alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022398EN.01001102.xml

| 17.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 27 May 2022 — Gemeinde A v Finanzamt

(Case C-344/22)

(2022/C 398/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gemeinde A

Defendant: Finanzamt

Questions referred

| 1. | In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, does a municipality which, on the basis of municipal bylaws, imposes a ‘spa tax’ (of a certain amount per day’s stay) on visitors staying in the municipality (spa guests) for the provision of spa facilities (for example a spa park, a spa building, footpaths) carry out, by providing the spa facilities to the spa guests in return for a spa tax, an economic activity for the purposes of Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if the spa facilities are in any event freely accessible to everyone (and therefore also, for example, to residents not subject to the spa tax or to other persons not subject to the spa tax)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, does a municipality which, on the basis of municipal bylaws, imposes a ‘spa tax’ (of a certain amount per day’s stay) on visitors staying in the municipality (spa guests) for the provision of spa facilities (for example a spa park, a spa building, footpaths) carry out, by providing the spa facilities to the spa guests in return for a spa tax, an economic activity for the purposes of Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if the spa facilities are in any event freely accessible to everyone (and therefore also, for example, to residents not subject to the spa tax or to other persons not subject to the spa tax)?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: In the circumstances in the main proceedings described above, is the municipal territory alone the relevant geographic market for the purpose of examining whether treating the municipality as a non-taxable person would lead to ‘significant distortions of competition’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: In the circumstances in the main proceedings described above, is the municipal territory alone the relevant geographic market for the purpose of examining whether treating the municipality as a non-taxable person would lead to ‘significant distortions of competition’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000818674
<NAME>                        INTELLICALL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                2,665
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        24,354 
<ALLOWANCES>                          3,330
<INVENTORY>                           7,440
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      1,406
<PP&E>                               11,300
<DEPRECIATION>                        9,166
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       44,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                14,049
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                 93
<OTHER-SE>                           11,181
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         44,086
<SALES>                               4,679
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     25,082
<CGS>                                 4,481
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        23,046
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      2,901 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      612
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (1,371)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (1,371)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         (1,371)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998 AND CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          68,675
<SECURITIES>                                    80,995
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,157
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     59,869
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               316,986
<PP&E>                                       1,231,113
<DEPRECIATION>                                 645,936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 929,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          209,328
<BONDS>                                        396,191
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                     263,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   929,015
<SALES>                                        632,690
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               632,690
<CGS>                                          763,620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  763,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               161,699
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,266
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (314,895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (24,645)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (290,250)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (290,250)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.99)
        



                                      

</TABLE>
# C_2021338EN.01003501.xml

| 23.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/35

---

Action brought on 7 July 2021 — Crédit agricole and Others v SRB

(Case T-388/21)

(2021/C 338/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Crédit agricole (Montrouge, France) and 48 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2021/22 of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2021/22 of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;

| — | pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






  — | Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:

—

Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;

| — | Article 4(2) and Articles 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4(2) and Articles 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto;

| — | Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

| — | 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 applicants rely on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-383/21, Banque postale v SRB.

---
# C_2023338EN.01002001.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 July 2023 — Pšonka v Council

(Case T-244/22) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2023/C 338/26)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Pavlovyč Pšonka (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: R. Pekař and A. Boggio-Tomasaz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/376 of 3 March 2022, amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 70, p. 7), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/375 of 3 March 2022 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (OJ 2022 L 70, p. 1), in so far as those measures maintain his name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/376 of 3 March 2022, amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/375 of 3 March 2022 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Viktor Pavlovyč Pšonka was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/376 of 3 March 2022, amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/375 of 3 March 2022 implementing Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Viktor Pavlovyč Pšonka was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 244, 27.6.2022.

---
#### SHUYING LIANG, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-71224

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 7, 2018 * Pasadena, California

Filed March 12, 2018

Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Tracie Nicole Jones, Trial Attorney, Joseph Anthony O’Connell, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Staying Liang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing *775adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Liang’s testimony and the household registries, and Liang’s inconsistent testimony as to whether she was under residential surveillance following her release from detention. *See id.*at 1048 (holding that the adverse credibility finding was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Liang’s explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary result. *See Zamanov v. Holder,*649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Contrary to Liang’s contention, the agency was entitled to discount the abortion certificate she submitted because the document was issued sixteen years after her alleged forced abortion and was obtained through suspect means. *See Lin v. Gonzales,*434 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that the agency may discount the probative value of documents if the record “include[s] some evidence undermining their reliability, such that a reviewing court can objectively verify whether the IJ has a legitimate basis to distrust the documents” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

In the absence of credible testimony, Liang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Liang’s CAT claim also fails because it rests on the same evidence the agency found not credible, and Liang points to no other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official in China. *See id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
No. 12-196.

#### Carey *v.*Ryan.

Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   3-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          MAR-31-2000
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-1999
[CASH]                                             218
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                  5714670
[ALLOWANCES]                                    150000
[INVENTORY]                                    6586580
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                862740
[PP&E]                                        12751406
[DEPRECIATION]                                       0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                26263610
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                          9993400
[BONDS]                                              0
[COMMON]                                         91830
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[OTHER-SE]                                    13626360
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                  26263610
[SALES]                                       10381075
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                              10381075
[CGS]                                          6590662
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                  3081326
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                               79033
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                 630684
[INCOME-TAX]                                     15000
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                             615684
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                    615684
[EPS-BASIC]                                        0
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
## Guidelines for Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions Calculations

for Spray Coating Operations

The following methodology should be used to calculate PM emissions from coating operations and report using Form B4:

E PM = Q x S x 

## ( 1

- TE 

## ) x 

## ( 1

- CE 

## ) Eq. (1)

where:

E PM = Emissions of particulate matter (lbs)

Q = Quantity of coatings applied (gallons or pounds)

S (1) = Solid content (lb/gal or lb/lb) in coatings

TE (2) = Transfer Efficiency (decimal)

CE (3) = Control System Efficiency (decimal)

(1) User may refer to the product Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) or Product Data Sheet to determine the solid content (S) of a coating. This content can be either in terms of percentage (weight fraction or lb/lb) or factor (lb/gal). In the absence of any coating specific data, the following default factors can be used for calculation purposes.

SOLID PERCENTAGE: 37.5 % or 0.375 lb/lb

SOLID FACTOR: 3.0 lb/gal

NOTE: Unit of S must be consistent with that of coatings applied (Q), i.e., S in weight fraction or lb/lb for Q in pounds and S in lb/gal for Q in gallons.

(2) User may refer to the Equipment Technical Specification Data to determine the transfer efficiency (TE) of coating equipment. In the absence of any specific equipment te chnical data and depending on type of coating operation, the following

default TE can be used.

SPRAY TE = 0.652 OTHERS TE = 1.00

NOTE: Other coating operations include flow, roller, and dip coating

(3) If coating is performed inside a spraybooth which is equipped with a filter system to control PM emissions, the following control efficiency (CE) can be used depending on the type of filter:

CONVENTIONAL FILTERS: CE = 0.90

3

- STAGE AEROSPACE NESHAP

- COMPLAINT FILTERS: CE = 0.95

HIGH EFFICIENCY PARTICLE ARRESTOR (HEPA): CE = 0.999 7

Instructions for Reporting PM on Forms B4 and B4U

a) Enter the total quantity of the coatings (Q) used during the reporting period (annual throughput). Identify the correct throughput unit. If needed, convert Q from gallons to pounds by multiplying Q (in gallons) by the coating density (lb/gal).

b) From coating MSDS or Product Data Sheet, find solid content (S). If data is not available, a default factor can be used. Unit of S must be consistent with t hat of coatings applied (Q), i.e., S in weight fraction or lb/lb for Q in pounds and S in lb/gal for Q in gallons.

c) Determine the applicable control efficiency (CE = 0.90 , 0.95, 0.999 7 , or 0.0 if coating is performed outside the spraybooth). Substantiate w ith documentation for the use of HEPA filter efficiency.

d) Calculate and record PM emission factor by multiply solid content (S) by one minus transfer efficiency (1

- TE) and then by one minus control system efficiency (1

- CE).

e) PM emissions (in pounds) are ca lculated by the program by multiply throughputs Q by emission factor (step d).



### SPECIAL NOTE: This methodology is also applicable in calculating toxic PM emissions, i.e., Hexavalent Chromium and Lead from coating operations, by replacing

the solid conten t with toxic metal content in Equation (1).
# C_2022284EN.01004301.xml

| 25.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/43

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 30 May 2022 — OT v Council

(Case T-193/22 R)

(Interim relief - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Application for interim measures - No prima facie case - No urgency)

(2022/C 284/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OT (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Sand, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux, A. Boggio-Tomasaz and M.-C. Cadilhac, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant requests that the Court, inter alia, suspend the operation of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 of 15 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 87I, p. 1), and Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 of 15 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 87I, p. 44), in so far as those acts affect him.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
No. 11-10638.

#### Macias-Munoz *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.