"Where
there is disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of
measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings such dispute shall be
decided through recourse to these dispute settlement procedures, including wherever
possible resort to the original panel. The panel shall circulate its report within 90 days
after the date of referral of the matter to it. When the panel considers that it cannot
provide its report within this time-frame, it shall inform the DSB in writing of the
reasons for the delay together with an estimate of the period within which it will submit
its report."
Ecuador's panel request Back to top
Ecuador
requested the referral to the panel that originally examined the case against the EC to
consider and verify whether the DSB recommendations have been effectively implemented by
the EC. It claimed that the new EC measures continued to violate provisions of the GATT
1994, the General Agreement on Trade in Services and the Import Licensing Agreement.
Ecuador also considered it necessary for the reconvened panel to suggest, pursuant to DSU
Article 19, to the EC how to implement its findings.
The
EC supported Ecuador's request, adding that it saw no difference between this request and
its own.
Mexico,
one of the original complainants against the EC, reserved the right to request its own
Article 21.5 procedure.
The
DSB agreed to refer to the original panel the matter raised by Ecuador. The panel will
have standard terms of reference.
The
following indicated their interest to participate as third parties in the panel
proceedings: Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Dominica, Jamaica,
Mauritius, Nicaragua, St. Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
> Go to Ecuador's panel request
EC's
panel request Back to top
The
EC said it was reiterating its request for a panel to look into the regulations it had
adopted to implement the DSB recommendations regarding its banana regime. It sought
standard terms of referenc. But the EC also submitted that measures taken by WTO members
should be presumed to be in conformity with the WTO unless they have been challenged under
the appropriate DSU procedures and proven not to conform.
The
United States said that with the establishment of the panel requested by Ecuador, there
was no longer any need for the EC request, which, in its view, was based on a situation
where none of the original complainants had challenged formally the EC's implementing
measures. It claimed that the EC request did not meet the requirements of the DSU, and
that the DSB meeting held on 21 December 1998 did not constitute the first consideration
of the EC request. The United States asked how the EC could request a panel against its
own measures.
Panama,
Guatemala and Honduras also objected to the EC request while St. Lucia expressed support.
The
EC said one aim of its request was to induce a challenge to its implementing measures, and
expressed satisfaction that this had been achieved with Ecuador's request. It said it was
maintaining its panel request, and hoped that with the establishment of the two panels, a
proper examination under Article 21.5 would be carried out.
The
United States said that it would make a timely request to the DSB for authorization to
suspend concessions against the EC. It called on the EC to sit and negotiate a resolution
to this dispute.
The
EC said it was open to negotiations but not under a threat of US retaliation.
The
Chairman said that his objective was to keep discussions on this dispute within the DSU
procedures. He ruled that this meeting was the second consideration by the DSB of panel
requests by Ecuador and the EC. (Note: the DSU provides for the automatic
establishment of a panel the second time the request is presented to it.)
India
said a member should not be denied the opportunity to seek a ruling on the WTO legality of
its own measure. It expressed concern about a winning party in a dispute going to the
retaliation phase automatically to the detriment of the losing party.
The
DSB agreed to refer to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 the matter raised by
the EC in its panel request.
The
following indicated their interest to participate as third parties in the panel
proceedings: Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Dominica, India,
Jamaica, Mauritius, Nicaragua, St. Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
|
