alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013367EN.01002001.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — OTP Bank Nyilvánosan Működő Részvénytársaság v Hochtief Solutions AG

(Case C-519/12) (1)

1

(Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1)(a) - Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’)

2013/C 367/34

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OTP Bank Nyilvánosan Működő Részvénytársaság

Applicant:

Defendant: Hochtief Solutions AG

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the court of a Member State in matters relating to a contract — Action by a creditor, on the basis of a credit agreement, against a company holding a controlling share in the debtor company which is a party to the contract pursuant to the specific national rules governing the liability of the first company

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

An action such as that in the main proceedings, in which national legislation renders a person liable for the debts of a company which he controls, where that person did not comply with the reporting obligations following the acquisition of that company, cannot be regarded as concerning ‘matters relating to a contract’ for the purposes of Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

1

---
#### Elizabeth Snyder *v.*Sylvester Snyder and others.

Judgment reversed. Beferee discharged, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinions by

Learned, P. J., ana Osborn, J.; and by Bumsey, J., dissenting.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.053-4 Inspections and tests. ( a ) *General.* Work vests are not inspected at regularly scheduled factory inspections; however, the Commander of the Coast Guard District may detail a marine inspector at any time to visit any place where work vests are manufactured to observe production methods and to conduct any inspections or tests which may be deemed advisable. The marine inspector shall be admitted to any place in the factory where work is done on work vests or component materials, and samples of materials entering into construction may be taken by the marine inspector and tests made for compliance with the applicable requirements.
( b ) *Manufacturer's inspections and tests.* Manufacturers of approved work vests shall maintain quality control of the materials used, manufacturing methods, workmanship, and the finished product so as to meet the requirements of this specification, and shall make full inspections and tests of representative samples from each lot to maintain the quality of their product.
( c ) *Lot size.* A lot shall consist of not more than 500 work vests manufactured at the same time. Lots shall be numbered serially by the manufacturer, and if at any time during the manufacture of a lot, any change or modification in materials or production methods is made, a new lot shall be started.
( d ) *Test facilities.* The manufacturer shall provide a suitable place and shall have on hand the necessary apparatus for conducting buoyancy tests in compliance with this specification. The apparatus shall include accurate spring scales of adequate capacity, weighted wire mesh baskets, and a test tank or tanks which can be locked or sealed in such a manner as to preclude disturbance of work vests undergoing tests or change in water level.
( e ) *Buoyancy* — ( 1 ) *Buoyancy test method.* Remove the buoyant inserts from the vest. Securely attach the spring scale in a position directly over the test tank. Suspend the weighted wire basket from the scale in such a manner that the basket can be weighed while it is completely under water. In order to measure the actual buoyancy provided by the inserts, the underwater weight of the empty basket should exceed the buoyancy of the inserts. To obtain the buoyancy of the inserts, proceed as follows: ( i ) Weigh the empty wire basket under water.
( ii ) Place the inserts inside the basket and submerge it so that the top of the basket is at least 2 inches below the surface of the water. Allow the inserts to remain submerged for 24 hours. The tank shall be locked or sealed during this 24-hour submergence period.
( iii ) After the 24-hour submergence period, unlock the tank and weigh the wire basket with the inserts inside while both are still under water.
( iv ) The buoyancy is computed as paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section minus paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this section.
( 2 ) *Buoyancy required.* The buoyant inserts from work vests shall provide not less than 171 ⁄ 2 pounds buoyancy in fresh water.
# C_2013225EN.01003501.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/35

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — Guillermo Cañas v European Commission, World Anti-doping Agency, ATP Tour, Inc.

(Case C-269/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Anti-doping legislation - Decision to take no further action on a complaint lodged before the Commission - Concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ - That interest remaining after the professional activity has ceased)

2013/C 225/59

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Guillermo Cañas (represented by: Y. Bonnard and C. Aguet, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents), World Anti-doping Agency (represented by: G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, D. Cooper, solicitor, N. Chesaites, barrister), ATP Tour, Inc.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 26 March 2012 in Case T-508/09 Cañas v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009)7809 of 12 October 2009 in Case COMP/39471, rejecting for lack of Community interest a complaint concerning an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC allegedly committed by the World Anti-doping Agency, the ATP Tour Inc. and by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS) — Competition — Anti-doping legislation — Errors of law in the interpretation of the concept of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’ — Interest in bringing proceedings ceased to exist during the proceedings

Cañas

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Guillermo Cañas to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Guillermo Cañas to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the World Anti-doping Agency to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the World Anti-doping Agency to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.

1

---
§ 204.6 Payment of claims. ( a ) Once the amount to be paid has been agreed upon, the agency shall attempt to forward a check for such amount to the claimant within thirty days.
( b ) If a claimant is represented by an attorney, both the claimant and the claimant's attorney shall be designated as payees on any check delivered to the claimant's attorney.
# C_2014039EN.01000301.xml

| 8.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2013 — Groupe Gascogne SA v European Commission

(Case C-58/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Cartels - Industrial plastic bags sector - Whether the infringement by a subsidiary may be attributed to the parent company - Taking into account the total turnover of the group in order to calculate the upper limit of the fine - Excessive length of the proceedings before the General Court - Principle of effective legal protection)

2014/C 39/04

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Groupe Gascogne SA (represented by: P. Hubert and E. Durand, avocats)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-72/06 Groupe Gascogne v Commission, by which that court dismissed the application for annulment in part and variation of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) concerning a cartel in the industrial plastic bags sector, and an application to vary that decision.

Groupe Gascogne

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Groupe Gascogne SA to pay the costs of this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Groupe Gascogne SA to pay the costs of this appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 80 (Thursday, April 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2072]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the 
Health Sciences

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Uniformed Services University of the 
Health Sciences

ACTION: Quarterly meeting notice.

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

SUMMARY: On April 10, 2007 (72 FR 17881), the Department of Defense 
published a notice with the subject heading ``Department of Defense 
Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care'' which should have 
read ``Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the 
Health Sciences''. This notice corrects the title for that notice. All 
other information remains unchanged.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND BASE ACCESS PROCEDURES CONTACT:  Janet S. 
Taylor, Designated Federal Officer.

    Dated: April 23, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 07-2072 Filed 4-24-07; 10:49 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
# C_2013344EN.01002401.xml

| 23.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 344/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 344/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — French Republic v European Commission

(Case C-115/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Community structural assistance in the region of Martinique - Reduction of financial assistance - Public works contracts - Compliance of operations with provisions of European Union law - Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Article 2 - Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ - Concept of ‘facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure’)

2013/C 344/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard and N. Rouam, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-488/10 France v Commission, by which that Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 5229 of 28 July 2010 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under the single programming document in respect of objective 1 for Community structural assistance in the French region of Martinique — Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts — Concept of ‘direct subsidy’ — Concept of ‘facilities intended for sports, recreation and leisure’ — Errors of law — Failure to state reasons

France

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.

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: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending January 28, 2006

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location              | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|----------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|MIDWEST BANKCENTRE, LEMAY, MISSOURI | 657459 | 10/11/2005 | 01/20/2005     | S         | Large Bank 

## 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
The  Icy  Splash  Food and Beverage, Inc. Certification under Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act-Filed as an exhibit to 10-QSB for the Quarter Ended March 31,
2003



                            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 March 31, 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
May 12, 2003

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Icy Splash Food and Beverage, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 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
May 12, 2003
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-5, PageID.363 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-5, PageID.364 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-5, PageID.365 Filed 04/07/15 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-5, PageID.366 Filed 04/07/15 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 16-5, PageID.367 Filed 04/07/15 Page 5 of 5
#### GREAT FALLS POWER COMPANY AND DUKE POWER COMPANY, PROSECUTORS, v. LEON A. ANDRUS AND CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF ESSEX, RESPONDENTS.

Argued October term, 1928

Decided December 6, 1928.

*4Before Justices Misttubn, Black and Campbell.

Eor the prosecutors, *J ohn Milton.*

Eor the respondents, *Carlo D. Celia.*

Pee Cubiam.

The writ of *certiorari*in this case brings up a state of facts substantially similar to those existing in number 218 of the present term, excepting that the petition for the appointment of the appraisers was submitted on January 3d, 1928. The thirty-day limit within which to make the application expired on January 2d, 1928, which was a legal holiday under the provisions of the laws of this state.

The reason urged for a reversal of the situation presented by the action of the court below is that the petition was presented out of time. In *Atlantic City*v. Feretti, 70 *N. J. L.*489, it was held by this court that the Holiday act did not interdict sessions of the court on a legal holiday, but that its effect was to make holidays *dies nouj*as are Sundays, in so far as the transaction of business in the public offices of the state or county is concerned.

The common practice in commencing suits by petition is to file the petition with the clerk of the court, and it has been held that to file a petition in the clerk’s office is to “apply by petition to the court.” *Hudson Electric Light Co.*v. *Town of Hudson (Mass),*40 *N. E. Rep. 109.*

The court not being in session on January 2d, the petitioner might therefore have filed his petition with the clerk, were it not that the statute made the day *dies non.*

In *Cressy*v. *Parks,*75 *Me.*387; 46 *Am. Rep.*406, it was observed: “The true rule on this subject is laid down in *In re Gosweiler’s*Estate, 3 *Penn.*200, as follows: ‘Whenever by a rule of the court or an act of the legislature a given number of days are allowed to do an act or it is said one act may be done within a given number of days, the day on which the rule is taken or the decision is made is excluded, and if one or more Sundays occur within the time they are counted, unless the last day falls on Sunday, in which case the apt may be done on the next day.’ To the same effect is the opinion *5of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in *Barnes*v. *Eddy,*12 *R. I. 25.”*

The case of *Edmundson*v. *Wragg,*104 *Pa. St.*500; 49 *Am. Rep.*590, is to the same effect.

The liberality of view expressed in these cases upon the point raised herein is such as to lead us to the result that the action of the Circuit Court in this respect should be affirmed, and the writ of *certiorari*is therefore dismissed.
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

I, Martin Euler, the Chief Financial Officer of Astrata Group Incorporated, (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
      November 30, 2004 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
      78m or 78o(d)); 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:  January 10, 2005

                                                  /s/  Martin Euler
                                                  Name: Martin Euler
                                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSIAH DAVON BAILEY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 140 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of July, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
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 29, 2006

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## 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