ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Actions brought by officials – Staff of the European Investment Bank – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant – Action against an act which has not been withdrawn by the administration and which continues to produce legal effects – Interest in bringing proceedings retained (see paragraphs 41, 42)
Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Termination of a contract concluded for an indefinite period – Administration’s discretion – Justification based on incompetence – Judicial review – Limits – Manifest error of assessment – Meaning

(Conditions of Employment of other Servants, Art. 47(c)(i))

(see paragraphs 42-46)
1.

Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Scope – Judicial review of an enforceable decision of the Commission for the recovery of a claim – Jurisdiction to examine both the pleas challenging the legality of such a decision and those relating to the breach of contractual obligations giving rise to the adoption of such a decision (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paragraph 46)
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 September 2022 –

Peace United v EUIPO – 1906 Collins (MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN)

(Case T‑699/21) ( 1 )

(EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU word mark MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN – Declaration of revocation – Absence of genuine use of the mark – Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Proof of genuine use – Abuse of rights)

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Application for revocation – Admissibility – Conditions – Interest in bringing proceedings (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 63(1)(a)) (see paragraph 24)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Lack of genuine use of the mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment – Requirement of solid and objective evidence (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1) and 58(1)(a)) (see paragraphs 32-34, 36, 37)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Lack of genuine use of the mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Concept – Determination of a minimal quantitative use threshold – Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1) and 58(1)(a)) (see paragraph 35)

4. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Lack of genuine use of the mark – Word mark MY BOYFRIEND IS OUT OF TOWN (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1) and 58(1)(a)) (see paragraphs 39, 44, 46, 47)

5. Action for annulment – Pleas in law – Pleas in law and complaints which cannot lead to the annulment of the contested measure – Ineffective pleas in law (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paragraph 45)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Peace United Ltd to bear the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.
2.

EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of privacy and integrity of the individual – Applicability of all of the provisions of Regulation 2018/1725 – Obligation on the applicant to demonstrate the need to communicate the personal data in question – Obligation on the institution to verify of its own motion whether the legitimate interests of the person concerned have been prejudiced (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b), and 2018/1725, Arts 3(1), 5 and 9(1)(a) and (b)) (see paragraphs 31-37)
5.

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds for invalidity – Existence of an identical or similar earlier mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraph 33)
Officials – Members of the temporary staff – Recruitment – Call for applications – Procedures for the tests – Administration’s discretion – Requirement to specify in the call for applications that the tests will be conducted remotely and the points threshold to be reached – None

(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Art. 12(1), first subpara.)

(see paragraphs 32-36, 93)
EU law – Interpretation – Texts in several languages – Uniform interpretation – Differences between the various language versions – Account to be taken of the overall scheme and purpose of the legislation in question

(European Parliament and Council Regulations No 952/2013, Arts 5, point 16, and 201, and No 517/2014, Art. 2, point 10)

(see paragraphs 47-49)
2.

EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Protection of privacy and integrity of the individual – Provisions of Regulation 2018/1725 fully applicable – Obligation on the applicant to demonstrate the need to communicate the personal data in question – Obligation of the institution to verify of its own motion that the legitimate interests of the person concerned are prejudiced (European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1)(b), and 2018/1725, Arts 3(1), 5 and 9(1)(a) and (b)) (see paragraphs 30-36)
1.

Actions brought by officials – Act adversely affecting an official – Decision adopted after reconsideration of a previous decision – Decision adopted by a competition selection board after reviewing the file of a candidate who has not been included on the reserve list (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(1)) (see paragraphs 18, 19)
Agriculture – Financing by the EAGF – Clearance of accounts – Elaboration of decisions – Written communication by the Commission to Member States of the results of its checks – Content – Conditions – Identification of deficiencies found – No recovery of aid overpaid following the triennial update of the identification system for agricultural parcels – No express mention in the communication of two of the three claim years concerned by the possible correction – Compliance with conditions

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1306/2013, Art. 52(3); Commission Regulation No 908/2014, Art. 34(2))

(see paragraphs 44-47, 54, 59)
Officials – Members of the contract staff – Recruitment – Probationary period – Decision to dismiss at the end of the probationary period – Obligation to state reasons – Scope – Overall assessment of the staff member’s abilities – Whether permissible

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, Arts 11, 79(2), 81 and 84(3))

(see paragraphs 28, 29, 32-34)
2.

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Criteria for assessment – Taking into account all relevant factors at the time of filing of the application for registration – Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign – Intention of the applicant – Origin and use of the sign in dispute – Commercial logic underlying the registration of the contested sign as an EU trade mark – Chronology of events characterising the filing of the trade mark application (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 29-37)
EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action brought against a decision by the Cancellation Division of EUIPO – Examination by the Board of Appeal – Scope

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(1); Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 7 and 51(1)(a))

(see paragraphs 42, 58)
Actions brought by officials – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action against a decision rejecting an application for a vacancy – Decision indissociable from that appointing another official – Existence of an amicable settlement prohibiting the decision appointing another official to that position from being challenged – Inadmissibility – Impact on the assessment of a request for assistance – None

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 125d; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

(see paragraphs 33-39)
2.

EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Grounds for revocation – Lack of genuine use of the mark – Proof of use – Genuine use – Concept – Criteria for assessment – Requirement of solid and objective evidence (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 18(1) and 58(1)(a)) (see paragraphs 31-33, 35-37)
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2022 –

Baumberger v EUIPO – Nube (Lío)

(Case T‑466/21) ( )

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – European Union figurative mark Lío – Absolute ground for invalidity – Bad faith – Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Criteria for assessment – Taking into account all relevant factors at the time of filing of the application for registration – Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign – Intention of the applicant – Origin and use of the contested sign – Commercial logic underlying the registration of the contested sign as an EU trade mark – Chronology of events leading up to the filing of the trade mark application

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))

(see paragraphs 23, 24, 28, 29, 32, 42)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Concept of bad faith – Scope

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))

(see paragraphs 25-27)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Criteria for assessment – Need to prove the existence of the likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue – Not included

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(a) and (b), (2) and (5), 52(1)(b) and 53(1)(a))

(see paragraphs 30, 31)

4. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Burden of proof

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))

(see paragraphs 33, 34)

5. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Figurative mark Lío

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))

(see paragraphs 43, 51, 61, 68, 74, 81-84)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2022 –

DBM Videovertrieb v EUIPO – Nube (Lío)

(Case T‑467/21) ( )

(EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – European Union figurative mark Lío – Absolute ground for invalidity – Bad faith – Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

1. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Criteria for assessment – Taking into account all relevant factors at the time of filing of the application for registration – Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign – Intention of the applicant – Origin and use of the contested sign – Commercial logic underlying the registration of the contested sign as an EU trade mark – Chronology of events leading up to the filing of the trade mark application

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))

(see paragraphs 22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 41)

2. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Concept of bad faith – Scope

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))

(see paragraphs 24-26)

3. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Criteria for assessment – Need to prove the existence of the likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue – Not included

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(1)(a) and (b), (2) and (5), 52(1)(b) and 53(1)(a))

(see paragraphs 29, 30)

4. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Burden of proof

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))

(see paragraphs 32, 33)

5. EU trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Absolute grounds for invalidity – Applicant in bad faith when filing the trade mark application – Figurative mark Lío

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b))

(see paragraphs 42, 50, 60, 67, 73, 80-83)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 November 2022 –

Fieldpoint (Cyprus) v EUIPO (HYPERLIGHTOPTICS)

(Case T‑800/21) ( )

(EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark HYPERLIGHTOPTICS – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Equal treatment – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Aim – Need to preserve availability

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))

(see paragraph 16)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Definition – Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))

(see paragraphs 17-19, 25)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign – Criteria

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))

(see paragraph 20)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Word mark HYPERLIGHTOPTICS

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))

(see paragraphs 26, 29, 30, 32, 35)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Assessment by EUIPO of registrability – Production of evidence – Not required

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))

(see paragraph 28)

6. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Refusal of registration based on one of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Whether sufficient

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1))

(see paragraph 37)

7. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a stringent and full examination in each individual case

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)

(see paragraph 44)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 November 2022 –

Fieldpoint (Cyprus) v EUIPO (HYPERLIGHTEYEWEAR)

(Case T‑801/21) ( )

(EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark HYPERLIGHTEYEWEAR – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Equal treatment – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Aim – Need to preserve availability

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))

(see paragraph 16)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Definition – Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))

(see paragraphs 17-19, 25)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign – Criteria

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))

(see paragraph 20)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Word mark HYPERLIGHTEYEWEAR

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))

(see paragraphs 26, 29, 30, 32, 35)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Assessment by EUIPO of registrability – Production of evidence – Not required

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c))

(see paragraph 28)

6. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Refusal of registration based on one of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Whether sufficient

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1))

(see paragraph 37)

7. EU trade mark – Decisions of EUIPO – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a stringent and full examination in each individual case

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001)

(see paragraph 44)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT - PUTTING THE HIGH AUTHORITY ON NOTICE

2 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - BASIS OF ACTION - CHANGE

3 . OBLIGATIONS OF THE STATES - FAILURE TO FULFIL SUCH OBLIGATIONS - POWERS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY

Summary

1 . PROCEEDINGS MAY BE BROUGHT UNDER ARTICLE 35 ONLY INASMUCH AS THE APPLICANT HAS FIRST RAISED THE MATTER WITH THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE . THIS INITIAL REQUIREMENT IS NECESSARY NOT ONLY BECAUSE THE TIME-LIMIT SET FOR THE PARTY CONCERNED COMMENCES TO RUN WITH EFFECT FROM THE REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY BUT ALSO BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR NOTIFICATION WHICH, BY IMPUGNING THE INACTION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, FORCES IT TO TAKE A DECISION WITHIN A LIMITED PERIOD REGARDING THE LEGALITY OR OTHERWISE OF ITS INACTION ( ARTICLE 35 OF THE ECSC TREATY ).

2 . THE BASIS OF AN ACTION CANNOT BE CHANGED, EVEN BY WAY OF AN ALTERNATIVE, IN THE REPLY .

3 . IF, AFTER GIVING A STATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO

3 . IF, AFTER GIVING A STATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT ITS COMMENTS, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 88, THE HIGH AUTHORITY RECEIVES UNDERTAKINGS FROM THE STATE WHICH CONVINCE IT THAT THE STATE HAS NOT FAILED TO FULFIL AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE TREATY, IT HAS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISCONTINUE THE ACTION TAKEN . ARTICLE 88 OF THE TREATY CONFERS NO POWER ON THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO TAKE, IN RESPECT OF MEMBER STATES, DECISIONS REGISTERING APPROVAL BUT ONLY DECISIONS RECORDING FAILURE TO FULFIL AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE TREATY ( ARTICLE 88 OF THE ECSC TREATY ).
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - DEFINITION OF A DECISION - CRITERIA APPLICABLE IN THE LEGAL ASSESSMENT OF A MEASURE BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY - EFFECT OF DECLARATIONS ISSUED BY SERVANTS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN A DECISION AND AN INTERNAL OFFICE DIRECTIVE .

Summary

CF . SUMMARY, JUDGMENT IN CASE 20/58 OF 6 JULY 1959 :

( A ) THE LEGAL ASSESSMENT OF A MEASURE BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY DEPENDS ABOVE ALL ON ITS SUBJECT-MATTER AND ON ITS CONTENT .

( B ) WHEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY SENDS A LETTER TO AN AUXILIARY AGENCY ENTRUSTED BY IT WITH THE EXECUTION OF CERTAIN PRECISE FUNCTIONS, INFORMING IT OF CERTAIN GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND IN PARTICULAR INSTRUCTING IT TO CONTINUE A CERTAIN PRACTICE FOLLOWED UP TILL THEN, THAT LETTER MAY CONSTITUTE A MERE INTERNAL OFFICE DIRECTIVE, EVEN IF IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OFFICIEL AND IF IT REFERS TO MEASURES WHICH THE AGENCY MUST TAKE IN REGARD TO UNDERTAKINGS IN THE COMMUNITY . IN ANY EVENT, THIS IS TRUE IF IT EMERGES FROM THE LETTER THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY DID NOT INTEND TO TAKE A DECISION, BUT INTENDED MERELY TO CONFIRM PRINCIPLES WHICH IT BELIEVED, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, TO BE LOGICALLY TO INFER FROM ITS PREVIOUS DECISIONS . THE FACT THAT A SERVANT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS DESCRIBED SUCH A LETTER TO A THIRD PARTY AS A " DECISION " DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ABOVE STATEMENT ( TREATY ESTABLISHING THE ECSC, ARTICLE 33 ).

*/ 658J0020 /*.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - DEFINITION OF A DECISION - CRITERIA APPLICABLE IN THE LEGAL ASSESSMENT OF A MEASURE BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY - EFFECT OF DECLARATIONS ISSUED BY SERVANTS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN A DECISION AND AN INTERNAL OFFICE DIRECTIVE

Summary

CF . SUMMARY, JUDGMENT IN CASE 20/58 OF 6 JULY 1959 :

( A ) THE LEGAL ASSESSMENT OF A MEASURE BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY DEPENDS ABOVE ALL ON ITS SUBJECT-MATTER AND ON ITS CONTENT .

( B ) WHEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY SENDS A LETTER TO AN AUXILIARY AGENCY ENTRUSTED BY IT WITH THE EXECUTION OF CERTAIN PRECISE FUNCTIONS, INFORMING IT OF CERTAIN GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND IN PARTICULAR INSTRUCTING IT TO CONTINUE A CERTAIN PRACTICE FOLLOWED UP TILL THEN, THAT LETTER MAY CONSTITUTE A MERE INTERNAL OFFICE DIRECTIVE, EVEN IF IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OFFICIEL AND IF IT REFERS TO MEASURES WHICH THE AGENCY MUST TAKE IN REGARD TO UNDERTAKINGS IN THE COMMUNITY . IN ANY EVENT, THIS IS TRUE IF IT EMERGES FROM THE LETTER THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY DID NOT INTEND TO TAKE A DECISION, BUT INTENDED MERELY TO CONFIRM PRINCIPLES WHICH IT BELIEVED, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, TO BE LOGICALLY TO INFER FROM ITS PREVIOUS DECISIONS . THE FACT THAT A SERVANT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS DESCRIBED SUCH A LETTER TO A THIRD PARTY AS A " DECISION " DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ABOVE STATEMENT ( TREATY ESTABLISHING THE ECSC, ARTICLE 33 ).

*/ 658J0020 /*.