alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008092EN.01001902.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 13 February 2008 — Pärlitigu OÜ v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus

(Case C-56/08)

(2008/C 92/36)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Halduskohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pärlitigu OÜ

Applicant:

Defendant: Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus

Defendant:

Questions referred

| (1) | Must the Combined Nomenclature for the Common Customs Tariff which forms Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff be interpreted as meaning that frozen backbones (bones with fish meat) of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), obtained after filleting the fish, fit for human consumption and normally marketed as a foodstuff, come under






  (a) | subheading 0511 91 10, ‘fish waste’,
  or |
| --- | --- | --- |

(1)

Must the Combined Nomenclature for the Common Customs Tariff which forms Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff be interpreted as meaning that frozen backbones (bones with fish meat) of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), obtained after filleting the fish, fit for human consumption and normally marketed as a foodstuff, come under

1

Salmo salar

(a)

subheading 0511 91 10, ‘fish waste’,

or

| (b) | subheading 0303220015, ‘Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) — other — other’? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

subheading 0303220015, ‘Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) — other — other’?

Salmo salar

| (2) | If the answer to Question 1 is alternative (b), is the table in Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 (2) of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway void as contrary to the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty in so far as, according to that table, the minimum import price established for frozen salmon backbones is higher than the minimum import price for whole fish and gutted head-on fish? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

If the answer to Question 1 is alternative (b), is the table in Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 (2) of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway void as contrary to the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty in so far as, according to that table, the minimum import price established for frozen salmon backbones is higher than the minimum import price for whole fish and gutted head-on fish?

2

---

(1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2006 L 15, p. 1.

2

---
# C_2008247EN.01001703.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/17

---

Action brought on 25 July 2008 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Laboratorios Inibsa (ZYDUS)

(Case T-287/08)

(2008/C 247/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cadila Healthcare Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: S. Bailey, A. Juaristi and F. Potin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Inibsa, SA (Llissa de Vall, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 May 2008 in case R 1322/2007-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 May 2008 in case R 1322/2007-2; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ZYDUS’ for goods in classes 3, 5 and 10 — application No 3 277 662

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration No 2 360 938 of the mark ‘CIBUS’ for goods in class 5; Spanish trade mark registration No 2 360 939 of the mark ‘CIBUS’ for goods in class 3

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Uphold the opposition with respect to all the contested goods

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in its decision that the Opposition Division stated the reasons for its decision and, thus, that Article 73 of Council Regulation 40/94 was not breached; the Board of Appeal erred in its decision that there was a likelihood of confusion between the earlier trade marks and the trade mark applied for, in breach of general principles of trade marks law and, in particular, Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.

Pleas in law:

---
## ATTACHMENT G

Letter dated September 27, 2007, submitted by Chemstone in support of its BARTdetermination (comments on draft permit)

# OIV O-N MINERALS CHEMSTONE OPERATIONS 1696 ORANDA ROAD PO BOX 71 STRASBURG, VA 22657 0-" ..IN L. TEL 540-465-5161 FAX 540-465-5150 www.oglebaynorton.com

September 27, 2007

Ms. Laura R. Justin Environmental Engineer Senior DEQ -ValleyRegional Office P.O. Box 3000 4411 Early Road Harrisonburg, VA 22801 RE: BestAvailable Retrofit Technology (BART) Draft Permit O-NMinerals (Chemstone) 80252 

### - Strasburg, Virginia Shenandoah CountyRegistrationNo.: 80252 PlantID No.: 51-171-0003 Dear Ms. Justin: Thank you for the opportunity to review andprovide comments regarding this draft BART permit and request that you consider the following suggested changes. We are responding to provide comments on the draftBest Available Retrofit Technology (BART) permit we received on September 19,2007 for our Strasburg facility. We request the following changes: 1. Re-title the OM&M Plan to "BARTMonitoring Plan." (Condition 9) 2. On conditions 19 and 20, consider revising the sentence as follows: "Hourlyemission limits represent averages for at least a three-hour sampling period." 3. In Condition 19,re-title the Paragraph as "PreliminaryProcess Emission Limits: Rotary Kiln". Add at the end ofthe same paragraph: "DEQ shall establish final process emission limits for PM and N02 under this paragraph based on at least three stack tests and the "BART Monitoring Plan." 4. In Paragraph 20, re-title the Paragraph as "PreliminaryProcess Emission Limits: Calcimatic Kiln".O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company

- Strasburg BART September 27,2007 DEQ -Valley Regional Office Page 20f2

Add at the end ofthe same paragraph: "DEQ shall establish final process emission limits for PM and N02 under this paragraph based on at least three stack tests and the "BART Monitoring Plan." Since our Calcimatic Kiln is not operating currently we request alternate permit language requiring compliance testing only in the years that we are operating and to allow for conducting compliance testing within 60 days of startup ofthe facility.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the Strasburg facility's draft BART permit. If you have any questions or comments regarding the requests presented in this document, please do not hesitate to call me at (540) 465-6822. Sincerely,

# /~fTKarl D. Everett, PE Senior Environmental Health & SafetyManager Attachment

cc: Ms. Sharon Foley, PE; VDEQ
October 29, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CASPIAN OIL SERVICES, INC. AND JAMES W. REYNOLDS, Appellants

NO. 14-12-00535-CV V.

SE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, SE 

Management, LLC, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected 

the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court 

below AFFIRMED.

We order appellants, Caspian Oil Services, Inc. and James W. Reynolds, 

jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Medical Connections Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates 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 to his knowledge:



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 operation of the Company.



3.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.









Date:  August 12, 2008



|    |                         | 
|--- | ----------------------- | 
|By: | /s/ JOSEPH AZZATA       | 
|    | JOSEPH AZZATA           | 
|    | Chief Executive Officer |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name                                       Jurisdiction   Ownership %
----------------------------------------  --------------  -----------
<S>                                       <C>             <C>
Asyst Automation, Inc.                    Massachusetts          100%
Asyst Germany GmbH                        Germany                100%
Asyst KK                                  Japan                  100%
Asyst Korea Co., Ltd.                     Korea                  100%
Asyst Software, Inc.                      Delaware               100%
Asyst Technologies (Far East) PTE, LTD    Singapore              100%
Asyst Technologies Malaysia Sd. Bhd.      Malaysia               100%
Asyst Technologies (Taiwan) Ltd.          Taiwan                 100%
Asyst Technologies (U.K.) Ltd.            United Kingdom         100%
Hine Design Incorporated                  California             100%
MECS Corporation                          Japan                   79%
Nihon Asyst KK                            Japan                  100%
Palo Alto Technologies, Inc.              California             100%
Radiance Systems, Incorporated            California             100%

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (FileNos. 333-38613, 333-55078, 333-104294, 333-105141 and 333-126125) and Form S-8 (File Nos.033-84510, 333-14155, 333-27201, 333-27203, 333-27205, 333-60333 and 333-123829) of ColonialProperties Trust of our report dated February 28, 2007 relating to the consolidated financialstatements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which appears in this Form 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPBirmingham, Alabama
# C_2012138EN.01001402.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

(Case T-296/08) (1)

(Aid granted under the INTI programme - Determination of the amount to be paid to the beneficiary - Errors of assessment)

(2012/C 138/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented: initially by U.Claus and subsequently by S. Reichmann and L.-J- Schmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by B. Simon, and subsequently S. Grünheid, acting as Agents, assisted by R. Van der Hout, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 23 May 2008 on the partial non-recognition of the costs borne by the applicant in connection with the financing arrangement JLS/2004/INTI/077.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission’s decision of 23 May 2008 on the partial non-recognition of costs borne by Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV in connection with the financing arrangement JLS/2004/INTI/077 as regards expenses relating to headings B 9, B 10, B 37, B 38 and G 5. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission’s decision of 23 May 2008 on the partial non-recognition of costs borne by Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV in connection with the financing arrangement JLS/2004/INTI/077 as regards expenses relating to headings B 9, B 10, B 37, B 38 and G 5.

| 2. | Orders Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung to pay two thirds of its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission. The Commission is ordered to pay one third of its own costs and one third of the costs incurred by Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung to pay two thirds of its own costs and two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission. The Commission is ordered to pay one third of its own costs and one third of the costs incurred by Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HAZEN, NORTH DAKOTA

 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community 
in North Dakota that will celebrate its 100th anniversary next year. On 
July 4 through July 7, 2013, residents of Hazen will be celebrating 
their community's history and founding.
  Hazen has a rich Native American and settler's history, from the 
Mandan and Hidatsa tribes establishing horticultural villages to Lewis 
and Clark spending a winter in what is now Mercer County. Settlers 
began establishing the area after the Lewis and Clark expedition 
discovered the ``highway to the Northwest'', otherwise known as the 
Missouri River. Hazen was named for A.D. Hazen, who was Third Assistant 
Postmaster General in the summer of 1884. General Hazen served at Fort 
Stevenson, a military post on the north side of the Missouri River.
  Located in the Bakken oil formation, Hazen is part of North Dakota's 
thriving energy industry. The community supports investing and 
expanding the energy industry and also remains committed to a high 
quality of life for its residents. The city of Hazen has developed a 
well-rounded business district and a dedicated parks and recreation 
department, offering activities such as fishing, camping, and archery. 
The area offers many opportunities to enjoy North Dakota's natural 
beauty.
  Among the events planned for the centennial are a fireworks display, 
concerts, dinners, a glow-in-the-dark 5k run, and a fish fry. Hazen's 
celebration is sure to give attendees an all-around experience that is 
true to its roots, providing that unique hometown feel for which North 
Dakota is known.
  I ask the United States Senate to join me in congratulating Hazen, 
ND, and its residents on their 100th anniversary and in wishing them 
well in the future.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2008107EN.01003401.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/34

---

Action brought on 19 February 2008 — CureVac v OHIM — Qiagen (RNAiFect)

(Case T-80/08)

(2008/C 107/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: CureVac GmbH (Tübingen, Germany) (represented by: F. von Stosch, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Qiagen GmbH (Hilden, Germany)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 11 December 2007 in Case R 1219/2006-1 relating to Opposition No B 771 495; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 11 December 2007 in Case R 1219/2006-1 relating to Opposition No B 771 495;

| — | Refuse registration of Community trade mark No 3 304 813 |
| --- | --- |

—

Refuse registration of Community trade mark No 3 304 813

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Qiagen GmbH

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RNAiFect’ for goods in Classes 1, 5 and 9 (Application No 3 304 813)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘RNActive’ for goods in Classes 1 and 5 (Community trade mark No 2 953 768), albeit that the opposition was brought against registration in respect of certain goods in Classes 1 and 5

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as there is a likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks due to the identity of the goods and the similarity of the marks.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             AN AMERICAN JOBS ACT FOR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS

  (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.)
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Today, our hearts turn to the heroes and loved ones 
who lost their lives on 9/11.
  We will never forget the sacrifices of the first responders who are 
appropriately receiving special honor today. Yet firefighters and 
police officers are being laid off around the country. Why? Because the 
Republicans have sabotaged all efforts to avoid those layoffs and to 
create jobs. It will be 1 year ago tomorrow that the President sent to 
Congress the American Jobs Act, which would put people to work in areas 
critical to our communities and our economy--cops and firefighters and 
teachers--and would prevent those layoffs.
  Independent experts estimate that his bill would create up to 2.6 
million jobs; but has the Republican do-nothing Congress even allowed a 
vote on the American Jobs Act? No. Instead, they've found time to vote 
repeatedly to end the Medicare guarantee, and next week, Republicans 
will leave town and leave America without a jobs bill. Our first 
responders deserve better.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2012343EN.01001101.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — DEI v Commission

(Case T-169/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Greek market for the supply of lignite and Greek wholesale electricity market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, read in combination with Article 82 EC - Grant or maintenance of rights awarded by the Hellenic Republic in favour of a public undertaking for the extraction of lignite)

2012/C 343/13

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Anestis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, A. Bouquet and A. Antoniadis, Agents, assisted by A. Oikonomou, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and P. Mylonopoulos, Agents, assisted initially by A. Komninos and M. Marinos, and subsequently by M. Marinos, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE (Echedoros, Greece); and Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (HE & DSA), (Kifissia, Greece) (represented by: P. Skouris and E. Trova, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 824 final of 5 March 2008, concerning the grant or maintenance by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of DEI for the extraction of lignite

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 824 final of 5 March 2008, concerning the grant or maintenance by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) for the extraction of lignite. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 824 final of 5 March 2008, concerning the grant or maintenance by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) for the extraction of lignite.

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by DEI. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by DEI.

| 3. | Orders the Hellenic Republic, Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (HE & DSA) and Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Hellenic Republic, Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (HE & DSA) and Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.

1

---