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

the concentration of radionuclides in the human body ( body burden )

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

EU office or agency [ autonomous Community body | Community service body | decentralised Community body | EC institutional body | EC satellite body | EC specialised body | EU Agencies and decentralised bodies | European agency | European foundation | European Monitoring Centre | European Union office or agency | specialised Community agency ]

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

ensure requirements of social security reimbursement bodies are met | meet requirements of social security reimbursement body | meet requirements of social security reimbursement bodies | meet the requirements of social security reimbursement bodies

determine celestial bodies | identify celestial bodies | define celestial bodies | defining celestial body

move body | moving bodies | move bodies | transport bodies

public institution [ body under public law | NDPB | non-departmental public body | public body | Quango | quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation | quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization | Public law institutions(ECLAS) ]

administrative burden (nom)

the Commission: will ensure that SMEs benefit from existing market opening policies by gathering information on the operation of the Single Market through greater use of market and sector monitoring so that market failures are identified and can be addressed where the economic benefits are greatest is presenting an action plan in 2008 to promote the use of interoperable electronic signatures and electronic authentication and will launch actions involving all relevant stakeholders in the second quarter of 2009 to help SMEs participate in global supply chains is increasing EU financial support (to €1 million in 2008 and € 2.1 million from 2009) to promote SMEs’ participation and defence of their interests in standardisation and to improve SME ...[+++]s’ information on, and use of, European standards will make the Community Trade Mark system more accessible, in particular by significantly reducing Community Trade Mark fees as part of a comprehensive solution to the financial perspectives of the Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) will work towards removing the fragmentation of consumer protection rules to make cross border trade easier for SMEs, including through minimizing administrative burdens. the European standards bodies are invited to: reconsider, in close cooperation with the Member States and the Commission, their business model in order to reduce the cost of access to standards, starting with standards developed in support of EU legislation and policies set up one or more “SME Helpdesks”, coordinated with representatives of SME associations systematically publish abstracts of European standards, including lists of normative references, with unrestricted access and in different languages. the Member States are invited to: ensure correct application of the mutual recognition principle reinforce the SOLVIT[15] problem-solving system to ensure that problems with the exercise of Single Market rights can be resolved informally, speedily and pragmatically ...

23. Advocates the reinforcement and stronger implementation of the single audit through the coordination of the control activities carried out by the various institutions, and calls for the administrative burden arising from audits to be lightened so that farmers are not subjected to different visits on separate occasions by the bodies responsible or to excessive or multiple controls by the Commission and the Court of Auditors in the same year, under any and all regulations, which would thus reduce the burden on farmers by decreasing ...[+++]the number of inspections; calls for the bundling of the audit tasks and controls carried out by certifying bodies and other Member State bodies; notes that the advice given by both national authorities and the Commission in guidelines to farmers for implementing the CAP is often contradicted by the assessment criteria used by the Court of Auditors, resulting in fines that are both disproportionate and unexpected;

23. Advocates the reinforcement and stronger implementation of the single audit through the coordination of the control activities carried out by the various institutions, and calls for the administrative burden arising from audits to be lightened so that farmers are not subjected to different visits on separate occasions by the bodies responsible or to excessive or multiple controls by the Commission and the Court of Auditors in the same year, under any and all regulations, which would thus reduce the burden on farmers by decreasing ...[+++]the number of inspections; calls for the bundling of the audit tasks and controls carried out by certifying bodies and other Member State bodies; notes that the advice given by both national authorities and the Commission in guidelines to farmers for implementing the CAP is often contradicted by the assessment criteria used by the Court of Auditors, resulting in fines that are both disproportionate and unexpected;

9. Advocates the reinforcement and stronger implementation of the single audit through the coordination of the control activities carried out by the various institutions, and calls for the administrative burden arising from audits to be lightened so that farmers are not subjected to different visits on separate occasions by the bodies responsible or to more than two, or excessive or multiple, controls by the Commission and the Court of Auditors in the same year, under any and all regulations, which would thus reduce the burden on farm ...[+++]ers by decreasing the number of inspections; calls for the bundling of the audit tasks and controls carried out by certifying bodies and other Member State bodies; notes that the advice given by both national authorities and the Commission in guidelines to farmers for implementing the CAP is often contradicted by the assessment criteria used by the Court of Auditors, resulting in fines that are both disproportionate and unexpected;