The Business Case for Sustainability

The Business Case for Europe s Refugees

Here is the business case for sustainability.

In any case, it's none of your business.

In that case, we have no further business for today.

While, as in the case of CNBC's decision to locate in Dubai Media City, this was an important consideration, many panellists also emphasized that incentives formed only a part of the overall business case for a given location.

Adopted decision 2005 29 on the UNCDF business plan, 2005 2007.

Barbados, case No. 502 1992, decision adopted on 31 March 1994, and Lamagna v. Australia, case No. 737 1997, decision adopted on 7 April 1999.

The case of the Great Lakes Business Company Compagnie Aérienne des Grands Lacs

I'm locking up in case the storm troopers start their monkey business again.

c Decision of 8 November 1988 on case No. 14033 88 (copy kept in the case file).

Decision concerning competing claims for the ownership of the same business or company

Iceland, case No. 674 95, decision adopted on 11 May 1996.

b Case No. 10 1997, decision adopted on 17 March 1999.

c Case No. 17 1999, decision adopted on 17 March 2000.

In each case, the decision would be subject to judicial review.

The Ombudsperson Office follows up the case until the final decision.

Following a separate decision on admissibility, the Committee sets the deadline for submissions on a case by case basis.

The Court may therefore strike down a decision and return the case to the judge for a new decision.

Following a separate decision on admissibility, the Committee shall fix the deadline for submissions on a case by case basis.

Mr. Rindal did not appeal the District Court's decision in his case.

v. Norway, case No. 942 2000, decision adopted on 25 October 2002.

The case is then forwarded to the President for a final decision.

Yet, when we examine where development has succeeded, in every single case business was the engine of development, because business kick starts the virtuous economic cycle.

If there were no business case for entry, any involvement would be limited and ultimately unsustainable.

In the case of corporate customers, verify the directors, accounts signatures and nature of the business.

Finland, case No. 40 1978, decision adopted on 9 April 1981, J.T. v. Canada, case No. 104 1981, decision adopted on 6 April 1983, and Ominayak et al. v. Canada, op. cit.

Decision of 20 October 1922 (AD 1919 1922, Case No. 169) and decision of 23 May 1923 (AD 1925 1926, Case No. 331) (cited in Verzijl, supra note 6, at 382 83).

The same argument is made to distinguish the current case from the Committee's decision in the case of B.J. v. Denmark.c

The author apos s case has been submitted and a decision is awaited.

The National Board s decision in the case was found to be formally incorrect.

The court s decision also indicated that the case had no prospects of success.

Identification of appropriate remedies in the case of specific violations of human rights caused by business activities.

The Committee notes, however, that the UNLB operations business case has changed and expanded over the years.

However, on a case by case basis, decision making will be guided by the overall level of humanitarian funding available in country.

The Committee's decision in that case, given that the complainant had not been expelled, took into account the evidence made available to it up to the time the decision in that case was adopted.

v. Mauritius, case No. 35 1978, Views adopted on 9 April 1981, Disabled and Handicapped Persons in Italy v. Italy, case No. 163 1984, decision adopted on 10 April 1984, and J.H. v. Canada, case No. 187 1985, decision adopted on 12 April 1985.

Take, for example, the court's decision in the Cyprus v. Turkey case of 2001.

As with Al Qadi's case, the final decision on the annulment sought is pending.

No parallels can therefore be drawn with the Committee's decision in the Arana case.

The Supreme Court allegedly totally ignored the Constitutional Court's decision in the author's case.

Decision on the case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, 2000

The State party submits that there is no basis to distinguish the present case from the Committee's earlier decision in the Danish case.

43. There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting. DECISION ADOPTED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE

The Netherlands, decision adopted on 10 August 1988 case No. 4 1991, L.K. v. The Netherlands, op. cit. case No. 10 1997, Habassi v.