text:
DOSP 14/09/2019 - Pg. 199 - Executivo - caderno 1 | Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo | Diários Jusbrasil
 Página 199 da Executivo - Caderno 1 do Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo (DOSP) de 14 de Setembro de 2019
 (Enfermagem); 8 – 140961– Primeiros Socorros (Enfermagem); 9 – 436341– Saúde e Segurança Ocupacional (Enfermagem).
 ESCOLA TÉCNICA ESTADUAL SEBASTIANA AUGUSTA DE MORAES – ANDRADINA
 PROCESSO SELETIVO SIMPLIFICADO PARA FORMAÇÃO DE CADASTRO RESERVA, PARA PROFESSOR DE ENSINO MÉDIO E TÉCNICO, No 028/02/2019, PROCESSO No 929433/2019
 DESPACHO DO DIRETOR DE ESCOLA TÉCNICA DE 12/09/2019
 O Diretor da ESCOLA TÉCNICA ESTADUAL SEBASTIANA AUGUSTA DE MORAES, no uso das atribuições conferidas por meio do § 1o do artigo 3o da Deliberação CEETEPS no 41/2018, HOMOLOGA o Processo Seletivo Simplificado de Docentes, no (s) componente (s) curricular (es): 1 – 409456– Gestão da Produção Animal I (Agronegócio); 2 – 409451– Gestão da Produção Vegetal I (Agronegócio); 3 – 96565– Economia na Agropecuária (Agronegócio); 4 – 96576– Linguagem, Trabalho e Tecnologia (Agronegócio); 6 – 96654– Aplicativos Informatizados (Recursos Humanos); 7 – 261741– Legislação Previdenciária e Tributária (Recursos Humanos); 8 – 162785– Práticas de Departamento Pessoal (Recursos Humanos); 9 – 455349– Psicologia e Processo de Motivação e Liderança (Recursos Humanos) , e considerando a não ocorrência de candidato (s) inscrito (s) e / ou aprovado (s), e / ou candidato (s) ausente (s) ENCERRA o Processo Seletivo Simplificado de Docentes, no (s) componente (s) curricular (es): 5 – 316558– Inglês Instrumental (Agronegócio).
 ESCOLA TÉCNICA ESTADUAL DE SÃO PAULO – SÃO PAULO PROCESSO SELETIVO SIMPLIFICADO PARA FORMAÇÃO DE CADASTRO RESERVA, PARA PROFESSOR DE ENSINO MÉDIO E TÉCNICO, No 018/07/2019, PROCESSO No 763461/2019
 O Diretor da ESCOLA TÉCNICA ESTADUAL DE SÃO PAULO, no uso das atribuições conferidas por meio do § 1o do artigo 3o da Deliberação CEETEPS no 41/2018, HOMOLOGA o Processo Seletivo Simplificado de Docentes, no (s) componente (s) curricular (es): 1 – 522392– Segurança e Primeiros Socorros em Eventos (Eventos); 2 – 310891– Técnicas e Práticas de Lazer (Eventos); 3 – 93797– Ética e Cidadania Organizacional (Eventos); 6 – 93809– Marketing (Eventos); 8 – 242546– Direito e Legislação em Eventos (Eventos); 9 – 242549– Gestão Administrativa de Eventos (Eventos) , e considerando a não ocorrência de candidato (s) inscrito (s) e / ou aprovado (s), e / ou candidato (s) ausente (s) ENCERRA o Processo Seletivo Simplificado de Docentes, no (s) componente (s) curricular (es): 4 – 393963– Linguagem, Trabalho e Tecnologia (Eventos); 5 – 310888– Inglês Instrumental I (Eventos); 7 – 310911– Espanhol Instrumental II (Eventos).
 ESCOLA TÉCNICA ESTADUAL DE SÃO PAULO – SÃO PAULO PROCESSO SELETIVO SIMPLIFICADO PARA FORMAÇÃO DE CADASTRO RESERVA, PARA PROFESSOR DE ENSINO MÉDIO E TÉCNICO, No 018/06/2019, PROCESSO No 764083/2019
 O Diretor da ESCOLA TÉCNICA ESTADUAL DE SÃO PAULO, no uso das atribuições conferidas por meio do § 1o do artigo 3o da Deliberação CEETEPS no 41/2018, HOMOLOGA o Processo Seletivo Simplificado de Docentes, no (s) componente (s) curricular (es): 4 – 590733– Ética e Cidadania Organizacional (Turismo Receptivo); 6 – 590732– Aplicativos Informatizados na Área de Turismo (Turismo Receptivo); 7 – 590737– Organização de Atividades Recreativas (Turismo Receptivo); 9 – 664393– Empreendedorismo no Setor de Turismo (Turismo Receptivo); 10 – 664396– Marketing Aplicado ao Turismo (Turismo Receptivo) , e considerando a não ocorrência de candidato (s) inscrito (s) e / ou aprovado (s), e / ou candidato (s) ausente (s) ENCERRA o Processo Seletivo Simplificado de Docentes, no (s) componente (s) curricular (es): 1 – 664395– Inglês Aplicado no Setor de Turismo (Turismo Receptivo); 2 – 664385– Espanhol Aplicado ao Guiamento de Turistas I (Turismo Receptivo); 3 – 664394– Espanhol Aplicado ao Guiamento de Turistas II (Turismo Receptivo); 5 – 590736– Linguagem, Trabalho e Tecnologia (Turismo Receptivo); 8 – 664398– Primeiros Socorros e Segurança no Trabalho (Turismo Receptivo).
 ESCOLA TÉCNICA ESTADUAL DE SÃO PAULO – SÃO PAULO PROCESSO SELETIVO SIMPLIFICADO PARA FORMAÇÃO DE CADASTRO RESERVA, PARA PROFESSOR DE ENSINO MÉDIO E TÉCNICO, No 018/02/2019, PROCESSO No 659561/2019
 O Diretor da ESCOLA TÉCNICA ESTADUAL DE SÃO PAULO, no uso das atribuições conferidas por meio do § 1o do artigo 3o da Deliberação CEETEPS no 41/2018, HOMOLOGA o Processo Seletivo Simplificado de Docentes, no (s) componente (s) curricular (es): 1 – 589338– Técnicas Organizacionais (Administração Integrado ao Ensino Médio (ETIM / MTec)); 2 – 590803– Administração em Marketing (Administração); 3 – 499749– Custos e Operações Contábeis (Administração); 4 – 69986– Gestão de Pessoas I (Administração); 5 – 393486– Gestão de Pessoas II (Administração); 6 – 500024– Gestão de Pessoas III (Administração); 7 – 76436– Gestão Empreendedora e Inovação (Administração); 8 – 69987– Gestão Empresarial (para a Habilitação Administração)(Administração); 9 – 75917– Gestão Financeira e Econômica (Administração); 10 – 499745– Legislação Empresarial (Administração) .
 FACULDADE DE TECNOLOGIA DE ITAQUAQUECETUBA – ITAQUAQUECETUBA
 EDITAL No 155/03/2019 – PROCESSO No 2198122/2019
 O Diretor de Faculdade de Tecnologia da FACULDADE DE TECNOLOGIA DE ITAQUAQUECETUBA, de acordo com o artigo 10 da Deliberação CEETEPS 017/2015, publicada no DOE de 18/07/2015, Seção I, Página 39, comunica aos candidatos abaixo relacionados:
 CURSO SUPERIOR DE TECNOLOGIA EM TECNOLOGIA EM SECRETARIADO
 DISCIPLINA: Tecnologia em Secretariado – Postura, Etiqueta e Relações Interpessoais
 A – CANDIDATO CLASSIFICADO E CLASSIFICAÇÃO FINAL No INSCRIÇÃO / NOME / RG / CPF / NOTA / CLASSIFICAÇÃO FINAL
 3 / Alice Mara Tepedino / 24968746 / 18313570890 / 474,00 / 1o
 B – CANDIDATOS NÃO CLASSIFICADOS E MOTIVO DA NÃO CLASSIFICAÇÃO
 01 / 23197016 / 13528568836 / Não atendimento ao item 10.1, do inciso III do edital de abertura de inscrições;
 2 / 42825510–3 / 36398147898 / Não atendimento ao item 10.1, do inciso III do edital de abertura de inscrições.
 FACULDADE DE TECNOLOGIA PREFEITO HIRANT SANAZAR – OSASCO
 PROCESSO SELETIVO SIMPLIFICADO, NOS TERMOS DA DELIBERAÇÃO CEETEPS 17, DE 16/07/2015
 EDITAL No 216/12/2019 – PROCESSO No 618982/2019
 EDITAL DE CONVOCAÇÃO No 3
 O Diretor da FACULDADE DE TECNOLOGIA PREFEITO HIRANT SANAZAR, da cidade de OSASCO, no uso das atribuições e competências conferidas por meio do artigo 10 da Deliberação CEETEPS 017/2015, de 16, publicada no DOE de 18/07/2015, e acolhendo a manifestação da Unidade do Ensino Superior de Graduação (CESU) referente a análise de equivalência, conforme Informação No 1248/2019 – CESU, de 30/08/2019, CONVOCA os candidatos abaixo relacionados, para a SESSÃO DE ESCOLHA DE AULAS, no dia 17/09/2019 (terça-feira), às 10 horas, no endereço abaixo indicado.
 Os candidatos convocados deverão comparecer com documento de identidade ou far-se-ão representar por procurador constituído, munido de documento de identidade do procurador.
 A escolha e atribuição de aulas obedecerá rigorosamente a ordem de classificação final. O candidato não aproveitado aguardará nova oportunidade de convocação.
 O candidato que atender a convocação, mas não for aproveitado (após a escolha e atribuição de aulas) aguardará nova oportunidade de convocação.
 Local de apresentação: FACULDADE DE TECNOLOGIA PREFEITO HIRANT SANAZAR
 Endereço: RUA PEDRO RISSATO, 30 - Cidade: OSASCO
 DISCIPLINA E CURSO OFERECIDOS NO EDITAL:
 Curso Superior de Tecnologia em Manutenção Industrial Áreas da Disciplina: Ciência da Computação / Matemática e Estatística
 Disciplina e carga horária: Lógica de Programação - 04 horas-aula
 CONVOCA POR EQUIVALÊNCIA PARA:
 Curso Superior de Tecnologia em Redes de Computadores Áreas da Disciplina: Ciência da Computação / Matemática e Estatística
 Disciplina e carga horária: Linguagem de Programação para Ambientes de Redes II - 04 horas-aula / Vespertino.
 No INSCRIÇÃO / NOME / RG / CPF / CLASSIFICAÇÃO
 04 / Marcus Grilo / 435001632 / 34310769802 / 6o
 11 / Luciano Camilo Malvesti / 264347468 / 19629430894 / 7o 03 / Alexandre Ricardo di Primio / 226334442 / 14858139808 / 8o
 EDITAL DE ABERTURA DE INSCRIÇÕES AO CONCURSO PÚBLICO PARA PROFESSOR DE ENSINO SUPERIOR No 171/01/2019 – PROCESSO No 2366957/2019
 O CENTRO ESTADUAL DE EDUCAÇÃO TECNOLÓGICA PAULA SOUZA – CEETEPS, à vista das disposições do Decreto no 60.449, de 15/05/2014, publicado no DOE de 16/05/2014, através da Comissão Especial de Concurso Público da FACULDADE DE TECNOLOGIA PROFESSOR JOSÉ CAMARGO, designada conforme Portaria do Diretor de Faculdade de Tecnologia no 37 , nos termos da Portaria CEETEPS–GDS no 914, de 14/01/2015, publicada no DOE de 15/01/2015, republicada no DOE de 28/01/2015, em face da autorização governamental específica, constante do Processo no 818/2018 (com manifestação do Comitê Gestor do Gasto Público, instituído pelo Decreto no 64.065, de 02/01/2019) e com fundamento na Deliberação CEETEPS no 9/2015, de 09/01/2015, publicada no DOE de 10/01/2015 e alterada pela Deliberação CEETEPS no 24, de 13/08/2015, publicada no DOE de 19/09/2015, TORNA PÚBLICA A ABERTURA de inscrições ao Concurso Público para preencher, mediante admissão, à luz do disposto no artigo 10 da Lei Complementar no 1.044, de 13/05/2008, publicada no DOE de 14/05/2008, alterada pelo inciso III do artigo 1o da Lei Complementar no 1.240, de 22/04/2014, publicada no DOE de 23/04/2014,e alterada pela Lei Complementar no 1.343, de 26/08/2019, publicada no DOE de 27/08/2019, o (s) emprego (s) público (s) permanente (s) de Professor de Ensino Superior, PERTENCENTE AO QUADRO DE PESSOAL DO CEETEPS, na disciplina discriminada no Capítulo II deste Edital.
 1. Curso Superior de Tecnologia em GESTÃO EMPRESARIAL. 2. Área (s) da Disciplina: ADMINISTRAÇÃO E NEGÓCIOS / COMUNICAÇÃO VISUAL E MULTIMIDIA /JORNALISMO E REPORTAGEM/ LETRAS E LINGUISTICA (Abrange tecnologias, licenciaturas e bacharelados)
 3. Disciplina, carga horária semanal e período: COMUNICAÇÃO EMPRESARIAL GERAL / 2 (DUAS) HORAS-AULA - NOTURNO
 1. Graduação e titulação em programas de mestrado ou doutorado reconhecidos ou recomendados na forma da lei, sendo a graduação ou a titulação na área da disciplina; ou
 2. Graduação e especialização, cumulativamente, na área da disciplina e possuir experiência profissional relevante de pelo menos 03 anos na área da disciplina.
 1. As inscrições serão recebidas no período de 17/09/2019 à 01/10/2019, no horário das DAS 8H ÀS 12H E DAS 14H ÀS 17H, no local abaixo indicado:
 Unidade de Ensino FACULDADE DE TECNOLOGIA PROFESSOR JOSÉ CAMARGO
 Endereço: RUA VICENTE LEPORACE – 2.630
 BAIRRO: JARDIM TRIANON – CEP: 15703–116 – CIDADE: JALES
 Informações: Telefone: (17) 3621–6911/3632–2239 – e– mail: [email protected]
 Site da Unidade: www.fatecjales.edu.br
 3.1. Laudo médico original ou cópia autenticada legível, com validade de 2 (dois) anos a contar da data de início da inscrição no Concurso quando a deficiência for permanente ou


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 2.6.2011
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 147/1
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) št. 536/2011
 z dne 1. junija 2011
 o spremembi Priloge II k Odločbi 2007/777/ES in Priloge I k Uredbi (ES) št. 798/2008 glede vnosov za Južno Afriko na seznamu tretjih držav ali delov tretjih držav
 (Besedilo velja za EGP)
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Direktive Sveta 2002/99/ES z dne 16. decembra 2002 o predpisih v zvezi z zdravstvenim varstvom živali, ki urejajo proizvodnjo, predelavo, distribucijo in uvoz proizvodov živalskega izvora, namenjenih prehrani ljudi (1), in zlasti uvodnega stavka člena 8, prvega odstavka točke 1 člena 8 in točke 4 člena 8 Direktive,
 ob upoštevanju Direktive Sveta 2009/158/ES z dne 30. novembra 2009 o pogojih zdravstvenega stanja živali, ki veljajo znotraj Skupnosti za trgovanje s perutnino in valilnimi jajci ter za njihov uvoz iz tretjih držav (2), in zlasti člena 23(1) in člena 24(2) Direktive,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Odločba Komisije 2007/777/ES z dne 29. novembra 2007 o pogojih v zvezi z zdravstvenim varstvom živali in javnozdravstvenim varstvom ter vzorcih spričeval za uvoz iz tretjih držav nekaterih mesnih izdelkov in obdelanih želodcev, mehurjev in črev za prehrano ljudi in o razveljavitvi Odločbe 2005/432/ES (3) določa pravila za uvoz v Unijo pošiljk mesnih izdelkov, kakor so opredeljeni v točki 7.1 Priloge I k Uredbi (ES) št. 853/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. aprila 2004 o posebnih higienskih predpisih za živila živalskega izvora (4), ter njihov tranzit skozi Unijo in skladiščenje v Uniji, ter pošiljk obdelanih želodcev, mehurjev in črev, kakor so opredeljeni v točki 7.9 navedene priloge.
 (2)
 Odločba 2007/777/ES določa tudi sezname tretjih držav in delov tretjih držav, iz katerih so dovoljeni tak uvoz, tranzit in skladiščenje, veterinarska spričevala in spričevala o zdravstveni ustreznosti ter potrebne obdelave za navedene izdelke.
 (3)
 Del 2 Priloge II k Odločbi 2007/777/ES določa seznam tretjih držav ali delov tretjih držav, iz katerih je v Unijo dovoljen uvoz mesnih izdelkov in obdelanih želodcev, mehurjev in črev, ki so predmet različnih obdelav iz dela 4 navedene priloge.
 (4)
 Južna Afrika je na seznamu v delu 2 Priloge II k Odločbi 2007/777/ES kot pooblaščena za uvoz mesnih izdelkov, obdelanih želodcev, mehurjev in črev za prehrano ljudi, pripravljenih iz mesa gojenih ratitov, ki so bili predmet splošne obdelave, za katero ni določena najnižja temperatura („obdelava A“).
 (5)
 Del 3 Priloge II k Odločbi 2007/777/ES določa seznam tretjih držav ali delov tretjih držav, iz katerih je dovoljen uvoz v Unijo na soncu sušenih mesnih rezin (biltong) in pasteriziranih mesnih izdelkov, ki so predmet različnih obdelav iz dela 4 navedene priloge.
 (6)
 Južna Afrika je na seznamu v delu 3 Priloge II k Odločbi 2007/777/ES kot pooblaščena za uvoz v Unijo na soncu sušenih mesnih rezin (biltong), narejenih iz mesa perutnine, gojene pernate divjadi, ratitov in divjih ptic ali ki tako meso vsebujejo, ki so bile predmet posebne obdelave („obdelava E“).
 (7)
 Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 798/2008 z dne 8. avgusta 2008 o določitvi seznama tretjih držav, ozemelj, območij ali kompartmentov, iz katerih se dovolita uvoz perutnine in perutninskih proizvodov v Skupnost in njihov tranzit skozi Skupnost, ter zahtevah za izdajanje veterinarskih spričeval (5) določa zahteve veterinarskih spričeval za uvoz perutnine, valilnih jajc, enodnevnih piščancev in jajc, prostih specificiranih patogenih organizmov, mesa, mletega mesa in mehansko izkoščenega mesa perutnine, vključno z ratiti in divjimi pticami, jajci in jajčnimi izdelki, ter njihov tranzit skozi Unijo. Navedena uredba določa tudi, da se uvoz blaga, ki ga zajema navedena uredba, v Unijo in njegov tranzit skozi Unijo opravita le iz tretjih držav, ozemelj, območij ali kompartmentov, ki so navedeni v preglednici v delu 1 Priloge I k navedeni uredbi.
 (8)
 Južna Afrika je na seznamu v delu 1 Priloge I k Uredbi (ES) št. 798/2008 kot pooblaščena za uvoz v Unijo matičnih in proizvodnih ratitov ter enodnevnih piščancev, valilnih jajc in mesa ratitov.
 (9)
 Uredba (ES) št. 798/2008 tudi določa pogoje za tretjo državo, ozemlje, območje ali kompartment, da se šteje za prosto visoko patogene aviarne influence (HPAI), in ustrezne zahteve za izdajanje veterinarskih spričeval za blago, namenjeno uvozu v Unijo.
 (10)
 Južna Afrika je Komisijo obvestila o izbruhu HPAI podtipa H5N2 na svojem ozemlju 9. aprila 2011.
 (11)
 Zaradi potrjenega izbruha HPAI se ozemlje Južne Afrike ne bo več štelo za prosto navedene bolezni. Posledično so južnoafriški veterinarski organi začasno ustavili izdajanje veterinarskih spričeval za pošiljke zadevnega blaga s takojšnjim učinkom. Vnos za Južno Afriko v delu 1 Priloge I k Uredbi (ES) št. 798/2008 je zato treba ustrezno spremeniti.
 (12)
 Poleg tega zaradi izbruha HPAI Južna Afrika več ne izpolnjuje pogojev zdravstvenega stanja živali za uporabo „obdelave A“ za blago, narejeno bodisi iz mesa ali ki vsebuje meso gojenih ratitov bodisi iz obdelanih želodcev, mehurjev in črev ratitov, namenjeno prehrani ljudi, s seznama v delu 2 Priloge II k Odločbi 2007/777/ES, in za uporabo „obdelave E“ za na soncu sušene mesne rezine (biltong) in pasterizirane mesne izdelke, narejene iz mesa perutnine, gojene pernate divjadi, ratitov in divjih ptic ali ki tako meso vsebujejo, s seznama v delu 3 navedene priloge. Navedene obdelave ne zadoščajo za odpravo tveganj za zdravje živali, povezanih z navedenim blagom. Vnose za Južno Afriko za navedeno blago v delih 2 in 3 Priloge II k Odločbi 2007/777/ES je zato treba spremeniti, da se v njih navede primerna obdelava.
 (13)
 Odločbo 2007/777/ES in Uredbo (ES) št. 798/2008 je zato treba ustrezno spremeniti.
 (14)
 Ukrepi, predvideni s to uredbo, so v skladu z mnenjem Stalnega odbora za prehranjevalno verigo in zdravje živali –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Priloga II k Odločbi 2007/777/ES se spremeni v skladu s Prilogo I k tej uredbi.
 Člen 2
 Priloga I k Uredbi (ES) št. 798/2008 se spremeni v skladu s Prilogo II k tej uredbi.
 Člen 3
 Ta uredba začne veljati tretji dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 1. junija 2011
 Za Komisijo
 Predsednik
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) UL L 18, 23.1.2003, str. 11.
 (2) UL L 343, 22.12.2009, str. 74.
 (3) UL L 312, 30.11.2007, str. 49.
 (4) UL L 139, 30.4.2004, str. 55.
 (5) UL L 226, 23.8.2008, str. 1.
 PRILOGA I
 Priloga II k Odločbi 2007/777/ES se spremeni:
 1.
 v delu 2 se vnos za Južno Afriko nadomesti z naslednjim:
 „ZA
 Južna Afrika (1)
 C
 C
 C
 A
 D
 D
 A
 C
 C
 A
 A
 D
 XXX“
 2.
 v delu 3 se vnos za Južno Afriko nadomesti z naslednjim:
 „ZA
 Južna Afrika
 XXX
 XXX
 XXX
 XXX
 D
 D
 A
 XXX
 XXX
 A
 A
 D
 XXX“
 Južna Afrika ZA-1
 E
 E
 XXX
 XXX
 D
 D
 A
 E
 XXX
 A
 A
 D
 PRILOGA II
 V delu 1 Priloge I k Uredbi (ES) št. 798/2008 se vnos za Južno Afriko nadomesti z naslednjim:
 „ZA – Južna Afrika
 ZA-0
 Celotno ozemlje države
 SPF
 EP, E
 S4“
 BPR
 I
 P2
 9.4.2011
 A
 DOR
 II
 HER
 III
 RAT
 VII
 P2
 9.4.2011


type: caselaw

text:
 25.4.2016
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 C 145/32
 Recurs introdus la 26 februarie 2016 de Nicole Clarke, Sigrid Dickmanns și Elisavet Papathanasiou împotriva Hotărârii din 15 decembrie 2015 a Tribunalului Funcției Publice în cauzele conexate F-101/14, F-102/14 și F-103/14, Clarke și alții/EUIPO
 (Cauza T-89/16 P)
 (2016/C 145/39)
 Limba de procedură: germana
 Părțile
 Recurente: Nicole Clarke (Alicante, Spania), Sigrid Dickmanns (Gran Alacant, Spania) și Elisavet Papathanasiou (Alicante) (reprezentant: H. Tettenborn, avocat)
 Cealaltă parte din procedură: Oficiul Uniunii Europene pentru Proprietate Intelectuală (EUIPO)
 Concluziile
 Recurentele solicită Tribunalului:
 —
 anularea în întregime a Hotărârii Tribunalului Funcției Publice a Uniunii Europene (Camera a treia) din 15 decembrie 2015 în cauzele conexate F-101/14, F-102/14 și F-103/14;
 —
 admiterea concluziilor formulate de recurente în aceste proceduri;
 —
 obligarea EUIPO la plata cheltuielilor de judecată aferente întregii proceduri – și anume, procedurii în fața Tribunalului Funcției Publice a Uniunii Europene, precum și procedurii de recurs în fața Tribunalului Uniunii Europene.
 Motivele și principalele argumente
 În susținerea recursului, recurentele invocă patru motive.
 1.
 Primul motiv, întemeiat pe aplicarea eronată a clauzei de reziliere cuprinse în contractele de agent temporar ale recurentelor, precum și a „protocoalelor de reintegrare” încheiate între EUIPO și recurentele menționate, în sensul că prezentele concursuri nu sunt „următoarele” concursuri în sensul clauzei de reziliere.
 2.
 Al doilea motiv, întemeiat pe aplicarea eronată a clauzei de reziliere cuprinse în contractele de agent temporar ale recurentelor întrucât prezentele concursuri nu privesc domeniul de specializare al „proprietății industriale” prevăzut în această clauză de reziliere și, prin urmare, nu pot determina aplicarea în mod valabil a clauzei de reziliere în cauză
 În cadrul primelor două motive, recurentele reproșează Tribunalului Funcției Publice (denumit în continuare „TFP”) că, în hotărârea atacată, nu a respectat textul, sensul și finalitatea clauzei de reziliere și nici orizontul temporal și aplicabilitatea sa în timp.
 3.
 Al treilea motiv, întemeiat pe aplicarea eronată a articolului 8 primul paragraf din Regimul aplicabil celorlalți agenți ai Uniunii Europene (denumit în continuare „RAA”)
 Recurentele invocă în acest context că, în hotărârea atacată, TFP nu a ținut seama de faptul că „protocoalele de reintegrare” pe care acestea le semnaseră cu EUIPO constituiau, în fiecare caz, în calitate de stipulație contractuală, cel puțin o a doua prelungire a contractelor lor de agent temporar, ceea ce, în temeiul dispozițiilor articolului 8 primul paragraf din RAA, avea drept consecință că acestea trebuiau să fie considerate contracte pe durată nedeterminată.
 4.
 Al patrulea motiv, întemeiat pe încălcarea obligației de diligență și a principiului încrederii legitime
 Sub acest aspect, recurentele reproșează TFP că s-a referit în mod eronat la data de reintegrare, iar nu la data semnării clauzei de reziliere pentru aprecierea aspectului dacă EUIPO și-a îndeplinit obligația de diligență sau dacă a încălcat principiul încrederii legitime, întrucât a așteptat nouă ani de la semnarea clauzei de reziliere înainte de a organiza concursul care trebuia să decidă viitorul profesional al recurentelor.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT\n OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n OFFICE OF AUDITS\n\n\n\n\n Final Audit Report\nSubject:\n\n Audit of the Federal Employees Health Benefits\n Program Operations at Union Health Service, Inc.\n\n\n Report No. 1C-76-00-12-006\n\n Date: August 20, 2012\n\n\n\n\n -- CAUTION --\nThis audit report has been distributed to Federal officials who are responsible for the administration of the audited program. This audit\nreport may contain proprietary data which is protected by Federal law (18 U.S.C. 1905). Therefore, while this audit report is available\nunder the Freedom of Information Act and made available to the public on the OIG webpage, caution needs to be exercised before\nreleasing the report to the general public as it may contain proprietary information that was redacted from the publicly distributed copy.\n\x0c AUDIT REPORT\n\n\n\n Federal Employees Health Benefits Program\n Community-Rated Health Maintenance Organization\n Union Health Service, Inc.\n Contract Number CS 1571 - Plan Code 76\n Chicago, Illinois\n\n\n\n Report No. 1C-76-00-12-006 Date: ___________________\n August 20, 2012\n\n\n\n\n Michael R. Esser\n Assistant Inspector General\n for Audits\n\n -- CAUTION --\nThis audit report has been distributed to Federal officials who are responsible for the administration of the audited program. This audit\nreport may contain proprietary data which is protected by Federal law (18 U.S.C. 1905). Therefore, while this audit report is available\nunder the Freedom of Information Act and made available to the public on the OIG webpage, caution needs to be exercised before\nreleasing the report to the general public as it may contain proprietary information that was redacted from the publicly distributed copy.\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\n\n\n\n Federal Employees Health Benefits Program\n Community-Rated Health Maintenance Organization\n Union Health Service, Inc.\n Contract Number CS 1571 - Plan Code 76\n Chicago, Illinois\n\n\n Report No. 1C-76-00-12-006 Date: August 20, 2012\n\nThe Office of the Inspector General performed an audit of the Federal Employees Health\nBenefits Program (FEHBP) operations at Union Health Service, Inc. (Plan). The audit covered\ncontract years 2007 through 2011, and was conducted at the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s office in Chicago, Illinois.\n\nThis report questions $1,110,730 for inappropriate health benefit charges to the FEHBP in\ncontract years 2007 through 2011. The questioned amounts include $1,035,784 for defective\npricing, and $74,946 due the FEHBP for lost investment income, calculated through June 30,\n2012.\n\nIn contract years 2007 through 2011, the Plan gave a similarly sized subscriber group (SSSG) a\ndiscount; however, the same discount was not given to the FEHBP. Applying the SSSG\ndiscounts to our audited rates results in overcharges to the FEHBP of $35,499; $68,307;\n$270,745; $612,425; and $48,808 in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively. Consistent\nwith the FEHBP regulations and contract, the FEHBP is due $74,946 for lost investment income,\ncalculated through June 30, 2012, on the defective pricing findings.\n\n\n\n\n i\n\x0c CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. i\n\n I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND..................................................................... 1\n\nII. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................... 3\n\nIII. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 5\n\n 1. Premium Rate Review ................................................................................................. 5\n\n 2. Loss Investment Income .............................................................................................. 8\n\nIV. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT .......................................................... 10\n\n Appendix (Union Health Service\xe2\x80\x99s May 21, 2012, response to the draft report)\n\x0c\x0cThe Plan has participated in the FEHBP since 1975 and provides health benefits to FEHBP\nmembers in the Chicago, Illinois area. The last audit of the Plan conducted by our office was in\n2006. All issues from that audit have been resolved.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c II. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\nObjectives\n\nThe primary objectives of the audit were to verify that the Plan offered market price rates to the\nFEHBP and to verify that the loadings to the FEHBP rates were reasonable and equitable.\nAdditional tests were performed to determine whether the Plan was in compliance with the\nprovisions of the laws and regulations governing the FEHBP.\n\nScope\n FEHBP Premiums Paid to Plan\n\nWe conducted this performance audit in\naccordance with generally accepted government $5\n\nauditing standards. Those standards require that $4\n\n\n\n\n Millions\nwe plan and perform the audit to obtain\n $3\nsufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a\nreasonable basis for our findings and conclusions $2\nbased on our audit objectives. We believe that\n $1\nthe evidence obtained provides a reasonable\nbasis for our findings and conclusions based on $0\n 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011\nour audit objectives. Revenue $2.3 $2.5 $2.6 $3.4 $4.4\n\n\nThis performance audit covered contract years\n2007 through 2011. For these contract years, the FEHBP paid approximately $15.2 million in\npremiums to the Plan. The premiums paid for each contract year audited are shown on the chart\nabove.\n\nOIG audits of community-rated carriers are designed to test carrier compliance with the FEHBP\ncontract, applicable laws and regulations, and OPM rate instructions. These audits are also\ndesigned to provide reasonable assurance of detecting errors, irregularities, and illegal acts.\n\nWe obtained an understanding of the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s internal control structure, but we did not use this\ninformation to determine the nature, timing, and extent of our audit procedures. However, the\naudit included such tests of the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s rating system and such other auditing procedures\nconsidered necessary under the circumstances. Our review of internal controls was limited to the\nprocedures the Plan has in place to ensure that:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The appropriate similarly sized subscriber groups (SSSG) were selected;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the rates charged to the FEHBP were the market price rates (i.e., equivalent to the best\n rate offered to the SSSGs); and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 the loadings to the FEHBP rates were reasonable and equitable.\n\nIn conducting the audit, we relied to varying degrees on computer-generated billing, enrollment,\nand claims data provided by the Plan. We did not verify the reliability of the data generated by\n 3\n\x0cthe various information systems involved. However, nothing came to our attention during our\naudit testing utilizing the computer-generated data to cause us to doubt its reliability. We believe\nthat the available data was sufficient to achieve our audit objectives. Except as noted above, the\naudit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards,\nissued by the Comptroller General of the United States.\n\nThe audit fieldwork was performed at the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s office in Chicago, Illinois, during October 2011.\nAdditional audit work was completed at our offices in Jacksonville, Florida and Cranberry\nTownship, Pennsylvania.\n\nMethodology\n\nWe examined the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s Federal rate submissions and related documents as a basis for validating\nthe market price rates. In addition, we examined the rate development documentation and\nbillings to other groups, such as the SSSGs, to determine if the market price was actually charged\nto the FEHBP. Finally, we used the contract, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition\nRegulations, and OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Rate Instructions to Community-Rated Carriers to determine the\npropriety of the FEHBP premiums and the reasonableness and acceptability of the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s rating\nsystem.\n\nTo gain an understanding of the internal controls in the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s rating system, we reviewed the\nPlan\xe2\x80\x99s rating system policies and procedures, interviewed appropriate Plan officials, and\nperformed other auditing procedures necessary to meet our audit objectives.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c\x0creconciled rates shows that the FEHBP was overcharged $68,307 in contract year 2008 (see\nExhibit B).\n\n2009\n\nAs in previous years, the Plan selected and as SSSGs for contract year\n2009. We disagree with these selections. Again, we selected and as the\nSSSGs for contract year 2009, because they were closest in size to the FEHBP.\n\nOur analysis of the rates charged to the SSSGs shows that received a percent\ndiscount and received a percent discount. The FEHBP received a discount\nof percent for contract year 2009. Since the FEHBP is entitled to a discount equivalent\nto the largest discount given to an SSSG, we recalculated the FEHBP rates using the\npercent discount given to A comparison of our audited rates to the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s\nreconciled rates shows that the FEHBP was overcharged $270,745 in contract year 2009 (see\nExhibit B).\n\n2010\n\nAs in previous years, the Plan selected and as SSSGs for contract year\n2010. We disagree with these selections. Again, we selected and as the\nSSSGs for contract year 2010, because they were closest in size to the FEHBP.\n\nOur analysis of the rates charged to the SSSGs shows that received a percent\ndiscount and received a percent discount. The FEHBP received a discount\nof percent for contract year 2010. Since the FEHBP is entitled to a discount equivalent\nto the largest discount given to an SSSG, we recalculated the FEHBP rates using the\npercent discount given to A comparison of our audited rates to the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s\nreconciled rates shows that the FEHBP was overcharged $612,425 in contract year 2010 (see\nExhibit B).\n\n2011\n\nAs in previous years, the Plan selected and as SSSGs for contract year\n2011. We disagree with these selections. Again, we selected and as the\nSSSGs for contract year 2011, because they were closest in size to the FEHBP.\n\nOur analysis of the rates charged to the SSSGs shows that received a percent\ndiscount and received a percent discount. The FEHBP received a discount\nof percent for contract year 2011. Since the FEHBP is entitled to a discount equivalent\nto the largest discount given to an SSSG, we recalculated the FEHBP rates using the\npercent discount given to A comparison of our audited rates to the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s\nreconciled rates shows that the FEHBP was overcharged $48,808 in contract year 2011 (see\nExhibit B).\n\n\n 6\n\x0c\x0c The Plan\xe2\x80\x99s comments regarding the term discount in the draft report do not have an effect on\n the questioned cost. For the purposes of the audit, the term discount refers to any differences\n between the audited rates and the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s reconciled rates.\n\n The OIG audited rates include the actual capitation rates filed with the State of Illinois. No\n valid support was provided for a reconciliation adjustment.\n\n The auditor\xe2\x80\x99s calculations only go to Line 5 rates of the Attachment III of the reconciliations\n that are submitted to OPM. The cost of printing the FEHBP benefit brochures is applied\n after Line 5 and has no bearing on our audited rates. The audited rates correctly exclude the\n printing cost of the FEHBP benefit brochures.\n\n According to the OPM benefit brochures, the FEHBP did not receive the smoking cessation\n benefit until 2011; therefore, the smoking cessation benefit should not have been charged to\n the FEHBP in contract years 2007 through 2010.\n\n We do not agree that the Plan should give the SSSGs a Medicare credit or the FEHBP a\n Medicare loading. The Plan\xe2\x80\x99s rating methodology does not include Medicare credits or\n loadings and, therefore, neither can be added to the FEHBP\xe2\x80\x99s rate or the SSSGs\xe2\x80\x99 rates. Our\n audited rates properly exclude any Medicare adjustments since it is not the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s practice.\n\n Recommendation 1\n\n We recommend that the contracting officer require the Plan to return $1,035,784 to the\n FEHBP for defective pricing in contract years 2007 through 2011.\n\n2. Lost Investment Income $74,946\n\n In accordance with the FEHBP regulations and the contract between OPM and the Plan, the\n FEHBP is entitled to recover lost investment income on the defective pricing findings in\n contract years 2007 through 2011. We determined that the FEHBP is due $74,946 for lost\n investment income, calculated through June 30, 2012 (see Exhibit C). In addition, the\n FEHBP is entitled to lost investment income for the period beginning July 1, 2012, until all\n defective pricing finding amounts have been returned to the FEHBP.\n\n Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition Regulation 1652.215-70 provides that, if any\n rate established in connection with the FEHBP contract was increased because the carrier\n furnished cost or pricing data that was not complete, accurate, or current as certified in its\n Certificate of Accurate Pricing, the rate shall be reduced by the amount of the overcharge\n caused by the defective data. In addition, when the rates are reduced due to defective\n pricing, the regulation states that the government is entitled to a refund and simple interest on\n the amount of the overcharge from the date the overcharge was paid to the carrier until the\n overcharge is liquidated.\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cOur calculation of lost investment income is based on the United States Department of the\nTreasury\'s semiannual cost of capital rates.\n\nPlan\xe2\x80\x99s Comments (see Appendix):\n\nThe Plan did not comment on this finding.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c IV. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT\nCommunity-Rated Audits Group\n\n , Auditor-in-Charge\n\n , Auditor\n\n\n , Jr., Chief\n\n Senior Team Leader\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c Exhibit A\n\n\n Union Health Service, Inc.\n Summary of Questioned Costs\n\nDefective Pricing Questioned Costs:\n\n\n Contract Year 2007 $35,499\n Contract Year 2008 $68,307\n Contract Year 2009 $270,745\n Contract Year 2010 $612,425\n Contract Year 2011 $48,808\n\n Total Defective Pricing Questioned Costs $1,035,784\n\nLost Investment Income $74,946\n\n\nTotal Questioned Cost $1,110,730\n\x0c Exhibit B\n Page 1 of 2\n\n Union Health Service, Inc.\n\n Defective Pricing Questioned Costs\n\n\n2007 Contract Year\n Single Family\nPlan\'s Reconcilied Rates\nAudited Line 5 Rates\n\nOvercharge\n\nMarch 31, 2007 Enrollment\nx 26 pay periods\nAmount Due FEHBP in 2007 $35,499\n\n2008 Contract Year\n Single Family\nPlan\'s Reconcilied Rates\nAudited Line 5 Rates\n\nOvercharge\n\nMarch 31, 2008 Enrollment\nx 26 pay periods\nAmount Due FEHBP in 2008 $68,307\n\n2009 Contract Year\n Single Family\nPlan\'s Reconcilied Rates\nAudited Line 5 Rates\n\nOvercharge\n\nMarch 31, 2009 Enrollment\nx 26 pay periods\nAmount Due FEHBP in 2009 $270,745\n\x0c Exhibit B\n Page 2 of 2\n\n Union Health Service, Inc.\n\n Defective Pricing Questioned Costs\n\n\n2010 Contract Year\n Single Family\nPlan\'s Reconcilied Rates\nAudited Line 5 Rates\n\nOvercharge\n\nMarch 31, 2010 Enrollment\nx 26 pay periods\nAmount Due FEHBP in 2010 $612,425\n\n2011 Contract Year\n Single Family\nPlan\'s Reconcilied Rates\nAudited Line 5 Rates\n\nOvercharge\n\nMarch 31, 2011 Enrollment\nx 26 pay periods\nAmount Due FEHBP in 2011 $48,808\n\n\nTotal Defective Pricing Questioned Cost $1,035,784\n\x0c Exhibit C\n\n\n\n Union Health Service, Inc.\n Lost Investment Income\n\n\n Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Jun-12 Total\nAudit Findings:\n\nDefective Pricing $35,499 $68,307 $270,745 $612,425 $48,808 $0 $1,035,784\n\n\n Totals (per year): $35,499 $68,307 $270,745 $612,425 $48,808 $0 $1,035,784\n Cumulative Totals: $35,499 $103,806 $374,551 $986,976 $1,035,784 $1,035,784 $1,035,784\n\n Average Annual Interest Rate: 5.500% 4.938% 5.250% 3.188% 2.563% 2.000%\n\n Interest on Prior Years Findings: $0 $1,753 $5,450 $11,939 $25,291 $10,358 $54,791\n\n Current Years Interest: $976 $1,686 $7,107 $9,761 $625 $0 $20,155\n\n Total Cumulative Interest $976 $3,439 $12,557 $21,700 $25,916 $10,358 $74,946\n Through June 30, 2012\n\x0c Appendix\n\t\n\n\n\n\nMay 21, 2012\n\n Chief\nCommunity-Rated Audits Group\nU.S. Office of Personnel Management\nOffice of the Inspector General\n800 Cranberry Woods Drive, Suite 270\nCranberry Township, Pennsylvania 16066\n\nRe: Response to draft audit report of Union Health Service, Inc., Chicago, Illinois,\n Report No. 1C-76-00-12-006\n\nNote: This document references supporting information accessible via hyperlinks. It is recommended\n that the document be viewed from a computer file opened from the accompanying CD or from a\n hard drive in which all of the accompanying files are stored in the same folder.\n\nDear :\n\n\n\n\n Deleted by OIG \xe2\x80\x93 Not Relevant to the Final Report\n\n\n\n\nThe above paragraphs quote statements by OIG in 2007 and I agree with them. Our circumstances have\nnot changed since then regarding the selection of SSSGs.\n\nThe various observations described in the draft report are not significantly challenged in this response, but\nthe conclusion is. I agree with most of the numbers although a few differences will be mentioned and I\nwill identify some items that were apparently overlooked. But in general, I believe the reported\nobservations are insufficient to support the draft recommendations. My main interest now is to present\nadditional information that I think is essential for correctly assessing our overall compliance with OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\nrating guidelines and objectives. This response will focus on the following areas that I believe are most\nrelevant.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The suitability of the selected SSSGs\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Observations with the draft calculations and reported findings\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Other relevant information for supporting a conclusion\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Our conclusion and recommended actions\n\x0c Appendix\n\t\n\n\n\n\n Selected SSSGs\n\nWe were surprised that OIG selected and We initially expressed our reservations with the\nauditor-in-charge and he encouraged us to not be overly concerned at that point because the issues we\nidentified should be addressed at another level in the process. I inferred that he was basically saying, in\nso many words, \xe2\x80\x9cI will proceed with the general audit template we routinely use, and at a later stage you\ncan work with others to determine how the findings should be interpreted and applied\xe2\x80\x9d. I was\ncomfortable with that approach believing that we should reach the same conclusions regardless of what\nwas selected for SSSGs because all premiums are calculated from common base capitation rates\n(applicable to either a \xe2\x80\x9cclinic-only\xe2\x80\x9d or a \xe2\x80\x9cclinic and non-clinical\xe2\x80\x9d benefit package). However, I now see\ntwo developments that I did not expect \xe2\x80\x94\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t We made two administrative mistakes over the years; (1) our billing department failed to bill the\n newly calculated rates for one of the selected SSSGs in one year, and (2) I erred in adjusting the\n step-up factors for one selected SSSG when we eventually started combining the two small\n groups for rating purposes.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t I did not foresee OIG extrapolating such heavy conclusions from the limited observations.\n\nSuitability of the selected SSSGs:\n\n Deleted by OIG \xe2\x80\x93 Not Relevant to the Final Report\n\n\n\n\nThe selected SSSGs violate requirements of OPM\xe2\x80\x99s guidelines.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Neither group ensures that \xe2\x80\x9cOPM receives an equitable and reasonable market-based rate\xe2\x80\x9d. The\n groups do not shop their premium; they have no negotiating clout; there is no employer-paid\n premium contribution for and the current active employees are excluded from\n joining the Plan (retirees only are enrolled with us).\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The members are not employees and, further, would satisfy OPM\xe2\x80\x99s definition of a\n \xe2\x80\x9cPurchasing Alliance\xe2\x80\x9d (requiring exclusion of the group as an SSSG). OPM\xe2\x80\x99s guidelines exclude\n Purchasing Alliances with less than 100 enrollees from eligibility as an SSSG.\n\nIn addition to OPM\xe2\x80\x99s published guidelines, other reasons to exclude and as eligible SSSGs\ninclude:\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t New members are not being added to these groups. The groups have been reorganized; was\n in receivership and is now administered by another union. Although we have maintained\n the "group" structure for administrative purposes (list billing), the remaining members are, in\n substance, individuals that otherwise we would be obligated to cover with the same benefits under\n state required individual conversion privileges (one member has a dependent with a serious pre\xc2\xad\n existing condition).\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Our underwriting guidelines, like most carriers, will not allow us to enroll a group of less than 10\n employees without individual underwriting.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Most of the subscribers have Medicare coverage.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Extrapolation of measurements from an SSSG (e.g., SSSG variance values) to estimate\n corresponding amounts in a target population (e.g., FEHBP corresponding values) requires that\n the SSSG has a statistically credibility database (this is not the case for very small groups). The\n implications are extreme. The sensitivity of this issue can be seen by going to an Excel\n\x0c Appendix\n\t\n\n\n\n spreadsheet that shows the change in premium for resulting from a slight change in the\n demographics. Change the value in cell C27 from 1 to zero (eliminating the one family of three\n members). The calculated premium yield PMPM (capitation) shown in cell H30 drops from\n to , a decrease of more than 20%. The annual premium of the FEHBP is roughly\n $5 million dollars. A refund of 20% of the FEHBP premium for a single year would be\n approximately $1 million (20% of $5 million). The combined annual premium of both SSSGs is\n roughly $65,000. Clearly something is wrong with an approach that could cause an adjustment\n equal to fifteen times the SSSG\xe2\x80\x99s annual premium if the SSSG merely loses one family\n subscriber.\n\n Calculations and reported findings\nDiscount\n\nText from the draft report\xe2\x80\x99s executive summary states,\n \xe2\x80\x9cFor contract years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, we determined that the FEHBP\'s\n rates were overstated by $35,499, $68,307, $270,745, $612,425, and $48,808, respectively.\n More specifically, the Plan did not apply a similarly sized subscriber group (SSSG) discount\n to the FEHBP\'s rates.\xe2\x80\x9d\nIn the Audit Findings and Recommendations section of the draft report, the first three sentences\nof the findings paragraph for each year of the audit are based on the issue of discounts. The text\nis:\n \xe2\x80\x9cOur analysis of the rates charged to the SSSGs shows that received a ___ percent\n discount and received a ___ percent discount. The FEHBP received a discount of\n ___ percent for contract year ____. Since the FEHBP is entitled to a discount equivalent\n to the largest discount given to an SSSG, we recalculated the FEHBP rates using the ____\n percent discount given to Local ___\xe2\x80\x9d.\n\nOIG is using the term \xe2\x80\x9cdiscount\xe2\x80\x9d in the draft report as a catch-all word related to any and\nall observable differences. But that is not the meaning constructed from OPM\xe2\x80\x99s guidelines\nand reconciliation instructions.\n\nThe context from OPM\xe2\x80\x99s guidelines and instructions consistently implies that the term\n\xe2\x80\x9cdiscount\xe2\x80\x9d is intended to have a common usage meaning that essentially indicates a willful\nprice mark-down made to create an economic benefit. The meaning of \xe2\x80\x9cdiscount\xe2\x80\x9d does not\ninclude such things as routine errors (e.g., a procedural mistake within an organization to\nproperly bill a communicated price change) or normal statistical variation (e.g., sudden\nenrollment changes in very small groups).\n\nEvidence of what \xe2\x80\x9cdiscount\xe2\x80\x9d means within the context of OPM\xe2\x80\x99s guidelines includes:\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The format of the OPM reconciliation form shows that many factors affecting rates\n are distinct from what is labeled \xe2\x80\x9cdiscount\xe2\x80\x9d (e.g., benefit loadings, standard\n loadings, brochure printing, and reconciliation adjustments from the previous year).\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The \xe2\x80\x9cExample of TCR/ACR Comparison Sheet\xe2\x80\x9d within \xe2\x80\x9cOPM\xe2\x80\x99s Rate Reconciliation\n Instructions\xe2\x80\x9d shows that the first-level step-up factor and the family/self ratio are\n clearly distinct from what is labeled \xe2\x80\x9cTotal Discount\xe2\x80\x9d.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Community Rating Guidelines indicate that rates cannot be changed once\n they are proposed, but discounts can later be offered. It follows that discounts are\n distinct from the other factors that go into establishing rates.\n\x0c Appendix\n\t\n\n\n\nProper understanding of the term \xe2\x80\x9cdiscount\xe2\x80\x9d is not intended to be an argument of\nsemantics. It is central to an auditor\xe2\x80\x99s effort to fairly apply marketplace accountability. It\nwould be an issue of fairness (or lack of) if there is a practice of denying the FEHBP an\nadvantage that is applied to benefit other groups; however, that is not what we\xe2\x80\x99re dealing\nwith in these audit calculations. I believe no group except the FEHBP ever received a real\ndiscount. Further, even if OIG takes the position that one or both of the two small groups\nreceived a larger \xe2\x80\x9cdiscount\xe2\x80\x9d, it remains true that the vast majority of our members (from\n ) did not have a discount at all, according to OIG\xe2\x80\x99s usage of the term.\nFEHBP received favorable treatment relative to the marketplace.\n\nPrior/Post Reconciliation Adjustments\n\nThe auditor\xe2\x80\x99s work papers supporting the draft report include worksheets for calculating the difference\nbetween the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s rates and the reconciled rates established by the audit. The amounts shown for the\nPlan\'s rates do not include the Plan\xe2\x80\x99s reconciliation adjustments from either the prior or subsequent year.\nTherefore, recognized differences that have been properly corrected via the annual reconciliation process\nare ignored in the draft audit report.\n\nPerhaps OIG is assuming that reconciliation adjustments offset one another from year to year and, thus,\ncan be ignored; in other words, reconciliation adjustments are mere timing differences. That assumption\nmight be reasonable (although not precise) if we were attempting to calculate the accumulated effect of\nerrors and corrections over a span of time. However, that is not what the auditor is attempting to\ncalculate. The auditor is attempting to independently define the rate components of each respective year,\nadd them together, compare the sum to the amount charged by the Plan, and define the difference as a\ndiscount. Aside from my earlier discussion of the meaning of "discount", the effect of prior and\nsubsequent reconciliation adjustments must be included to recognize corrections already made by the\nPlan.\n\nOverlooked or incorrectly calculated items\n\nThe calculated rates per the audit do not include the cost of the smoking cessation benefits ($ per\xc2\xad\nmember-per-month).\n\nThe calculated rates per the audit do not include the cost of printing the FEHBP brochure. The costs vary\nslightly from year to year; it was $11,966 in 2010.\n\n\n\n\n Deleted by OIG \xe2\x80\x93 Not Relevant to the Final Report\n\n\n\n\nPrescription drugs benefit variance\n\nThe premium rates developed for all of the years covered by this audit were prepared without any loading\nfor the prescription drugs benefit. Prior to 2011, we did not have group-specific data showing the cost of\nthe group\xe2\x80\x99s prescription drugs benefit for the FEHBP. During the years covered by the audit we did not\nhave groups with a prescription drugs benefit except (1) the comprehensive benefits offered to the\nFEHBP, and and (2) a minimal benefit offered to covering only limited items on a\n\x0c Appendix\n\t\n\n\n\nrestricted formulary of low-cost generic drugs. For the FEHBP we did not even have any claims data; all\nof the prescriptions were dispensed directly from our clinic\xe2\x80\x99s internal pharmacy, without generating a\nclaim. In other words, our total book of business for prescription drugs benefits was predominately\n minimal generic program, the FEHBP\xe2\x80\x99s comprehensive program, and the comprehensive benefits for\nthe two small groups that, together, were too small to produce any credible data.\n\nWe knew that the aggregate cost of all prescription drugs benefits was about in 2011 (even less in\nthe earlier years when the formulary was more limited). We also knew that the cost for the FEHBP\nshould be more because it covers brand-name drugs as well as many popular generics that were not on\n ormulary, but we had no idea that the costs would be times more. We now know that the\nprescription drugs benefit cost for the comprehensive program (FEHBP\xe2\x80\x99s) was per-member-per\xc2\xad\nmonth, a figure OIG confirmed in the audit. This knowledge was learned only after we started\ncontracting with Walgreens to provide pharmacy benefit management (PBM) services. The PMB reports\nprovided the group specific data and we were surprised at what we saw. With the help of the physicians\non our Pharmaceutical and Therapeutics Committee, and with consulting input from Walgreens, we\nreviewed the differences in the experience of (with the limited benefits) compared to the FEHBP\n(with the comprehensive benefits). We now understand the FEHBP cost is not abnormal; commercial\ngroups with comprehensive benefits and conventional copayments commonly have expenses in the range\nof per-member-per-month. The cost for the benefits is not comparable.\n\nQuestion: What does all of this pharmacy history have to do with the FEHBP reconciliation?\n\nAnswer: Connecting this history with an understanding of how the baseline premium capitation\n rates were developed shows that and (the two large groups not considered by\n OIG as SSSGs) have been heavily subsidizing the FEHBP.\n\nOur rating methodology builds the FEHBP premium from two baseline capitation rates, one rate for\nservices generally rendered in our clinics (e.g., physician services) and another for non-clinical benefits\n(e.g., hospital services). The \xe2\x80\x9cclinical\xe2\x80\x9d rate is derived from a financial forecast prepared each fall that\ndetermines the January renewal premiums charged to the large groups, and . All known or\nestimated factors are loaded into the forecast model before locking in on the clinical rate in the final step.\nThe clinical rate is a plugged amount that will yield the desired level of profitability. If values loaded into\nthe forecast model for the FEHBP premium (earlier steps in the forecast) are inadequate because the cost\nof prescription drugs is understated, the understatement will cause an offsetting increase to the capitation\nrate for clinical services. Yes, that offset is charged to the FEHBP, too; nevertheless, the large groups\nhave borne the vast majority of the burden.\n\nMedicare offset\n\nOPM recognizes that it is important to adjust the premium for the impact of Medicare benefits offsetting\nrisk that otherwise would be payable by the Plan. Line 4 (c) of OPM\'s form for premium reconciliation is\nentitled \xe2\x80\x9cMedicare loading\xe2\x80\x9d. Most commercial employers would not have retirees included in their group\nwith Medicare benefits (at least not to the extent as within the FEHBP group). However, as stated above\nin the section entitled \xe2\x80\x9cSuitability of the selected SSSGs\xe2\x80\x9d, most of the subscribers in and\nhave Medicare coverage.\n\nMedicare impacts the net claims cost with a very large reduction for the SSSGs ( & relative\nto the FEHBP. Our analysis shows the combined SSSGs should have a Medicare loading, relative to the\nFEHBP, of a negative PMPM; that is, the SSSGs risk to the Plan is PMPM less than the\nrisk of FEHBP due to the SSSGs having more help from Medicare. However, since the loading was not\nbuilt into the SSSG\'s premium, the SSSGs were effectively overcharged (all else being equal)\n\x0c Appendix\n\t\n\n\n\nrelative to the FEHBP. A reconciliation of FEHBP and SSSGs should apply this observation as either an\nincrease in the SSSG\'s premium or a reduction of the FEHBP premium to make them comparable.\n\nPremium stability and step-up factors\n\nOPM understands the importance of price stability. And OPM understands the need to build safeguards\ninto the calculations that will protect against price spikes from year to year. This is why OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Office of\nActuaries negotiates and administers contingency reserves with the plans. Establishment of a contingency\nreserve is not feasible for groups such as and but at least we can avoid abrupt major changes\nin demographic assumptions (e.g., caused by the routine enrollment or disenrollment of a few members,\nperhaps only one family) and, thus, avoid whiplashing the premium up and down.\n\nIn most circumstances, it is important to use a group\xe2\x80\x99s actual demographic data in developing step-up\nfactors. Otherwise, the blended premium per member can be distorted (unwittingly or by willful\nmanipulation). For traditional community rated premium, OPM\'s guidelines require the usage of group\nspecific data for the SSSGs if group specific data is used for the FEHBP. If the FEHBP and the SSSGs\nwere all groups large enough to have credible demographic data (a reasonably predictable distribution of\ncontract types), the guidelines would work as expected. The FEHBP is large enough, but the SSSGs are\nnot. We need to consider the implications as well as the intent of the guidelines and balance the\ncompeting objectives of price stability and usage of actual data.\n\nUnfortunately, I caused a complication by incorrectly entering a wrong value for the conversion factor in\n2011. The auditor is correct that the capitation to single premium conversion factor used in 2011 must be\ngreater than if the ratio of single to family premium in a three-tiered structure is less than I\ngreatly regret that error; however, we must ask, \xe2\x80\x9cWhat now is the correct response to that mistake?\xe2\x80\x9d I\nbelieve the auditor should either ignore the error with consideration to the entire context or should fully\nadjust for all of the differences between the assumed and actual demographics for all years.\n\nMy preferred choice is to accept the error and move on rather than make adjustments for all prior years: I\nsay that because the demographic data is not sufficiently reliable with such small groups to extrapolate\naggregate premium adjustments to the much larger FEHBP group. Otherwise, the calculations for all of\nthe prior years in which this error was not made would show that that was significantly\novercharged (i.e., or PMPM overcharged in 2009). But that\xe2\x80\x99s not my interpretation; I do\nnot view this as an over-charge to the SSSG because a very slight change membership could swing the\nnumbers radically in the other direction. Nevertheless, that would indeed be the picture if we look solely\nto the actual demographics of a very small group each year. Further, looking solely to the actual\ndemographics each year would make it impossible to have any semblance of price stability for the small\ngroups. I think it makes much more sense to assure the demographics are reasonable with respect to the\nFEHBP, they are generally consistent for the small SSSGs, and the charged premium is derived from a\ncommon base capitation.\n\n Other relevant information\n\n\n\n\n Deleted by OIG \xe2\x80\x93 Not Relevant to the Final Report\n\x0c Appendix\n\n\n\n\n Deleted by OIG \xe2\x80\x93 Not Relevant to the Final Report\n\n\n\n\nConclusion and Recommended Action\n\nI believe the audit observations and other supporting information indicate compliance with the rating\nguidelines; the FEHBP has not been charged more than any other group for reconciled benefits. Although\nI have argued that and are not groups eligible to be considered SSSGs, a corrected\nreconciliation on a per-member-per-month basis would, nevertheless, show a pattern of charging less to\nthe FEHBP. Another approach for making a corrected reconciliation would be to retain the current\nstructure used by OIG but make additional adjustments as described in this response. Considerations for\nthese two approaches include:\n\n 1.\t A reconciliation of premium per member per month eliminates distortions caused by\n demographics and calculated step-up factors: it exposes the main issue \xe2\x80\x94 that is, the actual\n amount paid by and on behalf of each member.\n\n 2.\t Reconciliation with the current structure adopted by OIG would add adjustment(s) as described in\n this response, but not every adjustment necessarily has to be developed. As I see it, the process\n can stop once the conclusion is reached that the FEHBP rates do not exceed the SSSG rates for\n reconciled benefits and no other foreseeable adjustment remains that could push the conclusion in\n the other direction. I suggest starting with the most powerful and most persuasive adjustments;\n such as, the described adjustments for Medicare loading or the costs of prescription drugs\n subsidized by the large groups. Either of those issues, alone, should successfully complete the\n\x0c Appendix\n\n\n\n needed reconciliation. If not , I suggest taking the next items that are the easiest to address; such\n as, inclusion of brochure co st. smoking cessation benefits, and correcting for a miscalculation of\n the blended discount for 2010. After that if needed . I suggest applying the annua l reconciliation\n adju stments from prio r years built into the rate proposals.\n\n~reference for resolvin g tltis audit would take an approach that does not rely solely on" and.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Although they do provide some minimal enlightenme nt they do not provid e sufficient grounds ~\n DIG \' s draft conclusions. There are other approaches from reaclting the correc t conclusion. I do not have\n a preference on tile general approach OIG should take. but I can identi fy the followin g options:\n\n I .\t Abandon the curre ur structure and continue with tile SSSG selection u sed in OIG \' s prior audit\n using the larger group s _ and _ _ Althoug h the benefit variances for these ~\n would make the rec onc~more~ it is. neverthe less. feasible. _ and_\n are valid group s and have the marketplace accountability pro perties that a~d for an SSSG.\n\n 2.\t Exp and the current structure of tile draft audit and. as previou sly done by OIG. use all four groups\n as SSSGs ~ _ _ _ TIlis approach might show some rough spots\n (dep ending~~i~op ted from tltis respon se). but the prevalent pattern will\n be clear - favorable of tile FEHBP.\n\n 3.\t Conclude that a conventional SSSG audit is not the best means of assessing complianc e unde r tile\n circumstances found for tins Plan . In rhis case. alrernarive tests should be given primacy. OIG\n might fmd that a review of the Plan \' s historical rates relative to competitors\' , or its filed medi cal\n loss ratio . establish the best support for a conclusion.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2\nMy conclusion is significantly different from what the draft report shows. Yet mo st of our ob servatio ns\n(not tho se focused on in tltis docume nt) are the same. TIle on-site auditors were courteous. professional .\nand worked very hard on the report; for that I am grareful. But I think much of tile story here is that OIG\nset out on a course that appeared to be relatively simple and straightforward, ration al. and likely to show\nan outcome consistent with our long-renn track record. That is what I expected . too. However, we found\na few things we didn\'t expect (the phannacy variance. the conversion factor error with one group in 20 11.\nand an administrative oversight in corre ctly billing the_ premium in 20 10). These issues required us\nto look deepe r: and. as a result. we have now cOllllecte~ots on issues that were not previo usly so\napparent (disqualification of the selected SSS Gs. distinction between a discount and a differe nce for\nanother reason. Medi care loading. and MLR performance).\n\nI hope this respon se enable s us improve our un derstandings.\n\nVery trul y yours.\n\x0c'


type: contracts

text:
 2022.3.11.
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 84/43
 AZ EU–IZRAEL TÁRSULÁSI TANÁCS 1/2022 AJÁNLÁSA
 (2022. március 8.)
 az EU–Izrael cselekvési terv meghosszabbításának jóváhagyásáról [2022/412]
 AZ EU–IZRAEL TÁRSULÁSI TANÁCS,
 tekintettel az egyrészről az Európai Közösségek és azok tagállamai, másrészről Izrael Állam közötti társulás létrehozásáról szóló euromediterrán megállapodásra (1),
 mivel:
 (1)
 Az egyrészről az Európai Közösségek és azok tagállamai, másrészről Izrael Állam közötti társulás létrehozásáról szóló euromediterrán megállapodást (a továbbiakban: az euromediterrán megállapodás) Brüsszelben, 1995. november 20-án aláírták, és az 2000. június 1-jén hatályba lépett.
 (2)
 Az euromediterrán megállapodás 69. cikke feljogosítja a Társulási Tanácsot arra, hogy határozatokat hozzon és megfelelő ajánlásokat tegyen.
 (3)
 A Társulási Tanács eljárási szabályzatának 10. cikke lehetőséget biztosít arra, hogy az ülések között írásbeli eljárásban hozzanak határozatokat vagy tegyenek ajánlásokat, ha erről a felek megállapodnak.
 (4)
 Az EU–Izrael cselekvési terv három évvel történő meghosszabbítása alkalmat fog nyújtani a feleknek arra, hogy folytassák együttműködésüket a következő években, többek között a partnerségi prioritásokról szóló esetleges tárgyalások révén,
 ELFOGADTA A KÖVETKEZŐ AJÁNLÁST:
 1. cikk
 A Társulási Tanács – írásbeli eljárásban eljárva – azt ajánlja, hogy hosszabbítsák meg az EU–Izrael cselekvési tervet ezen ajánlás elfogadásának napjától számított három évvel.
 2. cikk
 Ez az ajánlás az elfogadásának napján lép hatályba.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2022. március 8-án.
 a Tanács részéről
 az elnök
 J. BORRELL FONTELLES
 (1) HL L 147., 2000.6.21., 3. o.