Yumpu PDF Downloader. eec telecomms theory - Unesco-Nigeria TVE Project. eec telecomms theory - Unesco-Nigeria TVE Project. Print as pdf. eec telecomms theory - Unesco-Nigeria TVE Project. medical-site.info Views. 3 years ago. Thunderstorm, · Transmitter, · Severe, · Modulating. EEC - TELECOMMUNICATION ENGINEERING II. PRICE: #1, (Nigeria) TYPE: PDF WhatsApp/call: + Mode of payment: transfer to.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Indonesian|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Save this PDF as: . EEC Electrical Machines II EEC Electronics II EEC Electrical and Electronic Instrument II EEC Telecommunications II EEC. EEC ELECTRICAL POWER I. MR DARE. 2. 5. EEC ELECTRICAL MACHINE I EEC TELECOMMUNICATIONS II. MR OMOFOMA. 2. 8. EEC Electrical engineering technology: National Diploma (ND); curriculum and course specifications. Corporate author: Nigeria. National Board for Technical.
Arts and Humanities:- English Language, Communication skills, etc.
These are compulsory. The course in Citizenship Education and Entrepreneurship are compulsory. Mathematical and science. Science, Computer Science, technical drawings; Descriptive geometry and statistic etc. In the evaluation of the students during SIWES, cognizance should be taken of the following items: a.
Punctuality c. General attitude to work d.
Respect for authority e. Each semester shall be of seventeen 17 weeks duration made up as follows: 15 contact weeks of teaching i. Currently, it is unclear whether the Turkish government will vote in favour of adoption since the Turkish government has no interest to do so.
As mentioned above, this decision was a part of a package of four proposals now Decisions37 including proposals for Albania, Montenegro and San Marino, which are largely based on the decisions that were adopted by the Council in for Algeria, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Israel, Morocco and Tunisia. In addition to the legal basis, the main diferences between these decisions are the scope of the equal treatment clause in the case of Turkey it concerns all social security beneits and the scope of the provisions on exportable beneits, in particular for invalidity beneits.
Why the Netherlands bothers about the legal basis is less obvious; it is bound anyway. According to case-law, the measure cannot be annulled if recourse to the incorrect legal basis does not afect the substance of the measure or the procedure for its adoption and is thus a purely formal error. And that is the situation in the present case according to the Advocate General. Firstly, the Court stated that neither the Ankara Agreement nor the Additional Protocol extend free movement of workers to Turkey.
For these reasons, the contested decision difers from the decisions concerning the EEA and Switzerland. It makes sense, however, that when extending aspects of the internal law of the EU to third countries, like the adoption of social security rules, the legal 52 Ibid, para. In this case, the beneiciaries of the same supplementary beneit as in the Akdas case not only have Turkish nationality, but Dutch nationality as well. An analogous interpretation of this judgment could mean that Turkish workers who 59 See www.
Nevertheless, the opinion of Advocate General Wahl in this Demirci and Others case, delivered in July , pointed in the opposite direction. As fully- ledged EU nationals, in his view, they derive their rights from the legislation of the Member State in question and, where applicable, from EU law.
Otherwise, according to Wahl, two sets of rules on invalidity beneits would apply at the same time. In the present case, the respondents enjoy the right to reside in the Netherlands precisely because they have acquired the nationality of that State: they have not been compelled to leave the Member State of their other nationality and may always return there if they so wish.
If they do so, they will, nonetheless, receive the supplementary beneit. Regarding the right of residence of the respondents, they are on an equal footing with any other EU national. Indeed, they technically are EU nationals. Nevertheless, given that, in their submissions, the respondents relied on the judgment of the Court in Kahveci and Inan, the Advocate General was compelled to address that judgment.
In essence, the respondents deduced from that judgment that multiple citizenship alone cannot result in the loss of rights otherwise derived from the EEC-Turkey Association regime.
But, according to the Advocate General, the dicta of the Court in Kahveci and Inan cannot be transposed directly to the present case, nor does it ofer a helpful point of reference for present purposes. On the one hand, it is designed to enable family members to accompany a migrant worker.
Contrary to the situation in the Akdas case, they do not lose their right to reside in the host Member State because they are Union citizens. Firstly, the Court emphasised that naturalisation is the most accomplished level of integration for the Turkish worker in the host Member State.
Ater decades of marginal existence, it is now in the limelight at the national Dutch level and the EU level as well. At the EU level, both the Council and the Commission are confronted with the problem of the urge to modernise social security treaties with several third countries and the reluctance of Turkey to cooperate.
In an answer to a question about the proposed Decision in the Turkish Parliament, the former Minister of the European Union Afairs emphasised in that the Ministry would strongly protect the rights of Turkish citizens residing in Europe.
And then there is also the reluctance of the United Kingdom to accept the legal basis of this modernisation in spite of the case law of the ECJ. Integration of third country nationals in the host Member State is one of the pillars of the EU immigration policies.