Примери за използване на Court detected на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
The Court detected no error related to the specific use of SCOs.
X Recommendation 2:the Commission ensures that all cases where the Court detected errors are followed up appropriately.
Also in 2006 the Court detected weaknesses in the application of the procurement procedures.
In three projects the certifying auditor issued an unqualified opinion whereas the Court detected serious quantifiable errors.
The Court detected cases of ineligible declared costs in more than a third of the sampled FP7 projects.
Хората също превеждат
As regards the External relations and Development policy area, the Court detected weaknesses in five out of the nine implementing organisations visited.
The Court detected errors affecting the claims for reimbursement submitted by the beneficiaries in 26 out of the 150 transactions audited(see Table 7.1).
In all three cases the certifying auditor issued an unqualified opinion whereas the Court detected serious quantifiable errors.
As in previous years(11), the Court detected problems in the procedures and systems which affect the amounts included in the B accounts' statements.
Statement of Assurance 2005:a material level of error in costs declared by beneficiaries Court analysis Commission reply In 2005, the Court detected a material level of error in 17 of the 22 underlying transactions audited at the beneficiaries.
The Court detected the reimbursement of ineligible costs and incorrectly calculated costs in 28 transactions, 15% of the 182 transactions audited.
The project is now being financed with national funds In the United Kingdom the Court detected serious shortcomings(e.g. an inadequate audit trail on project selection, insufficient monitoring of projects).
The Court detected ineligible projects or the reimbursement of ineligible costs and incorrectly calculated costs in 20 transactions, 11% of the 180 transactions audited.
For the measure‘modernisation of agricultural holdings', 21 payments were audited, in which the Court detected 8 cases(38%) of ineligible expenditure.(11) The Court calculates its estimate of error from a representative statistical sample.
However, the Court detected cases in 2010 where PFM Reform Programmes/ action plans were only in the process of adoption or didn't have realistic, clear and prioritised objectives.
In particular for investment measures, administrative checks should use all available information to confirm the eligibility of the expenditure, project and beneficiary(including all ultimate shareholders) and compliance of public procurement procedures with the applicable EU and/ornational rules;- Recommendation 2: the Commission ensures that all cases where the Court detected errors are followed up appropriately(as identified in paragraphs 4.14, 4.20 and 4.21, as well as in paragraph 4.16 for environment); THE COMMISSION'S REPLIES 4.36.
Concerning the conformity audit work performed, the Court detected weaknesses in relation to quality control, audit docu mentation, the manner of evaluating evidence and forming conclusions(24).
The Court detected several errors in the declared costs:- calculation of staff costs using incorrect hourly rates;- declaration of subcontracting costs as personnel costs;- declaration of costs incurred before the start of the project eligibility period.
Recommendation 2: the Commission ensures that all cases where the Court detected errors are followed up appropriately(as identified in paragraphs 4.14, 4.20 and 4.21, as well as in paragraph 4.16 for environment).
The Court detected in that idea the risk of proposing that there should be a minimal review of the absolute grounds for refusal in Article 3 of the Directive at the time when the application for registration is considered, any errors in which would be offset by the limitation of the exercise of trade mark rights by virtue of the requirement of availability under Article 6.
The main weaknesses found were:- in three out of the 11 reports selected for review on the spot at Delegations, the Court detected ineligible expenditure, non-compliance with tendering procedures, and in two cases weaknesses in the internal control system which had not been detected by the external auditors; THE COMMISSION'S REPLIES The verification missions follow a cycle that does not always fit the annual calendar, and most of the missions were performed in the second part of 2007.
The Court detected several errors in the declared costs, including:- an incorrect method of calculation of personnel costs based on estimated figures;- declaration of ineligible value added tax in travel costs;- charging of indirect costs not linked to the project.
An example of non-compliance with the prescribed procedures was thesplitting of contracts in order to avoid stricter tendering procedures;(b) the Court detected ineligible expenditure in three out of the eleven projects audited, such as the inclusion of ineligible cost categories, the overspending of budget lines and expenditure outside the specified implementation period of the projects;(c) in four out of the eleven projects the supporting evidence(e.g. invoices, receipts and bank statements) necessary to validate the payments checked was missing.
However, the Court detected an error in the Commission's calculation of the 2006 definitive amount(10) of the UK correction entered in the 2010 budget, resulting in an excessive correction granted to the United Kingdom of 189 million euro(3,5% of UK correction 2006)(see Annex 2.5, in particular its paragraphs 6 and 7).
The error which the Court detected in the Commission's calculation of the 2006 definitive amount of the UK correction is described in the Annual Activity Report of DG BUDG, which sets out the addi tional control measures put in place subsequently.
The error which the Court detected in the Commission's calculation of the 2006 definitive amount of the UK correction(see paragraph 2.16) is described in the Annual Activity Report of DG BUDG, which sets out the additional control measures put in place subsequently.
The Court detected several errors in the declared costs, including:- incorrectly calculated personnel costs, based on budgeted rather than actual figures;- unsubstantiated travel costs and inclusion of ineligible indirect taxes(VAT) in the declared travel costs;- declaration of an amount of indirect costs based on incorrectly calculated hourly overhead rates and including ineligible cost categories not linked to the project. The ineligible costs declared by the beneficiary amounted to some 60 000 euro.
When the Court detects infringements in cross- compliance requirements it classifies them as nonquantifiable errors and they are not therefore included in the most likely error rate.
The Commission concurs with the Court concerning weaknesses detected in audit certificates.
For the remaining six cases, the Commission followed up the weaknesses detected by the Court.