type: wikipedia

text:
Anibal Tejada (Montevideo, 1893. április 7. – Montevideo, 1963. március 5.) uruguayi nemzetközi labdarúgó-játékvezető, edző. Teljes neve Aníbal C. E. Tejada.
 Pályafutása
 Nemzeti játékvezetés
 1925-ben lett az I. Liga játékvezetője. A nemzeti játékvezetéstől 1942-ben vonult vissza.
 Nemzetközi játékvezetés
 A Uruguayi labdarúgó-szövetség Játékvezető Bizottsága (JB) terjesztette fel nemzetközi játékvezetőnek, a Nemzetközi Labdarúgó-szövetség (FIFA) 1926-tól tartotta nyilván bírói keretében. A FIFA JB központi nyelvei közül a spanyolt beszélte. Több nemzetek közötti válogatott és klubmérkőzést vezetett, vagy működő társának partbíróként segített. Az aktív nemzetközi játékvezetéstől 1942-ben búcsúzott. Válogatott mérkőzéseinek száma: 20.
 Labdarúgó-világbajnokság
 A világbajnoki döntőkhöz vezető úton Uruguayban rendezték az I., az 1930-as labdarúgó-világbajnokságot, ahol a FIFA JB játékvezetőként alkalmazta. A FIFA JB korabeli elvárásának megfelelően a nem működő játékvezetők az aktív társuknak segítettek partbíróként. Világbajnokságokon vezetett mérkőzéseinek száma: 2 + 1 (partbíró).
 1930-as labdarúgó-világbajnokság
 A világbajnokság első büntetőjét ítélte Chile javára, a végrehajtó játékos nem tudta értékesíteni a lehetőséget.
 Világbajnoki mérkőzés
 Copa América
 Chile a 10., az 1926-os Copa América, Argentína a 12., az 1929-es Copa América, Argentína a 14., 1937-es Copa América, Chile a 16., 1941-es Copa América valamint Uruguay a 17., az 1942-es Copa América tornát rendezte, ahol a Dél-amerikai Labdarúgó-szövetség (CONMEBOL) JB bíróként foglalkoztatta.
 1926-os Copa América
 Copa América mérkőzés
 1929-es Copa América
 Copa América mérkőzés
 1937-es Copa América
 Copa América mérkőzés
 1941-es Copa América
 Copa América mérkőzés
 1942-es Copa América
 Copa América mérkőzés
 Sportvezetőként
 A játékvezetésen túl edzői tevékenységet is végzett klubcsapatnál és az Uruguayi labdarúgó-válogatott élén.
 Edzőként dolgozott
 1944-ben a CA Peñarol csapattal bajnokságot szerzett,
 1945-1946 között az Uruguayi labdarúgó-válogatottnál,
 1946 CA Peñarolral megnyerte a Cup of Rio Branco kupát,
 Írásai
 Könyv szerzője: A labdarúgás szabályai – Las leyes del Futbol y sus interpretaciones (1942).
 Források
 Uruguayi labdarúgó-játékvezetők
 1893-ban született személyek
 1963-ban elhunyt személyek


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22002D0165
 Decisão do Comité Misto do EEE n.° 165/2002, de 6 de Dezembro de 2002, que altera o anexo IX (serviços financeiros) do Acordo EEE
 Jornal Oficial no L 038 de 13/02/2003 p. 0024 - 0025
 Decisão do Comité Misto do EEEn.o 165/2002de 6 de Dezembro de 2002que altera o anexo IX (serviços financeiros) do Acordo EEEO COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE,Tendo em conta o Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu, tal como alterado pelo protocolo que adapta o Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu, a seguir designado "o acordo", e, nomeadamente, o seu artigo 98.o,Considerando o seguinte:(1) O anexo IX do acordo foi alterado pela Decisão do Comité Misto do EEE n.o 103/2002, de 12 de Julho de 2002(1).(2) A Directiva 2002/12/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 5 de Março de 2002, que altera a Directiva 79/267/CEE do Conselho relativamente aos requisitos em matéria de margem de solvência aplicáveis às empresas de seguro de vida(2), deve ser incorporada no acordo,DECIDE:Artigo 1.oO anexo IX do acordo é alterado do seguinte modo:1. Ao ponto 11 (Directiva 79/267/CEE do Conselho) é aditado o seguinte travessão:"- 32002 L 0012: Directiva 2002/12/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 5 de Março de 2002 (JO L 77 de 20.3.2002, p. 11).".2. As adaptações do ponto 11 (Directiva 79/267/CEE do Conselho) são alteradas da seguinte forma:a) É suprimido o texto da adaptação a) e o primeiro, segundo e sexto parágrafos da adaptação b).b) A seguir à adaptação f) é aditada a seguinte adaptação:"g) No artigo 20a, a expressão 'índice europeu de preços no consumidor para todos os Estados-Membros' é substituída pela expressão 'índice EEE de preços no consumidor para todas as partes contratantes'.".3. É suprimido o texto das adaptações a) e b) do ponto 12a (Directiva 92/96/CEE do Conselho).Artigo 2.oFazem fé os textos da Directiva 2002/12/CE, redigidos nas línguas islandesa e norueguesa, que serão publicados no suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.Artigo 3.oA presente decisão entra em vigor em 7 de Dezembro de 2002, desde que tenham sido efectuadas ao Comité Misto do EEE todas as notificações, em conformidade com o n.o 1 do artigo 103.o do acordo(3).Artigo 4.oA presente decisão será publicada na secção do EEE e no suplemento do EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.Feito em Bruxelas, em 6 de Dezembro de 2002.Pelo Comité Misto do EEEO PresidenteKjartan Jóhannsson(1) JO L 298 de 31.10.2002, p. 19.(2) JO L 77 de 20.3.2002, p. 11.(3) Requisitos constitucionais indicados.


text:
Saksi-Coburgi ja Gotha dünastia (saksa Haus Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, inglise House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) on dünastia Euroopas, mis valitses Saksi-Coburgi ja Gotha hertsogkonda 1826–1918, Belgiat alates 1830. aastast, Portugali 1853–1910, Bulgaariat 1887–1946 ning Suurbritanniat ja selle dominioone alates 1901. aastast.
 Saksi-Coburgi ja Gotha hertsogid
 1826–1844 Ernst I
 1844–1893 Ernst II
 1893–1900 Alfred
 1900–1918 Carl Eduard
 Belgia kuningad
 1831–1865 Léopold I
 1865–1909 Léopold II
 1909–1934 Albert I
 1934–1951 Léopold III
 1951–1993 Baudouin I
 1993–2013 Albert II
 2013–... Philippe I
 Suurbritannia kuningad ja kuningannad
 1901–1910 Edward VII
 1910–1936 George V
 1936 Edward VIII
 1936–1952 George VI
 1952–2022 Elizabeth II
 2022... Charles III
 Esimese maailmasõja ajal loobus Briti kuningapere Saksa tiitlitest ja dünastia nimi muudeti inglispärasemaks. 17. juulil 1917 teatas George V, et kõik Victoria meesliinis järeltulijad hakkavad kandma Windsori nime, mis valiti nii Windsori lossi kui ka linna järgi.
 Alates kuninganna Elizabeth II abielust prints Philipiga kannavad nende järeltulijad ametlikult nime Windsor-Mountbatten.
 Portugali kuningad
 1853–1861 Pedro V
 1861–1889 Luis
 1889–1908 Carlos I
 1908–1910 Manuel II
 Portugali valitsejateks said Saksi-Coburgi ja Gotha dünastia liikmed, kui Ernst I nõbu abiellus Bragança dünastiast Portugali kuninganna Maria II-ga. Tavaliselt loetakse ka nelja viimast Portugali kuningat Bragançadeks või Bragança-Wettiniteks (Saksi-Coburgi ja Gotha dünastia on Wettini dünastia üks haru).
 Bulgaaria tsaarid
 1887–1918 Ferdinand I (kuni 1908. aastani vürst)
 1918–1943 Boris III
 1943–1946 Simeon II (hilisem Bulgaaria peaminister Simeon Sakskoburggotski nime all 2001–2005)
 Viited
 Suurbritannia ja Iirimaa Ühendkuningriik
 Suurbritannia
 Belgia ajalugu
 Portugali kuningriik
 Bulgaaria ajalugu


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" Report No. D-2010-021 November 23, 2009\n\n\n\n\n\nUsing System Threat Assessments in the Acquisition \n\n of Tactical Wheeled Vehicles\n\n\n\n\n\n Warning\n\xe2\x80\x9cThe enclosed document(s) is (are) the property of the Department of Defense, Office of\nInspector General. Release or disclosure of the contents is prohibited by DOD Directive\n5106.1. Contents may be disclosed only to persons whose official duties require access\nhereto. Contents cannot be released outside the Defense Department without the approval of\nthe Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\x0cAdditional Copies\nTo obtain additional copies of this report, contact the Secondary Reports Distribution\nUnit at (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or fax (703) 604-8932.\n\nSuggestions for Audits\nTo suggest or request audits, contact the Office of the Deputy Inspector General for\nAuditing by phone (703) 604-9142 (DSN 664-9142), by fax (703) 604-8932, or by mail:\n\n ODIG-AUD (ATTN: Audit Suggestions)\n Department of Defense Inspector General\n 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)\n Arlington, VA 22202-4704\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms and Abbreviations\nACAT Acquisition Category\nNGIC National Ground Intelligence Center\nSTA System Threat Assessment\nTWV Tactical Wheeled Vehicle\n\n\n FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY \n\n\x0c INSPECTOR GENERAL\n DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE\n 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE\n ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-2884\n\n\n\n\n November 23, 2009\n\n\n\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR NAVAL INSPECTOR GENERAL\n AUDITOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY\n\nSUBJECT: Using System Threat Assessments in the Acquisition of Tactical Wheeled\n Vehicles (Report No. D-2010-021)\n\nWe are providing this report for information and use. No written response to this report\nwas required, and none was received. Therefore, we are publishing this report in final\nform.\n\nWe appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff. Please direct questions to me at (703)\n604-9201.\n ,\n ~6,\n Richard B. Jolliffe\n Assistant Inspector General\n Acquisition and Contract Management\n\n\n\n\n Speeiftl ~ltll'HiHg\n\nThis I el'61 t e6uhtitts iHferltttlti8ft ~eBtpt it'6Bt tliselestlt'e tuttley the \xc2\xa5i'sedaBl af\nIHfflt'lHlltioll !.et, S Y.S.C. \xc2\xa7 SS:J~)(:J),\n\n\n\n\n FOR OFFICI!.L YSE ONLY\n\x0c\x0cReport No. D-2010-021 (Project No. D2008-D000AE-0287.000) November 23, 2009\n\n\n Results in Brief: Using System Threat\n Assessments in the Acquisition of Tactical\n Wheeled Vehicles\n\nWhat We Did\nWe determined whether the Army and Marine What We Recommend\nCorps program offices obtained updated system The report contains no recommendations, and\nthreat assessments for acquisitions of selected no agency or organization is required to\ntactical wheeled vehicles in support of comment.\noperations in Southwest Asia. Specifically, we\ndetermined whether the Army and Marine Corps Client Comments and Our\nprogram offices updated program\ndocumentation for selected tactical wheeled\n Response\nvehicles, including contracts, test plans, and We provided a draft report on September 30,\nsystem capability documents, in response to 2009 to the Naval Inspector General and to the\nthreats identified in current system threat Auditor General, Department of the Army. No\nassessments. written response to this report was required, and\n none was received. Therefore, we are\nWhat We Found publishing this report in final form.\nThe Army and Marine Corps processes used to Heavy Equipment Transporter System\nidentify threats to tactical wheeled vehicles and (Example of a tactical wheeled vehicle)\ncommunicate this information to program\nmanagers and the test communities were\neffective. As a result, program offices for seven\nArmy and Marine Corps tactical wheeled\nvehicles that were deployed to Southwest Asia\nreacted to updated system threat assessments by\nincorporating armor into the vehicles\xe2\x80\x99 design.\nSpecifically, the program offices obtained\nupdated threat assessments, modified their\ncontracts to incorporate armor requirements in\nthe vehicle design, and had the test community\ndetermine the suitability and effectiveness of the Source: Product Manager Heavy Tactical\ndesign changes made in response to the Vehicles\nchanging threat. Further, requirements\norganizations within the Army and Marine\nCorps were in the process of updating tactical\nwheeled vehicle capability documents to reflect\nthe updated threat information and required\nupdated capabilities. The Army and Marine\nCorps internal controls were effective. We\nidentified no internal control weakness in\nidentifying and communicating the threat to\ntactical wheeled vehicles.\n\n i\n\x0cTHIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK\n\n\x0cTable of Contents \n\n\nIntroduction\t 1\n\n\n Objective 1\n\n Background 1\n\n Review of Internal Controls 3\n\n Sources of Threat Assessment Information 3\n\n\nFinding. Identifying and Updating the Threats to Tactical Wheeled Vehicles 4\n\n\nAppendices\n\n A. \tScope and Methodology 10 \n\n Prior Coverage 10 \n\n B. \tDescription of the Selected Army and Marine Corps \n\n Tactical Wheeled Vehicles 12 \n\n C. Guidance on Developing and Communicating Threat Information 15 \n\n D. Agency Roles and Responsibilities \t 17 \n\n\nGlossary \t 20\n\n\n\n\n\n FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY \n\n\x0cTHIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK \n\n\x0cIntroduction\nObjective\nThe audit objective was to determine whether the Army and Marine Corps program\noffices obtained updated system threat assessments (STAs) for acquisitions of selected\ntactical wheeled vehicles (TWVs) in support of the operations in Southwest Asia.1\nSpecifically, we determined whether the Army and the Marine Corps updated program\ndocumentation for selected TWVs, including contracts, test plans, and system capability\ndocuments, in response to the threats identified in current STAs. See Appendix A for a\ndiscussion of the scope and methodology and prior coverage related to the audit\nobjective.\n\nBackground\nIntelligence agencies prepare and update assessments of enemy capabilities to neutralize\nor degrade a specific U.S. system and describe the threat to be countered and the\nprojected threat environment.\n\nOperational Threat Environment\nIn November 2008, the Army Training and Doctrine Command for Intelligence, G-2,\nprepared an informal threat assessment for the Army\xe2\x80\x99s TWVs.2 The threat assessment\nstates that, for the past 20 years, adversaries have adopted tactics and technologies to hide\nfrom U.S. reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition sensors. The enemies\nchoose to fight in complex terrain because it mitigates American technological\nadvantages in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. As a result, U.S. ground\nforces operate in all terrain sets and in all weather conditions in increasingly complex\nenvironments. In these environments, U.S. ground forces conducting patrol or\nreconnaissance missions in TWVs could become prime targets. The threat assessment\npredicts that the future enemy will continue to rely less on conventional force-on-force\nbattles to thwart U.S. actions and more on tactics that frustrate U.S. intentions without\nconfrontation.\n\nThe tailored STA3 prepared for the Marine Corps Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement\nand the Logistics Vehicle System Replacement in January 20044 states that in the next 20\nyears no single opponent will constitute a threat to the United States. Instead, regional\npowers and alliances will pose the most viable threat. Advances in and proliferation of\ntechnology will present an array of new, more sophisticated threats. Increasingly, other\n\n\n1\n Previously referred to as the Global War on Terror.\n\n2\n In August 2009, the Army completed, \xe2\x80\x9cSystem Threat Assessment Report for the Tactical Wheeled \n\nVehicles,\xe2\x80\x9d a combined STA for the Army\xe2\x80\x99s light, medium, and heavy TWVs. \n\n3\n The tailored STA is the Marine Corps equivalent to an STA; however, the threat content is more focused \n\non the specific system.\n\n4\n The Marine Corps Intelligence Activity modified the tailored STA in August 2009, but it is still dated \n\nJanuary 2004. \n\n\n\n 1\n\n\x0cnations will be equipped with new or modernized sophisticated weapons, sensors, and\ninformation operations capabilities obtained from suppliers worldwide. Moreover, the\nMarine Corps can expect to encounter both nation-state-based, nontraditional combatants\nand a variety of nonstate actors engaging in unconventional warfare. Each operational\nenvironment will provide a unique set of challenges to deployed forces and TWVs. See\nthe glossary for definitions of technical terms used in this report.\n\nSpecific Threats to Tactical Wheeled Vehicles\nThe November 2008 threat assessment identified the most likely threats to TWVs as\nmines, roadside improvised explosive devices, and small arms fire. However, the most\nstressing threats continue to be explosively formed projectiles because of their armor\npenetration capabilities and large underbody improvised explosive devices. Physical\ndamage can also be expected from traditional and irregular threats, ranging from\nconventional ground forces using small arms and mines to terrorist and insurgent forces\nusing available weapons in both their intended and unintended capacities. The threat\nassessment further indicated that adversaries can be expected to possess knowledge\nregarding vulnerable areas when targeting TWVs.\n\nThe January 2004 tailored STA for the Marine Corps Medium Tactical Vehicle\nReplacement and the Logistics Vehicle System Replacement states that there is no single\nthreat to operations of the TWVs. TWVs will face many threats, including landmines,\nsmall arms fire, improvised explosive devices, rockets, precision guided bombs, and\nmunitions. Reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition obstacles and barriers\nalso threaten the survivability of TWVs in future operations.\n\nSelected Tactical Wheeled Vehicles\nWe judgmentally selected TWVs developed and acquired by the Army and the Marine\nCorps5 to determine whether controls were in place to react with appropriate vehicle\ndesign changes as changes in threats occurred for those vehicles.\n\nIn the Army, TWVs are managed under the TACOM Life Cycle Management Command.\nFrom a list of all Army-managed TWVs, we identified those that were operating in\ntheater (Iraq or Afghanistan) and then selected vehicles from each TWV category: light,\nmedium, and heavy. Based on their wide use in theater, we selected the following five\nArmy TWVs for review:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Armored Security Vehicle,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Heavy Equipment Transporter System, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck.\n\n\n\n5\n The Navy and the Air Force do not develop or produce TWVs.\n\n\n 2\n\n\x0cIn the Marine Corps, TWVs are managed under the Marine Corps Systems Command.\nFrom the list provided by the Marine Corps, we selected all the light, medium, and heavy\nTWVs for which the Marine Corps was the lead acquisition agency:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Internally Transportable Vehicle,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Logistics Vehicle System Replacement.\n\nEach of the TWVs selected for review was in the production phase of the acquisition\nprocess, with the exception of the Heavy Equipment Transporter System, which is in the\noperations and support phase of the acquisition process. See Appendix B for a\ndescription of the selected Army and Marine Corps TWVs.\n\nReview of Internal Controls\nWe reviewed the internal controls in the Army and Marine Corps to identify and\ncommunicate threat updates to TWVs to program offices, contracting officers, test\norganizations, and milestone decision authorities. We determined that the Army and\nMarine Corps processes used for identifying and communicating threat information on\nTWVs to program managers, contracting officers, test organizations, and requirements\ngenerators were effective.\n\nSources of Threat Assessment Information\nThe key organizations for preparing the Land Warfare Capstone Threat Assessment and\nfor collecting and relaying threat information to program offices and requirements\ngenerators are the Army Intelligence and Security Command\xe2\x80\x99s National Ground\nIntelligence Center (NGIC); the Army Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for\nIntelligence, G-2; the Army Training and Doctrine Command Deputy Chief of Staff for\nIntelligence, G-2; the Army Materiel Command Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for\nIntelligence, G-2, including Army foreign intelligence officers; and the Marine Corps\nIntelligence Activity. Appendix C provides the DOD guidance on STAs, and\nAppendix D describes the roles and responsibilities of the key agencies.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\x0c Finding. Identifying and Updating the Threats\n to Tactical Wheeled Vehicles\n The Army and Marine Corps processes used to identify threats to tactical wheeled\n vehicles (TWVs) and communicate this information to program managers and the test\n communities were effective. As a result, program offices for the Army and Marine Corps\n TWVs from our selection that were deployed to Southwest Asia6 had reacted to updated\n STAs by incorporating armor in the vehicles\xe2\x80\x99 design (see the seven TWVs in the table\n below). Specifically, the program offices had obtained updated threat assessments,\n modified their contracts to incorporate armor requirements in the vehicles\xe2\x80\x99 design, and\n had their test community determine the suitability and effectiveness of the design changes\n made in response to the changing threats. Further, requirements organizations within the\n Army and the Marine Corps were in the process of updating TWV capability documents\n to reflect updated threat information identified in STAs and updating TWV required\n capabilities as needed.\n\n Vehicles Selected for Review That Were Deployed to Southwest Asia\n TWV Type1 Acquisition2 Oversight Current Phase\n Category\n Army\n Armored Security L III Program Executive Office for Production\n Vehicle Combat Support and Combat\n Service Support\n High Mobility L III Program Executive Office for Production\n Multipurpose Wheeled Combat Support and Combat\n Vehicle Service Support\n Family of Medium M IC Program Executive Office for Production\n Tactical Vehicles Combat Support and Combat\n Service Support\n Heavy Equipment H III Program Executive Office for Operations &\n Transporter System Combat Support and Combat Support\n Service Support\n Heavy Expanded H III Program Executive Office for Production\n Mobility Tactical Combat Support and Combat\n Truck Service Support\n Marine Corps\n Medium Tactical M IC Program Executive Office for Production\n Vehicle Replacement Land Systems\n Logistics Vehicle H II Program Executive Office for Production\n System Replacement Land Systems\n1\n L=light; M=medium; and H=heavy.\n2\n See the glossary for definitions of the acquisition categories.\n\n\n 6\n The Internally Transportable Vehicle was not deployed to Southwest Asia.\n\n\n 4\n\n\x0cPreparation of System Threat Assessments\nIn accordance with Army Regulation 381-11, \xe2\x80\x9cIntelligence Support to Capability\nDevelopment,\xe2\x80\x9d January 26, 2007, the Army program office for the four selected light and\nheavy TWVs was not required to have an STA because they were acquisition category\n(ACAT) III programs. As required, the Army Training and Doctrine Command for\nIntelligence, G-2, prepared informal threat assessments in response to the updated threats\nto TWVs. In March 2005, the Army Training and Doctrine Command prepared an\ninformal threat assessment that focused on the current threat and the armoring of TWVs.\nIn November 2008, the Army Training and Doctrine Command updated the informal\nMarch 2005 threat assessment to cover a broad range of threats that TWVs may face in\nthe next 10 to 15 years. The informal threat assessments identified the most likely threats\nto TWVs as side-attack improvised explosive devices and small arms fire, and the most\nstressing threats to TWVs as explosively formed projectiles and large underbody\nimprovised explosive devices. Other threats to TWVs include landmines; rocket-\npropelled grenades; antitank guided missiles; mortars; artillery; and armed, unmanned\naerial vehicles. The Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, G-2, and NGIC\ncoordinated on the informal threat assessments. The TACOM Life Cycle Management\nCommand Intelligence and Security Division prepared an STA, \xe2\x80\x9cSystem Threat\nAssessment Report for the Tactical Wheeled Vehicles,\xe2\x80\x9d for the Army\xe2\x80\x99s light, medium,\nand heavy TWVs7 that was validated by the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence,\nG-2, in August 2009.\n\nBecause the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles program was an ACAT IC program,\nthe program office obtained an STA as required by Army Regulation 381-11. The Army\nDeputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, G-2, validated the STA for the Family of Medium\nTactical Vehicles program in accordance with Army Regulation 381-11.\n\nThe Marine Corps prepared and validated tailored STAs for the three TWV programs\nselected, as required by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 3811.1D,\n\xe2\x80\x9cThreat Support to Weapon and Information Technology Systems Planning and\nAcquisition,\xe2\x80\x9d June 5, 2008. For the two TWV programs with missions in Southwest Asia\n(Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement and Logistics Vehicle System Replacement), the\ntailored STA stated that the primary and most prolific threats were small arms projectiles,\nmortar and artillery fragments, and antipersonnel and antivehicle mine blasts.\n\nContract Modifications Issued in Response to Changing Threats\nTo procure armor upgrades to TWVs in response to the increased threats identified in the\nSTAs, Army and Marine Corps contracting officers issued separate armor contracts or\nawarded contract modifications to the production contracts, with the exception of the\nInternally Transportable Vehicle, which did not have increased armor requirements.\nArmy contracting officers amended the contracts to incorporate add-on-armor\nrequirements and procure initial quantities of armor kits as follows:\n\n\n7\n The TWV STA does not include the Armored Security Vehicle because it is an ACAT III and is not\nrequired by Army Regulation 381-11.\n\n\n 5\n\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2\t In July 2007, the contracting officer for the Armored Security Vehicle modified\n the contract to procure 506 add-on-armor kits. In February 2008 the contract was\n amended to include an additional 1,676 add-on-armor kits. Also, in March 2008\n and January 2009, the contracting officer continued to amend the contract to\n procure a total of 4,019 improved add-on-armor kits.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t In April and June 2005, the contracting officer for the High Mobility\n Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle amended the contract to procure\n 1,233 add-on-armor kits. Additionally, in July 2006, the contracting officer\n amended the contract to procure an additional 3,800 enhanced add-on-armor kits.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t In March 2004 and September 2005, the contracting officer for the Family of\n Medium Tactical Vehicles awarded contracts to Radian Inc. to provide\n 1,822 bolt-on armor crew protection kits. Also, in July 2004, the contracting\n officer awarded a contract to Stewart and Stevenson Tactical Vehicle Systems LP\n to provide 2,060 low signature armored cabs. Additionally, in 2008, the\n contracting officer amended the production contract to procure 1,594 long-term\n armor strategy kits and cabs.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t In April 2004, the contracting officer for the Heavy Equipment Transporter\n System contracted with Simula Inc. to procure 796 add-on-armor kits. In\n March 2008, the contracting officer amended the production contract with\n Oshkosh Truck Corporation to procure six prototype Heavy Equipment\n Transporter System vehicles with product improvements that, when complete,\n will accept the current and future add-on-armor kits.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t In October 2008, the contracting officer for the Heavy Expanded Mobility\n Tactical Truck amended the contract to procure 661 add-on-armor kits. Also, in\n January 2009, the contracting officer amended the contract to procure another\n 1,769 add-on-armor kits.\n\nMarine Corps contracting officers amended contracts to incorporate add-on-armor\nrequirements and procured initial quantities of armor kits by performing the following\ncontractual actions.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t In September 2004, the contracting officer incorporated engineering change\n proposals developed by the prime contractor, Oshkosh Corporation, in the\n Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement contract to procure 398 add-on-armor kits\n to provide increased armor protection for greater crew survivability. Also, from\n February 2005 through November 2008, the contracting officer amended the\n contract to procure an additional 3,423 add-on-armor kits.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t In May, 2006, the contracting officer for the Logistics Vehicle Replacement\n System began to exercise contract options and procured 351 add-on-armor kits.\n\n\n 6\n\n\x0cTests of the Effectiveness of Armor Design Modifications\nThe Army Test and Evaluation Command was aware of current threats to TWVs based\non weekly threat updates received from the NGIC. Accordingly, the Army Test and\nEvaluation Command incorporated the updated threat information in the test plans.\nUsing the weekly threat updates, the Army Test and Evaluation Command, in\ncoordination with the program offices, developed test plans and performed testing on the\nsuitability and effectiveness of the armor modifications made to the Army TWVs.\nBelow is a summary of the test results from the Army Test and Evaluation Command\xe2\x80\x99s\ncapabilities and limitations reports, safety confirmation reports, and live fire test reports.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The September 2007 capabilities and limitations report for the Armored Security\n Vehicle stated that the add-on armor fragmentation kit enhanced the ballistic\n protection of the Armored Security Vehicle and provided some protection against\n improvised explosive devices. The earlier design of the Armored Security\n Vehicle protected against small arms fire and provided limited mine protection.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t (FOUO) The early add-on armor fragmentation kits on armored variants of the\n High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle included protection against\n The October 2006 safety\n confirmation for the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle armored\n variants stated that the add-on armor fragmentation kit enhanced protection\n against A\n safety confirmation was released in June 2007 for an interim armor kit that\n provided protection against\n *\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The December 2003 and October 2004 safety confirmations for the Family of\n Medium Tactical Vehicles stated that the Radian armor kit and the low signature\n armor cab kit, respectively, protected crew against small arms fire and blast\n fragmentation. Before December 2003, the design of the Family of Medium\n Tactical Vehicles did not provide armor for protection against small arms fire or\n blast fragmentation.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t (FOUO) The June 2005 capabilities and limitations report for the Heavy\n Equipment Transporter System stated that the bolt-on armor improved protection\n *\n against\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t (FOUO) In the January 2008 live fire test and evaluation report, the Army Test\n and Evaluation Command discussed the extent to which crew can survive and\n function after the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, with improved\n armor, is attacked by a variety of ballistic threats. The upgraded armor improved\n *\n protection against\n\nThe Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity representatives attended\nproduct team meetings with Marine Corps intelligence analysts to discuss threats to\n\n\n*\n This paragraph omitted information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act,\n5 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 552(b)(2).\n\n FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY\n 7\n\x0cTWVs before developing plans to test the suitability and effectiveness of armor\nmodifications to the Marine Corps TWVs. Further, Marine Corps intelligence analysts\nreviewed and provided input to the test plans to ensure planned tests were reasonable.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The March 2008 draft Acquisition Strategy/Acquisition Plan for the Medium\n Tactical Vehicle Replacement program stated that, as armoring vehicle\n requirements became a critical issue during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Marine\n Corps System Command pursued the development, testing, and production of\n armor kits geared toward crew protection. The testing results showed that the\n integrated armoring system developed for the Medium Tactical Vehicle\n Replacement program withstands small arms fire, improvised explosive devices,\n and mine blasts. The program office is currently fielding a blast protection\n upgrade kit to theater with plans to retrofit the upgrade to existing Medium\n Tactical Vehicle Replacement armor.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t (FOUO) The September 2008 live fire test and evaluation report for the\n Logistics Vehicle Replacement System stated that the add-on armor provides\n protection against\n *\n\n\n\nUpdate of Vehicle Capability Documents\nThe Army Training and Doctrine Command stated that it plans to update the capabilities\ndocuments for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, the Heavy Equipment\nTransporter System, and the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck in response to the\nupdated STAs. TACOM Life Cycle Management Command foreign intelligence officers\ncompleted the Light, Medium, and Heavy TWV STA, which the Army Training and\nDoctrine Command will use as the baseline threat level in capability documents for all\nArmy TWVs selected except the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. The\nHigh Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle capability document will not be updated\nbecause the program is being replaced with the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. The\nArmored Security Vehicle capability document was updated in February 2007 with\nupdated threat information from the Army Training and Doctrine Command and the\nDefense Intelligence Agency.\n\nThe Marine Corps Combat Development Command has updated its capabilities document\nby adding an annex for armoring the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement program.\nThe Command plans to update the Logistics Vehicle System Replacement capability\ndocuments using the program\xe2\x80\x99s tailored STA.\n\n\n\n\n*\n This paragraph omitted information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act,\n5 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 552(b)(2).\n\n FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY\n 8\n\x0cSummary\n(FOUO) The Army and Marine Corps processes for identifying and communicating\nupdated threat information on TWVs to program managers, contracting officers, test\norganizations, and requirements generators were effective. The Army and Marine Corps\nprepared STAs for TWVs, identifying the most likely and stressing threats to TWVs. As\ndiscussed, program managers, in response to updated threat information, had contracting\nofficers amend TWV contracts to incorporate armor design changes needed to provide\nthe TWVs additional protection from\n Also Army and Marine Corps test organizations tested the\neffectiveness of the armor design changes made to the TWVs as the threats continued to\nevolve. Although not accomplished yet, the requirements communities within the Army\nand the Marine Corps planned to update their TWV capabilities documents with updated\nthreat assessment information and revised armor protection requirements in response to\nthe updated threats. *\n\n\n\n\n*\n This paragraph omitted information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act,\n5 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 552(b)(2).\n\n FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY\n 9\n\x0cAppendix A. Scope and Methodology\nWe conducted this performance audit from October 2008 through September 2009 in\naccordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards\nrequire that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to\nprovide a reasonable basis for our finding and conclusions based on our audit objectives.\nWe believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our finding and\nconclusions based on our audit objectives. We judgmentally selected for review Army\nand Marine Corps TWVs that were in production and fielded for use in Southwest Asia.\nWe selected eight TWVs for review:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Armored Security Vehicle,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Heavy Equipment Transporter System,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Internally Transportable Vehicle,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Logistics Vehicle System Replacement.\n\nWe excluded TWVs in the development phase of the acquisition process from our review\nbecause system program offices must obtain an updated system threat assessment before\nlow-rate initial production decisions and full-rate production reviews to ensure that\nsystems produced and fielded satisfy warfighter capability requirements.\n\nFor selected TWVs, we determined whether the Army and Marine Corps updated system\ncapability documents, contract statements of work, and test plans in response to the\nthreats identified in current STAs. We reviewed STAs, and contracting, testing, and\ncapabilities documents dated from August 1982 through August 2009. We interviewed\nstaff from the Army Intelligence and Security Command\xe2\x80\x99s NGIC; the Army Office of the\nDeputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, G-2; the Army Training and Doctrine Command\nDeputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, G-2; the Army Materiel Command Office of the\nDeputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, G-2, including the Army foreign intelligence\nofficers; the Army Test and Evaluation Command; the Marine Corps Combat\nDevelopment Command; the Marine Corps System Command; and the Marine Corps\nIntelligence Activity.\n\nUse of Computer-Processed Data\nWe did not use computer-processed data to perform this audit.\n\nPrior Coverage\nDuring the last 5 years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of\nDefense Inspector General (DOD IG), and the Army Audit Agency have issued three\nreports discussing the installation of Army truck armor, planning armor requirements,\n\n\n 10\n\n\x0cand foreign intelligence support to acquisition. Unrestricted GAO reports can be\naccessed over the Internet at http://www.gao.gov. Unrestricted DOD IG reports can be\naccessed over the Internet at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports. Army Audit Agency\nreports are not publicly available on the Internet.\n\nGAO\nGAO Report No. GAO-06-160, \xe2\x80\x9cDefense Logistics: Several Factors Limited the\nProduction and Installation of Army Truck Armor during Current Wartime Operations,\xe2\x80\x9d\nMarch 2006\n\nDOD IG\nDOD IG Report No. D-2008-089, \xe2\x80\x9cPlanning Armor Requirements for the Family of\nMedium Tactical Vehicles,\xe2\x80\x9d May 9, 2008\n\nArmy\nArmy Audit Agency Report No. A-2006-0232-ALA, \xe2\x80\x9cFollowup Audit of G-2 Foreign\nIntelligence Support to Acquisition,\xe2\x80\x9d September 22, 2006\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\n\x0cAppendix B. Description of the Selected\nArmy and Marine Corps Tactical Wheeled\nVehicles\nArmored Security Vehicle (Army)\nThe Armored Security Vehicle is a light TWV, ACAT III program under the oversight of\nthe Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat Service Support. The\nArmy Acquisition Executive is the milestone decision authority. The Armored Security\nVehicle program is in the production phase of the acquisition process. The Armored\nSecurity Vehicle supports forces operating in complex and uncertain security\nenvironments that have both conventional and asymmetric threats. It allows teams to\ndetect and engage targets more effectively while operating under armor. The Armored\nSecurity Vehicle is in use in Southwest Asia.\n\nHigh Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (Army)\nThe High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle is a light TWV, ACAT III program\nunder the oversight of the Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat\nService Support. The Program Executive Officer is the milestone decision authority.\nThe High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle program has been in the production\nphase of the acquisition process since its full-rate production review in September 1985.\nThe High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle is used for many missions that include\ncommand and control, troop transport, light cargo transport, shelter carrier, ambulance,\nweapons transport, and weapons platform throughout all areas of the battlefield or\nmission area. The High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle is in use in Southwest\nAsia.\n\nFamily of Medium Tactical Vehicles (Army)\nThe Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles is a medium TWV, ACAT IC program under\nthe oversight of the Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat Service\nSupport. The Army Acquisition Executive is the milestone decision authority. The\nFamily of Medium Tactical Vehicles program has been in the production phase of the\nacquisition process since its full-rate production review in August 1995. The Family of\nMedium Tactical Vehicles provides unit mobility and resupply, as well as equipment and\npersonnel transportation. Further, it serves as a weapon systems platform for combat,\ncombat support, and combat service support units in a tactical environment. The Family\nof Medium Tactical Vehicles program is currently in use in Southwest Asia.\n\nHeavy Equipment Transporter System (Army)\nThe Heavy Equipment Transporter System is a heavy TWV, ACAT III program under\nthe oversight of the Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat Service\nSupport. The Program Executive Officer is the milestone decision authority. The Heavy\nEquipment Transporter System is in the operations and support phase of the acquisition\nprocess. The Heavy Equipment Transporter System is used to provide line haul, local\n\n\n 12\n\n\x0chaul, and maintenance evacuation of the M1 series tank and heavy tracked and wheeled\nequipment during tactical operations on and off road. The Heavy Equipment Transporter\nSystem program is currently in use in Southwest Asia.\n\nHeavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (Army)\nThe Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck is a heavy TWV, ACAT III program under\nthe oversight of the Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat Service\nSupport. The Program Executive Officer is the milestone decision authority. The Heavy\nExpanded Mobility Tactical Truck is in the production phase of the acquisition process.\nThe Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck supports combat units by performing line\nand local haul, unit resupply, helicopter and tactical refueling, and related missions in the\ntactical environment. The Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck is currently in use in\nSouthwest Asia.\n\nInternally Transportable Vehicle (Marine Corps)\nThe Internally Transportable Vehicle is a light TWV, ACAT III program under the\noversight of the Product Group Director for Armor and Fire Support Systems. The\nCommanding General, Marine Corps Systems Command, is the milestone decision\nauthority. The Internally Transportable Vehicle is in the production phase of the\nacquisition process. The Internally Transportable Vehicle provides ground mobility in\nsupport of an operational maneuver from the sea and can be transported on the MV-22\nOsprey. The Internally Transportable Vehicle is currently not being used in Southwest\nAsia.\n\nMedium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (Marine Corps)\nThe Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement is a medium TWV, ACAT IC program under\nthe oversight of the Program Executive Office for Land Systems. It is in the production\nphase of the acquisition process. In February 2008, the Navy Acquisition Executive was\ndesignated the milestone decision authority for the Medium Tactical Vehicle\nReplacement program after the ACAT level was reclassified from an ACAT II to an\nACAT IC program based on an increase in procurement funding driven by new wartime\nrequirements. The Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement delivers supplies to forward\ndeployed units; transports personnel, ammunition, break-bulk cargo, bulk liquids,\nengineering equipment; and tows weapons systems. Further, it must be able to accept\nand move air defense, communication, command and control shelters, and commercial\ncargo containers. The Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement is in use in Southwest Asia.\n\nLogistics Vehicle System Replacement (Marine Corps)\nThe Logistics Vehicle System Replacement is a heavy TWV, ACAT II program under\nthe oversight of the Program Executive Office for Land Systems and is in the production\nphase of the acquisition process. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research,\nDevelopment, and Acquisition) is the milestone decision authority. The Logistics\nVehicle System Replacement replaces the Logistics Vehicle System, and its primary\nmission is to provide bulk transport within all elements of the Marine Air-Ground Task\nForce. The bulk transport includes bulk fuel and water, ammunition, break-bulk cargo,\n\n\n\n 13\n\n\x0ctactical bridging standardized containers to 20 feet, heavy equipment transport, and heavy\nwrecker recovery. The Logistics Vehicle System Replacement is in use in Afghanistan.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\n\x0cAppendix C. Guidance on Developing and\nCommunicating Threat Information\nDefense Intelligence Agency Instruction 5000.002, \xe2\x80\x9cIntelligence Threat Support for\nMajor Defense Acquisition Programs,\xe2\x80\x9d June 2006; Army Regulation 381-11,\n\xe2\x80\x9cIntelligence Support to Capability Development,\xe2\x80\x9d January 26, 2007; and the Office of\nthe Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 3811.1D, \xe2\x80\x9cThreat Support to Weapon and\nInformation Technology Systems Planning and Acquisition,\xe2\x80\x9d June 5, 2008, provide\ncriteria for developing threat assessments and communicating updated threat information\nfor use throughout the acquisition process for TWVs.\n\nDefense Intelligence Agency Instruction\nDefense Intelligence Agency Instruction 5000.002 states that the Agency is responsible\nfor validating STAs1 for ACAT ID, major defense acquisition programs (definitions of all\nACAT levels are in the glossary). In addition, the Instruction tasks NGIC with preparing\nand updating the Land Warfare Capstone Threat Assessment, which provides intelligence\ninformation for systems that operate on land, including TWVs. Capstone threat\nassessments are comprehensive, authoritative, and validated assessments of foreign\nthreats in major warfare areas. Capstone threat assessments are the primary source of\nthreat intelligence information for preparing and updating STAs and threat portions of\ndocuments that the Joint Chiefs of Staff review as part of the Joint Capabilities\nIntegration and Development System process.2 Upon publication, capstone threat\nassessments are considered validated threat assessments for use in the Defense\nacquisition system process.\n\nArmy Regulation\nArmy Regulation 381\xe2\x80\x9311 provides policies, responsibilities, and procedures for\nrequesting threat assessments and to ensure that threat considerations are incorporated in\nthe Defense system acquisition process and the Joint Capabilities Integration and\nDevelopment System for efforts on which the Army is the lead or supporting agency.\nThe Army\xe2\x80\x99s Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, G-2, validates STAs for\nACAT IC and II programs and programs on the Office of the Secretary of Defense Test\nand Evaluation Oversight list.3 If an STA is required for an ACAT III program, the\nArmy relies on the appropriate capstone threat assessment, which for TWVs is the Land\n\n\n1\n Defense Intelligence Agency Instruction 5000.002 states that many agencies use the terms system threat\nassessment and system threat assessment report; however, the terms are equivalent. For consistency, this\nreport uses the term system threat assessment.\n2\n The documents included in the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System process include\nJoint Capabilities Document, Initial Capabilities Document, Capability Development Document, and\nCapability Production Document.\n3\n The Office of the Secretary of Defense Test and Evaluation Oversight list specifies developmental,\noperational, and live fire test and evaluation oversight requirements for each program.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\n\x0cWarfare Capstone Threat Assessment. The threat validation authority for ACAT III\nprograms is the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command at program initiation and the\nU.S. Army Materiel Command at subsequent acquisition milestone decisions.\n\nChief of Naval Operations Instruction\nChief of Naval Operations Instruction 3811.1D requires that the Marine Corps\nIntelligence Activity prepare tailored STAs for ACAT I, II, III, and IV programs. It also\nrequires the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity to review threat information in Joint\nCapability and Integration Development System documents for compliance with DOD\nand the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff requirements and to review and approve\nthreat-related sections of the system test and evaluation master plans.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\n\x0cAppendix D. Agency Roles and\nResponsibilities\nThe Army Intelligence and Security Command\xe2\x80\x99s NGIC; the Army Office of the Deputy\nChief of Staff for Intelligence, G-2; the Army Training and Doctrine Command Deputy\nChief of Staff for Intelligence, G-2; the Army Materiel Command Office of Deputy Chief\nof Staff for Intelligence, G-2; Army foreign intelligence officers; and the Marine Corps\nIntelligence Activity are the key organizations for preparing the Land Warfare Capstone\nThreat Assessment and for collecting and relaying threat information to program offices\nand requirements generators.\n\nNational Ground Intelligence Center\nThe Army Intelligence and Security Command\xe2\x80\x99s NGIC is responsible for managing\ncollections, analysis, and production of threat documentation. NGIC provides support to\nintelligence activities in developing and updating STAs by participating in threat steering\ngroup meetings\xe2\x80\xa0 and providing comments on programs\xe2\x80\x99 STAs. NGIC is responsible for\nthreat analysis and threat assessment production for all land systems, as delegated by the\nDefense Intelligence Agency. NGIC ground intelligence data can be accessed on its\nsecure Web site by members of the DOD intelligence, acquisition, and test communities\nwith access.\n\n(FOUO)\n\n\n\n\n *\n\n\n(FOUO)\n\n\n\n\n *\n\n\n(FOUO)\n\n\n\n *\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa0\n The threat steering group coordinates the production, review, and validation of threat assessments.\n*\n This paragraph omitted information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act,\n5 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 552(b)(2).\n\n FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY\n 17\n\x0cArmy Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, G-2\nThe Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, G-2, manages the Army\xe2\x80\x99s intelligence\nsupport through the capability development process and ensures intelligence data are\nlogical and consistent by assigning threat integration staff officers and threat analysts to\nsupport the capabilities development process. The threat integration staff officers and\nthreat analysts schedule threat steering group meetings for each program and coordinate\nreviews of threat assessments in Joint Capability Integration and Development System\ndocuments supporting Army programs and analysis.\n\nArmy Training and Doctrine Command Deputy Chief of Staff for\nIntelligence, G-2\nThe Army Training and Doctrine Command Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, G-2,\ndevelops the initial STAs for all ACAT I and II programs before the engineering and\nmanufacturing development milestone decision. The Deputy Chief of Staff also prepares\nand validates the initial STA for ACAT III programs, if required by the threat steering\ngroup, before the engineering and manufacturing development decision.\n\nArmy Materiel Command\nThe Army Materiel Command Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, G-2, researches,\nanalyzes, and provides information on current and future threat capabilities by providing\nthreat statements and guidance in acquisition documents. Further, the Deputy Chief of\nStaff for Intelligence, G-2:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t updates STAs for all ACAT I and II programs after the engineering and \n\n manufacturing development phase of the acquisition process, \n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t prepares and validates STAs required for ACAT III programs by direction of the\n threat steering group, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t assigns foreign intelligence officers at appropriate Army command locations.\n\nArmy Foreign Intelligence Officers\nArmy foreign intelligence officers are the primary source of threat assessment support to\nArmy program offices. Foreign intelligence officers research, analyze, and provide\nintelligence information to program managers. Additionally, with direction from the\nthreat steering group, foreign intelligence officers prepare and update STAs for all\nacquisition programs that have passed the engineering and manufacturing development\nmilestone decision of the acquisition phase. The Army Materiel Command Deputy Chief\nof Staff for Intelligence, G-2, validates the STAs.\n\nTACOM Life Cycle Management Command Foreign Intelligence\nOfficers\nTACOM Life Cycle Management Command foreign intelligence officers prepare\nsections of the STAs and provide acquisition decisionmakers with information from\nNGIC and other intelligence sources on threats about their vehicles. The TACOM Life\nCycle Management Command foreign intelligence officers meet weekly with program\n\n\n 18\n\n\x0cand product managers to address threats to vehicles and address specific concerns about\nthreats to vehicles which may make the vehicles fail warfighter requirements.\nSpecifically, the foreign intelligence officers stated that they provide trends and related\ninformation on platforms and casualties, based on NGIC weekly threat briefings\n Although formal meeting minutes are not written by the\nforeign intelligence officers or the program office representatives, the program and\nproduct managers confirmed that they are kept informed about the threats to their TWVs\nthrough meetings and communications with TACOM Life Cycle Management Command\nforeign intelligence officers. *\n\nMarine Corps Intelligence Activity\nAnalysts at the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity produce tailored STAs for all Marine\nCorps programs. The Marine Corps Intelligence Activity has working groups that are\nresponsible for collecting information on current threats. The analysts obtain threat\ninformation by accessing databases available to members of the intelligence community,\nsuch as NGIC personnel, to ensure the latest threat information is captured and also by\nanalyzing future threats.\n\nMarine Corps Intelligence Activity analysts prepare and validate tailored STAs for every\nMarine Corps program on which the Marine Corps is the lead agency and the\nCommanding General, Marine Corps System Command, is the milestone decision\nauthority. In addition, Marine Corps Intelligence Activity analysts provide briefings and\npresentations on the current threats to TWVs at integrated product team meetings with\nthe Program Manager, personnel from the Marine Corps Combat Development\nCommand, and representatives of the Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation\nActivity. Further, the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity operates a database, the\nOperation Task Management System. Marine Corps Intelligence Activity analysts stated\nthat they use the database to track formal requests from Program Managers for additional\nthreat briefs on their TWV programs.\n\n\n\n\n*\n This paragraph omitted information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act,\n5 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 552(b)(2).\n\n\n\n 19\n\n\x0cGlossary\nAcquisition Category. An ACAT facilitates decentralized decisionmaking, decision\nexecution, and compliance with statutory requirements for milestone decisions in the\nDefense acquisition system process. The categories determine the level of review,\ndecision authority, and applicable procedures. The following are definitions for ACAT I,\nII and III.\n\n Acquisition Category I. An ACAT I program is defined as a major Defense\nacquisition program estimated by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,\nTechnology, and Logistics to require an eventual expenditure of research, development,\ntest, and evaluation funds of more than $365 million in FY 2000 constant dollars, or of\nprocurement funds of more than $2.19 billion in FY 2000 constant dollars, or designated\nby the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to be an\nACAT I program. ACAT I programs have two subcategories: ACAT ID and ACAT IC.\nThe Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics designates\nprograms as ACAT ID or IC.\n\n Acquisition Category ID. For this category, the Under Secretary of\nDefense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics is the milestone decision authority.\nThe \xe2\x80\x9cD\xe2\x80\x9d refers to the Defense Acquisition Board, which advises the Under Secretary of\nDefense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics at major decision points.\n\n Acquisition Category IC. For this category, the DOD Component\nHead or, if delegated, the DOD Component Acquisition Executive is the milestone\ndecision authority. The \xe2\x80\x9cC\xe2\x80\x9d refers to Component.\n\n Acquisition Category II. An ACAT II program is an acquisition program that\ndoes not meet the criteria for an ACAT I program, but does meet the criteria for a major\nsystem. A major system is defined as a program estimated by the DOD Component Head\nto require an eventual expenditure of research, development, test, and evaluation funds of\nmore than $140 million in FY 2000 constant dollars or of procurement funds of more\nthan $660 million in FY 2000 constant dollars, or designated by the DOD Component\nHead to be an ACAT II program.\n\n Acquisition Category III. An ACAT III program is an acquisition program\nthat does not meet the criteria for ACAT I and II programs. The milestone decision\nauthority is designated by the DOD Component Acquisition Executive to an official at\nthe lowest appropriate level.\n\nCapabilities and Limitations Report. The Capabilities and Limitations report issued by\nthe Army Test and Evaluation Command provides critical information to the\ndecisionmakers and commanders receiving a TWV system. Each report addresses the\ncapabilities, limitations, safety, training, supportability, survivability, and unknowns or\n\n\n\n 20\n\n\x0crisk areas. Further, the Capabilities and Limitations report is written in terms warfighters\ncan easily understand.\n\nSafety Confirmation. A safety confirmation is a document issued by the Developmental\nTest Command, which is a subordinate command under the Army Test and Evaluation\nCommand. It provides the materiel developer and the decisionmaker with the test\nagency\xe2\x80\x99s safety findings and conclusions, and states whether the specified safety\nrequirements have been met.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\n\x0c\x0c"


text:
stipendium | VIHF
 Sebastian Norberg stipendiat 2017
 ÅRETS STIPENDIAT. Sebastian Norberg flankeras av ordföranden Errol Flysjö och vice ordföranden Sven-Ivar Jögård (till höger).
 Sebastian Norberg, född och uppväxt i Grimeton, tilldelades Varbergs Idrotts-historiska Förenings stipendium på 5 000 kronor när föreningen hade årsavslutning på Luciadagen. Sebastian är 28 år och har satsat hårt på triathlon sedan 2014. I år blev han svensk mästare på medeldistans när tävlingarna avgjordes i Vansbro.
 Innan Sebastian fastnade för triathlon ägnade han sig åt motocross i åtta år.
 - Motorsport är en resurskrävande och dyr sport och jag kände med tiden att det var triathlon jag ville ägna mig åt, berättade han för det drygt 50-talet åskådare som mött upp vid avslutningen vid årets sista idrottscafé.
 Första gången Sebastian tävlade i triathlon var i Borås 2013 då han kom på femte plats i motionsklassen. Debuten gav mersmak och han bestämde sig för att satsa helhjärtat på den minst sagt uthållighets-krävande sporten. Redan året efter gjorde han sin första elitstart, i Hallstahammar, och kom på elfte plats.
 SM-segern i Vansbro i somras kom efter en taktiskt genomförd tävling. Efter simningen, som är hans sämsta gren, låg han sjua med tre minuter upp till täten. Ett strongt cykellopp gav honom ett gynnsamt läge inför den avslutade halvmaran. Där plockade han löpare efter löpare och var till slut i ledning. Med uppsträckta händer sprang han i mål som segrare drygt två minuter före tvåan.
 - Löpningen är min bästa gren. Simma lärde jag mig först när jag var 23 år, berättar Sebastian och menar då frisim.
 I dag satsar Sebastian på triathlon på heltid men hinner även med att ägna sig lite åt sitt ursprungliga yrke som elektriker. Någon OS-start 2020 ingår inte i planerna utan i stället satsar han på att ställa upp i Iron Man på Hawaii som betraktas som en av världens tuffaste endagarstävlingar. Då handlar det inte om medeldistanser utan då gäller 4 km simning, 18 mil cykling och som avslutning ett komplett maratonlopp på 4,2 mil.
 Varbergs Idrottshistoriska Förening gav Sebastian en rungande applåd för hans medverkan vid årsavslutningen och önskade honom lycka till i fortsättningen.
 Varbergs Idrottshistoriska Förenings stipendium
 Varbergs Idrottshistoriska Förening (VIHF) har som ändamål att insamla, förvara och vårda sådana arkivhandlingar och andra föremål som kan vara av värde för kännedom om idrottsverksamhet som bedrivs i Varberg under olika tidsskeden samt att utarbeta historik och skildra denna verksamhet.
 Stipendiets ändamål skall vara att uppmuntra och stödja idrottsutövare och -ledare till att ge sin idrottsutövning och sitt ledarskap ytterligare dimensioner och därmed bidra till Varbergs Idrottshistoria.
 Idrottsutövare och -ledare som nu eller under senaste tvåårsperioden representerar eller representerat klubbar inom Varbergs Kommun.
 § 4. Stipendiesumma
 Stipendiet skall utgå med 5000 kronor. Beloppet skall ses som en riktpunkt. Juryn äger rätt att föreslå ett annat belopp om så anses lämpligt. Beloppet fastställs av VIHFs styrelse.
 § 5. Tid för ansökan och nominering av kandidater
 Nominering skall ske på förslag från VIHFs styrelse eller från idrottsklubbar. Ansökan till stipendiet skall vara VIHF tillhanda senast den 31 oktober.
 § 6. Beslut om stipendiat.
 För beslut om vem som skall erhålla stipendiet utser styrelsen för VIHF enjury bestående av tre stycken ledamöter.
 § 7. Utdelning av stipendiet.
 Stipendiet utdelas i samband med årsbokens utgivande i december månad.
 § 8. Ekonomi.
 Medel till stipendiet avsätts årligen till en stipendiefond. Utomstående personer äger rätt att donera pengar till stipendiet. Stipendiefonden förvaltas av VIHFs styrelse och redovisas på särskilt konto.
 § 9. Ändring av stadgar och villkor.
 Regler och villkor för stipendiet/fonden fastställs av VIHFs styrelse. Om ändring av villkor och stadgar sker skall dessa träda i kraft först under nästkommande verksamhetsår.
 Varberg 2014-08-15
 Styrelsen, VIHF
 2016 års stipendiat utsedd - det blev André Isberg
 Årets stipendiat fick förutom prissumman 5 000 kr även blommor och diplom av VIHFs ordförande Errol Flysjö
 André Isberg årets idrottsstipendiat
 Vid Idrottshistoriska Föreningens idrottscafé den 14 december, det sista för året, tilldelades Varbergsbrottaren André Isberg 2016 års idrottsstipendium på 5 000 kronor. Det är nu tredje året i följd som föreningen uppmärksammar en lovande idrottsutövare eller ledare och precis som tidigare svarade ordföranden Errol Flysjö för utdelningen.
 André Isberg är 21 år gammal och en av Sveriges mest lovande brottare. Han var bara sex år när han började brottas i Varbergs BoIS som alltsedan dess varit hans klubb. Hans meritlista är redan diger och innehåller bland annat två silvermedaljer i senior-SM (2015 och 2016) och dessutom har han vunnit sin viktklass i Mälarcupen fem gånger och Soft Touch Open två gånger.
 I samband med utdelningen berättade André att han tränar upp emot tio pass i veckan och att hans stora mål är att kvalificera sig till OS i Tokyo 2020. VIHF önskar honom lycka till!
 Susanne Kobel - årets stipendiat 2015
 Klart det blev Klara
 Klara Andersson, KK Bris, blev vår första stipendiat och en enig jury hade följande motivering till att det blev just hon. "Kanotisten Klara Andersson har genom målmedveten träning uppnått världseliten i en av de mest krävande sporterna och siktar nu mot OS i Rio de Janeiro 2016".
 Info: På denns sidan kan du läsa allt om VIHFs stipendium - stadgarna för stipendiet, vilka kandidaterna blir, vilka som sitter i juryn första året. Du är alltid välkommen att höra av dig med synpunkter på vår verksamhet!
 Ansökan till VIHFs stipendium skall vara VIHFs styrelse tillhanda senast 31 oktober.
 I ansökan skall finnas namn och åldersuppgift på den sökande samt en meritförteckning - och gärna en motivering till varför just er stipendiekandidat är den bäste!
 Ansökan kan göras via mail eller brevledes och ni får en bekräftelse från oss på att vi har mottagit er anmälan. Hur det går kan ni se här på vår hemsida där vinnaren/vinnarna kommer att presenteras.


type: caselaw

text:
 20.12.2008
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 C 327/19
 Иск, предявен на 21 октомври 2008 г. — Комисия на Европейските общности/Португалска република
 (Дело C-458/08)
 (2008/C 327/31)
 Език на производството: португалски
 Страни
 Ищец: Комисия на Европейските общности (представители: E. Traversa и P. Guerra e Andrade)
 Ответник: Португалска република
 Искания на ищеца
 —
 Да се установи, че като поставя във връзка с предоставянето на строителни услуги в Португалия същите изисквания като тези, които поставя във връзка с установяването, Република Португалия не е изпълнила задълженията си по член 49 ЕО.
 —
 Да се осъди Португалската република да заплати съдебните разноски.
 Правни основания и основни доводи
 Португалското законодателство относно достъпа до строителната дейност и по-нататъшното й упражняване (Декрет-закон No 12/2004) изисква лиценз за упражняването на строителна дейност в Португалия.
 Нито едно предприятие, без изключение, не може да извършва в Португалия работи по строителство, реконструкция, разширяване, преустройство, ремонт, консервация, рехабилитация, почистване, реставрация, събаряне и като цяло — каквито и да е свързани със строителство работи, без предварително разрешение от португалските административни органи.
 Португалското законодателство в областта на конкуренцията, което забранява на предприятията, включително и на предприятията от Общността, да предоставят строителни услуги в Португалия, ако не са получили предварително от португалските административни органи разрешение за достъп до строителната промишленост, нарушава член 49 ЕО.
 Предвидените в португалското законодателство изисквания по отношение на достъпа до строителната дейност са изисквания за установяване. Португалското законодателство не прави разлика между установяване и предоставяне на услуги с временен характер.
 За да предоставя услуги в Португалия, строително предприятие, установено в друга държава-членка, е принудено да отговаря на всички необходими за установяването условия, което на практика означава, че няма друг избор освен да се установи в Португалия. Такова изискване представлява сериозно ограничение на свободното предоставяне на услуги.
 Изискванията във връзка с продължаване на упражняването на дейността също представляват ограничения на свободата на предоставяне на услуги, като правят невъзможно предоставянето на строителни услуги с временен характер.
 Причините, на които се позовава португалското правителство, за да обоснове спорните ограничения, не са доказани и не следва да се вземат предвид.


text:
obmedzené zákonom - KS-SR/Judikáty.info
 obmedzeny nájdené 46856 krát v 27738 dokumentoch
 zakon nájdené 3839877 krát v 367272 dokumentoch
 ... významnej investícii a zapisuje sa do katastra nehnuteľností, čím sa odlišuje napr. od predkupného práva spoluvlastníkov a jeho trvanie je obmedzené zákonom. Už len skutočnosť, že trvanie tohto predkupného práva je ohraničené zákonom stanovenou lehotou, je podľa názoru súdu dôvodom toho, aby .
 Právna veta: Podľa § 78 ods. 4 ZoKR ak súd rozhodne o vylúčení majetku zo súpisu, správca majetok zapísaný do súpisu bezodkladne zo súpisu vylúči. Trovy konania o vylúčení majetku zo súpisu sú podľa rozhodnutia súdu pohľadávkou proti dotknutej podstate. Podľa § 19a ods. 2 zák.č. 92/1991 Zb. do splatenia celej kúpnej ceny, jej príslušenstva a splnenia všetkých zmluvných záväzkov a povinností je prevod privatizovaného majetku alebo jeho časti nadobúdateľom na inú osobu alebo jeho vklad do obchodnej spoločnosti, alebo jeho založenie v prospech tretích osôb, možný len po predchádzajúcom písomnom súhlase fondu. ...Právna veta je skrátená. Pre zobrazenie celej právnej vety sa zaregistrujte na 14 dní bezplatne alebo prihláste.
 ... 22.08.2007 boli uzavreté podľa súkromnoprávnych predpisov, ale oprávnenie predávajúceho Žrebčín Motešice, a.s. nakladať s vlastným majetkom bolo obmedzené zákonom č. 92/1991 Zb., a to až do doby úplného zaplatenia ceny, za prevod akcií spoločnosti Žrebčín Motešice, a.s .
 Právna veta: Vo všeobecnosti sa v práve rozlišujú tri druhy spôsobilosti, a to a) spôsobilosť mať práva a povinnosti, b) spôsobilosť na právne úkony, c) spôsobilosť na protiprávne úkony. Správny poriadok v § 14 upravuje spôsobilosť účastníka na práva a povinnosti. Táto spôsobilosť u fyzických osôb vzniká narodením a zaniká smrťou. Všeobecná úprava spôsobilosti na práva a povinnosti je upravená v § 7 a nasl. Občianskeho zákonníka. Aj Ústava SR čl. 14 rozlišuje všeobecnú - abstraktnú spôsobilosť na práva, ktorú by bolo možné obmedziť iba ústavným zákonom, na rozdiel od konkrétnej - špecifickej, ktorá môže by ...Právna veta je skrátená. Pre zobrazenie celej právnej vety sa zaregistrujte na 14 dní bezplatne alebo prihláste.
 ... - abstraktnú spôsobilosť na práva, ktorú by bolo možné obmedziť iba ústavným zákonom, na rozdiel od konkrétnej - špecifickej, ktorá môže byť obmedzená zákonom, avšak iba tak, aby to nebolo v rozpore s jeho základnými právami a slobodami, ktoré sú garantované ústavou. Spôsobilosť na .
 Merito Existencia predkupného práva štátom, a povinnosť správneho orgánu skúmať otázky týkajúce sa vkladu vlastníckého práva.
 Kľúčové slová: vlastnícke právo , štát ako vlastník pozemku, kataster nehnuteľností, zápis vlastníckeho práva do katastra
 Právna veta: Existencia predkupného práva štátu vzniknutého na základe zákona č. 175/1999 Z. z. o niektorých opatreniach týkajúcich sa prípravy významných investícií a o doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov nie je samoúčelná a správny orgán sa pri rozhodovaní o vklade vlastníckeho práva do katastra nehnuteľností nemôže správať tak, že toto právo neexistuje, resp. že neexistuje, pokiaľ nebolo zapísané do katastra nehnuteľností. Úlohou vyššie citovaného zákona je okrem iného upraviť zjednodušenie usporiadania vlastníckych vzťahov potrebných na prípravu stavieb, ktoré sú významnou in ...Právna veta je skrátená. Pre zobrazenie celej právnej vety sa zaregistrujte na 14 dní bezplatne alebo prihláste.
 Kľúčové slová: všeobecná ochrana rastlín a živočíchov, ťažba dreva, masív Smrekovice, zákaz ťažby
 Právna veta: Pokiaľ by orgán ochrany prírody nepristúpil k takémuto riešeniu, ťažbou dreva resp. aj inou hospodárskou činnosťou zo strany žalobcu by sa aj podľa názoru súdu masív Smrekovice celkom vyťažil a potom by už v podstate nebolo ani čo chrániť v zmysle Zákona o ochrane prírody a krajiny č. 543/2002 Z.z.. T.j. podľa názoru súdu bolo namieste použitie uvedeného ustanovenia § 4 ods. 1, 2 zákona č. 543/2002 Z.z., ktorý podľa názoru súdu vo vzťahu k ochrane prírody a krajiny má aj prevenčný charakter a teda zákaz ťažby tak, ako bol skonštatovaný vo výrokovej časti rozhodnutia prvostupňového správn ...Právna veta je skrátená. Pre zobrazenie celej právnej vety sa zaregistrujte na 14 dní bezplatne alebo prihláste.
 ... správneho orgánu považoval za nezákonné z dôvodu nedostatočne zisteného skutkového stavu veci, absolútne a môže byť obmedzené zákonom. Správne orgány pritom nebrali dôsledne na zreteľ obsah vlastníckeho práva ani princípy ochrany vlastníckeho práva. Poukázal ... byť výkon tohto vlastníckeho práva nútene obmedzovaný, samozrejme vlastnícke právo nie je absolútne a môže byť obmedzené zákonom. Správne orgány pritom nebrali dôsledne na zreteľ obsah vlastníckeho práva ani princípy ochrany vlastníckeho práva. Poukázal .
 ... , a to nielen predpismi súkromného práva, ale aj predpismi verejného práva. Oprávnenie predávajúceho Žrebčín Motešice a.s. bolo podľa žalovaného obmedzené zákonom č. 92/1991 Zb., a to až do doby úplného zaplatenia ceny za prevod akcií Žrebčína Motešice a.s. spoločnosťou .
 162/1995, 344/1992, 655/2004, 7/2005, 92/1991
 ... môže dôjsť aj bez toho, aby bola súčasne porušená zásada rovnosti. Právo vyjadriť sa ku všetkým vykonávaným dôkazom nemôže byť obmedzené zákonom. V tejto časti poukázali žalobcovia na Nález Ústavného súdu sp.zn. Pl. ÚS 14/98 z 22.6.1999. Podľa .
 655/2004, 7/2005, 209/2004, 233/1995, 244/2002, 34/2012, 40/1964, 460/1992, 513/1991, 52/2003, 586/2003, 75/2012, 99/1963
 ... abstraktnú spôsobilosť na práva, ktorú by bolo možné obmedziť iba ústavným zákonom, na rozdiel od konkrétnej (špecifickej), ktorá môže byť obmedzená zákonom, avšak iba tak, aby to nebolo v rozpore s jeho základnými právami a slobodami, ktoré sú garantované ústavou. Spôsobilosť na .
 40/1964, 46/1948, 503/2003, 71/1967
 ... obce uskutočňovať právne úkony vo veciach hnuteľného majetku obce alebo jej majetkových práv v prípade, ak toto nakladanie nie je obmedzené zákonom alebo samotnou obcou prostredníctvom záväzného aktu obecného zastupiteľstva. V tomto kontexte je zároveň potrebné extenzívne vykladať ust. § 11 ods .
 655/2004, 40/1964, 138/1991, 218/2010, 284/2006, 369/1990, 582/2004, 87/1995
 ... z roku 2006 neboli k zmene projektovej dokumentácie aktualizované. Ďalej uviedla, že časové platnosti jednotlivých stanovísk dotknutých orgánov, nie je obmedzená zákonom, ale priamo v jednotlivých stanoviskách dotknuté orgány určujú dobu ich platnosti na 2 roky (OÚŽP OOPaK - stanovisko zo dňa 19 .
 460/1992, 99/1963, 71/1967, 122/2010, 182/1993, 20/1997, 33/2011, 40/2009, 50/1976, 757/2004


text:
 3.3.2012
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 C 65/24
 Recurso interposto em 19 de dezembro de 2011 — ZZ/Comissão
 (Processo F-136/11)
 2012/C 65/46
 Língua do processo: francês
 Partes
 Recorrente: ZZ (representantes: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, E. Marchal, S. Orlandi e J.-N. Louis, advogados)
 Recorrida: Comissão Europeia
 Objeto e descrição do litígio
 Anulação da decisão que fixou a bonificação dos direitos à pensão da recorrente adquiridos antes da sua entrada em serviço no regime de pensões comunitário.
 Pedidos da recorrente
 —
 Anular a decisão de 24 de maio de 2011 que anulou e substituiu a proposta de transferência dos direitos à pensão da recorrente no âmbito do seu pedido nos termos do artigo 11.o, n.o 2, do Anexo VIII do Estatuto, que contém uma nova proposta calculada com base nas DGE adotadas em 3 de março de 2011;
 —
 condenar a Comissão Europeia nas despesas.


text:
 23.2.2006
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 L 53/28
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE OTSUS
 nr 138/2005,
 2. detsember 2005,
 millega muudetakse EMP lepingu I lisa (veterinaar- ja fütosanitaarküsimused)
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut, mida on muudetud Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut kohandava protokolliga, edaspidi “leping”, eriti selle artiklit 98,
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)
 Lepingu I lisa on muudetud EMP ühiskomitee otsusega nr 93/2005 (1).
 (2)
 Komisjoni 12. jaanuari 2005. aasta otsus 2005/28/EÜ, millega muudetakse otsust 93/52/EMÜ teatavate Itaalia provintside ametlikult brutselloosi (B. melitensis) vabaks tunnistamise suhtes ja otsust 2003/467/EÜ teatavate Itaalia provintside ametlikult veiste tuberkuloosi, brutselloosi ja ensootilise leukoosi vabaks tunnistamise suhtes, (2) tuleb inkorporeerida lepingusse.
 (3)
 Komisjoni 11. jaanuari 2005. aasta otsus 2005/34/EÜ, millega kehtestatakse ühtlustatud standardid teatavate jääkide olemasolu kontrolliks kolmandatest riikidest imporditud loomsetes saadustes, (3) tuleb inkorporeerida lepingusse.
 (4)
 Komisjoni 30. detsembri 2004. aasta otsus 2005/43/EÜ, millega muudetakse komisjoni otsust 95/388/EÜ seoses ühendusesisesel lammaste ja kitsede sperma, munarakkude ja embrüotega kauplemisel kasutatavate veterinaarsertifikaatide näidiste ajakohastamisega, (4) tuleb inkorporeerida lepingusse.
 (5)
 Komisjoni 26. jaanuari 2005. aasta otsus 2005/58/EÜ, millega muudetakse otsust 2003/135/EÜ seoses likvideerimis- ja vaktsineerimiskavade lõpetamisega Alam-Saksi ja Nordrhein-Westfaleni liidumaades ning likvideerimiskava lõpetamisega Saarimaa liidumaal (Saksamaa), (5) tuleb inkorporeerida lepingusse.
 (6)
 Komisjoni 26. jaanuari 2005. aasta otsus 2005/59/EÜ, millega kiidetakse heaks kavad metssigadel esineva sigade katku likvideerimiseks ja metssigade erakorraliseks vaktsineerimiseks Slovakkias, (6) tuleb inkorporeerida lepingusse.
 (7)
 Komisjoni 26. jaanuari 2005. aasta otsus 2005/64/EÜ, millega rakendatakse nõukogu direktiivi 92/65/EMÜ tunnustatud asutustele, instituutidele ja keskustele ettenähtud kasside, koerte ja valgetuhkrute importimise tingimuste suhtes, (7) tuleb inkorporeerida lepingusse.
 (8)
 Komisjoni 28. jaanuari 2005. aasta otsus 2005/65/EÜ teatavate Taanile üleminekuks antavate lisatagatiste kohta seoses tema staatuse muutumisega riigina, kus Newcastle'i haiguse vastu ei vaktsineerita, (8) tuleb inkorporeerida lepingusse.
 (9)
 Komisjoni 28. jaanuari 2005. aasta otsus 2005/66/EÜ, millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks otsus 2003/363/EÜ, millega kiidetakse heaks kava metssigadel esineva sigade katku likvideerimiseks teatavates Belgia osades, (9) tuleb inkorporeerida lepingusse.
 (10)
 Komisjoni 2. veebruari 2005. aasta otsus 2005/92/EÜ loomatervishoiunõuete, sertifitseerimise ja üleminekusätete kohta seoses teatavate loomsete saaduste sissetoomise ja ladustusajaga vabatsoonis, vabaladudes ja ühenduse piiriüleseid meretranspordivahendeid varustavate ettevõtjate territooriumidel (10) tuleb inkorporeerida lepingusse.
 (11)
 Komisjoni 16. veebruari 2005. aasta otsus 2005/138/EÜ, millega muudetakse otsust 2003/828/EÜ loomade liikumise osas Portugalis asuvast kitsendustega tsoonist välja ja selle sees seoses lammaste katarraalse palavikuga Portugalis, (11) tuleb inkorporeerida lepingusse.
 (12)
 Otsusega 2005/65/EÜ tunnistatakse kehtetuks komisjoni otsus 91/552/EMÜ, (12) mis on lepingusse inkorporeeritud ja mis tuleb sellest tulenevalt lepingust välja jätta.
 (13)
 Käesolevat otsust ei kohaldata Islandi ega Liechtensteini suhtes,
 ON TEINUD JÄRGMISE OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Lepingu I lisa I peatükki muudetakse vastavalt käesoleva otsuse lisale.
 Artikkel 2
 Otsuste 2005/28/EÜ, 2005/34/EÜ, 2005/43/EÜ, 2005/58/EÜ, 2005/59/EÜ, 2005/64/EÜ, 2005/65/EÜ, 2005/66/EÜ, 2005/92/EÜ ja 2005/138/EÜ norrakeelne tekst, mis avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP kaasandes, on autentne.
 Artikkel 3
 Käesolev otsus jõustub 3. detsembril 2005. aastal, tingimusel et EMP ühiskomiteele on edastatud kõik lepingu artikli 103 lõikele 1 vastavad teated (13).
 Artikkel 4
 Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.
 Brüssel, 2. detsember 2005
 EMP ühiskomitee nimel
 eesistuja
 Tema Kõrgus Liechtensteini prints NIKOLAUS
 (1) ELT L 306, 24.11.2005, lk 14.
 (2) ELT L 15, 19.1.2005, lk 30.
 (3) ELT L 16, 20.1.2005, lk 61.
 (4) ELT L 20, 22.1.2005, lk 34.
 (5) ELT L 24, 27.1.2005, lk 45.
 (6) ELT L 24, 27.1.2005, lk 46. Otsust on muudetud otsusega 2005/226/EÜ (ELT L 71, 17.3.2005, lk 72).
 (7) ELT L 27, 29.1.2005, lk 48.
 (8) ELT L 27, 29.1.2005, lk 52.
 (9) ELT L 27, 29.1.2005, lk 54.
 (10) ELT L 31, 4.2.2005, lk 62. Otsust on muudetud otsusega 2005/755/EÜ (ELT L 284, 27.10.2005, lk 8).
 (11) ELT L 47, 18.2.2005, lk 38.
 (12) EÜT L 298, 29.10.1991, lk 21.
 (13) Põhiseadusest tulenevaid nõudeid ei ole esitatud.
 LISA
 Lepingu I lisa I peatükki muudetakse järgmiselt:
 1.
 Osa 1.2 punkti 127 (komisjoni määrus (EÜ) nr 745/2004) järele lisatakse järgmised punktid:
 “128.
 32005 D 0034: komisjoni otsus 2005/34/EÜ, 11. jaanuar 2005, millega kehtestatakse ühtlustatud standardid teatavate jääkide olemasolu kontrolliks kolmandatest riikidest imporditud loomsetes saadustes (ELT L 16, 20.1.2005, lk 61).
 129.
 32005 D 0064: komisjoni otsus 2005/64/EÜ, 26. jaanuar 2005, millega rakendatakse nõukogu direktiivi 92/65/EMÜ tunnustatud asutustele, instituutidele ja keskustele ettenähtud kasside, koerte ja valgetuhkrute importimise tingimuste suhtes (ELT L 27, 29.1.2005, lk 48).
 130.
 32005 D 0092: komisjoni otsus 2005/92/EÜ, 2. veebruar 2005, loomatervishoiunõuete, sertifitseerimise ja üleminekusätete kohta seoses teatavate loomsete saaduste sissetoomise ja ladustusajaga vabatsoonis, vabaladudes ja ühenduse piiriüleseid meretranspordivahendeid varustavate ettevõtjate territooriumidel (ELT L 31, 4.2.2005, lk 63).”
 2.
 Osa 3.2 punkti 30 (komisjoni otsus 2003/828/EÜ) lisatakse järgmine taane:
 “—
 32005 D 0138: komisjoni otsus 2005/138/EÜ (ELT L 47, 18.2.2005, lk 38).”
 3.
 Osa 3.2 pealkirja “ÕIGUSAKTID, MIDA EFTA RIIGID JA EFTA JÄRELEVALVEAMET IGATI ARVESSE VÕTAVAD” all lisatakse punkti 20 (komisjoni otsus 2003/135/EÜ) järgmine taane:
 “—
 32005 D 0058: komisjoni otsus 2005/58/EÜ (ELT L 24, 27.1.2005, lk 45).”
 4.
 Pealkirja “ÕIGUSAKTID, MIDA EFTA RIIGID JA EFTA JÄRELEVALVEAMET IGATI ARVESSE VÕTAVAD” all lisatakse osa 3.2 punkti 28 (komisjoni otsus 2004/832/EÜ) järele järgmised punktid:
 “29.
 32005 D 0059: komisjoni otsus 2005/59/EÜ, 26. jaanuar 2005, millega kiidetakse heaks kavad metssigadel esineva sigade katku likvideerimiseks ja metssigade erakorraliseks vaktsineerimiseks Slovakkias (ELT L 24, 27.1.2005, lk 46).
 30.
 32005 D 0066: komisjoni otsus 2005/66/EÜ, 28. jaanuar 2005, millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks otsus 2003/363/EÜ, millega kiidetakse heaks kava metssigadel esineva sigade katku likvideerimiseks teatavates Belgia osades (ELT L 27, 29.1.2005, lk 54).”
 5.
 Osa 3.2 pealkirja “ÕIGUSAKTID, MIDA EFTA RIIGID JA EFTA JÄRELEVALVEAMET IGATI ARVESSE VÕTAVAD” all jäetakse välja punkt 23 (komisjoni otsus 2003/363/EÜ).
 6.
 Osa 4.2 punktidesse 14 (komisjoni otsus 93/52/EMÜ) ja 70 (komisjoni otsus 2003/467/EÜ) lisatakse järgmine taane:
 “—
 32005 D 0028: komisjoni otsus 2005/28/EÜ (ELT L 15, 19.1.2005, lk 30).”
 7.
 Osa 4.2 punkti 36 (komisjoni otsus 95/388/EÜ) lisatakse järgmine tekst:
 “, mida on muudetud järgmise õigusaktiga:
 —
 32005 D 0043: komisjoni otsus 2005/43/EÜ (ELT L 20, 22.1.2005, lk 34).”
 8.
 Osa 4.2 punkti 80 (komisjoni otsus 2004/558/EÜ) järele lisatakse järgmine punkt:
 “81.
 32005 D 0065: komisjoni otsus 2005/65/EÜ, 28. jaanuar 2005, teatavate Taanile üleminekuks antavate lisatagatiste kohta seoses tema staatuse muutumisega riigina, kus Newcastle'i haiguse vastu ei vaktsineerita (ELT L 27, 29.1.2005, lk 52).”
 9.
 Osa 4.2 punkt 2 (komisjoni otsus 91/552/EMÜ) jäetakse välja.


text:
 20.2.2017
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 53/32
 Skarga wniesiona w dniu 30 listopada 2016 r. – Access Info Europe/Komisja
 (Sprawa T-852/16)
 (2017/C 053/40)
 Język postępowania: angielski
 Strony
 Strona skarżąca: Access Info Europe (Madryt, Hiszpania) (przedstawiciele: adwokaci O. Brouwer, E. Raedts i J. Wolfhagen)
 Strona pozwana: Komisja Europejska
 Żądania
 Strona skarżąca wnosi do Sądu o:
 —
 stwierdzenie nieważności decyzji Komisji C(2016) 6030 z dnia 19 września 2016 r. odmawiającej stronie skarżącej dostępu do żądanych dokumentów na podstawie rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1049/2001 (1);
 —
 obciążenie Komisji kosztami postępowania, w tym kosztami poniesionymi przez interwenientów.
 Zarzuty i główne argumenty
 W uzasadnieniu skargi strona skarżąca podnosi cztery zarzuty.
 1.
 Zarzut pierwszy, w którym skarżąca twierdzi, że Komisja błędnie zastosowała art. 4 ust. 1 lit. a) rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1049/2001 stwierdzając, że udzielenie dostępu do żądanych dokumentów poważnie naruszyłoby stosunki międzynarodowe.
 2.
 Zarzut drugi, w którym skarżąca podnosi, że Komisja błędnie zastosowała art. 4 ust. 2 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1049/2001 stwierdzając, że udzielenie dostępu do żądanych dokumentów poważnie naruszyłoby ochronę postępowań sądowych toczących się w sprawach T-192/16, T-193/16 i T-257/16 oraz że udzielenie dostępu do wspomnianych dokumentów naruszyłoby interes Komisji polegający zwracaniu się o poradę prawną i uzyskaniu w odpowiedzi prawdziwych, obiektywnych i wyczerpujących opinii. W ramach zarzutu drugiego skarżąca podnosi również, że Komisja nie uznała, że udzielenia dostępu do żądanych dokumentów wymaga ochrona nadrzędnego interesu publicznego oraz że z tego względu dokumenty te powinny były zostać ujawnione.
 3.
 Zarzut trzeci, w którym skarżąca podnosi, że Komisja błędnie zastosowała art. 4 ust. 3 akapit pierwszy i drugi rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1049/2001 stwierdzając, że udzielenie dostępu do żądanych dokumentów poważnie naruszyłoby proces podejmowania decyzji oraz nie uznała istnienia nadrzędnego interesu publicznego, w szczególności zważywszy, że proces podejmowania decyzji został w tej sprawie zakończony.
 4.
 Zarzut czwarty, którym skarżąca podnosi w dalszej kolejności, że Komisja błędnie zastosowała art. 4 ust. 6 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1049/2001 nie udzielając przynajmniej częściowego dostępu do żądanych dokumentów, do których odmówiła dostępu w całości.
 (1) Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1049/2001 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 30 maja 2001 r. w sprawie publicznego dostępu do dokumentów Parlamentu Europejskiego, Rady i Komisji (Dz.U. 2001 L 145, s. 43)


text:
 5.5.2012
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 133/21
 Sentencia del Tribunal General de 21 de marzo de 2012 — Marine Harvest Norway y Alsaker Fjordbruk/Consejo
 (Asunto T-113/06) (1)
 (Dumping - Importaciones de salmón originario de Noruega - Definición de la industria comunitaria - Producto similar - Composición de la muestra de los productores comunitarios)
 2012/C 133/40
 Lengua de procedimiento: inglés
 Partes
 Demandante: Marine Harvest Norway AS, subrogándose en los derechos de Fjord Seafood Norway AS (Bergen, Noruega); y Alsaker Fjordbruk AS (Onarheim, Noruega) (representantes: J. M. Juuhl-Langseth y P. Dyrberg, abogados)
 Demandada: Consejo de la Unión Europea (representantes: J.-P. Hix y B. Driessen, agentes, asistidos por G. Berrisch, abogado)
 Parte coadyuvante en apoyo de la demandada: Comisión Europea (representantes: inicialmente P. Stancanelli y K. Talabér-Ritz, posteriormente K. Talabér-Ritz, T. Scharf y H. van Vliet, agentes, asistidos por E. McGovern, Barrister)
 Objeto
 Anulación del Reglamento (CE) no 85/2006 del Consejo, de 17 de enero de 2006, por el que se establece un derecho antidumping definitivo y se percibe definitivamente el derecho provisional establecido sobre las importaciones de salmón de piscifactoría originario de Noruega (DO L 15, p. 1).
 Fallo
 1)
 Anular el Reglamento (CE) no 85/2006 del Consejo, de 17 de enero de 2006, por el que se establece un derecho antidumping definitivo y se percibe definitivamente el derecho provisional establecido sobre las importaciones de salmón de piscifactoría originario de Noruega, en la medida en que afecta a Marine Harvest Norway AS, que se subroga en los derechos de Fjord Seafood Norway AS, respecto de los derechos antidumping aplicados a las importaciones procedentes de dicha empresa hasta el 18 de septiembre de 2007, y a Alsaker Fjordbruk AS.
 2)
 Desestimar el recurso en todo lo demás.
 3)
 El Consejo de la Unión Europea cargará con sus propias costas y con las de Marine Harvest Norway, que se subroga en los derechos de Fjord Seafood Norway, y Alsaker Fjordbruk.
 4)
 La Comisión Europea cargará con sus propias costas.
 (1) DO C 131, de 3.6.2006.