Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations.
in the Member State where the trust is domiciled.
Consideration should also be given to whether any other sources of law warrant mention. Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, like the instruments discussed above, is a regulation and therefore applies directly in every Member State. It governs jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of maintenance obligations.
The subject matter of the present dispute has no connection with maintenance obligations. Accordingly, while Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 applies directly in every Member State as a matter of EU law, it is inapplicable to the present case, as the dispute concerns traditional leadership rather than maintenance obligations.
014 applies directly in every member state and governs the resolution of certain investment firms. 12. Under Article 31a of REGULATION (EU) No 806/2014, the Single Resolution Board must share information obtained from financial institutions with other authorities. 13. This exchange of information is subject to strict obligations of professional secrecy and data protection. 14. Additionally, under Article 28 of REGULATION (EU) No 806/2014, national resolution authorities must cooperate with and assist the Board. 15. They must provide information on the execution of the resolution scheme at regular intervals.
, and
,
,
markers.
Please paste the source text (the Lithuanian legal analysis), and I will return the professional English translation with the four markers preserved exactly as specified, each on its own line.
"Presumptions of conformity under Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 arise only from compliance with harmonized standards or officially adopted common specifications, not from private audit frameworks."
This matter requires enterprises deploying autonomous AI agents to navigate a shifting liability landscape where securing $50 million in insurance depends on passing binary compliance audits. Although the Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company raised $40 million to scale its AIUC-1 framework, private audits cannot bypass statutory European Union compliance. The exact legal question is whether private auditing frameworks can establish a legal presumption of conformity for high-risk AI systems. Under Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, such presumptions are restricted to specific cybersecurity certifications or localized training data. Additionally, Article 41(3) limits presumptions of conformity to systems complying with officially harmonized common specifications.
Because Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 reserves legal presumptions of conformity for officially harmonized standards and specific certifications, private auditing frameworks such as AIUC-1 cannot substitute for statutory compliance. Enterprises should therefore treat private audits as complementary risk-management and insurance-precondition tools, not as substitutes for conformity assessment, and must continue to satisfy harmonized standards, common specifications, or national certification routes to obtain any legal presumption of conformity.
Insurers may condition high-value coverage on private audits, but such audits confer no statutory immunity or presumption of conformity. Enterprises relying solely on private frameworks risk regulatory enforcement, market withdrawal of their systems under Article 99, and civil liability exposure, since conformity obligations under the Regulation remain fully applicable regardless of private certification outcomes.
section using a bullet list for obligations, conditions, and steps as required: "FORMAT: use bullet lists (lines starting with '- ') for obligations, conditions and steps; mark instrument names and articles with double asterisks; use a compact Markdown table ONLY when there are at least 3 genuinely comparable rows" Wait, are there 3 genuinely comparable
"Pursuant to Article 37(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, a single data protection officer may be designated for several such public authorities."
"This designation must take into account the organizational structure and the size of the public authorities concerned."
Any comprehensive register of criminal convictions must be kept exclusively under the control of an official authority.
"Since the JMPD is a public authority, its organizational structure permits specific administrative arrangements under Regulation (EU) 2016/679."
"Furthermore, the supervisory authority must observe procedural safeguards, including the right to an effective judicial remedy and due process, in accordance with Article 83(8) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679."
The disciplinary sanctions imposed on the Argentine Football Association and its players operate entirely outside the jurisdiction of European Union law. The Argentine Football Association must legally comply with a FIFA order reducing its next home match capacity to 50 percent. This sanction arises from a breach of the FIFA disciplinary code during a match against England. The association also faces player suspensions for Leandro Paredes, Nahuel Molina, and Thiago Almada. This matter requires determining whether EU rules on data processing, civil jurisdiction, or social security apply to these international sporting events. The primary rules deciding this are Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 1(1) of
Under Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 Article 46, customs controls must be proportionate to the
Under Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 Article 2, "borrowing costs" include certain foreign exchange gains and losses on borrowings and instruments connected with the raising of finance [1]. The Nigerian naira's stabilization directly impacts the foreign exchange gains and losses of taxpayers.
Under Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 Article 3, customs authorities are responsible for supervising international trade to protect the Union's financial interests and support legitimate business activity [17]. This relates to the improved availability of foreign exchange for businesses and airlines engaged in international trade.
THIS matter requires public institutions to enforce strict professional conduct standards that eliminate discriminatory harassment within their ranks, especially when off-duty actions undermine public trust. The dismissed officers face a permanent ban from rejoining the police force because their conduct breached professional standards. The exact legal question is whether off-duty comments by police officers that violate a colleague's dignity constitute harassment and breach professional standards. This issue is governed by Council Directive 2000/78/EC, specifically Article 2 and Article 16.
As a directive, Council Directive 2000/78/EC binds Member States through national transposition.