Примери за използване на Contested acts на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
Annul the contested acts, in so far as they concern her;
Contrary to what is claimed by Rosneft,there is a reasonable relationship between the content of the contested acts and the objective pursued by them.
The contested acts accordingly describe the overall situation that led to their adoption and the general objectives they were intended to achieve.
The appeal court hears, at second instance, the contested acts in the cases of county courts, as well as other cases assigned to them by law.
On 9 October 2014 Rosneft brought an action, currently pending, before the General Court of the European Union, seeking the annulment of the contested acts.
Consequently, an examination of the contested acts in the light of that agreement has disclosed nothing capable of affecting their validity.
In the light of the foregoing,an examination of the question of an alleged misuse of powers by the Council has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of the contested acts.
In the alternative, should the contested acts be annulled as regards the applicant, order that the effects of Decision 2018/333 be maintained until the partial annulment of Implementing Regulation 2018/326 takes effect;
Further, as is stated in recital(2) of Regulation No 833/2014, it is apparent from those statements that the aim of the restrictive measures prescribed by the contested acts was to promote a peaceful settlement of the crisis in Ukraine.
The Court also points out that the stated objective of the contested acts is to increase the costs of Russia's actions to undermine Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence, and to promote a peaceful settlement of the crisis.
Last, while Rosneft also states that the Council ought not to have relied on Regulation No 1049/2001when it analysed the request for access to the file, Rosneft does not, however, explain, in any way, how that error is such as to affect the validity of the provisions of the contested acts.
In the light of the foregoing, it has not been established that the Council,prior to the adoption of the contested acts, verified that the Ukrainian judicial authorities complied with the applicant's rights of defence and his right to effective judicial protection.
The referring court concludes by stating that it has examined the arguments of the parties in the main proceedings concerning the appropriateness of sending a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court in these proceedings, since, in particular,Rosneft had already brought an action before the General Court for the annulment of the contested acts.
In the present case, it should be noted that the stated objective of the contested acts is to increase the costs of the Russian Federation's actions to undermine Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence, and to promote a peaceful settlement of the crisis.
The referring court considers that it is important to interpret the terms of the restrictive measures at issue in the main proceedings uniformly throughout the European Union and explains that it has discovered, in the course of the proceedings before it,that the practices of the authorities of other Member States diverge with respect to the interpretation to be adopted of certain provisions of the contested acts.
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts infringe the fundamental right to property provided for in Article 17 of the Charter and Article 1 of the Protocol No 1 of the ECHR, and that this infringement is not based upon compelling evidence, is unjustified and is disproportionate.
First, in holding that the facts set out in paragraph 15 of Annex A and paragraph 17 of Annex B to the statement of reasons for the acts of March 2015 were invoked independently by the Council, the General Court distorted the evidence before it,substituted its own grounds for those of the author of the contested acts, failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons for its decision and deprived the applicant of the ability to prepare its defence.
Third plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by manifest errors of assessment in that they are based upon false assumption that the applicant, as a major company in the Belarusian sector of arms manufacture and arms export, benefits from the Lukashenka regime.
Further, it is apparent from recital 2 of the contested regulation that the stated objective of the contested acts is to increase the costs of the Russian Federation's actions to undermine Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence, and to promote a peaceful settlement of the crisis.
First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts do not provide for adequate reasoning for the continuous listing of the applicant in the relevant annexes and that the Council has failed to comply with the provisions of Article 296(2) TFEU, which requires the Council to give reasons.
It is also apparent from recitals 1 to 8 of the contested decision andrecital 2 of the contested regulation that the stated objective of the contested acts is to increase the costs of the actions of the Russian Federation designed to undermine Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence, and to promote a peaceful settlement of the crisis.
In the light of all the foregoing, an examination of the contested acts with regard to the obligation to state reasons, the rights of the defence, including the right of access to the file, and the right to effective judicial protection, has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of those acts. .
Further, it is apparent from recital 2 of Regulation No 833/2014 that the declared objective of the contested acts was to increase the costs of the actions of the Russian Federation designed to undermine Ukraine's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence and to promote a peaceful settlement of the crisis.
It cannot therefore be found that the information available to the Council at the time of the adoption of the contested acts enabled it to verify that the decision of the Ukrainian judicial authorities on which, in essence, the maintenance of the restrictive measures directed against the applicant are based had been taken in accordance with his rights.
In its judgements today, the General Court finds, first of all,that it has jurisdiction to review the legality of the contested acts and that the actions are admissible, as the entities which brought these actions are directly and individually concerned by the measures in question or, in the case of the export restrictions, are directly concerned by acts that do not entail implementing measures.
In any event,the Council is not in a position to refer to any document in the file of the procedure which resulted in the adoption of the contested acts showing that it examined the decisions of the Ukrainian courts on which it relies now and from which it was able to conclude that the essence of the applicant's rights of defence and his right to effective judicial protection had been complied with.
The administration of the authority that issued the contested act does not have a territorial structure.
The nature of the contested act.
The content of the contested act.
The decision by which the contested act has been declared invalid, has been cancelled or amended, shall have an effect regarding everyone.