alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014093EN.01001402.xml

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-596/12) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Collective redundancies - Concept of ‘workers’ - Exclusion of ‘dirigenti’ - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1) and (2) - Infringement)

2014/C 93/22

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by S. Varone, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16) — Scope — Concept of workers — Inclusion of managers in that concept.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by excluding, in Article 4(9) of Law No 223 relating to provisions on technical lay-offs, mobility, unemployment benefit, implementation of Community directives, employment services and other provisions relating to the employment market (legge n. 223 — Norme in materia di cassa integrazione, mobilita’, trattamenti di disoccupazione, attuazione di direttive della Comunita’ europea, avviamento al lavoro ed altre disposizioni in materia di mercato del lavoro), of 23 July 1991, the category of ‘dirigenti’ from the scope of Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, the Republic of Italy has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 1(1) and (2) of that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by excluding, in Article 4(9) of Law No 223 relating to provisions on technical lay-offs, mobility, unemployment benefit, implementation of Community directives, employment services and other provisions relating to the employment market (legge n. 223 — Norme in materia di cassa integrazione, mobilita’, trattamenti di disoccupazione, attuazione di direttive della Comunita’ europea, avviamento al lavoro ed altre disposizioni in materia di mercato del lavoro), of 23 July 1991, the category of ‘dirigenti’ from the scope of Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, the Republic of Italy has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 1(1) and (2) of that Directive.

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Italy to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Italy to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

1

---
(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 this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of and for the period covered by this Report.
 Dated:  May 16, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Eloise L. MackusEloise L. Mackus, Esq.Chief Executive Officer, General
Counsel and Corporate Secretary Dated: May 16, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Therese Ann LiutkusTherese Ann Liutkus, CPAPresident, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2012032EN.01002902.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/29

---

Action brought on 28 November 2011 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (Lean Performance Index)

(Case T-598/11)

2012/C 32/60

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (Mosbach, Germany) (represented by W. Göpfert, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 September 2011 in Case R 131/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 September 2011 in Case R 131/2011-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘Lean Performance Index’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 42.

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: registration refused.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the Community trade mark concerned is distinctive and not descriptive.

Pleas in law:

---
##### 



Exhibit 23.0 Consent of BKD, LLP [BKD,LLP LETTERHEAD] INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS CONSENT The Board of Directors
Citizens First Financial Corp. We have issued our report dated January 23, 2004 on the consolidated financial
statements of Citizens First Financial Corp. appearing in the Companys 2003
Annual Report to Stockholders. We consent to the incorporation by reference in
the Registration Statements of Citizens First Financial Corp. on Form S-8
(Registration Statement Nos. 333-79389, 333-37925 and 333-41615) and in this
Form 10-K of the aforementioned report. BKD, LLP Decatur, Illinois 
March 26, 2004
# C_2013225EN.01003302.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/33

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz

(Case C-219/12) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 4(1) and (2) - Concept of ‘economic activities’ - Deduction of input tax - Operation of a photovoltaic installation on the roof of a house which is used as a dwelling - Supply to the network - Remuneration - Electricity production lower than consumption)

2013/C 225/56

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

Applicant:

Defendant: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Linz

Defendant:

In the presence of: Thomas Fuchs

In the presence of:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 4 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Concept of ‘economic activity’ — Photovoltaic installation for electricity production near a private dwelling without a power storage unit — Sale of the energy produced to a company which resupplies that dwelling with the energy which it requires — Energy production lower than consumption in the long term

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a photovoltaic installation on or adjacent to a house which is used as a dwelling, which is designed such that the electricity produced is (i) always less than the electricity privately consumed by its operator and (ii) supplied to the network in exchange for income on a continuing basis, falls within the concept of ‘economic activities’ as defined in that Article.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
---

---

Exhibit 13

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER
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 Cimatron Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), we, Dan Haran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ilan Erez,
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:

| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: June 30, 2008

| |  | By: /s/ Dan Haran
Dan HaranPresident and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | By: /s/ Ilan Erez
Ilan ErezChief Financial Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
# C_2014151EN.01000301.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 March 2014 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) v National Lottery Commission

(Case C-530/12 P) (1)

1

((Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 52(2)(c) - Application for a declaration of invalidity based on an earlier copyright under national law - Application by OHIM of national law - Role of the European Union judicature))

2014/C 151/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and F. Mattina, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: National Lottery Commission (represented by: R. Cardas, Advocate, and B. Brandreth, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 September 2012 in Case T-404/10 National Lottery Commission v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed Decision R 1028/2009-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 9 June 2010, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division which upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity lodged by Mediatek Italia and Giuseppe De Grégorio — Community figurative mark representing a hand with two crossed fingers and a smiling face — Article 53(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Existence of an earlier copyright protected by national law — Burden of proof — Application by OHIM of national law.

National Lottery Commission

OHIM

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 September 2012 in Case T-404/10 National Lottery Commission v OHIM — Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio (Representation of a hand); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 September 2012 in Case T-404/10 National Lottery Commission v OHIM — Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio (Representation of a hand);

National Lottery Commission

OHIM — Mediatek Italia and De Gregorio (Representation of a hand)

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the merits of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the merits of the action;

| 3. | Orders that the costs be reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders that the costs be reserved.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

1

---
# C_2012126EN.01001503.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — EyeSense v OHIM — Osypka Medical (ISENSE)

(Case T-207/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ISENSE - Earlier national word mark EyeSense - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 126/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: EyeSense AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Osypka Medical GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2011 (Case R 1098/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between EyeSense AG and Osypka Medical GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders EyeSense AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EyeSense AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.

1

---
# C_2013225EN.01002701.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/27

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Qorti Kostituzzjonali — Malta) — Vodafone Malta Limited, Mobisle Communications Limited v L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, L-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni

(Case C-71/12) (1)

1

(Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Articles 12 and 13 - Administrative charges and fees for rights of use - Charge applicable to mobile telephony operators - National legislation - Method of calculating the charge - Percentage of the costs paid by users)

2013/C 225/43

Language of the case: Maltese

Referring court

Referring court

Qorti Kostituzzjonali

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vodafone Malta Limited, Mobisle Communications Limited

Applicants:

Defendants: L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, L-Awtorita’ ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Qorti Kostituzzjonali — Interpretation of Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — National legislation subjecting mobile telephone operators to a charge — Charge to be paid solely by mobile telephone operators and not by other undertakings offering electronic communications services

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which operators providing mobile telephony services are liable to pay ‘excise’ duty, calculated as a percentage of the charges paid to them by the users of those services, provided the trigger for that duty is not linked to the general authorisation procedure for access to the electronic communications services market but to the use of mobile telephony services provided by the operators and the duty is ultimately borne by the user of those services, which is a matter for the national court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

1

---
#### JAMES S. WHIGHAM, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SEACOAST FINANCE CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted October 13, 1928

Decided March 20, 1929.

Before Justices Tkenchakd, Kalibch and Lloyd.

*306Eor the appellant, *Allen Father (Percy H. Penn,*of counsel).

For the appellee, *John Grammer (John A. Bernhard,*of counsel).

Pee Cueiam.

The plaintiff-appellee borrowed $100 from the defendant-appellant on September 15th, 1926. The latter demanded as security a 1923 model Maxwell touring automobile owned by the appellee, and assured him that the car would be placed in a reliable garage. The automobile was placed in a garage called the Elizabeth Locomobile Company, the agent of the appellant.

Thereafter the garage company became insolvent and a receiver was appointed. Subsequent to the appointment of a receiver the car was presented to the appellee (upon payment of his loan), after it had been allowed to stand in the open for some period of time. It was stripped of its curtains, accessories, battery and tires. The loan made to the appellee had been entirely repaid.

A judgment in the sum of $250 was rendered in favor of the appellee in this action for damages for this injury, upon a finding of fact by the trial judge that the appellant had not exercised that degree of care which a reasonable man would have exercised under similar circumstances.

On this appeal two grounds are set forth in the appellant’s brief upon which it is sought to secure a reversal of this judgment. The first rests upon an alleged erroneous reception of evidence as to the value of the automobile. The second is the alleged failure of the appellee to sustain the burden of proof at the trial as to the negligence of the defendant.

It does not appear from the state of the case that any objection or exception was taken in connection with the testimony of Mr. Case as to the value of the automobile. Moreover, the state of the case discloses that Mr. Case qualified as a mechanic of fifteen years experience, and the defendant admits that the witness testified to having had considerable experience with automobiles of the same make as the one under *307-consideration. Certainly enough is made to appear to establish the propriety of the court’s action recognizing competency -of this witness.

As to the burden of proof it is sufficient to say that the state -of the case discloses evidence from which the trial court could and did find negligence upon the part of the defendant, and that the judge was legally justified in disregarding the evidence which the defendant contends tended to show that the injury to the car was occasioned by theft.

■ The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.
# C_2013108EN.01001908.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/19

---

Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel — Luxembourg) — État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines v Edenred Luxembourg SA

(Case C-395/12) (1)

1

2013/C 108/52

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.

1

---
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Stockholders and Board of Directors
of GumTech International, Inc.

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  following  Registration
Statements of GumTech  International,  Inc. and any  amendments  thereto (1) No.
333-06199 on Form S-8; (2) No.  333-34019 on Form S-8; (3) No. 333-28821 on Form
S-3 and (4) No.  333-38555  on Form S-3 of our report  dated  February  5, 1999,
except for the last paragraph of Note 14 as to which the date is March 30, 1999,
relating to the balance sheet of GumTech International,  Inc. as of December 31,
1998 and the related  statements  of  operations,  cash flows and  stockholders'
equity for the years ended  December 31, 1998 and 1997,  which report appears or
is  incorporated  by reference  in the  December 31, 1998 Annual  Report on Form
10-KSB of GumTech International, Inc.

                                             /s/ Angell & Deering

Denver, Colorado
March 30, 1999
#### Sarah Newton, *as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v.*Samuel Rooney, *Appellant*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.5 Page 5 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.6 Page 6 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.7 Page 7 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.8 Page 8 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.9 Page 9 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.10 Page 10 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.11 Page 11 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.12 Page 12 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.13 Page 13 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.14 Page 14 of 15
Case 2:15-cr-20217-SJM-APP ECF No. 1 filed 04/08/15 PageID.15 Page 15 of 15
UNITED
STATES


SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20549








FORM
10-Q/A








[X]
QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934








For the
quarterly period ended: May 31,
2008








[_]
TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT





For the
transition period from __________ to ___________





Commission
file number: 000-32475





ASTRATA GROUP
INCORPORATED


(Name of
small business issuer in its charter)




NEVADA
                
                84-1408762(State
      or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
                
                (I.R.S.
      Employer Identification No.)940
      SOUTH COAST DRIVE, SUITE 215, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
                
                92626(Address
      of principal executive offices)
                
                (Zip
      Code)







Issuer’s
telephone number (714) 641-1512





Securities
registered under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act:  None





Securities
registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:





Common
Stock, par value $0.0001


(Title of
class)





Check  whether
the Issuer (1) filed all reports  required to be filed by Section 13
or 15(d) of the  Exchange  Act during the past 12 months (or
for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such
reports),  and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for
the past 90 days. Yes [X]  No [_]





Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule
12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [_]  No [X]





State the
number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common equity,
as of June 30, 2008: 28,524,244





Transitional
Small Business Disclosure Format (Check One):  Yes [_]  No
[X]