type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 22.8.2017
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 216/19
 РЕГЛАМЕНТ ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ (ЕС) 2017/1492 НА КОМИСИЯТА
 от 21 август 2017 година
 за разрешаване на употребата на холекалциферол като фуражна добавка за всички видове животни
 (текст от значение за ЕИП)
 ЕВРОПЕЙСКАТА КОМИСИЯ,
 като взе предвид Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз,
 като взе предвид Регламент (ЕО) No 1831/2003 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 22 септември 2003 г. относно добавки за използване при храненето на животните (1), и по-специално член 9, параграф 2 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 В Регламент (ЕО) No 1831/2003 се предвижда разрешителен режим за добавките, предвидени за употреба при храненето на животните, и се посочват основанията и процедурите за предоставянето на такова разрешение. В член 10 от посочения регламент се предвижда извършването на повторна оценка на добавките, чиято употреба е разрешена съгласно Директива 70/524/ЕИО на Съвета (2).
 (2)
 Холекалциферол беше разрешен за неограничен период от време с Директива 70/524/ЕИО като фуражна добавка за всички животински видове. Впоследствие посочената добавка беше вписана в Регистъра на фуражните добавки като съществуващ продукт в съответствие с член 10, параграф 1 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1831/2003.
 (3)
 В съответствие с член 10, параграф 2 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1831/2003 във връзка с член 7 от същия регламент бяха подадени три заявления за извършване на повторна оценка на холекалциферол като фуражна добавка за всички видове животни и, в съответствие с член 7 от посочения регламент, за употреба във вода за пиене. Заявителите отправиха искане добавката да се класифицира в категорията „хранителни добавки“. Посочените заявления бяха придружени от данните и документите, изисквани съгласно член 7, параграф 3 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1831/2003.
 (4)
 В становищата си от 13 ноември 2012 г. (3), 20 юни 2013 г. (4), 30 януари 2014 г. (5) и 25 януари 2017 г. (6) Европейският орган за безопасност на храните („Органът“) заключи, че при предложените условия на употреба във фуражи холекалциферол не се отразява неблагоприятно върху здравето на животните и здравето на човека, нито върху околната среда. Освен това Органът заключи, че холекалциферол е ефикасен източник на витамин D3.
 (5)
 В становищата си Органът заключи, че за някои формулировки на витамин D3 е налице вероятност работниците да бъдат изложени на високи нива на витамин D3 при вдишване. Вдишаният витамин D3 е силно токсичен, а експозицията на прах е вредна. Поради това следва да се вземат съответните предпазни мерки. Органът не счита, че са необходими специални изисквания за мониторинг след пускането на пазара. Той също така провери доклада относно метода за анализ на фуражните добавки във фуражите, представен от референтната лаборатория, определена с Регламент (ЕО) No 1831/2003.
 (6)
 При оценката на холекалциферол беше установено, че предвидените в член 5 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1831/2003 условия за издаване на разрешение са изпълнени, освен при водата за пиене. Поради това употребата на посоченото вещество във фуражи следва да бъде разрешена съгласно посоченото в приложението към настоящия регламент. Следва да се определи максимално съдържание на холекалциферол. Холекалциферол не следва да се приема пряко с вода за пиене, тъй като допълнителен път на въвеждане би увеличил риска за потребителите и животните. Поради това следва да бъде отказано разрешение за употребата във вода за пиене на холекалциферол като хранителна добавка принадлежаща към функционалната група „витамини, провитамини и химически добре дефинирани вещества, които имат подобен ефект“. Забраната не се прилага за това вещество, когато се използва в комбинирани фуражи, които впоследствие се приемат с вода.
 (7)
 Тъй като няма съображения във връзка с безопасността, които да налагат незабавното прилагане на измененията в условията на разрешението на холекалциферол, е целесъобразно да се предвиди преходен период, за да се даде възможност на заинтересованите страни да предприемат необходимото, за да спазят новите изисквания, произтичащи от разрешението.
 (8)
 Мерките, предвидени в настоящия регламент, са в съответствие със становището на Постоянния комитет по растенията, животните, храните и фуражите,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ:
 Член 1
 Разрешаване
 Разрешава се употребата на посоченото в приложението вещество, което принадлежи към категорията „хранителни добавки“ и към функционалната група „витамини, провитамини и химически добре дефинирани вещества, които имат подобен ефект“, като фуражна добавка при храненето на животните при спазване на условията, определени в същото приложение.
 Член 2
 Отказване на разрешение
 Отказва се разрешение за употребата във вода за пиене на холекалциферол като добавка, принадлежаща към категорията „хранителни добавки“ и към функционалната група „витамини, провитамини и химически добре дефинирани вещества, които имат подобен ефект“.
 Член 3
 Преходни мерки
 1. Посоченото в приложението вещество и съдържащите го премикси, които са произведени и етикетирани преди 11 март 2018 г. в съответствие с правилата, приложими преди 11 септември 2017 г., могат да продължат да се пускат на пазара и да се употребяват до изчерпване на складовите наличности.
 2. Комбинираните фуражи и фуражните суровини, които съдържат посоченото в приложението вещество и са произведени и етикетирани преди 11 септември 2018 г. в съответствие с правилата, приложими преди 11 септември 2017 г., могат да продължат да се пускат на пазара и да се употребяват до изчерпване на складовите наличности, ако са предназначени за животни, отглеждани за производство на храни.
 3. Комбинираните фуражи и фуражните суровини, които съдържат посоченото в приложението вещество и са произведени и етикетирани преди 11 септември 2019 г. в съответствие с правилата, приложими преди 11 септември 2017 г., могат да продължат да се пускат на пазара и да се употребяват до изчерпване на складовите наличности, ако са предназначени за животни, които не се отглеждат за производство на храни.
 Член 4
 Влизане в сила
 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила на двадесетия ден след деня на публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави членки.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 21 август 2017 година.
 За Комисията
 Председател
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) ОВ L 268, 18.10.2003 г., стр. 29.
 (2) Директива 70/524/ЕИО на Съвета от 23 ноември 1970 г. относно добавките при храненето на животни (ОВ L 270, 14.12.1970 г., стр. 1).
 (3) Бюлетин на ЕОБХ (EFSA Journal), 2012 г.; 10(12):2968.
 (4) Бюлетин на ЕОБХ (EFSA Journal), 2013 г.; 11(7):3289.
 (5) Бюлетин на ЕОБХ (EFSA Journal), 2014 г.; 12(2):3568.
 (6) Бюлетин на ЕОБХ (EFSA Journal), 2017 г.; 15(3):4713.
 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ
 Идентификационен номер на добавката
 Наименование на притежателя на разрешението
 Добавка
 Състав, химична формула, описание, метод за анализ
 Вид или категория на животните
 Максимална възраст
 Минимално съдържание
 Максимално съдържание
 Други разпоредби
 Срок на валидност на разрешението
 IU или mg холекалциферол (1)/kg пълноценен фураж със съдържание на влага 12 %.
 Категория: „хранителни добавки“. Функционална група: Витамини, провитамини и химически добре дефинирани вещества, които имат подобен ефект
 3a671
 —
 „Холекалциферол“ или „витамин D3“
 Състав на добавката
 Холекалциферол.
 Характеристика на активното вещество
 Холекалциферол
 C27H44O
 CAS No: 67-97-0
 Холекалциферол като твърдо вещество и смола, получен чрез химичен синтез.
 Критерии за чистота:
 Минимум 80 % (холекалциферол и прехолекалциферол) и максимум 7 % тахистерол.
 Метод за анализ
 (2)
 —
 За определяне на витамин D3 във фуражната добавка: Високоефективна течна хроматография, комбинирана с ултравиолетово откриване (HPLC-UV, 254 nm), Европейска фармакопея — метод 01/2008: 0574,0575,0598.
 —
 За определяне на витамин D3 в премиксите: високоефективна течна хроматография, комбинирана с ултравиолетово откриване при 265 nm (HPLC-UV) — VDLUFA 1997, Methodenbuch, Method 13.8.1;
 —
 За определяне на витамин D3 във фуражи:
 —
 високоефективна течна хроматография, комбинирана с ултравиолетово откриване при 265 nm (HPLC-UV) — VDLUFA 1997, Methodenbuch, Method 13.8.1; или
 —
 високоефективна течна хроматография с обърната фаза, комбинирана с ултравиолетово откриване при 265 nm (RP-HPLC-UV), EN 12821.
 —
 За определяне на витамин D3 във вода: високоефективна течна хроматография с обърната фаза, комбинирана с ултравиолетово откриване при 265 nm (RP-HPLC-UV), EN 12821.
 Свине
 2 000 IU
 0,05 mg
 1.
 Витамин D3 може да се пуска на пазара и да се използва като добавка под формата на препарат.
 2.
 Добавката се смесва с фуража под формата на премикс.
 3.
 В упътването за употреба на добавката и премиксите се посочват условията за съхранение и устойчивост.
 4.
 Максимално съдържание на комбинацията на 25-хидроксихолекалциферол с холекалциферол на kg пълноценен фураж:
 —
 ≤ 0,125 mg (1) (еквивалентно на 5 000 IU витамин D3) за пилета за угояване и пуйки за угояване;
 —
 ≤ 0,080 mg за други домашни птици;
 —
 ≤ 0,050 mg за прасета.
 5.
 Не се допуска едновременна употреба на витамин D2.
 6.
 Стопанските субекти в областта на фуражите трябва да установят оперативни процедури и да предвидят подходящи организационни мерки за потребителите на добавката и премиксите, с цел да предотвратят много опасните последици от вдишване на витамин D3. Когато рисковете, свързани с тези много опасни последици, не могат да бъдат отстранени или сведени до минимум чрез споменатите процедури и мерки, добавката и премиксите се използват с лични предпазни средства, включително предпазна дихателна маска.
 11 септември 2027 г.
 Заместители на мляко за прасенца
 10 000 IU
 0,25 mg
 Едър рогат добитък
 4 000 IU
 0,1 mg
 Заместители на мляко за телета
 10 000 IU
 0,25 mg
 Овце
 4 000 IU
 0,1 mg
 Пилета за угояване
 5 000 IU
 0,125 mg
 Пуйки
 5 000 IU
 0,125 mg
 Други домашни птици
 3 200 IU
 0,080 mg
 Еднокопитни животни
 4 000 IU
 0,1 mg
 Видове риба
 3 000 IU
 0,075 mg
 Други видове
 2 000 IU
 0,05 mg
 (1) 40 IU холекалциферол = 0,001 mg холекалциферол.
 (2) Подробна информация за методите за анализ може да бъде намерена на следния интернет адрес на референтната лаборатория: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eurl/feed-additives/evaluation-reports


type: caselaw

text:
 9.3.2013
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 71/20
 Auto del Tribunal General de 10 de enero de 2013 — MyTravel/Comisión
 (Asunto T-403/05 RENV) (1)
 (Acceso a los documentos de las instituciones - Documentos relativos a una decisión en materia de concentraciones anulada por el Tribunal General - Negativa a conceder el acceso - Sobreseimiento)
 2013/C 71/31
 Lengua de procedimiento: inglés
 Partes
 Demandante: MyTravel Group plc (Rochdale, Lancashire, Reino Unido) (representantes: inicialmente S. Cardell, B. Louveaux, P. Walter y P. Horan, Solicitors, y posteriormente B. Louveaux, P. Walter y P. Horan, Solicitors)
 Demandada: Comisión Europea (representantes: inicialmente C. O’Reilly y P. Costa de Oliveira, agentes, y posteriormente P. Costa de Oliveira)
 Partes coadyuvantes en apoyo de la demandante: Reino de Suecia (representantes: inicialmente A. Falk, C. Meyer Seitz, C. Stege y U. Persson, agentes, y posteriormente A. Falk y U. Persson, agentes); Reino de Dinamarca (representantes: C.H. Vang y V. Pasternak Jørgensen, agentes); Reino de los Países Bajos (representantes: C. Wissels y J. Langer, agentes), y República de Finlandia (representante: J. Heliskoski, agente)
 Partes coadyuvantes en apoyo de la demandada: República Federal de Alemania (representantes: M. Lumma y B. Klein, agentes); República Francesa (representantes: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues y A. Adam, agentes), y Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte (representantes: E. Jenkinson y S. Ossowski, agentes)
 Objeto
 Recurso de anulación de las Decisiones de la Comisión de 5 de septiembre [D(2005) 8461] y de 12 de octubre de 2005 [D(2005) 9763] mediante las que se denegó una solicitud presentada por la demandante con el fin de tener acceso a determinados documentos preparatorios de la Decisión 2000/276/CE de la Comisión, de 22 de septiembre de 1999, por la que se declara una concentración incompatible con el mercado común y con el Acuerdo EEE (asunto no IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First Choice) (DO L 93, p. 1), así como a documentos redactados por los servicios de la Comisión a raíz de la anulación de dicha Decisión por la sentencia del Tribunal General de 6 de junio de 2002, Airtours/Comisión (T-342/99, Rec. p. II-2585).
 Fallo
 1)
 Sobreseer el recurso.
 2)
 MyTravel Group plc cargará con la mitad de sus propias costas en los asuntos T-403/05 y T-403/05 RENV, así como con la mitad de las costas en que haya incurrido la Comisión Europea en los asuntos T-403/05 y T-403/05 RENV.
 3)
 La Comisión Europea cargará con la mitad de sus propias costas en los asuntos T-403/05 y T-403/05 RENV, así como con la mitad de las costas en que haya incurrido MyTravel Group plc en los asuntos T-403/05 y T-403/05 RENV.
 4)
 La Comisión cargará con sus propias costas y con las costas en que haya incurrido el Reino de Suecia en el asunto C-506/08 P.
 5)
 El Reino de Suecia cargará con sus propias costas en el asunto T-403/05 RENV.
 6)
 El Reino de Dinamarca, la República Federal de Alemania, la República Francesa, el Reino de los Países Bajos, la República de Finlandia y el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte cargarán con sus propias costas en los asuntos C-506/08 P y T-403/05 RENV.
 (1) DO C 10, de 14.1.2006.


type: contracts

text:
 13.9.2012
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 L 248/4
 GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉNS BESLUT
 nr 75/2012
 av den 30 april 2012
 om ändring av bilaga I (Veterinära frågor och växtskyddsfrågor) till EES-avtalet
 GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉN HAR ANTAGIT DETTA BESLUT
 med beaktande av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, ändrat genom protokollet med justeringar av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, nedan kallat avtalet, särskilt artikel 98, och
 av följande skäl:
 (1)
 Bilaga I till avtalet ändrades genom gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslut nr 34/2012 av den 30 mars 2012 (1).
 (2)
 Rådets förordning (EG) nr 1099/2009 av den 24 september 2009 om skydd av djur vid tidpunkten för avlivning (2) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (3)
 Kommissionens förordning (EU) nr 150/2011 av den 18 februari 2011 om ändring av bilaga III till Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 853/2004 vad gäller hägnat och frilevande vilt samt kött av hägnat och frilevande vilt (3) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (4)
 Kommissionens förordning (EU) nr 151/2011 av den 18 februari 2011 om ändring av bilaga I till Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 854/2004 vad gäller hägnat vilt (4) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 (5)
 Genom förordning (EG) nr 1099/2009 upphävdes rådets direktiv 93/119/EG (5), som är införlivat med avtalet och följaktligen bör utgå ur avtalet, till fullo med verkan från och med den 8 december 2019.
 (6)
 Detta beslut avser lagstiftning om veterinära frågor. Enligt texten under rubriken ”Anpassning för detta område” i bilaga I till avtalet ska lagstiftning om veterinära frågor inte gälla för Liechtenstein så länge det landet omfattas av tillämpningen av avtalet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och Schweiziska edsförbundet om handel med jordbruksprodukter. Detta beslut bör därför inte gälla för Liechtenstein.
 HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.
 Artikel 1
 Kapitel I i bilaga I till avtalet ska ändras på följande sätt:
 1.
 I del 9.1 punkt 2 (rådets direktiv 93/119/EG) ska ”ändrat genom” ersättas med ”ändrat och upphävt genom”.
 2.
 Följande strecksats ska läggas till i del 9.1 punkt 2 (rådets direktiv 93/119/EG):
 ”—
 32009 R 1099: Rådets förordning (EG) nr 1099/2009 av den 24 september 2009 (EUT L 303, 18.11.2009, s. 1)”.
 3.
 Texten i del 9.1 punkt 2 (rådets direktiv 93/119/EG) ska utgå med verkan från och med den 8 december 2019.
 4.
 Följande punkt ska införas i del 9.1 efter punkt 2 (rådets direktiv 93/119/EG):
 ”2a.
 32009 R 1099: Rådets förordning (EG) nr 1099/2009 av den 24 september 2009 om skydd av djur vid tidpunkten för avlivning (EUT L 303, 18.11.2009, s. 1)”.
 5.
 Följande strecksats ska läggas till i del 6.1 punkt 17 (Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 853/2004):
 ”—
 32011 R 0150: Kommissionens förordning (EU) nr 150/2011 av den 18 februari 2011 (EUT L 46, 19.2.2011, s. 14)”.
 6.
 Följande strecksats ska läggas till i del 1.1 punkt 12 (Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 854/2004):
 ”—
 32011 R 0151: Kommissionens förordning (EU) nr 151/2011 av den 18 februari 2011 (EUT L 46, 19.2.2011, s. 17)”.
 Artikel 2
 Texterna till förordningarna (EG) nr 1099/2009, (EU) nr 150/2011 och (EU) nr 151/2011 på isländska och norska, som ska offentliggöras i EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning, ska vara giltiga.
 Artikel 3
 Detta beslut träder i kraft den 1 maj 2012 under förutsättning att alla anmälningar enligt artikel 103.1 i avtalet har gjorts till gemensamma EES-kommittén (6).
 Artikel 4
 Detta beslut ska offentliggöras i EES-delen av och EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning.
 Utfärdat i Bryssel den 30 april 2012.
 På gemensamma EES-kommitténs vägnar
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 Tillförordnad ordförande
 (1) EUT L 207, 2.8.2012, s. 1.
 (2) EUT L 303, 18.11.2009, s. 1.
 (3) EUT L 46, 19.2.2011, s. 14.
 (4) EUT L 46, 19.2.2011, s. 17.
 (5) EGT L 340, 31.12.1993, s. 21.
 (6) Inga konstitutionella krav angivna.


type: wikipedia

text:
The 1999 Cracker Barrel 500 was the fourth stock car race of the 1999 NASCAR Winston Cup Series season and the 40th iteration of the event. The race was held on Sunday, March 14, 1999, in Hampton, Georgia at Atlanta Motor Speedway, a permanent asphalt quad-oval intermediate speedway. The race took the scheduled 325 laps to complete. In the closing laps of the race, Hendrick Motorsports driver Jeff Gordon would manage to pull a sizable lead over the rest of the field to win his 44th career NASCAR Winston Cup Series victory and his second of the season. To fill out the podium, Joe Gibbs Racing driver Bobby Labonte and Roush Racing driver Mark Martin would finish second and third, respectively.
 Background
 Atlanta Motor Speedway (formerly Atlanta International Raceway) is a 1.54-mile race track in Hampton, Georgia, United States, 20 miles (32 km) south of Atlanta. It has annually hosted NASCAR Winston Cup Series stock car races since its inauguration in 1960.
 The venue was bought by Speedway Motorsports in 1990. In 1994, 46 condominiums were built over the northeastern side of the track. In 1997, to standardize the track with Speedway Motorsports' other two intermediate ovals, the entire track was almost completely rebuilt. The frontstretch and backstretch were swapped, and the configuration of the track was changed from oval to quad-oval, with a new official length of where before it was . The project made the track one of the fastest on the NASCAR circuit.
 Entry list
 (R) - denotes rookie driver
 Practice
 First practice
 The first practice session was held on Friday, March 12, at 10:00 AM EST. The session would last for two hours and 25 minutes. Jeremy Mayfield, driving for Penske-Kranefuss Racing, would set the fastest time in the session, with a lap of 28.603 and an average speed of .
 Second practice
 The second practice session was held on Friday, March 12, at 12:00 PM EST. The session would last for 55 minutes. Joe Nemechek, driving for Team SABCO, would set the fastest time in the session, with a lap of 28.474 and an average speed of .
 Third practice
 The third practice session was held on Saturday, March 13, at 9:30 AM EST. The session would last for 45 minutes. Derrike Cope, driving for Bahari Racing, would set the fastest time in the session, with a lap of 29.118 and an average speed of .
 Final practice
 The final practice session, sometimes referred to as Happy Hour, was held on Saturday, March 13, after the preliminary 1999 Yellow Freight 300. The session would last for one hour. Jeff Gordon, driving for Hendrick Motorsports, would set the fastest time in the session, with a lap of 29.359 and an average speed of .
 Qualifying
 Qualifying was split into two rounds. The first round was held on Friday, March 12, at 2:30 PM EST. Each driver would have one lap to set a time. During the first round, the top 25 drivers in the round would be guaranteed a starting spot in the race. If a driver was not able to guarantee a spot in the first round, they had the option to scrub their time from the first round and try and run a faster lap time in a second round qualifying run, held on Saturday, March 13, at 11:00 AM EST. As with the first round, each driver would have one lap to set a time. Positions 26-36 would be decided on time, while positions 37-43 would be based on provisionals. Six spots are awarded by the use of provisionals based on owner's points. The seventh is awarded to a past champion who has not otherwise qualified for the race. If no past champion needs the provisional, the next team in the owner points will be awarded a provisional.
 Bobby Labonte, driving for Joe Gibbs Racing, would win the pole, setting a time of 28.437 and an average speed of .
 Three drivers would fail to qualify: Robert Pressley, Steve Grissom, and Morgan Shepherd.
 Full qualifying results
 *Time not available.
 Race results
 References
 1999 NASCAR Winston Cup Series
 NASCAR races at Atlanta Motor Speedway
 March 1999 sports events in the United States
 1999 in sports in Georgia (U.S. state)


text:
Η Τζένιφερ Τζοάννα Άνιστον (αγγλικά: Jennifer Joanna Aniston, 11 Φεβρουαρίου 1969) είναι Αμερικανίδα ηθοποιός, παραγωγός και επιχειρηματίας. Έγινε ευρύτερα γνωστή μέσα από την τηλεοπτική σειρά Τα Φιλαράκια (1994-2004), ενσαρκώνοντας το ρόλο της Ρέιτσελ Γκριν.
 Νεανικά χρόνια
 Γεννήθηκε στις 11 Φεβρουαρίου 1969 στο Σέρμαν Οκς της Καλιφόρνια των Η.Π.Α με γονείς τον Έλληνα ηθοποιό Τζον Άνιστον, που κατάγεται από τα Χανιά και μητέρα την επίσης ηθοποιό Νάνσι Ντάου (1936-2016) που έχει ιρλανδική και σκωτσέζικη καταγωγή. Το ελληνικό της όνομα είναι Ιωάννα Γενοβέφα Αναστασάκη
 Οι γονείς της χώρισαν όταν εκείνη ήταν μόλις έντεκα χρονών. Επίσης, έχει δύο ετεροθαλείς αδερφούς: τον Τζον Μέλικ (John Melick) από την πλευρά της μητέρας της και τον Άλεξ Άνιστον (Alex Aniston) από την πλευρά του πατέρα της. Αν και δεν είναι ευρέως γνωστό, η Άνιστον, έζησε για ένα χρόνο στην Ελλάδα, ωστόσο, τα περισσότερα παιδικά της χρόνια τα έζησε στην Νέα Υόρκη. Ο νονός της, ήταν ο Ελληνοαμερικανός ηθοποιός και τραγουδιστής Τέλι Σαβάλας. Τα τελευταία χρόνια ζει στο Μπελ Ερ του Λος Άντζελες.
 Σταδιοδρομία
 Πρώτα χρόνια (1988–1993)
 Η Τζένιφερ Άνιστον ξεκίνησε την καριέρα της το 1990 στις ταινίες Ferris Bueller,Molloy και Camp Cucamonga. Μετά από τρία χρόνια και συγκεκριμένα το 1993 παίρνει έναν ακόμη ρόλο αυτόν στην ταινία Το ξωτικό. Έναν χρόνο αργότερα το 1994 παίζει στην ταινία Muddling through. Η επόμενη επαγγελματική εργασία της Άνιστον είναι το 1996 στην ταινία Δύο αδέρφια,οι γυναίκες και μια ερωμένη . Έναν χρόνο μετά θα παίξει στην ταινία Εραστής σε τιμή ευκαιρίας. Αργότερα το 1998 ακολουθούν δύο ταινίες οι :Αίσθημα μετ'εμποδίων και The Newton boys . Το 1999 οι Άνιστον πρωταγωνίστησε σε δύο ταινίες όπως : Στην τρέλα του γραφείου, Σιδερένιος γίγαντας . Έτσι δύο χρόνια μετά ακολουθεί η ταινία Rock star . Συγκεκριμένα το 2002 οι ταινίες στις οποίες πήρε ένα εκ των ρόλων ήταν Η κυρία και ο Ναύτης και Σαν καλό κορίτσι . Μετά από αυτές τις αποτυχημένες προσπάθειες ήρθε μια ταινία στην ζωή της από την οποία έγινε ευρέως γνωστή και δεν είναι άλλη από το Θεός για μια εβδομάδα στο πλευρό του Jim Carrey.
 Τα φιλαράκια και παγκόσμια αναγνώριση (1994–2004)
 Όταν απέτυχε στις προηγούμενες τηλεοπτικές της εμφανίσεις, η Άνιστον πλησίασε τον Warren Littlefield σε ένα βενζινάδικο του Λος Άντζελες ζητώντας επιβεβαίωση. Ο επικεφαλής της ψυχαγωγίας του NBC την ενθάρρυνε να συνεχίσει την υποκριτική και λίγους μήνες αργότερα τη βοήθησε να παίξει στο Friends, μια κωμική σειρά που θα έκανε το ντεμπούτο της στο φθινοπωρινό lineup του NBC το 1994–1995. Ο παραγωγός ήθελε η Άνιστον να περάσει από οντισιόν για το ρόλο της Monica Geller,αλλά η Κόρτνεϊ Κοξ κρίθηκε καταλληλότερη και η Άνιστον επιλέχθηκε ως Rachel Green. Της προσφέρθηκε επίσης μια θέση ως επιλεγμένη παίκτρια στο Saturday Night Live, αλλά την απέρριψε υπέρ των Friends. Έπαιξε τη Ρέιτσελ μέχρι το τέλος της σειράς το 2004.}}
 Συνεχής επιτυχία σε ταινίες (2005-2013)
 Έπειτα από την μεγάλη αναγνωρισημότητα που της επέφεραν τα Φιλαράκια η Τζένιφερ Άνιστον πρωταγωνίστησε σε αρκετές ακόμη ταινίες όπου κατάφεραν να γίνουν εισπρακτικές επιτυχίες πολλών εκατομμυρίων δολαρίων. Συγκεκριμένα λίγους μήνες μετά την ολοκλήρωση της σειράς Friends η Άνιστον πρωταγωνίστησε στην ταινία Όταν γνώρισα την Πόλυ. Έναν χρόνο μετά ακολουθεί η ταινία Οι φήμες λένε .... και Εκτός τροχιάς. Το 2006 η Άνιστον αναλαμβάνει δύο εκ των πρωταγωνιστικών ρόλων στις ταινίες Οι πλούσιες κολλητές μου και Τα χαλάσαμε (broke -up) στο πλευρό του Vince Vaughn,ενώ πρωταγωνιστεί στην σειρά 30 Rock μέχρι και το τέλος της το 2013. Το 2008 μαζί με τον Steve Zahn παίζουν στην ταινία Ο ένας στην αγκαλιά του άλλου . Ευνοϊκή χρόνια για εκείνη θεωρήθηκε το 2009 καθώς έρχονται στην ζωή της ο Μάρλεϊ ,ένας μεγάλος μπελάς , Απλώς δεν σε γουστάρει και Love happens . Το 2010 ακολουθούν οι ταινίες Δωρητής σπέρματος και Επικηρύσσοντας την πρώην . Έναν χρόνο μετά ο Adam Sandler και η Jennifer Aniston υποδύονται το ζευγάρι στην ταινία Σύζυγος για ενοικίαση και . Λίγους μήνες μετά έρχονται τα Αφεντικά για σκότωμα (horrible bosses). Από γιάπηδες ....χίπηδες την χρονιά 2012. Το 2013 έρχεται η ταινία Οικογένεια Μίλερ (Where's the miller?), Call me crazy :a five film ,The Gorre girls και Life of crime . Το 2014 η Άνιστον έπαιξε στο δεύτερο μέρος της σειράς αφεντικά για σκότωμα , στην ταινία She's funny that way αλλά και στην ταινία Cake .
 Πρόσφατοι ρόλοι και επιστροφή στην τηλεόραση (2014-σήμερα)
 Μετά από μια χρονιά αποχής από τον κινηματογράφο η Άνιστον έρχεται το 2016 δυναμικά με τις ταινίες The comedian, Η γιορτή της μητέρας μαζί με την Julia Roberts,Office Christmas party και Friends:The one with the Anniversary. Το 2017 παίζει στην ταινία the yellow birds ενώ το 2018 στην ταινία Dumplin . Την περίοδο 2019 πάλι μαζί με τον Adam Sandler παίζουν στην ταινία Πρόσκληση για φόνο (mystery murder ). Επίσης πρωταγωνίστησε μαζί με την Rise Witherspoon στην τηλεοπτική σειρά Morning show και τις δύο σεζόν διάρκειας του . Μετά από δέκα επτά χρόνια επανενώνεται με την υπόλοιπη παρέα των friends και δημιουργούν ένα επεισόδιο με το όνομα Friends:the reunion. Μέσα στο 2022 περιμένουμε να βγει το νούμερο δύο των ταινιών Οικογένεια Μίλερ και πρόσκληση για φόνο . Επίσης αξίζει να σημειωθεί ότι η Άνιστον έχει δωρίσει την φωνή της στις ταινίες κινουμένων σχεδίων Ηρακλής και Οι πελαργοί .
 Φιλανθρωπία
 Η Τζένιφερ Άνιστον εκτός από μια αστέρας του Χόλιγουντ και πολύ όμορφη γυναίκα έχει ενσυναίσθηση και βοηθάει τον συνάνθρωπο. Συγκεκριμένα η ηθοποιός δώρισε 500.000 δολάρια στην Αϊτή ενώ πήρε μέρος στον τηλεμαραθώνιο Hope for Haiti. Επίσης εν όψει του ειδικού επεισοδίου των Friends: the reunion η παρέα ακολούθησε το παράδειγμα πολλών άλλων διάσημων και έδωσε την ευκαιρία σε έξι θαυμαστές των friends να επισκεφτούν τους χώρους γυρισμάτων της σειράς όπως τα διαμερίσματα όπου έμεναν η monica με την rachel και ο chandler με τον Joy και την αγαπημένη καφετέρια των ηρώων -Central perk . Το challenge λεγόταν all in .
 Προσωπική ζωή
 Το 1998, άρχισε να βγαίνει με τον ηθοποιό Μπραντ Πιτ και σύντομα, οι δυο τους, έγιναν το αγαπημένο ζευγάρι της Αμερικής. Στις 29 Ιουλίου 2000, παντρεύτηκαν στο Μαλιμπού και ενώ αρχικά, όλοι μιλούσαν για ένα πολύ ευτυχισμένο ζευγάρι που επρόκειτο να αποκτήσει παιδιά, τον Οκτώβριο του 2005, ήρθε το διαζύγιο. Τότε, ο Πιτ πρωταγωνιστούσε στην ταινία Ο κύριος και η κυρία Σμιθ μαζί με την Αντζελίνα Τζολί, και οι φήμες ήθελαν τους δύο ηθοποιούς να έχουν δεσμό, εν αγνοία της Άνιστον.
 Έπειτα από χρόνια η Άνιστον ήταν πληγωμένη από την απιστία του Πιτ και χρειάστηκε τη βοήθεια ψυχολόγων για να το ξεπεράσει. Δήλωσε σε συνέντευξη της για τη σχέση τους: «Επτά ολόκληρα και πολύ σημαντικά χρόνια μαζί. Ήταν μια πολύ όμορφη, αλλά περίπλοκη σχέση...».
 Το 2011, η Άνιστον έδειχνε και πάλι ευτυχισμένη ενώ φήμες την ήθελαν ζευγάρι με τον επίσης ηθοποιό Τζάστιν Θερού. Τελικά, οι φήμες επιβεβαιώθηκαν και στις αρχές του 2012, το ζευγάρι μετακόμισε σε ένα υπερπολυτελές σπίτι στο Μπελ Ερ του Λος Άντζελες, που αγόρασαν έναντι 22 εκατομμυρίων δολαρίων. Αρραβωνιάστηκαν στις 10 Αυγούστου 2012 και παντρεύτηκαν στις 5 Αυγούστου 2015.
 Φιλμογραφία
 Τηλεοπτικές σειρές
 Κινηματογραφικές ταινίες
 Παραπομπές
 Εξωτερικοί σύνδεσμοι
 Jennifer Aniston at Box Office Mojo
 Jennifer Aniston at World Cat (libraries)
 Τζένιφερ Άνιστον
 Αμερικανίδες ηθοποιοί κινηματογράφου
 Αμερικανίδες ηθοποιοί τηλεόρασης
 Ελληνοαμερικανοί
 Αμερικανοί παραγωγοί ταινιών
 Βραβευμένοι με Χρυσή Σφαίρα
 Βραβεία Έμμυ Ζώνης Υψηλής Τηλεθέασης (νικητές-Α' Γυναικείος Ρόλος)


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' OFFICE OF\n INSPECTOR\n GENERAL\n UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE\n\n\n\n\n Processes and Procedures\n Over Improper Payments\n\n Audit Report\n\n\n\n\n October 22, 2013\n\nReport Number FT-AR-14-001\n\x0c October 22, 2013\n\n Processes and Procedures\n Over Improper Payments\n\n Report Number FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\nBACKGROUND:\nImproper payments are payments that WHAT THE OIG FOUND:\nshould not have been made or were The Postal Service uses several\nmade in an incorrect amount. Congress elements, such as scorecards and\npassed several laws over the past few Sarbanes-Oxley Act controls, to identify,\nyears to elevate improper payments in track, reduce, and recapture improper\nthe federal government to the same payments. However, management could\nlevel of importance as they are in the enhance its controls by considering best\nprivate sector. As a result, federal practices identified during our\nagencies have implemented programs benchmarking efforts, including using\nto identify, track, reduce, report, and data mining to implement a continuous\nrecapture improper payments. monitoring program over improper\n payments. During this time of financial\nThe U.S. Postal Service is not required uncertainty and requested legislative\nby law to implement such programs but, relief, the Postal Service\xe2\x80\x99s reputation\nlike most private organizations, is with Congress and other stakeholders\nrequired to follow the Sarbanes-Oxley could be negatively impacted if it does\nAct and generally accepted accounting not enhance controls in this area.\nprinciples. Further, management does not have a\n process established to fully monitor and\nIn the private sector, improper payments pursue restitutions and recoveries of\nthreaten profitability. In the federal nearly $9 million settled by federal\nsector, agencies lose billions of dollars courts. Of this amount, we considered\nin program funds. The U.S. Postal about $1.2 million as monetary impact.\nService Office of Inspector General State and local settlements may offer\nidentified about $203 million in improper additional revenue-collecting\npayments during fiscal years 2012 and opportunities.\n2011 that were recoverable and\navailable for other purposes. WHAT THE OIG RECOMMENDED:\n We recommended management use\nOur audit objective was to determine best practices, including data mining, to\nwhether the Postal Service could implement a continuous monitoring\nenhance its procedures and processes program over improper payments and\nthat identify, track, reduce, and implement a process to monitor and\nrecapture improper payments. collect court-ordered payments.\n\n Link to review the entire report\n\x0cOctober 22, 2013\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR: JOSEPH CORBETT\n EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND\n CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER\n\n TIMOTHY F. O\xe2\x80\x99REILLY\n VICE PRESIDENT, CONTROLLER\n\n\n\n\nFROM: John E. Cihota\n Deputy Assistant Inspector General\n for Financial and Systems Accountability\n\nSUBJECT: Audit Report \xe2\x80\x93 Processes and Procedures Over Improper\n Payments (Report Number FT-AR-14-001)\n\nThis report presents the results of our audit of Processes and Procedures Over\nImproper Payments (Project Number 11BG017FF000).\n\nWe appreciate the cooperation and courtesies provided by your staff. If you have any\nquestions or need additional information, please contact Denice M. Millett, director,\nFinance, or me at 703-248-2100.\n\nAttachment\n\ncc: Corporate Audit and Response Management\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nIntroduction.................................................................................................................................... 1\n\nConclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 2\n\nA Continuous Monitoring Approach to Payments Management........................................... 2\n\nMonitoring Court-Ordered Payments ........................................................................................ 6\n\nRecommendations ....................................................................................................................... 8\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Comments .......................................................................................................... 8\n\nEvaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments.................................................................................. 9\n\nAppendix A: Additional Information ......................................................................................... 11\n\n Background ............................................................................................................................. 11\n\n Prior Audit Coverage ............................................................................................................. 14\n\nAppendix B: Monetary and Other Impacts ............................................................................. 15\n\nAppendix C. Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments ................................................................................. 16\n\x0cStrategic Approach to Managing Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\nIntroduction\n\nThis report presents the results of our audit of processes and procedures over improper\npayments1 (Project Number 11BG017FF00). Our audit objective was to determine\nwhether the U.S. Postal Service could enhance its processes and procedures that\nidentify, track, reduce, and recapture improper payments. The audit focused on the\nPostal Service\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to pay the right persons or organizations in the right amounts for\nthe right goods and services. This self-initiated audit addresses financial and strategic\nrisk. See Appendix A for additional information about this audit.\n\nImproper payments occur due to inadequate recordkeeping, inaccurate program\neligibility determinations, inadvertent processing errors, untimely and unreliable\ninformation to confirm payment accuracy, or fraud. These widespread problems are\nreceiving increased attention by both the federal and private sectors. Improper\npayments in the government do not always represent an actual loss, but when they do,\nthey have the effect of reducing funds for federal programs. In the private sector,\nimproper payments threaten profitability.\n\nCongress passed improper payment laws2 to ensure payments are made to the right\nindividuals and organizations in the right amounts for the right goods and services, as\nwell as to elevate their importance in the federal government to the same level as they\nare in the private sector. Over the past several years, federal executive agencies have,\nby law, implemented programs to identify, track, reduce, report, and recapture improper\npayments. While the improper payment laws do not apply to the Postal Service, large\nprivate sector companies have processes and procedures in place to manage and\nmonitor improper payments on a strategic level.\n\nThe private sector is engaged in addressing improper payments by using data mining3\nto implement continuous monitoring programs.4 Based on the organizations reviewed,\nthe savings identified from the reduction in improper payments exceeded the cost of\nimplementing these continuous monitoring prevention programs. As a result, private\nsector organizations and federal executive agencies now recognize the risk of improper\npayments and strategically plan for their reduction.\n1\n Payments that should not have been made or that were made in an incorrect amount under statutory, contractual,\nadministrative or other legally applicable requirements. They include payments that do not account for discounts,\nduplicate payments, payments for goods and services not received, and payments supported by insufficient\ndocumentation or for which there is no documentation. They include the amount over or under paid \xe2\x80\x93 not the total\namount \xe2\x80\x93 unless the total was paid improperly, and can include future payments.\n2\n Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002, Public Law 107-300, November 26, 2002, and Improper\nPayments Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA) of 2010, Public Law 111-204, July 22, 2010. The Improper\nPayments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act (IPERIA) of 2012, Public Law 112-248, was signed into law on\nJanuary 10, 2013. The act includes provisions that strengthen estimates of improper payments and mandates a\ngovernment-wide "Do Not Pay List."\n3\n Data mining analyzes large volumes of existing data to discover patterns, trends, and anomalies.\n4\n Continuous monitoring uses software technologies to test transactions close to the time they occur, test all\ntransactions against a comprehensive range of control rules to ensure they are in compliance, and identify any\nerroneous or fraudulent transactions.\n 1\n Restricted Information\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\n\nThe U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), from federal agency-reported data,\nnoted the rate of improper payments in the federal government for fiscal year (FY) 2012\nwas 4.3 percent, amounting to about $108 billion. Using this rate, the potential amount\nfor improper payments in the Postal Service, based on total expenses5 during FY 2012,\nis $3.39 billion.\n\nWhile performing the audit, we also analyzed procedures the U.S. Postal Inspection\nService (Inspection Service) and U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG)\nuse to account for court-ordered restitutions and recoveries. The U.S. Department of\nJustice (DOJ) prepares spreadsheets of amounts owed and sends statements showing\nrestitutions and recoveries paid to the Postal Service.\n\nConclusion\n\nThe Postal Service has initiatives in place to identify, track, reduce, and recapture\nimproper payments, including scorecards and Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) control\nreviews.6 However, management could enhance its processes and procedures by using\nbest practices identified in our benchmarking efforts, including the use of data mining, to\nimplement a continuous monitoring program over improper payments. The Postal\nService\xe2\x80\x99s reputation with Congress and other stakeholders could be negatively\nimpacted during this time of financial uncertainty and requested legislative relief if it\ndoes not enhance controls in this area.\n\nFurther, management did not have a process established to fully monitor and proactively\npursue restitutions and recoveries settled by the courts. This occurred because the\nPostal Service was not always aware of court-ordered payments until received or of\nfederal reports containing balances owed. Outstanding court-ordered restitutions and\nrecoveries totaled nearly $9 million as of December 10, 2012. Of the $9 million, about\n$1.2 million relates to restitutions and recoveries resulting from Inspection Service\ninvestigations and is considered monetary impact.\n\nA Continuous Monitoring Approach to Payments Management\n\nManagement could enhance its current processes to identify, track, reduce, and\nrecapture improper payments by implementing a more robust continuous monitoring\nprogram. Management noted that its current policies, procedures, and internal control\ntesting, along with supplementary initiatives, provide a process for managing improper\npayments. However, we believe a more robust continuous monitoring program could\n5\n Total operating expenses minus depreciation and amortization .\n6\n The Postal Service is required to comply with certain sections of the SOX Act of 2002 as a result of the Postal\nAccountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (Postal Act of 2006). SOX Section 404 requires management to report on\nits internal controls over financial reporting. Section 404 concentrates on testing key financial controls and risk of\nmaterial misstatement to the financial statements. It also evaluates whether controls are adequately designed to provide\nreasonable assurance of preventing or detecting a material financial error and whether such controls are operating as\nintended.\n\n\n 2\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\nprovide management the information it needs to identify the magnitude of improper\npayments and the overall effectiveness of current initiatives. Current initiatives already\nperformed by the Postal Service, along with the availability of results from OIG audits\nand investigations that identify improper payments, provide information to assist in\ndeveloping a continuous monitoring program. Table 1 identifies examples of\nsupplementary initiatives performed by the Postal Service.\n\n Table 1. Examples of Supplementary Initiatives\n\n Projects Description Example\n San Mateo Accounting Accounting Services Duplicate invoice review\n Service Center (ASC) tracks and responds to (recently updated by a\n Monitoring Accounting specific metrics on Lean Six Sigma (LSS)\n Reporting Trends System payment trends. project).\n Postal Service Controller Controller issues monthly Monitor and increase the\n Council National Scorecard scorecards that identify amount of accounts\n Postal Service area receivable collected.\n financial goals, some of\n which address improper\n payments.\n Web Box Activity Tracking LSS tracking system that Allows for the posting of\n Systems assists in the resolution of payments and refunds,\n revenue deficiencies. generates reports for\n purposes of review.\n Tangoe (formerly Profitline) Contractors manage Report and control\n & Energy United telecommunication and improper payments.\n utility invoices.\n Credit Memo7 Project LSS project that improves Generates credit memos\n the credit memo process to increase collection and\n for highway contractors. streamlines credit memo\n process.\nSource: Postal Service SOX update, May 2012, and other internal documents .\n\n\nThe Postal Service\xe2\x80\x99s control framework8 identifies internal controls for SOX testing by\nsetting a threshold that determines which accounts and processes will be considered for\ntesting. That framework focuses on the setting of financial reporting objectives to attain\nreasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material\nmisstatements.\n\n\n\n7\n A memorandum issued to an account that provides for a refund or reduction of a charge, especially one posted to a\ncustomer\'s account.\n8\n Elements of the Committee of Sponsoring Organization (COSO) of the Treadway Commission, used by the Postal\nService, form a recognized control framework for audits of financial statements as well as internal control over\nfinancial reporting.\n\n\n 3\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\nHowever, the internal control testing performed by SOX cannot alone fully address\nimproper payments because:\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 The testing threshold established by the Postal Service to determine its SOX scope\n in FY 2012 was $58.5 million, which would not necessarily capture potential\n improper payments resulting from accounts and processes below this threshold.\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 A SOX program can be effective without always addressing or capturing improper\n payments. This occurs because SOX focuses on financial reporting objectives and\n controls and not operations or compliance objectives and controls.\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 To determine the impact of errors or deficiencies to misstate the financial\n statements, management set the SOX materiality threshold for FY 2012 at\n $195 million. Potential improper payments below this threshold may be excluded\n from coverage by the SOX program.\n\nNot all improper payments represent a loss. Many improper payments are labeled\nimproper because documentation to confirm payment accuracy is missing or\nunavailable and requires further scrutiny.9 However, all improper payments, whether\nrecoverable or not, place assets at risk for loss, jeopardize the integrity of the Postal\nService, and compromise the trust of its stakeholders.\n\nThe OIG previously reported recoverable transactions meeting the definition of improper\npayments from audits and investigations conducted in FYs 2012 and 2011 as shown in\nTable 2.\n\n Table 2. Recoverable Improper Payment Transactions Found by OIG\n\n FY 2012 FY 2011 Both Years\n Recoverable Costs10 (In Millions) (In Millions) (In Millions)\n Audits - Questioned Costs11 \xe2\x80\x93 $ 54 $ 54\n Office of Investigation\n Cases - Restitutions and $70 $ 79 $149\n Recoveries\n Total $70 $133 $203\nSource: FY 2011 and 2012 OIG Semiannual Reports to Congress (SARCs) and ancillary support.\n\n\n\n\n9\n Without required documentation, management does not have the information to determine whether a payment was\naccurate, necessary, or reasonable. As a result, fraud, waste, and abuse may go undetected or timely recovery\nopportunities could be lost.\n10\n Costs that can be reclaimed. Examples include fees that should have been charged but were not or contract costs\nthat were found to be improperly charged.\n11\n A cost that is unnecessary, unreasonable, unsupported or an alleged violation of law, regulation or contract.\n\n\n 4\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\nImproper payments have received increased attention not only in the federal\ngovernment but also in the private sector. Beyond the financial risks addressed by SOX,\nprivate sector organizations consider additional activities when managing risk. An older\nbut relevant study of both public and private sector organizations12 highlighted that the\nreduction of improper payments requires a strategy appropriate to the organization and\nits particular risks.\n\nContinuous monitoring efforts provide real-time data and ongoing assurance to the\nprivate and public sectors on an immediate, time-driven basis. Continuous monitoring\nincludes a data mining component that analyzes large volumes of existing data to\ndiscover patterns, trends, and anomalies; and illustrates the value of using preventive\nmethods to address improper payments. For example, three private sector companies\nhave implemented an array of continuous monitoring software solutions that extend\nacross their organizations.\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 Telus Communication13 automated the review of all its payment transactions and\n increased the effectiveness of its payables controls. This monitoring solution\n resulted in the identification of duplicate payments totaling five times the total cost of\n implementing the continuous monitoring solution.\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 Quality, Value, and Convenience (QVC)14 implemented continuous monitoring\n software that enabled them to take a proactive and preventive role, reducing the\n opportunity for fraud, duplicates, and other vendor payment errors. QVC was able to\n pay back the initial software investment within the first month of use.\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 A large Forbes Top 20 privately held corporation recently quadrupled its data mining\n efforts to address improper payments, identifying available savings.\n\nWorking with the Postal Service to identify key risks, the OIG has embarked on several\ninitiatives to promote the use of data mining and support the mission of investigations\nand audits. For example:\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 The OIG uses data mining to identify high-risk workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation claims. The\n data has allowed agents to bring investigations to a successful resolution. OIG\n investigators initiated 102 cases using data from the Claimant Risk Analysis and\n Provider Risk Analysis Models that resulted in $9.5 million in recoveries,\n restitutions, and workers\xe2\x80\x99 compensation payments.\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 The Contract Fraud Model scores open and closed contracts to discover unusual\n patterns in contract growth, payment irregularities, cost outliers, and other anomalies\n for further analysis of improper or suspicious payments.\n\n12\n Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, Strategies to Manage Improper Payments, Learning from Pub lic\nand Private Sector Organizations (Report Number GAO-02-69G, dated October 2001).\n13\n A leading telecommunications company with $10.4 billion in annual revenue (Canadian dollars) as of 2011.\n14\n A shopping retailer with 2011 consolidated revenue of $8.3 b illion.\n\n\n 5\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\n\nThe Postal Service uses continuous monitoring techniques through its scorecards (as\ndiscussed in Table1); however, the information is prepared monthly. The OIG models\nprovide the Postal Service an opportunity to enhance the models to implement a robust\ncontinuous monitoring program over improper payments. Using real-time, continuous\nmonitoring, the Postal Service could intensify its efforts to reduce fraud and other\npayment errors by building on its current work and strategies from private and public\nsector organizations. By benchmarking against organizations that have established\nsuccessful programs to address improper payments, the Postal Service can effectively\nleverage these measures.\n\nThe Postal Service is not required by law to implement a program to identify, track,\nreduce, report, and recapture improper payments, but, like most private organizations,\nis required to follow SOX and generally accepted accounting principles. Without a focus\non improper payments, the opportunity to detect fraud, waste, and abuse is not as\ncomprehensive as it could be. Improper payments threaten profitability, which is a vital\nconcern to the Postal Service because of repeated losses in recent years. 15 The chief\nfinancial officer of the Postal Service shared a similar concern by emphasizing the need\nfor \xe2\x80\x9cprudent management of . . . financial resources.\xe2\x80\x9d16 Further, as an important\nsegment of the shipping and mailing economy and a key component of the nation\xe2\x80\x99s\ncommunications infrastructure, the Postal Service should exercise prudence and\naccountability when making financial decisions. By implementing a continuous\nmonitoring program that addresses improper payments, the Postal Service can further\nstrengthen its internal controls over improper payments beyond the initiatives already in\nplace.\n\nMonitoring Court-Ordered Payments\n\nManagement did not have a process established to fully monitor and proactively pursue\nrestitutions and recoveries settled by the courts. This occurred because the Postal\nService was not always aware of these court-ordered payments until received at the\nASC.17 In addition, management was not aware that a report containing the outstanding\nbalances of improper payments18 for federal cases is available from the DOJ.19 State and\nlocal cases are handled by the jurisdiction overseeing the litigation and the balances of\ncourt-ordered restitutions and recoveries must be obtained from individual jurisdictions.\n\n15\n As of July 2009 and into 2011, the GAO added the Postal Service\'s financial condition to the list of high -risk areas\nneeding attention by Congress and the executive branch to achieve broad-based restructuring; High-Risk Series An\nUpdate (Report Number GAO-11-278, dated February 16, 2011).\n16\n Letter to Postal Career Executive Service Executives, Fiscal Responsibility and Accountab ility, dated\nApril 27, 2012.\n17\n Electronic payments are remitted directly to the courts and transmitted to the Postal Service by means of the\nU.S. Treasury Intra-governmental Payment and Collection System, which is facilitated by the DOJ.\n18\n A transaction that should not have been made or one resulting from fraud is con sidered an improper payment.\n19\n The DOJ currently provides payment statements to the Postal Service. The statements do not provide outstanding\nbalances. The DOJ informed the OIG that cumulative reports, with balances , can be requested at no additional cost.\nThe DOJ retains a portion of all receipts transmitted for their services.\n\n\n 6\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\nThe Inspection Service, the OIG, and other authorities refer criminal and civil cases to the\nU.S. Attorney for litigation and potential restitutions and recoveries; however, the Postal\nService is not always aware of the case outcomes. As part of an established process, the\nOIG will provide court-ordered settlement documents to the Postal Service when received\nfrom the courts. The Postal Service should similarly work with the Inspection Service and\nstate and local jurisdictions to obtain similar documents so they can effectively and\nefficiently monitor court-ordered payments. State and local settlements may offer\nadditional revenue collection opportunities.\n\nAt our request, the DOJ provided the OIG with an electronic spreadsheet of court-\nordered restitutions and recoveries pertaining to federal cases. After eliminating\nduplicate entries, our review identified over $9 million in restitutions and recoveries as of\nDecember 10, 2012. The distribution of restitutions and recoveries is shown in Table 3.\nOf the $9 million, about $1.2 million relates to restitutions and recoveries resulting from\nInspection Service investigations and is considered monetary impact. See Appendix B\nfor monetary impact.\n\n Table 3. Distribution of Restitution and Recoveries\n\n Value of Case\n Restitutions and Recoveries\n Source (In Millions)\n Inspection Service $1.2\n OIG Office of Investigation 4.2\n Other20 3.7\n Total $9.1\n Source: U.S. DOJ.\n\n\nPostal Service Handbook F-16 cites federal law21 that places the responsibility with the\nPostal Service for collecting, compromising, terminating, or suspending collection\nactions on debts due. The same handbook states that when the Postal Service detects\nan overpayment or an erroneous or improper payment, it must establish an account\nreceivable22 and follow the protocol under the suggested billing follow-up procedures.23\nWe believe the Postal Service should work with the OIG, Inspection Service, and state\nand local jurisdictions to establish a process to account for, monitor, and collect, where\ncost-beneficial, court-ordered payments.\n\n\n\n\n20\n Value of cases listed on the DOJ report but not claimed by either the OIG or Inspection Service.\n21\n Title 39 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7401(8), 2008(c).\n22\n Accounts receivable is a claim against a debtor for an uncollected amount.\n23\n Handbook F-16, Accounts Receivab le, Sections 221.2, 342.11, and 431, dated February 1990.\n\n\n 7\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend the executive vice president and chief financial officer direct the vice\npresident, controller, to:\n\n1. Use best practices, including data mining, in the implementation of a continuous\n monitoring program over improper payments.\n\nWe recommend the vice president, controller:\n\n2. Implement a process to track and collect court-ordered restitutions and recoveries.\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\nManagement generally agreed with the findings and recommendation 1, partially agreed\nwith recommendation 2, and could not validate the monetary impact of $1.2 million.\n\nManagement agreed with the need to have processes and controls in place to detect,\nprevent, and recapture improper payments but disagreed that management does not\nuse best practices of data mining and continuous monitoring to detect and prevent\nimproper payments. Additionally, management could not validate the monetary impact\nas it was unclear how the information in the DOJ report can be used to quantify\namounts owed to the Postal Service based on information the OIG provided.\n\nFor recommendation 1, management stated they currently monitor payments and use\ndata mining tools to identify and prevent improper payments and continue to enhance\nits processes. Management noted the recommendation is complete.\n\nManagement partially agreed with recommendation 2, citing that implementation would\ninvolve a concerted effort between the OIG, Inspection Service, and other authorities.\nManagement targets implementation of corrective action by October 31, 2013.\n\nManagement also had specific concerns with figures used in the report. Specifically:\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 The potential $3.39 billion of improper payments in the Postal Service was included\n without any data or reasoning to support the statement or the recoverable improper\n payments found by the OIG. Management added that using the amount the OIG\n reported as recoverable ($203 million) would represent one-tenth of 1 percent of the\n total operating expenses.\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 Management cited concerns with the data presented in Table 2, questioning whether\n the improper payments should be those of the Department of Labor (DOL) rather\n than the Postal Service. Consequently, without additional details provided by the\n OIG, they are unsure what, if any, corrective action the Postal Service can take.\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\nThey reiterated that the Postal Service is not required to comply with the improper\npayment acts.\n\nSee Appendix C for management\'s comments, in their entirety.\n\nEvaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\nWe do not consider management\xe2\x80\x99s comments responsive to recommendation 1. We\nrecognize the Postal Service is not required to comply with federal improper payment\nacts and uses scorecards and metrics (as noted in Table 1) to monitor some programs.\nHowever, our report also identifies successful and cost-beneficial use of real-time\ncontinuous monitoring used in the private sector to monitor their improper payments.\nFurther, subsequent to the issuance of the draft report, the OIG identified additional\ninstances of improper payments, including continuing to make contract payments after a\ncontract postal unit ceased operation, paying a travel voucher without authorization for\ninternational travel, and paying incorrect labor rates on information system projects. As\na result, we continue to believe the Postal Service could benefit from reviewing federal\nand private sector improper payment reduction activities to enhance its current\nprocesses to identify, track, reduce, and recapture improper payments. It is\nmanagement\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility, though, to assess risk and develop processes,\nprocedures, and controls to promptly prevent and detect unauthorized acquisition, use,\nor disposition Postal Service assets. Consequently, we will not pursue audit resolution\nof recommendation 1.\n\nThe OIG considers management\'s comments responsive to recommendation 2 and\ncorrective actions planned or in process should resolve the issues. As noted in the\nreport, the OIG is committed to working closely with the Postal Service by providing\ncourt-ordered settlement documents to the Postal Service when received from the\ncourts. The Postal Service will need to work with the Inspection Service and other\nauthorities as appropriate.\n\nRegarding the $3.39 billion of potential improper payments used in the report, we\nreported that the OMB noted an improper payment rate of 4.3 percent for all federal\nexecutive agencies. Since the Postal Service did not have processes in place to identify\nthe magnitude of improper payments, we provided the $3.39 billion figure for\nperspective and potential risk. The Postal Service has always requested that the OIG\nprovide perspective so they can better comprehend the importance of the issues\nreported.\n\nSimilarly, the $203 million of improper payments the OIG provided as an example of\nrecoverable improper payments was compiled from past audits and investigations. It is\nnot an inclusive list of improper payments, just those that were recoverable by the\nPostal Service. Improper payments also include other amounts that the Postal Serve\ncannot fully determine to be recoverable (for example, payments made where\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\nsupporting documentation is disposed of or not authorized). Those amounts were\nexcluded but can be significant.\n\nAdditionally, management had specific concerns regarding $76 million related to injury\ncompensation claims. Since the DOL administers the Office of Workers\' Compensation\nProgram \xe2\x80\x94 including making payments to claimants, providers, and beneficiaries \xe2\x80\x94 the\nPostal Service is not sure what corrective action it could take. We maintain that by\nexcluding the improper payment efforts of third parties who manage its funds, the Postal\nService would limit its ability to identify and prevent improper payments. Even though\nthe payments are outside its control, the Postal Service does have the control and\nability to implement processes and procedures to reduce the risk of actions that lead to\nthe improper payments.\n\nManagement stated they could not validate $1.2 million in monetary impact from the\ninformation they had and the DOJ report provided by the OIG. The DOJ report showed\npending recoveries of over $34.1 million. After the audit, the Postal Service provided\nsupport for receipt of a $25 million payment, leaving $9.1 million in pending restitution\nand recoveries. We contacted the Postal Inspection Service and OIG Office of\nInvestigations to identify their cases in the DOJ report. The Postal Inspection Service\nidentified $1.2 million, as explained in our report, and only this amount was reported as\nmonetary impact. The OIG Office of Investigations confirmed $4.2 million, but we did not\nclaim this amount as monetary impact because it was claimed in prior years\xe2\x80\x99 SARCs.\nOur audit identified an additional $3.7 million in restitutions and recoveries that was not\ncorroborated by either group. Based on these points, management stated they will\nrequest assistance from the OIG on how to interpret the DOJ report and incorporate it\ninto their recovery process.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\n Appendix A: Additional Information\n\nBackground\n\nMost challenges associated with payment processes in the public sector are similar to\nthose experienced in the private sector. One hurdle both sectors must first overcome is\ndetermining the nature and magnitude of the problem. According to a study of\nprivate sector companies,24 some major challenges facing payment processes in a\nstruggling economy are cost reduction and process improvement. The reduction of\nimproper payments requires an active strategy appropriate to the organization and its\nparticular risks. Managers then have the information they need in order to focus on\nproblems and improve internal controls. This does not mean processes lack controls,\nbut existing controls may need to be updated or policies and procedures added to\nstrengthen the control system to reduce improper payments.\n\nSOX Section 404 requires certain entities to annually assess and report on the\neffectiveness of their internal controls over financial reporting. SOX compliance provides\nsome protection that the right recipient is receiving the right payment for the ri ght reason\nat the right time. The Postal Service is subject to Section 404 and adopted the COSO\nframework25 for its compliance. In this context, COSO focuses on the setting of financial\nreporting objectives to attain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are\nfree from material misstatement.26 However, given this inherent focus and program\nthreshold limitations, SOX testing cannot be relied on solely to identify improper\npayments.\n\nUnder federal law,27 federal executive agencies have implemented a program to\nidentify, track, reduce, report, and recapture improper payments. These agencies are\nrequired to perform four steps: risk assessment, statistical sampling, corrective actions,\nand reporting. These steps, along with recovery audits, have proven to be effective in\nmanaging improper payments. The Postal Service is not required to comply with federal\nimproper payment laws; however, these laws provide a systematic and prescribed\napproach for addressing improper payments.\n\n\n\n\n24\n A Struggling Accounts Payab le Department Finds Success, dated April 20, 2010, posted on DocuVantage.\n25\n COSO provides a recognized framework to help entities assess and enhance their internal control systems. Setting\nobjectives is a prerequisite under the framework and leads to an overall strategy that includes (1) Operations -\neffectiveness and efficiency of operations, including performance and profitability goals; (2) Financial Reporting -\npreparation of reliable published financial statements; and (3) Compliance - adherence to laws and regulations.\n26\n Financial statement assertions support financial reporting objectives and include existence/occurrence,\ncompleteness, rights and obligations, valuation or allocation, presentation, and disclosure.\n27\n IPIA of 2002 Public Law 107-300, November 26, 2002; IPERA of 2010 Public Law 111-204, July 22, 2010, with\nguidance from OMB issued in 2011 as Appendix C, Requirements for Effective Measurement and Remediation of\nImproper Payments, to OMB Circular A-123, Management\'s Responsibility for Internal Controls; and IPERIA of 2012,\nPublic Law 112-248 signed into law January 10, 2013, and includes provisions that strengthen estimates of improper\npayments and mandates a government-wide "Do Not Pay List."\n\n\n 11\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\nObjective, Scope, and Methodology\n\nOur audit objective was to determine whether the Postal Service could enhance its\nprocedures and processes that identify, track, reduce, and recapture improper\npayments. To accomplish our objective, we reviewed federal guidance on payment\nmanagement, interviewed key Postal Service personnel, and benchmarked private\norganizations and federal executive agencies to determine ways the Postal Service\nmight improve its efforts to pay the right entities in the right amounts for the right goods\nand services.\n\nAs part of our benchmarking, we focused our efforts on agencies most comparable to\nthe Postal Service. We based the selection of agencies on guidance prepared by OMB\non the effective measurement and remediation of improper payments and on internal\ncontrols over financial reporting, which was revised to align with SOX. We also\ninterviewed personnel and OIGs at the following agencies:\n\n\xef\x82\xa7 U.S. Agency for International Development.\n\xef\x82\xa7 Department of Defense.\n\xef\x82\xa7 Department of Health and Human Service.\n\nWe conducted interviews with federal agencies responsible for the implementation or\noversight of improper payment compliance to better understand the processes,\nchallenges, and lessons learned. Those agencies included the OMB, responsible for\nimplementing guidance covering improper payments, and the GAO. The GAO reports\non the status of federal executive agencies\xe2\x80\x99 compliance with improper payment\nlegislation.\n\nWe researched private sector organizations to gauge their improper payment efforts\nand contacted OIG personnel to gain an understanding of data mining initiatives used to\ndevelop continuous monitoring models. Additionally, we had discussions with the\nPostal Service\xe2\x80\x99s independent public accounting firm to compare the Postal Service\'s\nefforts to address improper payments with those of private sector entities.\n\nWe interviewed Postal Service personnel to determine what processes and procedures\nare in place to track, identify, reduce, and recapture improper payments. We reviewed\nPostal Service accounts receivable and accounts payable, and supply management\xe2\x80\x99s\npolicies to gain an understanding of the accounting and contracting procedures\nsurrounding payments.\n\nWe contacted the DOJ to gain an understanding of their role in restitution and recovery\nefforts on behalf of federal agencies.28 The DOJ prepares statements showing\nrestitutions and recoveries paid to federal agencies and spreadsheets of amounts owed\nto federal agencies. The DOJ provided electronic spreadsheets to the OIG of court-\n\n28\n A transaction that should not have been made or one resulting from fraud is considered an improper payment.\n\n\n 12\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\nordered restitutions and recoveries for review. We then met with OIG investigative and\nlegal personnel and the Inspection Service to gain an understanding of what efforts are\ntaken to report and recapture restitutions and recoveries arising from fraudulent criminal\nand civil acts.\n\nWe analyzed four SARCs29 to identify potential improper payments. The identified\namounts provide a presumption of improper payments discovered in FYs 2012 and\n2011. We focused on recoverable costs in the categories of questioned costs and\nrestitution and recoveries. The questioned cost category aligns itself with the definition\nof improper payments as a cost that is unnecessary, unreasonable, unsupported, or an\nalleged violation of law, regulation or contract and may or may not necessarily be\nindicative of a direct financial loss to the Postal Service. We also reviewed the SARCs\nof the agencies we benchmarked against to evaluate their findings and\nrecommendations applicable to improper payments.\n\nWe conducted this performance audit from February 2012 through October 2013 in\naccordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and included such\ntests of internal controls as we considered necessary under the circumstances. Those\nstandards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\nevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our\naudit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for\nour findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We discussed our\nobservations and conclusions with management on July 31, 2013, and included their\ncomments where appropriate.\n\nThe DOJ provided the OIG with an electronic spreadsheet of outstanding court-ordered\nrestitutions and recoveries. We assessed the reliability of that data by interviewing\nagency officials knowledgeable about the data. We also determined\ncomputer-generated data, obtained from Postal Service OIG and agency personnel, to\nbe reliable based on interviews with individuals knowledgeable about the data and\ncomputer systems. As a result, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for\nthe purposes of this report.\n\n\n\n\n29\n For the periods October 1, 2010-March 31, 2011; April 1-September 30, 2011; October 1, 2011-March 31, 2012;\nand April 1-September 30, 2012.\n\n\n 13\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\n\nPrior Audit Coverage\n\nThe OIG issued the Purchasing Compliance and Imprudent Purchases Follow-Up Audit,\n(Report Number FF-AR-11-010, dated June 21, 2011) and found that the Postal Service\nimproved the effectiveness of local purchasing activities and reduced spending using\nthe SmartPay program since a previous audit; however, the audit identified purchases\nthat did not contain a business meal justification or were not properly authorized,\nrecognition gifts that were not entered into the eAwards system, employees in one\ndistrict continuing to make imprudent purchases, and an opportunity to further improve\nthe effectiveness of the Purchasing Shared Services Centers. Management generally\nagreed with the findings, recommendations, and monetary impact in the report.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\n Appendix B: Monetary and Other Impacts\n\n Monetary Impact\n\n\n Recommendation Impact Category Amount\n 2 Questioned Costs30 $1,241,071\n\nThe DOJ provided payment statements showing remittances to the Postal Service, but\nthe statements did not provide outstanding balances. Upon further inquiry, the DOJ\ninformed us that cumulative reports with balances can be requested at no additional\ncost. At our request, the DOJ provided an electronic spreadsheet of court-ordered\nrestitutions and recoveries of over $9 million. The distribution of restitutions and\nrecoveries owed the Postal Service, based on efforts of the Inspection Service, was at\nleast $1.2 million. The OIG Office of Investigations confirmed at least $4.2 million. We\ndid not claim this amount as monetary impact because it was claimed in prior year\nSARCs. Our audit identified an additional $3.7 million in restitutions and recoveries that\nwas not corroborated by either group.\n\n Other Impact\n\n Recommendation Impact Category Amount\n 1 Goodwill Branding31 None\n\n\n\n\n30\n A cost that is unnecessary, unreasonable, unsupported, or an alleged violation of law, regulation or contract.\n31\n An adverse impact on goodwill is an actual event/problem that harms the Postal Service\'s reputation or a potential\nproblem that could negatively impact the Postal Service\'s brand n ame.\n\n\n 15\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\n Appendix C. Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cProcesses and Procedures Over Improper Payments FT-AR-14-001\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0c'


text:
Exriaditeľa úradu práce odsúdili na 30 mesiacov - domov.sme.sk
 Zobraziť všetky sekcie Exriaditeľa úradu práce odsúdili na 30 mesiacov
 Eduarda Stahovca odsúdil súd za zneužitie právomoci verejného činiteľa a zároveň mu vymeral peňažný trest 20.000 korún. 6. aug 2007 o 14:38 ČTK
 Eduard Stahovec.(Zdroj: ČTK)Písmo:A-|A+190 Banská Bystrica 6. augusta (ČTK) - Špeciálny súd v Banskej Bystrici dnes odsúdil bývalého riaditeľa úradu práce v Prešove Eduarda Stahovca za zneužitie právomoci verejného činiteľa na 30 mesiacov väzenia a zároveň mu vymeral peňažný trest 20.000 korún. Rozsudok ešte nie právoplatný, pretože obžalovaný sa na mieste odvolal. Stahovec mal podľa súdu vyplácať svojím podriadeným mimoriadne odmeny a následne ich žiadal pre seba. Celkom sa tak mal obohatiť o viac ako 80.000 korún. Prokurátor sa k rozsudku ešte nevyjadril. Podľa súdu sa podarilo jednoznačne preukázať, že bývalý riaditeľ si v roku 2004 minimálne od troch podriadených vypýtal mimoriadne odmeny, ktoré im predtým udelil z prostriedkov Európskeho sociálneho fondu. Súd bral do úvahy aj na to, že úradník sa pokúsil o podvod, keď žiadal od svojich ďalších podriadených peniaze za zachovanie ich pracovných miest. Žiadna reorganizácia sa však na prešovskom úrade nechystala. Stahovcovi pôvodne hrozil trest až osem rokov väzenia, prokurátor vo svojej záverečnej reči žiadal o jeho odsúdenie na sedem rokov vo väznici s najnižším stupňom ochrany. Nižší trest súd odôvodnil tým, že trestný čin korupcie zmenil na podvod. Dôkazy, ktoré mali svedčiť o korupcii, súd nebral do úvahy, pretože podľa neho boli získané nezákonne. Obžaloba stála najmä na výpovediach dvoch pracovníčok, od ktorých si mal Stahovec vo februári 2005 vypýtať úplatok. Obálku s peniazmi mu jedna z nich, už ako policajná agentka, sama iniciatívne odovzdala o pol roka neskôr. Tieto dôkazy súd do úvahy nezobral. V priebehu procesu proti exriaditeľovi svedčili aj ďalší jeho podriadení, od ktorých peniaze prijal v roku 2004. rez prl Nechajte si posielať ranný prehľad najdôležitejších správ e-mailom


text:
ECLI:SI:UPRS:2018:IV.U.15.2017.13
 Jasna Šegan (preds.), Edvard Ermenc (poroč.), Melita Ambrož
 1. Inšpektorat Republike Slovenije za okolje in prostor, Območna enota Celje (v nadaljevanju prvostopenjski upravni organ) je z izpodbijano odločbo tožniku izrekel inšpekcijski ukrep zaradi gradnje delavnice, ki jo gradi na zemljišču s parc. št. 1259/3, 1259/4 in 1259/6, vse k. o. .... S 1. točko izreka mu je naložil takojšnjo ustavitev gradnje navedene delavnice, z 2. točko izreka odstranitev te delavnice tlorisne velikosti 15,00 m x 13,00 m v dveh etažah na navedenih parcelnih številkah v roku 90 dni od vročitve te odločbe ter vzpostavitev zemljišča v prejšnje stanje, sicer se bo začel postopek izvršbe nedenarnih obveznosti, ki se bo opravil po drugih osebah ali s prisilitvijo (3. točka izreka). V 4. točki izreka so bile za predmetni objekt izrečene še prepovedi izvedbe komunalnih priključkov na objekte gospodarske javne infrastrukture, vpisa in spremembe vpisov v zemljiški knjigi, njegove uporabe, prometa z njim in sklepanje drugih pravnih poslov, v 5. točki izreka je bilo določeno, da bo stroške postopka plačal tožnik na podlagi posebnega sklepa, v 6. točki izreka pa, da pritožba zoper to odločbo ne zadrži njene izvršitve.
 2. Iz obrazložitve predmetne odločbe izhaja, da je gradbena inšpektorica, ki je 26. 7. 2012 opravila inšpekcijski pregled, ugotovila, da je na navedenih parc. št. zgrajen objekt, tlorisne velikosti 15,00 m x 13,00 m v dveh etažah, v pritličju so mizarska delavnica in sanitarije, v drugi etaži pa pisarne. Opravljeno je bilo zaslišanje tožnika, na katerem je pojasnil, da je bil investitor dvoetažnega objekta pokojni tast, ki je pričel graditi objekt takoj po pridobljenem potrdilu leta 1970, leta 1972 pa je bila objektu spremenjena namembnost v mizarsko delavnico. Izročil je dve potrdili, ki jih je kasneje gradbena inšpektorica pridobila tudi v Zgodovinskem arhivu Celje, in sicer potrdilo, št. 351-25/70-Sa z dne 22. 6. 1970, za priglasitev manjšega pomožnega gospodarskega objekta k obstoječi stanovanjski hiši, in potrdilo, št. 351-307/7-2/Pr z dne 1. 6. 1972, za priglasitev preureditve obstoječega gospodarskega poslopja v delavnico oziroma skladišče. Iz tehničnega poročila, ki se nanaša na prvo potrdilo, izhaja, da gre za gospodarsko poslopje - hlev, tlorisne velikosti 10,30 m x 7,20 m, od tega je zazidani del 10,30 m x 4,90 m, ostanek pa je nezazidan. Iz drugega potrdila pa izhaja, da ostanejo tlorisne dimenzije nespremenjene. S primerjavo ugotovljenih tlorisnih mer s tistimi iz potrdila, je bilo ugotovljeno, da so bila izvedena dodatna dela, na podlagi česar je gradbeni inšpektor presodil, da je obseg izvedenih del tolikšen, da gre za nelegalno gradnjo in bi si moral inšpekcijski zavezanec zanje pridobiti gradbeno dovoljenje. Gradbeni inšpektor je na podlagi zbranih obvestil ugotovil, da za izvedbo predmetnih del ni bilo pridobljeno gradbeno dovoljenje, zato je bilo odločeno, kot izhaja iz izreka izpodbijane odločbe.
 3. Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor kot drugostopenjski upravni organ je v 1. točki izreka drugostopenjske odločbe tožnikovo pritožbo zavrnilo, v 2. točki pa zavrnilo tožnikovo zahtevo za povrnitev stroškov postopka. Drugostopenjski upravni organ v obrazložitev svoje odločitve pojasnjuje, da sta bili sicer nesporno izdani potrdili, s katerima je bila dovoljena gradnja manjšega pomožnega gospodarskega objekta in sprememba namembnosti, vendar gre za odstopanje zgrajenega objekta od načrtovanega iz potrdila v tolikšni meri, da se ne more določiti dela objekta, ki bi bil skladen s potrdilom z dne 22. 6. 1970. Iz teh razlogov je prvostopenjski upravni organ objekt pravilno okvalificiral kot nelegalno gradnjo. Drugostopenjski upravni organ še pojasnjuje, da je gradbeni inšpektor dolžan ukrepati vselej, ko ugotovi, da investitor gradi ali je že zgradil objekt, ne da bi za tako gradnjo pridobil predpisano gradbeno dovoljenje. Izjeme torej niso niti primeri, ko so bili objekti zgrajeni v času pred Zakonom o graditvi objektov (v nadaljevanju ZGO-1) veljavnih predpisov. Sporni objekt tako glede namembnosti kot dimenzij ne sodi med objekte, za katere ne bi bilo treba pridobiti gradbenega dovoljenja, pri čemer je bilo treba v vsem časovnem obdobju od njegove gradnje do izdaje drugostopenjske odločbe pridobiti gradbeno dovoljenje za gradnjo. Po stališču drugostopenjskega upravnega organa je izrek izpodbijane odločbe dovolj konkretiziran, saj je natančno določeno, kateri objekt se mora prenehati graditi in ga mora tožnik odstraniti. Prav tako dejstvo, da se gradbena dela na objektu ne izvajajo več, ne vpliva na zakonitost izpodbijane odločbe.
 4. Tožnik se s takšno odločitvijo ne strinja in zoper izpodbijano odločbo vlaga tožbo, v kateri navaja, da v postopku ni bilo ugotovljeno, kdaj je bil objekt zgrajen. Glede na vsebino potrdila z dne 1. 6. 1972, iz katerega izhaja, da je vzeta na znanje priglasitev obstoječega gospodarskega poslopja ter da tlorisne dimenzije in razporeditev prostorov ostanejo nespremenjene, je tožnik prepričan, da je bila njegova gradnja povsem legalna, saj je bila v tem potrdilu obravnavana takšna, kakršna je še danes v naravi vidna. Na to navedbo drugostopenjski upravni organ ni odgovoril in je v tem delu njegova odločitev neobrazložena.
 5. Po stališču tožnika ni mogoče govoriti o nelegalni gradnji, ker je bilo za objekt izdano pravnomočno potrdilo, zato bi kvečjemu lahko šlo za neskladno gradnjo, za katero se ne uporabljajo določila o nelegalni gradnji in zanjo niso predvidene posledice, kot jih je v izreku odločbe opredelil inšpektor. Drugostopenjski upravni organ je dopolnil ugotovitve dejanskega stanja inšpektorja s tem, ko je navedel, da so odstopanja v tolikšni meri, da se ne more določiti dela objekta, ki bi bil skladen s potrdilom z dne 22. 6. 1970. Takšna trditev drugostopenjskega upravnega organa ni skladna z dejanskim stanjem, saj je mogoče brez posebnih težav vzpostaviti stanje objekta, kot ustreza citiranemu potrdilu. Pritožbeni organ je kršil določbo 251. člena Zakona o splošnem upravnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZUP), ker lahko sicer sam dopolni postopek, kadar dejansko stanje ni popolno ugotovljeno, vendar ne more sam brez podlage (podatkov o dejstvih) sklepati o dejstvih.
 6. Nadalje izpodbijana odločba ni obrazložena, ker gradbeni inšpektor za svojo odločitev o tem, da gre pri izvedeni gradnji za nelegalno gradnjo, ni navedel pravne podlage. Obrazložitev izpodbijanega akta je dopolnil drugostopenjski upravni organ, ko je nanizal pravne podlage, ki so v posameznem obdobju urejale gradnjo objektov, ni pa navedel njihove vsebine. Tudi ni navedel, kateri objekti naj bi bili manjši objekti pomožnega značaja, ki jih je kot take opredelila občinska skupščina, in v katerem predpisu so bili določeni. Navedel je le, da že iz opredelitve takih objektov spornega objekta ni mogoče obravnavati kot takšnega objekta. Tako tudi pritožbeni organ še vedno ni pojasnil, na čem temelji ugotovitev, da je bilo treba za sporni objekt v vsem časovnem obdobju od njegove gradnje pridobiti gradbeno dovoljenje. Tako je v obrazložitvi citiran tudi 51. člen Navodila o merilih, kaj se lahko šteje za objekte oziroma posege v prostor, za katere po zakonu ni treba pridobiti lokacijskega dovoljenja, in kaj se lahko šteje za pomožne objekte, po katerem taka merila predpiše občinska skupščina, ni pa navedeno, kakšen je bil predpis občinske skupščine in zakaj sporni objekt temu predpisu ne odgovarja. V tem delu je odločba še vedno ostala neobrazložena, tožniku pa odvzeta pravica do izjave, s čimer je bila storjena bistvena kršitev določb ZUP.
 7. Tožnik še navaja, da mu je bila naložena še odstranitev prizidkov k temu objektu, vendar zgolj opisno opredeljeni objekti po njegovem mnenju niso dovolj določno opredeljeni, da bi jih bilo mogoče ločiti med seboj, kar pa glede na zagroženo prisilno izvršitev morajo biti, saj lahko sicer tožniku nastane nenadomestljiva škoda. V odločbi tudi ni pojasnjeno, na kakšen način je inšpektor te objekte umestil v prostor in tožnik meni, da umestitev ni ustrezna. Dejansko stanje je tako napačno ugotovljeno, zato je izrek odločbe napačen, pa tudi premalo natančen, da bi bil izvršljiv.
 8. Tožnik sodišču predlaga, da izpodbijano odločbo odpravi in toženi stranki naloži plačilo tožnikovih stroškov postopka.
 9. Tožena stranka je sodišču poslala upravni spis. Odgovora na tožbo ni podala.
 11. Po pregledu izpodbijanega akta sodišče ugotavlja, da je izpodbijana odločba pravilna in skladna z določbami predpisov, na katere se sklicuje. Sodišče se strinja z razlogi, s katerimi je v obrazložitvi izpodbijanega akta odločitev pojasnil prvostopenjski upravni organ, in z razlogi, s katerimi je drugostopenjski upravni organ obrazložil zavrnitev pritožbenih ugovorov, ter se nanje v skladu z drugim odstavkom 71. člena Zakona o upravnem sporu (v nadaljevanju ZUS-1) tudi sklicuje. V zvezi s tožbenimi navedbami pa pojasnjuje v nadaljevanju navedena dejstva.
 12. V predmetnem upravnem sporu med strankama ni sporno, da je Skupščina občine Celje v zvezi s predmetnim objektom izdala dve potrdili. S prvim potrdilom, št. 351-25/70-2/Sa z dne 22. 6. 1970, je vzela na znanje priglasitev gradnje manjšega pomožnega gospodarskega objekta k obstoječi stanovanjski hiši na parc. št. 1259/3 in 1259/4, k. o. .... Kot izhaja iz tehničnega poročila k načrtu, po katerem je treba izvajati predmetno gradnjo, predstavlja objekt, ki je predmet gradnje, gospodarsko poslopje manjšega tipa tlorisne velikosti 10,30 m x 7,20 m, od česar je zazidanega dela 10,30 m x 4,90 m, ostanek pa je nezazidan. V zazidanem delu je garaža velikosti 4,50 m x 2,80 m, klet 2,80 m x 4,30 m in hlev 3,80 m x 4,30 m. Del objekta je podstrešje, ki je namenjeno za govejo krmo in ostale tovrstne pridelke. Z drugim potrdilom, št. 351-307/72-2/Pr z dne 1. 6. 1972, je bila vzeta na znanje priglasitev preureditve obstoječega gospodarskega poslopja na navedenih parc. št. v delavnico oziroma skladišče. Tlorisne dimenzije in razporeditev prostorov so ostale nespremenjene. Prav tako niso sporni izsledki inšpekcijskega pregleda z dne 26. 7. 2012 glede tlorisnih velikosti in namembnosti predmetnega objekta (tlorisna velikost 15,00 m x 13,00 m, dvoetažnost objekta, v katerem so v pritličju mizarska delavnica in sanitarije, v drugi etaži pa pisarne), ki je na zemljišču s parc. št. 1259/3, 1259/4 in 1259/6, vse k. o. .... Tožnik namreč v tožbi tem ugotovitvam ne oporeka, te pa izhajajo iz listin v spisu (zapisnika o inšpekcijskem pregledu, skic, fotografij in obeh potrdil, s prilogo).
 13. Tožnik pa v tožbi izpodbija zaključek prvostopenjskega upravnega organa, ki ga je potrdil pritožbeni organ, da gre v primeru predmetnega objekta za nelegalno gradnjo. V zvezi s tem navaja, da bi lahko šlo kvečjemu za neskladno gradnjo. Tako se bistveno vprašanje v tem upravnem sporu nanaša na ugotavljanje, ali je tožnik gradil nelegalno in so mu bili za to zakonito izrečeni ukrepi iz 152. člena ZGO-1 (ustavitev gradnje, odstranitev objekta, vzpostavitev prejšnjega stanja), ali pa le neskladno. Sodišče navedenim tožbenim ugovorom ne sledi, ker je bilo v upravnem postopku, ki je rezultiral v izdaji izpodbijane odločbe, po presoji sodišča pravilno in zakonito ugotovljeno, da sporni objekt predstavlja nelegalno gradnjo.
 14. Po prvi točki 3. člena ZGO-1 se gradnja objekta, rekonstrukcija objekta ali odstranitev objekta lahko začne samo na podlagi pravnomočnega oziroma na investitorjevo odgovornost dokončnega gradbenega dovoljenja. Po 12.1. točki prvega odstavka 2. člena ZGO-1 nelegalna gradnja pomeni, da se gradnja oziroma dela, za katera je predpisano gradbeno dovoljenje, izvajajo oziroma so izvedena brez veljavnega gradbenega dovoljenja. Po 12.2. točki istega člena pa neskladna gradnja pomeni, da je za gradnjo oziroma dela, za katera je predpisano gradbeno dovoljenje, takšno dovoljenje sicer izdano, vendar se gradnja oziroma dela izvajajo oziroma so izvedena v nasprotju s pogoji, določenimi z gradbenim dovoljenjem. V primeru nelegalne gradnje je predvideno vodenje postopka po 152. členu ZGO-1, ki določa, da pristojni gradbeni inšpektor odredi, da se gradnja takoj ustavi ter da se že zgrajeni objekt ali del objekta v določenem roku na stroške inšpekcijskega zavezanca odstrani, vzpostavi prejšnje stanje ali drugače sanira objekt, del objekta oziroma zemljišče, če vzpostavitev v prejšnje stanje ni možna. V primeru neskladne gradnje pa je predvideno vodenje inšpekcijskega postopka po 153. členu ZGO-1, ki predvideva, da se investitorju v prvi fazi naloži pridobitev spremenjenega gradbenega dovoljenja (prvi odstavek), v naslednji fazi, če za spremembo ne zaprosi ali je ne pridobi, pa odstranitev tistega dela objekta, ki je bil zgrajen v nasprotju z gradbenim dovoljenjem in vzpostavitvi stanja, določenega v gradbenem dovoljenju (drugi odstavek).
 15. V skladu z zgoraj navedeno zakonsko ureditvijo, ki je v delu zahteve za pridobitev gradbenega dovoljenja za gradnjo tovrstnih objektov veljala v celotnem časovnem obdobju od izdaje navedenih potrdil dalje (sodišče se glede tega sklicuje na obrazložitev drugostopenjskega upravnega organa), je bilo treba za gradnjo takšnega objekta, katerega tako tlorisne mere kot namembnost je bila ugotovljena pri inšpekcijskem pregledu, pridobiti gradbeno dovoljenje. Zato ni relevanten tožbeni ugovor, da v postopku ni bilo ugotovljeno, kdaj je bil objekt zgrajen. Nesporno je, da v predmetnem postopku gradbeno dovoljenje ni bilo izdano, pri čemer potrdili, s katerima je bila vzeta na znanje priglasitev gradnje po merah in namembnosti bistveno drugačnega objekta, kot je dejansko zgrajeni objekt, ne predstavljata gradbenega dovoljenja. Iz tega razloga se tožnik ne more uspešno sklicevati na izdani potrdili o priglasitvi gradnje in preureditvi gospodarskega poslopja iz let 1970 in 1972 ter je po presoji sodišča ugotovitev obeh upravnih organov, da gre za nelegalno gradnjo, pravilna, zato pa je pravilno tudi postopanje pristojnega gradbenega inšpektorja za ukrepanje po 152. členu ZGO-1.
 16. Sodišče še pripominja, da bi bil zgoraj navedeni zaključek identičen tudi v primeru, če bi šteli potrdilo iz leta 1970, s katerim je pristojni organ vzel na znanje priglasitev gradnje manjšega pomožnega gospodarskega objekta, kot gradbeno dovoljenje (čeprav to ni), saj so dimenzije obravnavane stavbe bistveno različne od dimenzij v potrdilu iz leta 1970. Že iz te okoliščine izhaja, da stavbe ni mogoče obravnavati kot neskladno, ampak kot nelegalno gradnjo. V nasprotnem primeru bi lahko prišli do absurdnega položaja, ko bi obstoj gradbenega dovoljenja za kakršnokoli gradnjo pomenil, da je treba vsako, tudi povsem drugačno gradnjo, obravnavati pod preferenčnimi pogoji, ki veljajo za neskladno gradnjo.
 17. Sodišče nadalje ugotavlja, da je bila tožniku v postopku dana možnost, da se pred izdajo izpodbijane odločbe izjavi o vseh dejstvih in okoliščinah, ki so pomembne za odločanje, s čimer je bilo udejanjeno načelo zaslišanja stranke, določeno v 9. členu ZUP. Upravna organa sta svojo odločitev ustrezno obrazložila in utemeljila v delih, ki so bistveni za izrek predmetnih ukrepov, predvsem glede zgoraj navedenih razlogov, iz katerih izhaja sklep, da gre za nelegalno gradnjo. Zato sodišče kot neutemeljene zavrača tožbene ugovore, da drugostopenjski upravni organ ni ustrezno obrazložil in odgovoril na navedbo, da je gradnja povsem legalna, ker je bila v potrdilu z dne 1. 6. 1972 obravnavana takšna, kakršna je še danes v naravi vidna. Prav tako iz tega razloga niso utemeljene tožbene navedbe, da je izpodbijana odločba neobrazložena, ker drugostopenjski upravni organ ob navedbi pravne podlage ni navedel tudi njene vsebine, pa tudi iz zatrjevanega razloga, da ni navedeno, kaj se lahko šteje za pomožne objekte. Sodišče v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da je drugostopenjski upravni organ v odločbi, s katero je zavrnil tožnikovo pritožbo, podal dodatno obrazložitev tudi z navedbo predpisov, iz katerih izhaja sklep o pravilnosti in zakonitosti odločbe prvostopenjskega upravnega organa, pri tem pa iz obrazložitve drugostopenjske odločbe izhaja, da je navedena tudi vsebina relevantnih predpisov, tudi v smislu opredelitve pomožnih objektov.
 18. Po presoji sodišča so neutemeljeni tudi tožbeni ugovori, da je pritožbeni organ kršil določbo 251. člena ZUP, ki mu sicer daje pravico dopolnjevati postopek, kadar dejansko stanje ni popolno ugotovljeno, vendar po stališču tožnika ne more brez podatkov o dejstvih sam sklepati o dejstvih. Drugostopenjski organ namreč ni dopolnjeval postopka v smislu določbe prvega odstavka 251. člena ZUP, ampak je samo dodatno obrazložil utemeljitev prvostopenjskega upravnega organa glede zaključka, da je šlo v obravnavanem primeru za nelegalno in ne za neskladno gradnjo. Tožbeni očitek, ki se nanaša na odstranitev prizidkov temu objektu, pa sodišče zavrača iz razloga, ker gradnja prizidkov ni predmet obravnavanega inšpekcijskega postopka in ukrepov, ki so bili tožniku na tej podlagi izrečeni, izrek izpodbijane odločbe pa je po presoji sodišča glede določitve predmeta inšpekcijskih ukrepov dovolj konkretiziran, da ga je mogoče izvršiti.
 19. Na tej podlagi sodišče ugotavlja, da je izpodbijani akt pravilen in zakonit, postopek pred izdajo izpodbijanega akta pravilen, tožbeni ugovori pa neutemeljeni. Sodišče v postopku pred njeno izdajo tudi ni našlo nepravilnosti, na katere je dolžno paziti po uradni dolžnosti. Ker med strankama ni sporno dejansko stanje, ki je predstavljalo podlago, odločilno za izdajo izpodbijane odločbe (izdani potrdili in ugotovitve z inšpekcijskega pregleda), ampak zgolj ocena teh dokazov v povezavi z uporabo relevantnih materialnih predpisov in določb postopka, je sodišče na podlagi prvega odstavka 59. člena ZUS-1 odločilo na seji. Sodišče je tožbo zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno na podlagi prvega odstavka 63. člena ZUS-1.
 20. Odločitev o stroških temelji na četrtem odstavku 25. člena ZUS-1, po katerem trpi vsaka stranka svoje stroške postopka, če sodišče tožbo zavrne.
 Zakon o graditvi objektov (2002) - ZGO-1 - člen 152, 153
 sodba IV U 169/2010
 UPRS Sodba I U 774/2017-8
 P2RvYy0yMDE1MDgxMTExNDI5MjIw


text:
 1.6.2012
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 142/30
 A BIZOTTSÁG 462/2012/EU VÉGREHAJTÁSI RENDELETE
 (2012. május 31.)
 az egyes gyümölcs- és zöldségfélék behozatali árának meghatározására szolgáló behozatali átalányértékek megállapításáról
 AZ EURÓPAI BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződésre,
 tekintettel a mezőgazdasági piacok közös szervezésének létrehozásáról, valamint egyes mezőgazdasági termékekre vonatkozó egyedi rendelkezésekről szóló, 2007. október 22-i 1234/2007/EK tanácsi rendeletre (az egységes közös piacszervezésről szóló rendelet) (1),
 tekintettel az 1234/2007/EK tanácsi rendeletnek a gyümölcs- és zöldség-, valamint a feldolgozottgyümölcs- és feldolgozottzöldség-ágazatra alkalmazandó részletes szabályainak a megállapításáról szóló, 2011. június 7-i 543/2011/EU bizottsági végrehajtási rendeletre (2), és különösen annak 136. cikke (1) bekezdésére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 Az Uruguayi Forduló többoldalú kereskedelmi tárgyalásai eredményeinek megfelelően az 543/2011/EU végrehajtási rendelet a XVI. mellékletének A. részében szereplő termékek és időszakok tekintetében meghatározza azokat a szempontokat, amelyek alapján a Bizottság rögzíti a harmadik országokból történő behozatalra vonatkozó átalányértékeket.
 (2)
 Az 543/2011/EU végrehajtási rendelet 136. cikke (1) bekezdése alapján a behozatali átalányérték számítására munkanaponként, változó napi adatok figyelembevételével kerül sor. Ezért helyénvaló előírni, hogy e rendelet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetésének napján lépjen hatályba,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A RENDELETET:
 1. cikk
 Az 543/2011/EU végrehajtási rendelet 136. cikkében említett behozatali átalányértékeket e rendelet melléklete határozza meg.
 2. cikk
 Ez a rendelet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetésének napján lép hatályba.
 Ez a rendelet teljes egészében kötelező és közvetlenül alkalmazandó valamennyi tagállamban.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2012. május 31-én.
 a Bizottság részéről, az elnök nevében,
 José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
 mezőgazdasági és vidékfejlesztési főigazgató
 (1) HL L 299., 2007.11.16., 1. o.
 (2) HL L 157., 2011.6.15., 1. o.
 MELLÉKLET
 Az egyes gyümölcs- és zöldségfélék behozatali árának meghatározására szolgáló behozatali átalányértékek
 (EUR/100 kg)
 KN-kód
 Országkód (1)
 Behozatali átalányérték
 0702 00 00
 AL
 87,5
 MA
 66,7
 TR
 75,8
 ZZ
 76,7
 0707 00 05
 MK
 53,3
 TR
 126,8
 ZZ
 90,1
 0709 93 10
 TR
 100,9
 ZZ
 100,9
 0805 50 10
 TR
 59,0
 ZA
 80,4
 ZZ
 69,7
 0808 10 80
 AR
 114,9
 BR
 84,6
 CA
 161,4
 CL
 98,5
 CN
 87,3
 NZ
 145,0
 US
 182,9
 UY
 67,3
 ZA
 101,6
 ZZ
 115,9
 0809 29 00
 US
 577,9
 ZZ
 577,9
 (1) Az országoknak az 1833/2006/EK bizottsági rendeletben (HL L 354., 2006.12.14., 19. o.) meghatározott nómenklatúrája szerint. A „ZZ” jelentése „egyéb származás”.