Translation of "Eu legislature" in German

In the EU, the legislature has been transferred to the executive.

The EU legislature has furthermore determined that the data subject is entitled to the following information:

In any case, by including permissive language (‘may’ and ‘if it considers this appropriate’) in Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling Regulation, the EU legislature has vested the Commission with significant discretion on whether or not to implement a recommendation from the WTO in respect of a non-disputed measure.

The EU budget is taxpayers' money and must be used only to implement the policies which the EU legislature has approved.

If the social partners consider that measures are called for but fail to reach an agreement in accordance with Treaty Article 139, the Committee believes that the Commission and the EU legislature should take action.

The European Parliament and the Council note the assurance provided by the Commission to the EU legislature that the common output indicators for the ERDF Regulation, the ETC Regulation and the Cohesion Fund Regulation to be included in an annex to, respectively, each regulation, are the outcome of a lengthy preparatory process involving the evaluation experts of both the Commission and the Member States and, in principle, are expected to remain stable.

He takes the view that it reintroduces State regulation which the EU legislature took great care to abolish through deregulation and liberalisation of the sector.

Had the EU legislature wanted to limit this obligation on grounds of force majeure, this would have been clearly indicated in the wording of the Regulation.

Moreover, the mere fact that the system of producer liability established by the directive coexists with a national body of rules providing for the no-fault liability of a service provider does not undermine either the effectiveness of the system of producer liability or the objectives pursued by the Eu legislature by means of that system.

Nevertheless, in adopting Regulation No 261/2004, the EU legislature was seeking to strike a balance between the interests of air passengers and those of air carriers.

Given the historical context of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis in 2001, the EU legislature could legitimately introduce specific legislation providing for the electronic identification of sheep and goats that were particularly affected by that crisis.

This second progress report, which complements the Communication on the “Second strategic review on Better Regulation in the European Union”2, describes in both qualitative and quantitative terms the results already achieved, maps out the route ahead for the EU legislature and aims to provide fresh impetus for the simplification strategy which is an essential element of the overall Better Regulation Policy and Growth and Employment Strategy of the European Union.

Moreover, by adopting the regulation on local border traffic, the EU legislature intended to put rules in place for local border traffic which are independent of, and distinct from, those of the Schengen acquis.

So far as concerns the temporal effects of the finding of invalidity, the Advocate General proposes, after weighing up the various competing interests, that the effects of a finding that the Directive is invalid should be suspended pending adoption by the EU legislature of the measures necessary to remedy the invalidity found to exist, but such measures must be adopted within a reasonable period.

Furthermore, the Court states that the EU legislature made the acquisition of the right of permanent residence subject to the integration of the person concerned in the host Member State.

Although the EU legislature has, in another directive, laid down obligations for audiovisual media providers when their services or programmes are sponsored by third-party undertakings, it has not yet adopted this kind of legislation for the written press.

In the interest of improving the prevention of such epidemics and improving the functioning of the trade in sheep and goats between Member States, the EU legislature introduced a new system under which each animal must be identified individually by two means of identification, namely by a traditional eartag and by an electronic device.

The Court observes that the EU legislature was not pursuing the liberalisation of the market for seed of ‘old varieties’ but was seeking to ease the rules of acceptance while preventing the emergence of a parallel market for such seed, which was likely to constitute an impediment to the internal market for seed of vegetable varieties.

In fact, the EU legislature did not intend to make it possible for Member States to engage in reverse discrimination by excluding their own citizens from the rights created by that directive.

In those circumstances, and particularly in light of the broad discretion which the EU legislature has in the area of the common agricultural policy, it could legitimately take the view that other measures, such as labelling, would not enable the same result to be achieved.

As regards the possible unfairness of the disputed term, the Court finds that the EU legislature recognised that, in the context of contracts of indefinite duration such as contracts for the supply of gas, the supplying undertaking has a legitimate interest in altering the charges for its service.

Owing to the dangers inherent in the consumption of alcoholic beverages, the EU legislature has sought to protect the health of consumers, whose consumption habits may be directly influenced by such claims.

The Court notes that, although the Commission initially proposed, during the preparatory work of the regulation, an alignment of the calculation of the maximum stay with that laid down in the Schengen acquis, the EU legislature opted for a specific limitation in relation to uninterrupted stays.