Sentences with phrase «scope for member states»

The draft allows advertising and promotion of infant formula in specialist scientific and baby care publications, with scope for member states to restrict this.

Not exact matches

While the implications for the UK are minor compared with member states that will have to implement RWTs for the first time, the BMF say that nevertheless the wider scope of the tests could mean higher costs for UK bike maintenance, especially with the emissions testing implications.

Also at 10 a.m., New York State Association of Nurse Anesthetists members advocate for full scope of practice and title recognition, state Capitol and Legislative Office Building, AlState Association of Nurse Anesthetists members advocate for full scope of practice and title recognition, state Capitol and Legislative Office Building, Alstate Capitol and Legislative Office Building, Albany.

Examples of the early successes of task force members include legally establishing its operating authority and scope of operation in the State Budget, requiring a study of re-use options of the Indian Point property, adding an additional $ 15 million to the State's Power Plant Cessation Mitigation Fund starting in 2020, extending the timeline for payments from that fund, and authorizing the HendrickHudson School District to start a reserve fund to plan for future tax impacts.

With further seat reductions possible if further member states join the European Union, there may be a need to consider whether the rules shaping the redrawing of European election boundaries needs to be revised (to possibly allow for larger constituencies — even a national constituency) or to also consider whether there may be scope for using an alternative set of electoral rules (e.g. a List system) in the specific case of European elections, especially if the option of having one single constituency for the entire State was to be pursued at a later date.

- For Members in the United States and Asia - Pacific regions: external service providers with call centres that handle claims within their scope of activity, on the one hand in Mexico and on the other, in Australia, where data transmission is governed by cross-border flow agreements.

The starting point of this line is the average total quantity of allowances (phase 2 cap) to be issued by Member States for the 2008 - 12 period, adjusted to reflect the broadened scope of the system from 2013 as well as any small installations that Member States have chosen to exclude.

In these circumstances the Court decided to refer the following questions for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU: 1) whether for the purposes of Art. 2 (2)(c), Member States can require the direct descendant who is older than 21 years to have tried, without success, to obtain employment in the country of origin in order to be regarded as «dependant» and fall within the scope of the provision; and 2) whether in interpreting the term «dependant» any significance should be attached to the fact that the family member is, due to the personal circumstances such as age, education and health, deemed to obtain employment in the host Member State, which would mean that the conditions of dependence will no longer bMember States can require the direct descendant who is older than 21 years to have tried, without success, to obtain employment in the country of origin in order to be regarded as «dependant» and fall within the scope of the provision; and 2) whether in interpreting the term «dependant» any significance should be attached to the fact that the family member is, due to the personal circumstances such as age, education and health, deemed to obtain employment in the host Member State, which would mean that the conditions of dependence will no longer bmember is, due to the personal circumstances such as age, education and health, deemed to obtain employment in the host Member State, which would mean that the conditions of dependence will no longer bMember State, which would mean that the conditions of dependence will no longer be met.

Its main point, if we still think of it that way, would be the possibility of negotiating temporary provisions extending the scope of certain EU provisions (for example the four freedoms or some of them, or budget rights and obligations) to the «future former» Member State for a certain amount of time.

To fall within the territorial scope, the processing needs to be carried out by a data controller established in the relevant Member State or the controller needs to be making use of equipment on the territory of that Member State for the purposes of processing.

(2) The judicial dicta in the cases deciding the ambit and scope of the status of EU citizenship and rights contained therein has established that the telos of the positive law is to establish a fundamental and autonomous status of equality for all Member State nationals which guarantees a set of political and economic rights implemented via secondary legislation;

This picture has been complicated somewhat by the decision of the ECJ in Rottmann that when Member States determine the conditions for the revocation of this status from specific individuals then they act within the scope of EU law and thus their executive action must fulfil the conditions of the principle of proportionality.

On the other hand, the national legislation which provided for tax penalties and criminal proceedings was not a transposition of the directive and therefore the situation might fall within the «scope» of EU law but Member States were not «implementing» EU law.

With an expanding scope of EU law, this means that there will be less and less leeway for Member States to apply their own rights standards, and further reduces their national autonomy in an area that concerns fundamental national values.

This tension can only be resolved by means of an express exclusion of the competence of the ECtHR under Art. 33 ECHT for disputes between EU Member States or between them and the EU which concern the application of the ECHR within the scope ratione materiae of EU law (para 213).

Should a Member States «court of last instance nonetheless submit a question within the scope of EU law to the ECtHR without being entitled to do so under the acte - clair - doctrine, proceedings for infringement of the Treaties could be engaged against that Member State based on Art. 258 f. TFEU.

However, though national authorities and courts of all Member States of the EU are still bound by the ECHR and other relevant international law when applying national immigration and asylum law, their scope of application may not reach as far as the Charter would have reached, and at present is regarded as applicable to potential applicants for international protection that have not yet entered the territories of the states bound byStates of the EU are still bound by the ECHR and other relevant international law when applying national immigration and asylum law, their scope of application may not reach as far as the Charter would have reached, and at present is regarded as applicable to potential applicants for international protection that have not yet entered the territories of the states bound bystates bound by them.

However — and perhaps with some desire that the ECJ would take notice — Lords Hoffmann and Mance expressed their view that the EC Regulation system for allocation of jurisdiction between EU member states excluded arbitration from its scope — and hence anti-suit injunctions in this context were permissible.

The Court concludes that, since the objective of the applicants in the main proceedings is to apply for international protection upon arrival in that Member State with the visa they applied for and therefore ultimately to stay in Belgium for more than 90 days, their visa application falls outside the scope of the Visa Code described above.

AG Bobek further points out, and thereby strengthening his arguments to limit the possible places of jurisdiction to two, that if 28 courts in as many Member States could be competent to hear the case for the respective damage caused in these Member States, all these courts could also order injunctions, which would most likely differ in nature and scope, and might, even worse, be contradictory (para. 130).

the fact that the requesting Member State is not bound to submit a request for assistance to another Member State does not mean that the rules relating to the request for information and the use of the information obtained by that Member State can be considered to be outside the scope of European Union law.

52 It is in order to achieve that objective that, through the waiver of residence clauses under Article 7 thereof, Regulation No 883/2004 provides, subject to the exceptions set out therein, for the cash benefits falling within its scope to be exportable in the host Member State (see, to that effect, Case C ‑ 20 / 96 Snares [1997] ECR I ‑ 6057, paragraphs 39 and 40).

49 In that regard, it should be stressed at the outset that the need for the uniform application of EU law and the principle of equality require that the terms of a provision of EU law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, which must take into account the context of that provision and the purpose pursued (see, inter alia, Case C ‑ 204 / 09 Flachglas Torgau [2012] ECR, paragraph 37, and Case C ‑ 260 / 11 Edwards and Pallikaropoulos [2013] ECR, paragraph 29).

Declarations are a method expressly permitted by a convention for member states to qualify their participation in some way, usually relating to the scope of application of the convention.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Extradition to a third State of a national of a Member State who has exercised his right to freedom of movement — Scope of EU law — Protection of a Member State's nationals against extradition — No protection for nationals of the other Member States — Restriction of freedom of movement — Justification based on the prevention of impunity — Proportionality — Verification of the guarantees provided for in Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

the documents at issue concern a proposal for a draft regulation, of general scope, binding in all of its elements and directly applicable in all the Member States, which naturally concerns citizens, all the more so since at issue here is a legislative proposal directly affecting the rights of EU citizens, inter alia their right to personal data protection..., from which it follows that the legislative proposal could not be regarded as sensitive by reference to any criterion whatsoever....