Betekenis van:
federal court

Voorbeeldzinnen

1. The distinction between trading and non-trading activities is very fine and the subject of numerous court decisions, inter alia, by the Federal Financial Court.
2. was examined and permitted in a complex public procedure, the results of which were affirmed by the German Federal Administrative Court,
3. The Federal administrative Court upheld the planning decision in its judgement of 9 November 2006 and didn't find any errors of consideration in the decision.
4. Furthermore, tax on business capital and property tax have not been levied since 1997 and 1998 respectively as the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that they were anti-constitutional.
5. See the judgment of the Court of 14 October 1987 in Case 248/84 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission [1987] ECR.
6. For the rest, the legal concept of a continuous series of acts, cited by the BdB, had in the meantime been called into question by criminal court judges at the Federal Constitutional Court.
7. Judgement of the Court of 15 May 1997 in the case C-355/95 P (Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH v Commission of the European Communities and Federal Republic of Germany), Rec. 1997, p. I-2549.
8. Where, in proceedings referred to in subparagraph (6), the court considers that the decision is unlawful, it shall discontinue the proceedings and file a complaint with the Higher Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof - VwGH) under Article 131 subparagraph (2) of the Federal Constitution (B-VG) requesting a declaratory ruling confirming the unlawfulness of the decision.
9. Judgment of the Court of 17 September 1980 Case 730/79 Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission of the European Communities [1980] ECR 2671, paragraph 11; Judgment of the Court of 21 March 1991 Case C-303/88 Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities [1991] ECR I-1433, paragraph 17; Judgment of the Court of 19 September 2000 Case C-156/98 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities [2000] ECR I-6857, paragraph 33.
10. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 September 1980 in Cases 730/79 Philip Morris Holland v Commission of the European Communities [1980] ECR 671, paragraph 11; judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 March 1991 in Case C-303/88 Republic of Italy v Commission of the European Communities [1991] ECR I-1433, paragraph 17; judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 September 2000 in Case C-156/98 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities [2000] p. I-6857, paragraph 33.
11. As regards the time-bar, which, according to the BdB, had not been triggered because of the linkage between the two transactions, Germany repeated the objections it had raised previously and stated once again that the 1986 transfer had been a transaction that was de facto and de jure separate from the 1993 transfer as the documents produced at the outset and subsequently proved. For the rest, the legal concept of a continuous series of acts, cited by the BdB, had in the meantime been called into question by criminal court judges at the Federal Constitutional Court.
12. According to the case law of the Court of Justice, when aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 September 1980 in Cases 730/79 Philip Morris Holland v Commission of the European Communities [1980] ECR 671, paragraph 11; judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 March 1991 in Case C-303/88 Republic of Italy v Commission of the European Communities [1991] ECR I-1433, paragraph 17; judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 September 2000 in Case C-156/98 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities [2000] p. I-6857, paragraph 33.
13. the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Hungary have declared that they accept the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 35(2) and (3)(a) [1],the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden have declared that they accept the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 35(2) and (3)(b) [2],when making the abovementioned declarations, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Austria reserved the right to make provision in their national law that when a question concerning the validity or interpretation of an act referred to in Article 35(1) is raised in a case pending before a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal is obliged to bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
14. the Kingdom of Spain has declared that it accepts the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 35(2) and (3)(a) [1],the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden have declared that they accept the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 35(2) and (3)(b) [2],when making the above mentioned declarations, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia reserved the right to make provision in their national law that when a question concerning the validity or interpretation of an act referred to in Article 35(1) is raised in a case pending before a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal is obliged to bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
15. The amendment in 2007 takes into account the decision of the Austrian Constitutional Court to annul (in decisions of 9 June 2005 and 1 December 2005, published in the Federal Law Gazette on 9 August 2005 and 24 February 2006 respectively) the limit value of Global Warming Potential 3000 for HFC laid down in Article 12(2) line 3 of Ordinance No 447/2002, as well as the exception clause laid down in Article 12(2) line 3(a) thereof, with the reason of their being unlawful.