Translation of "Vom gericht festgestellt" in English

In certain cases the authorisation of bacitracin zinc was granted without limitation as to time, while in others it was for a specific period.

The right of victims of antitrust infringements to such damages has already been established by the Court.

It requires the crime to have been established in court, after which res judicata would presumably have to apply, even in the context of an individual claim, so that judgments relating to a single case cannot be revisited.

Furthermore, as a consequence of its preliminary assessment, the Commission seriously doubted whether the measures introduced by Italy since 2002 were compatible with the internal market.

On the other hand, as the General Court had found, the Commission had failed to prove that Coppens had been aware of the agreement on commissions implemented by the other cartel members.

In Case C-414/99, the questions raised concern products placed on the market within the Community whereas, in Cases C415/99 and C416/99, they concern products placed on the market in the EEA that is to say, taking into consideration the amendment of Article 7(1) of Directive 89/104 by the EEA Agreement.

If the competent court should find that one of the clauses of these General Conditions is invalid or as a result of certain circumstances is not binding, then all other clauses of these Conditions will remain in full force.

Accordingly the failure identified by the General Court has been addressed.

He proposed that the Court:

It must, moreover, be stressed that the list of abusive practices set out in the second paragraph of Article 86 of the Treaty is not exhaustive.

In fact, as explained in detail in recitals 5 and 6 above, the revised calculation performed by the Commission in the original investigation fully reflected the comments made by Yuanping at the time of the original investigation.

In respect of the claims for a new investigation it has to be underlined that the partial reopening has as its objective to remedy only of the violation of the rights of defence identified by the General Court, not to reopen the entire proceeding.

The exporters concerned together with a group of importers argued that the violation of Union law found by the General Court affected the entirety of the findings and the outcome of the injury margin calculation, which required a new process to be launched taking into account the most recent injury data.

It was argued that, contrary to the Commission’s interpretation, the legal infringements established by to General Court did not relate exclusively to the calculation of the 2 % uplift of the import costs of the Chinese products (post-importation costs) and the transport costs of the products produced by Union producers.

Having analysed the above comments, it is confirmed that the annulment of the contested Regulation with regard to Novatex, insofar as the definitive countervailing duty exceeded the duty applicable in the absence of the error identified by the Court, should not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation.

The exporters concerned and a group of importers claimed that the disclosure was not sufficient to remedy the legal errors identified by the General Court for the reasons set out below.

However, in disputing the new circumstances mentioned by the Court of First Instance, namely the appearance of new competitors on the market and the existence of new obstacles to access to the market of which the Commission became aware after Mars lodged its complaint, Langnese-Iglo is challenging the assessment of the facts made by the Court of First Instance.

In Advocate General Kokott’s view, by establishing that the application brought on behalf of the Kurdistan National Congress was inadmissible, the Court of First Instance did not, however, err in law.

To rectify the procedural defect found by the General Court, in the Statement of Objections, the Commission provides full details showing that the addressees of the two previous cartel decisions, notably Anic in Polypropylene and Enichem in PVC II, belong to the same undertaking as ENI and Versalis, since ENI had a (close to) 100% ownership in those companies at the time of their involvement in the two previous cartels.

In view of the findings of the Court of Justice, the Commission has now adopted a new decision, replacing its 2006 decision, which addresses the shortcomings identified by the Court.

On closer reading it becomes clear that the Court of First Instance derived its findings both of a lack of reasoning and of manifest errors of assessment from the first clearance decision itself.

In that way, a number of important principles of European Union law have been established on the basis of questions referred for preliminary rulings, sometimes by national courts of first instance.

In that way, several important principles of Community law have been established by preliminary rulings, sometimes in reply to questions referred by national courts of first instance.

The Court of First Instance therefore erred in law in taking the view, in the light of the facts as found by it, that the appellant was not directly concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, by the contested decision.

The question is whether, in the specific circumstances of this case as set out by the Court of First Instance, the Commission was entitled to seek recovery of the aid at issue without breaching the principle of legal certainty.

On that basis, it canrecover the debt established by the court.

Many of the incorrect details "ascertained" by the Court are integral parts of the scenario which is the basis for the account of the crime and the corresponding 'findings' of the Court.