alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012025EN.01003203.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/32

---

Appeal brought on 2 November 2011 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission

(Case C-554/11 P)

(2012/C 25/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| (a) | set aside the order of 21 September 2011 and refer the case back to the General Court, directing it to carry out a new assessment after delivery of the judgment in Case T-300/10;
  in the alternative, rule on the case itself; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

set aside the order of 21 September 2011 and refer the case back to the General Court, directing it to carry out a new assessment after delivery of the judgment in Case T-300/10;

in the alternative, rule on the case itself;

| (b) | order the Commission to pay the costs which arose out of the interlocutory proceedings to which the order under appeal relates and the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

order the Commission to pay the costs which arose out of the interlocutory proceedings to which the order under appeal relates and the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is against the order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV, by which that Court held that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on proceedings which the appellant and applicant at first instance had brought against a decision of the Commission in 2005. The original action was directed against the Commission’s refusal to grant the appellant full access to the file in respect of the contract LIEN 97-2011.

By the appeal the appellant criticises the order of the General Court on the grounds of incorrect application of the rules of procedure, in particular the inadequate coordination of the proceedings in Cases T-36/10 and T-141/05 RENV, by which its interests were, according to the appellant, seriously undermined. In addition, the General Court made an incorrect decision on costs to the appellant’s disadvantage.

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             626
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,128
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (434)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,350
<PP&E>                                         625,557
<DEPRECIATION>                               (315,983)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 330,216
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,108
<BONDS>                                        132,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         24
<COMMON>                                           161
<OTHER-SE>                                     165,705
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   330,216
<SALES>                                         90,407
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,571
<CGS>                                           52,646
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   887
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,959
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,959
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,959
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50


</TABLE>
§ 169.676 Grounded electrical systems. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each electrical system must meet subpart 111.05 of this chapter.
( b ) Ground detection is not required.
§ 309.105 What procedures governing child support guidelines must a Tribe or Tribal organization include in a Tribal IV-D plan? ( a ) A Tribal IV-D plan must: ( 1 ) Establish one set of child support guidelines by law or action of the tribunal for setting and modifying child support obligation amounts;
( 2 ) Include a copy of child support guidelines governing the establishment and modification of child support obligations;
( 3 ) Indicate whether non-cash payments will be permitted to satisfy support obligations, and if so; ( i ) Require that Tribal support orders allowing non-cash payments also state the specific dollar amount of the support obligation; and
( ii ) Describe the type(s) of non-cash support that will be permitted to satisfy the underlying specific dollar amount of the support order; and
( iii ) Provide that non-cash payments will not be permitted to satisfy assigned support obligations;
( 4 ) Indicate that child support guidelines will be reviewed and revised, if appropriate, at least once every four years;
( 5 ) Provide that there shall be a rebuttable presumption, in any proceeding for the award of child support, that the amount of the award that would result from the application of the guidelines established consistent with this section is the correct amount of child support to be awarded; and
( 6 ) Provide for the application of the guidelines unless there is a written finding or a specific finding on the record of the tribunal that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case in accordance with criteria established by the Tribe or Tribal organization. Such criteria must take into consideration the needs of the child. Findings that rebut the guidelines must state the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines and include a justification of why the order varies from the guidelines.
( b ) The guidelines established under paragraph (a) of this section must at a minimum: ( 1 ) Take into account the needs of the child and the earnings and income of the noncustodial parent; and
( 2 ) Be based on specific descriptive and numeric criteria and result in a computation of the support obligation.
# C_2008121EN.01001301.xml

| 17.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/13

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

Modification by Italy of the public service obligation in respect of the following scheduled air services: Pantelleria-Palermo, Lampedusa-Palermo, Lampedusa-Catania, Lampedusa-Rome and Pantelleria-Rome

(2008/C 121/10)

In accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, the Italian Government has decided to modify the public service obligation in respect of the following scheduled air services: Pantelleria-Palermo, Lampedusa-Palermo, Lampedusa-Catania, Lampedusa-Rome and Pantelleria-Rome, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 305 of 14 December 2006, and amended in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 141 of 26 June 2007.

Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with point 2.4(b) and (c) of the public service obligation, the fares are revised as follows:

| Route | Revised fare (excluding VAT) |
| --- | --- |
| Pantelleria-Palermo or vice versa | EUR 29,64 |
| Lampedusa-Palermo or vice versa | EUR 31,68 |
| Lampedusa-Catania or vice versa | EUR 31,68 |
| Lampedusa-Rome or vice versa | EUR 61,33 |
| Pantelleria-Rome or vice versa | EUR 61,33 |

Route

Revised fare (excluding VAT)

Pantelleria-Palermo or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 29,64

Lampedusa-Palermo or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 31,68

Lampedusa-Catania or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 31,68

Lampedusa-Rome or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 61,33

Pantelleria-Rome or vice versa

vice versa

EUR 61,33

The other requirements of the public service obligation published in OJ C 305 of 14 December 2006 remain unchanged.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         172,859
<SECURITIES>                                    14,309
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,671
<ALLOWANCES>                                       750
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               193,217
<PP&E>                                          26,226
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 222,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,959
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           891
<OTHER-SE>                                     206,238
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   222,442
<SALES>                                          7,335
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,335
<CGS>                                            5,926
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (663)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,074)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,074)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,074)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)


</TABLE>
# C_2013225EN.01006701.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/67

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission

(Case T-93/11) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents concerning the negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India for the purposes of concluding a free trade agreement - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations - Documents which have entered the public domain - Non-imposition of a restriction on disclosure of documents)

2013/C 225/148

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and C. ten Dam, and subsequently F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and I. Zervas, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller, K. Petersen and A. Wiedmann, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 6 December 2010 refusing the applicant full access to several documents relating to the negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India aimed at concluding a free trade agreement, pursuant to the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of 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).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, John F. Riordan, certify
that:  1.I have reviewed this quarterly report
for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 on Form 10-Q of United Pan-Europe
Communications N.V.;  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;  4.The registrants other certifying
officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  a)designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;  b)evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and  c)disclose in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.The registrants other certifying
officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):  a)all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b)any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.   Date:  August 14, 2003
  /s/ JOHN F. RIORDANJohn F.
  RiordanPresident
  and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2011152EN.01003102.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/31

---

Action brought on 31 March 2011 — Bro Grébé v Council

(Case T-194/11)

2011/C 152/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Geneviève Bro Grébé (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J. C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, in so far as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire, in so far as they concern the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants are essentially identical or similar to those submitted in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council

Attey

Council

---
###### 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.

###### Editorial Note on Subpart 151.50 of Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart 151.50 of part 151 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, and CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996.

#### § 151.50-74 Ethylidene norbornene.

When Table 151.05 refers to this section, the following apply:

(a) 151.50-5 (g) and (h)

(b) Rubber hoses or fittings may not be used in transfer operations.

[CGD 80-001, 46 FR 63279, Dec. 31, 1981]
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.060-2 Type and model. Each buoyant vest specified in this subpart is a: ( a ) Standard: ( 1 ) Model AY, adult (for persons weighing over 90 pounds); or
( 2 ) Model CYM, child, medium (for children weighing from 50 to 90 pounds); or
( 3 ) Model CYS, child, small (for children weighing less than 50 pounds); or
( b ) Nonstandard: ( 1 ) Model,[1] adult (for persons weighing over 90 pounds);
( 2 ) Model,1 child, medium (for persons weighing from 50 to 90 pounds) or
( 3 ) Model,1 child, small (for persons weighing less than 50 pounds).
[CGD 72-163R, 38 FR 8122, Mar. 28, 1973] Footnotes -
160.060-2
[1] A model designation for a nonstandard vest is to be assigned by the individual manufactured and must be different from any standard vest.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 24, 2007 / Presidential Documents 20421 

Proclamation 8129 of April 20, 2007 

National Day of Prayer, 2007 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

A prayerful spirit has always been an important part of our national character, 

and it is a force that has guided the American people, given us strength, 

and sustained us in moments of joy and in times of challenge. On this 

National Day of Prayer, we acknowledge God’s grace and ask for His continued guidance in the life of our Nation. 

Americans of many faiths and traditions share a common belief that God 

hears the prayers of His children and shows grace to those who seek Him. 

Following the tragedy at Virginia Tech, in towns all across America, in 

houses of worship from every faith, Americans have joined together to 

pray for the lives that were lost and for their families, friends, and loved 

ones. We hold the victims in our hearts and pray for those who suffer 

and grieve. There is a power in these prayers, and we can find comfort 

in the grace and guidance of a loving God. 

At this important time in our history, we also pray for the brave members 

of our Armed Forces and their families. We pray for their safety, for the 

recovery of the wounded, and for the peace we all seek. 

The Congress, by Public Law 100–307, as amended, has called on our 

Nation to reaffirm the role of prayer in our society and to respect the 

freedom of religion by recognizing each year a ‘‘National Day of Prayer.’’ 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, do hereby proclaim May 3, 2007, as a National Day of Prayer. 

I ask the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, each according to his or 

her own faith, for the freedoms and blessings we have received and for 

God’s continued guidance, comfort, and protection. I invite all Americans 

to join in observing this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and 

activities. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with FRD2
20422 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 24, 2007 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day 

of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence 

of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first. 

[FR Doc. 07–2059 

Filed 4–23–07; 9:29 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with FRD2GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
Editorial Note on Part 161
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 161 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 161.010-3 Inspections and methods of test. ( a ) Each inspection and test report required by this subpart shall comply with § 159.005-11 of this chapter.
( b ) The U.S. Coast Guard reserves the right to make any inspection or test it deems necessary to determine the conformance of the materials and equipment to this subpart.
( c ) The facilities, materials, and labor for all tests shall be furnished at no cost to the U.S. Coast Guard.