alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016038EN.01000301.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 December 2015 — European Parliament, European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Joined Cases C-124/13 and C-125/13) (1)

1

((Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 - Choice of legal basis - Article 43(2) and (3) TFEU - Policy decision - Long-term plan for cod stocks))

(2016/C 038/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen, L.G. Knudsen and R. Kaškina, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, K. Banks and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Sitbon, A. de Gregorio Merino and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas, R. Coesme and C. Candat, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Nowacki and A. Miłkowska, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 of 19 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 of 19 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks;

| 2. | Maintains the effects of Regulation No 1243/2012 until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, which may not exceed 12 months starting from 1 January of the year following the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a new regulation adopted on the appropriate legal basis, namely Article 43(2) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Maintains the effects of Regulation No 1243/2012 until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, which may not exceed 12 months starting from 1 January of the year following the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a new regulation adopted on the appropriate legal basis, namely Article 43(2) TFEU;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

| 4. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013.

1

---
# C_2014184EN.01002501.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Marchena — Spain) — Caixabank SA v Antonio Galán Rodríguez

(Case C-486/13) (1)

1

2014/C 184/41

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

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 Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. 2007N-0241]

# AGENCY:

 Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Institutional Review Boards” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen L. Nelson, Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4816.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of October 11, 2007 (72 FR 57948), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0130. The approval expires on December 31, 2010. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain*.                

Dated: January 14, 2008.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-1005 Filed 1-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
# C_2012331EN.01003102.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/31

---

Action brought on 10 September 2012 — Klingel v OHIM — Develey (JUNGBORN)

(Case T-401/12)

(2012/C 331/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Robert Klingel OHG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Zeiher, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG (Unterhaching, Germany)

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) of 9 July 2012 in Case R 936/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 July 2012 in Case R 936/2011-4;

| — | reject the opposition to the protection of international registration W 1 002 323 — JUNGBORN; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition to the protection of international registration W 1 002 323 — JUNGBORN;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for a further decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for a further decision;

| — | order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Robert Klingel OHG

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘JUNGBORN’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 32 and 33 — international registration designating the European Union No W 1 002 323

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘BORN’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was allowed in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 41(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

---
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Secured Data, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for
      the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof, I, Jingan Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.
      The
      Report 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 result of operations of the Company.




Date:
      May
      19, 2006




/S/
              Jingan
              WangJingan
                Wang
              Chief
                Executive Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Frank WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 98-KH-3000.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

In re Williams, Frank; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 162-312.

Relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on an application for post conviction relief he filed on or about July 9, 1998. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the application. If relator’s representation is incorrect, the district court is ordered to accept, file, and act upon the pleading which is herewith transferred to the district court. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment.

JOHNSON, J., not on panel.
Exhibit 10.6


                           GreenMan Technologies, Inc.
                        Addendum to Employment Agreement


WHEREAS, the Company and Charles E. Coppa entered an Employment Agreement
effective June 1, 1999;

WHEREAS, the Company desires to make certain changes to the Employment
Agreement;

WHEREAS, Charles E. Coppa will consider certain changes to the Employment
Agreement;

WHEREAS, Paragraph 11.2 of the Employment Agreement provides for amending said
Agreement if both parties concur and sign in writing;

NOWTHEREFORE, the following changes have been mutually agreed to:

1.    Paragraph 5.1   Base Salary

      The base salary is adjusted from one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($
      150,000) to one hundred sixty one thousand five hundred dollars ($
      161,500) effective January 1, 2008.

2.    Paragraph 5.3  Incentive Compensation

      a)    The performance incentive compensation for Fiscal Year will be based
            on mutually agreed upon performance measures as determined by the
            Compensation Committee with a maximum potential incentive
            compensation equal to 25% of base salary.

      There being no other changes, the balance of the Revised Employment
Agreement remains unchanged.

      BY SIGNATURE BELOW, the Parties hereby mutually agree to the amendment as
described herein,

      Company                                   Employee

      /s/ Lyle E. Jensen                        /s/ Charles E. Coppa
      ------------------                        --------------------
      Lyle E. Jensen                            Charles E. Coppa
      CEO
      GreenMan Technologies, Inc.

      Date: January 30, 2008
# C_2014015EN.01001502.xml

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Gaumina v EIGE

(Case T-424/12) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of services to support the communication activities of the EIGE - Rejection of a tender - Obligation to state reasons)

2014/C 15/21

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gaumina UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: S. Aviža and D. Soloveičikas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (represented by: V. Langbakk, acting as Agent, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the EIGE of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of the applicant in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13;

| 2. | Orders the EIGE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Gaumina. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the EIGE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Gaumina.

---

(1)  OJ C 373, 1.12.2012.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Broadwind Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew J. Gadow,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Matthew J. Gadow          |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Matthew J. Gadow              |   |
| Chief Financial Officer       |   |
|                          |   |
| Date: November 14,  2008 |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Memry Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 28, 2004 (the Report), I, James G. Binch, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



(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.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|/s/ James. G. Binch                                 
|James G. Binch President and Chief Executive Officer



Dated: September 28, 2004



This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to
the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
No. 48836.

#### Protests 970979-G, etc., of Absorbo Beer Pad Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

The record established that the merchandise is of the same dutiable character as that passed upon in *Absorbo Beer Pad Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 176, C. D. 748), the record in which case was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained.
**Tier3 Access**  **Database description**

The Access database, ” county_month_oct142011.mdb ”, contains 12 tables. There is one table for each month (jan

- dec). Each table has the same column names which are listed below. Emission values are tons per month for each of the 12 months. Each row contains a unique region (FIPS code) and poll (pollutant) combination. Columns are unique by emissions sector and case. There are 8 sectors ptipm (major electric generation facilities), ptnonipm (major point sources except ptipm), nonpt (non

- point or area sources), alm (aircraft, locomotive, and marine except commercial marine in SECA), seca (commercial marine vessels), nonroad (mobile nonroad sources except alm and seca), avefire, and onroad (on road mobile emissions). Emissions scenarios are identified with the “_05”, ”_ref”, or “ctl a ” extensions in the table. These represent emissions from the 2005ct_tier3 _05b, 2030ct_tier3_ref_05b, and the 2030ct_tier3_ctl 2_05b cases respectively. There are 15 pollutants in the table. These are NOx, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, VOC, NH3, CO, acrolein, 1,3

- butadiene, benzene, form , form_primary, ald2, ald2_primary, and ethanol. Not all sectors wil l contain all of these pollutants.
#### United States *v.*H. S. Dorf & Co., Inc.

No. 7756.

Entry Nos. N-1571; N-71.

*320(Decided November 21, 1949)

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Guy Gilbert Ribaudo,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Mary Rehan*for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

These cases, consolidated for trial, are collector’s appeals for reappraisement of certain woven glass core pearls. The merchandise was exported by Industria de Cristal Plastico, S. A., of Coyoacan, D. F., Mexico, on June 25, 1947, and July 12, 1947.

In both appeals style No. 2 was invoiced at Mexican $0.7275 per piece, less 2 per centum. The merchandise was entered and appraised at Mexican $0.7275 per piece, plus packing. Plaintiff claims the proper value to be Mexican $2.6675 per piece, less 2 per centum, plus packing.

A report by J. Eug. Cauchon, treasury representative in Mexico, together with photostats of three price lists and the affidavit of Alberto Peniche B., office manager of the exporter, was introduced in evidence as a collective exhibit (collective exhibit 1). In his affidavit the affiant Alberto Peniche B. states, in part:

> That due to typographical error of our billing department, price of pesos $.7275 per piece of style #2 shown on our consular invoic.es #3524 and 3846 dated June 25th 1947 and July 15th 1947, covering our shipments of those dates to Messrs. Jos. H. Meyer Bros., Brooklyn, N. Y. was shown erroneously, since the real value of this style should had been $2.6675 pesos per piece; that this involuntary error was due to the fact that our billing department erroneously took this value of pesos $.7275 which at that time was the export value of our woven styles #31, 40 and 69, which is proven with the enclosed price list dated Jan. 1st 1947.

The report of the treasury agent in collective exhibit 1 indicates that a discount of 2 per centum for cash was freely offered to all purchasers and that packing was charged extra at the actual cost of 1 peso each. The affidavit.of Mr. Peniche and the price lists herein confirm the price claimed by the plaintiff.

Counsel for the defendant offered no evidence to support the entered value herein, explaining that the use of such value was an honest mistake made by the shipper. Defendant does not dispute that the proper value is as claimed by the plaintiff.

On the record herein and the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise identified as style No. 2, there being no higher foreign value. 1 further find such export value was Mexican $2.6675 per piece, less 2 per centum, plus packing. Insofar as these appeals relate to all other merchandise, the proper values are the values found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 39187.

#### Protest 787914-G of Penn Maryland Corp. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The protest was submitted without the introduction of evidence to support the claims made. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
No. 46476.

#### Protests 783882-G, etc., of M. Martinez & Co. (San Diego).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.
January 30, 1958

Reap. Dec. 9067.

#### The *Heyman Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. Reap. Dec. 9033. Motion by defendant.
# C_2013046EN.01001803.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

---

Action brought on 6 December 2012 — Tifosi Optics v OHIM — Tom Tailor (T)

(Case T-531/12)

2013/C 46/34

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tifosi Optics, Inc. (Watkinsville, United States) (represented by: A. Tornato and D. Hazan, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tom Tailor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2012 in case R 729/2011-2, in its entirety; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2012 in case R 729/2011-2, in its entirety; and

| — | 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

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘T’, for goods in classes 9 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8543183

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 1368232 of the figurative mark ‘T’, for goods in classes 9, 18 and 25; Community trade mark registration No 2747996 of the figurative mark ‘T’, for goods in classes 3, 6, 9, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25 and 28

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---