type: wikipedia

text:
Pojam postulat, uz definicije, aksiome i teoreme, je uveo Euklid.
 Aksiom je potpuno očita, bjelodana istina, dok to postulati nisu, ali su oni nužni za izgradnju teorije. Postulati su hipotetički po svojoj naravi, ne mogu se dokazati, ali su potrebni pa se njihovo postojanje zahtjeva (otuda im naziv, prema latinskom postulare: zahtijevati, tražiti). U filozofiji su postulati potrebni kao nužne pretpostavke, ne u smislu dogme, za izgradnju filozofijskog sustava. Na primjer, Immanuel Kant za izgradnju svoje Kritike praktičkog uma (1788) uzima tri postulata: čovjek je sloboda, duša je besmrtna, postoji Bog.
 Danas se često pojam postulat koristi, naročito u logici, kao istoznačan pojmu aksiom.
 Literatura
 Filozofijski rječnik (1965) (uredio: Vladimir Filipović). Zagreb: Matica hrvatska.
 Kleines Philosophisches Wörterbuch (1973). Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Herder.
 Znanost
 Logika


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 2.3.2018
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 60/51
 HENSTILLING Nr. 1/2017 FRA SAMARBEJDSRÅDET EU-ARMENIEN
 af 20. november 2017
 om prioriteterne for partnerskabet mellem EU og Armenien [2018/315]
 SAMARBEJDSRÅDET EU-ARMENIEN HAR —
 under henvisning til partnerskabs- og samarbejdsaftalen mellem De Europæiske Fællesskaber og deres medlemsstater på den ene side og Republikken Armenien på den anden side, særlig artikel 78, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Partnerskabs- og samarbejdsaftalen mellem De Europæiske Fællesskaber og deres medlemsstater på den ene side og Republikken Armenien på den anden side (1) (»aftalen«) blev undertegnet den 22. april 1996 og trådte i kraft den 1. juli 1999.
 (2)
 I overensstemmelse med aftalens artikel 78 kan Samarbejdsrådet fremsætte passende henstillinger med henblik på at opfylde aftalens mål.
 (3)
 I overensstemmelse med aftalens artikel 95, stk. 1, skal parterne træffe alle fornødne almindelige eller særlige foranstaltninger til at opfylde deres forpligtelser i henhold til aftalen og drage omsorg for, at aftalens mål virkeliggøres.
 (4)
 I revisionen af den europæiske naboskabspolitik blev det foreslået at indlede en ny fase med gensidigt engagement med partnerne for at øge ejerskabsfølelsen hos begge parter.
 (5)
 Unionen og Armenien er blevet enige om at konsolidere deres partnerskab ved at fastlægge en række prioriteter for perioden 2017-2020 med henblik på at støtte og styrke modstandsdygtigheden og stabiliteten i Armenien.
 (6)
 Parterne i aftalen er derfor blevet enige om teksten til prioriteterne for partnerskabet mellem EU og Armenien, der understøtter gennemførelsen af aftalen og koncentrerer samarbejdet om fælles interesser, der er fastlagt i fællesskab —
 VEDTAGET DENNE HENSTILLING:
 Artikel 1
 Samarbejdsrådet henstiller, at parterne gennemfører prioriteterne for partnerskabet mellem EU og Armenien, der er fastsat i bilaget.
 Artikel 2
 Denne henstilling træder i kraft på dagen for vedtagelsen.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 20. november 2017.
 På Samarbejdsrådets vegne
 F. MOGHERINI
 Den Europæiske Union
 E. NALBANDIAN
 Republikken Armenien
 (1) EFT L 239 af 9.9.1999, s. 3.
 BILAG
 PRIORITETER FOR PARTNERSKABET MELLEM DEN EUROPÆISKE UNION OG ARMENIEN
 I. BAGGRUND
 Partnerskabs- og samarbejdsaftalen mellem De Europæiske Fællesskaber og deres medlemsstater på den ene side og Armenien på den anden side (i det følgende benævnt »partnerskabs- og samarbejdsaftalen«) blev undertegnet den 22. april 1996 og trådte i kraft den 1. juli 1999. EU og dets medlemsstater på den ene side og Republikken Armenien på den anden side har den 27. februar 2017 afsluttet forhandlinger om en omfattende og udvidet partnerskabsaftale, hvis tekst er ved at blive færdigbehandlet med henblik på undertegnelse. Prioriteterne for partnerskabet mellem EU og Armenien har til formål at lette gennemførelsen af samarbejdet mellem partnerne, herunder inden for rammerne af den nye aftale. Prioriteterne for partnerskabet har til formål at styrke forbindelserne mellem EU og Armenien og fremme universelle værdier og stabilitet, modstandsdygtighed, sikkerhed og velstand baseret på demokrati, menneskerettigheder, retsstatsprincippet samt bæredygtig økonomisk vækst og åbenhed. De er i overensstemmelse med prioriteterne, der er fastsat af Republikken Armenien og EU, herunder de prioriteter, som er fastsat i den reviderede europæiske naboskabspolitik (ENP) (1). Prioriteterne for partnerskabet følger principperne om fælles ejerskab og differentiering og udspringer af de fire prioriteter (2), der blev aftalt i fællesskab ved Det Østlige Partnerskabs topmøde i Riga i 2015, og som blev bekræftet af begge parter på Det Østlige Partnerskabs udenrigsministermøde i maj 2016 som de vejledende rammer for det fremtidige arbejde. Endelig er prioriteterne for partnerskabet også i overensstemmelse med målene for bæredygtig udvikling for 2030 og Parisaftalen fra 2015 om klimaændringer og deres engagement i spørgsmål vedrørende økonomi, miljø og social bæredygtighed samt klimaændringer.
 EU og Armenien har fælles interesser og værdier, navnlig med henblik på Armeniens engagement i økonomiske og politiske reformer og regionalt samarbejde, herunder inden for rammerne af Det Østlige Partnerskab. Den nye, omfattende aftale vil forny og danne retsgrundlaget for de bilaterale forbindelser og det nuværende momentum bør udnyttes med henblik på at styrke forbindelserne mellem EU og Armenien, blandt andet gennem fastlæggelse af prioriteter for partnerskabet. Denne nye overordnede ramme og de prioriterede samarbejdsområder vil bygge på partnernes fælles interesse i at øge det gensidige engagement under hensyntagen til EU's og Armeniens andre internationale forpligtelser.
 Prioriteterne for partnerskabet bygger på det tidligere frugtbare samarbejde, herunder i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af ENP-handlingsplanen, som de erstatter. Disse prioriteter for partnerskabet bør danne grundlag for dagsordenen ved regelmæssige politiske dialogmøder og sektordialoger som defineret i den nye aftale, der også danner rammen for gennemførelse og opfølgning af prioriteterne.
 Det fremtidige finansielle samarbejde mellem EU og Armenien og programmeningen heraf, navnlig den næste fælles støtteramme for Armenien for 2017-2020, vil være baseret på disse prioriteter for partnerskaberne.
 II. PRIORITETER
 Prioriteterne for partnerskabet afspejler fælles interesser og fokuserer på områder, hvor et samarbejde er til gensidig fordel. Armenien og EU vil fortsætte med at forfølge de centrale mål, nemlig at støtte regional stabilitet baseret på fælles værdier og en stærk forpligtelse til demokrati og menneskerettigheder. Civilsamfundet er en vigtig aktør inden for rammerne af Det Østlige Partnerskab, og EU og Armenien vil yderligere fremme dets deltagelse i gennemførelsen af disse prioriteter. Økonomisk samarbejde med henblik på vedvarende vækst er et område af stor fælles interesse, inden for hvilket vi vil undersøge alle muligheder for at forbedre forretningsmiljøet. For at skabe hurtigere og mere inklusiv vækst er der behov for at styrke relevante færdigheder og menneskelig kapital i de offentlige institutioner, forbedre regeringsførelsen yderligere samt for bedre infrastrukturforbindelser. Håndteringen af disse udfordringer vil skabe gunstige betingelser for et stærkere samarbejde inden for centrale sektorer og for øget mobilitet og således være til gavn for borgerne i både EU og Armenien. Prioriteterne er indbyrdes forbundne og gensidigt forstærkende. Hvert prioriteret område omfatter flere elementer og har både en tværfaglig og tværgående tilgang, der er nødvendig for at nå målet. Dette omfatter en fælles aktiv deltagelse i multilaterale samarbejdsfora, herunder inden for rammerne af Det Østlige Partnerskab.
 1. Styrkelse af institutioner og god regeringsførelse
 EU og Armenien er indstillet på et tættere samarbejde med henblik på at fremme menneskerettighederne og retsstatsprincippet, samt de grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder. De vil sammen arbejde for løbende at forbedre forholdene i Armenien inden for offentlig forvaltning, god regeringsførelse og retsvæsenet, optrappe bekæmpelsen af korruption og styrke civilsamfundet. Ligestilling mellem kønnene samt miljømæssige og sociale spørgsmål vil blive indarbejdet i alle områder af samarbejdet.
 Der vil være fokus på gennemførelse og håndhævelse af relevant lovgivning, herunder den nye forfatning. Den valgreform, der blev vedtaget i september 2016 på grundlag af blandt andet anbefalinger fra Kontoret for Demokratiske Institutioner og Menneskerettigheder under Organisationen for Sikkerhed og Samarbejde i Europa, gælder fra og med parlamentsvalget den 2. april 2017. Parterne vil også bestræbe sig på at videreudvikle et gunstigt miljø for civilsamfundet, herunder arbejdsmarkedsorganisationerne, og dets deltagelse i beslutningsprocessen. Civilsamfundet er blevet hørt i udarbejdelsen af disse prioriteter for partnerskabet, og vil også spille en vigtig rolle ved at bidrage til overvågningen af deres gennemførelse.
 Parterne vil optrappe indsatsen for at reformere den offentlige forvaltning, herunder de lokale og retshåndhævende myndigheder. Der vil blive lagt særlig vægt på retsstatsprincippet, fremme af retsvæsenets uafhængighed, adgang til domstolsprøvelse og retten til en retfærdig rettergang. Denne reform vil begynde med en strategisk ramme for reform af den offentlige forvaltning. Målet for vores samarbejde er at styrke ansvarlighedsgørelse og effektiv regeringsførelse, blandt andet gennem moderne og kønsbevidst forvaltning af menneskelige ressourcer og udbredt anvendelse af digital forvaltning, herunder inden for sundhedssektoren. Politikudvikling og evaluering vil ske på grundlag af klare beviser, blandt andet fra en statistisk tjeneste af høj kvalitet.
 Bekæmpelsen af korruption vil stå i centrum for den administrative reform og landets indsats for at styrke retsstatsprincippet. Der vil i samarbejdet være fokus på både styrkelse af de korruptionsbekæmpende organer og på gennemgang af lovgivningen, navnlig systemet for offentlige indkøb, systemet til angivelse af aktiver, som skal sikre dets korrekte gennemførelse, samt forvaltningen af de offentlige funktioner, der er forbundet med flest udfordringer af økonomiske eller andre årsager (indkøb, fortoldning og udstedelse af tilladelser), med henblik på at sikre høje etiske standarder og undgå interessekonflikter. Parterne skal gennemføre bistanden i overensstemmelse med principperne for forsvarlig økonomisk forvaltning og skal samarbejde om at beskytte EU's og Armeniens finansielle interesser, jf. de relevante bestemmelser i den omfattende økonomiske partnerskabsaftale.
 Samarbejdet i sikkerhedssektoren vil sigte mod at styrke ansvarlighedsgørelsen af sikkerhedsoperatører og tage hånd om fælles bekymringer i kampen mod organiseret kriminalitet, stoffer og terrorisme, herunder finansiering af terrorisme og hvidvaskning af penge, med midler, der overholder de bestemmelser om retfærdighed, frihed og sikkerhed, som er fastsat i de forskellige aftaler, der regulerer forbindelserne mellem EU og Armenien. Yderligere modernisering af grænseforvaltningen vil både bidrage til sikkerheden i landet og regionen og til den økonomiske udvikling ved at lette lovlige handelsudvekslinger. Parterne vil også samarbejde om inddrivelse af udbytte fra strafbare forhold gennem forbedring af Armeniens lovgivning og opretning af et fuldt operationelt kontor for inddrivelse af aktiver.
 2. Økonomisk udvikling og markedsmuligheder
 Parternes fælles mål er en bæredygtig og inklusiv økonomisk udvikling i Armenien. Bæredygtig vækst kræver forsvarlige økonomiske politikker, der sikrer den makroøkonomiske og finansielle stabilitet. Disse bør omfatte et fortsat tilsagn om holdbare budgetpolitikker samtidig med, at kapitaludgifter og sociale udgifter sikres og buffere mod eksterne chok konsolideres. Forvaltningen af de offentlige finanser (der udgør et vigtigt element hvad angår regeringsførelse og demokrati samt økonomisk udvikling) skal være i overensstemmelse med principperne om bedste internationale praksis. Tilsyn med banker vil blive styrket yderligere i overensstemmelse med internationale normer og bedste praksis for at øge robustheden og modstandsdygtigheden i den finansielle sektor. Moderniseringen og reformerne af told- og skatteforvaltningen, herunder internationalt samarbejde og øget bekæmpelse af svig, vil forbedre opkrævningen af indtægter.
 Et forbedret erhvervsklima er afgørende for økonomisk udvikling. Der vil i denne henseende blive fokuseret på yderligere forenkling af de administrative procedurer, mindskelse af administrative omkostninger og lettere adgang til finansiering for små og mellemstore virksomheder (SMV'er) i et sundt og diversificeret finansmarked, samt beskyttelse og håndhævelse af ejendomsrettigheder. Stærke erhvervsfremmeorganisationer og erhvervssammenslutninger vil hjælpe de erhvervsdrivende med at udnytte nye muligheder og få større indflydelse på udformningen af økonomiske politikker. EU og Armenien vil gennem mobilisering af både EU's og Armeniens økonomiske aktører søge at styrke armenske virksomheders evne til at deltage i internationale værdikæder, hvilket vil fremme teknologi- og videnoverførsel. Erhvervsstøtteorganisationers rolle er i denne sammenhæng af afgørende betydning, og EU's støtte til kontaktformidling mellem de armenske og europæiske virksomheder kan understøtte indsatsen på nationalt plan. Armensk deltagelse i internationale værdikæder kan både omfatte samt styrkes og fremskyndes af direkte udenlandske investeringer, hvilket kan bidrage til opbyggelsen og styrkelsen af færdigheder og kompetencer på lokalt plan. Det er i denne henseende afgørende at forbedre de investeringsmæssige rammer ved at øge deres gennemsigtighed, pålidelighed og effektivitet. Et investeringsmiljø, der understøtter virksomhederne, omfatter også effektiv konkurrence på markederne for varer og tjenesteydelser, og sikres gennem en stærk og uafhængig konkurrencemyndighed, som overholder de højeste etiske standarder, samt en effektiv håndhævelse af konkurrencereglerne og effektiv beskyttelse af intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder, herunder geografiske betegnelser. Indarbejdelsen på alle politikområder af et fokus på at gøre det lettere at drive forretning vil medvirke til at skabe vækst. Der er brug for moderne beskæftigelses- og socialpolitikker for at sikre, at den økonomiske udvikling er inklusiv og bidrager til at forbedre velfærden for alle armenske borgere. Dette omfatter opbygningen af relevante institutioner, der skal sikre, at der føres effektivt tilsyn med arbejdsvilkår, herunder sundhed og sikkerhed på arbejdspladsen.
 Det er vigtigt at gennemføre Armeniens overordnede udviklingsstrategi samt sektorspecifikke strategier (såsom SMV-strategien og anbefalingerne fra SBA-vurderingen, strategien til fremme af eksport, og udvikling af landdistrikterne), deltage aktivt i EU's program for SMV'er (COSME) og for forskning og innovation (Horisont 2020), opgradere reguleringen og infrastrukturen inden for informations- og kommunikationsteknologi (IKT) og gøre fuld brug af EU's støtte på disse områder.
 Det er med henblik på modernisering af Armeniens økonomi og samfund vigtigt at fremme landets digitale økonomi, herunder gennem tilnærmelse af Armeniens digitale økonomi til EU's digitale indre marked.
 Overvågning af gennemførelsen af disse strategier bør omfatte en dialog mellem den offentlige og private sektor og en høring af de relevante civilsamfundsorganisationer, herunder arbejdsmarkedsorganisationer.
 Den grønne økonomi udgør en betydelig mulighed for at opnå en bæredygtig udvikling med vækst. Miljømæssige spørgsmål, herunder klimaforandringer, vil blive indarbejdet i alle de relevante politikker.
 EU og Armenien har etableret et effektivt samarbejde inden for landbrug, regionaludvikling og udvikling af landdistrikter for at fremme udviklingen af landbrugsorganisationer og værditilvækstkæder i hele Armenien. Selv om landbrug og selvforsyningslandbrug giver muligheder i forbindelse med fødevaresikkerhed og uformel beskæftigelse, er det vigtigt at videreudvikle sektorens konkurrenceevne, herunder gennem kapacitetsopbygning og adgang til finansiering. Parterne vil fortsætte med at styrke den økonomiske, sociale og territoriale samhørighed i alle regioner, ved at bygge videre på tidligere resultater og i koordinering med reformen af den offentlige forvaltning på alle niveauer.
 3. Konnektivitet, energieffektivitet, miljø og klimaindsats
 Armenien skal overvinde de konnektivitetsudfordringer, der er forbundet med at være en indlandsstat. Flere områder i landet lider under deres afsides beliggenhed og begrænsede forbindelser til de økonomiske, politiske og sociale centre. Samarbejde med EU og andre lande i Det Østlige Partnerskab i de ovennævnte områder, især Georgien, kan bidrage til at mindske konsekvenserne af landets geografiske placering.
 Forbedring af forretningsmuligheder, transport, logistik og værdikæder i landet ville øge Armeniens vækstpotentiale, og dette kan fremmes gennem forbedret konnektivitet internt og på tværs af grænserne. Transporten i Armenien foregår hovedsageligt ad land-, sø- og luftruter. Eftersom EU, Rusland og Kina er Armeniens vigtigste handelspartnere, transiteres gods sædvanligvis med jernbanefærge fra havne i Georgien. Parterne vil samarbejde om at udvikle hurtige toldprocedurer ved grænserne, da disse for alle transportformer er afgørende for at undgå dyre forsinkelser.
 Parterne vil også samarbejde inden for rammerne af det udvidede centrale transeuropæiske netværk (TEN-T) og på grundlag af klar prioritering, med henblik på at forbedre Armeniens adgang til de internationale markeder. Samarbejde på området for trafiksikkerhed, både vedrørende infrastruktur og politiske aspekter, vil også blive fremmet. Investeringer i infrastruktur skal være miljøvenlige og klimasikre.
 Med henblik på at sikre effektive forbindelser og markedsudvikling, der går ud over det umiddelbare naboskabsområde, er det vigtigt at reformere den civile luftfart, en reform, der i sidste ende kan føre til indgåelse af en luftfartsaftale med EU.
 God miljøforvaltning (navnlig anvendelsen af miljøkonsekvensanalyse og strategisk miljøvurdering, adgang til miljøoplysninger og adgang til klage og domstolsprøvelse på miljøområdet) og indarbejdelse af miljøet og af klimamæssige spørgsmål i de relevante politikområder vil skabe et solidt grundlag for bæredygtig udvikling. Forpligtelser på miljøområdet, som indeholdt i den nye aftale, vil danne grundlaget for relevante reformer. Øget energieffektivitet vil hurtigt generere væsentlige og varige energibesparelser og fremme overgangen til en emissionslav og klimarobust økonomi; i boligsektoren kan sådanne foranstaltninger knyttes til arbejdet under borgmesterpagten. Så længe nuklear energi anvendes til at opretholde en tilstrækkelig energiforsyning i landet, er det nødvendigt at sikre et højt nukleart sikkerhedsniveau. Den Internationale Atomenergiorganisations (IAEA) standarder og EU's standarder og praksis, som omhandlet i den omfattende økonomiske partnerskabsaftale, vil danne grundlaget herfor.
 En pålidelig energiforsyning til rimelige priser er en nødvendig forudsætning for et velfungerende, moderne samfund, og begrænsning af miljø- og klimabelastninger er en forudsætning for dets bæredygtighed. Bedre energi- og ressourceeffektivitet, herunder inden for boligsektoren, samt en øget anvendelse af vedvarende energikilder vil ved gennemførelse af den nyeste lovgivning om energieffektivitet, vedvarende energikilder og elektricitetsmarkedet bidrage til opnåelsen af denne målsætning. I denne sammenhæng kan offentlige udbud i sektorerne for tjenester og infrastruktur også spille en rolle.
 Energisikkerheden kan også styrkes ved at forbedre og øge forbindelserne til nabolandene. Armeniens fortsatte aktive deltagelse i det multilaterale samarbejde inden for Det Østlige Partnerskab vil være af afgørende betydning for fastlæggelsen af projekter af fælles interesse, der vil kunne drage fordel af EU's finansielle støtte. Forbedring af energieffektiviteten og fremme af vedvarende energi med kapacitetsopbygning og en klar prioritering af investeringer er afgørende for at sikre energisikkerheden i Armenien.
 Endelig er lukning og sikker dekommissionering af atomkraftværket i Medzamor (MNPP) samt hurtig vedtagelse af en køreplan/handlingsplan med henblik herpå fortsat vigtige mål i betragtning af behovet for at erstatte atomkraftværket med ny kapacitet, der vil sikre Armeniens energisikkerhed og skabe vilkårene for bæredygtig udvikling i landet.
 4. Mobilitet og mellemfolkelige kontakter
 Parterne vil sammen arbejde for at fremme mobiliteten blandt deres respektive statsborgere med henblik på at øge omfanget af mellemfolkelige kontakter gennem målrettede foranstaltninger rettet mod blandt andet unge, studerende, forskere, kunstnere, kulturelle aktører og forretningsfolk og bekræfter dermed på ny, at øget mobilitet for parternes borgere under sikre og velforvaltede forhold fortsat er et centralt mål, og vil i mellemtiden overveje at indlede en visumdialog med Armenien, forudsat at der er fastsat betingelser for velforvaltet og sikker mobilitet, herunder effektiv gennemførelse af aftaler om visumlempelse og tilbagetagelsesaftaler mellem parterne. De vil samarbejde om bekæmpelse af irregulær migration, herunder gennem gennemførelsen af tilbagetagelsesaftalen, fremme af grænseforvaltningspolitik samt juridiske og operationelle rammer.
 Forvaltning af migrationsstrømmene vil ske på grundlag af aftalen om lempelse af visumreglerne/tilbagetagelsesaftalen. EU anerkender Armeniens rolle i behandlingen af flygtninge fra Syrien, hvilket gør landet berettiget til støtte under EU's regionale trustfond som reaktion på den syriske krise (3).
 Imødegåelse af udfordringerne på det globale marked kræver et solidt sæt kompetencer på alle niveauer, såvel i virksomheder som i den offentlige forvaltning. Undervisning på førskoleniveau, grundniveau, sekundært og videregående niveau, erhvervsfaglig uddannelse og undervisning, samt samarbejde mellem uddannelsessystemet og erhvervslivet bør alle styrkes for fuldt ud at kunne bidrage til udviklingen af disse kompetencer. Der vil som følge af Armeniens associering til Horisont 2020-programmet blive lagt særlig vægt på forskning og innovation.
 (1) JOIN(2015) 50 final af 18.11.2015.
 (2) Se de fire overskrifter i del II. Prioriteter.
 (3) Kommissionens afgørelse C(2014) 9615 af 10. december 2014 om oprettelse af Den Europæiske Unions regionale trustfond oprettet som reaktion på den syriske krise, den såkaldte »Madadfond«.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n Evaluation and Inspection Services\n\n May 5, 2009\nMemorandum\nTO: James Manning\n Acting Chief Operating Officer\n Federal Student Aid\n\nFROM: Wanda A. Scott /s/\n Assistant Inspector General\n Evaluation, Inspection, and Management Services\n\nSUBJECT: Final Management Information Report\n Review of Federal Student Aid\xe2\x80\x99s Enterprise Risk Management Program (ED-\n OIG/I13I0005)\n\nThis final management information report presents the results of our review of Federal Student\nAid\xe2\x80\x99s (FSA) Enterprise Risk Management Program and FSA\xe2\x80\x99s response to those results.\n\n\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n\nIn May 2006, FSA formally created the Enterprise Risk Management Group (ERMG). The\nERMG is divided into two main areas: the Internal Review Division and the Risk Analysis and\nReporting Division. The Internal Review Division is responsible for helping to ensure that an\neffective internal control framework is in place across the enterprise; however, it does not have\nany responsibilities related to the implementation of enterprise risk management. The Risk\nAnalysis and Reporting Division is responsible for developing an enterprise risk management\nstrategy and implementing an enterprise risk management program at FSA.\n\nThe ERMG is headed by the Chief Risk Officer who reports to the General Manager of\nEnterprise Performance Management Services. According to FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Five-Year Plan for 2006-\n2010, the enterprise risk management function was intended to develop risk assessments and\nprovide a more strategic view of future risks, and was designed to better equip senior\nmanagement to anticipate, analyze, and manage risks inherent in the federal student financial\nassistance programs.\n\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s enterprise risk management program is based on the Enterprise Risk Management \xe2\x80\x93\nIntegrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway\nCommission (COSO Framework). The COSO Framework defines enterprise risk management\nas a \xe2\x80\x9cprocess, effected by an entity\xe2\x80\x99s board of directors, management and other personnel,\napplied in strategy setting and across the enterprise, designed to identify potential events that\n\n The Department of Education's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational\n excellence and ensuring equal access.\n\x0cmay affect the entity, and manage risk to be within its risk appetite, to provide reasonable\nassurance regarding the achievement of entity objectives.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe COSO Framework consists of eight interrelated components that are derived from the way\nmanagement runs an enterprise and are integrated with the management process. The\ncomponents are described as follows:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Internal Environment \xe2\x80\x93 this component serves as the basis for enterprise risk\n management and is comprised of the entity\xe2\x80\x99s risk management philosophy; its risk\n appetite; 1 the integrity, ethical values, and competence of the entity\xe2\x80\x99s employees; and the\n environment in which those employees operate.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Objective Setting \xe2\x80\x93 the entity ensures it has a process to set objectives and that the\n objectives support and are aligned with the entity\xe2\x80\x99s mission. Objective Setting is a\n precondition to Event Identification, Risk Assessment, and Risk Response.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Event Identification \xe2\x80\x93 the entity identifies internal and external events affecting the\n achievement of its objectives, and distinguishes between risks (negative impact) and\n opportunities (positive impact).\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Risk Assessment \xe2\x80\x93 the entity analyzes identified risks, considering likelihood and impact,\n to determine how they should be managed. 2\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Risk Response \xe2\x80\x93 the entity identifies and evaluates possible responses to risk, and selects\n a set of actions to align risks with the entity\xe2\x80\x99s risk tolerances 3 and risk appetite.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Control Activities \xe2\x80\x93 the entity establishes and executes policies and procedures to help\n ensure that the risk responses are effectively carried out.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Information and Communication \xe2\x80\x93 the entity identifies, captures, and communicates\n relevant information throughout the entity in a clear form and timeframe that enables\n people to carry out their responsibilities.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Monitoring \xe2\x80\x93 the entire entity monitors itself through ongoing management activities\n and/or separate evaluations.\n\nAccording to the ERMG, enterprise risk management at FSA is \xe2\x80\x9ca coordinated, culture-based\napproach to holistically addressing all of an organization\xe2\x80\x99s risks \xe2\x80\x93 including operational,\nfinancial, strategic, compliance and reputational risks under one umbrella.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe ERMG is implementing its COSO Framework-based enterprise risk management program in\nthree phases.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Risk appetite is defined as the amount of risk an entity is willing to accept in pursuit of its mission.\n2\n Risks within the COSO Framework are discussed in terms of inherent risk and residual risk. Inherent risk is\ndefined by the COSO Framework as the risk to an entity in the absence of any actions management might take to\nalter the risk\xe2\x80\x99s likelihood or impact. The ERMG uses a similar term, aggregate risk, which it defines as the total\namount of exposure associated with a specified risk that does not include the effect of risk strategies, controls or\nother measures designed to mitigate the effect of the specified risk. Residual risk is defined by the COSO\nFramework and the ERMG as the risk that remains after action has been taken to alter the risk\xe2\x80\x99s likelihood or\nimpact.\n3\n Risk tolerances are defined by the COSO Framework as the acceptable levels of variation relative to the\nachievement of objectives. In other words, it is the amount of variation that an entity is willing to accept in pursuit\nof its goals and objectives.\n\n\n 2\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Phase I involves establishing the ERMG and committee, developing a strategy and\n methodology for implementation, obtaining contractor services, and communicating\n enterprise risk management information to FSA\xe2\x80\x99s executives.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Phase II consists of formalizing the enterprise risk management strategy and project plan,\n adopting a risk framework, developing an enterprise risk management website,\n conducting a high-level risk assessment at FSA, developing a methodology for\n performing business unit risk assessments, developing a risk tracking system, and\n identifying, assessing, and inventorying risks for 25 percent of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s business units.\n These activities focus on the Event Identification and Risk Assessment components of the\n COSO Framework.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Phase III involves identifying, assessing, and inventorying risks for the remaining 75\n percent of the business units, creating enterprise level reports for senior management,\n documenting FSA\xe2\x80\x99s risk tolerances and appetites, and developing a methodology for fully\n implementing the remaining enterprise risk management components.\n\nThe ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s project plan indicates that all phases will be complete by September 30, 2010.\n\n\n\n REVIEW RESULTS\n\n\nThe objective of our inspection was to evaluate FSA\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of enterprise risk\nmanagement. The ERMG has not fully addressed any of the COSO Framework\xe2\x80\x99s eight\ncomponents. The COSO Framework states that determining whether an enterprise risk\nmanagement program is \xe2\x80\x9ceffective\xe2\x80\x9d is a judgment resulting from an assessment of whether the\neight components are present and functioning effectively. While it has developed plans and\nbegun business unit activities related to three components (Objective Setting, Event\nIdentification, and Risk Assessment), the plans for fully addressing the remaining five\ncomponents at FSA (Internal Environment, Risk Response, Control Activities, Information and\nCommunication, and Monitoring) have received limited attention. As a result, FSA has not\nimplemented enterprise risk management. This report will present information on FSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nprogress toward implementation as of December 2008.\n\nThe Chief Risk Officer began working at FSA in June 2004. FSA\xe2\x80\x99s former Chief Operating\nOfficer formally approved the ERMG in May 2006, nearly two years later. Prior to formal\napproval, the ERMG began conducting activities associated with Phase I of its program. After\nreceiving formal approval, the ERMG officially started its enterprise risk management program\nand began strategic planning. The Chief Risk Officer and the Risk Analysis Team Leader\ninformed us that FSA management also assigned them multiple high priority special projects,\nsuch as a regional workforce effectiveness study, conducted for approximately seven months,\nwhich limited the amount of time available to implement enterprise risk management. The\nERMG completed Phase I of its program on December 30, 2006, and has nearly completed all\nactivities associated with Phase II.\n\nThe ERMG began work in FSA\xe2\x80\x99s business units in May 2007. As of December 2008, the\nERMG has completed risk identification, aggregate risk assessment, and inventory activities for\n3 of 26 business units. As part of these initial business unit activities the ERMG also aligned\n\n\n 3\n\x0ceach business unit\xe2\x80\x99s goals and objectives with FSA\xe2\x80\x99s strategic objectives. These three business\nunits are:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Communications, Reporting, and Analysis;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Facilities, Security, and Emergency Management Services; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Workforce Development Services.\n\nThe ERMG has nearly completed risk identification in two other business units:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Conferences and Administration Services; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Human Resources and Workforce Services.\n\nThe ERMG has initiated work in three more business units:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Strategic Planning;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Financial Management; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Budget.\n\nNone of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s business units directly responsible for administering the federal student aid\nprograms have been examined or included in ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s business unit activities to date. The Chief\nRisk Officer anticipates that the ERMG will have risks documented in all 26 business units by\nthe end of calendar year 2009, and has hired a contractor to help accomplish this task within this\ntimeframe. In addition, as a training tool for new risk analysts, the ERMG is planning a review\nof the Enterprise Risk Management business unit.\n\nAfter risk identification, aggregate risk assessment, and inventory activities have been completed\nfor all business units, the ERMG plans to return to each business unit to identify the risk\nresponses and assess the amount of residual risk given the control activities in place. According\nto the ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s project plan, the end date for these activities is September 30, 2010. The ERMG\ndoes not have a formal methodology in place for identifying risk responses and assessing the\namount of residual risk.\n\nThe business unit risk activities thus far have concentrated on Event Identification and Risk\nAssessment at the aggregate level. The ERMG has also given attention to the Objective Setting\ncomponent at the FSA-wide level and as part of each business unit review. The Chief Risk\nOfficer said that the Risk Assessment component is more straightforward than the Internal\nEnvironment and Objective Setting components of the COSO Framework. The ERMG has not\nfocused on the Internal Environment component, including defining FSA\xe2\x80\x99s risk appetite and risk\nphilosophy, nor has it begun to conduct activities specifically related to the Risk Response,\nControl Activities, Information and Communication, and Monitoring components.\n\nThe ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s limited attention to the Internal Environment component is noteworthy given the\nimportance placed on it throughout the COSO Framework and in the ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s own definition.\nThe COSO Framework states that the Internal Environment \xe2\x80\x9csets the basis for how risk and\ncontrol are viewed and addressed by an entity\xe2\x80\x99s people.\xe2\x80\x9d The ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s definition of the Internal\nEnvironment, based on the COSO Framework\xe2\x80\x99s description of that component, states that the\nInternal Environment is \xe2\x80\x9cthe tone of an organization, influencing the risk consciousness of its\npeople, and is the basis for all other components of risk management.\xe2\x80\x9d According to the\nERMG\xe2\x80\x99s definition, Internal Environment elements include an entity's risk management\nphilosophy; its risk appetite; the integrity, ethical values, and competence of the entity's people;\nand the way management assigns authority and responsibility. The COSO Framework states that\n\n\n 4\n\x0cthe \xe2\x80\x9ceffectiveness of enterprise risk management cannot rise above the integrity and ethical\nvalues of the people who create, administer, and monitor entity activities.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nWhile both the COSO Framework and the ERMG, as expressed in its definition, agree that the\nInternal Environment serves as a basis for all other components of enterprise risk management,\nthe ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s work has not addressed the specific elements of the Internal Environment. The\nERMG has not ensured that FSA has a defined risk management philosophy or risk appetite.\nAdditionally, the ERMG has not given attention to existing information on FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Internal\nEnvironment such as FSA-wide surveys indicating that there are perceptions on the part of FSA\nstaff concerning a lack of integrity, ethical values and commitment to competence from FSA\nleadership or Office of Inspector General audits that have also found issues with FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Internal\nEnvironment. The COSO Framework emphasizes that the negative impact of an ineffectual\nInternal Environment can be far-reaching.\n\n\n\n FSA COMMENTS\n\n\nOn March 17, 2009, we provided FSA with a copy of our draft management information report\nfor comment. We received FSA\xe2\x80\x99s comments to the report on April 14, 2009. FSA did not take\nissue with any of the factual information presented in the report, but did have comments on the\nway in which the information was presented. We have summarized FSA\xe2\x80\x99s concerns and\nprovided our responses below. FSA\xe2\x80\x99s response, in its entirety, is attached.\n\nFSA Comment\nFSA stated that we did not elaborate on what is meant by the statement in the report that \xe2\x80\x9cERMG\nhas not fully addressed any of the COSO Framework\xe2\x80\x99s eight components,\xe2\x80\x9d and that this implies\nthat the ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s efforts relating to the eight components of COSO are in some way deficient.\nFSA also stated that OIG\xe2\x80\x99s assertion that FSA has \xe2\x80\x9cnot implemented enterprise risk\nmanagement\xe2\x80\x9d is somewhat misleading because it states the obvious and could undermine the\nERMG\xe2\x80\x99s efforts because many of the benefits associated with enterprise risk management can be\nand are realized prior to the \xe2\x80\x9cfull implementation.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nOIG Response\nThe statement that the \xe2\x80\x9cERMG has not fully addressed any of the COSO Framework\xe2\x80\x99s eight\ncomponents\xe2\x80\x9d is a conclusion based on a review of the ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s activities thus far. The Review\nResults section of the report fully explains the status of each of the eight components. For\nexample, on page 3 we explained that the ERMG has developed plans and begun activities\nrelated to three components and that the plans for fully addressing the remaining five\ncomponents have received limited attention. On page 4 we noted that none of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s business\nunits directly responsible for administering the federal student aid programs have been examined\nor included in ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s business unit activities to date. The statement that FSA has \xe2\x80\x9cnot\nimplemented enterprise risk management\xe2\x80\x9d is also a conclusion in answer to our objective and is\nsupported by all of the facts presented in our report. This conclusion is necessary for a full\nunderstanding of the current state of enterprise risk management at FSA. To the extent that FSA\nmanagement recognizes value in the efforts of the ERMG, the facts presented in our report\nshould not undermine the work of the ERMG. We note that in its response, FSA did not provide\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cany specific benefits that have been realized as a result of its enterprise risk management\nimplementation efforts.\n\nFSA Comment\nFSA stated that while the business unit activities referred to in the report represent a significant\npart of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s enterprise risk management program, the ERMG conducted other activities\nbetween May 2007 and December 2008. FSA provided a list of activities the ERMG had\nconducted during this time. FSA stated that OIG\xe2\x80\x99s failure to recognize these activities in the\n\xe2\x80\x98Review Results\xe2\x80\x99 section of the report could present an unbalanced view of the status of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nenterprise risk management program and associated implementation efforts.\n\nOIG Response\nOIG did not recognize all of the ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s activities in the Review Results section. In the\nBackground section of our report, we noted that Phase I of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s enterprise risk management\nprogram included \xe2\x80\x9cobtaining contractor services,\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9ccommunicating enterprise risk\nmanagement information to FSA executives\xe2\x80\x9d and Phase II included \xe2\x80\x9cconducting a high-level risk\nassessment\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cdeveloping a risk tracking system.\xe2\x80\x9d In the Review Results section of our\nreport, we stated that the ERMG had completed Phase I of its program and had nearly completed\nall activities associated with Phase II.\n\nThe report did not discuss the development of tools, resources, policies, procedures, and process\ndocuments to guide and support the program because they are typical activities when starting\nnew programs and are not unique to the implementation of enterprise risk management at FSA.\nThe report is not designed to be a catalog of all the activities conducted by the ERMG since its\ninception, but rather to explain the current state of enterprise risk management at FSA.\n\nFSA Comment\nFSA stated that it disagrees with the characterization that it has devoted limited attention to the\nInternal Environment component and stated that it has performed or is in the process of\nperforming significant efforts relating to FSA\xe2\x80\x99s internal environment. The specific example that\nFSA provided was the high-level risk assessment performed under a purchase agreement with\nGrant Thornton LLP which, according to FSA, provided a high-level baseline review and\ndocumentation of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s internal environment.\n\nOIG Response\nWe reviewed Grant Thornton\xe2\x80\x99s high-level risk assessment and the associated purchase order\nduring the course of our fieldwork. We found that a review of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s internal environment was\nnot the primary purpose of the work as it was not mentioned in the task order and was not\nincluded in the initial draft report provided to FSA. In fact, the Risk Analysis Team Leader, who\nalso served as the Contracting Officer\xe2\x80\x99s Representative for the purchase order, told us during our\nfieldwork that the internal environment section was not very involved. When discussing the\nassessment, the Chief Risk Officer said that he wanted the contractor to do a quick review of the\ninternal environment so the ERMG could check off that it had been completed.\n\nThe listing of documents reviewed by Grant Thornton, found in Appendix B of its final report,\ndoes not contain OIG reports or FSA-wide employee surveys. At the time of Grant Thornton\xe2\x80\x99s\nwork, OIG had completed audits that identified significant internal control weaknesses at FSA.\nAdditionally, there were employee survey results suggesting a concern among FSA staff about a\n\n\n 6\n\x0clack of integrity, ethical values and commitment to competence from FSA leadership. Because\nthe high-level risk assessment is the only area in which the ERMG claims to have addressed\nInternal Environment on an enterprise-wide level and based on the weaknesses related to the\nreport noted above, we concluded that the ERMG has given limited attention to the Internal\nEnvironment component.\n\nFSA Comment\nFSA stated that it believes the ERMG efforts related to the Internal Environment component are\nsubstantial; however, it stated that it did not intend to audit or opine on the strength or\neffectiveness of this component. FSA further stated that to do so would be premature and offer\nlittle or no added value.\n\nOIG Response\nWe stand by our conclusion that the ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s efforts related to the Internal Environment\ncomponent are limited. The ERMG defines the Internal Environment component as \xe2\x80\x9cthe tone of\nan organization, influencing the risk consciousness of its people, and is the basis for all other\ncomponents of risk management.\xe2\x80\x9d [Emphasis added.] According to the ERMG definition,\nInternal Environment elements include an entity\xe2\x80\x99s risk management philosophy; its risk appetite;\nthe integrity, ethical values, and competence of the entity\xe2\x80\x99s people; and the way management\nassigns authority and responsibility. As we stated in our report, \xe2\x80\x9c[t]he ERMG has not ensured\nthat FSA has a defined risk management philosophy or risk appetite. Additionally, the ERMG\nhas not given attention to existing information on FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Internal Environment such as FSA-wide\nsurveys indicating that there are perceptions on the part of FSA staff concerning a lack of\nintegrity, ethical values and commitment to competence from FSA leadership\xe2\x80\xa6.\xe2\x80\x9d The COSO\nFramework states that the \xe2\x80\x9ceffectiveness of enterprise risk management cannot rise above the\nintegrity and ethical values of the people who create, administer, and monitor entity activities.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s efforts related to the Internal Environment component are not substantial due to the\nfact that the ERMG has not addressed the specific elements of the component. The fact that FSA\nbelieves that determining the strength or effectiveness of this component would be premature\nand offer little or no added value is contradictory to the importance placed on it in the COSO\nFramework and by the ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s own definition.\n\n\n\n OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\n\nThe objective of our inspection was to evaluate FSA\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of Enterprise Risk\nManagement.\n\nWe began our fieldwork on July 17, 2008 and conducted an exit conference on February 10,\n2009.\n\nThe scope of our review included the ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s implementation activities at FSA from the hiring\nof the Chief Risk Officer in June 2004 to December 2008.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cWe reviewed COSO\xe2\x80\x99s Enterprise Risk Management \xe2\x80\x93 Integrated Framework. To evaluate\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of enterprise risk management, we reviewed the ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s Strategic Plan,\nProject Plan, methodology for conducting business unit risk activities, risk categories, risk\nratings, risk heat map, risk terminology, and listing of special projects. We also reviewed seven\nof the ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s PowerPoint presentations and documents related to Business Unit Risk Activities\nin five business units, including summary reports for three of those business units. We reviewed\ndocuments associated with both of the ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s purchase agreements for enterprise risk\nmanagement support services, ED-06-AG-0039 with Grant Thornton and ED-08-AG-0003 with\nADI Consulting, including the High-Level Risk Assessment created by Grant Thornton under\nTask Order 1 of their purchase agreement. We also interviewed FSA staff in the ERMG.\n\nOur inspection was performed in accordance with the 2005 President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and\nEfficiency Quality Standards for Inspections appropriate to the scope of the inspection described\nabove.\n\n\n\n ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS\n\n\nIn accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7552), reports issued by the Office\nof Inspector General are available to members of the press and general public to the extent\ninformation contained therein is not subject to exemptions in the Act.\n\nElectronic cc: Linda Hall, Acting General Manager, Enterprise Performance Management\n Services\n Stan Dore, Chief Risk Officer\n Marge White, Director, Internal Review Division\n Cynthia Vitters, Team Leader, Risk Analysis Team\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c April 10, 2009\n\nMr. W. Christian Vierling\nDirector, Evaluation and Inspection Services\nU.S. Department of Education\nOffice of Inspector General\n550 12th Street, S.W., Room 8153\nWashington, DC 20024\n\nDear Mr. Vierling:\n\nThank you for providing us with an opportunity to respond to the Office of Inspector\nGeneral\xe2\x80\x99s (OIG) draft management information report entitled, \xe2\x80\x9cReview of Federal\nStudent Aid\xe2\x80\x99s Enterprise Risk Management Program\xe2\x80\x9d (Control Number ED-\nOIG/I13I0005). While we understand that since this report did not contain any\nrecommendations for corrective action, no response is required, we appreciate the\nopportunity to address some of the information, comments and assertions contained\ntherein.\n\nAs noted in the background section of this management information report (MIR),\nFederal Student Aid\xe2\x80\x99s Enterprise Risk Management Group (ERMG) was created in May\n2006 to provide a more strategic view of risks at Federal Student Aid (FSA) and better\nenable senior management to identify, assess, manage and monitor those risks. In\nsupport of those objectives, ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s Risk Analysis & Reporting Division is leading the\neffort to implement an Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Program at FSA. This effort,\nwhich is among the first of its kind in the federal government, represents a forward-\nlooking and proactive approach to evaluating and managing risk, especially at the\nenterprise or strategic level.\n\nSince much of the focus of this inspection was centered on evaluating FSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nimplementation of its ERM program against its adherence to the Committee of\nSponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) Framework, we feel\ncompelled to respond to some assertions contained in the OIG Inspection report that we\ndo not believe to fairly characterize the results of our effort to date. One such example of\nthis is the statement that \xe2\x80\x9cERMG has not fully addressed any of the COSO Framework\xe2\x80\x99s\neight components.\xe2\x80\x9d The report does not elaborate on what is meant by \xe2\x80\x9cfully addressing\xe2\x80\x9d\nthe components, yet implies that ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s efforts relating to the eight components of\nCOSO are in some way deficient.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cPage 2 - Mr. W. Christian Vierling\n\n\nFSA has chosen to adopt a framework, which is based on the ERM Integrated Framework\nissued in 2004 by COSO. Since the COSO Framework was developed primarily with\npublic stockholder-owned corporations in mind, Federal Student Aid has spent\nconsiderable time evaluating and considering how to utilize various aspects of this\nFramework to be most applicable and beneficial to a federal entity.\n\nFederal Student Aid has made the decision to address all eight components in its ERM\nProgram, Strategy, and/or Project Plan documents, which were provided to the OIG\ninspectors at the beginning of their fieldwork. At no point during the inspection did\nERMG represent that all activities related to these components were complete and some\nare not yet even in process. However, we are not applying the COSO Framework in the\nexact manner or order described in the COSO guidance. The guidance in COSO all but\nmandates this approach. Specifically, COSO states: \xe2\x80\x9cNo two entities will, or should,\napply enterprise risk management in the same way. Companies and their enterprise risk\nmanagement capabilities and needs differ dramatically by industry and size, and by\nmanagement philosophy and culture. Thus, while all entities should have each of the\ncomponents in place and operating effectively, one company\xe2\x80\x99s application of enterprise\nrisk management \xe2\x80\x93 including the tools and techniques employed and the assignments of\nroles and responsibilities \xe2\x80\x93 often will look very different from another\xe2\x80\x99s.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nThe implementation and execution of an effective ERM program is a multi-year effort\nthat requires time, commitment, support and resources. Therefore, we believe that the\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s assertion that FSA has \xe2\x80\x9cnot implemented enterprise risk management\xe2\x80\x9d is\nsomewhat misleading. Our concern is that since it merely states the obvious, it tends to\nundermine ERMG\xe2\x80\x99s efforts as this is not a realistic expectation or goal at this point in\ntime. In fact, only a very small percentage of publicly traded companies have fully\nimplemented ERM programs, despite having a significant head start over their\ngovernment counterparts. Most ERM programs, like FSA\xe2\x80\x99s, are works-in-progress.\nDespite this, many of the benefits associated with ERM can be and are realized prior to\nthe \xe2\x80\x9cfull implementation\xe2\x80\x9d of ERM.\n\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s ERM Program competes with other ERMG efforts including special projects, risk\nassessments and internal reviews. It was developed internally with extensive planning,\nanalysis and research, which was a necessity as there is no governmental guidance\ndirectly related to ERM, or other federal ERM programs to model after. The ERM\nProgram consists of various additional efforts beyond the business unit risk activities\nreferred to in the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s report. While the business unit risk activities represent a\nsignificant part of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s ERM Program, numerous other activities were underway during\nthe May 2007 through December 2008 time period referenced by this report. These\nactivities include:\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cPage 3 - Mr. W. Christian Vierling\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Conduct a high-level risk assessment to identify and assess FSA\xe2\x80\x99s strategic risks;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Development and finalization of various risk resources and tools to guide and\n support the ERM Program;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Development and implementation of an advanced risk tracking database;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Training and presentations provided to internal business units, senior management\n and entities outside of Federal Student Aid;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Conduct various activities required to acquire contractor support for the ERM\n effort; and\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Completion of various policies, procedures and/or process documents in support of\n FSA\xe2\x80\x99s ERM Program.\n\nWe believe that failure to recognize these activities in the \xe2\x80\x98Review Results\xe2\x80\x99 section of this\nreport can present an unbalanced view of the status of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s ERM Program and\nassociated implementation efforts.\n\nConsiderable attention in this report also focuses on what OIG characterizes as \xe2\x80\x9cERMG\xe2\x80\x99s\nlimited attention to the Internal Environment component\xe2\x80\x9d of the COSO ERM\nFramework. We respectfully disagree with this characterization and maintain that\nsignificant efforts relating to FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Internal Environment have been performed or are in\nprocess. Prior to beginning the detailed risk activities currently underway, ERMG\nengaged an independent contractor, Grant Thornton, LLP (GT), to perform a high-level\nrisk assessment at FSA. As part of that effort, GT also performed a high-level baseline\nreview and documentation of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Internal Environment as defined by the COSO ERM\nFramework. The results of that review were contained in the high-level risk report\npresented to executive management. At the same time, efforts to document and evaluate\nthe Internal Environment at FSA continue as part of other activities associated with the\nimplementation of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s ERM Program.\n\nWe believe that the combined ERMG efforts discussed above and relating to the COSO\nInternal Environment component are substantial. Nonetheless, we appear to have\nfundamental differences with the OIG about the timing of activities associated with\nincorporating this component into FSA\xe2\x80\x99s framework. Although the baseline review and\ndocumentation of the Internal Environment were performed as planned, we did not intend\nas part of that effort to audit or opine on the strength or effectiveness of this COSO\ncomponent. To do so, in our opinion, would be premature and offer little or no added\nvalue.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cPage 4 - Mr. W. Christian Vierling\n\n\nWhile efforts to implement an ERM Program at FSA are not free from challenges or\nmistakes, they do offer a unique opportunity to enhance the organization\xe2\x80\x99s risk\nmanagement practices, understanding and culture. Our process of implementing an ERM\nProgram is one of continuous enhancement, refinement and adoption of best practices.\nAs such, we appreciate the chance to share our efforts and progress with the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\ninspection team and hope to further improve FSA\xe2\x80\x99s ERM Program based on the feedback\nprovided.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n /s/\n\n James F. Manning\n Acting Chief Operating Officer\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c"


text:
 13.9.2012
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 248/4
 DECIZIA NR. 75/2012 A COMITETULUI MIXT AL SEE
 din 30 aprilie 2012
 de modificare a anexei I (Chestiuni veterinare și fitosanitare) la Acordul privind SEE
 COMITETUL MIXT AL SEE,
 având în vedere Acordul privind Spațiul Economic European, astfel cum a fost modificat prin Protocolul de adaptare a Acordului privind Spațiul Economic European, denumit în continuare „acordul”, în special articolul 98,
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Anexa I la acord a fost modificată prin Decizia nr. 34/2012 a Comitetului mixt al SEE din 30 martie 2012 (1).
 (2)
 Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1099/2009 al Consiliului din 24 septembrie 2009 privind protecția animalelor în momentul uciderii (2) trebuie încorporat în acord.
 (3)
 Regulamentul (UE) nr. 150/2011 al Comisiei din 18 februarie 2011 de modificare a anexei III la Regulamentul (CE) nr. 853/2004 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului în ceea ce privește vânatul de crescătorie și vânatul sălbatic și carnea de vânat de crescătorie și de vânat sălbatic (3) trebuie încorporat în acord.
 (4)
 Regulamentul (UE) nr. 151/2011 al Comisiei din 18 februarie 2011 de modificare a anexei I la Regulamentul (CE) nr. 854/2004 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului cu privire la vânatul de crescătorie (4) trebuie încorporat în acord.
 (5)
 Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1099/2009 abrogă Directiva 93/119/CE a Consiliului (5) care este încorporată în acord și care trebuie, prin urmare, eliminată integral din acord, cu efect de la 8 decembrie 2019.
 (6)
 Prezenta decizie se referă la legislația privind chestiunile veterinare. Legislația privind chestiunile veterinare nu se aplică Liechtensteinului atât timp cât aplicarea Acordului între Comunitatea Europeană și Confederația Elvețiană privind schimburile comerciale cu produse agricole se extinde la Liechtenstein, astfel cum s-a prevăzut în adaptările sectoriale aduse anexei I la acord. Prin urmare, prezenta decizie nu se aplică Liechtensteinului,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTA DECIZIE:
 Articolul 1
 În anexa I la acord, capitolul I se modifică după cum urmează:
 1.
 În partea 9.1, la punctul 2 (Directiva 93/119/CE a Consiliului), formularea „astfel cum a fost modificată prin” se înlocuiește cu formularea „astfel cum a fost modificată și abrogată prin”.
 2.
 În partea 9.1, la punctul 2 (Directiva 93/119/EC a Consiliului) se adaugă următoarea liniuță:
 „—
 32009 R 1099: Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1099/2009 al Consiliului din 24 septembrie 2009 (JO L 303, 18.11.2009, p. 1).”
 3.
 Textul de la punctul 2 (Directiva 93/119/CE a Consiliului) se elimină începând cu 8 decembrie 2019.
 4.
 În partea 9.1, după punctul 2 (Directiva 93/119/CE a Consiliului) se introduce următorul punct:
 „2a.
 32009 R 1099: Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1099/2009 al Consiliului din 24 septembrie 2009 privind protecția animalelor în momentul uciderii (JO L 303, 18.11.2009, p. 1).”
 5.
 În partea 6.1, la punctul 17 [Regulamentul (CE) nr. 853/2004 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului] se adaugă următoarea liniuță:
 „—
 32011 R 0150: Regulamentul (UE) nr. 150/2011 al Comisiei din 18 februarie 2011 (JO L 46, 19.2.2011, p. 14).”
 6.
 În partea 1.1, la punctul 12 [Regulamentul (CE) nr. 854/2004 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului] se adaugă următoarea liniuță:
 „—
 32011 R 0151: Regulamentul (UE) nr. 151/2011 al Comisiei din 18 februarie 2011 (JO L 46, 19.2.2011, p. 17).”
 Articolul 2
 Textele Regulamentelor (CE) nr. 1099/2009, (UE) nr. 150/2011 și (UE) nr. 151/2011 în limbile islandeză și norvegiană, care urmează să fie publicate în suplimentul SEE la Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene, sunt autentice.
 Articolul 3
 Prezenta decizie intră în vigoare la 1 mai 2012, cu condiția să se fi efectuat toate notificările prevăzute la articolul 103 alineatul (1) din acord către Comitetul mixt al SEE (6).
 Articolul 4
 Prezenta decizie se publică în secțiunea SEE și în suplimentul SEE ale Jurnalului Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Adoptată la Bruxelles, 30 aprilie 2012.
 Pentru Comitetul mixt al SEE
 Președintele interimar
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) JO L 207, 2.8.2012, p. 1.
 (2) JO L 303, 18.11.2009, p. 1.
 (3) JO L 46, 19.2.2011, p. 14.
 (4) JO L 46, 19.2.2011, p. 17.
 (5) JO L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.
 (6) Nu au fost semnalate obligații constituționale.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21999D0609(01)
 Απόφαση αριθ. 1/1999 του Συμβουλίου Σύνδεσης μεταξύ των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και των κρατών μελών τους, αφενός, και της Δημοκρατίας της Εσθονίας, αφετέρου, της 28ης Απριλίου 1999, περί των κανόνων εφαρμογής του άρθρου 63 παράγραφος 1 σημεία i) και ii) και παράγραφος 2 της ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας σύνδεσης μεταξύ των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και των κρατών μελών τους, αφενός, και της Δημοκρατίας της Εσθονίας, αφετέρου
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα αριθ. L 144 της 09/06/1999 σ. 0016 - 0019
 ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ αριθ. 1/1999 ΤΟΥ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟΥ ΣΥΝΔΕΣΗΣμεταξύ των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και των κρατών μελών τους, αφενός, και της Δημοκρατίας της Εσθονίας, αφετέρουτης 28ης Απριλίου 1999περί των κανόνων εφαρμογής του άρθρου 63 παράγραφος 1 σημεία i) και ii) και παράγραφος 2 της ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας σύνδεσης μεταξύ των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και των κρατών μελών τους, αφενός, και της Δημοκρατίας της Εσθονίας, αφετέρου(1999/372/ΕΚ, ΕΚΑΧ, Ευρατόμ)ΤΟ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ ΣΥΝΔΕΣΗΣ,Έχοντας υπόψη την ευρωπαϊκή συμφωνία σύνδεσης μεταξύ των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και των κρατών μελών τους, αφενός, και της Δημοκρατίας της Εσθονίας, που υπεγράφη στις 12 Ιανουαρίου 1995, αφετέρου, και ιδίως στο άρθρο 63 παράγραφος 3,Εκτιμώντας ότι το άρθρο 63 παράγραφος 3 της ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας προβλέπει ότι το Συμβούλιο Σύνδεσης θεσπίζει τους απαραίτητους κανόνες για την εφαρμογή του άρθρου 63 παράγραφοι 1 και 2,ΑΠΟΦΑΣΙΖΕΙ:Άρθρο 1Εγκρίνονται οι κανόνες εφαρμογής του άρθρου 63 παράγραφος 1 σημεία i) και ii) και παράγραφος 2 της ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας σύνδεσης μεταξύ των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και των κρατών μελών τους, αφενός, και της Δημοκρατίας της Εσθονίας, αφετέρου, όπως παρατίθενται στο παράρτημα της παρούσας απόφασης.Άρθρο 2Η παρούσα απόφαση δημοσιεύεται στην Επίσημη Εφημερίδα των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και στην Riigi Teataja (Επίσημη εφημερίδα της Εσθονίας).Άρθρο 3Η παρούσα απόφαση αρχίζει να ισχύει την ημέρα της έκδοσής της.Βρυξέλλες, 28 Απριλίου 1999.Για το Συμβούλιο ΣύνδεσηςΟ ΠρόεδροςT. H. ILVESΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑΚΑΝΟΝΕΣ ΕΦΑΡΜΟΓΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΔΙΑΤΑΞΕΩΝ ΠΕΡΙ ΑΝΤΑΓΩΝΙΣΜΟΥ ΓΙΑ ΤΙΣ ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΣΕΙΣΚανόνες εφαρμογής των διατάξεων περί ανταγωνισμού για τις επιχειρήσεις που προβλέπονται στο άρθρο 63 παράγραφος 1 σημεία i) και ii) και παράγραφος 2 της ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας σύνδεσης μεταξύ των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και των κρατών μελών τους, αφενός, και της Δημοκρατίας της Εσθονίας, αφετέρουΆρθρο 1Γενική αρχήΟι περιπτώσεις που αφορούν τις συμφωνίες μεταξύ επιχειρήσεων, τις αποφάσεις ενώσεων επιχειρήσεων και τις εναρμονισμένες πρακτικές μεταξύ επιχειρήσεων, οι οποίες έχουν ως αντικείμενο ή ως επίπτωση την παρεμπόδιση, τον περιορισμό ή τη στρέβλωση του ανταγωνισμού καθώς και οι περιπτώσεις κατάχρησης της δεσπόζουσας θέσης σε ολόκληρο το έδαφος της Κοινότητας ή της Εσθονίας ή σε σημαντικό τμήμα αυτού, που μπορούν να θίξουν το εμπόριο μεταξύ της Κοινότητας και της Εσθονίας, ρυθμίζονται σύμφωνα με τις αρχές του άρθρου 63 παράγραφοι 1 και 2 της ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας.Για το σκοπό αυτό, τις εν λόγω περιπτώσεις αναλαμβάνει η Επιτροπή των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων (ΓΔ IV), για την Κοινότητα, και η αρχή ανταγωνισμού, για την Εσθονία.Η Επιτροπή των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και η αρχή ανταγωνισμού ασχολούνται με τις εν λόγω υποθέσεις με βάση τις αρμοδιότητες που τους ανατίθενται από τους ισχύοντες κανόνες της κατ' ιδίαν νομοθεσίας της Κοινότητας και της Εσθονίας, ακόμη και όταν οι εν λόγω διατάξεις εφαρμόζονται στις επιχειρήσεις που βρίσκονται εκτός του αντιστοίχου εδάφους.Αμφότερες οι αρχές ρυθμίζουν τις εν λόγω περιπτώσεις σύμφωνα με τους κατ' ιδίαν ουσιαστικούς κανόνες, και λαμβανομένων υπόψη των κατωτέρω διατάξεων. Οι εν λόγω ουσιαστικοί κανόνες είναι, για την Επιτροπή των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων, οι κανόνες περί ανταγωνισμού της συνθήκης περί ιδρύσεως της Ευρωπαϊκής Κοινότητας, της συνθήκης ΕΚΑΧ και του παράγωγου δικαίου περί ανταγωνισμού, και, για την αρχή ανταγωνισμού της Εσθονίας, το εσθονικό δίκαιο περί ανταγωνισμού και οι κανονισμοί που εφαρμόζονται στη συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση.ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΚΕΣ ΔΡΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΤΗΤΕΣ ΒΑΣΕΙ ΤΗΣ ΣΥΝΘΗΚΗΣ ΕΚΆρθρο 2Αρμοδιότητες αμφοτέρων των αρχών ανταγωνισμούΗ Επιτροπή των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και η αρχή ανταγωνισμού της Εσθονίας εξετάζουν, σύμφωνα με τις διατάξεις του παρόντος άρθρου, τις περιπτώσεις του άρθρου 63 της ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας, οι οποίες ενδέχεται να θίξουν την κοινοτική και εσθονική αγορά και οι οποίες ενδεχομένως εμπίπτουν στην αρμοδιότητα αμφοτέρων των αρχών ανταγωνισμού.2.1. Κοινοποίηση2.1.1. Οι αρχές ανταγωνισμού κοινοποιούν αμοιβαία τις περιπτώσεις που εξετάζουν, οι οποίες σύμφωνα με τη γενική αρχή του άρθρου 1, φαίνεται ότι υπάγονται και στην αρμοδιότητα της άλλης αρχής.2.1.2. Η κατάσταση αυτή μπορεί να ανακύψει ειδικότερα σε περιπτώσεις δραστηριότητες, οι οποίες:- συνεπάγονται αντιανταγωνιστικές δραστηριότητες που πραγματοποιούνται στο έδαφος της άλλης αρχής,- έχουν σχέση με εκτελεστικές πράξεις της άλλης αρχής ανταγωνισμού,- συνεπάγονται λύσεις που απαιτούν ή απαγορεύουν συγκεκριμένες πρακτικές στο έδαφος της άλλης αρχής.2.1.3. Η κοινοποίηση που προβλέπει το παρόν άρθρο περιλαμβάνει την προσκόμιση επαρκών στοιχείων, ώστε να μπορεί ο αποδέκτης να προβεί σε μια αρχική αξιολόγηση των τυχόν συνεπειών επί των συμφερόντων του. Αντίγραφα των κοινοποιήσεων υποβάλλονται τακτικά στο Συμβούλιο Σύνδεσης.2.1.4. Η κοινοποίηση πρέπει να πραγματοποιείται εκ των προτέρων, το ταχύτερο δυνατόν, και το αργότερο σε στάδιο της έρευνας αρκετά πριν από την έκδοση απόφασης ή τον διακανονισμό, ώστε να μπορούν να υποβληθούν παρατηρήσεις ή να γίνουν διαβουλεύσεις και να επιτραπεί στην επισπεύδουσα αρχή να λάβει υπόψη τις απόψεις της άλλης αρχής, καθώς και να λάβει τα επανορθωτικά μέτρα που προβλέπει η νομοθεσία της στην προκειμένη περίπτωση.2.2. ΔιαβουλεύσειςΌταν η Επιτροπή των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων ή η αρχή ανταγωνισμού της Εσθονίας θεωρούν ότι αντιανταγωνιστικές δραστηριότητες που διεξάγονται στο έδαφος του άλλου μέρους θίγουν κατά τρόπο ουσιαστικό σημαντικά συμφέροντά του, μπορούν να ζητήσουν την έναρξη διαβουλεύσεων με την άλλη αρχή, ή μπορούν να ζητήσουν από την αρχή ανταγωνισμού του άλλου μέρους να κινήσει τις κατάλληλες διαδικασίες ώστε να λάβει τα επανορθωτικά μέτρα δυνάμει της νομοθεσίας περί αντιανταγωνιστικών πράξεων. Οι διαβουλεύσεις αυτές δεν θίγουν τυχόν μέτρα που λαμβάνονται σύμφωνα με τη νομοθεσία περί ανταγωνισμού του αιτούντος μέρους, ούτε την πλήρη ελευθερία της αρχής προς την οποία απευθύνεται η αίτηση όσον αφορά την τελική απόφαση.2.3. Εξεύρεση συμβιβαστικής λύσηςΗ αρχή ανταγωνισμού στην οποία υποβάλλεται η αίτηση εξετάζει πλήρως και με κατανόηση τις απόψεις και τα πραγματικά περιστατικά τα οποία προσκομίζει η αιτούσα αρχή και, ιδίως, τον χαρακτήρα των αντιανταγωνιστικών δραστηριοτήτων, τις εμπλεκόμενες επιχειρήσεις και τις προβαλλόμενες ζημιογόνες επιπτώσεις για σημαντικά συμφέροντα του αιτούντος μέρους.Με την επιφύλαξη δικαιωμάτων ή υποχρεώσεων, οι αρχές ανταγωνισμού που συμμετέχουν σε διαβουλεύσεις δυνάμει του παρόντος άρθρου, προσπαθούν να εξεύρουν αμοιβαία αποδεκτή λύση λαμβανομένων υπόψη των εκατέρωθεν αντίστοιχων σημαντικών συμφερόντων.Άρθρο 3Αποκλειστική αρμοδιότητα μιας αρχής ανταγωνισμού3.1. Οι περιπτώσεις που υπάγονται στην αποκλειστική αρμοδιότητα μιας αρχής ανταγωνισμού, σύμφωνα με την αρχή του άρθρου 1, και οι οποίες μπορούν να θίξουν σημαντικά συμφέροντα του άλλου μέρους, διευθετούνται σύμφωνα με τις διατάξεις του άρθρου 2 και τις παρακάτω αρχές.3.2. Ειδικότερα, όταν μια από τις αρχές ανταγωνισμού κινεί έρευνα ή διαδικασία οσάκις διαπιστώνεται ότι θίγονται σημαντικά συμφέροντα του άλλου μέρους, κοινοποιεί την περίπτωση αυτή στην άλλη αρχή, χωρίς επίσημη σχετική αίτηση της τελευταίας.Άρθρο 4Αίτηση παροχής πληροφοριώνΑν η αρχή ανταγωνισμού ενός μέρους διαπιστώσει ότι μια περίπτωση, η οποία υπάγεται στην συντρέχουσα ή αποκλειστική αρμοδιότητα της άλλης αρχής, θίγει σημαντικά τους συμφέροντα, μπορεί να ζητήσει πληροφορίες σχετικά με την περίπτωση αυτή από την επισπεύδουσα αρχή.Η επισπεύδουσα αρχή παρέχει επαρκή στοιχεία εφόσον είναι δυνατόν και σε στάδιο της διαδικασίας αρκετά πριν από την έκδοση ή τον διακανονισμό, ώστε να μπορούν να ληφθούν υπόψη οι απόψεις της αιτούσας αρχής.Άρθρο 5Απόρρητος και εμπιστευτικός χαρακτήρας των πληροφοριών5.1. Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 63 παράγραφος 7 της ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας, ουδεμία αρμόδια αρχή ανταγωνισμού είναι υποχρεωμένη να παρέχει πληροφορίες στην άλλη αρχή, αν η κοινολόγηση των εν λόγω πληροφοριών απαγορεύεται από τη νομοθεσία της αρχής που κατέχει τις πληροφορίες ή είναι ασυμβίβαστη με σημαντικά συμφέροντα του μέρους του οποίου η αρχή κατέχει τις πληροφορίες.5.2. Κάθε αρχή συμφωνεί να διατηρήσει, στο βαθμό που είναι αυτό δυνατό, τον εμπιστευτικό χαρακτήρα όλων των πληροφοριών που λαμβάνει από την άλλη αρχή.Άρθρο 6Απαλλαγές κατά κατηγορίεςΓια την εφαρμογή του άρθρου 63 της ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας, όπως προβλέπεται από τα άρθρα 2 και 3 παραπάνω, οι αρχές ανταγωνισμού εξασφαλίζουν την πλήρη εφαρμογή των αρχών που αναφέρονται στους κανονισμούς περί απαλλαγών κατά κατηγορίες που ισχύουν στην Κοινότητα. Η αρχή ανταγωνισμού της Εσθονίας ενημερώνεται σχετικά με κάθε διαδικασία που αφορά τη θέσπιση, την κατάργηση ή την τροποποίηση των απαλλαγών κατά κατηγορίες από την Κοινότητα.Στην περίπτωση κατά την οποία η Εσθονία προβάλει έντονες αντιρρήσεις όσον αφορά τους κανονισμούς περί απαλλαγής κατά κατηγορίες, και ενόψει της νομοθετικής προσέγγισης που προβλέπει η ευρωπαϊκή συμφωνία, πραγματοποιούνται διαβουλεύσεις στο Συμβούλιο Σύνδεσης, σύμφωνα με τις διατάξεις του άρθρου 9.Οι ίδιες αρχές εφαρμόζονται και στην περίπτωση άλλων σημαντικών μεταβολών της πολιτικής περί ανταγωνισμού της Κοινότητας ή της Εσθονίας.Άρθρο 7Έλεγχος των συγκεντρώσεων επιχειρήσεωνΌσον αφορά τις συγκεντρώσεις επιχειρήσεων που διέπονται από τον κανονισμό (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 4064/89 του Συμβουλίου, της 21ης Δεκεμβρίου 1989, για τον έλεγχο των συγκεντρώσεων μεταξύ επιχειρήσεων(1), και οι οποίες έχουν σημαντικό αντίκτυπο στην εσθονική οικονομία, η αρχή ανταγωνισμού τους Εσθονίας έχει το δικαίωμα να εκφράσει γνώμη κατά τη διάρκεια της διαδικασίας, λαμβανομένων υπόψη των προθεσμιών που προβλέπει ο προαναφερόμενος κανονισμός. Η Επιτροπή των ΕΚ λαμβάνει δεόντως υπόψη τη γνώμη αυτή, με την επιφύλαξη τυχόν μέτρων που λαμβάνουν τα μέρη δυνάμει των κατ' ιδίαν νομοθεσιών περί ανταγωνισμού.Άρθρο 8Δραστηριότητες ήσσονος σημασίας8.1. Οι ανταγωνιστικές δραστηριότητες, οι οποίες έχουν αμελητέες συνέπειες στο εμπόριο μεταξύ των μερών ή στον ανταγωνισμό, δεν καλύπτονται από το άρθρο 63 παράγραφος 1 της ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας και, συνεπώς, δεν εξετάζονται σύμφωνα με τα άρθρα 2 έως 6 των παρόντων κανόνων εφαρμογής.8.2. Κατά την έννοια του άρθρου 8 παράγραφος 1 ως "αμελητέες συνέπειες" νοούνται οι περιπτώσεις κατά τις οποίες:- ο συνολικός ετήσιος κύκλος εργασιών των επιχειρήσεων που συμμετέχουν δεν υπερβαίνει τα 200 εκατομμύρια Ecu, και- τα εμπορεύματα ή οι υπηρεσίες που αποτελούν το αντικείμενο της συμφωνίας, καθώς και τα λοιπά εμπορεύματα ή υπηρεσίες των οικείων επιχειρήσεων τα οποία θεωρούνται από τους χρήστες ισοδύναμα λόγω των χαρακτηριστικών, των τιμών και της προβλεπόμενης χρήσης, δεν αντιπροσωπεύουν περισσότερο από 5 % της συνολικής αγοράς των εν λόγω εμπορευμάτων ή υπηρεσιών στο χώρο της κοινής αγοράς και της εσθονικής αγοράς που αφορά η συμφωνία.Άρθρο 9Συμβούλιο Σύνδεσης9.1. Όταν οι διαδικασίες που προβλέπονται στα προαναφερόμενα άρθρα 2 και 3 δεν επιτρέπουν την εξεύρεση αμοιβαίως αποδεκτής λύσης, καθώς και στις άλλες περιπτώσεις που αναφέρονται ρητά στους παρόντες κανόνες εφαρμογής, διοργανώνεται ανταλλαγή απόψεων στο Συμβούλιο Σύνδεσης, αφού το ζητήσει ένα μέρος, εντός τριών μηνών από την αίτηση.9.2. Μετά από αυτή την ανταλλαγή απόψεων, ή μετά από τη λήξη της προαναφερόμενης προθεσμίας, το Συμβούλιο Σύνδεσης μπορεί να διατυπώσει τις κατάλληλες συστάσεις για τη διευθέτηση των εν λόγω περιπτώσεων, με την επιφύλαξη του άρθρου 63 παράγραφος 6 της ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας. Στις συστάσεις αυτές, το Συμβούλιο Σύνδεσης μπορεί να λάβει υπόψη το γεγονός ότι η αρχή στην οποία υποβλήθηκε η αίτηση, δεν μπόρεσε να διατυπώσει την άποψή της προς την αιτούσα αρχή εντός της προθεσμίας που προβλέπεται στο άρθρο 9 παράγραφος 1.9.3. Οι προαναφερόμενες διαδικασίες στο πλαίσιο του Συμβουλίου Σύνδεσης δεν θίγουν τις ενέργειες που αναλαμβάνονται δυνάμει της σχετικής νομοθεσίας περί ανταγωνισμού που ισχύει στο έδαφος των μερών.Άρθρο 10Αρνητική σύγκρουση αρμοδιοτήτωνΌταν η Επιτροπή των ΕΚ και αρχή ανταγωνισμού της Εσθονίας θεωρούν ότι δεν είναι αρμόδιες για να χειριστούν μια περίπτωση βάσει της σχετικής τους νομοθεσίας, πραγματοποιείται ανταλλαγή απόψεων κατόπιν αιτήσεως του Συμβουλίου Σύνδεσης. Η Κοινότητα και η Εσθονία προσπαθούν να εξεύρουν αμοιβαίως αποδεκτή λύση με βάση τα κατ' ιδίαν σημαντικά συμφέροντα, με την υποστήριξη του Συμβουλίου Σύνδεσης, το οποίο μπορεί να διατυπώσει κατάλληλες συστάσεις, με την επιφύλαξη του άρθρου 63 παράγραφος 6 της ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας και των δικαιωμάτων των επιμέρους κρατών μελών των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων βάσει των ιδίων κανόνων περί ανταγωνισμού.ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΚΕΣ ΔΡΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΤΗΤΕΣ ΒΑΣΕΙ ΤΗΣ ΣΥΝΘΗΚΗΣ ΕΚΑΧΆρθρο 11Συνθήκη για την ίδρυση της Ευρωπαϊκής Κοινότητας Άνθρακα και Χάλυβα (ΕΚΑΧ)Oι διατάξεις των άρθρων 1 έως 6 και 8 έως 10 εφαρμόζονται επίσης στον τομέα του άνθρακα και χάλυβα.Άρθρο 12Διοικητική συνδρομή (Γλώσσες)Η Επιτροπή των ΕΚ και η αρχή ανταγωνισμού της Εσθονίας λαμβάνουν πρακτικά μέτρα αμοιβαίας συνδρομής ή προβλέπουν οποιαδήποτε άλλη κατάλληλη λύση ιδίως όσον αφορά τα προβλήματα μετάφρασης.(1) ΕΕ L 395 της 30.12.1989, σ. 1· κανονισμός όπως τροποποιήθηκε τελευταία από τον κανονισμό (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 1310/97 (ΕΕ L 180 της 9.7.1997, σ. 1).


text:
Маджѐрито е село в Южна България. То се намира в община Стара Загора, област Стара Загора. Населението му е около .
 География
 Маджерито е разположено на 152 m надморска височина в северозападната част на Старозагорското поле, на 7,5 километра от центъра на град Стара Загора. Регулационните граници на селото обхващат 0,8 km2, а землището му е с площ 12,29 km2.
 История
 Селото, в което днес живеят близо 1000 души, е създадено през далечната 1792 година. На това място се е намирал чифликът на Емин бей.
 Селото било създадено от двама братя, които му били ключари или на турски казано маджери.
 Днес в Маджерито няма нито един мюсюлманин, само едно ромско семейство отглеждат говеда край селото.
 Маджерито възниква около чифлик от османската епоха, като името му се свързва със заселници маджари.
 Население
 Населението на село Маджерито е .
 Село Маджерито има много красиви и модерни вили и е едно предпочитано място за старозагорци. Поради факта, че селото е разположено на 8 км от града, все повече старозагорци купуват места и къщи там и ги превръщат в удобни за обитаване домове.
 Управление
 Икономика
 В селото се намира птицеферма на групата „Градус“, логистичен център на куриерската компания „Спиди“ и предприятие за пакетиране на подправки – ЕТ „Гана“.
 Инфраструктура
 Култура
 През 1928 година в селото е основано читалище „Пробуда“. Още тогава то е разполагало със самодеен театър и библиотека. От 1987 г. читалището разполага с нова сграда, която включва театрален салон със 150 места.
 На 6 май 1998 г. се започна строителството на храма „Св. Георги Победоносец“. Завършването му става през 2006 г., с основен финансов спонсор ЕТ „ГАНА“, развиваща дейност в селото, а на 8 октомври 2006 г., той е осветен.
 Бележки
 Цитирани източници
 Външни препратки
 Села в област Стара Загора
 Населени места в община Стара Загора


type: legislation

text:
 27.9.2011
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 L 250/81
 BESCHLUSS DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS
 vom 10. Mai 2011
 betrefffend die Entlastung zur Ausführung des Haushaltsplans der Exekutivagentur für das transeuropäische Verkehrsnetz für das Haushaltsjahr 2009
 (2011/554/EU, Euratom)
 DAS EUROPÄISCHE PARLAMENT,
 —
 unter Hinweis auf den Gesamthaushaltsplan der Europäischen Union für das Haushaltsjahr 2009 (1),
 —
 in Kenntnis der Jahresrechnung der Europäischen Union für das Haushaltsjahr 2009 (SEK(2010) 963 — C7-0211/2010) (2),
 —
 in Kenntnis des Jahresabschlusses der Exekutivagentur für das transeuropäische Verkehrsnetz für das Haushaltsjahr 2009,
 —
 in Kenntnis des Berichts der Kommission über die Folgemaßnahmen betreffend die Entlastung zur Ausführung des Haushaltsplans für das Haushaltsjahr 2008 (KOM(2010) 650) und der diesem Bericht beigefügten Arbeitsdokumente der Dienststellen der Kommission (SEK(2010) 1437 und SEK(2010) 1438),
 —
 in Kenntnis der Mitteilung der Kommission vom 2. Juni 2010 mit dem Titel „Managementbilanz der Kommission 2009 — Synthesebericht“ (KOM(2010) 281),
 —
 in Kenntnis des Jahresberichts der Kommission an die Entlastungsbehörde über die im Jahr 2009 durchgeführten internen Prüfungen (KOM(2010) 447) und des diesem Bericht beigefügten Arbeitsdokuments der Dienststellen der Kommission (SEK(2010) 994),
 —
 in Kenntnis des Berichts des Rechnungshofs über den Jahresabschluss 2009 der Exekutivagentur für das transeuropäische Verkehrsnetz, zusammen mit den Antworten der Agentur (3),
 —
 in Kenntnis der vom Rechnungshof gemäß Artikel 287 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union vorgelegten Erklärung über die Zuverlässigkeit der Rechnungsführung sowie die Rechtmäßigkeit und Ordnungsmäßigkeit der zugrunde liegenden Vorgänge (4),
 —
 in Kenntnis der Empfehlung des Rates vom 15. Februar 2011 zu der den Exekutivagenturen zur Ausführung des Haushaltsplans für das Haushaltsjahr 2009 zu erteilenden Entlastung (05893/2011 — C7-0054/2011),
 —
 gestützt auf die Artikel 274, 275 und 276 des EG-Vertrags, Artikel 17 Absatz 1 des Vertrags über die Europäische Union, die Artikel 317, 318 und 319 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union sowie die Artikel 179a und 180b des Euratom-Vertrags,
 —
 gestützt auf die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1605/2002 des Rates vom 25. Juni 2002 über die Haushaltsordnung für den Gesamthaushaltsplan der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (5), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1995/2006 des Rates (6) und die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1525/2007 des Rates (7), insbesondere auf die Artikel 55, 145, 146 und 147,
 —
 unter Hinweis auf die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 58/2003 des Rates vom 19. Dezember 2002 zur Festlegung des Statuts der Exekutivagenturen, die mit bestimmten Aufgaben bei der Verwaltung von Gemeinschaftsprogrammen beauftragt werden (8), insbesondere auf Artikel 14 Absatz 3,
 —
 unter Hinweis auf die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1653/2004 der Kommission vom 21. September 2004 betreffend die Standardhaushaltsordnung für Exekutivagenturen gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 58/2003 des Rates zur Festlegung des Statuts der Exekutivagenturen, die mit bestimmten Aufgaben bei der Verwaltung von Gemeinschaftsprogrammen beauftragt werden (9), insbesondere auf Artikel 66 Absätze 1 und 2,
 —
 in Kenntnis des Beschlusses der Kommission 2007/60/EG vom 26. Oktober 2006 zur Einrichtung der Exekutivagentur für das transeuropäische Verkehrsnetz gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 58/2003 des Rates (10),
 —
 gestützt auf Artikel 76 und Anlage VI seiner Geschäftsordnung,
 —
 in Kenntnis des Berichts des Haushaltskontrollausschusses sowie der Stellungnahmen der anderen beteiligten Ausschüsse (A7-0134/2011),
 A.
 in der Erwägung, dass die Kommission gemäß Artikel 17 Absatz 1 des Vertrags über die Europäische Union den Haushaltsplan ausführt und Programme verwaltet, und zwar gemäß Artikel 317 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union in Zusammenarbeit mit den Mitgliedstaaten in eigener Verantwortung und entsprechend dem Grundsatz der Wirtschaftlichkeit der Haushaltsführung,
 1.
 erteilt dem Direktor der Exekutivagentur für das transeuropäische Verkehrsnetz Entlastung zur Ausführung des Haushaltsplans der Exekutivagentur für das Haushaltsjahr 2009;
 2.
 legt seine Bemerkungen in der Entschließung nieder, die integraler Bestandteil der Beschlüsse betreffend die Entlastung zur Ausführung des Gesamthaushaltsplans der Europäischen Union für das Haushaltsjahr 2009, Einzelplan III — Kommission und Exekutivagenturen, ist;
 3.
 beauftragt seinen Präsidenten, diesen Beschluss zusammen mit dem Beschluss betreffend die Entlastung zur Ausführung des Gesamthaushaltsplans der Europäischen Union für das Haushaltsjahr 2009, Einzelplan III — Kommission, sowie der als integraler Bestandteil dazugehörigen Entschließung dem Direktor der Exekutivagentur für das transeuropäische Verkehrsnetz, dem Rat, der Kommission, dem Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union und dem Rechnungshof zu übermitteln und die Veröffentlichung im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union (Reihe L) zu veranlassen.
 Der Präsident
 Jerzy BUZEK
 Der Generalsekretär
 Klaus WELLE
 (1) ABl. L 69 vom 13.3.2009.
 (2) ABl. C 308 vom 12.11.2010, S. 1.
 (3) ABl. C 338 vom 14.12.2010, S. 77.
 (4) ABl. C 308 vom 12.11.2010, S. 129.
 (5) ABl. L 248 vom 16.9.2002, S. 1.
 (6) ABl. L 390 vom 30.12.2006, S. 1.
 (7) ABl. L 343 vom 27.12.2007, S. 9.
 (8) ABl. L 11 vom 16.1.2003, S. 1.
 (9) ABl. L 297 vom 22.9.2004, S. 6.
 (10) ABl. L 32 vom 6.2.2007, S. 88.