Betekenis van:
unlawfulness

Voorbeeldzinnen

1. Unlawfulness of State aid
2. Unlawfulness of the scheme
3. UNLAWFULNESS OF AID
4. Unlawfulness of the aid
5. UNLAWFULNESS OF THE AID
6. The unlawfulness of the aid
7. Unlawfulness of the State aid
8. PPAs as ‘new aid’ as opposed to ‘existing aid’ Unlawfulness of the aid
9. The request shall specify the data concerned and shall provide the reasons or evidence of the unlawfulness of the processing.
10. Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, paragraphs 44 and 45, and, on the unlawfulness of the scheme at issue, paragraphs 153-155.
11. See the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, paragraphs 44 and 45, and, on the unlawfulness of the scheme at issue, paragraphs 153-155.
12. 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.
13. Hence it is adhering to its assessment, as set out in point 3.2 of the decision to initiate the procedure, as regards the unlawfulness of the aid, according to which the aid at issue must be considered unlawful as from the date of expiry of the validity of its 1998 decision, i.e. as from 1 January 2003.
14. Since the aid in question was implemented without awaiting a final decision of the Commission, it should be borne that, in view of the mandatory nature of the rules of procedure laid down in Article 88(3) of the Treaty, whose direct effect the Court of Justice recognised in its judgments in Carmine Capolongo v Azienda Agricola Maya [53], Gebrueder Lorenz GmbH v Germany [54] and Steinicke and Weinlig v Germany [55], the unlawfulness of the aid concerned cannot be remedied a posteriori (judgment in Fédération nationale du commerce extérieur des produits alimentaires et al v France [56]).
15. Nevertheless, in the Commission’s opinion the growth in IFP’s commercial activity since 2001 through its subsidiaries is such that it significantly affects any previous economic and legal analysis. Hence it is adhering to its assessment, as set out in point 3.2 of the decision to initiate the procedure, as regards the unlawfulness of the aid, according to which the aid at issue must be considered unlawful as from the date of expiry of the validity of its 1998 decision, i.e. as from 1 January 2003.