Exemples d'utilisation de Working group had considered en Anglais et leurs traductions en Français
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The Working Group had considered the issue and decided against it.
In response to resolution 1993/41, the Working Group had considered the question of special courts.
The Working Group had considered a similar document at its thirty-seventh session.
However, given the lower reliability andavailability of that income measure, the Working Group had considered that its use in the scale of assessment would be impracticable at that time.
When the Working Group had considered article 20, it had come out in favour of retaining the word in that article.
With regard to the relationship between the draft Convention andthe Unidroit draft Convention, the Commission noted that, at its thirtieth session, the Working Group had considered ways in which conflicts could be avoided A/CN.9/456, paras. 232-239.
When the Working Group had considered that point, it had decided that there was no need to make another change to the Model Law.
The Commission was also informed that,following consultations with Working Group IV(Electronic Commerce), the Working Group had considered for the first time, at its fifteenth session, provisions in the draft instrument relating to electronic commerce.
It was recalled that the Working Group had considered this issue on a number of occasions in its previous deliberations and the current draft of the Uniform Rules left this issue to be resolved.
In communications dated 14 February 2007 and 31 October 2007,the Government of Colombia requested the Working Group to review its Opinion No. 30/2006(Colombia) in which the Working Group had considered the arbitrary detention of Ms. Natalia Tangarife Avendaño and seven other students of the University of Antioquia.
It was noted that the Working Group had considered the recommendation concerning the contribution rate very thoroughly.
The outgoing Chair of the Board, speaking as the Chair of the working group established to consider the performance review of the secretariat and trustee(decision B.16/30),reported that the working group had considered the performance review report but that some elements still needed additional clarification.
At its fifty-third session, the Working Group had considered whether hearings should be open to the public A/CN.9/712, para. 52.
The Working Group had considered a total of 28 communications: the Working Group decided that 12 of them should be declared inadmissible and that the remaining 16 should be declared admissible and dealt with on the merits.
The Chairman recalled that at its January session, the Working Group had considered the alternative proposal for paragraph 1, which was identical to the Mexican text.
The Working Group had considered 23 draft recommendations and decisions; it recommended that the Committee should declare 14 communications inadmissible and one admissible and that it should consider views for eight communications.
Mr. van Boven said that at its previous session,in 1994, the working group had considered the first seven general principles of the proposed basic principles and guidelines.
The working group had considered the issue in the context of the revision of the template for the submission of proposals for the amendment of CMS Appendices, that Resolution 11.33 mandated the Scientific Council and the Secretariat to undertake.
With regard to conciliation,the Commission noted that the Working Group had considered articles 1-16 of the draft model legislative provisions A/CN.9/WG. II/WP.113/Add.1.
The Working Group had considered three options, namely:(a) leaving unchanged the current parameters for establishment of a non-pensionable component;(b) lowering the threshold for establishment of a non-pensionable component to 5 per cent; and(c) removing all non-pensionable allowances and benefits from salary and paying a flat amount as an allowance.
However, it was stated that, at that session, the Working Group had considered the report of the drafting group and had approved it without any objection.
It was stated that the Working Group had considered the matter, found a number of problems with the former draft article 15(see A/CN.9/506, para. 127) and decided in favour of the approach taken in the current draft article 15 see A/CN.9/506, para. 129.
The main issues related to framework agreements, chapter I of the draft revised Model Law andproposals for negotiated procurement under chapter IV. In all cases the Working Group had considered proposals for amendments, presented its commentary and given instructions to the Secretariat for revision of the text.
The Commission recalled that the Working Group had considered at length whether an enforcement regime should be provided in respect of preliminary orders.
In that connection, the working group had considered a preliminary draft“international convention on the prevention and punishment of enforced disappearances”, prepared by Mr. Joinet, and had made a number of comments on the form and substance of the draft.
The Council members agreed on a text for a statement to the press in which they noted that the working group had considered at both formal and informal meetings a draft outcome document concerning the Council's use of sanctions as a policy instrument.
The Commission noted that the Working Group had considered matters of content, form and applicability of the legal standard on transparency to both future and existing investment treaties.
Mr. Gómez Robledo(Mexico) said that the Working Group had considered a number of proposals, and he was confident that agreement would shortly be reached.
At its fifty-third session, the Working Group had considered the question whether the investor should be given the option to deviate from the legal standard on transparency A/CN.9/712, paras. 30 and 95-96.
The Commission noted that the working group had considered various grossing-up factors for both categories of staff.