Traduction de «rajustement de vie chère » (Français → Anglais) :

cost-of-living adjustment [ COLA | cost of living adjustment ]

cost of living allowance | cost of living contribution | dearness allowance

cost-of-living allowance

cost-of-living bonus [ cost of living allowance | cost of living bonus | cost-of-living allowance | living cost differential ]

living cost differential index

cost-of-living allowance

cost of living allowance | COLA

Common European rules matter in our daily lives – whether they increase food safety, improve air quality or make it easier and cheaper for SMEs to bid for public contracts.

Dozens of people involved in violent demonstrations against the high cost of living and the country’s lack of a free market have lost their lives.

13. Takes the view that, in order to develop the full potential of public procurement, the criterion of lowest price should no longer be the determining one for the award of contracts, and that it should, in general, be replaced by the criterion of most economically advantageous tender, in terms of economic, social and environmental benefits – taking into account the entire life-cycle costs of the relevant goods, services or works; stresses that this would not exclude the lowest price as a decisive criterion in the case of highly standardised goods or services; asks the Commission to develop, in close cooperation with the Member States ...[+++], a methodology for the calculation of life-cycle costs on a broad and non-obligatory basis; stresses that supporting the criterion of ‘maximum economic benefit’ would foster innovation and efforts to achieve the best quality and value, i.e. to comply with the requirements of the Europe 2020 strategy; stresses that this is particularly relevant in relation to public procurement of goods that have an impact on consumers' health – in the food sector, for example – where quality and production methods play an important role; emphasises that public procurement rules should be flexible enough to ensure that passive consumers, for example in hospitals, care facilities for the elderly, schools and kindergartens, have equal access to healthy, value-for-money food, rather than merely the cheapest available option;

13. Takes the view that, in order to develop the full potential of public procurement, the criterion of lowest price should no longer be the determining one for the award of contracts, and that it should, in general, be replaced by the criterion of most economically advantageous tender, in terms of economic, social and environmental benefits – taking into account the entire life-cycle costs of the relevant goods, services or works; stresses that this would not exclude the lowest price as a decisive criterion in the case of highly standardised goods or services; asks the Commission to develop, in close cooperation with the Member States ...[+++], a methodology for the calculation of life-cycle costs on a broad and non-obligatory basis; stresses that supporting the criterion of ‘maximum economic benefit’ would foster innovation and efforts to achieve the best quality and value, i.e. to comply with the requirements of the Europe 2020 strategy; stresses that this is particularly relevant in relation to public procurement of goods that have an impact on consumers' health – in the food sector, for example – where quality and production methods play an important role; emphasises that public procurement rules should be flexible enough to ensure that passive consumers, for example in hospitals, care facilities for the elderly, schools and kindergartens, have equal access to healthy, value-for-money food, rather than merely the cheapest available option;