type: wikipedia

text:
Sfântul Nicolae din Mira (în mod tradițional ), cunoscut și sub numele de Nicolae de Bari, a fost un episcop creștin timpuriu al orașului maritim antic grecesc Mira din Asia Mică (, orașul modern Demre, Turcia) în timpul Imperiului roman. Datorită numeroaselor minuni atribuite mijlocirii sale, el este cunoscut și sub numele de Nicolae făcătorul de minuni. Sfântul Nicolae este patronul: marinarilor, negustorilor, arcașilor, hoților care regretă, copiilor și studenților din diverse orașe și țări din Europa. Reputația sa a evoluat în rândul credincioșilor, așa cum era obișnuit pentru sfinții creștini timpurii, iar legendarul său obicei de a da daruri secrete a dat naștere modelului tradițional al lui Moș Crăciun („Sfântul Nicu”) prin Sinterklaas.
 Se știe foarte puțin despre istoricul Sfânt Nicolae. Cele mai vechi relatări ale vieții sale au fost scrise la secole după moartea sa și conțin multe elaborații legendare. Se spune că s-a născut în portul grecesc din Patara, regiunea Licia din Asia Mică din părinți creștini înstăriți. Într-unul dintre primele incidente atestate și cele mai faimoase din viața sa, se spune că a salvat trei fete de la a fi forțate să se prostitueze, aruncând un sac de monede de aur pe fereastra casei lor în fiecare seară timp de trei nopți, pentru ca tatăl lor să poată plăti o zestre pentru fiecare dintre ele. Alte povești timpurii povestesc despre el calmând o furtună pe mare, salvând trei soldați nevinovați de executarea greșită și tăind un copac stăpânit de un demon. În tinerețe, se spune că a făcut un pelerinaj în Egipt și în zona Palestinei. La scurt timp după întoarcerea sa, a devenit episcop de Myra. Ulterior a fost aruncat în închisoare în timpul persecuției lui Dioclețian, dar a fost eliberat după ascensiunea lui Constantin. O listă timpurie îl face participant la Primul Consiliu de la Niceea în 325, dar nu este menționat niciodată în nicio scriere de către persoane care erau de fapt la consiliu. Legendele târzii, nefondate, susțin că el a fost caterisit temporar și a fost întemnițat în timpul Consiliului pentru că a pălmuit pe ereticul Arie. O altă legendă celebră târzie povestește cum a înviat trei copii, care au fost uciși și murați în saramură de un măcelar care plănuia să-i vândă ca carne de porc în timpul unei foamete.
 La mai puțin de 200 de ani de la moartea lui Nicolae, Biserica "Sf. Nicolae" a fost construită în Mira sub ordinele lui Teodosie al II-lea peste locul bisericii, unde a servit ca episcop, iar rămășițele lui Nicolae au fost mutate într-un sarcofag din acea biserică. În 1087, în timp ce locuitorii greci creștini din regiune erau subjugați de nou-sosiții turci selgiucizi musulmani , și la scurt timp după ce biserica lor a fost declarată în schismă de către Biserica Catolică, un grup de comercianți din orașul italian Bari a îndepărtat majoritatea osemintelor lui Nicolae din sarcofagul său din biserică, fără autorizație, și le-au adus în orașul natal, unde sunt acum consacrate în Basilica di San Nicola. Fragmentele osoase rămase din sarcofag au fost îndepărtate ulterior de marinari venețieni și duse la Veneția, în timpul Primei cruciade. Se spune că moaștele sale din Bari emană o substanță apoasă miraculoasă, cunoscută sub numele de "mană" sau "mir", pe care unii membri ai credincioșilor o consideră că posedă puteri supranaturale.
 Biografie
 Toate elementele biografice sunt târzii și îndoielnice. Sfântul Nicolae de Mira este menționat pentru prima dată în secolul al VI-lea, în Martirologiul roman; nu era vorba de vreo pomenire ca atare a sfântului, ci doar de vedenia când sfântul Nicolae Licianul i s-ar fi arătat în vis lui Constantin cel Mare, cerându-i să-i ierte pe trei ostași osândiți la moarte. De fapt, sărbătoarea de pe 6 decembrie pomenește tocmai această vedenie.
 Tot în secolul al VI-lea, Nicolae Sionitul, episcop de Pinara, ar fi zidit o biserică în cinstea sfântului Nicolae de Mira Liciei.
 Toate celelalte elemente biografice despre sfântul Nicolae ne vin din Legenda aurea a lui Iacob de Voragina, scrisă în 1264.
 Un cult neînsemnat al sfântului Nicolae de Mira își face apariția în Occident, o dată cu Nicolae I († 867), papa Romei, care zidește, în bazilica Santa Maria Maggiore, un altar lateral dedicat patronului său.
 În secolul al X-lea, cultul sfântului Nicolae începe să se răspândească în Occident: Othon al III-lea, în Germania, a zidit o biserică de rit bizantin la Burtscheid (lângă Aachen), căreia îi dă ca hram pe sfântul Nicolae.
 Cultul popular al sfântului Nicolae datează din secolul al XI-lea. Cruciații aduceau moaște din Răsărit, și de obicei marile orașe occidentale care primeau moaștele vreunui sfânt răsăritean, își luau drept patron pe acel sfânt. Astfel, cruciații din Bari (în Italia) au adus cu ei moaștele sfântului Nicolae de Mira. Pe vremea aceea, arhiepiscopul Nicolae al Veneției a zidit două biserici, una în 1036, probabil la Bari, iar cealaltă în 1039 la Veneția, în care să așeze moaștele. Se păstrează două diplome ale acestui episcop, precum și numele celor șaizeci și doi de bărbați care aduseseră moaștele din Răsărit. Cele două biserici au fost târnosite pe 9 mai 1098. Cei doi arhiepiscopi, Ilie de Bari și Nicolae de Veneția au răspândit cultul sfântului Nicolae în Occident. Mai mult, papa Romei, Urban al II-lea, a cunoscut cultul sfântului Nicolae la Bari, unde s-ar fi făcut minuni, lucru pentru care papa l-a distins pe Ilie cu omoforul.
 După încreștinarea slavilor, cultul sfântului Nicolae l-a înlocuit pe cel al zeului Mikula, zeul agriculturii. Dar de fapt, unii sunt de părere că rușii l-ar fi cunoscut pe sfântul Nicolae datorită diasporei rusești de la Bari. Aici, rușii au dedicat sfântului Nicolae biserica lor, apoi spitalul și ospiciul. Legenda aurea a fost tradusă în slavonă, de unde a intrat în sinaxarul rusesc.
 În secolul al XII-lea, sfântul Nicolae intră în cărțile de slujbe de la mănăstirea "Sfântul Trudo" (orașul belgian Sint-Truiden). De aici cultul său ajunge la Roskilde (Danemarca), la Vadstena (Suedia) și în vreo patruzeci de sate din Islanda. În secolul al XIII-lea, părticele din moaștele sfântului Nicolae ajung la catedrala din Canterbury, iar cultul sfântului începe să se răspândească, datorită influenței de pe continent.
 Cunoscut sub numele de la Nikolaus în Germania, Sinterklaas în Belgia și Țările de Jos și Kleeschen în Luxemburg, este o sărbătoare legată de personajul istoric Nicolae din Mira. Santa Claus din lumea anglofonă (Moș Crăciun în România) a apărut prin deformarea cuvântului neerlandofon Sinterklaas. Sărbătoarea lui Moș Crăciun a înlocuit-o pe cea a Sfântului Nicolae în numeroase țări, devenind o oportunitate de a face cadouri, iar pentru comercianți una de a-și spori vânzările, și a apărut chiar și în țări care nu au o legătură culturală directă cu sfântului Nicolae, precum China.
 Sfântul Nicolae este patronul spiritual al Țărilor de Jos, Rusiei, al provinciei franțuzești Lorena, precum și al mai multor orașe vest-europene, între care Bari etc. Sfântul Nicolae este cunoscut ca protector al celor acuzați pe nedrept, al comercianților, călătorilor, fetelor nemăritate, mireselor și, în special, al copiilor mici.
 Lăcașe de cult
 În România
 Biserica "Sf. Nicolae" din Bacău, romano-catolică
 Biserica "Sfântul Nicolae" din Brăila, ortodoxă română
 Biserica Rusă din București, ortodoxă rusă
 Biserica "Sfântul Nicolae" din Constanța, ortodoxă română
 Biserica "Sf. Nicolae" din Cuhea, română unită (greco-catolică)
 Biserica Domnească din Curtea de Argeș, ortodoxă română
 Biserica "Sf. Nicolae" din Densuș, ortodoxă română și română unită
 Catedrala arhiepiscopală din Galați, ortodoxă română
 Biserica "Sf. Nicolae Domnesc" din Iași, ortodoxă română
 Catedrala episcopală din Miercurea Ciuc, ortodoxă română
 Biserica "Sf. Nicolae" din Odorheiu Secuiesc, romano-catolică
 Catedrala "Sf. Nicolae" din Oradea, română unită (greco-catolică)
 Biserica "Sf. Nicolae" din Suceava, ortodoxă română
 Catedrala "Sf. Alexandru și Sf. Nicolae" din Sulina, ortodoxă română
 Biserica "Sf. Nicolae" din Șcheii Brașovului, ortodoxă română
 Biserica "Sfântul Nicolae" din Timișoara, ortodoxă sârbă
 Catedrala episcopală din Tulcea, ortodoxă română
 Catedrala "Sf. Nicolae" din Oltenița, ortodoxă română
 Biserica „Sf. Ierarh Nicolae” din Sângeorz-Băi, ortodoxă română
 Biserica Sfântul Nicolae din Dorohoi
 Legenda
 Legenda spune că trei surori, fetele unui nobil sărac, nu se puteau mărita datorită situației financiare precare. Se spune ca atunci când fata cea mare a ajuns la vremea măritișului, Nicolae, ajuns deja episcop, a lăsat noaptea, la ușa casei nobilului, un săculeț cu aur.
 Povestea s-a repetat întocmai și când a venit vremea măritișului pentru cea de a doua fată. Când i-a venit vremea și celei de a treia fete, nobilul a stat de pază pentru a afla cine era cel care le-a făcut bine fetelor sale. În acea noapte l-a văzut pe episcop lăsând săculețul cu aur. Se spune că Sfântul Nicolae s-a urcat pe acoperiș și a dat drumul săculețului prin hornul casei, într-o șoseta pusă la uscat, motiv pentru care a apărut obiceiul agățării șosetelor de șemineu.
 După ce tatăl fetelor a văzut cele întâmplate, Nicolae l-a rugat să păstreze secretul, însă acesta nu a rezistat tentației de a povesti mai departe. De atunci, oricine primea un cadou neașteptat îi mulțumea lui Nicolae pentru el. Cei trei săculeți cu aur făcuți cadou fetelor de nobil au devenit simbolul Sfântului Nicolae sub forma a trei bile de aur (în iconografia apuseană).
 Tot potrivit legendei, Nicolae de Mira ar fi fost unul din cei 318 participanți ai Conciliului de la Niceea (astăzi İznik, Turcia).
 Sărbători
 în calendarul bizantin: 6 decembrie (sărbătorit de facto pe 19 decembrie de majoritatea bisericilor ortodoxe, din cauza decalajului dintre calendarul civil și cel bisericesc)
 în calendarul latin: 6 decembrie
 în calendarul luteran: 6 decembrie
 în calendarul anglican: 6 decembrie
 Moaștele
 Mâna dreaptă a sfântului, primită de Mihai Viteazul ca răsplată pentru meritele sale în războiul împotriva musulmanilor, chiar de la cardinalul din Bari, a fost donată de acesta Bisericii "Sfântul Gheorghe Nou" din București, undeva în jurul anului 1600.
 O părticică din moaștele Sfântului se află și la Biserica "Vatra Luminoasă".
 Imaginea lui Moș Nicolae în universul copiilor
 În noaptea dintre 5 spre 6 decembrie, copiii obișnuiesc să își lase ghetele curățate în fața ușii, așteptând în speranța că vor primi cadouri constând, în general, în dulciuri. În unele zone, copiii îi lasă moșului apă sau morcovi pentru calul său. În multe regiuni ale României și R. Moldova, copiii găsesc în dimineața zilei de 6 decembrie, pe lângă dulciuri, bomboane și fructe (sau o jucărie sau câteva monezi) – dacă au fost cuminți, o nuielușă (sau un cartof sau un cărbune) – dacă au fost obraznici.
 Sfântul Nicolae este pomenit în Sinaxar în 9 mai. Tot în această zi, pomenirea mutării moaștelor sfântului Nicolae de la Mira la Bari, în anul 1087, când regiunea Mira Lichiei a căzut în mâinile turcilor mahomedani.
 Note de completare
 Note bibliografice
 Bibliografie
 Les RR PP Bénédictins de Paris (ed), Vie des saints et des bienheureux. Tome VII. Juillet, Paris 1949, pp 300–302. (Fără copyright).
 Lothar Heiser: Nikolaus von Myra. Heiliger der ungeteilten Christenheit. Paulinus-Verlag, Trier 1978. ISBN 3-7902-1448-5
 Roman Mensing: Nikolaus von Myra. Patmos Verlag, Düsseldorf 2001, Neuausgabe 2007. ISBN 3-491-70343-3
 Manfred Becker-Huberti: Der heilige Nikolaus. Leben, Legenden und Bräuche. Greven-Verlag, Köln 2005. ISBN 3-7743-0371-1
 Martin Hallinger: Der Nikolaus und seine Buttnmandl. Verlag Plenk, Berchtesgaden 2004. ISBN 3-927957-59-3
 Patrik Hof: Wie der Nikolaus die Herzen der Menschen eroberte. PM History 12/2006, S. 6–13.
 Karl Meisen: Nikolauskult und Nikolausbrauch im Abendlande. Verlag L.Schwann, Düsseldorf 1931
 Werner Mezger: Sankt Nikolaus. Zwischen Kult und Klamauk. Schwabenverlag, Ostfildern 1993. ISBN 3-7966-0723-3
 Helga Mondschein: Der heilige Nikolaus. Geschichten & Legenden. St. Benno, Leipzig 2004. ISBN 3-7462-1729-6
 Chlaus. In: Schweizerisches Idiotikon. Vol. 3, Coloana 687–698.
 Legături externe
 Viața, minuni, icoane, cântări, etc
 Sfantul Ierarh Nicolae, 6 decembrie 2012, Teodor Dănălache, CrestinOrtodox.ro
 Panteon creștin - Sfântul Ierarh Nicolae , 11 decembrie 2002, Revista Magazin
 Sfantul care deschide iarna, 6 decembrie 2006, Simona Chiriac, Jurnalul Național
 TAINA SFÂNTULUI NICOLAE: Cum a putut să-l lovească pe aproapele?, 5 decembrie 2012, Adrian Pătrușcă, Evenimentul zilei
 Sfantul Nicolae sau Craciunul Copiilor , 4 decembrie 2008, Adrian Bucurescu, România liberă
 Sfântul Nicolae, întruchiparea dărniciei lui Dumnezeu , 6 decembrie 2007, Narcisa Elena Balaban, Ziarul Lumina
 Milostivul și apărătorul dreptei credințe , 5 decembrie 2009, Grigore Meșteroaie, Ziarul Lumina
 Documentele care ne vorbesc despre Sfântul Nicolae , 6 decembrie 2009, Nicolae Preda, Ziarul Lumina
 Ierarhul Mirelor Lichiei, râul îmbelșugat de daruri , 5 decembrie 2010, Augustin Păunoiu, Ziarul Lumina
 Sfântul Nicolae, ierarhul cel darnic , 6 decembrie 2008, Narcisa Elena Balaban, Ziarul Lumina
 Cultul Sfântului Ierarh Nicolae la români , 6 decembrie 2010, Adrian Nicolae Petcu, Ziarul Lumina
 Sfantul Nicolae, obiceiuri de Sfantul Nicolae, 24 mai 2012, CrestinOrtodox.ro
 Sfantul Macarie cel Mare in Patericul Egiptean, 27 iulie 2012, Radu Alexandru, CrestinOrtodox.ro
 Sfinți în Biserica Catolică
 Sfinți în Biserica Ortodoxă
 Personaje de Crăciun
 Nașteri în 280
 Decese în 345


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 31998R2580
 Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 2580/98 af 30. november 1998 om ændring af forordning (EØF) nr. 3846/87 om fastsættelsen af nomenklaturen over eksportrestitutioner for landbrugsprodukter
 EF-Tidende nr. L 322 af 01/12/1998 s. 0031 - 0032
 KOMMISSIONENS FORORDNING (EF) Nr. 2580/98 af 30. november 1998 om ændring af forordning (EØF) nr. 3846/87 om fastsættelsen af nomenklaturen over eksportrestitutioner for landbrugsprodukter KOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER HAR -under henvisning til traktaten om oprettelse af Det Europæiske Fællesskab,under henvisning til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2777/75 af 29. oktober 1975 om den fælles markedsordning for fjerkrækød (1), senest ændret ved forordning (EØF) nr. 2916/95 (2), særlig artikel 8, stk. 12, ogud fra følgende betragtninger:I Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3846/87 (3), senest ændret ved forordning (EF) nr. 2512/98 (4), er der på grundlag af den kombinerede nomenklatur fastsat en nomenklatur over eksportrestitutioner for landbrugsprodukter;andre præsentationer end kyllinger 70 % og kyllinger 65 % er dukket frem på markedet, og det er hensigtsmæssigt at optage dem i nomenklaturen over eksportrestitutioner med henblik på ydelse af restitutioner; nomenklaturen bør derfor ændres;de i denne forordning fastsatte foranstaltninger er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra Forvaltningskomitéen for Æg og Fjerkrækød -UDSTEDT FØLGENDE FORORDNING:Artikel 1 I sektor 7 i bilaget til forordning (EØF) nr. 3846/87 indsættes følgende oplysninger om produktkode 0207 12 90 9990 inden KN-kode ex 0207 14:>TABELPOSITION>Artikel 2 Denne forordning træder i kraft på tredjedagen efter offentliggørelsen i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende.Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 30. november 1998.På Kommissionens vegneFranz FISCHLERMedlem af Kommissionen(1) EFT L 282 af 1. 11. 1975, s. 77.(2) EFT L 305 af 29. 12. 1995, s. 49.(3) EFT L 366 af 24. 12. 1987, s. 1.(4) EFT L 313 af 21. 11. 1998, s. 15.


type: contracts

text:
 11/Sv. 97
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 187
 22003D0152
 L 041/43
 SLUŽBENI LIST EUROPSKE UNIJE
 ODLUKA ZAJEDNIČKOG ODBORA EGP-a
 br. 152/2003
 od 7. studenoga 2003.
 o izmjeni Priloga VI. (Socijalna sigurnost) Sporazumu o EGP-u
 ZAJEDNIČKI ODBOR EGP-a,
 uzimajući u obzir Sporazum o Europskom gospodarskom prostoru, kako je izmijenjen Protokolom o prilagodbi Sporazuma o Europskom gospodarskom prostoru, dalje u tekstu „Sporazum”, a posebno njegov članak 98.,
 budući da:
 (1)
 Prilog VI. Sporazumu izmijenjen je Odlukom Zajedničkog odbora EGP-a br. 114/2003 od 26. rujna 2003. (1).
 (2)
 Odluka br. 185 od 27. lipnja 2002. kojom se izmjenjuje Odluka br. 153 od 7. listopada 1993. (obrazac E 108) i Odluka br. 170 od 11. lipnja 1998. (sastavljanje popisa predviđeno člankom 94. stavkom 4. i člankom 95. stavkom 4. Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 574/72 od 21. ožujka 1972. (2), kako je ispravljeno u SL L 173, 11.7.2003., str. 44., treba se unijeti u Sporazum,
 ODLUČIO JE:
 Članak 1.
 Prilog VI. izmjenjuje se:
 1.
 U točku 3.39. (Odluka br. 153) dodaje se sljedeća alineja:
 „—
 32003 D 0148: Odluka br. 185 od 27. lipnja 2002. (SL L 55, 1.3.2003., str. 74.), kako je ispravljena u SL L 173, 11.7.2003., str. 44.”
 2.
 U točku 3.51. (Odluka br. 170) dodaje se sljedeće:
 „ ‚ kako je izmijenjena:
 —
 32003 D 0148: Odluka br. 185 od 27. lipnja 2002. (SL L 55, 1.3.2003., str. 74.), kako je ispravljena u SL L 173, 11.7.2003., str. 44.”
 Članak 2.
 Tekst Odluke br. 185, kako je ispravljen u SL L 173, 11.7.2003., str. 44. na islandskom i norveškom jeziku objavljen u tekstu Dodatka o EGP–u Službenom listu Europske unije.
 Članak 3.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu 8. studenoga 2003., pod uvjetom da su sve prijave iz članka 103. stavka 1. Sporazuma poslane Zajedničkom odboru za Europski gospodarski prostor (3).
 Članak 4.
 Ova se Odluka objavljuje u odjeljku o EGP te u Dodatku o EGP-u Službenomlistu Europske unije.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu 7. studenoga 2003.
 Za Zajednički odbor EGP-a
 Predsjednik
 HSH PRINZ NIKOLAUS von LIECHTENSTEIN
 (1) SL L 331, 18.12.2003., str. 32.
 (2) SL L 55, 1.3.2003., str. 74.
 (3) Nisu navedene ustavne odredbe.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21987D1231(03)
 Décision n° 2/87 du comité mixte CEE-Autriche, du 13 novembre 1987, complétant et modifiant le protocole n° 3 relatif à la définition de la notion de "produits originaires" et aux méthodes de coopération administrative, en vue d'apporter une simplification supplémentaire à la documentation relative à la preuve de l'origine
 Journal officiel n° L 388 du 31/12/1987 p. 0014 - 0017
 DÉCISION Ng 2/87 DU COMITÉ MIXTE CEE-AUTRICHE du 13 novembre 1987 complétant et modifiant le protocole N° 3 relatif à la définition de la notion de «produits originaires» et aux méthodes de coopération administrative, en vue d'apporter une simplification supplémentaire à la documentation relative à la preuve de l'origineLE COMITÉ MIXTE,vu l'accord entre la Communauté économique européenneet la république d'Autriche, signé à Bruxelles le 22 juillet 1972,vu le protocole N° 3 relatif à la définition de la notion de «produits originaires» et aux méthodes de coopération administrative, et notamment son article 28,considérant que, dans le cadre des procédures simplifiées, il est possible d'apporter une simplification supplémentaire à la documentation servant de support à la preuve du caractère originaire des marchandises pour les exportateurs agréés, tels que définis à l'article 13 paragraphe 2 du protocole N° 3, en les autorisant à établir, au lieu et place du certificat de circulation des marchandises EUR. 1, une déclaration de l'origine des marchandises sur la facture;considérant que le développement de l'utilisation de systèmes informatiques et de la transmission par voie de télécommunications des factures s'accommode mal de la signature manuscrite des déclarations d'origine portées sur lesdites factures;considérant que, afin de ne pas entraver le développement de l'utilisation de ces systèmes modernes d'établissement et/ou de transmission des factures, il y a lieu de prévoir, dans le cadre des autorisations qui leur sont accordées, que les exportateurs agréés appelés à utiliser de tels systèmes puissent être dispensés de la signature manuscrite de la déclaration d'origine; que, toutefois, les exportateurs ayant reçu une telle autorisation sont tenus de respecter les conditions fixées à cet effet par les autorités douanières de l'État d'exportation;considérant qu'il y a lieu de prévoir les conditions et les modalités de cette simplification,DÉCIDE:Article premierLe protocole N° 3 de l'accord entre la Communauté économique européenne et la république d'Autriche est modifié comme suit:1) À l'article 8, le paragraphe 1 est remplacé par le texte suivant:«1. Les produits originaires au sens du présent protocole sont admis, lors de leur importation dans laCommunauté ou en Autriche, au bénéfice de l'accord sur présentation:a) soit d'un certificat de circulation des marchandises EUR. 1, ci-après dénommé «certificat EUR. 1», soit d'un certificat EUR. 1 valable à long terme, et des factures faisant référence audit certificat établis conformément à l'article 13. Le modèle du certificat EUR. 1 figure à l'annexe V du présent protocole;b) soit d'une facture comportant la déclaration de l'exportateur prévue à l'annexe VI du présent protocole, établie conformément à l'article 13;c) soit d'une facture comportant la déclaration de l'exportateur prévue à l'annexe VI du présent protocole, établie par tout exportateur pour autant que l'envoi consistant en un ou plusieurs colis contienne des produits originaires n'excédant pas la valeur totale de 4 400 Écus.»2) L'article 13 est remplacé par le texte suivant:«Article 131. Par dérogation à l'article 9 paragraphes 1 à 7 et à l'article 10 paragraphes 1, 4 et 5 du présent protocole, une procédure simplifiée concernant l'établissement dela documentation relative à la preuve de l'origine est applicable selon les dispositions qui suivent.2. Les autorités douanières de l'État d'exportation peuvent autoriser tout exportateur, ci-après dénommé ''exportateur agréé'', effectuant fréquemment des exportations de marchandises pour lesquelles des certificats EUR. 1 sont susceptibles d'être délivrés et qui offre, à la satisfaction des autorités douanières, toute garantie pour contrôler le caractère originaire des produits, à ne présenter au moment de l'exportation au bureau de douane de l'État d'exportation ni la marchandise ni la demande de certificat EUR. 1 dont ces marchandises font l'objet, en vue de permettre la délivrance d'un certificat EUR. 1 dans les conditions prévues à l'article 9 paragraphe 1 à 4 du présent protocole.3. En outre, les autorités douanières peuvent autoriser un exportateur agréé à établir des certificats EUR. 1 valables pour une période d'un an maximum à compter de leur date d'établissement ci-après dénommés ''certificats LT''. L'autorisation n'est accordée que lorsque le caractère originaire des marchandises est censé rester constant pendant la période de validité du certificat LT. Si une ou plusieurs marchandises ne sont plus couvertes par le certificat LT, l'exportateur agréé doit en informer immédiatement les autorités douanières qui ont délivré l'autorisation.Les autorités douanières de l'État d'exportation peuvent, dans le cas de la procédure simplifiée, prescrire l'utilisation de certificats EUR. 1 comportant un signe distinctif destiné à les individualiser.4. L'autorisation visée aux paragraphes 2 et 3 stipule, au choix des autorités douanières, que la case 11 ''visa de la douane'' du certificat EUR. 1 doit:a) soit être pourvue au préalable de l'empreinte du cachet du bureau de douane compétent de l'État d'exportation ainsi que de la signature, manuscrite ou non, d'un fonctionnaire dudit bureau;b) soit être revêtue, par l'exportateur agréé, de l'empreinte d'un cachet spécial admis par les autorités doaunières de l'État d'exportation et conforme au modèle figurant à l'annexe VII du présent protocole, cette empreinte pouvant être imprimée sur les formulaires.La case 11 ''Visa de la douane'' du certificat EUR. 1 est éventuellement complétée par l'exportateur agréé.5. Dans les cas visés au paragraphe 4 point a), lacase 7 ''Observations'' du certificat EUR. 1 porte une des mentions suivantes: ''Procédure simplifiée'', ''Forenklet procedure'', ''Vereinfachtes Verfahren'', ''Aplozstezménh diadikasía'', ''Simplified procedure'', ''Procedura semplificata'', ''Vereenvoudigde procedure'', ''Procedimiento simplificado'', ''Yksinkertaistettu menettely'', "Einfoeldud afgreidsla'', ''Forenklet prosedyre'', "Procedimento simplificado'', ''Foerenklad procedur''. L'exportateur agréé indique, le cas échéant, dans la case 13 ''Demande de contrôle'' du certificat EUR. 1, le nom et l'adresse de l'autorité douanière compétente pour effectuer le contrôle du certificat EUR. 1.6. Dans le cas visé au paragraphe 3, l'exportateur agréé indique également dans la case 7 du certificat EUR. 1 une des mentions suivantes:''certificat LT valable jusqu'au . . .'' (date en chiffres arabes),''LT-Certifikat gyldigt indtil . . .'',''LT-Certificat gueltig bis . . .'',''Ðéóôïðïéçôéêueí LT éó÷ýïí ìÝ÷ñé^.^.^.'',''LT certificate valid until . . . .'',''certificato LT valido fino a . . .'',''LT-skírteini gildir til . . .'',''certificado LT válido hasta el . . .'',''LT-certificaat geldig tot en met . . .'',''LT-sertifikat gyldig intil . . .'',''LT-todistus voimassa . . . saakka'',''LT-certifikat giltigt till . . .'',''certificado LT valido até . . .'',ainsi que la référence à l'autorisation en vertu de laquelle le certificat LT est délivré.L'exportateur agréé n'est pas tenu d'indiquer dans lacase 8 et dans la case 9 du certificat LT les marques et numéros, le nombre et la nature des colis, le poids brut (kg) ou autre mesure (l, m3, etc). La case 8 doit cependantcomporter une description et une désignation suffisamment précises des marchandises de manière à permettre leur identification.7. Par dérogation aux dispositions de l'article 12 paragraphes 1 et 3, le certificat LT doit être produit au bureau de douane d'importation au plus tard au moment de la première importation des marchandises auxquelles il se rapporte. Dans le cas où l'importateur effectue les opérations de dédouanement auprès de différents bureaux de douane de l'État d'importation, les autorités douanières peuvent lui demander de présenter une copie du certificat LT auprès de chaque bureau concerné.8. Lorsqu'un certificat LT a été présenté aux autorités douanières, la preuve du caractère originaire des marchandises importées est, pendant la durée de validité dudit certificat, apportée par des factures répondant aux conditions suivantes:a) au cas où dans une facture figurent des produits originaires de la Communauté ou d'un des pays visés à l'article 2 paragraphe 1 du présent protocole et des produits non originaires, l'exportateur est tenu d'opérer une distinction claire entre ces deux catégories;b) l'exportateur est tenu de porter sur chaque facture le numéro du certificat LT auquel les marchandises se rattachent ainsi que la date limite de validité dudit certificat et de mentionner le ou les pays d'où ces marchandises sont originaires.L'apposition par l'exportateur sur la facture du numéro du certificat LT accompagné de l'indication du pays d'origine vaut déclaration que les marchandises remplissent les exigences fixées dans le présent protocole pour l'obtention de l'origine préférentielle dans les échanges entre la Communauté et l'Autriche.Les autorités douanières du pays d'exportation peuvent exiger que les mentions dont l'apposition sur la facture est prévue ci-dessus soient appuyées de la signature à la main suivie de l'indication en toutes lettres du nom de la personne qui signe;c) la description et la désignation des marchandises sur les factures doivent être suffisamment précisées pour faire apparaître clairement que les marchandises figurent également sur le certificat LT auquel les factures se réfèrent;d) les factures ne peuvent être établies que pour des marchandises exportées pendant la durée de validité du certificat LT auquel elles se réfèrent. Elles peuvent, toutefois, être produites au bureau de douane du lieu d'importation dans un délai de quatre mois à compter de la date de leur établissement par l'exportateur.9. Dans le cadre des procédures simplifiées, les factures remplissant les conditions visées au présent article peuvent être établies et/ou transmises par télécommunications ou ordinateurs. Lesdites factures sont acceptées par les douanes du pays d'importation en tant que preuve du caractère originaire des marchandises importées, selon les modalités fixées par les autorités douanières de ce pays.10. Lorsque les autorités douanières du pays d'exportation constatent qu'un certificat et/ou une facture établis conformément aux dispositions du présent article ne sont pas valables pour les marchandises livrées, elles en informent immédiatement les autorités douanières du pays d'importation.11. Les autorités douanières peuvent autoriser un exportateur agréé à établir, au lieu et place d'un certificat EUR. 1, des factures comportant la déclaration prévue á l'annexe VI du présent protocole.La déclaration faite par l'exportateur agréé sur la facture est signée à la main et doit:a) soit porter la référence au numéro d'autorisation d'exportateur agréé;b) soit être revêtue, par l'exportateur agréé, de l'empreinte du cachet spécial, visé au paragraphe 4point b), admis par les autorités douanières du pays d'exportation. Cette empreinte peut être préimprimée sur la facture.12. Toutefois, les autorités douanières du pays d'exportation peuvent autoriser un exportateur agréé à ne pas signer à la main les mentions prévues au paragraphe 8 point b) ou la déclaration visée au paragraphe 11 portées sur la facture, lorsque de telles factures sont établies et/ou transmises par télécommunications ou ordinateurs.Lesdites autorités douanières fixent les conditions pour l'application du présent paragraphe, y compris, si cela est nécessaire, un engagement écrit de l'exportateur agréé par lequel il accepte sa pleine responsabilité en ce qui concerne lesdites mentions et déclaration au même titre que si elles avaient été signées de sa main.13. Dans les autorisations visées aux paragraphes 2, 3 et 11, les autorités douanières indiquent notamment:a) les conditions dans lesquelles les demandes de certificats EUR. 1 ou de certificats LT sont établies ou dans lesquelles la déclaration relative à l'origine des marchandises est faite sur la facture;b) les conditions dans lesquelles ces demandes ainsi qu'une copie des factures portant référence au certificat LT et des factures comportant la déclaration de l'exportateur sont conservées pendant au moins deux ans. Dans le cas des certificats LT ou des factures portant référence au certificat LT, cette période débute à partir de la date d'expiration du délai de validité du certificat LT. Ces dispositions sont également applicables aux certificats EUR. 1 ou aux certificats LT et aux factures portant référence au certificat LT, ainsi qu'aux factures comportant la déclaration de l'exportateur, ayant servi à établir d'autres preuves de l'origine, utilisés dans les conditions prévues à l'article 9 paragraphe 3 deuxième alinéa du présent protocole.14. Les autorités douanières de l'État d'exportation peuvent exclure des facilités prévues aux paragraphes 2, 3 et 11 certaines catégories de marchandises.15. Les autorités douanières refusent les autorisations visées aux paragraphes 2, 3 et 11 à l'exportateur qui n'offre pas toutes les garanties qu'elles jugent utiles.Les autorités douanières peuvent retirer à tout moment l'autorisation. Elles doivent le faire lorsque les conditions de l'agrément ne sont plus remplies ou lorsque l'exportateur agréé n'offre plus ces garanties.16. L'exportateur agréé peut être tenu d'informer les autorités douanières, selon les modalités qu'elles déterminent, des envois qu'il envisage d'effectuer, en vue de permettre au bureau de douane compétent de procéder éventuellement à un contrôle avant l'expédition de la marchandise.17. Les dispositions du présent article ne portent pas préjudice à l'application des réglementations de la Communauté, des États membres et de l'Autriche relatives aux formalités douanières et à l'emploi des documents douaniers.»3) À l'article 14, les mots «l'article 8 paragraphe 1 point b)» sont remplacés par les mots »l'article 8 paragraphe 1 point c)».4) À l'article 15 bis paragraphe 3, les mots «de la déclaration visée à l'article 8 paragraphe 1 point b)» sont remplacés par les mots «des déclarations visées à l'ar-ticle 8 paragraphe 1 points b) et c)».5) L'annexe VI est remplacée par l'annexe de la présente décision.Article 2Les formulaires EUR. 2 répondant aux conditions fixées à leur égard par les dispositions de l'article 8 paragraphe 1 point b) et de l'article 14 du protocole N° 3 de l'accord entre la Communauté économique européenne et la république d'Autriche en vigueur au 30 juin 1987 peuvent continuer à être établis et acceptés jusqu'au 30 juin 1988.Les dispositions de l'article 17 dudit protocole, relatives au contrôle a posteriori, s'appliquent également aux formulaires EUR. 2 visés au premier alinéa du présent article.Article 3La présente décision entre en vigueur le 1er janvier 1988.Fait à Bruxelles, le 13 novembre 1987.Par le comité mixteLe présidentG. WAASANNEXE «ANNEXE VI Déclaration prévue à l'article 8 paragraphe 1 points b) et c)Je soussigné, exportateur des marchandises couvertes par le présent document, déclare que sauf indi-cation contraire (;), ces marchandises répondent aux conditions fixées pour obtenir le caractère originairedans les échanges préférentiels avec .................................................................... ($) et sont originaires de ................................................................... ($) (=)..(lieu et date).(signature)(La signature doit être suivie de l'indication, en toutes lettres, du nom de la personne qui signe la déclaration)(;) Au cas où dans une facture figurent également des produits non originaires de la Communauté, de l'Autriche, de la Finlande, de l'Islande, de la Norvège, de la Suède ou de la Suisse, l'exportateur est tenu de les indiquer clairement. Dans le cas où dans une facture figurent également des produits ayant le caractère de produits originaires d'Espagne au sens de l'article 24 du protocole ou des îles Canaries et Ceuta et Melilla au sens de l'article 25 ter du protocole, l'exportateur est tenu jusqu'au 31 décembre 1992 de les identifier clairement respectivement au moyen du sigle «ES» ou «CCM».($) La Communauté, l'Autriche, la Finlande, l'Islande, la Norvège, la Suède, la Suisse.(=) Une référence peut être faite à une colonne spécifique de la facture dans laquelle le pays d'origine de chaque produit est indiqué.»


type: other

text:
Skat.dk: Realrenteafgift realisationssaldo - successionsreglen
 30 Jan 2008 10:03
 SKM2008.164.HR
 1. afdeling, 423/2005
 Realrenteafgift, livsforsikringsbestande, overdragelse, overførsel, udskillelse, realisationssaldo
 En række livsforsikringsselskaber havde udskilt forsikringsbestande til datterselskaber i medfør af successionsreglen i den dagældende § 8 a i realrenteafgiftsloven (jf. § 18 i den gældende pensionsafkastbeskatningslov). Som følge af udskillelsen af forsikringsbestande skulle realisationssaldoen i henhold til realrenteafgiftslovens § 4, stk. 4, fordeles på de pågældende selskaber.
 Selskaberne havde fordelt realisationssaldoen i samme forhold som de afgiftspligtige obligationer, hvilket - som følge af skævdeling af obligationerne - indebar en samlet reduktion af den afgiftsforpligtelse, som hidtil havde påhvilet moderselskaberne. En fordeling svarende til fordelingen af livsforsikringshensættelserne ville derimod være afgiftsneutral. På den baggrund og idet fordelingen af livsforsikringshensættelserne afspejlede fordelingen af forsikringsbestande mellem moder- og datterselskaber, var den af skattemyndighederne valgte fordeling efter livsforsikringshensættelserne den, der fulgte af lovens ordlyd og formål. Den almindelige kompetenceregel i RAL § 18 (jf. § 27 i den gældende pensionsafkastbeskatningslov) gav fornøden hjemmel til korrektion af selskabernes aftale om fordelingen af realisationssaldoen i forbindelse med afgiftsansættelsen.
 Finanstilsynets tilladelse til overdragelse af forsikringsbestandene og den aftalte fordeling af aktiver og passiver, herunder fordelingen af realisationssaldoen, afskar ikke skattemyndighederne fra efterfølgende korrektion af den aftalte fordeling af realisationssaldoen, idet Finanstilsynet skulle iagttage andre hensyn end realrenteafgiftsmæssige.
 Ligningsrådets tilladelse til anvendelse af reglerne om skattefri tilførsel af aktiver efter reglerne i fusionsskatteloven ved den af parterne aftalte fordeling af aktiver og passiver, herunder fordelingen af realisationssaldoen, kunne heller ikke tages som udtryk for en anerkendelse af, at fordelingen af realisationssaldoen i selskabernes åbningsbalance var i overensstemmelse med realrenteafgiftsloven. Derfor var Ligningsrådet heller ikke afskåret fra - efterfølgende - i egenskab af den kompetente afgiftsmyndighed at korrigere den aftalte fordeling af realisationssaldoen med henblik på at bringe afgiftsansættelsen i overensstemmelse med realrenteafgiftslovens § 8 a.
 (Stadfæstelse af SKM 2005.445.ØLR)
 Realrenteafgiftslovens § 4, stk. 4 (dagældende)
 Realrenteafgiftsloven § 8a (dagældende)
 Forsikringsvirksomhedsloven § 157
 Beskatning af pensionsafkast 2007, E.1.2
 Forsikringsselskabet H1 A/S,
 A/S Forsikringsselskabet H2,
 A/S Forsikringsselskabet G1,
 A/S Forsikringsselskabet G2,
 A/S Forsikringsselskabet G3 og
 F1 Pensionsforsikringsselskab A/S (tidligere FX Pensionsforsikringsselskab A/S)
 (advokat Hans Severin Hansen for alle)
 Torben Melchior, Asbjørn Jensen, Poul Søgaard, Jon Stokholm og Jens Peter Christensen.
 I tidligere instans er afsagt dom af Østre Landsrets 16. afdeling den 29. september 2005.
 Appellanterne, Forsikringsselskabet H1 A/S, A/S Forsikringsselskabet H2, A/S Forsikringsselskabet G1 A/S Forsikringsselskabet G2, A/S Forsikringsselskabet G3 og F1 Pensionsforsikringsselskab A/S, har gentaget deres påstande.
 Parterne er enige om, at det ikke kan lægges til grund, at et brev, der svarer til Told- og Skattestyrelsens brev af 27. juli 1995 til Tryg, er sendt til Codan og Hafnia.
 Efter realrenteafgiftslovens § 8 a succederer den fortsættende institution i den overdragende institutions realrenteafgiftsmæssige stilling. Bestemmelsen angiver ikke udtrykkeligt, hvordan realisationssaldoen skal fordeles i tilfælde, hvor en realrenteafgiftspligtig institution overdrager en del af sin livsforsikringsbestand til en anden realrenteafgiftspligtig institution. Højesteret finder af de grunde, der er anført af landsretten, at den af skattemyndighederne valgte fordeling følger af loven og dens formål. Højesteret finder endvidere, at realrenteafgiftslovens § 18 indeholder den fornødne hjemmel til, at skattemyndighederne kan korrigere en aftalt fordeling af realisationssaldoen.
 Finanstilsynets tilladelse til selskabernes overdragelse af livsforsikringsbestandene efter lov om forsikringsvirksomhed § 157 afskar ikke skattemyndighederne fra efterfølgende at korrigere den aftalte fordeling af realisationssaldoen, idet tilsynet, som anført af landsretten, skulle iagttage andre hensyn end realrenteafgiftsmæssige.
 Efter fusionsskattelovens § 15 c skulle Ligningsrådet give tilladelse til tilførsel af aktiver til et selskab. Ligningsrådet skulle påse opfyldelsen af det såkaldte grenkrav, hvorefter de aktiver og passiver, der blev tilført selskabet, ud fra et organisatorisk synspunkt skulle udgøre en samlet enhed, der kunne fungere ved hjælp af egne midler. Ved overførslen af aktiver og passiver til de nydannede forsikringsselskaber udgjorde den opdelte hensættelse til betaling af udskudt realrenteafgift en ubetydelig andel heraf, der var uden væsentlig betydning for Ligningsrådets vurdering af grenkravet. Det må lægges til grund, at Ligningsrådet ikke foretog en vurdering af, om fordelingen af realisationssaldoen var i overensstemmelse med realrenteafgiftsloven. Højesteret finder, at Ligningsrådet ej heller var forpligtet hertil. Det bemærkes herved, at Ligningsrådet først i 1997 skærpede praksis i relation til fusionsskattelovens § 15 c, således at der i tillæg til grenkravet ville blive lagt vægt på skatte- og afgiftsmæssige hensyn ved afgørelse om tilladelse.
 På denne baggrund finder Højesteret, at Ligningsrådets tilladelse ikke kan tages som udtryk for, at fordelingen af realisationssaldoen i selskabernes åbningsbalance var opgjort i overensstemmelse med realrenteafgiftsloven. I hvert fald under de anførte omstændigheder er Ligningsrådets tilladelse ikke til hinder for, at skattemyndighederne kan korrigere den aftalte fordeling. Skattemyndighederne har derfor været berettiget til at foretage de afgiftsmæssige korrektioner, der fulgte af den ovenfor nævnte forståelse af realrenteafgiftslovens § 8 a.
 I sagsomkostninger for Højesteret skal Forsikringsselskabet H1 A/S og A/S Forsikringsselskabet H2 solidarisk betale 800.000 kr. til Skatteministeriet.
 I sagsomkostninger for Højesteret skal A/S Forsikringsselskabet G1 A/S Forsikringsselskabet G2 og A/S Forsikringsselskabet G3 solidarisk betale 200.000 kr. til Skatteministeriet.
 I sagsomkostninger for Højesteret skal F1 Pensionsforsikringsselskab A/S betale 1 mio. kr. til Skatteministeriet.
 Samtlige appellanter hæfter solidarisk for betaling af sagsomkostninger for Højesteret til Skatteministeriet.


jurisdiction: US

text: b" Issue Date\n May 15, 2012\n Audit Report Number\n 2012-FW-1007\n\n\n\n\nTO: Charles S. Coulter\n Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single-Family Housing, HU\n\n //signed//\nFROM: Gerald R. Kirkland\n Regional Inspector General for Audit, Fort Worth Region, 6AGA\n\nSUBJECT: SWBC Mortgage Corporation Did Not Follow HUD-FHA Underwriting\n Requirements in 1 and Had Minor Deficiencies in 3 of 10 Single-Family Loans\n\n\n HIGHLIGHTS\n\n What We Audited and Why\n\n We audited SWBC Mortgage Corporation, a Federal Housing Administration\n (FHA) direct endorsement lender in San Antonio, TX. We selected the lender for\n audit because as of September 30, 2011, it had 25 seriously delinquent loans. Our\n objective was to determine whether the lender originated single-family home\n loans in accordance with U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development\n (HUD) and FHA requirements for loans with amortization dates between\n October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2011.\n\n\n What We Found\n\n The lender did not follow HUD-FHA underwriting requirements for 1 and had\n minor deficiencies in 3 of 10 loans reviewed. These deficiencies occurred\n because the lender\xe2\x80\x99s internal controls needed improvement. As a result, the\n lender originated one ineligible loan totaling $176,739 that resulted in an\n increased risk of loss of at least $115,654 to FHA\xe2\x80\x99s Mutual Mortgage Insurance\n Fund. Additionally, while the minor deficiencies did not affect loan approval, the\n lender placed itself at risk of originating additional ineligible loans.\n\x0c What We Recommend\n\n We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing\n require the lender to indemnify HUD for the ineligible FHA loan with an\n estimated potential loss of more than $115,000 1 and implement policies and\n procedures to strengthen its internal controls.\n\n For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and\n provide status reports in accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-3.\n Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the\n audit.\n\n Auditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n\n We provided our draft report to SWBC Mortgage Corporation on April 24, 2012,\n and held the exit conference on April 30, 2012. We requested and received its\n written response on May 8, 2012. SWBC Mortgage Corporation generally\n disagreed with our conclusions and provided documentation to support its\n position. We reviewed the documentation and made changes to the report where\n appropriate.\n\n The complete text of the auditee\xe2\x80\x99s response, along with our evaluation of that\n response can be found in appendix B of this report. The additional documentation\n provided to support the auditee\xe2\x80\x99s position is available upon request.\n\n\n\n\n1\n The amount is based on the estimated percentage of loss of 66 percent that HUD would incur when the FHA\n property is foreclosed upon and resold as supported by the HUD Single Family Acquired Asset Management\n System\xe2\x80\x99s case management profit and loss by acquisition as of December 2011.\n\n\n 2\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nBackground and Objective 4\n\nResults of Audit\n Finding: SWBC Mortgage Corporation Did Not Follow HUD-FHA 6\n Underwriting Requirements in 1 and Had Minor Deficiencies in 3 of 10 Loans\n Reviewed\n\nScope and Methodology 10\n\nInternal Controls 11\n\nAppendixes\n A. Schedule of Funds To Be Put to Better Use 13\n B. Auditee Comments and OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Evaluation 14\n C. Case Narrative 16\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES\n\nSWBC Mortgage Corporation is headquartered at 9311 San Pedro, San Antonio, TX. It has 60\napproved and active branch offices. It is a nonsupervised direct endorsement lender and was\napproved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to originate Federal\nHousing Administration (FHA)-approved mortgage loans on March 15, 1989.\n\nHUD\xe2\x80\x99s direct endorsement program simplified the process for obtaining FHA mortgage insurance\nby allowing lenders to underwrite and close the mortgage loan without prior HUD review or\napproval. Lenders are responsible for complying with all applicable HUD regulations and are\nrequired to evaluate the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s ability and willingness to repay the mortgage debt. Lenders are\nprotected against default by FHA\xe2\x80\x99s Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, which is sustained by\nborrower premiums. FHA\xe2\x80\x99s mortgage insurance programs help low- and moderate-income families\nbecome homeowners by lowering some of the costs of their mortgage loans. FHA mortgage\ninsurance also encourages lenders to approve mortgages for otherwise creditworthy borrowers and\nprojects that might not be able to meet conventional underwriting requirements by protecting the\nlender against default.2\n\nAccording to HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Neighborhood Watch system,3 SWBC Mortgage originated 3,560 loans in\ncalendar year 2010 with original mortgage amounts totaling more than $541 million. Further, as of\nOctober 31, 2011, SWBC Mortgage had originated 2,628 loans for the calendar year with original\nmortgage amounts totaling more than $388 million. Its default rate was 1.3 percent compared to an\naverage default rate for all FHA loans in the San Antonio HUD office jurisdiction of 1.23 percent.\n\nAll FHA lenders must follow all applicable statutes, regulations, and HUD\xe2\x80\x99s written instructions,\nincluding program handbooks and mortgagee letters. Specifically, lenders must follow HUD\nHandbook 4155.1, \xe2\x80\x9cMortgage Credit Analysis for Mortgage Insurance on One-to-Four-Unit\nMortgage Loans,\xe2\x80\x9d when underwriting FHA loans. The lender is responsible for eliciting a complete\npicture of the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s financial situation, source of funds for the transaction, and intended use of\nthe property. Its decision to approve the loan must be documented, supported, and verifiable.\n\nLenders may use an automated underwriting system such as Desktop Underwriter to underwrite\nFHA loans. Desktop Underwriter works in conjunction with FHA\xe2\x80\x99s TOTAL (Technology Open to\nApproved Lenders) Mortgage Scorecard. HUD published a user guide to assist lenders using an\nautomated underwriting system in conjunction with TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard. FHA\xe2\x80\x99s TOTAL\nMortgage Scorecard evaluates the overall creditworthiness of the applicants based on a number of\ncredit variables and, when combined with the functionalities of the automated underwriting system,\nindicates a recommended level of underwriting and documentation to determine a loan\xe2\x80\x99s eligibility\nfor insurance by FHA. Taken together, TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard and the automated\n\n2\n HUD defines a default as the inability to make timely mortgage payments or otherwise comply with mortgage\n terms. A loan is considered in default when no payment has been made 30 days after the due date. Once a loan\n is in default, the lender can exercise legal rights defined in the contract to begin foreclosure proceedings.\n3\n Neighborhood Watch is Web-based software that displays loan performance data for FHA-insured single-family\n loan information. The system is designed to highlight exceptions so that potential problems are readily\n identifiable.\n\n\n 4\n\x0cunderwriting system either conclude that the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s credit and capacity for repayment of the\nmortgage are acceptable or refer the loan application to a direct endorsement underwriter for further\nconsideration and review. Each automated underwriting system using FHA\xe2\x80\x99s TOTAL Mortgage\nScorecard produces a document that provides feedback to the insurance lender. Desktop\nUnderwriter\xe2\x80\x99s feedback document is called the \xe2\x80\x9cDesktop Underwriter Findings\xe2\x80\x9d. Desktop\nUnderwriter Findings summarize an overall underwriting recommendation and eligibility of a loan\nand list certain steps necessary for the lender to complete the processing of the loan case file. The\nDesktop Underwriter Findings alert the lender to potential problems with occupancy, property\nvaluation, or social security number data that may warrant further investigation. SWBC Mortgage\nused Desktop Underwriter to underwrite the 10 loans reviewed.\n\nOur objective was to determine whether the lender originated single-family home loans in\naccordance with HUD and FHA requirements for loans with beginning amortization dates between\nOctober 1, 2009, and September 30, 2011.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c RESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nFinding: SWBC Mortgage Corporation Did Not Follow HUD-FHA\n Underwriting Requirements in 1 and Had Minor Deficiencies\n in 3 of 10 Loans Reviewed\nThe lender did not follow HUD-FHA underwriting requirements in 1 of 10 loans reviewed.\nSpecifically, it did not include all of the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s debt when it qualified him for the FHA-insured\nloan. Further, three loans contained minor deficiencies that did not affect loan approval. These\ndeficiencies occurred because the lender\xe2\x80\x99s internal controls needed improvement. As a result, the\nlender originated one ineligible loan totaling $176,739 that resulted in an increased risk of loss of an\nestimated $115,654 to the insurance fund. In addition, while the minor deficiencies did not affect\nloan approval, the lender placed itself at risk of originating additional ineligible loans.\n\n\n SWBC Mortgage Did Not\n Include All Debt When\n Qualifying One Borrower\n\n For one loan, 4 the lender did not include all of the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s debt when it\n qualified him for the FHA loan. The borrower\xe2\x80\x99s divorce decree, dated 6 months\n before closing, identified six accounts with balances totaling $21,800 that were\n not on the credit report or the Desktop Underwriter Findings and were not\n considered by the automated underwriting system. HUD\xe2\x80\x99s TOTAL Mortgage\n Scorecard User Guide states that\n\n when a debt or obligation is revealed during the application process that\n was not listed on the loan application and/or credit report and was not\n considered by the automated underwriting system, the lender must a)\n verify the actual monthly payment amount; b) include the monthly\n payment amount and re-submit the loan if the liability is greater than $100\n per month; and c) determine that any funds borrowed were not/will not be\n used for the homebuyer\xe2\x80\x99s cash investment into the transaction.\n\n The loan file did not contain evidence that the lender resubmitted the loan. The\n lender agreed that it did not include all of the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s debt when it qualified\n him for the FHA loan. As a result, the loan was ineligible for FHA insurance.\n\n\n\n\n4\n FHA case number 495-8477110\n\n\n 6\n\x0c 4 of 10 Loans Had Minor\n Documentation Deficiencies\n\n Four 5 of the ten loans reviewed contained minor documentation deficiencies.\n Specifically, the Desktop Underwriter Findings instructed the lender to obtain the\n most recent pay stubs and bank statements and verify the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s assets.\n However, the lender did not obtain the most recent pay stubs for three loans, and\n three loans did not contain the most recent bank statements. None of these\n deficiencies affected loan approval because (1) the income used to qualify the\n borrower was supported by documents in the loan file, (2) assets were supported\n by older bank statements, or (3) HUD\xe2\x80\x99s TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard emulator\n approved the loan without any reserves. Table 1 identifies the loans and their\n documentation deficiencies.\n\n Table 1: Summary of minor loan deficiencies\n Pay stubs were Bank statements\n FHA case not the most were not the most\n Count number recent recent\n 1 495-8477110 X X\n 2 495-8537867 X\n 3 495-8612321 X\n 4 495-8711651 X X\n Totals 3 3\n\n\n SWBC Mortgage Did Not\n Manually Underwrite One\n Loan as Required\n\n\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99s TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard User Guide requires lenders to manually\n underwrite loans when the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s credit report reveals disputed credit\n accounts. One loan 6 contained five disputed collection accounts, which required\n a manual underwrite. The lender did not reply to our inquiries regarding its\n failure to manually underwrite the loan. For manually underwritten loans, FHA\n requires the lender to compute two ratios: (1) mortgage payment expense to\n effective income and (2) total fixed payment to effective income. 7 The first ratio\n considers the total mortgage payment to the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s income, while the second\n ratio considers all of the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s debts, including the mortgage payment, to the\n borrower\xe2\x80\x99s income. When a loan is manually underwritten, the qualifying ratios\n generally should not exceed 31 and 43 percent, respectively, without acceptable\n compensating factors. When a borrower\xe2\x80\x99s qualifying ratios exceed the FHA-\n\n5\n One of the four loans (FHA case number 495-8477110) was discussed earlier in the finding and was ineligible.\n6\n FHA case number 495-8537867\n7\n HUD Handbook 4155, paragraph 4.F.2\n\n\n 7\n\x0c established limits, FHA requires the underwriter to support loan approval with\n compensating factors and support the factors with documentation. 8 Desktop\n Underwriter approved the loan with qualifying ratios of 42 and 55 percent, which\n exceeded the FHA benchmarks. The borrower\xe2\x80\x99s loan file contained\n documentation evidencing substantial cash reserves, which are acceptable as a\n compensating factor. 9 Therefore, the loan was eligible, making the lender\xe2\x80\x99s\n failure to manually underwrite the loan a minor deficiency.\n\n SWBC Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s Internal\n Controls Needed Improvement\n\n All of the deficiencies identified during our review occurred because the lender\xe2\x80\x99s\n internal controls needed improvement. The lender did not always follow HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\n TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard User Guide and the Desktop Underwriter Findings\n instructions. In addition, its quality control process needed strengthening because\n (1) its quality control contractor reviewed but did not detect the ineligible loan 10\n and (2) a quality control recommendation on another loan 11 was not followed.\n Lenders must design quality control programs that meet the following overriding\n goals of quality control: \xe2\x80\x9cassure compliance with FHA\xe2\x80\x99s and the mortgagee\xe2\x80\x99s\n own origination or servicing requirements throughout its operations, protect the\n mortgagee and FHA from unacceptable risk, guard against errors, omissions and\n fraud, and assure swift and appropriate corrective action.\xe2\x80\x9d 12 Since the lender did\n not always follow HUD\xe2\x80\x99s TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard User Guide, the Desktop\n Underwriter Findings instructions, and its quality controls, its internal controls\n were weakened, which allowed deficiencies to occur.\n\n\n Conclusion\n\n\n The lender did not follow HUD-FHA underwriting requirements in 1 of 10 loans\n reviewed. Three loans contained minor documentation deficiencies that did not\n affect loan approval. Additionally, the lender did not provide documentation to\n show that it followed a recommendation from its quality control contractor. These\n deficiencies occurred because the lender\xe2\x80\x99s internal controls needed improvement.\n As a result, the lender originated one ineligible loan totaling $176,739 that resulted\n in an increased risk of loss of an estimated $115,654 to the insurance fund. Further,\n while the minor deficiencies did not affect loan approval, the lender placed itself at\n risk of originating additional ineligible loans.\n\n\n8\n HUD Handbook 4155.1, paragraph 4.F.2.a through 4.F.3.b\n9\n HUD Handbook 4155.1, paragraph 4.F.3.b, lists acceptable compensating factors.\n10\n FHA case number 495-8477110\n11\n FHA case number 495-8746037\n12\n HUD Handbook 4060.1, REV-2, \xe2\x80\x9cMortgagee Approval Handbook,\xe2\x80\x9d paragraph 7-2\n\n\n 8\n\x0c Recommendations\n\n We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family Housing\n require the lender to\n\n 1A. Indemnify HUD for one insured loan13 with an unpaid principal balance of\n $175,233, thereby putting an estimated $115,654 to better use based on the\n FHA insurance fund average loss rate of 66 percent of the unpaid principal\n balance.\n\n 1B. Implement policies and procedures to ensure that it will follow HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\n TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard User Guide and that all Desktop Underwriter\n Findings instructions are followed.\n\n 1C. Implement policies and procedures to ensure that all quality control contractor\n recommendations are implemented.\n\n\n\n\n13\n FHA case number 495-8477110\n\n\n 9\n\x0c SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nWe conducted the audit between November 2011 and April 2012 at the lender\xe2\x80\x99s headquarters office\nin San Antonio, TX, and the HUD OIG San Antonio, TX, and Fort Worth, TX, field offices. We\nselected the lender for audit because, according to HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Neighborhood Watch system, between\nOctober 1, 2009, and September 30, 2011, it had 25 seriously delinquent loans out of 1,930\noriginated in the San Antonio, TX, office jurisdiction. Our objective was to determine whether\nthe lender originated single-family home loans in accordance with HUD and FHA requirements\nfor loans with beginning amortization dates between October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2011.\n\nTo accomplish our objective, we\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed applicable HUD regulations, requirements, and mortgagee letters;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed reports and information on HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Neighborhood Watch system;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the lender\xe2\x80\x99s quality control contract and written quality control plan;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Selected all 25 seriously delinquent loans for review;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Obtained all 25 seriously delinquent electronic loan files and reviewed 10 files beginning\n with the lowest number of payments before first default;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed quality control reports for five loans that defaulted in six payments or fewer; 14\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the lender\xe2\x80\x99s policies and procedures; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Conducted interviews with applicable HUD staff, lender staff, and borrowers that were\n available.\n\nAfter we completed 10 file reviews, our results indicated that only 1 loan was ineligible. As a\nresult, we discontinued testing. We did not evaluate the reliability of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Neighborhood Watch\nsystem because we were not auditing the system and used it only to select an auditee and identify\nwhich loans to review. During the file review, we compared instructions in the Desktop\nUnderwriter Findings to the documents in the file to test whether the Desktop Underwriter Findings\ninstructions were followed. We also compared our file review results to the quality control reviews\nthat were completed on loans that defaulted in six payments or fewer.\n\nWe conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.\nThose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\nevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings\nand conclusions based on our audit objective.\n\n\n\n\n14\n HUD Handbook 4060.1, REV-2, paragraph 7-6(D), requires lenders to perform a quality control review of all\n loans that default in six payments or fewer. Our review scope included five loans that fell into that category.\n\n\n 10\n\x0c INTERNAL CONTROLS\n\nInternal control is a process adopted by those charged with governance and management,\ndesigned to provide reasonable assurance about the achievement of the organization\xe2\x80\x99s mission,\ngoals, and objectives with regard to\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Effectiveness and efficiency of operations,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reliability of financial reporting, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.\n\nInternal controls comprise the plans, policies, methods, and procedures used to meet the\norganization\xe2\x80\x99s mission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and\nprocedures for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the\nsystems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance.\n\n\n\n Relevant Internal Controls\n We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit\n objectives:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Policies and procedures intended to ensure that FHA-insured loans are properly\n originated and underwritten,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Safeguarding FHA-insured mortgages from high-risk exposure, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Policies and procedures intended to ensure that the quality control program is an\n effective tool in reducing underwriting errors and noncompliance.\n\n We assessed the relevant controls identified above.\n\n A deficiency in internal controls exists when the design or operation of a control\n does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their\n assigned functions, the reasonable opportunity to prevent, detect, or correct (1)\n impairments to effectiveness or efficiency of operations, (2) misstatements in\n financial or performance information, or (3) violations of laws and regulations on a\n timely basis.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cSignificant Deficiency\n\n\n Based on our review, we believe that the following item is a significant deficiency:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The lender\xe2\x80\x99s internal controls needed improvement because it did not always\n follow HUD\xe2\x80\x99s TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard User Guide, Desktop Underwriter\n Findings instructions, or quality control recommendations (finding).\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c APPENDIXES\n\nAppendix A\n\n SCHEDULE OF FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE\n\n Recommendation Funds to be put to\n number better use 1/\n\n 1A $115,654\n\n\n\n\n1/ Recommendations that funds be put to better use are estimates of amounts that could be used\n more efficiently if an Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommendation is implemented.\n These amounts include reductions in outlays, deobligation of funds, withdrawal of interest,\n costs not incurred by implementing recommended improvements, avoidance of unnecessary\n expenditures noted in preaward reviews, and any other savings that are specifically\n identified. In this instance, if HUD implements our recommendation to indemnify the loan\n that was not originated in accordance with FHA requirements, it will reduce FHA\xe2\x80\x99s risk of\n loss to the insurance fund. The amount above reflects HUD\xe2\x80\x99s calculation that FHA loses an\n average of about 66 percent of the claim amount when it sells a foreclosed-upon property.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cAppendix B\n\n AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n SWBC Mortgage\n 9311 San Pedro | Suite 100 | San Antonio, Texas 78216\n 210-826-6999 | 1-800-460-6990 | Fax: 210-482-2404 | www.swbcmortgage.com\n\n\n\n\n May 8, 2012\n\n VIA UPS MAIL AND EMAIL, gkirkland@hudoig.gov\n\n Mr. Gerald Kirkland\n Regional Inspector General for Audit\n Office of Inspector General, Region VI\n 819 Taylor Street, Suite 13A09\n Fort Worth, TX 76102\n\n Re: SWBC Mortgage Corporation Did Not Follow HUD-FHA Underwriting Requirements\n in 1 and Had Minor Deficiencies in 7 of 10 Single-Family Loans\n\n Dear Mr. Kirkland:\n\n Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the findings in the above-referenced draft audit report. SWBC\n Mortgage Corporation (\xe2\x80\x9cSWBC Mortgage\xe2\x80\x9d) is a full-service mortgage banking firm, which has provided\n mortgage banking services for more than 22 years. SWBC Mortgage credits our superior performance and\n growth to our highly experienced management and support team members, many of which have been with\n SWBC Mortgage for more than 15 years.\n\n SWBC Mortgage welcomes this opportunity to work with the Office of Inspector General and remains\n committed to making high quality loans to serve our customers and strengthen our partnership with FHA\n and investors. SWBC Mortgage has diligently focused on quality control measures to ensure compliance\n with guarantor, insurer, and investor requirements. SWBC Mortgage takes great pride in the fact that\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Neighborhood Watch system shows that SWBC Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s default rate in the San Antonio\n jurisdiction was 1.33% on September 30, 2011, which fell to 1.02% by December 31, 2011, and was .71%\n on March 31, 2012. Additionally, the Compare Ratio during this time went from 108% on September 30,\n 2011, to 77% on December 31, 2011, and was 65% as of March 31, 2012. Consequently, SWBC Mortgage\n has improved since the audit period of this review (October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2011), which is\n reflective of the additional oversight and controls that were put in place prior to this audit.\n\n The audit report (the \xe2\x80\x9cReport\xe2\x80\x9d) indicates SWBC Mortgage was selected for audit because it had 25\n seriously delinquent loans. According to the HUD Neighborhood Watch system, the number of seriously\n delinquent loans in the San Antonio jurisdiction is 12 as of March 31, 2012. SWBC Mortgage has always\n endeavored to originate mortgage loans in accordance with FHA policies and procedures. As industry data\n became available, SWBC Mortgage increased usage of tools and resources that indicated default risk and\n continued to assess the internal control processes and implement risk mitigation measures through proper\n controls.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c FINDING\n\n SWBC MORTGAGE DID NOT INCLUDE ALL DEBT WHEN QUALIFYING ONE BORROWER\n\n For one loan, the lender did not include all of the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s debt when it qualified him for the FHA loan.\n The borrower's divorce decree, dated six months before closing, identified six accounts with balances\n totaling $21,800 that were not on the credit report or the Desktop Underwriter Findings and were not\n considered by the automated underwriting system. HUD\xe2\x80\x99s TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard User Guide states\n that when a debt or obligation is revealed during the application process that was not listed on the loan\n application and/or credit report and was not considered by the automated underwriting system, the lender\n must a) verify the actual monthly payment amount; b) include the monthly payment amount and re-submit\n the loan if the liability is greater than $100 per month; and c) determine that any funds borrowed were\n not/will not be used for the homebuyer\xe2\x80\x99s cash investment into the transaction. The loan file did not contain\n evidence that the lender resubmitted the loan. The lender agreed that it did not include all of the borrower's\n debt when it qualified him for the FHA loan. As a result, the loan was ineligible for FHA insurance.\n\n Response to the Finding: SWBC Mortgage takes its underwriting responsibilities very seriously and\n would never knowingly approve a loan to an unqualified borrower. In this case, the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s divorce\n decree was dated six months before closing; however, a current credit report did not include the accounts\n listed in the divorce decree. The divorce decree included the payment of debts for which he was not legally\n obligated by the creditors. Also, the accounts listed in the divorce decree did not identify account numbers\n so it was not possible to compare the accounts in the divorce decree with the accounts listed on the credit\nComment 1 report. SWBC Mortgage agrees that the underwriter should have inquired further; however, since the\n borrower was not legally obligated to pay, the typical practice of reviewing the debt did not cover this type\n of issue. Further, it would have been difficult to obtain current payment balances on debts from creditors\n when the borrower was not on the accounts. This is a highly unusual situation and SWBC Mortgage has\n improved processes to give specific instructions to follow total findings. Since early 2011, a pre-close\n review process has been in place to detect underwriting and processing deficiencies prior to the loan\n closing. The deficiencies should improve with the controls now in place. As noted by the OIG\n representative, this is not indicative of SWBC Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s underwriting practices as evidenced by the fact\n that no other major findings were noted and the representative felt it was not necessary to review the\n remaining 15 of the 25 loans selected for the audit.\n\n FINDING\n\n 8 OF 10 LOANS HAD MINOR DOCUMENTATION DEFICIENCIES\n\n Eight of the ten loans reviewed contained minor documentation deficiencies. Specifically, the Desktop\n Underwriter Findings instructed the lender to obtain the most recent pay stubs and bank statements and\n verify the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s assets. However, the lender did not obtain the most recent pay stubs for seven loans,\n and five loans did not contain the most recent bank statements. None of these deficiencies affected loan\n approval because (I) the income used to qualify the borrower was supported by documents in the loan file,\n (2) assets were supported by older bank statements, or (3) HUD's TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard emulator\n approved the loan without any reserves.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c Table 1 identifies the loans and their documentation deficiencies.\n\n Table 1: Summary of Minor Loan Deficiencies\n\n Count FHA case number Pay stubs were Bank statements\n not the most were not the\n recent most recent\n 1 495-8477110 X X\n 2 495-8840058 X\n 3 495-8746037 X X\n 4 495-7519279 X X\n 5 495-8537867 X\n 6 495-8612321 X\n 7 495-8666806 X\n 8 495-8711651 X X\n Totals 7 5\n\n\n Response to the Finding: SWBC Mortgage respectfully disagrees with the finding on four of the eight\n loans cited with minor deficiencies. Per HUD Handbook 4155.1 1.B.2.a - General Mortgage Credit\n Analysis Documents, \xe2\x80\x9cLenders must obtain the most recent documents required to perform the mortgage\n credit analysis. \xe2\x80\x9cMost Recent\xe2\x80\x9d refers to the most recent documents available at the time the loan application\n is made.\xe2\x80\x9d The below chart indicates SWBC Mortgage's response to each loan.\n\n Count FHA case number Pay stubs were Bank statements\n not the most were not the\n recent most recent\n 1 495-8477110 Agree Agree\n 2 495-8840058 Disagree\n 3 495-8746037 Disagree Disagree\n 4 495-7519279 Disagree Disagree\n 5 495-8537867 Agree\n 6 495-8612321 Agree\n 7 495-8666806 Disagree\n 8 495-8711651 Agree Agree\n\n\n 495-8840058 (xxxxxx) - The application date for this loan was 07/05/2010 and the most recent pay stub in\nComment 2 the file was dated 06/25/10. Based on the frequency the borrower is paid, the 06/25/10 pay stub was the\n most recent at the time of application.\n\n 495-8746037 (xxxxxxxx) - The application date for this loan was 04/05/10 and the most recent pay stub\n was dated 04/01/10. Based on the frequency the borrower is paid, this was the most recent pay stub\n available at the time of application. The bank statement provided covered a period of 02/16/10 to\n 031/5/10. Again, based on the application date of 04/05/10, this would be the most recent statement\n available.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c 495-8519279 (xxxxxxxx) - The application date for this loan was 09/17/10 and the most recent pay stub\n in the file was dated 10/15/10. This is within HUD's documentation requirements. The bank statement\n provided was dated 09/02/09 and a statement from the borrower's retirement account was dated 09/16/09.\n Based on the application date of 09/17/10, these would be the most recent statements available at the time\n of application.\n\n 495-8666806 (xxxxx) - The application date was 02/11/10, the pay stub provided by the borrower was\n dated 02/24/10 and the pay stub provided by the co-borrower was dated 02/10/10. The file contains an\n earlier paystub provided by the borrower, but based on the application date it would not have satisfied\n HUD's documentation requirements. This is why we have a more recent pay stub in the file for the\n borrower compared to the documentation provided by the co-borrower.\n\n On the four remaining files, SWBC Mortgage concurs with the findings concerning the age of the\n documents. We agree with the OIG representative's statement that none of the deficiencies affected the\n loan approval. The income and assets were supported by other documentation in the loans files such as tax\n returns, tax transcripts, W-2s and verbal verifications of employment. SWBC Mortgage strictly enforces\n our underwriting process and as previously mentioned the pre-closing process closely monitors dates as an\n additional control that may not have been in place during the audit period.\n\n FINDING\n\n SWBC MORTGAGE DID NOT MANUALLY UNDERWRITE ONE LOAN AS REQUIRED\n\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99s TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard User Guide requires lenders to manually underwrite loans when the\n borrower\xe2\x80\x99s credit report reveals disputed credit accounts. One loan contained five disputed collection\n accounts, which required a manual underwrite. The lender did not reply to our inquiries regarding its failure\n to manually underwrite the loan. For manually underwritten loans, FHA requires the lender to compute two\n ratios: (1) mortgage payment expense to effective income and (2) total fixed payment to effective income.\n The first ratio considers the total mortgage payment to the borrower's income, while the second ratio\n considers all of the borrower's debts, including the mortgage payment, to the borrower's income. When a\n loan is manually underwritten, the qualifying ratios generally should not exceed 31 and 43 percent,\n respectively, without acceptable compensating factors. When a borrower's qualifying ratios exceed the\n FHA established limits, FHA requires the underwriter to support loan approval with compensating factors\n and support the factors with documentation. Desktop Underwriter approved the loan with qualifying ratios\n of 42 and 55 percent, which exceeded the FHA benchmarks. The borrower\xe2\x80\x99s loan file contained\n documentation evidencing substantial cash reserves, which are acceptable as a compensating factor.\n Therefore, the loan was eligible, making the lender's failure to manually underwrite the loan a minor\n deficiency.\n\n Response to Finding: On February 21, 2012, SWBC Mortgage received an email message from the\n auditor stating that \xe2\x80\x9cthis to let you know that we are \xe2\x80\x9csurveying out\xe2\x80\x9d of SWBC Mortgage\n Corporation. This means that our survey work did not produce results to justify a full audit. Therefore, we\nComment 3 are issuing an audit report based on our review of 10 files.\xe2\x80\x9d Consequently, SWBC Mortgage is surprised\n by this finding and thought the requirement to provide additional information had passed. However,\n SWBC Mortgage would be happy to provide a response at this time. Based on a review of the file, SWBC\n Mortgage agrees that this should have been issued as a manual downgrade; however, this loan was\n processed prior to the underwriting processes and pre-closing quality control measures currently in place.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c FINDING\n\n SWBC MORTGAGE'S INTERNAL CONTROLS NEEDED IMPROVEMENT\n\n All of the deficiencies identified during our review occurred because the lender\xe2\x80\x99s internal controls needed\n improvement. The lender did not always follow HUD's TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard User Guide and the\n Desktop Underwriter Findings instructions. In addition, its quality control process needed strengthening\n because (1) its quality control contractor reviewed but did not detect the ineligible loan and (2) a quality\n control recommendation on another loan was not followed. Lenders must design quality control programs\n that meet the following overriding goals of quality control: \xe2\x80\x9cassure compliance with FHA\xe2\x80\x99s and the\n mortgagee\xe2\x80\x99s own origination or servicing requirements throughout its operations, protect the mortgagee and\n FHA from unacceptable risk, guard against errors, omissions and fraud, and assure swift and appropriate\n corrective action.\xe2\x80\x9d Since the lender did not always follow HUD's TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard User Guide,\n the Desktop Underwriter Findings instructions, and its quality controls, its internal controls were weakened,\n which allowed deficiencies to occur.\n\n Response to the Finding: SWBC Mortgage utilizes a nationally known vendor that has been in business\n for over 25 years and provides quality control services on behalf of 500 clients, 6 of which are top 10\n lenders. SWBC Mortgage has been in contact with this vendor and we have been assured that preventative\n measures have been added to prevent this type of oversight in the future.\n\n In response to a quality control recommendation not being followed, the quality control vendor noted a\n possible issue with the occupancy. The vendor was able to verify active service with the City of San\n Antonio Water System; however, the account was in a different name than the borrower. If the vendor\n notes a possible issue with the occupancy, SWBC Mortgage's Compliance Department (the \xe2\x80\x9cCompliance\n Department\xe2\x80\x9d) will attempt to confirm occupancy prior to ordering a full occupancy inspection. In this case,\n the vendor noted a utility service account that was in a name other than the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s. The borrower and\n spouse do not share the same last name, so it is possible the account was in the name of the non-borrower\nComment 4 spouse. During a subsequent review, the Compliance Department was able to locate a directory assistance\n listing for the borrower at the subject property address. The Compliance Department also rescored the loan\n through our fraud detection vendor and all credit bureaus showed the borrower linked to the subject\n property address. Consequently, while the vendor recommended that SWBC Mortgage conduct an\n occupancy inspection, the Compliance Department was able to verify the borrower's occupancy through\n other means described above.\n\n FINDING\n\n Conclusion\n\n The lender did not follow HUD-FHA underwriting requirements in 1 of 10 loans reviewed. Seven loans\n contained minor documentation deficiencies that did not affect loan approval. Additionally, the lender did\n not provide documentation to show that it followed a recommendation from its quality control contractor.\n These deficiencies occurred because the lender's internal controls needed improvement. As a result, the\n lender originated one ineligible loan totaling $176,739 that resulted in an increased risk of loss of an\n estimated $115,654 to the insurance fund. Further, while the minor deficiencies did not affect loan\n approval, the lender placed itself at risk of originating additional ineligible loans.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0c Response to the Finding: SWBC Mortgage agrees with the auditor\xe2\x80\x99s findings that in all cases the minor\n deficiencies did not affect loan approval. While these may have been technical deficiencies, adequate\n documentation to support the decision was in the file in all cases. Regarding other loans referenced in this\n report, SWBC Mortgage believes that the pre-closing processes and internal control measures put into place\nComment 5 between the October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2011 audit period and the time of this Report have greatly\n improved mitigation of risk of these types of issues.\n\n SWBC Mortgage has carefully considered the findings and recommendations as set forth in the Report and\n is committed to taking appropriate action to address any deficiencies. The Company is further committed\n to serving the needs of consumers and complying with all HUD regulations. SWBC Mortgage has\n continued to recognize the need for stronger compliance controls and risk assessment and within the last\n three years has hired three key members of the executive management team: (l) Vice President,\n Compliance; (2) Executive Vice President, Risk and Operations; and (3) General Counsel. Additionally,\n SWBC Mortgage endeavors to monitor underwriting performance and provide ongoing training to\n employees on the issue of credit analysis.\n\n SWBC Mortgage appreciates the guidance provided by your office as we continue to strive and improve\n internal control processes and looks forward to a continued dialogue with HUD. We believe SWBC\n Mortgage\xe2\x80\x99s emphasis on the importance of compliance is evident based on the OIG representatives\xe2\x80\x99\n compliments to our staff regarding the extreme efficiency and ability to provide quality information in a\n timely manner. The OIG representatives were satisfied with their findings and subsequently decided to\n discontinue the audit after reviewing 10 of the 25 files selected for review.\n\n If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned\n at (210) 581-1539.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n\n\n Karen A. Thomason\n Vice President, Quality Control and Compliance\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments\n\nComment 1 The lender agreed that it should have inquired further about debt that was not\n considered in loan approval, but argued that since the undisclosed debt was not on\n the credit report, the borrower was not legally obligated by the creditors to pay the\n debt. We respectfully disagree with the lender. The unconsidered debt was\n itemized in a divorce decree issued by the 250th Judicial District in Travis\n County, TX, prior to loan origination and was included in the loan file.\n Therefore, the borrower was legally obligated to pay the debt. We did not change\n the report.\n\nComment 2 The lender provided additional documentation for four loans to show that\n documents in the loan files were the most recent available to support income and\n assets. We reviewed the documentation, and removed the citations for the four\n loans from the final report. For one loan removed from the report, the lender\n stated that the loan application date was September 17, 2010, the pay stub was\n dated October 15, 2010, and the bank statement and retirement account statement\n provided were dated September, 2009. All documentation related to this loan was\n dated 2009; thus, the dates in the lender\xe2\x80\x99s response were incorrect.\n\nComment 3 The lender stated that it was surprised by the OIG finding that one loan should\n have been manually underwritten. However, it agreed with our conclusions. We\n respectfully disagree that the lender was unaware as we notified it of this\n deficiency on January 23, 2012, but did not receive a response addressing the\n issue.\n\nComment 4 The lender stated that while it did not follow its quality control contractor\xe2\x80\x99s\n recommendation to perform an occupancy inspection, it was able to confirm\n occupancy through directory assistance and through a rescoring of the loan\n through its fraud detection vendor. The lender provided a screen print of the\n directory assistance search. However, there is no date to show when this search\n occurred. In addition, the lender was unable to provide documentation to show\n that it had rescored the loan through its fraud vendor at the time of the quality\n control contractor\xe2\x80\x99s recommendation. Further, a search of Lexis Nexis revealed\n that the borrower did not have a driver\xe2\x80\x99s license registered to the subject property.\n We did not change the report.\n\nComment 5 The lender stated that it has implemented pre-closing processes and additional\n internal control measures since the audit period which has improved mitigation of\n risk for the issues discussed in the audit report. We acknowledge its actions.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cAppendix C\n\n Case Narrative\n\n Case Narrative \xe2\x80\x93 495-8477110\n\nMortgage amount: $176,739\n\nDate of loan closing: October 8, 2009\n\nStatus as of February 29, 2012: 20 months delinquent\n\nPayments before first default reported: Zero\n\nUnderwriting deficiencies: The lender did not include all of the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s debt when it ran the\nborrower\xe2\x80\x99s data through the Desktop Underwriter automated underwriting system.\n\nSummary:\nAll Debt Was Not Considered in Loan Approval\nDesktop Underwriter approved the loan with $1,348 in monthly debt. However, we identified\nsix accounts on the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s divorce decree with balances totaling $21,800 that were not\nconsidered by Desktop Underwriter. The divorce decree included a seventh account for a\nvehicle, which also wasn\xe2\x80\x99t considered by Desktop Underwriter. The divorce decree did not\ninclude a balance, but the borrower told us that his monthly payment was more than $600 for the\nvehicle. In addition, one of the loan applications in the loan file included a $100 per month child\nsupport payment that was not considered by Desktop Underwriter. The borrower confirmed that\nhe paid $100 per month in child support for his disabled son and would pay this amount for the\nremainder of his life.\n\nThe Desktop Underwriter Findings stated, \xe2\x80\x9cWhen a debt or obligation is revealed during the\napplication process that was not listed on the loan application and/or credit report that was not\nconsidered by Desktop Underwriter, verify the monthly payment amount. If the increased\namount is outside of tolerances, 15 include the debt in the qualifying ratios and resubmit the loan\ncase file.\xe2\x80\x9d There was no documentation in the loan file to show that the lender verified the\nmonthly payment amount for the debt listed on the borrower\xe2\x80\x99s divorce decree, and there was no\ndocumentation in the loan file to show that the lender included the additional debt in the ratio\ncalculations.\n\n\n\n\n15\n The TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard User Guide states that when a debt or obligation is revealed during the\n application process that was not listed on the loan application and/or credit report and was not considered by the\n automated underwriting system, the lender must (1) verify the actual monthly payment amount, (2) include the\n monthly payment amount and resubmit the loan if the liability is greater than $100 per month, and (3) determine\n that any funds borrowed were not or will not be used for the home buyer\xe2\x80\x99s cash investment into the transaction.\n\n\n 21\n\x0c"


text:
Bizoni so veliki, sodoprsti kopitarji iz rodu Bison v poddružini goved (Bovinae).
 Prepoznani sta dve obstoječi (evropski bizon ali zober in ameriški bizon) in šest izumrlih vrst. Od šestih izumrlih vrst jih je pet izumrlo v dogodku kvartarnega izumrtja. Bison palaeosinensis se je razvil v zgodnjem pleistocenu v južni Aziji in je bil evolucijski prednik B. priscus (stepski bizon), ki je bil prednik vseh drugih vrst bizonov. Od 2 mia do 6000 pr. n. št. se je stepski bizon razprostiral po mamutski stepi in je naselil Evropo in severno Azijo z B. schoetensacki (gozdnimi bizoni) in Severno Ameriko z B. antiquus, B. latifrons in B. occidentalis. Zadnjo vrsto, ki je izumrla, B. occidentalis, je nasledil 3000 pr. n. št. B. bison.
 Ameriški bizon, B. bison, ki ga najdemo samo v Severni Ameriki, je med dvema ohranjenima vrstama. Čeprav je splošno znan kot bivol v Združenih državah in Kanadi , je le oddaljeno povezan z resničnim bivolom. Severnoameriška vrsta je sestavljena iz dveh podvrst, prerijski bizon, B. b. bison in gozdni bizon, B. b. athabascae, ki je soimenjak narodnega parka Wood Buffalo v Kanadi. Tretja podvrsta, vzhodni bizon (B. b. Pennsylvanicus) se ne šteje več za veljaven takson, saj je sinonim za B. b. bison. Sklicevanja na "gozdni bizon" iz vzhodnih Združenih držav se zmedeno nanašajo na te podvrste, ne pa na B. b. athabascae, ki ga v regiji niso našli. Evropski bizon (zober, B. bonasus), je bil v Evropi in na Kavkazu ponovno naseljen po izumrtju v naravi.
 Medtem ko so vse vrste bizonov uvrščene v svoj rod, se včasih parijo z domačim govedom (rod Bos) in proizvajajo rodovitne potomce beefalo ali zubron.
 Sklici
 Zunanje povezave
 History of Bison Blend Cattle
 Govedo


text:
 7.2.2007
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 27/21
 PROTOKÓŁ USTALEŃ
 między Europejskim Rzecznikiem Praw Obywatelskich i Europejskim Inspektorem Ochrony Danych
 (2007/C 27/07)
 Ustalenia robocze na rzecz konstruktywnej współpracy
 1. Kontekst ogólny i cele niniejszego protokołu ustaleń
 Od 1995 r. Europejski Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (ERPO) posiada uprawnienia w zakresie prowadzenia dochodzeń w sprawach przypadków niewłaściwego administrowania w działaniach instytucji i organów Wspólnoty, z wyłączeniem Trybunału Sprawiedliwości i Sądu Pierwszej Instancji wykonujących swoje funkcje sądowe. ERPO może prowadzić dochodzenia z własnej inicjatywy lub na podstawie skargi złożonej przez osobę fizyczną lub prawną.
 Od 2004 r. Europejski Inspektor Ochrony Danych (EIOD) wykonuje zadania polegające na kontrolowaniu i zapewnianiu, że w odniesieniu do przetwarzania danych osobowych instytucje i organy Wspólnoty przestrzegają podstawowych praw i wolności osób fizycznych, w szczególności zaś ich prawa do prywatności. W zakres uprawnień EIOD wchodzi prowadzenie dochodzeń z własnej inicjatywy lub na podstawie skargi złożonej przez podmiot danych.
 Na podstawie swojego doświadczenia i dotychczasowej współpracy ERPO i EIOD uznają za pożyteczne, aby ustalić zasady odnoszące się do przypadków, które powodują lub mogą powodować złożenie skarg do obydwu organów. Celem niniejszego protokołu ustaleń jest elastyczna organizacja pracy, tak, aby uniknąć niepotrzebnego powielania procedur oraz, w miarę możliwości, rozbieżnych interpretacji w takich przypadkach.
 Wspólnym celem ERPO i EIOD jest osiągnięcie jak najlepszego wykorzystania zasobów wspólnotowych oraz preferowanie konsekwentnego podejścia do prawnych i administracyjnych aspektów ochrony danych, a także wspieranie w ten sposób praw i interesów obywateli i skarżących. Niniejszy protokół zapewnia podstawę konstruktywnej współpracy w dążeniu do osiągnięcia tego celu. Nie ma on na celu tworzenia ustawowych praw lub obowiązków.
 Niniejszy protokół nie dotyczy uprawnień ERPO i EIOD w zakresie prowadzenia dochodzeń w sprawie działań odpowiednio EIOD i ERPO.
 2. W kierunku konstruktywnej współpracy: ustalenia robocze
 Niniejszy protokół ustaleń opiera się na następujących punktach porozumienia między ERPO a EIOD:
 I.
 Pojęcie niewłaściwego administrowania obejmuje nieprzestrzeganie prawa wspólnotowego dotyczącego ochrony danych.
 II.
 EIOD posiada specjalistyczną wiedzę w dziedzinie ochrony danych i jest organem wyspecjalizowanym w zakresie nadzoru nad przestrzeganiem prawa wspólnotowego dotyczącego ochrony danych przez instytucje i organy Wspólnoty.
 III.
 W przypadku, gdy skarga może zostać rozpatrzona albo przez ERPO, albo przez EIOD, skarżący może wybrać organ, do którego skieruje skargę, powinien też uzyskać odpowiednie informacje, w oparciu o które dokona wyboru.
 IV.
 O ile jest to możliwe, należy unikać niepotrzebnego powielania procedur.
 V.
 O ile jest to możliwe, należy unikać rozbieżności w podejściu do prawnych i administracyjnych aspektów ochrony danych.
 VI.
 Wymiana informacji między ERPO a EIOD podlega wymogom poufności mającym zastosowanie do ich działań.
 Na podstawie powyższych punktów oraz doświadczenia uzyskanego w drodze dotychczasowej współpracy ERPO oraz EIOD przyjmują poniższe ustalenia robocze.
 A. Informacje dla wnioskodawcy podczas składania skargi
 —
 W stosownych przypadkach ERPO zamierza informować skarżących o specjalistycznej wiedzy EIOD, o której mowa w punkcie II powyżej, oraz warunkach składania do EIOD skarg dotyczących przetwarzania danych osobowych przez instytucje i organy Wspólnoty.
 —
 W szczególności wyżej wspomniane informacje będą udzielane w przypadku, gdy skarga, w sprawie której ERPO mógłby wszcząć dochodzenie, odnosi się wyłącznie lub w przeważającej części do ochrony danych, aby przed wszczęciem dochodzenia przez ERPO umożliwić skarżącemu podjęcie decyzji o ewentualnym zwróceniu się do EIOD zamiast do ERPO.
 —
 W tych przypadkach ERPO zamierza doradzić skarżącemu informując go o możliwości złożenia skargi do EIOD. Ponadto na wniosek skarżącego złożony przed wszczęciem dochodzenia ERPO ułatwi przekazanie takiej skargi do EIOD.
 —
 W stosownych przypadkach EIOD zamierza informować skarżących o możliwości złożenia do ERPO skargi dotyczącej niewłaściwego administrowania w działaniach instytucji i organów Wspólnoty.
 —
 Ponadto, jeżeli EIOD uzna to za stosowne, podejmie na wniosek skarżącego starania w celu ułatwienia przekazania skargi do ERPO.
 —
 Obydwa organy przewidują poinformowanie skarżących w stosownych przypadkach o możliwości przesłania informacji zawartych w dokumentacji sprawy drugiemu organowi.
 B. Unikanie powielania procedur
 —
 Żaden z organów nie przewiduje wszczęcia dochodzenia, jeżeli drugi organ rozpatruje lub rozpatrywał zarzuty zasadniczo stanowiące tę samą skargę, chyba że skarżący przedstawi istotne nowe dowody w sprawie, w której drugi organ zamknął dochodzenie. Obydwa organy zamierzają informować drugi organ o odmowie wszczęcia dochodzenia z tego powodu i deklarują wolę udzielania informacji w celu ułatwienia drugiemu organowi podejmowania decyzji w tym zakresie.
 —
 ERPO zamierza każdorazowo informować EIOD o wszczęciu dochodzenia dotyczącego ochrony danych. Jeżeli EIOD bada już tę sprawę, obydwa organy deklarują zamiar omówienia najlepszych sposobów uniknięcia niepotrzebnego powielania procedur oraz rozbieżnych interpretacji.
 —
 Jeżeli ERPO i EIOD powezmą wiadomość o tym, że rozpatrują skargi dotyczące tego samego stanu faktycznego, podejmą starania w celu wzajemnego informowania się.
 C. Unikanie rozbieżnych interpretacji
 —
 W przypadku, gdy rozporządzenie nr 45/2001 (1) oraz istniejące orzecznictwo Trybunału Sprawiedliwości umożliwiają rozbieżność poglądów w kwestii prawidłowej interpretacji i stosowania przepisów o ochronie danych, Rzecznik przewiduje skonsultowanie się z EIOD, o ile poglądy EIOD na tę kwestię nie są znane. EIOD wyraża zamiar udzielenia odpowiedzi w wymaganym terminie. Podejmując decyzję w sprawie, ERPO przewiduje uwzględnienie odpowiedzi EIOD.
 —
 Rzecznik deklaruje zamiar informowania EIOD o wynikach prowadzonych przez niego dochodzeń, o ile dotyczą one istotnych kwestii związanych z ochroną danych.
 —
 EIOD deklaruje zamiar informowania ERPO o wynikach prowadzonych przez niego dochodzeń, o ile według jego uznania mogą one być istotne dla ERPO.
 D. Dostęp do dokumentów i informacji
 —
 W zakresie ewentualnych, związanych z ochroną danych, aspektów skarg dotyczących dostępu do dokumentów i informacji, ERPO i EIOD przyjmują do wiadomości, co następuje:
 —
 Rozporządzenie nr 45/2001 przewiduje, że każdy podmiot danych posiada pewne prawa dostępu do dotyczących go danych (2). EIOD posiada kompetencje w zakresie rozpatrywania złożonych przez podmioty danych skarg dotyczących nieprzestrzegania tego obowiązku.
 —
 Sprawy związane z odmową dostępu do informacji o innej osobie lub sprawy związane z dostępem skarżącego do dotyczących go informacji lub dokumentów, które nie są oparte na rozporządzeniu nr 45/2001 (na przykład sprawy wynikające z odrzucenia wniosku na mocy rozporządzenia nr 1049/2001 (3)), wchodzą w zakres kompetencji ERPO. W drugim przypadku ERPO zamierza poinformować skarżącego o prawach wynikających z rozporządzenia nr 45/2001, o ile może to być przydatne.
 —
 ERPO i EIOD oświadczają, że części A, B i C powyżej mają również zastosowanie do skarg dotyczących dostępu do dokumentów i informacji.
 E. Wykonanie
 —
 Obydwa organy deklarują zamiar odbywania regularnych spotkań, co najmniej raz w roku, w celu wymiany poglądów na temat wprowadzenia w życie ustaleń roboczych określonych w niniejszym protokole oraz w celu omówienia ewentualnych usprawnień.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli, 30 listopada 2006 roku
 P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS
 Europejski Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich
 Peter HUSTINX
 Europejski Inspektor Ochrony Danych
 (1) Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 45/2001 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 18 grudnia 2000 r. o ochronie osób fizycznych w związku z przetwarzaniem danych osobowych przez instytucje i organy wspólnotowe i o swobodnym przepływie takich danych, Dz.U. L 8 z 12.1.2001, str. 1.
 (2) Art. 13.
 (3) Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1049/2001 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 30 maja 2001 r. w sprawie publicznego dostępu do dokumentów Parlamentu Europejskiego, Rady i Komisji, Dz.U. L 145 z 31.5.2001, str. 43.