Examples of using Contested judgment in English and their translations into Greek
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Financial
-
Official/political
-
Computer
Set aside the contested judgment;
In the contested judgment the Court of First Instance dismissed D's application.
Paragraph 66 of the contested judgment.
The original of the judgment in the thirdparty proceedings shall be annexed to the original of the contested judgment.
The relevant particulars of the contested judgment are as follows.
For a fuller account of the legal background and facts of the case,reference should be made to the contested judgment.
Secondly, he maintains that the contested judgment contains a manifest error of law.
A note of the judgment in the thirdparty proceedings shall be made in the margin of the original of the contested judgment.
Defects in the reasoning in the contested judgment and misinterpretation of Articles 86 and 87 of the Staff Regulations;
Emphasis present in the contested judgment.
In paragraphs 3 to 9 of the contested judgment the Court of First Instance set out the relevant provisions of Regulation No 2377/90 as follows.
As stated by the Court in the contested judgment.
The contested judgment finds that the Commission had a duty to take the necessary measures to comply with those judgments but that it had no competence to do so.
The Council will demonstrate that the Contested Judgment is vitiated by several errors of law affecting its validity.
The appellant respectfully requests that the Court of Justice should set aside the contested judgment on the following grounds.
The contested judgment must have been delivered at first instance, and must not itself be a judgment on an appeal against an earlier decision of a civil magistrate.
This ground proceeds on a misinterpretation of paragraphs 64 to 67 of the contested judgment and must be dismissed as unfounded.
The Council therefore respectfully requests that the Contested Judgment should be set aside and the application for annulment of the Contested Regulation by the Applicant at first instance, dismissed.
As regards application of that provision, the Court of First Instancefirst examined its purpose, in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the contested judgment.
However, the Court of First Instance rightly observed in paragraphs 62 and 63 of the contested judgment, first, that the European Community cannot be made to.
In my opinion, paragraph 36 of the contested judgment indicates that the Court in fact responded separately to D's plea relating to breach of the principle of the integrity of civil status.
Given that the General Court based itself on a series of indicia on serious difficulties,the single ground is divided in the following two prongs on the two series of indicia examined in the contested judgment.
In paragraph 40 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance noted that the appellants' representative had confirmed by letter of 30 January 1996 that he had nothing to add to the file sent to the Commission.
The General Court did not provide any reasons as to why the conflicting trade marks do not fall under the scope of Article 8(3)of Regulation 207/2009 following the test it introduced in paragraph 39 of the contested judgment.
For the reasons given in paragraphs 46 to 50 of the contested judgment, the appellant must be held responsible for the infringement committed by Badische over the period from January 1987 to April 1991.
That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which,without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the contested judgment, merely reproduces the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the General Court.
The Court, too, stated in paragraph 26 of the contested judgment that the problem should be considered in the light of that provision and it went on to consider in substance whether the status of a registered partnership could, or could not, be treated as equivalent to marriage.
Pleas in law and main arguments The applicant challenges the judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 in CaseT-519/09 Toshiba Corporation v European Commission(the‘Contested Judgment'), in which Toshiba Corporation(‘Toshiba') applied for the annulment of a decision of the European Commission in case COMP/39.129- Power Transformers.
Third, the operative part of the Contested Judgment annulling the anti-dumping duties in so far as they concern the Applicant is disproportionate to the only ground for annulment considered by the General Court and gives undue effects to the finding of illegality.
The appeal of which this Court has been seised by Pharos SA(hereinafter'Pharos')seeks the annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 February 1998 1(hereinafter'the contested judgment') in so far as it dismissed the claim for damages brought by Pharos against the Commission under Article 235 EC(for merly Article 178) and the second para graph of Article 288 EC(formerly the second paragraph of Article 215).