alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013026EN.01001202.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Pedro Espada Sánchez, Alejandra Oviedo Gonzáles, Lucía Espada Oviedo, Pedro Espada Oviedo v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA

(Case C-410/11) (1)

1

(Air transport - Montreal Convention - Article 22(2) - Liability of carriers in respect of baggage - Limits of liability in the event of the destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage - Shared baggage belonging to a number of passengers - Baggage checked in by one of those passengers)

2013/C 26/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Pedro Espada Sánchez, Alejandra Oviedo Gonzáles, Lucía Espada Oviedo, Pedro Espada Oviedo

Applicants:

Defendant: Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Interpretation of Articles 3(3) and 22(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention), (Council Decision 2001/539/EC, OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38) — Air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air — Limits of liability in the event of the destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, read in conjunction with Article 3(3) of that convention, must be interpreted as meaning that the right to compensation and the limits to a carrier’s liability in the event of loss of baggage apply also to a passenger who claims that compensation by virtue of the loss of baggage checked in in another passenger’s name, provided that that lost baggage did in fact contain the first passenger’s items.

---

(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.

1

---
# C_2011298EN.01001802.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of 13 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Yeboah Kwadwo

(Case C-120/11) (1)

1

2011/C 298/33

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1

---
was essentially consistent with Estrada's testimony. The district court 

was also presented with evidence that appellant's offenses involved 

several young victims and that he spent a significant period of time 

creating opportunities to have contact with the children to facilitate his 

crimes. And either through testimony or letters, the district court heard 

evidence detailing the devastating impact appellant's crimes had on the 

victims and their families. The district court disagreed with expert 

opinions that appellant was not a pedophile, and it is not bound by those 

opinions, see Allen v. State, 99 Nev. 485, 488, 665 P.2d 238, 240 (1983) 

(observing that "[e]xpert testimony is not binding on the trier of fact"). 

The district court expressly based its sentencing decision on Estrada's 

testimony, the written psychosexual evaluationJrisk assessment, the 

statements of the victims and their family members, and appellant's 

statement and imposed a sentence it deemed appropriate—a term of 24 to 

72 months in prison for each of three counts of possession of visual 

representation depicting sexual conduct of a person under 16 years of age 

and 36 to 240 months in prison for one count of attempted lewdness with a 

child under age 14, all counts to run consecutively. Considering the record 

as a whole, we conclude the district court did not err by denying his 

motion to modify the sentence. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge 

State Public Defender/Carson City 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
# C_2010346EN.01005202.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/52

---

Action brought on 19 October 2010 — Dorma v OHIM — Puertas Doorsa (doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS)

(Case T-500/10)

()

2010/C 346/103

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dorma GmbH & Co. KG (Ennepetal, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puertas Doorsa, SL (Petrel, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

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 17 August 2010 in case R 542/2009-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 August 2010 in case R 542/2009-4; and

| — | Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS”, for goods in classes 6, 9 and 19 — Community trade mark application No 4884359

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 39525884 of the figurative mark “DORMA”, for goods and services in classes 6, 9, 16, 19 and 37; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2201691 of the word mark “DORMA” for goods in classes 6, 7, 9, 16 and 19; International trade mark registration No 722009 of the figurative trade mark “DORMA” for goods in classes 6, 7, 9, 16 and 19

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the provisions of this article to the contested trade mark.

Pleas in law:

---
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE

SECTION 43000‐43023.5

* * * * [deleted text] * * * *

43013.1. (a) The State Energy Resources Conservation and 

Development Commission, in consultation with, and the state board, 

shall develop a timetable for the removal of MTBE from gasoline at 

the earliest possible date. In developing the timetable, the 

commission and the state board shall consider studies conducted by 

the commission and should ensure adequate supply and availability of 

gasoline. 

 (b) The state board shall ensure that regulations for California 

Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG3) adopted pursuant to Executive 

Order D-5-99 meet all of the following conditions: 

 (1) Maintain or improve upon emissions and air quality benefits 

achieved by California Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline in California as 

of January 1, 1999, including emission reductions for all 

pollutants, including precursors, identified in the State 

Implementation Plan for ozone, and emission reductions in 

potency-weighted air toxics compounds. 

 (2) Provide additional flexibility to reduce or remove oxygen from 

motor vehicle fuel in compliance with the regulations adopted 

pursuant to subdivision (a). 

 (3) Are subject to a multimedia evaluation pursuant to Section 

43830.8. 

 (c) On or before April 1, 2000, the State Water Resources Control 

Board, in consultation with the Department of Water Resources and the 

State Department of Health Services, shall identify areas of the 

state that are most vulnerable to groundwater contamination by MTBE 

or other ether-based oxygenates. The State Water Resources Control 

Board shall direct resources to those areas for protection and 

cleanup on a prioritized basis. Loans for upgrading, replacing, or 

removing tanks shall be made available pursuant to Chapter 8.5 

(commencing with Section 15399.10) of Part 6.7 of Division 3 of Title 

2 of the Government Code. In identifying areas vulnerable to 

groundwater contamination, the State Water Resources Control Board 

shall consider criteria including, but not limited to, any one, or 

any combination of, the following: 

 (1) Hydrogeology. 

 (2) Soil composition. 

 (3) Density of underground storage tanks in relation to drinking 

water wells. 

 (4) Degree of dependence on groundwater for drinking water 

supplies. 

* * * * [deleted text] * * * *

Source:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi‐bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=42001‐

43000&file=43000‐43023.5
# C_2013026EN.01001201.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona — Spain) — Isabel Elbal Moreno v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

(Case C-385/11) (1)

1

(Article 157 TFEU - Directive 79/7/EEC - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework Agreement on part-time work - Directive 2006/54/EC - Contributory retirement pension - Equal treatment for male and female workers - Indirect discrimination on grounds of sex)

2013/C 26/20

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Isabel Elbal Moreno

Applicant:

Defendants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social de Barcelona — Interpretation of Clause 4(1), of the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, Annex to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9), of Article 4 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) and of Article 4 of Directive 2006/54/EC of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23) — Concept of employment condition — Contributory retirement pension calculated on the basis of the Spanish statutory rules and contributions paid by and on behalf of the employee — Discrimination against part-time workers

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, legislation of a Member State which requires a proportionally greater contribution period from part-time workers, the vast majority of whom are women, than from full-time workers for the former to qualify, if appropriate, for a contributory retirement pension in an amount reduced in proportion to the part-time nature of their work.

---

(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.

1

---
### SUBCHAPTER I—CONTROL OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2006-24785 Directorate Identifier: 2006-NE-20-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

Replace Crankshaft

during other 

maintenance.

0.0 $ 0.00 $16,000 $16,000.00 2,831 $45,296,000.

00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $45,296,000

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
§ 141.1 FERC Form No. 1, Annual report of Major electric utilities, licensees and others. ( a ) *Prescription.* The Form of Annual Report for Major electric utilities, licensees and others, designated herein as FERC Form No. 1, is prescribed for the reporting year 1981 and each year thereafter.
( b ) *Filing requirements* — ( 1 ) *Who must file* — ( i ) *Generally.* Each Major and each Nonoperating (formerly designated as Major) electric utility (as defined in part 101 of Subchapter C of this chapter) and each licensee as defined in section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796), including any agency, authority or other legal entity or instrumentality engaged in generation, transmission, distribution, or sale of electric energy, however produced, throughout the United States and its possessions, having sales or transmission service equal to Major as defined above, must prepare and file electronically with the Commission the FERC Form 1 pursuant to the General Instructions as provided in that form.
( ii ) *Exceptions.* This report form is not prescribed for any agency, authority or instrumentality of the United States, nor is it prescribed for municipalities as defined in section 3 of the Federal Power Act; (*i.e.,* a city, county, irrigation district, drainage district, or other political subdivision or agency of a State competent under the laws thereof to carry on the business of developing, transmitting, utilizing, or distributing power).
( 2 ) *When to file and what to file.* ( i ) The annual report for the year ending December 31, 2004, must be filed on April 25, 2005.
( ii ) The annual report for each year thereafter must be filed on April 18.
( iii ) This report must be filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as prescribed in § 385.2011 of this chapter and as indicated in the General Instructions set out in this form, and must be properly completed and verified. Filing on electronic media pursuant to § 385.2011 of this chapter is required.
[Order 200, 47 FR 1280, Jan. 12, 1982, as amended by Order 390, 49 FR 32515, Aug. 14, 1984; Order 574, 60 FR 1718, Jan. 5, 1995; Order 626, 67 FR 36096, May 23, 2002; 69 FR 9043, Feb. 26, 2004; Order 694, 72 FR 20723, Apr. 26, 2007; 73 FR 58736, Oct. 7, 2008]
# C_2006326EN.01004802.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/48

---

Action brought on 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-479/06)

(2006/C 326/98)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Lawunmi)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

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

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2004/26/EC into domestic law expired on 20 May 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 146 of 30.04.04, p. 1.

1

---
§ 16.1 Applicability. This part applies to the filing and processing of an application for: ( a ) A new license, a nonpower license, or an exemption from licensing for a hydroelectric project with an existing license subject to the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act.
( b ) A subsequent license or an exemption from licensing for a hydroelectric project with an existing minor license or minor part license not subject to the provisions of sections 14 and 15 of the Federal Power Act because those sections were waived pursuant to section 10(i) of the Federal Power Act.
( c ) Any potential applicant for a new or subsequent license for which the deadline for the notice of intent required by § 16.6 falls on or after July 23, 2005 and which wishes to develop and file its application pursuant to this part, must seek Commission authorization to do so pursuant to the provisions of part 5 of this chapter.
[Order 513, 54 FR 23806, June 2, 1989, as amended by Order 2002, 68 FR 51139, Aug. 25, 2003]
# C_2014078EN.01000602.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 — AC-Treuhand v Commission

(Case T-27/10) (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 - Consultancy firm not operating in the markets at issue - Fines - Application for annulment - Meaning of ‘undertaking’ - Principle of the legality of offences and penalties - Duration of the infringement - Limitation - Duration of the administrative procedure - Reasonable period - Rights of the defence - Late notification of the investigation - Maximum of 10 % of turnover - Punishment of two infringements in one decision - Concept of a single infringement - Application for variation - Amount of the fines - Duration of the infringements - Duration of the administrative procedure - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Symbolic fine - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2014/C 78/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AC-Treuhand AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Steinle and I. Bodenstein, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application 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.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AC-Treuhand AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AC-Treuhand AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

1

---