Examples of using Committed an error in English and their translations into Romanian
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
-
Programming
It considers that the Commission has committed an error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of the Code.
After noting, in paragraph 79 of the contested judgment, the wide discretion enjoyed by the Commission in the exercise of its review of State aid,the Court of First Instance examined whether the Commission had committed an error of law in its interpretation and application of the multisectoral framework.
The Court holds therefore that the Commission committed an error of assessment by refusing to grant access to its pleadings in the Open Skies cases.
As regards Siemens Österreich, KEG, Siemens Transmission Distribution Ltd(Reyrolle) and Siemens Transmission Distribution SA(SEHV) andMagrini, the Court considers, first of all, that the Commission committed an error in finding an infringement on their part between 1 April and 30 June 2002.
It follows that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law, first, in requiring, in essence, that the Commission apply particularly demanding requirements as.
The General Court thus reversed the burden of proof and committed an error of fact with legal consequences.
It follows that that the Commission committed an error of assessment by refusing access to the pleadings relating to Case T-342/99 and that the decision refusing access must be annulled.
By the second limb of the first plea,Salzgitter submits that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in finding that the Commission was entitled to apply.
It follows that the Commission committed an error of law in the application of criterion 5 of Annex III to Directive 2003/87 and that the second part of the first plea must also be upheld.
In the light of all of the foregoing, I therefore consider that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in the analysis relating to the clarity of the legal framework applicable.
It follows that the Commission committed an error of law in the application of criterion 10 of Annex III to Directive 2003/87 and that the first part of the applicant's first plea must be upheld.
For the same reasons as those indicated in paragraphs 25 to 32 of this judgment in relation to the interest in bringing proceedings,it must be held that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in holding, in paragraph 62 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellants were not individually concerned on the ground.
The appellants claim that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in using the statement of objections as a benchmark for evaluating the substance of the contested decision, in contravention of the rights of the defence.
Second, the Commission considers the General Court to have committed an error of law by misinterpreting the notion of undertaking within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
The General Court has committed an error in law in determining the reference date by looking at the initial, incomplete, decision instead of the full and final decision, correct and complete in every aspect(particularly in those aspects that are the object of the appeal).
By their third ground of appeal, the appellants maintain that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law by applying an incorrect and excessive standard of proof as regards merger clearance decisions.
The Court of First Instance therefore committed an error of law in relying, as a basis for the annulment of the contested decision, on documents submitted by Impala on a confidential basis, since the Commission itself could not have used them for the purposes of adopting that decision by reason of their confidential nature.
In particular, Salzgitter accuses the Court of First Instance of having committed an error of law in holding that the examination of the aid at issue fell within the scope of Article 4(c) CS.
Fifthly, the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in paragraph 411 of the judgment under appeal in requiring the Commission to publish details on pricing and discounting, taking into account their confidential and sensitive nature.
Salzgitter submits that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in finding that the plea alleging a failure to state reasons in the contested decision was unfounded and had to be dismissed.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in holding, in paragraph 62 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellants did not have an interest in bringing an action on the ground that, at the date of the contested decision, they had not had the vessels referred to in Annex II to the decision built, so that at the date of that decision they were not owners of the vessels.
By its second plea,Salzgitter accused the Commission of having committed an error in the interpretation of Article 4(c) CS and Article 67 CS and, in particular, in the assessment of their scope.
France also complained that the General Court committed an error of law by finding that the Commission established to the requisite legal standard the existence of an advantage arising from the alleged State guarantee.
The Commission also submits that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in accepting that the recipient of aid can rely on a breach of the principle of legal certainty.
It nevertheless found that the Commission committed an error of assessment by concluding that the activity carried out by health insurers under the Slovak compulsory health insurance scheme is not economic in nature.
By the second ground of appeal, the appellants claim that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in holding, in essence, that the Commission is required to undertake new market investigations following the response to the statement of objections.
It submits that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in holding that, in the specific circumstances of the case at issue, it had disregarded the principle of legal certainty by ordering the recovery of the aid granted to Salzgitter between 1986 and 1995.
By the fifth limb of the first plea,the Commission submits that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in taking the view, in paragraph 179 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission had been aware that the ZRFG was being applied to Salzgitter several years before it reacted and.
The appellants maintain that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in relying, in paragraphs 356 to 360 of the judgment under appeal, on evidence that was not before the Commission when the contested decision was adopted and which had never been disclosed to them.
The Kingdom of Belgium considers that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in rejecting as inadmissible its claim that the Court should, under its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the amount of the financial correction imposed by the Commission.