Betekenis van:
court favour

Voorbeeldzinnen

1. Where the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, any court other than the court first seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.
2. In a judgment of 22 January 2004 in case No 344/2003 the Supreme Court of Iceland decided the case in favour of the Director.
3. the court other than the court first seized shall of its own motion decline jurisdiction in favour of that court where the trade marks concerned are identical and valid for identical goods or services. The court which would be required to decline jurisdiction may stay its proceedings if the jurisdiction of the other court is contested;
4. By judgment of 18 September 1995 [8], the Court partially granted SIDE's request, annulling the Commission Decision of 18 May 1993 but only as regards certain measures in favour of small orders.
5. As noted above, the security taken over RM’s assets in respect of the loan facilities was in conformity with market practice. The three criteria established by the court (chronology, purpose, and the situation at the time the measure was taken) all plead in favour of the aid character of the loan facilities being assessed separately.
6. Whilst the Decision highlights this trend in favour of WMP and the Windows Media format, the Decision also emphasises that, on the basis of the case law of the Court, the Commission is, in particular, not required to prove that competition has already been foreclosed or that there is a risk of the elimination of all competition to establish a tying abuse.
7. If the vote is in favour of the Ombudsman's dismissal and he does not resign accordingly the President shall, at the latest by the part-session following that at which the vote was held, apply to the Court of Justice to have the Ombudsman dismissed with a request for a ruling to be given without delay.
8. By judgment of 28 February 2002 [2], the Court of First Instance of the European Communities annulled the last sentence of the Article 1 of Commission Decision 1999/133/EC of 10 June 1998 concerning State aid in favour of the Coopérative d'exportation du livre français (CELF) [3], which stated that:
9. The Court established that part of the aid in question appeared to favour a category of producers that broadly coincided with the category of French producers of liqueur wines fiscally disadvantaged by the system of taxation and that the possible existence of a link between the system of taxation and the proposed aid scheme in question represented a serious difficulty in determining whether that scheme was compatible with the provisions of the Treaty.
10. The Court further considered that the exemption from property tax in favour of coordination centres conferred an economic advantage on them and that ‘the fact that only 5 % of the coordination centres benefit from it in practice, as all the others hold their buildings under lease, does not affect that assessment, since the choice between owning a building and leasing it is a matter entirely at the discretion of the centres.’
11. Firstly, the Commission is not in favour, as a matter of principle, of the idea of constructing a theoretical benchmark when a concrete and appropriate benchmark is available. In Unicredito [128], the Court rejected a similarly hypothetical approach and ruled that ‘re-establishing the status quo ante… does not imply reconstructing past events differently on the basis of hypothetical elements such as the choices, often numerous, which could have been made by the operators concerned’.
12. In paragraph 90 of the judgment of 1 July 2009 in joined cases T-273/06 and T-297/06 ISD Polska and Others v Commission, the General Court confirmed that ‘[…] it is common ground that, in principle, Articles 87 EC and 88 EC do not apply to aid granted before accession which was no longer applicable thereafter’. See also paragraph 108 of Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C-20/04 (ex NN 25/04) in favour of Huta Czestochowa S.A. (OJ L 366, 21.12.2006, p. 1) and paragraphs 202 et seq of Commission Decision 2010/3/EC of 6 November 2008 on State aid C 19/05 (ex N 203/05) granted by Poland to Stocznia Szczecińska (OJ L 5, 8.1.2010, p. 1).
13. In this regard, it must be observed that, in its assessment of the tax regime for coordination centres established in Belgium (see Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03, paragraphs 86 to 118), the Court of Justice considered that the flat-rate assessment of income under the cost-plus method constitutes an economic advantage for the purposes of Article 87 of the EC Treaty and that ‘that analysis cannot be called into question either by the fact that the inclusion of the financial charges could, in some cases, lead to a tax base that was unduly high or by the scale of the tax burden that might be imposed on the group, nor can it be called into question by the fact that a centre may be taxed when it has not made any profits’. The Court further considered that the exemption from property tax in favour of coordination centres conferred an economic advantage on them and that ‘the fact that only 5 % of the coordination centres benefit from it in practice, as all the others hold their buildings under lease, does not affect that assessment, since the choice between owning a building and leasing it is a matter entirely at the discretion of the centres.’