(d) If a reissue application and an ex parte reexamination proceeding on which an order pursuant to § 1.525 has been mailed are pending concurrently on a patent, a decision will usually be made to merge the two proceedings or to suspend one of the two proceedings. Where merger of a reissue application and an ex parte reexamination proceeding is ordered, the merged examination will be conducted in accordance with §§ 1.171 through 1.179, and the patent owner will be required to place and maintain the same claims in the reissue application and the ex parte reexamination proceeding during the pendency of the merged proceeding. The examiner’s actions and responses by the patent owner in a merged proceeding will apply to both the reissue application and the ex parte reexamination proceeding and will be physically entered into both files. Any ex parte reexamination proceeding merged with a reissue application shall be concluded by the grant of the reissued patent. For merger of a reissue application and an inter partes reexamination, see § 1.991.
The general policy of the Office is that a reissue application examination and an ex parte reexamination proceeding will not be conducted separately at the same time as to a particular patent. The reason for this policy is to permit timely resolution of both proceedings to the extent possible and to prevent inconsistent, and possibly conflicting, amendments from being introduced into the two proceedings on behalf of the patent owner. Accordingly, if both a reissue application and an ex parte reexamination proceeding are pending concurrently on a patent, a decision will normally be made (A) to merge the two proceedings or (B) to stay one of the two proceedings. See In re Onda, 229 USPQ 235 (Comm’r Pat. 1985). The decision as to whether the proceedings are to be merged, or which proceeding (if any) is to be stayed is made in the Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA).
Where a reissue application and a reexamination proceeding are pending concurrently on a patent, the patent owner, i.e., the reissue applicant, has a responsibility to notify the Office of such. 37 CFR 1.178(b), 1.565(a), and 1.985. The patent owner should file in the reissue application, as early as possible, a Notification of Concurrent Proceedings pursuant to 37 CFR 1.178(b) in order to notify the Office in the reissue application of the existence of the reexamination proceeding on the same patent. See MPEP § 1418. In addition, the patent owner should file in the reexamination proceeding, as early as possible, a Notification of Concurrent Proceedings pursuant to 37 CFR 1.565(a) or 1.985 (depending on whether the reexamination proceeding is an ex parte reexamination proceeding or an inter partes reexamination proceeding) to notify the Office in the reexamination proceeding of the existence of the two concurrent proceedings.
A decision whether or not to merge the reissue application examination and the ex parte reexamination proceeding, or to stay one of the two proceedings, will not be made prior to the mailing of an order to reexamine the patent pursuant to 37 CFR 1.525, and the expiration of the statement-reply period following the order to reexamine. Until such time, the examination of the reissue application will proceed. A determination on the request must not be delayed because of the existence of a copending reissue application, since 35 U.S.C. 304 and 37 CFR 1.515 require a determination within 3 months following the filing date of the request. See MPEP § 2241. If the decision on the request denies reexamination (MPEP § 2247), the examination of the reissue application should be continued. If reexamination is ordered (MPEP § 2246), the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Supervisory Patent Reexamination Specialist (SPRS) or Technology Center Quality Assurance Specialist (QAS) will await the filing of any statement under 37 CFR 1.530 and any reply under 37 CFR 1.535, or the expiration of the time for same (see MPEP § 2249 to § 22.1). Thereafter, CRU SPRS or TC QAS should promptly notify OPLA that the proceedings are ready for consideration of merger. If any of the reexamination file, the reissue application, and the patent file are paper files, they should be hand delivered to OPLA at the time of the notification to OPLA.
If a reissue application is filed during the pendency of a reexamination proceeding, OPLA should be notified as promptly as possible after the reissue application reaches the TC, that the proceedings are ready for consideration of merger. If any of the reexamination file, the reissue application, and the patent file are paper files, they should be hand delivered to the OPLA at the time of the notification to OPLA.
The decision on whether or not the proceedings are to be merged, or which proceeding (if any) is to be stayed, will generally be made as promptly as possible after receipt of the notification to OPLA and, if applicable, delivery of all the paper files to OPLA. Until a decision is mailed merging the proceedings or staying one of the proceedings, the two proceedings will continue and be conducted simultaneously, but separately.
The Office may in certain situations issue a certificate at the termination of a reexamination prosecution, even if a copending reissue application or another reexamination request has already been filed.
The decision on whether to merge the proceedings or stay a proceeding will be made on a case-by-case basis based upon the status of the various proceedings. The decision to merge, or not to merge, is within the sole discretion of the Office to facilitate/carry out the orderly operation of the Office in addressing the proceedings. The status of the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding will be taken into account in the decision as to whether merger will be ordered, or one of the two proceedings stayed.
If the reissue patent will issue before the determination on the reexamination request must be made (e.g., within three months from the request’s filing date), the determination on the request should normally be delayed until after the granting of the reissue patent; and then the determination should be made on the basis of the claims in the reissue patent. The reexamination, if ordered, would then be on the reissue patent claims rather than the original patent claims. Since the reissue application would no longer be pending, the reexamination would be processed in a normal manner.
Where a reissue patent has been issued, the determination on the request for reexamination should specifically point out that the determination has been made on the claims of the reissue patent and not on the claims of the original patent. Any amendment made in the reexamination proceeding should treat the changes made by the reissue as the text of the patent, and all bracketing and underlining made with respect to the patent as changed by the reissue. Note that the reissue claims used as the starting point in the reexamination proceeding must be presented in the reexamination proceeding as a "clean copy." Thus, words bracketed in the reissue patent claim(s) would not appear at all in the reexamination clean copy of the claim(s). Also, words that were added via the reissue patent will appear in italics in the reissue patent, but must appear in plain format in the reexamination clean copy of the claim(s).
If a reissue patent issues on the patent under reexamination after reexamination is ordered, the next action from the examiner in the reexamination should point out that further proceedings in the reexamination will be based on the claims of the reissue patent and not on the patent surrendered. Form paragraph 22.05 may be used in the Office action.
In view of the surrender of original Patent No.  and the granting of Reissue Patent No.  which issued on , all subsequent proceedings in this reexamination will be based on the reissue patent claims.
Where the reissue patent has issued prior to the filing of a request for reexamination of the parent patent, see MPEP § 2258.
Where a reissue patent will not be granted prior to the expiration of the 3-month period for making the determination on the reexamination request, a decision will be made as to whether the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding are to be merged, or which of the two (if any) is to be stayed, after an order to reexamine has been issued.
The general policy of the Office is to merge the more narrow reexamination proceeding with the broader reissue application examination whenever it is desirable to do so in the interests of expediting the conduct of both proceedings. In making a decision on whether or not to merge the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding, consideration will be given to the status of the reissue application examination at the time the order for reexamination of the patent pursuant to 37 CFR 1.525 is mailed. For example, if examination of the reissue application has not begun, or if a rejection by the primary examiner has not been appealed to the Board pursuant to 37 CFR 41.31, it is likely that the OPLA will order a merger of the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding. If, however, the reissue application is on appeal to the Board or the courts, that fact would be considered in making a decision whether to merge the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding or stay one of them. See In re Stoddard, 213 USPQ 386 (Comm’r Pat. 1982); and In re Scragg, 215 USPQ 715 (Comm’r Pat. 1982).
If such a merger of the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding is ordered, the order merging them will also require that the patent owner place the same claims in the reissue application and in the reexamination proceeding for purposes of the merged proceedings. An amendment may be required to be filed to do this within a specified time set in the order merging the proceedings.
If the reissue application examination has progressed to a point where a merger of the two proceedings is not desirable at that time, then the reexamination proceeding will generally be stayed until the reissue application examination is complete on the issues then pending. After completion of the examination on the issues then pending in the reissue application examination, the stay of the reexamination proceeding will be removed and the proceedings will be merged if the reissue application is pending, or the reexamination proceeding will be conducted separately if the reissue application has become abandoned. The reissue application examination will be reopened, if necessary, for merger of the reexamination proceeding therewith.
If the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding are merged, the issuance of the reissue patent will also serve as the certificate under 37 CFR 1.570 and the reissue patent will so indicate.
When a reissue application is filed after an ex parte reexamination request has been filed, OPLA should be notified as promptly as possible after the reissue application reaches the TC. A determination will be made as to whether reexamination should be ordered. If reexamination is ordered, no first Office action will accompany the decision ordering reexamination. The order and any of the files that are paper files should then be hand delivered to OPLA.
Where reexamination has already been ordered prior to the filing of a reissue application, OPLA should be notified as promptly as possible after the reissue application reaches the TC, that the proceedings are ready for consideration of merger. If any of the reexamination file, the reissue application, and the patent file are paper files, they should be hand delivered to the OPLA at the time of the notification to OPLA.
In making a decision on whether or not to merge the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding, consideration will be given as to whether issues are raised in the reissue application that would not be proper for consideration in reexamination. In addition, consideration will also be given to the status of the reexamination proceeding. For example, if the reexamination proceeding is on appeal to the Board or to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate was issued for the reexamination, that fact would be considered in making a decision whether to merge the reissue application examination and the reexamination proceeding or stay one of them.
With respect to the appropriate examiner assignment of the merged reexamination/reissue proceeding, see MPEP § 2236.
Where merger is ordered, the patent owner is required to maintain identical amendments in the reissue application and the reexamination file for purposes of the merged proceeding. The maintenance of identical amendments in both files is required as long as the reissue and reexamination proceedings remain merged. See 37 CFR 1.565(d). Where identical amendments are not present in both files at the time merger is ordered, the patent owner will be required to submit an appropriate "housekeeping" amendment placing the same amendments in both proceedings. This may be accomplished by amending either of the two proceedings (the reissue application or the reexamination) or both of them, as appropriate. The patent owner must not address any issue of patentability in the housekeeping amendment. Amendments in a merged reexamination/reissue proceeding are submitted under 37 CFR 1.173, in accordance with reissue practice.
Where the merger decision indicates that an Office action will follow, the merged proceeding is returned to the examiner immediately after the decision to issue an Office action. Where the merger decision indicates that the patent owner is given one month to provide an amendment to make the claims the same in each file (identical amendments to be placed in all files), the CRU SPRS or TC QAS will retain jurisdiction over the merged reexamination proceeding to await submission of the amendment or the expiration of the time to submit the amendment. After the amendment is received and processed by the technical support staff or the time for submitting the amendment expires, the merged proceeding will be returned to the examiner to issue an Office action.
Once the proceeding is returned to the examiner for issuance of an Office action, the examiner should prepare an Office action at the most advanced point possible for the first proceeding. Thus, if the first proceeding is ready for a final rejection and the second proceeding does not provide any new information which would call for a new ground of rejection, the examiner should issue a final rejection for the merged proceeding.
In the event that a "housekeeping" amendment to make the claims the same in each file is required by the merger decision (identical amendments to be placed in all files) but is not timely submitted, any claim that does not contain identical text in all of the merged proceedings should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite as to the content of the claim, and thus failing to particularly point out the invention.
If a reissue application examination and a reexamination proceeding are merged, the merged examination will be conducted on the basis of the rules relating to the broader reissue application examination. Amendments should be submitted in accordance with the reissue practice under 37 CFR 1.121(i) and 37 CFR 1.173; see MPEP § 1453. The examiner, in examining the merged proceeding, will apply the reissue statute, rules, procedures, and case law to the merged proceeding. This is appropriate in view of the fact that the statutory provisions for reissue applications and reissue application examination include provisions equivalent to 35 U.S.C. 305 relating to the conduct of reexamination proceedings.
In any merged reissue application and reexamination proceeding, each Office action issued by the examiner will take the form of a single action which jointly applies to both the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding. Each action will contain identifying data for both the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding, and each action will be physically entered into both files, which will be maintained as separate files.
Any response by the applicant/patent owner in such a merged proceeding must consist of a single response, filed in duplicate for entry in both files (or provide multiple copies if there are multiple reexamination proceedings being merged with a reissue application), and service of a copy must be made on any third party reexamination requester. A copy of all Office actions will be mailed to the third party reexamination requester but not to any other third party.
If the applicant/patent owner in such a merged proceeding fails to file a timely and appropriate response to any Office action, then the merger will be automatically dissolved (severed). The reissue application will be held abandoned. A NIRC will be issued (see MPEP § 2287), and the Director will proceed to issue a reexamination certificate under 37 CFR 1.570 in accordance with the last action of the Office, unless further action is clearly needed in view of the difference in rules relating to reexamination and reissue proceedings.
If the applicant/patent owner in a merged proceeding files an express abandonment of the reissue application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.138, the next Office action of the examiner will accept the express abandonment, dissolve the merged proceeding, and continue the reexamination proceeding. If the applicant/patent owner files a continued prosecution reissue application (a CPA) of a reissue design application under 37 CFR 1.53(d), whereby the existing reissue design application is considered to be expressly abandoned, this will most likely result in the dissolution of the merged proceeding, a stay of the CPA reissue application, and separate, continued prosecution of the reexamination proceeding.
Where the merged proceeding is dissolved based on abandonment of the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding continues, any grounds of rejection which are not applicable under reexamination should be withdrawn (e.g., based on public use or on sale) and any new grounds of rejection which are applicable under reexamination (e.g., improper broadened claims) should be made by the examiner. The existence of any questions remaining which cannot be considered under reexamination following dissolution of the merged proceeding would be noted by the examiner as not being proper under reexamination pursuant to 37 CFR 1.552(c).
Where the merged proceeding is dissolved based on abandonment of the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding continues, there is no guarantee that any continuation reissue application will be merged with the reexamination proceeding (the continuation reissue application might be stayed pending conclusion of the reexamination). This policy is necessary to prevent the patent owner from filing reissue continuation applications to delay a decision by the Board on rejected claims.
If applicant/patent owner files a request for continued examination (RCE) of the reissue application under 37 CFR 1.114 (which may be filed on or after May 29, 2000 for an application filed on or after June 8, 1995), then the merger will be automatically dissolved (severed), and the reissue application will then be suspended. Patent owners are put on notice that, in such event, a request for continued examination (RCE) is not available in the reexamination proceeding, and any response to an Office action (e.g., response to a final rejection) in the reexamination proceeding must be made taking into account the non-availability of RCE practice. Any failure to timely respond would result in the termination of the prosecution pursuant to 37 CFR 1.550(d).
No petition to merge the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding, or stay one of them, should be filed before an order granting reexamination is issued because the Office will generally, sua sponte, make a decision to merge the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding or stay one of them. If any petition to merge the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding, or to stay one of them because of the other, is filed prior to the determination (37 CFR 1.515 ) and order to reexamine (37 CFR 1.525 ), it will not be considered, but will be returned to the party submitting the same by the CRU or TC Director, regardless of whether the petition is filed in the reexamination proceeding, the reissue application, or both. This is necessary to prevent premature papers relating to the reexamination proceeding from being filed. The decision expunging such a premature petition will be made of record in both the reexamination file and the reissue application file. See MPEP § 2267.
The patent owner may file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to merge the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding, or stay one of them because of the other, at the time the patent owner’s statement under 37 CFR 1.530 is filed or subsequent thereto in the event the Office has not acted prior to that date to merge or stay. The third party requester does not have a right to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to merge a reexamination proceeding and a reissue application examination, since a reexamination third party requester does not have any standing to request relief with respect to a reissue application, to which requester cannot be a party. No such standing is provided for anywhere in the statute. Instead of filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to merge a reexamination proceeding with a reissue application, a third party requester may file a notification of concurrent proceedings pursuant to MPEP § 2282. After being notified of the existence of a reissue application and after consideration of the merger and suspension options becomes ripe, the Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) would sua sponte consider the action to be taken. A petition to merge the reissue application and the reexamination proceeding, which is filed by a party other than the patent owner will not be considered, but will be returned to that party (or expunged if already entered) by the CRU or TC Director as being improper under 37 CFR 1.550(g). The requester does have the right to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to stay the reexamination proceeding that it requested.
All petitions to merge or stay which are filed by the patent owner or the third party requester subsequent to the date of the order for reexamination will be referred to OPLA for decision.
Where the proceedings have been merged and a paper is filed which requires payment of a fee (e.g., excess claim fee, extension of time fee, petition fee, appeal fee, brief fee, oral hearing fee), only a single fee need be paid. For example, only one fee need be paid for an appeal brief even though the brief relates to merged multiple proceedings and copies must be filed for each file in the merged proceeding. As to excess claim fees, reissue practice will control.


text:
By providing us with your Personal Data, we invite you to read this information, indicating that “Personal Data” means, in accordance with EU Regulation 679/2016, all the information relating to his person who spontaneously provides us and the additional information we will need to detect during the intercurrent relationship and in the performance of the services you have requested, in order to be able to supply our products and / or services.
In principle, for our Activity, it is also not necessary to process data qualified as “particular categories of personal data” (health status or other sensitive information), as they are not necessary for the purposes of the intercurrent relationship.
The access and its use presuppose the acceptance of all terms, conditions and warnings, without exception, by the user of the terms described herein and their possible modifications, if they become necessary, which must be periodically verified by the user himself for his better knowledge and information.
Source of personal data: personal data in possession of angiodroid.com are collected directly from the Data Subject at the time of entering their personal data in the appropriate fields provided in the dedicated page in the Application.
Purposes of the treatments – the Data are collected and processed with the exclusive purpose of the correct and complete execution of our activity towards you (pre-contractual, contractual, related to the supply of the requested products and / or services, technical assistance, commercial and statistics), with all only the necessary and indispensable treatments. The contact data (telephone and e-mail) may be used to send communications regarding the current relationship, or for direct marketing purposes and for sending commercial / promotional communications. Finally, with some Data we will keep the records required by law, both accounting and other (administrative and accounting purposes, fulfillment of legal obligations).
Processing methods – the data are processed by us both manually, and the relative paper documentation will be correctly maintained and protected for as long as necessary for processing, either through our. computer system, and in this case will be recorded on computer media protected with appropriate security measures.
Retention period – the data processed will be stored in our protected archives for as long as necessary on the basis of the requested Services, including after-sales or periodic assistance. Once the requested activity has been completed, the data can be deleted or stored for documentation purposes only (if it is necessary) or for historical and / or statistical purposes (in this case in a pseudonymised form), except for the fiscal data that will be kept for a period corresponding to legal obligations. The contact data for marketing purposes will be used until the revocation of the relative consent issued.
Categories of subjects to whom the data may be communicated – Personal data may also be disclosed in the event of a request to the Competent Authorities in the legal / legislative field in accordance with current legislation.
The data processed by angiodroid.com are not subject to dissemination.
Rights as an interested party – we inform you that, as an interested party, you have all the rights provided for by the Regulations: art. 15 (Right of Access), art. 16 (Right of Rectification), art. 17 (Right to Cancellation), art. 18 (Right of Limitation of treatment), art. 20 (Right to data portability), art. 21 (Right of Opposition). You also have the right to revoke at any time the consent given to the processing of data, the Revocation takes effect from the moment we become aware of it and does not affect the lawfulness of the treatment based on the consent previously given. Finally, he has the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority.
In some cases (cancellation, limitation, opposition) the exercise of its rights may not make it possible, in whole or in part, the provision of services and / or services in its favor.
All rights described are exercised with a request made without formalities to the Data Controller, also through a designated person, to whom appropriate feedback is provided without delay.

matches:
art. 15
art. 16
art. 17
art. 18
art. 20
art. 21


text:
Respondents -- an association of present and former members of the Armed Forces Reserve opposing United States involvement in Vietnam, and five association members who were United States citizens and taxpayers -- brought a class action on behalf, inter alia, of all United States citizens and taxpayers against petitioners, the Secretary of Defense and the three Service Secretaries, challenging the Reserve membership of Members of Congress as violating the Incompatibility Clause of Art. I, § 6, cl. 2, of the Constitution, which provides that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." The District Court held that respondents had standing to sue as citizens but not as taxpayers, and, on the merits, granted partial relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
1. Respondents had no standing to sue as citizens, since the claimed nonobservance of the Incompatibility Clause which they assert deprives citizens of the faithful discharge of the legislative duties of reservist Members of Congress implicates only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance, and is thus merely an abstract injury, rather than the concrete injury that is essential to satisfy Art. III's "case or controversy" requirement. Pp. 216-227.
2. Respondents also lacked standing to sue as taxpayers, since they failed to establish the required "logical nexus between the [taxpayer] status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated." Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 102. Pp. 227-228.
162 U.S.App.D.C. 19, 495 F.2d 1075, reversed and remanded.
filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 229. BRENNAN, J., post, p. 235, and MARSHALL, J., post, p. 238, filed dissenting opinions.
We granted certiorari, sub nom. Richardson v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 411 U.S. 947 (1973), to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming, without opinion, the District Court's partial summary judgment for respondents declaring that "Article I, Section 6, Cause 2 of the Constitution renders a member of Congress ineligible to hold a commission in the Armed Forces Reserve during his continuance in office." Reservists Committee to Stop the War v. Laird, 323 F.Supp. 833, 843 (DC 1971). We hold that respondents do not have standing to sue as citizens or taxpayers. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed.
whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
The Constitution thereby makes Members of Congress ineligible for appointment to certain offices through the limitation of the Ineligibility Clause, and prohibits Members of Congress from holding other offices through the latter limitation, the Incompatibility Clause.
in violation of the Incompatibility Clause. They commenced a class action in the District Court against petitioners, the Secretary of Defense and the three Service Secretaries, seeking (1) an order in the nature of mandamus directed to petitioners requiring them to strike from the roll of the Reserves all Members of Congress presently thereon, to discharge any member of the Reserves who subsequently became a Member of Congress, and to seek to reclaim from Members and former Members of Congress any Reserve pay said Members received while serving as Members of Congress, (2) a permanent injunction preventing petitioners from placing on the rolls of the Reserves any Member of Congress while serving in Congress, and (3) a declaration that membership in the Reserves is an office under the United States prohibited to Members of Congress by Art. I, § 6, cl. 2, and incompatible with membership in the Congress.
Respondents sought the above relief on behalf of four classes of persons. The Committee and the individual respondents sought to represent the interests of (1) all persons opposed to United States military involvement in Vietnam and purporting to use lawful means, including communication with and persuasion of Members of Congress, to end that involvement. The individual respondents alone sought to represent the interests of (2) all officers and enlisted members of the Reserves who were not Members of Congress, (3) all taxpayers of the United States, and (4) all citizens of the United States. The interests of these four classes were alleged to be adversely affected by the Reserve membership of Members of Congress in various ways.
deprives or may deprive the individual named plaintiffs and all other citizens and taxpayers of the United States of the faithful discharge by members of Congress who are members of the Reserves of their duties as members of Congress, to which all citizens and taxpayers are entitled.
to rest exclusively with Congress, not the courts, under Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969).
In recent years, the Supreme Court has greatly expanded the concept of standing, and, in this Circuit, the concept has now been almost completely abandoned.
323 F.Supp. at 839. The court then held that, of the four classes respondents sought to represent, "[o]nly their status as citizens" gave them standing to sue in this case. Id. at 840. The District Court denied standing to respondents as reservists, as opponents of our Vietnam involvement, and as taxpayers. The court acknowledged that there were very few instances in which the assertion of "merely the undifferentiated interest of citizens," ibid., would be sufficient, but was persuaded to find that interest sufficient here by several considerations it found present in the nature of the dispute before it and by the asserted abandonment of standing limitations by the Court of Appeals, whose decisions were binding on the District Court.
In response to petitioners' contention that the Incompatibility Clause sets forth a qualification only for Membership in the Congress, which Congress alone might judge, the District Court characterized the issue as whether respondents presented a nonjusticiable "political question," resolution of which by the text of the Constitution was committed to the Congress under Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962). The court held that the failure of the Executive Branch to remove reservist Members of Congress from their Reserve positions was justiciable.
Having resolved the issues of standing and political question in favor of respondents, the District Court held on the merits that a commission in the Reserves is an "Office under the United States" within the meaning of the Incompatibility Clause. On the basis of the foregoing, the court, in its final order, granted partial summary judgment for respondents by declaring that the Incompatibility Clause renders a Member of Congress ineligible, during his continuance in office, to hold a Reserve "commission"; the court denied such parts of respondents' motion for summary judgment which sought a permanent injunction and relief in the nature of mandamus.4 323 F.Supp. at 843.

matches:
§ 6
v.
v.
v.
§ 6
v.
v.


text:
The Complainant is Buy Owner International, Inc. ("Buy Owner"), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States of America.
The Respondent is Tri-Star Realty ("Tri-Star"), a business of unknown structure, with an address in Mobile, Alabama, United States of America.
The domain name at issue ("Contested Domain Name") is <buyowners.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc., Mountain View, California, United States of America ("Registrar").
A Complaint was submitted to the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 8, 2002, in electronic form. The Center received the hard copy of the Complaint on April 30, 2002. The Center acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on May 3, 2002. An amendment to the Complaint, adding the proper allegations regarding mutual jurisdiction, was sent to the Center on May 29, 2002 (e-mail), and June 1, 2002 (hard copy).
On May 3, 2002, a Request for Registrar Verification was transmitted to the Registrar. The Registrar responded on May 6, 2002, confirming the registration details and its receipt of a copy of the Complaint from Complainant by certified mail.
A Formal Requirements Compliance Checklist was initiated by the Center on June 12, 2002, and completed June 12, 2002. The Center determined that the Complainant was in formal compliance with the requirements of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, in effect as of December 1, 1999 (the "Supplemental Rules"). The Panelist has independently reviewed the requirements and finds that the Complainant is in formal compliance with the requirements of the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.
No formal deficiencies having been noted, on June 12, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding ("the Commencement Notification") was transmitted to the Respondent (with copies to the Complainant, Registrar and ICANN), setting a deadline of July 2, 2002, by which the Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint. The Commencement Notification was transmitted to the Respondent by email to the email addresses indicated in the Complaint and specified in Whois confirmations received from the Registrar and by post/courier to the indicated postal addresses. Having reviewed the communication records in the case file, the Panelist finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a), Rules, "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent."
On July 1, 2002, a Response was received from the Respondent.
On July 29, 2002, the Center invited Richard Allan Horning to serve as the Sole Panelist in WIPO Case No. D2002-0408 and transmitted to him a Statement of Acceptance and Request for Declaration of Impartiality and Independence. Richard Allan Horning�s Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence was received on July 29, 2002. On July 31, 2002, the Center transmitted to the parties a Notification of Appointment of Administrative Panel and projected decision date, in which Richard Allan Horning was formally appointed as the Sole Panelist. The projected decision date was August 14, 2002.
The Panelist finds that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted and appointed in accordance with the Policy, Rules and the Supplemental Rules.
Complainant holds multiple registrations for trademarks containing BUY OWNER as the salient portion, including the registration for the trademark BUY OWNER, Registration No. 1,655,029, in Class 36 for real estate listing services registered on August 27, 1991; the registration for the trademark BUY OWNER & Design, Registration No. 2,071,688, in Class 35 for real estate listing and advertising services, registered June 17, 1997; and the registration for the trademark BUY OWNER & Design, Registration No. 2,071,689, in Class 36 for real estate listing and brokerage services, registered June 17, 1997. Complaint, Annex 3.
Complainant has established a website <buyowner.com>. The <buyowner.com> website offers a variety of real estate related products and services. The Complainant purports to do business in many of the states of the United States, including Alabama. Complainant first registered the buyowner.com domain name on September 21, 1995.
Respondent registered the Contested Domain Name on June 23, 1999 (Complaint, Annex 1).
At the time of the submission of the dispute to the Panelist, the website associated with the Contested Domain Name was a commercial website where Tri-Star Real Estate's services were offered. Buyowners.com is described as a "division" of Tri-Star Real Estate, located in Mobile, Alabama, launched by Respondent on September 1, 2000, as a full service database for homesellers and homebuyers.
Complainant contends that Respondent has registered a domain name which is nearly identical to and confusingly similar to the service marks and trademarks registered and used by Complainant, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue, and that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name at issue in bad faith.
(i) Complainant specifically contends that the Contested Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered marks, as the Contested Domain Name contains all of the word portion of Complainant's registered marks, and merely makes it into a plural of Complainant's registered mark by adding an "s" to the end of Complainant's registered marks.
(ii) Complainant contends that Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Contested Domain Name, as Respondent's registration occurred many years after Complainant obtained its trademark registrations for its registered marks.
1.The Contested Domain Name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the domain name registrant's out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. Complaint, Annex 4.
2.The Contested Domain Name was registered for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant.
3.By using the Contested Domain Name, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent's web site or location. Complaint, Annex 4.
4.Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Contested Domain Name, but in fact is using the Contested Domain Name for commercial purposes in the same field in which Complainant is using its registered marks.
(i)Respondent never heard of buyowner.com when it purchased the Contested Domain Name.
(ii)Respondent spent nearly $8,000 in website development fees.
(iii)Respondent agreed to sell the Contested Domain Name to Complainant last year, only to have Complainant refuse to perform ("try to "weasel" the site for free").
(iv)Respondent does not compete head to head with Complainant.
(v)Respondent did not register the name solely for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant.
(vi)Respondent uses the Contested Domain Name for a free listing of homeowners not in competition with the Complainant.
(vii)Respondent contends that the Complainant tried to legally steal the Contested Domain Name, after Respondent's counsel advised Respondent not to sign the agreement that Complainant had prepared.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panelist as to the principles the Panelist is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Since both the Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the United States, and since United States� courts have experience with similar disputes, to the extent that it would assist the Panelist in determining whether the Complainant has met its burden as established by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panelist shall look to rules and principles of law set out in decisions of the courts of the United States.
3)that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
The Panelist finds that domain name at issue is either identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of Complainant. Hewlett-Packard Company v. Cupcake City, NAF Case No. NAF0002000093562; America Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., NAF Case FA0002000093679; Marriott International, Inc. v. John Marriot, NAF Case No. FA0002000094737; Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Laboratories, WIPO Case No. D2000-1100; Seiko Epson Corporation v. Distribution Purchasing & Logistics Corp., NAF Case No. FA0003000094219; AT&T Corp. v. CME Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-1060; Microsoft Corporation v. Global Net 2000, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2000-0554; America Online, Inc. v. East Coast Exotics, WIPO Case No. D2001-0661; EFG Bank European Financial Group SA v. Jacob Foundation, WIPO Case No. D2000-0036; The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v. DR Seagle t/a Mr. Oxford-University, WIPO Case No. D2001-0746; The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v. CQ, WIPO Case No. D2001-0920.
Given the virtual identicality between Complainant's BUYOWNER mark and the Contested Domain Name, likelihood of confusion must be presumed. Chernow Communications, Inc. v. Jonathan D. Kimball, WIPO Case No. D2000-0119; Shirmax Retail Ltd. v. CES Marketing Group, Inc., eResolution Case No. AF0104.
Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name at issue, and has not acquired trademark or service mark rights in the domain name. The Contested Domain Name was registered by Respondent long after Complainant's registration of its trademarks, and long after Complainant registered BUYOWNER.COM, used as the address for Complainant's website. The Panelist finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name.
(iv)by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant�s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.
It must be presumed that Respondent was aware of the Complainant's registered marks when Respondent registered the Contested Domain Name. Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Deutsche Lufthansa A.G. v. Jin Wang Huh, WIPO Case No. D2001-1226; Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corporation v. Distribution Purchasing & Logistics Corp., WIPO Case No. D2000-0464.
Complainant and Respondent compete, for commercial gain, in the same product and service market, in the same geographic region of the United States, using virtually identical domain names identical to a series of registered trademarks owned by Complainant. In such cases the Panelist is entitled to presume that the "late comer" intends to traffic on the good will of the Complainant and to create confusion as to source, sponsorship and affiliation. That presumption has not been rebutted.
Respondent's bad faith is also evidenced by Respondent's attempt to secure payment from Complainant for the return of the domain name.
On December 4, 2001, Respondent contacted Complainant via e-mail and solicited Complainant's interest in purchasing the Contested Domain Name. Complaint, Annex 4.
On December 5, 2001, Respondent sent to Complainant a form of agreement, wherein Respondent agreed to sell the Contested Domain Name to Complainant for $5,000. Apparently, Complainant's counsel later prepared an agreement which, according to e-mail dated December 23, 2001, Respondent refused to sign. Respondent's refusal to sign was reasserted in an e-mail dated December 27, 2001, and January 10, 2002. On January 18, 2002, in an e-mail to Complainant, Respondent stated that if the deal was not closed by Friday, January 18, 2002, Respondent would withdraw the offer to sell the domain, at any price. On January 22, 2002, Respondent raised the price to $5,250.
This Panelist is aware of Panelist Michael A. Albert's decision in Buy Owner International Inc. v. John Frank, WIPO Case No. D2002-0407 that involved the <buyownerservices.com> domain name. The Complainant here was the Complainant in WIPO Case No. D2002-0407. This Panelist notes that Panelist Albert determined that the Complainant in that case had failed to present sufficient proof on all of the elements that it needed to prove in order to prevail under the Policy, Rules and Supplemental Rules.
This Panelist agrees with Panelist Albert that the Complainant owns a valid trademark and trademark registration for the mark BUYOWNER in the field of real estate listing services.
Unlike the case in WIPO Case No. D2002-0407, here the Respondent has merely added the letter "s" to the mark BUYOWNER. Here there is a substantial likelihood of confusion arising out of the mere addition of an "s" to Complainant's registered trademarks.
Unlike the factual situation in WIPO Case No. D2002-0407, the Respondent here offered to sell the domain name and is in fact using it in a commercial enterprise that competes with Complainant. Given the identical nature of the services offered by Complainant and Respondent, this Panelist believes that there is inevitable disruption of Complainant's business. In reaching this conclusion it must be remembered that Complainant has long-registered trademarks, now incontestable, and registered the <buyowner.com> domain name in 1995, some five years before Respondent commenced its activities.
Under these circumstances the likelihood of confusion is inherent. I find that in this case Complainant has carried its burden of proof in establishing that Respondent has registered and used the Contested Domain Name in bad faith.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panelist decides that the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks and service marks in which the Complainant has rights, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and that the Respondent's domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Accordingly, pursuant to Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, the Panelist requires that the registration of the domain name <buyowners.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


The election of the members of the Board of Directors of SN Nuclearelectrica SA by the application of the cumulative voting method.
The establishment of the duration of the mandate of the administrators elected by the application of the cumulative voting method for a period of 4 (four) years.
The establishment of the fixed gross monthly indemnity of the administrators elected by the application of the cumulative voting method.
The approval of the mandate contract form which will be concluded with the administrators elected by the application of the cumulative voting method.
The empowerment of the representative of the majority shareholder, the Romanian State through the Ministry of Energy to sign the mandate contracts with the administrators elected by the application of the cumulative voting method.
The request of the Ministry of Energy fulfils the conditions provided by art. 1171 , paragraph (1) of the companies’ Law no. 31/1990, corroborated with the provisions of art. 92 paragraph (3) of the Law no. 24/2017 regarding issuers of financial instruments and market operations and those of art. 14 of the SNN Articles of Incorporation, and was sent before the deadline for the amendment of the agenda for the Ordinary General Meeting of Shareholders scheduled for 28.09.2018/01.10.2018, respectively 12.09.2018, SNN issueing a current report at that time.
We remind the fact that as per the Resolution of the Ordinary General Meeting of SNN Shareholders no. 5/25.04.2018, the initiation of the selection procedure for the members of the Board of Directors in compliance with the provisions of OUG 109/2011 as subsequently amended was approved as well as the unfolding of the procedure by the Board of Directors. In compliance with the applicable legislation, the Nomination and Remuneration Committee within SNN BoD, assisted by an independent expert, carried out the selection procedure and sent to the Ministry of Energy on 11.09.2018 the report regarding the final appointments, in order for the Ministry to empower its representatives in the GMS to make proposals for the members of the Board of Directors. The request for the amendment of the SNN GMS agenda of 28.09.2018 is issued by the Ministry of Energy in the context of receiving the documents related to this stage of the selection procedure performed in compliance with OUG 109/2011.
Considering the fact that the OGMS agenda was supplemented with an item regarding the election of members of the Board of Directors, in compliance with the applicable legislation, SNN shareholders will be able to make written candidate proposals for the positions of member of the Board of Directors.
The list comprising information about the name, residence and professional qualification of the persons proposed for the position of members of the BoD will be at the disposal of the shareholders starting with 17.09.2018, 17:00 hours (Romania time) at SNN registration desk as well as on the company’s website in the Investor Relations section/GMS related information/28.09.2018. The list will be updated periodically, as candidate proposals are received from the shareholders, until 21.09.2018, 14:00 hours. The final list with all the proposals for the positions of SNN administrator will be published in 21.09.2018, 17:00 hours.
The shareholders who wish to make proposals for the position of SNN administrator must comply with the identification requirements mentioned in the GMS convening notice applicable for amending the agenda.
The candidates proposed by the shareholders for the position of administrator will be included in the voting ballots in alphabetical order of the name. The amended special powers of attorney and the voting ballots with the proposals made by the shareholders will be at the disposal of the shareholders starting with 21.09.2018, 17:00 hours (Romania time) at SNN headquarters and on the company’s website in the Investor Relations section/GMS related information/28.09.2018, after the completion of the deadline for the proposals for administrators and the inclusion of the proposals on the voting ballots.
The amended convening notice is attached, as per the request of the Ministry of Energy, to this current report and will be published in the Oficial Gazette of Romania and in a national newspaper on 17.09.2018, on which date the special powers of attorney, the correspondence voting ballots and the resolution drafts corresponding to the amended agenda will be available on SNN website in the Investor Relations section/GMS related information, following that these documents be updated with the candidate proposals received from the shareholder and reposted in the final form on 21.09.2018, 17:00 hours.
AMENDED CONVENING NOTICE FOR THE ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF SOCIETATEA NATIONALA NUCLEARELECTRICA S.A.
• The provisions of the National Securities Commission Regulations no. 13/2005 regarding the authorization and operation of Depozitarul Central, clearing houses and central counterparties.
Amends the agenda of the Ordinary General Meeting of the Shareholders of Societatea Nationala Nuclearelectrica S.A. on the date 28.09.2018 hours 10:00 (Romania’s time zone), at Hotel Capital Plaza, Ion Mincu I Room, Bd. 54 Iancu de Hunedoara, District 1, (OGMS) with 5 items, respectively items 4,5,6,7,8.
Only the persons registered as shareholders of SNN on the date of 18.09.2018 („Reference Date”) in the shareholder register issued by Depozitarul Central S. A. (Central Depository S.A.) are entitled to attend and vote within the OGMS.
2. Information note on the transactions concluded with the administrators or directors, with the employees, shareholders who own the control of the company or a company controlled by them in compliance with art.52 paragraph (3), letter a) of OUG 109/2011 with the subsequent amendtments and changes throughout 02.07.2018 – 15.08.2018.
3. Information note on the transactions concluded with the administrators or directors, with the employees, shaholders who own the control over the company or a company controlled by them, in compliance with art.52, paragraph (3) letter b) of of OUG 109/2011 with the subsequent amendtments and changes throughout 02.07.2018 – 15.08.2018.
4. The election of the members of the Board of Directors of SN Nuclearelectrica SA by the application of the cumulative voting method (secret vote).
5. The establishment of the duration of the mandate of the administrators elected by the application of the cumulative voting method for a period of 4 (four) years.
6. The establishment of the fixed gross monthly indemnity of the administrators elected by the application of the cumulative voting method.
7. The approval of the mandate contract form which will be concluded with the administrators elected by the application of the cumulative voting method.
8. The empowerment of the representative of the majority shareholder, the Romanian State through the Ministry of Energy to sign the mandate contracts with the administrators elected by the application of the cumulative voting method.
9. The empowerment of the President of the Board of Directors, to sign, on behalf of the shareholders, the OGMS’s Resolutions and any other documents in connection therewith, and to perform any act or comply with any formality required by law for the registration and enforcement of the OGMS’s Resolutions, including the publication and registration procedures thereof with the Trade Register Office or any other public institution. The President of the Board of Directors may delegate all or part of the powers mentioned above to anyone competent to fulfil this mandate.
In case the legal conditions are not met for holding the OGMS on the date of the first calling, a new OGMS, as appropriate, will be called for the date of 01.10.2018, hours 10.00, for the OGMS and 11:00 for the EGMS having the same agenda. In case of a new calling, the reference date appointed for the identification of the shareholders entitled to attend and vote within the OGMS is the same. The OGMS will take place at the Hotel Capital Plaza, Ion Mincu I Room, Bd. 54 Iancu de Hunedoara, District 1, Bucharest.
d) Shall be sent to the company’s Registration Office by any kind of delivery with receipt confirmation so that they may be registered at the Registration Office of the company by the date of 12.09.2018 hours 16:00, in a closed envelope, with the note legibly written in capital letters: ”FOR THE ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF 28.09.2018”; the proposals may be sent by e-mail with the extended incorporated electronic signature in compliance with the Law No. 455/2001 referring to the electronic signature by the date of 12.09.2018 hours 16:00 to the e-mail address aga@nuclearelectrica.ro with the subject: “FOR THE ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF 28.09.2018”, signed and stamped by the shareholder of its legal representative.
The amended agenda will be published by the Company until 17.09.2018.
Starting with the date of 28.08.2018, 18:30 hours, all the information materials related to issues included on the agenda, the draft resolutions proposed to be adopted by the general meetings and the rules and regulations regarding the organization and development of the general meetings (which include the voting procedure based on representative and the procedure allowing the vote by correspondence) will be available on working days at the company’s headquarters, in Bucharest, No. 65 Polona Street, sector 1, at the company’s Registration Office between 08:30 and 16:30 as well as on the company’s website (www.nuclearelectrica.ro ) . The Company’s shareholders may obtain, at request, copies of the documents referring to issues on the agenda of the OGMS.
The questions will be sent to the Company’s Registration Office by any kind of delivery, with acknowledgement of receipt, so they be received at the company’s Registration Office by the date of 26.09.2018 hours 10.00, in a closed envelope with the note legibly written in capital letters: ”FOR THE ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF 28.09.2018”.
The shareholders may send such questions by e-mail with the extended incorporated electronic signature, in compliance with the Law No. 455/2001 referring to electronic signature, by the date of 26.09.2018, hours 10.00, at the address: aga@nuclearelectrica.ro with the subject: “FOR THE ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF 28.09.2018”.
The shareholders can participate personally or they can be represented in the OGMS by an appointed representative (“Representative”) for whom a special power of attorney was issued, based on the power of attorney form made available by the Company, in compliance with the laws. The power of attorney form can be obtained starting with the date of 28.08.2018, 18:30 hours from the Company’s Registration Office and from the Company’s website (www.nuclearelectrica.ro ). The power of attorney form shall be updated if new items on the OGMS agenda are added.
The special power of attorneys must be filled in and (in 3 originals: one for the shareholder, one for the appointed representative and one for SNN), signed and they must contain specific voting instructions for each item on the OGMS agenda for which the Representative will vote on behalf of the Shareholder (namely vote “for”, “against” or “abstain”). A shareholder may be represented in the OGMS solely by one Representative having a power of attorney issued for the OGMS of 28.09.2018.
(i) The confirmation of company details in original or in copy issued by the Trade Register Office, submitted in compliance with the original, or any other document, in original or in copy, issued by a competent authority of the state where the shareholder is legally registered and which certifies the quality of legal representative, issued within maximum 3 months before the publishing date of the general meeting convening notice which permits the identification of the legal person in the shareholders list issued by S.C. Depozitarul Central S.A, at the reference date. For the Romanian State, the capacity of legal representative is proven based on the appointment decree issued by the President of Romania (copy of the Official Gazette of Romania where the decree is published or extract from a legislative program), in order to prove the capacity of legal representative of the Ministry of Energy.
The special power of attorney will be sent to the Company’s Registration Office, with acknowledgement of receipt, so they be received at the company’s Registration Office by the date of 26.09.2018, hours 10.00 in a closed envelope with the note legibly written in capital letters: ”FOR THE ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF 28.09.2018”.
The special powers of attorney, in Romanian and/or English, may also be delivered by e-mail with extended incorporated electronic signature in compliance with Law No. 455/2001 on electronic signature, no later than 26.09.2018, hours 10.00 at aga@nuclearelectrica.ro, with the subject: “FOR THE ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING OF THE SHAREHOLDERS DATED 28.09.2018”.
The general powers of attorney, before their first use, are submitted at the headquarters with 48 hours before the GMS, namely until 26.09.2018, 10:00, in copy, stating the compliance with the original under the signature of the representative. SNN retains certified copies of the powers of attorney, mentioning this in the minutes of the GMS.
The general powers of attorney will be submitted to the Company starting with 28.08.2018, 18:30 hours, at the same location and in the same conditions as the informative materials.
The Company’s Shareholders registered on the Reference Date in the shareholders’ register issued by Depozitarul Central S.A. (Central Depository) have the possibility of voting by correspondence, before the OGMS, by means of Ballot Papers for voting by correspondence. The ballot paper can be obtained starting with the date of 28.08.2018, 18:30 hours, from the Company’s Registration Office and from the Company’s website (www.nuclearelectrica.ro) and it shall be updated if new items are added to the OGMS agenda.
b) Delivered by e-mail with extended incorporated electronic signature in compliance with Law No. 455/2001 on electronic signature no later than 26.09.2018, hours 10:00, at aga@nuclearelectrica.ro, with the subject: “FOR THE ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS OF 28.09.2018”.
When filling in the special powers of attorney and ballot papers, we kindly ask you to take into consideration the possibility of adding new items to the OGMS agenda, in which case the modified agenda shall be published by 17.09.2018. In this case, the updated special powers of attorney and ballot papers can be obtained from the Company’s Registration Office and from the Company’s website (www.nuclearelectrica.ro ) starting with the publishing date of the modified agenda.
Acording to art.187 item 8 of the Regulation no. 5/2018 regarding issuers of financial instruments and market operations, SNN shareholders will be able to make written candidate proposals for the positions of member of the Board of Directors.
When the members of the Board of Directors are elected by the cumulative vote method, the administrators in office until the OGMS date are listed on the list of candidates for election to the new Board of Directors.


text:
Hearings began at 1:19 pm. Individual votes were announced for 3 of the first 8 hearings. During the 9th hearing, Chairman Fogleman announced that if he did not mention individual votes in his decision, the public should assume that the vote was unanimous. That assumption has been made in the following entries.
Notes from hearing: Mr. Prevas requested a brief hearing postponement, explaining that the applicant has the support of the community and has entered into a lease, but has not finalized all of the details with the landlord and would like to get everything in place before attending a hearing. Mr. Prevas also said that the applicant had informed Mr. Peters of the Hampden Community Council of the postponement. Mr. Peters, who was not at the hearing, told the author the next day that he had not been aware of the postponement.
Notes from hearing: This location is currently covered by the North Avenue Market’s license, but the applicant wants to have his own restaurant license. The applicant presented the Board with a menu, a floor plan showing 104 seats, a document showing a capital investment exceeding the $200,000 required by state law for a new license, letters of support from 3 state delegates, a letter of support from Center City, Inc., and a petition with 167 signatures (including some from Charles North Community Association members) in support of the application. Joe from Joe Squared also testified in support of the application. The applicant said that as part of his operation he is going to try to work with David Stein of Civic Works’ Real Food Farms and also to do some workforce development in the neighborhood. As for live entertainment, the applicant said he is planning on having traditional Irish and Scottish music and some blue grass. There will be 3-4 4-top tables outside, but the applicant has not yet gotten the required minor privilege approval from Zoning.
Result of hearing: Transfer, live entertainment, outdoor table service, and off-premises catering approved.
Issues raised in the audit present in this case: Corporate Standing: Audit Finding 3 states that “BLLC lacked documentation that certain State law and BLLC licensing requirements were met.” Specifically, 9 of 30 “judgmentally selected” licenses lacked the required documentation indicating that the licensed business was in good standing with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (i.e. that the business has filed all required documents and is not delinquent with any State agency). The audit recommends that “staff verif[y] that applicants are in good standing with SDAT and include relevant documentation in the licensee files.” Liam Flynn’s Ale House, LLC is not in good standing with SDAT.
Name of associated corporate entity: Tabor Ethiopian Cuisine, Inc.
Notes from hearing: There are two applicants on this application. The one who is a Baltimore City resident was unable to attend the hearing. According to hearing testimony, he was a licensee at A-1 Deli and Liquors for 16 years. The restaurant is currently open. The applicant’s attorney, Mr. Prevas, said that Mr. Yeager of Downtown Partnership was in support of the license (he had been in Room 215 when the hearings were scheduled to begin, but had to leave). The applicant presented the Board with a document showing a capital investment exceeding the $200,000 required by state law for a new license, 3 letters of support (from Downtown Culture Arts Center, Charm City Chews, and PMS Parking), and a petition with approximately 100 signatures. Chairman Fogleman asked if the establishment was within the boundaries of the Mount Vernon Belvedere Association and Mr. Prevas said he thought it was within the boundaries of the Downtown Partnership. The applicant said there will be 76 seats in the restaurant, plus a small bar with 9 stools in front of the kitchen. In terms of live entertainment, he will be offering traditional Ethiopian music, usually acoustic, with 2-3 musicians 3-4 days a week. Commissioner Jones asked how the applicant would control the volume of the music and the applicant responded that Ethiopian music is not loud – it uses instruments like guitars and it does not use drums.
Result of hearing: Application approved, but if a community association within whose boundaries the establishment lies requests a reconsideration within 30 days, the Board will consider it. In an unusual comment that Chairman Fogleman repeated throughout the day’s hearings, he told the applicant that he will not receive his license until all criteria on a required checklist (Health Department approval, trader’s license, etc.) have been met.
Other reasons Commissioners gave for decision: The licensee has operated a restaurant in this area before so he knows the neighborhood.
Notes from hearing: This is the location of Pazza Luna (now closed). The primary applicant is 28 years old and is the sole investor in the project. His parents are lending him the money to buy the building. The applicants presented the commissioners with petitions with lots of local signatures. They said they are planning on having a “relaxed, up-scale restaurant that’s kid-friendly” with about 15 employees. The restaurant will be open 7 days a week, from 11 am to 10 pm on weeknights, and to 2 am on weekends. The applicants said they met with the board members of the Locust Point community association and on June 12 will be giving a presentation to the whole association. They did not have anything in writing from the community association at the hearing. The outdoor seating will be four 4-tops and the live entertainment will consist of “small stuff” such as karaoke, trivia, and acoustic guitar.
What the vote was: Unanimous. Usually, the commissioners deliberate quietly so the audience cannot hear before announcing their decision. In this instance, Chairman Fogleman said audibly to the other commissioners that he wanted to hear from the community association.
Name of associated corporate entity: Wunderpants Productions, Inc.
Notes from hearing: The applicant plans on having a 500 square foot bar to create a bookstore café atmosphere. He presented a letter in support from the Hampden Village Merchants Association, of which he is president – he explained that he recused himself from the vote on whether or not to support the project. Commissioner Smith asked if there are lots of customers under age 21, what the applicant will do to ensure that there is no under-age drinking. The applicant replied that the store has lots of graphic novels that appeal to adults, and that their average customer age is 21-35. He also said that the bar will be completely separated from the area where children’s comics are kept. Commissioner Smith also asked about the volume of the live entertainment. The applicant said that he was seeking an ambiance where you can pick up a magazine and sit down and read it with a pint of beer. In response to another question by Commissioner Smith, the applicant said that he will not be renting out the establishment. In response to Chairman Fogleman, the applicant said he plans on offering local beers, including the Raven line, which has an appropriate literary association. The second licensee is not financially invested in the business, but has invested in the license. She is a community resident and a long-time fan of Atomic Books.
Notes from hearing: The applicants, one of whom gave an address in Bethesda, MD, and one of whom gave an address in Arlington, VA, plan on having an establishment with Irish-American cuisine and about 15 employees. The hours will be 11 am to 2 am. Members of the community association supported the application and presented the Board with a signed MOU, which, upon questioning from Chairman Fogleman, the applicants said they had knowingly and voluntarily entered.
Issues raised in the audit present in this case: Finding 3 of the Audit states that “BLLC [the Liquor Board] lacked documentation that certain State law and BLLC licensing requirements were met.” In 11 out of 30 applications the auditors tested, the applications were not completely filled out. Neither of the applicants in this case resides in Baltimore City, as required by Md Code Art. 2B § 10-103(4)(i).
Notes from hearing: This is the site of the old J. Patrick’s. The applicant wants to use the name O’Donnell in the new establishment. The application says that the applicant will operate the business full-time, but he said at the hearing that he will not – he will have a full-time manager. The applicant met with the Locust Point Civic Association, which voted to support the project, with no restrictions. The applicant presented a floor plan and a petition with 130-140 signatures. Delegate Brian McHale also supports the project. The applicant hopes to open the establishment by January 1. The hours of operation will be 11:30 am to 2 am. The applicant said the live entertainment will probably be acoustic guitar, and outdoor seating will consist of about 6 4-top tables. The mezzanine, which was not part of the business before, will have 20-24 seats.
Name of associated corporate entity: Edmondson Liquors, Inc.
Notes from hearing: The applicant has operated the establishment for about 15-20 years. She presented a petition with signatures supporting the application. The previous owner did not operate the place well, so the applicant is taking over the license. The applicant’s attorney said that the Midtown Community Association [the author is unclear if the attorney was referring to the Midtown Community Benefits District or another community association] is basically in support of the application. According to the applicant, the president of the association was apparently going to tell the Liquor Board about the association’s approval, but hasn’t yet. The applicant was a licensee from 2002-2005. Chairman Fogleman asked if she had any problems during that time, and she said no.
Other reasons Commissioners gave for decision: The petition in support of the license; No opposition at the hearing.
Area demographics (as of 2010, from BNIA): 79% Black, 15% White; 29% households have children under age 18; median household income: $38,733; 18% households live below the poverty line. In a 2011 Baltimore City Health Department report, Waverly scores 35 (out of 55, with 1 being the best) for Liquor Store Density, where Liquor Store Density is assessed as a determinant for community health – this is considered average for the City of Baltimore. The Liquor Board-prepared map for this application shows two other establishments with A licenses within a few blocks of this location.
Name of associated corporate entity: Mimi Liquors, Inc.
Does at least one of the applicants reside in Baltimore City (and has resided in Baltimore for at least 2 years)? No. The applicant listed a residence in Woodstock, MD on her application.
Does the application contain 3 signatures from Baltimore City property owners who are registered to vote and who have known the applicant for at least two years? No. There is one valid signature. Two of the three individuals listed do not own the property they list as theirs; one of these individuals states that he has only known the applicant for one year.
Notes from hearing: The applicant has owned two liquor licenses in the past, one at this location. She presented a petition in support of the application. The applicant said that she has discussed the application with the Harwood Community Association, and the members are in support, but have not had a chance to write a letter yet. Chairman Fogleman asked if the applicant had any violations on her previous licenses. She said she had one in 2003, but none since. Chairman Fogleman emphasized that the Board comes down harshly when licensees serve to underage individuals.
Result of hearing: Transfer approved.
Other reasons Commissioners gave for decision: The applicant has owned licenses in the past, and only had 1 violation 10 years ago. She knows the neighborhood.
Issues raised in the audit present in this case: Finding 3 of the Audit states that “BLLC [the Liquor Board] lacked documentation that certain State law and BLLC licensing requirements were met.” In 11 out of 30 applications the auditors tested, the applications were not completely filled out. The applicant in this case does not reside in Baltimore City, as required by Md Code Art. 2B § 10-103(4)(i). Additionally, the application contained three citizen signatures, but the signatures were not signatures of three citizens who met the requirements of Md Code Art. 2B § 10-104(d).
Area demographics (as of 2010, from BNIA): 83% Black, 13% White; 31% households have children under age 18; median household income: $19,183; 38% households live below the poverty line. The Liquor Board-prepared map shows 14 other liquor licenses within a few blocks of the establishment, 7 of which are BD7 licenses.
Does the application contain 3 signatures from Baltimore City property owners who are registered to vote and who have known the applicant(s) for at least 2 years? No. One of the three individuals listed does not own the property he lists as his.
Name of associated corporate entity: Pal Brothers, Inc.
Notes from hearing: The applicant’s father is retiring, so the applicant is taking over the license. Chairman Fogleman confirmed that the establishment has permission to have outdoor table service, but doesn’t really use it.

matches:
Art. 2
§ 10
Art. 2
§ 10
Art. 2
§ 10