alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023024EN.01002003.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/20

---

Appeal brought on 16 September 2022 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2022 in Case T-408/21, HB v European Commission

(Case C-597/22 P)

(2023/C 24/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and B. Araujo Arce, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: HB (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 July 2022 in Case T-408/21 HB v Commission, in so far as it annuls Commission Decisions C(2021) 3339 final of 5 May 2021 and C(2021) 3340 final of 5 May 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 July 2022 in Case T-408/21 HB v Commission, in so far as it annuls Commission Decisions C(2021) 3339 final of 5 May 2021 and C(2021) 3340 final of 5 May 2021;

| — | refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance in relation to the application for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance in relation to the application for annulment;

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

—

order HB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on a single plea in law, alleging an error of law.

According to the Commission, the General Court erred in considering that Decisions C(2019) 7318 final and C(2019) 7319 were contractual.

Consequently, the incorrect characterisation of those two claims as contractual includes, in accordance with the case-law ADR (C-584/17), the wrongful annulment of Commission Decisions C(2021) 3339 final of 5 May 2021 and C(2021) 3340 final of 5 May 2021, which are the subject of the present case.

---
# C_2021471EN.01006201.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/62

---

Action brought on 1 October 2021 — Carlings v EUIPO — Margarete Steiff (STUHF)

(Case T-635/21)

(2021/C 471/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Carlings AS (Billingstad, Norway) (represented by: V. Töbelmann and J. Haesemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Margarete Steiff GmbH (Giengen/Brenz, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark STUHF — Application for registration No 18 038 089

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 in Case R 2024/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to bear its own costs, to the extent that it participates in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to bear its own costs, to the extent that it participates in the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

—

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

---
# C_2021391EN.01002701.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/27

---

Action brought on 14 August 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-499/21)

(2021/C 391/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 23 April 2021 on State aid SA.62304 (2021/N) — Portugal — COVID-19: Damage compensation to TAP Portugal; (1) and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 23 April 2021 on State aid SA.62304 (2021/N) — Portugal — COVID-19: Damage compensation to TAP Portugal; (1) and

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 C 240, p. 33.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).

---
# C_2023252EN.01004601.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023 — Cylus Cyber Security v EUIPO — Cylance (CYLUS)

(Case T-227/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CYLUS - Earlier EU word mark CYLANCE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 252/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cylus Cyber Security Ltd (Tel-Aviv, Israel) (represented by: S. Bailey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cylance, Inc. (Irvine, California, United States) (represented by B. Levy, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 February 2022 (Case R 692/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cylus Cyber Security Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cylus Cyber Security Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.

---
# C_2023134EN.01000201.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/2

---

Appeal brought on 26 July 2022 by Luís Miguel Novais against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2022 in Case T-195/22, Novais v Portugal

(Case C-507/22 P)

(2023/C 134/02)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Luís Miguel Novais (represented by: C. Almeida Lopes, Á. Oliveira, advogados)

Other party: Portuguese Republic

By order of 17 February 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered Luís Miguel Novais to bear his own costs.

---
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 9814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5443]

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

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting of the Corporation's Board of Directors

TIME AND DATE: The Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation 
will meet on March 8, 1997. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and 
continue until conclusion of the Board's agenda.

LOCATION: Legal Services Corporation, 750 First Street N.E.--11th Flr. 
Board Room, Washington, D.C.

STATUS OF MEETING: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Approval of agenda.
2. Approval of minutes of January 6, 1997, open session.
3. Chairman's and Members' Reports.
4. President's Report.
5. Inspector General's Report.
6. Consider and act on the report of the Board's Operations and 
Regulations Committee:
    a. Consider and act on final revisions to sections 1, 2, 3 and 8 of 
the Corporation's Personnel Manual.
    b. Consider and act on draft revisions to 45 CFR Part 1642, the 
Corporation's interim regulation on attorneys' fees.
    c. Consider and act on interim revisions to 45 CFR Part 1610, the 
Corporation's regulation on use of non-LSC funds.
    d. Consider and act on proposed revisions to the Corporation's 
Accounting Guide for Recipients and Auditors.
    e. Consider and act on draft revisions to 45 CFR Part 1639, the 
Corporation's interim regulation on welfare reform.
    f. Consider and act on proposed 45 CFR Part 1641, a new regulation 
on Debarment, Suspension and Removal of Recipient Auditors.
7. Consider and act on proposed policies and procedures relating to 
communications between the Corporation and Congress.
8. Consider and act on proposed policies and procedures for annual 
performance reviews of the Corporation's President and Inspector 
General.
9. Consider and act on the report of the Board's Finance Committee.
10. Consider and act on the report of the Board's Provision Committee.
11. Consider and act on the report of the Board's Presidential Search 
Committee.
12. Consider and act on a resolution upgrading the Corporation's 
service contract with Mutual of America to provide a Full Services 
Arrangement for the Corporation's 403(b) Thrift Plan.
13. Public comment.
14. Consider and act on other business.

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Victor M. Fortuno, General Counsel, 
(202) 336-8810.

SPECIAL NEEDS: Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in 
alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments. 
Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend 
the meeting may notify Barbara Asante, at (202) 336-8800.

    Dated: February 28, 1997.
Victor M. Fortuno,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-5443 Filed 2-28-97; 2:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
```
#### Ida L. Broward v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America.

154 So. 925.

Opinion Filed April 24, 1934.

*599
      *Lee Booth*and *Percy L. Thomas,*for Appellant;

*Stockton, Ulmer & Murchison,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

— Appeal is from final decree of foreclosure and brings for review also order appointing Receiver in such foreclosure suit where the mortgage pledged the rents, issues and profits.

It is not made to appear that Chancellor abused judicial discretion in making the order and decree complained of.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
# C_2023127EN.01001501.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/15

---

Appeal brought on 6 September 2022 by Gabriel Pombo da Silva against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2022 in Case T-292/22, Pombo da Silva v Commission

(Case C-586/22 P)

(2023/C 127/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Gabriel Pombo da Silva (represented by: M. Chao Dobarro, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 17 February 2023, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---
# C_2022084EN.01004202.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/42

---

Action brought on 15 December 2021 — Folkertsma v Commission

(Case T-778/21)

(2022/C 84/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rommert Folkertsma (Zierikzee, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | recognise the non-contractual liability of the defendant; |
| --- | --- |

—

recognise the non-contractual liability of the defendant;

| — | grant a compensation for the material and moral prejudice suffered by the applicant due to the defendant’s unlawful conduct; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant a compensation for the material and moral prejudice suffered by the applicant due to the defendant’s unlawful conduct;

| — | if need be, annul the decision of the defendant dated 5 October 2021, rejecting its liability in the applicant’s removal from the SUBRATA Project in the Philippines; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

if need be, annul the decision of the defendant dated 5 October 2021, rejecting its liability in the applicant’s removal from the SUBRATA Project in the Philippines; and,

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, as to the unlawful conduct of the defendant, on three pleas in law:

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the breach of the defendant’s duty to give reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the breach of the defendant’s duty to give reasons.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of the defendant’s duty of diligence. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of the defendant’s duty of diligence.

The damage suffered by the applicant is actual, certain and quantifiable. It consists in the loss of income for the duration of the service contract that the applicant had, then in the loss of a serious chance to have the contract renewed for another two years at it initial term and thirdly, to the breach to the applicant’s good name. The applicant searches the compensation of his material prejudice and of his moral prejudice.

---
No. 11-10171.

#### Cooper *v.*Denney, Warden.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
AFS-10-214-E

Jun 30 2010

Exemp tion No. 4144M Regul atory Docket No. FAA-2002-12590

Mr. Paul Montville

Executive Director United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Associat ion

P.O. Box 1330 Colorado Springs, CO 80901

Dear Mr. Montville:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted y our petition to extend Exemption No. 4144, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 8, 2010, you petitioned the F ederal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of United States Hang Gliding and Paraglidin g Association (USHPA), for an extension of and amendment to Exemption No. 4144, as amended. That exemption from §§ 91.309 and 103.1(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR) allows USHGA members to tow unpowered ultralight vehicles (hang gliders) using powered ultralight vehicles. The amendment you request would allow USHPA members who are licensed sport pilots with light sport aircraft to tow aloft unpowered ultrali ght vehicles (hang gliders) for recreational and/or instructional purposes, as well. Additional ly, the request reflects the organizations name change from USHGA to USHPA.

The additional towing relief you have requested is significantly different from the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. As such, the FAA is still treating that portion of your amendment request as a new petition. We will advise you of the agency's f inal decision on your petition as soon as possible.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for t he issuance of Exemption No. 4144, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exempti on and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association is granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.309 and 103.1(b) to all ow USHPA members to tow unpowered ultralight vehicles (hang gliders) using powered ultralight vehicles.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exempt ion No. 4144, as amended, to June 30, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinde d.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 414 4, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemp tion No. 4144.

Sincerely,

/s/

John G. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
# C_2022284EN.01004201.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/42

---

Order of the General Court of 2 June 2022 — Tóth v Commission

(Case T-17/22) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - OLAF investigation concerning the public lighting activities of Élios Innovatív - Application for access to the final investigation report - Implied refusal of access - Express decision to grant access adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 284/57)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Bertalan Tóth (Pécs, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Baratta and B. Czudar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Béres and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the implied decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 10 November 2021 by which OLAF rejected his confirmatory application for access to the document entitled ‘Final OLAF Report OF/2015/0034/B4 concerning the public lighting activities of Élios Innovatív Zrt’.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-31013

Summary Calendar

JAMES SAMUEL FELKNOR,

Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS; OVERTON BROOKS VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:10-CV-1399

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Samuel Felknor has applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) in this appeal from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint, in which he

named as defendants the United States of America, the Department of Veterans

Affairs, and Overton Brooks Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Felknor

complained that he was improperly denied benefits pursuant to a Veterans

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 6, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-31013 Document: 00511531001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2011
No. 10-31013

Administration regulation. As an initial matter, Felknor has filed a motion for

appointment of counsel. This motion is DENIED.

“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies

in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see also Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d

197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). A court’s inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in

good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on

their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard, 707 F.2d at 220 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Felknor alleges that he is trying to bring two claims; one is for defamation

under state law, and the other is a constitutional challenge to the Veterans

Administration regulation that he asserts is the basis for the decision to deny

him medical services. Although he states that he is trying to bring a

constitutional challenge to the administrative regulation, it appears that what

he is really challenging is the decision to deny him benefits.

The district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to

entertain Felknor’s complaint. Felknor has not demonstrated any error in the

district court’s ruling. See 38 U.S.C. § 511(a).

Because the appeal is frivolous, leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED

and the appeal is DISMISSED. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

We WARN Felknor that the continued filing of frivolous motions and other

pleadings in this court or in the district court will invite the imposition of 

sanctions.

2

Case: 10-31013 Document: 00511531001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2011