text:
 11.10.2007
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 266/1
 DECIZIA NR. 46/2007 A COMITETULUI MIXT AL SEE
 din 8 iunie 2007
 de modificare a anexei I (Chestiuni veterinare şi fitosanitare) la Acordul SEE
 COMITETUL MIXT AL SEE,
 având în vedere Acordul privind Spaţiul Economic European, astfel cum a fost modificat prin Protocolul de adaptare a Acordului privind Spaţiul Economic European, denumit în continuare „acordul”, în special articolul 98,
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Anexa I la acord a fost modificată prin Decizia nr. 2/2007 a Comitetului mixt al SEE din 27 aprilie 2007 (1).
 (2)
 Decizia 2006/414/CE a Comisiei din 7 iunie 2006 de modificare a Deciziilor 2001/881/CE şi 2002/459/CE în ceea ce priveşte lista punctelor de control la frontieră (2) trebuie încorporată în acord.
 (3)
 Decizia 2006/559/CE a Comisiei din 8 august 2006 de modificare a Deciziei 2002/300/CE cu privire la zonele excluse din lista zonelor autorizate în ceea ce priveşte Bonamia ostreae şi/sau Marteilia refringens
 (3) trebuie încorporată în acord.
 (4)
 Decizia 2006/590/CE a Comisiei din 1 septembrie 2006 de modificare a Deciziilor 94/360/CE şi 2001/812/CE în ceea ce priveşte controalele sanitar-veterinare pentru produsele care provin din ţări terţe (4) trebuie încorporată în acord.
 (5)
 Decizia 2006/674/CE a Comisiei din 6 octombrie 2006 de modificare a anexelor I şi II la Decizia 2002/308/CE de stabilire a listelor cu zonele şi fermele piscicole autorizate în ceea ce priveşte septicemia hemoragică virală (SHV) sau necroza hematopoietică infecţioasă (NHI) sau ambele boli (5) trebuie încorporată în acord.
 (6)
 Decizia 2006/685/CE a Comisiei din 6 octombrie 2006 de modificare a anexelor I şi II la Decizia 2003/634/CE de aprobare a programelor destinate obţinerii statutului de zone autorizate sau de exploataţii de creştere autorizate situate în zone neautorizate în ceea ce priveşte boli ale peştilor, precum septicemia hemoragică virală (SHV) şi necroza hematopoietică infecţioasă (NHI) (6) trebuie încorporată în acord.
 (7)
 Decizia 2006/775/CE a Comisiei din 13 noiembrie 2006 de modificare a anexei D la Directiva 95/70/CE a Consiliului în ceea ce privește lista bolilor exotice ale moluștelor supuse măsurilor de control armonizate la nivel comunitar (7) trebuie încorporată în acord.
 (8)
 Prezenta decizie nu se aplică Liechtensteinului,
 DECIDE:
 Articolul 1
 Capitolul I din anexa I la acord se modifică după cum urmează:
 1.
 La punctul 25 (Decizia 94/360/CE a Comisiei) din partea 1.2 se adaugă următoarea liniuţă:
 „—
 32006 D 0590: Decizia 2006/590/CE a Comisiei din 1 septembrie 2006 (JO L 240, 2.9.2006, p. 11).”
 2.
 La punctul 111 (Decizia 2001/812/CE a Comisiei) din partea 1.2 se adaugă următorul text:
 „, astfel cum a fost modificată prin:
 —
 32006 D 0590: Decizia 2006/590/CE a Comisiei din 1 septembrie 2006 (JO L 240, 2.9.2006, p. 11).”
 3.
 La punctele 39 (Decizia 2001/881/CE a Comisiei) şi 46 (Decizia 2002/459/CE a Comisiei) din partea 1.2 se adaugă următoarea liniuţă:
 „—
 32006 D 0414: Decizia 2006/414/CE a Comisiei din 7 iunie 2006 (JO L 164, 16.6.2006, p. 27).”
 4.
 La punctul 8 (Directiva 95/70/CE a Consiliului) din partea 3.1 se adaugă următoarea liniuţă:
 „—
 32006 D 0775: Decizia 2006/775/CE a Comisiei din 13 noiembrie 2006 (JO L 314, 15.11.2006, p. 33).”
 5.
 La punctul 65 (Decizia 2002/300/CE a Comisiei) din partea 4.2 se adaugă următoarea liniuţă:
 „—
 32006 D 0559: Decizia 2006/559/CE a Comisiei din 8 august 2006 (JO L 219, 10.8.2006, p. 28).”
 6.
 La punctul 66 (Decizia 2002/308/CE a Comisiei) din partea 4.2 se adaugă următoarea liniuţă:
 „—
 32006 D 0674: Decizia 2006/674/CE a Comisiei din 6 octombrie 2006 (JO L 276, 7.10.2006, p. 80).”
 7.
 La rubrica „ACTE CARE TREBUIE SĂ FIE LUATE ÎN CONSIDERARE DE STATELE AELS ŞI AUTORITATEA DE SUPRAVEGHERE A AELS”, în partea 4.2, punctul 55 (Decizia 2003/634/CE a Comisiei) se adaugă următoarea liniuţă:
 „—
 32006 D 0685: Decizia 2006/685/CE a Comisiei din 6 octombrie 2006 (JO L 282, 13.10.2006, p. 44).”
 Articolul 2
 Textele Deciziilor 2006/414/CE, 2006/559/CE, 2006/590/CE, 2006/674/CE, 2006/685/CE şi 2006/775/CE în limbile islandeză şi norvegiană, care urmează a fi publicate în suplimentul SEE al Jurnalului Oficial al Uniunii Europene, sunt autentice.
 Articolul 3
 Prezenta decizie intră în vigoare la 9 iunie 2007, cu condiţia să se fi efectuat toate notificările prevăzute la articolul 103 alineatul (1) din acord către Comitetul mixt al SEE (8).
 Articolul 4
 Prezenta decizie se publică în secţiunea SEE şi în suplimentul SEE ale Jurnalului Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Adoptată la Bruxelles, 8 iunie 2007.
 Pentru Comitetul mixt al SEE
 Preşedintele
 Alan SEATTER
 (1) JO L 209, 9.8.2007, p. 3.
 (2) JO L 164, 16.6.2006, p. 27.
 (3) JO L 219, 10.8.2006, p. 28.
 (4) JO L 240, 2.9.2006, p. 11.
 (5) JO L 276, 7.10.2006, p. 80.
 (6) JO L 282, 13.10.2006, p. 44.
 (7) JO L 314, 15.11.2006, p. 33.
 (8) Nu sunt indicate cerinţe constituţionale.


type: wikipedia

text:
Болярци е село в Южна България. То се намира в община Садово, област Пловдив.
 География
 Основният отрасъл на местното население е земеделието. Поради плодородните почви тук са отглеждат почти всякакви култури, но доминира отглеждането на фъстъци, царевица, жито и пъпеши.
 История
 За първи път името на селото се споменава в акънджийския регистър от 1472 г., където с. Болярци е посочено като „Кара Реислю“ от нахията Филибе/Пловдив/ – НБКМ-Сф, ОО – ОАК 94/73, л.56а. Посочените негови жители са само мюсюлмани (личен архив на историка Любомир Василев от село Кочево, обл. Пловдивска). Справката от дефтера от 1472 г. е извършена от историка османист и тюрколог от ОО на НБКМ-Сф – Стоян Шиваров – б.а., Л.В. Старото име на село Болярци е Караоризово. Според местните за първи път в България, именно тук е внесен и отгледан ориз. Поради ключовото си местоположение с. Болярци е било място на много военни сражения по време на османското владичество. Споменава се и в джелепския регистър от 1576 г. с двама овцевъди – и двамата пришълци – „Нечо Пришелец, нов-25“ и „Велчо Пришелец, нов-25“ овце /Извори за българската история, том 16, Сф, БАН, 1972 г., стр.47/.
 В селото се намира текето на Рис Баба.
 НАКРАТКО ЗА ИСТОРИЯТА НА СЕЛО БОЛЯРЦИ
 (Откъс от книгата на Йордан Донев – „Корени и крила“)
 Има основания да се смята, че селището, където сега се намира село Болярци е заселено с българи по времето на Цар Иван Асен II – в средата на 13 век, с цел да се осигури отбраната на новопостроената крепост Градището и на манастира Св. Петка.
 За първи път по времето на Кан Крум, в началото на 9 век, българската войска се появила в плодородните полета между Марица и северните склонове на Родопите, и превзела град Пловдив. Но трайното включване на тези земи в пределите на българската държава станало възможно едва по времето на Цар Иван Асен II, след разгрома на войските на нашественика Теодор Комнин в битката при с. Клокотница. А това се случило на 9 март 1230 г., в деня на християнския празник „Свети Четиридесет мъченици“.
 За защита на новите земи и важните пътища, които минавали през тях – от Беломорието и Солун през Родопските проходи към Одрин и Пловдив, Цар Иван Асен II издал грамоти да се построят четири крепости и зад всяка от тях да се заселят достатъчно родове н българи, които да ги отбраняват. Наредил също така – да се изградят три манастирски комплекса и голяма църква в село Буково, което по това време станало седалище на българския епископ в Родопите. Организацията на строителството и на крепостните гарнизони Царят възложил на великия болярин Алекси Севаст.
 Новопостроените и възстановени крепости по северните склонове на източните Родопи били: Асенова крепост (над Асеновград), крепостта Градището до с. Червен, римската крепост Големия Хисар под връх Драгойна, която била наречена със славянското име Козлек и крепостта край гр. Хасково, останките от която се наричат Хисарлъка.
 Първият манастирски комплекс бил най-голям, наричал се „Св. Четиридесет мъченици“ и бил разположен в планината между Асенова крепост и с. Куклен. Вторият манастирски комплекс бил наречен „Св. Петка“ и бил разположен между Асеновград и с. Червен, в близост до величествените руини на древен тракийски Храм на Богинята-майка, природния феномен Четиридесетте извора и древната космическа загадка – Беленташ. Сега частично възстановените останки от този някогашен манастирски комплекс се наричат просто Мулдавски манастир „Св. Петка“, по името на близкото село – Мулдава.
 Третият манастирски комплекс бил изграден край Дълбок извор в Перун кория (Пера кория), на високото плато над десния бряг на р. Мечка и се наричал „Св. Врач“.
 По обичайната за онова време практика, около 1230 г. Цар Иван Асен II заселил в околностите на четирите нови крепости и дарил със земи прабългарски родове, които да формират крепостните гарнизони и да поемат командването им.
 По северните склонове на Родопа планина и непосредствено в подножието им живеели многобройни славяни от племето Драговити. Между местното славянско население и новодошлите прабългари нямало противоречия. Напротив, обединявала ги общата религия, уважението към старите светилища и богове, побратимявали ги многобройните смесени бракове. Българите били военен народ и присъствието им създавало у славяните чувство на сигурност срещу общите врагове.
 Българите се заселвали на 2 – 3 километра по-навътре в полето, по безлюдните земи обитавани допреди няколко века от тракийското племе „беси“ и напуснати преди двадесетина години от гърците, които ги населявали по това време. Това обезлюдяване на плодородната Горнотракийска низина се случило около 1206 г., по времето на българския Цар Иваница от рода на Асеневци. Лукавите ромеи или го словославели с името Калоян – Хубавия Иван или го хулели с прозвището Скилиян – Кучето Иван. Докато Цар Калоян водел тежки битки с кръстоносците, които завладели Константинопол, водачите на ромеите се кълнели във вечна вярност към него. Но щом той разбил враговете им при Одрин, ромеите вдигнали въстание в тила на уморената му войска и вероломно избили българските гарнизони в Пловдив и в крепостта Меркели. Цар Калоян бързо си възвърнал крепостите и околните земи, но за предателството си Пловдивските велможи заплатили с живота си, а гръцкото население от цяла Западна Тракия било принудително изселено в най-отдалечените райони на огромната българска държава.
 Ненужна жестокост или необходима справедливост е било това? Напълно ще разберем направеното от Цар Калоян, ако си припомним че по това време споменът за ослепените Самуилови войници бил още съвсем пресен, той бил като жива рана в съзнанието на българите. А инициатор на подлото нападение през планината Беласица в гръб на българската войска бил Пловдивския стратег Никифор Ксифия и то било изпълнено с възторг от неговия полк, съставен от местни ромеи от града и областта.
 Както вече казахме, по заповед на Цар Иван Асен II, в полето зад крепостта Градището и манастира „Св. Петка“ се разположило прабългарско село, което през годините на владичеството се наричало Караизово. Какво точно е било първоначалното име на селото не се знае, но след Освобождението жителите му го нарекли Болярци. Навярно родовата памет и спомените за миналото им говорели, че точно това име съответства на произхода им. Съдбата никък не била благосклонна към тях. За да оцелеят и да спасят имота си, една част от хората от селото били принудени да приемат исляма. Това била тяхната саможертва в името на общото оцеляване. Но те никога не забравили роднинските връзки помежду си, уважавали се и в случай на нужда си помагали. Българите-християни от Караизово преживели дългите години на владичеството благодарение и на подкрепата на своите съселяни – българите-мюсюлмани. Последните известни коджабашии на двете религиозни общности в селото били: Али ага – на българите-мюсюлмани и Хаджи Мечо – на българите-християни. Известно е, че хора от родовете на тези забележителни българи са доживели до Освобождението, но дали имат живи потомци в Болярци и кои са те – това не можах да установя. Продължители на рода на Хаджи Мечо от Караизово (Болярци), по пряка линия са Назлъмови от Козбунар (Дълбок извор), които продължават своя род по съребрена линия, но запазват старото си родово име.
 Редовни събития
 Всяка година на Гергьовден (6 май) се провежда събор край едноименния параклис до селото.
 Личности
 Родени в Болярци
 Трендафил Димитров (1941-), изтъкнат български хореограф, дългогодишен главен художествен ръководител на АНПТ „Китна Тракия“-Хасково, отдал живота си в популяризиране на българския фолклор по целия свят.
 Хаджи Ангел Иванов - Севлиевеца (1808 – 1890), български църковно-музикален деец
 Атанас Търев (р. 1958), български лекоатлет
 Панайот Златанов, български революционер от ВМОРО, четник на Иван Наумов Алябака
 Други
 Най-голямото населено място в Община Садово
 \
 Източници
 \
 Външни препратки
 Села в област Пловдив
 Населени места в община Садово


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
29 . 10 . 77 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 278 /5
 AGREEMENT
 in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the
 Kingdom of Morocco fixing the additional amount to be deducted from the levy on imports
 into the Community of untreated olive oil , originating in Morocco, for the period
 1 November 1977 to 31 October 1978
 Letter No 1
 Sir,
 Annex B to the Cooperation Agreement and Annex B to the Interim Agreement between the
 European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco stipulate that for untreated
 olive oil , falling within subheading 15.07 A I of the Common Customs Tariff, the amount to
 be deducted from the amount of the levy in accordance with Article 17 ( 1 ) ( b) of the Coop
 eration Agreement and Article 10 ( 1 ) (b ) of the Interim Agreement is increased , in order to
 take account of certain factors and of the situation on the olive-oil market, by an additional
 amount under the same conditions and arrangements as laid down for the application of the
 abovementioned provisions.
 I have the honour to inform you that, having regard to the criteria specified in the aforemen
 tioned Annexes, the Community will take the necessary steps to maintain the additional
 amount at 10 units of account per 100 kilograms for the period 1 November 1977 to
 31 October 1978 .
 I should be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter and confirm your
 Government's agreement to its content.
 Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration .
 On behalf of the Council
 of the European Communities
 ---pagebreak--- No L 278 /6 Official Journal of the European Communities 29 . 10 . 77
 Letter No 2
 Sir,
 I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today's date, which reads as fol
 lows :
 ' Annex B to the Cooperation Agreement and Annex B to the Interim Agreement be
 tween the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco stipulate that
 for untreated olive oil , falling within subheading 15.07 A I of the Common Customs
 Tariff, the amount to be deducted from the amount of the levy in accordance with
 Article 17 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the Cooperation Agreement and Article 10 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the Interim
 Agreement is increased, in order to take account of certain factors and of the situation
 on the olive-oil market, by an additional amount under the same conditions and
 arrangements as laid down for the application of the abovementioned provisions .
 I have the honour to inform you that, having regard to the criteria specified in the
 aforementioned Annexes, the Community will take the necessary steps to maintain the
 additional amount at 10 units of account per 100 kilograms for the period 1 November
 1977 to 31 October 1978 .
 I should be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter and confirm your
 Government's agreement to its content.'
 I am able to confirm the agreement of my Government to the foregoing.
 Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration .
 For the Government
 of the Kingdom of Morocco
 \


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'Office of Inspector General March 29, 1999\n\n\nMr. Larry W. Albert\nPartner\nArthur Andersen LLP\n1666 K Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20006-2873\n\nRe: Final Report on Quality Control Review of Arthur Andersen LLP Audit of the\n National Aeronautics and Space Administration Financial Statements\n for Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1998\n Assignment Number A-HA-98-035\n Report Number IG-99-018\n\n\nDear Mr. Albert:\n\nWe are issuing the subject final report pursuant to our responsibilities under the Chief\nFinancial Officers Act of 1990, as amended, Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended,\nand the Office of Management and Budget Bulletin 98-08, "Audit Requirements for Federal\nFinancial Statements," August 24, 1998. Please refer to the Results in Brief section for the\noverall quality control review results. We provided Arthur Andersen LLP an opportunity\nfor written comments and none were provided.\n\nIf you have questions concerning the report, please contact Mr. Chester A. Sipsock,\nProgram Director, Environmental and Financial Management Audits, Office of Inspector\nGeneral, at (216) 433-8960, or Ms. Van Tran, Auditor-in-Charge, at (202) 358-0466. We\nappreciate the courtesies extended to the audit staff. The final report distribution is in\nAppendix C.\n\nSincerely,\n\n[Original signed by]\n\nRussell A. Rau\nAssistant Inspector General for Auditing\n\nEnclosure\n\x0c IG-99-018\n\n\n\nQUALITY QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW OF\n ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP AUDIT OF THE\nCONTROL NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE\nREVIEW ADMINISTRATION FINANCIAL\nREPORT STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED\n SEPTEMBER 30, 1998\n\n MARCH 29, 1999\n\n\n\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\nNational Aeronautics and\nSpace Administration\n\x0cAdditional Copies\n\nTo obtain additional copies of this report, contact the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing at\n(202) 358-1232, or visit www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/issuedaudits.html.\n\nSuggestions for Future Audits\n\nTo suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Assistant Inspector General for\nAuditing. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to:\n\n Assistant Inspector General for Auditing\n NASA Headquarters\n Code W, Room 8V69\n 300 E Street, SW\n Washington, DC 20546-1000\n\nNASA Hotline\n\nTo report fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement, contact the NASA OIG Hotline by calling (800)\n424-9183, (800) 535-8134 (TDD), or at www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/hotline.html#form, or\nwrite to the NASA Inspector General, P.O. Box 23089, L\xe2\x80\x99Enfant Plaza Station, Washington, DC\n20026. The identity of each writer and caller can be kept confidential, upon request, to the extent\npermitted by law.\n\n\n_________________________________________________________________________________________________\n\n\nAcronyms\n\nAICPA American Institute of Certified Public Accountants\nFY Fiscal Year\nOMB Office of Management and Budget\nSFFAS Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards\n\x0c NASA Office of Inspector General\nIG-99-018 March 29, 1999\n A-HA-98-035\n\n ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP AUDIT OF THE\n NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION\n FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998\n\nIntroduction\n\nThe NASA Office of Inspector General performed a quality control review of the Arthur\nAndersen LLP (Arthur Andersen) audit of the NASA Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 Financial\nStatements. Our quality control review and reporting on the results thereof are required by the\nOffice of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin 98-08, as amended, \xe2\x80\x9cAudit Requirements for\nFederal Financial Statements,\xe2\x80\x9d August 24, 1998. The review objective was to determine whether\nArthur Andersen conducted its audit in accordance with government auditing standards and\nprovisions of OMB Bulletin 98-08.\n\nResults in Brief\n\nArthur Andersen conducted the audit in accordance with government auditing standards and\nprovisions of OMB Bulletin 98-08. Specifically, Arthur Andersen planned, executed, and\nreported the results of its audit according to applicable standards, and issued the reports in a\ntimely manner. A summary of Arthur Andersen\xe2\x80\x99s audit results is in Appendix A.\n\nBackground\n\nThe Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 requires NASA to produce financial statements and the\nOffice of Inspector General to either audit or provide for an independent external auditor to audit\nthe statements. Starting with FY 1996, we contracted with Arthur Andersen, an independent\ncertified public accounting firm, to audit NASA\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements. Our responsibilities for\naudits conducted under contract are identified in the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended,\nthe Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended, and in OMB Bulletin 98-08. Generally, our\nresponsibility is to ensure that the audit conforms to generally accepted government auditing\nstandards and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Further, paragraph 10 of OMB\nBulletin 98-08 requires the Inspector General to:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 ensure that audits are performed and audit reports completed in a timely manner and in\n accordance with the Bulletin requirements,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 provide technical advice and a liaison to Agency officials and independent external\n auditors,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 perform quality control reviews and provide the results to interested organizations,\n and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 monitor and report on management\'s progress in resolving audit findings identified by\n independent external auditors.\n\x0cScope and Methodology\n\nIn performing the quality control review, we used an internal work program that incorporates the\nFederal financial management and audit requirements, as well as government auditing standards.\nThe government auditing standards also incorporate, by reference, the American Institute of\nCertified Public Accountants (AICPA) standards of fieldwork and reporting. Based on those\nrequirements, we developed and organized the work program according to the general, fieldwork,\nand reporting audit standards. The work program also included steps covering our oversight\nrequirements.\n\nTo satisfy the review objective and to fulfill our oversight responsibilities, we:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 reviewed Arthur Andersen\xe2\x80\x99s approach and planning of the audit,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 monitored the progress of the audit at key points,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 examined its working papers and audit reports, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 performed other procedures as necessary.\n\nWe coordinated with the OMB, General Accounting Office, and other Federal entities, as needed,\nduring the course of the audit performed by Arthur Andersen and provided liaison to Agency\nofficials to facilitate audit accomplishments.\n\nArthur Andersen issued its reports on February 3, 1999. We performed our quality control\nreview from May 1998 to March 1999.\n\nReview Results\n\nWe worked closely with the external auditors and Agency officials to ensure the audit was done in\na timely manner and according to applicable standards. Our involvement extended from the initial\naudit planning, to execution, and to completion. We held periodic meetings to discuss status and\nkey issues such as implementation of new accounting standards, reviewed Arthur Andersen\xe2\x80\x99s\nworking papers as the audit progressed, and coordinated responses to requests or mandated\nrequirements.\n\nWe reviewed and took no exception to the audit work performed supporting the following\nreports:\n\n Report of Independent Public Accountants on Financial Statements. Arthur\n Andersen is required to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial\n statements are free of material misstatement. NASA\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements include:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Statement of Financial Position\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Statement of Net Cost\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Statement of Changes in Net Position\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Statement of Budgetary Resources\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Statement of Financing\n\n We reviewed the audit program and the testing of evidence to determine whether testing\n was sufficient, based on assessment of control risk, to warrant the conclusion reached and\n whether the working papers supported the conclusion. We also evaluated the extent of\n audit coverage on NASA implementation of the Statement of Federal Financial\n Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 4, \xe2\x80\x9cManagerial Cost Accounting Standards\xe2\x80\x9d; SFFAS\n No. 6, \xe2\x80\x9cAccounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment\xe2\x80\x9d; SFFAS No. 7, \xe2\x80\x9cAccounting for\n Revenue and Other Financing Sources\xe2\x80\x9d; and SFFAS No. 8, \xe2\x80\x9cSupplementary Stewardship\n Reporting.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Report of Independent Public Accountants on Internal Control. Arthur Andersen is\n required to obtain an understanding of the components1 of internal controls that is\n sufficient to plan the audit and to assess control risk for the assertions2 embodied in the\n financial statements. Arthur Andersen is also required to obtain an understanding of the\n components of internal control relating to the existence and completeness assertions\n relevant to the performance measures. We reviewed the audit programs for the\n appropriate procedures, the working paper documentation including the control risk\n assessment,3 and the controls testing performed. We also reviewed the working papers\n related to electronic data processing and performance measures for adequate\n documentation. Finally, we evaluated the adequacy of the auditors\xe2\x80\x99 effort in following up\n on findings and recommendations in the FY 1997 Management Letter.4 The status of\n management\xe2\x80\x99s progress in resolving last year\xe2\x80\x99s findings is in Appendix B. As required by\n government auditing standards, section 4.7, Arthur Andersen will follow up on all\n reportable conditions and findings and recommendations in the FY 1998 Management\n Letter.\n\n Report of Independent Public Accountants on Compliance with Laws and\n Regulations. Arthur Andersen is required to determine whether NASA has complied\n with laws and regulations that could have a direct and material effect in determining the\n financial statement amounts. Arthur Andersen is also required to assess whether NASA\xe2\x80\x99s\n financial management systems substantially comply with the Federal Financial\n\n\n\n1\n The five components of internal control are control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information\nand communication, and monitoring.\n2\n The five assertions are existence or occurrence, completeness, rights and obligations, valuation or allocation, and\npresentation and disclosure.\n3\n According to AICPA Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, Section 319, Consideration of Internal\nControl in a Financial Statement, auditors are required to document the basis for concluding that control risk is\nbelow the maximum level.\n4\n A management letter describes conditions that the auditors do not include in the audit report but consider\nnecessary to communicate to management.\n 3\n\x0c Management Improvement Act of 1996. We reviewed the audit programs for the\n appropriate procedures, the working paper documentation including the fraud risk\n assessment,5 and the compliance testing performed.\n\n Report of Independent Public Accountants on the Application of Agreed-Upon\n Procedures. Arthur Andersen is required to perform payroll agreed-upon procedures\n related to the retirement, health, and life insurance withholdings/contributions and\n employee headcount data. The procedures were performed on behalf of the Office of\n Personnel Management. The auditors must apply the procedures for each Agency Payroll\n Office that services 30,000 or more employees per year. We reviewed the working papers\n to determine whether the procedures were completed as specified in OMB Bulletin 98-08,\n Appendix H, and whether associated findings, if any, were supported.\n\nAs part of our oversight responsibilities, we also performed the following procedures:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Transmitted the required letters/report to external agencies as follows:\n \xe2\x88\x92 NASA Interim and Updated Legal Representation Letters to OMB, Department of\n the Treasury (Treasury), and the General Accounting Office on January 21, and\n February 23, 1999.\n \xe2\x88\x92 NASA Management Representation Letter to OMB, Treasury, and the General\n Accounting Office on February 23, 1999.\n \xe2\x88\x92 Arthur Andersen\xe2\x80\x99s report on its application of agreed-upon procedures to the\n Office of Personnel Management\xe2\x80\x99s Inspector General, Chief Financial Officer, and\n Associate Director for Retirement and Insurance on February 23, 1999.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Completed the Federal Agencies\xe2\x80\x99 Centralized Trial-Balance System data verification\n and provided results to Treasury and the General Accounting Office on March 3,\n 1999. The verification was to ensure agreement between amounts reported in the\n Agency\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements and those reported to Treasury. We found no\n differences in amounts.\n\nAt the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s request, we reviewed the draft FY 1998 Accountability Report6 and provided\ncomments on January 5, and February 5, 1999. Our comments involved consistency in reporting\nand compliance with mandated requirements, such as the Year 2000 issues disclosure.\n\n\n\n\n5\n AICPA Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, Section 316, Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit,\nstates that auditors are required to specifically assess the risk of material misstatement of the financial statements\ndue to fraud and to document in the working papers evidence of its assessment.\n6\n The annual Accountability Report links together statutorily required reports into a single document. Examples\ninclude reports required by the Chief Financial Officers Act, the Government Performance and Results Act, the\nFederal Managers\xe2\x80\x99 Financial Integrity Act, the Prompt Payment Act, and the Inspector General Act Amendments.\n 4\n\x0c APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN\xe2\x80\x99S AUDIT RESULTS\n\nReport of Independent Public Accountants on Financial Statements\n\nArthur Andersen rendered an unqualified opinion on NASA\xe2\x80\x99s Statement of Financial Position as\nof September 30, 1998. The Statements of Net Cost, Changes in Net Position, Budgetary\nResources, and Financing for the year ended September 30, 1998, also received an unqualified\nopinion.\n\nReport of Independent Public Accountants on Internal Control\n\nArthur Andersen tested NASA\xe2\x80\x99s controls over financial reporting and found no material\nweaknesses.7 However, the auditors noted a reportable condition related to information\ntechnology policies and procedures which require improvement to prevent unauthorized access to\nNASA financial management systems. The reportable condition is a repeat deficiency from last\nyear\xe2\x80\x99s audit. Other findings are described in the Management Letter (see footnote 4) and are\nsummarized below.\n\nReport of Independent Public Accountants on Compliance with Laws and Regulations\n\nArthur Andersen tested NASA compliance with certain laws and regulations that could have a\ndirect and material effect in determining the financial statement amounts. The tests disclosed no\nreportable noncompliance. Arthur Andersen also concluded that NASA\xe2\x80\x99s financial management\nsystems substantially comply with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996.\n\nThe full text of the above three reports are included the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s FY 1998 Accountability Report\nwhich can be viewed at http://www.nasa.gov.\n\nReport of Independent Public Accountants on the Application of Agreed-Upon Procedures\n\nArthur Andersen performed the procedures as specified in Appendix H of OMB Bulletin 98-08\nand found no differences or variances above the stated limit. Appendix H listed seven detailed\nprocedures relating to the Report of Withholdings and Contributions for Health, Benefits, Life\nInsurance, and Retirement and to the Supplemental Semiannual Headcount Report. The\nprocedures generally entailed footing,8 tracing to source documents, recalculating amounts, and\nreconciling reports.\n\n\n\n\n7\n A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal\ncontrol structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts\nthat would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a\ntimely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.\n8\n Footing is the sum of a column or row of figures.\n 5\n\x0cAppendix A\n\n\nFY 1998 Management Letter\n\nIn addition to the reportable condition involving information technology, Arthur Andersen made\n14 additional observations related to three areas: (1) Financial Management and Accounting\nMatters, (2) Financial Management Systems, and (3) Property Management. Overall, the\nrecommendations for areas one and three addressed the need to strengthen the financial reporting\nprocess or procedures and to perform reconciliation in a timely manner. For the Financial\nManagement Systems area, the recommendations addressed the need to strengthen general\nsecurity controls, to maintain complete and accurate documentation of security policies and\nprocedures, to improve security-related practices and disaster recovery capabilities, and to\ncomplete Year 2000 remediation initiatives. In following up on the FY 1997 Management Letter\nrecommendations, Arthur Andersen found that of 23 recommendations that warranted action,\nfurther activity was required on 19 recommendations. In particular, two recommendations were\nnot implemented pertaining to developing and tracking financial management performance\nmeasures and reclassification of expired grant advances to accounts receivable (see Appendix B).\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c APPENDIX B. STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR MANAGEMENT LETTER\n RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nFiscal Year 1997 Findings Not Repeated In 1998 Findings Repeated in 1998\nRecommendations Management Letter Management Letter\n Implemented In Process Partially Not\n Implemented Implemented\n1. Strengthen financial\nReporting Process to\nEffectively Communicate and\nMonitor New and Changing\nPolicies\n a. Proper accounting for X\nprior-period adjustments\n b. Recording of X\ntransactions in the proper\nperiod\n c. Prompt liquidation of X\nnon-governmental deposit\nliabilities\n d. Uniform implementation X\nof NASA policy for\ntransferring work in progress\nto completed property\n e. Inclusion of contractor X\nfees in the recorded value of\ncontractor-held property\n f. Periodic analysis of X\nsignificant account balances\nfluctuations\n g. Reclassification of X\nexpired grant advances to\naccounts receivable\n h. Endorsement of checks X\nimmediately upon receipt\n2. Improve Logical Access X\nControls over Security of\nFinancial Management\nSystems\n3. Establish Process to Obtain X\nAll Audit Reports of Grant\nRecipients\n4. Continue to Strengthen X\nPerformance Measurement\nProcess\n\n\n 7\n\x0cAppendix B\n\nFiscal Year 1997 Findings Not Repeated in 1998 Findings Repeated in 1998\nRecommendations Management Letter Management Letter\n Implemented In Process Partially Not\n Implemented Implemented\n5. Develop and Track Financial X\nManagement Performance\nMeasures\n6. Ensure Timely Submission of N/A*\nNASA\'s Prompt Payment Report\n7. Strengthen Process for X\nAccruing Legal Contingencies\n8. Reconcile Advances Detail X\nwith Control Account at\nHeadquarters Accounting\nDivision\n9. Clear Suspense Accounts on a X\nTimely Basis\n10. Develop Formal, Written X\nDocumentation of Financial\nManagement System Security\nPolicies and Procedures\n11. Enhance Processes to X\nManage Financial Management\nSystem General Security\nControls\n12. Strengthen Financial X\nManagement System Security -\nRelated Practices\n13. Strengthen Financial X\nManagement System Disaster\nRecovery Documentation and\nCapabilities\n14. Complete Year 2000 X\nApplication and Operating\nSystem Conversion Initiative\n15. Review Government X\nProperty Control System\nAnalyses for Possible Financial\nStatement Impact\n16. Reconcile the General X\nLedger to Property Records on a\nTimely Basis\n17. Improve Monitoring controls X\nover Recording of Property\nTransactions\n*\n The requirement for the submission of NASA\'s Prompt Payment Report was eliminated and thus not tested\nby Arthur Andersen.\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c APPENDIX C. REPORT DISTRIBUTION\n\n\nNational Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters\n\nCode AO/Chief Information Officer\nCode B/Chief Financial Officer\nCode B/Comptroller\nCode G/General Counsel\nCode J/Associate Administrator for Management Systems and Facilities\nCode JM/Director, Management Assessment Division\n\nNASA Offices of Inspector General\n\nAmes Research Center\nDryden Flight Research Center\nJohn H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field\nGoddard Space Flight Center\nJet Propulsion Laboratory\nLyndon B. Johnson Space Center\nJohn F. Kennedy Space Center\nLangley Research Center\nGeorge C. Marshall Space Flight Center\nJohn C. Stennis Space Center\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cMAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT\n\nChester A. Sipsock, Program Director, Environmental and Financial Management Audits\nVan Tran, Auditor-in-Charge\nVera J. Garrant, Acting Report Process Manager\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

text:
 21.2.2022
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 C 84/8
 Achomharc arna thabhairt an 26 Lúnasa 2021 ag Poblacht na Cipire i gcoinne bhreithiúnas na Cúirte Ginearálta (an Dara Dlísheomra) a fógraíodh an 16 Meitheamh 2021 i gCás T-281/19, an Chipir v EUIPO
 (Cás C-538/21 P)
 (2022/C 84/28)
 Teanga an cháis: an Béarla
 Tionscnaíodh an cás seo roimh an 1 Eanáir 2022, dáta deiridh an mhaolaithe ar an nGaeilge.


text:
 31.8.2013
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 252/11
 Rozsudok Súdneho dvora (prvá komora) zo 6. júna 2013 (návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Oberlandesgericht Wien — Rakúsko) — Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde/Donau Chemie AG
 (Vec C-536/11) (1)
 (Hospodárska súťaž - Prístup k spisu - Súdne konanie týkajúce sa pokút za porušenie článku 101 ZFEÚ - Podniky tretích osôb, ktoré chcú začať konanie o náhrade škody - Vnútroštátna právna úprava podmieňujúca prístup k spisu súhlasom všetkých účastníkov konania - Zásada efektivity)
 2013/C 252/16
 Jazyk konania: nemčina
 Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania
 Oberlandesgericht Wien
 Účastníci konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom
 Žalobca: Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde
 Žalovaní: Donau Chemie AG, Donauchem GmbH, DC Druck-Chemie Süd GmbH & Co KG, Brenntag Austria Holding GmbH, Brenntag CEE GmbH, ASK Chemicals GmbH, predtým Ashland-Südchemie-Kernfest GmbH, ASK Chemicals Austria GmbH, predtým Ashland Südchemie Hantos GmbH
 Za účasti: Bundeskartellanwalt, Verband Druck & Medientechnik
 Predmet veci
 Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania — Oberlandesgericht Wien — Výklad ustanovení práva Únie v oblasti kartelov — Prístup k spisu — Vnútroštátna právna úprava, ktorá v správnom konaní v oblasti hospodárskej súťaže podmieňuje prístup tretích osôb k spisu súhlasom všetkých účastníkov konania a vylučuje zváženie akýchkoľvek existujúcich záujmov, hoci také zváženie sa vykonáva pri prístupe k spisu v porovnateľných občianskych a trestných konaniach
 Výrok rozsudku
 Právo Únie, najmä zásada efektivity, bráni ustanoveniu vnútroštátneho práva, podľa ktorého sprístupnenie dokumentov, ktoré sú súčasťou spisu vzťahujúceho sa na vnútroštátne konanie týkajúce sa uplatňovania článku 101 ZFEÚ, vrátane dokumentov poskytnutých v rámci programu zhovievavosti, tretím osobám, ktoré neboli účastníkmi tohto konania a zamýšľajú podanie žalôb o náhradu škody proti účastníkom kartelu, je podmienené výlučne súhlasom všetkých účastníkov uvedeného konania, pričom vnútroštátne súdy nemajú nijakú možnosť pristúpiť k zváženiu dotknutých záujmov.
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ C 13, 14.1.2012.


text:
Commentaire de l'article 6 du Traité de Lisbonne (entr...
 https://www.docs-en-stock.com/droit-public-et-prive/droit-article-6-traite-lisbonne-sources-423418.html
 31/12/2014 11:54:13
 21/07/2014 20:59:02
 30/06/2013 06:40:15
 07/11/2010 02:41:41
 Dans un article intitulé « Valeurs et droits fondamentaux dans le traité de Lisbonne », la juriste Florence BENOIT ROHMER souligne que « les progrès de la construction européenne traduisent la volonté d'approfondissement des valeurs dont l'Union est porteuse et qui inspirent son action ».Confrontée à la lecture de l'article 6, cette réflexion traduit parfaitement la volonté de franchir une nouvelle étape en terme de protection des droits fondamentaux dans le traité de Lisbonne. En effet, l'histoire de la construction européenne montre que la question de la protection des droits fondamentaux a été considérée avec grande attention seulement au cours des deux dernières décennies ()
 IntroductionI) La proclamation de la Charte des droits fondamentaux: vers un renforcement de la protection des droits fondamentauxA. La Charte contraignante s'imposant à l'ordre juridique communautaireB. La nécessité de conserver d'autres sources juridiques au service d'une évolution des droits fondamentauxII) L'adhésion de l'Union européenne à la CEDH: une nouvelle étape vers le renforcement de la protection des droits fondamentaux fruit d'un compromis politiqueA. L'adhésion comme prélude à une interprétation uniforme des droits fondamentauxB. Une affirmation sous certaines réservesConclusion
 [...] Le but ici était d'éviter que les citoyens de ces États ne recourent à la Charte, que ce soit devant la juridiction communautaire ou devant les juridictions nationales. Cela pose donc la question de l'application uniforme de la Charte au sein de l'Union européenne. Cependant, comme le souligne le juriste Jacques Ziller dans l'oeuvre Les nouveaux traités: Lisbonne et après, cet opting-out peut être affaibli dans la mesure où la Cour peut toujours recourir aux principes généraux si elle souhaite imposer le respect d'un droit dans ces pays. Ce qui souligne de nouveau l'utilité de puiser dans diverses sources. [...] [...] Et ce, en remplaçant l'ancien article 6 du traité. Ce considérant, il est important de s'interroger sur les avancées que ces nouvelles données apportent concernant la protection des droits fondamentaux. Dans cette mesure, il est opportun d'adopter une démarche comparative mettant en jeu les anciennes et nouvelles versions de l'article 6. Il apparaît que la reconnaissance de la Charte ainsi que l'adhésion de l'UE à la CEDH ont des répercussions considérables sur l'ordre juridique communautaire. Si cette avancée marque une amélioration indéniable en terme de protection des droits fondamentaux, une certaine réserve apparaît à l'étude de cet article concernant l'effectivité de ses dispositions. [...] [...] En premier lieu, elle induit un meilleur contrôle dans le mesure où cet article soumet le système juridique de l'UE à un contrôle externe et indépendant. Dès lors, il sera possible de mettre en cause un acte communautaire. La Cour EDH pourra donc contrôler la conformité des actes communautaires avec la Convention. En second lieu, cette adhésion apporte des garanties pour les particuliers. En effet, la Cour EDH offre la possibilité de recours individuel aux particuliers (ONG, individus, groupes de personnes) en cas de violation de leurs droits fondamentaux (sous certaines conditions: épuisement de voies de recours internes, etc.). [...] [...] Il apparaît donc ici que le nouvel article 6 marque un renforcement dans la protection des droits fondamentaux en conférant à la Charte une valeur identique à celle des traités et en consacrant l'adhésion de l'UE à la CEDH, tout en émettant certaines réserves, fruit de compromis nécessaires à la ratification du traité. Toutefois, il est indéniable que l'article marque une avancée indéniable concernant la cohérence et l'efficacité de la protection des droits fondamentaux au niveau européen. [...] [...] Cependant, l'examen attentif de l'article 6 révèle que ce renforcement de la protection des droits fondamentaux s'est fait au prix de certains compromis politiques. B. Une affirmation sous certaines réserves. En effet, il apparaît à deux reprises dans cet article que les compétences de l'UE européenne ne seront affectées ni par la valeur conférée à la Charte, ni même par l'adhésion de l'UE à la CEDH: Les dispositions de la Charte n'étendent en aucune manière les compétences de l'Union telles que définies dans les traités (art et Cette adhésion ne modifie pas les compétences de l'Union telles qu'elles sont définies dans les traités Surtout, cette récurrence est plus forte concernant la valeur juridique conférée à la Charte: en effet, l'article 6 1 renvoie au titre VII (Dispositions générales régissant l'interprétation et l'application de la Charte). [...] À propos de l'auteur Moussa B. Chercheur Droit européen Commentaire de l'article 6 du Traité de Lisbonne (entré en vigueur en 2009)


text:
 4.8.2016
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 L 211/52
 ΑΠΌΦΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΜΕΙΚΤΉΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΉΣ ΤΟΥ ΕΟΧ
 αριθ. 100/2015
 της 30ής Απριλίου 2015
 για την τροποποίηση του παραρτήματος II (Τεχνικοί κανόνες, πρότυπα, δοκιμές και πιστοποίηση) και του παραρτήματος XIII (Μεταφορές) της συμφωνίας ΕΟΧ [2016/1283]
 Η ΜΕΙΚΤΗ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ ΤΟΥ ΕΟΧ,
 Έχοντας υπόψη τη συμφωνία για τον Ευρωπαϊκό Οικονομικό Χώρο («η συμφωνία για τον ΕΟΧ»), και ιδίως το άρθρο 98,
 Εκτιμώντας τα ακόλουθα:
 (1)
 Η οδηγία 2014/93/ΕΕ της Επιτροπής, της 18ης Ιουλίου 2014, για την τροποποίηση της οδηγίας 96/98/ΕΚ του Συμβουλίου σχετικά με τον εξοπλισμό πλοίων (1) πρέπει να ενσωματωθεί στη συμφωνία για τον ΕΟΧ.
 (2)
 Τα παραρτήματα II και XIII της συμφωνίας για τον ΕΟΧ θα πρέπει επομένως να τροποποιηθούν αναλόγως,
 ΕΞΕΔΩΣΕ ΤΗΝ ΠΑΡΟΥΣΑ ΑΠΟΦΑΣΗ:
 Άρθρο 1
 Στο σημείο 1 (οδηγία 96/98/ΕΚ του Συμβουλίου) του κεφαλαίου XXXII του παραρτήματος II της συμφωνίας για τον ΕΟΧ προστίθεται η ακόλουθη περίπτωση:
 «—
 32014 L 0093: Οδηγία 2014/93/ΕΕ της Επιτροπής της 18ης Ιουλίου 2014 (ΕΕ L 220 της 25.7.2014, σ. 1).».
 Άρθρο 2
 Στο σημείο 56δ (οδηγία 96/98/ΕΚ του Συμβουλίου) του παραρτήματος XIII της συμφωνίας για τον ΕΟΧ προστίθεται η ακόλουθη περίπτωση:
 «—
 32014 L 0093: Οδηγία 2014/93/ΕΕ της Επιτροπής της 18ης Ιουλίου 2014 (ΕΕ L 220 της 25.7.2014, σ. 1).».
 Άρθρο 3
 Τα κείμενα της οδηγίας 2014/93/ΕΕ στην ισλανδική και τη νορβηγική γλώσσα, τα οποία δημοσιεύονται στο συμπλήρωμα ΕΟΧ της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, είναι αυθεντικά.
 Άρθρο 4
 Η παρούσα απόφαση αρχίζει να ισχύει την 1η Μαΐου 2015, υπό την προϋπόθεση ότι έχουν πραγματοποιηθεί όλες οι κοινοποιήσεις που προβλέπονται στο άρθρο 103 παράγραφος 1 της συμφωνίας για τον ΕΟΧ (*).
 Άρθρο 5
 Η παρούσα απόφαση δημοσιεύεται στο τμήμα ΕΟΧ και στο συμπλήρωμα ΕΟΧ της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
 Βρυξέλλες, 30 Απριλίου 2015.
 Για τη Μεικτή Επιτροπή του ΕΟΧ
 Ο Πρόεδρος
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) ΕΕ L 220 της 25.7.2014, σ. 1.
 (*) Δεν έχουν αναφερθεί συνταγματικές απαιτήσεις.


text:
 3.8.2013
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 C 225/84
 Arrêt du Tribunal de la fonction publique (1ère chambre) du 7 mai 2013 — McCoy/Comité des régions
 (Affaire F-86/11) (1)
 (Fonction publique - Fonctionnaires - Pension d’invalidité - Article 78, cinquième alinéa, du statut - Refus de reconnaissance de l’origine professionnelle de l’invalidité)
 2013/C 225/193
 Langue de procédure: le français
 Parties
 Partie requérante: Robert McCoy (Bruxelles, Belgique) (représentant: L. Levi, avocat)
 Partie défenderesse: Comité des régions de l'Union européenne (représentants: J. C. Cañoto Argüelles, agent, assisté de B. Wägenbaur, avocat)
 Objet de l’affaire
 Fonction publique — La demande d’annuler la décision refusant de reconnaître l'origine professionnelle de l'invalidité dont le requérant serait atteint au sens de l'article 78, paragraphe 5, du statut.
 Dispositif de l’arrêt
 1)
 La décision du bureau du Comité des régions de l’Union européenne, du 10 septembre 2010, portant refus de reconnaître l’origine professionnelle de la maladie dont résulte l’invalidité de M. McCoy au sens de l’article 78, cinquième alinéa, du statut est annulée.
 2)
 Le recours est rejeté pour le surplus.
 3)
 Le Comité des régions de l’Union européenne supporte ses propres dépens et est condamné à supporter les dépens exposés par M. McCoy.
 (1) JO C 340 du 19.11.2011, p. 42.


text:
 18.12.2010
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 346/60
 Sentenza tat-Tribunal għas-Servizz Pubbliku (It-Tieni Awla) tas-27 ta’ Ottubru 2010 — Gerhard Birkhoff vs Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea
 (Kawża F-60/09) (1)
 (Uffiċjali - Remunerazzjoni - Allowance tal-familja - Allowance għal wild dipendenti - Wild milqut minn marda ta’ natura gravi jew minn diżabbiltà li timpedih milli jipprovdi għall-bżonnijiet tiegħu - Talba għall-proroga tal-ħlas tal-allowance - Artikolu 2(5) tal-Anness VII tar-Regolamenti tal-Persunal - Dħul massimu tal-wild bħala kundizzjoni għall-proroga tal-ħlas tal-allowance - Spejjeż deduċibbli mid-dħul imsemmi)
 2010/C 346/119
 Lingwa tal-kawża: it-Taljan
 Partijiet
 Rikorrent: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, il-Ġermanja) (rappreżentant: C. Inzillo, avukat)
 Konvenuta: Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea (rappreżentanti: J. Currall u B. Eggers, aġenti, assistiti minn A. Dal Ferro, avukat)
 Suġġett
 Annullament tad-deċiżjoni li tiċħad it-talba tar-rikorrent intiża li tinkiseb proroga tal-ħlas tal-allowance għat-tfal dipendenti skont il-ħames paragrafu tal-Artikolu 2 tal-Anness VII tar-Regolamenti tal-Persunal.
 Dispożittiv
 (1)
 Ir-rikors huwa miċħud.
 (2)
 G. Birkhoff huwa kkundannat għall-ispejjeż.
 (1) ĠU C 205, 29/08/2009, p. 50.


text:
Ariane Web: Conseil d'État 334878, lecture du 19 juillet 2010, ECLI:FR:CESSR:2010:334878.20100719
 Decision n° 334878
 N° 334878
 ECLI:FR:CESSR:2010:334878.20100719
 Lecture du lundi 19 juillet 2010
 Vu la requête, enregistrée le 21 décembre 2009 au secrétariat du contentieux du Conseil d'Etat, présentée par le GROUPE D'INFORMATION ET DE SOUTIEN DES IMMIGRÉS (GISTI), dont le siège est 3, villa Marcès à Paris (75011), la CIMADE, dont le siège est 64, rue Clisson à Paris (75013), du COMITE MEDICAL POUR LES EXILES (COMEDE), dont le siège est 78, rue du Général Leclerc au Kremlin-Bicêtre (94272), d'EMMAÜS-FRANCE, dont le siège est 47, avenue de la résistance à Montreuil (93100), de la FEDERATION DES ASSOCIATIONS DE SOLIDARITE AVEC LES TRAVAILLEURS IMMIGRES (FASTI) dont le siège est 58, rue des Amandiers à Paris (75020), de la LIGUE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME (LDH), dont le siège est 138, rue Marcadet à Paris (75018), de MEDECINS DU MONDE, dont le siège est 62, rue Marcadet à Paris (75018), du MRAP, dont le siège est 43, boulevard Magenta à Paris (75010), du SYNDICAT DES AVOCATS DE FRANCE, dont le siège est 34, rue Saint-Lazare à Paris (75009), de SOS RACISME, dont le siège est 51, avenue de Flandres à Paris (75019), et du SYNDICAT DE LA MAGISTRATURE, dont le siège est 12-14, rue Charles Fourier à Paris (75013), agissant par leurs représentants légaux en exercice ; le GISTI et autres demandent au Conseil d'Etat :
 1°) d'annuler la circulaire du ministre de l'immigration, de l'identité nationale, de l'intégration et du développement solidaire du 23 novembre 2009 aux préfets définissant les conditions de mise en oeuvre des dispositions des articles L. 622-1 et L. 622-4 du code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile, ainsi que la circulaire du même jour du ministre d'Etat, garde des sceaux, ministre de la justice et des libertés aux parquets, par ailleurs annexée à la précédente circulaire ;
 Vu la directive n° 2002/90/CE du 28 novembre 2002 ;
 Vu le code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile, notamment ses articles L. 622-1 et L. 622-4 ;
 Vu le code pénal, notamment son article 122-7 ;
 Vu le code de procédure pénale, notamment ses articles 30 et 78-2 ;
 - le rapport de Mme Constance Rivière, Auditeur,
 - les observations de la SCP Peignot, Garreau, avocat du ministre de l'immigration, de l'intégration, de l'identité nationale et du développement solidaire,
 La parole ayant été à nouveau donnée à la SCP Peignot, Garreau, avocat du ministre de l'immigration, de l'intégration, de l'identité nationale et du développement solidaire ;
 Sans qu'il soit besoin de statuer sur les fins de non recevoir opposées par le ministre de l'immigration, de l'intégration, de l'identité nationale et du développement solidaire ;
 Considérant qu'aux termes de l'article L. 622-1 du code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile : Toute personne qui aura, par aide directe ou indirecte, facilité ou tenté de faciliter l'entrée, la circulation ou le séjour irréguliers, d'un étranger en France sera punie d'un emprisonnement de cinq ans et d'une amende de 30 000 Euros (...) ; qu'aux termes de l'article L. 622-4 du même code : Sans préjudice des articles L. 621-1, L. 621-2, L. 623-1, L. 623-2 et L. 623-3, ne peut donner lieu à des poursuites pénales sur le fondement des articles L. 622-1 à L. 622-3 l'aide au séjour irrégulier d'un étranger lorsqu'elle est le fait : (...) 3° De toute personne physique ou morale, lorsque l'acte reproché était, face à un danger actuel ou imminent, nécessaire à la sauvegarde de la vie ou de l'intégrité physique de l'étranger, sauf s'il y a disproportion entre les moyens employés et la gravité de la menace ou s'il a donné lieu à une contrepartie directe ou indirecte ;
 Considérant que la circulaire du garde des sceaux a pour objet de clarifier, à l'intention des parquets, les conditions d'application de l'immunité prévue à l'article L. 622-4 du code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile au bénéfice des personnes physiques et morales oeuvrant dans un contexte humanitaire auprès des étrangers en situation irrégulière ; que la circulaire du ministre chargé de l'immigration transmet aux préfets celle du garde des sceaux en leur demandant d'en assurer la diffusion auprès de leurs services et de tenir compte, en matière de police administrative, des préconisations faites en matière de contrôle des lieux où est délivrée une assistance humanitaire à des étrangers en situation irrégulière ;
 Sur le moyen tiré de l'incompétence du garde des sceaux, ministre de la justice et des libertés pour préciser le champ de l'exception au délit d'aide au séjour irrégulier applicable à l'assistance humanitaire à des étrangers en situation irrégulière :
 Considérant que les requérants soutiennent que le garde des sceaux a incompétemment réduit le champ d'application de cette exception, d'une part, en renvoyant au seul article L. 622-4 3° du code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile, d'autre part, en interprétant dans un sens restrictif le champ d'application de cet article en le limitant aux associations qui travaillent dans le domaine des étrangers et qui leur fournissent un certain type de prestations telles que des repas, un hébergement ou même des conseils juridiques et aux actes qui n'ont d'autres objectifs que d'assurer des conditions de vie dignes et décentes à l'étranger en situation irrégulière , alors que la loi s'applique à toute personne physique ou morale, lorsque l'acte est nécessaire à la sauvegarde de la vie ou de l'intégrité physique de l'étranger ;
 Considérant, en premier lieu, qu'aux termes de l'article 122-7 du code pénal : N'est pas pénalement responsable la personne qui, face à un danger actuel ou imminent qui menace elle-même, autrui ou un bien, accomplit un acte nécessaire à la sauvegarde de la personne ou du bien, sauf s'il y a disproportion entre les moyens employés et la gravité de la menace ; que la circonstance que la circulaire du garde des sceaux, qui a pour seul objet de préciser à l'intention des parquets les conditions d'application de l'article L. 622-4 3° du code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile, ne fasse qu'une référence à l'état de nécessité prévu par l'article 122-7 du code pénal, ne saurait avoir pour effet de prescrire d'écarter l'application de cet article lorsque l'exception prévue à l'article L. 622-4 3° précité ne trouve pas à s'appliquer ; qu'en outre, cette référence n'a pas non plus pour objet d'assimiler les deux dispositions et de restreindre la portée de l'exception prévue à l'article L. 622-4 3° au critère de l'état de nécessité prévu par le code de procédure pénale ;
 Considérant, en second lieu, que si la circulaire fait état, s'agissant de l'immunité pénale résultant du 3° de l'article L. 622-4 du code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile, des membres des associations qui travaillent dans le domaine des étrangers , cette mention n'a pas pour objet d'exclure du bénéfice de ces dispositions les actes réalisés par des personnes autres que les membres de ces associations ; qu'il en est de même s'agissant des prestations citées à titre d'exemple qui ne revêtent qu'un caractère informatif, la circulaire n'ayant pas pour objet de fixer de manière exhaustive la liste des actions relevant de l'exception prévue à l'article L. 622-4 3° de ce code ; qu'enfin, la référence à l'objectif des actes en cause doit s'entendre comme rappelant que les actes ayant donné lieu à contrepartie sont exclus du bénéfice de ces dispositions ;
 Considérant qu'il résulte de ce qui précède que les dispositions de la circulaire ne sont pas entachées d'incompétence ;
 Sur le moyen tiré de la méconnaissance par le 3° de l'article L. 622-4 du code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile des objectifs de la directive n° 2002/90/CE du Conseil du 28 novembre 2002 :
 Considérant que l'article 1er de la directive n° 2002/90/CE du Conseil du 28 novembre 2002, dont l'objectif est de rapprocher les dispositions juridiques existantes, notamment en ce qui concerne la définition précise de l'infraction considérée, dispose que : 1. Chaque État membre adopte des sanctions appropriées : / a) à l'encontre de quiconque aide sciemment une personne non ressortissante d'un État membre à pénétrer sur le territoire d'un État membre ou à transiter par le territoire d'un tel État, en violation de la législation de cet État relative à l'entrée ou au transit des étrangers ; / b) à l'encontre de quiconque aide sciemment, dans un but lucratif, une personne non ressortissante d'un État membre à séjourner sur le territoire d'un État membre en violation de la législation de cet État relative au séjour des étrangers ; / 2. Tout État membre peut décider de ne pas imposer de sanctions à l'égard du comportement défini au paragraphe 1, point a), en appliquant sa législation et sa pratique nationales, dans les cas où ce comportement a pour but d'apporter une aide humanitaire à la personne concernée ;
 Considérant qu'il résulte clairement de ces dispositions que les Etats membres doivent prévoir des sanctions pour l'aide au séjour irrégulier lorsque cette aide est apportée en toute connaissance de cause et dans un but lucratif ; que la directive n'interdit en revanche pas aux Etats membres de sanctionner aussi l'aide au séjour irrégulier à des fins non lucratives ; que dès lors la circulaire, qui ne fait que réitérer les dispositions du 3° de l'article L. 622-4 du code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile en permettant de sanctionner l'aide au séjour irrégulier non seulement dans un but lucratif mais aussi dans un but non lucratif, est conforme aux objectifs de cette directive ;
 Sur le moyen tiré de l'erreur de droit à avoir donné instruction d'appliquer des circulaires abrogées :
 Considérant qu'aux termes de l'article 1er du décret du 8 décembre 2008 relatif aux conditions de publication des instructions et circulaires : Les circulaires et instructions adressées par les ministres aux services et établissements de l'Etat sont tenues à la disposition du public sur un site internet relevant du Premier ministre. Elles sont classées et répertoriées de manière à faciliter leur consultation. / Une circulaire ou une instruction qui ne figure pas sur le site mentionné au précédent alinéa n'est pas applicable. Les services ne peuvent en aucun cas s'en prévaloir à l'égard des administrés (...) ; qu'aux termes de l'article 2 de ce décret : L'article 1er prend effet à compter du 1er mai 2009. / Les circulaires et instructions déjà signées sont réputées abrogées si elles ne sont pas reprises sur le site mentionné à l'article 1er (...) ;
 Considérant, d'une part, que ces dispositions n'interdisent pas à l'auteur d'une circulaire de réitérer des circulaires antérieures, comme le fait la circulaire du ministre d'Etat, garde des sceaux, ministre de la justice et des libertés du 24 novembre 2009 en ce qui concerne ses circulaires en date du 21 février 2006 et du 4 décembre 2006 ; que, d'autre part, la circonstance que les circulaires du 21 février 2006 et du 4 décembre 2006 n'aient pas été mises en ligne sur le site mentionné par ce décret est, en tout état de cause, sans incidence sur la légalité de la circulaire attaquée ;
 Sur le moyen tiré de la violation, par la circulaire du ministre de l'immigration, de l'identité nationale, de l'intégration et du développement solidaire de l'article 78-2 du code de procédure pénale :
 Considérant que si, dans sa circulaire, le ministre de l'immigration demande aux préfets de tenir compte, en matière de police administrative, des préconisations faites en matière de contrôle des lieux où est délivrée une assistance humanitaire à des étrangers en situation irrégulière , cette mention renvoie au passage de la circulaire du garde des sceaux relatif à la nécessité d'éviter d'entraver les actions humanitaires, et donc sur le caractère inopportun de procéder, au seul motif du séjour irrégulier de l'étranger ou de l'aide au séjour irréguliers des membres associatifs ou bénévoles, à des contrôles d'identité (...) dans les lieux d'intervention des associations humanitaires ou à proximité de ceux-ci ; qu'elle ne saurait, en tout état de cause, avoir pour effet de permettre aux préfets de décider de procéder à des contrôles d'identité en matière de police administrative en dehors des prévisions de la loi, notamment de l'article 78-2 du code de procédure pénale qui n'autorise ces contrôles que pour prévenir une atteinte à l'ordre public, notamment une atteinte à la sécurité des personnes et des biens ; que, dans ces conditions, le moyen tiré de ce que la circulaire permettrait de procéder à des contrôles des lieux ou des contrôles d'identité non prévus par la loi dans le cadre d'opérations de police administrative doit être écarté ;
 Considérant que ces dispositions font obstacle à ce que soit mise à la charge de l'Etat, qui n'est pas la partie perdante dans la présente instance, la somme que le GISTI et les autres requérants demandent au titre des frais exposés par eux et non compris dans les dépens ; que, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, il n'y a pas lieu de faire droit aux conclusions présentées au même titre par l'Etat ;
 Article 1er : La requête du GISTI et autres est rejetée.
 Article 2 : Les conclusions présentées par l'Etat au titre de l'article L. 761-1 du code de justice administrative sont rejetées.
 Article 3 : La présente décision sera notifiée au GROUPE D'INFORMATION ET DE SOUTIEN DES IMMIGRÉS, à la CIMADE, au COMITE MEDICAL POUR LES EXILES, à EMMAÜS-FRANCE, à la FEDERATION DES ASSOCIATIONS DE SOLIDARITE AVEC LES TRAVAILLEURS IMMIGRES, à la LIGUE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME, à MEDECINS DU MONDE, au MRAP, au SYNDICAT DES AVOCATS DE FRANCE, à SOS RACISME, au SYNDICAT DE LA MAGISTRATURE, au ministre de l'immigration, de l'intégration, de l'identité nationale et du développement solidaire et à la ministre d'Etat, garde des sceaux, ministre de la justice et des libertés.
 http://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/analyse/2010-07-19/334878