18. Reiterates its call in Paragraphs 19 and 20 of its resolution of 4 December 2003 on the evaluation of OLAF's activities for the Commission to submit legislative proposals without delay aimed at remedying the weak points in the new Financial Regulation which can already be seen and which presently increase the risk of fraud; calls in particular in this connection for the rules to be amended so that firms can be excluded from the award of contracts if they refuse to disclose their ownership; calls also for the Financial Regulation to provide for more effective controls of the Directors-General in their capacity as authorising officer ...[+++]s, in order to prevent misuse of power; suggests in this connection that the Commission's accountant should verify the information supplied to him/her by the authorising officers, at least by carrying out spot-checks; also suggests that the 'internal audit capacities' in the Directorates-General should no longer answer to the Directors-General but to the internal auditor and considers that the posts of accountant and internal auditor should be filled after an open invitation to tender;

15. To be able to market their products, manufacturers of terminal equipment must know what technical specifications they must satisfy. Member States should therefore formalize and publish the specifications and type-approval rules, which they must notify to the Commission in draft form, in accordance with Council Directive 83/189/EEC (1). The specifications may be extended to products imported from other Member States only insofar as they are necessary to ensure conformity with the essential requirements specified in Article 2 (17) of Directive 86/361/EEC that can legitimately be required under Community law. Member States must, in any event, comply with Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty, under which an importing Member State must allow ter ...[+++]minal equipment legally manufactured and marketed in another Member State to be imported on to its territory, and may only subject it to such type- approval and possibly refuse approval for reasons concerning conformity with the abovementioned essential requirements.

In our reading of the legislation, we were concerned that although the company must provide the reasons for refusing to circulate a proposal, if the shareholder decides to go to court to try to enforce their right they then become the applicant at court, and common law generally places the onus on the applicant to prove that right to circulate.

As you know, the current system requires a shareholder to Joto court if the company refuses to circulate a shareholder proposal.