type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'Office of the Inspector General\nSkip to content\nSocial Security Online\nOffice of the Inspector General\nwww.socialsecurity.gov\nHome\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0|\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0Questions?\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0|\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0Contact\nUs\nSearch\nAbout\nHotline\nOffices\nResources\nEspa\xc3\xb1ol\nOIG\nHome\nAudit\nReport - A-09-96-64209\nOffice of\nAudit\nMonitoring Representative Payee\nPerformance: The Accounting Review Process - A-09-96-64209 - 1/6/97\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY\nINTRODUCTION\nFINDINGS\nThe\nAccounting Review Process is Neither Effective Nor Efficient\nin Identifying Problems\nThe\nFelony Question Produces Limited Results\nThe\nAccounting Review Process Does Not Address Problems With Titles\non Financial Accounts\nCONCLUSION\nAPPENDICES\nA: Copies of Accounting\nForms\nB: Detailed Methodology\nC: List of Contributors\nBack to top\nEXECUTIVE\nSUMMARY\nPURPOSE\nThis report evaluates the effectiveness and efficiency\nof the Social Security Administration`s (SSA) representative\npayee accounting review process.\nBACKGROUND\nThe SSA administers two programs under The Social\nSecurity Act--title II (Retirement, Survivors, and Disability\nInsurance (RSDI)) and title XVI (Supplemental Security Income (SSI)).\nThese two programs provide monthly benefit payments of about $25\nbillion to approximately 49.2 million beneficiaries who are aged,\ndisabled, or survivors. If beneficiaries cannot manage their own\nfinances, Congress has authorized SSA to pay the benefits to other\nindividuals or organizations on their behalf. The SSA calls these\nindividuals and organizations representative payees (hereinafter\ncalled payees).\nPayees` responsibilities include submitting an\nannual accounting report to SSA. The SSA uses the data collected\nfrom these reports to determine the continuing suitability of payees,\nthe continuing need for representative payment, and whether payees\nused benefits properly during the 12-month report period. The SSA\nstaff use a computer program to review the accounting forms and decide\nwhether the responses are acceptable or need further review and/or\nexplanation. (Responses requiring further review and/or explanation\nare referred to as "exceptions.") If all responses on an\naccounting form are acceptable, no further action is necessary.\nThe SSA has undertaken initiatives to strengthen the\nentire annual accounting process. To assist in this effort, SSA requested\nthat the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conduct a series of\ninspections to review and recommend improvements to the annual accounting\nprocess. This report is one in the series of reports that assess\nthe risk of misuse of benefits associated with various categories\nof payees. Other reports will present data concerning demographics\nof payees, demographics of beneficiaries, misuse or questionable\nuse of benefits by payees, poor performance by payees, and nonresponding\npayees. A roll-up report will provide overall recommendations for\nimproving the accounting process.\nWe combined data collection from SSA`s computerized\nbeneficiary data bases and in-person interviews to determine payees` performance.\nIn September and October 1994, SSA prepared computerized files of\ntitle II and title XVI beneficiaries with payees scheduled to receive\ninitial accounting forms in October 1994. From these files, we extracted\na sample of 3,010 payee cases for our study. We used all collected\ninformation (e.g., accounting forms, interviews) to describe: (1)\xc2\xa0payees` experiences\nwith the accounting review process; and (2)\xc2\xa0payees` difficulties\nin completing the annual accounting form.\nFINDINGS\nThe Accounting Review Process is Neither Effective\nNor Efficient in Identifying Problems\nThe accounting review process rarely detects poor performance\nor misuse and/or questionable use of benefits, and the information\nthat SSA does collect comes as the result of extensive administrative\neffort.\nThe Felony Question Produces Limited Results\nThe 703 payees who stated that they had been convicted\nof a felony misunderstood the question or believed that it referred\nto the beneficiary. Since few payees have ever been convicted\nof a felony, it is unlikely that this question will produce significant\nresults.\nThe Accounting Review Process Does Not Address\nProblems With Titles on Financial Accounts\nInformation collected during interviews with payees\nsuggests that many use improperly titled accounts to hold beneficiaries` benefits,\nbut SSA`s current procedures do not attempt to identify this\nproblem in most cases. (See page 8.)\nCONCLUSION\nProblem cases often are not identified through the\naccounting review process. The SSA expends extensive administrative\neffort to discover that many exceptions are the result of confusion\nand misunderstanding rather than actual status changes. Some questions,\nsuch as the felony question, produce virtually no results, while\nother questions, such as those about financial account titles, do\nnot identify the true magnitude of the problem.\nBack to top\nINTRODUCTION\nPURPOSE\nThis report evaluates the effectiveness and efficiency\nof SSA\xc2\x92s representative payee accounting review process.\nBACKGROUND\nOverview of the Representative Payee Program\nThe SSA administers two programs under The Social\nSecurity Act--title II (RSDI) and title\xc2\xa0XVI (SSI). These\ntwo programs provide monthly benefit payments of about $25 billion\nto approximately 49.2 million beneficiaries and recipients who\nare aged, disabled, or survivors.\nApproximately 6.6 million beneficiaries, or slightly\nmore than 13 percent, cannot manage their own finances. If beneficiaries\ncannot manage their own finances, Congress has authorized SSA to\npay the benefits to other individuals or organizations on their behalf.\nThe SSA calls these individuals and organizations representative\npayees (hereinafter called payees).\nSections 205(j)(1) and 1631(a)(2) of The Social\nSecurity Act authorize the Commissioner of SSA to appoint payees.\nPayees may include, but are not limited to, parents with or without\ncustody of children, spouses, other relatives, legal guardians,\nfriends who show strong concern for the beneficiary`s welfare,\nand institutions with or without custody of the beneficiary.\nPayee Responsibilities\nPayees` responsibilities include:\n1. frequently\nmonitoring the beneficiary`s well-being;\n2. notifying\nSSA of situations that affect the beneficiary`s entitlement\nto or amount of benefits (e.g., work); and\n3. informing SSA of\nchanges\nin the payee`s own circumstances that would affect the payee`s\nperformance.\nA major payee responsibility is to submit an annual\naccounting form to SSA describing their use of benefits. Payees\nreceive the booklet, A Guide For Representative Payees,\nduring the SSA interview which describes a payee`s responsibilities\nand the appropriate use of benefits. The booklet includes a worksheet\nto record the use of benefits and a sample accounting form. The Jordan Court and the Establishment of the\nAnnual Accounting Process\nPrior to 1983, SSA did not have a mandate to conduct\naccountings of funds that payees received on behalf of beneficiaries.\nThe Agency relied on its own initiative to create an accounting system.\nIn 1979, Ms. Jeanne Jordan brought a certified class action suit\nagainst SSA challenging how it monitored payees. (Ms. Jordan alleged\nthat her payee was not using her SSA benefits properly to meet her\nneeds.) In its 1983 decision, the Jordan Court decided that\npayees should be required to give a full accounting of how they spend\nand save title II and title XVI benefits on behalf of beneficiaries.\nSubsequently, Congress amended The Social Security Act to\nrequire annual accounting of all payees except State mental institutions\nparticipating in the onsite review program.\nThe SSA, in consultation with the Jordan court,\ndesigned an annual accounting process--including the look and content\nof the accounting form--to gather data from payees. The data helps\nSSA determine:\n1. the continuing suitability of the payee,\n2. the continuing need for representative payment,\nand\n3. whether the payee used benefits properly during\nthe 12-month report period.\nThe Annual Accounting Forms\nTo handle a high volume of annual accounting, SSA developed\nstandardized accounting forms--the SSA-623 and the SSA-6230. The\nSSA-623 asks how payees used the funds for:\n1. food and shelter;\n2. other items such as clothing, education, personal items, and\nmedical and dental expenses; and\n3. savings.\nThe form also asks\npayees about:\n1. changes in the beneficiary`s\ncustody;\n2. whether the payee or another person controlled the use\nof the SSA benefits; and\n3. their own felony convictions during\nthe previous\n12\xc2\xa0months.\nIn July 1990, SSA introduced the SSA-6230 accounting\nform for parents and, later, stepparents and grandparents\nwith custody of minor children receiving title II benefits. These\npayees may report\ntheir use of benefits for up to four children on the same\nform.\nSince parents, stepparents, and grandparents represent the\nlargest type\nof payee category, most title II payees now receive the SSA-6230. The SSA-6230 differs from the SSA-623 primarily in:\n(1) the payees` ability to account for up to four children on\nthe same form; and (2) the wording of the questions on custody and\nuse of benefits. Also, questions about funds on the SSA-6230 are\nmore general. Payees report: (1) the expenses for care and support\nof the children; and (2) savings.\nThe Accounting Review Process\nEach month, SSA uses its computerized beneficiary data\nbases (the Master Beneficiary Record and the Supplemental Security\nRecord) to identify payees who are to receive annual accounting forms.\nThe SSA usually schedules payees to receive forms on the anniversary\nof the month they were selected to be the payee, although SSA and/or\npayees may designate an alternate report period. As a result of this\nselection process, SSA sends initial accounting forms to approximately\none-twelfth of all payees each month.\nThe SSA uses a contractor to mail accounting forms\npayees. If payees have not returned\xc2\xa0accounting forms within\n3 months of the first mailing, the contractor mails a second request.\nIf the payees fail to respond to the second request, SSA staff attempt\nto contact payees directly to obtain a completed accounting.\nWhen payees return the mailed accounting requests,\nSSA`s Wilkes-Barre Data Operations Center in Pennsylvania completes\nthe initial screening, data verification, and review of the returned\nforms. The staff use a computer program to review the accounting\nforms and decide whether the responses are acceptable or need further\nreview and/or explanation. (Responses requiring further review and/or\nexplanation are referred to as "exceptions.") If all responses\nare acceptable and there are no relevant remarks, no further action\nis necessary.\nThe SSA has undertaken initiatives to strengthen the\nentire annual accounting process. To assist in this effort, SSA requested\nthat the OIG conduct a series of inspections to review and recommend\nimprovements to the annual accounting process. This report is one\nin the series of reports that assess the risk of misuse of benefits\nassociated with various categories of payees. Other reports will\npresent data concerning demographics of payees; demographics of beneficiaries;\nmisuse or questionable use of benefits by payees; poor performance\nby payees; the types, frequencies, and causes of exceptions to the\nannual accounting forms; and nonresponding payees. A roll-up report\nwill provide overall recommendations for improving the accounting\nprocess.\nPrevious Department of Health and Human Services/Office\nof the Inspector General (HHS/OIG) Studies\nIn 1994, the HHS/OIG released two reports on the effectiveness\nand efficiency of SSA`s payee accounting process. We interviewed\nvarious SSA staff in headquarters, program service centers, and field\noffices to gather their experiences with and impressions of the process.\nWe also reviewed the process at the Wilkes-Barre Data Operations\nCenter in Pennsylvania. We found:\nthe accounting review process may deter, but rarely\ndetects, misuse of SSA benefits;\nsome aspects of the process are duplicative, inefficient,\nand costly;\nthe SSA staff are frustrated by large workloads\nand the time needed to resolve questionable accounting forms; and\nbased on our recommendations, SSA increased some\nresponsibilities for the accounting review process for the Wilkes-Barre\nData Operations Center.\nSSA`s Administrative Costs and Initiatives\nin Annual Accounting\nThe cost of annual accounting has almost doubled over\nthe last 5 years. In Fiscal Year\xc2\xa0(FY)\xc2\xa01991, SSA spent approximately\n$33.2 million to administer the accounting process. For FY 1996,\nSSA estimated that it would spend almost $66.0 million for annual\naccounting.\nTo combat rising costs, SSA initiated several activities\nto improve the payee accounting process:\nThe SSA introduced the SSA-6230 accounting form\ntailored for parents, stepparents, and grandparents with custody\nof minor children who receive title II benefits.\nThe Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 required\nSSA to undertake several initiatives concerning representative\npayees. A major initiative was the 1992 implementation of a new\ncomputerized payee data base--the Master Representative Payee File.\nIt contains information about payees and their beneficiaries, and\nSSA can access the data to identify trends in payee activity.\nIndependent of the OIG`s work, SSA formed the\nQuality Improvement Team, an internal advisory group of headquarters\nand processing center staff. In 1993, the team analyzed the Wilkes-Barre\nData Operations Center`s processes. The team recommended changes\nin the accounting forms, scanning equipment, and processes to reduce\nmanual workloads and streamline the process.\nThe SSA also formed an external Representative\nPayee Advisory Committee in June\xc2\xa01995. This group is studying\nall aspects of the accounting process from payee selection through\nmonitoring payee performance. The Committee reported its findings\nand recommendations to the Commissioner of SSA in November 1996.\nMETHODOLOGY\nWe combined data collection from SSA`s computerized\nbeneficiary data bases and in-person interviews to determine payees` performance.\nIn September and October 1994, SSA prepared computerized files of\ntitle II and title XVI beneficiaries with payees scheduled to receive\ninitial accounting forms in October 1994. From these files, we extracted\na sample of 3,010 payee cases for our study. These cases were roughly\ndivided for:\n1. relatives and nonrelatives;\n2. custodial and noncustodial\npayees; and\n3. title II and title XVI programs.\nFor our sample cases, we mailed out accounting forms\nand, upon their return, determined the type and frequency of exceptions.\nIn addition, SSA staff attempted to interview every payee as well\nas beneficiaries, custodians, and collateral contacts as appropriate\nand possible. Interviewers attempted to conduct all interviews face-to-face\nand in the respondents` homes. Interviewers used structured guides\nduring these interviews.\nWe used the collected information to describe: (1)\npayees` experiences with the accounting review process; and (2)\npayees` difficulties in completing the annual accounting form.\nAppendix B contains a detailed description of our methodology. We\nweighted our results to the universe of beneficiaries with payees\nscheduled to receive initial accounting forms in October 1994.\nThis inspection was conducted in accordance with the Quality\nStandards for Inspections issued by the President`s\nCouncil on Integrity and Efficiency.\nBack to top\nFINDINGS\nTHE\nACCOUNTING REVIEW PROCESS IS NEITHER EFFECTIVE NOR EFFICIENT\nIN IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS\nThe accounting review process is intended to provide\nSSA with information about changes in payees` and beneficiaries` status\nas well as assess the payees` performance. We found that the\naccounting review process does not effectively produce these desired\noutcomes and places an undue administrative burden on the Agency.\nThe SSA`s Current Policies and Procedures\nRarely Detect Poor Performance or Misuse and/or Questionable\nUse of Benefits\nPrior to conducting any interviews, we asked interviewers\nto follow SSA`s current procedures for processing accounting\nforms. This included reviewing accounting forms with exceptions and\ncontacting the payees if necessary. Based on this review alone, we\nasked interviewers to determine if problems were indicated.\nAfter all interviews were conducted, we again asked\ninterviewers to determine if problems were indicated. Based on all\ncollected information, SSA staff determined that 11,661 cases from\nthe October 1994 universe of payees scheduled to receive initial\naccounting forms exhibited poor performance and 4,454 cases exhibited\nmisuse and/or questionable use of benefits. Based solely on SSA`s\naccounting review process, interviewers identified only 15.0 percent\nof these same poor performance cases and 3.3\xc2\xa0percent of the\nmisuse and/or questionable use cases. We found that:\nThe 39.0 percent of the poor performance cases\nand 11.0 percent of the misuse and/or questionable use cases were\nassociated with accounting forms that had exceptions.\nThe 29.1 percent of the poor performance cases\nand 58.6 percent of the misuse and/or questionable use cases were\nassociated with accounting forms that had no exceptions. The SSA\ndoes not conduct additional reviews of accounting forms without\nexceptions.\nThe 31.9 percent of the poor performance cases\nand 30.5 percent of the misuse and/or questionable use cases were\nassociated with unreturned accounting forms. Therefore, the lack of\naccounting forms often is more significant than returned accounting\nforms.\nAttempts to Identify Problems Require Significant\nAdministrative Effort\nFor accounting forms with exceptions, SSA staff review\nthe forms and/or contact the payees directly. Based on these reviews\nand contacts, we found that many exceptions were the result of payees` confusion\nrather than payees` attempts to inform SSA of changes in the\npayees` or beneficiaries` status. This confusion drastically\nincreases the effort SSA must expend to identify each status change.\nFor example:\nThe SSA contacted 9,958 payees--52.9 percent of\nthe payees who claimed that the beneficiaries` had changed\ncustody during the report period--to learn that the beneficiaries\nhad not changed custody.\nThe 75.9 percent of payees who stated that they\ndid not decide how the benefits were spent or saved actually did\ndecide how the benefits were used.\nThe 60,367 accounting forms had remarks, but only\n20,650\xc2\xa0had remarks from payees who responded to prompts on\nthe front of the accounting form (e.g., the accounting form asks\npayees who claim that they have been convicted of a felony to explain\nthe conviction on the back of the accounting form). The remaining\n39,717\xc2\xa0accounting forms had remarks from payees who were not\nresponding to prompts on the front of the accounting form. Actual\nremarks ranged from requests for additional benefits to gratitude\nexpressed for SSA`s help. One payee even changed the questions\non the front of the accounting form to correspond with what he\nwished to answer. This payee also filled the entire back of the\nform with remarks about a variety of subjects. It took several\nminutes to review this individual form.\nAlthough SSA identifies some situations that might\nindicate problems or the need for a new payee, a great deal of additional\nwork is necessary to achieve the desired result.\nSome Exceptions Are Not Detected Automatically\nThe review process at the Wilkes-Barre Data Operations\nCenter uses scanning equipment to review the responses given on the\nfront of the accounting form. The SSA staff must manually review\nall responses on the back of the accounting form (e.g., remarks,\naccuracy of the signature, relationship information) to determine\nif there are any exceptions.\nTHE\nFELONY QUESTION PRODUCES LIMITED RESULTS\nAlthough 703 payees stated that they had been convicted\nof a felony during the report period, we found that none actually\nhad been. Payees often believed the question referred to the beneficiary\nor the payees made a mistake. Based on interviews with payees, we\nfound that 1.0 percent of all payees had ever been convicted\nof a felony or a misdemeanor reduced from a felony. Therefore, it\nis unlikely that this question would produce significant results.\nTHE\nACCOUNTING REVIEW PROCESS DOES NOT ADDRESS PROBLEMS WITH TITLES\nON FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS\nThe accounting review process only checks the accuracy\nof the account title if the amount of conserved funds listed is over\n$500. Only 9.9 percent of payees who returned accounting forms--8.5\npercent of all payees--listed more than $500 in conserved funds.\nTherefore, SSA does not check the accuracy of the account titles\nfor 90.1 percent of payees who returned accounting forms.\nDuring the interviews, we asked payees to provide information\nregarding the titles on accounts they used to hold beneficiaries` benefits.\nWe found that only 13.6 percent maintained benefits in properly entitled\naccounts. Approximately 33.8 percent of payees maintained funds in\nincorrectly titled financial accounts. The rest either did not use\nany account--37.5 percent--or did not provide information regarding\nthe account title--15.1\xc2\xa0percent. Many of the improperly entitled\naccounts:\ndid not have the beneficiary`s name listed;\nhad individuals other than the payee and beneficiary\nlisted on the account--provides access to the benefits to persons\nother than the payee; or\nhad the beneficiary`s name listed in a manner\nwhich gave the beneficiary direct access to the account.\nBack to top\nCONCLUSION\nProblem cases often are not identified through the\naccounting review process. The SSA expends extensive administrative\neffort to discover that many exceptions are the result of confusion\nand misunderstanding rather than actual status changes. Some questions,\nsuch as the felony question, produce virtually no results, while\nother questions, such as those about financial account titles, do\nnot identify the true magnitude of the problem.\nAPPENDIX A\nCOPIES OF ACCOUNTING FORMS\nThe following pages contain copies (front and back)\nof the SSA-623 and SSA-6230.\n(FORMS SSA-623 and SSA-6230 are not available at this\ntime.\nBack to top\nAPPENDIX\nB\nDETAILED METHODOLOGY\nWe combined information from the Social Security Administration\xc2\x92s\n(SSA) pre-existing computerized data bases with in-person, in-the-home\ninterviews to provide data on the relative risk of misuse and poor\nperformance for all categories and types of payees and beneficiaries.\nSample Selection\n1. We requested data from SSA on all beneficiaries\nwith payees from the Master Beneficiary Record (MBR) and the Supplemental\nSecurity Record (SSR). Data included, but was not limited to, beneficiary`s\nname; payee`s name, address, and telephone number; payee category\nor type; and payment data. We analyzed the universe of payees to\nidentify characteristics such as payee category, beneficiary type,\nand district office code.\n2. After preliminary analysis of the universe, we\nselected a random sample of SSA district offices. We initially\nselected 150 offices from the MBR, but 1 office code was invalid\nand 5 offices were outside the continental United States. Therefore,\nwe used 144\xc2\xa0offices for our study.\n3. From the computerized files SSA used to produce\nthe October 1994 annual accounting forms, we selected all beneficiaries\xc2\x92 records\ncontaining the sampled district office codes. This resulted in\n29,155 title II cases and 13,520 title XVI cases.\n4. For each of the programs (title II and title XVI),\nwe grouped the beneficiaries\xc2\x92 records into five strata according\nto type of payee coding. The strata are: (1)\xc2\xa0parents; (2)\nnonparent relatives; (3) institutions; (4)\xc2\xa0financial institutions,\npublic officials, and social agencies; and (5) payees coded "other." We\nthen grouped the records within each stratum by custody code (payee\nwith or without custody of the beneficiary). The title II records\nhad two additional strata, one for the "W" payee code\nand another for missing or miscellaneous codes. Therefore, we had\n12 title II strata and 10 title XVI strata.\n5. We randomly selected up to 145 cases from each\nof our 22 strata. If there were less than 145 cases in the strata,\nwe selected the universe of cases. Our final sample included 3,010\ncases--1,584 title II cases and 1,426 title XVI cases. The chart\non the following page shows the sample distribution by strata.\nTABLE 1: LIST OF 22 SAMPLE STRATA\nSTRATUM\nPROGRAM\nPAYEE\nIN PAYEE\xc2\x92S\nCUSTODY\nSAMPLE\nCASES\n1\nSSI\nParent\nYes\n145\n2\nSSI\nParent\nNo\n145\n3\nSSI\nOther relative\nYes\n145\n4\nSSI\nOther relative\nNo\n145\n5\nSSI\nInstitution\nYes\n145\n6\nSSI\nInstitution\nNo\n121\n7\nSSI\nAgency/official\nYes\n145\n8\nSSI\nAgency/official\nNo\n145\n9\nSSI\nOther\nYes\n145\n10\nSSI\nOther\nNo\n145\n11\nOASDI\nParent\nYes\n144\n12\nOASDI\nParent\nNo\n145\n13\nOASDI\nOther relative\nYes\n145\n14\nOASDI\nOther relative\nNo\n145\n15\nOASDI\nInstitution\nYes\n145\n16\nOASDI\nInstitution\nNo\n34\n17\nOASDI\nAgency/official\nYes\n145\n18\nOASDI\nAgency/official\nNo\n145\n19\nOASDI\nOther\nYes\n145\n20\nOASDI\nOther\nNo\n145\n21\nOASDI\nUnknown*\n(Code="W")\nAll custody\ntypes\n145\n22\nOASDI\nUnknown\n(Other codes)\nAll custody\ntypes\n101\nTotal\n3,010\n*The SSA assumes that these payees are parents with\ncustody.\nData Collection\n1. We mailed the SSA-623 or SSA-6230 accounting forms\nto our sampled payees. For all returned forms, we entered the information\ninto corresponding data bases and evaluated the data using SSA`s "four-phase" logic\nprogram.\n2. We established folders on all sampled payees that\nSSA field staff used during the interviews. The folders contained:\n(1) the completed SSA-623 or SSA-6230, if received; (2) results\nof the four-phase analysis of the accounting form; (3) any exceptions\nneeding follow-up with the payee; (4) the names, addresses, and\ntelephone numbers of the payee and beneficiary; and (5) hard copy\ndata produced at the time of selection from the MBR, SSR, and Master\nRepresentative Payee File.\n3. We developed structured discussion guides for\npayees, beneficiaries, and custodians based on the SSA-624-F5 (Representative\nPayee Evaluation Report). We also developed structured guides for\ncollateral contacts and a case summary. Collateral contacts would\nobjectively verify self-reported information given by payees, beneficiaries,\nand custodians. Information included, but was not limited to:\na. biographical information about the payee and\nbeneficiaries;\nb. the relationship between the payee and the beneficiary;\nc. the relationship between the beneficiary and\nthe custodian;\nd. the beneficiary`s level of satisfaction\nwith the payee`s performance;\ne. from the payee and beneficiary, details about\nhow benefits were spent and/or saved on behalf of the beneficiary;\nf. the extent of record keeping performed by the\npayee; and\ng. whether the payee is responsible for accounting\nor reporting to any other government or private organizations\nabout the benefits expended.\nThe case summary allowed interviewers another venue\nto analyze and highlight information not captured directly in the\ndiscussion guides. Interviewers often provided their overall professional\nimpression of each case. In addition, interviewers drew from the\ninterviews and collected information to determine if benefit misuse\nwas indicated.\n4. We trained SSA staff in nine sessions at five\nlocations around the country. The training consisted of an introduction\nto the study, review of the discussion guides, and role-playing\nto identify potential questions about administering the guides.\nWe also trained more staff by telephone using a condensed version\nof the onsite training.\n5. The SSA staff--under our direction--conducted\nin-person or telephone interviews with payees, beneficiaries, custodians,\nand collateral contacts where applicable.\nData Analysis\n1. We developed a computerized data entry system\nallowing us to record information from the accounting forms and\neach of the discussion guides and case summary sheets. If interviewers\nwere not able to obtain completed forms or interviews, we indicated\nwhy.\n2. Once interviewers returned virtually all cases\n(3,005 of 3,010 sampled cases as of April\xc2\xa01996), we validated\nthe data entered into the data bases. We reviewed the data bases\nto identify and correct mis-keyed data.\n3. Using a computerized statistical software package,\nwe analyzed the resulting data to identify significant findings.\nWe determined that the type of payee and custody data may be incorrect\nfor some cases (see Monitoring Representative Payee Performance:\nAssessment of Risk--Demographic Characteristics of Payees, A-09-96-64206).\nWe continued to analyze data based on the original strata because\nit provides the most accurate information about the payees and\nbeneficiaries whose records currently contain a given type of payee\nand custody code combination.\n4. We developed weights that we applied to each sampled\ncase. This allowed us to make projections to the universe of beneficiaries\nwith payees scheduled to receive an initial accounting form in\nOctober 1994.\nBack to top\nAPPENDIX\nC\nLIST OF CONTRIBUTORS\nThis inspection report was prepared by the Office of\nAudit in San Francisco under the direction of Scott Patterson, Director,\nDivision of Evaluations and Technical Services. Project staff included:\nDeborah Harvey, Senior Evaluator\nBrian Pattison, Senior Evaluator\nAlan Stubbs, Senior Evaluator\nNellie Wong, Auditor\nSpecial thanks to Robert Gibbons, Wm. Mark Krushat,\nSc.D., and Linda Moscoe from HHS/OIG for their contributions during\nthe initial development of this project.\nPrivacy Policy | Website\nPolicies & Other Important Information\xc2\xa0| Site\nMap\nNeed Larger Text?\nLast reviewed or modified'


type: wikipedia

text:
Το Όσιγιεκ (Osijek) βρίσκεται στην ανατολική Κροατία και είναι η 4η μεγαλύτερη πόλη της χώρας. Το 2001 είχε 114.616 κατοίκους. Είναι η μεγαλύτερη πόλη, οικονομικό και πολιτιστικό κέντρο της Σλαβονίας. Η πόλη είναι χτισμένη στη δεξιά όχθη του ποταμού Ντράβα.
 Βιομηχανία
 Υπάρχουν βιομηχανίες ξυλείας και ζάχαρης.
 Μεταφορές
 Υπάρχει λιμάνι στον ποταμό Ντράβα και διεθνές αεροδρόμιο. Η πόλη είναι, επίσης, σημαντικός οδικός και σιδηροδρομικός κόμβος.
 Αξιοθέατα
 Κροατικό κρατικό θέατρο
 Μουσείο της Σλαβονίας
 Πεζογέφυρα πάνω στον ποταμό Ντράβα
 Εκδηλώσεις
 Νύχτες καλοκαιριού στο Οσιγιεκ, (κατά τη διάρκεια του Ιουνίου, Ιουλίου και Αυγούστου)
 Αθλητισμός
 Αθλητικό κέντρο Κοπακαμπάνα
 Αδελφοποιημένες πόλεις
 Βουδαπέστη, Ουγγαρία (2001)
 Λωζάνη, Ελβετία (1997)
 Μαριμπόρ, Σλοβενία (1995)
 Νίτρα, Σλοβακία (1997)
 Πετς, Ουγγαρία (1972)
 Πλοέστι, Ρουμανία (1996)
 Πρίζρεν, Κόσοβο (2010)
 Πφόρτσχαϊμ, Γερμανία (1994)
 Σουμπότιτσα, Σερβία (2004)
 Τούζλα, Βοσνία και Ερζεγοβίνη (1996)
 Παραπομπές
 Εξωτερικοί σύνδεσμοι
 Πόλεις της Κροατίας


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
N° C 294/4 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 5 . 10 . 96
 dores quienes llevan a cabo las tareas de vigilancia en República, de 10 . 9 . 1982 (2 ) y, en cualquier caso, con la
 condiciones sustancialmente iguales determinadas en normativa vigente en Italia relativa a los residuos y a las
 buena parte por el comitente ? materias primas secundarias ?
 (') DO n° L 61 de 5 . 3 . 1977, p. 26 ; EE 5/2 , p . 122 . í 1 ) DO n" L 78 de 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .
 ( 2 ) Indicada erróneamente como 1992 en la resolución de remi
 sión .
 Petición de decisión prejudicial presentada mediante reso
 lución del Tribunale Civile e Penale di Brescia, de 12 de abril
 de 1996, en el proceso penal contra Riccardo Piccaluga Petición de decisión prejudicial presentada mediante reso
 luciones del Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm, de fecha 9 de julio
 ( Asunto C-250/96 ) de 1996, en los asuntos entre Helmut Kampelmann y
 ( 96/C 294/05 ) Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe ( C-253/96 ), Wilfried
 Al Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas le ha Tilsch y Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe ( C-254/96 ),
 sido sometida una petición de decisión prejudicial mediante Dieter Klingelhöfer y Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe
 resolución del Tribunale Civile e Penale di Brescia dictada el ( C-255/96 ), Heinrich Schmidt y Landschaftsverband West
 12 de abril de 1996 en el proceso penal contra Riccardo falen-Lippe ( C-256/96 ), Stadtwerke Witten GmbH y
 Piccaluga, y recibida en la Secretaría del Tribunal de Justicia Andreas Schade ( C-257/96 ) y Klaus Haseley y Stadtwerke
 Altena GmbH ( C-258/96 )
 el 22 de julio de 1996 .
 ( Asuntos C-253/96 — C-258/96 )
 El Tribunale Civile e Penale di Brescia solicita al Tribunal de
 Justicia que se pronuncie sobre las siguientes cuestiones : ( 96/C 294/07 )
 1 . Las normas nacionales en materia de empleo y de Al Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas le ha
 trabajo temporal , dado su carácter de Derecho público sido sometida una petición de decisión prejudicial mediante
 en cuanto que adoptadas para la protección de los resoluciones del Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm, dictada el 9
 trabajadores y de la economía nacional, ¿ pueden consi de julio de 1996 , en los asuntos entre Helmut Kampelmann,
 derarse comprendidas dentro del ejercicio del poder Wilfried Tilsch, Dieter Klingelhófer, Heinrich Schmidt
 público, a efectos de lo dispuesto en los artículos 66 y 55 contra Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe, Stadtwerke
 del Tratado ? Witten GmbH contra Andreas Schade y Klaus Haseley
 contra Stadtwerke Altena GmbH, y recibidas en la Secreta
 2 . A falta de disposiciones precisas de ejecución en esta ría del Tribunal de Justicia el 23 de julio de 1996 .
 materia específica, las normas antedichas ¿ pueden
 considerarse de aplicación inmediata ( comprometiendo El Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm solicita al Tribunal de
 con ello la finalidad de naturaleza pública perseguida Justicia que se pronuncie sobre las siguientes cuestiones :
 por las leyes italianas vigentes en materia de empleo y de 1 ) A la vista del objeto formulado en los considerandos de
 trabajo temporal ) y permiten a cualquier sujeto, público la llamada Directiva sobre la obligación de información,
 o privado, ejercer, al margen de un control o autoriza de « proteger en mayor grado a los trabajadores por
 ción específica, la actividad de mediación entre demanda cuenta ajena contra una posible falta de reconocimiento
 y oferta de trabajo y/o el suministro temporal de mano de sus derechos y garantizar una mayor transparencia
 de obra, en el caso de que el Estado miembro no sea del mercado de trabajo », ¿ persiguen las disposiciones
 capaz de satisfacer totalmente con su propio aparato del artículo 2 de la « Directiva relativa a la obligación del
 administrativo la demanda de servicios procedente del empresario de informar al trabajador acerca de las
 mercado de trabajo ? condiciones aplicables al contrato de trabajo o a la
 relación laboral » [Directiva 91 /533/CEE ( 1 )] un despla
 zamiento de la carga de la prueba en beneficio del
 Petición de decisión prejudicial presentada mediante reso trabajador consistente en que la enumeración mínima
 lución de la Pretura Circondariale di Rovigo —Sezione del apartado 2 del artículo 2 de la Directiva 91 /533/CEE
 distaccata di Adria—, de 13 de julio de 1993 , en el proceso tiene la finalidad de asegurar que el trabajador que haya
 penal seguido en dicho órgano jurisdiccional contra de reclamar ante el orden jurisdiccional social el
 Giuseppe Cordella reconocimiento de sus derechos contractuales, no expe
 ( Asunto C-251/96 ) rimente dificultades de prueba respecto a los extremos
 que en ella figuran ?
 ( 96/C 294/06 )
 2 ) En el caso de que la cuestión del punto 1 reciba una
 Al Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas le ha respuesta afirmativa : ¿ son directamente aplicables las
 sido sometida una petición de decisión prejudicial mediante disposiciones del inciso ii ) de la letra c ) del apartado 2
 resolución de la Pretura Circondariale di Rovigo —Sezione del artículo 2 de la Directiva 91 /533/CEE frente al
 distaccata di Adria— dictada el 13 de julio de 1993 , en el Estado cuando actúa en calidad de empleador de
 proceso penal seguido contra Giuseppe Cordella y recibida Derecho privado debido a que :
 en la Secretaría del Tribunal de lusticia el 22 de julio de
 1996 . — la República Federal de Alemania no había adap
 tado su Derecho interno a la Directiva el 30 de junio
 La Pretura Circondariale solicita al Tribunal de Justicia que de 1993 , último día del plazo señalado para
 se pronuncie sobre la siguiente cuestión prejudicial : hacerlo,
 Si las disposiciones de la Directiva 91/ 156/CEE ( 1 ) son — las mencionadas disposiciones de la Directiva son
 compatibles con las del Decreto n° 915 del Presidente de la incondicionales y, por tanto, pueden ser aplicadas


type: legislation

text:
 Důležité právní upozornění
 |
 52009PC0197
 [pic] | KOMISE EVROPSKÝCH SPOLEČENSTVÍ |V Bruselu dne 21.4.2009KOM(2009) 197 v konečném znění2009/0059 (CNS)NávrhNAŘÍZENÍ RADYkterým se mění nařízení (ES) č. 1934/2006, kterým se zřizuje finanční nástroj pro spolupráci s průmyslovými a jinými zeměmi a územími s vysokými příjmy{SEC(2009)531}{sec(2009)532}DŮVODOVÁ ZPRÁVA1. Jako součást reformy finančních nástrojů pro vnější činnosti na období 2007–2013, v rámci které bylo více než 30 různých právních nástrojů nahrazeno sedmi novými nástroji, byl nařízením (ES) č. 1905/2006 ze dne 18. prosince 2006 zřízen nástroj pro rozvojovou spolupráci, jenž upravuje zeměpisnou spolupráci se zeměmi v Asii, Střední Asii a Latinské Americe, dále pak s Irákem, Íránem, Jemenem a Jižní Afrikou.2. Hlavním a rámcovým cílem nástroje pro rozvojovou spolupráci je vymýcení chudoby prostřednictvím plnění rozvojových cílů tisíciletí. Nařízení proto stanoví, že opatření zeměpisných programů by měla splňovat kritéria pro oficiální rozvojovou pomoc stanovená Výborem pro rozvojovou pomoc Organizace pro hospodářskou spolupráci a rozvoj (OECD).3. Takto omezená oblast působnosti nepřispívá k jednání s důležitými partnery ve dvoustranných vztazích i významnými aktéry na mnohostranných fórech a v rámci globálního řízení, u nichž má Společenství strategický zájem na rozšiřování různorodých vazeb. Je v zájmu Společenství dále prohlubovat vztahy např. s Indií, Čínou, Brazílií a Mexikem, jež patří mezi rozvojové země a zároveň představují důležité partnery ve světovém hospodářství. V oblastech jako Střední Asie a Blízký východ (Irák, Írán, Jemen) jdou zájmy Společenství rovněž nad rámec vymýcení chudoby, zejména pokud jde o energetickou bezpečnost a veřejnou diplomacii. V neposlední řadě většinu Asie, Latinské Ameriky i Jižní Afriky tvoří země se středními příjmy, jež se chtějí zapojit do hospodářských, obchodních, akademických a vědeckých výměn s Evropskou unií.4. Z tohoto důvodu Komise navrhuje navázat na přípravné akce stanovené v rámci rozpočtových procesů v letech 2007 a 2008, a to legislativními návrhy zajišťujícími stabilní financování pro takovou spolupráci a opatření, jež nesplňují kritéria pro oficiální rozvojovou pomoc.5. Jelikož nařízení (ES) č. 1934/2006 sleduje podobný cíl, navrhuje se rozšířit jeho zeměpisnou oblast působnosti o země, na něž se vztahuje nařízení o nástroji rozvojové spolupráce, a přidat do referenční částky na tuto spolupráci 176 milionů EUR na období 2010–2013.6. Při kontrole provádění finančních nástrojů pro vnější činnosti byla zjištěna nejednotnost v ustanoveních, jimiž se náklady týkající se daní, cel a jiných poplatků vylučují jako nezpůsobilé. V zájmu jednotnosti se navrhuje uvést tato ustanovení do souladu s ostatními nástroji.7. K návrhu je přiloženo posouzení dopadů s cílem zajistit soulad s příslušnými politikami Společenství.2009/0059 (CNS)NávrhNAŘÍZENÍ RADYkterým se mění nařízení (ES) č. 1934/2006, kterým se zřizuje finanční nástroj pro spolupráci s průmyslovými a jinými zeměmi a územími s vysokými příjmyRADA EVROPSKÉ UNIE,s ohledem na Smlouvu o založení Evropského společenství, a zejména na článek 181a této smlouvy,s ohledem na návrh Komise,s ohledem na stanovisko Evropského parlamentu,vzhledem k těmto důvodům:(1) Od roku 2007 Společenství racionalizuje svou zeměpisnou spolupráci s rozvojovými zeměmi v Asii, Střední Asii a Latinské Americe a s Irákem, Íránem, Jemenem a Jižní Afrikou v rámci nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1905/2006 ze dne 18. prosince 2006, kterým se zřizuje finanční nástroj pro rozvojovou spolupráci[1].(2) Hlavním a rámcovým cílem nařízení (ES) č. 1905/2006 je vymýcení chudoby prostřednictvím plnění rozvojových cílů tisíciletí. Oblast působnosti spolupráce pro zeměpisné programy s rozvojovými zeměmi, územími a oblastmi stanovená v nařízení je mimoto podstatně omezena na finanční opatření splňující kritéria pro oficiální rozvojovou pomoc stanovená Výborem pro rozvojovou pomoc Organizace pro hospodářskou spolupráci a rozvoj (OECD).(3) Je v zájmu Společenství dále prohlubovat vztahy s dotyčnými rozvojovými zeměmi, jež jsou důležitými partnery ve dvoustranných vztazích i významnými aktéry na mnohostranných fórech a v rámci globálního řízení a u nichž má Společenství strategický zájem na rozšiřování různorodých vazeb, zejména v oblasti hospodářských, obchodních, akademických a vědeckých výměn. Proto Společenství potřebuje finanční nástroj umožňující financování takových opatření, která ze své povahy nesplňují podmínky oficiální rozvojové pomoci.(4) Za tímto účelem byly v rámci rozpočtových procesů v letech 2007 a 2008 a v souladu s čl. 49 odst. 6 písm. b) nařízení Rady (ES, Euratom) č. 1605/2002, kterým se stanoví finanční nařízení o souhrnném rozpočtu Evropských společenství[2], stanoveny čtyři přípravné akce k zahájení rozšířené spolupráce: obchodní a vědecké výměny s Indií, obchodní a vědecké výměny s Čínou, spolupráce se zeměmi Asie se středními příjmy a spolupráce se zeměmi Latinské Ameriky se středními příjmy. Podle téhož článku finančního nařízení musí být legislativní proces navazující na přípravné akce ukončen před koncem třetího rozpočtového roku.(5) Cíle a ustanovení nařízení (ES) č. 1934/2006 ze dne 21. prosince 2006, kterým se zřizuje finanční nástroj pro spolupráci s průmyslovými a jinými zeměmi a územími s vysokými příjmy[3], jsou vhodné k provádění posílené spolupráce se zeměmi, na něž se vztahuje nařízení (ES) č. 1905/2006. Za tímto účelem je třeba rozšířit zeměpisnou oblast působnosti nařízení (ES) č. 1934/2006 a stanovit finanční krytí spolupráce s těmito rozvojovými zeměmi.(6) Při kontrole provádění finančních nástrojů pro vnější činnosti byla zjištěna nejednotnost v ustanoveních, jimiž se náklady týkající se daní, cel a jiných poplatků vylučují jako nezpůsobilé. V zájmu jednotnosti se navrhuje uvést tato ustanovení do souladu s ostatními nástroji.(7) Nařízení (ES) č. 1934/2006 by proto mělo být odpovídajícím způsobem změněno,PŘIJALA TOTO NAŘÍZENÍ:Článek 1Nařízení (ES) č. 1934/2006 se mění takto:(1) Název nařízení se nahrazuje tímto:„Nařízení Rady (ES) č. 1934/2006 ze dne 21. prosince 2006, kterým se zřizuje finanční nástroj pro spolupráci s průmyslovými a jinými zeměmi a územími s vysokými příjmy a s rozvojovými zeměmi, na něž se vztahuje nařízení (ES) č. 1905/2006.“(2) Článek 1 se nahrazuje tímto:„Článek 1Cíl1. Financování Společenstvím podporuje hospodářskou, finanční a technickou spolupráci a další formy spolupráce, které spadají do jeho pravomoci, s průmyslovými a jinými zeměmi a územími s vysokými příjmy a s rozvojovými zeměmi, na něž se vztahuje nařízení (ES) č. 1905/2006.2. Hlavním cílem spolupráce s těmito zeměmi a územími je konkrétně reagovat na potřebu posílit vazby a prohloubit jednání na dvoustranné, regionální nebo mnohostranné úrovni, a vytvořit tak příznivější prostředí pro rozvoj vztahů Společenství s těmito zeměmi a územími a prosazovat dialog při současném hájení zájmů Společenství.“(3) Článek 2 se nahrazuje tímto:„Článek 2Oblast působnosti1. Cílem spolupráce je jednat s partnery, kteří sdílejí podobné politické, hospodářské a institucionální struktury a hodnoty a kteří jsou důležitými partnery ve dvoustranných vztazích i významnými aktéry na mnohostranných fórech a v rámci globálního řízení. Spolupráce zahrnuje rovněž partnery, u nichž má Společenství strategický zájem na rozšiřování vazeb.2. Pro účely tohoto nařízení se průmyslovými a jinými zeměmi a územími s vysokými příjmy rozumí země a území uvedené v příloze I a rozvojovými zeměmi se rozumí země uvedené v příloze II. Dále jsou uváděny jako „partnerské země“. V řádně odůvodněných případech a za účelem posílení regionální spolupráce však může Komise při přijímání akčních programů podle článku 6 rozhodnout, že země, které nejsou uvedeny v přílohách, jsou způsobilé, pokud je projekt nebo program, jenž bude prováděn, regionální nebo přeshraniční povahy. Tato možnost může být stanovena ve víceletých programech spolupráce podle článku 5. Komise mění seznamy uvedené v přílohách I a II v návaznosti na pravidelné přezkumy seznamu rozvojových zemí Výborem pro rozvojovou pomoc Organizace pro hospodářskou spolupráci a rozvoj a o změnách informuje Radu.“(4) Čl. 8 odst. 3 se nahrazuje tímto:„Financování Společenstvím se v zásadě nepoužije na úhradu daní, cel nebo poplatků v partnerských zemích.“(5) Článek 16 se nahrazuje tímto:„Článek 16Finanční ustanoveníFinanční referenční částka pro provádění tohoto nařízení v letech 2007 až 2013 činí 172 milionů EUR pro země uvedené v příloze I a 176 milionů EUR pro země uvedené v příloze II. Roční rozpočtové prostředky schvaluje rozpočtový orgán v mezích finančního rámce.“(6) V příloze se název nahrazuje tímto:„PŘÍLOHA I – Seznam průmyslových a jiných zemí a území s vysokými příjmy, na něž se vztahuje toto nařízení“(7) Doplňuje se nová příloha II, jejíž znění je uvedeno v příloze tohoto nařízení.Článek 2 Vstup v platnostToto nařízení vstupuje v platnost prvním dnem po vyhlášení v Úředním věstníku Evropské unie .Toto nařízení je závazné v celém rozsahu a přímo použitelné ve všech členských státech.V Bruselu dne .Za Radupředseda / předsedkyněPříloha„PŘÍLOHA IISeznam rozvojových zemí, na něž se vztahuje toto nařízeníLatinská Amerika1. Argentina2. Bolívie3. Brazílie4. Chile5. Kolumbie6. Kostarika7. Kuba8. Ekvádor9. Salvador10. Guatemala11. Honduras12. Mexiko13. Nikaragua14. Panama15. Paraguay16. Peru17. Uruguay18. VenezuelaAsie19. Afghánistán20. Bangladéš21. Bhútán22. Kambodža23. Čína24. Indie25. Indonésie26. Korejská lidově demokratická republika27. Laos28. Malajsie29. Maledivy30. Mongolsko31. Myanmar/Barma32. Nepál33. Pákistán34. Filipíny35. Srí Lanka36. Thajsko37. VietnamStřední Asie38. Kazachstán39. Kyrgyzská republika40. Tádžikistán41. Turkmenistán42. UzbekistánBlízký východ43. Írán44. Irák45. JemenJižní Afrika46. Jižní Afrika“LEGISLATIVNÍ FINANČNÍ VÝKAZ1. NÁZEV NÁVRHU:Nařízení Rady, kterým se mění nařízení (ES) č. 1934/2006, kterým se zřizuje finanční nástroj pro spolupráci s průmyslovými a jinými zeměmi a územími s vysokými příjmy.2. RÁMEC ABM / ABB19 09 – Vztahy s Latinskou Amerikou19 10 – Vztahy s Asií, Střední Asií a Středním východem (Irák, Írán, Jemen)21 06 – Zeměpisná spolupráce s africkými, karibskými a tichomořskými státy (AKT)3. ROZPOČTOVÉ LINIE3.1. Rozpočtové linie (provozní linie a související linie na technickou a administrativní pomoc) (dříve linie BA) včetně okruhů:Okruh 4 – Vnější vztahyRL 19 09 02 – Jiná opatření spolupráce než oficiální rozvojová pomoc v Latinské AmericeRozpočtová linie by měla být přejmenována v předběžném návrhu rozpočtu na rok 2010 z původního názvu „Přípravná akce – Spolupráce se zeměmi Latinské Ameriky se středními příjmy“.Rozpočtová linie 19 10 04 – Jiná opatření spolupráce než oficiální rozvojová pomoc (Asie, Střední Asie, Írán, Irák a Jemen)Nová rozpočtová linie požadovaná v předběžném návrhu rozpočtu na rok 2010 by měla navazovat na přípravné akce v rámci rozpočtových linií 19 10 01 03, 19 10 01 04 a 19 10 01 05.Rozpočtová linie 21 06 06 – Jiná opatření spolupráce než oficiální rozvojová pomoc (Jižní Afrika)Nová rozpočtová linie požadovaná v předběžném návrhu rozpočtu na rok 20103.2. Doba trvání akce a finančního dopadu:Navrhované opatření se týká období 2010–2013.3.3. Rozpočtové charakteristiky ( v případě potřeby doplňte řádky ):Rozpočtová linie | Druh výdajů | Nové | Příspěvek ESVO | Příspěvky od kandidátských zemí | Okruh ve finančním výhledu |19 09 02 | Nepov. | Rozl. | ANO (nový název) | NE | NE | č. 4 |19 10 04 | Nepov. | Rozl. | ANO | NE | NE | č. 4 |21 06 06 | Nepov. | Rozl. | ANO | NE | NE | č. 4 |4. SHRNUTÍ ZDROJŮ4.1. Finanční zdroje4.1.1. Shrnutí prostředků na závazky (PZ) a prostředků na platby (PP)Zdroje financování:1) Dodatečné prostředky jsou požadovány pouze pro pokračování přípravných akcí (Cíl 1: Podpora hospodářského partnerství a podnikání v zájmu EU). Tato částka činí 67,5 milionu EUR a bude přidělena z rezervy, jak je stanoveno v níže uvedené tabulce.2) Zbývajících 108,5 milionu EUR bude získáno prostřednictvím přerozdělení částek pro příslušné zeměpisné oblasti v rámci nástroje pro rozvojovou spolupráci. Cíl 2 (Mobilita studentů EU v rámci EMEWC) a cíl 3 (Jiné činnosti než oficiální rozvojová pomoc) budou v celé výši financovány prostřednictvím přerozdělení částek pro příslušné zeměpisné oblasti v rámci nástroje pro rozvojovou spolupráci. Orientační finanční příděly v rámci přílohy IV nařízení o nástroji pro rozvojovou spolupráci se však nemění.Přestože tedy finanční objem dosahuje 176 milionů EUR, dopad na rozpočet činí 67,5 milionů EUR.V níže uvedené tabulce jsou stanoveny pouze dodatečné prostředky přidělené z rezervy.v milionech EUR (zaokrouhleno na 3 desetinná místa)Druh výdajů | Oddíl č. | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | n + 5 a násl. | Celkem |Provozní výdaje[4] |Prostředky na závazky (PZ) | 8.1 | a | 0 | 15,0 | 17,5 | 17,5 | 17,5 | 0 | 67,5 |Prostředky na platby (PP) | b | 0 | 7,0 | 15,0 | 18,0 | 18,0 | 9,5 | 67,5 |Administrativní výdaje jako součást referenční částky[5] |Technická a administrativní pomoc (NP) | 8.2.4 | c |CELKOVÁ REFERENČNÍ ČÁSTKA |Prostředky na závazky | a+c | 0 | 15,0 | 17,5 | 17,5 | 17,5 | 0 | 67,5 |Prostředky na platby | b+c | 0 | 7,0 | 15,0 | 18,0 | 18,0 | 9,5 | 67,5 |Administrativní výdaje nezahrnuté do referenční částky[6] |Lidské zdroje a související výdaje (NP) | 8.2.5 | d |Administrativní náklady, kromě nákladů na lidské zdroje a souvisejících nákladů, nezahrnuté do referenční částky (NP) | 8.2.6 | e |Celkové orientační finanční náklady zásahuPZ CELKEM včetně nákladů na lidské zdroje | a+c+d+e | 0 | 15,0 | 17,5 | 17,5 | 17,5 | 0 | 67,5 |PP CELKEM včetně nákladů na lidské zdroje | b+c+d+e | 0 | 7,0 | 15,0 | 18,0 | 18,0 | 9,5 | 67,5 |SpoluúčastPokud financování návrhu předpokládá spoluúčast členského státu či jiných subjektů (uveďte, o které se jedná), je třeba v níže uvedené tabulce vyplnit odhadovanou výši finanční spoluúčasti (pokud se předpokládá finanční spoluúčast jiných subjektů, lze doplnit další řádky):v milionech EUR (zaokrouhleno na 3 desetinná místa)Spolufinancující subjekt | Rok n | n + 1 | n + 2 | n + 3 | n + 4 | n + 5 a násl. | Celkem |........................ | f |PZ CELKEM včetně spolufinancování | a+c+d+e+f |4.1.2. Soulad s finančním plánemNávrh je v souladu se stávajícím finančním plánem.X Návrh si vyžádá změnu plánu a úpravu příslušného okruhu finančního výhledu.( Návrh může vyžadovat použití ustanovení interinstitucionální dohody[7] (tj. nástroje pružnosti nebo revizi finančního výhledu).4.1.3. Finanční dopady na straně příjmů( Návrh nemá žádné finanční dopady na příjmy( Návrh má finanční dopady na příjmy s následujícím účinkem:Pozn.: Veškeré podrobnosti a poznámky ke způsobu výpočtu účinku na příjmy je třeba uvést v samostatné příloze.v milionech EUR (zaokrouhleno na 1 desetinné místo)Před akcí [Rok n-1] | Situace po akci |Celkový objem lidských zdrojů |5. CHARAKTERISTIKY A CÍLEPodrobné souvislosti návrhu jsou vyžadovány v důvodové zprávě. Tato část legislativního finančního výkazu by měla obsahovat tyto zvláštní doplňující informace:5.1. Potřeba, která má být uspokojena v krátkodobém nebo dlouhodobém horizontuK legislativnímu návrhu je přiloženo posouzení dopadů, jež upřesňuje jednotlivé potřeby.Tento návrh je právním předpisem navazujícím na přípravné akce, jež byly stanoveny v rámci rozpočtových procesů v roce 2007 a 2008. Jeho cílem je zaplnit legislativní mezeru v důsledku omezené oblasti působnosti nástroje pro rozvojovou spolupráci, jenž zahrnuje zeměpisnou spolupráci se zeměmi v Asii, Střední Asii, Latinské Americe a s Irákem, Íránem, Jemenem a Jižní Afrikou.Výše finančního krytí se odhaduje na 176 milionů EUR.Čtyři přípravné akce v letech 2007–2009 byly financovány z rezervy na podnět rozpočtového orgánu. Na opatření navazující na tyto akce je třeba částky 67,5 milionu EUR. Další potřeby, jež je třeba uhradit (108,5 milionu EUR), se týkají mobility studentů EU v rámci programu Erasmus Mundus a činností předpokládaných v rámci nástroje pro rozvojovou spolupráci, které však nejsou způsobilé z důvodu jeho omezené oblasti působnosti s ohledem na kritéria oficiální rozvojové pomoci (např. programy na zajištění viditelnosti, technická pomoc v oblastech týkajících se energetiky).5.2. Přidaná hodnota zásahu ze strany Společenství, provázanost návrhu s dalšími finančními nástroji a možná synergieRozšíření zeměpisné oblasti působnosti nařízení, kterým se zřizuje finanční nástroj pro spolupráci s průmyslovými a jinými zeměmi a územími s vysokými příjmy (dále jen „nařízení ICI“), umožní další jednání s důležitými partnery ve dvoustranných vztazích i významnými aktéry na mnohostranných fórech a v rámci globálního řízení, u nichž má Společenství strategický zájem na rozšiřování různorodých vazeb. Je v zájmu Společenství dále prohlubovat své vztahy např. s Indií, Čínou, Brazílií nebo Jižní Afrikou, jež patří mezi rozvojové země a zároveň představují důležité partnery ve světovém hospodářství. V oblastech jako Střední Asie a Blízký východ jdou zájmy Společenství rovněž nad rámec vymýcení chudoby, zejména pokud jde o energetickou bezpečnost a veřejnou diplomacii. V neposlední řadě většinu Asie, Latinské Ameriky tvoří země se středními příjmy, jež mají zájem zapojit se do výměn s Evropskou unií přesahujících rámec oficiální rozvojové pomoci.5.3. Cíle, očekávané výsledky a související ukazatele návrhu v kontextu rámce ABMNa základě navrženého nařízení budou financovány programy a projekty, jež splní následující základní operativní cíle:Cíl 1:- Podpora hospodářského partnerství a podnikání v zájmu EUCíl 2:- Mezilidské vazby / spolupráce v oblasti vzděláváníCíl 3:- Veřejná diplomacie a práce v terénu- Dialogy- Projekty spolupráce, jež nesplňují kritéria oficiální rozvojové pomoci19 09:- Lepší přístup evropských podniků, průmyslu a vědeckých komunit na latinskoamerické trhy- Zajištění evropské účasti na vnější spolupráci v rámci programu Erasmus Mundus- Lepší obeznámenost s hlavními politikami a strategickými cíli EU19 10- Lepší přístup na asijské trhy v zájmu evropských podniků, průmyslu a vědeckých komunit se zvláštním důrazem na čisté a udržitelné technologie a se zaměřením na posílení obchodní přítomnosti evropských malých a středních podniků v Asii; pokrok při zlepšování obchodních a investičních podmínek- Lepší obeznámenost s EU; zajištění a posílení evropské účasti na vnější spolupráci v rámci programu Erasmus Mundus (EMECW)- Zajištění účasti na evropských veletrzích vzdělávání alespoň na stejné úrovni, jaké bylo s úspěchem dosaženo v minulosti- Pokrok v rámci širší agendy spolupráce v oblasti energetiky, zejména ve Střední Asii21 06- Zajištění evropské účasti na vnější spolupráci v rámci programu Erasmus Mundus- Pokrok v rámci širší agendy spolupráce v oblastech, jako jsou energetika, věda a technika nebo doprava, zejména pokrok při zlepšování obchodních a investičních podmínek(v milionech EUR) | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | CELKEM |Asie | 16,5 | 19,5 | 20,5 | 21,0 | 77,5 |Podpora hospodářského partnerství a podnikání v zájmu EU (Opatření navazující na přípravné akce) | 12,0 | 13,0 | 14,0 | 14,0 | 53,0 |Mobilita studentů EU v rámci EMEWC | 3,0 | 5,0 | 5,0 | 5,5 | 18,5 |Jiná opatření než oficiální rozvojová pomoc | 1,5 | 1,5 | 1,5 | 1,5 | 6,0 |Latinská Amerika | 11,5 | 16,0 | 16,0 | 16,0 | 59,5 |Podpora hospodářského partnerství a podnikání v zájmu EU (Opatření navazující na přípravné akce) | 3,0 | 4,0 | 4,0 | 4,0 | 15,0 |Mobilita studentů EU v rámci EMEWC | 0,5 | 5,0 | 5,0 | 5,0 | 15,5 |Jiná opatření než oficiální rozvojová pomoc | 8,0 | 7,0 | 7,0 | 7,0 | 29,0 |Střední Asie | 4,0 | 6,0 | 6,0 | 6,0 | 22,0 |Podpora hospodářského partnerství a podnikání v zájmu EU (Opatření navazující na přípravné akce) | - | - | - | - | - |Mobilita studentů EU v rámci EMEWC | 1,0 | 2,0 | 2,0 | 2,0 | 7,0 |Jiná opatření než oficiální rozvojová pomoc | 3,0 | 4,0 | 4,0 | 4,0 | 15,0 |Irák, Írán, Jemen | 2,5 | 2,5 | 2,5 | 2,5 | 10,0 |Podpora hospodářského partnerství a podnikání v zájmu EU (Opatření navazující na přípravné akce) | - | - | - | - | - |Mobilita studentů EU v rámci EMEWC | 0,5 | 0,5 | 0,5 | 0,5 | 2,0 |Jiná opatření než oficiální rozvojová pomoc | 2,0 | 2,0 | 2,0 | 2,0 | 8,0 |Jižní Afrika | - | 1,0 | 3,0 | 3,0 | 7,0 |Podpora hospodářského partnerství a podnikání v zájmu EU (Opatření navazující na přípravné akce) | - | - | - | - | - |Mobilita studentů EU v rámci EMEWC | - | 1,0 | 2,0 | 2,0 | 5,0 |Jiná opatření než oficiální rozvojová pomoc | - | - | 1,0 | 1,0 | 2,0 |Celkový objem prostředků | 34,5 | 45,0 | 48,0 | 48,5 | 176,0 |5.4. Způsob provádění (orientační)Způsobem provádění bude centralizované řízení přímo ze strany Komise; složka týkající se mobility studentů EU v rámci vnější spolupráce programu Erasmus Mundus bude řízena výkonnou agenturou EAC.6. MONITOROVÁNÍ A HODNOCENÍ6.1. Monitorovací systémProgramy budou podléhat řádnému monitorovacímu systému.6.2. Hodnocení6.2.1. Hodnocení předem (ex ante)Provádění nástroje pro rozvojovou spolupráci, přípravné akce a posouzení dopadů předpokládají příslušné hodnocení ex ante .6.2.2. Opatření přijatá po průběžném / následném hodnocení (ex post) (na základě podobných zkušeností z minulosti)Přípravné akce budou vyhodnoceny.6.2.3. Podmínky a periodicita budoucího hodnoceníV nařízení ICI jsou stanovena pravidelná hodnocení.7. OPATřENÍ PROTI PODVODůMOchrana finančních zájmů Společenství a boj proti podvodům a nesrovnalostem tvoří nedílnou součást nařízení ICI.Zvláštní pozornost bude věnována povaze výdajů (způsobilost výdajů), dodržení rozpočtů (skutečné výdaje) a ověření podpůrných informací a příslušné dokumentace (doložení výdajů).8. PODROBNOSTI O ZDROJÍCH8.1. Cíle návrhu z hlediska jejich finanční náročnostiProstředky na závazky v milionech EUR (zaokrouhleno na 3 desetinná místa)Rok n | Rok n + 1 | Rok n + 2 | Rok n + 3 | Rok n + 4 | Rok n + 5 |Úředníci nebo dočasní zaměstnanci[10] (XX 01 01) | A*/AD |B*, C*/AST |Zaměstnanci financovaní[11] podle článku XX 01 02 |Ostatní zaměstnanci financovaní[12] podle čl. XX 01 04/05 |CELKEM |8.2.2. Popis úkolů, které vyplývají z akce8.2.3. Původ lidských zdrojů (statutární pracovní místa)(V případě více zdrojů uveďte vždy počet pracovních míst podle původu)( Pracovní místa vyčleněná v současnosti na řízení programu, která mají být nahrazena nebo prodloužena.( Pracovní místa předběžně vyčleněná v rámci procesu RSP / PNR na rok n( Pracovní místa, o něž je třeba požádat v příštím procesu RSP / PNR( Pracovní místa, jež mají být obsazena převedením stávajících zdrojů v rámci řídicího útvaru (interní přeobsazování)( Pracovní místa požadovaná pro rok n, avšak neplánovaná v procesu RSP / PNR dotyčného roku.8.2.4. Další administrativní výdaje zahrnuté do referenční částky (XX 01 04/05 – Výdaje na správu a řízení)v milionech EUR (zaokrouhleno na 3 desetinná místa)Rozpočtová linie (číslo a název) | Rok n | Rok n+1 | Rok n+2 | Rok n+3 | Rok n+4 | Rok n+5 a násl. | CELKEM |Další technická a administrativní pomoc |– interní (intra muros) |– externí (extra muros) |Technická a administrativní pomoc celkem |8.2.5. Finanční náklady na lidské zdroje a související náklady nezahrnuté do referenční částkyv milionech EUR (zaokrouhleno na 3 desetinná místa)Druh lidských zdrojů | Rok n | Rok n+1 | Rok n+2 | Rok n+3 | Rok n+4 | Rok n+5 a násl. |Úředníci a dočasní zaměstnanci (XX 01 01) |Zaměstnanci financovaní podle čl. XX 01 02 (pomocní pracovníci, přidělení národní odborníci, smluvní zaměstnanci atd.) (upřesněte rozpočtovou linii) |Náklady na lidské zdroje a související náklady celkem (NEZAHRNUTÉ do referenční částky) |Výpočet – Úředníci a dočasní zaměstnanciPřípadně by měl být uveden odkaz na bod 8.2.1Výpočet – Zaměstnanci financovaní podle článku XX 01 02Případně by měl být uveden odkaz na bod 8.2.18.2.6. Další administrativní výdaje nezahrnuté do referenční částky v milionech EUR (zaokrouhleno na 3 desetinná místa) |Rok n | Rok n + 1 | Rok n + 2 | Rok n + 3 | Rok n + 4 | Rok n + 5 a násl. | CELKEM |XX 01 02 11 01 – Služební cesty |XX 01 02 11 02 – Schůze a konference |XX 01 02 11 03 – Výbory[14] |XX 01 02 11 04 – Studie a konzultace |XX 01 02 11 05 – Informační systémy |2 Ostatní výdaje na řízení celkem (XX 01 02 11) |3 Ostatní výdaje administrativního charakteru (upřesněte i s odkazem na rozpočtovou linii) |Administrativní výdaje celkem, kromě nákladů na lidské zdroje a souvisejících nákladů (NEZAHRNUTÉ do referenční částky) |Výpočet – Ostatní administrativní výdaje nezahrnuté do referenční částky [1] Úř. věst. L 378, 27.12.2006, s. 41.[2] Nařízení Rady (ES, Euratom) č. 1605/2002, kterým se stanoví finanční nařízení o souhrnném rozpočtu Evropských společenství (Úř. věst. L 248, 16.9.2002, s. 1).[3] Úř. věst. L 405, 30.12.2006, s. 41. (opravené znění: Úř. věst. L 29, 3.2.2007, s. 16.)[4] Výdaje, které nespadají pod kapitolu xx 01 příslušné hlavy xx.[5] Výdaje v rámci článku xx 01 04 hlavy xx.[6] Výdaje v rámci kapitoly xx 01 kromě článků xx 01 04 a xx 01 05.[7] Viz body 19 a 24 interinstitucionální dohody.[8] V případě potřeby, např. potrvá-li akce déle než 6 let, je třeba doplnit další sloupce.[9] Jak je popsáno v bodě 5.3.[10] Tyto náklady NEJSOU zahrnuty v referenční částce.[11] Tyto náklady NEJSOU zahrnuty v referenční částce.[12] Tyto náklady jsou zahrnuty v referenční částce.[13] Měl by být uveden odkaz na konkrétní legislativní finanční výkaz dotyčných výkonných agentur.[14] Uveďte přesně druh výboru a skupinu, do níž náleží.


text:
Les musiques du film Gatsby le Magnifique sont commercialisées dans trois disques :
 The Great Gatsby : Music From Baz Luhrmann's Film contenant les chansons du film. Il est sorti le (le en France),
 The Great Gatsby : The Jazz Recordings sorti le ( en France) contenant certaines des chansons du premier CD remixées en musique jazz des Années folles et enregistrées par le Bryan Ferry Orchestra,
 The Great Gatsby : The Orchestral Score From Baz Luhrmann's Film, bande originale composé par Craig Armstrong qui est sorti le en CD, et le en format MP3, seul format de l'album disponible en France.
 The Great Gatsby : Music From Baz Lurhmann's Film
 La bande originale intitulé The Great Gatsby : Music From Baz Lurhmann's Film, est sorti le en format CD, et le suivant en format vinyle. L'album contient des chansons interprétées par Beyoncé, Lana Del Rey, Emeli Sandé ou encore Bryan Ferry. Le premier single est Young and Beautiful de Lana Del Rey, sorti le . Les titres ont inspiré les deux autres albums sortis en août.
 L'album est produit par le réalisateur Baz Luhrmann et le rappeur Jay-Z.
 Liste des titres
 Édition standard
 Édition Deluxe
 The Great Gatsby : The Jazz Recordings
 Cet album s'inspire principalement du premier album sont ci-dessus. Il propose les titres remixées sous la forme de musique jazz dans le style du ragtime et du swing. Elles sont toutes entendues également dans le film de Baz Luhrmann, créant ainsi l'ambience des années folles. L'album est tout d'abord paru le en format MP3, puis le en format CD, et en format vinyle le suivant.
 L'album est produit par Baz Luhrmann et Bryan Ferry.
 Liste des titres
 The Great Gatsby : The Orchestral Score From Baz Luhrmann's Film
 Il s'agit de la troisième bande son, sortie le en format numérique, et sur CD aujourd'hui inédit en France. Celle-ci est composée uniquement par Craig Armstrong : il s'agit d'un « Orchestral Score », qui s'inspire également de deux chansons de l'album The Great Gatsby : Music From Baz Luhrmann's Film. Les musiques Overture and Sanitarium, Beautiful Shirts and Dan Cody et Castle Went Dark s'inspirent donc de la chansons Together par The xx. Lana Del Rey participe également à l'album, où nous pouvons entendre sa voix dans le titre Hotel Sayre. Ce titre, ainsi que la musique Two Minutes to Four and Reunited s'inspirent tous deux du signe single Young and Beautiful, présent dans le premier album.
 La bande originale est produite par Baz Luhrmann et Craig Armstrong.
 Liste des titres
 Notes et références
 Album musical sorti en 2013
 Bande originale de film
 Album certifié disque d'or en Australie
 Album produit par Emile


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 31994D0358
 94/358/CE: Décision du Conseil du 16 juin 1994 portant acceptation, au nom de la Communauté européenne, de la convention relative à l'élaboration d'une pharmacopée européenne
 Journal officiel n° L 158 du 25/06/1994 p. 0017 - 0018 édition spéciale finnoise: chapitre 13 tome 26 p. 0091 édition spéciale suédoise: chapitre 13 tome 26 p. 0091
 DÉCISION DU CONSEIL du 16 juin 1994 portant acceptation, au nom de la Communauté européenne, de la convention relative à l'élaboration d'une pharmacopée européenne (94/358/CE)LE CONSEIL DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE, vu le traité instituant la Communauté européenne, et notamment ses articles 113 et 100 A, en liaison avec l'article 228 paragraphe 2 première phrase et paragraphe 3 premier alinéa, vu la proposition de la Commission, vu l'avis du Parlement européen (1), considérant que la convention relative à l'élaboration d'une pharmacopée européenne, établie dans le cadre du Conseil de l'Europe, vise à harmoniser les spécifications des substances médicamenteuses et des préparations pharmaceutiques afin de permettre leur circulation en Europe; que les monographies de la pharmacopée européenne deviennent des règles techniques officielles applicables sur le territoire des États parties à la convention; considérant en outre que, en vue de faciliter la libre circulation des médicaments sur son territoire, la Communauté a déjà reconnu unilatéralement, par les directives 75/318/CEE (2) et 81/852/CEE (3), le caractère obligatoire des monographies de la pharmacopée européenne pour tous les médicaments visés par la législation communautaire; considérant que les États membres sont parties à la convention; que l'on peut raisonnablement s'attendre à ce qu'un nombre de plus en plus grand de pays, notamment de l'Europe de l'Est, adhèrent à la convention; considérant que la Communauté constitue, au niveau mondial, la principale zone exportatrice de médicaments; considérant que la plupart des médicaments qui circulent entre la Communauté et les pays tiers font l'objet de monographies élaborées par la pharmacopée européenne; considérant que les monographies devraient, par conséquent, servir de base pour la libre circulation de ces produits entre la Communauté et les pays tiers; considérant qu'il convient dès lors que la Communauté soit partie à la convention afin de faciliter les échanges avec les autres parties contractantes, DÉCIDE: Article premier La convention relative à l'élaboration d'une pharmacopée européenne est acceptée au nom de la Communauté européenne. Le texte de la convention et le texte du protocole qui permet à la Communauté de devenir partie à la convention sont joints à la présente décision. Article 2 Le président du Conseil procède, au nom de la Communauté, au dépôt de l'instrument d'acceptation de la convention auprès du Conseil de l'Europe, dépositaire de la convention et du protocole. Article 3 1. Au sein du Comité de santé publique et de la Commission européenne de pharmacopée visés à l'article 2 de la convention, la Communauté est représentée par la Commission des Communautés européennes pour ce qui concerne les questions visées à l'article 7 paragraphe 3 de la convention, tel que modifié par l'article 3 du protocole. 2. Les prises de position au sein des organes visés au paragraphe 1 sont définies par la Commission en consultation avec les États membres. 3. Les prises de position sur des questions d'importance majeure, notamment lorsqu'il s'agit de modifications à apporter aux obligations incombant aux États membres ou lorsque les consultations prévues au paragraphe 2 font apparaître des divergences de vue importantes, sont définies par le Conseil, statuant à la majorité qualifiée sur proposition de la Commission. Fait à Luxembourg, le 16 juin 1994. Par le Conseil Le président A. BALTAS (1) JO no C 128 du 9. 5. 1994. (2) Directive 75/318/CEE du Conseil, du 20 mai 1975, relative au rapprochement des législations des États membres concernant les normes et protocoles analytiques, toxico-pharmacologiques et cliniques en matière d'essais de médicaments (JO no L 147 du 9. 6. 1975, p. 1). Directive modifiée en dernier lieu par la directive 93/39/CEE (JO no L 214 du 24. 8. 1993, p. 22). (3) Directive 81/852/CEE du Conseil, du 28 septembre 1981, relative au rapprochement des législations des États membres concernant les normes et protocoles analytiques, toxico-pharmacologiques et cliniques en matière d'essais de médicaments vétérinaires (JO no L 317 du 6. 11. 1981, p. 16). Directive modifiée en dernier lieu par la directive 93/40/CEE (JO no L 214 du 24. 8. 1993, p. 31).


text:
« prva ‹ prejšnja25852586258725882589259025912592259325942595 od 2678naslednja › zadnja »
 VSL Sklep I Cp 1825/2018 VSL00019497 04.02.2019 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO - OBLIGACIJSKO PRAVO Pripoznava zahtevka je sicer podoben institut kot pripoznava dolga po 364. členu OZ, a ga vseeno z njim ne gre enačiti. Pripoznava zahtevka namreč ni posel materialnega prava in nima posledic na materialnopravnem, ampak na civilnopravnem področju. Na pripoznavo zahtevka tako ZPP navezuje poleg odločitve o stroških postopka tudi izdajo (posebne) sodbe (glej 316. člen ZPP: sodba na podlagi... odločitev o pravdnih stroških - umik tožbe po izpolnitvi zahtevka - povod za tožbo - pripoznava tožbenega zahtevka - pripoznava dolga - sodba na podlagi pripoznave - izdaja odločbe brez obravnavanja
 VSL Sodba II Cp 2212/2018 VSL00019658 30.01.2019 Civilni oddelek KMETIJSKA ZEMLJIŠČA - OBLIGACIJSKO PRAVO - POGODBENO PRAVO Ni izključeno, da ponudba za prodajo kmetijskega zemljišča iz 20. člena ZKZ tudi v razmerju do posameznika, ki ni predkupni upravičenec, učinkuje kot zavezujoča ponudba. Pritožbeno sodišče pritrjuje sodišču prve stopnje, da so pogoji, na podlagi katerih je moč govoriti o takšnem zavezujočem učinku toženčeve ponudbe v razmerju do tožnice, v konkretnem primeru izpolnjeni. Stranki... prodaja kmetijskega zemljišča - odobritev upravne enote - ponudba - sprejem ponudbe - vabilo k ponudbi - veljavnost prodajne pogodbe za kmetijska zemljišča - osebe, ki niso predkupni upravičenci - izstavitev zemljiškoknjižnega dovolila
 VSL Sodba I Cp 1787/2018 VSL00019713 23.01.2019 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO - OBLIGACIJSKO PRAVO - ODŠKODNINSKO PRAVO Za nastanek odškodninske odgovornosti poslovodstva do upnikov izbrisane pravne osebe za škodo, ki so jo imeli, ker zaradi izbrisa pravne osebe niso dosegli polnega poplačila, morajo biti poleg obstoja insolventnosti družbe izpolnjene predpostavke: protipravnost ravnanja poslovodstva, ki se kaže v kršitvah obveznosti poslovodstva, določenih v 34. členu ali 35. do 39. členu ZFPPIPP, vzročna... odškodninska odgovornost članov poslovodstva - izbris družbe iz sodnega registra brez likvidacije - spregled pravne osebnosti - protipravno ravnanje poslovodstva družbe - vzročna zveza - ukrepi finančnega prestrukturiranja - odprava insolventnosti - dokaz z izvedencem finančne stroke
 VSL Sklep I Cp 2269/2018 VSL00019414 16.01.2019 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO - NEPRAVDNO PRAVO Odločitev o zavrženju ponovnega predloga za prekinitev postopka je pravilna. Četudi gre za novo tožbo, je zahtevek, ki ga je postavil pritožnik, istoveten zahtevku, o katerem je bilo že pravnomočno odločeno, pritožnikov predlog z enako vsebino pa je sodišče že enkrat zavrnilo. prekinitev nepravdnega postopka - predlog za prekinitev postopka - predhodno vprašanje - pravnomočno rešeno predhodno vprašanje - istovetnost zahtevka
 VSL Sklep II Cp 101/2019 VSL00019496 06.02.2019 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO Ker se šteje, da je bila vročitev opravljena na dan, ko je bilo pisanje puščeno v poštnem predalu (glej četrti odstavek 139.b člena ZPP), je rok 15-ih dni za izjavo toženca glede dopolnitve izvedeniškega mnenja začel teči 6. 10. 2018, iztekel pa se je 22. 10. 2018. Predlog za podaljšanje roka, ki ga je toženec vložil 23. 10. 2018, je bil zato prepozen. predlog za podaljšanje roka - prepozen predlog - vročitev v poštni predal - vročanje odvetniku v poštni predal - dan vročitve
 VSL Sodba I Cp 2113/2018 VSL00019433 30.01.2019 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO - ODVETNIŠTVO - STVARNO PRAVO V konkurenci med pridobitvijo lastninske pravice na podlagi nakupa nepremičnine na javni dražbi v postopku izvršbe in predhodno pridobitvijo lastninske pravice z gradnjo na tujem svetu ima prednost prva. Zaradi originarne pridobitve lastninske pravice kupca v izvršbi in njegovega varstva, v skladu z določbo 168. člena ZIP, zunajknjižna lastnika z lastninskim zahtevkom po pridobitvi lastninske... lastninska pravica - gradnja na tujem svetu - pridobitev lastninske pravice na podlagi gradnje na tujem svetu - pridobitev lastninske pravice na nepremičnini s prodajo v izvršilnem postopku - originarna pridobitev lastninske pravice kupca nepremičnine v izvršilnem postopku - originarna pridobitev lastninske pravice - konkurenca originarnih načinov pridobitve lastninske pravice - superficies solo cedit - obračunavanje odvetniških storitev - veljavna odvetniška tarifa
 VSL Sklep I Cp 2309/2018 VSL00019432 16.01.2019 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO - STEČAJNO PRAVO Tožnik uveljavlja odškodninsko odgovornost toženca kot poslovodje izbrisane družbe, medtem ko je sodišče prve stopnje izpodbijano odločitev oprlo na zakonsko določbo, ki se nanaša na postopke zoper družbenike izbrisanih družb. Ker gre za zahtevke z različno dejansko in pravno podlago, pritožnik utemeljeno navaja, da 1. člen ZPPDID ne predstavlja pravne podlage, na kateri bi bilo mogoče... prekinitev pravdnega postopka - odškodninska odgovornost poslovodje - odgovornost poslovodje za škodo - odgovornost družbenika izbrisane družbe
 VSL Sklep II Cp 484/2019 VSL00020769 13.03.2019 Civilni oddelek NEPRAVDNO PRAVO Oseba je s pritožbo, teden dni po izjavi, da se strinja z zadržanjem in pisno privolitvijo v sprejem, preklicala svoje soglasje. V skladu z določbo prvega odstavka 38. člena ZDZdr je treba v tem primeru takšno osebo takoj odpustiti oziroma, če zdravnik oceni, da so pri osebi podani razlogi iz 53. člena ZDZdr, postopati po drugem in tretjem odstavku 38. člena navedenega zakona. postopek zaradi sprejema na zdravljenje v oddelek pod posebnim nadzorom brez privolitve - pravica do prostovoljnega zdravljenja - pisna privolitev za zadržanje na zdravljenju - preklic soglasja
 VSL Sklep I Cp 434/2019 VSL00020821 06.03.2019 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO Ker izvedenka z umikom dokaznega predloga in dejstvom, da tožena stranka ne bo založila predujma, ni bila seznanjena, je izdelala izvedeniško mnenje in s tem so nastali stroški. Ker je tožeča stranka predlagala ta dokaz in založila predujem, v taki procesni situaciji mora nositi plačilo predujma. nagrada in stroški sodnega izvedenca - nagrada in stroški izvedenca za opravljeno izvedensko delo - rok - umik dokaznega predloga - nezaložitev predujma za izvedenca
 VSL Sklep IV Cp 211/2019 VSL00019493 07.02.2019 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO - DRUŽINSKO PRAVO - NEPRAVDNO PRAVO Ker je izrečenim ukrepom potekla časovna veljavnost in ker sta stranki v postopku njihovega podaljšanja sklenili sodno poravnavo, je pritožbeno sodišče zavrglo pritožbo zoper sklep z dne 14. 11. 2018, s katerim je sodišče prve stopnje ukrep prepustitve stanovanja, izrečen s sklepom z dne 17. 5. 2018, omejilo na šest mesecev. nasilje v družini - ukrepi za preprečevanje nasilja v družini - časovna omejitev trajanja ukrepov - trajanje ukrepa - nesuspenzivnost pritožbe - nesuspenzivno pravno sredstvo - sodna poravnava - zavrženje pritožbe
 VSL Sklep II Cp 283/2019 VSL00019397 07.02.2019 Civilni oddelek NEPRAVDNO PRAVO Izvedenec sicer ni predlagal omejitve pravice do prisotnosti pri izvajanju dokazov, a glede na to, da je pridržani sam zapustil kraj izvedbe dokazov, je ocena sodišča prve stopnje, da v trenutnem stanju ni sposoben sodelovati v postopku, vseeno pravilna. Okoliščina, da je sodišče takšno odločitev sprejelo brez predloga izvedenca (kakršnega predvideva 64. člen v zvezi s tretjim odstavkom... sprejem na zdravljenje brez privolitve - pogoji za zdravljenje osebe v oddelku pod posebnim nadzorom brez privolitve - ogrožanje življenja in zdravja - omejitev pravice do prisotnosti pri izvajanju dokazov - učinek pravnomočnega sklepa
 VSL Sklep I Cp 107/2019 VSL00019334 24.01.2019 Civilni oddelek STVARNO PRAVO - ZAVAROVANJE TERJATEV - ZEMLJIŠKA KNJIGA Zaznamba vrstnega reda za pridobitev lastninske pravice po svoji vsebini presega učinke (gole) zaznambe pravnega dejstva in upoštevaje le-te v resnici predstavlja obliko (način) pravno-poslovnega razpolaganja z nepremičnino. Ker gre po mnenju tega sodišča pri zaznambi vrstnega reda za pridobitev lastninske pravice po vsebini (učinkih) dejansko za obliko upravičenja v zvezi z nepremičnino... začasna odredba za zavarovanje nedenarne terjatve - prepoved odtujitve in obremenitve nepremičnine - zaznamba pravnih dejstev - zaznamba vrstnega reda pridobitve lastninske pravice - vknjižba lastninske pravice v zaznamovanem vrstnem redu - primerno sredstvo zavarovanja - namen zavarovanja terjatve - pravno-poslovno razpolaganje z nepremičnino
 VSL Sodba IV Cp 1204/2018 VSL00019339 12.09.2018 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO - DRUŽINSKO PRAVO Prvo sodišče je utemeljeno podelilo odločilno težo dejstvu, da so bili na podlagi sodne poravnave stiki med tožnikom in toženko zmanjšani. Tako naj bi v skladu s sodno poravnavo potekali le eno popoldne med tednom in vsak drugi vikend, med počitnicami pa so ostali v enakem obsegu. Vendar pa je med pravdnima strankama oz. zakonitim zastopnikom tožnika in toženko nesporno, da se stiki niti... zvišanje preživnine - spremenjene okoliščine - sprememba potreb upravičenca ali zmožnosti zavezanca - otrokove potrebe - porazdelitev preživninskega bremena - prosti preudarek pri odločanju o stroških v družinskih sporih
 VSL Sodba in sklep IV Cp 1312/2018 VSL00019316 26.09.2018 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO - DRUŽINSKO PRAVO Izračuni Ministrstva za delo, družino, socialne zadeve in enake možnosti o mesečnih stroških za enega otroka izkazujejo le okvirne vrednosti, ne morejo pa imeti take teže, kot jo jim želi podeliti toženec. Sodišče mora preživnino določiti glede na okoliščine konkretnega primera. Pri tem mora uporabiti vrednotni pristop z upoštevanjem otrokovih potreb ter preživninskih zmožnosti... preživninska obveznost - porazdelitev preživninskega bremena - pridobitne zmožnosti staršev - potrebe otroka - neprenosljiva osebna pravica
 VSL Sklep II Cp 98/2019 VSL00019355 23.01.2019 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO - DRUŽINSKO PRAVO Glede na tožbene trditve in postavljen denarni zahtevek glede plemenitih kovin, je pravilno stališče sodišča prve stopnje, da ni relevantno, ali je toženka plemenite kovine hranila v sefu, kdo je bil pooblaščen za vstop v sef ter kdo in kdaj je vstopal v sef. Zavarovanje dokazov ni namenjeno temu, da bi sodišče s poizvedbami stranki olajšalo podajo navedb o pravno relevantnih dejstvih... predlog za zavarovanje dokazov - skupno premoženje zakoncev - pritožbena novota - poizvedbe sodišča
 VSL Sklep II Cp 2034/2018 VSL00018052 12.12.2018 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO V skladu z določbo četrtega odstavka 163. člena ZPP odloči sodišče o zahtevi za povrnitev stroškov v sodbi ali v sklepu, s katerim se konča postopek pred njim. Vendar pa novela ZPP-E omogoča izdajo sklepa o višini stroškov tudi po pravnomočnosti odločitve o glavni stvari. Prvo sodišče bi sicer moralo v odločbi, s katero je odločilo o glavni stvari, odločiti tudi o tem, katera... odločitev o stroških postopka - odločanje o stroških postopka s posebnim sklepom - odločitev o stroških postopka v sodbi - novela ZPP-E - relativna bistvena kršitev določb pravdnega postopka - kriterij uspeha v postopku - motenjski spor - nedenarni tožbeni zahtevki
 VSL Sklep II Cp 2000/2018 VSL00018056 12.12.2018 Civilni oddelek DEDNO PRAVO Zapuščino sestavlja samo aktiva, torej pravice, ki imajo denarno vrednost, medtem ko zapustnikovi dolgovi in dolgovi zapuščine (pasiva) niso njen sestavni del. Prijavljenih terjatev upnikov zato zapuščinsko sodišče ne ugotavlja, jih vsebinsko ne obravnava, niti jih ne navaja v sklepu o dedovanju, razen v primeru sklenitve dednega dogovora ob soglasju vseh dedičev. Z zapustnikovo smrtjo... sklep o dedovanju - sestavine sklepa o dedovanju - obvezne sestavine sklepa o dedovanju - vsebina sklepa o dedovanju - predmet zapuščine - zapuščina - pasiva zapuščine - dolgovi zapustnika - odgovornost dedičev za zapustnikove dolgove
 VSL Sodba in sklep II Cp 1549/2018 VSL00018091 12.12.2018 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO - DRUŽINSKO PRAVO V obravnavani zadevi je sodišče prve stopnje zavrnilo zahtevka obeh pravdnih strank za ugotovitev deležev na skupnem premoženju, čeprav iz obrazložitve sodbe izhaja, da naj bi sodišče ugodilo tožbenemu zahtevku za ugotovitev, da znaša delež vsake od pravdnih strank na njunem skupnem premoženju 1/2, zato se izpodbijane sodbe v tem obsegu ne da preizkusiti, ker izrek sodbe nasprotuje... pritožba zoper sodbo - vsebina pritožbe - ugotovitev skupnega premoženja - obseg skupnega premoženja - delež na skupnem premoženju zakoncev - absolutna bistvena kršitev določb pravdnega postopka - nasprotje med izrekom in obrazložitvijo odločbe - odprava nasprotij med izrekom in obrazložitvijo - poprava - delna razveljavitev sodbe - obrazložitev razlogov - izdaja nove odločbe
 VSL Sodba II Cp 1256/2018 VSL00019479 09.01.2019 Civilni oddelek CIVILNO PROCESNO PRAVO - ODŠKODNINSKO PRAVO Odločitev sodišča, da je tožniku po sojenju v prvi pravdi nastala nova škoda, je pravilna. Gre za škodo, ki je v vzročni zvezi s škodnim dogodkom in ki presega škodo, znano v času sojenja ali sklepanja izvensodne poravnave o odškodnini. Zanjo je značilno, da je ob prvem sojenju ali sklepanju poravnave ni bilo mogoče pričakovati kot gotovo bodočo škodo. Slednja se na podlagi 182.... neposlovna odškodninska obveznost - vmesna sodba - dokazni standard pretežne verjetnosti - obstoj škode - vprašanje obstoja škode - višina škode - nova škoda - bodoča škoda - gotova bodoča škoda - zastaranje odškodninske terjatve - dokaz z izvedencem - dokaz z novim izvedencem
 VSL Sklep II Cp 1140/2018 VSL00018238 14.11.2018 Civilni oddelek STVARNO PRAVO Ker je toženi sanirano steno v nekaj dneh porušil, tožnica izključne posesti nad podstrešnim delom svojega stanovanja ni pridobila, zato ni upravičena do posestnega varstva niti v obliki prepovedi nadaljnjih motenj z rušenjem stene. Toženi je solastnik podstrešja in ima kot tak na podlagi določila 66. člena SPZ pravico celotno podstrešje imeti v soposesti in ga skupaj z drugimi solastniki... motenje posesti - posestnik - zadnja mirna posest - postavitev zidu - preureditev podstrešnih prostorov v stanovanjski hiši - rušenje - podstrešje - samopomoč - sodno varstvo - solastništvo predmeta