alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/157Show full title

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/157 of 30 January 2015 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed            against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/157                     

# of 30 January 2015

# amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the                        situation in Tunisia                     

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)On 31 January 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/72/CFSP(1).

(2)The restrictive measures set out in Decision 2011/72/CFSP apply until 31 January 2015. On the basis of a review of that Decision,                              those restrictive measures should be extended until 31 January 2016. The entries for three persons should be amended.

(3)Decision 2011/72/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Decision 2011/72/CFSP is amended as follows:

Article 5 is replaced by the following:

# ‘Article 5

This Decision shall apply until 31 January 2016. It shall be kept under constant review. It may be renewed or amended, as                                 appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’;                           

the Annex is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

Done at Brussels, 30 January 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

E. Rinkēvičs                            

## ANNEXU.K.

The entries for the following persons set out in the Annex to Decision 2011/72/CFSP are replaced by the entries below.

1

Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities                              in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 28, 2.2.2011, p. 62).
In re WILLIAMSON VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS.

No. 20A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 12, 2008.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 653 S.E.2d 900 (2007), reversing an order granting summary judgment for defendants entered 20 November 2006 by Judge Preston Cornelius in Superior Court, Iredell County, and remanding for entry of summary judgment in plaintiff's favor. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 October 2008.

McIntosh Law Firm, by James C. Fuller and Prosser D. Carnegie, Davidson, for plaintiff-appellee.

Eisele, Ashburn, Greene & Chapman, PA, by Douglas G. Eisele, Statesville, for defendant-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2023235EN.01006101.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/61

---

Action brought on 12 May 2023 — Braunschweiger Versorgungs v EUIPO — B.F. Energy (BF energy)

(Case T-245/23)

(2023/C 235/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Braunschweiger Versorgungs AG & Co. KG (Braunschweig, Germany) (represented by: C. Drzymalla, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: B.F. Energy Srl (Rome, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark BF energy — Application for registration No 18 336 443

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 February 2023 in Case R 1646/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the application for the trade mark at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the application for the trade mark at issue;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs, including the costs of proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs, including the costs of proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the level of attention of the public at large; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the level of attention of the public at large;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the visual, aural and conceptual similarity of the signs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the visual, aural and conceptual similarity of the signs;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

I, Vicente Anido, Jr., Ph.D., hereby certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that the Quarterly Report of ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ISTA
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                     |  |                                       |  | 
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: April 30, 2007 |  | /s/ Vicente Anido, Jr., Ph.D.         |  | 
|                     |  | Vicente Anido, Jr., Ph.D.             |  | 
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer |  |
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                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 Quarterly Report of John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended April 1, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission, we, John Q. Hammons, Chief Executive Officer, and
      Paul E. Muellner, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002, that:

            1.    The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            2.    The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operation of John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
      been provided to John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. and will be retained by John
      Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its Staff upon request.

Dated:  May 13, 2005

                                                        /s/ John Q. Hammons
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        John Q. Hammons

                                                        /s/ Paul E. Muellner
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Paul E. Muellner
STATE v. McNAIR.

No. COA07-1067.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (06CRS8185, 06CRS25718).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Albert C. BURGESS, Jr. v. Jeff HUNT, District Attorney, and Rick Davis, Sheriff.

No. 1P09.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 8, 2009.

Albert C. Burgess, Jr., Pro Se.

Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for Hunt.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 5th day of January 2009 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Henderson County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of January 2009."
#### Marietta Fairchild, Appellant, v J. Crew Group, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Corcon Construction et al., Third-Party Defendants.

[800 NYS2d 735]

*524In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated December 23, 2004, as granted the motion of the defendant third-party and second third-party plaintiff for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the defendant third-party and second third-party plaintiff-respondent, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists on property depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case, and presents a question of fact for the jury *(see Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976 [1997]; *Friedman v Beth David Cemetery,*19 AD3d 365 [2005]; *Adsmond v City of Poughkeepsie,*283 AD2d 598 [2001]; *Sanna v Wal-Mart Stores,*271 AD2d 595 [2000]). However, a property owner may not be held liable for trivial defects, not constituting a trap or a nuisance, over which a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or her toes, or trip *(see Hagood v City of New York,*13 AD3d 413 [2004]; *Hargrove v Baltic Estates,*278 AD2d 278 [2000]). In determining whether a defect is trivial, a court must examine all of the facts presented, including the “width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the ‘time, place and circumstance’ of the injury” *(Trincere v County of Suffolk, supra*at 978, quoting *Caldwell v Village of Is. Park,*304 NY 268, 274 [1952]; *see Friedman v Beth David Cemetery, supra; Mendez v De Milo,*17 AD3d 328 [2005]; *Sanna v Wal-Mart Stores, supra).*

Here, considering the dimensions and appearance of the subject defect, and taking into account its location and the circumstances of the accident, we cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that it was so trivial in nature that it could not give rise to liability on the part of the defendant *(see Friedman v Beth David Cemetery, supra; Smith v A.B.K. Apts.,*284 AD2d 323 [2001]; *Adsmond v City of Poughkeepsie, supra; Sanna v Wal-Mart Stores, supra).*Furthermore, the fact that the defect may have been open and obvious did not negate the defendant’s duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, but rather, may raise an issue of fact as to the plaintiff’s comparative negligence *(see Femenella v Pellegrini Vineyards, Inc.,*16 AD3d 546 [2005]; *Sportiello v City of New York,*6 AD3d 421 [2004]; *525
      *Cupo v Karfunkel,*1 AD3d 48 [2003]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
# CE2004070EN.01002901.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/29

---

(2004/C 70 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0704/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject:   Cat and dog fur

Subject:

Does the Commission have any plans to propose legislation to ban the import into the EU of pelts from domestic cats and dogs?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2003)

(23 May 2003)

The cat and dog fur issue is not one of purely external trade but also one of domestic production and use. Indeed the common commercial policy must be seen as a complement to the single market: trade restrictions in the absence of equivalent measures on domestic production and marketing might be contestable as discriminatory and an obstacle to the principle of national treatment.

Therefore, the question of a trade policy initiative in the field of cat and dog furs (a ban on import of cat and dog furs) should not be imposed in isolation from the more general issue of a domestic policy concerning the production and marketing of cat and dog furs on the internal market.

---
```

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  hereto have caused this  Agreement to be
duly executed by their duly authorized  representatives,  all as of the date and
year first above written.

                            DEARBORN CENTER, L.L.C.

                            By:   Prime/Beitler Development Company, L.L.C., its
                                   sole member

                                  By:   Penny Beitler L.L.C., its managing member

                                        By:   /s/ Jack C. Ambrister
                                              ------------------------
                                              Name: Jack C. Ambrister
                                              Title: Member

                            BAYERISCHE HYPO- UND VEREINSBANK AG, NEW YORK BRANCH

                               By: /s/ Helga Blum
                                   ---------------
                                   Name: Helga Blum
                                   Title: Director

                               By: /s/ William J. Rogers
                                   ---------------------
                                  Name: William J. Rogers
                                  Title: Managing Director

                            PRIME GROUP REALTY, L.P.

                            By:   Prime Group Realty Trust, its managing general
                                     partner

                                  By:   /s/ Louis G. Conforti
                                        ---------------------
                                        Name: Louis G. Conforti
                                        Title: Co-President
```
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 560 

To create a Rural Policing Institute as part of the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2007 

Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. ISAKSON, and Mr. PRYOR) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To create a Rural Policing Institute as part of the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RURAL POLICING INSTITUTE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is established a Rural Po5 licing Institute, which shall be administered by the Office 

6 of State and Local Training of the Federal Law Enforce7 ment Training Center (based in Glynco, Georgia), to— 

8 (1) evaluate the needs of law enforcement agen9 cies of units of local government and tribal govern10 ments located in rural areas; 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 560 IS

1 (2) develop expert training programs designed 

2 to address the needs of rural law enforcement agen3 cies regarding combating methamphetamine addic4 tion and distribution, domestic violence, law enforce5 ment response related to school shootings, and other 

6 topics identified in the evaluation conducted under 

7 paragraph (1); 

8 (3) provide the training programs described in 

9 paragraph (2) to law enforcement agencies of units 

10 of local government and tribal governments located 

11 in rural areas; and 

12 (4) conduct outreach efforts to ensure that 

13 training programs under the Rural Policing Institute 

14 reach law enforcement officers of units of local gov15 ernment and tribal governments located in rural 

16 areas. 

17 (b) CURRICULA.—The training at the Rural Policing 

18 Institute established under subsection (a) shall be config19 ured in a manner so as to not duplicate or displace any 

20 law enforcement program of the Federal Law Enforce21 ment Training Center in existence on the date of enact22 ment of this Act. 

23 (c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘rural’’ 

24 means area that is not located in a metropolitan statistical 

25 area, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 560 IS

1 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

2 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

3 (including for contracts, staff, and equipment)— 

4 (1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 

5 (2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 

6 through 2013. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
# CE2004084EN.01072201.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/722 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/722

---

(2004/C 84 E/0811)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1398/03

by Arie Oostlander (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 April 2003)

Subject:   Publication of the fortnightly newsletter Europa van Morgen

Subject:

The fortnightly newsletter Europa van Morgen (Tomorrow's Europe) produced by the Commission Representation in the Netherlands has not appeared since the end of February 2003. As I understand it, this is because of an administrative slip-up. This newsletter is greatly appreciated by readers because it is accessible and provides a starting point for obtaining further information. In view of the forthcoming European elections, in particular, will the Commission make interim arrangements as soon as possible to enable publication of the newsletter to continue until such time as the new tender procedure is organised.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

(21 May 2003)

The Commission is grateful to the Honourable Member for his positive comments on the newsletter ‘Europa van Morgen’.

The Commission's duty is to constantly adapt its information material to the evolving requirements of its readers. Issuing a printed newsletter is expensive. The Commission needs therefore to evaluate regularly its content and presentation against other means of communication, as the only way to ensure that taxpayer's money is spent in the respect of the principles of sound financial management.

The Commission will make sure that information is provided to the relevant target groups by its Representation in the Netherlands in the most appropriate form.

---
IN RE M.S.

No. COA08-774.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (07J123).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# CE2004078EN.01001301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/13

---

(2004/C 78 E/0014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0201/03

by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject:   Gibraltarian police violence

Subject:

On 20 January 2003, in the bay of Algeciras, whose waters Spain considers Spanish, Greenpeace activists carried out a peaceful demonstration against the single-hulled Maltese-registered oil tanker ‘Vemamagna’.

Public opinion in Spain and various other European countries is extremely sensitive to issues like this, thanks to the ‘Prestige’ disaster, and all the more so now, thanks to the sinking of a barge carrying over a thousand tonnes of fuel in the very waters of the bay of Algeciras on 21 January 2003.

There was considerable media coverage of the Greenpeace demonstration. Reporters from El País, El Mundo, Tele-5, Antena 3, RTVE, Canal Sur and Associated Press were, in the course of their professional duties, violently harassed by the Gibraltarian police and arrested (in waters which are, to say the very least, the object of international legal dispute), and the Tele 5 reporter was punched by the Gilbraltarian policeman, as highlighted on the front page of El Mundo (21.1.2003).

Quite apart from the fact that the Member State of which Gibraltar is a dependency is unwilling to persuade Gibraltar that it has to apply Community directives on single-hulled tankers, it is rather surprising that one of the principles or values which distinguishes us as Europeans, namely respect for the freedom of expression enjoyed by those working in the media, should have been so fragrantly violated in Gibraltar.

Does the Commission intend to approach the Council, — with enlargement under way, the moment could not be more opportune — with a view to encouraging the Council to suggest to the Member State whose colony Gibraltar is that, for the sake of the Union's good name, that Member State's government should both respect this principle and ensure that it is respected?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

(9 January 2004)

Further to its holding reply to the Honourable Member's written question of 27 March 2003, the Commission is now in a position to give more information on the subject raised as it has received the British authorities' response.

The British authorities report that of the twenty people arrested, only six are to be charged and these cases came before Court on 22 September 2003.

Furthermore, the response points out that decisions on arrests and on prosecution are taken pursuant to the principle of law and in light of detailed legislation. The right of appeal against action of the police is also foreseen.

In view of this response, although it deplores the use of force against media, the Commission proposes to close its inquiry into this matter unless there are any issues on which the Honourable Member requires further clarification.

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 322/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 322/2014 of 28 March 2014 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed            and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station (Text with EEA            relevance) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 322/2014                     

# of 28 March 2014

# imposing special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident                        at the Fukushima nuclear power station                     

# (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/6 of 5 January 2016 imposing special conditions governing the import of feed                                 and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station and repealing                                 Implementing Regulation (EU) No 322/2014 (Text with EEA relevance).