alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023314EN.01002301.xml

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/23

---

Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB

(Case T-405/23)

(2023/C 314/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West AG (St. Pölten, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

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 it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

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 it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

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-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB.

---
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 14-1631

___________________________ Albert B. Brown, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________ Submitted: October 7, 2014 Filed: October 24, 2014 [Unpublished]

____________ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Albert B. Brown, Jr., appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Upon de novo review, see Van Vickle v. Astrue , 539
1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United Stat es District Judge for the District of Nebraska.F.3d 825, 828 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2008), and caref ul consideration of Brown’s arguments for reversal, we find no error in the admini strative law judge’s (A LJ’s) determination that Brown was not disabled be fore his date last insured. A decision not to reopen a prior final decision is not subject to judici al review absent a colorable constitutional challenge. See Hardy v. Chater , 64 F.3d 405, 407-08 (8th Cir. 1995). To the extent Brown challenges the ALJ’s determinations as to credibility and residual functional capacity (RFC), we find that the credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and valid reasons and thus is entitled to deference, see Turpin v. Colvin , 750 F.3d 989, 993 (8th Cir. 2014); and thatBrown failed to meet his burden of establishing a more limited RFC, see Perks v. Astrue , 687 F.3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir. 2012). The judgment of the district court is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and Brown’s motion to strike is denied.

______________________________

-2-
----

(2004/C 33 E/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1577/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject:   Use of GMOs in agriculture

The Council of genetic rights, an independent body that seeks to establish links and inter-disciplinary discussion between scientific, legal, economic and philosophical experts in the biotechnology sphere, recently called on the Italian government and European Commission to raise awareness among the competent authorities of the applications of genetic engineering in farming and the patenting of genetic inventions. The growing use of transgenic organisms in food products and animal feed is in fact causing considerable confusion in terms of the safety and health of consumers as it is not yet possible to know what effects the impact of GMOs will have on the environment and human beings. This appeal is intended to draw attention, in particular, to a number of worrying cases observed by the Council, such as natural hybridisation between genetically modified plants and wild plants, the bio-accumulation of genes that codify insecticide proteins, the lack of immunity found in laboratory guinea pigs subjected to experiments with potatoes modified with lectin and the possibility that virus resistant transgenic plants are responsible for the development of viruses with new biological characteristics. Apart from the consequences for the ecosystem and human beings, the patenting of genetic inventions, which is motivated by the profit-seeking of an oligopoly of private firms, may have a significant impact on the agri-foodstuffs industry in general and the farming system of less-developed areas in particular, with the risk of serious depletion of the latter's endogenous resources.

It therefore seems evident that it is essential to make sure that the use of GMOs in farming and foodstuffs does not compromise the survival of traditional forms of farming and to protect consumers and the right of farmers to continue in business. The recent statements by Commissioners Byrne and Wallström seem to tackle the issue of GMOs solely from the point of view of labelling and information at the time of purchase, rather than regulating the social, economic, political and ethical implications of the use of such organisms.

That said, can the Commission indicate:

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

----

(1)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(2)OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(3)OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001.

----
EXHIBIT 14(a).1.



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Tefron
Ltd. ("Tefron") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 of our report dated
March 14, 2004, on the financial statements of Tefron, which are included in the
Form 20-F of Tefron and the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-111932).

We also consent to the reference to our firm in Tefron's above referenced annual
report under the caption "Selected Financial Data".


/s/ Kost Forer Gabbay and Kasierer
--------------------------
Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer
Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
A Member of Ernst & Young Global
<PAGE>
                                                                             9

                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.5

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


                            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 40-F of AT&T Canada Inc.,
a corporation organized under the laws of Canada (the "Company"), for the period
ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the
Company 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated:   May 6, 2003               /S/  JOHN McLENNAN
                                   ------------------
                                   John McLennan
                                   Vice Chair & Chief Executive Officer


Dated:   May 6, 2003               /S/  DAVID LAZZARATO
                                   --------------------
                                   David Lazzarato
                                   Executive Vice President & Chief Financial
                                   Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to AT&T Canada Inc. and will be retained by AT&T Canada Inc. and
furnished by the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE v. JENNINGS.

No. COA08-598.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Orange (05CRS53413).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part and remanded in part for correction of clerical error.
# CE2004088EN.01005402.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/54

---

(2004/C 88 E/0058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2050/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject:   Harassment of a Greek passenger plane by Turkish warplanes

Subject:

On Monday, 9 June, Turkish warplanes harassed an Olympic Airways passenger plane on flight 321 from Athens to Istanbul. This incident took place in international airspace, but within Greece's area of responsibility, the Athens Flight Information Region (FIR).

| 1. | How does the Commission view these actions, and how may they affect Turkey's prospects of EU membership? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How does the Commission view these actions, and how may they affect Turkey's prospects of EU membership?

| 2. | What kind of initiatives will the Commission take to prevent any recurrence of such incidents which jeopardise the safety of passengers? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What kind of initiatives will the Commission take to prevent any recurrence of such incidents which jeopardise the safety of passengers?

---
STATE v. EASTWOOD.

No. COA08-508.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from Alamance (06CRS11769, 06CRS53769).

Case reported without published opinion. No prejudicial error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,053
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,532
<PP&E>                                         885,140
<DEPRECIATION>                                 272,618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 694,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,963
<BONDS>                                        464,121
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           197
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   694,975
<SALES>                                        204,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               204,396
<CGS>                                           48,538
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,785
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,108)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,483
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,731
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,752
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 19,301
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,451
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                       2,707,561
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    138,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,937,893
<PP&E>                                       4,255,516
<DEPRECIATION>                                (25,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,220,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,534,611
<BONDS>                                      1,074,795
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,454
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,571,390
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,220,250
<SALES>                                        104,129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,129
<CGS>                                           43,324
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,418,224
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,507
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,327,602)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,327,602)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,327,602)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.75)


</TABLE>
STATE v. PELHAM.

No. COA07-1024.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Brunswick (01CRS5561, 01CRS5562, 01CRS5563, 01CRS5564).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Terrence Lowell HYMAN.

No. 245P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Paul Green, Durham, Ravi Manne, for Terrence Hyman.

Joan M. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie M. Asbell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: 182 N.C.App. 529, 642 S.E.2d 548.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 31st day of May 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 11th day of December 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 31st day of May 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of *326Appeals, 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 11th day of December 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 31st day of May 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Bertie County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
# CE2004078EN.01034001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/340 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/340

---

(2004/C 78 E/0357)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1653/01

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 June 2001)

Subject:   Restitution of property in the applicant countries

Subject:

I refer to my Written Question E-0998/00 (1) to the Council. Recent developments in Poland appear to have blocked the possibility of assets being restored to Jewish and other émigrés from Poland. Will the Commission please state whether it believes that to be the case and, if so, what bearing the Commission considers this to have on the eligibility of Poland for early accession to the Union?

1

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2001)

(24 July 2001)

The Polish law on the restitution of property has been vetoed by the President and there was an insufficient majority in the Polish Parliament to overturn the veto when the law was returned for the vote.

In issuing his veto, the President made clear that claimants were in a position to seek compensation, as the existing legal framework in Poland allows for such cases to be heard by the courts.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer to his Written Question E-998/00 (2). In this instance there is no specific ‘acquis’ relating to the question raised by the Honourable Member.

2

The Commission will continue to monitor closely the applicant countries' compliance with the principle of non-discrimination, enshrined in the treaties.

---

(1)  OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 13.

1

(2)  OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 13.

2

---
----

(2004/C 33 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1837/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   European Union tenders

Can the Commission confirm that, when a company in the EU wins a tender put by an EU body the tender is subject to Competition Law, and measures to increase the cost, which can include refusal by an EU company to supply the winner of the tender and prevent parallel imports, are in breach of the Treaty?

Can the Commission confirm what sanctions would be imposed in such a case?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

The Commission's understanding of the Honourable Member's question is that it refers both to the European institutions' obligations in the field of competition when awarding contracts, and to the situation of a company awarded a contract which is confronted with a refusal to sell by another EU company.

When it comes to awarding contracts, the Community institutions are obliged to comply with the provisions of the Council's Financial Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 (1), and particularly Title V thereof which stipulates and describes the different procedures which are applicable. Under these provisions, the contract should, generally speaking, be put out to tender on the broadest possible basis among interested operators. The tendering stage ends with the award of the contract and leads to a contract being signed with the successful tenderer.

As regards the situation of a company awarded a contract which is confronted with a refusal to sell by another EU company and/or the prevention of parallel imports, the situation in question may well constitute an infringement of the provisions of Article 82 and/or Article 81 of the EC Treaty. Under certain circumstances and certain conditions, the application of these rules may indeed lead to a ban on refusals to sell and the prevention of parallel imports. However, the lack of information on the facts behind the Honourable Member's question means that the Commission is unable to take a useful position on the applicability of Competition Law in this instance. For the same reason, the Commission is not able to give its position on what sanctions might be imposed.

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

----
# CE2004084EN.01001501.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/15

---

(2004/C 84 E/0016)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2243/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Distortions of competition by German goods-vehicle toll

Subject:

| 1. | Does the Commission consider that the basis of assessment for the goods-vehicle toll to be introduced at the end of August in Germany is in fact commensurate with the necessary volume of investment in road building? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the Commission consider that the basis of assessment for the goods-vehicle toll to be introduced at the end of August in Germany is in fact commensurate with the necessary volume of investment in road building?

| 2. | How does the Commission react to the distortions of competition in the German transport industry (and other branches of the economy) that will result from the significant increase in transport costs caused by this new goods-vehicle toll? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How does the Commission react to the distortions of competition in the German transport industry (and other branches of the economy) that will result from the significant increase in transport costs caused by this new goods-vehicle toll?

| 3. | Does the Commission stand by its rejection of the Federal Government's intention to offset the impact of the goods-vehicle toll on German transport undertakings by way of a credit against the petroleum tax? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Commission stand by its rejection of the Federal Government's intention to offset the impact of the goods-vehicle toll on German transport undertakings by way of a credit against the petroleum tax?

| 4. | Does the Commission anticipate any problems with an immediate reduction in the motor-vehicle tax levied on goods-vehicles in Germany to the minimum EU tax rate? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission anticipate any problems with an immediate reduction in the motor-vehicle tax levied on goods-vehicles in Germany to the minimum EU tax rate?

| 5. | Does the Commission expect the new toll arrangements to put non-German transport undertakings transiting through Germany at a disadvantage? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does the Commission expect the new toll arrangements to put non-German transport undertakings transiting through Germany at a disadvantage?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2141/03 and P-2243/03

given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

(6 August 2003)

Germany has notified to the Commission its intention to introduce a toll reimbursement system accompanied by the introduction of a mileage-based motorway user charge for heavy goods vehicles. In this context, the attention of the Honourable Members is drawn to the decision of the Commission of 23 July 2003 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

---