alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008079EN.01000702.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-69/07) (1)

1

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/35/EC - Environment - Public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2008/C 79/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to implement, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to implement the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to implement the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the Directive;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
EXHIBIT (23)


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual  Report on
Form 10-K of LaCrosse  Footwear,  Inc.  of our report  dated  February  10, 2000
(except  for Note 10, as to which the date is March 14,  2000),  included in the
1999 Annual Report to Shareholders of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos.  33-77516,  33-77518 and 333-2702)  pertaining to the LaCrosse
Footwear,  Inc. Employees' Retirement Savings Plan, the LaCrosse Footwear,  Inc.
Union Employees'  Retirement Savings Plan and the LaCrosse  Footwear,  Inc. 1993
Employee Stock  Incentive Plan of our report dated February 10, 2000 (except for
Note  10,  as to  which  the  date is  March  14,  2000),  with  respect  to the
consolidated  financial  statements  incorporated  herein by reference,  and our
report dated February 10, 2000 (except for Note 10 of the consolidated financial
statements,  as to which  the date is  March  14,  2000),  with  respect  to the
financial  statement  schedule  included in this  Annual  Report on Form 10-K of
LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.




                                             McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP


La Crosse, Wisconsin
March 28, 2000
#### In the Matter of Christina Dominique B., an Infant. St. Christopher-Ottilie, Respondent; Connie Renee M., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Victoria LaChristian B., Also Known as Victoria B., an Infant. St. Christopher-Ottilie, Respondent; Connie Renee M., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Megan Nicole Loreen T., Also Known as Megan T., an Infant. St. Christopher-Ottile, Respondent; Connie Renee M., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.)

[800 NYS2d 196]

In three related proceedings pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of three orders of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Lim, J.), all dated March 25, 2004 (one as to each child), as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and upon her default in appearing at the dispositional hearing, determined that she permanently neglected the subject children, terminated her parental rights, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and St. Christopher-Ottilie for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the appeals from so much of the orders of fact-finding and disposition as terminated the mother’s parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject children upon her default in appearing at the dispositional hearing are dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from those portions of the orders which were entered upon the mother’s default *(see Matter of Iris R.,*295 AD2d 521 [2002]; *Matter of Vanessa M.,*263 AD2d 542 [1999]); and it is further,

Ordered that the orders of fact-finding and disposition are affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the petitioning agency met its burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that despite its diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, the mother permanently neglected her children by failing to plan for their future *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]; *Matter of Michael B.,*80 NY2d 299 [1992]; *Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136 [1984]; *Matter of Sheila G.,*61 NY2d 368 [1984]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 10 October 2008 – Inter-Ikea v OHIM (Representation of a pallet)**

**(Joined Cases T-387/06 to T-390/06)**

Community trade mark – Application for registration of figurative Community trade mark representing a pallet – Absolute ground for refusal – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 34-45)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTIONS brought against four decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 September 2006 (R 353/2006‐1, R 354/2006‐1, R 355/2006‐1 and R 356/2006‐1) concerning applications for the registration of four figurative trade marks consisting of graphic representations of a pallet. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade marks: | Inter-Ikea Systems BV |
| Community trade marks sought: | Figurative marks representing a pallet, for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 16, 20, 35, 39 and 42 — Application Nos 4073763, 4073731, 4073748 and 4073722 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decisions of the Board of Appeal: | Appeals dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2006 (R 353/2006-1, R 354/2006-1, R 355/2006‐1 and R 356/2006-1) in so far as registration of the marks applied for was refused in respect of goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 16, 20, 35, 39 and 42 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended to the exclusion of ‘loading pallets of metal’, ‘loading carriers and loading pallets of metal for packaging and transportation purposes’ and ‘metal transport pallets’, in Class 6; ‘goods pallets not of metal’, ‘loading pallets and loading carriers not of metal for packaging and transportation purposes’ and ‘transport pallets not of metal’, in Class 20; and ‘rental of loading pallets’ services, in Class 39; |

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
# CE2004078EN.01024002.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/240 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/240

---

(2004/C 78 E/0243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3219/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2003)

Subject:   Recognition of fire regulations in the EU

Subject:

With regard to the fireproofing of fabrics there seems to be confusion over the recognition of different standard marks from EU countries.

Would the Commission confirm that the British standard mark number for the fireproofing of fabric, BS5867 PART 2B, is equivalent to the French mark number M1?

Is the British standard mark legally acceptable in France?

Could the Commission give details of the legislation within the EU that concerns this?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

(10 December 2003)

There is currently no Community legislation harmonising the standards for the fireproofing of fabrics. Accordingly, Member States are free to adopt their own standards. However, the free movement of fabrics between Member States is nevertheless assured to a considerable extent by the principle of mutual recognition, derived from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, in particular on the basis of Articles 28 and following of the EC Treaty.

This principle obliges a Member State to permit the placing on its market of a product lawfully manufactured or sold in another Member State unless it can show that the product does not afford a degree of protection of a legitimate public interest equivalent to that guaranteed by its own legislative or administrative requirements.

Therefore, if the French authorities decide not to permit the placing on the market in France of products complying with the British standard, it is for them to justify such refusal by demonstrating that the products do not afford sufficient protection of the consumer.

A lack of appropriate justifications may entail the breach of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice.

---
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration No. 10191 and No. 10192]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Kentucky dated 09/07/2005. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         08/29/2005. *Effective Date:*
                         09/07/2005. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/07/2005. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/07/2006.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area Office 3, 14925 Kingsport Road Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Christian. Contiguous Counties: Kentucky: Caldwell, Hopkins, Muhlenberg, Todd, and Trigg. Tennessee: Montgomery, Stewart. The Interest Rates are: PercentHomeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.375Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.687Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
6.557Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
4.750Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10191 6 and for economic injury is 10192 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration number are: Kentucky, Tennessee. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: September 7, 2005. Hector V. Barreto, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 05-18435 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# C_2010234EN.01005501.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/55

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 — Bergström v Commission

(Case F-64/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Appointment - Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials - Candidates names included on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules on grading upon recruitment - Grading pursuant to the new less favourable rules - Article 5(4) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

2010/C 234/99

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ragnar Bergström (Linkebeek, Belgium) (represented by: initially, T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, and, subsequently, T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 10 August 2005 by which the applicant, a member of the temporary staff who was successful in open competition COM/A/3/02, was appointed as an official in Grade A*6, step 2, in accordance with the provisions of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

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 165, 15.7.2006, p. 36.

1

---
# C_2009220EN.01000301.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH, Vfw GmbH, Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme, BellandVision GmbH

(Case C-385/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Article 82 EC - System for the collection and recovery of used packaging in Germany - ‘Der Grüne Punkt’ logo - Fee payable under a trade mark agreement - Abuse of dominant position - Exclusive right of the proprietor of a trade mark - Excessive duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance - Reasonable time - Principle of effective legal protection - Articles 58 and 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice)

2009/C 220/03

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH (represented by: W. Deselaers, E. Wagner and B. Meyring, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls and R. Sauer, acting as Agents), Vfw GmbH (represented by: H. Wissel, Rechtsanwalt), Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme (represented by: A. Rinne and M. Westrup, Rechtsanwälte), Belland Vision GmbH (represented by: A. Rinne and M. Westrup, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Intervener in support of the Commission: Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH (represented by: W. Pauly, A. Oexle and J. Kempkes, Rechtsanwälte)

Intervener in support of the Commission:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 24 May 2007 in Case T-151/01 Duales System Deutschland v Commission, by which that Court dismissed the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2001/463/EC of 20 April 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC (Case COMP D3/34493 — DSD) (OJ 2001 L 166, p. 1) — Abuse of a dominant position — Collection and recovery system for packaging put into circulation in Germany and carrying the Der Grüne Punkt logo

Duales System Deutschland

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs, together with the costs of these proceedings incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH, Vfw GmbH, Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme and BellandVision GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs, together with the costs of these proceedings incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH, Vfw GmbH, Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme and BellandVision GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2009.

1

---
# C_2008022EN.01001601.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-106/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/59/EC - Port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues - Failure to have developed and implemented waste reception and handling plans for all ports)

(2008/C 22/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bordes and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Hare, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to develop and implement, within the prescribed period, waste reception and handling plans for all its ports, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to develop and implement, within the prescribed period, waste reception and handling plans for all its ports, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-331-CV

DENNIS DEWAYNE PAIGE APPELLANT

V.

RESSIE OWENS, CHAIRWOMAN, APPELLEE

TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES 

----------

FROM THE 78 DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY TH

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT 1

----------

We have considered appellant’s request for the court to withdraw his

appeal. It is the court’s opinion that the request should be granted; therefore,

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ. 

DELIVERED: September 4, 2008
The ASSURANCE GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. Samuel Allen BARE and Deborah Lynn Bare, Marcheta Perry Sawyer, Timothy Mark Byrd, Gregory Todd Byrd, James Chandler Beck, Michael Wayne Anderson, Jeffrey A. Heybrock, Charles Bernard Moore, Jr, Defendants.

No. COA15-386.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Nashid PORTER

No. 153P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 23, 2016

Mr. Nashid Porter, For Porter, Nashid.

Mr. Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Ben R. David, District Attorney, For State of N.C.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of April 2016 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of May 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 6th of May 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, New Hanover County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of May 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of May 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

*438"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of May 2016."
----

(2004/C 65 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2738/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Transit visas in the EU

Is the Commission aware that some Member States are adopting a new practice and requiring travellers to purchase a Transit Visa costing GBP 40 for ‘not landing’? Could the Commission indicate whether it believes that (a) this charge is wholly unjust and (b) it threatens to distort the travelling patterns of travellers as they move through the EU and try to avoid those Member States?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the facts referred to by the Honorable Member. Since it does not have the information to carry out the necessary investigation into the problem raised, it regrets that it is at present unable to answer the question.

----