alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015337EN.01000502.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 July 2015 — Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie v ESET spol. s r.o. sp. z o.o., oddział w Polsce

(Case C-393/15)

(2015/C 337/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie

Applicant:

Defendant: ESET spol. s r.o. sp. z o.o., oddział w Polsce

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do Articles 168 and 169(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) not preclude, in the case of a branch registered for VAT purposes in one Member State and carrying out mainly intra-company transactions for a parent company established in another Member State and occasionally also transactions taxable in the State where the branch is registered, the taxable person from being entitled to deduct input tax in the State in which the branch is registered, despite the fact that the tax is linked to transactions carried out by the parent company in another Member State?

1

---

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

1

---
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, Daniel L. Parks, Chief Financial 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-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2012, 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

/s/ John C. LawrenceJohn C. LawrencePresident and Chief Executive Officer
No. 71-20

#### Robert DeFrees, SP-4, U. S. Army v LTG John H. Hay, Commanding General, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and MAJ Cornelius Creeden, Stockade Commander, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

*684ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for failure to set forth a basis for the relief sought.
# C_2015279EN.01002601.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/26

---

Action brought on 9 July 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-347/15)

(2015/C 279/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, J. Hottiaux and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, in so far as it did not oblige ÖBB Personenverkehr (Austrian Federal Railways) to publish the public service compensation and the costs and revenues for each public service contract, the Republic of Austria has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/34/EU (1) and under Article 6(1) read in conjunction with Rule 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, in so far as it did not oblige ÖBB Personenverkehr (Austrian Federal Railways) to publish the public service compensation and the costs and revenues for each public service contract, the Republic of Austria has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/34/EU (1) and under Article 6(1) read in conjunction with Rule 5 of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (2);

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The defendant failed to comply with its obligations under Directive 2012/34/EU and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007.

The defendant has failed to ensure that the invoices corresponding to public funds for the provision of public transport services are separately broken down according to each contract and that their costs and revenues are evidenced and published separately. The defendant has thereby infringed the corresponding rules of EU law in the area of rail transport.

---

(1)  Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).

---
# C_2015127EN.01004401.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/44

---

Action brought on 16 February 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-26/15)

(2015/C 127/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision to reject the applicant’s application to pay him the installation allowance, following his move from Yemen to Brussels, where his wife, from whom he is separated, lives and application to order the defendant to pay the applicant that installation allowance plus interest.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision of 15 April 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision of 15 April 2014;

| — | As necessary, annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 November 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

As necessary, annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 November 2014;

| — | Order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the installation allowance equal to one month’s basic salary plus interest calculated from the dates on which those sums were due under Annex VII of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the installation allowance equal to one month’s basic salary plus interest calculated from the dates on which those sums were due under Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;

| — | Order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

---
No. 47591.

#### Protests 6920-K, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass base shells similar to those involved in *New York Merchandise Co.*v. *United States (8*Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 607) they were held dutiable as parts of articles having as an essential feature an electrical element-or device, such as signs, at 35 percent under paragraph 353 as claimed.
Exhibit 32.1



                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION
                         OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         (required by Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


In connection  with the report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period ended June
30, 2003 of Union Electric  Company (the "Company") as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the "Form  10-Q"),  I, Charles W.
Mueller, chief executive officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Form 10-Q fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 14, 2003



                                            /s/ Charles W. Mueller
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Charles W. Mueller
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                            (Principal Executive Officer)




A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in the  typed  form  within  the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to Union Electric  Company
and will be retained by Union  Electric  Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(Reap. Dec. 9275)

#### Plywood & Door Manufacturers Corporation *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 14857; 17192.

(Decided December 18, 1958)

*James Wilson Young*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel have stipulated and agreed in these cases as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto that the merchandise involved in the Appeals for Reappraisement enumerated on Schedule “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of plywood exported from Finland in the year 1954 and that the merchandise described in Column “4” of Schedule *!‘A”*at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similiar [sfc] 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 home consumption including cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States, was with respect to the merchandise described in Column “4” of Schedule “A”, the unit values set forth *600in Column “5” of Schedule “A”. The appeals are abandoned as to all other merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for Re-appraisement enumerated on Schedule “A”, annexed hereto and made part hereof may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find, with respect to the merchandise described in column 4 of schedule *“A,”*attached to and made a part of this decision, that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the said merchandise, and that such value is as set forth in column 5 of the said schedule *“A.”*

In all other respects and as to all other merchandise, the appeals for reappraisement, having been abandoned, are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

Schedule A
# C_2015279EN.01006101.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/61

---

Action brought on 9th June 2015 — ZZ v ECB

(Case F-86/15)

(2015/C 279/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the program ‘Career transition support’ of the ECB and claim for compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage allegedly sustained.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Career Transition Support (CTS) Team of 18 August 2014 rejecting the applicant’s CTS application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Career Transition Support (CTS) Team of 18 August 2014 rejecting the applicant’s CTS application;

| — | grant the applicant compensation for the material prejudice he suffered consisting of the CTS financial package, estimated at 1 01  447 euros, increased by late interests calculated at the rate of the European Central Bank plus 3 points; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the applicant compensation for the material prejudice he suffered consisting of the CTS financial package, estimated at 1 01  447 euros, increased by late interests calculated at the rate of the European Central Bank plus 3 points;

| — | grant the Applicant compensation for the moral prejudice he suffered, estimated at 10  000 euros; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the Applicant compensation for the moral prejudice he suffered, estimated at 10  000 euros;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

---
#### Chapal Donner Corp. *v.*United States

No. 6760.

Entry No. 728594.

Invoice dated London, England, November 26, 1945.

Certified November 26, 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 19, 1945.

(Decided January 14, 1947)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

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

Ekwall, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is 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, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States — is as follows:

> (Longhaired Rabbit Pieces) *@*7%d. per lb.

> Hatters Fur Waste

> (Sheared Rabbit Pieces) @ 8Kd. per lb.

> Plus packing of £4/14/6 as invoiced.

It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher export value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are as follows:

> Longhaired rabbit *pieces_7%*pence per pound.

> Sheared rabbit pieces_■ *8%*pence per pound.

> Plus packing of £4/14/6 as invoiced.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

March 13, 1943

No. 48098.

#### Protest 85368-K of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 41633 the pencil sharpeners in question were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339, as claimed.
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 United-Guardian, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kenneth H. Globus,  President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





Date:  May 10, 2011
By:  /s/ Kenneth H. GlobusKenneth H. Globus
# C_2015213EN.01001402.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Košiciach (Slovakia) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Kovozber s.r.o. v Daňový úrad Košice

(Case C-120/15)

(2015/C 213/22)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Krajský súd v Košiciach

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kovozber s.r.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Daňový úrad Košice

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the first paragraph of Article 183 of Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2006/138/EC (1), be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in determining the conditions for refunding an excess deduction of value added tax, makes the award of default interest (on the delayed refund of value added tax) conditional on the expiry of a period of 10 days from completion of the tax inspection for ascertaining whether the claim to the refund of the excess deduction is justified? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the first paragraph of Article 183 of Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2006/138/EC (1), be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in determining the conditions for refunding an excess deduction of value added tax, makes the award of default interest (on the delayed refund of value added tax) conditional on the expiry of a period of 10 days from completion of the tax inspection for ascertaining whether the claim to the refund of the excess deduction is justified?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is it for the national court, in the absence of national legislation on default interest after a period of 10 days from completion of a tax inspection, to determine by analogy, in its own discretion, appropriate legal rules on interest? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is it for the national court, in the absence of national legislation on default interest after a period of 10 days from completion of a tax inspection, to determine by analogy, in its own discretion, appropriate legal rules on interest?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 384, p. 92.

1

---
### NU M BER 13- 08- 0050 6-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG

TH OM AS N . L EEC H, A pp ellan t,
v . A M -M EX P ROD UC TS , INC ., ET A L., A pp ellees .

On ap pe al f rom th e 2 75t h Dist rictC ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e C hi ef

Just i ce Val dez, Just i ces Ro dr i guez and G ar za M em or andu m O pi ni on P er C ur i am This ca se is before the C our t on a joi nt mot ion to setas ide the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment
w ithou t referen ce to th e me rits, and to rema nd to the trial court to ent er agreed dism issal. T he parties have reach ed an agreem ent w ith regard to the dispo sition of t h e m a t t ers cur re ntl y on appeal

. Pursuant to the ag re ement, the p arti es re q uestthi s C our t t o s et as ide the t ri al cour

t’ s j udg ment w it hout re g a rd s to t h e m er it s, and remand th is ca se to t he tr ial2

cour t for entr y of an ag re ed or der of di smi ss al in acc ordance w it h the par ti es’ ag re ement. T he join t mo tion to set aside the trial court’s judgme nt an d rem and is GRANTED. Acc ordin g ly , w e s et as ide the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment w it hout reg ard to the mer it s, and REMAND this case to the trial court fo r ent ry of an agreed order of

dismissal in acco rdan ce w it h the par

ti es’ ag re ement. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2 .1(a) (2 )( B)

. In ac cordance w it h the ag re ement of the par

ti es, co sts ar e tax ed ag ain st the p arty i ncur ri ng sa me. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42 .1(d). T he partie s a lso ask tha t ma nda te issue imm edia tely. Rule of Appe llate Proce dure 18.1( c) authori z es the ea rl y i ss uance of mandate on th e moti on of the par ti es. Tex . R . Ap p. P

. 1 8

. 1 ( c )

. We G RA N T t h e j o i n t m o t i o n and i s s u e t h e ma n d a t e c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h our opi nio n and jud g ment. PERC UR IAM Del iv er ed and filed the 25th day of Ma rc h, 20 10.
No. 55483.

#### D. N. & E. Walter & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 126686-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 54790, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2018005EN.01003001.xml

| 8.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of of 17 November 2017 — Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo v Commission

(Case T-263/15) (1)

1

((State aid - Airport infrastructure - Public finance granted by the municipalities of Gdynia and Kosakowo in favour of the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Withdrawal of a decision - Failure to re-open the formal investigation procedure - Change in the legal regime - Procedural rights of interested parties - Infringement of essential procedural requirements))

(2018/C 005/39)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Gmina Miasto Gdynia (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: T. Koncewicz, K. Gruszecka-Spychała and M. Le Berre, lawyers), Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo sp. z o.o., (Gdynia) (represented by P. K. Rosiak, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and S. Noë, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by B. Majczyna, M. Rzotkiewicz and E. Gromnicka, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Articles 2 to 5 Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1586 of 26 February 2015 on measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 165)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Articles 2 to 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1586 of 26 February 2015 on the measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Articles 2 to 5 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1586 of 26 February 2015 on the measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo sp. zo.o. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo sp. zo.o.

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.

1

---
# C_2008270EN.01S00301.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---