alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014052EN.01001701.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-411/12) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Preferential electricity tariff - Decision 2011/746/EU - Aid incompatible with the internal market - Recovery - Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

2014/C 52/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, assisted by S. Fiorentino, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA (OJ 2011 L 309, p. 1) — Obligation to recover without delay the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market and to notify the Commission of the measures taken.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not taking, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to recover from Portovesme Srl and Eurallumina SpA the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market in Article 2 of Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid measures C 38/B/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 13/06 (ex N 587/05) granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA, the Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not taking, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to recover from Portovesme Srl and Eurallumina SpA the State aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market in Article 2 of Commission Decision 2011/746/EU of 23 February 2011 on State aid measures C 38/B/04 (ex NN 58/04) and C 13/06 (ex N 587/05) granted by Italy to Portovesme Srl, ILA SpA, Eurallumina SpA and Syndial SpA, the Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 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 355, 17.11.2012.

1

---
§ 188.05-10 Application to vessels on an international voyage. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, the regulations in this subchapter that apply to a vessel on an “international voyage” apply to a vessel that— ( 1 ) Is mechanically propelled and of at least 500 gross tons; and
( 2 ) Is engaged on a voyage— ( i ) From a country to which the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, (SOLAS 74) applies, to a port outside that country or the reverse;
( ii ) From any territory, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, all possessions of the United States, and all lands held by the United States under a protectorate or mandate, whose international relations are the responsibility of a contracting SOLAS 74 government, or which is administered by the United Nations, to a port outside that territory or the reverse; or
( iii ) Between the contiguous states of the United States and the states of Hawaii or Alaska or between the states of Hawaii and Alaska.
( b ) The regulations that apply to a vessel on an “international voyage” in this subchapter do not apply to a vessel that— ( 1 ) Solely navigates the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River as far east as a straight line drawn from Cap des Rosiers to West Point, Anticosti Island and, on the north side of Anticosti Island, the 63rd Meridian; or
( 2 ) Is numbered in accordance with 46 U.S.C. Chapter 123.
( c ) The Commandant or his authorized representative may exempt any vessel on an international voyage from the requirements of this subchapter if the vessel— ( 1 ) Makes a single international voyage in exceptional circumstances; and
( 2 ) Meets safety requirements prescribed for the voyage by the Commandant.
( d ) The Commandant or his authorized representative may exempt any vessel from the construction requirements of this subchapter if the vessel does not proceed more than 20 nautical miles from the nearest land in the course of its voyage.
[CGD 72-131R, 38 FR 29320, Oct. 24, 1973, as amended by CGD 80-123, 45 FR 64586, Sept. 30, 1980; CGD 90-008, 55 FR 30664, July 26, 1990; CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25312, May 20, 1996; CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51219, Sept. 30, 1997]
Registration Number/File Symbol: [100-EUP-RRL]. Docket Number: EPA–HQ–OPP–XXXX–

XXXX[2011-0674]. Company name and address: [Syntenta Crop Protection Inc., P.O. Box 

18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300]. Active ingredient: [Acibenzolar s-methyl/ Benzo 

(1,2,3) thiadiazole-7-carbothioic acid-S-methyl ester]. Proposed Use: [Citrus and pome 

fruit (non-crop destruct)]. Contact: [Rosemary kearns, 703-305-5611, 

kearns.rosemary@epa.gov].
# C_2013344EN.01003002.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/30

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Serebryannay vek EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-283/12) (1)

1

(VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2(1)(c), 26, 62 and 63 - Chargeable event - Reciprocal supplies of services - Transactions for consideration - Basis of assessment for a transaction in the event of consideration in the form of services - Assignment by a natural person to a company of the right to use and to let to third parties immoveable property in exchange for that company’s services to improve and furnish the property)

2013/C 344/52

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Serebryannay vek EOOD

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Articles 2(1)(c), 26, 62 and 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Legislation under which, in the case of non-pecuniary remuneration of a supplier, the consideration for his services consists of another supply of services — Whether a transaction is to be classified as an exchange of services or not — If not, whether the improvement and furnishing of immoveable property may be classified as a taxable transaction — Occurrence of the chargeable event and rule for determining the basis of assessment

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a supply of services to fit out and furnish an apartment must be regarded as having been carried out for consideration if, under a contract concluded with the owner of that apartment, the supplier of those services, first, undertakes to carry out that supply of services at its own expense and, secondly, obtains the right to have that apartment at its disposal in order to use it for its business activities during the term of that contract, without being required to pay rent, whereas the owner recovers the improved apartment at the end of that contract.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

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

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPNAYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   34,117
<SECURITIES>                                             10,805
<RECEIVABLES>                                               976
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                 798
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         47,118
<PP&E>                                                    3,614
<DEPRECIATION>                                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           51,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     4,041
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                    127
<OTHER-SE>                                               68,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             51,725
<SALES>                                                   7,719
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          7,719
<CGS>                                                     1,495
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             1,495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (12,028)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 35
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (12,063)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (12,063)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (0.98)
        

</TABLE>
Camden County Circuit Court.

#### JOHN J. DENES, PLAINTIFF, v. R. M. HOLLINGSHEAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

Submitted December 12, 1928

Decided December 20, 1928.

For the plaintiff, *D. Trueman Stackhouse.*

For the defendant, *Starr, Summerill & Lloyd.*

Donges, J.

Motion is made to strike the complaint in this case.

The complaint discloses that plaintiff was employed by defendant; that in the course of his employment he suffered a slight injury to his leg; that defendant undertook to render treatment to his leg; that defendant so improperly, unskillfully and negligently treated the leg, by the use of improper, alkaline, acred and irritating lotions, that plaintiff’s leg became ulcerated and permanently disabled.

Defendant insists that the only remedy is under the Workmen’s Compensation act, and alleges that the injuries complained of arose out of and in the course of his employment, and cites *Newcomb*v. *Albertson,*85 *N. J. L.*435, and *Lundy*v. *Brown & Co.,*93 *Id.*469.

The complaint alleges a set of facts that indicate that the condition complained of is not the result of accident, but is the result of entirely different causes, namely, negligence in treatment. I am unable to distinguish between a negligent *40act of the employer, not related to the accident which rendered the treatment necessary, and the negligent act of a surgeon in the treatment of an injury. One is no more the result of the accident than is the other. The condition complained of is not the proximate result of the accident, but is alleged to be the proximate result of an act not related to the happening of the accident.

I have been unable to find any case precisely in point, nor has the diligence of counsel supplied me with any authority. The case of *Smith*v. *International High, &c.,*Co., 98 *N. J. L.*574, is authority that only such conditions as result from an accident are to be recovered for under the Compensation act. To the same effect is *Liondale Bleach Works*v. *Riker,*85 *Id.*426. In these cases it is held that disease or conditions which result from and in consequence of accidental injuries are part of such injuries. But these cases are distinguishable from cases, like the instant one, where the allegation is that the condition or disease complained of would not and did not result from the injury received, but resulted wholly from an intervening negligent act.

The motion to strike the complaint is denied.
# C_2014184EN.01002602.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2014 — Asos v OHIM — Maier (ASOS)

(Case T-647/11) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ASOS - Earlier Community word mark ASSOS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 184/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Asos plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Kavanagh, Solicitor, and A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Roger Maier (San Pietro di Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 October 2011 (Case R 2215/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Roger Maier and Asos plc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dismisses Mr Roger Maier’s application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses Mr Roger Maier’s application;

| 3. | Orders Asos plc to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Asos plc to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

| 4. | Orders Mr Maier to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Maier to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 58, 25. 2. 2012.

1

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134996 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan JAMES JACQUES, Petitioner-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134996 COA: 268016 Oceana CC: 05-005068-AA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Respondent-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 8, 2008

Clerk
```

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 250 (Friday, December 29, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 78410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9928]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[DOD-2006-OS-0225]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete systems of records.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of Defense is deleting a system of 
records notice from its existing inventory of records systems subject 
to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: December 29, 2006.

ADDRESSES: OSD Privacy Act Coordinator, Records Management Section, 
Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 
20301-1155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Juanita Irvin at (703) 696-4940.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of the Secretary of Defense 
systems of records notices subject tot he Privacy Act of 1974, (5 
U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register 
and are available from the address above.
    The specific changes to the records system being amended are set 
forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its 
entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of 
subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, 
which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

    Dated: December 22, 2006.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
DODDS 22

System name:
    DOD Dependent Children's School Program Files (June 12, 1997, 62 FR 
32089).

Reason:
    The system of records is maintained under the Office of the 
Secretary notice DODEA 26, entitled, Department of Defense Education 
Activity Dependent Children's School Program Files (November 1, 2006, 
71 FR 64247).
[FR Doc. 06-9928 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
```
# C_2011282EN.01002902.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/29

---

Action brought on 15 July 2011 — Palirria Souliotis v Commission

(Case T-380/11)

2011/C 282/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Anonymi Viotechniki kai Emporiki Etairia Kataskevis Konservon — Palirria Souliotis AE (Psacha, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2011 of 6 May 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 122, p. 63); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2011 of 6 May 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2011 L 122, p. 63); and

| — | Order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement as it failed to properly consult the Nomenclature Committee. In addition, the Commission failed to address the opinion submitted by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed an essential procedural requirement as it failed to properly consult the Nomenclature Committee. In addition, the Commission failed to address the opinion submitted by the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded the limits of the powers conferred upon it by Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded the limits of the powers conferred upon it by Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1)

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by classifying tinned stuff wine leaves under the CN-code set out in the annex to the contested regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by classifying tinned stuff wine leaves under the CN-code set out in the annex to the contested regulation.

---
§ 182.400 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart applies to all propulsion and auxiliary machinery installations of the internal combustion piston type.
( b ) Requirements of this subpart that are only applicable to engines that use gasoline or other fuels having a flashpoint of 43.3 °C (110 °F) or lower are specifically designated in each section.
( c ) Requirements of this subpart that are only applicable to engines that use diesel fuel or other fuels having a flashpoint of more than 43.3 °C (110 °F) are specifically designated in each section.
( d ) Where no specific gasoline, diesel, or other fuel designation exists, the requirements of this subpart are applicable to all types of fuels and machinery.
# United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Air Resources Division

P.O. Box 25287

Denver, Colorado 80225

IN REPLY REFER TO:

April 29 , 2012

Mr. David Lutz

MQAG (C339

- 02)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Re: Certification of National Park Service, Gaseous Pollutant Monitoring Progr am Data for 2011

Dear Mr. Lutz:

The National Park Service, Air Resources Division, hereby certifies the NPS Gaseous Pollut ant Monitoring

Program (GPMP) pollutant data (ozone, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide ) fo r the year 2011 that currentl y reside on

the EPA AQS. T hese data have undergone stringent validation procedures and are believed to be a consistent and

accurate representation of ambient air quality conditions within the monitored NPS units.

Attached are:

• A summary table of NPS units that the NPS intends to certify for 2011

.

• AMP450 report (Quick Look Criteria Paramet ers) for 2011 data

.

• AMP255 report (Precision and Accuracy Quality Indicator Summary ) for 2011 data

.

Please refer to the attached summary table that lists which sites the NPS intends to certify. There are sites

operated by the NPS that are listed in both the AMP450 and AMP255 that we do not wish to certify because of the

method used or because the site does not belong solely to the NPS

. These sites are not included in the table.

Please note that the AMP255 report indicates that the performance evaluation criteria were not met on the

ozone monitor at the following sit e :

• 30

- 029

- 8001 (Glacier National Park)

This report is considering the ozone season only. Performance e valuations were performed on all of these instrument s

twice during the year

. Some of these performance evaluations fell outside of the ozone seasons a nd are therefore

missing from the AMP255 report. The results of all of these performance evaluations are in AQS.

The National Park Service, Air Re sources Division has also submitted data certification packets for the year s

2006

, 2008

, 2009 and 2010

. We are still waiting on certification of these data and would request that you also certify

these data in AQS at this time. If the 2006

, 2008

, 2009 or 2010 certification reports need to be resubmitted please let me

know and I will provide these reports aga in. Please contact me (john_d_ray@nps.gov; 303

- 9969

- 2820) if you have any

questions.

Sincerely,

John D. Ray, Ph.D.

JR:jw Program Manager

Cc: John Vimont , NPS ARD

Carol McCoy , NPS ARD

Tim Sharac, EPA CAMD

Lewis Weinstock, Michael Papp, EPA OAQPS