Translation of "Aufgestellte behauptung" in English

And seeing it in this light, we can correct the assertion contained in the commentary above:

Speaking from both points of view, I wish to say that I firmly believe that the repeated claim that a homosexual orientation is genetically pre-programmed is not exclusively true.

If the honourable Member can provide references to justify the assertion made in her question the Commission will of course investigate the matter further despite the fact that, as the honourable Member knows, compensation arrangements are entirely within national law and procedures and consequently not a matter covered by the legal authority of the Commission.

The reality experienced today in the European Union is the strongest and most straightforward rebuttal of the assertion made in the report, that cohesion policy has responded effectively to the socio-economic difficulties caused by the crisis.

The opening of the Article 11(3) investigation by the Commission was based on the allegation in the request that dumping margins had significantly increased since the previous investigation and that the expiry of the measures would therefore result in increased dumping and injury.

The recent allegation by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that Syria is smuggling war materiel into Iraq raises the ominous prospect that America's attention will turn toward Damascus the moment it is finished with Baghdad.

A recent claim that renewable sources alone could supply all of the United States’ electricity needs has been discredited.

A final claim often made by oil and gas companies is that they can execute any given project more “cleanly” than anyone else.

That is why we find the claim by some – including the US Treasury – that there is no need for an international rule of law so incredible.

The claim made in the Council guidelines that these matters do not require decisions to be taken under the "Mediterranean" heading is quite groundless.

The French authorities consider that the rule described in recital 84, according to which the subsidiary is not to apply for any guarantee from the parent, is sufficient to invalidate the hypothesis put forward by UOP.

With regards to FIT, third parties have not been able to demonstrate that FIT levels during the IP would have been so low that they would have prevented Union producers from selling the product concerned at non-injurious prices.

It is also something of an exaggeration to cite price convergence and falling prices as evidence of results achieved to date with the single market, or as evidence of ground still to be made up in the process of integrating certain sectors.

It is also something of an exaggeration to cite price convergence and falling prices as evidence of results achieved to date with the single market, or as evidence of ground still to be made up in the process of integrating certain sectors.

Or, is it true, on the other hand, as has been affirmed here, that the fact that the Spanish government voted differently from the majority of other Community governments has de stroyed a European consensus?

Before the debate proceeds, Madam President, it must be made absolutely clear to everybody in this House that we are debating a different text to that submitted by Mr Moorhouse, because the President has instructed the cor­rection to be made because of the fundamental inaccuracy of that allegation in recital D.

It follows that the claim in the contested decision that there are ‘serious inconsistencies’ between the budget information provided in Annex 6 and that provided in Annex 7 to the applicant’s proposal is incorrect.

The contention generally put forth by those in the field, that the water-binding capacity and fat emulsification in meat processing or sausage production, in a complex colloidal system such as that of Bruhwurst [a type of German sausage] filling, depends on the ratio of fat, water and albumin in the filling, and that little or no fat (less than 25%) produces fillings with a great deal of jelly and disadvantages in terms of taste and smell, has proved to be irrelevant in the products produced by the MP process.

The second assertion, made at point 4.16 of the application, namely that the average price differential per barrel is in fact GBP 60, is not explained or supported by any evidence.

Accordingly, the Court of First Instance finds that the applicant has not succeeded in calling into question the Commission’s assessment, contained in the contested decision, according to which there was no information to permit it to conclude that the payment facilities for the fee could be imputed to the Portuguese Republic.