Betekenis van:
four-in-hand
four-in-hand
Zelfstandig naamwoord
- a long necktie that is tied in a slipknot with one end hanging in front of the other
Hyperoniemen
four-in-hand
Zelfstandig naamwoord
- koets
- a carriage pulled by four horses with one driver
Synoniemen
Hyperoniemen
Hyponiemen
four-in-hand
Zelfstandig naamwoord
- postkoets, diligence
- a carriage pulled by four horses with one driver
Synoniemen
Hyperoniemen
Hyponiemen
four-in-hand
Zelfstandig naamwoord
- karos
- a carriage pulled by four horses with one driver
Synoniemen
Hyperoniemen
Hyponiemen
four-in-hand
Zelfstandig naamwoord
- vierspan
- a carriage pulled by four horses with one driver
Synoniemen
Hyperoniemen
Hyponiemen
Werkwoord
Voorbeeldzinnen
- In the present case, it was found for all four countries, including Ukraine and Romania, that the imported products on the one hand and the Community produced products on the other hand shared the same basic physical and/or chemical characteristics (see recital (39) concerning the like product).
- The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged in March 2004 by four Community producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 60 %, of the total Community production of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts, i.e. chassis and hydraulics (the applicants).
- For the reasons explained in recital 79, the Dutch authorities doubt the qualification of the four other companies as interested parties and are of the opinion that these parties only submitted general observations which are not relevant for the assessment of the measure at hand.
- This request was submitted by four major Community producers of hand pallet trucks and essential parts thereof (BT Products AB, Franz Kahl GmbH, Bolzoni Auramo SpA and Pramac Lifter S.p.A) representing a major proportion, in this case more than 70 %, of the total Community production (‘the applicants’).
- Consequently, although, as was demonstrated in paragraph 4.1.1.4, there is no doubt that the aid consisting of the granting of the three, or possibly four, advances is imputable to the State, that is not the case for the additional advantages enjoyed by the fisheries undertakings resulting, on the one hand, from their contributions and, on the other, from the prudent management of the FPAP’s liquid assets as a whole.
- Table 3 Severity of injury Introduction These risk assessment guidelines distinguish between four levels of injury severity. It is important to realise that severity should be assessed completely objectively. The aim is to compare the severity of different scenarios and to set priorities, not to judge the acceptability of a single injury at this stage. Any injury that could easily have been avoided will be difficult to accept for a consumer. However, authorities can justifiably invest more effort into avoiding irreversible consequences than into preventing temporary discomfort. In order to assess the severity of the consequences (acute injury or other damage to health), objective criteria can be found, on the one hand, in the level of medical intervention, and, on the other hand, in the consequences to the further functioning of the victim. Both could be expressed as cost, but the costs of consequences of health damage may be difficult to quantify. Combining these criteria, the four levels may be defined as follows: 1. Injury or consequence that after basic treatment (first aid, normally not by a doctor) does not substantially hamper functioning or cause excessive pain; usually the consequences are completely reversible. 2. Injury or consequence for which a visit to A&E may be necessary, but in general, hospitalisation is not required.
- Table 3 Severity of injury Introduction These risk assessment guidelines distinguish between four levels of injury severity. It is important to realise that severity should be assessed completely objectively. The aim is to compare the severity of different scenarios and to set priorities, not to judge the acceptability of a single injury at this stage. Any injury that could easily have been avoided will be difficult to accept for a consumer. However, authorities can justifiably invest more effort into avoiding irreversible consequences than into preventing temporary discomfort. In order to assess the severity of the consequences (acute injury or other damage to health), objective criteria can be found, on the one hand, in the level of medical intervention, and, on the other hand, in the consequences to the further functioning of the victim. Both could be expressed as cost, but the costs of consequences of health damage may be difficult to quantify. Combining these criteria, the four levels may be defined as follows: 1. Injury or consequence that after basic treatment (first aid, normally not by a doctor) does not substantially hamper functioning or cause excessive pain; usually the consequences are completely reversible. 2. Injury or consequence for which a visit to A&E may be necessary, but in general, hospitalisation is not required. Functioning may be affected for a limited period, not more than about 6 months, and recovery is more or less complete. 3. Injury or consequence that normally requires hospitalisation and will affect functioning for more than 6 months or lead to a permanent loss of function.