Translation of "Das gericht führt aus" in English

It is true that it does not lay down any rule as to the closure of the session.

However, the CFI went on to state that even if the principle of subsidiarity did apply, it is "plain that the uniform implementation in the Member States of Security Council resolutions can be better achieved at Community level than at national level".

The national court observes that the ruling now sought again concerns the validity of the contested regulation as regards the 1991 Burley I tobacco harvest but that, on this occasion, it relates not to the fixing of the MGQ but to the reduction of the intervention price and of the processing premium for that variety of tobacco.

That national court points out that LCL did not properly assess Mr Kalhan’s creditworthiness, with the result that it cannot claim contractual interest under French law.

The Court of First Instance considers that the twofold requirement of political affinity and of belonging to more than one Member State in order to form a political group enables local political particularities to be transcended and to promote the European integration envisaged by the Treaty and the emergence of political parties at European level as a factor in such integration.

The Court notes that the Commission justified the refusal of access to its pleadings relating to Case T-342/99 on the basis that certain arguments put forward in that case would be used and discussed in order to defend its position in the action for damages brought by the same party (T-212/03).

The Court of First Instance notes that the examined tax exemption amounts to an economic advantage granted through State resources in so far as the State waives its right to levy a certain amount of tax revenue.

The Court observes that, under the applicable rules, in no case may the Commission impose a fine in excess of 10% of worldwide turnover of the company concerned.

The Court considers that that same presumption also applies when a parent company holds almost all of the capital of its subsidiary.

In the view of the General Court, in a social market economy, a prudent private investor would not have ignored, first, its responsibility towards all of the undertaking’s stakeholders and, second, the evolution of the social, economic and environmental context in which he was carrying out his development.

The General Court takes the view that, in the present case, the EU auditors noted a number of irregularities giving rise to serious doubts as regards the controls and whether the expenditure was admissible.

The Court of First Instance observes that the contested measure has a general purpose, which is to lay down the conditions upon which the Parliament will cooperate with the Office in order to facilitate the smooth operation of investigations within that institution.

The Court of First Instance adds that, if the accounting were to be re-examined (if Schneider maintains its wish to acquire Legrand), the procedure must recommence with the drawing up of a precise statement of objections and relate only to French markets, which are the only markets to have been identified as being affected by the implementation of the merger.

The Court finds, first, that the Board of Appeal of OHIM was right to find that the two marks were similar and to conclude that there was a likelihood of association.

The General Court goes on to observe that, in response to concern and pressure from citizens concerned about animal welfare, several Member States had adopted or were in the process of adopting legislative measures aimed at restricting or banning economic activity linked to the production of seal products.

The General Court also points out that, owing to the lack of a legal basis, the conditions required in order for the extension of the freezing of funds to be compatible with the right to property are not satisfied.

Likewise, the Court observes that the size of the workload caused by the volume of information and the very high degree of precision in the response format imposed by the Commission cannot be reasonably disputed.

The Court also indicated that the Commission did not sufficiently establish that the concentration was not creating competition concerns for the five other Member States (Italy, Spain, Finland, the United Kingdom and Ireland), in particular with regard to the examination of range effects.

The Court holds, first, that the anti-competitive effects of the merger were overestimated on the markets identified by the Commission, in so far as the Commission justifies its prohibition, at least in part, by the likely immediate horizontal (control of the PET equipment market) and vertical (risk of creation of a vertically-integrated structure) effects resulting from the merger.

The referring court indicates that these cases are test cases as the local authorities concerned form a representative cross-section of all local authorities.

It is therefore apparent that a product may be identified by its chemical compound and its action on the targets mentioned in the preceding paragraph, whatever the impurities it contains.

The Hoge Raad explains that it is putting this question to the Court in the light of the fact that a fiscal investment enterprise which invests in the Netherlands benefits from the refund of tax deducted at source on nationallysourced dividends irrespective of the place of residence or establishment of its shareholders.

The referring court states that by adopting such a restrictive scope for this exception the contested decision infringed the legitimate expectations of the companies of the first category.

It follows that, in the absence of Community rules, payment of costs and the recoverability of expenses necessarily incurred by the parties to the main proceedings for the purpose of an application for a preliminary ruling are governed by the provisions of national law applicable to the main proceedings (see, in that regard, Case 62/72 Bollmann, paragraphs 5 and 6).

The national court considers, first, that this is a case of lis pendens since the parties are the same and the claims made before the Austrian and Italian courts have the same cause of action within the meaning of Article 21 of the Brussels Convention, as interpreted by the Court of Justice

The national court points out, third, that 'all PTOs may be empowered to acquire land compulsorily, to enter land for exploratory purposes and to acquire land by agreement' and that 'most PTOs ... are authorized ... to place network equipment in, over or under the public highway and are able to place apparatus on private land with the consent of the persons having an interest in that land (which consent can be dispensed with by the court ...)'.

The Bundesgerichtshof states that, under the German Code of Procedure, an application which refers to annexes attached forms a whole with those annexes and that all the evidence relied on by the applicant which is necessary for the defendant’s defence must be made available to him.

In that regard, the referring court points out that the main proceedings have the peculiarity that, in order to establish a precedent in taxation matters, the Skatteverket may appeal from a preliminary opinion of the Skatterättsnämnden, inter alia to request confirmation, even if that opinion is not disputed by the parties concerned.

Moreover, although rectifications to the register of civil status may be made on the basis of a court decision, the standard of verification frequently applied by the Turkish courts in that regard is described as extremely generous by the special administrative departments of the social security authorities.