alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010179EN.01000501.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-352/08) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Directive 90/434/EEC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Article 11(1)(a) - Whether applicable to transaction tax)

(2010/C 179/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p.1) — Concept of tax evasion or tax avoidance — Transaction aimed at escaping a national tax not referred to in the Directive’s list of taxes which may not be levied

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States is to be interpreted as meaning that the favourable arrangements which that directive introduces may not be withheld from a taxpayer who has sought, by way of a legal stratagem involving a company merger, to avoid the levying of a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings, namely transaction tax, where that tax does not come within the scope of application of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 08.11.2008.

---
**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 Treasure Mountain Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael McGuinness, Chief Financial 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------










|January 19, 2005 | /s/ Michael McGuinness
Michael McGuinness
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------










This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     RECOGNIZING MR. PHIL WHITFIELD

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 26, 2012

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
recognize the civic and cultural contributions of Mr. Phil Whitfield, a 
fellow Texan who currently serves as curator for the art collection 
featured at Cowboys Stadium.
  Since growing up in Oak Cliff, Texas, Mr. Whitfield's loyalty to the 
Dallas Cowboys was inherent, and remains steadfast to this day. He grew 
up cheering on the Cowboys when their games were at the Cotton Bowl. In 
1993, Mr. Whitfield began working as a security guard at Texas Stadium, 
which served as the home field of the Dallas Cowboys from 1971 to 2008. 
Mr. Whitfield remained in this position until he was hired to work at 
the new Cowboys Stadium to oversee the stadium's extensive art 
collection.
  Cowboys Stadium currently features 19 pieces of contemporary art, and 
Mr. Whitfield works with each artist to create beautiful installations. 
His passion and appreciation for art comes second only to his devotion 
to the Cowboys. Mr. Whitfield devotes considerable time and effort to 
each individual work of art and its respective creator. Today, Cowboys 
Stadium boasts artistic diversity which millions of fans have long 
since enjoyed.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize Mr. Whitfield's 
contributions to Texas' beloved Cowboys Stadium. Cowboys fans from all 
over appreciate how the stadium's collection is being highlighted and 
maintained by a loyal fan such as Mr. Phil Whitfield.

                          ____________________
```
**EXHIBIT
23**
 
 
 
 **CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The Board
of Directors
  Summit
Financial Corporation
  
 
 
 
 We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-83538, 33-94962, 33-94964 and 333-101367) on Form S-8 of Summit Financial
Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated February 22, 2005, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheets of Summit Financial Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004,
which report appears in the December 31, 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Summit Financial Corporation and subsidiaries.
  
  
  
  
  
  /s/
      KPMG LLPGreenville,
      South CarolinaMarch
      1, 2005
# C_2009069EN.01003303.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/33

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-209/08) (1)

1

(2009/C 69/75)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
# C_2018427EN.01010001.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/100 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/100

---

Action brought on 4 October 2018 — Grupo textil brownie v EUIPO — The Guide Association (BROWNIE)

(Case T-598/18)

(2018/C 427/132)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grupo textil brownie, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza and J. C. Quero Navarro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Guide Association (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark — Application for registration No 14 016 844

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2018 in Case R 2680/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2007140EN.01004001.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/40

---

Action brought on 4 May 2007 — General Technic v Commission

(Case T-142/07)

(2007/C 140/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: General Technic Sàrl (Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Nosbusch, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul on the basis of Article 230 EC the decision adopted by the Commission on 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators, in so far as it concerns GT; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul on the basis of Article 230 EC the decision adopted by the Commission on 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators, in so far as it concerns GT;

| — | in the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Article 229 EC, the fine imposed on it by that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul or reduce, on the basis of Article 229 EC, the fine imposed on it by that decision;

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

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant is seeking the partial annulment of Commission decision C(2007)512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — PO/Elevators and Escalators), concerning a cartel on the market for the installation and maintenance of lifts and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and relating to the manipulation of calls for tenders, market-sharing, price-fixing, the award of projects and sales contracts, the installation, maintenance and modernisation of machinery and the exchange of information, in so far as it concerns the applicant. In the alternative, the applicant seeks the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it by the contested decision.

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the Commission was wrong to find it jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine imposed on its subsidiary, a member of the cartel. It claims that the Commission was mistaken about the nature and extent of its shareholding in the share capital of its subsidiary in so far as the applicant is a purely financial company which does not carry out any trade of its own and that its shareholding in the subsidiary is a minority shareholding which does not exceed what is necessary for the protection of its financial interests. The applicant maintains also that the Commission has not stated to the requisite legal standard its reasons for finding that the applicant was involved in the cartel in question, in contrast to the personal role played by its shareholder, in his capacity as managing associate of the subsidiary.

---
# C_2009082EN.01000802.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-293/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/83/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2009/C 82/15)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted and, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted and, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

1

---
# C_2022011EN.01000201.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam- Netherlands) — Stichting Cartel Compensation, Equilib Netherlands BV v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV and Others

(Case C-819/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 81, 84 and 85 EC - Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Cartels - Conduct of undertakings in the air transport sector between the European Economic Area (EEA) and third countries which took place when Articles 84 and 85 EC were in force - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of national courts to apply Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement)

(2022/C 11/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stichting Cartel Compensation, Equilib Netherlands BV

Defendants: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, Martinair Holland NV, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Lufthansa Cargo AG, British Airways plc, Air France SA, Singapore Airlines Ltd, Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd, Swiss International Air Lines AG, Air Canada, Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, SAS AB, SAS Cargo Group A/S

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 81, 84 and 85 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court has jurisdiction to apply Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area in a private law dispute concerning an action for damages brought before it after the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 [EC] to the conduct of undertakings in the air transport sector between a Member State and a third country other than Switzerland which took place before 1 May 2004, to the conduct of undertakings in the air transport sector between a Member State and Switzerland which took place before 1 June 2002 and to the conduct of undertakings in the air transport sector between a European Economic Area country which is not a Member State and a third country which took place before 19 May 2005, even though no decision under Article 84 EC or Article 85 EC had been adopted as regards that conduct, in so far as that conduct was liable to affect trade between Member States and the contracting parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, respectively.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---
# C_2018352EN.01003801.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/38

---

Action brought on 24 July 2018 — Biasotto v EUIPO — OOFOS (OOF)

(Case T-453/18)

(2018/C 352/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Biasotto (Treviso, Italy) (represented by: F. le Divelec Lemmi, R. Castiglioni and E. Cammareri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: OOFOS LLC (Reno, Nevada, United States).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark OOF — Application for registration No 14 961 767

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2018 in Case R 1270/2017-2.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | fully uphold the present action; |
| --- | --- |

—

fully uphold the present action;

| — | entirely reject the contested decision and, consequently, allow EUTM Application No 14 961 767 to proceed to registration in relation to all the products and services claimed by the same in classes 18, 25 and 35 (or, eventually, asking the EUIPO to examine once again the appeal filed by the Applicant on 15 June 2017, this time, however, comparing the contested application with the trademark claimed by the Opponent’s earlier International Registration No 1 258 728); |
| --- | --- |

—

entirely reject the contested decision and, consequently, allow EUTM Application No 14 961 767 to proceed to registration in relation to all the products and services claimed by the same in classes 18, 25 and 35 (or, eventually, asking the EUIPO to examine once again the appeal filed by the Applicant on 15 June 2017, this time, however, comparing the contested application with the trademark claimed by the Opponent’s earlier International Registration No 1 258 728);

| — | order EUIPO or the Intervener to bear all the costs related not only to the present proceedings before the General Court but also to the opposition and appeal proceedings before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO or the Intervener to bear all the costs related not only to the present proceedings before the General Court but also to the opposition and appeal proceedings before the EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sylvester Mallory, Jr., Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion to suppress certain oral and written statements made to the police was properly denied. The statements made by defendant in the police vehicle resulted from a threshold police inquiry "designed to clarify the nature of the situation” rather than to obtain a confession *(People v Huffman,*41 NY2d 29, 34). Thus, those statements were not the product of custodial interrogation to which *Miranda*warnings are applicable *(see, People v Huffman, supra; People v Stackhouse,*160 AD2d 822, 823, *lv denied*76 NY2d 865; *People v Sims,*150 AD2d 402, 403, *lv denied*74 NY2d 747; *People v Smith,*150 AD2d 738, 739, *lv*
      *624
      *denied*74 NY2d 819; *People v Esposito,*138 AD2d 733; *People v Brewer,*136 AD2d 831, 832, *lv denied*71 NY2d 966). The record supports the suppression court’s determination that, at the police station, defendant was fully apprised of his *Miranda*rights and that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived those rights and gave oral and written statements *(see, People v Brainard,*122 AD2d 299, *lv denied*68 NY2d 913).

The admission into evidence of a photograph of the murder victim was proper *(see, People v Bell,*63 NY2d 796; *People v Pobliner,*32 NY2d 356, *cert denied*416 US 905). Finally, the sentence imposed was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
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 Covalent Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth M. Borow, M.D., President and 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/    KENNETH M. BOROW,
M.D.        
|Kenneth M. Borow, M.D.               
|President and Chief Executive Officer



March 30, 2005



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
23137

#### State v. Turner

Affirmed