alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019044EN.01004702.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/47

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Cheverny Investments v Commission

(Case T-585/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Cheverny Investments Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: H. Prinz zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg, R. Staab and S. Rasch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R.Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Cheverny Investments Ltd.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Cheverny Investments Ltd.;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---
# C_2011080EN.01002303.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/23

---

Action brought on 14 January 2011 — Technische Universität Dresden v Commission

(Case T-29/11)

2011/C 80/46

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Technische Universität Dresden (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: G. Brüggen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Commission of 4 November 2010, debit note No 3241011712, concerning the repayment of a sum in the amount of EUR 55 377,62; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Commission of 4 November 2010, debit note No 3241011712, concerning the repayment of a sum in the amount of EUR 55 377,62;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following in support of its action:

| 1. | Infringement of Community law due to an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts
  The applicant submits that there was an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts as regards the eligibility of certain personnel expenses, subsistence expenses and travel costs. It also submits that there was an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts in connection with various services. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of Community law due to an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts

The applicant submits that there was an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts as regards the eligibility of certain personnel expenses, subsistence expenses and travel costs. It also submits that there was an erroneous assessment of the facts and failure to assess the facts in connection with various services.

| 2. | Infringement of Community law due to serious errors of reasoning
  The applicant submits in this connection that there is a failure to state reasons in the debit note, erroneous reasoning as regards the granting and withdrawal of subsistence expenses and travel costs and a failure to state the reasons for the increase in the ineligible sum regarding the category of ‘various services’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Infringement of Community law due to serious errors of reasoning

The applicant submits in this connection that there is a failure to state reasons in the debit note, erroneous reasoning as regards the granting and withdrawal of subsistence expenses and travel costs and a failure to state the reasons for the increase in the ineligible sum regarding the category of ‘various services’.

---
Mr. Donald S. WelshRegional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III

Mail Code 3RAOO

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Dear Mr. Welsh:

Enclosed for your approval is a revision to Pennsylvania’s State Implementation Plan

(SIP) concerning amendments to the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles (PCV) Program. Thesubmittal includes three copies of a final rulemaking that amends 25 Pa. Code Chapter 121 and

Chapter 126, Subchapter D (relating to the PCV program). The original PCV programrequirements incorporated by reference certain provisions ofthe California Low EmissionsVehicle (CA LEV) program. The newly promulgated PCV regulation postpones the currentmodel year (MY) 2006 compliance date to MY 2008 and updates program-related definitions

contained in Chapter 121. The final rulemaking also clarifies the PCV program requirements

and specifies a transition mechanism for compliance with the program. These requirements are

one ofthe Pennsylvania measures to achieve and maintain the National Ambient Air QualityStandard for ozone.

This SIP submission includes the final rulemaking published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin

on December 9, 2006 (36 Pa. B. 7424), documentation ofthe public participation process

including proof of public notice, the Department ofEnvironmental Protection’s comment andresponse document, and as requested by your staff documentation ofthe methodology used to

estimate the air quality benefits attributable to the PCV program and an estimate ofthose

statewide air quality benefits.

Should you have any questions regarding this SIP revision, please contact Joyce E. Epps,

Director, Bureau of Air Quality, by e-mail at jeepps@state.pa.us or by telephone at

717-787-9702.

Enclosure

Printed on Recycled Paper

RECEIVED

JUN 1 1 2007

Division Director (3A)

An Equal Opportunity Employer www.dep.state.pa.us
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.332 Hoisting arrangement. ( a ) A cargo pumproom located below the weatherdeck must have a permanent hoisting arrangement with a lifting capacity of 2500 N (approx. 562 lbs), operable from the weatherdeck, for the removal of an unconscious person.
( b ) The cargo pumproom must have a 60 cm by 60 cm (approx. 2 ft by 2 ft) cross-sectional clearance through the hoistway.
#### § 327.3 Required claims submission.

All claims specified in 50 U.S.C. App. 1291(a) shall be submitted for administrative consideration, as provided in §§ 327.4 and 327.5, prior to institution of court action thereon.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2546]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group, Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal 
Biology Subcommittee.
    Date: June 12, 2007.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Gaithersburg Hilton, 620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, MD 
20877.
    Contact Person: Gopal M. Bhatnagar, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development, National Institutes of Health, 6100 Bldg Rm 5B01, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 435-6889, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c7e747d68727d7b7b5c717d757032727574327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="22404a43564c434545624f434b4e0c4c4b4a0c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 15, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2546 Filed 5-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 December 30, 2006

|Filer                              | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                                
|---------------------------------- | ------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP | * 3A3         | Enterprise Financial Services Corp., Clayton, Missouri, to acquire 100 percent of Clayco Banc Corporation, DeSoto, Kansas, and thereby indirectly acquire Great American Bank, DeSoto, Kansas.                                         | Newspaper:01/31/2007Federal Register:01/26/2007      
|Newspaper:                         | 01/31/2007   
|Federal Register:                  | 01/26/2007   
|STIFEL FINANCIAL CORP.             | * 3A1         | Stifel Financial Corp., St. Louis, Missouri, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of First Service Financial Company, St. Louis, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire FirstService Bank, Crestwood, Missouri. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                         | Not available
|Federal Register:                  | Not available

## 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
#### § 26.20-1 Must be available.

If a person operates a vessel that carries one or more passengers-for-hire, he or she is required to have a valid Coast Guard license or MMC officer endorsement suitable for the vessel's route and service. He or she must have the license or MMC in his or her possession and must produce it immediately upon the request of a Coast Guard boarding officer.

[USCG-1999-5040, 67 FR 34777, May 15, 2002, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11264, Mar. 16, 2009]
#### WILBUR A. KLEIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CHARLES GAFFNEY AND EDWARD GAFFNEY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Decided October 16, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Pakkek and Bodine.

Eor the defendants-appellants, *Rogers & Johnson.*

Eor the plaintiff-respondent, *Thomas II. Brown.*

Pek Cukiam.

The plaintiff leased from the defendants a garage in the town of Kearny. Under the terms of the lease, which was in writing, $1,050 was deposited with the landlords as security for the faithful performance of the covenants in the lease. After an alleged eviction, this action was brought to *896recover so much of the security so deposited as was due. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

It appears that the tenant was constantly in arrears and was constantly allowed to continue, upon payment of the arrearages of rent due until September 16th, 1926, when the following notice was given:

> “To Wilbur A. Klein:

> “You are hereby notified that your tenancy of the premises known as No. 852 Kearny avenue, Kearny, New Jersey, is hereby terminated and at an end because of your failure to pay yo'ur rent for September,. 1926, as provided for in your lease made between yourself and Charles Gaffney and Edward J. Gaffney covering the demised premises.

> “And demand is hereby made that you remove from said premises occupied by you within three days after service of this notice upon you.

> “Dated September 16th, 1926.

> Charles Gaeeney & Edward J. Gaeehey.”

The plaintiff complied with this request and delivered up possession.

The trial court left it to the jury to say whether the lease was terminated by this notice and compliance therewith, or whether it continued the landlords entering under the lease.

If the lease continued, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and the defendant’s motion for a nonsuit or a directed verdict should have been granted.

When the notice was given, the tenant was in default. Under the terms of the lease the landlords could have. entered and evicted the tenant, but they elected to notify him that the tenancy was at an end and the tenant complied with this notice. Certainly, the trial judge quite properly treated the notice of September 16th, 1926, as evidence of an election by the landlords to terminate the lease. Hence, there was no error in leaving the case to the jury. In *United Cigar Stores Co. v.*Heithaus, 132 *Atl. Rep.*655, there was no such notice.

*897It seems immaterial that prior to September 16th, 1936, the landlords had, on accepting rent, required the tenant to stipulate that such acceptance was not a waiver of the terms of the lease. It was important that they preserve their rights when they took possession not some months before.

It seems hardly necessary to comment on the action of the trial judge in striking testimony as to the length of time the premises remained vacant after the termination of the lease. Such testimony was immaterial on the issue before the court.

The judgment will be affirmed.
#### § 28.160 Portable fire extinguishers.

(a) Each vessel must meet the requirements of part 25, subpart 25.30 of this chapter.

(b) Each vessel 65 feet (19.8 meters) or more in length must be equipped with the minimum number, location, and type of portable fire extinguishers specified in table [28.160](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-28.160).

(c) Semi-portable extinguishers must be located in the open so as to be readily seen.

(d) Table [28.160](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-28.160) of this section indicates the minimum required classification for each space listed. Extinguishers with larger numerical ratings or multiple letter designations may be used if the extinguishers meet the requirements of the table.

(e) The regulations in this section have preemptive effect over State or local regulation within the same field.

Table [28.160](/on/2024-09-23/title-46/section-28.160)—Portable Fire Extinguishers for Vessels 65 Feet (19.8 Meters) or More in Length

| Space | Minimum required rating | Quantity and location |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Safety areas, communicating corridors | 2-A | 1 in each main corridor not more than 150 ft (45.7m) apart. (May be located in stairways.) |
| Pilothouse | 20-B:C | 2 in the vicinity of the exit. |
| Service spaces, galleys | 40-B:C | 1 for each 2,500 sq ft (232.2 sq m) or fraction thereof suitable for hazards involved. |
| Paint lockers | 40-B | 1 outside space in the vicinity of the exit. |
| Accessible baggage and storerooms | 2-A | 1 for each 2,500 sq ft (232.2 sq m) or fraction thereof located in the vicinity of the exits, either inside or outside the spaces. |
| Workshops and similar spaces | 2-A | 1 outside the space in the vicinity of the exit. |
| Machinery spaces; Internal combustion propelling machinery | 40-B:C | 1 for each 1,000 brake horsepower or fraction thereof but not fewer than 2 or more than 6. |
| Electric propulsion motors or generator unit of open type | 40-B:C | 1 for each propulsion motor generator unit. |
| Auxiliary spaces | 40-B:C | 1 outside the space in the vicinity of the exit. |
| Internal combustion machinery | 40-B:C | 1 outside the space in the vicinity of the exit. |
| Electric emergency motors or generators | 40-B:C | 1 outside the space in the vicinity of the exit. |

[CGD 88-079, [56 FR 40393](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/56-FR-40393), Aug. 14, 1991; [56 FR 47679](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/56-FR-47679), Sept. 20, 1991, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, [81 FR 48247](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-48247), July 22, 2016]
#### Brown, appellant, v. Brown.

*Divorce—defense not allowable after judgment.*

In an action for divorce, service was by publication. After judgment defendant, upon showing that he had received no notice, and had a defense, was permitted to defend. *Held,*that the court had no power to permit a defense under section 135 of Code..

Appeal from an order of the special term opening a judgment and allowing defendant to answer.

The action was brought by Charlotte E. Brown against Henry Brown for divorce *a vinculo.*Sufficient facts appear in the opinion.

*Charles W. Dayton & Luke A. Lockwood,*for appellant.

*H. C. Place,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

This is an action for a divorce. The summons was served by publication. Shortly after the decree was entered, granting an absolute divorce in favor of plaintiff, the court, upon proof that the defendant did not receive any copy summons by mail, or any notice of the publication thereof, and upon affidavits showing a defense, opened the judgment, and permitted defendant to defend; from this order the plaintiff appeals.

By section 135, subdivision 5 of the Code, it is provided, that “ The defendant against whom publication is ordered, or his representatives, on application and sufficient cause shown, at any time before judgment, *must*be allowed to defend the action, and *except in an action for divorce,*may in like manner, upon good cause shown, be allowed to defend after judgment, or at any time within one year after notice thereof, and within seven years after its rendition, on such terms as may be just.” This section deprives the court of power to grant the order appealed from.

In all actions, except for divorce, after judgment, the defendant may be allowed to defend within one year after notice of the judgment, and within seven years after its rendition. The legislature doubtless intended to provide for new relations under the judgment — another marriage and birth of children.

The character of the person who should marry such divorced *478plaintiff, and the legitimacy of his or her children born of such a marriage, are protected by this statute. This exception as to divorce was not in the Code of 1848. Code 1848, § 114. It was first inserted in 1849, and has never been altered since. Code of 1849, § 135, subd. 6.

The order should be reverse 1, and the motion denied without costs.

*Order reversed.*
Confidential

Structure

Diagram

Removed
§ 221.89 Hearing Officer's decision. ( a ) The Hearing Officer shall issue a written decision. Any decision to assess a penalty shall be based on substantial evidence in the record, and shall state the basis for the decision.
( b ) If the Hearing Officer finds that there is not substantial evidence in the record establishing the alleged violation, the Hearing Officer shall dismiss the case. A dismissal is without prejudice to the Vessel Transfer Officer's right to refile the case if additional evidence is obtained. A dismissal following a rehearing is final and with prejudice.
( c ) The Hearing Officer shall notify the Party in writing, by certified or registered mail, of the decision and, if adverse, shall advise the Party of the right to an administrative appeal to the Maritime Administrator or an individual designated by the Administrator from that decision.
( d ) If an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time, the decision of the Hearing Officer constitutes final agency action in the case.