European Communities Sample Clauses

European Communities. For purposes of this clause, the Euro- pean Communities shall be treated as a foreign country.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
European Communities. 5 ---------- NOTE: This table of contents shall not, for any purpose, be deemed to be a part of the Indenture.
European Communities. I-2 Fixed Charge Coverage and Ownership Agreement............... I-2
European Communities. 5 PAGE(S) -------
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. Directorate-General XII, Science Research and Development, Xxxxxxx 0, Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx. Xxxxxxx, M., Xxx, S., 1996. A collection of data from dense gas experiments (No. Riso-R-845 (EN)). Riso National Laboratory, Denmark. Xxxxxxxxx, X.X., Roy, C.J., 2010. Verification and validation in scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, New York. Xxxxxxxxxxxx, X.X., Venetsanos, A.G., Xxxxxxx, M., Xxxxxxx, D., Xxxxx, A., Pujol, J., Xxxxxx, J., Xxxxxxxx, N., 2010. HySafe SBEP-V20: numerical studies of release experiments inside a naturally ventilated residential garage. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy (UK) 35, 4747–57. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.02.020 Xxxxxxxxxx, X.X., 1911. The Approximate Arithmetical Solution by Finite Differences of Physical Problems Involving Differential Equations, with an Application to the Stresses in a Masonry Dam. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 210, 307–357. doi:10.1098/rsta.1911.0009 Xxxxxxxxxx, X.X., Xxxxx, X.X., 1927. The Deferred Approach to the Limit. Part I. Single Lattice. Part II. Interpenetrating Lattices. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 226, 299–361. doi:10.1098/rsta.1927.0008 Xxxxxx, X.X., 2009. Perspective: Validation—What Does It Mean? Journal of Fluids Engineering 131, 34503. doi:10.1115/1.3077134 Xxxxxx, X.X., 1998. Verification and validation in computational science and engineering. Hermosapublishers, Albuquerque, N.M. Xxxxxx, X.X., 1994. Perspective: A Method for Uniform Reporting of Grid Refinement Studies. Journal of Fluids Engineering 116, 405–413. doi:10.1115/1.2910291 Shepherd, J., 2005. Detonation Database [WWW Document]. Detonation Database, California Institute of Technology. URL xxxx:// XXXXXX consortium, D2.1, 2014. XXXXXX D2.1, State-of-the-art review concerning FCH technologies (Report of the XXXXXX project, funded by Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU). Grant agreement No. 325386). XXXXXX consortium, D2.2, 2015. XXXXXX D2.2, Critical analysis and requirements to physical and mathematical models (Report of the XXXXXX project, funded by Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU). Grant agreement No. 325386). XXXXXX consortium, D3.2, 2016. XXXXXX D3.2, Guide to best practices in numerical simulations (Report of the XXXXXX project, funded by Fuel Cells and ...
European Communities. In a spirit of cooperation and mutual interest, the relevantauthorities of Tunisia will provide any reasonable and feasibleassistance as may be necessary or helpful to perform such audits andverifications.
European Communities. The term "
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...