alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

29 September 2009

Case F-18/05 RENV

**D**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Referral back after setting aside – Occupational disease – Request for recognition that the aggravation of the disease from which the applicant is suffering is of occupational origin
– Article 73 of the Staff Regulations – Removal from the register – Costs)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which D seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 May 2004 rejecting
his request for recognition that the disease or the aggravation of the disease from which he is suffering and which is preventing
him from filling a post in his category corresponding to his grade is of occupational origin.

**Held:**Case F-18/05 RENV *D* v *Commission* is removed from the register of the Tribunal. The Commission is to pay, in addition to all its own costs relating to the
proceedings before the Tribunal and the Court of First Instance, half of the costs incurred by the applicant relating to those
proceedings. The applicant is ordered to bear half of his own costs relating to the proceedings before the Tribunal and the
Court of First Instance. Axa Belgium, intervener for the Commission, is to bear its own costs.

**Summary**

*Procedure – Costs – Withdrawal justified by the conduct of the opposite party*

*(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122)*

Under Article 87(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable *mutatis mutandis* to cases pending before the Civil Service Tribunal prior to the entry into force of its own Rules of Procedure, a party who
discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the observations
of the other party on the discontinuance. However, upon application by a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings,
the costs are to be borne by the other party if this appears justified by the conduct of that party.

However, costs must be shared in the case of a withdrawal following a decision by an institution to review, after four years,
its refusal to recognise the occupational origin of a disease against which the person concerned has brought proceedings,
where the withdrawal was submitted only three working days prior to the hearing and almost a year after that decision, and
where the institution has been successful in a decision on appeal in the same case.

(see paras 10-14)
Moore v. Caldwell

158P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Mr. Larry Brandon Moore, for Moore, Larry Brandon.

Mr. Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Caldwell, Jesse B. (III) (Judge).

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of June 2016 by Petitioner for Order and Proposed Order:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                 (BLACKMAN KALLICK BARTELSTEIN LLP LETTERHEAD)


November 30, 2004

Mr. Robert Zimmer
Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Universal Automotive Industries, Inc.
11859 South Central Avenue
Alsip, IL 60803

Dear Bob,

Per your request, please be advised that Blackman Kallick completed their
review of the financial statements of the Company for the third quarter ended
September 30, 2004 in accordance with Statement on Auditing Standards No. 100,
as amended, on the filing date.

Please feel free to include this communication in any correspondence regarding
this matter you may have with the appropriate parties at the NASDAQ or SEC.

Sincerely,

Blackman Kallick Bartelstein, LLP

/s/ BRIAN K. LANGHAM

Brian K. Langham
Audit Partner
1565.

#### Edwards *v.*The State.

Indictment for carrying concealed weapon, from Talbot superior court — Judge Gilbert. November 2,- 1908.

Submitted January 13,

Decided January 27, 1909.

*McGehee & McGehee, J. J. Bull,*for plaintiff in error.

*George C. Palmer, solicitor-general,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

1. The trial judge refusing to verify the second ground in the amended motion for a new trial, this court will not consider it.

2. No error of law appears, and the verdict is supported by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2008223EN.01001701.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-510/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 68/414/EEC - Article 1(1) - Obligation to maintain minimum stocks of petroleum products - Breach)

(2008/C 223/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-compliance with the obligation to stock petroleum products under Article 1(1) of Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products (OJ English Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1968 II, p. 586), as amended and then codified by Council Directive 2006/67/EC of 24 July 2006 (OJ 2006 L 217, p. 8) — Nature and extent of the obligation to stock — Discrepancy between the figures transmitted by the Member State concerned and the data provided by Eurostat — Method of calculating stocks of petroleum products and the level of internal consumption of those products.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations or administrative provisions as may be appropriate to maintain within the Community at all times the level of stocks of petroleum products in the second category of petroleum products listed in Article 2 of Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products, as amended by Council Directive 98/93/EC of 14 December 1998, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations or administrative provisions as may be appropriate to maintain within the Community at all times the level of stocks of petroleum products in the second category of petroleum products listed in Article 2 of Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products, as amended by Council Directive 98/93/EC of 14 December 1998, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) of that directive;

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

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
# CE2004078EN.01020501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/205 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/205

---

(2004/C 78 E/0209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2982/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject:   Stability pact

Subject:

In reply to my Oral Question H-0564/01 (1) to the Council on the Greek stability and development programme I was informed that ‘on 12 February 2001, the Ecofin Council discussed Greece's initial stability programme which relates to the 2000-2004 period (...). The Ecofin Council was of the opinion that, under normal circumstances, the budget estimates provide sufficient guarantees against exceeding the shortage threshold of 3 %’.

1

It has been reported that, after carrying out exhaustive checks on the budgets for projects in connection with the Olympic Games in cooperation with the ‘Athens 2004’ organisation, the Greek Government has now concluded that an additional sum of around EUR 2,3 billion will be required in 2003-2004 to complete the projects. To what extent does the Commission believe that Greece will not exceed the safety margin and that its deficit will remain stable? Does the Commission still take the view that Greece has not deviated from the constraints set by the stability pact in the two years that have passed since the Ecofin Council first assessed Greece's financial situation?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

(4 November 2003)

The Commission is closely monitoring developments in the Greek public finances all the more that the increasing costs of the preparations for the Olympics as well as the cost of the announced social package seem to add significant pressures to the State budget. In fact, the Greek Government has recently revised the figure for the general government deficit to 1,4 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2003. In spring, the Commission forecasted the government deficit at 1,1 % of GDP in 2003 and 1,0 % of GDP in 2004. Recent developments imply that these estimates will be certainly revised in the Commission Autumn forecasts, which, however, are not completed as yet. Under these circumstances, it is certain that the Commission will examine with the closest attention budgetary developments in Greece in case clear signs of deterioration would emerge; it should be reminded that the Council in its Opinion on the 2002 updated stability programme (January 2003) recommended to Greece to implement stronger and more robust medium term budgetary adjustment; it was stressed that this effort was required taking into consideration the still very high level of the government debt and its insufficient decline in the recent years.

---

(1)  Written answer of 4.7.2001.

1

---
# C_2008051EN.01001902.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia, Italy) — Frigerio Luigi & C. Snc v Comune di Triuggio

(Case C-357/06) (1)

1

(Directive 92/50/EEC - Public service contracts - National legislation restricting the award of local public services of economic interest to companies with share capital - Compatibility)

(2008/C 51/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frigerio Luigi & C. Snc

Applicant:

Defendant: Comune di Triuggio

Defendant:

Intervening party: Azienda Servizi Multisettoriali Lombarda — A.S.M.L. SpA

Intervening party:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Arts 39, 43, 48 and 81 EC, Article 26(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114), Article 9(1) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9) — Procedure for the award of public service contracts — Environmental hygiene service — Domestic legislation authorising joint stock companies alone to hold contracts for waste management and disposal services

Operative part of the judgment

Article 26(1) and (2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001, precludes national provisions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which exclude candidates or tenderers entitled under the law of the Member State concerned to provide the service in question, including those composed of groups of service providers, from submitting a tender, in a procedure for the award of a public service contract with a value greater than the threshold for application of Directive 92/50, solely on the ground that those candidates or tenderers do not have a legal form corresponding to a specific category of legal persons, namely that of a company with share capital. It is for the national court, to the full extent of its discretion under national law, to interpret and apply national law in accordance with the requirements of Community law and, in so far as such an interpretation is not possible, to disapply any provision of national law which is contrary to those requirements.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

1

---
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 Develocap, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jimmy B. Holton, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.





/s/ Jimmy B. Holton
-------------------------
Jimmy B. Holton
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


June 18, 2004








1
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

11 May 2007

Case F-2/06

**Luigi Marcuccio**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Officials – Social security – Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease – Accident at work – Termination of the application procedure under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Marcuccio seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision to terminate
the procedure for granting the applicant the benefits provided for by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and linked to an
accident he suffered on 10 September 2003.

**Held:**The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The parties are to bear their own costs.

**Summary**

*Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)*

The termination of a procedure constitutes a decision adversely affecting an official only if it results from the institution’s
rejection of the application and not from the applicant’s withdrawal from the procedure.

(see para. 28)
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 22, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11164

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00287-CR-CG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

MANUEL HURTADO-FERNDADEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(September 22, 2008)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William Gregory Hughes, appointed appellate counsel for Manual Hurtado-
2

Fernandez, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Hurtado-Fernandez’s conviction

and sentence are AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 21**CONSENT OF B.T. HENNESSEY**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents,which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statementon Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated January 2003, entitled “Technical Report on Mining andProcessing Assets of Peak Gold Mines, in New South Wales, Australia and Minera Alumbera Ltd.in Argentina” (the “Peak Gold Report”); and  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 30, 2007, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Peak Gold Report,and the properties described therein.March 30, 2007/s/ B.T. Hennessey
State of North Carolina v. Ronald Perry, Jr.

No. 159P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Attorney at Law, for Perry, Ronald (Jr.).

Jennifer T. Harrod, Special Deputy Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of May 2016 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 18th of August 2016."
CONSENT OF AMEC







To:

British Columbia Securities Commission

Alberta Securities Commission

Manitoba Securities Commission

Ontario Securities Commission

Autorité des marchés financiers

Toronto Stock Exchange

American Stock Exchange

US Securities and Exchange Commission





I, Barry Needham, on behalf of AMEC, do hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 22, 2006 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.  Technical Report on the Bisha Property and Resource Estimate of the Bisha Deposit, dated October 1, 2004

2.  Bisha Property, Gash-Barka District, Eritrea 43-101 Technical Report and Preliminary Assessment dated December 22, 2005

(collectively, the Technical Report)

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and that it fairly and accurately represents the information I the technical report that supports the written disclsorue in the AIF and the 40-F dated March 22, 2006 of Nevsun Resources Ltd.

Dated this22 day of March, 2006.

signed

_______________________
Barry Needham

Commercial Manager

Mining and Metals

AMEC



[Seal or Stamp]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00292-CV

Melinda Henry, Appellant

v.

Carlos Cortez, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 11-0359-FC2, HONORABLE TIMOTHY L. WRIGHT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Melinda Henry filed a notice of appeal on May 4, 2011. This Court has

received from the district clerk of Williamson County a copy of the trial court’s order granting

Henry’s motion for new trial on May 18, 2011. On August 31, 2011, the Clerk of this Court sent

notice to Henry requesting an explanation in writing of why her appeal should not be dismissed for

want of jurisdiction and notifying her that her appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if

she did not respond to this Court by September 12, 2011. To date, Henry has not responded to this

Court’s notice. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 16, 2011

2
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 by the Company (the Report), the undersigned as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby, certifies that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (iii)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: (iv)
and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
  
 /s/  Gilbert G. Goldbeck
 Name: Gilbert G. Goldbeck
 Chief Financial Officer
 Date: November 29, 2004
  
  
 
 
 
  23
# C_2008079EN.01003701.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/37

---

Action brought on 29 October 2007 — Hau v European Parliament

(Case F-125/07)

(2008/C 79/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Armin Hau (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority not to include the applicant's name on the list of those to be promoted to grade B*6 and B*7 in the ‘2006 promotion exercise’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority not to include the applicant's name on the list of those to be promoted to grade B*6 and B*7 in the ‘2006 promotion exercise’;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25 and Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the decision of the Office of 6 July 2005 and its implementing measures, and Article 5 of the Internal Guidelines for Promotions Advisory Committees.

Furthermore, the applicant claims the existence of manifest errors of assessment, misuse and arrogation of powers, and infringement of a number of general principles of law.

---