Translation of "Prove a will " (English → French) :

prove a will [ probate a will | take probate ]

substantiate a claim [ prove a claim ]

prove a codicil [ probate a codicil ]

non-proving executor non-proving executor

evaluate health services within the community | prove efficiency of health services within the community | assess health services within the community | value health services within the community

prove one's identity

prove lense compliance | test lenses compliance | check lenses compliance | verify lenses compliance

in-service proving requirements

Definition: A heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by the acute onset of psychotic symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, and perceptual disturbances, and by the severe disruption of ordinary behaviour. Acute onset is defined as a crescendo development of a clearly abnormal clinical picture in about two weeks or less. For these disorders there is no evidence of organic causation. Perplexity and puzzlement are often present but disorientation for time, place and person is not persistent or severe enough to justify a diagnosis of organically caused delirium (F05.-). Complete recovery usually occurs within a few months, often within a few weeks or even days. If the disorder persists, a change in classification will be necessary. ...[+++] The disorder may or may not be associated with acute stress, defined as usually stressful events preceding the onset by one to two weeks.

Definition: Two or three of the above symptoms are usually present. The patient is usually distressed by these but will probably be able to continue with most activities.

a certificate or other document issued by a professional organization or the applicant's employer proving that the person concerned is a qualified journalist and stating that the purpose of the journey is to carry out journalistic work or proving that he/she is a member of technical crew accompanying the journalist in a professional capacity; ’.

The Evidence Study showed that whilst the prevailing position in the EU was that the onus of proving an accused’s guilt rests on the prosecution, sometimes, in exceptional cases, such as document or regulatory offences, once the prosecution had proved the existence of a duty, the accused had a reverse burden to prove that he had complied with it.

In Coditel II (para. 14), the Court clarified that "just as it is conceivable that certain aspects of the manner in which the right is exercised may prove to be incompatible with Articles 59 and 60 it is equally conceivable that some aspects may prove to be incompatible with Article 85 where they serve to give effect to an agreement, decision or concerted practice which may have as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market".

Indeed, they claimed that certain measures had proved too complex to implement and some provisions proved to be inconsistent with the Regulation n°1164/94 as revised in 1999.