alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004314EN.01000501.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Klagenfurt by decision of that court of 13 August 2004 in the case of A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GesmbH against Claudia Schmidt

(Case C-441/04)

(2004/C 314/08)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Klagenfurt Regional Court) (Austria) of 13 August 2004, received at the Court Registry on 21 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GesmbH against Claudia Schmidt on the following questions:

| 1. | Are Articles 28/30 EC to be interpreted as guaranteeing the freedom of the defendant, in the course of her trade, to sell silver jewellery by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, silver jewellery? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 28/30 EC to be interpreted as guaranteeing the freedom of the defendant, in the course of her trade, to sell silver jewellery by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, silver jewellery?

| 2. | If so, does a rule of a Member State which prohibits the sale of silver jewellery by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, silver jewellery constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods within the meaning of Articles 28/30 EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, does a rule of a Member State which prohibits the sale of silver jewellery by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, silver jewellery constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods within the meaning of Articles 28/30 EC?

| 3. | If so, is a national rule which, contrary to Articles 28/30 EC, prohibits the sale of silver jewellery by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, silver jewellery not contrary to the right of an individual to sell silver jewellery by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, silver jewellery? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, is a national rule which, contrary to Articles 28/30 EC, prohibits the sale of silver jewellery by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, silver jewellery not contrary to the right of an individual to sell silver jewellery by way of calling on private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, silver jewellery?

---
# C_2004118EN.01001001.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-199/01 P: IPK-München GmbH against Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Appeals - Commission decision refusing to pay the balance of financial aid)

(2004/C 118/17)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-:199/01 P IPK-München GmbH, established in Munich (Germany) (Avocat: H.-J. Prieß) against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Grunwald) — two appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2001 in Case T-331/94 IPK-München v Commission [2001] ECR II-779, seeking the partial annulment of that judgment — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals.

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 28.7.2001.

1

OJ C 289, 13.10.2001.

---
# C_2004239EN.01002001.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/20

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 July 2004

in Case T-270/02: MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark ‘bestpartner’ - Absolute grounds for refusing registration - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Mark devoid of distinctive character - Descriptive mark)

(2004/C 239/40)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-270/02: MLP Finanzdienstleistungen AG, established in Heidelberg (Germany), represented by W. Göpfert, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider) — action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2002 (Case R 206/2002-3) refusing to register the word mark ‘bestpartner’ — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, acting for the Registrar, has given a judgment in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.

1

---
#### Johnston and another, Appellants, vs. City of West Allis, Respondent.

*November 19, 1920*

March *8, 1921.*

*Appeal and error: Affirmance by divided court.*

Where the justices of the supreme court arq equally divided in opinion on the question involved on an appeal, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Gustave G. Gei-irz, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

In 1917 the council of defendant city made an assessment of damages against the two plaintiffs as abutting property owners on National avenue in said city for a portion of the expenses incurred in then placing a new wearing surface upon an existing concrete base which had been constructed in 1912. ■

Upon appeal to the circuit court the assessments were upheld, and from á judgment confirming the same the several plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

For the appellants there was a brief by *Lines, Spooner & Quarles*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Charles B. Quarles.*

*Joseph E. Tierney,*city attorney, for the respondent.

The following opinion was filed December 14, 1920:

Eschweiler, J.

Mr. Justice Kerwin did not participate in the hearing and decision of this case. Mr. Chief Justice Siebecicer, Mr. Justice Vinje, and Mr. Justice *464Owen are of the opinion that the judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed. Mr. Justice Rosenberry, Mr. Justice Jones, and the writer are of the opinion that it should be reversed. This under the rule requires an affirmance of the judgment. *Estate of Carter,*167 Wis. 89, 166 N. W. 657.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, without costs, on March 8, 1921.
# C_2004300EN.01003302.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/33

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by decision of that court of 29 June 2004 in the case of Massachusetts Institute of Technology

(Case C-431/04)

(2004/C 300/63)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) (Germany) of 29 June 2004 received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the following questions:

| 1. | Does the term ‘combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (1) mean that the components of the combination must all be active ingredients with a therapeutic effect? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the term ‘combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (1) mean that the components of the combination must all be active ingredients with a therapeutic effect?

1

| 2. | Is there a ‘combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product’ also where a combination of substances comprising two components of which one component is a known substance with a therapeutic effect for a specific indication and the other component renders possible a pharmaceutical form of the medicinal product that brings about a changed efficacy of the medicinal product for this indication (in-vivo implantation with controlled release of the active ingredient to avoid toxic effects)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is there a ‘combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product’ also where a combination of substances comprising two components of which one component is a known substance with a therapeutic effect for a specific indication and the other component renders possible a pharmaceutical form of the medicinal product that brings about a changed efficacy of the medicinal product for this indication (in-vivo implantation with controlled release of the active ingredient to avoid toxic effects)?

---

(1)  OJ L 182, p. 1.

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 27778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2012-10702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

[CMS-8050-N]

Medicare Program; Meeting of the Medicare Economic Index 
Technical Advisory Panel--May 21, 2012

Correction

    In notice document 2012-10702 appearing on pages 26553-26554 in the 
issue of Friday, May 4, 2012 make the following corrections:
    1. On page 26553, in the third column, in the last paragraph on the 
page ``III. Registration Instructions'', the third sentence should 
appear as set forth below:

``You may register online at http://www.hcdi.com/mei/ or by phone by 
contacting Toya Via, HCD International, at (301) 552-8803, by 5:00 p.m. 
EDT, Monday, May 14, 2012.''

[FR Doc. C1-2012-10702 Filed 5-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1501-01-D
```
# C_2005007EN.01000201.xml

| 11.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/2

---

Notice inviting applications for authorisation to extract hydrocarbons in the Papekop area on Dutch territory

(2005/C 7/02)

The Minister of Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands serves notice that an application for authorisation to extract hydrocarbons has been received for the Papekop area. The area is delimited by the following points and the straight lines between them:

| A. | x = 116 677,51 | y = 460 407,57 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| B. | x = 124 593,42 | y = 454 077,11 |
| C. | x = 120 503,40 | y = 449 030,56 |
| D. | x = 114 084,29 | y = 454 269,37 |
| E. | x = 114 187,05 | y = 457 393,09. |

A.

x = 116 677,51

y = 460 407,57

B.

x = 124 593,42

y = 454 077,11

C.

x = 120 503,40

y = 449 030,56

D.

x = 114 084,29

y = 454 269,37

E.

x = 114 187,05

y = 457 393,09.

The coordinates correspond to the system used by the Rijks Driehoeksmeting.

In accordance with Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospecting, exploration and production of hydrocarbons and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Stb. 2002, 542), the Minister of Economic Affairs invites interested parties to submit an application for authorisation to extract hydrocarbons for the Papekop area.

Applications may be submitted for thirteen weeks after publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to the Minister of Economic Affairs, for the attention of Director of Energy Production, specifying ‘personal’, Prinses Beatrixlaan 5–7, The Hague. Applications submitted after this deadline will not be considered.

Official Journal of the European Union

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than nine months after this period.

Further information can be requested by telephone (No (31-70) 379 66 94).

---
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Ha ley and Senior Judge Coleman

CURTIS EDWARD BODDIE MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2228-06-1 PER CURIAM JANUARY 23, 2007 NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Gregory E. Camden; Charlene A. Morring; Montagna Klein Camden, LLP, on brief), for appellant. (Christopher R. Hedrick; Mason, Mason, Walker & Hedrick, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Curtis Edward Boddie appeals a decision of the Workers’ Co mpensation Commission that ruled he failed to prove he sustained an injury by accident arising out of his employment on September 8, 2004. We have reviewed the r ecord and the commission’s opinion, and we hold this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the comm ission’s decision for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Boddie v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. , VWC File No. 220-65-38 (Aug. 15, 2006). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 216 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 216

   To authorize modification or augmentation of the Second Division 
                   Memorial, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2017

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize modification or augmentation of the Second Division 
                   Memorial, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Second Division Memorial 
Modification Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OR AUGMENTATION TO SECOND DIVISION MEMORIAL.

    (a) Authorization.--The Second Indianhead Division Association, 
Inc. Scholarship and Memorials Foundation, an organization described in 
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from 
taxation under section 501(a) of such Code, is authorized to place 
three benches honoring the members of the Second Infantry Division 
killed in the Cold War in Korea, the War in Iraq, and the War in 
Afghanistan on the Second Division Memorial located in President's 
Park, between 17th Street Northwest and Constitution Avenue in the 
District of Columbia.
    (b) Application of Commemorative Works Act.--Chapter 89 of title 
40, United States Code (commonly known as the ``Commemorative Works 
Act''), shall apply to the design and placement of the benches referred 
to in subsection (a).
    (c) Funding.--Federal funds may not be used for modifications or 
augmentations authorized under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Liliana Christian, Respondent, v Gary M. Christian, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 615]

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Edlitz, J.), dated January 23, 2003, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Furman, H.E.), dated December 13, 2002, which granted the wife’s application for spousal and child support.

*766Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Family Court Act § 412, “A married person is chargeable with the support of his or her spouse and, if possessed of a sufficient means or able to earn such means, may be required to pay for his or her support a fair and reasonable sum, as the court may determine, having due regard to the circumstances of the respective parties.” This requires “a delicate balancing of each party’s needs and means” *(Polite v Polite,*127 AD2d 465, 467 [1987]; *see Matter of Mastrogiacomo v Mastrogiacomo,*149 AD2d 708 [1989]). Thus, the determination of a husband’s support obligation depends on the particular circumstances of the case, including his financial means, his “need to have money to live on after payments are made,” the duration of the marriage, and the wife’s ability to support herself (Musca*rella v Muscarella,*93 AD2d 993, 994 [1983]; *see Matter of Brandt v Brandt,*205 AD2d 767, 768 [1994]). Under the circumstances presented here, we perceive no basis to disturb the hearing examiner’s determination with respect to spousal support.

The husband contends that the hearing examiner erred in imputing a personal injury settlement award as income in crafting the amount of the child support award. The consideration of such a source as income for the purpose of determining child support is not precluded by statute *(see Matter of Boyette v Wilson,*291 AD2d 908, 908-909 [2002]; *Matter of Greenier v Breason,*251 AD2d 703 [1998]). Under the particular circumstances of this case, where, inter alia, the husband acknowledged that a portion of such award was to compensate him for future wages he would not be able to earn due to his injury which occurred during the course of his employment, the hearing examiner’s determination should not be disturbed. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Adams, JJ., concur.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. nrcs.usda.gov

Natural 

Resources 

Conservation 

Service

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation 

Service offers voluntary Farm Bill 

programs that benefit both agricultural 

producers and the environment.

Overview

The Agricultural Management Assistance 

(AMA) helps agricultural producers manage 

financial risk through diversification, marketing, 

or natural resource conservation practices. 

NRCS administers the conservation provisions 

while Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

and Risk Management Agency (RMA) 

implement the production diversification and 

marketing provisions.

How It Works

AMA is available in 16 states where 

participation in the Federal Crop Insurance 

Program is historically low: Connecticut, 

Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

NRCS works with producers to develop an 

AMA plan of operations. Producers may 

construct or improve water management 

structures or irrigation structures; plant trees 

for windbreaks or to improve water quality; and 

mitigate risk through production diversification 

or resource conservation practices, 

including soil erosion control, integrated pest 

management, or transition to organic farming.

Contracts are for a minimum of one year after 

completion of the last practice, but not more 

than 10 years. Participants are expected to 

maintain cost-shared practices for the life of 

the practice.

Who is Eligible?

Applicants must own or control the land within 

an identified AMA State and comply with 

adjusted gross income limitation provisions.

Eligible land includes cropland, rangeland, 

grassland, pastureland, non-industrial 

forestland, and other private land that 

produces crops or livestock where risk may 

be mitigated through operation diversification 

or change in resource conservation practices.

Payment Limitation

AMA provides financial assistance up to 75 

percent of the cost of installing conservation 

practices.

The total AMA payments (from NRCS, AMS, 

and RMA) shall not exceed $50,000 per 

participant for any fiscal year.

How to Apply

Applications may be obtained and filed at any 

time with your local USDA Service Center, 

which you can find at farmers.gov/servicelocator, or a conservation district office. 

Applications may also be accepted by 

cooperating conservation partners approved 

or designated by NRCS.

More Information

For more information, visit nrcs.usda.gov/

farmbill or farmers.gov. 

Find your local USDA Service Center 

at farmers.gov/service-locator. 

July 2019

Agricultural Management 

Assistance

Natural Resources Conservation Service
# C_2005011EN.01000801.xml

| 15.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3638 — KKR/DSD)

(2005/C 11/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 7 January 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3638. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3638. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---