a) the Community provisions governing the substantive law on intellectual property, Directive 95/46/EC … or Directive 2000/31/EC, in general, and Articles 12 to 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC in particular; In that regard, Netlog submitted that granting SABAM’s injunction would be tantamount to imposing on Netlog a general obligation to monitor, which is prohibited by Article 21(1) of the Law of 11 March 2003 on certain legal aspects of information society services, which transposes Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31 into national law. As discussed in PPE 5.3.1.4, to qualify as held for sale the sale of the asset (disposal group) must be probable and transfer of the asset (disposal group) must be expected to qualify for recognition as a completed sale within one year. ASC 360-10-45-11 grants certain exceptions to the one-year requirement as there may be events or circumstances beyond a reporting entity’s control that extend the period required to complete the sale of an asset or disposal group. An exception to the one-year requirement applies in the following situations, which are illustrated in ASC 360-10-55-44 through ASC 360-10-55-49:

The asset (disposal group) is being actively marketed for sale at a price that is reasonable in relation to its current fair value. The price at which a long-lived asset (disposal group) is being marketed is indicative of whether the entity currently has the intent and ability to sell the asset (disposal group). A market price that is reasonable in relation to fair value indicates that the asset (disposal group) is available for immediate sale, whereas a market price in excess of fair value indicates that the asset (disposal group) is not available for immediate sale. For a public business entity and a not-for-profit entity that has issued, or is a conduit bond obligor for, securities that are traded, listed, or quoted on an exchange or an over-the-counter market, both of the following: Thus, in accordance with recital 16 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29 and Article 2(3)(a) of Directive 2004/48, those rules may not affect the provisions of Directive 2000/31 and, more specifically, Articles 12 to 15 thereof (see Scarlet Extended, paragraph 34). Nevertheless, the rules established by the Member States, and likewise their application by the national courts, must observe the limitations arising from Directives 2001/29 and 2004/48 and from the sources of law to which those directives refer (see Scarlet Extended, paragraph 33).The gain or loss recognized in accordance with paragraphs 360-10-35-37 through 35-45 and 360-10-40-5. Parental Controls is the last module supplied by Norton 360. Simply create your family network (children up to 17 years of age), then decide their restriction level (based on their age), choose their device and install Norton 360 on their device. You will then have access to their internet habits, browsing times/restrictions and monitor their behaviour online.

Lastly, it follows from that same case-law that the rules for the operation of the injunctions for which the Member States must provide under Article 8(3) of Directive 2001/29 and the third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48, such as those relating to the conditions to be met and to the procedure to be followed, are a matter for national law (see Scarlet Extended, paragraph 32).Paragraph 1 shall not apply when the recipient of the service is acting under the authority or the control of the provider. The moment of inertia of the compression flange about the Y axis I yc = 0.84 ( 7.5 ) 3 12 = 29.53 in. 4, and thus I y c / I y = 29.53 80.63 = 0.366 > 0.23. h c t w = 18.35 0.36 = 50.99 < λ p w = 90.55 (limiting slenderness for a compact web per Table In the digital environment, in particular, the services of intermediaries may increasingly be used by third parties for infringing activities. In many cases such intermediaries are best placed to bring such infringing activities to an end. Therefore, without prejudice to any other sanctions and remedies available, rightholders should have the possibility of applying for an injunction against an intermediary who carries a third party’s infringement of a protected work or other subject‑matter in a network. This possibility should be available even where the acts carried out by the intermediary are exempted under Article 5. The conditions and modalities relating to such injunctions should be left to the national law of the Member States.’