UK-Pershore: quantity surveying services
1.0/190562 TI: UK-Pershore: quantity surveying services PD: 20110205 ND: 39173-2011 OJ: 25/2011 DS: 20110203 DT: 20110311 17 00 RN: 35892-2011 HD: 013EA TD: 2 - Additional information NC: 4 - Service contract PR: 2 - Restricted procedure RP:...
UK-Pershore: advisory architectural services
1.0/190585 TI: UK-Pershore: advisory architectural services PD: 20110205 ND: 39174-2011 OJ: 25/2011 DS: 20110203 DT: 20110311 17 00 RN: 35891-2011 HD: 013EA TD: 2 - Additional information NC: 4 - Service contract PR: 2 - Restricted...
UK-Chichester: chemistry analyser
1.0/190769 TI: UK-Chichester: chemistry analyser PD: 20110205 ND: 39182-2011 OJ: 25/2011 DS: 20110202 DT: 20100426 17 00 RN: 89131-2010 HD: 012EC TD: 2 - Additional information NC: 2 - Supply contract PR: 2 - Restricted procedure RP:...
UK-Crewe: repair and maintenance services of building installations
1.0/190838 TI: UK-Crewe: repair and maintenance services of building installations PD: 20110205 ND: 39185-2011 OJ: 25/2011 DS: 20110202 RN: 34998-2011 HD: 013EA TD: 2 - Additional information NC: 4 - Service contract PR: 2 - Restricted...
UK-Lisburn: hire of buses and coaches with driver
1.0/191988 TI: UK-Lisburn: hire of buses and coaches with driver PD: 20110205 ND: 39235-2011 OJ: 25/2011 DS: 20110202 RN: 6277-2011 HD: 013EA TD: 2 - Additional information NC: 4 - Service contract PR: 3 - Accelerated restricted procedure RP:...
UK-London: transport services (excl. Waste transport)
1.0/192747 TI: UK-London: transport services (excl. Waste transport) PD: 20110205 ND: 39268-2011 OJ: 25/2011 DS: 20110201 RN: 31840-2011 HD: 014EA TD: 2 - Additional information NC: 1 - Works PR: 2 - Restricted procedure RP: 4 - European...
B-Brussels: judicial training in the EU Member States
Judicial training in the EU Member States. Aim and background of the study: The aim of this study is to provide an in-depth, objective analysis of judicial training in EU law, in the law of other Member States and in comparative law, with a view to compiling an inventory of training methods, schools and institutions and identifying best practices and possible shortcomings. For the purpose of the study, judicial training is defined as training of professional judges ('professional judges' means persons who are paid and employed principally to work as a judge, it does not include arbitrators but may include court staff employed to assist law magistrates) and public prosecutors. It covers academic legal training, initial training for (candidate) judges (where this exists), and continuing training (the term 'training' should be taken in a wide sense, to include not just forming by instruction, but also stimulating or holding discussions and creating channels of communication and collaboration, in order to build mutual confidence and understanding). The European Parliament has emphasised that 'Community law remains a dead letter if it is not properly applied in the Member States, including by national judges, who are therefore the keystone of the European Union judicial system' (European Parliament resolution of 9.7.2008 on the role of the national judge in the European judicial system (2007/2027(INI)). It has also recently called for 'the creation of a network of legal training bodies across the Union accredited to provide familiarisation courses in national, comparative and European law for members of the judiciary on a stable, ongoing basis', beginning with 'the design and preparation of the future pilot projects as soon as possible' (European Parliament resolution of 17.6.2010 on judicial training — Stockholm programme). Geographic scope: The research and analysis to be conducted in this study must cover as many Member States of the European Union as possible, and in any event no fewer than 8. The study should include, to the extent possible, some Member States of the common law tradition, a representative sample of civilian countries, at least 1 Scandinavian country and 1 or more of the recently acceded Member States. The selection of the Member States must be clearly justified from both methodological and a substantive point of view, notably by reference to the typology of legal and judicial systems in the EU Member States. Structure and content of the study: The study is to be composed of 2 main parts. The first part will focus on the existing state of judicial training and consist of 2 subparts. The first is to identify existing judicial training actors at EU level, be they European institutions, bodies or agencies, academic institutions, networks of judges and judicial councils or other private EU-wide bodies, and outline their means and efforts in the field of judicial training together with details of how those efforts are linked and coordinated, and an evaluation of how effective they have been so far. The second subpart is to identify judicial training actors in the Member States and outline their efforts in the field of judicial training, their link with EU actors (if any), and an evaluation of how effective they have been so far. The second part is to consist of 2 subparts. The first part is to be a comparative assessment and to present examples of best practice on the basis of the results of national reports, while the second is to contain the detailed findings made in the national reports based on questionnaires submitted to professional judges and public prosecutors. First part of the study: judicial training organised by EU/transnational and national actors: The first subpart of this part of the study should identify and focus on EU/transnational actors in the field of judicial training. It is to answer the following questions, where applicable: 1) what is (are) the name(s) and membership of the institutions/bodies/networks responsible for organising/coordinating academic legal training and continuing judicial training at EU/transnational level in EU law and in different areas of national law with a cross-border interest? What financial and human resources do they have for this purpose? What is the origin of their funding? Do they receive public (EU) financial support? How do they judge this support, how could it be improved and in what way? 2) What tools are used both in terms of actual training (e.g. courses, conferences, seminars and specialist symposia, exchange programmes, distance learning), as well as access to and exchange of information (e.g. databases, publications, providing a forum for discussions)? 3) What is the content of training (which areas of law)? Is it planned on a more long-term basis or rather responsive to events, such as adoption of a piece of legislation or an important decision by the ECJ? What are the target groups? Is training adapted to the competences/needs of the participants? May legal practitioners take part? 4) How is the form and content of judicial training defined and decided/approved? 5) Is there any formal or informal coordination, or links, with other EU actors in the field of judicial training, as well as training of other legal practitioners? How would they evaluate those, and would they have any suggestions for improvement? 6) What is the general impression of the impact and effectiveness of their activities in the field? Could they state reasons? Could they provide estimates of the number of participants in their training activities? Could they identify specific areas where greater efforts are needed? 7) Would they consider an EU pilot programme designed to coordinate the activities of the different actors, and how would they see their participation (if any) in it? The second subpart of this part of the study should focus on national actors in Member States in the field of judicial training, and provide answers to the following questions, where applicable: 1) what is (are) the name(s) and membership of the institutions/bodies/networks organising judicial training at national level in terms of academic legal training, initial training for (candidate) judges — in case there is such — as well as lifelong training? What financial and human resources do they dispose for this purpose? What is the origin of their funding? Are they linked with the government or the judicial authorities, or the Magistrates' Council, or other authority, or are they independent? Are they related to other actors, if there is more than 1? 2) To what extent does EU law or other Member States' law form part of such training? If any entry or graduation tests are involved, does EU law or other Member States' law account for any part of the examined competences, and what proportion of the overall marks is accounted for by these subjects? Is there any compulsory judicial training at all, and if so, is judicial training in the abovementioned fields compulsory? 3) Is language training offered as part of judicial training? Concerning more particularly judicial training in the field of EU and other Member States' law: 4) Are there other actors, apart from those covered by Q1, who are active in the field? 5) What financial and human resources do they have for this purpose? What is the origin of the relevant funding available, including EU sources? Do they receive public (EU) financial support? How do they judge this support, how could it be improved and in what way? 6) What tools are used both in terms of actual training (e.g. courses, conferences, seminars and specialist symposia, exchange programmes, distance learning), as well as access to and exchange of information (e.g. databases, publications, providing a forum for discussions)? 7) What is the content of training (which areas of law — law/case-law)? Is it planned on a more long-term basis or rather responsive to events, such as adoption of a piece of legislation or an important decision by the ECJ? What are the target groups of judicial training? Is training adapted to the competences/needs of the participants? Do judges and prosecutors follow common training? Do legal practitioners participate as well? 8) What incentives (if any) are there in order to encourage participation in such training, including any career impacts? Do judges and prosecutors need to justify their participation in training? Is it possible for their hierarchy and/or the training actor to refuse the training request, and if so in what circumstances? 9) Are there differentiations in the frequency and type of training as between different geographical areas (e.g. frontier areas, countryside as compared to cities/the capital)? 10) How is the form and content of judicial training defined and decided/approved? 11) Is there any interaction with EU actors, including participation of the national actors in EU-wide or inter-State cooperation in the field of judicial training? 12) Would the relevant actors consider a EU pilot programme in the field useful, and how would they see their participation in it? 13) Are the relevant actors satisfied with the amount and quality of training that they offer? If not, what types of problems could they identify (e.g. human resources and/or budgetary constraints, prioritisation of other fields)? Could they identify specific areas where a greater effort is needed? Second part of the study: judges' and public prosecutors' evaluation and attitude towards existing judicial training: The second part of the study should be divided into 2 component parts. The first one shall conduct a comparative assessment of the results of the national questionnaires. Those results, along with the questionnaires themselves, shall be provided in detail in the second subpart. The second subpart shall present the national reports and provide, for each Member State covered, detailed replies at least to the following questions, by means of questionnaires to be submitted in their respective national languages to a representative sample of professional judges and public prosecutors across geographical areas, jurisdictions and at different levels of the judicial hierarchy: 1) in what type of court do you sit, where is it situated, what is your position, your competence and your grade (where applicable)? 2) Have you received initial academic training in EU or other Member States' law? How useful has this been in the course of your judicial career? 3) Have you followed any additional training in order to enter the judicial profession? Has EU or other Member States' law been part of it? Did you have to pass any test(s) in order to enter the judicial profession? Did this include an examination of your competences in the field of EU or other Member States' law, and if so, how did you find this test? 4) Have you ever participated in a judicial training programme in any field of law, including conciliation and mediation techniques? If not, could you please state reasons? If yes, who organised it, what was the subject and what are your impressions of it? Did you find it useful in your subsequent career? 5) Have you ever participated in a judicial training programme in the field of EU or other Member States' law? If not, could you please state reasons? How does your response to this question compare with your response under Q4? If yes, who organised it, in what area of law, what was your motivation and what are your impressions of it? Did you find it useful in your subsequent career? Could you please state reasons? 6) Do you speak another EU Member State language, and if so, at what level? Have you ever received language training in the course of your career? If yes, how has this influenced your work? If not, could you please state reasons, and whether you would consider participating in language training? If yes, why and in what circumstances? If not, why? 7) How often have you dealt with issues of EU or transnational law and in what types of cases? Did you get any support in finding out the applicable law? Has any training you have received been helpful in deciding the question? 8) Have you ever contacted a foreign judge in connection with a case? Could you envisage circumstances in which such contact could be necessary/useful? Would you appreciate measures to make it easier to have contacts with foreign judges? 9) Would you have any suggestions for improvement of judicial training, including ways of professional development that are based rather on discussion and exchange of information and experiences, than pure instruction? How do you see the role of the different judicial training bodies/networks, including academic institutions and professional organisations? In cases where relevant information could not be gathered, this should also be reported, explained and analysed. Executive summary and conclusion of the study: An executive summary of 10–15 pages shall be drawn up, containing the key findings of the study as well as recommendations based on best examples, with view to improving national and EU frameworks and practice in the field of judicial training. The executive summary shall be drafted in a style that is understandable to non-specialist readers. The study shall provide a clear and concise conclusion on the national trends concerning the key questions posed under the second part of the study, and identify best examples. Methodology and language: Considering the complexity of the subject, this study will require from the very beginning a clear, well-structured methodological approach and organisation of the work in order to deliver a comprehensible result. The coherence and logical structure of the study is of the utmost importance. The methodological approach and the reasoned structure of the study need to be explained and justified in the introductory part of the study. The different chapters have to be logically linked, following a clear train of thought. As to the questionnaires to be submitted under the second part, these should be translated into the corresponding national languages. The formulation of these questionnaires shall only be finalised upon agreement with the competent European Parliament's service. The tenderer must justify the choice of the methodology followed in carrying out the comparative analysis. This analysis must be objective and based on recent data, including reports produced for EU and other institutions. All sources of information must be indicated. Constant contacts during the elaboration of the study shall be kept with the competent European Parliament's service. The study submitted under this service contract is to be supplied either in English or in French. The study must be drawn up or revised by a native speaker. The study must meet the highest linguistic and typographical quality standards (see Interinstitutional style guide). Before submitting the study to the European Parliament the contractor must carry out a profound editorial review. A template will be provided by the European Parliament. Delivery conditions: At the latest by 20.1.2011 a brief outline of the study shall be submitted to the European Parliament. At this time the contractor may be required to make a visit to Brussels to discuss the work underway with the appropriate representative of the European Parliament. In order to contribute to the ongoing work of the European Parliament, at the latest by 1.7.2011, as an interim result, a copy of the second subpart of the second part must be handed over. The European Parliament shall transmit to the contractor within up to 30 calendar days from the date of the official registration of the receipt of the interim study and the executive summary its comments, which will be included in the acceptance letter of the interim study. At the latest by 14.10.2011, the final draft study must with executive summary be handed over to the European Parliament's Directorate-General for Internal Policies. The final study must take account of the European Parliament's comments on the interim report. The contractor may be required to present the final version of the study at a meeting of the parliamentary Committee in Brussels. The study submitted shall be written in strict conformity with the Interinstitutional style guide of the Publications Office of the European Union and with the layout model, which will be submitted by the competent European Parliament's service. The Interinstitutional style guide of the Publications Office of the European Union is available on-line at the following address: http://publications.europa.eu/index_en.htm Site or location of works, place of delivery or performance: The study should be sent to: European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, attention: Mr Laprat, Director (Office RMD 06 J 032), Mail Service/ASP 00F256, rue Wiertz 60, 1047 Brussels, BELGIUM (Invitation to tender IP/C/JURI/IC/2010). CPV: 73210000. ...
B-Brussels: moving towards a more result/performance-based delivery system in cohesion policy
Moving towards a more result/performance-based delivery system in cohesion policy. The Committee on Regional Development of the European Parliament, responsible for regional and cohesion policy, including the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund and cross-border cooperation as well as the assessment of the impact of other Union policies on economic, social and territorial cohesion, wishes to be advised on the performance of Structural Funds, in particular on the possibility of creating a fund delivery system that is based (more) on performance indicators and (potentially) as well on incentive mechanisms (result oriented/performance-based delivery system). Committee members would like to obtain a clearly structured picture presenting context, rationale, features (e.g. design), convenience (dis/advantages), feasibility (e.g. considerations of political economy) and other core issues around a (more) performance-based delivery system for Structural Funds. CPV: 73210000. ...
JP-Tokyo: furniture public areas Europa House/Delegation of the European Union to Japan
Furniture public areas Europa House/Delegation of the European Union to Japan. The objective is to conclude a contract for the supply of furniture required for public areas in the Europa House building. The Delegation will move to the new building in August 2011. CPV: 39113000, 39112100, 39121200. ...
PL-Warsaw: delivery of office supplies
Delivery of office supplies. The subject of the contract is delivery of basic office supplies such as: stationery, folders, Xerox paper, CDs, clips, staples, etc. CPV: 30190000. ...
No comments:
Post a Comment