This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.
> One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
> The basics: how disputes are settled in WTO
> Computer based training on dispute settlement
> Text of the Dispute Settlement Understanding
Current status back to top
Key facts back to top
Summary of the dispute to date back to top
The summary below was up-to-date at
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
Complaint by Korea.
On 25 July 2003, Korea requested consultations with the
European Communities concerning the ECís provisional countervailing
measures and any final countervailing measures which may be finalized and
implemented later this year against dynamic random access memory chips
(ďDRAMsĒ) from Korea.
According to Korea, when considering the determinations
with respect to the provisional measures against the DRAMs from Korea,
which have already been implemented, and any final measures on the same
products, which may be finalized and implemented later this year, the
European Commission failed to comply with various WTO substantive and
procedural requirements, including demonstration of the existence of a
financial contribution and a benefit conferred, and demonstration of
specificity of the subsidies concerned.
In Koreaís view, these ECís measures at issue are
inconsistent with the ECís obligations under the following WTO provisions:
- Articles VI:3 and X.3 of GATT 1994;
- Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 22 and 32.1
of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
On 25 August 2003, Korea requested further
consultations with the EC concerning the ECís final countervailing
measures, which were adopted by the European Council on 11 August 2003 and
published in the Official Journal of the EC on 22 August 2003.
Korea wished to consult on the same issues raised in
its previous consultations request, but from the additional perspectives
of the adopted final measures.
Korea further elaborated the ECís violation of Article
15 of the SCM Agreement. Korea claimed that the material injury finding by
the EC is inconsistent, inter alia, with Articles 15.1, 15.2, 15.4,
and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement.
On 19 November 2003, Korea requested the establishment
of a panel. At its meeting on 1 December 2003, the DSB deferred the
establishment of a panel.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
Further to a second request to establish a panel
by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 23 January 2004.
China, Japan, Chinese Taipei and the United States reserved their
On 24 March 2004, the Panel was composed. Following the resignation of
the Chairperson on 22 June 2004, a new Chairman of the Panel was appointed
on 27 July 2004.
On 17 June 2005, the Panel Report was circulated to Members. The Panel finds as follows:
- The Panel rejects most of Korea’s claims with regard to the question of subsidization, and finds that for three of the five programmes the EC’s determinations of financial contribution and benefit are consistent with the SCM Agreement. The Panel upholds Korea’s claims with respect to the so-called “grant methodology” applied by the European Communities for calculating the amount of the benefit which it finds to be inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.
- In respect of the injury determination, the Panel also rejects most of Korea’s claims. However, the Panel upholds Korea’s claim that the EC failed to examine the factor “wages” as a relevant factor affecting the domestic industry. The Panel also finds against the European Communities with regard to the investigating authority’s causation analysis which the Panel considers not to have complied with the requirement not to attribute injury caused by other factors to the subsidized imports.
At its meeting on 3 August 2005, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.
Implementation of adopted reports
At the DSB meeting on 31 August 2005, the European Communities announced its intention to fully comply with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in this case. On 12 October 2005, the parties informed the DSB that they had agreed, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for the European Communities to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB shall be 8 months, expiring on 3 April 2006.
At the DSB meeting on 21 April 2006, the European Communities said that they had fully implemented the DSB’s recommendations and rulings by adopting a new regulation which entered into force on 13 April 2006. Korea disagreed and said that the European Communities had not fully implemented the DSB’s recommendations and rulings.
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.