alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015414EN.01001701.xml

| 14.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 21 September 2015 — Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC and Others v DELTA CENTER a.s.

(Case C-494/15)

(2015/C 414/20)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC, Urban Trends Trading B.V., RADO Uhren AG, Facton Kft., Lacoste S.A., Burberry Limited

Applicants:

Defendant: DELTA CENTER a.s.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Is a person with a lease of premises in a market, who provides stalls and pitches on which stalls may be placed to individual market-traders for their use, an intermediary whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right within the meaning of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Is a person with a lease of premises in a market, who provides stalls and pitches on which stalls may be placed to individual market-traders for their use, an intermediary whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right within the meaning of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights?

1

| 2) | Is it possible to impose on a person with a lease of premises in a market, who provides stalls and pitches on which stalls may be placed to individual market-traders for their use, measures, as provided for in Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, under the same conditions as those formulated by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 12 July 2011 in Case C-324/09 L’Oréal and Others v eBay and Others with regard to the imposition of measures on the operators of an online marketplace? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Is it possible to impose on a person with a lease of premises in a market, who provides stalls and pitches on which stalls may be placed to individual market-traders for their use, measures, as provided for in Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, under the same conditions as those formulated by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 12 July 2011 in Case C-324/09 L’Oréal and Others v eBay and Others with regard to the imposition of measures on the operators of an online marketplace?

L’Oréal and Others

eBay and Others

---

(1)  OJ L 157, 30.4.2004, p. 45.

1

---
No. 41990.

#### Protest 279192-G of Saks & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the merchandise, consists of atomizers., boxes, bottles, flacons, trays, match'boxes, photo frames, caskets, and corks chiefly used on the table or in the household for utilitarian purposes. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained. *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445), *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816), *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 47857), *Rice*v. *United*
      *361
      *States*(T. D. 49373), and. Abstract 34153 cited. Toilet sets similar to those the subject of Abstract 8950 were held dutiable as follows: the brushes at 45 percent under paragraph 1407, and the mirrors-at 50 percent under paragraph'230.
Before the First Division,

August 21, 1940

No. 44217.

#### Protests 611895-G, etc., of Heinsheimer Bros., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------




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



I, John C. Lawrence, President, and Chief Executive Officer of United States
Antimony Corporation ("the Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  August 12, 2005



/s/ John C. Lawrence
-------------------------------------
John C. Lawrence
President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2015118EN.01002001.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/20

---

Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10 and in Case T-439/12 Trefilerías Quijano v Commission

(Case C-54/15 P)

(2015/C 118/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10 and in Case T-439/12 Trefilerías Quijano v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-427/10 and T-576/10 and in Case T-439/12 Trefilerías Quijano v Commission;

Trefilerías Quijano

Commission

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.

The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in assessing the legal interest of Trefilerías Quijano SA in bringing proceedings, as regards both the action for annulment in Case T-576/10 against the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel), and the amendment of the pleas in law and forms of order sought in Case T-427/10 in relation to the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel).

---
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 179 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, June 28, 2007, or Friday, June 29, 

4 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent res5 olution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 

6 adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, July 10, 2007, or until 

7 the time of any reassembly pursuant to 
2 

•HCON 179 EH 

1 section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 

2 first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns on 

3 Friday, June 29, 2007, Saturday, June 30, 2007, Sunday, 

4 July 1, 2007, or Monday, July 2, 2007, on a motion of5 fered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Major6 ity Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned 

7 until noon on Monday, July 9, 2007, or such other time 

8 on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader 

9 or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until 

10 the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 

11 concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

12 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority 

13 Leader of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting 

14 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

15 House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify 

16 the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, 

17 to reassemble at such place and time as they may des18 ignate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant 

19 it. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 28, 2007. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 179 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the 

cess or adjournment of the Senate. House of Representatives and a conditional re-
# C_2016364EN.01003201.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/32

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — AV v Commission

(Case F-91/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Member of the temporary staff - Appointment - Medical examination preceding appointment - Incomplete declarations at the medical examination - Medical reservation - Retroactive application of the medical reservation - Not eligible for the invalidity allowance - Annulment - Execution of a judgment of the General Court))

(2016/C 364/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: AV (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, T. S. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to apply the medical reservation clause in Article 32 of the CEOS, in so far as it does not give the applicant the invalidity allowance and compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 16 September 2014 by which the European Commission applied the medical reservation referred to in Article 32 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union to AV; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 16 September 2014 by which the European Commission applied the medical reservation referred to in Article 32 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union to AV;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay AV the sum of EUR 2 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered by him; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay AV the sum of EUR 2 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered by him;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by AV. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by AV.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015, p. 46.

---
#### Jennifer GALBERTH; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. STATE of Washington; et al., Defendants—Appellees.*

No. 04-36054.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.**

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Jennifer Galberth, Seattle, WA, Pro se.

Steven G. Phillips, Esq., Law Offices of Jay Carey, Arlington, WA, for Defendants—Appellees.

Carl Livingston, Seattle, WA, Pro se.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Clerk is directed to change the caption to reflect that the State of Washington is also a Defendant—Appellee.

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Jennifer Galberth and her daughter, Savanna Galberth, appeal pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the State of Washington and various individuals violated appellants’ civil rights through their participation in a Washington state custody case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *RK Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle,*307 F.3d 1045, 1062 n. 14 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly determined that appellants’ federal claims, filed more than five years after the state court decision, were barred by a three-year statute of limitations. *See*Wash. Rev.Code § 4.16.080(2); *RK Ventures, Inc.,*307 F.3d at 1058 (applying state statute of limitations to claims brought under sections 1983 and 1985).

Appellants’ request for oral argument is denied.

*768Appellants’ motion for sanctions is denied.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
(V.D. 111)

#### E. Leitz, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 10716, etc.

(Decided March 24, 1960)

*Eugene R. Piolar ell*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the first division of this court in *E.*Leitz, *Inc.*v. *United*States, 43 Cust. Ct. 368, Abstract 63434, and Manca, *Inc.*v. *United*States, 43 Cust. Ct. 346, Abstract 63375, and it has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the above remands of protest consists of Microscopes and Microscope Parts and Wooden Cabinets, containers for said microscopes and microscope parts, which were the subjects of the following judgments and decisions by the First Division of this Court:

> E. Leitz, Inc. v. United States—Abstract 63434

> Manca, Inc. v. United States—Abstract 63375

> wherein it is stated “* * * and remand the matters pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2636(d), for further proceedings before a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the imported merchandise in the manner provided for by law”.

*527IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time oí the exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States were as follows:

> E. Leitz, Inc. — Remand #58/14361-14668

> Entry No. Merchandise Price (each)

> WH 10716 50 Microscopes GT 12/92 $86.13

> 50 cabinets 11.52

> WH 09016 50 Microscopes GT 20/92 86.13

> 50 cabinets 11.52

> WH 09080 10 Microscopes BST 25/92 173.04

> 10 cabinets 20.16

> 50 Microscopes GT 20/92 86.13

> 50 cabinets 11.52

> WH 41854 6 Ortholux Microscopes ORZWO 360.93

> 6 cabinets 6.28

> 6 Ortholux Microscopes ORZWO-OEEEW 566.07

> 6 cabinets 5.28

> Manca, Inc. — Remand #59/11229-19470

> Less Entry No. Merchandise Invoice price each discount U.S. dollars per each

> 477604 4 stands for Chemist Microscopes $133. 68 25% $100.26

> 4 cabinets 19.20 25% 14.40

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

On the agreed facts, I hold that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is as embodied in the stipulation of submission, hereinabove set forth.'

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 10.17a


                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This FIRST AMENDMENT,  made as of the 1st day of February, 1998, to the
Employment  Agreement,  made as of the 1st day of March, 1997, (the "Agreement")
between  THE  UNITED  ILLUMINATING  COMPANY,  a  Connecticut   corporation  (the
"Company") and ANTHONY J. VALLILLO, an individual (the "Executive"),

                                WITNESSETH THAT:

     (1) The Company and the  Executive  hereby agree to amend the  Agreement as
set forth in sections (2) and (3) below:

     (2) By deleting the final sentence of Section (4)(b) in its entirety.

     (3) By inserting,  following  the second  sentence of Section  (4)(f),  the
following  sentence:  "For purposes of this  Agreement,  Total  Compensation  is
defined as the sum of the Executive's Base Salary and any amount paid or payable
to  the  Executive   pursuant  to  the  Company's  annual  Executive   Incentive
Compensation Program."

     (4) All the terms and  conditions of the  Agreement,  as amended hereby are
and shall remain in full force and effect.

     (5) This First  Amendment to the  Agreement  may be executed in one or more
counterparts,  each of  which  shall  be  deemed  an  original  but all of which
together will constitute one and the same instrument.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties hereto have executed this instrument as of
the day and year first above written.

THE UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY

                                                  ATTEST:

By      /s/ Richard J. Grossi
   -------------------------------
   Its Chairman of the
   Board of Directors and
   Chief Executive Officer
                                                          /s/ Kurt Mohlman
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                            Treasurer and
     /s/ Anthony J. Vallillo                                Secretary
   ------------------------------
         Anthony J. Vallillo
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 12(a)


                             UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                                          
                                                                    Year Ended December 31,                      12 Months
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------     Ended   
                                                                                                                September 30,
                                                1991          1992         1993         1994          1995        1996
                                                ----          ----         ----         ----          ----        ----
                                                              (Thousands of Dollars Except Ratios)
<S>                                           <C>          <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>             
Net income for the Period                     $321,512     $302,748      $297,160     $320,757     $314,107     $316,294
                                              --------     --------      --------     --------     --------     --------
   Add:
      Taxes Based on income                    218,954      197,009       182,716      203,827      207,734      210,972
                                              --------     --------      --------     --------     --------     --------
      Fixed Charges:
         Interest on Debt                      163,061      125,798       124,430      135,608      129,239      128,828 (*)
         Amortization of Premium and
            Discount, Less Expense on Debt;
            and Bond Defeasance Cost             4,148        9,521         5,170        5,504        5,502        4,731
         Rentals (See note)                      1,171          908         1,314        1,299        3,330        3,303
                                              --------     --------      --------     --------     --------     --------
            Total Fixed Charges                168,380      136,227       130,914      142,411      138,071      136,862
                                              --------     --------      --------     --------     --------     --------


Earnings Available for Fixed Charges          $708,846     $635,984      $610,790     $666,995     $659,912     $664,128
                                              ========     ========      ========     ========     ========     ========


Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                4.21         4.66          4.66         4.68         4.78         4.85
                                                  ====         ====          ====         ====         ====         ====
</TABLE>





(*)   Total annual interest charges on all bonds for the twelve months ended
September 30, 1996 was $112,951,000.  Note: Represents the interest factor
applicable to rentals.
No. 51155.

#### Protests 68359-K, etc., of R. Maes Export & Import Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Stephen Rug Mills*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 110, C. A. D. 293), and by the court’s decision on remand in Abstract 50056. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as claimed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

STEPHEN NOEL JESSEE, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 752 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 23rd day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.