Traduction de «qu'elle avait subtilisée » (Français → Anglais) :

The company Cargill Inc. noted that Regulation (EC) No 599/2009 had established a de minimis dumping margin and thus had imposed a 0 % definitive anti-dumping duty rate on US origin biodiesel produced and exported by them.

In this respect, the applicant argues that if the Commission, before 8 August 2008 (the date on which the applicant approved an amendment to the restructuring plan concerning the preservation of the silos), had answered the applicant’s written question about the preservation of certain structures, if it had amended and supplemented Regulation No 968/2006 (1) and if, having received the communication relating to the alteration of the restructuring programme, it had informed the applicant of the alleged irregularity concerning the preservation of the silos, or if it had written to all the Member States informing them of its interpretation ...[+++]of the unclear provisions of the relevant legislation, the financial correction at issue would not have been made and the contested decision would not have been adopted.

Allegedly, the LF would make again obvious that the Commission failed to assess the evidence in the file in an accurate, objective and undistorted manner, that it omitted to take into account the full body of relevant evidence, including Lundbeck’s observations, and that it did not exclude disputed or otherwise insufficient evidence.

the fact that, long before it went into liquidation, ARCO was already in an unsound financial situation, as it had — as described in recitals 38, 44 and 82 — heavily invested in shares of Dexia, a bank that in the autumn of 2008 had to be rescued from bankruptcy by the Belgian, French and Luxembourg governments, with the result that any significant drop in the value of Dexia shares was still detrimental to the financial position of ARCO, in particular because ARCO had leveraged its participation in the rescue of Dexia by taking on debt,

In the decision in question, the Commission none the less found that Deltafina had infringed the obligation to cooperate incumbent on it in its capacity as applicant for immunity since, at a meeting of APTI, it had disclosed to its competitors, voluntarily and without informing the Commission, that it had applied to the Commission for immunity, before the Commission had had an opportunity to carry out investigations with respect to the cartel in question.

The Commission found that AstraZeneca had concealed from the national patent offices the date on which it had obtained its first marketing authorisation and that this enabled it to obtain supplementary protection for its medicinal product to which it was not entitled.

Then, using a spoon that she had smuggled from the cafeteria, she pried open the lock on the second inmate's cell.

In the alternative, with reference to the RSV judgment (5) of the European Court of Justice it was argued that protecting the legitimate expectations of the beneficiaries precluded any recovery of the aid, since the Commission already knew about the aid on 29 August 2001 but did not make it the subject of an investigation procedure until 20 April 2005 when it requested information.

Mrs Lindqvist was fined SEK 4 000 (approximately EUR 450) for processing personal data by automatic means without notifying the Datainspektion (Swedish supervisory authority for the protection of electronically transmitted data) in writing, for transferring data to third countries without authorisation and for processing sensitive personal data (a foot injury and part time work on medical grounds).

This decision was appealed against by the I. S.A (Italian Steelmakers Association) whose members mainly produce products in Categories IV and VI. In ruling in favour of this association, rather than the Commission which had maintained that it had the right to choose whose procedure to follow, the Court found that since the Commission considered that there was no longer a manifest crisis, it should have applied the more flexible procedure of Article 58(3) to end the quota system for Categories IV and VI on 1 January 1987 (*) See information memo P 78 of 15 June 1988 Consequently, although the Commisison came in for criticism from the Cou ...[+++]rt for choosing a more difficult procedure (involving the assent of the Council) when it had at its disposal a more flexible procedure, the Court's judgment nevertheless emphasizes that the Commission has independent powers in connection with the gradual restoration of normal conditions of competition.