Sentences with phrase «court in case t»

This very issue was on display in the recent judgment of the General Court in Case T - 851 / 16 Access Info Europe v Commission.

The General Court in case T - 18 / 10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council held that

Not exact matches

As per an email I received earlier today from Bruce (i.e., Sheri's husband / attorney who prosecuted her case), the Court otherwise «declined to make an overall ruling on the [New York growth] rating system in general because of new regulations in effect» [e.g., that the state's growth model is currently under review]... [Nontheless, t] he decision should qualify as persuasive authority for other teachers challenging growth scores throughout the County [and Country].

[Moreover,] the Court held that initiating and conducting negotiations in order to conclude an international agreement fall, in principle, within the domain of the executive, and that public participation in the procedure relating to the negotiation and the conclusion of an international agreement is necessarily restricted, in view of the legitimate interest in not revealing strategic elements of the negotiations (Case T ‑ 529 / 09 in't Veld v Council [2012] ECR II - 0000, paragraph 88; see also paragraph 57 and the end of paragraph 59 of the judgment)T ‑ 529 / 09 in't Veld v Council [2012] ECR II - 0000, paragraph 88; see also paragraph 57 and the end of paragraph 59 of the judgment)t Veld v Council [2012] ECR II - 0000, paragraph 88; see also paragraph 57 and the end of paragraph 59 of the judgment).

Thorpe LJ provides some helpful procedural advice which may be incorporated into new family courts rules; but, in the longer term, does this case represent a continued widening of the door for outright capital provision for unmarried carer parents — in line with Re P (a child: financial provision)[2003] EWCA Civ 837, [2003] All ER (D) 312 (Jun)-- as against the interests in possession during a child's dependency favoured by earlier cases, eg T v S [1994] 1 FCR 743, [1994] 2 FLR 883; A v A [1995] 2 FCR 353, [1995] 2 FLR 356; J v C (a child: financial provision)[1998] 3 FCR 79, [1999] 1 FLR 152?

After an Odyssey of nearly 10 years, the legal proceedings of Switzerland against German restrictions on flights to and from Zurich airport have come to an end: The CJEU, in its judgement delivered on 7 March 2013 (Case C ‑ 547 / 10 P), has rejected Switzerland's appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 (Case T ‑ 319 / 05), by which the General Court had rejected Switzerland «s action for annulment against Commission Decision 2004 / 12 / EC of 5 December 2003 (OJ 2004 L 4, p. 13), thus allowing Germany to continue to apply unilateral restrictions on flights to and from Zurich airport over German territory.

[T] he original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in cases where a State is a party, refers to those cases in which, according to the grant of power made in the preceding clause, jurisdiction might be exercised in consequence of the character of the party, and an original suit might be instituted in any of the federal Courts, not to those cases in which an original suit might not be instituted in a federal Court.

In a case decided yesterday by the General Court this tension between secrecy needed for the effective conduct of negotiations and the right of citizens to be informed was readily apparent in determining whether the Commission was acting lawfully in its decision to refuse access to documents related to those negotiations to European Member of Parliament Sophie in «t VelIn a case decided yesterday by the General Court this tension between secrecy needed for the effective conduct of negotiations and the right of citizens to be informed was readily apparent in determining whether the Commission was acting lawfully in its decision to refuse access to documents related to those negotiations to European Member of Parliament Sophie in «t Velin determining whether the Commission was acting lawfully in its decision to refuse access to documents related to those negotiations to European Member of Parliament Sophie in «t Velin its decision to refuse access to documents related to those negotiations to European Member of Parliament Sophie in «t Velin «t Veld.

In its Judgment of 20 September 2012 in case T ‑ 154 / 10 French Republic vs. European Commission, the General Court of the EU (GC) has established a new test of «bankruptcy - proofness» as an advantage contrary to Article 107 (1) TFEU that may generate a significant shake up in the control of State aid granted (implicitly) to establishments of an industrial and commercial character (EICC, or EPIC in their French acronym)-- ie legal entities governed by public law which have distinct legal personality from the State, financial independence and certain special powers, including the performance of one or more public service taskIn its Judgment of 20 September 2012 in case T ‑ 154 / 10 French Republic vs. European Commission, the General Court of the EU (GC) has established a new test of «bankruptcy - proofness» as an advantage contrary to Article 107 (1) TFEU that may generate a significant shake up in the control of State aid granted (implicitly) to establishments of an industrial and commercial character (EICC, or EPIC in their French acronym)-- ie legal entities governed by public law which have distinct legal personality from the State, financial independence and certain special powers, including the performance of one or more public service taskin case T ‑ 154 / 10 French Republic vs. European Commission, the General Court of the EU (GC) has established a new test of «bankruptcy - proofness» as an advantage contrary to Article 107 (1) TFEU that may generate a significant shake up in the control of State aid granted (implicitly) to establishments of an industrial and commercial character (EICC, or EPIC in their French acronym)-- ie legal entities governed by public law which have distinct legal personality from the State, financial independence and certain special powers, including the performance of one or more public service taskin the control of State aid granted (implicitly) to establishments of an industrial and commercial character (EICC, or EPIC in their French acronym)-- ie legal entities governed by public law which have distinct legal personality from the State, financial independence and certain special powers, including the performance of one or more public service taskin their French acronym)-- ie legal entities governed by public law which have distinct legal personality from the State, financial independence and certain special powers, including the performance of one or more public service tasks.

This reasoning was, however, invalidated by the General Court in its Aéroports de Paris judgment of 12 December 2000 (T - 128 / 98, confirmed on appeal by the Court in case C - 82 / 01 P), which clarified that the operation of an airport constitutes an economic activity, although the case concerned Article 102 TFEU and rules on predatory pricing.

The matter was no less urgent because of the General Court's recent order in Cases T - 192 / 16, T - 193 / 16 and T - 257 / 16 NF, NG and NM v European Council, which established that the deal does not count as measure adopted by one of the institutions of the EU for the purposes of judicial review under the Treaties.

Shortly before Christmas, the Court of Justice delivered its highly anticipated judgment in case C - 104 / 16 P Council v Front Polisario, on appeal against the General Court (GC) judgment in case T - 512 / 12 Front Polisario v Council, an action for annulment brought by Front Polisario, the national liberation movement fighting for the independence of Western Sahara.

But on the constitutional issue of balancing the allegedly competing considerations of religious liberty and equality rights, the Court gets it quite right when it concludes that «[t] his case demonstrates that a well - intentioned majority acting in the name of tolerance and liberalism, can, if unchecked, impose its views on the minority in a manner that is in itself intolerant and illiberal.»

The Swiss Federal Tribunal goes, as did the European General Court in 2005 (EU General Court (formerly Court of the First Instance), 21st September 2005, case T - 315 / 01, Kadi v Council of the EU & Commission of the EC), in that direction, by holding open the door for not carrying out resolutions which violate ius cogens (BGE 2A.783 / 2006, para. 9.2.).

A simple search of published court decisions shows that Wikipedia is frequently cited by judges around the country, involving serious issues and the bizarre — such as a 2005 tax case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the definition of «beverage» that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars, and, just this week, a case in Federal District Court in Florida that involved the term «booty music» as played during a wet T - shirt concourt decisions shows that Wikipedia is frequently cited by judges around the country, involving serious issues and the bizarre — such as a 2005 tax case before the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the definition of «beverage» that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars, and, just this week, a case in Federal District Court in Florida that involved the term «booty music» as played during a wet T - shirt conCourt of Appeals concerning the definition of «beverage» that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars, and, just this week, a case in Federal District Court in Florida that involved the term «booty music» as played during a wet T - shirt conCourt in Florida that involved the term «booty music» as played during a wet T - shirt contest.

[T] he issue in this case is whether Appellant's statements constituted a criminal offense in light of the evidence set forth in the record of this case, not whether this Court approves of the statements made by the Appellant.

This is the second time that the ECJ was confronted with the issue of trade in seals, after having dismissed an earlier appeal to the order of the General Court in an action for annulment of Regulation No 1007/2009 on the basis of lack of admissibility (Case T - 18 / 10, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami I, EU: T: 2011:419).

EFIM sought for an annulment of the EFIM - decision, but the General Court confirmed the findings of the Commission in its judgment of 24 November 2011 in Case T ‑ 296 / 09), including — interestingly enough — the substantive analysis of dominance based on the four criteria mentioned.

An update one year later: there is now an AG opinion in the Inuit case (Case C - 583 / 11 P), and there is a new case by the General Court (Case T - 381 / 11 Eurofer v Commissicase (Case C - 583 / 11 P), and there is a new case by the General Court (Case T - 381 / 11 Eurofer v CommissiCase C - 583 / 11 P), and there is a new case by the General Court (Case T - 381 / 11 Eurofer v Commissicase by the General Court (Case T - 381 / 11 Eurofer v CommissiCase T - 381 / 11 Eurofer v Commission).

The recent judgment of the ECJ in T & L Sugars, a case dealing with import licenses for sugar, for example, shows that the ECJ quickly concludes that there are implementing measures at the national level, which should be challenged before national courts (C - 456 / 13 P, T & L Sugars, EU: C: 2015:284).

R. (on the application of T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester [2015] A.C. 49 (Supreme Court): Junior counsel for the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the Supreme Court in case concerning disclosure of personal information by police.

Magistrate Judge Grewal explains in his order that «expert trial testimony in patent cases is often far from perfect» and» [t] his case is no exception», but the court can't strike everything someone criticizes.

R (on the application of T and another) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and another, (Supreme Court), led by Caoilfhionn Gallagher, Conor was instructed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in this case concerning the disclosure of information pertaining to an individual's criminal record to potential employers and others.

On behalf of a unanimous bench, Supreme Court Justice Louis LeBel wrote: «[T] he public's right to proper disclosure was denied in this case, since the claims ended with two individually claimed compounds, thereby obscuring the true invention.

In granting Knecht's application for leave to appeal, Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Jack Watson wrote: «[T] he chief has an arguable case regarding the questions.

In this regard, the Court held — citing cases in Indiana and Texas (Ortman v. Ortman, 670 NE2d 1317 (Ind); Matter of Lewin, 149 SW3d 727 (Tex]-RRB--- that «[t] he appellant may not decide the timing and forum of the custody proceeding through wrongful removal of the child from the jurisdiction.&raquIn this regard, the Court held — citing cases in Indiana and Texas (Ortman v. Ortman, 670 NE2d 1317 (Ind); Matter of Lewin, 149 SW3d 727 (Tex]-RRB--- that «[t] he appellant may not decide the timing and forum of the custody proceeding through wrongful removal of the child from the jurisdiction.&raquin Indiana and Texas (Ortman v. Ortman, 670 NE2d 1317 (Ind); Matter of Lewin, 149 SW3d 727 (Tex]-RRB--- that «[t] he appellant may not decide the timing and forum of the custody proceeding through wrongful removal of the child from the jurisdiction.»

In view of the fact that the judgment in the said case was not appealed to the Court of Justice, the GC followed this reasoning also in the case T - 186 / 11 Schönberger v Parliament, however, this time, the applicant's petition was declared admissible by the Petitions Committee, but, as Mr. Schönberger alleged, not properly handled in the subsequent stepIn view of the fact that the judgment in the said case was not appealed to the Court of Justice, the GC followed this reasoning also in the case T - 186 / 11 Schönberger v Parliament, however, this time, the applicant's petition was declared admissible by the Petitions Committee, but, as Mr. Schönberger alleged, not properly handled in the subsequent stepin the said case was not appealed to the Court of Justice, the GC followed this reasoning also in the case T - 186 / 11 Schönberger v Parliament, however, this time, the applicant's petition was declared admissible by the Petitions Committee, but, as Mr. Schönberger alleged, not properly handled in the subsequent stepin the case T - 186 / 11 Schönberger v Parliament, however, this time, the applicant's petition was declared admissible by the Petitions Committee, but, as Mr. Schönberger alleged, not properly handled in the subsequent stepin the subsequent steps.

In addition to the appeal cases before the ECHA BOA, I increasingly advise and take cases before the EU Courts — such as the current Esso Raffinage case before the General Court (T / 283 -15).

Does the court have a duty and responsibility to restore Societal Trust, in gov» t practices and policies, where a clear case of violation exists?

That kind of argument can be successful only if it challenges the General Court's findings of fact in paragraph 170 of the judgment under appeal, to the effect that «[t] he «last interested person» in the transparent and open tendering procedure in this case was candidate 4.

Tom has appeared in many leading cases in recent years, including The Alexandros T and The New Flamenco in the Supreme Court (as well as the Court of Appeal and the Commercial Court) and The Channel Ranger and The Wadi Sudr (Court of Appeal and Commercial Court) whilst also maintaining a busy practice in commercial and maritime arbitration.

Regardless of how the courts proceed and what decisions judges are to make, the legal services of JM & T are experienced in the matters of accident liability and criminal injury cases.

To the extent that Apple's opening presentation references past events in which Steve Jobs was the protagonist, such as major product launches, there may be a factual basis for showing some of the pictures Samsung objects to, though the court might also agree with Samsung that» [t] he use of Mr. Jobs» image in these slides is not relevant to the specific intellectual property rights at issue in this case».

In that context, it should be observed that the reasoning of the decision of a Board of Appeal may be implicit, on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know the reasons for the Board of Appeal's decision and provides the competent Court with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review (Case T ‑ 304 / 06 Reber v OHIM — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli (Mozart)[2008] ECR II ‑ 1927, paragraph 55).

In the case of Susan Berney v Thomas Saul (T / A Thomas Saul & Co) 2013 the Court of Appeal has given judgment in a professional indemnity case arising out of a personal injury claiIn the case of Susan Berney v Thomas Saul (T / A Thomas Saul & Co) 2013 the Court of Appeal has given judgment in a professional indemnity case arising out of a personal injury claiin a professional indemnity case arising out of a personal injury claim.

The issue in Dynamex is whether, in wage and hour cases in California, the courts in that state should (a) continue to follow the California Supreme Court's time - honored holding from 1989 in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep» t of Industrial Relations; (b) apply the test set forth in the California Supreme Court's 2010 holding in Martinez v. Combs; or (c) apply a new standard similar to the employee - friendly test set forth in 2015 by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a case called Hargrove v. Sleepy's LLC.

The jurisdiction of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to challenge its own decision in respect of a European Patent application before the General Court (Case T - 186 / 04, Spa Monopole)

Belize Bank Ltd. v. Gov» t of Belize, No. 14 - cv - 659 (D.D.C., 2016), is one of several recent cases in which the District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Government of Belize («Belize») to pay an arbitration award.

[T] he court's refusal in Sparrow to address the commercial aspects of an Indian food fishery is significant... The Court not only declined the invitation but... its reasoning in Sparrow and in the important recent treaty rights case of R. v. Horseman makes unlikely the future recognition of a significant commercial component to the Aboriginal food fishecourt's refusal in Sparrow to address the commercial aspects of an Indian food fishery is significant... The Court not only declined the invitation but... its reasoning in Sparrow and in the important recent treaty rights case of R. v. Horseman makes unlikely the future recognition of a significant commercial component to the Aboriginal food fisheCourt not only declined the invitation but... its reasoning in Sparrow and in the important recent treaty rights case of R. v. Horseman makes unlikely the future recognition of a significant commercial component to the Aboriginal food fishery.18

[T] he Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments on whether that state's 2005 cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases violates the state constitution.

With no support beyond its own ipse dixit, the Court concludes that the Kentucky statute involved in this case «has no secular legislative purpose,» ante at 449 U. S. 41 (emphasis supplied), and that» [t] he preeminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature,» ibid.

Richard Dolan said...» [T] his case was tried in a federal court... where one would have hoped that federal constitutional rights might have received more serious attention.»

[t] rial decisions, even in important constitutional cases, attract less attention than appellate ones, especially those of the Supreme Court.

Speaking of occupied territories, an interesting judgment should soon come from the General Court of the European Union (GC) in Action for Annulment Frente Polisario v Council (Case T - 512 / 12), a case with fascinating international law aspeCase T - 512 / 12), a case with fascinating international law aspecase with fascinating international law aspects.

This is a follow - up to my July post on Action for Annulment Frente Polisario v Council (Case T - 512 / 12), a case before the General Court of the European Union (GC) in which Frente Polisario — the National Liberation Movement for Western Sahara — seeks the Annulment of the EU Council decision adopting the 2010 EU - Morocco Agreement on agricultural, processed agricultural and fisheries produCase T - 512 / 12), a case before the General Court of the European Union (GC) in which Frente Polisario — the National Liberation Movement for Western Sahara — seeks the Annulment of the EU Council decision adopting the 2010 EU - Morocco Agreement on agricultural, processed agricultural and fisheries producase before the General Court of the European Union (GC) in which Frente Polisario — the National Liberation Movement for Western Sahara — seeks the Annulment of the EU Council decision adopting the 2010 EU - Morocco Agreement on agricultural, processed agricultural and fisheries products.

These have been interpreted in the recent case of Merrix v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 346 (QB), [2017] 1 Costs LR 91 where Mrs Justice Carr held specifically that CPR 3.18 (b) means CPR 3.18 (b): «[T] he court will... not depart from such approved or agreed budget unless satisfied that there is a good reason to do so.»

Those fees set by the bodies that run the courts — usually the gov» t — so can be reduced or eliminated in appropriate cases by the gov» t if the gov» t believes they're are problem.

I quoted with fairly obvious approval the Court of Appeal in AG Ref 24 of 1994 saying «[t] his court is concerned primarily with the criminality...»; and R v Stokes [1997] EWCA Crim 1885, where the Court of Appeal said the judge was «entirely justified in taking into account the consequences of the bad driving», while making the point that was a case of dangerous, not careless, driCourt of Appeal in AG Ref 24 of 1994 saying «[t] his court is concerned primarily with the criminality...»; and R v Stokes [1997] EWCA Crim 1885, where the Court of Appeal said the judge was «entirely justified in taking into account the consequences of the bad driving», while making the point that was a case of dangerous, not careless, dricourt is concerned primarily with the criminality...»; and R v Stokes [1997] EWCA Crim 1885, where the Court of Appeal said the judge was «entirely justified in taking into account the consequences of the bad driving», while making the point that was a case of dangerous, not careless, driCourt of Appeal said the judge was «entirely justified in taking into account the consequences of the bad driving», while making the point that was a case of dangerous, not careless, driving.

For example, in the Alberta (Education) case, the teacher is technically making the copy on behalf of the student; however, the Court found that their purposes are inseparable, noting that «[t] he teacher / copier therefore shares a symbiotic purpose with the student / user who is engaging in research or private study.»

'' [T] he Supreme Court stated as early as United States v. Hudson and Goodwin (the famous case that articulated the doctrine of legality in criminal law) that certain powers inhere in a cCourt stated as early as United States v. Hudson and Goodwin (the famous case that articulated the doctrine of legality in criminal law) that certain powers inhere in a courtcourt.