alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012109EN.01002301.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/23

---

Action brought on 9 February 2012 — Good Luck Shipping v Council

(Case T-57/12)

2012/C 109/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Good Luck Shipping LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: F. Randolph and M. Lester, Barristers, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicant;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, alleging that by including his name in the lists enclosed to the contested Decision and Regulation, the Council has:

| — | failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons;

| — | failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicant and/or included the applicant without an adequate legal basis for doing so; |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicant and/or included the applicant without an adequate legal basis for doing so;

| — | failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review; and |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review; and

| — | infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including his right to protection of his property, business, and reputation. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including his right to protection of his property, business, and reputation.

---
# C_2013026EN.01006502.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/65

---

Action brought on 22 November 2012 — NCL v OHIM (NORWEGIAN GETAWAY)

(Case T-513/12)

2013/C 26/129

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: NCL Corporation Ltd (Miami, United States of America) (represented by N. Grüger, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in case R 1014/2012-4 of 12 September 2012 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in case R 1014/2012-4 of 12 September 2012 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision in respect of services in Class 39: ‘Arranging of cruises, Cruise ship services, Cruise arrangement’ and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision in respect of services in Class 39: ‘Arranging of cruises, Cruise ship services, Cruise arrangement’ and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

Arranging of cruises, Cruise ship services, Cruise arrangement

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘NORWEGIAN GETAWAY’ for services in Class 39 — Community trade mark application No 10 281 939

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
No. 39147.

#### Protests 256416-G, etc., of D. S. Hesse & Bro. et al. (New York).

*365Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was found that certain items consists of cellulose filaments in the form of single or double yarns, similar to those involved in *Weinman*v. *United States*(T. D. 49408). The claim at 40 cents per pound under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
# C_2012273EN.01001901.xml

| 8.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/19 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 11 July 2012 — Mayaleh v Council

(Case T-307/12)

2012/C 273/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Adib Mayaleh (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul:
—
Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh; —
Implementing Regulation No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh; | — | Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh; | — | Implementing Regulation No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh; |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh; | | | | |
| — | Implementing Regulation No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh; | | | | |

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council.( 1 )

---

( 1 )  OJ 2011 C 282, p. 30.

---
# C_2013141EN.01001801.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/18

---

Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Kappa Filter Systems v OHIM

(Case T-422/12) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Period allowed for bringing proceedings - Out of time - No unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility)

2013/C 141/31

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kappa Filter Systems GmbH (Steyr-Gleink, Austria) (represented by: C. Hadeyer, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2012 (Case R 817/2012-4), relating to registration of the word mark THE FUTURE HAS ZERO EMISSIONS.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

1

---
# C_2014439EN.01000901.xml

| 8.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 439/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 439/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS) v Yesmoke Tobacco SpA

(Case C-428/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Directives 95/59/EC and 2011/64/EU - Structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco - Establishment of an excise duty - Principle establishing one rate of excise duty for all cigarettes - Possibility for the Member States of establishing a minimum amount of excise duty - Cigarettes in the lowest price category - National legislation - Specific category of cigarettes - Excise duty set at 115 %))

(2014/C 439/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS)

Appellants:

Respondent: Yesmoke Tobacco SpA

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 7(2) and 8(6) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, rather than establishing an identical minimum excise duty that is applicable to all cigarettes, establishes a minimum excise duty that is applicable only to cigarettes with a retail selling price lower than that of cigarettes in the most popular price category.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

1

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Distribution DAT assesses Hurricane Florence damage as clean-up is underway at Distribution Cherry Point, North Carolina

By Diana DawaDLA Distribution Public Affairs

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa.  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLADLA DistributionDistribution Cherry PointHurricane Florence
#### James Carter *et al.*v. The Prairie Oil and Gas Company.

No. 16,165.

Contracts — *Agency*— *Independent Contractor.*It appearing-that the plaintiffs were employed by one who was an independent contractor, and not an agent for the defendant, a. demurrer to the plaintiffs’ evidence was properly sustained in' an action to recover for services rendered.

Error from Montgomery district court; Thomas J. Flannelly, judge.

Opinion filed October 9, 1909.

Affirmed. •

*A. L. Billings,*for the plaintiffs in error.

*W. S. Fitzpatrick, J. B. F. Cates,*and *N. E. Van. Tuyl,*for the defendant in error.

*793
      *Per Curiam:*

The controversy here is whether the. Prairie Oil and Gas Company is liable to James Carter and Homer Green for making certain grades and firewalls on the Copan tank-farm in Indian Territory, and. this depends upon whether J. M. Vansky, who employed them, was acting for the company or for him-. self as an independent contractor. They alleged that, the agreement was that they should receive a certain price per cubic yard for grading and excavating dirt; and rock, with a proviso that if these rates did not. yield reasonable wages a price per yard should be paid which would net them reasonable compensation for the work. The capacity in which Vansky entered into the contract with plaintiffs was put in issue, and in attempting to maintain their contention that they were: working for the company and not for Vansky the plaintiffs produced, in addition to their own testimony, that, of the superintendent and the engineer of the company, as well as the testimony of Vansky, with whom the negotiations were had. At the conclusion of their testimony the court sustained a demurrer to the evidence,, and the only question now is, Was there anything substantial to submit to the jury? Of course, if there was. any evidence which might entitle the plaintiffs to recover the demurrer should have been overruled. It. appears, however, that none of the testimony submitted would have warranted a finding of the jury against the defendant. Vansky, the plaintiffs’ witness,, testified that he was an independent contractor and' had sublet the work to the plaintiffs, and, further, that he did not employ them for the company. The superintendent and the engineer of the company, both called as witnesses for the plaintiffs, testified that Vansky did the work under a contract with the company and' did not act as the agent of the company in the negotiations with the plaintiffs. The contract between the company and Vansky under which the work was dones *794was put in evidence, and the plaintiffs testified that they knew of its existence and the price that Vansky was receiving from the company for the work they were doing. It is true that there was testimony that Vansky had exhibited what was designated as a salary check, and there were some fragmentary statements which the plaintiffs claim indicated agency, but there is nothing substantial in them nor any testimony substantially inconsistent with that mentioned showing that the plaintiffs were subcontractors under Vansky.

The judgment is affirmed.
# C_2014395EN.01003802.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2014 –Spirlea v Commission

(Case T-306/12) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Requests for information addressed by the Commission to Germany in the context of an EU Pilot procedure - Refusal of access - Obligation to carry out a concrete and individual examination - Overriding public interest - Partial access - Duty to state reasons))

(2014/C 395/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea (Capezzano Pianore, Italy) (represented by: initially, V. Foerster and T. Pahl, and, subsequently, V. Foerster and E. George, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agent, assisted initially by A. Krämer and R. Van der Hout, and subsequently by R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the applicants: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: initially, V. Pasternak Jørgensen and C. Thorning, and, subsequently, C. Thorning and K. Jørgensen, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent); and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: initially, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, C. Stege, S. Johannesson, U. Persson, K. Ahlstrand-Oxhamre and H. Karlsson, and, subsequently, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, U. Persson, L. Swedenborg, C. Hagerman and E. Karlsson, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents); and Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially, S. Centeno Huerta, and, subsequently, J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogados del Estado)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 21 June 2012 refusing to allow the applicants access to two requests for information addressed by the Commission to the Federal Republic of Germany, dated 10 May and 10 October 2011, in the context of EU Pilot procedure No 2070/11/SNCO.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.

---
**Exhibit 31**

I, Don Gilbreath certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB (“Report”) of ComCam, Inc.; 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report; 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the period presented in this Report; 

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared; 

b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and 

c)     Disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.     I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: March 30, 2007 

/s/ Don Gilbreath

Don Gilbreath, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 

**35**

----