jurisdiction: US

text: b"\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\nOFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\nAUDIT OF USAID/MOROCCO\xe2\x80\x99S\nDEMOCRACY AND\nGOVERNANCE PROGRAM\nAUDIT REPORT NO. 7-608-13-005-P\nSEPTEMBER 30, 2013\n\n\n\n\nDAKAR, SENEGAL \n\n \xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\x0c\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\xc2\xa0\n\xc2\xa0\nOffice of Inspector General\xc2\xa0\n\n\nSeptember 30, 2013\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\nTO: \t USAID/Morocco Mission Director, Dana Mansuri\n\nFROM: \t Regional Inspector General/Dakar, Abdoulaye Gueye /S/\n\nSUBJECT:\t Audit of USAID/Morocco\xe2\x80\x99s Democracy and Governance Program\n (Report No. 7-608-13-005-P)\n\nThis memorandum transmits our final report on the subject audit. In finalizing the report, we\nconsidered your comments on the draft report and included them, without attachments, in\nAppendix II.\n\nThe final report contains four recommendations to help improve the Democracy and\nGovernance Program. Based on management\xe2\x80\x99s comments on the draft report and other\ninformation provided to support corrective actions taken, we acknowledge management\ndecisions and final action on all recommendations.\n\nThank you for the cooperation and courtesy extended to the audit team during this audit\n\n\n\n\nU.S. Agency for International Development\nAmerican Embassy Dakar\nRoute des Almadies\nDakar, Senegal\nhttp://oig.usaid.gov\n\n\n\xc2\xa0\n\x0c\xc2\xa0 \xc2\xa0\n\n\n\nCONTENTS \n\nSummary of Results ................................................................................................................... 1 \n\n\nAudit Findings............................................................................................................................. 4 \n\n\n Steering Committee Was Not Operating as Expected ........................................................... 4 \n\n\n Mission Did Not Document Data Quality Assessment ............................................................ 4 \n\n\n Required Language Was Not Included in Awards .................................................................. 5 \n\n\nEvaluation of Management Comments..................................................................................... 7 \n\n\nAppendix I\xe2\x80\x94Scope and Methodology ...................................................................................... 9 \n\n\nAppendix II\xe2\x80\x94Management Comments ................................................................................... 11 \n\n\n\n\n\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\nSUMMARY OF RESULTS \n\nAccording to USAID/Morocco\xe2\x80\x99s fiscal year (FY) 2011 performance plan report, Morocco\xe2\x80\x99s\nversion of the 2011 \xe2\x80\x9cArab Spring\xe2\x80\x9d called for wide-ranging political reforms that resulted in\nrenewed attention by government officials to strengthen good governance practices: promote\ntransparency, accountability, citizen participation, and gender equity; and prepare young\nMoroccans to take an active role in the development of the country. According to the same\nreport:\n\n As Moroccans continue to debate whether these reforms will translate into\n tangible and meaningful change in practice, the United States Government was\n well positioned to support the reform process through its extant civil society, local\n governance, and political party programming. Through USAID programs, the\n USG supported Moroccan citizens, especially youth and women, in engaging\n productively in advocating for political reform, building the capacity of local\n government to respond to new demands.\n\nAs part of its ongoing support to Morocco, in June 2005 USAID/Morocco launched a 4-year\nLocal Governance Program, implemented by RTI International. Almost 5 years later, in\nFebruary 2010, USAID/Morocco signed a follow-on 4-year, $14.7 million task-order contract with\nRTI to implement a new program to facilitate more effective, accountable local governance in\nMorocco. As of September 30, 2012, the mission had obligated $7.6 million and disbursed\n$6.6 million for the program.\n\nTo achieve the objective, USAID is working in three areas:\n\n1. Giving citizen more opportunities to participate in local governance.\n\n2. Enhancing local governments\xe2\x80\x99 ability to provide better services to citizens.\n\n3. Encouraging increased accountability and transparency in local governance.\n\nThe Regional Inspector General/Dakar (RIG/Dakar) conducted this audit to determine whether\nUSAID/Morocco is achieving its objective of increasing Moroccan citizens\xe2\x80\x99 participation in\ngovernance.\n\nThe audit found that USAID/Morocco\xe2\x80\x99s Democracy and Governance Program made noteworthy\nimprovement and is on track to achieve its objective. Most completed activities met or exceeded\ntheir expected results, and ongoing activities are succeeding for the most part. In 2012 the\nmission reported that the program organized more than 120 events attended by more than\n3,700 participants (including 1,100 women). Other activities are discussed below.\n\nInternal Audit. The program succeeded in getting local governments to agree to incorporate\ninternal audit divisions into their structure. For example, the city of Sale completed a\nvulnerability assessment and prepared an audit plan based on the assessment. According to\ncity officials, the commune1 president approved the plan, and the first audit was scheduled to\n\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n1\n A commune is an administrative division. Administrative divisions have a certain degree of autonomy\nand are required to manage themselves through their own local governments.\n\n 1\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c\xc2\xa0\n\n\nstart by mid-2013.\n\nAt the request of the Direction G\xc3\xa9n\xc3\xa9rale des Collectivit\xc3\xa9s Locales (DGCL),2 program employees\nhelped develop a draft charter for auditors. The program also completed and translated into\nArabic a procedure manual for commune internal auditors; according to the subcontractor, the\nmanual will be integrated into the new commune operations manual that DGCL will make\navailable to all communes in Morocco.\n\nComplaints and Mediation Management System. The program helped reestablish confidence\nbetween the communes and their citizens by assisting selected communes in developing\ncomplaints and mediation management system units. These units allow the communes to\nimprove how they handle citizen complaints by tracking them from the date they are filed to final\ndisposition. RTI officials said the system developed for the partner communes (El Jadida, Fez,\nand Safi) would be provided to DGCL so they could be disseminated throughout the country.\n\nYouth Activities Support in Communes. The program supported youth activities in selected\ncommunes. It carried out surveys to identify needs and priorities, and developed responses to\nconcerns to encourage improving how youths are integrated in the communes.\n\nThe program reported that as of FY 2012, seven youth councils were established in the\ncommunes, and more than 1,500 youths participated in program-sponsored activities. In\naddition, more than 40 activities, including conferences and planning sessions, were organized\non civic participation and governance. According to partner officials, other communes are\ncreating councils, and the program launched a successful small grant program that promotes\npartnership between communes and their youths.\n\nStrengthening Roles of Elected Women. To support the leadership capabilities of elected\nwomen, the program developed activities in the focus regions to (1) organize forums on local\ngovernance to discuss gender equity, accountability, and participation, and (2) conduct\nworkshops on leadership to provide hands-on coaching and motivate elected women to set up\ntheir own peer networks. In FY 2012 the program reported that more than 600 elected women\nand their male associates participated in discussions with senior government officials through\nthese regional forums. RTI officials said these forums give women the opportunity to discuss the\nchallenges they face as they become active participants in local governance. The officials\nadded that the program was finalizing a training kit for elected women that will be given to\nDGCL to distribute throughout the country.\n\nDespite these positive results, the mission should address the following concerns to be sure that\nall projects are viable.\n\n\xef\x82\xb7\t DGCL has not supported the program as it was supposed to (page 4). This problem was\n listed by the mission as one of the key challenges in the implementation of the program in its\n FY 2012 annual report.\n\n\xef\x82\xb7\t The mission did not have a documented data quality assessment (page 4). However, the\n mission mentioned that one was done in 2011.\n\n\xef\x82\xb7\t Mandatory clauses and provisions were not included in some awards (page 5). The mission\n was aware of these, yet did not follow up to be sure they were included.\n\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n2\n Direction G\xc3\xa9n\xc3\xa9rale des Collectivit\xc3\xa9s Locales is a division of the Moroccan Ministry of Interior.\n\n 2\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c\xc2\xa0\n\n\nTo address these concerns, RIG/Dakar recommends that USAID/Morocco implement the\nfollowing recommendations.\n\n1. \tRevise the memorandum of understanding with DGCL to reactivate and formalize the\n existence of the steering committee, and define its role and agenda (page 4).\n\n2. \tConduct a data quality assessment for activities under the Democracy and Governance\n Program, and maintain documentation of the assessment (page 5).\n\n3. \tReview its active award portfolio to identify any awards that are missing the required\n environmental provisions and antitrafficking clauses, and implement a plan to include the\n missing provisions in future amendments to these awards (page 6).\n\n4. \t Require RTI to include the required environmental provision and antitrafficking clause in its\n active subawards (page 6).\n\nDetailed findings appear in the following section, and Appendix I describes the scope and\nmethodology. Management comments will be in Appendix II, and our evaluation of them will be\non page 7.\n\n\n\n\n 3\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\nAUDIT FINDINGS \n\nSteering Committee Was Not\nOperating as Expected\nA steering committee that started with the first phase of the program (2005-2008) was carried\nover to the current phase. The committee was made up of DGCL\xe2\x80\x99s wali (director general), the\ndirectors of DGCL departments, some provincial governors, and select commune presidents.\n\nAccording to mission officials, DGCL\xe2\x80\x99s role is to bring these officials together once a year\nthrough the steering committee to discuss the program\xe2\x80\x99s progress and make decisions about\nadjustments and reorientation as needed. The committee met for the first time as part of the\nnew program in June 2010. However, it has not met again, despite repeated requests from\nUSAID/Morocco and RTI.\n\nUSAID officials noted DGCL\xe2\x80\x99s lack of engagement as one of the key challenges in the\nimplementation of the program in its FY 2012 annual report, and said DGCL\xe2\x80\x99s engagement was\nimportant for the success of the program.\n\nRTI officials explained that after the Arab Spring, the Moroccan Government made DGCL\nresponsible for drafting new strategic plans, a new or revised communal charter, and laws that\nwould allow local governments to carry out expanded responsibilities. Because of these\nresponsibilities, DGCL had less time to support program activities.\n\nTo make sure program activities were sustainable and had the greatest impact, RTI produced\ntraining kits for each one at selected pilot communes. The kits contained information on\nleadership development, commune partnerships with youth, internal audit functions, complaint\nmanagement and mediation systems, and guidance on implementing communications\nstrategies. The audit noted that RTI transferred or plans to transfer all of these to DGCL so they\ncan be disseminated nationally.\n\nGetting DGCL officials to revive the steering committee and commit to helping the program\nsucceed\xe2\x80\x94particularly at this stage\xe2\x80\x94should ensure that the kits will be disseminated to\ncommunes throughout Morocco. Therefore we make the following recommendation.\n\n Recommendation 1. We recommend that USAID/Morocco revise the memorandum of\n understanding with the Direction G\xc3\xa9n\xc3\xa9rale des Collectivit\xc3\xa9s Locales to reactivate and\n formalize the existence of the steering committee, and define its role and agenda.\n\nMission Did Not Document Data\nQuality Assessment\nUSAID\xe2\x80\x99s Automated Directives System (ADS) 203.3.11.3, \xe2\x80\x9cConducting Data Quality\nAssessments (DQAs),\xe2\x80\x9d requires missions to perform DQAs and recommends maintaining\nwritten policies and procedures for data collection, maintenance, and processes. ADS\n203.3.11.2 notes that the purpose of a DQA is to ensure that the mission/office and\ndevelopment objective team are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the data, and the\nextent to the data can be trusted to influence management decisions.\n\n 4\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c\xc2\xa0\n\n\nADS 203.3.14.2 states that all USAID operating units must have conducted a DQA within the\npast 3 years for all performance data reported to Washington. ADS 203.3.11.3 states that\nmissions should document the assessment, including decisions concerning data quality\nproblems and the steps taken to address them.\n\nData reported in USAID/Morocco\xe2\x80\x99s annual performance plan and report for FY 2011 indicates\nthat the mission conducted a DQA that year. However, the audit team did not find documents in\nthe contracting officer representative\xe2\x80\x99s (COR\xe2\x80\x99s) files that support that a DQA was performed,\nand the mission could not provide documented evidence of the DQA.\n\nAccording to mission officials, staff turnover and rotations in the mission\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Democracy\nand Governance contributed to this lack of documentation. Although the current democracy and\ngovernance team leader and COR confirmed through RTI officials that a DQA was performed in\n2011, the mission\xe2\x80\x99s former team leader and COR who conducted the DQA did not leave any\nrecords or maintain any documentation to support such claim.\n\nMaintaining adequate documentation is important for historical purposes, especially when the\nresponsibility for a program changes hands. The lack of a DQA increases the likelihood that\nUSAID will receive poor data that can result in poor decisions. To address these problems, we\nmake the following recommendation.\n\n Recommendation 2. We recommend that USAID/Morocco perform a data quality\n assessment for activities under the Democracy and Governance Program in accordance\n with USAID requirements and document the results.\n\nRequired Language Was Not\nIncluded in Awards\nFederal Acquisition Regulations (FARs) Subpart 22.17 and 52.222-50, both of which are called\n\xe2\x80\x9cCombatting Trafficking in Persons,\xe2\x80\x9d require that specific language related to combatting human\ntrafficking be inserted in all solicitations and contracts.\n\nADS 204, \xe2\x80\x9cEnvironmental Procedures,\xe2\x80\x9d requires strategic objective teams and operating units to\nincorporate factors and mitigation measures identified in environmental evaluation documents\ninto the design and implementation instruments for programs, projects, activities, or\namendments. The responsibilities of implementers regarding these environmental requirements\nshould be determined up front and explicitly enumerated in the solicitations and subsequent\nawards before a project starts. Therefore, contracting or agreement officers must verify that\nthese requirements are incorporated into any contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, or\nother mechanisms used to implement the activity.\n\nThe audit team found that two expired awards and two current ones in the democracy and\ngovernance programs did not include the antitrafficking or environmental requirements.3 We\nalso noted that the initial environmental assessment for the program had a negative\n\n\n\n\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n3\n The expired awards were 608-A-00-08-00044-00 and 263-I-00-00008-00. Award EPP-I-00-04-00037-00\ndoes not contain the antitrafficking clause, and Award AID-608-LA-12-00001 does not contain the\nenvironmental requirements.\xc2\xa0\n\n 5\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c\xc2\xa0\n\n\ndetermination4 with conditions, because activities under the small grant program to support\nyouth activities may have an impact on the environment. However, RTI did not submit an\nenvironmental mitigation plan, as required under these circumstances.\n\nAccording to mission officials, the failure to include the required clauses in these awards was an\noversight. USAID/Morocco was well aware of the omission of these required clauses and had\nestablished a plan to correct these shortcomings. However, there was insufficient follow-up due\nto staff turnover at the mission, and at the time of our audit, no specific action was taken to\nmodify or amend the active awards to include the required language on antitrafficking and\nenvironmental compliance.\n\nBecause the mission did not comply fully with those requirements, its activities might have\nadverse effects and hinder the program\xe2\x80\x99s ability to meet its intended objectives. To strengthen\nUSAID/Morocco\xe2\x80\x99s antitrafficking and environmental compliance, we make the following\nrecommendations.\n\xc2\xa0\n Recommendation 3. We recommend that USAID/Morocco review its active awards\n portfolio to identify awards missing the required antitrafficking and environmental\n language, and implement a plan to include the missing language in future amendments\n to these awards.\n\n Recommendation 4. We recommend that USAID/Morocco require RTI International to\n include the required antitrafficking and environmental language in all active subawards.\n\n\n\n\n\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n4\n Under a negative determination with condition, the activity poses a very low risk of having significant\nenvironmental impact if specified environmental mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented.\n\xc2\xa0\n\n 6\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\nEVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT\nCOMMENTS\nIn its comments on the draft report and subsequent communication, USAID/Morocco agreed\nwith three of the report\xe2\x80\x99s five recommendations. It disagreed with Recommendations 1 and 5.\n\nAfter evaluating management comments, subsequent communication, and the supporting\ndocumentation provided, we acknowledge management decisions on all recommendations.\nThe mission provided justification for its disagreement with Recommendations 1 and 5, and we\nagreed with both decisions. Recommendation 5, involving an environmental mitigation plan for\nactivities under the small grant program, was deleted from the report.\n\nFinal action has been taken on all recommendations, and they are closed upon issuance of the\naudit report. Our evaluation of management comments follows.\n\nRecommendation 1. USAID/Morocco disagreed with this recommendation and provided\njustification for its disagreement. Recommendation 1 involved reactivating and formalizing the\nexistence of a steering committee and defining its role and agenda. The mission commented\nthat although a steering committee did meet early on in the current local governance program,\nsuch a committee was never part of the design or the program\xe2\x80\x99s scope of work.\n\nThe mission looked into the suggested recommendation and does not believe it is feasible given\nthe current DGCL leadership. The directorate\xe2\x80\x99s head, although supportive of the program and its\ngoals, appears not to be inclined to participate in a new steering committee. As a result, a\nmanagement decision has been reached and final action taken on this recommendation.\n\nRecommendation 2. The mission agreed with and completed a DQA of the program\nimmediately following the audit on January 22, 2013. Based on the mission\xe2\x80\x99s actions and\nsupporting documentation provided, we acknowledge that the mission has made a management\ndecision and final action has been taken on this recommendation.\n\nRecommendation 3. USAID/Morocco agreed and modified all active awards in its democracy\nand governance programs to include required environmental provisions and antitrafficking\nclauses on June 17, 2013, and April 28, 2013, respectively. As a result, a management decision\nhas been reached and final action taken on this recommendation.\n\nRecommendation 4. The mission agreed and asked RTI to modify its active subawards to\ninclude environmental provisions and antitrafficking clauses on June 18, 2013. RTI confirmed its\ncommitment and modified all current subawards under the local governance program by\nJuly 19, 2013. Based on the mission\xe2\x80\x99s actions and supporting documentation provided, we\nacknowledge that the mission has made a management decision and final action has been\ntaken on this recommendation.\n\nRecommendation 5. USAID/Morocco disagreed with this recommendation and provided\njustification for its disagreement. Recommendation 5 involved an environmental mitigation plan\n\n 7\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c\xc2\xa0\n\n\nfor activities under the small grant program. The mission stated that although the initial\nenvironmental assessment findings indicated a negative determination with conditions for the\nsmall grant component, it stipulated the conditions and measures to mitigate potential\nenvironmental impact, including the prohibition of grants for any construction or infrastructure\nactivities. As a result, an environmental mitigation plan for activities under the small grant\nprogram is not required unless triggered by a small grant involving prohibited activities. We\nagreed with mission justification and deleted Recommendation 5 from the report.\n\n\n\n\n 8\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c Appendix I\n\n\n\nSCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\nScope\nWe conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government\nauditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain\nsufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions,\nin accordance with our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides that\nreasonable basis.\n\nThe purpose of this audit was to determine whether USAID/Morocco\xe2\x80\x99s Democracy and\nGovernance Program was achieving its objective of increasing Moroccan citizen participation in\ngovernance. To implement the program, USAID signed a $14.7 million, 4-year task order with\nRTI covering the period from February 16, 2010, through September 30, 2014. As of\nSeptember 30, 2012, USAID/Morocco had obligated $7.6 million and expended $6.6 million for\nthe program. The audit team tested the total expended amount as of September 30, 2012.\n\nThe audit covered the period from October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2012. In planning and\nperforming the audit, we assessed management controls related to documentation and data\nverification; reporting; supervisory and management review of program processes and activities;\nand review of performance measures and indicators. The controls we reviewed included the\nprogram\xe2\x80\x99s performance monitoring plan, the annual work plan, quarterly reports, progress\nreports, COR files, and RTI\xe2\x80\x99s contract.\n\nWe conducted audit fieldwork at USAID/Morocco and RTI\xe2\x80\x99s office in Rabat. We visited program\nbeneficiaries in Fes, Kenitra, Moulay Yacoub, and Sale, and spoke with officials from Al Jadida.\nThe fieldwork took place from December 3 to December 21, 2012.\n\nMethodology\nTo answer the audit objective, we reviewed reports and files that the mission and RTI\nmaintained as part of their program monitoring activities, including the contract, the performance\nmonitoring plan, the annual work plans, progress reports, site visit documentation, as well as the\nresults reported for all applicable indicators. We also reviewed applicable laws and regulations\nand USAID policies and procedures pertaining to USAID/Morocco\xe2\x80\x99s Democracy and\nGovernance Program. This included the Federal Managers\xe2\x80\x99 Financial Integrity Act of 1982\ncertification, ADS 203 and 204, and FAR Subpart 22.17 and 52.222-50.\n\nWe interviewed key personnel from USAID/Morocco, RTI, subpartners, and the Moroccan\nGovernment, as well as program beneficiaries such as civil society organizations, selected\ncommunes\xe2\x80\x99 officials, elected women, and representatives of youth groups that benefited from\nthe program. We obtained an understanding of the program and how USAID/Morocco\nmonitored and measured results. We observed USAID-funded assets to confirm their existence\nand verify compliance with branding and marking requirements.\n\nWe also performed site visits to meet with RTI\xe2\x80\x99s regional coordinators, commune officials, and\nbeneficiaries. During these visits, we observed activities in progress, interviewed individuals\nwho were conducting the activities, and interviewed beneficiaries. We judgmentally selected a\n\n 9\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c Appendix I\n\n\nsample of activities to validate data reported by RTI \\and document attributes of monitoring by\nmission and the implementing partner. The sample consisted of activities that were in progress\nduring the time of our field work and that were located in Fez, Kenitra, Moulay Yacoub, and\nSal\xc3\xa9. These activities included roundtable discussions on the role of internal audits, civic\nparticipation, gender equity, and complaint management systems. Since we tested a judgmental\nsample, the related test results are limited to the activities tested and cannot be projected to the\nentire audit universe. However we believe that our work provided a reasonable basis for our\nconclusions.\n\n\n\n\n 10\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c Appendix II\n\n\n\nMANAGEMENT COMMENTS \n\n\n\nDATE: \t June 17, 2013\n\nTO: \t Abdoulaye Gueye, Regional Inspector General (RIG), Dakar\n\nFROM: \t John Groarke, USAID/Morocco Mission Director\n\nSUBJECT:\t Draft Report of RIG Audit of USAID/Morocco Democracy and Governance\n Programs (Report No 7-608-13-00X-P)\n\nThis memo formally acknowledges receipt of the draft report on the RIG audit performed\nDecember 3-21, 2012 on USAID/Morocco\xe2\x80\x99s Democracy and Governance Programs as requested\non May 24, 2013. The Mission appreciates the work of the audit team. They consistently\nengaged staff and partners alike to perform a professional and thorough review of the programs.\n\nAfter careful review of the RIG draft audit report, the Mission agrees with three out of the five\naudit recommendations. The Mission has already implemented different actions in order to\nstrengthen internal control for these important issues and for the closure of recommendations.\nPlease consider the information provided in order to address the closure of the recommendations.\n\nUSAID/Morocco requests RIG/Dakar concurrence with the actions described in detail below.\n\nRecommendation #1: Revise the memorandum of understanding with the General\nDirectorate of Local Government (DGCL) to reactivate and formalize the existence of the\nsteering committee, and define its role and agenda.\n\nRequest for removal of this recommendation:\n\nAlthough there was a regular steering committee as part of the first Local Governance Project\n(LGP) (2005-2008), and a steering committee did meet early on in the current LGP, such a\ncommittee was never part of the design or scope of work for current LGP. Rather, the design\nteam focused on achieving the same results through an approach for the current LGP which\ncoordinates closely with individual leaders within the DGCL. As such, USAID/Morocco\nbelieves this recommendation is evaluating the activity on a task that is outside of the design and\noutside of the scope of the work plan. While there are many ways to achieve similar results, the\ndesign of LGP was based on what was feasible and possible given the environment at the time.\nUSAID/Morocco does not concur that the recommendation is within the scope of the audit and\nrequests that the recommendation be removed prior to issuing the final report.\n\n 11\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c Appendix II\n\n\n\nFurthermore, USAID/Morocco has looked into the RIG's suggestion and does not believe it is\nfeasible to sign an MOU to formalize a steering committee given current DGCL leadership. The\nsuccess of the steering committee in the previous LGP was largely due to the Wali (Director) of\nthe DGCL at the time who personally attended meetings and was very engaged in the project. In\naddition to being tasked with multiple new responsibilities relating to government reform\ninitiatives (as noted in the audit report), the current DGCL has new leadership with a different\nleadership style. The current Wali, although consistently supportive of the project and its goals,\nappears not to be inclined to participate in a new steering committee.\n\nAs a result, USAID/Morocco requests that Recommendation #1 be removed from the report.\n\n\nRecommendation #2: Conduct a data quality assessment for activities under the democracy\nand governance program, and maintain documentation of the assessment.\n\nClosure Request:\n\nImmediately following the RIG audit, the DG Team completed a thorough Data Quality\nAssessment (DQA) on the Local Governance Program. This DQA was signed by the DG Team\nLeader on January 22, 2013. Attachment 1 contains the signed/approved documentation of the\nDQA.\n\nOn that basis, we kindly request that the recommendation be closed upon issuance of the final audit\nreport.\n\n\nRecommendation #3: Review its active award portfolio to identify awards missing the\nrequired environmental provisions and anti-trafficking clauses; and implement a plan to\ninclude the missing provisions in future amendments to these awards.\n\nClosure Request:\n\nSince the audit was conducted, USAID/Morocco has modified all active awards in its DG\nportfolio to include required environmental provisions and anti-trafficking clauses. The Office\nof Acquisitions and Assistance has since added the required environmental provisions and anti-\ntrafficking clauses to the basic Mission-wide templates for contracts and awards to insure these\nprovisions are included in all future awards at USAID/Morroco.\n\nAttachment 2 contains the modifications adding the relevant provisions to the contract with RTI\nand the agreement with the National Democratic Institute (the only two projects affected by this\nrecommendation in the DG portfolio).\n\nOn that basis, we kindly request that the recommendation be closed upon issuance of the final audit\nreport.\n\n\n\n 12\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c Appendix II\n\n\n\nRecommendation #4: Require Research Triangle Institute to include the required\nenvironmental provision and anti-trafficking clause in its active sub-awards.\n\nClosure Request:\n\nSince receipt of the initial draft report, Research Triangle Institute has been requested to modify\nits active sub-awards to include environmental provisions and anti-trafficking clauses. Although\nthis action is in process, Research Triangle Institute has assured USAID/Morocco that all sub-\nawards will be modified to comply with this recommendation by July 19, 2013. Such provisions\nand clauses will be included in any future sub-awards.\n\nAttachment 3 contains documentation of Research Triangle Institute\xe2\x80\x99s commitment to complete\nmodifications by July 19, 2013.\n\nUSAID/Morocco kindly requests that the recommendation be closed (pending documentation\nshowing compliance) upon issuance of the final audit report.\n\n\nRecommendation #5: Require that Research Triangle Institute submits an environmental\nmitigation plan for activities under the small grant program.\n\nRequest for removal of this recommendation\n\nAn Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) was conducted and signed on January 4, 2010 for\nLGP which covers all activities under the project. The IEE findings indicate a categorical\nexclusion for all activities except for the small grants component of the project which received a\n\xe2\x80\x9cnegative determination with conditions\xe2\x80\x9d. The IEE stipulates the conditions and measures to\nmitigate potential environmental impact of the small grant program including the prohibition of\ngrants for any construction or infrastructure activities and substantial involvement of USAID in\napproving small grants. As a result, an environmental mitigation plan for activities under the\nsmall grants program is not required by the IEE unless triggered by a small grant that involves\nprohibited activities such as construction or infrastructure activities.\n\nUSAID/Morocco therefore requests that Recommendation #5 be removed from the report.\n\n\nWe are providing, as requested, a signed and unsigned electronic copy of this memorandum.\n\n\n\nAttachment 1: DQA for LGP\nAttachment 2: Award Provisions and Amendments for DG portfolio\nAttachment 3: Email from LGP indicating commitment to resolve Recommendation 4\n\n\n\n\n 13\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\x0c \xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\n U.S. Agency for International Development \n\n Office of Inspector General \n\n 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW \n\n Washington, DC 20523 \n\n Tel: 202-712-1150 \n\n Fax: 202-216-3047 \n\n http://oig.usaid.gov\n\n\xc2\xa0 \xc2\xa0 \xc2\xa0\n\x0c"


type: wikipedia

text:
Latgale vagy Latgallia (Latgalul:: Latgola; lengyelül: Łatgalia; németül: Lettgallen; oroszul: Латгалия) egy Lettország öt etnográfiai és földrajzi egysége közül.
 Fekvése
 Lettország legkeletebbi, a Pededze, az Aiviekste és a Daugava. folyók a belarusz, orosz határ által határolt legkeletibb tájegysége. A történelmi Latgale átnyúlik Oroszország területére, és Jaunlatgale (kb. 1200 négyzetkilométer) és pár település hovatartozása jelenleg is határvitát képez Oroszország és Lettország között.
 Latgalét a kék tavak földjének hívják. Közel ezerre tehető számuk és Latgaleben találhatók Lettország legnagyobb (Lubans és Razna tavak) és legmélyebb tavai (Dridzi tó, 65,1 m).
 Városok
 Történelmi fővárosa és központja Daugavpils. Jelentősebb városok: Kraslava, Ludza, Preili, Rezekne, Jekabpils, Madona.
 Története
 A jelenlegi Latgale területének őslakói a latgalok. A földjükön átfolyó Daugava Európa ősi kereskedelmi útvonalainak egyike, így a latgalok kereskedtek és kapcsolatban álltak Bizánccal, a Római Birodalommal és az arabokkal.
 A 10–12. században Jersika és Atzele néven törzsi fejedelemségek voltak a területen. A 12. században foglalták el a területet a Német Lovagrendhez és Livóniához csatolták.
 A 16. században Latgale is a reformáció hatása alá került, azonban 1561-ben a Lengyel királyság részévé vált és ennek hatására Latgele megmaradt katolikus államnak. Jelentős volt a lengyel asszimiláció.
 A Svéd-lengyel háborút követően lengyel fennhatóság alatt maradt. Lettország e része ettől kezdődően önálló fejlődésen ment át. Ennek a fejlődésnek két fő jellemzője a katolicizmus és a lengyel ortográfián alapuló írás.
 1772-ben Latgale az Orosz Birodalom részévé vált. Kezdetben az oroszok közvetlenül nem avatkoztak be az ország életébe. Azonban az 1831-es lengyel felkelést követően minden ami orosz szempontból lengyel eredetűnek számított (a katolicizmus, a latgal nyelvű írás) tilalom alá került. 1864-től 1904-ig a latin betűs írást is betiltották.
 1917-ben a Rezekne-i kongresszuson Latgale vezető politikai személyiségei az ország Lettországhoz történő csatlakozása mellett döntöttek. Ez a csatlakozás jogilag 1920-ban valósult meg.
 Lásd még
 Lettország
 Külső hivatkozások
 Latgale – Latgola áttekintés lett, angol és orosz nyelven.
 Latgale research center
 a Latgal honlap egy online Latgal-Lett szótárral
 Lettország tájegységei


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Tähtis õiguslik teade
 |
 22002D0005
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja L 088 , 04/04/2002 Lk 0009 - 0011
 EMP Ühiskomitee otsusnr 5/2002,1. veebruar 2002,millega muudetakse EMP lepingu XIII lisa (transport)EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut, mida on muudetud Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut kohandava protokolliga, edaspidi "leping", eelkõige selle artiklit 98,ning arvestades järgmist:(1) Lepingu XIII lisa muudeti EMP Ühiskomitee 11. detsembri 2001. aasta otsusega nr 158/2001. [1](2) Lepingusse lisati EMP otsusega nr 7/94 [2] nõukogu 25. oktoobri 1993. aasta direktiiv 93/89/EMÜ, mis käsitleb liikmesriikides teatud maanteekaubaveosõidukite suhtes maksude ning teatud infrastruktuuri kasutamise eest lõivude ja tasude rakendamist. [3](3) Euroopa Kohus tühistas 5. juulil 1995. aastal nõukogu direktiivi 93/89/EMÜ.(4) Euroopa Ühendustes säilitati nõukogu direktiivi 93/89/EMÜ mõju kuni nõukogu poolt uue direktiivi vastuvõtmiseni.(5) Seetõttu võeti vastu Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 17. juuni 1999. aasta direktiiv 1999/62/EÜ raskete kaubaveokite maksustamise kohta teatavate infrastruktuuride kasutamise eest. [4](6) Direktiiv 1999/62/EÜ tuleb lepingusse lisada.(7) Sellest lähtuvalt tuleb lepingust välja jätta nõukogu direktiiv 93/89/EMÜ.(8) Norra võib, lähtuvalt oma teedevõrgu spetsiifilisusest, kehtestada sõidukite suhtes tee- ja kasutusmakse rohkemate teede kategooriate puhul, kui antud direktiivis sätestatud.(9) Šveits juurutas alates 1. jaanuarist 2001 kõikidel teedel raskeveokite maksu (teemaksu), võttes arvesse 21. juunil 1999. aastal Euroopa Liiduga sõlmitud maismaatranspordi lepingut, mida kogutakse piiripunktides lähtuvalt läbitud kilomeetritest ja sõiduki karakteristikutest.(10) Šveitsiga sõlmitud tolliliidu lepingu tõttu puuduvad Liechtensteinil oma Šveitsi piiril piiripunktid; et võimaldada ühise piiri avatust juurutas Liechtenstein samuti 1. jaanuaril 2001. aastal oma territooriumil kõigil teedel raskeveokite maksu (teemaksu), mis tuleneb Liechtensteini ja Šveitsi vahel sõlmitud kahepoolsel lepingust ja Liechtensteini õigusaktidest ning mis on samaväärne Šveitsi raskeveokimaksuga.(11) Direktiiv 1999/62/EÜ lubab kehtestada maksusid (teemaksusid) kõrgeima kategooria teedele, juhul kui liikmesriigis puudub kiirteede sõiduteede võrk (artikkel 7 lõige 2 punkt a) ja seetõttu võib Liechtenstein, kus puudub kiirteede võrk, kehtestada oma kõrgeima kategooria teede suhtes maksusid (teemaksusid).(12) Liechtensteini puhul pole aga võimalik määratleda kõrgeima kategooria teedel sõidetavaid kilomeetreid.(13) Direktiiv 1999/62/EÜ nõuab, et maksud (teemaksud) põhineksid infrastruktuurikuludel (artikkel 7 lõige 9).(14) Raskeveokite maksu tariifid on kehtestatud Šveitsi infrastruktuurikulude põhjal, mis erinevad Liechtensteini infrastruktuurikuludest.(15) Seetõttu tuleb raskeveokite maksu kohandada, et see vastaks direktiivile 1999/62/EÜ ja seda saaks Liechtensteini suhtes rakendada.(16) Lihtsuse huvides tuleb raskeveokimaksu kohaldada üldisel viisil ja seetõttu tuleks kasutusele võtta ühtne kilomeetrite arvu vähendamise kord, mida kasutatakse Liechtensteinis makstava teemaksu arvutamisel,ON VASTU VÕTNUD JÄRGMISE OTSUSE:Artikkel 1Lepingu XIII lisa punkti 18a tekst asendatakse järgmiselt:"399 L 0062: Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv 1999/62/EÜ raskete kaubaveokite maksustamise kohta teatavate infrastruktuuride kasutamise eest, 17. juuni 1999 (EÜT L 187, 20.7.1999, lk 42).Käesolevas lepingus loetakse selle direktiivi sätteid järgmises kohanduses:a) Artikli 3 lõikele 1 lisatakse:"— Iceland: þungaskattur,— Liechtenstein: Motorfahrzeugsteuer,— Norway: Vektårsavgift."b) Artikli 8 lõikes 1 viidatud olukorra puhul loetakse EFTA riike silmas pidades "komisjoni" asemel "EFTA järelevalveamet".c) EFTA riike silmas pidades asendatakse artikkel 6 järgmisega:"EFTA riigid rakendavad jätkuvalt oma kehtivaid sätteid, millele on viidatud artikli 3 lõikes 1, et vältida konkurentsimoonutusi, st et ükski direktiivi I lisas osutatud sõidukikategooria või — alakategooria määr ei ole väiksem kui lisas sätestatud miinimummäär.Ilma et see piiraks nõukogu 7. detsembri 1992. aasta direktiivi 92/106/EMÜ artikli 6 [5] kohaldamist, ei tohi EFTA riigid lubada artiklis 3 osutatud maksudega seoses maksuvabastusi või vähendatud maksumäärasid, mis moonutaksid konkurentsi, st mille tagajärjel sissenõutav maks oleks väiksem kui eelmises lõikes osutatud miinimummäär."d) Artikli 7 lõike 2 punkti a lõppu lisatakse järgmine lõik:"Norra puhul võidakse kehtestada ka tee- ja kasutusmaksusid teatud kõrvalteede suhtes. Liechtensteini puhul võidakse kehtestada tee- ja kasutusmaksusid kõrgeima kategooria teede suhtes vastavalt lõike 9 teise ja kolmanda lõigu sätetele."e) Artikli 7 lõike 2 punktile b lisatakse:"EFTA riikide puhul peetakse ülalmainitud konsultatsioone EFTA järelevalveametiga."f) Artikli 7 lõike 9 lõppu lisatakse:"Alates 1. jaanuarist 2001 võib Liechtenstein kehtestada teemaksu (raskeveokimaksu) Šveitsiga samal tasemel sama sõidukikategooria suhtes ja sama süsteemi kohaselt nagu Šveitsis. Alates käesoleva otsuse jõustumisest põhineb makstava teemaksu arvutamisel arvestatavate kilomeetrite arv läbitud kilomeetrite koguarvul, millest on maha arvatud kolm kilomeetrit iga piiriületuse kohta Liechtensteini/Austria piiril Schaanwaldis/Tisises.Kui Schaanwaldi/Tisise piiripunktis suureneb liiklus ebaproportsionaalselt võrreldes teiste piirkonna piiripunktidega ümbersõidust põhjustatud liikluse suurenemise tõttu, võib Liechtenstein pärast Ühiskomiteega konsulteerimist ja selle heakskiidu saamist vähendada kolme kilomeetri mahaarvamist Schaanwaldi/Tisise piiril.""Artikkel 2Direktiivi 1999/62/EÜ islandi- ja norrakeelne tekst, mis avaldatakse Euroopa Ühenduste Teataja EMP lisas, on autentne.Artikkel 3Käesolev otsus jõustub 2. veebruaril 2002 tingimusel, et kõik lepingu artikli 103 lõikes 1 ettenähtud teated on EMP Ühiskomiteele esitatud. [6]Artikkel 4Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Ühenduste Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.Brüssel, 1. veebruar 2002EMP Ühiskomitee nimeleesistujaP. Westerlund[1] EÜT L 65, 7.3.2002, lk 36.[2] EÜT L 160, 28.6.1994, lk 1.[3] EÜT L 279, 12.11.1993, lk 32.[4] EÜT L 187, 20.7.1999, lk 42.[5] EÜT L 368, 17.12.1992, lk 38.[6] Põhiseadusest tulenevad nõuded puuduvad.--------------------------------------------------


type: caselaw

text:
 4.2.2012
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 C 32/25
 Απόφαση του Γενικού Δικαστηρίου της 14ης Δεκεμβρίου 2011 — Häfele κατά ΓΕΕΑ (Vorfront)
 (Υπόθεση T-531/10) (1)
 (Κοινοτικό σήμα - Αίτηση καταχωρίσεως του λεκτικού κοινοτικού σήματος Vorfront - Απόλυτος λόγος απαραδέκτου - Περιγραφικός χαρακτήρας - Άρθρο 7, παράγραφος 1, στοιχείο γ', του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) 207/2009)
 2012/C 32/50
 Γλώσσα διαδικασίας: η γερμανική
 Διάδικοι
 Προσφεύγουσα: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Γερμανία) (εκπρόσωποι: M. Eck και J. Dönch, δικηγόροι)
 Καθού: Γραφείο Εναρμονίσεως στο πλαίσιο της Εσωτερικής Αγοράς (εμπορικά σήματα, σχέδια και υποδείγματα) (εκπρόσωποι: αρχικώς S. Schäffner, στη συνέχεια R. Manea, και τελικώς A. Pohlmann)
 Αντικείμενο
 Προσφυγή κατά της αποφάσεως του πρώτου τμήματος προσφυγών του ΓΕΕΑ της 14ης Σεπτεμβρίου 2010 (υπόθεση R 570/2010-1), σχετικά με αίτηση καταχωρίσεως του λεκτικού σημείου Vorfront ως κοινοτικού σήματος.
 Διατακτικό
 Το Γενικό Δικαστήριο αποφασίζει:
 1)
 Απορρίπτει την προσφυγή.
 2)
 Καταδικάζει τη Häfele GmbH & Co. KG στα δικαστικά έξοδα.
 (1) ΕΕ C 30 της 29.1.2011.


text:
 31.7.2017
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 249/10
 Sentenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja (It-Tmien Awla) tat-8 ta’ Ġunju 2017 – Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG vs Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea
 (Kawża C-296/16 P) (1)
 ((Appell - Protezzjoni tal-konsumaturi - Regolament (KE) Nru 1924/2006 - Indikazzjonijiet dwar is-saħħa relatati mal-prodotti tal-ikel, minbarra dawk li jirreferu għat-tnaqqis tar-riskju ta’ mard kif ukoll għall-iżvilupp u għas-saħħa tat-tfal - Ċaħda tat-talba għall-inklużjoni ta’ ċertu indikazzjonijiet minkejja l-opinjoni pożittiva tal-Awtorità Ewropea għas-Sigurtà tal-Ikel (EFSA)))
 (2017/C 249/14)
 Lingwa tal-kawża: il-Ġermaniż
 Partijiet
 Appellanti: Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG (rappreżentanti: M. Hagenmeyer u T. Teufer, avukati)
 Parti oħra fil-proċedura: Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea (rappreżentanti: S. Grünheid u K. Herbout-Borczak, aġenti)
 Dispożittiv
 1)
 L-appell huwa miċħud.
 2)
 Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG hija kkundannata għall-ispejjeż.
 (1) ĠU C 287, 8.8.2016.


text:
On the 13th day of May, 1920, the appellants, Charles E. Roberts Co., packers of fruits and vegetables in the City of Baltimore, entered into a contract with the appellees, Link Brothers, growers of tomatoes, by which the former agreed to purchase of the latter tomatoes to be grown by them in said year. The contract was as follows:
 "This agreement made this 13th day of May, in the year 1920, between Link Bros., parties of the first part, and C.E. Roberts Co., parties of the second part:
 "Witnesseth that in consideration of $1.00 paid to each of said parties to the other, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged:
 "Parties of the first part agree to grow on good manured land 15 acres of tomatoes during the season of 1920, and agree to sell and deliver all firm, red ripe tomatoes of good size for canning purposes, to the parties of the second part, at their factory located Fell Street.
 "Parties of the first part further agree not to grow any tomatoes for any other parties than the said parties of the second part during the season. *Page 678
 "Parties of the second part agree to buy all firm, red ripe tomatoes of good size for canning purposes from said parties of the first part, at $1.10 per bushel during the season of 1920, and settlement to be made through S.F. Cromwell, Jr., commission merchants, of Baltimore, Md., who for the purposes of this contract are authorized agents for the same."
 Pursuant to the above agreement, the appellees, in the spring of 1920, planted and cultivated fifteen acres in tomatoes and on the 10th day of August, 1920, they sent to the appellants, at their place of business on Fell Street, one truck load of tomatoes. The chauffeur, by whom the tomatoes were sent, found the packing house of C.E. Roberts Co. closed. C.E. Roberts, a member of the firm, and the manager of that house, had not yet returned from the south, where he at that time was engaged in canning peaches.
 The packing house adjoining that of the appellants was operated by The Fairbanks Company, of which O.P. Roberts, a member of the appellants' firm, was a member. The two houses are separated only by a narrow alley, which is used in common by the two firms. The Fairbanks Company's house was open at the time and, when the chauffeur drove in with the tomatoes, he was met by O.P. Roberts, who in the absence of C.E. Roberts, was acting for the firm of C.E. Roberts Co. He examined the tomatoes and said that they were not up to the contract. He then called Cromwell, the commission merchant, over the 'phone, and said to him that he would take the tomatoes at the market price, and would continue to take them at that price until the return of C.E. Roberts, but that he would not take them at the contract price, and $.70 per bushel was the price agreed upon for those delivered on that occasion. In said conversation Cromwell asked O.P. Roberts to notify him when the C.E. Roberts Company's house would be open and, some days thereafter, he received a letter from C.E. Roberts informing him that the house was open. Upon the receipt of this letter, Cromwell *Page 679
 wrote the appellees telling them that the house was open, and on the morning of the 18th day of August, 1920, the second load of tomatoes was carried by Link Brothers to the appellants. Other loads of tomatoes, that were gathered between the 10th and 18th of August, were sold upon the market. This was done because O.P. Roberts had said he would not pay contract price therefor, but would receive them and pay only market price for them, until the return of C.E. Roberts. On the morning of the 18th of August, the chauffeur, John Brown, was accompanied by Christian G. Link, one of the appellees, and when they reached the packing house of the appellants they were met by both C.E. and O.P. Roberts, who looked at the tomatoes in the truck, and C.E. Roberts said, as stated by Link, that the tomatoes did not come up to the contract. Link insisted that they did, and Roberts suggested that they take one of the baskets in the house and inspect it, which was done. The tomatoes were then culled by C.E. Roberts, he throwing out such of them as he thought did not come up to the standard mentioned in the contract, and, when asked by Link if he "meant to turn down tomatoes of that kind," said, "I do not intend to take any tomatoes of that quality whatever," and Link said, "Well, you do not want any tomatoes then." The tomatoes were then taken to Cromwell and were sold upon the market.
 On the afternoon of the 18th, the third load was carried to the appellants. This time Link was accompanied by Joseph Smith, Cromwell's clerk, as well as by his chauffeur. On this occasion they were met by O.P. Roberts and Dunn, the son-in-law of C.E. Roberts, one who was known in previous years to weigh and inspect tomatoes for C.E. Roberts Co., and to reject those that he thought should not be accepted. Four baskets were taken from the truck and dumped into baskets of the appellants, and examined by both O.P. Roberts and Dunn. At the conclusion of the inspection Link said he was told by Dunn that they would unload the tomatoes at market price, but not at contract price, and he replied, "No, you will *Page 680
 take those tomatoes at contract price, or not at all," and that he then said to Dunn, "Do you intend in the future to turn all tomatoes down of this grade," and Dunn said "Yes." Link then said, "Well, that settles it, that means to say you do not want these tomatoes on contract." Link, Brown, the chauffeur, Smith, Cromwell's clerk, and Sierwerski, a farmer, who were present and saw and heard what was done and said on the occasion referred to, corroborated Link in what he stated was there done and said at that time.
 Dunn's version of what occurred on the afternoon of the 18th, when the second load of that day was carried to the appellants, differs from that of Link and those with him at the time. Dunn says that when the truck pulled in, he took off three baskets of the tomatoes and started to cull them, when he was asked by Link what he was going to do, and he replied that "he wanted to see what he was going to get," and Link said, "Well, what do you mean, what you are going to get, are you going to take them?" By that time he had culled one basket and he said to Link, "I do not think you have come up to the contract," and Link said, "Well, I better put them on the wagon and I will take them back," and he (Dunn) said, "You better see Mr. Roberts," to which Link made no reply, but put the tomatoes on the truck and left.
 The balance of the tomatoes grown by Link Brothers on the fifteen acres was thereafter, through Cromwell, sold upon the market, and each and every load sold brought the best price prevailing at the time of its sale.
 The suit in this case was brought by the appellees to recover the loss sustained by them resulting from the alleged breach of the contract by the appellants, in refusing to take and pay for at the contract price the tomatoes grown by the appellees. The verdict and judgment being for the plaintiffs, the defendants have appealed. Twelve exceptions were taken, eleven to the rulings upon evidence and one to the ruling on the prayers.
 The first exception was to the court's refusal to strike out the testimony of Christian Link, in respect to the conversation *Page 681
 he had with Dunn, on the afternoon of the 18th day of August, with reference to the future delivery of tomatoes.
 It is contended by the appellants that it was not shown that Dunn had the authority to speak for the appellants in saying that tomatoes of the grade tendered would not be received under the contract, and consequently the appellees were not legally justified in their subsequent conduct in not carrying their tomatoes to the appellants. In this contention we cannot agree with the appellants. It was shown that Dunn had been employed for years prior thereto by the appellants and that his duty was to weigh and inspect the tomatoes as they were brought to the factory and to reject those that he thought should be rejected. It was also shown that on the occasion referred to, the afternoon of August 18th, he, in the presence of O.P. Roberts, one of the appellants, assumed to inspect the tomatoes offered by the appellees for the sole purpose of ascertaining whether they were up to the standard fixed by the contract, and after he had examined them, he said they were not up to that standard. It was then that Link, who had twice before carried tomatoes to the appellants, which were on both occasions rejected, the first time by O.P. Roberts, and the second time by C.E. Roberts, asked if tomatoes of the grade then tendered would in the future be rejected, and he was answered "Yes." Smith thought the answer came from Roberts himself, though the other witnesses said it was Dunn who answered. But be that as it may, Roberts participated in the inspection of the tomatoes by Dunn, and though it is not definitely shown that he was present at the time the question was asked and answered, we think it may be reasonably inferred from all the evidence that he was, but whether he was present at that time or not, the evidence, we think, is sufficient to show that Dunn had the authority to answer the question and thereby bind the appellants, his employers. In any event Link had the right to infer from the conduct of Dunn and other facts and circumstances in the case, that were known to the appellants, that he had such authority. The *Page 682
 question presented in the second, fourth, eighth and eleventh exceptions is the same as that presented in the first, and we find no error in the court's ruling upon the third exception, which relates to the qualification of an expert witness.
 As to the fifth exception there does not appear to have been any ruling of the court to which an exception could have been taken. And the same may be said of the sixth exception.
 In the seventh exception, Cromwell, a witness for the plaintiff, while upon cross-examination, was asked his views as to the legal effect of a rejection of a load of tomatoes when offered. An objection to this question was, we think, properly sustained and there was no error in the court's ruling upon the ninth exception.
 This brings us to the rulings upon the prayers. The plaintiff offered but one prayer, which we think correctly states the measure of damages.
 The defendants offered seventeen prayers, five of which were granted and the others were rejected.
 The main question presented by this appeal is whether the failure of the appellants to accept and pay contract price for the tomatoes tendered was a breach of the contract and, if so, was it such a breach as to justify the appellees in their failure to tender more of the tomatoes to the appellant and to treat the contract at an end, and to sue for and recover any loss sustained by them because of such breach.
 The tomatoes in this case were to be delivered to the appellants as they ripened, and the appellees were to be paid therefor $1.10 per bushel, "settlement to be made through S.F. Cromwell." The contract is silent as to when the settlements were to be made, but it appears in the record that, by the custom of the trade in such cases, settlements are made at least once every month and more often if desired by the grower. That in such cases the grower is given a memorandum by the packer containing the amount of such load delivered and the amount owing therefor, and this the grower may at once carry to the commission merchant and obtain the *Page 683
 money thereon, or he may hold the same and at the end of the month he will be paid.
 Section 66 of article 83 of the Code, provides:
 "Where there is a contract to sell goods to be delivered by stated installments, which are to be separately paid for, and the seller makes defective deliveries in respect of one or more installments, or the buyer neglects or refuses to take delivery of or pay for one or more installments, it depends in each case on the terms of the contract and the circumstances of the case whether the breach of contract is so material as to justify the injured party in refusing to proceed further and suing for damages for breach of the entire contract, or whether the breach is severable, giving rise to a claim for compensation, but not to a right to treat the whole contract as broken."
 It is claimed by both the appellants and the appellees that the above section of the Code applies to the case before us. If so, under the terms of the contract and the circumstances of the case, we think the refusal of the buyer to take delivery of the tomatoes tendered, if the quality of the tomatoes was in compliance with the terms of the contract, was a breach of the contract "so material as to justify" the appellees "in refusing to proceed further (after such breach), and suing for damages for the breach of the entire contract."
 But the law applicable to a case of this character seems to be well settled in this State.
 In the case of Hazel Hill Canning Co. v. Roberts Bros.,129 Md. 306, CHIEF JUDGE BOYD, speaking for the Court, said:
 "In Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Oppenheim, 114 Md. 368, this Court, through JUDGE PEARCE, said: `In Norrington v. Wright,115 U.S. 188, recognized as a leading case in this country, the Supreme Court held that in a contract for the sale and purchase of 5,000 tons of iron rails, with subsidiary provision for shipments in different months, and for payment upon each delivery, the seller's failure to ship the required quantity the first month gives the buyer the same right to *Page 684
 rescind the whole contract that he would have had if it had been agreed all the goods should have been delivered at once, and that case has been approved and followed in Salmon v. Boykin,66 Md. 550, and in later cases in this Court.'
 "It was said that the principle involved had been recognized and applied in McGrath v. Gregner, 77 Md. 331; BaltimoreCity v. Schaub, 96 Md. 534, and Webster v. Moore,108 Md. 595. JUDGE PEARCE also said: `It is quite clear upon principle that there can be no valid distinction between the exercise of the right of rescission by the vendor for the failure of the vendee to pay for an installment delivered, and the exercise of the same right by the vendee upon failure of the vendor to deliver an installment of goods conforming to the article described in the contract.'
 "Again he said: `This doctrine is applicable to failure in delivery of, or payment for, any installment under the contract, whether the first, or any later one, the rights of the parties being the same as to any unperformed part of the contract, as if that part has been the whole contract. Cleveland Rolling Mills
 v. Rhodes, 121 U.S. 264; Pakas v. Hollingshead, 184 N.Y. 111; 3 L.R.A. N.S. 1042.'"
 If the rejected tomatoes were up to the standard fixed by the contract there was not only a breach of the contract, but it was one that certainly justified the appellees in treating the contract as ended and in going no further with its fulfilment, if the statements of the appellees' witnesses as to what was said and done, at the time of the rejection of the tomatoes, were found to be true.
 The question as to the binding effect of Dunn's statement to Link upon the appellants is presented by the defendants' ninth prayer. This question is fully covered by the discussion of the first exception.
 The twelfth prayer of the defendants attempts to give the statement made by Dunn to Link, as stated by the latter, at the time of the tender of the load of tomatoes on the afternoon of August 18, and though it incorrectly states it, the *Page 685
 prayer asks that the jury be told that if they find that the statement, under the circumstances, was intended to mean, and was or should have been understood by the plaintiffs to mean, that the defendants would not accept delivery of tomatoes which did not comply or materially comply with the contract, that then the plaintiffs were not justified in refusing to make further delivery and their verdict must be for the defendants. Dunn was asked, "Do you intend in the future to turn all tomatoes down ofthis grade," and he answered "yes." Both the question and answer had special reference to the tomatoes then before them, and the plain inquiry was, did he intend in the future to turn down all tomatoes of that grade. The inquiry was not whether he would turn down tomatoes that did not come up to the contract, but whether he would in the future turn down tomatoes, like those before him — tomatoes of that grade. Moreover, the prayer rests the right of the appellees to rescind the contract solely upon what was said by Dunn, without regard to, or his connection with, others.
 There are a number of other rejected prayers, all of which we have carefully examined, but have been unable to find any reversible error in the refusal of any of them.
 The judgment of the court below will therefore be affirmed.
 Judgment affirmed, with costs. *Page 686


text:
 12.8.2021
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 L 290/1
 DEĊIŻJONI Nru 1/2021 TAL-KUMITAT TAL-AMBAXXATURI AKP-UE
 tad-29 ta’ Ġunju 2021
 biex tiġi emendata d-Deċiżjoni Nru 3/2016 tal-Kumitat tal-Ambaxxaturi AKP-UE dwar iċ-Ċentru għall-Iżvilupp tal-Intrapriżi [2021/1330]
 IL-KUMITAT TAL-AMBAXXATURI AKP-UE,
 Wara li kkunsidra l-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija bejn il-membri tal-Grupp tal-Istati Afrikani, tal-Karibew u tal-Paċifiku, minn naħa waħda, u l-Komunità Ewropea u l-Istati Membri tagħha, min-naħa l-oħra, iffirmat f’Cotonou fit-23 ta’ Ġunju 2000 (1),
 Billi:
 (1)
 L-Artikolu 15(4) tal-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija bejn il-membri tal-Grupp ta’ Stati Afrikani, tal-Karibew u tal-Paċifiku, minn naħa waħda, u l-Komunità Ewropea u l-Istati Membri tagħha, min-naħa l-oħra, iffirmat f’Cotonou fit-23 ta’ Ġunju 2000 (2) (il-“Ftehim ta’ Sħubija AKP-UE”) jiddikjara li l-Kunsill tal-Ministri AKP-UE jista’ jiddelega setgħat lill-Kumitat tal-Ambaxxaturi AKP-UE.
 (2)
 Fid-39 sessjoni tiegħu li saret fid-19 u l-20 ta’ Ġunju 2014 f’Nairobi, il-Kunsill tal-Ministri AKP-UE qabel, f’Dikjarazzjoni Konġunta, li jipproċedi bl-għeluq ordnat taċ-Ċentru għall-Iżvilupp tal-Intrapriżi (ĊŻI). Għal dak il-għan, il-Kunsill tal-Ministri AKP-UE iddeċieda li jagħti delega ta’ setgħat lill-Kumitat tal-Ambaxxaturi AKP-UE biex imexxi l-kwistjoni ’l quddiem bil-ħsieb li jadotta d-deċiżjonijiet neċessarji.
 (3)
 Fit-12 ta’ Lulju 2016, il-Kumitat tal-Ambaxxaturi AKP-UE adotta d-Deċiżjoni Nru 3/2016 (3) li temenda l-Anness III għall-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija AKP-UE, sabiex isir it-tibdil neċessarju, jiġi stabbilit il-qafas legali l-ġdid taċ-ĊŻI mill-1 ta’ Jannar 2017, u tinżamm il-personalità ġuridika taċ-ĊŻI, biss għall-finijiet tal-likwidazzjoni tiegħu, minn dik id-data.
 (4)
 Skont l-Artikolu 2(1) tad-Deċiżjoni Nru 3/2016, Kuratur għandu jiżgura l-implimentazzjoni tal-fażi passiva, li matula ċ-ĊŻI għandu jeżisti biss għall-finijiet tal-likwidazzjoni tiegħu, mill-1 ta’ Jannar 2017 għal perijodu ta’ 4 snin jew sakemm iċ-ĊŻI jkun salda l-obbligazzjonijiet kollha tiegħu u rrealizza l-assi kollha tiegħu, skont liema jseħħ l-ewwel.
 (5)
 Sal-31 ta’ Diċembru 2020, iċ-ĊŻI kien għadu ma saldax l-obbligazzjonijiet kollha tiegħu u ma rrealizzax l-assi kollha tiegħu. Għalhekk huwa neċessarju li tiġi emendata d-Deċiżjoni Nru 3/2016 biex tiġi żgurata l-implimentazzjoni xierqa tal-fażi passiva taħt il-ġestjoni tal-Kuratur u biex dik il-fażi tingħalaq. Sabiex tiġi żgurata l-kontinwità tal-fażi passiva, l-emendar tad-Deċiżjoni Nru 3/2016 jenħtieġ li tapplika mill-1 ta’ Jannar 2021,
 ADOTTA DIN ID-DEĊIŻJONI:
 Artikolu 1
 L-Artikolu 2(1) tad-Deċiżjoni Nru 3/2016 tal-Kumitat tal-Ambaxxaturi AKP-UE għandu jiġi sostitwit b’dan li ġej:
 “1. Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea għandha tikkuntratta Kuratur biex jiżgura l-implimentazzjoni tal-fażi passiva mill-1 ta’ Jannar 2017 sakemm iċ-ĊŻI ikun salda l-obbligazzjonijiet kollha tiegħu u rrealizza l-assi kollha tiegħu.”.
 Artikolu 2
 L-Artikolu 1 għandu japplika mill-1 ta’ Jannar 2021.
 Artikolu 3
 Din id-Deċiżjoni għandha tidħol fis-seħħ fid-data tal-adozzjoni tagħha.
 Magħmul fi Brussell, id-29 ta’ Ġunju 2021.
 Għall-Kunsill tal-Ministri AKP-UE
 Mill-Kumitat tal-Ambaxxaturi AKP-UE
 Il-President
 Moses Kouni MOSE
 (1) ĠU L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.
 (2) Il-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija bejn il-Membri tal-Grupp ta’ Stati Afrikani, tal-Karibew u tal-Paċifiku, minn naħa waħda, u l-Komunità Ewropea u l-Istati Membri tagħha, min-naħa l-oħra, iffirmat f’Cotonou fit-23 ta’ Ġunju 2000 (ĠU L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3).
 (3) Id-Deċiżjoni Nru 3/2016 tal-Kumitat tal-Ambaxxaturi AKP-UE tat-12 ta’ Lulju 2016 rigward ir-reviżjoni tal-Anness III tal-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija AKP-UE [2016/1163] (ĠU L 192, 16.7.2016 p. 77).


type: other

text:
Serwis Doradztwa Podatkowego - nr 404 - 15 maja 2017 r. - Strona 11 z 26 - ISP Modzelewski
 10. Opodatkowanie podatkiem dochodowym od osób fizycznych dyskonta w walucie obcej
 W sporze dotyczącym zasad przeliczania dyskonta otrzymanego przez podatnika w walucie obcej, NSA wyrokiem z dnia 14 lutego 2014 r. (II FSK 78/15) utrzymał niekorzystny dla podatnika wyrok WSA w Warszawie (III SA/Wa 545/14) i uznał, że w świetle art. 5a pkt 12 oraz art. 17 ust. 1 pkt 3 ustawy z dnia 26 lipca 1991 r. o podatku dochodowym od osób fizycznych (dalej określanej jako: „ustawa”) „przy sprzedaży przez emitenta papierów wartościowych z dyskontem nie jest możliwe odrębne przeliczanie kosztów uzyskania przychodów oraz przychodu podatkowego po ich wykupie (odkupie). Zawsze przychodem z kapitałów pieniężnych jest dyskonto”.
 Sądy obu instancji uznały także, że „wykup lub odkup papierów wartościowych sprzedawanych z dyskontem nie ma wpływu na sposób przeliczania jego wysokości z waluty obcej na walutę krajową, dlatego zastosowanie znajdzie art. 11a ustawy [...]”. NSA utrzymał przy tym wyrok WSA w Warszawie, przyznający rację Dyrektorowi Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie, którego decyzję w przedmiocie odmowy stwierdzenia nadpłaty w zryczałtowanym podatku dochodowym od osób fizycznych zaskarżył podatnik. Podatnik ten wystąpił o zwrot nadpłaty w podatku pobranym przez bank z tytułu dyskonta od przedterminowo wykupionych obligacji nominowanych w USD, nabytych przez bank w imieniu i na rzecz podatnika na podstawie umowy agencyjnej. Zdaniem podatnika bank błędnie przeliczył dyskonto po obliczeniu różnicy pomiędzy wartością nominalną uzyskaną z odkupu obligacji przez emitenta w USD a ceną zakupu obligacji w USD, a następnie dyskonto w USD przeliczył na PLN przy zastosowaniu kursu średniego USD ogłoszonego przez NBP z ostatniego dnia roboczego poprzedzającego dzień uzyskania przychodu. W ocenie podatnika, bank powinien odrębnie przeliczyć na PLN kwoty uzyskane z odkupu i ceny zakupu według kursu średniego waluty obcej ogłaszanego przez NBP z ostatniego dnia roboczego poprzedzającego dzień postawienia do dyspozycji wskazanej kwoty, a następnie obliczyć podstawę opodatkowania dyskonta od obligacji.
 Naczelnik Urzędu Skarbowego odmówił podatnikowi stwierdzenia nadpłaty bowiem uznał, że skoro podatnik uzyskał przysporzenie majątkowe w walucie obcej, bank postąpił zgodnie z art. 11a ust. 1 i art. 30a ust. 1 pkt 2 ustawy.
 Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej decyzją z 13 grudnia 2013 r. utrzymał w mocy decyzję organu pierwszej instancji. Organ odwoławczy uznał, że przy dyskoncie nie jest możliwe zastosowanie regulacji dotyczących odrębnego przeliczania na potrzeby obliczenia dochodu i kosztu podatkowego wyrażonego w walucie obcej. W ocenie DIS, przychodem z dyskonta stanowiącym podstawę pobrania przez płatnika 19% zryczałtowanego podatku dochodowego, na mocy art. 5a pkt 12 oraz art. 17 ust. 1 pkt 3 ustawy, jest różnica między kwotą uzyskaną z wykupu papieru wartościowego przez emitenta a ceną zakupu tegoż papieru. Bank, ustalając wartość przychodu, a zarazem podstawę opodatkowania, zobowiązany był obliczyć w pierwszej kolejności, na mocy art. 5a pkt 12 ustawy dyskonto, jako różnicę między kwotą uzyskaną z wykupu papieru wartościowego przez emitenta w walucie obcej, a ceną zakupu papieru wartościowego w walucie obcej i dopiero tak ustalone dyskonto przeliczyć na złote, według kursu średniego walut obcych, ogłaszanego przez NBP z ostatniego dnia roboczego poprzedzającego dzień uzyskania przychodu.
 WSA w wyroku z dnia 12 września 2014 r. (III SA/Wa 545/14) wydanym na skutek skargi złożonej przez podatnika od powyższej decyzji stwierdził, że jedyną wartością, która może być przeliczona z waluty obcej na walutę polską jest otrzymany przychód tj. dyskonto od papierów wartościowych. W ocenie Sądu ustawodawca przewidział, że jeśli podatnik otrzyma przychód w walucie obcej, także dyskonto, to przychód ten, zgodnie z treścią art. 11a ust. 1 ustawy, zostanie przeliczony na PLN według kursu średniego walut obcych ogłaszanego przez NBP z ostatniego dnia roboczego poprzedzającego dzień uzyskania przychodu. Zryczałtowanym podatkiem dochodowym od osób fizycznych w wysokości 19% opodatkowywane jest więc otrzymane dyskonto od papierów wartościowych tj. przychód z kapitałów pieniężnych. Sąd wyjaśnił ponadto, że podatkowe różnice kursowe w sensie prawnym, stosownie do art. 24c ustawy dotyczą wyłącznie przychodów i kosztów uzyskania przychodów. Podatnicy uzyskujący więc przychody z pozostałych źródeł przychodów, w tym z dyskonta od papierów wartościowych, nie rozpoznają różnic kursowych.
 NSA, oddalając skargę kasacyjną podatnika od wzmiankowanego wyroku uznał, iż Sąd pierwszej instancji trafnie zaakceptował stanowisko organów podatkowych, że w świetle art. 5a pkt 12 oraz art. 17 ust 1 pkt 3 ustawy przy sprzedaży przez emitenta papierów wartościowych z dyskontem nie jest możliwe odrębne przeliczanie kosztów uzyskania przychodów oraz przychodu podatkowego po ich wykupie (odkupie). Zawsze przychodem z kapitałów pieniężnych jest dyskonto. Wykup lub odkup papierów wartościowych sprzedawanych z dyskontem nie ma więc wpływu na sposób przeliczania jego wysokości z waluty obcej na walutę krajową. Dlatego zastosowanie znajdzie art. 11a ust 1 ustawy i w konsekwencji jej art. 30a ust 1 pkt 2 nakazujący pobrać podatek od tego rodzaju przychodów z kapitałów pieniężnych.


text:
16.10.1999 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning C 299/29
 RÄTTELSER
 Rättelse till mål T-155/99: Talan mot Europeiska gemenskapernas kommission väckt den 25 juni 1999 av Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH
 (1999/C 299/44)
 (Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning C 281 av den 2 oktober 1999)
 På sidan 17 och i innehållsförtekningen, skall det
 i stället för: ”Mål C-155/99”
 vara: ”Mål T-155/99”.
 Rättelse till mål T-159/99: Talan mot revisionsrätten väckt den 7 juli 1999 av Bjarne Christiansen
 (1999/C 299/45)
 (Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning C 281 av den 2 oktober 1999)
 På sidan 19 och i innehållsförtekningen, skall det
 i stället för: ”Mål C-159/99”
 vara: ”Mål T-159/99”.


type: legislation

text:
 Viktigt rättsligt meddelande
 |
 52006PC0753(01)
 Förslag till Rådets beslut om undertecknande av ett protokoll mellan Europeiska gemenskapen, Schweiz och Liechtenstein till avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i en medlemsstat eller i Schweiz eller Liechtenstein /* KOM/2006/0753 slutlig */
 [pic] | EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION |Bryssel den 4.12.2006KOM(2006) 753 slutlig2006/0257 (CNS)Förslag tillRÅDETS BESLUTom undertecknande av ett protokoll mellan Europeiska gemenskapen, Schweiz och Liechtenstein till avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i en medlemsstat eller i Schweiz eller LiechtensteinFörslag tillRÅDETS BESLUTom ingående av ett protokoll mellan Europeiska gemenskapen, Schweiz och Liechtenstein till avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i en medlemsstat eller i Schweiz eller Liechtenstein(framlagda av kommissionen)MOTIVERINGI. INLEDNINGDen 26 oktober 2004 undertecknade Europeiska gemenskapen ett avtal med Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i en medlemsstat eller i Schweiz (”Dublin/Eurodacavtalet med Schweiz”).I artikel 15 i avtalet föreskrivs en möjlighet för Liechtenstein att ansluta sig till avtalet. Förhandlingarna om Liechtensteins anslutning har avslutats, och ett protokoll om Liechtensteins anslutning till Dublin-/Eurodacavtalet med Schweiz har paraferats.I enlighet med artiklarna 1 och 2 i protokollet om Danmarks ställning som är fogat till fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen deltar Danmark inte i förordning (EG) nr 343/2003 om kriterier och mekanismer för att avgöra vilken medlemsstat som har ansvaret för att pröva en asylansökan som en medborgare i tredje land har gett in i någon medlemsstat (Dublin II-förordningen) och förordning (EG) nr 2725/2000 om inrättande av Eurodac för jämförelse av fingeravtryck för en effektiv tillämpning av Dublinkonventionen (Eurodac-förordningen)[1].I Dublin-/Eurodacavtalet med Schweiz anges att Danmark kan begära att få delta. I sådant fall föreskriver avtalet att de avtalsslutande parterna, med Danmarks samtycke, skall fastställa villkoren för Danmarks deltagande i ett protokoll till avtalet.Genom en skrivelse av den 8 november 2004 begärde Danmark att få delta i Dublin-/Eurodacavtalet med Schweiz. Eftersom Leichtenstein nu kommer att ansluta sig till detta avtal, bör Danmarks deltagande regleras i förhållande till såväl Schweiz som Liechtenstein.Sedan rådet givit kommissionen bemyndigande den 27 februari 2006, inleddes förhandlingar med Liechtenstein och Schweiz. Förhandlingarna slutfördes den 21 juni 2006 och utkastet till protokoll om Danmarks deltagande i Dublin-/Eurodacavtalet med Schweiz och Liechtenstein paraferades[2].Förhandlingarna har avslutats och utkastet till protokoll paraferats, så att Liechtenstein blir avtalsslutande part efter ingåendet av protokollet om dess anslutning till Dublin-/Eurodacavtalet med Schweiz. Det bör därför erinras om att Liechtenstein kan bli avtalsslutande part till protokollet om Danmarks deltagande först när landet har ratificerat protokollet om anslutning till Dublin-/Eurodacavtalet med Schweiz[3].De bifogade förslagen utgör rättslig grund för besluten om undertecknande och ingående av protokollet. Den rättsliga grunden för detta protokoll är artikel 63.1 a, jämförd med artikel 300.2 första stycket första meningen i fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen.Rådet kommer att fatta sitt beslut med kvalificerad majoritet. Europaparlamentet kommer att höras om ingåendet av protokollet, i enlighet med artikel 300.3 i fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen.II. RESULTATEN AV FÖRHANDLINGARNAKommissionen anser att de mål som rådet fastställde i sina förhandlingsdirektiv är uppnådda och att utkastet till protokoll kan godtas av gemenskapen.Det slutliga innehållet i protokollet kan sammanfattas enligt följande:- Dublin-/Eurodacförordningarna och tillämpningsbestämmelserna till dessa blir tillämpliga på förbindelserna mellan Danmark å ena sidan och Schweiziska edsförbundet och Furstendömet Lichtenstein å andra sidan. Genom protokollet skall även eventuella framtida ändringar och nya tillämpningsbestämmelser vara tillämpliga på dessa förbindelser.- Schweiz och Liechtenstein ges rätt att lämna in inlagor och skriftliga synpunkter till EG-domstolen om en dansk domstol begär förhandsavgörande från denna om tolkningen av en bestämmelse i avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Danmark.- En förlikningsmekanism föreskrivs för det fall att oenighet skull uppstå mellan Danmark, å ena sidan, och Schweiz eller Liechtenstein, å andra sidan, om tolkningen eller tillämpningen av protokollet.- Protokollet innehåller bestämmelser om villkoren för att det skall upphöra att gälla.III. SLUTSATSERMot bakgrund av ovan nämnda överväganden förslår kommissionen att rådet- beslutar att protokollet skall undertecknas på gemenskapens vägnar och bemyndigar rådets ordförande att utse den person som skall ha behörighet att underteckna avtalet på gemenskapens vägnar, och- efter hörande av Europaparlamentet godkänner det bifogade protokollet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i en medlemsstat eller i Schweiz, inklusive protokollet om Lichtensteins anslutning.Förslag tillRÅDETS BESLUTom undertecknande av ett protokoll mellan Europeiska gemenskapen, Schweiz och Liechtenstein till avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i en medlemsstat eller i Schweiz eller LiechtensteinEUROPEISKA UNIONENS RÅD HAR BESLUTAT FÖLJANDEmed beaktande av fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, särskilt artikel 63.1 a, jämförd med artikel 300.2 första stycket första meningen,med beaktande av kommissionens förslag[4],av följande skäl:(1) Den 27 februari 2006 bemyndigades kommissionen att inleda förhandlingar med Schweiziska edsförbundet och Furstendömet Liechtenstein om ett protokoll om Danmarks deltagande i avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i en medlemsstat eller i Schweiz, inklusive protokollet om Liechtensteins anslutning. Dessa förhandlingar har nu avslutats.(2) Det protokoll som paraferades i Bryssel den 21 juni 2006 bör undertecknas, med förbehåll för att det ingås vid en senare tidpunkt.(3) I enlighet med artikel 3 i protokollet om Förenade kungarikets och Irlands ställning som är fogat till fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, kommer Förenade kungariket och Irland att delta i antagandet och tillämpningen av detta beslut.(4) I enlighet med artiklarna 1 och 2 i protokollet om Danmarks ställning som är fogat till fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, deltar Danmark inte i antagandet av detta beslut och är därför inte bundet av det och omfattas inte av dess tillämpning.HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.Enda artikelMed förbehåll för ingående vid en senare tidpunkt bemyndigas rådets ordförande att utse den person som skall ha befogenhet att på gemenskapens vägnar underteckna protokollet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen, Schweiziska edsförbundet och Furstendömet Liechtenstein till avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i en medlemsstat eller i Schweiz, inklusive protokollet om Liechtensteins anslutning.Texten till protokollet bifogas detta beslut.Utfärdat i Bryssel denPå rådets vägnarOrdförande2006/0257 (CNS)Förslag tillRÅDETS BESLUTom ingående av ett protokoll mellan Europeiska gemenskapen, Schweiz och Liechtenstein till avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i en medlemsstat eller i Schweiz eller LiechtensteinEUROPEISKA UNIONENS RÅD HAR BESLUTAT FÖLJANDEmed beaktande av fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, särskilt artikel 63.1 a, jämförd med artikel 300.2 första stycket första meningen och artikel 300.3 första stycket,med beaktande av kommissionens förslag[5],med beaktande av Europaparlamentets yttrande[6], ochav följande skäl:(1) Den 27 februari 2006 bemyndigades kommissionen att inleda förhandlingar med Schweiziska edsförbundet och Furstendömet Liechtenstein om ett protokoll om Danmarks deltagande i avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i en medlemsstat eller i Schweiz, inklusive protokollet om Liechtensteins anslutning. Dessa förhandlingar har nu avslutats.(2) I enlighet med rådets beslut .../....../EG av den [..........] undertecknades avtalet på Europeiska gemenskapens vägnar den .......... 2006, med förbehåll för att det ingås vid en senare tidpunkt.(3) Detta protokoll bör godkännas.(4) I enlighet med artikel 3 i protokollet om Förenade kungarikets och Irlands ställning som är fogat till fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, deltar Förenade kungariket och Irland i antagandet och tillämpningen av detta beslut.(5) I enlighet med artiklarna 1 och 2 i protokollet om Danmarks ställning som är fogat till fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, deltar Danmark inte i antagandet av detta beslut och är därför inte bundet av det och omfattas inte av dess tillämpning.HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.Artikel 1Protokollet till avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i en medlemsstat eller i Schweiz, inklusive protokollet om Liechtensteins anslutning, godkänns härmed på Europeiska gemenskapens vägnar.Texten till protokollet bifogas detta beslut.Artikel 2Rådets ordförande bemyndigas härmed att utse den person som skall ha befogenhet att på Europeiska gemenskapens vägnar deponera det godkännandeinstrument som föreskrivs i artikel 5 i protokollet, för att uttrycka Europeiska gemenskapens samtycke till att bli bunden av avtalet.Artikel 3Detta beslut skall offentliggöras i Europeiska unionens officiella tidning .Utfärdat i Bryssel denPå rådets vägnarOrdförandeBilagaProtokoll mellan Europeiska gemenskapen, Schweiz och Liechtenstein till avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i en medlemsstat eller i Schweiz eller LiechtensteinEuropeiska gemenskapenochSchweiziska edsförbundetochFurstendömet Liechtenstein,nedan kallade ”de avtalsslutande parterna”,SOM TAR FASTA PÅ att det i protokollet om Danmarks ställning, fogat till fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, föreskrivs att åtgärder som antas på grundval av avdelning IV i fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen inte skall vara bindande för eller tillämpliga i Danmark,SOM HÄNVISAR TILL artikel 11.1 i avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i någon av medlemsstaterna eller i Schweiz[7] (nedan kallat ”avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiz”), i vilken det anges att Konungariket Danmark kan begära att få delta i avtalet,SOM TAR HÄNSYN TILL protokollet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen, Schweiziska edsförbundet och Furstendömet Liechtenstein till avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiz om Furstendömet Liechtensteins anslutning till det avtalet, i enlighet med artikel 15 i avtalet,SOM NOTERAR att Danmark genom en skrivelse av den 8 november 2004 begärde att få ansluta sig till avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiz,SOM ERINRAR OM att enligt artikel 11.1 i avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiz, till vilket Furstendömet Liechtenstein har anslutit sig, skall villkoren för sådant deltagande för Konungariket Danmarks vidkommande fastställas av de avtalsslutande parterna, med Danmarks samtycke, i ett protokoll till det avtalet,SOM TAR HÄNSYN TILL att det var lämpligt att Danmark och gemenskapen först slöt ett avtal, för att särskilt avgöra frågor rörande EG-domstolens behörighet och samordningen mellan gemenskapen och Danmark när det gäller internationella avtal,SOM HÄNVISAR TILL avtalet mellan Danmark och gemenskapen om kriterier och mekanismer för att avgöra vilken medlemsstat som har ansvaret för att pröva en asylansökan som en medborgare i tredje land har gett in i Danmark eller någon annan medlemsstat i Europeiska unionen, och om Eurodac för jämförelse av fingeravtryck för en effektiv tillämpning av Dublinkonventionen[8],SOM TAR HÄNSYN TILL att det därför är nödvändigt att fastställa villkoren för Danmarks anslutning till avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schwiez, till vilket Furstendömet Liechtenstein har anslutit sig, särskilt vilka rättigheter och skyldigheter som gäller mellan Schweiz, Liechtenstein och Danmark,SOM NOTERAR att ikraftträdandet av detta protokoll bygger på Danmarks samtycke i enlighet med landets konstitutionella bestämmelser.HAR ENATS OM FÖLJANDE.Artikel 1Konungariket Danmark skall delta i avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om kriterier och mekanismer för att fastställa vilken stat som skall ansvara för handläggningen av en asylansökan som görs i en medlemsstat eller i Schweiz (nedan kallat avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiz), till vilket Furstendömet Liechtenstein i enlighet med artikel 15 i avtalet har anslutit sig genom ett protokoll (nedan kallat Liechtensteinprotokollet), på de villkor som anges i avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Danmark om kriterier och mekanismer för att avgöra vilken medlemsstat som har ansvaret för att pröva en asylansökan som har getts in i Danmark eller någon annan medlemsstat i Europeiska unionen, och om Eurodac för jämförelse av fingeravtryck för en effektiv tillämpning av Dublinkonventionen (nedan kallat avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Danmark) och detta protokoll.Artikel 21. Bestämmelserna i ”Dublinförordningen”[9], som fogas till detta protokoll och ingår som en del i detta tillsammans med de tillämpningsföreskrifter som antagits enligt artikel 27.2 i ”Dublin II-förordningen”, skall i enlighet med internationell rätt tillämpas på förbindelserna mellan Danmark, å ena sidan, och Schweiz och Liechtenstein, å andra sidan.2. Bestämmelserna i ”Eurodac-förordningen”[10], som fogas till detta protokoll och ingår som en del i detta tillsammans med de tillämpningsföreskrifter som antagits enligt artikel 22 eller 23.2 i ”Eurodacförordningen”, skall i enlighet med internationell rätt tillämpas på förbindelserna mellan Danmark, å ena sidan, och Schweiz och Liechtenstein, å andra sidan.3. Ändringar av de rättsakter som anges i punkterna 1 och 2 som Danmark anmäler till kommissionen i enlighet med artikel 3 i avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Danmark och som Schweiz och Liechtenstein anmäler till kommissionen i enlighet med artikel 4 i avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiz och artikel 5 i Liechtensteinprotokollet skall enligt internationell rätt tillämpas på förbindelserna mellan Danmark, å ena sidan, och Schweiz och Liechtenstein, å andra sidan.4. Tillämpningsföreskrifter som antas i enlighet med artikel 27.2 i ”Dublin II-förordningen” och sådana som antas i enlighet med artikel 22 eller 23.2 i ”Eurodac-förordningen” och som Danmark anmäler till kommissionen i enlighet med artikel 4 i avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Danmark och som Schweiz och Liechtenstein anmäler i enlighet med artikel 4 i avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiz och artikel 5 i Liechtensteinprotokollet skall enligt internationell rätt tillämpas på förbindelserna mellan Danmark, å ena sidan, och Schweiz och Liechtenstein, å andra sidan.Artikel 3Schweiz och Liechtenstein skall ha rätt att lämna in inlagor och skriftliga synpunkter till domstolen i fall då en dansk domstol begärt förhandsbesked i enlighet med artikel 6.1 i avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Danmark.Artikel 41. Om Schweiz eller Liechtenstein vill anföra klagomål beträffande Danmarks tillämpning eller tolkning av detta protokoll, får Schweiz eller Liechtenstein begära att frågan officiellt tas upp som en tvistefråga på den gemensamma kommitténs dagordning.2. Om Danmark vill anföra klagomål beträffande Schweiz eller Liechtensteins tillämpning eller tolkning av detta protokoll, skall Danmark ha rätt att begära att kommissionen officiellt tar upp frågan som en tvistefråga på den gemensamma kommitténs dagordning. Kommissionen skall föra upp ärendet i dagordningen.3. Den gemensamma kommittén skall ha 90 dagar på sig för att lösa tvisten, från och med dagen för antagandet av den dagordning på vilken tvisten tagits upp. Danmark skall därvid ha rätt att lämna synpunkter till den gemensamma kommittén.4. Om den gemensamma kommittén avgör en tvist på ett sätt som kräver genomförandeåtgärder i Danmark, skall Danmark inom den tidsfrist som avses i punkt 3 meddela parterna huruvida landet kommer att genomföra innehållet i den föreslagna lösningen. Om Danmark meddelar att landet inte kommer att genomföra innehållet i den föreslagna lösningen, skall punkt 5 tillämpas.5. Om den gemensamma kommittén inte kan lösa tvisten inom den tidsfrist som anges i punkt 3, skall en ytterligare period på 90 dagar anslås för att nå en slutlig lösning. Om den gemensamma kommittén inte har fattat något beslut vid utgången av denna period, skall detta protokoll anses ha upphört att gälla vid utgången av den sista dagen under denna period.Artikel 5Detta protokoll skall ratificeras eller godkännas av de avtalsslutande parterna. Ratificerings- eller godkännandeinstrumenten skall överlämnas till rådets generalsekreterare, som skall fungera som depositarie.Detta protokoll skall för Liechtensteins vidkommande träda i kraft den första dagen i den andra månaden efter det att Europeiska gemenskapen och Furstendömet Liechtenstein har meddelat varandra att de har avslutat de förfaranden som krävs för ändamålet.Detta protokoll skall för Schweiz vidkommande träda i kraft den första dagen i den andra månaden efter det att Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet har meddelat varandra att de har avslutat de förfaranden som krävs för ändamålet.För att detta protokoll skall träda i kraft mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Furstendömet Liechtenstein å ena sidan och Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet å andra sidan, krävs även att depositarien först har mottagit en not från Konungariket Danmark, där det anges att Konungariket Danmark godkänner bestämmelserna i detta protokoll och förklarar att det skall tillämpa de bestämmelser som avses i artikel 2 i sina ömsesidiga förbindelser med Schweiz och Liechtenstein.Artikel 6Var och en av de avtalsslutande parterna får frånträda detta protokoll genom en skriftlig förklaring till depositarien. En sådan förklaring skall få verkan sex månader efter det att den har överlämnats.Detta protokoll skall upphöra att gälla om avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Danmark upphör att gälla.Detta protokoll skall upphöra att gälla om antingen Europeiska gemenskapen eller såväl Schweiz som Liechtenstein har sagt upp det.Utfärdat i Bryssel denPå rådets vägnarOrdförandeBilaga till protokolletRÅDETS FÖRORDNING (EG) nr 343/2003 av den 18 februari 2003 om kriterier och mekanismer för att avgöra vilken medlemsstat som har ansvaret för att pröva en asylansökan som en medborgare i tredje land har gett in i någon medlemsstat (EUT L 50, 25.2.2003).RÅDETS FÖRORDNING (EG) nr 2725/2000 av den 11 december 2000 om inrättande av Eurodac för jämförelse av fingeravtryck för en effektiv tillämpning av Dublinkonventionen (EGT L 316, 15.12.2000).[1] Det bör påpekas att Europeiska gemenskapen den 21 februari 2006 ingick ett avtal med Danmark om kriterier och mekanismer för att avgöra vilken medlemsstat som har ansvaret för att pröva en asylansökan som har getts in i Danmark eller någon annan medlemsstat i Europeiska unionen, och om Eurodac för jämförelse av fingeravtryck för en effektiv tillämpning av Dublinkonventionen (nedan kallat avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Danmark).[2] Liksom utkasten till protokoll om Liechtensteins anslutning till Schengenavtalet med Schweiz och om Lichtensteins anslutning till Dublin-/Eurodacavtalet med Schweiz.[3] Av artikel 15 i Dublin-/Eurodacavtalet med Schweiz följer att Liechtensteins anslutning förutsätter ett protokoll till detta avtal.[4] EUT C ...[5] EUT C ...[6] EUT C ...[7] ASILE 54, 13049/04.[8] EUT L 66, 8.3.2006, s. 38.[9] RÅDETS FÖRORDNING (EG) NR 343/2003 av den 18 februari 2003 om kriterier och mekanismer för att avgöra vilken medlemsstat som har ansvaret för att pröva en asylansökan som en medborgare i tredje land har gett in i någon medlemsstat (EUT L 50, 25.2.2003).[10] RÅDETS FÖRORDNING (EG) NR 2725/2000 av den 11 december 2000 om inrättande av Eurodac för jämförelse av fingeravtryck för en effektiv tillämpning av Dublinkonventionen (EGT L 316, 15.12.2000).