text:
 28.8.2014
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 L 256/3
 BESCHLUSS DES GEMEINSAMEN EWR-AUSSCHUSSES
 Nr. 34/2014
 vom 8. April 2014
 zur Änderung von Anhang I (Veterinärwesen und Pflanzenschutz) des EWR-Abkommens
 DER GEMEINSAME EWR-AUSSCHUSS —
 gestützt auf das Abkommen über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum (im Folgenden „EWR-Abkommen“), insbesondere auf Artikel 98,
 in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
 (1)
 Die Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1040/2013 der Kommission vom 24. Oktober 2013 zur Zulassung einer Zubereitung aus Endo-1,4-beta-Xylanase aus Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49755) und Endo-1,3(4)-beta-Glucanase aus Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49754) als Zusatzstoff in Futtermitteln für Mastschweine und Mastschweinearten von geringerer wirtschaftlicher Bedeutung, ausgenommen Sus scrofa domesticus, und Masttruthühner (Zulassungsinhaber Aveve NV) (1) ist in das EWR-Abkommen aufzunehmen.
 (2)
 Die Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1055/2013 der Kommission vom 25. Oktober 2013 zur Zulassung einer Zubereitung aus Orthophosphorsäure als Zusatzstoff in Futtermitteln für alle Tierarten (2) ist in das EWR-Abkommen aufzunehmen.
 (3)
 Die Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1060/2013 der Kommission vom 29. Oktober 2013 zur Zulassung von Bentonit als Zusatzstoff in Futtermitteln für alle Tierarten (3) ist in das EWR-Abkommen aufzunehmen.
 (4)
 Die Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1078/2013 der Kommission vom 31. Oktober 2013 zur Zulassung von Fumarsäure als Zusatzstoff in Futtermitteln für alle Tierarten (4) ist in das EWR-Abkommen aufzunehmen.
 (5)
 Die Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1113/2013 der Kommission vom 7. November 2013 zur Zulassung der Zubereitungen aus Lactobacillus plantarum NCIMB 40027, Lactobacillus buchneri DSM 22501, Lactobacillus buchneri NCIMB 40788/CNCM I-4323, Lactobacillus buchneri LN 40177/ATCC PTA-6138 und Lactobacillus buchneri LN 4637/ATCC PTA-2494 als Zusatzstoff in Futtermitteln für alle Tierarten (5) ist in das EWR-Abkommen aufzunehmen.
 (6)
 Die Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1222/2013 der Kommission vom 29. November 2013 zur Zulassung von Propionsäure, Natriumpropionat und Ammoniumpropionat als Zusatzstoffe in Futtermitteln für Wiederkäuer, Schweine und Geflügel (6) ist in das EWR-Abkommen aufzunehmen.
 (7)
 Dieser Beschluss betrifft futtermittelrechtliche Vorschriften. Nach den sektoralen Anpassungen zu Anhang I des EWR-Abkommens gelten futtermittelrechtliche Vorschriften nicht für Liechtenstein, solange Liechtenstein in das Abkommen zwischen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft über den Handel mit landwirtschaftlichen Erzeugnissen einbezogen ist. Dieser Beschluss gilt daher nicht für Liechtenstein.
 (8)
 Anhang I des EWR-Abkommens sollte daher entsprechend geändert werden —
 HAT FOLGENDEN BESCHLUSS ERLASSEN:
 Artikel 1
 In Anhang I Kapitel II des EWR-Abkommens werden nach Nummer 2zzh (Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 334/2012 der Kommission) folgende Nummern eingefügt:
 „2zzi.
 32013 R 1040: Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1040/2013 der Kommission vom 24. Oktober 2013 zur Zulassung einer Zubereitung aus Endo-1,4-beta-Xylanase aus Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49755) und Endo-1,3(4)-beta-Glucanase aus Trichoderma reesei (MUCL 49754) als Zusatzstoff in Futtermitteln für Mastschweine und Mastschweinearten von geringerer wirtschaftlicher Bedeutung, ausgenommen Sus scrofa domesticus, und Masttruthühner (Zulassungsinhaber Aveve NV) (ABl. L 283 vom 25.10.2013, S. 46).
 2zzj.
 32013 R 1055: Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1055/2013 der Kommission vom 25. Oktober 2013 zur Zulassung einer Zubereitung aus Orthophosphorsäure als Zusatzstoff in Futtermitteln für alle Tierarten (ABl. L 288 vom 30.10.2013, S. 57).
 2zzk.
 32013 R 1060: Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1060/2013 der Kommission vom 29. Oktober 2013 zur Zulassung von Bentonit als Zusatzstoff in Futtermitteln für alle Tierarten (ABl. L 289 vom 31.10.2013, S. 33).
 2zzl.
 32013 R 1078: Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1078/2013 der Kommission vom 31. Oktober 2013 zur Zulassung von Fumarsäure als Zusatzstoff in Futtermitteln für alle Tierarten (ABl. L 292 vom 1.11.2013, S. 7).
 2zzm.
 32013 R 1113: Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1113/2013 der Kommission vom 7. November 2013 zur Zulassung der Zubereitungen aus Lactobacillus plantarum NCIMB 40027, Lactobacillus buchneri DSM 22501, Lactobacillus buchneri NCIMB 40788/CNCM I-4323, Lactobacillus buchneri LN 40177/ATCC PTA-6138 und Lactobacillus buchneri LN 4637/ATCC PTA-2494 als Zusatzstoff in Futtermitteln für alle Tierarten (ABl. L 298 vom 8.11.2013, S. 29).
 2zzn.
 32013 R 1222: Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1222/2013 der Kommission vom 29. November 2013 zur Zulassung von Propionsäure, Natriumpropionat und Ammoniumpropionat als Zusatzstoffe in Futtermitteln für Wiederkäuer, Schweine und Geflügel (ABl. L 320 vom 30.11.2013, S. 16).“
 Artikel 2
 Der Wortlaut der Durchführungsverordnungen (EU) Nr. 1040/2013, (EU) Nr. 1055/2013, (EU) Nr. 1060/2013, (EU) Nr. 1078/2013, (EU) Nr. 1113/2013 und (EU) Nr. 1222/2013 in isländischer und norwegischer Sprache, der in der EWR-Beilage des Amtsblatts der Europäischen Union veröffentlicht wird, ist verbindlich.
 Artikel 3
 Dieser Beschluss tritt am 9. April 2014 in Kraft, sofern alle Mitteilungen nach Artikel 103 Absatz 1 des EWR-Abkommens vorliegen (7).
 Artikel 4
 Dieser Beschluss wird im EWR-Abschnitt und in der EWR-Beilage des Amtsblatts der Europäischen Union veröffentlicht.
 Geschehen zu Brüssel am 8. April 2014.
 Für den Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschuss
 Der Präsident
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) ABl. L 283 vom 25.10.2013, S. 46.
 (2) ABl. L 288 vom 30.10.2013, S. 57.
 (3) ABl. L 289 vom 31.10.2013, S. 33.
 (4) ABl. L 292 vom 1.11.2013, S. 7.
 (5) ABl. L 298 vom 8.11.2013, S. 29.
 (6) ABl. L 320 vom 30.11.2013, S. 16.
 (7) Ein Bestehen verfassungsrechtlicher Anforderungen wurde nicht mitgeteilt.


type: other

text:
Ir-Regolament Brussell I (riformulazzjoni) - Litwanja
 Skont id-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Artikoli 46 u 47 tal-Kodiċi Litwan tal-Proċedura Ċivili (Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio proceso kodeksas), il-partijiet terzi jistgħu jew ma jistgħux iressqu talbiet indipendenti dwar kwistjoni ta’ tilwim.
 Il-partijiet terzi li jressqu talbiet indipendenti dwar kwistjoni ta’ tilwim jistgħu jingħaqdu fi proċedimenti biss fuq l-inizjattiva tagħhom stess. Dawk il-partijiet terzi li huma parteċipanti indipendenti fil-kawża u mhumiex affavur tar-rikorrent jew tal-konvenut. Il-partijiet terzi li jressqu talbiet indipendenti jistgħu jingħaqdu fil-proċedimenti sal-bidu tal-konklużjonijiet.
 Il-partijiet terzi li ma jressqux talbiet indipendenti dwar il-kwistjoni tat-tilwima jistgħu jingħaqdu fil-proċedimenti affavur tar-rikorrent jew tal-konvenut sal-bidu tal-konklużjonijiet jekk deċiżjoni dwar il-każ tista’ taffettwa d-drittijiet jew l-obbligi tagħhom. Huma jistgħu wkoll jingħaqdu fil-proċedimenti fuq it-talba motivata tal-partijiet jew fuq l-inizjattiva tal-qorti.
 Il-partijiet terzi jiġu infurmati dwar kawża li tkun inbdiet u jiġu mistiedna jingħaqdu fil-proċedimenti quddiem qorti Litwana permezz ta’ taħrikiet jew notifiki, inkluż billi tintbagħtilhom kopja tal-kawża. Skont l-Artikolu 133(1) tal-Kodiċi tal-Proċedura Ċivili, il-partijiet involuti f’kawża (inklużi partijiet terzi) jiġu nnotifikati permezz ta’ taħrikiet jew avviżi tad-data u tal-post tas-smigħ tal-qorti jew tal-miżuri individwali proċedurali. Madankollu, huwa obbligu tal-qorti u mhux tal-partijiet li tinforma partijiet terzi dwar każ; il-partijiet jindikaw sempliċement fis-sottomissjonijiet tagħhom li persuni oħra jeħtieġu li jingħaqdu fil-proċedimenti.
 Il-partijiet terzi li jressqu talbiet indipendenti għandhom l-istess drittijiet u obbligi kollha bħar-rikorrent.
 Il-partijiet terzi li ma jressqux talbiet indipendenti għandhom l-istess drittijiet (inkluż id-dritt għar-rimborż tal-ispejjeż) u obbligi proċedurali bħala parti, bl-eċċezzjoni tad-dritt li jbiddlu r-raġunijiet u s-suġġett tat-talba, li jżidu u jnaqqsu l-pretensjoni, li jirtiraw it-talba, li jammettu t-talba jew li jilħqu arranġament. Huma wkoll ma għandhomx id-dritt li jitolbu eżekuzzjoni ta’ sentenza tal-qorti. Il-partijiet terzi li ma jressqux talbiet indipendenti ma jistgħux jaġixxu kontra l-interessi tal-parti li affavur tagħha huma jkunu ngħaqdu fil-proċedimenti.
 Il-parteċipazzjoni ta’ partijiet terzi li jressqu talbiet indipendenti tagħmilha possibbli li wieħed jiddeċiedi dwar diversi tilwimiet relatati dwar l-istess kwistjoni f’każ wieħed, u f’dan il-każ l-ebda proċedimenti ulterjuri ma jistgħu jitressqu kontra partijiet terzi li jkunu ppreżentaw talbiet indipendenti (jew tali partijiet terzi ma jistgħux iressqu kwalunkwe proċedimenti ulterjuri kontra l-istess konvenut), peress li t-tilwima bejn dawk il-partijiet dwar dik il-kwistjoni partikolari titqies li tkun ġiet solvuta. Jekk persuna tkun ġiet infurmata dwar il-possibbiltà li tingħaqad bħala parti terza f’kawża li għadha għaddejja quddiem il-qorti billi tressaq talba indipendenti iżda ma tkunx ingħaqdet fil-proċedimenti, jistgħu jinbdew proċedimenti separati kontra dik il-persuna fil-futur fir-rigward tal-istess suġġett. Madanakollu, l-ewwel deċiżjoni ma tistax taffettwa d-drittijiet u l-obbligi ta’ persuna li ma tkunx ingħaqdet fil-proċedimenti bħala parti terza.
 Meta tiddeċiedi dwar każ, il-qorti ma tistax ukoll tiddeċiedi fl-istess ħin dwar id-drittijiet u l-obbligi ta’ parti terza li ma tressaqx talba indipendenti fil-konfront ta’ parti li magħha hija għandha relazzjoni ġuridika sostanzjali. Għaldaqstant, sentenza tal-qorti f’kawża li tinvolvi partijiet terzi li ma jressqux talbiet indipendenti ma tipprekludix kawża oħra li titressaq kontra parti terza involuta fil-każ inizjali li ma ressqitx talba indipendenti. Madanakollu, f’dak il-każ, is-sentenza tal-ewwel qorti għandha s-saħħa ta’ deċiżjoni preliminari; jiġifieri, jekk ikun hemm każ ieħor li jinvolvi l-istess partijiet (eż. azzjoni ta’ indennizz), mhux meħtieġ li jiġu kkunsidrati ċirkostanzi stabbiliti bis-sentenza finali fl-ewwel każ (l-Artikolu 182(2) tal-Kodiċi tal-Proċedura Ċivili).
 Jekk persuna ma tkunx infurmata dwar il-possibbiltà li tingħaqad bħala parti terza f’kawża li għadha għaddejja quddiem il-qorti, kemm bi jew mingħajr it-tressiq ta’ talbiet indipendenti, jew jekk persuna tkun ġiet infurmata iżda ma tkunx ingħaqdet fil-proċedimenti u s-sentenza tal-qorti tkun iddeċidiet dwar id-drittijiet u l-obbligi sostantivi ta’ dik il-persuna, dan jista’ jikkostitwixxi raġuni għall-ftuħ mill-ġdid tal-każ. Jekk persuna ma tkunx ingħaqdet fil-proċedimenti, id-deċiżjoni tal-qorti inkwistjoni ma jkollhiex normalment is-saħħa ta’ deċiżjoni preliminari għal dik il-persuna.
 3. Jeżisti effett vinkolanti fir-rigward tal-valutazzjoni legali fil-proċedimenti prinċipali?
 Ara t-tweġiba għal Mistoqsija 2.
 4. Jeżisti effett vinkolanti fir-rigward ta’ fatti stabbiliti li l-parti terza ma setgħetx tikkontesta fil-proċedimenti prinċipali, pereżempju minħabba li ma ġewx ikkontestati mill-partijiet?
 5. It-TPN tipproduċi l-effetti tagħha irrispettivament minn jekk il-parti terza tkunx ingħaqdet fil-proċedimenti prinċipali jew le?
 Le. Is-sentenza tal-qorti fl-ewwel proċedimenti (prinċipali) ma tistax taffettwa d-drittijiet u l-obbligi ta’ persuna li tkun ġiet informata iżda li ma tkunx ingħaqdet fil-proċedimenti bħala parti terza. Jekk persuna ma tkunx infurmata dwar il-possibbiltà li tingħaqad bħala parti terza f’kawża li għadha għaddejja quddiem il-qorti, kemm bi jew mingħajr it-tressiq ta’ talbiet indipendenti, jew jekk persuna tkun ġiet infurmata iżda ma tkunx ingħaqdet fil-proċedimenti u s-sentenza tal-qorti tkun iddeċidiet dwar id-drittijiet u l-obbligi sostantivi ta’ dik il-persuna, dan jista’ jikkostitwixxi raġuni għall-ftuħ mill-ġdid tal-każ.
 Fil-Litwanja, il-Qorti tal-Appell tal-Litwanja (Lietuvos apeliacinis teismas).
 Fil-Litwanja, appell fil-kassazzjoni quddiem il-Qorti Suprema tal-Litwanja (Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas).
 Fil-Litwanja, l-Artikoli 783(3), 787 u 789(3) tal-Kodiċi tal-Proċedura Ċivili (Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio proceso kodeksas).
 Fil-Litwanja, l-Artikoli 46 u 47 tal-Kodiċi tal-Proċedura Ċivili Litwan (Lietuvos Respublikos civilinio proceso kodeksas).
 il-Ftehim dwar l-Assistenza Legali u r-Relazzjonijiet Legali bejn ir-Repubblika tal-Litwanja, ir-Repubblika tal-Estonja u r-Repubblika tal-Latvja, iffirmat f’Tallinn fil-11 ta’ Novembru 1992,
 il-Ftehim bejn ir-Repubblika tal-Litwanja u r-Repubblika tal-Polonja dwar l-Assistenza Legali u r-Relazzjonijiet Legali fi Kwistjonijiet Ċivili, Familjari, tax-Xogħol u Kriminali, iffirmat f’Varsavja fis-26 ta’ Jannar 1993.


text:
Zápisnica č. 7 zo SK SsZĽH
 Piatok, 16 December 2011 11:21 |
 zo zasadnutia súťažnej komisie SsZĽH v Banskej Bystrici dňa 15.12.2011.
 1. Na základe nesplnenia podmienky stanovenej v Smernici pre výkon pravidiel hry mladších žiakov – 7. ŠHT uvedených v Rozpise SZĽH 2011/2012, str. 85,86, za nedodržanie nastúpenia predpísaného počtu hráčov ( 15 hráčov a 2 brankári ) na stretnutie, trestá družstvo I. ligy mladších žiakov / 7. ŠHT / HK 95 Považská Bystrica hracími dôsledkami v zmysle čl. 52, písm. a) a čl. 56 SP SZĽH vyhlásením kontumačného výsledku stretnutia I. ligy mladších žiakov č.7263 zo dňa 03.12.2011 družstiev HK 95 Považská Bystrica – HK Púchov výsledkom 0 : 5 priznaním 2 bodov v prospech družstva HK Púchov z dôvodu, že družstvo HK 95 Považská Bystrica nastúpilo na stretnutie s 1 brankárom.
 2. Ukladá HK 95 Považská Bystrica uhradiť do 30.12.201 na SsZĽH poplatok 6,70 € podľa Rozpisu súťaží SsZĽH 2011 – 2012, II. Ustanovenia, bod č. 2. z dôvodu prerokovania prípadu kontumácie majstrovského stretnutia I. ligy mladších žiakov č. 7263 družstiev HK 95 Považská Bystrica – HK Púchov zo dňa 03.12.2011.
 3. Na základe nesplnenia podmienky stanovenej v Smernici pre výkon pravidiel hry mladších žiakov – 7. ŠHT uvedených v Rozpise SZĽH 2011/2012, str. 85,86, za nedodržanie nastúpenia predpísaného počtu hráčov ( 15 hráčov a 2 brankári ) na stretnutie, trestá družstvo I. ligy mladších žiakov / 7. ŠHT / HK 95 Považská Bystrica hracími dôsledkami v zmysle čl. 52, písm. a) a čl. 56 SP SZĽH vyhlásením kontumačného výsledku stretnutia I. ligy mladších žiakov č.7270 zo dňa 10.12.2011 družstiev MŠHK mládež Prievidza - HK 95 Považská Bystrica – výsledkom 5 : 0 a priznaním 2 bodov v prospech družstva MŠHK mládež Prievidza z dôvodu, že družstvo HK 95 Považská Bystrica nastúpilo na stretnutie s 1 brankárom.
 4. Ukladá HK 95 Považská Bystrica uhradiť do 30.12.201 na SsZĽH poplatok 6,70 € podľa Rozpisu súťaží SsZĽH 2011 – 2012, II. Ustanovenia, bod č. 2. z dôvodu prerokovania prípadu kontumácie majstrovského stretnutia I. ligy mladších žiakov č. 7270 družstiev MŠHK mládež Prievidza - HK 95 Považská Bystrica zo dňa 10.12.2011.
 Na základe nesplnenia podmienky stanovenej v Smernici pre výkon pravidiel hry mladších žiakov – 7. ŠHT uvedených v Rozpise SZĽH 2011/2012, str. 85,86, za nedodržanie nastúpenia predpísaného počtu hráčov ( 15 hráčov a 2 brankári ) na stretnutie, trestá družstvo I. ligy mladších žiakov / 7. ŠHT / MHK Dolný Kubín hracími dôsledkami v zmysle čl. 52, písm. a) a čl. 56 SP SZĽH vyhlásením kontumačného výsledku stretnutia I. ligy mladších žiakov č. 7264 zo dňa 03.12.2011 družstiev HK Brezno – MHK Dolný Kubín výsledkom 5:0 a priznaním 2 bodov v prospech družstva HK Brezno z dôvodu, družstvo MHK Dolný Kubín nastúpilo na stretnutie so 14 hráčmi a 1 brankárom.
 6. Ukladá MHK Dolný Kubín uhradiť do 30.12.201 na SsZĽH poplatok 6,70 € podľa Rozpisu súťaží SsZĽH 2011 – 2012, II. Ustanovenia, bod č. 2. z dôvodu prerokovania prípadu kontumácie majstrovského stretnutia I. ligy mladších žiakov č. 7264 družstiev HK Brezno – MHK Dolný Kubín zo dňa 03.12.2011.
 7. Na základe nesplnenia podmienky stanovenej v Smernici pre povinné striedanie mladších žiakov – 6. ŠHT uvedených v Rozpise SZĽH 2011/2012, str. 81 - 84, za nedodržanie nastúpenia predpísaného počtu hráčov ( 15 hráčov a 2 brankári ) na stretnutie, trestá družstvo I. ligy mladších žiakov / 6. ŠHT / HK 95 Považská Bystrica hracími dôsledkami v zmysle čl. 52, písm. a), a čl. 56 SP SZĽH vyhlásením kontumačného výsledku stretnutia I. ligy mladších žiakov č. 6257 zo dňa 26.11.2011 družstiev HK 95 Považská Bystrica – MHK Dolný Kubín výsledkom 0 : 5 a priznaním 2 bodov v prospech družstva MHK Dolný Kubín z dôvodu, že družstvo HK 95 Považská Bystrica nastúpilo na stretnutie s 1 brankárom.
 8. Ukladá HK 95 Považská Bystrica uhradiť do 20.12.201 na SsZĽH poplatok 6,70 € podľa Rozpisu súťaží SsZĽH 2011 – 2012, II. Ustanovenia, bod č. 2. z dôvodu prerokovania prípadu kontumácie majstrovského stretnutia I. ligy mladších žiakov č. 6257 družstiev HK 95 Považská Bystrica – MHK Dolný Kubín zo dňa 26.11.2011.
 9. Na základe nesplnenia podmienky stanovenej v Smernici pre povinné striedanie mladších žiakov – 6. ŠHT uvedených v Rozpise SZĽH 2011/2012, str. 81 - 84, za nedodržanie nastúpenia predpísaného počtu hráčov ( 15 hráčov a 2 brankári ) na stretnutie, trestá družstvo I. ligy mladších žiakov / 6. ŠHT / HK 95 Považská Bystrica hracími dôsledkami v zmysle čl. 52, písm. a), a čl. 56 SP SZĽH vyhlásením kontumačného výsledku stretnutia I. ligy mladších žiakov č. 6263 zo dňa 03.12.2011 družstiev HK Púchov - HK 95 Považská Bystrica, výsledok 17: 3 dosiahnutý na ľadovej ploche zostáva v zmysle čl. 56 SP SZĽH a priznaním 2 bodov v prospech družstva HK Púchov z dôvodu, že družstvo HK 95 Považská Bystrica nastúpilo na stretnutie s 1 brankárom.
 10. Ukladá HK 95 Považská Bystrica uhradiť do 20.12.201 na SsZĽH poplatok 6,70 € podľa Rozpisu súťaží SsZĽH 2011 – 2012, II. Ustanovenia, bod č. 2. z dôvodu prerokovania prípadu kontumácie majstrovského stretnutia I. ligy mladších žiakov č. 6263 družstiev HK Púchov – HK 95 Považská Bystrica zo dňa 03.12.2011.
 11. Na základe nesplnenia podmienky stanovenej v Smernici pre povinné striedanie mladších žiakov – 6. ŠHT uvedených v Rozpise SZĽH 2011/2012, str. 81 - 84, za nedodržanie nastúpenia predpísaného počtu hráčov ( 15 hráčov a 2 brankári ) na stretnutie, trestá družstvo I. ligy mladších žiakov / 6. ŠHT / HK 95 Považská Bystrica hracími dôsledkami v zmysle čl. 52, písm. a), a čl. 56 SP SZĽH vyhlásením kontumačného výsledku stretnutia I. ligy mladších žiakov č. 6270 zo dňa 10.12.2011 družstiev HK 95 Považská Bystrica – MŠHK mládež Prievidza výsledkom 0 : 5 a priznaním 2 bodov v prospech družstva MŠHK mládež Prievidza z dôvodu, že družstvo HK 95 Považská Bystrica nastúpilo na stretnutie s 1 brankárom.
 12. Ukladá HK 95 Považská Bystrica uhradiť do 20.12.201 na SsZĽH poplatok 6,70 € podľa Rozpisu súťaží SsZĽH 2011 – 2012, II. Ustanovenia, bod č. 2. z dôvodu prerokovania prípadu kontumácie majstrovského stretnutia I. ligy mladších žiakov č. 6270 družstiev HK 95 Považská Bystrica – MŠHK mládež Prievidza zo dňa 10.12.2011.
 13. Stretnutie SDP 5. ročník č. 5116 družstiev zo dňa 11.12.2011 družstiev HK 95 Považská Bystrica – MŠHK mládež Prievidza, družstvo MŠHK mládež Prievidza nastúpilo na stretnutie so 12 hráčmi.
 14. Na vedomie MO SZĽH – Mgr. A. Schöber.
 Počet zobrazení článkov : 802434


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 22.10.2009
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 L 277/43
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE OTSUS
 nr 90/2009,
 3. juuli 2009,
 millega muudetakse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingu protokolli nr 30 statistikaalase koostöö korraldamise erisätete kohta
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut, mida on muudetud Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut kohandava protokolliga, edaspidi „leping”, eriti selle artiklit 98,
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)
 Lepingu protokolli nr 30 on muudetud EMP Ühiskomitee 6. juuni 2008. aasta otsusega nr 75/2008 (1).
 (2)
 Euroopa ettevõtlus- ja kaubandusstatistika kaasajastamine peaks põhinema Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 16. detsembri 2008. aasta otsusel nr 1297/2008/EÜ Euroopa ettevõtlus- ja kaubandusstatistika kaasajastamise programmi (MEETS) kohta (2).
 (3)
 Seepärast tuleks lepingu protokolli nr 30 muuta, et kõnealune laiendatud koostöö saaks alata 1. jaanuarist 2009,
 ON TEINUD JÄRGMISE OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Lepingu protokollile nr 30 lisatakse pärast artiklit 3 järgmine artikkel:
 „Artikkel 4
 Euroopa ettevõtlus- ja kaubandusstatistika kaasajastamine (MEETS)
 1. EFTA riigid osalevad lõikes 4 osutatud ühenduse programmides ja meetmetes alates 1. jaanuarist 2009.
 2. Kooskõlas lõikes 4 viidatud Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu otsusega komisjoni poolt vastuvõetud iga-aastaste tööprogrammidega seotud meetmed ning eesmärgid 1, 2 ja 3 loetakse asjaomaseks EMP statistikaalase koostöö seisukohast ja need on EFTA riikidele avatud täielikuks osalemiseks.
 3. Alates 1. jaanuarist 2009 tasuvad EFTA riigid kooskõlas lepingu artikli 82 lõike 1 punktiga a ja finantsmäärustega summa, mis moodustab 75 % summast, mis on näidatud ühenduse eelarvesse kantud eelarveridadel 29 02 04 ja 29 01 04 04 (Euroopa ettevõtlus- ja kaubandusstatistika ajakohastamine).
 4. Käesolev artikkel hõlmab järgmist ühenduse õigusakti:
 —
 32008 D 1297: Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu otsus nr 1297/2008/EÜ, 16. detsember 2008, Euroopa ettevõtlus- ja kaubandusstatistika kaasajastamise programmi (MEETS) kohta (ELT L 340, 19.12.2008, lk 76).”
 Artikkel 2
 Käesolev otsus jõustub järgmisel päeval pärast seda, kui EMP Ühiskomitee saab viimase teate vastavalt lepingu artikli 103 lõikele 1 (3).
 Seda kohaldatakse alates 1. jaanuarist 2009.
 Artikkel 3
 Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.
 Brüssel, 3. juuli 2009
 EMP Ühiskomitee nimel
 eesistuja
 Oda Helen SLETNES
 (1) ELT L 257, 25.9.2008, lk 41.
 (2) ELT L 340, 19.12.2008, lk 76.
 (3) Põhiseadusest tulenevaid nõudeid ei ole nimetatud.


type: caselaw

text:
3 . 6 . 95 fK | Journal officiel des Communautés européennes N° C 137/9
 Recours introduit le 28 juin 1993 par HIBEG ( Hanseatischè Moyens et principaux arguments
 Industrie-Beteiligungen GmbH ) contre Commission des
 Communautés européennes Les moyens et les principaux arguments font l'objet d' une
 (Affaire C-62/95 ) communication au Journal officiel des Communautés euro
 ( 95/C 137/ 15 ) péennes n° C 222 du 18 août 1993 , p. 10.
 (') JO n" L 144 du 16 . 6 . 1993 , p. 21 .
 La Cour de justice des Communautés européennes a été ( 2 ) JO n" C 222 du 18 . 8 . 1993 , p. 8 .
 saisie le 8 mars 1995 du recours de HIBEG GmbH contre la
 Commission des Communautés européennes ( affaire C
 335/93 ), que la Cour avait renvoyé devant le Tribunal par
 ordonnance du 27 septembre 1993 conformément à l' arti
 cle 4 de la décision 93/350/Euratom , CECA, CEE du
 Conseil, du 8 juin 1993 , modifiant la décision 88/591 /
 CECA, CEE, Euratom, du 24 octobre 1988 , instituant le
 Tribunal de première instance des Communautés européen Recours introduit le 10 mars 1995 par République italienne
 nes ('). Cette saisine de la Cour est intervenue après que le contre Commission des Communautés européennes
 Tribunal eut constaté qu'il était incompétent pour connaître (Affaire C-69/95 )
 de cette affaire qui était inscrite au registre du Tribunal sous ( 95/C 137/17 )
 le numéro T-488/93 , et qu' il eut renvoyé l'affaire à la Cour
 afin qu'elle puisse statuer sur celle-ci conjointement avec
 l'affaire C-329/93 ( 2 ). La Cour de justice des Communautés européennes a été
 saisie le 10 mars 1995 d' un recours dirigé contre la
 Commission des Communautés européennes et formé par la
 Moyens et principaux arguments République italienne, représentée par M. Umberto Leanza,
 son agent, assisté de M. Oscar Fiumara, avvocato dello
 Stato, et ayant élu domicile à l' ambassade d'Italie , 5 , rue
 Les moyens et les principaux arguments font l'objet d' une Marie-Adélaïde, Luxembourg.
 communication au Journal officiel des Communautés euro
 péennes n° C 222 du 18 août 1993 , p. 9 .
 La partie requérante conclut à ce qu'il plaise à la Cour :
 C ) JO n" L 144 du 16 . 6 . 1993 , p. 21 .
 ( 2 ) JO n" C 222 du 18 . 8 . 1993 , p. 8 . — annuler la décision n° C ( 94 ) 3308 final de la Commis
 sion, du 21 décembre 1994 , relative à la liquidation des
 comptes présentés par les États membres pour les
 dépenses de l'exercice 1991 financées par le Fonds
 européen d'orientation et de garantie agricole ( FEOGA )
 — section « garantie », dans la partie où elle exclut la
 possibilité d'imputer au FEOGA la somme de
 103 161 493 560 lires italiennes dans la liquidation des
 comptes présentés par la République italienne ,
 Recours introduit le 1 er juillet 1993 par Bremer Vulkan
 Verbund AG contre Commission des Communautés — condamner la défenderesse aux dépens .
 européennes
 ( Affaire C-63/95 ) Moyens et principaux arguments
 ( 95/C 137/16 )
 Violation et fausse application des articles 1 er, 3 et 5 du
 règlement ( CEE ) n° 729/70 du Conseil ('), de l'article 8 du
 La Cour de justice des Communautés européennes a été règlement ( CEE ) n° 1723/72 de la Commission (2 ) et des
 saisie le 8 mars 1995 du recours de Bremer Vulkan Verbund dispositions applicables au secteur du lait [article 4 du
 AG cbntre la Commission des Communautés européennes règlement ( CEE ) n" 857/84 du Conseil ( 3 ) et ses modifica
 ( affaire C-339/93 ), que la Cour avait renvoyé devant le tions ultérieures ; règlement ( CEE ) n° 1546/88 de la Com
 Tribunal par ordonnance du 27 septembre 1993 conformé mission ( 4 ). Excès de pouvoir — défaut de motivation:
 ment à l' article 4 de la décision 93/350/Euratom, CECA, l'Italie a pleinement respecté les dispositions communautai
 CEE du Conseil, du 8 juin 1993 , modifiant la décision res en ce qui concerne la récupération des quantités de
 88/591 /CECA, CEE, Euratom, du 24 octobre 1988 , insti référence, en suspendant la réattribution de ces quantités, en
 tuant le Tribunal de première instance des Communautés pleine conformité avec les objectifs communautaires, à
 européennes ( '). Cette saisine de la Cour est intervenue cause de la situation particulière à laquelle elle doit encore
 après que le Tribunal eut constaté qu'il était incompétent faire face . Au cours de l'année 1991 , ce qui a donc coïncidé
 pour connaître de cette affaire qui était inscrite au registre avec la date fixée au 1 er juin 1991 par la réglementation
 du Tribunal sous le numéro T-490/93 , et qu'il eut renvoyé communautaire pour la réattribution des quantités acqui
 l' affaire à la Cour afin qu'elle puisse statuer sur celle-ci ses, une importante divergence entre la production réelle de
 conjointement avec l' affaire C-329/93 ( 2 ). lait et la quantité nationale garantie a commencé à appa


jurisdiction: US

text: b'\x0c\x0cTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n\nPREFACE i\n\nSTANDARDS\n\n A. Competency 1\n B. Independence 3\n C. Professional Judgment 9\n D. Quality Control 11\n E. Planning 12\n F. Data Collection and Analysis 15\n G. Evidence 17\n H. Records Maintenance 19\n I. Timeliness 20\n J. Fraud, Other Illegal Acts, and Abuse 21\n K. Reporting 23\n L. Follow-up 25\n M. Performance Measurement 26\n N. Working Relationships and Communication 26\n\nAPPENDICES\n\n 1. Guide for Core Competencies for Inspection\n Organizations and Inspectors 29\n\n 2. Guide for General Skill Levels for Inspectors 32\n\x0cPREFACE\n\n\nW\n ithin the Inspector General community, inspections have\n long afforded organizations a flexible mechanism for\n optimizing resources by utilizing a multidisciplinary staff,\nexpanding Department/Agency coverage, and using alternative review\nmethods and techniques. An inspection is defined as a process that\nevaluates, reviews, studies, and/or analyzes the programs and activities\nof a Department/Agency for the purposes of providing information to\nmanagers for decisionmaking; making recommendations for\nimprovements to programs, policies, or procedures; and identifying\nwhere administrative action may be necessary. Inspections may be\nused to provide factual and analytical information; monitor compliance;\nmeasure performance; assess the efficiency and effectiveness of\nprograms and operations; share best practices; and inquire into\nallegations of fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. The inspection\nfunction at each Department/Agency is tailored to the unique mission\nof the respective Department/Agency. For example, at the Department\nof State, inspections primarily focus on the adequacy of management\nof programs and activities in each of the U.S. embassies and consulates\noverseas, as well as in each bureau or major operating unit of the\nDepartment; whereas at the Department of Veterans Affairs,\ninspections primarily focus on evaluating the quality of patient care\nprovided to our Nation\xe2\x80\x99s veterans. As another example, at the\nDepartment of Health and Human Services, the majority of inspections\nfocus on preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicare and\nMedicaid programs.\n\nThus, to be responsive to the needs of the Inspector General\ncommunity, it is important that the standards established for conducting\ninspections not be overly prescriptive. Otherwise, the very flexibility\nthat makes an inspection such a valuable tool is lost. With that in\nmind, these standards have been developed as a framework for\nperforming inspection work. These standards are broad enough to\n\n\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections i\n\x0c take into consideration the wide variety of inspections that exist\n throughout the Inspector General community, as well as the\n requirements of the various offices that perform inspections, while\n remaining precise enough to provide assurances that all inspection\n processes and products are subject to basic general and qualitative\n standards. It is the responsibility of each Office of Inspector General\n to develop internal written procedures to guide the actual conduct of\n inspection work. These procedures should include the appropriate\n controls necessary to ensure compliance with the \xe2\x80\x9cQuality Standards\n for Inspections,\xe2\x80\x9d as well as the Inspector General Act of 1978, as\n amended, and any other legislation or regulations applicable to an\n organization\xe2\x80\x99s operations.\n\n The President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency and the Executive\n Council on Integrity and Efficiency endorse the need for \xe2\x80\x9cQuality\n Standards for Inspections\xe2\x80\x9d and encourage the consistent application\n of these standards throughout the Inspector General community. The\n standards are reviewed periodically to ensure their continuing relevancy\n and sufficiency.\n\n\n\n\nii PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0cQUALITY STANDARDS FOR INSPECTORS\nInspection organizations should strive to conduct their operations in\nthe most efficient and effective manner possible, which serves to\nenhance the credibility of the organizations. The following standards\nare established by the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency\n(PCIE) and the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency (ECIE)\nto guide the conduct of all inspection work performed by Offices of\nInspector General (OIGs). As used throughout these standards, the\nterm \xe2\x80\x9cinspection\xe2\x80\x9d includes evaluations, inquiries, and similar types of\nreviews that do not constitute an audit or a criminal investigation. The\nterm \xe2\x80\x9cinspector\xe2\x80\x9d is used generically to refer to the individual conducting\nsuch work.\n\nA. COMPETENCY\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n\n The staff assigned to perform\n inspection work should collectively\n possess adequate professional\n competency for the tasks required.\n\n\n The inspection organization needs to ensure that the personnel\n conducting an inspection collectively have the knowledge,\n skills, abilities, and experience necessary for the assignment,\n which should include the following:\n\n 1. Knowledge of evaluation methodologies; familiarity\n with the concepts, processes, and assumptions of the\n program or activity being inspected; the capacity to\n conduct a broad interdisciplinary inquiry; knowledge\n of qualitative and quantitative analysis; writing and oral\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 1\n\x0c briefing skills; information technology related\n capabilities; and knowledge of Inspector General\n statutory requirements and directives.\n\n 2. The ability to develop a working familiarity with the\n organizations, programs, activities, and/or functions\n identified for inspection. When reviewing technical\n or scientific topics, it may be appropriate to use the\n services of a subject matter expert. Expertise may\n be determined by the individual having a related\n degree, license, certification, experience, etc.\n\n 3. Managerial skills for supervisors, team leaders, and\n lead inspectors.\n\n The Inspector General community has developed a guide\n regarding core competencies for inspection organizations and\n inspectors, as well as a guide for general skill levels for\n inspectors, which are included as appendices to this document.\n Inspection organizations should have a process for recruitment,\n hiring, continuous development, and evaluation of staff to assist\n the organization in maintaining a workforce that has adequate\n competency. The nature, extent, and formality of the process\n will depend on various factors, such as the size of the inspection\n organization, its work, and its structure. These factors will\n also affect the staffing needs of an organization. For example,\n an inspection organization may need to employ personnel or\n hire specialists who are knowledgeable, skilled, or experienced\n in such areas as accounting, statistics, law, engineering,\n information technology, public administration, economics, or\n social sciences.\n\n OIGs should strive to provide inspectors with 80 hours of\n training biennially, but should minimally provide 40 hours of\n training biennially. Appropriate training may include evaluation/\n\n\n2 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0c inspection training, such as program analysis, writing, technical\n training; and career development training, such as in managerial\n skills.\n\n OIGs should have internal policies and procedures for issuance\n and utilization of credentials.\n\nB. INDEPENDENCE\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n\n In all matters relating to inspection\n work, the inspection organization and\n each individual inspector should be\n free both in fact and appearance from\n personal, external, and organizational\n impairments to independence.\n\n\n Inspectors and inspection organizations have a responsibility\n to maintain independence so that opinions, conclusions,\n judgments, and recommendations will be impartial and will be\n viewed as impartial by knowledgeable third parties. The\n independence standard should be applied to anyone in the\n organization who may directly influence the outcome of an\n inspection and includes both Government and private persons\n performing inspection work for an OIG.\n\n Inspection organizations and inspectors should be alert to\n possible impairments to independence and should avoid\n situations that could lead reasonable third parties with\n knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances to conclude\n that the inspection organization or inspectors are not\n\n\n\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 3\n\x0c independent and, thus, are not capable of exercising objective\n and impartial judgment in conducting and reporting on an\n inspection. Impairments to independence, either in fact or\n appearance, need to be resolved in a timely manner. The\n actions of OIG staff should adhere to the \xe2\x80\x9cStandards for\n Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch\xe2\x80\x9d and\n Federal conflict of interest laws. Inspection organizations\n should have internal policies and procedures for reporting and\n resolving real or perceived impairments to independence.\n\n Inspection organizations that provide other professional\n services should consider whether providing these services\n creates an independence impairment either in fact or\n appearance that adversely affects their independence for\n conducting inspections. Inspection organizations should not\n (1) provide noninspection services that involve performing\n management functions or making management decisions and\n (2) inspect their own work or provide noninspection services\n in situations where the noninspection services are significant/\n material to the subject matter of inspections. Inspection\n organizations that provide other professional services should\n refer to the \xe2\x80\x9cGovernment Auditing Standards\xe2\x80\x9d issued by the\n United States Government Accountability Office, which,\n although specific to auditing, provides detailed guidance\n relevant to handling the provision of such services.\n\n Inspection organizations and inspectors need to consider three\n general types of impairments to independence\xe2\x80\x94personal,\n external, and organizational. If one or more of these\n impairments affect an inspection organization\xe2\x80\x99s or an\n inspector\xe2\x80\x99s capability to perform work and report results\n impartially, that organization or inspector should either decline\n to perform the work or, if the situation necessitates that the\n work cannot be declined, the impairment(s) should be reported\n in the scope section of the inspection report.\n\n\n4 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0c 1. Personal Impairments\n\n Personal impairments of staff members result from\n relationships and beliefs that might cause inspectors\n to limit the extent of an inquiry, limit disclosure, or\n weaken or slant inspection findings in any way.\n Inspectors are responsible for notifying the appropriate\n officials within their respective inspection organizations\n if they have any personal impairment to independence.\n It is impossible to identify every situation that could\n result in a personal impairment, but the following are\n examples of personal impairments:\n\n (a) Having an immediate or close family member\n who is a director or officer of the entity being\n inspected or is in a position with the entity to\n exert direct and significant influence over the\n entity or the program being inspected.\n Immediate or close family members include\n spouses, spouse equivalents, dependents\n (whether or not related), parents, siblings, and\n nondependent children.\n\n (b) Having direct or significant/material indirect\n financial interest in the entity or program being\n inspected.\n\n (c) Having responsibility for managing an entity\n or decisionmaking that could affect operations\n of the entity or program being inspected; for\n example, as a director, officer, or other senior\n member of the entity, activity, or program\n being inspected or as a member of\n management in any decisionmaking,\n supervisory, or ongoing monitoring function\n\n\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 5\n\x0c for the entity, activity, or program under\n inspection.\n\n (d) Having involvement with the preparation,\n maintenance, or authorization of official\n records/documents associated with the entity,\n activity, or program under inspection.\n\n (e) Having preconceived ideas toward\n individuals, groups, organizations, or\n objectives of a particular program that could\n bias the inspection.\n\n (f) Having biases, including those induced by\n political, ideological, or social convictions, that\n result from employment in or loyalty to a\n particular type of policy, group, organization,\n or level of government.\n\n (g) Seeking employment with an inspected\n organization during the conduct of the\n inspection.\n\n 2. External Impairments\n\n Factors external to the OIG may restrict work or\n interfere with an inspector\xe2\x80\x99s ability to form\n independent and objective opinions and conclusions.\n External impairments to independence occur when\n inspectors are deterred from acting objectively and\n exercising professional skepticism by pressures, actual\n or perceived, from management or employees of the\n inspected entity or oversight organizations. For\n example, if any of the following conditions exist, the\n OIG would not have complete freedom to make an\n\n\n6 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0c independent and objective judgment, which could\n adversely affect the work:\n\n (a) External interference or influence that could\n improperly or imprudently limit or modify the\n scope of an inspection or threaten to do so,\n including pressure to reduce inappropriately the\n extent of work performed in order to reduce\n costs or fees.\n\n (b) External interference with the selection or\n application of inspection procedures or in the\n selection of transactions to be examined.\n\n (c) Unreasonable restrictions on the time allowed\n to complete an inspection or issue a report.\n\n (d) External interference in the assignment,\n appointment, or promotion of inspection\n personnel.\n\n (e) Restrictions on funds or other resources provided\n to the inspection organization that adversely\n affect the inspection organization\xe2\x80\x99s ability to\n carry out its responsibilities.\n\n (f) Authority to inappropriately overrule or\n influence an inspector\xe2\x80\x99s judgment as to the\n appropriate content of the report.\n\n (g) Threat of replacement over a disagreement with\n the contents of an inspection report, an\n inspector\xe2\x80\x99s conclusions, or the application of\n criteria.\n\n\n\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 7\n\x0c (h) Influences that jeopardize an inspector\xe2\x80\x99s continued\n employment for reasons other than incompetence,\n misconduct, or the need for inspection services.\n\n When external factors restrict an inspection or interfere\n with an inspector\xe2\x80\x99s ability to form objective opinions\n and conclusions and the inspector cannot remove the\n limitation, the inspector should report the limitation in\n accordance with the respective OIG\xe2\x80\x99s internal policies\n and procedures.\n\n 3. Organizational Impairments\n\n Inspection organizations need to be free from\n organizational impairments to independence. An\n organization\xe2\x80\x99s ability to perform work and report the\n results impartially can be affected by its place within a\n Department/Agency and the structure of the\n Department/ Agency. Inspection organizations within\n OIGs established by the Inspector General Act of\n 1978, as amended, derive organizational\n independence from the statutory safeguards to\n independence established by the Act.\n\n However, if an inspector believes there is an\n organizational impairment that could affect his/her\n inspection work, he/she should report the matter in\n accordance with the respective OIG\xe2\x80\x99s internal policies\n and procedures.\n\n\n\n\n8 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0cC. PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n Due professional judgment should be\n used in planning and performing\n inspections and in reporting the results.\n\n\n This standard requires inspectors to exercise reasonable care\n and diligence and to observe the principles of serving the public\n interest and maintaining the highest degree of integrity,\n objectivity, and independence in applying professional\n judgment to all aspects of their work. Due professional\n judgment requires that:\n\n 1. OIGs follow professional, Department/Agency, and\n organizational standards and that inspection work be in\n accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations;\n\n 2. Inspections are conducted in a timely, diligent, and\n complete manner, using appropriate methods and\n techniques;\n\n 3. Evidence is gathered and reported in a fair, unbiased, and\n independent manner and report findings, conclusions, and\n recommendations are valid and supported by adequate\n documentation;\n\n 4. At all times the actions of OIG staff conform to high\n standards of conduct, including adherence with the\n \xe2\x80\x9cStandards for Ethical Conduct for Employees of the\n Executive Branch\xe2\x80\x9d and Federal conflict of interest laws;\n and\n\n 5. OIG staff coordinates inspection results with appropriate\n officials.\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 9\n\x0c Inspectors should use professional judgment in selecting the\n type of work to be performed and the standards that apply to\n the work; defining the scope of work; selecting the inspection\n methodology; determining the type and amount of evidence\n to be gathered; and choosing the tests and procedures for\n their work. Professional judgment also should be applied\n when actually performing the tests and procedures and when\n evaluating and reporting the results of the work.\n\n In conducting an inspection, inspectors may employ the\n methods of inquiry most appropriate for the object of study.\n They may rely on the work of others after satisfying themselves\n regarding the quality of the work by appropriate means. Such\n work may include work performed by other OIG units, the\n Government Accountability Office, Department/Agency\n internal studies, Department/Agency contracted studies, or\n studies by private research and academic organizations.\n\n Professional judgment requires inspectors to exercise\n professional skepticism, e.g., questioning and critically\n assessing evidence, throughout the inspection. Inspectors\n should use the knowledge, skills, and experience called for\n by their profession to diligently gather evidence and objectively\n evaluate its sufficiency, competency, and relevancy. Inspectors\n should seek persuasive evidence and should not presume\n honesty or dishonesty on the part of those who are providing\n evidence.\n\n The exercise of professional judgment allows inspectors to\n obtain reasonable assurance that material misstatements or\n significant inaccuracies in data will likely be detected if they\n exist. However, absolute assurance is not attainable because\n of the nature of evidence and the characteristics of fraud.\n Therefore, while this standard places responsibility on each\n inspector and inspection organization to exercise professional\n judgment in planning and performing an assignment, it does\n\n10 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0c not imply unlimited responsibility or infallibility on the part of\n either the individual inspector or the inspection organization.\n\nD. QUALITY CONTROL\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n Each OIG organization that conducts\n inspections should have appropriate\n internal quality controls for that work.\n\n\n Each OIG organization that conducts inspections should\n develop and implement written policies and procedures for\n internal controls over its inspection processes/work to provide\n reasonable assurance of conformance with organizational\n policies and procedures, the \xe2\x80\x9cQuality Standards for\n Inspections,\xe2\x80\x9d and other applicable policies and procedures.\n The nature and extent of these internal controls and their\n associated documentation will be dependent on a number of\n factors, such as the size and structure of the organization and\n cost-benefit considerations. As appropriate, organizations\n should seek to have quality control mechanisms that provide\n an independent assessment of inspection processes/work.\n Documentation of the execution of quality control mechanisms\n should be retained for a sufficient period of time to allow for\n evaluation and use in conjunction with other quality control\n mechanisms.\n\n A key aspect of inspection quality control is adequate\n supervision. Supervision provides important judgment and\n an additional level of oversight to the work done by\n subordinate, often less experienced, staff. Supervisors should\n work with inspection team members to reach agreement as to\n the work the team will do and how they are to proceed. The\n team also should have a clear understanding of the purpose of\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 11\n\x0c the inspection and what it is expected to accomplish.\n Supervisory reviews help ensure that:\n\n 1. The inspection is adequately planned;\n\n 2. The inspection work plan is followed, unless\n deviation is justified and authorized;\n\n 3. The inspection objectives are met; and\n\n 4. The inspection findings, conclusions, and\n recommendations are adequately supported\n by the evidence.\n\n E. PLANNING\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n\n Inspections are to be adequately planned.\n\n\n The standard for inspection planning is intended to ensure\n that appropriate care is given to selecting inspection topics\n and preparing to conduct each inspection, to include\n coordinating inspection work and avoiding duplication. The\n selection of an inspection topic should consider the relevancy\n of the topic and the significance/impact of potential outcomes,\n and these points should be of continuing consideration\n throughout the inspection. Department/Agency and other\n customers\xe2\x80\x99 needs also should be a consideration in selecting\n inspection topics.\n\n The planning standard is also intended to ensure that inspection\n topics are appropriately researched and that the objective(s)\n of the inspection are clearly understood. Research, work\n\n12 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0c planning, and coordination should be thorough enough, within\n the time constraints of the inspection, to ensure that the\n inspection objectives are met. In pursuing this standard, the\n following should be appropriately addressed:\n\n 1. Coordination\xe2\x80\x94Inspection planning includes\n coordinating planned activities with other inspection,\n audit, and investigative entities, as well as appropriate\n organizations that could be affected by the activities.\n Internal and external constraints should be considered\n when planning inspection activities. Inspectors should\n be flexible in their plans, within reasonable limits. Any\n internal reviews performed by the entity to be inspected\n or by outside professional organizations should be\n considered and reviewed to determine applicability\n to the inspection. In addition, when an inspection\n addresses a topic that is cross-cutting or affects other\n governmental organizations, the OIG may consider\n conducting a joint or coordinated review with those\n other organizations\xe2\x80\x99 OIGs.\n\n 2. Research\xe2\x80\x94Consistent with the inspection objectives,\n inspection research includes a review of existing data,\n discussions with program and other appropriate\n officials, literature research, and a review of pertinent\n websites and other internet accessible materials to\n gather information that will facilitate understanding of\n the program or activity to be inspected. Research\n should help to identify the criteria applicable to the\n evaluation of the program or activity. Examples of\n possible criteria include: laws, regulations, policies,\n procedures, technically developed standards or norms,\n expert opinions, prior periods\xe2\x80\x99 performance,\n performance of similar entities, performance in the\n private sector, and best practices of leading\n organizations. Research should attempt to identify\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 13\n\x0c the results of previous reviews that may be relevant\n to the inspection, and inspectors should follow up on\n known significant findings and recommendations that\n directly relate to the current inspection. Inspectors\n need to assess the validity and reliability of the data\n gathered.\n\n 3. Work plan\xe2\x80\x94An inspection work plan should be\n developed that clearly defines the inspection\n objective(s), scope, and methodology. It may also\n include inspection time frames and work assignments.\n Adequate planning also entails ensuring that sufficient\n staff with the appropriate collective knowledge, skills,\n abilities, and experience is assigned to the inspection\n effort. As work on an inspection progresses, the work\n plan may need revision to address new information.\n\n During inspection planning, consideration should also be given\n to whether the inspection is likely to involve sensitive or\n classified information. If an inspection will or may involve\n sensitive or classified information, appropriate steps must be\n taken to ensure the proper protection of that information. The\n potential sensitivity or classification of information needs to\n be a consideration throughout the inspection process.\n\n\n\n\n14 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0cF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n\n The collection of information and data\n will be focused on the organization,\n program, activity, or function being\n inspected, consistent with the inspection\n objectives, and will be sufficient to\n provide a reasonable basis for reaching\n conclusions.\n\n With regard to collecting data, the following guidance should\n be addressed whenever appropriate:\n\n 1. The sources of information should be described in\n the supporting documentation in sufficient detail so\n that the adequacy of the information, as a basis for\n reaching conclusions, can be assessed.\n\n 2. Information should be of such scope and selected in\n such ways as to address pertinent questions about\n the objectives of the inspection and be responsive to\n the informational needs and interests of specified\n audiences.\n\n 3. The procedures and mechanisms used to gather\n information should ensure that the information is\n sufficiently reliable and valid for use in meeting the\n inspection objectives. For example, inspectors need\n to ensure the validity and reliability of data obtained\n from computer-based systems that is significant to the\n inspectors\xe2\x80\x99 findings. Inspectors will use professional\n judgment in determining whether information is\n sufficiently reliable and valid.\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 15\n\x0c 4. Confidentiality, as appropriate, should be afforded to\n sources of information consistent with the Inspector\n General Act of 1978, as amended; the internal policies\n of each OIG; and other applicable laws and statutes.\n The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended,\n states that the Inspector General shall not, without\n the consent of the employee or unless the Inspector\n General determines that such a disclosure is\n unavoidable, disclose the identity of a Department/\n Agency employee providing a complaint or\n information concerning the possible existence of an\n activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or\n regulations; mismanagement; waste of funds; abuse\n of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to\n the public health or safety. OIGs should develop and\n implement procedures for maintaining the\n confidentiality of individuals providing information.\n Inspectors must carefully monitor their actions and\n words to not inappropriately reveal the source of\n information.\n\n 5. Appropriate safeguards should be provided for\n sensitive information, such as personal and proprietary\n data, as well as classified information. Inspectors\n General should ensure they have appropriate\n procedures for handling such information.\n\n In analyzing data, the following guidance should be considered:\n\n 1. Data should be reviewed for accuracy and reliability;\n and, if necessary, the techniques used to collect,\n process, and report the data should be reviewed and\n revised to ensure the accuracy and reliability of\n inspection results.\n\n\n\n\n16 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0c 2. Qualitative and quantitative information gathered in\n an inspection should be appropriately and logically\n presented and documented in work papers, to ensure\n supportable interpretations.\n\n 3. Inspection procedures should provide for supervisory\n review and other safeguards to protect the inspection\n findings and reports against distortion by the personal\n feelings and biases of any party to the inspection.\n\n 4. Findings often have been regarded as containing the\n elements of criteria, condition, effect, and, when\n problems are found, cause. However, the elements\n needed for a finding depend entirely on the objectives\n of the inspection. Thus, a finding or set of findings is\n complete to the extent that the inspection objectives\n are satisfied and the report clearly relates those\n objectives to the applicable elements of a finding.\n\n\nG. EVIDENCE\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n\n Evidence supporting inspection findings,\n conclusions, and recommendations\n should be sufficient, competent, and\n relevant and should lead a reasonable\n person to sustain the findings,\n conclusions, and recommendations.\n\n\n\n Evidence may take many forms, including physical, testimonial,\n documentary, and analytical. Physical evidence is obtained\n\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 17\n\x0c by an inspector\xe2\x80\x99s direct review or observation of people,\n property, or events and should be appropriately documented.\n Testimonial evidence is obtained through inquiries, interviews,\n or questionnaires. Documentary evidence consists of created\n information, such as letters, contracts, grants, memorandums,\n and files. Analytical evidence includes computations,\n benchmarking, trending, comparisons, and rational arguments.\n\n The following guidelines should be considered regarding\n evidence:\n\n 1. Evidence should be sufficient to support the inspection\n findings. In determining the sufficiency of evidence,\n inspectors should ensure that enough evidence exists\n to persuade a knowledgeable person of the validity\n of the findings.\n\n 2. To be competent, evidence should be reliable and the\n best obtainable by using reasonable collection and\n evaluation methods. The following presumptions are\n useful in judging the competency of evidence:\n\n (a) Evidence obtained from an independent source\n may be more reliable than that secured from an\n organization being inspected.\n\n (b) Evidence developed under an effective system\n of internal controls generally is more reliable than\n that obtained where such controls are lacking or\n unsatisfactory.\n\n (c) Evidence obtained through direct physical\n examination, observation, or computation may be\n more reliable than evidence obtained through less\n direct means.\n\n\n18 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0c (d) Original documents generally are more reliable\n than copies.\n\n (e) Testimonial evidence obtained from an individual\n who is not biased or who has complete knowledge\n about the area usually is more competent than\n testimonial evidence obtained from an individual\n who is biased or has only partial knowledge about\n the area.\n\n 3. Relevance refers to the relationship of evidence to its\n use. The information used to prove or disprove an\n issue must have a logical relationship with, and\n importance to, the issue being addressed.\n\n\nH. RECORDS MAINTENANCE\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n All relevant documentation generated,\n obtained, and used in supporting\n inspection findings, conclusions, and\n recommendations should be retained for\n an appropriate period of time.\n\n\n Supporting documentation is the material generated and\n collected as part of an inspection that, when effectively\n organized, provides an efficient tool for data analysis and a\n sound basis for findings, conclusions, and recommendations\n that address the inspection objectives. Supporting\n documentation should also provide:\n\n\n\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 19\n\x0c 1. A record of the nature and scope of inspection work\n performed; and\n\n 2. Information to supervisors and team leaders enabling\n them to properly manage inspections and evaluate the\n performance of their staff. Supervisory and team\n leader review should be evidenced in the inspection\n documentation.\n\n Inspection organizations should establish policies and\n procedures for the safe custody and retention of inspection\n documentation. Inspection documentation should be retained\n and disposed of in accordance with applicable legal and\n administrative requirements and schedules, e.g., those\n established by the National Archives and Records\n Administration and the respective Department/Agency.\n Documentation generated by the Department/Agency and used\n to support inspection findings, such as lengthy reports, could\n be retained by the Department/Agency so long as the OIG\n fully references these documents and is confident that the\n documentation in question could not be lost, destroyed, or\n altered.\n\n I. TIMELINESS\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n\n Inspections should strive to deliver\n significant information to appropriate\n management officials and other\n customers in a timely manner.\n\n\n\n\n20 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0c To be of maximum use, inspections need to be conducted\n and reporting needs to be completed in a timely manner. This\n helps to ensure the work is current and relevant. During an\n inspection, it may be appropriate to provide interim reporting\n of significant matters to appropriate officials. Such reporting\n is not a substitute for a final report, but it does serve to alert\n the appropriate officials to matters needing immediate attention,\n so corrective action may be initiated. The following guidance\n should be considered regarding timeliness:\n\n 1. Time frames should be flexible in response to changing\n priorities.\n\n 2. Time frames established during planning are subject\n to change due to unforeseen circumstances, such as\n the need to expand the scope of an inspection or the\n need to add additional objectives.\n\nJ. FRAUD, OTHER ILLEGAL ACTS , AND ABUSE\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n In conducting inspection work,\n inspectors should be alert to possible\n fraud, other illegal acts, and abuse\n and should appropriately follow up\n on any indicators of such activity and\n promptly present associated\n information to their supervisors for\n review and possible referral to the\n appropriate investigative office.\n\n\n\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 21\n\x0c During an inspection, inspectors should be alert to any\n indicators of fraud, other illegal acts, or abuse (behavior that\n is deficient or improper when compared with behavior that a\n prudent person would consider reasonable and necessary\n business practice given the facts and circumstances). While\n the identification of such activities is not usually an objective\n of an inspection, it is necessary to have a clear understanding\n of the action required if such circumstances are discovered.\n\n Inspectors should be aware of vulnerabilities to fraud and abuse\n associated with the area under review in order to be able to\n identify possible or actual illegal acts or abuse that may have\n occurred. In some circumstances, conditions such as the\n following might indicate a heightened risk of fraud:\n\n 1. The absence of internal controls.\n\n 2. Inadequate \xe2\x80\x9cseparation of duties,\xe2\x80\x9d especially\n those that relate to controlling and\n safeguarding resources.\n\n 3. Transactions that are out of the ordinary and\n are not satisfactorily explained or\n documented, such as unexplained adjustments\n in inventories or other resources.\n\n 4. Missing or altered documents or unexplained\n delays in providing information.\n\n 5. False or misleading information.\n\n 6. A history of impropriety, such as past reviews\n with findings of questionable or criminal\n activity.\n\n\n\n\n22 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0c In pursuing indications of possible illegal acts or abuse,\n inspectors should exercise professional judgment so as to\n ensure they do not interfere with potential investigations and/\n or legal proceedings. If possible illegal behavior arises,\n inspectors should promptly present such information to their\n supervisors for review and possible referral to the appropriate\n investigative office.\n\n\nK. REPORTING\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n Inspection reporting shall present\n factual data accurately, fairly, and\n objectively and present findings,\n conclusions, and recommendations in a\n persuasive manner.\n\n\n Various means may be used to report on the results of\n inspection work, e.g., written reports, oral presentations,\n videos, or slide presentations. Regardless of the means used,\n there should be retrievable documentation of the reporting.\n The content of the reporting will be affected by the specific\n means used and the purpose it is serving. Reporting should\n be timely, complete, accurate, objective, convincing, clear,\n and concise.\n\n Inspection reporting normally should describe the objective(s),\n scope, and methodology of the inspection and state that the\n inspection was conducted in accordance with the \xe2\x80\x9cQuality\n Standards for Inspections.\xe2\x80\x9d Also, inspection reporting should\n provide the reader with the context in which the subject matter\n being inspected should be viewed, such as the impact or\n significance of the program/activity being reviewed, to help\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 23\n\x0c ensure the focus is not too narrowly drawn and to give clearer\n understanding of the impact of any report recommendations.\n Reporting language should be clear and concise and, while\n recognizing that some inspections deal with highly technical\n material, should be written in terms intelligible to the intended\n recipients and informed professionals.\n\n Inspection reporting frequently is structured in terms of findings,\n conclusions, and recommendations. Findings should be\n supported by sufficient, competent, and relevant evidence.\n Conclusions should be logical inferences about the inspected\n program or activity based on the inspection findings. Typically,\n each finding requiring corrective action should be addressed\n by one or more recommendations directed to the management\n official(s) who have the authority to act on them.\n Recommendations normally should not be prescriptive in\n nature; rather, they should be crafted in a manner that lays out\n what needs to be corrected or achieved. When appropriate,\n inspectors should solicit advance review and comments from\n responsible officials regarding the content of the report and\n should include the comments or a summary thereof in the\n report.\n\n Care must be taken to ensure that, as applicable, the\n confidentiality of individuals providing information is\n appropriately maintained in the inspection reporting process.\n\n Written inspection reports should be distributed to the\n appropriate officials responsible for taking action on the findings\n and recommendations. Further distribution will be subject to\n the internal policies of each OIG and fully comply with all\n requirements contained in the Privacy Act; the Freedom of\n Information Act; and security and other applicable laws,\n regulations, and policies.\n\n\n\n\n24 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0cL. FOLLOW-UP\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n\n Appropriate follow-up will be\n performed to assure that any\n inspection recommendations made to\n Department/Agency officials are\n adequately considered and\n appropriately addressed.\n\n\n Ultimate inspection success depends on whether necessary\n corrective actions are actually completed. Therefore, each\n OIG should take steps, as necessary, to determine whether\n officials take timely, complete, and reasonable actions to\n correct problems identified in inspection reports and agreed\n on by management. Specific follow-up actions shall be guided\n by the follow-up and resolution policies of each OIG, in\n accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular\n No. A-50, as amended.\n\n Follow-up helps ensure actions are undertaken and completed\n within a reasonable time. Management notification that an\n action has been completed within the agreed-on time\n constitutes reasonable assurance and can be the basis for\n \xe2\x80\x9cclosing\xe2\x80\x9d an action for follow-up purposes. However, the\n OIG should perform, as appropriate, follow-up work to verify\n whether agreed-on corrective actions were fully and properly\n implemented. When planning follow-up activities, OIGs\n should assess whether the work would be most effectively\n accomplished utilizing the staff that conducted the original\n work or other staff members. Also, in planning and conducting\n new inspections, prior recommendations that relate to the new\n inspection should be considered and followed up on to the\n extent practicable.\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 25\n\x0c M. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n\n Mechanisms should be in place to\n measure the effectiveness of inspection\n work.\n\n\n Consistent with the intent of the Government Performance\n and Results Act of 1993, it is important to be able to\n demonstrate the positive results that inspections contribute to\n the more effective management and operation of Federal\n programs. The nature and extent of performance measurement\n will be affected by a number of factors, such as the size and\n structure of the organization performing inspections. For\n example, measures may be established that capture inspection\n results collectively with other OIG activities, such as a measure\n that addresses both audit and inspection report\n recommendations. Performance measurement should focus\n on the outputs and the resultant outcomes from inspection\n work. Optimum performance measurement captures the\n impact of an inspection and may include such things as\n monetary savings, enforcement of laws, or legislative change.\n\n\n N. WORKING RELATIONSHIPS AND COMMUNICATION\n\n The standard for inspection work is:\n\n Each inspection organization should\n seek to facilitate positive working\n relationships and effective\n communication with those entities being\n inspected and other interested parties.\n\n26 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0c The OIG and the Department/Agency should strive to do the\n following:\n\n 1. Foster open communication at all levels. With limited\n exceptions, primarily related to investigative-type\n work, the OIG should keep the Department/Agency\n advised of its work and its findings on a timely basis\n and strive to provide information helpful to the\n Department/Agency at the earliest possible stage.\n Surprises are to be avoided.\n\n 2. Interact with professionalism and respect. OIGs should\n act in good faith.\n\n 3. Recognize and respect the mission and priorities of\n the Department/Agency. Each OIG should work to\n carry out its functions with a minimum of disruption to\n the primary work of the Department/Agency.\n\n 4. Be thorough, objective, and fair. The OIG must\n perform its work thoroughly, objectively, and with\n consideration to the Department\xe2\x80\x99s/Agency\xe2\x80\x99s point of\n view and should recognize Department/Agency\n successes in addressing challenges or issues.\n\n 5. Be engaged. While maintaining OIG statutory\n independence of operations and recognizing that\n OIGs need to conduct work that is self-initiated,\n congressionally requested, or mandated by law, OIGs\n should interact with Department/Agency management\n to identify any specific needs or priorities management\n may have regarding the reviews to be conducted by\n the respective OIG.\n\n 6. Be knowledgeable. The OIG will continually strive\n to keep abreast of Department/Agency programs and\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 27\n\x0c operations, and Department/Agency management\n should be kept appropriately informed of OIG\n activities and concerns being raised in the course of\n OIG work.\n\n 7. Provide feedback. OIGs should implement\n mechanisms, both formal and informal, to ensure\n prompt and regular feedback.\n\n Specific to inspection work, inspectors should appropriately\n communicate information about the inspection process and\n the nature of the inspection to the various parties involved in\n the inspection to help them understand such things as the\n inspection objective(s), time frames, data needs, and reporting\n process. Inspectors should use their professional judgment\n and comply with their respective organization\xe2\x80\x99s policies and\n procedures to determine the form, content, and frequency of\n communication. Communication should be appropriately\n documented in the associated inspection records.\n\n\n\n\n28 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0c APPENDIX 1\n\nGUIDE FOR CORE COMPETENCIES FOR\nINSPECTION ORGANIZATIONS AND INSPECTORS\nThis guide was developed by the Inspector General community to\nidentify the core competencies that each inspection organization should\nstrive to have as an organization, as well as the competencies that are\ndesirable for a journeyman inspector and senior management.\n\nOrganizational Competencies\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Leadership\n\n \xc3\xbc Vision\n \xc3\xbc Continual Learning\n \xc3\xbc Results Orientation\n \xc3\xbc Integrity\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Team Skills\n\n \xc3\xbc Team Problem Solving\n \xc3\xbc Time Management\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Management\n\n \xc3\xbc Accountability\n \xc3\xbc Customer Service\n \xc3\xbc Strategic Thinking\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Occupational Mastery\n\n \xc3\xbc Department/Agency and Mission Knowledge\n \xc3\xbc Oral Communication\n \xc3\xbc Written Communication\n\n\n\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 29\n\x0c Journeyman Level Competencies\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Leadership\n\n \xc3\xbc Results Orientation\n \xc3\xbc Integrity\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Team Skills\n\n \xc3\xbc Team Problem Solving\n \xc3\xbc Time Management\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Management\n\n \xc3\xbc Project Management\n \xc3\xbc Strategic Thinking\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Occupational Mastery\n\n \xc3\xbc Department/Agency and Mission Knowledge\n \xc3\xbc Evaluation Methods and Techniques\n \xc3\xbc Oral Communication\n \xc3\xbc Written Communication\n\n Senior Management Competencies\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Leadership\n\n \xc3\xbc Vision\n \xc3\xbc Political Skills\n \xc3\xbc Influencing/Negotiation with External Groups\n \xc3\xbc Results Orientation\n \xc3\xbc Leading People\n \xc3\xbc Integrity\n\n\n\n\n30 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2 Team Skills\n\n \xc3\xbc Team Problem Solving\n \xc3\xbc Time Management\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Management\n\n \xc3\xbc Accountability\n \xc3\xbc Decisiveness\n \xc3\xbc Strategic Thinking\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Occupational Mastery\n\n \xc3\xbc Department/Agency and Mission Knowledge\n \xc3\xbc Oral Communication\n\n\n\n\nJanuary 2005/Quality Standards for Inspections 31\n\x0c APPENDIX 2\n\n GUIDE FOR\n GENERAL SKILL LEVELS FOR INSPECTORS*\n\n GS Number\n Skills 5 7 9 11 12 13 14\n\n 1. OIG statutes, regulations,\n policies, & procedures X X X X X X X\n 2. Ethics code of conduct X X X X X X X\n 3. Basic research X X X X X X X\n 4. Computer applications X X X X X X X\n 5. Data collection techniques X X X X X X X\n 6. Data analysis X X X X X X X\n 7. Use of computers X X X X X X X\n 8. Disclosure & Privacy Act X X X X X X X\n 9. Fraudulent, abusive & illegal acts X X X X X X X\n 10. Documenting support X X X X X X X\n 11. Interviewing X X X X X X\n 12. Basic report writing X X X X X\n 13. Administrative process X X X X X\n 14. Inspection work plans X X X X X\n 15. Designing survey instruments X X X X\n 16. Statistical sampling X X X X\n 17. Site selection and approving\n records for field work X X X X\n 18. Advanced report writing X X X X\n 19. Packaging inspection reports X X X X\n 20. Training inspection team members X X X\n 21. Briefings X X X\n 22. Marketing inspection products X X X\n 23. Legislative process X X X\n 24. Departmental budget process X X X\n 25. Managing & coordinating\n inspection team activity X X\n 26. Preparing congressional testimony X X\n 27. Dealing with the media, public,\n & industry X X\n\n\n *This appendix is intended as a guide only. It is recognized that, among other things, grade\n structure and position descriptions for staff vary between OIGs, which can affect the applicability\n of the guidance contained herein.\n32 PCIE/ECIE Inspection and Evaluation Committee\n\x0c\x0c'


type: legislation

text:
 12.8.2017
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 209/13
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) 2017/1467
 z dnia 11 sierpnia 2017 r.
 zmieniające rozporządzenie (UE) nr 1255/2010 w odniesieniu do kontyngentów taryfowych na produkty z młodej wołowiny pochodzącej z Kosowa (*1)
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 1308/2013 z dnia 17 grudnia 2013 r. ustanawiające wspólną organizację rynków produktów rolnych oraz uchylające rozporządzenia Rady (EWG) nr 922/72, (EWG) nr 234/79, (WE) nr 1037/2001 i (WE) nr 1234/2007 (1), w szczególności jego art. 187 akapit pierwszy lit. b),
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 Rozporządzenie Komisji (UE) nr 1255/2010 (2) ustanawia szczegółowe zasady zarządzania kontyngentami taryfowymi na przywóz produktów z młodej wołowiny.
 (2)
 Rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 1215/2009 (3) przewiduje roczny kontyngent taryfowy na przywóz 475 ton produktów z młodej wołowiny pochodzącej z obszaru celnego Kosowa (*1).
 (3)
 Komisja przyjęła rozporządzenie wykonawcze (UE) nr 374/2012 (4), które zmieniło rozporządzenie (UE) nr 1255/2010 w celu otwarcia rocznego kontyngentu taryfowego na przywóz młodej wołowiny pochodzącej z Kosowa i zarządzania nim (*1).
 (4)
 Układ o stabilizacji i stowarzyszeniu między Unią Europejską i Europejską Wspólnotą Energii Atomowej, z jednej strony, a Kosowem (*1), z drugiej strony (zwany dalej „Układem”), został zawarty w imieniu Unii przez Radę decyzją (UE) 2016/342 (5) i jest nowym instrumentem regulującym stosunki handlowe z Kosowem (*1). Art. 28 ust. 3 Układu przewiduje kontyngent taryfowy na przywóz 475 ton produktów z młodej wołowiny pochodzącej z obszaru celnego Kosowa (*1). W związku z tym kontyngent taryfowy na produkty z młodej wołowiny przewidziany w art. 3 ust. 2 akapit pierwszy rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1215/2009 został ustalony na poziomie zero ton rozporządzeniem delegowanym Komisji (UE) 2017/1464 (6).
 (5)
 Należy zatem odpowiednio zmienić rozporządzenie (UE) nr 1255/2010.
 (6)
 Środki przewidziane w niniejszym rozporządzeniu są zgodne z opinią Komitetu ds. Wspólnej Organizacji Rynków Rolnych,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 W załączniku VIIa do rozporządzenia (UE) nr 1255/2010 pole 8 otrzymuje brzmienie:
 „8.
 Ja, niżej podpisany(-a) ..., działając w imieniu upoważnionego organu wydającego (pole 9), zaświadczam, że towary opisane powyżej zostały poddane kontroli zdrowotnej w ..., zgodnie z załączonym świadectwem weterynaryjnym z dnia ...pochodzą i są sprowadzane z Kosowa (*2) oraz dokładnie odpowiadają definicji zawartej w załączniku II do Układu o stabilizacji i stowarzyszeniu między Unią Europejską i Europejską Wspólnotą Energii Atomowej, z jednej strony, a Kosowem (*2), z drugiej strony (Dz.U. L 71 z 16.3.2016, s. 3).”
 Artykuł 2
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie trzeciego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 11 sierpnia 2017 r.
 W imieniu Komisji
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 Przewodniczący
 (*1) Użycie tej nazwy nie wpływa na stanowiska w sprawie statusu Kosowa i jest zgodne z rezolucją Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ 1244/1999 oraz z opinią Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości w sprawie Deklaracji niepodległości Kosowa.
 (1) Dz.U. L 347 z 20.12.2013, s. 671.
 (2) Rozporządzenie Komisji (UE) nr 1255/2010 z dnia 22 grudnia 2010 r. ustanawiające szczegółowe zasady stosowania kontyngentów taryfowych na produkty z młodej wołowiny pochodzącej z Bośni i Hercegowiny, Chorwacji, byłej jugosłowiańskiej republiki Macedonii, Czarnogóry, Serbii i Kosowa * (Dz.U. L 342 z 28.12.2010, s. 1).
 (3) Rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 1215/2009 z dnia 30 listopada 2009 r. wprowadzające nadzwyczajne środki handlowe dla krajów i terytoriów uczestniczących lub powiązanych z procesem stabilizacji i stowarzyszania Unii Europejskiej (Dz.U. L 328 z 15.12.2009, s. 1).
 (4) Rozporządzenie wykonawcze Komisji (UE) nr 374/2012 z dnia 26 kwietnia 2012 r. zmieniające rozporządzenie (UE) nr 1255/2010 ustanawiające szczegółowe zasady stosowania kontyngentów taryfowych na produkty z młodej wołowiny pochodzącej z Bośni i Hercegowiny, Chorwacji, Byłej Jugosłowiańskiej Republiki Macedonii, Czarnogóry i Serbii (Dz.U. L 118 z 3.5.2012, s. 1).
 (5) Decyzja Rady (UE) 2016/342 z dnia 12 lutego 2016 r. w sprawie podpisania, w imieniu Unii, Układu o stabilizacji i stowarzyszeniu między Unią Europejską i Europejską Wspólnotą Energii Atomowej, z jednej strony, a Kosowem *, z drugiej strony (Dz.U. L 71 z 16.3.2016, s. 1).
 (6) Rozporządzenie delegowane Komisji (UE) 2017/1464 z dnia 2 czerwca 2017 r. zmieniające rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 1215/2009 w odniesieniu do koncesji handlowych przyznanych Kosowu * po wejściu w życie Układu o stabilizacji i stowarzyszeniu między Unią Europejską i Europejską Wspólnotą Energii Atomowej, z jednej strony, a Kosowem, z drugiej strony (zob. s. 1 niniejszego Dziennika Urzędowego).
 (*2) Użycie tej nazwy nie wpływa na stanowiska w sprawie statusu Kosowa i jest zgodne z rezolucją Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ 1244/1999 oraz z opinią Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości w sprawie Deklaracji niepodległości Kosowa.


text:
ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
 DE LA COMMISSION
 COLLECTION RELIEE DES
 DOCUMENTS "COM"
 COM (87) 713
 Vol. 1987/0327
 ---pagebreak--- Disclaimer
 Conformément au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 concernant
 l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique européenne et de
 la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, p. 1) modifié en dernier
 lieu par le règlement (UE) 2015/496 du Conseil du 17 mars 2015 (JO L79 du 25. 3.2015, p. 1), ce
 dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents classifiés présents dans ce dossier
 ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit règlement ou sont considérés déclassifiés
 conformément aux articles 26(3) et 59(2) de la décision (UE, Euratom) 2015/444 de la
 Commission du 13 mars 2015 concernant les règles de sécurité aux fins de la protection des
 informations classifiées de l'Union européenne.
 In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 concerning
 the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Economic Community and the
 European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as last amended by Council
 Regulation (EU) 2015/496 of 17 March 2015 (OJ L 79, 27.3.2015, p. 1), this file is open to the
 public. Where necessary, classified documents in this file have been declassified in conformity
 with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation or are considered declassified in conformity with
 Articles (26.3) and 59(2) of the Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015
 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information.
 In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom 1. Februar
 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und
 der Europäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L 43 vom 15.2.1983, S. 1), zuletzt geändert durch die
 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 2015/496 vom 17. März 2015 (ABI. L 79 vom 25.3.2015, S. 1), ist dieser Akt
 der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in diesem Akt in
 Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5 der genannten Verordnung freigegeben; beziehungsweise werden
 sie auf Grundlage von Artikel 26(3) und 59(2) der Entscheidung der Kommission (EU, Euratom)
 2015/444 vom 13. März 2015 über die Sicherheitsvorschriften für den Schutz von EU-
 Verschlusssachen als herabgestuft angesehen.
 ---pagebreak--- COMISSÃO DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS
 COM(87 ) 713 final
 Bruxelas, 23 de Dezembro de 1987
 Proposta de
 REGULAMENTO ( CEE ) DO CONSELHO
 que fixa , para o ano de 1988, o contingente aplicável à importação
 em Portugal de certos produtos lácteos provenientes da Comunidade
 na sua composição em 31 de Dezembro de 1985
 ( Apresentada pela Comissão )
 SlV.JlUui:
 ' ,y V ! UI L/J.J
 /A\v _ <:v ^\
 ■ /v / <7 v\
 |sf %■ 'V- AA
 vH '■XJ
 . Av
 > v
 . 1?
 C0MC87 ) 713 final
 Uiï ;r^
 ---pagebreak--- c
 EXPOSE DES MOTIFS
 La présente proposition vise à fixer pour 1988 le volume des contingents que
 les autorités portugaises ouvrent à l' importation de certains fromages en
 provenance de la Communauté .
 Les quantités sont établies sur base de l' article 269 paragraphe 2 qui prévoit
 des contingents annuels ouverts sans discrimination entre les opérateurs
 économiques et , en ce qui concerne le contingent initial pour 1986 , ont été
 fixées à la moyenne des importations portugaises .
 Pour 1988 , le rythme annuel d' augmentation du contingent est de 10% .
 La présente mesure n' a pas d' impact sur les petites et moyennes entreprises .
 ---pagebreak--- i
 REGULAMENTO (CEE) DO CONSELHO
 que fixa, para o ano de 19&3 , o contingente aplicável à importação em Portugal
 de certos produtos lácteos provenientes da Comunidade na sua composição em
 31 de Dezembro de 1985
 O CONSELHO DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS, para fixar, para 1988, o contingente aplicável a importação
 de certos produtos lácteos em Poitugal,
 Tendo em conta o Tratado que institui a Comunidade
 Económica Europeia, ADOPTOU O PRESENTE REGULAMENTO :
 Tendo em conta o Acto de Adesão de Espanha e de Artigo 1 ?
 Portugal e, nomeadamente, o n? 2 do seu artigo 234?,
 É fixado de acordo com o anexo ao presente regulamento,
 o contingente que, por força do artigo 269? do Acto de
 Tendo em conta a proposta da Comissão, Adesão, a República Portuguesa pode aplicar em 1985? à
 importação de certos produtos lácteos provenientes da
 Considerando que o contingente inicial, para o ano de Comunidade na sua composição em 31 de Dezembro de
 1986, aplicável em Portugal a certos produtos lácteos 1985.
 provenientes da Comunidade na sua composição em 31
 de Dezembro de 1985, foi fixado pelo Regulamento (CEE) Artigo 2?
 n? 492/86|Ç ) em 1 220 toneladas ;
 dc Ccnidlho 57" 15 de. te.vere<rc, de 45586 O presente regulamento entra em vigor na data da sua
 publicação no Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Euro¬
 Considerando que o n? 2, alínea c), do artigo 269? do peias.
 Acto de Adesão fixa em 10 % o ritmo mínimo anual de
 aumento progressivo dos contingentes expressos em O presente regulamento é aplicável a partir de 1 de
 volume ; que é necessário manter a percentagem referida Janeiro de 198? ■
 O presente regulamento é obrigatório em todos os seus elementos e directamente aplicável
 em todos os Estados-membros.
 Feito em Bruxelas, err.
 Pelo Conselho
 ( ' ) JO n " L 54 de 1 . 3 . 1986 , p 29 .
 ---pagebreak--- V-
 Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias
 ANEXO
 Contingente
 Cc-d мс Dcstgntçio das mercadorias para 198Q
 3° (em tonelada^,
 04.06 Queijo e requeijão :
 04 ofc . 30 Queijos fundidos, com exclusão dos ralados ou em pó
 e * o H ofe yo Outro S em peso, em
 matérias gordas inferior ou igual a 40 % e de teor, em
 peso, de água na matéria não gordaj A
 fsuperioc a 47% e inferior ou igual a 72% :
 Cheddar
 – do tipo • Ilha »
 Outros
 – do tipo « Hollande •