court of first instance in English

court that deals with a first legal instance of a matte

Use "court of first instance" in a sentence

1. ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

2. The Court of First Instance accordingly erred in declaring the action inadmissible on that point.

3. 18 The Court of first instance decided that there had not been unfairly prejudicial conduct.

4. 9 In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance accepted the following material facts:

5. Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — AC-Treuhand v Commission

6. It amounts to asserting that the Court of First Instance should have reached a different decision.

7. 19 The court of first instance upheld Segur Caixa’s plea that the action was time-barred.

8. Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of # June #- Olympiakes Aerogrammes v Commission

9. The Court of First Instance erred in holding that even such a difference can amount to selectivity.

10. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 October 2008 – Adobe v OHIM (FLEX)

11. Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2007 — Georgia-Pacific v OHIM (embossed motif)

12. Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2006 — Olympiakes Aerogrammes v Commission

13. The Court of First Instance did not address the issue of the nature of the notification time-limit.

14. Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2006 – Olympiakes Aerogrammes v Commission

15. Request for an increase in the number of judges at the Court of First Instance (trade mark cases)

16. The challenge was, however, suspended on account of the substantially identical procedure before the Court of First Instance.

17. The abridged version was lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 24 August 2001.

18. alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance and, order it to examine the evidence rejected;

19. Any party aggrieved by the decision of an Adjudicator may appeal on a point of law to the Court of First Instance.

20. Case T-#/#: Order of the Court of First Instance of # September #- Goris v Commission (Staff case- Officials- Interlocutory judgment- No need to adjudicate

21. Case T-#/#: Order of the Court of First Instance of # September #- Jacobs v Commission (Staff case- Officials- Interlocutory judgment- No need to adjudicate

22. Procedure - Reference to the Court of First Instance on the basis of an arbitration clause - Ancillary claim for payment of default interest - Admissible

23. Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 27 May 1994. - J v Commission of the European Communities. - Admissibility. - Case T-5/94.

24. That issue would require to be elucidated only if the reasoning followed by the Court of First Instance were in the end to be adjudged erroneous.

25. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 1990. - Georg Schwedler v European Parliament. - Official - Tax abatement - Dependent child. - Case T-41/89.

26. Briefly, no legal rule required the Court of First Instance to adjudicate in the terms suggested by SiSi-Werke, so it made no error of law in its ruling.

27. Case T-#/# R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of # June #- Olympiakes Aerogrammes v Commission (Interim measures- Application for a suspension of operation- State aid- Urgency

28. Cursing parliament is same as Cursing yourself: PM Abbasi In December, the Dubai Court of First Instance jailed the engineer for three months in jail for offending a religion, Cursing the …

29. An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 June 2004 by Scania AB (Publ), Södertälje (Sweden), represented by D.

30. Case T-#/# P: Order of the Court of First Instance of # September #- Van Neyghem v Commission (Appeal- Staff cases- Dismissal of the action at first instance- Recruitment- Open competition- Non-admission to the oral tests- Appeal manifestly unfounded

31. The Court of First Instance decided to reduce the fine to EUR 65 000 000, as ABB had not disputed its participation in the cartel and had cooperated by providing evidence to the Commission after receiving the statement of objections.

32. 31 The interpretation adopted by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal results in granting States an almost absolute monopoly over signs with few heraldic characteristics, thereby making those signs unavailable for use as components of trade marks.

33. 32 As appears from paragraphs 30 and 31 of the contested order, the action brought before the Court of First Instance was dismissed as manifestly inadmissible on the ground that the AIT could not show a legal interest in bringing proceedings.

34. Case T-#/#: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of # December #- Ford Motor v OHIM (FUN) (Community trade mark- Application for Community word mark FUN- Absolute grounds for refusal- Lack of descriptive character- Article #(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No

35. Case T-#/#: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of # January #- Henkel v OHIM (Community trade mark- Figurative mark- Red and white rectangular tablet with an oval blue centre- Absolute ground for refusal- Article #(b) of Regulation (EC) No #/#- Absence of distinctive character

36. 36 That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the contested judgment, confines itself to reproducing the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance.

37. Commission ° Measures of management which may be taken pursuant to a delegation of authority ° Concept ° Decision requiring payment of default interest following a judgment by the Court of First Instance upholding in part a decision imposing a fine subject to accrual of default interest ° Included

38. In accordance with the established case-law of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, the criterion of trade between Member States being affected is met if the recipient firm is engaged in a line of business that involves trade between Member States.

39. An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 September 2004 by FG Marine S.A., established in Roissy (France), represented by Marie-Aline Michel, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

40. After the Court of First Instance declared this plea out of time, and without abandoning this approach, the appellant is now combining both lines of argument, accepting the validity of Regulation No 404/93 in the abstract whilst challenging it in terms of its specific application.

41. By application lodged on 10 December 2001, the appellant, together with Messrs Abdirisak Aden, Abdulaziz Ali and Ahmed Yusuf, brought an action before the Court of First Instance against the Council and the Commission, claiming inter alia that that Court should annul Regulations Nos 2062/2001 and 467/2001.

42. having regard to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of # January # in Case T-#/# France Télécom SA v Commission dismissing in its entirety the appeal by France Télécom SA in respect of the Commission's # decision concerning predatory pricing in ADSL-based Internet access services for the general public

43. In paragraphs 75 to 81 of the contested judgment, cited by the appellant, the Court of First Instance examines the plea alleging that the principle of proportionality was infringed, inasmuch as the fine imposed exceeds ADM’s turnover in sales of that product in the EEA during the period of the cartel, and rejects it.

44. In the Aeroport de Paris case, the Court of First Instance found that “ a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, ADP's purely administrative activities, in particular supervisory activities, and, on the other hand, the management and operation of the Paris airports, which are remunerated by commercial fees which vary according to turnover.

45. 95 As regards the second part of the eighth plea, concerning the determination of the geographical market, even if it were admissible to the extent that it does not merely repeat the argument put forward by ADP before the Court of First Instance and considered at paragraph 141 of the contested judgment, it is in any event unfounded.

46. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, extended composition) of 11 March 1999. - Unimétal - Société française des aciers longs SA v Commission of the European Communities. - ECSC Treaty - Competition - Agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices - Price-fixing - Market sharing - Systems for the exchange of information. - Case T-145/94.

47. 14 On 20 December 2002, the Commission submitted defence statements in the AIT v Commission cases that gave rise to the Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June 2003 (T-287/02 [2003] ECR II-2179) and to the contested order (T-288/02, not published in the ECR), requesting, inter alia, for those cases to be joined.

48. 110 Thus, in refusing to take into account the fixed component of the fee in comparing the situations of AFS and OAT, the Court of First Instance failed to have regard to the fact that the two components of the fee are inseparable because they constitute the single overall fee paid as consideration for the private occupation of publicly-owned land.

49. The Court of First Instance clearly distinguished between the delay in adopting the legislation adjusting the remuneration of officials which it considered to be excessively long and unjustified and therefore constituted a fault (paragraph 39 of its judgment) and the time taken for payment of the remuneration after the legislation was adopted, which it regarded as normal (paragraph 26 of the judgment).

50. 42 It must be stated, as the Commission contends, that the Court of First Instance in the present case responded amply to the arguments put forward by WIN at first instance seeking, essentially, to justify the pricing practice concerned on the basis of the right of every economic operator, irrespective of its position on the market, to align its prices on those of its competitors.