The whole body of
the article justifies the the reasons.
Not exact matches
I've never heard of this guy until today and the only
reason this
article was written was to
justify is own sin.
i think your comment completely
justifies the
article above!why didn, t we go for perez before?wenger might have been pursuing other targets?valencia wanted 50 millions from us but with one week left in the window and no one else coming for him they had to lower their fee also mustafi and his agent met with valencia officials only few days ago to push for a move, so you see they are many
reasons that we don, t even know about why these deals weren, t done before, i don, t pretend to know everything but try to keep an open mind!!
This
article isn't written to
justify why a particular dog or breed attacks, but to explain the possible
reasons why the attack occurred, and then what would follow would be: what can be done to prevent future attacks.
Within this
article is the same lame antique
reasons that the AVMA & their vets are still preaching in order to
justify declawing a cat.
Given the failure of the publisher to show any «error» other than the expectation that models be consistent with observations, I think that readers are entirely
justified in concluding that the
article was rejected not because it «contained errors», but for the
reason stated in the reviewers» summary: because it was perceived to be «harmfulâ $ ¦ and worse from the climate sceptics» media side».
Given the failure of the publisher to show any «error» other than the expectation that models be consistent with observations, I think that readers are entirely
justified in concluding that the
article was rejected not because it «contained errors», but for the
reason stated in the reviewers» summary: because it was perceived to be «harmful... and worse from the climate sceptics» media side».
Of course, breaches of the Charter do not
justify others, but this goes to show that the UN has graver problems than abstract, retroactive violations of
Article 103 based on the «constitutional»
reasoning of a supranational court.
With regard to visas with limited territorial validity, this
Article provides that in exceptional circumstances («for
reasons deemed
justified by the consulate») a Member State's authorities may allow applicants that have already stayed within the territory of that Member State for three months in a given period of six months to stay on the territory of that Member States for another three months.
You refer to
article 25, 1, b Regulation to argue «With regard to visas with limited territorial validity, this Article provides that in exceptional circumstances («for reasons deemed justified by the consulate») a Member State's authorities may allow applicants that have already stayed within the territory of that Member State for three months in a given period of six months to stay on the territory of that Member States for another three
article 25, 1, b Regulation to argue «With regard to visas with limited territorial validity, this
Article provides that in exceptional circumstances («for reasons deemed justified by the consulate») a Member State's authorities may allow applicants that have already stayed within the territory of that Member State for three months in a given period of six months to stay on the territory of that Member States for another three
Article provides that in exceptional circumstances («for
reasons deemed
justified by the consulate») a Member State's authorities may allow applicants that have already stayed within the territory of that Member State for three months in a given period of six months to stay on the territory of that Member States for another three months.
Further on in the judgment, the Court answered the question whether under
article 6 (4) of directive 92/43 irrigation and supply of drinking water constitute imperative
reasons of overriding public interest that can
justify the project impact on the integrity of the sites concerned.