alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014448EN.01001702.xml

| 15.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 448/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-632/11) (1)

1

((EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment entitlements scheme - Loyal cooperation - Fairness - Proportionality - National reserve - Award criteria - Flat-rate financial correction - Risk for the Fund - Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 - Wine sector - Distillation schemes and schemes for payments for the use of certain musts - Aid for restructuring and for the conversion of vineyards))

(2014/C 448/22)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and S. Papaïoannou, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Marcoulli, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2011/689/EU of 14 October 2011 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2011 L 270, p. 33), in so far as that decision concerns the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2011/689/EU of 14 October 2011 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction on the Hellenic Republic relating to the grant of entitlements from the national reserve to new farmers; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2011/689/EU of 14 October 2011 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction on the Hellenic Republic relating to the grant of entitlements from the national reserve to new farmers;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Declares that the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic are to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic are to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.

1

---
Argued and submitted December 14, 1995,

reversed and remanded March 20, 1996

#### Eleanor HOWARD, *Appellant, v.*KIENOW'S FOOD STORES, INC., *Respondent.*

(C940-884CV; CA A88514)

913 P2d 721

Michael N. Gutzler argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Vick & Gutzler.

Janet M. Schroer argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Marjorie A. Speirs and Hoffman, Hart & Wagner.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

WARREN, P. J.

*578WARREN, P. J.

Plaintiff alleged that she was,injured when she fell after slipping on a staple in defendant’s grocery store. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the evidence would not allow a jury to infer that defendant’s employees placed the staple at the spot where plaintiff fell or that the staple was on the floor for so long that defendant was negligent in failing to discover and remove it. *See Griffin v. K.E. McKay’s Market of Coos Bay, Inc.,*125 Or App 448, 451, 865 P2d 1320 (1993), *rev den*319 Or 80 (1994) (describing theories under which an invitee can recover for slipping and falling on a foreign substance on business property). We reverse.

The evidence is that the staple came from a box used in defendant’s meat department. A jury could therefore infer that a person in that department negligently left it on defendant’s floor.1 The fact that the staple may later have been moved by an employee or customer to the location where plaintiff stepped on it does not necessarily insulate defendant from its negligence in placing the object on the floor.

A jury could also find that the staple was on the store’s floor for at least four hours before the accident and that defendant had swept the floor and should, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered it and removed it before the accident.

Reversed and remanded.

1

 This case is distinguishable from *Rex v. Albertson’s Inc.,*102 Or App 178, 792 P2d 1248, *rev den*310 Or 422 (1990), on which the trial court relied, because defendant used the staple in its operations, giving rise to an inference that defendant was responsible for its being on the floor.
#### § 188.01-7 Right of appeal.

Any person directly affected by a decision or action taken under this subchapter, by or on behalf of the Coast Guard, may appeal therefrom in accordance with subchapter 1.03 of this chapter.

[CGD 88-033, 54 FR 50382, Dec. 6, 1989]
§ 185.730 Servicing of inflatable liferafts, inflatable buoyant apparatus, inflatable life jackets, and inflated rescue boats. ( a ) An inflatable liferaft or inflatable buoyant apparatus must be serviced at a facility specifically approved by the Commandant for the particular brand, and in accordance with servicing procedures meeting the requirements of part 160, subpart 160.151, of this chapter— ( 1 ) No later than the month and year on its servicing sticker affixed under 46 CFR 160.151-57(n), except that servicing may be delayed until the next scheduled inspection of the vessel, provided that the delay does not exceed 5 months; and
( 2 ) Whenever the container is damaged or the container straps or seals are broken.
( b ) Each inflatable lifejacket and hybrid inflatable lifejacket or work vest must be serviced: ( 1 ) Within 12 months of its initial packing; and
( 2 ) Within 12 months of each subsequent servicing, except that servicing may be delayed until the next scheduled inspection of the vessel, provided that the delay does not exceed 5 months.
( c ) Each inflatable life jacket must be serviced in accordance with the servicing procedure under § 160.176 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant.
( d ) Each hybrid inflatable life jacket or work vest must be serviced in accordance with the servicing procedure under § 160.077 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant.
( e ) Repair and maintenance of inflated rescue boats must be in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. All repairs must be made at a servicing facility approved by the Commandant, except for emergency repairs carried out on board the vessel.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1005, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51359, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2001-11118, 67 FR 58542, Sept. 17, 2002]
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.109-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for approval of non-combustible materials for use on SOLAS vessels as required by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). Products approved under these requirements may be used in place of products required to be approved as meeting the requirements of § 164.009.
#### § 188.10-67 Scientific equipment.

This term means equipment installed or carried on board an oceanographic research vessel and not normally required for the operation of a vessel or its machinery or for the navigation of the vessel, and which is used primarily in the gathering of scientific data or samples or in processing, analyzing, preserving, or storing such data or samples.

[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1113, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGD 77-081, 46 FR 56204, Nov. 16, 1981]
# C_2012039EN.01001004.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 2 December 2011 — Bahía de Bizcaia Electricidad, S.L. v Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Spanish State

(Case C-620/11)

(2012/C 39/20)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Bahía de Bizcaia Electricidad, S.L.

Other parties: Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Spanish State

Question referred

May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

---
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.904 Inert gas system: Controls. The inert gas system must have: ( a ) At least one check valve in the cargo area to prevent the back flow of cargo vapor into the inert gas system, or another means specially approved by the Commandant (CG-OES);
( b ) If the inert gas system is in the machinery space or another space outside the cargo area, a second check valve in the cargo area meeting paragraph (a) of this section;
( c ) Automatic and manual inert gas pressure controls; and
( d ) Valves to isolate each inerted space.
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
```

[111th Congress Public Law 219]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 2371]]

Public Law 111-219
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as the ``Michael C. 
     Rothberg Post Office''. <<NOTE: Aug. 3, 2010 -  [H.R. 5099]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MICHAEL C. ROTHBERG POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Michael C. Rothberg Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any references in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Michael C. 
Rothberg Post Office''.

    Approved August 3, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5099 (S. 3465):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            May 18, 19, considered and passed House.
            July 14, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49236, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 151.03-19 Environment.

This term refers to the atmosphere within a cargo tank and the spaces adjacent to the tank or spaces in which cargo is handled.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 23, 2017

Order 

Clerk

June 23, 2017

155730(80)

MATTHEW J. ROZEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 155730

v COA: 333250

Genesee CC: 13-309379-DM

KATIE M. ROZEN, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time 

for filing her reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted 

on or before July 5, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

DENNIE ROBERT DAVIS and 

KATHERINE DAVIS, 

 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ATLANTIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS 

LLC, et al 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-10119-NGE-DRG 

Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds 

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

 This matter having been amicably resolved between the parties and the Court being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled cause of action is dismissed in its entirety as 

to all Defendants, with prejudice and without costs to any party. 

The Court retains jurisdiction only for the purposes of enforcing the settlement in this matter. 

This Order resolves all pending claims and closes the case. 

Dated:July 9, 2015 s/ Nancy G. Edmunds 

 United States District Judge 

The undersigned approve and stipulate to entry of the foregoing Order: 

/s/ Rex C. Anderson /s/ Neno Nastevski w/ consent____ 

 Rex C. Anderson (P47068) Neno Nastevski, Vice President 

Attorney for Plaintiff Atlantic Recovery Solutions LLC

Rex Anderson, P.C. 275 Northpointe, Ste. 80

9459 Lapeer Rd., Ste 101 Amherst, NY 14226 

Davison, MI 48423 (716) 829-1862 

810-653-3300 nnastevski@atlanticrecoverysolutions.com

mied@rexandersonpc.com 

Case 2:15-cv-10119-NGE-DRG ECF No. 5, PageID.19 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.151-7 Construction of inflatable liferafts. Except as specified in this subpart, each SOLAS A and SOLAS B inflatable liferaft must meet the requirements of Chapter III of SOLAS and the IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution MSC.293(87) (incorporated by reference, see § 160.151-5 of this subpart). To be approved under this subpart, inflatable liferafts must be constructed in accordance with the following provisions of the IMO LSA Code:, as amended by Resolution MSC.293(87): ( a ) IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution MSC.293(87) Chapter I/1.2, General requirements for life-saving appliances; and
( b ) IMO LSA Code, as amended by Resolution MSC.293(87) Chapter IV/4.2, Inflatable liferafts.
[CGD 85-205, 62 FR 25547, May 9, 1997, as amended by USCG-2010-0048, 76 FR 62997, Oct. 11, 2011; 77 FR 9865, Feb. 21, 2012]
#### § 169.541 Number required.

Each vessel must be provided with an approved adult personal flotation device of an appropriate size for each person carried. In addition, unless the service is such that children are never carried, there must be provided an approved personal flotation device of a suitable size for each child carried.
Confidential Materials omitted and filed separately with the

Securities and Exchange Commission. Asterisks denote omissions.



Exhibit 10.1

AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO

RESEARCH COLLABORATION AND LICENSE AGREEMENT

This Amendment No. 2 to the Research Collaboration and License Agreement (the Amendment #2), effective as of January 15, 2009,
modifies certain provisions of the Research Collaboration and License Agreement, entered into as of November 24, 2004, as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated March 26, 2007 (the Agreement), between Achillion Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., 300 George Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06511 (Achillion), and Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, California 94404 (Gilead). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.

In accordance with Section 12.12 of the Agreement, Gilead and Achillion hereby
modify the Agreement as follows:

1. Amendment of Exhibit 1.2. Section (iii) of the Compound definition set forth in Exhibit 1.2
is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

(iii) any [**] prior to the end of the term of the Agreement,
[**]. For purposes of clarification of this clause (iii), Compounds included in this clause (iii) [**]

2. No Other
Amendment. Except as expressly set forth herein, the amendment provided herein shall not, by implication or otherwise, limit, constitute a waiver of, or otherwise affect the rights and remedies of Gilead or Achillion under the Agreement, nor
shall it constitute a waiver of any default, nor shall it alter, modify, amend or in any way affect any of the terms, conditions, obligations, covenants or agreements contained in the Agreement. The amendment provided herein shall apply and be
effective only with respect to the provision of the Agreement specifically referred by this Amendment #2.

3. Governing Law. This
Amendment #2 shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, except for any of its choice of law rules that would require the application of the laws of another jurisdiction.

4. Counterparts. This Amendment #2 may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which
shall be one and the same document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment #2 as of the date first above
written.



ACHILLION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.By:

/s/ Michael KishbauchName:

Michael KishbauchTitle:

President and CEO




GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.By:

/s/ John F. Milligan, Ph.D.Name:

John F. Milligan, Ph.D.Title:

President and COO
# C_2014184EN.01002701.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/27

---

Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — France v Commission

(Case T-478/11) (1)

1

((State aid - Measures taken by a national inter-professional pig and pork producers council - Financing by voluntary contributions made mandatory - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 184/46

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and J. Rossi, then E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J. Bousin, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially B. Stromsky, C. Urraca Caviedes and S. Thomas, then B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2011) 4376 final of 29 June 2011 relating to State aid No NN 10/2010 — France — Tax to finance a national inter-professional pig and pork producers council

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

1

---
# C_2013009EN.01003603.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/36

---

Order of the General Court of 15 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-286/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability - Compensation for the damage resulting from the fact that a letter concerning the costs in a case was sent to the lawyer who represented the appellant in that case - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2013/C 9/65

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 16 March 2011 in Case F-21/10 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

1

---