Примеры использования Is not a direct loss на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
- 
                                                                                        Official
                                                                                    
- 
                                                                                        Colloquial
                                                                                    
Such pilferage is not a direct loss as a  result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
The Panel finds that the anticipated cost of hiring researchers in this way to review microfilm for damage is not a direct loss.
The Panel finds that the loss  is not a direct loss resulting from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Any failure to pay because the other party was excused from performance by the operation of law which came into force after Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait is  in the opinion of this Panel the result of a  novus actus interveniens and is not a direct loss arising out of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
The type of loss,  in whole or part, is not a direct loss within the meaning of resolution 687(1991). Paragraphs 15 to 20.
Any failure to pay because the Kuwaiti orother party was excused from performance by the operation of Kuwaiti law which came into force after Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait is  in the opinion of this Panel the result of a  novus actus interveniens and it is not a direct loss arising out of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
The Panel therefore finds that the cost of the study is not a direct loss resulting from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait and recommends no award of compensation.
The loss  of use of funds on deposit in Iraqi banks is not a direct loss unless the claimant can demonstrate that Iraq was  under a  contractual or other specific duty to exchange those funds for convertible currencies and to authorise the transfer of the converted funds out of Iraq and that this exchange and transfer was  prevented by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Another Government took the view that loss  of future income is not a direct loss arising from the invasion and occupation of Kuwait and is  therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Commission.
The loss  of use of funds on deposit in Iraqi banks is not a direct loss unless the claimant can demonstrate that Iraq was  under a  contractual or other specific duty to exchange those funds for convertible currencies and to authorize the transfer of the converted funds out of Iraq and that this exchange and transfer was  prevented by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
This Panel has found in its previous reports that the loss  of use of funds on deposit in Iraqi banks is not a direct loss unless the claimant can demonstrate that Iraq was  under a  contractual or other specific duty to exchange those funds for convertible currencies and to authorise the transfer of the converted funds out of Iraq, and that this exchange and transfer was  prevented by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
The loss  of use of funds on deposit in Iraqi banks is not a direct loss unless the claimant can demonstrate that Iraq was  under a  contractual or other specific duty to exchange those funds for convertible currencies and to authorize the transfer of the converted funds out of Iraq and that this exchange and transfer was  prevented by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
This Panel has found in its previous reports that the loss  of use of funds on deposit in Iraqi banks is  not a direct loss unless the claimant can demonstrate that Iraq was  under a  contractual or other specific duty to exchange those funds for convertible currencies and to authorise the transfer of the converted funds out of Iraq, and that this exchange and transfer was  prevented by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
The loss  of use of funds on deposit in Iraqi banks is not a direct loss unless the claimant can demonstrate that Iraq was  under a  contractual or other specific duty to exchange those funds for convertible currencies and to authorize the transfer of the converted funds out of Iraq and that this exchange and transfer was  prevented by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
This Panel has found in its previous reports that the loss  of use of funds on deposit in Iraqi banks is  not a direct loss unless the claimant can demonstrate that Iraq was  under a  contractual or other specific duty to exchange those funds for convertible currencies and to authorise the transfer of the converted funds out of Iraq and that this exchange and transfer was  prevented by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Iraq alleges that the loss  to De Dietrich is not a direct loss, but rather is  due to the decision of another country not  to allow the goods to proceed to Iraq as a  result of the trade embargo.
The loss  of use of funds on deposit in Iraqi banks is not a direct loss, unless the claimant can demonstrate that Iraq was  under a  contractual or other specific duty to exchange those funds for convertible currencies and to permit the transfer of the converted funds out of Iraq and that this exchange and transfer was  prevented by the invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
In the view of the Panel,the loss  of use of funds on deposit in Iraqi banks is not a direct loss unless the claimant can demonstrate that Iraq was  under a  contractual or other specific duty to exchange those funds for convertible currencies and authorized the transfer of the converted funds out of Iraq, and that this exchange and transfer was  prevented by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
As a  result, the Panel concluded that the loss  of funds paid pursuant to the agency agreement was not a direct loss resulting from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and recommended no compensation for this claim.
With respect to the claim for rent losses, the Panel finds that the Claimant's reimbursement of the teacher's rent deposit constituted an  ex gratia payment for a loss  that was not a direct loss resulting from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
The Panel finds that the repairs form part of the long term general repair and maintenance programme for Saudi Arabia's infrastructure, as recommended by the Danish Road Directorate, andthe costs thereof are not a direct loss resulting from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Iraq asserts that the imposition of war risk insurance was an  internal measure to increase the cost of air travel, and that it was not a direct loss.
The Panel finds that the damage is a not a direct loss resulting from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait and therefore recommends no award of compensation.
Compensation is not  recommended as loss is not a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait as per paragraph 60 of the report.
The type of loss  in whole or part, is in principle not a direct loss within the meaning of Security Council resolution 687 1991.
The Panel finds that the claimed loss  was the result of the claimant's independent business decision not  to proceed with the construction of the complex and is  therefore not compensable as a direct loss resulting from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
The Panel finds that the claimed loss was  the result of the claimant's independent business decision not  to resume operations and is  therefore not compensable as a direct loss resulting from Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
That is a  claim which, in the view of the Panel, is  not a loss that is a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Part or all of loss is not direct; No proof of loss. .
Part or all of loss is not direct; Calculated loss is  less than loss  alleged.