alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009032EN.01002003.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (France) lodged on 27 November 2008 — Fundació Gala-Salvador Dalí, Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos v Société des Auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques, Juan-Leonardo Bonet Domenech, Eulalia-María Bas Dalí, María Del Carmen Domenech Biosca, Antonio Domenech Biosca, Ana-María Busquets Bonet, Mónica Busquets Bonet

(Case C-518/08)

(2009/C 32/34)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Fundació Gala-Salvador Dalí, Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos

Applicants:

Defendants: Société des Auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques, Juan-Leonardo Bonet Domenech, Eulalia-María Bas Dalí, María del Carmen Domenech Biosca, Antonio Domenech Biosca, Ana-María Busquets Bonet, Mónica Busquets Bonet

Defendants:

Questions referred

| 1. | Can France, subsequent to [Directive 2001/84/EC] of 27 September 2001 (1), retain a resale right allowed only to the heirs to the exclusion of legatees or successors in title? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can France, subsequent to [Directive 2001/84/EC] of 27 September 2001 (1), retain a resale right allowed only to the heirs to the exclusion of legatees or successors in title?

1

| 2. | Do the transitional provisions of Article 8(2) and (3) of [Directive 2001/84/EC] of 27 September 2001 allow France to have a derogation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do the transitional provisions of Article 8(2) and (3) of [Directive 2001/84/EC] of 27 September 2001 allow France to have a derogation?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (OJ L 272, p. 32).

1

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 464 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2017 

Mr. CONNOLLY (for himself, Mr. POE of Texas, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mr. 

CICILLINE, Mr. COHEN, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. NADLER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. 

QUIGLEY, and Mr. YARMUTH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cameras in the Court5 room Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 45 of title 28, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 464 IH

1 ‘‘§ 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings 

2 ‘‘The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage 

3 of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, 

4 by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such 

5 coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation 

6 of the due process rights of one or more of the parties 

7 before the Court.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The chapter analysis 

9 for chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 

10 by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2010179EN.01000302.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-308/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora - Protection arrangements before a habitat is placed on the list of sites of Community importance - Article 12(4) - Project for upgrading a country road)

(2010/C 179/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), interpreted by the judgments of the Court of Justice on 13 January 2005 in Case C-117/03 and on 14 September 2006 in Case C-244/05, and the obligations stemming from Article 12(4) of that directive — Project for improvement of the rural path from Villamanrique de la Condesa (Seville) to El Rocio (Huelva)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

---
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONWASHINGTON, D.C. Inthe Matter of Northeastern Aviation Corp., Respondent FAADocketNo. FAA-2014-0812 Case No. 2012EA110028Judge Sullivan AGENCY'S WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT The Agency, under 14 CFR Section 13.215 and pursuant toa settlement agreement, withdraws its Complaint inthis matter. Respectfully submitted, Peter J. LynchAssistant Chief Counsel

for Enforcement By: **~~~** Zaclbry(M. Berman Attorney Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Chief Counsel Enforcement Division, Northeast Team l Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 T: 718-553-3258 F: 718-995-5699 E: Zachary.Berman@FAA.GOV 1 Dated: Aprill2, 2016 RECEIVED APR1 82016 HEARING DOCKET'CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify thatonthis day copies ofthe foregoing Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint were sent first class mail andfaxas follows: Judge J.E. Sullivan

U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 FAX: 202-366-7536 I hereby certify that onthis day copies ofthe foregoing Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint were sent first class mail and email as follows: Mr. Edward J. Longosz, II Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellot, LLC

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 12trh Floor Washington, DC 20006 Email: Elongosz@eckertseamans.com I hereby certify that onthis day copies ofthe foregoing Agency's Withdrawal of Complaint were sent first class mailas follows: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 Date: April12, 2016 LfsaHooks' aralegal Specialist Federal Aviation Administration 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 2
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 Reed’s, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christopher J. Reed, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   
 Dated:           August 14, 2009
 
 
 /s/ Christopher J. Reed
 Christopher J. Reed
 Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
 
 
 
 
 A signed original of this certification 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.
# C_2008313EN.01004301.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/43

---

Action brought on 27 September 2008 — INTER-NETT 2000 v OHIM

(Case T-423/08)

(2008/C 313/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant(s): INTER-NETT 2000 Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Inter-Nett 2000 Kft) (Mór, Hungary) (represented by: E. Petruska, lawyer)

Applicant(s):

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

Defendant:

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Unión de Agricultores, S.A. (El Ejido, Spain)

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

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 July 2008 (Case R 71/2008-2) and |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 July 2008 (Case R 71/2008-2) and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: INTER-NETT 2000

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘HUNGARO’ for goods and services in classes 29, 31 and 35 (application No 004508917).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Unión de Agricultores, S.A.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark ‘UNIAGRO’ for goods in class 31.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partly upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, in that OHIM misinterpreted that provision, and breach of Article 12(a) and (b) of Regulation No 40/94, in that the decision of OHIM prevents the applicant from using the name of its proprietor and the designation of the geographical origin of the goods.

Pleas in law:

---
QUERYOBJECT SYSTEMS CORPORATION                             EXHIBIT 11.1

Computation of Net Loss Per Share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


<S>                                                            <C>            <C>
Common shares outstanding at beginning of year                 1,707,662      1,703,535

       Conversions of preferred stock into common shares         144,768              -

       Warrants exercised into common shares                     447,312              -

       Stock options exercised into common shares                  2,899          3,200
                                                               ---------      ---------
Weighted average common shares outstanding                     2,302,641      1,706,735
                                                               =========      =========

Calculation of net loss available to common stockholders:

       Net loss                                              $(5,925,591)   $(7,294,032)

       Effect of beneficial conversion feature
       of convertible preferred stock                                  -     (2,251,438)
                                                             -----------    -----------
 Net loss available to common stockholders                   $(5,925,591)   $(9,545,470)
                                                             ===========    ===========

Basic and diluted net loss per common share                  $     (2.57)   $     (5.59)
                                                             ===========    ===========
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-35357, 333-80577 and 333-104248 of Giant Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries
("the Company") each on Form S-8, of our reports dated March 12, 2004, which
express unqualified opinions and include an explanatory paragraph relating to
the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 143,
"Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations" in 2003, and the adoption of SFAS
No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" and SFAS No. 144, "Accounting
for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets" in 2002, on the financial
statements and financial statement schedule, each report appearing in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Phoenix, Arizona
March 12, 2004
# I



# ~ FLINT HILLS VIA FeaEx
r e s o u r c e s® 8043 3904 8283 P.0.8ox 2608 ' CorlJUs Chrlstl-Refillerles CorpusChristi,Texas78403-2608

• -
. .. . , . . . -

. . ,. . .
. . . . i



## May,13, 2014

Ms. Wren Stenger, Director " Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division . U.S. Envir9nmental Protection Agency ; Region 6

. . , . ... -

. . .

. ~ ~- ~--~



## 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 -s ~ 

## Dallas,Texas 75202-2733

~ 

## —•,o li 

## Re: Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi, LLC West Refinery Domestic Crude Project Corpus Christi, Nueces County Pending Greenhouse Gas PSD Permit No. PSD-TX-6819A-GHG cr% ~ 

## c

~ 

### ;, C:) m

~ i W .C'S r 

## Dear Ms. Stenger:
On behalf of Flint Hills Resources Corpus Christi, LLC (FHR), I am submitting this response to your letter dated March 27, 2014, regarding the prospective permitting authority for the greenhouse gas (GHG) prevention of significant deterioration: (PSD) permit application (pending Permit No. PSD-TX-6819A-GHG) FHR submitted to EPA Region 6 omDecember 12, 2012. The permit applicafron, which remains pending, seeks to authorize aproject at FHR's West Refinery to allow the refinery to process a larger percentage of dome,sticcrude oil (the Domestic Crude Project). 'At this time, FHR requests that EPA remain the permitting authority for the processing of this perinit application. Please call Daren Knowles at (361) 242-8301 if you have any questions or need additional information. SineeTely

V ' 

## Valerie Pompa

. Vice Presidenf and Manufacturing Manager VP/DK/syw '. Air 14-489; W 3 N 22

Enclosure cc: Mr. Jeffrey Robinson, USEPA Region G Mr. Kris L. Kirchner, P:E.; Waid Environmental, Austin
# C_2011013EN.01002301.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2010 — Codorniu Napa v OHIM — Bodegas Ontañón (ASTESA NAPA VALLEY)

(Case T-35/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark ARTESA NAPA VALLEY - Earlier figurative Community trade mark ARTESO and earlier national word mark LA ARTESA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 13/42

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Codorniu Napa, Inc. (Napa, California, United States) (represented by: X. Fàbrega Sabaté and M. Curell Aguilà, lawyers, and subsequently by M. Curell Aguilà and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bodegas Ontañón, SA (Quel, La Rioja, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2007 (Case R 747/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Bodegas Ontañón, SA and Codorniu Napa, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Codorniu Napa, Inc., to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Codorniu Napa, Inc., to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mrs. ROBY:
       H.J. Res. 116.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 5:
       ``The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall 
     deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this 
     Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of 
     two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for 
     proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid 
     to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, 
     when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the 
     several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, 
     as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed 
     by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made 
     prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall 
     in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the 
     Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, 
     without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage 
     in the Senate.''

                          ____________________
```
# C_2020329EN.01001103.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/11

---

Order of the President of the Court of 26 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság) — Hungary) — NJ v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság

(Case C-740/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/21)

Language of the case: Hungarian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---
# C_2008107EN.01004201.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/42

---

Action brought on 10 March 2008 — Gourmet Burger Kitchen v OHIM (GOURMET BURGER KITCHEN)

(Case T-115/08)

(2008/C 107/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Gourmet Burger Kitchen Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by C. Sawdy, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 December 2007 in case R 1215/2007-2; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 December 2007 in case R 1215/2007-2; and

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: A word mark consisting of the words GOURMET BURGER KITCHEN for various goods and services in classes 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 43 — application No 4 615 341

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Partial refusal of the application for services in class 43

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade mark has acquired distinctiveness through use in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Pleas in law:

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mrs. BLACK:
       H.R. 6298.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
```
# C_2011226EN.01002501.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Verhuizingen Coppens v Commission

(Case T-210/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Cartels - International removal services market in Belgium - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Bid-rigging - Single and continuous infringement - Burden of proof)

2011/C 226/50

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Verhuizingen Coppens NV (Bierbeek, Belgium) (represented by: J. Stuyck and I. Buelens, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and S. Noë, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), and, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(i) and Article 2(k) of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(i) and Article 2(k) of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.

1

---
# C_2011370EN.01002202.xml

| 17.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Walton v Commission

(Case T-37/08) (1)

1

(Implementation of the budget - Recovery - Offsetting of amounts receivable - Retroactive effect - Judgment of the General Court ordering the Commission to pay damages and interest - Amount receivable to be certain, of a fixed amount and due)

2011/C 370/35

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Robert Walton (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Beard, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the Commission Decision of 16 November 2007 to recover by offsetting the sum of EUR 36 551,58 due to it by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission decision of 16 November 2007 to the extent that it includes interest incurred after 12 July 2007 in the amounts offset; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission decision of 16 November 2007 to the extent that it includes interest incurred after 12 July 2007 in the amounts offset;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

1

---