jurisdiction: US

text: b' U.S. Department of Agriculture\n\n Office of Inspector General\n Great Plains Region\n\n\n\n\n Audit Report\n\n Hurricane Relief Initiatives:\nEmergency Conservation Program\n\n\n\n\n Report No. 03601-27-KC\n February 2008\n\x0c UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n Washington, D.C. 20250\n\n\nDATE: February 26, 2008\n\nREPLY TO\nATTN OF: 03601-27-KC\n\nTO: Teresa C. Lasseter\n Administrator\n Farm Service Agency\n\nATTN: T. Mike McCann\n Director\n Operations Review and Analysis Staff\n\nFROM: Robert W. Young /s/\n Assistant Inspector General\n for Audit\n\nSUBJECT: Hurricane Relief Initiatives: Emergency Conservation Program\n\n\nIn 2005, successive hurricanes devastated farmland throughout the Gulf Coast. As part of its\nefforts to assist producers, Farm Service Agency (FSA) implemented its Emergency\nConservation Program (ECP). This program helped producers rehabilitate farmland damaged by\nnatural disasters by replacing fencing, removing debris, or removing water. This audit evaluated\nprogram implementation including eligibility determinations, farmland conditions, and program\nmodifications. To make our assessment, we reviewed 360 ECP applications in 12 of 96 counties,\ntotaling $3.6 million of $27.3 million.\n\nTo facilitate providing relief to the affected producers, the FSA national office allowed its State\noffices in Louisiana and Mississippi to modify some administrative rules. Principally, the offices\nwere authorized to increase their ECP approval level limits and to waive the requirement that\nFSA conduct onsite inspections before approving applications, allowing producers to start their\nrehabilitation projects without the usual requirement of FSA staff first observing the extent of the\ndamage.\n\nOverall, we concluded that the flexibility provided to State program managers allowed them to\nassess their needs and better facilitate the producers\xe2\x80\x99 timely recovery from hurricane damage.\nNothing came to our attention during the audit that caused us to believe that the remaining\nsystem of management controls was not functioning as intended, except as discussed herein. We\ndid, however, identify the following issues.\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03601-27-KC\n\x0cTeresa C. Lasseter 2\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 In 4 county offices, FSA employees improperly approved 12 of 86 ECP applications\n submitted by other county office employees and county committee members, which\n could undermine the public\xe2\x80\x99s confidence in FSA and ECP.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 To facilitate providing relief to affected producers, the FSA national office allowed its\n State and county offices to waive its onsite inspection requirements before each ECP\n application approval with spot checks to be conducted for 25 percent of the applications\n after approval. Five of the 12 county offices that we reviewed opted to waive the pre-\n approval onsite inspections; only 2 of the other 7 county offices were able to complete\n most inspections prior to practice approval. However, we found that these post-approval\n spot checks did not always provide reasonable assurance that claimed costs were\n commensurate with the work or services performed for certain types of projects. Once\n debris has been removed, for example, it is difficult to determine the extent or location of\n the original damage and the actual expenditures required to rehabilitate the land; thereby\n increasing the vulnerability to improper payments.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 In addition, we found that nine producers applied for ECP funds to rehabilitate ineligible\n land. These nine producers were either paid or approved for almost $64,000 to which\n they were not entitled. Generally, the land had not been in agricultural production at the\n time of the hurricane, or the debris had not been removed as certified. Our ECP file\n reviews also disclosed eight payment calculation errors, which resulted in $3,907 in\n overpayments and $1,341 in underpayments. We discussed each of these discrepancies\n with the appropriate FSA county staff who said that they would consult with their State\n office and take corrective action.\n\nIn its January 22, 2008, written response to the report (see exhibit A), FSA agreed with the\nrecommendations. The e-mail transmitting the written response provided an estimated\ncompletion date of March 15, 2008, for issuance of the ECP notice. The Office of Inspector\nGeneral (OIG) position to FSA\xe2\x80\x99s written response is provided in the OIG Position sections for\nthe recommendations.\n\nThe audit was conducted in conjunction with the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency\n(PCIE) as part of its examination of the Federal Government\xe2\x80\x99s relief efforts in the aftermath of\nhurricanes Katrina and Rita. Accordingly, we are forwarding a copy of this report to the PCIE\nHomeland Security Working Group, which coordinates the Inspectors General review of this\nimportant subject.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nAdministered by State and county FSA committees, ECP provides emergency funds to farmers\nand ranchers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters. After hurricanes Katrina and\nRita wreaked havoc along the Gulf Coast in August and September 2005, FSA\xe2\x80\x99s State offices in\nLouisiana and Mississippi requested and received permission from the national office to modify\nseveral ECP administrative rules. Most significantly, the offices were authorized to: (1) increase\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03601-27-KC\n\x0cTeresa C. Lasseter 3\n\n\nthe local (State Committee) approval limit of ECP assistance available for each project from\n$100,000 to $150,000, (2) raise the funding level from 75 percent of project cost to 100 percent,\n(3) drop the minimum qualifying cost from $1,000 to $500, and (4) waive the requirement that\nFSA conduct onsite inspections before it approved producers\xe2\x80\x99 applications. 1 If State or county\noffices chose to waive onsite inspections before approving applications, they had to conduct spot\nchecks for 25 percent of the applications after approving them.\n\nInitially, ECP application estimates totaled approximately $28 million in Louisiana and\n$61 million in Mississippi. Additional Federal funding was provided on December 30, 2005,\nwhen the President signed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. 2 This act provided\nan extra $199.8 million to the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to use for ECP hurricane\nrecovery efforts. Of this amount, $13.2 million was allocated for ECP projects in Louisiana, and\n$36.3 million for ECP projects in Mississippi.\n\nIn Louisiana, five of six county offices we visited waived onsite inspections, but the six county\noffices we visited in Mississippi did not. Also, producers provided self-certifications of their\nfarmland and damage (e.g., number of acres, size of downed trees, level of floodwater, etc.),\nwhich FSA used to estimate how much money was required to effect rehabilitation. After\ncompleting the project(s), producers had to bring back evidence of work performed, such as\nequipment receipts and contractor invoices. FSA then determined how much to pay the producer\nby comparing the agency\xe2\x80\x99s original estimate with the project\xe2\x80\x99s actual cost, with the producer\nreceiving the lesser amount.\n\nOBJECTIVE\n\nThis audit evaluated the implementation of ECP and the impact of administrative rule\nmodifications in Louisiana and Mississippi.\n\nSCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nAs part of our fieldwork performed between November 2005 and December 2006, we visited\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s national office in Washington, D.C., Louisiana State and county offices (in Plaquemines,\nSt. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne, Vermillion and Washington parishes), and Mississippi\nState and county offices (in Forrest, George, Lamar, Pearl River, Perry and Walthall counties).\n\nThis review of ECP was performed in conjunction with a review of the Natural Resources\nConservation Service\xe2\x80\x99s Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP). 3 Field sites were\nselected to reflect large allocations of both ECP and EWP funds. At each office, we selected the\n10 highest-value applications that had been approved or paid, as well as all other ECP\n\n1\n FSA still required that onsite inspections be conducted for all applications requiring technical assistance, such as grading, shaping, re-leveling,\nor restoring conservation structures (e.g., a levee).\n2\n Public Law 109-148, Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and\nPandemic Influenza Act, 2006, December 30, 2005.\n3\n Audit Report No. 50601-12-KC, \xe2\x80\x9cHurricane Relief Initiatives: Emergency Watershed Protection Program and Disposal of Dead Animals.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03601-27-KC\n\x0cTeresa C. Lasseter 4\n\n\napplications from these producers. Last, we examined all applications by county committee\nmembers and county office employees. Combined, we reviewed 360 applications, which totaled\nover $3.6 million out of a universe of 7,007 applications approved for over $27.3 million. In\naddition to a file review, we performed onsite inspections for most sampled ECP applications.\n\nTo accomplish our audit objectives, we interviewed FSA program officials at national, State and\nlocal levels to ascertain their practices. To develop our understanding of ECP and its\nadministration, we reviewed (1) handbook procedures for ECP, (2) documents pertaining to the\nECP rule changes, (3) internal ECP applications from county committee members and county\noffice employees, and (4) a sample of 34, out of 211, canceled or disapproved applications. Last,\nto evaluate ECP\xe2\x80\x99s implementation, we performed field visits on farms and interviewed individual\nproducers.\n\nWe conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government\nauditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain\nsufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions\nbased on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis\nfor our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nCounty-Level Applications Incorrectly Approved by County Offices\n\nIn 4 FSA county offices, employees and county committee members approved 12 of 86 ECP\napplications submitted by other county employees and county committee members. County\noffice personnel stated that either they were not aware of instructions requiring an FSA State\ncommittee representative to review and approve all such applications, or they had made a\npreliminary approval which would later be subject to a district director review. Nothing came to\nour attention to indicate that these applications received undue treatment but their improper\nreview risks undermining the public\xe2\x80\x99s confidence in ECP and the program\xe2\x80\x99s integrity.\n\nECP rules require an FSA State committee representative to review and approve applications\nfrom USDA county level employees, FSA State and county office employees, and county\ncommittee members. 4 Instead of submitting all such applications to the State committee\nrepresentative for approval, county committee members, county executive directors, and an ECP\ncounty program technician approved other county committee members\xe2\x80\x99 and employees\xe2\x80\x99\napplications. In addition, a committee member approved county level USDA employees\xe2\x80\x99\napplications.\n\nDuring our interviews with county office personnel, one staff member we spoke with believed\nthat executive directors and program technicians had approval authority. In the other cases,\npersonnel said that they knew State representatives had to review county employee and\n\n4\n Handbook 1-ECP paragraph 179.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03601-27-KC\n\x0cTeresa C. Lasseter 5\n\n\ncommittee member applications, but thought that this came after county approval. To remedy\nthis situation, we recommend that FSA review all applications that did not undergo the required\nState committee representative review and issue a management notice advising its offices of the\nrelevant rules and procedures for approving ECP applications.\n\nRecommendation 1\n\nEnsure that ECP applications from Mississippi and Louisiana FSA county office employees and\ncounty committee members are submitted to the applicable FSA State office for review and\napproval.\n\nFSA Response\n\n\xe2\x80\x9cThe Farm Service Agency (FSA) will ensure that all requests from Mississippi and Louisiana\nCounty office employees and county committee members are reviewed according to the\nprovisions of 1-ECP, paragraph 179A. FSA will prepare a notice reminding all State and county\noffices of the provisions in subparagraph 179A.\xe2\x80\x9d In the e-mail correspondence transmitting its\nresponse, FSA stated that the notice will be provided by March 15, 2008.\n\nOIG Position\n\nWe accept FSA\xe2\x80\x99s management decision. 5\n\nRecommendation 2\n\nRemind both State offices and their respective county offices of the relevant rules and procedures\nfor approving ECP applications for county office employees and county committee members.\n\nFSA Response\n\n\xe2\x80\x9cFSA will issue a notice reminding State and county offices about the ECP requirement for State\nCommittee (STC) or STC representative review and the provisions in Handbook 1-ECP,\nsubparagraph 179A.\xe2\x80\x9d In the e-mail correspondence transmitting its response, FSA stated that the\nnotice will be provided by March 15, 2008.\n\nOIG Position\n\nWe accept FSA\xe2\x80\x99s management decision. 6\n\n\n\n5\n On January 31, 2008, FSA issued Notice ECP-50 instructing FSA State offices to ensure that a State Committee representative review and\napprove applicable ECP requests according to 1-ECP, subparagraph 179A.\n6\n Notice ECP-50 also instructed county offices to ensure that they follow instructions in 1-ECP, subparagraph 179A, for handling requests from\nall USDA employees.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03601-27-KC\n\x0cTeresa C. Lasseter 6\n\n\nPost-Approval Spot Checks Not Always an Effective Control To Verify Services Performed\nWere Commensurate With Claimed Costs\n\nFSA allowed the waiving of pre-approval onsite inspections for ECP applications but required\n25 percent of approved applications to be checked after the practice was completed. However,\nthese post-approval spot checks for certain types of projects, such as debris removal, precluded\nor effectively reduced effective verification that costs claimed were commensurate with the\nservices performed. Once debris had been removed, for example, it was difficult to gauge the\nextent or location of the original damage, and therefore, the effort and costs required to\nrehabilitate the land. FSA accepted spot checks as a reduced control so that producers could\nbegin rehabilitating their land rather than wait for FSA to work through the post-hurricane ECP\napplications. Without the waiver, FSA would have been required to visit each site and make an\naccurate determination of the size and number of damaged trees or depth of water to be removed\nprior to ECP application approval. As a result, FSA reduced its control over some types of ECP\nprojects and, thereby, correspondingly increased its vulnerability to improper payments for those\nprojects.\n\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s ECP handbook allows FSA\xe2\x80\x99s national office ECP program manager to waive\nadministrative program rules. With the increase in applications after the hurricanes, FSA State\noffices requested and received permission to waive onsite inspections before approving\napplications. FSA\xe2\x80\x99s national office agreed but stipulated that 25 percent of the applications that\nhad not been pre-inspected would have to be randomly spot checked after payment and that\nproducers would have to self-certify the extent of the damage, rehabilitation work required, and\nother requirements. In Louisiana, five of six county offices we visited waived onsite inspections,\nbut the six county offices we visited in Mississippi did not. Of the 7 county offices that did not\nwaive the pre-approval onsite inspections, 2 completed most inspections prior to practice\napproval; 3 completed inspections after approval; and 2 completed onsite inspections when they\nhad the time, which included some before and some after approval. For the five parishes in\nLouisiana which waived onsite inspections, FSA conducted spot checks which included a visit to\nthe farm and a determination of whether the practice was completed correctly and the payment\nwas accurate.\n\nBecause spot checks are performed after the practice completion, the original extent of the land\xe2\x80\x99s\ndamage or the work performed to rehabilitate it for some types of projects, such as those\nrequiring water or debris removal, was difficult to accurately determine. Debris at sites we\nvisited, for example, had been burned (see photo 1) or piled (see photo 2) at various locations\nwhich made it impractical to verify the extent of the damage.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03601-27-KC\n\x0cTeresa C. Lasseter 7\n\n\n\n\n OIG Photo 1 OIG Photo 2\n\n\nSince ECP benefits are only to be used to rectify damage to eligible land, and rates are\ndetermined partly on the size and quantity of trees removed, we were unable to determine the\nappropriateness of ECP funds disbursed to effect rehabilitation. Also, for water removal, ECP\nreimbursement rates are based on the depth of the water to be drained from a field. Similarly,\nonce water has been removed, it is difficult to determine the depth of the flood water and,\nconsequently, the extent of work necessary to drain the land. In the case of fence repair, we\nfound that verification of repairs is easily determined after installation (for example, distance\ncompleted or type of materials installed, etc.). Therefore, post-approval spot checks might be an\neffective control to verify services performed were commensurate with claimed costs for some\npractices such as fence repair.\n\nRecommendation 3\n\nDetermine the types of ECP practices that are least capable of being accurately evaluated after\nrehabilitation work has been performed, and develop guidance to limit waivers for pre-approval\nsite inspections for those practices in future exigencies.\n\nFSA Response\n\n\xe2\x80\x9cECP policies and procedures are currently being reviewed. As part of the programmatic review,\nECP practices are being reviewed to determine whether it can be accurately determined if the\nextent of damage or rehabilitation work performed can be determined after the fact. As part of\nthis review, FSA will consider the possibility of providing, based on the magnitude of the\ndisaster event and the availability of resources, a waiver of the on-site inspection requirements\nthat a post-approval spot check can verify that the claimed costs are commensurate with the\nservice provided. FSA shall review the policy which allows for a waiver of the on-site inspection\nrequirement for all practices.\xe2\x80\x9d In the e-mail correspondence transmitting its response, FSA stated\nthat the notice will be provided by March 15, 2008.\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03601-27-KC\n\x0cTeresa C. Lasseter 8\n\n\nOIG Position\n\nWe accept FSA\xe2\x80\x99s management decision.\n\nWe appreciate the courtesies and cooperation extended to us by your staff during this review.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03601-27-KC\n\x0cTeresa C. Lasseter 9\n\n\n\nExhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 FSA Response\n Exhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03601-27-KC\n\x0cInformational copies of this report have been distributed to:\n\nAdministrator, FSA\n Attn: Agency Liaison Officer (10)\nGovernment Accountability Office (1)\nOffice of Management and Budget (1)\nOffice of the Chief Financial Officer\n Director, Planning and Accountability Division (1)\n\x0c'


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 52000PC0354
 Propuesta de Decisión del Consejo relativa a la posición que la Comunidad deberá adoptar en el seno del Consejo de Asociación instituido por el Acuerdo Europeo entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados miembros, por una parte, y la República Eslovaca, por otra, en lo referente a la creación de un Comité Consultivo Mixto por parte del Consejo de Asociación UE-Eslovaquia /* COM/2000/0354 final - CNS 2000/0153 */
 Diario Oficial n° C 337 E de 28/11/2000 p. 0101 - 0102
 Propuesta de DECISIÓN DEL CONSEJO relativa a la posición que la Comunidad deberá adoptar en el seno del Consejo de Asociación instituido por el Acuerdo Europeo entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados miembros, por una parte, y la República Eslovaca, por otra, en lo referente a la creación de un Comité Consultivo Mixto por parte del Consejo de Asociación UE-Eslovaquia(presentada por la Comisión)EXPOSICIÓN DE MOTIVOSEl Acuerdo Europeo, por el que se crea una asociación entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados miembros, por una parte, y la República Eslovaca, por otra, que entró en vigor el 1 de febrero de 1995 estipula, en su artículo 109, que el Consejo de Asociación podrá decidir crear cualquier otro órgano especial que pueda ayudarle en el desempeño de sus tareas.En la Declaración Conjunta no 12 del Acuerdo Europeo relativa al artículo 109, se acordó que "el Consejo de Asociación examinará la creación de un mecanismo consultivo compuesto por miembros del Comité Económico y Social de la Comunidad y los correspondientes interlocutores de la República Eslovaca". Ello quedó confirmado en la última reunión del Consejo de Asociación UE-República Eslovaca, celebrada el 27 de abril de 1999.La Comisión propone, por consiguiente, que el Consejo de Asociación cree un Comité Consultivo Mixto que represente a los grupos de interés social y económico de ambas partes respaldando el gran interés demostrado a este respecto por sus respectivos interlocutores sociales, representados por el Comité Económico y Social, por parte de la Comunidad, y por los interlocutores sociales y económicos de Eslovaquia, por parte de la República Eslovaca.El Comité Consultivo propuesto permitirá mantener un diálogo entre los interlocutores sociales de ambas partes que resultará igualmente ventajoso tanto para los interlocutores sociales eslovacos, quienes adquirirán mayor familiaridad con el proceso de consulta que tiene lugar en el Comité Económico y Social y con el diálogo entre los interlocutores sociales de la Unión Europea en general, como para los interlocutores sociales de la Unión Europea, que adquirirán una mayor familiaridad con la dimensión social de las reformas de las estructuras económicas y sociales que están teniendo lugar en la República Eslovaca. El Consejo de Asociación podrá, además, consultar al Comité Consultivo Mixto propuesto antes de tomar decisiones en sectores de interés social evidente. La consulta al Comité permanecerá, no obstante, a discreción del Consejo de Asociación.El establecimiento del Comité Consultivo Mixto propuesto no tiene ninguna incidencia financiera en el presupuesto de la Comunidad, ya que los participantes eslovacos se harán cargo de sus propios gastos y los gastos de la Comunidad quedarán cubiertos por el presupuesto del Comité Económico y Social.En anexo se adjunta el texto de la propuesta de Decisión del Consejo relativa a la posición que la Comunidad deberá adoptar en el seno del Consejo de Asociación, en virtud del apartado 1 del artículo 2 de la Decisión del Consejo y de la Comisión de 19 de diciembre de 1994, relativa a la celebración del mencionado Acuerdo Europeo. Se pide al Consejo que apruebe el texto previa consulta al Parlamento Europeo.2000/0153 (CNS)Propuesta de DECISIÓN DEL CONSEJO relativa a la posición que la Comunidad deberá adoptar en el seno del Consejo de Asociación instituido por el Acuerdo Europeo entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados miembros, por una parte, y la República Eslovaca, por otra, en lo referente a la creación de un Comité Consultivo Mixto por parte del Consejo de Asociación UE-EslovaquiaEL CONSEJO DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA,Visto el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Europea, el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Europea del Carbón y del Acero y el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Europea de la Energía Atómica (Euratom),Visto, en particular, el párrafo segundo del apartado 2 y el párrafo primero del apartado 3 del artículo 300 del Tratado CE,Visto el apartado 1 del artículo 2 de la Decisión del Consejo y de la Comisión de 19 de diciembre de 1994, relativa a la celebración del Acuerdo Europeo por el que se crea una Asociación entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados Miembros, por una parte, y la República Eslovaca, por otra,Vista la propuesta de la Comisión [1],[1] DO C ..., ..., p. ...Visto el dictamen del Parlamento Europeo [2],[2] DO C ..., ..., p. ...Considerando lo siguiente:(1) En virtud del artículo 109 del mencionado Acuerdo Europeo, el Consejo de Asociación podrá decidir la creación de cualquier otro comité u órgano especial que pueda ayudarle en el desempeño de sus tareas.(2) El diálogo y la cooperación entre los grupos de interés social y económico de la Unión Europea y de la República Eslovaca pueden aportar una contribución muy valiosa a la plena aplicación del Acuerdo Europeo.(3) Parece oportuno que dicha cooperación tenga lugar entre los miembros del Comité Económico y Social de las Comunidades Europeas y los interlocutores económicos y sociales de la República Eslovaca,DECIDE:La posición que la Comunidad deberá adoptar en el seno del Consejo de Asociación instituido por el Acuerdo Europeo entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados miembros, por una parte, y la República Eslovaca, por otra, en lo referente a la creación de un Comité Consultivo Mixto se basará en el proyecto de Decisión del mencionado Consejo de Asociación que figura como anexo a la presente Decisión.Hecho en Bruselas,Por el ConsejoEl PresidenteANEXOPROYECTO DE DECISIÓN No ....../99 del Consejo de Asociación Asociación entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados miembros, por una parte, y la República Eslovaca, por otra, de ........ 1999, por la que se modifica, mediante la creación de un Comité Consultivo Mixto, la Decisión n° 1/95 por la que se establece el reglamento interno del Consejo de AsociaciónEl Consejo de Asociación,Visto el Acuerdo Europeo por el que se crea una asociación entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados miembros, por una parte, y la República Eslovaca, por otra, y en particular su artículo 109,Considerando que el diálogo y la cooperación entre los grupos de interés social y económico de la Unión Europea y de la República Eslovaca pueden aportar una valiosa contribución al desarrollo de las relaciones entre las partes;Considerando que se estima oportuno que dicha cooperación se organice entre los miembros del Comité Económico y Social de las Comunidades Europeas y los interlocutores socioeconómicos de la República Eslovaca mediante la creación de un Comité Consultivo Mixto;Considerando que, en consecuencia, debe modificarse el reglamento interno del Consejo de Asociación, adoptado mediante la Decisión 1/95,ha adoptado la presente Decisión:Artículo 1Se añadirán las siguientes disposiciones al reglamento interno del Consejo de Asociación:"Artículo 16Comité Consultivo MixtoPor la presente se crea un Comité Consultivo Mixto encargado de promover el diálogo y la cooperación entre los grupos de interés social y económico de la Unión Europea y de la República Eslovaca. El diálogo y la cooperación abarcarán todos los aspectos socioeconómicos de las relaciones entre la Unión Europea y la República Eslovaca inherentes a la aplicación del Acuerdo Europeo. El Comité Consultivo Mixto se pronunciará sobre las cuestiones planteadas en este ámbito.Artículo 17El Comité Consultivo Mixto estará compuesto por cuatro representantes del Comité Económico y Social de las Comunidades Europeas y cuatro representantes de los grupos de interés económico y social de la República Eslovaca.El Comité Consultivo Mixto desempeñará sus actividades en consulta con el Consejo de Asociación o por iniciativa propia.Los miembros serán elegidos de forma que el Comité Consultivo Mixto refleje lo más fielmente posible los distintos grupos de interés social y económico de la Unión Europea y de la República Eslovaca.El Comité Consultivo Mixto estará copresidido por un miembro del Comité Económico y Social de las Comunidades Europeas y por un miembro eslovaco.El Comité Consultivo Mixto adoptará su propio reglamento interno.Artículo 18El Comité Económico y Social de las Comunidades Europeas, por una parte, y los grupos de interés económico y social eslovacos, por otra, sufragarán respectivamente los gastos de participación en las reuniones del Comité y de sus grupos de trabajo, tanto en lo referente a costes de personal, viajes y estancia como en lo referente a costes postales y de telecomunicaciones.Los gastos de interpretación durante las reuniones, así como los de traducción y de reproducción de los documentos, correrán a cargo del Comité Económico y Social, con excepción de los gastos de interpretación o de traducción desde o hacia el eslovaco, que correrán a cargo de los grupos de interés social y económico eslovacos.Los demás gastos relativos a la organización material de las reuniones correrán a cargo de la parte organizadora de cada reunión."Artículo 2La presente Decisión entrará en vigor el primer día del segundo mes siguiente a la fecha de su adopción.Hecho en Bruselas,Por el Consejo de AsociaciónEl Presidente


type: wikipedia

text:
Olivier Martinez, född 12 januari 1966 i Paris, är en fransk skådespelare, en av hans filmer är Before Night Falls från år 2000. Han har varit ihop med den australiska sångerskan Kylie Minogue. Mellan 2013 och 2016 var han gift med den amerikanska skådespelerskan Halle Berry. Tillsammans har de en son född 2013.
 Filmografi
 2000 - Before Night Falls
 2002 - Unfaithful
 2003 - S.W.A.T.
 2004 - Taking Lives
 Externa länkar
 Födda 1966
 Franska skådespelare under 2000-talet
 Män
 Levande personer
 Skådespelare från Paris


text:
Kateřina II. (2. května 1729 Štětín – Petrohrad), známá též jako Kateřina Veliká, nebo rusky Jekatěrina Alexejevna, rodným jménem Sofie Frederika Augusta, byla mezi lety 1762 až 1796 ruskou carevnou – nejdéle vládnoucí panovnicí této země. K moci se dostala po převratu, který uspořádala – což mělo za následek svržení jejího manžela Petra III. Za její vlády Rusko ožilo; stalo se větším a silnějším a bylo uznáno jako jedna z velkých evropských mocností.
 V přístupu k moci a vládnutí v říši se Kateřina často spoléhala na své oblíbence z řad šlechty, zejména hraběte Grigorije Orlova a Grigorije Potěmkina. S pomocí úspěšných generálů, jako Alexander Suvorov a Pjotr Rumjancev nebo admirála Fjodora Ušakova, vládla v době, kdy se ruská říše rychle rozšiřovala dobýváním a diplomacií. Na jihu byl po vítězstvích nad Osmanskou říší v rusko-tureckých válkách rozdrcen Krymský chanát a Rusko kolonizovalo území podél Černého a Azovského moře známé jako Nové Rusko. Na západě byla nakonec polsko-litevská unie, které vládl dřívější milenec Kateřiny, král Stanisław August Poniatowski, rozdělena, přičemž největší podíl připadl Rusku. Na východě Rusko začalo kolonizovat Aljašku a vznikla Ruská Amerika.
 Kateřina reformovala správu ruských gubernií a na její příkaz bylo založeno mnoho nových měst a obcí. Po vzoru Petra Velikého pokračovala v modernizaci Ruska dle západoevropských směrů. Branná povinnost a hospodářství však nadále závisely na nevolnictví a rostoucí požadavky státu a soukromých vlastníků půdy zintenzívnily vykořisťování nevolníků. To byl jeden z hlavních důvodů několika povstání, včetně rozsáhlého Pugačovova povstání kozáků a rolníků.
 Kateřina se rozhodla nechat se naočkovat proti neštovicím britským lékařem Thomasem Dimsdalem. V té době to bylo považováno za kontroverzní metodu, ale uspěla. Později byl také naočkován její syn Pavel. Kateřina se poté snažila očkovat v celé své říši a prohlásila: „Mým cílem bylo prostřednictvím mého příkladu zachránit před smrtí množství mých poddaných, kteří neznali hodnotu této techniky, měli strach, byli ohroženi.“ Do roku 1800 bylo v Carském Rusku aplikováno přibližně 2 miliony očkovacích látek (téměř 6% populace).
 Období vlády Kateřiny Veliké je považováno za Zlatý věk Ruska. Manifest o svobodě šlechty, vydaný během krátké vlády Petra III. a potvrzený Kateřinou, osvobodil ruskou šlechtu z povinné vojenské nebo státní služby. Stavba mnoha šlechtických sídel v klasickém stylu schváleném carevnou, změnila tvář země. Nadšeně podporovala ideály osvícenství a je často považována za osvíceného despotu. Jako patronka umění předsedala věku ruského osvícenství, včetně zřízení Smolného institutu pro šlechtičny, první státem financované vysoké školy pro ženy v Evropě.
 Život
 Původ a cesta do Ruska
 Kateřina se narodila ve městě Stettin v Pomořansku v Pruském království (nyní Štětín v Polsku) jako princezna Sophie Friederike Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst-Dornburg. Její otec Kristián August Anhaltsko-Zerbstský patřil k vládnoucímu německému rodu v Anhaltském knížectví, ale jako guvernér města Štětín zastával hodnost pruského generála. Dva z jejích prvních bratranců se stali švédskými králi: Gustav III. a Karel XIII. V souladu s obvyklou praxí ve vládnoucích německých dynastiích získala vzdělání především od francouzské vychovatelky a od lektorů. Své mládí prožila v německém Zerbstu (Srbišti), rezidenci jednoho z trpasličích německých říšských knížectví, jemuž vládl její otec, a ve Štětíně. Byla považována za divošku a známá pod přezdívkou Fike.
 V roce 1744 si ji ruská carevna Alžběta I. Petrovna vybrala jako vhodnou manželku pro svého synovce Petra, vévodu holštýnsko-gottorpského, kterého předurčila za dědice ruského trůnu. Vedly ji k tomu jak vnitropolitické, tak mezinárodní mocenské zájmy. Neohlížela se ani na to, že si byli budoucí manželé sestřenicí a bratrancem (Sofiin strýc z matčiny strany byl manželem ruské velkokněžny Anny Petrovny a jejich potomek Petr měl být budoucím manželem Sofie a zároveň carem Petrem III.) Pro princezničku z nepatrného německého knížectví představoval tento sňatek, kterým se měla stát ženou panovníka jednoho z nejmocnějších evropských států, závratné společenské povýšení. Přes své mládí dokázala tomuto cíli podřídit vše a brzy se v cizí vzdálené zemi pragmaticky přizpůsobila zdejším poměrům a naučila všemu, co se od ní vyžadovalo. Například brzy po příjezdu do Ruska konvertovala rodilá Němka luteránské víry Sofie k pravoslaví a přijala jméno Jekatěrina Alexejevna, přestože pravoslavné náboženství nikdy zcela nepochopila a během dlouhých obřadů se prý nudila.
 Manželství a mateřství
 Poté, co Kateřina přestoupila na pravoslaví, mohla se provdat za následníka ruského trůnu a stát se velkokněžnou. Kateřinino manželství s Petrem nebylo příliš šťastné. Zpočátku si s o rok starším následníkem docela dobře porozuměla a stali se přáteli, ale časem, kdy se začala projevovat Petrova infantilita, se od sebe vzdalovali. Manželství zůstávalo dlouho bezdětné, což bylo velkým problémem. Carevna Alžběta si totiž přála především to, aby následník zplodil potomka, kterého ona sama, oficiálně neprovdaná, neměla. Kateřinino postavení u ruského dvora tak zůstávalo dlouho nejisté a hrozilo jí, že pokud nesplní svoji základní mateřskou povinnost, bude se muset vrátit do Německa. Manželé spolu ovšem až do roku 1752 nežili intimně, neboť Petr trpěl fimózou (zúžená předkožka). V roce 1752 ale podstoupil jednoduchou operaci a manželství bylo konečně naplněno. Jejich první dítě zemřelo při potratu, ale 20. září 1754, devět let po sňatku, přivedla Kateřina na svět syna Pavla a v roce 1757 ještě dceru Annu, která však po dvou letech zemřela. Jejich otcem pravděpodobně nebyl Petr. U Pavla se za nejvíce pravděpodobné považuje otcovství hraběte Sergeje Saltykova, ale uvažuje se také o Stanislavu Augustu Poniatowském, budoucím polském králi. Výchovu dětí převzala carevna Alžběta, Kateřina se do ní prakticky nemohla vměšovat a s dětmi se stýkala jen výjimečně. Narození syna však rázem změnilo její postavení. Nyní se stala skutečnou ruskou velkokněžnou, matkou následníka trůnu. Bylo téměř jisté, že nestane-li se carevnou jako manželka Petra III., bude jí jako regentka jejich nezletilého syna Pavla, pokud by Petr z nějakých důvodů na trůn nenastoupil.
 Přestože se carevna Jelizaveta snažila Kateřinu naprosto izolovat také od politiky, Kateřině se podařilo postupně navázat kontakty s vlivnými kruhy.
 „Dámská“ revoluce
 zemřela carevna Alžběta Petrovna a Kateřinin manžel nastoupil jako Petr III. na ruský trůn. Rusko v té době válčilo v sedmileté válce na straně Rakouska. Petr však bezprostředně po nastoupení na trůn tento kurz změnil a přiklonil se k pruskému králi Fridrichovi II., kterého bezmezně obdivoval. To proti němu brzy vyvolalo silnou opozici. Skupina gardových důstojníků v čele s bratry Orlovými zosnovala proti neoblíbenému Petrovi spiknutí a již v červnu 1762 ho sesadila. Krátce nato byl Petr ve vězení zabit během hádky s důstojníky, kteří ho střežili. Cesta na trůn se tak uvolnila pro Kateřinu. Do Petrohradu vtáhla na koni v čele gardy v obleku důstojníka. Doprovázela ji kněžna Daškovová. Proto bývá tento převrat nazýván dámskou revolucí. byla Kateřina korunována v Uspenském chrámu moskevského Kremlu ruskou carevnou jako Kateřina II. O dva roky později, roku 1764, byl s největší pravděpodobností právě na její pokyn zlikvidován léta vězněný car Ivan VI. Nepopiratelné důkazy pro toto tvrzení ale neexistují.
 Uspořádání polských záležitostí
 Kateřina II. se brzy zbavila politické závislosti na Prusku, zděděné po Petru III., přesto se Rusko na bojiště sedmileté války již nevrátilo. Naopak roku 1764 uzavřela carevna dohodu s Fridrichem II. o kontrole vnitropolitického vývoje v Polsku, neboť potřebovala přízeň pruského krále, aby se mohla vměšovat do polských záležitostí. Vnitřně slabé Polsko se již léta zmítalo v anarchii. Tento stav ruské diplomacii velmi vyhovoval, neboť polský stát se tak postupně dostal zcela do ruského vlivu. Roku 1764 zvolil sejm pod „kontrolou“ ruských vojenských jednotek za posledního polského krále v podstatě bezvýznamného litevského šlechtice Stanislava Poniatowského, který za vlády Alžběty Petrovny pobýval v Petrohradu, kde se sblížil s Kateřinou osobně. Veškerým snahám reformovat politický systém Polska a upevnit tak polský stát zevnitř ruská vláda zabránila.
 Zákonodárná komise
 V té době si Kateřina dopisovala s předními osvícenými mysliteli západní Evropy, jako byl Voltaire, Charles Louis Montesquieu, Denis Diderot nebo Jean le Rond d'Alembert, což jí přineslo v Evropě velkou popularitu. Její oficiálně deklarované osvícenské postoje však byly často v rozporu s její konkrétní politikou a mnozí historikové je proto berou jako pouhou pózu. Roku 1767 svolala velkou zákonodárnou komisi, která měla vypracovat pro Rusko nový zákoník. Pokud by se účastníci řídili jejími propozicemi, v nichž – jak se sama v korespondenci přiznala – „vymačkala prezidenta Montesquieua“, stalo by se tehdy ruské impérium rázem nejsvobodomyslnějším státem. Komise, jejíž jednání poznamenaly rozepře mezi jednotlivými sociálními skupinami, však byla následujícího roku rozpuštěna pod záminkou začínající války s Tureckem. K obnovení jednání již nikdy poté nedošlo.
 První rusko-turecká válka
 V rusko-turecké válce v letech 1768–1774 dosáhlo Rusko, přestože se zdálo být k boji ne zcela připravené, absolutní převahy na souši i na moři. V červenci 1770 zvítězila ruská flotila u Česmenského zálivu ve Středozemním moři a rok poté obsadili Rusové území Krymského chanátu, který byl vazalem Turecka. Ještě předtím, v roce 1769, podnikli krymští Tataři poslední nájezd na ruské území, při kterém bylo napadeno Nové Srbsko a odvlečeno do otroctví několik tisíc lidí. Mírovou smlouvou z Küčük-Kainardži mezi Osmanskou říší a Ruskem byla Kateřina Veliká prohlášena „ochránkyní pravoslavného obyvatelstva“ v celé turecké říši a Krym se stal nezávislým na Turecku. Fakticky však podléhal od samého počátku ruské kontrole. Rusko opět získalo Azov a řadu dalších významných pevností v Černomoří. Ruské loďstvo konečně smělo proplouvat Bosporem a Dardanelami. Černé moře, které sultán dosud střežil „jako pannu ve svém harému“ přestalo být výlučně tureckou zónou.
 První dělení Polska
 Přestože petrohradskému dvoru daný stav vyhovoval, nechali se Rusové nakonec přesvědčit pruským králem Fridrichem II. a společně s Rakouskem si mezi sebou rozdělili roku 1772 část polského území. Rusko si tak kompenzovalo náklady na válku s Tureckem.
 Pugačovovo povstání
 V letech 1773–1775 propuklo v jihovýchodním Rusku rozsáhlé povstání kozáků, rolníků a nevolníků pod vedením Jemeljana Pugačova, který se vydával za údajně zachráněného Petra III. (samozvanectví mělo v Rusku hluboké kořeny). Po velkých počátečních úspěších se podařilo schopnému generálu Alexandru Vasiljeviči Suvorovovi povstání potlačit. Kateřinina vláda se tak dále upevnila.
 Druhá rusko-turecká válka
 V roce 1783 anektovalo Rusko Krym. Carevna následně pověřila svého tehdejšího milence Grigorije Potěmkina správou tohoto území a jižní Ukrajiny a udělila mu titul kníže tauridský (Tauridou se nazývalo toto území ve starověku). Jeho úkolem bylo vybudovat tady Novorossiju, či Nové Rusko, prosperující oblast, což se mu také podařilo.
 V letech 1787–1792 vypukla další rusko-turecká válka, ve které proti osmanské říši vystoupilo společně s Ruskem také Rakousko, kde tehdy vládl císař Josef II. Rakouské armádě, jíž velel císař osobně, se na Balkáně nevedlo příliš dobře, proto uzavřelo roku 1791 separátní mír. Rusku se opět dařilo na souši, kde velel Suvorov, i na moři, což bylo zásluhou admirála Fjodora Fjodoroviče Ušakova. Kateřina po několika vítězstvích nad tureckou armádou zamýšlela obsadit celý (slovanský) Balkán, dobýt Istanbul, středověkou Konstantinopol, a dokonce obnovit byzantskou říši v čele se svým vnukem Konstantinem. Proti této snaze ovšem vystoupily některé evropské velmoci. Oddíly švédského krále Gustava III. překvapivě vtrhly na ruský sever (1788–1790), ale byly odraženy. Počátkem roku 1791 uzavřelo Rusko s Tureckem mír v Jasích. Navzdory úspěchům bylo nuceno vzhledem k mezinárodně politické situaci se spokojit s návratem k ustanovením küčük-kajnardžskému míru a vyklidit dobyté Moldavsko a Besarábii.
 Druhé a třetí dělení Polska
 Nedlouho po uzavření míru vpadla ruská vojska na území polského státu. Válka vyústila ve druhé dělení Polska, ke kterému Kateřina přiměla v roce 1793 Prusko. Rakousko zůstalo tentokrát stranou. Zúčastnilo se až třetího, konečného dělení v roce 1795, jímž byla samostatnost Polska zlikvidována definitivně.
 Kateřina Veliká a její reformy
 Kateřina považovala sebe samu za osvícenou panovnici a velkou reformátorku. Tento poněkud zkreslený obraz carevny šířili v západní Evropě rovněž její přátelé z řad učenců, které buď finančně podporovala (např. Denis Diderot) nebo s nimiž léta udržovala písemný kontakt (např. Voltaire). Ve skutečnosti většina carevniných reforem zůstala jen na papíře a za jejího života se nerealizovala. Pro naprostou většinu obyvatel Ruska – tedy nevolníků bez majetku – se za vlády Kateřiny Veliké nic nezměnilo. Jejich život byl stejně krutý a tvrdý jako za všech předcházejících vládců. Rovněž školství zůstalo na stejné úrovni a nadále asi 97 % obyvatel Ruska neumělo číst a psát. Mezi negramotné patřila i většina šlechticů, což bylo v té době třeba v Evropě naprosto nepředstavitelné. Veškeré reformy nařízené Kateřinou Velikou byly od samého počátku nerealizovatelné. Proti evropskému individualismu a víře v lidský rozum stál v Rusku kolektivismus a absolutní moc panovníka nad lidmi i jejich majetkem. Prvotním a jediným cílem státu pak byla snaha ovládnout co největší prostor a maximálně rozšířit hranice impéria. Za této „osvícené despocie“ pak ruská říše sice zmohutněla, ale zároveň nebyl vyřešen ani jediný problém těch, které tuto zemi skutečně sužovaly. V této politice ostatně pokračovali i nástupci Kateřiny Veliké. Charakteristickým symbolem doby její vlády jsou ostatně tzv. potěmkinovské vesnice, což mnohé o jejích politických sebeklamech vypovídá. Kateřina Veliká si ale byla velmi dobře vědoma skutečného stavu věcí a tak třeba svého přítele Voltaira do Ruska nikdy nepozvala, přestože ten o to velmi stál. Díky této uzavřenosti Ruska před cizinci se poněkud zkreslená pověst o velké reformátorce dochovala až do dnešních dní.
 Během vlády Kateřiny II. se Rusko definitivně stalo evropskou velmocí. Jeho území se rozšířilo o cca 520000 km2. Panovnice založila na dvě stě nových měst. Koncem 18. století má carská říše 35 až 40 milionů obyvatel a je schopna postavit půlmilionovou armádu vybavenou děly, mušketami a trénem. Vojsko srovnatelné s tehdejšími moderními mocnostmi.
 Kateřina Veliká se navzdory halasně proklamovaným osvícenským ideálům stala zásadní odpůrkyní Velké francouzské revoluce, kterou považovala za nepřístojný zásah proti korunovanému panovníkovi a právoplatnému režimu. Rusko přislíbilo účast v protifrancouzské koalici. Do bojů se však zapojilo až po Kateřinině smrti. Zemřela v roce 1796 na cévní mozkovou příhodu.
 Po své smrti byla Kateřina Veliká pohřbena ve Petropavlovské pevnosti v Petrohradě. Jejím nástupcem se stal syn Pavel I.
 Carevna a její milenci
 Jako „ovdovělá“ panovnice neměla Kateřina nouzi o ctitele. V tomto ohledu byla zcela bez skrupulí a nenamáhala se něco předstírat. Dvůr si postupně zvykl na její četná milostná dobrodružství. Carevniným favoritům byla udělována funkce generálního adjutanta s platem 10 tisíc rublů měsíčně. V této funkci se vystřídalo celkem 21 mužů, většinou mladých důstojníků průměrných kvalit. Měnili se poměrně rychle a carevna byla natolik prozíravá, že jim nedovolila zasahovat do vlády.
 Existovaly však dvě výjimky. Tou první byl gardový důstojník Grigorij Grigorjevič Orlov, jeden z hlavních iniciátorů převratu v roce 1762. Favoritem carevny a jejím blízkým rádcem se stal bezprostředně poté a zůstal jím po deset let. Carevna ho hýčkala přepychovými dárky (nechala mu například vystavět honosný zámek v Gatčině), ale nehodlala splnit jeho největší přání, to znamená provdat se za něj. Postavení Grigorije Orlova i jeho bratra Alexeje totiž vzbuzovalo obrovskou žárlivost u gardy, která dokonce prý pomýšlela na vraždu. Carevna si však dobře uvědomovala, že se nemůže bez gardy obejít, neboť to byli právě gardoví důstojníci, kdo rozhodoval při všech palácových převratech 18. století. Navzdory tomu dokázala zajistit svému milenci skvělé postavení u dvora, a to i poté, co ho roku 1772 vystřídal ve funkci generálního adjutanta jeden z oněch bezvýznamných důstojníčků, Alexej Vasilčikov.
 Vasilčikov však nebyl favoritem carevny příliš dlouho. Roku 1774 ji požádal o udělení funkce adjutanta další hrdina dámské revoluce, který se proslavil v první rusko-turecké válce, Grigorij A. Potěmkin. Potěmkin rozhodně nebyl hezký muž, měl křivé nohy, o jedno oko přišel ve rvačce s důstojníky, na druhé šilhal - zato byl schopný, chytrý a přímo hýřil fantastickými plány. Ani s ním nežila carevna příliš dlouho, i když se spekuluje o jejich tajném sňatku. Mnohem důležitější než osobní milostný vztah Potěmkina a carevny byla totiž spolupráce, při níž se jejich odlišné povahy báječně doplňovaly. Potěmkin prý dával Kateřininu střízlivému uvažování rozlet, zatímco její pragmatičnost přibližovala Potěmkinovy nápady realitě. Většinu milenců, které měla Kateřina Veliká po Potěmkinovi, jí vybíral on sám a byli to jemu podřízení vojáci. Posledního milence svého života si ale tehdy již šedesátiletá Kateřina zvolila sama. Stal se jím v roce 1789 dvaadvacetiletý poručík jízdní gardy Platon Zubov. Ten byl následně povýšen na plukovníka, zanedlouho na generálporučíka a generál-adjutanta. Záhy po svém vzestupu začal intrikovat proti všemocnému Potěmkinovi, ale Potěmkinova pozice u dvora byla neotřesitelná a Kateřina jej stále považovala za svého nejlepšího přítele. Vše se ale změnilo po Potěmkinově smrti v roce 1791. Zubov brzy zaujal jeho postavení a stal se neoficiálním spoluvládcem carevny. Kariéra Zubova skončila až smrtí Kateřiny. Do osudů carské rodiny ale zasáhl ještě jednou – v roce 1801 se podílel na zavraždění syna Kateřiny Veliké, cara Pavla I. Zubov zemřel jako bohatý šlechtic ve věku 55 let v roce 1822.
 Potomci
 Z manželství s Petrem III.:
 Pavel Petrovič (1754–1801), ruský car Pavel I. ∞ 1793 Vilemína Luisa Hesensko-Darmstadtská (Natálie Alexejevna), 1776 Žofie Dorota Württemberská (Marie Fjodorovna)
 Anna Petrovna (9. prosince 1757 – 8. března 1759)
 S milencem Grigorijem Orlovem:
 Alžběta Alexandrovna (1761–1844) ∞ 1790 Frederic Maximilien de Klinger
 Alexej Bobrinskij (11. dubna 1762, Zimní palác – 20. června 1813, Bogorodick), ∞ 1796 Anna Dorota von Ungern-Sternberg (9. ledna 1769, Tallin – 28. března 1840, Petrohrad)
 Ocenění
 rytíř Řádu sv. Alexandra Něvského
 Řád bílé orlice
 Řád černé orlice
 V umění
 Život Kateřiny Veliké byl ztvárněn v několika filmech a seriálech, např.:
 Kateřina Veliká (anglicky Catherine the Great), film z roku 2005 (v hlavní roli britská herečka Emily Bruni)
 Mladá Kateřina Veliká (anglicky Young Catharine), film z roku 1991 (v hlavní roli britská herečka Julia Ormond)
 Kateřina Veliká (rusky Великая / Velikaja), seriál z roku 2015, (režisér Igor Zajcev, v hlavní roli herečka Julija Snigir)
 Kateřina Veliká (anglicky Catherine the Great), seriál z roku 2019 z produkce televize Netflix (v hlavní roli britská herečka Helen Mirren)
 Veliká (anglicky The Great), britský seriál z roku 2020, satirické komediální drama (v hlavní roli americká herečka Elle Fanning, režie Matt Shakman, scénář: Tony McNamara)
 Kateřina (rusky Екатери́на), ruský historický seriál má tři řady (1. Kateřina (2014, režie Baranov, Sabitov), 2. Kateřina - Vzlet (2017, režie Josifov), 3. Kateřina - Samozvanci (2019, režie Josifov),v hlavní roli ruská herečka Marina Alexandreva
 Vývod z předků
 Odkazy
 Reference
 Literatura
 Související články
 Seznam hlav ruského státu
 Dějiny Ruska
 Car
 Externí odkazy
 http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ascania/ascan11.html#C2
 Askánci
 Ruské velkokněžny
 Ruské carevny
 Holštýnsko-gottorpské vévodkyně
 Holštýnské vévodkyně
 Rytíři Řádu černé orlice
 Zemřelí na cévní mozkovou příhodu
 Narození ve Štětíně
 Úmrtí v Petrohradu
 Pohřbení v chrámu sv. Petra a Pavla v Petrohradu
 Narození 2. května
 Narození 1729
 Úmrtí 17. listopadu
 Úmrtí 1796
 Ženy