text:
ECLI:SI:VSRS:2015:VIII.IPS.151.2015
 VDSS X Pdp 1180/2014
 mag. Ivan Robnik (preds.), mag. Marijan Debelak (poroč.), dr. Mateja Končina Peternel, Marjana Lubinič, Borut Vukovič
 Tudi v primeru, če bi sprejeli stališče predlagatelja, da naravo kolektivne pogodbe nima le Sporazum med Sindikatom policistov Slovenije, Vlado Republike Slovenije, Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve in Policijo št. 004-146/2013/2 z dne 31. 5. 2013 v 3. točki, temveč tudi nekatere druge točke Sporazuma, ta ne velja za predlagatelja tega spora (predlagatelja, ki je sindikat) v obligacijskem delu niti v normativnem delu, torej je že iz tega razloga izključena pravica predlagatelja, da vloži predlog z navedenim zahtevkom po prvem odstavku 47. člena ZDSS-1. Tudi upravičeno uveljavljanje skupinskega interesa predlagatelja (sindikata) po drugem odstavku 47. člena ZDSS-1 v zvezi z zahtevkom za ugotovitev ničnosti Sporazuma ni podano le zato, ker je kolektivno pogodbo sklenil delodajalec le z enim od več reprezentativnih sindikatov in pri tem ni upošteval (na en ali drug način) drugega sindikata. Po sedanji ureditvi od delodajalca namreč ni mogoče zahtevati, da kolektivno pogodbo sklene z vsemi sindikati, ki zastopajo delavce pri delodajalcu.
 Načeloma se je mogoče strinjati z izhodiščem, da predlog v sporih v zvezi s kolektivnimi pogodbami lahko vloži tudi sindikat kot organizacija delavcev zaradi varstva njihovih ekonomskih in socialnih pravic in interesov. Kot navedeno je v zvezi s takšnim uveljavljanjem varstva določen še dodaten pogoj - izkazanost upravičenega uveljavljanja skupinskega interesa.
 Predlagatelj ne zatrjuje, da skupinski interes uveljavlja v povezavi s posameznimi določbami Sporazuma, s katerimi naj bi bilo nezakonito poseženo v pravice policistov, oziroma da bi bile te pravice nezakonito urejene ali bi bila ta ureditev npr. v nasprotju z načeli enakega obravnavanja ali drugimi (ustavnimi) pravicami.
 Predlagatelj mora v 15 dneh od vročitve tega sklepa povrniti prvemu nasprotnemu udeležencu njegove revizijske stroške v znesku 1.000,40 EUR in drugemu nasprotnemu udeležencu revizijske stroške v znesku 1.000,40 EUR EUR, obema z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi, ki tečejo od prvega naslednjega dne po izteku roka za izpolnitev obveznosti, določenega v tej točki izreka, do plačila.
 1. Sodišče prve stopnje je zavrglo predlog za ugotovitev, da je Sporazum med Sindikatom policistov Slovenije, Vlado Republike Slovenije, Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve in Policijo št. 004-146/2013/2 z dne 31. 5. 2013 (v nadaljevanju Sporazum) ničen, ničen pa je tudi Dogovor št. 219-30/2013/2 z dne 31. 5. 2013 (v nadaljevanju Dogovor). Sklenilo je tudi, da predlagatelj krije sam svoje stroške postopka, prvemu in drugemu nasprotnemu udeležencu pa je dolžan povrniti njune stroške postopka.
 2. Sodišče je izhajalo iz tega, da sta predlagatelj in drugi nasprotni udeleženec reprezentativna sindikata zaposlenih v Policiji in da predlagatelj ni stranka Sporazuma in Dogovora z dne 31. 5. 2013, katerih ničnost uveljavlja. Zato se je postavilo vprašanje procesne legitimacije predlagatelja v skladu z drugim odstavkom 47. člena Zakona o delovnih in socialnih sodiščih (v nadaljevanju ZDSS-1). Ob upoštevanju določb Zakona o kolektivnih pogodbah (v nadaljevanju ZKolP) je sodišče obrazložilo, da vsak dogovor socialnih partnerjev ni kolektivna pogodba, saj morajo biti zanjo izpolnjeni vsebinski in formalni pogoji. Glede Dogovora je ugotovilo, da ga ni sklenila Vlada RS (na strani delodajalca) in da ga niso podpisale osebe, določene v četrtem odstavku 41. člena Zakona o sistemu plač v javnem sektorju (v nadaljevanju ZSPJS) in 2. členu ZKolP. Podpisal ga ni niti predsednik vlade niti kateri od ministrov, pač pa le generalni direktor Policije; Dogovor tudi ni bil objavljen kot to zahteva ZKolP. Zato Dogovor nima narave kolektivne pogodbe, „ne zavezuje in upravičuje niti predlagatelja in njegovih članov; predlog za ugotovitev ničnosti Dogovora v skladu z drugim odstavkom 47. člena ZDSS ni dopusten.“ Za Sporazum je sodišče ugotovilo, da ga je na delavski strani podpisal predsednik drugega nasprotnega udeleženca, na delodajalski strani pa za Vlado RS minister za notranje zadeve ter generalni direktor Policije; Sporazum je bil tudi objavljen v Uradnem listu RS, št. 54/2013. Kljub temu je sodišče presodilo, da določbe Sporazuma po svoji vsebini niso takšne, da bi predstavljale kolektivno pogodbo. Pri tem je analiziralo vsako od točk Sporazuma in ugotovilo, da ta ne vzpostavlja, spreminja ali ukinja pravic ali obveznosti iz delovnega razmerja, da določena vprašanja, o katerih govori, ne morejo biti predmet kolektivnega dogovarjanja oziroma kolektivnih pogodb in da se je glede posameznih vprašanj prva nasprotna udeleženka zavezala le k sprejemu zakonodaje oziroma sistemizacije delovnih mest - česar ni mogoče šteti za kolektivno pogodbo, ki jo je mogoče izpodbijati. V zvezi z navedbami predlagatelja, da izkazuje pravni interes, ker je s sklenitvijo Sporazuma neposredno prizadet v svojih pravicah in mu je na ta način nasprotni udeleženec omejil pravico do stavke, je presodilo, da bi bile te trditve neutemeljene tudi v primeru, če bi imela Sporazum in Dogovor naravo kolektivne pogodbe, saj bi predlagatelj lahko ščitil interes svojih članov pri prvem nasprotnem udeležencu tako, da bi zahteval sklenitev posebne kolektivne pogodbe, ki bi veljala za njegove člane ali za vse delavce pri prvem nasprotnem udeležencu.
 3. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo predlagatelja zavrnilo in potrdilo sklep sodišča prve stopnje, odločilo pa je tudi, da predlagatelj in drugi nasprotni udeleženec krijeta vsak svoje stroške pritožbenega postopka. Obrazložilo je, da je sicer utemeljena pritožba predlagatelja, da ima Sporazum naravo kolektivne pogodbe, vendar dejansko le v 3. točki, v kateri je določena konkretna višina za izplačilo delovne uspešnosti (v razponu 3-5 % osnovne plače). Izplačilo delovne uspešnosti iz naslova povečanega obsega dela bi bilo sicer lahko urejeno tudi s splošnim aktom, vendar drugačna ureditev v Sporazumu ne pomeni, da v tem delu ne gre za kolektivno pogodbo. Glede ostalega dela Sporazuma se je strinjalo s tem, da predstavlja le za zavezo k ureditvi določenih problematik (v zvezi z vprašanji, ki se tičejo delovno-pravnega položaja policistov), zato je v tem delu pravilno stališče sodišča prve stopnje, da ne gre za kolektivno pogodbo. Kljub presoji o delni naravi kolektivne pogodbe se je sodišče druge stopnje strinjalo z odločitvijo sodišča prve stopnje, saj je (tako kot sodišče prve stopnje v 25. točki obrazložitve) ugotovilo, da predlagatelj nima pravnega interesa za tak zahtevek, ker s sklenitvijo Sporazuma neposredno ni bil prizadet v svojih pravicah. Predlagatelj bi lahko ščitil interes svojih članov tako, da bi zahteval sklenitev posebne kolektivne pogodbe. To tudi pomeni, da njegove pravice do kolektivnega pogajanja oziroma kolektivnega urejanja posameznih pravic oziroma interesov niso bile kršene. Glede kršitev pravil sprejemanja kolektivne pogodbe je sodišče druge stopnje pojasnilo, da te določbe urejajo postopek sklenitve in sprememb kolektivne pogodbe, ki zavezuje stranke, predlagatelj pa ni stranka.
 4. Zoper pravnomočno sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je predlagatelj vložil revizijo, v kateri se sklicuje na bistveno kršitev določb postopka iz 14. točke drugega odstavka 339. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP) in zmotno uporabo materialnega prava. Revizijskemu sodišču predlaga razveljavitev sklepov sodišč druge in prve stopnje in vrnitev zadeve sodišču druge ali prve stopnje v ponovno odločanje.
 5. Navaja, da so razlogi obrazložitve izpodbijanega sklepa sodišča druge stopnje nerazumljivi in pomanjkljivi, saj sklep ne vsebuje bistvenih razlogov v zvezi s tem, zakaj na zakonitost in veljavnost Sporazuma ne vpliva dejstvo, da pri njegovem sprejemanju ni bil spoštovan postopek po ZKolP in ZSPJS in zakaj na zakonitost in veljavnost Sporazuma ne vpliva dejstvo, da je v času njegovega sprejemanja predlagatelj stavkal, nasprotna udeleženca pa sta brez njegove vednosti sprejela Sporazum, ki obravnava isto materijo, ki jo je uveljavljal s stavko. Sodišče naj bi najprej ugotovilo, da ima Sporazum naravo kolektivne pogodbe, v nadaljevanju, da ima le 3. točka sporazuma takšno naravo, nato pa je (v 14. točki) ugotovilo, da pretežni del sporazuma nima narave kolektivne pogodbe. Predlagatelj nasprotuje temu, da Sporazuma v 6., 7., 8., 9., 10., 11., 12. in 13. točki ni mogoče šteti kot kolektivno pogodbo. Kot nepravilen prereka tudi zaključek o tem, da Dogovor nima narave kolektivne pogodbe, saj je ničnost dogovora posledica ničnosti Sporazuma, ki ga Dogovor le operacionalizira; predlagatelj je zatrjeval, da je Dogovor ničen oziroma nezakonit, ker je bil sprejet na podlagi nezakonitega oziroma ničnega sporazuma. Pravno nevzdržno naj bi bilo stališče sodišča, da na veljavnost Sporazuma ne vpliva dejstvo, da ni bil sprejet po ustreznem postopku, saj bi lahko predlagatelj ščitil svoj interes tako, da bi zahteval sklenitev posebne kolektivne pogodbe. Stališče sodišča izniči pomen zakonskih določb o sprejemanju kolektivnih pogodb, v vsakem posameznem sporu pa bi predlagatelju lahko odrekli pravni interes zgolj iz razloga, ker bi pri delodajalcu vedno lahko zahteval sklenitev posebne kolektivne pogodbe, ki bi veljala za njegove člane ali glede na njegovo reprezentativnost, za vse delavce. Nato se sklicuje na odločitev Vrhovnega sodišča v zadevi VIII Ips 247/2012, v kateri je sodišče izrecno poudarilo obveznost formiranja pogajalske skupine, kadar je na kateri od pogajalskih strani več subjektov. Predlagatelj meni, da na veljavnost kolektivne pogodbe na vpliva dejstvo, da je ne podpišejo vsi reprezentativni sindikati, vendar pod pogojem, da so bili vsi povabljeni k pogajanjem. Drugačni stališči sodišč druge in prve stopnje sta v nasprotju z ZKolP in 76. členom Ustave RS ter v nasprotju s pravico do kolektivnega pogajanja v smislu določb Konvencije MOD št. 154 o spodbujanju kolektivnega pogajanja. Nasprotna udeleženca sta brez vednosti predlagatelja sklenila kolektivno pogodbo v času, ko je ta stavkal, to pa je pomenilo tudi oslabitev oziroma izničenje njegovih pogajalskih izhodišč. Takšna praksa sodišč bi tudi izničila smisel pravice do stavke. Sodišče bi se moralo opredeliti tudi do neveljavnosti Sporazuma iz razloga, ker je bil sklenjen v nasprotju z moralnimi načeli, načelom vestnosti in poštenja in dobrimi poslovnimi običaji; pri tem poudarja, da sta se nasprotna udeleženca v Sporazumu sporazumela o najmanj dveh stavkovnih zahtevah predlagatelja.
 6. V odgovoru na revizijo prvi nasprotni udeleženec prereka revizijske navedbe in predlaga zavrnitev revizije. Enako predlaga tudi drugi nasprotni udeleženec, ki poudarja tudi, da so med vsemi tremi udeleženci postopka v tistem času potekali številni dialogi in intenzivna korespondenca. Neresnične so trditve predlagatelja, da naj bi bil Sporazum sklenjen v nasprotju z moralnimi načeli, načeli vestnosti in poštenja ter dobrimi poslovnimi običaji.
 8. Revizija je izredno pravno sredstvo zoper pravnomočno sodbo, izdano na drugi stopnji, oziroma zoper sklep sodišča druge stopnje, s katerimi je bil postopek pravnomočno končan (prvi odstavek 367. člena ZPP in prvi odstavek 384. člena ZPP, v povezavi z 19. členom ZDSS-1). Revizijsko sodišče preizkusi izpodbijano sodbo (sklep) samo v tistem delu, v katerem se izpodbija z revizijo, in v mejah razlogov, ki so v njej navedeni (prvi odstavek 371. člena ZPP).
 9. Revizija najprej uveljavlja bistveno kršitev določb postopka iz 14. točke drugega odstavka 339. člena ZPP, vendar neutemeljeno. Iz obrazložitve sklepa pritožbenega sodišča namreč dovolj jasno izhaja stališče, da izpodbijani Sporazum ne predstavlja kolektivne pogodbe oziroma nima narave kolektivne pogodbe, razen v 3. točki, ki določa tudi konkretno višino zneska za izplačilo delovne uspešnosti iz naslova povečanega obsega dela pri izvajanju konkretnega projekta, in sicer od 3-5 % osnovne plače zaposlenega. Pritožbeno sodišče je dovolj jasno navedlo tudi, da je utemeljena pritožba predlagatelja le v delu, v katerem se sklicuje na naravo 3. točke Sporazuma, glede ostalih točk Sporazuma pa je pritrdilo stališču sodišča prve stopnje. Obrazložitev zato ni kontradiktorna.
 10. Neutemeljene so revizijske navedbe, da v obrazložitvi izpodbijanega sklepa ni bistvenih razlogov o pritožbenih navedbah v zvezi s spoštovanjem postopka po ZKolP, kar bi vplivalo na zakonitost in veljavnost Sporazuma in v zvezi z dejstvom, da je predlagatelj v času sporazuma stavkal, nasprotna udeleženca pa sta sprejela Sporazum. Odgovor na navedeni vprašanji bi bil lahko namreč pomemben le v primeru, če bi sodišči druge in prve stopnje odločali v sporu po vsebini, ne pa v primeru presoje, da niso izpolnjene procesne predpostavke - kar je imelo za posledico zavrženje predloga. Upoštevajoč nosilne razloge odločitve sodišč druge in prve stopnje zato tudi ne morejo biti pomembni revizijski razlogi, ki se ne nanašajo na nasprotovanje presoji o neobstoju procesnih predpostavk za sodno varstvo.
 11. Revizijsko sodišče se v nadaljevanju opredeljuje glede presoje v zvezi s Sporazumom. Ker se v tem delu strinja z izpodbijano odločitvijo, že iz tega razloga ne more biti utemeljen revizijski ugovor, da bi bilo treba tudi o ničnosti Dogovora, ker naj bi predstavljal izvedbo Sporazuma, presojati po vsebini.
 12. Iz prvega odstavka 47. člena ZDSS-1 izhaja, da lahko združenja delavcev oziroma delodajalcev ali posamezni delodajalci, ki so stranke kolektivne pogodbe, vložijo predlog za začetek postopka v zvezi s kolektivnimi pogodbami, ali se udeležujejo postopka, ki ga je začel kdo drug. Ker predlagatelj v tem sporu (ki ga po opredelitvi iz 47. člena lahko štejemo kot združenje delavcev) ni stranka Sporazuma z dne 31. 5. 2013 (za katerega uveljavlja ugotovitev ničnosti), po navedeni določbi ne more biti predlagatelj tega postopka. Tako se zastavlja nadaljnje vprašanje, ali predlagatelj lahko vloži predlog po drugem odstavku 47. člena ZDSS-1. V skladu s to določbo namreč predlog lahko vložijo tudi združenja delavcev oziroma delodajalcev ali posamezni delodajalci ter skupine delavcev, ki niso zajete v prejšnjem odstavku, pa zanje velja kolektivna pogodba, če izkažejo, da upravičeno uveljavljajo skupinski interes. Po tretjem odstavku 47. člena ZDSS-1 se upravičenost uveljavljanja skupinskega interesa iz prejšnjega odstavka presoja glede na vse okoliščine primera, zlasti pa se pri tem upošteva raven, na kateri je bila sklenjena kolektivna pogodba. Gre za posebno procesno predpostavko v povezavi s procesno legitimacijo predlagatelja, kar predstavlja vprašanje procesnega in ne materialnega prava. Seveda je tudi pri presoji o tej predpostavki treba izhajati iz pozitivne ureditve kolektivnega dogovarjanja.
 13. Tudi v primeru, če bi sprejeli stališče predlagatelja, da naravo kolektivne pogodbe nima le Sporazum v 3. točki, temveč tudi nekatere druge točke Sporazuma, ta sporazum - kot navedeno - ne velja za predlagatelja tega spora (predlagatelja, ki je sindikat) v obligacijskem delu (1) niti v normativnem delu (2), torej je že iz tega razloga izključena pravica predlagatelja, da vloži predlog z navedenim zahtevkom po prvem odstavku 47. člena ZDSS-1. Tudi upravičeno uveljavljanje skupinskega interesa predlagatelja (sindikata) po drugem odstavku 47. člena ZDSS-1 v zvezi z zahtevkom za ugotovitev ničnosti Sporazuma ni podano le zato, ker je kolektivno pogodbo sklenil delodajalec le z enim od več reprezentativnih sindikatov in pri tem ni upošteval (na en ali drug način) drugega sindikata. Po sedanji ureditvi od delodajalca namreč ni mogoče zahtevati, da kolektivno pogodbo sklene z vsemi sindikati, ki zastopajo delavce pri delodajalcu. Ne gre niti za primer, da bi Sporazum (v delu, v katerem bi ga lahko šteli za kolektivno pogodbo) veljal le, če ga podpiše večina reprezentativnih sindikatov.
 14. Načeloma se je mogoče strinjati z izhodiščem, da predlog v sporih v zvezi s kolektivnimi pogodbami lahko vloži tudi sindikat kot organizacija delavcev zaradi varstva njihovih ekonomskih in socialnih pravic in interesov. To varstvo se nanaša na pravice in obveznosti, ki so urejene v normativnem delu kolektivne pogodbe. Kot navedeno je v zvezi s takšnim uveljavljanjem varstva določen še dodaten pogoj - izkazanost upravičenega uveljavljanja skupinskega interesa. Upravičeno uveljavljanje skupinskega interesa ne obstaja le zaradi tega, ker Sporazum predvideva npr. izplačila delovne uspešnosti oziroma se z njim prvi nasprotni udeleženec zavezuje, da bo pri obračunu kilometrine upošteval varno pot, itd., torej vsebuje nekatere določbe, s katerimi se na novo oziroma dodatno urejajo tudi pravice delavcev - policistov. Izhajati je treba iz tega, kako predlagatelj utemelji svoje upravičeno uveljavljanje skupinskega interesa.
 15. Predlagatelj ne zatrjuje, da skupinski interes uveljavlja v povezavi s posameznimi določbami Sporazuma, s katerimi naj bi bilo nezakonito poseženo v pravice policistov, oziroma da bi bile te pravice nezakonito urejene ali bi bila ta ureditev npr. v nasprotju z načeli enakega obravnavanja ali drugimi (ustavnimi) pravicami. Svoj zahtevek za ugotovitev ničnosti opira le na navedbe v zvezi s sklepanjem Sporazuma, ko nasprotnima udeležencema očita nespoštovanja postopka sklenitve kolektivne pogodbe, kršitev pravice do sodelovanja v pogajalski skupini, zlorabo pravic, ker je bil Sporazumom sklenjen v času stavke, oziroma kršitev moralnih načel. Te trditve se ne nanašajo na normativni del kolektivne pogodbe ali pravice delavcev, temveč le na položaj samega predlagatelja pri sklepanju kolektivne pogodbe, ki jo skleneta drugi stranki (3). Tudi zahtevek se glasi le na ugotovitev ničnosti celotnega Sporazuma.
 16. Kot navedeno ZKolP ne zavezuje delodajalca, da sklene kolektivno pogodbo z vsemi sindikati, pa čeprav se je z njimi pogajal - kolektivna pogodba le z enim od njih ne more biti nična. To vprašanje je tudi treba ločiti od vprašanja kršitve pravic sindikata v postopku kolektivnih pogajanj.
 17. Revizijsko sodišče tako ne ugotavlja upravičenega uveljavljanja skupinskega interesa predlagatelja za vložitev predloga v tem sporu. Zato z nekoliko drugačnimi razlogi kot sodišči druge in prve stopnje ugotavlja, da navedena procesna predpostavka po 47. členu ZDSS-1 ni podana. V skladu s 378. členom ZPP je zavrnilo revizijo.
 18. V posledici navedene odločitve sta oba nasprotna udeleženca upravičena do povračila stroškov odgovora na revizijo, ki so bili odmerjeni v skladu z Zakonom o odvetniški tarifi.
 Op. št. (1): S katerim se urejajo pravice in obveznosti strank, ki so jo sklenile, lahko pa tudi način njenega reševanja kolektivnih sporov (prvi odstavek 3. člena ZKolP).
 Op. št. (2): S katerim se urejajo pravice in obveznosti delavcev in delodajalcev, itd. (drugi odstavek 3. člena ZKolP).
 Op. št. (3): 3. člen sporazuma, za katerega je tudi pritožbeno sodišče ugotovilo, da po svoji vsebini in formi predstavlja določbo normativnega dela kolektivne pogodbe (oziroma tudi določbe nekaterih drugih členov, ki bi jih lahko šteli za take - na primer 6. člen, ki določa, da se pri obračunu kilometrine upošteva varna pot, ki jo v nadaljevanju tudi konkretizira), delavcem (policistom) ne odvzema pravic.
 VDSS sklep X Pdp 1180/2014
 P2RvYy0yMDE1MDgxMTExMzkwNTE3


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 22.11.2018
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 297/12
 BESLUIT VAN HET GEMENGD COMITÉ VAN DE EER
 Nr. 10/2017
 van 3 februari 2017
 tot wijziging van bijlage II (Technische voorschriften, normen, keuring en certificatie) bij de EER-overeenkomst [2018/1744]
 HET GEMENGD COMITÉ VAN DE EER,
 Gezien de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte (hierna „de EER-overeenkomst” genoemd), en met name artikel 98,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 Gedelegeerde Verordening (EU) 2016/1788 van de Commissie van 14 juli 2016 tot wijziging van Verordening (EU) nr. 167/2013 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad wat betreft de lijst van voorschriften voor EU-typegoedkeuring van voertuigen, en tot wijziging en rectificatie van de Gedelegeerde Verordeningen (EU) nr. 1322/2014, (EU) 2015/96, (EU) 2015/68 en (EU) 2015/208 van de Commissie wat betreft de voertuigconstructie en algemene voorschriften, voorschriften voor milieuprestaties en prestaties van de aandrijfeenheid, remvoorschriften en functionele veiligheidsvoorschriften (1), moet in de EER-overeenkomst worden opgenomen.
 (2)
 Bijlage II bij de EER-overeenkomst moet derhalve dienovereenkomstig worden gewijzigd,
 HEEFT HET VOLGENDE BESLUIT VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 Hoofdstuk II van bijlage II bij de EER-overeenkomst wordt als volgt gewijzigd:
 1)
 In punt 40 (Verordening (EU) nr. 167/2013 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad) wordt het volgende streepje toegevoegd:
 „—
 32016 R 1788: Gedelegeerde Verordening (EU) 2016/1788 van de Commissie van 14 juli 2016 (PB L 277 van 13.10.2016, blz. 1).”.
 2)
 In punt 40a (Gedelegeerde Verordening (EU) nr. 1322/2014 van de Commissie) wordt het volgende toegevoegd:
 „, gewijzigd bij:
 —
 32016 R 1788: Gedelegeerde Verordening (EU) 2016/1788 van de Commissie van 14 juli 2016 (PB L 277 van 13.10.2016, blz. 1).”.
 3)
 In punt 40b (Gedelegeerde Verordening (EU) 2015/68 van de Commissie) wordt het volgende toegevoegd:
 „, gewijzigd bij:
 —
 32016 R 1788: Gedelegeerde Verordening (EU) 2016/1788 van de Commissie van 14 juli 2016 (PB L 277 van 13.10.2016, blz. 1).”.
 4)
 In punt 40c (Gedelegeerde Verordening (EU) 2015/96 van de Commissie) wordt het volgende toegevoegd:
 „, gewijzigd bij:
 —
 32016 R 1788: Gedelegeerde Verordening (EU) 2016/1788 van de Commissie van 14 juli 2016 (PB L 277 van 13.10.2016, blz. 1).”.
 5)
 In punt 41 (Gedelegeerde Verordening (EU) 2015/208 van de Commissie) wordt het volgende toegevoegd:
 „, gewijzigd bij:
 —
 32016 R 1788: Gedelegeerde Verordening (EU) 2016/1788 van de Commissie van 14 juli 2016 (PB L 277 van 13.10.2016, blz. 1).”.
 Artikel 2
 De in het EER-supplement bij het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie bekend te maken teksten in de IJslandse en de Noorse taal van Gedelegeerde Verordening (EU) 2016/1788 zijn authentiek.
 Artikel 3
 Dit besluit treedt in werking op 4 februari 2017 op voorwaarde dat alle in artikel 103, lid 1, van de EER-overeenkomst bedoelde kennisgevingen hebben plaatsgevonden (*1).
 Artikel 4
 Dit besluit wordt bekendgemaakt in het EER-gedeelte van en in het EER-supplement bij het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 3 februari 2017.
 Voor het Gemengd Comité van de EER
 De voorzitter
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) PB L 277 van 13.10.2016, blz. 1.
 (*1) Geen grondwettelijke vereisten aangegeven.


text:
22.1.2015
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 L 15/85
 EEE JUNGTINIO KOMITETO SPRENDIMAS
 Nr. 157/2014
 2014 m. liepos 9 d.
 kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas EEE susitarimo 31 protokolas dėl bendradarbiavimo konkrečiose srityse, nesusijusiose su keturiomis laisvėmis [2015/92]
 EEE JUNGTINIS KOMITETAS,
 atsižvelgdamas į Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą (toliau – EEE susitarimas), ypač į jo 86 ir 98 straipsnius,
 kadangi:
 (1)
 tikslinga išplėsti EEE susitarimo Susitariančiųjų Šalių bendradarbiavimą į EEE susitarimą įtraukiant 2013 m. gruodžio 11 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentą (ES) Nr. 1316/2013, kuriuo sukuriama Europos infrastruktūros tinklų priemonė ir iš dalies keičiamas Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 913/2010 bei panaikinami reglamentai (EB) Nr. 680/2007 ir (EB) Nr. 67/2010 (1);
 (2)
 todėl EEE susitarimo 31 protokolas turėtų būti iš dalies pakeistas, kad bendradarbiavimas būtų išplėstas nuo 2014 m. sausio 1 d.,
 PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ SPRENDIMĄ:
 1 straipsnis
 EEE susitarimo 31 protokolo 2 straipsnio 5 dalyje pridedama:
 „—
 32013 R 1316: 2013 m. gruodžio 11 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1316/2013, kuriuo sukuriama Europos infrastruktūros tinklų priemonė ir iš dalies keičiamas Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 913/2010 bei panaikinami reglamentai (EB) Nr. 680/2007 ir (EB) Nr. 67/2010 (OL L 348, 2013 12 20, p. 129).
 ELPA valstybės dalyvauja tik Europos infrastruktūros tinklų priemonės telekomunikacijų sektoriuje.
 Lichtenšteinas nedalyvauja šioje programoje ir finansiškai neprisideda prie jos įgyvendinimo.“
 2 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas įsigalioja kitą dieną po paskutinio pranešimo perdavimo pagal EEE susitarimo 103 straipsnio 1 dalį (2).
 Jis taikomas nuo 2014 m. sausio 1 d.
 3 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas skelbiamas Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE skyriuje ir EEE priede.
 Priimta Briuselyje 2014 m. liepos 9 d.
 EEE jungtinio komiteto vardu
 Pirmininkas
 Kurt JÄGER
 (1) OL L 348, 2013 12 20, p. 129.
 (2) Konstitucinių reikalavimų nenurodyta.


type: caselaw

text:
 16.5.2022
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 C 198/9
 Breithiúnas na Cúirte Breithiúnais (an tOchtú Dlísheomra) an 24 Márta 2022 (iarraidh ar réamhrialú ón gComhairle Stáit – an Bheilg) – CT, Ferme de la Sarte SPRL v Réigiún na Vallúine
 (Cás C-726/20) (1)
 (Tarchur chun réamhrialú - Comhbheartas Talmhaíochta (CBT) - Maoiniú ag an gCiste Eorpach Talmhaíochta um Fhorbairt Tuaithe (CETFT) - Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1305/2013 - Airteagal 17(1)(b) - Cabhair infheistíochta a bhaineann le próiseáil, le margaíocht agus/nó le forbairt táirgí talmhaíochta arna gcumhdach le hIarscríbhinn I den Chonradh FAE - Coincheap “táirgí talmhaíochta” - Coincheapa “plandaí beo” agus “táirgí bláthanna” - Rollaí móna chun díonta glasa a fhorbairt)
 (2022/C 198/14)
 Teanga an cháis: an Fhraincis
 An chúirt a rinne an tarchur
 An Chomhairle Stáit
 Páirtithe sna príomhimeachtaí
 Iarratasóirí: CT, Ferme de la Sarte SPRL
 Cosantóir: Réigiún na Vallúine
 An chuid oibríochtúil
 Ní mór Airteagal 17(1)(b) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1305/2013 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 17 Nollaig 2013, maidir le tacaíocht d'fhorbairt tuaithe ón gCiste Eorpach Talmhaíochta um Fhorbairt Tuaithe (CETFT) agus lena n-aisghairtear Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1698/2005 ón gComhairle a léirmhíniú sa chiall go gcumhdaítear, leis an gcoincheap “táirgí talmhaíochta arna gcumhdach ag Iarscríbhinn I a ghabhann le Conradh [FAE]”, plandaí a úsáidtear chun díonta glasa a fhorbairt, amhail rollaí móna, ar chaoi go mbeidh na hinfheistíochtaí ábhartha a bhaineann leo incháilithe le haghaidh cabhrach faoin mbeart tacaíochta um fhorbairt tuaithe dá dtagraítear san fhoráil sin.
 (1) IO C 79, 08.03.2021


type: other

text:
Página Inicial / Meio Ambiente / Legislação Ambiental / Decreto no. 1.354/94
 Visualizando Meio Ambiente DECRETOS No 1.354/94
 Institui, no âmbito do Ministério do Meio Ambiente e da Amazônia Legal, o Programa Nacional da Diversidade Biológica, e dá outras providências. O PRESIDENTE DA REPÚBLICA no uso das atribuições que lhe confere o Artigo. 84, Incisos IV e VI, da Constituição, e tendo em vista o disposto no Artigo 30, da Lei No 8.490, de 19 de novembro de 1992,
 Artigo 1o - Fica instituído, no âmbito do Ministério do Meio Ambiente e da Amazônia Legal, o "Programa Nacional da Diversidade Biológica - PRONABIO" a ser desenvolvido com recursos do Tesouro Nacional e recursos captados no país e no exterior, junto a órgãos governamentais, privados e multilaterais.
 Artigo 2o - O PRONABIO objetiva, em consonância com as diretrizes e estratégias da Comissão Interministerial para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável - CIDES, promover parceria entre o Poder Público e a sociedade civil na conservação da diversidade biológica, utilização sustentável de seus componentes e repartição justa e eqüitativa dos benefícios dela decorrentes, mediante a realização das seguintes atividades:
 I - definição de metodologias, instrumentos e processos;
 II - estímulo à cooperação internacional;
 III - promoção de pesquisa e estudos;
 IV - produção e disseminação de informações;
 V - capacitação de recursos humanos, aprimoramento institucional e conscientização pública; e
 VI - desenvolvimento de ações demonstrativas para a conservação da diversidade biológica e utilização sustentável de seus componentes.
 Artigo 3o - Fica criada a Comissão Coordenadora do PRONABIO com a finalidade de coordenar, acompanhar e avaliar suas ações.
 Parágrafo único - Compete à Comissão Coordenadora: a) deliberar sobre as diretrizes gerais do PRONABIO;
 b) fixar as prioridades de pesquisa, conservação e utilização sustentável da diversidade biológica;
 c) estabelecer critérios gerais de aceitação e seleção de projetos;
 d) aprovar os projetos a serem financiados.
 Artigo 4o - A Comissão Coordenadora será presidida pelo Ministro do Meio Ambiente e da Amazônia Legal e terá como membros:
 I - um representante do Ministério do Meio Ambiente e da Amazônia Legal - MMA;
 II - um representante do Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia - MCT;
 III - um representante do Ministério da Agricultura, do Abastecimento e da Reforma Agrária - MAARA;
 IV - um representante do Ministério da Saúde - MS;
 V - um representante do Ministério das Relações Exteriores - MRE;
 VI - um representante da Secretaria de Planejamento, Orçamento e Coordenação da Presidência da República - SEPLAN;
 VII - dois representantes da comunidade acadêmica e científica;
 VIII - dois representantes de organizações não-governamentais ambientalistas;
 1o - Os representantes dos Órgãos do Governo Federal, juntamente com seus suplentes, serão indicados pelos titulares das respectivas pastas e designados pelo Ministro do Meio Ambiente e da Amazônia Legal.
 2o - Os representantes das Instituições Não-Governamentais, juntamente com seus suplentes, serão indicados pelos respectivos setores e designados pelo Ministro do Meio Ambiente e da Amazônia Legal, com mandato de dois anos, renovável por igual período.
 3o - A participação nos trabalhos da Comissão Coordenadora será considerada prestação de serviços relevantes, não-remunerada.
 4o - A Comissão Coordenadora deliberará por maioria simples de votos, e seu presidente terá adicionalmente, o voto de qualidade, em casos de empate.
 Artigo 5o - O Ministério do Meio Ambiente e da Amazônia Legal proverá os serviços de apoio técnico e administrativo à Comissão Coordenadora.
 Artigo 6o - O Regimento Interno da Comissão Coordenadora será aprovado mediante portaria do Ministro do Meio Ambiente e da Amazônia Legal.


jurisdiction: US

text: b' UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE CO:N1I\\1lSSION\n\n WASHINGTON, DC 20436\n\nNovember 14,2005 IG-CC-020\n\n\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\nTO: Chairman\n Commissioners\n Director, Office of Administration\n Director, Office of External Relations\n Director, Office of Operations\n Director, Office of Facilities Management\n Secretary\n General Counsel\n\nFROM: Acting Inspector General ~~\nSUBJECT: Inspector General\'s Indepen~ Audit Report of the U.S. International\n Trade Commission\'s Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2004\n and the Commission\'s Management Challenges\n Audit Report Number: OIG-AR-01-06\n\nI am pleased to provide you with the attached audit report, which presents an unqualified\nopinion on the U.S. International Trade Commission\'s financial statements for fiscal\nyears (FY) ended 2005 and 2004. We engaged the independent public accounting firm of\nO\'Connor & Drew, P.C. to perform the audits. The contract required that the audits be\ndone in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and OMB Bulletin No. 01-02,\nAudit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements.\n\nAdditionally, as reported in our October 2005 Semiannual Report to the Commission and\nto the Congress, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) considers the following to be the\ntop management challenges facing the Commission as identified by the OIG-as well as\nrecent OIG activities relating to each challenge:\n\x0c Top Management Challenges\n\nCompetitive Sourcing -- The Commission has competitively contracted for information\ntechnology services, certain editing and publishing services, mailroom and general labor\nservices, cleaning and building maintenance services, and security services. Private\nsector contract employees comprise more than 10 percent of on-site personnel. In\naddition, other services are acquired on an as-needed basis, such as virtually all\nequipment maintenance services, application systems design and development, and\ncertain audit and financial services.\n\nImproved Financial Performance -- In compliance with the Accountability of Tax\nDollars Act of 2002, the Commission produced financial statements, notes and a\nmanagement discussion and analysis for FYs ended 2005 and 2004. The OIG\'s audit\nfound no material weaknesses or reportable conditions and resulted in an unqualified\nopinion on the statements. However, we will be making five recommendations to\nstrengthen internal controls related to property, cash, and procurement.\n\nBudget and Performance Integration -- The Commission\'s efforts to link budgeting\nwith strategic planning have allowed Commission managers more effectively to compare\nchanges in workload with changes in cost. Budget formulation and execution activities\npermit the allocation of virtually all costs to one of the five operations set forth in the\nStrategic Plan. Specifically, because personnel costs are 75 percent of total costs, the\nCommission uses the labor cost reporting system to collect work years and cost\ninformation and attribute it directly to strategic operations when feasible. In doing so, the\nCommission is able to determine whether resources are being allocated efficiently. The\nperformance goals and indicators in the Commission\'s Annual Performance Plan also\nprovide measures by which the agency\'s activities can be assessed.\n\nExpanded Electronic Government -- Agency Inspectors General are to conduct an\nannual independent evaluation of agency information security programs and practices.\nAccordingly, we conducted the fifth annual comprehensive audit of the Commission\'s\ninformation security program during this period. Our audit found the Commission made\nlimited progress in strengthening its information security program plan during FY 2005,\nand we made 23 recommendations for improvement.\n\nStrategic Management ofHuman Capital-- Human capital is the Commission\'s largest\nresource, with salaries and personnel benefits representing approximately 75 percent of\nthe FY 2005 budget. The Commission maintains an expert staff of professional\ninternational trade and nomenclature analysts, investigators, attorneys, economists,\ncomputer specialists and administrative support personnel. More than one third of the\nCommission\'s workforce is eligible to retire in the next 5 years. During FY 2005, the\nCommission enrolled all senior managers in a 48-hour leadership training program\nprovided by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management\'s Federal Executive Institute.\n\x0c UNITED STATES\nINTERNATIONAL TRADE\n COMMISSION\n\n FINANCIAL STATEMENTS\n\n SEPTEMBER 30, 2005\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n Financial Statements\n\n September 30, 2005 and 2004\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n\n\nIndependent Auditors\' Report 1-5\n\nFinancial Statements:\n\n Balance Sheets 6\n\n Statements of Net Cost 7\n\n Statements of Changes in Net Position 8\n\n Statements of Budgetary Resources 9\n\n Statements of Financing 10\n\n Statements of Custodial Activity 11\n\n Notes to the Financial Statements 12-21\n\x0cINDEPENDENT AUDITORS\' REPORT\n\n\nOffice of Inspector General, U.S. International Trade Commission\n\n\nWe have audited the accompanying balance sheets of the United States International Trade\nCommission (USITC/Commission) as ofSeptember 30,2005 and 2004, and the related statements of\nnet cost, changes in net position, budgetary resources, financing, and custodial activity (hereinafter\nreferred to as the financial statements) for the years then ended. The objective of our audits was to\nexpress an opinion on the fair presentation ofthe financial statements. In connection with our audits,\nwe also considered the Commission\'s internal control over financial reporting and tested the\nCommission\'s compliance with certain provisions of applicable laws and regulations that could have\na direct and material effect on its financial statements.\n\nSUMMARY\n\nWe found the following:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The financial statements referred to above are fairly presented, in all material\n respects, and in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the\n United States of America,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Commission had effective internal control over financial reporting (including\n safeguarding of assets) and compliance with laws and regulations,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Commission\'s financial management systems substantially complied with the\n applicable requirements ofthe Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of\n 1996 (FFMIA), and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 No reportable noncompliance matters with laws and regulations.\n\n\nThe following sections discuss in more detail (1) these conclusions and our conclusions on\nManagement\'s Discussion and Analysis and (2) the scope of our audits.\n\x0c Opinion on Financial Statements\n\nWe have audited the accompanying balance sheets ofthe Commission as ofSeptember 30,2005 and\n2004, and the related statements ofnet cost, changes in net position, budgetary resources, financing,\nand custodial activity for the years then ended.\n\nIn our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the\nfinancial position ofthe USITC as of September 30,2005 and 2004, and its net costs, changes in net\nposition, budgetary resources, reconciliation of net costs to budgetary obligations, and custodial\nactivity for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the\nUnited States of America.\n\nOur audits were conducted for the purpose offorming an opinion on the financial statements taken as\na whole. The information in the Management Discussion and Analysis section and the Management\nChallenges identified by the Inspector General are not required components of the financial\nstatements, but are supplementary information required by accounting principles generally accepted\nin the United States ofAmerica or OMB Bulletin No. 01-09, Form and Content ofAgency Financial\nStatements . We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally ofinquiries of\nmanagement regarding the methods ofmeasurement and presentation ofthis information. However,\nwe did not audit this information and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it.\n\n Internal Control Over Financial Reporting\n\nOur consideration of internal control over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all\nmatters in the internal control over financial reporting that might be material weaknesses under\nstandards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Material weaknesses are\nconditions in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does\nnot reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud, in amounts\nthat would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited, may occur and not be\ndetected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned\nfunctions. We noted no matters involving the internal control and its operation that we considered to\nbe material weaknesses as defined above.\n\nHowever, we noted other matters involving internal control financial reporting and its operation that\nwe have reported to the management of USITC in a separate restricted use report.\n\n Compliance with Laws and Regulations\n\nThe results of our tests of compliance with other laws and regulations, exclusive of the Federal\nFinancial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA), disclosed no instances ofnoncompliance that are\nrequired to be reported under Government Auditing Standards or OMB Bulletin No. 01-02, Audit\nRequirements for Federal Financial Statements. However, the objective of our audit was not to\nprovide an opinion on overall compliance with laws and regulations. Accordingly, we do not express\nsuch an opinion.\n\n\n\n\n - 2-\n\x0c Opinion on FFMIA Compliance\n\nIn our opinion, the Commission\'s financial management systems substantially complied with the\nthree FFMIA requirements: (1) Federal financial management system requirements, (2) Federal\naccounting standards, and (3) the U.S. Government Standard General Ledger (SGL) at the\ntransaction level, as of September 30, 2005 and 2004.\n\n Management\'s Responsibility\n\nThe Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 requires each federal agency to report annually to\nCongress on its financial status and any other information needed to fairly present its financial\nposition and results of operations. To meet the reporting requirements, the USITC prepares annual\nfinancial statements.\n\nManagement is responsible for the financial statements, including:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Preparing the financial statements in conformity with accounting principles\n generally accepted in the United States of America,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Establishing and maintaining internal controls over financial reporting, and\n preparing the Management Discussion and Analysis (including performance\n measures), and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Implementing, maintaining, and assessing financial management systems to\n provide reasonable assurance of substantial compliance with the requirements of\n FFMIA, and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Complying with applicable laws and regulations.\n\nIn fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the\nexpected benefits and related costs of internal control policies. Because of inherent limitations in\ninternal control, misstatements due to error or fraud may nevertheless occur and not be detected.\n\n Auditors\' Responsibility and Methodology\n\nOur responsibility is to express an opinion on the fiscal year 2005 and 2004 financial statements of\nUSITC based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards\ngenerally accepted in the United States of America, the standards applicable to financial audits\ncontained in Government Auditing Standards, and OMB Bulletin No. 01-02. Those standards and\nOMB Bulletin No. 01-02 require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance\nabout whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.\n\n\n\n\n -3-\n\x0cAn audit includes:\n\n -Examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the\n financial statements;\n\n -Assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by\n management, and\n\n -Evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.\n\nWe believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.\n\nIn planning and performing our fiscal year 2005 and 2004 audits, we considered the USITC\'s\ninternal control over financial reporting by obtaining an understanding ofthe Commission\'s internal\ncontrol, determining whether internal controls had been placed in operation, assessing control risk,\nand performing tests of controls in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of\nexpressing our opinion on the financial statements. We limited our internal control testing to those\ncontrols necessary to achieve the objectives described in OMB Bulletin No. 01-02 and Government\nAuditing Standards . We did not test all internal controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly\ndefined by the Federal Managers\' Financial Integrity Act of 1982. The objective of our audits was\nnot to provide assurance on internal control over financial reporting. Consequently, we do not\nprovide an opinion thereon.\n\nAs required by OMB Bulletin No. 01-02, with respect to internal control related to performance\nmeasures determined by management to be key and reported in the Management Discussion and\nAnalysis, we obtained an understanding of the design of significant internal controls relating to the\nexistence and completeness assertion. Our procedures were not designed to provide assurance on\ninternal control over performance measures and, accordingly, we do not provide an opinion thereon.\n\nAs part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Commission\'s fiscal year 2005 and\n2004 financial statements are free ofmaterial misstatement, we performed tests ofthe Commission\'s\ncompliance with certain provisions oflaws and regulations, noncompliance with which could have a\ndirect and material effect on the determination offinancial statement amounts, and certain provisions\nof other laws and regulations specified in OMB Bulletin No. 01-02, including certain provisions\nreferred to in FFMIA. We limited our tests of compliance to the provisions described in the\npreceding sentence, and we did not test compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to the\nCommission. Providing an opinion on compliance with laws and regulations was not an objective of\nour audits, and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.\n\nUnder OMB Bulletin No. 01-02 and FFMIA, we are required to report whether the Commission\'s\nfinancial management systems substantially comply with (1) Federal financial management systems\nrequirements, (2) applicable Federal accounting standards, and (3) the United States Government\nStandard General Ledger at the transaction level. To meet this requirement, we performed tests of\ncompliance with FFMIA Section 803(a) requirements.\n\n\n - 4-\n\x0c Distribution\n\nThis report is intended solely for the information and use of USlTC\'s management, the USlTC\'s\nOffice of the Inspector General, OMB, and the U.S. Congress, and is not intended to be and should\nnot be used by anyone other than these specified parties. However, this report is a matter ofpublic\nrecord and its distribution is not limited.\n\n\n\n\nO\'Connor & Drew, P.C.\n\nCertified Public Accountants\n\nOctober 31, 2005\n\n\n\n\n -5-\n\x0c UNITED STATES\nINTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n\n Balance Sheets\n\n\n September 30, 2005 and 2004\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n\n Balance Sheets\n\n September 30,\n (in dollars)\n\n\nAssets:\n Intragovemmental\n Fund Balance with Treasury (Note 3) $ 10,866,911 $ 11,249,689\n Accounts Receivable (Note 4) 347,720\n Total Intragovernmental 11,214,631 11,249,689\n Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 5) 501,635 756,981\n Prepaid Expenses (Note 6) 208,000\n Equipment (Note 7) 3,320,719 2,493,449\n\nTotal Assets $ 15,244,985 $ 14,500,119\n\nLiabilities:\n Intragovemmental\n Employer Contributions and Payroll Taxes Payable (Note 8) $ 110,496 $ 91,478\n Other (Note 8) 742,786 1,003,036\n Total Intragovernmental 853,282 1,094,514\n Accounts Payable (Note 8) 1,884,026 763,165\n Accrued Funded Payroll (Note 8) 1,080,842 941,067\n Withholdings Payable (Note 8) 632,593 538,059\n Unfunded Leave (Note 8) 2,948,491 2,960,006\n Total Liabilities 7,399,234 6,296,811\n\nNet Position:\n Unexpended Appropriations (Note 3) 7,265,523 8,669,865\n Cumulative Results of Operations 580,228 (466,557)\n Total Net Position 7,845,751 8,203,308\n\nTotal Liabilities and Net Position $ 15,244,985 $ 14,500,119\n\n\n\n\nThe accompanying notes are an integral part ofthese financial statements.\n -6-\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n\n Statements of Net Cost\n\n For the Years Ended September 30,\n (in dollars)\n\n 2005 2004\n\nIntragovernmental Costs $ 8,182,544 $ 6,680,990\n\nCosts with the Public 53,066,006 48,034,896\n\nCost Not Assigned to Programs (Note 10) (11,516) 40,925\n\nTotal Net Cost $ 61,237,034 $ 54.756.811\n\n\n\n\nThe accompanying notes are an integral part ofthese financial statements.\n\n -7-\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n\n Statements of Changes in Net Position\n\n For the Years Ended September 30,\n (in dollars)\n\n 2005 2005 2004 2004\n\n Cumulative Results Unexpended Cumulative Results Unexpended\n of Operations Appropriations of Operations Appropriations\n\n\nI\n Balances, Beginning of Fiscal Year $ (466,557) $ 8,669,865 $ (2,728,714) $ 5,599,248\nco Prior Period Adjustment (Note 11) 2,407,925\nI\n Beginning of Fiscal Year, Restated (466,557) 8,669,865 (320,789) 5,599,248\n\n Budgetary Financing Sources:\n Appropriations Received\n Appropriations-Used\n Other Adjustments\n Total Financing Sources\n Other Adjustments\n Total Financing Sources\n\n Net Cost of Operations\n\n Balances, End of Fiscal Year\n\n\n\n\n The accompanying notes are an integral part ofthese financial statements.\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n Statements of Budgetary Resources\n\n For the Years Ended September 30,\n (in dollars)\n\n\n\nBudgetary Resources:\n Budget Authority:\n Appropriations Received (Note 1) $ 61,700,000 $ 58,295,000\n\n Unobligated Balance:\n Beginning of Fiscal Year 777,708 375,256\n Spending Authority From Offsetting Collections Earned:\n Collected (Note 12) 14,268 14,536\n Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations (Note 12) 636,623 685,329\n Cancellation of Expired and No Year Accounts (408)\n Permanently Not Available (Note 1) (824,115) (613,341)\n\n Total Budgetary Resources $ 62.304.076 $ 58,756,780\n\nStatus of Budgetary Resources:\n Obligations Incurred - Direct $ 60,109,360 $ 57,979,072\n Unobligated Balance - Available 2,194,716 777,300\n Unobligated Balance - Not Available 408\n\n Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 62.304.076 $ 58,756,780\n\nRelationship of Obligations to Outlays:\n Obligated Balance, Net, Beginning of Fiscal Year $ 10,218,945 $ 7,045,868\n Obligated Balance, Net, End of Fiscal Year:\n Undelivered Orders 5,070,807 7,892,157\n Accounts Payable 3,358,603 2,326,788\n\nTotal Net Obligated Balance, End of Fiscal Year $ 8.429.410 $ 10,218,945\n\n Outlays:\n Disbursements $ 61,262,272 $ 54,120,666\n Collections (14,268) (14,536)\n\n Net Outlays $ 61.248.004 $ 54,1 06,130\n\n\n\nThe accompanying notes are an integral part ofthese financial statements.\n\n -9-\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n Statements of Financing\n\n For the Years Ended September 30,\n (in dollars)\n 2005 2004\n Resources Used to Finance Activities:\n\n Budgetary Resources Obligated:\n Obligations Incurred $ 60,109,360 $ 57,979,072\n Less: Spending Authority From Offsetting Collections/Adjustments (Note 12) 650,891 699,865\n Total Budgetary Resources Used to Finance Activities 59,458,469 57,279,207\n\n Other Resources:\n Other 4,000\n\nI Total Resources Used to Finance Activities 59,462,469 57,279,207\nf-l\no Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net Cost of Operations:\nI\n\n Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated for Goods, Services, and Benefits\n Ordered but Not Yet Provided (2,821,351) 2,668,165\n Resources That Finance the Acquisition of Assets 1,362,575 348,094\n Resources That Finance the Prepaid Expenses 208,000 -------\n\n Total Resources Used to Finance Items Not Part of the Net Cost of Operations (1,250,776) 3,016,259\n\n Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations 60,713,245 54,262,948\n\n Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Not Require or\n Generate Resources in the Current Period:\n\n Components Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods:\n Increase in Annual Leave Liability (Note 13) (11,516) 40,925\n\n Components Not Requiring or Generating Resources:\n Depreciation and Amortization 535,305 452,938\n\n Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Not Require or\n Generate Resources in the Current Period 523,789 493,863\n\n Net Cost of Operations $ 61.237,034 $ 54,756811\n\n The accompanying notes are an integral part ofthese financial statements.\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n\n Statements of Custodial Activity\n\n For the Years Ended September 30,\n (in dollars)\n\n\n\nRevenue Activity:\n Cash Collections - Penalties $ 250,000 $ 250,000\n Accrual Adjustments (250,000) 750,000\n Total Custodial Revenue (Note 14) 1,000,000\n\nDisposition of Collections:\nTransferred to Treasury (250,000)\n Increase in Amounts Yet to be Transferred 250,000 (1,000,000)\n\nNet Custodial Activity $\n\n\n\n\nThe accompanying notes are an integral part ofthese financial statements.\n\n - 11 -\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n Notes to the Financial Statements\n\n September 30, 2005 and 2004\n\n\nNote 1. Significant Accounting Policies\n\n A. Reporting Entity - The United States International Trade Commission (USlTC) is an\n independent agency of the U.S. Government created by an act of Congress and is headed by\n six commissioners, appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for nine-\n year terms. The President designates the chairman and vice chairman, each ofwhom serve\n two-year terms.\n\n The USlTC conducts investigations and reports findings relating to imports and the effect of\n imports on industry, and unfair import practices. The USlTC advises the President on the\n probable economic effect ofproposed trade agreements with foreign countries. The USlTC\n also conducts analytical studies and provides reports on issues relating to international trade\n and economic policy on behalf of both the Congress and President.\n\n B. Basis of Accounting and Presentation - USlTC\'s financial statements conform to U.S.\n Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) as promulgated by the Federal\n Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). The American Institute ofCertified Public\n Accountants (AlCPA) recognizes FASAB Standards as GAAP for federal reporting entities.\n These principles differ from budgetary reporting principles. The differences relate primarily\n to the capitalization and depreciation ofproperty and equipment, as well as, the recognition\n of other long-term assets and liabilities. The statements were prepared in conformity with\n OMB Bulletin 01-09, Form and Content ofAgency Financial Statements, as updated by\n OMB A-136 Financial Reporting Requirements, August 23,2005.\n\n The financials have been prepared from the books and records of the USlTC and include all\n accounts of all funds under the control of the USITC. Accounting principles generally\n accepted in the United States ofAmerica encompass both accrual and budgetary transactions.\n Under the accrual method, revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized\n when a liability is incurred, without regard to receipt or payment of cash. Budgetary\n accounting facilitates compliance with legal constraints and controls over the use of federal\n funds. The accompanying financial statements are prepared on the accrual basis of\n accounting. The USITC\'s fiscal year is October 1 through September 30. Fiscal year 2005\n and 2004 financial statements are audited to allow comparison.\n\n\n\n\n - 12 -\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n Notes to the Financial Statements - Continued\n\n September 30, 2005 and 2004\n\n\nNote 1. Significant Accounting Policies - Continued\n\n Assets - Intragovernmental assets are those assets that arise from transactions with other\n federal entities. Funds with the U.S. Treasury composed the majority ofintragovemmental\n assets on USITC\' s balance sheet.\n\n Financing Sources - The USITC has received a no-year appropriation for operations since\n fiscal year 1993. Appropriations are recognized as revenue and expensed when related\n operating expenses are incurred. Differences between appropriations received and expensed\n are included as unexpended appropriations. Congress appropriated to the USITC\n $61,700,000 and $58,295,000 for salaries and expenses in fiscal years 2005 and 2004,\n respectively. Congress also rescinded funds in the amount of $824,115 and $613,340 for\n fiscal years 2005 and 2004, respectively.\n\n C. Fund Balances with the u.s. Treasury - Cash receipts and disbursements are processed by\n the Treasury. Fund balance with the Treasury represents appropriated entity funds in the\n custody ofthe U.S. Treasury and is available to pay current liabilities and finance authorized\n purchase commitments. The USITC\'s obligated and unobligated fund balances are carried\n forward until goods or services are received and payments are made, or until such time as\n funds are deobligated.\n\n D. General Property, Plant, and Equipment - USITC capitalizes acquisitions with costs\n exceeding $50,000 and useful lives oftwo or more years. Property and equipment consist of\n equipment and software. Depreciation expense is calculated using the straight-line method\n over its estimated economic useful life as follows: software, 7 years; and equipment ranges\n from 5 to 7 years.\n\n Internal use software development and acquisition costs of $100,000 or more are capitalized\n as software development in progress until the development stage has been completed and the\n software successfully tested. Upon completion and testing, software development-in-\n progress costs are reclassified as internal use software costs and amortized using the straight-\n line method over the estimated useful life. Purchased commercial software which does not\n meet the capitalization criteria is expensed.\n\n\n\n\n - 13 -\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n Notes to the Financial Statements - Continued\n\n September 30, 2005 and 2004\n\n\nNote 1. Significant Accounting Policies - Continued\n\n E. Accrued Annual Leave - Annual leave is accrued quarterly, although it is not funded until it is\n used by employees. To the extent current and prior-year appropriations are not available to\n fund annual leave earned but not taken; funding will be obtained from future salaries and\n expenses appropriations. Sick, compensatory, and certain other types of leave are not\n accrued and are expensed when used by the employee.\n\n F. Net Position - Net position is the residual difference between assets and liabilities and is\n composed of unexpended appropriations and cumulative results operations. Unexpended\n appropriations represent the amount of unobligated and unexpended budget authority.\n Unobligated balances are the amount of appropriations or other authority remaining after\n deducting the cumulative obligations from the amount available for obligation. Cumulative\n results of operations are the net result of USlTC\'s operations since inception.\n\n G. Intergovernmental Activities - The USlTC records and reports only those Government-wide\n financial matters for which it is responsible and identifies only those financial matters that\n the USlTC has been granted budget authority and resources to manage.\n\n H. Use of Estimates - The preparation of the accompanying financial statements requires\n management to make estimates and assumptions about certain estimates included in the\n financial statements. Actual results will invariably differ from those estimates.\n\n 1. Tax Status - USlTC, as a federal agency, is not subject to federal, state, or local income taxes\n and accordingly, no provision for income taxes is recorded.\n\n J. Reclassifications - Certain amounts in the 2004 financial statements have been reclassified to\n conform to the 2005 presentation.\n\n\n\n\n - 14-\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n Notes to the Financial Statements - Continued\n\n September 30, 2005 and 2004\n\n\n\n\n 2004\n\n Entity Non-Entity Total\n\nIntragovemmental:\n Fund balance with Treasury $ 10,996,653 $ 253,036 $\nTotal intragovernmental 10,996,653 253,036 11,249,689\n\nAccounts receivable 6,981 750,000 756,981\nPlant, property, and equipment 2,493,449 2,493,449\nTotal 2,500,430 750,000 3,250,430\n\n Total assets $ 13.497.083 $ 1,003,036 $ 14.500,119\n\n\n\n\n - 15 -\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n Notes to the Financial Statements - Continued\n\n September 30, 2005 and 2004\n\n\nNote 2. Non-Entity Assets - Continued\n\n Non-entity funds include copier fees collected from the public for Freedom of Information\n Act (FOIA), civil penalty fees, and other collections which will be turned over to the U.S.\n Treasury and are not available for use by the USITC. Non-entity assets are assets that the\n USITC holds, but does not have authority to use. A part ofthe fund balance with Treasury is\n non-entity and the remaining is entity. Entity assets are those assets which the reporting\n entity holds and has the authority to use in its operations.\n\nNote 3. Fund Balances with Treasury\n\n 2005 2004\n A. Fund Balances:\n Appropriated Funds $ 10,624,125 $ 10,996,653\n Other Fund Types 242,786 253,036\n Total $ 10,866,911 $ 11.249,689\n\n B. Status of Fund Balance with Treasury\n Unobligated Balance\n Available $ 2,194,716 $ 777,300\n Unavailable 408\n Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 5,070,807 7,892,157\n Total $ 7,265,523 $ 8.669,865\n\n\n Fund Balances with Treasury is the sole intragovemmental asset. The entity fund balance\n represents funds appropriated by Congress for use by the USITC. No entity funds are\n restricted; however, in accordance with Section 605 of Title 5 of Public Law 105-277,\n Congressional approval is required under certain reprogramming or transfer actions.\n\n\n\n\n - 16 -\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n Notes to the Financial Statements - Continued\n\n September 30, 2005 and 2004\n\n\nNote 4. Accounts Receivable, Intragovernmental\n\n Intragovernmental assets arise from transactions among Federal entities. An overpayment for\n rent on the ITC leased building resulted in an Intragovernmental Accounts Receivable in the\n amount of $347,720 on September 30,2005. This amount was credited through IPAC in\n October 2005.\n\nNote 5. Accounts Receivable, Net\n\n The balance of funds receivable from USITC employees for the parking program is $1,635\n and $6,981 on September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively.\n\n A civil penalty was imposed by the USITC in the amount of$ 1,000,000 in fiscal year 2003.\n A receivable was set up in fiscal year 2004, and $250,000 was collected in fiscal years 2005\n and 2004. As a result, there were balances of $500,000 and $750,000 outstanding at\n September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively.\n\nNote 6. Prepaid Expenses\n\n The USITC prepaid for parking spaces for employees for fiscal year 2006. Employees who\n participate in the parking program reimburses the agency at a subsidized rate. The amount\n prepaid at September 30, 2005 was $208,000.\n\nNote 7. General Property, Plant, and Equipment, Net\n\n Major classes of general property, plant, and equipment include: 1) office furniture, fixtures,\n and equipment, and 2) information systems and data handling equipment. Depreciation is\n recorded annually, at the end ofthe fiscal year using straight-line method, based on estimated\n useful lives of seven years and five years, respectively, with a ten percent residual value.\n\n\n\n\n - 17 -\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n Notes to the Financial Statements - Continued\n\n September 30, 2005 and 2004\n\nNote 7. General Property, Plant, and Equipment, Net - Continued\n\n Acquisition Accumulated Net Book\n Fiscal Year 2005 Value Depreciation Value\n\n Office Furniture, Fixtures,\n and Equipment $ 1,438,444 $ 924,111 $ 514,333\n Software 3,798,083 991,967 2,806,386\n\n $ 5,236,527 $ 1,915,808 $ 3,320,719\n\n Acquisition Accumulated Net Book\n Fiscal Year 2004 Value Depreciation Value\n\n Office Furniture, Fixtures,\n and Equipment $ 1,223,453 $ 796,452 $ 427,001\n Software 2,650,499 584,051 2,066,448\n\n $ 3,873,952 $ 1.380,503 $ 2.493.449\n\nNote 8. Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary Resources\n 2005\n\n Entity Non-Entity Total\n\n Intragovemmental\n Other $ $ 742,786 $\n Total intragovemmental $ $ 742,786 $\n\n Unfunded leave $ 2,948,491 $ - $\n Total liabilities not covered\n by budgetary 2,948,491 742,786 3,691,277\n Total liabilities covered by\n budgetary 3,707,957 3,707,957\n\n Total liabilities $ 6,656,448 $ 742,786 $ 7,399,234\n\n\n - 18 -\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n Notes to the Financial Statements - Continued\n\n September 30, 2005 and 2004\n\nNote 8. Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary Resources - Continued\n\n 2004\n\n Entity Non-Entity Total\n\n Intragovemmental\n Other $ $ 1,003,036 $\n Total intragovemmental $ $ 1.003,036 $\n\n Unfunded leave $ 2,960,000 $ - $\n Total liabilities not covered\n by budgetary 2,960,000 1,003,036 3,963,042\n Total liabilities covered by\n budgetary 2,333,769 2,333,769\n\n Total liabilities $ 5.293.775 $ 1.003,036 $ 6.296,811\n\n\n\n Intragovemmental: Other liabilities consist ofa civil penalty imposed by the USlTC which,\n upon collection, are held in trust for the U.S. Treasury. Other liabilities also include copier\n fees collected from the public for FOIA and other collections.\n\n Unfunded Leave: Accrued Annual Leave is the value of leave accumulated by USlTC\n employees which is funded when used. The current portion is dependent upon such use and\n is, therefore, not accurately determinable.\n\n Liabilities Covered by Budgetary Resources: These current liabilities are accounts payable,\n employer contributions, payroll taxes, accrued funded payroll, withholdings payable, and\n liabilities payable to the public.\n\nNote 9. Contingencies\n\n USlTC has certain claims and lawsuits pending against it. Provision has been made in\n USlTC\'s financial statements for losses considered probable and estimable. These amounts\n are considered by management to be immaterial. Management believes that losses, if any,\n from other claims and lawsuits would not be material to the fair presentation of USlTC\'s\n financial statements.\n\n\n - 19 -\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n Notes to the Financial Statements - Continued\n\n September 30, 2005 and 2004\n\n\nNote 10. Gross Cost by Budget Functional Classification\n\n The Statement of Net Cost for USITC uses a Budget Functional Classification (BFC) code.\n BFC codes are used to classify budget resources presented in the Budget ofthe United States\n Government per OMB. The Statement of Net Cost for financial purposes is designed to\n summarize Intragovernmental Costs, Costs with the Public, and Costs Not Assigned to\n Programs. The only cost that is included under the section "Costs Not Assigned to\n Programs" is the (decrease)/increase in Annual Leave Liability in the amounts of $(11,516)\n and $40,925 in fiscal years 2005 and 2004, respectively (see note 13). The total Net Cost\n was $61,237,034 and $54,756,811 at September 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively.\n\nNote 11. Prior Period Adjustment\n\n Prior to fiscal year 2003, many of the EDIS II costs were expensed. All costs were\n recognized as assets and adjusted accordingly in the software account as a prior period\n adjustment in 2004. Accumulated depreciation was calculated for all the costs from January\n 1, 2003 through September 30, 2003.\n\n In addition, there was an acquisition of equipment which was to be recorded as a capital lease\n since fiscal year 2000, but the payments were expensed. In the fiscal year 2003, the\n equipment was bought out by USITC. Prior years were adjusted to book the equipment in\n the asset account and the necessary adjusting entries were made and accumulated\n depreciation was calculated. A prior period adjustment for fiscal year 2003 was made for the\n net addition.\n\n Prior year fixed asset additions $ 2,908,014\n\n Accumulated depreciation (500,089)\n\n $ 2,407,925\n\n\n\n\n - 20-\n\x0c UNITED STATES\n INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION\n Notes to the Financial Statements - Continued\n\n September 30, 2005 and 2004\n\nNote 12. Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections/Adjustments\n\n Spending authority from offsetting collections consists ofrefunds ofprior year expenditures\n reported to U.S. Treasury as collections. Adjustments include debt obligation ofprior year\n funds.\n\n\n Spending authority from offsetting collections $ 14,268 $ 14,536\n\n Recovery of prior year obligations 636,623 685,329\n\n $ 650,891 $ 699,865\n\nNote 13. Explanation of Differences Between Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary\n Resources and Components Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods\n\n This represents the net increase in accrued annual leave reflected on the balance sheet as a\n liability not covered by budgetary resources.. Costs of this nature are incurred in this\n reporting period and are a component ofnet cost ofoperations. Other liabilities not covered\n by budgetary resources are not a part ofnet cost ofoperations or obligations incurred and are\n not reflected on the Statement of Financing.\n\nNote 14. Non-Exchange Revenue - Custodial Activities\n\n In fiscal years 2005 and 2004, the USITC functions in a custodial capacity with respect to\n revenue transferred or transferable to recipient government entities or the public. These\n amounts are not reported as revenue to the USITC.\n\n The USITC collects a civil penalty for the United States pursuant to 19 U.S.C. \xc2\xa71337(\xc2\xa3)(2) in\n connection with violations of cease and desist orders. A person who violates a cease and\n desist order can be assessed a civil penalty of up to $100,000 for each day on which a\n violation occurs or up to twice the domestic value of the goods imported or sold in violation\n of the order. Payments are made to USITC and held temporarily by USITC in a custodial\n capacity until remitted to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.\n\n A civil penalty was imposed by the USITC for $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. A receivable\n was set up in fiscal year 2004, and USITC collected $ 500,000, $250,000 ofwhich has been\n remitted to Treasury. As of September 30, 2005 and 2004, USITC has a long-term\n receivable of$500,000 and $750,000, respectively.\n - 21 -\n\x0c'


text:
 235 Md. 661 (1964)
 202 A.2d 722
 BLANN
 v.
 DIRECTOR OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION
 [App. No. 145, September Term, 1963.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided July 28, 1964.
 Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
 PER CURIAM:
 John Willard Blann was adjudged to be a defective delinquent by a jury in the Circuit Court for Talbot County, and from that determination has applied to this Court for leave to appeal.
 The only contention he raises is that the trial court "failed to advise Applicant of his constitutional right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States before and during his statutory Examination for Defective Delinquency by the Patuxent Institution * * *," and *662 the "Applicant was not in fact represented * * * by counsel during said statutory Examination being a `critical stage' in the said Defective Delinquency proceeding," primarily citing in support of his allegation White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 10 L. Ed. 2d 193, and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799. (Subsequent to the report of Patuxent to the effect that the applicant was a defective delinquent and prior to Blann's hearing, the trial judge, acting in compliance with Art. 31B, Sec. 8 (a) and (b), appointed counsel to represent the applicant at his hearing.)
 Passing the point that nowhere in the record does it appear that Blann below made the contention which he now asks us to consider, the answer to his claim is that the White and Gideon cases apply specifically to criminal prosecutions, while we have held many times that proceedings under the Defective Delinquent Act are, in their substantive and procedural aspects, civil in nature. See Blizzard v. State, 218 Md. 384, 386; Simmons v. Director, 227 Md. 661, 663; McCloskey v. Director, 230 Md. 635, 637; Monroe v. Director, 230 Md. 650, 653.
 Application denied.


type: legislation

text:
 6.10.2015
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 259/19
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) 2015/1779
 af 5. oktober 2015
 om faste importværdier med henblik på fastsættelse af indgangsprisen for visse frugter og grøntsager
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 1308/2013 af 17. december 2013 om en fælles markedsordning for landbrugsprodukter og om ophævelse af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 922/72, (EØF) nr. 234/79, (EF) nr. 1037/2001 og (EF) nr. 1234/2007 (1),
 under henvisning til Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 543/2011 af 7. juni 2011 om nærmere bestemmelser for anvendelsen af Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1234/2007 for så vidt angår frugt og grøntsager og forarbejdede frugter og grøntsager (2), særlig artikel 136, stk. 1, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Ved gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 543/2011 fastsættes der på basis af resultatet af de multilaterale handelsforhandlinger under Uruguayrunden kriterier for Kommissionens fastsættelse af faste importværdier for tredjelande for de produkter og perioder, der er anført i del A i bilag XVI til nævnte forordning.
 (2)
 Der beregnes hver arbejdsdag en fast importværdi i henhold til artikel 136, stk. 1, i gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 543/2011 under hensyntagen til varierende daglige data. Derfor bør nærværende forordning træde i kraft på dagen for offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 De faste importværdier som omhandlet i artikel 136 i gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 543/2011 fastsættes i bilaget til nærværende forordning.
 Artikel 2
 Denne forordning træder i kraft på dagen for offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 5. oktober 2015.
 På Kommissionens vegne
 For formanden
 Jerzy PLEWA
 Generaldirektør for landbrug og udvikling af landdistrikter
 (1) EUT L 347 af 20.12.2013, s. 671.
 (2) EUT L 157 af 15.6.2011, s. 1.
 BILAG
 Faste importværdier med henblik på fastsættelse af indgangsprisen for visse frugter og grøntsager
 (EUR/100 kg)
 KN-kode
 Tredjelandskode (1)
 Fast importværdi
 0702 00 00
 AL
 33,9
 MA
 177,9
 MK
 46,1
 TR
 73,8
 XS
 39,0
 ZZ
 74,1
 0707 00 05
 AL
 46,1
 MK
 41,5
 TR
 122,2
 ZZ
 69,9
 0709 93 10
 TR
 130,3
 ZZ
 130,3
 0805 50 10
 AR
 143,0
 BO
 160,8
 CL
 142,9
 TR
 95,6
 UY
 116,8
 ZA
 139,5
 ZZ
 133,1
 0806 10 10
 BR
 257,8
 EG
 173,6
 MK
 31,2
 TR
 158,6
 ZA
 128,8
 ZZ
 150,0
 0808 10 80
 BR
 35,7
 CL
 133,2
 NZ
 145,3
 US
 137,2
 ZA
 140,5
 ZZ
 118,4
 0808 30 90
 AR
 131,9
 CL
 148,3
 TR
 128,5
 XS
 95,8
 ZZ
 126,1
 (1) Landefortegnelse fastsat ved Kommissionens forordning (EU) nr. 1106/2012 af 27. november 2012 om gennemførelse af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 471/2009 om fællesskabsstatistikker over varehandelen med tredjelande for så vidt angår ajourføring af den statistiske lande- og områdefortegnelse (EUT L 328 af 28.11.2012, s. 7). Koden »ZZ« = »anden oprindelse«.


text:
VSL sklep IV Cp 1297/2012
 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2012:IV.CP.1297.2012
 VSL0068406
 DRUŽINSKO PRAVO - MEDNARODNO ZASEBNO PRAVO - CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO
 ugrabitev otroka - uporaba mednarodne konvencije - zahteva za vrnitev otroka - postopek po Haaški konvenciji o civilnopravnih vidikih mednarodne ugrabitve otrok
 V skladu z načelom upoštevanja varstva otrokovih koristi lahko sodišče zavrne zahtevo za vrnitev, če ugotovi obstoj okoliščin, opredeljenih v 13. členu Konvencije o civilnopravnih vidikih mednarodne ugrabitve otrok, zaradi katerih bi bile koristi otroka v primeru vrnitve lahko ogrožene. Gre za primere, ko v času, ko je bil otrok odpeljan, oseba, ki skrbi za otroka, ni dejansko uveljavljala pravice do skrbi zanj, ali če obstaja resna nevarnost, da bi bil otrok zaradi vrnitve izpostavljen duševni travmi ali kako drugače pripeljan v neugoden položaj.
 Pritožba se zavrne in se potrdi sklep sodišča prve stopnje.
 1.Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijanim sklepom zavrnilo predlagateljev predlog za vrnitev A. C., rojenega 8.8.2010, državljana Norveške in Slovenije, očetu na naslov S. Na Norveškem po Konvenciji o civilnopravnih vidikih mednarodne ugrabitve otrok (Ur. l. RS, 23/93 – Mednarodne pogodbe, 6/93).
 2.Predlagatelj je proti takšni odločitvi vložil pravočasno pritožbo, s katero uveljavlja pritožbena razloga nepopolne ugotovitve dejanskega stanja in kršitve določb postopka. Sodišču prve stopnje očita, da je enostransko na podlagi pridobljenih podatkov Centra za socialno delo v Litiji ter izjav H., Ha. in F. Š., ne da bi dalo možnost udeležbe otrokovemu očetu, sprejelo sklep, da se zavrne zahteva za vrnitev mld. otroka na Norveško. Poudarja, da imata po 34. členu norveškega zakona o otrocih starša, ki sta v zakonski zvezi, skupno starševsko odgovornost do skupnih otrok. Po 40. členu istega zakona pa se eden od staršev ne sme brez soglasja drugega z otrokom preseliti v tujino. S tem je prišlo do kršitve 3. člena Haaške konvencije, saj so bile očetu kršene pravice do skrbi za otroka, oziroma mu je bila kršena starševska odgovornost do otroka, ki jo je imel po zakonu Kraljevine Norveške, v kateri je otrok stalno prebival, predno ga je mati odpeljala v Slovenijo.
 3.Udeleženka H. Š., mati mld. otroka, je v odgovoru na pritožbo predlagala njeno zavrnitev in potrditev sklepa sodišča prve stopnje.
 4.Tako kot pri vseh postopkih v zvezi z otroki, je tudi v tem najpomembnejše vodilo zagotavljanje največje otrokove koristi. To izhaja že iz prvega odstavka 3. člena Konvencije o otrokovih pravicah. Ta v 9. členu določa, da države podpisnice jamčijo, da otrok ne bo proti volji staršev ločen od njih, v 11. členu pa države podpisnice zavezuje, naj sprejmejo ukrepe za boj proti nezakonitem premeščanju in nevračanju otrok iz tujine. V ta namen naj podpirajo sklepanje bilateralnih in multilateralnih sporazumov ali pristopanje k že obstoječim sporazumom. Tako Slovenija kot Kraljevina Norveška sta pogodbenici omenjene Konvencije o civilnopravnih vidikih mednarodne ugrabitve otrok (v nadaljevanju Konvencija), katere cilj je v zagotovitvi čimprejšnje vrnitve otrok, ki so bili nezakonito odpeljani ali zadržani v kakšni državi pogodbenici, ter zagotoviti, da se pravica do skrbi za otroka in osebnih stikov z njim po zakonu ene izmed držav pogodbenice dejansko spoštujejo v drugi državi pogodbenici (1. člen Konvencije). Namen Konvencije je torej vzpostavitev prejšnjega stanja tako, da se zagotovi vrnitev otroka v kraj njegovega stalnega prebivališča in omogoči pristojnim organom države, kjer ima otrok stalno prebivališče, da v skladu s svojim pravom odločijo o pravicah do skrbi za otroka. Če organ, ki odloča o zahtevi za vrnitev otroka, ugotovi, da so izpolnjeni pogoji iz 3. člena Konvencije, da je bil torej otrok nezakonito odpeljan ali zadržan, mora praviloma odrediti vrnitev otroka. Zahtevo za vrnitev lahko zavrne le v primeru, če ugotovi da obstajajo okoliščine, opredeljene v Konvenciji, zaradi katerih bi bile koristi otroka v primeru vrnitve lahko ogrožene. Te okoliščine določa Konvencija v 12., 13. in 20. členu.
 5.Sodišče prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da ima otrok stalno prebivališče prijavljeno v Republiki Sloveniji, na naslovu C.. Ugotovilo je še, da je mati mladoletnega otroka odpeljala v Slovenijo 9.3.2011, da pa je bil oče mladoletnega otroka seznanjen z materinim in otrokovim odhodom in temu ni nasprotoval, ampak je s tem celo soglašal. Na podlagi navedenih dejanskih ugotovitev je zaključilo, da ni mogoče šteti, da je bil otrok nezakonito odpeljan iz Kraljevine Nizozemske v Republiko Slovenijo. Pritrditi je treba pritožbeni kritiki, da takšen zaključek temelji na napačni presoji dejanskega stanja.
 6.Kot stalno prebivališče je potrebno upoštevati tisto, ki ga je imel otrok v državi pogodbenice, preden je bil iz nje odpeljan. Po navedbah predlagatelja je imel otrok stalno prebivališče na Nizozemskem, S. Na naslovu, ki ga je prvostopenjsko sodišče štelo kot stalno prebivališče otroka, je otrok prijavljen šele od 16.3.2011 oziroma po njegovem prihodu v Slovenijo. Brez ustrezne dokazne podpore je tudi zaključek sodišča prve stopnje o očetovem soglasju z odhodom sina v Slovenijo. Sodišče ga opira zgolj na izpoved matere, da je štela, da je oče privolil v njen in otrokov odhod, ko ji je v medsebojnem konfliktu in potem, ko mu je zagrozila, da bo z otrokom odšla, dejal, da naj kar gre. Na tej okoliščini ni mogoče graditi zaključka o očetovi privolitvi, ko pa je po drugi strani on sprožil postopek za vrnitev otroka.
 7.Tudi ob nasprotnemu zaključku, torej da je treba šteti, da so izpolnjeni pogoji iz 3. člena Konvencije oziroma da je otrok nezakonito odpeljan ali zadržan, pa pravilnost izpodbijane odločitve o zavrnitvi zahteve za vrnitev narekuje uporaba 13. člena Konvencije. V skladu z načelom upoštevanja varstva otrokovih koristi lahko sodišče zavrne zahtevo za vrnitev, če ugotovi obstoj okoliščin, opredeljenih v 13. členu Konvencije, zaradi katerih bi bile koristi otroka v primeru vrnitve lahko ogrožene. Gre za primere, ko v času, ko je bil otrok odpeljan, oseba, ki skrbi za otroka ni dejansko uveljavljala pravice do skrbi zanj, ali če obstaja resna nevarnost, da bi bil otrok zaradi vrnitve izpostavljen duševni travmi ali kako drugače pripeljan v neugoden položaj. Uporaba te izjemne klavzule je lahko pogojena z neobičajno težkimi okoliščinami, ki bi lahko ogrozile otrokove koristi, ki so sodišču predstavljene kot posebej bistvene, konkretne in aktualne. Trditveno breme njihovega obstoja je na tistem staršu, ki nasprotuje vrnitvi otroka.(1)
 8.Sodišče prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da oče otroka materi ves čas njenega bivanja na Norveškem ni pomagal urediti dovoljenja za bivanje, da je moral kmalu po rojstvu otroka v zapor, da je nad njo izvajal psihično in fizično nasilje, da je imel neurejeno finančno stanje, da je bil pogosto pod vplivom alkohola ter da je bila v času skupnega družinskega življenja na Norveškem celotna skrb (po vsebinski in finančni plati) za mld. otroka na materi. V Sloveniji otrok, ki je star devetnajst mesecev, živi pri materi in njenih starših v Š. ima zagotovljene urejene stanovanjske razmere, živi skupaj z materinimi bližnjimi sorodniki, na katere je izjemno navezan, prav tako pa tudi na širše okolje, v katerem živi. Mati ima redno zaposlitev, hkrati pa išče svoji izobrazbi ustrezno zaposlitev. Otrok se vsak teden z očetom sliši po skypu, oče pa je bil v mesecu novembru tudi 12 dni pri otroku na obisku. Glede na navedeno je pravilen zaključek sodišča prve stopnje, da bi vrnitev otroka na Norveško oziroma njegova iztrganost iz socialnega okolja, v katerem živi, pri njem povzročila duševno škodo oziroma travmo.
 9.Namen Konvencije ni vsebinsko reševanje sporov o vprašanjih starševskih pravic (19. člen Konvencije). V postopku po Konvenciji se odloča zgolj o zahtevi za vrnitev otroka, pri tem pa je tudi v tem postopku, kot je bilo že navedeno, v ospredju skrb za koristi otroka. Stopnja procesnih jamstev drugih udeležencev postopka je ustrezno nižja. Nižji je tudi dokazni standard. Gre za postopek, ki je najbližji postopku za zavarovanje z začasno odredbo.(2) Okoliščina, da sodišče prve stopnje očetu ni omogočilo, da se izjavi o dejanskih okoliščinah, ki predstavljajo podlago izpodbijane odločitve, zato ne vpliva na pravilnost izpodbijane odločitve.
 10.Koristi otroka so tiste, ki preprečujejo njegovo takojšnjo vrnitev, zato je odločitev prvostopenjskega sodišča pravilna. Iz navedenih razlogov je bilo treba pritožbo zavrniti in potrditi sklep sodišča prve stopnje (2. točka 365. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku).
 (1) Odločba Ustavnega sodišča Republike Slovenije, Up-377/2001, tč. 10.
 (2) Primerjaj odločbo Vrhovnega sodišča Republike Slovenije II Ips 457/2001.
 MKCVMUO člen 3, 13.
 Sklep II Ips 457/2001
 VSL Sklep IV Cp 2498/2018
 VSM sklep III Cp 1721/2010
 P2RvYy0yMDEyMDMyMTEzMDQ4MDgx
 Iskalnik po sodni praksi poganja odprtokodni strežnik SOLR. Število dokumentov v zbirki 224.182


text:
 26.10.2012
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 1
 PRÓTACAL (Uimh. 34)
 AR SHOCRUITHE SPEISIALTA DON GHRAONLAINN
 Airteagal aonair
 1. An chóir a thugtar, ar a n-allmhairiú isteach san Aontas, do tháirgí atá faoi réir ag comheagraíocht an mhargaidh do tháirgí iascaireachta agus ar de thionscnamh na Graonlainne iad, beidh ar áireamh inti, gan dochar do shásra chomheagraíocht an mhargaidh, díolúine ó dhleachtanna custaim agus ó mhuirir chomhéifeachta agus saoirse ó shrianta cainníochtúla agus bearta comhéifeachta, más sásúil don Aontas na deiseanna rochtana ar limistéir iascaireachta na Graonlainne a dheonófar don Aontas de bhun comhaontú idir an tAontas agus an t-údarás is freagrach as an nGraonlainn.
 2. Na bearta uile a bhaineann leis na socruithe d'allmhairiú na dtáirgí sin, ar a n-áirítear iad siúd a bhaineann le glacadh na mbeart sin, glacfar iad de réir an nós imeachta atá leagtha síos in Airteagal 43 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh.


type: wikipedia

text:
Ivana Loudová (8 March 1941 – 25 July 2017) was a Czech composer.
 Loudová was born at Chlumec nad Cidlinou. She studied at the Prague Conservatory and the Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts under Miloslav Kabeláč and Emil Hlobil. She later studied in Paris at the Centre Bourdan under Olivier Messiaen and Andre Jolivet.
 She has written orchestral and chamber music, as well as music for the voice and film/stage. She obtained an honourable mention in Mannheim for the composition Rhapsody in Black, and won at the Guido d'Arezzo” International Polyphonic Competition in Italy in 1978, 1980 and 1984. In the choral area, she wrote the Vocal Symphony in 1965 and later wrote children's choral works such as the prize-winning Little Christmas Cantata. She has also written music for American Wind Symphony Orchestra and other orchestral works.
 Since 1992 Ivana Loudová has taught composition on the Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts in Prague.
 For her work Ivana Loudová received the award Heidelberger Kunstpreis 1993, the award of the Ministry of culture for a contribution to the music world for the year 2015 and the award of the Protective Association 2017.
 Ivana Loudová died in Prague on 25 July 2017 after a long and perilous disease. She was 76 years old.
 References
 External links
 Official site
 Choral Music in the Twentieth Century, Nick Strimple (2005)
 The Harvard Dictionary of Music (2003) Don Michael Randel, p. 233
 The American Wind Band: A Cultural History (2005) Richard K. Hansen
 The Norton/Grove Dictionary of Women Composers (1995) By Julie Anne Sadie, Rhian Samuel
 Ivana Loudová
 1941 births
 2017 deaths
 Czech classical composers
 Women classical composers
 Czech women
 Prague Conservatory alumni
 People from Chlumec nad Cidlinou