Traduction de «Clause comportant obligation de ne pas faire » (Français → Anglais) :

This would include, but not be limited to, making participation in corporate social responsibility review process, allowing the corporate social responsibility review to produce legally binding judgments to include the violation of human rights and other harm to communities as part of any legally binding accountability mechanism and to revitalize the spirit and the principle of Bill C-300 of the last Parliament to hold ...[+++]Canadian extractive companies to the standards of decency Canadians expect of their government— Order, please.

9. Calls on the Commission to ensure that all companies operating in the single market, including those transnational corporations the subsidiaries or supply chains of which are located in the EU, comply with all their legal obligations at both the national and EU level in order to ensure fair competition and maximise the benefits for EU consumers; calls on the Commission actively to promote responsible business conduct amongst EU ...[+++] companies operating abroad, with special focus given to ensuring strict compliance with all their legal obligations, stemming from either domestic laws or any bilateral or international legal obligations their business operations are subject to therein, not the least compliance with international standards and rules in the areas of human rights, labour and the environment; suggests, to this end, that the Commission should actively engage with its partners in developing and emerging countries in order to exchange best practices and know-how on the ways and means of improving the business environment and raising awareness about responsible business conduct;

70. Welcomes the EU’s efforts to include a human rights and democracy clause in all EU political framework agreements, but reiterates its call for all contractual relationships with third countries – both industrialised and developing, and including sectoral agreements, trade and technical or financial aid agreements – to include clearly worded conditionality and clauses on human rights and democracy, without exception; considers that the current threshold in Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) schemes that could trigger action on the human rights clauses is high but should be adjusted to each country concerned; notes the new GSP r ...[+++]eform proposal from 2011 which suggests that the consultation procedure should be widened and which contains provisions to ease investigations of human rights violations in the GSP Committee; expresses, in this regard, deep concern about the deteriorating human rights situation in Cambodia where land grabbing has lead to increasing poverty and to the violation of human rights clauses which are part of agreements in force between EU and Cambodia; warns that the lack of consistency in the implementation of the human rights clause can undermine the credibility and effectiveness of the EU’s conditionality policy;

126. Recalls its above-mentioned resolution of 14 February 2006 regarding future EU policy on the application of human rights clauses in all EU agreements; notes as a first reaction that the Commission outlined several measures to improve the application of the clause, such as gradually extending human rights committees to more third countries; points out that the Council has not yet given a specific reply to the above-mentioned resolution, preferring continued implementation of the clause in the more general foreign policy context; ...[+++] welcomes the fact that heads of Commission delegations in third countries are required, as part of their mandate, to emphasise human rights more specifically; is concerned, however, by the recent Commission proposal to exempt India from the rule that all EU agreements must include a human rights and democracy clause, in the context of the negotiations for the EU-India Free Trade Agreement; considers that such a move would be a retrograde step and could set a worrying precedent for future negotiations on trade agreements; requests, therefore, that the Commission and the Council adopt a clear position on the detailed proposals contained in the above-mentioned resolution of 14 February 2006; stresses in particular the need to introduce a monitoring mechanism, regular assessment of compliance with human rights obligations and a progressive system of penalties for non-compliance in order to ensure proper implementation of the human rights and democracy clause contained in agreements concluded by the EU with third countries;

126. Recalls its above-mentioned resolution of 14 February 2006 regarding future EU policy on the application of human rights clauses in all EU agreements; notes as a first reaction that the Commission outlined several measures to improve the application of the clause, such as gradually extending human rights committees to more third countries; points out that the Council has not yet given a specific reply to the above-mentioned resolution, preferring continued implementation of the clause in the more general foreign policy context; ...[+++] welcomes the fact that heads of Commission delegations in third countries are required, as part of their mandate, to emphasise human rights more specifically; is concerned, however, by the recent Commission proposal to exempt India from the rule that all EU agreements must include a human rights and democracy clause, in the context of the negotiations for the EU-India Free Trade Agreement; considers that such a move would be a retrograde step and could set a worrying precedent for future negotiations on trade agreements; requests, therefore, that the Commission and the Council adopt a clear position on the detailed proposals contained in the above-mentioned resolution of 14 February 2006; stresses in particular the need to introduce a monitoring mechanism, regular assessment of compliance with human rights obligations and a progressive system of penalties for non-compliance in order to ensure proper implementation of the human rights and democracy clause contained in agreements concluded by the EU with third countries;

Licensing agreements containing such restrictions do not need to be notified to the Commission; - a certain number of obligations which the parties may lawfully include in their contracts (such as the right for licensors to terminate the agreement in the event of the licensee challenging the validity of the patent, the secret or substantial nature of the licensed know-how or the obligation for licensees to use their best endeavour ...[+++]s to manufacture and market the licensed product); - a "blacklist" of clauses or restrictions the insertion of which in an agreement prevents block exemption being granted (restrictions on price and quantities, a ban on exploiting competing technologies, customer restrictions between competing manufacturers, obligation on licensees to assign improvements to the technology concerned, territorial restrictions for a longer duration than those exempted); - an opposition procedure by which exemption is extended to agreements containing additional restrictions on competition not specified in the regulation, on condition that such agreements are notified to the Commission and that the Commission does not oppose the application of the exemption within four months (as opposed to six previously). Clauses previously outlawed, such as an obligation on licensees to procure from the licensor supplies which are not essential for a technically proper exploitation of the licensed technology, are subject to this procedure.