alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021502EN.01002801.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/28

---

Order of the General Court of 14 October 2021 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case T-100/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Law governing the institutions - Member of the Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Request for privileges and immunities to be defended - Decision of the President of the Parliament not to grant that request - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 502/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by: M. Marsal i Ferret, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 10 December 2019 not to grant the request, made on behalf of the applicant, for his immunities, as referred to in the first and second paragraphs of Article 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, to be defended.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain.

| 3. | Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

| 4. | The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs relating to its application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs relating to its application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.

---
# C_2021110EN.01001701.xml

| 29.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto Este — Penafiel — Juízo Trabalho (Portugal) lodged on 21 December 2020 — B v O, P, OP, G, N

(Case C-691/20)

(2021/C 110/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto Este — Penafiel — Juízo Trabalho

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B

Defendants: O, P, OP, G, N

Question referred

Is it contrary to EU law, specifically Article 18 TFEU, to exclude from the application of the rules laid down in Article 334 of the Código de Trabalho (Employment Code) undertakings established in another Member State, in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 481(2) of the Código das sociedades comerciais (Code on commercial companies)?

---
Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 of OrderPro Logistics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Richard L. Windorski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Patricia
L. Green, Chief Financial Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350 as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

      (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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
19th day of November 2003.

/s/ Richard L. Windorski
------------------------------------
Richard L. Windorski
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Patricia L. Green
------------------------------------
Patricia L. Green
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2022318EN.01000401.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti — Romania) — HW, ZF, MZ v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG

(Case C-652/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in insurance matters - Article 11(1)(b) - Action brought by the policyholder, the insured person or a beneficiary - Possibility of bringing proceedings against the insurer before a court of the place where the person bringing the claim is domiciled - Determination of the international and territorial jurisdiction of a court of a Member State - Article 13(2) - Direct action brought by the injured party against the insurer - Insurer domiciled in a Member State with an establishment in another Member State sued in the court of the place where that establishment is situated)

(2022/C 318/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: HW, ZF, MZ

Defendant: Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, where that provision is applicable, it determines both the international jurisdiction and the territorial jurisdiction of the court of a Member State within whose jurisdiction the person bringing the claim is domiciled.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 106579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31251]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules; Hearing of the Judicial 
Conference

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules; notice of cancellation of 
open hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The following public hearing on proposed amendments to the 
Federal Rules of Evidence has been canceled: Evidence Rules Hearing on 
January 22, 2025.

DATES: January 22, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H. Thomas Byron III, Esq., Chief 
Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus 
Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The announcement for this hearing was 
previously published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2024 at 89 FR 
61498.

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

    Dated: December 23, 2024.
Shelly L. Cox,
Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.
[FR Doc. 2024-31251 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
```
MKL ENTERPRISES LLC, d/b/a DriMaxx, Appellant, v. AMERICAN TRADITIONS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2632

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 7, 2019

Corinne L. Heller, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Thomas R. Diana and William R. Burke of Zinober Diana, P.A., St. Petersburg; Dorothy V. DiFiore and Karen Shimonsky of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

M.K. Thomas, J.

MKL Enterprises LLC ("DriMaxx") appeals an order granting American Traditions Insurance Company's ("ATIC") motion to compel appraisal and abate litigation. DriMaxx argues the trial court erred by compelling appraisal prior to making a determination of whether an enforceable agreement exists and if ATIC is "wholly denying" coverage under the homeowner's insurance policy. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

The standard of review applicable to an order compelling appraisal under an insurance policy is *de novo.**Fortune v. Gulf Coast Tree Care Inc.,*148 So.3d 827, 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ; *Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Ashe,*50 So.3d 645, 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Generally, " '[a]ppraisal clauses are preferred, as they provide a mechanism for prompt resolution of claims and discourage the filing of needless lawsuits.' " *First Protective Ins. Co. v. Hess* , 81 So.3d 482, 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (quoting *Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc. v. Olympus Ass'n, Inc.* , 34 So.3d 791, 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ). Appraisals are appropriate where an insurance company "admits that there *is* a covered loss, but there is a disagreement on the *amount* of loss." *Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.* , 828 So.2d 1021, 1025 (Fla. 2002) (emphasis in original). By tendering the check, ATIC admitted coverage for some damage while declining to cover all repair costs. Thus, ATIC did not "wholly deny" coverage. *See**People's Trust Ins. Co. v. Tracey* , 251 So.3d 931, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Here, ATIC, the insurer, tendered a check for its estimation of covered damage. In so doing, ATIC thereby "waives any coverage defense it might otherwise have had." *Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Desalvo* , 666 So.2d 944, 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Furthermore, in choosing appraisal as the appropriate resolution forum, ATIC "admits that there is a covered loss." *Johnson* , 828 So.2d at 1025.

The order of the trial court compelling appraisal is AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J. and, Jay, J. concur.
PROMISSORY NOTE


$1,220.00                                                 December 31, 2003
                                                          Newport Beach, CA


     On Demand FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned promises to pay in
lawful money of the United States of America to the order of Cygni
Capital, LLC, nominee or assignee, the sum of ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED
TWENTY DOLLARS ($1,220.00), with interest from December 31, 2003 until
paid at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.

     Should interest not be paid, it shall thereafter bear interest as
the principal, but such unpaid interest so compounded shall not exceed
an amount equal to simple interest on the principal at the maximum
rate permitted by law.  The undersigned hereby waives presentment of
payment, protest, notice of protest, notice of nonpayment, and
diligence in bringing suit, and further agrees, in case suit is
instituted, to collect this Promissory Note or any portion thereof, to
pay such additional sum for attorneys' fees as the Court may adjudge
reasonable in such suit.


                                   CYGNI INVESTMENTS, INC.

                                   By:  /s/ Carl Suter
                                        Carl Suter, President
David Wayne BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1897

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 7, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Christopher HAMMONDS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-3511

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed January 25, 2019

Gregory M. Wagner, Law Office of Gregory M. Wagner, Daytona Beach, for Petitioner.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the June 28, 2017 judgment and sentence rendered in Case No. 2014-305074-CFDB, in the Circuit Court in and for Volusia County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

WALLIS and GROSSHANS, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.
LAKE AVENUE SOUTH EAST REAL ESTATE, LLC, et al., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. CENTERSTATE BANK, N. A., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0863

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 03, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismiss.
Exhibit 10.6

AMENDMENT OF SERVICES AGREEMENT

This Amendment dated as of January 1, 2001 to the Services Agreement dated as of August 1, 2000 among Sea Containers Ltd., a Bermuda company,
Sea Containers Services Ltd., a United Kingdom company, and Orient-Express Hotels Ltd., a Bermuda company. Terms defined in the Services Agreement have the same meaning in this
Amendment.

Whereas,
Section 3.1 of the Services Agreement sets out an annual charge of $2,500,000 for Corporate Services, part of which are provided by OEHL itself beginning in 2001;
Section 3.2 and Schedule 3.2 of the Services Agreement specify the cost allocation and allocation methodology in 1999 and 2000 for Administration Services; and Section 3.3 of the
Services Agreement provides for a proportionate reimbursement based on office space used by the OEHL Group;

Whereas,
the Parties wish to amend the Services Agreement for 2001 and future years;

Now,
therefore, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
and intending to be legally bound hereby, SCL, SC Services and OEHL hereby agree to amend the Services Agreement (i) by reducing the annual charge for Corporate Services under
Section 3.1 to $2,200,000 from January 1, 2001, and (ii) by adding a sentence to appear after the third sentence of Section 3.2, reading in its entirety, "The cost
allocation and the allocation method in 2001 and future years for Administration Services under Section 3.2 and for office space under Section 3.3 shall be as agreed among the Parties
each year at the time the consolidated budgets of SCL and OEHL are prepared, to be effective for that budget year."

Except
as amended by this Amendment, the Services Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

|SEA CONTAINERS LTD.          |  |                                                                                                  |  | ORIENT-EXPRESS HOTELS LTD.
|---------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------
|By:                          |  | /s/D.J. O'SULLIVANDaniel J. O'Sullivan Senior Vice PresidentFinance
and Chief Financial Officer |  |                           
|SEA CONTAINERS SERVICES LTD. |  |                                                                                                  |  |                           
|By:                          |  | /s/D.J. O'SULLIVANDaniel J. O'Sullivan Director and Secretary                                    |  |
# C_2023235EN.01003001.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2023 — enercity v Commission

(Case T-321/20) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - German electricity market - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - No locus standi - No active participation - Inadmissibility)

(2023/C 235/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: enercity AG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: C. Schalast and H. Löschan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Meessen and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents, and by F. Haus and F. Schmidt, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), E.ON SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, C. Barth and D.-J. dos Santos Goncalves, lawyers), RWE AG (Essen) (represented by: U. Scholz, J. Siegmund and J. Ziebarth, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 1711 final of 26 February 2019 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case M.8871 — RWE/E.ON Assets) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders enercity AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders enercity AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, E.ON SE and RWE AG;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
# C_2020262EN.01001501.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 22 May 2020 — Renesola UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-209/20)

(2020/C 262/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Renesola UK Ltd

Respondent: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Commission Implementing Regulation 1357/2013/EU (1), to the extent that it purports to determine the country of origin of solar modules manufactured from materials coming from several jurisdictions by ascribing origin to the country where the solar cells were manufactured, contrary to the requirement in Article 24 of Council Regulation 2913/92/EEC (2) (the Community Customs Code), namely that goods whose production involves more than one country shall be deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last substantial economically justified processing or working in an undertaking equipped for that purpose and resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture, and hence invalid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Commission Implementing Regulation 1357/2013/EU (1), to the extent that it purports to determine the country of origin of solar modules manufactured from materials coming from several jurisdictions by ascribing origin to the country where the solar cells were manufactured, contrary to the requirement in Article 24 of Council Regulation 2913/92/EEC (2) (the Community Customs Code), namely that goods whose production involves more than one country shall be deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last substantial economically justified processing or working in an undertaking equipped for that purpose and resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture, and hence invalid?

| 2. | If Regulation 1357/2013 is invalid, is Article 24 of the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the assembly of solar modules from solar cells and other parts constitutes a substantial processing or working? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Regulation 1357/2013 is invalid, is Article 24 of the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the assembly of solar modules from solar cells and other parts constitutes a substantial processing or working?

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1357/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2013, L 341, p. 47).

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code

(OJ 1992, L 302, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 99.3 Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18U.S.C.,SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002),  I,  the  undersigned  President  and  Chief
Executive  Officer of Nuclear  Solutions,  Inc., (the "Company"),  herby certify
that,  to the best of my  knowledge,  the  Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of the
Company for the period ended  December 31, 2002 (the  "Report")  fully  complies
with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 and that  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operation of the
Company. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the  registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated April 14, 2003.                                By:  /s/ John Dempsey
                                                           ---------------------
                                                               John Dempsey
                                                               President and CEO