alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014421EN.01000801.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Martin Grund v Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

(Case C-47/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Common rules for direct support schemes - Single payment scheme - Definition of ‘permanent pasture’ - Land used to grow grass and other herbaceous forage not part of the system of crop rotation of the holding for a minimum of five years - Land ploughed up and sown with a type of herbaceous forage other than that previously grown on it during that period))

2014/C 421/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin Grund

Applicant:

Defendant: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The definition of ‘permanent pasture’ set out in Article 2(2)(c) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers must be interpreted as covering agricultural land which is currently, and has been for five years or more, used to grow grass and other herbaceous forage, even though that land has been ploughed up and seeded with another variety of herbaceous forage other than that which was previously grown on it during that period.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.

1

---
# C_2013046EN.01001802.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/18

---

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Vakili v Council

(Case T-255/12) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran in order to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 46/33

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bahman Vakili (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71); Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2001 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1),, insofar as those acts concern the applicant, and of the decision contained in the Council’s letter of 23 March 2012.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

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

| 2. | The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs incurred by Mr Bahman Vakili and bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs incurred by Mr Bahman Vakili and bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.

1

---
# C_2012399EN.01002302.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/23

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission

(Case T-219/12 R)

(Application for interim measures - Public service contracts - Call for tenders concerning the preparation of technical documentation for a railway modernisation project - Exclusion of the applicant from participating in that tendering procedure - Annulment of the tendering procedure after the action had been brought - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 399/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Saobraćajni institut CIP d.o.o. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: A. Lojpur, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and E. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application seeking, in essence, interim measures ordering suspension of the tendering procedure in the context of the contract notice published on 27 March 2012 concerning the preparation of technical documentation for a railway modernisation project and excluding the applicant from participating in the tendering procedure.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear the costs.

---
#### Emanuel Dworman, Plaintiff, *v.*Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

December 15, 1965.

*205
      *Nason & Cohen*for plaintiff. *John M. Keegan*for defendant.

Jacob Markowitz, J.

Plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Consolidated Edison Company of New York from failing to provide the regular gas and electric service to plaintiff’s residential premises so long as the obligations concerning and limited to his residential premises are met, is granted. The papers indicate that, at the present time, such obligations have been met by plaintiff.

The gravamen of the present application and of the ultimate relief sought can be traced to the transfer and addition by defendant utility company of the charges in plaintiff’s business account to plaintiff’s resident account. Three significant factors must be considered with regard to this transfer: the alleged balance in the business account exceeded $500; the amount was disputed by plaintiff who had closed the coffee shop involved in the latter part of 1963; the addition of the business account to plaintiff’s residential account subjected the plaintiff to discontinuance of gas and electric service to his residential premises if he did not pay the combined total amount allegedly due.

Nothing in either the private agreement between the defendant and its customer or in the statutory provisions regulating the rights and responsibilities of defendant utility company supports or warrants the exercise of power as manifested by the aforesaid actions on the part of defendant. Nor, in view of the coercive force wielded by this defendant, to wit, to discontinue gas and electric service to plaintiff and his family, does the “ contract ” signed by plaintiff overcome this evident abuse of power.

Monopolistic power run rampant is repugnant to the basic tenets of our society. A fortiori is this true of a utility company which by its very nature vitally affects the public interest and which occupies its monopolistic status by virtue of governmental franchise.

It is true that planitiff’s papers have not been drawn with the artistic refinement urged by defendant to be a prerequisite to judicial action at this stage of the lawsuit. Weighed against the evident abdication of the utility company’s responsibility to the public and to this plaintiff and the attendant injury to plain*206tiff and Ms family, such formalistic requirements fade into insignificance.

The defendant is directed to restore service forthwith in plaintiff’s resident premises.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                             NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED
                        MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                                JANUARY 24, 2002

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


Directors' Remuneration

     RESOLVED, That, commencing with effect on January 1, 2002, each Director of
the Corporation who is not a salaried employee of the Corporation, Nortel
Networks Corporation ("NNC") or any of its or their subsidiaries (each a "Nortel
Networks Company") and Mr. J.A. Roth (who, for greater certainty is a salaried
employee of the Corporation and would not otherwise receive compensation for
serving as a Director of the Corporation), shall receive an annual Board
retainer of US$50,000;

     RESOLVED, That, effective January 1, 2002, each member of a Board Committee
who is not a salaried employee of a Nortel Networks Company and Mr. J.A. Roth,
shall be paid remuneration for services, as a member of each Board Committee on
which the member sits a retainer fee at the rate of US$12,500 per annum; except
that a retainer fee at the rate of US$6,250 per annum shall be paid to any
member of a Board Committee who is also a member of an identical committee of
the NNC Board of Directors;

     RESOLVED, That, effective January 1, 2002, any Chairman of a Board
Committee who is not a salaried employee of a Nortel Networks Company and Mr.
J.A. Roth, shall be paid, in addition to the member's retainer, a retainer fee
at the rate of US$7,500 per annum, except that an additional retainer fee at the
rate of US$3,750 per annum shall be paid to any Chairman of a Board Committee
who is also chairman of an identical committee of the NNC Board of Directors;

     RESOLVED, That the Directors entitled to the remuneration provided for in
the preceding resolutions shall be reimbursed for the reasonable travel and
living expenses properly incurred by them in attending any meeting of the Board
of Directors or its Committees;

     RESOLVED, That the remuneration provided for in these resolutions shall be
paid quarterly, in arrears, in U.S. currency or, at the request of a Director,
in the Canadian dollar equivalent thereof;

     RESOLVED, That, for greater certainty, Directors shall not be paid an
additional fee for attendance at Board or Committee meetings;
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7617

MACK NEIL MYERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JON OZMINT, Director of SCDC; RICHARD BAZZEL, Warden; OLSON,

Food Service Director; RAVIST, Nurse,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (9:07-cv-01131-HMH)

Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mack Neil Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Russell W. Harter, Jr.,

CHAPMAN, HARTER & GROVES, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mack Neil Myers appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Myers that failure to file

timely, specific objections to this recommendation would waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Myers’ objections, though

timely filed, did not specifically identify Myers’ bases for

objecting to the dispositive portions of the magistrate judge’s

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. United States v.

Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Myers has waived appellate review by

failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Further, we deny Myers’ motion for appointment of counsel.
- 3 -

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             614
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,991
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,431
<INVENTORY>                                      6,303
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,614
<PP&E>                                          15,667
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,988)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,478
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,821
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,085
<SALES>                                        109,658
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               126,862
<CGS>                                           71,928
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,928
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                81,717
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                43,596
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,620
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,783)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,437)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,220)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,220)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.91)
        

</TABLE>
No. 46467.

#### Protest 927073-G of Carl Hirschmann (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authoiity of Abstract 43642 the protest was sustained.
# C_2013147EN.01001803.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/18

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council

(Case T-110/12 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for interim measures - No urgency - Weighing up of the interests involved)

2013/C 147/33

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: P. Plaza García and V. Piessevaux, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of (i) Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71) in so far as the applicant’s name was listed in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and (ii) in so far as they concern the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
# C_2012184EN.01001401.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/14

---

Action brought on 5 April 2012 — Microsoft v OHIM — Sky IP (SKYDRIVE)

(Case T-153/12)

2012/C 184/26

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, US) (represented by: A. Carboni and J. Colbourn, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 January 2012 in case R 2293/2010-1, and remit the application to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 January 2012 in case R 2293/2010-1, and remit the application to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and

| — | Order OHIM and any intervening party in this Appeal to bear their own costs and pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings and those of the appeal before the First Board of Appeal in case R 2293/2010-1 and of Opposition B 1 371 501 before the Opposition Division. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM and any intervening party in this Appeal to bear their own costs and pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings and those of the appeal before the First Board of Appeal in case R 2293/2010-1 and of Opposition B 1 371 501 before the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SKYDRIVE’, for goods and services in classes 9 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 6452411

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3203411 of the word mark ‘SKY’, for amongst others goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal’s assessment of the likelihood of confusion was flawed. Further or in the alternative, the Board failed to carry out a proper global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

Pleas in law:

---
| 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 results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      August 16, 2010                                   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                          |   |
| /s/ Rik J. Deitsch                                            |   |
| Rik      J. Deitsch                                           |   |
| Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
# C_2015065EN.01003001.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 January 2015 — Ziegler v Commission

(Joined Cases T-539/12 and T-150/13) (1)

1

((Non-contractual liability - Competition - International removal services market in Belgium - Removals of officials and other staff of the EU - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Cover quotes - Scope of liability of an institution - Principle of res judicata - Due diligence - Causal link))

(2015/C 065/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Ziegler SA (Brussels, Belgium); and Ziegler Relocation SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, M. Favart and A. Bailleux, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and A. Bouquet, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by the adoption of Commission Decision C (2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), and for damage allegedly caused by the continuation of the practice of ‘cover quotes’ after the adoption of Decision C (2008) 926, between 11 March 2008 and 1 January 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Ziegler SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Case T-539/12; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ziegler SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Case T-539/12;

| 3. | Orders Ziegler Relocation SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Case T-150/13. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ziegler Relocation SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Case T-150/13.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

1

---
MERRY HEATHER HARTUNG,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-6167

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 14, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Scott Duncan, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.