Clarity

[Allen165]

"They submitted, among other things, that the CFI had misinterpreted the case law of the Court in holding that purely sporting rules generally fell outside the scope of Articles 39, 49, 81, and 82 EC and that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC."

Is it clear that "and that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC." is one of the Court's holdings and not what "they" submitted? If not, how should I make it clear?

Would the following be a possibility?

They submitted, among other things, that the CFI had misinterpreted the case law of the Court in holding (i) that purely sporting rules generally fell outside the scope of Articles 39, 49, 81, and 82 EC and (ii) that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.

Thanks a lot.

[Allen165]

Anyone?

Thanks a lot!

[bertietheblue]

"They submitted, among other things, that the CFI had misinterpreted the case law of the Court in holding that purely sporting rules generally fell outside the scope of Articles 39, 49, 81, and 82 EC and that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC."

Is it clear that "and that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC." is one of the Court's holdings and not what "they" submitted? If not, how should I make it clear?

Would the following be a possibility?

They submitted, among other things, that the CFI had misinterpreted the case law of the Court in holding (i) that purely sporting rules generally fell outside the scope of Articles 39, 49, 81, and 82 EC and (ii) that the anti-doping rules were not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.

Thanks a lot.

You've cleared up that ambiguity but the subject of 'in holding' is the CFI as it stands. Should it not be the Court? In which case: ', which held'. PS: I would probably use the present tense in (i) and (ii), especially if those rulings are still in effect.

Hope that helps!

[Allen165]

You've cleared up that ambiguity but the subject of 'in holding' is the CFI as it stands. Should it not be the Court? In which case: ', which held'. PS: I would probably use the present tense in (i) and (ii), especially if those rulings are still in effect.

Hope that helps!

I made a mistake in my original post. I should've written: "Is it clear that ... is one of the CFI's holdings....?"

Are you saying that I should add (i) and (ii)?

Thanks.

[bertietheblue]

I made a mistake in my original post. I should've written: "Is it clear that ... is one of the CFI's holdings....?"

Are you saying that I should add (i) and (ii)? More than should - you need to
unless you reword or the sense could be 'they submitted ... that the anti-doping rules ...'
Thanks.

Bertie