Traduction de «Atto commesso in stato di irresponsabilità colposa » (Italien → Anglais) :

committing an offence while in a state of voluntarily induced mental incapacity

(a) the date on which the wrongdoing is committed or, in the case of ongoing or repeated wrongdoings, the date on which the wrongdoing ceases, in the cases referred to in points (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Article 106(1) of this Regulation; or

4. Notes that the expulsions have targeted Roma specifically as a community generically considered as a threat to public order and safety, or as a burden on the social assistance and carried out in an extremely short lapse of time under modalities that included public stigmatization and the use of force and intimidation; no precise individual and case-by-case evaluation can reasonably and properly be done in such conditions; material and procedural safeguards have not been applied and guaranteed; the condition of proportionality has been violated; the measures could have been taken for economic ends or for general prevention; the directive does not foresee any procedure allowing for the facilitated or voluntary return of EU citizens to t ...[+++]he Member State of origin on the basis of an economic “compensation”, which would also be contrary to the spirit and letter of the Treaties, since freedom of movement is a fundamental right that cannot be alienated, bought or sold, and would create a discrimination between EU citizens; furthermore, according to Romanian authorities, none of those returned have ever committed a crime in France or in Romania, while French courts have ruled against authorities' expulsion decisions against Roma that were based on their being a "threat to public order";

Is Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an act of infringement is committed in one Member State (Member State A), within the meaning of Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, in the case where, as a result of an act in another Member State (Member State B), there is participation in the infringement in the first-named Member State (Member State A)?

8. Strongly affirms that any decision on the definition of a crime of aggression must be respectful of the Court's independence; recommends that states should adopt the proposal that does not require any jurisdictional filter to determine whether an act of aggression has been committed before the ICC prosecutor can proceed with an investigation; and that if the Review Conference decides that a jurisdictional filter must be established, they should require that the determination of whether an act of aggression has been committed be conducted by the relevant Chamber in the co ...[+++]urse of the legal proceedings already set out in the Rome Statute;