Traduction de «Entendre préalablement » (Français → Anglais) :

hear in advance

preliminary decision based on the employment market

negotiated procedure after prior publication of a contract notice | negotiated procedure with prior call for competition | negotiated procedure with prior publication | negotiated procedure with publication of a contract notice

negotiated procedure without prior call for competition | negotiated procedure without prior publication | negotiated procedure without prior publication of a call for competition | negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice

interview on the grounds for asylum | hear

A Consensus for Action [ A Consensus for Action : the Economic Integration of Disabled Persons ]

Advance directive discussed with patient

Current and verified advance directive

2. Believes that the enhanced status of the EU within the UN should pave the way for closer cohesion and cooperation; calls on the Member States, in order to make it possible to lend greater weight to the role of the Union in foreign policy, positioning the EU as a single international actor so as to improve its internal coordination in that area, to agree in advance on a common position on all relevant issues, and to consider ways to provide all necessary tools for achieving a truly common Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; recalls that the post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy was introduced, pursuant ...[+++]to Article 18 TEU, with the aim of enabling the Union to speak with one voice in international forums, and not least in the UN, and that therefore the High Representative should be given the opportunity to perform her role in full, as the EU’s principal external representative;

In its current form, Article 108(3) provides that, where there are compelling legitimate grounds to preserve the confidentiality of the investigation or of national judicial proceedings, exclusion could be imposed for fraud (Article 106(1)(d)) or irregularity (Article 106(1)(f)) without giving the economic operator a prior hearing.

The applicant claims in that regard that, in tersely confirming in the contested decision that the error in the title of the amending decision of 31 December 2012 had no effect on the content of the decision itself or on the implementation of the programme, the Commission neglected to take into consideration the relevance of the following circumstances: (i) the spending decisions adopted by the Region had to be checked beforehand by the Court of Auditors; (ii) four months had elapsed between the correction being announced and the correction being implemented, without any explanation being provided; (iii) that fact had the potential to arouse the suspicion that the correction to be made was of greater importance than a correction supposedl ...[+++]y relating only to the title of the decision of 31 December 2012; and (iv) the Court of Auditors had confirmed that the course of action taken by the Region, which refrained from adopting the commitments until the correction was officially recognised (28 March 2013), was correct, thus giving it to be understood that the opposite course of action would not have been correct.

Further, this should be without prejudice to national rules or systems regarding admissibility of evidence, and should not prevent Member States from maintaining a system whereby all existing evidence can be adduced before a court or a judge, without there being any separate or prior assessment as to admissibility of such evidence.