alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010328EN.01005602.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/56

---

Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Divandari v Council

(Case T-497/10)

()

2010/C 328/87

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ali Divandari (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul paragraph 1 of Table A of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 (1) in so far as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul paragraph 1 of Table A of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 (1) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

1

| — | annul paragraph 2 of Table A of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (2) in so far as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul paragraph 2 of Table A of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (2) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

2

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation No 668/2010 and of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.

The four pleas in law relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to the first, second and fifth pleas relied on in Case T-492/10 Melli Bank v Council.

Melli Bank

Council

---

(1)  Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25

1

(2)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39

2

---
#### § 77.6 Applicability of this subpart.

All references in this subpart to the tuberculosis status of States and zones pertain to such status for cattle and bison only.
# C_2013344EN.01001102.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-450/11) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Discrepancies between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special scheme to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘customer’)

2013/C 344/17

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and R. Laires, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation providing for the application of the special travel agency taxation scheme to transactions that travel agencies make in favour of recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Portuguese Republic; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Portuguese Republic;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.

1

---
# C_2012126EN.01000301.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Rennes — France) — Martial Huet v Université de Bretagne occidentale

(Case C-251/11) (1)

1

(Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 5(1) - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Measures to prevent the abuse of such contracts - Conversion of the previous fixed-term contract into a contract of indefinite duration - Obligation to reproduce in identical terms the principal clauses of the previous fixed-term contract)

2012/C 126/04

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Rennes

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martial Huet

Applicant:

Defendant: Université de Bretagne occidentale

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrative Court of Rennes — Interpretation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector — Obligation to reproduce in identical terms the principal clauses of the previous fixed-term contract where that contract is converted into an employment contract of indefinite duration — Principles of equivalence and of non-reduction of the earlier level of protection

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State, which provides in its national legislation for conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into an employment contract of indefinite duration when the fixed-term employment contracts have reached a certain duration, is not obliged to require that the employment contract of indefinite duration reproduces in identical terms the principal clauses set out in the previous contract. However, in order not to undermine the practical effect of, or the objectives pursued by, Directive 1999/70, that Member State must ensure that the conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into an employment contract of indefinite duration is not accompanied by material amendments to the clauses of the previous contract in a way that is, overall, unfavourable to the person concerned when the subject-matter of that person’s tasks and the nature of his functions remain unchanged.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011

1

---
### §§4421, 4422. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, §740, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1729

Section 4421, Pub. L. 102–242, title IV, §408, as added Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(5) [title I, §112(a)(3)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–391; amended Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, §749(i), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1748, defined terms used in this subchapter.

Section 4422, Pub. L. 102–242, title IV, §409, as added Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(5) [title I, §112(a)(3)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–392, related to multilateral clearing organizations.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on the later of 360 days after July 21, 2010, or, to the extent a provision of subtitle A (§§711–754) of title VII of Pub. L. 111–203 requires a rulemaking, not less than 60 days after publication of the final rule or regulation implementing such provision of subtitle A, see section 754 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as an Effective Date of 2010 note under section 1a of Title 7, Agriculture.
### **CHAPTER 103—CONTROLLING THE ASSAULT OF NON-SOLICITED PORNOGRAPHY AND MARKETING**

Sec.
7701.
Congressional findings and policy.
7702.
Definitions.
7703.
Prohibition against predatory and abusive commercial e-mail.
7704.
Other protections for users of commercial electronic mail.
7705.
Businesses knowingly promoted by electronic mail with false or misleading transmission information.
7706.
Enforcement generally.
7707.
Effect on other laws.
7708.
Do-Not-E-Mail registry.
7709.
Study of effects of commercial electronic mail.
7710.
Improving enforcement by providing rewards for information about violations; labeling.
7711.
Regulations.
7712.
Application to wireless.
7713.
Separability.
** **

**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

** **

** **

**  **

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.  33-89000, 333-40, 333-13651, 333-41999,  333-75999, 333-78389, 333-52306, 333-46004and 333-108885 of Gables ResidentialTrust on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 33-83054, 333-00618, 333-27177, 333-37190, 333-56334, 333-83916and 333-104183 of Gables Residential Trust on Form S-8 of our report dated March 11, 2004 (which report expresses an unqualified opinionand includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of SFAS No. 144, SFAS No. 145, and Emerging Issues Task Force Abstracts, Topic No. D-42) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gables Residential Trust for the year ended December 31,2003.

 /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP     

Atlanta, GeorgiaMarch 11, 2004
# C_2010148EN.01003402.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/34

---

Action brought on 22 March 2010 — Saupiquet v Commission

(Case T-131/10)

2010/C 148/60

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Saupiquet (Courbevoie Cedex, France) (represented by: R. Ledru, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul, in full, Commission Decision No REM 07/08 of 16 December 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in full, Commission Decision No REM 07/08 of 16 December 2009;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10005 final of 16 December 2009, informing the French authorities that the repayment to the applicant of import duties on cans of tuna originating in Thailand is not justified (file REM 07/08).

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to guarantee that importers, established in France or in other Member States in which customs offices are legally closed on Sundays, who lodged their customs declarations on Monday 2 July 2007 would have equal and non-discriminatory access to quota No 09.2005 for the period 2007/2008,

| — | by not taking, in the circumstances of the present case in which that quota was opened on Sunday, 1 July 2007, regulatory measures that would have made it possible to treat those importers in a manner that is equal and free from discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

—

by not taking, in the circumstances of the present case in which that quota was opened on Sunday, 1 July 2007, regulatory measures that would have made it possible to treat those importers in a manner that is equal and free from discrimination;

| — | by not postponing the date of opening of that quota until Monday, 2 July 2007, even though the quota in question was very critical. |
| --- | --- |

—

by not postponing the date of opening of that quota until Monday, 2 July 2007, even though the quota in question was very critical.

---
**Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 —
Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi‐Design and Others (Representation of a triangular surface with black dots)

(Case T‐331/10)**

Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark representing a surface with black dots — Shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Signs constituted solely by the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Definition (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(e)(ii)) (see paras 26-28)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1235/2008‐1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S, of the one part, and Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd, of the other. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1235/2008‐1); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Pi‐Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S to bear their own respective costs. |
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.29
THIRD AMENDMENT
TO THE
ALBEMARLE CORPORATION
EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
In accordance with Section 12.1 of the Albemarle Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, as Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2013 (the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
1.A new paragraph (d) is added to Section 3.1 of the Plan to read as follows:
"(d)    Rockwood Employees
(i)Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section 3.1, the provisions of this paragraph (d) shall apply to any employees who were employees of Rockwood Specialties Inc. or any of its affiliates as of January 12, 2015 ("Rockwood Employees") when the closing of the acquisition of Rockwood by the Company took place (the "Closing").
(ii)With respect to Rockwood Employees who became Albemarle employees as of the Closing, such Employees shall be eligible for the Plan (A) for purposes of receiving Employer allocations under Section 4.2 of the Plan, as of the Closing, and (B) for purposes of making Voluntary Compensation Deferrals under Section 4.1 of the Plan, as of January 1, 2016.
(iii)With respect to all Rockwood Employees eligible for the Plan and not covered by subparagraph (ii) of this Section 3.1(d), such Employees, once otherwise eligible for the Plan, shall become participants in the Plan as of the later of (a) January 1, 2016, or (b) the date of completion of the conversion of the Rockwood payroll to the Albemarle payroll platform.
(iv)With respect to eligibility for Voluntary Compensation Deferrals by the Rockwood Employees described in this paragraph (d), notwithstanding Section 3.1(a)(ii)(B) hereof, such eligibility shall be effective immediately upon the employees' meeting the eligibility requirements of this paragraph (d)."
2.The provisions of this Third Amendment shall be effective as of January 12, 2015.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation by its duly authorized officer has caused these presents to be signed this 31st day of July, 2015.
ALBEMARLE CORPORATION
	
		
	By:
	/s/ Susan M. Kelliher
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131890 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131890 

 COA: 269679 
 Wayne CC: 87-002623

WILLIE MERRIWEATHER, a/k/a

WILLIAM MERRIWEATHER 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 6
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                           23,344
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                          39,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                  12,683
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,183
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                             0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                          8,293
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                        9,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                             17,761
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                        46,641
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                               49
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                               49
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                       25,800
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                              0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                        16,155
<NET-ASSETS>                                    34,422
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                                    0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                                6,140
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                                   3,990
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          2,150
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                       185,230
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                      (7,861)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                          170,216
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                        2,150
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                       168,066
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                              0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                          0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                                  0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                        (29,523)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                       (12,604)
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                            0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                            2,139
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,123
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                                  3,990
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                            46,238
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                         1,201.48
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                  44.50
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                       3,670.82
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                             44.50
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                     3,478.29
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                             712.40
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                  0.086


</TABLE>
# C_2012006EN.01001601.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/16

---

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — BASF Schweiz and BASF Lampertheim v Commission

(Case T-25/10) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for tin stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Withdrawal of the decision - Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 6/28

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: BASF Schweiz AG, formerly BASF Speciality Chemicals Holding GmbH (Basel, Switzerland), and BASF Lampertheim GmbH (Lampertheim, Germany) (represented by: F. Montag and T. Wilson, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Sauer, Agents, and W. Berg, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers) in so far as those provisions concern the applicants and, in the alternative, an application for a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants in Article 2 of that decision.

Operative part of the order

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. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

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(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Evaluationof agency non-code Layered Pressure Vessels (LPVs)**
 
Volumes: One | Two
 
SuDoc Number:NAS 1.15:2014-218505
Item Number:0830-D (online)
CGP systemNumber:000939324
 
May 16, 2018
§ 2.103 Statement of policy respecting take or pay provisions in gas purchase contracts. ( a ) Recognizing that take or pay contract obligations may be shielding the prices of deregulated and other higher cost gas from market constraints, the Commission sets forth its general policy regarding prepayments for natural gas pursuant to take or pay provisions in gas contracts and amendments thereto between producers and interstate pipelines which become effective December 23, 1982. The provisions of this policy statement do not establish a binding norm but instead provide general guidance. In particular cases, both the underlying validity of the policy and its application to particular facts may be challenged and are subject to further consideration.
( b ) With respect to gas purchase contracts entered into on or after December 23, 1982, the Commission intends to apply a rebuttable presumption in general rate cases that prepayments to producers will not be given rate base treatment if the prepayments are made pursuant to take or pay requirements in such gas purchase contracts or amendments which exceed 75 percent of annual deliverability.
(Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717-717w; Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-621, 92 Stat. 3350, 15 U.S.C. 3301-3432)
[47 FR 57269, Dec. 23, 1982]