alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023252EN.01004001.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2023 — Ryanair v Commission (Italy; aid scheme; COVID-19)

(Case T-268/21) (1)

(State aid - Italian air transport market - Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence - Decision not to raise any objections - Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 252/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis and D. Pérez de Lamo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, C. Georgieva and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Intervening parties in support of the defendant: Neos SpA (Somma, Lombardo, Italy), Blue panorama airlines SpA (Somma, Lombardo), Air Dolomiti SpA — Linee aeree regionali Europee (Villafranca de Verona, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola and A. Cogoni, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 9625 final of 22 December 2020 on State aid SA.59029 (2020/N) — Italy — COVID-19: Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 9625 final of 22 December 2020 on State aid SA.59029 (2020/N) — Italy — COVID-19: Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 9625 final of 22 December 2020 on State aid SA.59029 (2020/N) — Italy — COVID-19: Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating licence;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ryanair DAC; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ryanair DAC;

| 3. | Orders Neos SpA, Blue panorama airlines SpA and Air Dolomiti SpA — Linee aeree regionali Europee to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Neos SpA, Blue panorama airlines SpA and Air Dolomiti SpA — Linee aeree regionali Europee to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---
#### Orlan W. ROCKMAN et al., Petitioners, v. W. H. CARTER et al., Respondents.

No. 42271.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 22, 1972.

Certiorari dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32120-32121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14835]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR18-28-000]


Shell Pipeline Company LP; Notice of Petition for Declaratory 
Order

    Take notice that on July 3, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2017), Shell Pipeline Company LP 
(SPLC or Petitioner), filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking 
approval of SPLC's proposed rate structures, service priority rights, 
and prorationing provisions for shippers and various aspects of the 
Transportation Service Agreement for the Falcon Ethane Pipeline System, 
all as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#45030017060a2b292c2b20163035352a373105232037266b222a33"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="490f0c1b0a06272520272c1a3c3939263b3d092f2c3b2a672e263f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call

[[Page 32121]]

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 2, 2018.

    Dated: July 5, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14835 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2021128EN.01002301.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 Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 28 January 2021 — Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL v État belge — SPF Finances

(Case C-53/21)

(2021/C 128/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Pharma Santé — Réseau Solidaris SCRL

Respondent: État belge — SPF Finances

Question referred

Is Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding legislation, or a national practice, under which companies established in one Member State which use services of companies established in another Member State are required, in order to avoid a corporation tax levy of 100 % or 50 % of the sums invoiced by the latter, to complete and submit to the tax authorities individual fee forms and summary statements relating to those expenses whereas, if they use the services of resident companies, they are under no such obligation in order to avoid that levy?

---
#### Floyd M. MAUNEY and Connie L. Mauney, his wife, Petitioners, v. PENTECOSTAL HOLINESS CHURCH, INC., a South Carolina corporation, Respondent.

No. 43383.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 27, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 270 So.2d 762.

CARLTON, C. J., ' and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
# C_2023104EN.01002401.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 February 2023 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-354/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy - Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 - Documents concerning the implementation of fisheries control in Denmark and France - Partial refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of confidentiality - Overriding public interest - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006)

(2023/C 104/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, T. Oeyen and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar, G. Gattinara and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2021) 4348 final of 7 April 2021 refusing access to certain documents requested pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), and pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ClientEarth AISBL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ClientEarth AISBL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---
#### UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. P. J. PEDONE & CO., et al., Appellees.

No. 70-99.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 5, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2023235EN.01003501.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — IR v Commission

(Case T-685/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Social security - Joint rules on sickness insurance for officials - Article 72 of the Staff Regulations - Serious illness - Opinion of the Medical Officer - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 235/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IR (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Hohenecker and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of 11 December 2020 by which the European Commission rejected the application for renewal of the serious illness scheme in respect of his son’s illness.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 11 December 2020 by which the European Commission rejected the application for renewal of the serious illness scheme in respect of the illness of IR’s son. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 11 December 2020 by which the European Commission rejected the application for renewal of the serious illness scheme in respect of the illness of IR’s son.

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
    Dated: August 14, 2007
    By:
    /s/ James T. EngenJames T. EngenChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 10241 Summary Calendar

Thomas Sawyer,

Plaintiff

— Appellant ,

versus

Caryn Die; Tammy Messimer; Daniel A. Lakin; Ruben Sapin; Marcia Odal; Pepper Bradberry,

Defendants

— Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:15

- CV

- 92

Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
Thomas Sawyer, Texas prisoner # 579557, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that the defendants used excessive force and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He now appeals and

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 8, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10241 Document: 00516084886 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2021No. 21

- 10241

2 moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The appellees move to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We have j urisdiction over final decisions and other decisions covered by the collateral order doctrine. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter , 558 U.S. 100, 103, 106, 116 (2009) ; Askanase v. Livingwell,

Inc. , 981 F.2d 807, 809

- 10 (5th Cir. 1993) . In this case, no final judgment has
been entere d and there are no immediately appealable orders. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

T he appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is

GRANTED . Sawyer’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED . The appeal is

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction

. Case: 21-10241 Document: 00516084886 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2021
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                                  SUBSIDIARIES
 
 1. PSINet Japan Inc. (PSINet Kabushiki Kaisha), a company organized under the
    laws of Japan.
 
 2. PSINet Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of Canada.
 
 3. PSINet Pipeline New York, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of
    the State of New York.
 
 4. PSINet Pipeline USA, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the
    State of Delaware.
 
 5. PSINet Asia Holdings Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the
    State of Delaware.
 
 6. Telecom Licensing Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State
    of Delaware.
 
 7. EUnet GB Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the United
    Kingdom.
 
 8. PSINet UK Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the United
    Kingdom.
 
 9. PSIWeb Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
    Delaware.
 
10. PSIWeb Europe Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the
    Republic of Ireland.
 
11. PSINet Security Services Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of
    the State of Delaware.
 
12. PSINet Europe Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
    Delaware.
 
13. PSINet Telecom Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the State
    of Delaware.
 
14. PSINet Telecom UK Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the
    United Kingdom.
 
15. PSINet Europe B.V., a corporation organized under the laws of the Kingdom
    of The Netherlands.
 
16. PSINet Europe Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the
    Republic of Ireland.
 
17. PSINet Netherlands B.V., a corporation organized under the laws of the
    Kingdom of The Netherlands.
 
18. PSINet Belgium S.P.R.L., a corporation organized under the laws of the
    Kingdom Of Belgium.
 
19. PSINet Germany GmbH, a corporation organized under the laws of the Federal
    Republic of Germany.
 
20. PSINet (Europe) S.A., a corporation organized under the laws of the Swiss
    Confederation.
 
21. PSINet SARL, a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of
    France.
 
22. PSINet France S.A. (formerly Serveur Telematique Internet SA, dba
    Calvacom), a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of
    France.
 
23. Internet Prolink S.A., a corporation organized under the laws of the Swiss
    Confederation.
 
24. PRC Internet Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of the
    State of California.
 
25. iSTAR internet inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Canada.
#### Leon Haywood LILES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-161.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 10, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Raymond J. Hare, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Albert F. GIDDENS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-530.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 30, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                           Fischer Imaging Corporation
                            12300 North Grant Street
                                Denver, CO 80204

                                 April 1, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter is to confirm that Fischer Imaging Corporation has received
assurance from its independent public accountants, Arthur Andersen LLP ("Arthur
Andersen"), that Arthur Andersen's audit of our consolidated financial
statements as of December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended (the "Audit") was
subject to Arthur Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the Audit, availability of
national office consultation, and availability of personnel at foreign
affiliates of Arthur Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the Audit.

                                      Fischer Imaging Corporation

                                      /s/Louis E. Rivelli
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Louis E. Rivelli
                                      President
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1116 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1116

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the deduction for 
       expenses of certain home offices, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 16 (legislative day, June 15), 1993

   Mr. Burns introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the deduction for 
       expenses of certain home offices, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF DEDUCTION FOR EXPENSES OF CERTAIN HOME 
              OFFICES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 280A of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions for certain business or 
rental use; limitation on deductions for such use) is amended by adding 
at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(7) Treatment of home office as principal place of 
        business.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), if--
                    ``(A) management or administrative activities are 
                essential to the trade or business of the taxpayer,
                    ``(B) the only available office for such activities 
                is in the dwelling unit of the taxpayer,
                    ``(C) such office is essential to such trade or 
                business, and
                    ``(D) the taxpayer spends a substantial amount of 
                time in such office,
        the portion of such dwelling unit which is used exclusively on 
        a regular basis for such office shall be treated as the 
        principal place of business for such trade or business.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning on, before, or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ambassadors International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Brian R. Schaefgen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b)
or 15d-14(b) 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/ Brian R. SchaefgenBrian R. SchaefgenChief Financial OfficerMay 6, 2004
IV

House Calendar No. 235

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 556

[Report No. 103–767]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 6) to extend for six years the authorizations of appropriations

for the programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

of 1965, and for certain other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 29, 1994

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar, and ordered to be

printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 6) to extend for six years

the authorizations of appropriations for the programs

under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

1965, and for certain other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 6) to extend for six years the au4 thorizations of appropriations for the programs under the
2

HRES 556 RH

1 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and

2 for certain other purposes. All points of order against the

3 conference report and against its consideration are waived.

4 The conference report shall be considered as read.

House Calendar No. 235

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 556

[Report No. 103–767]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference repurposes. ary Education Act of 1965, and for certain other the programs under the Elementary and Second- six years the authorizations of appropriations for port to accompany the bill (H.R. 6) to extend for

SEPTEMBER 29, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
#### Leonard R. FISHER and Jules Feledy, Appellants, v. John E. PAGE, Appellee.

Nos. 71-1400, 71-1406.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 13, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Janet BROWN, Terri S. Stanley and Valeria Layton Poss v. LODGE APARTMENTS et al.

No. 50423.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 21, 1978.

John C. Underwood, Jr., Edward L. Cates, Jackson, for appellants.

M. Charles May, John T. Jacks, Jackson, for appellees.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., SUGG and BROOM, JJ., and FLOYD J. LOGAN, Commissioner.

AFFIRMED.