Examples of using Multisectoral framework in English and their translations into Slovenian
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Financial
-
Computer
-
Official/political
-
Programming
The assessment was based on the 1998 Multisectoral Framework.
The multisectoral framework, prolongation of existing regional aid maps.
It is for this purpose that the Commission adopted the multisectoral framework.
(3), EC; Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects.
This case was the first Commission decision under the 2002 multisectoral framework.
The multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects OJ 1998 C 107, p.
As the Court states in paragraph 89 of the contested judgment, the multisectoral framework could be understood in the sense claimed by the Commission.
Multisectoral Framework for large investment projects: strict rules in sectors with structural difficulties.
Any reference to the economic decline criterion was, in fact,eliminated from the 2002 multisectoral framework, even before the contested judgment was delivered.
The multisectoral framework establishes a method for calculating the maximum allowable intensity of regional investment aid.
In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance reviewed precisely whether the Commission, in adopting the contested decision,complied with its multisectoral framework of 1998.
Since, as I have pointed out, the rules established by the multisectoral framework were adopted to implement Article 87 EC, they must be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty.
First of all, I shall set out the relevant articles of the EC Treaty, and then indicate the applicable provisions of Regulation No 659/1999 10 andthe guidelines established by the multisectoral framework.
The multisectoral framework of 1998', in force at the material time, lays down the rules for assessing aid which falls within its scope, for the purpose of applying Article 87(3) EC.
The Commission has launched a review of the Community guidelines on regional aid(or‘RAG'),and has the intention to integrate the Multisectoral Framework on regional aid for large investment projects.
According to the 2002 multisectoral framework, Member States have to notify individual aid exceeding a certain threshold which depends on the standard regional aid ceiling applicable in the region concerned.
The Federal Republic of Germany and also Glunz and OSB, supported by the Commission, claim that the Court of First Instance misapplied Article 87(3)EC and also the multisectoral framework.
In December 2003 the German authorities notified, in accordance with the 1998 Multisectoral Framework, investment aid to E‑Glass AG, Osterweddingen, Saxony‑Anhalt(Germany)- an assisted area under Article 87(3)(a).
(Appeals- State aid- Commission decision not to raise objections- Action for annulment- Admissibility- Interested parties-Regional aid for large investment projects- Multisectoral framework 1998).
Under the multisectoral framework of 1998, the Commission decides on a case-by-case basis the maximum allowable aid intensity for projects which are subject to the notification requirement provided for in Article 2 of Regulation No 659/1999.
Nor can a failure to respect the wide discretion enjoyed by the Commission when applying Article 87(3)EC be inferred from the interpretation of the multisectoral framework of 1998 given by the Court of First Instance.
Within the meaning of the multisectoral framework, the relevant product market for determining market share comprises the products envisaged by the investment project and, where appropriate, the products considered by the consumer or by the producer to be interchangeable with them.
According to those parties, the Court of First Instance failed to have regard to the wide discretion enjoyed by the Commission when applying Article 87(3) EC,pursuant to which it adopted and applied the multisectoral framework of 1998.
By adopting the multisectoral framework and establishing inter alia a maximum allowable aid intensity, the Commission sought to limit the adverse effects on competition which could result from regional aid for large investment projects, which has a higher ceiling than regional handicaps.
It also supports the stance taken by the Commission to welcome State aid for technology transfer,innovation and the multisectoral framework for major investment projects and treat such aid differently.
In 2001, the Commission approved about EUR 35 million of investment aid to Kronoply's production plant for oriented strand boards(wood panels used mainly in the construction business)in the German region of Brandenburg on the basis of the 1998 multisectoral framework.
In December 2003 the German authorities notied, in accordance with the 1998 multisectoral framework, investment aid to E-Glass AG, Osterweddingen, Saxo-ny-Anhalt(Germany)- an assisted area under Article 87(3)(a). e purpose of the project was to build a new plant for the production of raw float glass.
The Federal Republic of Germany, by its second ground of appeal, and Glunz and OSB, by their first ground of appeal, supported by the Commission, maintain that the Court of First Instance misapplied Article 87(3)EC and the multisectoral framework of 1998.
The Court of First Instance was therefore justified in holding,in paragraph 89 of the judgment under appeal, that the multisectoral framework of 1998 should be interpreted in the light of Article 87 EC and of the principle of incompatibility of public aid set out therein, in order to attain the objective sought by that provision, namely undistorted competition in the common market.
Joined Cases C-75/05 P and C-80/05 P: Federal Republic of Germany and Others v Kronofrance SA(Appeals- State aid- Commission decision not to raise objections- Action for annulment- Admissibility- Interested parties-Regional aid for large investment projects- Multisectoral framework 1998).