type: wikipedia

text:
Showbol, também conhecido como Indoor Soccer nos Estados Unidos e Canadá, onde foi criado, é uma modalidade do futebol, adaptado para ser jogado em arena coberta de quadra dura. O showbol foi originalmente desenvolvido como uma forma de jogar futebol durante os meses de inverno, quando a neve dificultava o jogo ao ar livre. Nesses países, os ginásios são adaptados para a prática de showbol. Em outros países, o jogo é jogado em arenas cobertas ou ao ar livre cercadas por paredes, sendo conhecido por diversos nomes, tais como "futbol rapido" no México, showbol na América do Sul, e Masters Football, no Reino Unido. É a segunda maior modalidade de futebol coberto depois do Futebol de salão.
 O showbol tem regulamentos diferentes de outras versões de futebol projetadas para jogos de salão, como futsal e futebol de cinco. Ao contrário do futsal, que é jogado em superfícies de madeira ou cerâmica, o showbol é jogado em relva sintética ou, no caso do Reino Unido, sobre tapete sintético.
 O esporte tem semelhanças com o futebol society. É jogado numa quadra de, aproximadamente, 42 x 22 metros com gramado sintético, com dois tempos de 25 minutos. Durante o jogo as substituições são ilimitadas, e tem a particularidade que a bola se mantém em jogo de forma quase permanente, devido à parede de acrílico transparente que cerca o campo. Sua maior diferença em relação a este último é o fato de que cada equipe, ao invés de sete, possui seis jogadores em cada time.
 O esporte possui ligas profissionais no Brasil (Campeonato Brasileiro de Showbol), nos Estados Unidos, Canadá e México (Dentro da Major Arena Soccer League), na Inglaterra e Espanha (Liga de Fútbol Indoor).
 História
 Foi criado em 1969 pelo ex-jogador de campo húngaro Joe Martin, que atuou pelo Ferencváros e pela seleção húngara.
 No final de sua carreira, Joe foi jogar em Toronto, Canadá e devido às baixas temperaturas do inverno canadense, Martin criou um esporte com as regras do futebol, mas jogado em quadras de futebol de salão. E mais, acrescentou um elemento que dá mais dinâmica às partidas: a tabela.
 Na década de 1970 o showbol foi para o Brasil, levado por Francisco Monteiro, e também para a Europa, com amistosos de exibição. Na mesma década foi popular na América do Norte, onde a North American Soccer League, a maior liga de futebol de campo da América do Norte, sancionou torneios de showbol junto ao seu campeonato regular.
 Regras
 Campo: Retangular com comprimento mínimo de 42 m e máximo de 44 m, largura mínima de 22 m e máxima de 24 m. A quadra é feita obrigatoriamente com grama sintética, e deve ter linhas que definam a área, o meio da quadra e a marca de pênalti.
 Bola: deve ter entre 68 e 79 cm de circunferência e entre 410 e 450 gramas. É a mesma bola do futebol de campo.
 Jogadores: Os dois times devem contar em campo com 6 jogadores, sendo 5 na linha e 1 goleiro. As substituições entre os jogadores são ilimitadas. E podem acontecer a qualquer momento, sem consulta ao árbitro.
 Uniformes: Os jogadores devem jogar com tênis de futebol society (pequenas travas de borracha), ou tênis de futsal. O uniforme tem calção e camisa.
 O Árbitro: O jogo é controlado por um único árbitro. Cabe ao árbitro apitar o início e fim do jogo, assim como o início e fim do intervalo. Cabe ao árbitro punir o atleta com cartão azul ou vermelho. O cartão azul é mostrado ao atleta que cometer uma falta grave. Este cartão pune o atleta com dois minutos de suspensão, ficando sua equipe com um atleta a menos durante este período. O vermelho é a expulsão da quadra, ficando a equipe com um atleta a menos até o fim da partida.
 Duração de Jogo: O tempo da partida é de duas etapas de 25 minutos cada, com intervalo de 10 minutos. O tempo é corrido e visível no placar. O tempo só é interrompido, quando o árbitro determinar para atendimento médico.
 Reinício de Jogo: O início do jogo é determinado por um sorteio entre os capitães das duas equipes. A equipe escolhe se inicia o jogo ou se escolhe o lado da quadra. No segundo tempo inverte o lado da quadra.
 Bola dentro e fora de jogo: A bola não sai pelas laterais, pois há uma tabela, a não ser quando passar por cima da tabela. Se a bola sair na defesa do time que a colocou para fora, é marcado pênalti (regra 12). Se a bola sair no ataque do time que a colocou para fora, a bola é reposta em jogo através do goleiro.
 O Gol: Será marcado gol quando a bola ultrapassar totalmente a linha da trave. Quem marcar mais gols, vence a partida.
 Falta: É marcado falta quando um atleta chutar, golpear, empurrar ou fizer carga excessiva no adversário. A falta será cobrada no ponto exato em que ocorreu a infração. Também será marcada falta quando o atleta colocar a mão na bola intencionalmente.
 Pênalti: É marcado pênalti em duas situações. Quando a falta for marcada dentro da área, ou quando a equipe colocar a bola para fora da quadra, por cima da tabela, ainda na sua quadra (defesa).
 Show ball no Brasil
 Francisco Monteiro, ex-jogador de futebol conhecido também como Todé, que atuou em alguns clubes do Rio de Janeiro, também foi encerrar sua carreira no Canadá. Lá conheceu Joe Martin e o show ball. Percebendo o potencial do esporte, Todé trouxe o esporte para o Brasil.
 A primeira partida disputada no país foi realizada em 1972 no ginásio Maracanãzinho, entre a seleção brasileira e a seleção do resto do mundo.
 Depois de quase 30 anos no esquecimento o esporte voltou a ser praticado no país. E voltou com estilo, com a seleção brasileira campeã no primeiro Mundialito de Showbol, realizado na Espanha, em 2006. Em 2007 o Showbol Brasil realizou o Torneio Rio-São Paulo de Showbol, cujo campeão foi o Corinthians.
 Vários ex-jogadores brasileiros já tiveram a oportunidade de servir a seleção, dentre eles, Djalminha, Dunga, Mauro Silva, Aldair, Zetti, Müller, Careca, Rick Gorni, Lucas Cachoni e Paulo Victor. Maradona, ex jogador argentino jogou showbol. Garrincha também jogou na partida da seleção brasileira em 1975.
 Seleções
 Conmebol
 Brasil
 Argentina
 Colômbia
 Peru
 Chile
 Uruguai
 CONCACAF
 Guatemala
 Estados Unidos
 México
 Canadá
 UEFA
 Holanda
 Espanha
 Rússia
 Itália
 Portugal
 França
 Campeonatos oficiais
 Clubes
 Nacionais
 Campeonato Brasileiro de Show ball
 Torneio Brasileiro de Seleções de Show ball
 Regionais
 / Torneio Rio-São Paulo de Show ball
 / Torneio Rio-Manaus de Showbol
 Estaduais
 Campeonato Carioca de Show ball
 Campeonato Paulista de Show ball
 Seleções
 Mundiais
 Copa do Mundo WMF
 Mundialito de Show ball
 Continentais
 Copa América de Show ball
 EMF miniEURO
 Eurocopa de Show ball
 Ver também
 Futebol de salão
 Futebol soçaite
 Showbol, em português, espanhol e inglês
 O que é Futebol Society? https://futebolplanet.com/o-que-e-futebol-society/
 Desportos coletivos


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' U.S. Department of Energy\n Office of Inspector General\n Office of Audits and Inspections\n\n\n\n\nAudit Report\n\nThe Department of Energy\'s\nWeatherization Assistance Program\nunder the American Recovery and\nReinvestment Act in the State of\nTennessee\n\n\n\n\nOAS-RA-11-17 September 2011\n\n\x0c Department of Energy\n Washington, DC 20585\n\n September 19, 2011\n\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENERGY\n EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY\n\n\nFROM: George W. Collard\n Assistant Inspector General\n for Audits\n Office of Inspector General\n\nSUBJECT: INFORMATION: Audit Report on "The Department of Energy\'s\n Weatherization Assistance Program under the American Recovery and\n Reinvestment Act in the State of Tennessee"\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nUnder the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), the Department of\nEnergy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program (Weatherization Program) received $5 billion to\nincrease the energy efficiency of dwellings owned or occupied by low-income persons.\nSubsequently, the Department awarded a 3-year, $99 million Recovery Act weatherization grant\nto the State of Tennessee. This grant was more than 10 times the $8.9 million available to\nTennessee for weatherization assistance in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009.\n\nTennessee\'s Department of Human Services (Tennessee) administers its Weatherization Program\ngrant through 18 local agencies. Local agencies are responsible for determining applicant\neligibility; performing initial home assessments to determine appropriate weatherization\nmeasures needed; awarding contracts to weatherize homes; and, conducting final inspections of\ncompleted homes. State officials reported that Tennessee had, by September 2010, achieved its\nRecovery Act goal of weatherizing more than 10,500 homes.\n\nGiven the significant increase in funding and the demands associated with weatherizing\nthousands of homes, we initiated this audit to determine if Tennessee had adequate safeguards in\nplace to ensure the Weatherization Program was managed efficiently and effectively. To\nperform our audit, we analyzed Tennessee\'s management of the Weatherization Program and\nreviewed the weatherization activities of three local agencies: East Tennessee Human Resource\nAgency, Inc. (ETHRA); Upper East Tennessee Human Development Agency, Inc. (Upper East);\nand, Shelby County Community Services Agency (Shelby County).\n\nRESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nTennessee, while achieving its production goals, had not always ensured the Weatherization\nProgram was managed efficiently and effectively. Specifically:\n\n Although prohibited by State and Federal directives, we found that local agency\n contractors installed weatherization measures that may not have been cost-effective. Our\n analysis of 246 energy measures installed in 41 homes revealed only a third were shown\n\x0c 2\n\n\n to meet Department-directed minimum energy savings-to-investment ratios.\n Consequently, we questioned about $100,000 claimed for those measures that were not\n cost-effective;\n\n Change orders to competitively awarded weatherization work contracts had not been\n approved, as required, prior to completion of the work, and local agencies had not\n ensured that the changes were cost-effective. In our review of documentation supporting\n the weatherization of 68 homes at ETHRA, Upper East and Shelby County, we found on\n at least 40 occasions, energy measures had either been added to or deleted from the\n original planned work. Work order changes were often not approved until the work was\n invoiced and were made without the benefit of competition or a cost-benefit analysis. As\n a result of our test work, we questioned costs associated with the change orders and the\n State subsequently disallowed $15,500; and,\n\n Several homes at one agency had previously received weatherization services making\n these homes ineligible for additional services. Specifically, we noted that three homes\n had received Federally funded weatherization services after September 30, 1994, a fact\n that made them ineligible for new Recovery Act funded weatherization assistance. Since\n these homes were ineligible for further services, we questioned about $12,000 spent to\n weatherize them.\n\nIn addition to our work at the three local agencies, we also observed recurring problems with the\nquality of weatherization work across the entire State. During the period from July 2009 to\nJanuary 2011, State monitors found 317 of the 879 homes they re-inspected at the local agencies\nacross the State (about 36 percent) required additional work. In these situations, local agency\ninspectors failed to identify problems that were later discovered during State reviews. While\nState officials took action to ensure the issues leading to inspection failures were addressed on an\nindividual home basis, at the time we began our review, they had not initiated action to address\nwhat appeared to be systemic problems related to poor quality work and final agency-level\ninspection processes. However, State officials told us they began performing trend analyses\nduring 2010, and through these actions had identified poor performing contractors and agency\ninspectors. The State reports that it is now focusing its re-inspection efforts on those poor\nperformers.\n\nThese problems occurred due to a combination of Program weaknesses, including personnel who\nwere unfamiliar with the analytical tools used to demonstrate cost-effectiveness of\nweatherization measures, inadequate local agency final inspections, and the lack of adequate\ncontrols over work change orders in the State. The observed weaknesses in Tennessee\'s\nWeatherization Program could have posed health and safety risks to residents and likely\nincreased Program costs. To help avoid similar problems in the future and as the Program\ncompletes its Recovery Act related work, we made a number of recommendations designed to\nimprove the effectiveness of the Program and decrease the risk of waste, fraud and abuse in\nTennessee\'s Weatherization Program.\n\x0c 3\n\n\n\nMANAGEMENT REACTION\n\n\nThe Department, Tennessee, and the three local agencies reviewed provided responses to our\ndraft audit report. The Department stated it would continue to assess the State\'s progress toward\nimplementing Program improvements. Tennessee noted it would ensure sub-recipients install\nonly those measures that are allowable and meet or exceed savings-to-investment ratio standards.\nThe State reported it would continue to conduct final inspections on more than the required five\npercent of homes and would ensure that sub-recipients follow the proper change order\nprocedures. Further, the State will continue to strengthen the Program through ongoing training\nsessions with auditors, contractors and agency staff; the development of technical experts;\nweekly conference calls; and direct technical support.\n\nThe local agencies generally concurred with our findings. One agency stated that the rapid\nexpenditures of Recovery Act funds prevented the normal learning curve for new auditors and\ncontractors. However, over time, it had eliminated unsuitable contractors and energy auditors,\nand had provided additional training to ensure the quality of weatherization work.\n\nManagements\' comments are discussed in more detail in the body of the report and are included\nin Appendix 3 in their entirety.\n\nAttachment\n\ncc: \t Deputy Secretary\n Associate Deputy Secretary\n Acting Under Secretary of Energy\n Chief of Staff\n\x0cREPORT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY\'S WEATHERIZATION\nASSISTANCE PROGRAM UNDER THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND\nREINVESTMENT ACT IN THE STATE OF TENNESSEE\n\nTABLE OF\nCONTENTS\n\n\nWeatherization Efforts\n\nDetails of Finding ............................................................................................................................1\n\n\nRecommendations and Comments...................................................................................................9\n\n\n\nAppendices\n\n1. Objective, Scope, and Methodology ......................................................................................13\n\n\n2. Related Audit Reports ............................................................................................................15\n\n\n3. Management and Auditor Comments.....................................................................................17\n\n\x0cTHE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY\'S WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE\nPROGRAM UNDER THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT\nACT IN THE STATE OF TENNESSEE\n\n Weatherization Efforts\n\n We identified weaknesses in Tennessee\'s Department of\n Human Services\' (Tennessee) Weatherization Assistance Program\n (Weatherization Program) that the State should consider as it\n moves forward. Specifically, we found energy efficiency measures\n that did not meet standards for cost-effectiveness, homes that had\n not been properly weatherized, work change orders that had not\n been properly approved in advance or shown to be cost-effective,\n and weatherization of ineligible homes.\n\n Cost-Effectiveness of Weatherization Work\n\n The East Tennessee Human Resource Agency, Inc. (ETHRA) and\n the Upper East Tennessee Human Development Agency, Inc.\n (Upper East) authorized and reimbursed contractors for the\n installation of energy measures that may not have been cost-\n effective. According to Federal and State directives, only energy\n measures that are cost-effective should be installed, as\n demonstrated by a positive savings-to-investment ratio (SIR).\n Tennessee required its agencies to determine cost-effectiveness, or\n SIR, using the National Energy Audit Tool (NEAT) and\n Manufactured Homes Energy Audit Tool (MHEA). These tools,\n developed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the National\n Renewable Energy Laboratory, calculate the SIR by analyzing the\n cost and potential savings of proposed energy measures.\n\n We reviewed the NEAT/MHEA analysis supporting the\n weatherization of 46 homes at 3 local agencies, and found that 2\n agencies had installed energy measures in 36 homes that were not\n shown to be cost-effective. One agency, Shelby County\n Community Services Agency (Shelby County), demonstrated that\n its installed energy measures were cost-effective in the five homes\n we reviewed. However, we noted that of the $170,000 spent by\n ETHRA and Upper East for measures at the homes we reviewed,\n about $100,000 was expended for energy measures even though\n the agencies had not ensured that the potential savings for these\n measures exceeded the cost of installation. For example, the\n agencies spent approximately $40,000 on windows for the homes\n we reviewed despite the fact that the State\'s Weatherization Plan\n cautioned that replacing windows and doors, even when they were\n in a dilapidated condition, was generally not cost-effective in\n reducing energy consumption. The State Plan reminded local\n agencies that the Weatherization Program is an energy\n\n\n\nPage 1 Details of Finding\n\x0c conservation program, not a housing rehabilitation program.\n Nonetheless, agencies installed windows, even after SIRs\n calculated by the NEAT and MHEA tools demonstrated that the\n installation did not meet cost-effectiveness minimums. We also\n found that the agencies installed other energy measures, such as\n smart thermostats and floor insulation, without adequate\n justification. Specifically:\n\n At the 31 homes we reviewed that were served by ETHRA,\n we found 116 of 173 (nearly 70 percent) installed measures\n were not shown to have met minimum standards for cost-\n effectiveness; and,\n\n For 10 homes we evaluated that had been completed by\n Upper East, we identified 48 of 73 (about 65 percent)\n energy savings measures that did not appear to be justified\n based on Tennessee specified minimums for cost-\n effectiveness.\n\n State officials found similar concerns during desk reviews they\n conducted at 14 of the 18 local agencies. During April and May\n 2010 desk reviews, the State evaluated 17 weatherization bid\n solicitations posted by the 3 agencies we reviewed and found 14 of\n those solicitations failed to appropriately identify the cost-\n effectiveness of planned weatherization measures. As a result, the\n State required the agencies re-evaluate the solicitations and ensure\n compliance with policies prior to re-posting the jobs.\n\n Consistent with our findings in this area, the State\'s Comptroller of\n the Treasury, Division of State Audit (State Auditor) also reported\n issues concerning the cost-effectiveness of weatherization\n measures in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Single Audit Report (Single\n Audit) issued in March 2011. In particular, the State Auditor\n detailed instances of contractors installing non-weatherization\n measures such as stairs, steps, ramps, and shower surrounds, or\n other items, which did not increase the energy efficiency of the\n home. The State Auditor reported Federal questioned costs of\n about $14,000 associated with these measures. In response to the\n Single Audit, Tennessee officials agreed that sub-recipients had\n inappropriately recommended non-weatherization measures, and\n added that they had already taken steps to recoup the funds.\n\n Quality of Weatherization Work\n\n Our audit also identified recurring problems with the quality of\n weatherization work within the State. Specifically, Tennessee\'s\n\n\nPage 2 Details of Finding\n\x0c Weatherization Program experienced a significant percentage of\n homes that required further work, sometimes due to poor\n contractor performance, after work was certified as complete.\n Department of Energy (Department) regulations require local\n agencies to conduct a final inspection before the work on a home is\n accepted as complete and require the State to re-inspect at least\n five percent of the homes weatherized and inspected by each local\n agency.\n\n For the period July 2009 to January 2011, State monitors failed\n 317 of 879 homes (or 36 percent) they re-inspected across the\n State, including 42 percent of the 236 homes they re-inspected at\n the 3 agencies we reviewed. State officials found that contractors\n had improperly installed: air infiltration reduction measures; water\n heater insulation; dryer, kitchen and bathroom vents; and, doors.\n As noted earlier, the State is required to re-inspect only five\n percent of the homes weatherized by each of its local agencies.\n Consequently, substandard weatherization work on other homes in\n the State may have occurred without being identified and\n corrected.\n\n During our observation of inspections of 30 homes conducted by\n ETHRA, Upper East and Shelby County, we noted that 10 of the\n homes (or 33 percent) failed local agency inspections because of\n poor contractor workmanship. Specifically:\n\n At ETHRA, 4 of 10 homes we observed failed the agency\'s\n final inspection. The agency failed one home because the\n contractor had not completed all air infiltration reduction\n measures. Another home failed because a window had not\n been properly installed, and the cleaning and repairing of\n the ductwork had not been completed. At the third home,\n the contractor failed to properly install the hot water heater\n discharge pipe. At the fourth home, the contractor had not\n completed air infiltration reduction measures or properly\n insulated a water tank;\n\n At Upper East, 4 of 10 homes failed the agency\'s re-\n inspections when these homes were re-inspected at our\n request. Three homes failed because windows and ground\n cover used to prevent seepage and mold had either not been\n properly installed or repaired. The fourth home failed\n because the contractor failed to air seal a cabinet. These\n homes had previously passed the agency\'s inspections, but\n\n\n\n\nPage 3 Details of Finding\n\x0c when re-inspected at our request and in our presence, the\n agency\'s inspectors noted the problems and failed the re-\n inspection; and,\n\n At Shelby County, 2 of 10 homes failed the agency\'s re-\n inspections because the contractors had not properly\n installed windows and doors. Both of the homes had\n passed the agency\'s inspection, but when re-inspected at\n our request, the agency\'s inspectors identified problems.\n\n The local agencies required contractors to correct the deficiencies\n identified by final inspections and re-inspections of specific\n homes. However, unless the underlying causes for problems in the\n quality of weatherization work are corrected on a systemic basis,\n the recipients of weatherization assistance in the State will not\n fully benefit from the expenditure of significant American\n Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) funds.\n\n The State Auditor identified similar quality-of-work issues in its\n Single Audit, identifying weatherization measures that were not\n properly completed by contractors and not properly verified or\n inspected by local agencies. In particular, the State Auditor\n reported that contractors had not completed weatherization\n measures at 24 of the 84 homes visited and had improperly\n completed work at 14 of the homes. The State Auditor concluded\n that local agency energy auditors conducting inspections "failed to\n adequately perform their jobs," passing 28 homes that should have\n failed. The State Auditor reported Federal questioned costs of\n about $23,000 related to these issues. Tennessee officials agreed\n that sub-recipients had not properly completed and verified\n recommended measures, and noted they would ensure resolution of\n issues and recovery of costs incurred.\n\n Changes in Planned Weatherization Work\n\n We also found that the agencies had not ensured work order\n changes were approved prior to completion of the work and that\n the changes were cost-effective. In our review of documentation\n supporting the weatherization of 68 homes at ETHRA, Upper East\n and Shelby County, we found on at least 40 occasions, energy\n measures had either been added to or deleted from the original\n planned work. Work order changes were often not approved until\n the work was invoiced and were made without the benefit of\n competition and in the absence of any cost-benefit analysis. In\n particular:\n\n\n\n\nPage 4 Details of Finding\n\x0c Despite policies requiring prior approval, local agencies\n had not documented their approval of work scope changes\n in 18 of the 43 cases we reviewed until after the work had\n been completed. In eight of those cases, local agencies\n approved the change orders at the time the contractors\'\n invoices were paid. The agencies told us that contractors\n had been given verbal approval. However, there was no\n documentation of this approval; and,\n\n The local agencies had not performed savings-to-\n investment analyses when work was added to a contract, so\n the required cost-effectiveness could not be established.\n\n For example, we noted an ETHRA change order that added three\n energy measures totaling $940. However, ETHRA did not\n perform either a required site visit to authorize the additional\n measures, or a savings-to-investment analysis to determine if the\n change was cost-effective. At our request, the State reviewed the\n change order and found that the agency had approved the change\n order several days after the work was completed. The State\n determined that the change order was not appropriate and\n disallowed the cost of the additional work.\n In another example, ETHRA initiated a change order to install a\n heat pump without performing a NEAT analysis. The contractor\n billed the agency about $5,700 for the heat pump, a cost more than\n double the NEAT library cost and significantly exceeding the\n amount the agency paid for other, comparable heat pumps. When\n we brought this to the State\'s attention, officials reviewed the\n change order and disallowed the entire cost of the heat pump\n because ETHRA had not performed a required site review to\n authorize the additional expense and had not adequately justified\n the change. We understand that weatherization measures needed\n for a home cannot always be identified in an initial assessment and\n that some changes are reasonable and necessary. However, the\n nature and extent of the change orders we reviewed indicated\n initial assessments may have been insufficient and there was an\n increased risk that contractors could circumvent the cost controls\n inherent in the competitive bidding process. In response to the\n significant number of contract change orders found during our\n audit, the State disallowed about $15,500 in costs incurred by the\n agencies for inappropriate change orders.\n\n The State Auditor also found payments for change orders had not\n been properly approved, noting that 13 percent of change orders\n reviewed during the Single Audit did not follow the proper\n\n\n\nPage 5 Details of Finding\n\x0c procedures. For example, files did not include documentation that\n an agency representative conducted the required site visit prior to\n approval of the change order, despite requirements to do so. The\n State Auditor reported Federal questioned costs of about $7,000\n related to improperly executed change orders. Tennessee officials\n agreed that the local agencies had not followed proper procedures\n for the jobs in question. The State added that it had corrected this\n issue and taken steps to recover the costs.\n Eligibility of Homes Weatherized\n\n One agency we reviewed had not ensured homes it weatherized\n were eligible for those services. Specifically, we identified three\n homes weatherized by ETHRA that had previously been\n weatherized, making them ineligible for weatherization assistance.\n Under the Recovery Act and Departmental requirements, agencies\n are required to ensure homes weatherized after September 30, 1994,\n do not receive additional weatherization assistance, unless they had\n been damaged by fire, flood or act of God and repair or damage to\n weatherization materials had not been paid for by insurance.\n ETHRA did not have sufficient procedures in place to determine if\n the homes had received previous weatherization assistance, and had\n no evidence that the homes fell into the exception categories that\n would have allowed for additional weatherization services.\n Consequently, we questioned about $12,000 spent to weatherize the\n three homes previously weatherized.\n\n The State Auditor, in its Single Audit, also noted that 10 local\n agencies, including ETHRA and Shelby County, did not have\n adequate procedures in place to determine whether a dwelling had\n been weatherized since September 30, 1994. Tennessee officials\n agreed that the sub-recipients could not always determine when\n homes had last been weatherized. The State also responded that it\n is developing a Statewide weatherization system to ensure homes\n previously weatherized are not incorrectly re-weatherized.\nProgram Weaknesses These problems occurred due to a combination of Weatherization\n Program weaknesses. In particular, we found local agency\n personnel were unfamiliar with the analytical tools used to\n demonstrate cost-effectiveness of weatherization measures, local\n agencies had not always performed adequate final inspections, and\n the State and its local agencies had not established sufficient\n controls over work change orders.\n\n Analytical Tools\n\n Tennessee required its agencies to use the NEAT/MHEA analytical\n tools, but did not ensure that the agencies were proficient in the\n\nPage 6 Details of Finding\n\x0c application of the tools. ETHRA officials reported to us that they\n were not adequately trained in the use of the cost-benefit analysis\n tools prescribed by the State and further reported they were\n unaware for a year after using the tools that a specific SIR standard\n had to be met. Prior to the Recovery Act, the State allowed the\n agencies to use a checklist to determine which weatherization\n priority measures to install. Subsequent to the Recovery Act and\n in the interest of ensuring a more objective analysis of the cost-\n benefit of energy measures, the State required agencies to use the\n automated NEAT/MHEA systems.\n\n For the NEAT/MHEA systems to be effective, agencies are\n required to update cost libraries to reflect the price of materials in\n their areas. We found, however, that ETHRA had not maintained\n and periodically updated local cost information, rendering its\n systems\' output unreliable. For example, we found the cost of\n procuring and installing a refrigerator was listed as a meaningless\n $1. An ETHRA official acknowledged the agency\'s cost library\n had not been updated even though the library was a primary tool in\n the NEAT/MHEA analyses. The official stated that the analytical\n tools were difficult to use. An Upper East official also reported\n some NEAT/MHEA data for the agency had been entered\n incorrectly and there was no consistency in its cost library.\n\n The State recognized deficiencies in the use and application of the\n NEAT/MHEA tools and initiated action to correct the problems we\n identified. Based on the results of its April and May 2010 review,\n Tennessee subsequently provided additional training on energy\n assessments and the use of these tools and mandated that agencies\n use the State library for cost consistency.\n\n Local Agency Final Inspections\n\n Inadequate local agency inspections resulted in issues with the\n quality of workmanship and diminished the ability of officials at\n all levels to identify systemic workmanship and/or pervasive\n management issues. During their re-inspection of homes\n weatherized by local agencies, State monitors found that in\n approximately one of three cases, local agency final inspectors\n passed homes that actually required further action. In other words,\n homes deemed to be completed by local agency officials often had\n significant problems that had not been resolved. At the three\n agencies included in our audit, the inspections we observed were\n thorough. In fact, local agency inspectors we accompanied\n identified significant issues and failed 10 of the 30 homes\n inspected. The State, however, found local agencies often passed\n\n\n\nPage 7 Details of Finding\n\x0c homes that required further action. Specifically, from July 2009 to\n January 2011, 42 percent of the 236 homes the State re-inspected\n for these three agencies failed re-inspection.\n\n Additionally, inspections were not consistently performed and\n contractors were not consistently assessed. For example, Upper\n East reported the State\'s guidance gave direction and\n recommendations on how a measure should be installed or\n repaired; however, in many instances, the guidance left it up to the\n inspectors\' interpretations. Upper East stated inspectors\'\n interpretations could vary from one inspector to the next. Thus,\n when the inspectors were assessing whether the contractors\' work\n was appropriate, different inspectors had varying responses. To\n improve consistency, the State provided additional training to the\n agencies and their inspectors.\n\n To its credit, during 2010, the State performed trend analyses and\n identified poor performing contractors and agency inspectors. The\n State then focused its re-inspection efforts on those poor\n performers in an effort to identify and correct systemic problems.\n In our review of the State\'s re-inspection data, we noted that the\n State\'s efforts had begun to have a positive effect. In particular, we\n noted that in the more recent analysis, the agencies\' inspections had\n improved as compared to previous periods. Specifically, the State-\n wide cumulative failure rate decreased from 43 percent in August\n 2010 to 36 percent in January 2011.\n\n Change Order Controls\n\n We noted that the State had not effectively limited the agencies\'\n change order control authority. In response to the issues we raised\n in the audit, the State stipulated that as of January 2011, work\n added by change orders must be supported by NEAT/MHEA\n analysis and found to be cost-effective, and prior approval must be\n obtained before the contractor performs the work. In addition, the\n State\'s approval is now required for change orders that increase the\n total cost of the job by 25 percent or more.\n\n State Auditor Weatherization Findings\n\n In addition to the findings discussed above, the State Auditor\'s\n Single Audit detailed Weatherization Program issues identified at\n local agencies that we did not visit as part of our audit. These\n included inaccurate and unsupported determination of applicant\n eligibility; payments to contractors that differed from original\n bids or invoices; and, energy auditors who lacked required\n certifications. The State Auditor made recommendations to correct\n\nPage 8 Details of Finding\n\x0c identified findings. Tennessee disagreed that it failed to ensure\n that key controls were in place, but agreed that the sub-recipients\n responsible for the direct administration of the Program had\n sometimes lacked proper controls over the Program. Overall, the\n State Auditor reported $371,770 in total questioned costs for the\n Tennessee Weatherization Program, of which $186,361 were\n Federal questioned costs. The State, in its response, disagreed with\n the amount of Federal questioned costs, stating only $68,017 had\n yet to be questioned, or disallowed, to sub-recipients.\n\nImpact of Weaknesses in Tennessee\'s Weatherization Program can pose\nWeatherization health and safety risks to residents and increase Program costs. In\nProblems the absence of improvement in the management of its\n Weatherization Program, the State also faces an increased risk of\n waste, fraud and abuse.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS To address the deficiencies we identified during our audit, we\n recommend the Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency\n and Renewable Energy ensure:\n\n 1.\t Tennessee takes immediate action to:\n\n a.\t Ensure local agencies install only those\n weatherization measures that are allowable and\n meet or exceed the savings-to-investment ratio\n standards;\n\n b.\t Expand local agency initial assessment and final\n inspection processes to ensure poorly performing\n contractors and agency inspectors are identified\n and corrective action taken; and,\n\n c.\t Ensure compliance with new State requirements\n mandating change orders be supported by NEAT/\n MHEA analysis; approved by local agencies before\n contractors begin work; and, approved by the State\n if the total job cost increases by 25 percent or\n more.\n\n 2.\t The questioned costs identified in this report (about\n $100,000 for energy measures that were not cost-effective,\n $15,500 for change orders that were not properly\n approved, and $12,000 for the homes that were re-\n weatherized) are resolved.\n\n\n\n\nPage 9\t Recommendations\n\x0cMANAGEMENT AND The Department, Tennessee, ETHRA, Shelby County and Upper\nAUDITOR COMMENTS East provided responses to our draft audit report which are included\n in their entirety in Appendix 3. Below is a summary of their key\n comments and our response.\n\n Management Comments (Department)\n\n Department officials concurred with our recommendations and\n provided an action plan for implementing them. Officials stated\n that, in response to their concerns and corrective actions, Tennessee\n had made a number of improvements in implementation of its\n Weatherization Program. Department officials stated they would\n continue to assess the State\'s progress toward implementing these\n and other Program improvements. Additionally, the Department\n will: (1) recommend development of more concise implementation\n guidance; (2) review monitoring plans to ensure they\n adequately describe the final inspection process; and, (3)\n review the change order process during monitoring visits and\n request trend analyses of the incidences of change orders.\n Further, the Department has already begun its review and\n resolution of questioned costs.\n Auditor Response to Department Comments\n\n The Department\'s comments are responsive to our\n recommendations.\n\n Management Comments (State)\n\n Tennessee officials generally concurred with our findings and\n recommendations, stating they had already taken action to address\n the issues we identified. For example, the State had developed a\n more restrictive change order policy that includes a review of\n change orders during monitoring visits. Further, the State had\n implemented a plan to audit poor performers at a higher rate; to\n inspect a higher percentage of jobs for post inspection; and, to delist\n poor performers. In particular, the State plans to exceed the\n required minimum 5 percent re-inspection rate and will continue to\n strengthen the Program through ongoing training with auditors,\n contractors and agency staff; development of technical experts;\n weekly conference calls; and, direct technical support. Officials\n will ensure sub-recipients install only allowable measures that meet\n or exceed SIR standards and follow proper change order\n procedures.\n While State officials agreed that energy measures were not always\n entered into the NEAT/MHEA correctly, they disagreed with the\n\n\nPage 10 Comments\n\x0c number of measures we questioned as not being cost-effective.\n Officials stated that after they re-examined the measures, they\n determined that all but six of the measures questioned would have\n been justified. Further, officials disagreed that the State had not\n provided sufficient training in the use of the weatherization tools,\n stating that it had provided a series of training sessions all agencies\n and energy auditors were required to attend.\n Auditor Response to State Comments\n\n The State\'s comments were, in general, responsive to our\n recommendations. We disagree with Tennessee\'s conclusion that\n all but six of the questioned energy measures were justified. In its\n re-examination, we noted Tennessee officials had re-classified\n nearly half of the questioned energy measures as either health and\n safety measures or as incidental repairs; measures which do not\n require a SIR of one or greater. Tennessee\'s re-classification of\n energy measures meant that low-scoring measures, even though not\n cost-effective, could still be installed. We performed our analysis\n using the State Plan, which describes those measures considered\n energy measures, and those characterized as health and safety or\n incidental repair. While we acknowledge that, in some cases, a\n measure may fall into either category, for the most part, the State\n Plan is relatively clear. Further, regardless of whether they\n characterized measures correctly or not, the agencies disregarded\n the NEAT/MHEA results, and installed measures despite the\n results. Finally, as previously stated, Department officials have\n begun to review the costs we questioned.\n\n In regard to the sufficiency of the State\'s training in the\n NEAT/MHEA audit tools, our report appropriately reflected one\n agency\'s statements to us that it had not been adequately trained in\n the analytical tools. Our report acknowledges that the State\n recognized deficiencies in the use and application of the tools and\n subsequently provided additional training. However, despite that\n training, we continue to conclude that local agencies were not\n proficient in the use of the tools. This lack of proficiency led to the\n numerous errors that we identified.\n\n Management Comments (Local Agencies)\n\n ETHRA generally concurred with our findings, commenting it had\n used State-provided programs for training and compliance\n directives. The agency detailed that the rapid expenditures of\n Recovery Act funds prevented the normal learning curve for new\n auditors and contractors, and that over time, the agency eliminated\n unsuitable auditors and contractors, thus allowing ETHRA to ensure\n\n\nPage 11 Comments\n\x0c quality of work provided to the clients. Agency officials further\n stated they had recalculated the SIR on a large number of completed\n projects, and had determined the SIR met State guidelines. With\n respect to the measures specifically questioned in our report,\n ETHRA responded that it could not comment on the accuracy of\n those questioned measures, but stated that it disagreed with two\n projects we questioned as not being cost-effective, and with the\n library cost of $1 cited in our report. ETHRA also indicated\n improvements in the implementation and use of the State\'s\n weatherization database should help address improper re-\n weatherizations. Shelby County generally concurred with our\n findings. Concerning the quality of final inspections, Shelby\n County stated that inspectors were not direct employees of Shelby\n County, but were contract employees trained by the State. As such,\n the agency was unaware of the inspectors\' training and abilities, and\n did not have enough staff to adequately inspect and supervise\n contractors\' work. Since the audit, agency officials reported they\n had increased the number of auditors and required staff to attend\n additional training. Upper East concurred with our findings as they\n pertained to its operations.\n\n Auditor Response to Local Agencies\' Comments\n\n Local agency comments generally affirm our findings and are\n responsive to our recommendations. One agency, ETHRA,\n expressed concern about two projects and the data in the cost\n library. One of the projects was not specifically cited in our report,\n nor was its costs questioned. The other project, a door replacement,\n was characterized by ETHRA as an allowable health and safety\n measure, even though the client file did not indicate such a concern.\n The $1 library cost example cited in our report was for a\n refrigerator, not roof coating as ETHRA stated in its response.\n\n\n\n\nPage 12 Comments\n\x0cAppendix 1\n\n\nOBJECTIVE The objective of the audit was to determine if the State of\n Tennessee had adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the\n Weatherization Assistance Program (Weatherization Program) was\n managed efficiently and effectively.\n\nSCOPE The audit was performed between April 2010 and August 2011, at\n the Tennessee Department of Human Services (Tennessee) in\n Nashville, Tennessee and at three local agencies: East Tennessee\n Human Resource Agency, Inc. in Knoxville, Tennessee; Upper\n East Tennessee Human Development Agency, Inc. in Kingsport,\n Tennessee; and, the Shelby County Community Services Agency\n in Memphis, Tennessee. The three local agencies reviewed were\n awarded, in total, $29.8 million to weatherize 3,858 homes, and\n represented approximately 30 percent of Tennessee\'s funding and\n 40 percent of the homes to be weatherized.\n\nMETHODOLOGY\n To accomplish the audit objective, we:\n\n Reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and guidance\n pertaining to the Weatherization Program under the\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009\n (Recovery Act); as well as laws, regulations and guidance\n applicable to Tennessee\'s Weatherization Program;\n\n Interviewed Tennessee officials to discuss current and\n ongoing efforts to implement the requirements of the\n Weatherization Program;\n\n Reviewed prior Office of Inspector General, Government\n Accountability Office, State of Tennessee Division of State\n Audit, and other related reports on the Weatherization\n Program;\n\n Accompanied final inspectors on final and completed\n inspections and re-inspections, and reviewed past State\n monitoring reports which evaluated the performance of\n final inspections; and,\n\n Assessed internal controls over the Weatherization\n Program, including the cost-effectiveness for determining\n the recommended weatherization measures.\n\n We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally\n accepted Government auditing standards. Those standards require\n that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\n evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and\n\n\n\nPage 13 Objective, Scope and Methodology\n\x0cAppendix 1 (continued)\n\n\n conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the\n evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and\n conclusions based on our audit objective. The audit included tests\n of controls and compliance with laws and regulations necessary to\n satisfy the audit objective. Because our review was limited, it\n would not necessarily have disclosed all internal control\n deficiencies that may have existed at the time of our audit. We\n considered the establishment of Recovery Act performance\n measures that included certain aspects of compliance with the\n Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, as necessary to\n accomplish the objective. We conducted a limited reliability\n assessment of computer-processed data and we deemed the data\n sufficiently reliable to achieve our audit objective.\n\n Department of Energy management officials waived an exit\n conference. We held an exit conference with State of Tennessee\n officials on September 14, 2011.\n\n\n\n\nPage 14 Objective, Scope and Methodology\n\x0cAppendix 2\n\n RELATED AUDIT REPORTS\n\nUnder the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Office of Inspector General\nhas initiated a series of audits designed to evaluate the Department of Energy\'s Weatherization\nAssistance Program\'s internal control structures at the Federal, state, and local levels. During our\naudits, we have noted similar findings such as deficiencies in agencies\' initial assessments and\nfinal inspection processes and poor quality in contractors\' work. However, it must be noted that\nthese issues do not exist in all the states we have audited. Our series of audit reports include the\nfollowing:\n\n Audit Report The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program Funded\n under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the Commonwealth of Virginia\n (OAS-RA-11-14, August 2011)\n\n Audit Report The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program Funded\n under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the State of Indiana (OAS-RA-11-\n 13, August 2011)\n\n Audit Report The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program under the\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the State of Missouri (OAS-RA-11-12,\n August 2011)\n\n Audit Report The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program under the\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the State of West Virginia (OAS-RA-11-09,\n June 2011)\n\n Audit Report The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program Funded\n under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the State of Wisconsin (OAS-RA-\n 11-07, May 2011)\n\n Audit Report The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program under the\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the Capital Area Community Action\n Agency \xe2\x80\x93 Agreed-Upon Procedures (OAS-RA-11-04, February 2011)\n\n Audit Report The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program under the\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the City of Phoenix- Agreed-Upon\n Procedures (OAS-RA-11-03, November 2010)\n\n Audit Report Selected Aspects of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania\'s Efforts to\n Implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Weatherization Assistance\n Program (OAS-RA-11-02, November 2010)\n\n Audit Report The State of Illinois Weatherization Assistance Program (OAS-RA-11-01,\n October 2010)\n\n\n\n\nPage 15 Related Audit Reports\n\x0cAppendix 2 (continued)\n\n\n Audit Report The Department of Energy\'s Use of the Weatherization Assistance Program\n Formula for Allocating Funds Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act\n (OAS-RA-10-13, June 2010)\n\n Preliminary Audit Report Management Controls over the Commonwealth of Virginia\'s\n Efforts to Implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Weatherization\n Assistance Program (OAS-RA-10-11, May 2010)\n\n Special Report Progress in Implementing the Department of Energy\'s Weatherization\n Assistance Program Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (OAS-RA-10-\n 04, February 2010)\n\n Audit Report Management Alert on the Department\'s Monitoring of the Weatherization\n Assistance Program in the State of Illinois (OAS-RA-10-02, December 2009)\n\n\n\n\nPage 16 Related Audit Reports\n\x0cAppendix 3\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 17 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 18 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 19 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 20 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 21 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 22 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 23 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 24 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 25 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 26 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 27 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 28 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 29 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 3 (continued)\n\n\n\n\n\nPage 30 Management Comments\n\x0c IG Report No. OAS-RA-11-17\n\n\n CUSTOMER RESPONSE FORM\n\nThe Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the usefulness of its\nproducts. We wish to make our reports as responsive as possible to our customers\' requirements,\nand, therefore, ask that you consider sharing your thoughts with us. On the back of this form,\nyou may suggest improvements to enhance the effectiveness of future reports. Please include\nanswers to the following questions if they are applicable to you:\n\n1.\t What additional background information about the selection, scheduling, scope, or\n procedures of the inspection would have been helpful to the reader in understanding this\n report?\n\n2.\t What additional information related to findings and recommendations could have been\n included in the report to assist management in implementing corrective actions?\n\n3.\t What format, stylistic, or organizational changes might have made this report\'s overall\n message more clear to the reader?\n\n4.\t What additional actions could the Office of Inspector General have taken on the issues\n discussed in this report which would have been helpful?\n\n5.\t Please include your name and telephone number so that we may contact you should we have\n any questions about your comments.\n\n\nName \t Date\n\nTelephone\t Organization\n\n\nWhen you have completed this form, you may telefax it to the Office of Inspector General at\n(202) 586-0948, or you may mail it to:\n\n Office of Inspector General (IG-1)\n Department of Energy\n Washington, DC 20585\n\n ATTN: Customer Relations\n\nIf you wish to discuss this report or your comments with a staff member of the Office of\nInspector General, please contact Felicia Jones (202) 253-2162.\n\x0cThis page intentionally left blank.\n\x0cThe Office of Inspector General wants to make the distribution of its reports as customer friendly and cost\n effective as possible. Therefore, this report will be available electronically through the Internet at the\n following address:\n\n U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector General Home Page\n http://energy.gov/ig\n\n Your comments would be appreciated and can be provided on the Customer Response Form.\n\x0c'


type: legislation

text:
 110 HR 2914 IH: Medicare IVIG Access Act of
 U.S. House of Representatives
 2007-06-28
 text/xml
 EN
 Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
 I
 110th CONGRESS
 1st Session
 H. R. 2914
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 June 28, 2007
 Mr. Brady of Texas
 (for himself, Mr. Israel,
 Mrs. Blackburn,
 Mr. Burgess,
 Mrs. Cubin,
 Mr. English of Pennsylvania,
 Mr. Herger,
 Mr. Hinchey,
 Mr. Meeks of New York,
 Mr. McNulty,
 Mr. Nunes,
 Mr. Paul, Mr. Ramstad, Mr.
 Sessions, Mrs. Tauscher,
 Ms. Roybal-Allard,
 Mr. Smith of New Jersey, and
 Mr. Young of Florida) introduced the
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
 addition to the Committee on Ways and
 Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
 Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
 jurisdiction of the committee concerned
 A BILL
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
 improve access of Medicare beneficiaries to immune globulins.
 1.Short title; table of
 contents
 (a)Short
 titleThis Act may be cited
 as the Medicare IVIG Access Act of
 2007.
 (b)Table of
 contentsThe table of contents of this Act is as follows:
 Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
 Sec. 2. Findings.
 Sec. 3. Medicare payment for immune globulins.
 Sec. 4. Coverage and payment of intravenous immune globulin in
 the home.
 Sec. 5. Patient access surveys and reports.
 2.Findings
 (a)FindingsCongress
 finds the following:
 (1)Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) is a
 human blood plasma derived product, which over the past 25 years has become an
 invaluable therapy for many primary immunodeficiency diseases, as well as a
 number of neurological, autoimmune, and other chronic conditions and illnesses.
 For many of these disorders, IVIG is the most effective and viable treatment
 available, and has dramatically improved the quality of life for persons with
 these conditions and has become a life-saving therapy for many.
 (2)The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
 recognizes each IVIG brand as a unique biologic. The differences in basic
 fractionation and the addition of various modifications for further
 purification, stabilization and virus inactivation/removal yield clearly
 different biological products. As a result, IVIG therapies are not
 interchangeable, with patient tolerance differing from one IVIG brand to
 another.
 (3)The report of the Office of the Assistant
 Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), Department of Health and Human
 Services (DHHS), Analysis of Supply, Distribution, Demand, and Access
 Issues Associated with Immune Globulin Intravenous (IGIV), issued in
 May 2007, found that IVIG manufacturing is complex and requires substantial
 upfront cash outlay and planning and takes between seven and 12 months from
 plasma collection at donor centers to FDA lot release.
 (4)The Medicare
 Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 changed
 Medicare’s reimbursement methodology for IVIG from average wholesale price
 (AWP) to average sales price plus 6 percent (ASP+6), effective January 1, 2005,
 for physicians, and January 1, 2006, for hospital outpatient departments,
 thereby reducing reimbursement rates paid to these providers of IVIG on behalf
 of Medicare beneficiaries.
 (5)An Office of the
 Inspector General (OIG) April 2007 report, Intravenous Immune Globulin:
 Medicare Payment and Availability, found that Medicare reimbursement for IVIG
 was inadequate to cover the cost many providers must pay for the product.
 During the third quarter of 2006, 44 percent of IVIG sales to hospitals and 41
 percent of sales to physicians by the three largest distributors occurred at
 prices above Medicare payment amounts.
 (6)The ASPE report notes that after the new
 reimbursement rules for physicians was instituted in 2005, 42 percent of
 Medicare beneficiaries who had received their IVIG treatment in their
 physician’s office at the end of 2004 were shifted to the hospital outpatient
 setting by the beginning of 2006. This shift in site of care has resulted in
 lack of continuity of care and adverse impact on health outcomes and quality of
 life.
 (7)The OIG also
 reported that 61 percent of responding physicians indicated that they had sent
 patients to hospitals for IVIG treatment, largely because of their inability to
 purchase IVIG at prices below the Medicare payment amounts. In addition, OIG
 found that some physicians had stopped providing IVIG to Medicare beneficiaries
 altogether.
 (8)The OIG’s 2007
 report concluded that whatever improvement some providers saw in the
 relationship of Medicare reimbursement for IVIG to prices paid during the first
 three quarters of 2006 would be eroded if manufacturers were to increase prices
 for IVIG in the future.
 (9)The Centers for
 Medicare & Medicaid Services, in recognition of dislocations experienced by
 patients and providers in obtaining IVIG since the change to the ASP+6
 reimbursement methodology, has provided during 2006 and 2007 a temporary
 additional payment for IVIG preadministration-related services to compensate
 physicians and hospital outpatient departments for the extra resources they
 have had to expend in locating and obtaining appropriate IVIG products and in
 scheduling patient infusions.
 (10)Approximately 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries
 receive IVIG treatment for their primary immunodeficiency disease in a variety
 of different settings. They have no other effective treatment for their
 condition.
 (11)The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003
 (MMA) established an IVIG home infusion benefit for persons with primary
 immunodeficiency disease (PIDD), paying only for IVIG and specifically
 excluding coverage of items and services related to administration of the
 product.
 (12)The ASPE report,
 Analysis of Supply, Distribution, Demand, and Access Issues Associated with
 Immune Globulin Intravenous (IGIV), found that Medicare’s IVIG home infusion
 benefit is not designed to reimburse for more than the cost of IVIG and does
 not cover the cost of infusion services (for example, nursing and clinical
 services and supplies) in the home. As a consequence, the report found that
 home infusion providers generally do not accept new PIDD patients with only
 Medicare coverage. These limitations in service are caused by health care
 providers(A)not being able to
 acquire IVIG at prices at or below the Medicare part B reimbursement level, and(B)not being
 reimbursed for the infusion services provided by a nurse.
 (13)Access to home infusion of IVIG for PIDD
 patients, who have a genetic or intrinsic defect in their human immune system,
 will reduce their exposure to infections at a time when their antibodies are
 compromised and will improve the quality of their care and their health.
 3.Medicare payment
 for immune globulins
 (a)In
 generalSection 1842(o)(1)(E)
 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(o)(1)(E)) is amended—
 (1)in paragraph
 (1)(E)(ii), by inserting before the period the following: , plus an
 additional amount (if applicable) under paragraph (7);
 (2)in paragraph (7),
 by striking (6) and inserting (7) and by
 redesignating it as paragraph (8); and
 (3)by inserting after
 paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:
 (7)(A)Not later than 6 months after the date of
 the enactment of the Medicare IVIG Access Act of 2007, the Secretary
 shall—
 (i)collect data on the differences, if
 any, between payments to physicians for immune globulins under paragraph
 (1)(E)(ii) and costs incurred by physicians for furnishing these products;
 and
 (ii)review available data, including survey
 data presented by members of the IVIG community on the access of individuals
 eligible for services under this part to immune globulins.
 (B)Upon completion of the review and
 collection of data under subparagraph (A), and not later than 7 months after
 the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall provide, if
 appropriate, to physicians furnishing immune globulins, a payment, in addition
 to the payment provided for in paragraph (1)(E)(ii), for all items related to
 the furnishing of immune globulins, in an amount that the Secretary determines
 to be appropriate.
 (C)In the case of immune globulins
 furnished on or after January 1, 2007, the Secretary shall continue the
 preadministration-related services payment established under the Final
 Physician Fee Schedule Rule issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
 Services on November 1, 2006 (CMS–1321–FC), until such time as the Secretary
 determines that payment for immune globulins is adequate or until a new payment
 methodology is
 implemented.
 .
 (b)As part of
 hospital outpatient servicesSection 1833(t)(14) of such Act (42
 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(14)) is amended—
 (1)in subparagraph
 (A)(iii), by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting
 subparagraphs (E) and (I); and
 (2)by adding at the
 end the following new subparagraph:
 (I)Additional
 payment for immune globulins
 (i)Data collection
 and reviewNot later than 6
 months after the date of the enactment of the Medicare IVIG Access Act of 2007,
 the Secretary shall—
 (I)review available data, including survey
 data presented by members of the IVIG community, on the access of individuals
 eligible for services under this part to immune globulins; and
 (II)collect data on the differences, if any,
 between payments for immune globulins under subparagraph (A)(iii) and costs
 incurred for furnishing these products.
 (ii)Additional
 payment authorityUpon
 completion of the review and collection of data under clause (i), and not later
 than 7 months after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, the
 Secretary shall provide, if appropriate, to hospitals furnishing immune
 globulins as part of a covered OPD service, a payment, in addition to the
 payment provided for under subparagraph (A)(iii), for all items related to the
 furnishing of immune globulins, in an amount that the Secretary determines to
 be appropriate.
 (iii)Continuation
 of special payment ruleIn the case of immune globulins furnished
 on or after January 1, 2007, the Secretary shall continue the
 preadministration-related services payment established under the Final Hospital
 Outpatient Rule issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
 November 1, 2006 (CMS–1506–FC), until such time as the Secretary determines
 that payment for immune globulins is adequate or until a new payment
 methodology is
 implemented.
 .
 4.Coverage and
 payment of intravenous immune globulin in the home
 (a)Including
 coverage of administration
 (1)In
 generalSection 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x)
 is amended—
 (A)in subsection (s)(2)(Z), by inserting
 before the semicolon at the end the following: , regardless of whether
 the individual receiving the globulin is eligible to receive home health
 services under this title; and
 (B)in subsection
 (zz), by striking but not including items or services related to the
 administration of the derivative.
 (2)Conforming home
 health amendmentSection 1814(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a))
 is amended by adding at the end the following: An individual eligible
 for intravenous immune globulin under section 1861(s)(2)(Z) shall not be
 considered eligible for home health services under paragraph (2)(C) or section
 1835(a)(2)(A) solely on the basis of meeting the requirements of such
 subsection or section 1861(zz)..
 (b)Payment for
 intravenous immune globulin administration in the homeSection
 1834 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m) is amended by adding at the end the
 following new subsection:
 (n)Payment for
 intravenous immune globulin in the homeThe Secretary shall review available
 published and unpublished data and information, including the Study of
 Intravenous Immune Globulin Administration Options: Safety, Access, and Cost
 Issues (CMS Contract #500–95–0059), on confirming the appropriateness of
 administration of intravenous immune globulin in the home setting, and (as
 appropriate) calculate the amount, in addition to that made under section
 1842(o)(1)(E)(ii) for immune globulins, that should be paid to providers for
 clinical, compliance, and complication management services for ensuring safe
 and efficacious delivery of immune globulins in the home setting under
 1861(s)(2)(Z). The Secretary shall pay such amounts no later than January 1,
 2008.
 .
 (c)Application of
 criminal record request provisions to IVIG in-home providersSection 124(i)(1) of the Departments of
 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations
 Act, 1999 (as contained in section 1(b) of Public Law 105–277; 112 Stat.
 2681–74) is amended by adding at the end the following: Such term
 includes an entity providing intravenous immune globulin under part B of title
 XVIII of the Social Security Act in a home..
 (d)Effective
 dateThe amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply
 to intravenous immune globulin administered on or after January 1, 2008.
 5.Patient access
 surveys and reports
 (a)SurveysThe Secretary of Health and Human Services
 shall conduct, not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this
 Act, two surveys of Medicare and non-Medicare patients who need immune
 globulins for the purpose of measuring changes in patient access to those
 products (and providers furnishing those products), as well as changes in the
 health care status of those patients. The Secretary may enter into contracts
 with organizations or entities qualified to conduct such surveys.
 (b)Survey
 reportsEach of the surveys shall include a report to the
 Secretary and the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means of the
 House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate on findings
 from the survey, as well as a discussion of reasons for observed changes, if
 any.
 (c)Congressional
 reportsOn the basis of findings from such surveys, the Secretary
 shall submit to Congress reports that include recommendations on necessary
 adjustments in payments for immune globulins under the Medicare program in
 order to assure beneficiary access to those products and providers that furnish
 those products. The first such report shall be submitted no later than 2 years
 after the date of the enactment of this Act and the second report no later than
 four years after such date.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 19.1.2015
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 C 16/37
 Ordonnance du Tribunal du 6 novembre 2014 — ANKO/Commission
 (Affaire T-64/13) (1)
 («Clause compromissoire - Sixième programme-cadre pour des actions de recherche, de développement technologique et de démonstration (2002-2006) - Contrat concernant le projet Doc@Hand - Remboursement des sommes avancées - Lettre annonçant l’émission d’une note de débit - Défaut d’intérêt à agir - Irrecevabilité»)
 (2015/C 016/59)
 Langue de procédure: le grec
 Parties
 Partie requérante: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athènes, Grèce) (représentant: V. Christianos, avocat)
 Partie défenderesse: Commission européenne (représentants: R. Lyal et A. Cordewener, agents, assistés de S. Drakakakis, avocat)
 Objet
 Recours formé au titre de l’article 272 TFUE, visant à obtenir du Tribunal qu’il constate, premièrement, que la requérante n’est pas tenue de rembourser la somme que la Commission lui a versée au titre du projet Doc@Hand, conclu dans le cadre du sixième programme-cadre pour des actions de recherche, de développement technologique et de démonstration (2002-2006), et, deuxièmement, que la requérante n’est pas tenue de verser une indemnité forfaitaire au titre du même projet.
 Dispositif
 1)
 Le recours est rejeté comme irrecevable.
 2)
 ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias est condamnée aux dépens.
 (1) JO C 86 du 23.3.2013.


text:
 22.3.2019
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 80/1
 A TANÁCS (EU) 2019/459 VÉGREHAJTÁSI RENDELETE
 (2019. március 21.)
 az egyiptomi helyzet tekintetében egyes személyekkel, szervezetekkel és szervekkel szemben hozott korlátozó intézkedésekről szóló 270/2011/EU rendelet végrehajtásáról
 AZ EURÓPAI UNIÓ TANÁCSA,
 tekintettel az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződésre,
 tekintettel az egyiptomi helyzet tekintetében egyes személyekkel, szervezetekkel és szervekkel szemben hozott korlátozó intézkedésekről szóló, 2011. március 21-i 270/2011/EU tanácsi rendeletre (1) és különösen annak 12. cikke (4) bekezdésére,
 tekintettel az Unió külügyi és biztonságpolitikai főképviselőjének javaslatára,
 mivel:
 (1)
 A Tanács 2011. március 21-én elfogadta a 270/2011/EU rendeletet.
 (2)
 Az I. mellékletet ki kell egészíteni a védelemhez való jog és a hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való jogra vonatkozó információkkal
 (3)
 A 270/2011/EU rendelet I. mellékletét ezért ennek megfelelően módosítani kell,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A RENDELETET:
 1. cikk
 A 270/2011/EU rendelet I. melléklete az e rendelet mellékletében foglaltak szerint módosul.
 2. cikk
 Ez a rendelet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetését követő napon lép hatályba.
 Ez a rendelet teljes egészében kötelező és közvetlenül alkalmazandó valamennyi tagállamban.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2019. március 21-én.
 a Tanács részéről
 az elnök
 G. CIAMBA
 (1) HL L 76., 2011.3.22., 4. o.
 MELLÉKLET
 A 270/2011/EU rendelet I. melléklete helyébe a következő szöveg lép:
 „I. MELLÉKLET
 A. 2. cikk (1) bekezdésében említett természetes és jogi személyek, szervezetek és szervek jegyzéke
 Név
 (és névváltozatok)
 Azonosító adatok
 A jegyzékbe vétel indoka
 1.
 Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
 Az Egyiptomi Arab Köztársaság egykori elnöke
 Születési idő: 1928.5.4.
 Neme: férfi
 Olyan személy, aki ellen az egyiptomi hatóságok bírósági eljárást folytatnak állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján, vagy akivel szemben az egyiptomi hatóságok jogerős bírósági ítélet alapján vagyon-visszaszerzési eljárást folytatnak állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján.
 2.
 Suzanne Saleh Thabet
 Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubaraknak, az Egyiptomi Arab Köztársaság egykori elnökének házastársa.
 Születési idő: 1941.2.28.
 Neme: nő
 Kapcsolatban áll Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarakkal, aki ellen az egyiptomi hatóságok bírósági eljárást folytatnak állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján, vagy akivel szemben az egyiptomi hatóságok jogerős bírósági ítélet alapján vagyon-visszaszerzési eljárást folytatnak állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján.
 3.
 Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
 Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubaraknak, az Egyiptomi Arab Köztársaság egykori elnökének fia
 Születési idő: 1960.11.26.
 Neme: férfi
 Olyan személy, aki ellen az egyiptomi hatóságok bírósági eljárást folytatnak állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján, vagy akivel szemben az egyiptomi hatóságok jogerős bírósági ítélet alapján vagyon-visszaszerzési eljárást folytatnak állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján.
 4.
 Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh
 Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubaraknak, az Egyiptomi Arab Köztársaság egykori elnöke fiának a házastársa.
 Születési idő: 1971.10.5.
 Neme: nő
 Olyan személy, aki ellen az egyiptomi hatóságok bírósági eljárást folytatnak állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján, vagy akivel szemben az egyiptomi hatóságok jogerős bírósági ítélet alapján vagyon-visszaszerzési eljárást folytatnak állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján, és kapcsolatban áll Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarakkal.
 5.
 Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
 Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubaraknak, az Egyiptomi Arab Köztársaság egykori elnökének fia
 Születési idő: 1963.12.28.
 Neme: férfi
 Olyan személy, aki ellen az egyiptomi hatóságok bírósági eljárást folytatnak állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján, vagy akivel szemben az egyiptomi hatóságok jogerős bírósági ítélet alapján vagyon-visszaszerzési eljárást folytatnak állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján.
 6.
 Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal
 Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubaraknak, az Egyiptomi Arab Köztársaság egykori elnöke fiának a házastársa.
 Születési idő: 1982.10.13.
 Neme: nő
 Olyan személy, aki ellen az egyiptomi hatóságok bírósági eljárást folytatnak állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján, vagy akivel szemben az egyiptomi hatóságok jogerős bírósági ítélet alapján vagyon-visszaszerzési eljárást folytatnak állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján, és kapcsolatban áll Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarakkal.
 15.
 Mohamed Zohir Mohamed Wahed Garrana
 Korábbi idegenforgalmi miniszter.
 Születési idő: 1959.2.20.
 Neme: férfi
 Olyan személy, aki ellen az állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezeléséért az egyiptomi igazságügyi szervek eljárást folytatnak az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján.
 18.
 Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladli
 Korábbi belügyminiszter.
 Születési idő: 1938.3.1.
 Neme: férfi
 Olyan személy, aki ellen az állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezeléséért az egyiptomi igazságügyi szervek eljárást folytatnak az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján.
 19.
 Elham Sayed Salem Sharshar
 Habib Ibrahim Eladli házastársa.
 Születési idő: 1963.1.23.
 Neme: nő
 Olyan személy, aki ellen az egyiptomi hatóságok bírósági eljárást folytatnak állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt az ENSZ korrupció elleni egyezménye alapján, és kapcsolatban áll Habib Ibrahim Eladli-val.
 B. A védelemhez való jog és a hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való jog az egyiptomi jog szerint:
 A védelemhez való jog és a hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való
 Az egyiptomi alkotmány 54., 97. és 98. cikke, az egyiptomi büntetőeljárási törvény 77., 78., 124., 199., 214., 271., 272. és 277. cikke, valamint az ügyvédi hivatásról szóló egyiptomi törvény (az 1983. évi 17. sz. törvény) 93. és 94. cikke értelmében az egyiptomi törvények alapján a következő jogok megilletik:
 —
 valamennyi, bűncselekmény elkövetésével gyanúsított vagy vádlott személyt:
 1.
 bármely jogi aktussal vagy közigazgatási határozattal szembeni bírósági felülvizsgálathoz való jog;
 2.
 az ahhoz való jog, hogy személyesen vagy az általa választott védő segítségével védekezzen, és ha nem állnak rendelkezésére eszközök védő díjazására, amennyiben az igazságszolgáltatás érdekei ezt követelik meg, hivatalból és ingyenesen rendeljenek ki számára ügyvédet;
 —
 valamennyi, bűncselekmény elkövetésével vádlott személyt:
 1.
 az ahhoz való jog, hogy a legrövidebb időn belül tájékoztassák olyan nyelven, amelyet megért, és a legrészletesebb módon az ellene felhozott vád természetéről és indokairól;
 2.
 az ahhoz való jog, hogy rendelkezzen a védekezésének előkészítéséhez szükséges idővel és eszközökkel;
 3.
 az ahhoz való jog, hogy kérdéseket intézzen vagy intéztessen a vád tanúihoz és kieszközölhesse a mentő tanúk megidézését és kihallgatását ugyanolyan feltételek mellett, mint ahogy a vád tanúit megidézik, illetve kihallgatják;
 4.
 az ahhoz való jog, hogy térítésmentesen tolmács álljon rendelkezésére, ha nem érti vagy nem beszéli a tárgyaláson használt nyelvet.
 A védelemhez való jog és a hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való jog alkalmazása
 1. Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
 A Tanács rendelkezésére álló információk alapján Hosni Mubarak védelemhez és hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való jogát tiszteletben tartották azon büntetőeljárások során, amelyekre a Tanács e megállapítását alapozta. Ezt részletesen az alábbiak tanúsítják.
 Első eset
 2013. június 27-én Hosni Mubarakkal és két másik személlyel szemben vádat emeltek állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt, az eljárás pedig 2013. november 17-én vette kezdetét a kairói büntetőbíróságon. A bíróság 2014. május 21-én elítélte a három vádlottat. A vádlottak a semmítőszék előtt megtámadták ezt az ítéletet. A semmítőszék 2015. január 13-án megsemmisítette az ítéletet és megismételt eljárást rendelt el. A megismételt eljárás során 2015. április 4-én és 29-én került sor a felek szóbeli előadásának meghallgatására és beadványaik előterjesztésére. A kairói büntetőbíróság 2015. május 9-én elítélte a vádlottakat, valamint elrendelte az eltulajdonított pénzeszközök visszaszolgáltatását és pénzbírság megfizetését. 2015. május 24-én fellebbezést nyújtottak be a semmítőszék előtt. A semmítőszék 2016. január 9-én helybenhagyta az elmarasztaló ítéleteket. 2016. március 8-án a vádlottak egyezségre jutottak a 2015. évi 2873. sz. miniszterelnöki rendelettel létrehozott szakértői bizottságon belül. Az egyezséget a miniszteri kabinet 2016. március 9-én jóváhagyta. Mivel az illetékes bizottság nem a szakértői bizottság volt, a legfőbb ügyész nem terjesztette a semmítőszék elé az egyezséget végleges jóváhagyásra. A vádlottaknak lehetősége van megegyezésre irányuló kérelmet benyújtani az illetékes bizottsághoz, azaz a külföldön található vagyonok visszaszerzéséért felelős egyiptomi nemzeti bizottsághoz (NCRAA).
 Második eset
 Az állami pénzeszközök, illetve vagyon hűtlen kezeléséhez kapcsolódó vizsgálat jelenleg is tart. A Tanács nem talált arra utaló jelet, hogy sérült volna Hosni Mubarak védelemhez vagy hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való joga.
 3. Alaa Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
 A Tanács rendelkezésére álló információk alapján Alaa Mubarak védelemhez és hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való jogát tiszteletben tartották azon büntetőeljárások során, amelyekre a Tanács e megállapítását alapozta. Ezt részletesen az alábbiak tanúsítják.
 Biztosítási intézkedést elrendelő határozat
 A legfőbb ügyész 2011. február 28-án határozatot adott ki, amelyben Alaa Mubarakot és más személyeket eltiltott vagyoni és pénzeszközeik felhasználásától, az egyiptomi büntetőeljárási törvény 208a. cikkével összhangban, amely kimondja, hogy a legfőbb ügyész megtilthatja a vádlott, annak házastársa és gyermekei számára a vagyoni eszközeik felhasználását, ha feltételezhető, hogy e vagyoni eszközök a vádlott által elkövetett bűncselekményekből származó illegális bevételek. 2011. március 8-án a hatáskörrel rendelkező büntetőbíróság helybenhagyta a tilalmat elrendelő határozatot. Az Egyiptomi Arab Köztársaság törvényei értelmében a vádlottak jogosultak a tilalmat elrendelő bírósági ítéletet az azt hozó bíróság előtt megtámadni. Alaa Mubarak nem kifogásolta a 2011. március 8-i ítéletet.
 Első eset
 A vádlott és egy másik személy együttes ügyét 2012. május 30-án az eljáró bírósághoz (a kairói büntetőbírósághoz) utalták. A bíróság 2013. június 6-án további vizsgálat céljából visszautalta az ügyet az ügyészséghez. A vizsgálatok lezárását követően az ügyet ismét a bírósághoz utalták. A kairói büntetőbíróság 2018. szeptember 15-én ítéletet hozott, amelyben: i. felkérte az általa kinevezett szakértői bizottságot, hogy egészítse ki a 2018 júliusában a bírósághoz benyújtott szakértői jelentést; ii. elrendelte a vádlottak letartóztatását, valamint iii. kérte, hogy esetleges megegyezés céljából a vádlottak ügyét továbbítsák a külföldön található vagyonok visszaszerzéséért felelős egyiptomi nemzeti bizottsághoz (NCRAA). A vádlottak sikeresen megtámadták a letartóztatási határozatot, és a bírói testület kizárására irányuló indítványt követően az ügy érdemi felülvizsgálat céljából egy másik körzeti büntetőbírósághoz került.
 Második eset
 2013. június 27-én Alaa Mubarakkal és két másik személlyel szemben vádat emeltek állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt, az eljárás pedig 2013. november 17-én vette kezdetét a kairói büntetőbíróságon. A bíróság 2014. május 21-én elítélte a három vádlottat. A vádlottak a semmítőszék előtt megtámadták ezt az ítéletet. A semmítőszék 2015. január 13-án megsemmisítette az ítéletet és megismételt eljárást rendelt el. A megismételt eljárás során 2015. április 4-én és 29-én került sor a felek szóbeli előadásának meghallgatására és beadványaik előterjesztésére.
 A kairói büntetőbíróság 2015. május 9-én elítélte a vádlottakat, valamint elrendelte az eltulajdonított pénzeszközök visszaszolgáltatását és pénzbírság megfizetését. 2015. május 24-én fellebbezést nyújtottak be a semmítőszék előtt. A semmítőszék 2016. január 9-én helybenhagyta az elmarasztaló ítéleteket. 2016. március 8-án a vádlottak egyezségre jutottak a 2015. évi 2873. sz. miniszterelnöki rendelettel létrehozott szakértői bizottságon belül. Az egyezséget a miniszteri kabinet 2016. március 9-én jóváhagyta. Mivel az illetékes bizottság nem a szakértői bizottság volt, a legfőbb ügyész nem terjesztette a semmítőszék elé az egyezséget végleges jóváhagyásra. A vádlottaknak lehetősége van megegyezésre irányuló kérelmet benyújtani az illetékes bizottsághoz, azaz a külföldön található vagyonok visszaszerzéséért felelős egyiptomi nemzeti bizottsághoz (NCRAA).
 Harmadik eset
 Az állami pénzeszközök, illetve vagyon hűtlen kezeléséhez kapcsolódó vizsgálat jelenleg is tart. A Tanács nem talált arra utaló jelet, hogy sérült volna Alaa Mubarak védelemhez vagy hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való joga.
 4. Heidy Mahmoud Magdy Hussein Rasekh
 A Tanács rendelkezésére álló információk alapján Heidy Rasekh védelemhez és hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való jogát tiszteletben tartották azon büntetőeljárások során, amelyekre a Tanács e megállapítását alapozta. Ezt részletesen az alábbiak tanúsítják.
 Biztosítási intézkedést elrendelő határozat
 A legfőbb ügyész 2011. február 28-án határozatot adott ki, amelyben Heidy Rasekh-et és más személyeket eltiltott vagyoni és pénzeszközeik felhasználásától, az egyiptomi büntetőeljárási törvény 208a. cikkével összhangban, amely kimondja, hogy a legfőbb ügyész megtilthatja a vádlott, annak házastársa és gyermekei számára a vagyoni eszközeik felhasználását, ha feltételezhető, hogy e vagyoni eszközök a vádlott által elkövetett bűncselekményekből származó illegális bevételek. 2011. március 8-án a hatáskörrel rendelkező büntetőbíróság helybenhagyta a tilalmat elrendelő határozatot. Az Egyiptomi Arab Köztársaság törvényei értelmében a vádlottak jogosultak a tilalmat elrendelő bírósági ítéletet az azt hozó bíróság előtt megtámadni. Heidy Rasekh nem kifogásolta a 2011. március 8-i ítéletet.
 Eset
 Az állami pénzeszközök, illetve vagyon hűtlen kezeléséhez kapcsolódó vizsgálat jelenleg is tart. A Tanács nem talált arra utaló jelet, hogy sérült volna Heidy Rasekh védelemhez vagy hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való joga.
 5. Gamal Mohamed Hosni Elsayed Mubarak
 A Tanács rendelkezésére álló információk alapján Gamal Mubarak védelemhez és hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való jogát tiszteletben tartották azon büntetőeljárások során, amelyekre a Tanács e megállapítását alapozta. Ezt részletesen az alábbiak tanúsítják.
 Biztosítási intézkedést elrendelő határozat
 A legfőbb ügyész 2011. február 28-án határozatot adott ki, amelyben Gamal Mubarakot és más személyeket eltiltott vagyoni és pénzeszközeik felhasználásától, az egyiptomi büntetőeljárási törvény 208a. cikkével összhangban, amely kimondja, hogy a legfőbb ügyész megtilthatja a vádlott, annak házastársa és gyermekei számára a vagyoni eszközeik felhasználását, ha feltételezhető, hogy e vagyoni eszközök a vádlott által elkövetett bűncselekményekből származó illegális bevételek. 2011. március 8-án a hatáskörrel rendelkező büntetőbíróság helybenhagyta a tilalmat elrendelő határozatot. Az Egyiptomi Arab Köztársaság törvényei értelmében a vádlottak jogosultak a tilalmat elrendelő bírósági ítéletet az azt hozó bíróság előtt megtámadni. Gamal Mubarak nem kifogásolta a 2011. március 8-i ítéletet.
 Első eset
 Gamal Mubarak és egy másik személy együttes ügyét 2012. május 30-án az eljáró bírósághoz (a kairói büntetőbírósághoz) utalták. A bíróság 2013. június 6-án további vizsgálat céljából visszautalta az ügyet az ügyészséghez. A vizsgálatok lezárását követően az ügyet ismét a bírósághoz utalták. A kairói büntetőbíróság 2018. szeptember 15-én ítéletet hozott, amelyben: i. felkérte az általa kinevezett szakértői bizottságot, hogy egészítse ki a 2018 júliusában a bírósághoz benyújtott szakértői jelentést; ii. elrendelte a vádlottak letartóztatását, valamint iii. kérte, hogy esetleges megegyezés céljából a vádlottak ügyét továbbítsák a külföldön található vagyonok visszaszerzéséért felelős egyiptomi nemzeti bizottsághoz (NCRAA). A vádlottak sikeresen megtámadták a letartóztatási határozatot, és a bírói testület kizárására irányuló indítványt követően az ügy érdemi felülvizsgálat céljából egy másik körzeti büntetőbírósághoz került.
 Második eset
 2013. június 27-én Gamal Mubarakkal és két másik személlyel szemben vádat emeltek állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelése miatt, az eljárás pedig 2013. november 17-én vette kezdetét a kairói büntetőbíróságon. A bíróság 2014. május 21-én elítélte a három vádlottat. A vádlottak a semmítőszék előtt megtámadták ezt az ítéletet. A semmítőszék 2015. január 13-án megsemmisítette az ítéletet és megismételt eljárást rendelt el. A megismételt eljárás során 2015. április 4-én és 29-én került sor a felek szóbeli előadásának meghallgatására és beadványaik előterjesztésére. A kairói büntetőbíróság 2015. május 9-én elítélte a vádlottakat, valamint elrendelte az eltulajdonított pénzeszközök visszaszolgáltatását és pénzbírság megfizetését. 2015. május 24-én fellebbezést nyújtottak be a semmítőszék előtt. A semmítőszék 2016. január 9-én helybenhagyta az elmarasztaló ítéleteket. 2016. március 8-án a vádlottak egyezségre jutottak a 2015. évi 2873. sz. miniszterelnöki rendelettel létrehozott szakértői bizottságon belül. Az egyezséget a miniszteri kabinet 2016. március 9-én jóváhagyta. Mivel az illetékes bizottság nem a szakértői bizottság volt, a legfőbb ügyész nem terjesztette a semmítőszék elé az egyezséget végleges jóváhagyásra. A vádlottaknak lehetősége van megegyezésre irányuló kérelmet benyújtani az illetékes bizottsághoz, azaz a külföldön található vagyonok visszaszerzéséért felelős egyiptomi nemzeti bizottsághoz (NCRAA).
 Harmadik eset
 Az állami pénzeszközök, illetve vagyon hűtlen kezeléséhez kapcsolódó vizsgálat jelenleg is tart. A vizsgálati eljárás során Gamal Mubarakot kihallgatták. A Tanács nem talált arra utaló jelet, hogy sérült volna Gamal Mubarak védelemhez vagy hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való joga.
 6. Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal
 A Tanács rendelkezésére álló információk alapján Khadiga Mahmoud El Gammal védelemhez és hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való jogát tiszteletben tartották azon büntetőeljárások során, amelyekre a Tanács e megállapítását alapozta. Ezt részletesen az alábbiak tanúsítják.
 Biztosítási intézkedést elrendelő határozat
 A legfőbb ügyész 2011. február 28-án határozatot adott ki, amelyben Khadiga El Gammalt és más személyeket eltiltott vagyoni és pénzeszközeik felhasználásától, az egyiptomi büntetőeljárási törvény 208a. cikkével összhangban, amely kimondja, hogy a legfőbb ügyész megtilthatja a vádlott, annak házastársa és gyermekei számára a vagyoni eszközeik felhasználását, ha feltételezhető, hogy e vagyoni eszközök a vádlott által elkövetett bűncselekményekből származó illegális bevételek. 2011. március 8-án a hatáskörrel rendelkező büntetőbíróság helybenhagyta a tilalmat elrendelő határozatot. Az Egyiptomi Arab Köztársaság törvényei értelmében a vádlottak jogosultak a tilalmat elrendelő bírósági ítéletet az azt hozó bíróság előtt megtámadni. Khadiga El Gammal nem kifogásolta a 2011. március 8-i ítéletet.
 Eset
 Az állami pénzeszközök, illetve vagyon hűtlen kezeléséhez kapcsolódó vizsgálat jelenleg is tart. A Tanács nem talált arra utaló jelet, hogy sérült volna Khadiga El Gammal védelemhez vagy hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való joga.
 15. Mohamed Zohir Mohamed Wahed Garrana
 A Tanács rendelkezésére álló információk alapján Mohamed Garrana védelemhez és hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való jogát tiszteletben tartották azon büntetőeljárások során, amelyekre a Tanács e megállapítását alapozta. Ezt részletesen az alábbiak tanúsítják.
 Eset
 Az állami pénzeszközök, illetve vagyon hűtlen kezeléséhez kapcsolódó vizsgálat jelenleg is tart. A Tanács nem talált arra utaló jelet, hogy sérült volna Mohamed Garrana védelemhez vagy hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való joga.
 18. Habib Ibrahim Habib Eladli
 A Tanács rendelkezésére álló információk alapján Habib Eladli védelemhez és hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való jogát tiszteletben tartották azon büntetőeljárások során, amelyekre a Tanács e megállapítását alapozta. Ezt részletesen az alábbiak tanúsítják.
 Eset
 A vizsgálóbíró Habib Eladli ügyét állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelésének vádja miatt a hatáskörrel rendelkező eljáró bíróság elé utalta. A bíróság 2016. február 7-én úgy határozott, hogy Habib Eladli, valamint felesége és kiskorú fia vagyoni eszközeit be kell fagyasztani. A bíróság döntése alapján a legfőbb ügyész 2016. február 10-én biztosítási intézkedést elrendelő határozatot adott ki az egyiptomi büntetőeljárási törvény 208a. cikkével összhangban, amely kimondja, hogy a legfőbb ügyész megtilthatja a vádlott, annak házastársa és gyermekei számára a vagyoni eszközeik felhasználását, ha feltételezhető, hogy e vagyoni eszközök a vádlott által elkövetett bűncselekményekből származó illegális bevételek. Az Egyiptomi Arab Köztársaság törvényei értelmében a vádlottak jogosultak a tilalmat elrendelő bírósági ítéletet az azt hozó bíróság előtt megtámadni. A bíróság 2017. április 15-én elítélte a vádlottat. A vádlott a semmítőszék előtt megtámadta ezt az ítéletet, a semmitőszék pedig 2018. január 11-én megsemmisítette azt és megismételt eljárást rendelt el. Az új eljárás jelenleg is folyamatban van.
 19. Elham Sayed Salem Sharshar
 A Tanács rendelkezésére álló információk alapján Elham Sharshar védelemhez és hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való jogát tiszteletben tartották azon büntetőeljárások során, amelyekre a Tanács e megállapítását alapozta. Ezt részletesen az alábbiak tanúsítják.
 Biztosítási intézkedést elrendelő határozat
 Elham Sharshar férjének ügyét a vizsgálóbíró állami pénzeszközök hűtlen kezelésének vádja miatt a hatáskörrel rendelkező eljáró bíróság elé utalta. A bíróság 2016. február 7-én úgy határozott, hogy férje, az ő saját, valamint kiskorú fiuk vagyoni eszközeit be kell fagyasztani. A bíróság döntése alapján a legfőbb ügyész 2016. február 10-én biztosítási intézkedést elrendelő határozatot adott ki az egyiptomi büntetőeljárási törvény 208a. cikkével összhangban, amely kimondja, hogy a legfőbb ügyész megtilthatja a vádlott, annak házastársa és gyermekei számára a vagyoni eszközeik felhasználását, ha feltételezhető, hogy e vagyoni eszközök a vádlott által elkövetett bűncselekményekből származó illegális bevételek. Az Egyiptomi Arab Köztársaság törvényei értelmében a vádlottak jogosultak a tilalmat elrendelő bírósági ítéletet az azt hozó bíróság előtt megtámadni. Elham Sharshar nem kifogásolta a bírói ítéletet.
 ”


text:
Η τρέχουσα σελίδα αφορά το έτος 1438 κατά το Γρηγοριανό ημερολόγιο
 Γεγονότα
 1 Ιανουαρίου - Ο Αλβέρτος Β ́ της Γερμανίας στέφεται βασιλιάς της Ουγγαρίας.
 18 Μαρτίου - Ο Αλβέρτος Β ́ της Γερμανίας γίνεται αυτοκράτορας της Αγίας Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας.
 13 Σεπτεμβρίου − Ο Αλφόνσος Ε ́ γίνεται βασιλιάς της Πορτογαλίας.
 Η Σύνοδος της Φλωρεντίας μεταφέρεται στη Φερράρα.
 Γεννήσεις
 Μελότσο ντα Φορλί, Ιταλός ζωγράφος
 Θάνατοι
 9 Σεπτεμβρίου − Εδουάρδος, βασιλιάς της Πορτογαλίας
 20 Οκτωβρίου − Γιάκοπο ντελλα Κουέρτσια, Ιταλός γλύπτης
 Έτη