alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Ben A. van der Klift, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this annual report onForm 20-F of ARCADIS N.V.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.             The company’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe company and have:

 

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

 

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           Disclosed in this report any change in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theperiod covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.             The company’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of thecompany’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a)           All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: June 13, 2005 | /s/ Ben A. van der Klift       |   |
|---------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                | Ben A. van der Klift           |
|                | Corporate Director of  Finance |
|                | (Principal Financial  Officer) |

 

----
#### § 542.20 What is a Tier A gaming operation?

A Tier A gaming operation is one with annual gross gaming revenues of more than $1 million but not more than $5 million.
# C_2011120EN.01001202.xml

| 16.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/12

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 9 March 2011 — Castiglioni v Commission

(Case T-591/10 R)

(Interim proceedings - Public contracts - Public procurement procedure - Rejection of a bid - Application for stay of execution - Failure to have regard to the formal requirements - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 120/30

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Castiglioni Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: G. Turri, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and N. Bambara, acting as Agents, and by D. Gullo, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for interim measures made in the tendering procedure concerning a multiple framework agreement for works to construct, restructure and maintain buildings and infrastructure at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre’s Ispra (Italy) site.

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. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
# C_2013189EN.01001801.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat v OHIM — von Eicken (SEBA TRADITION)

(Case T-508/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark SEBA TRADITION - Earlier national figurative mark JOHANN WILHELM VON EICKEN TRADITION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 189/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat AȘ (Maltepe, Turkey) (represented by: H. Wilde, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Joh. Wilh. von Eicken GmbH (Lübeck, Germany) (represented by: C. Rohnke and F. Thiering, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 August 2010 (Case R 559/2009-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Joh. Wilh. von Eicken GmbH and Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat AȘ.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat AȘ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Seba Diș Tįcaret ve Naklįyat AȘ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---
# C_2010317EN.01004301.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/43

---

Action brought on 22 September 2010 — Gap SA granen & producten v Commission

(Case T-437/10)

()

2010/C 317/76

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gap SA granen & producten NV (Zoersel, Belgium) (represented by: C. Ronse and A. Hansebout, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union, represented by the European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the General Court to declare that the European Union has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to pay compensation in respect of the harm which the applicant has suffered, more specifically, to pay it the sum of EUR 295 690,43, increased by Belgian statutory interest from the respective dates on which the applicant paid the disputed import duties, and also to order the European Union to pay a provisional sum of EUR 30 000, plus Belgian statutory interest, in respect of the further harm which the applicant has suffered.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is seeking compensation for the harm which it claims to have suffered by reason of the fact that the European Commission, when setting import duties on durum wheat, specifically in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 919/2009 of 1 October 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 915/2009 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 1 October 2009 (OJ 2009 L 259, p. 5), acted unlawfully and applied incorrect market prices and freight costs.

In support of its claim for compensation, the applicant submits that the Commission breached Article 4 of Regulation No 1249/96 (1) and the general duty of care by taking into account incorrect prices and freight costs for the purpose of imposing and calculating the import duties.

1

In the applicant’s view, the breach of Article 4 of Regulation No 1249/96 is sufficiently serious because the Commission did not have any discretionary power when it adopted Regulation No 919/2009. Moreover, it argues, the Commission’s breach of the duty of care is in itself a sufficiently serious breach.

The applicant concludes by submitting that the harm which it suffered was attributable to an improperly imposed and wrongly calculated duty, the precise amount of which the applicant proves. In addition, the applicant claims also to have suffered harm by reason of the time which it has had to devote to the present case and the lawyers’ fees which it has been obliged to incur.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 on rules of application (cereal sector import duties) for Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 (OJ 1996 L 161, p. 125).

1

---
# C_2013114EN.01000902.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Manfred Beker, Christa Beker v Finanzamt Heilbronn

(Case C-168/11) (1)

1

(Free movement of capital - Income tax - Income from capital - Convention for the avoidance of double taxation - Dividends distributed by companies established in Member States and third countries - Calculation of the maximum amount of foreign withholding tax deductible against national income tax - Failure to take account of personal and lifestyle costs - Justification)

2013/C 114/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Manfred Beker, Christa Beker

Applicants:

Defendant: Finanzamt Heilbronn

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 56 EC — National legislation on income tax on natural persons which allows deduction of income tax paid abroad only with regard to the share of national income tax charged on the foreign revenue — Method of determining that share of national income tax resulting in deductible expenses and extraordinary costs also being allocated proportionately to the foreign income, and thus resulting in a corresponding reduction of the maximum amount deductible with regard to taxes paid abroad

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of a Member State under which, in the context of a system aimed at limiting double taxation, where persons subject to unlimited tax liability pay on foreign income, in the State where that income originates, a tax equivalent to the income tax levied by the said Member State, the offsetting of that foreign tax against the amount of income tax levied in the said Member State is carried out by multiplying the amount of the tax due in respect of taxable income in the same Member State, including foreign income, by the proportion that that foreign income bears to total income, that latter sum not taking into account special expenditure or extraordinary costs such as costs relating to lifestyle or to personal and family circumstances.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.

1

---
# C_2013225EN.01001702.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-635/11) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/56/EC - Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies - Article 16(2)(a) and (b) - Company resulting from a cross-border merger - Employees employed in the Member State where the company has its registered office or in other Member States - Participation rights - Failure to provide identical rights)

2013/C 225/28

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Schillemans and C. Wissels, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 16(2)(b) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1) — Employee participation

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that the employees of establishments of a company resulting from a cross-border merger which has its registered office in the Netherlands, situated in other Member States enjoy participation rights identical to those enjoyed by the employees employed in the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under point (b) of Article 16(2) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that the employees of establishments of a company resulting from a cross-border merger which has its registered office in the Netherlands, situated in other Member States enjoy participation rights identical to those enjoyed by the employees employed in the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under point (b) of Article 16(2) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.

1

---
# Cou r t of Appea l s of t h e S ta te of

Geor gi a

A TLA N TA ,_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The C o u rt o f Appea ls h ereb

y p a s s es the fo llo wi

n g order:

A25A028 8

. JOH N T HOM PS ON v. T H E S T AT E

.
J o hn Tho mp so n w as c onv ic ted o f aggrav ated so d o my and rel a t ed o f f enses in

1 9 9 1

. H is c o nv ic tio n was af firmed o n d irec t a p p eal in Tho mps o n v

. Sta te , 203 Ga. A p p

. 339 , 341 (41 6 SE2d 7 55) (1 9 9 2).

I n 2024, Tho mp so n f

iled an e xtrao rd inary mo tio n f o r new trial, w hic h the trial

c o u rt d enied on J u ne 24, 2024. T ho mp so n f iled a no tic e o f ap p eal o n A u gu s t 21 , 2024.

W e lac k j u risd ic t io n f

o r tw o reaso ns. First, Tho mp so n’ s ap p eal is u ntimely. A no tic e o f ap p eal mu st be filed w ithin

30 d ays of e ntry o f the j u d gment o r trial c o u r t o rd er so u ght t o be ap p ealed

. OCGA §

5- 6 -38 (a). The p r o p e r and timely f iling o f a no tic e o f ap p eal is an abso lu t e

requ irement to c o nf

er j u risd ic tio n o n this Co u rt. E b eli n g v

. S ta te , 355 Ga. A p p

. 46 9,

46 9 (844 SE2d 51 8) ( 2020). T ho mp so n’ s no t ic e of ap p eal w as filed 58 days af ter entry

o f the trial c o u rt’ s o rd er and is thu s u ntimely.

Sec o nd
, an ap p eal f

ro m a n o rd er d enying an extrao rd inary mo tio n f or new trial

mu st be initiated by f

iling an ap p lic atio n f

o r d isc r etio nary rev iew

. OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 (a) (7 ), (b); Ba lkco m v

. S ta t

e , 227 Ga. A p p

. 327 , 329 (489 SE2d 129 ) (1 9 9 7). “ Co mp lianc e

w ith the d isc retio nary a p p eals p ro c ed u re is j u risd ic tio nal. ” S mo a k v. D ept. o f Hu ma n
Res o u rces , 221 Ga. A p p

. 257 , 257 (47 1 SE2d 6 0 ) (1 9 9 6 ). Tho mp so n’ s f ailu re to f o llo w September 16, 2024the d isc retio nary r ev iew p ro c ed u re thu s d ep riv es u s o f j u r isd ic tio n o ver this d irec t

ap p eal. See Bra db erry v

. S ta te , 31 5 Ga. A p p

. 434, 437 (7 27 SE2d 208) (201 2).

Fo r these reaso ns, this ap p eal is hereby D I SM ISSED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia
C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t if y t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

. W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 09/16/2024
§ 270.101 General definitions. ( a ) *NGPA definitions.* Terms defined in the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) will have the same meaning for purposes of this subchapter as they have under the NGPA, unless further defined in this subchapter.
( b ) *Subchapter H definitions.* For purposes of this part: ( 1 ) *NGPA* means the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978.
( 2 ) *Surface location* means the point on the Earth's surface from which drilling of a well is commenced except that in the case of a well drilled in permanent surface waters, “the Earth's surface” means the mean elevation of the surface of the water.
( 3 ) *Jurisdictional agency* means the state or federal agency identified in § 270.401.
( 4 ) *Tight formation gas* means natural gas that a jurisdictional agency has determined to be produced from a designated tight formation.
( 5 ) *Designated tight formation* means the portion of a natural gas bearing formation that was: ( i ) Designated as a tight formation by the Commission, pursuant to section 501 of the NGPA, or
( ii ) Determined to be a tight formation pursuant to section 503 of the NGPA.
( 6 ) *Occluded natural gas produced from coal seams* means naturally occurring natural gas released from entrapment from the fractures, pores and bedding planes of coal seams.
( 7 ) *Natural gas produced from Devonian shale* means natural gas produced from fractures, micropores and bedding planes of shales deposited during the Paleozoic Devonian Period.
( 8 ) *Shales deposited during the Paleozoic Devonian Period* can be defined as either: ( i ) The gross Devonian age stratigraphic interval encountered by a well bore, at least 95 percent of which has a gamma ray index of 0.7 or greater; or
( ii ) One continuous interval within the gross Devonian age stratigraphic interval, encountered by a well bore, as long as at least 95 percent of the selected Devonian shale interval has a gamma ray index of 0.7 or greater (but if the interval selected is more than 200 feet thick, the bottom and top 100 foot portions must meet the five percent test independently).
( 9 ) *Gamma ray index* means when measuring the Devonian age stratigraphic interval, the gamma ray index at any point is to be calculated by dividing the gamma ray log value at that point by the gamma log value at the shale base line established over the entire Devonian age interval penetrated by the well bore.
( 10 ) *Mcf* means one thousand cubic feet of natural gas at 60 degrees Fahrenheit under a pressure equivalent to that of 30.00 inches of mercury at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, under standard gravitational force (980.665 centimeters per second squared).
( 11 ) *Data well* means a well for which permeability and/or pre-stimulation production rate data are available for a pay section in the formation for which a tight formation designation is being sought.
### §§4221 to 4228. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–555, §4, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4166

Section 4221, Pub. L. 98–365, title III, §301, July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 456, related to purposes and definition for subchapter.

Section 4222, Pub. L. 98–365, title III, §302, July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 456, related to data continuity and availability.

Section 4223, Pub. L. 98–365, title III, §303, July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 456, related to awarding of contract for provision of data continuity.

Section 4224, Pub. L. 98–365, title III, §304, July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 458, related to terms of data continuity contract and determination by Secretary of Commerce as to whether contract meets purposes of subchapter.

Section 4225, Pub. L. 98–365, title III, §305, July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 458, related to marketing of land remote-sensing data, incentive provisions for such activity, and continuation by contractor of data sales or operation of civil remote-sensing systems.

Section 4226, Pub. L. 98–365, title III, §306, July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 459, related to Secretary's report on progress towards privitization of remote-sensing space systems.

Section 4227, Pub. L. 98–365, title III, §307, July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 459, related to termination of chapter.

Section 4228, Pub. L. 98–365, title III, §308, as added Pub. L. 100–147, title III, §305, Oct. 30, 1987, 101 Stat. 876, related to disposition of government assets following completion of contract made pursuant to subchapter.