Traduction de «Non-judgmental » (Anglais → Français) :

judgment of the Court (EU) [ Court of Justice judgment | judgment of the CJEC | judgment of the Court of Justice (EU) | judgment of the EC Court | judgment of the EC Court of Justice ]

decision which has become final | final decision | judgment which has become final | judgment which has entered into force | judgment which has obtained the force of res judicata | judgment which has the force of res judicata | judgment which is res judicata | sentence having obtained the force of res judicata

judgment | judgment of the Court | judgment of the Court of Justice | judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union

to deliver the judgment | to give the judgment | to pass the judgment | to pronounce the judgment

judgment of non-parentage [ non-parentage judgment | judgement of non-parentage | non-parentage judgement ]

ruling [ court decision | court judgment | court ruling ]

apply clinical assessement methods | use clinical judgment techniques | use clinical analyses techniques | use clinical assessment techniques

pronounce a judgment [ render a judgment | issue a judgment | deliver a judgment | say a judgment | give a judgment | release a judgment | grant a judgment ]

judgment of nonsuit [ judgment of non-suit ]

nonstatistical sampling | non-statistical sampling | judgmental sampling | judgement sampling | judgemental sampling | judgment sampling

implement fully the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 and 9 December 2015. These require that the three judges that were lawfully nominated in October 2015 by the previous legislature can take up their function of judge in the Constitutional Tribunal, and that the three judges nominated by the new legislature without a valid legal basis do not take up the post of judge without being validly elected; publish and implement fully the judgment of 9 March 2016 of the Constitutional Tribunal, as well as all subsequent judgments and ensure that the publication of future judgments is automatic and does not depend on any decision of ...[+++]the executive or legislative powers; ensure that any reform of the Law on the Constitutional Tribunal respects the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal, including the judgments of 3 and 9 December 2015 and the judgment of 9 March 2016, and takes the Opinion of the Venice Commission fully into account; ensure that the effectiveness of the Constitutional Tribunal as a guarantor of the Constitution is not undermined by requirements, whether separately or through their combined effect; ensure that the Constitutional Tribunal can review the compatibility of the new law adopted on 22 July 2016 on the Constitutional Tribunal before its entry into force and publish and implement fully the judgment of the Tribunal in that respect; refrain from actions and public statements which could undermine the legitimacy and efficiency of the Constitutional Tribunal.

respects and fully implements the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of 3 and 9 December 2015. These require that the three judges that were lawfully nominated in October 2015 by the previous legislature can take up their function of judge in the Constitutional Tribunal, and that the three judges nominated by the new legislature without a valid legal basis do not take up the post of judge without being validly elected; publishes and implements fully the judgment of 9 March 2016 of the Constitutional Tribunal, as well as all subsequent judgments, and ensures that the publication of future judgements is automatic and does not depend ...[+++] on any decision of the executive or legislative powers ; ensures that any reform of the Law on the Constitutional Tribunal respects the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal, including the judgments of 3 and 9 December 2015 and the judgment of 9 March 2016, and takes the Opinion of the Venice Commission fully into account; and ensures that the effectiveness of the Constitutional Tribunal as a guarantor of the Constitution is not undermined by new requirements, whether separately or through their combined effect; ensures that the Constitutional Tribunal can review the compatibility of the new law adopted on 22 July 2016 on the Constitutional Tribunal before its entry into force and publish and implement fully the judgment of the Tribunal in that respect.

In 2011, having come to the conclusion that Luxembourg had still failed to comply with that judgment of 2006, given that six treatment plants serving agglomerations having a p.e. of more than 10 000 had still not complied with the Directive’s requirements, the Commission brought the present, second set of infringement proceedings, in which it asked the Court to order Luxembourg to pay a penalty payment of €11 340 for each day of delay in complying with the first judgment, from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the date of compliance with the first judgment of 2006, and a daily lump sum of €1 248, from the dat ...[+++]e of delivery of the first judgment (23 November 2006) until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, or until the date upon which the first judgment has been complied with, if earlier.

It asked the Court to order Sweden to pay a daily penalty of €40 947.20 for each day that Sweden delays in complying with that judgment, from the day on which the judgment is delivered in the present case until the day on which the initial judgment of 2010 is complied with, and to pay a fixed daily amount of €9 597 for each day that Sweden delays in complying with that judgment, for the period from the day of the initial judgment to the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case (or to the day on which the necessary measures are taken to comply with the initial judgment, if that is earlier) inclusive.