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. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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;
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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:
11. It is established case law that there can be no legitimate expectations in favour of the beneficiary of an aid deriving from the behaviour of a national authority when the procedure laid down in Article 88 of the Treaty had not been followed (judgment of the Court in Alcan Deutschland [11]).
12. After various exchanges of correspondence [6], the Authority informed the Icelandic authorities by letter dated 26 May 2006 that it had decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to State aid in favour of Farice hf.
13. They confirm that the tax office had the possibility of initiating this procedure prior to the arrangement procedure, as it could have done even if the court had refused to confirm the arrangement (because the tax office as separate creditor would not have voted in its favour).
14. After various exchanges of correspondence [6], the Authority informed the Icelandic authorities by letter dated 26 May 2006 that it had decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to State aid in favour of Farice hf. (Event No 319257).
15. As the Court said in that case, pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Treaty it must be determined whether, under a given legal system, a State measure is likely to favour ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’ over others.