Voorbeelden van het gebruik van Polypropylene producers in het Engels en hun vertalingen in het Nederlands
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Computer
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Official/political
-
Programming
MONTECATINI V COMMISSION agreed upon at the meetings of the polypropylene producers.
In the system of regular meetings of polypropylene producers, the price initiatives and the restriction of monthly sales by reference to a previous period after mid-1982; and.
Thirdly, it is clear from paragraph 232 of the contested judgment that Hercules was one of the polypropylene producers amongst whom there emerged a.
From 1978 the applicant regularly attended periodical meetings of polypropylene producers during which discussions about the sales volumes of various producers took place
CASE C-23J/92 P question were public measures regulating the market which could not be compared to the agreements entered into in this case by the polypropylene producers.
The Court of First Instance finds that the records of the regular meetings of the polypropylene producers show that the producers which participated in those meetings there agreed the price initiatives mentioned in the Decision.
the Court of First Instance based its judgment as to the unlawful nature of the meetings of polypropylene producers not only on the.
However, not all polypropylene producers have their own technology, and they must consequently make use,
The Court of First Instance essentially based its judgment in that connection on the common economic aim served by the activities of the polypropylene producers paragraph 237 of the judgment appealed against.
In the absence of any evidence of Petrofina's attendance at the periodical meetings of polypropylene producers during the period in question the Court of First Instance finds that the Commission has not sufficiently shown that the applicant took part in the drawing up.
that the Commission was entitled to consider that Hüls had participated regularly in the periodic meetings of polypropylene producers from the end of 1978 or the beginning of 1979 until September 1983.
that Anic's regular participation in the meetings of polypropylene producers had been established only until mid-1982,
invalid as regards all the polypropylene producers to whom it is addressed.
the Court of First Instance found that the records of the regular meetings of polypropylene producers showed that the producers which participated in those meetings had agreed to the price initiatives mentioned in the Polypropylene Decision.
only piece of evidence as to the participation, in whatever form, of Anic in the activities of the polypropylene producers over a certain period of time.
that the regular meetings of polypropylene producers were not held to be contrary to Article 85(1)
the preceding meetings of polypropylene producers.
However, in the view of the Court of First Instance, the Commission had not established to the requisite legal standard that Anic was one of the polypropylene producers amongst whom there had emerged a common purpose concerning the restriction of their monthly sales by reference to a previous period for the second half of 1982.
the Commission had established to the requisite legal standard that Anic had participated regularly in the periodic meetings of polypropylene producers from the end of 1978 or the beginning of 1979 onwards.
that it had already found that Monte had participated from the outset in the periodic meetings of polypropylene producers at which discussions relating to the sales volumes of the various producers were held and information exchanged on that subject.
First, with regard to the regular meetings of polypropylene producers, Anic had claimed that its conduct on the market in relation to prices had been determined independently of the result of the meetings
in connection with the appellant's participation in the meetings of polypropylene producers from the end of 1978 or the beginning of 1979, solely on the reply by ICI to the request tor information.
that the Commission had established to the requisite legal standard that Monte was one of the polypropylene producers amongst whom common purposes had emerged in relation to sales volume targets for 1979,
It does not, therefore, appear that the Court of First Instance broke the rules of evidence in holding that the Commission had established to the requisite legal standard that Anic was one of the polypropylene producers amongst whom there emerged common intentions concerning the price initiatives mentioned in the Polypropylene Decision.
At paragraph 150, the Court of First Instance concluded that the Commission had established to the requisite legal standard that Monte was one of the polypropylene producers amongst whom there emerged common intentions concerning the measures designed to facilitate the implementation of the price initiatives mentioned in the Polypropylene Decision.
It follows that the Court of First Instance did not infringe the rules of evidence or neglect its obligation to state reasons in holding that the Commission had established to the requisite legal standard that Hüls was one of the polypropylene producers amongst whom there had emerged common intentions concerning the measures designed to facilitate the implementation of the price initiatives mentioned in the Polypropylene Decision.
There remains to be examined the plea raised by Anic as to a contradiction in the judgment: on the one hand, Anic submits, its involvement in the single infringement is linked to its participation in meetings of polypropylene producers but, on the other, the Court of First Instance chronologically extends its liability beyond the date on which it ceased to participate in those meetings.
once Anic's participation in the regular meetings of polypropylene producers had been proved,