alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021242EN.01001802.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2021 — Verband Deutscher Alten und Behindertenhilfe and CarePool Hannover v Commission

(Case T-69/18) (1)

(State aid - Independent social action - Subsidies granted to associations in a regional working group for charity action - Rejection of a complaint - Decision not to raise any objections at the end of the preliminary examination stage - Action for annulment - Status of interested party - Safeguarding of procedural rights - Substantial effect on competitive position - Admissibility - No serious difficulties - No substantial alteration to existing aid)

(2021/C 242/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Verband Deutscher Alten- und Behindertenhilfe, Landesverband Niedersachsen/Bremen und Hamburg/Schleswig-Holstein eV (Hanover, Germany), CarePool Hannover GmbH (Hanover) (represented by: T. Unger, lawyer, and S. Korte, Professor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Diakonisches Werk evangelischer Kirchen in Niedersachsen eV (Hanover) (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer), Arbeiterwohlfahrt Bezirksverband Hannover eV (Hanover) (represented by: C. Jürschik, lawyer), Arbeiterwohlfahrt Bezirksverband Braunschweig eV (Braunschweig, Germany) and the eight other interveners whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: U. Karpenstein, R. Sangi and C. Johann, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 7686 final of 23 November 2017 on State aid schemes SA.42268 (2017/E) — Deutschland Staatliche Beihilfe zur Förderung wohlfahrtspflegerischer Aufgaben and SA.42877 (2017/E) — Deutschland CarePool Hannover GmbH implemented by Germany in favour of charitable associations for social welfare projects (OJ 2018 C 61, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Verband Deutscher Alten- und Behindertenhilfe, Landesverband Niedersachsen/Bremen und Hamburg/Schleswig-Holstein eV and CarePool Hannover GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Diakonisches Werk evangelischer Kirchen in Niedersachsen eV, Arbeiterwohlfahrt Bezirksverband Hannover eV, Arbeiterwohlfahrt Bezirksverband Braunschweig eV and the other interveners whose names are listed in the annex. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Verband Deutscher Alten- und Behindertenhilfe, Landesverband Niedersachsen/Bremen und Hamburg/Schleswig-Holstein eV and CarePool Hannover GmbH to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Diakonisches Werk evangelischer Kirchen in Niedersachsen eV, Arbeiterwohlfahrt Bezirksverband Hannover eV, Arbeiterwohlfahrt Bezirksverband Braunschweig eV and the other interveners whose names are listed in the annex.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
#### Stefanos KTISTAKIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED CROSS NAVIGATION CORP. and Carras (U. S. A.) Ltd., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 154, Docket 28410.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 7, 1963.

Decided Nov. 18, 1963.

*729James Corines, Brooklyn, N. Y. (Jacob Rassner, New York City, of counsel) (Jacob Rassner, Alan C. Rassner, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Zock, Petrie, Sheneman & Reid, New York City (Edwin K. Reid, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.

Before WATERMAN, MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After trial of the action, which was brought within the district court’s admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, the judge below, sitting without jury, awarded plaintiff damages of $40,000. He found plaintiff to have been so contributorily negligent that the $40,000 award represented but half of the recovery plaintiff would have been entitled to receive if he had not been negligent in any degree. This opinion is reported at 204 F.Supp. 293 (S.D.N.Y.1962). Upon appeal, 316 F.2d 869 (2 Cir. 1963), it was our view that the district judge may have given undue weight in his appraisement of plaintiff’s negligence to the circumstance that plaintiff was the vessel’s second mate, and, when injured, was the officer in charge of the watch, and hence had a duty to keep the deck clean from oil spill and sawdust. Therefore, we remanded the case to the district judge with instructions to re-examine the plaintiff’s conduct “by the traditional negligence standard of whether he exercised the care which a reasonably prudent man would have exercised under the circumstances.”

After remand plaintiff moved for summary judgment and a redetermination of the damages on the trial record. Obedient to our instructions, the judge reviewed the record and applied the standard we instructed him to apply. In a memorandum opinion he reaffirmed his previous estimate of the extent to which plaintiff’s own negligence had contributed to the injury, and he reaffirmed his former award of damages. Plaintiff appealed. We affirm. Oil had been dripping for several hours from the coupling where the shore discharge lines connected with the ship’s manifold discharge lines and spill tubs had been placed under the leaking coupling to catch the drip. The entire area was well-lighted. From midnight until 2:30 A. M. plaintiff had been responsible for the supervision of the work being done in this area, including the emptying of the spill tubs from time to time. The slippery condition caused by the oil that had dripped onto the deck from the coupling or the tubs should have been apparent to a reasonably prudent man in the plaintiff’s position.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1


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


 In connection with the Annual Report of American HealthChoice, Inc. (the
 "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as
 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
 "Report"), I Dr. J. W. Stucki, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as adopted pursuant to S 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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.


 /s/ Dr. J. W. Stucki

 Dr. J. W. Stucki
 Chief Executive Officer
 December 29, 2003
# AVS QPM# Revision



# Quality Management AIR-ANM-030-F4 

### 1 

# Svstem Title: Domestic Change Worksheet Date: December 17, 2008 

# Record of Contacts FDMS Docket No. FAA-iI!lltl· 2010_·_03~7_9 _

___ ••• __ ••••••••• _ •••L ••• C •••• ""' .••.••••••• _ ••••••.••.•••..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••. && •••••• 

# a ••.••.•• s&GZE •••••••••••••••••••. 

# _z ••• ".. " ..

# "a" ..

# _."."."z••

'! 

### With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA. etc.)?

Organization Person Contacted Date ATA Mark Lop{"z 917109 Boeing Paul Richter 7/20109
•••••••••• , ••.•..••.•• L •• & •••• 

### a • & • 

### s •••••••.•• ,•• ,•.••. 

# "g ••••••••••• _ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

_ ••• L_ .. ••

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check the Master List to Verify That This is the Correcl Revision Before Use
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,169
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,485)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,143
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,796
<PP&E>                                         137,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                (63,878)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,392
<BONDS>                                          2,577
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           146
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,276
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,277
<SALES>                                         50,079
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,079
<CGS>                                           37,014
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,381
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (34)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    732
<INCOME-TAX>                                       307
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                425
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       425
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
#### Senchak, Appellant, *v.*Tech Food Products Company et al.

Argued April 14, 1943.

Before Fuller, P. J., Bald-iiige, Stadteeld, Rhodes, Hirt, Kenworthey and Reno, JJ.

*Nathan Holstein,*for appellant.

*248
      *Murray J. Jordan,*with him *Fred J. Jordan,*for ap-pellee.

April 26, 1943:

Per. Curiam,

In this workmen’s compensation case the learned court below affirmed the board in disallowing a claim for compensation made by the widow of Joseph Payne.

The claimant alleged that the death of her former husband on 'September 8, 1938, was due to overexertion on the previous day when in the course of his employment. There was ample evidence to support the findings of the referee, which were affirmed by the board, that there were no unusual circumstances attending the performance of decedent’s work which constituted an accident; that death was due to natural causes. The cause of death was a coronary occlusion and there was medical testimony, although contradicted, that the occlusion was the natural progress of the heart disease from which the decedent had suffered.

There was no proof that the character of decedent’s work was “unusual” in the sense necessary to establish the occurrence of a compensable accident. Decedent was doing his customary form of work, notwithstanding he went up and down a ladder a number of times the day he had a heart attack, and there was nothing to warrant the conclusion that there was some unexpected occurrence. See *Royko v. Logan Coal Co. et al.,*146 Pa. Superior Ct. 449, 458, 22 A. 2d 434; *Hamer v. Rishel,*147 Pa. Superior Ct. 585, 587, 24 A. 2d 664. Mere proof of disability overtaking one at work is insufficient to establish an accident: *Good v. Penna. Dept. of Property & Supplies et al.,*346 Pa. 151, 154, 155, 30 A. 2d 434.

The board’s findings, having been based upon sufficient evidence, are conclusive. It is beyond our province. to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the testimony: *Thomas v. Susquehanna Collieries Co.,*148 Pa. Superior Ct. 161, 165, 25 A. 2d 98.

Judgment is affirmed.
#### State v. Adams

18493

2/19/98

Reversed
# C_2018408EN.01005502.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/55

---

Action brought on 4 September 2018 — XI v Commission

(Case T-528/18)

(2018/C 408/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: XI (represented by: N. Lhöest, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 25 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint in so far as that decision contains medical data; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 25 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint in so far as that decision contains medical data;

| — | order the Commission to pay damages and interest, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay damages and interest, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered; and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, together with a breach of the duty of good administration and the duty of care, in so far as the decision refusing the applicant’s claim disclosed medical data which were, moreover, manifestly incorrect.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 53436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21117]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Agency Information Collection Extension

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review; 
comment request.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an information 
collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a 
three-year extension of its Financial Assistance Information 
Collection, OMB Control Number 1910-0400. This information collection 
request covers information necessary to administer and manage DOE's 
financial assistance programs.

DATES: Comments regarding this collection must be received on or before 
September 30, 2013. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments 
within that period or if you want access to the collection of 
information, without charge, contact the person listed below as soon as 
possible.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the following: DOE Desk 
Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 
17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Bonnell by email at 
richard.bonnell@hq.doe.gov. Please put ``2013 DOE Agency Information 
Collection Extension'' in the subject line when sending an email.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This information collection request 
contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910-0400 (Renewal); (2) Information Collection 
Request Title: DOE Financial Assistance Information Clearance; (3) Type 
of Request: Renewal; (4) Purpose: This package contains information 
collections necessary to annually plan, solicit, negotiate, award, 
administer, and closeout grants and cooperative agreements under the 
Department's financial assistance programs; (5) Estimated Number of 
Respondents 41,340; (6) Estimated Total Burden Hours: 573,732; and (7) 
Number of Collections: The information collection request contains 16 
information and/or recordkeeping requirements; (8) Annual Estimated 
Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0.

    Statutory Authority: Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement 
Act, 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 21, 2013.
David Boyd,
Deputy Director, Office of Acquisition and Project Management.
[FR Doc. 2013-21117 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
# C_2018134EN.01002301.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/23

---

Action brought on 5 February 2018 — Rodriguez Prieto v Commission

(Case T-61/18)

(2018/C 134/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Amador Rodriguez Prieto (Steinsel, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

Declare and rule:

| — | principally, that the Commission is ordered to remedy the losses suffered and therefore to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 68 831 in respect of his pecuniary loss and EUR 100 000 in respect of his non-pecuniary loss; |
| --- | --- |

—

principally, that the Commission is ordered to remedy the losses suffered and therefore to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 68 831 in respect of his pecuniary loss and EUR 100 000 in respect of his non-pecuniary loss;

| — | in the alternative, that the decision of 28 March 2017 refusing assistance is annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, that the decision of 28 March 2017 refusing assistance is annulled;

| — | in any event, that the Commission is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, that the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant alleges, principally, that the Commission committed a faute de service in disregarding his status as a whistle-blower, which caused the applicant pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm which it is for the institution to remedy. In the alternative, the applicant argues that the institution failed to have regard to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations by refusing to grant him the assistance provided for in that article after the criminal proceedings.

---
APPENDIX F 

2008 RFP and 2009 Attainment 

Year Mobile Budget Methodology 

and Documentation

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared By:

Maryland Department of the Environment

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

AIR AND RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION

State Implementation Plan
1

Maryland Department of the Environment

2008 & 2009 Mobile Budget Methodology

 Maryland Department of the Environment

Air and Radiation Management Administration

1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 730

Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Phone 410.537.3240 • Fax 410.631.3202
# Change Log

# Legend
#### Imade v. Ma

16298

11/28/97

Vacated and Remanded
H. Res. 706 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 28, 2016. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4901) to 

reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results 

Act, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered 

as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 

without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 

order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 

88) disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of 

Labor relating to the definition of the term ‘‘Fiduciary’’. All 

points of order against consideration of the joint resolution 

are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. 
2 

•HRES 706 EH 

All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution 

are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto 

to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 

hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 3. On any legislative day during the period from 

May 2, 2016, through May 9, 2016— 

(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 

shall be considered as approved; and 

(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of 

clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment. 

SEC. 4. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform 

the duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 

8(a) of rule I. 
3 

•HRES 706 EH 

SEC. 5. The Committee on Armed Services may, at any 

time before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 4, 2016, file a report 

to accompany H.R. 4909. 

Attest: 

Clerk.