Status review of special cases Sample Clauses

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
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
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 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. 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. The Party reported that the cases were under investigation.
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 reported that there were no special cases to present at the 70th meeting of the International Review Panel.
Sample 1

Related to Status review of special cases

  • Engagement of Independent Review Organization Within 60 days after the Effective Date, Xx. Xxxxxxxx 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 11. 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.

  • Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure: A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have. B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit. C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant. D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable. E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Performance Review Where a performance review of an employee’s performance is carried out, the employee shall be given sufficient opportunity after the interview to read and review the performance review. Provision shall be made on the performance review form for an employee to sign it. The form shall provide for the employee’s signature in two (2) places, one (1) indicating that the employee has read and accepts the performance review, and the other indicating that the employee disagrees with the performance review. The employee shall sign in only one (1) of the places provided. No employee may initiate a grievance regarding the contents of a performance review unless the signature indicates disagreement. An employee shall, upon request, receive a copy of this performance review at the time of signing. An employee’s performance review shall not be changed after an employee has signed it, without the knowledge of the employee, and any such changes shall be subject to the grievance procedure of this Agreement. The employee may respond, in writing, to the performance review. Such response will be attached to the performance review.

  • Review of assessment The assessment of the applicable percentage should be subject to annual review or earlier on the basis of a reasonable request for such a review. The process of review shall be in accordance with the procedures for assessing capacity under the Supported Wage System.

  • Review of Personnel File Upon written authority from an employee, OC shall permit the President of the Union or their designate to review that employee's personnel file in the office in which the file is normally kept in order to facilitate the proper investigation of a grievance.

  • Business Review Meetings In order to maintain the relationship between the Department and the Contractor, each quarter the Department may request a business review meeting. The business review meeting may include, but is not limited to, the following: • Successful completion of deliverables • Review of the Contractor’s performance • Review of minimum required reports • Addressing of any elevated Customer issues • Review of continuous improvement ideas that may help lower total costs and improve business efficiencies.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!