Traduction de «constatations à propos de la preuve » (Français → Anglais) :

2. As regards the evidence provided by services, bodies or organisations other than the competent authorities in accordance with the rules laid down by the Commission on the basis of Article 78(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, if it is found that incorrect evidence has been provided as a result of negligence or intentionally, the Member State concerned shall apply appropriate penalties in accordance with national legislation.

In that regard, it must be held that that evidence relates to the perception of the marks in question by consumers at a time when the torches in question had already been on the market for many years and when consumers were thus accustomed to their shape.

No. Can we declare, like a people’s court, that certain facts have been established – particularly for Italy or Poland – for which no evidence has been produced or presented?

Since, in paragraphs 85 to 87 of the judgment under appeal, following an assessment of the facts and evidence, the Court of First Instance found, first, that the mark applied for was devoid of any distinctive character, ab initio, in all of the Member States of the Community and, second, that the appellant did not establish that that mark was the subject of advertising campaigns in certain Member States during the reference period, it rightly found that the figures provided in relation to the advertising costs incurred by the appellant did not provide proof that the mark had acquired distinctive character as a result of the use which had ...[+++] been made of it.

The major conclusions of that opinion were, first, that, as concerns excess intake of hormone residues and their metabolites, and in view of the intrinsic properties of hormones and the epidemiological findings, a risk to the consumer has been identified with different levels of conclusive evidence for the six hormones evaluated. Second, for the six hormones endocrine, developmental, immunological, neurobiological, immunotoxic, genotoxic and carcinogenic effects could be envisaged and, of the various susceptible risk groups, prepubertal children is the gr ...[+++]oup of greatest concern and, third, in view of the intrinsic properties of the hormones and taking into account epidemiological findings, no threshold levels and, therefore, no Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) can be established for any of the six hormones evaluated when they are administered to bovine animals for growth promotion purposes.

We need to be very, very realistic here.