alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023329EN.01003001.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/30

---

Action brought on 31 July 2023 — Giuliani v EUIPO — H&H (Swisse)

(Case T-442/23)

(2023/C 329/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Giuliani SpA (Milano, Italy) (represented by: S. de Bosio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Health and Happiness (H&H) Hong Kong Ltd (Hong Kong, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Swisse (Colours red, black and white) — European Union trade mark No 3 252 152

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2023 in Case R 2185/2019-1 RENV

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the application for declaration of invalidity of the trade mark at issue; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the application for declaration of invalidity of the trade mark at issue;

| — | order that defendant and the EUTM Proprietor to jointly and severally pay all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that defendant and the EUTM Proprietor to jointly and severally pay all costs.

Pleas in law

| — | The contested decision is held ultra petita and in disregard of the res judicata on the factual assessments of the Cancellation Division and of the first Board of Appeal decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

The contested decision is held ultra petita and in disregard of the res judicata on the factual assessments of the Cancellation Division and of the first Board of Appeal decision;

| — | Infringements of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, of Article 32(i) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and of Articles 71(1) and 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringements of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, of Article 32(i) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and of Articles 71(1) and 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

| — | Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HAROLD R. WHITLEY

AND OCCUPANTS,

Appellants,

v.

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF

THE CITY OF DALLAS, TX,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00205

- CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 4

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC # CC

- 14

- 02407 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination of whether it should

be dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Harold Whitley , Appellant, ha s failed to make

financial arrangements with the clerk of the trial court to pay for th e clerk’s record, we dismiss

the appeal for want of prosecution.

On June 6 , 2014, the trial court entered a final judgment and Whitley filed a pro se notice

of appeal . The trial court clerk has notified the Court that Whitley has not made financial

arrang ements to pay for the clerk’s record. The Clerk of the Court notified Whitley by letter

regarding his failure to make financial arrangements to pay for the clerk ’ s record and advised

him that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless he responded within ten

days and showed grounds for continuing the appeal. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 37.3. No reply has been- 2

-

received. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

. See T EX .R.A PP .P.

42.3(b).

November 5, 2014

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)

(Barajas, C.J., Senior Judge, sitting by assignment, not participating)
Exhibit 99.1
                            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  Quarterly  Report  of  NACO  Industries,,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal  quarter ended August 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Verne E. Bray, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my 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 result of operations of
         the Company.

/s/ Verne E. Bray
--------------------------
    Verne E. Bray
    Chief Executive Officer
    October 10, 2002
----

(2004/C 65 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2311/03

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Council

(8 July 2003)

Subject:   Freedom and pluralism of communications media and granting the EU powers in this field under the European constitution

Knowing that:

Will the Council take steps to ensure that, when the European constitution is drawn up, freedom and pluralism of the media are included among the Union's values (Article 2 of the preliminary draft) and that the protection of these rights is included among the Union's objectives (Article 3 of the preliminary draft), while specifying the conditions and means deemed necessary for securing and maintaining them, and conferring the relevant powers upon the Union, either exclusively or jointly with the Member States?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

The Council is not competent to reply to the question asked by the Honourable Member. It will be for the Intergovernmental Conference on the revision of the Treaties, which is due to meet in October 2003, to decide on this question if need be.

----
**Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2007 – Commission v Italy**

**(Case C‐119/06)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Directive 92/50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts
– Award of a contract without a call for tenders – Award of the contract for healthcare transport services in Tuscany

1.                     *Approximation of laws – Procedures for awarding public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Scope (Council Directive 92/50)
(see paras 34-52)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission (Art. 226 EC) (see paras
57, 65-66)*

3.                     *Approximation of laws – Procedures for awarding public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Award of contracts (Arts 43 EC
and 49 EC; Council Directive 92/50) (see paras 63-64)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 11, 15 and 17 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) – Award of a contract without publication of the appropriate notice – Award of the contract for healthcare transport services in Tuscany. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Action dismissed; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the costs. |
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE.

No. 606A05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 15, 2016.

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lane, Eric Glenn.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of January 2016 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of January 2016."

JACKSON, J. recused.
RICKY DEWAYNE FRAZIER , Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Respondent. ___________________________/ 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. 1D 16 - 2745

Opinion filed November 4, 2016. Petition for Belated Appeal -- Original Jurisdiction . Jeffrey E. Lewis, Regional Conflict Counsel, and Wesley G. Nicholls, II, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Pensacola , for Petitione r. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM. The petition for belated appeal is granted. Petitioner shall be allowed belated appeals from the judgments and sentences re ndered June 2, 2015, in Escambia County Circuit Court case numbers 2014 - CF - 004011 - A, 2014 - CF - 004012 - A, 2014 - CF -2 004013 - A, 2014 - CF - 004014 - A, 2014 - CF - 004015 - A, 2014 - CF - 004017 - A, 2014 - CF 004019 - A, 2014 - CF - 004020 - A, 2014 - CF - 004022 - A, 2014 - CF - 004024 - A, 2014 - CF 0 04026 - A, 2014 - CF - 004028 - A, 2014 - CF - 004029 - A, and 2014 - CF - 004451 - A. Upon issuance of mandate in this cause, a copy of this opinion shall be provided to the clerk of the circuit court for treatment as the notices of appeal. If petitioner qualifies for appo inted counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent petitioner on appeal. B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


Computation of
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges





Fiscal Year Ended January 31,(Dollars in thousands)

2002


2001


2000


1999

1998Earnings before fixed charge:Income (loss) before taxes andextraordinary items

$
(84,540
)

$
(205,264
)

$
(47,460
)

$
124,097

$
76,640Fixed Charges


85,097



103,719



92,389



68,843


35,325$
557


$
(101,545
)

$
44,929


$
192,940

$
111,965Fixed Charges:Interest expense

$
57,659


$
70,541


$
63,283


$
43,453

$
16,914Interest component of rent expensed(1)


27,438



33,178



29,106



25,390


18,411$
85,097


$
103,719


$
92,389


$
68,843

$
35,325Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(2)










0.5



2.8


3.2





|(1) |  | Calculated as one-third of total rent expense.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------




|(2) |  | Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges for the years ended January 31, 2002 and 2001 by $84,540 and $205,264, respectively.
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



CKE RESTAURANTS, INC.
STATE v. William Edward GODWIN, III.

No. 167P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2016.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill, for Godwin, William Edward (III).

Teresa L. Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Raleigh, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of May 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1997
<CASH>                                         166,661
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               286,365
<PP&E>                                         201,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                (198,350)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 289,615
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          126,281
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,181
<OTHER-SE>                                     139,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   289,615
<SALES>                                      1,640,151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,640,151
<CGS>                                          931,789
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  931,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,324,038
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (608,151)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (608,151)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (393,741)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,001,892)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.47)
        

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Anna Laura HUCKELBA.

No. 156A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Mr. Edward Eldred, Attorney at Law, for Huckelba, Anna Laura.

Ms. Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Mr. J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*834***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 7th 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:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
# C_2009090EN.01002402.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2009 — Associazione italiana del risparmio gestito and Fineco Asset Management v Commission

(Case T-445/05) (1)

1

(State aid - Aid scheme implemented by the Italian authorities for certain undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities specialised in shares of small- and medium-capitalisation companies - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Selective nature of the measure - Obligation of recovery)

2009/C 90/38

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Associazione italiana del risparmio gestito (Rome, Italy); and Fineco Asset Management SpA (Rome) (represented by: G. Escalar, G. Cipolla and V. Giordano, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2006/638/EC of 6 September 2005 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for certain undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities specialised in shares of small- and medium-capitalisation companies listed on regulated markets (OJ 2006 L 268, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the applicants to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.

1

---
# CE2004078EN.01013201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/132 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/132

---

(2004/C 78 E/0134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2597/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(14 August 2003)

Subject:   Natural disaster alert in Italy

Subject:

The drought which has hit the Mediterranean area in the last few weeks is having alarming consequences in Italy: natural water resources are running low, with increasingly serious knock-on effects for agriculture and for the supply of hydroelectric power stations. The Italian civil protection authorities are about to submit a report to the government which will speak of a full-blown natural disaster.

The agriculture minister estimates the losses to agriculture at several million euros already, and the civil protection authorities predict that unless rain comes, by the end of July sprinkling by farmers will have exhausted the water reserves.

The water level of the large rivers and lakes which feed the hydroelectric power stations has fallen considerably: in some parts of the north, certain major tributaries of the Po have dried up completely. The regions of Piedmont and Emilia-Romagna have declared a state of emergency, and Lombardy and Veneto are about to follow suit.

The continuity of electricity supply can no longer be ensured at all times: rationing and blackouts are being resorted to, but such measures are not sufficient to guarantee electricity supply between now and the hoped-for autumn rains.

In view of the seriousness of the situation, and pursuant to the Council Regulation of 15 November 2002 setting up the Solidarity Fund for natural disasters, can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the present disaster alert in Italy qualifies for recognition under Articles 2 and 3 of that Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the present disaster alert in Italy qualifies for recognition under Articles 2 and 3 of that Regulation?

| 2. | whether Italy meets the requirements for applying for a grant from the Solidarity Fund? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether Italy meets the requirements for applying for a grant from the Solidarity Fund?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

(18 September 2003)

The Commission is greatly concerned as to the scale of damage that is being caused by the ongoing drought in Italy. It sympathises with all the affected persons, including the regions referred of Piedmont, Emilia-Romagna, Lombardy and Veneto.

The Honourable Member is referred to her Written Question P-2591/03 (1). The response to this question explains in detail issues of eligibility and the necessary information that the national authorities must provide to the Commission when making an application for support from the Solidarity Fund.

1

---

(1)  See page 131.

1

---
STATE v. Ralph F. FREDRICK.

No. 363P03-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*392The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of April 2007 by Defendant for Petition for Rehearing of N.C. Court of Appeals Order:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of June 2007."
----

(2004/C 65 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2830/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject:   Railways in Greece

The modernisation of Greek railways has been a long-standing target of structural measures and has been included in all previous support programmes. Does the Commission think that the railways programme under the second Community Support Framework was properly implemented? What was the rate of utilisation of funds from the initial and revised budgets for the programme? What information does it have on the implementation of the project? What railway projects are being funded from the third Community Support Framework and the Cohesion Fund for the programming period 2000-2006? What has been the rate of utilisation of these funds?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The 1994-1999 European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Operational Programme (OP) for the modernisation of the Greek railways and the related Cohesion Fund projects are currently in the process of closure in administrative terms. The total programmed ERDF contribution to the OP Railways 1994-1999 was EUR 394 million, of which so far some 92 % has been paid. Under the Cohesion Fund, 1994-1999, EUR 546 million of assistance was approved for Greek railway projects, of which so far some 86 % has been paid. The projects concerned primarily the modernisation of important sections of the Korinthos-Athens-Thessaloniki railway axis and some related lines (such as Thessaloniki-Alexandroupolis and Paleofarsala-Kalambaka).

The Commission has monitored carefully the physical implementation and the contract management of certains major projects in partnership with the national authorities. This concerned in particular track works which included the construction of tunnels and bridges (e.g. at Kallidromo, Tembi, Platamon), and the project for the electrification of the line. The Commission implemented a number of audits and commissioned a series of expert opinions, the results of which will be fully taken into account for the closure of the programme and projects concerned, which is currently underway and will determine the definitive absorption figures for the period 1994-1999.

Most of the large railway projects launched in the previous funding period represent major long-term investments and accordingly their realisation will only be complete under the 2000-2006 ERDF Operational Programme ‘Railways, Airports, Urban transport’ and the Cohesion Fund railway projects of the 2000-2006 funding period. In the current period, new projects include the modernisation of the railway section Korinthos-Patras and the construction of the Athens suburban railway.

----