Примери за използване на Court recognises на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
Sofia City Administrative Court recognises….
The Court recognises this as a positive step.
In those circumstances, the Supreme Court recognises final foreign decisions.
The court recognises the MP as incapable, missing, or dead;
Under the terms and conditions of that Act the Supreme Court recognises judgments by foreign courts.
Bulgarian court recognises marriage of same-sex couple.
While numerous evaluations have found thatstakeholders find procedures cumbersome28, which has also been a matter of concern to Parliament29, the Court recognises the efforts made by the Commission to address the problem.
Mrs O'Brien, this court recognises the disgrace your husband has brought to you.
The Court recognises that certain types of analysis require a long-term perspective(e.g. the evaluation of outcomes and socio-economic impacts) and that some aspects are related to a specific programming period(e.g. programme objectives, even within a given scientific field), whereas others are not(see Figure 8).
In so far as concernsthe protection of property, as a fundamental right, the Court recognises that exclusive broadcasting rights, as acquired by Sky, have asset value and do not constitute mere commercial interests or opportunities.
The Court recognises that it will take time for the Commission to develop a suitably robust performance management and reporting system.
The audit environment is fast changing and the Court recognises that it needs to adapt by reforming itself in order to better meet its Treaty obligations and fulfil its mission.
The court recognises that Captain Frederickson will hold a watching brief for Major Sharpe.
Participants in the proceedings may lodge such a request at a later date where the court recognises the reasons for failing to submit a request earlier to be compelling or where the granting of the request in question will not delay resolution of the case.
The Court recognises that the Bulgarian authorities faced a difficult task, as they were confronted with two conflicting versions of the events and little“direct” evidence.
The Commission welcomes that the Court recognises the improvements brought about by the introduction of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework(CMEF).
The Court recognises the improvement by all the DGs in the policy group in the quality of the information provided in their annual activity reports.(7) Not for profit organisations specialised in the technical and commercial management of supplies and services necessary for the implementation of humanitarian actions.
Finally, in its report, the Court recognises the higher quality of the information about recoveries provided by the Commission, as disclosed in the accounts.
The Court recognises that the programme brought stakeholders from different countries together.
The EEAS appreciates that the Court recognises in this context the importance of the various Human Rights Dialogues which the EU has with countries of South and South East Asia.
The court recognises that the use of confidential material may be unavoidable where national security is at stake.
In determining whether a fair balance exists, the Court recognises that the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation with regard both to choosing the means of enforcement and to ascertaining whether the consequences of enforcement are justified in the general interest for the purpose of achieving the object of the law in question.
The Court recognises that integration is a difficult concept to measure, and particularly when attempting to assess the impact of specific instruments.
The Court recognises that the EACI has procedures which allow EU funds to be spent on projects that best meet the selection criteria.
The Court recognises that, for the reasons explained above, in the area under consideration it may be difficult to frame laws with a high degree of precision.
The Court recognises the potential benefits of national declarations and national audit work in raising awareness within Member States of the importance of internal control of EU funds.
However, the Court recognises that the national authorities enjoy a margin of appreciation, the scope of which will depend not only on the nature of the legitimate aim pursued but also on the particular nature of the interference involved.
Whilst the Court recognises that a large part of the Action Plan has been implemented it does not find evidence for an improvement which is directly and measurably linked to the actions especially those related to the legality and regularity of transactions.
Whilst the court recognises that projects may have other objectives that should also be considered during the selection process, the significant differences in the cost per job created within/for similar activities indicate the need for greater attention to this aspect.
The Court recognises that the Commission has no clear mandate to perform inspections at Member State level, but found that there is also no evidence that the Commission duly monitored and assessed the risks(for example, distortion of competition) or potential impact of diverging implementation practices on the effective functioning and integrity of the EU ETS.