Primjeri korištenja Its reply na Engleski i njihovi prijevodi na Hrvatskom
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
In its reply, the IPCC… did not deny making these deletions;
The Slovak Republic raised the same plea in its reply.
Each institution shall address its reply to the Court of Auditors by 15 October.
Promptly upon receipt of this communication the other party shall, in its reply.
Each institution shall address its reply to the Court of Auditors by 15 October at the latest.
If one of the competent authorities does not agree to the authorisation,the matter may be referred to the Commission within two months following receipt of its reply.
The Commission lodged its reply on 16 April 2015 and the German Government lodged the rejoinder on 11 June 2015. 28.
That period shall be suspended in duly justified cases, in particular where, during the adversarial procedure, it is necessary for the institution orbody concerned to obtain feedback from Member States in order to finalise its reply.
If a country indicates in its reply that certain shipments of waste are not subject to any control, Article 18 shall apply mutatis mutandis to such shipments.
In exceptional cases, where it can be demonstrated that the examination of a request for taking charge of anapplicant is particularly complex, the requested Member State may give its reply after the time limit requested, but in any event within one month.
As the Commission points out in its reply, its action relates exclusively to the provisions of Directive 2012/34 already laid down in Directives 91/440 and 2001/14.
In its reply to the initiative, the Commission announced an EU-wide public consultation on the Drinking Water Directive[6], notably with a view to improving access to quality water in the EU.
The interruption shall be ended where the Member State demonstrates in its reply that it has taken remedial actions to ensure compliance with CFP rules or that the findings indicating that there are failures in its control system and/or non-compliance with CFP rules of fishery and fishery-related activities were unfounded.
In its reply, the Commission stated that the fight against harmful tax practices undermining the functioning of the single market was the reason why the Commission had taken a broad view as to what type of information should be covered by the proposal.
Reiterates that the Commission, in its reply of 25 November 2011 to the letter from the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control, says that it is desirable for Parliament to continue to give, postpone or refuse discharge to the other institutions- including the Council- as has been the case up until now;
In its reply of 27 October 2016 the Polish Government considers that the judgments of 3 and 9 December 2015 of the Tribunal did not specify which judges were to take up their function and considers that the new legislature of the Sejm has lawfully nominated the five judges in December 2015.
Whereas in its reply the Council formalised a new list of concerns, also going beyond the opinion of its own legal service, putting in question the work accomplished so far and listing the main institutional problems for Parliament, which are difficult to overcome;
Recalls that the Commission, in its reply of 25 November 2011 to the letter from the Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control, wrote that it is desirable for Parliament to continue to give, postpone or refuse discharge to the other institutions, including the Council, as has been the case up until now;
In its reply to these reasoned opinions, the Commission emphasised that the proposed Directive would deliver added value by enabling Member States to reach minimum commonalities allowing improved cross-border cooperation and supporting the timely implementation of related legislation.
In its replies, the Commission stated as follows.
In its replies, the Commission emphasised that the proposal would not impose restrictions on the placing on the market of low-risk products.
In its replies, the Commission noted that the proposal forms part of a broader package of ambitious measures- already proposed or to be proposed- to respond to the current refugee crisis.
In its replies, the Commission recalled that the refugee crisis had put Member States' asylum systems under extreme pressure, which could jeopardise application of the Dublin rules.
Acknowledges that DG R&I, in its replies to written questions, published a list of countries concerned by DG R&I's country specific recommendations;
Regrets that the Commission failed to address the latter issue in its replies to last year's report(9);
In its replies to the opinions received, the Commission welcomed national Parliaments' expression of interest in the work programme and the widespread support for the Commission's focus on a smaller number of initiatives that add value at the European level.
In its replies to the reasoned opinions, the Commission emphasised that harmonised customs legislation could not be effectively enforced due to the current wide divergence of rules on customs infringements and sanctions in Member States.
In its replies, the Commission pointed out that the current scope offered for granting exceptions to the existing rules had led to unfair competition among EU organic operators and in relation to imported organic products.
In its replies to the written questions of the Court, the Commission claims that, given the high level of capital costs, if plants to be refurbished and new plants were offered only one-year contracts, they would probably not participate at all or would exit from the auction as their bids would be above the price cap;
In its replies to the national Parliaments that issued reasoned opinions,[18] the Commission explained that the aim of the Commission proposal was to clarify the general principles and applicable rules at EU level concerning the exercise of the fundamental right to take collective action within the context of the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment, including the need to reconcile them in practice in cross-border situations.
