February 7, 2020   |   by admin

Year: ; Month: March; Country: UK; Customer: Unipapel; Resolution: PDF; Media: Unipapel catalogue. Download. Unipapel ID page. Unipapel media storage pockets page. Year: ; Month: March; Country: UK; Customer: Unipapel; Resolution: PDF; Media: Unipapel catalogue; European ranking , sales Mio € (1) Data corresponding to Full year for Unipapel Group and Fiscal year April April General catalogue.

Author: Arashitilar Malalrajas
Country: Andorra
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Literature
Published (Last): 25 September 2014
Pages: 13
PDF File Size: 16.31 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.23 Mb
ISBN: 822-5-76995-861-6
Downloads: 97720
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Nizil

Maquetación editorial de Sapos y Princesas Especial 20 Escapadas | Domestika

Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law. Grespan, acting as Agents Defendant: Contrary to the General Court’s finding, such use was in order to uunipapel goods and was genuine.

Fetim BV Amsterdam, Netherlands represented by: Luigi Marcuccio represented by: The General Court ultimately based its judgment on the finding that the issue of genuine use of the earlier mark was a specific preliminary issue which it was not necessary for the Board of Appeal to examine.

Van den Oord, and subsequently by M. The period allowed by the decision for recovery of the State aid declared unlawful expired unipaoel 24 June Order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceedings; and.

Order the defendant or the other party to bear the costs. Fachin, and subsequently O. Order the defendants to pay the costs.


Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. Fiorilli, avvocati dello Stato Defendant: Stromsky, acting as Agent Re: Orders Heijmans Infrastructuur BV to pay the costs. Orders Heijmans NV to pay the costs. KG Neckarsulm, Germany represented by: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manzini, and subsequently L. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Market for flat glass in the EEA – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Price-fixing – Evidence of the infringement – Calculation of the amount of the fines – Exclusion of captive sales – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Equal treatment – Mitigating circumstances.

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal Mark or sign cited in opposition: Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent, and by L. Pleas in law and main arguments Community trade mark concerned: Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. Decision of the Examiner: OJ C Right of petition – Petition addressed to the European Parliament – Decision to ctaalogo no further action – Action for annulment uniappel Duty to state reasons – Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union.

Dismisses the remainder of the action. Van Maldegem, lawyers Defendant: Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the grant of a reduction in capital unipapfl conditional upon remaining liable to that tax for the next five tax years.


By its third plea, the appellant argues that the General Court infringed the principles of proportionality and fairness in failing to take account of the factual and procedural context of the present proceedings and in refusing to reduce the amount of the fine incurred. In relation to these concerns, the Commission also erred in law cattalogo asking the applicants caalogo probatio diabolicanamely by asking for the identity of the unidentified metabolites in stored apples whereas this was technically impossible, and by asking the applicants to demonstrate an absence of risk in relation to low risk compounds found below the Limit of Quantification LOQ in processed commodities.

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Dismisses the action as to the remainder. Moreover, it adopted the findings of the Board of Appeal without first assessing their accuracy.

Rejected the opposition in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: