alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008051EN.01002501.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/25

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-528/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/98/EC - Re-use of public sector information - Failure to transpose into national law within the prescribed period)

(2008/C 51/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
exv4w2










	Name of Company: E-COMMERCE CHINA DANGDANG INC. Number: Class A Common Share(s): - [no. of shares] — Issued to: [name of shareholder]
Dated Transferred from: Exhibit 4.2 E-COMMERCE CHINA DANGDANG INC. Number Class A Common Share(s) - [no. of shares] — Incorporated under the laws
of the Cayman Islands Share capital is US$100,000 divided into (i) 548,955,840 Class A Common Shares of a par value of US$0.0001each and (ii) 451,044,160 Class B
Common Shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT [name of shareholder] is the registered holder of [no. of shares] Class A Common Share(s) in
the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof. EXECUTED on behalf of the said Company on the day of 2010 by: DIRECTOR



 









 









	TRANSFER I (the Transferor) for the value received DO HEREBY transfer to (the Transferee) the shares standing in my name in the undertaking called E-COMMERCE CHINA DANGDANG INC. To hold
the same unto the Transferee Dated Signed by the Transferor in the presence of: Witness Transferor
**Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 – Álvarez v Commission**

**(Case T-78/06)**

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Plastic industrial bags sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Concept of undertaking – Imputability of the unlawful conduct – Presumption of innocence

1.                     *Community law – Principles – Fundamental rights – Presumption of innocence and defence rights – Procedures in competition
matters – Applicability (Art. 6(2) EU; Art. 81(1) EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 48) (see paras
23-24)*

2.                     *Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for
assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‐owned subsidiaries – No obligation
on the Commission to demonstrate the involvement of the parent company in the infringing conduct – (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras
25-30)*

3.                     *Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for
assessment – Presumption of dominant influence by the parent company over its wholly-owned or almost wholly-owned subsidiaries
– Commission’s option to attribute to the parent company liability for the infringing conduct of its subsidiary (Art. 81(1)
EC) (see para. 35)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C (2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 – Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Armando Álvarez, SA to pay the costs. |
**Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 – Groupe Gascogne v Commission**

**(Case T-72/06)**

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Plastic industrial bags sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Imputability of the unlawful conduct – Fines – Maximum limit of 10% of turnover – Proportionality

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Annulment of a Commission decision finding a breach of the
competition rules – Effects in relation to addressees not having brought an action – None (Arts 81 EC, 230 EC and 249 EC)
(see para. 20)*

2.                     *Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions – Pleas based on matters which have come to light
in the course of the procedure – Entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon – New fact justifying the introduction of a complaint
based on infringement of the presumption of innocence – Not included (Art. 6 TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union, Art. 48; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2))
(see paras 27-30)*

3.                     *Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Economic unit – Criteria for
assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‐owned subsidiaries – Evidential
obligations of a company seeking to rebut that presumption (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 66-71, 92)*

4.                     *Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Maximum amount – Calculation – Turnover to be taken into consideration – Cumulative
turnover of all the companies constituting the economic unit acting as an undertaking – No obligation on the Commission to
demonstrate lack of autonomy on the part of each of the subsidiaries of the group (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003,
Art. 23(2)) (see paras 106-115)*

5.                     *Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity of the infringement – Determination of the fine in proportion
to the factors for assessment of the gravity of the infringement (Art. 81(1) EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2);
Commission Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 128, 130-131)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 – Industrial bags), concerning a cartel on the market for plastic industrial bags, and application for amendment of that decision. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Groupe Gascogne SA to pay the costs. |
----

(2004/C 33 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0929/03

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject:   Legionnaire's disease

There is a direct link between the poor maintenance of water heating and air conditioning systems in public buildings and the incidence of extremely serious cases of pneumonia caused by the Legionella bacterium.

Supplementary answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2003)

The construction and maintenance of buildings and their installations are issues under the responsibility of the Member States. Concerning the safety of drinking water supply systems, these issues are expected to be covered by the new European Acceptance Scheme (EAS) for regulated construction products in contact with drinking water. EAS cannot, however, cover heating and air conditioning systems in buildings.

A table providing the references for national guidance for control and prevention of Legionnaires' disease is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. Many countries have guidance but not all have legislation in place.

No common European framework exists. The Commission is in the process of building such a European framework, and harmonised product standards will enable water supply systems made from products complying with these European standards to provide water quality in accordance with the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive, Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (1).

----

(1)OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                              274170
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      1221300
<ALLOWANCES>                                         70017
<INVENTORY>                                         525600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   2198159
<PP&E>                                             3456770
<DEPRECIATION>                                     2152538
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     4155123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1046299
<BONDS>                                            2231918
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         496236
<COMMON>                                             19023
<OTHER-SE>                                          361647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       4155123
<SALES>                                            2197038
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   2197038
<CGS>                                              1280727
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1287727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    618598
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      6446
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   80593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     231708
<INCOME-TAX>                                         78000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 153708
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        153708
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.01)



</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Grady Lee NICHOLSON.

No. 238P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Grady Lee Nicholson, Salisbury, for Nicholson, Grady Lee.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 13th of July 2015 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 15th of December 2015."
# C_2009312EN.01000201.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Dinter GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (C-522/07), Europol Frost-Food GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (C-65/08)

(Joined Cases C-522/07 and C-65/08) (1)

1

(Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Validity - Additional note - Apple juice concentrate)

2009/C 312/02

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dinter GmbH (C-522/07), Europol Frost-Food GmbH (C-65/08)

Applicants:

Defendants: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (C-522/07), Hauptzollamt Krefeld (C-65/08)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation and validity of Additional Note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1) — Pure concentrated apple juice, with a Brix value of 66.8, not containing added sugar — Classification of that product under tariff subheading 2009 7999 (apple juice not containing added sugar) or under subheading 2106 9098 (food preparations not elsewhere specified or included) — Limits on the Commission’s powers under Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 to specify the content of the tariff headings

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Additional Note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) No 1776/2001 of 7 September 2001, (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 and (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, is invalid to the extent that it excludes natural apple juice concentrate from heading 2009.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008

1

OJ C 107, 26.4.2008

---
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)

24 January 2008

Case C-211/06 P

**Herta Adam**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Appeal – Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Condition provided for by the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Definition of ‘work done for another State’)

**Appeal**:      against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T‐342/04 *Adam* v *Commission* [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-23 and II-A-2-107, dismissing an action seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 2 September
2003 refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

**Held:**The appeal is dismissed. Ms Adam is ordered to pay the costs.

**Summary**

*Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting – Work done for another State or an international
organisation*

*(Staff Regulations, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          23,635
<SECURITIES>                                    42,274
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,281
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,490
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,427
<PP&E>                                           6,304
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,829
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,140
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,651
<SALES>                                         93,954
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,954
<CGS>                                           33,054
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,431
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,792
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,067
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,725
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,725
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.74


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

SMC CORPORATION  EXHIBIT 11
STATEMENT OF CALCULATION OF AVERAGE
COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                     Three Months
                                                                         Ended
                                                                    March 31, 2000
                                                                    --------------
<S>                                                                 <C>
Basic Earnings Per Share:

     Weighted average number of shares                                  5,780,599
                                                                     ==============
Diluted Earnings Per Share:

     Weighted average number of shares                                  5,780,599

     Stock option plan shares to be issued at prices                            -
     ranging from $4.625 to $9.00 per share
                                                                     --------------
         Total Diluted Shares                                           5,780,599

                                                                     ==============
</TABLE>

Due to the Company's net loss, stock options accounted for using the treasury
stock method would be antidilutive. Accordingly, 1,138,500 stock option plan
shares have been excluded from the diluted net loss per share calculation for
the three months ended March 31, 2000.
STATE of North Carolina v. Dymond J. MOORE.

No. COA15-52.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 18, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.
DISMISS and Opinion F iled October 20, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00031-CV DRISTI SHRESTHA, Appellant
V.
ENYA HERNANDEZ GO NZALEZ, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-02805-E MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Jus tice Molberg, and Justice Smith Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Seeking to appeal the trial court’s interlocutory summary judgment that granted Enya Gonzalez’s amen ded bill of review and set aside a no-answer default judgment against Gonzalez in a personal in jury suit, Dristi Shrestha has filed a petition for permissive appeal . We deny the petition and dism iss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 51.014(f); T EX
. R. A PP
.–2– P. 42.3(a); Workers’ Comp. Sol. v. Tex. Health, L.L.C. , No. 05-15-01504-CV, 2016 WL 945571, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Ma r. 14, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).

210031F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT DRISTI SHRESTHA, Appellant
No. 05-21-00031-CV V. ENYA HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-02805- E. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns, Justices Molberg and Smith participating.
In accordance with this Court’ s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
We ORDER that appellee Enya Hernandez Gonzalez recover her costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Dristi Shrestha.
Judgment entered October 20, 2021.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7102

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSE LUIS ACEVEDO, a/k/a Louie, a/k/a Pedro Pineyro,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:92-cr-00427-JCC-1)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 24, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Luis Acevedo, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Luis Acevedo appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c) (West

2000 & Supp. 2008). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. United States v. Acevedo, No. 1:92-cr-00427-

JCC-1 (E.D. Va. June 6, 2008). 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
## NO. 12

- 20

- 00163

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF

JAMES M. CAMMACK,

AN INCAPACITATED PERSON §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 2

GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant , Terri Wimberly, filed a motion to dism iss this appeal. The motion states that

the parties res olved and settled all issues the su bject of this appeal. No decision has been

delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to di smiss is granted, and the appeal is

dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42. 1 (a).

Opinion delivered October 7, 2020.

Pane l consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

## C O U R T OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 7 , 2020

NO. 12

- 20

- 00163

- CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF JAMES M. CAMMACK,

AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

Appeal from the Co unty Court at Law No

. 2

of Gregg County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2019

- 0293

- E )

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to d ismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it i s hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By pe r curiam opinion

. Panel consis ted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.