Примери за използване на Court concludes на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
The Court concludes therefore that Poland and Lithuania have infringed EU law.
Having found no violation of Protocol No. 1(P1) or of the Convention, the Court concludes that the question of the application of Article 50 art.
The Court concludes that this amount was overstated by 58,4 million euro, or 31,4%.
The direct costs associated with managing the Fund by the Commission are low and so the Court concludes that the Fund is working efficiently.
The Court concludes that this amount was understated by 82,3 million euro, or 19,9%.
On the basis of the frequency observed at a sample of seven waste water treatment plants, the Court concludes that plants are not necessarily inspected every year.
The Court concludes that the support was not sufficiently well managed by the Commission.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 79. and 80. Common reply The Commission welcomes the fact that the Court concludes in paragraph 80 that‘The Commission systematically initiated corrective actions when deficiencies were identified.'.
Hence the court concludes that, in certain respects, the implementation process was not appropriate.
Having regard to the overall conditions in which the applicant was detained in Kremikovtsi Prison Hostel after 28 October 2010, the Court concludes that they did not reach the threshold of severity required under Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court concludes that significant weaknesses affected the implementation of the EU ETS in phase II.
Points to andis concerned about the findings of ECA Special Report no 2/2013, in which the Court concludes that the Commission's processes are geared to ensuring that funding is invested in high- quality research; however, there has been less focus on efficiency;
The Court concludes that there was relatively limited progress during the period audited(2007-2013).
As that is not the case, the Court concludes that the EU does not have exclusive competence.
VThe Court concludes that the implementation of the measures has led to little improvement in water quality.
Conclusions and 24 recommendations 65 The Court concludes that EuropeAid evaluation and ROM systems are not sufficiently reliable.
The Court concludes that overall the supervisory and control systems are partially effective in ensuring the legality and regularity of payments underlying the accounts.
For Agriculture andnatural resources, the Court concludes that, except for rural development, payments were, in all material respects, legal and regular.
The Court concludes that the Com- mission and the Member States have only been partially successful in doing so.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the reasons invoked by the authorities to refuse the registration of the party were not relevant and sufficient.
The Court concludes from this that the concept of‘internal armed conflict' must be given an autonomous interpretation.
In those circumstances, the Court concludes that the arbitration clause in the BIT has an adverse effect on the autonomy of EU law, and is therefore incompatible with EU law.
The Court concludes that there was a coherent strategy, but projects were not always adequately prepared.
In the light of the above, the Court concludes that the restraint imposed on the applicants from receiving or imparting information was disproportionate to the aims pursued.
The Court concludes that the EU institutions can do more to facilitate access to their public procurement.
In its recent opinion on this, the Court concludes that it contains a number of proposals that provide opportunities for the Commission to improve transparency and financial management.
The Court concludes that EU development aid for food security in sub-Saharan Africa is mostly effective.
Based on its audit work, the Court concludes that payments in 2007 for the policy group Research, Energy and Transport are affected by a material level of error of legality and/or regularity.
The court concludes that the debtor will be unable to meet their existing liabilities on the date on which they fall due.
The Court concludes, therefore, that it was not the applicants' freedom of association per se that was restricted by the State.