Traduction de «responsabilité pénale et conduite collective » (Français → Anglais) :

75. Recalls the need for a new code of conduct for Members of the Commission to improve and define more clearly their individual and collective political responsibility and accountability for their political decisions as well as the policy implementation by their services;

‘causes’ means actions, omissions, events, conditions, or a combination thereof, which led to the accident or incident; the identification of causes does not imply the assignment of fault or the determination of administrative, civil or criminal liability;

107. Calls on all states not to criminalise the lawful exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms; stresses that criminal responsibility for acts of terrorism must be individual, not collective;

This reflects a policy in Italy of devolving more responsibility for raising the revenue for funding government expenditure to the regions, a policy which has continued since then so leading to an increasing proportion of tax being levied regionally rather than centrally and giving rise to a growing possibility of effective tax rates being higher in less prosperous regions where taxable capacity is less.

Taking into account that the Proposal sets forth new rules to be followed by OLAF to conduct investigations of alleged illegal activities, it is essential to ensure that in doing so, the data protection and privacy rights of the persons implicated in such investigations, suspected infringers and also staff members and other individuals who provide information to OLAF, are properly guaranteed. This is even more important given the particularly sensitive type of information that OLAF may potentially ...[+++]collect, which includes data relating to suspected offences, offences, criminal convictions, health data as well as information that would serve to exclude individuals from a right, benefit or contract insofar as such information represents a particular risk to the rights and freedoms of the data subjects.

In its 1987 report entitled Recodifying Criminal Law, the Law Reform Commission of Canada offered two models for reforming the law on corporate criminal liability (19) The first model would have retained the identification approach to corporate criminal liability with respect to offences of intent or recklessness; however, the Commission would have expanded the category of personnel whose conduct could trigger the corporation’s liability to include all employees who are “identifiable as persons with authority over the formulation or implementation of corporate policy,” provided that they were acting within the scope of their authority ( ...[+++]i.e., acting at least partially on behalf of the corporation and not in fraud of it).