alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2007 – Spain v Council**

**(Case C‐184/06)**

Fisheries – Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 – Allocation of catch quotas among Member States – Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain – End of the transitional period – Requirement of relative stability – Principle of non-discrimination – New fishing opportunities

1.                     *Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality (Act of Accession of 1985; Council
Regulation No 51/2006) (see paras 32-37)*

2.                     *Accession of new Member States of the European Communities – Spain – Fisheries (Act of Accession of 1985, Arts 156 to 164;
Council Regulation No 51/2006) (see paras 44, 46-48)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 of 22 December 2005 fixing for 2006 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ 2006 L 16, p. 1) – Discrimination – Application of Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs. |
RIBELIN v. CREEL.

No. 112A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Robert L. Inge, Salisbury, for Creel, Phillip Ray.

Phillip Creel, for Creel, Phillip Ray.

Arlaine Rockey, Marshall, for Ribelin, Dana Marie (fka Creel).

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of April 2015 by Plaintiff-Appellant to Amend Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Amended Motion to Deem Timely Filed to Replace Court of Appeals Opinion:

> *837"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. Fran Lynette RODGERS.

No. COA15-1043.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
**Exhibit 31.02**
**Quintiles Transnational Corp. andSubsidiaries****Certification Pursuant To****Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**
I, James L. Bierman, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-K of Quintiles Transnational Corp.:
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
     (b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SECRelease Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986.]
     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     (d) Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: March 1, 2004
 /s/ JAMES L. BIERMAN      James L. Bierman     Chief Financial Officer
# C_2012118EN.01002202.xml

| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — FLSmidth v Commission

(Case T-65/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - Joint and several liability)

2012/C 118/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: FLSmidth & Co. A/S (Valby, Denmark) (represented by: J.-E. Svensson, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it holds FLSmidth & Co. A/S liable for the single and continuous infringement referred to in Article 1(1) thereof, for the period from 31 December 1990 to 31 December 1991; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) in so far as it holds FLSmidth & Co. A/S liable for the single and continuous infringement referred to in Article 1(1) thereof, for the period from 31 December 1990 to 31 December 1991;

| 2. | Sets the amount for payment of which FLSmidth & Co. is held jointly and severally liable under Article 2(f) of Decision C(2005) 4634 at EUR 14.45 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount for payment of which FLSmidth & Co. is held jointly and severally liable under Article 2(f) of Decision C(2005) 4634 at EUR 14.45 million;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission and FLSmidth & Co. each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission and FLSmidth & Co. each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

---
# C_2011340EN.01003402.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/34

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Pino v Commission

(Case F-31/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 - Candidate appearing on the reserve list before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 - Loss of promotion points)

2011/C 340/67

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marco Pino (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented, initially, by M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Commission decisions appointing the applicants, officials in Category B and successful candidates in an internal competition for change of category, in administrative posts, in so far as they determine the applicants’ grading pursuant to Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, maintain the application to their remuneration of a multiplication factor and reset their promotion points at zero.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131 of 03.06.06, p. 50.

1

---
Nies v. Town of Emerald Isle

409PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 10, 2016

J. David Breemer, Attorney at Law, Keith P. Anthony, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Nies, Gregory P., et al.

Brian E. Edes, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Norwood P. Blanchard, III, Attorney at Law, J. Allen Jernigan, Attorney at Law, for Town of Emerald Isle.

Elliot Engstrom, Attorney at Law, for Civitas Institute Center for Law and Freedom.

Robert H. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Jason T. Campbell, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Owners' Counsel of America, et al.

*444James Patrick Longest, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Surfrider Foundation.

Geoffrey R. Gisler, Attorney at Law, Derb S. Carter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Southern Environmental Law Center.

Mary Louise Lucasse, Special Deputy Attorney General, for N.C. Coastal Resources Commission.

Todd S. Roessler, Attorney at Law, Phillip A. Harris, Jr., Attorney at Law, Joseph S. Dowdy, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Joseph J. Kalo, Attorney at Law, Amy Y. Bason, General Counsel, Walter Derrickson Taylor, Attorney at Law, Neil B. Whitford, Attorney at Law, Morehead City, Garris Neil Yarborough, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Charles S. Lanier, Attorney at Law, Jacksonville, Carl W. Thurman, III, Attorney at Law, Stephen D. Coggins, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney, John C. Wessell, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte Noel Fox, Attorney at Law, A. A. Canoutas, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Robert V. Shaver, Jr., Attorney at Law, Charles S. Baldwin, IV, Attorney at Law, Justin K. Humphries, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Michael R. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, Southport, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Graham Kenan Professor of Law Emeritus Joseph Kalo, et al.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, Marc Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina Ex Rel. Attorney General Roy Cooper.

J. Mitchell Armbruster, Attorney at Law, B. Davis Horne, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Eva G. Frongello, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Travel and Tourism Coalition, et al.

Sam Hayes, Attorney at Law, David B. Efird, Deputy General Counsel, Beth A. Onyenwoke, Attorney at Law, Kevin V. Howell, Attorney at Law, for Department of Environmental Quality, et al.

Benjamin Marshall Gallop, Attorney at Law, John D. Leidy, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth City, Robert B. Hobbs, Jr., Attorney at Law, Nags Head, Donald I. McRee, Jr., Currituck County Attorney, Ronald G. Baker, Attorney at Law, Casey C. Varnell, Attorney at Law, for County of Dare, et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief filed on the 8th of August 2016 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of August 2016."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 22nd day of August 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
EXHIBIT
4.2

     

    AMENDMENT
TO $80,000 8.25% CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE

    DATED
MAY 8, 2009

    


    WHEREAS, on May 8, 2009 Touchstone
Mining Ltd., a Nevada corporation (the “Obligor”), issued a
8.25% Convertible Promissory Note (the “Note”) due November
8, 2010 (the “Original
Maturity Date”) in the principal amount of $80,000.00 in favor of
Milestone Enhanced Fund Ltd. (the “Payee”);
and

    


    WHEREAS, the Obligor and the
Payee wish to amend
the terms of the Note, to extend the Original Maturity Date by six (6) months
and to provide for the accrual of interest on the outstanding principal amount
of the Note during such extension.

    


    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
mutual promises set forth herein, the Obligor and the Payee hereby agree that: (i)
the unpaid principal balance of the Note shall be due and payable on May 8, 2011
(the “New Maturity
Date”), and (ii) interest shall accrue on the unpaid principal balance of
the Note at an annual rate of 8.25% from the Original Maturity Date until the
New Maturity Date, and shall be paid in full on the New Maturity
Date.  All other terms and conditions of the Note remain
unchanged.

    


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Amendment has been duly executed by the Obligor and acknowledged by the Payee as
of the 8th day of
November 2010.

    


    
      
        	 
      	
                TOUCHSTONE
      MINING LTD.

              
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                By: 

              	
                  /s/ Ronald
      Asirwatham

              
	 
      	
                Name:     Ronald
      Asirwatham

              
	 
      	
                Title:       President
      and Chief Executive Officer

              
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                MILESTONE
      ENHANCED FUND LTD.

              
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                By:

              	
                  /s/ Anthony A.
      McKinney

              
	 
      	
                Name:     Anthony
      A. McKinney

              
	 
      	
                Title:       Director
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-03886, Form S-8 No. 333-37299, Form S-8 No. 333-74565, Form
S-8 No. 333-96197, Form S-8 No. 333-37658 and Form S-8 No. 333-72778) pertaining
to the Renal Care Group, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Renal Care
Group, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1996 Stock Option
Plan for Outside Directors, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan,
the Renal Care Group, Inc. Third Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan, the
Renal Care Group, Inc. Fourth Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan,
the Dialysis Centers of America, Inc. Equity Compensation Plan, the Renal Care
Group, Inc. 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Renal Disease Management by
Physicians, Inc. Amended and Restated 1997/1998 Stock Plan, and the Renal Care
Group, Inc. Amended and Restated 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan of our report
dated February 16, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Renal Care Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 2001.



                                         /s/  Ernst & Young LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
March 29, 2002
# C_2010328EN.01006001.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/60

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — de Luca v Commission

(Case F-20/06) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Appointment - Officials advancing to a higher function group by open competition - Candidate placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment - Classification in grade pursuant to the new, less favourable rules - Article 5(2) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

2010/C 328/96

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Patricia de Luca (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 February 2005 appointing the applicant, an official already graded at A*10 and a successful candidate in a competition for grades A5/A4, to a post as an administrator in the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security in so far as it alters her classification in grade from A*10 to A*9

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006, p. 31.

1

---
# CE2004078EN.01012101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/121 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/121

---

(2004/C 78 E/0122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2521/03

by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Linguistic plurality of Spain with regard to passports

Subject:

The Resolution of 10 July 1995 (1) requires all Member States to adjust the format of their passports by replacing the term ‘European Communities’ with that of ‘European Union’.

1

In connection with this adjustment, a proposal was tabled in the Spanish Parliament that centred on recognising the plurality of official languages in passports of citizens resident in autonomous communities where there is more than one official language. However, the Spanish Government rejected this proposal, citing the Resolution of 23 June 1981 (2).

2

Since Article I-3 of the Draft EU Constitutional Treaty states that ‘The Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity’ and Article II-22 thereof adds that ‘The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity’, thus echoing the Charter on Fundamental Rights, and given the conclusions of the European Year of Languages established by decision of the Parliament and the Council: Does the Commission intend to propose that the said Resolution be amended so that, whenever the case arises, all the official languages in an EU Member State are included?

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 4.8.1995, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 241, 19.9.1981, p. 1.

2

---
In the Matter of T.E. and K.E., Jr.

No. COA15-261.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded.
ORBAN v. PIKE CORPORATION, et al.

No. 32A16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 8, 2016.

Scott M. Tyler, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Pike Corporation.

Glenn E. Ketner, III, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Pike Corporation.

David G. Schiller, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Orban, Michael.

J. Daniel Albert, Attorney at Law, for Orban, Michael.

The following order has been entered on the motion to Dismiss Appeal filed on the 5th of February 2016 by Plaintiff:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of February 2016."
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01







INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 
33-77860, 33-70802 and 33-70804 of MotivePower Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 of 
our reports dated February 11, 1999 (March 2, 1999 as to Note 18), appearing in 
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MotivePower Industries, Inc. for the year 
ended December 31, 1998.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 8, 1999
# CE2004070EN.01016101.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/161 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/161

---

(2004/C 70 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2905/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Subject:   Unemployment in Greece on the basis of the 2001 census

Subject:

According to an article by a distinguished academic and former minister, unemployment in Greece is in the region of 9,5 % rather than the 8,9 % announced by the National Statistical Service (NSS).

This assessment derives from the fact that the NSS measures the level of unemployment on the basis of the 1991 rather than the 2001 census, thereby underestimating the workforce between the ages of 15 and 44 but, conversely, overestimating the workforce over the age of 45. The result of this for the second quarter of 2003 is that the workforce has been underestimated by 461 600, those in employment by 390 300 and the unemployed by 71 300.

What are the Commission's views on this matter? Is the NSS' method of measuring or the view taken by the above academic correct? Finally, what is the level of unemployment in Greece according to the latest available data?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

(5 November 2003)

Pursuant to the applicable Community legislation, the measurement of unemployment should comply with the definition of Article 1 and 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2000 of 7 September 2000 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 on the organisation of a labour force sample survey in the Community concerning the operational definition of unemployment (1), and Greece is in full compliance.

1

In relation to the source used to calculate the weighting factors, Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 of 9 March 1998 (2) does not specify the source (population registers, census, etc.).

2

The latest non-seasonally adjusted data for Greece available in Eurostat correspond to the 2nd quarter 2003 and show an unemployment rate of 8,9 %. These data are available in the New Cronos database: Theme 3 \ Labour Force Survey (LFS) \ unemployment. The seasonally adjusted unemployment data, as published in the last monthly press release of Eurostat (No 113/2003 of 1 October 2003) show a 9,2 % rate for Greece for the 2nd quarter 2003.

The Commission does not wish to express a view on diverging academic positions.

---

(1)  OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.

1

(2)  OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.

2

---