Translation of "Nach ansicht des gerichts" in English

The Court considers that, in the light

The Court held that the worker was being discriminated against in violation of Article 48 of the Treaty.

A pro­tection in accordance with the Ramsar Convention was not, claimed the Court, in itself sufficient.

The court holds the defendant's behavior to be highly immature.

According to the court, check this version could not stand it.

In the tribunal’s view, there was no omission requiring any supplementary decision.

According to the court, to seek Prohanova 500,000 rubles.

In those circumstances, the Court asks the parties to attempt to reach an agreement in the light of this judgment on the amount of compensation for the whole of the damage eligible for compensation within twelve months.

According to the court, was re-elected mayor of Odessa Gennady Truhanov retain its powers.

According to the court, the decision to legalize same-sex marriages within the competence of Parliament.

Such powers will include the power to require a company to make available for inspection by the Tribunal all such books, accounts, employment records or other documents which, in the opinion of the Tribunal, contain or may contain information relating to the subject matter of the proceedings.

According to the judge, that text was not published to improve the situation of women in Islam, but to stigmatise Islam.

According to the Court, the threat against an employee of Julius Baer was the worst offense that Elmer had committed.

According to the Court, the very wording "exceptional circumstances" in the provision shows that the Community legislature intended to reserve its application for very specific situations.

The Court therefore concluded that the Commission had made an error of judgment by applying multiplying factors to some costs (and, in any case, to the tele-transmitted orders) and concluded that, in the absence of the said multiplying factors, the costs related to small order processing would have been reduced and the trading results for the activity relating to small orders would have been positive (FRF 600000, or EUR 91469).

First and foremost, as regards the argument whereby the measures linked to taxes on capital transfers and documented legal acts, on economic activities and on immovable property have not been altered by the Decree-Law and that consequently, these aspects are not, in principle, evaluated in the contested Decision, the Court of First Instance states that this argument lacks any factual basis when recital 145 attests to the Commission’s recognition of the existence of tax advantages enjoyed by cooperatives on these taxes.

Now, firstly, as regards the information submitted by Agri-food Cooperatives Spain as reported in the contested Decision, states the Court, there is no choice but to admit that it concerns the absence of any advantage and not the absence of any selectivity.

The Court considers that the Commission has not proved that the infringement concerned the occasional coordination of commercial conditions, other than prices, offered to individual customers in the on-trade segment.

The Court of First Instance found that the Commission had not proved that there was an "agreement" within the meaning of Article 81(1) between Bayer and its Spanish and French wholesalers to limit parallel exports of Adalat to the United Kingdom.

The Court holds that such a justification is clearly not capable of establishing that the refusal of access to those pleadings was covered by the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings.

The Court considers that WIN cannot therefore rely on an absolute right to align its prices on those of its competitors in order to justify its conduct.

The Court takes the view that the presumed infringements, although set out in very general terms which might well have been made more precise, have the minimum degree of clarity in order to be able to be considered to be consistent with the requirements of EU law.

The Court considered that the Commission could not rely, without making an error, on the lack of transparency of the market or on the absence of evidence that retaliatory measures had been used in the past in order to conclude that the concentration did not entail a risk that a collective dominant position would be created.

Therefore, the Court finds that the companies have not established that the losses alleged are directly connected to the infringement of the principle of proportionality by the Council in adopting the 2004 aid scheme for cotton.

According to the Court, the Commission could not limit itself to finding that the amendment to the capital injection repayment terms constituted by its very nature State aid, without first examining whether the amendment conferred on ING an advantage to which a private investor in the same situation as the Netherlands State would not have agreed.

The Court finds that it follows from the derogation provided for in the Second Gas Directive that the gas markets in Portugal were not open to competition on the date of adoption of the decision, as GDP held a monopoly on virtually all the gas markets.