Limposta patrimoniale (Italian Edition)
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Limposta patrimoniale (Italian Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Limposta patrimoniale (Italian Edition) book.
Happy reading Limposta patrimoniale (Italian Edition) Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Limposta patrimoniale (Italian Edition) at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Limposta patrimoniale (Italian Edition) Pocket Guide.
On the other hand, the payer obtains a document which confirms a payment and guarantees dropping of more investigations or penalties. Thus comes the name Shield. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Open Innovation in the Financial Services. Retrieved 15 May Edward Elgar Publishing. Translation of patrimoniale — Italian—English dictionary. Browse patriarca. Test your vocabulary with our fun image quizzes.
Image credits. Word of the Day put your feet up. Read More. New Words microworker. November 04, To top.
Get our free widgets. On 2 November , the Respondent submitted its comments on the Claimant's request and requested the Tribunal to also stay all further deadlines and to establish new deadlines of further submissions. On 3 November , the Parties submitted further observations on the Claimant's request to stay the Procedural Calendar. On 18 November , Lexlitis notified that it was no longer going to represent the Claimant in this proceeding.
On 21 November , the Claimant requested the Tribunal to grant an extension to file its Statement of Claim to 7 December due to the change in legal representation. On 22 November , the Centre informed the Parties that the Tribunal had suspended the time-limit for the Claimant's submission of its Statement of Claim and invited the Respondent to comment on the Claimant's request for the extension. On 23 November , the Respondent submitted its agreement to the Claimant's request for the extension of its submission of its Statement of Claim.
On 6 December , the Tribunal granted the Claimant's request.
- Taekwondo Basics (Tuttle Martial Arts Basics)!
- Quick Guide to Investing in Real Estate Tax Lien Certificates!
- Virology in Medicine - Exam Preparation for USMLE, NAPLEX, NCLEX, NBDE, NBOE and COMLEX (Medical Review Book 3).
- Am I My Brothers Keeper.
- Americas Best.
- Paper statistics!
On 6 December , the Claimant requested a further extension to file its Statement of Claim to 14 December On 7 December , the Tribunal granted this extension. On 14 December , the Claimant filed its Statement of Claim, accompanied by the witness statement of Mr. On 14 February , the Tribunal invited the Claimant to submit its observations on this request and invited the Parties to agree on a revised Procedural Calendar without modifying the hearing dates.
On 21 February , the Claimant confirmed that it had no objection on the Respondent's request of 13 February , and transmitted to the Tribunal an agreed revised Procedural Calendar. On 21 February , the Parties agreed to a revised Procedural Calendar. On 3 April , by the President of the Tribunal's request, the Centre enquired if the Parties agreed to the replacement of Ms.
Descombes with Ms. Ana Paula Montans as his assistant in this case. Montans provided her curriculm vitae and a declaration of independence. The Parties confirmed that they did not have any observations to Ms. Montans appointment. On 24 April , the Respondent filed its Statement of Defense.
This submission was accompanied by the Index of Factual Exhibits and Legal Authorities, the witness statements of: Mr.
Bacchiocchi " , Eng. Miraglia " , the Expert Legal Opinion of Prof.
- Why Complexity Leads to Inequality!
- A Durable Civilization.
- imposta patrimoniale.
In the Statement of Defense, Italy requested that i the proceedings be bifurcated requesting that the Tribunal decide on the jurisdictional objections before discussing the merits; 2 and that ii the arbitration be suspended until the decision of the European Court of Justice " ECJ " in Slowakische Republik Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV " Achmea ".
The Parties' agreement also requested the postponement of the hearing suggesting the end of January as a possible date. On 28 July , the Tribunal confirmed the Parties' agreement of 24 July , but informed that the hearing dates could not be confirmed at that time. On 30 July , the Tribunal proposed to the Parties to hold the hearing on the week of 26 March The Tribunal asked the Parties to confirm their availability as soon as possible.
Termites of the State by Vito Tanzi
On 2 August , both Parties confirmed their availability to hold the hearing on the dates proposed by the Tribunal. On 28 August , the Centre informed the Parties that Ms. On 20 September , the Claimant filed its Reply, accompanied by the second witness statement of Mr. On 15 December , the Respondent filed its Rejoinder, accompanied by the second witness statements of: Mr. Italy did not reiterate its request for bifurcation let alone its request for the suspension of the proceedings in the Rejoinder.
On 11 January , by the President of the Tribunal's request, the Centre enquired if the Parties agreed to the replacement of Ms. Montans with Dr.
Fiscal System and Fiscal Reform in Italy in the 90s
Ana Gerdau de Borja Mercereau as his assistant in this case. Gerdau de Borja Mercereau provided her curriculm vitae and a declaration of independence. The Parties confirmed that they did not have any observations to Dr. Gerdau de Borja Mercereau appointment and on 12 January the Centre sent a letter to confirm her appointment.
On 8 March , the Tribunal invited the Parties to provide its comments on the ECJ's decision in Achmea by 19 March , and stated that it was prepared to admit such evidence into the record of the case. On 19 March , each Party submitted its comments on the Achmea decision as instructed by the Tribunal on 8 March On 27 February , the President and the Secretary of the Tribunal held a pre-hearing telephone conference with the Parties.
On 1 March , the Tribunal requested the Parties to confirm whether they agreed to derogate from certain cross-examination rules which had been modified from the PO1 to the agreements expressed by the Parties in the pre-hearing agenda. The Parties agreed to the modification and cross-examination during the hearing would be limited to the contents of the witness or expert reports. Luca Miraglia's two witness statements of 21 April and 14 December which had not been previously submitted.
On 19 March , the Respondent requested leave from the Tribunal to submit an additional document into the record of this arbitration.
On 21 March , the Tribunal invited the Claimant to provide comments on the Respondent's request to submit an additional document into the case record, no later than on 22 March By a communication of 22 March , the Claimant submitted its observations on the Respondent's request of 19 March On 22 March , the Claimant indicated that it would provide certain improved translations which would be included in the hearing bundles.
The Respondent commented on Claimant's request on the same date. On 23 March , the Tribunal indicated "[i] n view of Respondent's comments, no modified translations should be introduced in the bundles at this stage. If there is an issue of translation in a witness statement relevant to the witness examination, the point will have to be raised at the time. The Parties will have to liaise after the hearing in order to decide if it is necessary to amend the translations on the record […]". On 23 March , the Centre informed the Parties that the Tribunal had granted the Respondent's request of 19 March , but for the sole purpose of " to serv [e] as a ground to impeach the witness Mr.
The following persons were present at the Hearing: Tribunal : Mr. Fabio Caggiula Belenergia S. On behalf of the Respondent : Eng. On 3 April , the Claimant's counsel submitted an authorization to act on behalf Compagnia Solare 1 SRL issued by the judicial administrator of that company. On 16 April , the Tribunal requested the Parties to inform on the following: i agreement on the final version of the Hearing transcripts; ii disagreement on "improved translations" submitted at the Hearing; and iii submission of electronic versions of certain demonstratives and documents submitted at the Hearing.
On 23 April , the Tribunal confirmed the Parties' agreement to extend the deadline to submit corrections to the Hearing transcript and to accept the "improved translations" submitted by the Claimant during the Hearing. By email of even date, the Claimant submitted the corrected Hearing transcript as agreed by the Parties, with a point of disagreement in relation to Prof. Onida's testimony Claimant's expert. On 11 May , the Tribunal informed the Parties that the court reporter would be inserting their agreed changes to the Hearing transcript.
The Tribunal took note of the Parties' disagreement on the translation of " proveddimento " in Prof. Onida's testimony, accepting the transcript with both translations and noting that it would " resolve the possible inconsistency if and when it is necessary for its decision. On 17 May , the Secretariat informed the Parties that the Hearing transcript, as revised by the court reporter, was available in the case folder Box. On the same day, the Parties requested a further correction to the transcript of Day 4 of the Hearing. On the next day, the Secretariat submitted to the Parties a new revised transcript of Day 4 of the Hearing, as agreed by the Parties.
On 24 May , the Claimant made a request to introduce the award rendered in Masdar Solar et al. The Tribunal invited the Respondent to comment on the Claimant's request dated 24 May On the same day, the Respondent agreed with the Claimant's request on the condition that the Respondent was granted an extension of time until 1 June to submit its Post-Hearing Brief.
Later on that day, the Claimant indicated that it agreed with the Respondent's request for a time extension. By letter dated 24 May , the Secretariat informed the Parties of the Tribunal's decision to grant both Parties a time extension to file their Post-Hearing Briefs by 1 June and their Statements of Costs by 8 June , considering that the time limits for these submissions were simultaneous.
On 25 May , the Claimant introduced the Masdar Solar et al. On 8 June , the Claimant filed its Statement of Costs. Onida at the Hearing. On 11 June , the Respondent submitted Decision No. By letter of the same date, the Secretary of the Tribunal informed the Parties of the Tribunal's decision to grant the Claimant a ten-day time limit to comment on the Corte di Cassazione 's Decision No.
The Tribunal also informed that it would ignore any other comments unrelated to this decision. By the same letter, the Tribunal highlighted that if Italy did not provide its Statement of Costs due on 8 June on or before 18 June , the Tribunal would assume that it had given up its claims on costs. By letter dated 19 June , the Secretary of the Tribunal informed the Parties that the Tribunal had taken note of the fact that Italy did not present its Statement of Costs on 18 June , pointing out that "[i] f Italy does not submit a Statement on Costs until 22 June , the Secretariat will distribute to Italy the Claimant's Statement on Costs " and that " Italy shall not have an opportunity to submit a Statement on Costs after 22 June On 21 June , the Respondent filed its Statement of Costs.
On the same date, the Claimant requested a one-day time extension to submit its comments on Corte di Cassazione 's Decision No. On 22 June , the Tribunal granted the Claimant's request for a time extension dated 21 June By email of even date, the Respondent filed its revised Statement of Costs.