Answer the question from the given passage. Your answer should be directly extracted from the passage, and it should be a single entity, name, or number, not a sentence.
--------
Question: Passage: French Huguenot explorer Jean Ribault charted the St. Johns River in 1562 calling it the River of May because he discovered it in May. Ribault erected a stone column near present-day Jacksonville claiming the newly discovered land for France. In 1564, René Goulaine de Laudonnière established the first European settlement, Fort Caroline, on the St. Johns near the main village of the Saturiwa. Philip II of Spain ordered Pedro Menéndez de Avilés to protect the interest of Spain by attacking the French presence at Fort Caroline. On September 20, 1565, a Spanish force from the nearby Spanish settlement of St. Augustine attacked Fort Caroline, and killed nearly all the French soldiers defending it. The Spanish renamed the fort San Mateo, and following the ejection of the French, St. Augustine's position as the most important settlement in Florida was solidified. The location of Fort Caroline is subject to debate but a reconstruction of the fort was established on the St. Johns River in 1964. Question: What was Fort Caroline renamed to after the Spanish attack?

Answer: San Mateo


Question: Passage: With 4:51 left in regulation, Carolina got the ball on their own 24-yard line with a chance to mount a game-winning drive, and soon faced 3rd-and-9. On the next play, Miller stripped the ball away from Newton, and after several players dove for it, it took a long bounce backwards and was recovered by Ward, who returned it five yards to the Panthers 4-yard line. Although several players dove into the pile to attempt to recover it, Newton did not and his lack of aggression later earned him heavy criticism. Meanwhile, Denver's offense was kept out of the end zone for three plays, but a holding penalty on cornerback Josh Norman gave the Broncos a new set of downs. Then Anderson scored on a 2-yard touchdown run and Manning completed a pass to Bennie Fowler for a 2-point conversion, giving Denver a 24–10 lead with 3:08 left and essentially putting the game away. Carolina had two more drives, but failed to get a first down on each one. Question: On what yard line did Carolina begin with 4:51 left in the game?

Answer: 24


Question: Passage: Since its founding, the EU has operated among an increasing plurality of national and globalising legal systems. This has meant both the European Court of Justice and the highest national courts have had to develop principles to resolve conflicts of laws between different systems. Within the EU itself, the Court of Justice's view is that if EU law conflicts with a provision of national law, then EU law has primacy. In the first major case in 1964, Costa v ENEL, a Milanese lawyer, and former shareholder of an energy company, named Mr Costa refused to pay his electricity bill to Enel, as a protest against the nationalisation of the Italian energy corporations. He claimed the Italian nationalisation law conflicted with the Treaty of Rome, and requested a reference be made to both the Italian Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice under TFEU article 267. The Italian Constitutional Court gave an opinion that because the nationalisation law was from 1962, and the treaty was in force from 1958, Costa had no claim. By contrast, the Court of Justice held that ultimately the Treaty of Rome in no way prevented energy nationalisation, and in any case under the Treaty provisions only the Commission could have brought a claim, not Mr Costa. However, in principle, Mr Costa was entitled to plead that the Treaty conflicted with national law, and the court would have a duty to consider his claim to make a reference if there would be no appeal against its decision. The Court of Justice, repeating its view in Van Gend en Loos, said member states 'albeit within limited spheres, have restricted their sovereign rights and created a body of law applicable both to their nationals and to themselves' on the 'basis of reciprocity'. EU law would not 'be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed... without the legal basis of the community itself being called into question.' This meant any 'subsequent unilateral act' of the member state inapplicable. Similarly, in Amministrazione delle Finanze v Simmenthal SpA, a company, Simmenthal SpA, claimed that a public health inspection fee under an Italian law of 1970 for importing beef from France to Italy was contrary to two Regulations from 1964 and 1968. In 'accordance with the principle of the precedence of Community law,' said the Court of Justice, the 'directly applicable measures of the institutions' (such as the Regulations in the case) 'render automatically inapplicable any conflicting provision of current national law'. This was necessary to prevent a 'corresponding denial' of Treaty 'obligations undertaken unconditionally and irrevocably by member states', that could 'imperil the very foundations of the' EU. But despite the views of the Court of Justice, the national courts of member states have not accepted the same analysis. Question: When did Costa v ENEL take place?

Answer:
1964


