Traduction de «Commission d'instruction » (Français → Anglais) :

EUROPA - EU law and publications - EUR-Lex - EUR-Lex - 32012R0207 - EN - Commission Regulation (EU) No 207/2012 of 9 March 2012 on electronic instructions for use of medical devices Text with EEA relevance // COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 207/2012 // of 9 March 2012 // (Text with EEA relevance)

EUROPA - EU law and publications - EUR-Lex - EUR-Lex - 62007CJ0550 - EN - Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010. Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v European Commission. Appeal - Competition - Measures of inquiry - Commission’s powers of investigation - Legal professional privilege - Employment relationship between a lawyer and an undertaking - Exchanges of e-mails. Case C-550/07 P.

That is a different criterion from the one which emerges from the General Court’s case-law, according to which the purpose of measures of organisation of procedure (covered by Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court) is to ensure efficient conduct of the written and oral procedure and to facilitate the taking of evidence, and also to determine the points on which the parties must present further argument or which call for measures of inquiry, whereas measures of inquiry (covered by Articles 65 to 67 of those Rules) are intended to prove the veracity of the facts alleged by one of the parties in support of its pleas in law (Case T‑141/01 Entorn v Commission [2005] EC ...[+++]R II‑95, paragraphs 129 and 130).

(Return tabled) Question No. 55 Mr. Alex Atamanenko: With respect to the 2007 Canadian Wheat Board barley plebiscite: (a) how much money has the government spent on its campaign for " marketing choice" , from all federal sources since January 26, 2006, in relation to (i) advertising in daily and weekly newspapers, (ii) radio advertisements, (iii) roundtables, (iv) the Task Force on Marketing Choice; (b) how many meetings have taken place since the 2006 federal election between representatives of Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and other agri-business corporations and government officials where “marketing choice” and the Canadian Wheat Board was a topic of discussion and (i) o ...[+++]n what dates did these meetings take place, (ii) who presided over these meetings, (iii) who was present at these meetings; (c) which marketing, advertising, consulting and professional or independent agencies did the government consult with respect to how to frame the ballot questions for the barley plebiscite; (d) did any of these marketing, advertising, consulting and professional or independent agencies provide the government with written reports on how to frame the ballot questions for the barley plebiscite and, if so, on what dates were they provided; (e) what verbal or written instructions were given to KPMG, the accounting firm hired by the government to conduct the barley plebiscite, regarding the administration processes to be employed for any aspect of the barley plebiscite that KPMG was to be responsible for; (f) what is the government's position in regard to the use of numbered and traceable ballots in official election or plebiscite processes and in what way does this position justify using numbered and traceable ballots in the barley plebiscite; (g) at any time throughout the barley plebiscite, was the government informed or aware (i) that KPMG was contacting households by telephone seeking authorization to destroy certain ballots that had been submitted ...

Currently amendments to section 18 of the act are being put forward (1.1) The directors shall cause the directions to be implemented and, in so far as they act in accordance with section 3.93, they are not accountable for any consequences arising from the implementation of the directions (1.2) Compliance by the Corporation with directions is deemed to be in the best interests of the Corporation (1120) The directive power already exists in the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Over the last five years alone, the groups most directly involved in this debate have had the opportunity to voice their opinions on five separate occasions: as part of the proceedings of the Kenniff Committee, at the public hearings held by the Commission for the Estates General on Education, at the hearings I chaired in May and June 1996, at the hearings held by the Parliamentary Committee on Education on Bill 109, and again last month, when the Parliamentary Committee studied the draft bill to amend the Education Act.