indiquer dans sa décision – English Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot      10 Results   7 Domains
  www.conventions.coe.int  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
67. Lorsqu’une autorité publique refuse l’accès à un document, elle devrait indiquer dans sa décision les possibilités d’appel.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine conventions.coe.int as primary domain
67. When a public authority refuses access to a document, it should indicate in the decision the possibilities of appealing.
  www.pbc-clcc.gc.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Non. En fait, la Commission des libérations conditionnelles va indiquer dans sa décision les raisons pour lesquelles votre risque ne peut être contrôlé dans la collectivité pour le moment. Cela vous permettra de concentrer vos efforts sur ces aspects avant votre prochain examen.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pbc-clcc.gc.ca as primary domain
No. In fact, the Parole Board's decision will identify the reasons why your risk is not manageable in the community right now. This will allow you to focus on these specific issues before your next parole review.
  pbc-clcc.gc.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Non. En fait, la Commission des libérations conditionnelles va indiquer dans sa décision les raisons pour lesquelles votre risque ne peut être contrôlé dans la collectivité pour le moment. Cela vous permettra de concentrer vos efforts sur ces aspects avant votre prochain examen.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine pbc-clcc.gc.ca as primary domain
No. In fact, the Parole Board's decision will identify the reasons why your risk is not manageable in the community right now. This will allow you to focus on these specific issues before your next parole review.
  www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Le rôle du Comité des griefs consiste à examiner de manière indépendante certains types de griefs et à formuler des conclusions et des recommandations au Chef d’état-major de la Défense. Si le Chef d’état major de la Défense n’est pas d’accord avec les conclusions et les recommandations du Comité des griefs, il doit indiquer dans sa décision les raisons de son désaccord.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine ombudsman.forces.gc.ca as primary domain
Previously, the Canadian Forces grievance process was extremely complicated, with numerous levels of review within the chain of command. In 1998, the process was amended with the view of making it more streamlined. There are now just two levels of review. The Initial Authority is the first level of review, and is usually the military member’s commanding officer or an entity within the Canadian Forces that has the power to actually grant the redress requested by the member.
  csc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Cependant, il a déclaré qu’il s’abstiendrait [TRADUCTION] «d’indiquer dans sa décision le titulaire de l’indemnité» et il a ajouté qu’il entendrait [TRADUCTION] «les parties sur ce point avant qu’une ordonnance soit signée».
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
The subsidiary point respecting the proper taxation year or years arises in the following way. Judge Pottier, before whom the claim for compensation came, in a decision dated November 28, 1956, fixed the total compensation at $280,000 plus interest at five per cent from June 18, 1956, the date of possession, and he also made a five per cent allowance for compulsory taking. However, he (to use his own words) “refrained from indicating in this decision to whom the compensation is payable”; adding that “I will hear the parties on this point before any order is signed”. After such a hearing, the judge handed down a decision on April 1, 1957, in which he referred to a pending action of the City with respect to the Bellevue property (it concerned the City’s claim to an interest under the deed of covenants and a consequent right to share in the compensation), and went on to say that there could be no question of the appellant’s right to $87,520 and that he
  scc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Cependant, il a déclaré qu’il s’abstiendrait [TRADUCTION] «d’indiquer dans sa décision le titulaire de l’indemnité» et il a ajouté qu’il entendrait [TRADUCTION] «les parties sur ce point avant qu’une ordonnance soit signée».
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
The subsidiary point respecting the proper taxation year or years arises in the following way. Judge Pottier, before whom the claim for compensation came, in a decision dated November 28, 1956, fixed the total compensation at $280,000 plus interest at five per cent from June 18, 1956, the date of possession, and he also made a five per cent allowance for compulsory taking. However, he (to use his own words) “refrained from indicating in this decision to whom the compensation is payable”; adding that “I will hear the parties on this point before any order is signed”. After such a hearing, the judge handed down a decision on April 1, 1957, in which he referred to a pending action of the City with respect to the Bellevue property (it concerned the City’s claim to an interest under the deed of covenants and a consequent right to share in the compensation), and went on to say that there could be no question of the appellant’s right to $87,520 and that he
  4 Hits www.epo.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Dans l'affaire T 155/88, la chambre a précisé que le titulaire du brevet ne saurait être tenu de retirer une requête quelconque. S'il avait déposé une ou plusieurs requêtes subsidiaires en plus de la requête principale, et qu'il n'en avait retiré aucune, la division d'opposition était tenue d'indiquer, dans sa décision, les raisons pour lesquelles chacune des requêtes successives était soit irrecevable (en exerçant son pouvoir d'appréciation conformément aux règles 57(1) et 58(2) CBE 1973, voir T 406/86, JO 1989, 302), soit non admissible sur le fond (voir T 234/86, JO 1989, 79). Si une division d'opposition faisait droit à une requête subsidiaire sans indiquer, dans sa décision, les raisons pour lesquelles la requête principale ou les requêtes subsidiaires précédentes ne sont pas admissibles, sa décision serait annulée et dépourvue d'effet juridique, et la taxe de recours remboursée pour vice substantiel de procédure, comme dans les affaires T 234/86 et T 484/88. Dans l'affaire T 848/00, la chambre a souscrit au raisonnement de la décision T 155/88, à savoir que si un titulaire de brevet propose des modifications à ses revendications à la suite d'une opposition, dans le but de répondre aux objections soulevées dans cette procédure en limitant l'étendue de la protection souhaitée, il n'y a normalement pas lieu d'interpréter cette déclaration comme un abandon de l'objet protégé par les revendications du brevet tel que délivré. Cela n'a toutefois aucune incidence sur la manière d'interpréter le jeu de revendications modifié, car il est possible de limiter les revendications sans abandonner l'objet du fascicule de brevet tel qu'il a été déposé à l'origine.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine epo.org as primary domain
In T 155/88 the board made it clear that the patentee could not be required to withdraw any request. If he filed one or more auxiliary requests in addition to a main request and did not withdraw any of them, an Opposition Division was obliged in its decision to give reasons why each successive request was either not admissible (in the exercise of its discretion under R. 57(1) EPC 1973 and R. 58(2) EPC 1973, see T 406/86, OJ 1989, 302), or not allowable on substantive grounds - see T 234/86, OJ 1989, 79. If an Opposition Division allowed an auxiliary request without giving reasons in its decision as to why the main request or preceding auxiliary requests were not allowable, such decision would be set aside as void and of no legal effect, and the appeal fee refunded on the basis of a substantial procedural violation, as was the case in T 234/86 and T 484/88. The board in T 848/00 agreed with the reasoning of decision T 155/88 that if a patentee proposed amendments to its claims which arose out of the opposition and which were intended to meet the grounds of objection raised in the opposition by limiting the scope of protection sought, this should not normally be interpreted as an abandonment of the subject-matter protected by the claims of the patent as granted. But this statement did not influence how the amended set of claims was to be read because a restriction of claims was possible without abandoning the subject-matter of the patent specification as originally filed.