alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010301EN.01005002.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/50

---

Action brought on 14 September 2010 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission

(Case T-395/10)

()

2010/C 301/80

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor, and S. Santoro, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the implied refusal of the applicant’s confirmatory application; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied refusal of the applicant’s confirmatory application;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to certain documents relating to the trade negotiations between the EU and India.

1

In support of its application the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.

First, it claims that the Commission infringed the Regulation No 1049/2001 by failing to reply to the confirmatory application within the prescribed time.

Second, the applicant contends that the Commission infringed the Regulation No 1049/2001 and the Treaty by constructively rejecting a confirmatory application without giving any reasons or without giving reasons to the standards required by the Treaty and by the Court.

Third, it submits that by failing to reply to the confirmatory application the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement and/or committed an error of law.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

1

---
# C_2012287EN.01001001.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Maurizio Giovanardi and Others

(Case C-79/11) (1)

1

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Directive 2004/80/EC - Compensation to victims of crime - Liability of a legal person - Compensation in criminal proceedings)

2012/C 287/15

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Firenze

Parties in the main proceedings

Parties in the main proceedings

Maurizio Giovanardi, Andrea Lastini, Filippo Ricci, Vito Piglionica, Massimiliano Pempori, Gezim Lakja, Elettrifer Srl, Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze — Interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 9 of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15) — Criminal liability of legal persons — Right of a victim of a criminal act to be compensated, in the context of criminal proceedings, by a legal person indirectly liable for the harm suffered

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that, under a system governing the liability of legal persons such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that provision does not preclude a situation in which the victim of a criminal act is not entitled to seek compensation for the harm directly caused by that act in the course of criminal proceedings from the legal person who committed an administrative offence.

---

(1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.

1

---
# C_2011080EN.01001401.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo (Italy) lodged on 5 January 2011 — Public Prosecutor v Fabio Caronna

(Case C-7/11)

2011/C 80/26

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Palermo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Fabio Caronna

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 77(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use to be construed as meaning that pharmacists are included among the persons who must obtain authorisation for the wholesale distribution of medicinal products or was it the Community legislature’s intention, instead, to exempt pharmacists from the requirement to apply for that authorisation, as would appear to be suggested by a reading of recital 36 in the preamble to the directive? It is appropriate to set out the arguments put forward by the suspect’s lawyer in support of the latter interpretation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 77(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use to be construed as meaning that pharmacists are included among the persons who must obtain authorisation for the wholesale distribution of medicinal products or was it the Community legislature’s intention, instead, to exempt pharmacists from the requirement to apply for that authorisation, as would appear to be suggested by a reading of recital 36 in the preamble to the directive? It is appropriate to set out the arguments put forward by the suspect’s lawyer in support of the latter interpretation.

1

| 2. | In more general terms, what is the correct interpretation to be given to the rules governing authorisation to distribute medicinal products laid down by Article 76 to 84 of the Directive, with particular reference to the requirements to be met in order for a pharmacist (that is, a natural person, not a company) who, by virtue of that status, is already authorised to retail medicinal products under national law, also to be able to distribute medicinal products? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In more general terms, what is the correct interpretation to be given to the rules governing authorisation to distribute medicinal products laid down by Article 76 to 84 of the Directive, with particular reference to the requirements to be met in order for a pharmacist (that is, a natural person, not a company) who, by virtue of that status, is already authorised to retail medicinal products under national law, also to be able to distribute medicinal products?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

1

---
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1381

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a 5-year recovery

period for petroleum storage facilities.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 15, 1999

Mr. COCHRAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish

a 5-year recovery period for petroleum storage facilities.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CLASS LIFE FOR PETROLEUM STORAGE FACILI4 TIES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section

6 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

7 to classification of certain property) is amended by strik8 ing ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (v), by striking the period

9 at the end of clause (vi) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and adding

10 at the end the following new clause:
2

•S 1381 IS

1 ‘‘(vii) any section 1245 property described in

2 section 1245(a)(3)(E).’’.

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subparagraph (B)

4 of section 168(g)(3) of such Code (relating to special rules

5 for determining class life) is amended by inserting after

6 the item relating to subparagraph (B)(iii) in the table con7 tained therein the following new item:

‘‘(B)(viii) .................................................................................................... 9’’.

8 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

9 this section shall apply to property which is placed in serv10 ice on or after the date of enactment of this Act. A tax11 payer may elect (in such form and manner as the Sec12 retary of the Treasury may prescribe) to have such

13 amendment apply with respect to any property placed in

14 service before such date.

Æ
# C_2011139EN.01001403.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana (Italy) lodged on 3 March 2011 — Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Caltanissetta v Massimiliano Rizzo

(Case C-107/11)

2011/C 139/27

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministero dell’Interno, Questura di Caltanissetta

Applicants:

Defendant: Massimiliano Rizzo

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Is the national legislation introduced initially by the Bersani Decree — namely, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006 — compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, and specifically as regards the national rules which, inter alia:

| (a) | tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure under which some operators were unlawfully excluded; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure under which some operators were unlawfully excluded;

| (b) | ensure de facto the maintenance of commercial positions already acquired (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks at a distance from existing kiosks which falls short of the specified minimum); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

ensure de facto the maintenance of commercial positions already acquired (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks at a distance from existing kiosks which falls short of the specified minimum);

de facto

| (c) | make it possible for the licence to lapse in cases where the licensee engages, directly or indirectly, in cross-border gaming activities analogous to those covered by the licence? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

make it possible for the licence to lapse in cases where the licensee engages, directly or indirectly, in cross-border gaming activities analogous to those covered by the licence?

---
### §6307g. Confidentiality

#### (a) In general

Neither a boxing commission or 1 an Attorney General may disclose to the public any matter furnished by a promoter under section 6307e of this title except to the extent required in a legal, administrative, or judicial proceeding.

#### (b) Effect of contrary State law

If a State law governing a boxing commission requires that information that would be furnished by a promoter under section 6307e of this title shall be made public, then a promoter is not required to file such information with such State if the promoter files such information with the ABC.

(Pub. L. 104–272, §15, as added Pub. L. 106–210, §4(2), May 26, 2000, 114 Stat. 325.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 15 of Pub. L. 104–272 was renumbered section 23 and is set out as a note under section 6301 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be "nor".
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 9, 2011 

p0302 

Order 

 

March 9, 2011 

138401 (70) 

 

LANSING SCHOOLS EDUCATION 

ASSOCIATION, MEA/NEA, CATHY 

STACHWICK, PENNY FILONCZUK, 

ELIZABETH NAMIE, and ELLEN WHEELER, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 138401 

 COA: 279895 

Ingham CC: 07-000483-AW 

LANSING BOARD OF EDUCATION and 

LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for review of taxation of costs is GRANTED. A 

public question being involved, no costs are awarded. 

 CAVANAGH and MARILYN KELLY, JJ., would deny the motion for review of 

taxation of costs.
Thank you for partnering with us for Mental Health Awareness Month! We have created a series of digital backdrops designed to enhance your virtual events, meetings, and social media content throughout the month. These backdrops aim to promote mental health awareness and foster conversations around this important topic.

Below are the instructions on how to access and use these digital backdrops effectively:

**Accessing the Digital Backdrops:**

1. Browse through the collection below to find the perfect backdrop for your event, meeting, or social media post.

2. Click on the desired backdrop, and download it to your device (right-click on the image and select "Save image as" or a similar option).

**Using the Digital Backdrops:**

*Virtual Meetings and Events (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, etc.):*

1. Open your preferred video conferencing platform and join or create a meeting.

2. Access the platform's virtual background settings (usually found in the video settings or by clicking on your video preview).

3. Upload the downloaded backdrop by selecting the "+" or "Add" option, and choose the image file from your device.

4. Ensure the backdrop is selected as your active virtual background.

*Social Media Content:*

1. Open your preferred image editing software or social media management tool.

2. Import the downloaded backdrop into the software or tool.

3. Add any relevant text, logos, or graphics to the backdrop, ensuring they align with your organization's branding and messaging.

4. Export the final image and share it on your social media channels.

Please feel free to customize these backdrops to better match your organization's branding or campaign theme. By using these digital backdrops, you can visually support Mental Health Awareness Month and engage your audience in meaningful discussions around mental health.
BLANCHE L . LINCOLN, ARKANSAS 

CHAIRMAN 

i'ATHICK J- LLAFY, VERMONT 

iOM FNNKIN, IOWA 

KI:NI OONNAp, N()FITH DAKOTA 

h1AX BAUCU$ . MON7ANA 

oelafilt STAl1eNC~W, Nua+usAN 

tl BF .N.IAMINNCLSON .NEBfiASKA 

S! 11 ; ItR00 Bfib W N. OHIO 

ROt3f~HT P . CAS".".Y, JR ., Pi1NNSYI .VANfA 

AMY ~KLOE3UCIIAR, MINNESOTA 

MtCHAF . f3ENNET, COLONAt90 

KIflS1'LN Ci1LLIt31iANp . NEW YORK 

`ulnited ~6- taes ~cnatc 

COMMITTEE ON 

AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6000 

202-224--2035 

July 2, 2010 

The Honorable Lisa Jackson 

Administrator 

U .S . Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W . 

Washington, D.C . 20460 

Dear Administrator Jackson : 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, GEORGIA 

RANKING REPUBLICAN MEMBER 

aC1Ala) G. LU(AR, INDIANA 

MI THAI) COCHRAN, MISSISSIPPI 

TCH McCONNELL, Kt:NTUC:KY 

PAT f1O6f RTS, KANSAS 

h11Kf: JOHANNS. NEBRASKA 

CHANI.lS E. GRASSLFY, IOWA 

JOHN 1HUNl. SOU1H OAKOTA 

.JOHN c:ORNYN, 'TEXAS 

We are very concerned about the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 

decision in the Prevention of Signiticant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring Rule to consider the emissions from blonlass Combustion the same as enllsston5 from 

fossil fuels. 

EPA's decision contradicts long-standlng U.S . policy, as well as the agency's own 

proposed ~I'allol'lng Rule . Emissions from the combustion of biomass are not included in the 

Department o1~ C;ncrgy's Voluntary greenhouse gas (GI-IG) emissions reporting guidelines and 

neither are they required to be reported under EPA's GHG Reporting Rule. In the proposed 

Tailoring Rule, EPA proposed to calculate a source's GI-IG emissions based upon EPA's 

Inventory of U.S . Gl'IG Emissions and Sinks . The GHG Inventory eXClUdes blonlass e1111sslons . 

We think you would agree that renewable biomass should play a more significant role in 

our nation's energy policy . Unfortunately, the Tailoring Rule is discouraging the responsible 

development and utilization of renewable biomass . It has already forced numerous biomass 

energy projects into limbo. We are also concerned that it will impose new, unnecessary 

regulations on the current use of biomass for energy. 

We appreciate that EPA intends to seek further comments on how to address biomass 

emissions under the PSD and Title V programs. With this rule, the agency has made a 

fundamental change in policy with little explanation . We strongly encourage you to reconsider 

this decision and immediately begin the process of seeking comments on it . In addition, we 

appreciate Secretary of Agriculture "1'om Vilsack's commitment to working with EPA on this 

issue and encourage you to utilize the expertise of the U .S . Department of Agriculture . 
Please let us know as soon as possible the agency's plans on this matter. We appreciate 

your attention to this important issue. 

Sincerely, 

M -A'v4' 
91* aw-~ 

' ,- - `

:y 7 

" ~~l ~~ 
C2 

*0,,zt 9 - 4--). /1,"- W-O-Z
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


Exhibit
32.2


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 on Form 10-Q of Viasystems Group, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gerald G. Sax, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:





The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.





/s/Gerald G.
Sax


Gerald G.
Sax


Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)


May 17,
2010
### §3343. Transactions requiring services of State licensed appraiser

All federally related transactions not requiring the services of a State certified appraiser shall be performed by either a State certified or licensed appraiser.

(Pub. L. 101–73, title XI, §1114, Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 514.)
### §691. Repealed. Pub. L. 87–341, §11(f), Oct. 3, 1961, 75 Stat. 756

Section, Pub. L. 85–699, title IV, §401, Aug. 21, 1958, 72 Stat. 696, related to conversion of any investment company, or any State development company, into a small business investment company.
#### § 349.7 Assignment for oral hearing.

Except when there are no material facts in dispute, when a person does not consent to the shortened procedure, the Commission will assign the proceeding for hearing as provided by subpart E of part 385 of this chapter. Notwithstanding a person's not giving consent to the shortened procedure, and instead seeking assignment for hearing as provided for by subpart E of part 385 of this chapter, the Commission will not assign the proceeding for a hearing when no material facts are in dispute. The Commission may also, in its discretion, at any stage in the proceeding, set the proceeding for hearing.
# C_2012235EN.01001205.xml

| 4.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/12

---

Order of the President of the Court of 19 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — IBIS Srl v PARTIUM ’70 Műanyagipari Zrt

(Case C-490/11) (1)

1

2012/C 235/27

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.

1

---
#4®1

PRELIMINARY AGENDA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

PUBLIC MEETING ON SCHEDULING ISSUES

Holiday Inn Capitol

550 C Street, SW

Washington, DC 20024

Tuesday, November 15, 2005, 9:00 a.m.

Purpose of Meeting: To hear the views of interested persons on how the Department will

develop and implement a full compliance scheduling plan for appliance rulemaking activities.

DOE is committed to meeting and catching up on all statutory requirements and requests public

comment on how best to achieve it.

9:00 - 9:20 am Welcoming Remarks

9:20 - 9:45 am Introductions and Agenda Review

9:45 -10:15 am Department's Charge and Challenges

10:15 - 11:00 am Overview/Summary Stakeholder Remarks (2-3 minutes each)

11:00 - 11:15 am Break

11:15 am - 12:00 pm Recent and Forthcoming Process Improvements

12:00 - 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00 - 2:15 pm Stakeholder Feedback/Input on Process Improvements

2:15 - 2:30 pm Break

2:30 - 3:30 pm Discussion: Possible Scheduling Approaches

 EE-PS-2006-001 COMMENT 04.1

PRELIMJNARY AGENDA 

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 

AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 

PUBLIC MEETING ON SCHEDULING ISSUES 

Holiday Inn Capitol 

550 C Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20024 

Tuesday, November 15, 2005, 9:00 a.m. 

#4.1 

Purpose of Meeting: To hear the views of interested persons on how the Department will 

develop and implement a full compliance scheduling plan for appliance rulemaking activities. 

DOE is committed to meeting and catching up on all statutory requirements and requests public 

comment on how best to achieve it. 

9:00 - 9:20 am Welcoming Remarks 

9:20 - 9:45 am Introductions and Agenda Review 

9:45 -10:15 am Department's Charge and Challenges 

10:15 - 11:00 am OvervieW/Summary Stakeholder Remarks (2-3 minutes each) 

11:00 - 11:15 am Break 

11 : 15 am - 12:00 pm Recent and Forthcoming Process Improvements 

12:00 - 1 :00 pm Lunch 

1:00 - 2:15 pm Stakeholder Feedback/Input on Process Improvements 

2:15 - 2:30 pm Break 

2:30 - 3:30 pm Discussion: Possible Scheduling Approaches 
#4.1

3:30 - 3:50 pm Other Issues and Comments

3:50 - 4:00 pm Closing Remarks

4:00 pm ADJOURNMENT

 EE-PS-2006-001 COMMENT 04.1

3:30 - 3:50 pm 

3:50 - 4:00 pm 

4:00pm 

Other Issues and Comments 

Closing Remarks 

ADJOURNMENT 

#4.1
#### § 367.7 Item list.

Lists of items appearing in the texts of the accounts or elsewhere in this part are for the purpose of indicating clearly the application of the prescribed accounting. The lists are intended to be representative, but not exhaustive. The appearance of an item in a list warrants the inclusion of the item in the account mentioned only when the text of the account also indicates inclusion inasmuch as the same item frequently appears in more than one list. The proper entry in each instance must be determined by the texts of the accounts.