Traduction de «avere una prevenzione nella causa » (Italien → Anglais) :

E. whereas the Srebrenica massacre was recognised as genocide by both the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in Appeals Judgment, Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No.: IT-99-33 of 19 April 2004, and the International Court of Justice in the Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) of 27 February 2007, p. 127, §297 (ICJ);

EUROPA - EU law and publications - EUR-Lex - EUR-Lex - 62016CA0676 - EN - Case C-676/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o. v Ministerstvo financí ČR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing — Directive 2005/60/EC — Scope — Article 2(1), point 3(c) and Article 3, point 7(a) — Business activity of an undertaking consisting in the sale of companies already entered in the Register of Companies and formed sol ...[+++]ely for the purposes of sale — Sale by means of the transfer of the undertaking’s holding in the ready-made company) // Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — CORPORATE COMPANIES s.r.o. v Ministerstvo financí ČR // (Case C-676/16) - ( // ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing - Directive 2005/60/EC - Scope - Article 2(1), point 3(c) and Article 3, point 7(a) - Business activity of an undertaking consisting in the sale of companies already entered in the Register of Companies and formed solely for the purposes of sale - Sale by means of the transfer of the undertaking’s holding in the ready-made company))

71. Regrets the Civil Service Tribunal Judgment of 12 December 2013 in Case F-129/12 and deeply regrets the fact that Parliament was condemned for being unable to help APAs in cases of harassment and irregular layoffs; notes the Bureau decision of 14 April 2014 setting up the Advisory Committee for the prevention of mobbing at the workplace, so as to avoid APAs being exposed to this; is concerned, however, about the imbalance in the composition of this committee, which is composed of three Quaestors, one representative of the admini ...[+++]stration and one APA representative; notes that up to November 2014 at least, in three cases before the committee 'the Quaestors ruled that there were no grounds for further action' ; calls on the Bureau therefore to review its decision regarding the composition of the committee so as to ensure more balanced representation with at least two APA committee members;

74. Regrets the Civil Service Tribunal Decision of 12 December 2013 in Case F-129/12 and deeply regrets the fact that Parliament was condemned for being unable to help APAs in cases of harassment and irregular layoffs; notes the Bureau decision of 14 April 2014 setting up the Advisory Committee for the prevention of mobbing at the workplace, so as to avoid APAs being exposed to this; is concerned, however, about the imbalance in the composition of this committee, which is composed of three Quaestors, one representative of the admini ...[+++]stration and one APA representative; notes that up to November 2014 at least, in three cases before the committee 'the Quaestors ruled that there were no grounds for further action' ; calls on the Bureau therefore to review its decision regarding the composition of the committee so as to ensure more balanced representation with at least two APA committee members;

In Case C-215/11,the Court of Justice clarified that in an application a claimant should be able to demand interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal.

In the Case C-428/11 (Purely Creative e.a., 18 October 2012), the ECJ was for the first time called on to interpret a provision of Annex I to the Directive, and in particular point 31, which prevents traders from giving consumers the impression that they have already won a prize, when claiming such prize is subject to paying money or incurring a cost.