Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Collections & Series
  4. Dispute Settlement Reports Online
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Societies Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1607 results in Dispute Settlement Reports Online

Page 20 of 81

  • Canada - Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector / Canada - Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (WT/DS412, WT/DS426): Reports of the Appellate Body

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 7-236

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    Canada, Japan, and the European Union each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Reports, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector and Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (Panel Reports). The Panel was established to consider complaints by Japan and the European Union8 (the complainants) with respect to certain domestic content requirements in the feedin tariff programme (FIT Programme) established by the Canadian Province of Ontario.

    The measures at issue in these disputes, as identified by the Panel, are the following:

    a. the FIT Programme, as evidenced by the following measures:

  • i. the Electricity Act of 1998, as amended, including in particular Part II – Independent Electricity System Operator, Part II.1 – Ontario Power Authority, and Part II.2 – Management of Electricity Supply, Capacity and Demand, including in particular Section 25.35 – Feed-in tariff program;

  • ii. an Act to enact the Green Energy Act of 2009 and to build a green economy, to repeal the Energy Conservation Leadership Act of 2006 and the Energy Efficiency Act and to amend other statutes (Green Energy and Green Economy Act of 2009), including in particular Schedule B, amending the Electricity Act of 1998;

  • iii. an Act to amend the Electricity Act of 1998 and the Ontario Energy Board Act of 1998 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Electricity Restructuring Act of 2004), including in particular Schedule A, Sections 29- 32, enacting Part II.1 of the Electricity Act of 1998, and Sections 33-38, enacting Part II.2 of the Electricity Act of 1998, and Schedule B, Sections 17-18, enacting Sections 78.3-78.4 of the Ontario Energy Board Act of 1998;

  • iv. Ontario Regulation 578/05, made under the Ontario Energy Board Act of 1998, entitled “Prescribed Contracts Re Sections 78.3 and 78.4 of the Act”;

  • v. the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) Market Manual, including in particular Part 5.5 – Physical Markets Settlement Statements;

  • China - Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on X-Ray Security Inspection Equipment from the European Union (WT/DS425): Report of the Panel

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015, pp 659-1012

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 25 July 2011 the European Union requested consultations with the Government of the People's Republic of China (“China”) pursuant to Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (“Anti-Dumping Agreement”) and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlem0ent of Disputes (“DSU”) with respect to the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on x-ray security inspection equipment from the EU, pursuant to Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”), Notice No. 1 (2011), including its annex. The consultations were held on 19 September and 18 October 2011. The consultations failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 8 December 2011, the European Union requested, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement that the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) establish a Panel to examine this matter.

    At its meeting on 20 January 2012, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of the European Union in document WT/DS425/2, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

    The Panel's terms of reference are the following:

    To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by the European Union in document WT/DS425/2 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.

    On 2 March 2012, the European Union requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel, pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU. This paragraph provides:

    If there is no agreement on the panelists within 20 days after the date of the establishment of a panel, at the request of either party, the Director-General, in consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and the Chairman of the relevant Council or Committee, shall determine the composition of the panel by appointing the panelists whom the Director-General considers most appropriate in accordance with any relevant special or additional rules or procedures of the covered agreement or covered agreements which are at issue in the dispute, after consulting with the parties to the dispute.

Dispute Settlement Reports 2013
  • Volume 3, Pages 657–1038
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    30 April 2015
  • The Dispute Settlement Reports of the World Trade Organization (WTO) include Panel and Appellate Body reports, as well as arbitration awards, in disputes concerning the rights and obligations of WTO members under the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English. An essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers and needed by students worldwide taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 2013: Volume 3 reports on China - Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on X-Ray Security Inspection Equipment from the European Union (WT/DS425).

  • II - ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE THIRD PARTICIPANTS

  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 2481-2572

  • Summary

    Claims of Error by the United States – Appellant

    1. Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement

    17. The United States requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding that the COOL measure is inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement with regard to muscle cuts of meat, in particular the finding that the measure accords less favourable treatment to imported livestock than domestic livestock. The United States argues that the Panel's finding was based on “a faulty and unprecedented legal test” for the assessment of less favourable treatment and on a failure to make an objective assessment of facts related to segregation, commingling, and the price differential in the US livestock market.

    (a) The Interpretation and Application of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement

    18. The United States submits that, in order to determine whether a measure accords less favourable treatment to imported products under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, the Panel should have followed past Appellate Body and panel reports in Thailand – Cigarettes (Philippines), Korea – Various Measures on Beef, and Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes. According to the United States, these reports generally focused on: (i) “whether the measure itself treats imported products differently and less favorably than domestic like products on the basis of their origin”; and (ii) “to the extent that there are adverse effects on imported products, whether these effects are attributable to the measure itself or are based on external non-origin related factors, such as pre-existing market conditions and the independent actions of private market actors.”

  • VII - FINDINGS

  • from PHILIPPINES - TAXES ON DISTILLED SPIRITS
  • Corporate Author World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 2012
    Published online:
    13 December 2017
    Print publication:
    06 March 2014, pp 4340-4400

  • Summary

    Claims and Order of Analysis

    1. The complainants' claims

    7.1 The complainants present their respective claims under the two sentences of Article III:2 of GATT 1994 differently. The European Union generally starts its argumentation with the first sentence of Article III:2. It articulates its claim under the second sentence as an alternative, in the event that it does not succeed, either partially or totally, in its claim under the first sentence. Indeed, in its first submission, the European Union explains that:

    “[I]f this Panel were not persuaded that some or all of those spirits are ‘like’ within the meaning of GATT Article III:2, first sentence, subordinately, the EU submits that they are ‘directly competitive or substitutable’ pursuant to GATT Article and III:2, second sentence.” (emphasis added)

    7.2 In contrast, the United States presents its claims under each of the two sentences as independent claims; it specifically requests findings that would cover all distilled spirits under both the first and the second sentences of Article III:2.

    7.3 The Philippines generally responds to the complainants’ arguments under Article III:2 by starting with the first sentence. The Philippines submits that each of the two sentences of Article III:2 establishes independent and distinct obligations and, consequently, a separate and distinct analysis is required for each.

Page 20 of 81