alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023329EN.01001301.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2023 — Touristic Aviation Services Limited v flightright GmbH

(Case C-405/23, Touristic Aviation Services)

(2023/C 329/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: Touristic Aviation Services Limited

Applicant and respondent: flightright GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a shortage of staff at the airport operator, or at a company commissioned by the airport operator, responsible for handling the baggage loading operations to be provided by that airport operator, constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, within the meaning of that provision, that has an external and uncontrollable effect on the normal activity of the air carrier using that service of the airport operator / company commissioned by that airport operator, or is the loading of baggage by the airport operator / a company commissioned by that airport operator and a shortage of loading staff at that airport operator / company commissioned by that airport operator to be classified as part of the normal exercise of the activity of that air carrier, such that an exculpation as provided for under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 can be considered only if the reason for the shortage of staff constitutes an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of that provision?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
Town of Beech Mountain v. Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc.

230A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 7, 2016

Patrick H. Flanagan, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Meagan I. Kiser, Attorney at Law, Stacy C. Eggers, IV, Attorney at Law, Boone, Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Town of Beech Mountain.

Charles E. Clement, Attorney at Law, Boone, John J. Korzen, Attorney at Law, for Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc.

Charles A. Brady, III, Attorney at Law.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of June 2016 by Defendant to Strike Issue II from Notice of Appeal Based on Dissent in Court of Appeals:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of July 2016."
Exhibit 32.2
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 on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc. (the“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”), theundersigned, Milton A. Alpern, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: November 15, 2004 /s/ Milton A. Alpern   Milton A. Alpern   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
NUMBER 13-07-00387-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

DEBORAH KAI BERESKY, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Vela 

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Deborah Kai Beresky, by and through her attorney, has filed a motion to

dismiss her appeal because she no longer desires to prosecute it. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.2(a). Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having

dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained,
2

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 9th day of October, 2008.
3
# C_2008171EN.01000702.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie, Republic of Poland) — Halina Nerkowska v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie

(Case C-499/06) (1)

1

(Disability pension granted to civilian victims of war or repression - Condition requiring residence in national territory - Article 18(1) EC)

(2008/C 171/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Halina Nerkowska

Applicant:

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie — Interpretation of Article 18 EC — Compatibility of a national provision under which payment of a benefit granted to victims of war and of its consequences is subject to a requirement of residence in national territory

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(1) EC is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it refuses, generally and in all circumstances, to pay to its nationals a benefit granted to civilian victims of war or repression solely because they are not resident in the territory of that State throughout the period of payment of the benefit, but in the territory of another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. James Madison HARLEY.

No. 533P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Paul Green, Durham, for Harley.

Thomas Pitman, Special Deputy Attorney General, William D. Kenerly, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th day of December 2008 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 5th day of February 2009."
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
of the Chief Financial Officer


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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 26,
2009, of CKE Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Theodore Abajian,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or Section
      78o(d)); and





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





In
witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this certificate as
of the date set forth opposite his signature below.





Date:
March 25,
2009





/s/TheodoreAbajianTheodore AbajianExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
#### In the Matter of Jeffrey Berkowitz et al., Appellants, v Christopher P. St. Lawrence, et al., Respondents.

[800 NYS2d 197]

*414In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Christopher E St. Lawrence, the Supervisor of the Town of Ramapo, dated May 30, 2003, which, after a hearing, determined that the petition for the incorporation of the proposed Village of Forshay Hills was legally insufficient, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), dated February 11, 2004, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

At issue here is the validity of a petition for the incorporation of the Village of Forshay Hills in the Town of Ramapo. The Supervisor of the Town of Ramapo (hereinafter the Supervisor) determined that the petition was legally insufficient, inter alia, on the ground that the authenticating affidavit of the witness was not “set forth at the bottom” of the signature page, but, rather, appeared on a separate, succeeding sheet. The Supervisor correctly determined that the incorporation petition failed to comply with the requirements of article 2 of the Village Law *(see*Village Law § 2-202 [1] [e] [4]; *Matter of McKague v Pearsall,*277 NY 333 [1938]; *Matter of Valone,*257 AD 603 [1939]; *Matter of Ransburg v Putterman,*35 Misc 2d 653 [1962]; *Matter of Holmes,*194 Misc 866 [1949]; *cf. Matter of Bay v Santoianni,*264 AD2d 488 [1999]; *Matter of Morabito v Campbell,*59 AD2d 703 [1977]). Since strict compliance with the statutory provisions is required *(see Matter of Baker v Heaney,*15 AD3d 577 [2005]; *Matter of Elevitch v Colello,*168 AD2d 681, 682 [1990]; *Matter of Luria v Conklin,*139 AD2d 650 [1988]; *Matter of Incorporation of Vil. of Viola Hills,*129 AD2d 579, 580 [1987]; *see also Matter of Incorporation of Proposed Vil. of Monsey,*133 AD2d 84, 85 [1987]; *Matter of Proposed Vil. of Kaser,*123 AD2d 320 [1986]), the petition’s failure to comply with this requirement was fatal, and the Supreme Court properly concluded that the petition was legally insufficient.

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the petitioners’ remaining contentions. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Curtis Kantawiti WHITE, Jr. v. STATE of North Carolina, Carl F. Fox, Chief Judge.

No. 434P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 29, 2015.

Curtis Kantawiti White, Jr., for White, Curtis Kantawiti (Jr.).

*467Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C., et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 28th of December 2015 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Orange County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of December 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,914,087
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,675,423
<ALLOWANCES>                                   295,844
<INVENTORY>                                  2,810,575
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,038,025
<PP&E>                                     104,569,733
<DEPRECIATION>                             123,758,172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,313,859
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,794
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,240,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               123,758,172
<SALES>                                     11,766,125
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,766,125
<CGS>                                        8,742,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,108,188
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,905
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,358,794
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,358,794
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,358,794
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3767 

To amend Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to provide 

victims of sexual assault ‘‘rape shield’’ protections and the right to 

representation by a Special Victims’ Counsel. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Mr. RYAN of Ohio (for himself, Mr. TURNER, Ms. TSONGAS, Ms. GRANGER, 

and Ms. SPEIER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

to provide victims of sexual assault ‘‘rape shield’’ protections and the right to representation by a Special Victims’ Counsel. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Shield Act’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3767 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPEARANCE OF SPECIAL VICTIMS’ COUNSEL ON 

2 BEHALF OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM AT 

3 AN ARTICLE 32 INVESTIGATION AND PROHI4 BITION ON ADMISSION OF CERTAIN EVI5 DENCE. 

6 Section 832 of title 10, United States Code (article 

7 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and 

9 (e) as subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and 

10 (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol11 lowing new subsections: 

12 ‘‘(c)(1) At the investigation, a Special Victims’ Coun13 sel may speak on behalf of the victim of an offense de14 scribed in paragraph (2), when the victim has a right to 

15 be heard. A victim has a right to be heard when specified 

16 in the Manual for Courts Martial, but, at a minimum, the 

17 victim has a right to be heard regarding the privilege de18 scribed in subsection (d). 

19 ‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘Special Victims’ 

20 Counsel’ means an attorney who has formed an attorney21 client relationship with an alleged victim of an offense cov22 ered by section 920 or 925 of this title (article 120 or 

23 125) or of an attempt to commit such an offense, as pun24 ishable under section 880 of this title (article 80). 

25 ‘‘(d) An alleged victim of an offense described in sub26 section (c)(2) may not be questioned about any sexual beVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:59 Dec 21, 2013 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3767.IH H3767

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3767 IH

1 havior on the part of the alleged victim that is not directly 

2 related to the charge or specification being investigated 

3 under this section (article). No evidence may be admitted 

4 at the investigation for the purpose of proving or showing 

5 a sexual predisposition on the part of the alleged victim.’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 – SPM v Council and Commission**

**(Case T-128/05)**

Non-contractual liability of the Community – Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – Rules for importing of bananas from ACP countries into the European Union – Lawful or unlawful conduct – Loss allegedly suffered by independent ACP producer

1.                     *Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals (Art.
288, second para., EC) (see paras 53-56)*

2.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance,
Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 62-64)*

3.                     *Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Discretion of the Community institutions – Scope – Judicial review – Limits (see
paras 94, 114)*

4.                     *International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Direct effect – Conditions – Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention
(Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention on 15 December 1989, Art. 168 and Protocol No 5; ACP-EC Cotonou Agreement, Protocol No 5,
Art. 1) (see paras 97-106, 119, 131)*

5.                     *Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – System of importation (Council Regulation No 1637/98; Commission
Regulation No 2362/98) (see paras 116, 146-159, 164-170, 178-182)*

6.                     *Competition – Administrative procedure – Examination of complaints (Council Regulation No 856/1999; ACP-EC Cotonou Agreement,
Protocol No 5, Art. 1) (see paras 132-133)*

7.                     *Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Legal measure – Real damage, causal link and unusual and special damage – Cumulative
nature (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 187-188)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for damages pursuant to Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, based, principally, on the unlawful conduct of the Council and the Commission in the establishment of the rules relating to the import of bananas into the Community and, alternatively, on the liability of the Community in the absence of unlawful conduct by those two institutions. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) to pay the costs. |
# C_2010179EN.01002901.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Wieland-Werke and Others v Commission

(Case T-11/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous and multiform infringement - Ne bis in idem principle - Fines - Actual impact on the market - Size of the relevant market - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)

(2010/C 179/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Wieland-Werke AG (Ulm, Germany); Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH (Amstetten, Austria); and Austria Buntmetall AG (Enzesfeld, Austria); (represented by: R. Bechtold and U. Soltész, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, Agents, and by G. Eickstädt, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Huber and G. Kimberley, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes); second, in the alternative, for reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants by that decision; and third, by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for those fines to be increased.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

| 3. | Orders Wieland-Werke AG, Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH and Austria Buntmetall AG to bear their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Wieland-Werke AG, Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH and Austria Buntmetall AG to bear their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs;

| 5. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6673

MARCUS LANE, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

C.T. WOODY, Sheriff; LT. COL. BURNETT; DR. FURMA, Head Doctor

Richmond City Jail Medical Department,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:08-cv-00109-TSE-JFA)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Lane, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Lane, Sr., appeals a district court order

dismissing without prejudice his complaint for failing to provide

a current mailing address. Because Lane was obligated to keep the

district court informed of any change of address, we affirm the

court’s order. We deny Lane’s motions for transcript at government

expense and appointment of counsel. 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
# C_2010234EN.01003101.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EEA

(Case T-331/06) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - EEA tendering procedure - Provision of information technology consultancy services - Rejection of the tender - Action for annulment - Jurisdiction of the Court - Award criteria set out in the tender specifications - Sub-criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based)

2010/C 234/52

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 Environment Agency (EEA) (represented by: M. Hofstötter, Agent, and J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the EEA of 14 September 2006 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure EEA/IDS/06/002 relating to the provision of information technology consultancy services (OJ 2006 S 118-125101) and to award the public contract to other tenderers

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 pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---