European Communities. For purposes of this clause, the Euro- pean Communities shall be treated as a foreign country.
European Communities. The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement – Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 14 November 2001, Award of the Arbitrator, WT/L/616, dated 1 August 2005 (hereinafter "Award of the Arbitrator").
European Communities. I-2 Fixed Charge Coverage and Ownership Agreement............ I-2
European Communities. 5 -------------- [FN] (1) This table of contents shall not, for any purpose, be deemed to be a part of the Indenture.
European Communities. Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries 2 The 12 countries benefiting from the Drug Arrangements are the following: Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru and Venezuela.
European Communities. Protection of trademarks and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Timeline: Request for consultations filed by the United States on June 7, 1999. - Summary In this complaint, the United States alleges that the European Communities regulations 2081/92 as amended does not comply with the TRIPS Agreement by failing to provide national treatment with respect to geographical indications and by failing to provide protection to preexisting trademarks that are similar or identical to a geographical indication.
European Communities. Enforcement of intellectual property rights for motion pictures and television programs - Timeline: request for consultations filed by the United States on May 7, 1998. - Summary This dispute parallels the case against Greece mentioned above.
European Communities. Export Subsidies on Sugar WT/DS265/AB/R, 28 April 2005 (Report of the Appellate Body). Plama Consortium Ltd v Bulgaria (Decision on Jurisdiction) ICSID ARB/03/24, 8 February 2005. Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages (Mexico – Soft Drinks) WT/DS308/AB/R, 6 March 2006 (Report of the Appellate Body). Saluka Investments BV v the Czech Republic (Partial Award) PCA No 3001-04, 17 March 2006. Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriy/Xxxx) [1994] ICJ Rep 26. Ulysseas Inc v Ecuador (Interim Award) PCA No 2009-19, 28 September 2010. Yukos Universal Ltd v Russia (Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility) PCA No AA 227, 30 November 2009.
European Communities. Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment, WT/DS62/R (5 Feb. 1999), at paras 8.24–8.26. For further commentary see Ruessmann, supra note 12. 34 The Appellate Body had observed ‘we disagree with the Panel that the maintenance of the security and predictability of tariff concessions allows the interpretation of a concession in the light of the “legitimate expectations” of exporting Members, i.e., their subjective views as to what the agreement reached during tariff negotiations was’: EC – Computer Equipment, supra note 15, at para. 82 (emphasis in original). 35 Ibid., at para. 84 (emphasis in original). Instead, recalling earlier reasoning in India – Patent Protection, it stated that ‘[t]he legitimate expectations of the parties to a treaty are reflected in the language of the treaty itself. The duty of a treaty interpreter is to examine the words of the treaty to determine the intentions of the parties.’36 On this basis the Appellate Body went on to identify other sources of common intent. It referred not only to the intentions of exporting countries such as the US, but also to the practice of EC countries as exporters, to that of third parties participating in the case, and to multilateral instruments such as the Harmonized System and its Explanatory Notes. Most significantly, the Appellate Body referred to classification decisions of the World Customs Organization arising out of disputes between countries other than the EC and the US, the two disputants in EC – Computer Equipment. In other words, the Appellate Body mentioned a wide range of sources in arriving at a meaning of the EC’s tariff concession, a meaning that went beyond the ‘expectations’ of any one country in the litigation and ultimately approximated the common intent of all par- ties to the treaty. The interpretative method fashioned by the Appellate Body can be regarded as a straightforward application of the Vienna Convention. VCLT Article 31.1 refers to the ‘context’ as an element to be taken into account in determining the meaning of a treaty provision, and VCLT Article 31.2(a) further provides that: The context, for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes: (a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connexion with the conclusion of the treaty . . . Given what we known about negotiations leading to the conclusion of GATT and the WTO Agreement, and in light of...
European Communities. The European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Database Protection Agreement between the United Kingdom on behalf of the Isle of Man and the European Community) Order 2003 Made - - - - 2003 Coming into force in accordance with article 1 THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) (DATABASE PROTECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM ON BEHALF OF THE ISLE OF MAN AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY) ORDER 2003
