Примери за използване на Applicant company's на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
At the same time,only the Fund had the competence to assess the practicability and viability of the applicant company's project.
When re-examining the applicant company's tort claim after the re-opening, the national courts had correctly dismissed that claim.
Furthermore, nothing in the file suggests that the tenant occupying the applicant company's premises deserved any special protection.
After the re-opening, the applicant company's tort action was re‑examined, and in a final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 11 December 2014 it was dismissed.
In his application for re-opening the Minister had made in addition a number of arguments on the substance of the applicant company's claim(see paragraph 17 above).
That previous judgment had established that the applicant company's application for a subsidy met the relevant criteria- a conclusion which was binding on the Fund.
The Government did not dispute the fact that the proceedings before the magistrate related to the applicant company's civil rights within the meaning of Article 6.
The subsequent examination of the applicant company's claim had shown that it had relied on forged or null and void documents and had unjustifiably sought to receive a subsidy under the SAPARD.
The case at hand concerns, as discussed above,the re-opening of tort proceedings initially concluded in the applicant company's favour under conditions provided for by law.
The subsequent examination of the applicant company's claim had shown that it had relied on forged or null and void documents and had unjustifiably sought to receive a subsidy under the SAPARD.
Coming from the executive and legislative branches of the State,they reveal a lack of respect for the judicial office itself and justify the applicant company's fears as to the independence and impartiality of the tribunals.
The Court observes that the applicant company's lawyer at no stage informed the Commission that his client had recovered possession of the apartment in April 1996.
For so long as that date was put back owing to the tenant's refusal to leave voluntarily, which entailed a de facto extensionto the lease and a subsequent restriction on the applicant company's right of property, there continued to be a“dispute”(“contestation”)for the purposes of Article 6.
In addition, when the applicant company's tort claim was re-examined, the national courts concluded that no direct causal link existed between the damage claimed by it and the Fund's failure to provide a subsidy.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the quashing of the judgment of 15 April 2011 in the applicant company's favour was aimed at guaranteeing the rights of a third party, as provided for under domestic law.
As to(b), the Court finds the applicant company's basis for calculation reasonable but considers that an award should be made under this head only up to April 1996, when Immobiliare Saffi recovered possession of its apartment.
He pointed out that the Fund's refusal of 10 December 2009 to examine the applicant company's application for a subsidy did not contradict the previous court judgments as it was based on new facts.
In addition, when the applicant company's tort claim was re-examined, the national courts concluded that no direct causal link existed between the damage claimed by it and the Fund's failure to provide a subsidy.
However, in a decision of 18 August 2006 the head of the Fund rejected the applicant company's application, finding that it had not been supported by the necessary documents and that it did not meet the relevant requirements;
Moreover, the Court observes that after the applicant company's case was re-opened the domestic courts dismissed its tort claim on the basis of elements which had not been established before, namely the reliance by the applicant company in its application for a subsidy on documents which had been forged or were null and void(see paragraph 21 above).
As to the effect of the re-opening on the applicant company's individual situation- a criterion established by the Court in previous cases(see paragraph 35 above)- the Court observes that the judgment of 15 April 2011, even though considered final, was never enforced and, as already noted above, was contested by the Minister of Finance soon after having been delivered and in accordance with domestic legal provisions on re-opening(see paragraph 16 above).
Applicant company or person.
Applicant company name, address.
Applicant company name, address.
Applicant company name, address.
On 11 January 1999 the applicant company designated Mr N.
The applicant company contested the necessity of the interference.
(d) the person responsible in the applicant company for customs matters.
The applicant company complained that the enforcement proceedings lasted approximately thirteen years.
The data provision marked as needed during contact request(for e.g contact, applicant's and company's name) it is essential to follow up the demands of the user.