Examples of using First instance should in English and their translations into Portuguese
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
-
Official/political
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should.
The Court of First Instance should comprise a central division as well as local and regional divisions.
The three arguments which the Commission maintains the Court of First Instance should have ruled inadmissible from.
That statement by the Court of First Instance should be understood in the light of other statements made previously in the judgment under appeal.
Second, La Poste submits that since that plea was new,the Court of First Instance should not in any event have examined it.
The Court of First Instance should have required Infront to prove the plausibility of such a factual situation and the probability of economic loss arising from the contested decision.
Whereas the partial replacement of members of the Court of First Instance should take place for the period from 1 September 1998 to 31 August 2004;
In addition, the Court of First Instance should have constructed the progression of her career on the basis of the average time taken for promotion from one grade to another and taken account of pension rights she would have acquired in the event of recruitment.
On the other,these considerations are based on the legally incorrect view that the Court of First Instance should have annulled the contested decision on procedural grounds.
The establishment of the Court of First Instance should improve the legal protection available to persons affected by Community law by making available a forum which is more specifically equipped for the examination of facts.
The Martin report proposes approval of the proposal from the Council- which had originally been drafted by the Court of Justice- that the Court of First Instance should be able to hear cases with only one judge.
The first President of the Court of First Instance should come from the Member State hosting the central division.
The appellants also submit that, since the Court of First Instance held that the Commission was bound to consider applications to build new vessels,the Court of First Instance should have determined those applications according to the applicable law.
The Conference considers it proper that the Court of First Instance should hear this class of action in accordance with Article 168a of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Accordingly, just as the Court has, in the context of an appeal, ruled that a plea alleging an incomplete examination of the facts was well founded,55a plea alleging the absence of an examination of evidence by the Court of First Instance should, in my view, also be subject to review on the part of the Court.
Therefore, in order to find that Kronofrance had locus standi,the Court of First Instance should have ascertained whether its position on the market was substantially affected.
The Court of First Instance should thereby be relieved of a not insubstantial volume of cases(about 25% of the cases brought each year) and the Court of Justice relieved of hearing appeals relating to those cases about 10% of the cases brought each year.
Accordingly, in order to find that Kronofrance had locus standi,the Court of First Instance should have ascertained whether its position on the relevant market was substantially affected.
The Court of First Instance should take into account,first, the specific nature of the case, second, the nature of the damage suffered and the principle of procedural equality as regards the burden of proof and, third, the caselaw of the Court of Justice.
By its sixth ground of appeal,the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance should have classified the Commission's failure to call on the Customs Committee/Association Council as a fault.
The Court of First Instance should not therefore have stated, in paragraph 49 of the judgment under appeal, that, with their GIS, the Belgian authorities had equipped themselves with a checking instrument capable of providing relevant information going beyond the express obligations laid down in Article 6(2) of that regulation.
All panels of the local and regional divisions andthe central division of the Court of First Instance should guarantee the same high quality of work and the same high level of legal and technical expertise.
Lastly, specialised courts of first instance should be set up to enable the ECJ to give an initial ruling to the optimal extent as quickly as possible and then act(in the second instance) rapidly and effectively to perform its function of standardising case law and clarifying primary and secondary Community law.
In the final part of its defence,the Commission lodges a‘cross-appeal', in which it claims that the Court of First Instance should have ruled, first and foremost, that the fourth argument alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment was inadmissible because it had been raised for the first time only in the reply.
The Commission goes on to maintain that the Court of First Instance should also have ruled that argument inadmissible in that it had been raised by the appellant for the first time in his reply in the proceedings at first instance paragraph 71 of the cross-appeal.
The Commission contends that the Court of First Instance should have declared the argument inadmissible of its own motion, since it was put forward by the appellant for the first time only in his reply in the proceedings at first instance and is therefore a new argument.
The Commission maintains that the Court of First Instance should have declared inadmissible, of its own motion, the first, third and fourth arguments put forward in support of the part of the plea alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment since those arguments were not raised at the pre-litigation stage.
The Commission then maintains that the Court of First Instance should also have ruled that the first, third and(again) fourth arguments were inadmissible, since they had not been presented in the administrative complaint lodged by the appellant before bringing proceedings before the Court of First Instance. .
It follows that the Court of First Instance made a substantive error in the assessment of the documents lodged at first instance, which should, according to settled caselaw, justify setting aside the judgment under appeal.
The first instance of this use should be followed by a TM symbol:"for Android™.