type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
2.4.2005
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 C 82/28
 DOM AFSAGT AF RETTEN I FØRSTE INSTANS
 den 26. januar 2005
 i sag T-267/03, Anna Maria Roccato mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber (1)
 (Tjenestemænd - intern udvælgelsesprøve - ingen adgang til den mundtlige prøve - udvælgelseskomitéens skøn - den retslige prøvelses rækkevidde)
 (2005/C 82/55)
 Processprog: fransk
 I sag T-267/03, Anna Maria Roccato, forhenværende tjenestemand ved Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber, Bruxelles (Belgien), ved avocats G. Vandersanden og L. Levi, mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber (befuldmægtigede: H. Tserepa-Lacombe og F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, og med valgt adresse i Luxembourg), angående en påstand dels om annullation af udvælgelseskomitéen for udvælgelsesprøve KOM/PB/99's afgørelse af 24. januar 2003, dels om tilkendelse af erstatning, har Retten (Fjerde Afdeling), sammensat af afdelingsformanden, H. Legal, og dommerne V. Tiili og V. Vadapalas; justitssekretær: fuldmægtig I. Natsinas, den 26. januar 2005 afsagt dom, hvis konklusion lyder således:
 1)
 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber frifindes.
 2)
 Hver part bærer sine omkostninger.
 (1) EFT C 239 af 4.10.2003.


type: wikipedia

text:
 Biografia
 Alber Elbaz nacque a Casablanca, in Marocco, da una famiglia ebrea marocchina. La madre di Elbaz era una pittrice e suo padre un parrucchiere. Emigrò in Israele con la sua famiglia all'età di dieci anni e crebbe nella città di Holon. Dopo essere rimasta vedova, la madre divenne una cassiera per allevare i suoi quattro bambini (Alber aveva un fratello e due sorelle). Elbaz in seguito prestò servizio come soldato nelle Forze di Difesa Israeliane e successivamente studiò allo Shenkar College of Engineering and Design di Ramat Gan, in Israele.
 La madre incoraggiò il precoce interesse di Elbaz per la moda (egli aveva iniziato a disegnare abiti a sette anni) e gli diede 800 dollari quando nel 1985 si recò a New York City per formarsi artisticamente e professionalmente.
 Fu direttore creativo di Lanvin a Parigi dal 2001 al 2015, dopo aver lavorato per Geoffrey Beene, Guy Laroche, Krizia e Yves Saint Laurent.
 Nell'ottobre 2015, Elbaz annunciò di essere stato licenziato da Lanvin dopo disaccordi con il principale azionista della società, Shaw-Lan Wang. Elbaz si lamentò anche della mancanza di strategia e degli investimenti mirati dell'azienda. Poco prima di essere estromesso, Elbaz aveva assunto Chemena Kamali da Chloé come responsabile del design femminile. Le vendite di Lanvin successivamente declinarono e il cinese Fosun alla fine acquistò la linea. Lo stilista quindi lavorò con vari marchi di moda, tra cui Converse e LeSportsac. Nel 2016, lanciò un profumo chiamato Superstitious, lavorando con Dominique Ropion per la ditta francese Editions de Parfums Frédéric Malle. Nel 2019 collaborò con l'azienda italiana Tod's, creando borse e mocassini.
 Sempre nel 2019, unì le forze con Richemont fondando la propria linea, AZfashion, un marchio destinato a concentrarsi sullo "sviluppo di soluzioni per le donne dei nostri tempi". AZ Factory fu invece lanciata nel 2021, primo coinvolgimento di Richemont in un marchio emergente.
 Dopo aver lasciato Lanvin, Elbaz disegnò tutti i costumi che Natalie Portman indossava nel film del 2016 A Tale of Love and Darkness, che aveva anche scritto e diretto. Vestì anche molte altre donne famose come Nicole Kidman, Sofia Coppola, Demi Moore, Rihanna, Catherine Deneuve e Meryl Streep, che ritirò l'Oscar vinto per The Iron Lady indossando proprio un suo abito.
 Elbaz è morto nell'aprile del 2021 all'American Hospital di Parigi per complicazioni da COVID-19. Aveva 59 anni.
 Vita privata
 Dal 1993 ebbe per compagno di vita Alex Koo, direttore merchandising di Lanvin. Mentre Joel Arthur Rosenthal, il designer della linea di gioielli ultra lusso JAR, era il più caro amico di Elbaz.
 Elbaz nelle interviste da lui concesse parlava spesso del suo sovrappeso e di come ciò influenzasse i suoi disegni. Nel 2009 disse al giornalista Ariel Levy: "Faccio le cose senza décolleté; nulla è trasparente... Sono in sovrappeso, quindi sono molto, molto consapevole di cosa mostrare e cosa non mostrare, e sono sicuro che c'è un enorme legame con l'essere un designer in sovrappeso e il lavoro che faccio. La mia fantasia è essere magri, vedi? Porto quella fantasia nella leggerezza: mi toglio il corsetto e porto conforto e tutte queste cose che non ho. Quello che porto è tutto ciò che non ho. Questa è la fantasia".
 Nonostante il plauso internazionale, Elbaz evitò sempre di entrare nei circoli delle celebrità, spesso attribuendo il suo lavoro a un "concierge in un buon hotel a Manhattan che ha trascorso le sue giornate lavorando con clienti famosi e ricchi, ma è tornato a casa di notte nei quartieri periferici". Era solito dire che questa distanza dalla "fantasia" della moda lo aveva aiutato a mantenere il potere nel suo lavoro.
 Premi e riconoscimenti
 2005 - International Award, Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA)
 2007 - Cavaliere della Légion d'Honneur
 2007 - Una delle 100 persone più influenti al mondo secondo Time
 2014 - Laurea honoris causa conferita dal Royal College of Art
 2015 - Superstar Award, Fashion Group International (FGI)
 2016 – Ufficiale della Légion d'Honneur
 Note
 Altri progetti
 Collegamenti esterni
 Ebrei marocchini
 Marocchini israeliani
 Bambini prodigio
 Persone che hanno fatto coming out
 Morti per la pandemia di COVID-19


type: legislation

text:
 AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
 An Bhruiséil,18.3.2021
 COM(2021) 125 final
 2021/0065(NLE)
 Togra le haghaidh
 CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh sa Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán a mhéid a bhaineann le síneadh a chur leis an gCoinbhinsiún Trádála Gráin, 1995
 MEABHRÁN MÍNIÚCHÁIN
 1.Ábhar an togra
 Baineann an togra seo leis an gcinneadh lena leagtar síos an seasamh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais sa Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán i dtaca leis an síneadh leis an gCoinbhinsiún Trádála Gráin, 1995, atá beartaithe a ghlacadh go dtí an 30 Meitheamh 2023.
 2.Comhthéacs an togra
 2.1.An Coinbhinsiún Trádála Gráin, 1995
 Tá sé mar aidhm ag an gCoinbhinsiún Trádála Gráin, 1995 (‘an Coinbhinsiún’) an comhar idirnáisiúnta i dtaobh gach gné den trádáil i ngráin a fheabhsú, méadú ar an trádáil idirnáisiúnta i ngráin a chur chun cinn, agus an sreabhadh is saoire agus is féidir a aimsiú le haghaidh na trádála sin. Ina theannta sin, tá sé beartaithe ag an gCoinbhinsiún cur le cobhsaíocht margaí idirnáisiúnta gráin a oiread agus is féidir ar mhaithe le gach ball, cur le slándáil dhomhanda bia, agus fóram a chur ar fáil chun faisnéis a mhalartú agus chun imní na mball maidir le trádáil i ngráin a phlé.
 Tháinig an Coinbhinsiún i bhfeidhm an 1 Iúil 1995.
 Is de pháirtithe an Choinbhinsiúin an tAontas Eorpach
 1
 .
 2.2.An Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán
 Eagraíocht idir-rialtasach is ea an Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán (‘IGC’), eagraíocht lena ndéantar iarracht na cuspóirí a leagtar síos le hAirteagal 1 den Choinbhinsiún a chomhlíonadh. Go háirithe, tá sé mar aidhm ag an gComhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán:
 ·an comhar idirnáisiúnta a chur chun cinn i ngach gné den trádáil i ngráin;
 ·forbairt, oscailteacht agus cothroime na trádála idirnáisiúnta in earnáil an ghráin a chur chun cinn;
 ·cur le cobhsaíocht an mhargaidh idirnáisiúnta gráin, le slándáil dhomhanda bia, agus le forbairt tíortha a bhfuil a ngeilleagar ag brath ar dhíolachán tráchtála gráin.
 Déantar iarracht na cuspóirí sin a bhaint amach trí fheabhas a chur ar thrédhearcacht an mhargaidh, agus é sin a dhéanamh trí fhaisnéis a roinnt agus anailís agus comhairliúchán a dhéanamh maidir le forbairtí margaidh agus beartais.
 Tá 30 ball ag an gComhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán faoi láthair, go leor de na táirgeoirí agus allmhaireoirí gránach is mó ar domhan ina measc. Lasmuigh den Aontas Eorpach agus de bhaill áirithe eile, is iad an Airgintín, an Astráil, Ceanada, an Éigipt, an India, an Ríocht Aontaithe, an Rúis, an tSeapáin, Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá agus an Úcráin a cuid ball. Ní baill iad an tSín ná an Bhrasaíl, áfach.
 Tá 2 000 vóta san iomlán ag na 30 ball den Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán.
 Le haghaidh nósanna imeachta buiséadacha (féach Airteagal 11 den Choinbhinsiún), i.e. chun ranníocaíochtaí bliantúla airgeadais na mball a shocrú, tá 371 vóta in 2020/21 ag an Aontas
 2
 .
 Le haghaidh na cinnteoireachta, i.e. nuair a bhíonn vótáil ann (féach Airteagal 12 den Choinbhinsiún), dáiltear 1 000 vóta ar na 11 bhall is onnmhairí (an tAontas, le 244 vóta, ina measc) agus 1 000 vóta ar na 19 mball is allmhairí. Ní mór a chur i dtábhacht go bhfeidhmíonn an Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán, i bprionsabal, ar bhonn an chomhdhearcaidh agus gur annamh ann don vótáil iarbhír.
 Ag cruinnithe na Comhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán déanann an Coimisiún Eorpach ionadaíocht thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh. Is féidir leis na Ballstáit freastal ar chruinnithe den Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán, agus ar Sheisiún den Chomhairle go háirithe.
 2.3.An gníomh atá beartaithe ag an gComhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán
 An 7 Meitheamh 2021, le linn an 53ú seisiún a bheidh aici, glacfaidh an Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán cinneadh maidir le síneadh 2 bhliain a chur leis an gCoinbhinsiún (‘an gníomh atá beartaithe’).
 Is é is cuspóir don ghníomh atá beartaithe, atá bunaithe ar Airteagal 33 den Choinbhinsiún, é a chur ar a cumas don Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán leanúint dá cuid oibre.
 Cumhdóidh síneadh an Choinbhinsiúin an tréimhse 1 Iúil 2021 go dtí an 30 Meitheamh 2023.
 3.An seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais
 Thug an tAontas Eorpach an Coinbhinsiún Trádála Gráin, 1995 i gcrích le Cinneadh 96/88/CE ón gComhairle
 3
 go dtí an 30 Meitheamh 1998, agus cuireadh síneadh leis go tráthrialta ó shin i leith. Gach uair, cuirtear síneadh 2 bhliain ar a mhéad leis an gCoinbhinsiún i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 33 den Choinbhinsiún. Cuireadh síneadh leis go deireanach le cinneadh ón gComhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán i mí an Mheithimh 2019 agus beidh sé i bhfeidhm go dtí an 30 Meitheamh 2021.
 Ba bhall gníomhach den Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán é an tAontas riamh agus is chun leas an Aontais é síneadh suas le 2 bhliain eile a chur leis an gCoinbhinsiún. Táirgeoir mór gránach is ea an tAontas agus é ar cheann de na honnmhaireoirí is mó cruithneachta agus eorna é, agus is é an t‐allmhaireoir is mó arbhair Indiaigh é freisin.
 Is é is cuspóir don togra seo údarú na Comhairle a lorg don Choimisiún chun vótáil sa Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán, thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh, i bhfabhar síneadh a chur leis an gCoinbhinsiún go dtí an 30 Meitheamh 2023. Tá an cinneadh foirmiúil maidir le síneadh an Choinbhinsiúin sceidealaithe don 53ú seisiún den Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán a thionólfar an 7 Meitheamh 2021, trí fhíschomhdháil is dócha.
 4.Bunús dlí
 4.1.Bunús dlí nós imeachta
 4.1.1.Prionsabail
 Déantar foráil, le hAirteagal 218(9) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh (CFAE), le haghaidh cinntí lena leagfar síos‘na seasaimh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais i gcomhlacht arna chur ar bun le comhaontú nuair a iarrtar ar an gcomhlacht sin gníomhartha a ghlacadh a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo, seachas gníomhartha lena bhforlíonfar nó lena leasófar creat institiúideach an chomhaontaithe.’
 Áirítear i gcoincheap ‘na ngníomhartha a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo’ gníomhartha a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo de bhua rialacha an dlí idirnáisiúnta lena rialaítear an comhlacht i gceist. Áirítear ann freisin ionstraimí nach bhfuil éifeacht cheangailteach leo faoin dlí idirnáisiúnta, ach ‘a d’fhéadfadh tionchar cinntitheach a imirt ar ábhar na reachtaíochta a ghlacfaidh reachtóir an Aontais Eorpaigh’
 4
 .
 4.1.2.Cur i bhfeidhm maidir leis an gcás seo
 Is é an éifeacht atá ag an ngníomh atá beartaithe ag an gComhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán síneadh a chur le bailíocht an Choinbhinsiúin, ar comhaontú idirnáisiúnta é atá ina cheangal ar an Aontas. Dá bhrí sin, tá éifeachtaí dlíthiúla ag an ngníomh atá beartaithe.
 Leis an ngníomh atá beartaithe ní fhorlíontar ná ní leasaítear creat institiúideach an Chomhaontaithe.
 Dá bhrí sin, is é Airteagal 218(9) CFAE an bunús dlí nós imeachta leis an gcinneadh atá beartaithe.
 4.2.Bunús dlí substainteach
 4.2.1.Prionsabail
 An bunús dlí substainteach le cinneadh faoi Airteagal 218(9) CFAE, braitheann sé go príomha ar chuspóir agus ábhar an ghnímh bheartaithe a bhfuiltear ag glacadh seasamh thar ceann an Aontais ina leith. Má tá dhá aidhm leis an ngníomh atá beartaithe nó má tá dhá chomhpháirt ann agus más féidir ceann de na haidhmeanna nó de na comhpháirteanna sin a shainaithint mar phríomhaidhm nó mar phríomh~chomhpháirt agus an ceann eile mar aidhm nó mar chomhpháirt theagmhasach, ní mór an cinneadh faoi Airteagal 218(9) CFAE a bhunú ar bhunús dlí substainteach aonair, is é sin an bunús dlí a éilítear de réir na príomhaidhme nó na príomh~chomhpháirte.
 4.2.2.Cur i bhfeidhm maidir leis an gcás seo
 Is le trádáil i dtáirgí talmhaíochta a bhaineann príomhchuspóir agus príomhábhar an ghnímh atá beartaithe.
 Dá bhrí sin, is é an chéad fhomhír d’Airteagal 207(4) CFAE an bunús dlí substainteach leis an gcinneadh atá beartaithe.
 4.3.Conclúid
 Ba cheart an chéad fhomhír d’Airteagal 207(4) CFAE, i gcomhar le hAirteagal 218(9) CFAE, a bheith ina bunús dlí leis an gcinneadh atá beartaithe.
 5.Foilsiú an ghnímh atá beartaithe
 Ós rud é go gcuirfear síneadh le fad an Choinbhinsiúin le gníomh na Comhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán, is iomchuí an Cinneadh ón gComhairle a fhoilsiú in Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh tar éis a ghlactha.
 2021/0065 (NLE)
 Togra le haghaidh
 CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh sa Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán a mhéid a bhaineann le síneadh a chur leis an gCoinbhinsiún Trádála Gráin, 1995
 TÁ COMHAIRLE AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH,
 Ag féachaint don Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, agus go háirithe an chéad fhomhír d’Airteagal 207(4), i gcomhar le hAirteagal 218(9) de,
 Ag féachaint don togra ón gCoimisiún Eorpach,
 De bharr an mhéid seo a leanas:
 (1)Thug an tAontas an Coinbhinsiún Trádála Gráin, 1995 (‘an Coinbhinsiún’) i gcrích le Cinneadh 96/88/CE ón gComhairle
 5
 agus tháinig sé i bhfeidhm an 1 Iúil 1995. Tugadh an Coinbhinsiún i gcrích le haghaidh tréimhse 3 bliana.
 (2)De bhun Airteagal 33 den Choinbhinsiún, féadfaidh an Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán síneadh a chur leis an gCoinbhinsiún le haghaidh tréimhsí comhleanúnacha nach rachaidh thar 2 bhliain gach uair. Ó tugadh an Coinbhinsiún i gcrích, cuireadh síneadh leis go tráthrialta ar feadh tréimhsí breise 2 bhliain. Cuireadh síneadh leis an gCoinbhinsiún go deireanach le cinneadh ón gComhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán an 10 Meitheamh 2019
 6
 agus beidh sé i bhfeidhm go dtí an 30 Meitheamh 2021.
 (3)Le linn an 53ú seisiún a bheidh aici an 7 Meitheamh 2021, déanfaidh an Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán cinneadh maidir le síneadh a chur leis an gCoinbhinsiún go ceann tréimhse eile suas le 2 bhliain, ón 1 Iúil 2021 go dtí an 30 Meitheamh 2023.
 (4)Is iomchuí an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais sa 53ú seisiún den Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán a bhunú, óir is chun leas an Aontais é síneadh a chur leis an gCoinbhinsiún,
 TAR ÉIS AN CINNEADH SEO A GHLACADH:
 Airteagal 1
 Vótáil i bhfabhar síneadh a chur leis an gCoinbhinsiún Trádála Gráin, 1995, go ceann tréimhse eile suas le 2 bhliain ón 1 Iúil 2021 go dtí an 30 Meitheamh 2023, is é sin an seasamh a bheidh le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais ag an 53ú seisiún den Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán.
 Airteagal 2
 Dírítear an Cinneadh seo chuig an gCoimisiún.
 Arna dhéanamh sa Bhruiséil,
 Thar ceann na Comhairle
 An tUachtarán
 RÁITEAS AIRGEADAIS
 FinancSt/10/
 PSH/pl/914809
 6.221.2022.1
 DÁTA: 18.01.2021
 1.
 CEANNTEIDEAL BUISÉID:
 14 20 03 06 Comhaontuithe idirnáisiúnta talmhaíochta
 LEITHREASUITHE:
 B2021 6 300 000 EUR
 2.
 TEIDEAL:
 Togra le haghaidh Cinneadh ón gComhairle maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh sa Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán a mhéid a bhaineann le síneadh a chur leis an gCoinbhinsiún Trádála Gráin, 1995
 3.
 BUNÚS DLÍ: Airteagal 207 i dteannta Airteagal 218(9) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh
 4.
 AIDHMEANNA:
 Síneadh 2 bhliain eile (1.7.2021 go 30.6.2023) a chur leis an gCoinbhinsiún Trádála Gráin atá ann faoi láthair.
 5.
 IMPLEACHTAÍ AIRGEADAIS
 TRÉIMHSE 12 MHÍ
 (EUR milliún)
 AN BHLIAIN AIRGEADAIS REATHA
 2021
 (EUR milliún)
 AN CHÉAD BHLIAIN AIRGEADAIS EILE
 2022
 (EUR milliún)
 5.0
 CAITEACHAS
 —
 ARNA MHUIREARÚ AR BHUISÉAD AN AONTAIS
 (AISÍOCAÍOCHTAÍ/IDIRGHABHÁLACHA)
 —
 ÚDARÁIS NÁISIÚNTA
 —
 EILE
 0.42
 0.39
 5.1
 IONCAM
 —
 ACMHAINNÍ DÍLSE AN AONTAIS (TOBHAIGH/DLEACHTANNA CUSTAIM)
 —
 NÁISIÚNTA
 2023
 5.0.1
 CAITEACHAS MEASTA
 —
 5.1.1
 IONCAM MEASTA
 5.2
 MODH RÍOMHA: Bunaithe ar thoimhdí ar líon measta vótaí an Aontais (líon a athraíonn gach bliain), ar mhéid measta atá le híoc in aghaidh an vóta in GBP.
 6.0
 AN FÉIDIR AN TIONSCADAL A MHAOINIÚ Ó LEITHREASUITHE A CUIREADH ISTEACH SA CHAIBIDIL ÁBHARTHA DEN BHUISÉAD ATÁ ANN FAOI LÁTHAIR?
 IS FÉIDIR
 6.1
 AN FÉIDIR AN TIONSCADAL A MHAOINIÚ TRÍ AISTRIÚ A DHÉANAMH IDIR CAIBIDLÍ AN BHUISÉID ATÁ ANN FAOI LÁTHAIR?
 —
 6.2
 AN mBEIDH GÁ LE BUISÉAD FORLÍONTACH?
 —
 6.3
 AN mBEIDH GÁ LE LEITHREASUITHE A CHUR ISTEACH I mBUISÉID AMACH ANSEO?
 BEIDH
 NÓTAÍ:
 Is féidir an méid atá le híoc go héifeachtach a bheith éagsúil ag brath ar líon deiridh na vótaí a fhaigheann an tAontas, ar an méid atá le híoc in aghaidh an vóta in GBP agus ar an ráta malairte EUR/GBP.
 (1)
 IO L 21, 27.1.1996, lch. 47.
 (2)
 Feidhmíonn an Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán ar bhonn na bliana airgeadais, bliain a mhaireann ón 1 Iúil go dtí an 30 Meitheamh.
 (3)
 IO L 21, 27.1.1996, lch. 47.
 (4)
 Breithiúnas na Cúirte Breithiúnais an 7 Deireadh Fómhair 2014, an Ghearmáin v an Chomhairle, C-399/12, ECLI:AE:C:2014:2258, míreanna 63 agus 64.
 (5)
 Cinneadh 96/88/CE ón gComhairle an 19 Nollaig 1995 lenar fhormheas an Comhphobal Eorpach an Coinbhinsiún Trádála Gráin agus an Coinbhinsiún um Chúnamh Bia, lenar bunaíodh an Comhaontú Idirnáisiúnta Grán, 1995 (IO L 21, 27.1.1996, lch. 47).
 (6)
 Cinneadh (AE) 2019/813 ón gComhairle an 17 Bealtaine 2019 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh sa Chomhairle Idirnáisiúnta Grán a mhéid a bhaineann le síneadh a chur leis an gCoinbhinsiún Trádála Gráin, 1995 (IO L 133, 21.5.2019, lch. 19).


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21981A0424(01)
 Accord sous forme d'échange de lettres portant nouvelle dérogation à l'article 1er du protocole n° 3 de l'accord entre la Communauté économique européenne et le Royaume de Suède
 Journal officiel n° L 371 du 31/12/1980 p. 0057 édition spéciale grecque: chapitre 11 tome 24 p. 0122
 ACCORD sous forme d'échange de lettres portant nouvelle dérogation à l'article 1er du protocole no 3 de l'accord entre la Communauté économique européenne et le royaume de Suède Lettre no 1 Bruxelles, le ... Monsieur l'Ambassadeur, La dernière phrase de l'article 1er du protocole no 3 de l'accord entre la Communauté économique européenne et le royaume de Suède, signé le 22 juillet 1972, dispose que les produits pétroliers énumérés à la liste C annexée à ce protocole ne rentrent pas dans le champ d'application de celui-ci. Afin d'éviter que cette situation juridique n'entraîne l'application de méthodes de coopération administrative différentes, je vous propose de convenir que, par dérogation à ladite phrase, les méthodes de coopération administrative prévues par le protocole no 3 s'appliquent à ces produits à partir du 1er mai 1981. Je vous serais reconnaissant de bien vouloir me faire connaître l'accord de votre gouvernement sur cette proposition. Je vous prie d'agréer, Monsieur l'Ambassadeur, l'assurance de ma plus haute considération. Pour le Conseildes Communautés européennesLettre no 2 Bruxelles, le ... Monsieur ..., J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réception de votre lettre de ce jour libellée comme suit: «La dernière phrase de l'article 1er du protocole no 3 de l'accord entre la Communauté économique européenne et le royaume de Suède, signé le 22 juillet 1972, dispose que les produits pétroliers énumérés à la liste C annexée à ce protocole ne rentrent pas dans le champ d'application de celui-ci. Afin d'éviter que cette situation juridique n'entraîne l'application de méthodes de coopération administrative différentes, je vous propose de convenir que, par dérogation à ladite phrase, les méthodes de coopération administrative prévues par le protocole no 3 s'appliquent à ces produits à partir du 1er mai 1981. Je vous serais reconnaissant de bien vouloir me faire connaître l'accord de votre gouvernement sur cette proposition.» J'ai l'honneur de vous faire connaître l'accord de mon gouvernement sur la proposition contenue dans cette lettre. Je vous prie d'agréer, Monsieur ..., l'assurance de ma plus haute considération. Au nom du gouvernement du royaume de Suède


text:
 24.6.2014
 FI
 Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
 C 194/20
 Unionin yleisen tuomioistuimen tuomio 30.4.2014 – Euris Consult v. parlamentti
 (Asia T-637/11) (1)
 ((Julkiset palveluhankinnat - Tarjouspyyntömenettely - Käännöksiä maltan kielelle koskevien käännöspalveluiden suorittaminen - Tarjousten toimittamistapoihin liittyvät säännöt - Tarjoajan tarjouksen hylkääminen - Niiden tarjousten esittämistä koskevien sääntöjen noudattamatta jättäminen, joilla on tarkoitus taata tarjousten sisällön luottamuksellisuus ennen niiden avaamista - Soveltamatta jättämistä koskeva väite - Oikeasuhteisuus - Yhdenvertainen kohtelu - Puolustautumisoikeudet - Perusteluvelvollisuus - Euroopan unionin perusoikeuskirjan 41 artikla - Asetuksen (EY, Euratom) N:o 1605/2002 98 artiklan 1 kohta - Asetuksen (EY, Euratom) N:o 2342/2002 143 artikla))
 2014/C 194/25
 Oikeudenkäyntikieli: englanti
 Asianosaiset
 Kantaja: Euris Consult Ltd (Floriana, Malta) (edustaja: asianajaja F. Moyse)
 Vastaaja: Euroopan parlamentti (asiamiehet: L. Darie ja F. Poilvache)
 Väliintulija, joka tukee vastaajan vaatimuksia: Euroopan komissio (asiamiehet: R. Lyal ja F. Dintilhac)
 Oikeudenkäynnin kohde
 Vaatimus sen parlamentin 18.10.2011 tekemän päätöksen kumoamisesta, jolla kantajan tekemä tarjous hylättiin maltan kielen käännöspalvelujen suorittamista koskevassa toimielinten yhteisessä julkista palveluhankintaa koskevan sopimuksen tekomenettelyssä MT/2011/EU
 Tuomiolauselma
 1)
 Kanne hylätään.
 2)
 Euris Consult Ltd velvoitetaan korvaamaan oikeudenkäyntikulut.
 (1) EUVL C 32, 4.2.2012.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' U.S. Department of Agriculture\n\n Office of Inspector General\n Southeast Region\n\n\n\n\n Audit Report\n\n Cooperative State Research, Education, and\nExtension Service \xe2\x80\x93 1994 Land-Grant Institutions\n\n\n\n\n Report No. 13011-3-At\n August 2007\n\x0c UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n Washington, D.C. 20250\n\n\n\n\nAugust 17, 2007\n\nREPLY TO\nATTN OF: 13011-3-At\n\nTO: Colien Hefferan\n Administrator\n Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service\n\nATTN: Ellen Danus\n Chief\n Policy, Oversight, and Funds Management Branch\n Office of Extramural Programs\n\nFROM: Robert W. Young /s/\n Assistant Inspector General\n for Audit\n\nSUBJECT: Review of 1994 Land-Grant Institutions\n\n\nThis report presents the results of the subject audit. Your response to the official draft report,\ndated August 13, 2007, is included as exhibit C, with excerpts and the Office of Inspector\nGeneral\xe2\x80\x99s (OIG) position incorporated into the Findings and Recommendations sections of the\nreport.\n\nBased on your response, we have reach management decision on Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4,\nand 5. Additional information as specified in the OIG Position sections is needed before we can\naccept management decisions for Recommendations 6, 7, and 8.\n\nIn accordance with Departmental Regulation 1720-1, please furnish a reply within 60 days\ndescribing the corrective actions taken or planned and the timeframes for implementation of the\nrecommendation. Please note that the regulation requires that management decision to be\nreached on all recommendations within a maximum of 6 months from report issuance, and final\naction to be taken within 1 year of each management decision.\n\nWe appreciate the courtesies and cooperation extended to us by members of your staff during the\naudit.\n\x0cExecutive Summary\nCooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service \xe2\x80\x93 1994 Land-Grant\nInstitutions (Audit Report No. 13011-3-At)\n\nResults in Brief The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service\n (CSREES) provides grants and endowment funds to the 1994 Land-Grant\n Institutions (1994 LGI). The funds are used to conduct agricultural research,\n education and extension activities in order to improve the quality of\n education to Native American students, especially those students who are\n geographically isolated or who might otherwise find the cost of higher\n education prohibitive. The Office of Inspector General conducted this audit to\n evaluate CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 controls over these funds and to verify that 1994 LGIs\n were using the funds in accordance with their agreements.\n\n Thirty-three 1994 LGIs received 325 grants totaling $24 million from fiscal\n year (FY) 2003 through FY 2005. We reviewed grant agreements, planning\n documents, performance reports, and financial reports for all 33 1994 LGIs.\n We verified expenditures at 2 1994 LGIs that received 18 grants and\n endowment funds totaling $1.5 million from FY 2003 through FY 2005.\n\n We did not find any material noncompliance with grant provisions by the two\n 1994 LGIs we visited, however, we found that CSREES needs to strengthen\n its Federal grant management controls 1 in the following areas.\n\n CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 Onsite Reviews Could Be Improved\n\n CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 monitoring reviews of 1994 LGIs could be improved by\n prioritizing onsite visits to institutions, assessing program accomplishments,\n verifying expenses during onsite reviews, and establishing a followup process\n to ensure observed deficiencies are corrected. At the time of our fieldwork,\n CSREES had no documented procedures for conducting risk assessments of\n the 1994 LGI grant programs to determine potential vulnerabilities or\n establish procedures for performing reviews. Because of its limited resources,\n CSREES needs to expedite developing and implementing such risk\n assessment procedures. An effective review process will provide CSREES\n assurance that grant funds are used to fully accomplish program objectives.\n\n CSREES Had Not Received and Reviewed 1994 LGIs\xe2\x80\x99 Required Reports\n\n We found that CSREES was not receiving and reviewing all reports that it\n required 1994 LGIs to submit\xe2\x80\x94including Office of Management and Budget\n (OMB) Circular A-133 Single Audit reports, plans of work, annual program\n performance reports, and financial status reports. During our fieldwork,\n\n1\n 7 Code of Federal Regulations 3015.94 dated January 1, 2005.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page i\n\x0c CSREES did not have procedures for tracking the receipt of required reports,\n for reviewing reports that were submitted, and for following up with\n 1994 LGIs who failed to submit their reports. CSREES acknowledged that its\n backlog of work and staffing constraints may have contributed to the\n problem. CSREES had also not re-assigned staff to perform monitoring tasks.\n CSREES needs to ensure that 1994 LGIs are submitting the required reports.\n\n CSREES Had Not Timely Closed Out Expired 1994 LGIs Grant Agreements\n\n Of the 562 1994 LGI grants totaling over $30 million dollars which expired\n as of October 1, 2004, we found that 33 still had unliquidated balances\n totaling $874,986\xe2\x80\x94after their 90-day deobligation deadline had elapsed\n (see exhibit B). This occurred because CSREES, at the time of our fieldwork,\n did not have documented procedures for closing out grants when they\n expired. Unless grants are closed out and funds deobligated, funds remaining\n after the grant\xe2\x80\x99s expiration are vulnerable to abuse. We found one instance\n where a 1994 LGI improperly drew down $6,680 after its grant period had\n expired.\n\n Two 1994 LGIs Expended Grant Funds for Questionable Purposes\n\n During our visit to two 1994 LGIs, 2 we found that they used grant funds for\n ineligible expenses. We reviewed the 18 FY 2003 through FY 2005 grants\n and endowment funds issued to these 2 1994 LGIs totaling $1.5 million; they\n spent funds from 3 grant awards on ineligible or unsupported expenses\n totaling $76,359. These ineligible expenses included:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 $45,790 used for purposes other than those stated in the grant\n agreement,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 $6,680 drawn down after the grant project had expired,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 $11,509 in salary expenses incorrectly charged to grant projects, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 $12,378 in questionable equipment expenses.\n\n Overall, we did not find any material noncompliance with grant provisions by\n the two 1994 LGIs we visited; however, CSREES needs to strengthen its\n grant monitoring as required by Federal grant regulations.\n\nRecommendations\nin Brief We are recommending that CSREES:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Improve and implement risk assessment procedures and, based on the\n results, prioritize onsite reviews of 1994 LGIs.\n\n\n\n2\n Sinte Gleska University, Rosebud, South Dakota and Fond du Lac Tribal Community College, Cloquet, Minnesota.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page ii\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Improve and implement procedures for including the review of\n grants program accomplishments and expenses during onsite visits\n and require documentation of the review.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Improve and implement procedures for followup and resolution of\n review findings and recommendations.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Improve and implement procedures for tracking the receipt of all\n required reports and monitoring them once they are received.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Develop and implement procedures to ensure that all grants are\n periodically checked for unexpended balances and closed out 90 days\n after the grant has expired, and review the 33 expired grants with\n obligated balances totaling $874,986 and return excess funds to the\n U.S. Treasury.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Recover from the two 1994 LGIs $76,359 in questioned or\n unsupported costs.\n\nAgency Response In its August 9, 2007, written response to the official draft report, CSREES\n officials agreed with all the recommendations in the report. We have\n incorporated applicable portions of CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 response, along with our\n position in the Findings and Recommendations sections of the report.\n CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 response to the official draft report is included in its entirety as\n exhibit C of the audit report.\n\nOIG Position We concurred with the corrective actions proposed by CSREES, although\n additional information as outlined in the OIG Position sections will be needed\n to reach management decision on Recommendations 6, 7, and\n 8. CSREES needs to provide us with the results of its review of the\n 33 expired grants with $874,986 in unliquidated balances and the amount of\n funds returned to the U.S. Treasury. Also, CSREES needs to provide us with\n a copy of the bills for collection of the $73,359 owed to it by the two\n 1994 LGIs and support that the amounts have been entered as a receivable on\n the agency\xe2\x80\x99s accounting records.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page iii\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\nExecutive Summary .................................................................................................................................i\n\nTable of Contents ...................................................................................................................................iv\n\nBackground and Objectives ................................................................................................................... 1\n\nFindings and Recommendations............................................................................................................ 3\n\n Section 1 \xe2\x80\x93 CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 Monitoring and Oversight Over Funds Provided to 1994 LGIs .............. 3\n\n Finding 1 Effectiveness of CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 Reviews Could be Improved ....................................... 3\n Recommendation 1 ....................................................................................................................... 5\n Recommendation 2 ....................................................................................................................... 6\n Recommendation 3 ....................................................................................................................... 6\n Finding 2 CSREES Needs to Improve How It Tracks 1994 LGIs\xe2\x80\x99 Required Reports............ 6\n Recommendation 4 ....................................................................................................................... 9\n Finding 3 CSREES Needs to Improve How It Closes Out Grant Agreements ....................... 9\n Recommendation 5 ..................................................................................................................... 10\n Recommendation 6 ..................................................................................................................... 11\n\n Section 2 \xe2\x80\x93 1994 LGI Grant Expenditures..................................................................................... 12\n\n Finding 4 Two 1994 LGIs Claimed Ineligible Expenses ...................................................... 12\n Recommendation 7 ..................................................................................................................... 13\n Recommendation 8 ..................................................................................................................... 14\n\nScope and Methodology........................................................................................................................ 15\n\nExhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Summary of Monetary Results ....................................................................................... 17\nExhibit B \xe2\x80\x93 1994 LGI Expired Grants With Unliquidated Balances............................................... 18\nExhibit C \xe2\x80\x93 Agency Response .............................................................................................................. 19\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page iv\n\x0cBackground and Objectives\nBackground Authorized on October 20, 1994, the 1994 Land-Grant Program established\n 29 colleges as \xe2\x80\x9c1994 Land-Grant Institutions\xe2\x80\x9d (1994 LGI) and provided\n grants to these 1994 LGIs serving Native Americans. 3 These 1994 LGIs\n educate students who may be isolated geographically and who may otherwise\n find the cost of higher education prohibitive. 4 By serving the cultural needs\n of this student body, 1994 LGIs aim to better serve local Native American\n populations, particularly those on reservations.\n\n Four programs are available to 1994 LGIs: the Tribal College Endowment\n Fund Program; the Tribal College Educational Equity Grant Program; the\n Tribal College Research Grant Program; and the Tribal College Extension\n Service Grant Program. These programs are intended to afford these\n institutions the means to conduct research, education, and outreach activities\n to improve conditions in Native American communities.\n\n A Tribal College Endowment Fund was established and designed to\n strengthen these colleges through increased capacity of teaching programs in\n food and agriculture. Interest accruing from the endowment fund is split\n among 1994 LGIs (40 percent of accrued interest is divided equally among\n the 1994 LGIs, while 60 percent is distributed to 1994 LGIs based on student\n enrollment). As part of its oversight and accountability responsibilities,\n Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)\n requires each college, once notified of its annual distribution, to submit a\n planning document detailing how its share of the interest on the endowment\n funds will be used. Proper uses for these funds include: (1) development of\n curricula and materials, (2) faculty development, (3) experiential learning\n programs, (4) instruction delivery systems, (5) teaching equipment and\n instrumentation, and (6) student recruitment and retention. Beginning in\n fiscal year (FY) 2002, funds could also be used for facility construction and\n maintenance.\n\n The Tribal College Education Equity Grant Program is designed to promote\n and strengthen higher education in the food and agricultural sciences.\n 1994 LGIs must submit an application to receive a grant, but each approved\n grant receives the same amount. For FY 2005, each grant totaled $67,637.\n\n The Tribal College Research Grant Program makes funds available to\n 1994 LGIs to perform research activities in their communities and is intended\n\n\n\n3\n Public Law 103-382, as an amendment to the First Morrill Act, dated July 2, 1862.\n4\n Public Law 103-382 initially established 29 colleges as \xe2\x80\x9c1994 Tribal Land-Grant Institutions,\xe2\x80\x9d but 4 other colleges were later added, resulting in a total\n of 33 eligible 1994 LGIs.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 1\n\x0c to assist these institutions in conducting agricultural research addressing high\n priority concerns of tribal or national significance.\n\n The Tribal College Extension Service Grant Program is designed to fund\n community outreach programs in (1) agriculture; (2) community resource and\n economic development; (3) family development and resource management;\n (4) 4-H and youth development; (5) leadership and volunteer development;\n (6) natural resources and environmental management; and (7) nutrition, diet,\n and health.\n\n In FY 2005, Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for CSREES, of which\n $20.64 million was authorized for 1994 LGIs. Of the $20.64 million,\n CSREES allocated in the following manner: $2.23 million for the Tribal\n College Educational Equity Grant Program, $1.08 million to the Tribal\n College Research Grant Program, $3.25 million to the Tribal College\n Extension Service Grant Program, $11.9 million to the Tribal College\n Endowment Fund, and interest payments of $2.18 million to 1994 LGIs.\n\n For FY 2006, Congress has appropriated $1.17 billion for CSREES, of which\n $23.1 million was authorized for 1994 LGIs.\n\nObjectives The objectives of this audit were to (1) assess CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 management\n controls over funds provided to 1994 LGIs and (2) determine if funds were\n expended in accordance with laws, regulations, and grant agreements or\n planning documents submitted to CSREES.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 2\n\x0cFindings and Recommendations\nSection 1 \xe2\x80\x93 CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 Monitoring and Oversight Over Funds Provided to 1994 LGIs\n\n We did not find material deficiencies in our review of 1994 LGIs\xe2\x80\x99\n compliance with their grant agreements or planning documents. However,\n CSREES needs to improve its management controls over 1994 LGI funds in\n the following areas:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 CSREES reviews of 1994 LGIs could be improved by documenting\n selection criteria for prioritizing onsite visits and assessing\n 1994 LGIs\xe2\x80\x99 program accomplishments and verifying expenses.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 CSREES could not demonstrate that they received reports they\n required 1994 LGIs to submit under the terms of their agreements,\n nor that they reviewed those they did receive. Moreover, the agency\n did not followup with 1994 LGIs when their reports were late or\n missing.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 CSREES had not deobligated 33 of the 562 grants that expired prior\n to October 1, 2004. These 33 grants had unliquidated balances\n totaling nearly $874,986.\n\n\n\nFinding 1 Effectiveness of CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 Reviews Could be Improved\n\n CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 reviews of 1994 LGIs could be improved by prioritizing onsite\n visits to institutions, better assessing program accomplishments, verifying\n expenses during onsite reviews, and establishing a followup process to ensure\n observed deficiencies are corrected. At the time of fieldwork, CSREES did\n not conduct a documented risk assessment of the 1994 LGI programs to\n determine potential vulnerabilities or establish documented procedures for\n performing reviews. In addition, the only employee who had performed\n comprehensive and detailed onsite financial and performance reviews of\n 1994 LGIs left the agency. An effective review process will provide CSREES\n assurance that funds are used to fully accomplish program objectives. 5\n\n Federal regulations require agencies awarding grants to make site visits as\n frequently as practicable to review program accomplishments, review control\n systems, and provide technical assistance. 6\n\n\n\n5\n $24 million in grant funds were awarded to the 33 1994 LGIs from FY 2003 through FY 2005.\n6\n 7 Code of Federal Regulations 3015.94, dated January 1, 2005.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 3\n\x0c CSREES Does Not Assess Risk in Prioritizing Its Monitoring Visits to\n 1994 LGIs\n\n CSREES performed onsite reviews at 10 of 33 1994 LGIs from\n April 2003 through January 2005. When we asked CSREES officials why\n they selected these 10 1994 LGIs, they explained the selections were based\n on the locations of the 1994 LGIs to reasonable accommodation, travel costs,\n and travel time. CSREES should improve its monitoring process by\n performing a documented risk assessment to determine the 1994 LGIs that\n pose the greatest risk for program weakness (i.e., not submitting performance\n accomplishment reports) or those that need immediate attention due to\n financial hardship (i.e., received an adverse opinion on their financial\n statements). In addition, CSREES should use the results of the risk\n assessment to prioritize its visits to 1994 LGIs.\n\n Without having consistent, documented risk assessment procedures for\n determining onsite reviews, CSREES may not visit 1994 LGIs that may be\n vulnerable to program abuse. For example, one institution7 that CSREES had\n scheduled for an onsite visit during April 2006 went bankrupt in April 2005.\n This institution had an adverse opinion on its FYs 2001 and\n 2002 financial statements (issued on October 21, 2005), 8 which should have\n raised CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 concerns.\n\n Onsite Reviews Were Not Detailed\n\n CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 onsite reviews did not include a documented assessment of\n program accomplishments or a documented review of invoices and\n accounting and payroll records to verify the accuracy and allowability of\n expenses made and reported by the 1994 LGIs.\n\n According to CSREES officials, their reviews were primarily programmatic\n in nature and for \xe2\x80\x9coutreach\xe2\x80\x9d purposes to discuss extension, higher education,\n and research activities. The reviews did not include a documented evaluation\n of the adequacy of program expenses and program accomplishments.\n\n When we asked CSREES officials during our fieldwork why these reviews\n lacked detailed analysis, they stated that they did not have the staff needed to\n both perform and document the weeklong reviews necessary to assess\n 1994 LGIs\xe2\x80\x99 program performance and financial controls. The officials further\n explained that the employee who had performed at least two detailed reviews\n left the agency and had not been replaced. However, CSREES officials\n provided comments for the exit discussion that they had replaced the departed\n employee in October 2005 and that the Office of Extramural Programs has\n\n7\n Si Tanka University, Eagle Butte, South Dakota.\n8\n The auditor\xe2\x80\x99s opinion on the FY 2001 financial statements was dated October 23, 2003.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 4\n\x0c sufficient staff and expertise to perform these reviews. CSREES did not\n provide evidence of any reviews performed by this official since their hiring.\n\n CSREES Lacked Procedures to Followup on Issues Identified by Onsite\n Reviews\n\n Despite the fact that CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 onsite reviews did not always include a\n documented assessment of program accomplishments or financial reviews,\n the 10 site reviews that CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 performed did identify outreach and\n program deficiencies that needed improvements such as the need to (1) better\n communicate the effects of its grant program, (2) better coordinate between\n several overlapping programs, and (3) more accurately allocate salary costs to\n grants. CSREES officials state that they prepared reports for each site review,\n but at the time of our fieldwork, CSREES was only able to provide 6 reports,\n identifying a total of 17 issues. For the 10 site reviews, when CSREES\n identified a problem and recommended a solution from its reviews, it asked\n the 1994 LGIs to submit a corrective action plan. However, we found that\n 1994 LGIs did not submit corrective action plans for the deficiencies stated in\n the six reports and that CSREES could not demonstrate to the Office of\n Inspector General (OIG) a tracking system to followup on the deficiencies\n reported or to verify that the deficiencies were corrected.\n\n When we asked CSREES officials why they had not required 1994 LGIs to\n submit corrective action plans, they explained that they had not consistently\n required 1994 LGIs to submit corrective action plans. CSREES needs to\n fulfill its grant monitoring responsibilities by verifying that 1994 LGIs have\n resolved any deficiencies identified in its reviews.\n\nRecommendation 1\n\n Improve and implement procedures for including the review of grants\n program accomplishments and expenses during onsite visits and require\n documentation of the review.\n\nAgency Response In its August 13, 2007, response, CSREES stated the following.\n\n CSREES concurs. CSREES will improve and implement\n procedures for including the review of grants program\n accomplishments and expenses during onsite visits and require\n documentation of the review. CSREES will revise and implement\n these procedures for 1994 LGIs by December 31, 2007, and\n training will be provided to Agency staff by June 30, 2008.\n\nOIG Position We concur with CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 management decision for this recommendation.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 5\n\x0cRecommendation 2\n\n Improve and implement procedures requiring (1) 1994 LGIs to submit\n corrective action plans to address identified deficiencies, (2) CSREES to\n track resolution of identified deficiencies, and (3) CSREES to perform\n followup reviews as necessary.\n\nAgency Response In its August 13, 2007, response, CSREES stated the following.\n\n CSREES concurs. CSREES will improve and implement\n procedures requiring (1) 1994 LGIs to submit corrective action\n plans to address identified deficiencies; (2) CSREES to track\n resolution of identified deficiencies; and (3) CSREES to perform\n followup reviews as necessary. These procedures will be\n incorporated in the revised On-site Review Guidelines which will\n be completed and implemented by December 31, 2007, and\n training will be provided to Agency staff by June 30, 2008.\n\nOIG Position We concur with CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 management decision for this recommendation.\n\nRecommendation 3\n\n Improve and implement procedures for performing onsite reviews of grants\n program accomplishments and expenses.\n\nAgency Response In its August 13, 2007, response, CSREES stated the following.\n\n CSREES concurs. CSREES will revise and implement\n procedures for performing onsite reviews of grants program\n accomplishments and expenses by December 31, 2007. Training\n on new procedures will be provided to Agency staff by June 30,\n 2008.\n\nOIG Position We concur with CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 management decision for this recommendation.\n\n\n\nFinding 2 CSREES Needs to Improve How It Tracks 1994 LGIs\xe2\x80\x99 Required\n Reports\n\n We found that CSREES was not receiving and reviewing all of the reports\n that it required 1994 LGIs to submit\xe2\x80\x94including Office of Management and\n Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 Single Audit 9 reports, plans of work, annual\n program performance reports, and financial status reports. This occurred\n\n9\n Hereinafter referred to as Single Audit.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 6\n\x0c because CSREES did not, at the time of our fieldwork, have documented\n procedures for tracking the receipt of required reports, for reviewing reports\n that were submitted, and for following up with 1994 LGIs who failed to\n submit their reports. CSREES also attributed backlog of work and staffing\n constraints as contributing to the problem.\n\n The Federal Managers\xe2\x80\x99 Financial Integrity Act of 1982 requires agencies to\n monitor grant recipients to ensure that costs are in compliance with\n applicable laws and regulations. 10 In fulfillment of this requirement,\n CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 grant terms and conditions require 1994 LGIs to submit several\n sorts of reports\xe2\x80\x94Single Audit reports, plans of work, and performance and\n financial reports.\n\n Without a documented system for assuring reports are received and reviewed,\n 1994 LGIs may not receive the guidance they require to effectively utilize\n awards as required by grant agreements.\n\n Single Audit Reports\n\n We found that CSREES since FY 2004 was not receiving and, therefore, not\n reviewing any required Single Audit reports for the 33 1994 LGIs. This\n occurred because CSREES did not have documented procedures for tracking\n the receipt of the reports or for reviewing the reports they received. CSREES\n needs to improve its grant monitoring requirements by following up to ensure\n grantees submit Single Audit reports.\n\n OMB Circular A-133 requires institutions receiving grants to prepare and\n submit a Single Audit report if they receive over $500,000 in Federal funds.\n This report must include an auditor\xe2\x80\x99s opinion, a report on internal controls,\n and a report on compliance with laws, regulations, and grant agreements. 11\n Single Audits are used to determine whether unallowable or questionable\n costs have been charged to the program audited, whether 1994 LGIs are\n being run effectively and efficiently, and whether 1994 LGIs are in\n compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. OMB Circular\n A-133 also requires the institutions to submit Single Audits information to the\n OMB-designated Federal Audit Clearinghouse in Jeffersonville, Indiana.\n\n All 33 of the 1994 LGIs each received combined Federal grant funds in\n excess of $500,000 and, therefore, were required to submit a Single Audit\n report. 12 CSREES has not received any of the reports starting from FY 2004.\n Prior to FY 2004, CSREES had assigned an employee to followup on the\n reports but the employee left the agency and this duty was not reassigned. We\n\n10\n Public Law 97-255, dated September 8, 1982.\n11\n OMB Circular A-133: \xe2\x80\x9cAudits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations,\xe2\x80\x9d dated June 24, 1997.\n12\n Grant award amounts were obtained from the information contained in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. The 1994 LGIs received the additional funding\n from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of the Interior.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 7\n\x0c reviewed seven Single Audit reports submitted to CSREES by three\n 1994 LGIs prior to FY 2004. Although the reports disclosed reportable\n conditions for Federal grants, none of the issues was related to the\n Department of Agriculture or the 1994 LGI grant program.\n\n As of May 2006, CSREES had assigned someone to begin reviewing Single\n Audit reports. CSREES also plans on hiring an additional staff member\n whose primary responsibility will be the tracking of Single Audit reports and\n resolution of audit findings. In comments provided to OIG for the exit\n discussion for this report, CSREES advised that it now has documented\n procedures for handling these reports.\n\n Performance Reports for Equity and Research Grants\n\n At the time of our fieldwork, CSREES had not developed documented\n procedures to track performance reports or for following up with 1994 LGIs\n to submit such reports. CSREES officials were unsure of how many reports\n they had received or how many were owed to them by 1994 LGIs. We found\n that CSREES had not received all performance reports for 1994 LGI equity\n and research grants. For example, we requested research and equity\n performance reports for three 1994 LGIs for FYs 2003 and 2004. CSREES\n officials disclosed that only 4 of 14 (28.5 percent) required performance\n reports were on hand. The grant terms and conditions require that annual\n performance reports should provide a concise project overview, a summary\n of the progress toward project objectives, and identify current problems or\n unusual developments pertinent to the ongoing project.\n\n CSREES did not track the submission of annual performance or final\n technical reports for equity and research grants. However, CSREES officials\n stated that performance reports were tracked and analyzed for the tribal\n extension grants since CSREES had appointed a national program leader over\n the program. The national program leader also followed up with the\n 1994 LGIs if they did not submit the required reports. There was no national\n program leader assigned for the equity and research grant programs at the\n time of our fieldwork.\n\n CSREES officials told us after our fieldwork ended, that they now track\n performance reports and that the Awards Management Branch, prior to\n making a new award to a 1994 LGI, checks to see if any prior report is\n delinquent. CSREES notes that this check will be formalized on its award fact\n sheet, CSREES-2009.\n\n Financial Reports\n\n CSREES had not received Standard Form (SF) 269s for equity, endowment,\n and research grants for 12 of the 33 1994 LGIs since FY 2004. All of the\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 8\n\x0c SF-269s, \xe2\x80\x9cFinancial Status Report,\xe2\x80\x9d were not being submitted by the\n 1994 LGIs, and CSREES did not followup to find out why reports were not\n being forwarded. In addition, CSREES did not review and analyze the reports\n it received from the 1994 LGIs. The SF-269 report shows the financial\n progress of the grants, provides data by grant budget period, and contains\n information on total outlays and unobligated balances. CSREES requires\n 1994 LGIs to submit this financial report annually.\n\n Although CSREES could locate some of these reports, it had no record of\n having received many of them. This occurred because CSREES lacked\n documented controls for tracking the receipt of all required reports and for\n following up with grantees that did not submit their reports. CSREES officials\n stated they had developed procedures and a tracking system but, due to other\n priorities, they did not aggressively follow up when financial reports were not\n received.\n\n We concluded that CSREES needs to improve its grant monitoring\n responsibilities for tracking the receipt of all required reports, reviewing them,\n and following up with 1994 LGIs that do not submit their reports on time.\n\nRecommendation 4\n\n Improve and implement documented procedures for tracking the receipt of all\n required reports and for following up when reports are not received.\n Establish a formal review process of the reports.\n\nAgency Response In its August 13, 2007, response, CSREES stated the following.\n\n CSREES concurs. CSREES will improve and implement\n documented procedures for tracking the receipt of all required\n reports and for following up when reports are not received. These\n procedures will require a formal review of the reports. CSREES\n will revise and implement these procedures by March 31, 2008.\n\nOIG Position We concur with CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 management decision for this recommendation.\n\n\n\nFinding 3 CSREES Needs to Improve How It Closes Out Grant Agreements\n\n Of the 562 1994 LGI grants totaling $30,375,073 that expired as of\n October 1, 2004, we found that 33 still had unliquidated balances totaling\n $874,986\xe2\x80\x94after their 90-day deobligation deadline had elapsed (see exhibit\n B). This occurred because CSREES officials stated that they had a backlog of\n work and staffing constraints. Furthermore, CSREES officials stated that they\n had not documented their procedures for reviewing and closing out unused\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 9\n\x0c funds for expired grants. Unless grants are closed out and funds deobligated,\n funds remaining after the grant\xe2\x80\x99s expiration are vulnerable to abuse. We\n found one instance at one of the two 1994 LGIs we visited where the\n 1994 LGI improperly drew down $6,680 after its grant period had expired.\n\n OMB Circular A-110 requires that unless the agency grants an extension, the\n awarding agency shall close out the grant and all funds should be deobligated\n and returned to the U.S. Treasury within 90 calendar days of expiration.13\n\n In addition to what was explained above, some CSREES officials incorrectly\n believed that grants could not be closed out for 5 years and intended to start\n reviewing grants that expired in FY 2001 sometime in FY 2007.\n\n If grants are not closed out in a timely fashion and excess funds are not\n deobligated within 90 days, then those funds can be vulnerable to abuse. We\n informed a 1994 LGI during our fieldwork that we would be recommending\n the deobligation of $6,680. The 1994 LGI subsequently drew down this\n amount even though the project had been completed (see Finding\n 4 for a fuller discussion of this improper drawdown). CSREES has less\n control over how funds are being used for the purposes established in the\n grant agreement.\n\n We concluded that CSREES should implement procedures for closing out\n grants and deobligating excess funds within 90 days after the grant has been\n closed out.\n\nRecommendation 5\n\n Implement procedures, including a tracking system, to ensure that all grants\n are periodically checked for unexpended balances and closed out 90 days\n after the grant has expired.\n\nAgency Response In its August 13, 2007, response, CSREES stated the following.\n\n CSREES concurs. CSREES will revise and implement improved\n procedures to include a tracking system to periodically check for\n grants with unexpected balances (i.e., beyond 90 days of the\n termination date). These procedures will be revised and\n implemented by December 31, 2007.\n\nOIG Position We concur with CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 management decision for this recommendation.\n\n\n\n\n13\n OMB Circular A-110, subpart D, dated September 30, 1999.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 10\n\x0cRecommendation 6\n\n Review the 33 expired grants with $874,986 unliquidated balances, close out\n balances as appropriate, and return the remaining funds to the U.S. Treasury.\n\nAgency Response In its August 13, 2007, response, CSREES stated the following.\n\n CSREES concurs. CSREES will complete the review of the\n expired grants with unliquidated balances and will return\n remaining funds to the U.S. Treasury by September 30, 2007.\n\nOIG Position We agree with CSREES\xe2\x80\x99 corrective actions to review the expired grants with\n unliquidated balances and return the remaining funds to the U.S. Treasury.\n However, to reach management decision, CSREES needs to provide us with\n the results of their review and the amount of funds returned to the U.S.\n Treasury.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 11\n\x0cSection 2 \xe2\x80\x93 1994 LGI Grant Expenditures\n\nFinding 4 Two 1994 LGIs Claimed Ineligible Expenses\n\n At the 2 1994 LGIs we visited, we reviewed all 18 FY 2003 through FY 2005\n grants totaling $1,544,875 that were awarded to the 2 institutions. We did not\n find any material noncompliance with grant provisions by the two\n 1994 LGIs; however, we found that funds from three grants were spent for\n ineligible expenses. Officials at two 1994 LGIs made various errors\n allocating salaries to projects, charging expenditures to grants that should\n have been closed out, or using funds for purposes outside the grant\n agreement. As a result, we identified ineligible or unsupported expenses\n totaling $76,359 of the $1,544,875 (or about 5 percent).\n\n Sinte Gleska University (SGU)\n\n At SGU, we identified a total of $52,470 of $632,275 we reviewed in grant\n funds was used for questionable purposes as detailed below (see exhibit A).\n\n SGU received a FY 2004 equity grant intended to develop a health and\n wellness curriculum to teach students basic nutrition so they could educate\n the reservation community concerning proper diet and healthy lifestyles. Of\n the $52,470 awarded for this nutrition program, however, $45,790 was used\n to fund SGU\xe2\x80\x99s bison ranch program, which allows students to raise bison and\n sell bison meat. Although the bison ranch received an equity grant in\n FY 2003, the FY 2004 grant was not intended to fund the ranch. Nonetheless,\n FY 2004 funds were used to continue the older project.\n\n When we spoke to SGU\xe2\x80\x99s Chief Financial Officer about how this problem\n occurred, she explained that the university was changing its accounting\n software and that, consequently, the change in the bison ranch\xe2\x80\x99s funding\n source was not recorded. Without this change, charges for the ranch were\n improperly allocated to the FY 2004 equity grant. She further explained that\n there were delays in implementing the health and wellness curriculum and\n that any work that was done was charged to other Government grants.\n\n The remaining $6,680 of the $52,470 FY 2004 equity grant was drawn down\n in March and May of FY 2006. Since this grant had already expired in\n FY 2005 and grant funds had never been used for the approved project, this\n drawdown was improper. During our audit, we advised 1994 LGI officials\n that we would recommend that the remaining balance of $6,680 be\n deobligated. However, SGU subsequently drew down the remaining balance\n before our recommendation could be made. CSREES has less control over\n how these funds are used (see Finding 3 regarding the need to close out\n grants and deobligate excess funds).\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 12\n\x0c Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College (FDLTCC)\n\n At FDLTCC, we identified a total of $23,889 of $912,600 in grant funds was\n used for unsupported purposes as detailed below (see exhibit A).\n\n We found that FDLTCC was charging salaries and benefits to grant projects\n when employees were not working directly on those projects. For instance,\n FDLTCC paid two staff members for working on the 1994 LGI\xe2\x80\x99s\n FY 2003 and FY 2004 equity grants although the employees were also\n teaching classes and could not have worked all the time they charged to the\n grant program. We determined that FDLTCC had charged $11,350 for the\n time these employees\xe2\x80\x99 were teaching, instead of working directly on grant\n projects. Additionally, the institution unintentionally charged $161 in student\n salaries to a CSREES grant (a 2003 Soil Mapping research grant) although\n the student was working on a different project.\n\n Since both of these errors were made when FDLTCC allocated employee\n costs to grants, we asked officials how they estimate the time employees\n devote to each project. FDLTCC officials explained that faculty salaries were\n paid out of general funds and costs were later allocated to the various\n CSREES grants. Rather than determining how much actual time was spent on\n each approved project, FDLTCC officials assumed that all time unaccounted\n for was used for grant projects. We concluded that this was an unsupported\n method for allocating time and that it may result in grants being over or under\n charged.\n\n Finally, we found that FDLTCC charged $12,378 in equipment costs to its\n Environmental Science Delivery Project\xe2\x80\x94a FY 2003 equity grant at the end\n of the grant period. FDLTCC officials could not provide supporting\n documentation for these charges or explain how these charges benefited the\n program nor could they show us the equipment that was purchased.\n\n We concluded that, unless CSREES improves its oversight of grants awarded\n to 1994 LGIs (as discussed in section 1), similar problems will result in\n 1994 LGIs not complying with the terms of their grant agreements and using\n funds for purposes other than those for which their grants are intended.\n\nRecommendation 7\n\n Recover from SGU $52,470 in questioned costs.\n\nAgency Response In its August 13, 2007, response, CSREES stated the following.\n\n CSREES concurs. CSREES will bill SGU $52,470 for questioned\n costs by September 30, 2007, and will recover funds by\n December 31, 2007.\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 13\n\x0cOIG Position We agree with the corrective action proposed by CSREES; however, to reach\n management decision CSREES needs to provide us with a copy of a bill for\n collection of $52,470 for SGU and support that the amount has been entered\n as a receivable on the agency\xe2\x80\x99s accounting records.\n\nRecommendation 8\n\n Recover from FDLTCC $23,889 in unsupported costs.\n\nAgency Response In its August 13, 2007, response, CSREES stated the following.\n\n CSREES concurs. CSREES will bill FDLTCC $23,889 in\n unsupported costs by September 30, 2007, and will recover funds\n by December 31, 2007.\n\nOIG Position We agree with the corrective action proposed by CSREES; however, to reach\n management decision CSREES needs to provide us with a copy of a bill for\n collection of $23,889 for FDLTCC and support that the amount has been\n entered as a receivable on the agency\xe2\x80\x99s accounting records.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 14\n\x0cScope and Methodology\n Our review was performed at the CSREES national office in Washington,\n D.C., and at two 1994 LGIs: FDLTCC in Cloquet, Minnesota, and SGU in\n Rosebud, South Dakota. Thirty-three 1994 LGIs received 325 grants totaling\n $24,281,000 from FY 2003 through FY 2005. We reviewed grant\n agreements, planning documents, performance reports, and financial reports\n for all 33 1994 LGIs. Also, to determine if CSREES was properly closing out\n grants that had been expired, we reviewed 562 grants totaling\n $30,375,073 that had expired prior to October 1, 2004.\n\n We judgmentally selected two 1994 LGIs for review. Specifically we\n selected FDLTCC because it had received more grant funds than any other\n 1994 LGI (10 grants for $912,600) from FY 2003 through FY 2005 and had\n received a large amount in research grants ($362,201) during this period.\n Also we selected SGU because it was a 4-year institution and had received an\n adverse audit opinion (because of the university\xe2\x80\x99s failure to allow for\n inventory observation, inadequacy of records and failure to depreciate assets)\n for FY 2003. SGU received eight grants for a total of $632,275 from\n FY 2003 through FY 2005. In total, we reviewed 18 grants to these\n 2 1994 LGIs totaling $1,544,875, from FY 2003 through FY 2005. We\n conducted our audit from January to August 2006.\n\n To accomplish our objectives, we:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed regulations, policies, and procedures governing program costs.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed external and internal audit reports, CSREES reports, and grant\n performance reports.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed grant agreements and planning documents, strategic plans,\n program funding, and financial reports.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed CSREES and 1994 LGI officials to determine what controls\n are used to monitor program costs.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed audits performed under the Single Audit Act to identify issues\n concerning the use of program funds.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed 1994 LGIs\xe2\x80\x99 accounting and payroll records to verify the\n accuracy and allowability of charges reported to CSREES.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed 1994 LGIs\xe2\x80\x99 grant files and outcomes reports, and interviewed\n project directors to determine results achieved by CSREES programs.\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 15\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed branch chiefs and staff employees from Policy Oversight\n Branch, Funds Management Branch, and Award Management Branch to\n determine results achieved by CSREES programs.\n\n This audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted\n government auditing standards.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 16\n\x0cExhibit A \xe2\x80\x93 Summary of Monetary Results\n Exhibit A - Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\nFINDING RECOMMENDATION DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CATEGORY\n NO. NO.\n 3 6 Expired Grants $874,986 Funds to Be Put to\n Funds Better Use-\n Deobligations\n 4 7 Ineligible Expenses $52,470 Questioned Costs,\n SGU Recovery\n Recommended\n 4 8 Unsupported $23,889 Unsupported Costs,\n Expenses FDLTCC Recovery\n Recommended\n Total $951,345\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 17\n\x0cExhibit B \xe2\x80\x93 1994 LGI Expired Grants With Unliquidated Balances\n Exhibit B \xe2\x80\x93 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n Expiration\n College Grant Number Date Amount\n\nChief Dull Knife 2001-38424-10253 9/30/2004 $36,266.70\nChief Dull Knife 2003-38421-36913 8/31/2004 4,655.00\nChief Dull Knife 2001-47002-01230 8/1/2003 13,534.70\nCrownpoint Institute of Technology 2001-38421-16919 8/31/2002 51,619.00\nCrownpoint Institute of Technology 2003-38421-36919 8/31/2004 849.69\nCrownpoint Institute of Technology 99-47002-0729 (FY 2001) 9/14/2004 15,350.62\nCrownpoint Institute of Technology 99-47002-0729 (FY 2002) 9/14/2004 84,764.00\nDine College 2003-47002-01624 9/30/2004 12,991.43\nD-Q University 2002-38421-26926 8/31/2004 2,800.00\nD-Q University 2003-38421-36926 9/14/2004 4,195.34\nFond du Lac Tribal and Community College 99-47002-0760 9/14/2003 10,963.97\nFort Berthold Community College 2003-51200-01664 8/14/2004 7,572.12\nHaskell Indian Nations University 2003-47002-01676 8/31/2004 85,000.00\nHaskell Indian Nations University 99-47002-0824 (FY 2001) 9/14/2003 85,000.00\nHaskell Indian Nations University 99-47002-0824 (FY 2002) 9/14/2003 85,000.00\nInstitute of American Indian Arts XX-AIEF-0-6901 9/30/2000 41,189.00\nLac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College 2002-38421-26921 9/14/2004 165.11\nLac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College 99-47002-0738 9/14/2004 10,335.67\nLittle Priest Tribal College 2003-38421-36931 8/31/2004 54,482.00\nNebraska Indian Community College 2003-38421-36924 9/14/2004 54,482.00\nNebraska Indian Community College 98-AIHE-0-8924 8/31/1999 50,000.00\nSinte Gleska University 00-38424-9592 9/30/2003 168.00\nSisseton Wahpeton Community College 2001-38421-16928 8/31/2003 38,232.00\nSisseton Wahpeton Community College 2002-38421-26928 9/14/2004 49,968.00\nSitting Bull College 98-AIHE-0-8923 6/30/1999 50,000.00\nSouthwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute 2001-38421-16900 8/31/2002 8,750.00\nSouthwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute 2001-38424-10389 9/14/2004 93.08\nSouthwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute 2002-38421-26900 9/30/2004 8.35\nSouthwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute 99-47002-0737 6/14/2004 1,311.47\nStone Child College 2003-47002-01657 7/31/2004 2,500.00\nUnited Tribes Technical College 00-38424-9671 9/14/2004 11,042.44\nWhite Earth Tribal & Community College 2002-38421-26932 9/29/2004 107.07\nWhite Earth Tribal & Community College 2003-38421-36932 9/14/2004 1,589.10\n\nTotal $874,985.86\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 18\n\x0cExhibit C \xe2\x80\x93 Agency Response\n Exhibit C\xe2\x80\x93 Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 19\n\x0cExhibit C \xe2\x80\x93 Agency Response\n Exhibit C\xe2\x80\x93 Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 20\n\x0cExhibit C \xe2\x80\x93 Agency Response\n Exhibit C\xe2\x80\x93 Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 21\n\x0cExhibit C \xe2\x80\x93 Agency Response\n Exhibit C\xe2\x80\x93 Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 22\n\x0cExhibit C \xe2\x80\x93 Agency Response\n Exhibit C\xe2\x80\x93 Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/13011-3-At Page 23\n\x0cInformational copies of this report have been distributed to:\n\nAdministrator, CSREES (5)\n ATTN: Agency Liaison Officer\nGovernment Accountability Office (1)\nOffice of Management and Budget (1)\nOffice of the Chief Financial Officer\n Director, Planning and Accountability Division (1)\n\x0c'


text:
 27.10.2014
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 380/19
 Žaloba podaná dne 1. září 2014 – Red Lemon Incorporation v. OHIM – Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)
 (Věc T-643/14)
 2014/C 380/25
 Jazyk, ve kterém byla podána žaloba: němčina
 Účastníci řízení
 Žalobkyně: Red Lemon Incorporation (Hongkong, Čínská lidová republika) (zástupci: T. Wieland a S. Müller, advokáti)
 Žalovaný: Úřad pro harmonizaci na vnitřním trhu (ochranné známky a vzory)
 Další účastnice řízení před odvolacím senátem: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Německo)
 Návrhová žádání
 Žalobkyně navrhuje, aby Tribunál:
 —
 zrušil rozhodnutí prvního odvolacího senátu Úřadu pro harmonizaci na vnitřním trhu (ochranné známky a vzory) (OHIM) ze dne 15. května 2014 ve věci R 1899/2013-1 a zamítl námitky;
 —
 uložil žalovanému náhradu nákladu řízení.
 Žalobní důvody a hlavní argumenty
 Přihlašovatelka ochranné známky Společenství: žalobkyně.
 Dotčená ochranná známka Společenství: slovní ochranná známka „ABTRONIC“ pro výrobky zařazené do třídy 9 – přihláška ochranné známky Společenství č. 8 1 84 632.
 Majitelka ochranné známky nebo označení namítaných v námitkovém řízení: další účastnice řízení před odvolacím senátem.
 Namítaná ochranná známka nebo označení: mezinárodní slovní ochranná známka „TRONIC“ pro výrobky zařazené do třídy 9.
 Rozhodnutí námitkového oddělení: vyhovění námitkám.
 Rozhodnutí odvolacího senátu: zamítnutí odvolání.
 Dovolávané žalobní důvody: porušení č. 8 odst. 1 písm. b) nřízení č. 207/2009.