Examples of using Contested regulation in English and their translations into Slovak
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Official/political
-
Computer
-
Programming
That regulation has been repealed and replaced by the contested regulation.
Secondly, the contested regulation is disproportionate and is not justified on public interest grounds.
Lastly, the system of machinetranslation did not exist when the contested regulation was adopted.
That the contested regulation is unlawful as a result of the unlawfulness of the decision of 20 November 2017- 14559/17.
Consequently, the partial annulment of the Council Implementing Regulation(EU)No 325/2012 does not lead to the annulment of the entire contested Regulation.
People also translate
It should be noted that in the contested regulation the EU legislature defined the applicable translation arrangements.
It follows from all the foregoing that none of those factors is sufficient, by itself, to conclude that the contested regulation is of individual concern to the applicant.
The financial sanctions in the contested regulation meet that requirement: they are targeted predominantly at individuals and.
The applicant submits that as the contested decision was invalid, the Council could not rely on Article 215(2) TFEU to enact the contested regulation.
The financial sanctions in the contested regulation meet that requirement: they are targeted predominantly at individuals and groups within third countries.
For reasons of expediency, I think it would be appropriate, in this regard, to concentrate on the principal aspect of the case,namely the issue whether the contested regulation infringes the appellant's fundamental rights.
It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the contested regulation is not of individual concern to the applicant and that the action must therefore be dismissed as inadmissible.
By judgment of 21 September 2005 in Case T-315/01 Kadi v Council and Commission(‘the judgment under appeal'),10the Court of First Instance upheld the contested regulation and rejected all of the appellant's pleas.
In view of the importance of the relationship between the contested regulation and the UPC Agreement, it was considered that Article 18(2) provided an additional guarantee of the optimal operation of that relationship.
It follows that the effectiveness of the competence exercised by the European Union through the contested regulation depends on the will of the Member States which are party to the UPC Agreement.
It follows from the foregoing that the contested regulation establishes, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 118 TFEU, the language arrangements for the EPUE, defined by reference to Article 14(6) of the EPC.
The respondents- in particular the Commission and the United Kingdom- argue that,to the extent that the contested regulation may interfere with the appellant's fundamental rights, this is justified for reasons relating to the suppression of international terrorism.
Article 2(b) of the contested regulation defines‘language of the proceedings', for the purposes of that regulation as being‘the language used in the proceedings before the EPO, as defined in Article 14(3) of the[EPC]'.
The principle of legal certainty doesnot require all rules to be laid down in the contested regulation down to the last detail and certain rules can be determined by the Member States or defined in delegated acts or implementing acts.
First, the contested regulation limits access to information for economic operators, since the specification of the EPUE is published only in the language of the proceedings, to the exclusion of other official languages of the EPO.
First, the Kingdom of Belgium, the French Republic,the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission claim that the contested regulation, read in conjunction with Regulation No 1257/2012, clearly and precisely defines the linguistic regime and the arrangements for publication and registration of the EPUE.
Second limb: the Contested Regulation is flawed insofar as it concludes that the retrospective application of duties on imports occurred during the registration period would avoid the remedial effect of the duties from being seriously undermined.
Last, a machine translation system did not exist when the contested regulation was adopted and there is no guarantee that such a system can function in an area where accurate translation is of fundamental importance.
In the contested regulation the EU legislature has, rightly, framed the applicable translation arrangements so as to temper the difference in treatment in the choice of languages and the impact that this could have on economic operators and stakeholders.
In the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, the appellant claimed that the contested regulation breached the right to a fair hearing, the right to respect for property and the principle of proportionality, and the right to effective judicial review.
Second, in Article 5 of the contested regulation, the EU legislature provides for a compensation scheme for the reimbursement of translation costs for persons who have not filed their European patent application in one of the official languages of the EPO.
The claimants in the main proceedings plead that the contested regulation contains ambiguities, gaps and contradictions which affect its legality having regard to both the obligation to state reasons and observance of the principle of legal certainty.
The Council's statement in the fourth recital in the preamble to the contested regulation that Community legislation was necessary‘notably with a view to avoiding distortion of competition' is shown, therefore, to be relevant in this connection.
In paragraph 186 of that judgment, it held that the contested regulation unarguably had general application within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 249 EC, since it prohibits anyone to make available funds or economic resources to certain persons.
Therefore, other findings reached in the contested Regulation which were not contested within the time-limits for a challenge or which were contested but rejected by the General Court's judgment and therefore did not lead to the annulment of the contested Regulation, remain valid.

