Traduction de «coentreprise par actions » (Français → Anglais) :

22. Deplores the fact that research funding is still very fragmented in Europe, with multiple sources of funding from the Member States and the Community applying different priorities, evaluation criteria, definitions and procedures, leading to unnecessary overlap, confusion, error and lack of critical mass; asks the Commission and the Council to put the issues of cooperation and coordination between the various EU and national programmes at the top of the agenda; calls on the Commission to carry out an analysis to improve the link between European and national actions, including possible coordination in the phases of formulating calls ...[+++] for proposals and evaluating projects, as well as the identification of national rules or laws that hinder or complicate the financial management of international research cooperation projects; asks that calls for proposals, including those of July 2011, be issued in consultation with the Member States, not duplicating or competing with national initiatives but complementing them; in this respect, considers that the ERA-Net scheme should be strengthened as a tool to support excellence and the development of criteria for quality indicators which constitutes the basis for coordination between programmes or joint ventures; suggests that FP7 should complement the efforts of actors managing national programmes involved in joint programming in order to move the RDFPs away from project management thinking towards programme management thinking, but without neglecting the management of small projects; believes that for Joint Programming to be successful, projects should be selected on the basis of excellence, tailored to the characteristics of each sector, the coordinating role of the Commission should be strengthened, and participating Member States should honour their financial commitments; asks that the last three years of FP7 be devoted to helping structure the European Research Area;

22. Deplores the fact that research funding is still very fragmented in Europe, with multiple sources of funding from the Member States and the Community applying different priorities, evaluation criteria, definitions and procedures, leading to unnecessary overlap, confusion, error and lack of critical mass; asks the Commission and the Council to put the issues of cooperation and coordination between the various EU and national programmes at the top of the agenda; calls on the Commission to carry out an analysis to improve the link between European and national actions, including possible coordination in the phases of formulating calls ...[+++] for proposals and evaluating projects, as well as the identification of national rules or laws that hinder or complicate the financial management of international research cooperation projects; asks that calls for proposals, including those of July 2011, be issued in consultation with the Member States, not duplicating or competing with national initiatives but complementing them; in this respect, considers that the ERA-Net scheme should be strengthened as a tool to support excellence and the development of criteria for quality indicators which constitutes the basis for coordination between programmes or joint ventures; suggests that FP7 should complement the efforts of actors managing national programmes involved in joint programming in order to move the RDFPs away from project management thinking towards programme management thinking, but without neglecting the management of small projects; believes that for Joint Programming to be successful, projects should be selected on the basis of excellence, tailored to the characteristics of each sector, the coordinating role of the Commission should be strengthened, and participating Member States should honour their financial commitments; asks that the last three years of FP7 be devoted to helping structure the European Research Area;

Second, in its submission in the framework of a legal action before a Greek Court, the consortium HDW/Ferrostaal indicates that at least part of the funds (estimated by Elefsis to be in excess of EUR 40 million) given to HSY for the construction of the gunboats (contract signed on 21 December 1999) were used for other purposes.

However, to provide additional flexibility for large banks to enter into alliances or joint ventures, the definition of “widely held” would be expanded: a widely held bank would be one in which no person owns more than 20% of any class of voting shares or 30% of any class of non-voting shares(2) (clause 36, s. 2.2 and 2.3).

Schedule I banks must be widely held, which is defined to mean that no more than 10% of any class of shares of a bank may be owned by a single shareholder, or by shareholders acting in concert.The banking sector has argued that the current definition of widely held is too restrictive, precluding a widely held Canadian bank from entering into a joint venture or alliance that results in any shareholder having more than 10% of any class of the bank’s shares.

In terms of ownership we are permitting up to 20% of the shares of larger institutions to be used for strategic alliances to allow our banks to enter into joint ventures with other institutions both domestically and abroad.