preliminary ground-setting

When train 32N passedthe next HBD, at MP 69.01, the bearing’s recorded temperature was 103°F aboveambient. The third HBD, at MP 49.81, recorded the suspect bearing’s temperature at253°F above ambient.

The train engineer increased the dynamic brake application to further slow andstop the train. During this deceleration, an automatic emergency brake applicationinitiated, and train 32N came to a stop.

The positive train control system was enabled and operating at thetime of the derailment.

Train 32N was traveling about 47mph at the time of the derailment, which was less than the maximum authorizedtimetable speed of 50 mph.

  It follows from the foregoing considerations that the requirement of independence that has to be satisfied by the authority entrusted with carrying out the prior review referred to in paragraph 51 of the present judgment means that that authority must be a third party in relation to the authority which requests access to the data, in order that the former is able to carry out the review objectively and impartially and free from any external influence. In particular, in the criminal field, as the Advocate General has observed, in essence, in point 126 of his Opinion, the requirement of independence entails that the authority entrusted with the prior review, first, must not be involved in the conduct of the criminal investigation in question and, second, has a neutral stance vis-à-vis the parties to the criminal proceedings.

the answer to the third question referred for a preliminary ruling is that Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that confers upon the public prosecutor’s office, whose task is to direct the criminal pre-trial procedure and to bring, where appropriate, the public prosecution in subsequent proceedings, the power to authorise access of a public authority to traffic and location data for the purposes of a criminal investigation.

whether Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that confers upon the public prosecutor’s office, whose task is to direct the criminal pre-trial procedure and to bring, where appropriate, the public prosecution in subsequent proceedings, the power to authorise access of a public authority to traffic and location data for the purposes of a criminal investigation.

whether the Member States may justify a limitation on the rights and obligations laid down, inter alia, in Articles 5, 6 and 9 of Directive 2002/58 must be assessed by measuring the seriousness of the interference entailed by such a limitation and by verifying that the importance of the public interest objective pursued by that limitation is proportionate to the seriousness of the interference

whether Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that permits public authorities to have access to a set of traffic or location data, that are liable to provide information regarding the communications made by a user of a means of electronic communication or regarding the location of the terminal equipment which he or she uses and to allow precise conclusions to be drawn concerning his or her private life, for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, without such access being confined to procedures and proceedings to combat serious crime, regardless of the length of the period in respect of which access to those data is sought and the quantity and the nature of the data available in respect of such a period.

  In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 5 of Directive 77/249 must be interpreted as meaning that:–        it does not preclude, as such, in the light of the objective of the proper administration of justice, a lawyer, provider of representation services in respect of his or her client, from being required to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question and who would be responsible, if necessary, towards that judicial authority, under a system placing lawyers under ethical and procedural obligations such as that of submitting to the judicial authority in question any legal element, whether legislative or case-law-based, for the purposes of the proper course of the procedure, from which the litigant is exempt if he or she decides to conduct his or her own defence;–        the obligation for a visiting lawyer to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question, in a system in which the latter have the possibility of defining their respective roles, the sole purpose of the lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question being, as a general rule, to assist the visiting lawyer to ensure the proper representation of their client and the proper fulfilment of his or her duties to that judicial authority is not disproportionate, in the light of the objective of the proper administration of justice;–        a general obligation to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question which does not allow account to be taken of the experience of the visiting lawyer would go beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective of the proper administration of justice.

whether Article 5 of Directive 77/249 must, in the light of the objective of the sound administration of justice, be interpreted as precluding a lawyer, provider of representation services in respect of his or her client, from being required to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the judicial authority in question and who would be responsible, if necessary, towards that judicial authority, under a system placing lawyers under ethical and procedural obligations such as that of submitting to the judicial authority in question any legal element, whether legislative or case-law-based, for the purposes of the proper course of the procedure, from which the litigant is exempt if he or she decides to conduct his or her own defence.

The resultsreported here allow us to conclusively reject the possibilitythata group of sporophytic cells of the ovule are responsiblefor guiding the pollen tube as well as controlling the femalegametophyte development.