Traduction de «Erreur concernant l'objet de l'infraction » (Français → Anglais) :

(Return tabled) Question No. 20 Mr. Alex Atamanenko: With regard to the horse slaughter industry in Canada: (a) what was the reason for the temporary halt, initiated by European Union (EU) officials, to horse meat imports from Canada on October 12, 2012; (b) has Canada participated in talks with EU officials regarding the safety of horse meat from Canada since that time, (i) if so, what topics were discussed, (ii) what conclusions were reached; (c) what restrictions effective in 2013 will be imposed upon the Canadian horse meat industry by the EU, (i) what is the anticipated impact of these restrictions on the frequency and type of drug residue testing on horse meat in Canada as well as on the data required on Equine ...[+++]Information Documents (EIDs), (ii) will the restrictions on prohibited/non-permitted drugs be further tightened; (d) is there any oversight by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on transport drivers and horse meat dealers listed on EIDs as current owners to check for a history of violations of the United States Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Transport, or CFIA transport regulations, (i) does the CFIA enhance its scrutiny of such violators or conduct follow-up investigations on those who have been flagged for violations, (ii) is this information shared with any other inter-connected government agency either in Canada or in the United States; (e) how often do CFIA inspectors do a visual inspection of the transports that arrive at the slaughter plants to ensure that the horses have been transported safely; (f) how many transport violations concerning horse slaughter transportation have been issued to transport drivers within the last five years, (i) how many warnings of violations have been issued, (ii) if the warnings have been ignored, how does the CFIA restrict or prohibit those transport drivers from conducting business in Canada; (g) how often does the CFIA conduct inspections of feedlots and how many warnings or violations were ...

As regards Siemens Österreich, KEG, Siemens Transmission Distribution Ltd (Reyrolle) and Siemens Transmission Distribution SA (SEHV) and Magrini, the Court considers, first of all, that the Commission committed an error in finding an infringement on their part between 1 April and 30 June 2002.

13. Welcomes the fact that the financial impact of irregularities, as estimated by the Commission, was 27% lower than in 2007; notes, with regard to the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, that the error rate quoted for the cohesion policy area in the Court of Auditors' 2008 Statement of Assurance (DAS) remains above 5%; is concerned that Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and Spain reported the largest amount of irregularities; welcomes, at the same time, the good collaboration initiated by some of these Member Stat ...[+++]es with the Commission to resolve these problems and trusts that the other Member States will do likewise; points out that, as highlighted by the Court of Auditors, structural actions are the spending area with the most stringent rules and most complex management procedures in the EU budget and that, as noted by the Commission, finding a high number of financial irregularities in one Member State does not necessarily imply a higher number of errors and instances of fraud than in other Member States but may be the result of more thorough and stringent controls; points out, also, that the Court of Auditors' report on implementation of the 2008 Budget does not take into account the 2007-2013 programming period, for which new administration and control systems for spending have been introduced; notes the high incidence of errors linked to ineligible spending and breaches of the rules on public procurement and considers it advisable, therefore, for the Commission to introduce precautionary guidelines for the Member States and local authorities to clarify how these rules are to be applied and to avoid the managing authority replacing expenditure refused by the Commission as ineligible with new expenditure that is also ineligible;

13. Welcomes the fact that the financial impact of irregularities, as estimated by the Commission, was 27% lower than in 2007; notes, with regard to the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, that the error rate quoted for the cohesion policy area in the Court of Auditors' 2008 Statement of Assurance (DAS) remains above 5%; is concerned that Italy, Poland, the United Kingdom and Spain reported the largest amount of irregularities; welcomes, at the same time, the good collaboration initiated by some of these Member Stat ...[+++]es with the Commission to resolve these problems and trusts that the other Member States will do likewise; points out that, as highlighted by the Court of Auditors, structural actions are the spending area with the most stringent rules and most complex management procedures in the EU budget and that, as noted by the Commission, finding a high number of financial irregularities in one Member State does not necessarily imply a higher number of errors and instances of fraud than in other Member States but may be the result of more thorough and stringent controls; points out, also, that the Court of Auditors' report on implementation of the 2008 Budget does not take into account the 2007-2013 programming period, for which new administration and control systems for spending have been introduced; notes the high incidence of errors linked to ineligible spending and breaches of the rules on public procurement and considers it advisable, therefore, for the Commission to introduce precautionary guidelines for the Member States and local authorities to clarify how these rules are to be applied and to avoid the managing authority replacing expenditure refused by the Commission as ineligible with new expenditure that is also ineligible;

6. Calls on the Commission to start infringement procedures against Member States whenever errors with regard to the B account are not one-off, but systematic and structural; is satisfied that, over the last two years, following infringement procedures brought by the Commission against several Member States, the European Court of Justice has delivered a number of important judgements confirming the Commission's interpretation of the rules; is of the opinion that the proper functioning of the system of A and B accounts needs to be re ...[+++]considered after 2009;

These changes are as follows: One, the inclusion of the historical offences of indecent assault female, indecent assault male, and gross indecency in the list of designated offences; two, the inclusion of those individuals found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder within the DNA data bank scheme; three, clarification of the method of compelling the offender's attendance in court at a hearing to determine whether a DNA data bank order should be made; four, the creation of a process that would permit a judge to make a second DNA data bank order where the National DNA Data Bank has declined to process the first one because ...[+++]of police error in completing the forms that must accompany the bodily substance submitted for analysis; five, a creation of mechanisms to require the offender to appear for the purpose of providing a DNA sample; six, the inclusion of persons declared dangerous offenders otherwise than under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code and those offenders convicted of break and enter and commit a sexual offence; and finally, the inclusion of the historical offences of indecent assault female, indecent assault male, and gross indecency in the definition of sexual offence in section 487.055(3) for the purposes of the retroactive scheme.