alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013178EN.01000301.xml

| 22.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bardejov (Slovakia), lodged on 26 March 2013 — Pohotovost’, s.r.o. v Ján Soroka

(Case C-153/13)

2013/C 178/04

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Okresný súd Bardejov

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pohotovost’, s.r.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Ján Soroka

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13/EEC’), in conjunction with Article 47 and Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the present case, which does not allow a legal person whose purpose is the protection of consumers’ rights to intervene in court enforcement proceedings, to defend a consumer against whom enforcement proceedings are being brought for the recovery of a claim under a consumer contract, where that consumer is not represented by a lawyer? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13/EEC’), in conjunction with Article 47 and Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the present case, which does not allow a legal person whose purpose is the protection of consumers’ rights to intervene in court enforcement proceedings, to defend a consumer against whom enforcement proceedings are being brought for the recovery of a claim under a consumer contract, where that consumer is not represented by a lawyer?

1

| 2. | Is the European Union law set out in question 1 to be interpreted as meaning that the basic right to legal protection of the consumer and of an intervening party under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is infringed when the intervention of a legal person whose purpose is the protection of consumers’ rights is not allowed in court enforcement proceedings and the consumer is not represented by a lawyer? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the European Union law set out in question 1 to be interpreted as meaning that the basic right to legal protection of the consumer and of an intervening party under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is infringed when the intervention of a legal person whose purpose is the protection of consumers’ rights is not allowed in court enforcement proceedings and the consumer is not represented by a lawyer?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

1

---
**Exhibit 23.1 Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-93229) ofDatalink Corporation of our report dated February 13, 2001 on our audit ofthe financial statements of Datalink Corporation as of December 31, 2000and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2000 and1999 which report is included in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of our report datedFebruary 13, 2001 relating to the financial statement schedule, whichappears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 
| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
|                           |   |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota         |   |
| March 25, 2002                 |   |

 

 

----
# C_2013252EN.01002903.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v OHIM — Fasel (CULTRA)

(Case T-142/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative trade mark CULTRA - Earlier national word marks SCULPTRA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 252/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Bridgewater, United States) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: F. Mattina, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fasel Srl (Bologna, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2012 (Case R 2478/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Fasel Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 January 2012 (Case R 2478/2010-1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 January 2012 (Case R 2478/2010-1).

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action.

| 3. | Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and those of Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court and of those before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and those of Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court and of those before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
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





Section 1350 Certification





In connection with the Quarterly Report of COMSTOCK MINING Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Corrado De Gasperis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:  April 14, 2011





/s/ Corrado De GasperisCorrado De GasperisChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)





The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly report of Priviam, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Louis Jack Musetti,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.




September
      30, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Louis
      Jack MusettiLouis
      Jack MusettiChief
      Executive Officer
No. 99-1166.

#### Crews *v.*Department of the Army.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed as a veteran granted. Certiorari denied.
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





Section
1350 Certification





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of GoldSpring, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Corrado De
Gasperis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:  May
13, 2010





/s/ Corrado De GasperisCorrado
      De GasperisChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer)





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
Exhibit 23.0




INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by refernce in Registration Statements No.
33-41152 and No. 33-52147 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 33-51363
on Form S-3 of CalEnergy Company, Inc. of our reports dated January 26, 1996
(which reports express an unqualified opinion and include an explanatory
paragraph referring to CalEnergy Company, Inc.'s adoption, effective January
1, 1993, of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109, Accounting
for Income Taxes), appearing in and incorprated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of CalEnergy Company, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 1995.





DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Omaha, Nebraska
March 27, 1996
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

HALIFAX CORPORATION

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

This Certification is intended to accompany the Annual Report of Halifax
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements
of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 The undersigned, in my capacity as set forth below,
hereby certifies 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/Charles L. McNew                      |  |  |  | Date: June 19, 2003
|                                         |  |  |  |                    
|Charles L. McNew
Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |                    

29
----

----

| 1.     | The      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of      1934, as amended; and |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.     | The      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the LP. |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 9,      2010                                                                                                   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                                             |   |   |
| /s/      Mark Gatto                                                                                                              |   |   |
| Mark      Gatto                                                                                                                  |   |   |
| Co-Chief      Executive Officer and Co-PresidentICON      Capital Corp.General      Partner of ICON Income Fund Eight BL.P. |
Case No. 10,101.

#### NELSON v. BARKER et al.

[3 McLean, 379.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Illinois.

June Term, 1844.

Pleading — Amendments— When Made — Mis- • NOMEK.

1. By the common law amendments were permitted, if there was any thing to amend by.

[Cited in brief in Turner v. Christy, 50 Mo. 146.]

2. Anciently all .amendments were required to be made at the' term when the error occurred.

[Cited in Re Wight, 134 D. S. 146, 10 Sup. Ct 490.]

3. But now they may be made, at any time before judgment, and, in some cases, after-wards.

[Cited in Tufts v. Tufts. Case No. 14,233; Re Wight, 134 U. S. 146, 10 Sup. Ct. 489.]

4. A misnomer may be amended after plea in abatement.

5. The plea gives the matter, by which to amend. But under the act allowing amendments, the declaration may be amended.

[This was an action by Nelson against Barker and Stewart.]

Mr. Hall, for plaintiff.

Mr. Peters, for defendants.

1

 [Reported by Hon. John McLean, Circuit Justice.]

OPINION OP THE COURT. This was an action of assumpsit to which the defendants filed a plea of misnomer. And the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the writ and declaration. This was objected to on the ground that there was nothing to amend by. At common law the court could give leave to amend only where there was something to amend by. And anciently amendments were required to be made at the term at which the error occurred; but now an amendment may be made at any time before judgment, and, in some cases, after judgment.

In the case of Randolph v. Barret, 16 Pet. [41 U. S.] 141, the court held where suit was brought against the defendant as administrator, on a plea in abatement being filed, alleging that he was executor and not administrator; that the circuit court had power to allow the writ and declaration to be amended. And they say, “In this case the defendant admitted by his plea that he was the person liable to the suit of the plaintiff; but averred that he was executor and not administrator.” “And when the plea was filed it became part of the record, and furnished matter by which the pleadings might be amended.” And the court remark, “express authority is given by the 32d section of the judiciary act of 1789 [1 Stat. 91], to the courts of the United States, to permit either of the parties, at any time, to amend any defect in the process or pleadings, upon such conditions as the court shall, in their discretion, and by their rules prescribe.” “This amendment is, therefore, not only authorised by the ordinary rules of amendment, but by the statute also.”

The case of a misnomer is, in principle, similar to that above cited, as the plea in both cases gives the true name or designation. On the general ground from the above authority, the amendment may be permitted under the act of congress. Leave to amend.
No. 48937.

#### Protests 56469-K, etc., of Columbia Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Quong Lee & Co.*v. *United States*(10 Cust. Ct. 23, C. D. 716). The record in that case was incorporated hierein. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained to this extent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                    5
<LEGEND>                        10K-MARCH-1997
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1
<CURRENCY>                                   0
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      APR-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                              1
<CASH>                                 268,000
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                       22,185,000
<ALLOWANCES>                           234,000
<INVENTORY>                          6,860,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    31,143,000
<PP&E>                              12,561,000
<DEPRECIATION>                       5,937,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      41,000,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               13,656,000
<BONDS>                                      0
<COMMON>                               542,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                           9,981,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        41,000,000
<SALES>                             76,278,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    76,278,000
<CGS>                               69,530,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       74,160,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     950,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      1,577,000
<INCOME-TAX>                           623,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    954,000
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           954,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .46

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9701)

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2733, etc.

(Decided May 10, 1960)

*Siegel, Mamdell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Ooohran Dout,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the export value on or about *710the dates of exportation to the United States of the merchandise covered by the Minami Sangyo Co. Ltd. or Nanri Trading Co. Ltd. invoices embraced by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above at which time such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States was, as defined in Section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the f.o.b. invoice prices exclusive of buying commission as stated on the invoices herein.

> XT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Reap-praisement enumerated above are limited to Minami Sangoyo [sic] Oo. Ltd. or Nanri Trading Co. Ltd. invoices and abandoned in all other respects.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher foreign value for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals to reap-praisement enumerated above may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for the determination of the value of the involved merchandise, and that such values were the f.o.b. invoice prices, exclusive of buying commission, as stated on the invoices involved herein.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent, the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41994-41995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20369]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33425]


I & M Rail Link, LLC--Trackage Rights Exemption--The Burlington 
Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company

    The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) will 
agree to grant limited overhead trackage rights to I & M Rail Link, LLC 
(IMRL), between milepost 429.7 in the vicinity of Division Street, St. 
Paul, MN, and milepost 11.6 in the vicinity of the Shoreham Yard 
Switch, Minneapolis, MN. The trackage includes both the route between 
the above-referenced mileposts via BNSF's St. Paul Sub-Division, a 
total of 11.9 miles, and the route between those same mileposts via 
BNSF's Midway Sub-Division, a total of 11.4 miles. IMRL's use of a 
particular route will be determined by BNSF.
    The transaction was expected to be consummated on or after the July 
29, 1997 effective date of the exemption.
    The purpose of this transaction, in the interest of operating 
economies and improving service, is to permit IMRL to handle traffic to 
and from the Soo Line Railroad Company's Shoreham Yard at Minneapolis, 
and to pick up and deliver interchange traffic to BNSF at either 
Dayton's Bluff or Northtown Yard.
    As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the 
trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk 
and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as 
modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 
653 (1980).
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice 
contains false

[[Page 41995]]

or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions 
to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any 
time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33425, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001 and served on: H. Gerry Anderson, Weiner, 
Brodsky, Sidman & Kider, P.C., 1350 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 800, 
Washington, DC 20005-4797.

    Decided: July 28, 1997.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20369 Filed 8-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P