type: wikipedia

text:
Ο Αντρέι Αρσένιεβιτς Ταρκόφσκι ή Ταρκόβσκι (, ΔΦΑ:[ɐnˈdrjej ɐrˈsjenjjɪvjɪt͡ɕ tɐrˈkofskjɪj], 4 Απριλίου 1932 – 29 Δεκεμβρίου 1986) ήταν Ρώσος σκηνοθέτης και σεναριογράφος. Ανήκει στους κορυφαίους εκπροσώπους του ρωσικού κινηματογράφου.
 Βιογραφικά στοιχεία
 Γεννημένος το 1932 στο χωριό Ζαβράγιε (Zavraje), ήταν γιος του σημαντικού ποιητή Αρσένυ Ταρκόφσκι (Arseniy Tarkovsky). Σπούδασε μουσική, ζωγραφική, γλυπτική και αραβικά, ενώ για ένα διάστημα συμμετείχε σε γεωλογική αποστολή στην ανατολική Σιβηρία. Από το 1956 φοίτησε για περίπου τέσσερα χρόνια στην κινηματογραφική σχολή VGIK (Ινστιτούτο κινηματογράφου της Σοβιετικής Ένωσης), υπό τις οδηγίες του Μιχαήλ Ρομ. Στις τελικές εξετάσεις παρουσίασε την πτυχιακή του εργασία, που αποτελεί την πρώτη του ουσιαστικά κινηματογραφική δουλειά, με τίτλο Ο βιολιστής και ο οδοστρωτήρας, διάρκειας 46 λεπτών (1960).
 Η διεθνής αναγνώριση του Ταρκόφσκι ήρθε με την πρώτη του μεγάλου μήκους ταινία, Τα παιδικά χρόνια του Ιβάν (1962), η οποία κέρδισε τρεις "Χρυσούς Λέοντες" στο Κινηματογραφικό Φεστιβάλ της Βενετίας, μεταξύ των οποίων το βραβείο σκηνοθεσίας και καλύτερης ταινίας. Επόμενη κινηματογραφική ταινία του Ταρκόφσκι αποτέλεσε η επική παραγωγή Αντρέι Ρουμπλιόφ (1969), η οποία αντιμετώπισε τον εξονυχιστικό έλεγχο και πολλές παρεμβάσεις εκ μέρους των σοβιετικών αρχών, με αποτέλεσμα η δημόσια προβολή της στη Ρωσία να καθυστερήσει για αρκετά χρόνια μέχρι το 1971. Η ταινία προβλήθηκε στο φεστιβάλ των Καννών, αποκομίζοντας τελικά το βραβείο FIPRESCI.
 Ο Ταρκόφσκι σκηνοθέτησε τις περισσότερες ταινίες του στη Ρωσία. Το 1983 πραγματοποίησε για πρώτη φορά γυρίσματα εκτός της Ρωσίας, στην Τοσκάνη της Ιταλίας, για τις ανάγκες της ταινίας Νοσταλγία και στη συνέχεια εγκαταστάθηκε μόνιμα στην Ιταλία και αργότερα στη Γαλλία.
 Η τελευταία του ταινία Η Θυσία, γυρίστηκε στη Σουηδία το 1986 κερδίζοντας τέσσερα βραβεία στις Κάννες. Πέθανε την ίδια χρονιά στη Γαλλία από καρκίνο.
 Κινηματογραφικό έργο
 Το έργο του Ταρκόφσκι χαρακτηρίζεται από έντονα προσωπικά και μεταφυσικά στοιχεία, με επιρροές από τη λογοτεχνία και τη ζωγραφική. Αργοί ρυθμοί, εικόνες εξαιρετικής αισθητικής και σταθερά απόμακρα και μακράς διάρκειας πλάνα είναι μερικά από τα κύρια χαρακτηριστικά των ταινιών του. Σταδιακά ανέπτυξε μία προσωπική θεωρία γύρω από τον κινηματογράφο, που αποκαλείται συχνά και ως γλυπτική του χρόνου. Σύμφωνα με αυτή, ο Ταρκόφσκι πίστευε πως ένας από τους κύριους στόχους του κινηματογράφου ήταν η καταγραφή της αληθινής ανθρώπινης εμπειρίας του χρόνου. Οι ταινίες του χαρακτηρίζονται συχνά για την έλλειψη γραμμικής αφήγησης, υιοθετώντας ποιητικούς συνειρμούς και «ονειρική λογική».
 Ο ίδιος δεν θεωρούσε τα έργα του συμβολικά, δηλώνοντας χαρακτηριστικά: «...είμαι εχθρός των συμβόλων. Είναι μια πολύ στενή έννοια από την άποψη ότι ένα σύμβολο υπάρχει με σκοπό την αποκρυπτογράφησή του. Από την άλλη πλευρά, μια καλλιτεχνική εικόνα δεν χρειάζεται αποκρυπτογράφηση, είναι ένα ισοδύναμο του κόσμου που μας περιβάλλει. Η βροχή στο Σολάρις δεν είναι σύμβολο, είναι απλά μια βροχή που στη συγκεκριμένη στιγμή έχει μια ιδιαίτερη σημασία για τον ήρωα. Δεν συμβολίζει τίποτε, απλά εκφράζει. Είναι μια καλλιτεχνική αλληλουχία εικόνων. Το σύμβολο κατ' εμέ, είναι κάτι πολύ περίπλοκο». Συχνά οι ταινίες του Ταρκόφσκι κατατάσσονται στο είδος του ποιητικού κινηματογράφου. Ο ίδιος ο Ταρκόφσκι δεν αποδεχόταν αυτό το χαρακτηρισμό, που απέδιδε κυρίως σε άλλους σκηνοθέτες όπως στον Φελίνι και στον Παζολίνι, θεωρώντας πως ο αποκαλούμενος ποιητικός κινηματογράφος γίνεται σκόπιμα ακατανόητος.
 Φιλμογραφία
 Ο οδοστρωτήρας και το βιολί (Katok i skripka, 1960)
 Τα παιδικά χρόνια του Ιβάν (Ivanovo detstvo, 1962)
 Αντρέι Ρουμπλιόφ (Andrei Rublyov, 1969)
 Σολάρις (Solyaris, 1972)
 Ο Καθρέφτης (Zerkalo, 1975)
 Στάλκερ (Stalker, 1979)
 Tempo di viaggio (1983) -- τηλεπαραγωγή
 Νοσταλγία (Nostalghia, 1983)
 Θυσία (Offret, 1986)
 Παραπομπές
 Βιβλιογραφία
 Bird, Robert (2008). Andrei Tarkovsky: Elements of cinema, Reaktion Books, London
 Robinson, Jeremy Mark (2006). The Sacred Cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky, Crescent Moon
 Tarkovsky, Andrei, Hunter-Blair, Kitty (μτφρ.) (1989). Sculpting in Time : Reflections on the Cinema, University of Texas Press, 1989
 Tarkovsky, Andrei. Hunter-Blair, Kitty (μτφρ.) (1994). Time Within Time: The Diaries 1970-1986, Faber and Faber, London
 Αντρέι Ταρκόφσκι, Σμιλεύοντας το χρόνο, μτφρ. Σεραφείμ Βελέντζας, εκδ. Νεφέλη, Αθήνα, 1987
 Συλλογικό, Αντρέι Ταρκόφσκι: ένας Άγιος για όλες τις εποχές. Τριάντα χρόνια απουσίας-παρουσίας (1986 - 2016)'', εκδ. Βακχικόν, Αθήνα, 2016
 Εξωτερικοί σύνδεσμοι
 Nostalghia.com -- Ιστοσελίδα αφιερωμένη στον Ταρκόφσκι
 Senses of Cinema: Αντρέι Ταρκόφσκι
 Μουσείο Ταρκόφσκι
 "Η ιδιοφυΐα του Αντρέι Ταρκόφσκι" -- άρθρο του Alan Pavelin
 Σμιλεύοντας το χρόνο (απόσπασμα)
 Ρώσοι σεναριογράφοι
 Ρώσοι σκηνοθέτες κινηματογράφου
 Σοβιετικοί σκηνοθέτες κινηματογράφου


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' OFFICE OF AUDIT\n REGION 1\n BOSTON, MA\n\n\n\n\n Ofori & Associates, PC, Hartford, CT\n\n Single Family REO Contract Administration\n\n\n\n\n2013-BO-1001 FEBRUARY 19, 2013\n\x0c Issue Date: February 19, 2013\n\n Audit Report Number: 2013-BO-1001\n\n\n\n\nTO: Charles S. Coulter\n Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing, HU\n\n\n\nFROM: Edgar Moore\n Regional Inspector General for Audit, Boston Region, 1AGA\n\n\nSUBJECT: Ofori & Associates, PC, Hartford, CT, Did Not Always Comply With Its REO\n Contract and Marketing Plan Requirements\n\n\n Enclosed is the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of\nInspector General (OIG), final results of our review of Ofori & Associates, PC, regarding\ncompliance with case processing requirements and timeframes to obtain the highest net return for\nHUD\xe2\x80\x99s REO inventory and minimize holding time.\n\n HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4, sets specific timeframes for management decisions on\nrecommended corrective actions. For each recommendation without a management decision,\nplease respond and provide status reports in accordance with the HUD Handbook. Please furnish\nus copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.\n\n The Inspector General Act, Title 5 United States Code, section 8L, requires that OIG post its\npublicly available reports on the OIG Web site. Accordingly, this report will be posted at\nhttp://www.hudoig.gov.\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this report, please do not hesitate to call me at 212-\n264-4174.\n\x0c February 19, 2013\n Ofori & Associates, PC, Hartford, CT, Did Not Always\n Comply With Its REO Contract and Marketing Plan\n Requirements\n\n\n\n\nHighlights\nAudit Report 2013-BO-1001\n\n\n What We Audited and Why What We Found\n\nWe audited Ofori & Associates, PC, Ofori officials did not always comply with case\nregarding its U.S. Department of processing requirements and timeframes for the\nHousing and Urban Development disposition of REO properties assigned to them.\n(HUD) real estate-owned (REO) Specifically, they did not always perform all case\nManagement and Marketing (M&M) III processing requirements or perform case processing\nprogram. This review was part of the requirements in a timely manner to minimize holding\nOffice of Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to time and costs to HUD. They also did not adequately\nimprove the integrity of the single- document information in case files and the P260\nfamily insurance program. Our audit computer system.1 This condition occurred because\nobjective was to determine whether Ofori officials did not always follow contract and\nOfori complied with case processing marketing plan requirements; have adequate controls\nrequirements and timeframes to obtain in place to ensure that case processing requirements\nthe highest net return for HUD\xe2\x80\x99s REO were completed and documented; and adequately\ninventory and minimize holding time. address procedures, processes, and timeframes they\n would follow. As a result, HUD did not have\n assurance that it always received the highest net return\n What We Recommend\n on its REO inventory and that holding time and costs\n were minimized.\nWe recommend that the Deputy\nAssistant Secretary for Single Family\nHousing require Ofori officials to\nestablish sufficient internal controls to\nensure that contract and marketing plan\nrequirements are performed adequately\nand in a timely manner. We also\nrecommend that the Deputy Assistant\nSecretary for Single Family Housing\nprovide guidance to Ofori officials\nregarding adequately documenting P260\nand the property case files, and ensure\nthat it develops adequate controls to\nensure that all required documentation\nis included in the property case files and 1 P260 is an Internet-based system that serves as the primary\nuploaded to P260. system of record for all REO case management transactions.\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nBackground and Objective 3\n\nResults of Audit\n Finding: Ofori Officials Did Not Always Comply With Their REO Contract\n and Marketing Plan Requirements 5\n\nScope and Methodology 15\n\nInternal Controls 17\n\nAppendixes\nA. Schedule of Questioned Costs 18\nB. Auditee Comments and OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Evaluation 19\nC. Property Deficiencies by Case Number 28\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE\n\nThe Federal Housing Administration (FHA) provides mortgage insurance on loans made by\nFHA-approved lenders throughout the United States and its territories. FHA mortgage insurance\nprovides lenders with protection against losses as a result of homeowners defaulting on their\nmortgage loans. When a homeowner defaults, the lender deeds the home to the Secretary of\nHousing and Urban Development in exchange for an insurance claim payment. The property\nthen becomes part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development\xe2\x80\x99s (HUD) real\nestate-owned (REO) inventory from which HUD offers the property for sale to recover the loss\nfrom the foreclosure claim.\n\nSince 1999, HUD has outsourced the disposition of its REO inventory under the management\nand marketing (M&M) contracting process. M&M contractors manage and market single-family\nproperties owned by or in the custody of HUD. HUD has launched the third generation of its\nM&M program, known as M&M III. Before M&M III, contractors were responsible for both\nmaintenance and marketing of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s REO properties. However, under M&M III, these\nfunctions have been separated to increase the effectiveness of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s asset disposition program.\n\nTo foster competition among the contractors, thereby improving responsiveness, reducing risk,\nand increasing net returns to the agency, HUD awarded multiple field service manager and asset\nmanager contracts in each area. Field service managers are companies that provide property\npreservation and protection services consisting of but not limited to inspecting the property,\nsecuring the property, performing cosmetic enhancements and repairs, and providing ongoing\nmaintenance. Asset managers are responsible for the marketing and sale of REO property in a\nmanner that maximizes net return, minimizes holding time, and expands home ownership.\n\nHUD selected Ofori & Associates, PC, as one of its asset managers covering four contract areas\n(1A, 2A, 2P, and 3P). We focused our audit efforts on two of Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s contract areas, known as\n2P and 3P,2 covering 15 States with a contract effective date June 1, 2010.\n\nHUD identified five primary objectives for its asset managers according to its performance work\nstatement. They are to ensure that\n\n 1. Properties are accurately and competitively valued,\n 2. Sales achieve the highest net return,\n 3. Holding time is minimized,\n 4. Sales create owner-occupant opportunities, and\n 5. Closing proceeds are properly accounted for and delivered to HUD in a timely\n manner.\n\nFor properties located in the 2P and 3P jurisdictional areas, HUD expended more than $12\nmillion on Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s asset manager contract fees between June 1, 2010, and March 31, 2012. The\n\n2\n 2P consists of the District of Columbia, Delaware, Ohio, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia; 3P\nconsists of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and\nVermont.\n\n 3\n\x0ctotal value of Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s contracts was more than $57.8 million, including the base year and 4 option\nyears. HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Homeownership Center in Philadelphia is responsible for the direct oversight of\nOfori\xe2\x80\x99s contracts. Our overall audit objective was to determine whether Ofori complied with\ncase processing requirements and timeframes to obtain the highest net return for HUD\xe2\x80\x99s REO\ninventory and minimized holding time.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c RESULTS OF AUDIT\n\n\nFinding: Ofori Officials Did Not Always Comply With Their REO\n Contract and Marketing Plan Requirements\nOfori officials did not always comply with case processing requirements and timeframes for the\ndisposition of REO properties assigned to them. Specifically, they did not always perform all\ncase processing requirements or perform case processing requirements in a timely manner to\nminimize holding time and costs to HUD. They also did not adequately document information in\ncase files and the P260 computer system. This condition occurred because Ofori officials did not\nalways follow contract and marketing plan requirements; have adequate controls in place to\nensure that case processing requirements were completed and documented; and adequately\naddress procedures, processes, and timeframes they would follow. As a result, HUD did not\nhave assurance that it always received the highest net return on its REO inventory and that\nholding time and costs were minimized.\n\n\n Case Processing for Disposition\n Not Always in Accordance With\n Requirements and Timeframes\n\n Ofori officials did not always perform all case processing requirements in\n accordance with their contracts and marketing plans. Specifically, they did not\n always\n\n 1. Ensure that properties were in ready-to-show condition.\n 2. Follow up on appraisal-related discrepancies.\n 3. Disclose all available property information to purchasers.\n 4. Document the reanalysis of properties or a detailed plan to sell\n properties that had been on the market for 90 days or perform\n reanalysis in a timely manner.\n 5. Perform counteroffers in accordance with the marketing plan.\n 6. Perform or perform in a timely manner all required inspections.\n 7. List or relist properties when contracts were canceled, execute sales\n contracts, or close on properties within the required timeframes.\n 8. Adequately perform closing procedures.\n\n Of the 62 case files reviewed, we found at least one error in each case. The\n details are described below and summarized in appendix C.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c 1. Properties Not Always in Ready-To-Show Condition\n\n In 19 of 62 cases reviewed, Ofori officials did not follow up on discrepancies\n between the appraisals, the property inspections, or both related to the property\xe2\x80\x99s\n condition. In seven of these cases, the properties were not in ready-to-show\n condition3 when listed, and Ofori officials should have submitted a work order for\n correction by the field service manager4 before listing the property for sale and\n notified HUD of the property condition as required. Additionally, health and\n safety hazards were sometimes noted in the appraisals or appraisal pictures but\n not included in the inspection reports performed by Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s listing brokers5 or\n narrative of the appraisal reports. As a result, these properties may not have been\n in ready-to-show condition.\n\n For example, in case number 411-3843905, the appraisal pictures showed\n standing water in the basement; however, Ofori officials did not issue a work\n order for the field service manager to correct this issue. The appraisal narrative\n did not discuss the water in the basement. In this case, Ofori officials did not\n order a ready-to-list inspection; therefore, one was not performed before the\n property was listed. In addition, there was no documented follow-up with the\n field service manager or government technical representative.6\n\n\n\n\n Standing water in the basement\n\n3\n Ready-to-show condition is defined as \xe2\x80\x9cthe property is free of debris, visible insect/rodent infestations and health\nand safety hazards. All cabinets, refrigerators, freezers, counter tops, and windows must have been wiped clean and\nthe house must be free of bad smells. All floors and carpets must be clean. All repairs required to correct safety\nhazards and any approved repairs to be done prior to listing the property must be completed in order for the house to\nbe in ready to show condition. The yard must be free of trash and debris. The grass must be cut, bushes trimmed\nand holes patched, and or properly secured to protect the public. Swimming pools and wells must be properly\nsecured to protect the public.\xe2\x80\x9d\n4\n According to section 5.2.1.1.of Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s contracts and section 2 of its marketing plans, after receipt of the appraisal\nand before listing the property for sale, Ofori will perform a walk-through inspection (ready-to-list inspection) to\nensure that all initial services, work orders, and repairs, if applicable, are completed as intended and ensure that the\nproperty is in ready-to-show condition.\n5\n Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s agreements with its listing brokers required the listing brokers to perform the initial, ready-to-list, and\nready-to-close inspections.\n6\n According to section 5.2.1.1.of Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s contracts, the government technical representative should be notified of\nproperty condition variances.\n\n 6\n\x0c In another example, case number 352-5601402, the housing property inspection\n report performed by the field service manager before assigning the property to\n Ofori stated that the property was structurally unsound and unsafe to enter.\n Pictures in the report showed a collapsed foundation wall and mud on the\n basement floor. However, inspections performed by the listing broker did not\n identify this deficiency, and the appraiser did not mention the collapsed\n foundation wall in the appraisal narrative. However, the appraisal pictures\n showed the collapsed foundation wall in the basement and snow and mud in the\n basement where the collapsed wall was located. There was no documented\n follow-up on these issues with the government technical representative or field\n service manager.\n\n\n\n\n Collapsed foundation wall with snow and mud in the basement\n\n 2. No Follow-up on Discrepancies or Deficiencies in Appraisals\n\n Ofori officials did not always follow up on deficiencies or discrepancies with\n appraisal information in 16 of the 62 cases reviewed (26 percent). We found\n instances in which (1) the appraised value was inconsistent in different sections of\n the appraisal, (2) the appraisers did not always adequately explain value\n adjustments for comparable properties when they exceeded HUD guidelines,7 and\n (3) the appraiser did not include all repair information when determining the\n insurability of the property.\n\n For example, in case number 249-2937521, the appraiser made an error on the\n report and showed an appraised value of $120,000 on the cover page, when the\n\n7\n According to appendix D of HUD Handbook 4150.2, Valuation Analysis for Home Mortgage Insurance for Single\nFamily One- to Four- Unit Dwellings, generally adjustments should not exceed 10 percent for line items, 15 percent\nfor net sales price adjustments, and 25 percent for gross sales price adjustments. If any adjustments exceed stated\nguidelines, an explanation must be provided.\n\n 7\n\x0ccorrect \xe2\x80\x9cas is value,\xe2\x80\x9d as reported in the body of the report, was $60,000. Ofori\nofficials used the incorrect amount that was shown on the cover page and listed\nthe property at $120,000. In this case, the adjusted comparable values did not\nexceed $75,000, and the listing price opinion obtained from the listing broker had\na suggested list price of $49,000. The property was listed for 187 days before it\nwas sold at a sales price of $15,257. As a result, HUD had no assurance that it\nreceived the highest net return on this property with minimal cost since Ofori\nofficials did not adequately review or check the accuracy of the appraisals to\nensure that the property was correctly valued and listed.\n\n3. All Available Property Information Not Always Disclosed\n\nOfori officials did not always document that all available property condition\ninformation was provided to the bidders or purchaser before executing the sales\ncontract in 13 of the 62 cases reviewed in accordance with its contracts. For\nexample, Ofori did not always document that it provided the property condition\nreport and lead-based paint disclosures and in one case, did not notify the\npurchaser that the property was condemned. In five cases, Ofori officials did not\ndocument that they provided the final purchaser of the property with the lead-\nbased paint inspection report that was performed for a previous bidder whose\ncontract was canceled, and in two cases, the home inspection report from a\npreviously canceled contract was not provided to the final purchaser before the\ncontract was executed. Failure to disclose all available property condition\ninformation can result in delays in closing the property and additional holding\ncosts to HUD.\n\n4. Reanalysis and Detailed Plan Not Documented or Performed in a Timely\n Manner\n\nThe marketing plan listed detailed steps that Ofori would perform when\nreanalyzing properties. However, reanalysis of properties was not documented in\nthe files or in the P260 system, and the procedures used when reducing the price\nof properties were not consistent with those specified in Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s marketing plan.\nInstead, after a specified period, Ofori officials reduced the price of the property\nby a fixed percentage during each reanalysis period. According to discussions\nwith HUD officials, this price reduction was a standard reduction. Further, the\nmarketing plan was not always consistent with the contract. Specifically, revision\n3 of Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s marketing plan provided that Ofori would reanalyze the property after\n30 days on the market; however, Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s contracts stated that properties would be\nreanalyzed after 45 days. Ofori officials revised their marketing plan from 30 to\n45 days in October 2011.\n\nOfori officials did not reanalyze properties in a timely manner in 15 cases in\naccordance with their contract and marketing plan. According to the marketing\nplan, Ofori officials would reanalyze properties after a certain number of days on\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cthe market. However, they did not always perform the initial reanalysis or\nsubsequent reanalysis in a timely manner in accordance with the marketing plan.\n\nAdditionally, although the marketing plan discussed detailed steps Ofori would\ntake for properties that were on the market for 90 days, in nine cases, Ofori\nofficials did not document that they had developed a detailed plan to sell these\nproperties. As a result, properties may have been on the market longer, and HUD\nmay not have received the highest net return on the property. Thus, Ofori\nofficials need to follow their marketing plan for property reanalysis and for\nproperties that have been on the market for 90 days.\n\n5. Counteroffers Not Always Performed in Accordance With Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s Plan\n\nOfori officials did not always counteroffer bids in accordance with their\nmarketing plan. Specifically, officials did not always provide counteroffer bids\nthat met the trigger amount for counteroffers, and in some cases, bids did not meet\nthe trigger amount to counteroffer; however, counteroffers were made without\ndocumented HUD approval. Ofori officials later revised their marketing plan\nbased on discussions with HUD officials, which gave them the right to counter\nany and all bids; however, before this revision, they should have documented\nHUD\xe2\x80\x99s approval for counter bids that did not meet the trigger amount, and they\nshould have countered bids in accordance with their marketing plan. According\nto discussions with Ofori officials, HUD wanted them to counteroffer more and\nimplement these changes before the revised marketing plan.\n\n6. Inspections Not Always Performed or Performed in a Timely Manner in\n Accordance With Requirements\n\nOfori officials did not always perform or perform in a timely manner all required\ninspections in accordance with requirements of its contracts and marketing plan.\nSpecifically, in 19 of the 62 cases reviewed, the ready-to-list or ready-to-close\ninspections were not performed. The ready-to-list inspection is performed to\nensure that all of the initial services, work orders, and repairs, if applicable, are\ncompleted as intended and ensure that the property is in ready-to-show condition\nbefore listing the property for sale. The ready-to-close inspection is required to\nensure that the property is in the same condition as listed or as contained in the\ncontract for sale.\n\nIn 46 cases, at least one of the required inspections was not performed within the\nrequired timeframes specified in Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s marketing plan and contracts. Although\nOfori\xe2\x80\x99s policies and procedures adequately addressed performing these\ninspections, Ofori officials did not always order or order in a timely manner the\ninspections as required, and their listing brokers did not always perform the\ninspections in a timely manner. The initial inspection is performed to determine\nwhether the property is in ready-to-list condition and is ready for an appraisal.\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c Also, according to Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s marketing plan, initial inspections must be completed\n within 2 days of assignment from the field service manager, ready-to-list\n inspections should be performed immediately upon receipt of the appraisal, and\n the ready-to-close inspection should be completed within 5 days before the\n closing. However, in six cases, the ready-to-list inspections were performed after\n the property was listed.\n\n 7. Failure To List in a Timely Manner, Relist When Contracts Were Canceled,\n Execute Sales Contracts, or Close on Properties\n\n Ofori officials did not always perform all case processing requirements in a timely\n manner in accordance with their contract and marketing plan to minimize holding\n time and cost.8 Specifically, they did not always list or relist properties in a\n timely manner, execute sales contracts, or close on properties in a timely manner\n in 31 of the 62 cases (50 percent) reviewed.9 Ofori officials stated that the delays\n were caused by the huge influx of inventory at the beginning of their contracts\n and the lack of P260 system access for many staff members during this time.\n\n For example, in case number 413-3955605, Ofori officials did not cancel and\n relist the property in a timely manner when the original contract had expired, yet\n they executed a second sales contract with one of their listing brokers. In this\n case, the second sales contract was not canceled until contract expiration, which\n was 45 days later. Ofori officials suspended the listing broker; however, the\n broker agreement did not contain a provision prohibiting them from bidding on or\n purchasing REO properties. The listing broker was later reinstated, and a new\n certification was obtained that included the provision. Ofori officials also did not\n have written policies and procedures in place detailing what steps staff should\n take to monitor conflicts of interests. This listing broker placed many bids on\n other properties, of which two of the property sales closed and the broker received\n commissions totaling $3,800.10 According to section 5.1.13.1 of Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s contract\n with HUD, Ofori may not permit any conflicts of interest. Therefore, HUD\n should require Ofori officials to repay this amount and determine whether further\n action should be taken.\n\n 8. Closing Procedures Not Always Adequately Performed\n\n Ofori officials did not always adequately perform closing procedures in\n accordance with their contract. Specifically, they did not always (1) follow the\n requirements for two discount program sales; (2) notify HUD of amounts paid at\n closing, including those that may be the responsibility of the field service\n\n8\n According to the Philadelphia Homeownership Center, holding costs in quarter 4 of 2011 for 2P were\napproximately $26 per day and for 3P were $35 per day.\n9\n We noted that a majority of these delays were during the first 9 months that properties were assigned to Ofori.\n10\n In these two cases, the property was listed by another listing broker, but the listing broker-purchaser was paid a\nselling broker commission on these properties. These two properties were outside our sample of 62 cases shown in\nappendix C.\n\n 10\n\x0c manager or lender in 43 of the 62 cases reviewed; and (3) ensure that the costs on\n the form HUD-1 (Settlement Statement) were correct.\n\n a. Discount Program Sale Requirements Not Met\n\n One property reviewed, case number 374-4334673, was a Good Neighbor Next\n Door (GNND) sale, whereby the purchaser received a 50 percent discount on the\n sale in exchange for agreeing to occupy the house for a period of not less than 3\n years. However, Ofori officials did not ensure that the second mortgage and note\n for the 50 percent discount amount of $57,500 were executed and recorded. Ofori\n officials also did not document that the required post-closing package was sent to\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99s National Service Center for occupancy monitoring. This condition\n occurred because Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s policies and procedures did not include GNND sale\n requirements. The second mortgage and note are intended to act as an absolute\n bar to the sale of the property during the 36-month required occupancy term\n without repaying the appropriate portion of the discount. Ofori officials also did\n not verify that the purchaser did not already own property as prohibited by the\n contract. Since Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s policies and procedures did not include GNND sale\n requirements, HUD had no assurance that properties sold under the GNND\n program were sold to eligible purchasers and that its interest in these properties\n was properly secured. According to the P260 system, as of November 19, 2012,\n there were a total of 36 GNND sales, including the one reviewed.\n\n b. HUD Not Always Notified of Amounts Paid at Closing\n\n Ofori officials did not always notify HUD of amounts paid at closing, including\n amounts that may be the responsibility of the field service manager or lender,\n such as taxes, utility costs, homeowners\xe2\x80\x99 association fees, and associated penalties\n and interest. Additionally, Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s process for notifying HUD was not consistent\n for each contract area, as the government technical representative for each area\n required a different method for reporting these payments. Specifically, the\n representative for contract area 2P required that a spreadsheet be provided\n monthly, showing amounts paid at closing from the proceeds, such as taxes,\n penalties, interest, homeowners\xe2\x80\x99 association fees, and utility payments. The\n representative for contract area 3P required that he be notified via email of any\n amounts to be paid at closing from the proceeds. As of January 2012, contract\n areas 2P and 3P were both using the spreadsheet. In some cases reviewed, the\n case was included on the spreadsheet to HUD, however, interest and penalties\n were not broken out as required. As a result, HUD paid $1,394 in costs that may\n have been the responsibility of the field service manager or lender, including\n penalties and interest on taxes, utilities, and homeowners\xe2\x80\x99 association fees.11\n\n\n\n11\n Related to case numbers 372-1680833, 412-6043294, 341-0927619, 441-7769920, 061-2876843, 548-4350643,\n251-3824725, 548-4392990, 351-3794529, 374-4458795, 441-6742401, 541-7782122, 352-5601402, 412-5067701,\nand 412-5096171\n\n 11\n\x0c c. Costs on HUD-1 Not Always Correct\n\n Ofori officials approved duplicate costs in two cases (case numbers 548-4392990\n and 061-3005865) for homeowners\xe2\x80\x99 association fees that were paid by the field\n service manager and were also paid from the proceeds to HUD at closing.\n Although the field service manager\xe2\x80\x99s payment of these fees was uploaded to the\n P260 system before closing, it was not checked by Ofori officials before they\n approved the preliminary HUD-1. Therefore, HUD should obtain reimbursement\n for the $450 in duplicate payments. In one of these cases (548-4392990), the\n closing agent also included $1,517 in additional costs on the HUD-1 that were not\n approved by Ofori officials.\n\nCase Files and P260 Not\nDocumented Adequately and in\na Timely Manner\n\n Based on our review, Ofori officials did not adequately document case files, and\n information was not always uploaded to the P260 computer system as required by\n their contracts. Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s contracts require that officials maintain adequate case\n files documenting property disposition until closeout of the property and also\n require them to document this information in the P260 system. Case files did not\n include documentation related to property disposition, and property reanalysis\n was not documented in the files or in the P260 system. This included\n documentation such as relevant emails that were generated outside the P260\n system and approvals by HUD for property reanalysis. The case files also did not\n always include final closing packages, and the reasons for canceled contracts were\n not always documented in the file or the P260 system.\n\n Additionally, the initial, ready-to-list, and ready-to-close inspection reports were\n not always uploaded to P260 or uploaded in a timely manner as required by\n Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s contract and marketing plan, nor were they always included in the files.\n Based on discussions with Ofori officials, this condition may have been caused by\n the volume of inventory transferred at the beginning of the contracts, a lack of\n P260 access for many of Ofori staff until April or May 2012, and confusion by\n Ofori officials regarding what documentation should be included in the file and\n P260.\n\nConclusion\n\n Ofori officials did not always comply with case processing requirements and\n timeframes for the disposition of REO properties assigned to them. Specifically,\n they did not always perform all case processing requirements or perform case\n processing requirements in a timely manner to minimize holding time and costs to\n HUD, nor did they adequately document case files and the P260 computer system.\n This condition occurred because Ofori officials did not always follow contract\n\n 12\n\x0c and marketing plan requirements; have adequate controls in place to ensure that\n case processing requirements were completed and documented; and always\n adequately address procedures, processes, and timeframes they would follow. As\n a result, HUD did not have assurance that it always received the highest net return\n on its REO inventory and that holding time was minimized.\n\n Ofori officials had begun addressing the deficiencies identified during our review,\n including a checklist for Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s marketing specialists to use to improve the\n review of appraisals and for hard-to-sell properties; had updated their inspection\n and closing procedures; and were revising their marketing plans to address\n deficiencies identified during the audit. Ofori officials also began notifying HUD\n of amounts paid at closing that were not previously reported to HUD, however,\n Ofori needs to ensure that the interest and penalties are broken out on the\n spreadsheet. HUD needs to ensure that the added controls address the\n deficiencies identified in the report, including conflicts of interest, and are\n followed.\n\n Recommendations\n\n We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing\n require Ofori officials to\n\n 1A. Develop and implement adequate procedures and controls that adequately\n addresses their processes and timeframes and encompasses the eight specific\n issues identified in the Finding section relating to \xe2\x80\x9cCase Processing for\n Disposition not Always in Accordance with Requirements and Timeframes.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n 1B. Reimburse HUD $3,800 in ineligible commissions paid to the listing broker\n that purchased two properties and determine whether additional action is\n necessary.\n\n 1C. Review the 36 GNND closed sales, determine whether the purchasers were\n eligible participants, and submit documentation to support that the second\n mortgage and note for these cases, including the $57,500 discount on case\n number 374-4334673 were recorded and that the all document delivery\n requirements were met for the 36 cases.\n\n 1D. Ensure that HUD is properly notified of the $1,394 in costs paid on the\n HUD-1 that may be the responsibility of the field service managers, the\n lenders, or both.12\n\n\n\n\n12\n Related to case numbers 372-1680833, 412-6043294, 341-0927619, 441-7769920, 061-2876843, 548-4350643,\n251-3824725, 548-4392990, 351-3794529, 374-4458795, 441-6742401, 541-7782122, 352-5601402, 412-5067701,\nand 412-5096171.\n\n 13\n\x0c1E. Ensure that HUD is reimbursed for the $450 in duplicate payments included\n on the HUD-1s and made on case numbers 548-4392990 and 061-\n 3005865.\n\n1F. Determine whether the $1,517 in unapproved closing costs included on the\n HUD-1 and related to case number 548-4392990 are supported and if not,\n obtain reimbursement from the appropriate contractor.\n\n\nWe also recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing\n\n1G. Ensure that all of Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s employees who require access to the P260 system\n obtain timely access.\n\n1H. Provide guidance to Ofori officials regarding adequately documenting P260\n and the property case files and ensure that it develops adequate controls to\n ensure that all required documentation from disposition to closeout is\n included in the property case files and uploaded to P260.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nOur audit covered the period June 1, 2010, to February 29, 2012, but was expanded when\nnecessary. We selected Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s Hartford office because Ofori was one of four asset managers in\nthe Philadelphia Homeownership Center area that was awarded contracts in two geographic\nlocations. We reviewed property case files for contract areas 2P (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,\nWest Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Delaware) and 3P (Connecticut, Maine,\nMassachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont). We\nperformed our fieldwork between April and December 2012 at Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s Hartford office.\n\nTo accomplish our objective, we\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Reviewed the performance work statements in Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s M&M III asset manager contract\n and its marketing plan(s) in effect during our audit period.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Reviewed HUD regulations and reference materials and policies and procedures in place\n during our audit period.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Interviewed Ofori officials and followed up with Homeownership Center officials as\n necessary during the audit.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Reviewed Ofori\xe2\x80\x99s quality control plan, to ensure that it met contract requirements, and\n quality control reviews and the Homeownership Center\xe2\x80\x99s most recent review to identify\n deficiencies in performance.\n\nWe selected our sample of case files using computer-processed data maintained by HUD in its\ninformation system that provides case-level data on single-family housing properties and loans\n(Single Family Data Warehouse) to identify properties that were acquired by HUD and closed\nduring our audit period. We compared these data with information provided by the Philadelphia\nHomeownership Center obtained from HUD\xe2\x80\x99s P260 system to ensure that the number of closed\ncases agreed. We did not rely on these data to reach our conclusions; therefore, we did not\nassess the reliability of the data.\n\nWe reviewed a nonstatistical sample of 62 closed case files assigned to Ofori between June 1,\n2010, and February 29, 2012. During this period, there were 6,561 closed cases. The sample\nrepresented property case files from both 2P and 3P contract areas. We selected the sample units\nwithout conscious bias; that is, without a special reason for including or excluding them. This\nsampling process does not consist of sampling units selected in a careless manner; rather, units\nare selected in a way that the auditor expects to be representative of the population. Since the\nnonstatistical sample is not the same as a statistical sample, precision at a given confidence level\ncannot be determined. Therefore, we did not project our findings to the population using the\nsample.\n\nWe conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.\nThose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\n\n 15\n\x0cevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjective(s). We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings\nand conclusions based on our audit objective.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c INTERNAL CONTROLS\n\nInternal control is a process adopted by those charged with governance and management,\ndesigned to provide reasonable assurance about the achievement of the organization\xe2\x80\x99s mission,\ngoals, and objectives with regard to\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Effectiveness and efficiency of operations,\n \xef\x82\xb7 Reliability of financial reporting, and\n \xef\x82\xb7 Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.\n\nInternal controls comprise the plans, policies, methods, and procedures used to meet the\norganization\xe2\x80\x99s mission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and\nprocedures for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the\nsystems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance.\n\n\n Relevant Internal Controls\n\n We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit\n objective:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Controls over case processing requirements, timeframes, and bid thresholds\n to ensure that asset management requirements were met.\n\n We assessed the relevant controls identified above.\n\n A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does\n not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their\n assigned functions, the reasonable opportunity to prevent, detect, or correct (1)\n impairments to effectiveness or efficiency of operations, (2) misstatements in\n financial or performance information, or (3) violations of laws and regulations on a\n timely basis.\n\n Significant Deficiency\n\n Based on our review, we believe that the following item is a significant deficiency:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Ofori officials did not always have adequate controls in place to ensure that case\n processing requirements included in their marketing plans and contracts were\n performed adequately and in a timely manner and documented.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c APPENDIXES\n\nAppendix A\n\n SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS\n\n\n Recommendation Unsupported\n Ineligible 1/\n number 2/\n 1B $3,80013\n 1C $57,500\n 1D. $1,394\n 1E. $450\n 1F. $1,517\n ______ _______\n $4,250 $60,411\n\n\n\n\n1/ Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or activity\n that the auditor believes are not allowable by law; contract; or Federal, State, or local\n policies or regulations.\n\n2/ Unsupported costs are those costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program\n or activity when we cannot determine eligibility at the time of the audit. Unsupported\n costs require a decision by HUD program officials. This decision, in addition to\n obtaining supporting documentation, might involve a legal interpretation or clarification\n of departmental policies and procedures.\n\n\n\n\n13\n This amount is not included in appendix C, as these properties were not part of our sample of 62 cases.\n\n\n 18\n\x0cAppendix B\n\n AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\nComment 2\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\nComment 3\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\nComment 4\n\n\n\n\nComment 5\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 5\n\n\n\n\nComment 6\n\n\n\nComment 7\n\n\n\nComment 8\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\nComment 4\n\n\n\n\nComment 9\n\n\n\n\nComment 8\n\n\nComment 10\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 11\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0c OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments\n\nComment 1 Ofori officials cite an August 2012 HUD CPARS report that mentions that they\n have made tremendous improvements in their performance. They cite over 3,400\n properties acquired many sold at 81 to 85 percent of the appraised value. They\n also mention changes in instructions for marketing specialist to follow when\n preparing a property to list and a report card system to ensure compliance, along\n with other procedures implemented after the audit period. OIG during the time\n period audited, acknowledges that Ofori officials made improvements in case\n processing steps and improvements to its processes and Plans. Therefore, these\n procedures should be presented to HUD during the audit resolution process for\n review.\n\nComment 2 Regarding the case with the flooded basement, OIG removed the reference to the\n initial inspection report in the finding; however, there was no documented follow\n up on the condition shown in the appraisal. Property condition affects the\n marketability of the property and since the property was not in ready to show\n condition, HUD did not have assurance that the property was appraised properly,\n sold as quickly as possible, and whether officials obtained the highest net value\n for the property.\n\nComment 3 The email provided to OIG was in response to the finding and was not from the\n time when the counteroffers were made and did not state when HUD wanted\n Ofori to begin implementing the changes. The counteroffers made by Ofori were\n not in compliance with its approved marketing plan in effect at the time;\n therefore, Ofori should have documented HUD approval for the deviation from\n the marketing plan at the time the counteroffers were made.\n\nComment 4 OIG acknowledges that commissions can be paid by HUD, however, in these two\n cases, the sales commission was paid to the selling broker, who had a conflict of\n interest given that she was a listing broker for Ofori and also the purchaser of the\n property.\n\nComment 5 Regarding case number 374-433467, OIG acknowledges that subsequent to Ofori\n official\xe2\x80\x99s response included in this report, the original document submitted for\n urgent recording, was in fact recorded on January 31, 2013. Ofori officials\xe2\x80\x99\n actions are responsive to our recommendations, as such; Ofori officials need to\n provide HUD documentation supporting the results of their review of the GNND\n cases during the audit resolution process.\n\nComment 6 OIG removed the statement from the report related to the project manager being\n unaware of the GNND requirements based on additional explanation provided at\n the exit conference.\n\nComment 7 OIG removed the CCLRC sale from the report based on explanation from HUD\n that the discount sales addendum was not required in this case.\n\n 26\n\x0cComment 8 OIG acknowledges that Ofori officials have begun notifying HUD of the cases\n brought to their attention during the audit, however, Ofori Officials must ensure\n that the information provided on the spreadsheet breaks out any penalties and\n interest paid at closing as required.\n\nComment 9 Regarding Ofori official\xe2\x80\x99s comment related to draft recommendation 1D, this\n recommendation has been merged with the current recommendation 1C;\n nevertheless see our evaluation in Comment 5 above.\n\nComment 10 OIG revised the recommendation to require that HUD be reimbursed for these\n payments by the appropriate party.\n\nComment 11 Ofori officials actions to request guidance is responsive to our recommendation;\n as such, OIG acknowledges that HUD needs to provide guidance related to\n required case file documentation.\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0c Appendix C\n\n PROPERTY DEFICIENCIES BY CASE NUMBER\n\n\n\n\n No follow-up on discrepancies with\n\n\n\n\n Counteroffers not in accordance\n All available property condition\n Sales contract not executed in a\n Original list price did not equal\n\n\n Not in ready-to-show condition\n\n\n\n\n Not closed in a timely manner\n Not listed in a timely manner\n\n\n\n\n No follow-up with appraisal\n\n\n\n\n information not disclosed\n\n\n\n\n Deficiencies with closing\n ready-to-show condition\n\n\n\n\n Inspections not timely\n\n\n\n\n Unsupported amount\n Reanalysis not timely\n Missing inspections\n\n\n\n\n Ineligible amount\n Assignment date\n\n\n\n\n No detailed plan\n appraised value\n\n\n\n\n timely manner\nCase number\n\n\n\n\n deficiencies\n\n\n\n\n procedures\n with plan\n372-1680833 12/03/10 X X X $29\n412-6043294 12/22/10 X X X X X X $22\n249-5120461 10/05/10 X X X X X\n341-0927619 12/14/10 X X $162\n061-2862959 12/02/10 X X X X\n412-5155149 12/17/11 X X\n441-8034480 05/16/11 X X\n441-7769920 10/21/11 X X $106\n061-2876843 07/29/11 X X X $118\n548-4350643 11/15/10 X X X X $60\n231-0878747 10/04/10 X X X\n541-7948160 03/28/11 X X X X X\n541-5412718 09/19/11 X X X X\n412-4801679 11/01/10 X X X X X\n412-4922900 06/24/11 X\n413-3777072 12/14/11 X X\n411-2718984 07/11/11 X X X X X\n441-8557854 05/09/11 X X\n411-3607849 12/14/10 X X X\n061-3005865 09/06/11 X X X X $250\n571-0771231 06/09/11 X X X X X\n412-6069070 11/15/10 X X X X X X\n541-7508151 11/09/10 X X X X\n413-4650522 12/07/10 X X X\n251-3824725 10/20/11 X X $108\n442-2259744 10/27/10 X X X X X\n548-4392990 12/07/10 X X X X X $1,862 $200\n351-3794529 09/17/10 X X X X $73\n374-4458795 12/13/10 X X X X X X $123\n241-7847865 04/11/11 X X X X X\n413-4061332 05/27/11 X X\n541-6080812 01/04/12 X X\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\x0c Counteroffers not in accordance\n All available property condition\n Sales contract not executed in a\n Original list price did not equal\n\n\n Not in ready-to-show condition\n\n\n\n\n No follow-up on discrepancies\n Not closed in a timely manner\n\n\n with ready-to-show condition\n Not listed in a timely manner\n\n\n\n\n No follow-up with appraisal\n\n\n\n\n information not disclosed\n\n\n\n\n Deficiencies with closing\n Inspections not timely\n\n\n\n\n Unsupported amount\n Reanalysis not timely\n Missing inspections\n\n\n\n\n Ineligible amount\n Assignment date\n\n\n\n\n No detailed plan\n appraised value\n\n\n\n\n timely manner\nCase number\n\n\n\n\n deficiencies\n\n\n\n\n procedures\n with plan\n413-3955605 01/29/11 X X X X X\n061-2929244 11/22/10 X X X X\n413-3771317 12/04/10 X X X X\n061-3463508 10/21/10 X X X X\n441-7639304 04/20/11 X\n412-5716386 09/29/10 X X X X X X\n441-6742401 10/14/10 X X X X X X $89\n541-7782122 08/26/11 X X X X $60\n541-7862756 09/13/11 X X X X\n374-4334673 08/04/11 X X X X X $57,500\n413-3694612 10/29/11 X X\n352-5601402 12/20/10 X X X X X X X $5\n411-4294473 11/29/11 X\n411-4098966 12/07/10 X X X X X\n412-5601536 01/06/11 X X X\n412-5067701 06/23/11 X X X X X $64\n251-3360258 08/12/11 X X X\n249-2937521 04/28/11 X14 X X X X X X\n413-4020741 05/23/11 X X X\n251-3292815 01/11/11 X X X X\n412-6253559 08/04/11 X X\n412-5920827 07/07/11 X X\n411-3864963 02/09/11 X X X X X X X X X\n411-2969926 03/26/11 X X X X\n413-4389905 02/04/11 X X X\n441-7973682 05/11/11 X X X X X X\n411-3843905 12/14/11 X X X\n412-5096171 02/12/11 X X X X X X $30\n442-2688222 07/07/11 X X\n412-4681698 02/23/11 X X X X X\nTotal cases 1 7 29 8 2 19 16 19 46 13 15 14 9 43 $60,411 $450\nwith\ndeficiencies\n\n\n\n\n 14\n This was due to Ofori officials\xe2\x80\x99 not adequately reviewing the appraisal, which had two different values.\n\n 29\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 24.10.2009
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 C 256/21
 Acórdão do Tribunal de Primeira Instância de 4 de Setembro de 2009 — Itália/Comissão
 (Processo T-211/05) (1)
 («Auxílios de Estado - Regime de auxílios instituído pelas autoridades italianas a favor das empresas recentemente admitidas a cotação em bolsa - Decisão que declara o auxílio incompatível com o mercado comum e que ordena a sua recuperação - Dever de fundamentação - Carácter selectivo - Afectação das trocas entre Estados-Membros - Violação da concorrência»)
 2009/C 256/36
 Língua do processo: italiano
 Partes
 Recorrente: República Italiana (representantes: inicialmente I. Braguglia, em seguida R. Adam e por último, I. Bruni, agentes, assistidos por P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)
 Recorrida: Comissão das Comunidades Europeias (representantes: V. Di Bucci e E. Righini, agentes)
 Objecto
 Pedido de anulação da Decisão 2006/261/CE da Comissão, de 16 de Março de 2005, relativa ao regime de auxílios C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) a que a Itália deu execução a favor de empresas recentemente cotadas na bolsa (JO 2006, L 94, p. 42)
 Dispositivo
 1.
 É negado provimento ao recurso.
 2.
 A República Italiana é condenada nas despesas.
 (1) JO C 182, de 23.7.2005.


type: legislation

text:
 EUROPSKA KOMISIJA
 Bruxelles, 16.3.2016.
 COM(2016) 147 final
 2016/0080(NLE)
 Prijedlog
 ODLUKE VIJEĆA
 o stajalištu Unije koje treba donijeti u Zajedničkom odboru osnovanom u skladu s Okvirnim sporazumom između Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Koreje, s druge strane, u odnosu na donošenje poslovnika Zajedničkog odbora i osnivanje specijaliziranih radnih skupina i donošenje njihovih nadležnosti
 OBRAZLOŽENJE
 Okvirni sporazum između Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Koreje, s druge strane (dalje u tekstu: „Sporazum”) potpisan je u Bruxellesu 10. svibnja 2010., a stupio je na snagu 1. lipnja 2014.
 Taj sveobuhvatni sporazum EU-a i Republike Koreje prvi je takve vrste između EU-a i jedne azijske zemlje. Sporazumom se utvrđuje pravni okvir koji uključuje pitanja od redovitog političkog dijaloga do sektorske suradnje. Njime se naglašava odlučnost EU-a da surađuje s Republikom Korejom i da se postigne viša razina bilateralnih odnosa.
 Sporazumom se jača suradnja u brojnim područjima politike, uključujući, među ostalim, ljudska prava, suzbijanje širenja oružja za masovno uništenje, borbu protiv terorizma, borbu protiv korupcije i organiziranog kriminala, trgovinu, migracije, okoliš, energetiku, klimatske promjene, promet, znanost i tehnologiju, zapošljavanje i socijalna pitanja, obrazovanje, poljoprivredu, razvojnu suradnju, kulturu itd.
 Na temelju članka 44. Sporazuma osnovan je Zajednički odbor, koji se sastoji od predstavnika članova Vijeća Europske unije i predstavnika Europske komisije, s jedne strane, i predstavnika Republike Koreje, s druge strane. Zajednički odbor održavat će savjetovanja s ciljem poboljšanja provedbe i postizanja općih ciljeva Sporazuma, očuvanja sveukupne usklađenosti u odnosima i osiguravanja urednog funkcioniranja svih drugih sporazuma između stranaka.
 Kako bi se pomoglo Zajedničkom odboru u izvršavanju njegovih zadataka i s ciljem olakšavanja rasprava među stručnjacima o nekim ključnim pitanjima iz područja primjene Sporazuma, predloženo je osnivanje dviju specijaliziranih radnih skupina, nazvanih kako slijedi: 1. specijalizirana radna skupina za energetiku, okoliš i klimatske promjene; 2. specijalizirana radna skupina za borbu protiv terorizma. Dodatne specijalizirane radne skupine mogu biti osnovane kasnije na temelju dogovora stranaka.
 Obje su se stranke obvezale na učinkovitu provedbu Sporazuma. Cilj je ovog prijedloga utvrditi stajalište koje Europska unija treba donijeti u Zajedničkom odboru osnovanom na temelju članka 44. Sporazuma u odnosu na i. donošenje poslovnika Zajedničkog odbora te ii. osnivanje specijaliziranih radnih skupina i donošenje njihovih nadležnosti. Stajalište Europske unije temelji se na nacrtu Odluka Zajedničkog odbora priloženom ovom prijedlogu.
 2016/0080 (NLE)
 Prijedlog
 ODLUKE VIJEĆA
 o stajalištu Unije koje treba donijeti u Zajedničkom odboru osnovanom u skladu s Okvirnim sporazumom između Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Koreje, s druge strane, u odnosu na donošenje poslovnika Zajedničkog odbora i osnivanje specijaliziranih radnih skupina i donošenje njihovih nadležnosti
 VIJEĆE EUROPSKE UNIJE,
 uzimajući u obzir Ugovor o funkcioniranju Europske unije, a posebno njegove članke 207. i 212. te članak 218. stavak 9.,
 uzimajući u obzir prijedlog Komisije,
 budući da:
 (1)Okvirni sporazum između Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Koreje, s druge strane (dalje u tekstu: „Sporazum”) stupio je na snagu 1. lipnja 2014.
 (2)Kako bi se doprinijelo učinkovitoj provedbi Sporazuma, njegov institucionalni okvir trebao bi biti što je prije moguće upotpunjen donošenjem odluke Zajedničkog odbora o donošenju svojega poslovnika.
 (3)Na temelju članka 44. Sporazuma osnovan je Zajednički odbor kako bi se osiguralo, među ostalim, pravilno funkcioniranje i provedba Sporazuma.
 (4)Kako bi se doprinijelo učinkovitoj provedbi Sporazuma, trebalo bi donijeti poslovnik Zajedničkog odbora.
 (5)Stajalište Unije u Zajedničkom odboru u odnosu na donošenje Poslovnika Zajedničkog odbora trebalo bi se temeljiti na priloženom nacrtu Odluka Zajedničkog odbora,
 DONIJELO JE OVU ODLUKU:
 Članak 1.
 1.Stajalište koje treba donijeti u ime Europske unije u Zajedničkom odboru osnovanom na temelju članka 44. Okvirnog sporazuma između Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Koreje, s druge strane, u odnosu na:
 donošenje poslovnika Zajedničkog odbora i
 osnivanje specijaliziranih radnih skupina i donošenje njihovih nadležnosti
 temelji se na nacrtu Odluka Zajedničkog odbora priloženom ovoj Odluci.
 2.Predstavnici Unije u Zajedničkom odboru mogu dogovoriti manje izmjene nacrta odluka bez nove odluke Vijeća.
 Članak 2.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu na dan donošenja.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu
 Za Vijeće
 Predsjednik
 ---documentbreak---
 EUROPSKA KOMISIJA
 Bruxelles, 16.3.2016.
 COM(2016) 147 final
 PRILOZI
 Prijedlogu ODLUKE VIJEĆA
 o stajalištu Unije koje treba donijeti u Zajedničkom odboru osnovanom u skladu s Okvirnim sporazumom između Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Koreje, s druge strane, u odnosu na donošenje poslovnika Zajedničkog odbora i osnivanje specijaliziranih radnih skupina i donošenje njihovih nadležnosti
 PRILOZI
 Prijedlogu ODLUKE VIJEĆA
 o stajalištu Unije koje treba donijeti u Zajedničkom odboru osnovanom u skladu s Okvirnim sporazumom između Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Koreje, s druge strane, u odnosu na donošenje poslovnika Zajedničkog odbora i osnivanje specijaliziranih radnih skupina i donošenje njihovih nadležnosti
 PRILOG 1.
 ODLUKA br. 1/[2016] ZAJEDNIČKOG ODBORA EU-a i REPUBLIKE KOREJE
 od ...
 o donošenju svojeg poslovnika
 ZAJEDNIČKI ODBOR EU-a I REPUBLIKE KOREJE,
 uzimajući u obzir Okvirni sporazum između Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Koreje, s druge strane (dalje u tekstu „Sporazum”), a posebno njegov članak 44.,
 budući da:
 1.Sporazum je stupio na snagu 1. lipnja 2014.
 2.Kako bi se doprinijelo učinkovitoj provedbi Sporazuma, trebalo bi donijeti poslovnik Zajedničkog odbora,
 ODLUČIO JE:
 jedini članak
 Donosi se poslovnik Zajedničkog odbora kako je utvrđen u Prilogu A.
 Sastavljeno u ...
 Za Zajednički odbor EU-a i Republike Koreje
 Predsjednik
 PRILOG A
 POSLOVNIK ZAJEDNIČKOG ODBORA
 Članak 1.
 Sastav i predsjednik
 1.Zajednički odbor osnovan na temelju članka 44. Okvirnog sporazuma između Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Koreje, s druge strane (dalje u tekstu: „Sporazum”) obavlja svoje zadatke u skladu s člankom 44. Sporazuma.
 2.Zajednički odbor sastoji se od predstavnika obiju stranaka na odgovarajućoj razini.
 3.Zajedničkim odborom naizmjence predsjeda svaka stranka na razdoblje od jedne kalendarske godine. Visoki predstavnik Unije za vanjske poslove i sigurnosnu politiku ili ministar vanjskih poslova Republike Koreje predsjedaju Zajedničkim odborom predviđenim člankom 44. Sporazuma. Predsjednik može delegirati svoje ovlasti.
 4.Prvo razdoblje počinje na dan prvog sastanka Zajedničkog odbora i završava 31. prosinca iste godine.
 Članak 2.
 Sastanci
 1.Zajednički odbor uobičajeno se sastaje jedanput godišnje. Sastanak Zajedničkog odbora saziva predsjednik, a održava se naizmjence u Bruxellesu i Seoulu na datum utvrđen uzajamnim dogovorom. Izvanredni sastanci Zajedničkog odbora mogu se održati na zahtjev bilo koje od stranaka ako se stranke tako dogovore.
 2.Zajednički odbor uobičajeno se sastaje na razini viših dužnosnika ako se stranke ne dogovore drukčije.
 Članak 3.
 Javnost
 Sastanci Zajedničkog odbora nisu javni, osim ako nije drukčije odlučeno.
 Članak 4.
 Sudionici
 1.Prije svakog sastanka Tajništvo obavješćuje predsjednika o predviđenom sastavu delegacije svake stranke.
 2.Prema potrebi i na temelju uzajamnog dogovora stranaka može se uputiti poziv stručnjacima ili predstavnicima drugih tijela da prisustvuju sastancima Zajedničkog odbora kao promatrači ili kako bi pružili informacije o određenoj temi.
 Članak 5.
 Tajništvo
 Predstavnik Europske službe za vanjsko djelovanje i predstavnik Ministarstva vanjskih poslova Republike Koreje djeluju zajednički kao tajnici Zajedničkog odbora. Sva dolazna i odlazna komunikacija predsjednika Zajedničkog odbora prosljeđuje se tajnicima. Korespondencija predsjednika Zajedničkog odbora može se odvijati pisanim putem u bilo kojem obliku, uključujući i elektroničku poštu.
 Članak 6.
 Dnevni red sastanaka
 1.Predsjednik izrađuje privremeni dnevni red za svaki sastanak. On se prosljeđuje, zajedno sa svim relevantnim dokumentima, drugoj stranci najkasnije 15 dana prije početka sastanka.
 2.Na privremeni dnevni red uvrštavaju se točke podnesene predsjedniku najkasnije 21 dan prije početka sastanka.
 3.Zajednički odbor donosi dnevni red na početku svakog sastanka. U dnevni red moguće je uvrstiti točku koja nije uvrštena na privremeni dnevni red ako su se obje stranke sporazumjele o tome.
 4.U dogovoru s objema strankama predsjednik može skratiti rok utvrđen u stavku 1. kako bi se uzeli u obzir zahtjevi određenog slučaja.
 Članak 7.
 Zapisnik
 1.Nacrt zapisnika svakog sastanka zajednički sastavljaju dva tajnika, obično u roku od 30 kalendarskih dana od završetka sastanka. Nacrt zapisnika temelji se na predsjednikovu sažetku zaključaka Zajedničkog odbora.
 2.Zapisnik odobravaju obje stranke u roku od 45 kalendarskih dana od datuma sastanka ili do datuma o kojem su se sporazumjele stranke. Kad se postigne sporazum o nacrtu zapisnika predsjednik i tajnici potpisuju dva primjerka izvornika. Svaka stranka dobiva jedan primjerak izvornika.
 Članak 8.
 Vijećanje
 1.Ako Zajednički odbor donosi odluke ili preporuke, takvi akti dobivaju naslov „Odluka” odnosno „Preporuka”, iza kojeg slijedi serijski broj, datum donošenja i opis predmeta. U svakoj odluci navodi se datum njezina stupanja na snagu. Odluke i preporuke Zajedničkog odbora donose se uzajamnim dogovorom stranaka.
 2.Zajednički odbor može donositi odluke ili davati preporuke pisanim postupkom ako se obje stranke tako dogovore. Uzajamnim dogovorom stranaka može se predvidjeti rok za dovršetak pisanog postupka, nakon čijeg isteka predsjednik Zajedničkog odbora može izjaviti, osim ako jedna od stranaka priopći suprotno, da je postignut zajednički dogovor stranaka.
 3.Vjerodostojnost odluka i preporuka koje donosi Zajednički odbor potvrđuje se dvama vjerodostojnim primjercima koje potpisuje predsjednik Zajedničkog odbora.
 4.Svaka stranka može odlučiti o objavljivanju odluka i preporuka Zajedničkog odbora u svojim službenim publikacijama.
 Članak 9.
 Korespondencija
 1.Korespondencija naslovljena na Zajednički odbor šalje se tajniku jedne od stranaka, koji će zatim obavijestiti drugog tajnika.
 2.Tajništvo osigurava da se korespondencija naslovljena na Zajednički odbor proslijedi predsjedniku i prema potrebi pošalje svim članovima kao dokumentacija iz članka 10. ovog Poslovnika.
 3.Korespondenciju predsjednika Zajedničkog odbora Tajništvo šalje strankama i prema potrebi svim članovima kao dokumente iz članka 10. ovog Poslovnika.
 Članak 10.
 Dokumentacija
 1.Kada se vijećanja Zajedničkog odbora temelje na pisanim popratnim dokumentima, takvi se dokumenti numeriraju te ih Tajništvo šalje svim članovima.
 2.Svaki je tajnik odgovoran za prosljeđivanje dokumenata odgovarajućim članovima koji pripadaju njegovoj strani u Zajedničkom odboru i njihovo sustavno umnožavanje za drugog tajnika.
 Članak 11.
 Troškovi
 1.Svaka stranka podmiruje troškove nastale na temelju sudjelovanja na sastancima Zajedničkog odbora u pogledu osoblja, putovanja i boravka kao i u pogledu poštanskih i telekomunikacijskih usluga.
 2.Troškove povezane s organizacijom sastanaka i umnožavanjem dokumenata podmiruje stranka koja je domaćin sastanka.
 Članak 12.
 Izmjena Poslovnika
 Ovaj se Poslovnik može izmijeniti zajedničkim dogovorom stranaka u skladu s člankom 8.
 Članak 13.
 Specijalizirane radne skupine
 1.Zajednički odbor može odlučiti osnovati dodatne specijalizirane radne skupine kako bi mu pomogle u izvršavanju njegovih dužnosti.
 2.Zajednički odbor može odlučiti o ukidanju bilo koje postojeće specijalizirane radne skupine, utvrditi ili izmijeniti njezinu nadležnost ili osnovati dodatne specijalizirane radne skupine.
 3.Specijalizirane radne skupine izvješćuju zajednički odbor nakon svakog svojeg sastanka.
 4.Specijalizirane radne skupine nemaju pravo donositi odluke, ali mogu podnijeti svoje preporuke Zajedničkom odboru.
 PRILOG 2.
 ODLUKA br. 2/[2016] ZAJEDNIČKOG ODBORA EU-a i REPUBLIKE KOREJE
 od ....
 o osnivanju specijaliziranih radnih skupina
 i donošenju njihovih nadležnosti
 ZAJEDNIČKI ODBOR EU-a I REPUBLIKE KOREJE,
 uzimajući u obzir Okvirni sporazum između Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Koreje, s druge strane (dalje u tekstu „Sporazum”), a posebno njegov članak 44. te članak 13. Poslovnika Zajedničkog odbora,
 budući da:
 1.Kako bi se omogućile rasprave na stručnoj razini u ključnim područjima obuhvaćenima područjem primjene Sporazuma, trebalo bi osnovati specijalizirane radne skupine. Naknadnim dogovorom stranaka može se izmijeniti popis specijaliziranih radnih skupina kao i nadležnost pojedinih specijaliziranih radnih skupina.
 2.Na temelju članka 13. Poslovnika Zajedničkog odbora Zajednički odbor može osnovati specijalizirane radne skupine kako bi mu pomogle u obavljanju njegovih zadaća,
 DONIO JE OVU ODLUKU:
 jedini članak
 Osnivaju se specijalizirane radne skupine navedene u popisu u Prilogu A. Nadležnost specijaliziranih radnih skupina utvrđuje se kako je opisano u Prilogu B.
 Sastavljeno u
 Za Zajednički odbor EU-a i Republike Koreje
 Predsjednik
 Prilog A
 ZAJEDNIČKI ODBOR EU-a I REPUBLIKE KOREJE
 Specijalizirane radne skupine
 1.Specijalizirana radna skupina za energetiku, okoliš i klimatske promjene;
 2.Specijalizirana radna skupina za borbu protiv terorizma.
 Prilog B
 Nadležnost
 specijaliziranih radnih skupina osnovanih u skladu s Okvirnim sporazumom Europske unije i njezinih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Koreje, s druge strane
 Članak 1.
 Na svojim sastancima svaka se specijalizirana radna skupina može baviti provedbom Sporazuma u područjima za koja je nadležna.
 Specijalizirane radne skupine mogu raspravljati i o temama ili posebnim projektima povezanima s relevantnim područjem bilateralne suradnje.
 Na zahtjev jedne od stranaka mogu raspravljati i o pojedinačnim slučajevima.
 Članak 2.
 Specijalizirane radne skupine djeluju pod nadzorom Zajedničkog odbora. One izvješćuju predsjednika Zajedničkog odbora te mu šalju svoje zapisnike i zaključke u roku od 30 kalendarskih dana nakon svakog sastanka.
 Članak 3.
 Specijalizirane radne skupine sastavljene su od predstavnika stranaka.
 Uz suglasnost stranaka specijalizirane radne skupine mogu prema potrebi na svoje sastanke pozvati stručnjake te ih saslušati u vezi s pojedinim točkama na dnevnom redu svojih sastanaka.
 Članak 4.
 Specijaliziranim radnim skupinama naizmjence predsjedaju stranke u skladu s pravilima o naizmjeničnom predsjedanju Zajedničkim odborom.
 Članak 5.
 Predstavnik Europske službe za vanjsko djelovanje i predstavnik Ministarstva vanjskih poslova Republike Koreje djeluju zajednički kao tajnici specijaliziranih radnih skupina. Sva komunikacija povezana s određenim specijaliziranim radnim skupinama prosljeđuje se dvama tajnicima.
 Članak 6.
 Specijalizirane radne skupine sastaju se kada je to potrebno, u skladu s dogovorom stranaka i na temelju pisanog zahtjeva jedne od stranaka. Svaki se sastanak održava na mjestu i na datum o kojima se stranke dogovore.
 Nakon što zaprimi zahtjev jedne stranke za sastanak specijalizirane radne skupine tajnik druge stranke odgovara u roku od 15 radnih dana.
 U posebno hitnim slučajevima sastanci specijaliziranih radnih skupina mogu se sazvati i u kraćem roku ako se tako dogovore obje stranke.
 Prije svakog sastanka predsjednika se izvješćuje o predviđenom sastavu delegacija obiju stranaka.
 Sastanke specijaliziranih radnih skupina zajednički sazivaju dva tajnika.
 Članak 7.
 Točke koje treba uvrstiti na dnevni red podnose se tajnicima najmanje 15 radnih dana prije datuma predmetnog sastanka specijalizirane radne skupine. Sva popratna dokumentacija dostavlja se tajnicima najmanje 10 radnih dana prije sastanka. Tajnici će priopćiti nacrt dnevnog reda najkasnije pet radnih dana prije sastanka. Dnevni red konačno se potvrđuje dogovorom obiju stranaka. U iznimnim okolnostima i u skladu s dogovorom stranaka točke se mogu dodati na dnevni red i u kraćem roku.
 Članak 8.
 Na svakom se sastanku vodi zapisnik.
 Ako nije drukčije odlučeno, sastanci specijaliziranih radnih skupina nisu javni.


text:
Le droit: selon les articles 1641 et suivants du code civil, tout vendeur doit garantir l'acheteur contre les vices cachés de la chose vendue. Il s'agit de défauts que l'acheteur ne pouvait pas déceler lors de la vente, mais qui rendent impossible l'usage normal de cette chose ou le restreignent de façon importante. En cas de vice caché, l'acheteur peut choisir de se faire rembourser la totalité du prix puis restituer la chose, ou de la conserver et n'être remboursé qu'en partie.
 $ La jurisprudence: les règles relatives aux vices cachés s'appliquent à tout objet matériel ayant fait l'objet d'un contrat de vente. Mais les tribunaux apprécient au cas par cas, si les défauts dont se plaint l'acheteur constituent ou non un vice caché, eu égard à leur gravité et à leur caractère plus ou moins apparent.
 "J'ai acheté une voiture qui, peu de temps après, a pris feu sans raison apparente. Puis-je agir contre le vendeur pour vice caché?" Oui
 Le vendeur garantit l'acheteur contre les seuls vices cachés existant au moment de la vente
 La loi définit le vice caché notamment comme un défaut tel que l'acheteur, s'il l'avait connu au moment de la vente, n'aurait pas acquis le bien, ou en aurait offert un prix moindre. Les tribunaux en déduisent donc qu'un vice caché doit être un défaut dont la chose vendue était déjà atteinte au moment de la vente. S'il apparaît au contraire que le défaut est né après la vente, la demande de l'acheteur doit être rejetée (cass. civ. 1re du 12.7.01, n° 99-12251). La preuve de l'antériorité du défaut doit être apportée par l'acheteur ; il ne suffit pas à cet égard que le défaut soit apparu très vite après la vente (cass. civ. 1re du 20.2.96, n° 94-12745). Dans cette affaire, une voiture achetée d'occasion était tombée en panne le jour même, alors que l'acheteur avait parcouru environ 80 km. Toutefois, les juges peuvent se fonder seulement sur des indices. Par exemple, en considérant - à propos d'un véhicule "peu ancien, bien entretenu, de faible kilométrage" qui avait brûlé sans causes extérieures - que cet incendie "révélait nécessairement l'existence d'un vice caché qui ne pouvait être qu'un vice de construction" (cass. civ. 1re du 15.7.99, n° 97-16783). Les juges doivent également vérifier que l'acheteur prouve que le vice rend la chose impropre à son utilisation, ou qu'il n'en aurait donné qu'un moindre prix s'il l'avait connu. À défaut, la condamnation du vendeur peut être cassée (cass. civ. 3e du 4.7.01, n° 99-19 586). Il peut s'agir, par exemple, d'une automobile affectée d'infiltrations de gaz carbonique dans l'habitacle, dangereuses pour les occupants à moins de faire marcher sans arrêt la ventilation, et donc jugée impropre à sa destination (cass. civ. 3e du 12.10.99, n° 97-14664). De même, les juges ont valablement pu décider que les nuisances sonores importantes enregistrées à l'intérieur d'un véhicule "haut de gamme et d'une marque de prestige" constituaient une atteinte grave au confort de conduite, et que "l'usage du véhicule s'en trouvait tellement diminué que l'acheteur ne l'aurait pas acquis s'il l'avait connu" (cass. civ. 1re du 7.3.00, n° 97-17511). La notion de vice caché peut également s'appliquer à des biens immobiliers, tels qu'un terrain à bâtir, pour des raisons administratives (cass. civ. 3e du 15.3.00, n° 97-19959 ; impossibilité d'obtenir un permis de construire), ou raisons techniques (cass. civ. 3e du 17.1.90, n° 88-13866 ; terrain anciennement marécageux nécessitant des travaux pour y édifier une maison).
 "J'ai acheté un tableau dont le cadre était très abîmé. Puis-je demander l'annulation de cette vente pour vice caché?" Non
 Les juges déterminent en premier lieu si le vice était apparent ou non au moment de la vente
 Le vendeur "n'est pas tenu des vices apparents et dont l'acheteur a pu se convaincre lui-même" (art. 1642 du code civil). Ainsi, le fait, pour l'acheteur d'une photo aérienne de sa maison montée sur un cadre en bois endommagé, d'émettre des réserves expresses sur ce point lors de la livraison exclut qu'il agisse ensuite en garantie des vices cachés (cass. civ. 1re du 16.7.92, n° 90-20145). Plus généralement, les juges doivent vérifier si l'acheteur "pouvait avoir, lors de la vente, connaissance du vice" qu'il allègue (cass. civ. 1re du 16.7.92, n° 90-13081). Le litige concernait une voiturette sans permis équipée d'un moteur de cyclomoteur, incapable de ce fait, selon l'expertise judiciaire, de gravir les côtes et de parcourir de longues distances avec la charge de deux personnes. Les juges d'appel avaient estimé qu'il s'agissait d'un vice apparent, "puisqu'un cyclomoteur aménagé ne peut être utilisé de la même manière qu'une voiture automobile". La Cour de cassation a censuré leur décision, leur reprochant de ne pas avoir vérifié si l'acheteur aurait pu déceler un tel vice. Ainsi, une cour d'appel a valablement pu refuser d'admettre le vice caché dans l'affaire suivante: le vendeur d'une maison avait remis à l'acheteur des documents attestant que des traitements contre les termites y avaient été effectués et qu'il n'y avait plus de traces de ces insectes dans les parties visibles et accessibles. Constatant le retour des termites 4 à 5 ans après, l'acheteur avait assigné le vendeur, mais les juges l'ont débouté, considérant que son attention "ne pouvait normalement qu'être ainsi attirée sur le risque d'un retour des termites" et qu'il s'était contenté d'attestations sommaires sur l'état du bien (CA de Poitiers du 24.2.93, confirmé par cass. civ. 3e du 22.11.95, n° 93-15347).
 En revanche, c'est à tort qu'une cour d'appel a considéré que les défauts d'une voiture d'occasion étaient apparents, au motif que l'acheteur avait lui-même constaté "un comportement routier inhabituel". Les juges relevaient aussi que seule une expertise avait permis de constater l'existence, l'étendue et la gravité des défauts (CA de Montpellier du 20.1.93 ; cass. civ. 1re du 7.6.95, n° 93-13060).
 "J'ai acheté, il y a plusieurs mois, une voiture qui tombe régulièrement en panne. Les négociations amiables avec le vendeur n'aboutissant pas, dois-je tenter une action en justice?" Oui
 L'assignation du vendeur en garantie des vices cachés doit être engagée dans un "bref délai"
 L'acheteur qui veut demander réparation d'un vice caché doit le faire dans un "bref délai" (art. 1648 du code civil), une notion imprécise laissée à l'appréciation souveraine des juges. Ils doivent déterminer la date à laquelle le vice s'est révélé à l'acheteur (cass. civ. 3e du 2.2.99, n° 97-14906), prise comme point de départ du bref délai. Par ailleurs, l'acquéreur qui assigne son vendeur en référé dans un bref délai pour voir ordonner une expertise satisfait aux exigences de la loi (cass. com. du 6.3.01, n° 98-18562). Tel a, par exemple, été le cas d'un acheteur dont le véhicule avait été immobilisé en août 1995 à la suite de désordres mécaniques. Il avait obtenu la nomination d'un expert le 12 octobre 1995, puis, l'expert ayant rendu son rapport le 10 janvier 1997, avait assigné le vendeur en justice en août 1997 (cass. civ. 1re du 25.6.02, n° 00-16840). En revanche, il a été jugé que le bref délai n'avait pas été respecté par des acheteurs qui avaient attendu respectivement plus de 9 mois (CA de Lyon, 6e ch. civ. du 6.11.02, n° 2001 /04707), ou plus de 16 mois (CA de Lyon, 3e ch. civ. du 10.4.03, n°2000/07137) entre la découverte du vice et l'assignation. La Cour de cassation a proposé, en 1998, de substituer un délai fixe au "bref délai". Mais en attendant une telle réforme, cette notion, "si elle n'indique pas une durée précise, n'en est pas moins claire... et d'application simple..." (cass. civ. 1re du 21.3.00, n° 98-11 982). Elle ne constitue donc pas "une restriction inadmissible au droit d'agir" devant un tribunal, qui permettrait de la contester en vertu de l'article 6-1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme.
 "J'ai acheté d'occasion un appareil photo défectueux. Le vendeur peut-il refuser de le reprendre au motif qu'il ignorait le défaut de cet appareil?" Non
 Le vendeur est présumé responsable des vices cachés, même s'ils sont indécelables
 Lorsque l'acheteur établit que la chose vendue était affectée de vices cachés, le vendeur lui en doit garantie "quand même il ne les aurait pas connus" (art. 1643 du code civil) y compris si ces vices étaient indécelables pour lui.
 Les juges ont, par exemple, maintenu la responsabilité d'un professionnel fabriquant un médicament contenant des substances s'étant révélées "anormalement redoutables", même si l'état des recherches médicales ne pouvait permettre de les déceler (cass. civ. 1re du 14.2.90, n° 88-10179). Même chose pour des dégâts occasionnés par des insectes xylophages, même si un expert a estimé qu'ils étaient "insoupçonnables" (cass. civ. 3e du 22.1.74, n° 72-14 014). En outre, lorsque le vendeur stipule, dans le contrat de vente, qu'il ne sera tenu à aucune garantie, les tribunaux limitent strictement l'effet de ces clauses. Ils considèrent en effet qu'elles ne sont pas valables si le vendeur connaissait, avant la vente, les vices de la chose vendue. De plus, lorsque le vendeur est un professionnel, la jurisprudence considère de toute façon qu'il ne peut ignorer les vices cachés de la chose vendue, ce qui exclut l'application de clauses écartant sa responsabilité (voir, par exemple, cass. com. du 3.4.02, n° 99-20229), sauf si l'acheteur est un professionnel de la même spécialité que le vendeur (cass. com. du 3.2.98, n° 95-18602). C'est seulement lorsque la clause de non-garantie est stipulée par un particulier, notamment pour la vente d'un bien immobilier, qu'elle est "parfaitement valable" sous réserve que les vendeurs ne puissent être qualifiés de "professionnels de la construction" (CA de Toulouse ch. civ. 1re du 10.2.03, n° 2002/02 057). Il appartient donc "aux acquéreurs de démontrer que les vendeurs avaient connaissance du vice avant la vente et qu'eux-mêmes ne pouvaient en avoir connaissance". En l'espèce, la clause de non-garantie a été écartée à propos de problèmes d'évacuation d'une fosse septique, car ils avaient été signalés aux vendeurs à plusieurs reprises par la société chargée de la vidange, sans qu'aucun remède n'y ait été apporté.
 "J'ai acheté un magazine et son CD de programmes qui, infecté d'un virus, a provoqué la perte de données importantes sur mon ordinateur. Puis-je demander une indemnité?" Oui
 En plus du remboursement du prix, le vendeur peut être tenu à des dommages et intérêts
 L'acheteur victime d'un vice caché peut, aux termes de l'article 1644 du code civil, soit rendre la chose et se faire rembourser le prix versé (action dite rédhibitoire), soit garder l'objet et se faire rendre une partie du prix (action estimatoire). Il peut, en outre, demander des dommages et intérêts au vendeur, si celui-ci connaissait les vices de la chose (art. 1645), ce qui est, selon la jurisprudence (voir ci-dessus) toujours le cas d'un professionnel. Par exemple, l'éditeur d'une revue informatique vendue avec une disquette de gestion de bureautique, qui était infectée d'un virus, a été condamné à indemniser une entreprise acheteuse de la revue, du fait de la contamination de son système informatique (cass. com. du 25.11.97, n° 95-14603).
 Pour la même raison, un arrêt qui refusait d'accorder à l'acheteur d'ardoises défectueuses une somme correspondant au coût de réfection de sa toiture, au motif que ce coût est supérieur au prix des ardoises, a été cassé et annulé (cass. civ. 1re du 6.7.99, n° 97-16885).
 A également été cassé un arrêt excluant le versement aux acheteurs d'une maison comportant d'importantes malfaçons d'une somme équivalente au coût de reconstruction, supérieur au prix d'achat (cass. civ. 3e du 8.10.97, n° 95-19808). En l'espèce, les vendeurs étaient des particuliers, mais il était établi qu'ils connaissaient les malfaçons. Enfin, la Cour de cassation admet que l'acheteur demande un remboursement total et, à titre subsidiaire si cette demande n'est pas accueillie, un remboursement partiel (cass. com. du 6.3.90, n° 88-14929). Dans cette affaire, la cour d'appel avait estimé que la gravité du vice "n'était pas de nature à justifier la demande en résolution de la vente, mais était suffisamment grave pour justifier une diminution du prix".


text:
Kolik má stát platit majitelům domů jako náhradu za regulované nájemné? - Seznam Zprávy
 Kolik má stát platit majitelům domů jako náhradu za regulované nájemné?
 Duel: Kolik má stát platit majitelům domů jako náhradu za regulované nájemné?
 Duel: Jak vysoké odškodné bude stát platit za regulaci nájemného?
 Spor o regulované nájemné se počátkem nového roku znovu vrátil na scénu. A majitelé domů slaví vítězství. Ústavní soud se před pár dny zastal muže, který usiloval o náhradu škody kvůli regulaci činže. Soudy nižší instance tak podle verdiktu mají vypočítávat náhrady jako rozdíl mezi obvyklým tržním a regulovaným nájemným. Dosud přiznávaly majitelům domů nižší částky. Jaký bude mít rozsudek další dopad?
 Téma dnešního Duelu. Do něj jsme pozvali předsedu Sdružení nájemníků ČR Milana Tarabu a místopředsedu Občanského sdružení majitelů domů ČR Karla Polatu.
 Ústavní soud minulý týden vyhověl stížnosti vlastníka bytu v Praze, který dosud neúspěšně žádal náhradu za regulaci nájemného od června 2005 do března 2006. Ústavní soudci zohlednili loňská rozhodnutí Evropského soudu pro lidská práva, jenž se zastal několika jiných majitelů domů. Podpořil tehdy způsob výpočtu náhrady, který je pro ně vstřícnější. Majitel bytu neúspěšně žaloval stát, soud se nyní bude muset kauzou zabývat znovu.
 Nález Ústavního soudu se týká období před začátkem postupné deregulace. Primárním kritériem při rozhodování o výši náhrady za omezení vlastnického práva musí být rozdíl mezi tržním nájemným v daném místě a daném čase a nájemným, jež mohl vlastník získat podle tehdejší právní úpravy, případně které reálně vybíral. Právě v tom spočívá loni vyjádřený názor Evropského soudu pro lidská práva.
 Podle verdiktu však štrasburský soud připouští, že popsaný rozdíl nemusí být jediným kritériem. „Obecné soudy tedy mohou vzít v úvahu další okolnosti případu, přičemž odchýlení odshora uvedené základní metody stanovení náhrady musí být založené na věcných důvodech směřujících ke spravedlivému řešení věci a opřené o přesvědčivou a racionální argumentaci,“ stojí v nálezu.
 Ústavní soud v minulosti opakovaně označoval regulaci nájemného za neústavní. Deregulace začala v roce 2007, skončila v Česku s posledním dnem roku 2012. Týkala se zhruba 700 000 domácností. Soudní spory ale trvají i poté. Majitelé domů dlouhodobě kritizovali výši náhrad přiznávanou českou justicí. Loni v pilotních případech Evropský soud pro lidská práva přisoudil třem stěžovatelům 2,19 milionu korun.
 Živě: Na Václavském náměstí demonstruje 50 tisíc lidí
 „Rozvoj venkova“ Agrofertem pokračuje za české peníze. Zda EU desítky milionů korun proplatí, není jisté


text:
 19.2.2011
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 55/37
 Žaloba podaná 8. októbra 2010 — AM/Parlament
 (Vec F-100/10)
 2011/C 55/68
 Jazyk konania: francúzština
 Účastníci konania
 Žalobca: AM (Malaga, Španielsko) (v zastúpení: L. Lévi a C. Bernard-Glanz, advokáti)
 Žalovaný: Európsky parlament
 Predmet a opis sporu
 Návrh na zrušenie rozhodnutia zamietajúceho považovať vaskulárnu príhodu žalobcu za úraz v zmysle článku 73 služobného poriadku a článku 2 Spoločného systému zdravotného poistenia
 Návrhy žalobcu
 —
 zrušiť rozhodnutie menovacieho orgánu z 12. novembra 2009, ktorým sa mozgová vaskulárna príhoda žalobcu odmietla považovať za úraz v zmysle článku 73 služobného poriadku a článku 2 Spoločného systému zdravotného poistenia, a v prípade potreby zrušiť aj rozhodnutie menovacieho orgánu zamietajúceho sťažnosť,
 —
 v dôsledku toho nariadiť pokračovanie v preskúmaní žiadosti podanej žalobcom na základe článku 73 služobného poriadku novou posudkovou komisiou,
 —
 uložiť žalovanému povinnosť zaplatiť náhradu škody za nemajetkovú ujmu utrpenú v dôsledku napadnutých rozhodnutí, vyčíslenú ex aequo et bono na 50 000 eur,
 —
 uložiť žalovanému povinnosť zaplatiť náhradu škody za majetkovú ujmu utrpenú v dôsledku napadnutých rozhodnutí, vyčíslenú predbežne na 25 000 eur,
 —
 uložiť žalovanému povinnosť zaplatiť úroky z omeškania z paušálnej čiastky dlžnej podľa článku 73 služobného poriadku vo výške 12 % za obdobie najneskôr od 15. marca 2007 až do úplného zaplatenia paušálnej čiastky,
 —
 zaviazať žalovaného na náhradu trov konania.