Примеры использования Primorje на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Sub-contract with Primorje.
Primorje seeks compensation for an amount of USD 5,757,389.
Recommended compensation for Primorje 63.
The Panel notes that Primorje has submitted a claim to the Commission.
Primorje seeks compensation for the amount of USD 2,368,638.54.
The Panel finds that Primorje did not submit sufficient evidence.
Primorje seeks compensation for the unpaid value of the executed works.
In 2008, he was sold to fellow PrvaLiga team Primorje, where he became a mainstay in the team.
Primorje submitted a number of schedules of the items for which it seeks compensation.
In support of the loss element, Primorje submitted a schedule describing the preparatory works.
The Panel also reviewed the information andevidence submitted by Lavcevic and Primorje.
In support of the claim, Primorje submitted two schedules relating to what appears to be payments.
According to the information provided by Lavcevic and Primorje, the reality was different.
Lavcevic and Primorje submitted claims to the Commission which are related, inter alia, to Project 1101-3/4.
On 27 August 1986, Granit entered into three sub-sub-contracts with Lavcevic and Primorje in relation to aspects of Project 1101.
In support of these claims, Primorje submitted copies of cash requisitions, invoices, and receipts from Yugoslav airlines.
On the basis of the limited information and evidence which Bojoplast provided,it appears likely that Bojoplast's performance of the sub-contract with Primorje was interrupted by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
As evidence to support its claim, Primorje submitted two untranslated"certificates" dated 31 August 1990 and 30 September 1990.
The three military bases were located at Al-Kazak(Contract P-1101),Baladrooz(Contract P-1102), and Numaniya(Contract P-1103). Primorje and Lavcevic were to execute the Al-Kazak works project in equal proportion shares.
In support of its claim, Primorje submitted two invoices, dated 20 August 1981 and 18 June 1982 respectively.
Bojoplast alleged that it was not able to re-export the property due to"Iraq's attitude" after 2 August 1990. On 19 and23 September 1990, Bojoplast left the property in the care of the relevant contractors: Primorje for Project P-1101/4 and FDSP-Belgrade for Projects P-2000/1 and P-2000/2.
However, from the information provided byPrimorje to the Commission, it appears that Primorje is legally insolvent.
Primorje indicates that up to the time of the suspension of the works on 29 September 1990, it had completed work to the value of USD 75,236,752.00.
In support of its claim, Bojoplast provided a limited amount of evidence,such as an incomplete translation of the sub-contract with Primorje, a copy of the deferred payment agreement to which the sub-contract was subject, and"statements of outstanding costs.
Primorje refers to clause 3.6.1 of its contract with its co-contractors which provides for a"recompense in amount of 0.8% of total agreed price.
Bojoplast seeks compensation in the amount of USD 415,017 for loss of profits in relation to the sub-contract with Primorje(P-1101/4). Bojoplast asserted that had the sub-contract works not been interrupted by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait, Bojoplast would have realised a profit of 5 per cent on the value of the contracted but unperformed works.
The Panel finds that Primorje did not establish that the property losses were caused as a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait on 2 August 1990, given that the property was still in existence in Iraq in June 1992.
It would appear that this is the basis upon which Primorje submitted its claim to the Commission, i.e. that it had the responsibility to"take care of" Bojoplast's materials.
According to Primorje, the machinery was purchased between 1982 and 1984. It asserts that due to delays on the project, the machinery was"used in very small measures and with full capacity they worked only for four years". Primorje asserts that the period of durability of the construction equipment is about 15 years.
The Panel considered the material which Primorje submitted but has concluded that there is no evidence or information of relevance to Bojoplast's claim.