alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006281EN.01002401.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 September 2006 — DNA Verkot Oy

(Case C-366/06)

(2006/C 281/38)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DNA Verkot Oy

Applicant:

Other parties: Sonera Mobile Networks Oy, Viestintävirasto

Other parties:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 4(1) on the right of appeal of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) be interpreted in such a way that a telecommunications undertaking must be considered to have a right of appeal against a decision in which the view is taken that a competitor of the telecommunications undertaking concerned does not have significant market power status? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 4(1) on the right of appeal of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) be interpreted in such a way that a telecommunications undertaking must be considered to have a right of appeal against a decision in which the view is taken that a competitor of the telecommunications undertaking concerned does not have significant market power status?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, an answer to the following question is requested:
  Does the requirement in Article 4(1) of Framework Directive 2002/21/EC with regard to taking into account the facts of the case and an effective appeal mechanism mean that a national court may examine the facts of the case, make a legal evaluation, and give judgment in the case, without the Commission's decision under Article 7(4) of the Framework Directive and its reasoning in respect of a market analysis restricting the jurisdiction of the national court? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, an answer to the following question is requested:

Does the requirement in Article 4(1) of Framework Directive 2002/21/EC with regard to taking into account the facts of the case and an effective appeal mechanism mean that a national court may examine the facts of the case, make a legal evaluation, and give judgment in the case, without the Commission's decision under Article 7(4) of the Framework Directive and its reasoning in respect of a market analysis restricting the jurisdiction of the national court?

---

(1)  OJ L 108, p. 33.

1

---
### §1511b. United States fishery trade officers

#### (a) Appointment

For purposes of carrying out export promotion and other fishery development responsibilities, the Secretary of Commerce (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "Secretary") shall appoint not fewer than six officers who shall serve abroad to promote United States fishing interests. These officers shall be knowledgeable about the United States fishing industry, preferably with experience derived from the harvesting, processing, or marketing sectors of the industry or from the administration of fisheries programs. Such officers, who shall be employees of the Department of Commerce, shall have the designation of fishery trade officers.

#### (b) Assignment

Upon the request of the Secretary, the Secretary of State shall officially assign fishery trade officers to such diplomatic missions of the United States as the Secretary designates (three of which shall be those in Brussels, Belgium; Rome, Italy; and Tokyo, Japan) and shall obtain for them diplomatic privileges and immunities equivalent to those enjoyed by foreign service personnel of comparable rank and salary.

#### (c) Functions of fishery trade officers

The functions of fishery trade officers appointed under subsection (a) shall be—

(1) to increase the effectiveness of United States fishery export promotion efforts through such activities as the coordination of market development efforts and the provision of services and facilities for exporters of United States fishery products;

(2) to develop, maintain, and make available to interested persons listings of (A) trade, government, and other organizations that are concerned with, or have an interest in, international trade in United States fishery products, and (B) United States fishery products available for such trade;

(3) to prepare quarterly reports regarding (A) the supply, demand, and prices of each United States fishery product exported, or for which there may be export potential, to the foreign nation or area concerned, and (B) the trade barriers or incentives of such nation or area that affect imports of such products;

(4) to prepare weekly statements regarding the prices for each fishery product for which there may be United States export potential to the foreign nation or area concerned; and

(5) to carry out such other functions as the Secretary may require.

#### (d) Administration

The Secretary of State and the Secretary shall enter into cooperative arrangements concerning the provision of office space, equipment, facilities, clerical services, and such other administrative support as may be required for fishery trade officers and their families.

(Pub. L. 96–561, title II, §211, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3290.)
#### In the Matter of Amy D., Respondent, v David D., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[825 NYS2d 328]

*1233Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Rosalie S. Bailey, J.), entered June 13, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order, among other things, vacated an order of the Support Magistrate and directed respondent to pay a certain percentage of the costs of the therapeutic boarding school that the parties’ son attended.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting respondent a credit for child support paid during the period that the parties’ son resided at the therapeutic boarding school and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of Family Court that requires him to pay 49% of the costs of the therapeutic boarding school that the parties’ son attended. The costs were financed by a 20-year loan obtained by petitioner’s fiancé for which petitioner is liable. The court properly determined that placement of the parties’ son at the therapeutic boarding school was in his best interests. The parties’ son was a drug-addicted runaway who was in poor physical health and suffering from the psychiatric condition known as oppositional defiance disorder. He was thus in need of this extraordinary care *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]). However, because the parties’ son was actually in residence at the therapeutic boarding school in another state, the court should have credited the child support payments made by respondent during the period of such residency against his share of the education loan payments *(see generally Matter of Kellogg v*Kellogg, 300 AD2d 996, 997 [2002]). We therefore modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Family Court to determine following a hearing, if necessary, the amount of the credit to which respondent is entitled and to recalculate respondent’s monthly payments toward the education loan. Present—Gorski, J.E, Smith, Centra and Green, JJ.
# C_2011340EN.01003702.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/37

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 September 2011 — Behnke v Commission

(Case F-68/10) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Officials - 2009 appraisal and promotion exercise - Statement of reasons of the opinion of the Joint Appraisal and Promotion Committee - Manifest error of assessment)

2011/C 340/74

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Thorsten Behnke (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Bersheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to classify the applicant in performance group II and to award him 5 promotion points in his career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, one quarter of the costs incurred by Mr Behnke; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, one quarter of the costs incurred by Mr Behnke;

| 3. | Orders Mr Behnke to pay three quarters of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Behnke to pay three quarters of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.10, p. 74.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5458]



[[Page 13191]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 4, 2011.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Clifford Stanford, Vice 
President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. Teche Holding Company, New Iberia, Louisiana; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the outstanding shares of 
Teche Federal Bank, New Iberia, Louisiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 7, 2011.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2011-5458 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
§ 592.340 Supervision of marking and packaging. ( a ) Evidence of label approval. Inspection program personnel shall authorize the use of official identification on any inspected product when they have evidence that such official identification or packaging material bearing such official identification has been approved in accordance with the provisions of § 592.300.
( b ) Affixing of official identification. No official identification may be affixed to or placed on or caused to be affixed to or placed on any product or container thereof except by an inspection program employee or under the supervision of an inspection program employee or other person authorized by the Administrator. All such products shall have been inspected in accordance with the regulations in this part. Inspection program personnel shall have supervision over the use and handling of all material bearing any official identification.
( c ) Labels for products sold under Government contract. Inspectors-in-charge may approve labels for containers of product sold under a contract specification to governmental agencies when such product is not offered for resale to the general public: Provided, that the contract specifications include complete specific requirements with respect to labeling, and are made available to inspection program personnel.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JEFFREY BIDELMAN,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 185 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 578 

AN ACT 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

the five-month waiting period for disability insurance 

benefits under such title for individuals with amyotrophic 

lateral sclerosis. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 578 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘ALS Disability Insur3 ance Access Act of 2019’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF WAITING PERIOD FOR SOCIAL SE5 CURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS 

6 FOR DISABLED INDIVIDUALS WITH 

7 AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS (ALS). 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223(a)(1) of the Social 

9 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423(a)(1)) is amended in the 

10 matter following subparagraph (E) by striking ‘‘or (ii)’’ 

11 and inserting ‘‘(ii) in the case of an individual who has 

12 been medically determined to have amyotrophic lateral 

13 sclerosis, for each month beginning with the first month 

14 during all of which the individual is under a disability and 

15 in which the individual becomes entitled to such insurance 

16 benefits, or (iii)’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

18 this section shall apply with respect to applications for dis19 ability insurance benefits filed after the date of the enact20 ment of this Act. 

Passed the Senate December 2, 2020. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 578 

AN ACT 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to 

dividuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. ability insurance benefits under such title for ineliminate the five-month waiting period for dis-
# C_2007056EN.01000301.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 January 2007 — Dalmine SpA v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-407/04 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Seamless steel tubes market - Protection of domestic markets - Supply contract - Rights of the defence - Self-incrimination - Anonymous evidence - Fine - Statement of reasons - Equal treatment - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Size of the relevant market and of the undertaking concerned - Attenuating circumstances)

(2007/C 56/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Dalmine SpA (represented by: A. Sinagra, M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and A. L. Valvo, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan and F. Amato, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2004 in Case T-50/00 Dalmine v Commission, partially annulling Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seamless steel tubes) (notified under document number C (1999) 4154), and setting the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants

Dalmine

Commission,

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Dalmine SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dalmine SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.

1

---
# C_2010113EN.01004901.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/49

---

Action brought on 11 February 2010 — Phoenix-Reisen and DRV v Commission

(Case T-58/10)

2010/C 113/79

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Phoenix-Reisen GmbH (Bonn, Germany) and Deutscher Reiseverband eV (DRV) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Gerharz, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision of 20 November 2009, notified by letter of 11 December 2009, by which it refused to take action against State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany in the form of insolvency payments; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision of 20 November 2009, notified by letter of 11 December 2009, by which it refused to take action against State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany in the form of insolvency payments;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants’ action is directed against Commission Decision C(2009) 8707 final of 19 November 2009 concerning State aid NN 55/2009 — Germany; alleged State aid in the form of insolvency payments and the financing thereof. The Commission came to the conclusion in that decision that the measure in question does not constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC.

In support of their claim, the applicants maintain that the subsidisation of insolvent undertakings cannot be justified on the basis of Directive 80/987/EEC (1) as it serves solely to protect the employees of the insolvent undertaking, not the undertaking itself. The applicants take the view that the legal practice applied in the Federal Republic of Germany is such that insolvent undertakings profit directly from insolvency payments. Furthermore, the applicants submit that examples from other countries in the Community show that Directive 80/987/EEC can be transposed without competitors being unlawfully subsidised as a result.

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23).

1

---
Deny and Opinion Filed July 17, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00815-CV IN RE KEITH COLEMAN AND CEDAR CANYON RANCH & VENUE, Relators Original Proceeding Appeal fr om the Probate Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR-13-00345-2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Just ice Bridges, and Justice Brown Opinion by Justice Bridges Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial court to “dismiss without prejudice any and all orders and judgment ” in this case and “issue an order dismissing without prejudice” the motion fo r summary judgment filed by real party in interest. Relators contend that the actions of the trial court were voi d. Mandamus relief is available if a trial court cl early abused its discretion by rendering a void order. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co. , 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceedin g). Relators have not demonstrated that the trial court’s orders we re void. We deny the petition.

150815F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
# C_2012331EN.01002401.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/24

---

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Nickel Institute v Commission

(Case T-180/10) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Classification, packaging and labelling of certain nickel carbonate compounds as dangerous substances - Directives 2008/58/EC and 2009/2/EC - 30th and 31st adaptations to technical progress of Directive 67/548/EEC - Partial refusal of access - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)

(2012/C 331/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nickel Institute (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: initially, K. Nordlander, lawyer, and H. Pearson, Solicitor, and, subsequently, K. Nordlander)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and M. Pere, acting as Agents) and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, K. Petkovska, C. Meyer-Seitz and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 8 February 2010 (reference SG.E3/HP/psi — Ares(2010)65824) concerning the refusal to grant Nickel Institute full access to certain internal documents, in particular to opinions of the Commission’s Legal Service, drawn up in the context of two consecutive procedures which resulted in the classification of, inter alia, certain nickel carbonate compounds in Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs as well as half of the costs incurred by Nickel Institute. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs as well as half of the costs incurred by Nickel Institute.

| 3. | Nickel Institute shall bear half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Nickel Institute shall bear half of its own costs.

| 4. | The Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

---