type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21976A1129(03)
 Avtal i form av utbyte av brev om ändring av tabell I, bilagd protokoll 2 till avtalet mellan Europeiska ekonomiska gemenskapen och Island
 Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning nr L 298 , 28/10/1976 s. 0016 - 0021 Finsk specialutgåva Område 2 Volym 2 s. 0072 Svensk specialutgåva Område 2 Volym 2 s. 0072 "Grekisk specialutgåva" Område 11 Volym 8 s. 0177 Spansk specialutgåva: Område 11 Volym 6 s. 0166 Portugisisk specialutgåva: Område 11 Volym 6 s. 0166
 AVTAL i form av utbyte av brev om ändring av tabell I, bilagd protokoll 2 till Avtalet mellan Europeiska ekonomiska gemenskapen och IslandBryssel, . . . . . . .Herr Ambassadör"Kontraktsparterna i avtalet mellan Europeiska ekonomiska gemenskapen och Island, undertecknat den 22 juli 1972 har i Gemensamma kommittén undersökt möjligheten av att göra vissa ändringar i tabell I som är bilagd protokoll 2 till ovanstående avtal. De föreslagna ändringarna är angivna i bilaga 1.Jag har äran att för Er bekräfta gemenskapens godkännande av ändringarna och jag föreslår att de träder i kraft den 1 januari 1977. Jag skulle vara tacksam om Ni ville bekräfta Er regerings godkännande av ändringarna och av den föreslagna dagen för deras ikraftträdande.Vidare skulle jag vilja ta tillfället i akt att upplysa Er om att icke kristalliserbart sorbitol har överförts från nummer 29.04 till nummer 38.19 i Gemensamma tulltaxan. Eftersom denna vara finns förtecknad i tabell I i protokoll 2 till avtalet mellan gemenskapen och Ert land, vore det av praktiska skäl önskvärt att anpassa tullförteckningarna i avtalet. Dessa anpassningar anges i bilaga 2. Denna ändring av numret påverkar inte på något sätt tullbehandlingen enligt protokoll 2 för den aktuella varan."Mottag, herr Ambassadör, försäkran om min utmärkta högaktning.På Europeiska gemenskapernas råds vägnarBILAGA 1Ändringar som skall göras i protokoll 2 till avtalet mellan Europeiska ekonomiska gemenskapen och IslandTabell I skall ändras på följande sätt:- I undernummer 29.16 A ex VIII, andra, skall beskrivningen ersättas med följande:Tysk text:ex VIII. andere:- Glycerinsäure, Glykolsäure, Zuckersäure, Isozuckersäure, Heptazuckersäure, ihre Salze und Ester.Engelsk text:ex VIII. Other:- Glyceric acid, glycolic acid, saccharic acid, isosaccharic acid, acide heptasaccharic acid, their salts and esters.Fransk text:ex VIII. autres:- Acide glycérique, acide glycolique, acide saccharique, acide isosaccharique, acide heptasaccarique, leurs sels et leurs esters.Italiensk text:ex VIII. altri:- Acido glicerico, acido glicolico, acido saccarico, acido isosaccarico, acido eptasaccarico, loro sali e loro esteri.Nederländsk text:ex VIII. andere:- Glycerinezuur, glycolzuur, suikerzuur, isosuikerzuur, heptasuikerzuur, alsmede zouten en esters daarvan.Den danska texten är oförändrad.BILAGA 2Ändringar som skall göras i protokoll 2 till avtalet mellan Europeiska ekonomiska gemenskapen och IslandTabell I skall ändras på följande sätt:- I nummer 38.19 skall undernummerex T. Andra:ersättas med följande:>Plats för tabell>Bryssel, . . . . . .HerrJag har äran att bekräfta mottagandet av Ert brev av idag med följande ordalydelse."Kontraktsparterna i avtalet mellan Europeiska ekonomiska gemenskapen och Island, undertecknat den 22 juli 1972 har i Gemensamma kommittén undersökt möjligheten att göra vissa ändringar i tabell I som är bilagd protokoll 2 till ovanstående avtal. De föreslagna ändringarna är angivna i bilaga 1.Jag har äran att för Er bekräfta gemenskapens godkännande av ändringarna och jag föreslår att de träder i kraft den 1 januari 1977. Jag skulle vara tacksam om Ni ville bekräfta Er regerings godkännande av ändringarna och av den föreslagna dagen för deras ikraftträdande.Vidare skulle jag vilja ta tillfället i akt att upplysa Er om att icke kristalliserbart sorbitol har överförts från nummer 29.04 till nummer 38.19 i Gemensamma tulltaxan. Eftersom denna vara finns förtecknad i tabell I i protokoll 2 till avtalet mellan gemenskapen och Ert land, vore det av praktiska skäl önskvärt att anpassa tullförteckningarna i avtalet. Dessa anpassningar anges i bilaga 2. Denna ändring av numret påverkar inte på något sätt tullbehandlingen enligt protokoll 2 för den aktuella varan."Jag har äran att bekräfta att min regering är införstådd med innehållet i Ert brev och den föreslagna dagen för ändringarnas ikraftträdande.Mottag, herr . . . . . . . . . . . ., försäkran om min utmärkta högaktning.På den isländska regeringens vägnarBILAGA 1Ändringar som skall göras i protokoll 2 till avtalet mellan Europeiska ekonomiska gemenskapen och IslandTabell I skall ändras på följande sätt:- I undernummer 29.16 A ex VIII, andra, skall beskrivningen ersättas med följande:Tysk text:ex VIII. andere:- Glycerinsäure, Glykolsäure, Zuckersäure, Isozuckersäure, Heptazuckersäure, ihre Salze und Ester.Engelsk text:ex VIII. Other:- Glyceric acid, glycolic acid, saccharic acid, isosaccharic acid, acide heptasaccharic acid, their salts and esters.Fransk text:ex VIII. autres:- Acide glycérique, acide glycolique, acide saccharique, acide isosaccharique, acide heptasaccarique, leurs sels et leurs esters.Italiensk text:ex VIII. altri:- Acido glicerico, acido glicolico, acido saccarico, acido isosaccarico, acido eptasaccarico, loro sali e loro esteri.Nederländsk text:ex VIII. andere:- Glycerinezuur, glycolzuur, suikerzuur, isosuikerzuur, heptasuikerzuur, alsmede zouten en esters daarvan.Den danska texten är oförändrad.BILAGA 2Ändringar som skall göras i protokoll 2 till avtalet mellan Europeiska ekonomiska gemenskapen och IslandTabell I skall ändras på följande sätt:- I nummer 38.19 skall undernummerex T. Andra:ersättas med följande:>Plats för tabell>


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' Issue Date\n July 30, 2009\n Audit Report Number\n 2009-PH-1011\n\n\n\n\nTO: Dennis G. Bellingtier, Director, Office of Public Housing, Pennsylvania State\n Office, 3APH\n\n\nFROM: John P. Buck, Regional Inspector General for Audit, Philadelphia Region, 3AGA\n\nSUBJECT: The Wilmington Housing Authority, Wilmington, Delaware, Did Not Ensure\n That Its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Units Met Housing\n Quality Standards\n\n\n HIGHLIGHTS\n\n What We Audited and Why\n\n We audited the Wilmington Housing Authority\xe2\x80\x99s (Authority) administration of its\n housing quality standards inspection program for its Section 8 Housing Choice\n Voucher program as part of our fiscal year 2009 audit plan. The audit objective\n was to determine whether the Authority adequately administered its Section 8\n housing quality standards inspection program to ensure that its program units met\n housing quality standards in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and\n Urban Development (HUD) requirements.\n\n\n What We Found\n\n The Authority did not adequately administer its inspection program to ensure that\n its program units met housing quality standards as required. We inspected 60\n housing units and found that 52 units did not meet HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality\n standards. Moreover, 37 of the 52 units materially failed to meet housing quality\n standards. The units had significant health and safety violations that the\n\x0c Authority\xe2\x80\x99s inspectors did not observe or report during their last inspection. The\n Authority spent $66,934 in program and administrative funds for these 37 units.\n\n We estimate that over the next year if the Authority does not implement adequate\n procedures and controls to ensure that its program units meet housing quality\n standards, HUD will pay more than $1.9 million in housing assistance on units\n with material housing quality standards violations.\n\n\nWhat We Recommend\n\n We recommend that the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Pennsylvania State Office of Public\n Housing require the Authority to ensure that housing units inspected during the\n audit are repaired to meet HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality standards, reimburse its\n program from nonfederal funds for the improper use of $66,934 in program and\n administrative funds for units that materially failed to meet HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing\n quality standards, and implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that\n in the future, program units meet housing quality standards to prevent an\n estimated $1.9 million from being spent annually on units that materially fail to\n meet HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality standards.\n\n For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and\n provide status reports in accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-3.\n Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the\n audit.\n\nAuditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n\n We provided our discussion draft audit report to the Authority on June 18, 2009.\n We discussed the audit results with the Authority during the audit and at an exit\n conference on July 7, 2009. The Authority provided written comments to our\n draft report on July 10, 2009. The complete text of the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s response,\n along with our evaluation of that response, can be found in appendix B of this\n report.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nBackground and Objective 4\n\nResults of Audit\n Finding: Controls over Housing Quality Standards Were Inadequate 5\n\nScope and Methodology 12\n\nInternal Controls 14\n\nAppendixes\n A. Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds to Be Put to Better Use 16\n B. Auditee Comments and OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Evaluation 17\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE\n\nThe Wilmington Housing Authority (Authority) was created in March 1938 when the Delaware\nState Board of Housing determined that there was a need for a housing authority in the city of\nWilmington. The Authority is governed by an eight-member board of commissioners. The\ncurrent executive director is Frederick Purnell. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s main administrative office is\nlocated at 400 North Walnut Street, Wilmington, Delaware.\n\nUnder the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, the Authority makes rental assistance\npayments to landlords on behalf of eligible low-income families. The U.S. Department of\nHousing and Urban Development (HUD) compensates the Authority for the cost of\nadministering the program through administrative fees.\n\nHUD authorized the Authority to provide leased housing assistance payments for 1,427 eligible\nhouseholds. HUD authorized the Authority the following financial assistance for fiscal years\n2006 through 2008:\n\n\n Authority fiscal Annual budget\n year authority Disbursed\n 2006 $8,592,513 $8,592,513\n 2007 $9,701,262 $9,701,262\n 2008 $9,670,371 $9,670,371\n Totals $27,964,146 $27,964,146\n\nHUD regulations at 24 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 982.305(a)(2) state that the public\nhousing authority may not give approval for the family of the assisted tenancy or execute a\nhousing assistance contract until the authority has determined that the unit has been inspected by\nthe authority and meets HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality standards.\n\nHUD regulations at 24 CFR 982.405(a) require public housing authorities to perform unit\ninspections before the initial move-in and at least annually. The authority must inspect the unit\nleased to the family before the term of the lease, at least annually during assisted occupancy, and\nat other times as needed to determine whether the unit meets housing quality standards.\n\nThe audit objective was to determine whether the Authority adequately administered its Section\n8 housing quality standards inspection program to ensure that its program units met housing\nquality standards in accordance with HUD requirements. As part of this audit, we also reviewed\nthe Authority\xe2\x80\x99s waiting list procedures. Minor findings noted in relation to the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s\nwaiting list procedures were separately communicated to the Authority in a letter, dated July 10,\n2009.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c RESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nFinding: Controls over Housing Quality Standards Were Inadequate\nThe Authority did not adequately enforce HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality standards. Of 60 program\nunits selected for inspection, 52 did not meet HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality standards, and 37\nmaterially failed to meet housing quality standards. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s inspectors did not observe\nor report 373 health and safety violations which existed at the units when they conducted their\ninspections. The deficiencies occurred because the Authority did not ensure that its inspectors\nhad sufficient knowledge of housing quality standards requirements and consistently followed\nthe requirements. The Authority also did not implement an effective quality control inspection\nprocess. As a result, it spent $66,934 in program and administrative funds on units that\nmaterially failed to meet HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality standards and, consequently, were not decent,\nsafe, and sanitary. By implementing adequate procedures and controls the Authority could\nensure that its program units meet HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality standards to prevent an estimated $1.9\nmillion in program funds from being spent annually on units that materially fail to meet housing\nquality standards.\n\n\n\n Section 8 Tenant-Based\n Housing Units Were Not in\n Compliance with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\n Housing Quality Standards\n\n\n We statistically selected 60 units from unit inspections passed by the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s\n inspectors during the period August 2008 to January 2009. The 60 units were\n selected to determine whether the Authority ensured that the units in its program\n met housing quality standards. We inspected the selected units between\n February 17 and February 26, 2009.\n\n Of the 60 units inspected, 52 (87 percent) had 719 housing quality standards\n violations. Additionally, 37 of the 60 units (62 percent) were considered to be in\n material noncompliance because they had significant health and safety violations\n that predated the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s last inspection and were not identified by the\n Authority\xe2\x80\x99s inspectors and/or repaired. The 37 units had 373 health and safety\n violations that existed before the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s last inspection report and were not\n identified by the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s inspectors. HUD regulations at 24 CFR 982.401\n require that all program housing meet HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality standards at the\n beginning of the assisted occupancy and throughout the tenancy.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cThe following table categorizes the 719 housing quality standards violations in\nthe 52 units that failed the housing quality standards inspections.\n\n Category of violations Number Number\n of of\n violations units\n Electrical 224 47\n Security 122 42\n Interior stairs 46 29\n Smoke detectors/carbon 31 18\n monoxide detectors\n Stairs, rails, and porches 30 22\n Heating, ventilation, and 29 22\n plumbing\n Exterior surfaces 29 22\n Stove, oven, and refrigerator 28 23\n Other interior hazards 28 13\n Floor conditions 26 18\n Other potentially hazardous 26 18\n features\n Windows 21 11\n Roof and gutters 11 10\n Toilet 10 9\n Ceiling conditions 9 6\n Site and neighborhood 9 5\n conditions\n Wall condition 8 5\n Sink and cabinets 8 5\n Evidence of infestation 7 7\n Tub/shower 4 4\n Space for preparation, 3 3\n storage, and serving of food\n Foundation 3 3\n Lead-based paint 3 2\n Electricity/illumination 2 2\n Interior air quality 1 1\n Garbage and debris 1 1\n\n Total 719\n\n\nWe presented the results of the housing quality standards inspections to the\nAuthority and to the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Pennsylvania State Office of Public\nHousing.\n\n\n 6\n\x0cHousing Quality Standards\nViolations Were Identified\n\n\n The following pictures illustrate some of the violations we noted while\n conducting housing quality standards inspections at the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s leased\n housing units.\n\n\n\n\n Inspection V38083: Flue pipe is rusted/disconnected from the furnace and is\n releasing fumes into the basement. This violation was not identified during the\n Authority\xe2\x80\x99s January 6, 2009, inspection.\n\n\n\n\n Inspection V21104: Cover is missing on junction box. This violation was not\n identified during the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s December 18, 2008, inspection.\n\n\n 7\n\x0cInspection V20045: Electrical connection is made outside of the junction box.\nThis violation was not identified during the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s September 5, 2008,\ninspection.\n\n\n\n\nInspection V20039: Basement stairs need a handrail. This violation was not\nidentified during the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s January 26, 2009, inspection.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c Inspection V51089: Mold is present from a water leak. This violation was not\n identified during the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s August 25, 2008, inspection.\n\n\nThe Authority Did Not Have\nAdequate Procedures and\nControls\n\n\n Although HUD regulations at 24 CFR 982.401 and the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s administrative\n plan required the Authority to ensure that its program units met housing quality\n standards, it failed to do so because it did not ensure that its housing inspectors\n had sufficient knowledge of housing quality standards requirements and\n consistently followed the requirements. It also did not implement an effective\n quality control inspection process.\n\n The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s Housing Inspectors Did Not Have Sufficient Knowledge of\n Housing Quality Standards and Did Not Always Follow Housing Quality\n Standards Requirements\n\n The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s housing inspectors were either not aware of applicable housing\n quality standards requirements or disregarded the requirements. As a result, they\n missed or overlooked several housing quality standards violations. For example,\n one inspector did not know that missing knockout plugs were an issue until we\n brought it to the inspector\xe2\x80\x99s attention during the audit. Also, two inspectors and\n the quality control inspector were not aware that railings were required for\n porches, balconies, and stoops more than 30 inches above the ground. In another\n example, the Authority failed a unit for not having a handrail on the front steps\n (which its inspectors missed for three years) and later passed the unit with a\n comment calling for the installation of the handrail. However, when we inspected\n the unit a little over a month after the Authority passed the unit, the handrail was\n\n 9\n\x0cabsent; therefore, the unit failed the inspection. In addition, the Authority failed a\nunit for having a dead bolt lock on a bedroom door and later passed the unit with\na comment calling for the removal of the locking device. However, when we\ninspected the unit within a month and a half of the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s passing the unit,\nthe bedroom door had a keyed dead bolt lock; therefore, the unit failed the\ninspection. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s Section 8 coordinator acknowledged that the units\nshould have failed the inspections because the violations were health- and safety-\nrelated. She stated that the audit showed that the inspectors had not performed\ninspections correctly and that the Authority would focus on improving its\ninspections process based on what it learned from our audit.\n\nThe Authority\xe2\x80\x99s inspectors had not all received adequate training. One of the\nAuthority\xe2\x80\x99s three inspectors took housing quality standards training twice in 2004\nand 2009 but failed the related examination both times. Also, the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s\nSection 8 coordinator, who was given that position in 2001, had also been the\nquality control inspector since January 2006 but did not take housing quality\nstandards training until February 2009. HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Housing Choice Voucher\nGuidebook 7420.10G states that quality control reinspections should be conducted\nby staff trained in the public housing authority\xe2\x80\x99s inspection standards and those\nstaff members should receive the same guidance as other authority inspectors on\ninspection policies and procedures.\n\nThe Authority needs to ensure that all of its inspectors are equipped with the\nknowledge they need to perform inspections in accordance with housing quality\nstandards requirements and consistently follow the requirements.\n\nThe Authority Did Not Implement an Effective Quality Control Inspection\nProcess\n\nThe Authority did not implement an effective quality control process as a tool to\nensure that inspections were performed in compliance with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing\nquality standards. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s administrative plan states that the purpose of\nquality control inspections is to ensure that each inspector conducts accurate and\ncomplete inspections and that there is consistency in the application of the\nhousing quality standards. Also, HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Housing Choice Voucher Guidebook\n7420.10G states that the results of the quality control inspections should be\nprovided as feedback on inspectors\xe2\x80\x99 work, which can be used to determine\nwhether individual performance or general housing quality standards training\nissues need to be addressed.\n\nThe Authority\xe2\x80\x99s quality control inspector previously provided the inspectors with\nwritten documentation on the results of the quality control inspections; however,\nshe stated that she had stopped this practice more than a year earlier and began to\nverbally communicate the information to inspectors due to time constraints.\nHowever, although we noted one instance in which an inspector was suspended\nfor not properly performing inspections, we did not find sufficient evidence to\n\n 10\n\x0c show that quality control results were communicated to the inspectors or used as a\n tool for improving inspectors\xe2\x80\x99 performance.\n\n\nConclusion\n\n\n The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s tenants were subjected to health- and safety-related violations, and\n the Authority did not properly use its program funds when it failed to ensure that\n its program units complied with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality standards. In accordance\n with HUD regulations at 24 CFR 982.152(d), HUD is permitted to reduce or\n offset any program administrative fees paid to a public housing authority if it fails\n to perform its administrative responsibilities correctly or adequately, such as not\n enforcing HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality standards. The Authority disbursed $60,637 in\n housing assistance payments to landlords and received $6,297 in program\n administrative fees for the 37 units that materially failed to meet HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing\n quality standards. If the Authority implements procedures to ensure that its\n inspectors are equipped with the knowledge/training they need to perform\n inspections in compliance with HUD requirements and implements an effective\n quality control program, we estimate that more than $1.9 million in future housing\n assistance payments will be spent for units that are decent, safe, and sanitary. Our\n methodology for this estimate is explained in the Scope and Methodology section\n of this report.\n\nRecommendations\n\n\n We recommend that the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Pennsylvania State Office of Public\n Housing require the Authority to\n\n 1A. Verify that the owners of the 52 program units cited in this finding have\n repaired the units containing housing quality standards violations.\n\n 1B. Reimburse HUD\xe2\x80\x99s program $66,934 from nonfederal funds ($60,637 for\n housing assistance payments and $6,297 in associated administrative fees)\n for the 37 units that materially failed to meet HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality\n standards.\n\n 1C. Ensure that its housing inspectors are equipped with the knowledge they\n need to perform inspections in compliance with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality\n standards and implement an effective quality control process to prevent\n $1,928,850 in program funds from being spent on units that do not comply\n with the standards.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nWe performed on-site audit work from October 2008 through May 2009 at the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s main\nadministrative office located at 400 N. Walnut Street, Wilmington, Delaware, and at the\nAuthority\xe2\x80\x99s Section 8 office located at 1400 Todds Lane, Wilmington, Delaware. The audit\ncovered the period October 2006 through February 2009 but was expanded when necessary to\ninclude other periods.\n\nTo accomplish our objective, we reviewed\n\n Applicable laws, regulations, the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s administrative plan, HUD\xe2\x80\x99s program\n requirements at 24 CFR Parts 982 and 985, and HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Housing Choice Voucher\n Guidebook 7420.10G.\n\n The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s accounting records, annual audited financial statements for 2006 and 2007,\n tenant files, computerized databases, board meeting minutes, organizational chart, and\n program annual contributions contract.\n\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99s monitoring reports for the Authority.\n\nWe also interviewed the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s employees, HUD staff, and program households.\n\nTo achieve our audit objective, we relied in part on computer-processed data in the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s\ndatabase. Although we did not perform a detailed assessment of the reliability of the data, we did\nperform a minimal level of testing and found the data to be adequate for our purposes.\n\nWe statistically selected 60 of the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s program units to inspect from 531 unit inspections\npassed by the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s inspectors during the period August 2008 to January 2009. We selected\nthe sample with the assistance of a computer specialist who computed the sample size using\nattribute methodology and used a random number generator to compute a random sample. The\n60 units were selected to determine whether the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s program units met housing quality\nstandards. The sampling criteria used a 90 percent confidence level, 50 percent estimated error rate,\nand precision of plus or minus 10 percent.\n\nOur sampling results indicated that 52 of 60 program units selected for inspection did not meet\nHUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality standards. We ranked all the failed units based on the significance of the\nviolations, from the most serious health and safety violation that predated the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s most\nrecent inspection to the least serious, and determined that 37 units (62 percent) materially failed to\nmeet HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality standards. Materially failed units were those with at least one health\nand safety violation or exigent (24-hour) health and safety violation that predated the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s\nprevious inspections. We used auditor judgment to determine the material cutoff line.\n\nProjecting our sample review results of the 37 units (62 percent) that materially failed housing\nquality standards inspections indicates that 328 or 61.67 percent of the total population of 531\nunits would materially fail to meet housing quality standards. The sampling error is plus or\n\n 12\n\x0cminus 9.72 percent. There is a 90 percent confidence that the frequency of occurrence of\nprogram units materially failing housing quality standards inspections lies between 51.94 and\n71.39 percent of the population. This equates to an occurrence of between 275 and 379 units of\nthe 531 units in the population. We used the most conservative number, which is the lower limit\nor 275 units.\n\nWe analyzed the applicable Authority databases and estimated that the average annual housing\nassistance payment per recipient in our sample universe was $7,014. We used the period\nOctober 2007 through September 2008 to determine the average annual housing assistance\npayment of $7,014. Using the lower limit of the estimate of the number of units and the\nestimated average annual housing assistance payment, we estimate that the Authority will spend\n$1,928,850 (275 units times $7,014 estimated average annual housing assistance) annually for\nunits that are in material noncompliance with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s housing quality standards.\n\nOur estimates are presented solely to demonstrate the annual amount of program funds that could\nbe put to better use on decent, safe, and sanitary housing if the Authority implements our\nrecommendations. While these benefits would recur indefinitely, we were conservative in our\napproach and only included the initial year in our estimate.\n\nWe conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.\nThose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\nevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings\nand conclusions based on our audit objective.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c INTERNAL CONTROLS\n\nInternal control is an integral component of an organization\xe2\x80\x99s management that provides\nreasonable assurance that the following controls are achieved:\n\n Program operations,\n Relevance and reliability of information,\n Compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and\n Safeguarding of assets and resources.\n\nInternal controls relate to management\xe2\x80\x99s plans, methods, and procedures used to meet its\nmission, goals, and objectives. They include the processes and procedures for planning,\norganizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the systems for measuring,\nreporting, and monitoring program performance.\n\n\n\n\n Relevant Internal Controls\n\n\n We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit\n objective:\n\n Program operations \xe2\x80\x93 Policies and procedures that management has\n implemented to reasonably ensure that a program meets its objectives.\n\n Validity and reliability of data \xe2\x80\x93 Policies and procedures that management\n has implemented to reasonably ensure that valid and reliable data are\n obtained, maintained, and fairly disclosed in reports.\n\n Compliance with laws and regulations \xe2\x80\x93 Policies and procedures that\n management has implemented to reasonably ensure that resource use is\n consistent with laws and regulations.\n\n We assessed the relevant controls identified above.\n\n A significant weakness exists if management controls do not provide reasonable\n assurance that the process for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling\n program operations will meet the organization\xe2\x80\x99s objectives.\n\n Significant Weakness\n\n Based on our review, we believe that the following item is a significant weakness:\n\n\n 14\n\x0cThe Authority lacked sufficient procedures and controls to ensure that unit\ninspections complied with HUD regulations and that program units met\nminimum housing quality standards.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c APPENDIXES\n\nAppendix A\n\n SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS\n AND FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE\n\n\n Recommendation Ineligible 1/ Funds to be put\n number to better use 2/\n\n 1B $66,934\n 1C $1,928,850\n\n\n1/ Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or activity\n that the auditor believes are not allowable by law; contract; or federal, state, or local\n policies or regulations.\n\n2/ Recommendations that funds be put to better use are estimates of amounts that could be\n used more efficiently if an Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommendation is\n implemented. These amounts include reductions in outlays, deobligation of funds,\n withdrawal of interest subsidy costs not incurred by implementing recommended\n improvements, avoidance of unnecessary expenditures noted in preaward reviews, and\n any other savings that are specifically identified. In this instance, if the Authority\n implements our recommendation, it will cease to incur program costs for units that are\n not decent, safe, and sanitary and, instead, will expend those funds for units that meet\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99s standards, thereby putting approximately $1.9 million in program funds to better\n use. Once the Authority successfully implements our recommendation, this will be a\n recurring benefit. Our estimate reflects only the initial year of this benefit.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cAppendix B\n\n AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cComment 1\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\nComment 2\n\n\n\n\nComment 3\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0cComment 4\n\n\n\n\nComment 4\n\n\n\n\nComment 5\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cComment 6\n\n\n\n\nComment 6\n\n\n\n\nComment 7\n\nComment 7\n\n\nComment 7\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cComment 8\n\nComment 9\n\n\n\n\nComment 10\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0cComment 11\n\n\nComment 11\n\n\n\n\nComment 11\n\n\n\n\nComment 11\n\n\n\n\nComment 12\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0c23\n\x0c24\n\x0c OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments\n\nComment 1 The conclusions in the audit report are supported by audit work performed in\n accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We were\n conservative in our approach and used our professional knowledge, tenant\n interviews and the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s latest inspection reports in determining whether a\n housing quality standards violation existed prior to the last passed inspection\n conducted by the Authority. Also, we used a conservative methodology and used\n our judgment to only require repayment of housing assistance payments on units\n with preexisting violations significant enough that we determined they could\n cause harm to the tenants. In addition, as explained during the audit, for the units\n with significant preexisting violations, we did not calculate any ineligible housing\n assistance payments for the first 30 days after the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s last inspection to\n account for the abatement process. Therefore, we believe our methodology and\n the evidence we obtained provide a reasonable basis for our findings and\n conclusions based on our audit objective\n\nComment 2 In regards to the unit located at 2911 N. Market Street, Apt. #2, the missing outlet\n cover in the bedroom was cited as a violation but was not classified as a pre-\n existing condition. The issue we cited as a pre-existing condition was actually a\n broken outlet cover in the living room which we determined was preexisting\n based on the expertise of our inspector. According to HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Housing Choice\n Voucher Guidebook 7420.10G, section 10.3, badly cracked outlets or cover plates\n are unacceptable.\n\nComment 3 In regards to the unit located at 602 W. 23rd Street, HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Housing Choice\n Voucher Guidebook 7420.10G, section 10.3, states that exposed fuse box\n connections are not acceptable. The picture clearly shows exposed contacts inside\n the fuse box that the tenant could come in contact with. Also, wire connections\n within the fuse box are exposed and not secured inside a junction box. The cover\n on the fuse box must be secured by a small lock, wire or bolt and nut to protect\n the tenant from an electrical shock hazard. The concern here is about the safety of\n the tenant and not the functionality of the fuse box.\n\nComment 4 When we determined that a specific refrigerator door seal was torn such as in the\n unit located at 21 W. 29th Street, we reasonably concluded that the refrigerator\n was unable to maintain the proper interior temperature. The door seal is torn in\n two places at the top and bottom right side of door. The photo clearly shows that\n the seal is torn and has been allowing condensation for a considerable time as\n evidenced by the rust showing around the refrigerator frame. Condensation\n (water puddle) can be seen on the floor indicating a leaking seal. The fact that the\n seal is allowing condensation to accumulate on the floor indicates the refrigerator\n is running excessively and would not be cooling properly. HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Housing\n Choice Voucher Guidebook 7420.10 G, section 10.3, states that the refrigerator\n must be of adequate size for the family and capable of maintaining a temperature\n low enough to keep food from spoiling. The guidebook includes an example for\n\n 25\n\x0c clarification which states the refrigerator must be able to maintain temperature\n above 32 \xc2\xbaF, but generally below 40 \xc2\xbaF to keep food from spoiling. The\n guidebook further states that proper temperatures are difficult to maintain if door\n seals are removed or broken.\n\nComment 5 We reviewed the itemized response which the Authority provided during the audit\n and determined that no adjustments to our results were warranted. In fact, we\n provided the Authority information on housing quality standards requirements for\n certain deficiencies we noted that the Authority did not consider housing quality\n standards violations. As stated above, our audit conclusions are supported by\n audit work performed in accordance with generally accepted government auditing\n standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain\n sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and\n conclusions based on our audit objective. Also, our calculation of ineligible costs\n was derived from a conservative approach. Therefore we disagree with the\n Authority\xe2\x80\x99s assertion that our determination of ineligible costs is miscalculated\n and excessive.\n\nComment 6 We used our professional knowledge, tenant interviews and the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s latest\n inspection reports in conservatively determining whether a housing quality\n standards violation existed prior to the last passed inspection conducted by the\n Authority. All units were ranked, and we used auditors\xe2\x80\x99 judgment to determine\n the material cutoff line. We were very conservative in our approach and we\n believe that the audit evidence we obtained provides a reasonable basis for our\n findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.\n\nComment 7 We are encouraged that the Authority has taken action on all the units cited in\n the inspections and that the grounding conductor requirement will be\n addressed with existing and prospective landlords.\n\nComment 8 Our review was conducted independently, therefore, we cannot comment on the\n results of other reviews.\n\nComment 9 HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Housing Choice Voucher Guidebook 7420.10G states that quality control\n reinspections should be conducted by staff trained in the public housing\n authority\xe2\x80\x99s inspection standards and those staff members should receive the same\n guidance as other inspectors on inspection policies and procedures. The Section 8\n coordinator/quality control inspector did not take her first housing quality\n standards training until February 2009.\n\nComment 10 We are encouraged to know that the inspector will be scheduled to retake the\n examination and that the Authority plans to take measures to target expanded\n quality control reviews for the inspector\xe2\x80\x99s areas in the interim. We are also\n encouraged by the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s statement that it has implemented supplementary\n in-house training.\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0cComment 11 Our conclusions pertaining to the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s quality control process pertain to\n how the results were used and not the number of inspections performed. As\n discussed in the report, we did not find sufficient evidence to show that the\n quality control results were communicated to the inspectors or used as a tool to\n improve their performance.\n\nComment 12 The Authority was very cooperative and professional throughout the audit\n engagement. We commend the Authority for creating a favorable environment\n for conducting the audit. We are encouraged to know that the Authority looks to\n use the results of this audit to better its programs.\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
9.10.2004
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 C 251/8
 Domanda di pronuncia pregiudiziale, proposta dalla High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), con ordinanza 14 luglio 2004 nel procedimento The Queen ex parte — International Air Transport Association contro Department for Transport e nel procedimento The Queen ex parte — European Low Fares Airline Association e Hapag-Lloyd Express Gmbh contro Department for Transport
 (Causa C-344/04)
 (2004/C 251/15)
 Con ordinanza 14 luglio 2004 pervenuta nella cancelleria della Corte di giustizia il 12 agosto 2004, nel procedimento The Queen ex parte — International Air Transport Association contro Department for Transport e nel procedimento The Queen ex parte — European Low Fares Airline Association e Hapag-Lloyd Express Gmbh contro Department for Transport, la High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), ha sottoposto alla Corte le seguenti questioni pregiudiziali:
 1)
 Se l'art. 6 del regolamento n. 261/2004 (1) sia invalido in quanto in contrasto con la convenzione per l'unificazione di alcune norme relative al trasporto aereo internazionale, nota come convenzione di Montreal 1999, in particolare con gli artt. 19, 22 e 29 della detta convenzione e se tale circostanza (unitamente ad altri fattori determinanti), infici la validità del regolamento nel suo complesso.
 2)
 Se l'emendamento dell'art. 5 del regolamento nel corso dell'esame del progetto da parte del comitato di conciliazione sia stato effettuato in modo incompatibile con i requisiti di procedura previsti dall'art. 251 CE, e, in caso affermativo, se l'art. 5 del regolamento sia invalido, e, in caso affermativo ancora, se tale circostanza (unitamente ad altri fattori determinanti), infici la validità del regolamento nel suo complesso.
 3)
 Se gli artt. 5 e 6 del regolamento n. 261/2004 (o parte di essi), siano invalidi in quanto in contrasto con il principio della certezza del diritto e, in caso affermativo se tale invalidità (unitamente ad altri fattori determinanti), infici la validità del regolamento nel suo complesso.
 4)
 Se gli artt. 5 e 6 del regolamento n. 261/2004 (o parte di essi) siano invalidi, in quanto non sono sostenuti da alcuna adeguata motivazione e, in caso affermativo, se tale invalidità (unitamente ad altri fattori determinanti) infici la validità del regolamento nel suo complesso.
 5)
 Se gli artt. 5 e 6 del regolamento n. 261/2004 (o parte di essi) siano invalidi in quanto in contrasto con il principio di proporzionalità, che deve essere alla base di ogni atto comunitario e, in caso affermativo, se tale invalidità (unitamente ad alti fattori determinanti) infici la validità del regolamento nel suo complesso.
 6)
 Se gli artt. 5 e 6 del regolamento n. 261/2004 (o parte di essi), siano invalidi in quanto discriminano, in particolare, i membri dell'organizzazione secondo ricorrente, in un modo arbitrario e non obiettivamente giustificato e, in caso affermativo, se tale invalidità, (unitamente ad altri fattori determinanti) infici la validità del regolamento nel suo complesso.
 7)
 Se l'art. 7 del regolamento (o parte di esso) sia nullo o invalido in quanto l'imposizione di una responsabilità posta in forma di una cifra fissa in caso di cancellazione del volo per ragioni che non rientrano nelle limitazioni della responsabilità per circostanze eccezionali sia discriminatoria, non risponda ai criteri di proporzionalità alla base di ogni atto comunitario o non sia basata su un'adeguata motivazione e, in caso affermativo, se tale invalidità (unitamente ad ogni altro fattore determinante) infici la validità del regolamento nel suo complesso.
 8)
 Qualora un giudice nazionale abbia concesso un'autorizzazione ad adire il detto giudice nazionale e proporre questioni aventi ad oggetto la validità di disposizioni di un atto comunitario che considera sostenibili e non infondate, se vi siano principi di diritto comunitario implicanti presupposti o limiti che il giudice nazionale deve applicare nel decidere ai sensi dell'art. 234, n. 2, CE, se sottoporre tali questioni di validità all'esame della Corte di giustizia delle Comunità europee.
 (1) Regolamento (CE) n. 261/2004 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, dell'11 febbraio 2004, che istituisce regole comuni in materia di compensazione ed assistenza ai passeggeri in caso di negato imbarco, di cancellazione del volo o di ritardo prolungato e che abroga il regolamento (CEE) n. 295/91 (Testo rilevante ai fini del SEE) — Dichiarazione della Commissione (GU L 46 del 17.2.2004, pag. 1).


text:
 17.4.2004
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 C 94/56
 Beroep, op 10 februari 2004 ingesteld door Budějovický Budvar národní podnik tegen Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (merken, tekeningen en modellen) (BHIM)
 (Zaak T-56/04)
 (2004/C 94/147)
 Procestaal: Frans
 Bij het Gerecht van eerste aanleg van de Europese Gemeenschappen is op 10 februari 2004 beroep tegen het Bureau voor harmonisatie binnen de interne markt (merken, tekeningen en modellen) (BHIM) ingesteld door Budějovický Budvar národní podnik, te České Budějovice (Tsjechische Republiek), vertegenwoordigd door F. Fajgenbaum, advocaat.
 Andere partij voor de tweede kamer van beroep: Anheuser-Busch Incorporated.
 Verzoekster concludeert dat het het Gerecht behage:
 —
 de beslissing van de tweede kamer van beroep van verweerder van 3 december 2003 te vernietigen;
 —
 de op 1 april 1996 in naam van ANHEUSER-BUSCH ingediende aanvraag voor de inschrijving van BUDWEISER voor klasse 21 af te wijzen;
 —
 Anheuser-Busch te verwijzen in alle kosten.
 Middelen en voornaamste argumenten
 Aanvrager van het gemeenschapsmerk:
 Anheuser-Busch Incorporated
 Betrokken gemeenschapsmerk:
 woordmerk „BUDWEISER” — aanvraagnr. 24661 voor waren van klasse 21 (onder meer gerei voor de huishouding)
 Houder van het oppositiemerk of -teken in de oppositieprocedure:
 verzoekster
 Oppositiemerk of -teken:
 oorsprongsbenamingen „BUDWEISER BIER”, „BUDWEISER BIER-BUDVAR” en „BUDWEISER BUDVAR”
 Beslissing van de oppositieafdeling:
 afwijzing van de oppositie
 Beslissing van de kamer van beroep:
 verwerping van het beroep
 Middelen:
 onjuiste toepassing van artikel 8, lid 4, van verordening (EG) nr. 40/94 (1). Verzoekster, die in Frankrijk houder van de bovengenoemde oorsprongsbenamingen is, voert aan dat zij krachtens het Franse recht zich kan verzetten tegen de inschrijving van het aangevraagde merk, zonder dat zij de bekendheid van de betrokken benamingen op het Franse grondgebied behoeft aan te tonen en zonder dat behoeft te worden onderzocht, of het gebruik van het betwiste merk zou kunnen leiden tot misbruik of afzwakking van de bekendheid van deze benamingen.
 (1) Verordening (EG) nr. 40/94 van de Raad van 20 december 1993 inzake het gemeenschapsmerk (PB 1994, L 11, blz. 1).


type: legislation

text:
 |
 52011PC0322
 /* KOM/2011/0322 konecném znení - NLE 2011/0151 */ Návrh NAŘÍZENÍ RADY o zrušení antidumpingových opatření týkajících se dovozu kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republiky
 DŮVODOVÁ ZPRÁVA1. SOUVISLOSTI NÁVRHU2. Odůvodnění a cíle návrhuTento návrh se týká uplatňování nařízení Rady (ES) č. 1225/2009 ze dne 30. listopadu 2009 o ochraně před dumpingovým dovozem ze zemí, které nejsou členy Evropského společenství (dále jen „základní nařízení“), v řízení týkajícím se dovozu kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republiky.- Obecné souvislostiTento návrh se předkládá v souvislosti s prováděním základního nařízení a je výsledkem šetření, které proběhlo v souladu s hmotněprávními a procesními požadavky stanovenými v základním nařízení.- Platné předpisy vztahující se na oblast návrhuNařízení Rady (ES) č. 600/1996 ze dne 25. března 1996 o uložení konečného antidumpingového cla z dovozu kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republiky[1].Nařízení Rady (ES) č. 769/2002 ze dne 7. května 2002 o uložení konečného antidumpingového cla z dovozu kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republiky[2].Nařízení Rady (ES) č. 2272/2004 ze dne 22. prosince 2004 o rozšíření konečného antidumpingového cla uloženého nařízením (ES) č. 769/2002 z dovozu kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republiky na dovoz kumarinu odesílaného z Indie nebo Thajska, ať již je prohlášen za pocházející z Indie nebo Thajska či nikoliv[3].Rozhodnutí Komise (ES) č. 3/2005 ze dne 3. ledna 2005 o přijetí závazku nabídnutého v souvislosti s šetřením ve věci obcházení antidumpingových opatření, která byla nařízením Rady (ES) č. 769/2002 uložena z dovozu kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republiky, dovozem kumarinu zasílaného z Indie nebo Thajska, bez ohledu na to, zda je deklarován jako pocházející z Indie nebo Thajska, či nikoli[4].Nařízení Rady (ES) č. 1650/2006 ze dne 7. listopadu 2006, kterým se rozšiřuje konečné antidumpingové clo uložené nařízením (ES) č. 769/2002 z dovozu kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republiky na dovoz kumarinu zasílaného z Indonésie nebo Malajsie, bez ohledu na to, zda je deklarován jako pocházející z Indonésie a Malajsie, či nikoli[5].Nařízení Rady (ES) č. 654/2008 ze dne 29. dubna 2008, kterým se na základě přezkumu před pozbytím platnosti podle čl. 11 odst. 2 nařízení (ES) č. 384/96 ukládá konečné antidumpingové clo z dovozu kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republiky rozšířené na dovoz kumarinu odesílaného z Indie, Thajska, Indonésie a Malajsie, ať již je deklarován jako pocházející z Indie, Thajska, Indonésie a Malajsie, či nikoliv[6].- Soulad s ostatními politikami a cíli UnieNevztahuje se na tento návrh.3. KONZULTACE ZÚČASTNĚNÝCH STRAN A POSOUZENÍ DOPADŮ4. Konzultace zúčastněných stranZúčastněné strany dotčené tímto řízením měly možnost v průběhu šetření v souladu s ustanoveními základního nařízení hájit své zájmy.- Sběr a využití výsledků odborných konzultacíNebylo třeba využít externích odborných konzultací.- Posouzení dopadůTento návrh je výsledkem provádění základního nařízení.Základní nařízení nestanoví obecné posouzení dopadů, obsahuje však úplný seznam podmínek, které musí být posouzeny.5. PRÁVNÍ STRÁNKA NÁVRHU6. Shrnutí navrhovaných opatřeníDne 5. listopadu 2010 Komise z moci úřední v souladu s čl. 11 odst. 3 nařízení Rady (ES) č. 1225/2009 o ochraně před dumpingovým dovozem ze zemí, které nejsou členy Evropského společenství, zahájila částečný prozatímní přezkum antidumpingových opatření vztahujících se na dovoz kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republiky, rozšířených na dovoz kumarinu odesílaného z Indie, Thajska, Indonésie a Malajsie, ať již je deklarován jako pocházející z Indie, Thajska, Indonésie a Malajsie, či nikoliv, který se omezuje na posouzení újmy.Účelem tohoto šetření bylo přezkoumat, zda se kumarin v Evropské unii stále vyrábí, a pokud ano, zda výrobnímu odvětví Unie přetrvává újma způsobená dumpingovým dovozem.Jediný známý výrobce kumarinu v EU, který v šetření, jež vedlo k uložení stávajících opatření, představoval výrobní odvětví Unie, Komisi informoval, že se svou výrobní jednotku rozhodl ke konci srpna 2010 trvale uzavřít. V současné době nemají evropské společnosti jinou možnost, než kumarin dovážet.Komise neshledala žádné důvody, na základě kterých by bylo v zájmu Unie zachovat stávající platná antidumpingová opatření, a navrhuje proto, aby byla tato opatření zrušena.Proto se navrhuje, aby Rada přijala přiložený návrh nařízení, které by mělo být vyhlášeno v Úředním věstníku Evropské unie k co nejdřívějšímu datu a v každém případě nejpozději do 12. července 2011.- Právní základNařízení Rady (ES) č. 1225/2009 ze dne 30. listopadu 2009 o ochraně před dumpingovým dovozem ze zemí, které nejsou členy Evropského společenství.- Zásada subsidiarityNávrh spadá do výlučné pravomoci Evropské unie. Zásada subsidiarity se proto neuplatní.- Zásada proporcionalityNávrh je v souladu se zásadou proporcionality z těchto důvodů:Podoba opatření je popsána ve výše uvedeném základním nařízení a neponechává žádný prostor pro rozhodnutí na vnitrostátní úrovni.Údaje o způsobu, jakým je dosaženo toho, aby finanční a administrativní zátěž Unie, vlád členských států, regionálních a místních orgánů, hospodářských subjektů a občanů byla co nejmenší a přiměřená cíli návrhu, není třeba uvádět.- Volba nástrojůNavrhované nástroje: nařízení.Jiné prostředky by nebyly přiměřené z tohoto důvodu:Jiné prostředky by nebyly přiměřené, jelikož základní nařízení nestanoví náhradní možnosti.7. ROZPOČTOVÉ DŮSLEDKYNávrh nemá žádné důsledky pro rozpočet Unie.2011/0151 (NLE)NávrhNAŘÍZENÍ RADYo zrušení antidumpingových opatření týkajících se dovozu kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republikyRADA EVROPSKÉ UNIE,s ohledem na Smlouvu o fungování Evropské unie,s ohledem na nařízení Rady (ES) č. 1225/2009 ze dne 30. listopadu 2009 o ochraně před dumpingovým dovozem ze zemí, které nejsou členy Evropského společenství[7] (dále jen „základní nařízení“), a zejména na článek 9 a čl. 11 odst. 2 uvedeného nařízení,s ohledem na návrh předložený Evropskou komisí (dále jen „Komise“) po konzultaci s poradním výborem,vzhledem k těmto důvodům:8. POSTUP9. Platná opatření10. V současné době jsou platnými opatřeními konečné antidumpingové clo uložené nařízením Rady (ES) č. 654/2008[8] na dovoz kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republiky, rozšířené na dovoz kumarinu odesílaného z Indie, Thajska, Indonésie a Malajsie, ať již je deklarován jako pocházející z Indie, Thajska, Indonésie a Malajsie, či nikoliv, a závazek přijatý jedním indickým výrobcem (Atlas Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd)[9].11. Odůvodnění přezkumu12. Komise byla informována o tom, že jediný výrobce kumarinu, který v šetření, jež vedlo k uložení stávajících opatření, představoval výrobní odvětví Unie, se rozhodl ukončit výrobu kumarinu v rámci Evropské unie ke konci srpna 2010.13. Zahájení14. Po konzultaci s poradním výborem tedy Komise oznámením zveřejněným v Úředním věstníku Evropské Unie[10] zahájila částečný prozatímní přezkum antidumpingových opatření vztahujících se na dovoz kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republiky, rozšířených na dovoz kumarinu odesílaného z Indie, Thajska, Indonésie a Malajsie, ať již je deklarován jako pocházející z Indie, Thajska, Indonésie a Malajsie, či nikoliv, který se omezuje na posouzení újmy.15. Komise o zahájení šetření v rámci přezkumu oficiálně informovala výrobce v Unii a zástupce z Čínské lidové republiky. Zúčastněné strany dostaly příležitost, aby písemně sdělily svá stanoviska a požádaly o slyšení ve lhůtě stanovené v oznámení o zahájení.16. Přezkoumávaný výrobek17. Přezkoumávaným výrobkem je kumarin pocházející z Čínské lidové republiky (dále jen „dotčený výrobek“), v současnosti kódu KN ex 2932 21 00.18. Zjištění a zastavení řízení19. Šetření potvrdilo, že jediný evropský výrobce dotčeného výrobku své výrobní zařízení v srpnu 2010 trvale uzavřel.20. Komise se domnívá, že by stávající řízení mělo být zastaveno, jelikož šetření v rámci přezkumu neodhalilo žádné okolnosti, které by naznačovaly, že zastavení řízení není v zájmu Unie. Zúčastněné strany o tom byly informovány a dostaly příležitost vyjádřit své stanovisko. Nebyly obdrženy žádné připomínky, jež by naznačovaly, že zastavení řízení není v zájmu Unie.21. Komise proto dospěla k závěru, že antidumpingové řízení týkající se dovozu kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republiky do Unie, , by mělo být zastaveno,PŘIJALA TOTO NAŘÍZENÍ:Článek 1Antidumpingová opatření týkající se dovozu kumarinu pocházejícího z Čínské lidové republiky, v současnosti kódu KN ex 2932 21 00, rozšířená na dovoz kumarinu odesílaného z Indie, Thajska, Indonésie a Malajsie, ať již je deklarován jako pocházející z Indie, Thajska, Indonésie a Malajsie, či nikoliv, se zrušují a řízení týkající se tohoto dovozu se zastavuje.Článek 2Toto nařízení vstupuje v platnost prvním dnem po vyhlášení v Úředním věstníku Evropské unie .Toto nařízení je závazné v celém rozsahu a přímo použitelné ve všech členských státech.V Bruselu dne [...].Za Radupředseda [1] Úř. věst. L 86, 4.4.1996, s. 1.[2] Úř. věst. L 123, 9.5.2002, s. 1.[3] Úř. věst. L 396, 31.12.2004, s. 19.[4] Úř. věst. L 1, 4.1.2005, s. 15.[5] Úř. věst. L 311, 10.11.2006, s. 1.[6] Úř. věst. L 183, 11.7.2008, s. 1.[7] Úř. věst. L 343, 22.12.2009, s. 51.[8] Úř. věst. L 183, 11.7.2008, s. 1.[9] Úř. věst. L 1, 4.1.2005, s. 15.[10] Úř. věst. C 299, 5.11.2010, s. 4.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21998D0709(18)
 Besluit van het Gemengd Comité van de EER Nr. 101/97 van 15 december 1997 tot wijziging van bijlage II (Technische voorschriften, normen, keuring en certificatie) bij de EER-Overeenkomst
 Publicatieblad Nr. L 193 van 09/07/1998 blz. 0061 - 0061
 BESLUIT VAN HET GEMENGD COMITÉ VAN DE EER Nr. 101/97 van 15 december 1997 tot wijziging van bijlage II (Technische voorschriften, normen, keuring en certificatie) bij de EER-OvereenkomstHET GEMENGD COMITÉ VAN DE EER,Gelet op de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte, aangepast bij het protocol tot aanpassing van de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte, hierna "de Overeenkomst" genoemd, inzonderheid op artikel 98,Overwegende dat bijlage II bij de Overeenkomst werd gewijzigd bij Besluit nr. 48/97 van het Gemengd Comité van de EER (1);Overwegende dat Verordening (EG) nr. 2215/96 van de Commissie van 20 november 1996 tot vaststelling van afwijkende maatregelen voor "Glühwein" (2) in de Overeenkomst dient te worden opgenomen,BESLUIT:Artikel 1 In hoofdstuk XXVII van bijlage II bij de Overeenkomst wordt na punt 6 (Verordening (EEG) nr. 2009/92 van de Commissie) het volgende punt ingevoegd:"- 396 R 2215: Verordening (EG) nr. 2215/96 van de Commissie van 20 november 1996 tot vaststelling van afwijkende maatregelen voor "Glühwein" (PB L 296 van 21.11.1996, blz. 30).".Artikel 2 De aan de respectieve taalversies van dit besluit gehechte teksten in de IJslandse en de Noorse taal van Verordening (EG) nr. 2215/96 van de Commissie zijn authentiek.Artikel 3 Dit besluit treedt in werking op 16 december 1997, op voorwaarde dat alle in artikel 103, lid 1, van de Overeenkomst bedoelde kennisgevingen aan het Gemengd Comité van de EER hebben plaatsgevonden.Artikel 4 Dit besluit wordt bekendgemaakt in het EER-gedeelte van en het EER-supplement bij het Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen.Gedaan te Brussel, 15 december 1997.Voor het Gemengd Comité van de EERDe VoorzitterE. BULL(1) PB L 290 van 23. 10. 1997, blz. 34.(2) PB L 296 van 21. 11. 1996, blz. 30.


text:
 7.4.2011
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 93/28
 AZ EGT VEGYES BIZOTTSÁG 1/2011 HATÁROZATA
 (2011. február 11.)
 az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás II. mellékletének (Műszaki előírások, szabványok, vizsgálatok és tanúsítás) és IV. mellékletének (Energia) módosításáról
 AZ EGT VEGYES BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás kiigazításáról szóló jegyzőkönyvvel módosított, az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodásra (a továbbiakban: a megállapodás) és különösen annak 98. cikkére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 A megállapodás II. mellékletét a 2009. december 4-i 124/2009 EGT vegyes bizottsági határozat (1) módosította.
 (2)
 A megállapodás IV. mellékletét a 2010. június 11-i 69/2010 EGT vegyes bizottsági határozat (2) módosította.
 (3)
 A 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek az elektromos és elektronikus háztartási és irodai berendezések készenléti és kikapcsolt üzemmódban fellépő elektromosáram-fogyasztására vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról szóló, 2008. december 17-i 1275/2008/EK bizottsági rendeletet (3) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (4)
 A 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek az egyszerű set-top boxokra vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról szóló, 2009. február 4-i 107/2009/EK bizottsági rendeletet (4) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (5)
 A 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a nem irányított fényű háztartási lámpákra vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról szóló, 2009. március 18-i 244/2009/EK bizottsági rendeletet (5) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (6)
 A 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a beépített előtét nélküli fénycsövek, nagy intenzitású kisülőlámpák és az ilyen lámpák működtetésére alkalmas előtétek és lámpatestek környezetbarát tervezési követelményei tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról, valamint a 2000/55/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelv hatályon kívül helyezéséről szóló, 2009. március 18-i 245/2009/EK bizottsági rendeletet (6) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (7)
 A 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a külső tápegységek üresjáratú üzemmódban fellépő elektromosáram-fogyasztására és aktív üzemmódban mért átlagos hatékonyságára vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról szóló, 2009. április 6-i 278/2009/EK bizottsági rendeletet (7) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (8)
 A 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek az elektromos motorok környezetbarát tervezésére vonatkozó követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról szóló, 2009. július 22-i 640/2009/EK bizottsági rendeletet (8) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (9)
 A 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a tömszelence nélküli önálló keringetőszivattyúkra, illetve termékekbe beépített tömszelence nélküli keringetőszivattyúkra vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról szóló, 2009. július 22-i 641/2009/EK bizottsági rendeletet (9) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (10)
 A 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a televíziókészülékekre vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról szóló, 2009. július 22-i 642/2009/EK bizottsági rendeletet (10) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (11)
 A 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a háztartási hűtőkészülékekre vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról szóló, 2009. július 22-i 643/2009/EK bizottsági rendeletet (11) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (12)
 A 245/2009/EK rendelet 2010. április 13-ával hatályon kívül helyezi a megállapodásba foglalt 2000/55/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvet (12), amelyet következésképpen 2010. április 13-i hatállyal a megállapodásból el kell hagyni.
 (13)
 A 643/2009/EK rendelet 2010. július 1-jével hatályon kívül helyezi a megállapodásba foglalt 96/57/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvet (13), amelyet következésképpen 2010. július 1-jei hatállyal a megállapodásból el kell hagyni,
 A KÖVETKEZŐKÉPPEN HATÁROZOTT:
 1. cikk
 A megállapodás II. mellékletének IV. fejezete a következőképpen módosul:
 1.
 Az 5. pont (96/57/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelv) szövegét el kell hagyni.
 2.
 A 7. pontot (2008/591/EK bizottsági határozat) követően a következő pontokat kell beilleszteni:
 „8.
 32008 R 1275: a Bizottság 2008. december 17-i 1275/2008/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek az elektromos és elektronikus háztartási és irodai berendezések készenléti és kikapcsolt üzemmódban fellépő elektromosáram-fogyasztására vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 339., 2008.12.18., 45. o.) az alábbi módosításokkal:
 —
 32009 R 0278: a Bizottság 2009. április 6-i 278/2009/EK rendelete (HL L 93., 2009.4.7., 3. o.),
 —
 32009 R 0642: a Bizottság 2009. július 22-i 642/2009/EK rendelete (HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 42. o.).
 9.
 32009 R 0107: a Bizottság 2009. február 4-i 107/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek az egyszerű set-top boxokra vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 36., 2009.2.5., 8. o.).
 10.
 32009 R 0244: a Bizottság 2009. március 18-i 244/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a nem irányított fényű háztartási lámpákra vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 76., 2009.3.24., 3. o.).
 11.
 32009 R 0245: a Bizottság 2009. március 18-i 245/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a beépített előtét nélküli fénycsövek, nagy intenzitású kisülőlámpák és az ilyen lámpák működtetésére alkalmas előtétek és lámpatestek környezetbarát tervezési követelményei tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról, valamint a 2000/55/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelv hatályon kívül helyezéséről (HL L 76., 2009.3.24., 17. o.).
 12.
 32009 R 0278: a Bizottság 2009. április 6-i 278/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a külső tápegységek üresjáratú üzemmódban fellépő elektromosáram-fogyasztására és aktív üzemmódban mért átlagos hatékonyságára vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 93., 2009.4.7., 3. o.).
 13.
 32009 R 0640: a Bizottság 2009. július 22-i 640/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek az elektromos motorok környezetbarát tervezésére vonatkozó követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 26. o.).
 14.
 32009 R 0641: a Bizottság 2009. július 22-i 641/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a tömszelence nélküli önálló keringetőszivattyúkra, illetve termékekbe beépített tömszelence nélküli keringetőszivattyúkra vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 35. o.).
 15.
 32009 R 0642: a Bizottság 2009. július 22-i 642/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a televíziókészülékekre vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 42. o.).
 16.
 32009 R 0643: a Bizottság 2009. július 22-i 643/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a háztartási hűtőkészülékekre vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 53. o.).”
 2. cikk
 A megállapodás IV. melléklete a következőképpen módosul:
 1.
 A 13. pont (96/57/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelv) szövegét el kell hagyni.
 2.
 A 15. pont (2000/55/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelv) szövegét el kell hagyni.
 3.
 A 30. pont (106/2008/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelet) után a következő pontokat kell beilleszteni:
 „31.
 32008 R 1275: a Bizottság 2008. december 17-i 1275/2008/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek az elektromos és elektronikus háztartási és irodai berendezések készenléti és kikapcsolt üzemmódban fellépő elektromosáram-fogyasztására vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 339., 2008.12.18., 45. o.) az alábbi módosításokkal:
 —
 32009 R 0278: a Bizottság 2009. április 6-i 278/2009/EK rendelete (HL L 93., 2009.4.7., 3. o.),
 —
 32009 R 0642: a Bizottság 2009. július 22-i 642/2009/EK rendelete (HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 42. o.).
 32.
 32009 R 0107: a Bizottság 2009. február 4-i 107/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek az egyszerű set-top boxokra vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 36., 2009.2.5., 8. o.).
 33.
 32009 R 0244: a Bizottság 2009. március 18-i 244/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a nem irányított fényű háztartási lámpákra vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 76., 2009.3.24., 3. o.).
 34.
 32009 R 0245: a Bizottság 2009. március 18-i 245/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a beépített előtét nélküli fénycsövek, nagy intenzitású kisülőlámpák és az ilyen lámpák működtetésére alkalmas előtétek és lámpatestek környezetbarát tervezési követelményei tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról, valamint a 2000/55/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelv hatályon kívül helyezéséről (HL L 76., 2009.3.24., 17. o.).
 35.
 32009 R 0278: a Bizottság 2009. április 6-i 278/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a külső tápegységek üresjáratú üzemmódban fellépő elektromosáram-fogyasztására és aktív üzemmódban mért átlagos hatékonyságára vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 93., 2009.4.7., 3. o.).
 36.
 32009 R 0640: a Bizottság 2009. július 22-i 640/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek az elektromos motorok környezetbarát tervezésére vonatkozó követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 26. o.).
 37.
 32009 R 0641: a Bizottság 2009. július 22-i 641/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a tömszelence nélküli önálló keringetőszivattyúkra, illetve termékekbe beépített tömszelence nélküli keringetőszivattyúkra vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 35. o.).
 38.
 32009 R 0642: a Bizottság 2009. július 22-i 642/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a televíziókészülékekre vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 42. o.).
 39.
 32009 R 0643: a Bizottság 2009. július 22-i 643/2009/EK rendelete a 2005/32/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvnek a háztartási hűtőkészülékekre vonatkozó környezetbarát tervezési követelmények tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról (HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 53. o.).”
 3. cikk
 Az 1275/2008/EK, 107/2009/EK, 244/2009/EK, 245/2009/EK, 278/2009/EK, 640/2009/EK, 641/2009/EK, 642/2009/EK, valamint a 643/2009/EK rendeleteknek az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja EGT-kiegészítésében közzéteendő izlandi és norvég nyelvű szövege hiteles.
 4. cikk
 Ez a határozat 2011. február 12-én lép hatályba, feltéve, hogy az EGT Vegyes Bizottság a megállapodás 103. cikkének (1) bekezdésében előírt összes bejelentést megkapta (14).
 5. cikk
 Ezt a határozatot az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-re vonatkozó részében és EGT-kiegészítésében ki kell hirdetni.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2011. február 11-én.
 az EGT Vegyes Bizottság részéről
 a megbízott elnök
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) HL L 62., 2010.3.11., 9. o.
 (2) HL L 244., 2010.9.16., 22. o.
 (3) HL L 339., 2008.12.18., 45. o.
 (4) HL L 36., 2009.2.5., 8. o.
 (5) HL L 76., 2009.3.24., 3. o.
 (6) HL L 76., 2009.3.24., 17. o.
 (7) HL L 93., 2009.4.7., 3. o.
 (8) HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 26. o.
 (9) HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 35. o.
 (10) HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 42. o.
 (11) HL L 191., 2009.7.23., 53. o.
 (12) HL L 279., 2000.11.1., 33. o.
 (13) HL L 236., 1996.9.18., 36. o.
 (14) Alkotmányos követelmények fennállását nem jelezték.


text:
 7.7.2012
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 200/5
 2012 m. gegužės 24 d. Teisingumo Teismo (penktoji kolegija) sprendimas byloje Europos Komisija prieš Belgijos Karalystę
 (Byla C-366/11) (1)
 (Valstybės įsipareigojimų neįvykdymas - Aplinka - Direktyva 2000/60/EB - Sąjungos politika vandens srityje - Upės baseino valdymo planai - Paskelbimas ir pranešimas Komisijai - Nebuvimas - Visuomenės informavimas apie valdymo planus ir konsultavimasis su ja - Nebuvimas)
 2012/C 200/08
 Proceso kalba: prancūzų
 Šalys
 Ieškovė: Europos Komisija, atstovaujama I. Hadjiyiannis ir A. Marghelis
 Atsakovė: Belgijos Karalystė, atstovaujama T. Materne ir J.-C. Halleux
 Dalykas
 Valstybės įsipareigojimų neįvykdymas — Nuostatų, būtinų 2000 m. spalio 23 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvai 2000/60/EB, nustatančiai Bendrijos veiksmų vandens politikos srityje pagrindus (OL L 327, p. 1; 2004 m. specialusis leidimas lietuvių k., 15 sk., 5 t., p. 275), įgyvendinti nepriėmimas per nustatytą terminą — Upės baseino valdymo planų pagal direktyvos 13 straipsnio 2, 3 ir 6 dalis ir 15 straipsnio 1 dalį nesudarymas — Visuomenės informavimo apie valdymo planus ir konsultavimosi su ja procedūra — Nebuvimas.
 Rezoliucinė dalis
 1.
 Per nustatytą terminą nesudariusi visų upės baseinų rajonų, kurie driekiasi tik valstybės narės teritorijoje, ir tarptautinio upės baseino rajonų valdymo planų ir nepateikusi Europos Komisijai šių planų kopijų, Belgijos Karalystė neįvykdė įsipareigojimų pagal 2000 m. spalio 23 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvos 2000/60/EB, nustatančios Bendrijos veiksmų vandens politikos srityje pagrindus (OL L 327, p. 1; 2004 m. specialusis leidimas lietuvių k., 15 sk., 5 t., p. 275), 13 straipsnio 2, 3 ir 6 dalis bei 15 straipsnio 1 dalį. Be to, per nustatytą terminą nepradėjusi visų visuomenės informavimo apie upės baseino valdymo planus ir konsultavimosi su ja procedūrų, Belgijos Karalystė neįvykdė įsipareigojimų pagal šios direktyvos 14 straipsnio 1 dalies c punktą.
 2.
 Belgijos Karalystė padengia bylinėjimosi išlaidas.
 (1) OL C 298, 2011 10 8.


text:
Skat.dk: 6 måneders-fristen – Money Transfer-projekt – skattepligt af pengeoverførsler fra selskab på Cayman Islands
 20 Sep 2018 15:55
 Spørgsmålet var herefter, om fristen på 6 måneder i skatteforvaltningslovens § 27, stk. 2, 1. pkt., var overholdt.
 Højesteret udtalte, at kundskabstidspunktet må anses for at være det tidspunkt, hvor SKAT er kommet i besiddelse af tilstrækkelige oplysninger til, at der forelå grundlag for ekstraordinær genoptagelse efter § 27, stk. 1, nr. 5. Varslingsfristen løber altså først fra det tidspunkt, hvor SKAT kan sende en agterskrivelse, dvs. det tidspunkt, hvor SKAT er kommet til kundskab om, at skatteansættelsen er urigtig, og at dette skyldes mindst grov uagtsomhed fra skatteyderens side.
 Højesteret lagde til grund, at SKAT den 7. december 2010 – hvor de relevante Money Transfer-oplysninger fra den F1-bank forelå i læsbar form – alene havde kundskab om, at skatteyderen havde fået indsat de to beløb på sin konto, og at beløbene var overført af Cayman Islands-selskabet. Disse oplysninger gav ikke i sig selv SKAT kundskab om, at der forelå grundlag for ekstraordinær genoptagelse efter § 27, stk. 1, nr. 5. Kundskab herom fik SKAT først ved i forlængelse heraf at have indhentet yderligere oplysninger fra skatteyderen og hans ægtefælle i perioden fra marts til maj 2011. Varslingsfristen var derfor ikke overskredet, da SKAT sendte sin agterskrivelse af 13. juli 2011 til skatteyderen.
 Skatteministeriet var ikke bundet af SKATs tilkendegivelse under retsmødet i Landsskatteretten om, at fristen i § 27, stk. 2, ikke var overholdt.
 Den Juridiske Vejledning 2018-2, A.A.8.2.2.1.4
 Tidligere instans: Vestre Landsrets dom af den 13. juli 2017, SKM2017.478.VLR
 (v/adv. Kammeradvokaten v/ adv. Steffen Sværke)
 Jon Stokholm, Jens Peter Christensen, Jan Schans Christensen, Jens Kruse Mikkelsen og Kristian Korfits Nielsen.
 I tidligere instans er afsagt dom af Vestre Landsrets 6. afdeling den 13. juli 2017 (SKM2017.478.VLR).
 A har supplerende anført, at fristen på 6 måneder i skatteforvaltningslovens § 27, stk. 2, efter sin ordlyd begynder at løbe på det tidspunkt, hvor skattemyndighederne har fået kundskab om det forhold, der begrunder fravigelsen af de ordinære frister i § 26. Kundskabstidspunktet er det tidspunkt, hvor skattemyndighederne er i besiddelse af oplysninger, der efter skatteforvaltningslovens § 27, stk. 1, begrunder fravigelse af de ordinære frister i § 26. Kundskab må indtræde på dette tidspunkt, uanset hvordan skattemyndighederne modtager oplysningerne, og det er således uden betydning, om oplysningerne modtages mundtligt, skriftligt eller elektronisk. Det er ikke en fristudskydende omstændighed, at skattemyndighederne modtager mange oplysninger på en gang eller ikke har ressourcer til at gennemgå de indkomne oplysninger. Når skattemyndighederne modtager oplysninger om, at en skatteyder har modtaget en pengeoverførsel fra udlandet, og det ved at sammenholde en sådan oplysning med den foretagne skatteansættelse uden videre fremgår, at det modtagne beløb ikke kan være selvangivet, må fristen løbe fra skattemyndighedernes modtagelse af oplysningen om pengeoverførslen.
 Den 7. december 2010 havde SKAT alle de oplysninger, som afgørelsen om forhøjelse af indkomsten reelt blev truffet på baggrund af. Oplysningerne var på det tidspunkt klargjort i et læsbart format og tilgængelige for SKAT, der også havde adgang til de øvrige skattemæssige oplysninger om ham. SKAT har i det hele tilsidesat de oplysninger, som A fremsendte. Da det ikke er de tilsidesatte oplysninger, der begrunder fravigelsen af de ordinære ansættelsesfrister i skatteforvaltningslovens § 26, skal de heller ikke tillægges nogen betydning for fristens begyndelsestidspunkt. Varslingsfristen i § 27, stk. 2, er derfor overskredet.
 Skatteministeriet har supplerende anført, at varslingsfristen i skatteforvaltningslovens § 27, stk. 2, som anført af landsretten må regnes fra det tidspunkt, hvor SKAT er kommet i besiddelse af det fornødne grundlag for at varsle en korrekt afgørelse om ansættelsen (en agterskrivelse). SKATs kundskab retter sig efter ordlyden af § 27, stk. 2, mod det forhold, der begrunder fravigelsen af de ordinære frister. Det vil sige, at SKAT skal have kundskab om, at skatteansættelsen er foretaget på et urigtigt eller ufuldstændigt grundlag, og at den skattepligtige har handlet i hvert fald groft uagtsomt. Først når SKAT har kundskab om begge disse forhold, begynder fristen på 6 måneder at løbe. Det følger derfor af § 27, stk. 2, at det afgørende tidspunkt – kundskabstidspunktet – er, hvornår SKAT kunne udarbejde en agterskrivelse. Denne forståelse understøttes af forarbejderne til den tidligere skattestyrelseslovs § 35, stk. 3, der er videreført i skatteforvaltningslovens § 27, stk. 2, og af retspraksis. Hvis fristen på 6 måneder begynder at løbe fra et tidligere tidspunkt, vil konsekvensen være, at SKAT – i de sager, hvor SKAT i løbet af de seks måneder ikke har været i stand til at komme i besiddelse af tilstrækkelige oplysninger til at kunne udarbejde en agterskrivelse – vil være afskåret fra at foretage en forhøjelse af ansættelsen, uanset at betingelserne i stk. 1, nr. 5, er opfyldt.
 SKAT havde den 7. december 2010 ikke kundskab om, at pengeoverførslerne var skattepligtig indkomst, og heller ikke om, at det var forsætligt eller groft uagtsomt, at A ikke havde selvangivet indtægterne. Fristen i skatteforvaltningslovens § 27, stk. 2, begyndte derfor ikke at løbe på dette tidspunkt. Det var tidligst ved modtagelsen af A’s brev af 23. marts 2011, at SKAT eventuelt havde tilstrækkelige oplysninger til at varsle forhøjelsen af skatteansættelsen i henhold til skatteforvaltningslovens § 27, stk. 1, nr. 5. SKATs agterskrivelse af 13. juli 2011 er således rettidig, jf. § 27, stk. 2.
 Højesteret tiltræder af de grunde, der er anført af landsretten, at A ikke har godtgjort, at der bestod et reelt gældsforhold mellem Cayman Islands-selskabet G1 og ham, og at de beløb på i alt 2.491.705 kr., der blev overført fra selskabet til hans konto i F1-bank, herefter må anses for løn og dermed er skattepligtig indkomst for A.
 Højesteret finder på baggrund af de omstændigheder, der har ført til, at overførslerne er skattepligtige, at A må anses for at have handlet i hvert fald groft uagtsomt ved ikke at have selvangivet beløbene, og at betingelserne i skatteforvaltningslovens § 27, stk. 1, nr. 5, for ekstraordinær ansættelse vedrørende indkomståret 2005 således er opfyldt.
 Spørgsmålet er herefter, om fristen på 6 måneder i skatteforvaltningslovens § 27, stk. 2, 1. pkt., er overholdt.
 Efter denne bestemmelse kan en ekstraordinær ansættelse efter stk. 1 kun foretages, hvis den varsles af SKAT senest 6 måneder efter, at SKAT er kommet til kundskab om det forhold, der begrunder fravigelsen af fristerne i § 26.
 Det følger af § 27, stk. 2, 1. pkt., jf. stk. 1, nr. 5, at varslingsfristen på 6 måneder begynder at løbe fra det tidspunkt, hvor SKAT er kommet til kundskab om, at en skatteansættelse er urigtig eller ufuldstændig, og at dette skyldes groft uagtsomt eller forsætligt forhold hos den skattepligtige eller dennes repræsentant. Højesteret finder herefter, at kundskabstidspunktet må anses for at være det tidspunkt, hvor SKAT er kommet i besiddelse af tilstrækkelige oplysninger til, at der forelå grundlag for ekstraordinær ansættelse efter § 27, stk. 1, nr. 5.
 Højesteret lægger efter bevisførelsen til grund, at SKAT den 7. december 2010, hvor de modtagne oplysninger fra F1-bank forelå i læsbar form, alene havde kundskab om, at A havde fået indsat de omhandlede to beløb på sin konto, og at beløbene var betalt af selskabet G1. Disse oplysninger gav efter Højesterets opfattelse ikke i sig selv SKAT kundskab om, at der forelå grundlag for ekstraordinær ansættelse efter § 27, stk. 1, nr. 5. Kundskab herom fik SKAT først ved i forlængelse heraf at have indhentet yderligere oplysninger fra A og hans ægtefælle i perioden fra marts til maj 2011. Højesteret finder derfor, at varslingsfristen i § 27, stk. 2, 1. pkt., ikke var overskredet, da SKAT sendte sin agterskrivelse af 13. juli 2011 til A.
 Højesteret tiltræder, at Skatteministeriet ikke er bundet af SKATs tilkendegivelse under mødet i Landsskatteretten om, at fristen i skatteforvaltningslovens § 27, stk. 2, ikke var overholdt, jf. også Højesterets dom af 16. august 2017 (UfR 2017.3366).


type: wikipedia

text:
San teoiric adamhach agus san mheicnic chandamach, is feidhm mhatamaiticiúil é fithiseán adamhach a chuireann síos ar shuíomh agus ar iompar cosúil le tonn na leictreon in adamh . Is féidir an fheidhm seo a úsáid chun an dóchúlacht go bhfaighidh tú aon leictreon adamh in aon réigiún ar leith timpeall núicléas an adaimh a ríomh. Féadfaidh an téarma fithiseán adamhach tagairt a dhéanamh freisin don réigiún fisiceach nó don spás inar féidir a ríomh cén áit a mbeidh an leictreon i láthair, mar a thuar an fhoirm mhatamaiticiúil áirithe den fhithiseán.
 Tagairtí
 Naisc sheachtracha
 3D hydrogen orbitals on Wikimedia Commons
 Guide to atomic orbitals
 Covalent Bonds and Molecular Structure
 Animation of the time evolution of an hydrogenic orbital
 The Orbitron, a visualization of all common and uncommon atomic orbitals, from 1s to 7g
 Grand table Still images of many orbitals
 Hydrogen atom orbitals in c++ and visualization in python
 Fisic adamhach
 Nascadh ceimiceach
 Staideanna na leictreon
 Ceimic chandamach
 Ailt ina bhfuil gearrthóga físe


text:
 21.4.2005
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 102/33
 AZ EGT-VEGYESBIZOTTSÁG
 154/2004 határozata
 (2004. október 29.)
 az EGT-megállapodás XIII. mellékletének (Közlekedés) módosításáról
 AZ EGT-VEGYESBIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térséget létrehozó megállapodást kiigazító jegyzőkönyv által módosított, az Európai Gazdasági Térséget létrehozó megállapodásra (a továbbiakban: a megállapodás) és különösen annak 98. cikkére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 Az EGT-Vegyesbizottság 2004. szeptember 24-ei 129/2004 határozata (1) módosította a megállapodás XIII. mellékletét.
 (2)
 A közösségi repülőterek résidőinek kiosztására vonatkozó közös szabályokról szóló 95/93/EGK tanácsi rendelet módosításáról szóló, 2004. április 21-i 793/2004/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendeletet (2) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba,
 A KÖVETKEZŐKÉPPEN HATÁROZOTT:
 1. cikk
 A megállapodás XIII. mellékletének 64b. pontja (95/93/EGK tanácsi rendelet) a következőképpen módosul:
 1.
 Az alábbi szöveggel egészül ki:
 „módosítva az alábbiak által:
 —
 32004 R 0793: Az Európai Parlament és a Tanács 2004. április 21-i 793/2004/EK rendelete (HL L 138., 2004.4.30., 50. o.).”
 2.
 Az a) és b) alkalmazások törlődnek.
 3.
 A c) számozás törlődik a jelenlegi c) alkalmazás elől.
 2. cikk
 A 793/2004/EK rendelet izlandi és norvég nyelvű, az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-mellékletében kihirdetendő szövegei hitelesek.
 3. cikk
 Ez a határozat 2004. október 30-án lép hatályba, feltéve ha addig az EGT-Vegyesbizottságnak elküldik a megállapodás 103. cikk (1) bekezdése szerinti összes értesítést (3).
 4. cikk
 E határozatot kihirdetik az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-részében és EGT-mellékletében.
 az EGT-Vegyesbizottság részéről
 az elnök
 Kjartan JÓHANNSSON
 (1) HL L 64., 2005.3.10., 55. o.
 (2) HL L 138., 2004.4.30., 50. o.
 (3) Alkotmányos követelmények nincsenek megjelölve.