alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017161EN.01002501.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 April 2017 — Tractel Greifzug v EUIPO — Shenxi Machinery (Shape of a motor-driven rope winch)

(Case T-621/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a motor-driven rope winch - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 161/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tractel Greifzug GmbH (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: U. Lüken and C. Maierhöfer, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Shenxi Machinery Co. Ltd (Wuxi, China) (represented by: C. Vossius, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2015 (Case R 1658/2014-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Shenxi Machinery and Tractel Greifzug.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tractel Greifzug GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tractel Greifzug GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

| 3. | Orders Shenxi Machinery Co. Ltd to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Shenxi Machinery Co. Ltd to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.

1

---
# Official Journal L 14/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.014.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 14 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5517 January 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.014.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 14

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5517 January 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2012/26/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08))
  (notified under document C(2011) 4483)

   (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

2012/26/EU

*

Commission Decision of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08))
  (notified under document C(2011) 4483)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2011) 4483)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Exhibit 13.1

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each undersigned officer of
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2016 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |        |  |                                     
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: 22 March 2017 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Carlos Brito                    
|                    |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Carlos Brito                        
|                    |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer             
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: 22 March 2017 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Felipe Dutra                    
|                    |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Felipe Dutra                        
|                    |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial & Technology Officer
The Law Office of Darrell J. Green, LLC

770 S. Willow Park Drive

Lehi, UT 84043

Telephone: (660) 624-2181

Email: green.770@comcast.net

July 23,2015

VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

Federal Docket Management Website

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Response to FAA Request for Information

Lost River Enterprises, LLC d/b/a/ Lost River Aerial (Lost River)

Docket No. FAA-2015-1659

Mr. Brenda Robeson:

This is in response to your Request for Further Information directed to Mr. Gregory Phillips of

Lost River Enterprises, LLC d/b/a/ Lost River Aerial (Lost River) dated July 21, 2015. Mr.

Gregory Phillips is requesting that you proceed without a Motion Picture and Television

Operations Manual (MPTOM) as Lost River is not requesting authority to operate in a closed-set

filming environment.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Darrell J. Green, JD

Law Office of Darrell J. Green

Counsel for Lost River Enterprises, LLC d/b/a/ Lost River Aerial

cc: Mr. G. Phillips
No. 53740.

protests 124855-K, etc. (Boston).

#### General Distilleries Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2015337EN.01000202.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Balș (Romania) lodged on 28 May 2015 — SC Casa Noastră SA v Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul Transportului Rutier ISCTR

(Case C-245/15)

(2015/C 337/03)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Judecătoria Balș

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Casa Noastră SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministerul Transporturilor — Inspectoratul de Stat pentru Controlul Transportului Rutier ISCTR

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | To what extent may the expression ‘by whomsoever organised’ used in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1073/2009 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a regular transport service can be organised by an economic operator for the purpose of carrying its own employees to and from work? |
| --- | --- |

1)

To what extent may the expression ‘by whomsoever organised’ used in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1073/2009 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a regular transport service can be organised by an economic operator for the purpose of carrying its own employees to and from work?

1

| 2) | To what extent may the expression ‘carriage of passengers on regular services where the route covered does not exceed 50 kilometres’, used in Article 3(a) of Regulation No 561/2006 (2) be interpreted as meaning that it applies to workers in connection with their travel to and from the workplace? |
| --- | --- |

2)

To what extent may the expression ‘carriage of passengers on regular services where the route covered does not exceed 50 kilometres’, used in Article 3(a) of Regulation No 561/2006 (2) be interpreted as meaning that it applies to workers in connection with their travel to and from the workplace?

2

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 88).

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (Text with EEA relevance) — Declaration (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).

2

---
# C_2016392EN.01004001.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2016 — De Esteban Alonso v Commission

(Case T-557/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Criminal proceedings before a national court - Decision of the institution to become a civil party - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly unfounded - Procedural irregularities - Conditions for the application of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations))

(2016/C 392/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Fernando De Esteban Alonso (Saint-Martin-de-Seignanx, France) (represented by: C. Huglo, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and C. Ehrbar and subsequently by C. Ehrbar and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2015 in De Esteban Alonso v Commission (F-35/15, EU:F:2015:87), seeking to have that order set aside.

De Esteban Alonso

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Fernando De Esteban to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fernando De Esteban to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

1

---
No. 65723.

#### The Albarosa Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/14526, etc. (New York).

*511Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C.C.P.A. 112, C.A.D. 351), and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited, it was held that duty is not assessable upon the quantities of merchandise reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
# C_2019072EN.01001401.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2018 — Freistaat Bayern v Commission

(Case T-683/15) (1)

((State aid - Aid in favour of the Bavarian dairy sector - Funding of milk quality tests - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Procedural rights of the Land of Bavaria - Article 108(2) TFEU - Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999))

(2019/C 72/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Freistaat Bayern (represented by: U. Soltész and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, K. Herrmann and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/2432 of 18 September 2015 concerning State aid SA.35484 (2013/C) (ex SA.35484 (2012/NN)) granted by Germany in respect of milk quality tests pursuant to the Milk and Fat Law (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 23).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Articles 1 to 4 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/2432 of 18 September 2015 concerning State aid SA.35484 (2013/C) (ex SA.35484 (2012/NN)) granted by Germany in respect of milk quality tests pursuant to the Milk and Fat Law in so far as they declare that the grant by the Federal Republic of Germany of State aid is incompatible with the internal market in respect of the milk quality tests carried out in Bavaria and order recovery of that aid; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Articles 1 to 4 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/2432 of 18 September 2015 concerning State aid SA.35484 (2013/C) (ex SA.35484 (2012/NN)) granted by Germany in respect of milk quality tests pursuant to the Milk and Fat Law in so far as they declare that the grant by the Federal Republic of Germany of State aid is incompatible with the internal market in respect of the milk quality tests carried out in Bavaria and order recovery of that aid;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Freistaat Bayern. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Freistaat Bayern.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. GLEN DEHART, Jr., Private E-1, U. S. Army, Appellant

4 USCMA 556, 16 CMR 130

No. 5065

Decided July 9, 1954

Lt Col George M. Thorpe, U. S. Army, and 1st Lt Ronald C. Meteiver, U. S. Army, for Appellant.

Lt Col William R. Ward, U. S. Army, and 1st Lt William G. Fowler, U. S. Army, for Appellee.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

The accused was convicted of two specifications of desertion. Both relate to the same period of unauthorized absence from the same organization. However, one alleges an intent to shirk important service, namely, movement to a port of embarkation for shipment overseas; the other charges an intent to remain away permanently. The law officer instructed separately on the maximum sentence that could be imposed on each specification, and advised the court that the total maximum sentence was a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement at hard labor for eight years. The court adjudged a sentence which included confinement at hard labor for three years. Thereafter, the convening authority approved the sentence, but suspended execution of the punitive discharge. A board of review affirmed. Setting out a number of claims of error, the accused has now petitioned this Court for further review.

In its brief, the Government concedes that it is unable to distinguish this case from United States v. Redenius, 4 USCMA 161, 15 CMR 161. Thus, it admits that the specifications are mul-tiplieitous, and that the law officer erred in his instructions on the maximum *557sentence. Our own examination of the record leads us to the same conclusion. We find no merit in the other assignments of error.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The case is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to a board of review for determination of an appropriate sentence.
# C’,

C13LLE!TI•PRE•NEXT.B•SEARCH.ll 

# NOTICESProposedRevisionstoPennsylvania’sStateImplementationPlanj38Pa.B.1216][Saturday,March8,20081Section110oftheFederalCleanAirAct(CAA)requiresstatestodevelopStateImplementationPlans(SIP)andprogramstomeettheNationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS)establishedbytheUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)toprotectpublichealthandwelfare.Section110oftheCAAsetsforthgeneralelementsfortheimplementationofSIPs.Section110(a)(2)oftheCAArequiresstatestosubmitSIPrevisionstotheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)Administratorthatprovideforimplementation,maintenanceandenforcementoftheNAAQS.TheDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(Department)isseekingcommentonaSIPrevisionthatconfirmstheCommonwealth’scompliancewithsection110(a)(2)(K)oftheCAAforfinePM2.5Section110(a)(2)(K)requiresastate’sSIPtoprovidefortheperformanceofairqualitymodelingasEPAmayprescribetopredicttheeffectonambientairqualityofemissionsofairpollutantsforwhichaNAAQShasbeenestablished.TheSIPrevisionidentifiestheCommonwealth’slegalauthorityandobligationtoattainthePM2.5NAAQSandtoperformthemodeling,anddescribestheprocesstheDepartmentisusingtoprepareandsubmitmodelingforPM2.5,includingitsworkwithacooperativeregionalconsortium.TheproposedSIPrevisionisavailableontheDepartment’swebsiteatwww.depweb.state.pa.us(chooseAirPlans)orthroughthecontactpersonslisted.TheDepartmentwillholdapublichearingtoreceivecommentsontheproposalsonThursday,April10,2008,at1p.m.attheDepartment’sSouthcentralRegionalOffice,909ElmertonAvenue,SusquehannaRoomA,Harrisburg,PA17110.PersonswishingtopresenttestimonyatthehearingontheproposedSIPrevisionsshouldcontactYvetteHouse,P.0.Box8468,Harrisburg,PA17105,(717)787-9495,yhouse@state.pa.ustoreserveatime.Persons/Nwhodonotreserveatimewillbeabletotestifyastimeallows.Witnessesshouldlimittestimonyto10minutesandprovidetheDepartmentwithtwowrittencopiesoftheirstatementatthehearing.Personswithadisabilitywhowishtoattendthehearingandrequireanauxiliaryaid,serviceorotheraccommodationtoparticipateintheproceedingshouldcontactYvetteHouseatyhousestate.pa.usor(717)787-9495.TDDusersmaycontacttheAT&TRelayServiceat(800)654-5984todiscusshowtheDepartmentcanbestaccommodatetheirneeds.TheDepartmentmustreceivecommentsnolaterthanApril10,2008.WrittencommentsshouldbesenttotheattentionofArleenShulman,DivisionofAirResourceManagement,BureauofAirQuality,P.0.Box8468,Harrisburg,PA17105-8468,ashulman@state.pa.usKATHLEENA.MCGINTY,Secretary[Pa.B.Doc.No.08-402.FiledforpublicinspectionMarch7,2008,9:00a.m.jNopartoftheinformationonthissitemaybereproducedforprofitorsoldforprofit.ThismaterialhasbeendrawndirectlyfromtheofficialPennsylvaniaBulletinfulltextdatabase.DuetothelimitationsofHTMLordifferencesindisplaycapabilitiesofdifferentbrowsers,thisversionmaydifferslightlyfromtheofficialprintedversion.webnza:;aPaBu1letin.coin
# C_2016454EN.01002602.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/26

---

Order of the General Court of 17 October 2017 — Orthema Service v EUIPO (Gehen wie auf Wolken)

(Case T-620/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Gehen wie auf Wolken - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 454/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Orthema Service GmbH (Rotkreuz, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 September 2015 (Case R 404/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Gehen wie auf Wolken as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Orthema Service GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orthema Service GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.

---
#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. (W. J. Byrnes & Co., of N. Y. Inc.) *v.*United States

No. 7626.

Entry No. 761874.

— Pro forma invoice dated Longton,^England, March. 30, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 20, 1946.

*318(Decided November 15, 1948)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This proceeding has been submitted upon a stipulation wherein the parties hereto have agreed that the issues involved in this reappraisement are the same in all material respects as in the case of *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334. The record in that case was admitted as part of the record herein.

In view of the aforesaid stipulation and accepting same as a statement of fact, and in view of the decision cited, I find and hold that the export value of the merchandise is the value found by the appraiser, less any additions on entry by the importer by reason of advances by the appraiser in similar cases to equal .the so-called British purchase tax.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2017112EN.01003402.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EMA

(Case T-441/15) (1)

1

((Arbitration clause - Multiple framework contract involving the ‘cascade’ system EMA/2012/10/ICT - External service provision for software applications - Request to provide services addressed to the applicants - Rejection of the candidates proposed by the applicants - Proportionality - Reclassification in part of the action - Non-contractual liability))

(2017/C 112/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

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

Applicants:

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo, G. Gavriilidou and P. Eyckmans, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the EMA’s decision of 4 June 2015, notified to the applicants by means of an e-mail from the IT Resource Manager, rejecting two of the candidates whom the applicants had proposed in response to the request for services SC001, in the context of the ΕΜΑ/2012/10/ICT framework-agreement, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU and asking for compensation for the harm that the applicants had allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

1

---