alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023024EN.01000801.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — IG v Varhoven administrativen sad

(Case C-289/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial protection - National procedural rule providing that an action seeking to dispute the compatibility of a national provision with EU law is devoid of purpose where the provision is repealed in the course of proceedings)

(2023/C 24/10)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IG

Defendant: Varhoven administrativen sad

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of effectiveness as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding a procedural rule of a Member State according to which, where a provision of domestic law challenged by an action for annulment on the ground that it is contrary to EU law is repealed and therefore ceases to have any effect for the future, the dispute is deemed to have become devoid of purpose with the result that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it, without the parties having first been able to assert any interest they may have in the continuation of the proceedings and without any account having been taken of any such interest.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---
#### Joe DOUGLAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-807.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 3, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2022266EN.01002401.xml

| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 — Veen v Europol

(Case T-436/21) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Cooperation of the police authorities and other law enforcement agencies of the Member States - Fight against crime - Communication of information by Europol to a Member State - Alleged unauthorised data processing - Regulation (EU) 2016/794 - Article 50(1) - Non-material harm)

(2022/C 266/27)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Leon Leonard Johan Veen (Oss, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Lysina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (represented by: A. Nunzi, acting as Agent, and G. Ziegenhorn and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

Re:

By his action brought pursuant to Article 268 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for the harm he allegedly suffered as a result of the unlawful processing of personal data by the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Leon Leonard Johan Veen to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Leon Leonard Johan Veen to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.

---
#### Robert AUTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-602.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 11, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Melvin B. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-229.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 12, 1971.

James F. Snelling, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

Jones said that he and Hudson, the eighteen-year-old in charge of the Jet service station on that fateful Sunday morning, were just jiving around. Hudson agreed that that was how it started, but that Jones grabbed Hudson’s head, squeezed, and said to Gillenwater, by then in the act of removing a carton of cigarettes from the premises, “I’m going to hold his head.” Whether Jones was just jiving around or aiding and abetting in robbery was a jury question which was decided against Jones.

The cases1 on which Jones relies as demonstrating the insufficiency of evidence against him are easily distinguishable. *Douglas*worked at the same place as Sands, the active criminal, and was riding with him when Sands drove to the victim’s house, went in alone and assaulted and robbed her. Although Douglas was perhaps an accessory after the fact, nothing linked him to the robbery at the time of its occurrence. The evidence against *Williams*was entirely circumstantial — not the case here — and the State was required to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. *Gilday*was not shown to have any notion of complicity in his companion’s intent to rob. In this case Jones rather encouraged Gillenwater to rob Hudson, and consequently our statute2 which makes the aider and abetter liable as a principal in the first degree makes Melvin Jones a full-fledged robber.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

1

. Douglas v. State, Fla.App.3d 1968, 214 So.2d 653; Williams v. State, Fla.App. 4th 1968, 206 So.2d 446; Gilday v. State, Fla.App.3d 1964, 168 So.2d 205.

2

. Fla.Stat. § 776.011 (1969), F.S.A.
# C_2021297EN.01002101.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2021 — S.M.

(Case C-237/21)

(2021/C 297/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Person whose surrender is sought: S.M.

Applicant: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München

Question referred

Do the principles governing the application of Articles 18 and 21 TFEU established by the Court in its judgment of 13 November 2018 in Raugevicius (C-247/17, EU:C:2018:898) require that a request from a third country under the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 seeking the extradition of an EU citizen for the purpose of enforcing a sentence is to be refused, even where the requested Member State is obliged by international law under that Convention to extradite the EU citizen, because it has defined the term ‘nationals’ within the meaning of Article 6(1)(b) of the Convention as meaning that it refers only to its own nationals, not to other EU citizens?

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Golden Triangle Industries, Inc. for the period
ended June 30, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000042284
<NAME> GOLDEN TRIANGLE INDUSTRIES, INC.
       

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           70928
<SECURITIES>                                     54228
<RECEIVABLES>                                   889009
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     200000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1298067
<PP&E>                                         6290993
<DEPRECIATION>                               (1452585)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6988729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           400895
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       5719
<COMMON>                                           570
<OTHER-SE>                                     6475651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6988729
<SALES>                                        1200469
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1491562
<CGS>                                           296185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   296185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                681791
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 547315
<INCOME-TAX>                                    179024
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             368291
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    368291
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .68


        

</TABLE>
#### AUTO-DRIVEAWAY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Mary C. SIMONTON, Respondent.

No. 45049.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 19, 1974.

Certiorari dismissed. 288 So.2d 315.
#### Sharon WHITE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frank WHITE, Defendant-Relator.

No. 4134.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Dec. 26, 1972.

*470Holt, Wagner & Lee by Richard E. Lee, Pineville, for defendant-relator.

Brittain, Carver & Williams by John G. Williams, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before FRUGÉ, MILLER and DO-MENGEAUX, JJ.

MILLER, Judge.

The trial court overruled defendant Frank M. White’s declinatory exception to venue. We granted defendant’s application for writs on finding that the interlocutory judgment may cause irreparable injury. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2083. The February 1, 1972 award of alimony in the Ninth Judicial District Court is not subject to review by the Tenth Judicial District Court.

The parties were judicially divorced in the Ninth Judicial District on February 1, 1972. Sharon White was granted custody of their five children, and husband was ordered to pay child support of $250 per month. There was no appeal from that judgment.

Plaintiff resides with her children in Natchitoches Parish. On October 24, 1972 she filed a rule in the Tenth Judicial District Court seeking to increase the child support to $400 per month.

Defendant’s exception to venue was overruled on November 14, 1972 for • the reasons given in the case of Lucas v. Lucas, 195 So.2d 771 . . . ” (La.App. 3 Cir. 1967), Tr. 21.

ISSUES

1) Has relator established irreparable injury ? We find that he has.

2) Was the exception properly overruled ? We find that it was not.

Husband established that the trial court judgment may cause irreparable injury. If the trial court were to increase the award for child support, husband could not suspend execution of the judgment by appeal. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 3943. The possibility that husband might be required to pay increased alimony payments by a court without jurisdiction “ . . . may cause irreparable injury” as that term is used in LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2083.

Once a trial court’s jurisdiction has attached, it continues exclusively for the purpose of modifying its own alimony judgment. Caldwell v. Gilbert, 253 So.2d 639 at 642 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1971). See also *471cases cited in Caldwell at 253 So.2d 641 and 642.

We distinguished Lucas v. Lucas, 195 So.2d 771 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1967) in the Caldwell case, 253 So.2d 639 at 643.

The exception of improper venue filed by relator Frank M. White is sustained. All costs of these proceedings in the trial court and on appeal are taxed to plaintiff respondent.

Reversed and rendered.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge

(dissenting).

I agree that the *Caldwell*case applies to this fact situation, but still adhere to the proposition that a writ should not have been granted in the first place, in that there was no showing of irreparable injury and there was an adequate remedy by appeal in the event of an adverse judgment. For the latter reasons, I respectfully dissent.
H. Res. 66

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

February 4, 1993.

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

they are hereby, elected to the following standing committees

of the House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS: Dave Camp of

Michigan.

COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Cass

Ballenger of North Carolina.

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION: Jennifer B.

Dunn of Washington.

COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES:

Richard W. Pombo of California; [vacancy]; and [vacancy].

Attest:

Clerk.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.3

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Charles E. Moran, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of SkillSoft Public
      Limited Company;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
      statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
      make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
      statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
      this annual report;

3.    Omitted;

4.    Omitted;

5.    Omitted; and

6.    Omitted.

Dated: May 27, 2004                        /s/ Charles E. Moran
                                           --------------------
                                           Charles E. Moran
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                                 PROSOURCE, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                   (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 THIRTEEN  WEEKS ENDED      TWENTY-SIX  WEEKS ENDED
                                                   -------------------       -----------------------
                                                  JUNE 28,     JUNE 29,     JUNE 28,        JUNE 29,
                                                    1997         1996         1997            1996
                                                   ------       ------       -------        --------
<S>                                                <C>          <C>          <C>            <C>
Net earnings (loss) applicable to common
 stock                                             $   58       $1,243       $(5,956)       $(17,957)
                                                   ======       ======       =======        ========

Weighted average common shares
 outstanding during the period                      9,324        5,321         9,331           5,301

Add:
 Common equivalent shares determined using
 the "Treasury Stock" method representing
 shares issuable upon exercise of stock
 options, warrants and shares issuable under
 contractual agreements, except during
 periods in which they would be antidilutive            3           48            36              --
                                                   ------       ------       -------        --------

Weighted average number of shares used in
 calculation of primary earnings per share          9,327        5,369         9,367           5,301
                                                   ======       ======       =======        ========


Primary earnings per common share                  $  .01       $  .23       $  (.64)       $  (3.39)
                                                   ======       ======       =======        ========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the amended and restated Quarterly Report of Hemispherx
Biopharma, 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, William A. Carter, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:
February 11, 2011





/s/ William A. CarterWilliam
      A. Carter, M.D.Chief
      Executive Officer
[No. 869-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

July 12, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Cyril A. Kolocotronis, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 3274, Phillip G. Sheridan, J., entered November 12, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                 PROSOURCE, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                   (UNAUDITED)





<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED                THIRTY-NINE WEEKS ENDED
                                                     SEPTEMBER 27,     SEPTEMBER 28,      SEPTEMBER 27,       SEPTEMBER 28,
                                                         1997              1996               1997                1996
                                                         ----              ----               ----                ----
<S>                                                  <C>               <C>                <C>                 <C>
Net earnings (loss) applicable to common
 stock                                                  $  718            $1,357            $(5,238)            $(16,600)
                                                        ======            ======            =======             ========

Weighted average common shares
 outstanding during the period                           9,323             5,310              9,328                5,304


Add:
 Common equivalent shares determined using
 the "Treasury Stock" method representing
 shares issuable upon exercise of stock
 options, warrants and shares issuable under
 contractual agreements, except during
 periods in which they would be antidilutive                 3                45                  6                   --
                                                        ------            ------            -------             --------

Weighted average number of shares used in
 calculation of primary earnings per share               9,326             5,355              9,334                5,304
                                                        ======            ======            =======             ========


Primary earnings per common share                       $ 0.08            $ 0.25            $ (0.56)            $  (3.13)
                                                        ======            ======            =======             ========
</TABLE>
# C_2022222EN.01000901.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/9

---

Appeal brought on 1 December 2021 by Collibra against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2021 in Cases T-128/20 and T-129/20, Collibra v EUIPO — Dietrich (COLLIBRA and collibra)

(Case C-730/21 P)

(2022/C 222/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Collibra (represented by: A. Renck and A. Bothe, Rechtsanwälte, and by I. Junkar, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Hans Dietrich

By order of 23 March 2022, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Collibra should bear its own costs.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                             840
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      576
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,851
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,463
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          141,502
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,733
<OTHER-SE>                                   (175,772)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,463
<SALES>                                         50,327
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,327
<CGS>                                         (44,343)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (7,899)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,904)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,904)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,904)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        









</TABLE>
AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                TO LOAN AGREEMENT



Pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Loan Agreement,  this Amendment No. 2 to the Loan
Agreement  dated as of August 11,  1997 and  amended  June 30,  1998,  is hereby
amended as of April 10, 2000 as follows:

The definition of "Termination Date" set forth in Section 1, Definitions, of the
Loan Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following
definition to read as follows:


         "Termination  Date" means June 30, 2002,  unless extended or terminated
         earlier pursuant to Section 2.4 of the Agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  each of the parties hereto has duly executed or caused this
Amendment  No. 2 to be duly executed by its  authorized  officers as of the date
and year first written above.



                                   BORROWER:


                                   /s/ Anthony M. Marlon
                                   ---------------------

                                   Anthony M. Marlon, M.D.



                                   LENDER:

                                   SIERRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.



                                   By: /s/ Erin MacDonald
                                   -----------------------------------------
                                   Title:  President and COO