alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01028801.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/288 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/288

---

(2004/C 88 E/0294)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0811/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Subject:   Harmonisation of rules on motor vehicles

Subject:

News of delays to coach tours passing through Austria has recently provoked astonishment. On Sunday, 10 March 2002, the police in Kundl carried out checks and stopped coaches from Germany, Denmark and Belgium from continuing their journeys because they exceeded the maximum permissible length of 12 metres. Special authorisation is required so that such coaches can travel through Austria.

Does the Commission not take the view that rules on vehicles, in this case on the maximum length of coaches, must be brought into line and harmonised EU-wide? It is also incomprehensible that the special authorisations currently required cannot be obtained at all times, including on Sundays.

Will the Commission comment on this situation and explain what progress is being made in this area?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

(6 May 2002)

The Commission is aware of the problem submitted by the Honourable Member.

Indeed, Directive 2002/7/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 amending Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic (1) and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic, has fixed the following maximum lengths for buses:

1

| — | 13,50 meter (m) for a bus with two axles; |
| --- | --- |

—

13,50 meter (m) for a bus with two axles;

| — | 15,00 m for a bus with more than two axles; |
| --- | --- |

—

15,00 m for a bus with more than two axles;

| — | 18,75 m for an articulated bus; |
| --- | --- |

—

18,75 m for an articulated bus;

| — | 18,75 m for a bus with trailer. |
| --- | --- |

—

18,75 m for a bus with trailer.

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 9 March 2004 at the latest. Until the transposition of this Directive by the Austrian authorities, the current national restrictions would remain applicable.

---

(1)  OJ L 67, 9.3.2002.

1

---
Darvella JONES v. HARRELSON AND SMITH CONTRACTORS, LLC, a North Carolina Corporation, and Rodney S. Turner d/b/a Rodney S. Turner Housemovers.

No. 36A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 7, 2008.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 180 N.C.App. 478, 638 S.E.2d 222 (2006), dismissing plaintiff's appeal from a judgment entered on 10 May *3532005 by Judge Jerry Braswell in Superior Court, Pamlico County. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 December 2007.

Smith Moore, LLP, by J. Donald Cowan, Jr. and Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.

Hopf & Higley, P.A., by Donald S. Higley, II, Greenville, for defendant-appellee Harrelson and Smith Contractors, LLC.

Troutman Sanders, LLP, by Hannah G. Styron and D. Martin Warf, Raleigh, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys; and Elliot Pishko Morgan, P.A., by David C. Pishko, Winston-Salem, for North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amici curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and this case is remanded to that court for reconsideration in light of *Dogwood Development & Management Co. v. White Oak Transport Co.,* ___ N.C. ___, 657 S.E.2d 361, 2008 WL 612791 (2008), and *State v. Hart,*361 N.C. 309, 644 S.E.2d 201 (2007).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
CAROLINA FIRST BANK v. STARK.

No. 369P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2008.

Tobias S. Hampson, Raleigh, for Stark.

*460Mark P. Henriques, Sarah Motley, Charlotte, for Carolina First Bank.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 660 S.E.2d 641.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of August 2008 by Defendants for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 12th day of August 2008."
Exhibit 31.2
                          CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey Wattenberg, certifity that:

          1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-
QSB of Othnet, Inc.;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue  statements of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact  necessary  to make the statements made,  in  light  of  the
circumstances  under  which  such  statements  were   made,   not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,  and
other  financial  information included  in  this  report,  fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of  operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,  and  for,
the periods presented in this report;

      4.    The small business issuer's other certifying officers
and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls  and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act  Rules  13a-
15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

           (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or  caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under  our  supervision,  to  ensure  that  material  information
relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries,  is  made  known  to  us  by  others  within  those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report  is
being prepared;

           (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business
issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report  our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls  and procedures, as of the end of the period covered  by
this report based on such evaluation; and

           (c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting  that
occurred  during the small business issuer's most  recent  fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely  to
materially  affect, the small business issuer's internal  control
over financial reporting; and

     5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s)
and  I  have  disclosed, based on our most recent  evaluation  of
internal  control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

            (a)    All   significant  deficiencies  and  material
weaknesses  in the design or operation of internal  control  over
financial  reporting  which are reasonable  likely  to  adversely
affect  the  small business issuer's ability to record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

           (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in  the
small   business   issuer's  internal  control   over   financial
reporting.


Date: September 15, 2003           /s/ Jeffrey Wattenberg
                                   Jeffrey Wattenberg,
                                   Principal Financial Officer
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 436/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 436/2014 of 23 April 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Piranska sol (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 436/2014                     

# of 23 April 2014

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Piranska sol (PDO)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Slovenia's application to register the name ‘Piranska sol’ was                              published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Piranska sol’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 April 2014.

*For the Commission*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.8 other products of Annex I to the Treaty (spices, etc.)**U.K.

#### SLOVENIAU.K.

Piranska sol (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 353, 3.12.2013, p. 15.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of GameTech International, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the 53 weeks ended November 2, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marcia
R. Martin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));
and




(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




/s/
      MARCIA R. MARTINMarcia
      R. Martin
              Chief
      Financial OfficerJanuary
      30, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0711 IN THE MATTER OF: B.W., Respondent and Appellant. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 24 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 15 2023

03/15/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0711
#### In the Matter of Cirilo Rodrigues, Appellant, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow et al., Respondents.

[801 NYS2d 413]

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow dated January 21, 2004, denying the petitioner’s application for area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered April 7, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

*1109Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for variances and a “determination of a zoning board should be sustained on judicial review if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence” *(Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead,*2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004]; *see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig,*98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; *Matter of Sasso v Osgood,*86 NY2d 374, 384 [1995]).

Here, the denial of the petitioner’s application for certain area variances to construct a large addition to an existing two-family dwelling on his property had a rational basis *(see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, supra*at 614). Not only were the requested variances substantial, but the hardship was self-created *(see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra*at 309; *Chera v Bennett,*166 AD2d 630, 631 [1990]). In assessing the self-created hardship present in this case, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Sleepy Hollow (hereinafter the Board) was entitled to consider the effect its decision would have as a precedent. The record reflects that the Board appropriately considered all the factors enumerated in Village Law § 7-712-b (3) and concluded that the detriment to the neighborhood outweighed the benefit to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to show that the Board’s determination was irrational or arbitrary and capricious, or not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Adams, J.P., Crane, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-2-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                APR-4-1997
<CASH>                                           25969
<SECURITIES>                                      1646
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7144
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       1024
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 38079
<PP&E>                                          789054
<DEPRECIATION>                                  181409
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  675617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            66889
<BONDS>                                         390000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    675617
<SALES>                                          70542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 70901
<CGS>                                            26857
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    56768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                9718
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1250
<INCOME-TAX>                                        63
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1187
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**FRANK R. MCNALLY,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 18 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 15th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
----

(2004/C 65 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1713/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) and Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject:   Operation of the capital market in Greece

Between 1999 and 2001, a redistribution of income estimated at EUR 100 billion took place in Greece via the stock market. The sharp fall in the General Price Index on the Greek stock market (which began in 2000 and accelerated through 2001 and 2002) created social tension and bleak prospects for hundreds of thousands of Greek citizens who had invested their savings (or borrowed to invest) on the stock market. The entire situation has raised legitimate questions concerning the way in which the capital market in Greece is operated and supervised and the possibility of avoiding a similar situation in the future.

What is the Commission's view of the structure and operation of the capital market in Greece, with particular reference to the period 1999-2001? Did a similar redistribution of income via the stock market occur in other Member States of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2003)

The Commission cannot confirm the figure mentioned by the Honourable Members regarding the losses made by investors on the Greek stock markets, but it certainly shares their concerns regarding the consequences of the fall of share prices on the Greek stock market.

However, it should also be considered that the sharp fall in the General Price Index of the Greek stock market followed a very sharp increase between 1996 and 2000. The modernisation of the stock exchange and the prospect of joining the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) raised investors' expectations of returns on equity holdings in the late 1990's. The General Price Index on the Athens stock exchange increased by some 600 percent between 1996 and 1999. It has fallen subsequently by some 65 percent. This is undoubtedly a sharp fall, but is in line with trends on the majority of stock markets. Since January 2000, the main French index has fallen by some 50 percent, the German index by some 55 percent, the British index by some 40 percent.

Beginning with the deflation of the bubble in technology, media and telecommunications stocks, the fall in prices has spread to all sectors, reflecting investor concern about the prospects for corporate earnings amid a weak global economy and geo-political uncertainty, as well as a loss of confidence in corporate governance and market integrity. The Commission would like to stress that the rapid and complete implementation of all the measures in the Financial Services Action Plan, the initiatives in the area of corporate governance, as well as the rationalisation of the framework for Union-level regulation and supervision, will go a long way in raising the level of investor protection, strengthening the stability of the financial system, and increasing its efficiency, to the benefit of investor and companies alike.

----
HARLEYSVILLE INS. v. BUZZ OFF INSECT.

No. 272A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 28, 2009.

David L. Brown, John I. Malone, Jr., Martha P. Brown, Greensboro, for Harleysville Mutual Ins. Co.

Mack Sperling, John S. Buford, Greensboro, Cecilia O. Miller, Diana S. Casey, San Diego, CA, for International Garment Tech.

Gary K. Sue, Greensboro, Michael A. Hamilton, for Erie Insurance.

David Neal Allen, Charlotte, Theodore B. Smyth, Raleigh, for NC Assoc. of Defense Attys.

Joseph W. Eason, Stephen D. Martin, Raleigh, for Property Casualty Insurers Asso.

John N. Ellison, Matthew D. Rosso, Whitney D. Clymer, Philadelphia, PA, Amy Bach, Mill Valley, CA, for United Policyholders.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of January 2009 by United Policyholders for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

*547"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 28th day of January 2009."
Raymond CARSON and wife, Patricia Carson v. Wilson Don GRASSMANN and wife Cynthia Grassmann; and Law Office of Carl S. Conroy, P.A., Escrow Agent.

No. 223P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Kristina A. Graham, for Grassmann, et al.

David C. Williams, Concord, for Carson.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 642 S.E.2d 537.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of May 2007 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."
# CE2004078EN.01035801.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/358 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/358

---

(2004/C 78 E/0376)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0586/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject:   Reduction of VAT on CDs

Subject:

A reduction of VAT on CDs would be a significant boost to the music industry in Europe, which is currently plagued by piracy. A significant reduction in the price of CDs produced by record companies would also simultaneously increase sales and government revenue for every Member State. In Greece, CDs are in fact subject to the highest rate of VAT (18 %).

What is the Commission's position on this subject? What measures will it take to reduce VAT in the Member States? What are its views on the idea put forward by organisations in the music industry that the rate should be harmonised with the VAT applying to books and cinema tickets?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

(9 April 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions E-1553/02 from Mrs Angelilli (1) and E-3841/02 from Mr Veltroni (2).

1

2

---

(1)  OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 120.

1

(2)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 153.

2

---
IN RE P.L.N.

No. COA07-1414.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 15, 2008.

Certification Date August 4, 2008.

Appeal from Davidson (04JB30).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
# C_2023035EN.01006802.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/68

---

Action brought on 13 November 2022 — Funchinvest v Commission

(Case T-712/22)

(2023/C 35/88)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Fuchinvest Real Estate Participações, Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant institution to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant institution to pay 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) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on five pleas in law which, in essence, are identical or similar to those raised in Case T-702/22, TA v Commission.

---