NATO warning time

NATO warning time

NATO warning time

front row player [ front-line player | front court player ]

forward

Improve the coordination among all the services and authorities involved in the return process in each Member State by June 2017 to ensure that all skills and expertise required are available for effective returns while respecting the rights of the returnees; Remove inefficiencies by shortening deadlines for appeals, systematically issuing return decisions that do not have an expiry date and combining decisions on the ending of a legal stay with the issuance of a return decision to avoid duplicate work; Tackle abuses of the system by making use of the possibility to assess asylum claims in accelerated or, where considered appropriate, ...[+++]border procedures when it is suspected asylum claims are made merely to delay the enforcement of a return decision; Prevent absconding by detaining people who have received a return decision and who show signs they will not comply such as refusal to cooperate in the identification process or opposing a return operation violently or fraudulently; Increase the effectiveness of return procedures and decisions by only granting voluntary departure if necessary and if a request is made and giving the shortest possible periods for voluntary departure, taking into account individual circumstances; Set up operational assisted voluntary return programmes by 1 June 2017 and ensure proper dissemination of information on voluntary return and assisted voluntary return and reintegration programmes.

Finally, the applicant considers, inter alia, that the contested regulation breaches the general principle of legal certainty in that, on the one hand, Article 45(8) of the contested regulation is unclear from many points of view, while, on the other hand, the regulation does not provide for a sufficient adaptation period before its entry into force in order to prepare for a change of such importance.

They did not ask for more time before they attacked the firearms registry, the Canadian Wheat Board or pay equity.

Anheuser-Busch challenged the judgment before the Court of Justice, relying inter alia on the argument that, as the protection afforded to the earlier mark had expired before the end of the period fixed for the submission of evidence, Budějovický Budvar ought to have submitted evidence of the mark’s renewal within that period.