alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020215EN.01006101.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/61

---

Action brought on 13 May 2020 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Kerckhoff (APO)

(Case T-282/20)

(2020/C 215/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Apologistics GmbH (Markkleeberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Markus Kerckhoff (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark APO — European Union trade mark No 9 273 103

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2020 in Case R 982/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation EU No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation EU No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation EU No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation EU No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
EXHIBIT 32
 
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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 as of the
dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
 Date: October 27, 2009
    
    /s/ Jeffrey S. GormanJeffrey S. GormanPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Wayne L. KnabelWayne L. KnabelChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
# L_2013300EN.01000301.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 300/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 300/3

---

COMMISSION OPINION

of 12 October 2011

on the application for accession to the European Union by the Republic of Croatia

The full text of this opinion was published in OJ L 112 of 24 April 2012, page 3.

---
# C_2022359EN.01000601.xml

| 19.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2022 — European Commission v Republic of Poland and Others

(Case C-207/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Annulment of Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 - Article 16(4) and (5) TEU - Article 3(2) and (3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions - Application ratione temporis - Council’s voting rules - Qualified majority)

(2022/C 359/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: Ł. Habiak, K. Herrmann, R. Tricot and C. Valero, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Bulgaria, French Republic, Hungary, Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by H. Eklinder, J. Lundberg, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson, H. Shev and O. Simonsson, and subsequently by H. Eklinder, C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Runeskjöld, M. Salborn Hodgson, R. Shahsavan Eriksson, H. Shev and O. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8

COMPANY:   Global Marine Inc. (the "Company")

ITEM:      Preambles and Resolutions of the Board of Directors

SUBJECT:   Director Compensation

DATE:      August 31, 2001


     WHEREAS, upon consummation of the transaction contemplated by the Agreement
and Plan of Merger among Santa Fe International Corporation, the Company and
certain other parties being considered at this meeting of the Company's Board of
Directors (the "Merger Agreement"),  one or more of the current members of the
Board of Directors of the Company will not be designated to serve on the Board
of Directors of GlobalSantaFe Corporation and will no longer serve as members of
the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Affected Directors"); and

     WHEREAS, the members of the Board of Directors of the Company who are not
Affected Directors have determined that it is in the best interest of the
Company to ensure that the Affected Directors continue their service through the
Effective Time (as defined in the Merger Agreement);

     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Affected Directors shall each
receive a cash payment from the Company in the amount of $104,000 immediately
upon the Effective Time, which is equivalent to two years' retainer plus the
cash value of two years of restricted stock grants, provided in each case that
the Affected Director remain in service through the Effective Time; and it was
further

     RESOLVED that the proper officers of the Company be and hereby are
authorized and directed to do or cause to be done any and all such further acts
and things, make any and all such payments, and negotiate, execute and deliver,
for and on behalf of the Company and in its name, any and all such further
documents, papers, instruments and agreements as they may deem necessary or
desirable to effect the intent and purposes of these resolutions.
EXHIBIT 15.1




                  ACCOUNTANTS' AWARENESS LETTER



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


Re:  Global Marine Inc. Registration Statements

We are aware that our report dated November 9, 2000, on our
review of the condensed consolidated interim financial
information of Global Marine Inc. and subsidiaries for the three
and nine months ended September 30, 2000, and included in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q is incorporated by reference in (a)
the prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 33-32088, 33-40961, and
33-63326), respectively, for the Global Marine Inc. 1989 Stock
Option and Incentive Plan, (b) the prospectus constituting part
of the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Registration Nos. 333-80383, 333-40244, 33-32088, 33-40961, and
33-63326) for the Global Marine 1998 Stock Option and Incentive
Plan, (c) the prospectus constituting part of the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-40266)
for the Global Marine Savings Incentive Plan, (d) the prospectus
constituting part of the Company's Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (Registration No. 33-40961) for the Global Marine Inc. 1990
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, (e) the prospectus
constituting part of the Company's Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (Registration No. 33-57691) for the Global Marine Inc. 1994
Non-Employee Stock Option and Incentive Plan, (f) the combined
prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Registration Nos. 33-58577 and 333-49807)
for the proposed offering of up to $500,000,000 of debt
securities, preferred stock, and/or common stock, (g) the
prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-40244) for the Global
Marine Non-Employee Director Restricted Stock Plan, and (h) the
prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-45908) for the resale
of up to $600,000,000 principal amount at maturity of Zero Coupon
Convertible Debentures due June 23, 2020 and shares of common
stock of the Company issuable upon conversion thereof.  Pursuant
to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report
should not be considered a part of any of said registration
statements prepared or certified by us within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Houston, Texas
November 10, 2000
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                          GENRAD, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Three Months Ended                         Six Months Ended
                                       ---------------------------               ---------------------------
                                          July 3,        July 4,                    July 3,       July 4,
                                           1999           1998                       1999          1998
                                       ------------   ------------               ------------   ------------

<S>                                    <C>            <C>                        <C>            <C>
Basic net income (loss) per share:
  Net income (loss)                    $  7,960,000   $(11,940,000)              $ 18,282,000   $ (3,032,000)
                                       ============   ============               ============   ============

  Weighted average common
    shares outstanding                   28,518,000     28,286,000                 28,392,000     27,887,000
                                       ============   ============               ============   ============

  Basic net income (loss) per share    $       0.28   $      (0.42)              $       0.64   $      (0.11)
                                       ============   ============               ============   ============

Diluted net income (loss) per share:
  Net income (loss)                    $  7,960,000   $(11,940,000)              $ 18,282,000   $ (3,032,000)
                                       ============   ============               ============   ============

  Weighted average common shares
       outstanding                       28,518,000     28,286,000                 28,392,000     27,887,000
  Weighted average common share
       equivalents                          962,000             --                  1,020,000             --
                                       ------------   ------------               ------------   ------------

  Total                                  29,480,000     28,286,000                 29,412,000     27,887,000
                                       ============   ============               ============   ============

  Diluted net income (loss) per share  $       0.27   $      (0.42)              $       0.62   $      (0.11)
                                       ============   ============               ============   ============
</TABLE>
# C_2022318EN.01001501.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH v L.B. (C-257/21), R.G. (C-258/21),

(Joined Cases C-257/21 and C-258/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Article 153 TFEU - Protection of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Night work - Collective agreement which provides for a lower supplementary allowance for regular night work than that established for irregular night work - Equal treatment - Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of Union law for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)

(2022/C 318/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH

Defendants: L.B. (C-257/21), R.G. (C-258/21)

Operative part of the judgment

A provision of a collective agreement which provides for a higher supplementary allowance for irregular night work than that established for regular night work is not implementing Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.

---
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. David Michael McGUIRE v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53194.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1973.

In re: David Michael McGuire applying for remedial writ and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The identical contentions were rejected by us on the applicant’s appeal from his conviction, 254 La. 560, 225 So.2d 215 (1969). This court will not consider on post-conviction application contentions previously rejected upon the appeal on the basis of a complete factual determination. State ex rel. Barksdale v. Dees, 252 La. 434, 211 So.2d 318 (1968).
# C_2020271EN.01004501.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/45

---

Action brought on 16 June 2020 — Micron Technology v EUIPO (INTELLIGENCE, ACCELERATED)

(Case T-386/20)

(2020/C 271/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Micron Technology, Inc. (Boise, Idaho, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark INTELLIGENCE, ACCELERATED — Application for registration No 17 959 758

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 in Case R 2873/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | alternatively, alter the contested decision such that it is now held that European Union trade mark application does not offend against Articles 7(1)(b) or (c) or both; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, alter the contested decision such that it is now held that European Union trade mark application does not offend against Articles 7(1)(b) or (c) or both;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs to the applicant, the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs to the applicant, the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 2, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

135052(75) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

ALLEN M. HARTMAN, Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

Mary Lou Hartman, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 135052 

v COA: 257536 

St. Clair CC: 02-000445-NH 

PORT HURON HOSPITAL, FORREST 

BRYAN FERNANDEZ,M.D., and JALAL 

UD-DIN AKBAR, M.D., 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

____________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by defendant- appellee to allow late 

filing of their motion for review of the taxation of costs is considered and it is 

GRANTED and the Clerk is directed to file the motion today. Plaintiff-appellant may 

respond to the motion by April 15, 2008. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 2, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2022451EN.01000401.xml

| 28.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 451/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 451/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Vittamed technologijos’, in liquidation v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

(Case C-293/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Deductions of input VAT - Goods and services used by the taxable person to produce capital goods - Articles 184 to 187 - Adjustment of deductions - Obligation to adjust deductions of VAT in the event of that taxable person being placed in liquidation and removed from the register of VAT payers)

(2022/C 451/05)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UAB ‘Vittamed technologijos’, in liquidation

Respondent: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

intervener: Kauno apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 184 to 187 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person is under an obligation to adjust deductions of input value added tax (VAT) relating to the acquisition of goods or services intended to produce capital goods in the case where, as a result of the decision of the owner or sole shareholder of that taxable person to place it in liquidation and of the taxable person’s request to be removed, and it being removed, from the register of VAT payers, the capital goods produced have not been used — and will never be used — in the course of taxable economic activities. The reasons for the decision to place that taxable person in liquidation and, consequently, for the abandonment of the intended taxable economic activity, such as constantly growing losses, the absence of orders and the doubts of the taxable person’s shareholder as to the profitability of the intended economic activity, have no bearing on the taxable person’s obligation to adjust the deductions of VAT concerned, in so far as that taxable person no longer has — and will never have — any intention of using the capital goods for the purposes of taxable transactions.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---
Exhibit 8.1
      List of material
    subsidiaries
  Legal Entity

Country of IncorporationSubsidiaries of ASML Holding N.V.:ASML Netherlands B.V.

Netherlands (Veldhoven)ASML MaskTools B.V.

Netherlands (Veldhoven)ASML Real Estate B.V.

Netherlands (Veldhoven)ASML Germany GmbH

Germany (Dresden)ASML France S.a.r.l.

France (Montbonnot)ASML (UK) Ltd.

UK (Paisley (Scotland))ASML Israel (2001) Ltd.

Israel (Ramat-Gan)ASML Ireland Ltd.

Ireland (Dublin)ASML Italy S.r.l.

Italy (Avezzano)ASML Hong Kong Ltd.

Hong Kong SARASML Singapore Pte. Ltd.

SingaporeASML Korea Co. Ltd.

Korea (Kyunggi-Do)ASML Japan Co. Ltd.

Japan (Kawasaki-shi, Kanagawa-Ken)ASML Shanghai International Trading Co. Ltd.

China/ Shanghai Free Trade ZoneASML (Tianjin) Co. Ltd.

China (Tianjin)ASML Taiwan Ltd.

Republic of China (Hsinchu)ASML Equipment Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

Malaysia (Penang)ASML US, Inc.

US (Delaware)ASML Belgium BVBA

Belgium (Essen)Subsidiaries of ASML US, Inc.:ASML Capital US, Inc.

US (Delaware)ASML MaskTools Inc.

US (Delaware)Brion Technologies, Inc.

US (Delaware)Subsidiary of ASML Hong Kong Ltd.:ASML Macau Commercial Offshore Ltd.

Macau (dissolved April 16, 2008)ASML Hong Kong Logistic Services Ltd.

Hong Kong SARLimited partnership with ASML Belgium BVBA
    as the managing partner:ASML Finance Belgium CV

Belgium (Essen)   ASML ANNUAL REPORT 2008
#### OAK HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, INC., an Ohio corporation, Appellant, v. ARVIDA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Appellee.

No. 1648.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Dec. 15, 1967.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Hugh MacMillan, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Jeremiah EADY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-865.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 9, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Irvin THOMAS v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 62798.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Irvin Thomas applying for writ of certiorari and/or supervisory writs. Parish of Calcasieu.

Denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 10

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

April 26, 2000



Mr. John Appel
[Address]
[Address]


Dear John:

As we have discussed, it is important to GTE that you remain with the company
at least through the closing of the merger. That being the case, if you remain
with GTE at least through the closing (or, if later, June 30, 2000) but
separate as a result of the merger thereafter, GTE will calculate your lump sum
pension benefit using the interest rate as of July 1, 2000 or the interest rate
that would ordinarily be used given your actual separation date, whichever
would provide you with the highest lump sum benefit. This special interest rate
protection will only be applicable if you elect to receive a lump sum pension
distribution following your separation, and any increase in the amount to which
you are entitled as a result of this commitment will be payable from the
general assets of GTE.

John, I want to thank you again for your flexibility. We need your leadership
now - more than ever. I truly appreciate this additional commitment.

Sincerely,



J. Randall MacDonald
Executive Vice President -
Human Resources & Administration

JRM:wh

c:       J. T. D'Angelo, Jr.
         E. D. Singer