Translation of "Erkennende gericht" in English

The court was not bound by the decision of the Italian court.

The court was not bound by the decision of the Italian court.

Basically any trial court will verify whether it actually has jurisdiction under the rules of international jurisdiction.

The same goes for ‘judicial authorities’, which in English means judges who pass judgment, whereas in Italian, it can also refer to investigating judges.

We should therefore clarify whether we are also conferring powers of investigating judges, which I hope is not the case, or only powers of adjudicating judges.

The judge or court passing sentence may, however, order the detention to take place on other days of the week or in another location.

The possibilities for review of decisions by the committal review court would be those provided for by domestic law under the options for a national court or those for Community actions under the option of a Community Pre?Trial Chamber, as the case may be.

In particular, if the national committal review court had jurisdiction to review manifest errors in the European Public Prosecutor’s choice of forum, the Court of Justice should be available to hear actions by the European Public Prosecutor in the event of jurisdiction being declined or of negative conflicts of jurisdiction subject to the principle of cases being concluded within a reasonable period of time.

But in cases of doubt the court is not allowed to assume that the ECJ would arrive at the same result as the court itself and therefore to decline to make a reference.

In this case the court giving judgment had requested the Court of Justice of the European Communities to deliver a preliminary ruling on two questions on the interpretation of the concept of an "ordinary appeal", employed in Articles 30 and 38 of the Brussels Convention. The Court of Justice answered those questions in its judgment of 22 No­vember 1977 ([1977] ECR 2175; see 1­25.0 — A 2, supra).

In this case the court giving judgment had requested the Court of Justice of the European Communities to deliver a preliminary ruling on two questions on the interpretation of the concept of an "ordinary appeal", employed in Articles 30 and 38 of the Brussels Convention. The Court of Justice answered those questions in its judgment of 22 No­vember 1977 ([1977] ECR 2175; see 1-25.0 — A 2, supra).

The declarations of a witness participating in the action are evaluated according to the evidentiary rules in force for the national judging court.

The court handing down the judgment presumed the existence of state necessity, and was of the view that it was unable to judge on the factual circumstances of such state necessity itself.

However, the sentencing court always has the authority to increase these penalties within the statutory limits.

The court stressed that Article 67d § 3 of the Criminal Code as amended did not retrospectively alter the legal consequences attaching to the offence as fixed in the final judgment of the sentencing court.

The sentencing court may, at the time of the offender s conviction, order his preventive detention under certain circumstances in addition to his prison sentence if the offender has been shown to be dangerous to the public (Article 66 of the Criminal Code).

At the sentencing court took into account mitigating circumstances - the lack of criminal record Timofeev, dependent on the presence of young children and elderly parents, sincere repentance.

In particular, the sentencing court orders preventive detention in addition to the penalty if someone is sentenced for an intentional offence to at least two years imprisonment and if the following further conditions are satisfied.

At the sentencing court took into account several mitigating circumstances, but considering that the correction is impossible Kotlyarenko without isolation from society, sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of 3 years with a fine of 500 thousand rubles.

If during the trial the court deems it necessary to restrict the rights of the other parent, he will rule against the guardianship authorities, according to which oblige sue for deprivation or restriction of parental rights of the other parent.

You don't recognize the authority of this court at all, do you?

AND HE'S NOT THE FIRST ONE FORCED TO COMMIT CRIMES

I've committed no crime and I do not concede to this court or the Cardassian empire!

Courts take the evidence and then evaluate on the bases that by looking to the evidence whether a particular fact is proved or not.

Day release, electronic surveillance and enforcement in instalments (weekend detention), can be decided in certain Member States not only ab initio by the sentencing court but also subsequently by the enforcement authority.

Settling this question would also facilitate the subsequent decision who is to present the prosecution case in the trial court.

This measure, which is described in detail above, can be decided not only ab initio by the sentencing court but also sometimes at a later date by the enforcement authority.219

It is in writing and signed by myself on behalf of many of the diverse constituents especially those in the 9th Congressional District and all American voters who recognize that the Supreme Court not the people of the United States, decided this election.

Although a court faced with such a justification might recognise t hat the justifications are themselves grounded in racial stereotypes, the case-law in other jurisdictions, such as the E C t H R Ostrava decision above, suggests otherwise.

It follows that the statement of reasons enabled the applicant to ascertain the reasons why Imarflex's data were not used as a basis for calculating the constructed normal value and enabled the Court to exercise its power of review.

The applicant was thus in a position to know the justification for the contested measure and the Court of First Instance is in a position to exercise its power to review the legality of that decision.