[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)


(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) 
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Reply to sender(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)to list(074db819ec%END%074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email == 'miernik@ctnet.pl' || is_owner %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)

I would very much appreciate any examples of any unusual activities by 
any country after a B-item vote has taken place, like a country 
claiming that the vote was different from what the presidency assumed, 
or a country claiming that their representative didn't get correct 
instructions, or any unusual activities like that.

Or examples of a country not doing formal approval of the directive 
after they voted yes in a B-item vote. 

Telephone contacts to any persons who might have experience with such 
cases, and who might have watched many previous Council proceedings 
are greatly appreciated.

best regards, 

-- 
    Miernik         _________________________  xmpp:miernik@amessage.info
___________________/__ tel: +48888299997 __/      mailto:miernik@ctnet.pl
http://www.miernik.ctnet.pl/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature




(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)