Hvad er oversættelsen af " BENCH DIVISION " på dansk?

• bench division
• bænke-divisionen

Eksempler på brug af Bench division på Engelsk og deres oversættelser til Dansk

We will be asking the questions. Bench division.
Bænke-divisionen, og her stiller vi spørgsmålene.

Bench division. Yeah, we will be asking the questions.
Bænke-divisionen, og her stiller vi spørgsmålene.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court reply as follows to the questions submitted by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division: l.a.
Jeg skal herefter foreslå, at de spørgsmål, High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, har forelagt, besvares således: l.a.

By order of 3 December 1990, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty.
Ved kendelse af 3. december 1990 forelagde High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, i medfør af EØF-traktatens artikel 177 Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål.

Preliminary ruling- High court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division- Interpretation of Council Directive 90/387/EEC on the establishment of the internal market for telecommunications services through the implementation of open network provision and Council Directive 92/44/EEC on the application of open network provision to leased lines-Member States' rights and powers to fulfil their obligations by imposing requirements solely on bodies holding special or exclusive rights.
Præjudiciel- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division- fortolkning af Rådets direktiv 90/387/EØF om oprettelse af det indre marked for teletjenester ved gennemførelse af tilrådighedsstillelse af åbne net ONP(Open Network Provision) og af direktiv 92/44/EØF om etablering af ONP-vilkår for faste kredsløb- medlemsstaternes rettigheder, henholdsvis kompetence med hensyn til spørgsmål om at opfylde forpligtelser og at fastsætte krav for selskaber, der er indehavere af særlige rettigheder eller af enerettigheder.

The Directorate-General for Competition also received a request for information, on15 July 1994, from a Master of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court for Englandand Wales.
Generaldirektoratet for Konkurrence modtog ligeledes en anmodning om oplysninger dateret den 15. juli 1994 fra en»Master of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court for England and Wales«.

By order of 3 May 1996, the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the validity of Article 1 of Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996.
Ved kendelse af 3. maj 1996 har High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, forelagt et spørgsmål vedrørende gyldigheden af artikel 1 i Kommissionens beslutning 96/239/EF af 27. marts 1996.

Referring to infringement by the re spondent of precontractual and/or contractual obligations, the appellants declared the reinsurance policies to be null and void and brought proceedings before the Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division in London for a declaration that they were not required to comply with any obligations which may have arisen under the reinsurance policies.
Sagsøgerne erklærede genforsikringspolicerne ugyldige under henvisning til, at sagsøgte havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i forbindelse med indgåelsen og forvaltningen af genforsikringsaftalerne, og anlagde ved Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division i London sag med påstand om, at det anerkendtes, at de med føje havde hævet genforsikringsaftalerne.

By order of 13 May 1996, the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, referred for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 hereinafter'the Sixth Directive.
Ved kendelse af 13. maj 1996 har High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, stillet to præjudicielle spørgsmål om fortolkningen af Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 herefter»sjette direktiv«.

Having formed the view that the outcome of the proceedings before it depended on the interpretation of Community law, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division(Crown Office), decided to stay the proceedings and to refer a number of questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Da High Court of Justice(England& Wales), Queen's Bench Division(Crown Office), finder, at afgørelsen af sagen, der er indbragt for den, afhænger af fortolkningen af fællesskabsretten, har den besluttet at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen nogle præjudicielle spørgsmål. Spørgsmål 1, a.

Preliminary ruling- High Court of Justice(Queen's Bench Division)- Interpretation of Articles 44 and 58 of the EEC/Republic of Poland Association Agreement- Polish national having received leave to remain on the basis of.
Præjudiciel- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division- fortolkning af artikel 44 og 58 i associeringsaftalen EØF/Republikken Polen- en polsk statsborger, der har fået opholdstilladelse på grundlag af urigtige oplysninger, som udgør en lovovertrædelse- lovovertrædelsen begået.

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty(now Article 234 EC) by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division(Divisional Court), United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between.
Som High Court of Justice(England& Wales), Queen's Bench Division(Divisional Court)(Det Forenede Kongerige), i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 177(nu artikel 234 EF) har indgivet til Domstolen for i den for nævnte ret verserende sag.

Preliminary ruling-High Court of Justice(Queen's Bench Division)-Interpretation of Art. 4(8)(a)(Hi) of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products OJ.
Præjudiciel- High Court of Justice(Queen's Bench Division) -fortolkningen af artikel 4, stk. 8, litra a, nr. iii, i Rådets direktiv 65/65/E0F af 26. januar 1965 om tilnærmelse af lovgivning om farmaceutiske specialiteterEFT 1965-1966.

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division(Administrative Court), made by decision of 4 July 2006, received at the Court on 14 July 2006, in the proceedings.
Angående en anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse i henhold til artikel 234 EF, indgivet af High Court of Justice(England& Wales), Queen's Bench Division(Administrative Court)(Det Forenede Kongerige) ved afgørelse af 4. juli 2006, indgået til Domstolen den 14. juli 2006, i sagen: The Queen.

Preliminary ruling- High Court of Justice(Queen's Bench Division)- Interpretation of Commission Regulations(EEC) Nos 3886/92 and 3567/92-Detailed rules for the introduction of a compensation scheme for the owners ofagricultural land used for the rearing of breeding ewes and suckler cows.
Præjudiciel-High Court of Justice(Queen's Bench Division)- fortolkning af Kommissionens forordninger(EØF) nr. 3886/92 og nr. 3567/92 betingelser for indførelse af en ordning om godtgørelse til ejere af landbrugsjord, som er bestemt til opdræt af avisfår og malkekøer.

The Queen ν Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Others, ex parte FEDESA and Others- 8 March 1990(Reference for a preliminary ruling) High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division Validity of Council Directive 88/146/EEC of 7 March 1988 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action.
Préjudiciel High Court of Justice- Queen's Bench Division Gyldigheden af Rådets direktiv 88/146/EØF af 7. marts 1988 om forbud om anvendelse af visse stoffer med hormonal virkning inden for husdyravl. Generaladvokat.

Preliminary ruling-- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division Interpretation of Council Directive 65/65/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products-- Conditions for marketing-- Sufficient information and documentation.
Præjudiciel- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division- fortolkning af Rådets direktiv 65/65/EØF om tilnærmelse af lovgivningen om farmaceutiske specialiteter- vilkår for tilladelse til markedsføring- tilstrækkelige oplysninger og dokumentation.

By order of 12 December 1991, which was received at the Court on 13 January 1992, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales(Queen's bench Division) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Articles 3(3) and 4(4) of Council Directive 89/622.
Ved kendelse af 12. december 1991, der indgik til Domstolen den 13. januar 1992, havde High Court of Justice of England and Wales(Queen's Bench Division) forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 3, stk. 3, og artikel 4, stk. 4, i Rådets direktiv 89/622/EØF.

Preliminary ruling- High Court of Justice(Queen's Bench Division) Interpretation of Council Directive 79/7/EEC on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security- Rules concerning the reduction of public transport tariffs Fixed reduction on the basis of age of retirement- Different age of retirement for men and women.
Præjudiciel- High Court of Justice(Queen's Bench Division)- fortolkningen af Rådets direktiv nr. 79/7/EØF om gradvis indforelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hensyn til social sikring- regler vedrørende nedsatte takster for offentlige transportmidler- nedsættelse i forbindelse med pensionsalderen- forskellig pensionsalder for mænd og kvinder.

In that legal and factual context, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division(Crown Office), decided to stay proceedings and to refer a number of questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Det er på denne retlige og faktiske baggrund, at High Court of Justice(England og Wales), Queen's Bench Division(Crown Office), har besluttet af udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen fire præjudicielle spørgsmål.

Reference for a preliminary ruling- High Court of Justice(Queen's Bench Division)- Interpretation of Article 7 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC-National system requiring men to contribute for 5 years more than women to become eligible for the same basic retirement pension.
Præjudiciel- High Court of Justice(Queen's Bench Division) -fortolkningen af artikel 7 i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF- national pensionsordning, hvorefter mænd skal betale bidrag 5 år længere end kvinder for at være berettigede til samme grundbeløb.

By orders of 3 February 1995, received at the Court on 13 March(C-65/95) and 3 April(C111/95) 1995, the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling five questions on the interpretation of Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 hereinafter'the directive.
Ved kendelser af 3. februar 1995 indgået til Domstolen den 13. marts(sag C-65/95) og den 3. april 1995(sag C-lll/95) har High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, forelagt fem præjudiciellespørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 8 og 9 i Rådets direktiv 64/221/EØF af 25. februar 1964 herefter»direktivet«.

By order of 6 December 1993 the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty a number of questions on the interpretation of Articles 34 and 36 of that Treaty and the principle of non-contractual State liability for breach of Community law.
Ved kendelse af 6. december 1993 har High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, i medfør af EF-traktatens artikel 177 forelagt en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af traktatens artikel 34 og 36 og af princippet om statens ansvar uden for kontraktforhold for overtrædelse af fællesskabsretten.

By order of 24 February 1992, which was received at the Court on 16 April 1992, the Queen's Bench Division of the Supreme Court of England and Wales referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a number of questions on the interpretation of Commission Regulation(EEC) No 765/86.
Ved kendelse af 24. februar 1992, der indgik til Domstolen den 16. april 1992, havde Queen's Bench Division of the Supreme Court of England and Wales forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Kommissionens forordning(EØF) nr. 765/86.

By order of 12 April 1991, received at the Court on 18 December 1991, the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question relating to the interpretation of the provisions of the EEC Treaty concerning right of establishment and prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality.
Ved kendelse af 12. april 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 18. december s.a., havde High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, forelagt et spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens bestemmelser om etableringsretten og forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet.

By an order of 3 November 1988, which was lodged at the Court Registry on 23 December 1988, the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, referred a number of questions under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 25 of Regulation(EEC) No. 804/68 of the Council, as amended by Council Regulation(EEC) No. 1421/78.
Ved kendelse afsagt den 3. november 1988, indgået til Domstolens Justitskontor den 23. december 1988, havde High Court of Justice(Queen's Bench Division) i medfør af EØF-Traktatens artikel 177 forelagt Domstolen en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 25 i Rådets forordning nr. 804/68, som ændret ved Rådets forordning nr. 1421/78.

In Case 41/77, reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division(Divisional Court), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court on John Patrick Kelly's application for an invalidity pension between the Queen and a National Insurance Commissioner, ex parte Christine Margaret Warry on the interpreta tion of Articles 40, 45 and 46 of Regulation(EEC) No 1408/71, the Court gave a judgment on 9 November 1977, the operative part of which is as follows.
I sag 41-77 angående en anmodning, som i medfør af EØF-traktatens artikel 177 af High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division(Divisional Court) er indgivet til Domstolen for i den sag om John Patrick Kelly's begæring om invalidepension, der verserer for nævnte ret mellem The Queen og en»National Insurance Commissioner« på vegne Christine Margaret Warry, at opnå en præjudiciel afgørelse vedrørende fortolkningen af artik lerne 40, 45 og 46 i forordning(EØF) nr. 1408/71, har Domstolen afsagt en dom, hvis konklusion lyder således.

By order of 17 May 2000 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling five questions on the interpretation of Article 1(4) of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983.
Ved kendelse af 17. maj 2000 har High Court of Justice(England& Wales), Queen's Bench Division, forelagt fem præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 1, stk. 4, i Rådets andet direktiv 84/5/EØF af 30. december 1983. I Det Forenede Kongerige er andet direktivs artikel 1, stk. 4.

By order of 14 July 1998, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division(Divisional Court), referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling four questions on the interpretation of Articles 8(2) and(3) and 13(6) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991.
Ved kendelse af 14. juli 1998 har High Court of Justice(England& Wales), Queen's Bench Division(Divisional Court) forelagt Domstolen fire præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets direktiv 91/414/EØF af 15. juli 1991. ukrudt, der er fremstillet på grundlag af glyphosat.

By order of 12 December 1995, the High Court of Justice(England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty and on the validity of Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 hereinafter'the Directive.
Ved kendelse af 12. december 1995 har High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 34 og 36 og vedrørende gyldigheden af Rådets direktiv 91/629/EØF af 19. november 1991.