alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010274EN.01003202.xml

| 9.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/32

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — Časta v Commission

(Case F-40/09) (1)

1

(Civil service - Open competition - Non-admission to the oral tests - Request for a review - Obligation to state reasons - Professional experience required - Late submission of a certificate - Principle of equal treatment - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

2010/C 274/49

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Radek Časta (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Tahotná, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and M. L. Jelínek, acting as Agents.)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, an application for annulment of EPSO’s decision not to admit the applicant to the oral tests in open competition EPSO/AD/107/07-LAW on account of the fact that the condition relating to 3 years’ experience in a senior management post was not met and secondly, an application for an order that the defendant pay the applicant a sum in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Ms Časta to bear all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Časta to bear all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009, p. 51

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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Docket OST-00-8254]

# AGENCY:

Department of Transportation.

# ACTION:

Notice of order to show cause (Order 2001-6-19).

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding that Orlando Air Link, Inc., is fit, willing, and able, to provide commuter air carrier service under 49 U.S.C. 41738.

# DATES:

Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than July 10, 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

Objections and answers to objections should be filed in Docket OST-00-8254 and addressed to Department of Transportation Dockets (SVC-124, Room PL-401), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Howard Serig, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401) U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4822.

Dated: June 21, 2001.

Robert S. Goldner,

Special Counsel, Office of Aviation and International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 01-16178 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Kevelin NOEL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6685.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# C_2010113EN.01002101.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/21

---

Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-74/10 P)

2010/C 113/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) (represented by: J. Kuhbier, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07, EREF v Commission of the European Communities, null and void; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07, EREF v Commission of the European Communities, null and void;

| — | refer the case back for judgment to the Sixth Chamber of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back for judgment to the Sixth Chamber of the General Court;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the procedural costs of the appeal procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the procedural costs of the appeal procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant asks the Court to declare the Order of the CFI of 19 November 2009 in case T-94/07 null and void and to refer it back to the General Court for reconsideration.

The Appellant contests the CFI's conclusion that its lawyer, Dr Fouquet, could not represent it before the CFI and that its application was therefore inadmissible.

The CFI considers that because Dr Fouquet was nominated as a director of EREF on 29 June 2004 she could no longer be considered an independent third party. The Appellant submits that Dr Fouquet had not been formally nominated as a director of EREF — under Belgian law such a nomination would have required official registration with the competent Belgian authorities. The director status of Dr Fouquet at EREF was titular only and not, or only to a very limited extent, linked to the power of representation.

The Appellant also submits that even if it is assumed that the position of Dr Fouquet as director was of a formal nature the CFI incorrectly applied the criteria for assessing the status of a lawyer as an independent third party. It is submitted that the CFI misunderstood both the legal situation of EREF's representative before the Court and the real distribution of tasks and obligations between Dr Fouquet and EREF. Pursuant to German law the position of Dr Fouquet as director of EREF would allow her to represent the Appellant before the Court.

---
# L_2006147EN.01005501.xml

| 1.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 147/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 147/55

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 36/2006

of 10 March 2006

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 15/2006 of 27 January 2006 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 15/2006 of 27 January 2006 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2005/438/EC of 10 June 2005 amending Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of life vehicles (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2005/438/EC of 10 June 2005 amending Annex II to Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end-of life vehicles (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 32e (Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XX to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32005 D 0438: Commission Decision 2005/438/EC of 10 June 2005 (OJ L 152, 15.6.2005, p. 19).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32005 D 0438: Commission Decision 2005/438/EC of 10 June 2005 (OJ L 152, 15.6.2005, p. 19).’

Article 2

The texts of Decision 2005/438/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 11 March 2006, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 10 March 2006.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

R. WRIGHT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 92, 30.3.2006, p. 44.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 152, 15.6.2005, p. 19.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
# C_2012343EN.01001203.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2012 — IG Communications Ltd v OHIM — Citigroup and Citibank (CITIGATE)

(Case T-301/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CITIGATE - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks containing the element ‘citi’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Family of trade marks - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 343/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: IG Communications Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC and R. Beard, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Citigroup, Inc. (New York, New York, United States); and Citibank, NA (New York) (represented: initially by V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, lawyers, and H. O’Neill, Solicitor, and subsequently by V. von Bomhard and A. Renck)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2009 (Case R 821/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, NA, on the one hand, and IG Communications Ltd on the other.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders IG Communications Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders IG Communications Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.

1

---
II-Olll3

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jerry Bevers <jbevers@juno.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:10 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Jerry Bevers

1826 Neadiwbrook Rd.

Prescott, AZ 86303
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Fraud Center
                        Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip or Complaint
                        RED List
                        Office of Proceedings
                        Learning Resources
                        Materiales Antifraude en Español
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


Dodd-Frank Act

  
VI. Segregation & Bankruptcy for both Cleared and Uncleared SwapsThe webpage you are looking for has been moved to:



http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/Rulemakings/DF_6_SegBankruptcy/index.htm

Please update your bookmarks.  Thank you.


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
EX-10.2


 Exhibit 10.2 

Amendment No. 1 to the 

Amended and Restated SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. 

Stock Incentive Plan 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to the Amended and Restated SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is
made effective as of November 3, 2015. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment No. 1 shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan. 

Background 

WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Amendment No. 1, the Plan provides that a maximum of 330,000 shares of Common Stock are
available for issuance pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, on the basis of a recommendation from the
Compensation Committee of the Board, the Board has determined that it is appropriate, advisable and in the best interests of the Company to increase the number of shares of Common Stock available for issuance under the Plan by 3,500 Shares, from
330,000 shares to 333,500 shares of Common Stock. 
 Amendment 

1. Stock Available for Purchase under the Plan. The first sentence of Section 3.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its
entirety: 
 “The maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan or be subject to Awards may not exceed
333,500 shares.” 
 2. No Other Effect on the Plan. In all other respects, the form, terms and provisions of the Plan remain
unchanged and in full force and effect.
# C_2010063EN.01003702.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/37

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie, Other party: O. Inan

(Case C-9/10)

2010/C 63/59

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Staatssecretaris van Justitie, O. Inan

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 [of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey] be interpreted as meaning that the family members of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State cannot invoke that provision once that worker has acquired the nationality of the host Member State while retaining his Turkish nationality? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 [of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey] be interpreted as meaning that the family members of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State cannot invoke that provision once that worker has acquired the nationality of the host Member State while retaining his Turkish nationality?

| 2. | In answering the first question is the time at which the Turkish worker concerned acquired the nationality of the host Member State of significance? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In answering the first question is the time at which the Turkish worker concerned acquired the nationality of the host Member State of significance?

---
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Meeting with Patrick McCarty (ICAP)
  
    



  Meeting to discuss Client Clearing Documentation
      
  When
              03/01/2012

  Rulemaking(s)
              VII. DCO Core Principles

  CFTC Staff
              John Lawton

  Visitor(s)
              Patrick McCarty (ICAP)

  Organization(s)
              ICAP


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
Candice A. DAVIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8570.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Mark R. RUSSELL, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 17-8311.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 23, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Franklin County denied.
Joshua HAYWORTH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9736.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Jerry STAUFFER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5148.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Calvin Garrett GRAY, petitioner, v. David BALLARD, Warden.

No. 16-9658.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.