Example sentences of "contrary [prep] community " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | ( 2 ) That , irrespective of the existence of the present system of national catch quotas , it was contrary to Community law , and in particular to article 52 of the E.E.C . |
| 2 | The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and Spain , the Commission of the European Communities and the applicants in the main proceedings considered that , whilst the rules relating to the grant of the flag fell within the competence of the member states , the member states could not adopt legislation contrary to Community law . |
| 3 | The Spanish Government , the Commission and the applicants in the main proceedings considered that conditions of the type at issue were contrary to Community law . |
| 4 | Even if the concept of domicile in the context of the Act of 1988 were to be accorded by the United Kingdom courts a meaning similar to that prevailing in other member states , the applicants in the main proceedings would still contend that the domicile requirement was contrary to Community law . |
| 5 | In any event , the fact of introducing a concept with such uncertainty as ‘ domicile ’ into the ‘ qualifications ’ was itself contrary to Community law , as the court held in Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic ( Case 167/73 ) [ 1974 ] E.C.R. 359 . |
| 6 | ‘ Is it contrary to Community law and in particular to articles 7 , 52 and 221 of the E.E.C . |
| 7 | It follows from the foregoing considerations that part ( a ) of question ( 2 ) in the Factortame case ( Case C 221/89 ) must be answered in the affirmative : it is contrary to Community law for a member state to stipulate as a requirement for the registration of a fishing vessel in its national register that the owners and operators of the vessel , whether they be natural or legal persons , or 75 per cent . |
| 8 | In other words , it is contrary to Community law for a member state to lay down as a requirement for registration that the owners , operators , shareholders and directors , as the case may be must reside and be domiciled in that member state and , in the case of a company , that it must have its principal place of business there . |
| 9 | Part ( c ) of question ( 2 ) , as I reformulated it , must therefore be answered in the negative : it is not contrary to Community law for a member state to make the grant of its flag subject to the requirement that the vessel must be managed and its operations directed and controlled from within that member state . |
| 10 | Logically , that question is otiose as regards the nationality and residence requirements if the court rules , as I suggest it should , that those requirements are in any event contrary to Community law . |
| 11 | ( 2 ) ( a ) It is contrary to Community law for a member state to stipulate as a requirement for the registration of a fishing vessel in its national register that the owners and operators of the vessel , whether they be natural or legal persons , or 75 per cent . |
| 12 | of the directors and shareholders of a company owning or operating the vessel must be nationals of the state , even if the competent national authority has the legal power to dispense with that requirement in the case of certain persons ; ( b ) it is contrary to Community law for a member state to lay down as a requirement for registration that the owners , operators , shareholders and directors , as the case may be , must reside and be domiciled in that member state and , in the case of a company , that it must have its principal place of business there ; and ( c ) it is not contrary to Community law for a member state to make the grant of its flag subject to the requirement that the vessel must be managed and its operations directed and controlled from within that member state . |
| 13 | of the directors and shareholders of a company owning or operating the vessel must be nationals of the state , even if the competent national authority has the legal power to dispense with that requirement in the case of certain persons ; ( b ) it is contrary to Community law for a member state to lay down as a requirement for registration that the owners , operators , shareholders and directors , as the case may be , must reside and be domiciled in that member state and , in the case of a company , that it must have its principal place of business there ; and ( c ) it is not contrary to Community law for a member state to make the grant of its flag subject to the requirement that the vessel must be managed and its operations directed and controlled from within that member state . |
| 14 | Consequently , the reply to the national court must be that it is not contrary to Community law for a member state to stipulate as a condition for the registration of a fishing vessel in its national register that the vessel in question must be managed and its operations directed and controlled from within that member state . |
| 15 | ( 3 ) It is not contrary to Community law for a member state to stipulate as a condition for the registration of a fishing vessel in its national register that the vessel in question must be managed and its operations directed and controlled from within that member state . |