incompatible avec le principe – English Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot      56 Results   11 Domains
  22 Hits csc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Étant donné cette conclusion, il n'est pas nécessaire d'examiner les arguments de l'appelant au sujet de l'arrêt R. v. Caldwell, [1981] 1 All E.R. 961, ni sa prétention que l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Manitoba est incompatible avec le principe de l'arrêt R. c.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
In view of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to deal with the appellant's submissions with respect to R. v. Caldwell, [1981] 1 All E.R. 961, nor the appellant's submissions that the judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal is inconsistent with the principle in R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987]  2 S.C.R. 636.
  4 Hits www.wto.int  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Cette disposition pourrait être jugée incompatible avec le principe de non-discrimination de l'OMC connu sous le nom de "traitement de la nation la plus favorisée", qui oblige à accorder un traitement équivalent pour tous les produits identiques (ou "similaires") importés de tout pays Membre de l'OMC.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine wto.int as primary domain
This could be found to be incompatible with WTO’s non-discrimination principle known as “most favoured nation treatment”, which requires countries to grant equivalent treatment to the same (or “like”) products imported from any WTO member country. On the other hand, WTO rules do allow members to derogate from their obligations in some cases, for instance where a measure is aimed at the conservation of natural resources, provided certain conditions are met.
  22 Hits scc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Étant donné cette conclusion, il n'est pas nécessaire d'examiner les arguments de l'appelant au sujet de l'arrêt R. v. Caldwell, [1981] 1 All E.R. 961, ni sa prétention que l'arrêt de la Cour d'appel du Manitoba est incompatible avec le principe de l'arrêt R. c.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
In view of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to deal with the appellant's submissions with respect to R. v. Caldwell, [1981] 1 All E.R. 961, nor the appellant's submissions that the judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal is inconsistent with the principle in R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987]  2 S.C.R. 636.
  www.epo.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
L'irrecevabilité de l'opposition, lorsqu'elle est décidée définitivement, ou du recours a pour conséquence de faire passer le brevet européen dans les droits nationaux des Etats désignés, ceux-ci devenant dès lors seuls compétents pour apprécier sa validité en fonction de leur législation respective. C'est donc incompatible avec le principe de procédure précité de rendre une décision portant rejet de l'opposition pour irrecevabilité, et de l'examiner au fond.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine epo.org as primary domain
As soon as an opposition had been rejected as inadmissible, the opposition procedure was regarded as legally terminated and substantive examination could no longer be initiated. The inadmissibility of an opposition, when finally decided, or an appeal, had the effect of transferring the European patent to the national jurisdiction of the designated states, which then assumed sole responsibility for assessing the patent's validity with reference to their own legislation. The board therefore came to the conclusion that it was inconsistent with the procedural principle referred to above for the decision rejecting the opposition as inadmissible to consider that opposition's merits. Remarks on substantive matters in a decision rejecting the opposition as inadmissible had no legal effect. However such remarks should, on principle, be avoided as a procedural deficiency of this kind could result in legal uncertainty during the national phase and could disadvantage either the proprietor or the opponent (T 925/91, OJ 1995, 469; see also T 328/87, OJ 1992, 701).
  www.ftaa-alca.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
6. À ce sujet, l’article 8 de la proposition chilienne vise à ranger les restrictions quantitatives discriminatoires actuelles (et, en général, toute mesure actuelle incompatible avec le principe du traitement national, avec le principe de la nation la plus favorisée et avec la non-exigence d’une présence locale) dans la «section A» (qui décrit les mesures non conformes actuelles) de l’Annexe des «Mesures non conformes et futures mesures».
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine ftaa-alca.org as primary domain
6. In this respect, Article 8 of the Chilean proposal sets forth that existing (and, in general, any existing measure inconsistent with the obligations of National Treatment, Most Favored Nation and the non requirement of Local Presence) discriminatory quantitative restrictions shall be listed in “section A”(which refers to existing nonconforming measures) of the Annex on “Nonconforming and Future Measures”. Should the case be otherwise, those measures shall not be enforceable on service providers of member countries of the Agreement. Furthermore, it is important to note that new discriminatory measures shall not be imposed on service suppliers of Members, and the existing measures may only be modified in a manner that further liberalizes transborder trade in services (except those measures listed in “section B” – that refer to future measures – in the Annex mentioned above). Likewise, Article 7 states that non-discriminatory quantitative restrictions shall be indicated in a specific Annex for this type of measures. However, in principle, there would be no obligation to bind the existing measures; rather, there would be an obligation to list them with a view to ensuring due transparency. In this way, though non-discriminatory, they may be modified, or new ones may even be adopted, with the obligation to notify the other Members, and to, “…at least every two years, endeavor to negotiate the liberalization of the quantitative restrictions…” (Art. 7.3 Proposal of Chile).
  www.alca-ftaa.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
6. À ce sujet, l’article 8 de la proposition chilienne vise à ranger les restrictions quantitatives discriminatoires actuelles (et, en général, toute mesure actuelle incompatible avec le principe du traitement national, avec le principe de la nation la plus favorisée et avec la non-exigence d’une présence locale) dans la «section A» (qui décrit les mesures non conformes actuelles) de l’Annexe des «Mesures non conformes et futures mesures».
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine alca-ftaa.org as primary domain
6. In this respect, Article 8 of the Chilean proposal sets forth that existing (and, in general, any existing measure inconsistent with the obligations of National Treatment, Most Favored Nation and the non requirement of Local Presence) discriminatory quantitative restrictions shall be listed in “section A”(which refers to existing nonconforming measures) of the Annex on “Nonconforming and Future Measures”. Should the case be otherwise, those measures shall not be enforceable on service providers of member countries of the Agreement. Furthermore, it is important to note that new discriminatory measures shall not be imposed on service suppliers of Members, and the existing measures may only be modified in a manner that further liberalizes transborder trade in services (except those measures listed in “section B” – that refer to future measures – in the Annex mentioned above). Likewise, Article 7 states that non-discriminatory quantitative restrictions shall be indicated in a specific Annex for this type of measures. However, in principle, there would be no obligation to bind the existing measures; rather, there would be an obligation to list them with a view to ensuring due transparency. In this way, though non-discriminatory, they may be modified, or new ones may even be adopted, with the obligation to notify the other Members, and to, “…at least every two years, endeavor to negotiate the liberalization of the quantitative restrictions…” (Art. 7.3 Proposal of Chile).