Influences on D4 Sample Clauses

Influences on D4. 2 PICOS deliverable D4.1 was the first deliverable produced by PICOS WP4, and D4.2 is the successor to D4.1. The role of D4.2 is to provide a final architecture deliverable for the project. This deliverable takes account of earlier work, principally D4.1, and of ongoing development, trials and research that has occurred since D4.1 was produced almost eighteen months previously. D4.2 (and D4.1) draws together the work of previous deliverables, for example requirements gathering, and derives a technical description of the components that will make up a PICOS community. In so doing, D4.2 answers several important questions that define the problem that the PICOS project aims to solve, and scopes the solution in line with the aims stated in the ‗Vision and Objectives‘ sub-section of this deliverable. As PICOS is an EU-funded research project, an over-arching requirement, and hence influence on D4.2, is the need for the architecture to be based on and comply with the European legal framework on data protection. In the field of European Union law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides for the respect for private and family life (Art.7) and the protection of personal data (Art.8), while the Data Protection Directive (1995/46/EC) has been adopted to guarantee efficient data protection. This influence has been recognised in the input from the PICOS legal research team, and taken into account in the architecture work, and is covered in sub-section 7.9, where the legal and regulatory issues relating to the PICOS Architecture are closely discussed. Deliverables D3.2 and D2.4 also had an influence on how the PICOS architectures responds to legislative requirements. Another broad requirement of PICOS is for the architecture to accommodate an assurance analysis. This has been achieved by the active participation of the PICOS assurance researchers in the process of developing this deliverable, and is covered in sub-section 7.10.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Influences on D4

  • Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6.

  • Consequences of Breach Without prejudice to any rights that may be available to the Principal/Owner under law or the Contract or its established policies and laid down procedures, the Principal/Owner shall have the following rights in case of breach of this Integrity Pact by the Tenderer(s)/Contractor(s) and the Tenderer/ Contractor accepts and undertakes to respect and uphold the Principal/Owner’s absolute right:

  • Consequences of Default Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default, as defined in the Revenue Sharing Agreement:

  • Consequences for Non-Compliance If the Department has reason to believe that the District is not in substantial compliance with one or more of the statutory or regulatory requirements applicable to the District, the Department shall notify the District that it has ninety (90) days after the date of notice to come into compliance. If, at the end of the ninety-day period, the Department finds the District is not substantially in compliance with the applicable statutory or regulatory requirements, meaning that the District has not yet taken the necessary measures to ensure that it meets the applicable legal requirements as soon as practicable, the District may be subject to the interventions specified in sections 00-00-000 through 00-00-000, C.R.S. If the District has failed to comply with the provisions of article 44 of title 22 or article 45 of title 22, the District does not remedy the noncompliance within ninety (90) days and loss of accreditation is required to protect the interests of the students and parents of students enrolled in the District public schools, the Department may recommend to the State Board that the State Board remove the District’s accreditation. If the Department determines that the District has substantially failed to meet requirements specified in this accreditation contract and that immediate action is required to protect the interests of the students and parents of students enrolled in the District’s public schools, the Department may lower the District’s accreditation category.

  • EVALUATION OF BIDS i) Bids submitted by the tenderer will be opened first and evaluated for fulfilling the Pre-qualification criteria and other conditions in NIT/Tender documents, based on documentary evidence submitted along with the offer.

  • CONSEQUENCES OF POSITIVE TEST RESULTS For post-Accident or reasonable suspicion, a Covered Employee shall be immediately removed from performing his or her job or, in the alternative, may be temporarily reassigned to work that is not safety-sensitive if such work is available. The Covered Employee shall be subject to disciplinary action, and shall meet with the SAPC, as set forth in Exhibit A, and section 10 below, if the Covered Employee:

  • Severability of Agreement Should any part of this Agreement for any reason be declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of any remaining portion, which remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect as if this Agreement had been executed with the invalid portion thereof eliminated, and it is hereby declared the intention of the parties that they would have executed the remaining portions of this Agreement without including any such part, parts or portions which may, for any reason, be hereafter declared invalid.

  • Clarification of Bids 25.1 To assist in the examination, evaluation, and comparison of Bids, the Employer may, at his discretion, ask any Bidder for clarification of his Bid, including breakdowns of the unit rates. The request for clarification and the response shall be in writing or by cable, but no change in the price or substance of the Bid shall be sought, offered, or permitted except as required to confirm the correction of arithmetic errors discovered by the Employer in the evaluation of the Bids in accordance with Clause 27.

  • Evaluation of Tenders 33.1 The Procuring Entity shall use the criteria and methodologies listed in this ITT and Section III, Evaluation and Qualification criteria. No other evaluation criteria or methodologies shall be permitted. By applying the criteria and methodologies, the Procuring Entity shall determine the Lowest Evaluated Tender. This is the Tender of the Tenderer that meets the qualification criteria and whose Tender has been determined to be:

  • SEVERABILITY OF INTEREST CONSULTANT'S insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.