alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013344EN.01002201.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, Mannocchi Luigino DI v Provincia di Fermo

(Case C-94/12) (1)

1

(Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Economic and financial standing - Technical and/or professional ability - Articles 47(2) and 48(3) - Right of an economic operator to rely on the capacities of other entities - Article 52 - Certification system - Public works contracts - National legislation requiring possession of a qualification certificate corresponding to the category and the value of the works covered by the contract - Prohibition on reliance on the certificates of more than one entity for works within the same category)

2013/C 344/36

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Swm Costruzioni 2 SpA, Mannocchi Luigino DI

Applicants:

Defendant: Provincia di Fermo

Defendant:

Intervening party: Torelli Dottori SpA

Intervening party:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Interpretation of Article 47(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Economic and financial standing of the economic operator — Right to rely on the capacities of other entities — National legislation limiting that right to one other entity for each qualification category required by the certification body

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read in conjunction with Article 44(2) of that directive, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits, as a general rule, economic operators participating in a tendering procedure for a public works contract from relying on the capacities of more than one undertaking for the same qualification category.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.

1

---
# C_2013344EN.01003501.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/35

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-353/12) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid for Ixfin SpA - Aid which is illegal and incompatible with the internal market - Recovery - Non-performance)

2013/C 344/60

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and E. De Giovanni, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2009) 8123 of 28 October 2009 on State aid C 59/07 implemented by Italy for Ixfin SpA (OJ 2010 L 167, p. 39) — Obligation to recover immediately aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market and to inform the Commission thereof — Insolvent undertaking — Implementation not absolutely impossible

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all measures necessary to recover from Ixfin SpA the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market in Article 1 of Commission Decision 2010/359/EC of 28 October 2009 on State aid C 59/07 (ex N 127/06 and NN 13/06) implemented by Italy for Ixfin SpA, and by not having submitted to the European Commission, within the period prescribed, the information listed in Article 4 of that decision, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all measures necessary to recover from Ixfin SpA the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market in Article 1 of Commission Decision 2010/359/EC of 28 October 2009 on State aid C 59/07 (ex N 127/06 and NN 13/06) implemented by Italy for Ixfin SpA, and by not having submitted to the European Commission, within the period prescribed, the information listed in Article 4 of that decision, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

1

---
# C_2011340EN.01002302.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/23

---

Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Ahoua-N’Guetta and Others v Council

(Case T-193/11) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in the light of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire - Actions for annulment - Inaction by the applicant - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/49

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Timothée Ahoua-N’Guetta (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire), Jacques André Monoko Daligou (Abidjan), Bruno Walé Ekpo (Abidjan), Félix Tano Kouakou (Abidjan), Hortense Sess (Abidjan) and Joséphine Suzanne Ebah (Abidjan) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Chavrier, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Partial annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, second, of 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 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicants.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | Timothée Ahoua-N’Guetta, Jacques André Monoko Daligou, Bruno Walé Ekpo, Félix Tano Kouakou, Hortense Sess and Joséphine Suzanne Ebah are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Timothée Ahoua-N’Guetta, Jacques André Monoko Daligou, Bruno Walé Ekpo, Félix Tano Kouakou, Hortense Sess and Joséphine Suzanne Ebah are ordered to pay the costs.

| 3. | There is no need to rule on the applications made by the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to rule on the applications made by the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

1

---
413 P.2d 183

#### T. S. VANDERFORD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Chester HYLTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 9562.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

April 13, 1966.

Herman E. Bedlce, Burley, for appellant.

H. William Furchner, Blackfoot, Hugh C. Maguire, Jr., and Louis F. Racine, Jr., Pocatello, for respondent.

*463McQUADE, Justice.

In 1961 T. S. Vanderford, plaintiff-respondent, sold a quantity of potato seed to Chester Hylton, defendant-appellant herein. Hylton executed a promissory note for the purchase price of the seed. Hylton refused to pay the note when it became due and Vanderford instituted this action to collect thereon. As a defense and also by way of counterclaim, Hylton asserted a failure of consideration in that the seed was diseased and worthless, that Vanderford breached express and implied warranties as to the fitness of the seed and sought damages arising out of the alleged breach.

The trial court found in favor of Vanderford on the note and against Hylton on his counterclaim and entered judgment accordingly. Hylton appeals from that judgment.

The evidence is conflicting as to whether the seed was diseased and the cause of the eumartii wilt in appellant’s potato crop.

The trial court found that:

> “The Defendant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any damages he suffered from eumartii wilt in his 1961 potato crop was caused by such disease in the potato seed which he purchased from the Plaintiff.”

Appellant’s other assignments of error are generally directed to findings of fact and conclusions of law based thereon. The evidence supports the findings of the trial court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Costs to respondent.

McFADDEN, C. J, and TAYLOR, SMITH, and SPEAR, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.050-25 Cargo monitor: Design specification. ( a ) This section contains requirements that apply to cargo monitors.
( b ) Each monitor must be designed so that it is calibrated by a means that does not involve manually mixing a known quantity of oil and a known quantity of water to form a mixture and manually feeding the mixture into the monitor.
( c ) The electrical components of a monitor that are to be installed in an explosive atmosphere must be approved by an independent laboratory as components that Underwriters Laboratories Standard 913 (dated April 8, 1976) (incorporated by reference, see § 162.050-4) defines as intrinsically safe for use in a Class I, Group D hazardous location.
( d ) Each monitor component that is a moving part must be designed so that its movement during operation of the monitor does not cause formation of static electricity.
( e ) A monitor must be designed to operate in each plane that forms an angle of 22.5° with the plane of its normal operating position.
( f ) Each monitor must be designed in accordance with the applicable requirements contained in subchapters F and J of this chapter.
( g ) Each monitor must be designed so that it records each change in oil content of the mixture it is measuring within 20 seconds after the change occurs.
( h ) Each monitor must have a device that produces a warning signal and a signal that can be used to actuate valves in a vessel's fixed piping system, when— ( 1 ) The oil content of the mixture being measured exceeds the concentration limit set by the operator of the monitor; and
( 2 ) Malfunction, breakdown, or other failure of the monitor occurs.
( i ) Each monitor must have a means to determine whether it is accurately calibrated.
[44 FR 53359, Sept. 13, 1979, as amended by CGD 76-088c, 48 FR 45727, Oct. 6, 1983; USCG-2004-18939, 74 FR 3389, Jan. 16, 2009]
From: "Wilson, Tyrone" <TWilson@cement.org> To: George Faison/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: O’Hare, Andrew <AOhare@cement.org> Date: 08/16/2010 01:11 PM Subject: ASTSWMO Comment on Non-Hazardous Solid Waste (NHSW)

Hi George,

I know your hands are full sifting through various document submissions to the NHSW Docket but I just wanted forward a copy of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials comments in case you haven’t had chance to review them yet. We would like to draw your attention to Item 6 where they make a strong case for NOT requiring removal of metal from tires intended for secondary fuel use. Also, their comment points out strong reasons, highlighted in Item 7, why the petition process is incompatible and problematic for tires.

Those points are generally consistent with the views expressed in PCA’s comments. Please feel free to contact us if EPA would like to discuss any details of our comments.

Thanks,

Ty

************************************** Tyrone P. Wilson, Ph.D. Director, Regulatory Affairs, Energy & Environment Portland Cement Association 500 New Jersey Avenue, NW Seventh Floor Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-408-9494 Fax: 202-408-0877 Email: twilson@cement.org
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNITED PAN-
EUROPE COMMUNICATION'S N.V. FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> DUTCH GUILDERS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   2.13
<CASH>                                         456,734
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,494
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,938)
<INVENTORY>                                     71,078
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               720,421
<PP&E>                                       1,930,525
<DEPRECIATION>                               (266,097)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,214,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          456,992
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        85,446
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,114,691
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,214,963
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               183,184
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (330,034)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (23,862)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (162,117)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,486
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (160,631)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (160,631)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.24)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of PowerHouse Technologies Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Richard Liebman, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

      (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 result of operations
            of the Company.

                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Richard Liebman
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
                                    April 17, 2006
Regional Haze - BART Eligibility & Source Inventory

Three Hotels - Virgin Islands - From Title V Permits

Unit No. Source Type Capacity Heat Input Fuel Date Potential To Emit (PTE), tons per year Meets BART Eligible Criteria?

Max Output, kW Max Load, % mmBTU/hr Type Constructed SO2 NOx PM10/PM VOC NH3 Source Type 1962-1977 Date PTE BART Eligible?

(Note 3) >250 TPY (Note 11)

The Buccaneer Hotel, Estate Shoys, St Croix 

1 Note 1 900 50 4.48 diesel ??? 10 max Note 2 ??/5.9 ??? ??? No ??? Yes No

2 Note 1 720 62 4.24 diesel ??? 9.5 max Note 2 ??/5.6 ??? ??? No ??? Yes No

3 Note 1 750 60 4.86 diesel ??? 10.8 max Note 2 ??/6.4 ??? ??? No ??? Yes No

4 Note 1 400 100 4.07 diesel ??? 9.1 max Note 2 ??/5.4 ??? ??? No ??? Yes No

5 Note 1 400 100 4.17 diesel ??? 9.3 max Note 2 ??/5.5 ??? ??? No ??? Yes No

6 Note 1 600 75 3.45 diesel ??? 7.7 max Note 2 ??/4.5 ??? ??? No ??? Yes No

Divi Carina Bay Hotel, St Croix

1 Note 8 1490 Note 9 ??? No. 2 Oil ??? 27.2 Note 10 ??/8.0 ??? ??? No ??? No No

2 Note 8 725 Note 9 ??? No. 2 Oil ??? 6.1 Note 10 ??/1.8 ??? ??? No ??? No No

3 Note 8 725 Note 9 ??? No. 2 Oil ??? 6.1 Note 10 ??/1.8 ??? ??? No ??? No No

4 Note 8 800 Note 9 ??? No. 2 Oil ??? 9.9 Note 10 ??/2.9 ??? ??? No ??? No No

Wyndham Sugar Bay Beach Club and Resort, St Thomas

STT-630-A Note 5 900 71 9.7 No. 2 Oil ??? Note 6 Note 7 ??/9.2 ??? ??? No ??? No No

STT-630-B Note 5 900 71 9.7 No. 2 Oil ??? Note 6 Note 7 ??/9.2 ??? ??? No ??? No No

STT-630-C Note 5 900 71 9.7 No. 2 Oil ??? Note 6 Note 7 ??/9.2 ??? ??? No ??? No No

Notes

(1) The six sources at the Buccaneer are Caterpillar and Onan Diesel Engines that generate electricity. 

(2) The Buccaneer facility has a permitted maximum NOx emission limit of 434.7 tons per year.

(3) There is no applicable BART-eligible source category for the sources at the three hotels.

(4) Each of the six sources at the Buccaneer Hotel has a permit limit for power output and fuel usage. 

The six engines have an annual total maximum fuel consumption of 545,341 gallons diesel fuel. 

(5) The three sources at the Wyndham resort are Caterpillar Engines that generate electricity. A max of 2 engines are permitted to operate at one time. 

Each engine has a rated capacity of 1,275 kW but have a limited max load of 71% for 61 days, 47% for 122 days and 43% for 182 days.

The three engines are permitted to burn not more than 887,069 gallons of No. 2 oil (containing 0.3% sulfur max) annually. 

(6) The Wyndham facility PTE for SO2 is calculated to be 19.0 TPY.

(7) The Wyndham resort has a facility permitted NOx emission limit of 244.1 tons per year.

(8) The four sources at the Divi Carina are diesel engine generator sets that generate electricity.

(9) At the Divi Carina, permitted limits include: Unit 1 is run 24 hr/day, 365 day/yr; Units 2 and 3 run 24 hr/day on a 2-days on 8-day off rotation, 73 days/yr; Unit 4 runs 24 hr/day, 4-days on 6 days off rotation, 146 days/yr. 

(10) The Divi Carina has a facility permitted NOx emission limit of 236.7 tons per year.
#### § 24.01-7 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 subpart 1.03 of this chapter.

[CGD 88-033, 54 FR 50380, Dec. 6, 1989]
<PAGE>



                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             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 of Icy Splash Food and Beverage, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I,
Joseph Aslan, Chief Executive 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 the best of my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


Joseph Aslan
Chief Executive Officer
November 19, 2003

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Icy Splash Food and Beverage, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I,
Charles Tokarz, 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 the best of my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


Charles Tokarz
Chief Financial Officer
November 19, 2003



                                    Page 15.


<PAGE>