Sentences with phrase «tribunal decisions stating»

Not exact matches

About 40 countries, including the United States, have indicated officially that they expect China to abide by the ruling, by Poling's count, so China would presumably lose political capital with those nations if it continued to act in opposition to any tribunal decisions.

«Take notice that the appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the governorship election tribunal for Rivers state, sitting in Abuja, contained in the judgment of the tribunal coram Hon. Justice Suleiman Ambursa (chairman), Hon. Justice Wesley Ibrahim Leha (member) and Hon. Justice Bayo Taiwo (member)(sitting in court no. 23 of the FCT high court dated the 24th of October 2015, doth hereby appeal to the court of appeal upon the grounds set out in paragraph 3 and will at the hearing seek the reliefs set out in paragraph 4,» the statement read.

«Governor Wike sought an order of the court of appeal allowing his appeal and an order of the court setting aside the judgment / decision of the Rivers state governorship election tribunal.

We are asking the court to re evaluate those documents or reevaluate the evidence placed before lower tribunal and allow the appeal to set aside the decision of the lower tribunal and declare Ladoja the winner of the governorship election of Oyo state.»

However, just last month, the Novenergia tribunal held that the Commission's state aid decision is not relevant in the proceedings because the tribunal «was not applying EU law» (para. 465), with the Commission's decision being «entirely irrelevant to the determinations pertaining to this Tribunal» (idem.).

The tribunal held, inter alia, that the ECT did not protect investors from the implementation of the state aid decision as the member states» obligations under the ECT and EU law formed a harmonious set of obligations.

A German court reached this decision where the provisions of the 1996 English Arbitration Act agreed to by the parties granted discretion to the tribunal to schedule an oral hearing.908 A United States court held that a tribunal's decision of an issue of contract interpretation based solely on documentary evidence was not fundamentally unfair where the parties had not agreed on the applicable procedure.

We have a proven track record in regulatory appeals in the Magistrates» Courts, before the Secretary of State and in the specialist tribunals, including appeals against abatement notices, enforcement notices, permitting decisions and access to environmental information.

In the Court's view, the decision to consolidate the claims was within the tribunal's discretion, and this decision was reached after a careful interpretation of the parties» contract.906 In another decision, a United States court held that there was no deviation from the rules of the American Arbitration Association agreed to by the parties where the tribunal had considered a belatedly submitted technical report, adding that «[a] rbitration proceedings are not constrained by formal rules of procedure or evidence.»

Additionally, [ICS is] likely to affect the autonomy of the European Union's legal order, as the investment tribunals» binding and enforceable decisions on state liability threaten the effective and uniform application of EU law.»

The tribunal reached these decisions after interpreting Section 45.1 of the Code, which states that: «The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.»

This case questions the tribunal's position, specifically whether it needs to state on the face of its decision the manner in which it has addressed each argument made by all parties.

Arbitral tribunal decisions are widely enforceable internationally (including in China and the United States) under a number of conventions, including the New York Convention, of which the UK is a direct contracting party.

Justice Manderscheid touches on this argument only at the very end of his judgment by (1) simply declaring that the Commissioner's decision not to follow these earlier interpretations was reasonable (at para 83); and (2) stating that in any event the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply to administrative tribunals such that the Commission is entitled to completely depart from an earlier interpretation (at para 84).

My understanding of Achmea is that the Court considers it contrary to EU law for a MS to enter into an agreement which may cause it to be bound by decisions of a tribunal if (i) the tribunal may take decisions affecting EU law in that state — which is almost inevitable for any trade or investment tribunal, and (ii) it can not refer questions to the Court, and (iii) there is no possibility to substantively review the decisions in the MS courts.

Simply stated, a case citation is a reference to a reliable source of the full text of the decision of a court or tribunal.

It would be wrong as a matter of principle if the secretary of state for the Home Department could circumvent the decision of an immigration appeal tribunal by an administrative decision.

Furthermore, although it is true that the procedure laid down in Article 267 TFEU is an instrument for cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, by means of which the former provides the latter with the points of interpretation of EU law necessary in order for them to decide the disputes before them, the fact remains that when there is no judicial remedy under national law against the decision of a court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal is, in principle, obliged to bring the matter before the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU where a question relating to the interpretation of EU law is raised before it...

However, the tribunal attempted to play down the significance of its decision by stating that there was no «hard - and - fast rule» to this effect.

UKBA 2007, s 19 states that in appeals relating to entry clearance, and the refusal of certificates of entitlement to the right of abode, the tribunal should consider only those circumstances appertaining at the time of the decision.

Sean is a member of the team analysing the jurisdictional decisions of investor - State arbitration tribunals for InvestmentClaims.com (a leading OUP database).

The problem is simply stated as follows: Develop a principled approach to reconcile traditional accounts of the rule of law with the modern reality that administrative agencies and statutory tribunals who do not operate like or resemble the ordinary courts but who nevertheless occupy a large amount of space in our legal system and can not avoid making legal determinations in exercising their statutory duties which often implicate individual rights and interests to a greater extent than judicial decisions.

In this class of cases, we think the rule of action which should govern the civil courts, founded in a broad and sound view of the relations of church and state under our system of laws, and supported by a preponderating weight of judicial authority, is that whenever the questions of discipline or of faith or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final and as binding on them in their application to the case before them.

A person who is displeased with a district court's express decision may ask for review in the Florida Supreme Court and then in the United States Supreme Court, but neither tribunal is required to accept the case for further review.

Notwithstanding the permissive language of Article 16 (3) of the Model Law, which states that «[i] f the tribunal rules as a preliminary question that it has jurisdiction, any party may request, within thirty days... the court... to decide the matter» [emphasis added], in light of the Singapore High Court's decision, parties in arbitration would need to ensure that they adhere to the 30 - day period in Article 16 (3) of the Model Law if applicable.

Represented the United States Trade Representative (USTR) as respondent in a judicial review before the Federal Court of Appeal brought by the applicants to question the decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal in an antidumping and subsidy case where the tribunal held, in favour of the USTR, that there was no injury to the applicants.

In the cases governed by Article 234 of the EC Treaty, the decision of the national court or tribunal shall, moreover, be notified by the Registrar of the Court to the States, other than the Member States, which are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area and also to the EFTA Surveillance Authority referred to in that Agreement which may, within two months of notification, where one of the fields of application of that Agreement is concerned, submit statements of case or written observations to the Court.

Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

(a) any court or tribunal of that State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law may request the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on a question raised in a case pending before it and concerning the validity or interpretation of an act referred to in paragraph 1 if that court or tribunal considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment; or

In Gramaglia v Canada (Attorney General), 1998 FCJ No 1384 (TD) the tribunal provided the applicant with two documents: a signed decision letter stating that the appeal was dismissed for reasons that were attached.

In Wihksne v. Canada (Attorney General), 2000 FCJ NO. 1178 the reasons and decision of the tribunal were not signed by the three members but the reasons stated the names of the three decision - makers in an opening paragraph.

On 6 March 2018 the Grand Chamber of the CJEU ruled in the Achmea decision (C - 284 / 16) that the bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between The Netherlands and the Slovak Republic violated EU law because it allowed an arbitral tribunal to interpret provisions of EU law in a dispute between investors and (Member) States, while such interpretation...

The «conservatives» who are skeptical of judicial review of legislation, especially on Charter grounds, rally under «the Diceyan banner» — which is also «a flag of hostility to the administrative state» — and thus don't like courts to defer to the decisions of administrative agencies and tribunals.

Courts can take shortcuts by focusing their research on salient indicia of state practice in the form of treaties and important decisions from international tribunals, but those examples usually seem to tell only part of the story.

This is consistent with Doré, which states at para 24 that administrative tribunals must already use the Charter in their decision - making, and consequently a s. 1 analysis is not the appropriate analysis when a Charter right is engaged.

The ECJ decided that because arbitration tribunals set up through investor - state dispute settlement are not part of the EU judicial system, because such tribunals may resolve disputes that relate to the application or interpretation of EU law, and because the awards of the tribunal are not subject to review by member state courts, the decisions of these tribunals are not compatible with EU law.

The first chapter of this year's report examines how the operation and administration of the right to negotiate by state and territory governments and administrative tribunals limit the right of Indigenous people to participate in decisions affecting their land and to determine their economic, social and cultural development.

Although ruling that the bureau failed to make its case under one section of the Competition Act, the tribunal's April decision stated in «an observation» that another section of the act «might give the commissioner a means to apply to the tribunal.»

(f) Any party may file with the Secretary a written request for disqualification of a member of a tribunal (Hearing Panel or Board of Directors), stating the grounds alleged as basis for disqualification (i.e., factors which would prevent a tribunal member from rendering an impartial, unbiased, and knowledgeable decision).

380 DOS 03 Donati v. DOS — prior misconduct; reconsideration; res judicata; applicant's prior license as a real estate broker was suspended by administrative decision (50 DOS 94) requiring respondent to pay restitution as a condition of consideration of any application by the applicant for a license under Article 12 - A; prior administrative decision is binding both upon the applicant and the tribunal; tribunal must consider, however, whether under current circumstances, the continued imposition of the condition is unreasonable; applicant is 62 years of age, has been divested of all property, faces destitution and seeks to work as a salesperson under the direction and supervision of a broker; applicant admits the unlawful acts, expresses remorse and states that under the current circumstances, the prior decision is a «life sentence;» under the current circumstances, the continued imposition of the prior decision is unreasonable; application for real estate salesperson license granted

The decision of the (specify body — name of tribunal) shall be final and binding and is not subject to further review by the State Association or any Board.

The decision of the tribunal shall be final and binding and is not subject to further review by the State Association or any local Board.