Translation of "niveau de déclaration élevé " (French → English) :

assurance level high shall refer to an electronic identification means in the context of an electronic identification scheme, which provides a higher degree of confidence in the claimed or asserted identity of a person than electronic identification means with the assurance level substantial, and is characterised with reference to technical specifications, standards and procedures related thereto, including technical controls, the purpose of which is to prevent misuse or alteration of the identity.

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 irre ...[+++]gularities 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 irre ...[+++]gularities 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;

8. Is concerned that more than 20 Member States have reduced education expenditure in relative terms (as a percentage of GDP), thereby jeopardising their growth and competitiveness, which also suffer from the mismatch between labour needs and the actual qualifications of the workforce; points out that reducing such investment will increase the EU’s structural weakness, given the growing need for highly skilled workers and the fact that in many Member States a high proportion of the workforce is currently low-skilled; warns that, according to Eurostat, almost half of all children whose parents had a low education level were at risk of p ...[+++]overty in the EU27 in 2011, compared with 22 % of those with parents with a medium education level and 7 % of those with parents with a high education level, with the largest differences found by Eurostat being in Romania (78 % of children in low education level households compared with 2 % in high education level households), the Czech Republic (76 % and 5 %), Slovakia (77 % and 7 %), Bulgaria (71 % and 2 %) and Hungary (68 % and 3 %);

1. For each emission source which emits more than 5 000 tonnes of CO2(e) per year, or which contributes more than 10 % of the total annual emissions of the installation, whichever is higher in terms of absolute emissions, the operator shall apply the highest tier listed in section 1 of Annex VIII. For all other emission sources, the operator shall apply at least one tier lower than the highest tier.

At the present time there is no way of knowing whether, for example, a “high” in one MS, is the same as a “high” in another.