Sentences with phrase «between member states not»

In your interpretation, is there not a distinction between Member States not submitting disputes outside the judicial system and the EU itself resolving its disputes with third countries by means of international adjudication?

Not exact matches

The Eurogroup President's proposal for an independent fiscal committee will not water down tensions between member states over fiscal policy.

The whole episode culminated in Renault's independent board members condemning the government's «destabilising» influence on the Nissan - Renault alliance, the signing of an agreement between the state and the company that would cap the state's voting rights on most resolutions, and an amendment to the master co-operation agreement with Nissan, in which Renault agreed not to use its shareholding to oppose the Nissan board.

If this aspect differed in kind in the case of Jesus from every other member of the species man, then in the present state of our knowledge it would seem impossible rightly to describe Jesus as a man.17 It may be the case that most Christians (and most Christian theologians) in most centuries have accepted this claim: but most have not shared either our modern sensitivity to the difference between history and mythology or our concern for the principles of logic.

It follows that, if the discrepancy between the number of possible states and the number of possible samples is large enough, we can assert without fear of contradiction that no two members of a class, e.g., no two members of an animal or plant species, not even two bacteria, can ever be in the same internal state.

«We respectfully ask you to consider Brunson's case and how the recent treatment of Brunson places significant strain not only on him and his family, but also on the robust bilateral relationship between the United States and Turkey,» read the letter to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and signed by 78 members of Congress.

But a diplomatic relationship exists between Zimbabwe and the Vatican, a sovereign state that is not a member of the European Union.

That leaves a Monday - night matchup between Oklahoma State and UConn — and not a shred of doubt about who'll be the sentimental choice, as Sutton aims for his long - awaited first title three years after a plane crash killed 10 members of the Cowboys» program.

European leaders must not allow a resurgence of conflictual relations (of any form) in Europe, and especially between member states.

The EU proposals are based on claims that more than five people die on roads every day due to technical failures, but the BMF say that other statistics show that there is little correlation in fatality rates between member states that have motorcycle RWTs and those that don't.

We are not equipped to deal with new immigration arrangements after 44 years of free movement between member states.

The state capital's culture is notorious for its male privilege — the New York Times once summarized the infamous «Bear Mountain Compact» as «any liaisons with interns or young staff members that occur north of Bear Mountain Bridge, which spans the Hudson River between Orange and Westchester Counties, are not spoken about in the home districts in New York City or elsewhere.»

The report also showed, SBF did not disclose to the state a conflict of interest involving the affiliation between one of its board members, who served on the foundation's investment committee, and a firm that provides investment services to the foundation.

Tensions between Gov. Andrew Cuomo and members of his own party in the Legislature continued on Wednesday, with the governor's office getting into further dustups with both the Assembly speaker and defending itself for not doing more to help flip control of the state Senate.

«So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual member states and the United Kingdom,» the paper reads.

«On the other, it has not yet struck the right balance between the member states.

Am sure some people get the story of ogun APC wrong, the issue is not between Osoba and Amosun rather Amosun with other Apc stalwarts, started from his deputy, all the senators, all the reps, most of party leaders, mejority of assembly members in ogun state even some of the grass root members that worked for amosun's victory in 2011, despite all Osoba intervention with some traditional ruler, Amosun believe he can do it alone, so am sure Osoba left with no option than to stay with mejority followers and path away with Amosun, especially when Amosun always says that he need no politician with him, even went to an extent of attacking ogun central senator with thugs and attempted to kill him.Also,short - changed Osoba's people in last APC congress in the state.But, after the result in Ekiti, he started realizing that he need them only for his 2015 victory but not in his government or in the party..

I say to the Under - Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)-- perhaps she will have the courtesy to listen when she is being spoken to from the Chair — that it is not acceptable for any Member of the House to treat the debate as a private conversation between himself or herself and the Member on his or her feet.

ALBANY — As the war between the fractured Democrats in the state Senate rages on, the mainline Dems could lose another member this week — though not to a rival faction.

APSCo's education code of conduct was developed in conjunction with NAHT and states that our members «shall not misrepresent pay rates, contract terms, assignment duration or other subjects relevant to the relationship between the member, the client and the candidate» and shall not «unfairly prevent a candidate from pursuing other opportunities, nor will they induce candidates to breach or improperly interfere with a contractual relationship with a client».

You will not, and will not allow or authorize others to, use the Services or the Sites to take any actions that: (i) infringe on any third party's copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other proprietary rights or rights of publicity or privacy; (ii) violate any applicable law, statute, ordinance or regulation (including those regarding export control); (iii) are defamatory, trade libelous, threatening, harassing, invasive of privacy, stalking, harassment, abusive, tortuous, hateful, discriminatory based on race, ethnicity, gender, sex or disability, pornographic or obscene; (iv) interfere with or disrupt any services or equipment with the intent of causing an excessive or disproportionate load on the Animal League or its licensors or suppliers» infrastructure; (v) involve knowingly distributing viruses, Trojan horses, worms, or other similar harmful or deleterious programming routines; (vi) involve the preparation and / or distribution of «junk mail», «spam», «chain letters», «pyramid schemes» or other deceptive online marketing practices or any unsolicited bulk email or unsolicited commercial email or otherwise in a manner that violate the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN - SPAM Act of 2003); (vii) would encourage conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, federal or international laws, rules or regulations; (viii) involve the unauthorized entry to any machine accessible via the Services or interfere with the Sites or any servers or networks connected to the Sites or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Sites, or attempt to breach the security of or disrupt Internet communications on the Sites (including without limitation accessing data to which you are not the intended recipient or logging into a server or account for which you are not expressly authorized); (ix) impersonate any person or entity, including, without limitation, one of the Animal League's or other's officers or employees, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity; (x) forge headers or otherwise manipulate identifiers in order to disguise the origin of any information transmitted through the Sites; (xi) collect or store personal data about other Animal League members, Site users or attempt to gain access to other Animal League members information, or otherwise mine information about Animal League members, Site users, or the Sites; (xii) execute any form of network monitoring or run a network analyzer or packet sniffer or other technology to intercept, decode, mine or display any packets used to communicate between the Sites» servers or any data not intended for you; (xiii) attempt to circumvent authentication or security of any content, host, network or account («cracking») on or from the Sites; or (xiv) are contrary to the Animal League's public image, goodwill, reputation or mission or otherwise not in furtherance of the Animal Leagues stated purposes.

Miles are personal to a Member and can not be transferred between Flying Club accounts except in the limited circumstances set out in paragraphs 2.9 or as otherwise expressly stated in these Flying Club Terms.

Only one credit of Miles is available per room per stay unless otherwise stated and Miles can not be split between two or more Members.

Only one credit of miles is available per room per stay unless otherwise stated and miles can not be spilt between two or more members.

Jayantha Dhanapala, member of the BAS Board of Sponsors, former United Nations under - secretary - general for Disarmament Affairs and ambassador of Sri Lanka to the United States, adds, «Despite the promise of a new spirit of international cooperation, and reductions in tensions between the United States and Russia, the Science and Security Board believes that the path toward a world free of nuclear weapons is not at all clear, and leadership is failing.

Knutti et al. (2010a) investigated the behaviour of the state - of - the - art climate model ensemble created by the World Climate Research Programme's Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3 (CMIP3, Meehl et al. 2007), and found that the truth centred paradigm is incompatible with the CMIP3 ensemble: the ensemble mean does not converge to observations as the number of ensemble members increases, and the pairwise correlation of model errors (the differences between model and observation) between two ensemble members does not average to zero (Knutti et al. 2010a; Annan and Hargreaves 2010; hereafter AH10).

The Court's very formalistic way of dealing with this, where it qualifies leniency as a program developed by the Commission without binding effects on the Member States, certainly does not do justice to the uneasy relationship between a very effective detection tool and follow - on damages claims.

Indeed, since the division of competences between the Member States and the Union is at the core of the EU constitutional framework, it is arguable that the ordinary rules of competences can not be bypassed without an explicit provision of primary law.

Almost all Member States openly question why the Commission did not first maximize the existing possibilities of cooperation between Member States and await the effects of recently proposed and / or adopted adjustments strengthening Eurojust and OLAF, as well as the pending proposal of Directive on EU Fraud.

In its judgment of 26 February 2013, the CJEU responded to the first two questions in the affirmative, and clarified that Article 53 of the Charter only allows national authorities to apply higher standards of protection of fundamental rights where an EU legal act calls for national implementing measures, but not where, as in this case, the EU legal act harmonises the law between the Member States.

Therefore, when the Union acts within its external competences and within the remit of an association agreement, the proper legal basis should be chosen from those Treaty provisions regulating such action (part V), irrespective of whether the aim and content of the external measure are to introduce cooperation equal to that between Member States or not.

Despite the existence of a democratically elected assembly since 1979 in the form of the European Parliament, the links between this parliament and the status of Union citizenship have been ambiguous [1] with the parliament representing not a single group of Union citizens but rather the «peoples» of Europe, those peoples being defined by Member States and national law.

In Bressol (2010), the Court not only held that the choice between open and restricted university access was one for the Member States to make, but it also found a quota on non-resident students for certain para-medical studies justifiable in the light of the unsolved problems arising from the fact that the Member States organize their higher education systems in ways that create adverse effects for other Member States.

Even though the AG suggested this approach under the ERTA doctrine and the possible use of Article 216 (1) TFEU as a bridge from «internal to external» competencies (para. 104 of the Opinion), the Court apparently wanted to distinguish between situations where the measures implementing the association agreement aim to create a relationship equal to those between EU Member States and those where this is not the case.

30 It should be noted that the EU and FEU Treaties do not contain any express reference to movements of capital between Member States and OCTs.

The CJEU leaves the remainder of the preliminary questions unanswered, such as whether the relationship between an OCT and its «own» Member State is an internal situation — which it is in my view [12]-- to which the free movement provisions of the OCT - Decision and / or TFEU do not apply (at all).

More specifically, the question was raised in this context whether Protocol no. 16 would not threaten the autonomy of EU law and the monopoly of the ECJ on the interpretation of EU law, by allowing supreme courts of the Member States to engage in a kind of «forum shopping» between the Luxembourg and Strasbourg courts.

to derogate from the criteria regarding sharing of competences between the Member States in order to facilitate the bringing together of family members where that is necessary on humanitarian grounds, [it] must be capable of applying to situations going beyond those which are the subject of Articles 6 to 8 of the Regulation, even though they concern persons who do not fall within the definition of «family members» within the meaning of Article 2 (i) of [the] Regulation.

The Court expressly recognised that the application of this principle leads to the establishment of a clear distinction between beneficiaries of policies and the rest of the Member States, which should accept the responsibility of sharing the burden carried by the beneficiaries even if that sharing is not compatible with their national interests (para. 293 of the Judgment).

In its controversial judgment of 26 February 2013, the CJEU said «no»: where an EU legal act harmonises the law between the Member States, national constitutions can not provide higher levels of protection.

However, the Court of Justice found at paragraph 24 of Opinion 1/91 that the «interpretation mechanism» whereby the EEA court would have to interpret the rules of the agreement in conformity with the case - law of the Court of Justice would not be sufficient to ensure the legal homogeneity between the EEA states and the EU Member Sstates and the EU Member StatesStates.

Thus, Member States remain free to impose restrictions on air transport services between the EU Member States and third countries insofar as the EU legislature has not exercised its competences to liberalize those services.

EU - law therefore applies, whereas Advocate - General Bot had concluded in his opinion in this case that EU - law was not applicable, since international law regulating diplomatic affairs between Member States was applicable, which is according to the AG outside the competences of the EU and therefore outside the scope of EU - law.

Let's try to compare the point 50 of the opinion: «While the movement of citizens of the Union between Member States is governed by EU law, and in particular by Article 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38, the same does not apply to visits to Member States by Heads of State» which basically says that the movement of diplomats falls outside the scope of EU law, with the judgment of the Court in paragraph 51: «Accordingly, the fact that a Union citizen performs the duties of a Head of State is such as to justify a limitation, based on international law, on the exercise of the right of free movement conferred on that person by Article 21 TFEU.».

Such measures shall be proportionate and may not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.

The current cooperation pursuant to the Council Framework Decision 13th June 2002, following my observations as a practitioner in both jurisdictions, drew my attention to the necessity for a mutual cooperation, not only between the Member States» authorities, but inter alia, the lawyers from both countries as the ways of defending the requested persons are completely different; this will see the result meeting at one point, namely the successful defence.

«[The] application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States within the meaning of the Dassonville judgment (Case 8/74 [1974] ECR 837), so long as those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States» (Keck, para. 16)(emphasis added).

OMT measures would also lead to a redistribution of budget resources between the Member States, which the Treaties (i.e. Article 125 TFEU) do not provide for (paras 39 - 41).

[8] It is interesting to note as well, in this respect, that the GC found that the Commission should have given more indications as to how such a scheme would have conferred an advantage to the investors — and not to the shipyards or shipping companies — that would be liable to distort competition and to affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 107 TFUE (para. 200 of the judgment).

However, this does not imply a blind trust between Member States, especially when there are objective and evident issues («dans des cas où, objectivement, des questions se posent de manière évidente», § 76).