Exemple de utilizare a Contested provisions în Engleză și traducerile lor în Română
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
-
Programming
In those circumstances,the Court annuls the contested provisions.
Its secondary argument is that, in any event, the contested provisions have fixed the minimum specific weight at too high a level.
The contested provisions must therefore also be annulled because the Regulation is vitiated by breach of the obligation to state reasons.
It follows from the foregoing that the contested provisions must be annulled.
Under the contested provisions the contracting pharmacy is responsible for the provision of all of the services associated with the supply of medicinal products.
According to the author of the referral, the contested provisions are contrary to Articles 1, 23 and 25 paragraph.
The contested provisions are of great political sensitivity and reflect the practical need to react quickly and effectively to changes in the situation of third countries.
The author of the complaint alleged,in particular, that the contested provisions are contrary to the articles 16 para.
In addition, the question whether the contested provisions of the 1992 Law are compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC is not manifestly irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings.
INTERTANKO AND OTHERS necessary to examine whether the Community is entitled under the Convention on the Law of the Sea to adopt the contested provisions of Directive 2005/35.
In the light of the foregoing, the contested provisions must be considered to be justified on grounds relating to the protection of public health.
The Council adds that, since the Treaty required only the consultation of the Parliament for the adoption of Directive 2005/85,it is hard to find fault with recourse to the contested provisions which provide for the same level of participation by the Parliament.
The author of the complaint alleged,in particular, that the contested provisions are contrary to the articles 28(Intimate, family and private life) and 52(right to petition) of the Constitution.
With regard to the first of those conditions, the Council observes, in essence, that the lists of safe countries will not be adopted on the basis ofArticle 63 EC but will be founded on the contested provisions, which provide for a less cumbersome procedure than that used for the adoption of the basic act.
The Commission's action seeking a declaration that the contested provisions are contrary to Article 28 EC is a way of circumventing the limits on Community action in the field of public health.
Pharmacies established in other Member States have the opportunity to supply medicinal products to a hospital's internal pharmacy orto an external pharmacy which satisfies the conditions laid down by the contested provisions, and are not obliged to conclude a supply contract for that purpose.
In those circumstances, no possibility arises of a reclassification of the contested provisions to enable the view to be taken that the Council applied the third indent of Article 202 EC.
The contested provisions introduce a procedure for the adoption of those measures by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consultation of the Parliament; such a procedure differs from those laid down in Article 67 EC.
The Council denies that the secondary legal bases contained in the contested provisions conflict with the co-decision procedure provided for in the first indent of Article 67(5) EC.
It follows that the contested provisions are such as to make the supply of medicinal products to German hospitals more difficult and more costly for pharmacies established in Member States other than the Federal Republic of Germany than for pharmacies established in the latter State.
It follows from the foregoing considerations that,on the basis of this part of the plea, the contested provisions must be annulled insofar as, at the very least, they apply to the maize harvest of 2006.
According to the Commission, the contested provisions cannot be regarded as reservations of the right to exercise implementing power, available to the Council on the basis of the third indent of Article 202 EC.
First, it is necessary to address the argument of the Federal Republic of Germany that the Commission's action seeking a declaration that the contested provisions are contrary to Article 28 EC is a way of circumventing the limits on Community action in the field of public health.
It follows from all of the foregoing that the contested provisions are liable to hinder intraCommunity trade and constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports prohibited by Article 28 EC.
It follows from the foregoing that, by introducing a new criterion of minimum specific weight below which maize may not be offered to the intervention agency or must be reduced in price,without the producers concerned having been notified in good time, the contested provisions have infringed the legitimate expectations of those producers.
The urgency requirement was also considered to be satisfied,in so far as the contested provisions might increase the risk of animals infected by aTSE being released for human consumption.
Furthermore, the late introduction of the contested provisions was due, essentially, to the fact that it was not immediately apparent, by reason of the derogations granted to the Hungarian authorities for intervention buying-in, that the 2005/06 marketing year would be exceptional and would entail a further increase in stocks justifying the urgent need for action.
It follows that,by including in Directive 2005/85 the secondary legal bases constituted by the contested provisions, the Council infringed Article 67 EC, thereby exceeding the powers conferred on it by the Treaty.
It would be a matter of regret if the contested provisions in the American DMCA were to be transposed into an international treaty, only then to compete with the WIPO treaties and add to the confusion surrounding copyright and related rights at European and international level.
The Court found that although authorizations holders were given time to comply with the new rules,in the absence of countervailing measures, the contested provisions"were a disproportionate burden of the requirements of the general interest of the state and the requirements of protection of fundamental rights of individuals".