alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016090EN.01000401.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 17 November 2015 — Minister Finansów v Aviva Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie

(Case C-605/15)

(2016/C 090/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Minister Finansów

Appellant:

Respondent: Aviva Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a provision of national law concerning the exemption from VAT of independent groups of persons which does not lay down any criteria or procedures governing the fulfilment of the condition of distortion of competition compatible with Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) in conjunction with Article 131 of the VAT Directive, and also with the principles of effectiveness, of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a provision of national law concerning the exemption from VAT of independent groups of persons which does not lay down any criteria or procedures governing the fulfilment of the condition of distortion of competition compatible with Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) in conjunction with Article 131 of the VAT Directive, and also with the principles of effectiveness, of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations?

1

| 2. | What criteria should be applied in assessing whether the condition of distortion of competition laid down in Article 132(1)(f) of the VAT Directive is fulfilled? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What criteria should be applied in assessing whether the condition of distortion of competition laid down in Article 132(1)(f) of the VAT Directive is fulfilled?

| 3. | Is the answer to the second question above affected by the fact that the independent group of persons provides the services to members who fall within the jurisdiction of different Member States? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the answer to the second question above affected by the fact that the independent group of persons provides the services to members who fall within the jurisdiction of different Member States?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
EXHIBIT 10.4.4

Amendment to 1983 Cash Bonus Deferral Program and
1984 Cash Bonus Deferral Program

By authority of the resolution adopted by unanimous consent of the Board of Directors of Union Carbide Corporation as of August 30, 2004, the following
amendment to the 1983 Cash Bonus Deferral Program and 1984 Cash Bonus Deferral Program is made.

Effective
August 30, 2004 Section 7 Beneficiaries is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:



| |  | /s/EDWARD W. RICHEdward W. Rich
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Reviewed by Plan Administrator                                       
| |  | /s/KATHY RASSETTEKathy Rassette                                      
| |  | Reviewed by Legal Department                                         
| |  | /s/KAREN BECKWITHK. L. Beckwith                                      

Dated: September 10, 2004

27

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000100030
<NAME> TRW, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             294
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,090
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,199
<PP&E>                                           8,014
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,452
<BONDS>                                          5,530
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            76
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,907
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,270
<SALES>                                         12,344
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,344
<CGS>                                           10,096
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    435
<INCOME-TAX>                                       190
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                245
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       245
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.99


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

QML, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 Case No.: 2:12-cv-1045

v. JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

 Magistrate Judge Deavers

ROUND2, INC., et. al.,

 

Defendants.

 ORDER

Defendant/Crossclaim Plaintiff, Components & More, Inc. (“Components”) has filed a

Motion to Dismiss Claims against Round2, Inc. with Prejudice. (ECF No. 57). The Court is

informed that the Motion is unopposed. The Motion is, therefore, GRANTED pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Accordingly, Components’ Crossclaim against Round

2, Inc. is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

 GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:12-cv-01045-GCS-EPD Doc #: 58 Filed: 01/10/14 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
69–008 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–614 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO 

SUSPEND THE RULES 

APRIL 30, 2008.—Referred to the House and Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 1167] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 1167, by a non-record vote, report the same to the 

House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that 

the House suspend the rules at any time on the legislative day of 

May 1, 2008 relating to the following measures: 

(1) The bill (H.R. 5715) to ensure continued availability of access 

to the Federal student loan program for students and families. 

(2) The bill (H.R. 493) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of 

genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment. 

(3) A bill to provide for a temporary extension of programs authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with HEARING
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

Reference is herebymade to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1,2016, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Servicer and Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust,National Association, as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,as Certificate Administrator, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2016-PSQ (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section10.8 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director of SpecialServicing do hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Special Servicer during the period from January1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) , and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision,and

 

2.       Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe ReportingPeriod.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2018.

 

 

/s/ DanielMarthinsen

Daniel Marthinsen

Managing Director

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT OF UGI UTILITIES,
INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN
UGI UTILITIES' QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,
1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000100548
<NAME> UGI UTILITIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,095
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,473
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,457
<INVENTORY>                                      9,213
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,031
<PP&E>                                         779,670
<DEPRECIATION>                                 246,470
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 707,032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          154,067
<BONDS>                                        187,161
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           20,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,259
<OTHER-SE>                                     162,425
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   707,032
<SALES>                                        287,797 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               287,797
<CGS>                                          153,158
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  153,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,706
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 57,773
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,566
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             36,207
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,207
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>THERE ARE NO PUBLICLY HELD SHARES OUTSTANDING
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM A. JOHNSON, First Lieutenant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

9 USCMA 442, 26 CMR 222

No. 11,203

Decided July 3, 1958

*443
      *Lieutenant Colonel Ellis L. Gottlieb*and *Major Dwight R. Rowland*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels*and *Major Carl Goldschlager*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

HomeR Ferguson, Judge:

Among other offenses, the accused was found guilty of making a false official statement, in violation of Article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 907, in that he denied presence at or participation in a breach of the peace to an Office of Special Investigations agent who had advised him of his rights under Article 31 of the Code, supra, 10 USC § 831. The issue before us questions whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of guilty.

In United States v Aronson, 8 USCMA 525, 25 CMR 29, we stated there is no duty for an accused to answer truthfully where he is suspected or accused of a crime unrelated to any duty or responsibility. See also United States v Washington, 9 USCMA 131, 25 CMR 393.

This case falls within the *Aronson*doctrine. An officer is not clothed with any less constitutional and codal rights than is an enlisted person.

The decision of the board of review is reversed as to Charge IV, and the Charge is ordered dismissed. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for resubmission to a board of review for reassessment of the sentence on the remaining Charges.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Latimer, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

My reasons for doing so are to be found in United States v Washington, 9 USCMA 131, 25 CMR 393.
# C_2016270EN.01004301.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO (GREEN BEANS)

(Case T-585/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark GREEN BEANS - Application for restitutio in integrum - Non-compliance with the time limit for bringing an action before the General Court))

(2016/C 270/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2015 (Case R 3002/2014-2), concerning an application for registration of the word mark GREEN BEANS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

1

---
# C_2019072EN.01001601.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2018 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v EFSA

(Case T-725/15) (1)

((Plant protection products - Procedure for reviewing the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron - Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Conclusion of the EFSA review - Partial publication of that conclusion - Article 63 of Regulation No 1107/2009 - Request for confidential treatment of certain sections - Protection of commercial interests - Refusal to grant confidential treatment - Interest in bringing proceedings))

(2019/C 72/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV, formerly Chemtura Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, and by R. Van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Moro and P. Ondrůšek, and subsequently by P. Ondrůšek and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decision of EFSA of 10 December 2015 relating to the publication of certain sections of the EFSA peer review on the review of the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron concerning the metabolite PCA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

---
(Reap. Dec. 9806)

#### F. H. Kaysing *v.*United States

Entry Nos. A-91; A-332; A-689.

(Decided October 6, 1960)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (ATlerton deC. TompMns*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Murray Sklaroff,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

*507Richardson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement involve the question of the proper dutiable value of certain electric switch parts exported from Germany.

By stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto, it has been agreed that, at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely sold nor offered for sale for exportation to the United States, nor was such merchandise freely sold or offered for sale in the United States for domestic consumption, and that the constructed value of the imported merchandise, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the invoice unit values, less the items identified on the invoices, as inland charges or as inland freight and f.o.b. charges, and less the items identified on the invoices as sea freight or as insurance and ocean charges.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold that constructed value, as that value is defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the here involved merchandise, and that such value in each case is the invoice unit values, less the items identified on the invoices, as inland charges or as inland freight and f.o.b. charges, and less the items identified on the invoices as sea freight or as insurance and ocean charges.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

May 6, 1944

No. 49395.

#### Protests 902127-G, etc., of O. Yoshizawa Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain of the hats in question are similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). In accordance therewith the hats imported and withdrawn for consumption prior to the effective date of said trade agreement were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5), and those imported or *307withdrawn for consumption subsequent to said date were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under paragraph 1604 (b) (5) and the Netherlands Trade Agreement (T. D. 48075), as claimed.
# Official Journal C 145/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.145.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 145 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5523 May 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.145.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 145

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5523 May 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
  Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Partnership Agreement concluded between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part


  The 22nd session took place in Lomé (Togo) from 21 to 23 November 2011. |
| 2012/C 145/01 | Minutes of the sitting of Monday, 21 November 2011 | 1 |
| 2012/C 145/02 | Minutes of the sitting of Tuesday, 22 November 2011 | 5 |
| 2012/C 145/03 | Minutes of the sitting of Wednesday, 23 November 2011 | 7 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
  Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Partnership Agreement concluded between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part


  The 22nd session took place in Lomé (Togo) from 21 to 23 November 2011.

Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Partnership Agreement concluded between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part

The 22nd session took place in Lomé (Togo) from 21 to 23 November 2011.

2012/C 145/01

Minutes of the sitting of Monday, 21 November 2011

1

2012/C 145/02

Minutes of the sitting of Tuesday, 22 November 2011

5

2012/C 145/03

Minutes of the sitting of Wednesday, 23 November 2011

7

---

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

EN
No. 50665.

#### Protests 108058-K, etc., of C. J. Tower & Sons (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the boron carbide in question is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 84, C. D. 917). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
# C_2017121EN.01002601.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — EEAS v Gross

(Case T-472/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2013 promotion exercise - Non-inclusion on the list of promoted officials - No error of law))

(2017/C 121/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: initially, S. Marquardt and M. Silva, and subsequently S. Marquardt, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer, S. Moya Izquierdo and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Philipp Oliver Gross (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 3 June 2015, Gross v EEAS (F-78/14, EU:F:2015:52), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Gross

EEAS

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Philipp Oliver Gross in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Philipp Oliver Gross in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

1

---