To determine qualifications for employment and the nature and content of personnel examinations;
To determine the times when options shall be granted and the number of shares to be optioned; (d) to determine the option price of the shares subject to each option, which price shall be not less than the minimum specified in ARTICLE V; (e) to determine the time or times when each option becomes exercisable, the duration of the exercise period and any other restrictions on the exercise of options issued hereunder; (f) to prescribe the form or forms of the option agreements under the Plan (which forms shall be consistent with the terms of the Plan but need not be identical); (g) to adopt, amend and rescind such rules and regulations as, in its opinion, may be advisable in the administration of the Plan; and (h) to construe and interpret the Plan, the rules and regulations and the option agreements under the Plan and to make all other determinations deemed necessary or advisable for the administration of the Plan. All decisions, determinations and interpretations of the Committee shall be final and binding on all optionees.
To determine the services to be created and provided; facilities and equipment required; and the scheduling and assignment of work.
To determine whether the envisaged rebinding of the EC tariff on bananas would result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers, taking into account [all EC WTO market- access commitments relating to bananas].
3. In its first award, the Arbitrator determined "that the European Communities' envisaged rebinding on bananas would not result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers, taking into account all EC WTO market-access commitments relating to bananas."3
4. In a letter dated 4 August 2005, the Arbitrator observed that the fifth tiret of the Annex to the Doha Waiver contemplated that "in the absence of a mutually satisfactory solution, the same arbitrator will be asked to determine, within 30 days of the new arbitration request, whether the EC has rectified the matter". In the light of the possibility of a second arbitration, the Arbitrator outlined the procedure that it proposed to follow, were a second arbitration to be requested. This procedure included a tentative timetable for the parties' submissions, the hearing and the award. The letter also invited participation by the same African, Caribbean and Pacific ("ACP") countries that participated in the first arbitration (the "relevant ACP Members") on the same terms as in the first arbitration, including the possibility of presenting a collective written submission and a collective statement at the hearing.
5. The Arbitrator received a letter, dated 18 August 2005, from the relevant ACP Members requesting more extensive rights of participation in the second arbitration. Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama4 (hereafter referred to as "the Interested Parties") objected to the ACP request in a letter dated 14 September 2005.
6. In a letter from the parties, dated 24 August 2005, the Arbitrator was informed that the European Communities had entered into consultations with the Interested Parties within ten days of the notification of the arbitration award to the General Council. It was also informed that the European Communities would "not be in a position before September to present the Interested Parties its proposal to "rectify the matter" or to propose a timetable for constructive consultations upon presentation of that proposal. Furthermore, the letter noted that the parties agreed "that in the absence of a mutually satisfactory solution, the second arbitration may be requested at any time in such a manner as would e...
To determine i. Appropriate staffing levels and work performance standards, except for safety considerations;
ii. The content of the workday, including without limitation workload factors, except for safety considerations;
iii. The quality and quantity of services to be offered to the public;
iv. The means and methods of offering those services; and
v. The supplier of goods and services. No permanent employee will be laid off as an initial result of contracting goods and services.
To determine whether the envisaged rebinding of the EC tariff on bananas would result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers, taking into account [all EC WTO market-access commitments relating to bananas].1 The terms of the mandate thus require the Arbitrator to consider whether or not a certain outcome "would result" from a certain action. The text of the mandate may be broken down into three elements. The first is the "envisaged rebinding of the EC tariff on bananas". This language describes the action at the centre of the required analysis. The second element comprises a benchmark against which the envisaged rebinding of the EC tariff on bananas is to be assessed. Thus, this element of the mandate requires the Arbitrator to determine whether the envisaged rebinding "would result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers". The third, and final, element is a direction to the Arbitrator to take into account all EC WTO market-access commitments relating to bananas whilst performing the analysis under its mandate. There is no disagreement as to the meaning and scope of the first element of the mandate. The parties agree that the "envisaged rebinding of the EC tariff on bananas" is reflected in the EC proposal to record a new commitment in its WTO schedule under tariff heading CN 08030019 at €230 per metric ton.2 The parties differ, however, over the interpretation of the second and third textual elements of the mandate. With respect to the second element, the Interested Parties generally argue that the concept of "at least maintaining" denotes that—at a minimum—the European Communities must keep in existence and must not allow diminution of the relevant market access of MFN suppliers through the rebinding.3 The European Communities, for its part, submits that the Arbitrators are required to examine "if the proposed new concession would not increase the level of protection (and conversely diminish the market access rights of MFN suppliers) as compared with the level of protection offered by the European Communities' current concession".4 The Interested Parties add that "maintaining" total market access carries with it a temporal, prospective dimension, such that total market access—appropriately defined—must be preserved in time.5 The parties offer markedly different interpretations as to the meaning of the phrase "total market access for MFN banana suppliers", and the significance and scope of the EC commitments to...
To determine whether the envisaged rebinding of the EC tariff on bananas would result in at least maintaining total market access for MFN banana suppliers, taking into account [certain] EC commitments. Paragraph 1 of the Doha Waiver provides as follows: Subject to the terms and conditions set out hereunder, Article I, paragraph 1 of the General Agreement shall be waived, until 31 December 2007, to the extent necessary to permit the European Communities to provide preferential tariff treatment for products originating in ACP States as required by Article 36.3, Annex 5 and its Protocols of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, without being required to extend the same preferential treatment to like products of any other member. (footnote omitted) It is clear, on a plain reading of the fourth tiret of the Annex to the Doha Waiver, that the Arbitrator's mandate does not explicitly require the Arbitrator to assess whether the European Communities' envisaged rebinding is consistent with the conditions set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Doha Waiver. Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama argue, however, that the Arbitrator may consider substantive claims that the European Communities' envisaged rebinding does not comply with the conditions of the Doha Waiver, and request the Arbitrator to review the consistency of the European Communities' proposed rebinding against the terms of Paragraph 1. The European Communities contests this submission, submitting that the Arbitrator's "terms of reference" (or "jurisdiction") are limited to the terms of the mandate.3 In seeking to show that an examination under Paragraph 1 of the Doha Waiver is within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator in this proceeding, notwithstanding the lack of any express authority for such jurisdiction within the terms of the Annex to the Doha Waiver, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama rely, in particular, upon the wording of Paragraph 3bis of the Doha Waiver, which provides that: With respect to bananas, the additional provisions in the Annex shall apply. Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama submit that the use of the term "additional" means that both the general requirements of the Waiver, and the "additional" provisions of the Annex, apply in respect of bananas. Thus, in the submission of Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, claims under the general provisions of the Waiver may be brought before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator agrees with Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama that both the "additional" Annex provisions as well as the general provis...
To determine a teacher’s experience for salary increments for a school year, the teacher’s total service shall be determined as of the first (1st) day of August of the academic school year in which the teacher applied for the recognition of service and submitted all the required documentation.
To determine a Party's compliance with the Interconnection Performance Benchmarks, on and after the first Interconnection Activation Date hereunder, each Party shall maintain separate records of the specific criteria listed on Schedule 3.8 (each, an “Interconnection Performance Activity”) relating to Interconnection that it provides to itself, its subsidiaries, and Affiliates (the “Providing Party's Interconnection Records”) and to other LECs (the “Other LEC Interconnection Records”) and parallel records of the Interconnection that the Providing Party provides to the other Party (the “Other Party's Interconnection Records”) and shall use the methods described in Schedule 3.8 to calculate Interconnection Performance Activity and determine compliance with such Interconnection Performance Benchmarks.
To determine. (A) who will be granted Stock Awards; (B) when and how each Stock Award will be granted; (C) what type of Stock Award will be granted; (D) the provisions of each Stock Award (which need not be identical), including when a person will be permitted to exercise or otherwise receive cash or Common Stock under the Stock Award; (E) the number of shares of Common Stock subject to, or the cash value of, a Stock Award; and (F) the Fair Market Value applicable to a Stock Award.
