Примеры использования Interpretation of legislation на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Information on interpretation of legislation based on Model Provisions.
Such constraints were often imposed on the basis of a narrow interpretation of legislation on defamation.
Information on the interpretation of legislation based on the Model Law 243.
Assisting in capacity-building at the local level through guidance,training, and interpretation of legislation;
Information on the interpretation of legislation based on the Model Law 86 31.
Люди также переводят
If she was correct in assuming that the Bill of Rights was an integral part of the Constitution then its provisions on equality would have a significant impact on the interpretation of legislation by the courts.
The three principles guide the interpretation of legislation in major fields of concern and administration of the national community.
Nevertheless, there were provisions in law for allowing the Appeals Board to refer certain cases to theGovernment in specific situations, for example, when guidance was needed for the interpretation of legislation.
The Supreme Court of Justice has ruled in favour of a broad interpretation of legislation that is conducive to the application of the principle of non-discrimination.
While courts could not strike down legislation, they wielded considerable power in protecting rights and freedoms,including the judicial creation of new remedies and the interpretation of legislation in accordance with the Bill of Rights.
The problems that occur are mainly due to the strict interpretation of legislation, the practical difficulties in its application and the lack of case law.
Ms. Belmihoub-Zerdani said that Luxembourg should strive to appoint as many women as possible to the Council of State,since women would be more likely to offer a progressive interpretation of legislation in the interests of women.
Organizing training activities to facilitate the implementation and interpretation of legislation based on UNCITRAL texts by judges and legal practitioners.
The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that it is generally not for itself, but for the courts of States parties, to review or to evaluate facts and evidence, or to examine the interpretation of domestic legislation by national courts and tribunals, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial orthe evaluation of facts and evidence or interpretation of legislation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
In particular, he was concerned that an overly broad interpretation of legislation relating to State security was being abused, thus undermining freedom of expression.
An example of the norms enshrining this method of interpretation is Art. 233 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,according to which the court must give preference to any reasonable interpretation of legislation that is consistent with international 1 Alexander Murray v.
In case No. 1348/2005(Ashurov v. Tajikistan), the Committee reaffirmed that it was generally for the courts of States parties to review or evaluate facts andevidence, or to examine the interpretation of domestic legislation by national courts and tribunals, unless it could be ascertained that the conduct of the trial or the evaluation of facts and evidence or interpretation of legislation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
Before turning to particular provisions relating to the elimination of discrimination against women contained in various broadcasting legislation andother regulations, at the outset it is important to mention that according to Georgian Law of Broadcasting of 2004," Interpretation of legislation in the broadcasting sector shall be provided according to the European Convention on Human Rights, the judicial practice of the European Court of Human Rights and other international legal acts that have a legal effect for Georgia" art. 3.2.
The Committee is mindful of its jurisprudence that it is generally not for itself, but for the courts of States parties, to review or to evaluate facts and evidence, or to examine the interpretation of domestic legislation by national courts and tribunals, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial orthe evaluation of facts and evidence or interpretation of legislation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
Prosecutors need training in prosecution strategy andthe jurisprudence around this type of violence, and judicial staff require instruction in the interpretation of legislation and precedents and in creating enabling courtroom environments.
Where, as in the present case, the review allows for a re-examination of facts and evidence, the same principle guides the Committee as in other proceedings, namely that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to evaluate facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial orthe evaluation of facts and evidence or interpretation of legislation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
The Committee recalls its jurisprudence and notes that it is generally for the courts of States parties to review or to evaluate facts and evidence, or to examine the interpretation of domestic legislation by national courts and tribunals, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the proceedings orthe evaluation of facts and evidence or interpretation of legislation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that it is generally for the courts of States parties to review or to evaluate facts and evidence, or to examine the interpretation of domestic legislation by national courts and tribunals, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial orthe evaluation of facts and evidence or interpretation of legislation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
In this regard, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that it is generally not for itself, but for the courts of States parties, to review or to evaluate facts and evidence, or to examine the interpretation of domestic legislation, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial orthe evaluation of facts and evidence or interpretation of legislation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
The Committee recalled its jurisprudence that it is generally not for itself, but for the courts of States parties, to review or evaluate facts and evidence,or to examine the interpretation of domestic legislation by national courts and tribunals, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial or the evaluation of facts and evidence or interpretation of legislation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that it is generally not for itself, but for the courts of States parties, to review or to evaluate facts and evidence,or to examine the interpretation of domestic legislation by national courts and tribunals, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial or the evaluation of facts and evidence or interpretation of legislation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
The Committee recalls its jurisprudence and notes that it is generally not for itself, but for the courts of States parties, to review or to evaluate facts and evidence, or to examine the interpretation of domestic legislation by national courts and tribunals, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial orthe evaluation of facts and evidence or interpretation of legislation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
In this regard, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that it is generally not for the Committee, but for the courts of States parties, to review or to evaluate facts and evidence, or to examine the interpretation of domestic legislation by national courts and tribunals, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the trial orthe evaluation of facts and evidence or interpretation of legislation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
Different levels of penalties and different interpretations of legislation may be significant barriers to the creation of a fair and level'playing field' for all operators.
These risks may arise as the result of various possible interpretations of legislation related to income tax.