Sentences with phrase «public undertaking»

They tend to withdraw into gated communities, with private security guards and «enclaves of good schools, excellent health care, and first - rate infrastructures — all the while scoffing at almost all functions of government, thus cutting off the supply of taxes for most public undertakings — leaving much of the rest of the population behind.»

«The fact that you and your agents at the Thruway Authority have still not released a full financing plan — and instead are relying on a secret piecemeal fiduciary strategy in this massive public undertaking — raises concerns of great magnitude for me,» Perkins wrote.

For instance, the artist uses unassuming tchotchkes to symbolize major public undertakings (American Exceptionalism, The Interstate Highway System and the Egyptian pyramids), prompting a dialogue about our cultural roots.

To support the biological science goal of image classification, we have developed several games and tools that let ordinary members of the public undertake to classify various photos of living things.

The United States, European Union, and China together produce more than half of the world's annual CO2 emissions, and with the new agreement, all three have made a public undertaking limiting future emissions.

(point 82, emphasis added) «That evidence must show clearly that, before or at the same time as conferring the economic advantage -LRB-...), the Member State concerned took the decision to make an investment, by means of the measure actually implemented, in the public undertaking.»

In this regard Article 102 TFEU is by far the most popular norm to be mated to Article 106 TFEU as the exclusive right mentioned in Article 106 TFEU is easily equated to a statutory monopoly for the public undertaking and thus dominance within the meaning of that provision.

This turns on the question whether actual abuse by the public undertaking must be shown in Article 106 TFEU - cases.

But then we read that the public undertaking must be allowed to maintain, strengthen or extend its dominant position.

Obviously, even if there is no (evidence of) actual abuse, the state has created a situation that is too good to be true for the public undertaking and the risk of abuse is all but imaginary.

This seems to require some act of «monopolization» and thus behaviour on the part of the public undertaking again.

Essentially, the public undertaking in those cases was active on the market and controlled access to the market for its competitors.

What the Commission is essentially arguing is that a Member State infringes Article 106 in connection with 102 TFEU even in the absence of abusive behaviour by the public undertaking.

GB - Inno - BM and MOTOE both concern cases in which the state arranged for commercial and regulatory tasks to be executed by the public undertaking.

The General Court disagreed and found that the Commission was required to show abuse by the public undertaking.

Under the behaviour theory, Article 106 TFEU cases require certain behaviour on the part of the public undertaking to be the result of the state measure.

Rather than the length or the supportive nature of the relationship, what was determinative was the existence of a public undertaking, carrying with it a body of rights and obligations of a contractual nature.

A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.

The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.

As the General Court has noted itself in the first sentence of para. 117, the public undertaking in Dusseldorp was not engaged in any abusive behaviour.

Firstly, it explains Raso and MOTOE because of the conflict of interest that results from putting a public undertaking in the position where it is active on a market and also controls access to that market by third parties (paras. 96, 97).

Doesn't the grant of a license at differentiated prices to the public undertaking and its competitors have similar (albeit less far - reaching) effects to not granting such a licence to competitors at all?

Connect Austria is clarified as a case where the grant by the Austrian authorities — at a possibly reduced price — of a mobile telecoms licence to the public undertaking could lead that undertaking to abuse resulting from the ability to pass on the reduced prices to its customers (para. 111).

The conclusion is that merely being in an advantageous position is not enough, there needs to be actual abuse on the part of the public undertaking, following from an abusive exercise of the exclusive right or a direct consequence of that right (para. 103).

Dusseldorp, finally, is explained as a case where the exclusive right enabled the public undertaking to abuse its dominant position (para. 117).

In all three cases the state and the state alone uses its authority concerning inputs (lignite, the ability to export and a telecoms licence) to the effect that the public undertaking is protected from too much competition.

Of course there is a good chance that the power to control market access will be abused to protect the market activities of the public undertaking.

Here the Court found it sufficient that the grant of the licence at a possibly reduced price would enable the public undertaking to outcompete others.

This led the Commission to find that the Greek authorities -LSB-...] «by granting and maintaining quasi-monopolistic rights in favour of the public undertaking which is the applicant over the exploitation of lignite, [have] guaranteed the applicant privileged access to the most attractive combustible which existed in Greece for the purposes of producing electricity.

Ontario Hydro was a public undertaking funded by the public that returned benefits to all.

Wherever a discriminatory program was a public undertaking, such as a public school, private remedies were already available under other statutes, and a private remedy under Title VI was