alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007042EN.01001802.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/18

---

Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-528/06)

(2007/C 42/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium 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 2003/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive into domestic law expired on 1 July 2005.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90.

1

---
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60734 Summary Calendar

__________________ FERMIN CAMPOS-PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

A41 846 997
- - - - - - - - - - July 18, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit judges. PER CURIAM: * Fermin Campos-Perez petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that he was deportable under subsection 241(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(C). Campos argues that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) did not prove that he was convicted of a firearm offense within the meaning of § 1251(a)(2)(C). He argues that the record of conviction doesnot indicate that the weapon he was convicted of carrying was in

fact a firearm. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Campos' conviction for carrying a weapon was a firearm offense for which he was deportable under § 1251(a)(2)(C). See Faddoul v. INS , 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). Campos has not presented compelling evidence to the contrary. See INS v. EliasZacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992); Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). The petition for review is DENIED.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Pentagon Force Protection Agency

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Our Agency    -  Leadership      -  Chris Bargery             
    -  Lewis Ratchford Jr             
    -  Shelley A Verdejo             
    -  Dr. James A. Day             
    -  Woodrow G. Kusse 
  -  Publications             
  -  Our Mission, Vision & Values             
  -  History             
  -  PFPA Intranet (PFPA Only)             
  -  PFPA Extranet (CAC Only) 
-  Topics    -  Visiting the Pentagon             
  -  CAC Issuance             
  -  Parking Information             
  -  Flags Over Pentagon             
  -  Vehicle Towing             
  -  Reporting Suspicious Activity             
  -  Lost & Found 
-  Careers		 
-  Contact		 

HomeTopicsParking Information

***PROTECTING THOSE WHO PROTECT OUR NATION​***

Pentagon Parking

Pentagon Parking Map

Pentagon Parking

**HOME /  PRIVACY ACT  /   NO FEAR ACT /   ACCESSIBILITY  /  FOIA  /  QUICK LINKSPFPA Extranet (CAC Only)   /   PFPA Intranet (PFPA Only)**

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.102 What is excess or surplus government property of other agencies? ( a ) “Excess government property” is real or personal property under the control of a Federal agency, other than BIA and IHS, which is not required for the agency's needs and the discharge of its responsibilities.
( b ) “Surplus government property” means excess real or personal property that is not required for the needs of and the discharge of the responsibilities of all Federal agencies that has been declared surplus by the General Services Administration (GSA).
### §1701k. Right to redeem property on which United States has lien

The right to redeem provided for by section 2410(c) of title 28, shall not arise in any case in which the subordinate lien or interest of the United States derives from the issuance of insurance under the National Housing Act, as amended [12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.].

(Apr. 20, 1950, ch. 94, title V, §505, 64 Stat. 81; Pub. L. 85–857, §13(q), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1266.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The National Housing Act, as amended, referred to in text, is act June 27, 1934, ch. 847, 48 Stat. 1246, which is classified principally to this chapter (§1701 et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1701 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Housing Act of 1950, and not as part of the National Housing Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1958—Pub. L. 85–857 struck out provisions which related to the right to redeem in cases in which the subordinate lien or interest derives from the issuance of guaranties of insurance under the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1958 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 85–857 effective Jan. 1, 1959, see section 2 of Pub. L. 85–857, set out as an Effective Date note preceding part 1 of Title 38, Veterans' Benefits.

#### Act April 20, 1950, as Controlling Law; Housing and Home Finance Administrator Unaffected

Act Apr. 20, 1950, ch. 94, title V, §509, 64 Stat. 81, provided that: "Insofar as the provisions of any other law are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act [see Tables for classification] the provisions of this Act shall be controlling: Provided, That nothing contained in this Act shall affect the authority of the Housing and Home Finance Administrator under title II of Public Law 266, Eighty-first Congress [Act Aug. 24, 1949, ch. 506, title II, 63 Stat. 657]."

#### Powers and Authorities of Act April 20, 1950, as Cumulative; Separability

Act Apr. 20, 1950, ch. 94, title V, §510, 64 Stat. 81, provided that: "Except as may be otherwise expressly provided in this Act [see Tables for classification] all powers and authorities conferred by this Act shall be cumulative and additional to and not in derogation of any powers and authorities otherwise existing. Notwithstanding any other evidences of the intention of Congress, it is hereby declared to be the controlling intent of Congress that if any provisions of this Act, or the application thereof to any persons or circumstances, shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this Act or its applications to other persons and circumstances, but shall be confined in its operation to the provisions of this Act, or the application thereof to the persons and circumstances, directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered."
# C_2006326EN.01003902.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/39

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Wien (Austria) lodged on 6 November 2006 — Gabriele Walderdorff v Finanzamt Waldviertel

(Case C-451/06)

(2006/C 326/83)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gabriele Walderdorff

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Waldviertel

Defendant:

Questions referred

Is Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) (as last amended by Council Directive 2006/69/EC of 24 July 2006 (2)), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Sixth Directive’, to be interpreted as meaning that the grant of the entitlement to fish, for consideration, in the form of a lease concluded for a period of 10 years

1

2

| 1. | by the owner of the property on which the body of water in respect of which the entitlement was granted is located, |
| --- | --- |

1.

by the owner of the property on which the body of water in respect of which the entitlement was granted is located,

| 2. | by the holder of fishing rights in respect of a body of water located on public land |
| --- | --- |

2.

by the holder of fishing rights in respect of a body of water located on public land

constitutes ‘the leasing or letting of immovable property’?

---

(1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 221, p. 9.

2

---
### [§2374b. Renumbered §4027]
# C_2007082EN.01004701.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/47

---

Action brought on 16 February 2007 — IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants v Commission

(Case T-41/07)

(2007/C 82/99)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Pitschas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 4 December 2006 (C (2006) 6452) on the recovery of payments in the amount of EUR 318 000 together with default interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 4 December 2006 (C (2006) 6452) on the recovery of payments in the amount of EUR 318 000 together with default interest;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's decision C (2006) 6452 of 4 December 2006 on the recovery of advance payments received by the applicant for the ECODATA project before the cancellation of the decision to award the grant. The decision was made pursuant to Article 256 EC.

The cancellation of the decision to grant a subsidy for the creation of a databank on ecological tourism in Europe was made by decision of the Commission of 13 May 2005 and was challenged by the applicant before the Court of First Instance (see Case T-297/05).

The applicant argues in support of its claim that the contested decision is unlawful. It derives from an unlawful cancellation decision, the unlawfulness of which necessarily extends to the contested decision. Furthermore, the contested decision is a unilateral measure, although the legal claim arising from that decision is contractual in nature and can therefore be pursued only by means of a civil claim before the competent national courts of a Member State.

---
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.121 What happens during the preplanning phase and can an Indian tribe or tribal organization perform any of the activities involved in this process? ( a ) The application and ranking process for developing a priority listing of projects varies between agencies. There are, however, steps in the selection process that are common to most selection processes. An Indian tribe or tribal organization that wishes to secure a construction project should contact the appropriate agency to determine the specific steps involved in the application and selection process used to fund specific types of projects. When a priority process is used in the selection of construction projects, the steps involved in the application and ranking process are as follows: ( 1 ) *Application.* The agency solicits applications from Indian tribes or tribal organizations. In the request for applications, the Secretary provides specific information regarding the type of project to be funded, the objective criteria that will be used to evaluate applications, the points or weight that each criterion will be assigned, and the time when applications are due. An Indian tribe or tribal organization may prepare the application (technical assistance from the agency, within resources available, shall be provided upon request from an Indian tribe or tribal organization) or may rely upon the agency to prepare the application.
( 2 ) *Ranking/Prioritization.* The Secretary evaluates the applications based on the criteria provided as part of the application preparation process. The Secretary applies only criteria and weights assigned to each criteria that were disclosed to the Indian tribe or tribal organization during the application stage. The applications are then ranked in order from the application that best meets application criteria to the application that least meet the application criteria.
( 3 ) *Validation.* Before final acceptance of a ranked application, the information, such as demographic information, deficiency levels reported in application, the condition of existing facilities, and program housing needs, is validated. During this process, additional information may be developed by the Indian tribe or tribal organization in support of the original information or the Secretary may designate a representative of the Department to conduct an on-site review of the information contained in the application.
( b ) [Reserved]
### §3047. Programs for training directors and staff of eligible cooperatives, and public education; development and availability; scope and implementation

The Office shall develop and make available, alone or in concert with other organizations, a program for training directors and staff of eligible cooperatives to improve their understanding of their responsibilities; the problems of and solutions for effective and efficient operation of their organizations or of cooperatives in general; and may by any means it deems appropriate, conduct membership studies, provide membership education programs, and programs for informing consumers and the general public of the advantages of cooperative action. Management supervision, review, and consultations shall be available from the Office to any eligible cooperative.

(Pub. L. 95–351, title II, §207, Aug. 20, 1978, 92 Stat. 513.)
# C_2006165EN.01001401.xml

| 15.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce — Sezione distaccata di Gallipoli — lodged on 14 April 2006 — Criminal proceedings against Aniello Gallo and Gianluca Damonte

(Case C-191/06)

(2006/C 165/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Lecce — Sezione distaccata di Gallipoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Aniello Gallo and Gianluca Damonte

Question referred

Is Article 4(4 bis) of Law No 401/89 incompatible — with resultant effects on the domestic legal system — with the principles laid down in Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty on establishment and freedom to provide cross-border services, also in light of the conflict between the interpretations in the decisions of the European Court of Justice (in particular in the judgment in Case C-243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR I-13031) and decision No 23271/04 of the Suprema Corte di Cassazione a Sezioni Unite (United Chambers of the Supreme Court of Cassation)? In particular, clarification is sought as to the applicability of the criminal provisions set out in the charge brought against Aniello GALLO and Gianluca DAMONTE in the Italian State.

Gambelli and Others

---
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Salatti III, Appellant, v Crucible Materials Corporation et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 793]

Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed December 9, 2005, which ruled that claimant’s request for rescission of a direction to reimburse the employer was untimely.

Claimant, a data entry clerk, suffered work-related injuries to his left wrist and was awarded lost wage benefits in a decision filed by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) on May 2, 2003. That decision also directed claimant’s employer to be reimbursed “as appropriate.” The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier thereafter sought review from the Workers’ Compensation Board and, in response to that application, claimant’s attorney submitted a rebuttal wherein he stated that “the decision of [May 2, 2003] is fully supported by the record [and] should be affirmed in all respects.” The Board, in a decision filed August 5, 2003, modified the WCU’s May 2, 2003 decision by removing the phrase “payable by Hartford without prejudice” and otherwise affirmed.

The employer was reimbursed in accordance with the May 2, 2003 decision and, subsequently, claimant’s attorney, among other things, asserted for the first time that the direction of the WCLJ to reimburse the employer should be reversed. In a decision filed June 8, 2005, the WCLJ, among other things, noted that the May 2, 2003 decision had previously been appealed on various other grounds and the Board had not disturbed the direction to reimburse the employer. Citing claimant’s failure to raise that issue earlier, the WCLJ declined to consider it. *1146Claimant’s application for full Board review, limited to the issue of employer reimbursement, was denied, prompting this appeal.

Significantly, “[t]he Board has broad discretion to accept or reject applications for review filed after the expiration of the 30-day period set forth in Workers’ Compensation Law § 23” *(Matter of Wilkinson v Bendix Friction Corp.,*32 AD3d 636, 637 [2006]). Here, in denying claimant’s application, the Board noted that claimant’s appeal, while ostensibly one from the June 8, 2005 decision, actually sought review of a finding arising out of the May 2, 2003 decision, which claimant did not timely appeal. Inasmuch as such a conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and is not an abuse of the Board’s discretion, we decline to disturb it *(see Matter of Doner v Nassau County Police Dept.,*24 AD3d 978, 978-979 [2005]).

Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.70 What elements are included in the compensation for a lease entered into between the Secretary and an Indian tribe or tribal organization for a building owned or leased by the Indian tribe or tribal organization that is used for administration or delivery of services under the Act? To the extent that no element is duplicative, the following elements may be included in the lease compensation: ( a ) Rent (sublease);
( b ) Depreciation and use allowance based on the useful life of the facility based on acquisition costs not financed with Federal funds;
( c ) Contributions to a reserve for replacement of facilities;
( d ) Principal and interest paid or accrued;
( e ) Operation and maintenance expenses, to the extent not otherwise included in rent or use allowances, including, but not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Water, sewage;
( 2 ) Utilities;
( 3 ) Fuel;
( 4 ) Insurance;
( 5 ) Building management supervision and custodial services;
( 6 ) Custodial and maintenance supplies;
( 7 ) Pest control;
( 8 ) Site maintenance (including snow and mud removal);
( 9 ) Trash and waste removal and disposal;
( 10 ) Fire protection/fire fighting services and equipment;
( 11 ) Monitoring and preventive maintenance of building structures and systems, including but not limited to: ( i ) Heating/ventilation/air conditioning;
( ii ) Plumbing;
( iii ) Electrical;
( iv ) Elevators;
( v ) Boilers;
( vi ) Fire safety system;
( vii ) Security system; and
( viii ) Roof, foundation, walls, floors.
( 12 ) Unscheduled maintenance;
( 13 ) Scheduled maintenance (including replacement of floor coverings, lighting fixtures, repainting);
( 14 ) Security services;
( 15 ) Management fees; and
( 16 ) Other reasonable and necessary operation or maintenance costs justified by the contractor;
( f ) Repairs to buildings and equipment;
( g ) Alterations needed to meet contract requirements;
( h ) Other reasonable expenses; and
( i ) The fair market rental for buildings or portions of buildings and land, exclusive of the Federal share of building construction or acquisition costs, or the fair market rental for buildings constructed with Federal funds exclusive of fee or profit, and for land.