alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019423EN.01001901.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/19

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Haskovo — Bulgaria) — SZ v Mitnitsa Burgas

(Case C-652/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Article 3(1) - Infringement of the obligation to declare - Article 9(1) - Penalties provided for by national law - National legislation - Fine and confiscation of the undeclared sum by the State - Proportionality)

(2019/C 423/23)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Haskovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SZ

Defendant: Mitnitsa Burgas

in the presence of: Okrazhna prokuratura — Haskovo

Operative part of the order

Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of penalising an infringement of the obligation to declare provided for in Article 3 of that regulation, provides that, in addition to the imposition of an administrative fine, the undeclared sum is to be confiscated by the State.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---
# C_2019383EN.01002601.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/26

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Lombardi Srl v Comune di Auletta, Delta Lavori SpA, Msm Ingegneria Srl

(Case C-333/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Review procedures on the award of public supply and public works contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Action for annulment of the decision awarding a public contract by a tenderer whose bid was unsuccessful - Counterclaim brought by the successful tenderer - Admissibility of the main action in the event that the counterclaim is well founded)

(2019/C 383/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lombardi Srl

Respondents: Comune di Auletta, Delta Lavori SpA, Msm Ingegneria Srl

Intervener: Robertazzi Costruzioni Srl

Operative part of the judgment

The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as precluding a main action for review brought by a tenderer with an interest in obtaining a particular contract who has been or could be adversely affected by an alleged breach of EU public procurement law or rules transposing that law, and seeking the exclusion of another tenderer, from being declared inadmissible in application of national jurisprudential procedural rules or which concern the treatment of reciprocal ‘excluding’ actions brought by the parties, irrespective of the number of tenderers having participated in the procurement procedure or the number of those having brought actions for review.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on December 27, 2000, Mallinckrodt, Inc., Mallinckrodt & Second Streets, St. Louis, Missouri 63147, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed below: Drug
ScheduleTetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
IDihydromorphine (9145)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IICocaine (9041)
IICodeine (9050)
IIDiprenorphine (9058)
IIEtorphine Hydrochloride (9059)
IIDihydrocodeine (9120)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
IIDiphenoxylate (9170)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IILevorphanol (9220)
IIMeperidine (9230)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMethadone-intermediate (9254)
IIDextropopoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms) (9273)
IIMorphine (9300)
IIThebaine (9333)
IIOpium extracts (9610)
IIOpium fluid extract (9620)
IIOpium tincture (9630)
IIOpium powdered (9639)
IIOpium granulated (9640)
IILevo-alphacetylmethadol (9648)
IIOxymorphone (9652)
IINoroxymorphone (9668)
IIAlfentanil (9737)
IISufentanil (9740)
IIFentanyl (9801)
II
 The firm plans to manufacture the controlled substances for distribution as bulk products to its customers. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with  DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration. Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than July 30, 2001. Dated: May 14, 2001. Laura M. Nagel, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 01-13446 Filed 5-29-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
# C_2018152EN.01001701.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 14 February 2018 — Sandoz Ltd, Hexal AG v G.D. Seale LLC, Janssen Sciences Ireland

(Case C-114/18)

(2018/C 152/20)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sandoz Ltd, Hexal AG

Applicants:

Defendants: G.D. Seale LLC, Janssen Sciences Ireland

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Where the sole active ingredient the subject of a supplementary protection certificate issued under [the SPC Regulation] (1) is a member of a class of compounds which fall within a Markush definition in a claim of the patent, all of which class members embody the core inventive technical advance of the patent, is it sufficient for the purposes of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation that the compound would, upon examination of its structure, immediately be recognised as one which falls within the class (and therefore would be protected by the patent as a matter of national patent law) or must the specific substituents necessary to form the active ingredient be amongst those which the skilled person could derive, based on their common general knowledge, from a reading of the patent claims?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009, L 152, p. 1).

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# AGENCY:

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

Commission Meeting, Wednesday, May 30, 2001, 10:00 a.m.

# LOCATION:

Room 420, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# STATUS:

Open to the Public.

# Matter to be Considered:

 

# Baby Bath Seats (Petition HP 00-4):

The Commission will consider options regarding Petition HP 00-4, filed by the Consumer Federation of America and nine other organizations, requesting that the Commission ban baby bath seats to address a risk of injury or death by drowning.

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-0709.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-0800.

Dated: May 21, 2001.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-13175 Filed 5-21-01; 2:48 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
Exhibit
32.2


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 on Form 10-Q of Sitesearch Corporation (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended April 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,
Humberto Garcia Borbon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies,
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 result of operations of the Company.




By:           /s/ Humberto Garcia
Borbon


Humberto
Garcia Borbon


Chief
Financial Officer


June 9,
2009
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF R.A.B. Jr and

M.M.G

- B., CHILDREN

Appellant

, **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 22

- 00 2 47

- C V

Appeal from the

394 th District Cou r t

of Brewster County, Texas

(TC# FMB21570 )

O R D E R

The notice of appeal indicates the case is an accelerated appeal. Parental termination cases

must be disposed of by the appellate court within 150 days of the final order, which in this case is

November 28, 2022. We will grant an extension of 7 days and t he record is due on January 1 3

,

2023. NO FURTHER EXTENSION S OF THE REPORTER ’ S RECORD WILL BE

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 9 th day of January , 202 3

.

PER CURIAM

B efore Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto , JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Debra Fine, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of SMALL WORLD KIDS,INC. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such AnnualReport on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of SMALL WORLD KIDS, INC.

 

Date: March 31, 2006

 

 
|   |   |                     |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   |                     |
|   |   | /S/ Debra Fine           |   |
|   | Name:  | Debra Fine               |
|   | Title: | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
# C_2005190DE.01002201.xml

| 4.8.2005 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | C 190/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2005

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

C 190/22

---

Berichtigung der Mitteilung der Kommission im Rahmen der Durchführung der Richtlinie 89/106/EWG des Rates zur Angleichung der Rechts- und Verwaltungsvorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten über Bauprodukte

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 183 vom 26. Juli 2005
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 183 vom 26. Juli 2005

(2005/C 190/09)

Seite 3, in der Tabelle, dritter Eintrag:

anstatt:

anstatt:

| EOTA-Nummer (1) | Titel der ETZ-Leitlinie | Beginn der Anwendung (2) | Ende der Koexistenzperiode (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| „ETAG 018-1 | Leichte selbsttragende Verbundplatten; Teil 4: Besondere Aspekte hinsichtlich der leichten selbsttragenden Verbundplatten bei Innenwänden und Decken | 21.9.2004 | 21.6.2007“ |

EOTA-Nummer (1)

Titel der ETZ-Leitlinie

Beginn der Anwendung (2)

Ende der Koexistenzperiode (3)

„ETAG 018-1

Leichte selbsttragende Verbundplatten; Teil 4: Besondere Aspekte hinsichtlich der leichten selbsttragenden Verbundplatten bei Innenwänden und Decken

21.9.2004

21.6.2007“

muss es heißen:

muss es heißen:

| EOTA-Nummer (1) | Titel der ETZ-Leitlinie | Beginn der Anwendung (2) | Ende der Koexistenzperiode (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| „ETAG 018-1 | Brandschutzprodukte — Teil 1: Allgemeines | 21.9.2004 | 21.6.2007“ |

EOTA-Nummer (1)

Titel der ETZ-Leitlinie

Beginn der Anwendung (2)

Ende der Koexistenzperiode (3)

„ETAG 018-1

Brandschutzprodukte — Teil 1: Allgemeines

21.9.2004

21.6.2007“

---
#### In the Matter of Eyal Ovadia et al., Appellants, v Office of the Industrial Board of Appeals et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 14, 2012;

decided February 16, 2012

Reported below, 81 AD3d 457.

Motion by Mason Tenders’ District Council of Greater New York & Long Island et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.
# C_2017437EN.01003502.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/35

---

Action brought on 12 October 2017 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)

(Case T-703/17)

(2017/C 437/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: V. Marsland, Solicitor and S. Malynicz, QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Papouis Dairies LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus)

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: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colours containing the word elements ‘Papouis Halloumi’ — Application for registration No 11 176 344

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2017 in Case R 2924/2014-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2021035EN.01000301.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Skatteverket v Sögård Fastigheter AB

(Case C-787/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - National legislation providing for the adjustment of deductions of value added tax (VAT) by a taxable person other than the person who initially applied the deduction - Sale by a company to individuals of a building let by that company and by the previous owning company - End of VAT liability when the property is sold to individuals)

(2021/C 35/03)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Sögård Fastigheter AB

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, while providing, on the basis of Article 188(2) of that directive, that the transferor of immovable property is not required to adjust a deduction of value added tax carried out in advance where the transferee will use that property only for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible, also requires the transferee to adjust that deduction for the remaining duration of the adjustment period, where he or she, in turn, transfers the property in question to a third party who will not use it for such transactions.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---
[927 NE2d 552, 901 NYS2d 132]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Alford, Appellant.

Decided May 4, 2010

*847APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Paul J. Connolly,*Delmar, for appellant.

*P. David Soares, District Attorney,*Albany *(Steven M. Sharp*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by providing that the sentence imposed on count four of the indictment run concurrently with the sentences imposed on counts one and three of the indictment, and, as so modified, affirmed.

Penal Law § 70.25 (2) provides, “[w]hen more than one sentence of imprisonment is imposed on a person for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other, the sentences . . . must run concurrently.” Here, counts one and four of the indictment both charged defendant with predatory sexual assault against a child. A person is guilty of that crime when he or she, being 18 years old or more, commits one of several lesser crimes and the victim is less than 13 years old (Penal Law § 130.96). Count one alleged that defendant committed the lesser crime of criminal sexual act in the first degree on or about March 12, 2007 by engaging in anal sexual conduct with the victim. Count four alleged that defendant committed the lesser crime of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree by engaging in at least two acts of sexual conduct with the victim between August 2006 and March 2007. Because *848it is impossible to determine whether the act that formed the basis for the jury’s guilty verdict on count one—anal sexual conduct occurring on March 12, 2007—was also one of the two or more acts that formed the basis for its guilty verdict on count four, County Court should have ordered the sentences on those counts to run concurrently.

If the People wish to seek consecutive sentencing in a case such as this, they should request a form of verdict that will require the jury to explicitly delineate that an act constituting one offense is not a material element of another offense.

Defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.
# C_2020230EN.01000701.xml

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — WN v Land Niedersachsen

(Case C-710/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45(1) TFEU - Remuneration - Step allocation in a remuneration system - Remuneration system linking entitlement to a higher remuneration rate to length of service with the same employer - Limitation of the account to be taken of previous periods of relevant activity with an employer in a Member State other than the Member State of origin)

(2020/C 230/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WN

Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation that, for the purpose of determining the remuneration rate of a person working as a school teacher with a local authority, takes into account that person’s previous periods of activity with an employer, other than that local authority, situated in other Member State, only up to a maximum of three years in total, when that activity is equivalent to that which that person is to perform in the context of his or her school teaching duties.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---