Übersetzung für "High court " (Englisch → Deutsch) :

EUROPA - EU law and publications - EUR-Lex - EUR-Lex - 62012CA0293 - EN - Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland (Ireland) and the Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austria)) — Digital Rights Ireland Ltd (C-293/12) v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, Ireland and the Attorney General, and Kärntner Landesregierung, Michael Seitlinger, Christof Tschohl and Others (C-594/12) (Electronic communications — Directive 2006/24/EC — ...[+++]Publicly available electronic communications services or public communications networks services — Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of such services — Validity — Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) // (Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12) - ( // ((Electronic communications - Directive 2006/24/EC - Publicly available electronic communications services or public communications networks services - Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of such services - Validity - Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))

Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54) — Limitation of the rights of the applicant with regard to mobile telephony — Compatibility with Article 5(4) TEU and with Article 21 TFEU — Compatibility with Articles 7, 8, 11 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the ...[+++]European Union

51. Notes with concern the Commission's interim report on the progress made by Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism; is pleased, however, to note the positive upward trend in the record of the National Integrity Agency (ANI) in pursuing cases of unjust enrichment and identifying conflicts of interest; notes that the ANI's funding was increased with Union money; is, however, concerned that there is no uniform follow-up to ANI cases and that the follow-up is often delayed; welcomes the fact that the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) continued to act as an effective prosecution service in high-level corruption cases; notes the increase in 2011 in the number of indictments, court decisions and convictions and th ...[+++]e acceleration of cases in the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which is reflected in the 85 % increase in final court decisions in DNA cases compared to 2011 ; is concerned at the results of an analysis of court judgments in cases of high-level corruption, which shows that 60 % of sentences are suspended and the sentences are often the minimum provided by law; is surprised at the unsatisfactory practice in relation to the prompt publication of substantiated judgments, which encourages the risk of statute-barring in some cases of high-level corruption as a result of protracted substantiation caused by the long-delayed possibility of redress; calls on the Commission to disclose how much funding has been allocated to supporting Romania's efforts to achieve judicial reform; expects to see further improvements within the coming year; calls on the Commission to increase pressure on the Romanian government to implement the Commission's recommendations; expects the Commission to call on the Romanian government, without fail, to ensure that the Romanian government's efforts to develop a consistent jurisprudence in public procurement trials are increased; calls on the Commission steadfastly and determinedly to insist vis-à-vis t ...

50. Notes with concern the Commission’s interim report on the progress made by Romania under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism; is pleased, however, to note the positive upward trend in the record of the National Integrity Agency (ANI) in pursuing cases of unjust enrichment and identifying conflicts of interest; notes that the ANI’s funding was increased with Union money; is, however, concerned that there is no uniform follow-up to ANI cases and that the follow-up is often delayed; welcomes the fact that the National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) continued to act as an effective prosecution service in high-level corruption cases; notes the increase in 2011 in the number of indictments, court decisions and convictions and th ...[+++]e acceleration of cases in the High Court of Cassation and Justice, which is reflected in the 85 % increase in final court decisions in DNA cases compared to 2011; is concerned at the results of an analysis of court judgments in cases of high-level corruption, which shows that 60 % of sentences are suspended and the sentences are often the minimum provided by law; is surprised at the unsatisfactory practice in relation to the prompt publication of substantiated judgments, which encourages the risk of statute-barring in some cases of high-level corruption as a result of protracted substantiation caused by the long-delayed possibility of redress; calls on the Commission to disclose how much funding has been allocated to supporting Romania’s efforts to achieve judicial reform; expects to see further improvements within the coming year; calls on the Commission to increase pressure on the Romanian government to implement the Commission’s recommendations; expects the Commission to call on the Romanian government, without fail, to ensure that the Romanian government’s efforts to develop a consistent jurisprudence in public procurement trials are increased; calls on the Commission steadfastly and determinedly to insist vis-à-vis th ...

The applicant brought two parallel actions against that order, one an appeal before the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (“POAC”), the other for judicial review before the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) (“the High Court”).

It might also be possible to consider the possibility of taking as a European model a system like the High Court Sentencing Information System developed in Scotland, to which all Scottish courts have access, containing all the High Courts' sentencing decisions by way of practical guidance for the courts.