type: wikipedia

text:
Saandati Moussa, née le à Mamoudzou (Mayotte), est une auteure-compositrice-interprète mahoraise.
 Biographie
 Saandati Moussa est née à Mamoudzou de parents mahorais.
 Elle a commencé à chanter à l’âge de 15 ans avec le déba. Elle avait intégré la formation Imania de Tsararano. En 1998 à Marseille, elle rejoignit le groupe Ramandzaka. Cette formation s'adonnait la musique mahoraise.
 C’est à partir de là que Saandati commence à composer. En 2005, elle intègre l’association Racine de Tsararano. Elle en est depuis la présidente. En plus de l’objectif principal de cette formation composée essentiellement de jeunes, Saandati développe d’autres activités, comme la promotion des chants et danses traditionnels. Elle est l’auteure et compositrice de toutes les chansons de Racine. Elle collabore avec de nombreux artistes locaux : Jean-Raymond Cudza, Lima Wild, Zainouni, Zily...
 Après la naissance de son premier enfant en 2001, Saandati repart en métropole, à Montpellier jusqu’à fin 2005, lorsqu'elle décide de rentrer s’installer définitivement dans sa région natale.
 En 2014, elle est élue « Meilleure artiste mahoraise » lors de la cérémonie des Voix de l'océan Indien à Saint-Denis.
 Discographie
 2011 : M'Trumama karémwa
 Distinctions
 Notes et références
 Personnalité liée à Mayotte
 Chanteuse française du XXIe siècle


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'AUDIT OF DIVISION OF SUPERVISION RELIANCE\n ON STATE EXAMINATIONS\n\n\n\n Audit Report No. 99-032\n August 2, 1999\n\n\n\n\n OFFICE OF AUDITS\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\x0cFederal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Audits\nWashington, D.C. 20434 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n DATE: August 2, 1999\n\n\n TO: James L. Sexton, Director\n Division of Supervision\n\n\n\n\n FROM: Steven A. Switzer\n Deputy Inspector General for Audits\n\n\n SUBJECT Division of Supervision Reliance on State Examinations\n (Audit Report No. 99-032)\n\n\n The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Office of Inspector General has completed\n an audit of the process used by the Division of Supervision (DOS) to rely on state examinations.\n Under the Federal Deposit Insurance (FDI) Act, the FDIC may rely on state examinations to\n meet examination frequency requirements, if it determines that the state examination is\n acceptable and meets the intent of the FDI Act.\n\n On November 19, 1998, the OIG issued an audit report entitled Audit of DOS Coordination of\n Examinations with State Banking Authorities in the Kansas City Region. That report identified\n some areas of concern regarding reliance on state examination reports. In addition, while\n discussing that report at the December 16, 1998 Audit Committee meeting, some concerns were\n expressed by FDIC Board members over outdated working agreements in the Kansas City\n region. The purpose of this audit was to review DOS\'s process for relying on state examinations,\n including a review of working agreements, from a national perspective.\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n On December 19, 1991, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA)\n was signed into law, which added subsection 10(d) to the FDI Act that required annual full-scope\n examinations of all insured depository institutions. FDICIA allowed federal regulators to extend\n the examination intervals of certain small institutions to 18 months if the following criteria were\n\x0cmet: the institution had total assets of less than $100 million; the institution was well capitalized\nand well managed, with a composite rating1 of \xe2\x80\x9c1\xe2\x80\x9d; and the institution had not undergone a\nchange of control in the last 12 months. These requirements became effective in December\n1992, with a 1-year transition period through December 1993. FDICIA permitted examinations\nto be alternated with the appropriate state supervisory authority, provided that the federal\nbanking agency determined that the state examination carries out the purpose of a full-scope, on-\nsite examination.\n\nSince FDICIA was enacted, examination frequency requirements have changed pertaining to\nbanks with assets of less than $250 million. In 1994, the Riegle Community Development and\nRegulatory Improvement (CDRI) Act amended section 10(d) of the FDI Act to increase the asset\nlevel to $250 million for institutions with a composite rating of \xe2\x80\x9c1\xe2\x80\x9d that could be examined on an\n18-month basis. The CDRI Act also allowed an examination cycle of up to 18 months for banks\nwith a composite rating of \xe2\x80\x9c2\xe2\x80\x9d and $100 million or less in total assets. To qualify for an 18-\nmonth cycle, these institutions had to be well managed and well capitalized, not have undergone\na change of control, and not be subject to any formal enforcement proceeding or order. This\nchange became effective during September 1994.\n\nThe CDRI Act also provided that, at any time after a 2-year period beginning on the date of\nenactment, bank regulatory agencies could increase the asset limit to $175 million for those\xe2\x80\x9c2\xe2\x80\x9d-\nrated institutions eligible for the 18-month examination cycle. Section 2221 of the Economic\nGrowth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA), which was passed in September\n1996, increased the asset total to $250 million for \xe2\x80\x9c2\xe2\x80\x9d-rated institutions that were eligible for\nthe18-month examination cycle. In addition to extending examination frequency requirements,\nthe CDRI Act also required the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council to adopt\nguidelines for relying on state examinations (see appendix I).\n\n\nThe FDIC is the primary federal regulator for approximately 5,900 banks throughout the 50\nstates and U.S. territories. The FDIC coordinates examinations with all state regulatory\nagencies, usually conducting independent alternating examinations with most state banking\ndepartments. For those states with smaller banking departments, the FDIC typically performs\njoint examinations, where one examination report is produced and signed by both the FDIC and\nthe state banking department.\n\n\n\n\n1\n At the end of a safety and soundness examination, each financial institution is assigned a composite rating based on an\nevaluation and rating of six essential components of an institution\'s financial condition and operations. These component\nfactors, known as "CAMELS," address capital adequacy, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity\nto market risk. Composite and component ratings are assigned based on a 1 to 5 numerical scale. A \xe2\x80\x9c1\xe2\x80\x9d indicates the\nhighest rating, strongest performance and risk management practices, and least degree of supervisory concern, while a\n\xe2\x80\x9c5\xe2\x80\x9d indicates the lowest rating, weakest performance, inadequate risk management practices, and therefore, the highest\ndegree of supervisory concern.\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0cTo improve bank supervision and enhance cooperation between the FDIC and state banking\ndepartments, the FDIC has entered into working agreements with most of the 50 state banking\ndepartments.2 The majority of these agreements resulted from a joint resolution entered into by\nthe Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) and the FDIC on April 12, 1992. The purpose\nof the resolution was to develop an examination program that achieves the goals of improving\nsupervisory efficiencies while reducing regulatory burdens on the banking industry. The joint\nresolution encouraged the negotiation and formation of working agreements with the state\nbanking departments. The working agreements identify, among other things, the scheduling and\nfrequency of examinations.\n\nAs of January 1, 1999, 42 states and Puerto Rico have entered into written working agreements\nwith their respective FDIC regional offices, stipulating the circumstances under which bank\nexaminations will be conducted. Four states have informal unwritten working agreements with\nthe Atlanta regional office that provide the framework under which the FDIC and each of these\nstates conduct the required examinations. Four states, four U.S. territories, and the District of\nColumbia have no working agreements with the FDIC, although the District of Columbia has no\nFDIC-supervised banks.\n\nOBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\nThe objective of the audit was to assess the process used by DOS for relying on state\nexaminations. To accomplish this objective, we: (1) reviewed Bank Information Tracking\nSystem (BITS) data for over 3,500 state examination reports with examination dates from\nJanuary 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998, (2) interviewed various regional office\nmanagement officials to discuss the process used for accepting state examination reports, (3)\ninterviewed senior management officials from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, (4)\nreviewed all written working agreements that the FDIC has established with state banking\nauthorities, (5) reviewed DOS policies for relying on state examinations, and (6) performed\nselected bank file reviews at the Chicago and Dallas regional offices. We relied on automated\ndata obtained from BITS to ascertain the number and types of state examinations performed\nduring the audit period. Based on some comparisons of the data with source documents, we\ndetermined that the data was reliable.\n\nFieldwork was performed in Washington, D.C., and at the Atlanta, Dallas, and Chicago regional\noffices of DOS. The audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government\nauditing standards for performance audits. We conducted the audit from October 1998 through\nJune 1999.\n\n\n\n\n2\n In addition to the 50 state banking departments, FDIC also examines a small number of banks in Puerto Rico, Guam,\nAmerican Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Virgin Islands. At the time this report was prepared, there\nwere no FDIC-supervised banks in the District of Columbia.\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0cRESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nBased on our review of state examination data, we believe DOS has an adequate process for\nrelying on state examinations. Each state examination report is reviewed to ensure that all risks\nto the deposit insurance funds have been identified and that appropriate corrective measures are\ntaken. In addition, cooperative working agreements entered into by the FDIC and state banking\ndepartments appear to have improved supervisory efficiencies and reduced regulatory burdens on\nthe banking industry since FDIC alternates examinations with most state banking departments.\nThe FDIC coordinates closely with state banking departments through the use of the working\nagreements. According to DOS regional management officials and officials at the CSBS, the\nmajority of these agreements work well. In addition, based on our review of selected files at the\nChicago and Dallas regional offices, we found that the regional offices are complying with DOS\npolicy regarding ratings changes.\n\nWe noted, however, that many of the working agreements between the FDIC and the state\nbanking departments have not been updated since they were originally signed, despite changes in\nexamination frequency requirements, and that there are some cases where no written agreement\nexists between the FDIC and a state banking department. To maintain close supervisory\ncooperation and to achieve optimal supervisory efficiency, we believe that the FDIC should\nmaintain current, written agreements with all state banking departments.\n\nDOS Accepts Virtually All State Examination Reports\n\nThe FDIC routinely accepts nearly all independent, full-scope state examination reports to meet\nexamination frequency requirements. DOS regularly alternates examinations with 39 state\nbanking agencies representing over 90 percent of the banks regulated by the FDIC. For 11 states\nand 1 territory, joint examinations are usually conducted where 1 examination report is produced\nand signed by both the FDIC and the state banking authority. During the period of January 1,\n1997 through September 30, 1998, we found only 2 instances out of approximately 3,500 state\nexamination reports processed where DOS did not accept an independent state examination\nreport.3 In both cases the reasons for non-acceptance were documented by the case manager in\nthe Summary Analysis of Examination Report comments.\n\nEven though the FDIC routinely accepts nearly all independent, full-scope state examination\nreports, each state examination report is reviewed to determine its acceptability. According to\nthe Case Managers Procedures Manual, case managers are required to determine if a state\nexamination is acceptable. Examination reports that are of sufficient scope and detail to support\nthe assigned rating are used to meet examination frequency requirements. Reports that lack\nsufficient detail or fail to support the assigned rating are not used to extend examination\nintervals.\n\n3\n The two instances pertain to state examination reports that were alternating, independent, and full-scope exams. We\ndid find other instances where a state examination report was not accepted for purposes of meeting examination\nfrequency requirements because the exam was either (1) a limited scope exam, (2) a concurrent exam with the FDIC and\nthe FDIC\'s examination report was used instead, or (3) a successive exam performed by the state, and the FDI Act\nprecludes federal regulators from relying on successive state examinations.\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cIn certain cases, DOS may accept a state examination report but disagree with the state rating. In\nthose cases, DOS will attempt to resolve the difference with the state authority and, if unable to\ndo so, will prepare a rating change memorandum. DOS policy also requires that the FDIC\nnotify the state banking authority and, in certain circumstances, the institution\'s board of\ndirectors of the rating difference and the basis for the FDIC\'s position. Our review of rating\nchange memoranda for the period of January 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998 revealed only\n5 instances out of approximately 3,500 state examination reports processed where a composite\nrating was changed because of disagreement with a state examination. In each case, the regional\noffice complied with DOS policy for making rating changes.\n\nAn Attempt Should Be Made to Update or Establish Working Agreements\n\nOf the 43 written agreements DOS has with state banking departments and Puerto Rico, 21 have\nnot been updated to reflect changes in examination frequency resulting from the enactment of the\nCDRI Act in 1994 and EGRPRA in 1996 (see appendix II).4 Most of these agreements were\noriginally signed in 1992 and 1993, although two of the agreements, with Alabama and North\nCarolina, were signed in 1980 and 1982, respectively, and have not been formally updated since\nthen. We believe that the goals of improving supervisory efficiencies, while reducing regulatory\nburdens on the banking industry could be helped by updating older agreements and attempting to\nobtain written agreements with all state banking departments.\n\nConcerns over outdated working agreements were expressed at the December 16, 1998 Audit\nCommittee meeting. During that meeting, the OIG presented its report on DOS coordination of\nexaminations with state banking authorities in the Kansas City region. One of the report\'s\nfindings pertained to outdated working agreements and concerns were expressed by two FDIC\nBoard members over the need to have current working agreements.\n\nWe found that 22 state agreements were either updated since 1995 to reflect the changes in\nexamination frequency or represented first-time agreements and included the new examination\nfrequency requirements. The remaining 21 agreements do not contain the revised examination\nfrequency schedule and are shown with a "No" in column three of appendix II. Examination\nfrequency is not addressed, of course, in those eight states4 and four territories with which the\nFDIC does not have a written agreement. These states and territories are identified in column\ntwo of appendix II as "Informal" or "None" (no written agreement is necessary with the District\nof Columbia since there are no state non-member banks there). According to DOS officials,\nwritten agreements with the U.S. territories and Micronesia would not provide much value since\nnone of the territories have more than 2 banks or have any organized banking department, except\nfor Puerto Rico.\n\n\n\n4\n Subsequent to issuance of the draft report, DOS officials provided us with updated and corrected information pertaining\nto working agreements it has with state banking departments. As of June 30, 1999, there were 17 states and Puerto Rico\nwhere agreements had not been updated and a total of 6 states without written agreements. Appendix II of the report has\nbeen changed to reflect the updated and corrected information.\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cAccording to senior officials at the CSBS, state banking departments view the working\nagreements as an important factor in coordinating examinations of state-chartered banks with the\nFDIC and Federal Reserve. The CSBS officials believe that there has been an increase in\ncooperation between state and federal regulators because of the agreements. The CSBS officials\nindicated that it would be a good idea to get the agreements updated but also indicated that the\nagreements should remain flexible to meet the needs of both the FDIC and the states.\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that the Director, DOS:\n\n(1) Request that the Regional Directors update the 21 working agreements with state agencies as\n needed to reflect current statutory examination requirements.\n\n(2) Request that the Regional Directors of Atlanta, Boston, and San Francisco pursue written\n agreements with banking departments in the eight states that have no written agreement.\n\n\nCORPORATION COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION\n\nOn July 22,1999, the Director, DOS, provided a written response to the draft report. The\nresponse is presented in its entirety in appendix III to this report.\n\nThe Director concurred with the report\'s recommendations and stated that since receipt of the\ndraft report, 20 state agencies and the banking department of Puerto Rico have been contacted to\npursue updated agreements. Written agreements with Hawaii and Wyoming, were obtained after\nour fieldwork cut-off date. The Director noted that DOS has updated agreements with the state\nbanking agencies of Delaware, Minnesota, and Montana. These updated agreements were\ninadvertently omitted from the written agreements provided to us by DOS. Appendix II of the\nreport has been updated to reflect these changes.\n\nThe Director stated that working agreements have not been obtained for Vermont and Rhode\nIsland because there is not an alternating examination program with these states. Also, DOS\nprefers to postpone updating the written agreement with Missouri until a permanent\ncommissioner is named to replace the "acting" commissioner.\n\nThe Corporation\'s response to the draft report provided the elements necessary for management\ndecisions on both recommendations. Therefore, no further response to the report is necessary.\nAppendix IV presents management\'s proposed action on the recommendations.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c APPENDIX I\n\n\n\n GUIDELINES FOR RELYING ON STATE EXAMINATIONS\n\nPursuant to the CDRI Act, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)\nadopted guidelines for relying on state examinations in 1995. These guidelines provide, in part,\nthat federal banking agencies will accept and rely on state reports of examination in all cases in\nwhich it is determined that state examinations enable the federal banking agencies to effectively\ncarry out their supervisory responsibilities. According to the FFIEC guidelines, the following\ncriteria may be considered, in whole or in part, by a federal banking agency in determining the\nacceptability of a state report of examination under section 10(d) of the FDI Act:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Completeness of state examination report - the state examination report should contain\n sufficient information to permit a reviewer to make an independent determination on the\n overall condition of the institution as well as the component factors and composite\n CAMELS rating.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Adequacy of documentation maintained routinely by state examiners to support\n observations made in examination reports.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The ability over time for a state banking department to achieve examination objectives.\n Federal agencies should consider the adequacy of state budgeting, examiner staffing and\n training, and review procedures. Also, accreditation of a state banking department by the\n Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) should be considered.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Adequacy of any informal or formal working arrangements with the state.\n\nThe written working agreements between FDIC and state banking authorities address the\nscheduling and frequency of examinations, pre-examination procedures, examination types,\nexamination report processing, and enforcement actions. Although DOS does not typically\nreview state examiner workpapers, state examination reports are reviewed to make an\nindependent determination on the overall condition of the institution as well as each component\nfactor in the CAMELS rating.\n\nOther factors considered by the FDIC in determining the acceptability of state examinations are\naccreditation of a state banking department by CSBS and the fact that many states participate in\nFDIC-sponsored training courses. The CSBS is the professional association of state banking\ndepartments responsible for chartering, regulating, and supervising the nation\'s state-chartered\nbanks. A comprehensive state banking department performance Accreditation Program is\nemployed by CSBS to enhance the professionalism of these departments and their personnel, and\nto reduce duplicative federal regulatory and supervisory activity over state-chartered banks. To\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cbecome accredited, state banking departments submit to a review of critical elements that assure\nthe ability of these departments to discharge their responsibilities through an investigation of\ntheir administration and finances, personnel policies and practices, training programs,\nexamination policies and practices, supervisory procedures, and statutory powers. As a means of\nmonitoring a department\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with CSBS performance standards, every accredited\nbanking department is subject to an annual review by outside consultants who are experienced\nregulators. As of December 31, 1998, 42 states and Puerto Rico have CSBS-accredited banking\ndepartments.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0c APPENDIX II\n\n ANALYSIS OF FDIC/STATE WORKING AGREEMENTS\n\n Date CDRI & EGRPRA Date Total Number\nSTATE REGION Working Changes Of Of FDIC\n Agreement Included In CSBS Regulated\n Signed Agreement Accreditation Banks\nAlabama ATLANTA 11-07-80 No 12-23-96 109\nFlorida 01-11-93 No 10-16-86 135\nGeorgia Informal Unknown 12-01-92 276\nN. Carolina 01-01-82 No 10-01-97 86\nS. Carolina Informal Unknown None 51\nVirginia Informal Unknown None 23\nW. Virginia Informal Unknown 08-21-96 43\nConnecticut BOSTON 06-02-92 No 04-28-86 56\nMaine 06-10-93 No 10-21-96 25\nMassachusetts 10-21-92 No 12-06-94 201\nN. Hampshire 08-26-92 No None 25\nRhode Island None None None 7\nVermont None None 12-08-95 13\nIllinois CHICAGO 01-05-93 No 12-04-84 512\nIndiana 12-12-96 Yes 03-14-88 114\nMichigan 11-23-92 No 04-28-86 100\nOhio 10-17-94 No 10-24-89 98\nWisconsin 08-23-98 Yes 08-08-88 241\nColorado DALLAS 05-12-98 Yes 01-04-91 106\nN. Mexico 01-22-96 Yes 05-03-96 32\nOklahoma 05-07-98 Yes 03-23-94 149\nTexas 02-20-96 Yes 10-27-93 377\nIowa KAN. CITY 02-08-93 No 06-11-85 334\nKansas 03-30-95 Yes 05-26-95 259\nMinnesota 06-26-97 Yes 11-28-90 342\nMissouri 01-15-93 No 04-03-87 293\nNebraska 02-09-93 No 03-18-93 197\nN. Dakota 01-29-93 No 12-16-92 93\nS. Dakota 01-29-93 No None 66\nArkansas MEMPHIS 03-19-97 Yes 08-08-88 128\nKentucky 03-20-98 Yes 11-02-92 194\nLouisiana 04-23-97 Yes 01-14-89 133\nMississippi 02-21-97 Yes 06-06-96 79\nTennessee 06-03-98 Yes 04-27-87 160\nDistrict of Columbia NEW YORK None None None None\nDelaware 02-05-99 Yes 12-23-96 18\nMaryland 10-14-92 No 07-13-92 49\nNew Jersey 01-12-94 No 10-24-86 71\nNew York 07-01-96 Yes 10-15-85 109\nPennsylvania 07-16-97 Yes 02-28-86 111\nPuerto Rico 03-23-93 No 07-08-94 11\nVirgin Islands None None None 2\nAlaska S. FRAN. 05-02-95 Yes None 4\nArizona 07-07-95 Yes 07-05-96 21\nCalifornia 12-12-97 Yes 04-06-90 200\nHawaii 04-07-99 Yes 03-30-90 11\nIdaho 04-17-95 Yes 01-08-90 14\nMontana 07-17-98 Yes None 35\nNevada 06-27-95 Yes None 17\nOregon 05-02-95 Yes 10-22-92 28\nUtah 04-17-95 Yes 10-27-94 36\nWashington 05-16-95 Yes 09-17-90 73\nWyoming 08-03-98 Yes 07-20-92 11\nAmerican Samoa None None None 1\nGuam None None None 2\nMicronesia None None None 1\n\nSource: Signed working agreements on file at DOS, CSBS-provided listing of accredited states, and FDIC institution directory\n webpage. Information as of December 31, 1998, except the working agreements which are as of June 30, 1999.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c APPENDIX III\nFDIC\nFederal Deposit Insurance Corporation\n th\n550 17 Street Washington, DC 20429 Division of Supervision\n\n\n\n July 22, 1999\n\n\nMEMORANDUM TO: Steven A. Switzer\n Deputy Inspector General for Audits\n\n\n\nFROM: James L. Sexton\n Director, DOS\n\nSUBJECT: Response to Draft Report Entitled\n Division of Supervision Reliance on State Examinations\n\nThe Division of Supervision (DOS) appreciates the opportunity to respond formally to the\nrecommendations contained in the subject report. Overall, the report concluded that DOS has an\nadequate process for relying on state examinations. However, the report also recommended that\nDOS update 21 working agreements to reflect current statutory requirements and pursue written\nagreements with the eight states that have no written agreements.\n\nDOS views the working agreements as an important factor in coordinating examinations of\nState-chartered banks with the individual State agencies. In response to the report findings, the\nregions reviewed their files to ensure that the most current working agreements had been\nprovided. As noted in the table below, there were four state agreements identified that had been\nupdated in the interim and one agreement that was not provided in our earlier submission.\n\n STATE EFFECTIVE DATE\n Delaware 02-05-99\n Hawaii 04-07-99\n Minnesota 06-26-97\n Montana 07-17-98\n Wyoming 08-03-98\n\nDOS has written agreements with 27 State agencies that are current and reflect the changes in\nexamination frequency resulting from the enactment of the Riegle Community Development and\nRegulatory Improvement Act and Section 2221 of the Economic Growth and Regulatory\nPaperwork Reduction Act. Since the receipt of this report, 20 of the remaining 23 State agencies\nhave been contacted. Updated written agreements are in process with 11 of the State agencies;\nfive of the State agencies requested to continue operating under the outstanding agreement; and\nfour of the State agencies requested to continue operating under informal agreements. Please\n\n\n 10\n\x0crefer to the attached Analysis of FDIC/State Working Agreements, for the status of the working\nagreements with each State agency. The New York Regional Office has contacted the Banking\nDepartment for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and an updated agreement will be obtained.\nThe updated agreements will be in place by December 31, 1999, and copies will be provided to\nthe Office of Inspector General as documentation that corrective action has been implemented.\n\nWorking agreements have not been obtained for Vermont and Rhode Island because there is not\nan alternating examination program with these States. All examinations for the seven state\nnonmember banks in Rhode Island are completed jointly with the state, and most examinations\nof the 13 state nonmember banks in Vermont are completed jointly with the State. The Vermont\nDepartment of Banking and Finance does complete three independent examinations annually to\nmaintain accreditation with the Conference of State Bank Supervisors. Neither state has\nsufficient staff to participate in an alternate examination program. The Missouri Division of\nFinance is currently supervised by an \xe2\x80\x9cacting\xe2\x80\x9d commissioner. DOS prefers to postpone updating\nthe written agreement until a permanent commissioner is named.\n\nThe governments of American Samoa, Guam, Micronesia, and the Virgin Islands rely on the\nFDIC for examination reports. As stated on page 7 of the report, \xe2\x80\x9cwritten agreements would not\nprovide much value since none of the territories have more than two banks, or have an organized\nbanking department.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\ncc: Mr. Zamorski\n Mr. Schmidt\n Mr. Lane\n Mr. Snyder\n Mr. Walsh\n Ms. Zumbrun\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c ANALYSIS OF FDIC/STATE WORKING AGREEMENTS\nREGION/STATE DATE OF AGREEMENT AS OF 12/31/98 DATE OF AGREEMENT AS OF 07/16/99 STATUS\n ATLANTA\nAlabama 11-07-80 11-07-80 3\nFlorida 01-11-93 01-11-93 5\nGeorgia Informal Informal 4\nNorth Carolina 01-01-82 01-01-82 3\nSouth Carolina Informal Informal 4\nVirginia Informal Informal 4\nWest Virginia Informal Informal 4\n BOSTON\nConnecticut 06-02-92 06-02-92 5\nMaine 06-10-93 06-10-93 5\nMassachusetts 10-21-92 10-21-92 5\nNew Hampshire 08-26-92 08-26-92 5\nRhode Island None None 6\nVermont None None 6\n CHICAGO\nIllinois 01-05-93 01-05-93 5\nIndiana 12-12-96 12-12-96 1\nMichigan 11-23-92 11-23-92 5\nOhio 10-17-94 10-17-94 5\nWisconsin 08-23-98 08-23-98 1\n DALLAS\nColorado 05-12-98 05-12-98 1\nNew Mexico 01-22-96 01-22-96 1\nOklahoma 05-07-98 05-07-98 1\nTexas 02-20-96 02-20-96 1\n KANSAS CITY\nIowa 02-08-93 02-08-93 3\nKansas 03-30-95 03-30-95 1\nMinnesota 02-01-93 06-26-97 1\nMissouri 01-15-93 01-15-93 7\nNebraska 02-09-93 02-09-93 5\nNorth Dakota 01-29-93 01-29-93 3\nSouth Dakota 01-29-93 01-29-93 3\n MEMPHIS\nArkansas 03-19-97 03-19-97 1\nKentucky 03-20-98 03-20-98 1\nLouisiana 04-23-97 04-23-97 1\nMississippi 02-21-97 02-21-97 1\nTennessee 06-03-98 06-03-98 1\n NEW YORK\nDelaware 01-22-93 02-05-99 2\nMaryland 10-14-92 10-14-92 5\nNew Jersey 01-12-94 01-12-94 5\nNew York 07-01-96 07-01-96 1\nPennsylvania 07-16-97 07-16-97 1\n SANFRANCISCO\nAlaska 05-02-95 05-02-95 1\nArizona 07-07-95 07-07-95 1\nCalifornia 12-12-97 12-12-97 1\nHawaii None 04-07-99 2\nIdaho 04-17-95 04-17-95 1\nMontana 08-18-92 07-17-98 1\nNevada 06-27-95 06-27-95 1\nOregon 05-02-95 05-02-95 1\nUtah 04-17-95 04-17-95 1\nWashington 05-16-95 05-16-95 1\nWyoming None 08-03-98 1\n\n\n 12\n\x0cSTATUS KEY\n1 No action required. (25)\n2 State banking supervisor contacted and current agreement obtained/updated. (2)\n3 State banking supervisor contacted and requested to continue operating under outstanding agreement. (5)\n4 State banking supervisor contacted and requested to continue operating under informal agreement. (4)\n5 State banking supervisor contacted and update is in process. (11)\n6 Independent state reports are not accepted by the regional office. (2)\n7 Currently supervised by an \xe2\x80\x9cActing\xe2\x80\x9d state bank supervisor. Regional office prefers to postpone\n updating agreement until a permanent commissioner is named. (1)\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c APPENDIX IV\n\n MANAGEMENT RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nThe Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires the OIG to report the status of management decisions on its recommendations in its semiannual\nreports to the Congress. To consider FDIC\xe2\x80\x99s responses as management decisions in accordance with the act and related guidance, several conditions are\nnecessary. First, the response must describe for each recommendation\n\n \xc2\xa7 the specific corrective actions already taken, if applicable;\n \xc2\xa7 corrective actions to be taken together with the expected completion dates for their implementation; and\n \xc2\xa7 documentation that will confirm completion of corrective actions.\n\nIf any recommendation identifies specific monetary benefits, FDIC management must state the amount agreed or disagreed with and the reasons for any\ndisagreement. In the case of questioned costs, the amount FDIC plans to disallow must be included in management\xe2\x80\x99s response.\n\nIf management does not agree that a recommendation should be implemented, it must describe why the recommendation is not considered valid.\nSecond, the OIG must determine that management\xe2\x80\x99s descriptions of (1) the course of action already taken or proposed and (2) the documentation confirming\ncompletion of corrective actions are responsive to its recommendations.\nThis table presents the management responses that have been made on recommendations in our report and the status of management decisions. The information for management decisions is based\non management\xe2\x80\x99s written response to our report.\n\n Documentation That Management\n Rec. Expected Will Confirm Monetary Decision: Yes\n Number Corrective Action: Taken or Planned/Status Completion Date Final Action Benefits or No\n The Corporation agreed with the recommendation. DOS\n Regional Directors have attempted to obtain updated DOS working Not\n 1 December 31, 1999 Quantifiable Yes\n agreements in all cases except Missouri, which will be agreements with states\n pursued when a permanent commissioner is named.\n The Corporation agreed with the recommendation. DOS\n Regional Directors have attempted to get written\n DOS working Not Yes\n 2 agreements with those states currently without one December 31, 1999\n agreements with states Quantifiable\n except Vermont and Rhode Island, because there is not\n an alternating exam program with these two states.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c'


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 EIROPAS KOMISIJA
 Briselē, 25.10.2019
 COM(2019) 494 final
 2019/0241(NLE)
 Priekšlikums
 PADOMES LĒMUMS
 par nostāju, kas attiecībā uz grozījumiem konvencijas II un III pielikumā Eiropas Savienības vārdā jāieņem Konvencijas par Eiropas dzīvās dabas un dabisko dzīvotņu aizsardzību pastāvīgās komitejas trīsdesmit devītajā sanāksmē
 PASKAIDROJUMA RAKSTS
 1.Priekšlikuma priekšmets
 Šis priekšlikums ir par lēmumu, ar kuru nosaka nostāju, kas Savienības vārdā jāieņem Konvencijas par Eiropas dzīvās dabas un dabisko dzīvotņu aizsardzību pastāvīgās komitejas trīsdesmit devītajā ikgadējā sanāksmē, kas 2019. gada 3.–6. decembrī Strasbūrā, Francijā, notiks saistībā ar paredzēto pastāvīgās komitejas lēmuma pieņemšanu par diviem grozījumiem konvencijas II pielikumā un III pielikumā.
 2.Priekšlikuma konteksts
 2.1.Konvencija par Eiropas dzīvās dabas un dabisko dzīvotņu aizsardzību
 Konvencijas par Eiropas dzīvās dabas un dabisko dzīvotņu aizsardzību (“konvencija”) mērķis ir aizsargāt Eiropas savvaļas augus un dzīvniekus un to dabīgos biotopus, jo īpaši ja to aizsardzībai ir vajadzīga vairāku valstu sadarbība. Minētā konvencija ir starpvaldību līgums, kas noslēgts Eiropas Padomes aizgādībā. Tā stājās spēkā 1982. gada 1. jūnijā.
 Eiropas Savienība ir konvencijas līgumslēdzēja puse kopš 1982. gada 1. septembra
 1
 . Patlaban konvencijai ir 51 līgumslēdzēja puse, to vidū visas ES dalībvalstis.
 2.2.Pastāvīgā komiteja
 Pastāvīgā komiteja ir konvencijas lēmējstruktūra ar pilnvarām novērtēt sugu saglabāšanās stāvokli un pēc tam pārskatīt sugu sarakstu konvencijas pielikumos. Tās funkcijas ir uzskaitītas konvencijas 13.–15. pantā. Komitejas sanāksmes notiek ne retāk kā reizi divos gados vai tad, kad to pieprasa līgumslēdzēju pušu vairākums. Ierasts, ka pastāvīgā komiteja tiekas katru gadu.
 Saskaņā ar konvencijas 17. pantu pielikumu grozījumus pieņem ar divu trešdaļu līgumslēdzēju pušu vairākumu.
 2.3.Paredzētais pastāvīgās komitejas akts
 Konvencijas pastāvīgās komitejas trīsdesmit devītajā ikgadējā sanāksmē, kas 2019. gada 3.–6. decembrī notiks Strasbūrā, Francijā, paredzēts pieņemt lēmumu par grozījumiem konvencijas II pielikumā un III pielikumā (“paredzētais akts”).
 Paredzētā akta mērķis ir grozīt konvencijas II pielikumu un III pielikumu, kā tas paredzēts konvencijas 17. pantā.
 Paredzētais akts saskaņā ar konvencijas 17. pantu stājas spēkā attiecībā uz visām līgumslēdzējām pusēm trīs mēnešus pēc tā pieņemšanas pastāvīgajā komitejā, ja vien trešdaļa līgumslēdzēju pušu nav cēlusi iebildumus. Ikviens grozījums stājas spēkā attiecībā uz tām līgumslēdzējām pusēm, kas nav cēlušas iebildumus.
 3.Savienības vārdā ieņemamā nostāja
 Norvēģija ir iesniegusi priekšlikumu baltvaigu zosi (Branta leucopsis) no II pielikuma (īpaši aizsargājamās dzīvnieku sugas) pārvietot uz III pielikumu (aizsargājamās dzīvnieku sugas – iespējama regulēšana). Priekšlikuma pamatā ir fakts, ka baltvaigu zoss kopējās populācijas apmērs laikā no 1980. gada līdz 2010. gadam ir palielinājies vairāk nekā desmitkārt (no 112 000 īpatņu uz 1 319 000 īpatņu), arī lauksaimniecības intensifikācijas dēļ, jo tās rezultātā ir kļuvis pieejams liels daudzums barības
 2
 . Tāpēc sugai vairs nav vajadzīga stingra aizsardzība visā areālā.
 Paredzētā pastāvīgās komitejas lēmuma priekšmets saskaņā ar LESD 3. panta 2. punktu ir ES ekskluzīvā ārējā kompetencē, jo tas ietilpst jomā, kuru lielā mērā jau aptver kopīgi iekšējie noteikumi (t. i., Putnu direktīva). Tāpēc Padomei ir jāpieņem lēmums par nostājām, kas pastāvīgās komitejas trīsdesmit devītajā sanāksmē Savienības vārdā ir jāieņem attiecībā uz paredzēto aktu.
 Šis priekšlikums neatbilst pašreizējam baltvaigu zoss juridiskās aizsardzības statusam, kāds noteikts Putnu direktīvā, jo tā nav minēta II pielikumā (medījamas sugas). Suga ir iekļauta Putnu direktīvas I pielikumā (t. i., suga, kam jānosaka īpaši aizsargājamas teritorijas).
 Lai reaģētu uz ļoti straujo populācijas pieaugumu un jo īpaši uz sugas izraisītajām problēmām (lauksaimniecībai nodarītais kaitējums un gaisa satiksmes drošības apdraudējums), Nolīguma par Āfrikas–Eirāzijas migrējošo ūdensputnu aizsardzību pušu 7. sanāksmē 2018. gada decembrī attiecībā uz baltvaigu zosi tika pieņemts viensugas pārvaldības plāna projekts. Plāns nodrošina satvaru, kas areāla valstīs palīdz pieņemt lēmumus par atkāpju piemērošanu (nodrošinot arī regulāru novērtējumu par atkāpju kumulatīvo ietekmi) un par populācijas stāvokļa, kā arī lauksaimniecībai nodarītā kaitējuma un gaisa satiksmes drošības apdraudējuma monitorēšanu. Tas atvieglo informācijas koplietošanu un, iespējams, atkāpju pasākumu koordinēšanu starp areāla valstīm, lai palielinātu to efektivitāti un novērstu ar pārlidojuma ceļiem saistītas neparedzētas ietekmes.
 Lai reaģētu uz ļoti straujo šīs sugas populācijas pieaugumu un jo īpaši lai risinātu sugas radītās problēmas (lauksaimniecībai nodarītais kaitējums un gaisa satiksmes drošības apdraudējums), Norvēģijas izteiktais grozījuma priekšlikums Savienībai būtu jāatbalsta, lai konvencijas puses, kas nav ES dalībvalstis, varētu piemērot populācijas pārvaldības pasākumus, vajadzības gadījumā atļaujot arī šīs sugas medīšanu. Tomēr, tā kā grozījums Putnu direktīvas pielikumos patlaban nav paredzēts vai nav iespējams konvencijā prasītajā īsajā termiņā (90 dienas), Savienībai būs jānorāda, ka pagaidām tā piemēros stingrākus aizsardzības pasākumus, nekā paredzēts konvencijas 12. pantā.
 4.Juridiskais pamats
 4.1.Procesuālais juridiskais pamats
 4.1.1.Principi
 Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību (LESD) 218. panta 9. punktā paredzēti lēmumi, ar kuriem nosaka “nostāju, kas Savienības vārdā jāapstiprina kādā ar nolīgumu izveidotā struktūrā, ja šāda struktūra ir tiesīga pieņemt lēmumus ar juridiskām sekām, izņemot lēmumus, kas papildina vai groza attiecīgajā nolīgumā noteikto iestāžu sistēmu”.
 Jēdziens “lēmumi ar juridiskām sekām” ietver aktus, kam ir juridiskas sekas saskaņā ar starptautisko tiesību normām, kuras reglamentē attiecīgo struktūru. Tas ietver arī instrumentus, kam nav saistoša spēka saskaņā ar starptautiskajām tiesībām, bet kas “var būtiski ietekmēt ES likumdevēja pieņemtā tiesiskā regulējuma saturu”
 3
 .
 4.1.2.Piemērošana konkrētajā gadījumā
 Pastāvīgā komiteja ir ar konvenciju izveidota struktūra.
 Akts, ko pastāvīgā komiteja tiek aicināta pieņemt, ir akts ar juridiskām sekām. Paredzētais akts atbilstoši konvencijas 6. pantam būs saistošs saskaņā ar starptautiskajām tiesībām.
 Paredzētais akts nepapildina un negroza konvencijā noteikto iestāžu sistēmu.
 Tāpēc ierosinātā lēmuma procesuālais juridiskais pamats ir LESD 218. panta 9. punkts.
 4.2.Materiālais juridiskais pamats
 4.2.1.Principi
 Lēmumam, ko pieņem saskaņā ar LESD 218. panta 9. punktu, materiālais juridiskais pamats galvenokārt ir atkarīgs no tā, kāds mērķis un saturs ir paredzētajam aktam, attiecībā uz kuru Savienības vārdā tiek ieņemta noteikta nostāja. Ja paredzētajam aktam ir divi mērķi vai divi komponenti un viens no tiem ir atzīstams par galveno, bet otram ir pakārtota nozīme, tad lēmums, ko pieņem saskaņā ar LESD 218. panta 9. punktu, jābalsta uz viena materiālā juridiskā pamata, proti, tā, ko prasa galvenais jeb dominējošais mērķis vai komponents.
 4.2.2.Piemērošana konkrētajā gadījumā
 Paredzētā akta galvenais mērķis un saturs attiecas uz vidi.
 Tāpēc ierosinātā lēmuma materiālais juridiskais pamats ir 192. panta 1. punkts.
 4.3.Secinājums
 Ierosinātā lēmuma juridiskajam pamatam vajadzētu būt LESD 192. panta 1. punktam saistībā ar 218. panta 9. punktu.
 5.Paredzētā akta publicēšana
 Tā kā ar pastāvīgās komitejas aktu tiks grozīts konvencijas II un III pielikums, ir lietderīgi pēc pieņemšanas to publicēt Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī.
 2019/0241 (NLE)
 Priekšlikums
 PADOMES LĒMUMS
 par nostāju, kas attiecībā uz grozījumiem konvencijas II un III pielikumā Eiropas Savienības vārdā jāieņem Konvencijas par Eiropas dzīvās dabas un dabisko dzīvotņu aizsardzību pastāvīgās komitejas trīsdesmit devītajā sanāksmē
 EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS PADOME,
 ņemot vērā Līgumu par Eiropas Savienības darbību un jo īpaši tā 192. panta 1. punktu saistībā ar 218. panta 9. punktu,
 ņemot vērā Eiropas Komisijas priekšlikumu,
 tā kā:
 (1)Konvenciju par Eiropas dzīvās dabas un dabisko dzīvotņu aizsardzību (“konvencija”) Savienība noslēdza ar Padomes Lēmumu 82/72/EEK
 4
 , un tā stājās spēkā 1982. gada 1. septembrī.
 (2)Saskaņā ar konvencijas 17. pantu pastāvīgā komiteja var pieņemt grozījumus konvencijas pielikumos.
 (3)Pastāvīgajai komitejai tās trīsdesmit devītajā sanāksmē 2019. gada 3.–6. decembrī ir jāpieņem lēmums par ierosinātajiem grozījumiem konvencijas II pielikumā un III pielikumā.
 (4)Ir lietderīgi noteikt nostāju, kas Savienības vārdā jāieņem pastāvīgajā komitejā, jo tās lēmums būs Savienībai saistošs.
 (5)Norvēģija ir iesniegusi priekšlikumu Branta leucopsis no konvencijas II pielikuma pārvietot uz III pielikumu.
 (6)Ņemot vērā ļoti straujo šīs sugas populācijas pieaugumu visā sugas areālā, Savienībai šis priekšlikums būtu jāatbalsta. Tomēr priekšlikums nav saskaņots ar pašreizējo Branta leucopsis aizsardzības statusu, kāds noteikts Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Direktīvā 2009/147/EK
 5
 . Tā kā grozījumi Direktīvā 2009/147/EK nav paredzēti un nav iespējami konvencijā noteikto trīs mēnešu laikā pēc pastāvīgās komitejas lēmuma pieņemšanas, Savienībai atbilstoši konvencijas 12. pantam uz laiku ir jāpiemēro stingrāki saglabāšanas pasākumi,
 IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO LĒMUMU.
 1. pants
 Nostāja, kas Savienības vārdā jāieņem Konvencijas par Eiropas dzīvās dabas un dabisko dzīvotņu aizsardzību pastāvīgās komitejas trīsdesmit devītajā sanāksmē, ir atbalstīt priekšlikumu Branta leucopsis no konvencijas II pielikuma pārvietot uz III pielikumu un norādīt konvencijas līgumslēdzējām pusēm, ka Savienība plāno atbilstoši konvencijas 12. pantam uz laiku piemērot stingrākus šīs sugas saglabāšanas pasākumus.
 2. pants
 Šis lēmums ir adresēts Komisijai.
 Briselē,
 Padomes vārdā
 priekšsēdētājs
 (1)
 Padomes Lēmums 82/72/EEK (1981. gada 3. decembris) par to, ka jānoslēdz Konvencija par Eiropas savvaļas dzīvnieku, augu un dabisko biotopu aizsardzību (OV L 38, 10.2.1982., 1. lpp.).
 (2)
 International Single Species Management Plan for the Barnacle Goose, AEWA Technical Series Nr. 70, 2018. gada decembris,
 www.unep-aewa.org/sites/default/files/publication/ts70_issmp_barnacle%20goose_complete.pdf
 , 13. lpp.
 (3)
 Tiesas spriedums, 2014. gada 7. oktobris, Vācija/Padome, C-399/12, EU:C:2014:2258, 61.–64. punkts.
 (4)
 OV L 38, 10.2.1982., 1. lpp.
 (5)
 Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Direktīva 2009/147/EK (2009. gada 30. novembris) par savvaļas putnu aizsardzību (OV L 20, 26.1.2010., 7. lpp.).


type: contracts

text:
 27.8.2008
 EN
 Official Journal of the European Union
 L 228/3
 DECISION No 2/2008 OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE SET UP BY THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND THE SWISS CONFEDERATION ON TRADE IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
 of 24 June 2008
 concerning the adaptation of Annexes 1 and 2
 (2008/692/EC)
 THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
 Having regard to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (the Agreement), and in particular Article 11 thereof,
 Whereas:
 (1)
 The Agreement entered into force on 1 June 2002 and contains amongst others Annexes 1 and 2 that concern bilateral trade concessions granted respectively by the Swiss Confederation and by the European Community (hereinafter referred to as the Parties).
 (2)
 On 1 January 2007 the European Union was enlarged by the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. The Parties agreed to adapt the bilateral trade concessions on the principle that the trade flows in accordance with the preferences granted under the bilateral arrangements between the new Member States to the European Union and Switzerland should be mutually maintained in substance. The Parties adopted, on an autonomous and transitional basis, measures to ensure continuity of trade flows in the interim period.
 (3)
 The Parties also agreed to consolidate in the Agreement the bilateral preferential trade flows in sausages and certain meat products,
 HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
 Article 1
 Annexes 1 and 2 to the Agreement shall be replaced respectively by Annexes 1 and 2 to this Decision.
 Article 2
 This Decision shall enter into force on 1 January 2010.
 Done at Brussels, 24 June 2008.
 For the Joint Committee on Agriculture
 The Head of the Community Delegation
 Aldo LONGO
 The Head of the Swiss Delegation
 Jacques CHAVAZ
 The Secretary of the Joint Committee on Agriculture
 Hans-Christian BEAUMOND
 ANNEX 1
 Concessions granted by Switzerland
 The tariff concessions set out below are granted by Switzerland for the following products originating in the Community and are, where applicable, subject to an annual quantity:
 Swiss tariff heading
 Description
 Customs duty applicable
 (CHF/100 kg gross weight)
 Annual quantity
 (tonnes net weight)
 0101 90 95
 Live horses (excl. pure-bred horses for breeding and horses for slaughter) (in number of head)
 0
 100 head
 0204 50 10
 Goat meat, fresh, chilled or frozen
 40
 100
 0207 14 81
 Breasts of fowls of domestic species, frozen
 15
 2 100
 0207 14 91
 Cuts and edible offal of fowls of domestic species, including livers (excluding breasts), frozen
 15
 1 200
 0207 27 81
 Breasts of turkeys of domestic species, frozen
 15
 800
 0207 27 91
 Cuts and edible offal of turkeys of domestic species, including livers (excluding breasts), frozen
 15
 600
 0207 33 11
 Ducks of domestic species, not cut in pieces, frozen
 15
 700
 0207 34 00
 Fatty livers of ducks, geese or guinea fowls of domestic species, fresh or chilled
 9,5
 20
 0207 36 91
 Cuts and edible offal of ducks, geese or guinea fowls of domestic species, frozen (excluding fatty livers)
 15
 100
 0208 10 00
 Meat and edible offal of rabbits or hares, fresh, chilled or frozen
 11
 1 700
 0208 90 10
 Meat and edible offal of game, fresh, chilled or frozen (other than of hares or wild boar)
 0
 100
 ex ex 0210 11 91
 Hams and cuts thereof, with bone in, of swine (other than wild boar), salted or in brine, dried or smoked
 free
 1 000 (1)
 ex ex 0210 19 91
 Hams and cuts thereof, boneless, of swine (other than wild boar), salted or in brine, dried or smoked
 free
 0210 20 10
 Dried meat of bovine animals
 free
 200 (2)
 ex ex 0407 00 10
 Edible birds' eggs, in shell, fresh, preserved or cooked
 47
 150
 ex ex 0409 00 00
 Natural acacia honey
 8
 200
 ex ex 0409 00 00
 Natural honey, other (excluding acacia)
 26
 50
 0602 10 00
 Unrooted cuttings and slips
 free
 unlimited
 Plants in the form of pomaceous fruit rootstock (of seedling origin or produced by vegetative propagation):
 free
 (3)
 0602 20 11
 —
 grafted, bare rooted
 0602 20 19
 —
 grafted, with root ball
 0602 20 21
 —
 not grafted, bare rooted
 0602 20 29
 —
 not grafted, with root ball
 Plants in the form of stone fruit rootstock (of seedling origin or produced by vegetative propagation):
 free
 (3)
 0602 20 31
 —
 grafted, bare rooted
 0602 20 39
 —
 grafted, with root ball
 0602 20 41
 —
 not grafted, bare rooted
 0602 20 49
 —
 not grafted, with root ball
 Plants other than in the form of pomaceous or stone fruit rootstock (of seedling origin or produced by vegetative propagation), of kinds which bear edible fruit:
 free
 unlimited
 0602 20 51
 —
 bare rooted
 0602 20 59
 —
 other than bare rooted
 Trees, shrubs and bushes, of kinds which bear edible fruit, bare rooted:
 free
 (3)
 0602 20 71
 —
 of kinds which bear pomaceous fruit
 0602 20 72
 —
 of kinds which bear stone fruit
 0602 20 79
 —
 other than of kinds which bear pomaceous or stone fruit
 free
 unlimited
 Trees, shrubs and bushes, of kinds which bear edible fruit, with root ball:
 free
 (3)
 0602 20 81
 —
 of kinds which bear pomaceous fruit
 0602 20 82
 —
 of kinds which bear stone fruit
 0602 20 89
 —
 other than of kinds which bear pomaceous or stone fruit
 free
 unlimited
 0602 30 00
 Rhododendrons and azaleas, grafted or not
 free
 unlimited
 Roses, grafted or not:
 free
 unlimited
 0602 40 10
 —
 wild roses and wild rose stems
 —
 other than wild roses or wild rose stems:
 0602 40 91
 —
 bare rooted
 0602 40 99
 —
 other than bare rooted, with root ball
 Plants (of seedling origin or produced by vegetative propagation), of useful species; mushroom spawn:
 free
 unlimited
 0602 90 11
 —
 seedling vegetables and turf rolls
 0602 90 12
 —
 mushroom spawn
 0602 90 19
 —
 other than seedling vegetables, turf rolls or mushroom spawn
 Other live plants (including their roots):
 free
 unlimited
 0602 90 91
 —
 bare rooted
 0602 90 99
 —
 other than bare rooted, with root ball
 0603 11 10
 Cut roses of a kind suitable for bouquets or for ornamental purposes, fresh, from 1 May to 25 October
 free
 1 000
 0603 12 10
 Cut carnations of a kind suitable for bouquets or for ornamental purposes, fresh, from 1 May to 25 October
 0603 13 10
 Cut orchids of a kind suitable for bouquets or for ornamental purposes, fresh, from 1 May to 25 October
 0603 14 10
 Cut chrysanthemums of a kind suitable for bouquets or for ornamental purposes, fresh, from 1 May to 25 October
 Cut flowers and flower buds (other than carnations, roses, orchids or chrysanthemums) of a kind suitable for bouquets or for ornamental purposes, fresh, from 1 May to 25 October:
 0603 19 11
 —
 woody
 0603 19 19
 —
 other than woody
 0603 12 30
 Cut carnations of a kind suitable for bouquets or for ornamental purposes, fresh from 26 October to 30 April
 free
 unlimited
 0603 13 30
 Cut orchids of a kind suitable for bouquets or for ornamental purposes, fresh from 26 October to 30 April
 0603 14 30
 Cut chrysanthemums of a kind suitable for bouquets or for ornamental purposes, fresh from 26 October to 30 April
 0603 19 30
 Cut tulips of a kind suitable for bouquets or for ornamental purposes, fresh, from 26 October to 30 April
 Other cut flowers and flower buds, of a kind suitable for bouquets or for ornamental purposes, fresh, from 26 October to 30 April:
 free
 unlimited
 0603 19 31
 —
 woody
 0603 19 39
 —
 other than woody
 Tomatoes, fresh or chilled:
 free
 10 000
 —
 cherry tomatoes:
 0702 00 10
 —
 from 21 October to 30 April
 —
 Peretti tomatoes (elongated):
 0702 00 20
 —
 from 21 October to 30 April
 —
 other tomatoes, of a diameter of 80 mm or more (beef tomatoes):
 0702 00 30
 —
 from 21 October to 30 April
 —
 other:
 0702 00 90
 —
 from 21 October to 30 April
 Iceberg lettuce, without outer leaf:
 free
 2 000
 0705 11 11
 —
 from 1 January to the end of February
 Witloof chicory, fresh or chilled:
 free
 2 000
 0705 21 10
 —
 from 21 May to 30 September
 0707 00 10
 Cucumbers for salad, 21 October to 14 April
 5
 200
 0707 00 30
 Pickling cucumbers, > 6 cm but =< 12 cm in length, fresh or chilled, from 21 October to 14 April
 5
 100
 0707 00 31
 Pickling cucumbers, > 6 cm but =< 12 cm in length, fresh or chilled, from 15 April to 20 October
 5
 2 100
 0707 00 50
 Gherkins, fresh or chilled
 3,5
 800
 Aubergines (eggplants), fresh or chilled:
 free
 1 000
 0709 30 10
 —
 from 16 October to 31 May
 0709 51 00
 0709 59 00
 Mushrooms, fresh or chilled, of the genus Agaricus or other, with the exception of truffles
 free
 unlimited
 Sweet peppers, fresh or chilled:
 2,5
 unlimited
 0709 60 11
 —
 from 1 November to 31 March
 0709 60 12
 Sweet peppers, fresh or chilled, 1 April to 31 October
 5
 1 300
 Courgettes (including courgette flowers), fresh or chilled:
 free
 2 000
 0709 90 50
 —
 from 31 October to 19 April
 ex ex 0710 80 90
 Mushrooms (uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water), frozen
 free
 unlimited
 0711 90 90
 Vegetables and mixtures of vegetables, provisionally preserved (for example, by sulphur dioxide gas, in brine, in sulphur water or in other preservative solutions), but unsuitable in that state for immediate consumption
 0
 150
 0712 20 00
 Onions, dried, whole, cut, sliced, broken or in powder, but not further prepared
 0
 100
 0713 10 11
 Peas (Pisum sativum), dried, shelled, whole, unprocessed, for use as animal feed
 Rebate of 0,9 on the duty applied
 1 000
 0713 10 19
 Peas (Pisum sativum), dried, shelled, whole, unprocessed (excluding those for use as animal feed, for technical purposes or for brewing)
 0
 1 000
 Hazelnuts or filberts (Corylus spp.), fresh or dried:
 free
 unlimited
 0802 21 90
 —
 in shell, other than for use as animal feed or for oil extraction
 0802 22 90
 —
 shelled, other than for use as animal feed or for oil extraction
 0802 32 90
 Nuts
 free
 100
 ex ex 0802 90 90
 Pine nuts, fresh or dried
 free
 unlimited
 0805 10 00
 Oranges, fresh or dried
 free
 unlimited
 0805 20 00
 Mandarins (including tangerines and satsumas); wilkings and similar citrus hybrids, fresh or dried
 free
 unlimited
 0807 11 00
 Watermelons, fresh
 free
 unlimited
 0807 19 00
 Melons, fresh, other than watermelons
 free
 unlimited
 Apricots, fresh, in open packings:
 free
 2 100
 0809 10 11
 —
 from 1 September to 30 June
 in other packings:
 0809 10 91
 —
 from 1 September to 30 June
 0809 40 13
 Fresh plums, in open packings, from 1 July to 30 September
 0
 600
 0810 10 10
 Strawberries, fresh, from 1 September to 14 May
 free
 10 000
 0810 10 11
 Strawberries, fresh, from 15 May to 31 August
 0
 200
 0810 20 11
 Raspberries, fresh, from 1 June to 14 September
 0
 250
 0810 50 00
 Kiwi fruit, fresh
 free
 unlimited
 ex ex 0811 10 00
 Strawberries, uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water, frozen, not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, not put up in packings for retail sale, intended for industrial use
 10
 1 000
 ex ex 0811 20 90
 Raspberries, blackberries, mulberries, loganberries and black, white or red currants, gooseberries, uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water, frozen, not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, not put up in packings for retail sale, intended for industrial use
 10
 1 200
 0811 90 10
 Bilberries, uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water, frozen, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter
 0
 200
 0811 90 90
 Edible fruit, uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water, frozen, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter (excluding strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, mulberries, loganberries and black, white or red currants, gooseberries, bilberries and tropical fruit)
 0
 1 000
 0904 20 90
 Fruits of the genus Capsicum or of the genus Pimenta, dried or crushed or ground, processed
 0
 150
 0910 20 00
 Saffron
 free
 unlimited
 1001 90 60
 Wheat and meslin (except durum wheat), for use as animal feed
 Rebate of 0,6 on the duty applied
 50 000
 1005 90 30
 Maize (corn) for use as animal feed
 Rebate of 0,5 on the duty applied
 13 000
 Virgin olive oil, other than for use as animal feed:
 1509 10 91
 —
 in glass containers holding 2 litres or less
 60,60 (4)
 unlimited
 1509 10 99
 —
 in glass containers holding more than 2 litres or in other containers
 86,70 (4)
 unlimited
 Olive oil and its fractions, whether or not refined, but not chemically modified, other than for use as animal feed:
 1509 90 91
 —
 in glass containers holding 2 litres or less
 60,60 (4)
 unlimited
 1509 90 99
 —
 in glass containers holding more than 2 litres or in other containers
 86,70 (4)
 unlimited
 ex ex 0210 19 91
 Hams, in brine, boneless, enclosed in a bladder or in an artificial gut
 free
 3 715
 ex ex 0210 19 91
 Piece of boneless chop, in brine and smoked
 1601 00 11
 1601 00 21
 Sausages and similar products, of meat, meat offal or blood; food preparations based on these products of animals of headings 0101 to 0104, excluding wild boars
 ex ex 0210 19 91
 ex ex 1602 49 10
 Pork neck, dried in air, seasoned or not, whole, in pieces or thinly sliced
 Tomatoes, whole or in pieces, prepared or preserved other than by vinegar or acetic acid:
 2002 10 10
 —
 in containers holding 5 kg or less
 2,50
 unlimited
 2002 10 20
 —
 in containers holding 5 kg or less
 4,50
 unlimited
 Tomatoes, prepared or preserved other than by vinegar or acetic acid, other than whole or in pieces:
 free
 unlimited
 2002 90 10
 —
 in containers holding more than 5 kg
 2002 90 21
 Tomato pulp, puree and concentrate, in hermetically sealed containers, with a dry matter content of 25 % or more by weight, consisting of tomatoes and water and possibly salt or other seasoning, in containers holding 5 kg or less
 free
 unlimited
 2002 90 29
 Tomatoes, prepared or preserved other than by vinegar or acetic acid, other than whole or in pieces, and other than tomato pulp, puree or concentrate:
 —
 in containers holding 5 kg or less
 free
 unlimited
 2003 10 00
 Mushrooms of the genus Agaricus, prepared or preserved other than by vinegar or acetic acid
 0
 1 700
 Artichokes, prepared or preserved other than by vinegar or acetic acid, frozen, other than products of heading No 2006:
 ex ex 2004 90 18
 —
 in containers holding more than 5 kg
 17,5
 unlimited
 ex ex 2004 90 49
 —
 in containers holding 5 kg or less
 24,5
 unlimited
 Asparagus, prepared or preserved other than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, other than products of heading No 2006:
 free
 unlimited
 2005 60 10
 —
 in containers holding more than 5 kg
 2005 60 90
 —
 in containers holding 5 kg or less
 Olives, prepared or preserved other than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, other than products of heading No 2006:
 free
 unlimited
 2005 70 10
 —
 in containers holding more than 5 kg
 2005 70 90
 —
 in containers holding 5 kg or less
 Capers and artichokes, prepared or preserved other than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, other than products of heading No 2006:
 ex ex 2005 99 11
 —
 in containers holding more than 5 kg
 17,5
 unlimited
 ex ex 2005 99 41
 —
 in containers holding 5 kg or less
 24,5
 unlimited
 2008 30 90
 Citrus fruit, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included
 free
 unlimited
 2008 50 10
 Apricot pulp, otherwise prepared or preserved, not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included
 10
 unlimited
 2008 50 90
 Apricots, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included
 15
 unlimited
 2008 70 10
 Peach pulp, otherwise prepared or preserved, not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included
 free
 unlimited
 2008 70 90
 Peaches, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included
 free
 unlimited
 Juice of any other single citrus fruit other than orange, grapefruit or pomelo, unfermented, not containing added spirit:
 ex ex 2009 39 19
 —
 not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, concentrated
 6
 unlimited
 ex ex 2009 39 20
 —
 containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, concentrated
 14
 unlimited
 Dessert wines, specialities and mistelles in containers:
 2204 21 50
 —
 holding 2 litres or less (5)
 8,5
 unlimited
 2204 29 50
 —
 holding more than 2 litres (5)
 8,5
 unlimited
 ex ex 2204 21 50
 Port, in containers holding 2 litres or less, as described (6)
 free
 1 000 hl
 ex ex 2204 21 21
 Retsina (a Greek white wine) in containers holding 2 litres or less, as described (7)
 free
 500 hl
 Retsina (a Greek white wine) in containers holding more than 2 litres, as described (7), of an alcoholic strength:
 ex ex 2204 29 21
 —
 of more than 13 % vol.
 ex ex 2204 29 22
 —
 of 13 % vol. or less
 (1) Including 480 tonnes of Parma and San Daniele ham under the terms of the exchange of letters of 25 January 1972 between the Community and Switzerland.
 (2) Including 170 tonnes of bresaola under the terms of the exchange of letters of 25 January 1972 between the Community and Switzerland.
 (3) Subject to an overall annual quota of 60 000 plants.
 (4) Including the contribution to the guarantee fund for compulsory storage.
 (5) Covers only products specified in Annex 7 to the Agreement.
 (6) Description: ‘Port’ means a quality wine produced in a specified region (Oporto in Portugal) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999.
 (7) Description: ‘Retsina’ means a table wine within the meaning of the Community provisions referred to in point A.2 of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999.
 ANNEX 2
 Concessions granted by the Community
 The tariff concessions set out below are granted by the Community for the following products originating in Switzerland and are, where applicable, subject to an annual quantity:
 CN code
 Description
 Customs duty applicable
 (EUR/100 kg net weight)
 Annual quantity
 (tonnes net weight)
 0102 90 41
 0102 90 49
 0102 90 51
 0102 90 59
 0102 90 61
 0102 90 69
 0102 90 71
 0102 90 79
 Live bovine animals of a live weight exceeding 160 kg
 0
 4 600 head
 ex 0210 20 90
 Meat of bovine animals, boneless, dried
 free
 1 200
 ex 0401 30
 Cream, of a fat content, by weight, exceeding 6 %
 free
 2 000
 0403 10
 Yogurt
 0402 29 11
 ex 0404 90 83
 Special milk, for infants, in hermetically sealed containers of a net content not exceeding 500 g, of a fat content by weight exceeding 10 % (1)
 43,8
 unlimited
 0602
 Other live plants (including their roots), cuttings and slips; mushroom spawn
 free
 unlimited
 0603 11 00
 0603 12 00
 0603 13 00
 0603 14 00
 0603 19
 Cut flowers and flower buds, of a kind suitable for bouquets or for ornamental purposes, fresh
 free
 unlimited
 0701 10 00
 Seed potatoes, fresh or chilled
 free
 4 000
 0702 00 00
 Tomatoes, fresh or chilled:
 free (2)
 1 000
 0703 10 19
 0703 90 00
 Onions other than sets, leeks and other alliaceous vegetables, fresh or chilled
 free
 5 000
 0704 10 00
 0704 90
 Cabbages, cauliflowers, kohlrabi, kale and other similar edible brassicas with the exception of Brussels sprouts, fresh or chilled
 free
 5 500
 0705
 Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and chicory (Cichorium spp.), fresh or chilled
 free
 3 000
 0706 10 00
 Carrots and turnips, fresh or chilled
 free
 5 000
 0706 90 10
 0706 90 90
 Salad beetroot, salsify, celeriac, radishes and similar edible roots, with the exception of horseradish (Cochlearia armoracia), fresh or chilled
 free
 3 000
 0707 00 05
 Cucumbers, fresh or chilled
 free (2)
 1 000
 0708 20 00
 Beans (Vigna spp., Phaseolus spp.), fresh or chilled
 free
 1 000
 0709 30 00
 Aubergines (eggplants), fresh or chilled
 free
 500
 0709 40 00
 Celery other than celeriac, fresh or chilled
 free
 500
 0709 51 00
 0709 59
 Mushrooms and truffles, fresh or chilled
 free
 unlimited
 0709 70 00
 Spinach, New Zealand spinach and orache spinach (garden spinach), fresh or chilled
 free
 1 000
 0709 90 10
 Salad vegetables, other than lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and chicory (Cichorium spp.), fresh or chilled
 free
 1 000
 0709 90 20
 Chard (or white beet) and cardoons
 free
 300
 0709 90 50
 Fennel, fresh or chilled
 free
 1 000
 0709 90 70
 Courgettes, fresh or chilled
 free (2)
 1 000
 0709 90 90
 Other vegetables, fresh or chilled
 free
 1 000
 0710 80 61
 0710 80 69
 Mushrooms (uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water), frozen
 free
 unlimited
 0712 90
 Dried vegetables, whole, cut, sliced, broken or in powder, whether or not obtained from cooked vegetables, but not further prepared, with the exception of onions, mushrooms and truffles
 free
 unlimited
 ex 0808 10 80
 Apples, other than cider apples, fresh
 free (2)
 3 000
 0808 20
 Pears and quinces, fresh
 free (2)
 3 000
 0809 10 00
 Apricots, fresh
 free (2)
 500
 0809 20 95
 Cherries, other than sour cherries (Prunus cerasus), fresh
 free (2)
 1 500 (2)
 0809 40
 Plums and sloes, fresh
 free (2)
 1 000
 0810 10 00
 Strawberries
 free
 200
 0810 20 10
 Raspberries, fresh
 free
 100
 0810 20 90
 Blackberries, mulberries and loganberries, fresh
 free
 100
 1106 30 10
 Flour, meal and powder of bananas
 free
 5
 1106 30 90
 Flour, meal and powder of other fruits of Chapter 8
 free
 unlimited
 ex 0210 19 50
 Hams, in brine, boneless, enclosed in a bladder or in an artificial gut
 free
 1 900
 ex 0210 19 81
 Piece of boneless chop smoked
 ex 1601 00
 Sausages and similar products, of meat, meat offal or blood; food preparations based on these products of animals of headings 0101 to 0104, excluding wild boars
 ex 0210 19 81
 ex 1602 49 19
 Pork neck, dried in air, seasoned or not, whole, in pieces or thinly sliced
 ex 2002 90 91
 ex 2002 90 99
 Powdered tomatoes, whether or not containing added sugar, other sweetening matter or starch (4)
 free
 unlimited
 2003 90 00
 Mushrooms, other of the genus Agaricus, prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid
 free
 unlimited
 0710 10 00
 Potatoes, uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water, frozen
 free
 3 000
 2004 10 10
 2004 10 99
 Potatoes, prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, frozen, other than products of heading No 2006, with the exception of flour, meal or flakes
 2005 20 80
 Potatoes, prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, other than products of heading 2006, with the exception of flour, meal or flakes and preparations that are thinly sliced, fried or baked, whether or not salted or flavoured, in airtight packings, suitable for immediate consumption
 ex 2005 91 00
 ex 2005 99
 Powdered preparations of vegetables and mixtures of vegetables, whether or not containing added sugar, other sweetening matter or starch (4)
 free
 unlimited
 ex 2008 30
 Flaked or powdered citrus fruit, whether or not containing added sugar, other sweetening matter or starch (4)
 free
 unlimited
 ex 2008 40
 Flaked or powdered pears, whether or not containing added sugar, other sweetening matter or starch (4)
 free
 unlimited
 ex 2008 50
 Flaked or powdered apricots, whether or not containing added sugar, other sweetening matter or starch (4)
 free
 unlimited
 2008 60
 Cherries, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included
 free
 500
 ex 0811 90 19
 ex 0811 90 39
 Cherries, uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water, frozen, containing added sugar or other sweetening matter
 0811 90 80
 Cherries, other than sour cherries (Prunus cerasus), uncooked or cooked by steaming or boiling in water, frozen, not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter
 ex 2008 70
 Flaked or powdered peaches, whether or not containing added sugar, other sweetening matter or starch (4)
 free
 unlimited
 ex 2008 80
 Flaked or powdered strawberries, whether or not containing added sugar, other sweetening matter or starch (4)
 free
 unlimited
 ex 2008 99
 Other flaked or powdered fruits, whether or not containing added sugar, other sweetening matter or starch (4)
 free
 unlimited
 ex 2009 19
 Powdered orange juice, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter
 free
 unlimited
 ex 2009 21 00
 ex 2009 29
 Powdered grapefruit juice, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter
 free
 unlimited
 ex 2009 31
 ex 2009 39
 Powdered juices of any other citrus fruits, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter
 free
 unlimited
 ex 2009 41
 ex 2009 49
 Powdered pineapple juice, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter
 free
 unlimited
 ex 2009 71
 ex 2009 79
 Powdered apple juice, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter
 free
 unlimited
 ex 2009 80
 Powdered juice of any other single fruit or vegetable, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter
 free
 unlimited
 (1) For the products of this subheading, ‘special milk for infants’ means products that are free of pathogenic and toxicogenic germs and which contain less than 10 000 revivifiable aerobic bacteria and less than two coliform bacteria per gram.
 (2) Where relevant, a specific duty and not the minimum duty should apply.
 (3) Including 1 000 tonnes under the terms of the Exchange of Letters of 14 July 1986.
 (4) See Joint Declaration on the tariff classification of powdered vegetables and powdered fruit.


type: caselaw

text:
 2.9.2006
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 212/43
 Žaloba podaná 18. júla 2006 – SNIA/Komisia
 (Vec T-194/06)
 (2006/C 212/73)
 Jazyk konania: taliančina
 Účastníci konania
 Žalobca: SNIA S.p.A (v zastúpení: Alberto Santa Maria a Claudi Biscaretti di Rufia, advokáti)
 Žalovaná: Komisia Európskych spoločenstiev
 Návrhy žalobcu
 —
 zrušiť rozhodnutie Komisie K(2006) 1766, konečné znenie, z 3. mája 2006 vo veci COMP/F/38.620 – Peroxid vodíka a perboritan sodný v rozsahu, v akom ukladá spoločnosti SNIA S.p.A. spoločne a solidárne so spoločnosťou Caffaro S.r.l. peňažnú pokutu vo výške 1 078 000 eur,
 —
 zaviazať žalovanú na náhradu trov konania.
 Žalobné dôvody a hlavné tvrdenia
 Napadnuté rozhodnutie je rovnaké ako vo veci T-185/06 L'air Liquide/Komisia.
 Komisia v tomto rozhodnutí tvrdí, že spoločnosť Industrie Chimiche Caffaro S.p.A (ICC) bola v rozhodujúcom období z hľadiska konania závislá nielen od spoločnosti Caffaro S.p.A., spoločnosti kótovanej na talianskej burze a vykonávajúcej 100 %-nú kontrolu nad spoločnosťou ICC, ale aj od žalobcu, majoritného akcionára spoločnosti Caffaro S.p.A., ktorý je držiteľom 53 % až 59 % akcií. Na základe tohto nepriameho prepojenia je žalobca považovaný za výlučne zodpovedného za porušenie, z ktorého Komisia obviňuje spoločnosť Caffaro S.r.l.
 Na podporu svojich tvrdení žalobca uvádza, že:
 —
 Komisia nepreukázala vzťah závislosti medzi spoločnosťami SNIA a ICC počas sporného obdobia. Komisia rovnako nepreukázala existenciu takéhoto vzťahu počas toho istého obdobia medzi spoločnosťou Caffaro S.p.A. a spoločnosťou ICC,
 —
 vzhľadom na dôležitosť fúzie medzi spoločnosťou Caffaro S.p.A. a spoločnosťou SNIA na účely určenia rozhodujúceho vplyvu spoločnosti SNIA, nevzala Komisia do úvahy skutočnosť, že fúzia zlúčením spoločnosti Caffaro S.p.A. so spoločnosťou SNIA S.p.A. (ako zmena mena spoločnosti z ICC na Caffaro S.p.A.) nastala v roku 2000, čo je rok po stiahnutí sa z trhu s bieliacimi prípravkami, a že Komisia, ako už bolo uvedené, v žiadnom prípade nepreukázala rozhodujúci vplyv spoločnosti Caffaro S.p.A. na spoločnosť ICC,
 —
 výlučne zodpovedná za údajné porušenie je spoločnosť ICC (teraz Caffaro S.r.l.), ktorá okrem toho nezanikla ako právnická osoba, ale iba zmenila svoje meno. Okrem toho aj za predpokladu, že spoločnosť Caffaro S.p.A. bola zodpovedná za údajné porušenie, jej právnym nástupcom je spoločnosť Caffaro S.r.l. a nie spoločnosť SNIA.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21992D0218(01)
 Decision No 3/91 of the EEC-Austria Joint Committee of 19 December 1991 amending Protocol 3 concerning the definition of the concept of originating products and methods of administrative cooperation
 Official Journal L 042 , 18/02/1992 P. 0039 - 0040
 DECISION N° 3/91 OF THE EEC-AUSTRIA JOINT COMMITTEEof 19 December 1991amending Protocol 3 concerning the definition of the concept of originating products and methods of administrative cooperation(92/108/EEC)THE JOINT COMMITTEE, Having regard to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Austria, signed in Brussels on 22 July 1972, Having regard to Protocol 3 concerning the definition of the concept of originating products and methods of administrative cooperation, hereinafter referred to as Protocol 3, and in particular Article 28 thereof, Whereas there is no manufacture of maize flour (masa flour) in the Community, nor in the EFTA countries, a modification, limited to a two-year period, of the rules of origin established by Protocol 3 applicable to products of HS heading N° 1905, is justified, HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1The reference (1) and the footnote in the list annexed to this Decision shall be inserted in the List in Annex III to Protocol 3 to the EEC-Austria Agreement. Article 2This Decision shall apply with effect from 1 December 1991. Done at Brussels, 19 December 1991. For the Joint CommitteeThe PresidentG. WAAS ANNEX List of working or processing required to be carried out on non-originating materials in order that the product manufactured can obtain originating status >TABLE>


text:
 22.2.2016
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 68/45
 2015. lapkričio 27 d. pareikštas ieškinys byloje ZZ/Parlamentas
 (Byla F-146/15)
 (2016/C 068/58)
 Proceso kalba: prancūzų
 Šalys
 Ieškovas: ZZ, atstovaujamas advokatų S. Orlandi ir T. Martin
 Atsakovė: Europos Parlamentas
 Ginčo dalykas bei aprašymas
 Parlamento sprendimo atmesti prašymą konvertuoti vertinimo ataskaitas, kurios buvo priimtos po ieškovo pareigų paaukštinimo į AD 12 lygį, į nuopelnų taškus.
 Ieškovo reikalavimai
 —
 Panaikinti 2015 m. balandžio 8 d. paskyrimų tarnybos sprendimą atmesti prašymą prašymą konvertuoti vertinimo ataskaitas, kurios buvo priimtos po ieškovo pareigų paaukštinimo į AD 12 lygį, į nuopelnų taškus.
 —
 Priteisti iš Parlamento bylinėjimosi išlaidas.


text:
Lisanne Falk (Long Beach, Nueva York; 3 de diciembre de 1964) es una actriz y productora de películas estadounidense.
 Falk interpretó el papel de Heather McNamara en la película Heathers (1988). Falk también es una exmodelo cuando era niña, que trabajaba en la agencia Ford Modeling Agency con Brooke Shields. Falk puede ser mejor reconocida por interpretar a una joven aparentemente molesta en un baño de hombres en el álbum de los Foreigner, Head Games. Su trabajo como modelo fue presentado en el libro Lisanne: A Young Model.
 Filmografía
 Born Beautiful (1982) .... Modelo
 Violated (1984) .... Judy Engele
 Prince of Bel Air (1986) .... Stacy
 Less Than Zero (1987) .... Patti
 Werewolf (1987) .... Michelle
 In the Mood (1987) .... Jamie
 I Love N.Y. (1987) .... Linda
 Heathers (1988) .... Heather McNamara
 The Preppie Murder (1989).... Alex LaGatta
 Say Anything... (1989) .... Sandra
 ABC Afterschool Specials (1990) .... Karen
 Aftermath: A Test of Love (1991) .... Gretchen
 Night on Earth (1991) .... Mánager
 Runaway Father (1991) .... Marjean
 Dead Silence (1991) .... Joan Reducci
 Leather Jackets (1992) .... Shanna
 Suicide Kings (1997) .... Esposa de Marty
 The First to Go (1997) .... Anne
 Shattered Image (1998) .... Paula/Laura
 Casablanca (cortometraje) (2002) .... Wendy
 Referencias
 Nacidos en Long Beach (Nueva York)
 Modelos femeninas de Estados Unidos
 Actrices de cine de Estados Unidos


text:
 13.3.2010
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 C 63/24
 Portugali Vabariigi 7. detsembril 2009 esitatud apellatsioonkaebus Euroopa Ühenduste Esimese Astme Kohtu (seitsmes koda) 23. septembri 2009. aasta otsuse peale kohtuasjas T-385/05: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA versus komisjon
 (Kohtuasi C-506/09 P)
 2010/C 63/39
 Kohtumenetluse keel: inglise
 Pooled
 Apellant: Portugali Vabariik (esindajad: L. Fernandes, C. Guerra Santos, J. Gomes ja P. Rocha)
 Teised menetluspooled: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação, SA, Euroopa Komisjon
 Apellandi nõuded
 Apellant palub Euroopa Kohtul:
 —
 rahuldada Portugali ametivõimude esitatud apellatsioonkaebus, peatades kohtuasja lahendamise Üldkohtu otsuse kuulutamiseni, niivõrd kuivõrd kolmandate poolte menetlustes on vaja arutada mitte ainult õigusküsimusi, vaid uurida ka faktilisi asjaolusid;
 —
 tühistada 23. septembri 2009. aasta otsus kohtuasjas T-385/05: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA versus komisjon, millega see kohus tühistas komisjoni 6. juuli 2005. aasta otsuse REM 05/2004, millega lükati tagasi Transnáutica taotlus tollimaksude tagastamiseks ja vähendamiseks;
 —
 mõista kohtukulud välja Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA-lt.
 Väited ja peamised argumendid
 Apellant väidab, et Esimese Astme Kohus eksis, kui leidis, et Portugali toll toimis valesti, kui määras kindlaks ja kontrollis kõnealustes transiiditehingutes kasutatud garantiitunnistust.
 Apellant väidab samuti, et võimatu on tuvastada mistahes põhjuslikku seost Portugali ametivõimude poolt väidetavalt toime pandud eksimuste ja kauba tollijärelevalve alt hilisema väljaviimise vahel ning leiab, et vastupidisele seisukohale asudes on Esimese Astme Kohus rikkunud Euroopa Liidu õigust.


text:
Dáileoir Córais Soláthair Cumhachta Neamh-inrite (UPS) | Dáileoir Comhpháirteanna Leictreonacha | Components-Mart.com
 Baile > Táirgí > Cosaint Líne, Dáileadh, backups > Córais Soláthair Cumhachta Neamh-inrite (UPS)
 Córais Soláthair Cumhachta Neamh-inrite (UPS)542 Products Found
 Tuairisc:UPS SMART ONLINE
 Cuid #:SU20K3/3XR5
 $5018.107/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:2320267
 Tuairisc:QUINT-UPS/ 24DC/ 24DC/10/3.4AH
 $200.062/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:UPS23914UB
 Tuairisc:GT SERIES 6000VA 240/208/120V
 $1134.87/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SMART1200XLHGL
 Tuairisc:SMARTPRO 120V 1KVA 750W MEDICAL-
 $648.712/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:UPS003024024015
 Tuairisc:UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY
 Cuid #:SM2200RMNAFTA
 Tuairisc:UPS 2200VA 1600W 8OUT RACK/TOWER
 I stoc:6082
 Cuid #:SMX2200XLRT2U
 Tuairisc:UPS INTL SMART RACKMOUNT
 $437.41/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:AKKUTEC2402
 Tuairisc:DC UPS BUFFER115-230VAC INPUT 2A
 $117.982/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SUT40K
 Tuairisc:40KVA 40KW SMART ONLINE 3-PHASE
 $6311.223/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SMART2500XLHG
 Tuairisc:UPS SMART TOWER HOSPITAL MEDICAL
 $612.471/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:BC PRO600
 Tuairisc:BATT BACKUP 600VA 3UPS/3SURGE
 $47.448/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SB-20002
 Tuairisc:UPS 230V 2KVA/1200W 6 OUTLETS
 $92.854/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:CBI123A
 Tuairisc:UPS 12VDC 3A DIN RAIL
 $73.025/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:UPS12434
 Tuairisc:BATTERY CABINET FOR LP11U
 $361.241/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SMART3000RMXLN
 Tuairisc:UPS SMART RACKMOUNT AVR
 $536.492/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SMART3000RM2UN
 Tuairisc:UPS SMART LCD RACKMOUNT AVR
 $517.492/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SUINT2000XLCD
 Tuairisc:SMARTONLINE 230V 2KVA 1800W ON-L
 $382.573/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SB2-05502
 Tuairisc:UPS, STANDBY, 550VA/330W, 230V
 I stoc:1917
 $22.576/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:DRU-24V40ABN
 Tuairisc:UPS MODULE 40A 24V DIN
 I stoc:2028
 $18.819/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SPUC12360
 Tuairisc:UPS CONTROLLER 12VDC 360W
 $55.461/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SU40KX
 $7065.722/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:S8BA-24D24D960SBF
 Tuairisc:BATT BACKUP 24VDC 960W W/O BATT
 $152.212/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:UPS25513
 Tuairisc:VH 2000 TOWER/RACKMT LINE INTERA
 $451.239/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SMART700
 Tuairisc:UPS 700VA 450W 6OUT W/SOFTWARE
 I stoc:7633
 Cuid #:UPS23913UB
 Tuairisc:GT SERIES 5000VA 240/208/120V
 $1012.915/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:2320238
 Tuairisc:UPS 24VDC 20A DIN RAIL
 $154.744/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:OMNIVS1500XLTAA
 Tuairisc:UPS BATTERY BACK UP TOWER AVR
 $115.406/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SB2-07501
 Tuairisc:UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY (UP
 $26.866/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:UPS16180
 Tuairisc:GT SERIES 3000VA 120V RACKMOUNT
 Cuid #:SM3000RMNAFTA
 Tuairisc:UPS 3000VA 2250W 9OUT RACK/TOWER
 $470.031/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:CBI1235A
 Tuairisc:UPS 12VDC 35A DIN RAIL
 $237.133/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:AKKUTEC2420
 Tuairisc:DC UPS BUFFER 230VAC INPUT-1PHAS
 $305.766/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:UPS1020629
 Tuairisc:PDU FOR GT SERIES 5 & 6KVA
 $261.738/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SMC1000T
 Tuairisc:UPS INTERNATIONAL SMART TOWER
 $123.69/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SU8000RT3UTAA
 Tuairisc:SMARTONLINE 208/240V 8KVA ON-LIN
 $1989.185/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SM1050NAFTA
 Tuairisc:UPS 1050VA 705W 6OUT TOWER
 I stoc:8186
 Cuid #:SMART5000RT3UXL
 Tuairisc:UPS 5KVA 4000W 14OUT RKMNT W/BAT
 Cuid #:SU16KRT-1TFTAA
 Tuairisc:SMARTONLINE 120V 208/240V 16KVA
 $4363.093/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SUINT1000RTXL2U
 Tuairisc:INTERNATIONAL UPS SYSTEM
 $314.749/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:UPS108LP2230000
 Tuairisc:LP11U 8000VA DOUBLE CONVERSION
 $2062.013/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SU80KX
 Tuairisc:INTL UPS SYSTEM SMART
 $10431.035/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SMART3000RMOD2U
 $532.123/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SMART1500RM2UN
 $365.688/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:UPS23920EBM
 Tuairisc:BATTERY CABINET FOR GT SERIES
 $448.177/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:INTERNET900TAA
 Tuairisc:UPS DESKTOP BATTERY BACK UP
 $60.554/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SCV-15001
 Tuairisc:UPS SYSTEM 1.5KVA 1350W 4OUT
 $267.605/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SUINT1000XLCD
 Tuairisc:SMARTONLINE 230V 1KVA 900W ON-LI
 $254.8/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SU10000RT3TFTAA
 Tuairisc:SMARTONLINE 120/208V 10KVA ON-LI
 $2931.618/pcsFiosrúcháin
 Cuid #:SU2200XLNAFTA
 Tuairisc:UPS TRUEONLINE 2.2KVA 1600W 7OUT
 I stoc:7450
 Cuid #:SMART750XL
 Tuairisc:UPS 750VA 450W 8OUT W/SOFTWARE


text:
 3.7.2010
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 C 179/35
 Üldkohtu 11. mai 2010. aasta otsus — Abadía Retuerta versus Siseturu Ühtlustamise Amet (CUVÉE PALOMAR)
 (Kohtuasi T-237/08) (1)
 (Ühenduse kaubamärk - Ühenduse sõnamärgi CUVÉE PALOMAR taotlus - Absoluutne keeldumispõhjus - Geograafilisi tähiseid sisaldavad veini kaubamärgid - TRIPS-leping - Määruse (EÜ) nr 40/94 artikli 7 lõike 1 punkt j (nüüd määruse (EÜ) nr 207/2009 artikli 7 lõike 1 punkt j))
 2010/C 179/59
 Kohtumenetluse keel: hispaania
 Pooled
 Hageja: Abadía Retuerta, SA (Sardón de Duero, Hispaania) (esindajad: advokaadid X. Fàbrega Sabaté ja M-l. Curell Aguilà)
 Kostja: Siseturu Ühtlustamise Amet (kaubamärgid ja tööstusdisainilahendused) (esindaja: J. Crespo Carrillo)
 Ese
 Siseturu Ühtlustamise Ameti esimese apellatsioonikoja 2. aprilli 2008. aasta otsuse peale esitatud hagi (asi R 1185/2007-1), mis käsitleb sõnamärgi CUVÉE PALOMAR ühenduse kaubamärgina registreerimist.
 Resolutsioon
 1.
 Jätta hagi rahuldamata.
 2.
 Mõista kohtukulud välja Abadía Retuerta, SA-lt.
 (1) ELT C 272, 25.10.2008.