Traduction de «Security bar » (Anglais → Français) :

- The second proposal is that there should be a five-year time-bar on the recovery of sums owed to the Community. This limit could be extended in cases where active steps are being taken to secure recovery. As things stand, there is no general time-limit of a ‘Community’ nature (such a limit exists in certain sectoral regulations e.g. those concerning the Staff Regulations: 5 years, the regulation on the protection of the communities’ financial interests: 4 years). However, there is interference with the national legislation, where the contract refers to national law or where the judge is a national one applying his own law as the law of ...[+++] procedure. This could give rise to total chaos in those Member States where institutions’ right to collect debts is time-barred (after 3 or 10 years), or where, quite simply, no information is given on whether the deadline has lapsed until the case comes before the judge. Nor is it clear whether after the period has elapsed it is possible to accept compensation or spontaneous payment by the debtor. In brief, this proposal would introduce legal certainty for both the institutions and the debtors.

I told him that, in view of the security situation, it was advisable to stay with one's baggage and that, in addition, to be in the Members' Bar you had to be invited by a Member.

I will say that Bill C-11 gives us important new tools to ensure that we are able to do things such as up-front security screening and to bar access to the refugee determination system for anyone that we believe poses a security threat to Canada.

The Directive also includes rules for payment systems which are not based on netting but on gross settlement systems (where each payment order is settled individually on a real time basis as it arises during the day): The proposed Directive would also exempt payment systems from national rules giving retroactive effect to the insolvency of a participant in a payment system, such as the zero-hour rule. Such retroactive effect allows the liquidator of an insolvent institution to challenge payment orders which have already been introduced into the payment system, thus leading to the unwinding of the settlement operation. This unwinding is highly disruptive and can lead to systemic risk. The same is true for revocation of payment orders. Revoca ...[+++]tion of a large payment order in a payment system during the settlement process, could lead to systemic risk. The Directive would therefore bar revocation of payment orders after the moment contractually fixed by the payment system participants. The insolvency of a participant in a payment system, insofar as it concerned its dealings with the payment system, would be governed by the insolvency law of the country where the payment system was located, according to the proposed Directive. This would avoid conflicts of law and the ensuing legal uncertainty and thus facilitate cross-border participation in payment systems. Collateral security is pledged by the participants in a payment system in order to secure its exposures against the other participants. When collateral security is provided in a cross-border arrangement, its realisation in case of default of the pledging participant can be hindered by conflicts of law which may either weaken the collateral security or even render it unenforceable. In order to ensure collateral security can be realised immediately and in priority over all other creditors (so as not to jeopardise the liquidity of the other participants in the system, i.e. to avoid systemic risk) in the case of a defaul ...

(b) Parliament proposed amendments for the regulation of the production techniques for meat-and-bone meal. Commissioner Scrivener, representing the Commissioner for agriculture, told the plenary, in justification of the Commission's rejection of Parliament's amendments, that the duration and temperature parameters proposed in paragraph 13 (134 C over 20 minutes at 3-bar pressure) were not acceptable to the scientific community, as, in reality, they offered no guarantees and could even give a false impression of security.

These include the following: simplified grounds of inadmissibility; strengthened authority to arrest criminals and security threats; the elimination of appeal rights in cases involving security, organized crime and war crimes; a simplified certificate process for removing security threats; barring access to the refugee determination system by security threats, organized criminals or human rights violators; and we have a new offence for trafficking in persons.