text:
Diamagnetízem je v fiziki pojav, da je gostota magnetnega polja v snovi, ki smo jo postavili v magnetno polje, malo manjša od gostote magnetnega polja izven te snovi. Z drugimi besedami: diamagnetizem je pojav, da snov magnetno polje izriva iz sebe. Navzoč je v vseh snoveh, vendar v paramagnetnih in feromagnetnih snoveh nad njim prevladajo drugi, močnejši pojavi.
 Diamagnetizem je posledica gibanja elektronov v atomih.
 Zgledi diamagnetnih snovi so žlahtni plini, dušik, vodik, grafit, baker, zlato in kamena sol.
 Diamagnetne snovi imajo relativno magnetno permeabilnost manjšo od 1, magnetno susceptibilnost pa manjšo od 0, tako da jih zunanje magnetno polje odbija. Ker je diamagnetizem šibke jakosti, ga v vsakdanjem življenju ne opazimo. Magnetna susceptibilnost diamagnetikov kot je na primer voda je = −9,05 · 10−6. Najmočnejši diamagnetik je bizmut, = −166 · 10−6, čeprav ima lako pirolitski grafit susceptibilnost = −400 · 10−6 v eni ravnini. Kljub temu so velikostne stopnje manjše kot za magnetizem pri paramagnetnih ali feromagnetnih snoveh.
 Popolni diamagnetiki so superprevodniki, ki magnetno polje zaradi Meissnerjevega pojava v celoti izrinejo ( = −1).
 Poleg tega imajo vsi električni prevodniki pri gibanju skozi magnetno polje diamagnetne lastnosti. Lorentzeva sila na elektrone povzroča, da krožijo okrog in povzročajo vrtinčne tokove. Vrtinčni tokovi nato povzročajo inducirano magnetno polje, ki se upira polju in zavira gibanje prevodnikov.
 S. J. Bergmann je leta 1778 prvi opazil da bizmut in antimon odbijajo magnetna polja. Izraz »diamagnetizem« je skoval Faraday septemba 1845, ko je spoznal, da vse snovi v naravi posedujejo kakšno vrsto diamagnetnega odziva na magnetno polje.
 Glej tudi
 paramagnetizem, feromagnetizem
 Elektromagnetno polje v snovi
 Magnetizem


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 30.10.2014
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 L 310/72
 BESCHLUSS DES GEMEINSAMEN EWR-AUSSCHUSSES
 Nr. 103/2014
 vom 16. Mai 2014
 zur Änderung von Anhang XX (Umweltschutz) des EWR-Abkommens
 DER GEMEINSAME EWR-AUSSCHUSS —
 gestützt auf das Abkommen über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum (im Folgenden „EWR-Abkommen“), insbesondere auf Artikel 98,
 in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
 (1)
 Die Richtlinie 2013/28/EU der Kommission vom 17. Mai 2013 zur Änderung von Anhang II der Richtlinie 2000/53/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über Altfahrzeuge (1) ist in das EWR-Abkommen aufzunehmen.
 (2)
 Anhang XX des EWR-Abkommens sollte daher entsprechend geändert werden —
 HAT FOLGENDEN BESCHLUSS ERLASSEN:
 Artikel 1
 In Anhang XX des EWR-Abkommens wird unter Nummer 32e (Richtlinie 2000/53/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates) folgender Gedankenstrich angefügt:
 „—
 32013 L 0028: Richtlinie 2013/28/EU der Kommission vom 17. Mai 2013 (ABl. L 135 vom 22.5.2013, S. 14).“
 Artikel 2
 Der Wortlaut der Richtlinie 2013/28/EU in isländischer und norwegischer Sprache, der in der EWR-Beilage des Amtsblatts der Europäischen Union veröffentlicht wird, ist verbindlich.
 Artikel 3
 Dieser Beschluss tritt am 17. Mai 2014 in Kraft, sofern alle Mitteilungen nach Artikel 103 Absatz 1 des EWR-Abkommens vorliegen (2).
 Artikel 4
 Dieser Beschluss wird im EWR-Abschnitt und in der EWR-Beilage des Amtsblatts der Europäischen Union veröffentlicht.
 Geschehen zu Brüssel am 16. Mai 2014.
 Für den Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschuss
 Der Präsident
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) ABl. L 135 vom 22.5.2013, S. 14.
 (2) Ein Bestehen verfassungsrechtlicher Anforderungen wurde nicht mitgeteilt.


text:
214 HR Službeni list Europske unije 11/Sv. 92
 22011D0086
 L 262/58 SLUŽBENI LIST EUROPSKE UNIJE 6.10.2011.
 ODLUKA ZAJEDNIČKOG ODBORA EGP-a
 br. 86/2011
 od 1. srpnja 2011.
 o izmjeni Priloga XX. (Okoliš) Sporazumu o EGP-u
 ZAJEDNIČKI ODBOR EGP-a, „21as. 32009 R 0748: Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 748/2009
 od 5. kolovoza 2009. o popisu operatora zrakoplova
 uzimajući u obzir Sporazum o Europskom gospodarskom koji su 1. siječnja 2006. ili kasnije obavljali zrako
 prostoru, kako je izmijenjen Protokolom o prilagodbi Spora plovnu aktivnost iz Priloga I. Direktivi 2003/87/EZ,
 zuma o Europskom gospodarskom prostoru, dalje u tekstu kojim se određuje država članica nadležna za svakog
 „Sporazum”, a posebno njegov članak 98., operatora zrakoplova (SL L 219, 22.8.2009., str. 1.),
 kako je izmijenjena:
 budući da:
 — 32011 R 0394: Uredba Komisije (EU) br.
 (1) Prilog XX. Sporazumu izmijenjen je Odlukom Zajedni 394/2011 od 20. travnja 2011. (SL L 107,
 čkog odbora EGP-a br. 57/2011 od 20. svibnja 2011. (1) 27.4.2011., str. 1.).”.
 Članak 2.
 (2) Uredbu Komisije (EZ) br. 748/2009 od 5. kolovoza
 2009. o popisu operatora zrakoplova koji su 1. siječnja Tekstovi uredaba (EZ) br. 748/2009 i (EU) br. 394/2011 na
 2006. ili kasnije obavljali zrakoplovnu aktivnost iz islandskom i norveškom jeziku, koji se objavljuju u Dodatku o
 Priloga I. Direktivi 2003/87/EZ, kojim se određuje EGP-u Službenom listu Europske unije, vjerodostojni su.
 država članica nadležna za svakog operatora zrakoplo
 va (2), treba unijeti u Sporazum. Članak 3.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu 2. srpnja 2011., pod uvjetom da su
 (3) Uredbu Komisije (EU) br. 394/2011 od 20. travnja 2011. sve obavijesti iz članka 103. stavka 1. Sporazuma podnesene
 o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 748/2009 o popisu operatora Zajedničkom odboru EGP-a (*).
 zrakoplova koji su 1. siječnja 2006. ili kasnije obavljali
 zrakoplovnu aktivnost iz Priloga I. Direktivi 2003/87/EZ Članak 4.
 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća, kojim se određuje država
 članica nadležna za svakog operatora zrakoplova, s Ova se Odluka objavljuje u odjeljku o EGP-u i Dodatku o EGP-u
 obzirom na proširenje sustava Unije trgovanja emisijskim Službenom listu Europske unije.
 jedinicama na zemlje EGP-a/EFTA-e (3) treba unijeti u
 Sporazum,
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu 1. srpnja 2011.
 DONIO JE OVU ODLUKU:
 Članak 1. Za Zajednički odbor EGP-a
 Iza točke 21.ar (Direktiva 2001/81/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Predsjednik
 Vijeća) Priloga XX. Sporazumu umeće se sljedeća točka: Kurt JÄGER
 (1) SL L 196, 28.7.2011., str. 39.
 (2) SL L 219, 22.8.2009., str. 1.
 (3) SL L 107, 27.4.2011., str. 1. (*) Ustavni zahtjevi nisu navedeni.


type: caselaw

text:
 7.4.2014
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 102/36
 Tužba podnesena 3. siječnja 2014. – Banco de Santander i dr. protiv Komisije
 (Predmet T-6/14)
 2014/C 102/57
 Jezik postupka: španjolski
 Stranke
 Tužitelji: Banco de Santander, SA (Santander, Španjolska); Santander Investment, SA (Santander, Španjolska) i Naviera Séneca, AIE (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Španjolska) (zastupnici: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, A. Lamadrid de Pablo i A. Biondi, abogados)
 Tuženik: Europska komisija
 Tužbeni zahtjev
 Tužitelj od Općeg suda zahtijeva da:
 —
 poništi pobijanu odluku u mjeri u kojoj Komisija skup mjera, koje prema njoj sačinjavaju takozvani španjolski sustav financijskog leasinga, kvalificira kao novu državnu potporu nespojivu s unutarnjim tržištem;
 —
 podredno, poništi članke 1. i 4. pobijane odluke kojima se ulagači AIE-a utvrđuju kao korisnici navodnih potpora i isključivi adresati naloga za povrat;
 —
 podredno, poništi članak 4. pobijane odluke, u mjeri u kojoj se njime nalaže povrat navodnih potpora;
 —
 poništi članak 4. pobijane odluke, u mjeri u kojoj se u njemu izjašnjava o zakonitosti privatnih ugovora između ulagača i drugih pravnih subjekata, i
 —
 naloži Komisiji snošenje troškova ovog postupka
 Tužbeni razlozi i glavni argumenti
 Tužbeni razlozi i glavni argumenti identični su onima u predmetu T-700/13, Bankia/Komisija.


text:
Nr. L 376 /20 Publikatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 30 . 12 . 78
 R F SI UIT Nr . 1 / 78 VAN HET GEMENGD COMITÉ
 van 5 december 1978
 houdende vervanging van de rekeneenheid door de Europese rekeneenheid in artikel 8 van
 Protocol nr. 3 betreffende de definitie van het begrip „produkten van oorsprong" en de
 methoden van administratieve samenwerking
 HET GEMENGD COMITÉ , a) een certificaat inzake goederenverkeer EUR. 1 ,
 hierna te noemen „certificaat EUR. 1 ", waarvan
 Gelet op de Overeenkomst tussen de Europese Economi het model in bijlage V van dit Protocol voor
 sche Gemeenschap en de Zwitserse Bondsstaat, die op komt, of
 22 juli 1972 te Brussel is ondertekend ,
 b) een formulier EUR. 2 , waarvan het model in bij
 lage VI van dit Protocol is opgenomen, voor zen
 Gelet op Protocol nr. 3 betreffende de definitie van het
 dingen die uitsluitend produkten van oorsprong
 begrip „produkten van oorsprong" en de methoden van
 administratieve samenwerking, hierna te noemen „Pro
 bevatten, voor zover de waarde van elke zending
 niet meer dan 2 400 Europese rekeneenheden be
 tocol nr. 3 ", inzonderheid op artikel 28 ,
 draagt.
 Overwegende dat de rekeneenheid niet langer beant
 2 . De volgende produkten van oorsprong in de zin
 woordt aan de huidige internationale monetaire situatie
 van dit Protocol worden bij invoer in de Gemeen
 en het derhalve noodzakelijk is een alternatief te vinden
 schap of in Zwitserland volgens de bepalingen van de
 ten einde een gemeenschappelijke waardebasis te houden Overeenkomst toegelaten zonder dat een van de in
 op grond waarvan kan worden vastgesteld in welke ge lid 1 bedoelde documenten behoeft te worden over
 vallen formulieren EUR. 2 gebruikt mogen worden in gelegd :
 plaats van certificaten inzake goederenverkeer EUR. 1 en
 in welke gevallen er geen bewijsstukken inzake de oor a) produkten die zich in aan particulieren gerichte
 sprong vereist zijn ; kleine zendingen bevinden en waarvan de waarde
 niet meer dan 165 Europese rekeneenheden be
 Overwegende dat de Gemeenschap voorstelt de reken draagt;
 eenheid met ingang van 1 januari 1979 te vervangen
 door de Europese rekeneenheid ; b) produkten die zich in de persoonlijke bagage van
 reizigers bevinden en waarvan de waarde niet
 Overwegende dat het wenselijk is de Europese rekeneen meer dan 480 Europese rekeneenheden bedraagt.
 heid te gebruiken als gemeenschappelijke waardebasis ;
 Deze bepalingen zijn slechts van toepassing voor zo
 ver het invoer betreft waaraan ieder handelskarakter
 Overwegende dat deze gemeenschappelijke waardebasis
 om redenen van administratieve en commerciële aard ge vreemd is en op voorwaarde dat bij de aangifte wordt
 durende perioden van ten minste twee jaar ongewijzigd verklaard dat de betrokken goederen voldoen aan de
 dient te blijven en dat de toe te passen Europese reken voorwaarden voor de toepassing van de Overeen
 eenheid derhalve bij wijze van uitzondering moet worden komst en er geen twijfel bestaat omtrent de juistheid
 vastgesteld op een referentiedatum die iedere twee jaar van deze verklaring.
 moet worden aangepast;
 Als invoer waaraan ieder handelskarakter vreemd is,
 wordt beschouwd invoer die een incidenteel karakter
 Overwegende dat het wenselijk is te voorkomen dat het
 bedrag van de gemeenschappelijke waardebasis uitge draagt en die uitsluitend betrekking heeft op goede
 drukt in valuta vermindert ten opzichte van de geldende ren bestemd om door de reiziger of de geadresseerde
 waarden , persoonlijk dan wel door zijn gezin te worden ge
 bruikt, mits noch de aard, noch de hoeveelheid van
 de goederen op commerciële bedoelingen wijzen .
 BESLUIT :
 3 . Het land van uitvoer stelt de bedragen in zijn
 nationale valuta vast die gelijk zijn aan de waarde
 Artikel 1
 van de in Europese rekeneenheden uitgedrukte be
 dragen en deelt deze aan de andere partijen bij de
 1. Artikel 8 , leden 1 , 2 en 3 , van Protocol nr. 3 wordt Overeenkomst mee. Indien deze bedragen hoger zijn
 als volgt gelezen : dan de door het land van invoer vastgestelde bedra
 gen , zal het land van invoer ermee akkoord gaan mits
 „1. Produkten van oorsprong in de zin van dit de goederen gefactureerd zijn in de valuta van het
 Protocol worden bij invoer in de Gemeenschap of in land van uitvoer.
 Zwitserland volgens de bepalingen van de Overeen
 komst toegelaten op vertoon van een van de volgende Indien de goederen zijn gefactureerd in de valuta van
 documenten : een andere Lid-Staat van de Gemeenschap of van een
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 12 . 78 Publikatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen Nr . L 376 /21
 der andere in artikel 2 van dit Protocol bedoelde lan 3. In artiicel 13 , lid 2 , van Protocol nr. 3 dient de ver
 den, erkent het land van invoer het door het betrok wijzing naar artikel 8 , lid 4, te worden vervangen door
 ken land genoemde bedrag. artikel 8 , lid 5 .
 4. Tot en met 30 april 198 1 is de waarde van de in
 een bepaalde nationale valuta uit te drukken Euro Artikel 2
 pese rekeneenheid gelijk aan de waarde in die natio
 nale valuta van de Europese rekeneenheid op 30 juni Dit besluit treedt in werking op 1 januari 1979 .
 1978 . Voor iedere daarop volgende periode van twee
 jaar is ze gelijk aan de waarde in die nationale valuta
 van de Europese rekeneenheid op de eerste werkdag Gedaan te Brussel, 5 december 1978 .
 in oktober van het onmiddellijk aan die periode van
 twee jaar voorafgaande jaar.". Voor het Gemengd Comité
 2. De leden 4 en 5 van artikel 8 van Protocol nr. 3 De Voorzitter
 worden hernummerd tot respectievelijk lid 5 en lid 6 . P. DUCHATEAU


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' \xe2\x80\xa2\n\n\n\n\n\no\n AUDIT REPORT ON \n\n\n 8(a) PROGRAM CONTINUING \n\n\n ELIGIBILITY REVIEWS \n\n\n AUDIT REPORT NO.4-3-H-006-021 \n\n\n September 30, 1994 \n\n\n\n\n\n This report may contain proprietary information subject to the provisions of 1 8\n USC 1905. Do not release to the public or another agency without permission of\n the Office of Inspector General.\n\x0c \'1\n\n\n u.s. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL \n\n Washington, D.C. 20416 \n\n\n\n\n\n AUDIT\n I REPORT I\n Issue Date:\n September 30, 1994\n Number: 4-3-H-006-021\n\n\nTO: Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator\n for Minority Enterprise Development\n\n\n tr.j/)k~1rrl\nFROM: ~::;r L.McClintock, Assistant Inspector General\n for Auditing\n\nSUBJECT: Audit Report on 8(a) Program Continuing Eligibility Reviews\n\n\n This is our audit report on 8(a) program continuing eligibility reviews. The\nsummary section on page ii of the report provides a synopsis of the audit findings.\nThe report contains 5 findings and 13 recommendations.\n\n The findings included in this report are the conclusion of the Auditing\nDivision based on the auditors\' testing of program operations. The findings and\nrecommendations are subject to review and implementation of corrective action by\nyour office following existing Agency procedures for audit follow-up and resolution.\n\n Please provide us with your management decisions for the recommendations\nwithin 30 days. Record your management decisions on the attached SBA Form\n1824, "Recommendation Action Sheet, n and show either your proposed corrective\nactions and target dates for completion., or an explanation of your disagreement\nwith our recommendations.\n\n Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact Dale C.\nWilliams, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, Headquarters\nOperations, at (202) 205-7204.\n\x0co\n\n SUMM ARY\n\n We completed an audit of 8(a) program procedures for SBA\'s continuing\n eligibility reviews. The objective of the audit was to evaluate the adequacy of\n procedures for assuring 8(a) program participants meet continuing eligibility\n requirements.\n\n Our audit concluded that enhancements to the continuing eligibility review\n process are needed. Participants remain in the program even though they have\n accumulated substantial wealth or have overcome impediments to obtaining access\n to financing, markets and resources. Permitting wealthy individuals to remain in\n the 8(a) program is contrary to the goals of the program, reduces the opportunities\n available to those who are disadvantaged and undermines public support for the\n program. Specifically, we noted the following:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Individuals that had overcome their economic disadvantage retained\n 8(a) eligibility because they understated their personal net worth and\n\no\t Business Opportunity Specialists (BOS) made errors in calculating the\n individuals\' personal net worth.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Participants with substantial income remained in the 8(a) program\n because personal annual income was not considered when economic\n disadvantage assessments were made.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Continuing eligibility reviews did not include comparisons of 8(a)\n concerns to other concerns in the same or similar lines of businesses\n that were not owned and controlled by socially and economically\n individuals. This allowed participants to continue in the 8(a) program\n although the strong financial condition of their firms .should no longer\n have qualified them as economically disadvantaged.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Wealthy individuals continued to be eligible for the 8(a) program\n because the equity in their 8(a) firms and primary residences and the\n net worth of their spouses was not a factor in determining whether\n they remained economically disadvantaged.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Annual financial statements were not always submitted or prepared in\n accordance with 8(a) program regulations.\n\n\no \xe2\x80\xa2 The form 8(a) participants are required to use to report their personal\n net worth was not structured in a way which simplified economic\n disadvantage determinations.\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Data used to conduct 8(a) program continuing eligibility reviews was\n not always compatible and timely. o\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t firms in the 8(a) program can exercise significant control over other\n 8(a) firms and they can subcontract with the other 8(a) firms to work\n on 8(a) contracts in which they have outgrown the Standard Industrial\n Classification (SIC) code.\n\n Our report includes recommendations to improve the 8(a) program\ncontinuing eligibility .review process and correct the conditions cited in the report.\nWe recommend that the Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise\nDevelopment:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t establish criteria for requiring more successful 8(a) program\n participants to annually submit personal financial statements that are\n reviewed or compiled by an independent public accountant;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t require 8(a) program participants to annually submit personal tax\n returns or file Form 8821 with the IRS authorizing SBA to receive their\n personal tax return information;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t direct SBA district offices to provide training to BOSs on personal net\n worth determinations and to place increased emphasis on personal net\n worth determinations during 8(a) program continuing eligibility\n reviews;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t establish guidelines for determining that 8(a) participants should no\n longer be considered economically disadvantaged based on unusually\n large amounts of funds withdrawn from their firms;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t establish procedures and standards for comparing the financial\n condition of 8(a) firms to similar firms not in the program to identify\n participants that should be graduated from the 8(a) program because\n they are no longer economically disadvantaged;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t establish procedures for determining whether 8(a) participants should\n no longer be considered economically disadvantaged based on their\n ownership interest in their 8(a) firms, the equity and market value of\n their primary residences, and the net worth of their spouses;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t instruct SBA district offices to place increased emphasis on 8(a)\n program participants\' submission and preparation of financial\n statements;\n\n\n iii\n\x0co\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t develop a standard form for reporting the adjusted personal net worth\n of 8(a) participants;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t realign 8(a) firms\' program years with their fiscal years and the tax\n years of the disadvantaged owners;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t require 8(a) firms to submit annual financial statements (audited,\n reviewed, or compiled) within 90-days of their fiscal year end;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t require that disadvantaged owners and firms participating in the 8.(a)\n program submit their personal and business tax returns to SBA by the\n 15th day of the 4th month after the respective tax year ends;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 require that disadvantaged owners\' firms participating in the 8(a)\n program and ass\xc2\xb7ociates of the owner(s) or firm be limited in their\n\no equity ownership interests in other 8(a) firms to no more than a\n combined 10 percent; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t require that revenue earned from subcontracting on noncompetitive\n 8(a) contracts be classified as 8(a) revenue.\n\n On June 27, 1994, we discussed the results of our audit with SBA Minority\n Enterprise Development officials. On August 22, 1994, we received written\n comments from the Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise Development.\n \xc2\xb7The Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise Development generally agreed\n with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. We have evaluated and\n considered his comments in finalizing our report. The written comments are\n included in the report under the results of Audit.\n\n The findings included in this report are the conclusion of the Auditing\n Division based on the auditt>rs testing of the auditee\'s operations. The findings\n and recommendations are subject to review, management decision, and corrective\n action by your office in accordance with existing Agency procedures for audit\n follow-up and resolution.\n\n\n\n\no\n\n .. , \n\n\x0c AUDIT REPORT ON \n\n 8(A) PROGRAM CONTINUING \n\n ELIGIBILITY REVIEWS \n o\n\n Table of Contents\n\n PAGE\n\nMANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM\n\nSUMMARY ii\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n A. \t Background 1\n\n B. Objectives and Scope 2\n\n C. Follow-up on Prior Audits 2\n\nRESULTS OF AUDIT\n\n A. Findings and Recommendations\n\n 1 . \t Understated Personal Financial Statements (Net Worth)\n Go Undetected 3\n o\n 2. \t Participants with High Personal Income Remain in the\n Program 7\n\n 3. \t 8(a) Concerns Larger And More Profitable Than Non-8(a}\n Concerns Are still Receiving 8(a) Assistance 10\n\n 4. \t Exclusions From Personal Net Worth Calculations\n Disguise Economic Success 12 \n\n\n 5. Other Observations 18 \n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n A. Report Distribution 24\n\n\n\n\n v\n\x0c INTRODUCTION \n\n\nA. Background\n\n The 8(a) program was created to assist small businesses owned and controlled\nby socially and economically disadvantaged individuals to develop into viable\ncompetitors in the commercial marketplace. Under the program., SBA, as prime\ncontractor, enters into contracts with other Federal agencies and subcontracts with\nprqgram participants to perform the work. Program participants receive substantial\nbenefits including sole-source contracts, business development grants, low interest\nloans, and free management ~onsulting services.\n\n The important purpose of the 8(a) program is severely undermined when\nindividuals who are not disadvantaged are permitted to participate in the program.\nParticipation by non-disadvantaged individuals reduces the opportunities available\nto those who are disadvantaged, diverts the energy and efforts of SBA, and could\nundermine public support for the program. Title 13 of the Code of Federal\nRegulations (CFR), Section 124.106 states that the 8(a) program is not intended to\nassist concerns owned and controlled by socially disadvantaged individuals who\nhave accumulated substantial wealth or who have overcome impediments to\nobtaining access to financing, markets and resources.\n\n Participation in the 8(a) program is limited to small businesses at least 51\npercent owned and controlled by individuals who have been identified as socially\nand economically disadvantaged. Title 13 CFR \xc2\xa7 124.106 states, for 8(a) program\np~rposes, economically disadvantaged individuals are socially disadvantaged\nindividuals whose ability .to compete in the free enterprise system has been\nimpaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities, as compared to others\nin similar lines of businesses and competitive market areas who are not socially\ndisadvantaged. Title 13 CFR \xc2\xa7 124.106 further requires SBA to consider the\npersonal financial condition of the individual(s) claiming disadvantaged status, the\nfinancial condition of the concern, and the concern\'s access to capital, credit and\nmarkets in determining economic disadvantage for purposes of 8(a) program\neligibility.\n\n SBA has established thresholds of personal net worth for the purpose of\ndetermining whether individuals are economically disadvantaged. An individual\nwhose personal net worth exceeds $250,000 is not considered economically\ndisadvantaged fGr purposes of initial program eligibility. Upon admittance to the\n8(a) program, individual personal net worth can not exceed $500,000 in the\ndevelopmental stage (first 4 years) and $750,000 in the transitional stage (last 5\nyears) of the program. Whenever SBA calculates the personal net worth of an\nindividual claiming disadvantaged status for purposes of the 8(a) program, by\nstatute, the personal net worth of the individual\'s spouse, the individual\'s\n\n 1\n\x0cownership interest in the 8(a) concern, and equity in his or her personal residence\nnot attributable to excessive withdrawals from the concern are excluded from the\ncalculation. For concerns whose eligibility is based on multiple individuals claiming\ndisadvantaged status, each individual is subject to the personal net worth\nthresholds on an individual basis.\n\n The Small Business Act, as amended, requires SBA to conduct annual reviews\nof 8(a) participants to determine whether they continue to meet all eligibility\nrequirements of the program. These determinations are made in conjunction with\nthe annual review of the participant\'s program year.\n\nB. Objectives and Scope\n\n The objective of our audit was to evaluate the adequacy of procedures for\nassuring 8(a) program participants meet continuing eligibility requirements. Our\naudit included reviewing pertinent laws, regulations, and procedures related to\ncontinuing eligibiljty reviews of 8(a) participants.\n\n To accomplish out audit objective, we selected the five SBA district offices\nthat serviced the greatest number of active 8(a) firms that had received total 8(a)\ncontracts valued over $10 million. We further selected 10 firms from each of the\nfive districts for review. The firms selected were among the 20 firms in each\ndistrict that had received the greatest total dollar value of 8(a) contracts and were\nnot due to graduate from the 8(a) program prior to January 1, 1994.\nConsequently, the results of our audit as discussed in th~ body of the report should\nnot be taken as indic~tive c;>f the entire universe because of our non-statistical\nsampling methodology.\n\n We reviewed corporate and personal financial statements, annual updates and\nreviews, and corporate and personal tax returns of selected 8(a) participants.\nDiscussions were held with Business Opportunity Specialists at the district offices,\n8(a) participants, and independent public accountants employed by the 8(a)\nparticipants.\n\n The audit covered 8(a) participants that were active in the program as of\nDecember 31, 1993. We conducted the audit between February 1 993 and June\n1994. On-site work was conducted at the Washington, Los Angeles, Richmond,\nColumbus, and Albuquerque District Offices. The audit was performed in \'\naccordance with government auditing standards.\n\nC. Follow-up on Prior Audits\n\n No prior audits of 8(a) program continuing eligibility reviews have been\nperformed by SBA.\n\n\n 2\n\n\x0co\n\n RESULTS OF AUDIT\n\n\n A. Findings and Recommendations\n\n Finding 1 \t Understated Personal Financial Statements (Net Worth) Go\n Undetected\n\n Personal net worth was understated by some 8(a) program participants and\n incorrectly calculated by some Business Opportunity Specialists (BOS). This\n allowed seven participants to retain their 8(a) eligibility even though their net worth\n exceeded the thresholds for claiming economic disadvantage. Consequently,\n individuals that were truly economically disadvantaged may have been deprived of\n opportunities for 8(a) assistance. This condition occurred because the\n determination of personal net worth is a self certification process with little\n validation and emphasis.\n\n\no\t Title \t1 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 124.111, sets\n forth personal net worth limits for 8(a) program continuing eligibility purposes.\n Participants in the developmental and transitional stages of the program may have\n a personal net worth up to $500,000 and $750,000 respectively. In addition,\n each of the individuals for whom 8(a) eligibility is based upon must submit personal\n financial statements detailing their personal net worth as part of an annual review.\n\n In our review of continuing eligibility assessments of 50 8(a) concerns, we\n found seven participants retained their 8(a) eligibility even though their net worth\n after exclusions exceeded the thresholds for claiming economic disadvantage.\n Although all seven participants\' reported personal net worth fell within the limits\n for retaining 8(a) eligibility, they were no longer eligible to claim economic\n disadvantage because they understated their personal net worth or the Business\n Opportunity Specialists erred in making the personal net worth determination. We\n found participants understated their personal net worth after exclusions by as\n much as $1.25 million and BOSs made errors totalling up to $259,000. For\n example:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t One 8(a) participant reported a joint net worth before exclusions of\n $530,724 when it was in fact $11.3 million. We found the $10.8 million\n difference was attributable to the participant not reporting the equity in\n the 8(a) firm and personal residence of $9 million and $517,000,\n\no\t respectively. Moreover, he overstated liabilities and assets by $2 mil1ion\n and $722,973, respectively. The 8(a) participant\'s reported personal net\n\x0c worth was $304,417 after excluding his spouse\'s personal net\n worth and the equity he had in the 8(a) firm and his primary\n residence. We found that his actual personal net worth after\n exclusions was $1.7 million because his share of the reported\n assets and liabilities were overstated by $701,623 and $2\n million respectively, and we determined that $166,000 in\n withdrawals from the 8(a) firm was excessive and should be\n included as part of the participant\'s personal net worth.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Another 8(a) participant reported that his personal net worth before\n exclusions was $559,000. We found that the BOS used the reported\n amount without making any adjustment~ for the participant\'s business\n and home equity in determining whether the participant was economically\n disadvantaged because the reported amount was below the eligibility\n threshold. However, we found the personal financial statement\n submitted by the participant contained errors totalling $259,000 that\n increased the participant\'s personal net worth over the eligibility\n threshold: (1) the sum of total assets was $25,000 more than the\n amount shown, (2) the sum of stocks and bonds was $10,000 more\n than the amount shown; (3) the sum of real estate was $35,000 more\n than the amount shown; and (4) a $189,000 mortgage on the\n participant\'s residence was shown as a liability although there was no\n corresponding asset shown for the primary residence. The 8(a)\n participant\'s actual personal worth was $818,000 after making\n adjustments for the errors and excluding the equity he had in the 8(a)\n firm and his primary residence.\n\n At present, personal net worth is not adequately validated and emphasized\nduring 8(a) program continuing eligibility reviews. We found BOSs did not always\nhave the skills and time needed to adequately analyze personal net worth.\nConsequently, reported personal net worth was generally accepted without\nquestion. For example:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t One of the 50 8(a) participants in our review submitted a personal\n financial statement that represented the joint assets and liabilities of the\n participant and his wife. We found that the BOS responsible for\n determining whether the participant continued to be economically\n disadvantaged was unaware that a joint statement had been submitted.\n As a result, the determination was based on joint net worth rather than\n the participant\'s personal net worth as required. In addition, we found\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\n\x0co\n\n the BOS was unaware that the participant\'s reported joint\n assets were understated by $954,943. We determined that the\n participant failed to report the following assets as a result of\n our review of the participant\'s personal tax returns, business\n tax returns, and business financial statements:\n\n IRA or Other Retirement Accounts $396,948\n Mutual Funds \t $163,855\n Personal Loans to Individuals $394,140\n\n Total \t $954,943\n\n The participant\'s actual personal net worth was $759,399 after inclusion of\n the participant\'s share of the omitted assets. Consequently, the participant was\n no longer eligible to continue in the 8(a) program because the personal net worth\n threshold had been exceeded.\n\n\no\t Although \tall five of the district offices in our review required 8(a) participants\n to submit business tax returns and financial statements, only one required\n submission of personal tax returns. Discovery of understated assets, such as\n those described in the above example, is highly unlikely if 8(a) participants\'\n personal tax returns are not available for review. Alternatively, submission of\n personal tax returns would not be necessary if 8(a) participants authorize the\n Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to release their personal tax return information to\n SBA. This can be accomplished by the 8(a) participants filing Form 8821, Tax\n Information Authorization, with the IRS. The latter alternative would reduce the\n paperwork burden to 8(a) participants and ensure that the personal tax return\n information made available for SaA review matches what was submitted to the\n IRS. Unless personal net worth determinations receive adequate validation and\n emphasis, participants may be able to remain in the 8(a) program even though they\n no longer meet the criteria for claiming economic disadvantage.\n\n Recommendations\n\n We recommend the Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise\n Development:\n\n 1A. \t establish criteria (e.g., based on salaries in excess of $500,000,\n high equity in business, reported net worth, sales, etc.) for\n\no\t requiring 8(a) program participants to annually submit personal\n financial statements that are reviewed or compiled by an\n independent public accountant.\n\x0c 1B. \t require 8(a) program participants to annually submit personal \n\n tax returns or file Form 8821 with the IRS authorizing SBA to \n\n receive their personal tax return information. \n\n\n 1 C. \t direct SBA district offices to provide training to BOSs on \n\n personal net worth determinations and to place increased \n\n emphasis on personal net worth determinations during 8(a) \n\n program continuing eligibility reviews. \n\n\n\nSBA \tManagement\'s Response\n\n The Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise Development provided the\nfollowing comments:\n\n 1A. \t nCriteria will be established to requir\xc2\xa3! reviewed or compiled personal\n financial statements prepared by an independent public accountants for\n firms with certain levels of 8(a) revenue. n\n\n 1B. nWe agree and this requirement will be mandatory with the annual\n review. n\n\n 1 C. \t nWe agree with the recommendation and training will be conducted in FY\n \'95. n\n\n\n\nEvaluation of Management Response\n\n . In our draft recommendation, we suggested the personal financial statements\nbe audited, reviewed or compiled by an independent public accountant. Although\nthe Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise Development agreed that\ncriteria should be established for reviewed or compiled personal financial\nstatements, he did not believe audited personal financial statements should be\nrequired. In our opinion, audited personal financial statements would provide the\ngreatest"assurance of accuracy. However, we recognize that the cost may\noutweigh the benefits. Therefore, we have revised our final recommendation\naccordingly, and believe the planned actions shoyld result in the submission of\nmore accurate personal financial statements. Actions planned to implement\nrecommendations 1 Band 1 C by the Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise\nare responsive.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\n\x0co\n\n Finding 2 Participants with High Personal Income Remain in the Program\n\n Owners of 8(a) concerns receiving large salaries and bonuses continue to be\n classified as economically disadvantaged and can remain in the program. At least\n five of the owners included in our review earned over $1 million in compensation\n over a two-year\xc2\xb7period. The personal income of individuals claiming disadvantaged\n status was not considered during 8(ar program continuing eligibility reviews.\n Although regulations governing 8(a) program continuing eligibility require\n consideration of personal income when assessing economic disadvantage, no\n specific income limits have been established to simplify the process. As a result,\n individuals with substantial income remained in the program and economically\n disadvantaged individuals were deprived of 8(a) assistance.\n\n Title 13 CFR \xc2\xa7 124.106, requires consideration of the personal financial\n condition of individuals claiming disadvantaged status when SBA assesses\n economic disadvantage for 8(a) program continuing eligibility purposes. One of the\n\no\n specific factors to be considered in making the assessment is the participants\'\n personal income for at least the past two years.\n\n In our review of continuing eligibility assessments of 50 8(a) concerns, we\n found the personal income of the individuals claiming disadvantaged status was\n not considered when determining whether individuals continued to be economically\n disadvantaged. The 50 8(a) concern owners\' compensation ranged from $0 to\n $2.5 million as shown below:\n\n 1991 and 1992 Compensation 1 Number of Owners\n\n $1,000,000 to $2,500,000 5\n $ 750,000 to $ 999,999 7\n $ 500,000 to $ 749,999 5\n $ 200,000 to $ 499,999 19\n $ 0 to$ 199,999 14\n\n\n For example:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t One of the 50 owners in our review received salaries and bonuses from\n his 8(a) firm totalling $1,494,112 and $1,022,111 for 1992 and 1991\n\no\n respectively. Although the 8(a) firm was an S-Corporation that showed a\n total profit of $1,460,000 for 1992 and 1991, there was no taxable\n\n\n 1 Compensation includes the owners\' salaries, bonuses, and distributions from the 8(a) concems less any\n distributions made to pay taxes attnbutable to S-Corporations.\n\x0c impact on the owner because the carryover of prior period\n losses resulted in offsetting the profits. Accordingly, the owner\n did not receive any distributions from the firm to pay for taxes\n during 1992 and 1991. In addition, the 8(a) owner\'s spouse\n had non-8(a) compensation of $20,356 and $12,265 for 1992\n and 1993, respectively. However, their December 31, 1992,\n reported joint net worth was only $84,500 after excluding their\n equity in the 8{a) firm and their residence. We estimated that\n the owner and his spouse should have realized a net increase in\n their joint net worth of about $1..5 million for the two year\n period ended December 31, 1992. We asked the 8(a} owner\n for an explanation as to why his reported net worth appeared\n so low~ He explained that he was fully aware of the net worth\n limitations of the 8(a) program and he doubted that anyone in\n the program would be foolish enough to exceed the net worth\n thresholds. He further explained that his standard of living was\n very high and his monthly personal expenditures were around \n\n $45,000. \n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Another owner in our review received 1992 and 1991 salaries and\n bonuses of $1,105,030 and $1,173,782, respectively from his 8(a) firm.\n In addition, the owner received a $2,239,514 distribution from the firm\n in 1 992 to pay taxes attributable to the S-Corporation status of the firm.\n The owner did not receive any distributions prior to 1992 because the\n firm did not become an S-Corporation until 1992. The owner\'s spouse\n also received compensation of $91,278 and $439,250 from the 8(a) firm\n o\n for 1992 and 1991, respectively.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t One other owner in our review received salaries and bonuses totalling \n\n $824,968 and $720,098 for 1992 and 1991, respectively, from his 8(a) \n\n firm. The owner also received distributions of $915,416 and $495,753 \n\n dl,lring 1992 and 1991, respectively, of which $256,343 and $282,866 \n\n was distributed to pay taxes attributable to the S-Corporation status of \n\n the firm. In addition, the owner\'s spouse received $56,160 in \n\n compensation from the 8(a) firm in 1992 and in 1991. \n\n\n In our opinion, owners who receive high annual compensation should be found\nineligible for continued participation in the 8(a) program based on their\ncompensation. For example, In 1990, only 2.8 percent of all tax returns filed in\nthe United States had an adjusted gross income of $100,000 or more and only .2\npercent had an adjusted gross income of $500,000 or more. In our opinion,\nindividuals whose compensation over a two year period is greater than an SBA\ndetermined level of excessive compensation (after-excluding amounts distributed to\npay taxes attributable to S-Corporations) should no longer be considered\n\n\n 8\n\n\x0co\n\n economically disadvantaged and should be graduated from the 8(a) program. In\n determining compensation, SBA should consider an amount that is reasonable for\n the average small business and a salary that is\' not excessive in comparison with\n the population of the United States.\n\n Recommendation\n\n 2A. \t We recommend the Associate Administrator for Minority \n\n Enterprise Development establish guidelines for determining that \n\n 8(a) participants should no longer be considered economically \n\n disadvantaged based on unusually large amounts of funds \n\n withdrawn from their firms. \n\n\n SBA Management\'s Response\n\n The Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise Development provided the\n following comment:\n\no\n "We do not agree that there should be a specific personal income limit.\n However, consistent with the Business Opportunity Reform Act Conference\n Report, we plan to address the issue of excessive withdrawals from the firm\n (including salary payment). The BOS will consider the impact of this\n withdrawal in terms of: (1) the firm\'s ability to access capital as well as (2)\n whether the withdrawal is determined to be detrimental to the development of\n the firm. Should it be decided that a firm has access to capital, the firm will be\n considered for graduation. Also, a determination that detrimental excessive\n withdrawals were made could result in the initiation of termination\n proceedings. "\n\n Evaluation of Management Response\n\n After further evaluation of the legislative history of the Business Opportunity\n Development Reform Act, we agree that Congress did not intend to impose a\n salary cap on 8(a) participants and we have revised our final recommendation\n accordingly. However, in our opinion, it was the intent of Congress for SBA to\n annually evaluate whether an 8(a) firm and its owners remain economically\n disadvantaged. "An unusually large amount of funds withdrawn from the firm by\n its owners" was ofle of the reasons given by Congress for believing that an 8(a)\n firm and its owners were no longer economically disadvantaged. The two\n\no\n remaining reasons given were "demonstrated access of the firm and/or its owners\n to a substantial new source of capital or loans" and "unusually high personal net\n worth of such owners." While it appears our concerns may be addressed in the\n new procedures being contemplated by the Associate Administrator, we believe\n guidelines should be established to take into consideration unusually high salaries\n\n a\n\x0cwhen determining whether an individual is considered economically disadvantaged\nregardless if the salaries are detrimental to the firm or not.\n\n\nFinding 3 \t 8(a) Concerns Larger And More Profitable Than Non-8(a)Concerns\n Are still Receiving 8(a) Ass~tance\n\n Some firms were allowed to remain in the 8(a) program even though the\nfinancial condition of the firms was significantly stronger than similar firms not in\nthe program. This condition existed because continuing eligibility reviews of 8(a)\nconcerns did not include comparisons to other concerns in the same or similar lines\nof businesses that were not owned and controlled by socially and economically\ndisadvantaged individuals. Consequently, other truly economically disadvantaged\nindividuals were deprived of 8(a) assistance and individuals were allowed to remain\nin the 8(a) program even though the strong financial condition of their firms no\nlonger made them economically disadvantaged. In addition, the overall success of\nthe 8(a) program is understated when firms that have demonstrated success are\nnot graduated.\n\n Title 13 CFR \xc2\xa7 124.106, requires SBA to compare each 8(a) concern\'s\nbusiness and financial profile with profiles of businesses in the same or similar line\nof businesses which are not owned and controlled by socially and economically\ndisadvantaged individuals when determining economic disadvantage for 8(a)\nprogram continuing eligibility. At a minimum, the comparison should include\nbusiness assets, revenues, pre-tax profit, working capital, and net worth of the\nconcern.\n\n AlthOl~ghwe found the financial condition of 8(a) firms was analyzed in our\nreview of 50 continuing eligibility assessments, comparisons were not made to\nsimilar concerns not in the 8(a) program. We compared the most recent financial\ndata available for each of the 50 8(a) firms to other concerns with the same ,\npredominanr Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and found the 8(a)\nfirms to be larger and more profitable in most cases. Our analysis was based on\nfive ke,y industry averages obtained from Dun and Bradstreet. The results of our\ncomparison are shown below.\n\n\n\n\n 2Predornlnant SIC code used for each concern w~s the SIC code under which the concern received rnost of Its 8(a)\nrevenues.\n\n\n 10\n\x0co\n\n Firms Exceeding Number of Times Industry Average\n Category Industry Average Range Average\n\n Business Assets 48 1.1 .: 61.7 11.6\n Revenue 49 1.3 -159.2 17.1\n Gross Profit3 42 1.3 - 35.4 6.1\n Working Capital 42 1.1 - 82.2 10.7\n Net Worth 42 1.2 - 55.6 7.4\n\n All five industry averages were exceeded by 32 of the 50 firms in our review.\n\n Our audit disclosed that some 8(a) concerns had dramatically improved their\n capital and credit position and had grown to the point that they were larger and\n more profitable than other firms in the SIC code from which they received most of\n their revenues. For example:\n\no \xe2\x80\xa2\t One concern substantially exceeded all five of the industry averages\n showl"!\xc2\xb7 above. The concern\'s business assets of $12.5 million and\n revenues of $45.9 million were more than\' 60 times the industry average\n for its primary SIC code. The concern\'s gross profit of $11.8 million and\n working capital of $3.6 million also exceeded the industry average by 35\n times and 48 times, respectively. In addition, the concern\'s net worth of\n $5 million was over 4 times the industry average.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Another concern exceeded all five of the industry averages by more than\n 1 5 times. The concern\'s business assets of $11.9 million and gross\n profit of $14.6 million were more than 30 times the industry average.\n The concern\'s net worth of $2.7 million and working capital of $2.1\n million were 15.6 times the industry average. Also, the concern\'s\n revenues of $40.7 million were 23.9 times the industry average.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Another concern exceeded all five of the industry averages by at least 4 :5\n times. In addition, the firm\'s net profit after tax of $8,543,753 was 105\n times the industry average of $81,435 and its profit margin of 35 percent\n was 17 times the industry average.\n\n We believe firms should be graduated from the 8(a) program when their\n\no financial condition is substantially better than firms not in the program. SBA\n implemented a new management information system in late November 1993 that\n contains the industry financial data needed to make comparisons of 8(a) firms to\n\n\n 3 Industry averages for gross.profit were used in rteU of pre-tax profit which were not always available.\n\n 1 1\n\x0csimilar firms not in the 8(a) program. However, as of the time of our review, SBA\nhad not established procedures and standards for making the comparisons. By\nestablishing procedures and standards for making business financial condition\n 0\ncomparisons, SBA will be able to identify 8(a) participants that should no longer be\nconsidered economically disadvantaged based on the financial condition of their\nfirms.\n\nRecommendation\n\n 3A. \t We recommend the Associate Administrator for Minority \n\n Enterprise Development establish procedures and standards for \n\n comparing the financial condition of 8(a) firms to similar firms \n\n not in the program to identify participants that should be \n\n graduated from the 8(a) program because they are no longer \n\n economically disadvantaged. \n\n\nSBA \tM anagement\'s Response\n\n The\' Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise Development provided the\nfollowing comment:\n\n "We agree and will implement procedures for use of analytical software for\n financial review. "\n\n\nEvaluation of Management Response\n\n Actions planned by the Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise are\nresponsive to the recommendation.\n\n\nFinding 4 \t Exclusions From Personal Net Worth Calculations Disguise Economic\n Success\n\n Individuals were considered economically dis\'a dvantaged and allowed to\ncontinue in the 8(a) program even though they had accumulated substantial wealth\nindividually or jointly with their spouses. This occurred because SBA had not\nestablished procedures for determining when 8(a) participants should no longer be\nconsidered economically disadvantaged based on the equity in their 8(a) firms and\nprimary residences and the net worth of the participants\' spouses. Permitting\nwealthy individuals to remain in the 8(a) program is contrary to the goals of the\nprogram, reduces the opportunities available to those who are disadvantaged and\nundermines public support for the program.\n\n\n\n 12 \n\n\x0co\n\n SBA is required to formulate policies relating to 8(a) program eligibility by\n Section 7(j)(11 )(A) of the Small Business Act. Section 8(a)(6)(E) states that\n whenever SBA calculates the personal net worth of an individual claiming\n disadvantaged status for purposes of the 8(a) program, the individual\'s ownership\n interest in the 8(a) concern and equity in his or her personal residence not\n attributable to excessive withdrawals from the concern will be excluded from the\n calculation. The implementing regulation, 13 CFR \xc2\xa7 124.111 (a), establishes\n personal net worth limits of $500,000 and $750,000 for maintaining 8(a) eligibility\n in the developmental and transitional phases, respectively.\n\n Eguitv of 8(a) firms\n\n Thirteen of the 50 8(a) participants claimed they met the criteria for claiming\n economic disadvantage even though they were considered millionaires based solely\n on their 8(a) firms\' business equity. Congress included the business equity\n exclusion from the net worth calculation as an incentive for 8(a) participants to\n retain sufficient capital in the 8(a) firms to cover future business needs. However,\n\no\n this exclusion, if left unlimited, acts as a "safe-haven" from the net worth limit for\n large amounts of money or other assets accumulated by the 8(a} participant.\n\n Ownership interest in the 8(a) firms excluded from the determination of the\n individuals\' personal net worth ranged from $70,460 to $9 million as noted in the\n following chart.\n\n Ownership Interest In 8(a) Firm Number Of Individuals\n\n $1,000,000 to $9,000,000 13\n $ 750,000 to $ 999,999 6\n $ 500,000 to $ 749,999 9\n $ 70,460 to $ 499,999 20\n Negative business equity 2\n\n If the individuals\' ownership interest in their" 8(a) firms was not excluded, 29 of the\n 50 would exceed the personal net worth limits for claiming economic disadvantage\n status. For example, one participant had a personal net worth of $509,343 after\n excluding the equity in his 8(a) firm and primary residence. At the time of our\n review, the 8(a) firm\'s net worth of $4,109,448 was over 18 times the industry\n average of $182,369. As all of the firm\'s net worth was excluded from the\n\no\n computation of the participant\'s personal net worth, he was allowed to remain in\n the program.\n\n\n\n\n 1\')\n\x0c Primary residences\n\n Congress included the personal residence exclusion from the net worth o\ncalculation because of the belief that rapidly escalating real estate values and the\nwide disparity of real estate prices around the country may lead to inequitable\ntreatment of home-owners in some areas. However, this exclusion, if left\nunlimited, acts as a "safe-haven" or loophole from the net worth limit for large\namounts of money accumulated by the 8(a) participant. We believe the unlimited\npersonal residence exclusion undermines the intent of the program as it allows\nwealthy individuals to remain in the 8(a)\' program. In addition, when 8(a) owners\nupgrade to more expensive homes, the amount of capital available to their 8(a)\nfirms is reduced. Consequently, guidelines need to be established to close this\nloophole.\n\n Home equity excluded from the personal net worth determinations of the 50\n8(a) participants in our review ranged from $21,000 to $517,000 as shown in the\nfollowing table.\n\n Number Of \n\n Home Equity Individuals \n\n\n $250,000 to $\'517,000 9\n\n $125,000 to $249,999 12 \n\n $ 21,000 to $124,999 29 \n\n\nHad home equity been considered in the determination of the individuals\' personal\nnet worth, 8 of the\' 50 would have exceeded the limits for Claiming economic\ndisadvantage.\n\n We found that 43 of the 50 8(a) participants in our review lived in homes that\nhad market values greater than the $121,500 national median sales price of new\nprivately owned one-family homes sold in 1992. 4 Primary residence market values\nranged from $45,000 to $1.4 million as shown below.\n\n Primary Residence Market Value Number Of Individuals\n\n $800,000 to $1.4 million 5\n\n $400,000 to $799,999 10 \n\n $200,000 to $399,999 17 \n\n $125,000 to $199,999 11 \n\n $ 45,000 to $124,999 7\n\n\n\n\n 4 Source: U,S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1993 111 ~ edition)\n\n\n 14\n\x0co\n\n We also found that it was not uncommon for 8(a) participants to move into\n higher priced homes after they entered the 8(a) program. For example, one\n participant was livjng in a home with a market value of $250,000 (original cost \xc2\xad\n $140,000) at the time he was approved for the 8(a) program. However, at the\n time of our review, the participant and his wife had moved into a house (Figure 1)\n with an assessed value of $1.4 million (original cost $980,000). The equity in the\n house exceeded $470,000.\n\n\n\n\no\n\n\n\n\n Figure 1\n\n\n In another example, a participant when approved for the 8(a) program was\n living in a home with a market value of $120,000 (original cost $117,000) with a\n mortgage"of $98,000. At the time of our review, the participant had purchased a\n home with an assessed value of $517,000 (market value unknown) (Figure 2) and\n had recently paid off the mortgage. The mortgage was approximate"ly $333,000\n\no at the time it was paid off.\n\x0c Figure 2\n\n\n Net worth of spouses\n\n Assessing economic disadvantage on an individual basis allows individuals to\nremain eligible for the 8(a) program even though they have accumulated substantial\nwealth jointly with their spouses. Married 8(a) participants not living in community\nproperty states are considered to be economically disadvantaged if their individual\nnet worth is below the thresholds set by SBA regardless of the amount of their\nspouses\' net worth. Participants.living in community property states are limited to\na joint net worth with their spouses of $1 million in the developmental stage and\n$1 .5 million in the transitional stage of the program. Personal net worth of\nspouses excluded from the personal net worth determinations of the 50 8(a)\nparticipants in our review ranged from $2,200 to $771,874 after deducting the\nspouses\' equity in the 8(a) firms and their primary residences. If the net worth of\nthe individuals\' spouses was not excluded, 10 of the 50 would exceed the\npersonal net worth limits for claiming economic disadvantage.\n\n Joint net worth without exclusions\n\n With no exclusions, the joint personal net worth of the 50 8(a) participants in\nour review ranged from < $1 .2> million to $11.7 million. Millionaire status had\nbeen achieved individually, or jointly if married, by 35 of the 8(a) participants as\nshown below.\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0co\n\n Personal Net Worth \t Number\n\n $1 million to $11.7 million 35\n $750,000 to $999,999 2\n $500,000 to $749,999 7\n $0 to $499,999 4\n < $1.2> million to $0 2\n\n Legislative Historv\n\n In our opinion, it was not the intent of Congress to eliminate 8(a) participants\'\n equity in their 8(a) firms and personal residences in a carte blanche manner. We\n recognize Congress enacted legislation excluding 8(a) participants\' ownership\n interests in their 8(a) firms from their personal net worth to ensure 8(a) firms\n accumulate sufficient capital to cover future business needs. In addition,\n legislation excluding 8(a) participants\' equity in their primary personal residence\n was enacted because of the belief that rapidly escalating real estate values and the\n\no\n wide disparity of real estate prices around the country may lead to inequitable\n treatment of home-owners in some areas. However, as evidenced in House\n Conference Report 100-1070, Congress also directed SBA to take appropriate\n steps to ensure that these exclusions were not subject to abuse. Although the\n value of business assets and primary personal residences are not to be considered\n as an element of personal net worth, Cg.ngress anticipated that SBA would\n consider whether such business assets and residences give individuals access to\n capital or loans such that he or she not be considered impaired in his or her ability\n to compete.\n\n We also believe that the personal net worth of spouses should be considered\n in determining whether 8(a) participants continue to be economically\n disadvantaged. Unless consideration is given to all components of net worth,\n economically disadvantaged individuals will have reduced 8(a) program\n opportunities because individuals that have overcome their economic disadvantage\n will still be able to receive 8(a) assistance. Also, SBA could receive adverse\n publicity thereby undermining public support for the program.\n\n Recommendation\n\n 4A. \t We recommend that the Associate Administrator for Minority\n Enterprise Development establish procedures for determining\n\no\n whether 8(a) participants should no longer be considered\n economically disadvantaged based on their ownership interest in\n their 8(a) firms, the equity and market value of their primary\n residences, and the net worth of their spouses.\n\n\n 1"7\n\x0cSBA \tM anagement\'s Response\n\n The Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise Development provided the\nfollowing comment:\n\n "The current statute precludes SBA from including the equity of the business\n and personal residence in determining a participants per~onal net worth. We\n believe that while an individual\'s personal net worth may be below the\n applicable threshold, it does not preclude SBA from making a determination\n that the firm is no longer economically disadvantaged. If it is determined that\n the firm has the ability to compete and access to capital, SBA may graduate\n the firm. We plan to reemphasize this to the field offices. "\n\nEvalyation of Management Response\n\n We believe SBA may have some flexibility under the current law. However, if\nSBA determines that the flexibility is not sufficient, SBA should seek legislative\nauthority to close any loopholes. Although reemphasizing this fact to the field\noffices should be beneficial, we believe that abuses such as those described in the\nfinding will continue unless specific guidelines addressing the equity and market\nvalue of primary residences, and the net worth of spouse~ are established.\n\n\nFinding 5 Other Observations\n\n We also found other conditions that could negatively impact 8(a) program\ncontinuing elig.ibility reviews during our audit. Improvements are needed in these\nareas to help ensure that firms no longer eligible for the 8(a) program are graduated\nor terminated. Details of our observations are shown below.\n\nFinancial Statements\n\n Annual financial statements for 8(a) firms were not always submitted or\nprepared in accordance with 8(a) program regulations. This resulted because\nBusiness Opportunity Specialists did not fully understand the purpose of annual\nfinancial statements and they had too many other duties to perform to devote\nsufficient time to annual financial statements. Consequently, it was not always\npossible for Business Opportunity Specialists to adequately assess thlt 1inIIWl. \xc2\xad\ncondition and competitive mix of 8(a) firms.\n\n We found the following for the 50 8(a) firms in our review:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Three firms did not submit financial statements that were required to be\n audited or reviewed by an independent public accountant.\n\n\n 18\n\x0co\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Financial statements for 32 of the firms did not contain a breakdown of\n 8(a) and non-8(a) sales.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t The independent public accountants for two of the firms did not express\n an opinion on the firms\' financial statements because of scope limitations.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t One firm submitted audited financial statements that were not prepared in\n accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.\n\n In all but two cases, the BOSs accepted the financial statements as submitted.\n The two exceptions involved firms that did not submit audited financial\n statements.\n\n Personal Financial Statements\n\n The personal financial statement form that 8(a) participants are required to use\n to report their personal net worth is not structured in a manner that simplifies\n\no\n economic disadvantage determinations. SBA Form 413 "Personal Financial\n Statement" is used for all SBA programs. While it is adequate to calculate\n personal net worth for the purpose of obtaining or guaranteeing a loan, it is not\n structured to calculate adjusted net worth for 8(a) program eligibility purposes.\n Specifically, the form is not set up to exclude the 8(a) participants\' ownership\n interest in their 8(a) firms and the equity in their primary residences to arrive at\n their adjusted personal net worth. Consequently, we found many instances in\n which Business Opportunity Specialists incorrectly calculated the adjusted net\n worth of 8(a) participants.\n\n In addition, SBA\'s 8(a) Handbook currently instructs 8(a) participants to\n disregard the certification regarding the accuracy of statements made on SBA Form\n 413. As a result, it may be difficult to hold 8(a) participants accountable for\n making false statements regarding their personal net worth. SBA is presently in\n the process of removing the instr~ction that directed participants to disregard the\n certification and is also considering modification of SBA Form 413 consistent with\n the needs of the 8(a) program.\n\n Incompatible Data\n\n Data used to conduct 8(a) program continuing eligibility reviews was not\n always compatible and timely. This condition resulted because the program year\n\no\n of many of the firms in the 8(a) program is different than the firm\'s fiscal year and\n the owner\'s personal tax year. Section 7(j)(15) of the Small Business Act\n established a nine year program participation term for receiving 8(a) assistance.\n The first program year begins on the date that a firm is certified to participate in\n the program and ends one year later. Audited financial statements are not due\n\n 10\n\x0cuntil 180 days after the firms\' fiscal year end in accordance with 13 CFR \xc2\xa7\n124.209. In addition, many 8(a) program participants receive extensions to file\ntheir business and personal tax returns.\n\n We found the program years were different from the firms\' fiscal years and the\nowners\' personal tax years for 38 of the 50 8(a) firms in our review. We also\nfound instances in which business and personal tax returns were filed 9 months\nafter the tax years ended and audited finanCial statements were filed 176 days\nafter the firm\'s fiscal year end. As a result, continuing eligibility determinations\nwere made more complex and time consuming because of incompatible and\noutdated data. Also, 8(a) participants that have overcome their economic\ndisadvantage may be allowed to remain in the 8(a) program.\n\n We found SBA was in the process of developing proposed changes to the 8(a)\nprogram at the time of our review. One of the proposed changes would require\n8(a) firms to annually report their competitive business mix based on their fiscal\nyear. However, this proposed change was not implemented as of the date of our\nreview.\n\nOwnership Interests In Other 8(a) Firms\n\n Firms participating in the 8(a) program may hold up to a 10 percent equity\nownership interest in other firms in accordance with 13 CFR \xc2\xa7 124.103. Also,\nindividuals affiliated with 8(a} firms as partners, stockholders, officers, or directors\nmay hold up to a 10 percent equity ownership interest in other 8(a} firms.\nConsequently, 8(a} firms through their owners, spouses and managers can exercise\nsignificant control over other 8(a} firms by acquiring up to a 49 percent interest in\nthe other 8(a} firms. As an example, 1 of the 50 firms in our review acquired a 40\npercent interest in another 8(a} firm as shown below.\n\n Affiliated\n Individual Acquiring\n Ownership Interest Percentage\n\n Disadvantaged owner 10\n Disadvantaged owner\'s spouse 10\n Non-disadvantaged owner 10\n Non-disadvantaged owner\'s spouse 6\n Key manager #1 2\n Key manager #2 ~\n\n Total 40\n =\n\n\n\n\n 20 \n\n\x0co\n\n In addition, 8(a) firms can subcontract with the other 8(a) firms to work on\n 8(a) contracts in those cases where they have outgrown the Standard Industrial\n Classification (SIC) code. These subcontracts are reported as non-8(a) business\n thereby improving their competitive mix. For example, the firm that acquired the\n 40 percent interest in another 8(a) firm was similar in nature as it had 11 matching\n SIC codes. However, even though the 8(a) firm in our review had outgrown four\n of its SIC codes, it continued to work on follow-on contracts with agencies that it\n had previous 8(a) contracts as a subcontractor for the 8(a) firm in which it had\n acquired the 40 percent interest. In addition, the work performed as a\n subcontractor was considered non-8(a) sales for competitive lTlix purposes.\n\n Recommendations\n\n We recC?mmend the Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise\n Development:\n\n 5A. \t instruct SBA district offices to place increased emphasis on 8(a) .\n program participants\' submission and preparation of financial\n0 statements.\n\n 5B. \t develop a standard form for reporting the adjusted personal net\n worth of 8(a) participants.\n\n 5C. \t realign 8(a) firms\' program years with their fiscal years and the\n tax years of the disadvantaged ow~ers.\n\n 50. \t require 8(a) firms to submit annual financial statements (audited,\n reviewed, or compiled) within 90-days of their fiscal year end.\n\n 5E. require that disadvantaged owners and firms participating in the\n 8(a) program submit their personal and business tax returns to\n SBA by the 15th day of the 4th month after the respective tax\n year ends.\n\n 5F. require that disadvantaged owners\' firms participating in the 8(a)\n program and associates of the owner(s} or firm be limited in\n their equity ownership interests in other 8(a) firms of no more\n than a combined 10 percent.\n\n 5G. \t require that revenue earned from subcontracting on\n0 noncompetitive 8(a} contracts be classified as 8(a) revenue.\n\x0cSBA \tM anagement\'s Response\n\n The Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise Development provided the\nfollowing comments:\n\n 5A. \t "We agree. "\n\n 5B. \t "We agree and it will be part of the annual review form. "\n\n 5C. "We agree and have submitted this proposal as part of our legislative\n package. "\n\n 50. \t "MED previously increased the $2.5 million threshold to $5.0 million.\n Consistent with previous agreement with your office we will require firms\n with revenues exceeding $5.0 million to submit audited financial\n statements within 120 days of their fiscal year end. "\n\n 5E. \t "We do not agree that participants should waive their rights. However,\n we will require timely submission of personal and firm financial\n statements and will ensure that information is analyzed as part of the\n annual review. "\n\n 5F. \t "We agree and have addressed this issue in our proposed regulations. "\n\n 5G. \t "We do not agree because we feel it would discourage 8(a) companies\n from subcontracting to other 8(a) companies. The classification of work\n as 8(a) does not flow down to second tier subcontractors since there is\n no privity of contract between the U. S. Government and the second tier\n subcontractor. "\n\nEvaluation of Management Responses\n\n Actions planned by the Associate Administrator\xc2\xb7 for Minority Enterprise are\nresponsive to recommendations 5A, 5B, 5C and 5F.\n\n 50. The Associate Administrator for Minority Enterprise is correct in stating\nthat we previously agreed that B(a} firms should be required to submit audited\nfinancial statements within 120 days of their fiscal year end when their revenues\nexceed $5 million. However, that agreement was made without the benefit of the\ninformation disclosed during our audit. Based on the results of our audit, we\nconsider 90 days and $2.5 million to be more appropriate. We believe that 90\ndays is ample time for the submission of audited, reviewed or compiled financial\nstatements. Besides improving the compatibility of data available for annual\n\n\n 22\n\x0co\n\n reviews, the 90 day requirement will make the 8(a) program consistent with other\n SBA programs.\n\n 5E. We agree that 8(a) participants should not be required to waive their right\n to file an extension on their tax returns. However, we do not believe that it is\n unreasonable for individuals benefiting from the 8(a) program to provide completed\n tax returns within agreed upon deadlines. Therefore, as an alternative, we suggest\n 8(a) participants should be required to submit their tax returns (as well as other\n required information) within the established time frames (75 to 105 days after tax\n year end) or suspend 8(a) assistance for those 8(a) participants who choose not to\n submit the required information within established deadlines. Without extensions,\n business and personal tax returns are due on the 15th day of the 3rd and 4th\n month after the tax year ends, respectively. In our opinion, these time frames are\n reasonable for 8(a) participants to submit tax returns. As a result, the annual\n review process will be simplified and strengthened.\n\n 5G. We disagree that 8(a) companies would be discouraged from\n\no subcontracting to other 8(a) companies if revenue earned from subcontracting on\n noncompetitive 8(a) contracts is classified as 8(a) revenue. While we have no\n objection to 8(a) firms working as subcontractors on noncompetitive contracts in\n which the firms have outgrown the SIC code, we believe it would be appropriate to\n classify revenue earned from those contracts as 8(a) revenue. We agree that there\n is no privity of contract between the U! S. Government and second tier\n subcontractors, but fail to see why that would prevent SBA from classifying work\n performed as 8(a) revenue.\n\n\n\n\no\n\n 23 \n\n\x0c AUDIT REPORT ON \n\n 8(a) PROGRAM CONTINUING \n\n ELIGIBILITY REVIEWS \n\n REPORT DISTRIBUTION \n\n\nRecipient No. of Copies \n\n\nAdministrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 \n\n\nDeputy Administrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 \n\n\nOffice of General Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 \n\n\nAssociate Administrator for Minority Enterprise Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 \n\n\nAssociate Deputy Administrator for Management and Administration . . . . . . .. 1\n\n\nRegional Administrator, Region III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 \n\n\nDistrict Director, Richmond District Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 \n\n\nDistrict Director, Washington, D.C. District Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1\n\n\nRegional Administrator, Region V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 \n\n\nDistrict Director, Columbus District Office . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1\n\n\nRegional Administrator, Region VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1\n\n\nDistrict Director, Albuquerque District Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 \n\n\nRegional Administrator, Region IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 \n\n\nDistrict Director, Los Angeles District Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1\n\n\nDirector, Office of Financial Controls . . . . . . . . . \'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1\n\n\nCongressional and Legislative Affairs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 \n\n\nSenate Committee on Small Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 \n\n\nHouse Committee on Small Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 \n\n\nGeneral Accounting Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 \n\n\n 24 \n\n\x0c'


text:
 30.1.2010
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 24/77
 Civildienesta tiesas (pirmā palāta) 2009. gada 30. novembra spriedums — de Britto Patrício-Dias/Komisija
 (Lieta F-16/09) (1)
 (Civildienests - Ierēdņi - Novērtējums - Karjeras attīstības ziņojums - 2007. gada novērtējums - Civildienesta noteikumu 43. panta pārkāpums - Pamatojums - Acīmredzama kļūda vērtējumā - Paveiktā darba novērtējums par daļu no atskaites perioda)
 2010/C 24/144
 Tiesvedības valoda — franču
 Lietas dalībnieki
 Prasītājs: Jorge de Britto Patrício-Dias, Brisele (Beļģija) (pārstāvis — L. Massaux, advokāts)
 Atbildētāja: Eiropas Kopienu Komisija (pārstāvji — C. Berardis-Kayser un G. Berscheid)
 Priekšmets
 Lēmuma, ar ko noraida prasītāja sūdzību par viņa novērtējumu 2007. gadā, atcelšana.
 Rezolutīvā daļa:
 1)
 prasību noraidīt;
 2)
 J. de Britto Patrício-Dias sedz tiesāšanās izdevumus.
 (1) OV C 90, 18.04.2009., 41. lpp.


text:
Svarbus teisinis pranešimas
 |
 22004D0039
 2004 m. balandžio 23 d. EEE jungtinio komiteto sprendimas Nr. 39/2004, iš dalies keičiantis EEE Susitarimo XI priedą (Telekomunikacinės paslaugos) – Komisijos sprendimas 2003/548/EB (mažiausias nuomojamų linijų komplektas)
 Oficialusis leidinys L 277 , 26/08/2004 p. 0008 - 0008
 EEE jungtinio komiteto sprendimasNr. 39/20042004 m. balandžio 23 d.iš dalies keičiantis EEE susitarimo XI priedą (Telekomunikacijų paslaugos)EEE JUNGTINIS KOMITETAS,Atsižvelgdamas į Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą, patikslintą Protokolu, patikslinančiu Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą, toliau — Susitarimas, ypač į jo 98 straipsnį,kadangi:(1) Susitarimo XI priedas buvo iš dalies pakeistas 2004 m. vasario 6 d. EEE jungtinio komiteto sprendimu Nr. 11/2004 [1].(2) 2003 m. liepos 24 d. Komisijos direktyva 2003/548/EB dėl Universaliųjų paslaugų direktyvos 18 straipsnyje nurodyto minimalaus skirtųjų linijų rinkinio su suderintomis charakteristikomis ir atitinkamų standartų [2] turi būti įtrauktas į Susitarimą,NUSPRENDĖ:1 straipsnisSusitarimo XI priede po 5cm punkto (Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyva 2002/22/EB) įterpiamas toks punktas:"5cn. 32003 D 0548: 2003 m. liepos 24 d. Komisijos direktyva 2003/548/EB dėl Universaliųjų paslaugų direktyvos 18 straipsnyje nurodyto minimalaus skirtųjų linijų rinkinio su suderintomis charakteristikomis ir atitinkamų standartų(OL L 186, 2003 7 25, p. 43)."2 straipsnisSprendimo 2003/548/EB tekstai islandų ir norvegų kalbomis, kurie turi būti paskelbti Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE priede, yra autentiški.3 straipsnisŠis sprendimas įsigalioja 2004 m. balandžio 24 d., jei EEE jungtiniam komitetui buvo pateikti visi pranešimai pagal Susitarimo 103 straipsnio 1 dalį [3].4 straipsnisŠis sprendimas skelbiamas Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE dalyje ir EEE priede.Priimta Briuselyje, 2004 m. balandžio 23 d.EEE jungtinio komiteto varduPirmininkasP. Westerlund[1] OL L 116, 2004 4 22, p. 60.[2] OL L 186, 2003 7 25, p. 43.[3] Konstituciniai reikalavimai nenurodyti.--------------------------------------------------


text:
 8.8.2016
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 287/21
 Sentenza tal-Qorti Ġenerali tat-28 ta’ Ġunju 2016 – salesforce.com vs EUIPO (SOCIAL.COM)
 (Kawża T-134/15) (1)
 ([“Trade mark tal-Unjoni Ewropea - Applikazzjoni għat-trade mark tal-Unjoni Ewropea verbali SOCIAL.COM - Raġunijiet assoluti għal rifjut - Karattru deskrittiv - Assenza ta’ karattru distintiv - Artikolu 7(1)(b) u (c) tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 207/2009”])
 (2016/C 287/26)
 Lingwa tal-kawża: l-Ingliż
 Partijiet
 Rikorrenti: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, California, l-Istati Uniti) (rappreżentanti: A. Nordemann u M. Maier, avukati)
 Konvenut: L-Uffiċċju tal-Proprjetà Intellettwali tal-Unjoni Ewropea (rappreżentant: M. Fischer, aġent)
 Suġġett
 Rikors ippreżentat kontra d-deċiżjoni tar-Raba’ Bord tal-Appell tal-EUIPO, tal-20 ta’ Jannar 2015 (Każ R 1752/2014-4), dwar applikazzjoni għar-reġistrazzjoni tas-sinjal verbali SOCIAL.COM bħala trade mark tal-Unjoni Ewropea.
 Dispożittiv
 1)
 Ir-rikors huwa miċħud.
 2)
 salesforce.com, Inc. hija kkundannata għall-ispejjeż.
 (1) ĠU C 171, 26.5.2015.


text:
 Pomembno pravno obvestilo
 |
 12008E/PRO/33
 Prečiščena različica Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije - PROTOKOLI - Protokol (št. 33) o členu 141 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije
 Uradni list 115 , 09/05/2008 str. 0319 - 0319
 PROTOKOL (št. 33)O ČLENU 157 POGODBE O DELOVANJU EVROPSKE UNIJEVISOKE POGODBENICE SO SEDOGOVORILE o naslednji določbi, ki je priložena Pogodbi o Evropski uniji in Pogodbi o delovanju Evropske unije:V členu 157 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije dodatki iz poklicnega sistema socialne varnosti niso osebni prejemki, če in kolikor se nanašajo na obdobja zaposlitve pred 17. majem 1990, razen pri delavcih ali tistih, ki omenjene dodatke zahtevajo in so pred tem datumom vložili tožbo ali sprožili enakovreden postopek po veljavnem nacionalnem pravu.--------------------------------------------------


text:
 9.8.2007
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 209/46
 ROZHODNUTIE SPOLOČNÉHO VÝBORU EHP
 č. 26/2007
 z 27. apríla 2007,
 ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa príloha XIII (Doprava) k Dohode o EHP
 SPOLOČNÝ VÝBOR EHP,
 so zreteľom na Dohodu o Európskom hospodárskom priestore, zmenenú a doplnenú protokolom, ktorým sa upravuje Dohoda o Európskom hospodárskom priestore, ďalej len „dohoda“, a najmä na jej článok 98,
 keďže:
 (1)
 Príloha XIII k dohode bola zmenená a doplnená rozhodnutím Spoločného výboru EHP č. 155/2006 z 8. decembra 2006 (1).
 (2)
 Nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 2320/2002 zo 16. decembra 2002 o ustanovení spoločných pravidiel v oblasti bezpečnostnej ochrany civilného letectva (2) bolo rozhodnutím Spoločného výboru EHP č. 61/2004 z 26. apríla 2004 (3) so špecifickými úpravami pre každú krajinu začlenené do dohody.
 (3)
 Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 831/2006 z 2. júna 2006, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa nariadenie (ES) č. 622/2003 o ustanovení opatrení na vykonávanie spoločných základných noriem bezpečnostnej ochrany civilného letectva (4), sa má začleniť do dohody,
 ROZHODOL TAKTO:
 Článok 1
 Do bodu 66i [nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 622/2003] prílohy XIII k dohode sa dopĺňa táto zarážka:
 „—
 32006 R 0831: nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 831/2006 z 2. júna 2006 (Ú. v. EÚ L 150, 3.6.2006, s. 4).“
 Článok 2
 Znenie nariadenia (ES) č. 831/2006 v islandskom a nórskom jazyku, ktoré bude uverejnené v dodatku EHP k Úradnému vestníku Európskej únie, je autentické.
 Článok 3
 Toto rozhodnutie nadobúda účinnosť 28. apríla 2007 pod podmienkou, že Spoločnému výboru EHP budú zaslané všetky oznámenia podľa článku 103 ods. 1 dohody (5).
 Článok 4
 Toto rozhodnutie sa uverejní v oddiele EHP Úradného vestníka Európskej únie a v dodatku EHP k Úradnému vestníku Európskej únie.
 V Bruseli 27. apríla 2007
 Za Spoločný výbor EHP
 predseda
 Alan SEATTER
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 89, 29.3.2007, s. 29.
 (2) Ú. v. ES L 355, 30.12.2002, s. 1.
 (3) Ú. v. EÚ L 277, 26.8.2004, s. 175.
 (4) Ú. v. EÚ L 150, 3.6.2006, s. 4.
 (5) Nie sú uvedené žiadne ústavné požiadavky.


text:
 15.9.2014
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 315/26
 Uznesenie Súdneho dvora (deviata komora) z 19. júna 2014 – Helénska republika/Európska komisia
 (Vec C-552/12 P) (1)
 ((Odvolanie - EPZF, EPUZF a EPFRV - Výdavky vylúčené z financovania z rozpočtu Európskej únie - Výdavky vynaložené Helénskou republikou))
 2014/C 315/40
 Jazyk konania: gréčtina
 Účastníci konania
 Odvolateľka: Helénska republika (v zastúpení: I. Chalkias a E. Leftheriotou, splnomocnení zástupcovia)
 Ďalší účastník konania: Európska komisia (v zastúpení: H. Tserepa-Lacombe a A. Markoulli, splnomocnení zástupcovia)
 Výrok
 1.
 Odvolanie sa zamieta.
 2.
 Helénska republika je povinná nahradiť trovy konania.
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ C 32, 2.2.2013.


type: legislation

text:
 28.7.2011
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 196/3
 UITVOERINGSVERORDENING (EU) Nr. 739/2011 VAN DE COMMISSIE
 van 27 juli 2011
 tot wijziging van bijlage I bij Verordening (EG) nr. 854/2004 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad houdende vaststelling van specifieke voorschriften voor de organisatie van de officiële controles van voor menselijke consumptie bestemde producten van dierlijke oorsprong
 (Voor de EER relevante tekst)
 DE EUROPESE COMMISSIE,
 Gezien het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie,
 Gezien Verordening (EG) nr. 854/2004 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 29 april 2004 houdende vaststelling van specifieke voorschriften voor de organisatie van de officiële controles van voor menselijke consumptie bestemde producten van dierlijke oorsprong (1), en met name artikel 17, lid 1,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 Verordening (EG) nr. 854/2004 stelt specifieke voorschriften vast voor de organisatie van de officiële controles van voor menselijke consumptie bestemde producten van dierlijke oorsprong. Met name verwijst een aantal bepalingen in verband met vleeskeuringen in de delen B, D en F van hoofdstuk II van sectie I en in de hoofdstukken I en V van sectie II, alsook in hoofdstuk II van sectie III van bijlage I bij die verordening naar ziekten op de lijst A of B van de Werelddiergezondheidsorganisatie (OIE).
 (2)
 Het OIE-systeem voor de indeling en de opstelling van lijsten van ziekten is veranderd. Een enkele OIE-lijst vervangt de lijsten A en B. Bovendien is de wetgeving van de Unie nu in lijn met de aanbevelingen van de OIE. Als gevolg daarvan zijn de meeste verwijzingen naar die lijsten overbodig. Daarom moeten de desbetreffende bepalingen in de secties I, II en III van bijlage I bij die verordening worden gewijzigd en in plaats daarvan verwijzen naar onder de wetgeving van de Unie vallende dierziekten bij de verrichting van ante- of post-mortemkeuringen of enige andere inspectieactiviteit, tenzij wordt verwezen naar thans onbekende ziekten van oorsprong uit derde landen.
 (3)
 Richtlijn 2002/99/EG van de Raad van 16 december 2002 houdende vaststelling van veterinairrechtelijke voorschriften voor de productie, de verwerking, de distributie en het binnenbrengen van voor menselijke consumptie bestemde producten van dierlijke oorsprong (2) bepaalt dat producten van dierlijke oorsprong moeten worden verkregen van dieren die niet afkomstig zijn van een bedrijf, een inrichting, een grondgebied of deel van een grondgebied waarvoor relevante veterinairrechtelijke beperkingen gelden. Bijlage I bij die richtlijn somt de wetgeving van de Unie op die bestrijdingsmaatregelen bevat voor bepaalde dierziekten die relevant zijn voor het handelsverkeer in producten van dierlijke oorsprong. Voor de nodige samenhang mag het handelsverkeer in producten van dierlijke oorsprong alleen worden beperkt om veterinairrechtelijke redenen die zijn gebaseerd op de in bijlage I vermelde wetgeving van de Unie.
 (4)
 Overeenkomstig deel E van bijlage II bij Verordening (EG) nr. 2160/2003 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 17 november 2003 inzake de bestrijding van salmonella en andere specifieke door voedsel overgedragen zoönoseverwekkers (3) moet salmonella afwezig zijn in 25 g vers vlees van pluimvee dat voor menselijke consumptie in de handel wordt gebracht. Overeenkomstig dat deel is dat criterium echter niet van toepassing op vers vlees van pluimvee dat is bestemd voor industriële hittebehandeling of een andere behandeling waarmee salmonella kan worden uitgeschakeld. Punt 2 van hoofdstuk V van sectie II van bijlage I bij Verordening (EG) nr. 854/2004 bepaalt dat de officiële dierenarts eisen kan stellen betreffende het gebruik van bepaald vlees. Om de officiële dierenarts in staat te stellen een industriële hittebehandeling of een andere behandeling op te leggen om salmonella uit te schakelen, moet sectie II, hoofdstuk V, punt 2, worden gewijzigd.
 (5)
 Bijlage I bij Verordening (EG) nr. 854/2004 moet dienovereenkomstig worden gewijzigd.
 (6)
 De in deze verordening vervatte maatregelen zijn in overeenstemming met het advies van het Permanent Comité voor de voedselketen en de diergezondheid,
 HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 Bijlage I bij Verordening (EG) nr. 854/2004 wordt gewijzigd overeenkomstig de bijlage bij deze verordening.
 Artikel 2
 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de dag na die van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 27 juli 2011.
 Voor de Commissie
 De voorzitter
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) PB L 139 van 30.4.2004, blz. 206.
 (2) PB L 18 van 23.1.2003, blz. 11.
 (3) PB L 325 van 12.12.2003, blz. 1.
 BIJLAGE
 Bijlage I bij Verordening (EG) nr. 854/2004 wordt als volgt gewijzigd:
 1)
 In sectie I wordt hoofdstuk II als volgt gewijzigd:
 a)
 deel B, punt 2, onder b), wordt vervangen door:
 „b)
 wijzen op een aandoening die schadelijk kan zijn voor de gezondheid van mens of dier, met bijzondere aandacht voor het opsporen van zoönoses en dierziekten waarvoor in de wetgeving van de Unie veterinairrechtelijke voorschriften zijn vastgesteld.”;
 b)
 deel D, punt 1, wordt vervangen door:
 „1.
 Het karkas en het slachtafval moeten na het slachten onverwijld aan een postmortemkeuring worden onderworpen. Alle externe oppervlakken moeten worden gekeurd. Voor dat doel kan een minimaal hanteren van het karkas en/of het slachtafval, of speciale technische uitrusting, vereist zijn. Er moet bijzondere aandacht worden besteed aan het opsporen van zoönoses en dierziekten waarvoor in de wetgeving van de Unie veterinairrechtelijke voorschriften zijn vastgesteld. De snelheid van de slachtlijn en het voor de keuring beschikbare personeel moeten een degelijke keuring mogelijk maken.”;
 c)
 deel F, punt 1, onder d), wordt vervangen door:
 „d)
 het opsporen van dierziekten waarvoor in de wetgeving van de Unie veterinairrechtelijke voorschriften zijn vastgesteld.”.
 2)
 Sectie II wordt als volgt gewijzigd:
 a)
 hoofdstuk I, punt 4, wordt vervangen door:
 „4.
 Als de officiële dierenarts bij de verrichting van een antemortem- of postmortemkeuring of enige andere inspectieactiviteit een vermoeden krijgt van de aanwezigheid van een ziekteverwekker van dierziekten waarvoor in de wetgeving van de Unie veterinairrechtelijke voorschriften zijn vastgesteld, stelt hij de bevoegde autoriteit daarvan op passende wijze in kennis en nemen beiden, overeenkomstig de wetgeving van de Unie, de nodige maatregelen en voorzorgen om verspreiding van de ziekteverwekker te voorkomen.”;
 b)
 hoofdstuk V wordt als volgt gewijzigd:
 i)
 punt 1, onder e), wordt vervangen door:
 „e)
 afkomstig is van dieren die lijden aan een dierziekte waarvoor veterinairrechtelijke voorschriften zijn vastgesteld in de in bijlage I bij Richtlijn 2002/99/EG (1) vermelde wetgeving van de Unie, behalve wanneer het is verkregen overeenkomstig de in die wetgeving vastgestelde specifieke eisen, tenzij anders bepaald in sectie IV;
 ii)
 punt 2 wordt vervangen door:
 „2.
 De officiële dierenarts kan eisen stellen ten aanzien van het gebruik van vlees:
 a)
 dat afkomstig is van dieren die buiten het slachthuis een noodslachting hebben ondergaan, of
 b)
 dat afkomstig is van koppels waarvan het vlees overeenkomstig deel E van bijlage II bij Verordening (EG) nr. 2160/2003 een behandeling zal ondergaan voordat het in de handel wordt gebracht.”.
 3)
 Sectie III, hoofdstuk II, punt 3, onder e) en f), wordt vervangen door:
 „e)
 bij uitbraak van dierziekten waarvoor in de wetgeving van de Unie veterinairrechtelijke voorschriften zijn vastgesteld. Dit betreft dieren die vatbaar zijn voor de betrokken ziekte en afkomstig zijn uit het betrokken gebied, als gedefinieerd in artikel 2 van Richtlijn 64/432/EEG van de Raad (2);
 f)
 wanneer er strengere controles nodig zijn om rekening te houden met nieuwe ziekten of bijzondere ziekten, die zijn opgenomen in de lijst van de OIE.
 (1) PB L 18 van 23.1.2003, blz. 11.”;
 (2) PB 121 van 29.7.1964, blz. 1977/64.”.