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 79 of 81

  • Japan - Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper, complaint by the United States (WT/DS44/R): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1998
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    11 December 2000, pp 1179-1829

  • Summary

    PROCEDURAL HISTORY

    On 13 June 1996, the United States requested consultations with Japan pursuant to Article 4.4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and Article XXIII:I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT) regarding certain laws, regulations and requirements of Japan affecting the distribution, offering for sale and internal sale of imported consumer photographic film and paper. The United States considered that the Japanese measures specified in its consultation request violated the obligations of Japan under GATT, including Article 111 and Article X, and that those measures nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the United States directly or indirectly under GATT, within the meaning of Article XXlIl:l(a) and (b). The United States further stated that it reserved the right to raise additional factual claims and legal matters during the course of the consultations. The consultations were held on 11 July 1996, but failed to resolve the dispute.

    On 20 September 1996, the United States requested the establishment of a Panel pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU. In its request, the United States alleged that Japan has implemented and maintains certain laws, regulations, requirements and measures (hereinafter collectively “measures” or “'countermeasures'”) affecting the distribution, offering for sale, and internal sale of imported consumer photographic film and paper. The US considered that such measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to it, within the meaning of Article XXIII: 1 (a), as a result of the failure of Japan to carry out its obligations under Articles III and X of GATT. More specifically, the United States claimed that the Japanese Government measures:

    a. were implemented and maintained so as to afford protection to domestic production of consumer photographic film and paper within the meaning of Article 111:1 of GATT;

    b. conflict with Article 111:4 of GATT by affecting the conditions of competition for the distribution, offering for sale, and internal sale of consumer photographic film and paper in a manner that accords less favourable treatment to imported film and paper than to comparable products of national origin; and

  • Argentina - Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and Other Items (WT/DS56): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1998
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    23 November 2000, pp 1033-1176

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 4 October 1996, the United States requested Argentina to hold consultations pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), Article 14 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (“TBT Agreement”), Article 19 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994 (“Customs Valuation Agreement”), and Article 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (“ATC”), regarding certain measures maintained by Argentina affecting imports of footwear, textiles, apparel and other items, namely, measures imposing specific duties on various footwear, textiles and apparel in excess of the bound rate of 35 per cent ad valorem provided in Argentina's Schedule LXIV; a statistical tax of three per cent ad valorem on imports of all sources other than MERCOSUR countries; and measures imposing, inter alia, labelling requirements related to affidavits of product components (WT/DS56/1).

    Pursuant to Article 4.11 DSU, Hungary requested to be joined in these consultations on 21 October 1996 (WT/DS56/2). The European Communities (“EC”) made a similar request on 25 October 1996 (WT/DS56/3). In separate communications dated 6 November 1996, Argentina accepted the request of Hungary and the request of the EC to join the consultations which the United States had requested (WT/DS56/4).

    During the consultations, a mutually agreed solution was reached between the United States and Argentina regarding Argentina's labelling requirements. However, the parties failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution on the other aspects raised during the consultations.

    On 9 January 1997, the United States requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) to establish a panel (WT/DS56/5). The United States claimed that Argentina's measures were “inconsistent with the obligations of Argentina under Articles II, VII, VIII and X of the GATT 1994; Articles 1 through 8 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994; and Article 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing”.

  • Argentina - Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and Other Items (WT/DS56): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1998
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    23 November 2000, pp 1003-1032

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION: STATEMENT OF THE APPEAL

    Argentina appeals from certain issues of law covered and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, Argentina - Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and Other Items (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by the United States against Argentina concerning certain measures maintained by Argentina affecting imports of textiles, apparel, footwear and other items, in particular, measures imposing specific duties on various textile, apparel or footwear items allegedly in excess of the bound rate of 35 per cent ad valorem provided in Argentina's Schedule LXIV and measures imposing a statistical tax of 3 per cent ad valorem on imports from all sources other than MERCOSUR countries. The relevant factual aspects of Argentina's import regime for textiles, apparel and footwear are described in the Panel Report, in particular, at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.21.

    Argentina approved the results of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations through Law No. 24.425, promulgated on 23 December 1994, and the bound rate of 35 per cent ad valorem included in its Schedule LXIV became effective on 1 January 1995. This binding was generally applicable to imports, with a number of exceptions that are not relevant in this case. In parallel, Argentina maintained a regime of Minimum Specific Import Duties (“DIEM”) as from 1993 in respect of textiles, clothing and footwear through a series of resolutions and decrees commencing with Resolution No. 811/93 of 29 July 1993 (concerning textiles and apparel) and Resolution No. 1696/93 of 28 December 1993 (concerning footwear), with subsequent extensions and modifications. The DIEM were revoked in respect of footwear on 14 February 1997 through Resolution No. 225/97 of the Argentine Ministry of Economy and Public Works and Services, and the Panel decided not to review the consistency with the WTO Agreement of the DIEM with respect to footwear. In addition, Argentina imposed, from 1989 to 1994, a 3 per cent ad valorem tax which related to the collection of statistical information by the Argentine customs service regarding imports and exports. Through Presidential Decree No. 2277/94 adopted on 23 December 1994, the tax was reduced to zero per cent, but was set again at 3 per cent on 22 March 1995 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 389/95 in respect of certain import transactions.

Dispute Settlement Reports 1998
  • Volume 3, Pages 697-1176
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    23 November 2000
  • 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. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English: as such, they are 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 1998: III contains two cases. Firstly, there is the Report of the Panel on the complaint by the United States against the European Communities in the 'meat hormones' case. Secondly, there are both the Reports of the Appellate Body and Panel concerning Argentinian imports. The form of citation for this volume recommended by the WTO is DSR 1998: III.

  • European Communities - Mesures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), complaint by the United States (WT/DS26): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1998
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    23 November 2000, pp 699-1002

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 26 January 1996, the United States requested consultations with the European Communities, pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“DSU”), Article 11 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (“SPS Agreement”), Article 14 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (“TBT Agreement”), Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT”), regarding the Council Directive Prohibiting the Use in Livestock Farming of Certain Substances Having a Hormonal Action and related measures (WT/DS26/1).

    On 2 February 1997, pursuant to Article 4.11 of the DSU, Australia (WT/DS26/3) and New Zealand (WT/DS26/2), followed on 8 February by Canada (WT/DS26/4), requested to be joined in these consultations. The European Communities accepted these requests on 19 March 1996 (WT/DS26/5).

    On 27 March 1996, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand held joint consultations with the European Communities but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

    On 25 April 1996, pursuant to Article 11 of the SPS Agreement, Article 14 of the TBT Agreement, Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Article XXIII:2 of the GATT, and Article 6 of the DSU, the United States requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) to establish a panel with standard terms of reference (WT/DS/26/6). The United States claimed that the EC measures:

    ”… adversely affect imports of meat and meat products and appear to be inconsistent with the obligations of the European Communities under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, and the Agreement on Agriculture. The provisions of these agreements with which these measures appear to be inconsistent include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • (1) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Article III or Article XI;

  • (2) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Articles 2, 3 and 5;

  • European Communities - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), complaints by the United States (WT/DS26) and Canada (WT/DS48): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1998
    Published online:
    24 July 2020
    Print publication:
    21 September 2000, pp 135-231

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION: STATEMENT OF THE APPEAL

    The European Communities, the United States and Canada appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Reports, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones). These two Panel Reports, circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (“WTO“) on 18 August 1997, were rendered by two Panels composed of the same three persons.2 These Panel Reports are similar, but they are not identical in every respect. The Panel in the complaint brought by the United States was established by the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB“) on 20 May 1996. On 16 October 1996, the DSB established the Panel in the complaint brought by Canada. The European Communities and Canada agreed, on 4 November 1996, that the composition of the latter Panel would be identical to the composition of the Panel established at the request of the United States.

    The Panel dealt with a complaint against the European Communities relating to an EC prohibition of imports of meat and meat products derived from cattle to which either the natural hormones: oestradiol-17ß, progesterone or testosterone, or the synthetic hormones: trenbolone acetate, zeranol or melengestrol acetate (“MGA“), had been administered for growth promotion purposes. This import prohibition was set forth in a series of Directives of the Council of Ministers that were enacted before 1 January 1995. Those Directives were:

    1. 1. Council Directive 81/602/EEC of 31 July 1981 (“Directive 81/602“);

    2. 2. Council Directive 88/146/EEC of 7 March 1988 (“Directive 88/146“); and

    3. 3. Council Directive 88/299/EEC of 17 May 1988 (“Directive 88/299“).

    Directive 81/602 prohibited the administration to farm animals of substances having a hormonal action and of substances having a thyrostatic action. It also prohibited the placing on the European market of both domestically produced and imported meat and meat products derived from farm animals to which such substances had been administered. Two exceptions to this prohibition were provided for. One exception covered substances with an oestrogenic, androgenic or gestagenic action when used for therapeutic or zootechnical purposes and administered by a veterinarian or under a veterinarian's responsibility.

  • European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States (WT/DS27): Report of the Appellate Body

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1997
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 September 2000, pp 591-694

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    The European Communities and Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States (the “Complaining Parties”) appeal from certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Reports, European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (the “Panel Reports”). The Panel was established on 8 May 1996 to consider a complaint by the Complaining Parties against the European Communities concerning the regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas established by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organization of the market in bananas (“Regulation 404/93”), and subsequent EC legislation, regulations and administrative measures, including those reflecting the provisions of the Framework Agreement on Bananas (the “BFA”), which implement, supplement and amend that regime. The relevant factual aspects of the EC common market organization for bananas are described fully at paragraphs 3.1 to 3.36 of the Panel Reports.

    The Panel issued four Panel Reports that were circulated to the Members of the World Trade Organization (the “WTO”) on 22 May 1997. The Panel Reports contain the following conclusions:

    With respect to Ecuador, in paragraph 9.1 of the Report, WT/DS27/R/ECU, the Panel concluded:

    … that for the reasons outlined in this Report aspects of the European Communities' import regime for bananas are inconsistent with its obligations under Articles I:1, III:4, X:3 and XIII:1 of GATT, Article 1.2 of the Licensing Agreement and Articles II and XVII of the GATS. These conclusions are also described briefly in the summary of findings.

    With respect to Guatemala and Honduras, in paragraph 9.1 of the Reports, WT/DS27/R/GTM and WT/DS27/R/HND, the Panel concluded:

    … that for the reasons outlined in this Report aspects of the European Communities' import regime for bananas are inconsistent with its obligations under Articles I:1, III:4, X:3 and XIII:1 of GATT and Article 1.3 of the Licensing Agreement. These conclusions are also described briefly in the summary of findings.

    With respect to Mexico, in paragraph 9.1 of the Report, WT/DS27/R/MEX, the Panel concluded:

    … that for the reasons outlined in this Report aspects of the European Communities' import regime for bananas are inconsistent with its obligations under Articles I:1, III:4, X:3 and XIII:1 of GATT, Articles 1.2 and 1.3 of the Licensing Agreement and Articles II and XVII of the GATS. These conclusions are also described briefly in the summary of findings.

Dispute Settlement Reports 1997
  • Volume 3, Pages 1083-1578
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 September 2000
  • 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. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English: as such, they are 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 1997: III contains the Panel report on the 'bananas case' in response to Ecuador's complaint against the European Communities. The form of citation recommended by the WTO for this volume is DSR 1997: III.

  • European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States (WT/DS27): Report of the Panel (Complaint by the United States)

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1997
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 September 2000, pp 943-1082

  • Summary

    INTERIM REVIEW

    On 2 April 1997, the European Communities, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and United States requested the Panel to review in accordance with Article 15.2 of the DSU precise aspects of the interim reports that had been issued to the parties on 18 March 1997. The European Communities also requested the Panel to hold a further meeting with the parties on the issues identified in its written comments. The Panel met with the parties on 14 April 1997 in order to hear their arguments concerning the interim reports. We carefully reviewed the arguments presented by the EC and by the Complaining parties, jointly or individually, and the responses offered by the other side.

    With respect to procedural matters, the Complaining parties commented on the Panel's interpretation of the requisite degree of specificity of a panel request in light of the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU. They also raised concerns as to the Panel's refusal to consider claims made or endorsed by one or more of them after the filing of the first written submissions. As regards those claims which the Panel had found unnecessary to address, the Complaining parties further argued that several of them, e.g., allegations regarding overfiling under the activity function rules and the distribution of licences to producers, were not issues of secondary importance and should be addressed by the Panel in addition to those aspects of the licensing procedures which had been found to be inconsistent with WTO rules. Furthermore, they suggested several drafting changes. We carefully considered these arguments and where we agreed, we modified the Findings in response in paragraphs 7.40, 7.42 and 7.49.

    The EC and the Complaining parties asked for a number of specific modifications or additions to those paragraphs in the Findings which summarize their legal arguments. Since these proposed changes concerned the representation of the parties’ own legal arguments, we generally accepted them. In particular, in reaction to suggestions by the EC, we modified or expanded paragraphs 7.65, 7.78, 7.104, 7.169, 7.200, 7.205, 7.224, 7.287, 7.301 and 7.313. In our view, these adjustments in general did not entail repercussions for the legal analysis in the Findings.

Dispute Settlement Reports 1997
  • Volume 2, Pages 589-1082
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 September 2000
  • 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. These are the WTO authorized and paginated reports in English: as such, they are an essential addition to the library of all practising and academic trade lawyers, and will be widely consulted by students taking courses in international economic or trade law. DSR 1997: II contains Appellate Body and Panel reports on the 'bananas case' concerning the European Communities' regime for their importation, sale, and distribution. The form of citation recommended by the WTO for this volume is DSR 1997: II.

  • India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, complaint by the United States (WT/DS50): Report of the Panel

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1998
    Published online:
    24 July 2020
    Print publication:
    21 September 2000, pp 41-134

  • Summary

    INTRODUCTION

    On 2 July 1996, the United States requested India to hold consultations pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Article 64 of the Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) regarding the absence in India of either patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products or formal systems that permit the filing of patent applications for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products and that provide exclusive marketing rights in such products (WT/DS50/1). No mutually satisfactory solution was reached in these consultations, held on 27 July 1996. The United States requested the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), in a communication dated 7 November 1996, to establish a panel to examine the matter (WT/DS50/4). At its meeting of 20 November 1996, the DSB agreed to establish a panel with standard terms of reference in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.

    In document WT/DS5O/5 of 5 February 1997, the DSB was informed that the terms of reference and the composition of the Panel were as follows:

    Terms of Reference

    “To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the United States in document WT/DS50/4, the matter referred to the DSB by the United States in that document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.“

    Composition

    Chairman: Mr. Thomas Cottier

    Panelists: Mr. Douglas Chester

    Mr. Yanyong Phuangrach

    The Panel heard the parties to the dispute on 15 April and 13 May 1997. The Panel decided to give the parties the chance to comment, after the second session, in writing on each other's arguments related to the United States’ claim based on Article 63, which claim had been made for the first time at the first session. The interim report was issued to the parties on 27 June 1997. Only India requested the Panel to review parts of the interim report and no request was received to hold an additional meeting.

    FACTUAL ASPECTS

    The questions before this Panel concern the obligations India has as a WTO Member by virtue of certain transitional provisions of the TRIPS Agreement and are to be divided into questions related to the provisions of Article 70.8 of the TRIPS Agreement and questions related to the provisions of Article 70.9 of that Agreement.

Dispute Settlement Reports 1998
  • Volume 1, Pages 1-231
  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Published online:
    24 July 2020
    Print publication:
    21 September 2000
  • 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. 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 1998: I contains three cases. Firstly, there is the 1998 Award of the Arbitrator in the 'bananas case'. Secondly, both Appellate Body and Panel Reports are given for the patent protection case resulting from the complaint by the USA against India concerning chemical products. Finally, the volume contains the Report of the Appellate Body in the 'meat hormones' case. The form of citation recommended by the WTO for this volume is DSR 1998: I.

  • European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States (WT/DS27): Report of the Panel (Complaint by Guatemala and Honduras)

  • Edited by World Trade Organization
  • Book:
    Dispute Settlement Reports 1997
    Published online:
    22 December 2017
    Print publication:
    21 September 2000, pp 695-802

  • Summary

    INTERIM REVIEW

    On 2 April 1997, the European Communities, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and United States requested the Panel to review in accordance with Article 15.2 of the DSU precise aspects of the interim reports that had been issued to the parties on 18 March 1997. The European Communities also requested the Panel to hold a further meeting with the parties on the issues identified in its written comments. The Panel met with the parties on 14 April 1997 in order to hear their arguments concerning the interim reports. We carefully reviewed the arguments presented by the EC and by the Complaining parties, jointly or individually, and the responses offered by the other side.

    With respect to procedural matters, the Complaining parties commented on the Panel's interpretation of the requisite degree of specificity of a panel request in light of the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU. They also raised concerns as to the Panel's refusal to consider claims made or endorsed by one or more of them after the filing of the first written submissions. As regards those claims which the Panel had found unnecessary to address, the Complaining parties further argued that several of them, e.g., allegations regarding overfiling under the activity function rules and the distribution of licences to producers, were not issues of secondary importance and should be addressed by the Panel in addition to those aspects of the licensing procedures which had been found to be inconsistent with WTO rules. Furthermore, they suggested several drafting changes. We carefully considered these arguments and where we agreed, we modified the Findings in response in paragraphs 7.40, 7.42 and 7.49.

    The EC and the Complaining parties asked for a number of specific modifications or additions to those paragraphs in the Findings which summarize their legal arguments. Since these proposed changes concerned the representation of the parties’ own legal arguments, we generally accepted them. In particular, in reaction to suggestions by the EC, we modified or expanded paragraphs 7.65, 7.78, 7.104, 7.169, 7.200, 7.205, 7.224, 7.287, 7.301 and 7.313. In our view, these adjustments in general did not entail repercussions for the legal analysis in the Findings.

Page 79 of 81