alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015371EN.01001601.xml

| 9.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/16

---

Action brought on 10 September 2015 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-481/15)

(2015/C 371/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and F. Wilman, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to ensure the regular monitoring of certain common basic standards on aviation security to the extent necessary and with the required frequency and to appoint a sufficient number of auditors to implement quality control measures, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its obligations under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 (1) and paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 7.5 and 14 of Annex II to that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to ensure the regular monitoring of certain common basic standards on aviation security to the extent necessary and with the required frequency and to appoint a sufficient number of auditors to implement quality control measures, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its obligations under Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 (1) and paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 7.5 and 14 of Annex II to that regulation;

1

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on the following in support of its action:

Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 and paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 7.5 and 14 of Annex II to that regulation require each Member State to ensure the regular monitoring of certain common basic standards on aviation security to the extent necessary and with the required frequency and to appoint a sufficient number of auditors to implement quality control measures.

Germany fails to comply with that requirement.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (OJ 2008 L 97, p. 72), as amended by Commission Regulation No 18/2010 of 8 January 2010 (OJ 2010 L 7, p. 3).

1

---
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsInvestigation of test methods, material properties, and processes for solar cell encapsulantsPhotovoltaic (PV) modules consist of a string of electrically interconnected silicon solar cells capable of producing practical quantities of electrical power when exposed to sunlight. To insure high reliability and long term performance, the functional components of the solar cell module must be adequately protected from the environment by some encapsulation technique. The encapsulation system must provide mechanical support for the cells and corrosion protection for the electrical components. The goal of the program is to identify and develop encapsulation systems consistent with the PV module operating requirements of 30 year life and a target cost of $0.70 per peak watt ($70 per square meter) (1980 dollars). Assuming a module efficiency of ten percent, which is equivalent to a power output of 100 watts per square meter in midday sunlight, the capital cost of the modules may be calculated to be $70.00 per square meter. Out of this cost goal, only 20 percent is available for encapsulation due to the high cost of the cells, interconnects, and other related components. The encapsulation cost allocation may then be stated as $14.00 per square meter, included all coatings, pottant and mechanical supports for the cells.Document ID19850026133Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1984Subject CategoryEnergy Production And ConversionReport/Patent NumberDOE/JPL-954527-84/27NAS 1.26:176132NASA-CR-176132AR-8JPL-9950-1151Accession Number85N34446Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19850026133.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
No. 46907.

#### Protests 7234-K, etc., of Albert Eckstein & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 46497 the claim under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000

<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           99,248,974
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     46,080
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 99,295,054
<CASH>                                         182,777
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             5,870,843
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         4,509,685
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,145,845
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                39,591,195
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            17,171,688
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 2,374,874
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,817,591
<OTHER-SE>                                     49,121,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,145,845
<PREMIUMS>                                     19,345,702
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            4,569,128
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             2,508
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 4,945,519
<BENEFITS>                                     14,744,673
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    6,205,450
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           6,149,844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,762,890
<INCOME-TAX>                                   360,379
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,402,511
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,402,511
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.23
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0



</TABLE>
#### Gerhard *&*Hey Co., Inc. (Art Book Publications, Inc.) *v.*United States

No. 6081.

Invoices dated London, England, November 15, 1939, etc.

Certified November 22, 1939, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 16, 1939, etc.

Entry No. 50291, etc.

(Decided on rehearing (Reap. Dec. 5875) January 2, 1945)

*Daniel P. McDonald*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, involve the valuation of books printed in the English language and are now before me for determination on rehearing.

In my original decision (Reap. Dec. 5875), based upon a very complex record, due in large part to the testimony of Gloeckner, one of plaintiff’s witnesses, and his difficulties with the English language, I held that no statutory foreign, export, or United States values existed for the involved merchandise; that the proper basis for the valuation thereof was cost of production; and that such costs of production, for the items of merchandise enumerated in schedule B, attached to my original decision, were as stated in said schedule B, and that as to all other merchandise the appeals be dismissed.

A timely motion for rehearing was filed by counsel for the defendant and upon reconsideration of the record I was of the opinion that the testimony of said witness was so confusing that it could not be reconciled to the extent of giving it sufficient probation to establish the costs of production, which I was convinced was the proper basis for the valuation of the involved merchandise. I was further* of the opinion that the evidence of record was not sufficiently detailed to connect up all of the items of merchandise covered by the invoices. I therefore ordered that the decision and judgment heretofore ren*286dered be vacated and set aside, and restored the case to the docket for further hearing (Reap. Dec. 5942).

On the rehearing, counsel for the plaintiff recalled the said witness Gloeckner, and again interrogated him in English in an effort to clarify or explain some of his previous testimony.

After a detailed analysis of the entire record herein, I am of the opinion that the confusion still exists unreconciled and that the record contains no evidence of sufficient probation to establish the costs of pi'oduction of the involved merchandise.

All of these appeals for reappraisement involve merchandise exported subsequent to the effective date of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, and following the decision of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in *United, States*v. *Joseph Fischer et al.,*32 C. C. P. A. 62, C. A. D. 286, it seems more proper to find values for the involved merchandise rather than to dismiss the appeals.

Accordingly, I find the proper values for the involved merchandise to be the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2016200EN.01001601.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/16

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-540/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 200/23)

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.

1

---
Aris Industries, Inc. Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes/Oxley Act
- Filed as an Exhibit to 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2002


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aris Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Paul
Spector, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



---------------------------------------
Paul Spector
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2002
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2016, by andamong BANC OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE, INC, as Depositor,WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITALADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asCertificate Administrator, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asTrustee  and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and AssetRepresentations Reviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2016-UBS10 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.       A review of the activities of the  Master Servicer during the period fromJune 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016,  and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.       To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, hasfulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the period June 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
# C_2016175EN.01003401.xml

| 17.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/34

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — Spadafora v Commission

(Case F-44/15) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Officials - Post of Head of Unit - Vacancy notice - Selection procedure - Pre-selection panel - Interview with the pre-selection panel - Not included on the short-list of candidates proposed for a final interview with the Appointing Authority - Regularity of the selection procedure - Priority recruitment of a candidate having the nationality of a particular Member State - Conduct of the president of the pre-selection panel - Language discrimination - Claim for compensation - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 175/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sergio Spadafora (Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to appoint a person other than the applicant, who had been acting Head of Unit since the departure of the preceding Head of Unit, to the post of Head of Unit C4 (Legal Advice).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Mr Sergio Spadafora shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Sergio Spadafora shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015, p. 27.

1

---
# C_2016098EN.01004401.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/44

---

Order of the General Court of 15 January 2016 — TMG Landelijke Media and Willems v Commission

(Case T-189/15) (1)

1

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Correspondence between the Dutch authorities and the Commission concerning the annual adjustment of the Netherlands’ contribution to the EU budget, made on the basis of gross national income - Partial refusal of access - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 098/58)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicants: TMG Landelijke Media BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Menzo Willems (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: R.S. Le Poole and L. Broers, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 February 2015 refusing, in part, to grant Mr Willems access to the documents relating to correspondence between the Commission and the Dutch authorities concerning the annual adjustment of the Netherlands’ contribution to the European Union budget.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by TMG Landelijke Media BV and Mr Menzo Willems. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by TMG Landelijke Media BV and Mr Menzo Willems.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

1

---
# C_2005132EN.01000901.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 12 April 2005

in Case C-265/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional: Igor Simutenkov v Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Real Federación Española de Fútbol (1)

1

(Communities-Russia Partnership Agreement - Article 23(1) - Direct effect - Conditions relating to employment - Principle of non-discrimination - Football - Limit on the number of professional players having the nationality of non-member countries who may appear on a team in a national competition)

(2005/C 132/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-265/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain), made by decision of 9 May 2003, received at the Court on 17 June 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Igor Simutenkov and Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Real Federación Española de Fútbol — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Igor Simutenkov

Ministerio de Educación y Cultura

Real Federación Española de Fútbol

Article 23(1) of the Agreement on partnership and cooperation establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of one part, and the Russian Federation, of the other part, signed in Corfu on 24 June 1994 and approved on behalf of the Communities by Decision 97/800/ECSC, EC, Euratom: Council and Commission Decision of 30 October 1997, must be construed as precluding the application to a professional sportsman of Russian nationality, who is lawfully employed by a club established in a Member State, of a rule drawn up by a sports federation of that State which provides that clubs may field in competitions organised at national level only a limited number of players from countries which are not parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

---

(1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.

1

---
# C_2017213EN.01002601.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg v ECB

(Case T-122/15) (1)

1

((Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Article 6(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Article 70(1) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 - Single supervisory mechanism - Competences of the ECB - Decentralised exercise by the national authorities - Assessment of the size of a credit institution - Need for direct supervision by the ECB))

(2017/C 213/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: initially by A. Glos, K. Lackhoff and M. Benzing, and subsequently by A. Glos and M. Benzing, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and A. Riso, and subsequently by E. Koupepidou and R. Bax, acting as Agents, assisted by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by W. Mölls and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision ECB/SSM/15/1 of the ECB of 5 January 2015, taken pursuant to Article 6(4) and Article 24(7) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63), by which the ECB refused to recognise the applicant as a less significant entity within the meaning of Article 6(4) of that regulation.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg — Förderbank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank.

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.

1

---