznej podstaty, ale len pokračovanie v tej .
 ... preto sú postupne z vydavateľského programu vyraďované. Podľa názoru dlžníka reštrukturalizačný plán spĺňa všetky ustanovenia Zákona o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii a boli dodržané všetky zákonom vyžadované postupy pri jeho príprave. Bol vypracovaný takým spôsobom, ... ktorá skutočnosť by mala nepriaznivý vplyv, na niektorého z účastníkov plánu. Žiadne porušenie ustanovení Zákona o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii o náležitostiach plánu, postupe pri príprave plánu a hlasovaní o pláne alebo porušenie iných .
 Merito Pohľadávky proti podstate, ktoré nesúvisia so správou a speňažovaním majetku, ale ani s prevádzkovaním podniku
 Kľúčové slová: pohľadávky proti podstate, správa a udržovanie majetkovej podstaty dlžníka, pohľadávky v súvislosti s prevádzkovaním podniku dlžníka, poistné na zdravotné poistenie
 Právna veta: Aj keď pohľadávky proti podstate nie je možné paušalizovať, pretože tento druh pohľadávok musí byť vždy riadne zdokladovaný, je pravdou, že tieto vznikajú najčastejšie v príčinnej súvislosti so správou a udržovaním majetkovej podstaty dlžníka, prípadne v súvislosti s prevádzkovaním podniku dlžníka. Zákon o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii v § 87 ods. 2 uvádza len príkladom pohľadávky proti podstate, pričom nimi môžu byť aj pohľadávky takého charakteru, z ktorých vyplýva, že nemusia nutne súvisieť so správou a speňažovaním majetku, ale ani s prevádzkovaním podniku. Medzi takéto pohľadávky ne ...Právna veta je skrátená. Pre zobrazenie celej právnej vety sa zaregistrujte na 14 dní bezplatne alebo prihláste.
 ... o tom, že pre zaradenie navrhovateľom uplatnenej pohľadávky ako pohľadávky proti podstate nie sú splnené zákonom o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii stanovené predpoklady a že by navrhovateľom uplatnená pohľadávka nespĺňala podmienky pohľadávky proti podstate len z toho ... súvislosti so správou a udržovaním majetkovej podstaty dlžníka, prípadne v súvislosti s prevádzkovaním podniku dlžníka. Zákon o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii v § 87 ods. 2 uvádza len príkladom pohľadávky proti podstate, pričom nimi môžu byť aj .
 Merito Kto tvrdí, že jeho právo k majetku bráni tomu, aby bol tento zapísaný do súpisu majetkovej podstaty, môže podať na súd žalobu na jeho vylúčenie zo súpisu majetkovej podstaty
 Kľúčové slová: vylúčenie majetku zo súpisu podstaty, záložný veriteľ, konkurzná podstata, vylučovacia žaloba, správca konkurznej podstaty úpadcu, vylúčenie kukurice zo súpisu konkurznej podstaty, koncepcia oddelených podstát
 Právna veta: Súpis majetkovej podstaty je listina, do ktorej zapisuje správca majetok patriaci do majetkovej podstaty úpadcu, a teda ho vyhotovuje správca konkurznej podstaty podľa pokynov súdu pri použití zoznamu predloženého dlžníkom za súčinnosti veriteľského orgánu. Súpis majetkovej podstaty dáva konkurznému správcovi oprávnenie k speňaženiu zapísaného majetku, z čoho vyplýva, že spísanie majetku umožňuje správcovi, aby s takto zapísaným majetkom dlžníka nakladal. Súčasťou súpisu je aj ocenenie vykonané správcom, ktorý vychádza z údajov v účtovníctve dlžníka alebo z iných právnych predpisov, napr. Záko ...Právna veta je skrátená. Pre zobrazenie celej právnej vety sa zaregistrujte na 14 dní bezplatne alebo prihláste.
 ... sporné, či do nej patrí alebo či k tomuto majetku uplatňuje svoje práva tretia osoba. Ustanovenie § 78 ods. 3 Zákona o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii umožňuje osobám, ktoré tvrdia, že ich právo k majetku bráni tomu, aby bol tento zapísaný do súpisu majetkovej podstaty podať .
 Merito Použitie časti pohľadávky podliehajúcej konkurzu na úhradu svojich pohľadávok bez toho, aby došlo k prihláseniu, resp. uplatneniu spôsobom ustanoveným zákonom o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii.
 Kľúčové slová: započítanie pohľadávok, pohľadávky proti podstate, vylúčenie niektorých pohľadávok z uspokojenia, daňové preplatky a úrok, prihlásenie pohľadávky, nakladanie s majetkom úpadcu
 Právna veta: Povinnosť prihlásiť každú pohľadávku, teda aj tú, ktorú by si chcel neskôr daňový úrad započítať, má opodstatnenie z dôvodu, že správca konkurznej podstaty je povinný každú pohľadávku preskúmať a ak by nevyhovovala kritériám zákona, je povinný ju poprieť. Len takýmto spôsobom by bolo možné zabrániť tomu, aby sa uplatňovali a následne započítavali aj pohľadávky, ktoré sú vylúčené z uspokojovania, pretože nie každú prihlásenú pohľadávku je možné započítať, na čo správne poukázal žalobca. Obmedzujúce limity sú stanovené v ustanovení § 54 ZKR, ako aj v ustanovení § 100 ZKR. V danej veci si sp ...Právna veta je skrátená. Pre zobrazenie celej právnej vety sa zaregistrujte na 14 dní bezplatne alebo prihláste.
 ... avšak aj pre daňové orgány platia účinky vyhlásenia konkurzu a osobitná právna úprava obsiahnutá v zákone o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii. Aj pre daňové orgány platí právna úprava ohľadom povinnosti plniť pohľadávky podliehajúce konkurzu správcovi, ... konkurzu použil na úhradu svojich pohľadávok bez toho, aby ich prihlásil, resp. uplatnil spôsobom ustanoveným zákonom o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii. Navrhoval napadnuté prvostupňové rozhodnutie ako vecne nesprávne zmeniť tak, že preplatok bude vrátený v celej .
 Merito Pohľadávky, ktoré vzniknú nezaplatením poistného na sociálne poistenie sú pohľadávkami proti podstate, len ak súvisia s prevádzkovaním podniku počas konkurzu
 Kľúčové slová: pohľadávky proti podstate, Podnik, prevádzkovanie podniku úpadcu
 Právna veta: Zákon o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii presne kvalifikuje, ktoré pohľadávky sú pohľadávkami proti podstate. Z ustanovenia § 87 ods. 2 písm. i/ zákona č. 7/2005 Z.z. jednoznačne vyplýva, že pohľadávky, ktoré vzniknú nezaplatením poistného na sociálne poistenie sú len tie pohľadávky, ktoré vznikli po vyhlásení konkurzu, ak súvisia s prevádzkovaním podniku počas konkurzu. Ide teda o pohľadávky, ktoré vznikli po vyhlásení konkurzu a týkajú sa zamestnancov resp. zamestnanca, ktorým správca prideľuje prácu v súvislosti s prevádzkovaním podniku. Pokiaľ správca zamestnancovi neprideľuje žiadnu pr ...Právna veta je skrátená. Pre zobrazenie celej právnej vety sa zaregistrujte na 14 dní bezplatne alebo prihláste.
 ... možné vykladať s s odkazom na definíciu podniku podľa § 5 Obchodného zákonníka. Prevádzkovaním podniku podľa Zákona o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii je faktické vykonávanie určitej činnosti v súvislosti s prevádzkovaním podniku úpadcu. Nepostačuje len evidencia zamestnancov bez ... . 16. Súd prvej inštancie vec nesprávne právne posúdil keď mal za to, že žaloba je dôvodná. Zákon o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii presne kvalifikuje, ktoré pohľadávky sú pohľadávkami proti podstate. Z ustanovenia § 87 ods. 2 písm. i .
 Kľúčové slová: neplatnosť dobrovoľnej dražby, predmet dražby, nakladanie s majetkom úpadcu, prerušenie všetkých súdnych a iných konaní vyhlásením konkurzu, absencia vecnej legitimizácie
 Právna veta: “ Pokiaľ žalobca v podanom odvolaní namietal, že je osobou oprávnenou domáhať sa neplatnosti dobrovoľnej dražby, nakoľko z ust. § 21 ods. 2 Zákona o dobrovoľných dražbách vyplýva, že neplatnosti dražby sa môže domáhať každý, kto ňou bol na svojich právach dotknutý, odvolací súd uvádza, že táto jeho argumentácia, vychádzajúca z gramatického výkladu citovaného ustanovenia, avšak bez zohľadnenia skutočnosti, že predmetná dražba bola vykonaná v rámci konkurzu vyhlásenému na jeho majetok na návrh žalovaného 1/ - správcu konkurznej podstaty žalobcu, nie je dôvodná. Nemožno totiž v danom prípad ...Právna veta je skrátená. Pre zobrazenie celej právnej vety sa zaregistrujte na 14 dní bezplatne alebo prihláste.
 ... dobrovoľných dražbách neplatnosti dražby nebráni iná právna úprava. Tou je v danom prípade najmä ust. § 44 Zákona o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii; ktoré za jedinú osobu, oprávnenú uskutočňovať akékoľvek právne úkony týkajúce sa majetku úpadcu (a teda i ... dobrovoľných dražbách neplatnosti dražby nebráni iná právna úprava. Tou je v danom prípade najmä ust. § 44 Zákona o konkurze a reštrukturalizácii; ktoré za jedinú osobu, oprávnenú uskutočňovať akékoľvek právne úkony týkajúce sa majetku úpadcu (a teda i .


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 EUROOPA KOMISJON
 Brüssel,14.9.2015
 COM(2015) 430 final
 2015/0193(NLE)
 Ettepanek:
 NÕUKOGU OTSUS
 Euroopa Liidu ja Belau Vabariigi vahelise lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitleva lepingu sõlmimise kohta
 SELETUSKIRI
 1.ETTEPANEKU TAUST
 Nõukogu määruses (EÜ) nr 539/2001
 1
 on loetletud kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab liikmesriikide välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest vabastatud. Määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001 kohaldavad kõik liikmesriigid peale Iirimaa ja Ühendkuningriigi.
 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrusega (EL) nr 509/2014
 2
 muudeti määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001, kandes 19 riiki üle II lisasse, kus on loetletud kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on viisanõudest vabastatud. Kõnealused 19 riiki on: Araabia Ühendemiraadid, Belau, Colombia, Dominica, Grenada, Ida-Timor, Kiribati, Marshalli Saared, Mikroneesia, Nauru, Peruu, Saalomoni Saared, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent ja Grenadiinid, Samoa, Tonga, Trinidad ja Tobago, Tuvalu ning Vanuatu. II lisas on lisatud igale nimetatud riigile osutavale viitele joonealune märkus, milles täpsustatakse, et „vabastust viisanõudest kohaldatakse Euroopa Liiduga sõlmitava viisavabaduslepingu jõustumise kuupäevast”.
 Määrus (EL) nr 509/2014 võeti vastu 20. mail 2014 ja see jõustus 9. juunil 2014. Juulis 2014 esitas komisjon nõukogule soovituse anda talle volitused alustada läbirääkimisi viisavabaduslepingu sõlmimiseks järgmise 17 riigiga: Araabia Ühendemiraadid, Belau, Dominica, Grenada, Ida-Timor, Kiribati, Marshalli Saared, Mikroneesia, Nauru, Saalomoni Saared, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent ja Grenadiinid, Samoa, Tonga, Trinidad ja Tobago, Tuvalu ning Vanuatu
 3
 . 9. oktoobril 2014 esitas nõukogu komisjonile läbirääkimisjuhised.
 Esimesed viisavabaduslepingud sõlmiti 6. mail 2015 (Araabia Ühendemiraatidega), 26. mail 2015 (Ida-Timoriga) ja 28. mail 2015 (Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincenti ja Grenadiinide, Samoa, Trinidadi ja Tobago ning Vanuatuga) ning alates lepingute allakirjutamise kuupäevast kuni nende jõustumiseni kohaldatakse neid ajutiselt.
 Läbirääkimisi Belauga alustati 17. detsembril 2014 ja need toimusid kirjavahetuse teel. Järgnenud mõttevahetuste käigus jõuti kokkuleppele kõikides aspektides. Pealäbirääkijad parafeerisid lepingu kirjavahetuse teel 27. mail 2015 (Belau) ja 10. juunil 2015 (EL). Liikmesriikidele teatati sellest nõukogu viisatöörühma 15. juuni 2015. aasta koosolekul.
 2.ÕIGUSLIK ALUS
 Liidu poolt on lepingu õiguslik alus Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu (edaspidi „ELi toimimise leping”) artikli 77 lõike 2 punkt a koostoimes artikliga 218.
 Lisatud ettepanek on õigusakt lepingu sõlmimiseks. Nõukogu teeb oma otsuse pärast lepingu alla kirjutamist kvalifitseeritud häälteenamusega liidu nimel nõukogu eesistuja määratud isiku vahendusel ning pärast Euroopa Parlamendilt nõusoleku saamist vastavalt ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõike 6 teise lõigu punktile a.
 3.LÄBIRÄÄKIMISTE TULEMUS
 Komisjon on seisukohal, et nõukogu läbirääkimisjuhistes seatud eesmärgid on saavutatud ja viisavabaduslepingu eelnõu on Euroopa Liidule vastuvõetav.
 Lepingu eelnõu lõpliku sisu võib kokku võtta järgmiselt:
 Eesmärk
 Lepinguga nähakse Euroopa Liidu ja Belau kodanikele ette võimalus reisida viisavabalt teise lepinguosalise territooriumile kuni 90 päevaks mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul.
 Kõikide ELi kodanike võrdse kohtlemise tagamiseks on lepingusse lisatud säte, mille kohaselt Belau võib lepingu peatada või lõpetada ainult kõikide Euroopa Liidu liikmesriikide suhtes ning liit võib omakorda lepingu peatada või lõpetada ainult kõigi oma liikmesriikide nimel.
 Ühendkuningriigi ja Iirimaa eriseisundit on kajastatud otsuse preambulis.
 Kohaldamisala
 Viisanõudest on vabastatud kõik isikud (tava-, diplomaatilise, teenistus- või ametipassi ning eripassi kasutajad), kes reisivad kõikidel muudel eesmärkidel peale tasustatava töö tegemise. Viimasesse reisijate kategooriasse kuuluvate teise lepinguosalise kodanike suhtes on igal liikmesriigil ja samuti Belaul õigus kehtestada kooskõlas kohaldatavate liidu või riiklike õigusaktidega viisanõue. Ühtlase rakendamise tagamiseks on lepingule lisatud ühisdeklaratsioon, milles tõlgendatakse tasustatava töö tegemise eesmärgil reisivate isikute kategooriat.
 Viibimise kestus
 Lepinguga nähakse Euroopa Liidu ja Belau kodanikele ette võimalus reisida viisavabalt teise lepinguosalise territooriumile kuni 90 päevaks mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul. Lepingule on lisatud ühisdeklaratsioon, milles tõlgendatakse kõnealust 90-päevast ajavahemikku mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul.
 Lepingus võetakse arvesse nende liikmesriikide olukorda, kes veel ei kohalda Schengeni acquis’d täies ulatuses. Kuni need liikmesriigid ei ole sisepiirideta Schengeni ala osa, nähakse Belau kodanikele viisavabaduslepinguga ette õigus viibida lisaks kogu Schengeni ala kohta arvestatud ajavahemikule kuni 90 päeva mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul iga kõnealuse liikmesriigi (praegu Bulgaaria, Horvaatia, Küpros ja Rumeenia) territooriumil.
 Territoriaalne kohaldatavus
 Leping sisaldab territoriaalse kohaldatavusega seotud sätteid: Prantsusmaa ja Madalmaade puhul annab viisanõudest loobumine Belau kodanikele õiguse viibida kõnealuste liikmesriikide Euroopas paikneval territooriumil.
 Deklaratsioonid
 Lisaks eespool nimetatud ühisdeklaratsioonidele on lepingule lisatud veel kaks ühisdeklaratsiooni:
 –ühisdeklaratsioon, mis käsitleb Norra, Islandi, Šveitsi ja Liechtensteini seost Schengeni acquis’ rakendamise, kohaldamise ja edasiarendamisega;
 –ühisdeklaratsioon viisavabaduslepingu sisu ja tagajärgi käsitleva ning muu asjakohase teabe, näiteks sissesõidunõuete laialdase levitamise kohta.
 4.KOKKUVÕTE
 Eespool esitatut silmas pidades teeb komisjon nõukogule ettepaneku kiita pärast Euroopa Parlamendilt nõusoleku saamist heaks Euroopa Liidu ja Belau vaheline lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitlev leping.
 2015/0193 (NLE)
 Ettepanek:
 NÕUKOGU OTSUS
 Euroopa Liidu ja Belau Vabariigi vahelise lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitleva lepingu sõlmimise kohta
 EUROOPA LIIDU NÕUKOGU,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingut, eriti selle artikli 77 lõike 2 punkti a koostoimes artikli 218 lõike 6 teise lõigu punktiga a,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Komisjoni ettepanekut,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Parlamendi nõusolekut,
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)Komisjon on pidanud Euroopa Liidu nimel läbirääkimisi Belau Vabariigiga (edaspidi „Belau”) sõlmitava lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitleva lepingu (edaspidi „leping”) üle.
 (2)Kõnealune leping allkirjastati kooskõlas nõukogu [...] otsusega .../.../EL Euroopa Liidu nimel ... 2015 ja seda on nimetatud kuupäevale järgnevast kuupäevast alates ajutiselt kohaldatud, eeldusel et leping hiljem sõlmitakse.
 (3)Leping tuleks heaks kiita.
 (4)Lepinguga luuakse lepingu haldamise ühiskomitee, kes võtab vastu oma töökorra. Sellisel juhul on asjakohane näha liidu seisukoha esitamiseks ette lihtsustatud kord.
 (5)Kooskõlas protokolliga Ühendkuningriigi ja Iirimaa seisukoha kohta vabadusel, turvalisusel ja õigusel rajaneva ala suhtes ning Euroopa Liidu raamistikku integreeritud Schengeni acquis'd käsitleva protokolliga, mis on lisatud Euroopa Liidu lepingule ja Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingule, ei kohaldata käesolevat lepingut ei Ühendkuningriigi ega Iirimaa suhtes,
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Euroopa Liidu ja Belau vaheline lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitlev leping kiidetakse liidu nimel heaks.
 Artikkel 2
 Nõukogu eesistuja esitab lepingu artikli 8 lõikes 1
 4
 sätestatud teate.
 Artikkel 3
 Lepingu artikliga 6 moodustatud ekspertide ühiskomitees esindab liitu komisjon, keda abistavad liikmesriikide eksperdid.
 Artikkel 4
 Komisjon esitab ekspertide ühiskomitees liidu seisukoha lepingu artikli 6 lõike 4 kohase töökorra vastuvõtmise kohta pärast nõupidamist nõukogu määratud erikomiteega.
 Artikkel 5
 Käesolev otsus jõustub selle vastuvõtmise päeval.
 Brüssel,
 Nõukogu nimel
 eesistuja
 (1)
 Nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 539/2001, 15. märts 2001, milles loetletakse kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest vabastatud (EÜT L 81, 21.3.2001, lk 1).
 (2)
 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus (EL) nr 509/2014, 15. mai 2014, millega muudetakse nõukogu määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001, milles loetletakse kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest vabastatud (ELT L 149, 20.5.2014, lk 67).
 (3)
 COM (2014) 467, 17.7.2014
 (4)
 Nõukogu peasekretariaat avaldab lepingu jõustumise kuupäeva Euroopa Liidu Teatajas.
 ---documentbreak---
 EUROOPA KOMISJON
 Brüssel,14.9.2015
 COM(2015) 430 final
 LISA
 järgmise dokumendi juurde:
 Ettepanek: Nõukogu otsus
 Euroopa Liidu ja Belau Vabariigi vahelise lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitleva lepingu sõlmimise kohta
 LISA
 järgmise dokumendi juurde:
 Ettepanek: Nõukogu otsus
 Euroopa Liidu ja Belau Vabariigi vahelise lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitleva lepingu sõlmimise kohta
 Euroopa Liidu ja Belau Vabariigi
 vaheline lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitlev LEPING
 EUROOPA LIIT, edaspidi „liit” või „EL”, ja
 BELAU VABARIIK (edaspidi „Belau”)
 edaspidi koos „lepinguosalised”,
 PIDADES SILMAS lepinguosaliste sõbralike suhete edendamist ja soovides hõlbustada oma kodanike reisimist, tagades neile viisavaba riiki sisenemise ja lühiajalise riigis viibimise õiguse,
 VÕTTES ARVESSE Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 15. mai 2014. aasta määrust (EL) nr 509/2014 (millega muudetakse nõukogu määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001, milles loetletakse kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest vabastatud),
 1
 millega kantakse muu hulgas 19 kolmandat riiki, sealhulgas Belau, nende kolmandate riikide nimekirja, kelle kodanikud on lühiajalisel viibimisel liikmesriikides viisanõudest vabastatud,
 PIDADES SILMAS määruse (EL) nr 509/2014 artiklit 1, milles on sätestatud, et kõnealuse 19 riigi suhtes kohaldatakse viisanõudest vabastamist alates liiduga sõlmitava viisavabaduslepingu jõustumise kuupäevast,
 SOOVIDES kindlustada võrdse kohtlemise kõigile ELi kodanikele,
 VÕTTES ARVESSE, et käesolev leping ei hõlma isikuid, kes soovivad lühiajalise viibimise jooksul teha tasustatavat tööd, ning seetõttu kohaldatakse kõnealuste isikute suhtes ka edaspidi asjakohaseid liidu õigusnorme ja liikmesriikide õigusakte ning asjakohaseid Belau õigusakte, mis käsitlevad viisanõude kehtestamist või viisanõudest vabastamist ja tööturule juurdepääsu,
 VÕTTES ARVESSE protokolli Ühendkuningriigi ja Iirimaa seisukoha kohta vabadusel, turvalisusel ja õigusel rajaneva ala suhtes ning Euroopa Liidu raamistikku integreeritud Schengeni acquis'd käsitlevat protokolli, mis on lisatud Euroopa Liidu lepingule ja Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingule, ning kinnitades, et käesolevat lepingut ei kohaldata Ühendkuningriigi ega Iirimaa suhtes,
 ON KOKKU LEPPINUD JÄRGMISES:
 ARTIKKEL 1
 Eesmärk
 Käesoleva lepinguga nähakse liidu ja Belau kodanikele ette võimalus reisida viisavabalt teise lepinguosalise territooriumile kuni 90 päevaks mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul.
 ARTIKKEL 2
 Mõisted
 Käesolevas lepingus kasutatakse järgmisi mõisteid:
 a)
 „liikmesriik” – liidu liikmesriik, välja arvatud Ühendkuningriik ja Iirimaa;
 b)
 „liidu kodanik” – punktis a määratletud liikmesriigi kodanik;
 c)
 „Belau kodanik” – isik, kellel on Belau kodakondsus;
 d)
 „Schengeni ala” – sisepiirideta ala, mis hõlmab selliste punktis a määratletud liikmesriikide territooriumi, kes kohaldavad täielikult Schengeni acquis’d.
 ARTIKKEL 3
 Kohaldamisala
 1.
 Liidu kodanikud, kellel on liikmesriigi väljastatud kehtiv tava-, diplomaatiline, teenistus-, ameti- või eripass, võivad siseneda viisavabalt Belau territooriumile ja viibida seal viisavabalt artikli 4 lõikes 1 kindlaks määratud ajavahemikul.
 Belau kodanikud, kellel on Belau väljastatud kehtiv tava-, diplomaatiline, teenistus-, ameti- või eripass, võivad siseneda viisavabalt liikmesriikide territooriumile ja viibida seal viisavabalt artikli 4 lõikes 2 kindlaks määratud ajavahemikul.
 2.
 Käesoleva artikli lõiget 1 ei kohaldada nende isikute suhtes, kes reisivad tasustatava töö tegemise eesmärgil.
 Kõnealuse isikute kategooria puhul võib iga liikmesriik vastavalt nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 539/2001
 2
 artikli 4 lõikele 3 kehtestada Belau kodanike suhtes viisanõude või nad viisanõudest vabastada.
 Kõnealuse isikute kategooria puhul võib Belau iga liikmesriigi kodanike suhtes kehtestada viisanõude või viisanõudest loobuda kooskõlas siseriikliku õigusega.
 3.
 Käesoleva lepinguga ette nähtud viisanõudest loobumise kohaldamine ei piira lepinguosaliste selliste õigusaktide kohaldamist, mis käsitlevad riiki sisenemise ja seal lühiajalise viibimise tingimusi. Liikmesriikidel ja Belaul on õigus keelata isikutel nende territooriumile siseneda ja seal lühiajaliselt viibida, kui üks või mitu kõnealust tingimust on täitmata.
 4.
 Viisanõudest loobumist kohaldatakse sõltumata sellest, missuguse transpordivahendiga reisijad lepinguosaliste piiri ületavad.
 5.
 Käesolevas lepingus käsitlemata küsimuste suhtes kohaldatakse liidu õigust ning liikmesriikide ja Belau siseriiklikku õigust.
 ARTIKKEL 4
 Viibimise kestus
 1.
 Liidu kodanikud võivad viibida Belau territooriumil kuni 90 päeva mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul.
 2.
 Belau kodanikud võivad viibida Schengeni acquis'd täielikult kohaldavate liikmesriikide territooriumil kuni 90 päeva mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul. Kõnealuse ajavahemiku arvutamisel ei võeta arvesse viibimist sellises liikmesriigis, kes veel ei kohalda täielikult Schengeni acquis'd.
 Belau kodanikud võivad viibida kuni 90 päeva mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul iga sellise liikmesriigi territooriumil, kes veel ei kohalda täielikult Schengeni acquis'd; sellisel juhul ei võeta viibimise kestuse arvutamisel arvesse Schengeni acquis'd täielikult kohaldavate liikmesriikide territooriumil viibimise kestust.
 3.
 Käesoleva lepinguga ei piirata Belau ja liikmesriikide võimalust lubada kooskõlas siseriikliku ja liidu õigusega viibida oma territooriumil kauem kui 90 päeva.
 ARTIKKEL 5
 Territoriaalne kohaldatavus
 1.
 Käesolevat lepingut kohaldatakse Prantsuse Vabariigi puhul ainult Prantsuse Vabariigi Euroopas paikneva territooriumi suhtes.
 2.
 Käesolevat lepingut kohaldatakse Madalmaade Kuningriigi puhul ainult Madalmaade Kuningriigi Euroopas paikneva territooriumi suhtes.
 ARTIKKEL 6
 Lepingu haldamise ühiskomitee
 1.
 Lepinguosalised moodustavad ekspertide ühiskomitee (edaspidi „komitee”), mis koosneb liidu esindajatest ja Belau esindajatest. Liitu esindab Euroopa Komisjon.
 2.
 Komitee ülesanded on muu hulgas järgmised:
 a)
 teostada järelevalvet käesoleva lepingu rakendamise üle;
 b)
 esitada ettepanekuid käesoleva lepingu muutmiseks või täiendamiseks;
 c)
 lahendada käesoleva lepingu tõlgendamise või kohaldamise üle tekkivaid vaidlusi.
 3.
 Komitee tuleb vajaduse korral kokku ühe lepinguosalise taotlusel.
 4.
 Komitee kehtestab oma töökorra.
 ARTIKKEL 7
 Seos käesoleva lepingu ning liikmesriikide ja Belau vaheliste olemasolevate kahepoolsete viisanõudest loobumist käsitlevate lepingute vahel
 Käesolev leping on ülimuslik liikmesriikide ja Belau vahel sõlmitud selliste kahepoolsete lepingute või kokkulepete suhtes, mis hõlmavad käesoleva lepingu kohaldamisalasse jäävaid küsimusi.
 ARTIKKEL 8
 Lõppsätted
 1.
 Lepinguosalised ratifitseerivad või kiidavad käesoleva lepingu heaks vastavalt oma sisemenetlustele ning leping jõustub teise kuu esimesel päeval pärast viimase sellise teate saamise kuupäeva, millega lepinguosalised teineteisele teatavad, et kõnealused menetlused on lõpule viidud.
 Lepingut kohaldatakse ajutiselt alates selle allkirjastamise kuupäevale järgnevast kuupäevast.
 2.
 Käesolev leping sõlmitakse määramata ajaks, välja arvatud juhul, kui see lõpetatakse lõike 5 kohaselt.
 3.
 Käesolevat lepingut võib muuta lepinguosaliste kirjalikul kokkuleppel. Muudatused jõustuvad pärast seda, kui lepinguosalised on teineteisele teatanud selleks vajalike sisemenetluste lõpuleviimisest.
 4.
 Lepinguosalised võivad lepingu täitmise täielikult või osaliselt peatada eelkõige avaliku korra, riigi julgeoleku või rahvatervise kaitse huvides, samuti ebaseadusliku sisserände tõttu või juhul, kui üks lepinguosaline kehtestab uuesti viisanõude. Lepingu täitmise peatamise otsusest teatatakse teisele lepinguosalisele hiljemalt kaks kuud enne selle kavandatud jõustumist. Käesoleva lepingu täitmise peatanud lepinguosaline teatab viivitamata teisele lepinguosalisele, kui käesoleva lepingu täitmise peatamise põhjused on kõrvaldatud, ja lõpetab lepingu täitmise peatamise.
 5.
 Kumbki lepinguosaline võib käesoleva lepingu lõpetada, teatades sellest kirjalikult teisele lepinguosalisele. Käesolev leping kaotab kehtivuse 90. päeval pärast teatamise kuupäeva.
 6.
 Belau võib käesoleva lepingu täitmise peatada või lepingu lõpetada ainult kõigi liikmesriikide suhtes korraga.
 7.
 Liit võib käesoleva lepingu täitmise peatada või lepingu lõpetada ainult kõigi oma liikmesriikide nimel.
 Koostatud kahes eksemplaris bulgaaria, eesti, hispaania, hollandi, horvaatia, inglise, itaalia, kreeka, leedu, läti, malta, poola, portugali, prantsuse, rootsi, rumeenia, saksa, slovaki, sloveeni, soome, taani, tšehhi ja ungari keeles, kusjuures kõik tekstid on võrdselt autentsed.
 ÜHISDEKLARATSIOON ISLANDI, NORRA, ŠVEITSI JA LIECHTENSTEINI KOHTA
 Lepinguosalised võtavad arvesse Euroopa Liidu ning Norra, Islandi, Šveitsi ja Liechtensteini vahelisi tihedaid suhteid, mis tulenevad eelkõige 18. mai 1999. aasta ja 26. oktoobri 2004. aasta lepingutest, mis käsitlevad nende riikide ühinemist Schengeni acquis' rakendamise, kohaldamise ja edasiarendamisega.
 Seepärast on soovitav, et ühelt poolt Norra, Islandi, Šveitsi ja Liechtensteini ning teiselt poolt Belau ametiasutused sõlmiksid viivitamatult lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitlevad kahepoolsed lepingud käesoleva lepingu tingimustega sarnastel tingimustel.
 ÜHISDEKLARATSIOON, MILLES TÕLGENDATAKSE KÄESOLEVA LEPINGU ARTIKLI 3 LÕIKES 2 KÄSITLETAVAT TASUSTATAVA TÖÖ EESMÄRGIL REISIVATE ISIKUTE KATEGOORIAT
 Lepinguosalised lepivad ühtse tõlgenduse tagamiseks kokku, et käesoleva lepingu kohaldamisel hõlmab tasustatavat tööd tegevate isikute kategooria selliseid isikuid, kes sisenevad teise lepinguosalise territooriumile tasustatava töö tegemise või tulutoova tegevusega tegelemise eesmärgil töövõtja või teenuse osutajana.
 Kõnealune kategooria ei hõlma:
 –
 äritegevusega tegelevaid isikuid, s.t isikuid, kes reisivad ärikohtumise eesmärgil (ega tööta teise lepinguosalise territooriumil);
 –
 sportlasi või kunstnikke, kes tegutsevad riigis ajutiselt;
 –
 ajakirjanikke, kelle on saatnud nende elukohariigi meedia, ning
 –
 äriühingusiseseid praktikante.
 Käesoleva deklaratsiooni rakendamise üle teostab lepingu artiklis 6 sätestatud vastutuse raames järelevalvet ühiskomitee, kes võib teha muudatusettepanekuid, kui ta peab seda lepinguosaliste kogemuste põhjal vajalikuks.
 ÜHISDEKLARATSIOON, MILLES TÕLGENDATAKSE KÄESOLEVA LEPINGU ARTIKLIS 4 SÄTESTATUD 90-PÄEVAST VIIBIMISE KESTUST MIS TAHES 180-PÄEVASE AJAVAHEMIKU JOOKSUL
 Lepinguosalised lepivad kokku, et käesoleva lepingu artiklis 4 sätestatud kuni 90-päevane kestus mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul tähendab kas üht katkematut külastust või mitut järjestikust külastust, mille kestus ei ületa 90 päeva mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul.
 Väljend „mis tahes” osutab sellele, et kohaldatakse liikuvat 180-päevast võrdlusperioodi, võttes arvesse kõik liikmesriikide territooriumil viibimise päevad viimase 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul, et kontrollida, kas nõue, mille kohaselt on liikmesriikide territooriumil lubatud viibida 90 päeva 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul, on jätkuvalt täidetud. See tähendab muu hulgas, et kui liikmesriikide territooriumil ei ole viibitud katkematu 90-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul, on lubatud uus kuni 90-päevane viibimine.
 ÜHISDEKLARATSIOON KODANIKE VIISANÕUDEST LOOBUMISE LEPINGUST TEAVITAMISE KOHTA
 Teadvustades läbipaistvuse olulisust Euroopa Liidu ja Belau kodanike jaoks, kohustuvad lepinguosalised tagama viisanõudest loobumise lepingu sisu ja tagajärgi käsitleva ning muu asjakohase teabe, näiteks territooriumile sisenemise tingimuste laialdase levitamise.
 _________________
 (1)
 ELT L 149, 20.5.2004, lk 67
 (2)
 Nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 539/2001, 15. märts 2001, milles loetletakse kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest vabastatud (EÜT L 81, 21.3.2001, lk 1).


type: caselaw

text:
 23.10.2017
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 357/30
 2017 m. rugsėjo 6 d. pareikštas ieškinys byloje ICL-IP Terneuzen ir ICL Europe Coöperatief/Komisija
 (Byla T-610/17)
 (2017/C 357/39)
 Proceso kalba: anglų
 Šalys
 Ieškovės: ICL-IP Terneuzen, BV (Ternezenas, Nyderlandai) ir ICL Europe Coöperatief UA (Amsterdamas, Nyderlandai), atstovaujamos advokatų R. Cana ir E. Mullier
 Atsakovė: Europos Komisija
 Reikalavimai
 Ieškovės Bendrojo Teismo prašo:
 —
 pripažinti, kad ieškinys yra priimtinas ir pagrįstas,
 —
 panaikinti 2017 m. birželio 13 d. Komisijos reglamentą (ES) 2017/999, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 1907/2006 dėl cheminių medžiagų registracijos, įvertinimo, autorizacijos ir apribojimų (REACH) XIV priedas (OL L 150, 2017, p. 7), tiek, kiek juo į reglamento REACH XIV priedą įtrauktas n-propilo bromidas,
 —
 nurodyti atsakovei padengti šiame procese patirtas bylinėjimosi išlaidas ir
 —
 imtis kitų priemonių, kurių reikalauja teisingumo vykdymas.
 Ieškinio pagrindai ir pagrindiniai argumentai
 Grįsdamos ieškinį ieškovės remiasi šešiais pagrindais.
 1.
 Pirmasis ieškinio pagrindas susijęs su tuo, kad Europos Komisija padarė akivaizdžią vertinimo klaidą, nes neatsižvelgė į visas svarbias aplinkybes ir pažeidė gero administravimo principą.
 —
 Ieškovės tvirtina, kad Europos Komisija padarė akivaizdžią vertinimo klaidą, nes atidžiai ir nešališkai neišnagrinėjo ieškovių jai pateiktos svarbios informacijos, iš kurios matyti, kad medžiaga neatitinka kriterijų, kad būtų laikoma prioritetine ir būtų įtraukta į reglamento REACH XIV priedą. Ieškovių nuomone, jeigu Europos Komisija būtų atsižvelgusi į informaciją, medžiagai skirtas balas būtų žemesnis arba panašus į balus, skirtus kitoms medžiagoms, kurios nebuvo pripažintos prioritetinėmis per tą patį prioriteto nustatymo etapą, ir medžiaga ginčijamu reglamentu nebūtų buvusi įtraukta į reglamento REACH XIV priedą.
 2.
 Antrasis ieškinio pagrindas susijęs su tuo, kad ginčijamu reglamentu pažeidžiamas reglamento REACH 55 straipsnis ir minėtame reglamento numatytas konkurencingumo principas; be to juo pažeidžiama teisė prekiauti.
 —
 Ieškovės tvirtina, kad ginčijamas reglamentas nesuderinamas su reglamento REACH konkurencingumo tikslais ir ypač su jo VII antraštine dalimi „Autorizacija“, nes juo paveikiamas ieškovių konkurencingumas ir sudaromos kliūtys jų teisei prekiauti dėl to, kad medžiaga buvo pripažinta prioritetine nepaisant turimos informacijos, iš kurios matyti, jog medžiaga neatitinka kriterijų, kad būtų pripažinta prioritetine ir įtraukta į XIV priedą.
 3.
 Trečiasis ieškinio pagrindas susijęs su tuo, kad Komisija pažeidė ieškovių teisę į gynybą ir savo pareigą pateikti motyvus.
 —
 Ieškovės tvirtina, kad Europos Komisija pažeidė jų teises į gynybą ir neįvykdė motyvavimo pareigos, kai nepaaiškino, kodėl medžiagą priskyrė prie tos pačios grupės kaip trichloretileną, nepaisant to, kad Europos cheminių medžiagų agentūra aiškiai pripažino (Gairės dėl prioritetų nustatymo), jog tuo atveju, kai atsižvelgiama į tokius veiksnius kaip „grupavimas“, kurie nėra 58 straipsnio 3 dalyje numatyti formalūs kriterijai, prioriteto nustatymo motyvai turi būti aiškūs ir atitikti autorizacijos proceso rekomendacijų etapo tikslus.
 4.
 Ketvirtasis ieškinio pagrindas susijęs su tuo, kad ginčijamu reglamentu pažeidžiami ieškovių teisėti lūkesčiai.
 —
 Ieškovės tvirtina, kad priimant ginčijamą reglamentą buvo pažeisti jų teisėti lūkesčiai, nes šiame reglamente neatsižvelgiama į prioritetų nustatymo gaires. Ieškovės konkrečiai nurodo, kad dėl prioritetų nustatymo ir n-propilo bromido įtraukimo į XIV priedą buvo pažeisti jų teisėti lūkesčiai, nes jos manė, kad kiekio kriterijus ir su grupavimu susiję argumentai bus taikomi taip, kaip numatyta prioritetų nustatymo gairėse ir bendro požiūrio gairėse.
 5.
 Penktasis ieškinio pagrindas susijęs su tuo, kad ginčijamu reglamentu pažeidžiamas proporcingumo principas.
 —
 Ieškovės tvirtina, jog Europos Komisija turėjo nuspręsti, kad reikia sustabdyti n-propilo bromido įtraukimą į ginčijamo reglamento XIV priedą, ir kad tai būtų buvusi tinkamesnė priemonė, nes ieškovės įtraukimo į XIV priedą neigiamas pasekmes būtų pajutusios ne iš karto, o tik po to, kai n-propilo bromidas būtų teisingai įtrauktas į XIV priedą atsižvelgiant į tikrai aukštą santykinį prioritetą.
 6.
 Šeštasis ieškinio pagrindas susijęs su tuo, kad ginčijamu reglamentu pažeidžiamas vienodo požiūrio ir nediskriminavimo principas.
 —
 Ieškovės tvirtina, kad ginčijamu reglamentu pažeidžiamas vienodo požiūrio ir nediskriminavimo principas, nes, įtraukiant medžiagą į reglamento REACH XIV priedą, ji buvo vertinama kitaip nei, pavyzdžiui, antimonitas. Ieškovių nuomone, abiejų medžiagų situacija panaši: jos abi vertinamos tame pačiame prioritetų nustatymo etape, jos abi gavo (arba turėjo gauti) prioriteto balą, kuris lygus 17, ir abiem atvejais, nustatant prioritetą, reikėjo remtis su grupavimu susijusiais vertinimais. Tačiau, kaip nurodo ieškovės, ECHA ir Europos Komisija jas vertino skirtingai, nes medžiaga buvo rekomenduota, o vėliau ir įtraukta į XIV priedą, nors antimonitas nebuvo rekomenduotas ir todėl nebuvo įtrauktas į XIV priedą.


jurisdiction: US

text: b"Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation\nUnited States Senate\n\n\n\n\n Investigating Household\nFor Internal Use Only\nExpected at\n10:00 a.m. EDT\nThursday\nSeptember 20, 2012 Goods Fraud\nCC-2012-028\n\n\n\n\n Statement of\n Timothy M. Barry\n Principal Assistant Inspector General\n for Investigations\n U.S. Department of Transportation\n\x0cMr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:\n\nThank you for the opportunity to testify on criminal fraud in the residential moving\nindustry. We have investigated allegations of fraud in this area for over a decade and\nhave found that while the vast majority of interstate household goods carriers are\nhonest, there are dishonest companies and individuals who operate at the fringe of the\nindustry and victimize the public. They do so with the sole purpose of illegally\nmaking as much money as they can from unsuspecting consumers by breaking the law\nand Federal regulations. We last testified before this Committee in May 2006 1 and\nhighlighted the problem of fraud perpetrated by rogue household goods moving\ncompanies. We appreciate this opportunity to update the Committee on our\ninvestigative work.\n\nMy testimony today will focus on our (1) household goods (HHG) fraud\ninvestigations, (2) proactive initiative \xe2\x80\x9cOperation Boxed Up,\xe2\x80\x9d and (3) efforts to\neducate the public about HHG fraud. My statement is based on our completed and\nongoing investigative work.\n\nIN SUMMARY\nSince 2006, we have opened 36 HHG fraud investigations. We currently have\n14 investigations open involving companies operating under 108 different names,\nwith more than 3,800 potential victims, amounting to around $1.9 million in fraud.\nThe criminal conduct we have targeted through our investigations consists of holding\na customer\xe2\x80\x99s household goods hostage while demanding significantly larger sums of\nmoney than originally quoted. In March 2011, we launched a national fraud project to\nproactively identify the most egregious consumer complaints involving hostage loads\nagainst HHG carriers and brokers. We focus, in particular, on groups of carriers and\nbrokers that illicitly engage in hostage fraud schemes. In addition to filing a complaint\nthrough our agency Hotline, 2 available on our Web site, consumers can file\ncomplaints about improper HHG activities with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety\nAdministration (FMCSA), the Better Business Bureau, and their State Attorney\nGeneral\xe2\x80\x99s office.\n\nBACKGROUND\nThe Office of Inspector General (OIG) Office of Investigations (OI) conducts\ncriminal, civil, and administrative investigations of allegations of fraud, waste, and\nabuse within the Department, its programs, and grantees. OI\xe2\x80\x99s investigative work is\naccomplished by criminal investigators assigned to regional offices around the\ncountry. Investigations are opened based on OIG priorities and procedures and in\n\n1\n OIG Testimony Number CC-2006-044, \xe2\x80\x9cHousehold Goods Moving Fraud,\xe2\x80\x9d May 4, 2006. OIG investigative summaries\n and testimonies are available on our Web site: www.oig.dot.gov.\n2\n The OIG\xe2\x80\x99s 24-7 Hotline number is 1-800-424-9071. Complaint forms and HHG fraud information for consumers are also\n available on our Web site under the Household Goods Movers portal.\n\n\n 1\n\x0cconsideration of prosecutorial guidelines that the local United States Attorneys have\nestablished.\n\nOI has four investigative priority areas:\n\nTransportation safety investigations typically involve parties that violate criminal\nlaws relating to the Department\xe2\x80\x99s statutes and regulations. These investigations\ninclude matters involving aviation safety, motor carrier safety, and hazardous\nmaterials.\n\nGrant and procurement fraud investigations involve allegations of bribery and\ncorruption, bid rigging, false claims, labor and materials over-charging, disadvantaged\nbusiness enterprise fraud, and product substitution in connection with the\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s annual expenditure of nearly $64 billion on direct procurements and\nprojects funded through grants.\n\nEmployee integrity investigations address a wide range of violations involving\nDepartment employees. These include time and attendance/travel voucher fraud,\nmisuse of government property or funds, conflict of interest, ethics violations, and\nprohibited personnel violations.\n\nConsumer and workforce fraud protection investigations help to protect American\nconsumers and workers from fraud in connection with FMCSA regulatory programs,\nincluding household goods movers as well as shippers and cargo freight forwarders.\nThough FMCSA is responsible for the civil enforcement of the consumer protection\nand economic regulations governing the interstate transportation of household goods,\nOIG investigations\xe2\x80\x94and resultant prosecutions\xe2\x80\x94are separate from, but complement,\nFMCSA\xe2\x80\x99s regulatory enforcement programs. The availability of criminal sanctions\nsends a strong deterrent message to violators who consider regulatory/civil penalties\nsimply a cost of doing business.\n\nOIG IS INVESTIGATING HOUSEHOLD GOODS HOSTAGE FRAUD\nCOMPLAINTS\nCombating HHG fraud is an OIG investigative priority. Our investigations have\ntargeted suspect HHG brokers and HHG carriers that hold customers\xe2\x80\x99 household\ngoods hostage while demanding significantly larger sums of money than are legally\npermissible and much greater than the original quotes made to their customers. To\ncarry out these crimes, perpetrators engage in illegal activity that includes extortion,\nconspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, and falsification of bills of\nlading and shipment weight documents.\n\nOur HHG criminal investigations are often conducted with Federal, State, and local\nlaw enforcement partners and with the assistance of FMCSA. The vast majority of the\nallegations against rogue HHG companies we investigate have come from FMCSA\n\n 2\n\x0cand our own proactive efforts to uncover these illegal and deceptive business\npractices. Several of our investigations have included the use of concealed recording\nequipment to monitor communications between victims and the owners and\nemployees of unscrupulous carriers. We have also used undercover law enforcement\npersonnel to pose as consumers. These investigative techniques have enabled us to\nidentify and prosecute numerous violators. Despite these efforts, we continue to\nreceive hundreds of complaints each year of allegations of HHG fraud.\n\nThe Fraud Scheme\nLike most Americans, the victims are interested in getting the most for their money\nand frequently search the Internet to help them find the least expensive moving\ncompany. Though many of our cases involve the customer directly interfacing with\nthe HHG carrier, some involve the use of unscrupulous brokers.\n\nAfter finding a company on the Internet, the initial contact with the company\xe2\x80\x94either\nan HHG broker or HHG carrier\xe2\x80\x94is typically by telephone or email. Almost\nuniversally, the rogue company provides a quote without conducting a physical\nsurvey to get the best estimate of what it will cost to move the customer\xe2\x80\x99s belongings.\nInstead, the types of quotes customers receive can vary; they may be given a verbal\nquote or a written, binding quote that most often contains significant details, in small\nprint, about the quotes and services provided. The impact of HHG fraud can be felt\nacross the United States, as shown in figure 1 on the next page.\n\nBroker: Our investigations have shown that the dishonest broker, with full\nknowledge, provides customers a low-ball estimate knowing the carrier will grossly\ninflate it once the goods are loaded on the truck. The broker will frequently keep a fee\nfor booking the move usually obtained in the form of a deposit, taken from the\ncustomer up front. Because these brokers have companies that they frequently book\nloads for, they are familiar with their schemes and often receive phone calls from\nangry customers from whom the carrier is trying to extort additional money in\nexchange for releasing the HHGs.\n\nCarrier: Once a carrier has received the brokered load and the hectic moving day\narrives, the illicit moving company driver or foreman will aggressively attempt to\ncompel the customer to sign a number of blank documents before any actual packing\nor moving begins. Our investigative work has shown that these blank forms are most\ntypically revocations of prior agreements or estimates and contain revised estimates.\nInstead of deceptively compelling customers to sign blank forms, the driver or\nforeman should advise the customer before the move starts that the estimate is wrong\nand renegotiate a new estimate, as required by regulation.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0cFigure 1. States Impacted by HHG Fraud\n\n\n\n\nSource: OIG Investigative Data\n\n\n\nAfter the rogue moving company has the customer\xe2\x80\x99s belongings, someone from the\nmoving company will tell the customer that there were more household goods than\nthe customer had told the company estimator about. They may also tell customers that\nthe weight of their belongings was far greater than estimated and/or that large\nquantities of packing materials were necessary. All of which caused the price of the\nmove to be significantly more than the originally quoted price. This information is\nalways provided before the customers\xe2\x80\x99 belongings are unloaded at their new\nresidence. In most cases, victims are told about the price increase immediately after\nthe goods are loaded on the truck or within a day or two after the goods have been\ndriven away. Sometimes the customer is not informed until the driver arrives at the\nnew residence. The victim is presented with the blank documents they signed before\nthe goods were loaded onto the moving trucks, which are now filled out with the\ninflated price on them. The documents will also have the customer\xe2\x80\x99s signature, which\nindicates agreement to the price increases on the day the belongings were loaded on\nthe moving truck. In nearly every situation, victims are told they can either pay the\n\n\n 4\n\x0cprice or incur additional costs for storage, and if they fail to pay, their possessions,\nincluding the family\xe2\x80\x99s mementos, will be sold at auction. This form of extortion is one\nof the most heinous frauds we see.\n\nLet me share with you several particularly egregious cases.\n\nEgregious Case Examples\nSanta Clara Investigation: Working with the Santa Clara District Attorney's Office,\nMonterey County District Attorney's Office, the Alameda County District Attorney's\nOffice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) we participated in three\ninterstate undercover operations to ferret out HHG moving companies with numerous\ncomplaints against them for holding customers\xe2\x80\x99 goods hostage until illegally inflated\ncharges were paid. In one case, an undercover agent arranged for a move from\nNevada to California and received a telephone quote of $1,461. After the goods were\nloaded, the undercover agent was informed that the move would cost $3,138, more\nthan twice the original quote. Of the $1,677 in overages, $900 was for packing\nmaterials. In this case, felony complaints were filed in Santa Clara County, California,\nagainst the 10 individuals associated with the 4 targeted HHG carriers. Four of the\ndefendants are fugitives, five are awaiting adjudication, and one pleaded guilty and\nwas sentenced to 4 years of probation.\n\nKasprowicz Investigation: Our investigations of HHG fraud also led to the\nprosecution of Lester C. Kasprowicz of Oregon, who was notorious for giving\nmisleading or false estimates and holding customers\xe2\x80\x99 goods hostage until the\ncustomer paid the inflated amount. 3 For example, a U.S. Navy officer contacted one\nof Kasprowicz\xe2\x80\x99s companies, which she found on the Internet, to arrange for a move\nfrom Oregon to Hawaii, where she was transferred after a tour of duty in Iraq. Once\nshe was in Hawaii, after her belongings were loaded on the moving truck and taken\naway, she contacted the moving company about delivery and was told that she should\nsend a money order for the full balance of her move after which her goods would be\ndelivered. Shortly after mailing the money order for $2,131\xe2\x80\x94the quote she received\nover the telephone\xe2\x80\x94the moving company told her that due to the weight of her goods,\nthe price of her move had increased an additional $3,246, and she needed to send that\namount before her goods would be delivered. She subsequently mailed them the\nadditional money.\n\nThree months after her initial move, she received one of the two pallets of household\ngoods from DHX, a company Kasprowicz had contracted with to actually ship her\ngoods. However, Kasprowicz had never paid DHX for the shipment so she was\nunable to get the rest of her belongings until she settled the balance of the unpaid bill.\nOur investigation identified a total of seven victims who were collectively defrauded\n\n3\n Kasprowicz was previously prosecuted for operating over a dozen rogue HHG moving companies and violated Federal\n and State Permanent Injunction Orders prohibiting him from doing business in the household goods arena.\n\n\n 5\n\x0cout of $9,691. Kasprowicz was convicted on mail fraud charges in connection with\nhis HHG fraud scheme and sentenced to 33 months in prison, 5 years of supervised\nrelease, and payment of $9,691 in restitution.\n\nAY Transport (Carrier) and National Moving Network (Broker) Investigation:\nOur HHG investigations also led to the indictment of 14 individuals associated with\nAY Transport, Inc. 4 and National Moving Network (NMN) 5 in U.S. District Court,\nSan Jose, California, on charges of extortion and fraud upon consumers in residential\nmoves.\n\nIn this case, NMN brokered moves for other moving carriers and customarily\nprovided fraudulently low quotes over the telephone to customers. NMN management\noften held meetings with sales representatives to discuss ways to manipulate the\nbidding process to ensure customers received these low quotes and agreed to do\nbusiness with the company. Because sales representatives received commission based\non the number of quotes accepted by customers, they actively participated in\nproviding the fraudulently low quotes. In addition to providing customers with\nartificial and fraudulently low quotes, it was common knowledge among the sales\nrepresentatives that the majority of the business was directed to AY Transport. The\nsales reps were aware that once AY Transport took possession of the customers\xe2\x80\x99\nhousehold goods, they habitually and systemically demanded amounts up to four\ntimes over NMN\xe2\x80\x99s original quote.\n\nIn one such move, a family found NMN on the Internet and contacted them to arrange\na move from California to Alabama, a relocation made necessary due to a new job.\nAfter describing the contents of his home, the customer received a telephone quote of\n$1,400 and gave NMN a $500 deposit. On moving day, AY Transport showed up and\ntook possession of the family\xe2\x80\x99s household goods, and the customer paid the driver\naround $900. After arriving in Alabama, he called NMN numerous times to arrange\ndelivery of his possessions. Eventually, he spoke to an AY Transport employee who\ntold him that if he wanted his goods delivered he needed to pay an additional $1,600\nto cover costs associated with extra boxes, fuel, delivery fee, and storage, which,\nironically, the employee said was necessary because the company could not get in\ntouch with him to arrange delivery. Because AY Transport was holding the family\xe2\x80\x99s\npossessions hostage, the victim\xe2\x80\x99s children and pregnant wife had to sleep on the floor.\nThe victim was forced to pay the additional fees and had to drive 4 hours to retrieve\nthe family\xe2\x80\x99s goods himself.\n\nTo date, our investigation of AY Transport and NMN has uncovered over\n1,000 victims with a loss of just over $1 million. Thus far, 9 of the 14 defendants have\npleaded guilty, 1 has accepted a pre-trial diversion, and 3 are fugitives. One defendant\n\n4\n Also known as Progressive Van Lines and Midwest Relocation Services.\n5\n AY Transport was a moving company based in San Jose, California; NMN was a moving broker in Miami, Florida.\n\n\n 6\n\x0crecently went to trial, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Of those defendants\nwho have pleaded guilty, five have been sentenced and ordered to pay restitution of\nover $32,000.\n\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99S \xe2\x80\x9cOPERATION BOXED UP\xe2\x80\x9d AGGRESSIVELY TARGETS\nCOMPLICIT HHG CARRIERS AND BROKERS\nIn recognizing the significant, negative impact that rogue HHG motor carriers and\nbrokers can have on our Nation's consumers and workforce, our office developed a\nstrategy to focus our investigative resources in this area of fraud. In March 2011, we\nlaunched \xe2\x80\x9cOperation Boxed Up,\xe2\x80\x9d a proactive, cooperative initiative aimed at\nremoving unscrupulous HHG movers before they further victimize American\nconsumers. By analyzing databases from FMCSA\xe2\x80\x99s HHG regulatory program, we\nidentified the most egregious hostage load complaints consumers filed against HHG\ncarriers and brokers. We focused, in particular, on groups of interrelated carriers and\nbrokers engaged in hostage fraud schemes.\n\nWhen we formally kicked off Operation Boxed Up, we held a joint training session\nwith FMCSA, emphasizing the importance of OIG-FMSCA cooperation to target\nthose who prey on the trust of unsuspecting consumers. The training was a venue for\ninformation sharing, with FMCSA speaking in detail about how a moving company\ntypically perpetrates household goods fraud and the information available to the OIG\nthrough FMCSA's databases. OIG agents talked about recent successful investigations\nof fraudulent movers. Staff from both agencies learned a lot about their mutual\ncapabilities and expertise relating to HHG fraud.\n\nApproximately half of our open HHG investigations are from our Operation Boxed\nUp data analysis project. Through this initiative we have executed eight search\nwarrants and made seven arrests. Further, nine individuals have been indicted in\nconnection with these fraud schemes. Our investigations continue to identify\nunscrupulous fraudsters who prey on individuals unfamiliar with the moving industry\nrules and regulations.\n\nCases identified through Operation Boxed Up include the following:\n\nOperation Boxed Up Case Examples\nNew York Search and Arrest Warrants: We executed a Federal search warrant and\narrested three officials of companies that had a pattern of providing customers at or\nbelow market value estimates and then substantially increasing them after the contents\nof the customers\xe2\x80\x99 homes were loaded on the companies\xe2\x80\x99 trucks. Specifically, the\ncompany officials provided customers a verbal quote of $2,000 to $3,000, then raised\nthe costs several thousand dollars, demanding full payment prior to delivery; if\npayment was not received, they threatened to auction off the property.\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cIn one such case, a customer was quoted a price of $1,056 for a move from North\nCarolina to Texas based on an itemized list that she prepared and emailed per the\ncompany\xe2\x80\x99s instructions and an approximate weight of 2,000 pounds. The customer\nwas also told that she would receive 25 large packing boxes for free if she hired the\ncompany. She subsequently agreed to the terms of the quotation and provided a small\ncredit card deposit to the company.\n\nHowever, on the day of the move, after her household goods were loaded on the truck,\nshe was told that the cost of the move would increase to over $5,700 based on cubic\nfeet. In response, the victim demanded the company representatives unload and put\nthe items back in her house. The representatives then told her that the price would\nlikely decrease once her household goods were weighed. Feeling backed into a corner,\nshe allowed the company to drive away with her possessions. Ultimately, the price did\nnot decrease and the victim\xe2\x80\x99s credit card was charged over $5,700.\n\nDuring our investigation into this company and its many victims, OIG agents used\nelectronic monitoring equipment, which captured company representatives telling\nvictims that if they failed to pay additional charges, their goods would be auctioned.\n\nFMCSA has received over 100 complaints against the subjects of this investigation.\nThe potential fraud amount is as high as $250,000.\n\nColorado Indictments: Another Operation Boxed Up investigation led to the\nindictment of the owners and two employees of two related moving companies on\ncharges associated with hostage HHG schemes designed to unjustly enrich the owners\nof the companies. This scheme involved HHG brokers (or companies representing\nthemselves as HHG brokers) luring customers by offering extremely low moving\nestimates, transferring the brokered loads to the unscrupulous carrier or one of its\naffiliates, and taking possession of customers' household goods. The mover would\nthen significantly increase the price and withhold delivery of the household goods\nuntil the customers paid the fraudulently inflated price. In addition, customers were\nthreatened that if they refused to pay, their household goods would be auctioned.\n\nIn one such case, an elderly couple relocating from Colorado to Nevada because of\nthe wife\xe2\x80\x99s poor health contacted a trucking company, found on the Internet, which\nacted as an HHG broker but was not registered with FMCSA as either an HHG broker\nor carrier. The customer was provided a $1,340 estimate and paid a\n$260 deposit. On moving day, while the movers started moving the contents of his\nhome, an employee of the moving company had the customer sign documents that\n\xe2\x80\x9cgave them permission to move his household goods.\xe2\x80\x9d When the customer tried to ask\nquestions about the forms, the mover told him they would go over the paperwork\nlater. After his property was loaded on the truck, the mover provided copies of some\nof the signed documents but many, including a Revised Written Estimate, were blank.\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cLater that day, after the contents of the his home had been loaded on the truck and\ndriven away, he was told that the cost of the move would now be around $7,400\xe2\x80\x94\nmore than a 500-percent increase. Included in the goods being held hostage was the\ncustomer\xe2\x80\x99s wife\xe2\x80\x99s wheelchair, which the owners of the HHG carrier flat out refused to\nrelease, saying \xe2\x80\x9cyou are not getting it, period\xe2\x80\x9d or any of the other property until the\nextortionate revised cost of the move was paid. We later found out that the owner of\nthe moving company was using this victim\xe2\x80\x99s computer and his flat screen television in\nthe business.\n\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s investigation of these complicit companies has identified 36 victims to date,\nwith an approximate loss of around $126,000.\n\nTexas Indictments: Another Operation Boxed Up investigation led to the indictment\nof three individuals posing as legitimate moving companies on State of Texas\ndeceptive practices charges. Between May 2009 and January 2012, the three engaged\nin a number of typical hostage HHG fraud schemes designed to unjustly enrich\nthemselves.\n\nIn one case, a single mother of two young children, was quoted a price of $39 per\nhour for an intrastate moving job that ended up taking just less than the agreed to\nminimum of 3 hours. When the movers arrived at the customer\xe2\x80\x99s new home, she was\ntold she owed $3,908 in cash; $3,000 of the charge was for bubble wrap. Because she\ndid not have the cash, everything the mover loaded in the truck has yet to be returned.\n\nIn another case, a customer was told an intrastate moving job would cost\napproximately $400. After the contents of his home were loaded on the truck, the\ncustomer was told he would have to pay $5,000 to get his possessions back. The\nvictim still has not received his goods.\n\nThe investigation has revealed a total of 46 individuals that have been defrauded by\nthis group, with a total fraud amount of $244,206.\n\nOIG HAS RAISED PUBLIC AWARENESS\nBased on our experience working HHG fraud investigations, we have identified the\nfollowing red flag indicators for consumers.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The company\xe2\x80\x99s Web site has no local address and no information about its\n FMCSA registration or insurance.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 When you call the mover, the telephone is answered with a generic \xe2\x80\x9cMovers\xe2\x80\x9d or\n \xe2\x80\x9cMoving Company,\xe2\x80\x9d rather than the company\xe2\x80\x99s name.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The mover does not offer or agree to an onsite inspection of your household\n goods, gives an estimate over the telephone or Internet\xe2\x80\x94sight unseen\xe2\x80\x94and does\n\n\n 9\n\x0c not provide you with either a \xe2\x80\x9cbinding\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cnon-binding\xe2\x80\x9d written estimate. These\n estimates will often sound too good to be true, and they usually are.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The mover does not provide you with a copy of \xe2\x80\x9cYour Rights and Responsibilities\n When You Move, 6\xe2\x80\x9d a booklet movers are required by Federal regulations to\n supply to their customers in the planning stages of interstate moves.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The moving company demands cash or a large deposit before the move.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 On moving day, a rental truck arrives rather than a company owned or marked\n fleet truck.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 On moving day, the moving truck driver or foreman will try to get you to sign\n blank documents before beginning to load your goods. Never sign blank forms,\n and read what you sign.\n\nCONCLUSION\nIn closing, I want to assure you that we remain committed to protecting the American\nconsumer from these greed-based schemes by continuing to work with Congress, the\nDepartment, and other law enforcement partners to identify, investigate, and\nprosecute rogue HHG movers to the fullest extent of the law.\n\nIn the very near future, OIG will unveil a \xe2\x80\x98most wanted\xe2\x80\x99 Web page that will identify\ndefendants charged with transportation-related crimes (including hostage goods fraud) and\nwho have fled the court\xe2\x80\x99s jurisdiction and/or the United States, rather than face prosecution\nor serve a sentence. Similar to FBI\xe2\x80\x99s list of most wanted, we encourage the public not to\nattempt to apprehend any of these individuals, rather they should notify us with information\nthey have which might help bring these fugitives to justice.\n\nMr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to address any\nquestions you or other Members of the Committee may have.\n\n\n\n\n6\n https://www.protectyourmove.gov/consumer/awareness/rights/rights.htm\n\n\n 10\n\x0c"