34. Strongly supports the Commission's insistence that the Member States systematically provide correlation tables setting out how Community directives are applied in national regulations; agrees that such tables provide valuable information at minimal cost and burden; considers, moreover, that correlation tables increase transparency in the implementation of Community law and give national judges and parties before them a realistic opportunity to see whether Community law lies behind a particular national rule and to check for themselves whether, and if so how, transposition has been properly carried out;

34. Strongly supports the Commission's insistence that the Member States systematically provide correlation tables setting out how Community directives are applied in national regulations; agrees that such tables provide valuable information at minimal cost and burden; considers, moreover, that correlation tables increase transparency in the implementation of Community law and give national judges and parties before them a realistic opportunity to see whether Community law lies behind a particular national rule and to check for themselves whether, and if so how, transposition has been properly carried out;

35. Points out that the ECAs' control powers in the field of budget support are limited; quotes the example that, with regard to the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, the ECA can only verify that the relevant conditions have been properly assessed by the Commission; therefore, strongly supports the ECAs' request that the Commission should set out in a structured and detailed manner, in its financial management report for 2006, the criteria leading to the Commission's conclusions on the relevant country's eligibility for budget support; welcomes the Commission's commitment to provide the information requested;

35. Points out that the ECAs' control powers in the field of budget support are limited; quotes the example that, with regard to the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, the ECA can only verify that the relevant conditions have been properly assessed by the Commission; therefore, strongly supports the ECAs' request that the Commission should set out in a structured and detailed manner, in its financial management report for the financial year 2006, the criteria leading to the Commission's conclusions on the respective country's eligibility for budget support; welcomes the Commission’s commitment to provide the informati ...[+++]on requested;

35. Points out that the ECAs' control powers in the field of budget support are limited; quotes the example that, with regard to the legality and regularity of underlying transactions, the ECA can only verify that the relevant conditions have been properly assessed by the Commission; therefore, strongly supports the ECAs' request that the Commission should set out in a structured and detailed manner, in its financial management report for 2006, the criteria leading to the Commission's conclusions on the relevant country's eligibility for budget support; welcomes the Commission's commitment to provide the information requested;

(19) Whereas existing international co-production agreements must be interpreted in the light of the economic purpose and scope envisaged by the parties upon signature; whereas in the past international co-production agreements have often not expressly and specifically addressed communication to the public by satellite within the meaning of this Directive a particular form of exploitation; whereas the underlying philosophy of many existing international co-production agreements is that the rights in the co-production are exercised separately and independently by each co-producer, by dividing the exploitation rights between them along t ...[+++]erritorial lines; whereas, as a general rule, in the situation where a communication to the public by satellite authorized by one co-producer would prejudice the value of the exploitation rights of another co-producer, the interpretation of such an existing agreement would normally suggest that the latter co-producer would have to give his consent to the authorization, by the former co-producer, of the communication to the public by satellite; whereas the language exclusivity of the latter co-producer will be prejudiced where the language version or versions of the communication to the public, including where the version is dubbed or subtitled, coincide(s) with the language or the languages widely understood in the territory allotted by the agreement to the latter co-producer; whereas the notion of exclusivity should be understood in a wider sense where the communication to the public by satellite concerns a work which consists merely of images and contains no dialogue or subtitles; whereas a clear rule is necessary in cases where the international co-production agreement does not expressly regulate the division of rights in the specific case of communication to the public by satellite within the meaning of this Directive;