Traduction de «reconciling item » (Anglais → Français) :

The regulatory accounts shall contain profit and loss accounts and balance sheets and shall be reconciled to the company's statutory accounts and explanations shall be given for all reconciling items.

5. Calls on the competent EU, national, regional and local authorities, acting within their respective areas of competence and as part of cohesion policy for the next period, to make provision for financial support measures for maternity and childcare by issuing vouchers, bonuses and cheques, to promote the supply of childcare and family services and benefits, and to put in place effective measures to enable people to reconcile work and family life, taking into account flexible working hours for parents (as a free choice) and sufficient provision of high-quality, affordable care services for children, the elderly and other dependents that allow parents, and especially mothers, to combine work and family life; emphasises that certain countr ...[+++]ies have introduced proper policies on reconciling work and family life, giving people the opportunity to choose freely between genuine, equivalent alternatives, with a view to increasing both male and female labour market participation rates and birth rates;

That preparatory report for the hearing stated that the communication to Mr Meierhofer of the items listed above would take place in so far as such communication could be reconciled with the principle of secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings and/or after omission, where appropriate, of certain particulars whose disclosure would conflict with that principle.

For the purposes of the present appeal, it must first be stated that the Civil Service Tribunal recalled that any decision relating to a specific individual which is taken under the Staff Regulations and adversely affects that person must state the reasons on which it is based, on the one hand, to enable the competent court to review the legality of the decision and, on the other, to provide the person concerned with the information necessary to allow him to ascertain whether or not the decision is well founded and to enable him to decide whether to bring an action. It added, however, referring to Case C‑254/95 P Parliament v Innamorati [1996] ECR I‑3423, paragraphs 24 to 28, that, as far as concerns decisions taken by a selection board in ...[+++]a competition, the obligation to state reasons must be reconciled with observance of the secrecy surrounding the proceedings of selection boards by virtue of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, secrecy which was instituted with a view to guaranteeing the independence of selection boards and the objectivity of their proceedings. Thus, observance of this secrecy precludes both disclosure of the attitudes adopted by individual members of selection boards and disclosure of any factors relating to individual or comparative assessments of candidates and that the obligation to state the reasons on which decisions of a selection board in a competition are based must take account of the nature of the proceedings concerned, which, at the stage of examination of the abilities of the candidates, are primarily comparative in character and accordingly covered by the secrecy inherent in those proceedings (paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment under appeal).

Thirdly, the Civil Service Tribunal observes that even though the outcome of reconciling the obligation to state reasons and observance of the principle of the secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings, in particular as to whether the communication of a single eliminatory individual mark to the candidate eliminated in the oral phase satisfies that obligation, is more often than not in favour of the principle of the secrecy of the selection board’s proceedings, the position may be otherwise when special circumstances exist, all the more so as the recent case-law concerning Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of ...[+++]the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) shows a development of Community case-law in favour of openness (see, to that effect, Case C‑64/05 P Sweden v Commission [2007] ECR I‑11389, and Joined Cases C‑39/05 P and C‑52/05 P Sweden and Turco v Council [2008] ECR I‑4723) (paragraph 40 of the judgment under appeal).

But there is a good chance that we are now taking a step in the right direction, bearing in mind considerations of competition and sustainability, and reconciling rules and objectives already negotiated and those to be negotiated in future. We certainly agree that reconciling these different perspectives is no easy task.