alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018042EN.01001102.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament

(Case T-164/15) (1)

1

((Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - External provision of information technology services to the Parliament and other institutions and bodies of the EU - Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Non-contractual liability))

(2018/C 042/15)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by: I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, and subsequently by: M. Sfyri, D. Papadopoulou and C.-N. Dede, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by: B. Simon, L. Darie and I. Anagnostopoulou, and subsequently by: L. Darie, Z. Nagy and I. Anagnostopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Firstly, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision D(2015) 7680 of the European Parliament, sent to the applicants by letter of 13 February 2015, to rank their bid in third place in the cascade for Lot No 3 ‘Development and maintenance of production information systems’ in the open procurement procedure PE/ITEC-ITS 14 ‘External provision of IT services’ and, secondly, application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision D(2015) 7680 of the European Parliament sent to the applicants by letter of 13 February 2015, to rank the bid of European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in third place in the cascade for Lot No 3 ‘Development and maintenance of production information systems’ in the open procurement procedure PE/ITEC-ITS 14 ‘External provision of IT services’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision D(2015) 7680 of the European Parliament sent to the applicants by letter of 13 February 2015, to rank the bid of European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in third place in the cascade for Lot No 3 ‘Development and maintenance of production information systems’ in the open procurement procedure PE/ITEC-ITS 14 ‘External provision of IT services’;

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

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

1

---
•• ,Adams, Kevin (OSn

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Hi All,

Adams, Kevin (OST)

Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:47 PM

Waterloo, Airport Manager, Bradley Hagen; Waterloo, Mayor, Buck Clark

'Livsey, Will'

Request for Comment at Waterloo

AA, Proposal at ALO,pdf

Attached above is the one timely-filed proposal for Essential Air Service lEAS) at Waterloo, submitted by American

Airlines, in response to Order 2013-11-3. We are currently reviewing that proposal. The attached proposal is directly

from the carrier and will soon be reflected in the Docket, which you may access through Regulations.gov at DOT-OST2011-0132, along with other pertinent information on this proceeding ..

The next step in the carrier-selection process is for'you to provide us with your community's comments, a critically

important element in our carrier-selection decision, especially the comments of civic officials. Accordingly, I ask that

everyone get back to us, preferably by email, no later than January 6, 2014. We will docket this email, as well as any

replies.

In brief, look at the proposal, and if you have any questions, call me, and get back to us by the deadline, January 6, 2014.

Best,

Kevin Adams

202-366-1047

1
No. 43099.

#### Protests 291093-G, etc., of Hedaya Importing Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Venice lace similar to that involved in *Littwitz*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 123, C. D. 217) was held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.
March 13, 1959

Reap. Dec. 9345.

#### Luria Steel & Trading Corp., Kurt Orban & Co., and F. J. Cazalas et al. *v.*United States,

Motion by defendant.

Rao, Judge:

Upon reading and filing the motion for a rehearing and a reconsideration of the decision and judgment herein, dated February 13, 1959, Reap. Dec. 9311, and the memorandum filed in support of said motion by the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, by Richard E. FitzGibbon, Chief, Customs Section, attorney for the defendant, and upon the record and all proceedings had herein, the attorneys for plaintiffs having joined in this motion and due deliberation and consideration having been had thereon, and believing it to be in the interest of justice, it is hereby

Ordered that the motion for a rehearing and a reconsideration be, and the same hereby is, granted, and said decision and judgment of February 13, 1959, Reap. Dec. 9311, are hereby modified to the extent of stating that the export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis of value for the merchandise covered by the instant consolidated appeals for re-appraisement, and that such value is represented in each case by the entered unit values without deduction for invoiced inland freight.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual report to Congress forFY ... pursuant to the do not call implementation act on implementation of thenational do not call registry [electronic resource]**
 
2003/2004 | 2005| 2007
 
SuDoc:FT 1.44:
Item Number:0535-A-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000615068
 
October 23, 2017
# C_2015389EN.01001701.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-460/15)

(2015/C 389/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schaefer Kalk GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 (1) invalid and does it infringe the aims of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) in so far as the second sentence of Article 49(1) provides that CO2 that is not transferred within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 49(1) is to be considered emitted by the installation producing the CO2? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 (1) invalid and does it infringe the aims of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) in so far as the second sentence of Article 49(1) provides that CO2 that is not transferred within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 49(1) is to be considered emitted by the installation producing the CO2?

1

2

2

2

| 2. | Is Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 invalid and does it infringe the aims of Directive 2003/87/EC in so far as point 10 of Annex IV provides that CO2 that is transferred to another plant for the production of precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) is to be considered emitted by the installation producing the CO2? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 invalid and does it infringe the aims of Directive 2003/87/EC in so far as point 10 of Annex IV provides that CO2 that is transferred to another plant for the production of precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) is to be considered emitted by the installation producing the CO2?

2

2

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 of 21 June 2012 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2012 L 181, p. 30).

1

(2)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

2

---
# C_2015279EN.01006001.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/60

---

Action brought on 28 May 2015 — ZZ v European GNSS Agency

(Case F-83/15)

(2015/C 279/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European GNSS Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the appraisal report relating to the applicant’s probationary period and the subsequent decision of the defendant’s executive director to dismiss him at the end of his probationary period.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the appraisal report relating to the applicant’s probationary period and, consequently; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appraisal report relating to the applicant’s probationary period and, consequently;

| — | annul the decision of 15 October 2014 dismissing the applicant at the end of his probationary period, confirmed by the decision of 30 October 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 15 October 2014 dismissing the applicant at the end of his probationary period, confirmed by the decision of 30 October 2014;

| — | order the European GNSS Agency to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European GNSS Agency to pay the costs.

---
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 170 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the International Olympic Committee 

should allow Taiwan (Republic of China) to participate in the 2008 

Summer Olympics under the national name, flag, and anthem of its 

own choosing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2007 

Mr. TANCREDO (for himself, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, and Mr. 

MCCOTTER) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the International 

Olympic Committee should allow Taiwan (Republic of 

China) to participate in the 2008 Summer Olympics 

under the national name, flag, and anthem of its own 

choosing. 

Whereas according to the Olympic Charter, ‘‘Every individual 

must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which 

requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, 

solidarity and fair play.’’; 

Whereas the Olympic Charter states that ‘‘Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HCON 170 IH 

grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is 

incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.’’; 

Whereas the Olympic Charter further states that the role of 

the International Olympic Committee is, among other 

things ‘‘to oppose any political or commercial abuse of 

sport and athletes’’; 

Whereas the International Olympic Committee unfairly pressured Taiwan (Republic of China) to abandon its national 

name as a condition for participating in the games because of political pressure from the People’s Republic of 

China; 

Whereas the display of Taiwan’s national flag and the playing of its national anthem are prohibited even when athletes from Taiwan win medals; 

Whereas Taiwan’s athletes, like athletes from all participating countries, have exhibited years of hard work, dedication, and disciplined training for the right to proudly 

represent their country in the Olympic Games; and 

Whereas athletes from Taiwan are unfairly required to compete under the name ‘‘Chinese Taipei’’, in order to perpetuate the fiction that Taiwan is a part of the People’s 

Republic of China even though Taiwan has never been 

under the control of the People’s Republic of China for 

a single day: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that— 

3 (1) discriminatory treatment of Taiwan (Repub4 lic of China) by the International Olympic Com5 mittee is unfair, inappropriate, and contradicts the 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HCON 170 IH 

1 spirit of both the Olympic Charter and the Olympic 

2 Movement; and 

3 (2) the International Olympic Committee should 

4 live up to the ideals of the Olympic Charter and 

5 allow Taiwan to compete under the national name, 

6 flag, and anthem of its own choosing. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
# C_2015363EN.01001901.xml

| 3.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 July 2015 — Stadt Wiener Neustadt

(Case C-348/15)

(2015/C 363/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Stadt Wiener Neustadt

Appellant on a point of law:

Intervener: A.S.A. Abfall Service AG

Intervener:

Respondent authority: Niederösterreichische Landesregierung

Respondent authority:

Question referred

Question referred

Does EU law, in particular Directive 2011/92/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, in particular Article 1(4) thereof, or Council Directive 85/337/EEC (2) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, in particular Article 1(5) thereof, preclude a provision of national law whereby projects subject to an obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment, which have not benefited from a consent granted under the national Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz 2000 (Law on Environmental Impact Assessments of 2000) (UVP-G 2000) but have benefited only from consents granted under individual sectoral laws (such as the Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz (Law on Waste Management)) which, since 19 August 2009 (date of entry into force of the UVP-G-Novelle 2009 (Law of 2009 amending the Law on Environmental Impact Assessments)), can no longer be annulled following the expiry of a three-year time-limit laid down in national law (Paragraph 3(6) of the UVP-G 2000), are regarded as approved under the UVP-G 2000, or is such a provision consistent with the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations established in EU law?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

2

---
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-178271) of China Zenix Auto International Limited of our report relating to the consolidated
financial statements and the related schedule of China Zenix Auto International Limited and its subsidiaries, dated April 24, 2012, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011.



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
|Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu    
|Hong Kong                   
|April 24, 2012
# C_2016270EN.01001401.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/14

---

Appeal brought on 17 August 2015 by Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2015 in Case T-395/14: Best-Lock (Europe) v EUIPO

(Case C-451/15 P)

(2016/C 270/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (represented by: J. Becker, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 14 April 2016 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
Exhibit 35.1



Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services,
Inc.



This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 13, 2016 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2016-1 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.  The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.



The undersigned certifies
that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as
follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations
under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any
such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. |                                                                            
|------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                     |                                                                            
|By:                                  | /s/ Connie Coffey                                                          
|                                     | Connie Coffey                                                              
|                                     | Executive Vice President, Corporate
Controller and Chief Accounting
Officer
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 24

- 10436

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
THOMAS GABRIEL DEAN,
Petitioner,

versus NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent.

____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the National Labor Relations Board Agency No. 10

- CA

- 326003 / 10

- CB

- 325995

____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-10436 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 24

- 10436

Before W ILSON , G RANT , and B RASHER , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Thomas Dean, pro se , petitions for review of a decision of the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” and “Board” )

. T hat decision den ied an appeal from the NLRB Regional Director’s dismissal , for lack of jurisdiction, of two unfair labor practice charges Dean filed

. The NLRB moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the General Counsel’s decision is not subject to judicial review. Upon review of the record, the motion to dismiss the appeal, and the parties’ resp onses ,
we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.

T he General Counsel ’s decision to not issue a complaint is unreviewable because “[t] he investigation of unfair labor practice charges and whether an unfair labor practice complaint should be issued are matters committed by Congress, in 29 U.S.C. § 153(d), to the unreviewable discretion of the NLRB General Counsel and the Regional Director and other staff personnel who assist him.” Bova v. Pipefitters & Plumbers Local 60, 554 F.2d 226, 228 (5th Cir. 1977)

. A nd a lthough the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) allows for judicial review for persons aggrieved by a final order of the Board
, binding precedent dictates that this provision of the NLRA does not apply to prosecutorial decisions of the General Counsel
, such as the decision not to issue an unfair labor practice complaint

. See id. ; 29 U.S.C. § 160(f ); NLRB. v. United Food & Com

. Workers Union, Loc. 23 ( UFCW ), 484 U.S. 112 , 130 (1987) (“As the deci sion in this USCA11 Case: 24-10436 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 2 of 324

- 10436 Opinion of the Court 3
case was ‘prosecutorial,’ it cannot be judicially reviewed under the NLRA.”)

. Thus, the challenged decision of the General Counsel is unreviewable
, and we lack jurisdiction over the petition for review. See Lauf v. E.G. Shinner & Co. , 303 U.S. 323, 330 (1938) (“There can be no question of the power of Congress [] to define and limit the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States.”). Accordingly, the NLRB’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All other pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. USCA11 Case: 24-10436 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 3 of 3