alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 61253.

protest 314094-K (New York).

#### Regina Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of soup mixes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Cresca Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 211, C. D. 1864), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
F:\WP\WORK\RTG\CHEATLE2.ANS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT S. CHEATLE, JR. and NANCY A. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 

CHEATLE, husband and wife : 02-CV-4405

:

vs. :

:

DAVID A. KATZ and DAWN KATZ :

and :

PARADISE CONTRACTORS, INC. :

and :

PARADISE PINES HOMEOWNERS :

ASSOCIATION :

and :

PARADISE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. :

and :

PARADISE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. :

PLAINTIFFS’ ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STRIKE LIS PENDENS

Defendants’ Motion to Strike with Supporting Memorandum of Law should be

denied for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum of Law. 

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs request oral argument on the Defendants’ Motion to Strike Lis Pendens.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________

John C. Fenningham

Maura F. Ratigan

CORR, STEVENS & FENNINGHAM

Five Neshaminy Interplex, Suite 315

Trevose, PA 19053

(215) 639-4070

Dated: September 9, 2002 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:02-cv-04405-HH Document 8 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT S. CHEATLE, JR. and NANCY A. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 

CHEATLE, husband and wife : 02-CV-4405

:

vs. :

:

DAVID A. KATZ and DAWN KATZ :

and :

PARADISE CONTRACTORS, INC. :

and :

PARADISE PINES HOMEOWNERS :

ASSOCIATION :

and :

PARADISE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. :

and :

PARADISE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this ________ day of _______________, 2002, upon consideration

of Defendants’ Motion to Strike Lis Pendens, and Plaintiffs’ opposition thereto, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Lis Pendens is DENIED. 

BY THE COURT:

_____________________________

Herbert J. Hutton, J. 

Case 2:02-cv-04405-HH Document 8 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 66284.

#### American Machine & Foundry Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/21473-S, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Kao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 57654.

#### Chemtron Industries, Inc., and F. L. Kraemer & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 199665-K and 183083-K (B) (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hot plate mats of wood the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 57261, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the First Division,

September 1, 1948

No. 52523.

protest 136589-K (New York).

#### The Sunrise Co. *v.*United States,

*199Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of music boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Thorens Co.*v. *United States*(15 Cust. Ct. 165, C. D. 965), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2021502EN.01001701.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission

(Case T-191/16) (1)

(Financial assistance - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002-2006) - Contract concerning Union financial assistance in favour of a project in the field of medical collaboration - Enforceable decision - Competence of the Commission - Grant agreements - Recovery of part of the financial contribution paid - Arbitration clause - Eligible costs - Legitimate expectations)

(2021/C 502/25)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou, L. André and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents, and E. Roussou, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 1080 final of 16 February 2016 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 109 415,20, plus interest, paid to the applicant in the context of financial assistance in support of a medical research project.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

---
Case 2:05-cv-00606-MAM Document 77 Filed 10/16/2008 Page 1 of 1
FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 2, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15950 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 0 8 5 - C R - OR L - 2 2 DA B U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f- A p p e lle e , v ersu s G E R M A N M U N O Z C A N O L A , a. k. a. G erm an M un oz, D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea lfr om the U ni t ed S t ates D i stri ctC ou rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tri c tof F l ori da

_________________________ ( M ay 2, 2006) B efore M A R C U S , W IL S O N and H IL L , C i rc ui tJudg es P E R C U R I A M:2

H . K yl e F l etcher , appo i nt ed coun se lfor G erm an M un oz C anol a i n thi s di re ct c ri m i na lappe a l , ha s m ove d t o w i thdr a w f r om f urthe rr e pr e s e nt a ti on of the ap p e lla n t a n d f

ile d ab rie f

p u r s u a n t to A n d e r s v . C a lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e e n tir e r e c o r d r e v e a ls th atco u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel ati v e m eri to f th e ap p eali s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r d r e v e a ls n o ar g u ab le is s u e s o f m e rit, co u n sel ’ s m o ti o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , a nd C a nol a ’ s c onvi c ti on a nd se nt ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JACOB CAPOZIO

,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Appellee. §

§ No. 157 , 2023

§

§ Court Below

– Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No s

. 21 09007136 (S)

§ 2108014142 (S)

§

§

Submitted: August 8 , 2023

Decided: August 16 , 2023

ORDER

It appears to the Court that, on July 7 , 2023 , the Chief Deputy Clerk sent a

notice of brief delinquency to the appellant because he had not filed an opening brief

by the June 23

, 2023 deadline set by the Court. On July 19 , 2023, the Chief Deputy

Clerk issued a notice, sent by certified mail, directing the appellant to show cause

why this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file an opening brief. The

appellant received the notice , as evidenced by the return receipt filed with the Court

on July 26 , 2023 . A timely response to the notice to show cause was due on or before

August 7 , 2023 . To date, the appellant has not filed an opening brief or responded

to the notice to show cause. Dismissal of this action is therefore deemed to be

unopposed.2

NOW, THERE FORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2)

and 29(b), that th is appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths

Justice
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of AXT, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Wilson W. Cheung,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: August 13, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Wilson W. Cheung    |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                   |   | Wilson W. Cheung        |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
(Reap. Dec. 10959)

#### Aimcee Wholesale Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 31922.

(Decided April 20, 1965)

*Barnes, Richardson*<£ *Colburn for*the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*628Rao, Judge:

The instant appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between tbe parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court as follows:

> 1. That the involved merchandise consisting of cotton shirts was entered on or after the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927, 84th Congress, T.D. 54165) and is not identified on the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant thereto (T.D. 54521).

> 2. That on or about the date of exportation, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, said price including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States was $5.70 per dozen, net packed.

> 3. The appeal may be submitted on this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

Upon the agreed facts, I find export yalue, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be the proper basis for determining the value of the cotton shirts covered by this appeal for reappraisement and that such value is $5.70 per dozen, net, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2017392EN.01002302.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2017 — Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo v EUIPO — Gianni Versace (VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO)

(Case T-336/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark VERSACE 19.69 ABBIGLIAMENTO SPORTIVO - Earlier EU word mark VERSACE - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 392/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented initially by F. Caricato, and subsequently by M. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gianni Versace SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Francetti, 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 First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2016 (Case R 1005/2015-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Gianni Versace and Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 April 2016 (Case R 1005/2015-1) in so far as the Board of Appeal held that there had been genuine use of the earlier EU mark VERSACE for textile goods (not included in other classes) other than ‘household linen’ in class 24; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 April 2016 (Case R 1005/2015-1) in so far as the Board of Appeal held that there had been genuine use of the earlier EU mark VERSACE for textile goods (not included in other classes) other than ‘household linen’ in class 24;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo Srl to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by EUIPO;

| 4. | Orders EUIPO to bear one half of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders EUIPO to bear one half of its own costs;

| 5. | Orders Gianni Versace SpA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Gianni Versace SpA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.

1

---
# C_2016371EN.01002901.xml

| 10.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/29

---

Action brought on 4 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-39/16)

(2016/C 371/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the selection tests for competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and ISPRA and order for the defendant to pay damages and interest for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered of an amount of EUR 10 000.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the jury for competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg), notified on 28 September 2015, not to admit the applicant to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the jury for competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg), notified on 28 September 2015, not to admit the applicant to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre;

| — | order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 10 000 for non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 10 000 for non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
Document

Exhibit 10.4



Updated February 1, 2021
RAC Board Compensation Overview – 2021 Program


									
		ITEM	2021 AMOUNT
	(1)	Annual Retainers – Cash retainer amounts for non-employee directors, Chairman, Committee Chairs and Committee Members
	•Board service (all directors including Chairman) - $77,500
•Chairman - $175,000
•Audit Chair -- $27,500
•Audit Member -- $15,000
•Compensation Chair -- $25,000
•Compensation Member – $10,500
•Governance Chair -- $20,000
•Governance Member -- $10,000



	(2)	Board Meeting Attendance Fees (not Committee meetings) -- Fee for each Board meeting attended in person or, at the discretion of the Compensation Committee, by telephonic or other electronic means


	•$2,500 per eligible meeting

	(3)	Special Board Committee Fees – If a non-employee Director serves on a special committee of the Board, the Compensation Committee will determine whether to provide supplemental fees to such Director and the amount of such fees, provided no fees in excess of $30,000/year per Director shall be paid without approval from the Board


	•TBD

	(4)	Annual DSU Award – Annual equity award to each non-employee director in the form of Deferred Stock Units pursuant to the LTIP. Each DSU represents the right to receive one share of Rent-A-Center common stock. The award is fully vested upon grant and the shares covered by the award are issued upon the termination of the director’s service as a member of the Board. DSUs do not have voting rights.


	•$120,000 in value

	(5)	DSU Deferral Awards + 25% Match – Ability to elect each year to defer all/some of the following year’s (1) cash retainers and (2) meeting attendance fees into DSUs (based on the closing price of RAC stock immediately preceding the date the cash fees are payable). Company match of 25% is applied to deferred fees when calculating the DSUs.


	•Based on amount of cash fees deferred, plus 25% match

	(6)	Cash Dividend Equivalents on DSUs – Dividend record date number of DSUs held by a director are entitled to receive cash dividends, if and when declared by the Board, as if the DSUs were issued/outstanding shares of RAC common stock. Not entitled to any 25% match.


	•Record date number of DSUs held X dividend/share
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

TAYLOR : 02-3877

JACKSON : 02-3879

LIAGA, et al. : 02-3920

KARGE, et al. : 02-3927

GREEN, et al. : 02-3942

MARKS : 02-3969

FULTZ : 02-3977

RACKLEY : 02-4118

THOMPSON, et al. : 02-4125

RUSSELL, et al. : 02-4127

ALCALA : 02-4131

ANDERSON : 02-4193

CAGAPE, et al. : 02-4227

MONZON, et al. : 02-4241

SANDOVAL, et al. : 02-4282

CHAPMAN, et al. : 02-4289

DUNHAM, et al. : 02-4304

FORTUNATO, et al. : 02-4315

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota.

Case 2:02-cv-04304-JCJ Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

J. Curtis Joyner, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04304-JCJ Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 60427.

protest 271749-K (New York).

#### Liebermann Waelchli & Co., New York, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

An examination of the official record failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the presumptively correct classification of the merchandise made by the collector, the protest was overruled.
# C_2021242EN.01001602.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — repowermap.org v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER)

(Case T-872/16) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark REPOWER - Absolute ground for invalidity - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Freedom of expression)

(2021/C 242/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón and W. Sakulin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between repowermap.org and Repower.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Alters the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) in such a way as to cancel the contested mark with respect to the following services:






  — | Class 37: ‘Services of heating engineers’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Alters the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 26 September 2016 (Case R 2311/2014-5) in such a way as to cancel the contested mark with respect to the following services:

—

Class 37: ‘Services of heating engineers’;

| — | Class 42: ‘Scientific services and research and development relating thereto; industrial research and analyses.’ |
| --- | --- |

—

Class 42: ‘Scientific services and research and development relating thereto; industrial research and analyses.’

| 2. | Dismisses the action for the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action for the remainder;

| 3. | Orders repowermap.org to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by EUIPO and Repower AG. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders repowermap.org to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by EUIPO and Repower AG.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

---
# C_2018190EN.01001804.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/18

---

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 23 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Synthon BV v Astellas Pharma Inc.

(Case C-644/16) (1)

1

(2018/C 190/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.

1

---