Traduction de «Critère des conséquences directes et prévisibles » (Français → Anglais) :

direct and foreseeable test

direct and foreseeable test

direct consequence test

direct consequence test

Definition: This block contains a wide variety of disorders that differ in severity and clinical form but that are all attributable to the use of one or more psychoactive substances, which may or may not have been medically prescribed. The third character of the code identifies the substance involved, and the fourth character specifies the clinical state. The codes should be used, as required, for each substance specified, but it should be noted that not all fourth character codes are applicable to all substances. Identification of the psychoactive substance should be based on as many sources of information as possible. These include sel ...[+++]f-report data, analysis of blood and other body fluids, characteristic physical and psychological symptoms, clinical signs and behaviour, and other evidence such as a drug being in the patient's possession or reports from informed third parties. Many drug users take more than one type of psychoactive substance. The main diagnosis should be classified, whenever possible, according to the substance or class of substances that has caused or contributed most to the presenting clinical syndrome. Other diagnoses should be coded when other psychoactive substances have been taken in intoxicating amounts (common fourth character .0) or to the extent of causing harm (common fourth character .1), dependence (common fourth character .2) or other disorders (common fourth character .3-.9). Only in cases in which patterns of psychoactive substance-taking are chaotic and indiscriminate, or in which the contributions of different psychoactive substances are inextricably mixed, should the diagnosis of disorders resulting from multiple drug use (F19.-) be used. | Modifiers The following fourth-character subdivisions are for use with categories F10-F19: Code Title .0 Acute intoxication A condition that follows the administration of a psychoactive substance resulting in disturbances in level of consciousness, cognition, perception, affect or behaviour, o ...

Accordingly, the calculation of contributions to be allocated to the mutualised part should rely on the criteria laid down in Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, whereas, by derogation from the period of time provided for by Article 102(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU, the calculation of contributions to be allocated to the non-mutualised part of compartments should rely on the criteria laid down in Directive 2014/59/EU and on the basis of a target level defined over a period of time corresponding to the initial period set out in Regulation (EU) ...[+++]No 806/2014.

13. Calls for the full implementation of the joint statements on payment appropriations and on a payment plan agreed between Parliament, the Council and the Commission at the end of the 2015 budgetary procedure, and considers that such action would indicate that all three institutions are serious about working towards a solution to the problem of unpaid bills; recalls the commitment to hold, in the course of this year, at least three interinstitutional meetings on payments, in order to take stock of payment implementation and revised forecasts; expects the first of these meetings, in March 2015, to provide a first overview of the level of unpaid bills at the end of 2014 for the main policy areas; regrets that, as anticipated, at the end ...[+++]of 2014 this level reached the unprecedented amount of EUR 24,7 billion, for 2007-2013 cohesion programmes alone; deplores the fact that this debt undermines the credibility of the EU and is in contradiction with the goals set at the highest political level for growth and employment; stresses that payments are the direct and logical consequence of past commitments;

13. Calls for the full implementation of the joint statements on payment appropriations and on a payment plan agreed between Parliament, the Council and the Commission at the end of the 2015 budgetary procedure, and considers that such action would indicate that all three institutions are serious about working towards a solution to the problem of unpaid bills; recalls the commitment to hold, in the course of this year, at least three interinstitutional meetings on payments, in order to take stock of payment implementation and revised forecasts; expects the first of these meetings, in March 2015, to provide a first overview of the level of unpaid bills at the end of 2014 for the main policy areas; regrets that, as anticipated, at the end ...[+++]of 2014 this level reached the unprecedented amount of EUR 24,7 billion, for 2007-2013 cohesion programmes alone; deplores the fact that this debt undermines the credibility of the EU and is in contradiction with the goals set at the highest political level for growth and employment; stresses that payments are the direct and logical consequence of past commitments;

The recommendations require Member States' action on the implementation of reforms in order to boost investment, pursue structural reforms and ensure responsible fiscal policies; recommendations to the Council to abrogate the Excessive Deficit Procedures (EDP) (under Article 126(12) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) for Croatia and Portugal as these countries have brought their deficits below the 3% of GDP Treaty reference value; reports on Belgium and Finland under Article 126(3) TFEU, reviewing their compliance with the debt criterion of the Treaty in 2016; a confirmation concerning ...[+++]Italy that the requested additional fiscal measures for 2017 have been delivered and that therefore no further steps are deemed to be necessary for compliance with the debt criterion at this stage; a recommendation to the Council with a view to giving a warning to Romania on the existence of a significant observed deviation from the adjustment path toward the medium-term objective in 2016, as well as a recommendation to the Council with a view to correcting the significant observed deviation from the adjustment path toward the medium-term objective (under Article 121(4) TFEU and Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1466/97); the conclusion that, based on the assessment of reform policy commitments of Cyprus, Italy and Portugal, there is no need at this stage to step up the macroeconomic imbalance procedure, provided that the countries swiftly and fully implement the reforms set out in their country-specific recommendations.