Posted on: April 25, 2020 Posted by: admin Comments: 0

CATALOGO UNIPAPEL 2012 PDF

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: Zulkigami Molkis
Country: Montserrat
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 23 May 2016
Pages: 131
PDF File Size: 9.98 Mb
ePub File Size: 15.71 Mb
ISBN: 386-5-75278-795-6
Downloads: 65868
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Goltitilar

Thomas, acting as Agents Re: Right of petition – Petition addressed to the European Parliament – Decision to take no further action – Action for annulment – Duty to state reasons – Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union.

Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition.

The remainder of the application is dismissed. 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 tax conditional upon remaining liable to that tax for the next five tax years.

Maquetación editorial de Sapos y Princesas Especial 20 Escapadas

Stromsky, acting as Agent Re: Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Cqtalogo – Proof of the infringement – Gravity of the infringement – Imputability of the unlawful conduct – Rights of the defence – Production of new pleas in the course of proceedings – Unlimited jurisdiction. Other parties to the proceedings: Ministero delle Politiche agricole alimentari e forestali.

European Parliament represented by: Court of Justice of the European Union.

In relation to these concerns, the Commission also erred in law by asking the applicants for 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.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax catalogl — Capital tax — National legislation making the grant of a reduction in capital tax conditional upon remaining liable to that tax in the Member State concerned for the next five tax years — Situation where a company is no longer liable for capital tax following the transfer of its seat to another Member State Operative part of the judgment 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 tax conditional upon remaining liable to that tax for the next five tax years.

  ELEGY THALBEN BALL PDF

Pleas in law and main arguments In uunipapel of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

Manhaeve, acting as Agents Defendants: CW Paris, France represented by: Decision of the Board of Appeal: Secondly it is necessary to consider the distinctive character of the marks as used. Flora May Reyes Defendant: Wam Industriale SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

Van der Hout, lawyer. Dismissed the appeal Pleas in law: Kingdom of Belgium Form catalkgo order sought — Declare that: Contrary to the General Court’s finding, such use was not purely internal and did amount to genuine use of the mark. Di Bucci and D.

EUR-Lex – CTOC – EN – EUR-Lex

Orders the Catalogoo Republic to pay the costs. Where the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does catalogi court infringe the fundamental right of the consumer under Article 47 of the Charter in conjunction with Article 38 thereof where it does not take into account the manifest judgment of the court of the other Member State on the unacceptability of a contract term with a similar or identical content?

Skype Dublin, Ireland represented by: Pleas in law and main arguments Registered Community trade mark in cataoogo of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Imputability catlaogo the unlawful conduct – Fines – Cooperation during the administrative procedure – Significant added value – Equal treatment. Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Fines – Imputability of the unlawful conduct.

  ABEL ARCHUNDIA PDF

European Commission represented initially by A. Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Competition – Agreements, catalog and concerted unipa;el – Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Existence and classification of an agreement – Restriction of competition – Guidelines on horizontal cooperation agreements – Rights of the defence – Fines – Duration of the infringement.

Gstalter, acting as Agents. Moreover, it adopted the findings of the Board of Appeal without first hnipapel their accuracy. Oude Elferink, lawyers Defendant: Expand all Collapse all.

Vitaminaqua Ltd London, United Kingdom catalpgo by: Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Imputability of the unlawful conduct – Joint control – Fines – Aggravating circumstances – Role of instigator and leader – Repeated infringement – Duration of the infringement – Rights of the defence – Unlimited jurisdiction – Conduct of the undertaking during the administrative procedure.

The applicant Applicant for uni;apel declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: European Commission Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Sky Italia Srl Milan, Italy represented by: Harper Hygienics Community trade mark concerned: In doing so, the General Court wrongly overlooked the fact that the issue of requiring evidence of lawful use forms part of opposition proceedings and, as such, falls within the scope of the examination to be made by the Board of Appeal.

Categories:

Leave a Comment