alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006326EN.01006002.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/60

---

Action brought on 6 November 2006 — UniCredito Italiano v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (Uniweb)

(Case T-303/06)

(2006/C 326/130)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: UniCredito Italiano S.p.A. (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006, adopted in joined proceedings R 196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2, relating to opposition proceedings No B490971 concerning Community trade mark application No 2.236.164. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006, adopted in joined proceedings R 196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2, relating to opposition proceedings No B490971 concerning Community trade mark application No 2.236.164.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘UNIWEB’ (application for registration No 2.236.164), for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH, previously Union Investment Gesellschaft GmbH.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word marks ‘UNIFONDS’ (No 991.995) and ‘UNIRAK’ (No 991.997) and German figurative mark ‘UNIZINS’ (No 2.016.954), to distinguish capital investments, as referred to in Class 36.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld, in so far as a likelihood of confusion is recognised ‘only as regards services found to be similar’.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The contested decision wrongly applied the theory of increased protection for so-called marks in a series, developed by the Court of First Instance in its judgment of 23 February 2006 in Case T-194/03 concerning the trade mark ‘Bainbridge’, because the two necessary conditions are not fulfilled: (a) the element common to the series of earlier marks must be distinctive; and (b) the earlier marks must be used and understood by the relevant public as signifying a multiplicity of products and/or services.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2007042EN.01001901.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/19

---

Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-530/06)

(2007/C 42/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/41/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision, or, in any event, by not informing the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/41/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision, or, in any event, by not informing the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the implementation of Directive 2003/41/EC expired on 23 September 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 235, p.10.

1

---
# C_2006310EN.01001103.xml

| 16.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/11

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2006 — Dehon v Parliament

(Joined Cases T-432/03 and T-95/05) (1)

1

(Officials - Vacant post - Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an appointment decision - Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Organisation of an internal competition)

(2006/C 310/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean Dehon (Hagen, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, X. Martin, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. von Hertzen, A. Bencomo Weber and A. Lukosiute, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

In Case T-432/03, application for annulment of the European Parliament's decision to organise an internal competition to fill the post of deputy head of the French translation division advertised in vacancy notice No 9192 and, in Case T-95/05, application for annulment of the Parliament's decision of 29 April 2004 appointing M.S. to that post.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.

1

---
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****FDA & you**** 
SuDocNumber:HE20.4620:
ItemNumber:0499-L-18(online)
CGPSystem Number: 000599536
 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16**
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:United States of America v. Alex van der Zwaan, defendant: case 1:18-cr-00031,assigned to Judge Jackson, Amy Berman.**
 
Criminal information | Pleaagreement | Statement of the offense
 
SuDoc Number:J 1.128:Z 9/
Item Number:0717-A-65 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001047173
 
April 9, 2018
-  Home 
-  105 

# In This Section

-  PHMSA Rules 
-  Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits 
-  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
-  Pipeline Special Permits & State Waivers 

# 105.5

## Section §105.5: Definitions

Below are the available interpretations and guidance for the given section. To return to the list of parts, use the Parts link above. If you do not see any guidance or interpretation information below, that means there is none available for the given part/section. Return to the search page to browse additional regulations sections.

PHMSA has published several Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) documents on regulatory topics. Please review our FAQ documents below:

https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/about-phmsa/phmsa-faqs.

Additionally PHMSA has Hazardous Materials FAQs based on letters of interpretation on the following topics:
                              - Applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations
                              - Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting
                              - Hazardous Materials Training Requirements

This section of the website provides the ability to find regulations information including regulations parts, content of sections, and interpretations for regulations sections. Below is a list of parts, identified by the part number and subject. To browse sections by part, click on the subject link below. You will be taken to the eCFR website to view sections for a part.

A written regulatory interpretation, response to a question, or an opinion concerning a pipeline safety issue may be obtained by submitting a written request to the Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP–30), PHMSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001 or at the email address: pipeline_interp_submittal@dot.gov. In addition to email address, the requestor must include his or her return address and should also include a daytime telephone number. Requests should be submitted at least 120 days before the time the requestor needs a response.

Note: electronic submission is provided as alternative to the 49 CFR Part 190.11(b) mail-in requirement.

The regulations text of the section can be found on the eCFR website. To view the regulations text, use the link below. For assistance, please send an email to PHMSA.Webmaster@dot.gov.

View section 105.5 on the ECFR website

## Interpretation Responses
### §1723d. Transfer of certain functions to Association

The functions of the Housing and Home Finance Administrator (including the function of making payments to the Secretary of the Treasury) under section 2 of Reorganization Plan Numbered 22 of 1950, together with the notes and capital stock of the Federal National Mortgage Association held by said Administrator thereunder, are transferred to the Federal National Mortgage Association.

(Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title II, §207, 68 Stat. 622.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Reorganization Plan Numbered 22 of 1950, referred to in text, is set out as a note under section 1717 of this title.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Housing Act of 1954, and not as part of the National Housing Act which comprises this chapter or of the Federal National Mortgage Charter Association Act which comprises this subchapter.
#### § 212.29 [Reserved]
§ 61.14 Preparation, certification and approval of the roll. ( a ) The staff officer shall prepare a minimum of five copies of the roll of those persons determined to be eligible for enrollment. The roll shall contain for each person a roll number, name, address, sex, date of birth, date of death, when applicable, and when required by law, degree of Indian blood, and, in the remarks column, when applicable, the basic roll number, date of the basic roll, name and relationship of ancestor on the basic roll through whom eligibility was established.
( b ) A certificate shall be attached to the roll by the staff officer or Superintendent certifying that to the best of his/her knowledge and belief the roll contains only the names of those persons who were determined to meet the qualifications for enrollment.
( c ) The Director shall approve the roll.
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.217 Is filing a claim under the CDA our only option for resolving post-award contract disputes? No. The Federal government attempts to resolve all contract disputes by agreement at the awarding official's level. These are alternatives to filing a claim under the CDA: ( a ) Before issuing a decision on a claim, the awarding official should consider using informal discussions between the parties, assisted by individuals who have not substantially participated in the matter, to aid in resolving differences.
( b ) In addition to filing a CDA claim, or instead of filing a CDA claim, the parties may choose to use an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, Public Law 101-552, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 581 *et seq.,* or the options listed in section 108(1)(b)(12) of the Indian Self-Determination Act, as applicable.
#### § 242.11 Royalty.

The Association shall pay five percent of the gross receipts from the sale of fish by the Association to the designated collection officer of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which shall be deposited to the credit of the Band in the Treasury of the United States.
### SUBCHAPTER VII—IMPROVING ACCESS TO MAINSTREAM FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
# C_2006326EN.01008702.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/87 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/87

---

Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Lafleur-Tighe v Commission

(Case F-135/06)

(2006/C 326/176)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Virgine Lafleur-Tighe (Makati, Philippines) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the appointing authority placing the applicant in grade 13, step 1, on the date of her recruitment as a contractual agent, in so far as that decision is to be inferred from the contract of employment signed on 22 December 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the appointing authority placing the applicant in grade 13, step 1, on the date of her recruitment as a contractual agent, in so far as that decision is to be inferred from the contract of employment signed on 22 December 2005;

| — | indicate to the appointing authority the effects entailed by annulment of the contested decision, in particular, the fact that the applicant's work experience since 1993, when she obtained her Bachelor's degree, must be taken into account and that she must be re-graded as grade 14 with retroactive effect from 22 December 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

indicate to the appointing authority the effects entailed by annulment of the contested decision, in particular, the fact that the applicant's work experience since 1993, when she obtained her Bachelor's degree, must be taken into account and that she must be re-graded as grade 14 with retroactive effect from 22 December 2005;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant argues, first, that the appointing authority committed a manifest error of assessment in requiring her to produce a certificate attesting to the equivalence of her Bachelor's degree of comparable authority to the decision issued by the Government of the French Community in Belgium in respect of her Master's degree.

Secondly, the applicant maintains that the appointing authority infringed the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination in so far as it refused to take into account the certificate issued by the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland attesting to the equivalence of that qualification.

---
Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

May 22, 1997

NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP FOR WATER HEATER

ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS RULEMAKING

The Department of Energy is implementing the July 15, 1996, process rule which includes priority

setting for various products. The water heater energy efficiency standards rulemaking has been

designated a high priority rulemaking. In addition, the procedures of the new process can be

found in the July 15. 1996, Federal Register notice which outlines the planning and prioritization

process, data collection and analysis. and decision making criteria.

To initiate this rulemaking, the Department is convening a workshop to propose the analytical

framework for developing the water heaters standards. This workshop would include a

discussion of the different methodologies and the relationships among various analyses. It would

identify possible tools to be used and contractor qualifications, as well as, a discussion of

approaches to be taken for the screening and engineering analysis.

The workshop for water heater standards will be held on June 24, 1997, at the U.S. Department

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.. Washington, DC. 20585-0121 in room 1E-245 from

9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. I have enclosed a preliminary draft agenda for the workshop.

If you have any questions, or plan to attend the workshop, or wish to obtain material for the

workshop, please contact Bryan Berringer at (202) 586-0371.

Sincerely,

Micnae''. lcCabe, Director

Office of Codes and Standards

Building Technology, State and

Community Programs

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Enclosure

®3BU Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

EE-RM-97-900 COMMENT 01A
# C_2007009EN.01000701.xml

| 13.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 January 2007

(2007/C 9/07)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2893 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 155,24 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4529 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,66165 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1115 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6125 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 91,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3435 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5784 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,755 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 253,05 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6977 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8732 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4069 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 34,698 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8485 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6544 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5136 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0550 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8692 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9918 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 212,01 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3538 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0545 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3686 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 771,31 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5312 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,176 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,2970 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,337 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2893

JPY

Japanese yen

155,24

DKK

Danish krone

7,4529

GBP

Pound sterling

0,66165

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1115

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6125

ISK

Iceland króna

91,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3435

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5784

CZK

Czech koruna

27,755

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

253,05

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6977

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8732

RON

Romanian leu

3,4069

SKK

Slovak koruna

34,698

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8485

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6544

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5136

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0550

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8692

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9918

KRW

South Korean won

1 212,01

ZAR

South African rand

9,3538

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0545

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3686

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 771,31

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5312

PHP

Philippine peso

63,176

RUB

Russian rouble

34,2970

THB

Thai baht

46,337

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

89-3 

April 18, 1989 

OPINION: 

 [*1] 

I write in response to your letter requesting the opinion of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC")

as to whether the reallocation liability described in § 4219(c)(1)(D) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

of 1974, as amended ("ERISA") and 29 C.F.R. pt. 2648 applies: (1) to an employer that withdrew from a multiemployer

plan (the "Plan") in the 1986 Plan year when the Plan terminates before the last day of the 1988 Plan year; and (2) to an

employer that withdrew in the 1986 Plan year when the Plan terminates on the last day of the 1988 Plan year. 

ERISA § 4219(c)(1)(D) requires that, upon a mass withdrawal from a multiemployer plan, there be a complete

allocation of the total unfunded vested benefits of the plan. This allocation is to be consistent with rules issued by the

PBGC. These rules are provided in 29 C.F.R. pt. 2648. Section 2648.3(c) of these rules identifies employers that, upon

a mass withdrawal, are allocated the remaining unfunded vested benefits ("reallocation liability") after their initial

liability and any redetermined liability have been assessed: 

An employer shall be liable for reallocation liability if the employer withdrew pursuant [*2] to an agreement or

arrangement to withdraw from a multiemployer plan from which substantially all employers withdrew pursuant to an

agreement or arrangement to withdraw, or if the employer withdrew after the beginning of the second full plan year

preceding the date of plan termination from a plan that terminated by the withdrawal of every employer. . . . 

Thus, in the case of a mass withdrawal termination, each employer that withdrew in the year of the Plan's termination

or during the two Plan years that precede the Plan year in which termination occurs is subject to reallocation liability.

Accordingly, if the Plan terminates on any day during the 1988 Plan year, including the last day, reallocation liability

applies to each employer that withdrew in the 1986 Plan year. 

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please contact the attorney handling

this matter, John Foster, at (202) 778-8850. 

Carol Connor Flowe 

General Counsel
# C_2007020EN.01003801.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/38

---

Action brought on 31 October 2006 — Molina Solano v Europol

(Case F-124/06)

(2007/C 20/57)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Beatriz Molina Solano (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The Tribunal is asked to:

| — | annul the decision taken on the applicant's complaint by Europol on 1 August 2006 and Europol's initial decision of 27 January 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision taken on the applicant's complaint by Europol on 1 August 2006 and Europol's initial decision of 27 January 2006;

| — | order Europol to award the applicant an incremental point with effect from 1 January 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to award the applicant an incremental point with effect from 1 January 2005;

| — | order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following a complaint, Europol awarded the applicant one of the incremental points referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations with effect from 1 July 2005. In her action, the applicant asks that that incremental point should be awarded to her with effect from 1 January 2005. In support of her claims, she asserts that, according to the policy for managing incremental points which Europol was applying at the time of the facts at issue, the mark which she had obtained gave her the right to a step with effect from 1 January 2005. In denying her this benefit, which had been accorded to other agents who had received comparable marks, Europol was in breach of the principle of equal treatment. The applicant relies in addition on breach of the principles of legal certainty and impartiality, and the prohibition on acting arbitrarily.

---