alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012109EN.01001502.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/15

---

Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Stichting Het Groninger Landschap and Others v Commission

(Case T-16/12)

2012/C 109/35

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Stichting Het Groninger Landschap (Haren, Netherlands), Vereniging It Fryske Gea (Olterterp, Netherlands); Stichting Het Drentse Landschap (Assen, Netherlands); Stichting Landschap Overijssel (Dalfsen, Netherlands); Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap (Arnhem, Netherlands); Stichting Flevo-Landschap (Lelystad, Netherlands); Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap (De Bilt, Netherlands); Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland (Heiloo, Netherlands); Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap (Rotterdam, Netherlands); Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap (Wilhelminadorp, Netherlands); Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap (Haaren, Netherlands); Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap (Lomm, Netherlands); and Vereniging tot behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (’s-Graveland, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. van Nuland, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011 in Case N308/2010, or, alternatively, annul that decision in so far as the applicants are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011 in Case N308/2010, or, alternatively, annul that decision in so far as the applicants are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law, which are similar to those put forward in Case T-15/12 Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission.

---
#### Peggy Taylor, Plaintiff, and Lemoyne K. Young, Respondent, v American Bankers Insurance Group, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[700 NYS2d 458]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered April 14, 1999, which, in an action to recover for breach of contract and violation of General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, granted the motion for class certification by the remaining plaintiff, and order, same court and Justice, entered April 28, 1999, directing class notification, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in concluding that this matter should be prosecuted as a class action *(see, Ackerman v Price Waterhouse,*252 AD2d 179, 191; *Lauer v New York Tel. Co.,*231 AD2d 126, 130), since the predominant focus of this litigation is defendants’ general practice of offering, in prominent print, ostensibly easily available credit insurance coverage, while, at the same time, relegating to small, inconspicuous print the precise terms of the coverage being extended, and then rejecting insurance claims on the ground that the customer had not been paying for the appropriate type of insurance. This general practice, and the question of whether it constitutes a consumer fraud, affects hundreds, if not thousands, of consumers who, responding to offers of the above-described type, enrolled for the credit insurance defendants purported to offer. Although defendants contend that they used a variety of forms and promotions, there was ample justification for the motion court’s finding that the solicitations in question did not differ materially. Accordingly, given the nature and uniformity of defendants’ offers of coverage, any matters relating to individual reliance and causation are relatively insignificant, if not irrelevant, and, as such, do not preclude class certification *(see, Pruitt v Rockefeller Ctr. Props.,*167 AD2d 14, 22). Courts, moreover, routinely certify multi-State or nationwide classes in instances where common questions of law or fact predominate over those affecting only individuals, and in such cases the substantive law of the forum State is applicable, except when inconsistent with otherwise applicable State law *(see, Phillips Petroleum Co. v Shutts,*472 US 797, 816; *Wells v Shearson Lehman/American Express,*72 NY2d 11, 18). While defendants assert, in a conclusory manner, that the law of all 50 States is relevant to the adjudication of this matter, defendants are all residents of Florida, and there is no appar*179ent conflict between the law of New York and that of Florida insofar as consumer issues are concerned.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Tom, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.
# C_2014421EN.01003202.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Novartis v OHIM — Tenimenti Angelini (LINEX)

(Case T-444/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark LINEX - Earlier national word mark LINES PERLA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 76(1), in fine, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 421/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tenimenti Angelini SpA (Montalcino, Italy) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2012 (Case R 414/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tenimenti Angelini SpA and Novartis AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 August 2012 (Case R 414/2011-4); |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 August 2012 (Case R 414/2011-4);

| 2) | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant;

| 3) | Orders the intervener to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.

1

---
# C_2015138EN.01001001.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — C.G. Sopora v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-512/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Equal treatment of non-resident workers - Tax advantage consisting in the exemption of reimbursements paid by the employer - Advantage granted on a flat-rate basis - Workers from a Member State other than that of the place of work - Requirement of residence at a certain distance from the border of the Member State of the place of work))

(2015/C 138/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C.G. Sopora

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which a Member State provides that workers who resided in another Member State prior to taking up employment in its territory are to be granted a tax advantage consisting in the flat-rate exemption of reimbursement of extraterritorial expenses in an amount up to 30 % of the taxable base, on condition that those workers resided at a distance of more than 150 kilometres from its border, unless — and this is a matter for the referring court to ascertain — those limits were set in such a way that that exemption systematically gives rise to a net overcompensation in respect of the extraterritorial expenses actually incurred.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

1

---
# Alle n County Counci l City-Count

y Buildin g On e Eas t Mai n Street , Room10

2 For t Wayne , Indian a4680 2 Phone : (260 ) 449-723 3 Fax : (260 ) 422-767 9 October n , 201 0 Th e Honorabl e Ra

y I^Hoo d Secretar y U.S
. DqDartmen

t of Transportatio n 40 0 7'^ ' St. , S W Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 Dea r Secretar y LaHood : I a mwritin g t o offe

r m y stron g support

t o th e For t Wayne-Alle n Count

y Airpor t Authority' s applicatio n fo r th e Smal l Communit

y Ai r Servic e Development

Program(Docket

OST-2010-0124)
. Th e Authorit y i s takin g anove l an d uniqu e approac h towar d encouragin g competitiv e activit y and cos t reductio n amon g passenger ai r servic e provider s a

t th e Fort Wayn e International Airpor t (FWA)
. Economi c development

i s essentia

l t o Northeastern Indiana , an d communit y leader s i n th e regio n hav e been workin g aggressivel y t o creat e abusines s climat e tha t support s growth , and avibrant airpor t i s akey component

t o th e overal l succes s o f

ou r cfFfMts
. Th e geograph y o f th e For t Wayn e market

present s a difficult challeng e fo

r passCTige r servic e developmen t

a t FWA
. Traditionall y airport s hav e sought t o brin g i n low-cos t

carrier s or

sel l thei r passenger servic e provider s o n additional destinatioi^
. A s th e airlin e industr y continue s t o consolidate , th e opportunitie s t o "sell " th e airline s o n expandin g thei r ai r servic e t o smalle r

airport s ar e increasingl y difficult
. Th e Authority' s solutio n t o thi s proble mi s uniqu e an d i s acredi t t o thei r focu s o n developin g appropriat e niEirke t researc h an d identifyin g creativ e application s £O T th e ai r servic e develc^men t

challenge
. Throug h th e implementatio n of ashare d us e platform , multipl e airline s wil l b e abl e t o us e acommo n poin t t o issu e tickets , chang e reservations , an d otherwis e proces s their individual passCTgers
. B y removin g th e nee d fo

r individual point s o f

access , cost s wil l b e reduced , sinc e there wil l b e commo n data line s an d singula

r equipment , and th e airpor t wil l realiz e an increas e i

n flexibility sinc e al l airUne s wil l b e abl e t o utiliz e al l gales
. Additionally , lea d tim e fo r new service s wil l b e reduced , technologica l barrier s removed , an d physical expansio n need s revised , all of whic h wil l serv e t o make operation s a t FW A mor e cos t effectiv e and attractive
. Onc e again , 1 woul d like t o expres s m y stroi ^ suppor

t fo r thi s applicatio n an d urg e yo u t o giv e i t ever y possibl e consideration
. Thank you .

Pa^l aS
. H

< P/^ident , Alle n Count

y Counci l
# C_2014184EN.01000501.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/5

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — Marek Marszałkowski v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-177/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for Community figurative mark with the word elements ‘Walichnowy’ and ‘Marko’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word MAR-KO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion))

2014/C 184/06

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Marek Marszałkowski (represented by: C. Sadkowski, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent), Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4 February 2013 in Case T-159/11 Marszalkowski v OHIM — Mar-Ko Fleischwaren (WALICHNOWY MARKO), by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2011 (Case R 760/2010-4) which annulled the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘Mar-Ko’ in respect of goods in Class 29 of the Nice Agreement — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) and Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion

Marszalkowski

OHIM — Mar-Ko Fleischwaren (WALICHNOWY MARKO)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Marek Marszałkowski is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Marek Marszałkowski is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20. 7. 2013.

1

---
No. 39128.

#### Protests 939310-G, etc., of A. Hauptman et al. (New York and Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The protests were submitted on the record in *New York Merchandise*v. *United States*(T. D. 49171). As there was nothing to warrant •disturbing the collector’s action the protests were dismissed on the authority of Abstract 15400.
#### Inhabitants of Bucksport *versus*Inhabitants of Rockland.

The marriage of a minor daughter with her father’s consent constitutes one mode of emancipation.

From what circumstances such consent may he implied.

On Report.

Assumpsit for pauper supplies.

Cutting, J.

It is admitted that John Salter, the husband óf Martha E., the pauper, never had a legal settlement *23in this State, and that the father of the pauper, at the time of his daughter’s marriage, had his settlement in the defendant town, which was transferred to the plaintiff town before the supplies were furnished, —that the pauper was married at the age of sixteen, and the only question presented is whether she was emancipated so as not to follow the settlement of her father.

*T. O.*Woodman, for the plaintiffs.

*L. W. Howes,*for the defendants.

It is contended that a minor cannot be emancipated even by marriage without the consent of the fattier either express or implied, and the case of *White*v. *Henry & al.,*24 Maine, 531, is relied upon, where it was held that a minor son is not emancipated by a marriage without the consent and contrary to the directions of his father.

That case differs materially from the one now under consideration ; there .the marriage was consummated out of the State, here within the State, and within the vicinity of the parent, and it may fairly be presumed that the statute of the State was complied with, requiring the publication of the intentions of marriage a specified time before such intentions could be solemnized. During that period the parent could object if he had cause, and the proceeding be arrested. But here, for aught that appears, no objection was made, or ever has been made by the parent. Nor is that all. The pauper and her husband, for the year after the marriage, lived in the house of her father, as the evidence tends to show, where they were married. The father, too, speaks of the marriage without disapproval. Hence, an implied consent is clearly manifest, which, by all the authorities under the circumstances would constitute emancipation. Consequently, according to the agreement of the parties the defendants are to be defaulted, and damages assessed for the sum of $44,62, with interest from the date of the writ.

Appleton, C. J., Kent, Dickerson and Barrows, JJ., concurred.
# C_2014315EN.01003002.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/30

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 — Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV and Others v European Commission

(Case C-643/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Regulation (EC) No 1468/2006 - Levy in the milk and milk products sector - Manifest inadmissibility))

2014/C 315/48

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV, Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak, Mulders Agro vof, Melkveebedrijf Engelen vof, Melkveebedrijf De Peel, Mathijs H. H. M. Moonen (represented by: P. E. Mazel and A van Beelen, advocaten)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV, Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak, Mulders Agro vof, Melkveebedrijf Engelen vof, Melkveebedrijf De Peel and Mathijs Moonen shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Melkveebedrijf Overenk BV, Maatschap Veehouderij Kwakernaak, Mulders Agro vof, Melkveebedrijf Engelen vof, Melkveebedrijf De Peel and Mathijs Moonen shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1740-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1740-DR), dated January 30, 2008, and related determinations. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         April 25, 2008.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 30, 2008. 

Benton, Carroll, Cass, DeKalb, Elkhart, Jasper, Kosciusko, Marshall, Newton, Noble, Pulaski, Starke, and White Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs, 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

 [FR Doc. E8-10144 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         Each of the undersigned, being a Member of the Board of Managers of
Advanced Accessory Systems, LLC (the "Registrant"), hereby severally constitutes
and appoints Terence C. Seikel, the Registrant's Chief Executive Officer, with
full powers of substitution and resubstitution, his true and lawful attorney,
with full powers to sign for him, in his name, in the capacities indicated
below, (a) the annual report of the Registrant for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2001 on Form 10-K and (b) a registration statement on Form S-4, and
any and all amendments to such Form 10-K and Form S-4, and to file or cause to
be filed the same, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorney, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and
thing requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully to
all intents and purposes said attorney might or could do in person, and hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said attorney, or his substitute or
substitutes, shall do or cause to be done by virtue of this Power of Attorney.
This power of attorney may be executed in separate original or facsimile
counterparts.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this instrument this
4th day of March, 2002.


                                         /s/   F. Alan Smith
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      F. Alan Smith



                                         /s/   Barry Banducci
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Barry Banducci



                                         /s/  Richard E. Borghi
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Richard E. Borghi



                                         /s/  Gerard Jacobus Brink
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Gerard Jacobus Brink



                                         /s/ Gerrit de Graaf
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Gerrit de Graaf



                                         /s/  Donald J. Hofmann
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Donald J. Hofmann



                                         /s/  Bryan V. Fletcher
                                      ----------------------------------
                                      Bryan V. Fletcher