alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 22, 2011 

# Order

March 22, 2011

141570(49)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141570 COA: 283778 Allegan CC: 05-014491-FH KENT ALLEN LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ __________________

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion by plainti ff-appellee for adjournment of the oral argument and submission of this case is considered and, it appearing that an appointed special prosecutor is available to present the ar gument, the motion is denied.
Exhibit 32.1

              SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                            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   (the   "Report")   of  China
Biopharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof,  I, MAO Peng,  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 to my 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.




Date: May 18, 2006                                    By: /s/ MAO Peng
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         MAO Peng
                                                         Chairman and
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
#### Black vs. The Chicago & North-Western Railway Company. Ford vs. The Same.

The general rule in respect to notices is, that mere informalities do not vitiate them, so long as the informality does not mislead, and the notice gives the necessary information to the proper party.

Where a notice of appeal to the circuit court from an appraisal of lands taken for railroad purposes (which notice was required to be served on the railroad company and also upon the clerk of the court), was served upon said company and afterwarks filed with the clerk, and he was made acquainted with its contents: *Held,*that although the notice to the clerk was informal, it was not error for the court to refuse to dismiss the appeal on that ground.

APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for *Winnebago*County.

Lands of the plaintiffs having been occupied,for the defend-' ant’s railway, and awards made by commissioners under chap. 187, Laws of 1856, and chap 175, Laws of 1861, the plaintiffs appealed from these awards to the circuit court. See sec. 19 of said chap. 187, and sec. 2 of said chap. 175. The circuit court denied motions to dismiss the appeals; and from these orders the defendant appealed. The ground upon which the motions were based, is stated in the opinion of this court.

*S. B.*Cotton, for appellant.

*W. B.*Kennedy, for respondent.

*By the Court,*

Paine, J.

In these two cases appeals were taken from the appraisal of the lands of *the*plaintiffs, taken for railroad purposes. And the question presented arose upon motions to dismiss those appeals because not properly taken. In the case of Neff against this company, 14 Wis., 370, we held,after some hesitation, chat under its charter an appeal might be taken by serving a notice on the company and on the clerk of the circuit court; and the- objection made here is that it was not served on the clerk. The mode of service was by filing with the clerk, in proper time, the notice of appeal which was served on the company. It was not addressed to *209the clerk, but was delivered to bim, and be was made acquainted with its contents. Tbe point of tbe objection is, that this was not serving a notice on tbe clerk, but was only leaving with, him a notice that had been served on somebody else. But this is criticising too acutely for tbe practical purposes of tbe law. Tbe general rule in respect to notices is, that mere informalities do not vitiate them, so long as they do not mislead, and tbe notice gives tbe necessary information to the proper party. And it would hardly be seriously contended that tbe clerk or anybody else could misunderstand the (object and intent of filing with bim a notice of tbe appeal served on tbe company.

The order appealed from in each case is affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from CONSOLIDATED
CAPITAL INSTITUTIONAL  PARTNERS 2000 Second Quarter 10-Q and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                              0000352983
<NAME>                             CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 6,499
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                41,921
<DEPRECIATION>                                        11,458
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        90,435
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                               26,928
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                            62,067
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          90,435
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       6,809
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       5,357
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           1,452
<EPS-BASIC>                                             7.22 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6043

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PATRICK JERMAINE ROBERTS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (2:04-cr-00295-PMD-1; 2:07-cv-70047-PMD)

Submitted: October 16, 2008 Decided: November 7, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Jermaine Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Alston Calhoun

Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Jermaine Roberts seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roberts has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2016031EN.01002301.xml

| 28.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/23

---

Special Report No 18/2015

‘Financial assistance provided to countries in difficulties’

(2016/C 31/07)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 18/2015 ‘Financial assistance provided to countries in difficulties’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
# C_2015368EN.01000301.xml

| 6.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 November 2015

(2015/C 368/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0883 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,65 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4592 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71260 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3916 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0833 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3065 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,044 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,97 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2392 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4486 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,1215 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5233 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4320 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4351 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6450 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5310 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 240,66 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,1123 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9065 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5545 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 751,76 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6781 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,047 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,8654 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,702 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,1364 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,9972 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,7100 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0883

JPY

Japanese yen

132,65

DKK

Danish krone

7,4592

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71260

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3916

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0833

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3065

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,044

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,97

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2392

RON

Romanian leu

4,4486

TRY

Turkish lira

3,1215

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5233

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4320

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4351

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6450

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5310

KRW

South Korean won

1 240,66

ZAR

South African rand

15,1123

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9065

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5545

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 751,76

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6781

PHP

Philippine peso

51,047

RUB

Russian rouble

68,8654

THB

Thai baht

38,702

BRL

Brazilian real

4,1364

MXN

Mexican peso

17,9972

INR

Indian rupee

71,7100

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
History: 

### Meeting with Ferroalloys Industry on 5/1/2012 lj) Conrad Chin to: John Rego, Jeff.McKinney, Amy M. Lincoln, Rlunn Cc: Conrad Chin, Chuck French, Beth Friedman, Jonathan Averback, JKonrady, Robin Segall, Peter Westlin, "tshillier@gmail.com"

This message has been replied to and forwarded

. Good morning all05/02/2012 10:19AM

During our meeting yesterday, we discussed about the possibility of both facilities collecting more emissions data. I pointed outthatthere may be possible contamination ifyou try to sample both manganese and mercury atthe same sampling train. Below is an email from last year that our in-house sampling experts discussed this issue with OEPA. Thanks.

From: To: Cc: Date: Subject: Marco, Robin Segaii/RTP/USEPAIUS "Marco Deshaies" <marco.deshaies@epa.state.oh.us> William Grimley/RTP/USEPAIUS@EPA 05/06/2011 02:06 PM Re: Mn and Hg sampling

The reason for this paragraph is thatthe final impingers in Method 29 that allow collection of mercury by the train contain KMn04. Because ofthe significant potential for contamination, you would notwant to try and quantify Mn using a sampling train that includes KMn04. Therefore, ifyou must also measure mercury then you would wantto measure it using a different sampling train (e.g., Method 101A) and then you could leave the KMn04 impingers offthe method 29 train. Hope this helps, Robin

Conrad 

### K. Chin Mail Code D243-02 Metals and Minerals Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards U

.S

. Environmental Protection Agency 919-541-1512 (voice) 919-541-3207 (fax)
# C_2015224EN.01000301.xml

| 9.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/3

---

Special Report No 7/2015 ‘The EU police mission in Afghanistan: mixed results’

(2015/C 224/03)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 7/2015 ‘The EU police mission in Afghanistan: mixed results’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-40-2014]

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Elizabeth Whiteman at                         *Elizabeth.Whiteman@trade.gov*                         or (202) 482-0473.                    

Dated: March 18, 2015.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-06871 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SAM AMBAR A/K/A SHIMSHON J. AMBAR,

Appellant,

v.

LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC; BLANCA M. ALZATE; LAKE

WILSON PRESERVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. A NOT 

FOR PROFIT CORPORATION; AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES 

CLAMING BY, THROUGH, UNDER, OR AGAINST THE HEREIN 

NAMED INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT(S) WHO ARE NOT KNOWN TO 

BE DEAD OR ALIVE, WHEATHER SAID UNKNOWN PARTIES MAY 

CLAIM AN INTEREST AS SPOUSES, HEIRS, DEVISEES, 

GRANTEES, OR OTHER CLAIMANTS,

Appellees.

No. 2D20-2090

September 1, 2021

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Steven L. Selph, 

Judge.

Sam Ambar a/k/a Shimshon J. Ambar, pro se.

Zachary Ullman, Julia Poletti, and Jennifer Travieso of Aldridge| 

Pite, LLP, Delray Beach, for Appellee Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.
2

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MORRIS, C.J., and SILBERMAN and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
# C_2015122EN.01000201.xml

| 16.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7422 — Riverstone/Barclays/Origo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 122/03)

On 9 April 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7422. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7422. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2016137EN.01000401.xml

| 19.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 April 2016

(2016/C 137/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1306 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,32 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4417 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79780 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1948 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0916 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3325 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,022 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,33 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3059 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4749 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2251 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4685 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4612 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7688 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6303 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5328 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 299,62 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,5061 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3241 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5050 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 890,95 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4404 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,253 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 76,7591 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,605 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,9606 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,9043 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,2740 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1306

JPY

Japanese yen

122,32

DKK

Danish krone

7,4417

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79780

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1948

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0916

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3325

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,022

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,33

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3059

RON

Romanian leu

4,4749

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2251

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4685

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4612

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7688

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6303

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5328

KRW

South Korean won

1 299,62

ZAR

South African rand

16,5061

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3241

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5050

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 890,95

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4404

PHP

Philippine peso

52,253

RUB

Russian rouble

76,7591

THB

Thai baht

39,605

BRL

Brazilian real

3,9606

MXN

Mexican peso

19,9043

INR

Indian rupee

75,2740

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
ANTHONY PEOPLES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2331

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

J. Scott Duncan, Judge.

Anthony Peoples, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2015218EN.01000401.xml

| 3.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/4

---

Special Report No 6/2015 ‘The integrity and implementation of the EU ETS’

(2015/C 218/04)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 6/2015 ‘The integrity and implementation of the EU ETS’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---