Traduction de «Données de correction différentielle » (Français → Anglais) :

The EGNOS system works as follows: 34 ranging and integrity monitoring stations (RIMS) spread across Europe receive signals from the US GPS satellites; there are four mission control centers to handle data processing and differential corrections counting; and there are six navigation land earth stations that manage accuracy and reliability data for sending to the three satellite transponders for relay to end-user devices.

39. Points out, furthermore, that Member States are still failing to forward data on time or are supplying inaccurate data; recalls, moreover that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria, thereby making it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level, thus impeding comparison and objective country-by-country evaluation of the scale of fraud; reiterates its regret that as a consequence, Parliament ...[+++], the Commission and OLAF cannot properly fulfil their task of assessing the actual overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States and formulating recommendations; regrets that this situation prevents the identification and discipline of those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud, as has been repeatedly requested by Parliament; notes that the Commission invited Member States to improve upon their fraud statistics and committed itself to placing greater emphasis on the issue; stresses how important it is that the Commission establish uniform reporting principles in all Member States in order to ensure that the data collected are comparable, reliable and sufficient; calls, therefore, on the Commission to inform Parliament on the measures initiated to introduce a higher degree of uniformity and comparability between the statistical data gathered at national level; urges the Member States to submit in a timely manner exhaustive information which adequately reflects the actual level of fraud; asks the Court of Auditors to follow up on its previous special reports on the performance of OLAF in order to determine the effects of the reorganisation;

39. Points out, furthermore, that Member States are still failing to forward data on time or are supplying inaccurate data; recalls, moreover that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria, thereby making it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level, thus impeding comparison and objective country-by-country evaluation of the scale of fraud; reiterates its regret that as a consequence, Parliament ...[+++], the Commission and OLAF cannot properly fulfil their task of assessing the actual overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States and formulating recommendations; regrets that this situation prevents the identification and discipline of those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud, as has been repeatedly requested by Parliament; notes that the Commission invited Member States to improve upon their fraud statistics and committed itself to placing greater emphasis on the issue; stresses how important it is that the Commission establish uniform reporting principles in all Member States in order to ensure that the data collected are comparable, reliable and sufficient; calls, therefore, on the Commission to inform Parliament on the measures initiated to introduce a higher degree of uniformity and comparability between the statistical data gathered at national level; urges the Member States to submit in a timely manner exhaustive information which adequately reflects the actual level of fraud; asks the Court of Auditors to follow up on its previous special reports on the performance of OLAF in order to determine the effects of the reorganisation;

21. Further notes the important difference between 'recovery' (sums incorrectly received are repaid by the recipient) and 'financial correction' (addressing weaknesses in the system the financial consequences of which are borne by the national taxpayer); emphasises that the 'financial correction' mechanism should not be used as an easy way of avoiding the use of a 'recovery' procedure and that whenever possible a 'recovery' procedure should be pursued to ensure that those who have benefitted from sums paid 'incorrectly' do not retain ...[+++] such funds; recalls its request that all data concerning recoveries should be an integral part of, and included in, the database of final beneficiaries;

21. Further notes the important difference between ‘recovery’ (sums incorrectly received are repaid by the recipient) and ‘financial correction’ (addressing weaknesses in the system the financial consequences of which are borne by the national taxpayer); emphasises that the ‘financial correction’ mechanism should not be used as an easy way of avoiding the use of a ‘recovery’ procedure and that whenever possible a ‘recovery’ procedure should be pursued to ensure that those who have benefitted from sums paid ‘incorrectly’ do not retain ...[+++] such funds; recalls its request that all data concerning recoveries should be an integral part of, and included in, the database of final beneficiaries;

5. Reiterates its concern about the procedure to be applied to data protection; deems the fact that the agreement on judicial cooperation is based on Article 23 of the Convention of 29 May 2000 established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union to be inadequate, given that the United States is party neither to that Convention nor to the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime (signed in Budapest on 23 November 2001) and that there are, therefore, no common principles on which to act with regard to the correct use of data, the in ...[+++]tegrity thereof and the rights of the data subject to rectification and erasure if the data are inaccurate; believes, further, that, since US legislation is not subject to verification for compliance with the principle of proportionality that is required by European law, a very detailed study should be made of the possible impact of US legislation, such as the Homeland Security Act, before the agreement in question is ratified; recommends that the agreements should provide for data-protection guarantees that are at least equivalent to the provisions of the Council of Europe's Convention of 28 January 1981 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data;