Примери за използване на Court recommended на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
The Court recommended that the systems weaknesses identified were resolved.
EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.11.2008 THE COURT'S OBSERVATIONS EDF concerning the financial year 2006(27), the Court recommended that compliance with the Cotonou Agreement should be benchmarked against baseline requirements.
The Court recommended that a maximum duration for investigations be established(recommendation 6).
Special report no 2/2005 concerning edf budget aid to aCp countries:the Commission's management of the public finance reform aspect(paragraphs 56 to 62). The Court recommended that relations with parliaments and supreme audit institutions should be strengthened.
The Court recommended the simplification of the funding model in its Report 1/2004(see Annex II).
In its Special Report No 11/201037, the Court recommended that the Commission should improve the definition of the objectives of GBS programmes.
The Court recommended that this specific feature of the Joint Undertakings is clearly disclosed in the accounts.
PROCUREMENT 33. In the Annual Report 2008 the Court recommended the Schools to ensure the legality and regularity of the procurement procedures15.
The Court recommended the Commission to:(a) concentrate funding on project sections with highest European added value by giving priority to cross-border projects and increasing funding rates;(b) apply a more efficient, transparent and strict evaluation procedure for the selection of projects for funding;(c) perform more rigorous project monitoring.
In its Special Report No 18/2012‘EU assistance to Kosovo related to the rule of law', the Court recommended that the EEAS and the Commission review procurement procedures to ensure that they were responsive to the CSDP mission's operational needs(http://eca. europa. eu).
The Court recommended that investigations should focus on priorities in order to make the most of the means available(recommendation 4).
To overcome the deficiencies in EU aid delivery, the Court recommended the Commission should devolve management for its aid effort to its Delegations and focus on a smaller number of sectors.
The Court recommended the Commission to take this prudent approach not to report such corrections as implemented, until final payments are auth orised.
In an earlier report19, the Court recommended that the Commission should put emphasis on the effectiveness of the Structural Funds rather than on the maximum take-up of funding.
The Court recommended that strategic analysis services should aim to identify anomalies which can be used to launch investigations(recommendation 13).
In last year's follow-up exercise, the Court recommended that the Commission refine its IT tool for monitoring the status of audit recommendations and discharge requests.
The Court recommended that OLAF should refocus on the investigative function accompanied by changes in the regulations while leaving other services with the responsibility for preventive or legislative acts(recommendation 17).
Finally, in line with the Paris declaration commitments, the Court recommended that the Commission should:(7) increase its use of technical assistance through coordinated programmes(implemented in most respects), which(8) should be assessed systematically(implemented in some respects). 4.
The Court recommended that the Commission should make the following changes in project design, effectiveness and sustainability, and efficiency: Recommendation Implementation status The Court's assessment(1) The Commission should make the following changes in project design: ο ensure that clear practical objectives are set for the projects to which their funds are committed.
In the area of the payment of social allowances, the Court recommended to the Institutions and bodies concerned(see paragraphs 9.14, 9.19 and 9.26) that they request their staff to deliver at appropriate intervals documents confirming their personal situation and that they implement a system for the timely monitoring of these documents.
The Court recommended to take effective measures, together with the concerned national authorities, to avoid payment of ineligible expenditure for fisheries projects(DG MARE; paragraph 3.76 of the 2009 Annual Report).
In 2016, the Court recommended that the Agency should conduct a thorough analysis to identify the most appropriate funding mechanism(233).
Among others, the Court recommended to the Commission to make greater use of sector budget support and strengthen the sectoral dimension of general budget support.
Although the Court recommended an increase in the number of missions in its Annual Report concerning the financial year 2005(27), fewer were carried out than in 2005(28), and considerably fewer than initially planned(29).
The Court recommended in particular that, so as to maximise the potential impact of Community resources, Member States authorities should carry out an analysis of expected economic benefits and that the allocation of funding should be based on objective and relevant criteria.
Concerning communication, the Court recommended that the Commission should:(6) review its communication strategy, activities and tools(fully implemented); and(7) require beneficiaries to provide more technical details on the methods used, lessons learnt and best practices(fully implemented).
The Court recommended that:(1) a complete and in-depth review of the existing classification of all LFAs be performed(fully implemented); and(2) that the Commission should develop, in close collaboration with the Member States, a more appropriate set of indicators for identifying LFAs(implemented in some respects).
The Court recommended that the Commission should:- ensure a smooth and quick transition to the new country programmes, to avoid negative consequences for future implementation,- define more clearly in the new country programming documents its strategic objectives and establish appropriate indicators, to allow for better monitoring and evaluation of impact,(4) OJ C 200, 24.8.2006.
Recalls that the Court recommended in its annual report that Parliament“review the existing control framework for the implementation of budget appropriations allocated to political groups and in addition, that Parliament provide better guidance through reinforced monitoring on the application by the groups of the rules for authorisation and settlement of expenditure, and for procurement procedures”.
Concerning planning, the Court recommended that smaller groupings should be established on the Executive Board, consisting of directors and heads of unit, in order to set clear plans and objectives for individual investigations(recommendation 3) and that a time recording system should be introduced linked to work plans with estimates of time to be spent on investigations(recommendation 5).