type: other

text:
X’nista’ nitlob fit-talba u kif għandi nippreżentaha (nindika ammont totali u/jew nispeċifika t-telf individwali, il-profitti u l-imgħaxijiet mitlufa)?
 Nista’ nikseb għajnuna legali qabel u/jew waqt il-proċedimenti? Nista’ nirċiviha anke jekk ma nkunx qed ngħix fil-pajjiż fejn iseħħu l-proċedimenti?
 Id-dritt għal kumpens kontra trasgressur jista’ jintalab fil-proċedimenti kriminali b’mod orali fil-minuti tas-seduta jew b’petizzjoni miktuba speċifika. Vittma li hi intitolata skont il-liġi li titlob kumpens kontra l-imputat għad-danni kkawżati minn reat kriminali tkun intitolata wkoll li tippreżenta petizzjoni quddiem il-qorti biex din tordna lill-imputat iħallas kumpens għad-danni meta taqta’ s-sentenza; il-vittma trid tagħmel din il-petizzjoni sa mhux aktar tard minn tmiem l-investigazzjoni jew l-investigazzjoni sommarja. Il-petizzjoni trid tagħmel ċari r-raġunijiet għat-talba u l-ammont tal-kumpens imfittex. Il-vittma tiġi avżata dwar id-dritt għal kumpens u l-proċedura biex teżerċita dan id-dritt matul is-seduta.
 Jekk ikun hemm tħassib raġonevoli li s-sodisfazzjon tat-talba tal-vittma għall-kumpens tad-danni kkawżati mir-reat ser tkun imxekkla jew impedita, it-talba sal-ammont probabbli tad-danni tista’ tiġi garantita fuq il-proprjetà jew fuq drittijiet oħra tal-proprjetà tal-imputat. Il-qorti tiddeċiedi dwar is-sekwestru fuq il-bażi ta’ petizzjoni mill-prosekutur jew mill-vittma; fil-fażi ta’ qabel il-proċess, il-prosekutur jiddeċiedi fuq il-bażi ta’ petizzjoni mill-vittma; fil-fażi ta’ qabel il-proċess, il-prosekutur jista’ jiggarantixxi t-talba anki mingħajr petizzjoni mill-vittma jekk il-protezzjoni tal-interessi tal-vittma tkun tesiġi hekk, speċjalment jekk ikun hemm riskju ta’ dewmien.
 Biex it-talba għal kumpens tad-danni tintlaqa’ fi proċedimenti kriminali, it-talba trid tiġi ppreżentata mill-vittma sa tmiem l-investigazzjoni jew l-investigazzjoni sommarja.
 Sabiex qorti tikkunsidra talba għad-danni fi proċedimenti kriminali, il-vittma trid tippreżenta t-talba b’mod xieraq u fil-ħin. Talba għad-danni ppreżentata sa mhux aktar tard minn tmiem l-investigazzjoni titqies li hi talba fil-ħin, u dan ifisser li, fil-prinċipju, ikun hemm bżonn li l-preżentazzjoni ssir qabel l-eżaminazzjoni finali tal-fajl tal-investigazzjoni. It-talba asserita għall-kumpens trid tagħmel ċari r-raġunijiet għat-talba u l-ammont tal-kumpens li tkun qed titlob il-vittma. Imbagħad il-qorti tkun marbuta bl-ammont tad-danni mitlub mill-vittma matul il-proċedimenti kriminali.
 Matul l-investigazzjoni, ikun hemm bżonn li tiġi ppreżentata evidenza li turi r-raġonevolezza tat-talba għad-danni u li minnha jkun possibbli li jiġi dedott b’mod affidabbli l-ammont tad-dannu mġarrab. Fil-każ ta’ offiża fuq il-persuna, matul l-investigazzjoni jista’ jiġi assenjat espert biex jivvaluta l-ammont ta’ offiża fuq il-persuna.
 Ma hemm ebda tariffa marbuta mat-talba tad-danni fi proċedimenti kriminali.
 Meta vittma tagħmel talba għal kumpens u ma jkollhiex biżżejjed riżorsi biex tħallas l-ispejjeż assoċjati, fil-fażi ta’ qabel il-proċess il-prosekutur, jew inkella l-imħallef li jippresjedi fi proċess, jista’ jaħtar solicitor bħala r-rappreżentant tagħha, wara li titressaq l-akkuża, anki mingħajr petizzjoni jekk dan jitqies neċessarju biex jipproteġi l-interessi tal-vittma. Il-vittma trid turi bil-provi li hi m’għandhiex biżżejjed riżorsi.
 Fl-ewwel kuntatt mal-vittma, awtorità tal-prosekuzzjoni kriminali tkun meħtieġa tipprovdilha informazzjoni f’forma bil-miktub dwar drittijietha fil-prosekuzzjoni kriminali u dwar l-organizzazzjonijiet ta’ appoġġ għall-vittmi, inklużi s-servizzi pprovduti minnhom. Anki l-pariri legali huma parti minn dawn is-servizzi.
 Jekk l-eżitu tal-evidenza ma jkunx bażi għad-dikjarazzjoni tal-obbligu għal kumpens jew jekk tkun neċessarja evidenza addizzjonali li tmur lil hinn mill-ħtiġijiet tal-prosekuzzjoni biex tittieħed deċiżjoni dwar l-obbligu għal kumpens.
 Iva, il-vittma tista’ tappella kontra deċiżjoni bħal din b’rabta mat-talba għad-danni.
 Jekk l-appell tal-vittma ma jintlaqax, imbagħad il-vittma tkun tista’ tippreżenta t-talba tagħha għad-danni direttament kontra l-konvenut fi proċedimenti ċivili. Fil-każ ta’ reati vjolenti, il-vittma tista’ titlob lill-Ministeru tal-Ġustizzja biex jikkumpensa għall-offiża fuq il-persuna u għad-dannu morali fil-każ ta’ ċerti reati kontra l-libertà u d-dinjità umana.
 F'każ li t-trasgressur jonqos minn jeddu milli jissodisfa l-obbligi tiegħu, kif ordnati mill-qorti fi proċedimenti kriminali, il-vittma tikseb ordni ta’ infurzar meta t-tali deċiżjoni tal-qorti ssir eżegwibbli, li hi tkun tista’ tapplika kontra t-trasgressur fl-ambitu tal-infurzar obbligatorju tad-deċiżjoni fi proċedimenti ta’ infurzar. F’każijiet bħal dawn, il-vittma tista’ tfittex għajnuna legali mingħand solicitor.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
8.5.2017
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea
 C 144/16
 Impugnazione proposta il 29 dicembre 2016 dalla Guccio Gucci SpA avverso la sentenza del Tribunale (Terza Sezione) dell'11 ottobre 2016 nella causa T-461/15, Guccio Gucci SpA/Ufficio europeo per la proprietà intellettuale
 (Causa C-675/16 P)
 (2017/C 144/21)
 Lingua processuale: l'inglese
 Parti
 Ricorrente: Guccio Gucci SpA (rappresentanti: V. Volpi, P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi e N. Parrotta, avvocati)
 Altre parti nel procedimento: Ufficio europeo per la proprietà intellettuale; Guess? IP Holder LP
 Conclusioni della ricorrente
 La ricorrente chiede che la Corte voglia:
 —
 annullare la sentenza impugnata;
 —
 condannare l’EUIPO alle spese sostenute dalla ricorrente nel corso di tali procedimenti;
 —
 condannare la Guess alle spese sostenute dalla ricorrente nel corso di tali procedimenti.
 Motivi e principali argomenti
 1.
 Con il presente ricorso, la Guccio Gucci SpA (in prosieguo: la «Gucci» o la «ricorrente») chiede che la Corte di giustizia annulli la sentenza del Tribunale dell’Unione europea (Terza Sezione), nella causa T-461/15 (in prosieguo: la «sentenza impugnata»), con la quale il Tribunale ha respinto il ricorso della Gucci avverso la decisione della quarta commissione di ricorso del 27 maggio 2015, nel procedimento R 2049/2014-44, che ha confermato la decisione della divisione di annullamento del 31 luglio 2014, che ha respinto la sua domanda di dichiarazione di nullità della registrazione del marchio dell’Unione europea n. 5538012, nelle classi 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 e 35 (in prosieguo: il «marchio controverso»), presentata dalla Guess? IP Holder LP (in prosieguo: la «Guess»).
 2.
 Il presente ricorso è diretto a dimostrare che il Tribunale è incorso in errore nel concludere che i motivi di nullità stabiliti dall’articolo 8, paragrafo 1, lettera b), e dall’articolo 8, paragrafo 5, del regolamento del Consiglio (CE) n. 207/2009 (1) del 26 febbraio 2009 (versione antecedente alla modifica) (in prosieguo: l’«RMC») non si applicano al marchio controverso. In particolare, il Tribunale ha manifestamente snaturato i fatti e gli elementi di prova ad esso sottoposti nella valutazione della somiglianza tra i segni in conflitto e, di conseguenza, ha applicato erroneamente sia l’articolo 8, paragrafo 1, lettera b), che l’articolo 8, paragrafo 5, del RMC; inoltre, esso non ha motivato la sentenza impugnata.
 3.
 Il Tribunale ha escluso qualsiasi somiglianza tra i marchi in conflitto sulla base dell’ipotesi che il pubblico di riferimento (...) non percepirà nel marchio [controverso] la lettera maiuscola «G», rappresentata dai marchi anteriori, ma piuttosto un motivo ornamentale astratto. Inoltre, data la stilizzazione del segno e il fatto che i suoi elementi sono intrecciati o uniti, esso potrebbe essere percepito sia come una riproduzione di lettere stilizzate, quali la lettera maiuscola «X» o la lettera «e», sia come una combinazione di cifre e di lettere, quali il numero «3» e la lettera «e» (v., in tal senso, il punto 30 della sentenza impugnata). Tale ipotesi costituisce il punto cruciale della sentenza impugnata, che ha portato il Tribunale a escludere qualsiasi somiglianza tra i marchi in conflitto e, di conseguenza, a escludere l’applicabilità al caso di specie dell’articolo 8, paragrafo 1, lettera b), e dell’articolo 8, paragrafo 5, del RMC.
 4.
 Tuttavia, l’ipotesi summenzionata è manifestamente erronea. Ciò appare evidente dai documenti depositati nel fascicolo di causa i quali dimostrano chiaramente che il pubblico di riferimento percepisce la lettera maiuscola «G» nel marchio controverso, come risulta da un sondaggio d’opinione sulla percezione del marchio controverso da parte del pubblico presentato dalla Gucci. Tale manifesto snaturamento dei fatti e degli elementi di prova ha influito sulla valutazione del Tribunale del ricorso presentato dalla Gucci: se il Tribunale avesse ammesso che il pubblico di riferimento — o almeno una parte di tale pubblico — avrebbe percepito il marchio controverso come una combinazione di lettere maiuscole «G», esso non avrebbe potuto escludere la somiglianza tra i marchi in conflitto e di conseguenza l’applicabilità sia dell’articolo 8, paragrafo 1, lettera b), che dell’articolo 8, paragrafo 5, del RMC.
 (1) Regolamento (CE) n. 207/2009 del Consiglio del 26 febbraio 2009 sul marchio comunitario (versione codificata), GU 2009, L 78, pag. 1.


type: contracts

text:
 15.12.2016
 EN
 Official Journal of the European Union
 L 341/75
 DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
 No 174/2015
 of 11 June 2015
 amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms [2016/2209]
 THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
 Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Articles 86 and 98 thereof,
 Whereas:
 (1)
 Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on a European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (‘EaSI’) and amending Decision No 283/2010/EU establishing a European Progress Microfinance Facility for employment and social inclusion (1) was incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 151/2014 of 27 June 2014 (2).
 (2)
 The limited participation of Norway in the Programme should be extended to the Progress axis.
 (3)
 Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to take place from 1 January 2015,
 HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
 Article 1
 In paragraph 8 of Article 15 of Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, the words ‘EURES axis’ are replaced by the words ‘Progress and EURES axes’:
 Article 2
 This Decision shall enter into force on the day following the last notification under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement (*1).
 It shall apply from 1 January 2015.
 Article 3
 This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.
 Done at Brussels, 11 June 2015.
 For the EEA Joint Committee
 The President
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 238.
 (2) See p. 44 of this Official Journal.
 (*1) No constitutional requirements indicated.


text:
 25.9.2008
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 L 257/30
 ROZHODNUTÍ SMÍŠENÉHO VÝBORU EHP
 č. 67/2008
 ze dne 6. června 2008,
 kterým se mění příloha XI (Telekomunikační služby) Dohody o EHP
 SMÍŠENÝ VÝBOR EHP,
 s ohledem na Dohodu o Evropském hospodářském prostoru, ve znění Protokolu o úpravě Dohody o Evropském hospodářském prostoru (dále jen „Dohoda“), a zejména s ohledem na článek 98 této Dohody,
 vzhledem k těmto důvodům:
 (1)
 Příloha XI Dohody byla změněna rozhodnutím Smíšeného výboru EHP č. 11/2008 ze dne 1. února 2008 (1).
 (2)
 Rozhodnutí Komise 2007/804/ES ze dne 6. prosince 2007, kterým se mění rozhodnutí 2002/627/ES, kterým se zřizuje skupina evropských regulačních orgánů pro sítě a služby elektronických komunikací (2), by mělo být začleněno do Dohody,
 ROZHODL TAKTO:
 Článek 1
 V bodě 5ci (rozhodnutí Komise 2002/627/ES) přílohy XI Dohody se doplňuje nová odrážka, která zní:
 „—
 32007 D 0804: rozhodnutí Komise 2007/804/ES ze dne 6. prosince 2007 (Úř. věst. L 323, 8.12.2007, s. 43).“
 Článek 2
 Znění rozhodnutí 2007/804/ES v islandském a norském jazyce, která mají být zveřejněna v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropské unie, jsou platná.
 Článek 3
 Toto rozhodnutí vstupuje v platnost dnem 7. června 2008 za předpokladu, že Smíšenému výboru EHP jsou učiněna veškerá oznámení podle čl. 103 odst. 1 Dohody (3).
 Článek 4
 Toto rozhodnutí bude zveřejněno v oddílu EHP a v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropské unie.
 V Bruselu dne 6. června 2008.
 Za Smíšený výbor EHP
 předseda
 Alan SEATTER
 (1) Úř. věst. L 154, 12.6.2008, s. 23.
 (2) Úř. věst. L 323, 8.12.2007, s. 43.
 (3) Nebyly oznámeny žádné ústavní požadavky.


jurisdiction: US

text: b"Department of Health and Human Services\n OFFICE OF\n INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n MEDICARE COMPLIANCE\n REVIEW OF MASSACHUSETTS\n GENERAL HOSPITAL\n FOR CALENDAR YEARS\n 2010 AND 2011\n\n\n Inquiries about this report may be addressed to the Office of Public Affairs at\n Public.Affairs@oig.hhs.gov.\n\n\n\n\n Brian P. Ritchie\n Assistant Inspector General\n\n April 2014\n A-01-12-00520\n\x0c Office of Inspector General\n https://oig.hhs.gov\n\n\n\nThe mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as amended, is\nto protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) programs, as well as the\nhealth and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This statutory mission is carried out\nthrough a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and inspections conducted by the following\noperating components:\n\nOffice of Audit Services\n\nThe Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides auditing services for HHS, either by conducting audits with\nits own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. Audits examine the performance of\nHHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying out their respective responsibilities and are\nintended to provide independent assessments of HHS programs and operations. These assessments help\nreduce waste, abuse, and mismanagement and promote economy and efficiency throughout HHS.\n\nOffice of Evaluation and Inspections\nThe Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts national evaluations to provide HHS, Congress,\nand the public with timely, useful, and reliable information on significant issues. These evaluations focus\non preventing fraud, waste, or abuse and promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of\ndepartmental programs. To promote impact, OEI reports also present practical recommendations for\nimproving program operations.\n\nOffice of Investigations\nThe Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations of fraud and\nmisconduct related to HHS programs, operations, and beneficiaries. With investigators working in all 50\nStates and the District of Columbia, OI utilizes its resources by actively coordinating with the Department\nof Justice and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities. The investigative efforts of OI\noften lead to criminal convictions, administrative sanctions, and/or civil monetary penalties.\n\nOffice of Counsel to the Inspector General\nThe Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides general legal services to OIG, rendering\nadvice and opinions on HHS programs and operations and providing all legal support for OIG\xe2\x80\x99s internal\noperations. OCIG represents OIG in all civil and administrative fraud and abuse cases involving HHS\nprograms, including False Claims Act, program exclusion, and civil monetary penalty cases. In\nconnection with these cases, OCIG also negotiates and monitors corporate integrity agreements. OCIG\nrenders advisory opinions, issues compliance program guidance, publishes fraud alerts, and provides\nother guidance to the health care industry concerning the anti-kickback statute and other OIG enforcement\nauthorities.\n\x0c Notices\n\n\n THIS REPORT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC\n at https://oig.hhs.gov\n\n Section 8L of the Inspector General Act, 5 U.S.C. App., requires\n that OIG post its publicly available reports on the OIG Web site.\n\nOFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES FINDINGS AND OPINIONS\n\n The designation of financial or management practices as\n questionable, a recommendation for the disallowance of costs\n incurred or claimed, and any other conclusions and\n recommendations in this report represent the findings and\n opinions of OAS. Authorized officials of the HHS operating\n divisions will make final determination on these matters.\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\nMassachusetts General Hospital did not fully comply with Medicare requirements for billing\ninpatient and outpatient services, resulting in net overpayments of approximately $1.2 million\nover more than 2 years.\n\nWHY WE DID THIS REVIEW\n\nThis review is part of a series of hospital compliance reviews. Using computer matching, data\nmining, and data analysis techniques, we identified hospital claims that are at risk for\nnoncompliance with Medicare billing requirements. For calendar year (CY) 2012, Medicare\npaid hospitals $148 billion, which represents 43 percent of all fee-for-service payments;\ntherefore, the Office of Inspector General must provide continual and adequate oversight of\nMedicare payments to hospitals.\n\nThe objective of this review was to determine whether Massachusetts General Hospital (Mass\nGeneral) complied with Medicare requirements for billing inpatient and outpatient services on\nselected claims.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) pays inpatient hospital costs at\npredetermined rates for patient discharges. The rates vary according to the diagnosis-related\ngroup (DRG) to which a beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s stay is assigned and the severity level of the patient\xe2\x80\x99s\ndiagnosis. The DRG payment is, with certain exceptions, intended to be payment in full to the\nhospital for all inpatient costs associated with the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s stay. CMS pays for hospital\noutpatient services on a rate-per-service basis that varies according to the assigned ambulatory\npayment classification.\n\nMass General is a 1,046-bed acute care hospital located in Boston, Massachusetts. Medicare\npaid Mass General approximately $766 million for 33,702 inpatient and 752,283 outpatient\nclaims for services provided to beneficiaries during CYs 2010 and 2011 based on CMS\xe2\x80\x99s\nNational Claims History data.\n\nOur audit covered $4,449,487 in Medicare payments to Mass General for 590 claims that we\njudgmentally selected as potentially at risk for billing errors, consisting of 238 inpatient and 352\noutpatient claims. Of these 590 claims, 572 had dates of service in CYs 2010 or 2011, and 18\nclaims (involving outpatient drugs) had dates of service in CYs 2009 or 2012.\n\nWHAT WE FOUND\n\nMass General complied with Medicare billing requirements for 137 of the 590 inpatient and\noutpatient claims we reviewed. However, Mass General did not fully comply with Medicare\nbilling requirements for the remaining 453 claims, resulting in net overpayments of $1,181,228\nfor CYs 2010 and 2011 (437 claims), CY 2009 (15 claims), and CY 2012 (1 claim).\nSpecifically, 183 inpatient claims had billing errors, resulting in net overpayments of $720,393,\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) i\n\x0cand 270 outpatient claims had billing errors, resulting in overpayments of $460,835. These\nerrors occurred primarily because Mass General did not have adequate controls to prevent the\nincorrect billing of Medicare claims within the selected risk areas that contained errors.\n\nWHAT WE RECOMMEND\n\nWe recommend that Mass General:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 refund to the Medicare contractor $1,181,228, consisting of $720,393 in net\n overpayments for 183 incorrectly billed inpatient claims and $460,835 in overpayments\n for 270 incorrectly billed outpatient claims, and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 strengthen controls to ensure full compliance with Medicare requirements.\n\nMASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL COMMENTS\n\nIn written comments on our draft report, Mass General stated that it was generally in agreement\nwith our conclusions and recommendations. Mass General also stated that it has taken several\nsteps to strengthen internal controls and has initiated processing the necessary adjustments with\nthe Medicare contractor. We acknowledge Mass General\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to implement stronger\ncontrols.\n\n\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) ii\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nINTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1\n\n Why We Did This Review .....................................................................................................1\n\n Objective ...............................................................................................................................1\n\n Background ...........................................................................................................................1\n The Medicare Program ..................................................................................................1\n Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System ...........................................................1\n Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System ........................................................1\n Hospital Claims at Risk for Incorrect Billing ................................................................2\n Medicare Requirements for Hospital Claims and Payments .........................................3\n Massachusetts General Hospital ....................................................................................3\n\n How We Conducted This Review ..........................................................................................3\n\nFINDINGS .....................................................................................................................................4\n\n Billing Errors Associated With Inpatient Claims ...................................................................4\n Incorrectly Billed as Inpatient or Without a Valid Physician Order .............................4\n Incorrect Discharge Status Codes..................................................................................5\n Incorrect Source-of-Admission Code............................................................................5\n Manufacturer Credit for a Replaced Medical Device Not Reported or Obtained .........6\n Incorrectly Billed Diagnosis-Related Group Codes ......................................................6\n\n Billing Errors Associated With Outpatient Claims................................................................7\n Incorrect Billing for Dental Services .............................................................................7\n Incorrectly Billed Number of Units and/or\n Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System Codes.............................................7\n Manufacturer Credits for Replaced Medical Devices Not Reported .............................7\n Incorrectly Billed Outpatient Services Provided During an Inpatient Stay ...................8\n Insufficiently Documented Services ..............................................................................8\n Incorrectly Billed Observation Services ........................................................................8\n Incorrectly Billed Outpatient Services With Modifier -59 ............................................9\n Incorrectly Billed Evaluation and Management Services ..............................................9\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................10\n\nMASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL COMMENTS ....................................................10\n\nAPPENDIXES\n\n A: Audit Scope and Methodology .......................................................................................11\n\n\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) iii\n\x0c B: Results of Review by Risk Area .....................................................................................13\n\n C: Massachusetts General Hospital Comments...................................................................14\n\n\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) iv\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\nWHY WE DID THIS REVIEW\n\nThis review is part of a series of hospital compliance reviews. Using computer matching, data\nmining, and data analysis techniques, we identified hospital claims that are at risk for\nnoncompliance with Medicare billing requirements. For calendar year (CY) 2012, Medicare\npaid hospitals $148 billion, which represents 43 percent of all fee-for-service payments;\ntherefore, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) must provide continual and adequate oversight\nof Medicare payments to hospitals.\n\nOBJECTIVE\n\nOur objective was to determine whether Massachusetts General Hospital (Mass General)\ncomplied with Medicare requirements for billing inpatient and outpatient services on selected\nclaims.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nThe Medicare Program\n\nMedicare Part A provides inpatient hospital insurance benefits and coverage of extended care\nservices for patients after hospital discharge, and Medicare Part B provides supplementary\nmedical insurance for medical and other health services, including coverage of hospital\noutpatient services. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administers the\nMedicare program.\n\nCMS contracts with Medicare contractors to, among other things, process and pay claims\nsubmitted by hospitals.\n\nHospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System\n\nCMS pays hospital costs at predetermined rates for patient discharges under the inpatient\nprospective payment system (IPPS). The rates vary according to the diagnosis-related group\n(DRG) to which a beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s stay is assigned and the severity level of the patient\xe2\x80\x99s diagnosis.\nThe DRG payment is, with certain exceptions, intended to be payment in full to the hospital for\nall inpatient costs associated with the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s stay.\n\nHospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System\n\nCMS implemented an outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS), which is effective for\nservices furnished on or after August 1, 2000, for hospital outpatient services. Under the OPPS,\nMedicare pays for hospital outpatient services on a rate-per-service basis that varies according to\nthe assigned ambulatory payment classification (APC). CMS uses Healthcare Common\nProcedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes and descriptors to identify and group the services\n\n\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) 1\n\x0cwithin each APC group. 1 All services and items within an APC group are comparable clinically\nand require comparable resources. In addition to the basic payments, hospitals may be eligible\nfor an additional payment, called an outlier payment, when the hospital\xe2\x80\x99s costs exceed certain\nthresholds.\n\nHospital Claims at Risk for Incorrect Billing\n\nOur previous work at other hospitals identified these types of claims at risk for noncompliance:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 inpatient short stays,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 inpatient and outpatient claims paid greater than charges,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 inpatient claims billed with high severity level DRG codes,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 inpatient transfers\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 inpatient psychiatric facility (IPF) emergency department adjustments,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 inpatient and outpatient manufacturer credits for replaced medical devices,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 inpatient same-day discharge and readmission,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 inpatient hospital-acquired conditions and present on admission indicator reporting,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 outpatient dental services,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 outpatient drugs,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 outpatient claims billed during inpatient stays,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 outpatient claims billed with observation services that resulted in outlier payments,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 outpatient claims billed with modifier -59, and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 outpatient claims billed with evaluation and management (E&M) services.\n\nFor the purposes of this report, we refer to these areas at risk for incorrect billing as \xe2\x80\x9crisk areas.\xe2\x80\x9d\nWe reviewed these risk areas as part of this review.\n\n\n\n\n1\n HCPCS codes are used throughout the health care industry to standardize coding for medical procedures, services,\nproducts, and supplies.\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) 2\n\x0cMedicare Requirements for Hospital Claims and Payments\n\nMedicare payments may not be made for items and services that \xe2\x80\x9care not reasonable and\nnecessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a\nmalformed body member\xe2\x80\x9d (the Social Security Act (the Act), \xc2\xa7 1862(a)(1)(A)). In addition, the\nAct precludes payment to any provider of services or other person without information necessary\nto determine the amount due the provider (section 1833(e)).\n\nFederal regulations state that the provider must furnish to the Medicare contractor sufficient\ninformation to determine whether payment is due and the amount of the payment (42 CFR \xc2\xa7\n424.5(a)(6)).\n\nThe Medicare Claims Processing Manual (the Manual) requires providers to complete claims\naccurately so that Medicare contractors may process them correctly and promptly (Pub. No. 100-\n04, chapter 1, \xc2\xa7 80.3.2.2). The Manual states that providers must use HCPCS codes for most\noutpatient services (chapter 23, \xc2\xa7 20.3).\n\nMassachusetts General Hospital\n\nMass General is a 1,046-bed acute care hospital located in Boston, Massachusetts. Medicare\npaid Mass General approximately $766 million for 33,702 inpatient and 752,283 outpatient\nclaims for services provided to beneficiaries during CYs 2010 and 2011 based on CMS\xe2\x80\x99s\nNational Claims History data.\n\nHOW WE CONDUCTED THIS REVIEW\n\nOur audit covered $4,449,487 in Medicare payments to Mass General for 590 claims that we\njudgmentally selected as potentially at risk for billing errors, consisting of 238 inpatient and 352\noutpatient claims. Of these 590 claims, 572 had dates of service in CYs 2010 or 2011 and 18\nclaims (involving outpatient drugs) had dates of service in CYs 2009 or 2012. 2 We focused our\nreview on the risk areas that we had identified as a result of previous OIG reviews at other\nhospitals. We evaluated compliance with selected billing requirements and subjected 94 claims\nto focused medical review to determine whether the services were medically necessary. This\nreport focuses on selected risk areas and does not represent an overall assessment of all claims\nsubmitted by Mass General for Medicare reimbursement.\n\nWe conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government\nauditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain\nsufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions\nbased on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis\nfor our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\nAppendix A contains the details of our scope and methodology.\n\n\n2\n We selected these 18 claims for review because they were brought to our attention through an OIG audit of high-\nrisk outpatient drugs. We did not include these claims in the scope of the other audit.\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) 3\n\x0c FINDINGS\n\nMass General complied with Medicare billing requirements for 137 of the 590 inpatient and\noutpatient claims we reviewed. However, Mass General did not fully comply with Medicare\nbilling requirements for the remaining 453 claims, resulting in net overpayments of $1,181,228\nfor CYs 2010 and 2011 (437 claims), CY 2009 (15 claims), and CY 2012 (1 claim).\nSpecifically, 183 inpatient claims had billing errors, resulting in net overpayments of $720,393,\nand 270 outpatient claims had billing errors, resulting in overpayments of $460,835. These\nerrors occurred primarily because Mass General did not have adequate controls to prevent the\nincorrect billing of Medicare claims within the selected risk areas that contained errors. For the\nresults of our review by risk area, see Appendix B.\n\nBILLING ERRORS ASSOCIATED WITH INPATIENT CLAIMS\n\nMass General incorrectly billed Medicare for 183 of 238 selected inpatient claims, which\nresulted in net overpayments of $720,393.\n\nIncorrectly Billed as Inpatient or Without a Valid Physician Order\n\nMedicare payments may not be made for items or services that \xe2\x80\x9care not reasonable and necessary\nfor the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed\nbody member\xe2\x80\x9d (the Act, \xc2\xa7 1862(a)(1)(A)). The Act also states: payment for services furnished\nto an individual may be made only to providers of services that are eligible and only if, \xe2\x80\x9cwith\nrespect to inpatient hospital services ... which are furnished over a period of time, a physician\ncertifies that such services are required to be given on an inpatient basis for such individual\xe2\x80\x99s\nmedical treatment \xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d (section 1814(a)(3)). Additionally, Medicare Part A pays for inpatient\nhospital services \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6 only if a physician certifies and recertifies, among other things, the reasons\nfor continued hospitalization\xe2\x80\x9d (42 CFR \xc2\xa7 424.13(a)).\n\nFor 89 of the 238 selected claims, Mass General incorrectly billed Medicare Part A for\nbeneficiary stays that either should have been billed as outpatient or outpatient with observation\nservices (87 claims), or did not have a valid physician\xe2\x80\x99s order to admit the beneficiary to\ninpatient care (2 claims). For the majority of these claims, Mass General stated that case\nmanagement staff relied on external level-of-care screening criteria and followed all available\nMedicare guidance, which Mass General officials believe is unclear. Additionally, Mass General\nattributed some errors to incomplete documentation by admitting physicians. For a limited\nnumber of claims, Mass General did not provide a cause because it did not agree with these\nbilling errors. As a result of these errors, Mass General received overpayments of $675,922. 3\n\n\n\n\n3\n Mass General may be able to bill Medicare Part B for all services (except for services that specifically require an\noutpatient status) that would have been reasonable and necessary had the beneficiary been treated as a hospital\noutpatient rather than admitted as an inpatient. We were unable to determine the effect that billing Medicare Part B\nwould have on the overpayment amount because these services had not been billed and adjudicated by the Medicare\nadministrative contractor prior to the issuance of our report.\n\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) 4\n\x0cIncorrect Discharge Status Codes\n\nHospitals must bill inpatient discharges as transfers when the patient is readmitted the same day\nto another hospital unless the readmission is unrelated to the initial discharge (42 CFR \xc2\xa7\n412.4(b)). A hospital that transfers an inpatient under the above circumstance is paid a graduated\nper diem rate for each day of the patient\xe2\x80\x99s stay in that hospital, not to exceed the full DRG\npayment that would have been paid if the patient had been discharged to another setting (42 CFR\n\xc2\xa7 412.4(f)).\n\nFor 6 of the 238 selected claims, Mass General incorrectly billed Medicare for patient discharges\nthat were transfers to other hospitals. For these claims, Mass General incorrectly:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 coded the discharge status as \xe2\x80\x9cleft against medical advice\xe2\x80\x9d based on the highest level of\n care known at the time of discharge and its plan for the patient; however, our audit found\n that these patients were admitted to other acute care hospitals on the same day (3 claims);\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 coded the discharge status to home (2 claims); or\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 coded the discharge status as transferred to another institution not defined elsewhere (1\n claim).\n\nTherefore, Mass General should receive a per diem payment instead of the full DRG payment\nwhen the claims are billed correctly. Mass General officials stated that some of these errors\noccurred because the patients left against medical advice and staff did not know until our audit\nthat the patients entered other facilities, and other errors occurred because of human error. As a\nresult of these errors, Mass General received overpayments of $29,580.\n\nIncorrect Source-of-Admission Code\n\nCMS adjusts the Federal per diem rate upward for the first day of a Medicare beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s IPF\nstay to account for the costs associated with maintaining a qualifying emergency department (42\nCFR \xc2\xa7 412.424). The Manual states that CMS makes this additional payment regardless of\nwhether the beneficiary used emergency department services; however, the IPF should not\nreceive the additional payment if the beneficiary was discharged from the acute care section of\nthe same hospital (chapter 3, \xc2\xa7 190.6.4). The Manual also states that IPFs report source-of-\nadmission code \xe2\x80\x9cD\xe2\x80\x9d to identify patients who have been transferred to the IPF from the same\nhospital (chapter 3, \xc2\xa7 190.6.4.1). An IPF\xe2\x80\x99s proper use of this code is intended to alert the\nMedicare contractor not to apply the emergency department adjustment.\n\nFor 82 of the 238 selected claims, Mass General incorrectly coded the source-of-admission for\nbeneficiaries who were admitted to its IPF upon discharge from its acute care section. Mass\nGeneral officials stated that the errors occurred because source-of-admission code \xe2\x80\x9cD\xe2\x80\x9d was not\nan available option in Mass General\xe2\x80\x99s billing system. As a result of these errors, Mass General\nreceived overpayments of $7,278.\n\n\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) 5\n\x0cManufacturer Credit for a Replaced Medical Device Not Reported or Obtained\n\nFederal regulations require reductions in the IPPS payments for the replacement of an implanted\ndevice if (1) the device is replaced without cost to the provider, (2) the provider receives full\ncredit for the device cost, or (3) the provider receives a credit equal to 50 percent or more of the\ndevice cost (42 CFR \xc2\xa7 412.89). Federal regulations state: \xe2\x80\x9cAll payments to providers of services\nmust be based on the reasonable cost of services \xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d (42 CFR \xc2\xa7 413.9). The Manual states that\nto bill correctly for a replacement device that was provided with a credit, hospitals must code\nMedicare claims with a combination of condition code 49 or 50, along with value code \xe2\x80\x9cFD\xe2\x80\x9d\n(chapter 3, \xc2\xa7 100.8).\n\nThe CMS Provider Reimbursement Manual (PRM) reinforces these requirements in additional\ndetail (Pub. No. 15-1). 4\n\nFor 2 of the 238 selected claims, Mass General either received a reportable medical device credit\nfrom a manufacturer for a replaced device, but did not adjust its inpatient claim with the proper\ncondition and value codes to reduce payment as required, or did not obtain a credit for a replaced\nmedical device for which a credit was available under the terms of the manufacturer\xe2\x80\x99s warranty.\nMass General officials stated that the errors occurred due to human error. As a result of these\nerrors, Mass General received overpayments of $4,550.\n\nIncorrectly Billed Diagnosis-Related Group Codes\n\nMedicare payments may not be made for items or services that \xe2\x80\x9care not reasonable and necessary\nfor the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed\nbody member\xe2\x80\x9d (the Act \xc2\xa7 1862(a)(1)(A)). In addition, the Manual states: \xe2\x80\x9cIn order to be\nprocessed correctly and promptly, a bill must be completed accurately\xe2\x80\x9d (chapter 1, \xc2\xa7 80.3.2.2).\n\nFor 4 of the 238 selected claims, Mass General billed Medicare for incorrect DRG codes. Mass\nGeneral officials stated that two of the errors occurred due to human error. Mass General did not\nprovide a cause for the remaining two errors because it did not agree with these billing errors.\nAs a result of these errors, Mass General received net overpayments of $3,063.\n\n\n\n\n4\n The PRM states: \xe2\x80\x9cImplicit in the intention that actual costs be paid to the extent they are reasonable is the\nexpectation that the provider seeks to minimize its costs and that its actual costs do not exceed what a prudent and\ncost conscious buyer pays for a given item or service. If costs are determined to exceed the level that such buyers\nincur, in the absence of clear evidence that the higher costs were unavoidable, the excess costs are not reimbursable\nunder the program\xe2\x80\x9d (part I, \xc2\xa7 2102.1). Section 2103 further defines prudent buyer principles and states that\nMedicare providers are expected to pursue free replacements or reduced charges under warranties. Section\n2103(C)(4) provides the following example: \xe2\x80\x9cProvider B purchases cardiac pacemakers or their components for use\nin replacing malfunctioning or obsolete equipment, without asking the supplier/manufacturer for full or partial\ncredits available under the terms of the warranty covering the replaced equipment. The credits or payments that\ncould have been obtained must be reflected as a reduction of the cost of the equipment.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) 6\n\x0cBILLING ERRORS ASSOCIATED WITH OUTPATIENT CLAIMS\n\nMass General incorrectly billed Medicare for 270 of 352 selected outpatient claims, which\nresulted in overpayments of $460,835. One claim contained more than one type of error.\n\nIncorrect Billing for Dental Services\n\nThe Act states: \xe2\x80\x9cNo payment may be made under Medicare Part A or Part B for any expenses\nincurred for items or services where such expenses are for services in connection with the care,\ntreatment, filling, removal, or replacement of teeth or structures directly supporting teeth ...\xe2\x80\x9d\n(section 1862(a)(12)).\n\nFor 105 of the 352 selected claims, Mass General incorrectly billed Medicare for the treatment or\nremoval of teeth. Mass General stated these errors occurred because it relied on a third-party\npresubmission claim-editing tool that did not contain an edit to identify noncovered dental\nservices. As a result of these errors, Mass General received overpayments of $200,527.\n\nIncorrectly Billed Number of Units and/or Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System\nCodes\n\nMedicare payments may not be made to any provider of services or other person without\ninformation necessary to determine the amount due the provider (the Act, \xc2\xa7 1833(e)). The\nManual states: \xe2\x80\x9cIn order to be processed correctly and promptly, a bill must be completed\naccurately\xe2\x80\x9d (chapter 1, \xc2\xa7 80.3.2.2). In addition, the Manual states: \xe2\x80\x9cThe definition of service\nunits ... is the number of times the service or procedure being reported was performed \xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d\n(chapter 4, \xc2\xa7 20.4).\n\nFor 30 of the 352 selected claims, Mass General submitted claims to Medicare with an incorrect\nnumber of units and/or incorrect HCPCS codes. Mass General officials stated the errors\noccurred due to human error. As a result of these errors, Mass General received overpayments of\n$162,850.\n\nManufacturer Credits for Replaced Medical Devices Not Reported\n\nFederal regulations require a reduction in the OPPS payment for the replacement of an implanted\ndevice if (1) the device is replaced without cost to the provider or the beneficiary, (2) the\nprovider receives full credit for the cost of the replaced device, or (3) the provider receives\npartial credit equal to or greater than 50 percent of the cost of the replacement device (42 CFR \xc2\xa7\n419.45). For services furnished on or after January 1, 2007, CMS requires the provider to report\nthe modifier \xe2\x80\x9cFB\xe2\x80\x9d and reduced charges on a claim that includes a procedure code for the\ninsertion of a replacement device if the provider incurs no cost or receives full credit for the\nreplaced device. If the provider receives a replacement device without cost from the\nmanufacturer, the provider must report a charge of no more than $1 for the device. 5\n\n\n5\n CMS provides guidance on how a provider should report no-cost and reduced-cost devices under the OPPS (CMS\nTransmittal 1103, dated November 3, 2006, and the Manual, chapter 4, \xc2\xa7 61.3).\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) 7\n\x0cFor 3 of the 352 selected claims, Mass General received full credit for replaced devices but did\nnot properly report the \xe2\x80\x9cFB\xe2\x80\x9d modifier and reduced charges on its claims. Mass General officials\nstated that the errors occurred due to human error. As a result of these errors, Mass General\nreceived overpayments of $42,150.\n\nIncorrectly Billed Outpatient Services Provided During an Inpatient Stay\n\nCertain items and nonphysician services furnished to inpatients are covered under Part A and\nconsequently are covered by the inpatient prospective payment rate (the Manual, chapter 3, \xc2\xa7\n10.4).\n\nFor 115 of the 352 selected claims, Mass General incorrectly billed Medicare Part B for\noutpatient services provided during an inpatient stay. Mass General officials stated that the\nerrors occurred primarily because Mass General\xe2\x80\x99s outpatient registrar staff was not aware that\nthe patients receiving these outpatient services were admitted to another inpatient facility at the\ntime of the service. As a result of these errors, Mass General received overpayments of $33,189.\n\nInsufficiently Documented Services\n\nThe Act precludes payment to any provider of services or other person without information\nnecessary to determine the amount due the provider (section 1833(e)).\n\nFor 3 of the 352 selected claims, Mass General incorrectly billed Medicare for services that were\nnot supported in the medical record. Mass General officials stated that these errors occurred due\nto human error. As a result of these errors, Mass General received overpayments of $12,537.\n\nIncorrectly Billed Observation Services\n\nMedicare payments may not be made for items or services that \xe2\x80\x9care not reasonable and necessary\nfor the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed\nbody member\xe2\x80\x9d (the Act \xc2\xa7 1862(a)(1)(A)). In addition, the Manual states: \xe2\x80\x9cIn order to be\nprocessed correctly and promptly, a bill must be completed accurately\xe2\x80\x9d (chapter 1, \xc2\xa7 80.3.2.2).\nThe Manual (chapter 1, \xc2\xa7 50.3.2) also states:\n\n However, in accordance with the general Medicare requirements for services\n furnished to beneficiaries and billed to Medicare, even in Condition Code 44\n situations, hospitals may not report observation services using HCPCS code\n G0378 (Hospital observation service, per hour) for observation services furnished\n during a hospital encounter prior to a physician's order for observation services.\n Medicare does not permit retroactive orders or the inference of physician orders.\n\nThe Manual states: \xe2\x80\x9cObservation services are covered only when provided by the order of a\nphysician or another individual authorized by State licensure law and hospital staff bylaws to\nadmit patients to the hospital or to order outpatient services\xe2\x80\x9d (chapter 4, \xc2\xa7 290.1). \xe2\x80\x9cObservation\ntime begins at the clock time documented in the patient\xe2\x80\x99s medical record, which coincides with\nthe time that observation care is initiated in accordance with a physician\xe2\x80\x99s order \xe2\x80\xa6. Observation\ntime ends when all medically necessary services related to observation care are completed \xe2\x80\xa6.\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) 8\n\x0cReported observation time would not include the time patients remain in the hospital after\ntreatment is finished \xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d (chapter 4, \xc2\xa7 290.2.2).\n\nFor 6 of the 352 selected claims, Mass General incorrectly billed Medicare for observation\nservices that included incorrect units of billed observation services (4 claims) and lacked timely\nphysician orders for observation services (2 claims). For the two claims that lacked timely\nphysician orders, the physician signed one order after the observation care was no longer\nnecessary and signed the other order when the observation services were nearly complete.\n\nThese errors resulted in a higher outlier payment than was warranted. Mass General officials\nstated the majority of the errors occurred because it did not have sufficient controls to accurately\ncapture observation units in situations where there were either delays in moving a patient to a\nunit for observation services or delays in entering an observation order in the medical record. In\nsome cases, the patient began to receive observation services in accordance with a verbal order.\nAs a result of these errors, Mass General received overpayments of $7,696.\n\nIncorrectly Billed Outpatient Services With Modifier -59\n\nThe Manual states: \xe2\x80\x9cIn order to be processed correctly and promptly, a bill must be completed\naccurately\xe2\x80\x9d (chapter 1, \xc2\xa7 80.3.2.2). It also states: \xe2\x80\x9cThe \xe2\x80\x9859\xe2\x80\x99 modifier is used to indicate a\ndistinct procedural service \xe2\x80\xa6. This may represent a different session or patient encounter,\ndifferent procedure or surgery, different site, or organ system, separate incision/excision, or\nseparate injury (or area of injury in extensive injuries)\xe2\x80\x9d (chapter 23, \xc2\xa7 20.9.1.1).\n\nFor 1 of the 352 selected claims, Mass General incorrectly billed Medicare for a HCPCS code\nwith modifier -59 for a service that was already included in the payment for another service\nbilled on the same claim. Mass General officials stated that the error occurred due to human\nerror. As a result of this error, Mass General received an overpayment of $1,438.\n\nIncorrectly Billed Evaluation and Management Services\n\nThe Act precludes payment to any provider of services or other person without information\nnecessary to determine the amount due the provider (section 1833(e)). The Manual states that a\nMedicare contractor pays for an E&M service that is significant, separately identifiable, and\nabove and beyond the usual preoperative and postoperative work of the procedure (chapter 12, \xc2\xa7\n30.6.6(B)).\n\nFor 8 of the 352 selected claims, Mass General incorrectly billed Medicare for E&M services\nthat were not significant, separately identifiable, and above and beyond the usual preoperative\nand postoperative work of the procedure. Mass General officials stated that these errors occurred\nprimarily due to a lack of physician education regarding Medicare requirements for billing E&M\nservices. As a result of these errors, Mass General received overpayments of $448.\n\n\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) 9\n\x0c RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nWe recommend that Mass General:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 refund to the Medicare contractor $1,181,228, consisting of $720,393 in net\n overpayments for 183 incorrectly billed inpatient claims and $460,835 in overpayments\n for 270 incorrectly billed outpatient claims, and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 strengthen controls to ensure full compliance with Medicare requirements.\n\n MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL COMMENTS\n\nIn written comments on our draft report, Mass General stated that it was generally in agreement\nwith our conclusions and recommendations. Mass General also stated that it has taken several\nsteps to strengthen internal controls and has initiated processing the necessary adjustments with\nthe Medicare contractor. We acknowledge Mass General\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to implement stronger\ncontrols. Mass General\xe2\x80\x99s comments are included in their entirety as Appendix C.\n\n\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) 10\n\x0c APPENDIX A: AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nSCOPE\n\nOur audit covered $4,449,487 in Medicare payments to Mass General for 590 claims that we\njudgmentally selected as potentially at risk for billing errors, consisting of 238 inpatient and 352\noutpatient claims. Of these 590 claims, 572 had dates of service in CYs 2010 or 2011 and 18\nclaims (involving outpatient drugs) had dates of service in CYs 2009 or 2012.\n\nWe focused our review on the risk areas that we had identified as a result of prior Office of\nInspector General reviews at other hospitals. We evaluated compliance with selected billing\nrequirements and subjected 94 claims to focused medical review to determine whether the\nservices were medically necessary.\n\nWe limited our review of Mass General\xe2\x80\x99s internal controls to those applicable to the inpatient\nand outpatient areas of review because our objective did not require an understanding of all\ninternal controls over the submission and processing of claims. We established reasonable\nassurance of the authenticity and accuracy of the data obtained from the National Claims History\nfile, but we did not assess the completeness of the file.\n\nThis report focuses on selected risk areas and does not represent an overall assessment of all\nclaims submitted by Mass General for Medicare reimbursement.\n\nOur fieldwork included contacting Mass General in Boston, Massachusetts, from October 2012\nthrough November 2013.\n\nMETHODOLOGY\n\nTo accomplish our objective, we:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 reviewed applicable Federal laws, regulations, and guidance;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 extracted Mass General\xe2\x80\x99s inpatient and outpatient paid claim data from CMS\xe2\x80\x99s National\n Claims History file for CYs 2010 and 2011;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 obtained information on known credits for replaced cardiac medical devices from the\n device manufacturers for CYs 2010 and 2011;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 used computer matching, data mining, and data analysis techniques to identify claims\n potentially at risk for noncompliance with selected Medicare billing requirements;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 judgmentally selected 590 claims (238 inpatient and 352 outpatient) for detailed review;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 reviewed available data from CMS\xe2\x80\x99s Common Working File for the selected claims to\n determine whether the claims had been cancelled or adjusted;\n\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) 11\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 reviewed the itemized bills and medical record documentation provided by Mass General\n to support the selected claims;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 requested that Mass General conduct its own review of the selected claims to determine\n whether the services were billed correctly;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 reviewed Mass General\xe2\x80\x99s procedures for submitting Medicare claims;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 used an independent medical review contractor to determine whether 94 selected claims\n met medical necessity requirements;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 discussed the incorrectly billed claims with Mass General personnel to determine the\n underlying causes of noncompliance with Medicare requirements;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 calculated the correct payments for those claims requiring adjustments; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 discussed the results of our review with Mass General officials.\n\nWe conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government\nauditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain\nsufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions\nbased on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis\nfor our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\n\n\n\nMedicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) 12\n\x0c APPENDIX B: RESULTS OF REVIEW BY RISK AREA\n\n Claims\n With Under Value of Net\n Selected Value of / Over- Over-\n Risk Area Claims Selected Claims payments payments\nInpatient\nShort Stays 100 $616,709 78 $474,665\n\nClaims Paid Greater Than Charges 10 281,025 6 152,847\nClaims Billed With High Severity Level Diagnosis-Related\n 20 366,445 9 51,473\nGroup Codes\nTransfers 6 96,282 6 29,580\n\nPsychiatric Facility Emergency Department Adjustments 82 1,257,773 82 7,278\n\nManufacturer Credits for Replaced Medical Devices 9 395,181 2 4,550\n\nSame-Day Discharge and Readmission 1 32,713 0 0\nHospital-Acquired Conditions and Present on Admission\n 10 171,994 0 0\nIndicator Reporting\n Inpatient Totals 238 $3,218,122 183 $720,393\n\n\nOutpatient\nDental Services 111 $229,824 106 $200,591\n\nDrugs 54 441,242 28 139,974\n\nClaims Paid Greater Than Charges 5 76,775 3 47,383\n\nClaims Billed During Inpatient Stays 115 33,189 115 33,190\n\nManufacturer Credits for Replaced Medical Devices 10 285,849 2 28,463\nClaims Billed With Observation Services That Resulted in\n 10 26,461 6 7,696\nOutlier Payments\nClaims Billed With Modifier -59 27 118,980 3 2,704\n\nClaims Billed With Evaluation and Management Services 20 19,045 7 834\n\n Outpatient Totals 352 $1,231,365 270 $460,835\n\n\n Inpatient and Outpatient Totals 590 $4,449,487 453 $1,181,228\n Notice: The table above illustrates the results of our review by risk area. In it, we have organized inpatient and\n outpatient claims by the risk areas we reviewed. However, we have organized this report\xe2\x80\x99s findings by the types of\n billing errors we found at Mass General. Because we have organized the information differently, the information in\n the individual risk areas in this table does not match precisely with this report\xe2\x80\x99s findings.\n\n\n\n Medicare Compliance Review of Massachusetts General Hospital (A-01-12-00520) 13\n\x0c APPENDIX C: MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL COMMENTS\n\n\n\ng MASSACHUSETTS\n \xe2\x80\xa2 GENERAL HOSPITAL\n\n55 Fruit Street, Bulfinch 380 Sally Mason Boerner\nBoston, Massachusetts 02114-2696 Senior Vice President for Finance\nTel: 617.724.4537. Fax: 617.726.2838\nE-mail: smasonboemer@partners.org\n\n\n\n\nMarch 5, 2014\n\nMr. David Lamir\nRegional Inspector General for Audit Services\nOffice of Inspector General\nJFK Building\n15 New Sudbury Street, Room 2425\nBoston, MA 02203\n\nDear Mr.Larnir:\n\nWe appreciate the opportunity to respond to the draft report of your Medicare Compliance\nReview of Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) for cal endar years 201 0 and 201 1. We are\ngenerally in agreement with the conclusions and recommendations detailed in the report.\n\nAs a result of this review, MGH has initiated processing the necessary adjustments with the\nMedicare Administrative Contractor, National Government Services.\n\nMGH has also taken several steps to strengthen our controls in each of the areas noted in the\nreview, as was detailed in our previously submitted Internal Controls Questionnaires.\n\nWe appreciate the professionalism with which your staff completed this review. Please let me\nknow if you have any questions concerning our ongoing efforts to ensure appropriate\ndocumentation and billing for services provided to all patients.\n\nSincerely,\n\n\n~ {hetovn B~\nSally Mason Boerner\nSenior Vice President for Finance\nMassachusetts General Hospital\n\n\n\n\nlvfedicare Compliance Review ofMassachusetts General Hospital (A-0 1-12-00520) 14\n\x0c"


text:
 Soud: údajné padělání na radnici nebylo trestným činem | Oficiální stránky statutárního města České Budějovice
 Č. Budějovice - Krajský soud zrušil včera k odvolání ing. Vladimíry Hruškové a Zdeňka Čápa rozsudek Okresního soudu v Č. Budějovicích, jímž byli v březnu uznáni vinnými paděláním a pozměňováním úřední listiny, v případě Vl. Hruškové dále zneužitím pravomoci veřejného činitele a v případě Zd. Čápa pomocí k tomuto trestnému činu. Krajský soud nově rozhodl tak, že oba jmenované obžaloby zprostil s tím, že žalované skutky nejsou trestnými činy.
 Šlo o odpady
 Podle rozsudku první instance vedoucí odboru správy veřejných statků Magistrátu města Českých Budějovic Vladimíra Hrušková a bývalý náměstek primátora Zdeněk Čáp na jaře 2003 vyhotovili po vzájemné dohodě a v součinnosti neoprávněně listinu zakládající právo Vl. Hruškové k výkonu funkce odpadového hospodáře města. Měli tak učinit v úmyslu přesvědčit Českou inspekci životního prostředí o tom, že město tohoto hospodáře ustavilo, a vyhnout se tak eventuální sankci.
 Zmíněnou listinu s datem 27. prosince 2001 nechala Vl. Hrušková předložit prostřednictvím zastupující osoby v květnu 2003 inspekci ČIŽP, která měla informace od některých zaměstnanců magistrátu, že město tohoto hospodáře nejspíš nemá. Inspekce si pak prý všimla, že na hlavičce byla uvedena telefonní čísla platná až po přečíslování, k němuž došlo v roce 2002 . . .
 Obžalovaní obvinění odmítají. Zdeněk Čáp řekl, že po přijetí zákona o odpadech se v roce 2001 v kolegiu primátora shodli, že odpadovým hospodářem bude Vl. Hrušková, která se problematikou odpadu už zabývala. Takové jednání u soudu potvrdili svědkové, další členové bývalého vedení města. Jmenovací listina byla vyhotovena na Čápově hlavičkovém papíře v jediném exempláři a uložena u Hruškové. Když se v roce 2002 dokument ztratil, rozhodli se vyhotovit listinu znovu - na radu právničky s původními údaji, tedy i datem vystavení. To zase potvrdila u soudu zmíněná právnička. Kopii původního jmenování s ještě starými telefonními čísly pak Vl. Hrušková údajně přece jen náhodou nalezla založenu ve spise k rekultivaci městské skládky a dodatečně ji předložila.
 K této listině znalec řekl, že byla "s velkou pravděpodobností" vyhotovena z nového hlavičkového papíru náměstka Čápa a řádek s údaji o telefonních číslech byl na ni "velmi pravděpodobně" přiřazen montáží ze starého hlavičkového papíru.
 Soudkyně okresního soudu se poté přiklonila k názoru státního zástupce, že totiž antidatovanou jmenovací listinu nechala Vl. Hrušková předložit inspekci ČIŽP, aniž si uvědomila, že jsou na ní už nová telefonní čísla, a když věc začala být šetřena, "jako zázrakem" se našla kopie původního originálu, podle znalců už ale nejspíš smontovaná z různých exemplářů. Oba obžalované uznala vinnými výše uvedenými trestnými činy. Vyměřila jim tresty odnětí svobody na jeden rok s výkonem podmíněně odloženým na zkušební dobu tří let, peněžité tresty po 80 000 Kč a zákaz výkonu vedoucích funkcí ve státní správě na dobu pěti let.
 Obhajoba: nelogické
 Obžalovaní se odvolali. Podle obhájce JUDr. Josefa Dvořáka opřela první instance
 rozhodnutí o výpověď skupiny svědků, kteří o ustavení odpadového hospodáře na městě nevěděli: to ovšem není důkaz toho, že
 příslušný odpovědný pracovník opravdu jmenován nebyl. Akci inspekce podle obhajoby iniciovala osoba "zjevně zaujatá, naprosto neobjektivní, s výrazně negativním postojem vůči městu". Postup tohoto úředníka byl prý naprosto účelový: místo řádně zahájeného správního řízení "vytěžuje" známého, kterého potká, zda je funkce hospodáře obsazena . . .
 JUDr. Dvořák má za to, že Vl. Hrušková činnost odpadového hospodáře v podstatě vykonávala už v rámci svého vedoucího postu na magistrátě a neměla proto ani důvod se na pracovišti "chlubit" novou funkcí. Obhajoba se dovolávala svědectví členů kolegia primátora o dohodě pověřit vedoucí odboru, a prý "ani náznakem" nic nedokazuje, že tomu tak nebylo. Forma jmenování nebyla zákonem předepsána, což potvrdilo i ministerstvo, které rovněž uzavřelo, že Vl. Hrušková splňovala pro tuto funkci kvalifikační předpoklady. V otázce posuzování inkriminované jmenovací listiny obhájce argumentoval vyjádřením znalce o nemožnosti určit, pokolikáté byla listina kopírována, a svědectvím tiskaře těchto papírů o více šaržích a možnostech posunu tisku. Posléze se dr. Dvořák dovolával "logiky věci" - proč by Čáp něco padělal, když už nebyl ve funkci, a proč by tak činila Hrušková, když od začátku tvrdí, že takový papír ani na nic nepotřebovala. Ostatně podle obhajoby ani nešlo o úřední listinu - nevydal ji státní orgán a nezakládala práva ani povinnosti ani nezjišťovala stav; v dané věci proto ani nemohlo jít o trestný čin.
 Kam zmizela noblesa?!
 Krajský soud poté rozsudek první instance zrušil a nově rozhodl, jak je uvedeno výše.
 "Chtělo by se říci se Shakespearem - mnoho povyku pro nic," předeslal odůvodnění rozhodnutí předseda senátu. Citoval z usnesení státního zastupitelství, které 28. listopadu 2003 rušilo usnesení vyšetřovatele o zahájení trestního stíhání v této věci s tím, že po prověření podezření nepřekračují zjištění policejního orgánu rovinu pouhých indicií, že se tedy nepodařilo dostatečně prokázat, že byl spáchán trestný čin a pachateli byli právě obvinění.
 Pak se podle soudu nejspíš dostal ke slovu "ouřad" - formalismus, formální přístup k výkladu zákona o odpadech. "Místo toho, co by očekával stát zřizující různé instituce a občan očekávající, že se takový úřad bude za jeho peníze účelně starat, aby mu odpad nepřerostl přes hlavu, uděluje takovýto ,ouřad' pokuty, vydává stanoviska, rozhodnutí, námitky, opravy rozhodnutí, jde papír za papírem - a hle, posléze je z toho trestní spis plný výkladových otázek, náročné dokazování u soudu a právem podané odvolání obžalovaných," řekl předseda senátu. "Přitom občan a stát snad očekávali něco jiného od detašovaných pracovišť - že tu nejsou jen ,přes pokuty', ale i přes metodiku a výklad smyslu zákona, ujednocování stanovisek. Místo toho však úředník tohoto úřadu potká jiného úředníka, krátce zaměstnaného na radnici, vyzvídá na něm a iniciuje se trestní stíhání . . ."
 Předseda senátu citoval z písemných materiálů, na jakých základech toto stíhání stojí: "dle zjištění ČIŽP", "dle výkladu právníků", "podle neoficiálních zpráv, informací a odpovědí", "ČIŽP se domnívá, že povinnost ustavit hospodáře byla porušena" . . .
 "Místo určité noblesy, která bývala vlastní styku mezi úřady, se stanoviska magistrátu dočkávají ironických odpovědí inspekce o ,závažných nedostatcích', o tom, že ,funkce odpadového hospodáře nebyla vykonávána dostatečně kvalifikovaně, pokud vůbec vykonávána byla' . . ," pokračoval předseda senátu. Korespondence ze strany ČIŽP má ke zmíněné noblesnosti úřadu daleko, tvrdí-li, že primátorovi "zjevně není známa prováděcí vyhláška", že to či ono v reakci města "lze hodnotit pouze ironicky" či že to a to je "úsměvné". Pro trestní řízení není tento tón sice důležitý, ale soud jej zmiňuje proto, že ilustruje, o jaká "správní zjištění" se obvinění opírá.
 Skutečná zjištění a stanoviska správních úřadů ve věci ustavování odpadových hospodářů pak jsou nejednotná a podle odvolacího soudu měla vést k zastavení trestního stíhání obou obviněných už v přípravném řízení. "Udělená pokuta městu nakonec také samotným správním rozhodnutím ,zmizela' - konečně se zřejmě našel někdo, kdo v řízení nad postojem města přemýšlel," podotkl předseda senátu. Zákon neurčuje formu jmenování odpadových hospodářů ani nespecifikuje jejich kvalifikační předpoklady a striktně nepředepisuje formu jejich vzdělání. "Z výkladových nejednotností, tedy z nanejvýš správní záležitosti, se odvinulo trestní řízení; věc se chytá za nesprávný konec, vyhazují se peníze, vyslýchají se tiskaři, řeší se záhlaví a telefony, ale uniká smysl a v závěru mají být dva dosud naprosto bezúhonní občané potrestáni za závažný trestný čin: tento soud nemá dojem, že takové rozhodnutí by bylo spravedlivé," uzavřel předseda senátu. Krajský soud proto Zd. Čápa a Vlaďku Hruškovou obžaloby zprostil.
 Datum vydání: 14.6.2005
 [VLTAVA + PNPRESS + LABE]


text:
 7.2.2019
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 36/29
 SKLEP SKUPNEGA ODBORA EGP
 št. 84/2017
 z dne 5. maja 2017
 o spremembi Priloge II (Tehnični predpisi, standardi, preskušanje in certificiranje) k Sporazumu EGP [2019/196]
 SKUPNI ODBOR EGP JE –
 ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum EGP) in zlasti člena 98 Sporazuma EGP,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/662 z dne 1. aprila 2016 o usklajenem večletnem programu nadzora Unije za leta 2017, 2018 in 2019 za zagotavljanje skladnosti z mejnimi vrednostmi ostankov pesticidov v ali na živilih rastlinskega in živalskega izvora ter oceno izpostavljenosti potrošnikov ostankom teh pesticidov (1) je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
 (2)
 Izvedbena uredba (EU) 2016/662 razveljavlja Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2015/595 (2), ki je vključena v Sporazum EGP in jo je zato treba v okviru Sporazuma EGP razveljaviti.
 (3)
 Ta sklep se nanaša na zakonodajo v zvezi z živili. Zakonodaja v zvezi z živili se ne uporablja za Lihtenštajn, dokler se Sporazum med Evropsko skupnostjo in Švicarsko konfederacijo o trgovini s kmetijskimi proizvodi uporablja tudi za Lihtenštajn, kakor je podrobno določeno v uvodu k poglavju XII Priloge II k Sporazumu EGP. Ta sklep se zato ne uporablja za Lihtenštajn.
 (4)
 Prilogo II k Sporazumu EGP bi bilo zato treba ustrezno spremeniti –
 SPREJEL NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
 Člen 1
 Poglavje XII Priloge II k Sporazumu EGP se spremeni:
 1.
 za točko 120 (Uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1412) poglavja XII Priloge II k Sporazumu EGP se vstavi naslednja točka:
 „121.
 32016 R 0662: Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/662 z dne 1. aprila 2016 o usklajenem večletnem programu nadzora Unije za leta 2017, 2018 in 2019 za zagotavljanje skladnosti z mejnimi vrednostmi ostankov pesticidov v ali na živilih rastlinskega in živalskega izvora ter oceno izpostavljenosti potrošnikov ostankom teh pesticidov (UL L 115, 29.4.2016, str. 2).
 Za namene tega sporazuma se določbe Uredbe uporabljajo z naslednjo prilagoditvijo:
 v tabeli v točki 5 Priloge II se doda naslednje:
 IS
 12
 NO
 12“
 2.
 besedilo točke 102 (Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2015/595) se črta.
 Člen 2
 Besedilo Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/662 v islandskem in norveškem jeziku, ki se objavi v Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije, je verodostojno.
 Člen 3
 Ta sklep začne veljati 6. maja 2017 pod pogojem, da so bila predložena vsa uradna obvestila v skladu s členom 103(1) Sporazuma EGP (*1).
 Člen 4
 Ta sklep se objavi v sklopu EGP Uradnega lista Evropske unije in Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije.
 V Bruslju, 5. maja 2017
 Za Skupni odbor EGP
 Predsednik
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) UL L 115, 29.4.2016, str. 2.
 (2) UL L 99, 16.4.2015, str. 7.
 (*1) Navedena ni nobena ustavna zahteva.


text:
 30.5.2016
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 191/37
 2016 m. balandžio 5 d. pareikštas ieškinys byloje Le Pen/Parlamentas
 (Byla T-140/16)
 (2016/C 191/50)
 Proceso kalba: prancūzų
 Šalys
 Ieškovas: Jean-Marie Le Pen (La Trinité-sur-Mer, Prancūzija), atstovaujamas advokatų M. Ceccaldi ir J.-P. Le Moigne
 Atsakovas: Europos Parlamentas
 Reikalavimai
 Ieškovas Bendrojo Teismo prašo:
 —
 panaikinti 2016 m. sausio 29 d. Europos Parlamento generalinio sekretoriaus sprendimą (pranešta 2016 m. vasario 5 d. raštu Nr. D 302191), kuris buvo priimtas pagal iš dalies pakeisto 2008 m. gegužės 19 d. ir liepos 9 d. Europos Parlamento biuro sprendimo 2009/C 159/01 dėl Europos Parlamento narių statuto įgyvendinimo taisyklių 68 straipsnį ir kuriame nustatoma 320 026,23 eurų dydžio ieškovo skola, susijusi su neteisėtu Parlamento nario išlaidų padėjėjo paslaugoms kompensavimu, ir nurodomi šios skolos išieškojimo motyvai;
 —
 panaikinti 2016 m. vasario 4 d. debetinį dokumentą Nr. 2016-195, kuriuo ieškovas informuojamas apie 2016 m. sausio 29 d. Generalinio sekretoriaus sprendimu nustatytą skolą, apie nurodymą susigrąžinti sumas, susijusias su neteisėtu Parlamento nario išlaidų padėjėjo paslaugoms kompensavimu, ir apie Europos Parlamento narių statuto įgyvendinimo taisyklių 68 straipsnio ir finansinio reglamento 78, 79 ir 80 straipsnių taikymą;
 —
 priteisti iš Europos Parlamento visas bylinėjimosi išlaidas;
 —
 priteisti iš Europos Parlamento Jean-Marie Le Pen sumokėti 50 000,00 eurų dydžio atlygintinas bylinėjimosi išlaidas.
 Ieškinio pagrindai ir pagrindiniai argumentai
 Grįsdamas ieškinį ieškovas remiasi dviem pagrindais.
 1.
 Pirmasis ieškinio pagrindas susijęs su trūkumais, darančiais įtaką ginčijamų aktų formos teisėtumui. Šį ieškinio pagrindą sudaro dvi dalys.
 —
 Pirmoje dalyje nurodoma, kad įgaliojimus priimti finansinius sprendimus, susijusius su politinėmis partijomis, taigi ir su Parlamento nariais, turi Europos Parlamento biuras, o ne Generalinis sekretorius.
 —
 Antroje dalyje nurodoma, kad Europos Parlamento biuras negali pakeisti savo įgaliojimų pobūdžio ir apimties. Todėl nėra jokio pagrindo, pateisinančio nuolatinį Parlamento biuro pirmininko įgaliojimų delegavimą Generaliniam sekretoriui, jam suteikiant įgaliojimus priimti ginčijamus aktus dėl finansinių klausimų, susijusius su Parlamento nariu, ir apie juos pranešti.
 2.
 Antrasis ieškinio pagrindas susijęs su trūkumais, darančiais įtaką ginčijamų aktų turinio teisėtumui. Šį pagrindą sudaro keturios dalys.
 —
 Pirmoje dalyje nurodoma, kad ginčijamuose aktuose buvo padaryta akivaizdi vertinimo klaida.
 —
 Antroje dalyje nurodoma, kad Parlamento biuras nepateikė jokio ginčijamus aktus pagrindžiančio įrodymo.
 —
 Trečioje dalyje nurodoma, kad ginčijami aktai buvo priimti piktnaudžiaujant įgaliojimais ir procedūra.
 —
 Ketvirtoje dalyje nurodoma, kad ginčijami aktai yra diskriminacinio pobūdžio.


type: wikipedia

text:
Der Andelshofer Weiher, auch Neuweiher genannt, ist ein Stillgewässer im Gebiet der baden-württembergischen Stadt Überlingen im Bodenseekreis in Deutschland.
 Lage
 Der rund 32 Hektar große Andelshofer Weiher, etwa zweieinhalb Kilometer nordöstlich der Überlinger Stadtmitte auf einer Höhe von gelegen, gehört naturräumlich zum Linzgau. Er wird heute zu Zwecken der Fischerei genutzt und befindet sich im Privatbesitz.
 Hydrologie
 Der Andelshofer Weiher wurde vor 1930 angelegt. Mit etwas kleinerer Fläche als heute zeigt ihn schon eine Karte gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts. Die Größe des Seebeckens beträgt 32,3 Hektar, bei einer durchschnittlichen Tiefe von 3,4 Meter und einer maximalen Tiefe von 5,3 Meter ergibt sich ein Volumen von rund 1.093.000 Kubikmeter. Im See liegt eine rund 7 ha große Insel.
 Zulauf erfährt der Weiher über mehrere Gräben und einen unterirdischen Kanal vom Owinger Auenbach her, er entwässert in den Bodensee und damit in den Rhein.
 Ökologie
 Seit 1989 sind Überlingen und Owingen (nur Einzugsgebiet) mit dem Andelshofer Weiher am Aktionsprogramm zur Sanierung oberschwäbischer Seen beteiligt. Ein wichtiges Ziel dieses Programms ist es, Nährstoffeinträge in Bäche, Seen und Weiher zu verringern, den Zustand der Gewässer so zu verbessern und sie zu erhalten.
 Das Einzugsgebiet des Weihers wird zu 35 Prozent für die Wald- und 55 Prozent für die Landwirtschaft – davon 60 % Grünland und 40 % Ackerland – genutzt.
 Weblinks
 Aktionsprogramm zur Sanierung oberschwäbischer Seen
 Einzelnachweise
 SAndelshofer Weiher
 See in Europa
 See im Bodenseekreis
 Geographie (Überlingen)
 Aktionsprogramm zur Sanierung oberschwäbischer Seen


text:
 24.6.2014
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 194/33
 Skarga wniesiona w dniu 23 kwietnia 2014 r. – Zehnder Group International AG przeciwko OHIM – Stiebel Eltron (comfotherm)
 (Sprawa T-267/14)
 2014/C 194/43
 Język skargi: niemiecki
 Strony
 Strona skarżąca: Zehnder Group International AG (Gränichen, Szwajcaria) (przedstawiciel: adwokat J. Krenzel)
 Strona pozwana: Urząd Harmonizacji w ramach Rynku Wewnętrznego (znaki towarowe i wzory)
 Stroną postępowania przed Izbą Odwoławczą była również: Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG (Holzminden, Niemcy)
 Żądania
 Strona skarżąca wnosi do Sądu o:
 —
 stwierdzenie nieważności decyzji Czwartej Izby Odwoławczej z dnia 21 lutego 2014 r. w sprawie R 1318/2013-4;
 —
 obciążenie OHIM kosztami postępowania.
 Zarzuty i główne argumenty
 Zarejestrowany wspólnotowy znak towarowy będący przedmiotem wniosku o unieważnienie prawa do znaku: Słowny znak towarowy „comfotherm” dla towarów z klas 9 i 11 – zgłoszenie nr 8 8 59 472
 Właściciel wspólnotowego znaku towarowego: Strona skarżąca
 Strona wnosząca o unieważnienie prawa do wspólnotowego znaku towarowego: Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG
 Uzasadnienie wniosku o unieważnienie prawa do znaku: Słowny znak towarowy „KOMFOTHERM” dla towarów z klasy 11
 Decyzja Wydziału Unieważnień: Uwzględnienie wniosku o unieważnienie prawa do znaku
 Decyzja Izby Odwoławczej: Oddalenie odwołania
 Podniesione zarzuty: Zaskarżona decyzja nie ostaje się przy ponownym badaniu dotyczącym ustalenia podobieństwa towarów.


text:
Svarbus teisinis pranešimas
 |
 22001D0019
 Oficialusis leidinys L 117 , 26/04/2001 p. 0024 - 0025
 EEE Jungtinio komiteto sprendimasNr. 19/20012001 m. vasario 23 d.iš dalies keičiantis EEE susitarimo XVIII priedą (Darbuotojų sauga ir sveikata, darbo teisė ir vienodas požiūris į vyrus ir moteris)EEE JUNGTINIS KOMITETAS,atsižvelgdamas į Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą, patikslintą Protokolu, patikslinančiu Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą, toliau — Susitarimas, ypač į jo 98 straipsnį,kadangi:(1) Susitarimo XVIII priedas buvo iš dalies pakeistas 2000 m. spalio 27 d. EEE jungtinio komiteto sprendimu Nr. 97/2000 [1].(2) 2000 m. birželio 8 d. Komisijos direktyva 2000/39/EB nustatanti pirmąjį orientacinių profesinio poveikio ribinių dydžių sąrašą, įgyvendinant Tarybos direktyvą 98/24/EB dėl darbuotojų saugos ir sveikatos apsaugos nuo rizikos, susijusios su cheminiais veiksniais darbe [2], turi būti įtraukta į Susitarimą.(3) Nuo 2001 m. gruodžio 31 d. Komisijos direktyva 2000/39 panaikina 1996 m. gruodžio 18 d. Komisijos direktyvą 96/94/EB, nustatančią antrąjį orientacinių ribinių verčių sąrašą, siekiant įgyvendinti Tarybos direktyvą 80/110/EEB dėl darbuotojų apsaugos nuo rizikos, susijusios su cheminių, fizinių ir biologinių veiksnių poveikiu darbe [3], kuri turi būti įtraukta į Susitarimą ir kuri dėl tos priežasties pagal Susitarimą turi būti panaikinta,NUSPRENDĖ:1 straipsnisSusitarimo XVIII priede po 16i punkto (Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 1999/92/EB) įterpiamas toks punktas:"16j. 32000 L 0039: 2000 m. birželio 8 d. Komisijos direktyva 2000/39/EB nustatanti pirmąjį orientacinių profesinio poveikio ribinių dydžių sąrašą, įgyvendinant Tarybos direktyvą 98/24/EB dėl darbuotojų saugos ir sveikatos apsaugos nuo rizikos, susijusios su cheminiais veiksniais darbe (OL L 142, 2000 6 16, p.47)."2 straipsnisSusitarimo XVIII priedo 3b punkto (Komisijos sprendimas 96/94/EB) tekstas išbraukiamas nuo 2001 m. gruodžio 31 d.3 straipsnisKomisijos direktyva 2000/39/EB tekstas islandų ir norvegų kalbomis, kuris turi būti paskelbtas Europos Bendrijų oficialiojo leidinio EEE priede, yra autentiškas.4 straipsnisŠis sprendimas įsigalioja 2001 m. vasario 24 d., jei EEE jungtiniam komitetui buvo pateikti visi pranešimai pagal Susitarimo 103 straipsnio 1 dalį [4].5 straipsnisŠis sprendimas skelbiamas Europos Bendrijų oficialiojo leidinio EEE dalyje ir EEE priede.Priimta Briuselyje, 2001 m. vasario 23 d.EEE jungtinio komiteto varduPirmininkasP. Westerlund[1] OL L 7, 2001 1 11, p. 25.[2] OL L 142, 2000 6 16, p. 47.[3] OL L 338, 1996 12 28, p. 86.[4] Konstituciniai reikalavimai nenurodyti.--------------------------------------------------


text:
 11/Sv. 99
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 103
 22005D0029
 L 198/15
 SLUŽBENI LIST EUROPSKE UNIJE
 ODLUKA ZAJEDNIČKOG ODBORA EGP-a br. 29/2005
 od 11. ožujka 2005.
 o izmjeni Priloga I. (Veterinarska i fitosanitarna pitanja) Sporazumu o EGP-u
 ZAJEDNIČKI ODBOR EGP-a,
 uzimajući u obzir Sporazum o Europskom gospodarskom prostoru, kako je izmijenjen Protokolom o prilagodbi Sporazuma o Europskom gospodarskom prostoru, dalje u tekstu „Sporazum”, a posebno njegov članak 98.,
 budući da:
 (1)
 Prilog I. Sporazumu je izmijenjen Odlukom Zajedničkog odbora EGP-a br. 2/2005 od 8. veljače 2005. (1).
 (2)
 Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 1289/2004 od 14. srpnja 2004. o odobravanju na 10 godina dodatka hrani za životinje Deccox®, koji pripada skupini „Kokcidiostatici i ostale medicinske tvari” (2) treba se unijeti u Sporazum.
 (3)
 Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 1356/2004 od 26. srpnja 2004. o odobravanju na 10 godina dodatka hrani za životinje „Elancoban”, koji pripada skupini „Kokcidiostatici i druge medicinske tvari” (3) treba se unijeti u Sporazum.
 (4)
 Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 1455/2004 od 16. kolovoza 2004. o odobravanju na 10 godina dodatka hrani za životinje „Avatec 15 %”, koji pripada skupini „Kokcidiostatici i ostale medicinske tvari” (4) treba se unijeti u Sporazum.
 (5)
 Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 1463/2004 od 17. kolovoza 2004. o odobravanju na 10 godina dodatka hrani za životinje „Sacox 120 microGranulate”, koji pripada skupini „Kokcidiostatici i druge medicinske tvari” (5) treba se unijeti u Sporazum.
 (6)
 Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 1464/2004 od 17. kolovoza 2004. o odobravanju na 10 godina dodatka hrani za životinje „Monteban”, koji pripada skupini „Kokcidiostatici i druge medicinske tvari” (6) treba se unijeti u Sporazum,
 ODLUČIO JE:
 Članak 1.
 Iza točke 1zx. (Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 1465/2004) poglavlja II. Priloga I. Sporazumu umeću se sljedeće točke:
 „1zy.
 32004 R 1289: Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 1289/2004 od 14. srpnja 2004. o odobravanju na 10 godina dodatka hrani za životinje Deccox®, koji pripada skupini ‚Kokcidiostatici i ostale medicinske tvari” (SL L 243, 15.7.2004., str. 15.).
 1zz.
 32004 R 1356: Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 1356/2004 od 26. srpnja 2004. o odobravanju na 10 godina dodatka hrani za životinje ‚Elancoban’, koji pripada skupini ‚Kokcidiostatici i druge medicinske tvari’ (SL L 251, 27.7.2004., str. 6.).
 1zza.
 32004 R 1455: Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 1455/2004 od 16. kolovoza 2004. o odobravanju na 10 godina dodatka hrani za životinje ‚Avatec 15 %’, koji pripada skupini ‚Kokcidiostatici i ostale medicinske tvari’ (SL L 269, 17.8.2004., str. 14.).
 1zzb.
 32004 R 1463: Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 1463/2004 od 17. kolovoza 2004. o odobravanju na 10 godina dodatka hrani za životinje ‚Sacox 120 microGranulate’, koji pripada skupini ‚Kokcidiostatici i druge medicinske tvari’ (SL L 270, 18.8.2004., str. 8.).
 1zzc.
 32004 R 1464: Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 1464/2004 od 17. kolovoza 2004. o odobravanju na 10 godina dodatka hrani za životinje ‚Monteban’, koji pripada skupini ‚Kokcidiostatici i druge medicinske tvari’ (SL L 270, 18.8.2004., str. 8.).”
 Članak 2.
 Tekstovi uredaba (EZ) br. 1289/2004, 1356/2004, 1455/2004, 1463/2004 i 1464/2004 na islandskom i norveškom jeziku, koji se objavljuju u Dodatku o EGP-u Službenom listu Europske unije, vjerodostojni su.
 Članak 3.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu 12. ožujka 2005., pod uvjetom da su sve obavijesti predviđene člankom 103. stavkom 1. Sporazuma dostavljene Zajedničkom odboru EGP-a (7).
 Članak 4.
 Ova se Odluka objavljuje u odjeljku za EGP i u Dodatku o EGP-u Službenom listu Europske unije.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu 11. ožujka 2005.
 Za Zajednički odbor EGP-a
 Predsjednik
 Richard WRIGHT
 (1) SL L 161, 23.6.2005., str. 3.
 (2) SL L 243, 15.7.2004., str. 15.
 (3) SL L 251, 27.7.2004., str. 6.
 (4) SL L 269, 17.8.2004., str. 14.
 (5) SL L 270, 18.8.2004., str. 5.
 (6) SL L 270, 18.8.2004., str. 8.
 (7) Ustavni zahtjevi nisu navedeni.


text:
 16.7.2020
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 L 228/9
 ODLUKA ZAJEDNIČKOG ODBORA EGP-A br. 5/2019
 od 8. veljače 2019.
 o izmjeni Priloga I. (Veterinarska i fitosanitarna pitanja) i Priloga II. (Tehnički propisi, norme, ispitivanje i potvrđivanje) Sporazumu o EGP-u [2020/924]
 ZAJEDNIČKI ODBOR EGP-a,
 uzimajući u obzir Sporazum o Europskom gospodarskom prostoru („Sporazum o EGP-u”), a posebno njegov članak 98.,
 budući da:
 (1)
 Uredba Komisije (EU) 2018/685 оd 3. svibnja 2018. o izmjeni priloga II., III. i IV. Uredbi (EZ) br. 396/2005 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća u pogledu maksimalnih razina ostataka za abamektin, pivo, fluopiram, fluksapiroksad, maleinski hidrazid, prah sjemenki gorušice i teflutrin u ili na određenim proizvodima (1) treba se uključiti u Sporazum o EGP-u.
 (2)
 Uredba Komisije (EU) 2018/686 оd 4. svibnja 2018. o izmjeni priloga II. i III. Uredbi (EZ) br. 396/2005 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća u pogledu maksimalnih razina ostataka za klorpirifos, klorpirifos-metil i triklopir u ili na određenim proizvodima (2) treba se uključiti u Sporazum o EGP-u.
 (3)
 Uredba Komisije (EU) 2018/687 оd 4. svibnja 2018. o izmjeni priloga II. i III. Uredbi (EZ) br. 396/2005 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća u pogledu maksimalnih razina ostataka za acibenzolar-S-metil, benzovindiflupir, bifentrin, biksafen, klorantraniliprol, deltametrin, flonikamid, fluazifop-P, izofetamid, metrafenon, pendimetalin i teflubenzuron u ili na određenim proizvodima (3) treba se uključiti u Sporazum o EGP-u.
 (4)
 Ova se Odluka odnosi na zakonodavstvo o hrani i hrani za životinje. Zakonodavstvo o hrani i hrani za životinje ne primjenjuje se na Lihtenštajn sve dok je primjena Sporazuma između Europske zajednice i Švicarske Konfederacije o trgovini poljoprivrednim proizvodima proširena na Lihtenštajn, kako je utvrđeno u sektorskim prilagodbama Priloga I. i u uvodnom dijelu poglavlja XII. Priloga II. Sporazumu o EGP-u. Ova se Odluka stoga ne primjenjuje na Lihtenštajn.
 (5)
 Priloge I. i II. Sporazumu o EGP-u trebalo bi stoga na odgovarajući način izmijeniti,
 DONIO JE OVU ODLUKU:
 Članak 1.
 U točki 40. (Uredba (EZ) br. 396/2005 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća) u poglavlju II. Priloga I. Sporazumu o EGP-u dodaju se sljedeće alineje:
 „—
 32018 R 0685: Uredbom Komisije (EU) 2018/685 od 3. svibnja 2018. (SL L 121, 16.5.2018., str. 1.),
 —
 32018 R 0686: Uredbom Komisije (EU) 2018/686 od 4. svibnja 2018. (SL L 121, 16.5.2018., str. 30.),
 —
 32018 R 0687: Uredbom Komisije (EU) 2018/687 od 4. svibnja 2018. (SL L 121, 16.5.2018., str. 63.).”
 Članak 2.
 U točki 54.zzy (Uredba (EZ) br. 396/2005 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća) u poglavlju XII. Priloga II. Sporazumu o EGP-u dodaju se sljedeće alineje:
 „—
 32018 R 0685: Uredbom Komisije (EU) 2018/685 od 3. svibnja 2018. (SL L 121, 16.5.2018., str. 1.),
 —
 32018 R 0686: Uredbom Komisije (EU) 2018/686 od 4. svibnja 2018. (SL L 121, 16.5.2018., str. 30.),
 —
 32018 R 0687: Uredbom Komisije (EU) 2018/687 od 4. svibnja 2018. (SL L 121, 16.5.2018., str. 63.).”
 Članak 3.
 Vjerodostojni su tekstovi uredbi (EU) 2018/685, (EU) 2018/686 i (EU) 2018/687 na islandskom i norveškom jeziku koji se objavljuju u Dodatku o EGP-u Službenom listu Europske unije.
 Članak 4.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu 9. veljače 2019. pod uvjetom da su podnesene sve obavijesti iz članka 103. stavka 1. Sporazuma o EGP-u (*1).
 Članak 5.
 Ova se Odluka objavljuje u odjeljku o EGP-u Službenog lista Europske unije i u Dodatku o EGP-u Službenom listu Europske unije.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu 8. veljače 2019.
 Za Zajednički odbor EGP-a
 Predsjednik
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) SL L 121, 16.5.2018., str. 1.
 (2) SL L 121, 16.5.2018., str. 30.
 (3) SL L 121, 16.5.2018., str. 63.
 (*1) Ustavni zahtjevi nisu navedeni.