Примеры использования Schöfisch на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said that he had no objection to the proposal.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said he was hesitant to delete the word"reasonably.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) noted that recommendation 58 referred to an"incorrect statement.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said that his delegation would have preferred to delete recommendation 62.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) expressed support for the proposal by the representative of the United States.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) endorsed the Chairman's comments and those of the United States representative.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said that cost and human resources were important factors to be taken into account.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) expressed his delegation's support for the suggestion made by the representative of the Secretariat.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said that the purpose of the draft Guide was to give advice to States and to provide them with information.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany), expressing support for the Chairman's remarks, said it was for the parties to the contract to agree on any restrictions.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) proposed inserting the words"by a group of States" after"concern was expressed" in the first sentence of paragraph 1.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) asked whether a new consolidated version of the Legislative Guide would be discussed by the Commission, or by the Working Group.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) expressed support for recommendations 176 and 189 and for the proposals made in the notes following recommendations 182 and 196.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) proposed adding a preambular paragraph expressing the Commission's appreciation of the work of the Chairperson and the Secretariat.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said that he had no objection to the inclusion of the new definition provided that it did not entail any change in the substance.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) proposed inserting the following two sentences before the last sentence of paragraph 3:"One delegation proposed deleting the sentences.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said it was the understanding of his delegation that any extension of the concession contract had to be the subject of consensus between the parties.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) expressed the view that it might be difficult for the Secretariat to be sure that its changes were strictly editorial and not substantive.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said that the normative"shall" required national legislators to ensure that national legislation did indeed make provision for that right.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said that the core of the model provision was the second sentence, which provided for the confidentiality of information, whether received or provided.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said it was already clear from the wording of the chapeau to model provision 28 that the list of matters to be covered in the concession contract was not exhaustive.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) and Ms. McCreath(United Kingdom) expressed a preference for the following wording:"After discussion, it was decided that recommendation 205 should not be reopened for discussion.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said that, whereas the second sentence was a blanket prohibition on disclosure of information received and provided, the third restricted the prohibition to information received.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany), welcoming the proposal to expand the commentary to reflect different options, expressed a preference for a neutral approach that would refrain from stating that one option was better than another.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) queried the use of the term"error", which could be construed as meaning an error on the part of the reader, whereas the recommendations were in fact referring to the provision of incorrect information.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said that if the Commission felt that the best way of providing guidance to legislators was to produce a single consolidated document in due course, his delegation would not oppose that decision.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) proposed deleting the German terms"Konkursverfahren" and"Vergleichsverfahren" from paragraphs 26 and 30 respectively, since they had been replaced in Germany's new insolvency law by the single term"Insolvenzverfahren.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said that the option of a consolidated text was the ideal solution but might diminish the capacity of the Secretariat to deal with other more important projects, in which case the first option would be a satisfactory alternative.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said that, in his view, a broad majority had been in favour of revising recommendation 205, since almost all European Union member States had expressed support for the amendment proposed by the delegation of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Schöfisch(Germany) said that if the purpose was to stipulate that the concessionaire should enjoy the same rights as public utility companies under national legislation, the wording should be:"The concessionaire has the right.