type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 4.7.2016
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 C 243/50
 Жалба, подадена на 13 май 2016 г. — Янукович/Съвет
 (Дело T-245/16)
 (2016/C 243/56)
 Език на производството: английски
 Страни
 Жалбоподател: Александър Викторович Янукович (Донецк, Украйна) (представител: T. Beazley, QC)
 Ответник: Съвет на Европейския съюз
 Искания на жалбоподателя
 Жалбоподателят иска от Общия съд:
 —
 да отмени Решение (ОВППС) 2016/318 на Съвета от 4 март 2016 година за изменение на Решение 2014/119/ОВППС относно ограничителни мерки, насочени срещу определени лица, образувания и органи с оглед на ситуацията в Украйна (OВ 2016 L 60, стp. 76) в частта, в която се отнася до жалбоподателя;
 —
 да отмени Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) 2016/311 на Съвета от 4 март 2016 година за прилагане на Регламент (ЕС) No 208/2014 относно ограничителни мерки, насочени срещу определени лица, образувания и органи с оглед на положението в Украйна (OВ 2016 L 60, стp. 1) поради това, че не отменя Регламент No 208/2014, в частта, в която се прилага за жалбоподателя;
 —
 да осъди Съвета да заплати съдебните разноски на жалбоподателя.
 Основания и основни доводи
 В подкрепа на жалбата си жалбоподателят излага седем основания.
 1.
 В първото основание се твърди, че Съветът на Европейския съюз (наричан по-нататък „Съветът“) няма правно основание, за да приеме спорните мерки. Доводите в подкрепа на това и следващите основания са следните. Спорните мерки не изпълняват условията, необходими на Съвета за да се позове на член 29 ДЕС. Тези мерки са несъвместими с изрично изтъкнатите от Съвета цели в Решение (ОВППС) 2016/318 (утвърждаване на върховенството на закона и спазването на човешките права в Украйна). В действителност, спорните мерки не зачитат върховенството на закона и човешките права, тъй като подкрепят режим, за който няма съмнение, че не спазва човешките права и върховенството на закона. Съветът не може валидно да се позовава на решенията на украинската главна прокуратура и на украинските съдилища, по-специално тъй като те не са нито независими, нито безпристрастни, а се поддават на политическа намеса от настоящия украински режим. Украинските власти са нарушили многократно презумпцията за невиновност, на която жалбоподателят може да се позовава.
 2.
 Второто основание е изведено от твърдението, че Съветът е злоупотребил с правомощията си. Реалната цел, преследвана от него със спорните мерки, е и винаги е била да се получи благоволението на настоящия украински режим и да се увеличи неговото политическо влияние, което не представлява адекватно упражняване на съответните правомощия.
 3.
 Третото основание е изведено от твърдението, че Съветът не е представил адекватни или достатъчни мотиви, а се позовава само на формални и неточни изявления.
 4.
 Четвъртото основание е изведено от твърдението, че по времето, когато е включен в списъка, жалбоподателят не е отговарял на критериите за това. Материалите, на които се позовава Съветът, не са подкрепени в достатъчна степен с факти за може жалбоподателят да бъде включен в списъка.
 5.
 Петото основание е изведено от твърдението, че Съветът е допуснал явна грешка в преценката, като е включил жалбоподателя в спорните мерки. Съветът не е разполагал с конкретни, фактически потвърдени и последователни доказателства, които да обосноват спорните мерки, и не разгледал достатъчно стриктно ограничената информация, с която разполагал.
 6.
 Шестото основание е изведено от твърдението, че е нарушено правото на жалбоподателя на защита и/или че той е бил лишен от ефективна съдебна защита. Освен другите нарушения, Съветът не се консултирал надлежно с жалбоподателя, преди да го включи в списъка, и не му е била дадена съответната възможност да коригира грешките или да предостави релевантна информация.
 7.
 Седмото основание е изведено от твърдението, че е нарушено правото на жалбоподателя на собственост по член 17, параграф 1 от Хартата на основните права на ЕС.


type: contracts

text:
 8.11.2012
 EN
 Official Journal of the European Union
 L 309/32
 DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
 No 147/2012
 of 13 July 2012
 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement
 THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
 Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,
 Whereas:
 (1)
 Council Directive 2011/84/EU of 20 September 2011 amending Directive 76/768/EEC, concerning cosmetic products, for the purpose of adapting Annex III thereto to technical progress (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
 (2)
 Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,
 HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
 Article 1
 The following indent shall be added in point 1 (Council Directive 76/768/EEC) of Chapter XVI of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:
 ‘—
 32011 L 0084: Council Directive 2011/84/EU of 20 September 2011 (OJ L 283, 29.10.2011, p. 36).’
 Article 2
 The text of Directive 2011/84/EU in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.
 Article 3
 This Decision shall enter into force on 14 July 2012, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (2).
 Article 4
 This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.
 Done at Brussels, 13 July 2012.
 For the EEA Joint Committee
 The President
 Atle LEIKVOLL
 (1) OJ L 283, 29.10.2011, p. 36.
 (2) No constitutional requirements indicated.


type: wikipedia

text:
Lietuvos švyturiai – švyturiai Lietuvoje, pastatyti XVIII–XX a. prie Baltijos jūros ir Kuršių marių. Iš viso šiuo metu išlikę 7 švyturiai. Seniausias – Klaipėdos švyturys, pastatytas 1796 m., 1953 m. perstatytas. Ventės rago švyturys pastatytas 1863 m., Nidos – 1874 m., Uostadvario švyturys – 1873–1876 m., Pervalkos (arba Arklių) švyturys 1900 m., Šventosios švyturys Palangoje – 1957 m. Šie švyturiai yra įrašyti į Lietuvos Respublikos nekilnojamųjų kultūros vertybių registrą. Jie turi istorinę, architektūrinę, techninę vertę.
 TSRS laikais švyturiai buvo laikomi strateginiu objektu. Šalia jų buvo draudžiama bet kokia aukštų pastatų statyba ir jų fotografavimas, populiarinimas. Dabar visi Lietuvos švyturiai yra atviri ir prieinami visuomenei.
 Jūriniai švyturiai
 Lietuvoje yra 4 jūriniai švyturiai (Nidoje, Juodkrantėje, Klaipėdoje ir Šventojoje).
 Klaipėdos švyturys buvo vienas pirmųjų šiaurės rytų Baltijos jūros pakrantėje. Pastatytas ir įžiebtas 1796 m. rugsėjo 1 d. (Baltijos jūros pakrantėje senesni tik Dancigo ir Travemiundės švyturiai). Šviesos įtaisą sudarė 6 atšvaitai iš bronzos, atspindėję lajinių žibintų šviesą. Dėl menko atšvaitų efekto švyturio šviesa 4 km atstumu nuo kranto buvo matoma tik kaip mėnulio pilnaties diskas. 1819 m. Klaipėdos švyturys buvo paaukštintas (projekto autorius – Samuelis Irentalis), jame įrengta nauja žibintų sistema, kurią sudarė 13 varinių poliruoto sidabro plokštelėmis dengtų atšvaitų, apšviestų 13-os lempų, kūrenamų alyva. Tuomet jūroje švyturio šviesa sklisdavo daugiau kaip 30 km. Senojo (per 200 metų senumo) švyturio autentiška teišliko tik 4 metrų cokolinė dalis. Klaipėdos švyturys per Antrąjį pasaulinį karą buvo visiškai sugriautas, atstatytas 1945 m., o iš naujo perstatytas ir patobulintas tik 1953 m. Dabartinio švyturio aukštis – 44 metrai. Atstumas nuo jūros – 500 m. Signalas matomas iš 33 kilometrų.
 Nidos švyturys nuo jūros yra nutolęs 900 metrų. Aukštis – 28 metrai. Signalas matomas iš 40 kilometrų.
 Šventosios švyturys nuo jūros yra nutolęs per 780 metrų. Aukštis – 39 metrai. Signalas matomas iš 31 kilometro. Metalinių konstrukcijų švyturys pastatytas 1957 m. 1964 m. įrengtas garso signalas.
 Juodkrantės švyturys nuo jūros yra nutolęs 900 metrų. Aukštis – 21 metrai. šviesos signalas matomas 33 km spinduliu.
 Kuršių marių švyturiai
 Kuršių marių švyturiai – Pervalkos (Arklių), Ventės rago, Uostadvario.
 Pervalkos švyturys stovi ant dirbtinės Kuršių marių salos. Aukštis – 14 metrų. Signalas matomas už 13 kilometrų. Pastatytas 1900 m., perstatytas 1948 m. ir 1960 m., sala sutvirtinta betono blokais. Švyturys veikia automatiškai – siunčia matomus baltus signalus.
 Ventės rago švyturys pastatytas Ventės rage. 1837 m. pastatytas medinis, 1860 m. pradėtas statyti mūrinis. Aukštis – 11, atstumas iki marių – 30 metrų, signalas matomas iš 3,5 km. Švyturys yra technikos paminklas.
 Uostadvario švyturys – pastatytas 1873–1876 m., dabar nebenaudojamas, žibintas neišlikęs. Technikos istorijos paminklas. Švyturys taisyklingo aštuonkampio formos, sujungtas su gyvenamuoju namu. Sienų briaunos papuoštos žalios spalvos glazūruotomis plytomis, sienos raudonų plytų mūro. Viduje – įvijiniai betoniniai laiptai, vedantys į žibinto patalpą, iš kurios patenkama į apžvalgos aikštelę. Švyturys susijęs su XIX–XX a. navigacija.
 Šaltiniai


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21995A0531(01)
 Overeenkomst in de vorm van een briefwisseling tussen de Europese Gemeenschap en Barbados, Belize, Fidji, de Coöperatieve Republiek Guyana, de Republiek Ivoorkust, Jamaica, de Republiek Kenia, de VolksrepubliekKongo, de Malgassische Republiek, de Republiek Malawi, Mauritius, de Republiek Oeganda, de Republiek Suriname, Sint- Christoffer en Nevis, het Koninkrijk Swaziland, de Verenigde Republiek Tanzania, Trinidad en Tobago, de Republiek Zambia en de Republiek Zimbabwe inzake de toetreding van de Republiek Zambia tot het aan de Vierde ACS-EEG-Overeenkomst van Lomé gehechte Protocol Nr. 8 betreffende ACS-suiker
 Publicatieblad Nr. L 120 van 31/05/1995 blz. 0038 - 0038
 OVEREENKOMST in de vorm van een briefwisseling tussen de Europese Gemeenschap en Barbados, Belize, Fidji, de Coöperatieve Republiek Guyana, de Republiek Ivoorkust, Jamaica, de Republiek Kenia, de Volksrepubliek Kongo, de Malgassische Republiek, de Republiek Malawi, Mauritius, de Republiek Oeganda, de Republiek Suriname, Sint-Christoffer en Nevis, het Koninkrijk Swaziland, de Verenigde Republiek Tanzania, Trinidad en Tobago, de Republiek Zambia en de Republiek Zimbabwe inzake de toetreding van de Republiek Zambia tot het aan de Vierde ACS-EEG-Overeenkomst van Lomé gehechte Protocol nr. 8 betreffende ACS-suikerA. Brief nr. 1 Brussel, . . . . . .Mijnheer,De ACS-Staten, genoemd in het aan de Vierde ACS-EEG-Overeenkomst gehechte Protocol nr. 8 betreffende ACS-suiker, de Republiek Zambia en de Europese Gemeenschap zijn het volgende overeengekomen:De Republiek Zambia wordt met ingang van 1 januari 1995 opgenomen in artikel 3, lid 1, van genoemd Protocol, met een overeengekomen hoeveelheid van 0 ton.Ik moge u verzoeken mij de ontvangst van deze brief te willen berichten en mij te bevestigen dat deze brief en Uw antwoord een overeenkomst tussen de Regeringen van bovengenoemde ACS-Staten en de Europese Gemeenschap vormen.Gelieve, Mijnheer, de verzekering van mijn bijzondere hoogachting te aanvaarden.Namens de Raad van de Europese UnieB. Brief nr. 2 Brussel, . . . . . .Mijnheer,Ik heb de eer U de ontvangst te bevestigen van Uw brief van heden, welke als volgt luidt:"De ACS-Staten, genoemd in het aan de Vierde ACS-EEG-Overeenkomst gehechte Protocol nr. 8 betreffende ACS-suiker, de Republiek Zambia en de Europese Gemeenschap zijn het volgende overeengekomen:De Republiek Zambia wordt met ingang van 1 januari 1995 opgenomen in artikel 3, lid 1, van genoemd Protocol, met een overeengekomen hoeveelheid van 0 ton.Ik moge u verzoeken mij de ontvangst van deze brief te willen berichten en mij te bevestigen dat deze brief en Uw antwoord een overeenkomst tussen de regeringen van bovengenoemde ACS-Staten en de Europese Gemeenschap vormen.".Ik heb de eer U de instemming van de Regeringen van de in uw brief genoemde ACS-Staten met het voorgaande te bevestigen.Ik verzoek U, Mijnheer, de verzekering van mijn bijzondere hoogachting te willen aanvaarden.Namens de Regeringen van de in Protocol nr. 8 bedoelde ACS-Staten en van de Republiek Zambia


type: other

text:
Responsabbiltà - Repubblika Ċeka
 It-terminu "responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri" huwa minqux fil-Kodiċi Ċivili (Att Nru 89/2012). Dan it-terminu jinkludi sett ta' drittijiet u obbligi tal-ġenituri, li jinkludu:
 il-kura tat-tfal, inkluż b'mod partikolari l-kura ta' saħħithom u tal-iżvilupp fiżiku, emozzjonali, intellettwali u morali,
 il-protezzjoni tat-tfal,
 iż-żamma ta' kuntatt personali mat-tfal,
 l-iżgurar tal-formazzjoni u l-edukazzjoni tat-tfal,
 id-determinazzjoni tal-post tar-residenza tiegħu,
 ir-rappreżentazzjoni tat-tfal u l-ġestjoni tal-beni tiegħu.
 Ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri tibda mit-twelid tal-wild u tispiċċa meta jikseb kapaċità ġuridika sħiħa. Id-dewmien u l-ambitu tar-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri jistgħu jinbidlu biss minn qorti. Ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri tiġi eżerċitata mill-ġenituri skont l-interessi tat-tfal. Qabel ma jieħdu deċiżjoni li tolqot l-interessi tat-tfal, il-ġenituri jinfurmaw lit-tfal b'dak kollu meħtieġ biex ikunu jistgħu jaslu għal opinjoni huma stess dwar il-kwistjoni kkonċernata u biex jinfurmaw lill-ġenituri b'dik l-opinjoni; dan ma japplikax jekk it-tfal ma jkunux kapaċi jilqgħu l-informazzjoni sew jew ma jkunu kapaċi jiffurmaw l-opinjoni tagħhom jew ma jkunux jistgħu jinfurmaw lill-ġenituri bl-opinjoni tagħhom. Il-ġenituri jagħtu kas partikolari tal-opinjoni tat-tfal u jqisu l-opinjoni tat-tfal meta jieħdu d-deċiżjoni. Ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri relatata mal-persuna tat-tfal hija tal-ġenituri b'mod u f'ambitu li jikkorrispondu għal-livell ta' żvilupp tat-tfal. Jekk il-ġenituri jkunu qed jieħdu deċiżjoni dwar l-edukazzjoni jew l-impjieg tat-tfal, iridu jqisu l-opinjoni, il-kapaċitajiet u t-talenti tagħhom.
 Sakemm it-tfal jiksbu l-kapaċità ġuridika, il-ġenituri tagħhom ikollhom id-dritt li jiggwidaw lit-tfal bl-użu ta' miżuri edukattivi xierqa lejn il-kapaċitajiet li jkunu qed jevolvu, inklużi restrizzjonijiet diretti lejn il-protezzjoni tal-morali, tas-saħħa u tad-drittijiet tat-tfal, kif ukoll id-drittijiet ta' persuni oħrajn u tal-ordni pubbliku. It-tfal iridu jissottomettu ruħhom għal dawn il-miżuri. Ir-riżorsi edukattivi jistgħu jintużaw biss f'forma u ambitu li jkun xieraq għaċ-ċirkostanzi, ma jipperikolax is-saħħa tat-tfal u l-iżvilupp tagħhom u ma jippreġudikax id-dinjità tal-bniedem tat-tifel.
 Huwa mifhum li l-minuri kollha li ma jkollhomx kapaċità ġuridika sħiħa jkunu kompetenti li jwettqu atti ġuridiċi xierqa għall-maturità intellettwali u ta' rieda tal-minuri ta' dik l-età. Il-ġenituri għandhom l-obbligu u d-dritt li jirrappreżentaw lit-tfal fi proċedimenti ġudizzjarji li t-tfal ma jkunux ġuridikament kompetenti għalihom. Il-ġenituri jirrappreżentaw konġuntament lil uliedhom, madankollu kull wieħed minnhom jista' jaġixxi b'mod separat; jekk wieħed mill-ġenituri jaġixxi waħdu fi kwistjoni li tikkonċerna lit-tfal fir-rigward ta' parti terza, li tkun qed taġixxi in bona fide, ikun mifhum li huwa jkun aġixxa bi qbil mal-ġenitur l-ieħor. Ġenitur ma jistax jirrappreżenta lit-tfal jekk dan ikun jista' jwassal għal kunflitt ta’ interess bejnu u wliedu, jew bejn it-tfal tal-istess ġenituri. F'każ bħal dan il-qorti tinnomina tutur għat-tfal. Jekk il-ġenituri ma jkunux jistgħu jaqbli dwar min minnhom għandu jirrapreżenta lit-tfal fi proċedimenti ġudizzjarji, tiddeċiedi l-qorti – wara talba minn wieħed mill-ġenituri – liem ġenitur jaġixxi ġuridikament f'isem it-tfal u b'liema mod.
 Il-ġenituri għandhom l-obbligu u d-dritt li jamministraw il-proprjetà tat-tfal, b'mod partikolari li jamministrawha bid-diliġenza dovuta. Huma jridu jimmaniġġaw b'mod sikur il-fondi li jitqiesu li mhumiex neċċessarji biex ikopru l-ispejjeż konnessi mal-proprjetà tal-minuri. Matul il-proċedimenti ġudizzjarji li jkollhom x'jaqsmu ma' partijiet individwali tal-proprjetà tat-tfal, il-ġenituri jaġixxu bħala r-rappreżentanti tagħhom; ġenitur ma jistax jirrappreżenta lit-tfal jekk dan ikun jista' jwassal għal kunflitt ta’ interess bejnu u wliedu, jew bejn it-tfal tal-istess ġenituri. F'każ bħal dan il-qorti tinnomina tutur għat-tfal. Jekk ġenitur jikser l-obbligu għall-kura tal-proprjetà tat-tfal bid-diliġenza dovuta, huwa jkollu jikkumpensa lit-tfal għad-danni li jsofru in solidum. Jekk il-ġenituri ma jaqblux dwar kwistjonijiet essenzjali relatati mal-amministrazzjoni tal-proprjetà tat-tfal, il-qorti tiddeċiedi wara talba minn wieħed mill-ġenituri. Il-ġenituri jeħtieġu l-qbil ta' qorti għal atti ġuridiċi li jkunu relatati ma' proprjetà eżistenti jew futura tat-tfal jew ta' partijiet separati ta' dik il-proprjetà, sakemm ma jkunux kwistjonijiet komuni, jew nake jekk ikunu eċċezzjonali jkunu relatati ma' valuri tal-proprjetà negliġibbli.
 Ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri hija obbligu għaż-żewġ ġenituri. Kull ġenitur ikollu sakemm ma jkunx imċaħħad minnha. Huwa irrilevanti jekk il-ġenituri humiex miżżewġin, u jekk it-tifel twilidx minn żwieġ jew le.
 Il-ġenituri jeżerċitaw ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri bi qbil reċiproku. Jekk dewmien biex tittieħed deċiżjoni rigward kwistjoni li tikkonċerna t-tfal ikun perikoluż, wieħed mill-ġenituri jista' jieħu d-deċiżjoni hu jew jagħti l-kunsens tiegħu waħdu; huwa jrid madankollu jinforma lill-ġenitur l-ieħor dwar l-istat tal-affarijiet mingħajr dewmien. Jekk wieħed mill-ġenituri jaġixxi waħdu fi kwistjoni tat-tfal fir-rigward ta' parti terza, li tkun qed taġixxi in bona fide, ikun mifhum li huwa jkun aġixxa bi qbil mal-ġenitur l-ieħor. Jekk il-ġenituri ma jaqblux dwar kwistjoni li tkun importanti għat-tfal, b'mod partikolari fir-rigward tal-interessi tagħhom, il-qorti tiddeċiedi wara talba minn wieħed mill-ġenituri; dan japplika wkoll jekk ġenitur ikun eskluż mit-teħid ta' deċiżjoni dwar kwistjoni importanti għat-tfal mill-ġenitur l-ieħor. Eżempji ta' kwistjonijiet importanti huma d-determinazzjoni tal-post tar-residenza u l-għażla tal-edukazzjoni jew l-impjieg tat-tifel, imma mhux proċeduri mediċi normali jew proċeduri simili.
 Qorti tista' tiddeċiedi li tissospendi r-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri jekk il-ġenituri ma jitħallewx jeżerċitaw ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri tagħhom minħabba ċirkostanza serja u jekk jitqies li dan ikun meħtieġ fl-interess tat-tfal. Jekk ġenitur ma jeżerċitax ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri tiegħu sew u jkun hemm bżonn fl-interess tat-tifel li dan jagħmlu, il-qorti tista' tillimita r-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri, jew tillimita l-prestazzjoni tagħha, u fl-istess ħin tiddetermina l-ambitu għal dik il-limitazzjoni. Jekk ġenitur jabbuża mir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri tiegħu jew l-eżerċizzju tiegħu, u/jew jonqos b'mod serju mir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri tiegħu jew l-eżerċizzju tagħha, il-qorti tista' ċċaħħadlu r-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri tiegħu. Jekk ġenitur jikkommetti delitt intenzjonali kontra t-tifel tiegħu, jew jekk ġenitur juża lit-tifel tiegħu – li ma jkunx kriminalment responsabbli – biex jagħmel delitt, il-qorti teżamina b'mod partikolari jkunx hemm il-bażi biex il-ġenitur jiċċaħħad mir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri tiegħu.
 Jekk wieħed mill-ġenituri jmut jew ma jkunx magħruf, jew jekk wieħed mill-ġenituri ma jkollux ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri jew l-eżerċizzju tar-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri tiegħu jkun sospiż, il-ġenitur l-ieħor jeżerċita r-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri hu; dan japplika wkoll jekk ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri jew l-eżerċizzju tagħha minn wieħed mill-ġenituri tkun limitata. Jekk l-ebda wieħed mill-ġenituri ma jkollu r-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri sħiħa, jekk l-eżerċizzju tar-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri taż-żewġ ġenituri tkun sospiża, u/jew jekk ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri tkun affettwata f'wieħed mill-modi indikati, imma kull wieħed minnhom b'mod differenti, il-qorti taħtar tutur għat-tifel, li jkollu l-obbligi u d-drittijiet tal-ġenituri jew jeżerċita dawn l-obbligi jew drittijiet minflok il-ġenituri. Jekk ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri tkun limitata jew l-eżerċizzju tagħha jkun limitat, il-qorti tinnomina tutur għat-tfal.
 Jekk tifel ikun adottat, id-drittijiet u l-obbligi li jiġu mir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri jkunu ttrasferiti lill-adottatur mill-mument li d-deċiżjoni legali dwar l-adozzjoni tidħol fis-seħħ.
 Jekk qorti tiddeċiedi li tillimita l-kapaċità ġuridika ta' ġenitur, hija tiddeċiedi wkoll dwar ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri tiegħu. L-eżerċizzju tar-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri minn minuri ġenitur li jkun għadu ma kisibx il-kapaċità ġuridika sħiħa permezz ta' dikjarazzjoni jew żwieġ, tiġi sospiża sakemm jikseb kapaċità ġuridika sħiħa; dan ma japplikax fir-rigward tal-eżerċizzju tal-obbligi u d-drittijiet tal-kura għat-tifel, sakemm il-qorti ma tiddeċidix li, fir-rigward tal-persuna tal-ġenitur, l-eżerċizzju ta' dan l-obbligu u dan id-dritt ikun sospiż sakemm il-ġenitur jikseb kapaċità ġuridika sħiħa. L-eżerċizzju tar-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri ta' ġenitur li l-kapaċità ġuridika tiegħu f'dan il-qasam tkun ġiet limitata, jiġi sospiż għal kemm iddum il-limitazzjoni tal-kapaċità ġuridika tiegħu, sakemm il-qorti ma tiddeċidix li l-ġenitur, minħabba l-persuna tiegħu, se jkompli jżomm l-eżerċizzu tal-obbligu u d-dritt tal-kura għat-tfal u l-kuntatt personali mat-tfal.
 Fin-nuqqas taż-żewġ ġenituri illi kieku kien ikollhom r-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri sħiħa fir-rigward ta' wliedhom, il-qorti tinnomina tutur għat-tfal. Tutur ikollu fundamentalment l-obbligi u d-drittijiet kollha tal-ġenituri fir-rigward tat-tfal, imma ma jkollux l-obbligu ta' sostenn u ta' manteniment fir-rigward tat-tfal. F'każijiet eċċezzjonali, il-firxa tal-obbligi u d-drittijiet jistgħu jkunu definiti b'mod differenti wara li titqies il-persuna tat-tutur jew is-sitwazzjoni tat-tfal, kif ukoll ir-raġuni għala l-ġenituri ma għandhomx l-obbligi u d-drittijiet kollha. Tutur irid ikollu kapaċità ġuridika sħiħa u l-mod tal-għajxien tiegħu jrid jiggarantixxi li jkun kapaċi jaqdi dan ir-rwol sew. Il-qorti tista' taħtar żewġ persuni – li bħala regola jkunu miżżewġin – fir-rwol ta' tuturi. Jekk dan ma jkunx kontra l-interessi tat-tfal, il-qorti tista' taħtar persuna magħżula minn wieħed mill-ġenituri bħala tutur. Inkella l-qorti tista' taħtar qarib jew persuna qrib it-tfal jew il-familja tagħhom bħala tutur, sakemm ma jkunux espressament esklużi minn wieħed mill-ġenituri. Jekk ma jkun hemm ħadd hekk, il-qorti taħtar persuna adatta oħra bħala tutur. Jekk l-ebda persuna fiżika ma tkun tista' tinħatar tutur għat-tfal, il-qorti taħtar awtorità għall-protezzjoni soċjali u ġuridika tat-tfal sakemm il-qorti taħtar tutur differenti għat-tfal jew sakemm tutur jaċċetta r-rwol. Tutur huwa suġġett għas-sorveljanza mill-qorti. Huwa jħejji lista tal-proprjetà kemm fil-bidu u kemm fi tmiem ir-rwol. Huwa jibgħat regorlament rapporti lill-qorti dwar it-tfal, l-iżvilupp tagħhom, u l-kontijiet mill-amministrazzjoni tal-proprjetà. Kull deċiżjoni minn tutur fi kwistjonijiet li mhumiex regolari jridu jkunu approvati mill-qorti.
 Possibbiltà oħra hija li t-tfal jingħataw fostering. Il-fostering huwa kura personali għal ulied ħaddieħor; madankollu, dan ma jinvolvix l-aċċettazzjoni ta' wild ħaddieħor bħala tiegħek bħal fil-każ tal-adozzjoni. Fit-trobbija tat-tfal, ġenitur foster jeżerċita l-obbligi u d-drittijiet tal-ġenituri sa ċertu punt. Huwa obbligat u intitolat jiddeċiedi biss dwar kwistjonijiet ta' kuljum li jikkonċernaw lit-tfal, jirrappreżenta lit-tfal f'dawn il-kwistjonijiet u jamministra l-proprjetà tagħhom. Huwa jrid jinforma lill-ġenituri tat-tfal bil-kwistjonijiet importanti. Skont iċ-ċirkostanzi, il-qorti tista' tiddetermina obbligi u drittijiet addizzjonali tal-ġenitur foster. Il-ġenituri tat-tfal iżommu l-obbligi u d-drittijiet tagħhom li jkunu ġejjin mir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri, inkluż id-dritt ta' kuntatt personali u regolari, u d-dritt għall-informazzjoni dwar it-tfal, bl-eċċezzjoni tal-obbligi u d-drittijiet li l-liġi tiddetermina għall-ġenitur foster, sakemm il-qorti ma tiddeċidix mod ieħor minħabba raġunijiet li jkun ħaqqhom kunsiderazzjoni speċjali. Ġenitur foster ma jkollux u l-obbligu ta' sostenn u ta' manteniment lejn it-tfal.
 Ġenitur foster irid jiggarantixxi kura xierqa, ikun residenti r-Repubblika Ċeka, u jrid jaqbel li t-tfal ikunu fdati f'idejh għall-fostering. Bħala regola, dan ikun jiġi mit-tfal, imma jista' jkun persuna oħra li l-awtorità għall-protezzjoni soċjali u ġuridika tat-tfal tkun irranġatilha l-fostering (għal din il-fini l-qorti reġjonali żżomm evidenza tal-applikanti adatti li jsiru ġenituri foster). Qorti tista' tagħti tifel għall-fostering għal perjodu temporanju (pereżempju għal kemm ġenitur idum f'faċilità tat-trattament) kif ukoll għal perjodu ta' żmien mhux speċifikat. Il-fostering jista' b'hekk jindirizza kriżi fil-familja jew jiżgura l-kura f'ambjent familjari alternattiv. Biex jitnaqqas l-għadd ta' tfal f'istituti jew faċilitajiet li qishom istitut, il-fostering jieħu preċedenza fuq il-kura istituzzjonali. Ġenitur foster jirċievi benefiċċji għall-fostering mill-istat (pereżempju kontribut lejn il-ħlas tal-bżonnijiet tat-tfal, kontribut fi tmiem il-fostering, rimunerazzjoni tal-ġenitur foster eċċ.)
 Barra minn hekk, il-Kodiċi Ċivili jirregola l-istituzzjoni tal-kustodja tat-tfal lil persuna fil-każ li l-ebda ġenitur jew tutur ma jkun jista' jieħu ħsieb it-tfal. Din il-kustodja hija alternattiva għall-fostering, jew il-kura li tippreċedi l-adozzjoni. Hija tieħu preċedenza fuq il-kura istituzzjonali għat-tfal. Il-persuna inkarigata trid tiggarantixxi kura xierqa, tkun residenti r-Repubblika Ċeka, u trid taqbel li t-tfal ikunu fdati f'idejha għall-kura personali. L-obbligi u d-drittijiet tal-persuna inkarigata huma definit mill-qorti; inkella tintuża l-leġiżlazzjoni dwar il-fostering kif xieraq.
 Il-ġenituri, bħala r-rappreżentanti legali, jistgħu – għall-immaniġġar tal-affarijiet tat-tfal, sakemm ma jkunux kwistjonijiet ta' status personali – jiffirmaw ftehim għar-rappreżentanza minn persuna b'għarfien espert, jew pereżempju minn persuna adatta oħra. Jekk it-tifel jiffirma ftehim għar-rappreżentanza, dan ma jkollu l-ebda influwenza fuq ir-rappreżentanza legali tat-tifel mill-ġenituri. Jekk ir-rappreżentanti ġuridiċi u kuntrattwali ma jkunux jistgħu jaqblu, il-qorti tiddeċiedi skont l-interessi tat-tfal.
 Jekk it-trobbija tat-tfal jew l-istat fiżiku, intellettwali jew mentali tagħhom, u l-iżvilupp xieraq tagħhom ikun mhedded jew iddisturbat sa tali punt li jkun kontra l-interessi tat-tfal, u/jew fil-każ ta' raġunijiet serji li minħabba fihom il-ġenituri ma jkunux jistgħu jiżguraw it-trobbija ta' wliedhom, il-qorti tista' tordna l-kura istituzzjonali bħala miżura neċessarja. Dan tagħmlu b'mod partikolari f'każijiet fejn miżuri preċedenti ma kinux wasslu għal rimedju. Waqt li jsir dan, il-qorti dejjem tqis jekk hux xieraq li tingħata preferenza li t-tfal jingħataw għall-kura minn persuna fiżika. Il-kura istituzzjonali tista' tiġi ordnata għal perjodu ta' mhux iktar minn tliet snin, filwaqt li dan jista' jiġi estiż (ripetutament) jekk ir-raġunijiet għall-ordni tal-kura istituzzjonali jippersistu (dejjem għal massimu ta' tliet snin). Jekk ir-raġunijiet li l-kura istituzzjonali ġiet ordnata minħabba fihom ma għadhomx jeżistu, jew jekk ikun possibbli li tkun ipprovduta kura mhux istituzzjonali għat-tfal, il-qorti tħassar il-kura istituzzjonali mingħajr dewmien u fl-istess ħin tiddeċiedi lil min jingħataw it-tfal skont iċ-ċirkostanzi.
 Deċiżjoni dwar il-kura tat-tfal hija kundizzjoni essenzjali għad-divorzju tal-ġenituri tagħhom. Biex tieħu d-deċiżjoni l-qorti tqis l-interess tat-tfal; il-qorti tiddevja biss mill-qbil reċiproku tal-ġenituri jekk ikun hemm bżonn fl-interess tat-tfal. Il-qorti tista' tagħti l-kura tat-tfal lil wieħed mill-ġenituri jew b'kustodja maqsuma jew kustodja konġunta; il-qorti tista' wkoll tagħti l-kura tat-tfal lil persuna oħra li mhix wieħed mill-ġenituri tagħhom jekk ikun meħtieġ fl-interess tat-tfal. Il-qorti tqis il-personalità tat-tfal, b'mod partikolari t-talenti u l-kapaċitajiet tagħhom fir-rigward tal-possibilitajiet ta' żvilupp, u l-istili tal-ħajja tal-ġenituri tagħhom, kif ukoll l-orjentazzjoni emozzjonali u l-isfond tat-tfal, il-kapaċità ta' kull wieħed mill-ġenituri li jipprovdi t-trobbija, l-istabilità kurrenti u antiċipata tal-ambjent edukattiv fejn għandhom jitrabbew it-tfal, u r-rabtiet emozzjonali tat-tfal ma' xulxin, man-nanniet jew ma' qraba u persuni mhux relatati oħrajn. Il-qorti dejjem se tqis liem ġenitur ikun ħa ħsieb sew tat-tfal sa dak il-punt u min ikun ħa ħsieb l-edukazzjoni emozzjonali, intellettwali u morali tagħhom kif ukoll liem ġenitur joffri l-aħjar opportunitajiet lit-tfal għal żvilupp b'saħħtu u b'suċċess. Il-qorti se tiffoka wkoll fuq id-dritt tat-tfal għall-kura miż-żewġ ġenituri u għaż-żamma ta' kuntatt personali regolari magħhom, fuq id-dritt tal-ġenitur l-ieħor li mhux se jkollu l-kustodja għal informazzjoni regolari dwar it-tfal, u l-qorti tqis ukoll il-kapaċità tal-ġenitur li jaqbel dwar it-trobbija tat-tfal mal-ġenitur l-ieħor. Il-qorti tista' tiddeċiedi wkoll li tapprova ftehim bejn il-ġenituri sakemm ikun ċar li l-metodu maqbul għall-eżerċizzju tar-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri jkun skont l-interess tat-tfal.
 Jekk il-ġenituri ta' minuri li ma jkollux kapaċità ġuridika sħiħa ma jkunux jgħixu flimkien, u jekk ma jkunux jistgħu jaqblu dwar ir-regolamentazzjoni tal-kura għal dak it-tifel, il-qorti tiddeċiedi dwarhom ex officio. Hija ssegwi regoli simili għat-teħid ta' deċiżjonijiet dwar il-kura għat-tfal bħal fil-każ ta' divorzju tal-ġenituri tagħhom.
 Il-ġenitur li jkollu t-tifel fil-kura tiegħu, u l-ġenitur l-ieħor, jiddeċiedu flimkien kif il-ġenitur li ma jkollux it-tifel fil-kura tiegħu ikun jista' jżomm kuntatt miegħu. Jekk il-ġenituri ma jkunux jistgħu jaqblu, jew ikun meħtieġ skont l-interess tat-trobbija tal-ġenituri u r-relazzjonijiet fil-familja, il-qorti tirregola l-kuntatt bejn il-ġenitur u t-tifel. F'każijiet iġġustifikati, il-qorti tista' tiddetermina fejn jista' jsir il-kuntatt bejn il-ġenitur u t-tifel. Jekk ikun hemm bżonn fl-interess tat-tifel, il-qorti tillimita d-dritt ta' ġenitur għall-kuntatt mat-tifel, u/jew ma tippermettix dak il-kuntatt.
 Jekk iċ-ċirkostanzi jinbidlu, il-qorti tibdel id-deċiżjoni relatata mal-prestazzjoni tal-obbligi u d-drittijiet li jiġu mir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri anke ex officio.
 Fil-każ ta' divorzju bejn il-ġenituri, il-ftehim bejn il-ġenituri dwar il-metodu tal-eżerċizzju tar-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri jrid jirregola kif kull wieħed mill-ġenituri ikun se jieħu ħsieb it-tfal wara d-divorzju. F'dan il-ftehim, il-ġenituri jistgħu jirregolaw il-kuntatt bejn il-ġenituri u t-tfal. Ftehim ta' din ix-xorta huwa suġġett għall-qbil tal-qorti, li tapprova ftehim bejn il-ġenituri sakemm ikun ċar li l-metodu maqbul għall-eżerċizzju tar-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri jkun skont l-interess tat-tfal. L-istess japplika għal ftehim bejn il-ġenituri jekk il-ġenituri ma jkunux jgħixu flimkien.
 Biex jitħarsu l-interessi tat-tfal, il-qorti, waqt il-proċedimenti dwar il-kura għall-minuri, tiggwida lill-ġenituri biex isibu soluzzjoni konċiljatorja. Il-qorti tista' timponi l-parteċipazzjoni f'konċiljazzjoni ekstraġudizzjarja jew f'laqgħat tal-medjazzjoni jew f'terapija familjari fuq il-ġenituri għal perjodu ta' mhux iktar minn 3 xhur, jew tista' timponi fuqhom laqgħat ma' espert fil-pedopsikoloġija.
 Barra minn hekk, huwa possibbli li jintużaw is-servizzi ta' l-hekk imsejħa ċentri ta' konsulenza dwar iż-żwieġ u l-familja li jipprovdu għajnuna permezz ta' psikologi u ħaddiema soċjali.
 Hekk ukoll, awtorità għall-protezzjoni soċjali u legali tat-tfal tista' tipperswadi jew teduka ġenitur li ma jkunx jirrispetta d-drittijiet tat-tfal jew lill-ġenitur l-ieħor (eż. għall-kura, il-kuntatt regolari) dwar il-leġiżlazzjoni u l-konsegwenzi tal-imġiba tiegħu. Awtorità għall-protezzjoni soċjali u legali tat-tfal tista' wkoll timponi fuq il-ġenituri l-obbligu li jużaw konsulenza esperta jekk il-ġenituri ma jkunux kapaċi jsolvu l-problemi marbuta mat-trobbija tat-tfal mingħajr konsulenza esperta, b'mod partikolari waqt it-tilwim dwar il-modifikazzjoni tat-trobbija tat-tfal jew id-drittijiet ta' viżitazzjoni.
 Bil-kundizzjoni ta' konformità mal-kundizzjonijiet magħżula u wara talba mill-ġenituri, il-qorti tista' tiddeċiedi, b'mod partikolari, dwar il-kwistjonijiet li ġejjin li għandhom x'jaqsmu mar-relazzjonijiet bejn il-ġenituri u wliedhom:
 id-drittijiet ta' natura personali (eż. id-dritt li tiddetermina l-isem u l-kunjom tat-tfal jew id-dritt li jingħata kunsens għall-adozzjoni tat-tfal)
 il-kura tat-tfal u r-regolamentazzjoni tal-kuntatt mat-tfal,
 forom alternattivi ta' kura tat-tfal (eż. tutela, kustodja minn persuna oħra, fostering, kura istituzzjonali),
 il-manteniment u l-obbligi ta' sostenn,
 ir-rappreżentanza u l-amministrazzjoni tal-proprjetà tat-tfal, il-kunsens għal kawżi legali mit-tfal,
 dwar kwistjonijiet importanti għat-tfal, fejn il-ġenituri ma jkunux jistgħu jaqblu (eżempji ta' kwistjonijiet importanti huma, b'mod partikolari, id-determinazzjoni tal-post tar-residenza u l-għażla tal-edukazzjoni jew l-impjieg tat-tifel, imma mhux proċeduri mediċi normali jew proċeduri simili).
 Normalment, il-qorti tiddeċiedi lil min tkun se tagħti l-kustodja tat-tfal, u potenzjalment dwar ir-regolamentazzjoni tal-kuntatt mat-tfal, u dwar il-manteniment u s-sostenn.
 Il-kura għat-tfal hija biss parti mill-obbligi u d-drittijiet inklużi fir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri. Jekk ġenitur li ma kellux il-kura tat-tfal ma kienx imċaħħad mir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri, u lanqas ma kellu r-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri limitata jew sospiża, huwa xorta jkun jista' jeżerċitaha fir-rigward tal-komponenti l-oħra tar-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri u ma jitlifx id-dritt li jiddeċiedi dwar kwistjonijiet importanti li jikkonċernaw it-tfal. Ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri tiġi eżerċitata mill-ġenituri bi qbil reċiproku u skont l-interessi tat-tfal. Jekk ikun hemm il-periklu ta' inadempjenza waqt li tkun qed tittieħed id-deċiżjoni rigward kwistjoni li tikkonċerna t-tfal, wieħed mill-ġenituri jista' jieħu d-deċiżjoni hu jew jagħti l-kunsens tiegħu waħdu; huwa jrid madankollu jinforma lill-ġenitur l-ieħor dwar l-istat tal-affarijiet mingħajr dewmien.
 Jekk il-ġenituri ma jaqblux dwar kwistjoni li tkun importanti għat-tfal, b'mod partikolari fir-rigward tal-interessi tagħhom, il-qorti tiddeċiedi wara talba minn wieħed mill-ġenituri; dan japplika wkoll jekk ġenitur ikun eskluż mit-teħid ta' deċiżjoni dwar kwistjoni importanti għat-tfal mill-ġenitur l-ieħor. Il-qorti tiddeċiedi wkoll wara talba minn ġenitur f'każ fejn il-ġenituri ma jkunux jistgħu jaqblu dwar min minnhom se jirrappreżenta lit-tfal fi proċedimenti ġudizzjarji jew fi kwistjonijiet importanti relatati mal-amministrazzjoni tal-proprjetà tat-tfal.
 Il-ġenituri jridu jinfurmaw lil xulxin b'kull ħaġa importanti fir-rigward tat-tfal u l-interessi tagħhom.
 Il-Kodiċi Ċivili jagħmel differenza bejn li tingħata l-kustodja lil wieħed mill-ġenituri tiegħu, jew kustodja maqsuma jew kustodja konġunta, jew fil-kustodja ta' xi ħadd li mhux wieħed mill-ġenituri tiegħu. Meta tieħu deċiżjoni dwar il-kura tat-tfal, il-qorti tiddeċiedi b'tali mod li tissodisfa l-interessi tat-tfal. Qorti tista' tikkonċedi kustodja maqsuma jew kustodja konġunta jekk il-ġenituri jkunu kapaċi jikkomunikaw u jikkooperaw flimkien.
 Kustodja konġunta (trobbija konġunta)
 Din il-forma ta' regolamentazzjoni tal-kura għat-tfal tfisser li ma jkun hemm l-ebda deċiżjoni speċifika dwar il-kustodja tat-tfal lil ġenitur jew ieħor. Fil-prattika dan ifisser li f'każ ta' kustodja konġunta wieħed mill-ġenituri jista' pereżempju jiżgura l-bżonnijiet tat-tfal u l-attivitajiet sportivi l-oħra tiegħu u/jew ġenitur jiffoka fuq l-istudji lingwistiċi tat-tfal filwaqt li l-ġenitur l-ieħor jiffoka fuq attivitajiet ekstrakurrikolari oħrajn tat-tfal. Iż-żewġ ġenituri jaqsmu flimkien l-għoti tal-kura tas-saħħa u l-bżonnijiet materjali tat-tfal, (eż. it-tisjir, it-tindif, il-ħwejjeġ, eċċ.). Biex tingħata kustodja konġunta huwa meħtieġ li l-ġenituri jaqblu magħha.
 Kustodja maqsuma (trobbija alternata)
 Kustodja maqsuma tfisser li l-kura tat-tfal talterna bejn il-ġenituri għal perjodu ta' żmien determinat b'mod preċiż. Il-qorti tiddefinixxi wkoll id-drittijiet u l-obblgi eżerċitati matul dawn il-perjodi.
 Talba relatata mal-obbligi u d-drittijiet tal-ġenituri trid issir fil-qorti distrettwali (fi Praga f'qorti distrettwali, f'Brno fil-Qorti Muniċipali) li l-minuri jkun residenti fil-ġuriżdizzjoni tagħha u, jekk ma jkollux indirizz permanenti, fil-qorti distrettwali li jkun qed jgħix fil-ġuriżdizzjoni tagħha. Il-qorti tista', fi kwistjonijiet relatati mal-minuri, tieħu deċiżjonijiet ex officio.
 Ir-rekwiżiti ta' talba jiddependu mit-tip ta' talba. Madankollu, dejjem ikun neċessarju li jiġi indikat l-isem, il-kunjom, u l-indirizz tal-parteċipanti, jew in-numri tal-identità tat-twelid tal-parteċipanti u r-rappreżentanti tagħhom, deskrizzjoni tal-fatti deċiżivi, indikazzjoni tal-provi li l-attur ikun qed iserraħ fuqhom, u jrid ikun ċar minnha xi jrid l-attur u lil liema qorti hija indirizzata.
 Talba jrid ikun fiha d-dokumenti importanti kollha relatati mal-kwistjoni ikkonċernata – eż. iċ-ċertifikat tat-twelid, iċ-ċertifikat taż-żwieġ, kull deċiżjoni preċedenti tal-qorti li għandha x'taqsam mat-tifel, eċċ. Il-proposta trid tiġi ppreżentata fuq karta fl-ammont ta' kopji meħtieġa biex kopja tibqa' l-qorti u kull parteċipant jirċievi kopja jekk ikun hemm bżonn.
 Il-qorti tista' tiftaħ il-proċedimenti f'materji ta' kura tal-qorti għal minuri anke jekk ma tkunx tressqitilha talba.
 Bl-użu ta' deċiżjoni preliminari anke qabel ma tieħu deċiżjoni dwar il-merti tal-kawża u jekk ikun hemm bżonn tar-regolamentazzjoni provviżorja tar-relazzjonijiet tal-parteċipanti, jew jekk ikun hemm tħassib li l-eżekuzzjoni ta' deċiżjoni tal-qorti tkun mhedda, il-qorti tista' timponi fuq parteċipant fil-proċedimenti l-ħlas ta' manteniment essenzjali u/jew tagħti l-kustodja lil wieħed mill-ġenituri, jew lil persuna magħżula mill-qorti. Deċiżjoni preliminari normalment tittieħed wara talba, madankollu, huwa possibbli li l-proċedimenti dwar il-merti tal-kawża (għalhekk inklużi wkoll proċedimenti relatati mal-kura għal minuri mill-qorti) jinfetħu ex officio, deċiżjoni preliminari tista' wkoll tittieħed ex officio. Il-qorti kompetenti mill-proċedimenti dwar il-kwistjoni hija responsabbli biex tordna deċiżjoni preliminari, sakemm il-liġi ma tistipulax mod ieħor. Talba għal ordni ta'deċiżjoni preliminari jrid ikun fih ir-rekwiżiti skont l-Artikolu 42(4) u skont l-Artikolu 75 tal-Kodiċi ta' Proċedura Ċivili (l-Att Nru 99/1963, kif emendat), jiġifieri b'mod partikolari: l-informazzjoni li tirrigwarda l-qorti fejn tapplika t-talba; min qed iressaq it-talba u x'tikkonċerna, jiġifieri ġabra tal-fatti li jiġġustifikaw id-deċiżjoni preliminari kif proposta; x'għandha tikseb it-talba, jiġifieri x'deċiżjoni preliminari qed jitlob l-attur; deskrizzjoni tal-fatt li huwa neċessarju għar-regolamentazzjoni provviżorja tar-relazzjonijiet tal-parteċipanti jew li hemm tħassib li l-eżekuzzjoni ta' deċiżjoni tal-qorti tista' tkun mhedda, kif ukoll indikazzjoni tad-data ta' meta tħejjiet it-talba u l-firma tal-attur jew ir-rappreżentant tiegħu. Id-dokumenti li l-attur jirreferi għalihom iridu jkunu mehmuża mat-talba. B'mod ġenerali, għad-deċiżjonijiet preliminari, is-sitwazzjoni hija li biex ikun żgurat kumpens għad-danni jew telf ieħor li jiġri minħabba deċiżjoni preliminari, l-attur irid jiddepożita, mhux aktar tard minn dakinhar stess li jkun ressaq it-talba l-qorti għal deċiżjoni preliminari, garanzija għal ammont iddeterminat. Madankollu, f'każ ta' deċiżjoni preliminari dwar il-manteniment u s-sostenn jew deċiżjoni preliminari li qorti tista' timponi anke ex officio, id-depożitu tal-garanzija mhux meħtieġ. Il-qorti tiddeċiedi dwar deċiżjoni preliminari mingħajr dewmien. Jekk ma jkun hemm l-ebda periklu ta' inadempjenza, il-qorti tista' tiddeċiedi dwar talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari fi żmien 7 ijiem wara li tkun tressqet. Il-qorti tiddeċiedi mingħajr ma tisma' lill-parteċipanti. Meta tordna deċiżjoni preliminari, il-qorti timponi fuq l-attur li jkun irid jippreżenta talba l-qorti għall-ftuħ tal-proċedimenti b'data ta' skadenza imposta fuqu. Hija tista' tiddetermina wkoll li deċiżjoni preliminari ddum biss għal perjodu ta' żmien speċifiku.
 L-Att dwar il-Proċedimenti Speċjali tal-Qorti (l-Att Nru 292/2013, kif emendat) jirregola deċiżjoni preliminari speċjali f'każ li minuri jkun f'sitwazzjoni ta' nuqqas ta' kura xierqa irrispettivament minn ikunx hemm jew le persuna li jkollha d-dritt tal-kura tat-tifel, jew jekk ħajjet it-tifel, l-iżvilupp normali tiegħu jew interess importanti ieħor ikunu mhedda serjament jew ġew imxekkla. F'każ hekk, il-qorti, permezz ta' deċiżjoni preliminari li l-qorti tista' timponi biss wara talba minn awtorità għall-protezzjoni soċjali u ġuridika tat-tfal, tirregola r-relazzjonijiet tat-tifel għal żmien essenzjali billi tordna li t-tifel jitqiegħed f'ambjent adatt indikat fid-deċiżjoni. Permezz ta' deċiżjoni preliminari huwa possibbli li tifel jingħata fostering għal ammont ta' żmien provviżorju li matulu l-ġenitur ma jkunx jista' jieħu ħsieb it-tifel għal raġunijiet serji, jew, wara li jiskadi dak iż-żmien, it-tifel jista' jingħata l-kura ta' qabel l-adozzjoni jekk il-ġenituri jkunu taw il-kunsens għall-adozzjoni jew ikun hemm deċiżjoni li l-kunsens tal-ġenituri mhux meħtieġ. Il-qorti tiddeċiedi wara talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mingħajr dewmien, imma mhux aktar tard minn 24 siegħa wara l-preżentata. Id-deċiżjoni tkun eżegwita minnufih wara li tiġi ordnata, filwaqt li l-qorti tikkoopera għall-eżekuzzjoni tagħha mal-awtoritajiet pubbliċi applikabbli.
 Skont l-Att dwar it-Tariffi tal-Qorti (l-Att Nru 549/1991, kif emendat) il-proċedimenti relatati mat-tutela u mal-kustodja tal-minuri mill-qorti huma eżenti minn kull tariffa. Dan ifisser li l-attur li jippreżenta talba relatata mal-obbligi u d-drittijiet tal-ġenituri ma jkunx obbligat iħallas tariffi tal-qorti.
 Skont ċerti ċirkostanzi jista' jkun possibbli li tqabbad rappreżentant legali bla ħlas jew għal ammont imnaqqas. Il-qorti tqabbad rappreżentant, wara talba mill-parteċipant, li wara hija tneħħi, kompletament jew parzjalment, it-tariffi tal-qorti tiegħu, jekk dan ikun neċessarju pereżempju għall-protezzjoni tal-interessi tiegħu. Jekk ikun meħtieġ għall-protezzjoni tal-interessi tal-parteċipant, jitqabbad avukat għalih. Il-ħatra ta' rappreżentant trid tkun iġġustifikata mis-sitwazzjoni tal-parteċipant (fil-prattika dawn jistgħu jkunu ċirkostanzi finanzjarji avversi jew sitwazzjoni soċjali avversa, filwaqt li dejjem ikun neċessarju li jitqiesu ċ-ċirkostanzi tal-każ) u ma jridx ikun hemm eżekuzzjoni jew protezzjoni tad-drittijiet arbitrarji jew li manifestament ma jirnexxux.
 L-Att dwar l-Għoti tal-Għajnuna Legali f'Tilwim Transfruntier fl-Unjoni Ewropea (l-Att Nru 692/2004, kif emendat) jirregola l-aċċess għall-għajnuna legali fi Stat Membru tal-Unjoni Ewropea fejn persuna fiżika, li tkun residenti fi Stat Membru ieħor, tkun qed tieħu sehem f'kawża. L-għajnuna hija relatata mal-proċedimenti legali fil-fażijiet tas-seduti u tal-eżekuzzjoni.
 L-Att dwar il-Professjoni Legali (l-Att Nru 85/1996, kif emendat) jiddetermina l-kundizzjonijiet biex ikun possibbli li jintalab appuntament b'xejn ma' konsulent legali direttament mill-Kamra tal-Avukati Ċeka.
 Iva, huwa possibbli li tappella kontra deċiżjoni relatata mar-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri. Il-Qrati Distrettwali huma qrati tal-ewwel istanza għall-ġestjoni tad-drittijiet u l-obbligi li jiġu mir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri. Il-Qrati Reġjonali (jew il-Qorti Muniċipali fi Praga) jiddeċiedu dwar appelli kontra deċiżjonijiet tal-ewwel istanza. Appell kontra deċiżjoni tal-qorti tista' tiġi ppreżentata fi żmien 15-il jum mill-wasla tad-deċiżjoni bil-miktub mill-qorti li d-deċiżjoni tagħha tkun qed tiġi appellata u, sakemm ma jkunx ipprojbit mil-liġi (eż. mhux possibbli li tressaq appell kontra deċiżjoni tal-qorti li tapprova l-ftehim bejn il-ġenituri dwar il-kura tat-tifel). Appell jitqies ukoll li ġie ppreżentat fil-ħin anke wara l-iskadenza tal-perjodu ta' ħmistax-il ġurnata jew l-appellant kien qed jimxi ma' informazzjoni żbaljata mingħand il-Qorti tal-Appell.
 Ta' min jenfasizza li xi deċiżjonijiet jistgħu jkun eżegwibbli provviżorjament – u għalhekk jistgħu jkunu eżegwiti anke jekk ikun ġie ppreżentat appell kontrihom. Deċiżjonijiet li jimponu l-ħlas ta' manteniment u deċiżjonijiet għall-estensjoni tat-tul ta' miżura edukattiva li permezz tagħha tifel ikun tneħħa mill-kustodja tal-ġenituri tiegħu jew ta' persuna oħra huma eżegwibbli b'mod provviżorju.
 Fir-Repubblika Ċeka trid tiġi ppreżentata talba għall-eżekuzzjoni ta' deċiżjoni relatata mal-kura għal minuri mill-qorti. Il-proċedura applikata għall-eżekuzzjoni ta' deċiżjoni hija suġġetta għall-Att dwar il-Proċedimenti Speċjali tal-Qorti (l-Att Nru 292/2013, kif emendat).
 Il-qorti ġenerali tal-minuri hija kompetenti għal dawn il-proċedimenti, jiġifieri il-Qorti Distrettwali (il-Qorti Distrettwali fi Praga, il-Qorti Muniċipali f'Brno) li l-minuri jkun residenti fil-ġuriżdizzjoni tagħhom abbażi tal-ftehim bejn il-ġenituri jew id-deċiżjoni tal-qorti, jew fatti deċiżivi oħrajn. It-talba trid tinkludi l-informazzjoni neċessarja kollha (il-partijiet intitolati u dawk obbligati, l-ambitu u l-kontenut tal-obbligu tal-parti obbligata u d-data ta' skadenza għall-konformità mal-obbligu applikabbli u speċifikazzjoni tal-hekk imsejjaħ titolu eżekutorju – id-deċiżjoni li trid tiġi eżegwita).
 Qabel ma tiġi ordnata l-eżekuzzjoni ta' deċiżjoni, il-qorti tista', jekk tara li jkun hemm raġunijiet speċjali għal dan, u/jew jekk il-parti obbligata ma tkunx ġiet infurmata dwar il-konsegwenzi ta' nuqqas ta' konformità ma' obbligu, tordna lill-parti obbligata biex tikkonforma mad-deċiżjoni jew ftehim u tinformaha bil-possibilitajiet ta' eżekuzzjoni tad-deċiżjoni permezz tal-impożizzjoni ta' multi jew it-tneħħija tat-tfal. Il-qorti tista' titlob ukoll lill-awtorità rilevanti għall-protezzjoni soċjali u ġuridika tat-tfal biex iwasslu lill-parti obbligata biex tikkonforma mal-obbligi tagħha mingħajr il-bżonn ta' ordni għall-eżekuzzjoni tad-deċiżjoni.
 Jekk il-persuna ma tikkonformax mal-obbligu tagħha anke wara li tkun ordnata mill-qorti, il-qorti tordna l-eżekuzzjoni tad-deċiżjoni permezz tal-impożizzjoni ta' multa, u dan jista' jsir ripetutament. L-ammonti tal-multi individwali ma jistgħux jaqbżu l-CZK 50 000. Miżuri oħrajn li tista' tordna l-qorti jinkludu laqgħa ma' medjatur, laqgħa ma' espert fil-pedopsikoloġija jew id-determinazzjoni ta' pjan għal skema ta' akklimatizzazzjoni biex jiġi ffaċilitat il-kuntatt gradwali bejn it-tfal u persuna intitolata għall-kuntatt magħhom.
 Jekk minkejja l-implimentazzjoni tal-miżuri indikati, l-obbligi ma jkunux osservati jew ikun ċar miċ-ċirkostanzi li dan l-approċċ ma wassalx għal konformità mal-obbligi, il-qorti tordna f'każijiet eċċezzjonali l-eżekuzzjoni tad-deċiżjoni għat-tneħħija tat-tifel minn mal-persuna li mhux suppost qiegħda magħha skont il-ftehim jew id-deċiżjoni. Id-deċiżjoni li tkun ordnat it-tneħħija tat-tifel tiġi nnotifikata lill-parti obbligata waqt l-eżekuzzjoni biss.
 Deċiżjonijiet relatati mar-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri maħruġa mill-qrati fl-Istati Membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea huma rikonoxxuti mir-Repubblika Ċeka b'konformità mar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 2201/2003 tas-27 ta' Novembru 2003 dwar il-ġuriżdizzjoni u r-rikonoxximent u l-infurzar ta' sentenzi fi kwistjonijiet matrimonjali u kwistjonijiet ta' responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri, u li jirrevoka r-Regolament (KE) Nru 1347/2000 ("Ir-Regolament Nru 2201/2003"), mingħajr il-bżonn għal proċedimenti speċjali. Madankollu, kull persuna b'interess ġuridiku jista' jippreżenta talba l-qorti għall-ħruġ ta' deċiżjoni dwar ir-rikonoxximent jew nonrikonoxximent tad-deċiżjoni. Fir-Repubblika Ċeka, il-qrati distrettwali (il-qrati distrettwali fi Praga, il-Qorti Muniċipali f'Brno) huma kompetenti għal proċedimenti bħal dawn fl-ewwel istanza. Il-qorti kompetenti hija l-qorti distrettwali li tkun il-qorti ġenerali tal-attur, inkella l-qorti distrettwali li s-sitwazzjoni li r-rikonoxximent huwa importanti għaliha tkun ġrat jew tista' tiġri fil-ġuriżdizzjoni tagħha.
 Qabel ma deċiżjoni dwar ir-responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri maħruġa fi Stat Membru ieħor tkun tista' tiġi eżegwita fir-Repubblika Ċeka, trid tiġi ddikjarata bħala eżegwibbli b'konformità ma' proċedura speċjali skont ir-Regolament Nru 2201/2003 indikat fuq. Talba għal dikjarazzjoni ta' eżegwibbiltà fir-Repubblika Ċeka tiġi ppreżentata fil-qorti distrettwali lokalment kompetenti (il-qrati distrettwali fi Praga, il-Qorti Muniċipali f'Brno). Il-kompetenza lokali tiġi ddeterminata skont ir-Regolament Nru 2201/2003 skont il-post tar-residenza abitwali tal-persuna li qed tintalab l-eżekuzzjoni kontriha, jew skont il-post tar-residenza abitwali tat-tfal; jekk l-ebda wieħed minn dawn il-postijiet ma jkun fl-Istat Membru fejn tkun se ssir l-eżekuzzjoni, il-kompetenza lokali tiġi ddeterminata skont il-post tal-eżekuzzjoni tad-deċiżjoni.
 Deċiżjoni dwar id-dritt ta' kuntatt mat-tfal u deċiżjoni li tordna r-ritorn ta' tifel maħruġa abbażi tal-Artikolu 11(8) tar-Regolament Nru 2201/2003 huma eżegwibbli, skont l-Artikolu 41 u 42 tar-Regolament Nru 2201/2003, fi Stat Membru differenti mingħajr il-bżonn għal dikjarazzjoni ta' eżegwibbiltà u mingħajr il-possibbiltà ta' oġġezzjoni kontra r-rikonoxximent tad-deċiżjoni, jekk id-deċiżjoni tkun attestata fl-Istat Membru tal-oriġini bl-użu ta' formola standardizzata li tinsab f'anness mar-Regolament Nru 2201/2003.
 Huwa neċessarju li mat-talba għar-rikonoxximent jew nonrikonoxximent ta' deċiżjoni u dikjarazzjoni ta' deċiżjoni bħala eżekutorja tinhemeż kopja tad-deċiżjoni li tikkonforma mal-kundizzjonijiet neċessarji għar-rikonoxximent tal-awtentiċità tagħha (eż. kopja dupplikata jew kopja attestata tad-deċiżjoni), u attestazzjoni skont l-Artikolu 39, maħruġa mill-awtorità rilevanti tal-Istat Membru fejn tkun inħarġet id-deċiżjoni, fuq formola standardizzata li tinsab f'anness mar-Regolament Nru 2201/2003. F'każ ta' sentenza b'kontumaċja, huwa importanti li jintbagħtu wkoll l-oriġinal jew kopja attestata tad-dokument li jikkonferma li l-parti li ma tkun ġiet għall-proċedimenti, it-talba għall-ftuġ tal-proċedimenti jew dokument simili ieħor ġew innotifikati jew kwalunkwe dokument li jindika li l-konvenut aċċetta s-sentenza b'mod inekwivoku. Jekk l-attestazzjoni jew dokument meħtieġ fil-każ ta' sentenza ta' kontumaċja ma jiġux ippreżentati, il-proċedura adottata tkun skont l-Artikolu 38(1) tar-Regolament Nru 2201/2003.
 Bil-konformità mal-kundizzjonijiet indikati fir-regolament imsemmi, il-proċedura għall-eżekuzzjoni ta' deċiżjoni fi kwistjonijiet ta' responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri minn Stat Membru tal-UE differenti hija l-istess bħall-eżekuzzjoni ta' deċiżjonijiet nazzjonali. Għal aktar informazzjoni, ara l-mistoqsija preċedenti.
 Miżura rimedjali (appell) kontra deċiżjoni ta' qorti tiġi ppreżentata lill-qorti li tkun ħarġet id-deċiżjoni. Qorti superjuri tiddeċiedi dwar il-miżura rimedjali.
 Fi proċedimenti li jirrigwardaw kwistjonijiet ta' responsabbiltà tal-ġenituri, il-liġi applikabbli tkun iddeterminata skont il-Konvenzjoni tad-19 ta' Ottubru 1996 dwar il-Ġuriżdizzjoni, il-Liġi Applikabbli, ir-Rikonoxximent, l-Eżekuzzjoni u l-Kooperazzjoni fir-Rigward tar-Responsabbiltà tal-Ġenituri għall-Protezzjoni tat-Tfal. Kwalunkwe ftehim internazzjonali bilaterali li r-Repubblika Ċeka tkun marbuta bih fir-rigward ta' stati oħrajn jieħu preċedenza fuq il-Konvenzjoni tal-1996, sakemm ma tkunx saret dikjarazzjoni skont l-Artikolu 52(1) tal-Konvenzjoni tal-1996 (dikjarazzjoni ta' dan it-tip saret fir-rigward tal-ftehim bilaterali reċiproku bejn ir-Repubblika Ċeka u l-Polonja, li żgura l-preċedenza tal-Konvenzjoni tal-1996).


jurisdiction: US

text: b' OFFICE OF\n THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\nSOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n\n RESTITUTION OF MISUSED FUNDS\n TO BENEFICIARIES UNDER\n PUBLIC LAW 108-203\n\n August 2006 A-09-05-15139\n\n\n\n\n AUDIT REPORT\n\x0c Mission\nWe improve SSA programs and operations and protect them against fraud, waste,\nand abuse by conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations, and\ninvestigations. We provide timely, useful, and reliable information and advice to\nAdministration officials, the Congress, and the public.\n\n Authority\nThe Inspector General Act created independent audit and investigative units,\ncalled the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The mission of the OIG, as spelled\nout in the Act, is to:\n\n \xc2\x81 Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and\n investigations relating to agency programs and operations.\n \xc2\x81 Promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency.\n \xc2\x81 Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and\n operations.\n \xc2\x81 Review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed\n legislation and regulations relating to agency programs and operations.\n \xc2\x81 Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of\n problems in agency programs and operations.\n\n To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers the IG with:\n\n \xc2\x81 Independence to determine what reviews to perform.\n \xc2\x81 Access to all information necessary for the reviews.\n \xc2\x81 Authority to publish findings and recommendations based on the reviews.\n\n Vision\nBy conducting independent and objective audits, investigations, and evaluations,\nwe are agents of positive change striving for continuous improvement in the\nSocial Security Administration\'s programs, operations, and management and in\nour own office.\n\x0c SOCIAL SECURITY\nMEMORANDUM\n\nDate: August 17, 2006 Refer To:\n\nTo: The Commissioner\n\nFrom: Inspector General\n\nSubject: Restitution of Misused Funds to Beneficiaries Under Public Law 108-203\n (A-09-05-15139)\n\n\n OBJECTIVE\n Our objective was to assess the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) implementation\n of section 101 of the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (Act).\n\n BACKGROUND\n Public Law 108-203, the Act, was signed into law on March 2, 2004. Section 101 of the\n Act requires that SSA reissue benefits to Title II and XVI beneficiaries when benefits\n were misused by organizational representative payees or individual payees serving\n 15 or more beneficiaries. This provision applied to misuse decisions made on or after\n January 1, 1995.1\n\n Before March 2, 2004, SSA repaid beneficiaries for the amount of misused funds\n only if SSA\xe2\x80\x99s failure to investigate or monitor a representative payee resulted in the\n misuse of benefits.2\n\n In June 2004, SSA identified all representative payees and beneficiaries who met the\n requirements of section 101 from its Representative Payee System (RPS). Using this\n information, SSA established the Misuse Restitution Control System (MRCS) database\n to track and manage the completion of these cases. In its Representative Payment\n Status Report for March 2005, SSA reported it had completed its review of misuse\n cases subject to repayment under the Act.\n\n According to the MRCS database, representative payees misused $2.8 million that\n belonged to 2,685 Title II and XVI beneficiaries from January 1995 through June 2004.\n In total, SSA or its representative payees repaid $2.5 million to 2,127 beneficiaries.\n\n 1\n Public Law No. 108-203 \xc2\xa7 101(d).\n 2\n SSA, POMS, GN 00604.050C.\n\x0cPage 2 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\nThis included $1.1 million before Public Law 108-203 was enacted and $1.4 million after\nits enactment. However, about $331,000 was not repaid to 360 beneficiaries because\nSSA could not locate them or they were deceased, incarcerated, or in nonpay status.\nThe remaining 198 beneficiaries did not require repayment because SSA concluded\nthat no misuse had occurred.\n\nRESULTS OF REVIEW\nIn general, our audit disclosed that SSA adequately implemented section 101 of Public\nLaw 108-203. However, we identified the following deficiencies:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 63 beneficiaries had $41,075 in funds misused by 5 representative payees but\n were not fully paid;3\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 244 additional beneficiaries were not repaid at least $118,949 in funds misused by\n 3 representative payees;\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 247 beneficiaries were deceased, but SSA did not attempt to reissue $247,289 in\n misused funds to their survivors or estates; and\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 12 beneficiaries had $5,826 of overpayments that could have been collected by\n offsetting the amount of misused funds reissued to them.\n\nPayment of Prior Misuse Cases Identified by SSA\n\nBased on a random sample of 100 beneficiaries from the MRCS database, we found\nthat SSA generally repaid those individuals whose funds were misused. However, our\nreview disclosed that eight beneficiaries were not paid or fully repaid the amount of\nfunds misused by five representative payees. These beneficiaries included (1) four\nindividuals who were not repaid any funds and (2) four individuals who were not repaid\nthe full amount of funds misused.\n\nThe four beneficiaries who were not repaid any funds had a total of $2,905 misused by\ntheir representative payees. In one case, SSA did not repay the beneficiary until after\nwe requested its misuse determination in June 2005. In another case, SSA believed it\nhad repaid the beneficiary as required. In the remaining two cases, SSA had issued the\nchecks, but they were returned to the Treasury. During our review, we determined that\nSSA had completed final actions to repay these beneficiaries.\n\n\n\n\n3\n This includes 4 beneficiaries in our sample who were not paid $2,905 and 59 beneficiaries who were\nnot repaid $38,170. The 59 beneficiaries had the same representative payee, of which 4 were in\nour sample.\n\x0cPage 3 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\nFor another four beneficiaries, we found that SSA had not repaid the full amount\nof funds misused by a fee-for-service representative payee in Seattle, Washington.\nIn total, the representative payee misused $55,994 in benefits received on behalf of\n59 beneficiaries. The executive director of the representative payee pled guilty to\nmisappropriating $17,824 of Title II and XVI benefits. SSA repaid the court-ordered\nrestitution of $17,824 to these individuals before Public Law 108-203 was enacted.\nHowever, since SSA determined it was negligent in its oversight of the representative\npayee, it should have repaid the full amount of misused funds. As a result, these\nbeneficiaries were due an additional $38,170.\n\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s policies, before the enactment of Public Law 108-203, required that it repay the\namount of misused benefits to beneficiaries when its failure to investigate or monitor\na representative payee resulted in misuse.4 We found that SSA did not record the full\namount of misused funds in RPS. This may have contributed to these individuals not\nbeing repaid in full. However, SSA should have repaid the entire $55,994 to these\nbeneficiaries, notwithstanding the enactment of Public Law 108-203, because it was\nnegligent in its oversight of the representative payee. SSA agreed to initiate action to\nrepay these beneficiaries.\n\nAdditional Misuse Cases Not Repaid by SSA\n\nDuring our review, we determined that SSA did not reissue at least $118,949 to\n244 beneficiaries who had funds misused by 3 representative payees.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Organizational Representative Payee - SSA did not repay $82,173 to\n 55 beneficiaries whose funds were misused by an organizational representative\n payee in Tacoma, Washington. Although only 2 misuse cases were initially\n recorded in RPS and MRCS, SSA entered the remaining 53 misuse cases in\n RPS after it discovered they were excluded. However, SSA did not complete its\n processing of these misuse cases to reissue the $82,173 to the 55 beneficiaries.\n SSA agreed to initiate action to repay these beneficiaries.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Organizational Representative Payee - The owner of an organizational\n representative payee was convicted of misappropriating $274,001 in Social\n Security benefits from 295 individuals in Phoenix, Arizona, and Denver, Colorado.\n However, SSA only repaid the beneficiaries at the Phoenix location. SSA did not\n repay the $36,776 of misused funds to the 47 beneficiaries at the Denver location\n because the misuse amounts were not included in RPS. SSA agreed to initiate\n action to repay these beneficiaries.\n\n\n\n\n4\n SSA, POMS, GN 00604.050C.\n\x0cPage 4 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Individual Representative Payee - During its review of an individual representative\n payee in New York, New York, SSA determined the representative payee had\n misused $3,505 of Social Security benefits for 13 of the 14 beneficiaries in its\n sample. Specifically, SSA found the representative payee had collected a fee from\n these beneficiaries without prior approval from SSA. These amounts were included\n in the MRCS database for repayment. However, SSA did not review the remaining\n 142 beneficiaries\xe2\x80\x99 records to determine whether inappropriate fees had been\n charged.\n\nPayments to Survivors or Estates of Deceased Beneficiaries\n\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s instructions for processing the repayment of misused funds of deceased\nbeneficiaries are inconsistent with its general policies for returning misused and\nconserved funds to the survivors or estates of these individuals. SSA instructed\nits field offices not to reissue funds for deceased beneficiaries.5 As a result, SSA\ndid not attempt to reissue $247,289 of misused funds to the survivors or estates\nof 247 deceased beneficiaries. Our review disclosed that 25 of these deceased\nbeneficiaries had family members in current pay status on SSA\xe2\x80\x99s payment records.\n\nBefore Public Law 108-203, SSA only repaid misused benefits if the misuse was caused\nby SSA\xe2\x80\x99s negligence in its actions when appointing or monitoring a representative\npayee. However, for deceased beneficiaries, SSA would reissue misused funds only\nafter the representative payee made repayment. SSA in its implementation of Public\nLaw 108-203 instructed its field offices to follow this same policy for the repayment of\nmisused funds for deceased beneficiaries.6\n\nOur review disclosed that SSA\xe2\x80\x99s instructions for processing misused benefits for\ndeceased beneficiaries is contrary to its policies for repaying (1) misused and\nconserved funds for deceased Title II beneficiaries and (2) conserved funds for\ndeceased Title XVI recipients. For deceased Title II beneficiaries, misused or\nconserved funds may be paid to the legal representative of the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s estate.7\nFor deceased Title XVI recipients, conserved funds that are held by a representative\npayee or returned to SSA belong to the estates of these beneficiaries.8 Since\nPublic Law 108-203 does not specifically address misused funds for deceased\nbeneficiaries, SSA should use its existing policies for guidance.\n\n\n\n\n5\n SSA, AM-04167, October 29, 2004, instructs field offices to follow the guidelines in POMS,\nGN 00604.060D.2.a (EXCEPTION) for any deceased beneficiaries in the MRCS database.\n6\n SSA, POMS, GN 00604.060.\n7\n SSA, POMS, GN 02301.001B.2.d.\n8\n SSA, POMS, GN 00603.100B.2 and SI 02101.001A.2.\n\x0cPage 5 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\nRecovery of Overpayments from Beneficiaries\n\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s policies on misused funds restricted the collection of overpayments from the\nfunds reissued to beneficiaries. According to SSA staff, only underpayments may be\nused to recover overpayments. In addition, SSA does not consider misused funds to be\nunderpayments. As a result, SSA did not attempt to recover existing overpayments\nfrom any reissued misused funds. Based on a random sample of 100 beneficiaries from\nthe MRCS database, we found 12 beneficiaries with $5,826 of overpayments that could\nhave been collected by offsetting the amount of misused funds reissued to them.\n\nSSA has the authority to recover overpayments from amounts due a beneficiary.9\nDuring our review, we discussed this with SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Disability and Income Security\nPrograms. SSA staff stated they would initiate action to revise both Title II and XVI\npolicies to allow the recovery of overpayments from any reissued misused funds.\n\nCONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nIn general, our audit disclosed that SSA adequately implemented section 101 of Public\nLaw 108-203. However, SSA did not reissue $41,075 to 63 beneficiaries who had funds\nmisused by 5 representative payees. In addition, we identified 244 beneficiaries who\nwere not repaid at least $118,949. We also found that SSA\xe2\x80\x99s policies for reissuing\nmisused funds were not always consistent with current laws and regulations or SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\npolicies for the disposition of misused and conserved funds.\n\nWe recommend that SSA:\n\n1. Reissue the remaining $38,170 owed to 59 beneficiaries who had funds misused\n by a fee-for-service representative payee.\n\n2. Repay $118,949 to 102 beneficiaries who had funds misused by 2 organizational\n representative payees.\n\n3. Review the accounting records for 142 beneficiaries of an individual representative\n payee to calculate and repay the amount of misused funds to these individuals.\n\n4. Repay $247,289 of misused funds to the survivors or estates of 247 deceased\n beneficiaries in accordance with existing SSA policies for repaying misused and\n conserved funds.\n\n\n\n\n9\n Social Security Act \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 204(a) and 1631(b), 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404(a) and 1383(b) and 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.502\nand 416.570.\n\x0cPage 6 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\n5. Revise its representative payee policies for reissuing misused funds for deceased\n beneficiaries to ensure consistency with SSA\xe2\x80\x99s policies for repaying misused and\n conserved funds to the survivors and estates of these individuals.\n\n6. Revise its representative payee policies to allow the recovery of overpayments from\n any reissued funds.\n\nAGENCY COMMENTS\nSSA agreed with Recommendations 1 through 3 and 6. SSA disagreed with\nRecommendations 4 and 5 stating its instructions for processing the repayment of\nmisused funds of deceased beneficiaries were consistent with its general policies for\nreturning misused and conserved funds to the survivors or estates of these individuals.\nSee Appendix C for the full text of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s comments.\n\nOIG RESPONSE\nWe believe our recommendations to pay misused funds to the survivors or estates\nof deceased beneficiaries are appropriate. SSA\'s policy is to repay misused funds to\nsurvivors or estates only if the representative payee has already repaid the misused\nfunds to SSA. One of the benefits of the Act was that it eliminated any contingency\nfor repayment of misused funds based upon the actions of representative payees. The\npolicy does not consider the increased financial burden imposed on family members\nwho may have provided the beneficiary financial assistance necessitated by the\nrepresentative payee\xe2\x80\x99s misuse of SSA benefits.\n\n\n\n\n S\n Patrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\n\x0c Appendices\nAPPENDIX A \xe2\x80\x93 Acronyms\n\nAPPENDIX B \xe2\x80\x93 Scope and Methodology\n\nAPPENDIX C \xe2\x80\x93 Agency Comments\n\nAPPENDIX D \xe2\x80\x93 OIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments\n\x0c Appendix A\n\nAcronyms\nAct Social Security Protection Act of 2004\nC.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations\nMRCS Misuse Restitution Control System\nPOMS Program Operations Manual System\nRPS Representative Payee System\nSSA Social Security Administration\nU.S.C. United States Code\n\x0c Appendix B\n\nScope and Methodology\nWe obtained a copy of the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) Misuse Restitution\nControl System (MRCS) database as of June 3, 2005. Our population consisted of\n2,685 Title II and XVI beneficiaries from January 1995 through June 2004. We refined\nour population to exclude (1) 360 beneficiaries who could not be located or were\ndeceased, incarcerated, or in nonpay status and (2) 198 beneficiaries who did not\nrequire repayment because misuse had not occurred. From the remaining population\nof 2,127 beneficiaries, we selected a random sample of 100 beneficiaries for review.\nFor each sample item, we requested the misuse determination and supporting\ndocumentation for the amount of funds misused.\n\nTo accomplish our objective, we:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed Public Law 108-203, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the applicable sections of the Social Security Act, Code of Federal\n Regulations, and SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Program Operations Manual System.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed each sample item to determine whether (1) the representative payee\n and beneficiary met the requirements of Public Law 108-203, (2) SSA or the\n representative payee reissued the total amount misused to the beneficiary, and\n (3) the beneficiary had an overpayment on the date in which the reissued funds\n were disbursed.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed SSA employees from the Western Program Service Center and\n the Offices of Disability and Income Security Programs and Applications and\n Supplemental Security Income Systems.\n\nWe determined the computer-processed data from the MRCS database were\nsufficiently reliable for our intended use. We conducted interviews with SSA employees\nto evaluate the reasonableness of the methodology used to extract this information from\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s Representative Payee System. However, we did not conduct tests to determine\nthe completeness and accuracy of the data.\n\nWe performed audit work in Richmond, California, and Baltimore, Maryland, between\nMay 2005 and March 2006. The entity audited was the Office of Income Security\nPrograms under the Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Programs.\nWe conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing\nstandards.\n\x0c Appendix C\nAgency Comments\n\x0c SOCIAL SECURITY\nMEMORANDUM\n\n\nDate: August 4, 2006 Refer To: S1J-3\n\nTo: Patrick P. O\'Carroll, Jr.\n Inspector General\n\nFrom: Larry W. Dye /s/\n Chief of Staff\n\nSubject: Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report, "Restitution of Misused Funds to\n Beneficiaries Under Public Law 108-203" (A-09-05-15139)--INFORMATION\n\n\n We appreciate OIG\xe2\x80\x99s efforts in conducting this review. Our comments on the draft report content\n and recommendations are attached.\n\n Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Staff inquiries may be directed to\n Ms. Candace Skurnik, Director, Audit Management and Liaison Staff, at extension 54636.\n\n Attachment:\n SSA Response\n\n\n\n\n C-1\n\x0cCOMMENTS ON THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) DRAFT\nREPORT, \xe2\x80\x9cRESTITUTION OF MISUSED FUNDS TO BENEFICIARIES UNDER\nPUBLIC LAW 108-203\xe2\x80\x9d (A-09-05-15139)\n\nThank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report. We appreciate\nOIG conducting this audit and we were pleased with the overall finding of the draft report\nwhich indicates that, in general, SSA adequately implemented Section 101 of Public\nLaw 108-203, the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA).\n\nRecommendation 1\n\nSSA should reissue the remaining $38,170 owed to 59 beneficiaries who had funds misused\nby a fee-for-service representative payee (Rep Payee).\n\nComment\n\nWe agree. We will have the servicing field office (FO) process these cases. As with all\nof the following recommendations to reissue money, we have requested a listing of the\ncases and will forward the listing to the servicing FO to be worked.\n\nRecommendation 2\n\nSSA should repay $118,949 to 102 beneficiaries who had funds misused by\n2 organizational Rep Payees.\n\nComment\n\nWe agree. We will have the servicing FO process these cases.\n\nRecommendation 3\n\nSSA should review the accounting records for 142 beneficiaries of an individual Rep\nPayee to calculate and repay the amount of misused funds to these individuals.\n\nComment\n\nWe agree. We will have the servicing FO process these cases.\n\nRecommendation 4\n\nSSA should repay $247,289 of misused funds to the survivors or estates of 247 deceased\nbeneficiaries in accordance with existing SSA policies for repaying misused and\nconserved funds.\n\n\n\n\n C-2\n\x0cComment\n\nWe disagree. The Agency\xe2\x80\x99s instructions for processing the repayment of misused funds\nof deceased beneficiaries are consistent with its general policies for returning misused\nand conserved funds to the survivors or estates of these individuals. See page 4 of the\nreport, under \xe2\x80\x9cPayments to Survivors or Estates of Deceased Beneficiaries.\xe2\x80\x9d We believe\nthat there is a misunderstanding on OIG\xe2\x80\x99s part regarding the policies in the two Program\nOperations Manual Systems (POMS) sections. The draft report cites POMS GN\n02301.001B.2.d (NOTE) which states in part "\xe2\x80\xa6if the beneficiary dies before\nrecertification of conserved or misused funds, the money, can be paid only to the legal\nrepresentative of the beneficiary\'s estate. See POMS GN 00603.100B.2." This procedure\nrefers to conserved funds that have been returned, or misused funds that have been repaid\nto the Agency, and how to treat the returned/repaid funds.\n\nThe report acknowledged that the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s policy concerning misuse cases involving\ndeceased beneficiaries is based on procedures in place before the SSPA was enacted and\nthat those procedures provided the basis for our actions in these cases after passage of the\nSSPA. To be specific, the instruction regarding these cases after passage of the SSPA\n(AM-04167) was based on the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s policy of not paying restitution under the\npre-existing (negligence-based) restitution provisions in Sections 205(j)(5), 807(i), and\n1631(a)(2)(E) of the Social Security Act to deceased beneficiaries. This policy for the\nnegligence-based restitution provisions had been in effect for over 10 years before\nSection 101 of the SSPA was enacted. When it implemented the restitution provision in\nSection 101 of the SSPA, the Agency kept a consistent policy on restitution for deceased\nbeneficiaries. Section 101 of the SSPA provided no basis for a different policy.\n\nAdditionally, the negligence-based restitution provisions remain in effect. By keeping a\nconsistent policy, the Agency avoided having one policy for deceased beneficiaries under\nthe negligence-based restitution provisions and a different policy for deceased\nbeneficiaries under the restitution provisions of Section 101 of the SSPA. The Agency\xe2\x80\x99s\npre-existing policy is referenced at POMS GN 00604.060D.2.a. It provides that if the\nbeneficiary is deceased \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6do not make duplicate payment and create an unnecessary\noverpayment.\xe2\x80\x9d When SSA makes repayment of benefits which were previously misused,\nin effect we are making a duplicate payment which creates an overpayment, and this\nprocedure is intended to prevent this in cases where the beneficiary is deceased. In\nimplementing the retroactive misuse repayment provision of Section 101 of that\nlegislation, we instructed the FO staff to follow SSA\xe2\x80\x99s longstanding guideline, and not\nmake repayment if the beneficiary was deceased. We believe that our actions in these\ncases were consistent with existing SSA policies.\n\nRecommendation 5\n\nSSA should revise its Rep Payee policies for reissuing misused funds for deceased\nbeneficiaries to ensure consistency with SSA\xe2\x80\x99s policies for repaying misused and\nconserved funds to the survivors and estates of these individuals.\n\n\n\n\n C-3\n\x0cComment\n\nWe disagree. We do not believe the Agency\'s instructions regarding restitution of\nmisused benefits for deceased beneficiaries requires revision for the reasons stated above\nin Recommendation 4.\n\nRecommendation 6\n\nSSA should revise its Rep Payee policies to allow the recovery of overpayments from any\nreissued funds.\n\nComment\n\nWe agree. We concur with this recommendation and on June 23, 2006, made the change\nto POMS GN 02301.001B.2.d to allow for the recovery of overpayments from any\nreissued funds.\n\n\n\n\n C-4\n\x0c Appendix D\nOIG Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments\nOIG Contacts\n James J. Klein, Director, San Francisco Audit Division, (510) 970-1739\n\n Jack H. Trudel, Audit Manager, (510) 970-1733\n\nAcknowledgments\nIn addition to those named above:\n\n Jim Sippel, Senior Auditor\n\n Brennan Kraje, Statistician\n\n Kimberly Beauchamp, Writer-Editor\n\n\nFor additional copies of this report, please visit our web site at\nwww.socialsecurity.gov/oig or contact the Office of the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Public\nAffairs Specialist at (410) 965-3218. Refer to Common Identification Number\nA-09-05-15139.\n\x0c DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE\n\n\nCommissioner of Social Security\nOffice of Management and Budget, Income Maintenance Branch\nChairman and Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means\nChief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security\nMajority and Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Social Security\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Human Resources\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Budget, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Reform and\nOversight\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,\nEducation and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,\n House of Representatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human\nServices, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security and Family\nPolicy\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging\nSocial Security Advisory Board\n\x0c Overview of the Office of the Inspector General\nThe Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of our Office of Investigations (OI),\nOffice of Audit (OA), Office of the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General (OCCIG), and Office\nof Resource Management (ORM). To ensure compliance with policies and procedures, internal\ncontrols, and professional standards, we also have a comprehensive Professional Responsibility\nand Quality Assurance program.\n Office of Audit\nOA conducts and/or supervises financial and performance audits of the Social Security\nAdministration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) programs and operations and makes recommendations to ensure\nprogram objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently. Financial audits assess whether\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements fairly present SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial position, results of operations, and cash\nflow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s programs\nand operations. OA also conducts short-term management and program evaluations and projects\non issues of concern to SSA, Congress, and the general public.\n\n\n Office of Investigations\nOI conducts and coordinates investigative activity related to fraud, waste, abuse, and\nmismanagement in SSA programs and operations. This includes wrongdoing by applicants,\nbeneficiaries, contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing their official duties. This\noffice serves as OIG liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating to the\ninvestigations of SSA programs and personnel. OI also conducts joint investigations with other\nFederal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.\n\n\n Office of the Chief Counsel to the Inspector General\nOCCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters, including\nstatutes, regulations, legislation, and policy directives. OCCIG also advises the IG on\ninvestigative procedures and techniques, as well as on legal implications and conclusions to be\ndrawn from audit and investigative material. Finally, OCCIG administers the Civil Monetary\nPenalty program.\n Office of Resource Management\nORM supports OIG by providing information resource management and systems security. ORM\nalso coordinates OIG\xe2\x80\x99s budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities, and human\nresources. In addition, ORM is the focal point for OIG\xe2\x80\x99s strategic planning function and the\ndevelopment and implementation of performance measures required by the Government\nPerformance and Results Act of 1993.\n\x0c'


type: legislation

text:
 25.10.2013
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 283/25
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) NR 1033/2013
 z dnia 24 października 2013 r.
 w sprawie zatwierdzenia pentahydratu siarczanu miedzi jako istniejącej substancji czynnej do stosowania w produktach biobójczych typu 2
 (Tekst mający znaczenie dla EOG)
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 528/2012 z dnia 22 maja 2012 r. w sprawie udostępniania na rynku i stosowania produktów biobójczych (1), w szczególności jego art. 89 ust. 1 akapit trzeci,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 Rozporządzenie Komisji (WE) nr 1451/2007 (2) ustanawia wykaz substancji czynnych, które mają zostać poddane ocenie w celu ich ewentualnego włączenia do załącznika I, IA lub IB do dyrektywy 98/8/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (3). Wykaz ten obejmuje siarczan miedzi.
 (2)
 Siarczan miedzi został oceniony zgodnie z art. 11 ust. 2 dyrektywy 98/8/WE pod kątem stosowania w produktach typu 2: Środki odkażające do użytku prywatnego i stosowane w sektorze zdrowia publicznego oraz inne produkty biobójcze zgodnie z definicją w załączniku V do tej dyrektywy, co odpowiada grupie produktowej 2, zdefiniowanej w załączniku V do rozporządzenia (UE) nr 528/2012.
 (3)
 Dane dostarczone do celów oceny pozwoliły na poczynienie ustaleń tylko w odniesieniu do określonych postaci siarczanu miedzi, to jest pentahydratu siarczanu miedzi, nr CAS 7758-99-8. Ocena nie pozwoliła na poczynienie ustaleń w odniesieniu do jakiejkolwiek innej substancji mieszczącej się w definicji siarczanu miedzi, nr CAS 7758-99-7, zawartej we wspomnianym powyżej wykazie substancji czynnych ustanowionym rozporządzeniem (WE) nr 1451/2007. Należy więc objąć zatwierdzeniem wyłącznie pentahydrat siarczanu miedzi.
 (4)
 Francja została wyznaczona jako państwo pełniące rolę sprawozdawcy i w dniu 5 kwietnia 2011 r. przedłożyła Komisji sprawozdanie właściwego organu wraz z zaleceniem zgodnie z art. 14 ust. 4 i 6 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1451/2007.
 (5)
 Sprawozdanie właściwego organu zostało poddane przeglądowi przez państwa członkowskie i Komisję. Zgodnie z art. 15 ust. 4 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1451/2007 w dniu 27 września 2013 r. wyniki przeglądu zostały włączone do sprawozdania z oceny przez Stały Komitet ds. Produktów Biobójczych.
 (6)
 Na podstawie tego sprawozdania można oczekiwać, że produkty biobójcze zawierające pentahydrat siarczanu miedzi, stosowane jako produkty typu 2, spełniają wymogi ustanowione w art. 5 dyrektywy 98/8/WE.
 (7)
 Należy zatem zatwierdzić pentahydrat siarczanu miedzi do stosowania w produktach biobójczych typu 2.
 (8)
 Ponieważ nie poddano ocenie nanomateriałów, zatwierdzenie nie powinno obejmować tych materiałów zgodnie z art. 4 ust. 4 rozporządzenia (UE) nr 528/2012.
 (9)
 Należy przewidzieć odpowiednią ilość czasu, zanim substancja czynna zostanie zatwierdzona, aby umożliwić państwom członkowskim, zainteresowanym stronom oraz w stosownych przypadkach Komisji przygotowanie się do spełnienia nowych wymogów wynikających z zatwierdzenia.
 (10)
 Środki przewidziane w niniejszym rozporządzeniu są zgodne z opinią Stałego Komitetu ds. Produktów Biobójczych,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 Zatwierdza się pentahydrat siarczanu miedzi jako substancję czynną przeznaczoną do stosowania w produktach biobójczych typu 2, z zastrzeżeniem spełnienia wymogów i warunków określonych w załączniku.
 Artykuł 2
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie dwudziestego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 24 października 2013 r.
 W imieniu Komisji
 José Manuel BARROSO
 Przewodniczący
 (1) Dz.U. L 167 z 27.6.2012, s. 1.
 (2) Rozporządzenie Komisji (WE) nr 1451/2007 z dnia 4 grudnia 2007 r. w sprawie drugiej fazy 10-letniego programu pracy określonego w art. 16 ust. 2 dyrektywy 98/8/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady dotyczącej wprowadzania do obrotu produktów biobójczych (Dz.U. L 325 z 11.12.2007, s. 3).
 (3) Dyrektywa 98/8/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 16 lutego 1998 r. dotycząca wprowadzania do obrotu produktów biobójczych (Dz.U. L 123 z 24.4.1998, s. 1).
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 Nazwa zwyczajowa
 Nazwa IUPAC
 Numery identyfikacyjne
 Minimalny stopień czystości substancji czynnej (1)
 Data zatwierdzenia
 Data wygaśnięcia zatwierdzenia
 Typ produktu
 Warunki szczegółowe (2)
 Pentahydrat siarczanu miedzi
 Nazwa IUPAC: Pentahydrat siarczanu miedzi
 Nr WE: 231-847-6 (3)
 Nr CAS: 7758-99-8
 999 g/kg
 1 lipca 2015 r.
 30 czerwca 2025 r.
 2
 W ocenie produktu szczególną uwagę zwraca się na narażenie, ryzyko i skuteczność związane z którymkolwiek z zastosowań objętych wnioskiem o udzielenie pozwolenia, lecz nieuwzględnionych w ocenie ryzyka substancji czynnej na poziomie unijnym.
 Udzielanie pozwoleń podlega następującym warunkom:
 W przypadku użytkowników przemysłowych lub profesjonalnych należy ustanowić bezpieczne procedury postępowania i podjąć odpowiednie środki organizacyjne. W przypadku gdy narażenie nie może zostać ograniczone do dopuszczalnego poziomu za pomocą innych środków, produkty stosuje się przy użyciu odpowiednich środków ochrony indywidualnej.
 (1) Czystość wskazana w tej kolumnie oznaczała minimalny stopień czystości substancji czynnej stosowany do dokonywania oceny zgodnie z art. 8 rozporządzenia (UE) nr 528/2012. Substancja czynna w produkcie wprowadzanym do obrotu może posiadać taki sam lub inny stopień czystości, jeśli udowodniono, że jest on równoważny technicznie z ocenioną substancją czynną.
 (2) Do celów wdrożenia wspólnych zasad załącznika VI do rozporządzenia (UE) nr 528/2012 treść sprawozdań z oceny i wnioski z nich są dostępne na stronie internetowej Komisji: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/environment/biocides/index.htm
 (3) Niniejszy nr WE odnosi się wyłącznie do pentahydratu siarczanu miedzi.


text:
(2900) Luboš Perek – planetoida z pasa głównego asteroid okrążająca Słońce w ciągu 5 lat i 97 dni w średniej odległości 3,03 j.a. Została odkryta 14 stycznia 1972 roku w Hamburg-Bergedorf Observatory w Bergedorfie przez Luboša Kohoutka. Nazwa planetoidy pochodzi od Luboša Perka (ur. 1919), czeskiego astronoma. Przed nadaniem nazwy planetoida nosiła oznaczenie tymczasowe (2900) 1972 AR.
 Zobacz też
 lista planetoid 2001–3000
 lista planetoid
 Linki zewnętrzne
 Planetoidy pasa głównego
 Nazwane planetoidy
 Obiekty astronomiczne odkryte w 1972


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21996D0523(05)
 Afgørelse truffet af Det Blandede EØS-Udvalg nr. 15/96 af den 4. marts 1996 om ændring af bilag II (Tekniske forskrifter, standarder, prøvning og certificering) til EØS-aftalen
 EF-Tidende nr. L 124 af 23/05/1996 s. 0017 - 0018
 AFGØRELSE TRUFFET AF DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG Nr. 15/96 af den 4. marts 1996 om ændring af bilag II (Tekniske forskrifter, standarder, prøvning og certificering) til EØS-aftalen DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG HAR -under henvisning til aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde, som ændret ved protokollen om tilpasning af aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde, i det følgende benævnt »aftalen«, særlig artikel 98, ogud fra følgende betragtninger:Bilag II til aftalen blev sidst ændret ved afgørelse nr. 46/95 truffet af Det Blandede EØS-Udvalg (1);Kommissionens direktiv 95/35/EF af 14. juli 1995 om ændring af Rådets direktiv 91/414/EØF om markedsføring af plantebeskyttelsesmidler (2) bør indarbejdes i aftalen;Kommissionens direktiv 95/36/EF af 14. juli 1995 om ændring af Rådets direktiv 91/414/EØF om markedsføring af plantebeskyttelsesmidler (3), bør indarbejdes i aftalen -TRUFFET FØLGENDE AFGØRELSE:Artikel 1I punkt 12a (Rådets direktiv 91/414/EØF) i kapitel XV i bilag II til aftalen tilføjes følgende led:»- 395 L 0035: Kommissionens direktiv 95/35/EF af 14. juli 1995 (EFT nr. L 172 af 22. 7. 1995, s. 6)395 L 0036: Kommissionens direktiv 95/36/EF af 14. juli 1995 (EFT nr. L 172 af 22. 7. 1995, s. 8)«.Artikel 2Teksterne til direktiv 95/35/EF og 95/36/EF på islandsk og norsk, som er knyttet til de respektive sproglige udgaver af denne afgørelse, er autentiske.Artikel 3Denne afgørelse træder i kraft den 1. april 1996, forudsat at Det Blandede EØS-Udvalg har modtaget alle fornødne meddelelser i henhold til aftalens artikel 103, stk. 1.Artikel 4Denne afgørelse offentliggøres i EØS-afsnittet i og EØS-tillægget til De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende.Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 4. marts 1996.På Det Blandede EØS-Udvalgs vegneP. BENAVIDESFormand(1) Endnu ikke offentliggjort i Tidende.(2) EFT nr. L 172 af 22. 7. 1995, s. 6.(3) EFT nr. L 172 af 22. 7. 1995, s. 8.


text:
 16.12.2016
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 342/14
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) 2016/2260
 z dne 15. decembra 2016
 o spremembi uredb (ES) št. 226/2007, (ES) št. 1293/2008, (ES) št. 910/2009, (ES) št. 911/2009, (EU) št. 1120/2010, (EU) št. 212/2011 ter izvedbenih uredb (EU) št. 95/2013 in (EU) št. 413/2013 v zvezi z imenom imetnika dovoljenja za Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M in Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077
 (Besedilo velja za EGP)
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 1831/2003 z dne 22. septembra 2003 o dodatkih za uporabo v prehrani živali (1) in zlasti člena 13(3) Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Družba Lallemand SAS je predložila zahtevek v skladu s členom 13(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1831/2003, v katerem je predlagala spremembo imena imetnika dovoljenj v uredbah Komisije (ES) št. 226/2007 (2), (ES) št. 1293/2008 (3), (ES) št. 910/2009 (4), (ES) št. 911/2009 (5), (EU) št. 1120/2010 (6), (EU) št. 212/2011 (7) ter izvedbenih uredbah Komisije (EU) št. 95/2013 (8) in (EU) št. 413/2013 (9).
 (2)
 Vložnik trdi, da je družba Danstar Ferment AG pravna lastnica pravic trženja za krmna dodatka Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M in Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077. Vložnik je predložil ustrezne podatke, ki podpirajo njegovo zahtevo.
 (3)
 Predlagana sprememba imetnika dovoljenja je povsem upravnega značaja in ne zahteva nove ocene zadevnih dodatkov. Evropska agencija za varnost hrane je bila o zahtevku obveščena.
 (4)
 Da bi se družbi Danstar Ferment AG omogočilo, da izkorišča svoje pravice trženja, je treba spremeniti pogoje zadevnih dovoljenj.
 (5)
 Uredbe (ES) št. 226/2007, (ES) št. 1293/2008, (ES) št. 910/2009, (ES) št. 911/2009, (EU) št. 1120/2010, (EU) št. 212/2011 ter izvedbeni uredbi (EU) št. 95/2013 in (EU) št. 413/2013 bi bilo zato treba ustrezno spremeniti.
 (6)
 Ker ni varnostnih razlogov, ki bi zahtevali takojšnjo uporabo sprememb uredb (ES) št. 226/2007, (ES) št. 1293/2008, (ES) št. 910/2009, (ES) št. 911/2009, (EU) št. 1120/2010, (EU) št. 212/2011 ter izvedbenih uredb (EU) št. 95/2013 in (EU) št. 413/2013, uvedenih s to uredbo, je primerno zagotoviti prehodno obdobje, v katerem se lahko porabijo obstoječe zaloge.
 (7)
 Ukrepi iz te uredbe so v skladu z mnenjem Stalnega odbora za rastline, živali, hrano in krmo –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Sprememba Uredbe (ES) št. 226/2007
 V stolpcu 2 Priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 226/2007 se izraz „LALLEMAND SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG, ki ga zastopa Lallemand SAS“.
 Člen 2
 Sprememba Uredbe (ES) št. 1293/2008
 V stolpcu 2 Priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 1293/2008 se izraz „LALLEMAND SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG, ki ga zastopa Lallemand SAS“.
 Člen 3
 Sprememba Uredbe (ES) št. 910/2009
 Uredba (ES) št. 910/2009 se spremeni:
 1.
 v naslovu se izraz „Lallemand SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG“;
 2.
 v stolpcu 2 Priloge se izraz „Lallemand SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG, ki ga zastopa Lallemand SAS“.
 Člen 4
 Sprememba Uredbe (ES) št. 911/2009
 Uredba (ES) št. 911/2009 se spremeni:
 1.
 v naslovu se izraz „Lallemand SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG“;
 2.
 v stolpcu 2 Priloge se izraz „Lallemand SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG, ki ga zastopa Lallemand SAS“.
 Člen 5
 Sprememba Uredbe (EU) št. 1120/2010
 Uredba (EU) št. 1120/2010 se spremeni:
 1.
 v naslovu se izraz „Lallemand SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG“;
 2.
 v stolpcu 2 Priloge se izraz „Lallemand SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG, ki ga zastopa Lallemand SAS“.
 Člen 6
 Sprememba Uredbe (EU) št. 212/2011
 Uredba (EU) št. 212/2011 se spremeni:
 1.
 v naslovu se izraz „Lallemand SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG“;
 2.
 v stolpcu 2 Priloge se izraz „Lallemand SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG, ki ga zastopa Lallemand SAS“.
 Člen 7
 Sprememba Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 95/2013
 Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 95/2013 se spremeni:
 1.
 v naslovu se izraz „Lallemand SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG“;
 2.
 v stolpcu 2 Priloge se izraz „Lallemand SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG, ki ga zastopa Lallemand SAS“.
 Člen 8
 Sprememba Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 413/2013
 Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 413/2013 se spremeni:
 1.
 v naslovu se izraz „Lallemand SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG“;
 2.
 v stolpcu 2 Priloge se izraz „Lallemand SAS“ nadomesti z izrazom „Danstar Ferment AG, ki ga zastopa Lallemand SAS“.
 Člen 9
 Prehodni ukrepi
 Obstoječe zaloge dodatkov, ki so v skladu z določbami, ki so se uporabljale pred začetkom veljavnosti te uredbe, se lahko še naprej dajejo na trg in uporabljajo do porabe zalog.
 Člen 10
 Začetek veljavnosti
 Ta uredba začne veljati dvajseti dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 15. december 2016
 Za Komisijo
 Predsednik
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) UL L 268, 18.10.2003, str. 29.
 (2) Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 226/2007 z dne 1. marca 2007 o izdaji dovoljenja za Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077 (Levucell SC20 in Levucell SC10 ME) kot dodatka v krmi (UL L 64, 2.3.2007, str. 26).
 (3) Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1293/2008 z dne 18. decembra 2008 o izdaji dovoljenja za Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077 (Levucell SC20 in Levucell SC10 ME) kot krmnega dodatka (UL L 340, 19.12.2008, str. 38).
 (4) Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 910/2009 z dne 29. septembra 2009 o izdaji dovoljenja za novo uporabo pripravka Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-1077 kot krmnega dodatka za konje (imetnik dovoljenja Lallemand SAS) (UL L 257, 30.9.2009, str. 7).
 (5) Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 911/2009 z dne 29. septembra 2009 o izdaji dovoljenja za novo uporabo pripravka Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M kot krmnega dodatka za salmonide in kozice (imetnik dovoljenja Lallemand SAS) (UL L 257, 30.9.2009, str. 10).
 (6) Uredba Komisije (EU) št. 1120/2010 z dne 2. decembra 2010 o izdaji dovoljenja za Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M kot krmni dodatek za odstavljene pujske (imetnik dovoljenja Lallemand SAS) (UL L 317, 3.12.2010, str. 12).
 (7) Uredba Komisije (EU) št. 212/2011 z dne 3. marca 2011 o izdaji dovoljenja za Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M kot krmni dodatek za kokoši nesnice (imetnik dovoljenja Lallemand SAS) (UL L 59, 4.3.2011, str. 1).
 (8) Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 95/2013 z dne 1. februarja 2013 o izdaji dovoljenja za pripravek iz Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M kot krmni dodatek za vse ribe, razen salmonidov (imetnik dovoljenja Lallemand SAS) (UL L 33, 2.2.2013, str. 19).
 (9) Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 413/2013 z dne 6. maja 2013 o izdaji dovoljenja za pripravek iz Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M kot krmni dodatek za uporabo v vodi za pitje za odstavljene pujske, prašiče za pitanje, kokoši nesnice in piščance za pitanje (imetnik dovoljenja Lallemand SAS) (UL L 125, 7.5.2013, str. 1).