Traduction de «défendu » (Français → Anglais) :

The above sections have made the case for a strong involvement, across all Member States, of NPBs in the Investment Plan.

In that regard, the Civil Service Tribunal took the view that while the examiners marking the written tests, in contrast to the members of the selection board sitting in the oral phase, may admittedly not be known to the persons concerned, and are thereby protected from interference and pressures to which the judgment in Parliament v Innamorati, paragraph 16 above, refers, that circumstance does not objectively justify the existence of significant differences between the requirements concerning the statement of reasons in the case of failure in the written phase, as those requirements are formulated in the case-law cited in paragraph 39 of the judgment under appeal, and those advocated ...[+++] by the Commission in the case of failure in the oral test, which, in particular in the instant case, would consist in giving the applicant only his eliminatory individual mark.

This is certainly not the philosophy that we supported when we supported the implementation of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

We have defended the dignity of the working person, we have defended a socially-committed Europe and a Europe of solidarity.

On the one hand, Parliament has generally defended the interests of its voters, the consumers, and on the other, the Council – the Member States – have vigorously defended the commercial interests of the big operators, of the national champions, of the ‘telecoms’ and the ‘telefónicas’.

All the institutions came out in favour of the same approach. The European Parliament declared itself on 31 January, the European Council on 17 February, followed by the Commission through the words of Mr Patten and your own words, Mr Prodi. They all declared themselves in favour of the approach put forward by France, Germany and Belgium. It involved giving precedence to the law enshrined in the United Nations Security Council.