OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# United States Reports/Volume 2/Bain, et. al. v. Schooner Speedwell, et. al. (2 U.S. 40)

2 U.S. (2 Dallas) 40 (Fed. App. 1783)
Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture
2 U.S. 40
Bain, et. al., Appellants v. Schooner Speedwell, et. al.. Appellees
Admiralty Court of Rhode Island
Argued: … --- Decided: 24 May 1784
​This was an appeal from the Admiralty of the State of Rhode-Island, where the Schooner had been condemned as prize; and the record was submitted to the decision of the Court, without argument. On the 24th of May, 1784, Griffin, Reed, and Lowell, the presiding Commissioners, delivered the following judgment:
By the Court. It appearing, by the inspection of the record, that the Schooner in question, was captured from the British, since the operation of the preliminary articles of peace, (to wit, on the dayof) the condemnation cannot be sustained.
Decree reversed.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Reports/Volume 202

* 202 U.S. 1 (1906) State of Louisiana v. State of Mississippi
* 202 U.S. 58 (1906) State of Louisiana v. State of Mississippi
* 202 U.S. 60 (1906) State of Oregon v. Hitchcock
* 202 U.S. 71 (1906) Hazelton v. Sheckels
* 202 U.S. 80 (1906) Fernandez y Perez v. Perez y Fernandez
* 202 U.S. 101 (1906) United States v. Cherokee Nation
* 202 U.S. 132 (1906) Whitney v. Dick
* 202 U.S. 141 (1906) First National Bank of Baltimore v. Staake
* 202 U.S. 150 (1906) Sawyer v. United States
* 202 U.S. 168 (1906) United States v. Milliken Imprinting Company
* 202 U.S. 178 (1906) In re Lincoln
* 202 U.S. 184 (1906) United States v. Cornell Steamboat Company
* 202 U.S. 195 (1906) Darlington v. Turner
* 202 U.S. 242 (1906) Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Dryden
* 202 U.S. 246 (1906) Security Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Prewitt
* 202 U.S. 270 (1906) Gila Bend Reservoir Irrigation Company v. Gila Water Company
* 202 U.S. 275 (1906) Hulbert v. City of Chicago
* 202 U.S. 281 (1906) Pearson v. Williams
* 202 U.S. 287 (1906) Halsell v. Renfrow Railroad J
* 202 U.S. 295 (1906) Merchants' National Bank v. Wehrmann
* 202 U.S. 302 (1906) United States v. Dieckerhoff
* 202 U.S. 313 (1906) Devine v. City of Los Angeles
* 202 U.S. 339 (1906) Ortega v. Lara
* 202 U.S. 344 (1906) Burton v. United States
* 202 U.S. 401 (1906) James v. United States
* 202 U.S. 409 (1906) Ayer Lord Tie Company v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
* 202 U.S. 429 (1906) Millard v. Roberts
* 202 U.S. 438 (1906) Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company v. Holmes
* 202 U.S. 446 (1906) Cox v. State of Texas
* 202 U.S. 453 (1906) Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Waterworks Company
* 202 U.S. 473 (1906) Naganab v. Hitchcock
* 202 U.S. 477 (1906) Bush v. Elliott
* 202 U.S. 484 (1906) Lincoln v. United States
* 202 U.S. 501 (1906) O'Conor v. State of Texas
* 202 U.S. 510 (1906) McDonald v. Dewey
* 202 U.S. 543 (1906) McNeill v. Southern Railway Company
* 202 U.S. 563 (1906) United States v. American Sugar Refining Company
* 202 U.S. 580 (1906) Franklin Sugar Refining Company v. United States
* 202 U.S. 584 (1906) New York ex rel. New York Central Hudson River Railroad Company v. Miller
* 202 U.S. 598 (1906) State of Missouri v. State of Illinois
* 202 U.S. 600 (1906) McDermott v. Severe
* 202 U.S. 614 (1906) Dones v. Urrutia
# United States Reports/Volume 200

* 200 U.S. 1 (1906) United States ex rel. Drury v. Lewis
* 200 U.S. 9 (1906) Albright v. Territory of New Mexico ex rel. Sandoval
* 200 U.S. 13 (1906) Nutt v. Knut
* 200 U.S. 22 (1906) Knoxville Water Company v. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Knoxville
* 200 U.S. 38 (1906) Owensboro Waterworks Company v. City of Owensboro
* 200 U.S. 48 (1906) Peoria Gas Electric Company v. City of Peoria
* 200 U.S. 57 (1906) Guardian Trust Deposit Company v. Fisher
* 200 U.S. 71 (1906) Howard v. Perrin
* 200 U.S. 76 (1906) Kolze v. Hoadley
* 200 U.S. 87 (1906) Campbell v. State of California
* 200 U.S. 96 (1906) Herrick v. Boquillas Land Cattle Company
* 200 U.S. 103 (1906) Succession of Juan Serralles v. Esbri
* 200 U.S. 118 (1906) Montana Catholic Missions v. Missoula County
* 200 U.S. 130 (1906) Speer v. Colbert
* 200 U.S. 148 (1906) Mead v. City of Portland
* 200 U.S. 164 (1906) Howard v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
* 200 U.S. 176 (1906) Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Deer
* 200 U.S. 179 (1906) Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Big Sandy, Pomeroy Packet Company v. Bay
* 200 U.S. 186 (1906) Ballmann v. Fagin
* 200 U.S. 197 (1906) United States ex rel. Hill v. American Surety Company of New York
* 200 U.S. 206 (1906) Alabama Great Southern Railway Company v. Thompson
* 200 U.S. 221 (1906) Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Bohon
* 200 U.S. 226 (1906) Armour Packing Company v. Lacy
* 200 U.S. 239 (1906) Hallenborg v. Cobre Grande Copper Company
* 200 U.S. 248 (1906) Graham v. Folson
* 200 U.S. 255 (1906) Carter v. Territory of Hawaii
* 200 U.S. 257 (1906) Warner v. Grayson
* 200 U.S. 273 (1906) Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company
* 200 U.S. 293 (1906) Carfer v. Caldwell
* 200 U.S. 298 (1906) Guss v. Nelson
* 200 U.S. 304 (1906) San Antonio Traction Company v. Altgelt
* 200 U.S. 310 (1906) Hibernia Savings Loan Society v. City and County of San Francisco
* 200 U.S. 316 (1906) Martin v. State of Texas
* 200 U.S. 321 (1906) United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Company
* 200 U.S. 354 (1906) Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States
* 200 U.S. 361 (1906) New York New Haven Hartford Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission
* 200 U.S. 405 (1906) Rector v. City Deposit Bank Company
* 200 U.S. 420 (1906) Rector v. Commercial National Bank
* 200 U.S. 425 (1906) First National Bank of Ottawa v. Converse
* 200 U.S. 446 (1906) Security Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Prewitt
* 200 U.S. 450 (1906) Travelers Insurance Company v. Henry Railroad Prewitt
* 200 U.S. 451 (1906) United States of America v. Bitter Root Development Company
* 200 U.S. 480 (1906) Looney v. Metropolitan Railroad Company
* 200 U.S. 488 (1906) United States v. New York Cuba Mail Steamshif Company
* 200 U.S. 496 (1906) State of Missouri v. State of Illinois
* 200 U.S. 527 (1906) Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Company
* 200 U.S. 532 (1906) Whitney v. Dresser
* 200 U.S. 536 (1906) Southern Pacific Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission
* 200 U.S. 561 (1906) Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company v. Illinois
* 200 U.S. 601 (1906) United States v. Clark
# United States Reports/Volume 2/Stoddard v. Read, et. al. (2 U.S. 40)

2 U.S. (2 Dallas) 40 (Fed. App. 1783)
Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture
2 U.S. 40
Stoddard, Appellant v. Read, Appellee, and the Schooner Squirrel and Cargo
Argued: May Session, 1783 --- Decided: May Session, 1783
​On motion of the Apellant’s Counsel, before an appearance filed on behalf of the Appellee, stating that the prize Schooner was in a perishing condition, it was ordered,
By the Court. That the Schooner, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, be sold at public auction, to the highest bidder, for the use of those to whom the same shall be finally decreed.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United States Reports/Volume 20

7 Wheaton., ( 5 L.Ed. )
* 20 U.S. 1 Miller v. Kerr
* 20 U.S. 7 Newsom v. Pryor's
* 20 U.S. 13 (1822) Tayloe v. T S Sandiford
* 20 U.S. 23 (1822) Taylor's v. Myers
* 20 U.S. 27 (1822) Green v. Watkins
* 20 U.S. 35 (1822) Page's Administrators v. The Bank of Alexandria.
* 20 U.S. 38 (1822) Kearney
* 20 U.S. 46 (1822) Bayley v. Greenleaf
* 20 U.S. 58 (1822) Browder v. McArthur
* 20 U.S. 59 (1822) Ricard v. Williams
* 20 U.S. 122 Bouldin v. Massie's
* 20 U.S. 158 (1822) Watts v. Lindsey's
* 20 U.S. 164 (1822) Matthews v. Zane
* 20 U.S. 212 (1822) Hoofnagle v. Anderson
* 20 U.S. 218 (1822) Brown v. Jackson
* 20 U.S. 248 (1822) Blunt's v. Smith
* 20 U.S. 283 (1822) The Santissima Trinidad and the St. Ander
* 20 U.S. 356 (1822) Evans v. Eaton
* 20 U.S. 453 (1822) Evans v. Hettich
* 20 U.S. 471 (1822) The Gran Para
* 20 U.S. 490 (1822) The Santa Maria
* 20 U.S. 496 (1822) The Arrogante Barcelones the
* 20 U.S. 520 (1822) The Monte Allegre and the Rainha De Los Anjos
* 20 U.S. 522 (1822) Crocket v. Lee Same
* 20 U.S. 530 (1822) Macker's v. Thomas
* 20 U.S. 534 Columbian Insurance Company v. Wheelright
* 20 U.S. 535 (1822) Blight's v. Rochester
* 20 U.S. 551 (1822) The Irresistible Daniels
* 20 U.S. 553 (1822) Holbrook v. The Union Bank of Alexandria
* 20 U.S. 556 (1822) Marbury v. Brooks
* 20 U.S. 581 (1822) Dorr v. Pacific Insurance Company
# United States Reports/Volume 201

* 201 U.S. 1 (1906) Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Powers
* 201 U.S. 41 (1906) Territory of New Mexico v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
* 201 U.S. 43 (1906) Hale v. Henkel
* 201 U.S. 90 (1906) McAlister v. Henkel
* 201 U.S. 92 (1906) Nelson v. United States
* 201 U.S. 117 (1906) Alexander v. United States
* 201 U.S. 123 (1906) Felts v. Murphy
* 201 U.S. 131 (1906) Valentina v. Mercer
* 201 U.S. 140 (1906) Otis Company v. Ludlow Manufacturing Company
* 201 U.S. 166 (1906) Leschen & Sons Rope Company v. Broderick & Bascom Rope Company
* 201 U.S. 173 (1906) St. Louis Dressed Beef Provision Company v. Maryland Casualty Company
* 201 U.S. 184 (1906) Brown v. Gurney
* 201 U.S. 194 (1906) Amadeo v. Northern Assurance Company
* 201 U.S. 202 (1906) State of Wisconsin v. Hitchcock
* 201 U.S. 216 (1906) Christopher v. Norvell
* 201 U.S. 230 (1906) Wyman v. Wallace
* 201 U.S. 244 (1906) Frenzer v. Wallace
* 201 U.S. 245 (1906) Michigan Central Railroad Company v. Powers
* 201 U.S. 303 (1906) De La Rama v. De La Rama
* 201 U.S. 319 (1906) Keen v. Keen
* 201 U.S. 321 (1906) Houston Texas Central Railroad Company v. Mayes
* 201 U.S. 332 (1906) Joy v. City of St. Louis
* 201 U.S. 344 (1906) York Manufacturing Company v. Cassell
* 201 U.S. 354 (1906) United States v. R. F. Downing & Company
* 201 U.S. 359 (1906) Soper v. Lawrence Brothers Company
* 201 U.S. 371 (1906) De Rodriguez v. Vivoni
* 201 U.S. 378 (1906) McCahan Sugar Refining Company v. The Steamship Wildcroft
* 201 U.S. 390 (1906) United States v. Wickersham
* 201 U.S. 400 (1906) Blair v. City of Chicago
* 201 U.S. 506 (1906) West Chicago Street Railroad Company v. Illinois
* 201 U.S. 529 (1906) City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Electric Railway Company
* 201 U.S. 543 (1906) Powers v. Detroit Grand Haven Milwaukee Railway Company
* 201 U.S. 562 (1906) Haddock v. Haddock
* 201 U.S. 633 (1906) John v. People of the State of New York
* 201 U.S. 638 (1906) Rawlins v. State of Georgia
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 90

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, quotes, travel guide, Wikidata item.
Adopted unanimously by the Security Council at its 531st meeting, on 31 January 1951
The Security Council,
Resolves to remove the item "Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea" from the list of matters of which the council is seized.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 92

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 545th meeting, by 10 votes to none, with 1 abstention (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), on 8 May 1951
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 54 (1948) of 15 July 1948, 73 (1949) of 11 August 1949, and 89 (1950) of 17 November 1950,
Noting with concern that fighting has broken out in and around the demilitarized zone established by the Israel-Syrian General Armistice Agreement of 20 July 1949 [1] and that fighting is continuing despite the cease-fire order of the Acting Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine issued on 4 May 1951,
Calls upon the parties or persons in the areas concerned to cease fighting, brings to the attention of the parties their obligations under Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations and the Security Council’s resolution 54 (1948) and their commitments under the General Armistice Agreement, and accordingly calls upon them to comply with these obligations and commitments.
[1] See Official Records of the Security Council, Fourth Year, Special Supplement No. 2.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 914

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
RESOLUTION 914 (1994)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 3369th meeting, on 27 April 1994
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its resolutions 908 (1994) of 31 March 1994 and 913 (1994) of 22 April 1994,
Having considered the reports of the Secretary-General of 11 March 1994 (S/1994/291), 16 March 1994 (S/1994/300), 24 March 1994 (S/1994/333 and Add.1) and his letter of 30 March 1994 (S/1994/367),
Determined to strengthen the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) operations in fulfilment of its mandate,
Reiterating its determination to ensure the security of UNPROFOR and its freedom of movement for all its missions, and to these ends, as regards UNPROFOR in the Republic of Croatia and in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Welcomes once again the reports of the Secretary-General of 11 March 1994 (S/1994/291), 16 March 1994 (S/1994/300) and 24 March 1994 (S/1994/333) and his letter of 30 March 1994 (S/1994/367);
2. Decides to authorize, as recommended by the Secretary-General in the above-mentioned documents, an increase of UNPROFOR personnel by up to 6,550 additional troops, 150 military observers and 275 civilian police monitors, in addition to the reinforcement already approved in resolution 908 (1994);
3. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# United Nations Security Council Resolution 936

* related portals: United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Adopted by the Security Council at its 3401st meeting, on 8 July 1994
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 808 (1993) of 22 February 1993 and 827 (1993) of 5 May 1993,
Having regard to Article 16 (4) of the Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (S/25704),
Having considered the nomination by the Secretary-General of Mr. Richard J. Goldstone for the position of Prosecutor of the International Tribunal,
Appoints Mr. Richard J. Goldstone as Prosecutor of the International Tribunal.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Transportation Line v. Cooper

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 78
Transportation Line v. Cooper
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
This suit was brought under the provisions of the statute of New York, in the Supreme Court of that State, by Hobart Cooper, as administrator of his wife, to recover damages for her death, caused by a collision in the port of New York, between a schooner, which was in tow of the tug 'J. N. Parker,' and a canal-boat loaded with coal, whereof he was master, having on board his wife and children, and which with other boats was in tow of the steam-tug 'U.S. Grant.' The Eastern Transportation Line owning one tug, and J. J. Austin the other, were the defendants. Cooper, in the court below, had a judgment against them. The Eastern Transportation Line alone appealed to the general term. The judgment was affirmed there, and subsequently on appeal by the Court of Appeals. This writ of error was then sued out.
One of the errors assigned is that the court charged the jury that 'there is no law requiring that a canal-boat which is not used for the purpose of transporting passengers should be provided with life-preservers or life-boats, or any paraphernalia of that kind.' The other errors are grounded upon exceptions to the charge, which relate to questions not arising under any act of Congress.
The defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ for want of jurisdiction, and united therewith, under the amended sixth rule, a motion to affirm the judgment below.
Mr. William Stanley in support of the motion.
Mr. R. D. Benedict, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE announced the judgment of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Transportation Line v. Cooper/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
99 U.S. 78
Transportation Line v. Cooper
The only Federal question presented in this case is one upon which we are not inclined to hear an argument. A canal-boat laden with coal for transportation, having on board the wife and children of the captain, is not 'a barge carrying passengers,' within the meaning of sect. 4492, Rev. Stat., which requires such a barge, while in tow of a steamer, to be provided with 'fire-buckets, axes, life-preservers, and yawls.' The motion to dismiss is denied, but that to affirm is granted.
Judgment affirmed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Treaty on European Union/Protocol concerning Article 119 of the Treaty establishing the European Community

Source: http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_treaty.html
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
HAVE AGREED UPON the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community:
For the purposes of Article 119 of this Treaty, benefits under occupational social security schemes shall not be considered as remuneration if and in so far as they are attributable to periods of employment prior to 17 May 1990, except in the case of workers or those claiming under them who have before that date initiated legal proceedings or introduced an equivalent claim under the applicable national law.
# Treaty on European Union/Protocol on France

Source: http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_treaty.html
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
DESIRING to take into account a particular point relating to France,
HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community:
France will keep the privilege of monetary emission in its overseas territories under the terms established by its national laws, and will be solely entitled to determine the parity of the CFP franc.
# Treaty on European Union/Protocol on Portugal

Source: http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_treaty.html
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
DESIRING to settle certain particular problems relating to Portugal,
HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community:
1. Portugal is hereby authorized to maintain the facility afforded to the Autonomous Regions of Azores and Madeira to benefit from an interest-free credit facility with the Banco de Portugal under the terms established by existing Portuguese law.
2. Portugal commits itself to pursue its best endeavours in order to put an end to the abovementioned facility as soon as possible.
# Treaty on European Union/Protocol annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities

Source: http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_treaty.html
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
HAVE AGREED upon the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaties establishing the European Communities:
Nothing in the Treaty on European Union, or in the Treaties establishing the European Communities, or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution of Ireland.
# Treaty on European Union/Protocol on Denmark

Source: http://europa.eu/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/EU_treaty.html
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
DESIRING to settle certain particular problems relating to Denmark,
HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community:
The provisions of Article 14 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank shall not affect the right of the National Bank of Denmark to carry out its existing tasks concerning those parts of the Kingdom of Denmark which are not part of the Community.