alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008051EN.01002001.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/20

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lyon — France) — Cedilac SA v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

(Case C-368/06) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Right to deduct - Principles of immediate deduction and fiscal neutrality - Carry forward of the excess VAT to the following period or refund - One-month delay rule - Transitional provisions - Retention of the exemption)

(2008/C 51/32)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Lyon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cedilac SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif de Lyon — Interpretation of Articles 17 and 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Conditions for the exercise of the right to deduct VAT charged on the price of a taxable transaction when the amount of authorised transactions exceeds the amount of tax due for a given tax period — Excess carried forward to the next period or refunded

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 17 and 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, are to be interpreted as not precluding national measures such as the transitional measures provided for by Law No 93-859 of 22 June 1993, the amending Finance Law for 1993, which are designed to accompany the abolition of a national derogating provision authorised by Article 28(3)(d) of the same directive, in so far as the national court verifies that, in its application to the specific case before it, those measures reduce the effects of the national derogating provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

1

---
# C_2008285EN.01001001.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Lithuania

(Case C-274/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services - Article 26(3) - Single European emergency call number - Making available caller location information)

(2008/C 285/15)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not ensuring in practice that authorities handling emergencies are, to the extent technically feasible, given caller location information for all callers to the single European emergency call number ‘112’ when public telephone networks are used, the Republic of Lithuania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not ensuring in practice that authorities handling emergencies are, to the extent technically feasible, given caller location information for all callers to the single European emergency call number ‘112’ when public telephone networks are used, the Republic of Lithuania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive);

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 26, 2011

t0919 

# Order

September 26, 2011

143159-60

DONNA POPE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 143159-60 COA: 294600, 294609 Wayne CC: 07-707289-CD BRINKS HOME SECURITY COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and

MARK FALKIEWICZ,

Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 1, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2009205EN.01003202.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/32

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Zenab v Commission

(Case T-33/06) (1)

1

(Community financial support - Programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA Plus) - Call for proposals - Rejection of the proposal - Alleged unlawful delegation of powers which have been transferred to the Commission - Manifest errors of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Access to documents - Action for annulment and for compensation)

2009/C 205/57

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zenab SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Windey and P. De Bandt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action, first, for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 9 November 2005 with reference number 648599 and, secondly, for a finding that the European Community is non-contractually liable, for an order that the Commission should pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 37 807 as compensation for the costs incurred in the context of the call for proposals, the amount of the non-material loss because of damage to reputation and the amount of the material loss resulting from the delay in the implementation of the EuroVOD project, and for the appointment of an expert to assess that loss

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Zenab SPRL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zenab SPRL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

1

---
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-07-00239-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF 

JACKIE HOLIK AND MELISSA HOLIK 

AND 

IN THE INTEREST OF A.F.H., A CHILD

From the County Court at Law

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11297

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Melissa Holik appeals from an adverse judgment rendered in a divorce and child 

custody case. After notification, we dismissed her appeal in November of 2007. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c) and 44.3. Holik filed a motion to reconsider which we 

ultimately granted. In February of 2008, the opinion and judgment of dismissal were 

withdrawn, and the appeal was reinstated. 

Holik’s brief in this appeal is now past due. The Clerk of this Court notified 

Holik in a letter dated July 16, 2008 that the brief was past due and warned her that the 

Court might dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within 21 days of this 

letter, Holik or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with this Court a 
In the Matter of the Marriage of Holik Page 2

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. More than 21 days have passed, 

and Holik has neither filed a brief nor responded in any way to the Clerk’s letter.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 17, 2008

[CV06]
Exhibit 99.14

CONSENT OF CHRISTINE BEAUSOLEIL

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated by reference therein (the 40-F) of Goldcorp
Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the Annual Information Form (the AIF) and Managements Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) of the Company for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference in the 40-F.

I hereby consent to the references to, and the information derived from, the following report(s) and to the references, as applicable, to
my name in connection with (including, as an expert or qualified person) the following report(s) and/or documents:



|1. | The technical report that has an effective date of January 26, 2014, entitled Éléonore Gold Project Québec, Canada, NI 43-101 Technical Report (the Éléonore
Report); and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information relating to the Éléonore Report and the Éléonore Project, and the properties described therein.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such information contained in the 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF
into Registration Statement Nos. 333-126038, 333-126039, 333-126040, 333-151243, 333-151251, 333-17437, 333-181116 and 333-188805 on Form S-8 of the Company.

Date: March 31, 2014



/s/ Christine BeausoleilName: Christine Beausoleil, P.Geo.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,James S.J. Manuso, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the AnnualReport of SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Kfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of SuperGen, Inc.
| Dated: March 16, 2006 |   | By:    |   | /s/ JAMES S.J.  MANUSO                |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                       |   | Name:  |   | James S.J. Manuso                     |
|                       |   | Title: |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

I,Michael Molkentin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the AnnualReport of SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Kfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of SuperGen, Inc.
| Dated: March 16, 2006 |   | By:    |   | /s/ MICHAEL  MOLKENTIN  |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|                       |   | Name:  |   | Michael Molkentin       |
|                       |   | Title: |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

*A signed originalof this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350 has been provided to theRegistrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

*This certificationaccompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended, (whether made before orafter the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing.*

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Benjamin Ryan MARISIC.

No. COA15-1211.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 7, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.
EXHIBIT 12.(A).2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, Gil Rozen, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Tefron Ltd.;

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;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
          by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
          procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c.   disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
          over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
          the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

5.   The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the company's auditors and the audit committee of company's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a.   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial data; and

     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the company's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date: April 1, 2004

/s/ Gil Rozen
-------------
 Gil Rozen
 Chief Financial Officer
1459.

#### Morris *v.*The State.

Accusation of larceny, from Chattooga superior court — Judge Wright. October 17, 1908.

Argued November 23,

Decided December 8, 1908.

J. *M. Bellah, Wesley Shropshire,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. E. Ennis, solicitor-general,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

Where one was on trial for the offense of- larceny, and the only evidence relied upon by the State was the inference of guilt which arose from the possession of the recently stolen property, and the defendant met this inference with an explanation of that possession, which, if true, was' consistent with his innocence, it was the duty of the court, without a request, to submit to the jury the question whether that explanation was reasonable and satisfactory; and an entire failure to charge as to the evidentiary value of the possession when weighed in connection with the explanation is cause for a new trial. *Paulk*v. *State,*2 *Ga. App.*660 (58 S. E. 1108) ; *Evans*v. *Nail,*1 *Ga. App.*44 (57 S. E. 1020) ; *Tarver*v. *State,*95 *Ga.*223 (21 S. E. 381) ; 25 Cyc. 136, 137. *Judgment reversed.*
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3759 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the employer wage 

credit for activated military reservists. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Mr. PETERS of Michigan (for himself and Mr. GRIMM) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the employer wage credit for activated military reservists. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Reserve Small 

5 Business Jobs Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EMPLOYER WAGE CREDIT FOR ACTI7 VATED MILITARY RESERVISTS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 45P(f) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘December 

10 31, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2018’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3759 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to payments made after December 

3 31, 2013. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2011226EN.01002102.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Caffaro v Commission

(Case T-192/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Limitation period - Differential treatment - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)

2011/C 226/40

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Caffaro Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Santa Maria and C. Biscaretti di Ruffia, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as in that decision the Commission imposes a fine jointly and severally on the applicant and SNIA SpA and, in the alternative, a reduction of that fine.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Caffaro Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
# C_2008327EN.01000202.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 November 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-155/07) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Decision 2006/1016/EC - Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community - Choice of legal basis - Article 179 EC - Article 181a EC - Compatibility)

(2008/C 327/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Baas and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz, M. Sims and D. Canga Fano, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Aresu and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment — Council Decision 2006/1016/EC of 19 December 2006 granting a Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community (OJ 2006 L 414, p. 95) — Choice of legal basis — Article 181a EC — Decision essentially concerning developing countries — Need to have recourse to a dual legal basis — Articles 179 EC and 181a EC

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision 2006/1016/EC of 19 December 2006 granting a Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision 2006/1016/EC of 19 December 2006 granting a Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Community;

| 2. | Orders that the effects of Decision 2006/1016 be maintained for European Investment Bank financing arrangements entered into before the entry into force, within a period of 12 months from the date of delivery of this judgment, of a new decision adopted on the appropriate legal basis, namely Articles 179 EC and 181a EC together; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that the effects of Decision 2006/1016 be maintained for European Investment Bank financing arrangements entered into before the entry into force, within a period of 12 months from the date of delivery of this judgment, of a new decision adopted on the appropriate legal basis, namely Articles 179 EC and 181a EC together;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs except those of the Commission of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs except those of the Commission of the European Communities;

| 4. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

---