Revisited Sample Clauses

Revisited. An update of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee’s 2011 report based on a field mission to Serbia (2-4 April 2012), Budapest, June 2012, xxxx://xxxxxxxx.xx/xx-xxxxxxx/xxxxxxx/ Serbia-report-final.pdf. International Law Commission 2000 International Law Commission, Report on the work of its fifty-second session (1 May – 9 June and 10 July -18 August 2000), A/55/10, annex 321, 2000. International Law Commission 2001 International Law Commission, Report on the work of its fifty-third session (23 April-1 June and 2 July-10 August 2001), Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II (Part Two) and corrigendum. International Law Commission 2011 International Law Commission, Report on the work of its sixty-third session (26 April – 3 June and 4 July – 12 August 2011), UN General Assembly, A/66/10, 2011. IOM 2017 International Organisation for Migration, Four Decades of Cross-Mediterranean Undocumented Migration to Europe. A Review of the Evidence, Geneva: 2017, xxxxx://xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx/xxxxxx/xxxxx/xxx/xxxx_xxxxxxx_xx_xxxxx_xxxx- terranean.pdf. Laeken Conclusions Presidency Conclusions European Council meeting in Laeken 14 and 15 Decem- ber 2001, Laeken: European Council 14 and 15 December 2001. LIBE 2011 European Parliament Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Department, G. Elspeth, S. Carrera, L. Den Hertog, J. Parkin (Rapporteurs), Implementation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Impact on EU Home Affairs Agencies Fron- tex, Europol and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), 2011, xxxx://xxx. xxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xx/xxxxxxxx/0000_0000/xxxxxxxxx/xxxx/xx/00_xxxxx_xxx- damental_rights_/02_study_fundamental_rights_en.pdf. Meijers Committee 2008 Meijers Committee, ‘Views Standing Committee on the evaluation and future development of the FRONTEX agency (COM(2008) 67 final)’, addressed to the European Parliament, 4 April 2008. Meijers Committee 2013 Meijers Committee, Note on the Proposal for a Regulation establishing rules for the surveillance of the external sea borders in the context of operations coordinated by Fron- tex (COM(2013) 197 final), Utrecht, 23 May 2013. Meijers Committee 2018 Meijers Committee, 1806 Note on the use of soft law instruments under EU law, in particular in the area of freedom, security and justice, and its impact on fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law, 2018, xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx/ sites/all/files/cm1806_note_on_soft_law_instruments.pdf. Migreurop e.a. 2012 Migreurop, Chachipe a.s.b...
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Revisited the changed context since its establishment, – a gap in its administrative cost coverage due to falling revenues from the First Account resources, – lack of financial resources to sustain project financing functions beyond 2013 in a sustainable manner, and – a need to align the capacity of the organization to make it financially sustainable. • The Governing Bodies of the Fund are discussing the future role and mandate of the Common Fund for Commodities (CFC) and its long‐term financial sustainability since 2009 • It is expected that decision would be taken by Member States in December 2012. • A : The reform of the CFC including possible amendments, or eventual re‐negotiation of the Agreement. • B : Transformation of the CFC into a Trust Fund • C : Transformation of the CFC into a project management and fundraising • D : Reaching a collaboration agreement with an international organization • No additional financial contributions, beyond those already committed as voluntary contributions from Member Countries within the framework of CFC, may be expected. • The capital the CFC should be preserved. • Resources for future projects to be raised from other sources, e.g. international financial institutions, private sector, foundations etc. • Build upon the identity and expertise of the CFC • The necessity to improve its governance, efficiency, accountability and effectiveness. • Pursue reform based on elements contained in Options A and C and to further elaborate on Option D in order to properly examine it. • The Working Group agreed that Members shall reform the CFC to face its current challenges • The reform should lead to an effective, efficient, transparent and visible CFC, within the limits of approved budget. • The CFC should deliver high impact results through its commodity based interventions. The reform should be guided, inter alia, by:
Sample 1
Revisited. Is the Xxxxx Fall Scale Score used in administering benzodiazepines and opioids to patients?
Sample 1
Revisited. Does a difference in medication prescription exist between patients that have fallen and patients that have not fallen? Preliminary findings would suggest that there are no large differences between prescriptions likelihoods with benzodiazepines and opioids when comparing patients that have fallen and patients with hypertension that have not fallen. This potentially indicates that the Xxxxx Fall Scale is not considered when prescribing in this setting.
Sample 1
Revisited. Are there any other factors that impact the dispensation of benzodiazepines and opioids? Preliminary findings would suggest that race may be a factor that impacts the dispensation of benzodiazepines and opioids. The data appear to show that African American or Black patients are not administered medications at the same level as those that are Caucasian or White. The administered medications studied were benzodiazepines and opioids. These same findings may also be present for individuals that are Asian, but more data would be needed for verification. In the combined dataset there were 1294 patients (69.4%) that were Caucasian or White, 486 patients (26.19%) that were African American or Black, and 76 patients (4.09%) classified as Other. The Logit models used Caucasian or White individuals as a base to compare the prescription of benzodiazepines and opioids to African American or Black patients. In all models that were statistically significant the data appear to highlight a difference in administration based on race.
Sample 1
Revisited. Recall the conditions in that example: the current price in Swiss Francs (SFR) of $100 is S0 = 150. We suppose that at time T , the price will have moved to either 90SFR or 180SFR. Our problem was to price a European call option with strike price K = 150 at time T . (The holder of such an option has the right, but not the obligation, to buy $100 for 150SFR at time T .) For simplicity, interest rates were assumed to be zero. Under our assumption of zero interest rates, we have 0 = 1 and so we are seeking a probability vector such that E [ST ] = S0. That is, we are looking for a probability vector for which the exchange rate behaves like a fair game. Let p be the probability that ST = 180SFR, then since ST can only take values 180 and 90 it must be that P[ST = 90] = 1 p. For the price to behave like a fair game, we require that 180p + 90(1 p) = 150 which yields p = 2=3. The claim at time T is C = (ST 150)+, and so using Theorem 2.7, we see that the fair price (in SFR) is 2 1 as before. Armed with the probability p, it is a trivial matter to value other options, for example a European call with strike price 120SFR instead of 150SFR would be valued at 2 1 E [(ST 120)+] = 3 (180 120)+ + 3 (90 120)+ = 40:
Sample 1
Revisited. Buffer k-d Trees FindLeafBatch (host) (host) top tree (device) buffers (host) ProcessAllBuffers leaf structure (device) A standard multi-threaded kd- tree based traversal assigns one thread to each query. For GPUs, such an approach is not suited since each thread might induce a completely different path, which significantly shortens their com- putational benefits. The main idea of the buffer k-d tree exten- sion is to delay the processing of the queries by buffering similar patterns prior to their common processing [8]. The reorganized workflow is based on buffer k- d trees, which are sketched next, followed by a description of the buffered nearest neighbor search. A buffer k-d tree consists of input reinsert (1) a top tree, (2) a leaf struc- ture, (3) a set of buffers, and (4) two input queues that store the Fig. 1. A buffer k-d tree [8]: The gray elements are stored on the GPU. 1. The top tree corresponds to a classical k-d tree with its split- ting values (e.g., medians) laid out in memory in a pointer-less manner. The leaf structure stores the point sets that stem from the splitting process in a consecutive manner. In addition, a buffer is attached to each leaf of the top tree that can store B query indices (e.g., B = 1024). The input queues are used to store the input query indices and the query indices that need further processing after a ProcessAllBuffers call. A buffer k-d tree can be used to delay the processing of the queries by per- forming several iterations, see Algorithm 1: In each iteration, the procedure FindLeafBatch retrieves indices from both the input and reinsert queue and propagates them through the top tree. The indices, which are stored in the corre- sponding buffers, are processed in chunks via the procedure ProcessAllBuffers once the buffers get full. All indices that need further processing (i.e., their implicit tree traversal has not reached the root twice) are inserted into reinsert again. Thus, in each iteration, one (1) finds the leaves that need to be processed next and (2) updates the queries’ nearest neighbors. While the first phase is not well-suited for massively-parallel processing, the second one is and, since it constitutes the most significant part of the runtime, yields valuable overall speed-ups. The main advantage of the reorganized work- flow is that all queries are processed in the same block-wide simd instruction and exhibit either good spatial or temporal locality of reference, i.e., coalesced or cached global...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Revisited. An update of the Hungarian Helsinki Committee’s 2011 report based on a field mission to Serbia (2-4 April 2012), Budapest, June 2012, xxxx://xxxxxxxx.xx/wp-content/uploads/Serbia-report-final.pdf) and Germany (Migreurop e.a. 2012). 109 X. Xxxxxxxx, ‘Syrian refugees: we were tricked into returning to Turkey’, The Guardian 1 November 2016, xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/world/2016/nov/01/syrian-refugees- tricked-into-returning-to-turkey-greece-eu; Xxxxxxxx, 2016. Amnesty International denounced it as refoulement.110 On another occa- sion, the ECtHR granting the applicant interim measures stopped a Frontex coordinated deportation of an Iranian activist from Greece to Turkey.111 Furthermore, an element of force and coercion is inherent in these oper- ations, since most of the returns are non-voluntary, and it is to be expected that some individuals will actively resist.112 Thus, the right to physical integrity may be at risk.113 Several NGOs have reported the use of dispro- portionate force and degrading and inhuman treatment upon return.114 According to Xxxxxxxxx, during the return flights, ‘their legs may be bound and their wrists handcuffed, their mouths are sometimes covered to prevent them from speaking or crying out, and in some instances disabling sprays are used to prevent them from shouting’.115 Xxxxxxxxx has pointed out the lack of transparency regarding the rules and protocols applied during joint return operations that would guarantee the physical integrity of those returned.116 Since then, the agency has developed a Code of Conduct for Joint Return Operations, which sets out common principles and main procedures to be observed by everyone participating in joint return operations.117 PACE, had called on Frontex in 2013 to put in place an effective and independent monitoring system at all stages of joint return operations, which operations should only be carried out for EU member states that have an effective system of forced return monitoring in place at the national level.118 Furthermore, after he participated in a return operation in 2017, the Greek Ombudsman expressed concerns regarding the lack of appropriate
Sample 1

Related to Revisited

  • Revision Manager may revise the Operating Budget from time to time, as necessary, to reflect any unpredicted significant changes, variables or events or to include significant additional, unanticipated items of revenue and expense. Any such revision shall be submitted to Owner for approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned.

  • Revisions With respect to Contracts that are “electronic chattel paper”, the related Receivables have been established in a manner such that (a) all copies or revisions that add or change an identified assignee of the authoritative copy of each such Contract must be made with the participation of the Trust Collateral Agent and (b) all revisions of the authoritative copy of each such Contract are readily identifiable as an authorized or unauthorized revision.

  • Update Each year the Plant Training Committee shall prepare an Update that reviews the Findings and modifies them based on changed circumstances, measures the success of the Training Program against its objectives and modifies the Training Program accordingly.

  • Updates “Updates” are changes that do not require a change to the established Centralized Contract terms and conditions. Updates may include: Centralized Contract changes and updates made in accordance with the previously approved pricing formula (e.g. discount from list price); adding new products or services within the established, previously approved pricing structure; lowering pricing of products or services already on Contract, deleting products or services available through the Centralized Contract, adding product or service that do not fall under the previously established price structure or discounts under the Contract, re-bundled products, and other updates not listed above that are deemed to be in the best interest of the State and do not result in a change to the established Centralized Contract terms and conditions. Updates must be submitted to OGS for review, and must be accompanied by a justification of reasonableness of price if the change results in a change in pricing methodology. OGS will notify Contractor in writing if approved.

  • Construction Change Directives 1.1.1, 3.4.2, 3.11, 3.12.8, 4.2.8, 7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.3, 9.3.1.1 Construction Schedules, Contractor’s 3.10, 3.11, 3.12.1, 3.12.2, 6.1.3, 15.1.6.2

  • SCOPE CHANGES The Commissioner reserves the right to require, by written order, changes to the scope of the Contract, by altering, adding to or deducting from the Bid Specifications, such changes to be within the general scope of the Contract. If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work under the Contract, whether or not changed by the order, the Commissioner shall, upon notice from Contractor as hereafter stated, make an equitable adjustment in the Contract price, the delivery schedule or both and shall modify the Contract. The Contractor must assert its right to an adjustment under this clause within thirty days from the date of receipt of the written order. However, if the Commissioner decides that the facts justify it, the Commissioner may provide an adjustment without receipt of a proposal. Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause, provided, however, that nothing in this clause shall excuse the Contractor from proceeding with the Contract as changed.

  • Benchmark Replacement Conforming Changes In connection with the use, administration, adoption or implementation of a Benchmark Replacement, the Administrative Agent will have the right to make Conforming Changes from time to time and, notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or in any other Loan Document, any amendments implementing such Conforming Changes will become effective without any further action or consent of any other party to this Agreement or any other Loan Document.

  • Updates and Upgrades Contractor grants to the Department a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use upgrades and updates provided by Contractor during the term of the Contract. Such upgrades and updates are subject to the terms of the Contract. The Department shall download, distribute, and install all updates as released by Contractor during the length of the Contract, and Contractor strongly suggests that the Department also downloads, distributes, and installs all upgrades as released by Contractor during the length of the Contract. Contractor shall use commercially reasonable efforts to provide the Department with work-around solutions or patches to reported software problems that may affect the Department’s use of the software during the length of the Contract.

  • Deletion Before the Subscription Term expires, Customer may use SAP’s self-service export tools (as available) to perform a final export of Personal Data from the Cloud Service (which shall constitute a "return" of Personal Data). At the end of the Subscription Term, Customer hereby instructs SAP to delete the Personal Data remaining on servers hosting the Cloud Service within a reasonable time period in line with Data Protection Law (not to exceed six months) unless applicable law requires retention.

  • Project Changes 1.8.1. All changes shall be administered per the UGC. 1.8.2. Upon authorization by the Owner, the Owner or Architect/Engineer will prepare and issue all changes to the Contract affecting cost, scope and/or time as a formal Change Order to the Contract on the standard University of Texas MD Xxxxxxxx Cancer Center Change Order form. The Change Order may include separate change issues, identified as Change Proposals and field orders. 1.8.3. Upon authorization by the Owner, Change Proposals may be issued to the Architect/Engineer for pricing by the Contractor. Contractor shall submit pricing to the Owner within twenty-one (21) days and pricing shall be indicated on the standard Owner "Change in Work Cost Analysis" ("Cost Analysis") form provided in the Pre-Construction Conference Brochure. Contractor may not include a Change Proposal within a Change Order unless the Owner has accepted the Change Proposal. 1.8.3.1. The Contractor shall summarize all costs for each change at each level of subcontractor and supplier by preparing the "Cost Analysis" form, and shall provide each subcontractor's cost summary on separate "Cost Analysis" forms as backup. Additional support documentation from both the Contractor and Contractor’s subcontractors is encouraged, but such will not replace use of the standard form. 1.8.3.2. When the Contractor believes it is entitled to a time extension, Contractor shall so state as part of Contractor’s response to the Change Proposal, including a justifica- tion for a time extension. Owner may grant time extensions only if a Change Proposal affects the activities on the Longest Path of an Owner approved Work Progress Schedule; i.e., when the Work impacts the "Contract Substantial Completion Date". 1.8.3.3. If the Owner’s Project Manager and Contractor cannot mutually agree upon a fair and reasonable cost and time settlement, the Owner’s Project Manager may: 1) Reject the quotation and void the Change Proposal, 2) Issue instructions to the Contractor to proceed on a time and material basis for a price to be determined later not to exceed a fixed maximum dollar and time, or 3) Issue a Unilateral Change Order. 1.8.3.4. The Owner’s Construction Inspector and/or Owner’s Project Manager may issue field orders directly to the Contractor for minor changes to the Contract, which can be negotiated in the field. Pricing backup is at the discretion of the Owner’s Construction Inspector, but pricing backup is required for any field order, the pricing backup is to be outlined on the "Cost Analysis" form. When the Owner and Contractor have signed the field order, the Work is authorized and the field order may be included in the next Change Order. 1.8.4. Request for payment for Change Order work may be submitted only after the Change Order has been fully executed.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!