Traduction de «local procedure error » (Anglais → Français) :

local procedure error call progress signal

error of procedure [ procedural error | procedural defect | procedural mistake ]

error control | error control procedure | error protection

procedural error [ flaw in procedure ]

local competitive bidding [ LCB | competitive bidding in accordance with local procedures ]

carry out local anaesthesia in dental procedures | carry out local anesthesia in dental procedure | carry out local anesthesia in dental procedures | manage local anaesthesia for dental procedures

accidental overdose of drug, wrong drug given or taken in error, and drug taken inadvertently accidents in the use of drugs, medicaments and biological substances in medical and surgical procedures (self-inflicted) poisoning, when not specified whether accidental or with intent to harm. Follow legal rulings when available (see note at Y10-Y34).

error recovery procedure | ERP

error recording analysis procedure | ERAP

13. Asks the Commission to investigate and effectively address the serious failures to comply with public procurement rules repeatedly identified by the Court of Auditors in the implementation of projects under the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund, which account for 43 % of all quantifiable errors according to the Court’s Report for 2009 and to take account of the fact that they are due mainly to the complexity of public procurement procedures, the lack of consistency between them and those on which the use of the Structural Funds and Cohes ...[+++]ion Fund is based and the incorrect implementation of EU legislation into national law; stresses the need for legal clarification of the directives in order to avoid further failures in applying the public procurement rules; endorses the Commission’s measures aimed at cooperating with the Member States and regional and local authorities in reviewing legislation on public procurement in order to simplify it and reduce the risk of errors and ensure more efficient use of structural funds;

13. Welcomes the fact that the financial impact of irregularities, as estimated by the Commission, was 27% lower than in 2007; notes, with regard to the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, that the error rate quoted for the cohesion policy area in the Court of Auditors' 2008 Statement of Assurance (DAS) remains above 5%; is concerned that Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and Spain reported the largest amount of irregularities; welcomes, at the same time, the good collaboration initiated by some of these Member States with the Commission to resolve these problems and trusts that the other Member States will do likewise ...[+++]; points out that, as highlighted by the Court of Auditors, structural actions are the spending area with the most stringent rules and most complex management procedures in the EU budget and that, as noted by the Commission, finding a high number of financial irregularities in one Member State does not necessarily imply a higher number of errors and instances of fraud than in other Member States but may be the result of more thorough and stringent controls; points out, also, that the Court of Auditors' report on implementation of the 2008 Budget does not take into account the 2007-2013 programming period, for which new administration and control systems for spending have been introduced; notes the high incidence of errors linked to ineligible spending and breaches of the rules on public procurement and considers it advisable, therefore, for the Commission to introduce precautionary guidelines for the Member States and local authorities to clarify how these rules are to be applied and to avoid the managing authority replacing expenditure refused by the Commission as ineligible with new expenditure that is also ineligible;

13. Welcomes the fact that the financial impact of irregularities, as estimated by the Commission, was 27% lower than in 2007; notes, with regard to the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, that the error rate quoted for the cohesion policy area in the Court of Auditors’ 2008 Statement of Assurance (DAS) remains above 5%; is concerned that Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and Spain reported the largest amount of irregularities; welcomes, at the same time, the good collaboration initiated by some of these Member States with the Commission to resolve these problems and trusts that the other Member States will do likewise ...[+++]; points out that, as highlighted by the Court of Auditors, structural actions are the spending area with the most stringent rules and most complex management procedures in the EU budget and that, as noted by the Commission, finding a high number of financial irregularities in one Member State does not necessarily imply a higher number of errors and instances of fraud than in other Member States but may be the result of more thorough and stringent controls; points out, also, that the Court of Auditors’ report on implementation of the 2008 Budget does not take into account the 2007-2013 programming period, for which new administration and control systems for spending have been introduced; notes the high incidence of errors linked to ineligible spending and breaches of the rules on public procurement and considers it advisable, therefore, for the Commission to introduce precautionary guidelines for the Member States and local authorities to clarify how these rules are to be applied and to avoid the managing authority replacing expenditure refused by the Commission as ineligible with new expenditure that is also ineligible;

13. Welcomes the fact that the financial impact of irregularities, as estimated by the Commission, was 27% lower than in 2007; notes, with regard to the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, that the error rate quoted for the cohesion policy area in the Court of Auditors' 2008 Statement of Assurance (DAS) remains above 5%; is concerned that Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and Spain reported the largest amount of irregularities; welcomes, at the same time, the good collaboration initiated by some of these Member States with the Commission to resolve these problems and trusts that the other Member States will do likewise ...[+++]; points out that, as highlighted by the Court of Auditors, structural actions are the spending area with the most stringent rules and most complex management procedures in the EU budget and that, as noted by the Commission, finding a high number of financial irregularities in one Member State does not necessarily imply a higher number of errors and instances of fraud than in other Member States but may be the result of more thorough and stringent controls; points out, also, that the Court of Auditors' report on implementation of the 2008 Budget does not take into account the 2007-2013 programming period, for which new administration and control systems for spending have been introduced; notes the high incidence of errors linked to ineligible spending and breaches of the rules on public procurement and considers it advisable, therefore, for the Commission to introduce precautionary guidelines for the Member States and local authorities to clarify how these rules are to be applied and to avoid the managing authority replacing expenditure refused by the Commission as ineligible with new expenditure that is also ineligible;