Examples of using Harmonisation would in English and their translations into German
{-}
-
Official
-
Financial
-
Colloquial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Political
-
Computer
-
Programming
-
Official/political
-
Political
Harmonisation would allow better market access and long-term planning for investments.
The Member States who were opposed to total harmonisation would like to be able to impose their own rules.
Full harmonisation would mean just that, especially as far as the Nordic countries are concerned.
There are, however, several activities at Community level where harmonisation would be both beneficial and possible.
Tax harmonisation would be an enormous step to take and the concept itself is also very loose.
The German Bundesrat expressed doubts about the respect of subsidiarity andabout whether the proposed harmonisation would achieve the set objectives.
Harmonisation would result in other economic and tax revenue problems in the Member States.
He appreciated Mr Bagliano's comment on the need for further harmonisation of procedures and sanctions, but felt that it was important to take one step at a time in the modernisation process;further harmonisation would probably follow, but at some unspecified time in the future.
Certainly, harmonisation would lead to immediate results because no actor can avoid its application.
Harmonisation would limit the grown diversity of frameworks, which is an asset for founders and foundations.
Such substantive law reform and harmonisation would indeed reduce the impact of a contractual choice of applicable law.
Social harmonisation would therefore mean that we would have to reject our minimum wage because the Germans do not have one.
In a minimalist system, harmonisation would be limited to what was strictly necessary for the purpose of achieving an economic union.
Harmonisation would force a reduction in the Swedish level of tax which would, in turn, force further cutbacks in the public sector.
On this basis, harmonisation would require mutual recognition and protection of GIs, excluding duplication.
This harmonisation would not however put an end to the heterogeneity of national criminal procedural rules, particularly in terms of the specific guarantee of rights to defence e.g. appeals.
By contrast, maximalist harmonisation would seek to produce absolute conformity, not only of tax rates but of the tax base and the tax regulations.
Any such harmonisation would exacerbate the problems which the common monetary policy causes where there are differing inflation rates and economic cycles.
In our view such harmonisation would reduce any perceived incentives for asylum applicants to choose between Member States when lodging their applications.
Such harmonisation would also increase the overall influence of the Union vis-à-vis third countries in policy and political dialogues and sharing the responsibility with third countries to which or within which a large number of persons in need of international protection has been displaced.
On the other hand, complete harmonisation would weaken the rules applied by individual Member States, who must, therefore, retain the right to offer a higher level of protection to their consumers, even those States that feel that total harmonisation may prove useful in certain areas.
Such harmonisation would help fulfil existing political commitments andwould ensure the effectiveness of the European and international standardisation efforts for accessibility(e.g. Mandate 376 and new ISO/IEC 40500), the upcoming European Accessibility Act and the revised Public Procurement Directives.