Übersetzung für "service side-line " (Englisch → Französisch) :

data-bank service centre | information retrieval service | on-line data service

fixed service using line-of-sight techniques

transfer line | transfer siding | transfer track | transhipment line | transhipment siding | transhipment track

side line of circle [ side line ]

getting government on-line [ getting government services on-line | putting government on-line | putting government services on-line | providing government services on-line ]

front-line services | front-line health services | first-line services | first-line health services

centre service line | center service line | centre serviceline | center serviceline | centre line | center line | centreline | centerline | half-court line | middle-line

trailer service line | control line | service line

centre service line | centre-line | half-court line

to ensure that the regulatory cooperation chapter promotes a transparent, effective, pro-competitive economic environment through the identification and prevention of potential future non-tariff barriers to trade, which disproportionately affect SME's, and the facilitation of trade and investment while developing and securing the highest levels of protection of health and safety in line with the precautionary principle laid down in Article 191 TFEU, consumer, labour environmental and animal welfare legislation and of cultural diversity that exists in the EU; to support, whilst fully respecting regulatory autonomy, the establishment of a structured dialogue and cooperation between regulators in the most transparent way possible and involvin ...[+++]g stakeholders; to include cross-cutting disciplines on regulatory coherence and transparency for the development and implementation of efficient, cost-effective, and more compatible regulations for goods and services; negotiators on both sides need to identify and to be very clear about which technical procedures and standards are fundamental and cannot be compromised, which ones can be the subject of a common approach, which are the areas where mutual recognition based on a common high standard and a strong system of market surveillance is desirable and which are those where simply an improved exchange of information is possible, based on the experience of several years of talks in a variety of fora including the Transatlantic Economic Council and the High Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum to ensure similarly that it will not affect standards that have yet to be set in areas where the legislation or the standards are very different in the US as compared with the EU, such as, for example, the implementation of existing (framework) legislation (e.g. REACH), or the adoption of new laws (e.g. cloning), or future definitions affecting the level of protection (e.g. endocrine disrupting chemicals); to ensure that any provisions on ...

to ensure that the regulatory cooperation chapter promotes a transparent, effective, pro-competitive economic environment through the identification and prevention of potential future non-tariff barriers to trade, which disproportionately affect SME's, and the facilitation of trade and investment while developing and securing the highest levels of protection of health and safety in line with the precautionary principle laid down in Article 191 TFEU, consumer, labour environmental and animal welfare legislation and of cultural diversity that exists in the EU; to support, whilst fully respecting regulatory autonomy, the establishment of a structured dialogue and cooperation between regulators in the most transparent way possible and involvin ...[+++]g stakeholders; to include cross-cutting disciplines on regulatory coherence and transparency for the development and implementation of efficient, cost-effective, and more compatible regulations for goods and services; negotiators on both sides need to identify and to be very clear about which technical procedures and standards are fundamental and cannot be compromised, which ones can be the subject of a common approach, which are the areas where mutual recognition based on a common high standard and a strong system of market surveillance is desirable and which are those where simply an improved exchange of information is possible, based on the experience of several years of talks in a variety of fora including the Transatlantic Economic Council and the High Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum to ensure similarly that it will not affect standards that have yet to be set in areas where the legislation or the standards are very different in the US as compared with the EU, such as, for example, the implementation of existing (framework) legislation (e.g. REACH), or the adoption of new laws (e.g. cloning), or future definitions affecting the level of protection (e.g. endocrine disrupting chemicals); to ensure that any provisions on ...

(i) to ensure that the regulatory cooperation chapter promotes a transparent, effective, pro-competitive economic environment through the identification and prevention of potential future non-tariff barriers to trade, which disproportionately affect SME's, and the facilitation of trade and investment while developing and securing the highest levels of protection of health and safety in line with the precautionary principle laid down in Article 191 TFEU, consumer, labour environmental and animal welfare legislation and of cultural diversity that exists in the EU; to support, whilst fully respecting regulatory autonomy, the establishment of a structured dialogue and cooperation between regulators in the most transparent way possible and invo ...[+++]lving stakeholders; to include cross-cutting disciplines on regulatory coherence and transparency for the development and implementation of efficient, cost-effective, and more compatible regulations for goods and services; negotiators on both sides need to identify and to be very clear about which technical procedures and standards are fundamental and cannot be compromised, which ones can be the subject of a common approach, which are the areas where mutual recognition based on a common high standard and a strong system of market surveillance is desirable and which are those where simply an improved exchange of information is possible, based on the experience of several years of talks in a variety of fora including the Transatlantic Economic Council and the High Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum to ensure similarly that it will not affect standards that have yet to be set in areas where the legislation or the standards are very different in the US as compared with the EU, such as, for example, the implementation of existing (framework) legislation (e.g. REACH), or the adoption of new laws (e.g. cloning), or future definitions affecting the level of protection (e.g. endocrine disrupting chemicals); to ensure that any provisions ...

(xxi) given the huge interest on the part of European companies, notably SMEs, in obtaining non-discriminatory access to public contracts in the US both at federal and sub-federal level, for example for construction services, civil engineering, transport and energy infrastructure and goods and services, to have an ambitious approach to the chapter on public procurement, while respecting the compliance of the chapter with the new EU public procurement and concession directives, with a view to remedying, in line with the principle of reciprocity, the large disparity that currently exists in the degree of openness of the two public procurem ...[+++]ent markets on both sides of the Atlantic by significantly opening up the US market (still governed by the Buy American Act of 1933) at federal and sub-federal level alike building on commitments made in the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) and by removing the restrictions that currently apply at federal, state and local level alike in the United States; and to set up mechanisms to guarantee that commitments entered into by the US federal authorities will be honoured at all political and administrative levels;