alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01061301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/613 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/613

---

(2004/C 88 E/0633)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1555/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject:   Averting alcohol-related harm in Finland

Subject:

I wish to thank Commissioner Frits Bolkestein for the answer which he gave on 14 April 2003, on behalf of the Commission, to question P-0870/03 (1).

1

However, the Commissioner did not answer the part of my question concerning the possible use of Articles 30 and 95 of the EC Treaty.

I should therefore like to repeat the last part of my question:

| — | if a Member State can show that complete freedom as regards private imports (of alcoholic beverages) — that is, complete freedom from import restrictions — causes serious problems from the point of view of public morality, public policy, public security, or health, as referred to in Article 30 of the EC Treaty, or specific public health problems within the meaning of Article 95, can it act to put matters right; |
| --- | --- |

—

if a Member State can show that complete freedom as regards private imports (of alcoholic beverages) — that is, complete freedom from import restrictions — causes serious problems from the point of view of public morality, public policy, public security, or health, as referred to in Article 30 of the EC Treaty, or specific public health problems within the meaning of Article 95, can it act to put matters right;

| — | what kind of measures are possible in such a situation? |
| --- | --- |

—

what kind of measures are possible in such a situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

(16 June 2003)

Article 26 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (2) authorised Denmark, Finland and Sweden to apply restrictions on the quantity of excise products that can be brought into their territory from other Member States by travellers for their own use, without further excise duty payment. These derogations expire at the end of 2003. This Directive is based on Article 99 (now Article 93) of the EC Treaty. Any extension of the derogations authorised by Article 26 of this Directive would require a modification of this provision on the basis of the same Treaty provision and could not be based upon Articles 30 or 95 of the EC Treaty.

2

Outside the area of taxation, any non fiscal measure adopted in non-harmonised areas by a Member State on public health grounds which could result in restricting imports of alcoholic beverages would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis in order to decide whether it complies with the conditions set in Article 30 of the EC Treaty, or in Article 95 if the relevant area is already subject to harmonisation measures at Community level.

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 85.

1

(2)  OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

2

---
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 491 

To clarify the rules of origin for certain textile and apparel products. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2007 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. BUNNING, and Mr. BYRD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To clarify the rules of origin for certain textile and apparel 

products. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RULES OF ORIGIN FOR CERTAIN TEXTILE AND 

4 APPAREL PRODUCTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 334(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 

6 Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 

7 3592(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(except 

8 6303.12.00 and 6303.92.20)’’ after ‘‘6303’’. 

9 (b) CERTAIN FINISHING OPERATIONS.—Section 

10 334(b)(2)(C) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 491 IS

1 U.S.C. 3592(b)(2)(C)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(except 

2 goods classified under heading 6303.92.20)’’ after 

3 ‘‘6303.92’’. 

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 subsections (a) and (b) apply to goods entered, or with6 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 

7 date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment of 

8 this Act. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
# C_2023304EN.01002502.xml

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/25

---

Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features)

(Case T-364/23)

(2023/C 304/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Väderstad Holding AB (Väderstad, Sweden) (represented by: A. Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union position mark representing the position of a combination of presentational features — Application for registration No 18 131 030

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2023 in Case R 60/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea 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.

---
In the Matter of S.J.M.

No. 363A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 7, 2008.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 645 S.E.2d 798 (2007), affirming an order entered 10 January 2006 by Judge George R. Murphy in District Court, Lee County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 February 2008.

Elizabeth Myrick Boone, for appellee Guardian ad Litem and Beverly D. Basden, Sanford, for petitioner-appellee Lee County Department of Social Services.

Richard E. Jester, Louisburg, for respondent-appellant mother.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
IN RE A.M.

No. COA08-808.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Guilford (08JA1).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Julio Zelaya SORTO.

No. 481P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Julio Zelaya Sorto, Pro Se.

Peter A. Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 21st day of October 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1513
IN RE: KATHLEEN BARBARA DAVIS, Debtor,

---------------------------------------- JULIAN BURKE; BURKE DUNWELL CORPORATION, Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus KATHLEEN BARBARA DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant, MERRILL COHEN, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-2015-8-AW; BK-02-24578; AP-03-1132) Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 5, 2005 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.- 2 - Kathleen Barbara Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Mitchell Orenstein, GOREN, WOLFF & ORENSTEIN, L.L.C., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Kathleen Barbara Davis appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider a prior order dismissing her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order determining that a certain debt was non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) (2000). Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Burke v. Davis , Nos. CA04-2015-8-AW; BK-02-24578; AP-03-1132 (D. Md. Apr. 4, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., Respondent, v Enviropower, LLC, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 54]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered May 26, 2004, in an action for breach of contract, awarding plaintiff, after inquest, the principal sum of $1,046,870, plus interest, costs and disbursements, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Judicial Hearing Officer, dated May 4, 2004 and entered May 25, 2004, which, inter alia, struck defendant’s answer and directed entry of judgment on liability in plaintiffs favor, and an order, same court and Judicial Hearing Officer, dated May 11, 2004 and entered May 13, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate the prior order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s answer was properly stricken because of its *856negligent spoliation of documents *(see Gray v Jaeger,*17 AD3d 286 [2005]; *Standard Fire Ins. Co. v Federal Pac. Elec. Co.,*14 AD3d 213, 218 [2004]) after it was on notice of plaintiffs claim, albeit before the action was commenced *(see 430 Park Ave. Co. v Bank of Montreal,*9 AD3d 320 [2004]). While we have stated that “ordinarily” a pleading should not be stricken for failure to provide disclosure absent a motion on notice *(Postel v New York Univ. Hosp.,*262 AD2d 40, 42 [1999]), the concerns articulated in *Postel*have been dispelled under the instant circumstances, where the court repeatedly warned defendant that its answer might be stricken if it did not produce the demanded documents *(cf. Salamone v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr.,*273 AD2d 117 [2000]), and the appeal brings up for review the denial of a motion that defendant made to vacate the conference order *(cf. Ayala v Delgado,*303 AD2d 286 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 514 [2003]).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
STATE v. BENTON.

No. COA08-295.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from Wayne (07CRS50779, 07CRS1979, 07CRS 1980).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
----

(2004/C 33 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1934/03

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 June 2003)

Subject:   Prospects for LIFE

The Directorate-General for Environment recently published on its website (1) the final report of the Expert Group on the financing of the Natura 2000 network (Article 8 of the Habitats Directive). The cost estimate may well be adjusted, but the major institutional guidelines have been set down with a request that, after 2006, the cost be shared between the various Community funds (ERDF, EAGGF, etc.) and a separate financial instrument. That concept needs to be introduced into the various frameworks provided to that end and, in particular, into that of the major policy and budgetary reviews envisaged after 2006.

On the other hand, the report neatly sets out the problem of the link between the current LIFE financial instrument, which comes to an end in 2004, and the findings of the debate on Natura 2000 which will be implemented after 2006. LIFE-Nature is, currently, the only Community financial instrument which is exclusively dedicated to one of the objectives of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme — halting the decline in biodiversity in the Union between now and 2010.

Given the time required at institutional level to put in place a new Regulation, the Commission needs to submit a proposal by early September 2003 at the latest. After that date, it would be too late to select new projects in 2005 — as was the case in 2000 between LIFE II and LIFE III. Nature conservation experts seriously fear that the instrument will be purely and simply abandoned. Several recent meetings about Natura 2000 have prompted doubts about the Commission's willingness to pursue its short-term funding policy for LIFE-Nature.

What plans does the European Commission have in this respect?

Is a two-year renewal along the lines of the current Regulation a possible option?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the important role that the LIFE-Programme plays in supporting Community nature conservation policy.

Since the new financial perspectives will not come on stream until 2007, consideration is now being given to a proposal to extend the LIFE-Programme for three years in an adapted form. The objective is to bridge the gap in co-funding from 2004 until 2007.

Rapid adoption by the Parliament and Council of such a Proposal would be required to avoid any interruption in the present scheme of financing.

----

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/natura_articles.htm.

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of ERP Operating Limited Partnership (“ERPOP”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Bruce W. Duncan, Chief Executive Officer of Equity Residential, general partnerof ERPOP, certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/                     | Bruce W. Duncan |   |
|-------------------------|-----------------|--------|
| Bruce W. Duncan         |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| of Equity Residential   |
| May 9, 2005        |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
                           OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, Alvin A. Hirsch,  the Chief Financial  Officer of Mile Marker  International,
Inc. (the  "Company"),  have executed this  certification in connection with the
filing with the  Securities and Exchange  Commission of the Company's  Quarterly
Report on Form 10- QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report").

The undersigned hereby certifies that:

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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 5th
day of May, 2005.


/s/  Alvin A. Hirsch
------------------------
     Alvin A. Hirsch
Chief Financial Officer
----

(2004/C 33 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2098/03

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   SARS emergency: preventive measures

SARS, or atypical pneumonia, a disease whose origins have not yet been established and for which thee is so far no cure, has become the new plague of the third millennium, thanks to the ease with which it spreads. By reason of its contagiousness it is affecting dozens of new victims every day, mostly in China and South-East Asia.

Effective preventive measures against the spread of SARS must meet a number of minimum joint criteria in all countries, and even more so in the EU Member States, given the urgent need to implement preventive measures to combat this disease.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

The public health measures put in place by the Member States, facilitated through the Union's network for the epidemiological surveillance and control of communicable diseases in the Community working under Decision No 2119/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 1998 (1), have already been able to contain the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in the Union. As there is no local transmission an information campaign based on those countries where the disease was rampant was not necessary. The Commission has agreed an action plan with Health Ministries to ensure better preparedness in the future and an information campaign would be considered as part of this plan for the future (http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/phthreats/com/sars/sars_en.htm).

The Commission agrees with the World Health Organisation (WHO) that entry screening measures are not efficient in detecting new cases and create a false sense of security in the public and in the health authorities. Exit screening from affected countries is one of the best measures undertaken in containing the spread of SARS. The efficacy of such measures will be kept under review in the light of scientific evidence.

----

(1)OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.

----
----

(2004/C 33 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1333/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(9 April 2003)

Subject:   Unlawful charging of commission by banks

Despite the entry into force of the euro and Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro, banking institutions and banks in general continue to charge commission for both transfers and the depositing of cheques from the various European countries.

The Belgian Post Office still uses the phrase ‘from abroad’ when notifying bank transfers from other European countries.

This constitutes an extra burden and inconvenience for the general public, especially immigrants, who are often obliged to make trans-national payments and transfers. Can the Commission say:

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro establishes the principle of equal charges between strictly national payments and cross-border payments in euro within Community territory. For electronic payments, the Regulation entered into force on 1 July 2002. It will apply to transfers as of 1 July 2003. However, the principle of equal charges does not apply to cheques because the legislator took the view that cheques have no future as a method of cross-border payment.

During the first half of 2003 cross-border payments in euro will therefore continue to attract higher charges than national transfers. This will change in July. Nothing will change as regards cheques, however: the banking community is setting up a policy to deter cheque use which consists in either raising charges further or stopping issuing cheques altogether.

By end-2002 a number of cases of non-compliance had been brought to the Commission's attention. It immediately contacted the various national authorities responsible for implementing the Regulation as per Article 7, and the problems were quickly resolved. The banks in question did not dispute that mistakes had been made either in printing documents (uncorrected lists of charges) or in applying charges to certain type of payment.

The Commission will of course continue to monitor the correct implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 in accordance with the powers conferred on it by the Treaty.

----

(1)OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 13.

----
# C_2023173EN.01003501.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/35

---

Action brought on 15 March 2023 — Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists v EUIPO — Grande Vitae (vintae)

(Case T-136/23)

(2023/C 173/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García and L. Polo Flores, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grande Vitae GmbH (Delmenhorst, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark vintae — European Union trade mark No 5 851 092

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2023 in Case R 2238/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to declare valid the trade mark at issue for goods and services in Classes 33 and 35; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to declare valid the trade mark at issue for goods and services in Classes 33 and 35;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener, Grande Vitae GmbH, to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the First Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener, Grande Vitae GmbH, to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the First Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 61 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 61 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
----

(2004/C 33 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3845/02

by Ieke van den Burg (PSE) and Wilfried Kuckelkorn (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject:   European law aspects of German benefits to encourage private supplementary pension schemes

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

----

(1)OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.

(2)  Case C-85/96, Martinez Sala ECR, [1998] I-02691.

(3)  Case C-35/97 Commission v. France ECR [1998] I-5325.

----