Betekenis van:
limited audit

Voorbeeldzinnen

1. Indication of the audit methodology to be followed taking account of internationally accepted audit standards (including, but not limited to, INTOSAI, IFAC and IIA), audit manuals and other specific documents.
2. Details of any factors that have limited the scope of the examination by the audit authority should be reported [3].
3. Mandala and Premi Air have been subject to an audit limited to the new requirements under the new CASRs.
4. The civil liability of statutory auditors and of audit firms arising from a breach of their professional duties should be limited except in cases of intentional breach of duties by the statutory auditor or the audit firm.
5. As a consequence, the liability of auditors and audit firms, including group auditors, carrying out statutory audits of listed companies should be limited.
6. Active audit team involvement in follow-up should be limited to assessing the suitability of the action plan and the effectiveness of the corrective and preventive action.
7. The carrier also informed the Committee that it passed an IOSA audit in May 2009 with only a limited number of findings and that these findings were all closed by 29 June 2009.
8. Verifications may be limited to selected measures and to samples of transactions provided that an audit plan ensures that all significant areas, including the departments responsible for authorisation, are covered over a period not exceeding five years.
9. An audit of in-service conformity will be conducted by the administrative department on the basis of information supplied by the manufacturer. Such information must include, but is not limited to, the following:
10. The internal audit service shall verify that procedures adopted by the agency are adequate to ensure that compliance with Community rules is verified and that the accounts are accurate, complete and timely. Verifications may be limited to selected measures and to samples of transactions provided that an audit plan ensures that all significant areas, including the departments responsible for authorisation, are covered over a period not exceeding five years.
11. As regards the presence of the Government Commissioner on SNCB’s Management Board, the Commission notes that the commissioner’s role was limited (see also the Audit Office report on this subject [33]:): The Government Commissioner could only intervene with regard to the decision of 19 July 2002 if it was likely to prejudice the implementation of SNCB’s public service duties.
12. TAAG requested to be heard by the Air Safety Committee, and did so on 1 July 2009 assisted by INAVIC. The carrier also informed the Committee that it passed an IOSA audit in May 2009 with only a limited number of findings and that these findings were all closed by 29 June 2009.
13. Member States may exempt payment service providers situated in their territory from the obligations set out in Article 5, as regards transfers of funds to organisations carrying out activities for non-profit charitable, religious, cultural, educational, social, scientific or fraternal purposes, provided that those organisations are subject to reporting and external audit requirements or supervision by a public authority or self-regulatory body recognised under national law and that those transfers of funds are limited to a maximum amount of EUR 150 per transfer and take place exclusively within the territory of that Member State.
14. As regards the presence of the Government Commissioner on SNCB’s Management Board, the Commission notes that the commissioner’s role was limited (see also the Audit Office report on this subject [33]:): The Government Commissioner could only intervene with regard to the decision of 19 July 2002 if it was likely to prejudice the implementation of SNCB’s public service duties. In view of the amount of the aid (EUR 2,5 million) and the nature of the aid (cash advance, with interest), it has to be concluded that the decision was not such as to prejudice the implementation of SNCB’s public service duties.
15. However, the fact that the annual reports issued by UKE in conjunction with an independent audit company always stated that the scope of the independent annual verification is limited to evaluating to what extent the public operator fulfilled the requirements resulting from Article 52 of the Postal Law and the ‘Ordinance’ and this is restricted to only examining certain types of costs [77] demonstrate that the arrangements made so far for avoiding overcompensation are not sufficient if the remedies referred to in section V.2.3.3 above are not introduced.