Status review of special cases Sample Clauses

Status review of special cases. The Secretariat presented Document IRP-62-09b, “Summary of Pending Special Cases Monitored by the IRP”. It recalled the two cases in which an observer apparently was substituted by an unknown person during the trips 2014-004 and 2014-145. These cases were originally addressed by the Panel at its 55th meeting in June 2014 and at each subsequent meeting. Regarding case 2014-004, Ecuador reported that the investigation was concluded and that no evidence had been found to justify the adoption of a sanction; therefore, in Ecuador’s opinion, this case should be closed. As for case 2014-145, Ecuador mentioned that a meeting with the regional representative of the IATTC in Manta was scheduled to provide elements for the administrative file that was being prepared. The Director clarified that the data of that trip have already been invalidated and that the observer will no longer be able to work in the program. However, the staff cannot get involved in the internal legal proceedings of a Party. The only thing that could be done would be to send a letter stating that the data have already been invalidated and stressing this occurrence of substitution of an observer by an unknown person as reported in every IRP meeting since 2014. Ecuador mentioned that they were concerned that the IATTC staff may not participate in the process since the Commission is the one that hires the observers. Likewise, it specifically asked what the IRP is expecting in order to close the case since it is not an infraction of the AIDCP, nor a situation entailing the responsibility of the shipowner or the captain, but a wrongful action of an observer. The representative of the Ecuadorian industry at the IRP mentioned that the IATTC should file a complaint regarding the impersonation so that, if applicable, a criminal proceeding may be initiated. The United States clarified that the Secretariat has carried out the actions that the AIDCP Parties entrusted it in accordance with the Agreement, their decisions and procedures, so it was the responsibility of the Government of Ecuador to take the necessary steps regarding the responsibility of the vessel and captain. Mexico stressed that it was an infraction of fishing without an observer, an infraction clearly categorized in the AIDCP, and that it was the Panel’s responsibility to review these types of cases and recommend closing them once it has been considered that they had been appropriately addressed. Colombia said that if Ecuador had already de...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Status review of special cases. The Secretariat presented Document IRP-51-08b, Summary of pending special cases monitored by the IRP, which presents case 2012-106, described under item 6 above. The Panel decided that this case should be classified as a special case and monitored accordingly.
Sample 1
Status review of special cases. The Secretariat presented Document IRP-64-04b, Summary of Pending Special Cases Monitored by the IRP. It was recalled that there are two cases in which an observer was apparently substituted by an unknown person during trips 2014-004 and 2014-145. These cases were originally addressed by the Panel at its 55th meeting in June 2014 and at each subsequent meeting The Panel decided to recommend that these cases be closed since it is impossible to move much more forward, but mainly because the Ecuadorian government stated in writing that it was impossible to determine if there was indeed an infraction with the existing elements. • Case 63-01: Trips 2017-916, 2018-140 and 2018-228 The Secretariat recalled that these cases were identified at the 63rd meeting of the IRP in August 2018 as possible infractions for fishing without a qualified captain on a vessel with a DML. Furthermore, it was mentioned that the IRP asked that the national authority be informed of the concern over the fact that the vessel repeatedly conducted fishing operations with a captain who has not been qualified by the AIDCP— in contravention of the agreement’s requirements—even after being notified. In addition, the vessel’s company provided incorrect information regarding the identity of the captain on the third trip in question, which the IRP considered that aggravated the cases. Ecuador expressed that the corresponding inquiries are being conducted in view of the information presented by the Secretariat, and that they are training captains on the requirements for qualified captains in order to avoid these situations in the future. Venezuela specified that a formal request must be submitted to the Secretariat in order to add a captain to the List of Qualified Captains, in addition to complying with other requirements. The Secretariat recalled that, if the Party confirms the cases, the vessel will automatically fall into a pattern of infractions and will not be eligible to have DMLs allocated in the future. • Case 63-02: Trip 2018-354. This case was identified at the 63rd meeting of the IRP in August 2018 as a possible infraction for interference with the observer’s duties and it is classified as harassment, interference and attempted bribery. In this case, the observer was not provided with the buoy’s identification codes, he did not receive the same conditions as the rest of the crew, and he received bribe offers in exchange of forging the dolphin mortality of the sets. The Presider of the...
Sample 1
Status review of special cases. The Secretariat presented Document IRP-65-04, “Summary of Pending Special Cases Monitored by the IRP.” The first case was case 63-01, which involves trips 2017-916, 2018-140 and 2018-228, in which the same vessel made three consecutive trips without a qualified captain. No further information on these cases was received; however, the Panel agreed that a letter be sent to the corresponding Government for it to report the conclusion of these cases. With regard to case 63-02 for attempted bribery, corresponding to trip 2018-354, Venezuela expressed that it was one of its vessels and that it had already sent a letter to the Secretariat. Venezuela pointed out that the investigations found several irregularities that led to the conclusion that there was no possible infraction.
Sample 1
Status review of special cases. The Secretariat presented the Document “Summary of Pending Special Cases Monitored by the Panel”. Case 63-01 has been reviewed during several meetings and involves trips 2017-916, 2018-140 and 2018- 228, on which the same vessel conducted three consecutive trips without a qualified captain. It was reported that the corresponding Government had sent a letter to the Secretariat on 16 September 2019 indicating that the infraction was identified and opened the corresponding administrative file, in addition to sending a memorandum to the shipowners requiring compliance with the provisions of the AIDCP. Consequently, the Panel decided to remove it from the list of special cases.
Sample 1
Status review of special cases. The Secretariat presented Document IRP-56-07b, Summary of pending special cases monitored by the IRP, which presents the following three cases, pending since 2012 and 2014, respectively. Case 51-03. The Party reported that it did not have sufficient elements to justify classifying the case as an infraction of attempting to bribe an observer and observer harassment. The Panel recognized that the Party’s determi- nation was final, but that such decisions could undermine observer confidence in the support they receive in carrying out their duties. Cases 55-01 and 55-02. The Party reported that the cases were under investigation.
Sample 1
Status review of special cases. The Secretariat reported that there were no special cases to present at the 70th meeting of the International Review Panel.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Status review of special cases

  • Claims Review Objective A clear statement of the objective intended to be achieved by the Claims Review.

  • Engagement of Independent Review Organization Within 60 days after the Effective Date, Xx. Xxxxxx shall engage an individual or entity, such as an accounting, auditing, or consulting firm (hereinafter “Independent Review Organization” or “IRO”), to perform the reviews listed in this Section III.C. The applicable requirements relating to the IRO are outlined in Appendix A to this IA, which is incorporated by reference.‌

  • Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.

  • ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 9. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan. SCHEDULE 5

  • REVIEW OF THE FRAMEWORK PRICES LOTS 1 – 10

  • Classification Review (a) An Employee who has reason to believe that they are improperly classified due to a substantial change in job duties, may apply to the Department Director, or designate, to have the Employee’s classification reviewed. The Director, or designate, will review the Employee’s application and advise the Employee of the Employer’s decision.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

  • Position Review ‌ The Employer may initiate a position review for a position it believes is improperly classified, and will inform the Union in writing when it has initiated a reallocation process for a bargaining unit position. An individual employee who believes that their position is improperly classified may request a review according to the following procedure:

  • Health plan specification The Employer will require health plans participating in the Group Insurance Program to develop and implement health promotion and health education programs for State employees and their dependents.

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.