Examples of using Contested judgment in English and their translations into Polish
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Financial
-
Official/political
-
Programming
-
Computer
In paragraph 239 of the contested judgment, the Court found.
Consequently, the Court concluded, in paragraph 34 of the contested judgment.
For that reason, the contested judgments must be set aside as being vitiated by an error of law.
As is apparent inter alia from paragraphs 33 and 34 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance examined.
This is what both the Council and the Commission demand and complain that the Court of First Instance failed to impose in the contested judgments.
The facts, as they are stated in the contested judgment, may be summarised as follows.
In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance annulled the contested decision after declaring that the action brought by Kronofrance was admissible and well founded.
The appellants claim that the Court should annul the contested judgment and dismiss the action brought by Kronofrance.
I therefore suggest that the Court of Justice draw the same conclusions as in SAT.1 v OHIM(SAT.2), and set aside the contested judgment.
The appellants complain that in the contested judgments the Court of First Instance gave a negative answer to that question.
However, FIAMM and Fedon dispute neither the need for damage to be unusual and special northe definition of those characteristics set out in the contested judgments.
In paragraphs 194 to 206 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance found that the cooperation given by the Turkish authorities was totally correct.
Any reference to the economic decline criterion was, in fact, eliminated from the 2002 multisectoral framework, even before the contested judgment was delivered.
As the Court states in paragraph 89 of the contested judgment, the multisectoral framework could be understood in the sense claimed by the Commission.
As regards the allegation of deficiency in clarifying andassessing the facts during the investigations in Turkey, the Court held in paragraph 284 of the contested judgment, without erring in law, that the appellant was not able to substantiate its argument.
In addition, in paragraph 324 of the contested judgment, the Court referred to the fact that the Turkish authorities had clearly identified the certificates at issue as forgeries.
Cited in footnote 23, points 80 and 81:‘… I believe that the Court misinterpreted Article 7(1)(b) of the regulation by basing its conclusion, that the sign in question is devoid of distinctive character, on its finding that“the overall mark is likely to be commonly used in trade to present the goods and services” referred to in the application for registration.…I conclude that the contested judgment is vitiated by the same errors of law as the judgment in SAT.1 v OHIM(SAT.2), cited above.
Since Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC was not infringed by the contested judgment, the ninth ground of appeal also should be rejected as manifestly unfounded.
In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance refers inter alia to Cook v Commission, paragraph 22; Matra v Commission, paragraph 16; and Commission v Sytraval and Brink's France, paragraphs 38 and 39.
By the first plea, the Federal Republic of Germany and Glunz and OSB claim that the contested judgment is marred by an error of law in that the Court of First Instance declared that the action brought by Kronofrance was admissible.
B- The contested judgments rely on those agreements when contesting the validity of Community legislation if the DSB has declared that both that legislation and the subsequent legislation adopted by the Community in order to comply with the WTO rules in question are incompatible with those rules.
They therefore suggest that the Court of Justice should replace some of the grounds of the contested judgments, and even, in the case of the Council and the Kingdom of Spain which lodged crossappeals to that effect, set aside the contested judgments in part.
In the contested judgments, the Court of First Instance first of all considered whether the Council was competent to adopt the contested regulation on the legal basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC, taking the view, in paragraph 61 of Kadi, that that was a matter of public policy which could therefore be raised by the Community judicature of its own motion.
As far as the classification of the 32 import certificates as forgeries is concerned, the Court of First Instance first mentions, in paragraph 122 of the contested judgment, the Turkish authorities' letter of 8 March 1999 to the Ravenna customs ser-vices with its list of the 32 certificates which the Turkish authorities considered to have been forged.
Finally, by their fourth plea, Glunz andOSB claim that the contested judgment infringes the second paragraph of Article 230 EC, because it rules on matters outside the scope of the pleas raised in support of the action for annulment brought by Kronofrance.
With regard to that request for access to the file, made by the applicant after the contested decision had been adopted andthe proceedings initiated, in paragraph 102 of the contested judgment the Court pointed out that that is clearly irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the applicant's rights of defence may have been adversely affected during the administrative procedure and can have no bearing on the legality of that decision.
Accordingly, the Court held, in paragraph 103 of the contested judgment, that, in applying an adjustment factor equal to 1 to the competition factor without having first ascertained whether the aid project in question would take place in a declining market, the Commission had erred in law, infringing Article 87 EC and the multisectoral framework.
In support of the fourth plea, Glunz andOSB maintain that the contested judgment infringes the second paragraph of Article 230 EC, since it goes beyond the pleas raised in support of the action for annulment brought by Kronofrance.
OPINION OF MR POIARES MADURO- JOINED CASES C-120/06 P ANDC-121/06 P contested judgments by adding a further requirement that there be no entirely general interest pursued by the conduct of the institutions that caused the damage.
That argument cannot be accepted,since in paragraph 239 of the contested judgment the Court certainly examined the facts of the main proceedings as to whether the conditions for calling in the Joint Customs Committee in this specific case were fulfilled.