Traduction de «dépenses locales d'exécution » (Français → Anglais) :

assessed local cost

in-area component

local costs waiver

in-area expenditure

3. Accredited paying agencies shall establish and forward, either directly or via the intermediary of the coordinating body, where one has been appointed, declarations of expenditure relating to the Prize for innovative, local cooperation to the Commission, within periods set by the Commission by means of implementing acts adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 112(3).

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 States 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 wit ...[+++]h 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 States 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 wit ...[+++]h 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;

37. Emphasises the central role of sound budgetary management, based on a set of rules and procedures aimed at determining how public budgets are to be prepared, implemented and monitored in the medium term, taking account of the Member States' budgetary consolidation and the reorganisation of public expenditure, to be accompanied by a context analysis method (at Community, national and local level) and the definition of objectives, including prior and subsequent impact assessment, verification and evaluation of results and performanc ...[+++]es, and adjustment mechanisms by PBB; considers that steps should be taken to ensure that Member States' fiscal governance rules are homogeneous and context-driven in as regards both their timing and their objectives, in particular within the euro area; considers also that those fiscal governance rules should be linked to economic governance, with a view to promoting shared budgetary, economic and investment options, being geared to the same goals in order to be more effective and have a multiplier effect, and achieving significant results, which are all the more necessary in difficult economic circumstances such as those currently being experienced; takes the view that there is a danger that uncoordinated national economic revival plans may cancel each other out; notes, with this in mind, that national budgets must be drawn up on the basis of joint economic perspectives and analyses;