alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012355EN.01003901.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/39

---

Action brought on 9 August 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-86/12)

2012/C 355/84

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Lizer-Klatka, legal adviser)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to extend the validity of reserve list EPSO/AD/60/6 in relation to the applicant by the period that she spent on maternity and parental leave.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 17 October 2011 terminating the validity of reserve list EPSO AD/60/06 on 31 December 2011 in relation to the applicant and the decision of 10 May 2012 issued in response to the applicant’s complaint No R/147111, and extend the validity of reserve list EPSO AD/60/06 in relation to the applicant by the period that she spent on maternity and parental leave while that list was valid, that is to say, by the period of 3 years and 46 days; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 17 October 2011 terminating the validity of reserve list EPSO AD/60/06 on 31 December 2011 in relation to the applicant and the decision of 10 May 2012 issued in response to the applicant’s complaint No R/147111, and extend the validity of reserve list EPSO AD/60/06 in relation to the applicant by the period that she spent on maternity and parental leave while that list was valid, that is to say, by the period of 3 years and 46 days;

| — | Order that the parties shall each bear their own costs in accordance with Article 89(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 25 July 2007 and the applicant’s arguments contained in paragraph 56 et seq. of the present application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the parties shall each bear their own costs in accordance with Article 89(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 25 July 2007 and the applicant’s arguments contained in paragraph 56 et seq. of the present application.

---
#### David BAND, et al. v. FIRST BANKCARD CENTER, et al.

No. 98-CC-0812.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 8, 1998.

In re First Bankcard Center; First National Bank of Comm.;—Defendant(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 97CW-2494; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “K”, No. 93-12554.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.

JOHNSON, J., not on panel.
No. 43148.

#### Protests 811191-G, etc., of Selsi Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Oppleman*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 167, C. D. 225) the altimeters in question were held dutiable at 27% percent under paragraph 372 as claimed.
|   | (1) | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter year ended      March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Geoffrey Donaldson       |
|------------------------------|
| Geoffrey      Donaldson      |
| Chief      Executive Officer |

|   | (1) | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter      ended  March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Karen Nazzareno  |
|----------------------|
| Karen      Nazzareno |
| Controller           |

----
# C_2012319EN.01000301.xml

| 20.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Grenoble (France) lodged on 6 August 2012 — Margaretha Bouanich v Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Drôme

(Case C-375/12)

2012/C 319/03

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Grenoble

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Margaretha Bouanich

Applicant:

Defendant: Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Drôme

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Articles 43, 56 and 58 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Articles 49, 63 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) preclude legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where a resident of a Member State of the European Union who is a shareholder of a company established in another Member State of the European Union receives dividends taxed in the two Member States and the double taxation is regulated by the imputation in the Member State of residence of a tax credit for the same amount as the tax paid in the State of the distributing company, the tax capping mechanism of up to 60 % or 50 % of income received during a year does not take into account, or takes only partially into account, the tax paid in the other State; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Articles 43, 56 and 58 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Articles 49, 63 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) preclude legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where a resident of a Member State of the European Union who is a shareholder of a company established in another Member State of the European Union receives dividends taxed in the two Member States and the double taxation is regulated by the imputation in the Member State of residence of a tax credit for the same amount as the tax paid in the State of the distributing company, the tax capping mechanism of up to 60 % or 50 % of income received during a year does not take into account, or takes only partially into account, the tax paid in the other State;

| 2. | If that is the case, may such a restriction be justified by the need to maintain the cohesion of the tax system, by a balanced allocation of taxing powers between the Member States, or by any other overriding reason in the public interest? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If that is the case, may such a restriction be justified by the need to maintain the cohesion of the tax system, by a balanced allocation of taxing powers between the Member States, or by any other overriding reason in the public interest?

---
(Reap. Dec. 9066)

#### J. H. Thorp Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 916863-1/3.

(Decided February 7, 1958)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

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

Rao, 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 by and between the parties hereto:

> 1. That the merchandise marked “A” on the invoice consists of imperial linen velour.

> 2. That such merchandise at the time of exportation here involved was freely offered for sale, for exportation to the United States, to all purchasers in the principal markets of Belgium in usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade at a unit value of 161 French francs, plus a tax of one per centum, plus packing of $15.00, which market price included the cost of all other containers and coverings and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

> 3. That the price at which such merchandise was sold in the markets of Belgium for home consumption was no higher than the price set forth above in paragraph “2”, and

> 4. That the instant case may be submitted on this stipulation of fact.

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 marked “A” on the invoice, and that such value was 161 French francs per meter, plus 1 per centum tax, plus $15 for packing.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1612 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2011 

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

AN ACT 

To provide the Department of Justice with additional tools 

to target extraterritorial drug trafficking activity. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

S 1612 RFH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Targeting 

3 Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2011’’. 

4 SEC. 2. POSSESSION, MANUFACTURE OR DISTRIBUTION 

5 FOR PURPOSES OF UNLAWFUL IMPORTA6 TIONS. 

7 Section 1009 of the Controlled Substances Import 

8 and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 959) is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as 

10 subsections (c) and (d), respectively; and 

11 (2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘It shall’’ and 

12 all that follows and inserting the following: ‘‘It shall 

13 be unlawful for any person to manufacture or dis14 tribute a controlled substance in schedule I or II or 

15 flunitrazepam or a listed chemical intending, know16 ing, or having reasonable cause to believe that such 

17 substance or chemical will be unlawfully imported 

18 into the United States or into waters within a dis19 tance of 12 miles of the coast of the United States. 

20 ‘‘(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufac21 ture or distribute a listed chemical— 

22 ‘‘(1) intending or knowing that the listed chem23 ical will be used to manufacture a controlled sub24 stance; and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

S 1612 RFH

1 ‘‘(2) intending, knowing, or having reasonable 

2 cause to believe that the controlled substance will be 

3 unlawfully imported into the United States.’’. 

Passed the Senate December 15, 2011. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2013101EN.01000901.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 10 December 2012 — Reggiani SpA Illuminazione v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-618/12)

2013/C 101/19

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Reggiani SpA Illuminazione

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 2 of [the] Directive [79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979] (1) infringe freedom of establishment in that it limits entitlement to a refund to just moveable property?

1

---

(1)  Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11).

1

---
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Pacific Rim Mining
Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended April 30, 2013 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Steven Krause, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

| | July 26,2013 | Steven Krause        
| | ------------ | -----------------------
| |              |                        
| |              | Steven Krause          
| |              | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and will be retained by
Pacific Rim Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.13

RESTRICTIVE LEGENDS ON REVERSE SIDE HEREOF

             Incorporated under the laws of the State of Minnesota

SPECIMEN                                                                SPECIMEN

                          GLOBAL MAINTECH CORPORATION


This Certifies that                SPECIMEN                     is the owner and

                    ____________________________________________
registered holder of _________________________________________________ Shares of

                   ____________________________________________________
  fully paid and nonassessable shares of Series E Convertible Preferred Stock,
no par value, of
                          Global MAINTECH Corporation

transferable only on the books of the corporation by the holder hereof in
person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate
properly endorsed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said corporation has caused this certificate to be
signed by its duly authorized officers and be sealed with the seal of the
corporation.

NO              this                        day of                      ,      .
                     ______________________        ____________________   ____

                _________________________     ________________________________
                     Secretary                           President
[CORPORATE
   SEAL]


<PAGE>

Neither these securities nor the securities into which these securities may be
convertible have been registered with the securities and exchange commission or
the securities commission of any state in reliance upon an exemption from
registration under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), and, accordingly, may not be offered or sold except pursuant to an
effective registration statement under the securities act or pursuant to an
available exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the registration
requirements of the securities act and in accordance with applicable state
securities laws.

A full statement of the powers, designations, preferences and relative,
participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series
thereof of the corporation and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions
of such preferences and/or rights will be furnished by said corporation to any
stockholder under request and without charge.
No. 46977.

Suit 4350.

#### *United States*v. *N. Minami & Co., Inc.*

C. A. D. 188.
# C_2012311EN.01000501.xml

| 13.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2012 — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-362/12)

2012/C 311/05

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation

Applicant:

Defendants: Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Where under the law of a Member State a taxpayer can choose between two alternative causes of action in order to claim restitution of taxes levied contrary to Articles 49 and 63 TFEU and one of those causes of action benefits from a longer limitation period, is it compatible with the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and legitimate expectations for that Member State to enact legislation curtailing that longer limitation period without notice and retrospectively to the date of the public announcement of the proposed new legislation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where under the law of a Member State a taxpayer can choose between two alternative causes of action in order to claim restitution of taxes levied contrary to Articles 49 and 63 TFEU and one of those causes of action benefits from a longer limitation period, is it compatible with the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and legitimate expectations for that Member State to enact legislation curtailing that longer limitation period without notice and retrospectively to the date of the public announcement of the proposed new legislation?

| 2. | Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 1 that, at the moment when the taxpayer issued its claim using the cause of action which benefited from the longer limitation period, the availability of the cause of action under national law had only been recognised (i) recently and (ii) by a lower court and was not definitively confirmed by the highest judicial authority until later? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 1 that, at the moment when the taxpayer issued its claim using the cause of action which benefited from the longer limitation period, the availability of the cause of action under national law had only been recognised (i) recently and (ii) by a lower court and was not definitively confirmed by the highest judicial authority until later?

---
EXHIBIT 32

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Advanced Technologies Group, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities 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.


Date: September 12, 2006       By: /s/ Abel Raskas
                                  ---------------------------------
                                  Abel Raskas
                                  President



Date: September 12, 2006       By: /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                  ---------------------------------
                                  Alex Stelmak
                                  Chief Financial Officer
No. 56741.

protests 177478-K (A), etc. (New York).

#### Barclay Home Products, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 40470.

#### Protests 894918-G, etc., of C. R. Cheney Co. et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Roquefort cheese wrapped in foil or paper or both, similar to that the subject of Abstracts 36724 and 38185. The protests were therefore sustained.
Before the First Division,

October 14, 1942

No. 47634.

#### Protests 4571-K, etc., of Fish-Schurman Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 45423 the glass in question was held dutiable at the Tate of *l2%i*cents per pound under paragraph 219, by virtue of T. D. 45313, and in addition thereto at 5 percent ad valorem under paragraph 224 as being colored. The protests were sustained to this extent.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
----

**EXHIBIT 13.1**

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

 In connection with the Annual Report of Pacific Rim Mining  Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended April 30,  2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the “Report”), I, Thomas C. Shrake, Chief Executive Officer of the  Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

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

| Date: August 18, 2004 | //s// “Thomas C. Shrake”      Thomas C. Shrake      Its: Chief Executive Officer |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

*A signed original of this written statement required by  Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

----