alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011030EN.01001002.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/10

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Granada-Spain) — Carlos Sáez Snchez, Patricia Rueda Vargas v Junta de Andalucía, Manual Jalón Morente and Others

(Case C-563/08) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Public health - Pharmacies - Proximity - Provision of medicinal products to the public - Operating licence - Territorial distribution of pharmacies - Establishment of limits based on population density - Minimum distance between pharmacies keywords)

2011/C 30/16

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Granada-Spain

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Carlos Sáez Sánchez, Patricia Rueda Vargas

Applicants:

Defendants: Junta de Andalucía, Manual Jalón Morente and Others

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 2 de Granada — Interpretation of Article 43 EC — Legislation laying down the conditions for the opening of new pharmacies — Limits according to the number of inhabitants and the need to maintain a minimum distance between the pharmacies

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the cases before the referring court, which imposes restrictions on the issue of licences for the opening of new pharmacies, by providing that:

| — | in each pharmaceutical area, a single pharmacy may be opened, as a general rule, per unit of 2800 inhabitants; |
| --- | --- |

—

in each pharmaceutical area, a single pharmacy may be opened, as a general rule, per unit of 2800 inhabitants;

| — | a supplementary pharmacy may not be opened until that threshold has been exceeded, that pharmacy being established for the fraction above 2000 inhabitants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

a supplementary pharmacy may not be opened until that threshold has been exceeded, that pharmacy being established for the fraction above 2000 inhabitants; and

| — | each pharmacy must be a minimum distance away from existing pharmacies, that distance being, as a general rule, 250 metres. |
| --- | --- |

—

each pharmacy must be a minimum distance away from existing pharmacies, that distance being, as a general rule, 250 metres.

Nevertheless, Article 49 TFEU precludes such national legislation in so far as the basic ‘2800 inhabitants’ and ‘250 metres’ rules prevent, in any geographical area which has special demographic features, the establishment of a sufficient number of pharmacies to ensure adequate pharmaceutical services, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 21.03.2009.

1

---
# C_2010063EN.01000802.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-333/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Quantitative restriction on imports - Measure having equivalent effect - Prior authorisation scheme - Processing aids, and foodstuffs whose preparation involved the use of processing aids, from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and/or marketed - Procedure allowing economic operators to obtain the entry of such substances on a ‘positive list’ - Mutual recognition clause - National legislative context creating a situation of legal uncertainty for economic operators)

2010/C 63/12

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC — Scheme of prior authorisation for processing aids, and foodstuffs the preparation of which involved the use of processing aids, from other Member States where they were lawfully manufactured and/or marketed — Lack of justification and/or non-compliance with the principle of proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | By laying down, for processing aids and foodstuffs whose preparation involved the use of processing aids from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and/or marketed, a prior authorisation scheme not complying with the principle of proportionality, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By laying down, for processing aids and foodstuffs whose preparation involved the use of processing aids from other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and/or marketed, a prior authorisation scheme not complying with the principle of proportionality, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC.

| 2. | The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.

1

---
#### Cook, Appellant, *v.*Portsmouth City Lines, Inc., Appellee.

(No. 31925

Decided December 7, 1949.)

*Messrs. Kimble, Kimble & Schapiro,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Miller, Searl & Fitch*and *Mr. H. J. MicJclethwaite,*for appellee.

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.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taft, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,725,056
<SECURITIES>                                   495,625
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,796
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,484,430
<PP&E>                                         269,020
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,119
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,759,756
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          503,972
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,000
<COMMON>                                        10,678
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,215,106
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,759,756
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,216,760
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                99,348
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                542,856
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,296
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            531,560
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   531,560
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      25,441,738
<SECURITIES>                                 1,593,174
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149,026
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,183,938
<PP&E>                                       5,332,031
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,918,022
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,597,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,448,529
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       116,667
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,624,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,597,947
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,817,914
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,316,840
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,080
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,498,926)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,498,926)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,498,926)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)


</TABLE>
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (Adopted Oct. 5, 1979)(Amended Sept. 10, 1982)(Amended July 12, 1985) (Amended August 1, 1986)(Amended June 28, 1990) (Amended December 7, 1995) RULE 1310. ANALYSIS AND REPORTING (a) Completeness of Application The Executive Officer or designee shall determine whether or not the application is complete and shall notify the applicant in writing not later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the application, or after such longer time as both the applicant and the Executive Officer or designee may agree. If the application is determined to be incomplete, the determination shall specify which parts of the application are incomplete and how they can be made complete. Upon receipt by the Executive Officer or designee of any resubmittal of the application, a new 30-day period, in which the Executive Officer or designee must determine completeness, shall begin. Completeness of an application or resubmitted application shall be evaluated on the basis of the guidelines for such, published by the Executive Officer or designee. (b) Reporting and Rule Modifications By February 1997, and annually thereafter, the Executive Officer or designee shall report to the District Governing Board regarding the effectiveness of Regulation XIII in meeting the state and federal NSR requirements. (c) Requirements for Public Notice For those sources requesting emission reduction credits in excess of the amounts specified below: Daily Maximum Air Contaminant in Lbs Per Day

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 30

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 40

Particulate Matter (PM10) 30

Sulfur Dioxide (SOx) 60 SCAQMD 1310 - ANALYSIS AND REPORTING https://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/AgencyProvision/FDCE66805DA...

1 of 2 6/8/2016 7:57 AMCarbon Monoxide (CO) 220

following acceptance of an application as complete, the Executive Officer or designee shall: Perform the evaluations required to determine compliance with this regulation and make a preliminary written decision, as appropriate, as to whether or not an ERC should be approved or disapproved. The decision shall be supported by a succinct written analysis; and 1.
Within ten calendar days following such decision, publish a notice by prominent advertisement in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the District stating the preliminary decision of the Executive Officer or designee and where the public may inspect the information required to be made available under paragraph (c)(3). The notice shall provide 30 days from the date of publication for the public to submit written comments on the preliminary decision; and 2.

At the time notice of the preliminary decision is published, make available for public inspection at the District office the information submitted by the applicant, the supporting analysis for the preliminary decision, and the preliminary decision to grant or deny an ERC and the reasons therefore. The confidentiality of trade secrets shall be considered in accordance with Section 6254.7 of the Government Code. 3. SCAQMD 1310 - ANALYSIS AND REPORTING https://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/AgencyProvision/FDCE66805DA...

2 of 2 6/8/2016 7:57 AM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Evaristo Burgos, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered September 25, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On the evening of February 24, 1988, Police Officers Salvatore Costa and Douglas Greenwood were patrolling a Brooklyn apartment building known for drug trafficking activity. When the officers reached the second floor, they observed the defendant, standing face-to-face with a second man in a narrow hallway. Upon observing the defendant’s companion, later identified as Noel Velasquez, drop four vials of cocaine to the ground, the officers directed both men to "freeze” and stand *212against the wall. As Officer Costa was handcuffing Velasquez, he observed the defendant attempting to hide what appeared to be a gun. The officers then recovered a gun from the defendant, resulting in his arrest.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the officers’ limited detention of him was reasonable under these circumstances *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761). Although the officers may not have reasonably suspected that the defendant was engaged in any illegal activity *(see, People v Ballejo,*114 AD2d 902), the officers were engaged in the arrest of the defendant’s companion in a narrow hallway in a building known for drug trafficking and their initial stop of the defendant was proper to ensure their safety *(see, People v Salaman,*71 NY2d 869; *People v Green,*103 AD2d 362, 365; *People v Jenkins,*87 AD2d 526; *People v Branch,*134 Misc 2d 705). Moreover, the officers’ subsequent observation of the defendant’s gun provided probable cause for his arrest *(see, People v McRay,*51 NY2d 594).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, without merit. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5481-S5482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    RECOGNIZING COZY HARBOR SEAFOOD

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, with over 220 miles of beautiful 
Atlantic coastline, my home State knows the benefits and the rigors of 
living off the water. The very mention of Maine will evoke, for many, 
the pristine natural beauty and rugged terrain of our rocky coast. Hand 
in hand with these romantic images is that of hard-working fishermen, 
whose relationship with Maine's waters is key to maintaining a thriving 
seafood market so characteristic of our State. I rise to recognize a 
small business whose dedication to producing and marketing a quality 
product epitomizes the entrepreneurial spirit so characteristic of 
Maine.
  From its founding in 1980, Cozy Harbor Seafood of Portland, ME has 
striven to provide a consistently high-quality product to consumers 
both local and abroad with a recent expansion into the European 
markets. Specializing in processing and distributing lobster, fresh 
fish, and frozen seafood for supermarkets, seafood wholesalers,

[[Page S5482]]

and restaurants, Cozy Harbor is aggressively seeking new venues and 
opportunities to expand through participation in seafood expositions, 
as seen through its recent involvement at the European Seafood 
Exposition and the upcoming Asian Seafood Show and China Fisheries Show 
later this year.
  The seafood industry in Maine is more than a profession; it is a 
lifestyle. The passion, love, and dedication shown by those in my home 
State to producing a quality product not only reaps its benefits in the 
ledger books, it is also a major contributing factor in the development 
of the tradition and reputation of excellence that Maine seafood has 
come to be known for worldwide. Through programs such as the Gulf of 
Maine Responsibly Harvested Program, the sustainability of the fishing 
industry is further developed. Cozy Harbor also participates in the 
Trace Register which records the product's origin for consumers to view 
online, has been recognized internationally for high-quality product, 
and has received the British Retail Consortium's certification grade A 
level for food safety. These efforts not only increase quality 
standards, they ensure that the fishing industry is viable for 
generations to come.
  Like many small businesses in Maine, Cozy Harbor is steadfast in 
serving the local community and giving back to the area. Its devotion 
is illustrated by its donation of approximately 500 lobsters to the 
Bike MS: Great Maine Getaway sponsored annually by the National MS 
Society's New England chapter, which supports multiple sclerosis 
research and programs in the New England area.
  Cozy Harbor exhibits the ingenuity, commitment to quality, and 
dedication to competing in an ever-growing market that is so 
characteristic of entrepreneurs in Maine. I commend Cozy Harbor on its 
success and offer my best wishes for the future.

                          ____________________
```
**Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 May 2009 – Commission v France**

**(Case C-443/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 1999/13/EC – Limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds – Failure to transpose the concepts of ‘small installation’ and ‘substantial change’

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see point 22)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to have adopted all the laws and regulations necessary to transpose correctly Articles 2(3), 2(4) and 4(4) of Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations (OJ 1999 L 85, p. 1) – Concepts of ‘small installation’ and ‘substantial change’. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order correctly to transpose Articles 2(3), 2(4) and 4(4) of Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
October 19, 2015

Mr. Jay Biddle

P.O. Box 51

Snow Hill, MD 21863

Dear Mr. Biddle:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request, posted to the public docket on July 22, 2015, and filed in 

Docket No. FAA−2015−3093, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider 

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4