ne protégeait pas – English Translation – Keybot Dictionary

Spacer TTN Translation Network TTN TTN Login Deutsch Français Spacer Help
Source Languages Target Languages
Keybot      31 Results   14 Domains
  2 Hits parl.gc.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Mme Jean Morse-Chevrier: Il a fait allusion à l'article 41 et a dit qu'il ne protégeait pas vraiment les catholiques.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine parl.gc.ca as primary domain
Ms. Jean Morse-Chevrier: He was referring to article 41 and saying it didn't really give protection to Catholics.
  www.eurospapoolnews.com  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Le THC, à la fois seul et en combinaison avec le CBD, aidait également à protéger les nerfs cholinergiques. La sulfasalazine n’était pas aussi efficace que le THC et ne protégeait pas les nerfs cholinergiques.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine cannabis.info as primary domain
The study found that THC was the most effective drug when dosed correctly. While CBD was ineffective on its own, it was able to improve the effectiveness of THC, essentially lifting the power of an ineffective dose of THC to an effective one. THC, both on its own and when used together with CBD, also helped to protect cholinergic nerves. Sulphasalazine wasn’t as effective as THC and also didn’t protect cholinergic nerves.
  www.africaneconomicoutlook.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Le référendum a été précédé de deux semaines de manifestations, parfois violentes, organisées par l'opposition aussi bien que par les partisans du pouvoir. Pour l'opposition, la Constitution ne protégeait pas assez les libertés individuelles et religieuses.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine africaneconomicoutlook.org as primary domain
In 2012, Egypt held its first free parliamentary and presidential elections in more than 60 years, although the parliamentary elections were later annulled by the Supreme Court and rescheduled for early 2013. Mohammed Morsi of the Freedom and Justice Party (Muslim Brotherhood) was the victor of the presidential election. The transition from a de facto military regime to a democratically legitimised one has been an important step. The year closed in a less conciliatory tone with the adoption of a contested new constitution by referendum on 15 December 2012. The referendum was preceded by two weeks of sometimes violent protest by both opposition and government supporters. The opposition considered that the constitution did not sufficiently protect individual and religious freedoms.
  9 Hits csc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Dans cet arrêt, le juge Dickson (plus tard Juge en chef) a conclu que le caractère raisonnable d’une fouille, perquisition ou saisie est mesuré en soupesant l’intérêt de l’État à faire appliquer la loi et celui de l’individu à faire respecter sa vie privée. Cependant, il a également statué que la Charte ne pouvait pas protéger et ne protégeait pas contre toutes et chacune des intrusions de l’État dans la vie des individus.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine csc.lexum.org as primary domain
18        In cases involving s. 8, the appropriate starting point is the reasons of this Court in Hunter, supra.  In that decision, Dickson J. (as he then was) held that the reasonableness of searches and seizures would be measured by balancing the state’s interest in law enforcement against the individual’s interest in privacy.  However, he also held that the Charter could not, and did not, protect against any and all intrusions by the state into the lives of individuals.  Rather, s. 8 would only be implicated if the individual who was claiming a Charter breach could show that he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or the material seized.  If no such expectation exists, there can be no Charter breach, as s. 8 only protects people, not places or things (Hunter, at p. 159, citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)).  In R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128, for example, Cory J. (for the majority) held that the accused had no expectation of privacy in someone else’s apartment, and therefore could not claim his s. 8 rights had been breached when that apartment was searched.  Similarly, in R. v. Belnavis, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341, the majority of this Court (per Cory J.) held that a search of a car did not violate the passenger’s s. 8 rights, as she had no reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of its contents.
  9 Hits scc.lexum.org  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Dans cet arrêt, le juge Dickson (plus tard Juge en chef) a conclu que le caractère raisonnable d’une fouille, perquisition ou saisie est mesuré en soupesant l’intérêt de l’État à faire appliquer la loi et celui de l’individu à faire respecter sa vie privée. Cependant, il a également statué que la Charte ne pouvait pas protéger et ne protégeait pas contre toutes et chacune des intrusions de l’État dans la vie des individus.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine scc.lexum.org as primary domain
18        In cases involving s. 8, the appropriate starting point is the reasons of this Court in Hunter, supra.  In that decision, Dickson J. (as he then was) held that the reasonableness of searches and seizures would be measured by balancing the state’s interest in law enforcement against the individual’s interest in privacy.  However, he also held that the Charter could not, and did not, protect against any and all intrusions by the state into the lives of individuals.  Rather, s. 8 would only be implicated if the individual who was claiming a Charter breach could show that he or she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched or the material seized.  If no such expectation exists, there can be no Charter breach, as s. 8 only protects people, not places or things (Hunter, at p. 159, citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)).  In R. v. Edwards, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128, for example, Cory J. (for the majority) held that the accused had no expectation of privacy in someone else’s apartment, and therefore could not claim his s. 8 rights had been breached when that apartment was searched.  Similarly, in R. v. Belnavis, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341, the majority of this Court (per Cory J.) held that a search of a car did not violate the passenger’s s. 8 rights, as she had no reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of its contents.
  www.wto.int  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Dans un autre cas, un groupe spécial a rejeté l'allégation selon laquelle la mesure incompatible avec le GATT n'avait pas d'effets sur le commerce ou n'avait que des effets négligeables du fait que la prescription en matière de traitement national du GATT de 1947 ne protégeait pas le volume d'exportations escompté, mais le rapport compétitif escompté entre les produits importés et nationaux.5
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine wto.int as primary domain
The effect of the legal presumption is that of a reversal of the burden of proof. The concept of a legal presumption and the language in the last sentence of Article 3.8 of the DSU imply that the presumption set out by Article 3.8 of the DSU can be rebutted. However, there has been no single case of a successful rebuttal in the history of GATT and the WTO to date. GATT panels rejected all attempts to demonstrate that there was no actual trade impact.3 For instance, the fact that an import quota had not been fully utilized was insufficient for proving the absence of nullification or impairment of benefits because quotas give rise to increased transaction costs and uncertainties that could affect investment plans.4 In another case, a panel rejected the claim that the GATT-inconsistent measure caused no or insignificant trade effects arguing that the national treatment requirement in GATT 1947 did not protect expectations on export volumes, but expectations on the competitive relationship between imported and domestic products.5 The Appellate Body has endorsed this reasoning.6 One GATT panel went as far as to observe that the presumption had, in practice, operated as an irrefutable presumption.7
  scan.madedifferent.be  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Bien que les menaces n’aient pas cessé, la protection de Ramos avait été suspendue il y a quelques mois, puis rétablie à la demande de l’Organisation internationale du Travail (OIT) – mais avec un seul garde, ce qui ne protégeait pas sa famille des attaques.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine admin.itfglobal.org as primary domain
Despite continuing threats, Ramos’s protection was removed earlier this year; it was then reinstated at the request of the International Labour Organization (ILO) – but only in the form of one guard, leaving his family open to attack. On 14 November, armed assailants broke into a relative’s house a few steps from Ramos’s own house, boasting that they were acting on orders “from above”.
  www.fin.gov.on.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Pendant les audiences de la Commission, j'ai reçu un certain nombre de mémoires soutenant que la CSFO ne protégeait pas avec vigilance les intérêts des participants actifs ou à la retraite, qu'elle ne répondait pas aux demandes de renseignements, qu'elle refusait de fournir l'information à laquelle les demandeurs croyaient avoir droit ou qu'elle ne leur communiquait cette information que par un processus coûteux et malcommode, et qu'en règle générale la CSFO faisait peu d'effort pour faciliter les démarches des participants et des retraités.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine fin.gov.on.ca as primary domain
This is especially true in the field of pensions, which, like the process that regulates them, is difficult to understand. These two difficulties - a complex subject and an opaque process - make it all the more necessary that the regulator devote greater attention to improving service to active and retired members. Other regulatory bodies develop strategies (information pamphlets, DVDs, on-line information) and employ personnel (complaints officer, ombudsperson or client advocate) to ensure that clients are, and perceive themselves to be, well served. The pension regulator ought to do likewise.
  www.ccdonline.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Le CCD a activement promu l’élargissement de la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne (1977) qui, tout en proscrivant la discrimination dans l’emploi à l’égard des personnes ayant des déficiences physiques, ne protégeait pas les personnes handicapées contre toute distinction illicite en matière de prestation de biens, de services, d’installations et d’accommodements, comme elle le faisait pour les huit autres motifs.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine ccdonline.ca as primary domain
CCD actively promoted the broadening of the Canadian Human Rights Act (1977), because while the Act prohibited discrimination in matters of employment for people with physical disabilities, it did not, as it did with the other 8 grounds, protect people with disabilities from discrimination in the provision of goods, services, facilities and accommodation. On March 30, 1983 Parliament gave assent to Bill C-141, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which expanded the protection of the Act to people with mental, as well as physical, disabilities and prohibited discrimination in matters related to employment and the provision of goods, services, facilities and accommodation. CCD has intervened in court cases, where human rights have been the focus. For example, in the Moore case, CCD intervened to argue "that when an exclusionary barrier is identified, the next step is to provide accommodation to remove the barrier." In its intervention, CCD "challenged the lower court rulings which said that to get accommodation, persons with disabilities must show that they have been treated worse than other persons with disabilities." CCD's VIA Rail case focused on whether formal or substantive accommodation will be made for equality seekers under specialized human rights legislation, such as the "undue obstacle" jurisdiction of the Canadian Transportation Agency under the Canadian Transportation Act.
  ccdonline.ca  
Show textShow cached sourceOpen source URL
Le CCD a activement promu l’élargissement de la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne (1977) qui, tout en proscrivant la discrimination dans l’emploi à l’égard des personnes ayant des déficiences physiques, ne protégeait pas les personnes handicapées contre toute distinction illicite en matière de prestation de biens, de services, d’installations et d’accommodements, comme elle le faisait pour les huit autres motifs.
Compare text pagesCompare HTM pagesOpen source URLOpen target URLDefine ccdonline.ca as primary domain
CCD actively promoted the broadening of the Canadian Human Rights Act (1977), because while the Act prohibited discrimination in matters of employment for people with physical disabilities, it did not, as it did with the other 8 grounds, protect people with disabilities from discrimination in the provision of goods, services, facilities and accommodation. On March 30, 1983 Parliament gave assent to Bill C-141, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which expanded the protection of the Act to people with mental, as well as physical, disabilities and prohibited discrimination in matters related to employment and the provision of goods, services, facilities and accommodation. CCD has intervened in court cases, where human rights have been the focus. For example, in the Moore case, CCD intervened to argue "that when an exclusionary barrier is identified, the next step is to provide accommodation to remove the barrier." In its intervention, CCD "challenged the lower court rulings which said that to get accommodation, persons with disabilities must show that they have been treated worse than other persons with disabilities." CCD's VIA Rail case focused on whether formal or substantive accommodation will be made for equality seekers under specialized human rights legislation, such as the "undue obstacle" jurisdiction of the Canadian Transportation Agency under the Canadian Transportation Act.