alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011173EN.01001002.xml

| 11.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/10

---

Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission

(Case T-478/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Genetically modified food and feed - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 173/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Département du Gers (France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P Mignard, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Pignataro, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/419/EU of 28 July 2010 renewing the authorisation for continued marketing of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 (SYN-BTØ11-1), authorising foods and food ingredients containing or consisting of field maize Bt11 (SYN-BTØ11-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Decision 2004/657/EC (OJ 2010 L 197, p. 11).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---
§ 112.3 Diluent labels. Each final container of diluent, other than a liquid biological product, packaged with desiccated biological products shall bear a label that includes the following: ( a ) The name—Sterile Diluent.
( b ) True name of the biological product with which the diluent is packaged, except that when the firm packages all desiccated biological products with the same diluent, or two or more types of diluent are used, and the licensees' methods of identification and storage insure that all products are packaged with the correct type of diluent, labels affixed to the containers of diluent are exempt from this provision.
( c ) The recoverable quantity of contents in cubic centimeters (cc) or milliliters (ml).
( d ) A serial number by which the diluent can be identified with the manufacturer's records of preparation;
( e ) Name and address of the licensee or the permittee;
( f ) In the case of a diluent with which a desiccated biological product is to come in contact while the diluent is in its original container; and, ( 1 ) Is in a multiple-dose container, a positive warning that all of the biological product shall be used at the time the container is first opened; and/or
( 2 ) The biological product is composed of viable or dangerous organisms or viruses, the notice, “Inactivate unused contents before disposal.”
( g ) The establishment license number or the permit number, as the case may be, in one of the forms provided in § 112.2(a)(3).
[38 FR 12094, May 9, 1973; 38 FR 13476, May 22, 1973, and amended at 39 FR 16856, May 10, 1974; 81 FR 59434, Aug. 30, 2016]
§ 146.11 Inspections. ( a ) Each participating slaughter plant shall be audited at least once annually or a sufficient number of times each year to satisfy the Official State Agency that the participating slaughter plant is in compliance with the provisions of this part. The yearly audit will consist of an evaluation of 2 weeks' worth of records, selected at random, of the following data: ( 1 ) The actual flock slaughter date for each flock. This information must come from a verifiable source. Verifiable sources include electronic record systems that have oversight from the Department's Grain Inspectors, Packers and Stockyards Administration or Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) documents such as FSIS Form 9061-2.
( 2 ) Laboratory test results for each flock slaughtered with the sample collection date and test result. The test must be NPIP-approved and performed in an authorized laboratory of the NPIP.
( b ) A flock will be considered to be conforming to protocol if it meets the requirements as described in § 146.33(a), § 146.43(a), or § 146.53(a).
( c ) Two or more flocks that are found to be not conforming to protocol in the yearly audit for a slaughter plant shall be cause for a deficiency rating for that plant. However, if the root cause for the deficiency was identified, corrected, and documented, the plant will be eligible for an immediate reevaluation of 2 additional weeks' worth of records, again selected at random. If no more than one missed flock is identified in this reevaluation, the plant will be considered in compliance and no further action will be required. Plants found to be deficient must provide a written corrective action plan to the auditor within 2 weeks of receipt of the deficiency rating. A followup audit on the information in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section will occur within 90 days from the receipt of the corrective action plan. Slaughter plants will retain their classification and may continue to use the Plan emblem in § 146.9(a) during this process. A failure on the followup audit may result in disbarment from participation according to the procedures in § 146.12.
( d ) On-site inspections of any participating flocks and premises will be conducted if a State Inspector determines that a breach of testing has occurred for the Plan programs for which the flocks are certified.
( e ) The official H5/H7 LPAI testing records of all participating flocks and slaughter plants shall be examined annually by a State Inspector. Official H5/H7 LPAI testing records shall be maintained for 3 years.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0007) [71 FR 56328, Sept. 26, 2006, as amended at 74 FR 14716, Apr. 1, 2009; 75 FR 10658, Mar. 9, 2010; 81 FR 53250, Aug. 12, 2016]
§ 3.19 Terminal facilities. ( a ) *Placement.* Any person subject to the Animal Welfare regulations (9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3) must not commingle shipments of dogs or cats with inanimate cargo in animal holding areas of terminal facilities.
( b ) *Cleaning, sanitization, and pest control.* All animal holding areas of terminal facilities must be cleaned and sanitized in a manner prescribed in § 3.11(b)(3) of this subpart, as often as necessary to prevent an accumulation of debris or excreta and to minimize vermin infestation and disease hazards. Terminal facilities must follow an effective program in all animal holding areas for the control of insects, ectoparasites, and birds and mammals that are pests to dogs and cats.
( c ) *Ventilation.* Ventilation must be provided in any animal holding area in a terminal facility containing dogs or cats, by means of windows, doors, vents, or air conditioning. The air must be circulated by fans, blowers, or air conditioning so as to minimize drafts, odors, and moisture condensation. Auxiliary ventilation, such as exhaust fans, vents, fans, blowers, or air conditioning must be used in any animal holding area containing dogs and cats, when the ambient temperature is 85 °F (29.5 °C) or higher
( d ) *Temperature.* The ambient temperature in an animal holding area containing dogs or cats must not fall below 45 °F (7.2 °C) or rise above 85 °F (29.5 °C) for more than four consecutive hours at any time dogs or cats are present. The ambient temperature must be measured in the animal holding area by the carrier, intermediate handler, or a person transporting dogs or cats who is subject to the Animal Welfare regulations (9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3), outside any primary enclosure containing a dog or cat at a point not more than 3 feet (0.91 m) away from an outside wall of the primary enclosure, and approximately midway up the side of the enclosure. The preceding requirements are in addition to, not in place of, all other requirements pertaining to climatic conditions in parts 2 and 3 of this chapter.
( e ) *Shelter.* Any person subject to the Animal Welfare regulations (9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3) holding a live dog or cat in an animal holding area of a terminal facility must provide the following: ( 1 ) *Shelter from sunlight and extreme heat.* Shade must be provided that is sufficient to protect the dog or cat from the direct rays of the sun.
( 2 ) *Shelter from rain or snow.* Sufficient protection must be provided to allow the dogs and cats to remain dry during rain, snow, and other precipitation.
( f ) *Duration.* The length of time any person subject to the Animal Welfare regulations (9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3) can hold dogs and cats in animal holding areas of terminal facilities upon arrival is the same as that provided in § 3.14(f).
[56 FR 6486, Feb. 15, 1991, as amended at 63 FR 10499, Mar. 4, 1998. Redesignated and amended at 85 FR 28798, 28799, May 13, 2020]
# C_2010288EN.01005402.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/54

---

Action brought on 26 August 2010 — Milux v OHMI (RECTALCONTROL)

(Case T-352/10)

()

(2010/C 288/101)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Milux Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2010 in case R 1443/2009-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2010 in case R 1443/2009-4;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RECTALCONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment to the facts in this case; in the alternative, infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.

---
# C_2015302EN.01003301.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Nedri Spanstaal v Commission

(Case T-391/10) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Quota fixing and price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Relevant turnover - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))

(2015/C 302/42)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nedri Spanstaal BV (Venlo, Netherlands) (represented initially by M. Slotboom and B. Haan, and subsequently by M. Slotboom, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, S. Noë and V. Bottka, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nedri Spanstaal BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nedri Spanstaal BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

1

---
# MAINTENANCE MANUAL

INSPECTION DATE REPAIRS NEEDED REPAIRED (Y/N)
# C_2012227EN.01003501.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/35

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2012 — Guittet v Commission

(Case F-31/10) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Former official - Social security - Accident - Closure of the procedure for the application of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Temporal application of the scale annexed to the new version of the rules concerning insurance against accidents and occupational diseases - Length of the procedure)

2012/C 227/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Christian Guittet (Cannes, France) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents, and J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the decision to close the procedure opened under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations by granting the applicant a rate of permanent invalidity of 64,5 % and, secondly, the application for compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 27 July 2008 to close the procedure opened under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union following the accident to Mr Guittet on 8 December 2003; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 27 July 2008 to close the procedure opened under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union following the accident to Mr Guittet on 8 December 2003;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Guittet the sum of EUR 2 500; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Guittet the sum of EUR 2 500;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Guittet. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Guittet.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010, p. 59.

1

---
# C_2007096EN.01002805.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-253/06) (1)

1

(2007/C 96/55)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 30.9.2006.

1

---
#### Lucy A. Jefferson, Appellant, v. Loren B. Bangs and Others, Respondents.

Judgment unanimously. affirmed, with costs. 'No opinion. -Sewell, J., not sitting.
#### § 590.144 Authority of applicant.

Proof of authority of any person applying for inspection service may be required at the discretion of the Administrator.
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Rural Development Launches COVID-19 Resource Webpage

WASHINGTON, March 27, 2020 – USDA Rural Development has launched a COVID-19 resource page to 

keep our customers, partners, and stakeholders continuously updated on actions taken by the Agency to help 

rural residents, businesses, and communities impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak.

Visit www.rd.usda.gov/coronavirus for information on Rural Development loan payment assistance, application 

deadline extensions, and more. 

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
# C_2011013EN.01004202.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/42

---

Action brought on 5 October 2010 — Ashbrook and Others v Commission

(Case F-99/10)

()

2011/C 13/84

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Michael Ashbrook (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: B. Cortese, C. Cortese and F. Spitaleri, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s decisions, reproduced in the applicants’ pay slips, to limit the adjustment of their salaries, with effect from July 2009, to an increase of 1,85 % in the context of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009, and claim for compensation.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decisions, contained in the applicants’ pay slips for January 2010 and the months thereafter, and in their slips concerning arrears of salary for 2009, in so far as those decisions apply a rate of adjustment of 1,85 % instead of a rate of 3,7 %; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decisions, contained in the applicants’ pay slips for January 2010 and the months thereafter, and in their slips concerning arrears of salary for 2009, in so far as those decisions apply a rate of adjustment of 1,85 % instead of a rate of 3,7 %;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the difference between the amount of remuneration paid in application of Regulation No 1296/09 until the date of delivery of judgment in this case and the amount which should have been paid to them if the adjustment had been calculated correctly, together with interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations applicable in the periods concerned, plus 3,5 percentage points, for the period starting with the date on which sums principally claimed were due; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the difference between the amount of remuneration paid in application of Regulation No 1296/09 until the date of delivery of judgment in this case and the amount which should have been paid to them if the adjustment had been calculated correctly, together with interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations applicable in the periods concerned, plus 3,5 percentage points, for the period starting with the date on which sums principally claimed were due;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2011113EN.01001402.xml

| 9.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/14

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2011 — Nencini v Parliament

(Case T-560/10 R)

(Interim measures - Member of the European Parliament - Recovery of allowances for parliamentary assistance and travel - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)

2011/C 113/29

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Riccardo Nencini (Barberino di Mugello, Italy) (represented by: F. Bertini, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, A. Caiola and D. Moore, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of operation of various decisions of the European Parliament ordering the recovery of parliamentary allowances allegedly unduly paid

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
### §546. Deposit of damage payments

Whenever an aid to navigation or other property belonging to the Coast Guard is damaged or destroyed by a private person, and such private person or his agent shall pay to the satisfaction of the proper official of the Coast Guard for the cost of repair or replacement of such property, the Commandant may accept and deposit such payments, through proper officers of the Fiscal Service, Treasury Department, in special deposit accounts in the Treasury, for payment therefrom to the person or persons repairing or replacing the damaged property and refundment of amounts collected in excess of the cost of the repairs or replacements concerned. In the event that repair or replacement of the damaged property is effected by the Coast Guard, the appropriations bearing the cost thereof and current at the time collection is made shall be reimbursed from the special deposit account.

(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 547, §642; renumbered §546, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §105(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4200.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 33, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §721a (Aug. 16, 1937, ch. 665, §2, 50 Stat. 667).

Changes were made in phraseology. 81st Congress, House Report No. 557.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 642 of this title as this section.