alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 October 2009 – Commission v Poland**

**(Case C-551/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/68/EC – Self-employed activity of reinsurance – Taking up and pursuit – National provisions prior to the directive – Failure to communicate or failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on Commission (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 15,
19)*

2.                     *Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see paras 21, 23)*

3.                     *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 paras 25, 27)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC (OJ 2005 L 323, p. 1). |

**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 Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC, and by failing to communicate to the Commission of the European Communities the text of the national provisions adopted in the field covered by that directive, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 64; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
<PAGE>

                                                          EXHIBIT 99.2


             FAIRFIELD INN BY MARRIOTT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                      FORM 10-K DECEMBER 31, 2002

                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
             SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

            In connection with the Annual Report of Fairfield Inn by Marriott
Limited Partnership, (the "Partnership"), on Form 10-K for the annual period
ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 and 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 Partnership.


Date:  April 1, 2003                   /s/ Michael L. Ashner
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       Michael L. Ashner
                                       Chief Executive Officer


Date:  April 1, 2003                   /s/ Thomas C. Staples
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       Thomas C. Staples
                                       Chief Financial Officer
# C_2012109EN.01000901.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Land Burgenland and Austria v Commission

(Joined Cases T-268/08 and T-281/08) (1)

1

(State aid - Aid granted by the Austrian authorities to the Grazer Wechselseitige group (GRAWE) in connection with the privatisation of Bank Burgenland - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Private investor in a market economy test - Application where the State acts as vendor - Determination of the market price)

2012/C 109/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Land Burgenland (Province of Burgenland, Austria), represented by U. Soltész and C. Herbst, lawyers (Case T-268/08); and Republic of Austria, represented by G. Hesse, C. Pesendorfer, E. Riedl, M. Fruhmann and J. Bauer, acting as Agents (Case T-281/08)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission, represented initially by V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan and K. Gross, and subsequently by V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/06) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland (OJ 2008 L 239, p. 32).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria and the Province of Burgenland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria and the Province of Burgenland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.

1

---
# C_2021289EN.01000802.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘TEAM POWER EUROPE’ EOOD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna

(Case C-784/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Legislation applicable - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 12(1) - Posting of workers - Temporary agency workers - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 14(2) - A1 certificate - Determination of the Member State in which the employer normally carries out its activities - Concept of ‘substantial activities, other than purely internal management activities’ - No assignment of temporary agency workers in the territory of the Member State in which the employer is established)

(2021/C 289/11)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘TEAM POWER EUROPE’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that a temporary-work agency established in a Member State must, in order for it to be considered that it ‘normally carries out its activities’, within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, in that Member State, carry out a significant part of its activities of assigning temporary agency workers for the benefit of user undertakings established and carrying out their activities in the territory of that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.

---
#### SCAGGS v. BARKER.

No. 35664.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 3, 1953.

Rehearing Denied April 7, 1953.

Wm. H. McClarin, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Norman Barker, pro se.

WELCH, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment on a supersedeas bond growing out of the case of DeBose v. Barker, 204 Okl. 607, 232 P.2d 925.

 A motion to dismiss has been filed •for the reason that the appeal is without merit .and taken for delay only. The motion must be sustained. There was no meritorious defense presented in the trial court and no meritorious defense is suggested in the response to the motion to dismiss. In Debose v. Barker, Okl., 250 P.2d 852, we stated:

> “Where, from a cursory examination of the record, the allegations made in the motion to dismiss and the response thereto it appears that the appeal is without merit, a motion to dismiss will be sustained.”

Appeal dismissed.

CORN, DAVISON, O’NEAL, WILLIAMS and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         APPOINTMENTS AUTHORITY

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming 
recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the 
President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be 
authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, 
conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by 
concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2018134EN.01003101.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/31

---

Action brought on 16 February 2018 — Equity Cheque Capital Corporation v EUIPO (DIAMOND CARD)

(Case T-91/18)

(2018/C 134/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Equity Cheque Capital Corporation (Victoria, Canada) (represented by: I. Berkeley, barrister, P. Wheeler and C. Rani, solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark DIAMOND CARD — Application for registration No 15 775 422

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2017 in Case R 1544/2017-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---
#### In the matter of THOMAS POTTER, an attorney at law.

Argued November 15, 1948.

November 22, 1948.

For the rule: *Mr. Lionel P. Kristeller.*

For the respondent: No appearance.

Name of respondent ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys,
# C_2009069EN.01001501.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/15

---

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany)) — Monika Vollkommer v Finanzamt Hannover-Land I

(Case C-156/08) (1)

1

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 33(1) - Meaning of ‘turnover taxes’ - Real property transfer tax)

(2009/C 69/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany)

Parties

Applicant: Monika Vollkommer

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Land I

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht — Interpretation of Article 33(1) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and of Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Account taken, for the purposes of determining the basis of assessment of real property transfer tax (‘Grunderwerbsteuer’), of future building work subject to turnover tax if the purchase includes both the supply of the building plot and the building work

Operative part of the order

Article 33 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 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, on the transfer of a plot of land not yet built on, from including future building work in the taxable amount used for the assessment of taxes on transfers and transactions — such as the ‘Grunderwerbsteuer’ provided for under German law — and thereby making a transaction that is subject to value added tax under that directive subject also to those other taxes, provided that the latter cannot be characterised as turnover taxes.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.

1

---
# C_2010063EN.01000801.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 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Mons — Belgium) — Société de Gestion Industrielle (SGI) v État belge

(Case C-311/08) (1)

1

(Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Income tax legislation - Determination of the taxable income of companies - Companies having a relationship of interdependence - Unusual or gratuitous advantage granted by a resident company to a company established in another Member State - Addition of the amount of the advantage in question to the profits of the resident company which granted it - Balanced allocation of the power to tax between Member States - Combating tax avoidance - Prevention of abuse - Proportionality)

2010/C 63/11

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: Société de Gestion Industrielle (SGI)

Applicant:

Défendant: État belge

Défendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Mons (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 12, 43, 48 and 56 EC — Permissibility of a national law providing for the taxation of a resident company on an unusual or gratuitous advantage granted to a non-resident company with which it has a relationship of interdependence but which does not provide for such taxation where the same advantage is granted to a resident company

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC, must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a resident company is taxed in respect of an unusual or gratuitous advantage where the advantage has been granted to a company established in another Member State with which it has, directly or indirectly, a relationship of interdependence, whereas a resident company cannot be taxed on such an advantage where the advantage has been granted to another resident company with which it has such a relationship. However, it is for the referring court to verify whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued by the legislation, taken together.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.

1

---
# C_2009019EN.01001901.xml

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

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/19

---

Action brought on 19 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-505/08)

(2009/C 19/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt, in full, 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 (1), or, as the case may be, by failing to fully inform the Commission of those provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt, in full, 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 (1), or, as the case may be, by failing to fully inform the Commission of those provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The prescribed period for implementing the Directive expired on 20 October 2007.

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22

1

---
# C_2009055EN.01000502.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/5

---

Appeal brought on 24 September 2008 by Calebus SA against the judgment delivered on 14 July 2008 in Case T-366/06 Calebus SA v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-421/08 P)

(2009/C 55/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Calebus SA (represented by: R. Bocanegra Sierra, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Spain

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Take note of the fact that the appeal was lodged against the order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008 declaring inadmissible the action brought by Calebus SA in Case T-366/06, allow the appeal and, after completion of all the legal formalities, give a judgment upholding the appeal, setting aside the judgment under appeal, declaring the action admissible and uphold its claims.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is brought against the order of 14 July 2008 of the Court of First Instance declaring inadmissible the action brought in Case T-366/06 by Calebus SA against Decision 2006/613/EC (1) of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region as regards the inclusion of the farm ‘Las Cuerdas’ as the SCI ‘ES61110006 Ramblas de Gergal, Tabernas y Sur de Sierra Alhamilla’, which appears on that list.

1

In the appeal, the appellant takes the view that the order under appeal is vitiated by an error of law when it states that the action is inadmissible because the appellant company has no direct interest in the annulment of the decision. Contrary to the findings in the order, Decision 2006/613 requires Member States, in any event, per se and automatically to make sites classified as Sites of Community Importance (SCI), including the farm ‘Las Cuerdas’, to a protection scheme which necessarily limits the uses to which it may be put, reducing their profitability and sale value. The Member States have discretion to determine the specific content of those measures, but not to decide whether or not to submit the farms to measures of that type, so that the existence of that discretion is not contrary to the direct effect of the decision on the legal status of the appellant undertaking.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2009044EN.01003702.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/37

---

Action brought on 22 December 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-566/08)

(2009/C 44/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by R. Passos, G. Mazzini and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul, on the ground of breach of the EC Treaty, Council Decision 2008/780/EC of 29 September 2008 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, on the ground of breach of the EC Treaty, Council Decision 2008/780/EC of 29 September 2008 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (1);

1

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament relies on a single plea in law in support of its application, namely the wrong legal basis of the contested decision. According to the Parliament, it is clear both from the interpretation of Article 300 EC and from the content of the agreement at issue in the present case that that agreement falls within the category of agreements establishing a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures. Consequently, the contested decision should have been adopted on the basis of Article 37 EC in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) EC and the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) EC — requiring the assent of the European Parliament to be obtained — and not on the basis of Article 37 EC in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) EC and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) EC, providing merely for the Parliament to be consulted.

second subparagraph

first subparagraph

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 268, p. 27.

1

---