Sentences with phrase «between member states where»

Not exact matches

Another part of the Action plan is meant to keep a close eye on transactions carried out between EU - member countries and other states, where money laundering is a common practice.

Between 1814 and 1816, Captain Dudley Avery wrote numerous letters to Mary Ann Browne Avery, the parents of Daniel Dudley Avery (1810 - 1879), from New Orleans where he also served as a member of the state legislature.

While Lord West's review has found no systematic failings in our procedures for checking potential suspects, it has highlighted the importance of enhancing existing cooperation to share more information between police and immigration services and internationally across countries: - within the EU to enable British law enforcement authorities to access immigration information on existing EU databases; - bilaterally with other member states to mutually exchange information; - and joining up criminal records databases throughout the EU so that our authorities can quickly identify individuals charged with crimes, no matter where in Europe they are convicted.

Providing leadership in the creation of a statewide learning network that increases interaction and teamwork between and among our members throughout the state, where accomplishments are highlighted, successes are shared and the capacity of our schools to offer a quality education to all students is further enhanced.

Between 1984 and 2003 he also taught frequently in the United States: at the State University of New York, Johns Hopkins University, Harvard University, Stanford University, and the University of Chicago, where for six years he was a member of the Committee on Social Thought.

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.

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.

It is clear that the Electrabel tribunal's use of EU law is poles apart from e.g. the Maffezini tribunal's engagement, and its discussion on the division of competences between the EU and its member states is problematic in light of Opinions 1/91 and 2/13, where the Court explicitly stated that questions of competence are its sole prerogative.

In the VALE judgment the Court refers to its earlier SEVIC judgment (C - 411 / 03) where it ruled that company transformation operations respond to the needs for cooperation and consolidation between companies established in different 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.

[s] ince the British Virgin Islands, where [the companies Lovett Overseas SA and Grebell Investments SA] are registered, are included in the list of OCTs in Annex II to the FEU Treaty, it is necessary to consider whether Article 63 TFEU applies to movements of capital between Member States and OCTs.

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.

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.

We have seen firms with hundreds of members where a conflict check is still an email between partners stating basically: «Do you recognize this name?»

With the Amsterdam Treaty, a new capacity was created to deploy enhanced cooperation on a more ad hoc policy issue basis, particularly where legislative negotiations had failed to resolve disagreements between Member States.

Member states are normally given a margin of appreciation regarding the assessment of where a fair balance lies in a case, between the public and private interests involved, and, as the Grand Chamber said this «will also usually be a wide margin», in a case like this in particular since there is no consensus in member sMember states are normally given a margin of appreciation regarding the assessment of where a fair balance lies in a case, between the public and private interests involved, and, as the Grand Chamber said this «will also usually be a wide margin», in a case like this in particular since there is no consensus in member smember states.

This situation can be seen pretty well on the economic area, where interactions between EU institutions and Member States (MS) have been rising in the last decades in order to accomplish the economic goals set for both parties and to protect and to ensure the EU single market.

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...

A contract between the plaintiff's employer and the owner of the land where the wells were to be drilled stated that the supervising crew member would be compensated for driving the crew members to and from the drilling site.

Where proceedings relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment between the same parties are brought before courts of different Member States, the court second seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established.

a) where none of the parties is resident in a Contracting State that is not a Member State of the Regional Economic Integration Organisation; b) as concerns the recognition or enforcement of judgments as between Member States of the Regional Economic Integration Organisation.

The questions raised by the present case essentially ask, first, whether the French tax on the market value of immovable property owned in France by a company established in a Member State is also applicable where the company is established in an overseas country or territory (OCT), being in the present case the British Virgin Islands, and, second, whether the joint and several liability for payment of that tax on the part of any legal person interposed between the party or parties liable to the tax and the immovable properties located in France constitutes a restriction of free movement of capital.

In the United States there is a practical refinement: where for a particular exercise members of the internal audit team are designated as working under the direction and control of the legal department, as its agent, for the purpose of providing expert assistance to the legal department in rendering legal advice to management then privilege will attach to their communication.25 In the United Kingdom this may be theoretically possible in circumstances where the audit team forms part of a working group under the control of a legal counsel or team, yet the very distinct role differentiation between audit and legal functions in UK corporate governance makes this a hard argument to sustain.

Where proceedings involving the same cause of motion and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different member states, any court other than the court first seised shall of its own action stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established.

Smlouvyo 4, paragraph 2 of the European Union and Article 3, paragraph 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 (or Article 4 of the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 883/2004), the fact that the Czech authorities could zaokolností what vprojednávané things, provide preferential treatment (kdávce compensatory allowance at the age where the amount of benefits granted under Article 20 of the Treaty concluded 29th 10th 1992 between the Czech and the Slovak Republic on Social Security and Council Regulation (EC) No 1408 to 1471 (Regulation č.883 / 2004) lower than the dose that would be received, if the pension calculated under the laws of the Czech Republic), only citizens of the Czech Republic, if ktakovému treatment creates a fundamental right to security in old age unloaded by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic specifically in relation kdobám pension acquired vzaniklé CSFR and perceived as part of the national identity, and, if such treatment is stonarušit right of free movement of workers as a fundamental right of the Union, a situation kdybyposkytnutí reciprocal treatment accorded to nationals of EU Member States kteřítakézískali vzaniklé CSFR equivalent of pension security led kvýznamnému threat from the financial stability of the pension fund of the Czech Republic?

(c) Contractual disputes (and specific non-contractual disputes as defined in Standard of Practice 17 - 4) between REALTORS ® who are not members of the same Board where the matter has been referred to the State Association by both local Boards.