Sentences with phrase «state under the rule of law»

The importance of human rights as the foundation of the democratic state under the rule of law goes hand in hand with the realisation that fundamental human rights may be mutually contradictory.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The Constitutional Court has also held that the duty of the legislature and other lawmaking subjects to revise all legal acts adopted by them before the entry into effect of the Constitution and which still remain in force, also the legal acts adopted by no longer existing institutions after the entry into effect of the Constitution and still remaining in force, which regulate the relations which are assigned to the sphere of regulation of a corresponding law - making subject, as well as legal acts, which had been adopted before the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania and remained in force after restoration of the independent State of Lithuania and, after the entry into effect of the Constitution, regulate the relationships, which are assigned to the sphere of regulation of an appropriate legislative subject, and assess their conformity with the Constitution within a reasonably short period, stems from the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution, and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (the Constitutional Court's ruling of 29 October 2003).

In addition, on the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that all the specified persons have not repatriated» of Paragraph 3 (wording of 7 December 1993) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship and the provision «provided that they have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 5 December 1991) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of this law were in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 5 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

-- the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law.

To recognise that Paragraph 3 (wording of 2 July 1997, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997, No. 67 - 1669) of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

-- the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, and who are residing in other states, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law;

-- the provision «the following persons shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated)» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren, provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, are not considered as citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law;

On the compliance of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 1 and Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution, with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law, on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wordings of 17 September 2002 and 6 April 2006) of Article 18 of the Law on Citizenship with Articles 12 and 29 of the Constitution, and on the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 and Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also the provision «provided that said persons and their children have not repatriated from Lithuania» of Item 1 (wording of 6 February 1996) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 95 - 4088) of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship, to the extent that it provides that the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states, shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time, and whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on the Implementation of the Law on Citizenship are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution, and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law.

Having held that the provision «provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated» of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated) shall be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania» of Article 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren repatriated shall not be considered citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justice.

To recognise that Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No. 90 - 2014) of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania's Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Having held that the provision «provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated» of Item 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether the provision «the following persons shall retain the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania for an indefinite period of time: (1) persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren (provided that said persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have not repatriated), who are residing in other states» of Paragraph 1 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 17 of this law to the extent that, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, it entrenches that the right to citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall not be retained to persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania prior to 15 June 1940, their children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren who reside in other states, provided that these persons, their children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren have repatriated, is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 12 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of justice.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was (as was Paragraph 3 (wordings of 19 October 1995 and 2 July 1997) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship») in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 September 2002) of Article 2 of the Law on the Procedure for Implementation of the Law on Citizenship is in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

It should be noted that the legislature may define the content of notions used in laws, however, the requirement to heed the hierarchy of the legal acts which stems from the Constitution, inter alia, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, implies that the content of the notions used in laws may be defined (inter alia, construed) only by means of a law and not by means of a legal act of lower legal force.

To recognise that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland or settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 22 - 347) of Item 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and, as to its content, it was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

On the grounds of the arguments analogous to those upon which it has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the provision «departure for one's ethnical homeland and settlement there shall be considered as repatriation» of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 March 1994) of Item 2 of the Supreme Council Resolution «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» of 10 December 1991 was in conflict, as to its content, with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it needs to be held that also Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 October 1995) of Article 1 of the Law «On the Procedure for Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania's Law on Citizenship» was in conflict with Article 29 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

Not exact matches

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 18 - cv - 02213, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired BRF American Depositary Receipts («ADRs») between April 4, 2013 and March 2, 2018, both dates inclusive (the «Class Period»), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants» violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the «Exchange Act») and Rule 10b - 5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the District of Illinois, Eastern Division, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Akorn's securities between March 1, 2017 through February 26, 2018, both dates inclusive (the «Class Period»), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants» violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b - 5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

Reuters has reported the draft would assert that a 1975 law bars California from imposing its own state emissions rules, as it has long done nonetheless under a series of Clean Air Act waivers.

This discussion also does not consider any specific facts or circumstances that may be relevant to holders subject to special rules under the U.S. federal income tax laws, including, without limitation, certain former citizens or long - term residents of the United States, partnerships or other pass - through entities, real estate investment trusts, regulated investment companies, «controlled foreign corporations,» «passive foreign investment companies,» corporations that accumulate earnings to avoid U.S. federal income tax, banks, financial institutions, investment funds, insurance companies, brokers, dealers or traders in securities, commodities or currencies, tax - exempt organizations, tax - qualified retirement plans, persons subject to the alternative minimum tax, persons that own, or have owned, actually or constructively, more than 5 % of our common stock and persons holding our common stock as part of a hedging or conversion transaction or straddle, or a constructive sale, or other risk reduction strategy.

In a stunning development earlier today, the SEC released the final Regulation A + equity crowdfunding rules under Title IV of the JOBS Act that pre-empts state law, paving the way for $ 50M unaccredited investor equity crowdfunding.

They are speaking about the way Rule 506 under Reg D was reformed by rulemaking pursuant to the JOBS Act, to permit general solicitation while preserving a Rule 506 exemption that is preemptive of state law, as long as all purchasers are verified to be accredited investors.

The DOL disagreed with the assertion that the rule creates a new private right to sue, «arguing that the applicable cause of action is breach of contract, which already exists under state law,» said Erin Sweeney, counsel at Miller & Chevalier, who has also served as senior benefit law specialist at DOL.

Bartz argued that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act would now pre-empt state law under the rule and that the rule improperly created a private right of action that could set up class - action lawsuits against insurance companies and agents.

You will want to discuss all of your options with your attorney or tax advisor before taking action, especially if creditor protection is a concern for you, as the Supreme Court has ruled that Inherited IRAs are not protected under federal bankruptcy laws (although state law creditor protection of inherited IRAs still varies).

Mandatory Palestine was a geographic area with defined borders and under British Rule up until 1948 when the Jews decided to take UN Resolution 181 as law and claim that the borders defined in 181 defined a new State of Israel.

His message was that a country must live under the rule of law, and that this must guarantee safety for everyone: «Justice is the only solid foundation of any state.

The Secretary of the Convention shall faithfully announce and record each delegate's vote in accordance with the delegate's obligation under these rules, state law or state party rule.

Following up on a pledge to reform Freedom of Information Law provisions, Cuomo said that he wants the Legislature to fall under the same rules as state and local agencies when it comes to releasing documents to the public.

Defending democracy and the rule of law, under threat from both state and non-state actors, requires a renewed and steadfast commitment.

The quirk in election law emerged from a 1996 state Board of Elections ruling that determined that each limited liability company controlled by a developer should be treated as if it were an individual under election law.

In 2002, the state's highest court unanimously ruled that subpoenas served on public agencies were subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law, but a spokesman for the city Law Department said the feds had asked City Hall to keep its subpoenas secret.

The command in a statement said, «Contrary to the report which is an orchestrated attempted to disparage the Command and pitch the public against the police, it is pertinent to state unequivocally that the Police which is a law enforcement agency guided by the rule of law and duty bound to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of citizens did not play any role, under whatever guise, in the murder of the deceased.

A New York appeals court ruled last year that a less comprehensive form of teacher evaluations used by New York City's Department of Education — known as Teacher Data Reports — must be disclosed under the state's Freedom of Information Law.

The new rule will recognize that pedal - assist bicycles are permissible, whereas throttle e-bikes, capable of travel at speeds faster than 20 mph, can not be legally operated on city streets under state law.

Under law, states failing to enforce that requirement risk loss of federal financial aid — a rule that many school administrators view as a threat to New York.

The Commission wishes to state for the umpteenth time, that it believes in the rule of law and will not take extra-legal measures to ridicule or embarrass any member of the public that may or may not be under investigation.

Liquor stores are not allowed to sell any non-wine and - liquor products under State law, they're only allowed to occupy the first floor of a structure, and there are all sorts of other bizarre rules.

State regulators on Tuesday announced a finalized rule change that caps the amount of money insurance companies can reimburse for health care services provided outside of the state under the no - fault insuranceState regulators on Tuesday announced a finalized rule change that caps the amount of money insurance companies can reimburse for health care services provided outside of the state under the no - fault insurancestate under the no - fault insurance law.

In 2006, when the New York State Court of Appeals shamefully ruled that the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community did not have equal protection under the law in relation to Marriage Equality, I predicted that passing legislation to right this wrong in the State Senate would be a profound personal and sadly political battle.

Common Cause New York, the good government group, has reported that tens of millions have been funneled to the state Republicans through L.L.C.s since 1996, when the Board of Elections ruled that an L.L.C. was no different under the law than a person.

The proposed legislation is in response to a federal court ruling in Washington state that determined the amount of manure disposed of at certain farms in that state exceeded limits under solid waste law, according to the National Milk Producers Federation.

Under current state law, signatures from 10 percent of voters can require the formation of a county charter commission to revise local government rules.

On Monday, a judge in Prince William County in Virginia ruled that the American Tradition Institute did not have a right to see the e-mails under the state's freedom of information laws.

Richard and Mildred Loving's marriage became the subject of a landmark ruling when, in 1967, the US supreme court ruled that the couple's arrest under state law that said that inter-racial couples couldn't marry was unconstitutional.