alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 – Commission v Greece**

**(Case C‐440/06)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 91/271/EEC – Pollution and nuisance – Treatment of urban waste water – Articles 3 and 4

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 16)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Proof of failure – Burden of proof on the Commission (Art. 226 EC) (see paras
27-28)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) – Failure to have ensured appropriate treatment of urban waste water in 24 agglomerations. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that, by failing to ensure that the agglomerations of Artemida, Chrysoupoli, Igoumenitsa, Heraklion (Crete), Katerini, Koropi, Lefkimmi, Litochoro (Prieria), Malia, Markopoulo, Megara, Nea Kidonia (Crete), Navpaktos, Nea Makri, Parikia (Paros), Poros-Galatas, Rafina, Thessaloniki (tourist zone), Tripoli, Zakynthos, Alexandria (Imathia), Edessa and Kalymnos are, where appropriate, provided with collecting systems for urban waste water meeting the requirements of Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water and/or urban waste water treatment systems satisfying the requirements of Article 4 of that directive, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the remainder of the action. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
**Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2007 – V v Parliament**

**(Case T‐345/05 R)**

Applications for interim measures – Waiver of immunity of a Member of the European Parliament – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Application for interim measures – Admissibility – Urgency

1.                     *Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency
– Prima facie case – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of the interests (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court
of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-26)*

2.                     *Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions of admissibility
– Prima facie admissibility of the main action (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance,
Art. 104(1)) (see paras 42-52)*

3.                     *Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Interest of the applicant
in obtaining the suspension sought (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras
55-60)*

4.                     *Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(d)) and 104(3)) (see para. 63)*

5.                     *Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and
irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 81-83, 90, 92)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| APPLICATION, firstly, for suspension of the operation of the Resolution of the European Parliament [confidential] to waive the applicant’s immunity from suit, secondly, for interim measures to prevent criminal proceedings being resumed pending final judgment of the Court of First Instance in the main action, thirdly, for an order that the applicant’s anonymity be protected and that there be no publicity in respect of the present application pending the ruling of the Court of First Instance on the main application and the conclusion of any trial before the national court, fourthly, for a direction that the applicant be granted permission to disclose the parties’ written pleadings in the interlocutory proceedings and in the main action to the prosecuting authority in the United Kingdom and to the national court hearing the domestic case and, fifthly, for an order that the hearing of the main application be expedited so as to take place as soon as possible. |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Costs are reserved. |
# C_2009090EN.01002302.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2009 — Borax Europe v Commission

(Case T-166/05) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents and sound recordings - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process)

2009/C 90/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Borax Europe Ltd (Guildford, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Vandermeersch and K. Nordlander, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and I. Chatzigiannis, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of 21 February 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967(I), p. 234)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 21 February 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing Borax Europe Ltd access to the recordings of the meeting of 5 and 6 October 2004, to two drafts of the summary record of that meeting, to thirteen comments from experts, to two comments from industry representatives and to the document submitted by the Danish Rapporteur; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 21 February 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing Borax Europe Ltd access to the recordings of the meeting of 5 and 6 October 2004, to two drafts of the summary record of that meeting, to thirteen comments from experts, to two comments from industry representatives and to the document submitted by the Danish Rapporteur;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.

1

---
STATE v. BOOE.

No. COA08-482.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Davie (07CRS50434).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
### Court ofAppeals, State ofMichigan 

### ORDER Chamita Sadler v City ofDetroit Docket No. 336117 LC No . 16-010827-NO Elizabeth L. Gleicher Presiding Judge Stephen 

### L. Borrello Brock A. Swartzle

Judges The Court orders that the March 1, 2018 opinion is hereby VACATED, and new opinions are attached.

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., ChiefClerk, on 

# MAR 

# 0 6 2018 Date
Accountants' Consent
                 --------------------






The Board of Directors
Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc.:




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc. of our
report dated May 8, 2000, relating to the consolidated
statements of financial condition of Harbor Federal Bancorp,
Inc. and subsidiary as of March 31, 2000 and 1999, and the
related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive
income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2000 which report
is included in the March 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-KSB
of Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc.





                                  /s/ KPMG LLP



Baltimore, Maryland
June 14, 2000
# C_2008008EN.01003002.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/30

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 — Michail v Commission

(Case F-34/06) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Evaluation - Career evaluation report - 2004 evaluation period - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2008/C 8/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meïdanis)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, Agents, and later by H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agent, assisted by E. Bourtzalas, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

On the one hand, annulment of the applicant's career evaluation report for the 2004 evaluation period and, on the other, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 154 of 1.7.2006, p. 24.

1

---
In the Matter of S.C.

No. COA15-612.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# CE2004084EN.01049701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/497 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/497

---

(2004/C 84 E/0575)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2817/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject:   Revamped Olympic Airlines

Subject:

On 29 August the Greek Transport Minister, Mr Christos Verelis, tabled an amendment in Parliament announcing the creation of the revamped Olympic Airlines, to be called Olympic Airlines. This new company will be exclusively concerned with flight operations inherited from the merger of the relevant branches of Olympic Airways, Olympic Aviation and Macedonian Airlines. The minister also said that Olympic Airlines would employ 1 850 people and have capital of EUR 140 million. He stated that Macedonian Airlines provided the legal framework for the creation of the new company, while the procedure for spinning off operations was entirely in line with Community and national legislation.

| 1. | Was the Commission regularly briefed during the procedure for the creation of the revamped Olympic Airlines, as the Greek Government has declared? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Was the Commission regularly briefed during the procedure for the creation of the revamped Olympic Airlines, as the Greek Government has declared?

| 2. | To what extent does the Commission consider the specific solution compatible with Community law, and how safe are the jobs of employees in this new company? |
| --- | --- |

2.

To what extent does the Commission consider the specific solution compatible with Community law, and how safe are the jobs of employees in this new company?

| 3. | How and when does the Commission intend to intervene in this specific case? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How and when does the Commission intend to intervene in this specific case?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2003)

(20 October 2003)

The Commission had regular contacts with the Greek authorities regarding the proposed privatisation of Olympic Airways. However, the information received was relatively incomplete. In order to speed up the transmission of information, following passage of the privatisation law on 5 September 2003, the Commission adopted a decision on 8 September 2003 enjoining Greece to send it any relevant information concerning the privatisation of Olympic Airways. The Commission received a reply from the Greek authorities, dated 11 September 2003. This is now being examined.

As the Commission does not have all the details of the proposed privatisation, it cannot give an opinion on its compliance with Community law. Moreover, at this stage no information is available on the social aspects of the plan, or the arrangements for winding up activities which will not be taken over by the new company.

The Commission is still in close contact with the Greek authorities, who have undertaken to send it the final privatisation plan before it is implemented, so that the Commission may give an opinion on its compliance with Community law.

---
EXHIBIT 32

                    Certification of CEO and CFO 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-KSB of Xechem
International, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Dr. Ramesh C. Pandey, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Dr. Ramesh C. Pandey, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

            (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 results of operations of
      the Company.

                                                     /s/ Ramesh C. Pandey, Ph.D.
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Ramesh C. Pandey, Ph.D.
                                                     Chief Executive Officer

                                                     Date:  April 15, 2005

                                                     /s/ Ramesh C. Pandey, Ph.D.
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Ramesh C. Pandey, Ph.D.
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

                                                     Date:  April 15, 2005
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements pertaining to the PRT Group, Inc. Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan (Form S-8
No. 333-44725), pertaining to the PRT Group Inc. 401(k) Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-95247), and pertaining to the PRT Group, Inc.
Form S-3 related to the shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the Series A Senior Participating Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock and related warrants
(Form S-3 No. 333-36468) of our report dated February 3, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of enherent Corp.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

/s/
ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Dallas
March 21, 2003

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 99.26
 CONSENT OF P. J. BARTON
   1.
    
    The technical report dated March 31, 2006 entitled Technical Report
NI 43-101F1 Los Filos Project, Mexico (the Los Filos Report); and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection
with information relating to the Los Filos Report and the Los Filos
Mine, and the properties described therein.
  /s/ P. John BartonName:
    P. John Barton , B. Sc (Eng.), ARSM, MAusIMMConsultant to Snowden Mining Industry Consultants Inc.
EXHIBIT 31.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Raymond D. Zinn, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Micrel, Incorporated;


2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.


Date:August 14, 2014By/s/ Raymond D. ZinnRaymond D. ZinnPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)























Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Robert E. DeBarr, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Micrel, Incorporated;


2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.


Date:August 14, 2014By/s/ Robert E. DeBarrRobert E. DeBarrChief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance and Human Resources(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# CE2004070EN.01013901.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/139 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/139

---

(2004/C 70 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2773/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   Rules governing the staffing of emergency call centres in EU countries

Subject:

During a holiday in Italy a Danish motorist was run into by an Italian lorry on a motorway. Afterwards, the lorry driver refused to stop on the side of the road and instead drove off. The Danish motorist then tried to contact the Italian police by dialling 113 but there was no-one who could understand either English or German. After four calls the motorist in question had to abandon the attempt to contact the police. The Danish motorist survived this experience without physical injury but things could have been much worse.

Will the Commission state what rules exist governing the staffing of emergency call centres in the Member States with persons speaking other languages than that of the country in question? Will it also state whether it feels it is acceptable that citizens from another EU country cannot make contact with the police owing to a lack of language skills on the part of the staff at the host country's emergency call centre?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

(24 October 2003)

The Commission's role in the field of police cooperation in the Union is laid down by Article 30 of the Treaty on European Union, which sets out the areas covered by common action taken by the Member States. The rules and internal organisation of the emergency services is the sole responsibility of the Member States. Under Article 33, the Member States are responsible for the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.

There are no Community rules that govern relations between staff in the emergency services in the Member States and persons who do not speak the language of the country. Nevertheless, the Commission feels that if national police officers are familiar with one or more foreign languages so as to handle contacts with citizens of other countries, that is an important factor in establishing an area of freedom, security and justice. The Community financing programme, AGIS, has taken this matter into account and some of its funds are set aside for projects to improve the ability of police forces to meet the challenges of this new European area. The European Police College (Cepol) is also encouraging language learning in training of police officers.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-240-CR

LETICIA ANDERSON	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	On July 6, 2005, Appellant Leticia Anderson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance of between four and two hundred grams.  Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court placed Anderson on seven years’ deferred adjudication community supervision.  The trial court’s certification of Anderson’s right to appeal states that this “is a plea-bargained case[,] and the defendant has NO right of appeal.”  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

	Anderson filed a pro se notice of appeal on July 3, 2008.  On July 22, 2008, we notified Anderson that the certification indicating she has no right to appeal had been filed in this court and that we would dismiss this appeal unless Anderson or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3.  We have received no response to our notification.

	Rule 25.2(a)(2) limits the right to appeal in a plea bargain case to those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial and to those cases where the appellant obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2)(A), (B).  According to the trial court’s certification—which states that Anderson has no right to appeal—neither of these circumstances applies.

	Because Anderson has no right to appeal, we dismiss this appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL:  HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  August 26, 2008
STATE v. Donna Helms LEDBETTER.

No. 402P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 17, 2015.

Meghan Adelle Jones, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Ledbetter, Donna Helms.

Ashleigh P. Dunston, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of December 2015 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of December 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. Judy HARDISON.

No. 387P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

John F. Carella, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hardison, Judy.

Torrey Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

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

Scott E. Thomas, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 23rd of November 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 28th of January 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of November 2015 by State of NC 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:

> *610"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
**Exhibit 10.59
 

Schedule of Convertible Promissory Notes

Issued in Connection with Convertible Secured DebtFinancing

 

 
Date of	Name of				Date ofNote	Holder		Amount		Repayment12/01/00	GSI Ventures, LLC	400,000		January 5, 200212/08/00	GSI Ventures, LLC	100,000		January 5, 200212/13/00	GSI Ventures, LLC	100,000		January 5, 200212/15/00	GSI Ventures, LLC	100,000		January 5, 200202/08/01	GSI Ventures, LLC	  70,000		January 5, 2002**