GERMAN

“Rechtsmittelbelehrung:

Gegen diesen Beschluss kann Widerspruch erhoben werden (§ 924 ZPO). Dieser ist bei dem Landgericht Düsseldorf (Werdener T-Straße, 40227 Düsseldorf oder Postfach 103461, 40025 Düsseldorf) schriftlich einzulegen. Der Widerspruch soll eine Begründung unter Darlegung der Gründe, die für die Aufhebung geltend gemacht werden, enthalten. Eine Frist ist nicht einzuhalten. Die Gerichtssprache ist deutsch.

 Vor dem Landgericht herrscht Anwaltszwang. Widerspruchs- und Widerspruchsbegründungsschrift sind durch eine zugelassene Rechtsanwältin oder einen zugelassenen Rechtsanwalt einzureichen und zu unterzeichnen.”

ENGLISH

“Instruction on Rights of Appeal:

 An opposition to this Order can be filed under Section 924 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO). It must be filed in written form with the Düsseldorf District Court (address: Werdener T-Strasse, 40227 Düsseldorf or Postfach 103461, Düsseldorf). The opposition should include a statement of reasons explaining the grounds claimed for the rescission. There is no time-limit to adhere to. The language of the Court is German.

 All parties before the District Court must be represented by counsel. The notice of opposition and the statement of reasons are to be submitted and signed by an attorney admitted to the bar.”

ITALIAN

“Art. 6 - Tenuta informatizzata dei registri

1. I registri informatizzati contengono i dati e l'aggregazione dei dati di cui ai modelli dei registri previsti dall'articolo 13 del presente regolamento, ((...)), e comunque da ogni altra disposizione di legge.

2. I dati di cui al comma 1 possono essere contenuti in uno o piu' supporti informatici. Il sistema consente la possibilita' di estrazione dei dati secondo la natura delle controversie, la sezione, il giudice, il nome delle parti, lo stato della causa, la udienza ed ogni altro tipo di dato eventualmente richiesto dalle disposizioni che regolano la tenuta dei registri e la loro individuazione.

3. I registri informatizzati consentono la loro riproduzione, per intero o per estratto, anche su supporto cartaceo.”

ENGLISH

“Art. 6 - Digital Maintenance of Registries

1. Digital registries contain the data and the data aggregation shown in the registry models provided for by Article 13 of the present regulation, ((...)), and in any case by every other statutory provision.

2. The data under subparagraph 1 may be contained in one or more computer storage media. The system allows for making extracts of the data according to the nature of the litigation, the section, the judge, the names of the parties, the status of the case, the hearing or any other type of datum that might be required by the provisions regulating the maintenance and individuation of registers.

3. Digital registries can be reproduced, in their entirety or in extract, including on paper media.”

DUTCH

“Bespreking beroepsgronden

4.1. Eiser voert ten eerste aan dat verweerder actief onderzoek moet doen naar de aanwezigheid van stukken ten aanzien van mobiel banditisme bij het ministerie van V&J en het OM. Gelet op het woord ‘mogelijk’ in het primaire besluit, weet verweerder kennelijk niet zeker of er stukken onder één van de andere bestuursorganen berusten. Nu verweerder niet met zekerheid kan stellen dat stukken in het kader van de Wob door andere bestuursorganen zijn beoordeeld, zal hij dit zelf moeten doen. Verweerder kan zich volgens eiser niet verschuilen achter het feit dat andere bestuursorganen naar aanleiding van een soortgelijk verzoek mogelijk stukken al openbaar hebben gemaakt om daarom zelf niet tot openbaarmaking over te gaan.”

ENGLISH

“Discussion of grounds for appeal

4.1. Petitioner argues, first, that respondent must actively research the existence of documents regarding mobile banditry at the Ministry of Justice and Security and the Public Prosecution Service. Based on the word ‘possibly’ in the primary resolution, respondent obviously does not know for certain whether or not documents are held at any of the other administrative bodies. Since respondent cannot say with certainty that documents have been evaluated by other administrative bodies within the scope of the Dutch Public Access to Government Information Act (Wet Openbaarheid van Bestuur, WOB), it will have to do this itself. According to petitioner, respondent cannot hide behind the fact that other administrative bodies have possibly already disclosed documents in response to a request of the same kind, in order not to proceed with a disclosure itself.”

SPANISH

“FUNDAMENTO 2.

Ello es así, porque el proceso de extinción de dominio parte del principio de buena fe en el origen y uso de los bienes, de tal suerte que de manera primigenia le corresponde al Estado destruir tal presunción, reconocida en el artículo 11 LEDAB, a partir del marco probatorio producido dentro del debate, cumpliendo no solamente con el cometido de demostrar que existen bienes, quien es el titular de los mismos, cuál es la actividad ilícita, sino cual es la vinculación del titular de tales bienes con la actividad ilícita realizada, que para el caso debió superar la acreditación de un vínculo laboral entre el señor X., con la Sociedad relacionada, quien nunca negó tal condición, sino que se requirió que se demostrara el incumplimiento del deber de cuidado de la Sociedad, al haber despachado una mercadería con destino al territorio nacional sin adoptar las medidas tendientes a respetar los procedimientos nacional.”

ENGLISH

“GROUND 2.

It is like this because the asset forfeiture process starts from the principle of good faith in the source and use of the assets, such that the State has a fundamental prerogative to invalidate the presumption recognized in Article 11 of the Special Law on Asset Forfeiture and Administration (Ley Especial de la Extincion de Dominio y de la Administracion de los Bienes, LEDAB) based on the evidence gathered within the dispute, as long as it fulfills not only the obligation to demonstrate that assets exist, who holds the title to them, and what the unlawful activity is, as well as what the connection of the asset title holder to the committed unlawful activity is -- which in this case would have to go beyond showing an employment relationship between Mr. X  and the related Company which never denied this fact -- but it must also be demonstrated that the Company, in having sent off goods with a destination within Salvadoran territory without taking the measures tending to respect Salvadoran procedures, failed to fulfill its duty of care.”

FRENCH

“Sur la demande d’infirmation des dispositions du jugement concernant le respect des règles de contrôle sélectif des dépenses (charges n° 4 et 6)

[omitted subparagraphs]

18. Attendu que l’appelant fait valoir en deuxième lieu que, contrairement à ce qu’a jugé la chambre, il n’est pas certain que l’instruction du directeur général des finances publiques 2014/05/4612 du 6 juin 2014 portant « mesures de simplification du plancher du nombre de mandats à contrôler et actualisation du guide méthodologique du contrôle hiérarchisé des dépenses publiques locales et hospitalières » ait été prise pour la mise en œuvre de l’article 3 de l’arrêté du 25 juillet 2013, qui dispose que « le plan de contrôle hiérarchisé des dépenses est élaboré par le comptable public assignataire selon une méthodologie définie par le directeur général des finances publiques pour chaque catégorie de personnes morales énumérées à l’article 1 er du décret » du 7 novembre 2012, dans la mesure où elle ne le vise pas explicitement ; qu’en toute hypothèse, il conteste également la conclusion que la juridiction a tirée de l’analyse des fiches annexées à l’instruction, selon laquelle il n’y aurait pas lieu de soumettre à un contrôle exhaustif les éléments de paye non mentionnés dans le plan de contrôle ; qu’il observe en effet que les fiches en cause « précisent que certaines sous-catégories de dépenses propres à la paie peuvent faire l’objet (…) de contrôles aménagés, mais n’indiquent pas explicitement que les autres sous-catégories de dépenses [sont] dispensées du contrôle exhaustif prévalant par défaut » ;

[omitted subparagraphs]

Par ces motifs,

DECIDE :

Article 1 er – L’article 1er du jugement de la chambre régionale des comptes Nouvelle- Aquitaine n° XXXXXXX du 28 XXXXX 2020 est annulé.

Article 2 – M. X devra s’acquitter d’une somme de XXX €, au titre des charges n° 1, 2, 3 et 5, en application du deuxième alinéa du VI de l’article 60 de la loi du 23 février 1963 susvisée ; cette somme ne peut faire l’objet d’une remise gracieuse en vertu du IX du même article.”

ENGLISH

“On the request for invalidation of the judgment provisions concerning observance of the rules on selective control of expenses (Charges 4 and 6)

[omitted subparagraphs]

18. Considering that appellant asserts in the second place that, contrary to the judgment of the chamber, it is not certain that the directive of the General Director of Public Finances 2014/05/4612 dated June 6, 2014, entailing “measures to simplify the minimum number of seats to be controlled and to update the methodology guide for hierarchized control of local and hospital public expenses,” was issued to implement Article 3 of the Order of July 25, 2013, which provides that “the plan for hierarchized control of expenses is developed by the designated public accountant according to a methodology defined by the General Director of Public Finances for each category of legal entities listed in Article 1 of the decree” dated November 7, 2012, insofar as it does not provide for it explicitly; that in any event, it likewise disputes the conclusion that the case law drew from the analysis of the forms appended to the directive, under which there was no reason to submit to an exhaustive control the pay elements not mentioned in the control plan; that it observes in effect that the forms in question “specify that certain subcategories of expenses pertaining to payment may form the object (...) of adapted controls, but do not explicitly indicate that the other subcategories of expenses [are] exempted from the exhaustive control applicable by default”;

[omitted subparagraphs]

For these reasons,

HEREBY DECIDES:

Article 1 – Article 1 of the judgment of the Nouvelle-Aquitaine Regional Chamber of Accounts No. XXXXXXX dated XXXXX 28, 2020, is nullified.

Article 2 – M. X must pay the amount of € XXX, in relation to Charges 1, 2, 3 and 5, in application of Article 60 VI para. 2 of the aforementioned Law of February 23, 1963; this amount cannot form the object of a waiver by virtue of IX under the same article.”