alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009282EN.01001202.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-468/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Recognition of professional qualifications - Directive 2005/36/EC - Failure to transpose)

2009/C 282/22

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and V. Peere, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) or to inform thereof

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 of that directive;

| 2. | orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 10.01.2009.

1

---
# C_2008301EN.01001302.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-87/08) (1)

1

(Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/73/EC - Measures implementing Directive 2004/39/EC - Organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms - Failure to adopt within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 301/25)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive (OJ 2006 L 241, p. 26).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53(1) of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             IT'S TIME TO HOLD FEDERAL RESERVE ACCOUNTABLE

  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. On a day Congress will decide whether to audit the Fed, 
The Washington Post reports that the New York Fed ``did not communicate 
in key meetings with top regulators that British bank Barclays had 
admitted to Fed staffers that it was rigging Libor,'' the index which 
sets interest rates worldwide.
  The Fed wants to be spared a full audit. They want monetary 
deliberations private. Then they use that privacy shield to keep 
irregularities from regulators and from congressional view, exposing 
investors and consumers to massive losses.
  Of course the Fed wants to continue a system where there is no 
transparency, no accountability, where they can cover up manipulations 
of markets and interest rates. But should we endorse this system? When 
things fall apart, who do the banks come to clean up the mess? 
Congress.
  The Fed creates trillions of dollars out of nothing and gives it to 
banks; Congress is in the dark. The Fed sets the stage for the subprime 
meltdown; Congress is in the dark. The Fed takes a dive on Libor; 
Congress is in the dark. The Fed doesn't tell regulators what's going 
on; Congress is in the dark.
  It's time to bring the Fed into the sunshine of accountability. Vote 
for the audit.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICIATION 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 on Form 10-Q of BioTransplant Incorporated (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Donald B. Hawthorne, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

|Dated: November 19, 2002 |  |  | /s/DONALD B. HAWTHORNEDonald B. Hawthorne Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
|------------------------ |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00462-CV

Maria Alvarado, Appellant

v.

John McCarthy d/b/a St. Louis Catholic Church d/b/a

St. Louis King of France Catholic Church, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN403351, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Maria Alvarado has filed a motion to dismiss her appeal. We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: September 26, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 547 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 547

    Expressing support for designation of December 3, 2015, as the 
                    ``National Day of 3D Printing''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 2, 2015

 Mr. Foster (for himself, Mr. Takano, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, 
   Mr. Stivers, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Rush, Mr. Honda, and Mr. Langevin) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                         on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing support for designation of December 3, 2015, as the 
                    ``National Day of 3D Printing''.

Whereas additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing, is a process by which 
        digital 3D design data is used to build up a component in layers by 
        depositing material;
Whereas 3D printing creates an object layer by layer, greatly reducing waste and 
        increasing efficiency compared to traditional manufacturing techniques;
Whereas 3D printing has grown exponentially over the last several years;
Whereas the United States is a world leader in advanced manufacturing, and has a 
        history of design innovation;
Whereas public-private partnerships that promote advanced manufacturing, such as 
        the Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute and other 
        Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, will develop enhanced digital 
        capabilities to design and test new products and reduce costs in 
        manufacturing processes across a variety of industries;
Whereas 3D printing has widespread applications in home construction, home goods 
        production, biotechnology, the automotive sector, aerospace, medicine, 
        consumer electronics, and defense;
Whereas 3D printing has the potential to reshape manufacturing in the United 
        States, by decreasing the cost of producing goods for small businesses 
        and local manufacturers;
Whereas innovation will be increased, as 3D printing reduces the time required 
        for product development and market launch; and
Whereas, December 3, 2015, would be an appropriate date to designate as the 
        ``National Day of 3D Printing'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of the ``National Day of 3D 
        Printing'';
            (2) recognizes the economic impact of 3D printing and the 
        positive implications of 3D printing for the United States 
        advanced manufacturing sector; and
            (3) encourages the promotion and celebration of 3D printing 
        technology.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Preston Lindsey, Respondent.

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), entered December 5, 1989, abated, as a result of respondent’s death. *739No opinion. Concur — Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Glenn
      Welstad, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the
      "Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
      knowledge:





This
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March
      30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"),
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
                May 12, 2008/s/
                Glenn WelstadGlenn
                WelstadPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2021044EN.01000702.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — M.S., M.W., G.S. v Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-616/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Asylum policy - Procedure for granting and withdrawing refugee status - Directive 2005/85/EC - Article 25(2) - Grounds for inadmissibility - Rejection by one Member State of an application for international protection as inadmissible due to the earlier grant to the applicant of subsidiary protection in another Member State - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013)

(2021/C 44/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M.S., M.W., G.S.

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 25(2) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which is subject to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, but which is not bound by Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, in accordance with which an application for international protection is considered to be inadmissible where the applicant benefits from subsidiary protection status in another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---
#### JOAN TISSOT, ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ANNA KELEMAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. FLASHNER REALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued March *7,*1949

Decided March 14, 1949.

*Mr. Irving Siegler*argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellant *{Mr. Michael Breitkopf,*attorney).

*Mr. Abraham L. Friedman*argued the cause for the defendant-respondent *{Mr. Samuel Poleshuck,*attorney).

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from' a judgment of non-suit, entered in the former Essex County Circuit Court, in a suit in *530which the appellant sought damages ensuing from the death of Anna Keleman as the result of her falling down a stairway while a guest of a tenant on premises owned and controlled by defendant.

On the day of the accident Mrs. Keleman had been visiting a friend who lived on the third floor of the premises. She was found injured on the first, floor landing. There were no eye witnesses to the accident itself.

A Mr. Bappista, who lived on the second floor, was asleep at the time. He was awakened by a loud noise. He testified “That noise is go on the second floor”, he heard the noise “from the second floor to the first floor”, tie went out and saw the woman lying on the first floor landing.

Several days later decedent’s son-in-law had pictures taken of the stairway leading to the second floor which show two of the steps near the top in a bad state of disrepair, with the treads defective.

There is a complete absence of testimony as to where Mrs. Keleman fell or what caused her to fall. Assuming there was sufficient proof of negligence on the part of defendant as to the maintenance of the stairway it was still incumbent on the plaintiff to show by evidence, or inferences which could be legitimately drawn therefrom, that the particular negligence complained of was the proximate cause of decedent’s fall. *Smith v. Public Service,*78 *N. J. L.*478*(E. & A.*1909); *Ball v. Atlantic City Ambassador Hotel Corp.,*57 *Atl. Rep. 2nd 362 (E. & A.*1948), not as yet officially reported. All the evidence shows is that an accident occurred. It is fundamental this is not sufficient.

The non-suit was proper. The judgment is 'affirmed.

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Case, Heher, Wacheneeld, Burling and Ackerson—6.

*For reversal: None.*
# C_2009019EN.01002001.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/20

---

Action brought on 27 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-523/08)

(2009/C 19/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by M. Condou-Durande and M.-A. Rabanal Suárez, Agents,)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | a declaration that the Kingdom of Spain, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/71/EC (1) on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research and, in any case, by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

a declaration that the Kingdom of Spain, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/71/EC (1) on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research and, in any case, by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

1

| — | an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period allowed for the transposition into domestic law of Directive 2005/71/EC expired on 12 October 2007.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 289, p. 15.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1359-E1360]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              DAVID HERMAN

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ED PERLMUTTER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and applaud 
David Herman for his service to our community.
   David Herman, a native of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, is a world-class 
BMX rider and a

[[Page E1360]]

contender in the 2012 London Olympics. David has been passionate about 
BMX since he was eight years old, and received his first factory 
sponsor in sixth grade. He is currently taking time off from pursuing 
his college degree in Denver to focus on his Olympic career.
   David has been a household name in the world of BMX since he burst 
onto the scene in 2007. He is known as one of the fastest starters in 
the sport, and has two World Cup wins under his belt. After placing 
22nd in the 2011 World Championships in Copenhagen, David began pushing 
himself harder and harder toward his dream of joining Team USA in the 
2012 Olympics. His hard work and dedication paid off in the 2012 World 
Championships in England, where he finished fifth to become the first 
U.S. BMX rider to book his place in London.
   David's dedication to his sport is mirrored by his dedication to his 
family in Colorado. Though he prepares for the Olympics with his coach 
Greg Romero at the Olympic Training Center in Chula Vista, California, 
David makes sure to divide his time between California and the Denver 
area.
   I extend my deepest congratulations to David Herman for his hard 
work and perseverance. It is an honor to see a native of Colorado rise 
to this Olympic level. David embodies the best our country could hope 
for in the next generation of Americans. I have no doubt he will 
exhibit the same dedication and character in all his future 
accomplishments.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008209EN.01003503.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/35

---

Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-272/08)

(2008/C 209/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the Kingdom of Spain, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) 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 not communicating those provisions to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 38 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Kingdom of Spain, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) 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 not communicating those provisions to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 38 of that directive.

1

| — | Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time limit for transposition of the directive expired on 10 October 2006.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

1

---
# C_2010148EN.01000602.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV v Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH

(Case C-511/08) (1)

1

(Directive 97/7/EC - Consumer protection - Distance contracts - Right of withdrawal - Consumer charged with the cost of delivering the goods)

2010/C 148/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV

Applicant:

Defendant: Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 6(1), second sentence, and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19) — National legislation which allows the costs of delivering the goods to be charged to the consumer if he withdraws from the contract

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1), first subparagraph, second sentence, and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the context of a distance contract, requires the cost of delivering the goods to be charged to the consumer after he exercises his right of withdrawal.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.

1

---