Примеры использования Inspekta на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
- 
                                                                                        Official
                                                                                    
 - 
                                                                                        Colloquial
                                                                                    
 
The Panel therefore recommends no award of compensation to Inspekta for this unpaid invoice.
Although the contract is undated, Inspekta states that the contract was entered into on 3 June 1990.
Inspekta additionally claims USD 2,694 for a motor vehicle that it states was expropriated by Iraq.
The contract further provided that Inspekta was to invoice SEF after each shipment.
Inspekta has provided evidence that it pre-paid rent for both premises that includes the period of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
The Panel further finds that, in any event, Inspekta would have incurred some expenses to return the inspector from Iraq to the Czech Republic.
Inspekta states that it entered into a contract with Techcorp for the inspection of equipment and materials manufactured in Italy for the Central refinery project.
The Panel therefore recommends no award of compensation to Inspekta for this part of its claim with respect to the Central refinery project- Iraq.
Inspekta has provided no evidence that it brought funds into Iraq to pay such expenses or that it had an agreement which would have allowed it to exchange and transfer the Iraqi dinars.
Based on the"arising prior to" rule, which is discussed in paragraph above,the Panel recommends no award of compensation to Inspekta for unpaid invoices with respect to the heat exchangers.
Iraq further states that invoices Inspekta issued at the end of October 1990 after it ceased operations in Iraq could not be paid due to the trade embargo.
Based on the"arising prior to" rule discussed in paragraph above,the Panel recommends no award of compensation to Inspekta for unpaid invoices with respect to the North Rumaila oil field project.
Iraq also states that Inspekta has not provided any evidence of the letters of credit pursuant to which payment was to be effected under some of the contracts.
Documents entitled"State Economical Result Statement" for the financial years ended 1988 and1989 and for the second half of 1990, which Inspekta provided in support of its claim, confirm that Inspekta's gross profit rate was more than 20 per cent.
Inspekta states that it entered into a contract with Iraq's Technical Corps for Special Projects("Techcorp") to provide inspection services for pipes at the Central refinery project in Iraq.
With respect to the costs of returning the inspectors from Iraq to the Czech Republic,the Panel finds that Inspekta would have incurred some expenses in this regard, in any event, and that Inspekta  has not demonstrated that the costs claimed were higher than they would have been absent Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Inspekta states that, on 7 August 1989, it entered into a contract with Iraq's State Company for Oil Projects("SCOP") with respect to inspection in Japan of pipes for the North Rumaila oil field project.
The payments were to be secured by a letter of credit that was to be issued within two months of the date the contract was signed. Inspekta states that all documentation with respect to the letter of credit was lost when it evacuated its office in Baghdad after Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Inspekta claims USD 31,600 for loss of profits based on 20 per cent of the contract's value.
Inspekta states that, on 3 June 1990, it entered into a contract with Techcorp for the inspection of equipment and materials manufactured in the Czech Republic and other European countries for the Central refinery project.
The contract provided that Inspekta would issue an invoice for the down payment in the second quarter of 1990 and invoices for inspections both inside and outside of the Czech Republic in the last quarter of 1990 and each quarter of 1991.
Inspekta states that, on 26 October 1988, it entered into a contract with SCOP for inspection services with respect to various projects in the southern part of Iraq, but that the contract was lost when Inspekta  evacuated its office in Baghdad after Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Iraq states that the losses claimed by Inspekta  are not a direct result of Iraq's entry into Kuwait because Inspekta continued to work in Iraq until October 1990 and therefore the reason that it stopped working was the trade embargo.
While Inspekta's claim form and statement of claim state the total amount claimed in United States dollars,various losses included in its claim were incurred in currencies other than United States dollars. Inspekta has converted these amounts to United States dollars using exchange rates it selected.
With respect to the balance of this part of Inspekta's claim(in the amount of USD 175),the Panel finds that Inspekta would not have been able to charge the contract rates for the time that it would have taken the inspector to return to the Czech Republic from Iraq at the end of the contract.
Inspekta also claims USD 175 for the two days that it took its one of its inspectors to return to the Czech Republic from Iraq, which Inspekta  states would otherwise have been work days for which it could have charged contract rates, as well as the costs to return the inspector to the Czech Republic.
Iraq further states that Inspekta has not provided any evidence to support its ownership and the location in Iraq of the vehicles, furniture and furnishings which are the subject of its claim for tangible property losses, or that they were expropriated.
Lastly, Iraq states that Inspekta has not provided any evidence of its efforts to mitigate its losses arising from pre-paid rent by subletting the premises, which was permissible under the terms of the lease. Trans-Iraq dry gas pipeline project.
With respect to the balance of this part of Inspekta's claim(in the amount of USD 5,597),the Panel finds that Inspekta would not have been able to charge the contract rates for the time that it would have taken the inspectors to return to the Czech Republic from Iraq at the end of the contract.
The contract provided that Inspekta would present its invoices to SCOP for approval and SCOP, within 14 days after receipt of the invoices, would in turn approve the invoices and forward them to the manufacturer for payment. Inspekta claims USD 74,332 for inspections conducted in March and April 1990.
Lastly, Inspekta  also claims USD 5,523 for the numberof days between the last day each of its three inspectors worked in Iraq and the day they returned to the Czech Republic, which Inspekta states would otherwise have been work days for which it could have charged contract rates, as well as the costs of returning the inspectors to the Czech Republic.