alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018142EN.01001001.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-672/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - TVA Directive - Exemption of the leasing and letting of immovable property - Right of option available to taxable persons - Implementation by the Member States - Deduction of input tax - Use for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxed transactions - Adjustment of the initial deduction - Not permissible))

(2018/C 142/14)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167, 168, 184, 185 and 187 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation which provides for the adjustment of the value added tax initially deducted on the ground that a property, for which the right to opt for taxation was exercised, is regarded as no longer being used by the taxable person for the purposes of its own taxed transactions, where that property has remained unoccupied for more than two years, even though it is established that the taxable person has sought to rent it during that period.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

1

---
# C_2017277EN.01004102.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2017 — Dogg Label v EUIPO — Chemoul (JAPRAG)

(Case T-406/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark JAPRAG - Earlier national figurative mark JAPAN-RAG - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 277/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dogg Label (Marseilles, France) (represented by: M. Angelier, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Patrick Chemoul (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Hoffman, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 (Case R 2336/2015-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dogg Label and Mr Chemoul.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 (Case R 2336/2015-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2016 (Case R 2336/2015-2);

| 2. | Orders Dogg Label, EUIPO and Mr Patrick Chemoul to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dogg Label, EUIPO and Mr Patrick Chemoul to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.

1

---
1Defendant United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development has represented to the Court that it will not proceed

against Plaintiffs on the basis of a non-judicial foreclosure.

That being the case, the parties have agreed that the Court no

longer has jurisdiction over this matter, except with respect to

Plaintiffs’ petition for attorney’s fees, costs and the return of

monies placed in the Registry of this Court, which petition shall

be filed in accordance with this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES JACONO AND ROBERT MILLER : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF :

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT : NO. 03-4981

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2004, upon consideration of

the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 17) and

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 18), IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motions are DISMISSED as moot.1 IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file any petition for

attorney’s fees and costs, and for return of the $3000 paid into

the Registry of this Court pursuant to the Order dated September

16, 2003 (Docket No. 3), on or before July 9, 2004.

BY THE COURT:

______________________

John R. Padova, J.

Case 2:03-cv-04981-JP Document 31 Filed 06/28/04 Page 1 of 1
Case Wo. 7,820.

#### In re KINGSLEY.

[16 N. B. R. 301.] 1

District Court, D. Vermont.

Oct. 10, 1877.

Bankruptcy — Further Examination — Departure from District — Refusal of Discharge.

Where a bankrupt has been ordered to submit himself to further examination, a departure from the district before the time appointed, without examination, is such a violation of the order that no discharge will be granted until it is rectified by submission to such examination.

[In the matter of Chester Kingsley, a bankrupt]

W. L. Bumap, for bankrupt

A. F. Walker, opposed.

1

 [Reprinted by permission.]

WHEELER, District Judge.

The petition of the bankrupt for discharge having been heai’d upon the specification of grounds of objection thereto by the opposing creditors, proofs in support thereof and in answer thereto, and argument of counsel, it is thereupon considered that neither the first or second ground of objection is sustained by sufficient proof, and they are therefore overruled. The others relate to his examination under tbé order of court, and together really constitute but one ground. As to that, it appears that he was ordered to submit himself to further examination at a specified time, and departed from the district before the time arrived, without examination had under that order. There were some reasons for this course relating to his personal convenience and welfare, which, if they had been presented to the court, would perhaps have resulted in vacating the order or requiring the examination to be had at a time more convenient for him. And he may have understood from the course pursued after the order was made that his examination under it was waived, but it does not appear that he was given warrantably to so understand. The departure and failure to .submit to the examination was under the circumstances a violation of the order, which, although not so wilful as to deserve proceedings on account of it, has never been rectified, and is such that no discharge or other thing moved for by him should be granted until it is rectified by submitting himself to such examination. This ground is therefore sustained on the present hearing, so far that the further consideration of it is postponed until he shall submit himself, or within the district offer to submit himself to further examination on behalf of these opposing creditors. The petition as to this ground is continued to the Wednesday after the first Tuesday in November, that he may comply with this requirement if he shall see cause.
Summary of Waste Acceptance Data Received by NEIC During its Inspections of Veolia and Heritag

Parameter Veolia (2009-2011) Heritage-WTI (May 

2012-May 2013)

Total Profiles 14328 134680

No. of Unique Suppliers 3054 ND

No. of Unique Profiles 9908 13449

Percent of Unique Profiles 69% 10%

*ND = No data
ons of Veolia and Heritage-WTI
EXHIBIT 13.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with Annual Report for Fiscal 2010 Ended August 31, 2010 of Golden Goliath Resources Ltd., company organized under the British Columbia Corporations Act(the Company) on Form 20-F as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Stephen Pearce, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ "Stephen Pearce"

Stephen Pearce, Chief Financial Officer





Date: February 8, 2011
<PAGE>


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


      In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the period indicated

      This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                      INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.

Dated: February 13, 2009              By:  /s/ Steven R. Blake
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Steven R. Blake
                                           Chief Financial Officer
# C_2018072EN.01000701.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission

(Case C-81/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas - Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms - Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Definition - Discretion of the Member States))

(2018/C 072/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M.A. Sampol Pucurull, M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and A. Rubio González, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THE CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL : CIVIL ACTION

:

V. :

:

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS :

ET AL : NO. 02-2746

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 2003, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

all Motions pertaining to discovery matters, either pending or to be filed, are referred to United

States Magistrate Judge Charles B. Smith for resolution.

 

BY THE COURT:

 

JOHN R. PADOVA, J.

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 175 Filed 12/05/2003 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 11

EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                       Three months ended                  Nine months ended
                                                          September 30,                      September 30,
                                                    2000               1999             2000             1999
                                               ----------------   ---------------   --------------   --------------
<S>                                               <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
Numerator:

     Net income (loss)                                $ 65,077         $(142,323)       $ 102,287        $(604,433)


Denominator:
     Denominator for basic earnings per
         share--weighted-average shares                320,267           320,267          320,267          320,267

     Effect of dilutive securities:
         Nonqualified stock options                      1,911                 -            1,342                -

                                               ----------------   ---------------   --------------   --------------
     Denominator for diluted earnings
         per share                                     322,178           320,267          321,609          320,267
                                               ================   ===============   ==============   ==============


Basic earnings (loss) per share                         $ 0.20           $ (0.44)          $ 0.32          $ (1.89)
                                               ================   ===============   ==============   ==============

Diluted earnings (loss) per share                       $ 0.20           $ (0.44)          $ 0.32          $ (1.89)
                                               ================   ===============   ==============   ==============
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

     Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or
              15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. 1350, and pursuant to Section
                      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Kit Tsui, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Industries
International, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1) the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the
"Annual Report"), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m) and

(2) information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Industries
International, Inc.

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.


Date: March ___, 2004
                                             -----------------------------------
                                            Dr. Kit Tsui
                                            Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                            Executive Officer
                                            Industries International, Inc.
# C_2017070EN.01000801.xml

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/8

---

Appeal brought on 11 August 2016 (fax of 4 August) by U-R LAB against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 25 May 2016 in Joined Cases T-422/15 and T-423/15 U-R LAB v European Union Intellectual Property Office

U-R LAB

European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-450/16 P)

(2017/C 070/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: U-R LAB (represented by: A. Rudoni, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 25 November 2016 the Court (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.

---
Before the Second Division,

February 21, 1949

No. 52889.

#### Railway Express Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 6541-R (Tampa).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the record the court was satisfied that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the ease or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of AXT, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Morris S. Young, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  November 9, 2010 | By:      | /s/ MORRIS S. YOUNG             |
|-------------------------------|----------|---------------------------------|
|                          |     | Morris S. Young                 |
| * *                      | * * | *Chief Executive Officer*       |
| * *                      | * * | *(Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
# C_2017030EN.01001502.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 5 October 2016 — Andrea Witzel, Jannis Witzel, Jazz Witzel v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-520/16)

(2017/C 030/17)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Andrea Witzel, Jannis Witzel, Jazz Witzel

Applicants:

Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that avoidability relates only to the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances or also to the consequences of the extraordinary circumstances, namely cancellation or major delay? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that avoidability relates only to the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances or also to the consequences of the extraordinary circumstances, namely cancellation or major delay?

1

| 2. | If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: if the aircraft on the preceding flight is affected by the extraordinary circumstances, must the operating air carrier attempt to find a replacement aircraft already upon the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances in the preceding flight, or can it wait until it is certain that the extraordinary circumstances lead to a considerable delay to the following flight? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: if the aircraft on the preceding flight is affected by the extraordinary circumstances, must the operating air carrier attempt to find a replacement aircraft already upon the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances in the preceding flight, or can it wait until it is certain that the extraordinary circumstances lead to a considerable delay to the following flight?

| 3. | If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: is booking a sub-charter flight unreasonable if the cost is approximately three times higher than the original flight? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: is booking a sub-charter flight unreasonable if the cost is approximately three times higher than the original flight?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1).

1

---
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1
                                  ------------


                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             -----------------------
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             -----------------------
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                             ----------------------
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                  ---------------------------------------------

         In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Integrated
Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1.       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 result of
                  operations of the Company at the dates and for the period
                  indicated.

         This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Dated: November 7, 2006                            By: /s/ Bruce Mogel
                                                     -----------------------
                                                      Bruce Mogel
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANESOXLEY

ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Galaxy Next Generation, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10K pursuant for the year ended June 30, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Magen McGahee, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



Date: September 30, 2019



/s/ Magen McGahee



Magen McGahee

Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director