alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014085EN.01000301.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT and Others

(Case C-176/12) (1)

1

(Social policy - Directive 2002/14/EC - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 27 - Subjecting the setting up of bodies representing staff to certain thresholds of employees - Calculation of the thresholds - National legislation contrary to European Union law - Role of the national court)

2014/C 85/04

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Association de médiation sociale

Applicant:

Defendants: Union locale des syndicats CGT, Hichem Laboubi, Union départementale CGT des Bouches-du-Rhône, Confédération générale du travail (CGT),

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of the provisions of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29) — Interpretation of Articles 27, 51, 52 and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Interpretation of Article 6(1) and (3) TEU — Whether the aforementioned provisions can be invoked in a dispute between individuals in order to examine whether a national measure transposing the Directive complies with EU law — Lawfulness of a national legislative provision excluding from the calculation of staff numbers of the undertaking, in order to determine, inter alia, the legal thresholds for setting up bodies representing staff, workers holding certain categories of employment contract.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by itself or in conjunction with the provisions of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, must be interpreted to the effect that, where a national provision implementing that directive, such as Article L. 1111-3 of the French Labour Code, is incompatible with European Union law, that article of the Charter cannot be invoked in a dispute between individuals in order to disapply that national provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012

1

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 9
Federal Reserve Bank of: Minneapolis

## Filings received during the week ending August 12, 2006

|Filer                         | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------------------- | -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|FIRST HAWLEY BANCSHARES, INC. | CIC            | Jon W. Neumann, Hawley, Minnesota, to gain control of First Hawley Bancshares, Inc., Hawley, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly gain control of First National Bank, Hawley, Minnesota. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:08/18/2006 
|Newspaper:                    | Not available 
|Federal Register:             | 08/18/2006    
|INDEPENDENT BANCSHARES, INC.  | 4c8            | Retroactive Notice by Independent Bancshares, Inc., Clarkfield, Minnesota, to engage de novo in extending credit and servicing loans.                                                  | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:08/31/2006
|Newspaper:                    | Not applicable
|Federal Register:             | 08/31/2006    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE:

CHRISTOPHER D. WYMAN,

Case No. 14-13047

Debtor. Hon. Denise Page Hood

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. MASON, Trustee,

(Bankruptcy Case No. 12-32264)

Plaintiff, (Adv. Proc. No. 12-03348)

v.

MICHELLE PICHLER,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER STAYING AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING ACTION

PENDING FILING OF THE BANKRUPTCY JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On October 15, 2014, the Court entered an Order Granting the Bankruptcy

Trustee Michael A. Mason’s Motion to Withdraw the Reference of the Adversary

Proceeding Case No. 12-03348 (Bankruptcy Case No. 12-32264). (Order, Doc. No.

6) The Bankruptcy Court issued a Report and Recommendation on December 11,

2014. (Doc. No. 14) On August 3, 2015, the Court entered an Order Regarding the

Bankruptcy Court’s Report and Recommendation directing that an Amended Report

and Recommendation be filed by the Bankruptcy Court after limited discovery is
conducted before the Bankruptcy Court. (Doc. No. 16, Pg ID 636) Plaintiff Trustee

Michael A. Mason moved to reconsider the Court’s Order, which the Court denied. 

(Doc. No. 22). Plaintiff Trustee thereafter appealed the Court’s order to the Sixth

Circuit of Appeals which affirmed this Court’s Order on July 12, 2016. (Doc. No. 27)

To date, no Amended Report and Recommendation has been filed by the

Bankruptcy Court. The Court stays and administratively closes this case until the

Bankruptcy Court files an Amended Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that this matter is STAYED pending the Bankruptcy Court’s

filing of an Amended Report and Recommendation. This action is designated as

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Once the Bankruptcy Court files an Amended

Report and Recommendation, the action will be reopened at that time.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: August 11, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of

record on August 11, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

2
# C_2013344EN.01001902.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/19

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 of Badajoz — Spain) — Soledad Duarte Hueros v Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA

o

(Case C-32/12) (1)

1

(Directive 1999/44/EC - Rights of the consumer in the event of lack of conformity in a product - Minor nature of that lack of conformity - Rescission of the contract not possible - Powers of the national courts)

2013/C 344/32

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 2 of Badajoz

o

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Soledad Duarte Hueros

Applicant:

Defendants: Autociba SA, Automóviles Citroën España SA

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de Primera Instancia — Badajoz — Interpretation of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12) — Rights of the consumer — Product with a minor lack of conformity — No repair of that product — Application for rescission of the sale — Not permissible — No alternative claim seeking an appropriate reduction in the price — Whether a national court can consider of its own motion an appropriate reduction in the price.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow the national court hearing the dispute to grant of its own motion an appropriate reduction in the price of goods which are the subject of a contract of sale in the case where a consumer who is entitled to such a reduction brings proceedings which are limited to seeking only rescission of that contract and such rescission cannot be granted because the lack of conformity in those goods is minor, even though that consumer is not entitled to refine his initial application or to bring a fresh action to that end.

---

(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.

1

---
§ 195.35-90 Vessels contracted for before November 23, 1992. Vessels contracted for before November 23, 1992, must meet the following requirements: ( a ) Each vessel must satisfy §§ 195.35-5 through 195.35-20 concerning the number of items and method of stowage of equipment.
( b ) Items of equipment previously approved, but not meeting the applicable specifications set forth in § 195.35-5, may continue in service as long as they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection; but each item in an installation or a replacement must meet all applicable specifications.
( c ) Each respirator must either satisfy § 195.35-5(b) or be a self-contained compressed-air breathing apparatus previously approved by MSHA and NIOSH under part 160, subpart 160.011, of this chapter.
[CGD 86-036, 57 FR 48327, Oct. 23, 1992, as amended by CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51220, Sept. 30, 1997]
# C_2013252EN.01004302.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/43

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2013 — BY v EASA

(Case F-81/11) (1)

1

(EASA staff - Temporary staff - Admissibility - Period for bringing proceedings - Unfavourable evaluation report - Reassignment - Psychological harassment - Misuse of power)

2013/C 252/72

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BY (Lasne, Belgium) (represented by: B.-H. Vincent, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (represented by: F. Manuhutu, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to re-assign the applicant to a non-managerial post in the interest of the service as a result of an unfavourable evaluation report and application to pay the applicant an amount by way of compensation for the damage allegedly suffered

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BY to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Aviation Safety Agency. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BY to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Aviation Safety Agency.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 41.

1

---
#### MARY BIER ET UX ET AL. v. HARRY HOHORST ET AL.

Decided May 7, 1929.

Before Gummebe, Chiee Justice, and Justice Paekek.

Eor the rule, *Samuel Ilirschberg.*

*Qontra, George L. Record.*

Pee Cubiam.

Three of the plaintiffs in this case, Mary Bier, Bertha Bier and Howard Loutell, were each of them injured in a collision between a sedan ear in which they were riding and an auto bus owned by the defendant Hohorst and driven by the defendant Stoebling. They sued to recover compensation for the injuries received by them respectively. The remaining plaintiff, Joseph Bier, is the husband of Mary Bier and the owner of the sedan car in which the other plaintiffs were riding at the time of the collision. He seeks remuneration for the expenses incurred by him in the treatment of his wife for her injuries; compensation for the loss of her services and companionship, and payment of the moneys expended by him in the repair of his car. The basis' of the claims of the several plaintiffs was and is that the collision was due solely to the carelessness of the defendant Stoebling in his driving of the bus. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendants, and we are now asked to set it aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence.

*476In view of the instructions of the court in the charge to the jury, the verdict was, by necessary inference, based upon a finding that the collision was not caused by any negligence on the part of the defendant Stoebling in the driving of the bus. Our examination of the proofs sent up with the rule satisfies us that the jury.was entirely justified in so finding.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 27

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,548
<SECURITIES>                                     8,243
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (14,317)
<INVENTORY>                                     10,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,191
<PP&E>                                          45,721
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (27,303)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 285,713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,537
<BONDS>                                         91,090
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           41,005
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           368
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,876
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   285,713
<SALES>                                         54,927
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               247,335
<CGS>                                           34,645
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  123,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,663
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,983
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,185
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,006
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (4,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,006
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,006
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .77


</TABLE>
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending July 1, 2006

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|PEOPLES BANK      | * Branch       | Peoples Bank, Lubbock, Texas, to establish a courier service branch (from its main office location at 5820 82nd Street, Lubbock, Texas 79424) to conduct business in Lubbock County, Texas. | Newspaper:07/11/2006Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 07/11/2006    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
# C_2012089EN.01000401.xml

| 24.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varnenski administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 December 2011 — Paltrade EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna

(Case C-667/11)

2012/C 89/06

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paltrade EOOD

Applicant:

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 (1) of 18 July 2011 permissible, without a customs registration — except for the customs registration of the Single Administrative Document in the BIMIS system — taking place with the registration of the TARIC additional code which is mentioned in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (2) of 26 January 2009? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 (1) of 18 July 2011 permissible, without a customs registration — except for the customs registration of the Single Administrative Document in the BIMIS system — taking place with the registration of the TARIC additional code which is mentioned in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (2) of 26 January 2009?

1

2

| 2. | What is, in accordance with recital 18 of Regulation No 966/2010, (3) the appropriate amount for the retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty during the execution of Regulation No 723/2011? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is, in accordance with recital 18 of Regulation No 966/2010, (3) the appropriate amount for the retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty during the execution of Regulation No 723/2011?

3

---

(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 6).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 966/2010 of 27 October 2010 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2010 L 282, p. 29).

3

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 87 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2230]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Southwest Research Institute (``SwRI''): 
Cooperative Research Group on High Efficiency Dilute Gasoline Engine 
(HEDGE) (Formerly High Efficiency Durable Gasoline Engine)

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 5, 2007, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research Institute 
(``SwRI'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership and project name. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, DAYCO Fluid Technologies, Torino, ITALY, Duetz, AG, 
Koeln, GERMANY, Dynagen Technologies, Inc., Sydney, Nova Scotia, 
CANADA, NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd., Nagoya, JAPAN have been added as 
parties to the venture. In addition, the name of this venture has been 
changed to High Efficiency Dilute Gasoline Engine (HEDGE).
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
remains open, and SwRI intends to file additional written notifications 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 10, 2005, SwRI filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 7, 
2005 (70 FR 39339).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
27, 2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register on November 
22, 2006 (71 FR 67643).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-2230 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M