alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 52005PC0708 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005PC0708

**Commission Opinion on the revised Draft Rules of Procedure of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training /* COM/2005/0708 final */ **

*

*

[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 5.1.2006

COM(2005) 708 final

COMMISSION OPINION

on the revised Draft Rules of Procedure of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

COMMISSION OPINION

on the revised Draft Rules of Procedure of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 establishing the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training[1] provides in Article 5 (1st paragraph) that “the Governing Board shall adopt its rules of procedure, which shall enter into force when approved by the Council, acting on the Opinion of the Commission”.

(2) The original Rules of Procedure of the Centre were adopted by the Council in 1976.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2051/2004 of 25 October 2004 modified in substantial terms the role of the Governing Board and the Bureau of the Centre.

(4) The Governing Board of Cedefop decided therefore to amend its original Rules of Procedure.

(5) The Governing Board of Cedefop adopted the amended Draft Rules of Procedure in September 2005.

(6) The Director, on behalf of the Governing Board of Cedefop, in its letter of 23 September 2005, has submitted the revised Draft Rules of Procedure to the Commission and requested to forward the new Draft Rules of Procedure to the Council for approval.

(7) The revised Draft Rules of Procedure integrate the amendments that are necessary to reflect the modifications introduced into Cedefop’s founding Regulation by Council Regulation No 2051/2004.

Based on these considerations, the Commission expresses its favourable opinion on the annexed Draft Rules of Procedure of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training.

This opinion is addressed to the Council of the European Union.

Done at Brussels ,

For the Commission

Ján Figel’

Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 39, 13.2.1975.
154 So. 785

#### CURRY v. KENNEDY.

1 Div. 796.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 12, 1934.

Rehearing Denied May 31, 1934.

W. J. Young, A. S. Whiting, and J. G. Bennett, all of Mobile, for appellant.

Gordon, Edington & Leigh, of Mobile, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

The minute entry in the trial court relied on as a final judgment to support the appeal in this case is in the following words: “This cause coming on to be heard and because of the adverse ruling of the Court in sustaining demurrers to counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the complaint of plaintiff, plaintiff declines to plead further and takes a nonsuit and gives notice of appeal to the Supreme Court.”

This entry does not contain the essential elements of a final judgment sufficient to support an appeal, and the appeal must therefore be dismissed. Alston v. Marengo County Board of Education et al., 224 Ala. 676, 141 So. 658; Wood, use, etc., v. Coman et al., 56 Ala. 283.

Appeal dismissed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
1

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont 

________________ 

NO. 09-14-00106-CR 

________________ 

IN RE BYRON LYNN LUCAS 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Original Proceeding 

__________________________________________________________________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Relator Byron Lynn Lucas filed a writ of mandamus, in which he complains 

that the cumulation orders contained in judgments signed in 1999 are void because 

the cases were prosecuted in a single criminal action. In two previous mandamus 

proceedings filed by Lucas concerning the same issue, this Court concluded that 

(1) the record did not support Lucas’s claim that the State prosecuted all of the 

cases in a single criminal action, (2) article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure provides the exclusive post-appellate vehicle for challenging a final 

felony conviction, and (3) Lucas failed to demonstrate that he could not have 

challenged the cumulation orders through direct appeal or habeas corpus. See In re 

Lucas, No. 09-09-00567-CV, 2010 WL 183872, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 
2

21, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Lucas, No. 09-07-157 CV, 2007 WL 

1087134, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 12, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. 

op.). 

We may grant mandamus relief only if the relator demonstrates that (1) the 

act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial, and (2) the relator has no other 

adequate legal remedy. See State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 

34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Lucas has not shown that he is 

entitled to the relief sought. See id. 

As previously discussed, we have addressed the same issue in two prior 

petitions for writ of mandamus filed by Lucas. Lucas, 2010 WL 183872, at *1; 

Lucas, 2007 WL 1087134, at *1. Lucas raises no new issues or arguments in this 

proceeding, nor does he provide any additional documentation to support his 

claims. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. In addition, if Lucas should 

file additional mandamus proceedings raising these claims, we will cite Lucas for 

abuse of the writ of mandamus unless he can demonstrate that his claim was not 

and could not have been previously raised, and that he has no adequate remedy at 

law and the act he seeks to compel is ministerial. See Ex parte Jones, 97 S.W.3d 

586, 588-89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (noting that frivolous filings waste scarce 

judicial and fiscal resources and citing the applicant for abuse of the writ). 
3

 PETITION DENIED. 

 PER CURIAM 

Opinion Delivered March 26, 2014 

Do Not Publish 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
# C_2004244EN.01001901.xml

| 1.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/19

---

LIST OF COM DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION FROM 1 AUGUST 2004 TO 31 AUGUST 2004
   (1)

LIST OF COM DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION FROM 1 AUGUST 2004 TO 31 AUGUST 2004

1

(2004/C 244/04)

| Document | Part | Date of adoption | Title |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| COM(2004) 548 | | 9.8.2004 | Recommendation for a Council Decision on the opening of the negotiations on an agreement concerning monetary relations with the Principality of Andorra |

Document

Part

Date of adoption

Title

COM(2004) 548

9.8.2004

Recommendation for a Council Decision on the opening of the negotiations on an agreement concerning monetary relations with the Principality of Andorra

These texts are available on EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex.

---

(1)  This list is limited to COM documents that fulfil the conditions for publication.

1

---
(104 So. 916)

#### John COLEMAN v. STATE.

(6 Div. 338.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 28, 1925.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; *701George F. Smoot, Judge. Murder, second degree.

BOULDIN, J.

Appeal on record only; no bill of exceptions. No error appearing in tbe record, the judgment is affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Bloomberg SEF LLC

731 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

September 22, 2020

Submitted via email and the Portal

Jonathan Lave 

Division of Market Oversight 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581 

via email: JLave@cftc.gov 

Re: Bloomberg SEF LLC – Rule Amendment and Related Request for Freedom of

Information Act Confidential Treatment

Dear Mr. Lave, 

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) and Section

40.6(a) of the regulations of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the 

“CFTC”, or the “Commission”), Bloomberg SEF LLC (“BSEF”), as the operator of a 

swap execution facility, hereby submits to the Commission a rule amendment (the

“Amendment”).

We have submitted to the CFTC Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) Compliance 

Office a request that for reasons of business confidentiality, the Commission not disclose 

the Confidential Information (as defined below) or its contents in response to any FOIA 

request or otherwise for an indefinite period. We wish to inform you that the 

Confidential Information constitutes, inter alia, privileged and confidential trade secrets 

and commercial or financial information within the meaning of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 

552(b)(4) and Part 145.9(d)(1)(ii) of the Commission’s regulations as well as confidential 

information covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1905. 

For your reference, the Amendment set out on Annex A hereto is referred to herein as the

“Confidential Information.” 

Please promptly inform the following of any request for the Confidential Information or 

its contents made pursuant to FOIA or the Commission’s rules so that we may 

substantiate the foregoing request for confidential treatment in accordance with Part

145.9 of the Commission’s regulations. 

600574256
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Page 2 

David Levine 

General Counsel

Bloomberg L.P. 

731 Lexington Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Pursuant to Part 145.9(d)(4) of the Commission’s regulations, we have marked each page 

of the Confidential Information with the words “Confidential Treatment Requested by

Bloomberg SEF LLC” and have numbered each page of the Confidential Information 

with an identifying number and code, beginning with “BSEF-0920-0293” and ending 

with “BSEF-0920-0307.” 

[signature page follows] 
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Page 3 

Please contact the undersigned at (212) 617-3918 with any questions regarding this 

matter.

Very truly yours,

Devi Shanmugham 

Chief Compliance Officer 

Bloomberg SEF LLC 

731 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10022 

cc: Jonathan Lave, Division of Market Oversight, U.S. Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (Email: JLave@cftc.gov)
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Page 4

Annex A 

Confidential Information

Name of Confidential Information Identifying Number and Code

Rule Amendment BSEF-0920-0293– BSEF-0920-0307
c61959_ex10-3.htm -- Converted by SEC Publisher, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing






Exhibit 10.3


The Depository Trust Company

A subsidiary of the Depository Trust & Clearing
Corporation


BLANKET ISSUER LETTER OF REPRESENTATIONS 


ETFS ASIAN GOLD TRUST


___________________

(Date)


Attention: Underwriting Department

The Depository Trust Company 

55 Water Street, 1SL 

New York, NY 10041-0099 



Ladies and Gentlemen: 


          This letter sets forth our understanding with respect to all issues (the “Securities”) that Issuer shall request to be made eligible for deposit by the Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). 


          Issuer is formed under the laws of the State of New York. 


          To induce DTC to accept the Securities as eligible for deposit at DTC, and to act in accordance with DTC’s Rules with respect to the Securities, Issuer represents to DTC that issuer will comply with the requirements stated
in DTC’s Operational Arrangements, as they may be amended from time to time. 

	
Note: 
  	 
  	
Very truly yours, 
  
	
Schedule A contains statements that DTC believes 
  	 
  	 

  
	accurate describe DTC, the method of
      effecting  
	book-entry transfers
    of securities distributed   	 
  	
ETFS ASIAN GOLD TRUST, 
  
	through DTC, and
    certain related matters.   	 
  	by ETF Securities USA LLC,
      as sponsor  
	   	 
  	   



	
Received and Accepted   	By: 	 	



	
THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY   	   	
    (Authorized Officer’s
    Signature)   

	   
	By:	   	   	 	   
	 	   	   	 	
(Print Name)   
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	(Street Address)  
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 (City,
    State, Country, Zip)  
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 (Phone
        Number)  
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	(Email Address)
#### Alan Cole ONSTAD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Ray HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Larry Mays, Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Danny Burl, Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Todd Ball, Deputy Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Dexter Payne, Deputy Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Raymond Naylor, Disciplinary Hearing Administrator, Arkansas Department of Correction; John Doe, Disciplinary Hearing Judges, Arkansas Department of Correction, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-2868.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 7, 2013.

Filed: Nov. 14, 2013.

Alan Cole Onstad, Arkansas Department of Corrections, Brickeys, AR, pro se.

Gary L. Sullivan, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Alan Onstad appeals the district court’s1 interlocutory order denying his motion seeking a preliminary injunction. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief. *See Novus Franchising, Inc. v. Dawson,*725 F.3d 885, 893 (8th Cir.2013) (standard of review); *see also Goff v. Harper,*60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir.1995) (in prison context, request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution because judicial restraint is especially called *730for in dealing with complex and intractable problems of prison administration).2

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Onstad’s motion for oral argument.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

2

. We further note that, to the extent the district court also denied a request for a temporary restraining order, we lack jurisdiction to review that denial. *See Hamm v. Groose,*15 F.3d 110, 112-13 (8th Cir.1994) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of temporary restraining order).
155 So. 77

#### KRATZ et al. v. BONNER.

6 Div. 555.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 24, 1934.

*608O. J. Griffith, of Birmingham, for appellants.

J. P. Mudd, of Birmingham, for appellee.

Brief did not reach the Reporter.

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

“We have frequently referred to the settled rule in Alabama, that an existing creditor may have the chancery court set aside a deed as fraudulent, when it is voluntary, without an allegation that the debtor was insolvent, or that the parties participated in an intent to defraud. It has been many times held that allegations such as are here stated are sufficient as against that claim. The authorities are cited in Birmingham Property Co. v. Jackson Securities & Investment Co., 226 Ala. 612, 148 So. 316; Kuykendall v. Terry, 227 Ala. 227, 149 So. 687.” Waites et al. v. Eirst Nat. Bank of Wetumpka, 227 Ala. 684, 151 So. 847, 848.

We think the present bill of complaint shows that the complainant is "an existing “creditor, and that the conveyance by Rudolph Kratz to his wife was, without consideration, a gift, and this results from either alternative — the first charging a direct gift, and the second an indirect one. The bill, therefore, regardless of any averment of fraud, if proven, makes out a case for equitable relief, either by subjecting the property conveyed or the ninety-eight shares of stock issued to the wife by the new corporation to the payment of the complainant’s judgment.

The trial court did not err in overruling the respondents’ demurrer to the bill of complaint, and the decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, BOUBDIN, and EOSTER, JJ., concur.
# C_2017374EN.01003901.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/39

---

Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Gayalex Proyectos v SRB

(Case T-563/17)

(2017/C 374/58)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gayalex Proyectos, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Betancor Álamo and F. Cabrera Molina, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Take note of the present action and the supporting documents, declare it admissible and consider as lodged this application for annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 adopting the resolution scheme for the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A, and annul that decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

Take note of the present action and the supporting documents, declare it admissible and consider as lodged this application for annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 adopting the resolution scheme for the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A, and annul that decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board

---
# C_2020137EN.01001802.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Anton van Zantbeek VOF v Ministerraad

(Case C-725/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Freedom to provide services - Tax on stock exchange transactions concluded or executed in a Member State - Difference in treatment to the detriment of recipients of services using non-resident professional intermediaries - Restriction - Justification)

(2020/C 137/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Anton van Zantbeek VOF

Defendant: Ministerraad

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State which introduces a tax on stock exchange transactions concluded or executed on the order of a resident of that Member State by a non-resident professional intermediary, resulting in a restriction on the freedom to provide services provided by such professional intermediaries, in so far as that legislation offers such an issuer of an order and such professional intermediaries options, both as regards the declaration obligations connected with that tax and its payment, which limit that restriction to that which is necessary to attain the legitimate objectives pursued by that legislation.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.

---
# C_2020077EN.01000501.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by Energiavirasto

(Case C-578/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 3 - Consumer protection - Article 37 - Tasks and powers of the regulatory authority - Out-of-court dispute settlement - Concept of ‘party’ - Right to appeal against a decision of the regulatory authority - Complaint made by a household customer against an electricity distribution system operator)

(2020/C 77/06)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Energiavirasto

Intervener: A, Caruna Oy

Operative part of the judgment

Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require Member States to confer competence on the regulatory authority to settle disputes between household customers and system operators and, consequently, to grant household customers who have lodged a complaint with the regulatory authority against a system operator the status of ‘party’ within the meaning of that provision, and the right to appeal against the decision taken by that authority following that complaint.

---

(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.

---
# C_2020271EN.01000801.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — ratiopharm GmbH v Novartis Consumer Health GmbH

(Case C-786/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of public health - Internal market - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Advertising - Article 96 - Distribution of free samples of medicinal products to persons qualified to prescribe them - Pharmacists excluded from the distribution of free samples of medicinal products - Inapplicability to distribution of free samples of non-prescription medicinal products - Consequences for the Member States)

(2020/C 271/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ratiopharm GmbH

Defendant: Novartis Consumer Health GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 96(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as precluding pharmaceutical companies from distributing free samples of medicinal products to pharmacists. On the other hand, that provision does not preclude distributing free samples of non-prescription medicinal products to pharmacists.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---