alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023338EN.01004002.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/40

---

Action brought on 31 July 2023 — BHW Bausparkasse v SRB

(Case T-488/23)

(2023/C 338/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BHW Bausparkasse (Hameln, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger, M. Weber and D. Schoo, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as the contested decision together with Annexes I, II and III concern the applicant’s contribution, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as the contested decision together with Annexes I, II and III concern the applicant’s contribution,

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

—

order the SRB to pay the costs.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the SRB and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

—

order the SRB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-483/23, Deutsche Kreditbank v SRB.

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DARBY GIPPERT
, Appellant,

v.

ANN MARY GIPPERT
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 869

[ February 16, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Michael C. Heisey , Judge; L.T. Case No. 56

- 2016

- DR

001720

.

Jason L. Harr of T he Harr Law Firm , Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Ralph T. White of The Law Office of RT White, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, C ONNER and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 13.(a).1

                            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 of Tefron Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby
certify that to the best of our knowledge:

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

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

Date: April 19, 2005
                                                  /s/ Yosef Shiran
                                                  ----------------
                                                  Name:  Yosef Shiran
                                                  Title: Chief Executive Officer


Date: April 19, 2005
                                                  /s/ Gil Rozen
                                                  -------------
                                                  Name:  Gil Rozen
                                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 389 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 389

   To increase the number of Federal judgeships, in accordance with 
 recommendations by the Judicial Conference, in districts that have an 
               extraordinarily high immigration caseload.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 25, 2007

  Mr. Domenici (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Cornyn) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To increase the number of Federal judgeships, in accordance with 
 recommendations by the Judicial Conference, in districts that have an 
               extraordinarily high immigration caseload.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGESHIPS.

    The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of 
the Senate, such additional district court judges as are necessary to 
carry out the 2005 recommendations of the Judicial Conference for 
district courts in which the criminal immigration filings represented 
more than 50 percent of all criminal filings for the 12-month period 
ending September 30, 2004.
                                 <all>
```
STATE ex rel. COOPER v. RIDGEWAY MFG.

No. 408A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 14, 2007.

J. Nicholas Ellis, for Ridgeway Mfg. & Heflin.

Richard L. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher G. Brown, Jr., Solicitor *714General, Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State ex rel. Cooper.

Richard T. Boyette, Raleigh, for Ridgeway, Inc., et al.

The following order has been entered on the joint motion filed on the 7th day of November 2007 by Defendants and the State for Extension of Time to File Briefs:

"Motion Allowed. Defendants and the State shall have up to and including the 3rd day of December 2007 to file and serve their briefs with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 14th day of November 2007."
----

(2004/C 65 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject:   State aids assessment

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

----

(1)OJ L 149, 17.6.2003.

----
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 777/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 777/2014 of 16 July 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 777/2014                     

# of 16 July 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, 16 July 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.
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Thomas S. Hendricks, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Calais Resources Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of thesmall business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the smallbusiness issuer and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer is made known to us by others, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (thesmall business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions);
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
September 13, 2004 /s/ Thomas S. HendricksThomas S. HendricksChief Executive Officer and President
Ceci AUSTIN v. BALD II, L.L.C.

No. 179P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Gregory E. Wills, Point Harbor, for Bald II.

C. Everett Thompson, II, Elizabeth City, for Austin.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 658 S.E.2d 1.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th day of April 2008 by Defendant 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 26th day of August 2008."
exh102.htm




Exhibit 10.2







Consultants Work Agreement







This agreement amends the consultants work agreement dated July 7th 2010.







Parties  This consulting agreement is made between the following parties: Consultant, Robert Tessanari of 33 Main Street, Newtown CT 06470, herein after referred to a Tessanari, and QE Brushes Inc., a Nevada Corporation, herein referred as QE.







Recitals  QE Brushes wishes to engage the services of Tessanari, and Tessanari wishes to assist QE in its business endeavors.







Worked to be performed by Tessanari, complete all necessary work for the transfer of control and assist the new board of directors in understanding the operations of QE and assist; them in their transition period. Be available to answer any questions about the company’s operations to date. Assist the new board in marketing the pet toothbrush and in the manufacturing process of any new orders for its new pet toothbrush. Assist in the promotion of QE to the investment community and assist in any venture capital fund raising activities. Services provided shall also include merger and acquisitions possibilities.












Compensation to Tessanari for services rendered QE agrees to compensate Tessanari by issuing 2,500,000 million common shares of common stock in return for his services and work to be performed. The valuation for Tessanari's services shall be based upon $100 hr for approximately 120 hours of services.







Governing Law  the laws of Washington State and Nevada shall govern this agreement depending upon the state the aggrieved party files its action in.







Integration Clause  this agreement includes all of the parties understandings to date mentioned herein. Any prior oral or written facts that conflict with this agreement shall not be made part of this agreement and this agreement supersedes any prior understanding that the parties may have understood prior to this agreement.







Covenants  The QE Director or Officer warrants and promises that they have the authority to enter into this agreement on behalf of its corporation and shall provide a unanimous resolution by its board of directors agreeing to this consulting work agreement.













	
Consultant ROBERT TESSANARI

	
Date ________


	  	  
	
FRANCIS D’AMBROSIO

	
_____________


	
Director of Virtual Medical International Inc. (formerly QE Brushes Inc.)

	
Date
# CE2004065EN.01000401.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/4

---

(2004/C 65 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3067/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(25 October 2002)

Subject:   Excise duty on wine

Subject:

It was reported in the Italian press in September 2002 that the European Commission is debating whether to introduce a minimum rate of excise duty greater than 0 % on wine in all EU countries including Italy, which are currently exempt from this duty. More specifically, the initial rates of duty, which would not apply to anyone producing under 1 000 hectolitres per year, would be EUR 0,13 per litre from 1 January 2003 and EUR 0,15 per litre as from 1 January 2007.

The Italian Farmers' Confederation has calculated that the levying of this excise duty would add EUR 500 million per annum to the prices paid by the consumer, which could well trigger a drop in consumption. Furthermore, the introduction of a minimum rate of excise duty for wine would not only adversely affect companies' sales and profitability but also increase bureaucracy. All this would be contrary to the Common Agricultural Policy, which aims to promote rural development and safeguard the countryside.

In view of this, does the Commission not consider that:

| 1. | tax harmonisation at European level should tend towards the reduction of existing excise duties rather than the introduction of new ones; |
| --- | --- |

1.

tax harmonisation at European level should tend towards the reduction of existing excise duties rather than the introduction of new ones;

| 2. | all the agricultural products listed in Annex 1 to the EC Treaty should be exempt from excise duty; |
| --- | --- |

2.

all the agricultural products listed in Annex 1 to the EC Treaty should be exempt from excise duty;

| 3. | the harmonisation of Italian legislation already constitutes full compliance with Article 7 of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) and Article 5 of Directive 92/84/EEC (2)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

the harmonisation of Italian legislation already constitutes full compliance with Article 7 of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) and Article 5 of Directive 92/84/EEC (2)?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.

1

(2)  OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 29.

2

---
RUSSELL D. HOGG,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2714

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 13, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Russell D. Hogg, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/487Show full title

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/487 of 20 March 2015 amending Decision 2011/173/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view            of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/487                     

# of 20 March 2015

# amending Decision 2011/173/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Whereas:

(1)On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/173/CFSP(1).

(2)On the basis of a review of Decision 2011/173/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 31 March 2016.

(3)Decision 2011/173/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The second paragraph of Article 6 of Decision 2011/173/CFSP is replaced by the following:

‘This Decision shall apply until 31 March 2016.’.                  

# Article 2U.K.

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

Done at Brussels, 20 March 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

E. Rinkēvičs                            

1

Council Decision 2011/173/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina                              (OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 68).
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3735 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3735

     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the 
eligibility of computer technology and equipment development businesses 
                    for enterprise zone incentives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 11 (legislative day, December 10), 2008

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the 
eligibility of computer technology and equipment development businesses 
                    for enterprise zone incentives.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT 
              BUSINESSES FOR ENTERPRISE ZONE INCENTIVES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1397C(d)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 (relating to treatment of business holding intangibles) is 
amended by inserting ``other than the development of any computer 
technology or equipment (as defined in section 170(e)(6)(F)(i))'' after 
``license''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```