Traduction de «Réclamation fondée sur la négligence » (Français → Anglais) :

(2) Where a claimant by reason of his own neglect or default has failed to receive, has forfeited his right to receive or has lost his eligibility to receive any compensation in respect of his claim from a source other than the Fund, he shall, for the purposes of these Regulations, be deemed to have been paid that compensation.

As a consequence, the Union will in principle be responsible for defending any claims alleging a violation of rules included in an agreement which fall within the Union's exclusive competence, irrespective of whether the treatment at issue is afforded by the Union itself or by a Member State.

By the same token, we cannot accept the promotion campaign for the new Treaty, which is scarcely democratic and certainly not pluralist, based as it is on the arguments of its supporters, disregarding the arguments of those who are opposed to it, those fighting for a more social, more democratic Europe founded on the principle of sovereign States with equal rights and committed to peace.

5. Any complaint against a transmission or distribution system operator lodged with the competent authorities and based on the criteria set out in paragraph 1 shall be the subject of a binding decision within a period of two months.

2b. A complaint made against the operator of a transmission or distribution network lodged with the competent authorities and based on the criteria set out in paragraph 1 must be the subject of a binding decision within a period of two months.

8. Notes the Secretary-General's statement that at present no disciplinary proceedings are pending within Parliament's administration; welcomes the fact that on 1 December 1999, i.e. even before the deliberations on the discharge for 1998, the Bureau, at the proposal of the Secretary-General, started an administrative inquiry; notes the Bureau decision of 13 June 2000, in connection with the Frederiksen case, not to seek redress as provided for by Article 22 of the Staff Regulations; notes that this decision is based on the consideration that the administrative inquiry did not reveal evidence of "serious misconduct" by individuals as referred to in Article 22 of the Staff Regulations; points out, however, that the administrative inquiry ...[+++] revealed both problems with internal decision-making procedures and a tendency to neglect risks associated with court cases in relation to alleged considerations of "principle"; concludes from the course of events that it would have been appropriate to review the case and reappraise the risks associated with legal proceedings at a considerably earlier stage; recalls paragraph 23 of its above-mentioned resolution of 13 April 2000, calling on the Legal Service to inform the Bureau about the risks of court cases before the Bureau takes its decisions, particularly in the light of previous judgements on staff matters; welcomes the Bureau decision of 13 June 2000 instructing Vice-Presidents Lienemann and Provan to examine whether further internal administrative reforms are needed in order to avoid similar outcomes; instructs its Bureau to inform the competent committees about its conclusions on this matter;