type: contracts

text:
 11/Sv. 128
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 207
 22007A1219(11)
 L 334/169
 SLUŽBENI LIST EUROPSKE UNIJE
 SPORAZUM
 između Europske zajednice i Republike Moldove o pojednostavljenju izdavanja viza
 EUROPSKA ZAJEDNICA, dalje u tekstu: „Zajednica”,
 i
 REPUBLIKA MOLDOVA,
 dalje u tekstu „stranke”,
 IMAJUĆI U VIDU da su od 1. siječnja 2007. građani EU-a izuzeti od obveze ishođenja viza kad putuju u Republiku Moldovu na rok koji ne prelazi 90 dana razdoblju od 180 dana ili kad prolaze državnim područjem Republike Moldove,
 S CILJEM daljnjeg razvoja prijateljskih odnosa između stranaka i želeći olakšati međusobne kontakte između ljudi, što je važan uvjet za stabilan razvoj gospodarskih, humanitarnih, kulturnih, znanstvenih i ostalih veza, tako što će se pojednostaviti izdavanje viza građanima Moldove,
 UZIMAJUĆI U OBZIR postojeći Akcijski plan Europske politike susjedstva EU-Moldova u kojem se navodi kako će se uspostaviti konstruktivan dijalog između EU-a i Moldove, što uključuje i razmjenu stajališta o mogućnostima za pojednostavljenje u skladu s pravnom stečevinom,
 PREPOZNAJUĆI uvođenje bezviznog režima putovanja za državljane Republike Moldove kao dugoročnu perspektivu,
 PRIZNAJUĆI da će se, ako Republika Moldova ponovno uvede obvezu ishođenja viza za građane EU-a, iste olakšice koje su odobrene ovim sporazumom građanima Republike Moldove automatski primjenjivati na građane EU-a, na osnovi uzajamnosti,
 PRIZNAJUĆI da pojednostavnjenje ne bi smjelo dovesti do ilegalnih migracija te pridajući posebnu pažnju sigurnosti i ponovnom prihvatu,
 UZIMAJUĆI U OBZIR Protokol o stajalištu Ujedinjene Kraljevine i Irske i Protokol o uključivanju schengenske pravne stečevine u okvir Europske unije, koji su priloženi uz Ugovor o Europskoj uniji i Ugovor o osnivanju Europske zajednice te potvrđujući da se odredbe ovog Sporazuma ne primjenjuju na Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu i Irsku,
 UZIMAJUĆI U OBZIR Protokol o stajalištu Danske priložen Ugovoru o Europskoj uniji i Ugovoru o osnivanju Europske zajednice te potvrđujući da se odredbe ovog Sporazuma ne primjenjuju na Kraljevinu Dansku,
 DOGOVORILE SU KAKO SLIJEDI:
 Članak 1.
 Svrha i područje primjene
 Svrha ovog Sporazuma je pojednostaviti izdavanje viza građanima Republike Moldove za namjeravani boravak od najviše 90 dana u razdoblju od 180 dana.
 Članak 2.
 Opća odredba
 1. Pojednostavnjenja viznih postupaka utvrđena ovim Sporazumom primjenjuju se na državljane Republike Moldove, ako oni nisu izuzeti od zahtjeva koje u pogledu viza postavljaju zakoni i propisi Zajednice ili država članica, ovaj Sporazum ili drugi međunarodni sporazumi.
 2. Nacionalno pravo Republike Moldove ili država članica ili pravo Zajednice primjenjuju se na pitanja koja nisu obuhvaćena odredbama ovog Sporazuma, poput odbijanja izdavanja vize, priznanja putnih isprava, dokaza o dostatnim sredstvima za uzdržavanje i odbijanja ulaska te mjera izgona.
 Članak 3.
 Definicije
 U smislu ovog Sporazuma:
 (a)
 „država članica” znači svaka država članica Europske unije, osim Kraljevine Danske, Irske i Ujedinjene Kraljevine;
 (b)
 „građanin Europske unije” znači državljanin države članice kako je definirana u točki (a);
 (c)
 „državljanin Republike Moldove” znači svaka osoba koja ima državljanstvo Republike Moldove;
 (d)
 „viza” znači odobrenje koje je izdala ili odluka koju je donijela država članica, a koje je potrebno za:
 —
 ulazak zbog namjeravanog boravka u toj državi članici ili u nekoliko država članica od ukupno najviše 90 dana u razdoblju od 180 dana,
 —
 ulazak zbog provoza preko državnog područja te države članice ili nekoliko država članica;
 (e)
 „osoba koja zakonito boravi” znači državljanina Republike Moldove koji ima dozvolu ili pravo boravka dužeg od 90 dana na državnom području države članice, na temelju propisa Zajednice ili nacionalnog zakonodavstva.
 Članak 4.
 Pisani dokazi o svrsi putovanja
 1. Za sljedeće kategorije državljana Republike Moldove dostatni su sljedeći dokumenti za opravdanje svrhe putovanja u drugu stranku:
 (a)
 za članove službenih delegacija koji na temelju službenog poziva naslovljenog Republici Moldovi trebaju sudjelovati na sastancima, savjetovanjima, pregovorima ili u programima razmjene, kao i na događanjima koja na državnim područjima država članica održavaju međuvladine organizacije:
 —
 dopis koji je izdalo tijelo Republike Moldove u kojem se potvrđuje da je podnositelj molbe član njihove delegacije koja putuje u drugu stranku kako bi sudjelovala u ranije navedenim događanjima, uz priloženi primjerak službenog poziva;
 (b)
 za stručnjake raznih zanimanja koji sudjeluju na međunarodnim izložbama, konferencijama, simpozijima, seminarima ili na drugim sličnim događanjima koja se održavaju na državnom području država članica:
 —
 pisani zahtjev organizacije domaćina u kojem se potvrđuje da će dotična osoba sudjelovati na tom događaju;
 (c)
 za poslovne ljude i predstavnike poslovnih organizacija:
 —
 pisani zahtjev pravne osobe-domaćina ili trgovačkog društva ili ureda ili njihovih podružnica, državnih i lokalnih tijela država članica ili organizacijskih odbora trgovinskih ili industrijskih izložbi, konferencija i simpozija koji se održavaju na državnim područjima država članica, koji je ovjerila Registracijska komora Republike Moldove;
 (d)
 za vozače koji obavljaju usluge međunarodnog prijevoza roba i putnika na državna područja država članica u vozilima koja su registrirana u Republici Moldovi:
 —
 pisani zahtjev nacionalnog udruženja prijevoznika Republike Moldove koji pružaju usluge međunarodnog cestovnog prijevoza, u kojem se navode svrha, trajanje i učestalost putovanja;
 (e)
 za članove osoblja na vlaku, hladnjačama i lokomotivama na međunarodnim vlakovima koji putuju na državna područja država članica:
 —
 pisani zahtjev nadležnog željezničkog trgovačkog društva Republike Moldove, u kojem se navode svrha, trajanje i učestalost putovanja;
 (f)
 za novinare:
 —
 potvrda ili drugi dokument koji je izdala strukovna organizacija i koji dokazuje da je predmetna osoba kvalificirani novinar te dokument koji je izdao njegov/njezin poslodavac u kojem se navodi da je svrha putovanja obavljanje novinarskog posla;
 (g)
 za osobe koje sudjeluju u znanstvenim, kulturnim i umjetničkim aktivnostima, uključujući sveučilišne i druge programe razmjene:
 —
 pisani zahtjev organizacije domaćina za sudjelovanje u tim aktivnostima;
 (h)
 za učenike, studente, studente poslijediplomskih studija i učitelje koji se nalaze u pratnji koji putuju zbog studija ili strukovnog obrazovanja, kako u okviru programa razmjene, tako i drugih školskih aktivnosti:
 —
 pisani zahtjev ili potvrda o upisu sveučilišta, visoke škole ili škole domaćina ili studentske iskaznice ili potvrde o tečajevima koje će osoba pohađati;
 (i)
 za sudionike međunarodnih sportskih događaja i osobe koje ih prate u svojstvu stručnjaka:
 —
 pisani zahtjev organizacije domaćina, nadležnih tijela, nacionalnih sportskih federacija ili nacionalnih olimpijskih odbora;
 (j)
 sudionicima službenih programa razmjene koje organiziraju gradovi-prijatelji i druga mjesta:
 —
 pisani zahtjev voditelja uprave/gradonačelnika tih gradova ili mjesta;
 (k)
 za bliske rođake – supružnika, djecu (uključujući usvojenu djecu), roditelje (uključujući skrbnike), djedove i bake te unuke koji dolaze u posjet građanima Republike Moldove koji zakonito borave na državnom području država članica:
 —
 pisani zahtjev osobe-domaćina;
 (l)
 za predstavnike organizacija civilnog društva kad putuju radi stručnog osposobljavanja, seminara, konferencija, uključujući i one u okviru programa razmjene:
 —
 pisani zahtjev koji izdaje organizacija-domaćin, potvrda da osoba predstavlja organizaciju civilnog društva i potvrda iz nadležnog registra o osnivanju takve organizacije, koju izdaje neko državno tijelo u skladu s nacionalnim propisima;
 (m)
 za osobe koje putuju radi sudjelovanja na sahranama:
 —
 službeni dokument koji potvrđuje smrtni slučaj kao i obiteljsku ili drugu vezu između podnositelja molbe i preminule osobe;
 (n)
 za posjet vojnim i civilnim grobljima:
 —
 službeni dokument koji potvrđuje postojanje i održavanje groba, kao i obiteljsku ili drugu vezu između podnositelja molbe i pokopane osobe;
 (o)
 za osobe koje u posjet odlaze zbog zdravstvenih razloga i osobe u nužnoj pratnji:
 —
 službeni dokument zdravstvene ustanove kojim se potvrđuje potreba za zdravstvenom skrbi u toj ustanovi i potreba za pratnjom te dokaz da postoje dovoljna financijska sredstva za plaćanje liječenja.
 2. Pisani zahtjev iz stavka 1. mora sadržavati sljedeće stavke:
 (a)
 za pozvanu osobu: ime i prezime, datum rođenja, spol, državljanstvo, broj putovnice, vrijeme i svrhu putovanja, broj ulazaka i, ako je primjenjivo, imena supružnika i djece koji se nalaze u pratnji pozvane osobe;
 (b)
 za osobu koja upućuje poziv: ime, prezime i adresu;
 (c)
 za pravnu osobu, trgovačko društvo ili organizaciju koja upućuje poziv: puni naziv i adresu i
 —
 ako je zahtjev izdala organizacija, ime i položaj osobe koja potpisuje zahtjev,
 —
 ako je osoba koja je uputila poziv pravna osoba ili trgovačko društvo ili ured ili njihova podružnica osnovana na državnom području države članice, registracijski broj kako ga propisuje nacionalno zakonodavstvo predmetne države članice,
 3. Za kategorije osoba iz stavka 1., sve kategorije viza izdaju se prema pojednostavnjenom postupku bez traženja bilo kakvog drugog opravdanja, poziva ili potvrde u pogledu svrhe putovanja koje je predviđeno zakonodavstvom država članica.
 Članak 5.
 Izdavanje viza za višekratni ulazak
 1. Diplomatska i konzularna predstavništva država članica izdaju vize za višekratni ulazak s rokom valjanosti do najviše pet godina sljedećim kategorijama osoba:
 (a)
 članovima nacionalnih i regionalnih vlada i parlamenata, Ustavnog suda i Vrhovnog suda, ako ovim Sporazumom nisu izuzeti od zahtjeva u pogledu viza, za izvršavanje njihovih dužnosti, s rokom valjanosti koji je ograničen njihovim mandatom, ako je isti kraći od pet godina;
 (b)
 stalnim članovima službenih delegacija koji na temelju službenog poziva naslovljenog Republici Moldovi trebaju redovito sudjelovati na sastancima, savjetovanjima, pregovorima ili u programima razmjene, kao i na događanjima koja na državnim područjima država članica održavaju međuvladine organizacije;
 (c)
 supružnicima i djeci (uključujući usvojenu djecu) koja su mlađa od 21 godine ili su uzdržavani i roditeljima (uključujući staratelje) koji posjećuju državljane Republike Moldove koji zakonito borave na državnom području država članica, s rokom valjanosti koji je ograničen trajanjem valjanosti njihove dozvole za zakonit boravak;
 (d)
 poslovnim ljudima i predstavnicima poslovnih organizacija koji redovito putuju u države članice;
 (e)
 novinarima.
 2. Diplomatska i konzularna predstavništva država članica izdaju vize za višekratni ulazak s rokom valjanosti do najviše jedne godine sljedećim kategorijama osoba, pod uvjetom da su tijekom prethodne godine dobili barem jednu vizu, iskoristili je u skladu sa zakonima o ulasku i boravku na državnom području države koju posjećuju te da postoje razlozi za traženje izdavanja vize za višekratni ulazak:
 (a)
 članovima službenih delegacija koji na temelju službenog poziva naslovljenog Republici Moldovi trebaju redovito sudjelovati na sastancima, savjetovanjima, pregovorima ili u programima razmjene, kao i na događanjima koja na državnim područjima država članica održavaju međuvladine organizacije;
 (b)
 predstavnicima organizacija civilnog društva koji redovito putuju u države članice radi stručnog osposobljavanja, seminara, konferencija, uključujući i one u okviru programa razmjene;
 (c)
 stručnjacima raznih zanimanja koji sudjeluju na međunarodnim izložbama, konferencijama, simpozijima, seminarima ili na drugim sličnim događanjima koji redovito putuju u države članice;
 (d)
 vozačima koji obavljaju usluge međunarodnog prijevoza roba i putnika na državna područja država članica u vozilima koja su registrirana u Republici Moldovi;
 (e)
 članovima osoblja na vlaku, hladnjačama i lokomotivama na međunarodnim vlakovima koji putuju na državna područja država članica;
 (f)
 osobama koje sudjeluju u znanstvenim, kulturnim i umjetničkim aktivnostima, uključujući sveučilišne i druge programe razmjene, koje redovito putuju u države članice;
 (g)
 studentima i studentima poslijediplomskih studija koji redovito putuju zbog studija ili strukovnog obrazovanja, uključujući i u okviru programa razmjene;
 (h)
 sudionicima međunarodnih sportskih događaja i osobama koje ih prate u svojstvu stručnjaka;
 (i)
 sudionicima službenih programa razmjene koje organiziraju gradovi-prijatelji ili druga mjesta.
 3. Diplomatska i konzularna predstavništva država članica izdaju vize za višekratni ulazak s rokom valjanosti od najmanje dvije, a najviše pet godina kategorijama osobama iz stavka 2., pod uvjetom da su tijekom prethodne dvije godine iskoristili vize za višekratni ulazak izdane na godinu dana u skladu sa zakonima o ulasku i boravku države koju posjećuju te da su razlozi za traženje izdavanja vize za višekratni ulazak još uvijek valjani.
 4. Ukupno vremensko razdoblje boravka osoba iz stavaka od 1. do 3. na državnom području država članica ne smije biti dulje od 90 dana u razdoblju od 180 dana.
 Članak 6.
 Naknade za obradu molbi za izdavanje vize
 1. Naknada za obradu molbi za izdavanje vize koje podnose državljani Republike Moldove iznosi 35 EUR.
 Gore navedeni iznos može se revidirati u skladu s postupkom predviđenim u članku 15. stavku 4.
 2. Naknade za obradu molbi za izdavanje vize ne naplaćuju se sljedećim kategorijama osoba:
 (a)
 bliskim rođacima – supružniku, djeci (uključujući usvojenu djecu), roditeljima (uključujući skrbnike), djedovima i bakama te unucima koji posjećuju državljane Republike Moldove koji zakonito borave na državnom području država članica;
 (b)
 članovima nacionalnih i regionalnih vlada i parlamenata, Ustavnog suda i Vrhovnog suda, ako ovim Sporazumom nisu izuzeti od zahtjeva u pogledu viza;
 (c)
 članovima službenih delegacija koji na temelju službenog poziva naslovljenog Republici Moldovi trebaju sudjelovati na sastancima, savjetovanjima, pregovorima ili u programima razmjene, kao i na događanjima koja na državnim područjima država članica održavaju međuvladine organizacije;
 (d)
 učenicima, studentima, studentima poslijediplomskih studija i učiteljima koji se nalaze u pratnji koji putuju zbog studija ili strukovnog obrazovanja, kako u okviru programa razmjene, tako i drugih školskih aktivnosti;
 (e)
 invalidima i osobama koje ih prate, prema potrebi;
 (f)
 osobama koje su dostavile dokumente koji dokazuju nužnost njihova putovanja iz humanitarnih razloga, uključujući primanje hitne medicinske skrbi, te osobama koje su u pratnji tih osoba ili osobama koje prisustvuju pogrebu bliskog rođaka ili osobama koje posjećuju teško bolesnog bliskog rođaka;
 (g)
 sudionicima međunarodnih sportskih događaja i osobama koje ih prate u svojstvu stručnjaka;
 (h)
 osobama koje sudjeluju u znanstvenim, kulturnim i umjetničkim aktivnostima, uključujući sveučilišne i druge programe razmjene;
 (i)
 sudionicima službenih programa razmjene koje organiziraju gradovi-prijatelji ili druga mjesta;
 (j)
 novinarima;
 (k)
 djeci mlađoj od 18 godina i uzdržavanoj djeci mlađoj od 21 godinu;
 (l)
 umirovljenicima;
 (m)
 vozačima koji obavljaju usluge međunarodnog prijevoza roba i putnika na državna područja država članica u vozilima koja su registrirana u Republici Moldovi;
 (n)
 članovima osoblja na vlaku, hladnjačama i lokomotivama na međunarodnim vlakovima koji putuju na državna područja država članica;
 (o)
 stručnjacima raznih zanimanja koji sudjeluju na međunarodnim izložbama, konferencijama, simpozijima, seminarima ili na drugim sličnim događanjima koja se održavaju na državnom području država članica;
 3. Odstupajući od stavka 1., Bugarska i Rumunjska, koje obvezuje schengenska pravna stečevina, ali koje još uvijek ne izdaju schengenske vize, mogu odustati od naplate naknade za obradu zahtjeva za kratkotrajni boravak u svojoj državi državljanima Republike Moldove do dana koji će Vijeće odrediti u odluci o tome da i one u potpunosti provode schengensku pravnu stečevinu o politici viza.
 Članak 7.
 Trajanje postupaka za obradu molbi za izdavanje viza
 1. Diplomatska i konzularna predstavništva država članica odlučuju o zahtjevu za izdavanje vize u roku od 10 kalendarskih dana od datuma primitka molbe i dokumenata koji su potrebni za izdavanje vize.
 2. Vremensko razdoblje za donošenje odluke o molbi za izdavanje vize može u pojedinačnim slučajevima biti produljeno do 30 kalendarskih dana, posebno ako je molbu potrebno dalje proučiti.
 3. Vremensko razdoblje za donošenje odluke o molbi za izdavanje vize može u hitnim slučajevima biti skraćeno na dva radna dana ili manje.
 Članak 8.
 Odlazak u slučaju izgubljenih ili ukradenih dokumenata
 Građani Europske unije i državljani Republike Moldove koji su izgubili svoje osobne dokumente ili kojima su ti dokumenti ukradeni tijekom boravka na državnom području Republike Moldove ili država članica, smiju napustiti to državno područje na temelju valjanih osobnih dokumenata za prijelaz granice koje su izdala diplomatska i konzularna predstavništva država članica ili Republike Moldove, bez bilo kakve vize ili druge dozvole.
 Članak 9.
 Produljenje vize u iznimnim okolnostima
 Državljanima Republike Moldove koji zbog više sile nisu u mogućnosti napustiti državno područje države članice do datuma navedenog u njihovim vizama, produljuje se rok valjanosti njihovih viza bez ikakve naknade, u skladu s propisima koje primjenjuje država primateljica, za vrijeme koje je potrebno za njihov povratak u državu prebivališta.
 Članak 10.
 Diplomatske putovnice
 1. Državljani Republike Moldove koji posjeduju valjane diplomatske putovnice smiju bez viza ulaziti u državna područja država članica napuštati ih i prolaziti kroz njih.
 2. Osobe iz stavka 1. smiju boraviti na državnim područjima država članica u razdoblju koje ne smije biti dulje od 90 dana u razdoblju od 180 dana.
 Članak 11.
 Teritorijalna valjanost viza
 Podložno nacionalnim pravilima i propisima o nacionalnoj sigurnosti država članica te podložno pravilima EU-a o vizama s ograničenom teritorijalnom valjanosti, državljani Republike Moldove imaju pravo putovati unutar državnog područja država članica na jednakoj osnovi kao i građani Europske unije.
 Članak 12.
 Zajednički odbor za upravljanje ovim Sporazumom
 1. Stranke osnivaju Zajednički odbor stručnjaka (dalje u tekstu „Odbor”), koji čine predstavnici Europske zajednice i Republike Moldove. Zajednicu zastupa Europska komisija Europskih zajednica uz pomoć stručnjaka iz država članica.
 2. Odbor posebno obavlja sljedeće zadaće:
 (a)
 prati provedbu ovog Sporazuma;
 (b)
 predlaže izmjene ili dopune ovog Sporazuma;
 (c)
 rješava sporove proizašle iz tumačenja ili primjene odredaba ovog Sporazuma.
 3. Odbor se sastaje kad god je to potrebno, na zahtjev jedne od stranaka i najmanje jednom godišnje.
 4. Odbor donosi svoj poslovnik.
 Članak 13.
 Odnos ovog Sporazuma prema sporazumima između država članica i Republike Moldove.
 Od njegova stupanja na snagu, ovaj Sporazum ima prednost pred odredbama bilo kojih dvostranih ili višestranih sporazuma ili dogovora zaključenih između pojedinačnih država članica i Republike Srbije, u mjeri u kojoj odredbe potonjih sporazuma ili dogovora obuhvaćaju pitanja koja su obuhvaćena ovim Sporazumom.
 Članak 14.
 Klauzula o uzajamnosti
 Ako Republika Moldova ponovno uvede obvezu ishođenja viza za građane EU-a ili za određene kategorije tih građana, iste olakšice koje su odobrene ovim sporazumom građanima Republike Moldove automatski će se, na osnovi uzajamnosti, primjenjivati na dotične građane EU-a.
 Članak 15.
 Završne odredbe
 1. Stranke ratificiraju ili odobravaju ovaj Sporazum u skladu sa svojim pojedinačnim postupcima, a Sporazum stupa na snagu prvog dana drugog mjeseca nakon datuma na koji stranke jedna drugu obavijeste o završetku ranije spomenutih postupaka.
 2. Odstupajući od stavka 1., ovaj Sporazum stupa na snagu tek na dan stupanja na snagu sporazuma između Europske zajednice i Republike Moldove o ponovnom prihvatu osoba, ako je taj datum poslije datuma iz stavka 1.
 3. Ovaj se Sporazum zaključuje na neograničeno vremensko razdoblje, osim ako bude otkazan u skladu sa stavkom 6.
 4. Ovaj se Sporazum može izmijeniti pisanim sporazumom stranaka. Izmjene stupaju na snagu nakon što stranke jedna drugu obavijeste o dovršetku svojih unutarnjih postupaka koji su u tu svrhu potrebni.
 5. Svaka stranka može u cijelosti ili djelomično suspendirati ovaj Sporazum zbog javnog poretka, zaštite nacionalne sigurnosti i zaštite javnog zdravlja. Druga stranka mora o odluci o suspenziji biti obaviještena najkasnije 48 sati prije stupanja na snagu te odluke. Stranka koja je suspendirala primjenu ovog Sporazuma odmah obavješćuje drugu stranku kad razlozi za suspenziju više ne vrijede.
 6. Svaka stranka može otkazati ovaj Sporazum tako da drugoj stranci uputi pisanu obavijest. Ovaj Sporazum prestaje biti na snazi 90 dana nakon datuma takve obavijesti.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu desetog listopada dvije tisuće sedme godine u dva primjerka na bugarskom, češkom, danskom, engleskom, estonskom, finskom, francuskom, grčkom, latvijskom, litavskom, mađarskom, malteškom, nizozemskom, njemačkom, poljskom, portugalskom, rumunjskom, slovačkom, slovenskom, španjolskom, talijanskom, švedskom i moldavskom jeziku, pri čemu je svaki od tih tekstova jednako vjerodostojan.
 За Европейската общност
 Por la Comunidad Europea
 Za Evropské společenství
 For Det Europæiske Fællesskab
 Für die Europäische Gemeinschaft
 Euroopa Ühenduse nimel
 Για την Ευρωπαϊκή Κοινότητα
 For the European Community
 Pour la Communauté européenne
 Per la Comunità europea
 Eiropas Kopienas vārdā
 Europos bendrijos vardu
 Az Európai Közösség részéről
 Għall-Komunitá Ewropea
 Voor de Europese Gemeenschap
 W imieniu Wspólnoty Europejskiej
 Pela Comunidade Europeia
 Pentru Comunitatea Europeană
 Za Európske spoločenstvo
 Za Evropsko skupnost
 Euroopan yhteisön puolesta
 För Europeiska gemenskapen
 Pentru Comunitatea Europeană
 Pentru Comunitatea Europeană
 За Република Молдова
 Por la República de Moldova
 Za Moldavskou republiku
 For Republikken Moldova
 Für die Republik Moldau
 Moldova Vabariigi nimel
 Για τη Δημοκρατία της Μολδαβίας
 For the Republic of Moldova
 Pour la République de Moldova
 Per la Repubblica di Moldova
 Moldovas Republikas vārdā
 Moldovos Respublikos vardu
 A Moldovai Köztársaság részéről
 Għar-Repubblika tal-Moldova
 Voor de Republiek Moldavië
 W imieniu Republiki Mołdowy
 Pela República da Moldávia
 Pentru Republica Moldova
 Za Moldavskú republiku
 Za Republiko Moldavijo
 Moldovan tasavallan puolesta
 För Republiken Moldavien
 Pentru Republica Moldova
 PRILOG
 PROTOKOL UZ SPORAZUM O DRŽAVAMA ČLANICAMA KOJE NE PRIMJENJUJU U POTPUNOSTI SCHENGENSKU PRAVNU STEČEVINU
 Države članice koje schengenska pravna stečevina obvezuje, ali koje još uvijek ne izdaju schengenske vize, dok čekaju da Vijeće o tome donese relevantnu odluku, izdaju nacionalne vize čija je valjanost ograničena na njihovo vlastito državno područje.
 Te države članice mogu jednostrano priznati schengenske vize i boravišne dozvole za potrebe prolaza preko svojeg državnog područja, u skladu s Odlukom Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća br. 895/2006/EZ od 14. lipnja 2006.
 Kako se Odluka br. 895/2006/EZ od 2006. lipnja 14. ne primjenjuje na Rumunjsku i Bugarsku, Europska komisija predložit će slične odredbe kako bi se tim zemljama omogućilo jednostrano priznavanje schengenskih viza i boravišnih dozvola i drugih sličnih isprava koje izdaju države članice koje još uvijek nisu u potpunosti integrirane u schengensko područje u svrhu prolaza preko njihovih državnih područja.
 ZAJEDNIČKA IZJAVA O DANSKOJ
 Stranke primaju na znanje da se ovaj Sporazum ne primjenjuje na postupke za izdavanje viza u diplomatskim i konzularnim predstavništvima Kraljevine Danske.
 U takvim je okolnostima poželjno da državna tijela Danske i Republike Moldove bez odlaganja sklope dvostrani sporazum o pojednostavljenju postupka izdavanja viza za kratkotrajni boravak prema sličnim uvjetima prema kojima je sklopljen Sporazum između Europske zajednice i Republike Moldove.
 ZAJEDNIČKA IZJAVA O UJEDINJENOJ KRALJEVINI I IRSKOJ
 Stranke primaju na znanje da se ovaj Sporazum ne primjenjuje na državnom području Ujedinjene Kraljevine i Irske.
 U takvim je okolnostima poželjno da državna tijela Ujedinjene Kraljevine, Irske i Republike Moldove sklope bilateralne sporazume o pojednostavljenju izdavanja viza.
 ZAJEDNIČKA IZJAVA O ISLANDU I NORVEŠKOJ
 Stranke primaju na znanje blizak odnos između Europske zajednice i Norveške i Islanda, a posebno na temelju Sporazuma od 18. svibnja 1999. o pridruživanju tih zemalja provedbi, primjeni i razvijanju schengenske pravne stečevine.
 U takvim je okolnostima poželjno da državna tijela Norveške, Islanda i Republike Moldove bez odlaganja sklope dvostrane sporazume o pojednostavljenju postupka izdavanja viza za kratkotrajni boravak prema sličnim uvjetima prema kojima je sklopljen Sporazum između Europske zajednice i Republike Moldove.
 ZAJEDNIČKA IZJAVA O ŠVICARSKOJ KONFEDERACIJI I LIHTENŠTAJNU
 Ako Sporazum između EU-a, EZ-a i Švicarske Konfederacije o pridruživanju Švicarske Konfederacije provedbi, primjeni i razvijanju schengenske pravne stečevine i o protokolima uz taj Sporazum koji se odnose na Lihtenštajn stupe na snagu do okončanja pregovora s Republikom Moldovom, slična izjava bit će sastavljena i vezano za Švicarsku i Lihtenštajn.
 IZJAVA EUROPSKE ZAJEDNICE O PRISTUPU PODNOSITELJA ZAHTJEVA ZA VIZU I USKLAĐIVANJU INFORMACIJA O POSTUPKU ZA IZDAVANJE VIZA ZA KRATKOTRAJNI BORAVAK TE DOKUMENTI KOJI SE PRILAŽU UZ ZAHTJEVE ZA IZDAVANJE VIZA ZA KRATKOTRAJNI BORAVAK
 Priznajući kako je za podnositelje zahtjeva za vizu važna transparentnost, Europska zajednica podsjeća kako je Europska komisija 19. srpnja 2006. usvojila zakonodavni prijedlog o preradi Općih konzularnih uputa o vizama za diplomatska i konzularna predstavništva kojim se uređuju uvjeti pristupa za podnositelje zahtjeva za vize diplomatskim i konzularnim predstavništvima država članica, te se o njemu trenutačno vodi rasprava između Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća.
 U vezi s informacijama koje treba ponuditi podnositeljima zahtjeva, Europska zajednica smatra kako treba poduzeti odgovarajuće mjere, a uglavnom je potrebno za podnositelje zahtjeva sastaviti popis osnovnih informacija o postupcima i uvjetima podnošenja zahtjeva za vize i o njihovoj valjanosti.
 Europska zajednica izradit će popis minimalnih zahtjeva kako bi osigurala da podnositelji zahtjeva iz Republike Moldove imaju usklađene i ujednačene osnovne informacije te da se od njih, u načelu, traži da podnesu iste prateće dokumente.
 Navedene informacije treba distribuirati naširoko (na oglasnim pločama konzulata, na lecima, na internetskim stranicama itd.).
 Diplomatska i konzularna predstavništva država članica pružaju informacije o postojećim mogućnostima, u skladu sa schengenskom pravnom stečevinom za izdavanje viza za kratkotrajni boravak za svaki pojedinačni slučaj posebno, a posebno za podnositelje zahtjeva u dobroj vjeri.
 IZJAVA EUROPSKE KOMISIJE O ZASTUPANJU I O ZAJEDNIČKOM CENTRU ZA PODNOŠENJE ZAHTJEVA U KIŠINJEVU
 Prepoznajući teškoće s kojima se suočavaju moldavski građani kad podnose zahtjeve za izdavanje schengenskih viza zbog ograničene konzularne zastupljenosti država članica sa schengenskog prostora, Europska Komisija snažno potiče države članice - a posebno one koje izdaju schengenske vize - da poboljšaju svoju prisutnost u Republici Moldovi potpunim iskorištavanjem svih postojećih mogućnosti: bilo uspostavom vlastitih predstavništava ili tako da ih zastupaju druge države članice ili da u cijelosti koriste više mogućnosti koje će nuditi Zajednički centar za podnošenje zahtjeva u Kišinjevu.
 IZJAVE O MALOGRANIČNOM PROMETU
 POLITIČKA IZJAVA RUMUNJSKE O MALOGRANIČNOM PROMETU
 Rumunjska izjavljuje kako je voljna započeti pregovore o dvostranom sporazumu s Republikom Moldovom u svrhu provedbe režima malograničnog prometa koji je uspostavljen Uredbom EZ-a br. 1931/2006 o pravilima o malograničnom prometu na vanjskim granicama država članica i izmjeni odredaba Schengenske konvencije od 20. prosinca 2006.
 POLITIČKA IZJAVA REPUBLIKE MOLDOVE O MALOGRANIČNOM PROMETU
 Republika Moldova izjavljuje kako je voljna započeti pregovore o dvostranom sporazumu s Rumunjskom u svrhu provedbe takvog režima malograničnog prometa.


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 EUROPOS KOMISIJA
 Briuselis, 2017 08 11
 COM(2017) 430 final
 2017/0196(NLE)
 Pasiūlymas
 TARYBOS SPRENDIMAS
 dėl Europos Sąjungos ir Egipto Arabų Respublikos mokslinio ir technologinio bendradarbiavimo susitarimo, kuriuo išdėstomos Egipto Arabų Respublikos dalyvavimo Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA) sąlygos, sudarymo
 AIŠKINAMASIS MEMORANDUMAS
 1.PASIŪLYMO APLINKYBĖS
 •Pasiūlymo pagrindimas ir tikslai
 2017 m. gegužės 30 d. Taryba įgaliojo Komisiją Sąjungos vardu pradėti derybas su Egipto Arabų Respublika (toliau – Egiptas) dėl tarptautinio Sąjungos ir Egipto susitarimo, kuriuo išdėstomos Egipto dalyvavimo Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA) sąlygos.
 Pagal Tarybos priimto įgaliojamojo sprendimo sąlygas derybas buvo galima pradėti tik Europos Parlamentui ir Tarybai priėmus sprendimą dėl Sąjungos dalyvavimo kelių valstybių narių bendrai vykdomoje Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA).
 2017 m. birželio 26 d. pradėtos derybos sėkmingai užbaigtos 2017 m. liepos 27 d., kai Susitarimo projekto tekstą parafavo visų būsimo Susitarimo Šalių atstovai. Prie šio pasiūlymo pridedamas Susitarimo projektas atitinka Tarybos duotus derybinius nurodymus. Jame visų pirma nustatyta, kad sąlygos, kuriomis Egiptas dalyvauja partnerystėje PRIMA, yra išdėstytos Sprendime (ES) 2017/1324
 1
 , taip darant tiesioginę nuorodą į Sąjungos teisėkūros procedūra priimtą aktą.
 Siekiant apsaugoti Sąjungos finansinius interesus, ypač Komisijos, Europos kovos su sukčiavimu tarnybos, Audito Rūmų ir partnerystės PRIMA įgyvendinimo struktūros įgaliojimus atlikti auditą ir tyrimą pagal taikytinus Sąjungos teisės aktus, Susitarime daromos konkrečios nuorodos į aktualias Sprendimo (ES) 2017/1324 nuostatas, o Susitarimo Šalys įpareigojamos teikti visą būtiną pagalbą, kad tos nuostatos būtų įgyvendinamos. Be to, būsimame Susitarime iškelta sąlyga Šalims susitarti dėl išsamios pagalbos teikimo tvarkos, nes tokia tvarka būtina, kad Šalys pagal Susitarimą galėtų bendradarbiauti. Egipto prašymu ir kaip sutarta per derybas, į Susitarimo preambulę įtraukta papildoma konstatuojamoji dalis, kurioje konstatuojama, kad, įgyvendinant būsimą Susitarimą, labai svarbus visapusiškas abiejų būsimų jo Šalių kompetentingų institucijų bendradarbiavimas ir veiklos koordinavimas.
 •Suderinamumas su toje pačioje politikos srityje galiojančiomis nuostatomis
 Partnerystės PRIMA poveikio vertinimo ataskaitoje
 2
 rašoma, kad galimybė partnerystėje PRIMA dalyvauti trečiosioms šalims, pavyzdžiui, Egiptui, dera su tarptautinio bendradarbiavimo mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje tikslais, nustatytais 2012 m. Komisijos komunikate „ES tarptautinio bendradarbiavimo mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje stiprinimas ir koncentravimas. Strateginis požiūris“
 3
 ir bendrojoje programoje „Horizontas 2020“, kuria skatinamas bendradarbiavimas su trečiosiomis šalimis mokslo, technologijų ir inovacijų srityse, siekiant spręsti pasaulinius visuomenės uždavinius ir remti Sąjungos išorės politikos kryptis. Susitarimas taip pat dera su galiojančiu Europos ir Viduržemio jūros regiono šalių susitarimu, steigiančiu Europos Bendrijų bei jų valstybių narių ir Egipto Arabų Respublikos asociaciją
 4
 , ir su Europos bendrijos ir Egipto Arabų Respublikos mokslinio ir technologinio bendradarbiavimo susitarimu
 5
 , kuriuose numatyta, kad Sąjunga ir Egiptas bendradarbiauja mokslinių tyrimų ir technologinės plėtros srityse, ir kuriais skatinami moksliniai tyrimai ir technologinės plėtros veikla bendrų interesų srityse.
 •Suderinamumas su kitomis Sąjungos politikos sritimis
 Partnerystės PRIMA įgyvendinimas glaudžiai bendradarbiaujant su trečiosiomis šalimis, pavyzdžiui, Egiptu, taip pat dera su kitomis Sąjungos politikos sritimis, pavyzdžiui, migracijos, vystymosi ir kaimynystės politika, ir yra joms svarbus.
 2.TEISINIAI pasiūlymo aspektai
 Tarybos sprendimo pasiūlymas grindžiamas Sutarties dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo 186 straipsniu ir 218 straipsnio 6 dalies a punktu.
 Atsižvelgdama į išdėstytus faktus, Komisija siūlo Tarybai sudaryti Susitarimą Europos Sąjungos vardu.
 2017/0196 (NLE)
 Pasiūlymas
 TARYBOS SPRENDIMAS
 dėl Europos Sąjungos ir Egipto Arabų Respublikos mokslinio ir technologinio bendradarbiavimo susitarimo, kuriuo išdėstomos Egipto Arabų Respublikos dalyvavimo Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA) sąlygos, sudarymo
 EUROPOS SĄJUNGOS TARYBA,
 atsižvelgdama į Sutartį dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo, ypač į jos 186 straipsnį kartu su 218 straipsnio 6 dalies a punktu,
 atsižvelgdama į Europos Komisijos pasiūlymą,
 atsižvelgdama į Europos Parlamento pritarimą,
 kadangi:
 (1)Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos sprendime (ES) 2017/1324
 6
 numatyta, kad Sąjunga dalyvauja kelių valstybių narių bendrai vykdomoje Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA);
 (2)Egipto Arabų Respublika (toliau – Egiptas) pareiškė norą tapti PRIMA dalyvaujančia valstybe ir dalyvauti joje tokiomis pačiomis sąlygomis kaip valstybės narės ir programos „Horizontas 2020“ asocijuotosios šalys, dalyvaujančios partnerystėje PRIMA;
 (3)pagal Sprendimo (ES) 2017/1324 1 straipsnio 2 dalį Egiptas PRIMA dalyvaujančia valstybe taps, jei su Sąjunga bus sudarytas tarptautinis mokslinio ir technologinio bendradarbiavimo susitarimas, kuriame išdėstomos Egipto dalyvavimo partnerystėje PRIMA sąlygos;
 (4)Europos Sąjungos ir Egipto Arabų Respublikos mokslinio ir technologinio bendradarbiavimo susitarimas, kuriuo išdėstomos Egipto Arabų Respublikos dalyvavimo Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA) sąlygos, pagal Tarybos sprendimą <XXX>
 7
 Sąjungos vardu pasirašytas 20XX m. XX su sąlyga, kad jis bus sudarytas vėliau;
 (5)Susitarimas turėtų būti patvirtintas Sąjungos vardu,
 PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ SPRENDIMĄ:
 1 straipsnis
 Sąjungos vardu patvirtinamas Europos Sąjungos ir Egipto Arabų Respublikos mokslinio ir technologinio bendradarbiavimo susitarimas, kuriuo išdėstomos Egipto Arabų Respublikos dalyvavimo Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA) sąlygos.
 Susitarimo tekstas pridedamas prie šio sprendimo.
 2 straipsnis
 Tarybos pirmininkas paskiria asmenį, įgaliotą Sąjungos vardu paskelbti Susitarimo 4 straipsnio 2 dalyje nurodytą pranešimą ir taip išreikšti Sąjungos sutikimą laikytis susitarimo.
 3 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas įsigalioja [jo priėmimo dieną].
 Priimta Briuselyje
 Tarybos vardu
 Pirmininkas
 (1)
 2017 m. liepos 4 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos sprendimas (ES) 2017/1324 dėl Sąjungos dalyvavimo kelių valstybių narių bendrai vykdomoje Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA) (OL L 185, 2017 7 18, p. 1).
 (2)
 SWD(2016) 332 final, 2016 10 18.
 (3)
 COM(2012) 497 final.
 (4)
 OL L 304, 2004 9 30, p. 39.
 (5)
 OL L 182, 2005 7 13, p. 12.
 (6)
 2017 m. liepos 4 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos sprendimas (ES) 2017/1324 dėl Sąjungos dalyvavimo kelių valstybių narių bendrai vykdomoje Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA) (OL L 185, 2017 7 18, p. 1).
 ---documentbreak---
 EUROPOS KOMISIJA
 Briuselis, 2017 08 11
 COM(2017) 430 final
 PRIEDAS
 prie
 pasiūlymo dėl TARYBOS SPRENDIMO
 dėl Europos Sąjungos ir Egipto Arabų Respublikos mokslinio ir technologinio bendradarbiavimo susitarimo, kuriuo išdėstomos Egipto Arabų Respublikos dalyvavimo Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA) sąlygos, sudarymo
 Europos Sąjungos ir Egipto Arabų Respublikos mokslinio ir technologinio bendradarbiavimo susitarimas, kuriuo išdėstomos Egipto Arabų Respublikos dalyvavimo Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA) sąlygos
 Europos Sąjunga
 (toliau – Sąjunga)
 ir
 Egipto Arabų Respublika
 (toliau – Egiptas)
 (toliau kartu – Šalys),
 kadangi 2004 m. birželio 1 d. įsigaliojusiame Europos ir Viduržemio jūros regiono šalių susitarime, steigiančiame Europos Bendrijų bei jų valstybių narių ir Egipto Arabų Respublikos asociaciją, numatytas mokslinis ir technologinis bendradarbiavimas;
 kadangi 2008 m. vasario 27 d. įsigaliojusiu Europos bendrijos ir Egipto Arabų Respublikos mokslinio ir technologinio bendradarbiavimo susitarimu nustatyti oficialūs Šalių bendradarbiavimo mokslinių ir technologinių tyrimų srityse pagrindai;
 kadangi ES valstybių narių ir programos „Horizontas 2020“ asocijuotųjų šalių (partnerystėje dalyvaujančių šalių) dalyvavimo, ypač jų finansinių įsipareigojimų ir dalyvavimo partnerystės valdymo struktūroje, sąlygos reguliuojamos Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos sprendimu (ES) 2017/1324 dėl Sąjungos dalyvavimo kelių valstybių narių bendrai vykdomoje Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA);
 kadangi pagal Sprendime (ES) 2017/1324 išdėstytas sąlygas Egiptas taps partnerystėje PRIMA dalyvaujančia valstybe, jei su Sąjunga bus sudarytas tarptautinis mokslinio ir technologinio bendradarbiavimo susitarimas, kuriame išdėstomos Egipto dalyvavimo partnerystėje PRIMA sąlygos;
 kadangi Egiptas pareiškė norą tapti partnerystėje PRIMA dalyvaujančia valstybe ir dalyvauti joje tokiomis pačiomis sąlygomis kaip ES valstybės narės ir programos „Horizontas 2020“ asocijuotosios šalys, dalyvaujančios partnerystėje PRIMA;
 kadangi Egipto, kaip partnerystėje PRIMA dalyvaujančios valstybės, teisėms ir pareigoms reglamentuoti reikia tarptautinio Sąjungos ir Egipto susitarimo;
 kadangi įgyvendinant Susitarimą, labai svarbus visapusiškas abiejų Šalių kompetentingų institucijų bendradarbiavimas ir veiklos koordinavimas,
 SUSITARĖ:
 1 straipsnis
 Tikslas
 Susitarimo tikslas – nustatyti Egipto dalyvavimo Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA) sąlygas.
 2 straipsnis
 Egipto dalyvavimo partnerystėje PRIMA sąlygos
 Egipto dalyvavimo partnerystėje PRIMA sąlygos nustatytos Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos sprendime (ES) 2017/1324 dėl Sąjungos dalyvavimo kelių valstybių narių bendrai vykdomoje Partnerystėje mokslinių tyrimų ir inovacijų srityje Viduržemio jūros regione (PRIMA). Šalys laikosi tuo sprendimu nustatytų pareigų ir imasi deramų priemonių, visų pirma, teikia visą būtiną pagalbą, siekdamos užtikrinti sprendimo 10 straipsnio 2 dalies ir 11 straipsnio 3 ir 4 dalių taikymą. Šalys tarpusavyje susitaria dėl pagalbos teikimo tvarkos, nes tokia tvarka būtina, kad Šalys pagal Susitarimą galėtų bendradarbiauti.
 3 straipsnis
 Teritorinis taikymas
 Susitarimas taikomas teritorijoms, kuriose taikoma Sutartis dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo ir Europos Sąjungos sutartis, ir Egipto teritorijai.
 4 straipsnis
 Laikinas taikymas, įsigaliojimas ir galiojimo trukmė
 1. Šalys Susitarimą patvirtina savo pačių nustatytomis procedūromis.
 2. Susitarimas įsigalioja tą dieną, kurią Šalys diplomatiniais kanalais praneša viena kitai, kad pirmoje dalyje nurodytos procedūros užbaigtos. Iki tol, kol pasirašytas Susitarimas įsigalios, Šalys laikinai taiko jį nuo tos dienos, kurią Europos Sąjunga gauna pranešimą apie tai, kad Egiptas užbaigė pirmoje dalyje nurodytas procedūras.
 3. Susitarimas galioja, kol galioja Sprendimas (ES) 2017/1324, nebent kuri nors iš Šalių jį nutrauktų pagal 5 straipsnį.
 5 straipsnis
 Susitarimo nutraukimas
 1. Susitarimą bet kuri iš Šalių gali bet kada nutraukti, raštu pranešusi apie šį ketinimą.
 Susitarimo galiojimas pasibaigia po šešių mėnesių nuo dienos, kurią raštas pasiekė adresatą.
 2. Projektai ir veikla, vykdomi nutraukiant Susitarimą, tęsiami iki pabaigos Susitarime nustatytomis sąlygomis.
 3. Dėl visų kitų Susitarimo nutraukimo pasekmių Šalys sprendžia bendru sutarimu.
 6 straipsnis
 Ginčų sprendimas
 Visi ginčai dėl Susitarimo taikymo arba aiškinimo sprendžiami pagal ginčų sprendimo procedūrą, numatytą Europos ir Viduržemio jūros regiono šalių susitarimo, steigiančio Europos Bendrijų bei jų valstybių narių ir Egipto Arabų Respublikos asociaciją, 82 straipsnyje.
 Susitarimas parengiamas dviem egzemplioriais anglų, bulgarų, čekų, danų, estų, graikų, ispanų, italų, kroatų, latvių, lenkų, lietuvių, maltiečių, nyderlandų, portugalų, prancūzų, rumunų, slovakų, slovėnų, suomių, švedų, vengrų, vokiečių ir arabų kalbomis; kiekvienas tekstas yra vienodai autentiškas.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" Audit Report\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review\n Standard During Continuing\n Disability Reviews\n\n\n\n\n A-01-13-23065 | May 2014\n\x0cMEMORANDUM\n\n\nDate: May 19, 2014 Refer To:\n\nTo: The Commissioner\nFrom: Inspector General\nSubject: The Medical Improvement Review Standard During Continuing Disability Reviews\n (A-01-13-23065)\n\n The attached final report presents the results of our audit. Our objectives were to (a) determine\n whether the Social Security Administration would consider beneficiaries disabled using the\n Initial Disability Standard rather than the Medical Improvement Review Standard (MIRS) during\n continuing disability reviews and (b) evaluate data on the MIRS exceptions.\n\n If you wish to discuss the final report, please call me or have your staff contact\n Steven L. Schaeffer, Assistant Inspector General for Audit, at (410) 965-9700.\n\n\n\n\n Patrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\n\n Attachment\n\x0cThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During\nContinuing Disability Reviews\nA-01-13-23065\nMay 2014 Office of Audit Report Summary\n\nObjective Our Findings\n\nTo (a) determine whether the Social We estimated, after all appeals, SSA will pay about $269 million in\nSecurity Administration (SSA) would benefits until the next CDR due date to about 4,000 adult\nconsider beneficiaries disabled using beneficiaries who would not be disabled if SSA used the Initial\nthe Initial Disability Standard, rather Disability Standard, rather than MIRS, during a CDR.\nthan the Medical Improvement Review\nStandard (MIRS), during continuing Additionally, although the cessation determinations were correct,\ndisability reviews (CDR) and we found issues with the reason coded for cessation for some types\n(b) evaluate data on the MIRS of MIRS exceptions.\nexceptions.\n Our Recommendation\nBackground\n SSA should identify and correct the cause of the MIRS exception\nUnder MIRS, an individual\xe2\x80\x99s disability coding issues so the Agency will have accurate information on how\ncontinues unless the (1) disabling often the exceptions are used.\ncondition has improved since the last\nfavorable disability determination and SSA agreed with the recommendation.\n(2) individual can engage in substantial\ngainful activity.\n\nSSA may apply an exception to MIRS.\nThe exceptions allow a finding that\ndisability ceased in limited situations\nwithout showing medical improvement\noccurred, but evidence clearly showed\nthe person should no longer be, or\nshould never have been, considered\ndisabled.\n\x0cTABLE OF CONTENTS\nObjective ..........................................................................................................................................1\nBackground ......................................................................................................................................1\nResults of Review ............................................................................................................................3\n Sample Results of MIRS Continuance Cases ............................................................................4\n Individuals Not Disabled .....................................................................................................4\n Individuals Still Disabled.....................................................................................................7\n Insufficient Evidence to Evaluate Claim .............................................................................7\n Exceptions to MIRS ...................................................................................................................7\nConclusions ....................................................................................................................................10\nRecommendation ...........................................................................................................................10\nAgency Comment ..........................................................................................................................10\nAppendix A \xe2\x80\x93 The Medical Improvement Review Standard ..................................................... A-1\nAppendix B \xe2\x80\x93 Scope, Methodology, Sample Results, and Projections ...................................... B-1\nAppendix C \xe2\x80\x93 Agency Comments .............................................................................................. C-1\nAppendix D \xe2\x80\x93 Major Contributors.............................................................................................. D-1\n\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065)\n\x0cABBREVIATIONS\nALJ Administrative Law Judge\n\nCDI Cooperative Disability Investigations\n\nCDR Continuing Disability Review\n\nC.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations\n\nCPD Comparison Point Decision\n\nCY Calendar Year\n\nDDS Disability Determination Services\n\nMIRS Medical Improvement Review Standard\n\nOI Office of Investigations\n\nOQR Office of Quality Review\n\nPOMS Program Operations Manual System\n\nPub. L. No. Public Law Number\n\nSGA Substantial Gainful Activity\n\nSSA Social Security Administration\n\nU.S.C. United States Code\n\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065)\n\x0cOBJECTIVE\nOur objectives were to (a) determine whether the Social Security Administration (SSA) would\nconsider beneficiaries disabled using the Initial Disability Standard, rather than the Medical\nImprovement Review Standard (MIRS), during continuing disability reviews (CDR) and\n(b) evaluate data on the MIRS exceptions.\n\nBACKGROUND\nSSA is required to perform CDRs for individuals receiving disability benefits under Titles II and\nXVI of the Social Security Act. 1 In addition, SSA is required to use MIRS in determining\nwhether disability benefits should continue. 2 Under MIRS, an individual\xe2\x80\x99s disability continues\nunless the (1) disabling condition has improved since the last favorable disability determination\nor comparison point decision (CPD) and (2) individual can engage in substantial gainful activity\n(SGA). 3\n\nMedical improvement is shown as a decrease in the medical severity of the disabling condition\nthat was present when the CPD was made. The determination of a decrease in medical severity\nmust be based on changes\xe2\x80\x94or improvement\xe2\x80\x94in the symptoms, signs, and/or laboratory findings\nassociated with the disabling condition(s). 4 If SSA determines the individual has medically\nimproved, it must also determine whether the medical improvement is related to his/her ability to\nwork.\n\nThe Social Security Act provides exceptions to MIRS. 5 These exceptions allow SSA to find\ndisability ceased in limited situations without showing medical improvement occurred, but\nevidence clearly shows the person should no longer be, or never should have been, considered\ndisabled. 6 There are two groups of exceptions to MIRS for adults. Group I exceptions require a\nfinding that the individual is not currently disabled (that is, a finding of ability to engage in SGA)\nbefore any finding under the CDR evaluation process that disability has ended. The Group I\nexceptions are\n\n\n\n1\n Generally, the frequency of CDRs is dependent upon SSA\xe2\x80\x99s assessment of the likelihood of medical improvement.\n20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1590(d) and 416.990(d).\n2\n MIRS was established with Pub. L. No. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794 (1984). See also, Social Security Act \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 223(f) and\n1614(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 423(f) and 1382c(a)(4). However, MIRS does not apply to Title XVI Age-18\nRedetermination cases. See Appendix A for additional information.\n3\n SSA determines SGA for Title II and XVI adult cases. 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1594(f) and 416.994(b)(5). See also\nSSA, POMS, DI 28005.001 (April 11, 2008), DI 28010.105 (June 12, 2001) and DI 28020.050 (October 1, 1997).\n4\n 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1579, 404.1594, and 416.994; SSA, POMS, DI 28010.015 (April 12, 2010).\n5\n Social Security Act \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 223(f) and 1614(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 423(f) and 1382c(a)(4).\n6\n Social Security Act \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 223(f) and 1614(a)(4); 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 423(f) and 1382c(a)(4); 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1579,\n404.1594, and 416.994; SSA, POMS, DI 28020.001 (October 6, 1997).\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) 1\n\x0c\xef\x82\x98 advances in medical or vocational therapy or technology,\n\xef\x82\x98 vocational therapy (any additional education or training that improves the individual\xe2\x80\x99s ability\n to meet the vocational requirements of more jobs),\n\xef\x82\x98 new or improved diagnostic or evaluative techniques, and\n\xef\x82\x98 substantial evidence demonstrates that any prior disability decision was made in error.\n\nGroup II exceptions do not require a medical determination of disability and are\n\n\xef\x82\x98 fraud or similar fault, 7\n\xef\x82\x98 failure to cooperate or whereabouts unknown, 8 and\n\xef\x82\x98 failure to follow prescribed treatment. 9\n\nSee Appendix A for additional information on MIRS and the exceptions.\n\nGenerally, State disability determination services (DDS) make the initial CDR determination\nusing SSA\xe2\x80\x99s regulations. 10 If an individual disagrees with the initial determination, SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nregulations give him/her the right to file an appeal within 60 days from the date of notification of\nthe determination. In most cases, an individual may request up to four levels of appeal:\n(1) reconsideration by a DDS, (2) hearing by an administrative law judge (ALJ), (3) review by\nthe Appeals Council, and (4) review by a Federal court. 11\n\nIn September 2012, then-SSA Commissioner Astrue requested that we review the MIRS process\nto determine how many beneficiaries could be removed from the disability rolls if MIRS were\nnot in place.\n\n\n\n7\n Fraud exists when a claimant (or any other person acting on the claimant\xe2\x80\x99s behalf) with intent to defraud either\nmakes or causes to be made a false statement or a misrepresentation of a material fact for use in determining rights\nto Title II or XVI benefits; or conceals or fails to disclose a material fact for use in determining rights to Title II or\nXVI benefits. Similar fault does not require fraudulent intent. It exists when a claimant or any other person either\nknowingly makes an incorrect or incomplete statement that is material to the determination or knowingly conceals\ninformation that is material to the determination. 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1594(e)(1) and 416.994(b)(4)(i). See also SSA,\nPOMS, DI 27505.015 (June 5, 2008).\n8\n A failure to cooperate or whereabouts unknown issue may arise at any point during a CDR when a disabled\nindividual does not furnish medical or other evidence, fails to attend a consultative examination by a certain date, or\ncannot be located. 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1594(e)(2), 404.1594(e)(3), 416.994(b)(4)(ii) and 416.994(b)(4)(iii). See also\nSSA, POMS, DI 28075.005 (December 28, 2012).\n9\n If treatment can restore the ability to work, an individual must follow prescribed treatment to receive benefits. If\nprescribed treatment is not followed without good cause, SSA should cease benefits when performing a CDR.\n20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1594(e)(4) and 416.994(b)(4)(iv). See also SSA, POMS, DI 23010.005 (March 30, 2007).\n10\n CDRs are performed by DDSs in each of the 50 States, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the\nU.S. Virgin Islands, and SSA Federal units including the Offices of Central Operation and International Operations.\n11\n 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.900 through 404.985 and 416.1400 through 416.1485.\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) 2\n\x0cIn April 2013, we obtained a file of all CDRs processed in Calendar Year (CY) 2012. From this\nfile, we identified a population of 196,183 adults with a CDR continuance because of no medical\nimprovement in CY 2012. We selected a random sample of 275 for review and forwarded 62 of\nthese cases in which we needed assistance to SSA for expert case analysis. We asked SSA to\nreview the cases using the Initial Disability Standard, rather than MIRS. 12 Then, SSA\ndetermined whether an initial allowance would be granted for disability benefits based on the\navailable evidence.\n\nWe also identified a separate population of 9,517 adults in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s systems as having a CDR\ncessation because of a MIRS exception in CY 2012. We selected a random sample from each\ntype of exception\xe2\x80\x94for a total of 196 cases\xe2\x80\x94for review. 13\n\nFor our scope, methodology, and sample results, see Appendix B.\n\nRESULTS OF REVIEW\nWe estimated, after all appeals, SSA will pay about $269 million in benefits until the next CDR\ndue date to about 4,000 adult beneficiaries who would not be disabled if SSA used the Initial\nDisability Standard, rather than MIRS, during a CDR. 14 Additionally, although the cessation\ndeterminations were correct, we found issues with the reason coded for cessation for some types\nof MIRS exceptions.\n\n\n\n\n12\n SSA uses different adjudicative standards for initial disability claims and CDRs. The Agency has a 5-step\nsequential evaluation process to adjudicate initial disability claims and an 8-step evaluation process for CDRs.\n20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1520(a)(4), 404.1594(f), 416.920(a)(4) and 416.994(b)(5). See also SSA, POMS, DI 22001.035\n(March 3, 2003) and DI 28005.010 (October 1, 1997).\n13\n We only reviewed cases with a CDR completed in CY 2012. SSA expressed concerns that our results may be\nunderstated because our population of individuals with full medical CDRs conducted in CY 2012 did not include\nsome individuals who did not have a CDR but may not be disabled if MIRS were not in place. The Agency uses a\nprofiling methodology to identify individuals for CDRs who are most likely to be ceased under current rules and\nregulations.\n14\n We initially estimated SSA would pay about $573 million in benefits until the next CDR due date to about\n8,500 beneficiaries who would no longer be disabled if SSA used the Initial Disability Standard, rather than MIRS,\nduring the initial CDR. We reduced this estimate to reflect the estimated rate of cessations reversed for adults, after\nall appeals, reported by the Agency. SSA, Annual Report on Continuing Disability Reviews Fiscal Year 2011,\nSeptember 2013. Furthermore, we did not adjust our estimates to reflect beneficiaries who might leave the disability\nrolls before the next CDR due date or for future cost of living adjustments in benefits.\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) 3\n\x0cSample Results of MIRS Continuance Cases\nOur review of 275 sample cases (with a CDR continuance because of no medical improvement)\nfound that if SSA used the Initial Disability Standard instead of MIRS,\n\n\xef\x82\x98 12 individuals would not be Figure 1: Sample Results\n considered disabled; 15\n Unable to\n\xef\x82\x98 242 individuals would be disabled; Determine\n and 21 Cases\n 8%\n\n\xef\x82\x98 21 individuals had insufficient\n evidence available to determine\n whether the individual would be Disabled Not Disabled\n Using the\n disabled. Initial\n Using the\n Initial\n Disability Disability\nIndividuals Not Disabled Standard\n 242 Cases\n Standard\n 12 Cases\n 88% 4%\nWe found 12 individuals would not\nhave been considered disabled had SSA used the Initial Disability Standard, rather than MIRS,\nduring a CDR. 16 Had these 12 beneficiaries applied for disability benefits in 2013\xe2\x80\x94at the time\nof our review\xe2\x80\x94SSA would have denied the claims because the individuals were not disabled\nbased on the available evidence. However, because of MIRS, SSA did not evaluate the claims as\nif the individuals were filing for benefits for the first time. Instead, under MIRS, SSA had to\ndetermine whether the beneficiaries had medically improved since the initial claim or last CDR\n(whichever is later).\n\n\n\n\n15\n We forwarded these 12 cases to SSA for expert case review, and it concluded the evidence in these cases did not\nsupport awarding disability benefits. Therefore, these individuals would not be disabled if currently evaluated as an\ninitial claim. Additionally, these 12 cases were based on initial CDR determinations, and this number would likely\ndecrease after all appeals were completed.\n16\n In these 12 CDRs in CY 2012, the DDSs did not find any MIRS exceptions applied. In each case, the DDS made\na reasonable and programmatically correct decision to continue benefits under the current laws and\nregulations. However, the determination of whether there has been significant medical improvement related to the\nability to work requires judgment. There are cases where two independent adjudicators can reasonably come to\ndifferent conclusions when considering all the evidence. So, it is possible that another adjudicator would have made\na different judgment to cease benefits\xe2\x80\x94either demonstrating medical improvement or using one of the MIRS\nexceptions\xe2\x80\x94and it would still be a reasonable and programmatically correct decision.\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) 4\n\x0c Of these 12 cases, 2 were originally allowed benefits at the initial level, 2 were originally\n allowed benefits at the reconsideration level, 17 and 8 were originally allowed benefits at the\n hearing level (see Table 1). For 11 of these 12 beneficiaries, the 2012 CDR was their first\n review since the original allowance. SSA had previously continued the remaining beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s\n benefits during a CDR in 2009.\n\n All 12 cases were originally allowed benefits before December 2010. In recent years, SSA has\n improved the disability decision process. These areas of improvement include the following.\n\n 1. A 3-phase training program for ALJ and hearing office supervisors. 18\n\n 2. The Findings Integrated Templates initiative to improve the quality and consistency of ALJ\n decisions by providing thousands of standard decisional outcomes for various claim types. 19\n\n 3. A quality review process for cases at the hearing level. 20\n\n Table 1: Individuals Not Disabled Under Initial Disability Standard\n Comparison Next\n Age at Allowance Primary Monthly\nCase State Point Title CDR Due\n CDR Level Impairment Benefit\n Decision Date\n Affective\n 1 Mississippi 38 Reconsideration Jan. 2005 II $1,366 Dec. 2018\n Disorders\n Affective\n 2 Illinois 46 Reconsideration Dec. 2002 II $1,049 Mar. 2019\n Disorders\n Affective II &\n 3 New York 28 Hearing May 2007 $508 Mar. 2015\n Disorders XVI\n Affective\n 4 Washington 46 Initial June 2007 II $1,872 Dec. 2018\n Disorders\n Disorders of\n 5 Tennessee 48 Hearing Nov. 2010 II $930 Feb. 2019\n Back\n\n\n\n\n 17\n If the claimant is dissatisfied with the DDS initial determination, the claimant may request that the DDS\n reconsider it. Also, a claimant may request a hearing before an ALJ if he/she is dissatisfied with the reconsideration\n determination. SSA eliminated the reconsideration step for DDSs participating in the Disability Redesign Prototype\n (Alabama, Alaska, California\xe2\x80\x94Los Angeles North and Los Angeles West Branches, Colorado, Louisiana,\n Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, and Pennsylvania). Prototype provisions apply only for initial\n claims but not CDRs.\n 18\n SSA OIG, Training of New Administrative Law Judges at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review\n (A-12-11-11126), October 2011, and Training and Development of Hearing Office Group Supervisors\n (A-12-12-11240), December, 2012.\n 19\n SSA OIG, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review Decision-Writing Process (A-02-09-19068),\n November 2010.\n 20\n SSA OIG, Identifying and Monitoring Risk Factors at Hearing Offices (A-12-12-11289), January 2013.\n\n\n\n The Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) 5\n\x0c Comparison Next\n Age at Allowance Primary Monthly\nCase State Point Title CDR Due\n CDR Level Impairment Benefit\n Decision Date\n Disorders of\n 6 Ohio 43 Hearing Oct. 2004 II $755 Apr. 2019\n Back\n Disorders of\n 7 Michigan 38 Hearing May 2009 II $821 Oct. 2015\n Back\n Disorders of\n 8 Florida 53 Hearing June 2006 II $947 Nov. 2019\n Back\n Borderline\n II &\n 9 Alabama 27 Initial July 2008 Intellectual $718 Apr. 2015\n XVI\n Functioning\n Fracture of\n 10 Mississippi 31 Hearing June 2010 II $1,411 Sept. 2015\n Lower Limb\n Open Wound\n 11 Indiana 38 Hearing Apr. 2009 of Upper II $880 June 2015\n Limb\n 12 Texas 46 Hearing Aug. 2010 Osteoarthritis II $778 May 2019\n Averages 40 $1,003\n\n For example, in June 2010, an ALJ allowed Title II disability benefits to a Mississippi man who\n sustained severe injuries to his right leg and one finger on his left hand in a motorcycle accident.\n In his decision, the ALJ indicated that medical improvement was expected with appropriate\n treatment and recommended a CDR in 24 months. In October 2012, when the beneficiary was\n 31 years old, SSA conducted a CDR, determined his condition had not significantly improved,\n and continued his benefits. We referred this case to SSA for expert review, and it found the\n beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s injuries had healed, but he still had some functional limitations. SSA determined\n the claimant could perform a full range of sedentary work and would not be disabled under the\n criteria for initial disability claims. At the time of the CDR, this claimant was receiving\n $1,411 in monthly disability benefits and could receive over $50,000 between the last CDR in\n October 2012 and the next CDR in September 2015.\n\n In another example, a 46-year-old man from Washington was allowed Title II disability benefits\n in June 2007 because of a depressive disorder. In January 2012, SSA completed a CDR and\n continued benefits. The Agency found the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s condition had not significantly\n improved, and he still had a bipolar affective disorder with mild depressive symptoms and a\n generalized anxiety disorder. We referred this case to SSA for expert review. SSA found he had\n some short-term memory issues with significant stress or depressive symptoms, but he had a\n fairly broad range of daily activities. The evidence suggested that the claimant would have some\n moderate limitations in understanding and memory, sustaining concentration and persistence,\n and engaging in social interactions. SSA found the beneficiary would not be disabled under the\n criteria for initial disability claims. At the time of the CDR, this claimant was receiving\n $1,872 in monthly disability benefits and could receive over $157,000 between the last CDR in\n January 2012 and the next CDR due in December 2018.\n\n\n\n The Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) 6\n\x0cIndividuals Still Disabled\nWe found 242 of our sampled 275 individuals would still be disabled if SSA used the Initial\nDisability Standard, rather than MIRS, during the CDR. For example, a 38-year-old New York\nwoman was allowed Title XVI benefits in July 2003 because of bipolar disorder, dissociative\nidentity disorder, epilepsy, fibromyalgia, and scoliosis. A CDR completed in April 2012 found\ncontinued mental illness with schizoaffective disorder, suicide attempts, and multiple inpatient\npsychiatric hospitalizations. Therefore, benefits were continued. We forwarded this case to SSA\nfor expert review. It determined the medical evidence showed a favorable determination was\nappropriate using the Initial Disability Standard.\n\nInsufficient Evidence to Evaluate Claim\nThe claims folders for 21 individuals did not have sufficient evidence to determine whether the\nindividual would be disabled if SSA used the Initial Disability Standard, rather than MIRS,\nduring the CDR. Although the evidence in these cases was sufficient for SSA to adjudicate these\nclaims under MIRS at the time of the CDRs, we could not determine whether the person was\ndisabled under the Initial Disability Standard. During our review, we did not develop new\nevidence (such as purchasing a consultative examination) or obtain evidence from prior filings\nthat DDS did not scan into the electronic folder.\n\nEach year, SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Quality Review (OQR) examines a number of CDR determinations\nto assess their accuracy. OQR determines whether the cases conformed to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s regulations,\nrulings, policies, and procedures. In FY 2012, OQR reviewed 24,022 initial CDR determinations\n(12,900 continuances and 11,122 cessations) and reported a 97.9-percent accuracy rate.\nAlthough OQR did not review any of the 21 CDR continuances in our sample, we did not\nquestion the accuracy of the determinations.\n\nExceptions to MIRS\nThe Social Security Act provides exceptions to MIRS. 21 These exceptions allow SSA to find\ndisability ceased in limited situations where no medical improvement occurred, but evidence\nclearly shows the person should no longer be considered disabled or never should have been\nconsidered disabled. 22\n\nIn CY 2012, SSA conducted initial medical CDRs for 272,244 adults and ceased benefits to\n39,660, for a 15-percent initial cessation rate. Of these cessations, the DDSs 23 indicated they\n\n\n\n21\n Social Security Act \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 223(f) and 1614(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 423(f) and 1382c(a)(4).\n22\n Social Security Act \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 223(f) and 1614(a)(4); 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 423(f) and 1382c(a)(4); 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1579,\n404.1594, and 416.994; SSA, POMS, DI 28020.001 (October 6, 1997).\n23\n CDRs are performed by DDSs in each of the 50 States, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the\nU.S. Virgin Islands, and SSA Federal units including the Offices of Central Operation and International Operations.\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) 7\n\x0cused MIRS exceptions for 9,517 individuals\xe2\x80\x941,570 Group I exceptions and 7,947 Group II\nexceptions, based on data on these CDRs in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s systems, as shown in Table 2.\n\nWe reviewed a sample of cases from each type of MIRS exception. Although the cessation\ndeterminations were correct, we found issues with the reason coded for cessation for some types\nof exceptions. For example, none of the cases identified with the \xe2\x80\x9cAdvances in Medical or\nVocational Therapy or Technology\xe2\x80\x9d exception codes were correct because the DDS actually\nceased these cases as \xe2\x80\x9cMedical Improvement Related to the Ability to Work.\xe2\x80\x9d Conversely, DDS\nstaff identified other MIRS exception cases correctly, such as \xe2\x80\x9cWhereabouts Unknown\xe2\x80\x9d cases.\nSSA informed us it previously reviewed CY 2012 CDR data and found similar results regarding\nhow often staff used the MIRS exceptions and coded them in its systems. The Agency could not\ndetermine why the data for these cases were incorrect but planned to evaluate the use of the\nMIRS exceptions nationwide.\n\n Table 2: MIRS Exceptions \xe2\x80\x93 Sample Case Results \xe2\x80\x93 by Exception Type 24\n\n Number Exception\n Sample Exception Not Used\n Exception in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\n Size Used (miscoded as an\n Systems exception)\n Group I Exceptions\n Advances in Medical or Vocational\n 949 25 0 0% 25 100%\n Therapy or Technology\n Vocational Profile Enhanced By Vocational\n 350 25 3 12% 22 88%\n Therapy\n New or Improved Diagnostic Techniques or\n Evaluation Show Impairment(s) Not as 135 25 9 36% 16 64%\n Disabling as Considered to be Previously\n Prior Favorable Medical Determination of\n 136 25 20 80% 5 20%\n Entitlement to Benefits Was Based on Error\n Subtotal 1,570 100 32 32% 68 68%\n Group II Exceptions\n Failure to Cooperate 7,788 50 50 100% 0 0%\n Whereabouts Unknown 137 25 25 100% 0 0%\n Failure to Follow Prescribed Treatment 22 21 20 95% 1 5%\n Subtotal 7,947 96 95 99% 1 1%\n Total 9,517 196 127 65% 69 35%\n\n\n\n\n24\n We replaced 15 sample cases in which the CDR documents were not in the electronic disability folder, one case\nthat changed to a continuance after quality review, one case in which the cessation determination was vacated, and\none case that became an Age 18 Redetermination after the CDR was initiated. Additionally, one of the 22 \xe2\x80\x9cFailure\nto Follow Prescribed Treatment\xe2\x80\x9d cases was not in the electronic disability folder.\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) 8\n\x0c Table 3: MIRS Exceptions \xe2\x80\x93 Sample Case Results \xe2\x80\x93 by DDS\n\n Number Exception\n Exception Not Used\n DDS in\n Used (miscoded as\n Sample an exception)\n Alabama 5 2 3\n Arkansas 1 1 0\n California 14 9 5\n Colorado 1 1 0\n Connecticut 5 5 0\n District of Colombia 2 2 0\n Florida 13 13 0\n Georgia 4 3 1\n Idaho 1 1 0\n Illinois 14 4 10\n Indiana 4 4 0\n Iowa 3 1 2\n Kansas 2 2 0\n Kentucky 2 2 0\n Maine 2 2 0\n Maryland 2 1 1\n Massachusetts 1 1 0\n Michigan 4 4 0\n Minnesota 1 0 1\n Mississippi 17 4 13\n Missouri 4 4 0\n Montana 1 0 1\n Nevada 4 2 2\n New Jersey 6 6 0\n New Mexico 1 0 1\n New York 11 8 3\n Office of International Operations 1 1 0\n Ohio 5 5 0\n Oklahoma 2 2 0\n Oregon 2 0 2\n Pennsylvania 18 11 7\n Rhode Island 1 1 0\n South Carolina 9 8 1\n Tennessee 18 7 11\n Texas 10 5 5\n Washington 4 4 0\n Wisconsin 1 1 0\n Total 196 127 69\n\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) 9\n\x0cFor example, the Tennessee DDS ceased benefits for a 42-year-old woman during an initial CDR\nin May 2012. The DDS had allowed benefits in 2008 because of affective disorders and anxiety.\nThe initial CDR examiner found significant medical improvement and ceased her benefits.\nHowever, in processing the case, the examiner used the code for the MIRS exception, \xe2\x80\x9cAdvances\nin Medical or Vocational Therapy or Technology.\xe2\x80\x9d On reconsideration, another examiner\nreversed the cessation because the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s condition had improved but not significantly\nenough to allow her to return to work.\n\nThe Illinois DDS ceased benefits for a 51-year-old man during an initial CDR in May 2012. The\nDDS had allowed his claim in 2008 because of end-stage renal disease that required dialysis.\nDuring the CDR, the examiner determined the medical evidence used to document the dialysis\nbelonged to another individual. Therefore, the original DDS allowed the claim in error because\nthe examiner had put the wrong evidence in this beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s claims folder. The cessation was\nupheld on appeal.\n\nIn another case, the South Carolina DDS ceased benefits for a 45-year-old man during the initial\nCDR in April 2012. An ALJ had allowed benefits in 2008 because of a seizure disorder and\nSarcoidosis, which prevented all work. At the time of the allowance, he was having two or three\nseizures a week. The initial CDR examiner found he was not taking his medication as prescribed\nbecause tests showed his medication levels significantly below therapeutic levels and ceased his\nbenefits because of \xe2\x80\x9cFailure to Follow Prescribed Treatment.\xe2\x80\x9d On reconsideration, another\nexaminer reversed the cessation because the initial examiner did not consider all the\nbeneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s impairments. The combination of his seizure impairment, along with Sarcoidosis,\nasthma, high blood pressure, neuropathy, and a history of neck fractures with cervical\ndiscectomies in November 2012, prevented him from returning to work.\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nWe estimated, after all appeals, SSA will pay about $269 million in benefits until the next CDR\ndue date to about 4,000 adult beneficiaries who would not be disabled if SSA used the Initial\nDisability Standard, rather than MIRS, during a CDR.\n\nAdditionally, although the cessation determinations were correct, we found issues with the\nreason coded for cessation for some types of MIRS exceptions.\n\nRECOMMENDATION\nWe recommend SSA identify and correct the cause of the MIRS exception coding issues so the\nAgency will have accurate information on how often the exceptions are used.\n\nAGENCY COMMENT\nSSA agreed with the recommendation. See Appendix C.\n\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) 10\n\x0c APPENDICES\n\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065)\n\x0cAppendix A \xe2\x80\x93 THE MEDICAL IMPROVEMENT REVIEW\n STANDARD\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard (MIRS) was established under the Social Security\nDisability Benefits Reform Act of 1984. 1\n\nOne of the basic purposes of this legislation was to reemphasize congressional intent that there\nbe national uniformity in the disability programs under standards established by Congress. In\ngeneral, this legislation allowed the Social Security Administration (SSA) to terminate disability\nbenefits only if there was substantial evidence that showed the individual\xe2\x80\x99s disability had\nmedically improved, and the individual could perform substantial gainful activity.\n\nSpecifically, information concerning the individual's impairment(s) during the prior\ndetermination is reviewed in deciding whether the individual is still disabled under MIRS. For a\nTitle II or adult Title XVI beneficiary, disability will cease only when (1) there has been any\nmedical improvement (related to the ability to work) in the individual's impairment(s) or certain\nexceptions to medical improvement apply and (2) the physical and/or mental impairment(s),\ntogether with the vocational profile (that is, age, education and work experience), where\nappropriate, does not prevent the individual from engaging in substantial gainful activity, unless\nan exception applies (that is, fraud, error on the face of the original determination, etc.).\n\nContinuing Disability Reviews and Profiling Process\nSSA conducts continuing disability reviews (CDR) using one of two methods\xe2\x80\x94some cases are\nsent to the disability determination services (DDS) for a full medical review while others are\ncompleted by using the mailer process.\n\nThe mailer process consists of two tools: (1) a profiling system that uses data from SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nrecords to determine the likelihood of medical improvement for disabled beneficiaries and\n(2) the individuals\xe2\x80\x99 responses to a brief mailer questionnaire. 2\n\n\n\n1\n Pub. L. No. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794 (1984). Before 1980, SSA reviewed a small percentage of disability cases in\nwhich: 1) at the time of the initial determination, it was expected that the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s medical condition would\nimprove; 2) the beneficiary\xe2\x80\x99s earnings record indicated work activity; or 3) a beneficiary voluntarily reported work\nactivity or medical improvement. The Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-265,\n94 Stat. 460 (1980) required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to review the status of all non-permanently\ndisabled Title II beneficiaries every 3 years. This process resulted in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s ceasing benefits to large numbers of\nbeneficiaries whose benefits were later found to be erroneously terminated and reinstated after appeal. Most of the\ncourts of appeal ruled that SSA must apply some form of a medical improvement standard or apply a presumption of\ncontinuing disability before benefits could be terminated. The Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of\n1984 included establishment of MIRS to address unforeseen hardships to beneficiaries whose benefits were\nterminated even though their conditions may have been unchanged from the time they were awarded benefits.\n2\n The mailer process is not used for Title XVI disabled children.\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) A-1\n\x0cMost cases profiled as having a high likelihood of medical improvement are sent to the DDSs for\na full medical review. Generally, other cases profiled as having a medium or low likelihood of\nmedical improvement are sent a mailer. If, based on a review of the completed mailer, there is\nan indication of medical improvement, SSA sends the case for a full medical review. Otherwise,\nSSA decides based on the mailer response not to initiate a full medical review and the case is\nscheduled for a future CDR.\n\nExceptions to MIRS\nThe Social Security Act provides exceptions to MIRS for adults. 3 These exceptions allow SSA to\nfind disability ceased in limited situations without showing medical improvement occurred, but\nevidence clearly shows the person should no longer be considered disabled or never should have\nbeen considered disabled. 4 There are two groups of exceptions to MIRS.\n\nGroup I Exceptions to MIRS\nGroup I exceptions require a finding that the individual is not currently disabled (that is, a\nfinding of ability to engage in substantial gainful activity) before any finding under the CDR\nevaluation process that disability has ended. The Group I exceptions are as follows.\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Advances in Medical or Vocational Therapy or Technology. This exception may apply when\n evidence shows the individual is receiving services that reflect advances in medical or\n vocational therapy or technology (related to the ability to work).\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Vocational Therapy. Vocational therapy (related to the individual\xe2\x80\x99s ability to work) includes\n any additional education or training that improves the individual\xe2\x80\x99s ability to meet the\n vocational requirements of more jobs.\n\n\xef\x82\x98 New or Improved Diagnostic or Evaluative Techniques. Changing methodologies and\n advances in medical and other diagnostic techniques or evaluations have improved methods\n for diagnosing, measuring, and documenting the effects of various impairments on the ability\n to do work. Where, by such new or improved methods, substantial evidence shows an\n impairment(s) is not as severe as was determined at the time of the most recent favorable\n decision, such evidence may serve as a basis for a finding of no longer disabled, if the\n individual can currently engage in substantial gainful activity. Under this exception,\n however, the new or improved techniques must have become generally available after the\n date of the most recent favorable decision.\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Substantial Evidence Demonstrates That Any Prior Disability Decision Was In Error. There\n are three types of errors considered under this exception.\n\n\n3\n Social Security Act \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 223(f) and 1614(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 423(f) and 1382c(a)(4).\n4\n Social Security Act \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 223(f) and 1614(a)(4); 42 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 423(f) and 1382c(a)(4); 20 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 404.1579,\n404.1594, and 416.994; SSA, POMS, DI 28020.001 (October 6, 1997).\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) A-2\n\x0c \xef\x82\x9a Error on the Face of the Record. The evidence shows on its face that the decision in\n question should not have been made, including cases where evidence was misread or an\n adjudicative standard was misapplied.\n\n \xef\x82\x9a Required and Material Evidence was Missing. If, at the time of the prior decision,\n required and material evidence of the severity of the impairment(s) was missing and the\n evidence in question becomes available upon review and shows that if it had been present\n before, the beneficiary would not have been found to be disabled.\n\n \xef\x82\x9a New Evidence Related to the Prior Determination. If new evidence related to the prior\n determination refutes the conclusions that were based on the prior evidence and\n substantial evidence shows that had the new evidence been considered at the time of the\n prior decision, the claim would not have been allowed or continued.\n\nGroup II Exceptions to MIRS\nGroup II exceptions do not require a finding of current disability. The Group II exceptions are\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Fraud or Similar Fault. Fraud exists when a claimant (or any other person acting on the\n claimant\xe2\x80\x99s behalf) with intent to defraud either makes or causes to be made a false statement\n or a misrepresentation of a material fact for use in determining rights to Title II or XVI\n benefits; or conceals or fails to disclose a material fact for use in determining rights to Title II\n or XVI benefits. Similar fault does not require fraudulent intent. It exists when a claimant or\n any other person either knowingly makes an incorrect or incomplete statement that is\n material to the determination; or knowingly conceals information that is material to the\n determination. 5\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Failure to Cooperate or Whereabouts Unknown. This may arise at any point during a CDR\n when a disabled individual does not furnish medical or other evidence, fails to attend a\n consultative examination by a certain date, or cannot be located. 6\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Failure to Follow Prescribed Treatment. If treatment can restore the ability to work, an\n individual must follow prescribed treatment to receive benefits. If prescribed treatment is not\n followed without good cause, an individual cannot be found disabled or under a continuing\n disability, or blind, if currently receiving benefits. 7\n\n\n\n\n5\n SSA, POMS, DI 27505.015 (June 5, 2008).\n6\n SSA, POMS, DI 28075.005 (December 28, 2012).\n7\n SSA, POMS, DI 23010.005 (March 20, 2007).\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) A-3\n\x0cAppendix B \xe2\x80\x93 SCOPE, METHODOLOGY, SAMPLE RESULTS,\n AND PROJECTIONS\n\nTo achieve our objective, we:\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Reviewed applicable sections of the Social Security Act and the Social Security\n Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) regulations, rules, policies, and procedures.\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Reviewed prior Office of the Inspector General reports related to continuing disability\n reviews (CDR) and the hearings process.\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Reviewed SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Annual Report of Continuing Disability Reviews for Fiscal Years\n 2006 through 2010 and Report on Continuing Disability Reviews Resulting from Work\n Activity (January 26, 2011).\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Obtained data on all medical CDRs processed in Calendar Year (CY) 2012 from SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\n records of CDR determinations, known as the SSA-832/833 file. From this file, we\n identified a population of 196,183 adults with a CDR continuance due to no medical\n improvement in CY 2012.\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Selected a valid random sample of 275 for detailed analysis. For each case, we reviewed the\n electronic disability folder and determined whether the beneficiary or recipient would have\n been disabled if SSA used the Initial Disability Standard, rather than the Medical\n Improvement Review Standard (MIRS), during the CDR, based on the available evidence\n from the CDR and prior determinations. We assessed these claims using the Initial Disability\n Standard, rather than MIRS.\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Reviewed the 275 sample cases and found\n\n \xef\x82\x9a 213 cases \xe2\x80\x93 the beneficiary would be disabled if SSA used the Initial Disability Standard,\n rather than MIRS, during the CDR and\n\n \xef\x82\x9a 62 cases \xe2\x80\x93 we needed expert assistance to determine whether the beneficiary would be\n disabled if SSA used the Initial Disability Standard. For some of these, we did not have\n the knowledge or expertise to make a conclusion, especially for claims with mental\n impairments, which may have needed medical or psychological consultant reviews or\n vocational assessments. For others, we thought an adjudicator might need more evidence\n to make an initial determination.\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Provided 62 cases to SSA to determine whether, if the claim were an initial disability claim\n instead of a CDR, would an initial level adjudicator allow the claim, based on the available\n evidence from the CDR folder and prior files. For each of these 62 cases, SSA provided a\n short summary of its review and concluded: \xe2\x80\x9cEvidence supports an initial allowance,\xe2\x80\x9d\n \xe2\x80\x9cEvidence does not support an initial allowance,\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cEvidence is insufficient to make an\n initial determination.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) B-1\n\x0c\xef\x82\x98 Projected the number of beneficiaries who would not be disabled if SSA used the Initial\n Disability Standard, rather than MIRS, during the CDR, based on the sample of 275 cases. In\n addition, we projected the amount of benefits paid to these beneficiaries until the next CDR\n due date.\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Obtained SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Annual Report on Continuing Disability Reviews Fiscal Year 2011. There\n were 20,281 initial cessations from full medical CDRs for adult beneficiaries. The Agency\n estimated 9,586 (47 percent) of these would remain ceased after all appeals.\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Reduced our estimates to reflect the estimated rate of cessations reversed for adult\n beneficiaries, after all appeals, reported by the Agency in Fiscal Year 2011.\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Identified a population of 9,517 adults in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s 832/833 file as having benefits ceased in\n CY 2012 based on an exception to MIRS. The population by type of exception is below.\n\n \xef\x82\x9a 949 individuals - Benefited from Advances in Medical or Vocational Therapy or\n Technology.\n\n \xef\x82\x9a 350 individuals - Vocational Profile Enhanced by Vocational Therapy.\n\n \xef\x82\x9a 135 individuals - New or Improved Diagnostic Techniques or Evaluation Show\n Impairment(s) Not as Disabling as Considered to be at the Time of Most Recent Prior\n Favorable Medical Determination.\n\n \xef\x82\x9a 136 individuals - Substantial Evidence that Any Prior Favorable Medical Determination\n of Entitlement to Benefits Was Based on Error.\n\n \xef\x82\x9a 7,788 individuals - Failure to Cooperate.\n\n \xef\x82\x9a 137 individuals - Whereabouts Unknown.\n\n \xef\x82\x9a 22 individuals - Failure to Follow Prescribed Treatment.\n\n\xef\x82\x98 Selected 21 failure to follow prescribed treatment cessations, 1 a valid random sample of\n 50 cases from the failure to cooperate cessations, and valid random samples of 25 from each\n of the other exception cessation groups, for a total of 196 sample cases. For each sample\n case, we reviewed the electronic disability folder and SSA\xe2\x80\x99s systems to determine whether\n the DDS used a MIRS exception.\n\n\n\n\n1\n One of the 22 \xe2\x80\x9cFailure to Follow Prescribed Treatment\xe2\x80\x9d cases was not in the electronic disability folder.\nTherefore, we did not review it as part of the sample. Additionally, we replaced 15 sample cases in which the CDR\ndocuments were not in the electronic disability folder, one case that changed to a continuance after quality review,\none case in which the cessation determination was vacated, and one case that became an Age 18 Redetermination\nafter the CDR was initiated.\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) B-2\n\x0cWe only reviewed cases with a CDR completed in CY 2012. SSA expressed concerns that our\nresults may be understated because our population of individuals with full medical CDRs\nconducted in CY 2012 did not include some individuals who did not have a CDR but may not be\ndisabled if MIRS were not in place. The Agency uses a profiling methodology to identify\nindividuals for CDRs who are most likely to be ceased under current rules and regulations.\n\nWe determined the computer-processed data from the file of all CDR determinations in CY 2012\n(SSA\xe2\x80\x99s 832/833 file) were sufficiently reliable for our intended use. We conducted tests to\ndetermine the completeness and accuracy of the data. These tests allowed us to assess the\nreliability of the data and achieve our audit objective. We also determined the MIRS exception\ndata was sufficiently reliable to determine some of the records were miscoded.\n\nWe conducted our review between July 2013 and March 2014. The entities audited were the\nOffice of Disability Determinations under the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Operations\nand the Office of Disability Policy 2 under the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Retirement\nand Disability Policy.\n\nWe conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government\nauditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain\nsufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions\nbased on our audit objective. We believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for\nour findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.\n\nSample Results\nTable B\xe2\x80\x931, Table B\xe2\x80\x932, and Table B\xe2\x80\x933 show the projections from our sample of 275 CDR\ncontinuances due to no medical improvement in CY 2012.\n\n Table B\xe2\x80\x931: Population and Sample Size\n Population Size 196,183\n Sample Size 275\n\n\n\n\n2\n During our audit, SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Offices of Disability Programs and Medical and Vocational Expertise merged to become\nthe Office of Disability Policy; see SSA Memorandum, Executive Personnel Assignments, December 11, 2013.\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) B-3\n\x0cTable B\xe2\x80\x932: Beneficaries Who Would Not Be Disabled Using the Initial Disability Standard\n Attribute Projections\n Sample beneficiaries that would not be disabled using\n 12\n the Initial Disability Standard\n Initial Point estimate 8,561\n Reduced estimate to reflect cessation rate after all\n 4,024\n appeals SSA reported in Fiscal Year 2011 3\n Projection lower limit 4,979\n Projection upper limit 13,678\n Note: All projections were calculated at the 90-percent confidence level.\n\n Table B\xe2\x80\x933: Amount Paid Until Next CDR Due Date to Beneficaries Who Would Not Be\n Disabled Using the Initial Disability Standard\n Dollar Projections\n Sample beneficiaries that would not be disabled using\n 12\n the Initial Disability Standard\n Point estimate $572,651,756\n Reduced estimate to reflect cessation rate after all\n $269,146,325\n appeals SSA reported in Fiscal Year 2011\n Projection lower limit $261,910,087\n Projection upper limit $883,393,426\n Note: All projections were calculated at the 90-percent confidence level.\n\n\n\n\n3\n SSA, Annual Report on Continuing Disability Reviews Fiscal Year 2011, September 2013. There were\n20,281 initial cessations from full medical CDRs for adult beneficiaries. The Agency estimated 9,586 (47 percent)\nof these would remain ceased after all appeals.\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) B-4\n\x0c Appendix C \xe2\x80\x93 AGENCY COMMENTS\n\n\n\n\n SOCIAL SECURITY\n\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\nDate: May 12, 2014 Refer To: S1J-3\n\nTo: Patrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\n Inspector General\n\nFrom: Katherine Thornton /s/\n Deputy Chief of Staff\n\nSubject: Office of the Inspector General Draft Report, \xe2\x80\x9cThe Medical Improvement Review Standards\n During Continuing Disability Reviews\xe2\x80\x9d (A-01-13-23065) - INFORMATION\n\n Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. Please see our attached comments.\n\n Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. You may direct staff inquiries to\n Gary S. Hatcher at (410) 965-0680.\n\n Attachment\n\n\n\n\n The Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) C-1\n\x0cCOMMENTS ON THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DRAFT REPORT,\n\xe2\x80\x9cTHE MEDICAL IMPROVEMENT REVIEW STANDARD DURING CONTINUING\nDISABILITY REVIEWS\xe2\x80\x9d (A-01-13-23065)\n\nRecommendation\n\nIdentify and correct the cause of the Medical Improvement Review Standard (MIRS) exception\ncoding issues so the Agency will have accurate information on how often the exceptions are\nused.\n\nResponse\n\nWe agree. We are currently studying several approaches in the coding for MIRS to resolve the\nissues involved and prevent them in the future. We will take action to correct the miscoding of\nthe cases by the end of this calendar year.\n\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) C-2\n\x0cAppendix D \xe2\x80\x93 MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS\nJudith Oliveira, Director, Boston Audit Division\n\nPhillip Hanvy, Audit Manager\n\nDavid Mazzola, Audit Manager\n\nKatie Greenwood, Senior Auditor\n\nChad Burns, Senior Auditor\n\nFrank Salamone, Senior Auditor\n\nBrennan Kraje, Statistician\n\n\n\n\nThe Medical Improvement Review Standard During CDRs (A-01-13-23065) D-1\n\x0c MISSION\nBy conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations, and investigations, the Office of\nthe Inspector General (OIG) inspires public confidence in the integrity and security of the Social\nSecurity Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) programs and operations and protects them against fraud,\nwaste, and abuse. We provide timely, useful, and reliable information and advice to\nAdministration officials, Congress, and the public.\n\n\n CONNECT WITH US\nThe OIG Website (http://oig.ssa.gov/) gives you access to a wealth of information about OIG.\nOn our Website, you can report fraud as well as find the following.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 OIG news In addition, we provide these avenues of\n \xe2\x80\xa2 audit reports\n communication through our social media\n channels.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 investigative summaries\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Semiannual Reports to Congress Watch us on YouTube\n \xe2\x80\xa2 fraud advisories Like us on Facebook\n \xe2\x80\xa2 press releases\n Follow us on Twitter\n \xe2\x80\xa2 congressional testimony\n \xe2\x80\xa2 an interactive blog, \xe2\x80\x9cBeyond The Subscribe to our RSS feeds or email updates\n Numbers\xe2\x80\x9d where we welcome your\n comments\n\n\n OBTAIN COPIES OF AUDIT REPORTS\nTo obtain copies of our reports, visit our Website at http://oig.ssa.gov/audits-and-\ninvestigations/audit-reports/all. For notification of newly released reports, sign up for e-updates\nat http://oig.ssa.gov/e-updates.\n\n\n REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE\nTo report fraud, waste, and abuse, contact the Office of the Inspector General via\n Website: http://oig.ssa.gov/report-fraud-waste-or-abuse\n Mail: Social Security Fraud Hotline\n P.O. Box 17785\n Baltimore, Maryland 21235\n FAX: 410-597-0118\n Telephone: 1-800-269-0271 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time\n TTY: 1-866-501-2101 for the deaf or hard of hearing\n\x0c"


text:
Gerechtshof berispt Raad voor de Kinderbescherming - Nieuws | NJi
 Home Actueel Nieuws Gerechtshof berispt Raad voor de Kinderbescherming Deel deze pagina via:
 Gerechtshof berispt Raad voor de Kinderbescherming
 Het Gerechtshof Amsterdam vindt dat de Raad voor de Kinderbescherming onzorgvuldig onderzoek heeft gedaan in een vechtscheidingszaak. Dat schreef de Volkskrant op 17 mei. Ook het Openbaar Ministerie kreeg kritiek.
 Het Gerechtshof deed uitspraak in de rechtszaak van een vrouw tegen de staat. Aanleiding was het onderzoek van de Raad voor de Kinderbescherming naar mogelijk misbruik van haar zoon door haar ex-man. De man was eerder twee keer veroordeeld wegens ontucht met minderjarigen.
 De Raad had volgens het Gerechtshof uitgebreider onderzoek moeten doen naar het risico van recidive, ondanks de weerstand van de vader. Van de Raad mag worden verwacht dat die de expertise heeft om de zorgen van de moeder te beoordelen en het belang van de vader mee te wegen.
 Nadat de vader de moeder had beschuldigd van smaad besloot het Openbaar Ministerie haar niet te vervolgen, op voorwaarde dat zij bij instanties geen verdere mededelingen zou doen over het verleden van haar ex-man. Daarmee ontnam het OM de moeder de mogelijkheid om straffeloos haar zorgen te delen met instanties wier taak het is om het belang van kinderen te bewaken, stelt het Gerechtshof.
 Bericht de Volkskrant, 17 mei 2017
 NJi-databank Cijfers over jeugd en opvoeding: Raad voor de Kinderbescherming
 Kees Bakker ontvangt Koninklijke onderscheiding
 Kindcentrum hoog op verlanglijst van ouders


type: caselaw

text:
 2.3.2013
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 63/23
 Žaloba podaná dne 21. prosince 2012 — Kaatsu International v. OHIM (KAATSU)
 (Věc T-567/12)
 2013/C 63/46
 Jednací jazyk: angličtina
 Účastníci řízení
 Žalobkyně: Kaatsu International Co. Ltd (Morningside Drive, Spojené státy) (zástupce: M. Edenborough, QC)
 Žalovaný: Úřad pro harmonizaci na vnitřním trhu (ochranné známky a vzory)
 Návrhová žádání
 Žalobkyně navrhuje, aby Tribunál:
 —
 zrušil napadené rozhodnutí odvolacího senátu;
 —
 uložil žalovanému, aby žalobkyni uhradil její náklady vzniklé v souvislosti s tímto řízením.
 Žalobní důvody a hlavní argumenty
 Dotčená ochranná známka Společenství: slovní ochranná známka „KAATSU“ pro výrobky a služby zařazené do tříd 9, 10, 16, 28, 41 a 44 — přihláška ochranné známky Společenství č. 10 179 547
 Rozhodnutí průzkumového referenta: zamítnutí přihlášky ochranné známky Společenství
 Rozhodnutí odvolacího senátu: zamítnutí odvolání
 Dovolávané žalobní důvody: porušení čl. 7 odst. 1 písm. b) a c) nařízení Rady č. 207/2009.