jurisdiction: US

text: b'\x0c\x0c\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 The designated security officer for CBIS conducted a self-assessment of the system in\n September 2010.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A contingency plan was developed and tested for CBIS in March 2010 in compliance\n with NIST SP 800-34.\n\nHowever, we noted the following opportunities for improvement in the CBIS security program:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The CBIS Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) was not conducted in full compliance with\n the requirements of OPM\xe2\x80\x99s PIA Guide and the Office of Management and Budget\n (OMB) Memorandum M-03-22.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The CBIS POA&M does not contain all known security weaknesses as required by the\n OPM POA&M Guide.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The OIG independently tested 28 of the NIST 800-53 controls for CBIS and found that 7\n of these security controls were not in place during the fieldwork phase of the audit.\n\nIn addition to the weaknesses outlined above, we noted a significant deficiency in the Office of\nthe Chief Financial Officer\xe2\x80\x99s (OCFO) ability to manage segregation of duties within the CBIS\napplication. The OCFO developed a segregation of duties policy, but the application did not\nhave the technical settings in place to enforce these rules. In addition, the OCFO indicated that\nthey did not have a firm understanding of the roles that should be segregated within the\napplication and that the existing segregation of duties policy was not accurate.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0c Contents\n Page\n\nExecutive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i\nIntroduction ......................................................................................................................................1\nBackground ......................................................................................................................................1\nObjectives ........................................................................................................................................1\nScope and Methodology ..................................................................................................................2\nCompliance with Laws and Regulations..........................................................................................3\nResults ..............................................................................................................................................4\n I. Certification and Accreditation Statement ........................................................................ 4\n II. FIPS 199 Analysis ............................................................................................................ 4\n III. Information System Security Plan.................................................................................... 4\n IV. Risk Assessment............................................................................................................... 5\n V. Independent Security Control Testing.............................................................................. 6\n VI. Security Control Self-Assessment .................................................................................... 6\n VII. Contingency Planning and Contingency Plan Testing ..................................................... 6\n VIII. Privacy Impact Assessment ............................................................................................... 7\n IX. Plan of Action and Milestones Process ............................................................................. 8\n X. NIST SP 800-53 Evaluation .............................................................................................. 9\nMajor Contributors to this Report ..................................................................................................20\nAppendix: Office of the Chief Financial Officer February 8, 2011 response to the draft audit\nreport, issued January 18, 2011.\n\x0c Introduction\nOn December 17, 2002, President Bush signed into law the E-Government Act (P.L. 107-347),\nwhich includes Title III, the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). It requires\n(1) annual agency program reviews, (2) annual Inspector General (IG) evaluations, (3) agency\nreporting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the results of IG evaluations for\nunclassified systems, and (4) an annual OMB report to Congress summarizing the material\nreceived from agencies. In accordance with FISMA, we evaluated the information technology\n(IT) security controls related to the Office of Personnel Management\xe2\x80\x99s (OPM) Consolidated\nBusiness Information System (CBIS).\n\n Background\nCBIS is one of OPM\xe2\x80\x99s 43 critical IT systems. As such, FISMA requires that the Office of the\nInspector General (OIG) perform an audit of IT security controls of this system, as well as all of\nthe agency\xe2\x80\x99s systems on a rotating basis.\n\nThe Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) has been designated with ownership of CBIS.\nCBIS aids in OPM\xe2\x80\x99s management of the agency\xe2\x80\x99s financial resources. CBIS provides\nfunctionality for OPM\xe2\x80\x99s general ledger, accounts payable, accounts receivable, purchasing,\nprocurement, budgeting, and other financial resources management. OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Center for Financial\nServices within the OCFO is responsible for the CBIS system. The OPM OCFO has retained\nAccenture to implement, host, and operate CBIS.\n\nIn 2009, the OIG conducted an audit of the system development and implementation of CBIS.\nAs part of this current audit, we followed up on prior audit recommendations related to CBIS IT\nsecurity. One audit recommendation from the 2009 report is reissued in this report (see\nRecommendation 1).\n\nWe discussed the results of our audit with OCFO representatives at an exit conference.\n\n Objectives\nOur objective was to perform an evaluation of security controls for CBIS to ensure that OCFO\nofficials have implemented IT security policies and procedures in accordance with standards\nestablished by OPM, FISMA, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).\n\nOPM\xe2\x80\x99s IT security policies require managers of all major information systems to complete a\nseries of steps to (1) certify that their system\xe2\x80\x99s information is adequately protected and (2)\nauthorize the system for operations. The overall audit objective was accomplished by reviewing\nthe degree to which a variety of security program elements have been implemented for CBIS,\nincluding:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Certification and Accreditation Statement;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 FIPS 199 Analysis;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Information System Security Plan;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Risk Assessment;\n 1\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2 Independent Security Control Testing;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Security Control Self-Assessment;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Contingency Planning and Contingency Plan Testing;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Privacy Impact Assessment;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Plan of Action and Milestones Process; and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-53 Security Controls.\n\n Scope and Methodology\nThis performance audit was conducted in accordance with Government Auditing Standards,\nissued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Accordingly, the audit included an\nevaluation of related policies and procedures, compliance tests, and other auditing procedures\nthat we considered necessary. The audit covered FISMA compliance efforts of OCFO officials\nresponsible for CBIS, including IT security controls in place as of January 2011.\n\nWe considered the CBIS internal control structure in planning our audit procedures. These\nprocedures were mainly substantive in nature, although we did gain an understanding of\nmanagement procedures and controls to the extent necessary to achieve our audit objectives.\n\nTo accomplish our objective, we interviewed representatives of OPM\xe2\x80\x99s OCFO office and\nAccenture officials with CBIS security responsibilities. We reviewed relevant OPM IT policies\nand procedures, federal laws, OMB policies and guidance, and NIST guidance. As appropriate,\nwe conducted compliance tests to determine the extent to which established controls and\nprocedures are functioning as required.\n\nDetails of the security controls protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of CBIS\nare located in the \xe2\x80\x9cResults\xe2\x80\x9d section of this report. Since our audit would not necessarily disclose\nall significant matters in the internal control structure, we do not express an opinion on CBIS\xe2\x80\x99s\nsystem of internal controls taken as a whole.\n\nThe criteria used in conducting this audit include:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 OPM Information Technology Security Policy Volumes 1 and 2;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 E-Government Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-347), Title III, Federal Information Security\n Management Act of 2002;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 NIST SP 800-12, An Introduction to Computer Security;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 NIST SP 800-18 Revision 1, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal Information\n Systems;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 NIST SP 800-30, Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 NIST SP 800-34, Contingency Planning Guide for Information Technology Systems;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 NIST SP 800-37, Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal\n Information Systems;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 NIST SP 800-53 Revision 3, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information\n Systems;\n\n 2\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2 NIST SP 800-60 Volume II, Guide for Mapping Types of Information and Information\n Systems to Security Categories;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 199, Standards for Security\n Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems; and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Other criteria as appropriate.\n\nIn conducting the audit, we relied to varying degrees on computer-generated data. Due to time\nconstraints, we did not verify the reliability of the data generated by the various information\nsystems involved. However, nothing came to our attention during our audit testing utilizing the\ncomputer-generated data to cause us to doubt its reliability. We believe that the data was\nsufficient to achieve the audit objectives. Except as noted above, the audit was conducted in\naccordance with generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller\nGeneral of the United States.\n\nThe audit was performed by the OPM Office of the Inspector General, as established by the\nInspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The audit was conducted from November 2010\nthrough January 2011 in OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Washington, D.C. office.\n\n Compliance with Laws and Regulations\nIn conducting the audit, we performed tests to determine whether OCFO\xe2\x80\x99s management of CBIS\nis consistent with applicable standards. Nothing came to the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s attention during this review\nto indicate that the OCFO is in violation of relevant laws and regulations.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c Results\n I. Certification and Accreditation Statement\n A security certification and accreditation (C&A) of CBIS was completed in September 2009.\n\n NIST SP 800-37, Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal\n Information Systems, provides guidance to federal agencies in meeting security accreditation\n requirements. The CBIS C&A appears to have been conducted in compliance with NIST\n guidance.\n\n The U.S. Department of Transportation\xe2\x80\x99s Enterprise Service Center (ESC) was contracted by\n the OCFO to prepare the C&A package for CBIS. OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Senior Agency Information\n Security Officer reviewed the CBIS C&A package and signed the system\xe2\x80\x99s certification\n package on September 17, 2009. The system\xe2\x80\x99s Designated Accrediting Authority (OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n Chief Information Officer) signed the accreditation statement and authorized the operation of\n the system on September 17, 2009.\n\nII. FIPS 199 Analysis\n Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 199, Standards for Security\n Categorization of Federal Information and Information Systems, requires federal agencies to\n categorize all federal information and information systems in order to provide appropriate\n levels of information security according to a range of risk levels.\n\n NIST SP 800-60 Volume I, Guide for Mapping Types of Information and Information\n Systems to Security Categories, provides an overview of the security objectives and impact\n levels identified in FIPS Publication 199.\n\n The CBIS security categorization analysis categorizes information processed by the system\n and its corresponding potential impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. CBIS\n is categorized with a moderate impact level for confidentiality, integrity, and availability,\n resulting in an overall categorization of moderate.\n\n The security categorization of CBIS appears to be consistent with the guidance of FIPS 199\n and NIST SP 800-60, and the OIG agrees with the categorization of moderate.\n\nIII. Information System Security Plan\n The completion of an information system security plan (ISSP) is a requirement of OMB\n Circular A-130 Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources. In\n order to assist agencies in establishing a standardized approach to developing an ISSP, NIST\n developed SP 800-18 Revision 1, Guide for Developing Security Plans for Federal\n Information Systems.\n\n The ISSP for CBIS was created using the template outlined in NIST SP 800-18. The\n template requires that the following elements be documented within the ISSP:\n\n 4\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 System Name and Identifier;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 System Categorization;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 System Owner;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Authorizing Official;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Other Designated Contacts;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Assignment of Security Responsibility;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 System Operational Status;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Information System Type;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 General Description/Purpose;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 System Environment;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 System Interconnection/Information Sharing;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Laws, Regulations, and Policies Affecting the System;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Minimum Security Controls;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Plan Completion Date; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Plan Approval Date.\n\n The ISSP for CBIS was prepared in September 2009 and revised in August of 2010 in\n accordance with the format and methodology outlined in NIST SP 800-18. The CBIS\n ISSP contains the majority of the elements outlined by NIST SP 800-53 Revision 3 and NIST\n SP 800-18 Revision 1.\n\nIV. Risk Assessment\n A risk management methodology focused on protecting core business operations and\n processes is a key component of an efficient IT security program. A risk assessment is used\n as a tool to identify security threats, vulnerabilities, potential impacts, and probability of\n occurrence. In addition, a risk assessment is used to evaluate the effectiveness of security\n policies and recommend countermeasures to ensure adequate protection of information\n technology resources.\n\n As part of the C&A process, ESC conducted a risk assessment of CBIS in September 2009\n and evaluated the risk of each vulnerability in accordance with NIST SP 800-30 standards.\n NIST SP 800-30 offers a nine step systematic approach to conducting a risk assessment that\n includes: (1) system characterization; (2) threat identification; (3) vulnerability identification;\n (4) control analysis; (5) likelihood determination; (6) impact analysis; (7) risk determination;\n (8) control recommendation; and (9) result documentation. Fifty-three vulnerabilities were\n identified during this assessment, and the following was documented for each one:\n a. vulnerability description;\n b. threat source;\n c. existing controls;\n d. likelihood, impact, and risk rating; and\n e. control recommendations.\n\n Each of these vulnerabilities was appropriately added to the CBIS Plan of Action and\n Milestones (POA&M) for tracking purposes (see section IX below).\n\n\n 5\n\x0c V. Independent Security Control Testing\n A security test and evaluation (ST&E) was completed for CBIS as a part of the system\xe2\x80\x99s\n C&A process in September 2009. The ST&E was conducted by ESC, an OPM contractor\n that was operating independently from the OCFO.\n\n The OIG reviewed the controls tested by ESC to ensure that they included a review of the\n appropriate management, operational, and technical controls required for a system with a\n \xe2\x80\x9cmoderate\xe2\x80\x9d security categorization according to NIST SP 800-53 Revision 3, Recommended\n Security Controls for Federal Information Systems.\n\n The ST&E labeled each security control as common (inherited from OPM\xe2\x80\x99s IT\n infrastructure), system-specific, or hybrid. The system specific and hybrid controls were\n tested as part of this ST&E, whereas the testing of common controls is the responsibility of\n OPM\xe2\x80\x99s Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO).\n\n ESC tested 171 controls and determined that 19 controls were not adequately implemented.\n ESC presented a copy of the evaluation results to the OCFO, and each of the identified\n weaknesses was appropriately incorporated into the CBIS POA&M for tracking purposes.\n\nVI. Security Control Self-Assessment\n FISMA requires that the IT security controls of each major application owned by a federal\n agency be tested on an annual basis. In the years that an independent ST&E is not being\n conducted on a system, the system\xe2\x80\x99s owner must conduct an internal self-assessment of\n security controls.\n\n The designated security officer for CBIS conducted a self-assessment of the system in\n September 2010. The assessment included a review of the relevant management,\n operational, and technical security controls outlined in NIST SP 800-53 Revision 3.\n Although the OCFO did not identify any weaknesses in the 150 security controls that were\n tested, an OIG test of security controls indicated that system weaknesses do exist (see section\n X, below).\n\nVII. Contingency Planning and Contingency Plan Testing\n NIST SP 800-34, Contingency Planning Guide for IT Systems, states that effective\n contingency planning, execution, and testing are essential to mitigate the risk of system and\n service unavailability. The OPM IT Security and Privacy Policy Volume 2 requires that\n OPM general support systems and major applications have viable and logical disaster\n recovery and contingency plans, and that these plans be annually reviewed, tested, and\n updated.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c Contingency Plan\n The CBIS Disaster Recovery (DR) plan documents the functions, operations, and resources\n necessary to restore and resume computer operations when unexpected events or disasters\n occur. The CBIS DR plan is reviewed and updated annually and contains the majority of\n elements recommended by NIST SP 800-34 guidelines, including:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 System background information;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Concept of operations;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Notification/activation phase;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Recovery operations; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Procedures to return to normal operations.\n\n Contingency Plan Test\n NIST SP 800-34, Contingency Planning Guide for Information Technology, provides\n guidance for conducting and documenting contingency plan testing. Genuine Contingency\n plan testing is a critical element of a viable disaster response capability.\n\n In March of 2010, the OCFO conducted its annual disaster recovery table top test. The test\n involved discussing the steps of restoring all mission critical functions after a temporary\n electrical outage. The documentation resulting from the CBIS DR test contains the majority\n of the items mentioned in the NIST guide including the scope, objectives, participants, and\n logistics.\n\n The disaster recovery test summary documented potential problems that were discovered\n during or at the conclusion of the test. However, one recommendation identified during the\n 2010 DR test has not been added to the CBIS POA&M for tracking purposes (see section IX\n below).\n\nVIII. Privacy Impact Assessment\n The E-Government Act of 2002 requires agencies to perform a screening or Privacy\n Threshold Analysis (PTA) of federal information systems to determine if a Privacy\n Impact Assessment (PIA) is required for that system.\n\n OMB Memorandum M-03-22 outlines the necessary components of a PIA. A PIA is used to\n ensure that no collection, storage, access, use, or dissemination of personally identifiable\n information occurs that is not needed or authorized. The purpose of the assessment is to\n evaluate any vulnerabilities of privacy in information systems and to document any privacy\n issues that have been identified and addressed.\n\n The OCFO completed the PTA of CBIS and determined that a PIA was required for this\n system. A PIA was conducted for CBIS in May 2009. Although the CBIS PIA contained the\n majority of the elements of M-03-22, it did not address several requirements applicable to\n major information systems, including:\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 The consequences of collection and flow of information;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The alternatives to collection and handling as designed;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The appropriate measures to mitigate risks identified for each alternative; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The rationale for the final design choice or business process.\n\n This issue was originally identified during the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s 2009 audit of CBIS.\n\n Recommendation 1 (Roll-forward from OIG Report 4A-CI-00-09-066 Recommendation\n 4)\n We continue to recommend that all OMB Memorandum 03-22 requirements are incorporated\n into the CBIS PIA.\n\n OCFO- FSM Response:\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe concur with the OIG recommendation. We have addressed the citations that were\n noted in our recent CBIS PIA. Currently the PIA is under review by the CIO IT Security\n Office and based upon their approval or proposed actions, we will forward the revised\n version of [the] CBIS PIA to your office for review no later than April 30, 2011.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n OIG Reply:\n We acknowledge the steps that OCFO has taken to update the CBIS PIA; no further action is\n required.\n\nIX. Plan of Action and Milestones Process\n A POA&M is a tool used to assist agencies in identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and\n monitoring the progress of corrective efforts for IT security weaknesses. OPM has\n implemented an agency-wide POA&M process to help track known IT security weaknesses\n associated with the agency\xe2\x80\x99s information systems.\n\n The OIG evaluated the CBIS POA&M and verified that it follows the format of OPM\xe2\x80\x99s\n template, and has been routinely submitted to the OCIO for evaluation. However, we found\n that security weaknesses identified during CBIS DR testing and reviews conducted by the\n OIG and KPMG have not been added to the CBIS POA&M.\n\n Recommendation 2\n We recommend that the OCFO promptly update the CBIS POA&M to include all known\n security weaknesses.\n\n OCFO- FSM Response:\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe concur with the OIG recommendation and our objective is to develop a centralized\n toolset and/or utilize CIO\xe2\x80\x99s to monitor and track all\n POA&M\xe2\x80\x99s/CAP regardless of the origin of the finding or recommendation. \xe2\x80\xa6.\n We also concur that \xe2\x80\xa6 four (4) POA&M\xe2\x80\x99s from the CBIS Disaster Recovery (DR) testing\n were omitted from the POA&M\xe2\x80\x99s listing but it is being tracked and monitored under the A-\n 8\n\x0c 123 review process. After this review is completed (currently by the Policy and Internal\n Controls group), we will submit to your attention no later than April 30, 2011.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n OIG Reply:\n Although the OCFO uses a variety of tools to track CBIS security weakness, FISMA requires\n Federal agencies track all weaknesses using the standard POA&M template developed by the\n Office of Management and Budget. Use of the standardized POA&M template allows the\n OCIO to track security weaknesses for all of the agency\xe2\x80\x99s information systems.\n\n In order to adequately address this recommendation the OCFO must add all known security\n weaknesses to the CBIS POA&M in addition to any other tracking tools used by the program\n office.\n\nX. NIST SP 800-53 Evaluation\n NIST SP 800-53 Revision 3, Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information\n Systems, provides guidance for implementing a variety of security controls for information\n systems supporting the federal government. As part of this audit, the OIG determined\n whether a subset of these controls had been adequately implemented for CBIS, including:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 AC-2 Account Management \xe2\x80\xa2 IA-2 Identification and Authentication\n \xe2\x80\xa2 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement \xe2\x80\xa2 IA-5 Authenticator Management\n \xe2\x80\xa2 AC-7 Unsuccessful Login Attempts \xe2\x80\xa2 IR-6 Incident Reporting\n \xe2\x80\xa2 AC-8 System Use Notification \xe2\x80\xa2 MP-6 Media Sanitization and Disposal\n \xe2\x80\xa2 AC-11 Session Lock \xe2\x80\xa2 CP-9 Information System Backup\n \xe2\x80\xa2 AC-13 Supervision and Review \xe2\x80\x93 Access \xe2\x80\xa2 PE-2 Physical Access Authorization\n Control\n \xe2\x80\xa2 AT-3 Security Training \xe2\x80\xa2 PL-4 Rules of Behavior\n \xe2\x80\xa2 AU-2 Auditable Events \xe2\x80\xa2 PS-4 Personnel Termination\n \xe2\x80\xa2 AU-3 Content of Audit Records \xe2\x80\xa2 PS-7 Third-Party Personnel Security\n \xe2\x80\xa2 AU-6 Audit Review, Analysis, Reporting \xe2\x80\xa2 RA-5 Vulnerability Scanning\n \xe2\x80\xa2 CA-3 Information System Connections \xe2\x80\xa2 SA-4 Acquisitions\n \xe2\x80\xa2 CM-2 Baseline Configuration \xe2\x80\xa2 SC-10 Network Disconnect\n \xe2\x80\xa2 CM-6 Configuration Settings \xe2\x80\xa2 SI-10 Information Accuracy, Completeness,\n Validity, and Authenticity\n \xe2\x80\xa2 CP-6 Alternate Storage Site \xe2\x80\xa2 SI-11 Error Handling\n\n These controls were evaluated by interviewing individuals with CBIS security\n responsibilities, reviewing documentation and system screenshots, viewing\n demonstrations of system capabilities, and conducting tests directly on the system.\n\n Although it appears that the majority of NIST SP 800-53 security controls have been\n successfully implemented for CBIS, several tested controls were not fully satisfied.\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0ca) (AC-2) Account Management\n\n\n\n\n NIST SP 800-53 Control AC-2 requires an organization to review, disable, and\n remove user accounts when necessary.\n\n\n\n\n Recommendation 3\n We recommend that the OCFO\n\n\n OCFO -FSM Response:\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe concur with the [OIG] recommendation and are currently conducting our\n\n We also acknowledge\n\n A\n revised account management guide, to include these refined policies, will be\n forwarded to OIG no later than April 30, 2011.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cEven though we communicate the risk of\n . We\n recommend that for that situation we will identify a policy and procedures to\n establish a waiver that [transfers] the risk to the program offices.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n OIG Reply:\n We acknowledge the steps taken by the OCFO to address this issue. In order to fully\n close this audit recommendation, we recommend that the OCFO provide IOC with\n evidence that or that the risk was\n formally accepted by senior management from that user\xe2\x80\x99s program office.\n\n Recommendation 4\n We recommend that the OCFO\n\n\n OCFO-FSM Response:\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe concur with the [OIG] recommendation and are currently conducting our\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c A revised account management guide, to include these refined\n policies, will be forwarded to OIG no later than April 30, 2011.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n OIG Reply:\n As part of the audit resolution process, we recommend that the OCFO provide IOC\n with evidence .\n\n Recommendation 5\n We recommend that the OCFO develop and implement a process to routinely audit\n\n\n OCFO-FSM Response:\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe concur with the [OIG] recommendation and we will continue to revise our\n CBIS account management guide to include the OIG audit recommendations,\n system enhancements and policies and procedures to improve the security\n management processes. More specifically, we will routinely review\n We acknowledge that the security oversight\n for CBIS is and we have made a recommendation to\n OCFO management to invest into a product similar to\n that provides capabilities to assess and alert in cases where\n security violations have occurred. In the interim, we have developed reports that\n allow OPM Program Office [RMOs] and the CBIS security team a means to\n effectively monitor .\n\n We recommend CBIS users and supervisors submit directly to\n their Program Office RMO to obtain their approval and assist them in monitoring\n and tracking A revised account management\n guide, [including] these refined policies, will be forwarded to OIG no later than\n April 30, 2011.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n OIG Reply:\n As part of the audit resolution process, we recommend that the OCFO provide IOC\n with evidence that it has implemented a process to routinely audit\n s.\n\nb) (AC-5) Segregation of Duties Issue\n The OCFO developed a policy that describes specific user roles that cannot be\n assigned to a single individual in conjunction with other roles due to segregation of\n duty conflicts (e.g., one user having both payables manager and receivables manager\n roles). We reviewed the active roles of all current CBIS users and determined that\n 191 users had roles that violated the segregation of duties policy.\n\n\n 11\n\x0cNIST SP 800-53 Control AC-5 states that system owners must separate duties of\nindividuals as necessary to prevent malevolent activity without collusion. Failure to\nimplement adequate separation of duties increases the risk that malicious activity by\nsystem users remains undetected.\n\nThe OCFO informed the OIG that several of the users that have segregation of duties\nissues have a business need to have conflicting roles. If this is the case, then the\nCBIS segregation of duties policy is not accurate, further indicating that the OCFO\ndoes not have adequate controls regarding segregation of duties. We consider this\nweakness to be a significant deficiency in CBIS\xe2\x80\x99s IT security controls.\n\nRecommendation 6\nWe recommend that the OCFO review (and update if necessary) the CBIS\nsegregation of duties policy to ensure it accurately reflects business requirements.\n\nOCFO-FSM Response:\n\xe2\x80\x9cWe concur with the [OIG] recommendation and we have refined the CBIS\nSegregation of Duties metric table (SoD Metric Table) to be reviewed by OIG. We\nare seeking OIG concurrence and approval to use this refined SoD as a basis for\nthe internal control of user security of reducing the likelihood of fraud by\ndiscouraging collusion. If we receive concurrence, we will advise OPM Program\nOffice [RMOs] and our security team of the newly refined SoD that will assist them\nin validating and executing user access requests accurately.\n\nA revised account management guide, [including] these refined policies, will be\nforwarded to OIG no later than April 30, 2011.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nOIG Reply:\nWe acknowledge the steps the OCFO has taken to refine the CBIS SoD metric table.\nHowever, the OIG is not in a position to approve the implementation of this new\ntable, as the development of a SoD policy requires a detailed understanding of the\nbusiness requirements specific to the application. Furthermore, the OIG is an\nindependent oversight entity and cannot participate in the development of policies\nand procedures of the program offices we audit.\n\nAs part of the audit resolution process, we recommend that the OCFO provide IOC\nwith evidence that it has updated the CBIS segregation of duties policy.\n\nRecommendation 7\nWe recommend that the OCFO adjust the user roles for the accounts identified as\nhaving segregation of duties violations.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0cOCFO-FSM Response:\n\xe2\x80\x9cWe concur with the [OIG] recommendation and are currently conducting our\nsemi-annual user account assessment [for] each OPM program office [of] their\nCBIS users. Utilizing the SoD Metric Table, we are advising OPM Program Office\n[RMOs] where role requests violate security standards and will recommend they re-\nassess requested roles based on the SoD.\n\nWe are aware that this refined policy will cause some concern within OPM\norganizations, so FSM is developing an annual CBIS Security Training Awareness\nto reinforce this and all other policy changes on a routine and continual basis. Any\nsupport from OIG that endorses these newly refined policies is appreciated. A\nrevised account management guide, [including] these refined policies, will be\nforwarded to OIG no later than April 30, 2011.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\xe2\x80\x9cFSM assumes the responsibility for administration and execution of user account\nmanagement. As such, we will establish a policy allowing a waiver (in extreme\ncircumstances) to bypass the SoD conflicts. However, this waiver also transfers the\nrisk to the OPM Program Office to ensure that actions performed within the system\nas a result of [the] waiver does not introduce or permit fraudulent transactions and\nuse.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nOIG Reply:\nAs part of the audit resolution process, we recommend that the OCFO provide IOC\nwith evidence that it has adjusted the user roles for the accounts with segregation of\nduties violations.\n\nRecommendation 8\nWe recommend that the OCFO modify the CBIS system so that technical controls are\nin place to prevent user accounts from being created with segregation of duties\nviolations.\n\nOCFO-FSM Response:\n\xe2\x80\x9cWe partially-concur with the [OIG] recommendation. To retrofit this\nrecommendation would require the purchase of\n has the functionality to determine and alert when\nsecurity violations occur and to monitor system configurations and security set-ups.\nFSM is recommending the purchase of to CFO leadership for\nconsideration. Upon approval, it will be forwarded to the CBIS Change Control\nBoard and the Executive Steering Committee for review and analysis. In the\ninterim FSM\xe2\x80\x99s Financial Application Management (FAM) Group will continue to\nuse SoD and other reports defined in our account management guidelines to\nmonitor and track SoD violations. We will introduce a change request to both the\nCCB and then ESC for concurrence no later than April 30, 2011.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n 13\n\x0c OIG Reply:\n As part of the audit resolution process, we recommend that the OCFO provide IOC\n with evidence that it has implemented technical controls to prevent user accounts\n from being created with segregation of duties violations.\n\n Recommendation 9\n We recommend that the OCFO implement a process to routinely audit all active user\n accounts to identify accounts that have roles that violate the segregation of duties\n policy.\n\n OCFO-FSM Response:\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe concur with the [OIG] recommendation and we are developing security\n incident reports to assist the security team and OPM Program Office [RMOs] in\n conducting more frequent reviews of CBIS user accounts (within their\n organization) and to also alert when those accounts may violate the approved SOD\n Metrics. More specifically, we (the CBIS security team) will routinely review user\n accounts on a quarterly basis and when needed.\n\n We recommend CBIS users and supervisors submit security access forms directly to\n their Program Office RMO to obtain their approval and assist them in monitoring\n and tracking modifications to user accounts. A revised account management\n guide, [including] these refined policies, will be forwarded to OIG no later than\n April 30, 2011.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n OIG Reply:\n As part of the audit resolution process we recommend that the OCFO provide IOC\n with evidence that it is routinely auditing CBIS user accounts to identify segregation\n of duties violations.\n\nc)\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cRecommendation 10\n\n\n\n\nOCFO-FSM Response:\n\xe2\x80\x9cWe concur with the [OIG] recommendation.\n\n\n\n\nOIG Reply:\n\n\n\n\nRecommendation 11\nWe recommend that the appropriate technical modifications be made to CBIS to\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cOCFO-FSM Response:\n\xe2\x80\x9cWe partially-concur with the [OIG] recommendation and\n\n\n\n\n FSM is recommending the purchase of to CFO\nleadership for consideration.\n\n\n\n\nOIG Reply:\nWe acknowledge the fact that\n\n\n nce the is complete, we recommend that\nthe OCFO provide IOC with evidence that the\n\n\nRecommendation 12\nWe recommend that the OCFO\n\nOCFO-FSM Response:\n\xe2\x80\x9cWe partially-concur with the [OIG] recommendation\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c 1. Current Active users and assigned responsibilities\n\n\n\n\n FSM is recommending the purchase of to\n CFO leadership for consideration.\n\n\n\n\n OIG Reply:\n As part of the audit resolution process, we recommend that the OCFO provide IOC\n with evidence indicating that the program office\n discussed in Recommendation 10,\n above.\n\nd) (CM-6) Configuration Settings\n The OIG conducted vulnerability scans of the databases supporting CBIS\n using scanning tool. The\n vulnerability scans revealed that the databases contained settings configured in a\n manner not fully compliant with best practices as defined by\n Although the technical details of these settings will not be included in this\n report, the OCFO has been provided with this information.\n\n NIST SP 800-53 Control CM-6 states that information systems should be configured\n in a manner that reflect the most restrictive mode consistent with operational\n requirements.\n\n Recommendation 13\n We recommend that the OCFO evaluate the potential configuration weaknesses\n identified by the OIG and, if necessary, make the appropriate technical modifications.\n\n\n 17\n\x0c OCFO-FSM Response:\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe do not concur with the [OIG] recommendation. The results of the scan\n conducted by the OIG were anticipated and expectedly applicable to the CBIS\n database configuration. The scan conducted by OIG identified [items] \xe2\x80\xa6 required\n for (and support) the CBIS [application\xe2\x80\x99s] day-to-day operations. \xe2\x80\xa6 As such, we\n believe we are in compliance with NIST SP 800-53 Control CM-6 as the system is\n configured in a manner that restricts access based on the operational requirement\n \xe2\x80\xa6 to support CBIS operations.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n OIG Reply:\n We acknowledge the fact that the configuration settings questioned are required to\n support CBIS day-to-day operations. No further action is required.\n\ne)\n\n\n\n\n Recommendation 14\n We recommend that the OCFO\n\n\n OCFO-FSM Response:\n \xe2\x80\x9cWe concur with the [OIG] recommendation and are currently conducting our\n\n\n\n\n FAM will ensure that the processes\n\n A revised account management guide, [including] these refined\n policies, will be forwarded to OIG no later than April 30, 2011.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n 18\n\x0cOIG Reply:\nAs part of the audit resolution process, we recommend that the OCFO provide IOC\nwith evidence indicating\n\n\nRecommendation 15\nWe recommend that the OCFO implement a process\n\n\nRecommendation 16\nWe recommend that the OCFO implement a procedure to\n\n .\n\nOCFO-FSM Response:\n\xe2\x80\x9cWe concur with the [OIG] recommendation. FAM will request that CIO provides\nthe CBIS security team\n\n Upon implementation of this process, we will notify the OPM\nProgram Office [RMOs] that they\n\n\nWe will forward a revised account management guide that includes these refined\npolicies for review no later than April 30, 2011.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nOIG Reply:\nWe agree that the OCFO\xe2\x80\x99s plan to use the\n\n owever, the intent of Recommendations 15 and 16 is to\nimplement both\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c Major Contributors to this Report\nThis audit report was prepared by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Office of Inspector\nGeneral, Information Systems Audits Group. The following individuals participated in the audit\nand the preparation of this report:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 , Group Chief\n\xe2\x80\xa2 , Senior Team Leader\n\xe2\x80\xa2 , Auditor In Charge\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
C 317/28 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee 10.11.2001
 Con la presente domanda la ricorrente vuole agire per carenza Motivi e principali argomenti
 e per annullamento.
 La ricorrente nella presente causa si oppone alla sua esclusione
 A sostegno delle sue domande, la ricorrente deduce: dall’elenco di idoneità predisposto nell’ambito di un’avviso di
 selezione di agenti temporanei COM/R/A/01/1999 per la
 — la violazione degli artt. 4-b, 86 e 88 del Trattato CECA. gestione dei programmi di ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico.
 Viene a questo proposito affermato che il fatto d’imporre
 a imprese CECA oneri che, per quanto riguarda Charbon-
 nages de France, sarebbero direttamente o indirettamente
 finanziati, mentre la ricorrente, società privata, dovrebbe A sostegno delle sue istanze la ricorrente fa valere:
 farvi fronte in mancanza di qualsiasi utile di gestione,
 integrerebbe una discriminazione in contrasto con il — la violazione dell’obbligo di motivazione e del principio
 Trattato CECA; di trasparenza;
 — la violazione di forme sostanziali per difetto di motiva- — la violazione dell’avviso di selezione e delle norme
 zione; che disciplinano la composizione della commissione
 giudicatrice;
 — l’esistenza nella specie di un difetto di competenza,
 in quanto dal testo della lettera 10 luglio 2001 non
 risulterebbe che la decisione ivi contenuta sarebbe stata — la violazione dei principi di buona amministrazione e di
 adottata formalmente dalla Commissione e che colui che parità di trattamento, in quanto l’identità e la situazione
 l’ha sottoscritta disponeva di un potere di firma; professionale e amministrativa dei membri del Comitato
 di selezione sarebbe stata comunicata unicamente a taluni
 candidati.
 — la violazione del principio della buona amministrazione.
 (1) Sacilor Lormines/Commissione (non ancora pubblicata nella
 Raccolta).
 Ricorso della Alza Corporation contro l’Ufficio per l’ar-
 monizzazione nel mercato interno, proposto il 27 luglio
 2001
 Ricorso di Sophie Bachotet contro Commissione delle
 Comunità europee, presentato il 3 agosto 2001 (Causa T-183/01)
 (Causa T-182/01)
 (2001/C 317/56)
 (2001/C 317/55)
 (Lingua processuale: l’inglese)
 (Lingua processuale: il francese)
 Il 27 luglio 2001, la Alza Corporation, rappresentata dal-
 Il 3 agosto 2001 la sig.a Sophie Bachotet, residente a Bruxelles, l’avv. Michael Edenborough, con domicilio eletto, ha proposto
 rappresentata dagli avv.ti Jean-Noël Louis e Véronique Peere, dinanzi al Tribunale di primo grado delle Comunità europee
 con domicilio eletto in Lussemburgo, ha proposto dinanzi al un ricorso contro l’Ufficio per l’armonizzazione nel mercato
 Tribunale di primo grado delle Comunità europee un ricorso interno.
 contro la Commissione delle Comunità europee.
 La ricorrente chiede che il Tribunale voglia:
 La ricorrente chiede che il Tribunale voglia:
 — annullare le decisioni della commissione di ricorso e della
 — annullare la decisione del Comitato di selezione divisione di opposizione in merito alla domanda di
 COM/R/A/01/1999 di attribuire alla ricorrente un voto registrazione del marchio del richiedente per prodotti
 insufficiente ai fini dell’iscrizione nella lista di riserva, classificati nella classe 5; e di conseguenza, ordinare a tale
 Ufficio di procedere alla registrazione del marchio del
 — condannare la convenuta alle spese. richiedente nella classe 5;
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee C 317/29
 — in subordine, annullare le decisioni della commissione di Ricorso di Dominique Ramaekers contro Commissione
 ricorso e della divisione di opposizione in merito alla delle Comunità europee, presentato il 4 agosto 2001
 domanda di registrazione del marchio del richiedente per
 prodotti classificati nella classe 5; e ordinare che tale
 domanda nel rispetto della specificazione rettificata per i (Causa T-185/01)
 prodotti della classe 5 sia rinviata alla divisione di
 opposizione per un ulteriore esame;
 (2001/C 317/57)
 — ordinare che le spese relative alla domanda per difendere
 l’opposizione originale e promuovere il ricorso dinanzi
 alla commissione di ricorso e dinanzi al Tribunale di (Lingua processuale: il francese)
 primo grado siano pagate dal ricorrente.
 Il 4 agosto 2001 la sig.a Dominique Ramaekers, residente a
 Lovanio-La Neuve (Belgio), rappresentata dagli avv.ti Jean-Noël
 Motivi e principali argomenti Louis e Véronique Peere, con domicilio eletto in Lussemburgo,
 ha proposto dinanzi al Tribunale di primo grado delle
 Comunità europee un ricorso contro la Commissione delle
 Richiedente del marchio Alza Corporation, con sede a Comunità europee.
 comunitario: Mountain Wiew, California, USA
 Il marchio comunitario Il marchio «E-TRANS» per taluni
 interessato: prodotti nelle classi 5, 10 e 42 La ricorrente chiede che il Tribunale voglia:
 (ad esempio, preparati e sostanze
 farmaceutiche e veterinarie) —
 domanda n. 120 089 — annullare la decisione della commissione giudicatrice
 della selezione Ricerca COM/R/A/01/1999 di accordarle
 Titolare del diritto del Hexal AG, Holzkirchen, Germania un voto insufficiente al fine di venire iscritta nella lista di
 marchio o firma fatta riserva,
 valere mediante opposi-
 zione nel procedimento
 di opposizione: — per quanto necessario, annullare la conseguente decisione
 del Comitato di selezione e dell’AHCC che comporta la
 Marchio o firma fatta Il marchio tedesco «ESTRANS» per costituzione della lista di riserva della selezione Ricerva
 valere mediante opposi- taluni prodotti nella classe 5 COM/R/A/01/1999,
 zione nel procedimento
 di opposizione
 — condannare la convenuta alle spese.
 Decisione della divisione Accettazione parziale dell’opposi-
 opposizione: zione per quanto riguarda prepa-
 rati e sostanze farmaceutiche e
 veterinarie (classe 5)
 Motivi e principali argomenti
 Decisione della commis- Ricorso respinto
 sione di ricorso:
 Motivi: — I prodotti relativi ai due mar- La ricorrente nella presente causa si oppone alla sua esclusione
 chi sono diversi; dall’elenco di idoneità predisposto nell’ambito di un’avviso di
 selezione di agenti temporanei COM/R/A/01/1999 per la
 — non vi è possibilità di confu- gestione dei programmi di ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico.
 sione; e
 — l’art. 8, n. 1, lett. b)
 del regolamento (CE)
 I mezzi e i principali argomenti sono i medesimi invocati
 n. 40/94 (1) non è applica-
 nell’ambito della causa T-182/01 Bachotet/Commissione (1).
 bile.
 (1) Regolamento (CE) del Consiglio 20 dicembre 1993, n. 40/94, sul (1) Non ancora pubblicata nella GU.
 marchio comunitario (GU L 11, pag. 1).


type: legislation

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 31987L0137
 Neuvième Directive 87/137/CEE de la Commission du 2 février 1987 portant adaptation au progrès technique des annexes II, III, IV, V et VI de la directive 76/768/CEE du Conseil concernant le rapprochement des législations des États membres relatives aux produits cosmétiques
 Journal officiel n° L 056 du 26/02/1987 p. 0020 - 0021 édition spéciale finnoise: chapitre 13 tome 16 p. 0135 édition spéciale suédoise: chapitre 13 tome 16 p. 0135
 *****NEUVIÈME DIRECTIVE DE LA COMMISSION du 2 février 1987 portant adaptation au progrès technique des annexes II, III, IV, V et VI de la directive 76/768/CEE du Conseil concernant le rapprochement des législations des États membres relatives aux produits cosmétiques (87/137/CEE) LA COMMISSION DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES, vu le traité instituant la Communauté économique européenne, vu la directive 76/768/CEE du Conseil, du 27 juillet 1976, concernant le rapprochement des législations des États membres relatives aux produits cosmétiques (1), modifiée en dernier lieu par la directive 86/199/CEE (2), et notamment son article 8 paragraphe 2, considérant que, sur la base des informations disponibles, certains colorants, substances ou agents conservateurs admis provisoirement peuvent être admis définitivement, alors que d'autres doivent être définitivement interdits ou voir leur admission prolongée pendant un délai déterminé; considérant que, en vue de la sauvegarde de la santé publique, il convient d'interdire l'usage du minoxidil, de ses sels et de ses dérivés dans les produits cosmétiques; considérant que, en attendant des dispositions communautaires concernant la fiscalité, il est opportun de ne plus fixer de date limite d'admission de l'alcool méthylique pour son utilisation comme dénaturant des alcools éthylique et iso-propylique; considérant que les mesures prévues à la présente directive sont conformes à l'avis du comité pour l'adaptation au progrès technique des directives visant à l'élimination des entraves techniques dans le secteur des produits cosmétiques, A ARRÊTÉ LA PRÉSENTE DIRECTIVE: Article premier La directive 76/768/CEE est modifiée comme suit: 1) à l'annexe II, sont ajoutés: « 370. N-(Trichlorométhylthio) cyclohexène-4-dicarboximide 1,2 (Captan) 371. 2,2-Dihydroxy-3,3,5,5,6,6-hexachlorodiphenylméthane (Hexachlorophène) 372. 6-(1-Pipéridinyl)-2,4-pyrimidinediamine-3-oxide (Minoxidil), ses sels et produits dérivés. »; 2) l'annexe III première partie est modifiée comme suit: 1.2.3.4.5.6 // // // // // // // a // b // c // d // e // f // // // // // // // 11 // Dichlorophène (*) // // 0,5 % // // Contient du dichlorophène // // // // // // // 52 // Alcool méthylique // Dénaturant pour les alcools éthylique et iso-propylique // 5 % calculé en % des alcools éthylique et iso-propylique // // // // // // // // 3) à l'annexe III deuxième partie, sont insérés les numéros du colour index 77288 et 77289 avec: - coloration: verte, - champ d'application: 1, - autres limitations et exigences: exempt d'ion chromate; 4) l'annexe IV première partie est modifiée comme suit: - le numéro 1, alcool méthylique, est supprimé, - pour la substance no 4, pyrithione disulfure + sulfate de magnésium, le libellé de la colonne e est supprimé et la date de la colonne g est remplacée par celle du 31 décembre 1987, - pour la substance no 5, phénoxypropanol, la date de la colonne g est remplacée par celle de 31 décembre 1987; 5) à l'annexe IV deuxième partie, les numéros du colour index 77288 et 77289 sont supprimés; 6) à l'annexe V, le numéro 2, hexachlorophène, est supprimé; 7) à l'annexe VI première partie: - le numéro 6, hexachlorophène, est supprimé, - est ajouté: 1.2.3.4.5 // // // // // // a // b // c // d // e // // // // // // 40 // Benzyl-2-chloro-4 phénol (chlorophène) // 0,2 % // // // // // // // 8) à l'annexe VI deuxième partie: - les substances nos 9, 12 et 13 sont supprimées, - la date de la colonne f) est remplacée par celle du 31 décembre 1987 pour la substance no 14, phénoxypropanol, - pour la substance no 15, diisobutyl-phénoxy-éthoxy-éthyl diméthylbenzylammonium, chlorure de (+) à la colonne b est ajouté le nom commun (chlorure de benzéthonium) et la date de la colonne f est remplacée par celle du 31 décembre 1988, - pour la substance no 16, alkyl (C8-C18) diméthylbenzyl ammonium chlorure de, bromure de, saccharinate de (+), à la colonne b est ajouté le nom commun (chlorure, bromure, saccharinate de benzalkonium) et la date de la colonne f est remplacée par celle du 31 décembre 1987. Article 2 1. Sans préjudice des dates d'admission mentionnées à l'article 1er paragraphes 4 et 8, les États membres prennent les mesures nécessaires pour que, à partir du 1er janvier 1989, ni les fabricants, ni les importateurs établis dans la Communauté ne mettent sur le marché des produits qui ne satisfont pas aux dispositions de la présente directive. 2. Les États membres prennent les mesures nécessaires pour que les produits visés au paragraphe 1 ne puissent être vendus ou cédés au consommateur final après le 31 décembre 1990. Article 3 1. Les États membres mettent en vigueur les dispositions législatives, règlementaires et administratives nécessaires pour se conformer à la présente directive au plus tard le 31 décembre 1987. Ils en informent immédiatement la Commission. 2. Les États membres communiquent à la Commission le texte des dispositions de droit interne qu'ils adoptent dans le domaine régi par la présente directive. Article 4 Les États membres sont destinataires de la présente directive. Fait à Bruxelles, le 2 février 1987. Par la Commission Grigoris VARFIS Membre de la Commission (1) JO no L 262 du 27. 9. 1976, p. 169. (2) JO no L 149 du 3. 6. 1986, p. 38.


type: wikipedia

text:
Natakamani núbiai kusita király a Kr. u. 1. század közepén. Társuralkodójával, Amanitore királynővel folytatott közös uralkodása jelenti sok szempontból a meroitikus korszak kulturális virágkorát.
 Családi háttére
 A rendelkezésünkre álló gyér írásos anyag, és a meroita nyelv megfejtetlensége miatt csak nagyon korlátozott ismeretünk van a társuralkodók származásáról. Az utóbbi időkig Amanikhalabe királyt tartották elődjüknek, azonban az elmúlt években olyan leletek kerültek napvilágra naqai Ámon templom ásatásai során, amelyek egy korábban a Kr. u. 2. század közepére datált királyt, Amanikhareqeremet talán közvetlenül Natakamani és Amanitore elé helyezik a kusita királyi kronológiában.
 A kutatás jelenlegi állása szerint még nem tisztázott, hogy Amanitore Natakamani testvére és/vagy felesége, esetleg anyja volt-e. Az ábrázolások alapján azonban annyi bizonyos, hogy Amanitore is teljes uralkodói díszben jelenik meg a király mellett, amely egy különleges táruralkodói viszonyra utal. Valószínű továbbá, hogy az ábrázolásokon megjelenő három királyi herceg, Arkankharor, Arkhatani és Shorakaror közös gyermekeik voltak. A két előbbi gyermek, azonban még a királyi pár halála előtt elhunyt így az utód Shorakaror lett.
 Uralkodása és építkezései
 A Kusita királyság Natakamani idején érte el kulturális zenitjét. A Kr. e. 1. század 30-as éveiben Dél-Egyiptomban és Núbiában Augustus császár seregével folytatott fegyveres harc konfliktusok után, a Kr. e. 22.-ben megkötött Számoszi Béke jelentős prosperitást hozott Núbiának. A Római Birodalommal folytatott intenzív és biztonságosan szabályozott kereskedelem, az egzotikus afrikai luxuscikkek (elefántcsont, fafélék, állatbőrök, fűszerek, gyógyszerek, strucctojás stb.) exportja jólétet hozott legalább is a királyság vezető rétegei számára.
 Ezzel párhuzamosa számos árucikk jutott el a mediterrán világból Meroéba. Több núbiai művészeti és építészeti alkotásban érzékelhető a hellénisztikus, elsősorban az alexandriai művészet hatása.
 Jól kimutatható továbbá a kusita papi központoknak és a nagy felső-egyiptomi templomközpontoknak is az ismét felélénkülő kapcsolata. Nem véletlen, hogy közel kétszáz év után ebben az időszakban jelenik meg újra az egyiptomi hieroglifákkal is leírt királynevek, a meroitikus nyelvű feliratok mellett, és királysírokban is feltűnnek ismét az óegyiptomi halotti szövegek.
 Natakamini és Amanaitore idején páratlan építkezési hullám indult meg a királyság nagy szakrális központjaiban. Jelentős felújítást hajtottak végre az ősi napatai nagy Amon templomban, amelynek közelében hatalmas gazdagon dísztett legalább két szintes királyi palotát építettek, valamint a nagy meroéi központi Amon templomban. Tovább építkezéseket folytattak Amarában a Nílus 2. és 3. kataraktája közötti település Amon templomában, az 5. katarakta környéki dangeili templomban. Ízisz istennő számára is jelentős templomot emeltek ebben a korban Wadi ben Nagában.
 Legjobb állapotban azonban ma a Butánán található nagy naqai Amun templom látható, amelynek közelében, Apedamak oroszlánistennek emeltek egy egyhelyiséges templomot. Az Apedamak templom és az előtte álló valószínűleg bárkamegállóként funkcionáló híres számos hellénisztikus építészeti elemet felvonultató úgynevezett Római Kioszk a meroitikus építészet emblematikus és talán ma a legismertebb alkotása.
 Sírja
 Natakamani piramisa és kápolnája a meroéi északi piramistemetőben található. A sírkápolna falán feltűnik az oroszlános trónon ülő Ízisz istennő által oltalmazott uralkodó, aki számára gazdag áldozatot mutatnak be.
 A piramis a sírcsoport északkeleti szélén áll a lehető legmesszebb áll táruralkodójának Amanitore királynő sírjától. A sírok furcsa helyzetének magyarázata jelenleg nem ismert.
 Lásd még
 Kusita uralkodók listája
 Irodalom
 Inge Hofmann: Beiträge zur meroitischen Chronologie. St. Augustin bei Bonn 1978, 120-122,
 László Török: The Kingdom of Kush. Leiden/New York/Köln 1997, 461-464,
 László Török, in: Fontes Historiae Nubiorum, Vol. III, Bergen 1998, S. 896-901,
 Michael H. Zach: Gedanken zur kdke Amanitore. In Begegnungen, Antike Kulturen im Niltal. Herausgegeben von C. A. Arnst, I. Hafemann, A. Lohwasser, Leipzig 2001, 509-520,
 Külső hivatkozások
 Válogatás Natakamani korából származó tárgyakból
 Kusita uralkodók


type: other

text:
Advokaten 1 - Ny højesteretskendelse ændrer praksis for juridiske responsa
 En ny højesteretskendelse er udtryk for ny praksis med hensyn til fremlæggelse af juridiske responsa og må forventes at få stor praktisk betydning.
 Tekst: Karen Margrethe Tyndeskov
 Højesterets kendelse i U.1998.276H statuerede, at et juridisk responsum indhentet inden et sagsanlæg ikke måtte fremlægges, når modparten protesterede herimod.
 Højesterets kendelser U.1996.1293/1H og U.2011.479H (jfr. U.1996.821V) statuerede, at juridiske responsa indhentet efter et sagsanlæg, heller ikke måtte fremlægges, når modparten protesterede herimod.
 Østre Landsret bestemte ved kendelse af 7.10.2011 (7. afd. a.s. B-2815-10) uden nærmere begrundelse, at et juridisk responsum indhentet efter sagsanlæg end ikke måtte indgå i en materialesamling.
 Med Højesterets kendelse af 11.10.2013 (Sag 159/2013), U.2014.138H, tillod Højesteret fremlæggelse af et af sagsøgeren ensidigt indhentet juridisk responsum mod sagsøgtes protest.
 Med andre ord: Juridiske responsa har – indtil den nu afsagte kendelse fra Højesteret – ikke kunnet fremlægges, når modparten protesterede herimod, uanset om der var tale om ensidige responsa indhentet før eller under en retssag.
 Faktuelle erklæringer
 For så vidt angår ensidigt indhentede erklæringer af faktuel karakter, det vil sige erklæringer om teknisk, økonomisk eller lignende karakter, har der over de senere år udviklet sig en praksis, hvorefter domstolene har tilladt fremlæggelse, når de faktuelle erklæringer var indhentet inden sagens anlæg. Blandt afgørelserne kan nævnes: U.2007.2744Ø, hvor Østre Landsret tillod en lægeerklæring fremlagt. U.2008.2393H, hvor Højesteret tillod en teknisk sagkyndig erklæring fremlagt. U.2011.151H, hvor Højesteret tillod fremlæggelse af en ensidigt indhentet rapport til brug for en konkurrenceretlig sag. U.2011.3070H, hvor Højesteret tillod fremlæggelse af en ensidigt indhentet erklæring om størrelsen af en markedsleje.
 For en gennemgang af udviklingen i retspraksis vedrørende faktuelle erklæringer kan henvises til artiklen Et paradigmeskift i retsplejens tilgang til sagkyndig medvirken af Anders Amstrup og Claus Aschou i U.2012B.498. Der kan endvidere henvises til artiklen Ny bevisform på vej ind i retssalene af advokatfuldmægtig Morten Frank i Advokaten nr. 3, 2009.
 Det særlige ved disse erklæringer er, at de angår sagens faktum. Ofte vil erklæringerne være indhentet som led i de overvejelser, en part har gjort sig inden sagsanlægget, og kan tillige have indgået i udenretslige forhandlinger mellem parterne forud for retssagen. Dermed bliver de faktuelle erklæringer en integreret del af en retssags sagsfremstilling. Erklæringernes indhold og konklusioner vil kunne efterprøves under retssagen gennem retsplejelovens regler om syn og skøn under behørig hensyntagen til de kontradiktoriske regler. Dermed er der ikke nogen særlig risiko for, at en ensidigt indhentet faktuel erklæring, indhentet inden en retssags anlæg, vil påvirke udfaldet af sagen utilbørligt.
 Højesterets kendelse U.2014.138H
 Forud for Højesterets kendelse havde både Københavns Byret og Østre Landsret truffet afgørelser i sagen.
 Iht. byrettens kendelse af 19.12.2012 tillodes det ikke sagsøger at fremlægge det ensidigt indhentede responsum, idet byretten blandt andet udtalte:
 “Idet det således ikke kan udelukkes, at udtalelsens indhold er påvirket af den måde, sagen er forelagt på, jf. Højesterets kendelse gengivet i U.1998.276H, og under hensyn til den af sagsøgte fremhævede højesteretspraksis, finder retten, at responsummet i denne sag ikke bør tillades fremlagt. Thi bestemmes: Det tillades ikke sagsøger ... at fremlægge det af professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff udarbejdede responsum..."
 Sagsøger kærede kendelsen til Østre Landsret, der den 6.2.2013 afsagde følgende kendelse (5. afd. kære nr. B-107-13):
 “Det juridiske responsum ... er udarbejdet af professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauff den 30. juni 2011, og sagen er anlagt ved stævning dateret 27. februar 2012. Da responsummet således er indhentet før sagens anlæg tillades det, uanset at det er ensidigt indhentet, fremlagt, hvorfor bestemmes:
 Det juridiske responsum, sagens bilag 8, udarbejdet af professor, dr. Jur. Erik Werlauff den 30. juni 2011 tillades fremlagt.”
 Østre Landsret nåede således frem til det modsatte resultat af byretten. Landsretten støttede sig ikke til Højesterets kendelse i U.1998.276H, men synes derimod at have lagt sig op ad de afgørelser om faktuelle erklæringer, citeret ovenfor i pkt. 3, hvor domstolene har tilladt fremlæggelse af ensidige (faktuelle) erklæringer indhentet inden sagsanlæg.
 Der blev herefter opnået tredjeinstansbevilling, hvorefter spørgsmålet blev forelagt Højesteret, der den 11.10.2013 med deltagelse af syv dommere afsagde følgende kendelse:
 “Sagen angår, om et ensidigt indhentet responsum vedrørende dansk ret kan fremlægges som bevis i sagen eller indgå i sagen til brug for den juridiske argumentation.
 Der er ikke regler i retsplejeloven, som særligt regulerer, om et ensidigt indhentet juridisk responsum om dansk ret kan indgå i en sag til brug for den juridiske argumentation. Retten skal bygge sin afgørelse på anvendelse af gældende dansk ret. Parterne vil i almindelighed behandle sagens juridiske problemer i deres processkrifter og i deres procedure, og det er ikke usædvanligt, at parterne til brug for deres procedure har udarbejdet en materialesamling, der indeholder de relevante retsregler, juridisk litteratur mv.
 Professor, dr.jur. Erik Werlauffs responsum af 30. juni 2011 kan således indgå i sagen til brug for den juridiske argumentation, men ikke som bevis....
 Thi bestemmes: Professor, dr. jur. Erik Werlauffs responsum af 30. juni 2011 kan indgå i sagen til brug for den juridiske argumentation, men ikke som bevis.”
 Paradigmeskift i forhold til tidligere praksis
 Kendelsen statuerer et paradigmeskift i forhold til tidligere praksis omkring juridiske responsa, jfr. de ovenfor refererede kendelser, hvor Højesteret tidligere har nægtet tilladelse til fremlæggelse af ensidigt indhentede juridiske responsa, når modparten protesterede herimod, uanset om der var tale om responsa indhentet før eller under retssagen.
 Højesteret fastslår, at juridiske responsa kan indgå i en sag på samme måde som partsindlæg og materialesamlinger.
 Højesteret fastslår endvidere, at et responsum ikke udgør et bevis. Dermed adskiller de juridiske responsa sig helt afgørende fra de faktuelle erklæringer og retspraksis herom. Højesteret lægger dermed afstand til Østre Landsrets analogisering til retspraksis omkring faktuelle erklæringer.
 Højesteret tillægger det, modsat Østre Landsret, ingen betydning, at responsummet blev indhentet inden sagens anlæg. Højesterets præmisser betyder derfor, at juridiske responsa kan indgå i partsindlæg og materialesamlinger, uanset om de er indhentet før eller under en retssag. Denne nye og ændrede praksis må antages at få stor betydning fremover.
 Højesteret præciserer hele fire steder i kendelsen, at sagen angår et responsum om dansk ret.
 Det må derfor antages, at kendelsen ikke angår responsa om fremmed ret. Begrundelsen for denne antagelse kan søges i den europæiske konvention af 7. juni 1968 om oplysninger om fremmed ret.
 Om konventionen kan henvises til Vejledning nr. 72 af 15. juni 1988 om tilvejebringelse af oplysninger om fremmed ret. Den i vejledningen foreskrevne fremgangsmåde vil således blive fulgt, når domstolene skal forholde sig til indholdet af fremmed ret. Fremlæggelse af et ensidigt indhentet juridisk responsum vil derfor næppe blive tilladt, når der under en retssag opstår juridiske spørgsmål om indholdet af fremmed ret.
 EU-retten er en del af dansk ret. Højesterets kendelse udelukker ikke fremlæggelse af responsa om EU-retlige spørgsmål. Danske domstole er ikke mindst i førsteinstanssager tilbageholdende med at lade EU-retlige fortolkningsspørgsmål forelægge præjudicielt i henhold til Traktaten om den europæiske unions funktionsmåde artikel 267. Det er nærliggende at antage, at Højesterets kendelse kan give anledning til, at den part, for hvem det ikke er lykkedes at komme igennem med en anmodning om præjudiciel forelæggelse, i stedet vælger at fremlægge et ensidigt indhentet juridisk responsum om relevante EU-retlige fortolkningsspørgsmål.
 En konsekvens af den forudgående landsretskendelse i sagen var, at en part kunne indhente et juridisk responsum og derefter anlægge sag, hvorved sagsøgte ville kunne blive afskåret fra at fremlægge et af sagsøgte efter sagens anlæg indhentet responsum. Sagsøgeren ville dermed råde over et redskab, som var egnet til at påvirke sagens udfald. Landsrettens kendelse indebar derfor risiko for processuel ulighed og vilkårlighed, stridende mod det kontradiktoriske princip.
 Højesterets kendelse afværger den risiko for processuel ulighed, som landsretskendelsen afstedkom, idet Højesteret med kendelsen af 11.10.2013 har givet sagens parter lige mulighed for at lade juridiske responsa indgå i en retssag.
 Det kan selvfølgelig diskuteres, om selve det forhold, at der åbnes mulighed for fremlæggelse af juridiske responsa, medfører processuel ulighed for en økonomisk svagere part, men denne form for ulighed håndterer domstolene i forvejen dagligt, når ‘den ubemidlede selvmøder’ giver møde overfor ’den eksklusive specialist-advokat’.
 På snævre retsområder, hvor der kun er få juridiske eksperter, vil det være særlig oplagt at indhente juridiske responsa. Her kan man imidlertid forudse situationer, hvor en part ser sin fordel i defensivt at indhente responsa fra de tilgængelige eksperter (uden nødvendigvis at fremlægge disse). Dermed er modparten afskåret fra at lade sagen belyse via et responsum grundet inhabilitet hos de få eksperter.
 Hvorom alting er, bør det gode juridiske responsum være mere end et rent bestillingsarbejde for den ene af sagens parter, forstået på den måde, at responsummet bør forholde sig objektivt til, hvad der er gældende ret på et givent område. I den forstand udgør det juridiske responsum et supplement til parternes materialesamlinger med domme og juridisk litteratur. I et samfund, hvor retssystemet er både stort og komplekst, vil et juridisk responsum – i lighed med de juridiske materialesamlinger – udgøre et nyttigt redskab for rettens overvejelser vedrørende jus.
 Højesteret anfører i kendelsen, at et ensidigt indhentet juridisk responsum om dansk ret kan indgå i en sag på samme måde som partsindlæg og juridisk litteratur. I praksis forekommer det ikke sjældent, at en part (undertiden som nummereret/litreret bilag) fremlægger en dom eller uddrag af juridisk litteratur i forbindelse med en argumentation i et processkrift. Højesterets kendelse vil medføre, at det fremover vil være tilladt tillige at fremlægge et juridisk responsum under sagens forberedelse (eventuelt som nummereret/litreret bilag).
 Det forekommer mest korrekt at undlade at medtage et ensidigt indhentet juridisk responsum i en ekstrakt til brug for domsforhandlingen, idet responsummet – uanset om dette er fremlagt som bilag i forbindelse med et partsindlæg – rettelig hører til i en materialesamling.
 Højesterets kendelse vil formentlig medføre, at domstolene fremover skal forholde sig til ‘mod-responsa’ (og endog måske ‘replik’- og ‘duplik-responsa’), ligesom det vil forekomme, at en part fremlægger mere end ét responsum til støtte for sine anbringender. Det bliver op til domstolene at afgøre, hvor grænserne i så henseende skal gå.
 Med hensyn til private retshjælpsforsikringer er det i betingelsernes pkt. 4.5. anført, at udgifter til ensidigt indhentede specialisterklæringer dækkes, såfremt indhentelsen på forhånd er godkendt af forsikringsselskabet. En tilsvarende bestemmelse forekommer også i en del retshjælpsforsikringer for erhverv. Dog er det i visse erhvervsbetingelser udtrykkeligt tilføjet, at omkostninger til juridiske responsa om gældende ret ikke er dækket. Hvordan forsikringsselskaberne i praksis vil håndtere juridiske responsa vil tiden vise.
 Hvor sent kan responsum præsenteres?
 Det må forudses, at der vil opstå spørgsmål om, hvor sent i en proces et ensidigt indhentet juridisk responsum kan præsenteres. Højesterets henvisning til partsindlæg og juridisk litteratur giver ikke nogen klar indikation: Partsindlæg fremlægges iht. retsplejelovens regler, herunder kapitel 33 (Sagsforberedelse i 1. instans), kapitel 36 (Anke) og kapitel 37 (Kære), medens fremlæggelse af juridisk litteratur er ulovreguleret. Højesteret og landsretterne har afgivet vejledninger om retssagsbehandlingen, der blandt andet indeholder anvisninger om fremlæggelse af juridisk litteratur i form af materialesamlinger.
 Spørgsmålet er, om fremlæggelsen af juridiske responsa bør følge retsplejelovens gennemregulerede rammer for partsindlæg eller domstolenes mere pragmatiske vejledninger om materialesamlinger. Reale hensyn, herunder hensynet til kontradiktion, taler for anvendelse af førstnævnte regelsæt på juridiske responsa.
 Kendelsen angår et skriftligt responsum. Det kan ikke antages, at der med kendelsen er blevet skabt mulighed for, at der for en part kan afgives mundtlige responsa under retssager, hvorved bemærkes, at retsplejelovens regler om vidner samt syn og skøn angår oplysning af sagens faktum. Responsa angår derimod jus. Heller ikke det forhold, at Højesteret sidestiller et responsum med et partsindlæg hjemler mundtlig afgivelse af responsa for en part under retssager, idet det som udgangspunkt kun er advokater, der leverer juridiske partsindlæg i henhold til retsplejelovens kapitel 13.
 En problematik, der afslutningsvis kort skal berøres, er sagsomkostninger, jfr. retsplejelovens kapitel 30. Det må antages, at domstolene vil være tilbageholdende med at anse udgifter til ensidig indhentning af et juridisk responsum som en udgift omfattet af “de udgifter, der har været fornødne til sagens forsvarlige udførelse," jfr. retsplejelovens § 316. Dette kan blandt andet støttes på det forhold, at et juridisk responsum ikke angår bevisførelsen, og på, at en part ikke kan kræve erstatning for dobbelte udgifter til advokatbistand, selvom parten har været repræsenteret af to advokater.
 Ovenstående gør ikke udtømmende op med de overvejelser, Højesterets kendelse afstedkommer. Det bliver interessant at følge, hvordan retslivets aktører fremover vil forholde sig til de praktiske og retspolitiske problemstillinger i relation til juridiske responsa.
 Advokat, Advokaterne Tyndeskov Ulrich, Hørsholm. Arbejder med generel erhvervsrådgivning med fokus på selskabsret og ansættelsesret.


text:
 22.3.2013
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 82/34
 UITVOERINGSVERORDENING (EU) Nr. 265/2013 VAN DE COMMISSIE
 van 18 maart 2013
 houdende goedkeuring van een niet-minimale wijziging van het productdossier van een benaming die is opgenomen in het register van beschermde oorsprongsbenamingen en beschermde geografische aanduidingen (Wachauer Marille (BOB))
 DE EUROPESE COMMISSIE,
 Gezien het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie,
 Gezien Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 21 november 2012 inzake kwaliteitsregelingen voor landbouwproducten en levensmiddelen (1), en met name artikel 52, lid 2,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 Verordening (EU) nr. 1151/2012 is op 3 januari 2013 in werking getreden. Verordening (EG) nr. 510/2006 van de Raad van 20 maart 2006 inzake de bescherming van geografische aanduidingen en oorsprongsbenamingen van landbouwproducten en levensmiddelen (2) is bij die verordening ingetrokken en daardoor vervangen.
 (2)
 Overeenkomstig artikel 9, lid 1, eerste alinea, van Verordening (EG) nr. 510/2006 heeft de Commissie de door Oostenrijk ingediende aanvraag beoordeeld tot goedkeuring van een wijziging van het productdossier van de beschermde oorsprongsbenaming „Wachauer Marille”, die bij Verordening (EG) nr. 1107/96 van de Commissie (3) is geregistreerd.
 (3)
 Aangezien de betrokken wijziging niet minimaal is, heeft de Commissie de wijzigingsaanvraag overeenkomstig artikel 6, lid 2, van Verordening (EG) nr. 510/2006 bekendgemaakt in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 (4). Aangezien aan de Commissie geen enkel bezwaar overeenkomstig artikel 7 van die verordening is meegedeeld, moet de wijziging worden goedgekeurd,
 HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 De in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie bekendgemaakte wijziging van het productdossier met betrekking tot de in de bijlage bij deze verordening vermelde benaming wordt goedgekeurd.
 Artikel 2
 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de twintigste dag na die van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 18 maart 2013.
 Voor de Commissie, namens de voorzitter,
 Dacian CIOLOȘ
 Lid van de Commissie
 (1) PB L 343 van 14.12.2012, blz. 1.
 (2) PB L 93 van 31.3.2006, blz. 12.
 (3) PB L 148 van 21.6.1996, blz. 1.
 (4) PB C 140 van 16.5.2012, blz. 18.
 BIJLAGE
 In bijlage I bij het Verdrag genoemde landbouwproducten voor menselijke consumptie:
 Categorie 1.6. Groenten, fruit en granen, in ongewijzigde staat of verwerkt
 OOSTENRIJK
 Wachauer Marille (BOB)


text:
 13.10.2016
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 276/7
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) 2016/1809 AL COMISIEI
 din 12 octombrie 2016
 de stabilire a valorilor forfetare de import pentru fixarea prețului de intrare pentru anumite fructe și legume
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1308/2013 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 17 decembrie 2013 de instituire a unei organizări comune a piețelor produselor agricole și de abrogare a Regulamentelor (CEE) nr. 922/72, (CEE) nr. 234/79, (CE) nr. 1037/2001 și (CE) nr. 1234/2007 ale Consiliului (1),
 având în vedere Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011 al Comisiei din 7 iunie 2011 de stabilire a normelor de aplicare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1234/2007 al Consiliului în ceea ce privește sectorul fructelor și legumelor și sectorul fructelor și legumelor prelucrate (2), în special articolul 136 alineatul (1),
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011 prevede, ca urmare a rezultatelor negocierilor comerciale multilaterale din cadrul Rundei Uruguay, criteriile pentru stabilirea de către Comisie a valorilor forfetare de import din țări terțe pentru produsele și perioadele menționate în partea A din anexa XVI la regulamentul respectiv.
 (2)
 Valoarea forfetară de import se calculează în fiecare zi lucrătoare, în conformitate cu articolul 136 alineatul (1) din Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011, ținând seama de datele zilnice variabile. Prin urmare, prezentul regulament trebuie să intre în vigoare la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Valorile forfetare de import prevăzute la articolul 136 din Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011 sunt stabilite în anexa la prezentul regulament.
 Articolul 2
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 12 octombrie 2016.
 Pentru Comisie,
 pentru președinte
 Jerzy PLEWA
 Director general pentru agricultură și dezvoltare rurală
 (1) JO L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.
 (2) JO L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
 ANEXĂ
 Valorile forfetare de import pentru fixarea prețului de intrare pentru anumite fructe și legume
 (EUR/100 kg)
 Codul NC
 Codul țării terțe (1)
 Valoarea forfetară de import
 0702 00 00
 MA
 155,2
 ZZ
 155,2
 0707 00 05
 TR
 132,0
 ZZ
 132,0
 0709 93 10
 TR
 131,0
 ZZ
 131,0
 0805 50 10
 AR
 76,2
 CL
 95,3
 TR
 101,7
 UY
 44,4
 ZA
 85,7
 ZZ
 80,7
 0806 10 10
 BR
 285,5
 EG
 206,9
 TR
 146,3
 ZZ
 212,9
 0808 10 80
 AR
 191,8
 AU
 196,9
 BR
 100,2
 CL
 148,4
 NZ
 142,7
 US
 141,5
 ZA
 113,9
 ZZ
 147,9
 0808 30 90
 CN
 101,3
 TR
 134,9
 ZZ
 118,1
 (1) Nomenclatura țărilor stabilită prin Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1106/2012 al Comisiei din 27 noiembrie 2012 de punere în aplicare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 471/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind statisticile comunitare privind comerțul exterior cu țările terțe, în ceea ce privește actualizarea nomenclatorului țărilor și teritoriilor (JO L 328, 28.11.2012, p. 7). Codul „ZZ” desemnează „alte origini”.


text:
 30.11.2013
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 352/17
 Tužba podnesena 20. rujna 2013. — Urb Rulmenti Suceava protiv OHIM-a — Adiguzel (URB)
 (Predmet T-506/13)
 2013/C 352/32
 Jezik na kojem je tužba podnesena: engleski
 Stranke
 Tužitelj: Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA (Suceava, Rumunjska) (zastupnik: I. Burdusel, odvjetnik)
 Tuženik: Ured za usklađivanje na unutarnjem tržištu (žigovi i dizajni)
 Druga stranka pred žalbenim vijećem: Harun Adiguzel (Diosd, Mađarska)
 Zahtjevi
 Tužitelj od Općeg suda zahtijeva da:
 —
 poništi odluku četvrtog žalbenog vijeća Ureda za usklađivanje na unutarnjem tržištu (žigovi i dizajni) od12. srpnja 2013. u predmetu R 1309/2012-4;
 —
 tuženiku naloži snošenje troškova ovog postupka te
 —
 drugoj stranci pred žalbenim vijećem naloži snošenje troškova postupka pred OHIM-om.
 Tužbeni razlozi i glavni argumenti
 Registrirani žig Zajednice protiv kojeg je podnesen zahtjev za proglašavanje žiga ništavim: verbalni žig „URB” u odnosu na proizvode iz razreda 6 i 7 — registracija žiga Zajednice br. 7 380 009
 Nositelj žiga Zajednice: druga stranka pred žalbenim vijećem
 Stranka koja zahtijeva proglašenje žiga Zajednice ništavim: tužitelj
 Obrazloženje zahtjeva za proglašavanje žiga ništavim: apsolutni razlozi ništavosti prema članku 52. stavku 1. točki (b) Uredbe o žigu Zajednice i relativni razlozi ništavosti prema članku 8. stavku 1. točki (b) u vezi s člankom 53. stavkom 1. točkom (a) Uredbe o žigu Zajednice
 Odluka odjela za poništaje: odbijen zahtjev za proglašavanje ništavosti
 Odluka žalbenog vijeća: žalba odbačena
 Tužbeni razlozi: povreda članka 52. stavka 1. točke (b), članka 53. stavka 1. točke (a) i članka 72. Uredbe o žigu Zajednice


text:
Církevní otcové je označení pro církevní spisovatele křesťanského starověku, jejichž svědectví církev považuje za zvlášť závazné pro víru.
 Slovo otec získalo tento svůj význam v průběhu 4. století, které je považováno za zlatý věk patristiky. Termínu se užívalo pro rozlišení od slova „otcové“, kterým se označovali biskupové shromáždění na koncilu.
 Kritéria
 Pro označení někoho za církevního Otce je nutné, aby splňoval následující kritéria:
 pravověrnost nauky
 svatost života
 schválení církví
 starobylost
 Spisovatelé katolické církve
 Pro zařazení autora do této skupiny je nezbytné, aby zanechal písemné dílo a náležel ke katolické církvi. Není nezbytně nutné, aby byl biskupem (jako např. sv. Basil) či knězem (jako sv. Jeroným), může jim být i laik – např. Prosper Akvitánský.
 Časové vymezení
 Tento autor též musí časově náležet do doby křesťanského starověku, tedy k epoše, kdy křesťanství bylo náboženstvím velmi mladým. Toto období je proto velmi podnětné pro teologii, protože v jeho průběhu lze pozorovat vznik a vývoj všech křesťanských nauk. Církevní Otcové jsou proto považováni za hodnověrné svědky rané křesťanské víry, za určitý článek podání víry (tradice), která dnešní křesťanství pojí s křesťanstvím počátků. Krom toho jde o období nerozdělené západní a východní církve, takže tito autoři jsou považováni za společné dědictví v celé církvi.
 Na Západě se tato doba ohraničuje stoletím po pádu Římské říše; za poslední latinské Otce jsou považováni sv. Řehoř Veliký (540–604) a sv. Isidor Sevillský (560–636). Na Východě, kde antická kultura nezačala upadat tak rychle, se patristická epocha ukončuje teprve v 8. století a za posledního církevního Otce je považován sv. Jan Damašský (675–749).
 Autorita ve víře
 Posledním kritériem církevních Otců je, že tento člověk musí být považován církví za zvlášť velkou autoritu ve věcech víry. Toto schválení stačí implicitní, a proto je někdy nesnadné určit, jedná-li se pouze o církevního spisovatele nebo Otce.
 Církevní učitelé
 Označení „církevní Otec“ nelze zaměňovat s pojmem „učitel církve“, ač mezi oběma skupinami existuje průnik. Titul učitel církve se oficiálně uděluje (jmenováním papežem) až od roku 1567 (kdy byl církevním učitelem jmenován sv. Tomáš Akvinský), do té doby byl uznáván na základě všeobecného souhlasu (tedy stejně jako titul církevní otec až dosud). Do té doby byli na Západě mezi církevní učitele počítáni jen učitelé tzv. velké čtyřky (viz dále).
 Čtyři církevní otcové
 Jako čtyři církevní otcové nebo učitelé bývají někdy jmenováni vybraní čtyři představitelé východní (řecké) nebo západní (latinské) církevní oblasti.
 Čtyři velcí východní (řečtí) církevní otcové:
 svatý Atanáš (Athanasios)
 svatý Basil
 svatý Řehoř Naziánský
 svatý Jan Zlatoústý
 Čtyři velcí západní (latinští) církevní otcové:
 svatý Ambrož
 svatý Jeroným
 svatý Augustin
 svatý Řehoř Veliký, případně Lev Veliký
 V umění
 Tři velcí východní církevní otcové jsou ztvárněni Ignácem Platzerem jako soubor soch v nadživotní velikosti v křížení lodí chrámu sv. Mikuláše na Malé Straně v Praze (svatého Atanáše nahrazuje jiný východní církevní otec, Cyril Alexandrijský).
 Autorita církevních Otců
 Autorita církevních Otců se zakládá na kvalitě jejich svědectví o víře v prvých staletích. Protože katolické a pravoslavné církve chápou tradici jako důležitou součást pravidla či kritéria své víry, je pro ně výpověď takto starobylých autorů zvlášť závažná.
 Tak se např. španělský dominikánský teolog 16. století Melchior Cano domnívá, že se „všichni Otcové v tom, kde se shodují, nemohou v záležitostech víry mýlit“ (De locis theologicis 7,3). První vatikánský koncil považuje tzv. patristický důkaz za nedílnou součást zkoumání dogmatických otázek.
 Výše zmíněné názory pocházejí principiálně již z pera mnicha a kněze Vincence z Lerina († před 450), jenž položil tyto základy autority církevních Otců:
 "Všechno, co se svatí Otcové mohli v jednotě smýšlení a cítění domnívat, budiž považováno za pravou a katolickou nauku církve bez jakékoli pochyby či skrupule.
 Ti, kteří přijdou později, nemohou věřit nic jiného, než co uchovala posvátná starobylost svatých Otců jednomyslně v Kristu." (Commonitorium, 41 a 43).
 Přehled významných církevních Otců
 Církevní Otce lze klasifikovat na základě doby, kdy žili, a jazyka, jímž psali.
 Přednicejští Otcové
 Označují církevní Otce, kteří žili před rokem 325, kdy se sešel První nikajský koncil. Toto období se vyznačuje především skutečností, že křesťanství nebylo v Římské říši povoleným náboženstvím a že nauka církve nebyla společně definována (ačkoli její stopy ve spisech těchto autorů lze hledat a nacházet).
 Tento přehled v některých místech nutně nevytváří jasnou hranici mezi církevními Otci a církevními spisovateli (viz výše).
 Apoštolští Otcové
 Mezi tzv. apoštolské Otce patří generace žáků apoštolů, tj. ti, které církev (případně oni sami) označují jako ty, kteří ještě viděli apoštoly a přijali jejich víru.
 sv. Klement Římský († asi 101)
 sv. Ignác z Antiochie († asi 106)
 sv. Polykarp ze Smyrny († mezi 155 a 167)
 sv. Papiáš z Hierapole († kolem 140)
 autor Didaché (zač. 2. století)
 autor listu Barnabášova (kolem 130)
 autor Pastýře Hermova (mezi 130 a 140)
 Apologeti 2. století
 Aristides z Athén (* kolem 130)
 sv. Justin Mučedník († 165)
 Athénagorás († asi 180?)
 Tacián Syrský († asi 172)
 Theofilos z Antiochie (kolem 180?)
 autor listu Diognétovi (mezi 140 a 200)
 Protiheretičtí autoři 2. století
 sv. Irenej z Lyonu (asi 140–208)
 sv. Hippolyt Římský (asi 170 – asi 235)
 Otcové 3. století
 Řečtí Otcové
 sv. Klement Alexandrijský († asi 202)
 Órigenés (185 – 254)
 Dionýsios z Alexandrie († asi 265)
 Petr z Alexandrie († asi 311)
 Méthodios z Olympu
 Latinští Otcové
 Tertullianus (155 – asi 220)
 Minucius Felix
 sv. Cyprián z Kartága (asi 200–258)
 Novatianus (asi 200–258)
 Viktorín z Ptuje († asi 303/304)
 Lactantius (asi 260 – asi 325)
 Zlatý věk patristiky (325-451)
 Otcové nicejské víry
 Tito Otcové se vyznačují především svou obranou Nicejského vyznání víry.
 Eusébius z Césareje (asi 265–339)
 sv. Cyril Jeruzalémský († 387)
 Alexandr z Alexandrie († 328)
 sv. Atanáš (Athanasios) z Alexandrie (asi 296–373)
 Marcel z Ankyry († 374)
 sv. Didymos Slepý (313–398)
 sv. Hilarius z Poitiers (315–367)
 Marius Victorinus († 362)
 Kapadočtí Otcové
 Kapadocké Otce spojuje kromě vysoké úrovně jejich teologie i místo původu – Kappadokie v dnešním Turecku.
 sv. Řehoř z Nazianzu (Naziánský) řečený Teolog (329–390)
 sv. Basileios z Kaisareie (též Veliký) (330–379), bratr Řehoře z Nyssy
 sv. Řehoř z Nyssy (Nysský) řečený Mystik (335–394)
 Antiochijská škola
 Diodóros z Tarsu († 394)
 Theodor z Mopsvestie († 428)
 sv. Jan Chrysostomos (též Zlatoústý) (345–407)
 Theodorétos z Kyrrhu († asi 466)
 Západní Otcové 4. století
 sv. Ambrož († 393?)
 Otcové 5. století
 sv. Cyril Alexandrijský (380–444)
 Rufinus z Aquileje († 410)
 sv. Jeroným (Hieronymus) (347–420)
 sv. Augustin z Hippo (354–430)
 sv. Lev Veliký (406–461)
 Konec patristické éry
 Východ
 sv. Dionýsios Pseudo-Areopagita (konec 4. století)
 sv. Maxim Vyznavač (580–662)
 sv. Jan Damašský (asi 675 – asi 749)
 Západ
 sv. Boëthius (480–524)
 sv. Řehoř Veliký (540–604)
 sv. Isidor Sevillský (asi 560–636)
 Reference
 Související články
 Patrologie
 Patristika
 Dějiny křesťanství
 Starověk
 Exegeze
 Externí odkazy
 Josef Novák: Patrologie a patristika, vč. mnoha textů v češtině
 Sbírka mnoha textů církevních Otců v angličtině – CCEL
 Starověcí lidé
 Dějiny církve
 Křesťanská teologie


type: contracts

text:
 30.11.2011
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 L 317/13
 Ändring av den internationella konventionen om harmonisering av gränskontroller av varor (harmoniseringskonventionen), Genève den 21 oktober 1982 (1)
 Enligt FN:s depositariemeddelande C.N.534.2011.TREATIES – 1 träder följande text i bilaga 9 till harmoniseringskonventionen i kraft den 30 november 2011:
 ”BILAGA 9
 FÖRENKLAD GRÄNSÖVERGÅNG INOM INTERNATIONELLA GODSTRANSPORTER PÅ JÄRNVÄG
 Artikel 1
 Principer
 1. Syftet med denna bilaga, som kompletterar bestämmelserna i konventionen, är att definiera vilka åtgärder som behöver vidtas för att förenkla och snabba upp gränsövergången inom internationella godstransporter på järnväg.
 2. Konventionsparterna ska förbinda sig att samarbeta för att i så stor utsträckning som möjligt standardisera de formaliteter och krav som gäller för handlingar och förfaranden på samtliga områden inom godstrafiken på järnväg.
 Artikel 2
 Definition
 Med gränsstation (transiteringsstation) avses en järnvägsstation vid vilken det genomförs operativa och administrativa förfaranden som syftar till att möjliggöra gränsövergång för godstransporter på järnväg. Järnvägsstationen kan vara belägen i omedelbar anslutning till en gräns eller nära en gräns.
 Artikel 3
 Gränsövergång för personal och andra personer som är verksamma inom internationell järnvägstransport
 1. Konventionsparterna ska vidta åtgärder för att förenkla förfarandena för beviljande av visum, i enlighet med nationell praxis, för lokpersonal, kylvagnspersonal, personer som medföljer godstransporter och personal vid gränsstationer (gränsövergångar) som är verksamma inom internationell godstransport på järnväg.
 2. De gränsövergångsförfaranden som ska tillämpas för de personer som anges i punkt 1 samt de officiella handlingar som ska krävas för att bekräfta personernas status ska fastställas genom bilaterala avtal.
 3. I de fall en gemensam kontroll genomförs ska de gränskontrollanter, tulltjänstemän och tjänstemän från andra organ som genomför kontroller vid gränsstationer (transiteringsstationer) vid utövandet av sina officiella uppdrag gå över statsgränsen med hjälp av de handlingar som konventionsparten i fråga har fastställt för de egna medborgarna.
 Artikel 4
 Krav avseende gränsstationer (transiteringsstationer)
 För att rationalisera och snabba upp de nödvändiga formaliteterna vid gränsstationer (transiteringsstationer) ska konventionsparterna iaktta följande minimikrav för gränsstationer (transiteringsstationer) vid vilka internationell godstrafik på järnväg hanteras:
 1.
 Vid gränsstationerna (transiteringsstationerna) ska finnas de byggnader (lokaler), anläggningar, installationer och den tekniska utrustning som behövs för dagliga kontroller dygnet runt, i den mån detta kan motiveras mot bakgrund av godstrafikens omfattning.
 2.
 De gränsstationer (transiteringsstationer) vid vilka det genomförs fytosanitära, veterinära och andra kontroller ska vara utrustade med teknisk utrustning.
 3.
 Gränsstationerna (transiteringsstationerna) och deras spårsystem ska ha en transport- och trafikkapacitet som motsvarar trafikvolymen.
 4.
 Kontrollutrymmena ska vara tillgängliga och det ska finnas lagerlokaler för tillfällig lagring av gods som ska genomgå tullkontroller och andra kontroller.
 5.
 Den utrustning, de installationer, den informationsteknik och de kommunikationssystem som krävs för att ta emot och skicka förhandsinformation i enlighet med fraktsedeln eller tulldeklarationen, inbegripet information om gods som är på väg till en gränsstation (transiteringsstation), ska finnas tillgänglig.
 6.
 Det ska finnas tillräckligt med kvalificerad järnvägs-, tull- och gränskontrollspersonal och personal från andra organ vid gränsstationerna (transiteringsstationerna) för att man ska kunna hantera de aktuella godsvolymerna.
 7.
 Gränsstationerna (transiteringsstationerna) ska förfoga över den tekniska utrustning, de installationer, den informationsteknik och de kommunikationssystem som krävs för att det ska vara möjligt att, innan den rullande järnvägsmaterielen ankommer till gränsen, ta emot och behandla uppgifter om tekniskt godkännande och tekniska kontroller som gjorts av myndigheterna och järnvägsbolagen inom ramen för de befogenheter dessa har, med förbehåll för eventuella alternativa system som utför dessa funktioner och som har införts av konventionsparterna.
 Artikel 5
 Samarbete mellan grannländer vid gränsstationerna (transiteringsstationerna)
 I enlighet med bestämmelserna i artikel 7 i konventionen ska konventionsparterna samordna sina åtgärder avseende kontroller av rullande materiel, containrar, kombivagnar och gods samt avseende behandlingen av frakt- och transportdokumentation och parterna ska även sörja för att det görs gemensamma kontroller på grundval av bilaterala avtal.
 Artikel 6
 Kontroller
 Konventionsparterna ska
 1.
 inrätta ett system för ömsesidigt erkännande av alla former av kontroller avseende rullande materiel, containrar, kombivagnar och gods, på villkor att dessa syftar till samma mål.
 2.
 genomföra tullkontroller som ska bygga på principen om riskbaserat urval och riskbaserad förvaltning. Som allmän regel ska gälla att om den föreskrivna informationen om godset har lämnats och om godset transporteras i väl förslutna och förseglade rullande materiel, containrar, kombivagnar eller vagnar, ska ingen fysisk kontroll göras.
 3.
 genomföra förenklade kontroller vid gränsstationerna (transiteringsstationerna) och ska, i görligaste mån, i stället förlägga vissa kontroller till avgångs- och ankomststationerna.
 4.
 utan att det påverkar tillämpningen av artikel 10 i konventionen, artikel 4 i bilaga 2, artikel 5 i bilaga 3 och artikel 5 i bilaga 4, endast kontrollera transitgods i de fall då detta är berättigat mot bakgrund av faktiska omständigheter eller risker.
 Artikel 7
 Tidsfrister
 1. Konventionsparterna ska se till att man iakttar de tidsfrister för tekniska åtgärder som anges i bilaterala avtal, bland annat beträffande mottagande och transitering av tåg vid gränsstationer (transiteringsstationer), inbegripet alla typer av kontroller, och konventionsparterna ska sörja för att reducera tidsåtgången genom förbättrad teknik och utrustning. Konventionsparterna ska förbinda sig att under de kommande åren sörja för att så mycket som är möjligt reducera tidsåtgången.
 2. Konventionsparterna ska registrera de förseningar som drabbar tåg eller vagnar vid gränsstationerna (transiteringsstationerna) och vidarebefordra informationen till berörda parter, vilka ska analysera situationen och föreslå åtgärder för att minska förseningarna.
 Artikel 8
 Dokumentation
 1. Konventionsparterna ska sörja för att frakt- och transporthandlingar utformas på ett sätt som överensstämmer med lagstiftningen i import- och transitländerna.
 2. Konventionsparterna ska i relationerna med varandra sörja för att reducera andelen pappershandlingar och förenkla dokumentationsförfarandena genom att använda elektroniska system för utbytet av den information som ingår i de fraktsedlar och tulldeklarationer som upprättas i enlighet med lagstiftningen i de konventionsslutande parterna.
 3. Konventionsparterna ska sörja för att tullmyndigheterna i förväg delges den information om ankommande gods till gränsstationerna (transiteringsstationerna) som ingår i fraktsedlarna och tulldeklarationerna. Konventionsparterna ska fastställa i vilken form, på vilket sätt och inom vilken tid informationen ska skickas.
 Artikel 9
 Användning av CIM/SMGS-fraktsedeln
 Konventionsparterna får ersätta de transporthandlingar som för närvarande anges i internationella avtal med CIM/SMGS-fraktsedeln, vilken också kan tjäna som tullhandling.”
 (1) EGT L 126, 12.5.1984, s. 1.


text:
 Dôležité právne oznámenie
 |
 22004D0012
 Úradný vestník L 116 , 22/04/2004 S. 0063 - 0064
 Rozhodnutie Spoločného výboru EHPč. 12/2004zo 6. februára 2004,ktoré mení a dopĺňa prílohu XXI (Štatistika) k Dohode o EHPSPOLOČNÝ VÝBOR EHP,so zreteľom na Dohodu o Európskom hospodárskom priestore v znení protokolu o prispôsobení Dohody o Európskom hospodárskom spoločenstve, ďalej len "dohoda", najmä na jej článok 98,keďže:(1) príloha XXI k dohode bola zmenená a doplnená rozhodnutím Spoločného výboru EHP 116/2003 zo 7. novembra 2003 [1];(2) nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) 91/2003 zo 16. decembra 2002 o štatistike železničnej dopravy [2], sa má včleniť do tejto dohody;(3) toto rozhodnutie sa nevzťahuje na Island,ROZHODOL TAKTO:Článok 1Znenie bodu 7 (nariadenie Rady (ES) 80/1177/EHS) prílohy XXI k dohode sa nahrádza týmto:"32003 R 0091: nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) 91/2003 zo 16. decembra 2002 o štatistike železničnej dopravy (Ú. v. ES L 14, 21.1.2003, s. 1).Ustanovenia nariadenia sa na účely súčasnej dohody čítajú s týmito úpravami:a) toto nariadenie sa nevzťahuje na Island;b) prílohy A, C, E, F, J a K nie sú dôležité pre Lichtenštajnsko."Článok 2Znenie nariadenia (ES) 91/2003 v nórskom jazyku, ktoré sa má zverejniť v doplnku EHP Úradného vestníka Európskej únie, je autentické.Článok 3Toto rozhodnutie nadobúda účinnosť 7. februára 2004, ak sa vykonajú všetky oznámenia Spoločnému výboru EHP v súlade s článkom 103 ods. 1 dohody [3].Článok 4Toto rozhodnutie sa uverejní v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie v časti a v doplnku EHP.V Bruseli 6. februára 2004Za Spoločný výbor EHPpredsedaP. Westerlund[1] Ú. v. EÚ L 41, 12.2.2004, s. 60.[2] Ú. v. EÚ L 14, 21.1.2003, s. 1.[3] Vyznačia sa ústavné požiadavky.--------------------------------------------------