DOCSLIB.ORG

Go V/S Igma (2017)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Go V/S Igma (2017) Unclassified GOV/SIGMA(2017)2 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 25-May-2018 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English PUBLIC GOVERNANCE DIRECTORATE Unclassified GOV/SIGMA(2017)2 Cancels & replaces the same document of 12 May 2017 SIGMA - Support for Improvement in Governance and Management DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE WORKING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SUPREME AUDIT INSTITUTIONS AND PARLIAMENTS SIGMA PAPER No. 54 Supreme audit institutions and parliaments have an important role in holding governments to account for the use of public funds. Parliaments do not usually have the capacity or expertise to scrutinise the use of public funds by the government themselves. They rely on the objective and professional work of supreme audit institutions to provide them with information about the use of public resources. Parliaments, however, will only use the work of the supreme audit institutions if it is interesting and relevant. Therefore it is important for supreme audit institutions to ensure that their work is relevant and adds value. This SIGMA paper provides a comparative analysis of how supreme audit institutions and parliaments have developed effective working relationships in the European Union (EU) and EU candidate countries and potential candidates. It describes the expectations that are set for establishing effective working relationships, the key factors and issues that influence them, and offers guidance to supreme audit institutions and parliaments for establishing effective working relationships. It also provides a toolkit for strengthening these working relations. The report is based on the contributions of 33 supreme audit institutions from EU member countries as well as EU candidate countries and potential candidates. For further information please write to [email protected] English JT03432428 - This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the Or. En delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. glish GOV/SIGMA(2017)2 Developing effective working relationships between supreme audit institutions and parliaments SIGMA PAPER No. 54 Authorised for publication by Karen Hill, Head of the SIGMA Programme 2 Rue André Pascal This SIGMA Paper has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. It should not be reported as representing the 75775 Paris Cedex 16 official views of the EU, the OECD or its member countries, or of partners participating in the SIGMA Programme. The opinions expressed France and arguments employed are those of the authors. mailto:[email protected] Tel: +33 (0) 1 45 24 82 00 This document, as well as any data and any map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, www.sigmaweb.org to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. © OECD 2017 – The use of this material, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found on the OECD website page http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions. 2 GOV/SIGMA(2017)2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 8 1. Mission of SAIs to create and enhance impact ..................................................................................... 10 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Expectations for SAIs ....................................................................................................................... 12 1.3 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................................ 17 2. Expectations for parliaments ................................................................................................................ 18 2.1 Formal mechanisms for dealing with SAI reports ........................................................................... 18 2.2 Expectations for parliamentary audit committees (PACs) .............................................................. 19 2.3 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................................ 22 3. Relations between SAIs and parliaments: some contextual factors ..................................................... 23 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Factors affecting the SAI’s relationship with parliament ................................................................ 23 3.3 Parliamentary arrangements for examining the work of SAIs ........................................................ 27 3.4 Government organisation ............................................................................................................... 28 3.5 Budget and accounting system ....................................................................................................... 29 3.6 Dynamics in a political environment ............................................................................................... 29 3.7 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................................ 29 4. Analysis of working relationships between SAIs and parliaments: Good practices in Europe and key factors for effectiveness ............................................................................................................................ 31 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 31 4.2 Audit Work programme .................................................................................................................. 31 4.3 Reporting to parliament .................................................................................................................. 33 4.4 Communication ............................................................................................................................... 36 4.5 Follow-up on previous observations and SAI recommendations ................................................... 37 4.6 Reporting on SAI performance........................................................................................................ 41 4.7 Parliaments' handling of SAI reports ............................................................................................... 42 4.8 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................................ 47 Annex 1. International Standards and acknowledged Principles for relations between parliaments and SAIs ............................................................................................................................................................ 48 Annex 2. Toolkit for strengthening working relationships between SAIs and parliaments ...................... 54 Annex 3. Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................. 57 ALBANIA ................................................................................................................................................. 62 AUSTRIA ................................................................................................................................................. 67 BELGIUM ................................................................................................................................................ 72 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA .................................................................................................................. 77 BULGARIA .............................................................................................................................................. 82 3 GOV/SIGMA(2017)2 CROATIA ................................................................................................................................................. 86 CYPRUS1 ................................................................................................................................................. 90 THE CZECH REPUBLIC ............................................................................................................................. 93 DENMARK .............................................................................................................................................. 98 ESTONIA ............................................................................................................................................... 103 THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS ................................................................................................ 108 FRANCE ...............................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Romanian Political Science Review Vol. XXI, No. 1 2021
    Romanian Political Science Review vol. XXI, no. 1 2021 The end of the Cold War, and the extinction of communism both as an ideology and a practice of government, not only have made possible an unparalleled experiment in building a democratic order in Central and Eastern Europe, but have opened up a most extraordinary intellectual opportunity: to understand, compare and eventually appraise what had previously been neither understandable nor comparable. Studia Politica. Romanian Political Science Review was established in the realization that the problems and concerns of both new and old democracies are beginning to converge. The journal fosters the work of the first generations of Romanian political scientists permeated by a sense of critical engagement with European and American intellectual and political traditions that inspired and explained the modern notions of democracy, pluralism, political liberty, individual freedom, and civil rights. Believing that ideas do matter, the Editors share a common commitment as intellectuals and scholars to try to shed light on the major political problems facing Romania, a country that has recently undergone unprecedented political and social changes. They think of Studia Politica. Romanian Political Science Review as a challenge and a mandate to be involved in scholarly issues of fundamental importance, related not only to the democratization of Romanian polity and politics, to the “great transformation” that is taking place in Central and Eastern Europe, but also to the make-over of the assumptions and prospects of their discipline. They hope to be joined in by those scholars in other countries who feel that the demise of communism calls for a new political science able to reassess the very foundations of democratic ideals and procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe
    Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe Issued by the EP Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments N° 13 - November 2016 Quality of legislation stemming from the EU On 19 September 2016, the Italian Senate submitted a request to the ECPRD network concerning the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. This request was an opportunity for National Parliaments to exchange best practices on how to ensure the quality of legislation with specific regard to transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU law. From the 21 answers provided by National Parliaments it is clear that transposition and implementation of EU Law is highly unlikely to require special attention. While almost all of them are using legislative guidelines and procedures for guaranteeing high standard of general law-making, only a few have felt the need to establish special mechanisms to ensure the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. The use of legislative guidelines and procedures; the main way to ensure the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. The use of legislative guidelines and procedures appears to be the most common way for National Parliaments to ensure the quality of legislation, also the legislation stemming from the EU. It allows for good linguistic coherence in the national languages while enhancing the standardization of the law. For example, in the case of Austria, the Federal Chancellery has published specific “Legistische Richtlinien”. In Spain, the instrument used is the Regulation Guidelines adopted in the Agreement of the Council of Ministers of 22 July 2005. Both Italian Chambers use Joint Guidelines on drafting of national legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Croatia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments Through 2010
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 constituteproject.org Croatia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2010 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 Table of contents I. Historical Foundations . 3 II. Basic Provisions . 4 III. Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms . 7 1. General Provisions . 7 2. Personal and Political Freedoms and Rights . 9 3. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights . 14 IV. Organization of Government . 18 1. The Croatian Parliament . 18 2. The President of the Republic of Croatia . 22 3. The Government of the Republic of Croatia . 26 4. Judicial Power . 28 5. The Office of the Public Prosecutions . 30 V. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia . 31 VI. Local and Regional Self-Government . 33 VII. International Relations . 35 1. International agreements . 35 2. Association and Succession . 35 VIII. European Union . 36 1. Legal Grounds for Membership and Transfer of Constitutional Powers . 36 2. Participation in European Union Institutions . 36 3. European Union Law . 37 4. Rights of European Union Citizens . 37 IX. Amending the Constitution . 37 IX. Concluding Provisions . 38 Croatia 1991 (rev. 2010) Page 2 constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 I. Historical Foundations • Reference to country's history The millenary identity of the Croatia nation and the continuity of its statehood,
    [Show full text]
  • List of Participants Liste Des Participants
    LIST OF PARTICIPANTS LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS 142nd IPU Assembly and Related Meetings (virtual) 24 to 27 May 2021 - 2 - Mr./M. Duarte Pacheco President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Président de l'Union interparlementaire Mr./M. Martin Chungong Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Secrétaire général de l'Union interparlementaire - 3 - I. MEMBERS - MEMBRES AFGHANISTAN RAHMANI, Mir Rahman (Mr.) Speaker of the House of the People Leader of the delegation EZEDYAR, Mohammad Alam (Mr.) Deputy Speaker of the House of Elders KAROKHAIL, Shinkai (Ms.) Member of the House of the People ATTIQ, Ramin (Mr.) Member of the House of the People REZAIE, Shahgul (Ms.) Member of the House of the People ISHCHY, Baktash (Mr.) Member of the House of the People BALOOCH, Mohammad Nadir (Mr.) Member of the House of Elders HASHIMI, S. Safiullah (Mr.) Member of the House of Elders ARYUBI, Abdul Qader (Mr.) Secretary General, House of the People Member of the ASGP NASARY, Abdul Muqtader (Mr.) Secretary General, House of Elders Member of the ASGP HASSAS, Pamir (Mr.) Acting Director of Relations to IPU Secretary to the delegation ALGERIA - ALGERIE GOUDJIL, Salah (M.) Président du Conseil de la Nation Président du Groupe, Chef de la délégation BOUZEKRI, Hamid (M.) Vice-Président du Conseil de la Nation (RND) BENBADIS, Fawzia (Mme) Membre du Conseil de la Nation Comité sur les questions relatives au Moyen-Orient KHARCHI, Ahmed (M.) Membre du Conseil de la Nation (FLN) DADA, Mohamed Drissi (M.) Secrétaire Général, Conseil de la Nation Secrétaire général
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law on the Rights of National Minorities in the Republic of Croatia
    Antonija Petričušić * Constitutional Law on the Rights of National Minorities in the Republic of Croatia I. I is article explores the disposition of the new Croatian Constitutional Law on the Rights of National Minorities (hereinafter “the Constitutional Law” or “the Law”)1 adopted on December . e legislation previously governing the protection of minority rights was politically an extremely controversial and much-discussed law, and was amended and suspended quite a number of times in its existence of just over ten years. e adop- tion of the Constitutional Law was one of Croatia’s international obligations upon entry into the Council of Europe (CoE),2 as well as an imperative for implementation of the European Union Association and Stabilization Agreement.3 Even at the Law’s drafting phase, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (hereinafter “the Venice Commission”) concluded that it constituted “an important step forward in the protection of national minorities in Croatia. It provides a comprehensive and coherent framework for further legislative and regulatory action in the field of minorities’ protection”.4 e Law was drafted on the blueprint of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM), and therefore applies the most generally accepted stan- dards in minority protection. * Researcher at the European Academy of Bolzano/Bozen, Italy. e author wishes to thank her colleagues Emma Lantschner, Francesco Palermo and Jens Woelk for their useful comments to a draft of this article. 1 Constitutional Law on the Rights of National Minorities in the Republic of Croatia in Croatian language can be found in the Narodne Novine (hereinafter “Official Gazette”) 155/2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Registrering Til COSAC-Møde 22.-24. April 2012
    Plenary meeting of the COSAC Réunion plénière de la COSAC Copenhagen 22-24 April 2012 Copenhague 22-24 avril 2012 List of Participants Liste des participants MEMBER STATES/ETATS MEMBRES Presidency/Présidence Denmark/ Danemark Danish Parliament/Parlement danois/Folketinget Ms Eva KJER HANSEN, Chairman of the European Affairs Committee (The Liberal Party – ALDE) Mr Benny ENGELBRECHT, Vice-chairman of the European Affairs Committee (The Social Democrats – S&D) Mr Jens JOEL, Member of the European Affairs Committee (The Social Democrats – S&D) Ms Sofie CARSTEN NIELSEN, Member of the European Affairs Committee (The Social Liberal Party – ALDE) Ms Merete RIISAGER, Member of the European Affairs Committee (Liberal Alliance) Ms Lene ESPERSEN, Member of the European Affairs Committee (The Conservative Party – EPP) Ms Pernille DELEURAN, Head of International Division Mr Mongin FORREST, EU Coordinator Mr Morten KNUDSEN, Principal EU Adviser Mr Thomas FICH, Senior EU Adviser Ms Iben SCHACKE, EU Adviser Ms Signe RIIS ANDERSEN, Clerk to the European Affairs Committee Mr Thomas SARUP, Permanent representative of the Folketing to the EU Ms Louise JUUL, Danish Folketing Representative to the COSAC Secretariat MS Birgitte WERN, Head of Interpretation 2/{20 Austria/Autriche National Council/Conseil national/Nationalrat Mr Fritz NEUGEBAUER, Second President of the National Council, Chairman of the Standing subcommittee on EU Affairs (ÖVP- Austrian People's Party – EPP) Ms Christine MUTTONEN, Vice Chairperson of the Standing subcommittee on EU Affairs (Social
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Actors' Resources
    Sustainable Governance Indicators SGI 2014 Legislative Actors’ Resources Report Parliamentary Resources, Obtaining Documents, Summoning Ministers, Summoning Experts, Task Area Congruence, Audit Office, Ombuds Office SGI 2014 | 2 Legislative Actors’ Resources Report Indicator Parliamentary Resources Question Do members of parliament have adequate personnel and structural resources to monitor government activity effectively? 41 OECD and EU countries are sorted according to their performance on a scale from 10 (best) to 1 (lowest). This scale is tied to four qualitative evaluation levels. 10-9 = The members of parliament as a group can draw on a set of resources suited for monitoring all government activity effectively. 8-6 = The members of parliament as a group can draw on a set of resources suited for monitoring a government’s major activities. 5-3 = The members of parliament as a group can draw on a set of resources suited for selectively monitoring some government activities. 2-1 = The resources provided to the members of parliament are not suited for any effective monitoring of the government. United States Score 10 The resources of the U.S. Congress substantially surpass those of any other national legislature. First of all, there are three large congressional agencies that perform research and analysis, independently of the executive branch: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO); the Congressional Research Service (CRS); and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The CBO, a nonpartisan body, is the most credible source of budget analysis in the government. Secondly, each congressional committee has a sizable staff, divided between the majority and the minority parties. In addition, each member of Congress has personal staff, ranging from about 14 personnel, including at least one or two legislative specialists for a member of the House, to more than 50, with several legislative specialists, for a senator from a large state.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Hydrocarbon Fiscal Regimes of Some European Oil and Gas Producers and Perspectives for Improvement in the Republic of Croatia
    energies Review Comparison of Hydrocarbon Fiscal Regimes of Some European Oil and Gas Producers and Perspectives for Improvement in the Republic of Croatia Marko Kolovrat *, Lucija Juki´c* and Daria Karasalihovi´cSedlar Faculty of Mining, Geology and Petroleum Engineering, University of Zagreb, Pierottijeva 6, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (M.K.); [email protected] (L.J.) Abstract: Hydrocarbon exploration and production activities are basic to the functioning of the oil and gas industry, while concession contracts and fees are central concepts in the aforementioned activities. The authors consider several questions regarding these concepts, such as: what is the legislative, institutional, and fiscal framework in certain European countries regarding hydrocarbon exploration and production? What are the major differences between them? Finally, is there room for improvement of the framework in the Republic of Croatia? To answer these questions, the authors contacted some of the relevant institutions and accessed official government gazettes, institution websites, legal aggregators, journal articles, books, and different legal publications regarding the oil and gas industry for several European countries, namely the Kingdom of Norway, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Austria, and the Republic of Croatia. As a result, this paper presents an overview of legislation, institutions, concession contracts, taxes, and fees for each of the aforemen- Citation: Kolovrat, M.; Juki´c,L.; Sedlar, D.K. Comparison of tioned countries. The authors conclude that the Republic of Croatia could benefit from applying some Hydrocarbon Fiscal Regimes of Some foreign solutions in its own legislative and fiscal framework, i.e., using a sliding scale for royalty European Oil and Gas Producers and calculation and simplifying some administrative procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Logo Sejmu I Senatu
    "Eastern Policy. Europe's obligations" - Conference of Chairpersons of Foreign Affairs Committees (COFACC) "La politique orientale. Les obligations de l'Europe" - réunion des présidents des commissions des affaires étrangères (COFACC) "Polityka Wschodnia. Obowiązki Europy" - konferencja przewodniczących komisji właściwych ds. zagranicznych (COFACC) Warszawa, 4-6.09. 2011 List of Participants/ Liste des participants/ Lista uczestników MEMBER STATES / ETATS MEMBRES AUSTRIA – AUTRICHE Bundesrat / Federal Council / Conseil fédéral Mr Guenther KOEBERL – Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Nationalrat / National Council / Conseil national Mr. Johannes HUEBNER – Deputy Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Staff Mr Joseph WIRNSPERGER – Head of the International Relations Division BELGIUM – BELGIQUE Kamer van volksvertegenwoordigers / House of Representatives / Chambre des représentants Mr Dirk VAN DER MAELEN – Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations Staff Mr Tom DE PELSMAEKER – Secretary of the Committee on Foreign Relations Senaat / Senate / Sénat Mr Karl VANLOUWE – Président de la commission des Relations extérieures et de la Défense du Sénat Staff Ms Marianne VAN OPSTAL – Secrétaire de la commission des Relations extérieures et de la Défense du Sénat BULGARIA – BULGARIE Narodno Sabranie / National Assembly / Assemblée nationale Mr Dimitar CHUKARSKI – Foreign Policy and Defense Committee Mr Emil GUSHTEROV – Foreign Policy and Defense Committee Staff Mr Vladimir BERON – Chief Expert Advisor, Foreign Policy and Defense
    [Show full text]
  • Transnational Electoral Lists
    Transnational electoral lists Ways to Europeanise elections to the European Parliament STUDY EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Author: Maria Diaz Crego Members' Research Service PE 679.084 – February 2021 EN Transnational electoral lists Ways to Europeanise elections to the European Parliament The creation of a pan-European constituency, comprising the whole territory of the European Union, in which a number of Members of the European Parliament would be elected from transnational electoral lists, figures high among proposals to enhance the European dimension of the elections to the European Parliament. Although the idea to create a European constituency gained momentum with 73 seats in the European Parliament due to become vacant as a consequence of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, the proposal is far from new and has been debated in the European institutions and academia since the 1990s. This paper analyses the main proposals to create a European constituency (or constituencies) that have been discussed in the European Parliament, other European institutions and academia, and details the legal changes that would be needed at European and national level to bring the idea to fruition. EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service AUTHOR María Díaz Crego, Members' Research Service, European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), European Parliament. Giulio Sabbati, Samy Chahri and Lucille Killmayer (EPRS) are responsible for the graphics. The author would like to thank the following policy analyst from the Members' Research Service for providing information in relation to the following Member States: the Netherlands and Finland (Ingeborg Odink); Czechia (Marketa Pape); Germany (Hendrik Alexander Mildebrath); Luxembourg (Marie-Laure Augère- Granier); Malta (Denise Chircop); Hungary (Gabriella Zana-Szabo); Poland (Rafal Manko); Croatia (Kristina Grosek); Slovenia (Anja Radjenovic).
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Presidents in Croatia and Serbia, 1990-2015
    The Role of Presidents in Croatia and Serbia, 1990-2015 By: Mislav Ilija Vulić Submitted to Central European University Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisor: Zsolt Enyedi CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary (2015) Abstract Both Croatia and Serbia introduced a semi-presidential system of government in 1990. In Croatia this choice was motivated by a need to have a decisive and efficient decision- making institution in light of the upcoming instability and war. In Serbia introduction of semi- presidentialism was motivated primarily by the need of Slobodan Milošević to be legitimized as a national leader. Croatian semi-presidentialism in 1990s was of a presidential- parliamentary subtype because the President had autonomous power to appoint and dismiss the Government. Serbian semi-presidentialism was of a premier-presidential subtype because the Government was accountable solely to the Assembly. In both countries tendencies towards authoritarianism emerged. The death of Franjo Tuđman and the resignation of Slobodan Milošević ended the authoritarian rule but the two countries diverged in how they dealt with the institutional framework of semi-presidentialism. In Croatia the Constitution was amended immediately after the change of government. In Serbia it remains the same even today with only minor alterations. The present system of government in Croatia can be characterized as parliamentary while system of government in Serbia can be characterized as semi-presidential. The key difference does not emerge from constitutional powers but from the fact that Croatian President is forbidden to be a member of the political party or its president, while in Serbia this possibility exists, and can be used to position the President as a central figure in the political system.
    [Show full text]
  • Factsheet: the Croatian Parliament
    Directorate-General for the Presidency Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments Factsheet: The Croatian Parliament The Croatian Parliament building on St. Mark’s Square in Zagreb, opposite the seat of the Government . 1. At a glance Croatia is a parliamentary democracy. The Croatian Parliament (Hrvatski sabor) is a unicameral body. According to the 1990 Constitution, the Croatian Parliament may have a minimum of 100 and a maximum of 160 Members (MPs). They are elected directly by secret ballot based on universal suffrage for a four-year term in 12 constituencies: 140 MPs are elected from 10 constituencies in the country, each providing 14 MPs chosen from party lists or independent lists. Seats are distributed according to the d’Hondt method and the electoral threshold is 5%. Three MPs are elected in a special constituency by Croatians residing abroad, and eight are elected by members of the national ethnic minorities in the country, in a special (national) constituency. Currently the Croatian Parliament has 151 Members (76 seats are needed to form a majority) who were elected in the elections on 4 and 5 July 2020. Outcome of the July 2020 parliamentary elections: Party EP affiliation Seats Hrvatska demokratska zajednica (HDZ) 66 Croatian Democratic Union Socijaldemokratska partija Hrvatske (SDP) - led Restart coalition (composed of five 41 political parties) Social Democratic Party of Croatia Domovinski pokret Not affiliated 16 Homeland Movement Most Not affiliated 8 The Bridge Možemo! Not affiliated 7 “We Can!” Others 13 Turnout: 46.9%. Last updated on 04/02/2021. Photo credits: Croatian Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/relnatparl/en/home.html [email protected] 2.
    [Show full text]