58. Urges the Member States to set as a top priority the fight against corruption in defence procurement, namely by adequate implementation of the Directive, deploring the devastating effects of corruption especially in terms of inflated costs, acquisition of unnecessary, inadequate or non-optimal equipment, obstruction to joint procurement and collaborative programmes, hindering market opening and resulting in heavy burden on national budgets; in addition to generalising transparent and competitive public procurement procedures, strongly advises following the recommendations of the NATO/DCAF Building Integrity and Reducing Corruption in Defence compendium of best practices; highlights positive examples such as the concept of ‘defence int ...[+++]egrity pacts’ between government and bidders with the participation of independent monitors, or systematic parliamentary oversight of all stages in procurement procedures above a certain ceiling as practised in several Member States;

58. Urges the Member States to set as a top priority the fight against corruption in defence procurement, namely by adequate implementation of the Directive, deploring the devastating effects of corruption especially in terms of inflated costs, acquisition of unnecessary, inadequate or non-optimal equipment, obstruction to joint procurement and collaborative programmes, hindering market opening and resulting in heavy burden on national budgets; in addition to generalising transparent and competitive public procurement procedures, strongly advises following the recommendations of the NATO/DCAF Building Integrity and Reducing Corruption in Defence compendium of best practices; highlights positive examples such as the concept of ‘defence int ...[+++]egrity pacts’ between government and bidders with the participation of independent monitors, or systematic parliamentary oversight of all stages in procurement procedures above a certain ceiling as practised in several Member States;

(48) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation as regards exports, implementing powers should also be conferred on the Commission in respect of measures defining the procedures for declaring and the evidence needed to prove the composition of the exported non-Annex I goods necessary for the implementation of the export refund system, the simplified evidence needed to prove arrival at destination in the case of differentiated refunds, measures on the application of horizontal provisions on export refunds for non-Annex I goods, measures on the implementation of the export refund certificate system as regards the submission, the format and the content ...[+++] of the application for the refund certificate, the format, the content and the period of validity of the refund certificate, the procedure for lodging applications and issuing refund certificates and for their use, the procedure for lodging a security and its amount, the level of tolerance for the amounts of export refund which were not applied for and the means of proving that the obligations derived from the refund certificate have been fulfilled.

(Return tabled) Question No. 127 Hon. Scott Brison: With regard to the United States (U.S). Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA): (a) when was the government first made aware of this legislation and how; (b) what steps has Canada taken since the legislation's introduction in the U.S., broken down by year; (c) during the consideration of this legislation in the U.S., did Canada make any representations to the U.S. government and if so, (i) when, (ii) by whom, (iii) to whom, (iv) on what dates, (v) by what authority (vi) with what desired effect (vii) and with what outcome; (d) how many individuals in Canada will be affected; (e) ...[+++] how was the figure in (d) calculated; (f) how many Canadian citizens residing in Canada are U.S. persons under FATCA; (g) how many Canadian permanent residents are U.S. persons under FATCA; (h) how many applications for permanent residency is Canada currently processing from persons who are or will be treated as U.S. persons under FATCA; (i) broken down by province and territory and status, how many persons in Canada are projected to be affected by FATCA; (j) how was the figure in (l) calculated; (k) how many Canadian financial institutions will be impacted by FATCA; (l) how was the figure in (k) calculated; (m) how many non-financial Canadian entities will be impacted by FATCA; (n) how was the figure in (m) calculated; (o) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on persons resident in Canada; (p) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on financial institutions; (p) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on non-financial entities; (q) what estimates and studies have been undertaken with respect to the consequences of a 30% withholding of U.S. sourced income to financial institutions; (r) when did the studies in (q) occur and what were their conclusions; (s) how much has been spent evaluating FATCA' ...

The PDAB 3/2007 enters under chapter 15 the amount of the 1st update of the 2007 and provisional amount of the 2008 UK correction (replacing the 1st update of UK 2007 correction under chapter 15 - see AB 5/2008 - and the provisional amount of the 2008 UK correction entered under chapter 15 of budget 2009).

Its objective will be to simplify and speed up small-claims litigation, and in this regard we expect that it will consist of two elements: the first of them will create a European small-claims procedure, which will be an optional instrument to supplement the existing possibilities in the various States; and the second will replace the intermediate measures – the ‘exequatur’ – in order to allow for the recognition and implementation in other States of the judgments issued in a European small-claims procedure.