Examples of using Erred in its application in English and their translations into French
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
However, I found the selection board erred in its application of the fourth experience factor.
There is thus no basis for holding that, by not placing theburden of proof on the Prosecution, the Trial Chamber erred in its application of Rule 65B.
We thus turn first to Brazil's claim that the Panel erred in its application of Article 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture to the facts before it.
It must be emphasized that the above example is quite different from a grievance which alleges that the Force has erred in its application of a Treasury Board policy.
However, according to the Court of Appeal, the Divisional Court erred in its application of this standard of review by failing to accord the Tribunal proper deference.
The Panel erred in its application of Articles 4.6 and 6.2 of the DSU and/or failed to make an objective assessment pursuant to Article 11 of the DSU, in so far as the Panel found that India's claim under Section XII.C.1 and Section XII.C.2 of India's First Written Submissions are outside the Panel's terms of reference.
Finds that Argentina has not established that the Panel erred in its application of Article XI.
For these reasons,we find that the Panel erred in its application of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in finding that the evidence on the investigation record did not require the DIMD to examine whether the market could absorb further price increases.
India submits that, in rejecting its claim,the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU, and erred in its application of Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement.
The Appellate Body also rejected the European Union's claim that the Panel erred in its application of Article 3.1(b) by unduly restricting the scope of the evidence from which it assessed de jure contingency with respect to the Second Siting Provision.
However, the Appellate Body found that, by failing to consider whether such presumption had been rebutted by arguments and evidence presented by India to establish a scientific basis for its import prohibitions on fresh poultry meat and eggs from countries reporting low pathogenicity AI(LPNAI),the Panel erred in its application of Article 2.2.
Accordingly, we find that the European Union has not demonstrated that the Panel erred in its application of Article 1.1(a)(1)(ii) and footnote 1 of the SCM Agreement to the facts of this case.
Iii. whether the Panel erred in its application of Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement in finding that India failed to establish a prima facie case that the use of an alleged"rule" on selecting the highest non-de minimis subsidy rates, either in general or"as applied" in the instances identified by India, is inconsistent with Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement;
Accordingly, we find that Indonesia has not demonstrated that the Panel erred in its application of Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to the facts of this case.
Accordingly, the Appellate Body found that the European Union had not demonstrated that the Panel erred in its application of Article 1.1(a)(1)(ii) and footnote 1 of the SCM Agreement to the facts of this case.
With respect to Indonesia's claim that the Panel erred in its application of Article 2.4 to the facts of this case, we consider that the Panel's review of the EU authorities' evaluation was properly focused on whether that evaluation was consistent with Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Having determined that, historically, the LA/MSF subsidies were the“necessary” cause of the market presence of certain Airbus aircraft, the Panel posited that any further discussion of non-attribution factors was“obviously” irrelevant.83 In so doing,the Panel erred in its application of the requirement that there be a“genuine and substantial” causal link, under Article 5(c) and 6.3 of the SCM Agreement.
The Appellate Body rejected the European Union's claim that the Panel erred in its application of Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement in finding that the First Siting Provision does not make the aerospace tax measures de jure contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods.
The Appellate Body found that the Panel erred in its application of Article 1.1(a)(1) to the USDOC's public body determination in the underlying investigation, in effect treating the GOI's ability to control the NMDC as determinative for purposes of establishing whether the NMDC constitutes a public body.
(1) Did the Board err in its application of the burden of proof?
Second, did the Federal Court of Appeal err in its application of section 20 of the Act?
Did the Canadian Food Inspection Agency err in its application of paras.
Concluded that the Panel did not err in its application of the burden of proof, or in the application of the standard of review under Article 17.6(i) of the AD Agreement.