Examples of using Errors of assessment in English and their translations into Polish
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Financial
-
Official/political
-
Programming
-
Computer
By the cross-appeal,Mrs Girardot claims that the Court of First Instance infringed Community law by making several manifest errors of assessment.
It is clear from the caselaw that such errors of assessment by the persons concerned have no relevance in determining when time starts to run.
In her cross-appeal, Ms Girardot contends that the Court of First Instance infringed Community law by committing several manifest errors of assessment.
Its finding that the Commission committed errors of assessment and of reasoning because it did not undertake any new investigations is accordingly without foundation.
BERTELSMANN AND SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA v IMPALA within the limits of the discretion allowed to it orhad committed manifest errors of assessment.
Furthermore, as the Court of First Instance correctly stated in paragraph 51 of the judgment under appeal,the pleas alleging errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment are indissociable, in the present case, from the plea alleging an error in applying the concept of State aid.
In that regard, the appellants argue, among other things,that the finding of the Court of First Instance that the contested decision was inadequately reasoned sits ill with its conclusion that the decision was vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.
Moreover, in its examination of the contested decision, the Court of First Instance itself committed manifest errors of assessment and fundamentally misconstrued the evidence before it as regards essential parts of the case, including in particular the relevance, the complexity and the opacity of discounts.
Nevertheless, such an examination does not preclude the repetition of identically worded statements in its decisions, inasmuch asthe criteria in the light of which the Commission checks for manifest errors of assessment on the part of the Member States remain unchanged.
The appellants maintain that,in holding that the Commission had committed manifest errors of assessment and had inadequately reasoned the contested decision as regards market transparency, the Court of First Instance misconstrued the position under Community law as regards the concept of a collective dominant position.
The year 2002 marked awatershed for competition policy, with the Court of First Instance annulling, in relatively swift succession, three Commission merger prohibition decisions on account of lack of sufficient economic analysis and errors of assessment.
It found that it was unable to check for factual errors and errors of assessment, and, in respect of variable costs, considered that the contested decision should at least have contained a general summary of the analytical accounting calculations in relation to the services provided.
Lastly, the Council argues that one of the objectives of the notification provided for in Article 100 of the Financial Regulation, which follows the award of the contract andits signature, is to allow tenderers whose tenders are rejected to draw the contracting authority's attention to any errors of assessment which may have undermined the evaluation of the tender.
The same applies to certain of the paragraphs of the judgment cited by the appellants which concern the evaluation by the Court of First Instance of the arguments alleging manifest errors of assessment, namely paragraphs 338, 339, 341, 362, 402, 456, 467, 532 and 538 of the judgment under appeal, which serve merely to illustrate and to supplement what the Court of First Instance had, in any event, already directly deduced from the contested decision.
Furthermore, contrary to what the applicant claims, the Court considers that the Council cannot be criticised for not having informed the applicant, at the time of the notification provided for under Article 100 of the Financial Regulation,of the latter's right to draw the attention of the contracting authority to any errors of assessment that might have undermined the evaluation of its tender.
The applicant adds, in reply to the Council's arguments, that,while the notification provided for in Article 100 of the Financial Regulation confers on tenderers whose tenders are rejected a right to draw the contracting authority's attention to any errors of assessment which might have undermined the evaluation of their tender, the principles of sound administration and transparency require the contracting authority expressly to inform the recipient, in that notification, of the existence of that right.
In a number of passages in the judgment under appeal, among others, in paragraphs 379, 424 and 446, the Court of First Instance referred to the statement of objections in order to support its reasoning, both as regards the plea alleging inadequate reasoning in the contested decision andas regards the argument alleging manifest errors of assessment which vitiated that decision.
It is common ground, moreover,that the arguments which they then expounded in relation to the Postadex transfer in support of the plea alleging errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment had already been submitted in the application which they lodged in the proceedings giving rise to the judgment in Ufex and Others v Commission.
As well as the question whether the Court of First Instance exceeded the scope of its role in carrying out judicial review as regards the intensity of its review of the factual basis of the contested decision,the appellants also maintain, as is mentioned in paragraph 139 of this judgment, that, in examining the factors underpinning the contested decision, the Court of First Instance itself committed manifest errors of assessment and fundamentally misconstrued the evidence before it.
In this connection it is to be emphasised that the passages in the Court of First Instance's judgment which are disputed here were not the first place where the Court of First Instance found there to have been manifest errors of assessment, it having already found one much earlier, at paragraph 377 of the judgment under appeal:‘Accordingly, it must be held that the evidence, as mentioned in the Decision, does not support.
Consequently, without it being necessary to adjudicate either on the appellants' claims alleging distortion of the evidence or on the question whether the Court of First Instance in fact substituted its own economic assessment in the judgment under appeal for that of the Commission,it must be held that at least that part of the judgment under appeal dealing with the examination of the arguments alleging the existence of manifest errors of assessment is vitiated by errors of law.
In paragraph 51 of the judgment under appeal, having considered it necessary to examine, first of all, the plea alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons,the Court added that‘[t]he pleas alleging errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment, as well as misapplication of the concept of State aid, which are indissociable, will then be examined together.
In support of its arguments, AGST declares that the 209th to 216th recitals in the preamble to the provisional regulation, in which the Commission had rejected the Indian producers' objection relating to the existence of an alloy surcharge cartel, correspond, on the whole, to the 43rd, 46th and 47th recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 2450/98, on the basis of which the Court of First Instance, in Mukand and Others v Council,declared that they contained manifest errors of assessment.
In the subsequent paragraphs of the judgment in Ufex and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance therefore considered only the first plea, alleging infringement of the rights of defence of Ufex and Others, andthe arguments expounded in connection with the third plea, relating to errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment, which were not indissociable from those already examined in connection with the fourth plea.
It is apparent from examination of the application brought before the Court of First Instance by UFEX and Others in Ufex and Others v Commission that the application for annulment was based on four pleas in law which the Court analysed as alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence, an inadequate statement of reasons,errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment, and an error in applying the concept of State aid Ufex and Others v Commission, paragraph 37.
Moreover, the formal analysis of the product specification relating to the name"Pane di Altamura" has not revealed any obvious error of assessment.
The Commission also denies making any manifest error of assessment in upgrading the quality criteria for maize.
The fifth limb of the first plea, alleging an error of assessment as to whether the Commission was aware that the aid at issue had been granted.
There too, the Court of First Instance discounted any error of assessment and made two findings.
The Council considers, as regards Lot No 1, that it did not commit any manifest error of assessment.