alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1312.2 Authority. ( a ) The regulations in this part are promulgated pursuant to section 10(a) of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470ii), which requires that the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture and Defense and the Chairman of the Board of the Tennessee Valley Authority jointly develop uniform rules and regulations for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
( b ) In addition to the regulations in this part, section 10(b) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 470ii) provides that each Federal land manager shall promulgate such rules and regulations, consistent with the uniform rules and regulations in this part, as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
( c ) Provisions pertaining to the issuance of petty offense citations are based on the duties and powers assigned to TVA's law enforcement agents under 16 U.S.C. 831-831ee.
[49 FR 1028, Jan. 6, 1984, as amended at 81 FR 54499, Aug. 16, 2016]
# C_2013038EN.01003001.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/30

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 October 2012 — Psarras v ENISA

(Case F-118/10) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Assignment - Reassignment - Interest of the service - Leave on personal grounds)

2013/C 38/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aristidis Psarras (Heraklion, Greece) (represented initially by: É. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers, and subsequently by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Network and Information Security Agency (represented by: E. Maurage, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil service — Firstly, application for annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant from his duties as accountant for the Agency and to appoint another person to that post. Secondly, application for payment to the applicant of a sum by way of compensation for the loss suffered owing to the contested acts and the harassment of which he claims to have been a victim.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 7 February 2010 of the Board of the European Network and Information Security Agency to dismiss Mr Psarras from his duties as accountant, with immediate effect, and to appoint Mr X, budget officer, to the post as account for a unlimited term, and the decision of 1 March 2010 adopted as a consequence by the Executive Director reassigning Mr Psarras to new duties; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 7 February 2010 of the Board of the European Network and Information Security Agency to dismiss Mr Psarras from his duties as accountant, with immediate effect, and to appoint Mr X, budget officer, to the post as account for a unlimited term, and the decision of 1 March 2010 adopted as a consequence by the Executive Director reassigning Mr Psarras to new duties;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Network and Information Security Agency to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr Psarras. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Network and Information Security Agency to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr Psarras.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011, p. 34.

1

---
§ 50.3 Payment to owners for animals destroyed. ( a ) The Administrator is authorized to agree on the part of the Department to pay indemnity to owners of the following animals: ( 1 ) Cattle, bison, or captive cervids destroyed because the animals are infected with or exposed to tuberculosis;
( 2 ) Cattle, bison, or captive cervids that have been classified as suspect for tuberculosis, except that the payment of indemnity for the destruction of suspect cattle, bison, and captive cervids will be withheld until the tuberculosis status of the suspect animal has been determined and, if the cattle, bison, or captive cervid is found to be infected with tuberculosis, until all cattle, bison, and captive cervids 12 months of age or older in the claimant's herd have been tested for tuberculosis under APHIS or State supervision; and
( 3 ) Other livestock destroyed because they are classified as exposed to tuberculosis by the designated tuberculosis epidemiologist by reason of an association with an affected herd of cattle, bison, or captive cervids.
( b ) In each case, the joint State-Federal indemnity paid, together with the amount for net salvage the owner receives, may not exceed the appraised value of the animal, as determined in accordance with § 50.9. Additionally, the Department will in no case pay more than $3,000 for an animal that is destroyed.
[67 FR 7591, Feb. 20, 2002]
### §3503. "Antitrust law" defined

As used in this chapter, the term "antitrust law" means the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.), and the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.).

(Pub. L. 96–308, §5, July 9, 1980, 94 Stat. 939.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), referred to in text, is act July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, which is classified to sections 1 to 7 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1 of this title and Tables.

The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.), referred to in text, is act Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, 38 Stat. 730, which is classified generally to sections 12, 13, 14 to 19, 21, and 22 to 27 of this title, and sections 52 and 53 of Title 29, Labor. For further details and complete classification of this Act to the Code, see References in Text note set out under section 12 of this title and Tables.

The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), referred to in text, is act Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, 38 Stat. 717, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§41 et seq.) of chapter 2 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 58 of this title and Tables.
# C_2013164EN.01000501.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Edgard Mulders v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

(Case C-548/11) (1)

1

(Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 1(r) - Definition of ‘periods of insurance’ - Article 46 - Calculation of retirement pension - Periods of insurance to be taken into consideration - Frontier workers - Period of incapacity for work - Aggregation of similar benefits paid by two Member States - No account taken of a period of incapacity for work as a period of insurance - Residence requirement - Nation rules precluding the cumulation of benefits)

2013/C 164/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Edgard Mulders

Applicant:

Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 1(r) and 46 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) — Old-age and death insurance — Calculation of benefits — Periods of insurance to be taken into consideration

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(r) and 46 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, read in the light of Article 13(2)(a) of that regulation and Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU, are to be interpreted, for the purpose of calculating a retirement pension in one Member State, as precluding the legislation of another Member State under which a period of incapacity for work during which sickness insurance benefit — from which contributions were deducted by way of old-age insurance — was paid in that other Member State to a migrant worker is not regarded as a ‘period of insurance’ within the meaning of those provisions, on the ground that the person concerned is not resident in the latter State and/or was in receipt of a similar benefit under the legislation of the first Member State, which could not be combined with the sickness insurance benefit.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
§ 322.1 Marking products for export. ( a ) When authorized by inspection personnel, establishment personnel must mark the outside container of any inspected and passed product for export, the securely enclosed pallet within the consignment, or closed means of conveyance transporting the consignment, with a mark that contains a unique identifier that links the consignment to the export certificate or an official mark as described in § 312.8 of this chapter. Ship stores, small quantities exclusively for the personal use of the consignee and not for sale or distribution, and shipments by and for the U.S. Armed Forces, are exempt from the requirements of this section.
( b ) When authorized by inspection personnel, establishments must mark each tank car of inspected and passed lard or similar edible product, and each door of each railroad car or other closed means of conveyance, containing inspected and passed loose product shipped directly to a foreign country, with an export inspection mark as shown in § 312.8 of this subchapter.
[81 FR 42233, June 29, 2016]
# C_2013071EN.01000202.xml

| 9.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 January 2013 — Frucona Košice a.s. v European Commission, St. Nicolaus — trade a.s.

(Case C-73/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Cancellation of 65 % of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Private creditor test - Limits of judicial review - Substitution by the General Court of its own grounds for those set out in the contested decision - Manifest error of assessment - Distortion of evidence)

2013/C 71/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Frucona Košice a.s. (represented by: P. Lasok QC, J. Holmes and B. Hartnett, Barristers, and by O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Walkerová, L. Armati and B. Martenczuk, Agents), St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. (represented by: N. Smaho, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07 Frucona Kosice a.s v European Commission in which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission Decision C(2006) 2087 final, of 7 June 2006, concerning aid granted by Slovakia for Frucona Košice in the form of a cancellation of a tax debt by the competent tax office in a collective bankruptcy procedure (State Aid No C 25/2005, ex NN/2005), in so far as that decision declares that measure incompatible with the common market and orders Slovakia to recover the aid in its entirety

Frucona Kosice a.s

European Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07 Frucona Košice v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 December 2010 in Case T-11/07 Frucona Košice v Commission;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the pleas raised before it on which it did not rule; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the pleas raised before it on which it did not rule;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

1

---
### §6503. Safe harbors

#### (a) Guidelines

An operator may satisfy the requirements of regulations issued under section 6502(b) of this title by following a set of self-regulatory guidelines, issued by representatives of the marketing or online industries, or by other persons, approved under subsection (b).

#### (b) Incentives

#### (1) Self-regulatory incentives

In prescribing regulations under section 6502 of this title, the Commission shall provide incentives for self-regulation by operators to implement the protections afforded children under the regulatory requirements described in subsection (b) of that section.

#### (2) Deemed compliance

Such incentives shall include provisions for ensuring that a person will be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of the regulations under section 6502 of this title if that person complies with guidelines that, after notice and comment, are approved by the Commission upon making a determination that the guidelines meet the requirements of the regulations issued under section 6502 of this title.

#### (3) Expedited response to requests

The Commission shall act upon requests for safe harbor treatment within 180 days of the filing of the request, and shall set forth in writing its conclusions with regard to such requests.

#### (c) Appeals

Final action by the Commission on a request for approval of guidelines, or the failure to act within 180 days on a request for approval of guidelines, submitted under subsection (b) may be appealed to a district court of the United States of appropriate jurisdiction as provided for in section 706 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIII, §1304, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–732.)
- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

LITTLE TREE SUSHI BAR, INC., DIXIE MOON SALOON, LLC, THE NASH FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, M & R REALTY 111 SOUTH MAIN, LLC, SULLIVAN INVESTMENT GROUP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, THIRD STREET PROPERTIES, INC., CORP ONE, INC., GROUP 225, INC., CORP ONE PROPERTY COMPANY, LLC, ONE HUNDRED SEVEN SOUTH MAIN, LLC, and R & M REALTY, LLC,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants, UNPUBLISHED July 31, 2018

v No. 341606
Oakland Circuit Court CITY OF ROYAL OAK, LC No. 2017

- 159908

- CZ

Defendant

- Appellee,
and

CENTRAL PARK DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC,

Intervening Defendant

- Appellee.

Before: C AMERON

, P .J., and J ANSEN and O’C ONNELL , JJ.

J ANSEN

, J

. ( concurring ).

I concur in the result only.

/s/ Kathleen Jansen
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          55,232
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,527
<ALLOWANCES>                                       833
<INVENTORY>                                      5,385
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,899
<PP&E>                                           6,869
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,330
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,119
<BONDS>                                          2,623
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           169
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,736
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,330
<SALES>                                         12,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,055
<CGS>                                            3,201
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,201
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    55
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  69
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,812
<INCOME-TAX>                                       700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
# C_2013046EN.01001101.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Portugal) — Grande Área Metropolitana do Porto (GAMP) v Comissão Directiva do Programa Operacional Potencial Humano, Ministério do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território, Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social

(Case C-579/11) (1)

1

(Structural funds - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Geographical eligibility - Implementation of an investment co-financed by the European Union from a place located outside of the eligible regions and by an operator established in such a place)

2013/C 46/19

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grande Área Metropolitana do Porto (GAMP)

Applicant:

Defendants: Comissão Directiva do Programa Operacional Potencial Humano, Ministério do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território, Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social

Defendants:

Iintervening parties: Instituto Nacional de Administração, Sindicato dos Quadros Técnicos do Estado, Instituto Superior de Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa, Instituto do Desporto de Portugal

Iintervening parties

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Interpretation of Articles 174, 175 and 176 TFEU, of Articles 5 to 8, 22, 32, 34, 35 and 56 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25) and Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) (OJ 2003 L 154, p. 1) — Structural operations — EU funding — Operational Programmes — Eligibility of expenditure — Common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of European Union primary law concerning economic, social and territorial cohesion and Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 must be interpreted as not precluding an investment co-financed by the European Union from being implemented from a place located outside of the eligible regions and by an operator established in such a place, provided that the investment targets specifically and identifiably the eligible regions.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

1

---
§ 1317.425 Counseling and use of appraisal and counseling materials. ( a ) *Counseling.* A recipient shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of sex in the counseling or guidance of students or applicants for admission.
( b ) *Use of appraisal and counseling materials.* A recipient that uses testing or other materials for appraising or counseling students shall not use different materials for students on the basis of their sex or use materials that permit or require different treatment of students on such basis unless such different materials cover the same occupations and interest areas and the use of such different materials is shown to be essential to eliminate sex bias. Recipients shall develop and use internal procedures for ensuring that such materials do not discriminate on the basis of sex. Where the use of a counseling test or other instrument results in a substantially disproportionate number of members of one sex in any particular course of study or classification, the recipient shall take such action as is necessary to assure itself that such disproportion is not the result of discrimination in the instrument or its application.
( c ) *Disproportion in classes.* Where a recipient finds that a particular class contains a substantially disproportionate number of individuals of one sex, the recipient shall take such action as is necessary to assure itself that such disproportion is not the result of discrimination on the basis of sex in counseling or appraisal materials or by counselors.
#### § 1317.600 Notice of covered programs.

Within 60 days of September 29, 2000, each Federal agency that awards Federal financial assistance shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the programs covered by these Title IX regulations. Each such Federal agency shall periodically republish the notice of covered programs to reflect changes in covered programs. Copies of this notice also shall be made available upon request to the Federal agency's office that enforces Title IX.