alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009282EN.01001801.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/18

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Mons — Belgium) — Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne v Belgian State — SPF Finances

(Affaire C-483/08) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 10(1) and (2) - Recovery of tax improperly deducted - Starting point of the limitation period)

2009/C 282/34

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgian State — SPF Finances

Defendant:

Re

Re

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Mons — Interpretation of Article 10 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OL 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Concepts of ‘chargeable event’ and ‘chargeability of tax’ — Starting point of the limitation period for an action for recovery of VAT — The date on which the invoice is tendered or the date on which the VAT return is lodged in which the taxable person claims a right to deduct?

Operative part

Operative part

Article 10 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation and administrative practice which fixes the starting point of the limitation period for an action for recovery of improperly deducted value added tax as the day on which the taxable person lodged the VAT return in which he claimed for the first time a right to deduct.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009

1

---
# C_2020320EN.01002102.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Krakowie — Poland) — D.S. (C-763/19) v S.P. and Others, interested party: Prokurator Regionalny w Krakowie, C. S.A. w P. (C-764/19) v Administrator in the insolvency of I.T. in O. in liquidation, interested party: Prokurator Regionalny w Krakowie, M.Ś. and I.Ś. (C-765/19) v R.B.P. a limited company with its registered office in W, interested party: Prokurator Regionalny w Krakowie, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

(Joined Cases C-763/19 to C-765/19) (1)

(2020/C 320/43)

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---
ICRAS 1957 1845-XXXX v1 – Affected Public – Private Institutions 3/4/2013

This is a request for a new collection to obtain consumer information from foreign graduate 

medical institutions that participate in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (Direct 

Loan Program) as authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1963, as amended, 

(HEA). The request is to gain approval of a form for reporting specific graduation information 

to the Department of Education (Department) with a certification signed by the institution’s 

President/CEO/Chancellor.

The Department estimates an average of 16 hours is required to complete the reporting 

requirements.

5 institutions X 16 hours = 80 hours

Repeat as needed for all sections

TOTALS

Response 1

Respondents 5

Burden Hours 80
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   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 Voyager Petroleum, Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Sebastien C. Dufort, CEO and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.



Date: October 6, 2008                       By: /s/ Sebastien C. Dufort
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Sebastien C. Dufort
                                               Principal Executive Officer
# C_2009205EN.01001401.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/14

---

Order of the Court of 26 March 2009 — Efkon AG v European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-146/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Directive 2004/52/EC - Interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

2009/C 205/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Efkon AG (represented by: M. Novak, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: U. Rösslein and A. Neergaard, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Karlsson, Agents), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and G. Braun, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2008 in Case T-298/04 Efkon v Parliament and Council, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the action seeking annulment of Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 124) — Requirement of being individually concerned by the contested act — Right to be heard before a court — Length of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance

Efkon

Parliament and Council

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Efkon AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Efkon AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 05.07.2008.

1

---
# C_2008260EN.01000701.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 18 July 2008 — Christel Reinke v AOK Berlin

(Case C-336/08)

(2008/C 260/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christel Reinke

Applicant:

Defendant: AOK Berlin

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the entitlement to reimbursement under Article 34(4) and (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (1) cover the costs of emergency treatment incurred by a pensioner entitled to benefits under Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 in a private clinic in the place of stay if the competent hospital has refused to provide the treatment by way of benefit in kind on the ground of overcrowding? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the entitlement to reimbursement under Article 34(4) and (5) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (1) cover the costs of emergency treatment incurred by a pensioner entitled to benefits under Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 in a private clinic in the place of stay if the competent hospital has refused to provide the treatment by way of benefit in kind on the ground of overcrowding?

1

| 2. | May reimbursement be limited to the reimbursement rates provided for in Article 34(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 where the competent institution pays hospitals for benefits in kind, not on the basis of abstract and general rates, but on the basis of individual contracts, and where national law does not limit the benefit in kind to treatment in certain hospitals? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May reimbursement be limited to the reimbursement rates provided for in Article 34(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 where the competent institution pays hospitals for benefits in kind, not on the basis of abstract and general rates, but on the basis of individual contracts, and where national law does not limit the benefit in kind to treatment in certain hospitals?

| 3. | Is a national provision according to which reimbursement of the cost of treatment in a private hospital in another Member State is excluded, even in the case of emergency treatment, compatible with Articles 49 EC and 50 EC and 18 EC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is a national provision according to which reimbursement of the cost of treatment in a private hospital in another Member State is excluded, even in the case of emergency treatment, compatible with Articles 49 EC and 50 EC and 18 EC?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159).

1

---
# Section 333 Exemption Request

Marshall	D		(MD)	Bucey 99	Redwater	Drive New	Concord	Ky (270)

- 436

- 2660	Home (901)

- 634

- 5022	Cell mdbucey@gmail.com Email I am	requesting	exemption	under	section	333	for	the	operation	of	drones	in conducting	personal	and	business	opportunities	for	over	200	feet.		The	reasons	for the	exemption	is	to	allow	for	a	fifty

- foot	safety	zone	for	any	subject	or	shoot	where plant	life	or buildings	exceed	200	feet	up	to	350	feet.	I	request	as	trees and	some larger	multi	story	buildings	such	as	high	rises,	grain	silos,	and	barns can	exceed, with	the	fifty

- foot	safety	buffe r	zone	an	exemption	of	up	to	but	not	to	exceed	400 feet.	Due	to	the	d ensity	of	some	of	the	probable	shoots	and	the	use	of	my	drone(s)	in video	production	Line	of	sight	may	at	times	be	obstructed	I	request	an	additional exemption	of	the	Line	of	Sight	requirements. In	compliance	with	the	FAA	guidelines	that	consider	public	sa fety	and	privacy	all flights	will	be	conducted	on	what	is	considered	a	“Closed	or	Permission	granted”	set or	area.	So	these	flights

, usually	under 200

- 300	feet,	will	be	kept	in	a	logbook	with the	address	and/or	GPS	location	flight	duration	and	still	photos of	the	subject	of	the flight.	For	flights	where	it	is	determined,	the	UAS	GPS	weigh	point	navigation	system would	be	required	due	to	a	lack	of	continuous	Line	of	Sight	in	the	flight	log	will	be	a flight	plan	detailing	the	flight	path	with	marked	weigh	poi nts .	All	raw	footage	and copies	of	final	edited	video	or	photographic	materials	obtained	during	operation will	also	be	kept	with	the	log	of	any	given	flight	to	insure	any	video	obtained	and used	by	Mr	Bucey	or	someone	he	has	requested	he	provide	service	to show	that	all means	possible	where	done	to	insure	privacy	or	permission	to	use	video.	Any	flight where	people	or	livestock	is	involved	there	will	be	a	safety	brief	explaining	the location	of	the	take	off	and	operation	area,	take	off	procedures ,	the five	to	fifty	foot safety	zone,	Emergency	flight	procedure,	use	of	the	fifty	foot	return	to	home	before landing	requirement	and	final	landing	procedures	(all	predetermined	before	flight). All	flights	will	undergo	a	preflight	and	post	flight	inspection	and	a	cop y	of	both	will be	added	to the	log. Lay	out	of	Flight	Logs: Pre	flight	summery	report	(	detailing	information	from	the	on	sight	look	of	area	to be	shot	with	the	drone) Preflight	Check Safety	Brief Consent	and	release	forms Flight	plans Location	of	designated	Take	off,	landing,	and	operation(	ground	station)	zone CD	and/or	hard	copy	of	photos	both	pre	editing	and	post	editingFlight	duration(s)	log.

Post	flight	check
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 February 2009 – Commission v Finland**

**(Case C‐293/08)**

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

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 para. 7)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, 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**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period 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, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
# C_2011063EN.01002601.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2011 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM Capela & Irmãos (VOGUE)

(Case T-382/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VOGUE - Earlier national word mark VOGUE Portugal - Absence of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 63/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda (Porto, Portugal)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

da

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2008 (Case R 328/2003-2) relating to opposition proceedings between J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

da

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 June 2008 (Case R 328/2003-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 June 2008 (Case R 328/2003-2);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and those incurred by Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1828

WELLELA HIRPASSA, Individually and as the Personal 

Representative of the Estate of Brook T. Genet and for the 

use of R.B., a minor, and B.B., a minor,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY GOVERNMENT; DELVON MONTUE, Cpl; TROY 

WALLACE, Cpl; LOUIS WILLIAMS, Cpl; THOMAS HAMMILL, Cpl; 

ASMOREM BERHE; ADRIEN LYLE ROBINSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. 

(8:09-cv-02631-RWT)

Submitted: December 14, 2010 Decided: December 30, 2010

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wellela Hirpassa, Appellant Pro Se. Tonia Yvetta Belton-Gofreed, 

Associate County Attorney, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wellela Hirpassa appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on 

Hirpassa’s complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Hirpassa v. Prince George’s County 

Gov’t, No. 8:09-cv-02631-RWT (D. Md. July 9, 2010). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Sweetheart Holdings Inc. 1996 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           33241
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    90649
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2466
<INVENTORY>                                     192937
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                316132
<PP&E>                                          527394
<DEPRECIATION>                                   99561
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  762610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           153753
<BONDS>                                         385579
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         10460
<OTHER-SE>                                      110955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    762610
<SALES>                                         903308
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                903308
<CGS>                                           777130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   777130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 75251
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               38832
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9523
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3809
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5714
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5714
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2010113EN.01004102.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Centre de coordination Carrefour v Commission

(Case T-94/08) (1)

1

(Actions for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme for coordination centres established in Belgium - New decision of the Commission adopted following partial annulment by the Court - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

2010/C 113/65

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Centre de coordination Carrefour SNC (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: X. Clarebout and K. Platteau, Lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for the annulment of Commission Decision 2008/283/EC of 13 November 2007 amending Decision 2003/757/EC on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ 2008 L 90, p. 7), in so far as it does not provide an adequate transitional period.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders Centre de coordination Carrefour SNC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Centre de coordination Carrefour SNC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C C 92, 12.4.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 13.1

906 Certification

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth
Street, N.W

Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the Annual Report of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F (as amended by this Form 20-F/A Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Rong Guangdao, the Chairman of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as applicable, 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: July 19, 2010



By:

/s/ Rong GuangdaoName:

Rong GuangdaoTitle:

Chairman
# Carter - Appalachian Regional Commission

- FIVCO Area Development District Executive Director Kelly T. Ward Email &#107;e&#x6c;l&#x79;&#64;&#x66;&#105;&#x76;&#99;o&#x2e;o&#x72;&#103;The post FIVCO Area Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.