Примеры использования Harm is caused на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Where harm is caused by several counterparties jointly, they shall be liable jointly and severally cl.
Several members agreed to the need for liability to be joint or several where harm is caused by more than one activity.
Monitoring to ensure that no serious harm is caused to the marine environment from activities during prospecting and exploration;
Each individual is entitled to lawful ownership. In addition,an individual is allowed to enjoy the rights of ownership provided no harm is caused to one's own soul or others or the society at large.
Where harm is caused, all measures should be taken to eliminate or mitigate such harm and, where appropriate, to discuss the question of compensation.
Necessary self-defence is an act which is committed in defence of the interests of the State or the public, or the rights of oneself or another person, as well as in defence of a person against assault, or threats of assault,in such a manner that harm is caused to the assailant.
Where the harm is caused by more than one activity and could be reasonably traced to each one of them, but cannot be separated with any degree of certainty, the liability could either be joint and several or could be equitably apportioned.
Compensation of the harm caused to the citizens by assassination is carried out due to facilities of the State budget of Ukraine in accordance with a law andwith a next penalty of sum of this compensation from persons which harm is caused by, in the order set by a law.
If the harm is caused by the State, acting as the operator in connection with the activity in question, the case should be equated with that of an affected State against private operators, because the operator State is acting jure gestionis.
A plan is also to be drawn up for the purpose of monitoring such substances, determining their whereabouts andascertaining that their waste products are disposed of in such a way as to ensure that no harm is caused to any of the various elements of the environment and that public safety is maintained;
In cases where harm is caused by more than one activity and could not reasonably be traced to any one of them or cannot be separated with a sufficient degree of certainty, jurisdictions have tended to make provision for joint and several liability.
Hungary believes that in view of the recent development in the field of international environmental law,in every case when significant harm is caused by an aquifer State to another aquifer State, adequate compensation should be provided in accordance with"the polluter pays" principle.
In particular, article 1115, paragraph 2, stipulates that, in cases where harm is caused to a citizen as a result of unlawful conviction, unlawful criminal prosecution, unlawful preventive measures such as remand in custody or travel restraints, or the imposition of unlawful administrative penalties such as detention or punitive work, compensation shall be given for moral harm, irrespective of whether the fault of the person responsible for inflicting the harm has been established.
After article 109 of the Criminal Code a new section 109(a) was inserted, providing that:"Kidnapping andunlawful detention of the individual is punished by 25 years of imprisonment when serious and permanent harm is caused to the health of the victim, either intentionally or as a consequence of the conditions in which the victim was held, deprivation of the basic needs for life, or when the kidnapping was carried out with respect to more than one individual.
For example, article 45 of the Federal Act on pharmaceutical products stipulates that if,in cases defined under the Act, harm is caused to a person's health as a result of the administering of a pharmaceutical product, the manufacturer which commercialized the pharmaceutical product is required to pay damages to the victim.
In addition, in line with article 1021, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, compensation is granted for moral harm irrespective of whether guilt can be established,whenever harm is caused to a citizen as a result of: an unlawful conviction; unlawful criminal prosecution; unlawful remand in custody as a preventive measure or the extraction of a pledge of good conduct; unlawful administrative penalties; unlawful imprisonment; and in other cases provided for by law.
When harm was caused to the life and health of a citizen by a source of extreme danger;
Nevertheless, the authors have not explained what specific harm was caused to them by the fact that the prosecutor made such a request once the investigation had concluded.
After all if harm was caused to the body, it can be easily corrected, then with the soul and mind everything is much more complicated.
The juvenile's right to privacy shall be respected at all stages in order to avoid harm being caused to her or him by undue publicity or by the process of labelling.
One issue that remained to be resolved was that of the liabilityof the operator and the State when harm was caused to third parties.
It also favoured clarifying the consequences in cases in which significant transboundary harm was caused even though the State of origin had taken the measures of prevention incumbent on it.
Activities would only be allowed to proceed if no harm were caused.
As the half-life of the RTG material is typically long(thousands of years),it is possible that harm was caused to the public and the environment.
A seller(manufacturer, performer) shall be released from responsibility if he/she proves that harm was caused in consequence of force majeure or violation by a Consumer of the established rules of use, maintenance and transportation.
When harm was caused to a citizen as a result of his or her unlawful conviction, unlawful criminal prosecution, unlawful preventive measures such as remand in custody or travel restraints, or unlawful administrative penalties such as detention or punitive deduction of earnings;
There was a difference between stating that transboundary harm was caused by a wrongful act and stating that the obligation to make reparation would arise only if absolute liability had been provided for.
The letter and spirit of article 7 address two different eventualities: first, that the watercourse State did not exercise due diligence in such a way as not to cause significant harm to other watercourse States, and the harm is actually caused; and, second, that due diligence was in fact exercised,despite which significant harm was caused.
Yet another view was expressed to the effect that the approach to the topic must be clarified at the outset for there would be a difference between the nature of the articles drafted based on the assumption that transboundary harm was caused by a wrongful act and the obligation to make reparation would arise simply on the basis of strict liability.
The traditional rules governing State responsibility provided for compensation in only two types of cases:(a)where transboundary harm was caused by fault attributable to the State of origin; or(b) where such a State had earlier agreed that compensation would be provided purely on a showing that an activity in its territory caused transboundary harm, regardless of whether or not it was a case of fault.