alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016422EN.01000601.xml

| 17.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 23 September 2015

in Case E-23/14

Kimek Offshore AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

v

(Action for annulment — State aid — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Admissibility — Legal interest — Status as interested party — Doubts or serious difficulties — General measures — Aid scheme)

(2016/C 422/05)

In Case E-23/14, Kimek Offshore AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 225/14/COL of 18 June 2014 on the compatibility of Norway’s regionally differentiated social security contributions scheme with the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur) Judges, gave judgment on 23 September 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

v

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Annuls ESA Decision No 225/14/COL of 18 June 2014 on the compatibility of Norway’s regionally differentiated social security contributions scheme with the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in so far as it closed the preliminary investigation as regards section 1(4) of the Norwegian Parliament’s Decision No 1482 of 5 December 2013 on determination of the tax rates etc. under the National Insurance Act for 2014. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls ESA Decision No 225/14/COL of 18 June 2014 on the compatibility of Norway’s regionally differentiated social security contributions scheme with the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in so far as it closed the preliminary investigation as regards section 1(4) of the Norwegian Parliament’s Decision No 1482 of 5 December 2013 on determination of the tax rates etc. under the National Insurance Act for 2014.

| 2. | Orders ESA to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ESA to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicant.

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2


Number                                                                   Shares
LMB-                                                                      -0-
THIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE                                        Series B
IN CANTON, MASSACHUSETTS, JERSEY                                    Common Stock
CITY, NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK                                Cusip No. 530718204
CITY, NEW YORK                                                       SEE REVERSE
                                                                     FOR CERTAIN
                                                                     DEFINITIONS

                            LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION

             Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware

                              SPECIMEN CERTIFICATE



This Certifies that ____________________________________ is the owner of
_________________________________ FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF SERIES
B COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE, OF LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION
(the "Corporation") transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder
hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this
Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless
countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.


Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of
its duly authorized officers.

Dated:

                            Liberty Media Corporation
                                [Corporate Seal]

Countersigned and Registered:

  EquiServe Trust Company, N.A.
  Transfer Agent and Registrar

By
-----------------------      -----------------------     -----------------------
Authorized Officer           SECRETARY                   PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
                                                         EXECUTIVE OFFICER
§ 244.3 Base risk retention requirement. ( a ) *Base risk retention requirement.* Except as otherwise provided in this part, the sponsor of a securitization transaction (or majority-owned affiliate of the sponsor) shall retain an economic interest in the credit risk of the securitized assets in accordance with any one of §§ 244.4 through 244.10. Credit risk in securitized assets required to be retained and held by any person for purposes of compliance with this part, whether a sponsor, an originator, an originator-seller, or a third-party purchaser, except as otherwise provided in this part, may be acquired and held by any of such person's majority-owned affiliates (other than an issuing entity).
( b ) *Multiple sponsors.* If there is more than one sponsor of a securitization transaction, it shall be the responsibility of each sponsor to ensure that at least one of the sponsors of the securitization transaction (or at least one of their majority-owned or wholly-owned affiliates, as applicable) retains an economic interest in the credit risk of the securitized assets in accordance with any one of § 244.4, § 244.5, § 244.8, § 244.9, or § 244.10.
§ 263.63 Assessment order. ( a ) In the event of consent to an assessment by the person concerned, or if, upon the record made at an administrative hearing, the Board finds that the grounds for having assessed the penalty have been established, the Board may issue a final order of assessment of civil penalty. In its final order, the Board may modify the amount of the penalty specified in the notice of assessment.
( b ) An assessment order is effective immediately upon issuance, or upon such other date as may be specified therein, and shall remain effective and enforceable until it is stayed, modified, terminated, or set aside by action of the Board or a reviewing court.
§ 303.206 Application for payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt. ( a ) *Scope.* Any critically undercapitalized insured depository institution shall submit an application to pay principal or interest on subordinated debt.
( b ) *Content of filing.* Applications shall describe the proposed payment and provide an explanation of action taken under section 38(h)(3)(A)(ii) of the FDI Act (action other than receivership or conservatorship). The application also shall explain how such payments would further the purposes of section 38 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831 *o*). Existing approvals pursuant to requests filed under section 18(i)(1) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(i)(1)) (capital stock reductions or retirements) shall not be deemed to be the permission needed pursuant to section 38.
# C_2023158EN.01000801.xml

| 4.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/8

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Fürstliches Obergericht dated 25 October 2022 in the case of Alexander Amann

(Case E-14/22)

(2023/C 158/03)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court, dated 25 October 2022, from the Fürstliches Obergericht (Princely Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 16 November 2022, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Alexander Amann on the following questions:

| 1. | Does Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market preclude a provision such as Paragraph 35(1)(c) of the Professional Guidelines of the Liechtenstein Chamber of Lawyers which prohibits lawyers from offering professional services to specific categories of potential clients and which is to be construed, in accordance with the interpretation adopted by the Liechtenstein Staatsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court), as ‘prohibiting proactive advertising by lawyers where they offer their services in certain situations to selected (groups of) people who have not themselves expressed an interest in those services’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market preclude a provision such as Paragraph 35(1)(c) of the Professional Guidelines of the Liechtenstein Chamber of Lawyers which prohibits lawyers from offering professional services to specific categories of potential clients and which is to be construed, in accordance with the interpretation adopted by the Liechtenstein Staatsgerichtshof (Constitutional Court), as ‘prohibiting proactive advertising by lawyers where they offer their services in certain situations to selected (groups of) people who have not themselves expressed an interest in those services’?

| 2. | Is Article 24(1) of Directive 2006/123/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a national provision may not, in general, prohibit lawyers from, on their own initiative, contacting by letter potential clients who were not previously their customers, after ascertaining their personal addresses, and from offering them their services, in particular by bringing an action for damages in a case of damage affecting them as best only as investors? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 24(1) of Directive 2006/123/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a national provision may not, in general, prohibit lawyers from, on their own initiative, contacting by letter potential clients who were not previously their customers, after ascertaining their personal addresses, and from offering them their services, in particular by bringing an action for damages in a case of damage affecting them as best only as investors?

---
#### EDWIN C. McNEIL v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. F-294.

Decided January 9, 1928]

*On the Proofs*

*Army pay; professors at Military Academy; lack of appropriation; recourse to Court of Claims.-*— See *Strong*v. *United States,*60 O. Cls. 627.

*The BeportePs*statement of the case:

*Mr. Cornelius H. Bull*for the plaintiff. *King <& King*were on the briefs.

*Mr. John G.*Ewing, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Herman J. Galloway,*for the defendant.

The court made special findings of fact, as follows:

I. Plaintiff has at all times from July 2, 1923, to the present date been an officer of the Judge Advocate General’s Department of the United States Army on active duty holding the rank of major.

II. Pursuant to paragraph 40, Special Orders, No. 99, dated War Department July 2, 1923, plaintiff reported to the Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point, N. Y., for duty. He was assigned to duty in the department of law at said academy by paragraph 4, Special Orders, No. 141, dated headquarters, U. S. Military Academy, July 2, 1923.

III. By Special Orders, No. 196, dated War Department, August 27,1923, plaintiff was directed to report to the Superintendent of the United States Military Academy for duty as professor of law. He reported as directed and by Special *407Orders, No. 31, dated headquarters, U. S. Military Academy, West Point, N. Y., August 27, 1923, plaintiff was directed to enter upon his duties as professor of law. Plaintiff entered upon said duties August 27, 1923, and from that date to the present time has been and still remains on that duty.

IY. Prom August 27, 1923, to June 30, 1926, plaintiff has received from the United States the pay of a major, U. S. Army. He has not received any increase in pay or allowances on account of his assignment to and performance of duties as professor of law at the U. S. Military Academy, West Point, N. Y.

The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover the difference in the pay of major and lieutenant colonel for the period from August 27,1923, to June 30,1926, amounting to $1,870.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

This case is on all fours with the case of *Strong*v. *United*States, 60 C. Cls. 627. The statutes governing the *Strong ease*are the same as those which govern this case. There is no difference between the two cases. The pay and allowances of the plaintiff have been fixed by law. The officers of the Treasury have no authority to pay the officer until an appropriation therefor has been made. But the liability of the United States to pay exists independently of the appropriation, and may be enforced by proceedings in this court.
EXHIBIT 23.2



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




As independent  public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the  incorporation by
reference  of our report  dated  March 23,  1999  relating  to the  consolidated
statements of operations and other comprehensive  income,  stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 1998 of Elcom International, Inc.
and subsidiaries, and all related schedules, included in this Form 10-K of Elcom
International,   Inc.  into  Elcom   International,   Inc.'s   previously  filed
Registration statement no. 333-94743 on Form S-3 and the Registration Statements
No. 333-00362, 333-24809, 333-67927, 333-81795, 333-34193 and 333-54852 on Forms
S-8.


/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Arthur Andersen LLP


March 28, 2001
Boston, Massachusetts
# C_2023145EN.01000501.xml

| 27.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

26 April 2023

(2023/C 145/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1039 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 147,67 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4534 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88560 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,3855 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9824 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 149,70 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,7220 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,477 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 375,83 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5928 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9391 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 21,4424 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6725 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5035 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6655 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8032 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4745 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 476,66 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 20,3080 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6424 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 389,57 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9201 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,454 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,731 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,5739 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,9388 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 90,2465 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1039

JPY

Japanese yen

147,67

DKK

Danish krone

7,4534

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88560

SEK

Swedish krona

11,3855

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9824

ISK

Iceland króna

149,70

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,7220

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,477

HUF

Hungarian forint

375,83

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5928

RON

Romanian leu

4,9391

TRY

Turkish lira

21,4424

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6725

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5035

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6655

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8032

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4745

KRW

South Korean won

1 476,66

ZAR

South African rand

20,3080

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6424

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 389,57

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9201

PHP

Philippine peso

61,454

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

37,731

BRL

Brazilian real

5,5739

MXN

Mexican peso

19,9388

INR

Indian rupee

90,2465

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
42456.

#### BROWN v. ELLIOTT.

Quillian, Judge.

The appeal in the instant case was taken from the sustaining of a general demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition. The defendants have moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that it is premature because the defendant’s cross action is still pending in the court below. *Held:*

*90
      *Frankum, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*

Argued January 9, 1967

Decided January 24, 1967.

*W. M. Mathews, Jr.,*for appellant.

*J. E. Wilson,*for appellee.

Where as in. the case snb judice the answer of the defendant contained a prayer for affirmative legal relief germane to the plaintiff’s suit, the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit on general demurrer would not carry with it the defendant’s cross action. *Wallace v. Eiselman,*219 Ga. 307 (133 SE2d 355). Hence, the cross action is still pending and there being no final judgment within the contemplation of the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 18; *Code Ann.*§ 6-701), the appeal is prematurely brought (Chemetron *Corp. v. Southern Nitrogen Co.,*102 Ga. App. 577 (117 SE2d 180); *Chambless v. Cain,*107 Ga. App. 738 (131 SE2d 117)) and must be

*Dismissed.*
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.2(b)

Interconnection Agreement (Morgantown) between Potomac Electric Power Company
and Southern Energy Mid-Atlantic, LLC dated as of December 19, 2000

Interconnection Agreement (Chalk Point) between Potomac Electric Power Company,
Southern Energy Chalk Point, LLC and Southern Energy Peaker, LLC dated as of
December 19, 2000
# L_2005105EN.01000501.xml

| 26.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 105/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 105/5

---

Corrigendum to EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 305/04/COL of 1 December 2004 amending for the 48th time the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by amending Chapter 16 ‘Aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty and proposal for appropriate measures’

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 97 of 15 April 2005
  )

The publication of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 305/04/COL is considered null and void.

---
# C_2015059EN.01000501.xml

| 19.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/5

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2015/C 59/06)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 26 November 2014 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 76280 |
| Decision No | : | 519/14/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title | : | Amendments to the Norwegian Special Tax System for Shipping concerning a differentiated reduction of the tonnage tax based on environmental criteria |
| Legal basis | : | Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement |
| Type of measure | : | Aid scheme |
| Objective | : | Promotion of the maritime sector |
| Form of aid | : | Tax exemption |
| Budget | : | n.a. |
| Duration | : | From the income year 2015 until re-notification |
| Economic sectors | : | Maritime transport |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Ministry of Finance |
| P.O. Box 8008 Dep, |
| N-0030 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

26 November 2014

Case No

Case No

:

76280

Decision No

Decision No

:

519/14/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title

Title

:

Amendments to the Norwegian Special Tax System for Shipping concerning a differentiated reduction of the tonnage tax based on environmental criteria

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Aid scheme

Objective

Objective

:

Promotion of the maritime sector

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Tax exemption

Budget

Budget

:

n.a.

Duration

Duration

:

From the income year 2015 until re-notification

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Maritime transport

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Ministry of Finance

P.O. Box 8008 Dep,

N-0030 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Theragenics Corporation ® ,
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 3, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, M.
      Christine Jacobs, President and Chief Executive Officer, 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
                as of the dates and for the periods referred to in the
                Report.








By: /s/
      M.
      Christine Jacobs


M.
      Christine Jacobs


Chief
      Executive Officer


August
      12, 2005








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Theragenics Corporation ® and will
      be retained by Theragenics Corporation ® and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.