Vertaling van "Administrative burden " (Engels → Nederlands) :

High level group of independent stakeholders on administrative burdens | High level group on administrative burden reduction

Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union | Administrative Burden Reduction Programme

administrative formalities [ administrative burden | administrative cost | administrative simplification | bureaucracy | cost of administration | cost of administrative formalities | simplification of administrative formalities | Bureaucracy(STW) | bureaucracy(UNBIS) ]

burden of establishing a fact | burden of persuasion burden of persuasion | burden on the pleadings | fixed burden of proof | legal burden legal burden | persuasive burden | probative burden | risk of nonpersuasion | ultimate burden ultimate burden

Definition: This block contains a wide variety of disorders that differ in severity and clinical form but that are all attributable to the use of one or more psychoactive substances, which may or may not have been medically prescribed. The third character of the code identifies the substance involved, and the fourth character specifies the clinical state. The codes should be used, as required, for each substance specified, but it should be noted that not all fourth character codes are applicable to all substances. Identification of the psychoactive substance should be based on as many sources of information as possible. These include sel ...[+++]f-report data, analysis of blood and other body fluids, characteristic physical and psychological symptoms, clinical signs and behaviour, and other evidence such as a drug being in the patient's possession or reports from informed third parties. Many drug users take more than one type of psychoactive substance. The main diagnosis should be classified, whenever possible, according to the substance or class of substances that has caused or contributed most to the presenting clinical syndrome. Other diagnoses should be coded when other psychoactive substances have been taken in intoxicating amounts (common fourth character .0) or to the extent of causing harm (common fourth character .1), dependence (common fourth character .2) or other disorders (common fourth character .3-.9). Only in cases in which patterns of psychoactive substance-taking are chaotic and indiscriminate, or in which the contributions of different psychoactive substances are inextricably mixed, should the diagnosis of disorders resulting from multiple drug use (F19.-) be used. | Modifiers The following fourth-character subdivisions are for use with categories F10-F19: Code Title .0 Acute intoxication A condition that follows the administration of a psychoactive substance resulting in disturbances in level of consciousness, cognition, perception, affect or behaviour, o ...

distribution of the tax burden [ Tax burden(STW) ]

maternal complications arising from the administration of a general or local anaesthetic, analgesic or other sedation during pregnancy

fetal distress in labour or delivery due to drug administration

To make future regulation fit with the ”Think Small First” principle, the Commission: is strengthening the assessment of the respect of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in forthcoming legislative and administrative initiatives will, wherever practical, use common commencement dates for regulations and decisions affecting business and publish an annual statement of such legislation entering into force the Commission will, and the Member States are invited to: ensure that policy results are delivered while minimising costs and burdens for business, including by using a smart mix of tools such as mutual recognition and self- or co-regulation, to achieve policy outcomes rigorously assess the ...[+++]impact of forthcoming legislative and administrative initiatives on SMEs (“SME test”) and take relevant results into account when designing proposals consult stakeholders, including SME organisations for at least 8 weeks prior to making any legislative or administrative proposal that has an impact on businesses use specific measures for small and micro-enterprises, such as derogations, transition periods and exemptions, in particular from information or reporting requirements, and other tailor-made approaches, wherever appropriate, and the Member States are invited to: consider the usefulness of introducing common commencement dates and annual statements of legislation entering into force make use of flexibility provisions aimed at SMEs when implementing EU legislation and avoid “gold-plating” To improve the regulatory environment in view of the “Think Small First” principle, the Commission: will come forward with all the proposals to reduce the administrative burden on business which are necessary to achieve the EU reduction target of 25% by 2012 will complete by the end of 2008 a complete screening of the acquis and include the results in the updated simplification rolling programme to be presented in early 2009.

In November 2011 the Commission adopted its Report on minimising regulatory burden for SMEs – adapting EU regulation to the needs of micro-enterprises,[62] which extended the focus to a far wider range of all regulatory burdens beyond the administrative burden of reporting to authorities, and introducing the principle of reverse burden of proof for any new regulatory burden.

Follow up actions: The European Council is invited to: set a joint 25% target for reducing administrative burdens as a political objective to be achieved jointly by the EU and Member States by 2012; endorse the priority areas identified by the Commission in which significant progress should be made to reduce administrative burdens, notably: tax law including VAT; statistics; agriculture and agricultural subsidies; food labelling; transport and fisheries legislation; endorse a package of dedicated proposals to reduce administrative costs with significant early benefits; approve the proposed methodology for measuring costs.

Notes that energy reporting obligations as part of a framework are essential to evaluate the progress and implementation of existing energy efficiency legislation; regrets, however, the excessive energy reporting obligations imposed, also by gold-plating by Member States, on businesses, energy producers, consumers and public authorities, which limit the potential for growth and innovation; stresses that reporting duties should wherever possible be simplified in order to reduce administrative burdens and costs; criticises the fact that data obtained in reporting are often not comparable across the EU due to different breakdowns, method ...[+++]ologies and standards; calls on the Commission to reduce, including through digital solutions, the administrative burden related to reporting obligations and to establish more guidelines on data comparability for better data evaluation; calls for aligning energy demand projections in line with cost-effective saving potential in key sectors, and believes that cutting red tape will speed up the implementation of energy efficiency measures; notes that applying the ‘energy efficiency first’ principle requires reviewing energy planning and reporting and improving policy coherence in order to ensure their mutual reinforcement, recognising that saving energy is Europe’s first and most secure source of energy; notes that energy efficiency can be the best energy ‘source’ investment, improving affordability of energy, driving down the need for additional and costly supply-side infrastructure and helping tackle climate change.