alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016118EN.01003401.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/34

---

Action brought on 28 January 2016 — EEB v Commission

(Case T-38/16)

(2016/C 118/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of 19 November 2015 with reference Ares(2015)5212500 confirming its decision of 14 September 2015 with reference Ares(2015)3790389 in which the Commission took an additional decision on the request for information of 3 February 2015, submitted by the EEB; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 19 November 2015 with reference Ares(2015)5212500 confirming its decision of 14 September 2015 with reference Ares(2015)3790389 in which the Commission took an additional decision on the request for information of 3 February 2015, submitted by the EEB; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a manifest error as to the determination of the subject-matter of the initial application and, consecutively, infringement of the Commission’s obligation to give the said application a full examination and infringement of the Articles 6(2), 7 and 8 of Regulation 1049/2001. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error as to the determination of the subject-matter of the initial application and, consecutively, infringement of the Commission’s obligation to give the said application a full examination and infringement of the Articles 6(2), 7 and 8 of Regulation 1049/2001.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty to state reasons.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10977

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHNNY MANUEL HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-31-1

Before SOUTHWICK, WILLETT, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Johnny Manuel 

Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10977 Document: 00514520869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2018
No. 17-10977

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-10977 Document: 00514520869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2018
COMPOSITE MATERIAL FIRE FIGHTING(RPD 140)

Contract Funds ($K)

TOTAL:
# C_2016314EN.01002901.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/29

---

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)

(Case T-345/16)

(2016/C 314/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DEEP PURPLE’ — Application for registration No 11 772 721

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 880/2015-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time;

| — | The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Opponent is entitled to a share in any goodwill. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Opponent is entitled to a share in any goodwill.

---
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 1 of 15 PageID 20
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 2 of 15 PageID 21
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 3 of 15 PageID 22
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 4 of 15 PageID 23
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 5 of 15 PageID 24
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 6 of 15 PageID 25
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 7 of 15 PageID 26
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 8 of 15 PageID 27
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 9 of 15 PageID 28
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 10 of 15 PageID 29
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 11 of 15 PageID 30
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 12 of 15 PageID 31
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 13 of 15 PageID 32
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 14 of 15 PageID 33
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 4 Filed 06/30/03 Page 15 of 15 PageID 34
EX PARTE Horace C. JOHNSON

CR-16-0663

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
# C_2018328EN.01004801.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/48

---

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions

(Case T-904/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Amicable settlement - Implementation of the agreement - [confidential] - Misuse of powers - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2018/C 328/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendants: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka and L. Camarena Januzec, Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers) and Committee of the Regions (represented by S. Bachotet and M. Antonini, Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision dated 11 May 2016 of the Secretary-General of the Committee of the Regions, in agreement with the EESC [confidential], in implementation of the amicable settlement in Case F-33/15.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Vassiliki Labiri is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Vassiliki Labiri is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.

---
Case 5:04-cv-00144-C Document 19 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 80
Willie HOLLIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2704

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Vincent RIVERA, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-5130

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## 2002 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-11-2002 

# B ur ns v . C omm S o c i al S ec ur it y

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al

D ock e t N o . 02-1091

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2002 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a
. e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" B ur n s v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2002). 2002 D e cisio n s
. P ape r 794. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_2002/794

### PRECEDENTIAL

Filed December 11, 2002

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 02-1091

JOSEPH BURNS, Appellant

v.
*JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

*(Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c))
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-02917) District Judge: Honorable Robert F. Kelly
Argued September 9, 2002
Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, ROTH and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING OPINION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Slip Opinion filed in this case on December 4, 2002, be amended as follows:
1. On page 16, in footnote 6, at the beginning of the fourth line, change the word "form" to " from."
2. On page 18, in footnote 8, in the third line, correct the citation in Carey v. Apfel from "6th Cir." to "5th Cir."
3. On page 18, in footnote 8, in the thirteenth line, correct the citation in Johnson v. Shalala from "6th Cir." to "5th Cir."

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Marjorie O. RendellCircuit Judge

DATED: 11 December 2002

A True Copy: Teste:
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

### 2
# C_2021079EN.01001802.xml

| 8.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 1 July 2020 — A, M v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Kirchdorf

(Case C-293/20)

(2021/C 79/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A, M

Defendant authority: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Kirchdorf

Other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Kirchdorf — Perg — Steyr

By order of 20 January 2021, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) ruled that the request for a preliminary ruling lodged by the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Regional Administrative Court, Upper Austria, Austria), by decision of 29 June 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.

---
# C_2018052EN.01001301.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Grunwald i Jeżyce w Poznaniu — Poland) — Grzegorz Chudaś, Irena Chudaś v DA Deutsche Allgemeine Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft AG

(Case C-66/17) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - Scope - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Enforcement orders capable of being certified as European Enforcement Orders - Decision on the amount of costs related to the court proceedings in a judgment not concerning an uncontested claim - Excluded))

(2018/C 052/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Grunwald i Jeżyce w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Grzegorz Chudaś, Irena Chudaś

Applicants:

Defendant: DA Deutsche Allgemeine Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that an enforceable decision on the amount of costs related to court proceedings, contained in a judgment which does not relate to an uncontested claim, cannot be certified as a European Enforcement Order.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127808 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 127808 

 COA: 257114 

Genesee CC: 00-005503-FC 

ROY CALHOUN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 16, 2004 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 10, 2022

No. 04-22-00548-CV

HOLLINGSWORTH-PACK CORPORATION and Christopher A. Hewitt, P.E.,

Appellants

v.

Elroy RODRIGUEZ as Trustee of Peter R. Villarreal Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022-CI10686

Honorable Nicole Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record in this appeal was due September 6, 2022. Mr. David J. Laurel is 

the court reporter responsible for preparing, certifying, and filing the reporter’s record in this 

appeal. On September 28, 2022, this court notified Mr. Laurel via email that the reporter’s 

record had not been filed and instructing him to file a Notification of Late Record. We received 

no response to our letter. 

It is therefore ORDERED that Mr. Laurel file the record in this court no later than 

October 20, 2022. If the record is not received by such date, a show cause order shall issue 

directing Mr. Laurel to appear on a day certain and show cause why he should not be held in 

contempt for failing to file the record. The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to 

be served on Mr. Laurel by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by regular United States 

mail. 

Because the trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the 

appellate record is timely filed, the clerk of this court shall also cause a copy of this order to be 

served upon the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c).

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

FILE COPY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of October, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Exhibit 32.1



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 of Verdant Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Curd, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



November 17, 2008



| |     |                                      
| | --- | -------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ DAVID J. CURD                    
| |     | David J. Curd
Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         226,656
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  123,308
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               579,767
<PP&E>                                      13,683,819
<DEPRECIATION>                               (352,259)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,261,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          447,208
<BONDS>                                      6,025,405
<COMMON>                                         2,524
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    615,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,171,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,261,291
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,679,699
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,016,755
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             338,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            324,333
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (7,506)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   316,827
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $1.24
        

</TABLE>
Case 3:04-cv-00007-L Document 9 Filed 09/21/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 48
 

 Case 3:04-cv-00007-L Document 9 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 49
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 907 

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of 

Dr. Ralph de la Torre v. Bernard Sanders, et al. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 21 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 20), 2024 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize representation by the Senate Legal Counsel 

in the case of Dr. Ralph de la Torre v. Bernard Sanders, 

et al. 

Whereas, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions, Committee Chairman Bernard 

Sanders, Ranking Member Bill Cassidy, and 18 other 

Members of the Committee have been named as defendants in the case of Dr. Ralph de la Torre v. Bernard 

Sanders, et al.,Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02776-TNM, 

pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend Committees and Members of the Senate in civil acVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:49 Nov 21, 2024 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR907.ATS SR907

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

SRES 907 ATS 

tions relating to their official responsibilities: Now therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is author2 ized to represent the Committee on Health, Education, 

3 Labor, and Pensions, Committee Chairman Bernard 

4 Sanders, Ranking Member Bill Cassidy, and 18 other 

5 Committee Members named as defendants in the case of 

6 Dr. Ralph de la Torre v. Bernard Sanders, et al. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2022294EN.01002601.xml

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Deutschtec v EUIPO — Group A (HOLUX)

(Case T-738/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark HOLUX - Earlier international registration in respect of the word mark HOLUX - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 294/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutschtec GmbH (Petershagen/Eggersdorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Arnade, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Group A NV (Hasselt, Belgium)

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 7 October 2020 (Case R 223/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Deutschtec GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deutschtec GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.

---