Übersetzung für "question law " (Englisch → Französisch) :

89. Regrets China's postponement of the eleventh China-EU summit on the grounds of the Dalai Lama's visit to Europe; emphasises the need for a radical intensification and re-thinking of the European Union-China human rights dialogue; expresses its disquiet at the serious human rights violations in China and stresses that, despite promises made by the regime before the Olympic Games in August 2008, the situation on the ground regarding human rights has not improved; points out, moreover, that restrictions on freedom of association, expression and religion have been further tightened; strongly condemns the crackdown against Tibetans following the wave of protests that swept across Tibet beginning on 10 March 2008 and the repression by the ...[+++] Chinese government that has increased in Tibet since then, and calls for the restart of a sincere and results-oriented dialogue between both parties based on the "Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People"; notes that, despite repeated assurances by the Chinese government of its intention to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratification is still pending; refers to Parliament's resolution of 17 January 2008 on the arrest of the Chinese dissident Hu Jia , who has been awarded the 2008 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought; calls on the Chinese government to release Hu Jia immediately and to lift the house arrest on his wife Zeng Jinyan and his daughter; condemns the wave of repression against signatories of the "Charter 08", a document calling for democratic reforms in China and demanding the release of Liu Xiaobo, a dissident who has been detained since 9 December 2008; expresses concern that the legal system remains vulnerable to arbitrary and often politically-motivated interference, including the State Secrets system, preventing the transparency necessary for the development of good governance and a system in which the rule of law prevails; in this context, deplores the systemat ...

87. Regrets China’s postponement of the eleventh China-EU summit on the grounds of the Dalai Lama’s visit to Europe; emphasises the need for a radical intensification and re-thinking of the European Union-China human rights dialogue; expresses its disquiet at the serious human rights violations in China and stresses that, despite promises made by the regime before the Olympic Games in August 2008, the situation on the ground regarding human rights has not improved; points out, moreover, that restrictions on freedom of association, expression and religion have been further tightened; strongly condemns the crackdown against Tibetans following the wave of protests that swept across Tibet beginning on 10 March 2008 and the repression by the ...[+++] Chinese government that has increased in Tibet since then, and calls for the restart of a sincere and results-oriented dialogue between both parties based on the ‘Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People’; notes that, despite repeated assurances by the Chinese government of its intention to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratification is still pending; refers to Parliament’s resolution of 17 January 2008 on the arrest of the Chinese dissident Hu Jia, who has been awarded the 2008 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought; calls on the Chinese government to release Hu Jia immediately and to lift the house arrest on his wife Zeng Jinyan and his daughter; condemns the wave of repression against signatories of the ‘Charter 08’, a document calling for democratic reforms in China and demanding the release of Liu Xiaobo, a dissident who has been detained since 9 December 2008; expresses concern that the legal system remains vulnerable to arbitrary and often politically-motivated interference, including the State Secrets system, preventing the transparency necessary for the development of good governance and a system in which the rule of law prevails; in this context, deplores the systemati ...

2. The parties may also choose as the applicable law the principles and rules of the substantive law of contract recognised internationally or in the Community. However, questions relating to matters governed by such principles or rules which are not expressly settled by them shall be governed by the general principles underlying them or, failing such principles, in accordance with the law applicable in the absence of a choice under this Regulation.

Were the Senate to take any other course, there would have been some pretty questionable laws passed by Parliament, especially since 1993 when the Official Opposition in the Commons instead of acting as a government in waiting, which is its historical role in a parliamentary system, limited itself during its term to pursuing its policy of dismantling the federation, while the current one emphasizes regional discontent, both real and imagined.

In the view of the Commission, the problems remain, as it is not unambiguously clear from the amending legislation in question (Law No 362 of 8 November 1991 on the pharmaceutical sector) that, in terms of the conditions governing professional registration, it likewise applies to dental practitioners.

Until a few years ago, the relationship between Community law, on the one hand, and national constitutional law, on the other, seemed largely to have been clarified: although the Community Treaties contain no explicit provisions governing the question of hierarchy, the European Court of Justice had consistently upheld, since its 1964 and 1970 judgments in the cases of Costa v. ENEL and Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, the absolute supremacy of both primary and secondary Community law over all provisions of national law - including constitutional law and the fundamental rights guaranteed thereby. While the Member States' national const ...[+++]itutional courts initially concurred with this legal viewpoint to a very large extent, recent years have seen the development of resistance, which has been spearheaded by the decidedly nationally-minded judgments, which are only partially supportive of integration, issued by the German Federal Constitutional Court and the Danish Supreme Court.