alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010328EN.01001901.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/19

---

Action brought on 28 September 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-470/10)

()

2010/C 328/34

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and I.V. Rogalski, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic.

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by maintaining a requirement of registration and accreditation by the Portuguese authorities for any temporary provision of services by Community patent agents who are already established in another Member State and by checking the professional qualifications of Community patent agents who travel to Portugal, even in relation to a temporary service, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Articles 5 to 7 of Directive 2005/36/EC (1) on the recognition of professional qualifications. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by maintaining a requirement of registration and accreditation by the Portuguese authorities for any temporary provision of services by Community patent agents who are already established in another Member State and by checking the professional qualifications of Community patent agents who travel to Portugal, even in relation to a temporary service, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU and Articles 5 to 7 of Directive 2005/36/EC (1) on the recognition of professional qualifications.

1

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

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Portuguese legislation at issue prevents a patent and trade mark agent, legally established in another Member State, from exercising his activities of representation before the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI — Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial) in Portugal, when he travels there to provide services to clients located in another Member State, if he has not previously undergone a test examination to be accredited or recognised by that institute.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22

1

---
Winchell v. Lubinski, No. 206-3-11 Rdcv (Teachout, J., Nov. 2, 2011)

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is un official. It has been reformatted from the origina l. The accuracy of the text and the accompanying data included in the Vermont trial cou rt opinion database is not guaranteed.] STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION
Rutland Unit Docket No. 206-3-11 Rdcv

ROBERT WINCHELL,
Plaintiff

v.

THOMAS LUBINSKI,
Defendant
DECISION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

Thomas Lubinski, the defendant in this suit, died i n February 2011. Plaintiff Robert Winchell filed his Complaint on March 29, 20 11. Defendant’s attorney subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss on the groun ds that Mr. Lubinski was deceased at the time of the commencement of the suit. On Septem ber 2, 2011, the court granted the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed the present Moti on for Reconsideration on September 13, 2011.

Plaintiff bases his argument in favor of reconside ration on 12 V.S.A. § 557(a), which tolls the running of the statute of limitatio ns upon the death of a party. As the estate of Thomas Lubinski was opened on August 5, 2 011, the statute allows Plaintiff to initiate a new suit against the estate at any time before August 5, 2013. Plaintiff argues that, because a new suit would be allowed under thi s statue, the court should allow him to amend his original complaint and name the estate as a defendant.

Plaintiff’s argument ignores the jurisdictional ba sis for the dismissal of his action. As the authorities collected in the previous opinio n evidence, the death of a defendant prior to the commencement of a suit leaves the cour t without subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. See, e.g., Glover v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 950 A.2d 335, 339 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008). Though this rule may strike Plaintiff as a technicality, the court is powerless to allow amendment or grant any other for m of relief when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. In the eloquent phrase of the Glover court, “there is, technically, nothing to amend.” Id

.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideratio n is denied

.

Dated at Rutland, Vermont this 2nd day of November , 2011.

________________________ Hon. Mary Miles Teachout

Superior Judge
# C_2014078EN.01000601.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/6

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — Arkema France v Commission

(Joined Cases T-23/10 and T-24/10) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin heat stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding two infringements of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Duration of the infringement - Limitation - Legitimate interest in finding that an infringement was committed - Application for variation - Amount of the fines - Duration of the infringements - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2014/C 78/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented initially by J. Joshua, Barrister, and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer, and subsequently by J. P. Gunther and C. Breuvart, lawyers) (Case T-23/10); and CECA SA (La Garenne-Colombes, France) (represented initially by J. Joshua, Barrister, and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer, and subsequently by J.-P. Gunther and C. Breuvart, lawyers) (Case T-24/10)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mojzesowicz, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Bourke, Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Applications for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 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), or, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Arkema France and CECA SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Arkema France and CECA SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

1

---
#### § 50.22 Claims not allowed.

The Department will not allow claims for payment if the claimant has failed to comply with any of the requirements of this subpart, or there is substantial evidence, as determined by the Administrator, that the claimant has been responsible for any attempt to obtain payment funds for such cattle or other dairy property unlawfully or improperly.
§ 592.500 Payment of fees and charges. ( a ) Fees and charges for voluntary base time rate, overtime inspection service, holiday inspection service, and electronic export applications shall be paid by the interested party making the application for such service, in accordance with the applicable provisions of this section and § 592.510 through § 592.530, both inclusive. If so required by the inspection personnel, such fees and charges shall be paid in advance.
( b ) Fees and charges for any service shall, unless otherwise required pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, be paid by check, draft, or money order payable to the Food Safety Inspection Service and remitted promptly to FSIS.
( c ) Fees and charges for any service under a cooperative agreement with any State or person shall be paid in accordance with the terms of such cooperative agreement.
( d ) Exporters that submit electronic export certificate applications will be charged a fee per application submitted.
( e ) For each calendar year, FSIS will calculate the electronic export certificate application fee, using the following formula: Labor Costs (Technical Support Cost + Export Library Maintenance Cost) + Information Technology Costs (On-going operations Cost + Maintenance Cost + eAuthentication Cost), divided by the number of export applications.
( f ) FSIS will publish notice of the electronic export certificate application fee annually in the Federal Register.
[69 FR 1648, Jan. 12, 2004, as amended at 81 FR 42235, June 29, 2016]
### SUBCHAPTER IV—LICENSING OF PRIVATE REMOTE-SENSING SPACE SYSTEMS
# C_2007069EN.01002902.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/29

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 January 2007 — Verband der Internationalen Caterer in Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-5/05) (1)

1

(2007/C 69/59)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

1

---
**Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2011 – Brighton Collectibles v OHIM – Felmar (BRIGHTON)**

**(Case T-403/10)**

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark BRIGHTON – National word and figurative marks BRIGHTON and earlier signs BRIGHTON – Relative grounds for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) and 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 44-47)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2010 (Case R 408/2009-4) concerning an opposition procedure between Brighton Collectibles Inc. and Felmar. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Brighton Collectibles Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Felmar to bear its own costs. |
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.6

                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                              --------------------

     EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") entered into as of January 1, 2002,
by and between Orthovita, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the "Company"), and
David S. Joseph, an employee of the Company ("Joseph").

     WHEREAS, the Company wishes to continue to employ Joseph as its Chairman
and as a member of its Board of Directors, and both parties desire to extend the
December 31, 1999 employment agreement (the "Employment Agreement") upon the
terms and conditions set forth therein subject to the following:

     1.1 Employment Term. The Employment Term shall continue in effect through
         ---------------
the date of the 2002 Orthovita Annual Shareholders Meeting subject to the change
in control provisions set forth in Section 1.1 of the Employment Agreement.

     1.2 Duties and Responsibilities: Section 1.2 of the Employment Agreement is
         ---------------------------
amended to be as follows:

     "1.2 Duties and Responsibilities: Joseph shall serve as the Company's
          ---------------------------
Chairman during the Employment Term. During the Employment Term, Joseph shall
perform all duties and responsibilities incident to, and not inconsistent with,
such position."

     5.7 Termination at End of Employment Term: The second sentence of this
         -------------------------------------
section shall be amended to read, "Upon execution of the Release by Joseph, the
Company shall pay to Joseph as severance, Chairman Base Salary under Section 5.4
(b)(i), as applicable, and maintenance of health insurance benefits for Joseph
and eligible family members, both Chairman base salary and health insurance
benefits to continue for one year after termination of employment".

     All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain
unchanged.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, intending to be legally bound, have
executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.

ORTHOVITA, INC.


By:  /s/ James M. Garvey                              /s/ David S. Joseph
     ----------------------                           --------------------------
     Director and                                     David S. Joseph
     Member of Compensation                           Chairman
     Committee
awarded alternative compensation based upon the value of the stock options had
the shareholder approval been received will be made to Peacock.

     All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain
unchanged.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, intending to be legally bound, have
executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.

ORTHOVITA, INC.


By:  /s/ James M. Garvey                  /s/ Bruce A. Peacock
     -------------------                  --------------------
     Director and                         Bruce A. Peacock
     Member of Compensation               President and Chief Executive Officer
     Committee
Docket No. ^- 2 -

BEFORE THE

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20268-0001

Complaint of __(Your Name or Organization)__Docket No. C20__-__

[*Please call Dockets at 202-789-6846 prior to filing to obtain a docket #*]

COMPLAINT OF __(Your Name or Organization)__

REGARDING__(GENERAL CLAIM OF COMPLAINT)__

__(Month Day, Year of filing)__

__(Your Name)__

__(Your Address)__

__(Your Address)__

__(Your Telephone Number)__

__(Your Email Address)__

I. **[General statement of alleged Postal Service violations of applicable statutes including 39 U.S.C. chapter 36, 39 U.S.C. 101(d), 401(2), 403(c), 404a or 601 or any rule, order, or other regulatory requirement based on any of those statutes.]**

1) [*Please use a numbered paragraph for each alleged violation.*]

2) [*Second allegation would go here.*]

II. **[Specific identification and explanation of Postal Service action or inaction which violates the statute(s) or other regulatory requirement(s) listed above.]**

3) [*Please use a numbered paragraph for each Postal Service action or inaction described*.]

III. **[Description of the business, commercial, economic or other issues presented by the Postal Service’s action or inaction as they are related to the complainant.]**

4) [*Please use a numbered paragraph for each issue presented.*]

IV. **[Description of persons or classes of persons known or believed to be similarly affected by the issues involved in the complaint, if applicable.]**

5) [*Please use a numbered paragraph for each person or group.*]

V. **[Statement of the nature of the evidentiary support that the complainant has or expects to obtain during discovery to support the facts alleged in the complaint.]**

6) [*Please use a numbered paragraph for each item of evidentiary support.*]

VI. **[Explanation as to why such facts could not be reasonably obtained by the complainant where claims are premised on information and belief.]**

7) [*Please use a numbered paragraph for each explanation*.]

VII. **[Statement about whether the issues presented are pending in or have been resolved by an existing Commission proceeding or a proceeding in any other forum in which the complainant is a party; and if so, provide an explanation why timely resolution cannot be achieved in that forum.]**

8) [*Please use a numbered paragraph for each forum described*.]

VIII. **[Statement of the specific relief or remedy requested and the basis for that relief.]**

9) [*Please use a numbered paragraph for each remedy or item of relief requested.*]

IX. **[Certification that states that prior to filing, the complainant attempted to meet or confer with the Postal Service’s General Counsel to resolve or settle the complaint, why the complainant believes additional such steps would be inadequate, and the reasons for that belief.]**

X. **[Certification that the complaint has been served on the United states Postal Service by emailing it to PRCCOMPLAINTS@usps.gov.]**
# C_2007109EN.01002002.xml

| 15.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/20

---

Framework Programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice

Specific programme ‘Criminal justice’

Action grants

(2007/C 109/10)

A call for proposals is published on the Europa website at:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/funding/jpen/funding_jpen_en.htm

Deadline for presentation of proposals: 16 July 2007

---
# C_2013031EN.01001202.xml

| 2.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/12

---

Notice concerning the implementation of Article 9a(7) of Regulation (EC) No 550/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of air navigation services in the single European sky

(Publication of Member States' decisions establishing functional airspace blocks)

2013/C 31/11

| Member State(s) | Reference | Name of functional airspace block | Entry into force |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Republic of Estonia,
  Republic of Finland,
  Republic of Latvia,
  Kingdom of Norway | State Agreement signed on 4 June 2012 | Northern European Functional Airspace Block — NEFAB | 23 December 2012 |

Member State(s)

Reference

Name of functional airspace block

Entry into force

Republic of Estonia,

Republic of Finland,

Republic of Latvia,

Kingdom of Norway

State Agreement signed on 4 June 2012

Northern European Functional Airspace Block — NEFAB

23 December 2012

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Logan, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 693]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 11, 2005 *(People v Logan,*22 AD3d 605 [2005]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 7, 2003.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci and Covello, JJ., concur.
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-703

Rev. 0, 4/2012

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 12/27/2012

Sample Number: 125386-001 Date Collected: 12/18/2012 09:00 Date Received: 12/19/2012

Trip Blank 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg < 0.2 ng/L U 0.5 0.2 TLT 12/26/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 125386-002 Date Collected: 12/18/2012 09:00 Date Received: 12/19/2012

Field Blank 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg < 0.2 ng/L U 0.5 0.2 TLT 12/26/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 125386-003 Date Collected: 12/18/2012 09:00 Date Received: 12/19/2012

Plant Outfall #001 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 5.6 ng/L 2 0.8 TLT 12/26/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 125386-004 Date Collected: 12/19/2012 08:55 Date Received: 12/19/2012

Plant Outfall #001 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 5.5 ng/L 2 0.8 TLT 12/26/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 125386-005 Date Collected: 12/18/2012 09:10 Date Received: 12/19/2012

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 3.0 ng/L 1 0.4 TLT 12/26/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 125386-006 Date Collected: 12/19/2012 09:15 Date Received: 12/19/2012

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 3.6 ng/L 1 0.4 TLT 12/26/2012 EPA 1631E

Mountaineer Plant, 125386 Page 1 of 2
Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 12/27/2012

Sample Number: 125386-007 Date Collected: 12/18/2012 09:10 Date Received: 12/19/2012

CPS Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 20 ng/L J 50 20 TLT 12/26/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 125386-008 Date Collected: 12/19/2012 09:15 Date Received: 12/19/2012

CPS Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Data 

Qual

Mercury, Hg 30 ng/L J 50 20 TLT 12/26/2012 EPA 1631E

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit

J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 125386 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 28
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

§ 28.120 Authority of the Board. ( a ) The procedures in this subpart relate in part to the Board's function, under 31 U.S.C. 753(a)(6), to “consider and order corrective or disciplinary action in a case arising from * * * a matter appealable to the Board under the labor-management relations program under (31 U.S.C. 732(e)(2)) including a labor practice prohibited under (31 U.S.C. 732(e)(1)).”
( b ) The system so established by the Comptroller General is required to provide that each employee of the GAO has the right to form, join or assist, or not form, join or assist an employee organization, freely and without penalty or reprisal, and for a labor-management relations program consistent with Chapter 71 of Title 5, U.S.C. (31 U.S.C. 732(e)).