The proceedings278 Sample Clauses

The proceedings278. On 30 October 2017, Qatar filed two complaints to the ICAO Council.279 On 19 March 2018, Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE raised preliminary objections to the effect that the ICAO Council did not have the jurisdiction, or in the alternative, that the claims made by Qatar were inadmissible, on the grounds that the lawfulness of the countermeasures and Qatar’s compliance with critical obligations under international law are entirely unrelated to the Chicago Convention.280 The ICAO Council, at the eighth meeting of its 214th Session on 26 June 2018, rejected these preliminary objections by 23 votes to 4, with 6 abstentions.281 On 4 July 2018, Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE appealed the ICAO Council’s decision to the ICJ, as provided for by Article 84 of the Chicago Convention, arguing that the ICAO council is not competent to adjudicate.282 On 14 July 2020, the ICJ rejected the appeal and held, by fifteen votes to one, 278 See Xxxxx Xxxxxx de Xxxx, “The End of Closed Airspace in the Middle East: A Final Move on the Regional Chess Board?”, (2021), 46, Air and Space Law, Issue 2, pp. 299-308. 279 On 30 October 2017, Qatar presented Application (A) and its corresponding Memorial under the terms of Article 84 of the Chicago Convention. Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were named as Respondents. The said Application (A) and its corresponding Memorial relate to a disagreement on the "interpretation and application of the Chicago Convention and its Annexes" following the referenced announcement by the Governments of the Respondents on 5 June 2017 "with immediate effect and without any previous negotiation or warning, that Qatar-registered aircraft are not permitted to fly to or from the airports within their territories and would be barred not only from their respective national air spaces, but also from their Flight Information Regions (FIRs) extend- ing beyond their national airspace even over the high seas". On 30 October 2017, Qatar also presented Application (B) and its corresponding Memorial under the terms of Article II, Section 2 of the International Air Services Transit Agreement (Transit Agreement) and Chapter XVIII of the Chicago Convention. Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates were named as Respondents. Application (B) relates to a disagreement on the “interpretation and application” of the Transit Agreement, following the referenced announcement by the Governments of the Respondents on 5 June 2017 “wit...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to The proceedings278

  • Pending Proceedings Borrower is not in default under any law or regulation or under any order of any court, board, commission or agency whatsoever, and there are no claims, actions, suits or proceedings pending or, to the knowledge of Borrower, threatened against or affecting Borrower or the Development, at law or in equity, before or by any court, board, commission or agency whatsoever which might, if determined adversely to Borrower, materially affect Borrower's ability to repay the Loan or impair the security to be given to the County pursuant hereto.

  • Administrative Proceedings With a view to administering in a consistent, impartial, and reasonable manner all measures of general application affecting matters covered by this Agreement, each Party shall ensure that in its administrative proceedings applying measures referred to in Article 73 to particular persons or goods of the other Party in specific cases that:

  • Initiation of Proceedings (1) At the request of either Contracting Party a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement may be submitted to an arbitral tribunal for decision not earlier than 60 days after such request has been notified to the other Contracting Party.

  • Proceedings Borrower has taken all necessary action to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the other Loan Documents. This Agreement and such other Loan Documents have been duly executed and delivered by or on behalf of Borrower and constitute legal, valid and binding obligations of Borrower enforceable against Borrower in accordance with their respective terms, subject only to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency and similar laws affecting rights of creditors generally, and subject, as to enforceability, to general principles of equity (regardless of whether enforcement is sought in a proceeding in equity or at law).

  • Judicial Proceedings (a) The Teekay Parties irrevocably (i) agree that any legal suit, action or proceeding against the Teekay Parties arising out of or based upon this Agreement, the transactions contemplated hereby or alleged violations of the securities laws of the United States or any state in the United States may be instituted in any New York court, (ii) waive, to the fullest extent it may effectively do so, any objection which it may now or hereafter have to the laying of venue of any such proceeding in any New York court and (iii) submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts in any such suit, action or proceeding. Each of the Teekay Parties has appointed Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx & Xxxxxxxx, New York, New York, as its authorized agent (the “Authorized Agent”), upon whom process may be served in any such action arising out of or based on this Agreement, the transactions contemplated hereby or any alleged violation of the securities laws of the United States or any state in the United States which may be instituted in any New York court, expressly consents to the jurisdiction of any such court in respect of any such action, and waives any other requirements of or objections to personal jurisdiction with respect thereto. Such appointment shall be irrevocable. The Teekay Parties represent and warrant that the Authorized Agent has agreed to act as such agent for service of process and agrees to take any and all action, including the filing of any and all documents and instruments, that may be necessary to continue such appointment in full force and effect as aforesaid. Service of process upon the Authorized Agent and written notice of such service to the Teekay Parties shall be deemed, in every respect, effective service of process upon the Teekay Parties.

  • Judicial or Administrative Proceedings CE may terminate the Agreement and this BAA, effective immediately, if (i) BA is named as defendant in a criminal proceeding for a violation of HIPAA, the HITECH Act, the HIPAA Regulations or other security or privacy laws or (ii) a finding or stipulation that the BA has violated any standard or requirement of HIPAA, the HITECH Act, the HIPAA Regulations or other security or privacy laws is made in any administrative or civil proceeding in which the party has been joined.

  • LITIGATION OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BA shall notify CE within forty-eight (48) hours of any litigation or administrative proceedings commenced against BA or its agents or subcontractors. In addition, BA shall make itself, and any subcontractors, employees and agents assisting BA in the performance of its obligations under the Contract or Addendum, available to CE, at no cost to CE, to testify as witnesses, or otherwise, in the event of litigation or administrative proceedings being commenced against CE, its supervisors, directors, officers, managers or employees based upon a claimed violation of HIPAA, the HITECH Act, the HIPAA regulations, or other state or federal laws relating to security and privacy, except where the BA or its subcontractors, employees or agents are a named adverse parties.

  • Dismissal of the Proceedings (1) Upon the Effective Date, the Ontario Action shall be dismissed with prejudice and without costs as against the Settling Defendants.

  • Further Proceedings The Contract Dispute Resolution Board shall permit the Contractor to present its case by submission of memoranda, briefs, and oral argument. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board shall also permit NYCDOT to present its case in response to the Contractor by submission of memoranda, briefs, and oral argument. If requested by the City Corporation Counsel, the Comptroller shall provide reasonable assistance in the preparation of the Agency’s case. Neither the Contractor nor NYCDOT may support its case with any documentation or other material that was not considered by the Comptroller, unless requested by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board, in its discretion, may seek such technical or other expert advice as it shall deem appropriate and may seek, on its own or upon application of a party, any such additional material from any party as it deems fit. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board, in its discretion, may combine more than one dispute between the parties for concurrent resolution.

  • Arbitration Proceedings Arbitration between the parties will be subject to the following:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.