alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012200EN.01000301.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-98/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon)

2012/C 200/04

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (represented by: R. Lange, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 December 2010 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (T-336/08), by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2008, rejecting the appeal against the decision of the Examiner to refuse registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a chocolate rabbit with a red ribbon as a Community trade mark for some goods in Class 30 — Distinctive character of the mark

Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli

OHIM

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.

1

---
# C_2011179EN.01000902.xml

| 18.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 21 March 2011 — Joan Cuadrench More v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM)

(Case C-139/11)

2011/C 179/16

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Joan Cuadrench More

Applicant:

Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (KLM)

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Regulation (EC) No [261]/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 to be interpreted as meaning that, as regards time-limits for bringing proceedings, Article 35 of the Montreal Convention, establishing a two year period, is applicable, or must some other Community provision or the relevant domestic law be regarded as applicable?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2013304EN.01000201.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/2

---

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria) — Menidzherski biznes reshenia OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-572/11) (1)

1

(Directive 2006/112/EC - VAT - Right to deduct - Refusal - Tax mentioned on an invoice - Actual performance of a taxable transaction - None - Evidence - Principles of fiscal neutrality and the protection of legitimate expectations)

2013/C 304/02

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Menidzherski biznes reshenia OOD

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo — Interpretation of Article 203 in conjunction with Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax — Refusal of the right to deduct VAT on the part of the recipient of supplies of services on the ground that there is no evidence of actual supplies in the light of the invoices — Verification of those invoices in the course of a fiscal audit of the supplier not having given rise to any rectification of the VAT due — Principle of fiscal neutrality

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 168(a) and Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and the principles of fiscal neutrality and the protection of legitimate expectations, must be interpreted as not precluding the recipient of an invoice from being refused the right to deduct VAT mentioned on that invoice where the transactions to which the invoice relates have not actually been performed, even if the risk of any loss in tax revenue has been eliminated on the ground that the issuer of that invoice has paid the VAT mentioned thereon. It is for the referring court to carry out, in accordance with the national rules relating to evidence, an overall assessment of all the facts and circumstances of the dispute before it in order to determine whether the transactions to which the invoices at issue in the main proceedings relate were actually carried out.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
# C_2012343EN.01002202.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/22

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 September 2012 — Bermejo Garde v EESC

(Case F-51/10) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Act adversely affecting an official - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Language requirements - Authority competent to adopt a vacancy notice - Bureau of the EESC)

2012/C 343/37

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Lernhart, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of vacancy notice EESC No 43/09 seeking to fill the post of Director of the Directorate of General Affairs and of all the decisions taken on the basis of that vacancy notice. Secondly, application to order the defendant to pay the applicant an amount in respect of damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls vacancy notice No 43/09 published with a view to filling the post of Director of the Directorate of General Affairs of the European Economic and Social Committee; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls vacancy notice No 43/09 published with a view to filling the post of Director of the Directorate of General Affairs of the European Economic and Social Committee;

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

2.

dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Bermejo Garde. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Bermejo Garde.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010, p. 42.

1

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, White’s

request for oral argument is denied.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZEDDRICK F. WHITE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP;

BRACHFELD & ASSOCIATES,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-56274

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03479-CASPJW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 6, 2012** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Zeddrick F. White appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging, inter alia, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting

FILED

MAR 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-56328

Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Intri-Plex

Techs., Inc. v. Crest Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm in

part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed White’s third claim for failure to state a

claim upon which relief could be granted because White failed to present any legal

basis for his claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Although the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Deloitte &

Touche’s request for judicial notice, see Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668,

689 (9th Cir. 2001), dismissal of White’s first and second claims on the basis of res

judicata was improper because the allegations contained in these claims arose after

White’s last judgment on the merits in state court, see San Diego Police Officers’

Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009)

(applying California claim preclusion law to determine a California judgment’s

effect on a subsequent federal case and listing California preclusion requirements,

including that both lawsuits involve the same cause of action and that there was a

final judgment on the merits in the first lawsuit); cf. Muller v. Tanner, 82 Cal. Rptr.

734, 736 n.4 & 738 (Ct. App. 1969) (noting that it is questionable whether a

dismissal following a vexatious litigant’s failure to post security is a judgment on

the merits). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment in part, and remand as to these
3 10-56328

claims for the district court to determine in the first instance whether White states

claims for which relief may be granted.

White’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
# C_2013009EN.01001701.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/17

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Gemeente Vlaardingen

(Case C-299/11) (1)

1

(Taxation - VAT - Taxable transactions - Application for the purposes of a business of goods obtained ‘in the course of such business’ - Treatment as a supply for consideration - Sports pitches belonging to the taxable person and transformed by a third person)

2013/C 9/26

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Applicant:

Defendant: Gemeente Vlaardingen

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 5(5), Article 5(7)(a) and Article 11(A)(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Taxable transactions — Use of materials for the purposes of the business — Use, for exempt activities of a business, of land owned by it and converted to its order by a third person for remuneration

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(7)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, read in conjunction with Article 11(A)(1)(b) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the application by a taxable person, for the purposes of an economic activity exempt from value added tax, of sports pitches which he owns and which he has had transformed by a third person can be subject to value added tax calculated on the basis of the aggregate arrived at by adding to the transformation costs the value of the ground on which the pitches lie, to the extent that the taxable person has not yet paid the value added tax relating to that value or to those costs, and provided that the pitches at issue are not covered by the exemption provided for in Article 13(B)(h) of the Sixth Directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.

1

---
BEFORE SHE HITS THE PRACTICE FIELD...

Find out if she has questions about alcohol or other drugs.

Show young people you care and help discourage risky behaviors by talking with them about the 

dangers of using alcohol and other drugs, such as marijuana and prescription pain medication. For 

tips on how—and when—to begin the conversation, visit 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

#TalkTheyHearYou PEP20-03-01-030
§ 4.60 Applicability and notice to agencies. ( a ) *Applicability.* The provisions of this subpart apply to any application for an initial license or a new license for: ( 1 ) A minor water power project, as defined in § 4.30(b)(17);
( 2 ) Any major project—existing dam, as defined in § 4.30(b)(16), that has a total installed capacity of 10 MW or less; or
( 3 ) Any major unconstructed project or major modified project, as defined in § 4.30(b)(15) and (14) respectively, that has a total installed capacity of 10 MW or less.
( b ) *Notice to agencies.* The Commission will supply interested Federal, state, and local agencies with notice of any application for license for a water power project 10 MW or less and request comment on the application. Copies of the application will be available for inspection through the Commission's website, *https://www.ferc.gov .* The applicant shall also furnish copies of the filed application to any Federal, state, or local agency that so requests.
( c ) Unless an applicant for a license for a minor water power project requests in its application that the Commission apply the following provisions of Part I of the Federal Power Act when it issues a minor license for a project, the Commission, unless it determines it would not be in the public interest to do so, will waive: ( 1 ) Section 4(b), insofar as it requires a licensee to file a statement showing the actual legitimate costs of construction of a project;
( 2 ) Section 4(e), insofar as it relates to approval by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army of plans affecting navigation;
( 3 ) Section 6, insofar as it relates to the acceptance and expression in the license of terms and conditions of the Federal Power Act that are waived in the licensing order;
( 4 ) Section 10(c), insofar as it relates to a licensee's maintenance of depreciation reserves;
( 5 ) Sections 10(d) and 10(f);
( 6 ) Section 14, with the exception of the right of the United States or any state or municipality to take over, maintain, and operate a project through condemnation proceedings; and
( 7 ) Sections 15, 16, 19, 20 and 22.
[Order 413, 50 FR 11685, Mar. 25, 1985, as amended by Order 513, 54 FR 23806, June 2, 1989; Order 2002, 68 FR 51120, Aug. 25, 2003; Order 877, 86 FR 42714, Aug. 5, 2021; Order 899, 88 FR 74030, Oct. 30, 2023]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Service Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pamela J. Montpelier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B (Item 601(b)(32))
promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not
be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ PAMELA J. MONTPELIER
|Pamela J. Montpelier    
|Chief Executive Officer 

May 15, 2008
**EXHIBIT
      32**








**CERTIFICATION**


**REQUIRED
      BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND**


**SECTION
      1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**





In
      connection with the annual report on Form 40-F of FirstService Corporation
      (the
“Company”) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) filed with
      the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
      Jay
      S. Hennick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      USC.
      section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and


2.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.





Dated:  May
      18,
      2007




*/s/
      Jay S. Hennick*


Jay
      S.
      Hennick


Chief
      Executive Officer














**CERTIFICATION**


**REQUIRED
      BY RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B) AND**


**SECTION
      1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**





In
      connection with the annual report on Form 40-F of FirstService Corporation
      (the
“Company”) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) filed with
      the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
      John
      B. Friedrichsen, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to
      section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
      knowledge:





1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and


2.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.





Dated:  May
      18,
      2007




*/s/
      John B. Friedrichsen____________*




John
      B.
      Friedrichsen




Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
### §6616. Admissible evidence ultimate issue in State courts

Any party to a Y2K action in a State court in a State that has not adopted a rule of evidence substantially similar to Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence may introduce in such action evidence that would be admissible if Rule 704 applied in that jurisdiction.

(Pub. L. 106–37, §17, July 20, 1999, 113 Stat. 202.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Rule 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, referred to in text, is set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of M.H. MEYERSON & CO., INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending January 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P.
Leighton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and result of
               operations of the Company.

/s/ John P. Leighton
Chief Executive Officer
May 1, 2003