Objections

See also Terms of Reference of Panels (T.6)

(WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R)

…It is evident to us that a procedural objection raised by a party to a dispute should be sufficiently specific to enable the panel to address it.

US - FSC, para. 165

(WT/DS108/AB/R)

As we have said, a year passed between submission of the request for consultations by the European Communities and the first mention of this objection by the United States – despite the fact that the United States had numerous opportunities during that time to raise its objection. It seems to us that, by engaging in consultations on three separate occasions, and not even raising its objections in the two DSB meetings at which the request for establishment of a panel was on the agenda, the United States acted as if it had accepted the establishment of the Panel in this dispute, as well as the consultations preceding such establishment. In these circumstances, the United States cannot now, in our view, assert that the European Communities’ claims under Article 3 of the SCM Agreement should have been dismissed and that the Panel’s findings on these issues should be reversed. Accordingly, we decline the United States’ appeal from the Panel’s refusal to dismiss the European Communities’ claim under Article 3 of the SCM Agreement due to the European Communities’ alleged failure to comply with Article 4.2 of that Agreement. Thus, we do not find it necessary to rule on whether the European Communities’ request for consultations includes a “statement of available evidence” that satisfies the requirements of Article 4.2 of the SCM Agreement.