alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014129EN.01003601.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/36

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 12 March 2014 — CR v Parliament

(Case F-128/12) (1)

((Civil service - Remuneration - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Recovery of overpayments - Intention to mislead the administration - Evidence - Not possible to rely against the administration upon the five year time-limit for bringing the application for recovery of the overpayments - Plea of illegality - Pre-litigation procedure - Requirement of consistency between the complaint and the action - Plea of illegality raised for the first time in the action - Admissibility))

(2014/C 129/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CR (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebelle-Demogeot and E. Taneva, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision to recover, under Article 85(2) of the Staff Regulations, all of the dependent child allowance overpaid to the applicant and not only that overpaid to him during the last five years.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CR to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CR to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union, as the intervener, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union, as the intervener, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 73.

---
# C_2013026EN.01007103.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/71

---

Action brought on 15 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-115/12)

2013/C 26/146

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the claim for compensation for the harm purportedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s sending a letter concerning the recovery of the sum of EUR 4 875 relating to the costs which the Court of First Instance ordered the applicant to pay in Case T-241/03.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the claim of 19 July 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the claim of 19 July 2011;

| — | annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 19 February 2012 against the decision of 19 July 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 19 February 2012 against the decision of 19 July 2011;

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the note of 12 June 2012, written in French, bearing the reference at the top of the right side of the first of five pages ‘Ref. Ares(2012)704847 — 13/06/2012’; |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the note of 12 June 2012, written in French, bearing the reference at the top of the right side of the first of five pages ‘Ref. Ares(2012)704847 — 13/06/2012’;

| — | order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5 500,00, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, with effect from 20 July 2011 until the date of actual payment of that sum; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 5 500,00, together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum, with annual capitalisation, with effect from 20 July 2011 until the date of actual payment of that sum;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2013063EN.01001301.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/13

---

Appeal brought on 24 December 2012 by Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06 Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission

Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission

(Case C-615/12 P)

2013/C 63/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (represented by: H. Karl, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06, the case to be determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06, the case to be determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant’s appeal is founded on breach of procedural requirements, their unlawful application having led to the action being dismissed as inadmissible, as a result of which the appellant’s interests have been adversely affected, and also infringement of European Union law by the General Court.

In its decision the General Court dismissed the application as inadmissible as it was said not to have been sufficiently reasoned having regard to the legal basis, and thus did not comply with Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. That is not reflected in the case-file. The requirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure were applied arbitrarily and contrary to the purpose of the provision.

The General Court also failed to take any account at all, in relation to the question of merit in accordance with Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, of the further submissions in the appellant’s reply and of the arguments in its observations on the plea of inadmissibility, or took account of them solely in order to argue their inadequacy, and thereby contrary to the rules of procedure and disregarding all arguments refused to allow the application to be admitted.

By its decision to dismiss the application on the ground of inadmissibility the General Court took a decision that could have been taken in that form and challenged as such as long ago as 2007, and thereby infringed any procedural foreseeability, transparency and efficiency. Accordingly there has been no fair and balanced procedure.

---
# C_2013359EN.01001301.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/13

---

Order of the General Court of 7 October 2013 — Roland v OHIM — Textiles Well (wellness inspired by nature)

(Case T-191/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 359/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Roland SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: O. Rauscher and C. Onken, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Textiles Well (Le Vigan, France) (represented by: E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2012 (Case R 2552/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Textiles Well SA and Roland SE, formerly Roland-Schuhe GmbH & Co. Handels KG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The applicant and intervener shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs borne by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and intervener shall bear their own costs and each shall pay one half of the costs borne by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9578]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


The President's Export Council: Meeting of the President's Export 
Council

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of an open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The President's Export Council (PEC) will hold a full Council 
meeting to discuss topics related to export expansion. The meeting will 
include discussion of trade priorities and initiatives, PEC 
subcommittee activity, and proposed letters of recommendation to the 
President. The PEC was established on December 20, 1973, and 
reconstituted May 4, 1979, to advise the President on matters relating 
to U.S. trade. It was most recently renewed by Executive Order 13316.

DATES: June 7, 2007.
    Time: 3 p.m. (EDT).
    Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 628, First and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20510. Because of building security, all 
non-government attendees must pre-register. Please RSVP to the PEC 
Executive Secretariat no later than June 1, 2007, to J. Marc Chittum, 
President's Export Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, telephone (202) 482-1124, or e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c614d5e4f026f4445585859416c414d45400248434f024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4904283b2a670a21203d3d3c240924282025672d262a672e263f">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This program will be physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Seating is limited and will be on a first come, first 
served basis. Requests for sign language interpretation, other 
auxiliary aids, or pre-registration, should be submitted no later than 
June 1, 2007, to J. Marc Chittum, President's Export Council, Room 
4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone 
(202) 482-1124, or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0845697a6b264b60617c7c7d654865696164266c676b266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2efc3d0c18ce1cacbd6d6d7cfe2cfc3cbce8cc6cdc18cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The President's Export Council 
Executive Secretariat, Room 4043, Washington, DC 20230 (Phone: 202-482-
1124), or visit the PEC Web site, http://www.trade.gov/pec.

    Dated: May 14, 2007.
J. Marc Chittum,
Executive Secretary, President's Export Council.
[FR Doc. E7-9578 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The State of Kansas, *ex rel. Fred S. Jackson, as Attorney-general,*v. The City of Hutchinson.

No. 16,188.

Original proceeding in *quo warranto.*

Opinion filed April 10, 1909.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

*Fred S. Jackson,*attorney-general, and *Carr W. Taylor,*assistant attorney-general for Reno county, for The State.

*A. C. Malloy, F. F. Prigg,*and *C. M. Williams,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam:*

The commissioner’s findings of fact and con«elusions of law are approved, and judgment of ouster is rendered accordingly. The costs incident to the proceedings of the commissioner are divided between the defendant and J. P. Harsha, defendant in the case of *The State v. Harsha, ante,*p. 93. Other costs follow the judgment.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-65749) pertaining to the Plourde Computer Services, Inc. 1991
Stock Option Plan; Form S-8 (No. 333-65259) pertaining to the IVI Checkmate
Corp. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the IVI Checkmate Corp. Amended and
Restated 1998 Directors Stock Option Plan; the Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to
the Form S-4 Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-53629) pertaining to
the Checkmate Electronics, Inc. 1988 Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan,
Checkmate Electronics, Inc. 1993 Stock Option Plan, Checkmate Electronics, Inc.
1994 Director's Stock Option Plan, International Verifact Inc. 1997 Stock Option
Plan and Checkmate Electronics, Inc. Non-Incentive Stock Option Agreement; and
the Post-Effective Amendment No. 5 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (No. 333-53629), pertaining to the registration of shares of common
stock for issuance upon the exchange of exchangeable shares, of our report dated
February 12, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of IVI
Checkmate Corp. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1999.


                                         /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 24, 1999
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. sec. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of IWT Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Forrest P. Jordan, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Dated: May  14, 2004 | /s/Forrest  P. Jordan    |   |
|----------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                 | Forrest P.  Jordan       |
|                 | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 23

<PAGE>




                              Accountants' Consent


Board of Directors
First Kansas Financial Corporation:

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  registration  statement on
Form S-8 of First Kansas  Financial  Corporation  and  subsidiary  of our report
dated March 3, 2000 relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of First Kansas
Financial  Corporation  and  subsidiary as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and the
related   consolidated   statements  of  earnings,   stockholders'   equity  and
comprehensive  income,  and cash flows for the years then  ended,  which  report
appears in the  December  31, 1999 annual  report on Form 10-KSB of First Kansas
Financial Corporation and subsidiary.



                                   /s/ KPMG LLP
                                   --------------------------

March 24, 2000
Kansas City, Missouri
EXHIBIT 3.7

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                                     BY-LAWS
                                       OF
                          INTERPLAY ENTERTAINMENT CORP.

         The undersigned,  Herve Caen, the Chief Executive  Officer of Interplay
Entertainment Corp. (the "Corporation"), a corporation organized and existing by
virtue of the General Corporation Law (the "GCL") of the State of Delaware, does
hereby certify pursuant to Article 8 of the  Corporation's  Amended and Restated
Articles  of  Incorporation,  as amended,  and  Section 13 of the  Corporation's
Amended and Restated By-laws (the "By-laws") as to the following:

         1.       The name of the Corporation is Interplay  Entertainment  Corp.
The original  Certificate of Incorporation was filed with the Secretary of State
of the State of Delaware on February 27, 1998.

         2.       Section 3.9 of the By-laws is hereby  amended and  restated to
read in its entirety as follows:

         "3.9. NOTICE. It shall be reasonable and sufficient notice to
         a director to send notice by mail,  including  by  electronic
         mail at a director's last known  electronic  address provided
         by the  director  to the  corporation,  at least  forty-eight
         hours or by facsimile at least  twenty-four  hours before the
         meeting  addressed to him at his usual or last known business
         or  residence  facsimile  number or to give  notice to him in
         person or by telephone at least  twenty-four hours before the
         meeting.  Notice  of a  meeting  need  not  be  given  to any
         director  if a written  waiver  of  notice,  executed  by him
         before or after the meeting, is filed with the records of the
         meeting,  or to any director who attends the meeting  without
         protesting  prior thereto or at its  commencement the lack of
         notice to him.  Neither notice of a meeting nor a wavier of a
         notice need specify the purposes of the meeting."

         3.       The foregoing  amendment of the By-laws of the Corporation has
been duly adopted by the Corporation's Board of Directors in accordance with the
provisions of Section 109 and 141 of the GCL.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  Certificate of
Amendment to the By-laws as of the 9th day of March 2004.



                                               /S/  HERVE CAEN
                                            ------------------------
                                            Herve Caen
                                            Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Cummings, Appellant.

[700 NYS2d 878]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Bristol, J.— Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ. (Filed Dec. 14, 1999.)
# C_2015302EN.01004301.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — AGC Glass Europe and Others v Commission

(Case T-465/12) (1)

1

((Competition - Administrative procedure - European automotive glass market - Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of information the Commission intends to publish - Obligation to state reasons - Confidentiality - Obligation of professional secrecy - Leniency programme - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))

(2015/C 302/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: AGC Glass Europe (Brussels, Belgium); AGC Automotive Europe SA, (Fleurus, Belgium); AGC France SAS (Boussois, France); AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl (Cuneo, Italy); AGC Glass UK Ltd (Northampton, United Kingdom); AGC Glass Germany GmbH (Wegberg, Germany) (represented by: L. Garzaniti, J. Blockx, P. Niggemann, A. Burckett St Laurent, lawyers, and S. Ryan, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, G. Meessen and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 5719 final of 6 August 2012 on the rejection of a request for confidential treatment submitted by AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA, AGC France SAS, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd and AGC Glass Germany GmbH, under Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA, AGC France SAS, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd and AGC Glass Germany GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA, AGC France SAS, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd and AGC Glass Germany GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

1

---
No. 46437.

#### Protest 64594-K of M. S. & G. A. Workman, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the dogskins in question are undressed, the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Brachman*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 153, C. D. 389), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
# C_2012273EN.01000602.xml

| 8.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/6

---

Action brought on 26 June 2012 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-305/12)

2012/C 273/10

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by P. Hetsch, D. Düsterhaus and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

Forms of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions necessary to bring its domestic law into conformity with Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions necessary to bring its domestic law into conformity with Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, (1) or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of that directive;

1

| — | impose upon the Slovak Republic, under Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to notify such measures of EUR 17 136 per day as from the delivery date of the judgment in this case; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose upon the Slovak Republic, under Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to notify such measures of EUR 17 136 per day as from the delivery date of the judgment in this case;

| — | order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The prescribed period for transposition of the directive expired on 12 December 2010.

---

(1)  OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3.

1

---