Out a new assessment of the facts and the evidence.Ģ. In that respect, such distortion must be obvious from the documents on the Court’s file, without there being any need to carry Is subject as such to review by the Court of Justice. Where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted, that appraisal does not therefore constitute a point of law which It is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced to it. Principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed,
![text twist 2 nederlands text twist 2 nederlands](https://texttwist2.co/upload/cache/upload/imgs/color-pong-m362x362.png)
Provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general Of First Instance accepted in support of those facts. The Court of Justice thus has no jurisdiction to establish the facts or, in principle, to examine the evidence which the Court Those facts by the Court of First Instance and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them. Or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 225 EC to review the legal characterisation of When the Court of First Instance has found Is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts.
![text twist 2 nederlands text twist 2 nederlands](https://dolygames.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Text-Twist-2-PLAY-FREE2-copy.jpg)
Of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first to find the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings It is clear from Article 225 EC and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that the Court Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Prejudicial to competitionġ. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Prejudicial to competitionĦ. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Prejudicial to competitionĥ. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Prejudicial to competitionĤ. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Prejudicial to competitionģ. 225(1) EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. Of evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment
![text twist 2 nederlands text twist 2 nederlands](https://i1.rgstatic.net/publication/330139329_A_Revolution_in_its_Own_Right_How_Maastricht_University_Reinvented_Problem-Based_Learning/links/5e6978eaa6fdcc7595030650/largepreview.png)
(Appeals – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Article 81 EC – Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95 – Distribution of Opel motor vehicles – Partitioning of the market – Restrictions on exports – Restrictive bonus policy – Fine – Guidelines for the calculation of fines)ġ.
![text twist 2 nederlands text twist 2 nederlands](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VxsohXXMtWE/maxresdefault.jpg)
General Motors Nederland BV and Opel Nederland BV General Motors BV v Commission of the European Communities.Īppeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95 - Distribution of Opel motor vehicles - Partitioning of the market - Restrictions on exports - Restrictive bonus policy - Fine - Guidelines for the calculation of fines. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 April 2006. # Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Regulations (EEC) No 123/85 and (EC) No 1475/95 - Distribution of Opel motor vehicles - Partitioning of the market - Restrictions on exports - Restrictive bonus policy - Fine - Guidelines for the calculation of fines. # General Motors BV v Commission of the European Communities.