alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022318EN.01002001.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 17 March 2022 — Lineas — Concessões de Transportes SGPS, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-207/22)

(2022/C 318/28)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lineas — Concessões de Transportes SGPS, S.A.

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

May a holding company which has as its sole object the management of shareholdings in other companies, as an indirect means of pursuing economic activities, and which, in that context, acquires and holds on a long-term basis such shareholdings, which, in general, are at least 10 % of the share capital of the companies in which it has a shareholding, where the activity of those companies comes within the category of transport infrastructure management, including the design, construction and management of roads and/or motorways, be regarded as a ‘financial institution’ within the meaning of Directive 2013/36/EU (1) and Regulation (EU) No 575/2013? (2)

---

(1)  Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

---
# C_2022191EN.01001001.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 20 January 2022 — HK v Service fédéral des Pensions (SFP)

(Case C-45/22)

(2022/C 191/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HK

Defendant: Service fédéral des Pensions (SFP)

Questions referred

| — | Must the rule laid down in Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) that the competent institutions are to divide the amounts of the benefit or benefits or other income, as they have been taken into account, by the number of benefits subject to the said rules be interpreted as meaning that the income as such taken into account when applying the rule to prevent overlapping must be divided by the number of survivors’ pensions impacted by the rules against overlapping? |
| --- | --- |

—

Must the rule laid down in Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) that the competent institutions are to divide the amounts of the benefit or benefits or other income, as they have been taken into account, by the number of benefits subject to the said rules be interpreted as meaning that the income as such taken into account when applying the rule to prevent overlapping must be divided by the number of survivors’ pensions impacted by the rules against overlapping?

| — | On the contrary, must the rule laid down in Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 that the competent institutions are to divide the amounts of the benefit or benefits or other income, as they have been taken into account, by the number of benefits subject to the said rules be interpreted as meaning that it is not the income as such taken into account when applying the rule to prevent overlapping, but rather it is the portion of the income which exceeds a ceiling in respect of overlapping, as, for example, laid down by the national rule at issue, that must be divided by the number of survivors’ pensions impacted by the rules against overlapping? |
| --- | --- |

—

On the contrary, must the rule laid down in Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 that the competent institutions are to divide the amounts of the benefit or benefits or other income, as they have been taken into account, by the number of benefits subject to the said rules be interpreted as meaning that it is not the income as such taken into account when applying the rule to prevent overlapping, but rather it is the portion of the income which exceeds a ceiling in respect of overlapping, as, for example, laid down by the national rule at issue, that must be divided by the number of survivors’ pensions impacted by the rules against overlapping?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

---
No. 11-10180.

#### Skipper *v.*Louisiana.

Sup. Ct. La. Certio-rari denied.
IA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 29

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding

the liability of Members of Congress for false statements made in carrying out their official duties.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 9, 1997

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States regarding the liability of Members of Congress

for false statements made in carrying out their official

duties.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by
2

HJ 29 IH

1 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with2 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica3 tion:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE—

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. Senators and Representatives may be

6 held liable for false statements or other false communica7 tions made in carrying out their official duties.

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to en9 force this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4098

___________

Rad W. Hamilton, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Enterprise Leasing Company of *

St. Louis, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 5, 2007

Filed: January 10, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rad W. Hamilton appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of some claims, and its

adverse grant of summary judgment on his remaining claims, in his employmentdiscrimination lawsuit. Having conducted de novo review, we affirm the district

court’s well-reasoned decisions. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny the pending motion.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2012

- 0590 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2011

- NM

- 112

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( U se this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : Indicates related information in AD Manual, FAA

-IR

-M

- 8040.1C . DOUBLE C

LICK to follow the link 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation:

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include spe cific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO 

### * Explanation 

### :
# C_2022191EN.01001701.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 14 February 2022 — Kapniki A. Michailides AE v Organismos Pliromon kai Elegchou Koinotikon Enischyseon Prosanatolismou kai Eggyiseon (OPEKEPE), Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon

(Case C-99/22)

(2022/C 191/22)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Kapniki A. Michailides SA

Respondents: Organismos Pliromon kai Elegchou Koinotikon Enischyseon Prosanatolismou kai Eggyiseon (OPEKEPE), Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon

Question referred

Does Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 of 30 June 1992, (1) which states that, where the quantity of tobacco of low class purchased by a processor exceeds, relative to his total purchases of the variety in question, the percentage indicated in Annex IV, the premium shall be reduced by 30 % in respect of the quantity in excess of the percentage in question, infringe the principle of the non-retroactivity of legal rules and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2062/92 of 30 June 1992 fixing, for the 1992 harvest, the norm and intervention prices and the premiums granted to purchasers of leaf tobacco, the derived intervention prices for baled tobacco, the reference qualities, and the production areas (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 22).

---
# C_2023127EN.01001401.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — T.C., Rzecznik Praw Dziecka, Prokurator Generalny

(Case C-638/22 PPU, (1) Rzecznik Praw Dziecka and Others (Suspension of the return decision))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - International child abduction - 1980 Hague Convention - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 11 - Application for return of a child - Final decision ordering the return of a child - Legislation of a Member State providing for automatic suspension of the enforcement of that decision in the event that a request is made by certain national authorities)

(2023/C 127/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: T.C., Rzecznik Praw Dziecka, Prokurator Generalny

Interested parties: M.C., Prokurator Prokuratury Okręgowej we Wrocławiu

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as precluding a piece of national legislation which confers on authorities that are not courts the power to obtain automatic suspension, for a period of at least two months, of the enforcement of a return decision handed down on the basis of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, concluded at the Hague on 25 October 1980, without having to provide reasons for their request for suspension.

---

(1)  OJ C 482, 19.12.2022.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE

INTEREST OF

H.R.W., A CHILD.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00213-CV

Appeal from the

256th District Court

of Dallas County, Texas

§

(TC# 13-07871-Z)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. It 

appearing to this Court that Appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal, this Court makes no 

other order with respect thereto. We further order this decision be certified below for 

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           FEB-1-1998  
<PERIOD-START>                              FEB-2-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                NOV-1-1997
<CASH>                                          24,015
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,459
<INVENTORY>                                    101,569
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,129
<PP&E>                                          51,486
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 157,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,945
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                3
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   157,108
<SALES>                                        145,505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               145,505
<CGS>                                          113,126
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,705<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,065)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       191
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,256)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,256)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.20)
<FN>
<F1>OTHER EXPENSES CONSIST OF ALL OPERATING COSTS AND EXCLUDES INTEREST,
NON-OPERATING INCOME AND INCOME TAXES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023223EN.01000402.xml

| 26.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 May 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich — Austria) — RE v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Lilienfeld

(Case C-155/22, (1) Bezirkshauptmannschaft Lilienfeld)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator - Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 - Articles 6 and 22 - National legislation permitting the transfer of criminal responsibility for serious infringements regarding the driving time and rest periods of drivers - Failure to take into account the penalties imposed for infringements when assessing the good repute of a road transport undertaking)

(2023/C 223/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RE

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Lilienfeld

intervening party: Arbeitsinspektorat NÖ Wald- und Mostviertel

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013, read in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1071/2009, as amended,

must be interpreted as precluding a national law pursuant to which a person that incurs criminal responsibility for infringements committed within a road transport undertaking and whose conduct is taken into account for the purpose of assessing the good repute of that undertaking may designate a person as an agent responsible for compliance with the provisions of EU law concerning the driving time and rest periods of drivers, thereby transferring to that person criminal responsibility for infringements of those provisions of EU law, where the national law does not permit the infringements imputed to that agent to be taken into account for the purpose of assessing whether that undertaking meets the requirement of good repute.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.

---
# C_2021357EN.01003101.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/31

---

Action brought on 16 July 2021 — Sushi&Food Factor v EUIPO (READY 4YOU)

(Case T-432/21)

(2021/C 357/47)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Sushi&Food Factor sp. z o.o. (Robakowo, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark READY 4YOU — Application No 18 209 237

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2021 in Case R 2321/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and give final judgment by approving for registration EU trade mark application No 18 209 237; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and give final judgment by approving for registration EU trade mark application No 18 209 237;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision and remit the case to EUIPO for further consideration;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the Operations Department of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO and the Operations Department of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) thereof;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (c) thereof, including the right to be heard, the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions, the right to good administration, the principle of legal certainty, and the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 41(1) and (2)(a) and (c) thereof, including the right to be heard, the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions, the right to good administration, the principle of legal certainty, and the principle of equal treatment.

---
7,229 0

5,203

12,432

BallotsCounted

455

647 0

1,102

BallotsRejected

GEORGIA

Mail,Fax,Email

Election/Registrar's

Office

Internet

DM

V

Public

Assistance

Office

DisabilitiesAgency

Military

RecruitmentOffice

OtherState

Agency

RegistrationDrives

Registration:Other

1,199,069

463,392

170,457

581,295

150,950

39,826

73,226

14600

RegistrationFormSource

TotalRegisteredVoters

6,657,621

SectionA-VoterRegistration

RegistrationFormsReceived

2,678,361

ConfirmationNotificationsSent

1,026,062

Polling

Place

UOCAVA Absentee Provisional

Ballot

EarlyVote

Center

Voteby

Mail

Turnout:

Other

1,704,249

2,213,228

200,562

12,383 16,739 0 0

SectionF-TurnoutbyMethod

CountedFull Counted

Part

Rejected Provisional:

Other

7,592

9,147

0 0

SectionE-ProvisionalBallots

UniformedService

Non-militaryOverseas

Other

SectionB-UOCAVA

8,218

10,416 0

18,634

BallotsTransmitted

TOTAL TOTAL

ProvisionalBallotTotal:16,739 TurnoutTotal:4,147,161

Select: GEORGIA

TOTAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                          

  

2016EAVSDataBrief 

U i