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.
See also:
> 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
Consultations
Complaint by the European Communities.
On 3 April 2003,
the EC requested consultations with Australia regarding the Australian
quarantine regime for imports, both as such and as applied to certain
specific cases. According to the EC, the Australian quarantine regime for
imports appears to be governed both by legislation as well as by the
exercise of discretion granted to a Director of Quarantine and by
administrative guidance issued on the exercise of that discretion.
As regards the quarantine regime as such, the EC claims
that the effect of this regime appears to be that the import of products
is a priori prohibited, although there is no risk assessment. Risk
assessments appear to be commenced, if at all, only once the import of a
product has been specifically requested. In some cases, no risk
assessment has been commenced despite such request. In other cases it has
been commenced but not completed. As regards specific cases, the EC claims
that:
- Australia permits the import of deboned pigmeat from
Denmark for processing in Australia but refuses the import of processed
deboned pigmeat from Denmark. It also claims that the processing
requirements imposed in Australia may be more trade-restrictive than
necessary in the circumstances to protect Australia from PRRS (Porcine
Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome). It also appears that requests have
been made for access to Australia for processed pigmeat or deboned pigmeat
for processing from other EU Member States which have been refused.
- Australia permits the import of poultry meat which has
been cooked to high temperature and for long periods to prevent the entry
of IBD (infectious bursal disease). The EC claims that it appears that IBD
may already be present in the Australian poultry flock and that no efforts
are being made to eradicate it. The EC also claims that the processing
requirements imposed in Australia may be more trade-restrictive than
necessary in the circumstances to protect Australia from IBD.
The EC considers that the measures referred to above
may be contrary to the SPS Agreement, and in particular, although not
limited to, Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.6 and, if applicable, 5.7,
8 and Annex C. On 16 April 2003, Chile and the Philippines requested to
join the consultations. On 22 April 2003, India and Canada requested to
join the consultations. Australia informed the DSB that it had accepted
the requests of Canada, Chile, India and the Philippines to join the
consultations.
On 29 August 2003, the European Communities requested the establishment
of a panel. At its meeting on 2 October 2003, the DSB deferred the
establishment of a panel.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
On 14 October 2003, the EC submitted a revised
request for the establishment of a panel to the DSB. The DSB established a
panel at its meeting on 7 November 2003. Canada, Chile, China, India,
Philippines, Thailand and the United States reserved their third-party
rights.
Mutually agreed solution
On 9 March 2007, Australia and the European Communities notified the DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU. The parties have agreed to a solution to address the issues identified by the European Communities, whilst respecting the appropriate level of protection of Australia and consistent with Australia's SPS legislation and import policy development process. This solution includes enhances transparency of the quarantine regime of Australia, principles of treatment for market access applications from the European Communities, and continued expert discussions on scientific aspects associated with trade in pig meat and chicken meat. |
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using. |
