alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017437EN.01000502.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2017 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-687/15) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Conclusions of the Council of the European Union concerning the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 of the International Telecommunication Union - Article 218(9) TFEU - Derogation from the prescribed legal form - No indication of the legal basis))

(2017/C 437/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Šulce, J.-P. Hix and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and M. Hedvábná, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Stranz, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: F. Fize, G. de Bergues, B. Fodda and D. Colas, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Brodie, M. Holt and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the conclusions of the Council of the European Union, adopted on 26 October 2015, at its 3419th meeting in Luxembourg, on the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the conclusions of the Council of the European Union, adopted on 26 October 2015, at its 3419th meeting in Luxembourg, on the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU);

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

1

---
Before the Third Division,

December 11, 1951

No. 56169.

protest 176590-K (New York).

#### S. P. Skinner Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass silent butlers similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Fan Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 42, C. D. 1261), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

December 7, 1949

No. 53788.

protests 90052-K, etc. (New York).

#### B. Altman & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling) as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
### Geology and water resources of the Harney Basin region, Oregon

By: Gerald Ashley Waring

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp231

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Case Wo. 8,094.

#### LARRA v. The HENRY BUCK.

March, 1847.

[Cited in The David Faust, Case No. 3,595. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
PUBLIC LAW 110–145—DEC. 21, 2007 121 STAT. 1815 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2408: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Oct. 23, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 13, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–145 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Green Bay, 

Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Milo C. Huempfner Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient 

Clinic’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC, GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Green 

Bay, Wisconsin, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Milo C. Huempfner Department 

of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. Any reference to such medical center in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other 

paper of the United States shall be considered to be a reference 

to the Milo C. Huempfner Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic. 

Approved December 21, 2007. 

Dec. 21, 2007 

[H.R. 2408] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
Exhibit 4.35.4  Additional Agreement No. 4 To the Contract on Network
Connection between OAO Rostelecom and OJSC
CenterTelecom as amended by AgreementNo.6480/05-DOdated January 01,2006  Moscow
  
  Dated
  : August 25, 2006   Rostelecom, Open Joint-Stock Company for Long-Distance and
International Telecommunication,
hereinafter, Rostelecom, represented by OAO Rostelecom General Director Dmitry Yevgenievich Yerokhin, authorized to act by the
Charter, on the one part, and Central Telecommunication Company, Open
Joint-Stock Company (OJSC CenterTelecom), hereinafter referred to as the Operator,
represented by OJSC CenterTelecom General Director S.V.
Pridantsev, authorized to act by the Charter, on the other part
hereinafter collectively referred to as the Parties, and severally, as Party,
have entered into this Additional Agreement (hereinafter, the Agreement) on
the incorporation of the below-listed amendments to the Contract on Network
Connection (hereinafter, the Contract), as follows:  1.Clause
1.12 of the Contract  to be excluded.  2.Clause1.13 of the Contract shall be marked as Clause 1.12. and
shall be amended as follows:  Traffic Admission Servicescollectively meantermination of call
to the Interconnection Operators network; area termination of call to the
Operators network; local termination of call to the Operators network; area
initiation of call; initiation of call from the Associated operators line in
the course of long-distance and international communication provided by Rostelecom
to the Users.  3.In
each Appendix to the Contract, the words «service on local termination of calls
shall be excluded; the words long distance termination of calls and long
distance initiation of calls shall be substituted by the words zone termination
of calls and zone initiation of calls, respectively; the words service on
transit of calls shall be substituted by the words service on zone initiation
of calls from the networks of the Associated Operators.  4.The
amount of the tariffs indicated in lines1and2, para.1.1of Appendix1to
the Contract shall increase by the amount of the cost-of-living adjustment
applicable to the zone call initiation cost as established by Order No.729-c/3of the Federal
Tariffs Service dt. December 20, 2005.  5.This
Agreement is an integral part of the Contract.  6.All
terms used in this Agreement have a meaning, fixed for them in the Contract.  7.All
the rest, not indicated in this Agreement, is subject to the provisions of the
Contract.  8.The
agreement is issued in the Russian language in two copies, one for  each Party.  9.This
Agreement comes into effect on the date of its execution.The Parties hereby establish that terms and conditions of the Agreement
entered into thereby shall apply to their relations arisen from the date of the
Contract on Network Connection as amended by Agreement No. 6480-05-dated January 01, 2006.  10.Signatures
of the Parties:  For Rostelecom:
  For Operator:General DirectorOAO Rostelecom
  General DirectorOJSC CenterTelecom:D.Ye. Yerokhin
  
  S.V.PridantsevSeal here
  Seal here
#### Bonwit Teller, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6785.

Entry No. 723844.

'Invoice dated London, England, October 3, 1941.

Certified October 3, 1941.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 12, 1941.

(Decided January 21, 1947)

*James W. Bevans*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

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

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) 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 the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 50700.

#### Protests 59305-K, etc., of Stern & Stern Textile Importers, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record .was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26082-26083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8782]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers


Reissuance of Nationwide Permits; Notice

AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final notice of 
issuance of Nationwide Permits (NWPs) which was published in the 
Federal

[[Page 26083]]

Register on Monday, March 12, 2007 (72 FR 11092--11198).

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attn: CECW-CO, 441 G Street 
NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Olson at 202-761-4922 or by 
e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#badedbccd3de94d894d5d6c9d5d4facfc9dbd9df94dbc8d7c394d7d3d6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e5a5f48575a105c1051524d51507e4b4d5f5d5b105f4c534710535752">[email protected]</span></a> or access the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers Regulatory Home Page at http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg/.
    On page 11172, third column, in the first sentence of the fourth 
full paragraph (the preamble discussion of the definition of 
``discharge''), delete the text following the word ``clarify'' and 
replace it with the following: ``That this term is used in the NWPs to 
refer to a discharge of dredged or fill material.'' Delete the second 
sentence of this paragraph.
    On page 11185, first column, in Note 2 of NWP 24, replace the 
reference to 33 CFR 322.3(a)(2) with 33 CFR 322.4(b).
    On page 11194, third column, in the last sentence of paragraph (a) 
of general condition 27 insert the phrase ``until either'' between the 
word ``activity'' and the colon. In the first sentence of subparagraph 
(a)(1) of general condition 27, replace the word ``Until'' with the 
phrase ``He or she is''. In the first sentence of subparagraph (a)(2) 
of general condition 27, delete the word ``If'' and replace the number 
45 with the words ``Forty-five''.
    On page 11196, second column, in the definition of ``discharge'', 
insert a period after the word ``material'' and delete the rest of the 
sentence.

    Dated: May 3, 2007.
Mark F. Sudol,
Acting Chief, Operations, Directorate of Civil Works.
[FR Doc. E7-8782 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-92-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Ernest J. WRIGHT, Claimant-Appellee, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 05-7151.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 18, 2005.

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Ernest J. Wright moves to dismiss the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ appeal of the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, *Wright v. Nicholson,*No. 03-1740 (Vet.App. Feb. 25, 2005). The Secretary opposes.

In the decision on appeal, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated the Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision at issue and remanded, on two grounds. First, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims concluded that the notice provided to Wright in earlier proceedings was deficient under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub.L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat.2096, and stated that it could not “conclude that any such error was nonprejudicial.” As a second basis for remand, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims concluded that the Board failed to ensure compliance with a 1999 set of remand instructions directing the regional office to obtain all of Wright’s medical records from a certain facility beginning in 1986.

On appeal, the Secretary asserts that this court should review whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims misinterpreted the notice requirements and the rule of prejudicial error, *ie.,*whether the remand based on the first ground was proper. We do not agree, however, with the Secretary that the order is appealable. This court generally refuses to review non-final decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. *Williams v. Principi,*275 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed.Cir.2002). Departure from this rule is justified only if three conditions are fulfilled:

> (1) there must have been a clear and final decision of a legal issue that (a) is separate from the remand proceedings, (b) will directly govern the remand proceedings or, (c) if reversed by this court, would render the remand proceedings unnecessary; (2) the resolution of the legal issues must adversely affect the party seeking review; and, (3) there must be a substantial risk that the decision would not survive a remand, *ie.,*that the remand proceeding may moot the issue.

*Id.*at 1364 (footnotes omitted).

The Secretary’s argument fails to satisfy part (l)(c) of the *Williams*criteria. Even if we agreed with the Secretary that a remand was not necessary based on the first ground, remand would be required on the second ground, *ie.,*to address the Board’s failure to ensure compliance with a prior remand order. Under these circumstances, the appeal is not sufficiently final for the purposes of our review and is therefore dismissed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

*352(1) Wright’s motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) All remaining motions are moot
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131870 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131870 

 COA: 270925 

Wayne CC: 05-004396-01

MARK THOMPKINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 142 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 142

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas this year marks the 26th anniversary of ``National Pet Week'', sponsored 
        by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Auxiliary to the 
        American Veterinary Medical Association;
Whereas animals and pets give companionship and pleasure in daily living, share 
        the homes of nearly

              

 69,000,000 individuals or families in the United States, and provide 
special benefits to elderly persons and children;

Whereas the people of the United States have a firm commitment to promote 
        responsible care of animals and pets and guard against cruel and 
        irresponsible treatment;
Whereas teaching kindness and respect for all living animals through education 
        in schools and communities is essential to the basic values of a humane 
        and civilized society;
Whereas the people of the United States are grateful to the veterinary medical 
        profession for providing preventive and emergency medical care and 
        assistance to animals, spaying and neutering animals to combat 
        overpopulation, and contributing to the education of animal owners; and
Whereas the people of the United States are indebted to animal protection 
        organizations, State humane organizations, and local animal care and 
        control agencies for promoting respect for animals and pets, educating 
        children about humane attitudes, and caring for lost, unwanted, abused, 
        and abandoned animals: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That it is the sense of the Congress--
            (1) that there should be established an annual National Pet 
        Week; and
            (2) the goals and ideals expressed during National Pet Week 
        should be guides for the people of the United States to observe 
        in the care of pets.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 142

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that there should be established a 
                           National Pet Week.
```
Legend

State/Federal Boundary

Atlantic Region Planning AreasGulf of Mexico Region Planning AreasPacific Region Planning Areas

 ̄

0 250 125

Nautical Miles

Programmatic EIS for Outer Continental Shelf Renewab

Regional Planning Areas on the Outer C

Washington/Oregon

NorthernCalifornia

CentralCalifornia

SouthernCalifornia

WesternGulfof Mexico

CentralGulfof Mexic
# C_2015254EN.01000502.xml

| 3.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 254/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 254/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2015 — Pierre Mulhaupt, insolvency administrator of the Société Civile Immobilière Senior Home (SCI)

(Case C-195/15)

(2015/C 254/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Pierre Mulhaupt, insolvency administrator of the Société Civile Immobilière Senior Home (SCI)

Appellant:

| Other parties: | Gemeinde Wedemark,
  Hannoversche Volksbank eG |
| --- | --- |

Other parties:

Other parties:

Gemeinde Wedemark,

Hannoversche Volksbank eG

Question referred

Question referred

Does the term ‘right in rem’ in Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) include a national rule such as that contained in Paragraph 12 of the Grundsteuergesetz (Law on real property tax, ‘GrStG’) in conjunction with the first sentence of Paragraph 77(2) of the Abgabenordnung (Tax Code, ‘AO’), pursuant to which real property tax debts are by operation of law a public charge on real property and the property owner must accept enforcement against the property in that respect?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.

1

---