type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' June 14, 2002\n\n\n\n\nAcquisition\n\nFire Performance Tests and\nRequirements for Shipboard\nMattresses\n(D-2002-105)\n\n\n\n\n Department of Defense\n Office of the Inspector General\nQuality Integrity Accountability\n\x0c Additional Copies\n\n To obtain additional copies of this report, visit the Web site of the Inspector\n General of the Department of Defense at www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports or\n contact the Secondary Reports Distribution Unit of the Audit Followup and\n Technical Support Directorate at (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or fax (703)\n 604-8932.\n\n Suggestions for Future Audits\n\n To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Audit Followup and\n Technical Support Directorate at (703) 604-8940 (DSN 664-8940) or fax (703)\n 604-8932. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to:\n\n OAIG-AUD (ATTN: AFTS Audit Suggestions)\n Inspector General, Department of Defense\n 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)\n Arlington, VA 22202-4704\n\n Defense Hotline\n\n To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact the Defense Hotline by calling (800)\n 424-9098; by sending an electronic message to Hotline@dodig.osd.mil; or by\n writing to the Defense Hotline, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1900. The\n identity of each writer and caller is fully protected.\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms\nDCMA Defense Contract Management Agency\nDSCP Defense Supply Center Philadelphia\nFAR Federal Acquisition Regulation\nNAVSEA Naval Sea Systems Command\nNIB National Industries for the Blind\n\x0c\x0c Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense\nReport No. D-2002-105 June 14, 2002\n Project No. D2002CH-0033\n\n Fire Performance Tests and Requirements\n for Shipboard Mattresses\n\n Executive Summary\n\nWho Should Read This Report and Why? This report should be read by DoD\ncontracting officials responsible for developing contract performance requirements,\nofficials responsible for approving first article test results, and quality assurance\nrepresentatives responsible for conducting contract performance tests and ensuring\ncontractor compliance with contract performance requirements.\n\nBackground. The audit was performed in response to a request from the Director,\nDefense Logistics Agency regarding the award and administration of contract SP0100-\n00-D-EE72 to procure innerspring mattresses for the Navy. The Navy, under its\nhabitability improvement program, had been testing innerspring mattresses since the\nearly 1990s as replacements for the neoprene foam mattresses on board ships. In\nMarch 2000, the Secretary of the Navy approved a habitability improvement initiative\nto replace the neoprene foam mattresses on board ships with significantly more\ncomfortable innerspring mattresses. The Navy had a total requirement for\n180,000 innerspring mattresses to support this habitability improvement initiative.\nFrom March through July 2000, the Naval Sea Systems Command developed a\npurchase description for a fire-resistant, innerspring, shipboard mattress. Based on the\npurchase description, the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia awarded contract\nSP0100-00-D-EE72 to National Industries for the Blind in July 2000 to manufacture\n90,000 innerspring mattresses valued at $12.5 million. A follow-on contract for\nadditional innerspring mattresses was awarded in August 2001.\n\nIn August and September 2001, the Naval Sea Systems Command and the Defense\nSupply Center Philadelphia had fire performance tests conducted on the innerspring\nmattresses for the initial and follow-on contracts. The tests identified that the\ninnerspring mattresses did not meet fire resistance requirements. In October 2001, the\nDefense Supply Center Philadelphia directed National Industries for the Blind to stop\nmanufacturing the innerspring mattresses.\n\nResults. The Naval Sea Systems Command and Defense agency contracting officials\ndid not require National Industries for the Blind to conduct sufficient fire performance\ntests for first article and quality assurance requirements on the innerspring mattresses.\nAs a result, the Navy spent $12.5 million for 90,448 mattresses that did not meet\nNavy-defined fire performance requirements. The Defense Supply Center Philadelphia\nthen needed to procure fire-resistant mattress covers, costing an additional $4.3 million,\n\x0cto reduce the risk of the mattresses catching fire. Requiring compliance with technical\nrequirements to perform tests on future procurements of innerspring mattresses or\nnotifying the contracting officer if the Navy amends its technical requirements will\nensure that mattresses meet contract requirements. Implementation of acquisition\nrequirements will improve the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia\xe2\x80\x99s abilities to:\nmaintain adequate documentation on future innerspring mattress procurements to\nsupport all contractual actions, require the contractor to provide innerspring mattresses\nthat comply with contract requirements, and require the contractor to comply with\ncontract quality assurance requirements. Improvements should also include requiring\nthe contractor to comply with contract quality assurance requirements for any future\ninnerspring mattress contracts or obtaining a contract modification from the contracting\nofficer. (See the Finding section for the detailed recommendations.)\n\nManagement Comments. The Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command; Director,\nDefense Logistics Agency; and Director, Defense Contract Management Agency\nconcurred with the recommendations and stated that corrective actions were completed\nor will be completed by June 30, 2002. In addition, the Director, Defense Contract\nManagement Agency generally agreed with the finding and stated that two key events\nrelated to the administration of the innerspring mattress contract were not included in\nthe chronology of events in Appendix B. We partially agreed with this statement and\nadded one of the events to Appendix B. Therefore, no further comments are required.\nSee the Finding section of the report for a discussion of management comments and the\nManagement Comments section of the report for the complete text of the comments.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\nExecutive Summary i\n\n\nBackground 1\n\n\nObjective 3\n\n\nFinding\n Fire Performance Tests and Requirements 4\n\nAppendixes\n A. Scope and Methodology\n Scope 12\n Methodology 12\n Prior Coverage 12\n B. Chronology of Events for Innerspring Mattresses Procured on\n Contract SP0100-00-D-EE72 13\n C. Federal Acquisition Regulation Requirements 14\n D. Report Distribution 16\n\nManagement Comments\n Naval Sea Systems Command 19\n Defense Logistics Agency 23\n Defense Contract Management Agency 26\n\x0cBackground\n The Navy, under its habitability improvement program, had been testing\n innerspring mattresses since the early 1990s as replacements for the neoprene\n foam mattresses on board ships. In March 2000, the Secretary of the Navy\n approved a habitability improvement initiative to replace the neoprene foam\n mattresses with significantly more comfortable innerspring mattresses. The\n Navy had a total requirement for 180,000 innerspring mattresses.\n\n From March through July 2000, the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)\n developed a purchase description for a fire-resistant, innerspring, shipboard\n mattress (Innerspring Mattress). Based on the purchase description, the Defense\n Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP) awarded contract SP0100-00-D-EE72 to\n National Industries for the Blind (NIB) in July 2000 to manufacture\n 90,000 Innerspring Mattresses. From July 2000 through June 2001, the Navy\n procured 90,448 Innerspring Mattresses at a total cost of $12.5 million.\n\n In August 2001, DSCP awarded a follow-on contract (SP0100-01-D-EE66) to\n NIB to manufacture an additional 90,000 Innerspring Mattresses. The follow-on\n contract required NIB to submit mattresses to Omega Point Laboratories, Inc.\n for first article fire performance tests prior to producing the mattresses. NIB\n sent 12 Innerspring Mattresses to Omega Point Laboratories, Inc. for fire\n performance tests, and all 12 mattresses failed because the mattresses had\n flaming droplets.\n\n In September 2001, NAVSEA sent an additional 21 Innerspring Mattresses\n manufactured under the initial and follow-on contracts to Omega Point\n Laboratories, Inc. for fire performance tests, and 15 of the mattresses failed.\n Personnel from the NAVSEA Fire Protection Branch, Naval Surface Warfare\n Center witnessed the tests and verified that the mattresses did not meet the Navy\n fire performance requirements. As a result, NAVSEA did not order mattresses\n under the follow-on contract, and DSCP directed NIB to stop manufacturing the\n Innerspring Mattresses. To reduce the risk of fire from the mattresses that did\n not meet fire performance requirements that were already issued to the fleet,\n DSCP awarded contract SP0100-02-D-EA34 to NIB in November 2001 to\n manufacture 90,000 fire-resistant mattress covers at a total cost of $4.3 million.\n\n DSCP has partnered with NAVSEA and NIB to ensure that adequate research,\n development, and testing are conducted on the Innerspring Mattresses and to\n write a purchase description that will satisfy the Navy fire performance\n requirements prior to awarding another Innerspring Mattress contract. See\n Appendix B for a chronology of events for Innerspring Mattress procurement.\n\n Naval Sea Systems Command. NAVSEA is one of five Navy systems\n commands under the Secretary of the Navy. NAVSEA responsibilities include\n habitability and quality of life issues for the Navy fleet. Specifically, the\n NAVSEA Human Systems Integration Directorate and the Fire Protection\n Branch, Naval Surface Warfare Center were responsible for providing the\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0cpurchase description for an Innerspring Mattress that meets Navy requirements\nfor size, comfort, and fire resistance. NAVSEA requested DSCP assistance to\naward a contract for Innerspring Mattresses to NIB.\n\nDefense Supply Center Philadelphia. DSCP is 1 of 11 Defense Logistics\nAgency field organizations and is responsible for providing supply support,\ncontract management services, and technical and logistics services to DoD.\nSpecifically, DSCP is responsible for awarding contracts to support DoD needs\nfor food, clothing, textiles, medicines, medical equipment, and general and\nindustrial supplies, including mattresses. DSCP obtained the Innerspring\nMattress procurement requirements from NAVSEA and awarded the initial and\nfollow-on contracts for Innerspring Mattresses to NIB. DSCP designated the\nDefense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) as the administrative\ncontracting office for the contracts.\n\nDefense Contract Management Agency. DCMA is responsible for performing\ncontract administration functions, which include ensuring that the contractor\ncomplies with contract requirements throughout the life of the contract. DCMA\nhas three districts, which include 135 field offices, and assigns contract\nadministration duties to administrative contracting officers and quality assurance\nrepresentatives located in the districts where the contracts are being performed.\nThe DCMA representatives visit contractor facilities to ensure that the\ncontractors perform work in accordance with the contracts.\n\nNational Industries for the Blind. NIB is a mandatory source of supply for\nmattresses under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 8, in accordance\nwith the Javits-Wagner-O\xe2\x80\x99Day Act and the rules of the Committee for Purchase\nFrom People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. In July 2000, NIB\ndesignated the following manufacturers to produce the mattresses under contract\nSP0100-00-D-EE72: Virginia Industries for the Blind, Charlottesville, Virginia;\nLions Club Industries, Durham, North Carolina; and Winston-Salem Industries\nfor the Blind, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. NIB added a fourth\nmanufacturer, Lions Club Industries, Tupelo, Mississippi, to the contract in\nMay 2001.\nMattress Components. Contract SP0100-00-D-EE72 required the mattresses to\nconsist of fire-resistant components. The Innerspring Mattresses consist of three\ncomponents: innerspring, individually pocketed coils; cotton batting; and cotton\nticking. The innerspring component consists of coils individually pocketed in\npolyolefin material, which is not fire resistant. The innerspring component was\nsuccessfully used to satisfy comfort requirements over the neoprene foam\nmattress. The cotton batting and cotton ticking are both chemically treated to be\nfire resistant, in accordance with commercial standards, and are quilted together\nto make up the outer layer of the mattress. The 1-sided mattresses consist of the\ninnerspring component covered with the cotton batting quilted to the cotton\nticking on the top of the mattress, but no cotton batting quilted to the cotton\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c ticking on the bottom of the mattress. Two-sided Innerspring Mattresses have\n cotton batting quilted to the cotton ticking on the top and bottom of the\n mattresses. The Innerspring Mattress components are identified in the following\n picture.\n\n\n\n\n Cotton Ticking\n\n\n Cotton Batting\n\n\n Polyolefin Material\n Covering Springs\n\n\n\n\n Navy Innerspring Mattress Components\n\n Fire performance tests have demonstrated that the polyolefin material, which is\n not fire resistant, is the mattress component that forms burning droplets and\n usually results in the mattress failing the fire performance test.\n\nObjective\n The overall audit objective was to determine whether contract award and\n administration policies and procedures were properly followed for contract\n SP0100-00-D-EE72. Appendix A discusses the audit scope, methodology, and\n prior coverage.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c Fire Performance Tests and\n Requirements\n NAVSEA and Defense agency contracting officials did not require NIB\n to conduct sufficient fire performance tests for first article and quality\n assurance requirements on the Innerspring Mattresses procured on\n contract SP0100-00-D-EE72. Sufficient fire performance tests were not\n performed because:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 NAVSEA did not require NIB to comply with first article test\n requirements;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 DSCP modified the contract without obtaining adequate\n support to delete first article requirements; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 DSCP and DCMA contracting officers did not require NIB to\n perform 6-month conformance tests.\n\n The Secretary of the Navy directed that the procurement cycle for the\n Innerspring Mattresses be reduced from 1 year to 6 months and limited\n funding for testing also impacted decisions relating to fire performance\n tests. As a result, the Navy spent $12.5 million for 90,448 mattresses\n that did not meet Navy-defined contract requirements for fire resistance.\n DSCP then needed to procure fire-resistant mattress covers for an\n additional $4.3 million to satisfy fire performance requirements.\n\n\nInnerspring Mattress Contract\n Navy Initiative. On March 16, 2000, NAVSEA briefed the Secretary of the\n Navy on habitability improvement initiatives, including providing Innerspring\n Mattresses to the fleet. The Innerspring Mattresses were significantly more\n comfortable than the neoprene foam mattress. When the Secretary of the Navy\n approved the habitability improvement initiative to provide Innerspring\n Mattresses to the fleet, NAVSEA stated that the initiative would take 1 year to\n implement. The Secretary of the Navy directed that the procurement cycle for\n the Innerspring Mattresses be reduced from 1 year to 6 months. NAVSEA\n program officials developed a purchase description for an Innerspring Mattress\n based on a commercial mattress that was modified to meet the Navy shipboard\n fire performance requirements. In July 2000, 4 months after the Secretary of\n the Navy approved the habitability improvement initiative, NAVSEA officials\n implemented the initiative by authorizing DSCP to award a contract to NIB to\n manufacture Innerspring Mattresses.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cContract Requirements. DSCP incorporated the NAVSEA purchase\ndescription for Innerspring Mattresses into the contract and, in July 2000,\nawarded the contract to NIB to manufacture 90,000 1-sided Innerspring\nMattresses. The contract included first article requirements and quality\nassurance requirements.\n\n First Article Requirements. FAR Subpart 2.1, \xe2\x80\x9cDefinitions,\xe2\x80\x9d defines\nfirst article as the initial production sample of a product procured under\ncontract. The first article requirements in the contract state that a sample shall\nconsist of two units of each mattress size. Each sample is evaluated at the\ncontract facility, and then the mattress samples are shipped to the Defense\nLogistics Agency Product Test Center for comfort tests and Omega Point\nLaboratories, Inc. for fire performance tests.\n\n Facility Evaluation. First article requirements state that the\nsamples of mattresses shall be evaluated for conformance with visual and\nphysical characteristics defined in the purchase description. The characteristics\nevaluated include stitching, labeling, length, width, depth, weight, and overall\nappearance.\n\n Comfort Tests. First article requirements state that one sample\nmattress shall be sent to the Defense Logistics Agency Product Test Center for\nfirmness and durability tests.\n\n Fire Performance Tests. First article requirements state that\none sample of each mattress size shall be submitted to Omega Point\nLaboratories, Inc. for fire performance tests. Omega Point Laboratories, Inc. is\na commercial test facility that DSCP contracted with to conduct the fire\nperformance tests. The mattresses must comply with the requirements of\nNational Fire Protection Association 267, 1998 Edition, \xe2\x80\x9cStandard Method of\nTest for Fire Characteristics of Mattresses and Bedding Assemblies Exposed to\nFlaming Ignition Source.\xe2\x80\x9d The national standard requirements are in addition\nto, and do not negate, the flammability requirements cited in the purchase\ndescription, which state that the mattresses must meet the following three\nconditions of acceptance.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The maximum, net peak-heat release rate shall not exceed\n 150 kilowatts.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Burning droplets shall not be formed and dropped to the floor or the\n top of the weighing platform.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Average specific\n 2\n extinction area shall not exceed\n 300 meters /kilograms.\nFirst article requirements state that the contractor shall provide copies of the fire\nperformance test results to the contracting officer and NAVSEA. First article\nrequirements also state that if the contractor is using multiple manufacturing\nfacilities, each manufacturing facility is required to submit mattresses for first\narticle tests. Further, if the contractor changes processes, materials, suppliers,\nor manufacturing facilities after first article approval, a new first article sample\nmust be submitted for tests. However, on August 4, 2000, DSCP issued\n\n\n 5\n\x0c modification P00001 to delete the requirement for 1-sided Innerspring\n Mattresses and added the requirement for NIB to manufacture 2-sided\n mattresses. This modification also deleted first article requirements.\n\n Quality Assurance Requirements. The quality assurance\n requirements in the contract state that the contractor is responsible for\n performance of all examinations and tests. The contractor is required to certify\n in writing, using a certificate of conformance, that the products comply with the\n contract requirements. The contractor is required to re-validate any such\n certification by performing these tests at 6-month intervals. The contract also\n requires that the contractor provide copies of test reports to the contracting\n officer.\n\nNAVSEA Responsibilities and Actions\n NAVSEA did not require NIB to comply with first article test requirements for\n either 1-sided or 2-sided Innerspring Mattresses.\n\n Testing of 1-Sided Mattresses. The contract required that one sample of each\n size of 1-sided Innerspring Mattresses be submitted to Omega Point\n Laboratories, Inc. for fire performance tests. All three NIB facilities sent one\n or two samples of 1-sided Innerspring Mattresses to Omega Point Laboratories,\n Inc. for fire performance tests in July 2000. A NAVSEA official went to\n Omega Point Laboratories, Inc. and witnessed the tests for at least one mattress.\n The 1-sided mattresses failed the fire performance tests. NAVSEA then\n requested DSCP to modify the contract to require 2-sided Innerspring\n Mattresses, which DSCP did in August 2000.\n\n Testing of 2-Sided Mattresses. NAVSEA did not require the contractor to\n conduct adequate fire performance tests on the 2-sided Innerspring Mattresses\n that complied with first article requirements. Specifically, only four mattresses\n were tested in July 2000, three of the four mattresses did not meet one of the\n three fire performance requirements, and mattresses were only tested from one\n of the three NIB facilities before NAVSEA directed DSCP to authorize each\n facility to start production. Because nine mattress sizes were identified for\n production on the contract, at least nine mattresses, one of each size, should\n have been tested.\n\n NAVSEA Oversight of the Testing. The NAVSEA official\n responsible for the mattress procurement witnessed fire performance tests for\n two of the four 2-sided Innerspring Mattresses tested in July 2000. Then, a\n NAVSEA official contacted DSCP and verbally approved the mattresses for\n production even though the first article requirements in the contract were not\n satisfied.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c Approval of Mattresses for Production. The NAVSEA official\n approved the 2-sided Innerspring Mattresses even though three of the four\n mattresses did not meet one of the three fire performance test requirements.\n Based on the test results, NAVSEA did not request that the contracting officer\n change the purchase description to match the mattresses that NAVSEA\n accepted. For example, the purchase description stated, \xe2\x80\x9cBurning droplets shall\n not be formed and dropped to the floor or the top of the weighing platform.\xe2\x80\x9d\n However, the NAVSEA representative witnessing the fire performance tests saw\n at least five flaming droplets form on three of the four Innerspring Mattresses,\n but considered the droplets \xe2\x80\x9cinconsequential\xe2\x80\x9d and accepted the mattresses as\n meeting NAVSEA requirements. In addition, NAVSEA did not require the\n contractor to comply with contract requirements for all mattress components to\n be fire resistant. Specifically, the polyolefin material used to pocket the\n innerspring coils was not fire resistant and caused the burning droplets to form\n during the fire performance tests.\n\n Sample Requirements. The NAVSEA official approved the 2-sided\n Innerspring Mattresses even though the four 2-sided mattresses did not meet the\n sample requirements for the three NIB manufacturing facilities. The four\n mattresses were all manufactured at one facility, Lions Club Industries in\n Durham, North Carolina. However, the first article requirements state that if\n the contractor is using multiple manufacturing facilities, each manufacturing\n facility is required to submit mattress samples for first article approval.\n\n NAVSEA Actions. When the Secretary of the Navy approved the habitability\n improvement initiative in March 2000, the Secretary of the Navy directed that\n the procurement cycle for the Innerspring Mattresses be reduced to 6 months so\n the fleet would begin receiving the mattresses by November 2000. NAVSEA\n did not have funding for research and development of the mattresses. Instead,\n NAVSEA relied on DSCP and NIB to provide funding and mattress samples,\n respectively. The urgency to obtain the Innerspring Mattresses within\n 6 months, as requested by the Secretary of the Navy, and insufficient funding\n impacted decisions by NAVSEA officials relating to fire performance tests.\n\n NAVSEA needs to require that contractors comply with first article test\n requirements for Innerspring Mattresses and notify the contracting officer if\n NAVSEA accepts mattresses that do not meet purchase description requirements\n in the contract.\n\nDSCP and DCMA Responsibilities and Actions\n DSCP modified the contract without obtaining adequate support to delete first\n article requirements and did not ensure that NIB provided mattresses that\n complied with contract requirements. Also, both DSCP and DCMA contracting\n officers did not require NIB facilities to perform 6-month conformance tests.\n\n Contracting officers at DSCP and DCMA are required to follow FAR guidance\n when administering Government contracts. See Appendix C for applicable FAR\n requirements.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cContract Modification. Based on the NAVSEA official\xe2\x80\x99s verbal approval of\nthe fire performance tests on the four 2-sided Innerspring Mattresses, DSCP\nmodified the contract in August 2000 to delete the purchase description for the\n1-sided mattress and add purchase descriptions for nine sizes of the 2-sided\nmattress. DSCP also deleted the first article requirements and did not enforce\nor change the purchase description requirement, which stated, \xe2\x80\x9cBurning droplets\nshall not be formed and dropped to the floor or the top of the weighing\nplatform.\xe2\x80\x9d Specifically, DSCP modified the contract without obtaining adequate\nsupport or documentation to delete first article requirements because DSCP took\nthis action without written confirmation from NAVSEA. There was no written\ndocumentation in the contract file that identified the person who directed the\nchange or why the change was made. As a result, DSCP did not comply with\nFAR Part 4, \xe2\x80\x9cAdministrative Matters,\xe2\x80\x9d which requires the contracting officer to\nmaintain records of all contractual actions, including sufficient documentation to\nmake informed decisions throughout the contracting process. DSCP needs to\nobtain and maintain adequate documentation to support all contractual actions in\naccordance with FAR Part 4.\n\nContract Compliance. DSCP and DCMA did not ensure that each of the\nthree NIB manufacturers met first article requirements for the Innerspring\nMattresses, as required by the contract. Specifically, on July 26, 2000, a DSCP\ntechnical representative sent an electronic mail message directing the DCMA\nquality assurance representatives at the three NIB manufacturers not to send any\nmore mattresses for fire performance tests. DSCP also limited the quality\nassurance representatives\xe2\x80\x99 responsibilities to performing dimensional, weight,\nand visual examination only. DCMA quality assurance representatives followed\nthis direction for 11 months of the 12-month contract before obtaining written\ndocumentation from the contracting officer. Thus, DCMA quality assurance\nrepresentatives did not require NIB manufacturers to send mattresses for fire\nperformance tests in accordance with contract requirements to perform 6-month\nconformance tests. As a result, DCSP and DCMA did not comply with\nFAR Part 9, \xe2\x80\x9cContractor Qualifications,\xe2\x80\x9d which states that the contractor should\nprovide a product that conforms to contract requirements. DSCP and DCMA\nneed to require that NIB provide Innerspring Mattresses that comply with\ncontract requirements in accordance with FAR Part 9.\n\nContract Administration. Both DSCP and DCMA did not adequately perform\ncontract administration duties. Although the contract required the contractor to\nperform 6-month conformance tests, DCSP and DCMA did not require the\ncontractor to perform the tests. FAR Part 42, \xe2\x80\x9cContract Administrative and\nAudit Services,\xe2\x80\x9d requires that the administrative contracting officer ensure\ncontractor compliance with contractual quality assurance requirements. If\n6-month conformance tests had been performed, DSCP or DCMA could have\nidentified that the mattresses were not meeting fire-resistance requirements and\nsaved about $4.8 million on the procurement of the mattresses during the last\n6 months of the contract. DSCP and DCMA need to require NIB to comply with\ncontract quality assurance requirements in accordance with FAR Part 42.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c DSCP and DCMA Actions. DSCP and DCMA did not comply with FAR\n requirements for the administration of the contract. For example, DSCP did not\n keep adequate records in the contract file and did not require the contractor to\n provide Innerspring Mattresses in accordance with the terms of the contract.\n Also, DSCP and DCMA contracting officers did not ensure that the contractor\n complied with 6-month conformance test requirements.\n\nSummary\n NAVSEA, DSCP, and DCMA jointly share responsibility for Innerspring\n Mattresses that did not meet fire-resistance requirements. NAVSEA developed\n a purchase description for a 1-sided Innerspring Mattress and DSCP awarded a\n contract for the mattresses to NIB in July 2000. When the 1-sided mattresses\n failed the fire performance tests, NAVSEA changed the requirement to 2-sided\n mattresses and requested DSCP to modify the contract. Defense contracting\n officials subsequently deleted first article requirements and did not require NIB\n facilities to conduct tests throughout the life of the contract, so the Innerspring\n Mattresses were manufactured for 1 year before their lack of fire resistance was\n identified. As a result, the Navy spent $12.5 million for 90,448 mattresses that\n did not meet Navy-defined contract requirements for fire resistance. In\n addition, DSCP procured fire-resistant mattress covers costing $4.3 million to\n reduce the risk of the mattresses catching fire. Recommendations made in this\n report relate to procurements of future products to prevent similar problems\n from occurring.\n\nManagement Comments on the Finding and Audit Response\n Management Comments. The Defense Contract Management Agency\n generally agreed with the finding and stated that two key events related to the\n administration of the Innerspring Mattress contract were not included in\n Appendix B. Specifically, the July 26, 2000, electronic mail message sent from\n the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia to the quality assurance representatives\n was not included. Also, contract modification P00005, dated June 29, 2001,\n was not included in Appendix B. This modification directs quality assurance\n representatives to only check mattresses for weight and dimensional\n requirements.\n\n Audit Response. We partially concur with the Defense Contract Management\n Agency suggestion and added a reference to the July 26, 2000, electronic mail\n message in Appendix B. However, we did not include a reference to the\n June 29, 2001, contract modification because the modification was made with\n less than 1 month remaining on the contract.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cRecommendations and Management Comments\n 1. We recommend that the Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command:\n\n a. Require that contractors comply with first article test\n requirements on contracts for Innerspring Mattresses.\n\n b. Notify the contracting officer if the Navy accepts mattresses that\n do not meet purchase description requirements on future contracts.\n\n Management Comments. The Navy concurred with the recommendations.\n The Navy will include strict test sampling procedures in a new innerspring\n mattress contract that is scheduled to be awarded in May 2002. In addition, the\n Naval Sea Systems Command plans to formally notify the Defense Supply\n Center Philadelphia contracting officer if the Navy accepts any changes to the\n mattress purchase description requirements and modify the contract to reflect\n these changes. The Navy stated that they would complete both actions by\n May 31, 2002.\n\n 2. We recommend that the Director, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia\n when awarding another Innerspring Mattress contract:\n\n a. Obtain and maintain adequate documentation to support all\n contractual actions in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation\n Part 4, \xe2\x80\x9cAdministrative Matters.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n b. Require National Industries for the Blind and its subcontractors\n to provide Innerspring Mattresses that comply with contract requirements\n in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 9, \xe2\x80\x9cContractor\n Qualifications.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n c. Require National Industries for the Blind and its subcontractors\n to comply with Innerspring Mattress contract quality assurance\n requirements in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 42,\n \xe2\x80\x9cContract Administrative and Audit Services.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Management Comments. The Defense Logistics Agency concurred with the\n recommendations. The Defense Supply Center Philadelphia issued Contracting\n and Production Policy Memorandum Number 01-16, \xe2\x80\x9cRequest for Waiver of\n First Article Testing,\xe2\x80\x9d October 15, 2001, as a direct response to lessons learned\n during the administration of the mattress contract. The Defense Supply Center\n Philadelphia will ensure that all contracting officers maintain records of all\n contractual actions taken, that all contractors provide a product that conforms to\n all contract requirements for acceptance, and that contract administration\n authority delegated to an administrative contracting officer results in contractor\n compliance with all contractual quality assurance requirements.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c3. We recommend that the Director, Defense Contract Management\nAgency require National Industries for the Blind and its subcontractors to\ncomply with quality assurance requirements for any future Innerspring\nMattress contracts in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation\nPart 42 or obtain modifications from the contracting officer for any changes\nto the 6-month conformance tests in contract requirements.\n\nManagement Comments. The Defense Contract Management Agency agreed\nthat contract modifications should only be made when the procurement\ncontracting officer authorizes a change to the contract. All personnel were\ndirected to comply with Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements and that\ncustomer directions comply with basic contracting principles. The Defense\nContract Management Agency will discuss lessons learned from the\nadministration of the innerspring mattress contract at the Executive Management\nBoard meeting scheduled for May 23, 2002, and expects to complete all actions\nrelated to the recommendation by June 30, 2002.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cAppendix A. Scope and Methodology\n\nScope\n Work Performed. We evaluated the award and administration of contract\n SP0100-00-D-EE72 for the procurement of Innerspring Mattresses, which was\n valued at about $12.5 million. We also reviewed the follow-on Innerspring\n Mattress contract, SP0100-01-D-EE66, and the mattress cover contract,\n SP0100-02-D-EA34, as they related to the administration of contract SP0100-\n 00-D-EE72. We compared policies, procedures, and documentation related to\n the contract with the FAR requirements. Specifically, we reviewed the contract,\n contract modifications, results of fire performance tests, correspondence\n between DSCP and quality assurance representatives, and minutes of meetings\n with NIB, DSCP, and NAVSEA representatives. We also interviewed DoD,\n NAVSEA, and contractor personnel involved with the procurement of\n Innerspring Mattresses.\n\n We conducted our review at DSCP in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; NAVSEA in\n Washington, D.C.; NIB Headquarters in Arlington, Virginia; Winston-Salem\n Industries for the Blind in Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Lions Club\n Industries in Durham, North Carolina; and Virginia Industries for the Blind in\n Charlottesville, Virginia. We did not review the management control program\n because the scope of the audit was limited to award and administration policies\n and procedures related to the contract.\n\n General Accounting Office High-Risk Area. The General Accounting Office\n has identified several high-risk areas in the DoD. This report provides coverage\n of the Defense Contract Management high-risk area.\n\nMethodology\n Use of Computer-Processed Data. We did not rely on computer-processed\n data for our review of the award and administration policies and procedures\n followed for the contract.\n\n Audit Dates and Standards. We performed this audit from October 2001\n through February 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government\n auditing standards.\n\n Contacts During the Audit. We visited or contacted individuals within DoD\n and within National Industries for the Blind in Arlington, Virginia. Further\n details are available on request.\n\nPrior Coverage\n No prior coverage has been conducted on the subject during the last 5 years.\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c Appendix B. Chronology of Events for\n Innerspring Mattresses Procured on\n Contract SP0100-00-D-EE72\n Dates Events\n\nAugust 1994 Naval Research Laboratory conducts fire tests on several new Innerspring Mattresses.\n\nSeptember 1999 USS Cole requests 210 Innerspring Mattresses after Innerspring Mattresses are tested\n aboard the ship.\n\nMarch 2000 The Secretary of the Navy approves habitability improvement initiative to replace\n neoprene foam mattresses with Innerspring Mattresses on board ships.\n\nMarch to July 2000 NAVSEA develops a purchase description; 1-sided and 2-sided mattresses of varying\n compositions are tested to meet firmness, weight, and fire-resistance characteristics.\n\nJuly 14, 2000 DSCP awards contract SP011-00-D-EE72 to NIB for 1-sided Innerspring Mattresses.\n\nJuly 20, 2000 One-sided mattresses fail fire performance tests.\n\nJuly 24-25, 2000 Four 2-sided mattresses are tested for fire performance. NAVSEA official accepts\n mattresses as passing even though three exhibit burning droplets.\n\nJuly 26, 2000 DSCP technical representative sent an electronic mail message requesting the DCMA\n quality assurance representatives at the three NIB manufacturers not to send any more\n mattresses for fire performance tests.\n\nAugust 4, 2000 DSCP modifies contract SP0100-00-D-EE72 to specify procurement of 2-sided mattresses\n and delete first article requirements.\n\nAugust 26, 2001 Nine of 12 mattresses submitted for first article fire testing under the follow-on contract\n fail heat-release rate requirements, and all 12 exhibit flaming droplets.\nAugust 29, 2001 DSCP awards a follow-on contract, SP0100-01-D-EE66, to NIB for 90,000 additional\n Innerspring Mattresses.\n\nSeptember 21, 2001 Fifteen of 21 mattresses produced under the initial and follow-on contracts fail fire tests.\n\nOctober 2001 DSCP directs NIB to stop all Innerspring Mattress production.\n\nNovember 16, 2001 DSCP awarded a contract to NIB to manufacture 90,000 fire-resistant mattress covers to\n reduce the risk of fire from mattresses already issued to the fleet that did not meet fire\n performance requirements.\n\nJanuary 2002 DSCP partners with NAVSEA and NIB to perform additional research, development, and\n testing on Innerspring Mattresses.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cAppendix C. Federal Acquisition Regulation\n Requirements\n The FAR provides guidance to contracting officers and contractors involved\n with Government contracts. Specifically, the FAR defines duties and\n responsibilities for all personnel involved in the award and administration of\n Federal contracts. The following FAR requirements pertain to the\n administration of contract SP0100-00-D-EE72.\n\n FAR Part 4. FAR Part 4, \xe2\x80\x9cAdministrative Matters,\xe2\x80\x9d states that the head of\n each contracting office shall establish files containing the records of all\n contractual actions. The documentation in the files shall be sufficient to\n constitute a complete history of the transaction. The purpose of the\n documentation includes providing a complete background as a basis for\n informed decisions at each step in the acquisition process, supporting actions\n taken, providing information for reviews and investigations, and furnishing\n essential facts in the event of litigation or congressional inquiries.\n\n FAR Part 9. FAR Part 9, \xe2\x80\x9cContractor Qualifications,\xe2\x80\x9d states that the\n contractor shall provide a product that conforms to all contract requirements for\n acceptance. Before requiring testing and approval, the contracting officer shall\n consider the impact on cost or time of delivery, the risk to the Government of\n not performing such a test, and the availability of less costly methods of\n ensuring the desired quality. Testing and approval is also recommended when\n the contractor has furnished the product to the Government before but there\n have been changes in the processes or specifications. FAR Part 9 explains that\n the solicitations shall provide the performance that the first article must meet for\n approval, the detailed technical requirements for the tests that must be\n performed for approval, and the necessary data that must be submitted to the\n Government in the first article approval test report. The Government laboratory\n or other activity responsible for first article testing shall inform the contracting\n officer whether to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the first\n article.\n\n FAR Part 42. FAR Part 42, \xe2\x80\x9cContract Administration and Audit Services,\xe2\x80\x9d\n states that contracting officers may delegate contract administration or\n specialized support services, either through interagency agreements or by direct\n request, to the cognizant contract administration office listed in the Federal\n Directory of Contract Administration Services Components.\n\n The contracting officer normally delegates 70 contract administration functions\n to a contract administration office that include:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 performing production support, surveillance, and status reporting,\n including timely reporting of potential and actual slippages in contract\n delivery schedules;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ensuring contractor compliance with contractual quality assurance\n requirements;\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2 performing engineering surveillance to assess compliance with\n contractual terms for schedule, cost, and technical performance in the\n areas of design, development, and production;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 reporting to the contracting office any inadequacies noted in\n specifications;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 assisting in evaluating and making recommendations for acceptance or\n rejection of waivers and deviations;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 assigning and performing supporting contract administration;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 ensuring timely submission of required reports; and\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 supporting the program, product, and project offices regarding program\n reviews, program status, program performance, and actual or anticipated\n program problems.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cAppendix D. Report Distribution\n\nOffice of the Secretary of Defense\nUnder Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)\n Deputy Chief Financial Officer\n Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget)\nDirector, Defense Procurement\n\nDepartment of the Army\nAuditor General, Department of the Army\n\nDepartment of the Navy\nCommander, Naval Sea Systems Command\nNaval Inspector General\nAuditor General, Department of the Navy\n\nDepartment of the Air Force\nAuditor General, Department of the Air Force\n\nOther Defense Organizations\nDirector, Defense Logistics Agency\n Director, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia\nDirector, Defense Contract Management Agency\n\nNon-Defense Federal Organization\nOffice of Management and Budget\n\nNon-Government Organization\nNational Industries for the Blind\n\x0cCongressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and\n Ranking Minority Member\nSenate Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Committee on Armed Services\nSenate Committee on Governmental Affairs\nHouse Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Committee on Armed Services\nHouse Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and\n Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International\n Relations, Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy, Committee on\n Government Reform\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c\x0cDepartment of the Navy Comments\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c20\n\x0c21\n\x0c22\n\x0cDefense Logistics Agency Comments\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0c24\n\x0c25\n\x0cDefense Contract Management Agency\nComments\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0c27\n\x0c Added to\n Appendix B\n\n\n\n\n28\n\x0c29\n\x0cTeam Members\nThe Contract Management Directorate, Office of the Assistant Inspector General for\nAuditing for the Department of Defense prepared this report. Personnel of the Office\nof the Inspector General of the Department of Defense who contributed to the report\nare listed below.\n\nGarold E. Stephenson\nHenry F. Kleinknecht\nRonald W. Hodges\nLorin T. Pfeil\nNicole M. Ellis\nBrett N. Ward\nLTC Patty J. Korn\nAnn L. Thompson\n\x0c'


type: wikipedia

text:
Osmaņu impērija nopietni apdraudēja Eiropas lielvaras ar nepārtrauktu tuvošanos cauri Balkāniem līdz pat 1683. gadam. Osmaņu impērijas flote bija ietekmīgs spēks Vidusjūrā, Melnajā jūrā, Sarkanajā jūrā, Persijas līcī un Indijas okeānā, kā arī ik pa laikam patrulēja arī Atlantijas okeānā (1501—1631). Osmaņu karaspēkam Bristoles kanālā uz Lundijas salas bija flotes bāze Atlantijas okeāna ziemeļu daļas atbalstam un Osmaņu karaspēks īslaicīgi arī pabija Britu salās, Skandināvijā, Islandē, Grenlandē un Ņūfaundlendā (1627—1631). Austrumos Osmaņu impērijas armijai bija vairākas sadursmes (1538—1566) ar Portugāles flotes bāzi Goā (Indijas okeānā) un, kad Osmaņu impērija paplašināja tās teritoriju Sarkanajā jūrā, Arābu jūrā un Persijas līcī, tās karaspēks pabija arī Indijā, Malaizijā un Indonēzijā.
 Osmaņu flote uzvarēja vairākas izšķirošas kaujas ar Eiropas valstu flotēm (Zončio kauja, 1499; Prevezas kauja, 1538; Džerbas kauja, 1560) un kļuva par nepārspējamu lielvaru Vidusjūrā līdz pat Lepanto kaujai (1571), kas tomēr neapturēja Osmaņu impēriju atjaunot tās floti un iekarot vēl papildus teritorijas Vidusjūras reģionā. Vairākas reizes Osmaņu impērijas karaspēks iebruka Centrāleiropā un divas reizes centās pakļaut Habsburgus (Vīnes aplenkums, 1529; Vīnes kauja, 1683) un tikai Eiropas valstu apvienoti spēki spēja atvairīt šos uzbrukumus. Osmaņu armija austrumos regulāri konfliktēja ar Safavidu impēriju par kontroli Persijas līcī un Kaspijas jūrā. Osmaņu impērijas kulminācija teritoriālo iekarojumu ziņā sasniedza virsotni sultāna Murada IV laikā (1683), kad tika iekarota Azerbaidžāna, Tebrīza, Hamadana, Bagdāde un Mezopotāmija.
 Teritoriju hronoloģija
 Teritoriju saraksts
 Eiropa
 Albānija (Škodra, Vļora, Tirāna) (1410—1912)
 Bosnija un Hercegovina (1483—1878)
 Bulgārija (1395—1878)
 Krēta (1669—1908)
 Krimas haniste (1475—1783)
 Horvātija (Slavonija, Lika) (1529—1699)
 Kiklādu salas (1566—1830)
 Dodekanesas salas (1522—1912)
 Grieķija (1460—1831)
 Ungārija (1541—1699)
 Maķedonija (Skopje) (1371—1913)
 Moldova (1526—1812)
 Melnkalne (1498—1878)
 Ziemeļu Egejas salas (1677—1912)
 Otranto (1480—1481)
 Podolija (1672—1699)
 Rodas sala (1522—1912)
 Rumānija (Valahija) (1512—1877)
 Rumānija (Moldāvija) (1417—1877)
 Rumānija (Transilvānija) (1541—1699)
 Saronu salas (1460—1830)
 Serbija (Belgrada, Niša, Kalemegdana) (1521—1804)
 Sporādu salas (1538—1830)
 Āzija
 Adena (1538—1839)
 Abadana (1514—1529, 1543—1623, 1639—1847)
 Abhāzija (1578—1810)
 Armēnija (Erevāna) (1514—1618)
 Azerbaidžāna (1578—1604, 1724—1736)
 Dagestāna (1645—1730)
 Gruzija (1516—1603, 1620—1683, 1727—1735)
 Hamadana (1721—1730, 1916—1918)
 Irāka (Bagdāde, Basra, Mosula) (1534—1917)
 Kipra (1570—1914)
 Kuveita (1534—1914)
 Jordānija (1516—1918)
 Libāna (Beiruta, Akre, Saidona) (1516—1918)
 Luristāna (1587—1639)
 Omāna (1550-1551, 1581-1588, 1659-1741)
 Palestīna (1516—1918)
 Katara (1871—1916)
 Saūda Arābija (El Hasa) (1871—1913)
 Saūda Arābija (Hidžāza) (1517—1916)
 Saūda Arābija (Nedžda) (1817—1902)
 Saūda Arābija (Asira) (1871—1914)
 Sīrija (Damaska, Haleba) (1516—1918)
 Jemena (1517-1636, 1872-1918)
 Āfrika
 Alžīrija (Alžīra) (1536—1830)
 Alžīrija (Konstantīna) (1637—1830)
 Alžīrija (Orāna) (1708-1732, 1792-1831)
 Ēģipte (1517-1798, 1801-1914)
 Eritreja (Masava) (1557—1884)
 Lībija (Kirenaika) (1521—1911)
 Lībija (Tripolitānija) (1551—1912)
 Lībija (Fecāna) (1842—1912)
 Somālija (Saila) (1548—1884)
 Sudāna (Kasala) (1553—1885)
 Sudāna (Dārfūra) (1874—1883)
 Sudāna (Ekvatorija) (1871—1889)
 Sudāna (Kordofana) (1821—1883)
 Tunisija (1534—1881)
 Parvaldito teritoriju saraksts
 Parvaldito teritoriju saraksts


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 14.10.2004
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 L 315/32
 DÉCISION DU CONSEIL
 du 24 septembre 2004
 relative à la conclusion d'un accord sous forme d'échange de lettres entre la Communauté européenne et la République de Moldova instituant un système de double contrôle sans limite quantitative à l'exportation de certains produits sidérurgiques de la République de Moldova dans la Communauté européenne
 (2004/692/CE)
 LE CONSEIL DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE,
 vu le traité instituant la Communauté européenne, et notamment son article 133 en liaison avec la première phrase de son article 300, paragraphe 2, premier alinéa,
 vu la proposition de la Commission,
 considérant ce qui suit:
 (1)
 L'accord de partenariat et de coopération instituant un partenariat entre les Communautés européennes et leurs États membres, d'une part, et la République de Moldova, d'autre part (1), est entré en vigueur le 1er juillet 1998.
 (2)
 La Commission a achevé les négociations sur la conclusion d'un accord sous forme d'échange de lettres entre la Communauté européenne et la République de Moldova instituant un système de double contrôle sans limite quantitative à l'exportation de certains produits sidérurgiques de la République de Moldova dans la Communauté européenne,
 DÉCIDE:
 Article premier
 1. L'accord sous forme d'échange de lettres entre la Communauté européenne et la République de Moldova instituant un système de double contrôle sans limite quantitative à l'exportation de certains produits sidérurgiques de la République de Moldova dans la Communauté européenne est approuvé au nom de la Communauté.
 2. Le texte de l'accord est joint à la présente décision.
 Article 2
 Le président du Conseil est autorisé à désigner la ou les personnes habilitées à signer l'accord en vue d'engager la Communauté européenne.
 Fait à Bruxelles, le 24 septembre 2004.
 Par le Conseil
 Le président
 L. J. BRINKHORST
 (1) JO L 181 du 24.6.1998, p. 3.
 ACCORD SOUS FORME D'ÉCHANGE DE LETTRES
 entre la Communauté européenne et la République de Moldova instituant un système de double contrôle sans limite quantitative à l'exportation de certains produits sidérurgiques de la République de Moldova dans la Communauté européenne
 Monsieur,
 1.
 J'ai l'honneur de me référer aux consultations menées entre la Communauté européenne et le gouvernement de la République de Moldova au sujet du commerce de certains produits sidérurgiques.
 2.
 À la suite de ces consultations, les parties conviennent d'instituer un système de double contrôle, sans limite quantitative, pour certains produits sidérurgiques afin d'améliorer la transparence et d'éviter d'éventuels détournements de trafic. Ce système de double contrôle est exposé en détail dans l'annexe de la présente lettre.
 3.
 Le présent échange de lettres est sans préjudice de l'application des dispositions concernées des accords bilatéraux sur le commerce et les mesures d'accompagnement, en particulier des dispositions qui concernent les mesures antidumping et les clauses de sauvegarde.
 4.
 Chaque partie peut, à tout moment, proposer des modifications de l'annexe ou de ses appendices, lesquelles exigeront le consentement mutuel des parties et prendront effet à la date convenue par elles. Si des enquêtes sont ouvertes en matière d'antidumping ou de clauses de sauvegarde ou si des mesures sont introduites dans la Communauté européenne concernant un produit soumis au système du double contrôle, la Moldova décide d'exclure ou non le produit en question de ce système. Cette décision n'affecte pas la mise en libre pratique du produit en question dans la Communauté européenne.
 5.
 En conclusion, j'ai l'honneur de proposer que, si la présente lettre, son annexe et ses appendices sont acceptables pour votre gouvernement, la présente lettre et votre confirmation constitueront ensemble un accord entre la Communauté européenne et la République de Moldova, qui entrera en vigueur le jour de votre réponse.
 Veuillez agréer, Monsieur, l'assurance de ma très haute considération.
 Hecho en Bruselas, el
 V Bruselu dne
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den
 Geschehen zu Brüssel am
 Brüssel,
 Έγινε στις Βρυξέλλες, στις
 Done at Brussels,
 Fait à Bruxelles, le
 Fatto a Bruxelles, addì
 Briselē,
 Priimta Briuselyje,
 Kelt Brüsszelben,
 Magÿmula fi Brussel,
 Gedaan te Brussel,
 Sporządzono w Brukseli, dnia
 Feito em Bruxelas,
 V Bruseli
 V Bruslju,
 Tehty Brysselissä
 Utfärdat i Bryssel den
 Întocmit la Bruxelles
 Por la Comunidad Europea
 Za Evropské společenství
 For Det Europæiske Fællesskab
 Für die Europäische Gemeinschaft
 Euroopa Ühenduse nimel
 Για την Ευρωπαϊκή Κοινότητα
 For the European Community
 Pour la Communauté européenne
 Per la Comunità europea
 Eiropas Kopienas vārdā
 Europos bendrijos vardu
 az Európai Közösség részéről
 Ghall-Komonità Ewropea
 Voor de Europese Gemeenschap
 W imieniu Wspólnoty Europejskiej
 Pela Comunidade Europeia
 Za Európske spoločenstvo
 za Evropsko skupnost
 Euroopan yhteisön puolesta
 På Europeiska gemenskapens vägnar
 din partea Comunitătii Europene
 Monsieur,
 J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réception de votre lettre du 29 septembre 2004 libellée comme suit:
 «1.
 J'ai l'honneur de me référer aux consultations menées entre la Communauté européenne et le gouvernement de la République de Moldova au sujet du commerce de certains produits sidérurgiques.
 2.
 À la suite de ces consultations, les parties conviennent d'instituer un système de double contrôle, sans limite quantitative, pour certains produits sidérurgiques afin d'améliorer la transparence et d'éviter d'éventuels détournements de trafic. Ce système de double contrôle est exposé en détail dans l'annexe de la présente lettre.
 3.
 Le présent échange de lettres est sans préjudice de l'application des dispositions concernées des accords bilatéraux sur le commerce et les mesures d'accompagnement, en particulier des dispositions qui concernent les mesures antidumping et les clauses de sauvegarde.
 4.
 Chaque partie peut, à tout moment, proposer des modifications de l'annexe ou de ses appendices, lesquelles exigeront le consentement mutuel des parties et prendront effet à la date convenue par elles. Si des enquêtes sont ouvertes en matière d'antidumping ou de clauses de sauvegarde ou si des mesures sont introduites dans la Communauté européenne concernant un produit soumis au système du double contrôle, la Moldova décide d'exclure ou non le produit en question de ce système. Cette décision n'affecte pas la mise en libre pratique du produit en question dans la Communauté européenne.
 5.
 En conclusion, j'ai l'honneur de proposer que, si la présente lettre, son annexe et ses appendices sont acceptables pour votre gouvernement, la présente lettre et votre confirmation constitueront ensemble un accord entre la Communauté européenne et la République de Moldova, qui entrera en vigueur le jour de votre réponse.»
 J'ai l'honneur de vous confirmer l'accord de mon gouvernement sur le contenu de votre lettre et sur le fait que celle-ci, la présente réponse et les annexes et appendices joints constituent ensemble un accord, conformément à votre proposition.
 Veuillez agréer, Monsieur, l'assurance de ma très haute considération.
 Hecho en Bruselas, el
 V Bruselu dne
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den
 Geschehen zu Brüssel am
 Brüssel,
 Έγινε στις Βρυξέλλες, στις
 Done at Brussels,
 Fait à Bruxelles, le
 Fatto a Bruxelles, addì
 Briselē,
 Priimta Briuselyje,
 Kelt Brüsszelben,
 Magÿmula fi Brussel,
 Gedaan te Brussel,
 Sporządzono w Brukseli, dnia
 Feito em Bruxelas,
 V Bruseli
 V Bruslju,
 Tehty Brysselissä
 Utfärdat i Bryssel den
 Întocmit la Bruxelles
 din partea Guvernului Republicii Moldova
 Por el Gobierno de la República de Moldava
 Za vládu Moldavské republiky
 For regeringen for Republikken Moldova
 Für die Regierung der Republik Moldau
 Moldova Vabariigi valitsuse nimel
 Για την κυβέρνηση της Δημοκρατίας της Μολδαβίας
 For the Government of the Republic of Moldova
 Pour le gouvernement de la République de Moldova
 Per il governo della Repubblica moldova
 Moldovas Republikas valdības vārdā
 Moldovos Respublikos Vyriausybės vardu
 a Moldovai Köztársaság kormánya nevében
 Ghall-Gvern tar-Repubblika tal-Moldova
 Voor de regering van de Republiek Moldavië
 W imieniu Rządu Republiki Mołdowy
 Pelo Governo da República da Moldova
 za vládu Moldavskej republiky
 Za Vlado Republike Moldavije
 Moldovan tasavallan hallituksen puolesta
 För Republiken Moldaviens regering
 ANNEXE
 à l'accord sous forme d'échange de lettres entre la Communauté européenne et la République de Moldova instituant un système de double contrôle sans limite quantitative à l'exportation de certains produits sidérurgiques de la République de Moldova dans la Communauté européenne
 1.1.
 Pendant la période du 29 octobre 2004 au 31 décembre 2006, à moins que les parties ne conviennent de mettre fin plus tôt à l'application de ce système, l'importation dans la Communauté européenne des produits sidérurgiques énumérés à l'appendice I originaires de la Moldova est subordonnée à la présentation d'un document de surveillance conforme au modèle reproduit à l'appendice II, délivré par les autorités communautaires.
 1.2.
 Pendant la période visée au point 1.1, à moins que les parties ne conviennent de mettre fin plus tôt à l'application du système, l'importation dans la Communauté européenne des produits sidérurgiques énumérés à l'appendice I originaires de la Moldova est en outre subordonnée à la délivrance d'un document d'exportation par les autorités moldaves compétentes.
 1.3.
 Pour obtenir le document de surveillance, l'importateur doit présenter l'original du document d'exportation dûment complété. L'importateur est de toute façon tenu de présenter l'original du document d'exportation au plus tard le 31 mars de l'année suivant celle de l'expédition des marchandises couvertes par le document.
 1.4.
 Le document de surveillance et le document d'exportation sont délivrés pour chaque transaction.
 1.5.
 L'expédition est considérée comme ayant eu lieu à la date de chargement sur le moyen de transport utilisé pour l'exportation.
 1.6.
 Le document d'exportation est conforme au modèle figurant à l'appendice III et est valable pour les exportations à l'intérieur du territoire douanier de la Communauté européenne.
 1.7.
 La République de Moldova notifie à la Commission des Communautés européennes les noms et adresses des autorités moldaves habilitées à délivrer et à contrôler les documents d'exportation et lui fait parvenir en même temps un modèle des cachets et des signatures que ces autorités utilisent. Elle notifie également à la Commission tout changement intervenu dans ces éléments.
 1.8.
 Le classement des produits visés par le présent accord se fonde sur la nomenclature tarifaire et statistique de la Communauté européenne (ci-après «NC»). L'origine des produits couverts par le présent accord est déterminée conformément aux règles d'origine non préférentielles en vigueur dans la Communauté européenne.
 1.9.
 Les autorités compétentes de la Communauté européenne s'engagent à informer la République de Moldova de toute modification de la NC concernant les produits couverts par l'accord avant leur date d'entrée en vigueur dans la Communauté européenne.
 1.10.
 Certaines dispositions techniques relatives à la mise en œuvre du système de double contrôle figurent à l'appendice IV.
 2.1.
 La République de Moldova s'engage à fournir à la Communauté européenne des statistiques précises sur les documents d'exportation délivrés par les autorités moldaves en application du point 1.2. Ces données sont transmises à la Communauté européenne pour le 28 du mois suivant le mois auquel elles se rapportent.
 2.2.
 La Communauté européenne s'engage à fournir aux autorités moldaves des statistiques précises sur les documents de surveillance délivrés par les États membres pour les documents d'exportation délivrés par les autorités moldaves conformément au point 1.1. Ces données sont transmises aux autorités moldaves pour le 28 du mois suivant le mois auquel elles se rapportent.
 3.
 Pour autant que de besoin, les parties se consultent, à la demande de l'une d'entre elles, sur tout problème découlant du fonctionnement du présent accord. Les consultations ont lieu sans délai. Les deux parties les abordent dans un esprit de coopération et avec la volonté de régler le différend qui les oppose.
 3.1.
 Sans préjudice du point 2.2 et en vue d'assurer le bon fonctionnement du présent accord, la Communauté et la République de Moldova conviennent de prendre toutes les mesures utiles pour prévenir et/ou instruire ou sanctionner par la voie légale et/ou administrative le contournement du présent accord par le biais, notamment, de transbordements, de détournements, de fausses déclarations concernant le pays d'origine, de falsifications de documents d'exportation et/ou d'autres documents, de descriptions erronées des quantités ou du classement des marchandises. En conséquence, la Communauté et la République de Moldova conviennent de définir les dispositions légales et les procédures administratives nécessaires, conformément à leur législation interne, pour lutter efficacement contre ces contournements, et notamment d'adopter des mesures correctives juridiquement contraignantes contre les exportateurs et/ou importateurs concernés.
 3.2.
 Si, sur la base des informations disponibles, les parties estiment que les dispositions du présent accord sont contournées, elles demandent l'ouverture immédiate de consultations.
 3.3.
 Dans l'attente des résultats des consultations visées au point 3.2, chaque partie prend, à titre conservatoire et/ou si l'autre partie l'exige, toute mesure nécessaire, prévue par la législation interne, pour suspendre ou refuser la délivrance du document d'exportation et du document de surveillance. La République de Moldova peut aussi envisager de retirer les documents d'exportation délivrés.
 3.4.
 Si les consultations visées au point 3.2 ne permettent pas aux parties de dégager une solution mutuellement satisfaisante, la Communauté a le droit de refuser l'importation des produits en cause, lorsqu'il est suffisamment prouvé qu'il y a eu fausse déclaration en ce qui concerne la description des quantités, le classement ou le pays d'origine.
 4.
 Les notifications prévues par la présente annexe doivent être adressées:
 —
 pour ce qui concerne la Communauté européenne, à la Commission des Communautés européennes,
 —
 pour ce qui concerne la Moldova, à la mission de la République de Moldova auprès des Communautés européennes.
 Appendice I
 7202
 7203
 7206
 7207
 7208
 7209
 7210
 7211
 7212
 7213
 7214
 7215
 7216
 7217
 7218
 7219
 7220
 7221
 7222
 7223
 7224
 7225
 7226
 7227
 7228
 7229
 7301
 7303
 7304
 7305
 7306
 7307
 7312
 Appendice II
 Appendice III
 Appendice IV
 MOLDOVA
 Dispositions techniques relatives à la mise en œuvre du système de double contrôle
 1.
 Les documents d'exportation doivent mesurer 210 × 297 mm. Le papier utilisé doit être du papier à lettre blanc encollé, ne contenant pas de pâte mécanique et pesant au minimum 25 g/m2. Ils sont imprimés en anglais. S'ils sont remplis à la main, les inscriptions doivent être portées à l'encre et en caractères d'imprimerie. Ces documents peuvent comporter des exemplaires supplémentaires dûment désignés comme tels. Lorsqu'ils comptent plusieurs exemplaires, seul le premier feuillet a valeur d'original. Ce feuillet est revêtu de la mention «original» et les autres exemplaires de la mention «copie». Les autorités communautaires compétentes n'acceptent que l'original pour contrôler l'exportation vers la Communauté européenne conformément aux dispositions du système de double contrôle.
 2.
 Chaque document est revêtu d'un numéro de série standardisé, imprimé ou non, permettant son identification. Ce numéro est constitué des éléments suivants:
 —
 deux lettres identifiant le pays d'exportation comme suit: MO = Moldova,
 —
 deux lettres identifiant l'État membre prévu pour le dédouanement comme suit:
 BE
 =
 Belgique
 DK
 =
 Danemark
 DE
 =
 Allemagne
 EL
 =
 Grèce
 ES
 =
 Espagne
 FR
 =
 France
 IE
 =
 Irlande
 IT
 =
 Italie
 LU
 =
 Luxembourg
 NL
 =
 Pays-Bas
 AT
 =
 Autriche
 PT
 =
 Portugal
 FI
 =
 Finlande
 SE
 =
 Suède
 GB
 =
 Royaume-Uni
 CZ
 =
 République tchèque
 EE
 =
 Estonie
 CY
 =
 Chypre
 LV
 =
 Lettonie
 LT
 =
 Lituanie
 HU
 =
 Hongrie
 MT
 =
 Malte
 PL
 =
 Pologne
 SI
 =
 Slovénie
 SK
 =
 République slovaque
 —
 un numéro à un chiffre indiquant l'année en question, correspondant au dernier chiffre du millésime, par exemple «4» pour 2004,
 —
 un numéro à deux chiffres allant de 01 à 99, identifiant le bureau de délivrance du pays exportateur,
 —
 un nombre à cinq chiffres allant de 00001 à 99999, alloué à l'État membre de dédouanement prévu.
 3.
 Les documents d'exportation sont valables pendant l'année civile au cours de laquelle ils ont été délivrés, comme le montre la case 3 du document d'exportation.
 4.
 La Moldova n'est pas tenue de faire figurer sur le document d'exportation des données de prix, mais cette information est fournie sur demande à la Commission.
 5.
 Les documents d'exportation peuvent être délivrés après expédition des produits auxquels ils se rapportent. En pareil cas, ils doivent être revêtus de la mention «délivré a posteriori».
 6.
 En cas de vol, de perte ou de destruction d'un document d'exportation, l'exportateur peut réclamer à l'autorité gouvernementale compétente qui a délivré le document un duplicata établi sur la base des documents d'exportation en sa possession. Le duplicata ainsi délivré doit être revêtu de la mention «duplicata». Il doit porter la date du document d'exportation.
 7.
 Les autorités compétentes de la Communauté européenne sont immédiatement informées du retrait ou de la modification d'un document d'exportation déjà délivré et, le cas échéant, des raisons qui ont motivé cette action.


text:
Willem Klaas Hoekzema (Bedum, 21 juli 1939) is een voormalig Nederlands politicus. Hij was burgemeester, staatssecretaris en lid van de Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal. Hoekzema is lid van de Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (VVD).
 Na zijn doctoraal examen Economische Wetenschappen aan de Universiteit van Groningen werd Hoekzema leraar economie bij de "Dalton-scholengemeenschap" in Den Haag. Vanaf 1974 werd de politieke interesse van Hoekzema groter en hij werd in dat jaar ook lid van Provinciale Staten van Utrecht en lid van de gemeenteraad van Rhenen.
 In 1975 werd hij benoemd tot burgemeester van Coevorden, waar hij initiatiefnemer was voor het Stedelijk Museum Drenthe's Veste en alwaar hij de middenstand en bevolking opriep geld in te zamelen voor Ganzen Geesje.
 Deze functie heeft hij tot 1982 vervuld, toen hij werd gevraagd als staatssecretaris van Defensie in Kabinet-Lubbers I. Na deze periode waarin hij een redelijk onopvallende staatssecretaris is geweest werd hij in 1987 burgemeester van Huizen. Na 8 jaar in Huizen actief te zijn geweest werd hij in 1995 gevraagd als burgemeester van Den Helder. Tot 2001 was hij actief als burgemeester van deze gemeente.
 Van 2003 tot 2007 was Hoekzema lid van de Eerste Kamer.
 Burgemeester van Coevorden
 Burgemeester van Den Helder
 Burgemeester van Huizen
 Eerste Kamerlid
 Nederlands partijvoorzitter
 Nederlands provinciaal politicus
 Nederlands staatssecretaris
 VVD-politicus


text:
São Cristóvão (em castelhano San Cristóbal) é uma das ilhas pertencentes ao conjunto das Galápagos. A ilha se estende por uma área de 558 km2. A capital do arquipélago, Puerto Baquerizo Moreno, fica localizada nesta ilha.
 São Cristóvão também é um cantão do Equador cuja capital localidade de Puerto Baquerizo Moreno. Além da própria ilha de São Cristóvão o cantão também abrange as ilhas de Española, Santa Fé, Floreana (Santa María) e Genovesa.
 Galeria de Fotos
 Ligações externas
 Governo municipal de São Cristóvão
 San Cristóbal
 San Cristobal


text:
Kóstas Katsouránis (kreeka Κώστας Κατσουράνης; õieti Konstantínos Katsouránis (Κατσουράνης Κωνσταντίνος)) (sündinud 21. juunil 1979) on kreeka endine jalgpallur, Kreeka jalgpallikoondise poolkaitsja, Euroopa meister (2004).
 Kreeka rahvuskoondises mängis Katsouránis aastatel 2002–2015 kokku 116 korda ja lõi 10 väravat. Debüüt koondises oli 20. augustil 2003.
 Klubid
 1996–2002 Panahaiki
 2002–2006 Ateena AEK
 2006–2009 SL Benfica
 2009–2012 Panathinaikos
 2012–2014 PAOK FC
 2014 Pune City
 2014–2015 Atromitos
 2015 Heidelberg United
 Saavutused
 2004 Euroopa meister
 Isiklikku
 Kóstas Katsouránis on 182 cm pikk ja kaalub 75 kg.
 Välislingid
 http://www.aekfc.gr/index.asp?a_id=67&p_id=1
 Kreeka jalgpallurid
 PAE Panathinaikόse jalgpallurid
 Lissaboni Benfica jalgpallurid
 Sündinud 1979


text:
VSC Sklep III Cpg 137/2018
 ECLI:SI:VSCE:2018:III.CPG.137.2018
 VSC00018214
 Irena Leskovšek Jurjec (preds.), Zdenka Pešec (poroč.), Maša Butenko
 tožba na ugotovitev ničnosti - tožba na ugotovitev ničnosti vpisa v sodni register - pravni interes - delitev poslovnega deleža
 Družbenik ima pravni interes, da se preveri zakonitost postopanja in veljavnost prodaje lastnega poslovnega deleža v kontradiktornem sodnem postopku, sicer je izvotljena njegova pravica do pravnega varstva.
 I. Pritožbam se ugodi, izpodbijani sklep se razveljavi in se zadeva vrne sodišču prve stopnje v nov postopek.
 II. Odločitev o stroških tega pritožbenega postopka se pridrži za končno odločbo.
 1. Sodišče prve stopnje je z v uvodu navedenim sklepom zavrglo tožbo (I. točka izreka). Zavrnilo je predlagano stransko intervencijo (II. točka izreka). Tožeči stranki je naložilo, da je dolžna povrniti prvemu tožencu 5.504,79 EUR in drugemu tožencu 5.446,42 EUR pravdnih stroškov (III. točka izreka). Ugotovilo je, da je tožnik s tožbo zahteval ugotovitev neobstoja, podredno ničnost pogodbe o odplačnem prenosu poslovnega deleža v družbi, sklenjene v notarskem zapisu SV 139/2016 z dne 29. 2. 2016, posledično ugotovitev ničnosti vpisa v sodni register na podlagi pogodbe. Z njo je prvi toženec odplačno prenesel na drugega toženca 29,9999 % lastnega poslovnega deleža. Tožnik je tekom postopka 15. 12. 2016 prodal večino svojega poslovnega deleža v prvem tožencu družbi iz A. na podlagi pogodbe o odsvojitvi dela poslovnega deleža. Tožniku so v prvem tožencu ostali trije poslovni deleži, ki skupaj znašajo 4,162 % in posledično 4,5 % glasovalnih pravic, v primeru uspeha v pravdi bi imel 6,7 % glasovalnih pravic. Omenjeno mu v primeru uspeha ne omogoča več večinskega vpliva na sprejemanje bistvenih odločitev glede poslovanja družbe (na pravico do upravljanja z družbo in sodelovanja v organih - članske pravice), česar se tožnik zaveda z navedbo, da večine ne bo več imel, v primeru uspeha pa bi imel več glasovalnih pravic. Sedanjih 4,5 % glasovalnih pravic bi v primeru uspeha v pravdi predstavljalo 6,7 %, kar je bistveno premalo, da bi lahko kakorkoli vplival na pomembnejše odločitve v družbi. Po trenutno veljavni družbeni pogodbi družbeniki odločajo na skupščini z večino oddanih glasov, če zakon ali pogodba ne določata drugače. S tričetrtinsko večino glasov se odloča o spremembi družbene pogodbe, zmanjšanju in povečanju osnovnega kapitala, statusnih spremembah in prenehanju družbe, izključitvi prednostne pravice družbenikov pri prevzemu novih vložkov in v primerih, ko določa zakon. Tožnik se je s prodajo večine poslovnega deleža nehote odpovedal pravnemu interesu, saj je zmotno menil, da bo z majhnim preostankom kot družbenik lahko obdržal (nadaljeval) pravdo z enakim ugotovitvenim zahtevkom.
 2. Zoper ta sklep sodišča prve stopnje vlagajo pritožbe tožnik po pooblaščeni odvetniški pisarni in po odvetniški družbi ter stranski intervenient po pooblaščeni odvetniški pisarni iz vseh pritožbenih razlogov po prvem odstavku 338. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju: ZPP) v zvezi s prvim odstavkom 366. člena ZPP.
 O pritožbi tožnika po pooblaščeni odvetniški pisarni z dne 28. 6. 2018:
 3. V pritožbi navaja, da gre za problem poseganja poslovodstva oziroma družbe v določene kompetence, to je pravice družbenikov, ki niso posebej zaščitene z zakonom ali pogodbo. Tožba actio negatoria v korporacijskem pravu je vedno naperjena zoper tista dejanja poslovodstva družbe, ki v osnovi zahtevajo soglasje družbenikov oziroma sklepov. To so tista razmerja, v katera je v nasprotju z bistvom družbenih odnosov poseglo poslovodstvo brez soglasja skupščine ali družbenikov. V konkretnem primeru gre za tipičen primer actio negatoria, ki ga pravna teorija obravnava kot varovalno sredstvo družbenika, ki je materialno oškodovan s prodajo lastnega deleža, v katerem je del njegovega premoženja, in sočasno s kršitvijo zakona, ker je prodan lastni delež družbe brez znanja in soglasja družbenikov bistveno pod vrednostjo in so spremenjena razmerja med družbeniki. Varuje se celotnost obstoječega razmerja v družbi pred nedovoljenimi posegi mimo volje družbenikov, kot je v tem primeru, katero je sodišče obravnavalo enostransko brez upoštevanja ogroženosti celotnega dogovorjenega in pravno urejenega sistema pred ravnanjem prokurista, ko je v nasprotju z zakonom prodal lastni poslovni delež. Tožnik izkazuje pravni interes, da se ugotovi, da je pogodba o prodaji lastnega poslovnega deleža nična oziroma iz njegovih trditev je razbrati, da gre za neobstoječ pravni posel, saj so bile pri sklenitvi pogodbe kršene pomembne določbe Zakona o gospodarskih družbah (v nadaljevanju: ZGD-1). Prodaja lastnega poslovnega deleža ni bila ponujena obstoječim družbenikom, ki bi lahko v enakem razmerju uveljavljali prednostno pravico do nakupa dela lastnega poslovnega deleža in ohranili enaka razmerja, kot so bila pred tem. Če so ob sklenitvi podane kršitve, ki jih je tožnik navajal, pogodba ni nastala ne v dejanskem ne pravnem smislu. Ugotovitvena tožba bi morala biti dopustna, ko je tožnik v negotovosti glede svojega pravnega položaja in s tem izkazuje pravni interes. Ta negotovost še vedno obstaja, saj je nihče ni odpravil. Tožnik je poskusil z ugovorom v registrskem postopku, vendar je bil zavrnjen z obrazložitvijo, da je registrski postopek zgolj formalne in deklaratorne narave ter da mora začeti pravdni (gospodarski) postopek, v katerem bo uveljavljal ničnost prodaje. Ko je vložil tožbo na ničnost, je sodišče zavrglo tožbo, češ da nima pravnega interesa. Na kakšen način naj preveri zakonitost posla? Ali je zakonska ureditev takšna, da v teh primerih lahko nekdo počne kar hoče in zato ni nobene sankcije? Sodišče je z zavrženjem tožbe storilo to, da je postala pravica do pravnega sredstva za tožnika izvotljena. S tem je sodišče nudilo pravno varstvo zlorabi gospodarskih pravil, zlasti pravil med družbeniki.
 O pritožbi tožnika po pooblaščeni odvetniški družbi z dne 2. 7. 2018:
 4. V pritožbi navaja, da smiselno enako, kot v zadevi Vrhovnega sodišča RS III Ips 243/2018, velja za primer nezakonite prodaje lastnega poslovnega deleža, ki je v primerjavi z ostalimi pravnimi situacijami specifična, saj je lastni delež kategorija, ki dejansko spreminja razmerja med družbeniki, zato se tiče vseh družbenikov in bi se posledično moralo o razpolaganju odločati na skupščini. Zato ima vsak družbenik pravni interes za izpodbijanje pravnega posla, s katerim se nezakonito spreminjajo dejanska razmerja med upravljalskimi upravičenji družbenikov. Dr. Zabel v Velikem komentarju ZGD-1 zastopa stališče, da je v tem primeru družba dolžna ponuditi prodajo lastnega deleža družbenikom. Družba mora pred pridobitvijo lastnega poslovnega deleža oblikovati rezerve za lastne deleže, ki se ustvarjajo iz dobička ali iz vsakokratnega dobička, iz katerega oblikuje rezerve za lastni delež, namesto da dobiček izplača družbenikom. Pridobivanje lastnih poslovnih deležev in razpolaganje je v domeni upravljalskih odločitev, ne poslovnih. Odločanje o lastnih poslovnih deležih zadeva strukturo družbe, za katero je pristojna skupščina. Razmerja med družbeniki so bolj osebna in zato je pri vprašanjih razpolaganja z lastnimi poslovnimi deleži pomembna vloga družbenikov, ne poslovodstva, v nobenem primeru to ni v pristojnosti prokurista. Dr. Kocbek posebej poudarja, da se nakup ali prodaja poslovnega deleža ne more opraviti brez soglasja drugih družbenikov oziroma ustreznega sklepa skupščine. Da gre pri lastnem deležu za sredstva, ki so jih zagotovili družbeniki, jasno potrjuje stališče dr. Kocbeka, da je za varovanje upnikov treba zagotoviti oblikovanje lastnega deleža z vnaprejšnjim oblikovanjem rezerv za lastne deleže, katere se oblikuje iz razpoložljivih, nevezanih kategorij lastnega kapitala, ki so sicer na voljo družbenikom za delitev v okviru udeležbe družbe. Ob odsotnosti sklepa družbenikov o prodaji lastnega poslovnega deleža ima vsak družbenik pravni interes za izpodbijanje prodaje, saj manjka bistvena procesna predpostavka za zakonitost prodaje, to je sklep družbenikov. Smiselno enako velja za sklep družbenikov o delitvi poslovnega deleža. Prvi toženec je drugemu tožencu z izpodbijano pogodbo prodal zgolj del lastnega poslovnega deleža in ne celotnega. ZGD-1 v četrti alineji 505. člena določa, da družbeniki odločajo o delitvi in prenehanju poslovnih deležev. Pomeni, da bi morala skupščina prvega toženca odločati, ali se lahko lastni poslovni delež deli. Ker skupščina ni o tem odločala, prvi toženec ni mogel prodati zgolj dela lastnega poslovnega deleža in je takšna prodaja v nasprotju s kogentnimi določbami ZGD-1. Glede na to, da je za prodajo dela poslovnega deleža potreben sklep skupščine o delitvi poslovnega deleža, ima ob odsotnosti sklepa vsak družbenik pravni interes za izpodbijanje prodaje, saj je to edini način, da se prepreči nezakonita prodaja oziroma da se sanira nezakonito stanje. Vsako drugačno stališče pomeni negacijo pravice do sodnega varstva.
 O pritožbi stranskega intervenienta:
 5. V pritožbi navaja, da bi bilo nelogično, da bi imel vsak delničar z eno delnico pravico uveljavljati ničnost vsakega sklepa skupščine ne glede na to kako pomembna ali nepomembna je vsebina sklepa, moral pa bi posebej izkazovati in dokazovati pravni interes za uveljavljanje ničnosti pravnega posla, ki bolj posega v korporacijskopravni položaj družbenika. Pravni interes za uveljavljanje ničnosti odsvojitve lastnega poslovnega deleža gre priznati vsakemu družbeniku ne glede na velikost deleža, saj je to edina možna oblika sodnega varstva pravice družbenika, to je prednostne pravice do novih delnic in deležev. O delitvi poslovnega deleža odločajo družbeniki na skupščini, tako po ZGD-1 kot po družbeni pogodbi. Tožena stranka, družba, je odsvojila samo del poslovnega deleža, kar pomeni, da se je prej enoten poslovni delež razdelil brez potrebne odločitve skupščine. Če bi bil takšen predlog sklepa dan na glasovanje, sploh ne bi bil sprejet, ker je tožnik imel večino glasov na skupščini. Tudi če bi bil sprejet, bi tožnik imel pravico do sodnega varstva, uveljavljanja neveljavnosti skupščinskega sklepa. Zakon je nudil tožniku sodno varstvo zoper morebiten sklep skupščine o razdelitvi lastnega poslovnega deleža in to brez preizkušanja pravnega interesa, ki je imanenten imetništvu poslovnega deleža. Če se sledi nesprejemljivi odločitvi sodišča prve stopnje, ima družbenik pravni interes uveljavljati ničnost sklepa skupščine o razdelitvi lastnega poslovnega deleža preden se novo nastali lastni poslovni delež odsvoji, nima pa pravnega interesa uveljavljati ničnosti odsvojitve novo nastalega lastnega poslovnega deleža, glede katerega bi morala odločati skupščina pa ni odločala oziroma je zastopnik družbe prekršil zakonsko pravilo. To je absurdna situacija in nesprejemljiva tako z vidika postulatov prava gospodarskih družb (prednostna pravica, enako obravnavanje, pristojnosti skupščine) kot z vidika ustavne pravice do sodnega varstva.
 6. Pravdne stranke so po pooblaščencih odgovorile na pritožbe.
 O odgovorih prvega toženca:
 7. V odgovoru na pritožbi tožnika navaja, da s sklenitvijo pogodbe niso bile kršene pravice zakona, prav tako ni bil kršen zakon. Družbeniki so s sprejemom družbene pogodbe seznanjeni, da je izključena njihova predkupna pravica pri prodaji lastnega poslovnega deleža. Vsled česar je neutemeljeno zatrjevanje, da družbeniki niso bili obveščeni o nameravani prodaji, vsled česar je prišlo do vstopa novega družbenika. Prav tako je iz listin spisa razvidno, da je bil tožnik seznanjen z možnostjo prodaje lastnega poslovnega deleža, čeprav predkupna pravica družbenikov ne obstaja pa zoper slednja ni ugovarjal do vložitve tožbe. Lastni poslovni delež je premoženje družbe, s katerim lahko družba prosto razpolaga ob upoštevanju zakona in družbene pogodbe. Neutemeljeno je zatrjevanje, da bi bilo potrebno za prodajo pridobiti predhodno soglasje skupščine. Kolikor bi držalo, bi dejansko pomenilo, da bi za kakršnokoli prodajo premoženja potrebovala sklep skupščine. Temu ni tako. Prvi toženec ni potreboval sklepa skupščine za razdelitev lastnega poslovnega deleža. 505. člen ZGD-1 je dispozitivne narave, ker je v drugem odstavku 504. člena ZGD-1 predpisano, da se uporablja le, če družbeniki upravljanja v družbeni pogodbi ne uredijo drugače. Če družbena pogodba ureja pristojnosti družbenikov, pa med njimi ni odločanja o delitvi poslovnih deležev, je delitev mogoča na podlagi odločitve o delitvi konkretnega družbenika, zakoncev oziroma dedičev in ni potreben sklep skupščine, razen če je v družbeni pogodbi delitev prepovedana. Ker družbena pogodba ne določa posebne določbe glede odločanja o delitvi poslovnih deležev, ni zavezana k sprejemu sklepa in je prodaja lastnega poslovnega deleža zakonita.
 8. V odgovoru na pritožbo stranskega intervenienta navaja, da predstavlja nujnost sprejema sklepa o delitvi poslovnega deleža izjemo - pristojnost se prenese na skupščino, kolikor ni drugače dogovorjeno z družbeno pogodbo. Slednje je primer zadeve. Na skupščini z dne 27. 6. 2018 je bil sprejet sklep o odobritvi delitve lastnega poslovnega deleža. Družbeniki so bili s sprejemom družbene pogodbe seznanjeni, da je izključena njihova predkupna pravica pri prodaji lastnega poslovnega deleža, vsled česar je neutemeljeno zatrjevanje o kršitvi pravice.
 O odgovorih drugega toženca:
 9. V odgovoru na pritožbi tožnika navaja, da je za nakup poslovnega deleža v prvem tožencu podal pisno ponudbo, katera je bila s strani prvega toženca sprejeta. Svoje obveznosti iz izpodbijane pogodbe je izpolnil. Poslovni deleži so prosto prenosljivi in družbeniki pri odsvojitvi nimajo predkupne pravice. Enako velja za lastni poslovni delež, ki ga lahko družba odsvoji kadarkoli, kot svoje premoženje. Za odsvojitev premoženja se ne potrebuje soglasje skupščine. Takšnega določila nima družbena pogodba. Družbena pogodba določa o katerih zadevah odloča skupščina. Med temi ni določila, da odloča o prodaji lastnega ali delitvi lastnega poslovnega deleža, kar pomeni, da za prodajo ni potrebno soglasje skupščine. Določilo 505. člena ZGD-1 v povezavi z drugim odstavkom 504. člena ZGD-1 je dispozitivne narave.
 10. V odgovoru na pritožbo stranskega intervenienta navaja, da pravna interesa tožnika in stranskega intervenienta nista enaka. Pri prodaji poslovnega deleža družbeniki v skladu z družbeno pogodbo nimajo predkupne pravice, o delitvi poslovnega deleža ni potrebno odločati skupščini.
 O odgovoru stranskega intervenienta na pritožbi tožnika:
 11. V odgovoru navaja, da se v celoti pridružuje pritožbenim navedbam in predlogom tožnika.
 O odgovoru tožnika na pritožbo stranskega intervenienta:
 12. V odgovoru navaja, da pritrjuje navedbam in stališčem stranskega intervenienta ter v zvezi z utemeljitvijo pravnega interesa za tožbo in posledično pravnega interesa stranskega intervenienta vlaga strokovno mnenje prof. dr. P. P. Iz mnenja, ki naj se šteje za del trditvene podlage tožnika, v bistvenem izhaja, da v teoriji korporacijskega prava ni večjih dilem, da je za odsvojitev lastnega poslovnega deleža potreben sklep družbenikov. Če za poslovodjo velja, da lahko odsvoji lastni delež zgolj na podlagi sklepa družbenikov, to toliko bolj velja za prokurista. Za utemeljitev pravnega interesa za vložitev ničnostne tožbe po pravilih registrskega prava posameznega družbenika zadošča, da je bila kršena alokacija pristojnosti med organi družbe, ne glede na to, za katero pristojnost gre. Iz navedenega izhaja, da ima vsak družbenik pravni interes za ničnostno tožbo po pravilih registrskega prava. Posledično pomeni, da je podan pravni interes družbenika za stransko intervencijo.
 Odločitev o pritožbah:
 13. Pritožbe so utemeljene.
 14. Sodišče prve stopnje je v izreku in obrazložitvi povzelo kakšen tožbeni zahtevek uveljavlja tožnik: (1.) da se ugotovi, da je pogodba o odplačnem prenosu poslovnega deleža v družbi (prvem tožencu) v notarskem zapisu med toženima strankama neobstoječa oziroma podredno, da je pogodba nična ter (2.) da se ugotovi, da je ničen vpis pridobitelja poslovnega deleža (drugega toženca) v sodni register. Za slednji zahtevek po tožbi za ugotovitev ničnosti vpisa določa prvi odstavek 41. člena Zakona o sodnem registru (v nadaljevanju: ZSReg) v primeru, če je bil vpis opravljen na podlagi lažne ali neveljavne listine, če so v listini, na podlagi katere je bil opravljen vpis, navedeni neresnični podatki, če je bila listina izdana v nezakonito izvedenem postopku, če je bilo nezakonito izvedeno dejanje, o katerem se vpisujejo podatki v sodni register, ali če obstajajo drugi v zakonu določeni razlogi, se lahko s tožbo zahteva ugotovitev, da je vpis ničen. Torej je obema zahtevkoma imanentno ugotavljanje ali je pogodba veljavna, se pravi ali je bila sklenjena na zakonit način. Za ugotovitveno tožbo določa drugi odstavek 181. člena ZPP, da se lahko vloži, če je tako določeno s posebnimi predpisi, če ima tožeča stranka pravno korist od tega, da se ugotovi obstoj oziroma neobstoj kakšne pravice ali pravnega razmerja ali pristnost oziroma nepristnost kakšne listine, preden zapade dajatveni zahtevek iz takega razmerja, ali če ima tožeča stranka kakšno drugo pravno korist od vložitve take tožbe. Tudi za tožbo na ugotovitev ničnosti vpisa določa drugi odstavek 41. člena ZSReg, da jo lahko vloži oseba, ki ima pravni interes, da se ugotovi ničnost vpisa.
 15. Tožnik je res v tožbi in v pripravljalnih vlogah zatrjeval vpliv prodaje lastnega poslovnega deleža na zmanjšanje njegovih glasovalnih pravic, na kar se je oprlo sodišče prve stopnje. Vendar so bolj kot te pomembne trditve o neveljavnosti pogodbe v pripravljalnih vlogah z dne 29. 9. 2017, 30. 11. 2017 in 21. 12. 2017. Te v bistvenem ponavlja v pritožbah. Sporno prodajo je izvedel prokurist, ki je moral najprej razdeliti enovit lastni poslovni delež 38,15 % na dva 29,99 % (prodani) in 8,15 % v osnovnem kapitalu prvega toženca. Za delitev poslovnih deležev določa četrta alineja 505. člena ZGD-1, da odločajo družbeniki na skupščini, kar je sporno. Prav tako je sporen sam akt prodaje po prokuristu: ali je smel to storiti samostojno ali pa bi potreboval sklep skupščine. Stvar razlage oziroma dokazovanja je, ali velja izključitev predkupne pravice v skladu z družbeno pogodbo tudi za prodajo lastnega poslovnega deleža, s čemer se sodišče prve stopnje ni ukvarjalo. Tožnik utemeljeno navaja, da ima kot družbenik pravni interes, da se preveri zakonitost postopanja in veljavnost prodaje lastnega poslovnega deleža v kontradiktornem sodnem postopku, sicer je izvotljena njegova pravica do pravnega varstva. V tem primeru zaradi zatrjevanih kršitev delitve pristojnosti med organi družbe in tu je njegov pravni interes za oba ugotovitvena zahtevka.
 16. Pomemben je tudi korporacijski vidik pravice družbenika do pravnega varstva. Če bi prokurist pred aktom prodaje pridobil sklep skupščine o delitvi lastnega poslovnega deleža ter prodaji, bi imel tožnik kot družbenik tudi z neznatnim poslovnim deležem pravico do uveljavljanja ničnosti oziroma izpodbojnosti sklepa skupščine (prva alineja 7. odstavka 395. člena ZGD-1 v zvezi s 522. člen ZGD-1). Če bi nato prokurist kljub vloženi tožbi družbenika ali morda že ugodilni sodbi sodišča sklenil prodajno pogodbo z drugim tožencem, bi bilo težko reči, da družbenik ne bi imel pravnega interesa še za tožbo z zahtevkom, kot ga je vložil1. Tako pa ko naj bi dejansko prišlo do obida skupščine tožnik sploh ni imel možnosti uveljavljati ničnosti ali izpodbojnosti sklepa skupščine in po izpodbijanem stališču tudi ne pravice do tožbe zoper stranki pravnega posla, ki temelji na domnevno spornem dejanju prokurista oziroma neobstoječem sklepu skupščine. Gre za primerljiva pravna položaja in ta je potrebno primerljivo obravnavati. Če drži prejšnja teza o pravnem interesu vsakega družbenika za tožbo za ugotavljanje neobstoja, podredno ničnosti akta prodaje in ugotovitve ničnosti vpisa kadar prokurist kljub vloženi tožbi družbenika ali celo sodbi sodišča o ničnosti oziroma izpodbojnosti sklepa skupščine o delitvi in prodaji lastnega poslovnega deleža sklene pogodbo o njegovi prodaji, potem ima vsak družbenik pravni interes za to isto tožbo, če skupščine sploh ni bilo, pa bi po tožbenih trditvah morala biti. Ali te držijo, je stvar vsebinskega sojenja. Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom zmotno uporabilo materialno pravo in zaradi tega nepopolno ugotovilo dejansko stanje. Sodišče druge stopnje je ocenilo, da glede na naravo stvari in okoliščine primera, zlasti zaradi zagotavljanja pravice do pritožbe po 25. členu Ustave RS, ne more samo dopolniti postopka oziroma odpraviti omenjene pomanjkljivosti. Ugodilo je pritožbama tožnika in posledično pritožbi stranskega intervenienta, razveljavilo izpodbijani sklep sodišča prve stopnje in mu zadevo vrnilo v nov postopek (prvi odstavek 355. člena ZPP v zvezi s 3. točko 365. člena ZPP). Odločitev ne bo povzročila hujše kršitve strankine pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja, ker sodišče prve stopnje še ni meritorno obravnavalo zadeve in ni ugotavljalo dejstev, za kar bo potrebno izvesti (po strankah predlagani obsežni) dokazni postopek. V nasprotnem bi sodišče druge stopnje prevzelo njegovo vlogo in strankam odvzelo ustavno pravico do pritožbe zoper končno odločbo sodišča.
 17. V novem postopku postopku naj sodišče prve stopnje vsebinsko obravnava tožbo.
 18. Odločitev o stroških tega pritožbenega postopka se pridrži za končno odločbo (tretji odstavek 165. člena ZPP).
 1 Sodišče prve stopnje se do tega sicer ni opredelilo.
 Zakon o pravdnem postopku (1999) - ZPP - člen 181, 181/2
 Zakon o sodnem registru (1994) - ZSReg - člen 41, 41/1, 41/2
 Zakon o gospodarskih družbah (2006) - ZGD-1 - člen 505
 VSC Sklep III Cpg 96/2018
 Sklep III Ips 71/2002
 P2RvYy0yMDE1MDgxMTExNDI1MTM0


text:
Χόβαβαρτ (Hovawart) είναι γερμανική φυλή σκύλων. Είναι σχετικά νέα φυλή, το όνομα της οποίας προήλθε από το Μεσαίωνα. Το όνομα αυτής της φυλής προέρχεται από το "Hofewart" - σκυλί φρουράς αριστοκρατίας και "Hof" - η αυλή και "warten" - φρουρά.
 Εμφάνιση
 Το Χόβαβαρτ είναι μεγάλο και μέσου ύψους σκυλί. Έχει χρωματικές ποικιλίες και εμφανίζεται σε ξανθό, μαύρο και καφέ-μαύρο. Τα αρσενικά είναι 64-70 εκ. και τα θηλυκά 58-65 εκ. Το βάρος τους είναι 30-40 κιλά.
 Ιδιοσυγκρασία
 Το Χόβαβαρτ είναι σκυλί με γαλήνιο χαρακτήρα και αποτελεί άριστη φρουρά. Χαρακτηρίζεται από αυτοπεποίθηση και ζωηράδα. Δεν είναι άγριο, αλλά ταυτόχρονα χαίρεται να υπερασπίζει τον κύριό του και την οικογένεια και την ιδιοκτησία του. Γίνονται άριστοι οικογενειακοί σκύλοι, δεδομένου ότι αφιερώνονται συνολικά στην οικογένειά τους. Το Χόβαβαρτ αγαπά τα παιδιά.
 Εξωτερικοί σύνδεσμοι
 Φυλές σκύλων