Traduction de «Contester la compétence par voie de requête » (Français → Anglais) :

23. Notes that EU accession to the ECHR will provide an additional mechanism for enforcing human rights, namely the possibility of lodging a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in relation to an act, or a failure to act, by an EU institution or a Member State implementing EU law and falling within the remit of the ECHR; stresses, however, that this does not alter the present system of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union nor that of the European Court of Human Rights, and that the requirement that all domestic judicial remedies should have been exhausted will remain the condition for the admissibility of any application; calls for applications and complaints to be dealt with in a reasonable period of ti ...[+++]me; encourages the Commission to provide some guidance, in consultation with the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, on what constitutes the appropriate domestic remedy within the Union and on preliminary rulings under EU law; stresses, in this context, that it will be necessary to ensure that Member State courts refer cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union when there is arguably a fundamental rights issue at hand;

7. Notes that EU accession to the ECHR will provide an additional mechanism for enforcing human rights, namely the possibility of lodging a complaint with the ECtHR in relation to an act, or a failure to act, by an EU institution or a Member State implementing EU law and falling within the remit of the ECHR; stresses, however, that this does not alter the present system of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ), nor that of the European Court of Human Rights, and that the requirement that all domestic judicial remedies should have been exhausted will remain the condition for the admissibility of any application; calls for applications and complaints to be dealt with in a reasonable period of time; encourages the Commission t ...[+++]o provide some guidance, in consultation with the ECJ and the ECtHR, on what constitutes the appropriate domestic remedy within the Union and on preliminary rulings under EU law; stresses, in this context, that it will be necessary to ensure that Member State courts refer cases to the ECJ when there is arguably a fundamental rights issue at hand;

23. Notes that EU accession to the ECHR will provide an additional mechanism for enforcing human rights, namely the possibility of lodging a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in relation to an act, or a failure to act, by an EU institution or a Member State implementing EU law and falling within the remit of the ECHR; stresses, however, that this does not alter the present system of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union nor that of the European Court of Human Rights, and that the requirement that all domestic judicial remedies should have been exhausted will remain the condition for the admissibility of any application; calls for applications and complaints to be dealt with in a reasonable period of ti ...[+++]me; encourages the Commission to provide some guidance, in consultation with the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, on what constitutes the appropriate domestic remedy within the Union and on preliminary rulings under EU law; stresses, in this context, that it will be necessary to ensure that Member State courts refer cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union when there is arguably a fundamental rights issue at hand;

The basic fact of Mr Tomczak driving his car the wrong way down a one-way street is not contested, and overruling a decision to discontinue proceedings is a legal competence of the Regional Prosecutor.

' Motion No. 54 That Bill C-65, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 28 to 32 on page 21 with the following: ``(3) Where the responsible minister receives, within twelve months after a wildlife species is listed as endangered, threatened or extirpated, a request signed by a majority of the landowners referred to in paragraph 39(b) requesting that one or more public he ...[+++]arings be held concerning the preparation of the recovery plan, the responsible minister must (a) hold at least one public hearing in the place and within the month indicated in the request; and (b) advise the persons who signed the request of the time and place of the public hearing (3.1) The recovery plan must be completed (a) within three months after the last public hearing held under subsection (3) has been completed; and (b) where no public hearing is held under subsection (3), within one year after the wildlife species was listed as endangered, threatened or extirpated'.

Section 66 provides that the Commissioner’s decisions are final, and cannot be reviewed except on judicial review by the Federal Court of Appeal, under section 18.1(4)(a), (b) or (e) of the Federal Courts Act (The Court’s jurisdiction is extended under clause 6 of Bill C-2, enabling it to hear such applications).