Translation of "base d'exécution " (French → English) :

C. whereas the Treaties provide that Member States are to adopt all measures of national law necessary to implement legally binding Union acts; whereas, however, where uniform conditions for implementing legally binding Union acts are needed, those acts are to confer implementing powers on the Commission (and in certain exceptional cases on the Council), as laid down in Article 291 TFEU; whereas where the basic act requires that the adoption of implementing acts by the Commission must be subject to control by the Member States, the basic act should confer those implementing powers on the Commission in accordance with Regulation (EU) No ...[+++] 182/2011; whereas a key commitment made by the Commission in a statement annexed to that Regulation was the urgent alignment of the acquis to the new system of delegated and implementing acts to be completed during the current legislative term, including basic acts referring to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (RPS);

230. Requests therefore that the Commission take much greater account of other criteria (such as those proposed by the ECA), rather than solely considering the CV of the team leader expert; suggests that this could be done, for example, by creating a database, compatible with legal requirements, of firms which fail to provide the proposed expert, which should in turn prevent them from participating in procurement for a specified period; notes that the Commission has adopted Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1302/2008 of 17 December 2008 on the central exclusion database and Decision 2008/969/EC, Euratom of 16 December 2008 on the Early Warni ...[+++]ng System for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies , but that these new instruments do not make it possible to exclude firms on this basis; further notes that these aspects are part of the Work Plan (Axis 3, Actions 13-15), and calls on the Commission to apply the related actions immediately;

231. Requests therefore that the Commission take much greater account of other criteria (such as those proposed by the ECA), rather than solely considering the CV of the team leader expert; suggests that this could be done, for example, by creating a database, compatible with legal requirements, of firms which fail to provide the proposed expert, which should in turn prevent them from participating in procurement for a specified period; notes that the Commission has adopted Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1302/2008 of 17 December 2008 on the central exclusion database and Decision 2008/969/EC, Euratom of 16 December 2008 on the Early Warni ...[+++]ng System for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies, but that these new instruments do not make it possible to exclude firms on this basis; further notes that these aspects are part of the Work Plan (Axis 3, Actions 13-15), and calls on the Commission to apply the related actions immediately;

The four conditions are: (a) the beneficiary of a State funding mechanism for an SGEI must be formally entrusted with the provision and discharge of an SGEI, the obligations of which must be clearly defined; (b) the parameters for calculating the compensation must be established beforehand in an objective and transparent manner, to avoid it conferring an economic advantage which may favour the recipient undertaking over competing undertakings; (c) the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the SGEI, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations; and (d) where the beneficiary is not chosen pursuant to a public procure ...[+++]ment procedure, the level of compensation granted must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit.

However, it is not intended to require a firm to compare the results that would be achieved for its client on the basis of its own execution policy and its own commissions and fees, with results that might be achieved for the same client by any other investment firm on the basis of a different execution policy or a different structure of commissions or fees. Nor is it intended to require a firm to compare the differences in its own commissions which are attributable to differences in the nature of the services that the firm provides t ...[+++]o clients.

3. Where an investment firm executes an order on behalf of a retail client, the best possible result shall be determined in terms of the total consideration, representing the price of the financial instrument and the costs related to execution, which shall include all expenses incurred by the client which are directly related to the execution of the order, including execution venue fees, clearing and settlement fees and any other fees paid to third parties involved in the execution of the order.