alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015279EN.01006002.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/60

---

Action brought on 2 June 2015 — ZZ v Council

(Case F-84/15)

(2015/C 279/77)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next higher grade (AD 12) in the Council of the European Union’s 2014 promotion procedure.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2014 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2014 promotion procedure;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---
July 11, 1949

No. 7716.

#### W. *T. Grant Co.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.
# C_2014329EN.01001202.xml

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/12

---

Order of the General Court of 4 July 2014 — Uspaskich v Parliament

(Case T-84/12) (1)

1

((Action for annulment and compensation - Privileges and immunities - Member of the European Parliament - Decision to waive immunity - Re-examination - Decision not to defend immunity - Inadmissibility - Manifest inadmissibility))

2014/C 329/15

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Uspaskich (Kėdainiai, Lithuania) (represented by: A. Raišutis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, M. Windisch and L. Mašalaitė-Chouteau, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and V. Balčiūnaitė, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Firstly, an application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 1 December 2011 not to defend the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to reject his application for re-examination of the decision to waive immunity and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Viktor Uspaskich shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Viktor Uspaskich shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

| 3. | The Republic of Lithuania shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Republic of Lithuania shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.

1

---
# C_2015007EN.01000302.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Cartiera dell’Adda SpA v CEM Ambiente SpA

(Case C-42/13) (1)

1

((Public procurement - Principles of equal treatment and transparency - Directive 2004/18/EC - Grounds for excluding a tenderer from participating - Article 45 - The personal situation of the candidate or tenderer - Compulsory statement concerning the person designated as ‘technical director’ - Statement not included with the tender - Exclusion from the contract without any possibility of remedying that omission))

(2015/C 007/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cartiera dell’Adda SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: CEM Ambiente SpA

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1177/2009 of 30 November 2009, read in conjunction with Article 2 of the directive, and the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency must be interpreted as not precluding the exclusion of an economic operator from a procurement procedure on the ground that the operator has failed to comply with the requirement laid down in the contract documentation to annex to his bid, on pain of exclusion, a statement to the effect that the person designated in the bid as the operator’s technical director has not been the subject of criminal proceedings or a conviction, even where, at a date after the expiry of the deadline for submitting bids, such a statement has been provided to the contracting authority or it is shown that the person in question was identified as the technical director in error.

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.

1

---
# C_2015213EN.01000701.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administrative, Strasbourg — France) — Geoffrey Léger v Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes, Établissement français du sang

(Case C-528/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public health - Directive 2004/33/EC - Technical requirements relating to blood and blood components - Blood donation - Eligibility criteria for blood donors - Criteria for permanent or temporary deferral - Persons whose sexual behaviour puts them at a high risk of acquiring severe infectious diseases that can be transmitted by blood - Man who has had sexual relations with another man - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 21(1) and 52(1) - Sexual orientation - Discrimination - Justification - Proportionality))

(2015/C 213/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal administrative, Strasbourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Geoffrey Léger

Applicant:

Defendants: Ministre des Affaires sociales, de la Santé et des Droits des femmes, Établissement français du sang

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2.1 of Annex III to Commission Directive 2004/33/EC of 22 March 2004 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components must be interpreted as meaning that the criterion for permanent deferral from blood donation in that provision relating to sexual behaviour covers the situation in which a Member State, having regard to the prevailing situation there, provides for a permanent contraindication to blood donation for men who have had sexual relations with other men where it is established, on the basis of current medical, scientific and epidemiological knowledge and data, that such sexual behaviour puts those persons at a high risk of acquiring severe infectious diseases and that, with due regard to the principle of proportionality, there are no effective techniques for detecting those infectious diseases or, in the absence of such techniques, any less onerous methods than such a counter indication for ensuring a high level of health protection of the recipients. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the Member State concerned, those conditions are met.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

1

---
No. 54360.

#### Chekiang Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 156192-K (B), etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Ricardo OLIVERA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-2801.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 16, 1998.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 4, 1998.

*342Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Sheryl J. Lowenthal, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Lara J. Edelstein, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before COPE, GERSTEN and SHEVIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant Ricardo Olivera appeals his conviction for second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. We affirm.

First, we conclude that the admission of the disputed autopsy photograph into evidence was within the discretion of the trial judge and that the photograph was not unfairly prejudicial. *See Kirby v. State,*625 So.2d 51, 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The photograph at issue was not of the same graphic nature as those erroneously admitted in *Hoffert v. State,*559 So.2d 1246, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We also conclude that the evidence on the charge of second-degree murder was sufficient to be presented to the jury-

Defendant’s final claim is that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on attempted second-degree murder because the standard jury instructions do not require the state to prove that the defendant intended to kill. We reject that claim on the authority of *Gentry v. State,*437 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1983); *Pitts v. State,*710 So.2d 62, 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); and *Galdamez v. State,*713 So.2d 1128, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1749 (Fla. 3d DCA July 29, 1998).

Affirmed.
# C_2017195EN.01001901.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2017 — Germanwings v Commission

(Case T-375/15) (1)

1

((State aid - Aid for an airline using Zweibrücken airport - Benefit - Whether imputable to the State - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Access to documents - Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid - Refusal to grant access to the documents requested - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits))

(2017/C 195/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Germanwings GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, T. Maxian Rusche, R. Sauer and K. Herrman, then by A. Buchet, T. Rusche, K. Herrman and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, first, partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/152 of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA 27339 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Germany for Zweibrücken airport and airlines using the airport (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 68), and, second, annulment of Commission Decision GESTDEM 2015/1288 of 11 May 2015 refusing partial access to the administrative file in respect of State Aid procedure SA.27339.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(2), in so far as it concerns the first agreement concluded between Flughafen Zweibrücken GmbH and Germanwings GmbH, and Article 3(4)(e) of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/152 of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA 27339 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Germany for Zweibrücken airport and airlines using the airport (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 68); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(2), in so far as it concerns the first agreement concluded between Flughafen Zweibrücken GmbH and Germanwings GmbH, and Article 3(4)(e) of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/152 of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA 27339 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Germany for Zweibrücken airport and airlines using the airport (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 68);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by Germanwings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by Germanwings;

| 4. | Orders Germanwings to bear one quarter of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Germanwings to bear one quarter of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
Case *No.*10,031.

#### The NATHANIEL HOOPER.

[See Case No. 10,032.]
**Exhibit 23.1**

**INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of International Smart Sourcing, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-48701) of our report dated March 8, 2006, except with respect to Note 21 (b) which is dated March 24, 2006, with respect to our audits of the consolidated financial statements of International Smart Sourcing Inc. as of December 30, 2005 and for the fiscal years ended December 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of International Smart Sourcing Inc. for the year ended December 30, 2005. 

|           | /s/ Marcum & Kliegman LLP |
|----------------|-------------------------------|
|           |                               |
|           | Marcum & Kliegman LLP     |
|           | New York, NY                  |
|           |                          |
| March 28, 2006 |                          |
# C_2014292EN.01000801.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne — France) — Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques v Raquel Gianni da Silva

(Case C-189/13) (1)

1

((Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - National legislation making provision for a sentence of imprisonment in the event of unlawful entry in flagrante delicto - Response from the Court no longer necessary to resolve the dispute - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 292/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques

Applicant:

Defendant: Raquel Gianni da Silva

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

There is no need to reply to the request for a preliminary ruling made by the juge des libertés et de la détention (liberty and custody judge) of the Tribunal de grande instance de Bayonne (France), by decision of 9 April 2013 (Case C-189/13).

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 8.6.2013

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board 

          - [STB Finance Docket No. 35020] 

Northern and Bergen Railroad, L.L.C. (NBR), a noncarrier, has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire (by purchase) 1.1 miles of rail line from the New York & Greenwood Lake Railway. The line to be acquired extends from milepost 0.0, at or near the connection with the track of Norfolk Southern Railway Company in the Borough of Garfield, Bergen County, NJ, to milepost 1.1, at or near the intersection of South and Fourth Streets in the City of Passaic, Passaic County, NJ. 

NBR certifies that the projected annual freight revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed the amounts that would qualify it as a Class III railroad. 

The earliest this transaction may be consummated is May 26, 2007, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the exemption was filed). NBR indicates that it intends to consummate the transaction on or before May 31, 2007, but not before May 26, 2007. 

                    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void                     *ab initio*. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than May 18, 2007 (at least 7 days before the exemption becomes effective).                 

An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 35020, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Jeffrey O. Moreno, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP, 1920 N Street, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036-1600. 

                    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at                     *http://www.stb.dot.gov*.                 

Decided: May 4, 2007.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E7-9114 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
market failure 

John 0. Ledyard 

From The New Pal grave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition, 2008 

Edited by Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume 

Alternate versions available: 1987 Edition 

Back to top 

Abstract 

Market failure occurs when there are too few markets, non-competitive behaviour, or nonexistence, leading to inefficient allocations. Many suggested solutions for market failure, such as 

tax-subsidy schemes, property rights assignments, and special pricing arrangements, are simply 

devices for the creation of more markets. This remedy can be beneficial but, if the addition of 

markets creates either non-convexities or thin participation, then adding markets will simply lead 

to market failure from monopolistic behaviour. Examples are natural monopolies and 

informational monopolies. To achieve a more efficient allocation of resources in the presence of 

such fundamental failures one must explore non-market alternatives. 

Back to top 

Keywords 

asymmetric information; contingent claims markets; free rider problem; fundamental theorem of 

welfare economics; increasing returns to scale; Lindahl prices; market failure; mechanism 

design; monopoly; monopsony; natural monopoly; non-competitive behaviour; non-convexity; 

non-existence of equilibrium; Pareto efficiency; property rights reassignments; rational 

expectations 

Back to top 

Article 

Click here to see the fu ll text article
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 9, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20029 Summary Calendar

DESA MAE WELLS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. BRETON MILL APARTMENTS EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas, Houston

4:03-CV-359

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appellant Desa Mae Wells (Wells) appeals from the dismissal of
her cla ims based on Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. We affirm. Wells was evicted from her dwelling for failure to pay rent.
She does not complain of the eviction process. Rather, Wells2

claims that her eviction and/or the subsequent decision not to

renew her lea se was based on discrimination or retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 3601-
3 631, and the Fifth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution. The defendants/appellees responded with a motion to dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(6) and also asserted a nondiscriminatory basis for Well’s eviction; to wit, the
nonpayment of rent. Wells neither responded to the motion to dismiss or the nondiscriminatory basis asserted by defendants for
her eviction. The district court deemed the motion to dismiss with respect

to the section 1981 claim unopposed and dismissed the claim and
after a careful review of the pleadings, set forth in d etail its rationale in dismissing Well’s claims. We affirm essentially for
the reasons stated by the district court in its order signed
December 1, 2003. Even if we consider Well’s purported amended complaint, the complaint remains conclusory and fails to remedy the deficiencies in the pleadings that properly lead to the dismissal
of Well’s claim. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED
Neither party has challenged the validity of this agreement.

1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

August 6, 2004 Session

MIRA ANN (WALLER) MOSLEY v. CHARLES RAYMOND MOSLEY

Chancery Court for Rutherford County

No. 01-2731-DR Royce Taylor, Judge

No. M2003-01686-COA-R3-CV 

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., P.J., M.S., concurring

I concur with the court’s opinion. However, I write separately to emphasize my

understanding of the legal import of the parties’ April 25, 1995 “Marital Dissolution Agreement.”1

The property that each of the parties received as a result of that agreement became their separate

property. Thus, by the time of the 2003 divorce proceeding, none of the property divided in

accordance with the 1995 agreement should have been included in the parties’ marital estate unless

the parties had treated it as marital property between 1995 and 2003. This record contains no

evidence that either Mr. Mosley or Ms. Mosley treated any of the property Mr. Mosley received

under the 1995 agreement as marital property. Accordingly, in 2003, the property Mr. Mosley

received under the 1995 agreement was his separate property. 

____________________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., P.J., M.S.