alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01004601.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/46

---

(2004/C 88 E/0049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1844/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   Treatment of gays, lesbians and transsexuals in Poland

Subject:

It has been brought to my attention that the Polish Government is seeking derogation from certain EU ‘acquis’ in order that it can regulate on moral issues.

Is this an issue which has been raised, and what response has been given to them?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

(10 July 2003)

The Polish Government has sought and indeed succeeded to have a declaration on ‘public morality’ inserted in the Accession Treaty. This, however, does not imply that Poland was granted an exemption from its duties and obligations under the EC Treaties. On the contrary, the present Member States have issued a general joint declaration underlining that the declarations added to the Accession Treaty cannot be interpreted or applied in a way contrary to the obligations of the Member States arising from the Treaty and the Act of Accession. The Commission has fully subscribed to this declaration.

For this reason, the ‘acquis communautaire’ in this area, including the employment, equal treatment and anti-discrimination acquis, will have to be applied in full by Poland upon accession at the latest. More specifically, as regards the transposition of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (1) and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2), the Commission has always insisted with the Polish authorities (as it has with all future Member States) that all the grounds for discrimination must be explicitly protected against, and that legislation must thus explicitly refer to race or ethnic origin, religion and belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. In other words, it has been made clear to the Polish government that this declaration on ‘public morality’ cannot be interpreted as absolving the Polish government from any of its obligations under these Directives. During her recent visit to Poland the Commission's Director-General for Employment and Social Affairs also underlined that discrimination based on sexual orientation was not covered by the current draft legislation on access to employment, vocational guidance and training and that this had to be remedied in order to comply with the Directives.

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.

1

(2)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

2

---
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2009 – Spain v Commission**

**(Case T-369/05)**

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Aids for restructuring and conversion in the wine sector – Aids for the improvement of the production and marketing of honey – Concept of loss of revenue due to implementation of the plan – Article 13(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 – Concept of intervention intended to stabilise the agricultural markets – Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999

1.                     *Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Management principles – Equal treatment of economic operators (Council Regulation
No 1258/1999) (see para. 46)*

2.                     *Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Expenses arising from a misapplication of Community law – EAGGF financing – Condition
(Council Regulations Nos 1258/1999 and 1493/1999, Art. 13(1)(a)) (see paras 67-69)*

3.                     *Community law – Interpretation – Acts of the institutions (see paras 74, 101)*

4.                     *Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (see para. 79)*

5.                     *Acts of the institutions – Regulations – Application by analogy – Conditions (see paras 92-93)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2005/555/EC of 15 July 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2005 L 188, p. 36), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain in the wine and honey sectors. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-452-CV

GRAHAM OAKS CARE CENTER, INC., 				      APPELLANTS

NEW GRAHAM OAKS CARE CENTER, INC., 

AND GRAHAM OAKS CARE CENTER

	V.

ALLAGRA FARABEE AND EARLENE PRICE 			 	APPELLEES

AS NEXT FRIEND OF ALLAGRA FARABEE 	

	----------

	FROM THE  90TH DISTRICT COURT OF YOUNG COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered the “Joint Motion To Dismiss Interlocutory Appeal.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED:  August 21, 2008
# C_2011340EN.01003803.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/38

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Lübking and Others v Commission

(Case F-105/06) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion exercise - New career structure - Extension of career by the introduction of new grades with no equivalents in the old Staff Regulations - Application of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and the GIP applicable with effect from 2005 - Principle of equal treatment - Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 - Transitional measures - Action manifestly bound to fail)

2011/C 340/78

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Johannes Lübking and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by M. Simm and B. Driessen, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision published in Administrative Notices No 85 2005 of 23 November 2005 in so far as it provided for promotion of the applicants to grade A*9 and not grade A*10 in the 2005 promotion exercise.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicants and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, the intervener, shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, the intervener, shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 281 of 18.11.06, p. 45.

1

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos. 333-153024, 333-44725 and 333-127500 on Form S-8 pertaining to enherent Corp.’s Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan and enherent Corp.’s 2005 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated March 30, 2009pertaining to the financial statements and related financial statement schedule of enherent Corp. appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of enherent Corp. 

/s/ Cornick, Garber & Sandler, LLP 

New York, NY 

March 30, 2009
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**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 theperiod ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, David C. Mahoney, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ David C. Mahoney  Date: May 16, 2005 David C. Mahoney President and Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 20, 2013

p1113 

# Order

Clerk November 20, 2013

146596 & (72)(77)(78)(79)

CAPITAL AREA DISTRICT LIBRARY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 146596

COA: 304582

Ingham CC: 11

- 000200

- CZ

MICHIGAN OPEN CARRY, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for leave to file brief amicus curiae are

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2012 judgment of the

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal.
# C_2011340EN.01001502.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Mindo v Commission

(Case T-19/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Payment of the fine by the jointly and severally liable debtor - Applicant involved in an insolvency procedure in the course of the proceedings - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mindo Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo and P. Vidal Martínez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by É. Gippini Fournier, N. Khan and F. Amato, and subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier, N. Khan and L. Malferrari, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) and, in the alternative, application for a reduction in the fine imposed on Mindo Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | Orders Mindo Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mindo Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---
# C_2008079EN.01000602.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-32/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/84/EC - Copyright - Resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art)

(2008/C 79/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Vidal Puig and W. Wils, acting as Agent(s))

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the period prescribed all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art (OJ 2001 L 272, p. 32)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
NO. 07-08-0051-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

AUGUST 19, 2008

______________________________

BENNY JOE PALOMO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 2006-1390-L; HON. RONNIE WALKER, PRESIDING

__________________________________

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

__________________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Appellant Benny Joe Palomo, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to

dismiss his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it. 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, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Brian Quinn

 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
In the Matter of J.R. & A.R.

No. COA15-599.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Thomas David BOST, Plaintiff, v. Gale Ann Christiana HELLER f/k/a Gale Ann Christiana Bost, Defendant.

No. COA15-362.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
# CE2004088EN.01010401.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/104

---

(2004/C 88 E/0108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2593/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 August 2003)

Subject:   Persecution of Christians in Pakistan

Subject:

Is the Commission aware of the persecution faced by Christians in Pakistan? What representations has it made, or will it make, on this issue to the Government of Pakistan?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

(22 August 2003)

The Commission remains deeply concerned over a number of human rights issues in Pakistan and is actively participating in joint EU efforts to address these questions. The EU has regularly used available opportunities to discuss the situation of religious minorities with the Pakistan authorities. Human rights issues are also raised during the political dialogue between Pakistan and the EU including at the recent meeting in Islamabad on 7 June 2003.

The EU has repeatedly called for more protection of Christian and other minorities in Pakistan. The Commission is aware that a number of incidents involving the Christian community have occurred over the last two years, in particular an attack on the office of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) in Karachi, the killing of Christian worshippers at churches in Bhawalpur and Islamabad and atrocities committed against Christian institutions in Murree and Taxila. The Commission is also aware of numerous incidents of sectarian violence against other minorities including Ahmadis and Shias. The EU will continue to urge the Pakistan authorities to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice and to take adequate measures to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.

The EU has also repeatedly raised concerns about the blasphemy laws, which have been disproportionally applied towards religious minorities (although in absolute terms the clear majority of those accused under the laws belong to the Muslim faith). The Commission will continue to call on the Government of Pakistan to take all possible measures to prevent the abuse of the blasphemy laws while they remain in force, in order to ensure persons accused of blasphemy are protected, and to strengthen institutional and legal safeguards.

The EU welcomed President Musharraf’s speech of 12 January 2002 in which he condemned all forms of sectarianism and religious hatred and made the case for a moderate and tolerant Islam. Although there are no legal restrictions on religion practice by minorities, large parts of the population remain uneducated and ignorant of this state of affairs. The Community, in its development co-operation, therefore prioritises improved access to secular education within the framework of the country's education policy. In the medium term better education should lead to more tolerant attitudes towards minorities.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 of Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, David P. Anastasi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|/s/ DAVID P. ANASTASI                                                 
|David P. Anastasi President and Chief
Executive Officer August 8, 2008
EXHIBIT 99.1



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 of Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, David P. Anastasi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DAVID P.
ANASTASI                                            
|David P. Anastasi President and Chief Executive Officer May 15, 2003



A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Captaris, Inc. and will be retained by Captaris, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6842

XAVIER DOMINIQUE JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GRADY J. HAYNES,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00338-WO-PTS)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Xavier Dominique Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Xavier Dominique Johnson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s motion

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
STATE of North Carolina v. Eric Douglas HICKS.

No. 396P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Charlotte G. Blake, Boone, for Hicks, Eric Douglas.

Joseph E. Herrin, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of November 2015 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 28th of January 2016."