Other plastic surgery for unacceptable cosmetic appearance

Recognises the critical contribution of the African Peace Facility in developing the triangular partnership between the UN, the EU and the AU; believes that this Facility provides both an entry point and a potential lever for creating a stronger partnership between the EU and the AU and has proved indispensable in allowing the AU, and through it the eight Regional Economic Communities (RECs), to plan and manage their operations; considers it vital that the EU institutions and Member States remain closely engaged if the Facility is to be fully utilised and that the AU demonstrate higher levels of efficiency and transparency in using the ...[+++] funds; takes the view that the APF should focus on structural support rather than just bankrolling African forces’ pay; acknowledges that there are other funding mechanisms in use, but believes that given the Facility’s sole focus on Africa, as well as its clear goals, it is especially important with regard to PSOs in Africa; considers that Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) working on peace-building in Africa should be given the opportunity to contribute their views, as part of a more strategic engagement with CSOs on peace and security; remains concerned at the continuing problems of financing and political will on the part of African countries; notes the Council conclusions of 24 September 2012 which state that ‘funding, alternative to the funding from the EDF, will have to be considered’.

While the main motive for using doping in elite sport is performance enhancement, studies indicate that users of doping in recreational sports also have a range of other motives, including aesthetics, self confidence building and experiencing euphoria from using doping substances, and that the problem of doping in recreational sport should be understood and dealt with accordingly,

As regards the Board of Appeal’s argument that the shape of the product constituting the trade mark applied for cannot perform a trade mark function from the relevant consumers’ point of view on the ground that that mark is essentially dictated by aesthetic considerations (paragraphs 14 to 18 of the contested decision), it suffices to state that, in so far as the relevant public perceives the sign as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods or services, whether or not it serves simultaneously a purpose other than that of indicating commercial origin is immaterial to its distinctive character (Case T-173/00 KWS Saat v OHIM (Sha ...[+++]de of orange) [2002] ECR II-3843, paragraph 30.Grille, paragraph 43; and Case T-129/04 Develey v OHIM (Shape of a plasticbottle) [2006] ECR II-811, paragraph 56).

B1115Waste metal cables coated or insulated with plastics, not included in list A1190, excluding those destined for Annex IVA operations or any other disposal operations involving, at any stage, uncontrolled thermal processes, such as open-burning