alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 165A/20 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 165A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5820 May 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 165A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5820 May 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 165A/01 | Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security — Publication of a vacancy for a Director function (Grade AD 14) — Directorate ‘Security’ (DG HR.DS), in Brussels — (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2015/10359 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2015/C 165A/01

Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security — Publication of a vacancy for a Director function (Grade AD 14) — Directorate ‘Security’ (DG HR.DS), in Brussels — (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2015/10359

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# C_2015198EN.01002001.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Grigorios Nikiforidis

(Case C-135/15)

(2015/C 198/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Hellenic Republic

Appellant on a point of law:

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Grigorios Nikiforidis

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the Rome I Regulation (1) applicable under Article 28 of that regulation to employment relationships exclusively in the case where the legal relationship was formed by a contract of employment entered into after 16 December 2009, or does every subsequent agreement by the contracting parties to continue their employment relationship, whether with or without variation, render that regulation applicable? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Rome I Regulation (1) applicable under Article 28 of that regulation to employment relationships exclusively in the case where the legal relationship was formed by a contract of employment entered into after 16 December 2009, or does every subsequent agreement by the contracting parties to continue their employment relationship, whether with or without variation, render that regulation applicable?

1

| 2. | Does Article 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation exclude solely the direct application of overriding mandatory provisions of another country in which the obligations arising out of that contract are not to be performed, or have not been performed, or does that provision also exclude indirect regard for those mandatory provisions in the law of the Member State the law of which governs the contract? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 9(3) of the Rome I Regulation exclude solely the direct application of overriding mandatory provisions of another country in which the obligations arising out of that contract are not to be performed, or have not been performed, or does that provision also exclude indirect regard for those mandatory provisions in the law of the Member State the law of which governs the contract?

| 3. | Is the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU relevant, for legal purposes, for the decision of national courts on whether overriding mandatory provisions of another Member State are directly or indirectly applicable? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU relevant, for legal purposes, for the decision of national courts on whether overriding mandatory provisions of another Member State are directly or indirectly applicable?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.

1

---
No. 46339.

#### Protests 524372-G, etc., of J. L. Hudson Co. et al. (Detroit, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

| 22. | Successors and      Assigns.  This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall      inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs,      representatives, administrators, successors and assigns; provided,      however, that (i) UMT may assign this Agreement and its rights and      obligations hereunder to any entity acquiring the Note and Loan Documents      with the prior written consent of UDF III, and (ii) UDF III may not assign      or transfer all or any portion of this Agreement and its rights and      obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of      UMT. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

|   | By: |     /s/ David      Hanson |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------|

|   | Name:  David      Hanson |
|--------|------------------------------------|

|   | Title:    UMTH GP, LP -      Advisor |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By: |     /s/ Ben      Wissink |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------|

|   | Name:      Ben      Wissink |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | Title:   Chief Operating      Officer |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 Date: June 13, 2011
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Rainer H. Bosselmann

Rainer H. BosselmannChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 9 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 9

 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding designation of the month 
           of November as ``National Military Family Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2005

  Mr. Inouye submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding designation of the month 
           of November as ``National Military Family Month''.

Whereas military families, through their sacrifices and their dedication to our 
        Nation and its values, represent the bedrock upon which our Nation was 
        founded and upon which our Nation continues to rely in these perilous 
        and challenging times: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate--
            (1) that the month of November should be designated as 
        ``National Military Family Month''; and
            (2) to request that the President--
                    (A) designate the month of November as ``National 
                Military Family Month''; and
                    (B) issue a proclamation calling upon the people of 
                the United States to observe the month with appropriate 
                ceremonies and activities.
                                 <all>
```
#### Bimini, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7424.

Invoices dated London, England, March 18, 1946, etc.

Certified March 28, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 21, 1946.

Entry Nos. 770643; 770644-1/3.

(Decided October 29, 1947)

*Adolphus G. Redley*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2016419EN.01001902.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd

(Case C-223/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - European Union trade mark - Unitary character - Finding of a likelihood of confusion in respect of only part of the European Union - Territorial scope of the prohibition referred to in Article 102 of that regulation))

(2016/C 419/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: combit Software GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Commit Business Solutions Ltd

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2), Article 9(1)(b) and Article 102(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, where an EU trade mark court finds that the use of a sign creates a likelihood of confusion with an EU trade mark in one part of the European Union whilst not creating such a likelihood in another part thereof, that court must conclude that there is an infringement of the exclusive right conferred by that trade mark and issue an order prohibiting the use in question for the entire area of the European Union with the exception of the part in respect of which there has been found to be no likelihood of confusion.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 10275)

#### United China & Glass Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 1640; 1212.

(Decided June 22, 1962)

*Stein & Shostah (Marjorie M. Shostah,*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Speotor,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

*682DoNLON, Judge:

At the term of court in New Orleans on May 1, 1962, these cases were consolidated and submitted on the following statement and stipulation of record:

> Mr. Spector : * * * I’d like to say that we agree to stipulate * * * that the price at which this merchandise is freely offered for sale, and sold in the United States, in the principal markets of the United States, and the usual wholesale quantity in the ordinary course of trade, is as follows:

> For the two-cup size, $8,522 per doz. packed; and for the four-cup size it’s $11,835 per dozen, packed; and that is the value that we agreed upon.

> *******

> Mr. Spector: It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel that there is no merchandise freely offered for sale in Belgium, and in the principal markets of Belgium, in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade, for home consumption.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that in the principal markets of Belgium, such or similar merchandise is not freely offered for sale in the ordinary course of trade, and in the usual wholesale quantities, for export to the United States.

> Miss Shostak : Plaintiff so stipulates.

> Judge Donlon : That stipulation is made of record.

> Miss Shostak: And plaintiff further stipulates to the United States value as stated by government counsel.

> Plaintiff further stipulates that the merchandise was exported prior to February 28, 1958, and the values referred to are values under Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938.

> Mr. Spector : Government so stipulates.

Accepting these stipulations as an agreed statement of facts, I find and hold that United States value, as defined in section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, effective on the dates the merchandise was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, is the proper basis for determining the values of the merchandise covered by the entries in these appeals for reappraisement, namely, coffeepots in sizes for two cups and four cups, and that such value for the two-cup size coffeepot is $8,522 per dozen, packed, and for the four-cup size coffeepot $11,835 per dozen, packed.

As to all other merchandise, these appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
U.S. Geological   Survey   Geologic Investigations Series I-2793

## **Topographic   Map of the Margaritifer Chaos Region of Mars—MTM 500k–10/337E OMKT**

#### *By*******U.S.   Geological Survey**

| This map is part of       a series of topographic maps of areas of special scientific interest on       Mars. The topography was compiled photogrammetically using Viking Orbiter       stereo image pairs. The contour interval is 250 meters. Horizontal and vertical       control was established using the USGS Mars Digital Image Model 2.0 (MDIM       2.0) and data from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA). |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Download a Portable   Document Format (PDF) version of this map (12 MB)

Download an Encapsulated   PostScript (EPS) version of this map (32 MB)

Download a current version of Adobe Reader for free

| Help   | PDF help   | Geopubs main page | I-map   | 

For questions about the   content of this report, contact Mark Rosiek

This report is available only on the Web

----

Michael Diggles

Privacy Statement
Disclaimer

| Department   of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey   | Geologic Division | Astrogeology   |
Case No. 9,943.

#### MURGATROYD v. McLURE.

[4 Dall. 342.]

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

April Term, 1800.

Prize — Condemnation in Foreign Court— Replevin.

Replevin, for the ship Mt. Vernon. The defendant claimed property, under a capture and condemnation as prize; in the French court of prizes, established at the city of St. Domingo, in the island of St. Domingo, under the circumstances stated in the reports of the trials, relative to the same ship. Murga-troyd v. Crawford, 3 Dali. [3 U. S.] 491; Dun-canson v. McLure, 4 Dali. [4 U. S.] 30S.

CHASE, Circuit Justice,

declared, that the whole transaction, between Murgatroyd and Duncanson, was a mere cover, to evade the laws of the United States; that the former was a mere trustee for the latter; and that, having been paid the full price for the ship, he had no property, on which the replevin could be maintained.

The plaintiff suffered a non-suit
# C_2014329EN.01000202.xml

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/2

---

Action brought on 27 June 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-308/14)

2014/C 329/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, M. Wilderspin, agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the United Kingdom, by the requirement that a claimant for Child Benefit or Child tax Credit have a right to reside in the United Kingdom, has failed to comply with its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the United Kingdom, by the requirement that a claimant for Child Benefit or Child tax Credit have a right to reside in the United Kingdom, has failed to comply with its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1);

1

| — | order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission maintains that in requiring a claimant of Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit to have a right to reside in the United Kingdom as a condition of being treated as resident there, the United Kingdom has imposed a condition that Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 does not permit.

Alternatively the Commission submits that by imposing a condition of entitlement to social security benefits that is automatically met by its own nationals the United Kingdom has created a situation of direct discrimination against nationals of other Member States and thus breached article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems OJ L 166, p. 1.

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 10270)

#### A. V. Berner & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 793558.

(Decided June 6, 1962)

*Bugme B. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

*’William, B. Ornela, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the parties herein:

> *678IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between counsel for the plaintiff herein and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, defendant, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. The merchandise marked “A” and initialed JJO by Examiner J. J. O’Con-nor, Jr. consists of Sodium Perborate, exported from West Germany in November 1952, which was appraised on the basis of foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by Section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938.

> 2. It is claimed that there is no foreign value as defined, supra, for such or similar merchandise, and that the merchandise should have been appraised on the basis of export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, supra.

> 3. The merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues in *U.S.*v. *Philipp Brothers Chemicals, Inc.,*A.R.D. 134 (decided June 13, 1961), wherein it was held that no foreign value as defined in section 402(e), supra, existed for such or similar merchandise, and that the proper basis of appraisement was export value, as defined in section 402(d), supra.

> 4. The record in *U.S.*v. *Philipp Brothers Chemicals, Inc.,*A.R.D. 134, be incorporated in the record herein.

> 5. Based on the affidavits and exhibits in the incorporated record, at the time of exportation of the merchandise marked “A” as aforesaid, the price at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal market of Western Germany, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost for all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States was $27.56 per •100 kilos, less ocean freight and insurance.

> 6. This appeal may be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise covered by this appeal and that such value was $27.56 per 100 kilos, less ocean freight and insurance.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.