Translation of "Substantiate relevant facts " (English → French) :

56. Welcomes the establishment of anti-fraud coordination services (AFCOS) in Member States as required by Article 3(4) of the new OLAF Regulation and the fact that Germany reconfirmed its working cooperation arrangement with OLAF; notes that AFCOS aim to facilitate effective cooperation and the exchange of information with OLAF, and insists that Member States which have not yet designated AFCOS do so without further delay; expects that AFCOS will assist in facilitating better reporting of irregularities and contribute towards a balanced interpretation of the relevant EU acts; ...[+++] is nevertheless concerned by the substantial discrepancies already existing between the different AFCOS established in the Member States in terms of functions, tasks and powers as well as human resources allocated; acknowledges that the AFCOS’ mandate, institutional framework and tasks are not defined in detail in Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 883/2013, but is of the opinion that AFCOS which are operationally independent with a comprehensive mandate including investigative powers represent a benchmark to be developed by all Member States;

37. Calls upon MEPs in the Petitions Committee to adopt final internal rules to ensure maximum efficiency and openness in the work of the Committee and to make proposals to revise accordingly the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament in order to consolidate their continuous attempts during the whole seventh legislature to improve working methods; calls on the Petitions Committee to adopt clear deadlines in the process of petitions in order to speed up the petitions life-cycle in the European Parliament and make the whole process even more transparent and democratic; underlines that this could put in place a defined lifecycle of the petition from registration until their final closure in the European Parliament, similarly to the ex ...[+++]isting deadlines for the work in process on legislative and non-legislative files; considers that these deadlines should establish an alert mechanism which automatically draws Members’ attention to petitions on which there has not been any action or correspondence for a considerable amount of time, in order to avoid old petitions staying open over years without substantial reason; recalls that fact-finding visits are one of the key investigative instruments of the Petitions Committee, therefore an urgent revision of the relevant rules is needed, in order to enable the newly elected Members to carry out efficient visits and report swiftly back to the petitioners and the Committee on their findings and recommendations;

37. Calls upon MEPs in the Petitions Committee to adopt final internal rules to ensure maximum efficiency and openness in the work of the Committee and to make proposals to revise accordingly the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament in order to consolidate their continuous attempts during the whole seventh legislature to improve working methods; calls on the Petitions Committee to adopt clear deadlines in the process of petitions in order to speed up the petitions life-cycle in the European Parliament and make the whole process even more transparent and democratic; underlines that this could put in place a defined lifecycle of the petition from registration until their final closure in the European Parliament, similarly to the ex ...[+++]isting deadlines for the work in process on legislative and non-legislative files; considers that these deadlines should establish an alert mechanism which automatically draws Members’ attention to petitions on which there has not been any action or correspondence for a considerable amount of time, in order to avoid old petitions staying open over years without substantial reason; recalls that fact-finding visits are one of the key investigative instruments of the Petitions Committee, therefore an urgent revision of the relevant rules is needed, in order to enable the newly elected Members to carry out efficient visits and report swiftly back to the petitioners and the Committee on their findings and recommendations;

6. Notes the substantial increase in funding for the Partnership Instrument (former ICI/ICI+), which reflects the widened scope of this instrument; supports the significant financing for activities in support of EU businesses on third markets; welcomes the fact that the proposed resources for COSME and for the Partnership Instrument should allow for a whole range of activities in support of SMEs internationalisation and recalls the relevance of finall ...[+++]y implementing the coordination platform for SMEs as of 2014;

By its second plea, Freixenet claims that the Court infringed Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 by holding, in the judgments under appeal, that the Board of Appeal was not required to put forward specific evidence in support of its refusals to register and could merely affirm a supposedly well-known fact in denying the distinctive character of the marks for which registration was sought, when Freixenet had provided specific and substantiated information showing the original character of the marks at the ...[+++]relevant time, so that they varied significantly from the norm or customs of the sector concerned.

(a) all substantially material sources are indicated, as appropriate, including the relevant issuer, together with the fact whether the recommendation has been disclosed to that issuer and amended following this disclosure before its dissemination.