Примеры использования Court held на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
For example, the Court held in 2006.
The court held that the practice conflicted with section 42(1)(a)
Therefore, the court held that reconciliation of the Trademark Directive and the Comparative Advertising Directive was imperative.
For this reason the Court held that the term referred to in the fax,"autumn 1993", was sufficiently clear.
For these reasons the court held that any claim for damages which the buyer might otherwise have against the seller was barred by reason of passivity.
The court held that the claimant was entitled to the purchase price pursuant to article 53(1)
The court held that a state photographic voter identification law violated the Voting Rights Act.
The court held that the buyer had complied with the requirements of articles 38
In other words, the Court held that the CAA-- which was intended to principally govern domestic arbitration-- had no application.
The court held that the parties intended to refer to the Arbitration Court of the Chamber of Commerce of Yugoslavia,
In this regard, the Court held that the'but for' test of causation does not reflect Convention case law.
The Court held that the author's claims impermissibly urged the court to conduct a review of the merits of the decisions,
The court held that any agreement between the parties was in the first instance applicable to resolve the issue.
The court held that the phrase"… that the arbitration agreement was not valid…" meant that there must be a binding agreement to arbitrate in existence.
Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria case, the Court held.
The court held that the award was binding and refused the application of the defendant.
The court held that this procedure was sufficient to rebut any claims about violations of the right to be heard,
The Court held that changes in the currency exchange rate should not serve as sufficient grounds for termination.
Despite its reference to“intransgressible principles”, the Court held that it had no need to pronounce on the issue of jus cogens.
The court held that such lessons required an educational license which the organization did not have.