alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013377EN.01001103.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2013 — Kessel v OHIM — Janssen-Cilag (Premeno)

(Case T-536/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for Community word mark Premeno - Earlier national word mark Pramino - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application - Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2013/C 377/26

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH (Mörfelden-Walldorf, Germany) (represented: initially by S. Bund, then A. Jacob, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by B. Schmidt, then D. Walicka, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: M. Wenz, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 September 2010 (Case R 708/2010-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Janssen-Cilag GmbH and Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 September 2010 (Case R 708/2010-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 September 2010 (Case R 708/2010-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH;

| 3. | Orders Janssen-Cilag GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Janssen-Cilag GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

1

---
# C_2013101EN.01000301.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/3

---

Order of the Court of 10 October 2012 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission

(Case C-497/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - ERDF - Reduction in financing - Objective 1 operational programme (1994 — 1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ in Greece - Delegation of auxiliary tasks by the Commission to third parties - Professional secrecy - Rate of financial correction - Discretion of the Commission - Judicial review)

2013/C 101/04

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents, and G. Michailopoulos, dikigóros)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2001 in Case T-81/09 Greece v Commission, by which the General Court annulled in part an action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 8573 of 15 December 2008 reducing the financial assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) initially granted in respect of the Objective 1 operational programme (1994 — 1999), ‘Accessibility and Trunk Roads’ in Greece

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | The Hellenic Republic shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Hellenic Republic shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

1

---
# C_2013325EN.01002901.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Roca Sanitario v Commission

(Case T-408/10) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity of the infringement - Multipliers - Mitigating circumstances - Reduction of the fine - Significant added value)

2013/C 325/48

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Roca Sanitario, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo and M. Merola, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Antoniadis and F. Castilla Contreras, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Antoniadis and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Roca Sanitario, SA in Article 2(4)(b) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) at EUR 6 298 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Roca Sanitario, SA in Article 2(4)(b) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) at EUR 6 298 000;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, one third of the costs incurred by Roca Sanitario; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, one third of the costs incurred by Roca Sanitario;

| 4. | Orders Roca Sanitario to bear two-thirds of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Roca Sanitario to bear two-thirds of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.

1

---
### SUBCHAPTER I—THE PRINCIPAL REGISTER
#### § 1318.512 Status reports.

Information on the status of EISs and EAs under development shall be published on TVA's public website.
# C_2010080EN.01003301.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/33

---

Action brought on 8 January 2010 — Commission v Earthscan

(Case T-5/10)

2010/C 80/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, S. Petrova, Agents, assisted by P. Hermant and G. van de Walle de Ghelcke, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Earthscan Ltd (Kent, United Kingdom)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | order the defendant to repay the Commission the amount of EUR 44 903,22, corresponding to a principal amount of EUR 45 835,44 of which EUR 6 486,09 was already paid and interests until 30 September 2009 of EUR 5 556,87; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to repay the Commission the amount of EUR 44 903,22, corresponding to a principal amount of EUR 45 835,44 of which EUR 6 486,09 was already paid and interests until 30 September 2009 of EUR 5 556,87;

| — | order the defendant to pay interests of EUR 3,84 per day from 1 October 2009 on until the entirety of the debt is paid; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay interests of EUR 3,84 per day from 1 October 2009 on until the entirety of the debt is paid;

| — | order that the defendant pay the cost incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the defendant pay the cost incurred by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests that the defendant be ordered to repay part of the advance paid by the applicant, together with default interests, as a result of the non-performance of contract No 4.1030/Z/01-035/2001, concluded between the applicant and nine contractors including the defendant, for the development, the publication and the dissemination of a guide on renewable energy (project ‘Guide for Renewable Energy installations to promote biomass, photovoltaics and solar thermal in the EU’) in the framework of the ALTENER programme (1).

1

The applicant raises a single plea in law.

Given that the defendant did not carry out the performance of the contract for phases 6 and 7 (layout, typesetting, printing and dissemination), the applicant contends that the defendant breached its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse its share of the pre-financing that was overpaid in application of the contract. It claims that the defendant must therefore be condemned to repay the overpaid amount, accrued with the default interests as calculated in the contract.

---

(1)  Decision No 646/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2000 adopting a multiannual programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community (Altener) (1998 to 2002), OJ L 79, p. 1

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).
**Title:****Biennial report toCongress on the administration of the Coastal Zone Management Act**** 
SuDocNumber: C 55.32:
ItemNumber: 0250-E-14 (online)
CGPSystem Number: 000873975
 
1992-1993:
Vol  I , Vol  II
2002-2003
 
2004-2005
 
2006-2007
 
** 
**Permanent Public  Access
** 
Title  44 of the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public  access to official Government information products disseminated through the  Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in  regional depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a  regional library. Since online products are not physically distributed to  depository libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the  provision of permanent access to Government information products residing on  FDsys servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August3, 2017********
§ 154.302 Previously submitted material. ( a ) If all, or any portion, of the information called for by this part has already been submitted to the Commission within six months of the filing date of this application, or is included in other data filed pursuant to this part, specific reference thereto may be made in lieu of resubmission.
( b ) If a new FERC Form No. 2 or 2-A is required to be filed within 60 days from the end of the base period, the new FERC Form No. 2 or 2-A must be filed concurrently with the rate change filing. There must be furnished to the Director, Office of Energy Market Regulation, with the rate change filing, one copy of the FERC Form No. 2 or 2-A.
[Order 582, 60 FR 52996, Oct. 11, 1995, as amended by Order 699, 72 FR 45325, Aug. 14, 2007; Order 701, 72 FR 61054, Oct. 29, 2007]
**Exhibit 21**     The following is a list of the direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company as ofDecember 31, 2006. All of the subsidiaries are wholly owned, and are included in theConsolidated Financial Statements, which are a part of this report.   Subsidiary State of Organization    Regent Broadcasting Management, LLC DelawareRegent Broadcasting, LLC DelawareRegent Broadcasting Midwest, LLC DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Mansfield, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of Mansfield, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Albany, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting ofLafayette, LLC DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Flint, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Duluth, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Evansville/Owensboro, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Buffalo, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of El Paso, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Erie, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of Erie, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Lancaster, Inc. DelawareLivingston County Broadcasters, Inc. IllinoisRegent Broadcasting of Lexington, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of Lexington, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Peoria, Inc. DelawareB&G Broadcasting, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of San Diego, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of San Diego, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of St. Cloud, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of St. Cloud, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of St. Cloud II, Inc. MinnesotaRepCom, Inc. MinnesotaSartell FM, Inc. MinnesotaRegent Broadcasting of South Carolina, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of South Carolina, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Utica/Rome, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of Utica/Rome, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Watertown, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of Watertown, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Bloomington, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting West Coast, LLC CaliforniaRegent Broadcasting of Chico, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of Chico, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Flagstaff, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of Flagstaff, Inc. Delaware
 

 
   Subsidiary State of Organization    Regent Broadcasting of Ft. Collins, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Grand Rapids, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Kingman, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of Kingman, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Lake Tahoe, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of Lake Tahoe, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Palmdale, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of Palmdale, Inc. DelawareRegent Broadcasting of Redding, Inc. DelawareRegent Licensee of Redding, Inc. Delaware
E - 2
§ 1318.407 EIS adoption. ( a ) TVA may adopt another agency's EIS, or a portion thereof, provided that the NEPA compliance staff determines that the EIS or portion thereof meets the standards for an adequate EIS.
( b ) If the NEPA compliance staff determines that the actions covered by the other agency's EIS and TVA's proposed action are substantially the same, TVA may adopt the other agency's EIS as TVA's FEIS (§ 1318.404). In making this determination, the NEPA compliance staff, in consultation with other interested TVA entities, will consider whether the scope and analyses in the other agency's EIS adequately address the TVA action. TVA will also review to ensure the scientific accuracy of the analysis and conclusions drawn. TVA must make this determination and the adopted EIS available on its public website.
( c ) If the NEPA compliance staff determines that the actions covered by the other agency's EIS and TVA's proposed action are not substantially the same, TVA will supplement the other agency's EIS and treat it as TVA's DEIS, including circulating it for comment (§ 1318.403).
( d ) If TVA cooperated in the preparation of an EIS that TVA determines adequately addresses its proposed action, TVA may make a decision about its proposed action no sooner than 30 days after notice of availability of the FEIS was published in the Federal Register. A record of that decision should be prepared consistent with § 1318.405.
( e ) If TVA did not cooperate in the preparation of an EIS that TVA determines adequately addresses its proposed action and that it proposes to adopt, NEPA compliance staff will transmit notice of its adoption to EPA for publication of a notice of availability and circulate the FEIS for public comment as to its assessment of impacts as they relate to TVA's proposed action. TVA may make a decision about its proposed action no sooner than 30 days after notice of availability of the FEIS is published in the Federal Register. A record of decision will be prepared consistent with § 1318.405.
( f ) TVA will provide notice of its adoption to other interested Federal, State, and local agencies, other entities, and individuals.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 578 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 578

  To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the five-
month waiting period for disability insurance benefits under such title 
          for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 27, 2019

 Mr. Whitehouse (for himself, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Tillis, Mr. 
  Reed, Mr. Blunt, Mr. King, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Brown, Mrs. Capito, Mr. 
Coons, Mr. Rubio, Ms. Harris, Ms. McSally, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Wicker, Mr. 
Sanders, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. 
Rounds, Mr. Tester, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Cassidy, Ms. Warren, 
Ms. Collins, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Markey, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Booker, Mr. 
Merkley, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Jones, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cardin, Mr. 
 Van Hollen, and Ms. Sinema) introduced the following bill; which was 
          read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the five-
month waiting period for disability insurance benefits under such title 
          for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``ALS Disability Insurance Access Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF WAITING PERIOD FOR SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY 
              INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR DISABLED INDIVIDUALS WITH 
              AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS (ALS).

    (a) In General.--Section 223(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 423(a)(1)) is amended in the matter following subparagraph (E) 
by striking ``or (ii)'' and inserting ``(ii) in the case of an 
individual who has been medically determined to have amyotrophic 
lateral sclerosis, for each month beginning with the first month during 
all of which the individual is under a disability and in which the 
individual becomes entitled to such insurance benefits, or (iii)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to applications for disability insurance benefits filed 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 354.128 Certification of carcasses.

Each carcass and all parts and organs thereof which are found by the inspector to be sound, wholesome, and fit for human food shall be certified as provided in this part.
#### § 1307.2 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to effectuate section 504 to the end that no otherwise qualified handicapped individual shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from TVA.
J 

# regon

John A Kitzhaber, MD, Governor Department of Environmental Quality Headquarters 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-1390 (503) 229-5696 FAX (503) 229-6124 TIY711 June 26, 2012

Michael A. Bussell United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Office ofWater & Watersheds- Section 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101-3140

Re: Vessel General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) Request for Clean Water Act (CWA) section 401 Certification

DearMr. Bussell:

On December 15, 2011, EPA asked Oregon DEQ to make a written determinationregarding certification under CW A Section 401 for proposed reissuance's ofthe two EPA general permits covering incidental vessel discharges. DEQ regrets that itwill not be able to make such a determination. Under Oregon's statutes andthe Environmental Quality Commission's Administrative Rules, a formal application, including the payment offees, is required for DEQ to issue a Section 401 certification. ORS 468B.047; OAR 340-048-0020; OAR 340-048-0055. In this instance the application and fee requirements were not met and DEQ does not have the legal authority to waive these requirements.
DEQ recognizes that EPA intends to deem certification as being waived based on DEQ's inabilityto respond within six months. While DEQ does not have authority under state lawto affirmatively waive certification requirements imposed under CWA Section401, DEQ does not intend to challenge EPA's decisionto deem that a waiver has occurred.

WhileDEQ is not able to certify EPA's permits under these circumstances, DEQ staffdid provide a number ofcomments onthe proposed permits during EPA's formal public participationprocess. DEQ appreciates EPA's willingness to considerthe important concerns that were raised inthese comments. Sincerely,

# ~7:74I(

# U1cf~Ll Greg Aldftclf Water Quality Division Administrator

cc: Nina DeConcini, DEQ Steve Mra.Zik, DEQ Jlma Rickner, DLCD Cindi Godsey, EPA
§ 153.2 Definitions. ( a ) *DOE/FE* means the Department of Energy/Office of Fossil Energy or its successor office.
( b ) *Person* means an individual or entity as defined in 10 CFR 590.102(m).
( c ) LNG Terminal means all natural gas facilities located onshore or in state waters that are used to receive, unload, load, store, transport, gasify, liquefy, or process natural gas that is imported to the United States from a foreign country, exported to a foreign country from the United States, or transported in interstate commerce by a waterborne vessel, but does not include: ( 1 ) Waterborne vessels used to deliver natural gas to or from any such facility; or
( 2 ) Any pipeline or storage facility subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
( d ) For purposes of this part and § 157.21, *related jurisdictional natural gas facilities* means any pipeline or other natural gas facilities which are subject to section 7 of the NGA; will directly interconnect with the facilities of an LNG terminal, as defined in paragraph (d) of this section; and which are necessary to transport gas to or regasified LNG from: ( 1 ) A planned but not yet authorized LNG terminal; or
( 2 ) An existing or authorized LNG terminal for which prospective modifications are subject pursuant to section 157.21(e)(2) to a mandatory pre-filing process.
( e ) Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) means a document used by the U.S. Coast Guard in assessing the suitability of a waterway for LNG marine traffic pursuant to 33 CFR 127.007. The Preliminary WSA initiates the process of analyzing the safety and security risks posed by proposed LNG tanker operations to a port and waterways, and the Follow-On WSA provides a detailed analysis of the same issues.
[Order 595, 62 FR 30446, June 4, 1997, as amended by Order 665, 70 FR 60440, Oct. 18, 2005; Order 900, 88 FR 74041, Oct. 30, 2023]