Примеры использования It ruled на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
It ruled in Georgia for one thousand years 9-19th centuries.
As announced, the airport was trapped under a low-hanging cloud cover and it ruled -13 C ambient temperatures.
It ruled that a country's leaders can be put on trial before an international court.
The Council was established as an advisory body but in fact it ruled the country and decided all the important state issues.
However, it ruled that Ole Miss had committed no NCAA violations in its recruitment of Oher.
Люди также переводят
The Grand Priory of the Order moved to Rhodes in 1312,where it ruled as a sovereign power, then to Malta in 1530 as a sovereign/vassal power.
It ruled that, within the meaning of article II(2), while the former needed to be signed by the parties, no such requirement applied to the latter.
Later declaring itself the People'sRepublic of Kampuchea(after 1989, the State of Cambodia), it ruled Cambodia for over a decade with significant support of the Vietnamese army.
It ruled accordingly that the poster constituted an administrative offence under the Belarus Code of Administrative Offences art. 167, para. 2.
The Committee welcomes the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ka'adan v. The Israel Lands Administration(2000) andKibbutz SdeNahum et al v. Israel Land Administration et al(2002), in which it ruled that State land should not be allocated on the basis of any discriminatory criteria or to a specific sector.
It ruled that the use of shackles by the police was unnecessary and that the Government should compensate the plaintiff for damages in the amount of 1 million won, equivalent to US$ 783.
The Court of Justice recognized the authority of the Security Council to impose sanctions on individuals andentities associated with Al-Qaida and the Taliban, but it ruled that the Council of the European Union could not impose the measures without communicating substantive reasons justifying its implementation of the decision of the Committee to the parties concerned.
It ruled that article of the penal code“which provides only for deliberate commission of a certain act cannot be applied through Article 10(16) of the Criminal Code to cases where the same act was committed recklessly” 19, p. 60.
In the first case in which the European Court of Human Rights established a positive obligation in connection with the prevention of interference by individuals, it ruled that, although the object of article 8 is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities,it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference.
It ruled that the Minister, in his decision of 1 January 2003, as well as the Ministry, in its decision of 31 May 2002, had issued these decisions"without the necessary argumentation", arbitrarily, and had ignored evidence provided by the author's father.
In its decision, the Immigration Appeal Division allegedly did not give any weight to the disabilities of the author's mother and brother;instead, it ruled that"taking into account that the appellant does not have anyone depending on him and there being no real attachment to and no real support from anyone, the Appeal Division sees insufficient circumstances to justify the appellant's presence in this country.
Rather, it ruled that a system based on automatic exclusion without an individual assessment would not comply with the Convention, thus leaving open the question of whether the system of individual assessment currently in place would be acceptable.
The United States Supreme Court seems to be taking an increasingly retrogressive position with regard to affirmative action, as is apparent from its decision of 12 June 1995,Adarand Inc. v. Pena, in which it ruled that the award of a contract to a company belonging to a member of an ethnic minority instead of to a company whose owner is white, under the terms of certain programmes in favour of ethnic minorities, was unconstitutional.
It ruled the guidance“makes clear that, in all relevant instances other than where there is no serious risk of CIDT(Section 2 of the table), the officer must not proceed at all(Section 1) or the matter must be referred to senior personnel or Ministers”.39 The court was also not persuaded there was any material difference between a‘serious risk' or‘real risk' in this context.
The Dubai Court of Cassation delivered a landmark decision in 2000 whereby it ruled that if the arbitration agreement is incorporated in the main contract, and one of the parties to the main contract assigns its rights and obligations under such contract to a third party who consents to the assignment, whether in an express or implicit manner, the assignee will replace the assignor in his commitment to the arbitration clause.
That government is powerful, it rules the entire world; but it is not democratic.
It rules everything what happens on Earth.
I'm told it rules.
I don't know art words, but it rules.
You still let it rule you.
You taught it rules.
That it is not at all an illusion, that it rules and that….
Accordingly, it rules on the violation of the professional code of conduct in response to complaints lodged by individuals or the State.
At the request of Parliamentarians andas laid down by law, it rules on appeals concerning losses of seats and elections held by Parliament and the Regional Legislative Assemblies Art. 223.
It rules on the constitutionality of laws and ordinances and the conformity of international treaties and agreements with the Constitution.