Traduction de «relevant evidence » (Anglais → Français) :

relevant audit evidence | relevant evidence

inclusion of relevant evidence

Disclosure and Filing before Hearings of Relevant Evidence

Definition: This block contains a wide variety of disorders that differ in severity and clinical form but that are all attributable to the use of one or more psychoactive substances, which may or may not have been medically prescribed. The third character of the code identifies the substance involved, and the fourth character specifies the clinical state. The codes should be used, as required, for each substance specified, but it should be noted that not all fourth character codes are applicable to all substances. Identification of the psychoactive substance should be based on as many sources of information as possible. These include self-report data, analysis of blood and other body fluids, characteristic physical and psychological symptom ...[+++]s, clinical signs and behaviour, and other evidence such as a drug being in the patient's possession or reports from informed third parties. Many drug users take more than one type of psychoactive substance. The main diagnosis should be classified, whenever possible, according to the substance or class of substances that has caused or contributed most to the presenting clinical syndrome. Other diagnoses should be coded when other psychoactive substances have been taken in intoxicating amounts (common fourth character .0) or to the extent of causing harm (common fourth character .1), dependence (common fourth character .2) or other disorders (common fourth character .3-.9). Only in cases in which patterns of psychoactive substance-taking are chaotic and indiscriminate, or in which the contributions of different psychoactive substances are inextricably mixed, should the diagnosis of disorders resulting from multiple drug use (F19.-) be used. | Modifiers The following fourth-character subdivisions are for use with categories F10-F19: Code Title .0 Acute intoxication A condition that follows the administration of a psychoactive substance resulting in disturbances in level of consciousness, cognition, perception, affect or behaviour, o ...

burden of adducing evidence | burden of evidence | burden of going forward | burden of going forward with the evidence | burden of producing evidence

appropriate evidence | appropriate audit evidence | competent evidence | competent evidential matter

11. Recalls that the actions and investigations undertaken by all prosecutors and staff of the EPPO must be conducted in full compliance with the principles of law, notably as regards the rights conferred on the suspect or the accused person, such as respect for the presumption of innocence until a final and irrevocable court ruling has been reached, the right to a fair trial, the right to remain silent, the right to defence counsel and legal aid, and the principle of non bis in idem; calls on the Member States to ensure the adoption of harmonised measures regarding the recognition and admissibility of the evidence submitted by the EPPO; considers, in particular, that the conditions for admissibility of evidence should be such as to respe ...[+++]ct all rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union; considers that the EPPO should actively seek all relevant evidence, whether inculpatory or exculpatory;

22. Reiterates the need for the EPPO to seek out all relevant evidence, whether inculpatory or exculpatory; insists, furthermore, that it is necessary to grant suspects or accused persons in any investigation undertaken by the EPPO certain rights concerning evidence, in particular:

Allegedly, the LF would make again obvious that the Commission failed to assess the evidence in the file in an accurate, objective and undistorted manner, that it omitted to take into account the full body of relevant evidence, including Lundbeck’s observations, and that it did not exclude disputed or otherwise insufficient evidence.

1. Member States shall ensure that in proceedings relating to an action for damages in the Union upon request of a claimant who has presented a reasoned justification containing reasonably available facts and evidence sufficient to support the plausibility of its claim for damages, national courts are able to order the defendant or a third party to disclose relevant evidence which lies in their control , subject to the conditions set out in this Chapter.