Übersetzung für "Rechtliche unterschiede" in Englisch

This will eliminate legal uncertainties and discrepancies and will lay down a definition and the means of implementation.

Legal differences between Member States also play a role in impeding the introduction of financial participation at a transnational level.

Legally, there's a huge difference.

Important legal differences (e.g. for the USA: hire and fire, sexual harassment)

I would be interested to know what legal differences you see between the D'Amato legislation and the Helms-Burton legislation because my impression is that there are differences of view on this within the Commission too, at least from what emerged in the Committee on External Economic Relations this week, with which I do not agree.

We know that, throughout the Union, huge discrepancies exist in Member States' legislation to combat violence against women.

The impact of such legislative differences and uncertainties will become more significant with the further development of the information society, which has already greatly increased transborder exploitation of intellectual property.

Significant legal differences and uncertainties in protection may hinder economies of scale for new products and services containing copyright and related rights.

For European banks – which must navigate vast differences in culture, language, and law in pursuing cross-border mergers – this has been much more difficult, especially because many of them also need to cut overcapacity drastically.

The EESC considers that although there are major legal differences (between third-country nationals and Member State nationals), the problem of vulnerable groups is the same.

The Committee is aware of the fact that considerable legal and institutional differences make it difficult to make progress on the broader issues and that harmonising company law could take a decade.

The EESC considers that although there are major legal differences (between third-country nationals and Member State nationals), the problem of vulnerable groups is the same.

This situation is further complicated by major differences between Member States relating to social, cultural, legal and institutional factors.

The creation of an effective European market for statutory audit is a desirable goal, but differences in tax, law and language remain formidable obstacles.

The approximation of rules on the procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection should help to limit the secondary movements of applicants for international protection between Member States, where such movements would be caused by differences in legal frameworks, and to create equivalent conditions for the application of Directive 2011/95/EU in Member States.

Companies also call for further international harmonisation in the area of marketing authorisation, mostly between Europe and the United States, to reduce unnecessary regulatory divergences.

Such national diversity creates legal differences which may easily become obstacles to the proper functioning of the Internal Market.

Businesses are held back by regulatory fragmentation and barriers which makes it harder for them to scale-up and operate across borders within the Internal Market.

A common procedure for granting and withdrawing international protection should limit the secondary movements of applicants for international protection between Member States, where such movements would be caused by differences in legal frameworks, by replacing the current discretionary provisions with harmonised rules and by clarifying the rights and obligations of applicants and the consequences of non-compliance with those obligations, and create equivalent conditions for the application of Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX (Qualification Regulation) in Member States.

In an increasingly globalised world, and after many years of eliminating tariff barriers, non-tariff barriers such as regulatory divergence are increasingly identified as obstacles to international trade and investment.

Furthermore, as market trends evolve and prompt Member States to take action independently, for example in regulating the emerging digital content market, regulatory divergences leading to increased transaction costs and gaps in the protection of consumers are likely to grow.

Legal discrepancies are therefore to be considered, rather than as a barrier in the strict sense, as a procedural complication that leads to considerably increased costs.

As market trends evolve and prompt MS to take action independently (e.g. regulating digital content products) regulatory divergences lead to increased transaction costs and legal complexity for business; gaps in the protection of consumers risk growth.

As is the case in the United States, which has a Common Commercial Code (CCC) which serves as a reference for parties and judges, but where each State has its own law, there are legal differences within the United Kingdom.

They also stressed that Member States have significant cultural and legal differences concerning dispute resolution which affect the way in which parties use mediation.

Many regulatory differences reflect legitimate policy choices, and comply with WTO and other international agreements.

That would have the effect of creating legislative differences and, accordingly, legal uncertainty, when the directive at issue is specifically intended to remedy those problems.