alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023252EN.01002401.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 April 2023 — ‘Eurobank Bulgaria’ AD

(Case C-231/23, Eurobank Bulgaria)

(2023/C 252/27)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Eurobank Bulgaria’ AD

Questions referred

| 1. | Under Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, is national case-law permissible under which, where only part of a claim arising from a consumer contract which may contain unfair terms has been the subject matter of a judgment which has become final and acquired the force of res judicata, the conclusion of the court which delivered it, according to which the contractual terms are binding on the consumer and not unfair, is to bind the courts hearing subsequent applications for orders requiring the consumer to pay the balance of his or her debt with regard to whether that balance is due? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, is national case-law permissible under which, where only part of a claim arising from a consumer contract which may contain unfair terms has been the subject matter of a judgment which has become final and acquired the force of res judicata, the conclusion of the court which delivered it, according to which the contractual terms are binding on the consumer and not unfair, is to bind the courts hearing subsequent applications for orders requiring the consumer to pay the balance of his or her debt with regard to whether that balance is due?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative (that is, if that national case-law is permissible under EU law), is it compatible with Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC if, although the judgment finding that there are no unfair terms does contain a statement of reasons on that point, that statement of reasons is nevertheless [not] sufficiently clear or related to the specific contractual terms? On the basis of what criterion should the national court assess the completeness of the statement of reasons in the second set of proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative (that is, if that national case-law is permissible under EU law), is it compatible with Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC if, although the judgment finding that there are no unfair terms does contain a statement of reasons on that point, that statement of reasons is nevertheless [not] sufficiently clear or related to the specific contractual terms? On the basis of what criterion should the national court assess the completeness of the statement of reasons in the second set of proceedings?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---
# C_2023024EN.01005901.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/59

---

Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Nutmark v Commission

(Case T-714/22)

(2023/C 24/82)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Nutmark Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: P. Vidal Matos and F. Lança Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that Court should

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order the European Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III, (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (JO 2022, L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law due to the incorrect identification of the reference system, in breach of Article 4(2) TEU and Articles 107(1) and 263 TFEU.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law due to the failure to demonstrate that Regime III of the Zona Franca da Madeira (Madeira Free-Trade Zone) amounts to a derogation from the reference tax system which establishes differences between economic operators that are in a comparable factual and legal situation, in breach of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law in the assessment relating to the fulfilment of the requirements for the correct implementation of Regime III of the Zona Franca da Madeira, in that the Portuguese Republic adopted, for that purpose, criteria in accordance with Article 107(1) TFEU.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in an infringement of the principles of legal certainty and security laid down in Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the infringement of the right to private property laid down in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

---
csgs-ex1025bl_218.htm



Pages where confidential treatment has been requested are stamped “Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been separately filed with the Commission,” and places where information has been redacted have been marked with (***). 

Exhibit 10.25BL

 

SIXTY-NINTH AMENDMENT

TO THE

AMENDED AND RESTATED

CSG MASTER SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

csg SYSTEMS, INC.

AND

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC

 

 

This SIXTY-NINTH AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) is made by and between CSG Systems, Inc. (“CSG”) and Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Customer”). The effective date of this Amendment is the date last signed below (the "Effective Date").  CSG and Customer entered into that certain Amended and Restated CSG Master Subscriber Management System Agreement (CSG document No. 2298875) dated February 9, 2009, as amended (the “Agreement”), and now desire to further amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment.  If the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment shall be in conflict with the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control.  Any terms in initial capital letters or all capital letters used as a defined term but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.  Upon execution of this Amendment by the Parties, any subsequent reference to the Agreement between the Parties shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.  Except as amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to their terms. 

 

Now, therefore, CSG and Customer agree to the following as of the Effective Date:

 

1.   Customer desires to use and CSG agrees to provide Customer with an additional *********** (**) Web Enabled Advanced Customer Service Representative® (Web Enabled ACSR®) licenses pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Agreement at no cost to Customer during the Term of the Agreement.  As a result, the number of Customer’s Web Enabled ACSR® licenses shall increase such that the total of Customer’s Web Enabled ACSR® licenses is *** ******** ****** (*****).

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

 


		
	
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC (“CUSTOMER”)

 

By: Charter Communications, Inc., its Manager
	
CSG SYSTEMS, INC. (“CSG”)

	
 

 

By: /s/ Mike Ciszek
	
 

 

By:  /s/ Peter E. Kalan

	
 

Name:  Mike Ciszek
	
 

Name:  Peter E. Kalan

	
 

Title:  VP, Billing & Collections
	
 

Title:  President & CEO

	
 

Date:  3/17/15
	
 

Date:  3/18/15
# C_2023321EN.01002601.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria), lodged on 26 June 2023 — ZD ‘BUL INS’ AD v PV

(Case C-387/23, BUL INS)

(2023/C 321/32)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZD ‘BUL INS’ AD

Defendant: PV

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 13 of Directive 2009/103/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, be interpreted as meaning that cases brought in respect of a claim for recourse on the part of an insurer concerning insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles provided under national law fall within the scope of EU law in relation to the prohibition on an insurer limiting its liability? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 13 of Directive 2009/103/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, be interpreted as meaning that cases brought in respect of a claim for recourse on the part of an insurer concerning insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles provided under national law fall within the scope of EU law in relation to the prohibition on an insurer limiting its liability?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is that EU law is applicable, must that provision and Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union] be interpreted as meaning that a natural person is to be regarded as a ‘consumer’ in such actions brought by or against that person, having regard to the principles of effectiveness and the requirements of consumer protection? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is that EU law is applicable, must that provision and Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union] be interpreted as meaning that a natural person is to be regarded as a ‘consumer’ in such actions brought by or against that person, having regard to the principles of effectiveness and the requirements of consumer protection?

---

(1)  
  OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof UNOVA, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Michael E. Keane, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ MICHAEL E. KEANE       |     |
|----------------------------|----------|
| Michael E. Keane           |     |
| *Chief  Financial Officer* | * * |
| March 11, 2005        |     |

 

----
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            FOR THE THREE          FOR THE SIX   
                                             MONTHS ENDED          MONTHS ENDED
                                               JUNE 30,              JUNE 30,
                                           -----------------    -----------------
                                            1996      1997       1996      1997
                                           -------   -------    -------   -------
<S>                                        <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>    
Per Share Data:

        Net income                         $ 3,669   $(2,421)   $ 7,208   $ 1,323
                                           =======   =======    =======   =======
        Net income per common and common
        equivalent shares, primary         $  0.39   $ (0.29)   $  0.76   $  0.15
                                           =======   =======    =======   =======
        Net income per common and common
        equivalent shares, fully diluted   $  0.38   $ (0.29)   $  0.76   $  0.15
                                           =======   =======    =======   =======

WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF
COMMON AND COMMON
EQUIVALENT SHARES:

Primary:
        Weighted average number of
        common shares outstanding            8,924     8,334      8,919     8,354
        Common equivalent shares:
            Options                            574                  544       311
                                           -------   -------    -------   -------
                                             9,498     8,334      9,463     8,665
                                           =======   =======    =======   =======
Fully diluted:
        Weighted average number of
        common shares outstanding            8,924     8,334      8,919     8,354
        Common equivalent shares:
            Options                            627                  571       326
                                           -------   -------    -------   -------

                                             9,551     8,334      9,490     8,680
                                           =======   =======    =======   =======

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.24

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA                                        DATE: APRIL 12, 2002

PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: US $100,000.00

INTEREST RATE: 10% per annum

DUE DATE: August 31st, 2002

FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned, Beasley Food Service, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Borrower") promises to pay to the order of FIDRA HOLDINGS LTD.
OR ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS (THE "HOLDER"), THE SUM OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS (USD $100,000.00) (THE Principal) on August 31, 2002 (The "Maturity
Date"), together with the interest at the rate of Ten per cent (10%) per annum
on the principal amount outstanding from time to time until paid in full and
payable on the last day of each calendar month commencing on June 30th, 2002.
All sums due hereunder shall be paid by the Borrower to the holder of this Note
at such address as designated by the holder of this Note to the Borrower.

In the event a default shall be made in payment of any installment of interest
or principal or other charges when due all such amounts shall bear interest at a
default rate of interest from the date of default at the rate of 12% per annum
and shall be immediately due and payable. In the event of any default hereunder
the holders shall be entitled to all remedies at law or in equity and shall be
entitled to all costs and expenses incurred by its, including attorneys fees.

This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of New York, without regard to conflict of law principles. Any dispute
with respect to the interpretation of this Note or the rights and obligations
of the parties shall be exclusively brought in a proceeding in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York or if such court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York. Each of the holder and the Borrower waives the right to
context the jurisdiction or venue of either of such courts or to claim it is an
inconvenient forum.

Neither the Borrower or the holder may claim the right to have a jury trial and
the Borrower shall have no right of offset or counterclaim.

The Borrower expressly waives the right to notice of any default or the right to
presentment or demand.

BEASLEY FOOD SERVICE, INC.

By: /s/ Thomas P. Tanis Jr.
    -------------------------
    THOMAS P. TANIS, JR.
    SECRETARY

                                /s/ BECKY MCCLURE
                                -----------------------
                                  BECKY MCCLURE
                     Notary Public, Forsyth County, Georgia
                       My Commission Expires June 7, 2005
# C_2023063EN.01005601.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/56

---

Action brought on 15 November 2022 — Neottolemo v Commission

(Case T-724/22)

(2023/C 63/73)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Neottolemo, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: G. Leite de Campos and M. Clemente, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Articles 1 to 3, Article 4(1) to (3) and the second part of (4), and Articles 5 and 6 of Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550); (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 1 to 3, Article 4(1) to (3) and the second part of (4), and Articles 5 and 6 of Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550); (1)

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU and Articles 21 to 23 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015.

Second plea in law, alleging an irreconcilable contradiction between the contested decision and the reasons on which it is based.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of conferral of powers, enshrined in Article 5 TFEU.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that some of the cases included in the decision do not involve State aid and the Portuguese State has been unjustly enriched, in breach of the principle that the wrongdoer (the Portuguese State) should not benefit from the infringement.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 26 TFEU as regards the promotion of the internal market.

---

(1)  OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49.

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136068 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: 136068 

 COA: 273054 

Wayne CC: 05-011358-01 

REGINALD WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

s0903 

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. 

September 10, 2008 

 Clerk
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3711 

To authorize a cost of living adjustment for the Federal judiciary. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2008 

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. HATCH, Mr. 

GRASSLEY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. BINGAMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and 

passed 

A BILL 

To authorize a cost of living adjustment for the Federal 

judiciary. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR THE FED4 ERAL JUDICIARY. 

5 Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97–92, jus6 tices and judges of the United States are authorized dur7 ing fiscal year 2009 to receive a salary adjustment in ac8 cordance with section 461 of title 28, United States Code. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
# **Exhibit 32.2**

 

# **OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION**

# ** **

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 63 –1350, the Chief Financial Officer of Western Sizzlin Corporation (formerlyAustins Steaks & Saloon, Inc.) (the “Company”), hereby certifies that theForm 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 and the financial statementscontained therein, fully comply with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained inthe Form 10-Q and the financial statements thereto fairly present, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ Robyn B.  Mabe |   | May 17, 2004 |
|--------------------|--------|--------------|

 

1

----
STATE v. EDWARDS.

No. COA06-1569.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 6, 2007.

Certification Date November 26, 2007.

Appeal from Wilson (05CRS52563, 05CRS8760).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
STATE v. Terry Alvin HYATT.

No. 402A00-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 14, 2006.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Chapel Hill, for Terry Alvin Hyatt.

*294Valerie B. Spalding, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of July 2006 by Defendant for Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Pleading:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 14th day of July 2006."
ROBERSON v. TERMINIX CO. OF EAST CAROLINA

No. COA07-233

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 19, 2008.

Certification Date March 10, 2008.

Appeal from Carteret (06CVS507).

Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.