DS476: European Union — Certain Measures Relating to the Energy Sector

In its request for the establishment of a panel, Russia noted that the EU’s Third Energy Package (TEP), adopted in July 2009, unjustifiably restricts imports of natural gas originating in Russia and discriminates against Russian natural gas pipeline transport services and service suppliers. Russia said that, despite its efforts to find a solution with the EU through consultations in June and July 2014, the matter had not been resolved and hence its request for the establishment of a panel.

The EU expressed its confidence that its TEP is fully consistent with its WTO obligations. In its view, Russia’s original request for consultations did not mention some of the key measures identified in the panel request. As such, the EU considers that the panel request expands manifestly the scope of the dispute, thus changing the essence of the complaint. The EU did not agree to the establishment of a panel. The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) therefore deferred the establishment of the panel.

 

DS492: European Union — Measures Affecting Tariff Concessions on Certain Poultry Meat Products

China said that its exporters were now faced with extremely high tariff rates and were experiencing a severe reduction in purchase orders, a dramatic decline in export sales and losses of market shares as a result of the EU’s modification of its tariff concessions on certain poultry meat products. Consultations with the EU were held in May 2015 but did not resolve this dispute. China therefore requested the DSB to establish a panel to examine this dispute.

The EU said that the modifications were established after the EU had initiated rebinding exercises for its GATT concessions and after negotiations with its substantial suppliers. Based on the relevant import statistics, China did not have substantial supplying interest nor did it come forward within the relevant 90 days to signal its interest as a substantial supplier. The EU believed that it had rightly followed the appropriate procedures. Given that the EU had recently held consultations with China in May 2015, the EU considered China’s request to be premature and therefore did not agree to the establishment of a panel. The DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

 

DS430: India — Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural Products 

The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report as modified by the Appellate Body report.

The US welcomed the Appellate Body and panel reports which upheld the US claims that India’s broad, trade-restrictive measures breached several key obligations under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement. In its view, the fundamental problems with India’s measures was that they were not based on a scientific risk assessment or international standards; they were far more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the goal of not transmitting avian influenza through traded products; they precluded regionalisation; and they unjustifiably discriminated against foreign products and favoured domestic products.

India was of the view that its measures were critical for the protection of the health and safety of not only animal life but also human life. India expressed a number of concerns and disappointments regarding the interpretation of various provisions of the SPS Agreement. India noted that it had always maintained that its measures were in conformity with the relevant standard and that the panel had erred in its interpretation of the OIE (World Organization for Animal Health) Code, which was the relevant international standard in this case.

India was disappointed that the Appellate Body (AB) did not recognise the flexibility that the OIE Code provided for members to impose import prohibitions on a country-wide basis. India noted with disappointment that, despite the AB acknowledging several instances of ambiguities in the panel report, the AB nonetheless confirmed the panel findings.

 

Status reports

Under the “surveillance” item, six status reports were presented: four by the US and two by the EU.

 

Other business

The Chair made a short statement regarding the issue of possible reappointments of two Appellate Body members. He recalled that at the regular DSB meetings in April and May 2015, he had informed delegations that the first four-year terms of office of Mr Bhatia and Mr Graham would expire on 10 December 2015 and that both were eligible for reappointment to a second and final term of office. He had also informed delegations that both had expressed their willingness to serve for a second term. Also at that meeting, he had announced that he would consult informally with members and had invited delegations with views on these matters to contact him directly. He reported that those consultations were still ongoing and he encouraged delegations with views on these matters to contact him directly.  

 

Next meetings

The next special meeting of the DSB is scheduled for 29 June 2015. The next regular meeting of the DSB is scheduled for 20 July 2015.