Traduction de «requérante allègue qu’elle » (Français → Anglais) :

The applicant alleges that it does not fulfil the listing criteria and that the Council thus acted ultra vires in listing it in the contested measures.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicants were not granted access to key documents that formed the basis of the Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 and therefore the defendant infringed the applicants’ rights of defence and principles of sound administration and excellence of scientific advice.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission could not assert jurisdiction over the applicant’s conduct failed to demonstrate that the applicant participated in an infringement that it can sanction under Article 101 of the TFEU, since the object of its alleged anti-competitive behavior did not concern the EEA market and its alleged involvement in the anti-competitive behavior could not have and did not have any effect on trade in the EEA market.

In the second part, the appellant principally alleges a breach by the General Court of the requirement to state reasons, in that the judgment under appeal could not consider that a sufficient statement of reasons was given for the decision of the First Board of Appeal on the application of Article 7(1)(b), a decision which does not specify any of the documents upon which it seeks to rely, and could not consider that it was unnecessary to refer to items of evidence because the First Board of Appeal allegedly relied upon “deductions made from practical experience”.

None the less, it cannot be called imprecise.

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that, in assessing the distinctiveness of the marks in question, the Court of First Instance failed to consider, as it was required to do, the overall impression given by each of them, but, at paragraph 36 of the contested judgment, adopted the wrong approach by separating the marks into their component parts, holding that ‘it is a feature of the shapes that they are cylindrical’ and that, in four of them, ‘the torches’ cylindrical shape opens out where the bulb is’.

The petitioner, Dr Paola Braggion, who had presided over the Court of Como, Cantù sub-chamber, which had sentenced the Member of Parliament on 23 May 2001 on these grounds to a term of imprisonment of one year and four months, feels insulted by these remarks both personally and in her capacity as judge, since they insinuate that she had exploited her judicial office in order to attack the newly formed government and had endeavoured in the performance of her duties to institute proceedings aimed at prosecuting freedom of speech.

The petitioner, Dr Paola Braggion, who had presided over the Court of Como, Cantù sub-chamber, which had for the above reason sentenced the former MEP, Umberto Bossi, on 23 May 2001 to one year and four months in prison, feels insulted by these remarks both personally and in her capacity as judge, since they insinuate that she exploited her office to attack the new government, took advantage of a case involving a public personality to thrust herself into the limelight in pursuit of her own interests, and used 'fascist standards' and 'judicial relics' in performing her official duties.

The application was declared admissible by judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 May 1991 (Case Extramet Industrie v Council. By judgment of 11 June 1992 (Case C-358/89 Extramet Industrie v Council [1992] ECR I-3813, hereinafter 'Extramet II') the Court annulled Regulation No 2808/89 on the grounds that the Community institutions had not actually considered whether the Community producer of the product referred to in the regulation in question, namely PEM, had by its refusal to sell itself contributed to the injury suffered, and had not established that the injury on which they based their conclusions did not derive from the factors men ...[+++]tioned by the applicant, and had therefore not followed the proper procedure in determining the injury.