Translation of "limit — failure " (English → French) :

failure to observe time-limits for payment

loss of security for failure to observe a time limit

failure to observe a time limit

undetected hardware failure [ covert failure | unrevealed failure | latent failure | hidden failure | dormant failure ]

multiple organ dysfunction syndrome | MODS | multiple organ failure | MOF | multiple organ failure syndrome | MOFS | multiple systems organ failure | multisystem organ failure | multi-organ failure

safe hardware failure [ nuisance failure | spurious failure | false trip failure | fail to safe failure ]

failure to perform duty to provide necessaries [ failure to fulfil the duty to provide necessaries | failure to provide necessaries of life | failure to provide necessaries | breach of duty to provide necessaries of life | failure to provide necessities of life | failing to provide necessities of life ]

internal failure cost | internal failures cost | internal anomalies cost | cost of internal failure | cost of internal failures

external failure cost | external anomalies cost | external failures cost | cost of external failure | cost of external failures

infringement procedure (EU) [ declaration of an EC failure to fulfil an obligation | declaration of an EC failure to take action | EC infringement procedure | EC infringement proceedings ]

EUROPA - EU law and publications - EUR-Lex - EUR-Lex - 62017CA0240 - EN - Case C-240/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — E (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Third-country national staying illegally in a Member State — Threat to public order and national security — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 6(2) — Return decision — Ban on entry to the territory of the Member States — Alert for the purposes of refusing admission to the Schengen Area — Third-country national holding a valid residence permit issued by another Member State — Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 25(2) — Consultation procedure between the Member St ...[+++]ate issuing the alert and the Member State which issued the residence permit — Time limit — Failure of the Contracting State consulted to adopt a position — Consequences for the enforcement of return decisions and entry ban) // Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — E // (Case C-240/17) - ( // ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Third-country national staying illegally in a Member State - Threat to public order and national security - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 6(2) - Return decision - Ban on entry to the territory of the Member States - Alert for the purposes of refusing admission to the Schengen Area - Third-country national holding a valid residence permit issued by another Member State - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 25(2) - Consultation procedure between the Member State issuing the alert and the Member State which issued the residence permit - Time limit - Failure of the Contracting State consulted to adopt a position - Consequences for the enforcement of return decisions and entry ban))

Is a national law compatible with the obligation of a Member State to provide for the effective prosecution of criminal offences by customs officials if that law provides for criminal proceedings brought against customs officials — for participation in a conspiracy to commit corruption offences while performing their professional duties (accepting bribes for non-performance of customs inspections), and for specific bribery offences and concealment of bribes received — to be terminated, without the court having examined the charges brought, under the following conditions: (a) two years have elapsed since the accused was charged; (b) the ...[+++]accused has lodged a request for the pre-trial investigation to be concluded; (c) the court has given the prosecutor a period of three months to conclude the pre-trial investigation; (d) during that period, the prosecutor has committed ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ (failure properly to notify a supplementary charge, failure to disclose the investigation file, contradictory indictment); (e) the court has given the prosecutor a further period of one month to remedy those ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’; ([f]) the prosecutor has failed to remedy the ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ within that time-limit — albeit that the infringements committed within the first three-month period and the failure to remedy them within the subsequent one-month period are attributable both to the prosecutor (failure to remove contradictions in the indictment; failure to take real action for most of those periods) and also to the defence (breach of the duty to cooperate with respect to notification of the charge and inspection of the investigation file due to the hospitalisation of the accused and claims regarding the lawyers’ other professional commitments); ([g]) the accused has acquired a subjective right to the termination of the criminal proceedings on account of the failure to reme ...

3. Where the supervisory body requires the qualified trust service provider to remedy any failure to fulfil requirements under this Regulation and where that provider does not act accordingly, and if applicable within a time limit set by the supervisory body, the supervisory body, taking into account, in particular, the extent, duration and consequences of that failure, may withdraw the qualified status of that provider or of the affected service it provides and inform the body referred to in Article 22(3) for the purposes of updating ...[+++] the trusted lists referred to in Article 22(1).

Although it is accepted that failure to comply with the rules on the time-limits for complaints and appeals cannot lead to the dismissal of an application as inadmissible in cases where that failure is due to an excusable error on the part of the official, the concept of excusable error may, however, relate only to exceptional circumstances, in particular where the conduct of the institution has been, either alone or to a decisive extent, such as to give rise to pardonable confusion in the mind of a party acting in good faith and exercising all the diligence required of a normally experienced person.