alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

(2004/C 70 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2362/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(17 July 2003)

Subject:   Research by a Turkish vessel in Greek territorial waters in the Aegean

It is reported in today's Greek press (8 July 2003) that from 4 to 19 July the Turkish oceanographic research vessel, the Piri Reis, will conduct research in the Aegean, in particular in Greek territorial waters. These reports state that the Greek navy has picked up an announcement broadcast by Izmir coastal radio station concerning the ‘vessel's oceanographic research’. According to its programme of ‘research’ the Piri Reis (which, incidentally, belongs to Izmir University) will carry out research at a distance of up to five nautical miles from the rocky islet ‘Kaloyeri’ in the Cyclades and at 25 other spots in Greek territorial waters.

It should be pointed out that Turkey (an applicant country) has previously dispatched this vessel into the Aegean with instructions to carry out research in Greek (and therefore Community) waters, thereby causing tension in Greek-Turkish relations.

Is the Council aware of the intention of the Turkish authorities? Has the University of Izmir, which owns the vessel in question, received funding through any Community initiative (either directly or indirectly with loans or other Community funds)? What actions can the Council take forthwith to prevail upon Turkey not to go ahead with research in the territorial waters of an EU Member State?

Reply

(8 December 2003)

----
§ 650.803 Policy. It is the policy of FHWA: ( a ) To provide clearances which meet the reasonable needs of navigation and provide for cost-effective highway operations,
( b ) To provide fixed bridges wherever practicable, and
( c ) To consider appropriate pier protection and vehicular protective and warning systems on bridges subject to ship collisions.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

CHERNOFF DIAMOND & CO., LLC, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1891 

)

GALLIN ASSOCIATES, INC., d/b/a )

GALLIN ASSOCIATES, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed November 14, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 

from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; 

Jack R. St. Arnold, Judge.

Christopher L. DeCort of Johnson & 

Cassidy, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Sheila Skellie of the Law Office of David J. 

Kurland, Largo, for Appellee.

LaROSE, Chief Judge.

Chernoff Diamond & Co., LLC, appeals the trial court's nonfinal order 

setting aside the final default judgment entered against Gallin Associates, Inc. We have 

jurisdiction, Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(B); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5), and reverse.

We review the trial court's order for gross abuse of discretion. See United 

Capital Funding Corp. v. Technamax, Inc., 946 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). To 
- 2 -

set aside the final default judgment, Gallin had to show: "(1) that the failure to file a 

responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) that it has a meritorious 

defense; and (3) that it acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default." See 

Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2004) (citing Goodwin v. Goodwin, 559 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)). 

Gallin failed to prove excusable neglect. The record demonstrates that 

Gallin's president, Lawrence Gallin, was served with the complaint and knew he had to 

respond. Yet, he put the complaint and summons in a drawer, left for vacation, and 

forgot about the lawsuit until he received notice of the entry of a final judgment. 

We are constrained to reverse and remand for the trial court to reinstate 

the final default judgment. See Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Laska, 977 So. 2d 804, 

807 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ("[A] default will not be set aside where the defaulted party or 

his attorney (1) simply forgot or (2) intentionally ignored the necessity to take 

appropriate action; that is to say, where the conduct could reasonably be characterized 

as partaking of gross negligence or as constituting a willful and intentional refusal to 

act." (quoting Jeyanandarajan v. Freedman, 863 So. 2d 432, 433-34 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2003))); see, e.g., Orlando Partners, Ltd. v. Classic Tour Lines, 492 So. 2d 1117, 1117 

(Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (holding there was no excusable neglect where wife stated she told 

her husband about receipt of summons but forgot to tell him about hearing on motion for 

entry of default and husband did not recall knowledge of summons). 

Reversed and remanded.

SILBERMAN and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### In the Matter of William H. White, an Attorney.

The motion of the Bar Association to confirm the report of the official referee herein is granted, and Mr. White is directed to appear at the bar of this court on Thursday, June 26, 1913, at one o’clock p. M. Present — Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Stapleton, JJ.
(No. 83-CC-2244

#### *In re*Application of Victoria P. Waliczek.

*Opinion filed June 9, 1983.*

*930Victoria P. Waliczek, *pro se,*for Claimant.

Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Robert J. Sklamberg, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

Roe, C. J.

Claimant seeks an award as the widow and sole designated beneficiary of firefighter Theodore E. Waliczek, pursuant to the provisions of the Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 281 *et seq.*

The Court has reviewed Claimant’s application for benefits together with the written statement of decedent’s supervisor, and has also reviewed the coroner’s certificate of death, the designation of beneficiary and the report of the Attorney General. From its consideration of these documents the Court finds:

1. A claim was filed herein by Victoria P. Waliczek, widow of Theodore E. Waliczek, who was a firefighter for the Chicago Fire Department and who died on May 10, 1982.

2. That Victoria P. Waliczek, as widow and sole beneficiary designated by decedent, is entitled to any award authorized by this Court.

3. That the statement of Peter Cunningham, decedent’s supervising officer, demonstrates that decedent suffered severe smoke inhalation on March 24, 1981, while asssigned to and attending a fire at 6211 South Cicero in Chicago.

4. That the certificate of death issued by the coroner *931of the State of Wisconsin states that the cause of decedent’s death was acute myocardial infarction resulting from coronary artery disease, and that decedent died on May 10,1982.

5. That there is nothing in the circumstances to suggest that decedent’s death resulted from the wilful misconduct or intoxication of the decedent.

6. That the foregoing does not fall within the terms and provisions of section 2 of the Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 282(e)), which defines “killed in the line of duty”. Specifically, decedent’s death did not occur within one year from the date the injury was received.

By reason of the foregoing it is hereby ordered that Claimant’s application for benefits under the provisions of the Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act herein be, and the same is, denied.
----

(2004/C 78 E/0630)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3580/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   EU working time legislation

Further to its 15 October answer to my written question E-2611/03 (1), when did the Commission issue the two invitations to tender for a study on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the SIMAP case (2)?

Why did it wait almost two and a half years before issuing the invitation to tender?

Does it believe such a completed study would have been useful for the preparation of its Communication on working time which is due by the end of 2003, and which it has already indicated will address the implications of the SIMAP judgment?

What views were presented by the Irish Government's representative at the meeting of national experts referred to by the Commission in its answer to written question E-0535/03 (3)?

Have any approaches been made to the Commission by the Irish Government requesting a possible Irish ‘derogation’ from the scope of Directive 2000/34/EC (4) in relation to junior doctors? What is or would be the Commission's response to such a request?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

As regards the invitations to tender for a study on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the SIMAP Case (5), the Commission dispatched the letters of invitation to tender on 11 April 2002 and 18 December 2002.

The study was launched with a view to preparing for the communication on working time.

As for the Commission's meeting with national experts on working time, the Commission would refer to its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-2611/03 (6). It must point out, however, that the purpose of the meeting was not to discuss the transposition of Directive 2000/34/EC (7), but the Commission's future communication on working time. At all events, no Member State reported difficulties with the transposition of that Directive.

Lastly, the Commission wishes to make it clear that no derogations can be made from the scope of Directive 2000/34/EC and none of the Member Sates has submitted a request for derogation.

----

(1)OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 187.

(2)  Judgment of the Court of 3 October in case C-303/98, Sindicato de Medicos de Asistencia Publica (SIMAP) and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana.

(3)OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 199.

(4)OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p. 41.

(5)  Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000 in Case C-303/98, Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (SIMAP) and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana.

(6)OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 187.

(7)  Directive 2000/34/CE of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/CE concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive, OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.

----
### §460m–4. Cooperative land development programs; hunting and fishing

#### (a) Development of comprehensive plans

In furtherance of the purposes of this subchapter, the Secretary is authorized to cooperate with the State of Missouri, its political subdivisions, and other Federal agencies and organizations in formulating comprehensive plans for the Ozark National Scenic Riverways and for the related watershed of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers in Missouri, and to enter into agreements for the implementation of such plans. Such plans may provide for land use and development programs, for preservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape, and for conservation of outdoor resources in the watersheds of the Current and Jacks Fork Rivers.

#### (b) Establishment of hunting and fishing zones and periods

The Secretary shall permit hunting and fishing on lands and waters under his jurisdiction within the Ozark National Scenic Riverways area in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws. The Secretary may designate zones where, and establish periods when, no hunting shall be permitted, for reasons of public safety, administration, or public use and enjoyment and shall issue regulations after consultation with the Conservation Commission of the State of Missouri.

(Pub. L. 88–492, §5, Aug. 27, 1964, 78 Stat. 609.)
### §470x–3. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 89–665, title IV, §404, as added Pub. L. 102–575, title XL, §4022, Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4766; amended Pub. L. 106–208, §5(a)(14), May 26, 2000, 114 Stat. 319, related to Preservation Technology and Training Board. See section 305303 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3568 — JPMP/APOLLO GROUP/AMC)

(2004/C 272/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 25 October 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
# Official Journal C 56/2022

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 56 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 653 February 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 56

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 653 February 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2022/C 56/01 | Information to be provided pursuant to Article 5(2) – Dissolution of European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2022/C 56/01

Information to be provided pursuant to Article 5(2) – Dissolution of European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC)

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 56/02 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10609 – EURAZEO / PSPIB / FST HOTELS) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2022/C 56/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10567 – ACE / MOSADEX / PHARMALOT COMPOUNDING) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 56/04 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 6 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2022/C 56/02

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10609 – EURAZEO / PSPIB / FST HOTELS) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

2

2022/C 56/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10567 – ACE / MOSADEX / PHARMALOT COMPOUNDING) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

4

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2022/C 56/04

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
### §556g. Reimbursement of employee license costs and certification fees

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in fiscal year 1993 and thereafter, appropriations or funds available to the Department of the Interior or the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, may be used to reimburse employees for the cost of State licenses and certification fees pursuant to their employment and that are necessary to comply with State or Federal laws, regulations, or requirements.

(Pub. L. 102–381, title III, §317, Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1417.)
----

Action brought on 6 June 2006 — NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket v Commission

(Case T-152/06)

(2006/C 178/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NDSHT Nya Destination Stockholm Hotell & Teaterpaket AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission not to pursue its investigation of the applicant's complaint relating to three kinds of subsidies to Stockholm Visitors Board AB (‘SVB’), namely: the yearly appropriations from the City of Stockholm's budget in favour of SVB, the reimbursement on a regular basis of SVB's pre-tax losses by its parent company and the preferential access to public assets for the provision of services included in the Stockholm Card. The Commission found that the measures did not constitute unlawful aid.

The applicant submits that, by adopting the contested decision, the Commission has infringed several provisions in the Treaty and Regulation No 659/1999 (1).

The applicant invokes, first, that, by not opening the formal investigation procedure, the Commission infringed Article 88(3) EC as well as Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999. According to the applicant, the Commission was aware of the existence of aid and did not have sufficient elements to establish that all measures at stake qualified as existing aid.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied Articles 87 and 86(2) EC insofar as it stated that the compensation for carrying out the tourist information activities fell within the rules on services of general economic interest.

Third, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied Articles 87 and 88 EC, as well as Article 1(b) of Regulation No 659/1999, in stating that, if the compensation for tourist information activities was to be considered as aid, it constituted existing aid and not unlawful aid, and in any case was compatible with the common market.

Fourth, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in the application of Article 87(1) and 88(3) EC in establishing that SVB's commercial activities were carried out under market conditions and were, therefore, not financed from state aid. The applicant submits in particular that the Commission failed to take a position in relation to the reimbursement of SVB's losses by its parent company, wholly owned by the City Council.

Finally, the applicant invokes an infringement of the duty to state reasons, as well as an infringement of the general principle of sound administration in that the duration of the preliminary investigation would have been excessive.

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1).

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED  MARCH 31, 2000 AND 2000 FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                        3,557,616
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   973,982
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                     181,385
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              5,072,116
<PP&E>                                          695,743
<DEPRECIATION>                                   31,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               12,669,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         2,265,306
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                      9,132,516
<OTHER-SE>                                   (3,415,282)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 12,699,216
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1,028,836
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   717,688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                728,646
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (417,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2,944
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (760,850)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.01)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank Aybar, Appellant. (Simple Assault.) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank Aybar, Appellant. (Indecent Exposure.)

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4844 

To remove the authorized purpose of maintaining water supply for agricultural 

uses for the project for Caloosahatchee River and Lake Okeechobee 

drainage areas, Florida. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 23, 2019 

Mr. ROONEY of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To remove the authorized purpose of maintaining water supply for agricultural uses for the project for Caloosahatchee River and Lake Okeechobee drainage areas, Florida. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER AND LAKE OKEE4 CHOBEE DRAINAGE AREAS, FLORIDA. 

5 Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, 

6 maintaining water supply for agricultural uses shall not 

7 be an authorized purpose of the project for Caloosahatchee 

8 River and Lake Okeechobee drainage areas, Florida, auVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:26 Oct 29, 2019 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4844.IH H4844

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4844 IH

1 thorized under the Act of July 3, 1930 (Chapter 847; 46 

2 Stat. 925). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
### §482n–2. Perfection of mining claims within forest

Valid mining claims within the said lands, existing on May 24, 1949, and thereafter maintained in compliance with the law under which they were initiated and the laws of the State of Arizona, may be perfected under sections 482n to 482n–3 of this title, or under the laws under which they were initiated, as the claimant may desire.

(May 24, 1949, ch. 136, §3, 63 Stat. 76.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

May 24, 1949, referred to in text, was in the original "the date of enactment of this Act". The date thus referred to is deemed to relate to the date of enactment of section 482n–3 of this title, May 19, 1955, as applied to any land described in section 482n–3 of this title.