type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY\n\n Of\xef\xac\x81ce of Inspector General\n\n\n Review of Compliance with\n the Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n Operating License\n\n\n\n\n Of\xef\xac\x81ce of Audits\nOIG-05-08 December 2004\n\x0c\x0c Of\xef\xac\x81ce of Inspector General\n\n U.S. Department of Homeland Security\n Washington, DC 20528\n\n\n\n\n Preface\n\nThe Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Of\xef\xac\x81ce of Inspector General (OIG) was established\nby the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment to the Inspector\nGeneral Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, investigative, and special reports\nprepared by the OIG as part of its DHS oversight responsibility to identify and prevent fraud,\nwaste, abuse, and mismanagement.\n\nThis report assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the program or operation under review. It\nis based on interviews with employees and of\xef\xac\x81cials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct\nobservations, and a review of applicable documents.\n\nThe recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to the OIG,\nand have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. It is my hope that\nthis report will result in more effective, ef\xef\xac\x81cient, and economical operations. I express my\nappreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report.\n\n\n\n\n Richard L. Skinner\n Acting Inspector General\n\x0c\x0c Contents\n\n\n\n Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 3\n\n\n Results in Brief .............................................................................................................................. 4\n\n\n Background ................................................................................................................................... 5\n\n\n Detailed Results of Review.......................................................................................................... 10\n\n\n Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 16\n\n\n\nAppendices\n\n Appendix A: Committee on Government Reform Request .................................................... 18\n\n Appendix B: Government Letter on Instructions on Final Accounting .................................. 20\n\n Appendix C: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology ..................................................................... 22\n\n Appendix D: Management Comments..................................................................................... 24\n\n Appendix E: Major Contributors To This Report .................................................................... 25\n\n Appendix F: Report Distribution............................................................................................. 26\n\n\n\nAbbreviations\n\n DHS Department of Homeland Security\n\n GSA General Services Administration\n\n OBC Outer Banks Conservationists, Incorporated \n\n OIG Of\xef\xac\x81ce of Inspector General\n\n U.S. United States\n\n\n\n\n Currituck Beach Lighthouse Page 1\n\x0c Tourists atop the Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\nSource: United States Coast Guard \xef\xac\x81les\n\n\n\nPage 2 Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\x0cOIG\n\nDepartment of Homeland Security\nOf\xef\xac\x81ce of Inspector General\n\n\n Introduction\n In June 1990, the Coast Guard issued a license to Outer Banks Conservationists,\n Incorporated (OBC) for the non-federal use of the Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n (Lighthouse)1 located on the outer banks of North Carolina. The license required\n OBC to maintain the Lighthouse tower; acknowledged that the Coast Guard is\n responsible for maintaining and operating the automated lantern as an aid to\n navigation; allowed OBC to charge an admission fee to the Lighthouse to help\n with maintenance, repair, and operating costs; and required OBC to remit excess\n revenue to the Coast Guard.\n\n OBC expressly sought permission to use the Lighthouse tower to draw tourists\n and tourist dollars to its leased property, which surrounds the Lighthouse. OBC\n has leased the adjoining Currituck Beach Lighthouse Reservation (Keepers\n Reservation) from the State of North Carolina since 1980. The Keepers\n Reservation is comprised of 5.2 acres and contains two houses, which OBC\n restored, that were used by keepers of the Lighthouse. The Lighthouse property is\n less than an acre and contains the tower.\n\n OBC accumulated revenue from admission fees. Because the admission fees\n are program revenue generated from the granted use of federal property, such\n fees are public money. OBC reported to the Coast Guard that, starting in 1990,\n it charged climbers a $1.50 fee for admission to the Lighthouse, and a $1.50 fee\n for admission to the Lightkeepers\xe2\x80\x99 Reservation; subsequently, OBC increased\n each fee to $3. The license required OBC to annually submit to the Coast Guard\n a certi\xef\xac\x81ed statement showing an accounting of operating expenses and revenue.\n The license also required a \xef\xac\x81nal accounting of the revenues and expenses\n generated from OBC\xe2\x80\x99s use of the property under the license, and remittance to the\n government of any excess revenues not used for allowed purposes.\n\n The General Services Administration (GSA) conveyed the deed to the Lighthouse\n to OBC on October 17, 2003, thereby terminating the license.\n\n\n\n 1\n License for Non Federal Use of Real Property, number DTCGZ75130-90-RP-037L\n\n\n Currituck Beach Lighthouse Page 3\n\x0c On September 11, 2003, the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives,\n Government Reform Committee (Committee) presented evidence that suggested\n that money owed to the Coast Guard had never been remitted and requested OIG\n to determine how much money OBC owes the Coast Guard under the license.\n (See Appendix A.) The areas of concern raised by the Committee are summarized\n in the following three key questions:\n\n 1. \t Was OBC\xe2\x80\x99s practice of accumulating and carrying-over revenues proper?\n 2. \t What is the amount of excess revenue owed the government to settle the\n license?\n 3. \t Did the Coast Guard provide appropriate oversight of the Lighthouse\n license?\n\nResults in Brief\n During the course of the license, OBC properly accumulated and carried over\n revenues from period to period, allowing it to pursue not only maintenance, but\n also more capital-intensive restoration and preservation of the Lighthouse. With\n termination of the license, these accumulated revenues, generated from OBC\xe2\x80\x99s use\n of the Lighthouse property, became excess revenue inuring to the government.\n\n OBC submitted, and the Coast Guard accepted, with adjustments, a \xef\xac\x81nal\n accounting of the license revenues and expenses. The Coast Guard determined\n that the amount of excess revenue owed the government to settle the license was\n $328,392, of which the Coast Guard allowed OBC to use $220,000 for planned\n maintenance and restoration of the Lighthouse in lieu of remittance and demanded\n the balance of $108,392 from OBC2. The OIG agreed with the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s\n calculation; and while the OIG found no de\xef\xac\x81nitive legal authority permitting OBC\n to use the $220,000 for the restoration and maintenance contracts it had cancelled,\n the OIG deemed allowing this proposed expenditure to be equitable considering\n the facts and circumstances in this matter.\n\n The Coast Guard concluded that the primary purpose of the license, i.e., the\n restoration and preservation of the Lighthouse structure, was accomplished.\n The license required OBC to assume responsibility for repairs, maintenance,\n renovations, restoration, and preservation of the Lighthouse and the grounds. The\n Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s inspections of the Lighthouse determined that it was adequately\n\n\n2\n On November 10, 2004, OBC agreed that the $108,392 held in escrow should be distributed to the U.S. Treasury, and that OBC would\nproceed with its planned restoration work.\n\n\nPage 4\t Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\x0c maintained overall, although conditions found during some inspections raised\n concerns about the effects of tourists\xe2\x80\x99 foot traf\xef\xac\x81c and triggered closer Coast Guard\n oversight at times.\n\n The Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s primary concern was the accomplishment of its aids-to-\n navigation mission. Therefore, the Coast Guard generally limited its oversight\n of OBC and Currituck to monitoring the physical condition of the tower and\n working order of the light. The Coast Guard relied on OBC to comply with the\n \xef\xac\x81nancial provisions of the license, with minimal \xef\xac\x81nancial management oversight.\n However, prompted by congressional inquiries, the Coast Guard conducted a\n \xef\xac\x81nancial management review in July 2003. The Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s review of OBC\xe2\x80\x99s\n \xef\xac\x81nal accounting report in March 2004 resolved all material discrepancies noted\n during these reviews and resulted in its approval of OBC\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81nal accounting with\n exceptions.\n\n The Coast Guard reviewed our report and concurred with our \xef\xac\x81ndings. The Coast\n Guard\xe2\x80\x99s comments to the report are Appendix D.\n\nBackground\n In June 1989 OBC requested permission from the Coast Guard to allow tourists to\n climb to the top of the Lighthouse. OBC sought this permission to draw tourists\n to its surrounding property leased from the State of North Carolina. According\n to OBC\xe2\x80\x99s request, with the draw of climbing the Lighthouse, OBC would then\n charge tourists an admission fee to the surrounding property, allowing OBC to\n obtain funding needed to complete restoration of its surrounding property. In\n subsequent discussions, the Coast Guard indicated that it could only license OBC\n to use the Lighthouse and collect admission fees for the bene\xef\xac\x81t of the Lighthouse.\n\n In June 1990, the U.S. Department of Transportation, through the Coast\n Guard, issued a license3 to OBC for the non-federal use of the Currituck Beach\n Lighthouse. The license allowed for an admission fee to generate revenue for\n maintenance, repair, operation, restoration, and preservation and required the\n licensee to submit certi\xef\xac\x81ed \xef\xac\x81nancial statements annually. Speci\xef\xac\x81cally, the license\n required that OBC:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 protect, maintain, and keep the facilities in working order;\n\n\n\n3\n License for Non Federal Use of Real Property, number DTCGZ75130-90-RP-037L\n\n\n Currituck Beach Lighthouse Page 5\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 \t obtain prior approval for any additions or alterations to the structures;\n and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t annually submit a certi\xef\xac\x81ed statement showing a breakdown of operating\n expenses and revenue.\n\n The license authorized OBC to open a museum gift shop at the base of the tower\n and to charge an admission fee to the Lighthouse. The license limited OBC\xe2\x80\x99s\n use of the property to the restoration and preservation of the property and its\n structures.\n\n Since 1980, OBC has leased the Currituck Beach Lighthouse Reservation\n (Keepers Reservation) from the State of North Carolina. The Keepers\n Reservation is comprised of 5.2 acres surrounding the Lighthouse and contains\n two houses that were used by keepers of the Currituck Beach Light. Both\n keepers\xe2\x80\x99 houses were restored by OBC. One keepers\xe2\x80\x99 house is not open to the\n public. The other is used as a museum gift shop. The keepers\xe2\x80\x99 houses are shown\n in the photo on the next page taken from atop the Lighthouse.\n\n OBC and the County of Currituck, North Carolina, in which the Lighthouse is\n located, both applied in February 2003 for ownership of the historic structure\n under the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act.4 On April 4, 2003,\n the Department of the Interior selected OBC\xe2\x80\x99s proposal for ownership of the\n Lighthouse. OBC\xe2\x80\x99s stewardship of the Lighthouse and the surrounding Keepers\n Reservation was the primary reason cited for the Department of Interior\xe2\x80\x99s decision\n to award the deed to OBC.5 The County of Currituck appealed the decision.\n However, the Department of the Interior upheld its decision on July 30, 2003,\n awarding the Lighthouse to OBC.\n\n The GSA conveyed the deed for the Currituck Lighthouse property to OBC on\n October 17, 2003, thereby terminating the license. OBC assumed responsibility\n for maintaining the tower as an historic landmark according to historical\n preservation standards, while the Coast Guard retained responsibility for\n maintaining the automated lantern as an aid to navigation. The Coast Guard\n\n4\n On October 24, 2000, the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000, Public Law 106-355, amended the National Historic\nPreservation Act for the purposes of establishing a national historic lighthouse preservation program. The National Historic Lighthouse\nPreservation\nthe Coast Guard identi\xef\xac\x81es for disposal as excess property. Eligible entities are: any federal agency, the state or local government of the\ncommunity in which the historic light station is located, and any nonpro\xef\xac\x81t corporation, educational agency, or community development\norganization that has agreed to comply with certain historic preservation and public access conditions and is \xef\xac\x81nancially able to maintain the\nhistoric light station.\n5\n Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, United States Department of the Interior, decision memorandum on disposition of the\nCurrituck Beach Lighthouse of July 30, 2003.\n\n\nPage 6\t Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\x0c The surrounding Keepers Reservation as seen from atop the Lighthouse\n\nSource: United States Coast Guard \xef\xac\x81les\n\n continues to operate the lantern providing a reference point for mariners\n navigating Currituck Sound or the Atlantic Ocean.\n\n\n Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s July 2003 Compliance Review\n\n The Coast Guard, in response to congressional inquiries, planned and conducted\n a limited scope review of OBC\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with the license. In July 2003, the\n Coast Guard issued a report on its review of OBC\xe2\x80\x99s Lighthouse operations, basic\n business processes, revenues, and expenses.\n\n\n\n\n Currituck Beach Lighthouse Page 7\n\x0c While generally \xef\xac\x81nding that OBC complied with the Coast Guard license\n agreement, the review disclosed a number of discrepancies, including:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t OBC used the property for fund-raising for the Corolla Wild Horse Fund,\n as well as other OBC operations.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t OBC held the Lighthouse admissions receipts in interest-bearing\n accounts and accrued interest revenue, but did not report the interest in\n its annual \xef\xac\x81nancial statements.\n\n The Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s report noted that only half the admission revenues OBC\n collected were considered as Lighthouse revenues and attributed this to the\n collection of admission fees for the adjoining Lightkeepers Reservation that\n OBC leases from the State of North Carolina. The report recommended that the\n Coast Guard send a letter to OBC approving OBC\xe2\x80\x99s practice of collecting fees\n for both the Lightkeepers Reservation and the Lighthouse at the entrance to the\n Lighthouse. Also, the report recommended that the letter direct OBC to change\n entrance signs, shown in the photo below, to specify that two admission fees are\n collected, and either remove or request approval for an unauthorized wishing\n well being used by OBC to collect donations to OBC\xe2\x80\x99s Corolla Wild Horse fund.\n Finally, the report recommended that future licenses be written with more speci\xef\xac\x81c\n and de\xef\xac\x81ned terms. Although the Coast Guard provided OBC with a copy of its\n report, it did not send the recommended letter.\n\n\n\n\n The Coast Guard recommended in its July 2003 compliance review report that\n OBC change this sign to specify two admission fees were being collected\n\nSource: United States Coast Guard \xef\xac\x81les\n\nPage 8\t Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\x0c Government Instructions for Final Accounting\n\n In response to a request for guidance from OBC\xe2\x80\x99s accounting \xef\xac\x81rm,6 the GSA,\n the Coast Guard, the OIG, and the National Park Service sent a letter to OBC on\n January 9, 2004. (See Appendix B.) The letter advised OBC that:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t The intent of the federal government is for OBC to conduct a \xef\xac\x81nal\n accounting and submit a \xef\xac\x81nancial statement reporting all Lighthouse\n revenues and expenses.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t The \xef\xac\x81nal accounting should include the \xef\xac\x81nancial transactions related\n to the Lighthouse operations conducted during the period of the license\n from July 1, 1990, through October 17, 2003. At a minimum, the\n \xef\xac\x81nancial statement should report:\n 1) All revenues OBC generated from its use of the Lighthouse, including\n but not limited to one-half of the admission fees; and the federal\n government\xe2\x80\x99s share of wishing well revenues, Lighthouse donations,\n and interest income, over the course of the license. The \xef\xac\x81nal\n accounting should describe the methodology used to determine the\n amount of wishing well revenues, Lighthouse donations, and interest\n income due the federal government.\n 2) All restoration expenses OBC incurred during the period of the\n license, to include expenditures incurred for preserving, restoring,\n maintaining, repairing, and renovating the Lighthouse.\n 3) All operating expenses OBC incurred during the period of the license\n for the purposes of the license, to include expenses for managing the\n preservation, restoration, maintenance, repair, and renovation of the\n Lighthouse and expenses for managing and operating the Lighthouse\n as a public museum and archive.\n 4) The amount of revenue in excess of expenses, as determined by\n subtracting restoration and operating expenses from the revenues.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t A principal of\xef\xac\x81cer of OBC, or a public accounting \xef\xac\x81rm should OBC\n so desire, must certify that the \xef\xac\x81nancial statement fairly presents in\n all material respects the results of operations of the Lighthouse for the\n period of the license.\n\n\n\n\n6\n Letter of November 12, 2003, from Maddison, Caison, & Ogburn, LLP to the National Park Service, the United States Coast Guard, the\nDepartment of Homeland Security\xe2\x80\x99s Of\xef\xac\x81ce of Inspector General, and the General Services Administration regarding the conduct of a \xef\xac\x81nal\naccounting for the Currituck Beach Lighthouse.\n\n\n Currituck Beach Lighthouse \t Page 9\n\x0cDetailed Results of Review\n Was OBC\xe2\x80\x99s Practice of Accumulating and Carrying-Over\n Revenues Proper?\n\n OBC\xe2\x80\x99s accumulating and carrying-over revenues from one annual period to\n the next was proper and compliant with applicable Coast Guard policies and\n procedures.7 OBC accumulated more revenues every year than were required for\n routine repair and maintenance of the Lighthouse, and held accumulated revenues\n for capital-intensive restoration needs. OBC accumulated excess revenues\n over more than one year, which allowed funding of more expensive restoration\n and preservation work to be pursued. For example, in the \xef\xac\x81scal year ending\n June 2000 OBC spent about $454,000 on restoration and rehabilitation of the\n Lighthouse, while collecting only about $403,000 in total admissions and relying\n on cash reserves from prior years\xe2\x80\x99 operations.\n\n The Coast Guard approved this practice, which we deem not only reasonable, but\n also consistent with the license, federal regulations, and established Coast Guard\n policies and procedures in effect at the time. The license required the payment to\n the Coast Guard of revenue in excess of expenditures but did not mandate annual\n remittance. Under the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s policies and procedures for the outgranting\n of historical lighthouse properties, the Coast Guard either issued a long-term\n license or a short-term lease:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Long-term licenses were to be issued for non-pro\xef\xac\x81ts willing to assume\n responsibility for care of the lighthouse. Such was the case with the\n Currituck license to OBC.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Alternatively, short-term leases could be issued competitively to anyone\n willing to pay market rent. However, Coast Guard policy, citing\n appropriation law, precluded care of the lighthouse being accepted in\n lieu of rents. Therefore, responsibility and expenses for care of a leased\n lighthouse remained with the Coast Guard.\n\n Under the Currituck license, OBC assumed responsibility for the care of the\n Lighthouse. Therefore, the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s use of provisions authorizing admission\n fees to fund care of the lighthouse in the license was appropriately made and\n OBC\xe2\x80\x99s practice of carrying-over revenues was proper. Further, carrying-over\n program income across \xef\xac\x81scal periods may be prudent, if not necessary, to\n\n7\n Real Property Asset Management Manual, Commandant Instruction M11011.9B, dated 18 October 1988.\n\n\n\nPage 10\t Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\x0caccomplish program goals requiring capital investment. Such was the case with\nthe Currituck license to OBC.\n\nWhat is the Amount of Excess Revenues Owed the Government to\nSettle the License?\n\nOn March 4, 2004, OBC provided a \xef\xac\x81nal accounting for the license reporting\nexcess revenue of $187,908 as calculated based on the government\xe2\x80\x99s instructions.\nOn September 22, 2004, the Coast Guard determined that the amount of excess\nrevenue owed the government to settle the license was $328,392. The OIG\nagreed with the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s calculation. The Coast Guard allowed OBC to use\n$220,000 of this amount for planned restoration and maintenance work on the\nLighthouse in lieu of remittance and has demanded the balance of $108,392 from\nOBC. While the OIG found no de\xef\xac\x81nitive legal authority permitting OBC to use\nthe $220,000 for the restoration and maintenance contracts it had cancelled, the\nOIG deemed allowing this proposed expenditure to be equitable considering the\nfacts and circumstances in this matter.\n\n\n The Coast Guard Accepted OBC\xe2\x80\x99s Final Accounting Report With\n Exceptions\n\nThe Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s excess revenue calculation is based on its decision to accept\nOBC\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81nal accounting for the license, with exceptions. The Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s\nanalysis identi\xef\xac\x81ed, and adjusted for, $162,493 of unallowable professional fees\nand expenses that OBC reported, raising the calculated amount of excesses\nrevenue to $350,401. The Coast Guard also identi\xef\xac\x81ed, and adjusted for, $22,009\nof closeout costs that OBC incurred preparing the \xef\xac\x81nal accounting after the period\nof the license, lowering the calculated amount of excesses revenue to $328,392.\n\nThe Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s determination also allowed OBC to use $220,000 for planned\nmaintenance and restoration of the Lighthouse in lieu of remittance. The\nCoast Guard made this allowance as an equitable adjustment pertaining to two\nrestoration and maintenance contracts that OBC had cancelled at the end of the\nlicense. In its \xef\xac\x81nal accounting report OBC requested the government recognize\nthe continuing bona \xef\xac\x81de need for the work to have been performed under the\ncontracts and circumstances of the cancellations and consider these allowances.\nWe reviewed the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s proposed allowance and we found no de\xef\xac\x81nitive\nlegal authority permitting OBC to use the $220,000 for the restoration and\nmaintenance contracts that it had cancelled. Nevertheless, allowing this proposed\n\n\n Currituck Beach Lighthouse Page 11\n\x0c expenditure appears equitable considering the facts and circumstances in this\n matter.\n\n Further, the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s acceptance of OBC\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81nal accounting reasonably\n resolved issues addressed in its July 2003 compliance review report that were\n raised as concerns in the Committee\xe2\x80\x99s request.8 These issues center on revenue\n reporting, including admission charges, interest earnings, and revenues resulting\n from other uses of the Lighthouse, as discussed below.\n\n\n Reporting of Revenues From Admissions Charges\n\n The Coast Guard accepted OBC\xe2\x80\x99s reporting of admission charges. OBC told the\n Coast Guard in 1990 that it charged both a fee for admission to the Lighthouse of\n $1.50 and a fee for admission to the Lightkeepers Reservation of $1.50. The fees\n were raised through the years to $3 and $3. The two fees were described in OBC\n correspondence to the Coast Guard. While the charges initially consisted of both\n a Lighthouse admission fee and a Lightkeepers Reservation fee, OBC began to\n collect a conservation program donation in later years in lieu of the Lightkeepers\n Reservation fee after the keepers\xe2\x80\x99 house had been rehabilitated. Coast Guard\n of\xef\xac\x81cials said they did not object to this change because it did not affect the\n lighthouse fee. The Coast Guard had approved the collection, at the lighthouse, of\n a second admission charge by OBC as part of a cost savings initiative. The Coast\n Guard does not consider the resulting funds from the second admission fee as\n miscellaneous receipts or government property.\n\n In its annual \xef\xac\x81nancial statements OBC reported the amount of the Lighthouse\n admission fees collected, but did not report the total amount of admission charges\n collected or the Lightkeepers\xe2\x80\x99 Reservation admission fees or the conservation\n program donation. OBC\xe2\x80\x99s reporting only the Lighthouse admission fee re\xef\xac\x82ected\n an oral agreement reached with the Coast Guard in 1990. This agreement allowed\n OBC to consolidate three functions at the base of the lighthouse: collecting\n admission fees for the Lighthouse; collecting admission fees for the surrounding\n OBC property, i.e. the Lightkeepers Reservation; and gate keeping. The Coast\n Guard approved the arrangement since consolidating these activities would reduce\n salary costs allowing more revenue for restoration. The Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s July 2003\n compliance review of the license acknowledged this agreement. Nevertheless, the\n\n\n\n8\n See Appendix A for the Committee on Government Reform\xe2\x80\x99s request letter.\n\n\n\nPage 12 Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\x0cmore than $1.4 million OBC collected through the conservation donation has been\na source of controversy, as re\xef\xac\x82ected in the Committee\xe2\x80\x99s request.\n\n\n Reporting of Interest Earnings and Revenues Resulting From Other Uses\n of the Lighthouse\n\nThe Coast Guard accepted OBC\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81nal accounting for other revenues. The \xef\xac\x81nal\naccounting resolved issues raised in the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s July 2003 compliance\nreview, which noted omissions in reporting of other revenues generated by\nOBC from its use of the Lighthouse. In its annual statements, OBC understated\nrevenues by omitting interest earned on accumulated revenues and not disclosing\nthe other revenues OBC collected by unauthorized uses of the lighthouse, such\nas wishing well donations and sponsorship solicitations. However, in its \xef\xac\x81nal\naccounting OBC reported $48,355 in interest earnings and $10,054 in wishing\nwell donations.\n\nThe Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s July 2003 compliance review also noted that onsite solicitation\nof sponsorship donations, which offered donors multiple free Lighthouse\nadmissions, appeared to function as a volume discount for admission fees.\nTherefore, when a donor climbed the Lighthouse as a sponsor without paying an\nadmission fee, the Coast Guard suggested OBC should account for the price of\nan admission as Lighthouse revenue. The Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s July 2003 compliance\nreview recommended changes in recordkeeping to capture these transactions.\nHowever, lacking suf\xef\xac\x81cient data, OBC was unable to determine the amount of\nLighthouse revenue from sponsorship solicitations. As the Coast Guard estimated\nthe amount, over the 13 years of the license, was under $12,000, it concluded the\nomission was not a material discrepancy.\n\n Reporting of Expenses\n\nThe Coast Guard accepted OBC\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81nal accounting for expenses, with exceptions.\nThe Coast Guard accepted and approved OBC\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81nal accounting for restoration\nexpenses, which were consistent with the results of the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s July 2003\ncompliance review. During the compliance review, the Coast Guard examined the\naccounting for restoration expenses and found no material discrepancies.\n\nHowever, the Coast Guard challenged the substantial increase in operating\nexpenses in recent periods during the July 2003 compliance review, upon receipt\nof the last annual \xef\xac\x81nancial statements, and in its review of OBC\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81nal accounting\n\n\n\n Currituck Beach Lighthouse Page 13\n\x0c report. The Coast Guard found that OBC had included $162,493 in certain\n operating expenses, such as professional fees and expenses, which OBC incurred\n pursuant to its efforts to acquire the lighthouse, but which were unrelated to the\n license requirements. Therefore, the Coast Guard adjusted its excess revenue\n calculation, disallowing $162,493 of $1,247,133 in operating expenses.\n\n During its compliance review, the Coast Guard conducted limited testing of\n OBC\xe2\x80\x99s accounting for other expenses and found only minor discrepancies. For\n a judgmentally selected sample, the Coast Guard found OBC generally valued,\n classi\xef\xac\x81ed, recorded, and documented the expense transactions correctly. Further,\n during its review of OBC\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81nal accounting report, the Coast Guard found that\n the disallowed professional fees and expenses were valued, classi\xef\xac\x81ed, recorded,\n and documented correctly. We note that OBC readily disclosed and accounted for\n professional fees and expenses transactions, including those that were disallowed\n as license expenses. OIG concluded that the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s acceptance of OBC\xe2\x80\x99s\n reporting of expenses, with the noted adjustments for disallowed operating\n expenses, was reasonable.\n\n\n Did the Coast Guard Provide Appropriate Oversight of the\n Lighthouse License?\n\n The Coast Guard appropriately focused its oversight of the Lighthouse and the\n license on inspecting the physical condition of the tower and working order of the\n light and performed periodic inspections. However, the Coast Guard was lax in\n enforcing license provisions requiring annual \xef\xac\x81nancial statements to be certi\xef\xac\x81ed,\n forgoing the assurance that certi\xef\xac\x81cation could have provided.\n\n Coast Guard Inspections\n\n The Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s primary concern in its inspections and oversight of the\n Lighthouse was to ensure that its aids-to-navigation mission was accomplished.\n For example, during the license period, the Coast Guard upgraded the electrical\n system for the Lighthouse. However, when the Coast Guard did not timely\n repair windows on the lantern level, OBC made the needed repairs and ensured\n the results met historical preservation standards. The Coast Guard continues\n to maintain and operate the lantern providing a reference point for mariners\n navigating Currituck Sound or the Atlantic Ocean.\n\n\n\n\nPage 14 Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\x0cThe Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s inspections of the Lighthouse determined that it was\nadequately maintained. Structural engineers\xe2\x80\x99 assessments conducted in 1989, just\nprior to the license, and in 2002 show the light tower was sound, and may have\nimproved under OBC\xe2\x80\x99s care, as a result of capital investments.\n\nInspection records also show that the material condition of the Lighthouse varied\nover the course of the license. For example, when the Coast Guard found that\nOBC\xe2\x80\x99s opening of the Lighthouse to tourists resulted in heavier foot traf\xef\xac\x81c than\ndesigned and had unintended adverse consequences placing the integrity of the\nstructure at risk, the Coast Guard and OBC took measures to ensure the safety of\nthe tower and the climbers. In 1992, the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s inspections found that:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t OBC was allowing more tourists in the tower than the stairs could safely\n handle;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t The stress of the shifting foot traf\xef\xac\x81c was adversely affecting the wrought\n iron stairs and the tower; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t The tourist climbing operation was a safety risk to the public.\n\nWith similar \xef\xac\x81ndings in 1993, the Coast Guard instructed OBC to limit the\nnumber of tourists in the tower at one time and pressed OBC on conducting\nstructural engineering assessments, which led to OBC\xe2\x80\x99s measures to strengthen\nthe staircase supports. Additionally, the Coast Guard directed OBC to more\nclearly warn the public of the risks, including clear statements on every page of\nthe registry and requiring all persons, regardless of pay status, to sign the registry\nbefore climbing.\n\n\n Financial Oversight\n\nThe Coast Guard deemed \xef\xac\x81nancial oversight of the out-granted Lighthouses to\nbe a lower priority than oversight of aids-to-navigation mission performance.\nInspectors were civil engineers or Aids-to-Navigation Teams, not accountants.\nInstead, the Coast Guard required annual \xef\xac\x81nancial reporting that allowed for\nmonitoring of the Lighthouses\xe2\x80\x99 \xef\xac\x81nancial management. Additionally, the Coast\nGuard had included a license provision requiring those annual reports to be\ncerti\xef\xac\x81ed, which should have provided greater assurance of full and accurate\nreporting.\n\nHowever, while the license speci\xef\xac\x81cally required the annual statements to be\ncerti\xef\xac\x81ed, the Coast Guard was lax in enforcing this provision. During the\n\n\n\n Currituck Beach Lighthouse \t Page 15\n\x0c license period, OBC did not comply with and the Coast Guard did not enforce\n this provision. None of the 13 annual statements submitted by OBC\xe2\x80\x99s public\n accounting \xef\xac\x81rm were certi\xef\xac\x81ed by either the accountant or OBC management.\n All of the 13 annual submissions from OBC\xe2\x80\x99s public accounting \xef\xac\x81rm contained\n a disclaiming statement that the information in the \xef\xac\x81nancial report was given to\n the accounting \xef\xac\x81rm by OBC and was unaudited. Two of the 13 annual \xef\xac\x81nancial\n reports were unsigned. The Coast Guard accepted the 13 \xef\xac\x81nancial statements\n without challenge and did not question the lack of certi\xef\xac\x81cation.\n\n However, in July 2003, in response to congressional inquiries, the Coast Guard\n conducted a review of OBC\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81nancial reporting as part of a limited compliance\n review. The Coast Guard found that OBC was properly accounting for repair,\n maintenance, and restoration expenses and admissions revenue, but not other\n revenues. The Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s compliance review identi\xef\xac\x81ed unauthorized and\n unreported uses of the Lighthouse and resulting revenues, such as wishing well\n collections and onsite sponsorship donations that appeared to function as a\n volume discount on lighthouse admissions. The Coast Guard considered revenue\n generated from these unauthorized operations as inuring to the Coast Guard.\n\n OBC management certi\xef\xac\x81ed the \xef\xac\x81nal accounting report of March 4, 2004,\n which included interest and revenue from the wishing well. The Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s\n determination on OBC\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81nal accounting report accepted OBC\xe2\x80\x99s calculation of\n excess revenues.\n\nConclusion\n The OIG and the Coast Guard found areas of non-compliance by OBC with the\n terms of the license. Although the Coast Guard did not enforce compliance with\n the license relative to the certi\xef\xac\x81cation of annual reports or amend the license to\n incorporate the oral agreement to consolidate the collection of fees, it concluded\n that OBC was substantially compliant with the license. The Coast Guard did not\n \xef\xac\x81nd the points of non-compliance material and asserted that the deviations from\n the letter of the license, while not formally agreed to in advance, were reasonable.\n Further, after the January 9, 2004, letter to OBC resolved the requirements for the\n \xef\xac\x81nal accounting for the Lighthouse, the Coast Guard accepted much of OBC\xe2\x80\x99s\n ensuing report, made adjustments and allowances for expenses, and determined\n the amount of excess revenue to be $328,392. OIG agreed with the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s\n determination.\n\n\n\n\nPage 16 Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\x0cWe limited our review to the now-terminated Currituck Beach Lighthouse\nlicense. Accordingly, we are not making recommendations to the Coast Guard for\nimproving the management and oversight of other lighthouses licensed under this\nprogram.\n\nManagement Comments. The Coast Guard concurred with our \xef\xac\x81ndings. The\nCoast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s written response to the report is contained in Appendix D.\n\n\n\n\n Currituck Beach Lighthouse Page 17\n\x0cAppendix A\nCommittee On Government Reform Letter\n\n\n\n\nPage 18 Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\x0c Appendix A\n Committee On Government Reform Letter\n\n\n\n\nCurrituck Beach Lighthouse Page 19\n\n\x0cAppendix B\nGovernment Letter on Instructions on Final Accounting\n\n\n\n\nPage 20 Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\x0c Appendix B\n Government Letter on Instructions on Final Accounting\n\n\n\n\nCurrituck Beach Lighthouse Page 21\n\n\x0cAppendix C\nPurpose, Scope, and Methodology\n\n\n\nPurpose, Scope, and Methodology\n On September 11, 2003, the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives,\n Government Reform Committee9 (Committee) presented evidence that suggested\n that money owed to the Coast Guard has never been remitted and requested\n OIG to determine how much money OBC owes the Coast Guard under the\n license. To accomplish this objective, we determined whether OBC\xe2\x80\x99s practice of\n accumulating and carrying-over revenues was proper and what was the amount\n of excess revenue owed the government to settle the license. To address the\n Committee\xe2\x80\x99s concerns we also determined whether the Coast Guard provided\n appropriate oversight of the Lighthouse license. We limited this review to the\n Currituck Beach Lighthouse license.\n\n We assessed OBC\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with the terms of the license. We interviewed\n OBC and Coast Guard of\xef\xac\x81cials. We reviewed license \xef\xac\x81les, compliance review\n team working papers, and inspection reports obtained from the Coast Guard. We\n interviewed, held discussions with, and reviewed documents from of\xef\xac\x81cials of the\n General Services Administration, the National Park Service, and the County of\n Currituck.\n\n We evaluated OBC\xe2\x80\x99s practices regarding accumulating and carrying-over\n revenues. We ascertained OBC\xe2\x80\x99s practices, including historical practices on\n remitting excess revenues, by reviewing Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81les and interviewing\n OBC and Coast Guard of\xef\xac\x81cials. In evaluating these practices, we applied criteria\n we developed through research of Coast Guard policies and procedures and\n federal regulations.\n\n We evaluated OBC\xe2\x80\x99s reporting of Lighthouse revenues and expenses, by\n identifying instructions provided to OBC as shown in the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81les\n and disclosed from discussions with Coast Guard of\xef\xac\x81cials and applying criteria\n we developed through research of license provisions, federal regulations, and\n Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.\n\n We reviewed and monitored the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s determination of the amount\n of excess revenue owed the government to settle the license. We assessed\n the reasonableness of the assumptions, risks, and results of the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s\n analysis. We reviewed reports and information provided by OBC. We reviewed\n the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81les and discussed the process and preliminary results of the\n\n\n9\n A copy of the letter from the Government Reform Committee is Appendix A of this report.\n\n\nPage 22 Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\x0c Appendix C\n Purpose, Scope, and Methodology\n\n\n\nCoast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s review with Coast Guard of\xef\xac\x81cials. We identi\xef\xac\x81ed from Coast Guard\ndocuments the amount of excess revenue demanded from OBC.\n\nWe evaluated the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s oversight of the Lighthouse license by identifying\nthe Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s practices from reviewing the Coast Guard\xe2\x80\x99s \xef\xac\x81les and\ndiscussions with Coast Guard of\xef\xac\x81cials and applying criteria we developed through\nresearch of Coast Guard policies and procedures and federal regulations. We\ndiscussed the application of federal regulations with the Of\xef\xac\x81ce of Management\nand Budget. We identi\xef\xac\x81ed circumstances related to administration of historical\nlighthouse outgrants from discussions with Coast Guard, Department of Interior,\nand General Services Administration of\xef\xac\x81cials and review of Coast Guard,\nDepartment of Transportation, Department of Interior, and General Services\nAdministration documents.\n\nThroughout the review, the OIG team worked closely with Coast Guard of\xef\xac\x81cials.\nWe greatly appreciate the cooperation and courtesy extended by the Coast Guard,\nGeneral Services Administration, Department of Interior, OBC, and OBC\xe2\x80\x99s\naccountants during the course of our review. Appendix 5 lists the major OIG\ncontributors. For additional information about the review the principal OIG\npoints of contact are Mr. J. Richard Berman, Assistant Inspector General for\nAudits, at (202) 254-4100 and Ms. Tamara Faulkner, Congressional Liaison at\n(202) 254-4100.\n\n\n\n\n Currituck Beach Lighthouse Page 23\n\x0cAppendix D\nManagement Comments\n\n\n\n\nPage 24 Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\x0c Appendix E\n Major Contributors to this Report\n\n\n\nMajor Contributors to This Report\n J. Richard Berman, Assistant Inspector General for Audits\n Richard Reback, Counsel to the Inspector General\n Edward M. Stulginsky, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits\n Phillip J. Maulden, Project Manager\n Richard Doery, Attorney\n\n\n\n\n Currituck Beach Lighthouse Page 25\n\x0cAppendix F\nReport Distribution\n\n\n\n Outer Banks Conservationists, Inc.\n\n\n Department of Homeland Security\n Secretary\n Deputy Secretary\n Chief of Staff\n General Counsel\n Chief Security Of\xef\xac\x81cer\n DHS OIG Liaison\n United States Coast Guard\n\n\n Other Executive Agencies\n U.S. Department of the Interior\n General Services Administration\n\n\n Of\xef\xac\x81ce of Management and Budget\n Chief, Homeland Security Branch\n DHS OIG Budget Examiner\n\n\n Congress\n Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives\n\n\n\n\nPage 26 Currituck Beach Lighthouse\n\x0c\x0cAdditional Information and Copies\n\nTo obtain additional copies of this report, call the Of\xef\xac\x81ce of Inspector General (OIG)\nat (202) 254-4100, fax your request to (202) 254-4285, or visit the OIG web site at\nwww.dhs.gov/oig.\n\nOIG Hotline\n\nTo report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal\nor noncriminal misconduct relative to department programs or operations, call the OIG\nHotline at 1-800-323-8603; write to Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC\n20528, Attn: Of\xef\xac\x81ce of Inspector General, Investigations Division \xe2\x80\x93 Hotline. The OIG\nseeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
C 118/20 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende 18.5.2002
 Sag anlagt den 19 marts 2002 af Kommissionen for De Kommissionen konkluderer derfor, at den italienske regering
 Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Den Italienske Republik ikke har gennemført direktiv 92/51, hvad angår adgangen til
 de nævnte erhverv.
 (Sag C-101/02)
 (1) EFT L 209 af 24.7.1992, s. 25.
 (2) EFT L 19 af 24.1.1989, s. 16.
 (2002/C 118/32)
 Ved De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol er der den 19 marts
 2002 anlagt sag mod Den Italienske Republik af Kommissio-
 nen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber ved Maria Patakia og Sag anlagt den 20 marts 2002 af Kommissionen for De
 Antonio Aresu, som befuldmægtigede. Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Den Italienske Republik
 (Sag C-103/02)
 Kommissionen har nedlagt følgende påstande:
 (2002/C 118/33)
 — Det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine
 forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 92/51/EØF (1) af
 18 juni 1992 om anden generelle ordning for an- Ved De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol er der den 20 marts
 erkendelse af erhvervsuddannelser til supplering af direk- 2002 anlagt sag mod Den Italienske Republik af Kommissio-
 tiv 89/48/EØF (2), idet den ikke har gennemført direktivets nen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber ved advokaterne Richard
 bestemmelser. Wainwright og Roberto Amorosi.
 — Den Italienske Republik tilpligtes at betale sagens omkost-
 ninger. Sagsøgeren har nedlagt følgende påstande:
 — Det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine
 forpligtelser efter artikel 1, 9, 10 og 11 i direktiv 75/442/
 EØF, som ændret ved direktiv 91/156/EØF(1) og artikel 3
 i direktiv 91/689/EØF, idet den har vedtaget dekret af
 Søgsmålsgrunde og væsentligste argumenter 5 februar 1998 om bestemmelse af ufarligt affald, som er
 undergivet den forenklede procedure for genindvinding i
 henhold til artikel 31 og 33 i lovdekret nr. 22 af 5 februar
 1997, idet dekretet:
 Det fremgår klart af en gennemgang af bestemmelserne i lov
 91/81, at virksomhed som atlet, træner, teknisk-sportslig leder
 og atletikpraktikant i Italien er erhverv, der er reguleret A. i strid med artikel 11, stk. 1, første og andet led,
 efter direktiv 92/51. Følgelig skal de kompetente italienske samt artikel 10 i direktiv 75/442/EØF(2), med senere
 myndigheder, når de modtager en anmodning om an- ændringer, indeholder hjemmel til at fritage anlæg
 erkendelse af erhvervsuddannelsen til den nævnte virksomhed, og virksomheder, der genindvinder ufarligt affald,
 pligtmæssigt behandle anmodningen i overensstemmelse med for forpligtelsen til indhentning af godkendelse,
 direktivets regler. uden at der med hensyn til de mængder affald, som
 behandles af de institutioner, der er fritaget for
 godkendelse, kræves overholdt betingelser om
 1) forudgående fastsættelse af maksimale affalds-
 Artikel 13 i lovdekret 319/94 opregner de myndigheder, mængder og 2) overholdelse af kravene i artikel 4 i
 der er beføjet til at anerkende erhvervsuddannelsen, og det direktiv 75/442/EØF, med senere ændringer,
 fastsættes navnlig i litra a), at kompetencen til at træffe
 afgørelse i anerkendelsessager ligger hos det ministerium, som B. i strid med artikel 11, stk. 1, første led, i direktiv
 fører tilsyn med de erhverv, som omtales i artikel 2, litra a), i 75/442/EØF, med senere ændringer, ikke præcist
 henhold til dekretet bilag C. Det pågældende bilag nævner en fastlægger de typer affald, som er omfattet af godken-
 række erhverv og ministerier med kompetence til at behandle delsesdispensationen, og der som følge heraf tillige i
 ansøgninger om anerkendelse af de kvalifikationer, som står i strid med artikel 3 i direktiv 91/689/EØF(3) i visse
 forbindelse med de pågældende erhverv. Imidlertid er de eneste tilfælde på grund af manglende klarhed eller præci-
 sportslige erhverv, der nævnes, skiinstruktører, vandskiinstruk- sion indeholder hjemmel til at fritage anlæg eller
 tører, bjergførere og huleudforskningsførere, mens der ikke er virksomheder, der genindvinder visse typer ufarligt
 nogen omtale af erhvervet som atlet, træner, teknisk-sportslig affald, for godkendelse på grundlag af de mere
 leder og atletikpraktikant. lempelige betingelser for ufarligt affald,


text:
Firmalag. 128/1979 - Ursprungliga författningar - FINLEX ®
 Du är här: Finlex › Lagstiftning › Ursprungliga författningar › 1979 › 128/1979
 Firmalag.
 Aktiebolag och andelslag får idka del av verksamheten under särskilt namn (bifirma). Näringsidkare kan för sin verksamhet jämte firma använda annat kännetecken (sekundärt kännetecken).
 Vad i denna lag stadgas om firma gäller även bifirma. Stadgandena om firma i 2 § 3 mom. samt 3―6, 18, 22―24 och 27―29 §§ av denna lag äger motsvarande tillämpning på sekundärt kännetecken.
 Om registrering av firma stadgas i handelsregisterlagen (129/79).
 Ensamrätt till registrerad firma innebär att annan näringsidkare icke här i landet får använda en med sådan firma förväxlingsbar firma, om det ej visas att innehavaren av firman icke kan lida skada därav.
 Ensamrätt till firma på grundval av inarbetning innebär, att annan näringsidkare icke inom det område där inarbetningen skett får använda en därmed förväxlingsbar firma.
 Näringsidkare får använda sitt släktnamn såsom firma, om dess användning icke är ägnad att framkalla förväxling med annans skyddade firma eller varumärke.
 Inom det område, på vilket näringsidkare enligt 1 mom. använder sitt släktnamn som firma, får annan näringsidkare icke använda en med detta namn förväxlingsbar firma.
 Förväxlingsbarhet mellan firmor kan åberopas endast om innehavarna idkar verksamhet av samma eller liknande slag.
 Förväxlingsbarhet kan dock även annars åberopas:
 1) till förmån för firma, som är synnerligen starkt inarbetad och allmänt känd, såvida användningen av en annan liknande firma med hänsyn härtill skulle innebära otillbörligt utnyttjande av den förstnämnda firmans affärsvärde; eller
 2) till förmån för firma, som är inarbetad, såvida användandet av en liknande firma med beaktande av verksamhetens speciella karaktär uppenbarligen skulle minska den förstnämnda firmans affärsvärde.
 Vid avgörandet av tvist, som gäller rätt till firmor som är förväxlingsbara, har den företräde som kan åberopa tidigaste rättsgrund.
 Är firma inarbetad och har innehavaren av en därmed förväxlingsbar äldre firma icke inom rimlig tid inskridit mot användningen av den yngre firman, består rätten till den inarbetade firman vid sidan av den äldre rätten. För undvikande av risk för förväxling har domstol dock härvid rätt att på yrkande av part och efter vad som prövas skäligt förordna, att firma får användas endast på särskilt sätt, såsom med tillfogande av ortsangivelse eller med annat förtydligande. Innan dylikt förordnande utfärdas skall registermyndighetens utlåtande i saken inhämtas.
 1) enskild näringsidkares firma får ej innehålla annan persons än innehavarens namn;
 2) öppet bolags firma skall innehålla orden "öppet bolag", såvida bolagsformen icke annars framgår av firman, och i firman får ej heller förekomma annan persons än bolagsmans namn;
 3) kommanditbolags firma skall innehålla ordet "kommanditbolag" eller allmänt vedertagen förkortning därav, och i firman får ej heller förekomma annan persons än personligen ansvarig bolagsmans namn;
 4) aktiebolags firma skall innehålla ordet "aktiebolag" eller allmänt vedertagen förkortning därav, och såvida bostadsaktiebolag avses, skall detta klart framgå av firman;
 5) andelslags firma skall innehålla ordet "andelslag" eller i sammansättning ordet "andels-", och i sådan firma får ej förekomma namn på person eller omnämnande av medlemmarnas tillskottsplikt;
 6) ideell förenings firma skall innehålla det namn under vilket föreningen införts i föreningsregistret;
 7) stiftelses firma skall innehålla det namn under vilket stiftelsen införts i registret över stiftelser; samt
 8) sådan filialrörelses firma, som utländsk näringsidkare grundat i Finland, skall innehålla den utländska näringsidkarens firma jämte tillägg som utvisar att rörelsen är en filialrörelse.
 Aktiebolags bifirma får icke innehålla ordet "aktiebolag" eller allmänt vedertagen förkortning därav, ej heller andelslags bifirma ordet "andelslag" eller i sammansättning ordet "andels-".
 Utöver vad i denna paragraf är stadgat skall iakttagas vad om firma stadgas annorstädes i lag.
 Firma skall särskilja innehavarens företag. Vid bedömandet av firmas särskiljningsförmåga skall hänsyn tagas till alla föreliggande omständigheter. Firma, som endast anger verksamhetens art eller allmän benämning på vara eller tjänst som erbjudes, eller som uteslutande innehåller allmänt nyttjat ortnamn eller annat sådant namn, kan anses särskiljande endast om den inarbetats. Sådan del av firma, som enbart anger företagsformen, skall icke anses öka firmans särskiljningsförmåga.
 Firma får icke strida mot god sed eller allmän ordning eller vara ägnad att vilseleda allmänheten.
 Firma får icke utan vederbörligt samtycke innehålla:
 1) sådan statlig eller internationell benämning eller förkortning av namn, som enligt lag icke får användas i näringsverksamhet, ej heller uttryck som kan förväxlas därmed;
 2) något sådant som kan uppfattas såsom annans släktnamn, konstnärsnamn eller annat motsvarande namn, såvida ej namnet uppenbarligen avser någon för länge sedan avliden person, ej heller något som är ägnat att uppfattas såsom namnet på stiftelse eller förening eller annat dylikt samfund;
 3) något sådant som kan uppfattas såsom titel på annans skyddade litterära eller konstnärliga verk, om titeln är egenartad, eller något som kränker annans upphovsrätt till sådant verk; eller
 4) något sådant som kan förväxlas med annans skyddade firma, sekundära, kännetecken eller varumärke.
 Firma får registreras på två eller flera språk, om uttrycken på de olika språken till sitt innehåll motsvarar varandra. Vad om firma är stadgat skall tillämpas på vart och ett sådant uttryck.
 Ensamrätt till firma på grundval av registrering gäller från den dag då anmälan inkommit till registermyndigheten för registrering.
 Övergång av firma.
 Firma får överlåtas till annan endast i samband med överlåtelse av näringsverksamhet.
 Firma övergår i samband med överlåtelse av näringsverksamhet, utom då firman innehåller enskild näringsidkares eller bolagsmans släktnamn eller annat avtalats i saken.
 Övergår näringsverksamhet till följd av enskild näringsidkares död vid avvittring eller arvskifte till maken eller annan delägare i dödsboet eller genom testamente till testamentstagare, får firman användas oförändrad, såvida annat icke avtalats vid avvittringen eller arvskiftet eller föreskrivits i testamentet.
 Fortsattes bolagsverksamhet sedan bolagsman i öppet bolag eller personligen ansvarig bolagsman i kommanditbolag avlidit, får firman användas oförändrad även om den avlidnes namn ingår i firman, såvida annat icke avtalats mellan bolagsmännen.
 Utträder bolagsman ur öppet bolag eller personligen ansvarig bolagsman ur kommanditbolag, får bolagsmannens namn behållas i firman endast om han samtyckt därtill.
 Skulle firma i det i 13 § stadgade fallet komma att innehålla annans än innehavarens eller bolagsmans namn, skall till firman dock fogas tillägg som utvisar att firman övergått eller förhållandena förändrats.
 Firma får icke utmätas.
 Försattes enskild näringsidkare, öppet bolag eller kommanditbolag i konkurs, ingår firman i konkursboet, om den icke innehåller gäldenärens eller bolagsmans släktnamn. Firma som icke hör till konkursboet får dock användas under den tid verksamheten fortsättes för boets räkning.
 Förhud mot användning av firma.
 Om firma eller dess användning strider mot god sed eller äventyrar allmän ordning eller vilseleder allmänheten, kan domstol i den omfattning som befinnes erforderlig vid vite förbjuda innehavaren av firman att använda den.
 Ovan i 1 mom. avsedd förbudsdom kan även meddelas och vite utsättas, om någon gjort intrång i annans rätt till firma.
 Förbuds tala n får föras av envar som lider förfång av firman eller dess användning. I fall som avses i 1 mom. får talan även föras av myndighet som handels- och industriministeriet bestämmer samt av samfund som bevakar vederbörande näringsidkares intressen.
 Talan om utdömande av vite får föras av den på vars yrkande förbudsdom givits samt, om förbudsdom givits med stöd av 1 mom., även av myndighet som handels- och industriministeriet bestämmer.
 Hävande av registrering.
 Har firma registrerats i strid med denna lag eller andra stadganden angående firma, och föreligger alltjämt hinder för registrering, kan domstol på talan häva registreringen.
 Registrering kan likaså hävas:
 1) om firman blivit stridande mot lag sedan den registrerats och alltjämt är lagstridig;
 2) om innehavaren av firman icke längre är näringsidkare; eller
 3) om firman ej varit i bruk under de senaste fem åren och innehavaren icke visar godtagbart skäl därtill.
 Talan om hävande av registrering får föras av envar som lider förfång av registreringen. Likaså får talan föras av myndighet som handels- och industriministeriet bestämmer samt av samfund som avses i 18 § 3 mom., förutom då talan grundar sig på 10 § 2―4 punkterna.
 Sedan dom om hävande av registrering vunnit laga kraft, skall registermyndigheten avföra firman ur registret. Domstol kan dock förordna, att firman får finnas i registret ända till utgången av en skälig tid för anmälan av ny firma till registret.
 Straff stadgande.
 Den som uppsåtligen kränker annans rätt till firma skall för firmaintrång dömas till böter.
 Allmän åklagare får driva åtal för brott som avses i 1 mom. endast om målsäganden anmält brottet till åtal.
 Ersättningsskyldighet.
 Näringsidkare, inom vars näringsverksamhet i annans rätt till firma uppsåtligen eller av vållande gjorts intrång, är skyldig att ersätta den skada intrånget medfört. Föreligger endast ringa vållande, kan skadeståndet jämkas.
 Rätt till skadestånd preskriberas, om ersättningstalan ej väckts inom fem år från skadans uppkomst.
 Då domstol dömer näringsidkare till vite som utsatts med stöd av 18 § 1 mom., kan den enligt vad som befinnes skäligt förordna att firma, som olovligen anbringats på affärsskylt, vara, förpackning, reklamtryck, affärshandling eller dylikt, skall avlägsnas eller att firman skall ändras så att den icke längre kan missbrukas. Kan sådan åtgärd icke eljest genomföras, kan det förordnas, att egendom på vilken firman anbringats skall förstöras eller ändras till erforderliga delar.
 Har intrång gjorts i annans rätt till firma, får domstol på yrkande av den vars rätt lidit intrång, förordna att i 1 mom. nämnd åtgärd skall vidtagas i enlighet med vad som anses erforderligt för att upprepat intrång skall kunna förhindras.
 Uppfylles icke förpliktelse som ålagts i vitesbeslut, eller finnes det skäl antaga, att brott som avses i 22 § blivit begånget, kan domstol förordna, att i 1 och 2 mom. avsedd egendom skall tagas i beslag till dess därom annat förordnas. Härvid gäller i tillämpliga delar vad om beslag i brottmål är stadgat.
 Har intrång i rätt till registrerad firma gjorts, får för intrånget icke dömas till påföljd enligt 22―24 §§ sedan registreringen hävts genom dom som vunnit laga kraft.
 Gör svaranden i mål om intrång i registrerad firma gällande att kärandens firma är sådan, att dess registrering borde hävas, skall domstolen på yrkande av honom uppskjuta ärendets behandling eller avgörande till dess talan om hävande av registreringen slutligt avgjorts. Har talan icke väckts, skall domstolen i samband med uppskov i målet förelägga svaranden viss tid, inom vilken sådan talan skall väckas.
 Talan om fastställande av huruvida rätt till firma föreligger eller huruvida visst förfarande gör intrång i sådan rätt kan upptagas till behandling i domstol, om ovisshet i saken föreligger och detta medför förfång för käranden.
 Göres i mål om fastställelsetalan invändning att registrering skall hävas, äger motsvarande tillämpning vad i 26 § är stadgat.
 Helsingfors rådstuvurätt är laga domstol i mål som gäller rätt till firma, förbud mot användning av firma eller hävande av dess registrering, i 27 § avsedd talan eller firmaintrång.
 Domstol skall till registermyndigheten sända avskrift av laga kraft vunnen dom i mål som gäller förbud mot användning av firma, hävande av registrering av firma, i 27 § avsedd talan eller firmaintrång.
 Statlig och kommunal inrättning har i denna lag avsedd ensamrätt till sitt namn som om namnet blivit registrerat som firma.
 Då firma tecknas skall hela firman klart anges och underskrivas av firmatecknaren. Vid teckning av bifirma skall även firman anges.
 Under konkurs eller likvidation skall firma tecknas med tillägg som anger det ändrade förhållandet.
 Om firmateckning gäller i övrigt vad därom är särskilt stadgat.
 Denna lag tillämpas även på firma som registrerats innan lagen trätt i kraft, dock så att:
 1) sådan registrering av firma, som skett före denna lags ikraftträdande, med stöd av 19 § 1 mom. kan hävas endast om detta varit möjligt före denna lags ikraftträdande; och
 2) andelslag, som är infört i handelsregistret då lagen träder i kraft och vars namn i sammansättning innehåller ordet "-lag", bibehåller sin firma oförändrad utan hinder av vad i 7 § 1 mom. 5 punkten är stadgat.
 Utöver det som är stadgat om tioårig preskriptionstid gäller beträffande skadestånd till följd av sådant firmaintrång som inträffat innan denna lag trätt i kraft, att rätten till skadestånd är förverkad, såvida icke talan väckts inom fem år från lagens ikraftträdande.
 1 §.2 §.3 §.4 §.5 §.6 §.7 §.8 §.9 §.10 §.11 §.12 §.13 §.14 §.15 §.16 §.17 §.18 §.19 §.20 §.21 §.22 §.23 §.24 §.25 §.26 §.27 §.28 §.29 §.30 §.31 §.32 §.33 §.


text:
Knivbæreren på diskoteket – U.2010.796H
 Højesterets dom i sag 257/2009. Refereret af andre i U.2010.796H.
 Tema: Besiddelse af våben, våbenloven, formildende omstændigheder
 Den 31. maj 2009 om natten, blev T’s bil ransaget af politiet foran et diskotek i Middelfart. Her fandt politiet to hobbyknive, som lå i lommen i døren til førersædet i bilen. T blev derfor tiltalt for overtrædelse af våbenlovens § 4, stk. 1 ved at være i besiddelse af kniv på et offentligt tilgængeligt sted.
 T forklarede at han ikke selv havde været inde på diskoteket den nat, men at han blot stod ved sin bil og ventede på sine venner, som han havde lovet at køre hjem. T forklarede endvidere at de to hobbyknive stammede fra hans arbejde på en tankstation, hvor han anvendte hobbyknivene til at åbne kasser. Når han fik fri lagde han altid de effekter han anvendte på tankstationen i sidelommen i bilen, så de var klar, når han skulle på arbejde igen. Det var dog en forglemmelse, at han havde fået hobbyknivene med hjem fra arbejdet. T havde forud for ransagelsen senest været på arbejde den 28. maj, men det havde dog oprindeligt været meningen, at han skulle have været på arbejde den 30. maj.
 Højesteret slog fast at der var tale om en overtrædelse af våbenlovens § 4, stk. 1. Endvidere slog Højesteret fast at kniven ikke kunne anses for at være medtaget i noget bestemt øjemed, og at der derfor ikke var tale om et anerkendelsesværdigt formål i lovens forstand. Blandt andet af hensyn til at de to hobbyknive stammede fra T’s arbejdsplads, at knivene lå i lommen i døren til førersædet i bilen sammen med andre effekter til brug for arbejdet på tankstationen, at T befandt sig foran diskoteket midt om natten fordi han skulle køre sine venner hjem og ikke selv havde været på diskoteket, fandt Højesteret at der forelå særligt formildende omstændigheder, og at T derfor alene blev pålagt en bøde.
 Denne dom er relevant i forhold til forståelsen af hvornår man kan anses for at bære kniv i våbenlovens forstand, samt hvornår der er tale om formildende omstændigheder i den henseende.
 Den ene relevante bestemmelse i dommen er våbenlovens § 4, stk. 1, hvorefter det er forbudt på offentlige steder, uddannelsessteder, i ungdomsklubber, fritidsordninger og lignende at bære eller være i besiddelse af kniv eller dolk, medmindre det sker som led i erhvervsudøvelse, til brug ved jagt, lystfiskeri, sportsudøvelse eller har et andet lignende anerkendelsesværdigt formål. Endvidere omfatter forbuddet ikke foldeknive med en klinge på højst 7 cm., der ikke kan fastlåses i udfoldet position.
 I ovenstående dom var det for det første et problem at der var tale om to hobbyknive. Endvidere var det et problem at T ikke kunne godtgøre at han anvendte kniven til et anerkendelsesværdigt formål.
 Overtrædes våbenlovens § 4, stk. 1, findes strafhjemlen hertil i § 10, stk. 2, hvorefter man, på det tidspunkt hvor loven blev afsagt, blev straffet med fængsel indtil 2 år, under særlig formildende omstændigheder dog med bøde (på nuværende tidspunkt er bestemmelsen ændret en smule).
 Højesteret anså flere momenter i sagen for at være af formildende karakter såsom at hobbyknivene stammede fra T’s arbejdsplads, at T oprindeligt skulle have været på arbejde den dag politiet ransagede hans bil, men vagtplanen imidlertid var blevet lavet om og at T opholdt sig hvor han gjorde, fordi han skulle køre nogle venner hjem fra fest. Derfor fik T en bøde, i stedet for fængselsstraf.
 I sagen illustrerer Højesteret ved hjælp af lovens forarbejder, hvornår der er tale om formildende omstændigheder:
 ”Til illustration af, hvornår der foreligger særlig formildende omstændigheder, er det i forarbejderne anført, at det navnlig kan tænkes i tilfælde, hvor en person fra en situation, hvor der var et anerkendelsesværdigt formål med at have kniven et offentligt tilgængeligt sted, på grund af en forglemmelse eller et svinkeærinde er kommet i en situation, hvor det ikke længere er lovligt at have kniven. Der kan således efter forarbejderne foreligge særlig formildende omstændigheder, hvis der f.eks. er tale om en person, som efter en arbejdsdag, fisketur, spejdertur eller lignende, hvor vedkommende lovligt har båret eller været i besiddelse af en kniv, går på restauration med kniven i lommen eller tasken i stedet for at tage direkte hjem og dermed overtræder forbuddet i § 4, stk. 1. Det er hertil i forarbejderne føjet, at hvis en person bærer kniv på steder eller under omstændigheder, hvor der er en nærliggende risiko for, at der kan opstå tilspidsede situationer af potentiel voldelig karakter - f.eks. i værtshusmiljøer i aften- eller nattetimerne - vil der dog kun sjældent foreligge særlig formildende omstændigheder, uanset om den pågældende person tidligere på dagen har haft et anerkendelsesværdigt formål med at bære kniven.”
 I U 2010.796H fandt politiet to hobbyknive i T’s bil, da de ransagede denne en nat foran et diskotek i Middelfart. T blev herefter tiltalt for overtrædelse af våbenlovens § 4, stk. 1, ved at have været i besiddelse af kniv på et offentligt tilgængeligt sted. Eftersom T ikke kunne godtgøre, at han anvendte knivene til et anerkendelsesværdigt formål, slog Højesteret fast, at T var skyldig i overtrædelse af våbenlovens § 4, stk. 1. Højesteret slog dog også fast, at der forelå flere formildende omstændigheder, blandt andet at hobbyknivene stammede fra T’s arbejdsplads og at han ved en fejl havde taget dem med sig, at knivene blev fundet i lommen i døren til førersædet i bilen sammen med andre effekter til brug for arbejdet på tankstationen og at T opholdt sig ude foran diskoteket midt om natten, fordi han skulle køre sine venner hjem fra fest. Derfor fik T en bøde i stedet for fængselsstraf.


type: wikipedia

text:
Revoliucija (iš vėlyvosios – apsisukimas) – globalus ir radikalus kokybinis pokytis (lūžis) gamtos, visuomenės arba pažinimo raidoje, aiškiai atsiskiriant nuo ankstesnės būsenos.
 Revoliucijos samprata istorijoje ir politologijoje
 Revoliucija yra politinių konfliktų tarp piliečių ir valdžios institucijų rūšis, kai piliečiai protestuoja ne prieš kurį nors vyriausybės sprendimą ar įstatymą, o apskritai prieš vyriausybę ir jos politiką. Pagrindinė revoliucijos ir pilietinio karo skirtumas yra tas, kad šiuo atveju konfliktuojančių pusių jėgos yra nelygios. Nepasitenkinimas vyriausybe dėl kokių nors priežasčių yra apėmęs didžiąją dalį visuomenės. Vyriausybė negali remtis net jėga, nes revoliucijų metu pagrindinės represinės struktūros, tokios kaip armija ar policija, paprastai irgi pereina į piliečių pusę arba nesikiša į konfliktą. Todėl revoliucijų metu paprastai senoji vyriausybė yra pašalinama ir pakeičiama nauja, turinčia piliečių pasitikėjimą.
 Revoliucija nuo valstybinio perversmo skiriasi tuo, kad perversmo metu pakeičiami šalies vadovai, o revoliucijos metu – valstybės santvarka.
 Svarbiausias revoliucijos požymis yra esmingas vyriausybės politikos turinio pasikeitimas. Klasikinis revoliucijos pavyzdys – Prancūzijos didžioji revoliucija (1789–1799), nuvertusi seną absoliutaus monarcho vyriausybę, kurios politika buvo nebepriimtina didžiajai Prancūzijos gyventojų daugumai.
 Revoliucija gali kilti netikėtai, tačiau sąlygos revoliucijos atsiradimui vystosi per ilgą laiką. Ilgas procesas, kuris veda į revoliuciją, susideda iš daugelio pokyčių ir konfliktų, bet svarbiausi yra klasių konfliktai ir valstybės vieta tuose konfliktuose.
 Alexis de Tocqueville savo darbe „Senoji santvarka ir revoliucija“ teigė, kad revoliuciniai sprogimai vyksta nebūtinai dėl situacijos visuomenėje pablogėjimo. Nelaimės, kurios laikomos neišvengiamomis yra kantriai iškenčiamos, tačiau pasidaro nepakenčiamos, jei suvokiama, kad tai galima pakeisti.
 Nuorodos
 Protesto akcijos


type: legislation

text:
¡OMISIÓN DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS
 C0MC91) 72 final/ 2 - VOL. Ill
 Bruselas, 19 de marzo de 1991
 Rectificación de las
 PROPUESTAS DE LA COMISIÓN
 sobre la fijación de precios de los productos
 agricolas y de determinadas medidas conexas
 (1991/92)
 (COM (91) 72 - VOL. Ill)
 ---pagebreak--- Paginas 70 y 82
 El segundo considerando debe leerse como sigue :
 " Considerando que, en caso de que el Consejo no apruebe esas decisiones
 con la suficiente antelación, es conveniente que la Comisión pueda
 adoptar las medidas provisionales estrictamente necesarias para
 garantizar una transición suave entre el antiguo y el nuevo régimen, de
 manera que puedan evitarse sobre todo posibles incertidumbres o
 perturbaciones del mercado; "
 Paginas 73 y 64
 El artículo 4 debe leerse como sigue :
 " Articulo 4
 En caso de que en la fecha de 31 de octubre de 1991 el Consejo no haya
 tomado decisión alguna, la Comisión estará autorizada, con arreglo al
 procedimiento del articulo 38 del Reglamento no_ 136/66/CEE, para
 adoptar todas las medidas provisionales estrictamente necesarias para
 garantizar una transición suave entre el antiguo y el nuevo régimen."
 Paginas 134 y 135
 El Anexo se sostituye por el Anexo de la presente rectificación
 ---pagebreak--- - 134 -
 ANEXO
 CAMPAÑA DE 1992
 (ECU/100 kg-peso de i a canal)
 Semana que comienza el : Semana : Precio de base: Nivel director
 6 de enero de 1992 1 432,17 367,34
 13 de enero de 1992 2 440,48 374,41
 20 de enero de 1992 3 450,39 382,83
 27 de enero de 1992 4 456,99 388,44
 3 de febrero de 1992 5 465,32 395,52
 10 de febrero de 1992 6 471,82 401,05
 17 de febrero de 1992 7 475,47 404,15
 24 de febrero de 1992 8 478,08 406,37
 2 de marzo de 1992 9 480,94 408,80
 9 de marzo de 1992 10 483,34 410,84
 16 de marzo de 1992 11 484,81 412,09
 23 de marzo de 1992 12 484,81 412,09
 30 de marzo de 1992 13 483,89 411,31
 6 de abri I de 1992 14 483,29 410,80
 13 de abrí I de 1992 15 482,78 410,36
 20 de abril de 1992 16 480,55 408,47
 27 de abri I de 1992 17 480,17 408,14
 4 de mayo de 1992 18 473,33 402,33
 11 de mayo de 1992 19 469,39 398,98
 18 de mayo de 1992 20 463,02 393,57
 25 de mayo de 1992 21 456,66 388,16
 1 de junio de 1992 22 444,39 377,73
 8 de junio de 1992 23 433,00 368,05
 15 de junio de 1992 24 421,83 358,56
 22 de junio de 1992 25 410,55 348,97
 29 de junio de 1992 26 399,27 339,38
 ---pagebreak--- - 135 -
 (ECU/100 kg-peso de la canal)
 Semana que comienza el : Semana : Precio de base: Nivel director
 6 de jullo de 1992 27 389,70 331 25
 13 de julio de 1992 28 380,45 323 38
 20 de julio de 1992 29 376,63 320 14
 27 de julio de 1992 30 374,79 318 57
 3 de agosto de 1992 31 374,10 317 99
 10 de agosto de 1992 32 374,10 317 99
 17 de agosto de 1992 33 374,10 317 99
 24 de agosto de 1992 34 374,10 317 99
 31 de agosto de 1992 35 374,10 317 99
 7 de septiembre de 1992 36 374,10 317 99
 14 de septiembre de 1992 37 374,10 317 99
 21 de septiembre de 1992 38 374,10 317 99
 28 de septiembre de 1992 39 374,61 318 42
 5 de octubre de 1992 40 374,61 318 42
 12 de octubre de 1992 41 374,91 318 67
 19 de octubre de 1992 42 375,38 319 07
 26 de octubre de 1992 43 377,32 320 72
 2 de noviembre de 1992 44 380,23 323 20
 9 de noviembre de 1992 45 383,18 325 70
 16 de noviembre de 1992 46 388,70 330 40
 23 de noviembre de 1992 47 394,21 335 08
 30 de noviembre de 1992 48 399,74 339 78
 7 de diciembre de 1992 49 406,09 345 18
 14 de diciembre de 1992 50 414,43 352 27
 21 de diciembre de 1992 51 422,75 359 34
 28 de diciembre de 1992 52 429,13 364 76
 ---pagebreak--- ISSN 0257-9545
 COM(91)72Vol.lll/2
 DOCUMENTOS
 ES 03
 N° de catálogo : CB-CO-91-125-ES-C
 ISBN 92-77-70519-1
 PRECIO DE VENTA hasta 30 páginas: 3,50 ECU por cada 10 páginas axés: 1,25 ECU
 Oficina de Publicaciones Oficiales de las Comunidades Europeas
 1^2985 Luxemburgo


text:
 N ? C 258/12 Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias 11. 10. 89
 Proposta de regulamento (CEE) do Conselho que altera o Regulamento (CEE) n? 3976/87,
 relativo à aplicação do n? 3 do artigo 85? do Tratado a certas categorias de acordos e de
 práticas concertadas no sector dos transportes aéreos
 COM(89) 373 final
 (Apresentada pela Comissão em 8 de Setembro de 1989)
 (89/C 258/06)
 O CONSELHO DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS, «2. A Comissão pode adoptar tais regulamentos,
 em especial no caso de acordos, decisões ou práticas
 Tendo em conta o Tratado que institui a Comunidade concertadas que tenham qualquer dos seguintes objec-
 Económica Europeia e, nomeadamente, o seu artigo 87?, tivos :
 — planeamento e coordenação conjuntos da capaci-
 Tendo em conta a proposta da Comissão, dade de oferta de serviços aéreos regulares,
 Tendo em conta o parecer do Parlamento Europeu, — consultas para a preparação conjunta das propos-
 tas e condições para o transporte de passageiros e
 de bagagem em serviços regulares,
 Tendo em conta o parecer do Comité Económico e So-
 cial, — distribuição das faixas horárias e fixação dos horá-
 rios nos aeroportos,
 Considerando que o Regulamento (CEE) n? 3976/87 do — compra, desenvolvimento e utilização em conjunto
 Conselho (') confere poderes à Comissão para declarar, de sistemas informatizados de fixação de horários,
 mediante regulamento, que o n? 1 do artigo 85? não se reservas e emissão de bilhetes por empresas de
 aplica a certas categorias de acordos entre empresas, de- transportes aéreos,
 cisões de associações de empresas e práticas concertadas;
 — operações técnicas de assistência, executadas em
 terra, nos aeroportos, tais como o push-back, o
 Considerando que estas isenções por categoria foram
 abastecimento de combustível, a limpeza e a segu-
 concedidas por um período limitado, que termina em 31
 rança,
 de Janeiro de 1991, durante o qual as transportadoras
 aéreas podem adaptar-se a um clima mais concorrencial — assistência aos passageiros e tratamento de cor-
 ocasionado por alterações no regime aplicável aos trans- reio, carga e bagagens nos aeroportos,
 portes aéreos internacionais intracomunitários; — serviços de fornecimento de refeições a bordo.»
 Considerando que a continuação da aplicação das isen- 2. O artigo 3? passa a ter a seguinte redacção:
 ções por categoria, após essa data, se justifica pelas me-
 didas posteriores de liberalização do sector dos transpor- «Artigo 3°
 tes aéreos adoptadas pela Comunidade; que o alcance 1. Qualquer regulamento adoptado nos termos do
 destas isenções por categoria e as condições a que estão artigo 2? terá vigência limitada.
 sujeitas devem ser definidas pela Comissão em estreita
 ligação com os Estados-membros, tendo em conta altera- 2. Pode ser revogado ou alterado quando as cir-
 ções na situação de concorrência verificadas desde a en- cunstâncias se alterarem em relação a um elemento
 trada em vigor do Regulamento (CEE) n? 3976/87, que tenha sido essencial para a sua adopção; neste
 caso, será previsto um período de adaptação para os
 acordos e práticas concertadas abrangidos pelo regu-
 ADOPTOU O PRESENTE REGULAMENTO: lamento anterior.».
 3. O artigo 8? é revogado.
 Artigo Io.
 O Regulamento (CEE) n? 3976/87 é alterado como se- Artigo 2?
 gue:
 O presente regulamento entra em vigor em 1 de Julho de
 1990.
 1. O n? 2 do artigo 2? passa a ter a seguinte redacção:
 O presente regulamento é obrigatório em todos os seus
 elementos e directamente aplicável em todos os Estados-
 (') JO n? L 374 de 31. 12. 1987, p. 9. -membros.


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21990A0226(02)
 ACUERDO DE COOPERACIÓN entre la Comunidad Económica Europea y la República de Finlandia sobre un Plan de fomento de la cooperación internacional y de los intercambios necesarios para los investigadores europeos (SCIENCE) -
 Diario Oficial n° L 050 de 26/02/1990 p. 0009
 ACUERDO DE COOPERACIÓN entre la Comunidad Económica Europea y la República de Finlandia sobre un Plan de fomento de la cooperación internacional y de los intercambios necesarios para los investigadores europeos (SCIENCE) LA COMUNIDAD ECONÓMICA EUROPEA, en lo sucesivo denominada «Comunidad», y LA REPÚBLICA DE FINLANDIA, en lo sucesivo denominada «Finlandia», ambas denominadas en adelante «Partes contratantes», CONSIDERANDO que, mediante Decisión de 29 de junio de 1988, el Consejo de las Comunidades Europeas, en lo sucesivo denominado «Consejo» aprobó un Plan de fomento de la cooperación internacional y de los intercambios necesarios para los investigadores europeos (1988 a 1992) (SCIENCE), en adelante denominado «Plan de fomento»; CONSIDERANDO que las Partes contratantes concluyeron un Acuerdo-marco de cooperación técnica y científica que entró en vigor el 17 de julio de 1987; CONSIDERANDO que la asociación de Finlandia al Plan de fomento puede contribuir a aumentar la eficacia del potencial técnico y científico de Europa; CONSIDERANDO que las Partes contratantes esperan que la asociación de Finlandia al Plan de fomento resulte mutuamente beneficiosa, HAN CONVENIDO LO SIGUIENTE: Artículo 1 Por el presente Acuerdo Finlandia queda asociada al Plan de fomento. El resumen y los objetivos del Plan de fomento figuran en el Anexo A. Artículo 2 La contribución económica de Finlandia, derivada de su asociación al Plan de fomento se determinará en relación con la cantidad disponible cada año en el presupuesto general de las Comunidades Europeas para los créditos de compromiso destinados a hacer frente a las obligaciones financieras de la Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas, en lo sucesivo denominada «Comisión», como consecuencia del trabajo que debe llevarse a cabo con arreglo a los contratos de investigación necesarios para la aplicación del Plan de fomento y de los gastos administrativos y de gestión de dicho Plan. El factor de proporcionalidad que regula la contribución de Finlandia se determinará estableciendo la relación entre el producto interior bruto de Finlandia (PIB), a precios de mercado, y la suma del producto interior bruto, a precios de mercado, de los Estados miembros de la Comunidad y Finlandia. Esta relación se calculará teniendo en cuenta los últimos datos estadísticos disponibles de la OCDE. En el Anexo B aparecen consignados los fondos considerados necesarios para llevar a cabo el Plan de fomento, el importe de la contribución de Finlandia y el calendario de los compromisos estimados. En el Anexo C se presentan las normas que regulan la contribución financiera de Finlandia para la ejecución del Plan de fomento. Artículo 3 En lo que se refiere a los organismos y personas dedicadas a la investigación y desarrollo en Finlandia, las condiciones para la presentación y evaluación de propuestas y las condiciones para la concesión y celebración de contratos con arreglo al Plan de fomento serán las mismas que se aplican a los organismos y personas dedicadas a la investigación y desarrollo en la Comunidad. En los contratos, redactados por la Comisión, se estipularán los derechos y obligaciones de los organismos y personas dedicadas a la investigación y al desarrollo en Finlandia y, en particular, los métodos de difusión, protección y explotación de los resultados de la investigación. Artículo 4 Para la ejecución del Plan de fomento, la Comisión contará con la ayuda del Comité de Desarrollo Europeo de Ciencia y Tecnología (CODEST), creado por la Decisión 82/835/CEE de la Comisión (1), y de asesores. De una lista presentada por las autoridades finlandesas, la Comisión designará a un delegado finlandés para el CODEST. Éste participará en la definición de los planes generales para el fomento de la cooperación internacional y de los intercambios necesarios para los investigadores europeos y en el examen de las solicitudes presentadas en virtud del Plan de fomento. Artículo 5 Pasados 30 meses del comienzo de la aplicación del Plan de fomento, la Comisión enviará un informe al Parlamento Europeo y al Consejo basado en una evaluación de los resultados conseguidos hasta ese momento. En este informe se propondrán las modificaciones que, a la vista de los resultados, parezcan convenientes. Se enviará una copia del informe a Finlandia, y se le informará de los cambios propuestos. Artículo 6 Las Partes contratantes se comprometen, de acuerdo con sus respectivas normativas y reglamentaciones, a facilitar la circulación y la residencia de investigadores que participen en Finlandia y en la Comunidad en las actividades comprendidas en el presente Acuerdo. Artículo 7 La Comisión y la Academia de Finlandia garantizarán el cumplimiento del presente Acuerdo. Artículo 8 El presente Acuerdo se aplicará, por una parte, a los territorios en los que sea aplicable el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Económica Europea y en las condiciones previstas por dicho Tratado y, por otra, al territorio de la República de Finlandia. Artículo 9 1. El presente Acuerdo estará en vigor mientras dure el Plan de fomento. En caso de que la Comunidad introdujera alguna modificación en el Plan de fomento, el Acuerdo podrá ser objeto de denuncia en las condiciones aceptadas de mutuo acuerdo. Finlandia será informada del contenido exacto del Plan modificado en el plazo de una semana después de su adopción por la Comunidad. Las Partes contratantes se informarán mutuamente en el plazo de tres meses después de que haya sido adoptada la decisión comunitaria, en caso de que se prevea la terminación del Acuerdo. 2. Si la Comunidad adopta un nuevo programa de investigación y desarrollo en el ámbito del Plan de fomento, el presente Acuerdo podrá ser renegociado o reconducido en las condiciones que se acepten de común acuerdo. 3. Salvo lo dispuesto en el apartado 1, cualquier Parte contratante podrá poner término al Acuerdo en cualquier momento con un preaviso de seis meses. Los proyectos y trabajos en curso en el momento de la terminación o expiración del presente Acuerdo continuarán hasta ser completados con arreglo a las condiciones establecidas en el presente Acuerdo. Artículo 10 El presente Acuerdo será aprobado por las Partes contratantes de conformidad con los procedimientos en vigor en cada una de ellas. El presente Acuerdo entrará en vigor en la fecha en la que las Partes contratantes se hayan notificado mutuamente el cumplimiento de los procedimientos necesarios al respecto. Artículo 11 El presente Acuerdo se redacta en doble ejemplar en lenguas alemana, danesa, española, francesa, griega, inglesa, italiana, neerlandesa, portuguesa y finlandesa, siendo cada uno de estos textos igualmente auténtico. (1) DO no L 350 de 10. 12. 1982, p. 45. ANEXO A OBJETIVOS Y RESUMEN DEL PLAN DE FOMENTO (1988 A 1992) 1. El Plan de fomento consiste en una serie de actividades elegidas en función de su calidad científica y técnica, que tienen como objetivo la creación de una red de intercambios y de cooperación científica y técnica a nivel europeo, que se irá ampliando gradualmente. El objetivo global consiste en mejorar la eficacia de la investigación científica y técnica en todos los Estados miembros, y contribuir así a la reducción de las desigualdades en el desarrollo científico y técnico entre los distintos Estados miembros de la Comunidad Europea. Dicho Plan abarca todos los campos de la ciencia y de la tecnología (las ciencias exactas y naturales). Mientras que el Plan de fomento, por tanto, está encaminado a mejorar la calidad global científica y técnica de la investigación y del desarrollo en todos los Estados miembros de la Comunidad, sus objetivos específicos consisten en: - fomentar la formación a través de la investigación y el mejor uso de los investigadores de alto nivel en la Comunidad, mediante la cooperación; -mejorar la movilidad de los investigadores de los Estados miembros de la Comunidad; -desarrollar y apoyar la cooperación científica y técnica intraeuropea en proyectos de alta calidad; -fomentar el establecimiento de redes europeas de cooperación y de intercambio, con miras a fortalecer la competitividad científica y técnica general de la Comunidad y fortalecer así su cohesión económica y social. 2.Los citados objetivos se alcanzarán mediante medidas de apoyo a los investigadores y a los equipos de las organizaciones de investigación y desarrollo, con el fin de asegurar el desarrollo armónico de la ciencia y de la técnica en la Comunidad. Dichas medidas podrán adoptar las formas siguientes: -Becas de investigación Garantizar apoyo financiero a los científicos, con el fin de permitirles ampliar su formación mediante su participación en un proyecto de investigación en un laboratorio de un país comunitario distinto del suyo, durante un período de un año como mínimo y dos años como máximo. -Ayudas a la investigación Éstas cubrirán, para el laboratorio de que se trate, los costes que supone el transferir o destinar a un investigador de un país comunitario a otro, bien para permitir a un científico incorporarse a un equipo en un país distinto del suyo, bien para permitir a un licenciado en ciencias especializarse antes de incorporarse a una universidad o laboratorio de investigación industrial. Dependiendo del tipo de científico y del propósito de la ayuda a la investigación, dicha ayuda podrá adoptar distintas formas: - fondos que permitan a un investigador efectuar cortas estancias (de quince días a dos meses) en otro país dentro de la Comunidad con el fin de llevar a cabo experimentos específicos en un establecimiento científico o técnico particular del que no se pueda disponer en su propio país; -fondos para cubrir los gastos relacionados con la movilidad (viajes, subsistencia, seguros, traslados, etc.), el trabajo de investigación y posiblemente el sueldo de un científico destinado o incorporado a un equipo de investigación en un país (de la Comunidad) distinto del suyo, durante un período de seis meses como mínimo y tres años como máximo; -fondos que cubran los gastos relacionados con la movilidad y el trabajo de investigación de un científico empleado en la industria, que vaya a seguir un cursillo prolongado de formación (de uno a tres años) en un laboratorio del sector público de un país extranjero (dentro de la Comunidad); -subvenciones para cursillos de formación de alto nivel: apoyo financiero otorgado a un organismo que imparta cursos especializados de alto nivel en un Estado miembro, de forma que pueda aceptar a científicos de distintos Estados miembros, para ampliar su formación o para permitirles readaptarse a otras funciones. -Hermanamiento de laboratorios en diferentes países Esto permitirá a los investigadores que estén trabajando aisladamente en algún sector avanzado en varios países comunitarios aunar esfuerzos sin convertirse en un laboratorio único, fomentando así la formación de un equipo de investigación que supere el necesario «tamaño crítico». Se concederán fondos para que los investigadores se reúnan, lleven a cabo experimentos conjuntos, intercambien resultados, amplíen su equipo o fortalezcan sus grupos de trabajo contratando temporalmente a otros científicos, preferentemente de otro país. -Desarrollo de operaciones multidisciplinarias y multinacionales Esto, en virtud de los recursos financieros disponibles, permitiría a los equipos de investigación asociados disponer de recursos suficientes (equipos incluidos) así como aunar las mejores experiencias disponibles con el fin de alcanzar un objetivo predeterminado o emprender conjuntamente una tarea científica predeterminada en el marco de una «red» de cooperación científica y técnica. Además, el Plan se complementará mediante incentivos sectoriales: becas de investigación, ayudas a la investigación y subvenciones financiadas en el marco de cada programa comunitario de investigación y desarrollo, previa aprobación del Comité de gestión y coordinación (CGC) competente. 3.Las medidas de fomento del intercambio y la cooperación se aplicarán a todos los campos relacionados con las ciencias exactas y naturales, como: - las matemáticas; - la física; - la química; - las ciencias biológicas; - las ciencias geográficas y oceanográficas; - la instrumentación científica; - las ciencias de la ingeniería. 4.En los campos de intervención los proyectos multinacionales beneficiarios de ayudas se elegirán, esencialmente, en función de su calidad, de la medida en que sean multidisciplinarios en su contenido, de sus aspectos innovadores y de sus posibilidades de eliminación de barreras entre las distintas formas de investigación y desarrollo en todas las partes de la Comunidad. Cuando la calidad científica y técnica sea comparable, se prestará particular atención a los proyectos que promuevan la reducción de las diferencias de desarrollo científico y técnico entre Estados miembros y que, por ende, contribuyan a aumentar la cohesión económica y social dentro de la Comunidad Europea. 5.La elección de las medidas de fomento, así como de los equipos de que se trate, será efectuada por la Comisión, que, con la ayuda del Comité de Desarrollo Europeo de Ciencia y Tecnología (CODEST), utilizará un sistema de revisión idéntico. La Comisión velará por que exista una coherencia entre la actividad de fomento y las actividades programadas de investigación y desarrollo comunitarias. 6.Simultáneamente, la Comisión comenzará una serie de consultas, inspecciones y seminarios en cooperación con los círculos científicos y técnicos de la Comunidad, con el fin de analizar y evaluar las necesidades y oportunidades científicas y técnicas, con miras a detallar más el contenido del Plan de fomento. La Comisión actuará en estrecha cooperación con las autoridades nacionales para garantizar la coherencia entre dichas actividades y las políticas nacionales de fomento de la investigación. 7.Con el fin de evaluar la calidad científica y/o técnica de las solicitudes de ayuda, así como para analizar las conveniencias y necesidades científicas y técnicas, o valorar los proyectos que se hayan financiado o la propia actividad, la Comisión podrá recurrir a especialistas ajenos a sus servicios. ANEXO B DISPOSICIONES FINANCIERAS Artículo 1 La cantidad considerada necesaria para llevar a cabo el Plan de fomento es de 167 millones de ecus. Artículo 2 La contribución financiera de Finlandia para la ejecución del Plan de fomento se estima en 2 460 000 ecus. Artículo 3 El calendario de los compromisos estimados y la contribución financiera de Finlandia figuran a continuación. Calendario de los compromisos estimados necesarios para la ejecución del Plan de fomento (créditos de compromiso) y de la contribución de Finlandia (en ecus) Año Compromisos para Gestión y administración Contratos Total Contribución de Finlandia Gestión y administración Contratos Total 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 220 000 1 930 000 2 120 000 2 250 000 2 380 000 28 780 000 28 070 000 32 880 000 32 750 000 35 620 000 29 000 000 30 000 000 35 000 000 35 000 000 38 000 000 - 19 300 (1) 42 400 45 000 47 600 - 280 700 (2) 657 600 655 000 712 400 - 300 000 (3) 700 000 700 000 760 000 Totales 8 900 000 158 100 000 167 000 000 154 300 2 305 700 2 460 000 (1) Contribución para el período de 1 de julio a 31 de diciembre de 1989. ANEXO C NORMAS DE FINANCIACIÓN Artículo 1 El presente Anexo fija las normas que regulan la contribución financiera de Finlandia contempladas en el artículo 2 del Acuerdo. Artículo 2 Al principio de cada año, o siempre que una revisión del Plan de fomento suponga un aumento de la cantidad que se estima necesaria para llevarlo a cabo, la Comisión solicitará de Finlandia los fondos correspondientes a su contribución para sufragar los gastos, de conformidad con lo establecido en el Acuerdo. Dicha contribución vendrá expresada en ecus y en la moneda finlandesa. La composición del ecu será la definida en el Reglamento (CEE) no 3180/78 del Consejo. El valor en la moneda finlandesa de la contribución en ecus se determinará en la fecha de la solicitud de fondos. De conformidad con el Acuerdo, Finlandia abonará su contribución a los gastos anuales a principio de cada año y, como muy tarde, a los tres meses a partir de la fecha de solicitud de los fondos. Cualquier retraso en el pago de la contribución dará lugar al pago de intereses por parte de Finlandia a un tipo igual al tipo de descuento más alto existente en los Estados miembros en la fecha de vencimiento. El tipo de interés aumentará un 0,25 % por cada mes de retraso. El tipo de interés incrementado se aplicará durante la totalidad del período de retraso. Sin embargo, dicho interés se pagará únicamente si el pago de la contribución se realiza pasados tres meses desde la solicitud de fondos de la Comisión. Artículo 3 Los fondos abonados por Finlandia se contabilizarán en el Plan de fomento en concepto de ingresos presupuestarios asignados a la partida correspondiente en el estado de ingresos del presupuesto general de las Comunidades Europeas. Artículo 4 Se aplicará a la gestión de los créditos el Reglamento financiero en vigor para el presupuesto general de las Comunidades Europeas. Artículo 5 Los gastos de viaje y dietas del delegado finlandés del CODEST ocasionados por su participación en las reuniones de dicho Comité, serán reembolsados por la Comisión de conformidad con los procedimientos en vigor para los representantes de los Estados miembros de la Comunidad. Artículo 6 Al final de cada año, se preparará un estado de créditos para el Plan de fomento que se remitirá a Finlandia con carácter informativo. (1) DO no L 379 de 30. 12. 1978, p. 1.


text:
Fritování je tepelná úprava pokrmu podobná smažení. Na rozdíl od smažení je pokrm při fritování celý ponořen do horkého oleje, jeho příprava je proto rychlejší a rovnoměrnější. Rovněž teplotu oleje lze regulovat, a tak nemusí docházet k nezdravému přepálení oleje. Optimální teplota je 180 °C. Je-li teplota nižší, fritované potraviny se nasáknou tukem. Proto zahajujeme fritování až v momentě, kdy je olej zahřátý na předepsanou teplotu. Nenecháváme však fritovací olej zahřívat příliš dlouho, protože tím by se snížila jeho kvalita.
 Ke fritování se nejčastěji používá fritovací hrnec. Fritují se hranolky, potraviny v trojobalu (např. řízky), ryby atd. Ke fritování by se měly používat jen fritovací oleje, které mají vyšší tepelnou odolnost a delší trvanlivost. Můžeme také fritovat na ztuženém tuku, který se před použitím nakrájí na kousky. Nikdy by se nemělo míchat více druhů oleje a tuku dohromady. Fritovací olej je nutné po čase vyměnit, signálem by měla být změna barvy oleje a přítomnost nečistot.
 Zdraví
 Některé druhy takto připravovaného jídla mohou být velmi nezdravou stravou vedoucí ke špatné životosprávě, obezitě, celulitidě a dalším zdravotním problémům a rizikům.
 Vědci z Technické univerzity v Mnichově poprvé prokázali přítomnost rakovinotvorné látky – glycidamidu – ve smažených hranolcích a chipsech. Glycidamid je látka, jež vzniká při zahřívání produktů z brambor a je daleko nebezpečnější než v hranolcích v květnu 2002 objevený akrylamid.
 Glycidamid byl při tomto testu prokázán ve výrobcích ve velmi malém množství, od 0,3 do 1,5 mikrogramu na kilogram v deseti vzorcích bramborových lupínků a ve třech druzích hranolků. Glycidamid i akrylamid se uvolňují ve vysokých teplotách při tepelném zpracování bramborových produktů. K tomu dochází při 120 stupních Celsia. Daleko nebezpečnější látky vznikají při teplotách nad 180 °C. Studie dále odhalila, že nejnižší koncentrace látky akrylamidu byla po smažení na palmovém oleji a nejvyšších hodnot dosahovaly potraviny po fritování na slunečnicovém oleji.
 Reference
 Externí odkazy
 Příprava jídla