Translation of "Entscheidung vertreten" in English

This conclusion of the Authority is in line with the position taken in the decision adopted on 14 December 2005 in which the Authority also considered that exemptions from document duty and registration fee were not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement [209].

As regards financial derivatives of electricity, the Decision considers the market to be at least pan-Nordic as financial derivatives of electricity trading takes place on Nord Pool, while the CfDs could comprise the particular price area only, since companies trading in these products will mainly be the wholesale suppliers and customers in these very price areas.

The Italian authorities also added that, in recital 32 of that Decision, the Commission had considered that measures of this type applied to fuel used in primary agricultural production would not unduly distort competition in the light of the small size of farms in the European Union (more than 60 % of farms have less than 5 hectares of utilised agricultural area).

Indeed, in its initial decision, the Commission had considered that DKK 328 million out of the DKK 490 million constituted compensation for public service obligations, and only DKK 162 million restructuring aid [62].

However, the Decision considers that the precise delineation of this market/these markets can be left open.

The Decision therefore considers that the concentration does not lead to a significant impediment of effective competition on the markets for supplies to central CHPs in neither Denmark nor Sweden.

The Commission position on this issue also matches the line it took in its December 2004 decision on rendering tax.

The applicants maintain, in essence, that the Commission made errors of assessment in finding, at recitals 50 and 52 to the contested decision, that the RES was necessary to preserve stability in a market subject to PMI obligations and also the practical effect of those obligations.

Moreover, the contested decision shows that the Commission took as its point of reference the end of 1994 in applying the criterion of the prudent investor operating in a market economy, that is to say in a context later than that of the period during which the aid was actually granted.

The referring Board of Appeal in its decision took the view that the notice of intervention had been validly filed during such period for appeal, but questioned whether the intervener had a right to appeal from the decision of the Opposition Division.

Because of the position taken by the Opposition Division in its decision that this evidence was not sufficient to show convincingly the identity of the respective monoclonal antibodies, all three appellants submitted, together with their grounds for the appeals, experimental data which showed firstly that it was only with undue burden possible to isolate monoclonal antibodies from the deposited hybridoma, if at all; secondly, the very poor yield of monoclonal antibodies finally achieved did not show the characteristics of the invention described in the patent in suit.

However, in the present board's view, that does not mean that this decision held that a valid intervention during appeal proceedings was conditional upon payment of both the opposition and appeal fees.

In light of this, the Court is expected to form a similar opinion when making its decision.

Nevertheless, in the present case the Examining Division held in its Decision that no request for oral proceedings had been made by the Appellant.

The decision to invite third country-representatives shall be based on consensus.

Almost all market leaders and many decision-makers are represented here.

Upon expiry of these time limits, the representative of the State shall decide immediately.

We take decisions and represent them resolutely.

What criteria will the President be using to decide on the representative of the non-attached Members?

The Board is in full agreement with the views on opinion poll evidence expressed in that earlier decision.

Kissinger stressed the importance of their decision to invite the representative of vanquished France (Talleyrand).

It will then be well nigh impossible to support decisions, since a decision viewed externally can only be approved or rejected, and from our point of view defended when it is attacked, when one knows what lies behind it.

I also want to salute the Commission' s initiative - I think my information is correct, Mrs Diamantopoulou - in taking a decision to have parity between men and women within its committees and groups of experts.

As regards the Croats' 'self-rule' within the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Commission fully supports the High Representative's decision to remove Mr Jelavic from his position as a member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and his appeal to the Bosnian Croats to support the development of a stable multi-ethnic state.

I very much welcome the decision to appoint a representative of the Serb minority as Deputy Prime Minister.