alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009141EN.01001201.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 April 2009 — Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA v Commission of the European Communities, French Republic, Orange France S.A., Société française du radiotéléphone — SFR

(Case C-431/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - State aid - Article 88(2) EC - Conditions for initiation of the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Criteria for establishing the existence of State aid - State resources - Principle of non-discrimination)

2009/C 141/18

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Bouygues SA, Bouygues Télécom SA (represented by: F. Sureau, D. Théophile, S. Perrotet, A. Bénabent, J. Vogel and L. Vogel, avocats,)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by: C. Giolito, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, O. Christmann and A.L. Vendrolini, Agents), Orange France SA (represented by: S. Hautbourg, S. Quesson and L. Olza Moreno, avocats), Société française du radiotéléphone — SFR (represented by: A. Vincent, avocat and by C. Vajda QC)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2007 in Case T-475/04 Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ action for annulment of the Commission Decision of 20 July 2004 (State Aid NN 42/2004 — France) concerning alteration of the fees payable by Orange and SFR for UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunication System) licences — State aid — Conditions for initiation of the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC — Criteria for State aid — Concepts of State resources, competitive advantage and non-discrimination.

Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
Brett Blair Hollis, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

August 3, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 11, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable William P. Keesley be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Keesley shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Keesley shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
**Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 – Viega v Commission**

**(Case T-375/06)**

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper and copper alloy fittings sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Participation in the infringement – Duty to state reasons – Fines – Relevant turnover – Attenuating circumstances

1.                     *Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Burden of proof – Degree of precision required of the evidence
used by the Commission (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 32-34)*

2.                     *Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements between undertakings – Burden of proof – Statement
of an incriminated undertaking challenged by other parties to the same agreement – Probative value – Assessment (Art. 81(1)
EC) (see para. 35)*

3.                     *Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement – Burden of proving the infringement
and its duration on the Commission – Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 36)*

4.                     *Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation of an undertaking in anti-competitive initiatives
– Tacit approval without public distancing sufficient to render the undertaking liable (Art. 81(1) EC) (see para. 52)*

5.                     *Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Agreements and concerted practices constituting a single infringement
– Burden of proof (Art. 81(1) EC)) (see para. 70)*

6.                     *Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Relevant market – Delimitation – Criteria (Art. 81(1) EC) (see
para. 81)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 – Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Viega GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – Transnáutica v Commission**

**(Case T-385/05)**

Customs union – External Community transit operations – Consignments of tobacco and ethyl alcohol for third countries – Fraud – Claim for remission of import duties – Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 − Article 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 − Fairness clause − Existence of
a special situation – Comprehensive guarantee

Own resources of the European Communities – Repayment or remission of import or export duties – Fairness clause instituted by Article 905 of Regulation No 2454/93 – Existence of ‘special situation’ – Scope (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 905) (see paras 48-61)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision REM 05/2004 of 6 July 2005 refusing the reimbursement and remission of certain customs duties. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Commission Decision REM 05/2004 of 6 July 2005; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

                THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED
                FROM THE  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF HEMASURE INC. FOR THE TWELVE
                MONTHS  ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFED IN ITS ENTIRETY
                BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1
<CASH>                                    1,827
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                 206
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          3,383
<PP&E>                                    3,354
<DEPRECIATION>                            1,849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            5,655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     3,346
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     91
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                             (2,923)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              5,655
<SALES>                                      25
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             25
<CGS>                                       657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         11,335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (372)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (12,170)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (12,170)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                            (12,170)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (1.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
**Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 November 2007 – Stahlwerk Ergste Westig**

**(Case C‐415/06)**

First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Answer clearly able to be deduced from case-law – Free movement of capital – Taxation on income – Company having permanent establishments in a non-Member State – Account taken of losses incurred by those establishments

1.                     *Preliminary rulings – Answer clearly able to be deduced from case-law – Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure
(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 104(3)) (see paras 9-10)*

2.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope (Arts 43 EC and 56 EC) (see
paras 14, 16, 18-19 and operative part)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Preliminary ruling – Bundesfinanzhof – Interpretation of Articles 56 EC, 57(1) EC and 58 EC – Deduction from the taxable profits of a German company of losses resulting from the activity of a permanent establishment in a non-member country – Deduction refused on the basis of a bilateral double taxation convention concluded with that non-member country. |

**Operative part:**

A national system of taxation under which a company having its head office in a Member State, when determining its results,
cannot deduct losses incurred by an establishment in a non-Member State fundamentally affects the exercise of the freedom
of establishment within the meaning of Articles 43 EC to 48 EC. Those provisions cannot be relied upon in a situation involving
such an establishment in a non-Member State.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136386 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136386 

 COA: 282787 

Genesee CC: 2003-011892-FC 

RONALD FIELDS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 15, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM THE TRANS ENERGY, INC. FINANCIAL
               STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
               AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
               SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>   1

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               13,477
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       127,154
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    140,631
<PP&E>                                            6,293,133
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1,408,486
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5,291,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9,257,493
<BONDS>                                             559,190
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              7,107
<OTHER-SE>                                       15,250,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5,291,159
<SALES>                                           1,092,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,092,899
<CGS>                                               506,518
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4,280,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  793,840
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,298,333)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,298,333)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,298,333)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (1.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.90)


</TABLE>
State of North Carolina v. Sue Lee Roberson, Defendant.

No. COA16-118

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

NO PLAIN ERROR.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 22, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 07-14248

 

D. C. Docket No. A73-767-298

HUA HUI CHEN,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

 

Petition for Review of a Decision of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

 

(September 22, 2008)

Before DUBINA, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Petitioner Hua Hui Chen (“Chen”) petitions this court for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen

removal proceedings and to file a successive asylum application.

“We review the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings for abuse

of discretion.” Li v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 1371, 1374 (11th Cir. 2007); Ali v.

U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006). We review legal

determinations de novo. Li, 488 F.3d at 1374.

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the

benefit of oral argument, we deny the petition for review because, even if Chen

were permitted to reopen or to file a successive application independent of a

motion to reopen, Chen’s claims fail on the merits. Based on Chen’s testimony

and the evidence presented, we conclude that Chen has not shown a well-founded

fear of future persecution. Although generally this court should remand asylum

eligibility issues to the BIA, see INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123

S. Ct. 353, 355-56 (2002), remand is unnecessary where “the result of a remand to

the [BIA] is a foregone conclusion such that remand would amount to nothing

more than a mere formality.” Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153, 158 (4th Cir.

2007), quoted in Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1330-31 (11th Cir. 2007)

(determining that no remand was required to address on the merits petitioner’s
3

motion for reconsideration and stating that the petitioner’s “arguments offered

nothing more than reiteration of her assertions in her [original] motion” that the

BIA had already rejected). 

Here, the BIA’s opinion confirms that it did not believe the evidence

established a well-founded fear of future persecution. Chen’s successive asylum

claim arises from her violation of China’s one-child family planning policy, and

the BIA expressly stated that Chen “has not demonstrated that she will be

sterilized or otherwise subjected to coercive population control measures due to

the birth of three foreign-born children.” Thus, we conclude that this case falls

within the rare circumstances making remand unnecessary because even if the BIA

were to reopen or to consider the successive application, Chen would not be

entitled to relief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  audited  financial  statements  for the nine months ended May 31,
1997 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>                  AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                  1,532
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             327
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,953
<PP&E>                                    360
<DEPRECIATION>                             44
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          2,286
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,150
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                  500
<OTHER-SE>                                528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            2,286
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       10,773
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          10,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           448
<INCOME-TAX>                              179
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       269
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              269
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.05
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.7 - SUI Clawback Policy






Sun Communities, Inc.
Executive Compensation "Clawback" Policy




If the Compensation Committee (the "Committee") of the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Sun Communities, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the "Company"), determines that an officer of the Company who is subject to Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (an "Officer”) has engaged in fraud, willful misconduct or gross negligence that directly caused or otherwise directly contributed to the need for a material restatement of the Company's financial results in order to comply with federal securities laws, the Committee will review all "performance-based compensation" awarded to or earned by such Officer where the performance measurement period for such compensation includes any fiscal period(s) affected by the restatement.  For purposes hereof, "performance-based compensation" includes all annual incentives and long-term incentives with performance features based on the Company's financial performance, whether paid in cash or in equity, where the award or size of the award was contingent on such performance.


If the Committee determines, in its reasonable discretion, that any such performance-based compensation would not have been paid or would have been at a lower amount had it been based on the restated financial results, the Board or the Committee may within 12 months of such a restatement, to the extent permitted by applicable law, seek recoupment from such Officer of the portion of such performance-based compensation that is greater than that which would have been awarded or earned had such compensation been calculated on the basis of the restated financial results. Any such recoupment effort authorized by the Board or Committee shall be subject to the provisions of applicable compensation or employment agreements, including dispute resolution procedures. This policy shall be incorporated by reference into and shall apply to all performance-based compensation plans and awards granted on or after its adoption by the Committee.


For purposes of this policy, an act or omission will not be considered to constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct if the person in good faith relied upon the advice of the Company's external accountants or legal counsel.


This policy does not apply to restatements that the Board determines are required or permitted under generally accepted accounting principles in connection with the adoption or implementation of a new accounting standard or caused by the Company's decision to change its accounting practice as permitted by applicable law.






Effective as of July 14, 2014