Translation of "Das gericht stellt fest" in English

The Court finds also that the Council fulfilled its obligation to state reasons.

The General Court states, first, that the dispute concerns non-contractual liability.

Secondly, the applicant explains the essential characteristics of Greek legislation relating to merchant shipping in Greece and of the policy pursued by the Greek Ministry of Merchant Shipping.

The court shall find by order that the action is deemed to have been withdrawn.

The Court finds that DaimlerChrysler acted unilaterally.

The Court finds that the starting amount determined by the Commission was manifestly incorrect.

The General Court finds, first of all, that the Council complied with its obligation to state reasons.

The findings of fact The system of periodical meetings

The court determines what property is subject to transfer to each of the spouses.

The Court states that only the (hypothetical) part of the subsidy which might be higher than the market price (equivalent) for the transfer of the carbon monoxide supply obligation could constitute state aid.

Any examination of such rules in competition terms will have to take account of the Court’s finding that deontological rules are not called into question in so far as they are reasonably necessary to guarantee the proper exercise of the profession, and to this extent are not caught by Article 81(1).

The General Court also finds that the Council was fully entitled to presume that persons whose ties to members of the Syrian regime are established may be regarded as supporting the regime or benefiting from it and, therefore, as being associated with it.

The General Court also states that Mr Alchaar produced a number of articles which refer to the experience he acquired in the United States, his academic work and to his international reputation as an economist (he has published many works in the economic field and in 2009 was recognised as one of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world).

The Court also confirmed that the agreements in question distorted competition in the common market and found that the Commission had proved the existence of these agreements.

The General Court also finds that the Commission Decision is sufficiently well-founded and clearly and comprehensively shows the reasoning on which it based its finding that there was not in the present case a risk of overcompensation of the net costs of the public service mission of France Télévisions.

The Court therefore holds that the increase in the fine imposed on the IMI group in this respect must be reduced from 110% to 100%.

In consequence, the General Court finds that, by having decided to request a consolidated opinion from the EFSA, and by basing the contested decisions on, inter alia, that opinion without allowing the competent committees to comment on the opinion or on the amended draft decisions, the Commission departed from the rules of the authorisation procedures.

The Court of First Instance therefore finds that the examination of the tax scheme in dispute did not reveal any factors which would have obliged the Commission to initiate the formal procedure for detailed investigation of State aid.

That being the case, the Court holds that the Council finds itself unable to provide additional information beyond that already known to SUT and that the Council has provided no explanation of its inability to disclose the confidential information.

The Court also notes that the amount of the remuneration payable to the Land was determined in such a way as to reflect the reality of the market and the special features of the transaction as compared with silent partnership contributions issued on the market.

Moreover, the General Court finds that the Commission showed to the requisite legal standard the existence of the exclusivity rebates and the naked restrictions at issue in its decision.

The Court finds, however, that the Commission did not apply the reductions granted on account of mitigating circumstances in the same way to all the undertakings concerned.

The General Court also observes that, since the first audit mission, the Commission has continued negotiations with the Italian authorities.

The Court notes also that, on devices other than Windows?based PCs, competing operators of Microsoft have sufficiently large market shares to constitute communication networks whose level of use and attractiveness for users are at least comparable to those of Skype and Microsoft, taken together.

The Court also notes that there are other extension agreements concluded in Hungary in the solid minerals sector of which account should have been taken in the assessment of the 2005 agreement.

The General Court finds that OHIM was correct in making a distinction between the sign F1 as a word and the sign F1 as a logotype and in concluding that the public would perceive the logotype as the trade mark that Formula One Licensing uses in relation to its commercial activities and the term ‘F1’ as the commonly used designation of a category of racing car and of races involving such cars.

The Court finds that the freezing of funds provided for by the contested regulation does not infringe the applicants’ fundamental rights as protected by jus cogens.

The Court holds that the Commission did not commit an error of law in applying the Altmark conditions.

The Court holds that the Council did not infringe those two persons’ rights of defence or their right to effective judicial protection by adopting the measures in question.

In that regard, the General Court states that a number of documents justifying SUT’s listing were sent to it only after the expiry of the period allowed for bringing proceedings.