Примери за използване на General court erred на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
The Council submits that the General Court erred in the contested judgment on the following points.
Lastly, by recognising that those three factors had had an effect, and then finding, without any basis in the established facts,that this effect was insignificant, the General Court erred in the characterisation of the facts.
The General Court erred in law in its application of Article 101(3) TFEU.
By the first part of its first ground of appeal, which mainly concerns paragraph 93 of the judgment under appeal,the Federal Republic of Germany claims that the General Court erred in assessing the role played by the TSOs in the EEG surcharge system.
Furthermore, the General Court erred in interpreting and applying the fourth paragraph of 263 TFEU.
By their fourth ground of appeal, the appellants allege that, in paragraphs 202 and205 to 216 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law by permitting the Council to set the anti-dumping duty at the level to counter injury caused by factors other than dumped imports and by unduly reversing the burden of proof.
Thus, the General Court erred in assuming that Munich had demonstrated genuine use of the mark at issue by showing the sale of shoes, to the side of which two intersecting lines were applied.
The eleventh ground alleges that the General Court erred in law in its analysis of the technology market.
The General Court erred in excluding other statutory provisions from its assessment solely on the ground that they existed before the amendment to Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.
Second, Intel claims that the General Court erred in applying the 2006 Guidelines to conduct that pre-dated them.
The General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts when it held that Crédit mutuel is a supervised group since it meets the criteria set out in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 575/2013.
I have concluded above that the General Court erred in its alternative assessment of capability in accordance with all the circumstances.
The General Court erred in law in concluding that the Commission met its burden of proof in establishing an infringement on the part of the appellant that included all underground power cables and accessories with voltages between 110 kV and 220 kV.
Finally, the Council claims that the General Court erred in law by partially annulling the contested decision which had the effect of altering its substance.
The General Court erred in law in the judgment under appeal in so far as it assumed that the fact that goods and services were the‘subject of advertising' was a suitable common indicator to justify the automatic conclusion that there is no distinctive character in respect of all goods and services covered by the application.
Moreover, Intel submits that, in any event, the General Court erred in its alternative finding, according to which the rebates in question in this case were capable of restricting competition.
Third, the General Court erred in its assessment of imputability to the State by: considering that the operator of the airport-“SMAN”- was an“organ of the State”; not applying the Stardust Marine indicators; and failing to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for doing so.
Secondly, in paragraphs 84 to 90 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in finding that the Commission had erroneously identified the objective of the tax on advertisements, in the light of which comparability must be assessed.
Seventh, the General Court erred in law by misapplying the legal test for determining a breach of Niche's rights of defence and/or the principle of sound administration.
By the second ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the General Court erred in assuming that the shareholders' action is a substitute for the shareholders' ability to defend TKB's license through an action by TKB itself.
Second, the General Court erred in not finding that Commission Communication COM(2014) 355 final2 does not set out its legal and political conclusions separately as required by Regulation(EU) No 211/2011.
First, in paragraphs 78 to 83 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in stating that when the Commission identified the reference system, it incorrectly excluded the progressive rates of the Hungarian tax on advertisements.
Third, the General Court erred in its assessment of imputability to the State by: affirming that there was no need to specify whether the joint operator of the airport“SMAC” was a public undertaking;
In my opinion, the General Court erred at an earlier stage of its reasoning in the judgment under appeal.
Seventh, the General Court erred in law by rejecting the appellant's introduction of new pleas regarding the Additional Construction Measures on the grounds that they had not been authorized by the Commission Decision of 23 July 2015.
Therefore, I conclude that the General Court erred in law regarding its classification of the rebates offered by the appellant to HP and Lenovo.
The General Court erred in finding, in paragraph 72 of the judgment under appeal, that such an argument was unfounded because one of the proposals in question, made after the unauthorised disclosure, restricted the right of public access, whereas, contrary to the statements made by the General Court, that proposal had not been tabled by a delegation from a Member State, but originated with the Commission itself.
Second, it submits that the General Court erred in law by holding that the applicant was direct and individually concerned by the decision annulled.
First prong: The General Court erred in taking into account, as a main indicator of doubts, the length and circumstances of the pre-notification contacts and the complexity and novelty of the measure.
The appellant's argument that the General Court erred in finding that any incompatibility of the tax with EU law would not directly undermine the aid at issue must therefore be rejected.