alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011311EN.01003301.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-232/06) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of services for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to IT projects - Rejection of a tender - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Action for damages - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility - Action for annulment - Time allowed for the receipt of tenders - Time allowed for the submission of requests for information - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment)

2011/C 311/56

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2006 not to select the tender submitted by the consortium formed by the applicant and other companies in connection with a call for tenders for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to IT projects ‘CUST-DEV’ and to award the contract to another tenderer and (ii) damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

1

---
# C_2009256EN.01000402.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA, formerly Aceites del Sur v Koipe Corporación, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-498/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Figurative mark La Española - Overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Decisive element)

2009/C 256/07

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA, formerly Aceites del Sur SA (represented by: J.-M. Otero Lastres and R. Jimenez Diaz, abogados)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Koipe Corporación SL (represented by: M. Fernández de Béthencourt, abogado), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 September 2007 in Case T-363/04 Koipe v OHIM and Aceites del Sur (La Española), by which the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 May 2004 (Case R 1109/2000-4) was altered so as to hold that the appeal brought by the applicant before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition is to be upheld.

Koipe

OHIM and Aceites del Sur (La Española)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those of Koipe Corporación SL; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those of Koipe Corporación SL;

| 3. | Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
# CE2004078EN.01050601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/506 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/506

---

(2004/C 78 E/0526)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3275/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Destruction of Russian forests

Subject:

It is reported that the Russian Government plans to sell off a vast proportion of Russia's forests to private logging companies. Such forests act as a giant ‘carbon sink’ second only in importance to the Amazonian rainforests. Is the Commission aware of this situation and, if so, what does it believe that the EU can do to dissuade the Russians from a policy that can have enormously damaging environmental consequences?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

(17 December 2003)

The Commission is not aware of any plans on the part of the Government of Russia to sell off a vast proportion of Russia's forests to private logging companies although it has seen press reports regarding the new Russian Forest Code. Concessions granted to companies, private or otherwise, may or may not have an adverse effect on the management of those forests. The Russian Government has expressed its commitment to the sustainable management of its forests in various international fora, among them the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe. The Commission expects Russia to live up to those commitments and implement the relevant resolutions.

---
1638.

#### Reece *v.*The State.

Hill, C. J.

In order to render penal the sale by a tenant of personalty which is subject to a landlord’s lien for rent and' advances, three neces-. sary facts must appear: (1) that such sale was made without the consent of the landlord; (2) that it was made with intent to defraud *664the landlord; and (3) that, in consequence of the sale, the landlord sustained a loss. A charge to a jury which states the first and third necessary constituents of this offense, but leaves out all reference to the second, constitutes reversible error. Penal Code,. §§671, 672; *Denney*v. *State,*2 *Ga. App.*146 (58 S. E. 318) ; *Morrison*v. *State,*111 *Ga.*642 (36 S. E. 902). *Judgment reversed.*

Accusation of misdemeanor, from city court of Newton — Judge Johnson. January 6, 1909.

Submitted February 9,

Decided February 16, 1909.

*W. I. Geer,*for plaintiff in error. *B. Odom, solicitor,*contra.
STATE of North Carolina v. John Frede SABBAGHRABAIOTTI.

No. COA15-1028.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

New Trial.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 – Torres v OHIM – Bodegas Cándido (TORRE DE FRIAS)**

**(Case T-285/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for Community word mark TORRE DE FRIAS – Earlier national and international word marks TORRES and LAS TORRES – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42, 69)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 July 2006 (Case R 1069/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Bodegas Cándido, SA. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Bodegas Cándido, SA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark TORRE DE FRIAS, for goods in Class 33 – Application No 305151 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Miguel Torres, SA |
| Marks or signs cited in opposition: | National and international word mark TORRES and international word mark LAS TORRES, for goods in Class 33 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs. |
# C_2008272EN.01002102.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/21

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Promat v OHIM — Puertas Proma (PROMAT)

(Case T-243/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community figurative mark PROMAT - Earlier Community figurative mark PROMA - Partial refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 272/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Promat GmbH (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: J.Krenzel and S.Beckmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G.Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Puertas Proma SAL (Villacañas, Spain).

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2006 (Case R 1059/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Puertas Proma SAL and Promat GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Promat GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Promat GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---
----

(2004/C 65 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2730/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Compliance with European legislation in connection with the privatisation of VOEST in Austria

Media reports suggest that agreements exist between individual interested parties in connection with the imminent privatisation of VOEST via the stock exchange. The Austrian newspaper ‘Der Standard’ reported on 1 September 2003 an alleged ‘secret meeting’ between existing Austrian VOEST shareholders for the purpose of allocating amongst themselves the maximum possible stockholding when the shares are sold. Those invited to this meeting are said to include the managing committee of the Vienna stock exchange, banking representatives, a member of the VOEST management board, a member of the VOEST works council and politicians from Upper Austria.

Are such internal agreements in the run-up to the privatisation of a public-sector undertaking via the stock exchange in conformity with European law?

If not, what countermeasures will the Commission be taking?

Does EU law contain provisions preventing the disposal of a public sector undertaking at less than its value and hence to the detriment of the public interest?

Does a general legal framework exist at EU level that compels Austria to privatise VOEST or other public-sector undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Commission does not have enough information at its disposal to offer the Honourable Member a satisfactory answer. In the absence of details and established facts which would enable the Commission to carry out the necessary investigation into possible breaches of Community stock exchange law or Community competition law, the Commission regrets that it is unable at the moment to reply to the first and third questions. It therefore asks the Honourable Member to provide it with whatever information he has on this matter.

The Commission cannot answer the second question while the first question remains unanswered.

With regard to the fourth question, Article 295 of the EC Treaty gives the Member States the option of determining whether a given undertaking should belong to the public sector or the private sector.

----
_________________________________________ 

 

________________________________ 

 

________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 11, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 136972 & (78) Justices 

136973 

In Re Peter Martin Wege Trust 

f/b/o SUSAN WEGE CARTER, 

SUSAN WEGE CARTER,

 Petitioner-Appellant, 

 SC: 136972-3 

vs CoA: 271244, 274217 

 Kent Probate: 02-173246-TT 

FIFTH THIRD BANK,

 Respondent-Appellee. 

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by the attorneys for the 

parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered and, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with 

prejudice and without costs. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 11, 2008 

 Clerk
----

Exhibit 13.1 

 

Telesystem International Wireless Inc. 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) 

In connection with the Annual Report of TelesystemInternational Wireless Inc., a Canadian corporation (the "Company"), on Form20-F for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the "Report"), Bruno Ducharme, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company and André Gauthier, Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer of the Company, do each herebycertify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350),that to his 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

Date: March 31, 2005 

| *(signed)*                                              |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                    |
| Bruno Ducharme                                          |
| President and Chief Executive    Officer                |
| (Principal Executive Officer)                           |
|                                                    |
|                                                    |
| Date: March 31, 2005                                    |
|                                                    |
| *(signed)*                                              |
|                                                    |
| André Gauthier                                      |
| Executive Vice President and    Chief Financial Officer |
| (Principal Financial Officer)                           |
|                                                    |
|                                                    |

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding date shown below:

*License Number:*                     008786N.                

*Name:*                     Bermuda Freight Systems Inc.                

*Address:*                     969 Newark Turnpike, Kearny, NJ 07032.                

*Date Revoked:*                     August 18, 2005.                

*Reason:*                     Failed to maintain a valid bond.                

*License Number:*                     012658N.                

*Name:*                     Elteha International U.S.A., Ltd. dba LTH International.                

*Address:*                     5353 West Imperial Highway, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045.                

*Date Revoked:*                     August 10, 2005.                

*Reason:*                     Failed to maintain a valid bond.                

*License Number:*                     003170N.                

*Name:*                     GAP Forwarding, Inc.                

*Address:*                     2790 NW 104th Court, Suite 101, Miami, FL 33172.                

*Date Revoked:*                     May 11, 2005.                

*Reason:*                     Failed to maintain a valid bond.                

*License Number:*                     008832N.                

*Name:*                     Profes System Incorporated dba All State International Freight Co.                

*Address:*                     167-55 148th Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11434.                

*Date Revoked:*                     August 5, 2005.                

*Reason:*                     Failed to maintain a valid bond.                

Sandra L. Kusumoto,

Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.

[FR Doc. 05-18267 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
EXHIBIT 10.3

CAPTARIS, INC.

AMENDMENT TO CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT

This Amendment to Change of Control Agreement (this Amendment) is entered into as of March 23, 2007 by and between Captaris, Inc., a
Washington corporation (Captaris), and Peter Papano (Executive).

RECITALS

A. Captaris and Executive entered into a Change of Control Agreement (the CIC Agreement), dated as of March 15, 2005.

B. Captaris and Executive desire to amend the terms of the CIC Agreement.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:



| | 1. | Amendment
| | -- | ---------

Section 6.1(d) of the CIC
Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

(d) immediate vesting of all equity awards granted by the Company
to the Executive outstanding as of the Change in Control Date; and



| | 2. | Full Force and Effect
| | -- | ---------------------

Except as otherwise
amended hereby, the terms and provisions of the CIC Agreement, as amended remain unchanged.



| | 3. | Counterparts
| | -- | ------------

This Amendment may be executed
in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto execute this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.



EXECUTIVE/s/ PETER PAPANOPeter Papano




CAPTARIS, INC.By:

/s/ DAVID P. ANASTASIName:

David P. AnastasiTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer




-2-
# C_2008209EN.01004701.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/47

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Sviluppo Italia Basilicata v Commission

(Case T-176/06) (1)

1

(European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) - Reduction in financial assistance - Application for annulment - Venture capital fund - Deadline for the completion of investment projects - Procedure - Principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty - Principle of proportionality - Statement of reasons - Action for damages)

(2008/C 209/81)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sviluppo Italia Basilicata SpA (Potenza, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, D. Fioretti, S. Frazzani and R. Sciaudone, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and M. Velardo, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1706 of 20 April 2006 reducing the financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund in favour of an overall allocation for the purpose of implementing measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises operating in the Basilicata Region of Italy, granted under the Community support framework for Community structural assistance in the regions of Italy covered by Objective 1, and application for damages for the harm caused by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Italia Basilicata SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Italia Basilicata SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Juli Ann WILLIAMS.

No. 173P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Ms. Charlotte G. Blake, Boone, for Williams, Juli Ann.

Ms. Harriet F. Worley, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Ms. N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 26th of May 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the 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 20th of August 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th of May 2015 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 20th of August 2015."