alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020114EN.01001501.xml

| 6.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/15

---

Action brought on 12 February 2020 — Qx World v EUIPO — Mandelay (EDUCTOR)

(Case T-84/20)

(2020/C 114/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Qx World Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László and A. Cserny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mandelay Kft. (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark EDUCTOR — European Union trade mark No 11 043 296

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2019 in Case R 1310/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision in a way to annul the first instance decision and remit the case to EUIPO’s Cancellation Division for further prosecution; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision in a way to annul the first instance decision and remit the case to EUIPO’s Cancellation Division for further prosecution;

| — | as an alternative, annul both the contested decision and the first instance decision and remit the case to EUIPO’s Cancellation Division for further prosecution. |
| --- | --- |

—

as an alternative, annul both the contested decision and the first instance decision and remit the case to EUIPO’s Cancellation Division for further prosecution.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of essential procedural requirements. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of essential procedural requirements.

---
#### Thomas E. CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-400.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 6, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
#### EDWARD M. ROSS, appellant, p. b. *vs.*GEORGE W. GREEN, d. *b.,*respondent.

A wager on a horse-race out of the jurisdiction of the State is not illegal.

Appeal from the judgment of a Justice of the Peace. Pro. narr. in assumpsit against a stake-holder for a sum of money deposited in his hands on a horse-race.

The evidence was, that the race was made up and run in the State of Maryland, and the bet made there. It was conflicting as to the result of the race.

One of the witnesses admitted on cross examination, that he had a small wager on the result of the race, and he was objected to as having a disqualifying interest; but the court decided that he was not disqualified; the interest being in the question, and not in the result of the suit.

Booth, *Chief Justice,*

charged the jury:—That horse-racing was prohibited by the laws pf this State, or betting on horse-racing; but this must be taken in reference to the jurisdiction of the State. The law will not lend its aid in execution of any contract which is contrary to law, or against public policy, or good morals. Any bet therefore on a horse-race, instituted and run in this State, would be *309illegal and void; but this court cannot regard a horse-race as illegal which is run in the State of Maryland, where racing is not prohibited ; neither can we regard a bet made on such a race as unlawful, here or there. Neither the race, nor the bet, is immoral in itself; nor is it prohibited by our act of assembly, which does not reach the case. If, therefore, this race in reference to which the bet was made, was run in Maryland, and the appointed judges of the race have decided it against the plaintiff, he cannot recover back from the stakeholder the money placed in his hands. Whether their decision was right or wrong is not open for discussion, as they are the chosen judges of this question.

*Wootten,*for plaintiff.

*Cullen,*for defendant.

Verdict for the defendant.
# Official Journal L 139/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.139.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 139 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5426 May 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.139.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 139

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5426 May 2011

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2011/291/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem — ‘Locomotives and passenger rolling stock’ of the trans-European conventional rail system
  (notified under document C(2011) 2737)

   (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

2011/291/EU

*

Commission Decision of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem — ‘Locomotives and passenger rolling stock’ of the trans-European conventional rail system
  (notified under document C(2011) 2737)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2011) 2737)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 439 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 439

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 21, 1994.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 24) 
to reauthorize the independent counsel law for an additional 5 years, 
and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration are waived.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  667,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                    67,900
<INVENTORY>                                     57,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               806,400
<PP&E>                                      10,588,500
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,763,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,965,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,438,900
<BONDS>                                      1,665,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     431,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,965,600
<SALES>                                        819,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               819,600
<CGS>                                          175,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  421,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                362,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   148,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            213,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   213,400
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
American Architectural Products Corporation


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-4/A No. 333-44275 and Form S-8 No. 333-61051 pertaining to the 1996
Stock Option Plan) of our report dated June 2, 2000, which contains an
explanatory paragraph with respect to a going concern uncertainty, with respect
to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit),
and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 1999, and the financial statement
schedule for the year ended December 31, 1999 of American Architectural Products
Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2001.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Akron, Ohio
May 20, 2002
# C_2022451EN.01000301.xml

| 28.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 451/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 451/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty reprezentowany przez O S.A.

(Case C-250/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Supply of services for consideration - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(b) - Granting of credit - Sub-participation agreement)

(2022/C 451/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Defendant: O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty reprezentowany przez O S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax,

must be interpreted as meaning that the services provided by a sub-participant under a sub-participation agreement, consisting of making available to the originator a financial contribution in exchange for payment of the proceeds from the receivables specified in that agreement, those receivables remaining in the assets of the originator, fall within the concept of ‘granting of credit’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---
H. Res. 547

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

September 27, 1994.

Resolved, That all points of order against the conference

report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4602) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other

purposes, and against its consideration are waived.

Attest:

Clerk.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 12, 2015

NO. 03

- 14

- 00616

- CR

Alexis Marie Ireland, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt entered by the tr i a l court. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court ho lds that there was no error in the

court’s judgment requiring reversal . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment

adjudicating guilt. However, there was error in the judgment that requires correction. Therefore,

the Court modifies the trial court’s judgment as follows: we modify the judgment adjudicating

guilt to delete the restitution order . The judgment, as modified, is affirmed

. Because appellant is

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
# C_2023127EN.01001301.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — IEF Service GmbH v HB

(Case C-710/21, (1) IEF Service)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 2008/94/EC - Article 9(1) - Undertaking that has its registered office in one Member State and offers its services in another Member State - Worker whose place of residence is in that other Member State - Work performed in the Member State in which the worker’s employer has its registered office and, one week out of two, in the Member State in which the worker resides - Determining which Member State’s guarantee institution is responsible for meeting outstanding wage claims)

(2023/C 127/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IEF Service GmbH

Defendant: HB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer

must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine which Member State’s guarantee institution is responsible for meeting employees’ outstanding claims, it must be considered that an employer in a state of insolvency does not carry out activities in the territories of at least two Member States, within the meaning of that provision, where the employment contract of the worker in question provides that his or her primary and habitual place of employment is in the territory of the Member State in which the employer has its registered office, but during an equal proportion of his or her working time that worker performs his or her duties remotely from another Member State where his or her main place of residence is situated.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 353 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 353

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
investigations and studies by the Committee on Government Operations in 
         the second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 1994

 Mr. Conyers submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
investigations and studies by the Committee on Government Operations in 
         the second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and studies by 
the Committee on Government Operations (hereinafter in this resolution 
referred to as the ``Committee''), including expenses for--
            (1) procurement of consultant services under section 202(i) 
        of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946; and
            (2) provision of assistance for members of professional 
        staff in obtaining specialized training under section 202(j) of 
        such Act;
there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House not more 
than $3,282,875.
    (b) Not more than $10,000 of the amount specified in subsection (a) 
may be used for consultant services referred to in paragraph (1) of 
such subsection and not more than $2,000 of such amount may be used for 
specialized training referred to in paragraph (2) of such subsection.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the chairman of the Committee, 
and approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon January 3, 1994, and ending immediately before noon on January 3, 
1995.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```
#### CAPE CORAL CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., and Gulf American Land Corporation, Appellants, v. GABLE-TITE PRODUCTS CO., Inc., and Bernard J. Kennedy et al., Appellees.

No. 67-407.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 6, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 6, 1968.

Milton A. Fried, Miami, for appellants.

Starr W. Horton, Miami, (for Gable-Tite), appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Chasin v. Richey, Fla.1957, 91 So.2d 811.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-06409, 333-35745, 333-57031, 333-68499, 333-83927, 333-86861,
333-32380, 333-46640, 333-58334, 333-73882, 333-99093, 333-100130, 333-112094)
of SkillSoft Plc of our report dated March 29, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of SkillSoft Plc included in the Form 10-K for
the year ended January 31, 2004.



                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
April 13, 2004
# C_2021128EN.01002302.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’ v ‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD

(Case C-55/21)

(2021/C 128/29)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Respondent in cassation:‘IMPERIAL TOBACCO BULGARIA’ EOOD

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 11 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (1) of 16 December 2008 and Article 17(1)(b) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU (2) of 21 June 2011 to be interpreted as imposing on Member States an obligation to adopt rules for the reimbursement of excise duty, including on manufactured tobacco that has been released for consumption and destroyed under customs supervision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 11 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (1) of 16 December 2008 and Article 17(1)(b) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU (2) of 21 June 2011 to be interpreted as imposing on Member States an obligation to adopt rules for the reimbursement of excise duty, including on manufactured tobacco that has been released for consumption and destroyed under customs supervision?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, can the persons concerned rely on the direct effect of the provisions of the directives and the principles of EU law where a Member State has failed to comply with its obligation to adopt such rules? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, can the persons concerned rely on the direct effect of the provisions of the directives and the principles of EU law where a Member State has failed to comply with its obligation to adopt such rules?

| 3. | If the first two questions are answered in the affirmative, does the direct effect of the abovementioned provisions confer entitlement, on the basis of the facts established in the present case, to reimbursement of the excise duty paid on the basis solely of the request and without any further formal requirements? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the first two questions are answered in the affirmative, does the direct effect of the abovementioned provisions confer entitlement, on the basis of the facts established in the present case, to reimbursement of the excise duty paid on the basis solely of the request and without any further formal requirements?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).

(2)  Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24).

---
#### CONVALESCENT CENTERS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. BEVERLY MANOR, INC., OF ST. PETERSBURG, a corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 9, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.