type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 EUROPSKA KOMISIJA
 Bruxelles, 5.7.2017.
 COM(2017) 369 final
 2017/0153(NLE)
 Prijedlog
 ODLUKE VIJEĆA
 o ovlašćivanju Austrije i Rumunjske da u interesu Europske unije prihvate pristup Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora Haškoj konvenciji o građanskopravnim aspektima međunarodne otmice djece iz 1980.
 OBRAZLOŽENJE
 1.KONTEKST PRIJEDLOGA
 •Razlozi i ciljevi prijedloga
 Cilj je Haške konvencije o građanskopravnim aspektima međunarodne otmice djece od 25. listopada 1980. (dalje u tekstu „Konvencija iz 1980.”), koju je dosad ratificiralo 97 zemalja, među kojima i sve države članice EU-a, obnoviti status quo osiguravajući što hitniji povratak nezakonito odvedene ili zadržane djece s pomoću sustava suradnje središnjih tijela koja su imenovale njezine ugovorne stranke.
 Budući da je sprečavanje otmice djece važan dio politike EU-a za promicanje prava djeteta, Europska unija aktivno radi na međunarodnoj razini na poboljšanju primjene Konvencije iz 1980. i potiče treće zemlje da joj pristupe.
 Panama je 2. veljače 1994. položila instrument pristupa Konvenciji iz 1980. Konvencija je stupila na snagu u Panami 1. svibnja 1994.
 Konvencija iz 1980. između Paname i 26 država članica EU-a već je na snazi. Samo Austrija i Rumunjska još nisu prihvatile pristup Paname Konvenciji.
 Urugvaj je 18. studenoga 1999. položio instrument pristupa Konvenciji iz 1980. Konvencija je stupila na snagu u Urugvaju 1. veljače 2000.
 Konvencija iz 1980. između Urugvaja i 25 država članica EU-a već je na snazi. Samo Austrija, Danska i Rumunjska još nisu prihvatile pristup Urugvaja Konvenciji.
 Kolumbija je 13. prosinca 1995. položila instrument pristupa Konvenciji iz 1980. Konvencija je stupila na snagu u Kolumbiji 1. ožujka 1996.
 Konvencija iz 1980. između Kolumbije i 25 država članica EU-a već je na snazi. Samo Austrija, Danska i Rumunjska još nisu prihvatile pristup Kolumbije Konvenciji.
 El Salvador je 5. veljače 2001. položio instrument pristupa Konvenciji iz 1980. Konvencija je stupila na snagu u El Salvadoru 1. svibnja 2001.
 Konvencija iz 1980. između El Salvadora i 25 država članica EU-a već je na snazi. Samo Austrija, Danska i Rumunjska još nisu prihvatile pristup El Salvadora Konvenciji.
 Člankom 38. stavkom 4. Konvencije iz 1980. propisano je da se ona primjenjuje između države pristupnice i onih država ugovornica koje budu izjavile da prihvaćaju pristup.
 Isključivu nadležnost EU-a za pitanja prihvaćanja pristupa treće zemlje Konvenciji iz 1980. potvrdio je Sud Europske unije, s kojim se savjetovalo na inicijativu Komisije.
 U mišljenju 1/13 od 14. listopada 2014. Sud Europske unije izjavio je da je prihvat pristupa treće države Haškoj konvenciji o građanskopravnim aspektima međunarodne otmice djece iz 1980. u isključivoj nadležnosti Europske unije.
 Sud je ustrajao na potrebi za ujednačenošću o tom pitanju na razini EU-a kako bi se izbjegla varijabilna geometrija među državama članicama.
 Budući da je pitanje međunarodne otmice djece u isključivoj vanjskoj nadležnosti Europske unije, odluka o tome hoće li se prihvatiti pristup Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora donosi se na razini EU-a u obliku odluke Vijeća. Austrija i Rumunjska trebale bi stoga u vezi s pristupom Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora dati izjavu o prihvatu u interesu Europske unije.
 Prihvaćanjem Austrije i Rumunjske Konvencija iz 1980. postala bi primjenjiva između Urugvaja, Kolumbije, El Salvadora i svih država članica EU-a osim Danske. U slučaju Paname Konvencija iz 1980. postat će primjenjiva u svim državama članicama EU-a.
 •Dosljednost s postojećim odredbama politike u određenom području
 Kada je riječ o otmici djeteta koju je počinio roditelj, Haška konvencija iz 1980. međunarodna je inačica Uredbe Vijeća br. 2201/2003 (poznate kao Uredba Bruxelles II.a), koja je temelj pravosudne suradnje EU-a u bračnim sporovima i u stvarima povezanima s roditeljskom odgovornošću
 1
 .
 Jedan je od glavnih ciljeva Uredbe spriječiti otmice djece između država članica uspostavom postupaka za osiguravanje što hitnijeg povratka djeteta u državu članicu u kojoj ono ima uobičajeno boravište. U tu svrhu u članak 11. Uredbe Bruxelles II.a uključen je postupak propisan u Haškoj Konvenciji iz 1980. koji se nadopunjuje pojašnjavanjem nekih aspekata, posebno u pogledu saslušanja djeteta, roka za donošenje odluke nakon podnošenja zahtjeva za predaju i razloga da se dijete ne preda. Njome se uvode i odredbe kojima se uređuje postupak u slučaju oprečnih odluka o tome treba li ili ne treba predati dijete donesenih u različitim državama članicama.
 Na međunarodnoj razini Europska unija podupire pristup trećih zemalja Konvenciji iz 1980. kako bi se njezine države članice mogle osloniti na zajednički pravni okvir za rješavanje slučajeva međunarodne otmice djece.
 Od lipnja 2015. do prosinca 2016. već je doneseno deset odluka Vijeća u cilju prihvaćanja pristupa deset trećih zemalja (Maroka, Singapura, Ruske Federacije, Albanije, Andore, Sejšela, Armenije, Republike Koreje, Kazahstana i Perua) Haškoj konvenciji o građanskopravnim aspektima međunarodne otmice djece iz 1980.
 2
 •Dosljednost u odnosu na druge politike Unije
 Ovaj Prijedlog jasno je povezan s općim ciljem zaštite prava djeteta iz članka 3. Ugovora o Europskoj uniji. Sustav Haške konvencije iz 1980. osmišljen je u cilju zaštite djeteta od štetnih učinaka otmice koju je počinio roditelj te kako bi se osiguralo da dijete može održati kontakte s oba roditelja, primjerice osiguravanjem djelotvornog ostvarivanja prava na kontakt.
 Vrijedi spomenuti i povezanost s promicanjem uporabe mirenja u rješavanju prekograničnih obiteljskih sporova. Direktiva o nekim aspektima mirenja u građanskim i trgovačkim stvarima
 3
 primjenjuje se, među ostalim, na obiteljsko pravo unutar zajedničkog europskog pravosudnog prostora. Haškom konvencijom iz 1980. također se potiče sporazumno rješavanje obiteljskih sporova. Jedan od vodiča o dobroj praksi u skladu s Haškom konvencijom iz 1980. koji je objavila Haška konferencija o međunarodnom privatnom pravu posvećen je uporabi mirenja za rješavanje međunarodnih obiteljskih sporova u vezi s djecom koja su obuhvaćena područjem primjene Konvencije. Na inicijativu Europske komisije taj Vodič preveden je na sve jezike EU-a, osim na engleski i francuski, te na arapski u cilju poticanja dijaloga s državama koje još nisu ratificirale Konvenciju te kako bi se pridonijelo pronalaženju konkretnih načina za rješavanje problema međunarodne otmice djece sa zemljama koje ju nisu ratificirale
 4
 .
 2.PRAVNA OSNOVA, SUPSIDIJARNOST I PROPORCIONALNOST
 •Pravna osnova
 Budući da se Odluka odnosi na međunarodni sporazum, primjenjiva pravna osnova je članak 218. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije zajedno s člankom 81. stavkom 3. Vijeće odlučuje jednoglasno, nakon savjetovanja s Europskim parlamentom.
 Ujedinjena Kraljevina i Irska obvezane su Uredbom (EU) br. 2201/2003 i stoga sudjeluju u donošenju i primjeni ove Odluke.
 U skladu s člancima 1. i 2. Protokola br. 22 o stajalištu Danske, priloženog Ugovoru o Europskoj uniji i Ugovoru o funkcioniranju Europske unije, Danska ne sudjeluje u donošenju ove Odluke te ona za nju nije obvezujuća niti se na nju primjenjuje.
 •Proporcionalnost
 Ovaj Prijedlog oblikovan je po uzoru na već donesene odluke Vijeća na istu temu i ne prelazi ono što je nužno za postizanje cilja usklađenog djelovanja EU-a u pitanju međunarodne otmice djece osiguravanjem da Austrija i Rumunjska u utvrđenom roku prihvate pristup Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora Haškoj konvenciji iz 1980.
 3.REZULTATI EX POST EVALUACIJA, SAVJETOVANJA S DIONICIMA I PROCJENE UČINAKA
 •Savjetovanja s dionicima
 Nakon savjetovanja s Komisijom o svojoj volji da prihvate pristup Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora Konvenciji iz 1980. Austrija i Rumunjska dale su povoljno mišljenje.
 U raspravama na sastanku stručnjaka od 24. travnja 2017. pokazalo se da u ovoj fazi države članice nemaju prigovora na to da Austrija i Rumunjska prihvate pristup Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora Konvenciji iz 1980.
 •Prikupljanje i primjena stručnih znanja
 Budući da je Konvencija već na snazi u 26 država članica u pogledu Paname i u 25 država članica u pogledu Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora, Komisija i stručnjaci država članica smatrali su da stoga nije potrebna posebna procjena situacije u predmetnoj trećoj zemlji.
 Stručnjaci država članica nisu izvijestili o problemima s primjenom Konvencije iz 1980. u pogledu Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora.
 •Procjena učinka
 Kao i u slučaju deset odluka Vijeća o prihvatu pristupa određenih trećih zemalja Haškoj konvenciji iz 1980. koje su već donesene 2015. i 2016., s obzirom na prirodu ovog zakonodavnog akta nije potrebna procjena učinka ovog Prijedloga. U svakom slučaju, posebna procjena situacije u Panami, Urugvaju, Kolumbiji i El Salvadoru smatrala se suvišnom s obzirom na to da je Konvencija već na snazi s 26 odnosno 25 država članica EU-a te s obzirom na to da su Austrija i Rumunjska voljne prihvatiti pristupanje Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora.
 4.UTJECAJ NA PRORAČUN
 Predložena Odluka nema utjecaja na proračun.
 5.OSTALI DIJELOVI
 Planovi provedbe i mehanizmi praćenja, evaluacije i izvješćivanja
 Budući da se prijedlog odnosi samo na ovlašćivanje Austrije i Rumunjske da prihvate pristup Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora Konvenciji iz 1980., praćenje njegove provedbe ograničeno je na to poštuju li Austrija i Rumunjska tekst izjave te rok za njezino polaganje i rok za obavješćivanje Komisije o njezinu polaganju, kako je utvrđeno u Odluci Vijeća.
 2017/0153 (NLE)
 Prijedlog
 ODLUKE VIJEĆA
 o ovlašćivanju Austrije i Rumunjske da u interesu Europske unije prihvate pristup Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora Haškoj konvenciji o građanskopravnim aspektima međunarodne otmice djece iz 1980.
 VIJEĆE EUROPSKE UNIJE,
 uzimajući u obzir Ugovor o funkcioniranju Europske unije, a posebno njegov članak 81. stavak 3. u vezi s člankom 218.,
 uzimajući u obzir prijedlog Europske komisije,
 uzimajući u obzir mišljenje Europskog parlamenta
 5
 ,
 budući da:
 (1)Europska unija postavila je za jedan od svojih ciljeva promicanje zaštite prava djeteta, kako je navedeno u članku 3. Ugovora o Europskoj uniji. Mjere za zaštitu djece od nezakonitog odvođenja ili zadržavanja ključan su dio te politike.
 (2)Vijeće je donijelo Uredbu (EZ) br. 2201/2003 („Uredba Bruxelles II.a”), čiji je cilj zaštititi djecu od štetnih učinaka njihova nezakonitog odvođenja ili zadržavanja te utvrditi postupke kojima bi se jamčila njihova što hitnija predaja u državu njihova uobičajenog boravišta, kao i osigurati zaštitu prava na kontakt s djetetom i prava na roditeljsku skrb.
 (3)Uredbom Bruxelles II.a dopunjuje se i učvršćuje Haška konvencija o građanskopravnim aspektima međunarodne otmice djece od 25. listopada 1980. („Haška konvencija iz 1980.”), kojom se na međunarodnoj razini utvrđuje sustav obveza i suradnje među državama ugovornicama te između središnjih tijela i kojom se nastoji osigurati što hitnija predaja nezakonito odvedene ili zadržane djece.
 (4)Sve države članice Unije stranke su Haške konvencije iz 1980.
 (5)Unija potiče treće zemlje da pristupe Haškoj konvenciji iz 1980. i podupire ispravnu provedbu Haške konvencije iz 1980. sudjelovanjem zajedno s državama članicama, među ostalim, u posebnim komisijama koje se redovno organiziraju u okviru Haške konferencije o međunarodnom privatnom pravu.
 (6)Zajednički pravni okvir koji se primjenjuje na odnose između država članica Unije i trećih zemalja mogao bi biti najbolje rješenje za osjetljive slučajeve međunarodne otmice djece.
 (7)U Haškoj konvenciji iz 1980. propisano je da se ona primjenjuje između države pristupnice i onih država ugovornica koje izjave da prihvaćaju njezin pristup.
 (8)Haškom konvencijom iz 1980. ne dopušta se organizacijama za regionalnu gospodarsku integraciju kao što je Unija da postanu njezina stranka. Stoga Unija ne može pristupiti Konvenciji niti može položiti izjavu o prihvatu države pristupnice.
 (9)Na temelju Mišljenja 1/13 Suda Europske unije, izjave o prihvatu u skladu s Haškom konvencijom iz 1980. potpadaju pod isključivu vanjsku nadležnost Unije.
 (10)Panama je 2. veljače 1994. položila instrument pristupa Konvenciji iz 1980. Konvencija je stupila na snagu u Panami 1. svibnja 1994.
 (11)Sve predmetne države članice osim Austrije i Rumunjske već su prihvatile pristup Paname Haškoj konvenciji iz 1980. Panama je prihvatila Bugarsku, Cipar, Estoniju, Latviju, Litvu, Maltu i Sloveniju. Na temelju procjene situacije u Panami donesen je zaključak da Austrija i Rumunjska mogu prihvatiti, u interesu Unije, pristup Paname prema uvjetima iz Haške konvencije iz 1980.
 (12)Urugvaj je 18. studenoga 1999. položio instrument pristupa Konvenciji iz 1980. Konvencija je stupila na snagu u Urugvaju 1. veljače 2000.
 (13)Sve predmetne države članice osim Austrije i Rumunjske već su prihvatile pristup Urugvaja Haškoj konvenciji iz 1980. Urugvaj je prihvatio Bugarsku, Estoniju, Latviju i Litvu. Na temelju procjene situacije u Urugvaju donesen je zaključak da Austrija i Rumunjska mogu prihvatiti, u interesu Unije, pristup Urugvaja prema uvjetima iz Haške konvencije iz 1980.
 (14)Kolumbija je 13. prosinca 1995. položila instrument pristupa Konvenciji iz 1980. Konvencija je stupila na snagu u Kolumbiji 1. ožujka 1996.
 (15)Sve predmetne države članice osim Austrije i Rumunjske već su prihvatile pristup Kolumbije Haškoj konvenciji iz 1980. Kolumbija je prihvatila Bugarsku, Estoniju, Latviju, Litvu i Maltu. Na temelju procjene situacije u Kolumbiji donesen je zaključak da Austrija i Rumunjska mogu prihvatiti, u interesu Unije, pristup Kolumbije prema uvjetima iz Haške konvencije iz 1980.
 (16)El Salvador je 5. veljače 2001. položio instrument pristupa Konvenciji iz 1980. Konvencija je stupila na snagu u El Salvadoru 1. svibnja 2001.
 (17)Sve predmetne države članice osim Austrije i Rumunjske već su prihvatile pristup El Salvadora Haškoj konvenciji iz 1980. El Salvador je prihvatio Bugarsku, Estoniju, Latviju i Litvu. Na temelju procjene situacije u El Salvadoru donesen je zaključak da Austrija i Rumunjska mogu prihvatiti, u interesu Unije, pristup El Salvadora prema uvjetima iz Haške konvencije iz 1980.
 (18)Austrija i Rumunjska stoga bi trebale biti ovlaštene položiti svoju izjavu o prihvatu pristupa Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora u interesu Unije u skladu s uvjetima utvrđenima ovom Odlukom. Druge članice EU-a koje su već prihvatile pristup Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora Haškoj konvenciji iz 1980. ne bi trebale položiti novu izjavu o prihvatu jer postojeće izjave ostaju valjane u skladu s međunarodnim javnim pravom.
 (19)Uredba Bruxelles II.a obvezujuća je za Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu i Irsku te one stoga sudjeluju u donošenju i primjeni ove Odluke.
 (20)U skladu s člancima 1. i 2. Protokola br. 22 o stajalištu Danske, koji je priložen Ugovoru o Europskoj uniji i Ugovoru o funkcioniranju Europske unije, Danska ne sudjeluje u donošenju ove Odluke te je ona ne obvezuje niti se na nju primjenjuje,
 DONIJELO JE OVU ODLUKU:
 Članak 1.
 1.
 Austrija i Rumunjska ovime se ovlašćuju da u interesu Unije prihvate pristup Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora Haškoj konvenciji o građanskopravnim aspektima međunarodne otmice djece od 25. listopada 1980. („Haška konvencija iz 1980.”).
 2.
 Austrija i Rumunjska najkasnije do ... [dvanaest mjeseci od datuma donošenja ove Odluke] polažu izjavu o prihvatu pristupa Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora Haškoj konvenciji iz 1980. u interesu Unije koja glasi:
 „[Puno ime DRŽAVE ČLANICE] izjavljuje da prihvaća pristup Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora Haškoj konvenciji o građanskopravnim aspektima međunarodne otmice djece od 25. listopada 1980. u skladu s Odlukom Vijeća (EU) 2017/... *”.
 63.
 Austrija i Rumunjska obavješćuju Vijeće i Komisiju o polaganju svoje izjave o prihvatu pristupa Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora te priopćuju Komisiji tekst izjave u roku od dva mjeseca od njezina polaganja.
 Članak 2.
 Države članice koje su položile svoje izjave o prihvatu pristupa Paname, Urugvaja, Kolumbije i El Salvadora Haškoj konvenciji iz 1980. prije datuma donošenja ove Odluke ne polažu nove izjave.
 Članak 3.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu sljedećeg dana od dana objave u Službenom listu Europske unije.
 Članak 4.
 Ova je Odluka upućena Austriji i Rumunjskoj.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu
 Za Vijeće
 Predsjednik
 (1)
 SL L 338, 23.12.2003., str. 31.
 (2)
 Već je doneseno deset odluka Vijeća kojima se države članice ovlašćuju prihvatiti pristup Andore (Odluka Vijeća 2015/1023 donesena 15. lipnja 2015.); Sejšela (Odluka Vijeća 2015/2354 donesena 10. prosinca 2015.); Rusije (Odluka Vijeća 2015/2355 donesena 10. prosinca 2015.); Albanije (Odluka Vijeća 2015/2356 donesena 10. prosinca 2015.); Singapura (Odluka Vijeća 2015/1024 donesena 15. lipnja 2015.); Maroka (Odluka Vijeća 2015/2357 donesena 10. prosinca 2015.); Armenije (Odluka Vijeća 2015/2358 donesena 10. prosinca 2015.); Republike Koreje (Odluka Vijeća 2016/2313 donesena 8. prosinca 2016.), Kazahstana (Odluka Vijeća 2016/2311 donesena 8. prosinca 2016) i Perua (Odluka Vijeća 2016/2312 donesena 8. prosinca 2016.) Konvenciji iz 1980.
 (3)
 Direktiva 2008/52/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 21. svibnja 2008. o nekim aspektima mirenja u građanskim i trgovačkim stvarima (SL L 136 od 24. svibnja 2008., str. 3.).
 (4)
 https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=5568&dtid=3
 (5)
 SL C [...], [...], str. [...].
 (6)
 SL: molimo umetnuti broj ove Odluke.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n Region II Member Complaint\n Process Review\n\n OIG-03-01 March 31, 2003\n\n\n\n\n Herbert S. Yolles\n Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n Released By: Auditor-in-Charge:\n\n\n William A. DeSarno Dwight B. Engelrup\n Deputy Inspector General Senior Auditor\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n Page #\nDescription\n\nExecutive Summary 1\n\nBackground 3\n Member Inquiry and Complaint Process 3\n Review Plan 3\n\nMember Complaint Sample Review 5\n Sample Selection 5\n Review Results 8\n\nMember Complaint Process 10\n Plans and Guidance 10\n Internal Controls Evaluation 15\n\nAttachment 1 \xe2\x80\x93 Region II Universe 17\nAttachment 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Region II Sample Summary 18\nAttachment 3 \xe2\x80\x93 Region II Member Complaint Process Flowchart 19\n\n\n\n\n i\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\nThe manner in which the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) responds to inquiries\nand complaints by credit union members and the public plays a part in fulfilling the agency\xe2\x80\x99s\nvision of working with the cooperative credit union system to provide service to all segments of\nAmerican society and to enable credit union members to thrive in the 21st century.\n\nMost inquiries or complaints from credit union members are sent for action to the regional office\nwhere the member\xe2\x80\x99s credit union is located. The process at the regional office includes a review\nof the inquiry; action by the regional office or referral to the member\xe2\x80\x99s supervisory committee\n(audit committee) for action; and response(s) to the member. This review focused exclusively on\nNCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Region II (Alexandria, Virginia) member complaint process.\n\nAs a result of our findings during the course of the Region II review, we subsequently conducted\na more comprehensive national review of NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s overall member complaint process,\nencompassing the additional NCUA regional offices. We intend to issue a report on this\nsubsequent review in the near future. That report will include a detailed consideration of\nNCUA\xe2\x80\x99s role in responding to consumer complaints that do not allege violations of consumer\nlaws and regulations.\n\nThe purpose of this review was to evaluate Region II\xe2\x80\x99s process and effectiveness in addressing\ncomplaints and inquiries received from members of natural person credit unions during 2002.\n\nOur primary review procedures included evaluating the relationship of the member complaint\nprocess to written staff guidance, goals, the NCUA Annual Performance Plan, and the NCUA\nStrategic Plan. We interviewed appropriate regional staff and reviewed a sample of closed and\nin-process complaints and inquiries to evaluate the effectiveness of the process. Our review was\nperformed from July through September 2002.\n\nWe observed that Region II\xe2\x80\x99s process and methods were appropriate for the region\xe2\x80\x99s current\nguidance, and that the region has devoted significant resources to respond to member complaints\nand inquiries. We observed that the region appears to be going the extra mile in attempting to\nresolve member complaints against credit unions.\n\nWe noted that like other NCUA regions, Region II is devoting significant resources to member\ninquiries and complaints that are non-regulatory or non-compliance in nature. Our sample\nreview indicated two-thirds of the complaints addressed by the region were non-regulatory or\nnon-compliance related complaints. Management estimated that eighty percent of all complaints\nhandled were non-regulatory or non-compliance-related. Before the commencement of our\nreview, regional management had initiated procedures aimed at reducing resources committed to\nnon-regulatory and/or non-compliance-related complaints.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0cOverall, we concluded that Region II takes seriously its responsibility to answer inquiries in a\ntimely and professional manner. We discussed the results of our review with regional\nmanagement and staff. Our report provides four recommendations for improving the member\ncomplaint process in Region II.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c BACKGROUND\n\n To properly serve existing credit union members and to retain the\n Member Inquiry and\n ability to attract new members, it is important for credit unions to\n Complaint Process\n respond to inquiries and complaints in a timely manner. In it\xe2\x80\x99s\n Strategic Plan, NCUA states its intent to assist credit unions in their\ncontinued focus on improving service to members. Frequently, credit union members and other\nparties seek assistance from NCUA in resolving disputes or inquiries with credit unions. While\noperation of a credit union is the responsibility of the respective credit union officials, NCUA\ndoes attempt to expedite the dialogue when appropriate between credit unions and their\nmembers.\n\nThe NCUA mission and plans described in the agency Strategic Plan emphasize agency efforts to\nensure that credit unions are empowered to make the necessary business decisions to serve the\ndiverse needs of their members and potential members. The agency plans to assist credit unions\nin this respect by establishing a regulatory environment that encourages innovation, flexibility,\nand continued focus on attracting new members and improving service to existing members.\n\nMember inquiries and complaints received by the region typically include complaints against\ncredit unions; credit report requests; inquiries on how to correct credit reports; requests for\nreconsideration of a loan denial; complaints against banks or other non-credit union institutions;\nand loan documentation requests intended for a credit union. Complaints pertaining to state-\nchartered credit unions, requests for credit reports, or personnel issues may be forwarded to the\nappropriate state or federal agency for action.\n\nAttachment 3, Region II Member Complaint Process Flowchart at the end of this report,\ndescribes the Region II process for addressing credit union member inquiries and complaints.\n\n\n\n Review Plan\n\nReview Objectives\nThe objectives of our review of the Region II member complaint process were to evaluate the\ncurrent process used in the resolution of credit union member complaints submitted to Region II,\ndetermine the effectiveness of the Region II member complaint process, and provide\nrecommendations for process improvement.\n\nReview Scope\nOur review scope included:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Credit union member complaints submitted to Region II from January through July,\n 2002;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Region II staff involved in member complaints or inquiries, including staff of the\n Division of Supervision (DOS), the Division Insurance (DOI), and the Division of\n Management Services (DMS); and\n\n 3\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Documentation for the review period including:\n 1. Regional goals; the NCUA Annual Performance Plan; and the NCUA Strategic Plan;\n 2. Regional staff guidance;\n 3. Regional management reports; and\n 4. Sample of member inquiries and complaints for:\n \xef\x83\x98 Congressional requests;\n \xef\x83\x98 Credit union member requests and NCUA central office requests; and\n \xef\x83\x98 Complaints against NCUA staff.\n\nReview Procedures and Methodology\nOur review included the following procedures:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Discussions with regional staff to determine and evaluate the regional office member\n complaint resolution process, internal and quality control efforts, and the effectiveness of\n the regional effort;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Evaluation of the relationship of the member complaint process to written staff guidance,\n regional goals, regional performance plan, and the NCUA Strategic Plan; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Review of a sample of closed and in-process member complaints to evaluate the\n timeliness and effectiveness of the regional process and response.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c MEMBER COMPLAINT SAMPLE REVIEW\n\n We reviewed a judgmental sample of 38 closed and in-process\n Sample Selection credit union member inquiries or complaints received by Region\n II from January through July 2002 to evaluate the effectiveness\nof the region\xe2\x80\x99s member complaint process.\n\nWe found that Region II receives some member inquiries from Congressional offices, while\nother complaints and inquiries are sent directly to the regional office. Most complaints that are\nwithin the purview of NCUA are sent initially by the regional office to the supervisory\ncommittee chair of the respective federal credit union for investigation. The region requests\nresponses to investigations performed by the supervisory committee.\n\nEach inquiry or complaint action taken by the regional office, such as referral of the complaint to\nthe supervisory committee chair and responses received from the chair, is assigned a code for the\naction taken without an aggregation of action codes for each inquiry or complaint. The result of\nthis method is an inaccurate and duplicative count of the actual number of complaints or\ninquiries received by the region.\n\nTo determine the review universe we relied on the Division of Insurance (DOI) listing of\ncomplaints received by the region and logged in using the GENISIS 1 system for the period of\nJanuary 1, 2002 through July 25, 2002\n\nMember Complaint and Inquiry Universe\nRegion II classifies member complaint actions using the following categories:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Congressional Inquiries\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Initial Complaints sent to Supervisory Committee Chair\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Miscellaneous Complaint Correspondence\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Supervisory Committee Chair Response\n\nCongressional Inquiries generally result from inquiries received by members of Congress from\nconstituents. These are sent by the Congressional office to the region for review and action.\nInitial Complaints sent to supervisory committee chair are inquiries and complaints received by\nthe region that were forwarded to the appropriate credit union supervisory committee chair for\ninvestigation and action. Miscellaneous Complaint Correspondence represents letters and e-mail\ninquiries acted on by the region, but may also represent correspondence regarding pending\ninquiries and complaints. Supervisory Committee Chair Response represents responses to the\nregional office regarding actions taken by the committee with respect to inquiries and complaints\nsent to the supervisory committee chair by the region.\n\n\n\n\n1\n GENISIS (Generated Efficient National Information System for Insurance Services) is the software system\ndeveloped and used by NCUA to record and monitor insurance related activities. The system is used extensively by\nthe Region II DOI for division actions including member inquiries and complaints.\n\n 5\n\x0cThe following table represents the numbers of closed and in-process activity by Region II by\nmajor categories for 2002. Please refer to Attachment 1, Region II Universe, for additional\ninformation:\n\n Region II Member Complaint and Inquiry Universe January 1 \xe2\x80\x93 July 25, 2002:\n Description: Closed: In-Process: Total:\nCongressional Inquiries 14 2 16\nInitial Complaint sent to Supervisory Committee Chair 166 2 168\nMiscellaneous Complaint Correspondence 101 8 109\nSupervisory Committee Chair Response 182 13 195\n\nWe observed and verified with DOI staff that more than one category code per complaint was\nbeing used. For example when a complaint is received and sent to the Supervisory Committee\nfor investigation, a code is assigned representing Initial Complaint sent to Supervisory\nCommittee Chair. When the regional office receives a response from the Supervisory\nCommittee a code is assigned representing the Supervisory Committee Chair Response. If other\ncorrespondence is received regarding the same complaint, another code representing\nMiscellaneous Complaint Correspondence may be assigned to the complaint. The result could\nbe three or more codes being assigned to the same complaint.\n\nThe use of multiple codes per inquiry or complaint precluded our determining the exact number\nof inquiries or complaints received by the region for the review period. However, after\ndiscussion with staff it was determined that using the GENESIS system, a single code per inquiry\nor complaint can be assigned with sub-codes assigned for the various actions and follow-up by\nthe region.\n\nReview Samples\nFor the purposes of our review, we were primarily interested in the then-current 2002 process\nand actions taken by the region regarding member inquiries and complaints. We judgmentally\nselected for review 32 completed complaints plus six in-process complaints with large numbers\nof days in process. We selected at least one sample from each category.\n\nOur review selection criteria included:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Judgmental selection of 32 completed complaints; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Judgmental selection of 6 in-process complaints.\n\nThe chart on the following page shows our review universe and sample selections by individual\ncategories.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c Review Universe and Sample\n Description: Universe: Review Sample:\nCompleted:\n Congressional Correspondence (code 80) 14 2\n Initial Complaint to Supervisory Committee Chair 166 5\n (code 76)\n Miscellaneous Complaint Correspondence (code 78) 101 10\n Supervisory Committee Chair Response (code 77) 182 15\n Totals: 463 32\nIn-Process:\n Congressional Correspondence (code 80) 2 1\n Initial Complaint to Supervisory Committee Chair 2 1\n (code 76)\n Miscellaneous Complaint Correspondence (code 78) 8 2\n Supervisory Committee Chair Response (code 77) 13 2\n Totals: 25 6\n\n Grand Totals: 488 38\n\nCONCLUSIONS:\nWe found that one code is assigned to each inquiry or complaint with no aggregation of code\naction under a single number for each inquiry or complaint. The current method results in an\ninaccurate and duplicative count of complaints or inquiries.\n\nRECOMMENDATION 1:\nTo ensure accurate counting and monitoring of member inquiries and complaints, the region\nshould implement a system, currently available using the GENISIS system, to account for\ninquiries and member complaints using one number with sub-category log numbers for actions\ntaken by the regional office.\n\nRegion II Comments:\nWe have taken steps to address this issue. Currently, all incoming complaint correspondence is\nassigned a separate log sheet for GPRA purposes. This log sheet enables us to track the length\nof time a complaint is open, the nature of the complaint, whether a regulation violation occurred,\nand whether the complaint was submitted through a congressional office. This change adds\ngreater transparency to our tracking process.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0c We reviewed a judgmental sample of thirty-eight member inquiries and\n Review Results complaints received by the region from January 1, 2002 through July 25,\n 2002, representing thirty-two completed and six in-process complaints.\n\nWe found that Region II is handling the majority of member inquiries and complaints in a timely\nmanner, and almost all inquiries and complaints in a reasonable manner. In addition, from our\nsample we found that approximately two-thirds of the sample complaints did not involve\nregulatory or compliance issues. Region II management estimates that approximately 80 percent\nof all complaints handled are non-regulatory or non-compliance related. Consequently, the\nregion is spending most of its inquiry and complaint resources on complaints outside the\nenforcement authority of the agency. For review summary information, please refer to\nAttachment 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Region II Sample Summary at the conclusion of this report.\n\nThe focus of our review was to determine the following issues for each instance:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 whether the inquiry was handled in accordance with agency policy (timely resolution);\n\xe2\x80\xa2 whether the inquiry was handled in a reasonable manner;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 whether the inquiry tracking and monitoring were reasonable;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 whether all inquiry issues were addressed;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 whether inquiry follow-up was timely and adequate; and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 whether the complaint was a regulatory or compliance-related complaint.\n\nRegion II Sample Analysis:\n Yes % No %\nQuestion 1 \xe2\x80\x93 Was the inquiry handled in accordance with national/regional 57% 43%\npolicy? (Did the region address the inquiry within the time frames of the\nprocedures?)\nQuestion 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Was the inquiry handled in a reasonable manner? (Did the 95% 5%\nregion address the issues of the inquiry and handle the inquiry in a\nreasonable manner given the facts and available guidance?)\nQuestion 3 \xe2\x80\x93 Was the inquiry tracking and monitoring reasonable? (Did 78% 22%\nthe region identify, record, and monitor actions taken in a reasonable\nmanner and in accordance with available procedures?)\nQuestion 4 - Were all inquiry issues addressed? (Did the region address 94% 6%\nall inquiry issues and report actions taken to resolve the issues to the\nmember?)\nQuestion 5 \xe2\x80\x93 Was inquiry follow-up timely and adequate? (Did the region 80% 20%\nfollow-up on the inquiry in accordance with procedures?)\nQuestion 6 - Was the complaint regulatory or compliance-related? (Was 34% 66%\nthe complaint related to region\xe2\x80\x99s enforcement/compliance authority?)\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cCONCLUSIONS:\nWe determined from our review that inquiries and complaints were generally handled in a timely\nmanner (57 percent of the complaints), and reasonable manner (95 percent of the complaints).\nApproximately two-thirds of the sample complaints (66 percent) were non-regulatory or\ncompliance related. Region II management estimates approximately 80 percent of all complaints\nhandled are non-regulatory or non-compliance related. Based on the forgoing information, the\nregion is spending most of their inquiry and complaint resources on complaints that do not allege\na specific violation. Regional management is developing procedures to reduce resources spent\non non-regulatory inquiries and complaints.\n\nAs a result of our findings during the course of the Region II review, we subsequently conducted\na more comprehensive national review of NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s overall member complaint process,\nencompassing the additional NCUA regional offices. We intend to issue a report on this\nsubsequent review in the near future. That report will include a detailed consideration of\nNCUA\xe2\x80\x99s role in responding to consumer complaints that do not allege violations of consumer\nlaws and regulations.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c MEMBER COMPLAINT PROCESS\n\n To determine and evaluate the current member complaint process\n Plans and Guidance\n in Region II, we obtained and reviewed the most recent NCUA\nStrategic Plan for the years 2000-2005; the final NCUA 2002 Annual Performance Plan; the\nRegion II 2002 annual plan; the Region II DOS and DOI 2002 annual plans; and national and\nregional current and proposed member complaint handling guidance.\n\nWe found that the NCUA Strategic Plan, 2002 NCUA Annual Performance Plan, and the Region\nII 2001 and 2002 Operating Plans, did not specifically address the handling of member\ncomplaints. However, the Region II DOS and DOI plans and goals did address member\ncomplaint processing.\n\nNCUA Instruction No. 12400.04 and Region II guidance address credit union member inquiry\nand complaint handling. Current Region II regional guidance parallels the national instruction\nand provides adequate instruction to regional staff.\n\nNCUA Strategic Plan\nCredit unions have grown and prospered over the past thirty years for many reasons. Reasons\npopularly cited are that they have provided high quality, friendly, face-to-face service and high\nquality products, at competitive rates, while keeping the risks and costs to members low. Credit\nunions differentiate themselves from other financial institutions by virtue of their cooperative\nownership structure.\n\nThe NCUA interests and responsibilities go beyond a narrowly defined view of the financial\ncondition of credit unions to a regulatory approach supporting credit unions in their attempts to\ncompete in the marketplace. The agency strives to establish a regulatory environment that\nencourages credit union innovation, flexibility, and continued focus on attracting new members\nand improving service to existing members.\n\nThe NCUA Strategic Plan (Plan) states the agency\xe2\x80\x99s charge is to foster the safety and soundness\nof federally insured credit unions and to better enable the credit union community to extend\ncredit union services for productive and provident purposes to all Americans. The Plan has five\nStrategic Goals. However, we found that none of the goals specifically address the handling of\nmember complaints by NCUA.\n\nNCUA 2002 Annual Performance Plan\nThe NCUA prepares annual performance plans to accomplish objectives in the five year strategic\nplan. The NCUA 2002 Plan contained five strategic goals that parallel and support the recent\nstrategic plan. The agency approach is to ensure that NCUA staff, at all levels, communicate\neffectively in word and deed and use a regulatory approach that supports credit unions in their\nefforts to be financially safe, sound, and highly member-focused.\n\nNCUA, in its 2002 Annual Performance Plan, focused on regulatory flexibility and enhancing\ncredit unions\xe2\x80\x99 ability to grow. In addition, the agency planned to focus on removing barriers for\n\n 10\n\x0ccredit unions that choose to extend affordable financial services to designated underserved areas.\nThe goals and plans address credit union service to members. However, we found that none of\nthe goals and plans specifically address resolving credit union member complaints.\n\nRegion II 2001 and 2002 Operating Plans\nThe Region II 2001 Operating Plan indicated plans for the regional staff to participate in\nworkshops with State Supervisory Authorities (SSA), state credit union regulators, credit union\nleagues, and other trade organizations for credit unions to improve service to their membership.\nThe Region II 2002 Operating Plan indicated NCUA exists to assure safe and sound service to\ncredit union members through their individual credit unions.\n\nRegional management indicated that the region works to integrate the regional work and plans\nwith the NCUA Strategic Plan. In addition, management ensures that the regional annual\nperformance plans address agency plans and goals.\n\nRegion II DOI 2002 Goals \xe2\x80\x93 Member Complaints\nRegion II DOI 2002 goals regarding member complaints and inquiries from the public stated,\n\xe2\x80\x9cWe have taken steps to provide better service to callers via the implementation of an automated\nphone system. We will now review the way we process our complaints and inquiries to make\nrecommendations to further improve our response time and enhance customer satisfaction.\xe2\x80\x9d\nRegional management indicated that revised draft phone script and procedures were completed\nin June 2002, and were to be implemented upon approval by the regional director. At the time of\nour review, the new procedures had not been implemented.\n\nNCUA Guidance\nAt the commencement of our review the only national guidance available and in use by Region II\nfor the handling of credit union member complaints was NCUA Instruction 12400.2, dated July\n17, 1995, Compliance Activities: Complaint Handling and Documentation of Violations, The\ninstruction provided guidance for the handling of alleged consumer compliance violations and\nother complaints. Only one time frame was specified, that being an acknowledgment letter must\nbe sent from the regional office to the complainant within seven days of the receipt of the\ncomplaint in the regional office when the complaint was addressed to an NCUA Board member.\nThe instruction did not provide any guidance regarding the amount of resources and time to\nspend resolving complaints.\n\nRevised National NCUA Guidance\nIn 2002, the NCUA Office of Examination and Insurance (E&I) released for agency comment a\nrevised national instruction No.12400.04. The instruction was essentially the same as the 1995\ninstruction for handling complaints. However, there was an expanded section regarding\nCompliance Regulation Violation Database with respect to the current examination system. The\nagency issued the revised NCUA Instruction No.12400.04 on September 5, 2002, Compliance\nActivities: Complaint Handling and Documentation of Violations.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cDivision of Insurance - Region II Current Guidance:\nRegion II guidance for complaint processing is contained in member complaint processing\nprocedures adopted in 1997. This guidance addresses current procedures and time frames in\naddressing credit union member inquiries and complaints.\n\nComplaints are received in the regional office via mail, e-mail, and telephone. The region\nencourages the member to first attempt to resolve the complaint through the credit union\xe2\x80\x99s\nsupervisory committee. If a member has tried to resolve the complaint with the credit union\xe2\x80\x99s\nofficials, but the credit union has not been responsive, or if the allegations made by the member\nare regulatory in nature, the member is to be instructed to write a letter to NCUA explaining, in\ndetail, the specifics of the complaint.\n\nRegion II guidance states:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 After the region receives a complaint it is logged in and must be processed within fourteen\n calendar days.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Regarding complaints involving federal laws, the Federal Credit Union Act, Federal Credit\n Union Bylaws, or NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Rules and Regulations, a letter with specific information is sent\n to the credit union from the regional office with suggestions for correction and a request for\n the credit union\xe2\x80\x99s plan to resolve the issue. The credit union is given 30 days to respond\n back to the regional office regarding actions taken.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Region II uses a series of form response letters to initially respond to the complaint.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If a letter was sent to the credit union requesting an investigation, a follow-up log sheet is\n created to track and monitor the credit union\xe2\x80\x99s response.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 When a complaint is sent to the credit union supervisory committee chair for investigation,\n the regional office provides thirty calendar days to investigate and respond to the\n complainant. The supervisory committee is also asked to submit a copy of its letter to the\n member to the regional office for review along with any supporting documentation. If the\n credit union fails to respond to the initial request, another letter is sent with an additional\n time of fourteen days to respond. If there is still no response, a call is made to the\n supervisory committee. If the supervisory committee does not respond, a regional director\n letter is sent to the credit union president. If still there is no response, a memorandum is sent\n to the district examiner for follow-up. After a regional office review of the credit union\xe2\x80\x99s\n action, the regional office closes the file if the action was satisfactory. If action is not\n satisfactory, the supervisory committee is contacted in writing and requested to reinvestigate,\n with generally the turn around time for the second investigation being 14-21 calendar days.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 After the complaint has been processed and action taken, it will be logged off the monitoring\n system. According to Region II officials, the normal length of time to resolve a complaint is\n 30-60 days.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2 If a member is not satisfied with the outcome of the credit union\xe2\x80\x99s investigation or the\n region\xe2\x80\x99s response, the member may appeal in writing to the regional office, specifically\n stating what is disputed and also providing documentation which supports the continued\n concerns.\n\nDivision of Supervision (DOS) Member Complaint Processing Procedures:\nThe DOS also receives a limited number of complaints from credit unions regarding the\nexamination process. DOS member complaint processing procedures include an\nacknowledgement letter upon receipt of the complaint, and assignment of the complaint\ninvestigation to an appropriate supervisory examiner. Upon receipt of the results of the\ninvestigation, a DOS analyst reviews the supervisory examiner\xe2\x80\x99s findings and prepares a\nresponse letter for Regional Director signature to the complainant.\n\nComplaints handled by DOS are logged in the DOS Access log under General, with a sub listing\nMember Complaint.\n\nUpon final resolution of a complaint involving a violation of federal law, the violations are\nlogged onto the Compliance Violation Log. The DOS submits the information on the log on a\nquarterly basis to the Office of Examination and Insurance.\n\nRegion II Proposed Complaint Processing Procedures:\nIn July 2002, Region II developed revised guidance to handle member inquiries and complaints\nincluding:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Upon receipt of a written complaint that does not fall within the scope of NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s\n enforcement authority, the region proposed sending a letter to the member or complainant\n summarizing NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s enforcement authority and what agency they should contact in order\n to pursue their complaint. Examples of non-enforcement complaints may include, but are not\n limited to, automobile repossessions, contract law, probate issues, level of service,\n bankruptcy, late fees (unless the region suspected pyramiding of debt), employment issues,\n collection issues, and matters falling under the Uniform Commercial Code. The region\n estimated that follow-ups and supervisory committee responses of this nature represent\n approximately 80 percent of the member complaint workload.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The region indicated that efficiency could be improved by modifying the recording on the\n member complaint line to include a message stating what types of complaints fall within\n NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s enforcement authority. The recording would continue to tell members that they\n should first contact the credit union\xe2\x80\x99s supervisory committee and that NCUA will only\n investigate and respond to written complaints\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 For complaints that fall under the region\xe2\x80\x99s enforcement authority, the region planned to\n continue to use the current member complaint processing procedures with one modification.\n That is, the region would respond to each member after a review of the supervisory\n committee\xe2\x80\x99s response. The region believed this would eliminate the follow-up calls made by\n members regarding their complaints.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cCONCLUSIONS:\nAfter reviewing the NCUA written plans and guidance, we found that the NCUA Strategic Plan,\nthe 2002 NCUA Annual Performance Plan, and the Region II 2001 and 2002 Operating Plans did\nnot specifically address the handling of member complaints. However, the Region II DOS and\nDOI respective plans and goals did address member complaint processing.\n\nNCUA Instruction No. 12400.04 and Region II guidance adequately address member inquiry and\ncomplaint handling. Current Region II regional guidance parallels the national instruction and\nprovides adequate instruction to regional staff.\n\nRECOMMENDATION 2:\nTo ensure that resources are identified in the member inquiry and complaint process work, the\nregion should address the work in the budget process and in the regional annual performance\nplan.\n\nRegion II Comments:\nWe are increasing our resources in the Division of Insurance. Specifically, we are currently in\nthe process of hiring a third insurance technician that will be cross trained in the processing of\nmember complaints. This will enable greater depth of staff and reduce the demands placed on\nthe existing personnel (backup).\n\nIn addition, the processing of member complaints has been added to our annual performance\nplan to ensure the goals outlined in our member complaint processing procedures are being met.\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 3:\nAt the time of our review, the region was considering revising member complaint handling\nprocedures and practices that could have been outside the requirements of the national guidance\nthen in force. To ensure that regional guidance remains current and in accordance with national\nguidance, regional guidance and practice should parallel or exceed national guidance and intent.\n\nRegion II Comments:\nWe interpret your recommendation to mean we should remain vigilant in our adherence to\npolicy. Currently, Region II\xe2\x80\x99s revised procedures fall well within, and in some cases exceed, the\nparameters of national guidance.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c Regional management indicated that most of the member\n Internal Controls Evaluation\n inquiries and complaints are processed through the DOI.\nOur evaluation of available internal controls focused around the member inquiry and complaint\nprocess activity performed in the DOI.\n\nWe observed that the workload in the DOI dictates that a single technician is assigned the tasks\ninvolved with GENISIS logging of complaints and handling of complaints. The technician\nspends most of her time handling member complaints as well as performing other DOI work and\ninput to the GENISIS system. The DOS handles only a limited number of inquiries and\ncomplaints. Inquiries and complaints handled by DOS relate primarily to credit union\nexaminations.\n\nSenior regional management investigates complaints of a personal nature against NCUA staff.\nWritten procedures have not been developed by Region II for these types of complaints.\n\nRegional internal controls included time frames for completion of inquiries and complaints;\nletters to complainants reviewed and signed by regional management; and management\nmonitoring of work logs, weekly and monthly reports and reviews, and progress reports of\ncompleted work.\n\nDivision of Insurance\nMost of the credit union member inquiries and complaints are handled by the DOI. The\nGENISIS system is utilized to record and track activities in the DOI, including inquiries and\ncomplaints.\n\nRegion II has identified one DOI technician as the primary person involved with the member\ncomplaint process to login, monitor, and provide follow-up for the region. The DOI technician\nspends the vast majority of her time handling member complaints and is the primary internal\ncontrol person for member complaint actions. She processes telephone, e-mail, and written\ninquiries. In addition, she monitors the time frames for complaint completion, prepares letters to\ncomplainants, prepares management reports, and prepares progress reports for the Division\nDirector, Associate Regional Director for Operations, and Regional Director.\n\nThe DOI technician is the expert on the GENISIS system for the region. She logs the complaints\nand inputs other DOI transaction information into the system such as field of membership\nactions, and credit union mergers and liquidations. From the system, she prepares the weekly log\nof transactions and other reports required by regional management to track and monitor DOI\nactivity. The weekly activity log identifies DOI member complaint activity and status. The DOI\nMonthly Division Management Report captures member complaint activity.\n\nWhen the DOI technician is out of the office, complaints or actions are not processed and\nbacklogs can and do occur. At the time of our review, the region had proposed using an\nadditional staff member to assist and back up the primary DOI technician and to strengthen\ninternal controls.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cDivision of Supervision\nDOS handles credit union member inquiries or complaints against NCUA staff regarding\ndisagreements with examination ratings and issues related to examinations. The DOS monthly\nmanagement report addresses division activity. However, the management report does not\nidentify member complaint activity.\n\nComplaints Against NCUA Staff\nThe DOS processes personal complaints against NCUA staff. We were informed that there have\nbeen no recent (year 2002) complaints against NCUA staff other than examination disagreements\nfrom credit unions. If a complaint of a personal nature is received against NCUA staff,\nconsultations are held among senior management to determine the assignment and procedures to\nfollow in the investigation and resolution of the complaint. The DMS in the regional office\nmaintains records pertaining to personal complaints against staff. Complaints received against\nregional division directors are handled by senior Region II management.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS:\nThe workload in the DOI dictates that a single DOI technician is assigned the tasks involved with\nGENISIS logging of complaints and handling of complaints. She spends most of her time\nhandling member complaints as well as performing other DOI work and input to the GENISIS\nsystem.\n\nThe DOS handles the limited number of credit union examination-related inquiries and\ncomplaints. Complaints and inquiries of a personal nature not related to credit union\nexaminations are investigated by senior regional management.\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION 4:\nTo limit backlogs, ensure orderly flow of work, and separation of duties, the region should\ndevote sufficient resources to provide backup for the current DOI technician tasked with credit\nunion member inquiry work.\n\nRegion II Comments:\nRegion II is in the process of interviewing and hiring a third insurance technician to assist with\nmember complaints. This will permit cross-training, greater depth of staff, and better separation\nof duties. The backup resources should well satisfy this recommendation.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c ATTACHMENT 1 \xe2\x80\x93 Region II Universe\n\n\n\n DOI 2002 2002 Sample 2002 2002 In Process\n In Process Sample\nCongressional 14 2\n Within 7 days 10\n Exceeded 7 days 4 2 2 1\n\nInitial Complaint to SCC 166 2\n Within 7 days 109 2 1\n Exceeded 7 days 57 3 1 1\n\nMisc. Compl. Corresp. 101 8\n Within 14 days 59 4 5\n Exceeded 14 days 42 6 3 2\n\nSC Response 182 13\n Within 14 days 116 8 8\n Exceeded 14 days 66 7 5 2\n\n DOS (1/1/01-7/31/02)\n29 complaint items related to 0 0\nexaminations\n\n Staff Complaints (1/1/01-\n 7/31/02)\n0 complaint items 0 0\n\nSample Totals 32 6\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c ATTACHMENT 2 \xe2\x80\x93 Region II Sample Summary\n\n\n\n Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Reg\nSample Category Yes No NA Yes No NA Yes No NA Yes No NA Yes No NA Yes No\n\nOpen\nCongressional 1 1 1 1 1 1\n\nInitial Complaint to 1 1 1 1 1 1\nSupervisory Comm.\n\nMisc. Complaint 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1\nCorrespondence\n\nSC Response 1 1 2 2 2 2 2\n\n\nClosed\nCongressional 2 2 2 2 2 2\n\nInitial Complaint to 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 3 1 1 1 4\nSupervisory Comm.\n\nMisc. Complaint 5 5 10 7 3 10 7 3 3 7\nCorrespondence\n\nSC Response 8 7 14 1 13 2 13 2 12 3 7 8\n\n 21 16 1 35 2 1 29 8 1 33 2 3 28 7 3 13 25\nTotals\n\n Y= 21 Y= 35 Y= 29 Y= 33 Y= 28 Y= 13\n N= 16 N= 2 N= 8 N= 2 N= 7 N= 25\n N/A=1 N/A=1 N/A=1 N/A=3 N/A=3\n\n 38 38 38 38 38 38\nTotals\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0cATTACHMENT 3 \xe2\x80\x93 Region II Member Complaint Process Flowchart\n\n Member contacts NCUA Central Office,\n End\n Region II (R2), other office with\n complaint via letter, phone, e-mail\n\n\n\n R2 notifies\n Contact information member, sending\n forwarded to R2 office regarding\n for action disposition of\n complaint\n\n\n\n Contact received by R2.\n R2 logs in complaint to\n monitoring system,\n\n\n If outside regulatory authority R2 letter of\n action assignment to Supervisory\n Committee Chair (SCC). No action other\n R2 decides course of than to monitor actions taken by SCC. If\n action federally insured state chartered credit\n union, contact forwarded to appropriate\n State Supervisory Authority (SSA)\n\n\n\n\n If within NCUA regulatory\n authority or action can be\n Letter to SCC at subject\n taken by R2 letter notification\n credit union or letter to\n to member\nappropriate SSA for action\n with response deadline\n R2 letter of action\n assignment to Supervisory\n Committee Chair (SCC) at\n subject credit union\n\n\n\n\n SCC performs investigation\nand responds back to R2 and R2 performs timely\n member follow-up with SCC\n\n\n\n\n R2 records resolution of complaint, notifies\n member, and original office of action taken\n by SCC on letter to the complainant and logs\n complaint out of monitoring system\n\n\n\n\n R2 prepares management reports\n\n\n\n End\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c'


text:
 22.3.2019
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 80/1
 RÅDETS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) 2019/459
 af 21. marts 2019
 om gennemførelse af forordning (EU) nr. 270/2011 om restriktive foranstaltninger over for visse personer, enheder og organer på baggrund af situationen i Egypten
 RÅDET FOR DEN EUROPÆISKE UNION HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 270/2011 af 21. marts 2011 om restriktive foranstaltninger over for visse personer, enheder og organer på baggrund af situationen i Egypten (1), særlig artikel 12, stk. 4,
 under henvisning til forslag fra Unionens højtstående repræsentant for udenrigsanliggender og sikkerhedspolitik, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Rådet vedtog den 21. marts 2011 forordning (EU) nr. 270/2011.
 (2)
 Bilag I bør suppleres med oplysninger om retten til et forsvar og til effektiv retsbeskyttelse.
 (3)
 Bilag I til forordning (EU) nr. 270/2011 bør derfor ændres i overensstemmelse hermed —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 Bilag I til forordning (EU) nr. 270/2011 ændres som anført i bilaget til nærværende forordning.
 Artikel 2
 Denne forordning træder i kraft dagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 21. marts 2019.
 På Rådets vegne
 G. CIAMBA
 Formand
 (1) EUT L 76 af 22.3.2011, s. 4.
 BILAG
 Bilag I til forordning (EU) nr. 270/2011 affattes således:
 »BILAG I
 A. Liste over fysiske og juridiske personer, enheder og organer, jf. artikel 2, stk. 1
 Navn
 (og eventuelle kaldenavne)
 Identificerende oplysninger
 Begrundelse
 1.
 Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
 Tidligere præsident for Den Arabiske Republik Egypten
 Fødselsdato: 4.5.1928
 Mand
 Person, der retsforfølges af de egyptiske myndigheder eller er genstand for deres inddrivelse af aktiver efter en endelig retsafgørelse for uretmæssig tilegnelse af statens midler på grundlag af De Forenede Nationers konvention mod korruption.
 2.
 Suzanne Saleh Thabet
 Gift med Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, tidligere præsident for Den Arabiske Republik Egypten
 Fødselsdato: 28.2.1941
 Kvinde
 Har tilknytning til Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, der retsforfølges af de egyptiske myndigheder eller er genstand for deres inddrivelse af aktiver efter en endelig retsafgørelse for uretmæssig tilegnelse af statens midler på grundlag af De Forenede Nationers konvention mod korruption.
 3.
 Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
 Søn af Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, tidligere præsident for Den Arabiske Republik Egypten
 Fødselsdato: 26.11.1960
 Mand
 Person, der retsforfølges af de egyptiske myndigheder eller er genstand for deres inddrivelse af aktiver efter en endelig retsafgørelse for uretmæssig tilegnelse af statens midler på grundlag af De Forenede Nationers konvention mod korruption.
 4.
 Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh
 Gift med Alaa Mohamed Elsayed Mubarak, søn af den tidligere præsident for Den Arabiske Republik Egypten
 Fødselsdato: 5.10.1971
 Kvinde
 Person, der retsforfølges af de egyptiske myndigheder eller er genstand for deres inddrivelse af aktiver efter en endelig retsafgørelse for uretmæssig tilegnelse af statens midler på grundlag af De Forenede Nationers konvention mod korruption, og som har tilknytning til Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak.
 5.
 Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
 Søn af Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, tidligere præsident for Den Arabiske Republik Egypten
 Fødselsdato: 28.12.1963
 Mand
 Person, der retsforfølges af de egyptiske myndigheder eller er genstand for deres inddrivelse af aktiver efter en endelig retsafgørelse for uretmæssig tilegnelse af statens midler på grundlag af De Forenede Nationers konvention mod korruption.
 6.
 Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal
 Gift med Gamal Mahamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak, søn af den tidligere præsident for Den Arabiske Republik Egypten
 Fødselsdato: 13.10.1982
 Kvinde
 Person, der retsforfølges af de egyptiske myndigheder eller er genstand for deres inddrivelse af aktiver efter en endelig retsafgørelse for uretmæssig tilegnelse af statens midler på grundlag af De Forenede Nationers konvention mod korruption, og som har tilknytning til Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak.
 15.
 Mohamed Zohir Mohamed Wahed Garrana
 Tidligere minister for turisme
 Fødselsdato: 20.2.1959
 Mand
 Person, der retsforfølges af de egyptiske myndigheder for uretmæssig tilegnelse af statens midler på grundlag af De Forenede Nationers konvention mod korruption.
 18.
 Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladli
 Tidligere indenrigsminister
 Fødselsdato: 1.3.1938
 Mand
 Person, der retsforfølges af de egyptiske myndigheder for uretmæssig tilegnelse af statens midler på grundlag af De Forenede Nationers konvention mod korruption.
 19.
 Elham Sayed Salem Sharshar
 Gift med Habib Ibrahim Eladli
 Fødselsdato: 23.1.1963
 Kvinde
 Person, der retsforfølges af de egyptiske myndigheder for uretmæssig tilegnelse af statens midler på grundlag af De Forenede Nationers konvention mod korruption, og som har tilknytning til Habib Ibrahim Eladli.
 B. Ret til et forsvar og ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse i henhold til egyptisk ret:
 Ret til et forsvar og ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse
 Det følger af artikel 54, 97 og 98 i den egyptiske forfatning, artikel 77, 78, 124, 199, 214, 271, 272 og 277 i Egyptens lov om strafferetspleje samt artikel 93 og 94 i Egyptens advokatlov (lov nr. 17 af 1983), at følgende rettigheder er garanteret i henhold til egyptisk lov:
 —
 for enhver person, der er mistænkt eller tiltalt for en strafbar handling:
 1.
 ret til domstolsprøvelse af enhver handling eller administrativ afgørelse
 2.
 ret til at forsvare sig personligt eller ved bistand af en forsvarer, som vedkommende selv har valgt, og, hvis vedkommende ikke har tilstrækkelige midler til at betale for juridisk bistand, at modtage den uden betaling, når dette kræves i retfærdighedens interesse
 —
 for enhver person, der er tiltalt for en strafbar handling:
 1.
 ret til at blive underrettet snarest muligt, udførligt og på et sprog, som vedkommende forstår, om indholdet af og årsagen til den anklage, der er rejst mod vedkommende
 2.
 ret til at få tilstrækkelig tid og lejlighed til at forberede sit forsvar
 3.
 ret til at afhøre eller lade afhøre imod vedkommende førte vidner og at få vidner for vedkommende tilsagt og afhørt på samme betingelser som vidner, der føres imod vedkommende
 4.
 ret til at få vederlagsfri bistand af en tolk, hvis vedkommende ikke forstår eller taler det sprog, der anvendes i retten.
 Anvendelse af retten til et forsvar og retten til effektiv retsbeskyttelse
 1. Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
 Oplysningerne i Rådets sagsakter viser, at Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubaraks ret til et forsvar og ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse blev overholdt i de straffesager, som Rådet har lagt til grund. Dette fremgår navnlig af følgende:
 Første sag
 Den 27. juni 2013 blev Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak sammen med to andre personer anklaget for uretmæssig tilegnelse af offentlige midler, og der blev rejst tiltale ved den strafferetlige domstol i Kairo den 17. november 2013. Den 21. maj 2014 dømte domstolen de tre tiltalte. De tiltalte anfægtede denne dom ved kassationsretten. Den 13. januar 2015 ophævede kassationsretten dommen og beordrede en fornyet prøvelse. Ved den fornyede prøvelse den 4. og 29. april 2015 blev parternes mundtlige og skriftlige indlæg forelagt. Den 9. maj 2015 dømte den strafferetlige domstol i Kairo de tiltalte, beordrede de uretmæssigt tilegnede midler tilbagebetalt og idømte betaling af en bøde. Den 24. maj 2015 blev der indgivet appel ved kassationsretten. Den 9. januar 2016 stadfæstede kassationsretten dommene. Den 8. marts 2016 indgik de tiltalte forlig i det ekspertudvalg, der var nedsat ved premierministerens dekret nr. 2873 af 2015. Dette forlig blev godkendt af ministerkabinettet den 9. marts 2016. Dette forlig blev ikke forelagt for kassationsretten til anklagemyndighedens endelige godkendelse, for ekspertudvalget var ikke det kompetente udvalg. Tiltalte kan forelægge anmodningen om forlig for det kompetente udvalg, det nationale udvalg for inddrivelse af aktiver i udlandet (NCRAA).
 Anden sag
 Efterforskningen af forhold vedrørende uretmæssig tilegnelse af offentlige midler eller aktiver er stadig i gang. Rådet har ikke fundet tegn på, at Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubaraks ret til et forsvar eller ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse ikke blev overholdt.
 3. Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
 Oplysningerne i Rådets sagsakter viser, at Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubaraks ret til et forsvar og ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse blev overholdt i de straffesager, som Rådet har lagt til grund. Dette fremgår navnlig af følgende:
 Afgørelse om indefrysning
 Den 28. februar 2011 udstedte anklagemyndigheden et forbud mod, at Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak og andre personer råder over deres aktiver og midler i overensstemmelse med artikel 208a, litra a), i Egyptens lov om strafferetspleje, der gør det muligt for anklagemyndigheden at forbyde tiltalte, dennes kone og deres børn at råde over deres aktiver, hvis der er tvivl om, hvorvidt sådanne aktiver er udbyttet fra de forbrydelser, der er begået af tiltalte. Den 8. marts 2011 stadfæstede den kompetente straffedomstol forbuddet. I henhold til lovgivningen i Den Arabiske Republik Egypten har tiltalte ret til at anfægte retsafgørelsen om forbuddet for samme domstol. Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak har ikke anfægtet afgørelsen af 8. marts 2011.
 Første sag
 Tiltalte blev sammen med en anden person stillet for domstolen (den strafferetlige domstol i Kairo) den 30. maj 2012. Den 6. juni 2013 overdrog domstolen sagen til anklagemyndigheden med henblik på yderligere efterforskning. Efter afslutningen på efterforskningen blev sagen igen bragt for domstolen. Den 15. september 2018 afsagde den strafferetlige domstol i Kairo en dom, hvori i) den anmodede det ekspertudvalg, som den havde udpeget, om at supplere den sagkyndige erklæring, som det havde forelagt for domstolen i juli 2018, ii) beordrede de tiltalte arresteret og iii) anmodede om, at de tiltalte blev henvist til det nationale udvalg for inddrivelse af aktiver i udlandet (NCRAA) med henblik på et muligt forlig. De tiltalte fik medhold i anken over arrestordren, og efter en begæring om det juridiske panels inhabilitet blev sagen bragt for en anden del af straffedomstolen med henblik på efterprøvelse.
 Anden sag
 Den 27. juni 2013 blev Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak sammen med to andre personer anklaget for uretmæssig tilegnelse af offentlige midler, og der blev rejst tiltale ved den strafferetlige domstol i Kairo den 17. november 2013. Den 21. maj 2014 dømte domstolen de tre tiltalte. De tiltalte anfægtede denne dom ved kassationsretten. Den 13. januar 2015 ophævede kassationsretten dommen og beordrede en fornyet prøvelse. Ved den fornyede prøvelse den 4. og 29. april 2015 blev parternes mundtlige og skriftlige indlæg forelagt.
 Den 9. maj 2015 dømte den strafferetlige domstol i Kairo de tiltalte, beordrede de uretmæssigt tilegnede midler tilbagebetalt og idømte betaling af en bøde. Den 24. maj 2015 blev der indgivet appel ved kassationsretten. Den 9. januar 2016 stadfæstede kassationsretten dommene. Den 8. marts 2016 indgik tiltalte forlig i det ekspertudvalg, der var nedsat ved premierministerens dekret nr. 2873 af 2015. Dette forlig blev godkendt af ministerkabinettet den 9. marts 2016. Dette forlig blev ikke forelagt for kassationsretten til anklagemyndighedens endelige godkendelse, for ekspertudvalget var ikke det kompetente udvalg. Det er op til tiltalte at forelægge anmodningen om forlig for det kompetente udvalg, det nationale udvalg for inddrivelse af aktiver i udlandet (NCRAA).
 Tredje sag
 Efterforskningen af forhold vedrørende uretmæssig tilegnelse af offentlige midler eller aktiver er stadig i gang. Rådet har ikke fundet tegn på, at Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubaraks ret til et forsvar eller ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse ikke blev overholdt.
 4. Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh
 Oplysningerne i Rådets sagsakter viser, at Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekhs ret til et forsvar og ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse blev overholdt i de straffesager, som Rådet har lagt til grund. Dette fremgår navnlig af følgende:
 Afgørelse om indefrysning
 Den 28. februar 2011 udstedte anklagemyndigheden et forbud mod, at Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh og andre personer råder over deres aktiver og midler i overensstemmelse med artikel 208a, litra a), i Egyptens lov om strafferetspleje, der gør det muligt for anklagemyndigheden at forbyde tiltalte, dennes kone og deres børn at råde over deres aktiver, hvis der er tvivl om, hvorvidt sådanne aktiver er udbyttet fra de forbrydelser, der er begået af tiltalte. Den 8. marts 2011 stadfæstede den kompetente straffedomstol forbuddet. I henhold til lovgivningen i Den Arabiske Republik Egypten har tiltalte ret til at anfægte retsafgørelsen om forbuddet for samme domstol. Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh har ikke anfægtet afgørelsen af 8. marts 2011.
 Sag
 Efterforskningen af forhold vedrørende uretmæssig tilegnelse af offentlige midler eller aktiver er stadig i gang. Rådet har ikke fundet tegn på, at Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekhs ret til et forsvar eller ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse ikke blev overholdt.
 5. Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
 Oplysningerne i Rådets sagsakter viser, at Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubaraks ret til et forsvar og ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse blev overholdt i de straffesager, som Rådet har lagt til grund. Dette fremgår navnlig af følgende:
 Afgørelse om indefrysning
 Den 28. februar 2011 udstedte anklagemyndigheden et forbud mod, at Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak og andre personer råder over deres aktiver og midler i overensstemmelse med artikel 208a, litra a), i Egyptens lov om strafferetspleje, der gør det muligt for anklagemyndigheden at forbyde tiltalte, dennes kone og deres børn at råde over deres aktiver, hvis der er tvivl om, hvorvidt sådanne aktiver er udbyttet fra de forbrydelser, der er begået af tiltalte. Den 8. marts 2011 stadfæstede den kompetente straffedomstol forbuddet. I henhold til lovgivningen i Den Arabiske Republik Egypten har tiltalte ret til at anfægte retsafgørelsen om forbuddet for samme domstol. Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak har ikke anfægtet afgørelsen af 8. marts 2011.
 Første sag
 Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak og en anden person blev stillet for domstolen (den strafferetlige domstol i Kairo) den 30. maj 2012. Den 6. juni 2013 overdrog domstolen sagen til anklagemyndigheden med henblik på yderligere efterforskning. Efter afslutningen på efterforskningen blev sagen igen bragt for domstolen. Den 15. september 2018 afsagde den strafferetlige domstol i Kairo en dom, hvori i) den anmodede det ekspertudvalg, som den havde udpeget, om at supplere den sagkyndige erklæring, som det havde forelagt for domstolen i juli 2018, ii) beordrede de tiltalte arresteret og iii) anmodede om, at de tiltalte blev henvist til det nationale udvalg for inddrivelse af aktiver i udlandet (NCRAA) med henblik på et muligt forlig. De tiltalte fik medhold i anken over arrestordren, og efter en begæring om det juridiske panels inhabilitet blev sagen bragt for en anden del af straffedomstolen med henblik på efterprøvelse.
 Anden sag
 Den 27. juni 2013 blev Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak sammen med to andre personer anklaget for uretmæssig tilegnelse af offentlige midler, og der blev rejst tiltale ved den strafferetlige domstol i Kairo den 17. november 2013. Den 21. maj 2014 dømte domstolen de tre tiltalte. De tiltalte anfægtede denne dom ved kassationsretten. Den 13. januar 2015 ophævede kassationsretten dommen og beordrede en fornyet prøvelse. Ved den fornyede prøvelse den 4. og 29. april 2015 blev parternes mundtlige og skriftlige indlæg forelagt. Den 9. maj 2015 dømte den strafferetlige domstol i Kairo de tiltalte, beordrede de uretmæssigt tilegnede midler tilbagebetalt og idømte betaling af en bøde. Den 24. maj 2015 blev der indgivet appel ved kassationsretten. Den 9. januar 2016 stadfæstede kassationsretten dommene. Den 8. marts 2016 indgik de tiltalte forlig i det ekspertudvalg, der var nedsat ved premierministerens dekret nr. 2873 af 2015. Dette forlig blev godkendt af ministerkabinettet den 9. marts 2016. Dette forlig blev ikke forelagt for kassationsretten til anklagemyndighedens endelige godkendelse, for ekspertudvalget var ikke det kompetente udvalg. De tiltalte kan forelægge anmodningen om forlig for det kompetente udvalg, det nationale udvalg for inddrivelse af aktiver i udlandet (NCRAA).
 Tredje sag
 Efterforskningen af forhold vedrørende uretmæssig tilegnelse af offentlige midler eller aktiver er stadig i gang. Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak er i forbindelse med efterforskningen blevet afhørt. Rådet har ikke fundet tegn på, at Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubaraks ret til et forsvar eller ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse ikke blev overholdt.
 6. Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal
 Oplysningerne i Rådets sagsakter viser, at Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammals ret til et forsvar og ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse blev overholdt i de straffesager, som Rådet har lagt til grund. Dette fremgår navnlig af følgende:
 Afgørelse om indefrysning
 Den 28. februar 2011 udstedte anklagemyndigheden et forbud mod, at Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal og andre personer råder over deres aktiver og midler i overensstemmelse med artikel 208a, litra a), i Egyptens lov om strafferetspleje, der gør det muligt for anklagemyndigheden at forbyde tiltalte, dennes kone og deres børn at råde over deres aktiver, hvis der er tvivl om, hvorvidt sådanne aktiver er udbyttet fra de forbrydelser, der er begået af tiltalte. Den 8. marts 2011 stadfæstede den kompetente straffedomstol forbuddet. I henhold til lovgivningen i Den Arabiske Republik Egypten har tiltalte ret til at anfægte retsafgørelsen om forbuddet for samme domstol. Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal har ikke anfægtet afgørelsen af 8. marts 2011.
 Sag
 Efterforskningen af forhold vedrørende uretmæssig tilegnelse af offentlige midler eller aktiver er stadig i gang. Rådet har ikke fundet tegn på, at Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammals ret til et forsvar eller ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse ikke blev overholdt.
 15. Mohamed Zohir Mohamed Wahed Garrana
 Oplysningerne i Rådets sagsakter viser, at Mohamed Zohir Mohamed Wahed Garranas ret til et forsvar og ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse blev overholdt i de straffesager, som Rådet har lagt til grund. Dette fremgår navnlig af følgende:
 Sag
 Efterforskningen af forhold vedrørende uretmæssig tilegnelse af offentlige midler eller aktiver er stadig i gang. Rådet har ikke fundet tegn på, at Mohamed Zohir Mohamed Wahed Garranas ret til et forsvar eller ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse ikke blev overholdt.
 18. Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladli
 Oplysningerne i Rådets sagsakter viser, at Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladlis ret til et forsvar og ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse blev overholdt i de straffesager, som Rådet har lagt til grund. Dette fremgår navnlig af følgende:
 Sag
 Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladli blev af undersøgelsesdommeren stillet for den kompetente domstol anklaget for uretmæssig tilegnelse af offentlige midler. Den 7. februar 2016 besluttede domstolen, at Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladlis, dennes kones og deres mindreårige søns midler skulle indefryses. I henhold til denne domstolsafgørelse udstedte anklagemyndigheden en afgørelse om indefrysning den 10. februar 2016 i overensstemmelse med artikel 208a, litra a), i Egyptens lov om strafferetspleje, der gør det muligt for anklagemyndigheden at forbyde tiltalte, dennes kone og deres børn at råde over deres aktiver, hvis der er tvivl om, hvorvidt sådanne aktiver er udbyttet fra de forbrydelser, der er begået af tiltalte. I henhold til lovgivningen i Den Arabiske Republik Egypten har tiltalte ret til at anfægte retsafgørelsen om forbuddet for samme domstol. Den 15. april 2017 dømte domstolen den tiltalte. Tiltalte anfægtede denne dom ved kassationsretten, som ophævede dommen den 11. januar 2018 og beordrede en fornyet prøvelse. Den nye sag verserer stadig.
 19. Elham Sayed Salem Sharshar
 Oplysningerne i Rådets sagsakter viser, at Elham Sayed Salem Sharshars ret til et forsvar og ret til effektiv retsbeskyttelse blev overholdt i de straffesager, som Rådet har lagt til grund. Dette fremgår navnlig af følgende:
 Afgørelse om indefrysning
 Elham Sayed Salem Sharshars mand blev af undersøgelsesdommeren stillet for den kompetente domstol anklaget for uretmæssig tilegnelse af offentlige midler. Den 7. februar 2016 besluttede domstolen, at hendes mands, hendes egne og deres mindreårige søns midler skulle indefryses. I overensstemmelse med denne domstolsafgørelse udstedte anklagemyndigheden en afgørelse om indefrysning den 10. februar 2016 i overensstemmelse med artikel 208a, litra a), i Egyptens lov om strafferetspleje, der gør det muligt for anklagemyndigheden at forbyde tiltalte, dennes kone og deres børn at råde over deres aktiver, hvis der er tvivl om, hvorvidt sådanne aktiver er udbyttet fra de forbrydelser, der er begået af tiltalte. I henhold til lovgivningen i Den Arabiske Republik Egypten har tiltalte ret til at anfægte retsafgørelsen om forbuddet for samme domstol. Elham Sayed Salem Sharshar har ikke anfægtet retsafgørelsen.
 «


text:
Õpilaste Are Kooli vastuvõtmise tingimused ja kord – Riigi Teataja
 Õpilaste Are Kooli vastuvõtmise tingimused ja kord
 Õpilaste Are Kooli vastuvõtmise tingimused ja kord - sisukord
 § 1 Kooli vastuvõtmine
 § 2 Vastuvõtu tingimused 1. klassi astujale
 § 3 Üldised vastuvõtu tingimused
 § 4 Vastuvõtmisest või selle keeldumisest teavitamine
 RT IV, 02.02.2017, 50
 Vastu võetud 27.01.2017 nr 1
 Määrus kehtestatakse põhikooli- ja gümnaasiumiseaduse § 27 lõike 5 ning haridus- ja teadusministri 19.08.2010 määruse nr 43 „Õpilase kooli vastuvõtmise üldised tingimused ja kord ning koolist väljaarvamise kord“ § 2 lõike 1 alusel.
 § 1. Kooli vastuvõtmine
 (1) Kool võtab õpilaseks vastu kõik selleks soovi avaldanud koolikohustuslikud isikud, kellele Are Kool on elukohajärgne kool.
 (2) Taotlus õppima asumiseks rahuldatakse vabade õppekohtade ning õpilasele sobiva õppevormi olemasolul.
 (3) Vastuvõtu taotlusi (vorm lisatud) koos vastuvõtu tingimustes nõutud dokumentidega saab esitada Are Kooli direktorile tööpäeviti kell 9.00-16.00 või digiallkirjastatult e-postile direktor@are.edu.ee.
 (4) Otsuse isiku õpilaste nimekirja arvamiseks teeb direktor.
 (5) Kooli nimekirja arvatud õpilane jätkab õpinguid klassis, kus ta eelmises koolis väljaarvamise hetkel õppis või kuhu ta õppeperioodi lõpul üle viidi.
 (6) Kooli nimekirja arvatud õpilase klassi määramise erijuhtudel toimib Are Kool haridus- ja teadusministri 19.08.2010 määruse nr 43 „Õpilase kooli vastuvõtmise üldised tingimused ja kord ning koolist väljaarvamise kord“ alusel.
 (7) Digitaalallkirjaga kinnitatud taotluse korral ei pea õpilase vanem taotlusele lisama enda isikut tõendavat dokumenti.
 § 2. Vastuvõtu tingimused 1. klassi astujale
 Kooli vastuvõtmiseks esitab lapsevanem kirjaliku taotluse, millele lisab:
 1) lapse sünnitunnistuse või -tõendi, millest Are Koolis tehakse koopia või selle ametlikult kinnitatud ärakirja või väljavõtte;
 2) enda isikut tõendava dokumendi või selle ametlikult kinnitatud ärakirja või väljavõtte;
 4) lapse foto õpilaspileti jaoks.
 § 3. Üldised vastuvõtu tingimused
 (1) Kooli vastuvõtmiseks esitab lapsevanem kirjaliku taotluse, millele lisab:
 4) lapse foto õpilaspileti jaoks;
 6) ametlikult kinnitatud klassitunnistuse või hinnetelehe jooksva õppeperioodi hinnetega, kui taotlus esitatakse õppeperioodi kestel.
 (2) Välisriigi õppeasutusest tulnud õpilase puhul tuleb käesoleva § lõike 1 punktis 5 ja 6 nõutud dokumentide asemel taotlusele lisada välisriigi õppeasutuses omandatud haridust või läbitud õpet tõendav dokument või selle ametlikult kinnitatud ärakiri.
 § 4. Vastuvõtmisest või selle keeldumisest teavitamine
 (1) 1. klassi astujat ja lapsevanemat teavitatakse direktori poolt kooli vastuvõtmisest kohe pärast taotluse esitamist.
 (2) Õpilast ja tema vanemat, kellele kool ei ole elukohajärgne kool, teavitatakse direktori poolt kooli vastuvõtmisest või vastuvõtmisest keeldumisest ühe tööpäeva jooksul pärast taotluse esitamist.


type: caselaw

text:
 29.10.2005
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 271/27
 Civildienesta tiesas priekšsēdētāja ievēlēšana
 (2005/C 271/51)
 2005. gada 6. oktobra sanāksmē Civildienesta tiesas tiesneši atbilstoši 3. pantam Padomes 2005. gada 22. jūlija Lēmumā, ar ko ieceļ Eiropas Savienības Civildienesta (1) tiesas tiesnešus, un Protokola par Tiesas Statūtiem (2) I pielikuma 4. panta 1. punktam par minētās tiesas priekšsēdētāju no 2005. gada 6. oktobra līdz 2008. gada 5. oktobrim ievēlēja tiesnesi Mahoniju [Mahoney].
 (1) OV L 197, 28. 7. 2005., 28. lpp.
 (2) OV L 333, 09.11.2004., 9. lpp.


text:
 20.11.2010
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 317/13
 Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága (Republika Madžarska) 28. julija 2010 – VALE Építésí Kft.
 (Zadeva C-378/10)
 ()
 2010/C 317/25
 Jezik postopka: madžarščina
 Predložitveno sodišče
 Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága
 Revident
 VALE Építésí Kft.
 Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
 1.
 Ali mora država članica gostiteljica upoštevati člena 43 ES in 48 ES tudi tedaj, ko družba, ki je bila ustanovljena v drugi državi članici (država članica izvora), sedež družbe prenese v državo članico gostiteljico in jo glede na to v državi članici izvora izbrišejo iz registra družb, lastniki družbe v skladu z zakonodajo države članice gostiteljice sprejmejo nov akt o ustanovitvi in družba v skladu z zakonodajo države članice gostiteljice zaprosi za vpis v register družb države članice gostiteljice?
 2.
 Če je odgovor na prvo vprašanje pritrdilen, ali je treba v opisanem primeru člena 43 ES in 48 ES razlagati tako, da nasprotujeta predpisu ali praksi države članice (gostiteljice), ki družbi, ki je bila zakonito ustanovljena v drugi državi članici (država članica izvora), preprečuje prenos sedeža v državo članico gostiteljico in nadaljevanje dejavnosti v skladu z njeno zakonodajo?
 3.
 V zvezi z odgovorom na drugo vprašanje, ali je pomemben razlog, zaradi katerega država članica gostiteljica zavrne vpis družbe v register družb, in sicer:
 —
 če družba v aktu o ustanovitvi, ki ga je sprejela v državi članici gostiteljici, za pravno prednico določi družbo, ki je bila ustanovljena v državi članici izvora in je tam bila izbrisana iz registra družb, in družba v državi članici gostiteljici pri vpisu v register družb zaprosi, da se takšna družba vpiše kot njena pravna prednica?
 —
 Ali je pri mednarodnem preoblikovanju znotraj Skupnosti država članica gostiteljica pri obravnavi predloga za vpis v register družb dolžna upoštevati akt, na podlagi katerega je bila v zvezi s to družbo v državi članici izvora v register družb vpisana sprememba sedeža in, če je odgovor pritrdilen, v kolikšnem obsegu?
 4.
 Ali je država članica gostiteljica upravičena, da predlog za vpis družbe, ki namerava izvesti mednarodno preoblikovanje znotraj Skupnosti, v register družb obravnava v skladu z zakonodajo države gostiteljice in po pravilih za preoblikovanje domačih gospodarskih družb in od družbe zahteva izpolnjevanje vseh pogojev (na primer priprava bilance stanja in popis sredstev), oziroma ali je država članica gostiteljica na podlagi členov 43 ES in 48 ES dolžna razlikovati mednarodno preoblikovanje družbe znotraj Skupnosti od preoblikovanja družbe doma in, če je odgovor pritrdilen, v kolikšni meri?