alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DOVE
ENTERTAINMENT, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH DOCUMENT.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          30,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,886,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   738,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,287,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,055,000
<PP&E>                                       4,989,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,026,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,648,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,547,000
<BONDS>                                      2,661,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,000
<COMMON>                                        60,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,378,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,648,000
<SALES>                                      6,209,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,209,000
<CGS>                                        5,584,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,584,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,993,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              92,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,460,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,460,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,460,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.45)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023173EN.01001501.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 February 2023 — WY v Laudamotion GmbH, Ryanair DAC

(Case C-54/23, Laudamotion and Ryanair)

(2023/C 173/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: WY

Defendants: Laudamotion GmbH, Ryanair DAC

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a right to compensation for a flight delay of at least three hours precluded in general under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Regulation (1) where, faced with a long delay, the passenger uses a self-booked replacement flight and thereby reaches the final destination with a delay of less than three hours, or can a right to compensation exist in that situation in any event where, before the time by which the passenger must present himself for check-in, there is already sufficiently reliable information indicating that the flight will arrive at its final destination with a delay of at least three hours? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a right to compensation for a flight delay of at least three hours precluded in general under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Regulation (1) where, faced with a long delay, the passenger uses a self-booked replacement flight and thereby reaches the final destination with a delay of less than three hours, or can a right to compensation exist in that situation in any event where, before the time by which the passenger must present himself for check-in, there is already sufficiently reliable information indicating that the flight will arrive at its final destination with a delay of at least three hours?

| 2. | In the event that Question 1 is to be answered in the latter sense: does a right to compensation for a flight delay of at least three hours under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Regulation in that situation require the passenger to present himself for check-in in good time under Article 3(2)(a) of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that Question 1 is to be answered in the latter sense: does a right to compensation for a flight delay of at least three hours under Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Regulation in that situation require the passenger to present himself for check-in in good time under Article 3(2)(a) of the Regulation?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
# CE2004078EN.01070402.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/704 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/704

---

(2004/C 78 E/0752)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0751/03

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject:   National Irish Development Plan 2000-2006

Subject:

How was the EUR 20 million allocated under the National Irish Development Plan 2000-2006 for Maríne Tourism Infrastructure allocated? Is the Commission satisfied that this entire budget was distributed as originally intended?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

(14 April 2003)

The Irish National Development Plan is implemented through several Operational Programmes which contain a range of measures, some of which are confinanced by the Community and others funded from purely national resources.

The Maríne Tourism measure is a nationally funded measure featuring in the two Regional Operational Programmes i.e. The Border Midland and Western and the Southern and Eastern Programmes.

As this measure is not cofinanced from Union Structural Funds, the distribution of the funding is not a matter on which the Commission is in a position to comment.

---
# C_2023173EN.01002701.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/27

---

Action brought on 21 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-181/23)

(2023/C 173/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ladenburger, E. Montaguti, J. Tomkin, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by establishing and operating an institutionalised programme, such as, the Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment based on Article 10(9) of the Maltese Citizenship Act as amended by the Maltese Citizenship (Amendment No. 2) Act, 2020, and the Granting of citizenship for Exceptional Services Regulations, 2020, that offers naturalisation in the absence of a genuine link of the applicants with the country, in exchange for pre-determined payments or investments, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 20 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by establishing and operating an institutionalised programme, such as, the Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment based on Article 10(9) of the Maltese Citizenship Act as amended by the Maltese Citizenship (Amendment No. 2) Act, 2020, and the Granting of citizenship for Exceptional Services Regulations, 2020, that offers naturalisation in the absence of a genuine link of the applicants with the country, in exchange for pre-determined payments or investments, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 20 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU;

| — | order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following an amendment to the Maltese Citizenship Act in November 2013, Malta introduced its first investor citizenship programme in 2014.

The 2014 Scheme was subsequently replaced in 2020 by the ‘Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment’ programme. The new scheme was established by the Maltese Citizenship (Amendment No. 2) Act, 2020 and the Granting of Citizenship for Exceptional Services Regulations, 2020.

Union law precludes national citizenship investor schemes that allow for the systematic granting of nationality of a Member State in exchange for pre-determined payments or investments in the absence of a requirement for a genuine link between the State and the individuals concerned.

The Commission considers that the Maltese Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services by Direct Investment scheme (2020) constitutes such an unlawful citizenship investor scheme. By establishing and maintaining such a scheme, Malta compromises and undermines the essence and integrity of Union citizenship in breach of Article 20 TFEU and in violation of the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU.

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 869/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 869/2014 of 11 August 2014 on new rail passenger services (Text with EEA relevance)            (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 869/2014                     

# of 11 August 2014

# on new rail passenger services

# (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1795 of 20 November 2018 laying down procedure and criteria for the application                                 of the economic equilibrium test pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council                                 (Text with EEA relevance.).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated condensed financial statements for Tanisys Technology,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of and for the first quarter ended December 31, 1999,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements and
the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          64,776
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,585,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                   192,261
<INVENTORY>                                    312,910
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,215,794
<PP&E>                                         404,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                 840,063
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,677,704
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,425,800
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,709,383
<PREFERRED>                                  1,709,383
<COMMON>                                    32,171,214
<OTHER-SE>                                (37,419,053)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,677,704
<SALES>                                      2,016,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,016,660
<CGS>                                          758,138
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  758,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               862,703
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              90,561
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                279,864
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            279,864
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   279,864
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
WOOD v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY.

No. COA07-88.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 15, 2008.

Certification Date May 5, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. TA-16036).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed as modified.
STATE v. Kenneth D. POTEAT, II.

No. 350P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 4, 2008.

David G. Belser, Asheville, for Poteat.

Kelly L. Sandling, Assistant Attorney General, William D. Kenerly, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of August 2008 by Respondent for Extension of Time to File Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of August 2008."
# C_2023286EN.01002901.xml

| 14.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/29

---

Action brought on 29 May 2023 — Tsakiris v EUIPO — Tsakiris-Protypos Viomichania Trofimon-Snacks-AVEE (Le Petit Déjeuner TSAKIRIS FAMILY)

(Case T-303/23)

(2023/C 286/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Tsakiris AE Paragogis & Emporias Trofimon (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Papaspyropoulos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tsakiris-Protypos Viomichania Trofimon-Snacks-AVEE (Atalanti, Greece)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Le Petit Déjeuner TSAKIRIS FAMILY

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2023 in Case R 1012/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 701/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 701/2014 of 24 June 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 701/2014                     

# of 24 June 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 24 June 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
----

(2004/C 33 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3755/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject:   Compensation to farmers for havoc wrought by bad weather

The latest spell of bad weather in the regions of Macedonia and Thessaly caused incalculable damage to crops and property and severe disruption to transport. A large part of agricultural production disappeared under water and much of the road network was paralysed as a result of defects in construction.

Will the Community provide financial aid to the above regions to help restore normal conditions as soon as possible in the areas affected by natural disasters, pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 (1) of 11 November 2002?

What measures have the Greek authorities taken to commit the special financial resources required to cover the abovementioned damage?

Given that Greece has suffered similar situations in the past, will the Commission say whether any subsidies that Greece may have received pursuant to the above regulation were utilised and, if not, whether the unused portion was returned to the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2003)

The Commission has not so far received any application from the Greek authorities under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2) for aid to make good damage caused by the natural disasters to which the Honourable Member refers.

For aid from the Fund to be granted the requirements of Articles 2 and 4(1) of the Regulation must be met, namely that estimated damage (unless exceptional circumstances as indicated in the last subparagraph of Article 2(2) apply) is more than EUR 3 billion or 0,6 % of the Member State's gross national income and that application is made within ten weeks of the date of the first damage caused by the disaster. Help from the Fund is given for action of the types listed in Article 3 of the Regulation. Compensation for loss of agricultural production is not included.

This Regulation is of very recent date and has not yet been used to help Greece.

----

(1)OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

(2)OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.

----
Elizabeth Ann REECE v. Glenn SMITH, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Neil Smith.

No. 110P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

James Gary Rowe, Asheville, for Elizabeth Ann Reece.

Steven D. Cogburn, Jennifer N. Foster, Asheville, for Smith.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 655 S.E.2d 911.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of March 2008 by Plaintiff 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 9th day of October 2008."
STATE v. BRYANT.

No. COA07-1337.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 15, 2008.

Certification Date August 4, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (06CRS64031, 07CRS5025).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. Andre Levern MILLER.

No. 309A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 3, 2008.

Paul F. Herzog, Fayetteville, for Miller.

Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 661 S.E.2d 770.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of July 2008 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of July 2008."
# C_2023278EN.01002701.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/27

---

Action brought on 23 June 2023 — Katjes Fassin v EUIPO (Beyond Chocolate)

(Case T-343/23)

(2023/C 278/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and C. Stöber)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ‘Beyond Chocolate’ — Application No 18 578 274

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2023 in Case R 2352/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---