Examples of using Contested regulation in English and their translations into German
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Political
-
Computer
-
Programming
-
Official/political
-
Political
That regulation has been repealed and replaced by the contested regulation.
It follows from all the foregoing that the contested regulation, so far as it concerns the appellants, must be annulled.
The Council rejects those arguments,contending in particular that the charges concerning the findings in the contested regulation have no basis.
The Commission then adopted the contested regulation, which was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 29 December 2005.
Furthermore, the national procedures for applications for classification to the IRC for the applicant's 20”,23” and 30” LCD monitors were all affected by the contested regulation.
II The alternative claim for a declaration that the contested regulation is unenforceable against the applicant.
In the first part Mr Kadi maintains that the Court of First Instance erred in law inruling that Articles 60 EC and 301 EC could be regarded as constituting a partial legal basis for the contested regulation.
They added that it was impossible to find out from the contested regulation whether the Euro 6 standard was respected in those investigations.
By judgment of 21 September 2005 in Case T-306/01 Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission(‘the judgment under appeal'),10the Court of First Instance upheld the contested regulation.
On the other hand, according to the Commission, in so far as the contested regulation prohibits the transfer of economic resources to individuals in third countries, it.
That is how that prohibition falls to be applied in circumstances such as those of the casegiving rise to the judgment in Möllendorf and MöllendorfNiehuus, which concerned the question whether the contested regulation forbids the final registration.
The Court finds that the freezing of funds provided for by the contested regulation does not infringe the applicants' fundamental rights as protected by jus cogens.
They add that their situation is not comparable to that in point in the case which gave rise tothe judgment in Kahn Scheepvaart ν Commission, cited above, because, unlike the applicant in that case, their interests are directly affected by the contested regulation.
On 24 February 1997, the Council adopted the contested regulation, which is based on the Treaty and in particular on Article 43 thereof, in conjunction with Article 228(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 2283.
Though relying on slightly different justifications, both the Council andthe United Kingdom agree with the Court of First Instance that the contested regulation finds its legal basis in Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC.
It considers that the correct legal basis for the contested regulation is Article 100a of the Treaty and, in the alternative, that that regulation ought to have been based on Article 43 and 100a of the Treaty.
However, the applicants have not identified any new factorconcerning the Community interest which was mentioned in the contested regulation without previously being mentioned, in essence, in the provisional regulation. .
The measures imposed by the contested regulation do not concern commercial relations between the Community and third countries, and cannot, therefore, rely on the objective of the common commercial policy;
It follows from all of the foregoing thatthe applicant has not established that, by adopting, in the contested regulation, a profit margin of 5% on costs, the Council committed a manifest error of assessment.
In those circumstances, since the contested regulation, which imposes definitive antidumping duties, was not adopted until 17 November 1997, the Association Council was in any event given considerably more than 30 days in which to seek a.
However, the context of the present case is different andthe applicants cannot claim to be affected by the contested regulation in circumstances that are similar to those referred to by the Court of Justice in that judgment.
To that end, the contested regulation creates the legal conditions enabling that unitary character to be conferred on European patents previously granted by the EPO on the basis of the EPC in the territory of the participating Member States.
Second, the Court must determine whether the arrangements established by the contested regulation are appropriate to achieve the legitimate objective of facilitating access to patent protection.
Its observations were considered and dismissed in the Commission's letter of 15 September 2006, and that finding was subsequently confirmed in the provisional regulation and reiteratedin the letter of 4 April 2007, and then further confirmed in the contested regulation.
A comparison of Regulations Nos 1468/81 and 945/87 and the contested regulation reveals that, while the title has remained practically unchanged, the aim of the legislation has progressively evolved.
Finally, even if the contested regulation were to have the temporal effects ascribed to it by the applicant, it cannot be inferred from that specific circumstance that its provisions do not apply by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in relation to its purpose.
Al Barakaat puts forward three grounds of appeal,the first alleging lack of any legal basis for the contested regulation, the second infringement of Article 249 EC and the third infringement of certain of its fundamental rights.
The applicants submit that they are directly concerned by the contested regulation, since that regulation does not leave any discretion to the Member States when they determine the import licences to be awarded to operators in the context of the common organisation of the banana market.
However, contrary to the applicants' assertions, that inaccuracy does not mean that the statement of reasons for the contested regulation is inadequate, having regard to the observations which the applicants had put forward in the course of the administrative procedure.
In the present case it is necessary,in order to ascertain the aim of the contested regulation, to take account of the legislative changes from the adoption of Regulation No 1468/81 up until the contested regulation.