alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008236EN.01001102.xml

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Ischia (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Multiservice Srl v Telecom Italia SpA

(Case C-320/08)

(2008/C 236/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Ischia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Multiservice Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Telecom Italia SpA

Defendant:

Question referred

Do the Community rules in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Directive 2002/22/EC (1), Directive 1999/44/EC (2), Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC (3) and Directive 1998/257/EC (4) have direct effect and must they be interpreted as meaning that disputes ‘in the area of electronic communications between end-users and operators concerning non-compliance with the rules on universal service and on the rights of end-users, as laid down in legislation, decisions of the Regulatory Authority, contractual terms and service charters’ (the disputes contemplated by Article 2 of Decision No 173/07/CONS of the Regulatory Authority) must not be made subject to a mandatory attempt at conciliation without which proceedings in that regard may not be brought before the courts, thus taking precedence over the rule laid down in Article 3(1) of Decision No 173/07/CONS?

1

2

3

4

in the area of electronic communications between end-users and operators concerning non-compliance with the rules on universal service and on the rights of end-users, as laid down in legislation, decisions of the Regulatory Authority, contractual terms and service charters

---

(1)  OJ L 108, p. 51.

1

(2)  OJ L 171, p. 12.

2

(3)  Commission Recommendation.

3

(4)  Commission Recommendation.

4

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          12,756
<SECURITIES>                                     1,509
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,326
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,405
<INVENTORY>                                     22,264
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,579
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,445
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,890
<BONDS>                                         17,102
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                     136,645
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,894
<SALES>                                         48,312
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,312
<CGS>                                           37,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,488
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,814)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,814)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,814)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.86)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          15,546
<SECURITIES>                                     5,233
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,167
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,839
<PP&E>                                          15,190
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,832
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,250
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,957
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 488
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    750
<INCOME-TAX>                                       454
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                296
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       296
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
# C_2010100EN.01000301.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, United Kingdom) — London Borough of Harrow v Nimco Hassan Ibrahim, Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-310/08) (1)

1

(Freedom of movement for persons - Right of residence of a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a national of a Member State, and of their children who are themselves nationals of a Member State - National of a Member State ceasing to work and leaving the host Member State - Enrolment of the children at a school - No means of subsistence - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 12 - Directive 2004/38)

2010/C 100/03

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal of England and Wales

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: London Borough of Harrow

Applicant:

Defendants: Nimco Hassan Ibrahim, Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal of England and Wales — Interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) and of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p 475) — Wife who is a national of a non-member country and her children, themselves nationals of a Member State, who have joined her husband, a national of that Member State, in the United Kingdom where he was employed — Right of residence of the wife and children following the husband’s loss of status as an employed person and his departure from the United Kingdom

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the children of a national of a Member State who works or has worked in the host Member State and the parent who is their primary carer can claim a right of residence in the latter State on the sole basis of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992, without such a right being conditional on their having sufficient resources and comprehensive sickness insurance cover in that State.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5708]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania:
       H.R. 6285.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to 
     Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 of the United 
     States Constitution which gives Congress the power ``to make 
     Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval 
     Forces.''
```
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANPSORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC

Inthe Matter of: REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION ) ) ) DocketNo. FAA-2013-0852 (FAA Case ) No.2010GL110030) ) )
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA''), pursuantto a settlement agreement, hereby withdraws its August 11, 2015 "Complainant'sNotice ofAppeal" that appealed the Administrative Law Judge's initial decision, dated July 27, 2015, inthe above-referenced case. Respectfully submitted,

J n C. Stuart, J
. Enforcement Division, AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Email: mike.stuart@faa.gov Phone: (202) 267-9958 Fax: (202) 267-5106
Dated: October 23,2015 

# RECEIVED OCT 2 32015 HEARING DOCKETCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have sent on this date, as described below, the FAA's Notice ofWithdrawal ofAppeal in In the matter of RegentAerospace Corporation, FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-0852 (Case No. 2010GL!l0030) Original and one copy - by personal delivery and fax: Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, SW Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591 Fax: (202) 493-5142 Copy- by certified mail, return receipt requested and by email: Jeffrey Clement, Esq. HoffLaw Group Suite 330 135 S. LaSalle Street Chicago Illinois 60603-4134 Email:jfc@aviationattomey.com

Dated: October 2Ul5
#### Jack WILSON and David Kidd, Appellants (Defendants below), v. G. T. BURRIDGE, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 3041.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Oct. 11, 1961.

Houston G. Williams, Casper, in support of motion.

Robert R. Rose, Jr., Casper, in opposition to motion.

Before BLUME, C. J., and PARKER and HARNSBERGER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, G. T. Burridge, a candidate for the Casper City Council in 1956, brought an action against his opponent, Jack Wilson, seeking to be declared a duly elected councilman of the city. A judgment in his favor was affirmed on appeal to this court. Wilson v. Burridge, Wyo., 346 P.2d 282. Later, Burridge sought to recover from Wilson the moneys received from the city for services as councilman and joined Kidd, a surety, as defendant. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, both defendants have appealed.

The judgment was entered December 23, 1960, notice of appeal given January 10, 1961, and the designation of record on appeal February 7. On March 6 the defendants filed a motion asking for an extension of time for filing the record on the ground that the clerk of the district court had been ill, and the district court entered an order extending the time for filing the record to April 5. An order of the court dated April 3 extended the time for filing the record to April 19. The record on appeal was filed April 12, more than ninety days after the filing of the notice of appeal. The trial court’s order of April 3 granting an extension to April 19 was without force and effect as purporting to exceed the authority permitted such court under the provisions of Rule 73(g), Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure.

In response to plaintiff’s motion requesting dismissal, defendants urge that good faith has been shown as indicated by the filing of both the notice of appeal and the designation of record earlier than was requisite under the applicable rules. Such action, however, cannot alter the provisions of the rules and is not a persuasive factor in a consideration of the motion for dismissal.

Defendants also recount certain difficulties which they encountered in procuring the supersedeas bond, but the facts presented do not show this to be an extraordinary case in which the defendants have exercised due diligence but for causes beyond their control could not docket the record on appeal within the prescribed period.

Appeal dismissed.

McINTYRE, J., did not participate in the determination of this appeal.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H4918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1220
     CONTINUING COSTS OF OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM IN AFGHANISTAN

  (Mr. SCHRADER asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. SCHRADER. I rise today to support our planning for a safe and 
responsible withdrawal from Afghanistan in the very, very near term. No 
one has forgotten why we went into Afghanistan: to rout out and bring 
justice to those who attacked us on September 11, 2001. With 
extraordinary bravery, our troops have accomplished the mission they 
were set out to do over 10 years ago. Osama bin Laden has been brought 
to justice and al Qaeda has been largely crushed. Our troops have done 
their job. Many of them--over 2,000 of them, in fact--have given their 
lives not only to defend our freedoms but those of Afghans as well.
  After 10 years of war and reconstruction, it's time for Afghans to 
stand up for Afghanistan, and it's time for us to do our job and bring 
our troops home. We can continue to defend ourselves from terrorists 
without tens of thousands of troops fighting a ground war in 
Afghanistan. The $88 billion we're talking about putting into 
Afghanistan in this Defense appropriations bill this week could build 
our own infrastructure and create jobs and economic opportunity right 
here at home. It is ludicrous to be spending such large sums rebuilding 
other countries when our own economic problems are so large and 
persistent. Our greatest leaders say our greatest threat is not a 
military one, but an economic one.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008223EN.01003302.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/33

---

Action brought on 1 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-289/08)

(2008/C 223/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Sipos)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by not drawing up an external emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by not drawing up an external emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of that directive;

1

| — | order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that drawing up an emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside establishments subject to Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC is a fundamental requirement of that directive. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive since it has not drawn up such plans for eight operational establishments situated on its territory.

---

(1)  OJ 1997, L 10, p. 13.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000



<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             629
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            4130
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     16,132
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             864
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               835
<LOANS>                                         52,120
<ALLOWANCE>                                        531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,682
<DEPOSITS>                                      67,550
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,700
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                801
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,580
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  82,862
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,091
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,247
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,338
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,997
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,751
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,499
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       88
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (171)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,618
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    172
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         172
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       124
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.47
<LOANS-NON>                                        825
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     97
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   468
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       27
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  531
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            531



</TABLE>
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Yankey, Appellant.

(Nos. 32186 and 32187

Decided May 24, 1950.)

*Mr. Darrell II. Dottle,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Winston W. Dill,*for appellee.

*Mr. Charles D. Wilson*and *Miss Cecile J.*Shapiro, for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeals dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taet, JJ., concur.
#### Karouzin Mardiros, Respondent, v Nabil Ghaly et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiff’s responses to designated items in defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars were sufficient. The court’s order denying defendants’ motion for reargument is not appealable *(see, Fahey v County of Nassau,*111 AD2d 214). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Baisley, J. — Preclusion Order.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
# C_2020222EN.01001601.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovni sud — Croatia) — Criminal proceedings against I.N.

(Case C-897/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - EEA Agreement - Non-discrimination - Article 36 - Freedom to provide services - Scope - Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters’ association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis - Agreement on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway - Extradition to a third State of an Icelandic national - Protection of a Member State’s nationals against extradition - No equivalent protection for nationals of another State - Icelandic national who was granted asylum under national law before acquiring Icelandic citizenship - Restriction of freedom of movement - Justification based on the prevention of impunity - Proportionality - Verification of the guarantees provided for in Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2020/C 222/18)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Vrhovni sud

Party in the main proceedings

I.N.

Intervener: Ruska Federacija

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 and Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, when a Member State, to which a national of a Member State of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) — which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area and with which the European Union has concluded a surrender agreement — has moved, receives an extradition request from a third State pursuant to the European Convention on Extradition, signed at Paris on 13 December 1957, and when that national was granted asylum by that EFTA State — before he or she acquired the nationality of that State — precisely on account of the criminal proceedings brought against him or her in the State which issued the request for extradition, it is for the competent authority of the requested Member State to verify that the extradition would not infringe the rights covered by Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the grant of asylum being a particularly substantial piece of evidence in the context of that verification. Before considering executing the request for extradition, the requested Member State is obliged, in any event, to inform that same EFTA State and, should that State so request, surrender that national to it, in accordance with the provisions of the surrender agreement, provided that that EFTA State has jurisdiction, pursuant to its national law, to prosecute that national for offences committed outside its national territory.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---