alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012355EN.01001903.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission

(Case T-82/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for flat glass in the EEA - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing - Evidence of the infringement - Calculation of the amount of the fines - Exclusion of captive sales - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Equal treatment - Mitigating circumstances)

2012/C 355/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Guardian Industries Corp. (Dover, Delaware, United States of America); and Guardian Europe Sàrl (Dudelange, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis, A. Vallery, C. Eggers and H.-G. Kamann, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5791 final of 28 November 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39165 — Flat glass), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on them by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Guardian Industries Corp. and Guardian Europe Sàrl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
**Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 – Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche v Commission**

**(Case T-64/08)**

State aid – Compensation for expropriation on grounds of public interest – Temporal extension of a preferential tariff for the supply of electricity – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Concept of advantage – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Aid measure put into effect

1.                     *State aid – Concept – Compensation awarded for expropriation of assets – Not included (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 57, 60, 63,
72, 74, 99, 101)*

2.                     *State aid – Examination by the Commission – Administrative procedure – Obligation on the Commission to put the parties concerned
on notice to submit their observations – Right of the aid beneficiary to be sufficiently associated with the proceedings –
Limits (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 161-163, 166-168)*

3.                     *EU Law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Whether applicable to administrative procedures initiated by the Commission
– Examination of plans to grant aid – Scope (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 189)*

4.                     *State aid – Planned aid – Notification to the Commission – Scope of the obligation – Need to notify aid measures at the draft
stage (Art. 88(3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 2 and 3) (see paras 228-230, 234-236)*

5.                     *State aid – Commission decision finding aid unlawful and ordering its recovery – Aid not yet paid (Art. 88(3) EC; Council
Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras 239, 241, 250-251)*

6.                     *State aid – Recovery of unlawful aid – Aid granted in breach of the procedural rules of Article 88 EC – Possible legitimate
expectation on the part of the beneficiaries – Protection – Conditions and limits (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999,
Art. 14(1)) (see paras 269-271, 275-276)*

7.                     *State aid – Commission decision not to raise objections to a national measure – Legitimate expectation of the beneficiary
that an extension of the said measure is lawful – None (Art. 88 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1)) (see paras
283-284, 288)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/408/EC of 20 November 2007 on the State aid C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) implemented by Italy in favour of ThyssenKrupp, Cementir and Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche (OJ 2008 L 144, p. 37). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Nuova Terni Industrie Chimiche SpA to pay the costs. |
#### Janet Baldasare et al., Respondents, v Philip Suriano et al., Appellants.

— In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendants separately appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), entered November 20, 1989, as denied their separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision denying the defendant Lawrence Hospital’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion and *94dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it; and as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant Lawrence Hospital payable by the plaintiffs.

The affidavits and depositions of the defendants Philip Suriano, M.D., and Juan S. Afif, M.D., essentially outlining the care rendered to the plaintiff Janet Baldasare during her stay at the defendant Lawrence Hospital, were insufficient to establish a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center,*64 NY2d 851). In any event, the plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from a medical expert that the medical care and treatment rendered by these defendants was not in accordance with good and accepted medical practice *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra).*Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied these defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

However, the medical records submitted by the defendant Lawrence Hospital were sufficient to warrant granting summary judgment to the hospital dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Specifically, the records disclose that there is no merit to the plaintiffs’ contention that the hospital’s radiologists departed from good and acceptable medical practice by their failure to "rule out ectopic pregnancy”. The first radiology report of the pelvic sonography of the patient plaintiff clearly and promptly notified the defendant physicians that "[n]o definitive intrauterine pregnancy was demonstrated”, and that "[i]n view of the patient’s history, an ectopic pregnancy could not be excluded”. Moreover, the plaintiffs’ expert did not contend that the hospital was responsible for the acts or omissions of the defendant physicians or that the hospital personnel should have intervened in the medical care of the patient plaintiff by the defendant physicians. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                FEDERAL EMPLOYEE TAX ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 31, 2012

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, once again the House finds itself 
considering a bill that unfairly targets the hard working public 
servants who every day are providing a wide array of public services 
from helping to nurse our wounded veterans, to discovering cures and 
treatments for diseases that plague millions of American families, to 
ensuring aviation safety, to protecting our borders, public safety and 
the food supply. Over the last two years, our Republican colleagues 
have repeatedly brought legislation to the floor to slash the pay and 
benefits of civil servants in order to protect special tax breaks for 
the super wealthy and special interests.
  Obviously, all Americans should pay their taxes, and those who fail 
to do so should be penalized. But federal employees should not be 
denied the full complement of due process rights that are available to 
any other American. This bill would result in the firing of federal 
employees who may be legitimately contesting a tax liability through 
the established process. Moreover, by linking the firing of a federal 
employee to a lien, this bill would result in the firing of individuals 
who are already in the process of satisfying their tax obligation. 
There are already laws and regulations on the books that address how 
tax debt should be handled and how federal employees who are delinquent 
on their payments should be disciplined.
  In 2002, the IRS asked Congress to change the standard for 
determining when an agency was mandated to fire employees. Rather than 
firing every employee who fails to properly file their tax return, IRS 
created a hierarchy of penalties based on the seriousness and 
willfulness of the offense. This bill throws out that process and 
treats all delinquencies as if they were willful and deliberate.
  Comparatively, federal employees have a compliance rate that is 
higher than the average American taxpayer. In 2010, 3.35 percent of 
federal employees were delinquent in their tax payments. That same 
year, the delinquency rate for the total universe of American taxpayers 
was 7.4 percent. Instead of making public servants the target of new, 
unnecessary and unfair legislation, we should instead be focusing on 
uniform ways to strengthen and better enforce existing laws and 
regulations governing tax delinquency.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4592 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4592

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the two-year 
  waiting period for divorced spouse's benefits following the divorce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2017

  Mrs. Lowey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the two-year 
  waiting period for divorced spouse's benefits following the divorce.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD FOR DIVORCED SPOUSE'S 
              BENEFITS FOLLOWING THE DIVORCE IN CASES OF PRIOR RECEIPT 
              OF SPOUSE'S BENEFITS.

    (a) Wife's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(b)(4)(A) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ``divorced 
wife--'' and all that follows through ``shall be entitled'' and 
inserting ``divorced wife meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) 
through (D) of paragraph (1), shall be entitled''.
    (b) Husband's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(c)(4)(A) of such Act 
(42 U.S.C. 402(c)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ``divorced husband--'' 
and all that follows through ``shall be entitled'' and inserting 
``divorced husband meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through 
(D) of paragraph (1), shall be entitled''.
    (c) Exemption From Deductions on Account of Work.--Section 
203(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 403(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(2)(A) Except as'' and all that follows 
        through ``the benefit to which'' and inserting the following: 
        ``(2) In any case in which any of the other persons referred to 
        in paragraph (1)(B) are entitled to monthly benefits as a 
        divorced spouse under subsection (b) or (c) of section 202 for 
        any month, the benefit to which''; and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (B).

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 shall apply with respect to 
benefits for months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2008223EN.01005102.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/51

---

Action brought on 20 June 2008 — Iranian Tobacco v OHIM — AD Bulgartabac (TIR 20 FILTER CIGARETTES)

(Case T-245/08)

(2008/C 223/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Tobacco Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Beckensträter, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: AD Bulgartabac Holding (Sofia, Bulgaria)

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

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 11 April 2008 (Case R 708/2007-1), notified on 21 April 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 11 April 2008 (Case R 708/2007-1), notified on 21 April 2008;

| — | order the third party to pay the refundable costs, including those of the main proceedings and of the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the third party to pay the refundable costs, including those of the main proceedings and of the defendant;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision of 11 April 2008 and that of 7 March 2007 — 1414C — and hold the third party's application of 8 November 2005 to be inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision of 11 April 2008 and that of 7 March 2007 — 1414C — and hold the third party's application of 8 November 2005 to be inadmissible.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark ‘TIR 20 FILTER CIGARETTES’ for goods in Class 34 (Community trade mark No 400 804).

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: AD Bulgartabac Holding.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: cancellation of the relevant Community trade mark.

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the applicant's appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: conditions of admissibility to be taken into consideration ex officio by OHIM concerning AD Bulgartabac Holding's application were not examined, contrary to Community law, to Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and to other procedural principles.

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

---
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 89441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28543]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. FA21-5-000]


Commonwealth Edison Company; Notice of Designation of Commission 
Staff as Non-Decisional

    With respect to an order issued by the Commission on December 8, 
2023, in the above-captioned docket, with the exceptions noted below, 
the staff of the Office of Enforcement (OE) are designated as non-
decisional in deliberations by the Commission in this docket.\1\ 
Accordingly, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.2202 (2022), they will not serve as 
advisors to the Commission or take part in the Commission's review of 
any offer of settlement. Likewise, as non-decisional staff, pursuant to 
18 CFR 385.2201 (2022), they are prohibited from communicating with 
advisory staff concerning any deliberations in this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Commonwealth Edison Company, 185 FERC ] 61,179 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exceptions to this designation of OE staff as non-decisional are:

Jennifer Gordon
Laura Vallance
Olga Anguelova
Kim Horner
Todd Kuzniewski
Nkosi Brooks

    Dated: December 20, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28543 Filed 12-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                        CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hanover Compressor Company
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John E.
Jackson, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 operations
          of the Company.

/S/ JOHN E. JACKSON
--------------------------------
Name: John E. Jackson

Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 26, 2004

     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.

     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT JUNE 30, 1998 FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>               0000909110
<NAME>              ROSEWOOD CARE CENTER CAPITAL FUNDING CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>        1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             262
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,561
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   262
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,823
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              156
<BONDS>                                         25,666
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,823
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,923
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE01754

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.