alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017038EN.01003002.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2016 — Todorova Androva v Council and Others

(Case T-366/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - 2011 promotion procedure - Non-inclusion on the list of officials eligible for promotion - Action at first instance dismissed - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on fixed- term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Obligation on the court hearing the substantive application to investigate - Plea of illegality - Rule of correspondence between the complaint and the action before the EU Courts))

(2017/C 038/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Viara Todorova Androva (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents); European Commission (represented by: initially, J. Currall, G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, and subsequently G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents) and Court of Auditors (represented by: N. Scarfato, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Intervener in support of the Council of the European Union: European Parliament (represented by: D. Nessaf and M. Dean, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Council of the European Union:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015, Todorova Androva v Council (F-78/12, EU:F:2015:37), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Todorova Androva

Council

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ms Viara Todorova Androva to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Viara Todorova Androva to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 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:  May 9, 2012 | /s/ MICHAEL E. BATTEN                |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                         | Michael E. Batten                    |
|                         | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

----
#### Daniel F. Young, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7437.

Invoice dated London, England, July 31, 1941.

Certified August 2, 1941.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 1, 1942.

Entry No. 700148.

(Decided November 14, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley 3. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): This appeal for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concerns the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the commodities in question are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.
Case: 2:12-cv-01196-EAS-EPD Doc #: 54 Filed: 11/15/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-12T10:55:30-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
# C_2016200EN.01002401.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/24

---

Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-551/15) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - EAGF and EAFRD - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 200/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court hereby orders:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.

1

---
# C_2015138EN.01003401.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 9 February 2015 — United Video Properties Inc. v Telenet NV

(Case C-57/15)

(2015/C 138/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: United Video Properties Inc.

Appellant:

Respondent: Telenet NV

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the terms ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses’ in Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive (1) preclude the Belgian legislation which offers courts the possibility of taking into account certain well-defined features specific to the case and which provides for a system of varying flat rates in respect of costs for the assistance of a lawyer? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the terms ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses’ in Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive (1) preclude the Belgian legislation which offers courts the possibility of taking into account certain well-defined features specific to the case and which provides for a system of varying flat rates in respect of costs for the assistance of a lawyer?

1

| 2. | Do the terms ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses’ in Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive preclude the case-law which states that the costs of a technical adviser are recoverable only in the event of fault (contractual or extra-contractual)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the terms ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses’ in Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive preclude the case-law which states that the costs of a technical adviser are recoverable only in the event of fault (contractual or extra-contractual)?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 175 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 175

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 24, 2007

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
      Expressing the sense of Congress that courts with fiduciary 
responsibility for a child of a deceased member of the Armed Forces who 
   receives a death gratuity payment under section 1477 of title 10, 
 United States Code, should take into consideration the expression of 
   clear intent of the member regarding the distribution of funds on 
                          behalf of the child.

Whereas the death gratuity payable under section 1477 of title 10, United States 
        Code, upon the death of a member of the Armed Forces, is intended to 
        provide funds to meet the immediate needs of the survivors of the 
        deceased member;
Whereas such section designates the surviving spouse and any children of a 
        deceased member as the highest

              

 and second highest priority, respectively, to receive the death gratuity 
payment; and

Whereas a member with a child or children, but no spouse, usually designates 
        another individual to be responsible for that child or children and may 
        express a desire that such individual receive the death gratuity payment 
        on behalf of the child or children: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that courts with fiduciary 
responsibility for a child of a deceased member of the Armed Forces who 
receives a death gratuity payment under section 1477 of title 10, 
United States Code, should take into consideration the expression of 
clear intent of the member regarding the distribution of funds on 
behalf of the child.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Deborah M. Spriggs,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
No. 56636.

protests 164387-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of beaded bags similar in all material respects to those the classification of which was involved in Abstract 56124, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
---



United States Small Business Administration
RS Number 133
April 1993

---
# C_2018013EN.01001301.xml

| 15.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — Voigt v Parliament

(Case T-618/15) (1)

1

((Member of the European Parliament - Refusal to make Parliament premises available - Third-country nationals - Refusal of access to Parliament buildings - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Admissibility of a plea - Discrimination on grounds of political opinions))

(2018/C 013/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Udo Voigt (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, S. Seyr and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of, firstly, the Parliament’s decision of 9 June 2015 refusing to make a room available to the applicant for the purpose of holding a press conference on 16 June 2015 and, secondly, of the Parliament’s decision of 16 June 2015 refusing Russian nationals access to its premises.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Udo Voigt to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Udo Voigt to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,944
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     35,476
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,570
<PP&E>                                         132,565
<DEPRECIATION>                                  91,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 164,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,440
<BONDS>                                          2,654
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,374
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   164,990
<SALES>                                         58,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,779
<CGS>                                           45,268
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   371
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,819
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,056
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,763
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,763
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
Pascagoula Nitric Acid Plant 

Data Sheet 

Production Rate (tons/day) range as 100% acid- 230 tons/day

Design Production Rate (tons/day)- 250 tons/day

Typical Production Rate (tons/day)- 230 tons/day

Process type: Single vs dual pressure, and indication of high/medium/low pressure- Single 

Pressure 

Range of oxidation pressure (psia)- 190-195

Range of absorption pressure (psia)- 175-180

% acid strength- 62-63

Control Technology (e.g. SCR, NSCR)- SCR 

Extended absorption used or not? Y or NO

Absorption length (ft): 122

Gal/1000 ft3: 80

Additive? Y or NO

For SCR: 

Type of catalyst- Vanadia/titania

Is catalyst new or regenerated?- New

Catalyst life (design/actual)- 9yrs/15yrs

Catalyst Volume (m3)- 3.8

Gas Design flowrate (scfm) - 17,300

Ammonia injection rate (lb/hr) range- 45-65 lb/hr

Year Operation began- 1992

Location of SCR (before or after gas expander)- Before Expander
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ARNOLD LOWE, Private E-1, U. S. Army, Appellant

9 USCMA 417, 26 CMR 197

No. 11,290

Decided June 27, 1958

*First Lieutenant Thomas F. Shea*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief was *Captain John F. Christensen.*

*First Lieutenant Jay D. Fischer*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee*and *Major Thomas J. Nichols.*

Opinion of the Court

GEORGE W. LatimeR, Judge:

Before a court-martial convened at Orleans, France, the accused pleaded guilty and was convicted of six specifications of larceny, two counts of forgery, and the offense of fleeing the scene of an accident, in violation of Articles 121, 123, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 921, 923, and 934, respectively. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for ten years. The convening authority approved the findings and sentence except that pursuant to a pretrial agreement he reduced the period of confinement to one and one-half years. The board of review affirmed, and we limited our grant of review to the question of whether it was error for the staff judge advocate to include references to juvenile convictions and incarcerations of the accused in the clemency section of his post-trial review.

*418In the recent case of United States v Barrow, 9 USCMA 343, 26 CMR 123, this court held that a reviewing authority may consider juvenile misdeeds and convictions in order to guide him in his action on the sentence. For the reasons expressed therein, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge FER-guson concur.
# C_2016106EN.01005001.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/50

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2016 — Barnett, Ditlevsen and Madsen v EESC

(Case F-66/15) (1)

1

((Civil service - Retired officials - Retirement pensions - Article 64 of the Staff Regulations - Weightings - Annual update of weightings - Article 65(2) of the Staff Regulations - Interim update - Articles 3, 4 and 8 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Sensitivity threshold - Change in the cost of living - Article 65(4) of the Staff Regulations - Decision by the legislature not to update the weightings for 2013 and 2014 - Scope - Regulation No 1416/2013 - Over-estimation of the weighting for Denmark - Reduction of the weighting through the interim update mechanism - Misuse of powers))

(2016/C 106/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Inge Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark), Suzanne Ditlevsen (Copenhagen, Denmark) and Annie Madsen (Frederiksberg, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Economic And Social Committee (represented by K. Gambino, A. Carvajal, L. Camarena Januzec and X. Chamodraka, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions to reduce the weighting applicable to the pensions of the applicants, who are resident in Denmark, as is apparent from their pension receipts for June 2014, and a claim for compensation for the non-material damage which they claim to have suffered as a result of the different and contradictory information used to support the contested decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Barnett, Ms Ditlevsen and Ms Madsen to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Economic and Social Committee. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Barnett, Ms Ditlevsen and Ms Madsen to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Economic and Social Committee.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 29.06.2015, p. 50.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF****THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Suzanne Cope, President and Chief Executive Officer of Deseo Swimwear Inc., hereby 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 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Deseo Swimwear Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 (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 Deseo Swimwear Inc.                                                                               |

 

|                         | **Deseo Swimwear Inc.** |                                                                                                                          |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |                    |                                                                                                                          |   |
| Dated: November 2, 2020 | By:                     | */s/ Suzanne Cope*                                                                                                            |   |
|                    |                    | Suzanne Cope

President and Director

Principal Executive Officer 

Principal Financial Officer

Principal Accounting Officer |   |