Примери за използване на Commission's argument на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
The Commission's argument cannot be accepted.
The Committee accepts the Commission's argument.
ACT also disputes the Commission's argument that there is no need to take into account competition by de minimis players.
On the other hand, moreover, it is clear thatthe commercial conduct of those competitors, far from invalidating the Commission's argument, corroborates it.
The Rapporteur embraces the Commission's argument that the Programme needs some flexibility over its 7-year life cycle.
The Court considers that the first of those arguments is not sufficient to call in question the validity of the Commission's argument.
The Commission's argument is based on Article 6 of Directive 2008/98 which does not apply ratione temporis to that mixture.
The fact that there may be marginal competition between operators on the market cannot therefore invalidate the Commission's argument that all effective competition was at risk of being eliminated on that market.
The Commission's argument that, pursuant to Article 71(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, the regulation is overridden by the compensation scheme approved by the European Court of Human Rights is also untenable.
It must be added that, even if Mr Escribano Vindel is on pay grade 1,as the Spanish Government and the Commission maintain, the Commission's argument must apply a fortiori since, as was noted in paragraph 12 above, the remuneration of members of the judiciary on that pay grade is higher than that of those members on pay grade 4.
Lastly, the Commission's argument in the alternative that the aid paid before 1 November 1993 is in any event covered by the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC must be rejected.
To little effect in this connection is also the Commission's argument that the General Court must examine the validity of the submissions in the application irrespective of whether a defence is lodged or not.
The Commission's argument relying on the fact that a central body within the meaning of Article 3 of that regulation may not block the transmission of documents therefore seems to me to be unfounded.
Even though I understand the Commission's argument that it wants, through this directive, to provide companies with legal certainty, I think that the VAT analysis requires some very intensive work.
The Commission's argument as to the inadmissibility of the application, in that it does not properly describe the causal link between the loss suffered and the conduct imputed to the Commission, must also be rejected.
The applicant disputes the Commission's argument that it carried out an analysis of the aid not only on the basis of the Communication of 10 October 2001, but also in the light of Article 87(2)(b) EC.
The Commission's argument that Article 301 EC builds a procedural bridge between the Community and the European Union, so that it must be interpreted as broadly as the relevant Community competences, including those relating to the common commercial policy and the free movement of capital, must also be rejected.
Moreover, Germany disagreed with the Commission's argument that Sachsen LB was only able to offer the interest margin of[…] basis points due to a reduced level of interest provided through EIB financing.
Therefore, the Commission's argument, essentially based on considerations relating to the scheme of the law, that in the context of Directive 92/85 motherhood cannot be seen as detached from pregnancy.
In the second place, Microsoft interprets the Commission's argument as set out at paragraph 302 below as meaning that the Commission considers that it is not required to apply those tests where‘technological tying' is involved.
Finds the Commission's argument for the added value of implementing the proposed legislative solutions at EU level convincing and therefore considers the proposal for a directive consistent with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
Lastly, I am scarcely convinced by the Commission's argument that the non-existence of BITs between the Member States which founded the European Union, or which acceded to it before 2004, proves that those treaties are based on a lack of mutual trust.
Regarding the Commission's argument that Asteris does not apply to damages awarded on the basis of intra-EU BITs considered incompatible with Union law, the claimants maintain that any such incompatibility would not render the Award granted on the basis of such a BIT void.
In the second place, Microsoft claims that the Commission's argument that competition on the server operating systems market could be eliminated owing to its refusal to disclose its communication protocols to its competitors is contradicted by market conditions.
In that context, the Commission's argument that it follows from Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation that only the existence of systemic flaws in the Member State responsible is capable of affecting the obligation to transfer an asylum seeker to that Member State is unfounded.
It follows from that case-law that it is necessary to reject the Commission's argument according to which its obligation to adopt a decision following the preliminary examination stage, or the legal classification of its response to a complaint, is subject to a condition as to the quality of the information submitted by the complainant, that is, its relevance or detail.
Consequently, the Commission's argument that the Hellenic Republic expressly accepted the principle stated in paragraph 35 of the Communication of 10 October 2001, by virtue of which any compensation paid under Article 87(2)(b) EC must concern only costs incurred from 11 to 14 September 2001, must be rejected at the outset.
The first observation concerns the Commission's argument to the effect that the third plea in law of the applicants is irrelevant, as it was in possession of sufficient information before the first inspection to justify the second and third inspections.
That contradicts the Commission's argument that there was no difference between the network fees which Portugal Telecom charged to RTP and those it charged to the private operators, to the extent that the decisive element was the reasonable timelimit for requiring payment.
That analysis is not undermined by the Commission's argument that, in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Case C‑501/00 Spain v Commission, cited in paragraph 78 above, the tax advantage at issue primarily related to the purchase of shares in foreign companies.