Примери за използване на Commission claims на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
The Commission claims, though, that it is still realistic.
It is therefore possible that the investigators' search only covered the earlier period of his activities, as the Commission claims.
In the third place, the Commission claims that TPS-NOLO(Geobal) is considered waste both in the Czech Republic and in Poland.
It is appropriate also to add that, from both a logical and practical point of view, it would make no sense for Article 100 of Regulation No 1083/2006, which requires the Commission to adopt its decision on financial corrections within six months of the date of the hearing, to apply from 1 January 2007 butonly to programmes in the 2007 to 2013 period, as the Commission claims.
Why are problems encountered with access to databases if the Commission claims that it supports the work of OLAF and considers it just as important as we do?
The Commission claims that the contested decision rests on a number of considerations involving complex technical and economic assessments.
By its third ground of appeal,relied on in the alternative, the Commission claims that the General Court could not uphold the action for compensation since there was no causal link.
The Commission claims that it does not wish to change the legal status of the Church and of religious bodies involved in care and education.
The central issue to be resolved in this part of the plea therefore is whether, as the Commission claims and Microsoft denies, the conditions on which an undertaking in a dominant position may be required to grant a licence covering its intellectual property rights are satisfied in the present case.
The Commission claims that the directive and the regulation will supplement each other, but underscores that the negotiations on the directive have not started yet.
By its first complaint, the Commission claims that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has incorrectly transposed Article 3(1) and(10) of Directive 96/71.
While the Commission claims to have a solution for transferability of data from one DIAS platform to another, the paying agencies are not yet aware of it.
However, irrespective of this, the Commission claims that we are nevertheless obliged to take a positive position, as this is an important strategic partner.
The Commission claims that the interview with Mr C1, which was conducted during the inspections in November 2007, took place at a time when Mr C1 had yet to prepare a line of defence and that the statements made in that context are therefore particularly credible.
Funnily enough, the Commission claims it wants to encourage research, development and entrepreneurship, in order to restore growth to the European economy.
The Commission claims that, at paragraphs 39 to 42 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of the concept of an undertaking for the purpose of Article 81 EC.
In the second ground of appeal, the Commission claims that the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU by finding that the deductibility of 50% of the losses was not selective.
Fourth, the Commission claims that the tying of Windows Media Player forecloses competition in the media players market(recitals 835 to 954 to the contested decision).
By its first ground of appeal, the Commission claims that the General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU, in considering that the Polish tax on the retail sector is not selective.
On this basis, the Commission claims that even without compensatory measures in the following years, the effects of clauses will have been eliminated by the end of the programme period(see Figure 4).
On that point, the Commission claims that the letter in dispute was received by Athinaïki Techniki, at the latest, on 6 December 2004 and that the timelimit was therefore not adhered to.
In the fourth place, the Commission claims that it cannot be inferred from its registration under the REACH Regulation before its shipment that the mixture at issue had ceased to be waste.
In the rejoinder, the Commission claims, first of all, that the terminology which it uses to designate the product market is irrelevant to whether it correctly defined that market.
The Commission claims that the first two grounds of appeal are inadmissible and, in the alternative, ineffective and, in any event, unfounded and that the third ground of appeal is unfounded.
The Commission claims that in 2012 the City of Vienna, as a public contracting authority, concluded with a private contractor a long-term lease in respect of an office building before it was constructed.
By its first ground of appeal, the Commission claims that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(‘the Charter').
By its second plea in law, the Commission claims that the Italian Republic has failed to meet its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, on its own and in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV thereto.
By the third part of the second plea, the Commission claims that Article 2 of Directive 2004/18 has been infringed because the terms‘sustainability of purchases' and‘socially responsible business' lack sufficient clarity.
The Commission claims that Bulgaria has made considerable progress on the first benchmark, which deals with reforming the judiciary with the goal of establishing a stable constitutional framework for an independent and accountable judiciary.
Second, the Commission claims that Gosselin participated in the same anti‑competitive practices both after November 1996 and before October 1993 and that there was no change, between those two dates, in its conduct within the cartel.