Translation of "the plaintiff " (English → French) :

of the day on which the measure came to the knowledge of the plaintiff

the notification of the measure to the plaintiff

dismisses the claim of the plaintiff and orders him to pay the costs

specially sensitive plaintiff [ especially sensitive plaintiff ]

ancestor of the plaintiffs

Counterclaim against Plaintiff and Person not Already Party to the Main Action

Definition: This block contains a wide variety of disorders that differ in severity and clinical form but that are all attributable to the use of one or more psychoactive substances, which may or may not have been medically prescribed. The third character of the code identifies the substance involved, and the fourth character specifies the clinical state. The codes should be used, as required, for each substance specified, but it should be noted that not all fourth character codes are applicable to all substances. Identification of the psychoactive substance should be based on as many sources of information as possible. These include self-report data, analysis of blood and other body fluids, characteristic physical and psychological symptom ...[+++]s, clinical signs and behaviour, and other evidence such as a drug being in the patient's possession or reports from informed third parties. Many drug users take more than one type of psychoactive substance. The main diagnosis should be classified, whenever possible, according to the substance or class of substances that has caused or contributed most to the presenting clinical syndrome. Other diagnoses should be coded when other psychoactive substances have been taken in intoxicating amounts (common fourth character .0) or to the extent of causing harm (common fourth character .1), dependence (common fourth character .2) or other disorders (common fourth character .3-.9). Only in cases in which patterns of psychoactive substance-taking are chaotic and indiscriminate, or in which the contributions of different psychoactive substances are inextricably mixed, should the diagnosis of disorders resulting from multiple drug use (F19.-) be used. | Modifiers The following fourth-character subdivisions are for use with categories F10-F19: Code Title .0 Acute intoxication A condition that follows the administration of a psychoactive substance resulting in disturbances in level of consciousness, cognition, perception, affect or behaviour, o ...

Definition: A rare disorder in which the patient complains spontaneously that his or her mental activity, body, and surroundings are changed in their quality, so as to be unreal, remote, or automatized. Among the varied phenomena of the syndrome, patients complain most frequently of loss of emotions and feelings of estrangement or detachment from their thinking, their body, or the real world. In spite of the dramatic nature of the experience, the patient is aware of the unreality of the change. The sensorium is normal and the capacity for emotional expression intact. Depersonalization-derealization symptoms may occur as part of a diagnosable schizophrenic, depressive, phobic, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. In such cases the diagnosis sho ...[+++]uld be that of the main disorder.

Definition: This category differs from others in that it includes disorders identifiable on the basis of not only symptoms and course but also the existence of one or other of two causative influences: an exceptionally stressful life event producing an acute stress reaction, or a significant life change leading to continued unpleasant circumstances that result in an adjustment disorder. Although less severe psychosocial stress ( life events ) may precipitate the onset or contribute to the presentation of a very wide range of disorders classified elsewhere in this chapter, its etiological importance is not always clear and in each case will be found to depend on individual, often idiosyncratic, vulnerability, i.e. the life events are neither ...[+++] necessary nor sufficient to explain the occurrence and form of the disorder. In contrast, the disorders brought together here are thought to arise always as a direct consequence of acute severe stress or continued trauma. The stressful events or the continuing unpleasant circumstances are the primary and overriding causal factor and the disorder would not have occurred without their impact. The disorders in this section can thus be regarded as maladaptive responses to severe or continued stress, in that they interfere with successful coping mechanisms and therefore lead to problems of social functioning.

The association of hallux varus with short thumbs and first toes (involving the metacarpals, metatarsals, and distal phalanges; the proximal and middle phalanges are of normal length) and abduction of the affected digits. The syndrome has been descri

The plaintiff further relies on case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on the interpretation of Article 6 of the ECHR to the effect that litigants are to be summoned to court hearings in such a way not only so as to have knowledge of the date and place of hearing, but also to have enough time to prepare a case and attend a court hearing, and that a formal dispatch of a notification letter without any confidence that it will reach the applicant in good time cannot be considered to be proper notification Further, the plaintiff refers to Kapetanios and Others v. Greece to the effect that the European Court of Human Rights has found that ordering the imposition of administra ...[+++]tive fines on individuals accused of smuggling who had been acquitted of a criminal offence is a violation of Article 6(2) of the ECHR on the presumption of innocence and of Article 4 of Protocol No 7 on the right not to be tried or punished twice. Finally, the plaintiff queries whether, in the light of the ruling in Kapetanios and Others v. Greece, a fine of the dimensions in issue is suitable for categorisation as civil in nature, and is rather criminal.

However, at the hearing the agent for the Greek Government took the position that the plaintiff became comprehensively apprised of the case against him much later, namely on 14 November 2013, when the plaintiff received and confirmed reception of the 2009 Assessment act and a translation of it into English This occurred after the plaintiff sought to find out more about the impugned enforcement Instrument from the requested authorities through his Irish solicitors.

And once the applicant authority elected, in June 2009, to notify the plaintiff of the 2009 Assessment act, it could have taken advantage of the facility in Directive 2008/55, the mutual assistance directive in force at the relevant time, to both secure from the requested authority further precision of the information it held with respect to the plaintiff’s address (Article 4), and compel the requested authority to notify the applicant of the claim (Article 5).

On the facts of the main proceedings, there is no evidence, for example, of exclusion of the plaintiff from participation in proceedings to take place in the Greek courts Even if there were a justified misapprehension on the part of the Irish courts that EU law or national law, including rules on time limits for bringing proceedings, would be misapplied if the plaintiff had petitioned the Greek courts rather than the Irish courts, this would be insufficient in and of itself to oust the Greek courts, on the basis of exception to the principle of mutual trust, as the proper forum for challenging the impugned enforcement Instrument, as envi ...[+++]saged by the text of Article 14 and recital 12 of Directive 2010/24