Eksempler på brug af Third questions på Engelsk og deres oversættelser til Dansk
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Official/political
-
Computer
The first and third questions.
The second and third questions, concerning the interpretation of Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450.
The second and third questions.
The second and third questions concern the standard of liability of serious negligence in the territorial sea and should therefore be dealt with together.
Second and third questions.
The first group is composed of the first, second and third questions.
C- Second and third questions- liability in the territorial sea.
A- The first, second and third questions.
Regarding your second and third questions, my total commitment to Deep Purple overrides everything, but this is a funny old year and- yes- I will be doing some solo projects and shows, check out the new DF for current information.
The second and third questions.
Regard being had to the Court's answer to the second, fourth and fifth questions, it is not necessary to rule on the first and third questions.
It follows that the second and third questions are admissible.
By its first and third questions, which fall to be considered together, the national court wishes to ascertain in substance whether the Regulation requires the holder of the marketing authorization to provide the patent holder with a copy of that authorization, referred to in Article 8(l)(b) of the Regulation.
Concerning the second and third questions.
By contrast, in the territorial sea, which is to be considered in the second and third questions, Marpol 73/78 has at most the function of a minimum standard- binding only on the Member States but not on the Community- in particular because the Convention on the Law of the Sea does not restrict rule-making powers in this area, which forms.
Specifically on the second and third questions.
The answer to the second and third questions would not be different ifthe procedure f or the award of the public contract at issue in the mam proceedings f ell within the scope of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors.
Generally on the first, second and third questions.
By its second and third questions, the national court seeks essentially to ascertain whether the nature of the activities that the candidate must pursue in the course of his specific training in general medical practice in implementation of Article 31(l)(d) implies that he should have obtained a basic diploma referred to in Article 3 before embarking on that training.
The Court took the view that the second and third questions of Case C-88/90 raised the same problems.
By its second and third questions, the referring court asks whether Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450 must be interpreted as meaning that a comparative advertisement in which the advertiser uses the trade mark of a competitor or a sign similar to that mark is permitted only if that use is indispensable in order to make a comparison.
In view of the answer given to the first question, the second and third questions do not call fora reply.
By its first to third questions, the national court essentially asks whether the requirement for prior packaging imposed by the law of a Member State on the sale of bread obtained by completing the baking, in that Member State, of partly baked bread, whether deep-frozen or not, that has been imported from another Member State constitutes a quantitative restriction or a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the second and third questions referred by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich.
By its second and third questions, which it is appropriate to consider together, the national court seeks essentially to ascertain whether Article 48 of the Treaty must be interpreted as precluding the application of rules of a Member State under which a worker who is a national of, and resides in, another Member State and is employed in the first State is taxed more heavily than a worker who resides in the first State and performs the same work there.
There is therefore no need, in the light of the answers given to the first to third questions, to reply to the fifth question, other than in respect of measures which Article 56 EC precludes.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to examine the third question first.
The third question concerns the sugar quota.
The third question concerns economic policy.
The third question is that of funding.