alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01064201.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/642 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/642

---

(2004/C 88 E/0658)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3310/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline; violations of the ‘acquis communautaire’ by Turkey

Subject:

In connection with the construction of an oil pipeline between Baku (Azerbaijan) via Tbilisi (Georgia) to Ceyhan (Turkey), Turkey has allegedly violated a number of provisions concerning the environment and human rights which it would have had to comply with if European law applied to Turkey. There have not been any serious environmental impact assessments, property has been expropriated unlawfully, etc. Various NGOs have already protested about this.

The State of Turkey is one of the main partners in the consortium which intends to construct the pipeline. However, as it is also an applicant country, it may reasonably be expected to abide by the Copenhagen criteria, including therefore the ‘acquis communautaire’. The above-mentioned project makes it clear that it is no means doing so.

To what extent is the Commission monitoring developments with regard to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline? Has it contacted the Turkish authorities on the subject? If so, what was the outcome of the discussions?

Turkey receives pre-accession aid from the European Union. Will the Commission consider freezing this aid (or perhaps only part of it) if Turkey continues to disregard the Copenhagen criteria? Is there a specific timetable for this?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2003)

(5 December 2003)

In its regular report on Turkey's progress towards accession published on 5 November 2003, the Commission sets out its assessment of developments over the last year and the overall situation with regard to human rights and the protection of minorities.

As regards the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member concerning the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline project, any potential violations as regards human rights arising from the implementation of the pipeline project would have to be considered in the context of the Copenhagen political criteria.

Turkey is at this stage not bound by the environmental ‘acquis’, but the Commission is aware that environmental impact assessments have been carried out for this project, for example, to meet the conditions of international lending organisations.

The Commission continues to observe the developments with regard to this project.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>5
<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>                                           2,593
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,036,809
<DEPRECIATION>                                 181,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 983,981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,385
<BONDS>                                        461,726
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       475,870
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   983,981
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,551
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,707
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,167
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,167
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,167
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .93


</TABLE>
# C_2012355EN.01001803.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Ballast Nedam v Commission

(Case T-361/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Rights of the defence - Effects in relation to third parties of a judgment annulling a measure)

2012/C 355/36

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ballast Nedam NV (Nieuwegein (Netherlands)) (represented: initially by A. Bosman and J. van de Hel, and subsequently by A. Bosman and E. Oude Elferink, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, assisted initially by F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and L. Gyselen, and subsequently by F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative (i) application for annulment in part of that decision in so far as it sets the duration of the infringement with respect to the applicant and (ii) application for a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ballast Nedam NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ballast Nedam NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/202Show full title

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/202 of 9 February 2015 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against            Côte d'Ivoire         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/202                     

# of 9 February 2015

# amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)On 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP(1).

(2)A derogation from the prohibition on the sale, supply, transfer or export of equipment which might be used for internal repression                              should be introduced in order to enable the sale, supply, transfer or export of certain items solely for civilian use in mining                              or infrastructure projects.

(3)Further action by the Union is necessary in order to implement that measure,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

In Decision 2010/656/CFSP, the following Article is inserted:

# ‘Article 1a

Article 1 shall not apply to the sale, supply, transfer or export of certain equipment which might be used for internal repression                        where the equipment is solely for civilian use in mining or infrastructure projects, subject to authorisation on a case by                        case basis by the competent authorities of the exporting Member State.’.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

Done at Brussels, 9 February 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

F. Mogherini                            

1

Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (OJ L 285, 30.10.2010, p. 28).
STATE v. Mario Andrette McNEILL.

No. 446A13-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 27, 2015.

Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Assistant Appellate Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, for McNeill, Mario Andrette.

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

William West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of August 2015 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of August 2015."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 28th day of September 2015 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12.
# C_2008128EN.01001201.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-444/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/665/EEC - Public supply and works contracts - Review procedures for the award of public contracts)

(2008/C 128/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent, and C. Fernandez Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, abogados)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) — National legislation not in conformity with the directive

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to lay down a mandatory period for the contracting authority to notify the decision on the award of the contract to all the tenderers and by failing to provide for a mandatory waiting period between the award of the contract and its conclusion, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to lay down a mandatory period for the contracting authority to notify the decision on the award of the contract to all the tenderers and by failing to provide for a mandatory waiting period between the award of the contract and its conclusion, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay two thirds of all the costs. The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the other third. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay two thirds of all the costs. The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the other third.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 94-0857-CR, styled The State of Texas v. Derek Bailey, filed in the 1

25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas. 

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00476-CR

IN RE Derek BAILEY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 23, 2008

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On July 7, 2008, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to order (1)

the trial court to rule on his motion for new trial and (2) the district clerk to file and forward to this

court a notice of appeal. Relator has not provided this court with a copy of his motion for new trial,

which he alleges he filed on June 30, 2004. A motion for new trial “not timely ruled on by written

order will be deemed denied” by operation of law. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.8. 

This court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless

such writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Relator has not asserted that the writ he is requesting is necessary

to enforce our jurisdiction, nor has he provided a record that would support such an argument. Walker
04-08-00476-CR

-2-

v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (holding relator has burden of providing a sufficient record

to establish right to mandamus relief). 

For these reasons, this court has determined that relator is not entitled to the relief sought,

and the petition is DENIED. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
Exhibit 32


                         Certification of CEO and CFO
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Hummingbird Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 40-F for the year ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Alan Barry Litwin,
as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Inder P.S. Duggal, as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of his knowledge, that:

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

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


/s/  Alan Barry Litwin
---------------------------------------
By:     Alan Barry Litwin
Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
February 16, 2005


/s/ Inder P.S. Duggal
---------------------------------------
By:     Inder P.S. Duggal
Title:  Chief Financial Officer, Chief
        Controller, Secretary and Treasurer
February 16, 2005

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
exhibit103.htm


Exhibit 10.3







AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE


LOWE’S COMPANIES


EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN –


STOCK OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE







 


This Amendment No. 2 is made as of the 24th day of September, 2010, by Lowe’s Companies, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina (the “Company”).  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Lowe’s Companies Employee Stock Purchase Plan – Stock Options for Everyone (the “Plan”).


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, the Committee desires, pursuant to the authority granted to the Board under Article XIII of the Plan and delegated to the Committee by the Board, to amend the Plan, effective as of October 1, 2010 (the “Effective Date”), to limit the ability of a participant to withdraw from participation at the end of an offering period in order to improve the administration of the Plan.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of the Effective Date hereof, as follows:


 


1.           The first sentence of Section 8.01 is hereby revised to read as follows:


 


“A Participant may revoke his or her Enrollment Form for an Offering Period and withdraw from Participation in the Plan for that Offering Period by giving written or electronic notice authorized by the Administrator to that effect to the Administrator at any time before the last day of the month prior to the month in which the Date of Exercise occurs.” 


 


2.           Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Amendment No. 2.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has adopted this Amendment No. 2 to the Plan as of the Effective Date.


 


                         LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.




 







By:          ________________________________


Marshall A. Croom


 


   	
Title: SVP & Chief Risk Officer, Chairman Administrative Committee of 


    Lowe’s Companies, Inc.
EXHIBIT 32.1


      In connection with the Annual Report of BPC Holding Corporation and Berry
Plastics Corporation (the "Registrants") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 27, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ira G. Boots, the President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Registrants, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report containing the financial statements fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and

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


/s/ Ira G. Boots
______________________
Ira G. Boots
President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 18, 2004
# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2374 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2374 of 26 November 2015 adopting a ninth update of the list of sites of Community            importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (notified under document C(2015) 8222) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2374                     

# of 26 November 2015

# adopting a ninth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region

# *(notified under document C(2015) 8222)* (repealed)                     

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2328 of 9 December 2016 adopting a tenth update of the list of sites of Community                                 importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (notified under document C(2016) 8142).
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Ralph M. Amato, certify that:



1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of BoysToys.com, Inc.;



2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.   The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 143a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of the quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.





|Date:November 14, 2006 | By:/s/ Ralph M. AmatoRalph M. Amato
Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                       |