Variations on a Theme Sample Clauses

Variations on a Theme. The Ilaşcu test in Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh and Eastern Ukraine While the Court set out the test in clear terms in Ilaşcu, and followed it meticulously in other cases regarding Transdniestria, the same cannot be said in the contexts of Kosovo, Eastern Ukraine, or Nagorno-Karabakh. Although none of the judgments in these latter cases – Xxxxx, Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx – questioned the Ilaşcu test, and some of them even reaffirmed part of it in principle, they did not apply all of its elements to the facts at hand. in the admissibility decision in Xxxxx and the judgment in Khlebik, the Court did not examine the test’s general limb; while in the Xxxxxxxx case before the Grand Chamber, it rejected Azerbaijan’s argument that the state’s obligations under the ECHR were limited to positive ones and as such, it Moldova and Russia, Application No. 3445/13, Second Section Committee, Judgment of 17 September 2019, paras. 26-27, 43-47, 56, 65; Xxxxxxx, xxxxx. 16-17, 36-39; ECtHR, Xxxxxx and others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, Application No. 40942/14, Second Section Committee, Judgment of 17 September 2019, paras. 45-46, 63-66, 78, 93; ECtHR, Xxxxxxx v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, Application No. 55698/14, Second Section Committee, Judgment of 17 September 2019, paras. 24-25, 42-45, 61, 76; Xxxxx and Xxxxx, paras. 17-18, 34-37; ECtHR, Xxxxx and Surchician v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, Application No. 22365/10, Second Section Committee, Judgment of 7 January 2020, paras. 45-46, 58-61, 74, 84; ECtHR, Xxxxx and others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, Application No. 36545/06, Second Section Committee, Judgment of 18 February 2020, paras. 23-24, 47-50. The Court developed a more specific test for Article 13 ECHR, see note 238 below. 171 Ivanţoc, para. 108. 172 Catan, para. 146; Xxxxx, para. 152 (extended to July 2010); Turturica and Xxxxxx, para. 52; Xxxxxxx, para. 32 (October 2010); Xxxxxxxxx, para. 46 (September 2016); Apcov, para. 45 (April 2012); Xxxxx, para. 37; Xxxxxxxxx, para. 41 (May 2011); Braga, para. 39; and Xxxxx, para. 60; Xxxxxx, para. 40; Xxxxx, para. 86; Xxxxxxxxxx, para. 60; Stomatii, para. 70; Bobeico, para. 50; Xxxxxx and Magaleas, para. 37; Coţofan, para. 31; Sobco and Ghent, para. 29; Beșleagă, para. 33; Xxxxxxxxxxxx, para. 57; Xxxxxxx, para. 63; Xxxxxxxxxxxxx, para. 61; Xxxxxxxx, para. 39; Xxxxxx, para. 33; Filin, para. 35 (March 2015); Xxxxxxxx, para. 40 (December 2010); Xxxxxxx, para. 43 (March 2017); Xxxxxx, para. 64 (A...
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Variations on a Theme

  • Limitations on License (a) This license is not assignable or transferable by operation of law or otherwise, except as provided in Paragraph "1(b)" hereof, and is limited to the LICENSEE and to the premises.

  • Limitations on Use No part of the moneys delivered to the Recipient pursuant to Section II hereof is being or will be used to refinance, retire, redeem, or otherwise pay debt service on all or any part of any part of any governmental obligations regardless of whether the interest on such obligations is or was excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes unless prior approval by the Director is given.

  • Notification of Limitations on Contributions San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code (the “Conduct Code”) Section 1.126 prohibits any person who contracts with the City for selling or leasing any land or building to or from the City whenever such transaction would require the approval by a City elective officer or the board on which that City elective officer serves, from making a contribution to such an officer, or candidate for such an office, or committee controlled by such officer or candidate at any time from the commencement of negotiations for such contract until the termination of negotiations for such contract or three months has elapsed from the date the contract is approved by the City elective officer, or the board on which that City elective officer serves. San Francisco Ethics Commission Regulation 1.126-1 provides that negotiations are commenced when a prospective contractor first communicates with a City officer or employee about the possibility of obtaining a specific contract. This communication may occur in person, by telephone or in writing, and may be initiated by the prospective contractor or a City officer or employee. Negotiations are completed when a contract is finalized and signed by the City and the contractor. Negotiations are terminated when the City and/or the prospective contractor end the negotiation process before a final decision is made to award the contract. Through its execution of this Agreement, Tenant acknowledges that it is familiar with the provisions of Article III, Chapter 2 of City's Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, and sections 87100 et seq and sections 1090 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California, and certifies that it does not know of any facts which constitute a violation of said provisions and agrees that if it becomes aware of any such fact during the term of this Agreement it shall immediately notify City.

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