当前位置：文档之家› WTO+DSB+欧共体香蕉案Ⅲ_summary

WTO+DSB+欧共体香蕉案Ⅲ_summary

European Communities — Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas

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: > 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

Other disputes involving:

> Agricultural and Food

> Bananas

> Distribution

> Ecuador

> Guatemala

> Honduras

> Mexico > United States of America > European Union (formerly EC) > Agreement on Agriculture > General Agreement on Trade in

Services > General Agreement on Tariffs

and Trade 1994 > Agreement on Import Licensing

Procedures > Agreement on Trade-Related Current status back to top

Compliance proceedings completed with finding(s) of non-compliance on 11 December 2008

Key facts back to top

Short title: EC — Bananas III

Complainant: Ecuador; Guatemala;

Honduras; Mexico; United

States of America

Respondent: European Communities

Third Parties: Belize; Cameroon; Canada;

Colombia; Costa Rica;

Dominica; Dominican

Republic; Ghana; Grenada;

India; Jamaica; Japan;

Nicaragua; Philippines; Saint

Lucia; Saint Vincent and the

Grenadines; Senegal;

Suriname; Venezuela

(Bolivarian Republic of);

C?te d’Ivoire; Brazil;

Madagascar; Panama

Agreements

cited:

(as cited in request

for consultations)

Import Licensing: Art. 1, 3

Agriculture: Art. 19

Trade-Related Investment

Measures (TRIMs): Art. 5, 2

Services (GATS): Art. II, IV,

XVI, XVII

GATT 1994: Art. I, II, III, X,

XI, XIII

Request for

Consultations

5 February 1996

Investment Measures received:

22 May 1997

Panel Report

circulated:

9 September 1997

Appellate Body

Report

circulated:

7 January 1998

Article 21.3(c)

Arbitration

Report

circulated:

Article 21.5

12 April 1999

Panel Report

(Ecuador)

circulated:

12 April 1999

Article 21.5

Panel Report

(European

Communities)

circulated:

9 April 1999

Recourse to

Article 22.6

Arbitration

Report

circulated:

2 July 2001

Mutually Agreed

Solution

notified:

Second

7 April 2008

Recourse to

Article 21.5

Panel Report

circulated:

19 May 2008

Article 21.5

Panel Report

(United States)

circulated:

26 November 2008

Second

Recourse to

Article 21.5

Appellate Body

Report

circulated:

Summary of the dispute to date back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010

See also:One-page summary of key findings of this dispute

Appellate Body and Panel Reports Adopted

Complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States.

The complainants in this case other than Ecuador had requested consultations with the EC on the same issue on 28 September 1995 (WT/DS16). After Ecuador’s accession to the WTO, the current complainants again requested consultations with the EC on 5 February 1996. The complainants alleged that the EC’s regime for importation, sale and distribution of bananas is inconsistent with GATT Articles I, II, III, X, XI and XIII as well as provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture, the TRIMs Agreement and the GATS.

On 11 April 1996, the five complainants requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 24 April 1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request by the five complainants, a panel was established at the DSB meeting on 8 May 1996. On 29 May 1996, the five complainants requested the

Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 7 June 1996, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 22 May 1997. The Panel found that the EC’s banana import regime, and the licensing procedures for the importation of bananas in this regime, are inconsistent with the GATT. The Panel further found that the Lomé waiver waives the inconsistency with GATT Article XIII, but not inconsistencies arising from the licensing system.

On 11 June 1997, the European Communities notified its

intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 9 September 1997. The Appellate Body mostly upheld the Panel’s findings, but reversed the Panel’s findings that the inconsistency with GATT Article XIII is waived by the Lomé waiver, and that certain aspects of the licensing regime violated Article X of GATT and the Import Licensing Agreement.

At its meeting on 25 September 1997, the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by the DSB.

Appellate Body and Panel Compliance Reports

(Article 21.5) Adopted

On 15 December 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 to determine that the implementing measures of the EC must be presumed to conform to WTO rules unless challenged in accordance with DSU procedures. On 18 December 1998, Ecuador requested the re-establishment of the original panel to examine whether the EC measures to implement the recommendations of the DSB are WTO-consistent. At its meeting on 12 January 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to examine both Ecuador’s and the EC’s requests. Jamaica, Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica, C?te d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Dominica, St. Lucia, Mauritius, St. Vincent, indicated their interest to join as third parties in both requests, while Ecuador and India indicated their

third-party interest only in the EC request. On 18 January 1999, the Compliance Panels were composed. The two Compliance Panel Reports were circulated on 12 April 1999.

The Article 21.5 panel, requested by the EC, found that, because a challenge had actually been made by Ecuador regarding the WTO-consistency of the EC measures taken in implementation of the DSB recommendations, it was unable to agree with the EC that the EC must be presumed to be in compliance with the recommendations of the DSB. The report of the Article 21.5 panel requested by the EC

was never adopted by the DSB. In the Article 21.5 panel requested by Ecuador, the panel found that the implementation measures taken by the EC in compliance with the recommendations of the DSB were not fully compatible with the EC's WTO obligations. The report of the Article 21.5 panel requested by Ecuador was adopted by the DSB on 6 May 1999.

On 16 November 2006, Ecuador requested consultations under Article 21.5 of the DSU and Article XXIII of the GATT 1994. On 28 November 2006, Ecuador submitted a revised request for consultations under Article 21.5 of the DSU and Article XXII of the GATT 1994. Belize, Cameroon, Colombia, C?te d'Ivoire, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Panama, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and the United States requested to join the consultations. The European Communities informed the DSB that they had accepted all the requests to join the consultations. On 23 February 2007, Ecuador requested the establishment of a compliance panel. At its meeting on 20 February 2007, the DSB deferred the establishment of a compliance panel. At its meeting on 20 March 2007, the DSB agreed to refer to the original Panel, if possible, the question of whether the new EC banana regime was in conformity with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Cameroon, Colombia, C?te d'Ivoire, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Ghana, Jamaica, Japan, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the United States reserved their

third-party rights. Subsequently, Belize, Brazil, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Panama and Suriname reserved their third-party rights.

On 5 June 2007, Ecuador requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 15 June 2007, the Director-General composed the Panel. On 5 December 2007, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to circulate its report within 90 days after the date of referral. The Panel expected to issue its final report to parties in December 2007 and, following translation, the final report was expected to be circulated to Members in February 2008.

On 29 June 2007, the United States requested the

establishment of a compliance panel as it considered that the EC has failed to bring its import regime for bananas into compliance with its WTO obligations and the regime remains inconsistent today. At its meeting on 12 July 2007, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel, if possible. Brazil, Cameroon, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Jamaica, Japan, Nicaragua and Panama reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, Belize,

C?te d'Ivoire, Dominica, Mexico, St. Lucia, St .Vincent and the Grenadines, and Suriname reserved their third-party rights.

On 3 August 2007, the United States requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 13 August 2007, the Director-General composed the Panel. On 21 February 2008, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to circulate its report within 90 days after the date of referral. The Panel expected to issue its final report to parties no later than the end of the first week of March 2008.

On 7 April 2008, the compliance panel report requested by Ecuador was circulated to Members. The Panel rejected the preliminary issue raised by the European Communities that Ecuador is prevented from challenging the European Communities' current import regime for bananas, including the preference for ACP countries, because of the Understanding on Bananas, signed by both Members in April 2001. Accordingly, and after having examined the substantive claims raised by Ecuador as well as the defences invoked by the European Communities, the Panel concluded that:

1.The preference granted by the European

Communities to an annual duty-free tariff quota of

775,000 mt of imported bananas originating in ACP

countries constitutes an advantage for this

category of bananas, which is not accorded to like

bananas originating in non-ACP WTO Members, and

is therefore inconsistent with Article I:1 of GATT

1994;

2.With the expiration of the Doha Waiver from 1

January 2006 as it applied to bananas, there is no

evidence that, during the period that is relevant

for this Panel's findings, that is, from the time of

the establishment of the Panel until the date of

this Report, any waiver from Article I:1 of GATT

1994 has been in force to cover the preference

granted by the European Communities to the

duty-free tariff quota of imported bananas

originating in ACP countries;

3.The European Communities' current banana import

regime, in particular its preferential tariff quota

reserved for ACP countries, is inconsistent with

Article XIII:1, with the chapeau of Article XIII:2,

and with Article XIII:2(d) of the GATT 1994;

4.The tariff applied by the European Communities to

MFN imports of bananas, set at €176/mt, without

consideration of the tariff quota for 2.2 million mt

bound at an in-quota tariff rate of €75/mt, is an

ordinary customs duty in excess of that set forth

and provided for in Part I of the European

Communities' Schedule. This tariff is therefore

inconsistent with the first sentence of Article

II:1(b) of the GATT 1994; and,

5.It is unnecessary, for the resolution of this dispute,

to make a separate finding on Ecuador's claim

under Article II:1(a) of the GATT 1994.

In consequence, the Panel concluded that, through its current regime for the importation of bananas, established in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005, including the duty-free tariff quota for bananas originating in ACP countries and the MFN tariff currently set at €176/mt, the European Communities had failed to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.

The Panel recommended that the DSB request the European Communities to bring the inconsistent measures into conformity with its obligations under the GATT 1994.

On 19 May 2008, the compliance panel report requested by the United States was circulated to Members. Regarding

the preliminary objections advanced by the European Communities, the Panel found that:

1.the United States had, under the DSU, the right to

request the initiation of the current compliance

dispute settlement proceedings;

2.the European Communities has not succeeded in

making a prima facie case that the United States is

prevented from challenging the European

Communities' current import regime for bananas,

including the preference for ACP countries,

because of the Bananas Understanding, signed

between the United States and the European

Communities in April 2001; and

3.the European Communities has failed in making a

case that the United States' complaint under

Article 21.5 of the DSU should be rejected,

because the European Communities' current

import regime for bananas, including the

preference for ACP countries, is not a “measure

taken to comply” with the recommendations and

rulings of the DSB in the original proceedings.

The Panel accordingly rejected the preliminary issues raised by the European Communities.

After having examined the substantive claims raised by the United States, as well as the defences invoked by the European Communities, the Panel concluded that:

1.The preference granted by the European

Communities to an annual duty-free tariff quota of

775,000 mt of imported bananas originating in ACP

countries constitutes an advantage for this

category of bananas, which is not accorded to like

bananas originating in non-ACP WTO Members, and

is therefore inconsistent with Article I:1 of GATT

1994;

2.With the expiration of the Doha Waiver from 1

January 2006 as it applied to bananas, the

European Communities has failed to demonstrate

the existence of a waiver from Article I:1 of GATT

1994 to cover the preference granted by the

European Communities to the duty-free tariff

quota of imported bananas originating in ACP

countries; and

3.the European Communities' current banana import

regime, in particular its preferential tariff quota

reserved for ACP countries, is also inconsistent

with Article XIII:1 and Article XIII:2 of the GATT

1994;

In consequence, the Panel concluded that, through its current regime for the importation of bananas, established in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005, in particular its duty-free tariff quota for bananas originating in ACP countries, the European Communities had failed to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.

The Panel also concluded that, to the extent that the current European Communities bananas import regime contains measures inconsistent with various provisions of the GATT 1994, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the United States under that Agreement.

Since the original DSB recommendations and rulings in this dispute remain operative through the results of the current compliance proceedings, the Panel made no new recommendation.

Pursuant to a request from Ecuador and the European Communities, at its meeting on 2 June 2008, the DSB agreed to an extension of the time-period in Article 16.4 to enable them to explore the possibility of reaching a mutually agreed solution.

Pursuant to a request from the United States and the European Communities, at its meeting on 24 June 2008, the DSB agreed to an extension of the time-period in Article 16.4 to enable them to explore the possibility of reaching a mutually satisfactory solution.

On 28 August 2008, the European Communities notified its

decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel relating to the compliance panels requested by Ecuador and the United States. On 9 September 2008, Ecuador notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.

On 21 October 2008, the Chairman of the Appellate Body notified the DSB that it would not be able to circulate its reports within 60 days due to the time required for completion and translation of the report. It was estimated that the reports would be circulated no later than 26 November 2008.

On 26 November 2008, the Appellate Body reports were circulated to Members.

In the appeal of the Panel report, European Communities —Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas — Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador (WT/DS27/RW2/ECU), with respect to procedural issues, the Appellate Body found the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 9.3 of the DSU by maintaining different timetables in the Article 21.5 proceedings between the European Communities and Ecuador and between the European Communities and the United States; and upheld the Panel's finding, albeit for different reasons, that Ecuador was not barred by the Understanding on Bananas from initiating this compliance proceeding.

With respect to Article XIII of the GATT 1994, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's findings that, to the extent that the European Communities argues that it has implemented a suggestion pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU, the Panel was not prevented from conducting, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, the assessment requested by Ecuador; and that, therefore, the Panel did not need to assess whether the European Communities has effectively implemented any of the suggestions of the first compliance panel requested by Ecuador. The Appellate Body also upheld, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding that the EC Bananas Import Regime, in particular, its duty-free tariff quota reserved for ACP countries, was inconsistent with

Article XIII:1 and Article XIII:2 of the GATT 1994.

With respect to Article II of the GATT 1994, the Appelalte Body reversed the Panel's finding that the Doha Article I Waiver constituted a subsequent agreement between the parties extending the tariff quota concession for bananas listed in the European Communities' Schedule of Concessions beyond 31 December 2002, until the rebinding of the European Communities' tariff on bananas. The Appallate Body also reversed the Panel's finding that the European Communities' tariff quota concession for bananas was intended to expire on 31 December 2002 on account of paragraph 9 of the Bananas Framework Agreement.

The Appellate Body upheld, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's findings that the tariff applied by the European Communities to MFN i mports of bananas, set at €176/mt, without consideration of the tariff quota of 2.2 million mt bound at an in-quota tariff rate of €75/mt, is an ordinary customs duty in excess of that provided for in the European Communities' Schedule of Concessions, and thus inconsistent with Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 and that the European Communities, by maintaining measures inconsistent with different provisions of the GATT 1994, including Article XIII, had nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Ecuador under that Agreement.

The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request the European Communities to bring its measure, found to be inconsistent with the GATT 1994, into conformity with its obligations under that Agreement.

In the appeal of the Panel report, European Communities —Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas — Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States (WT/DS27/RW/USA), with respect to procedural issues, the Appellate Body found that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 9.3 of the DSU by maintaining different timetables in the Article 21.5 proceedings between the European Communities and Ecuador and between the European Communities and the United States, albeit for different reasons, upheld the Panel's findings that the United States was not barred by the Understanding on Bananas from initiating this

compliance proceeding and that the EC Bananas Import Regime constituted a “measure taken to comply” within the meaning of Article 21.5 of the DSU and was therefore properly before the panel. The Appellate Body also found that the panel did not err in making findings with respect to a measure that had ceased to exist subsequent to the establishment of the panel, but before the panel issued its report. The Appellate Body also found that the deficiencies in the European Communities' Notice of Appeal do not lead to dismissal of the European Communities' appeal.

With respect to Article XIII of the GATT 1994, the Appellate Body upheld, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding that the EC Bananas Import Regime, in particular, its duty-free tariff quota reserved for ACP countries, was inconsistent with Article XIII:1 and Article XIII:2 of the GATT 1994 and the Panel's finding that to the extent that the EC Bananas Import Regime contained measures inconsistent with various provisions of the GATT 1994, it nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the United States under that Agreement.

As the measure at issue was no longer in existence, The Appellate Body did not make any recommendation to the DSB pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU.

At its meeting on 11 December 2008, with respect to the compliance panel requested by Ecuador, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.

At its meeting on 22 December 2008, with respect to the compliance panel requested by the United States, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report.

Implementation Status of Adopted Reports

On 17 November 1997, the complainants requested that the “reasonable period of time” for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB be determined by binding arbitration, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The Arbitrator found the reasonable period of time for implementation to be 15 months and 1 week from the date

of the adoption of the reports i.e. it expired on 1 January 1999. The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members on 7 January 1998.

On 18 August 1998, further to the EC’s revision of their legislation, the complainants requested consultations with the EC (without prejudice to their rights under Article 21.5), for the resolution of the disagreement between them over the WTO-consistency of measures introduced by the EC in purported compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the Panel and Appellate Body. At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, the EC announced that it had adopted the second Regulation to implement the recommendations of the DSB, and that the new system will be fully operational from 1 January 1999. On 15 December 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 to determine that the implementing measures of the EC must be presumed to conform to WTO rules unless challenged in accordance with DSU procedures. On 18 December 1998, Ecuador requested the

re-establishment of the original panel, under Article 21.5, to examine whether the EC measures to implement the recommendations of the DSB are WTO-consistent. At its meeting on 12 January 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to examine both Ecuador’s and the EC’s requests.

On 14 January 1999, the United States, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, requested authorization from the DSB for suspension of concessions to the EC in an amount of US$520 million. At the DSB meeting on 29 January 1999, the EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, requested arbitration on the level of suspension of concessions requested by the United States. The DSB referred the issue of the level of suspension to the original panel for arbitration. Pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, the request for the suspension of concessions by the United States was deferred by the DSB until the determination, through the arbitration, of the appropriate level for the suspension of concessions.

In the arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU, necessitated by the EC’s challenge to the level of suspension sought by the United States (US$520 million), the arbitrators found that the level of suspension sought by

the United States was not equivalent to the level of nullification and impairment suffered as a result of the EC’s new banana regime not being fully compatible with the WTO. The arbitrators accordingly determined the level of nullification suffered by the United States to be equal to US$191.4 million. The arbitrator’s report and the reports of the panels were issued to the parties on 6 April 1999, and circulated to Members on 9 and 12 April 1999 respectively. On 9 April 1999, the United States, pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU, requested that the DSB authorize suspension of concessions to the EC equivalent to the level of nullification and impairment, i.e. US$191.4 million. On 19 April 1999, the DSB authorized the United States to suspend concessions to the EC as requested.

The report of the compliance panel requested by Ecuador, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, was adopted by the DSB on 6 May 1999. On 8 November 1999, Ecuador requested authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to the EC of concessions or other related obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, GATS and GATT 1994, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, in an amount of US$450 million. At the DSB meeting on 19 November 1999, the EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, requested arbitration on the level of suspension of concessions requested by Ecuador. The DSB referred the issue of the level of suspension to the original panel for arbitration. Pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, the request for the suspension of concessions by Ecuador was deferred by the DSB until the determination, through the arbitration, of the appropriate level for the suspension of concessions.

Also at the DSB meeting on 19 November 1999, the EC informed the DSB of its proposal for reform of the banana regime, which envisages a two-stage process, comprising a tariff rate quota system for several years. This system should then be replaced by a tariff only system no later than 1 January 2006. The proposal includes a decision to continue discussions with interested parties on the possible systems for distribution of licences for the tariff rate quota regime. If no feasible system can be found, the proposal for a transitional tariff rate quota regime would not be maintained and negotiations under Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 would be envisaged to replace the current system

with a tariff only regime. At the DSB meeting on 24 February 2000, the EC explained that there continued to be divergent views expressed by the main parties concerned and that, as a result, no agreed conclusions could be reached.

The arbitrator’s report (on the Ecuadorian request for suspension of concessions) was circulated to Members on 24 March 2000. The arbitrators found that the level of nullification and impairment suffered by Ecuador amounted to US$201.6 million per year. The arbitrators found that Ecuador may request authorization by the DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations under GATT 1994 (not including investment goods or primary goods used as inputs in manufacturing and processing industries); under GATS with respect to “wholesale trade services” (CPC 622) in the principal distribution services; and, to the extent that suspension requested under GATT 1994 and GATS was insufficient to reach the level of nullification and impairment determined by the arbitrators, under TRIPS in the following sectors of that Agreement: Section 1 (copyright and related rights); Article 14 on protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations), Section 3 (geographical indications), Section 4 (industrial designs). The arbitrators also noted that, pursuant to Article 22.3 of the DSU, Ecuador should first seek to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sectors as those in which the panel reconvened at the request of Ecuador pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU had found violations, i.e. GATT 1994 and the sector of distribution services under GATS. On 8 May 2000, Ecuador requested, pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU, that the DSB authorize the suspension of concessions to the EC equivalent to the level of nullification and impairment, i.e. US$201.6 million. On 18 May 2000, the DSB authorized Ecuador to suspend concessions to the European Communities as requested.

At the DSB meeting of 27 July 2000, the European Communities stated with respect to implementation of the recommendations of the DSB that it had begun examining the possibility of managing the proposed tariff rate quotas on a first come, first served basis because negotiations with interested parties on tariff rate quota allocation on

the basis of traditional trade flows had reached an impasse. The European Communities also said that its examination would include a tariff only system and its implications. At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000, the EC stated that it was finalizing its internal decision-making process with a view to implementing the new banana regime. To this effect, the EC considered that, during a transitional period of time, its new banana regime should be regulated by the establishment of tariff-rate quotas and managed on the basis of a “first-come, first-served” (FCFS) system. Before the end of transitional period of time, the EC would initiate Article XXVIII negotiations with a view to establishing a tariff-only system. On 1 March 2001, the EC reported to the DSB that on 29 January 2001, the Council of the European Union adopted Regulation (EC) No

216/2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas. The modifications made in Council Regulation 216/2001 provide for three tariff quotas open to all imports irrespective of their origin: (1) a first tariff quota of

2.200.000 tonnes at a rate of 75€/tonnes, bound under the WTO; (2) a second autonomous quota of 35

3.000 tonnes at a rate of 75€/tonnes; (3) a third autonomous quota of 850.000 tonnes at a rate of 300€/tonnes. Imports from ACP countries will enter duty-free. In view of contractual obligations towards these countries and the need to guarantee proper conditions of competition, they will benefit from a tariff preference limited to a maximum of 300€/tonnes. The tariff quotas are a transitional measure leading ultimately to a tariff-only regime. According to the EC, substantial progress has been achieved with respect to the implementing measures necessary to manage the three tariff rate quotas on the basis of the First-come,

First-served method.

On 3 May 2001, the EC reported to the DSB that intensive discussions with the US and Ecuador, as well as the other banana supplying countries, including the other

co-complainants, have led to the common identification of the means by which the long-standing dispute over the EC’s bananas import regime will be resolved. In accordance with Article 16(1) of Regulation No (EC) 404/93 (as amended by Council Regulation No (EC) 216/2001), the EC will introduce a Tariff Only regime for imports of

bananas no later than 1 January 2006. GATT Article XXVIII negotiations will be initiated in good time to that effect. In the interim period, starting on 1 July 2001, the EC will implement an import regime based on three tariff rate quotas, to be allocated on the basis of historical licensing.

On 22 June 2001, the EC notified an “Understanding on Bananas between the EC a nd the US” of 11 April 2001, and an “Understanding on Bananas between the EC and Ecuador” of 30 April 2001. Pursuant to these Understandings with the US and Ecuador, the EC will implement an import regime on the basis of historical licensing as follows:

1.effective 1 July 2001, the EC will implement an

import regime on the basis of historical licensing as

set out in annex to each of the Understandings;

2.effective as soon as possible thereafter, subject to

Council and European Parliament approval and to

adoption of an Article XIII waiver, the EC will

implement an import regime on the basis of

historical licensing as set out in annex to each of

the Understandings.

The Commission will seek to obtain the implementation of such an import regime as soon as possible. Pursuant to its Understanding with the EC, the US,

?upon implementation of the new import regime described under (1) above, would provisionally

suspend its imposition of the increased duties;

?upon implementation of the new import regime described under (2) above, would terminate its

imposition of the increased duties;

?may reimpose the increased duties if the import regime described under (2) does not enter into

force by 1 January 2002; and

?would lift its reserve concerning the waiver of Article I of the GATT 1994 that the EC has

requested for preferential access to the EC of

goods originating in ACP states signatory to the

Cotonou Agreement; and will actively work

towards promoting the acceptance of an EC

request for a waiver of Article XIII of the GATT

1994 needed for the management of quota C under

the import regime described under (2) above until

31 December 2005.

Pursuant to its Understanding with the EC, Ecuador

?took note that the European Commission will examine the trade in organic bananas and report

accordingly by 31 December 2004;

?upon implementation of the new import regime, Ecuador’s right to suspend concessions or other

obligations of a level not exceeding US$201.6

million per year vis-à-vis the EC would be

terminated;

?Ecuador would lift its reserve concerning the waiver of Article I of the GATT 1994 that the EC has

requested for preferential access to the EC of

goods originating in ACP states signatory to the

Cotonou Agreement; and would actively work

towards promoting the acceptance of an EC

request for a waiver of Article XIII of the GATT

1994 needed for the management of quota C under

the import regime described in paragraph C(2)

until 31 December 2005.

The EC notified the Understandings as mutually satisfactory solutions within the meaning of Article 3.6 DSU. Both Ecuador and the US communicated that the Understandings did not constitute mutually satisfactory solutions within the meaning of Article 3.6 DSU and that it would be premature to take the item off the DSB agenda. At the DSB meeting on 25 September 2001, Ecuador made an oral statement whereby it criticised the Commission proposal aimed at reforming the EC common organisation for bananas in order to honour the above Understandings.

On 4 October 2001, the EC circulated a status report on the implementation where it indicated that it was continuing

to work actively on the legal instruments required for the management of the three tariff quotas after 1 January 2002. In addition, the EC’s report indicated that no progress had been made since the previous DSB meeting regarding the waiver request submitted by the EC and the ACP States. The EC further indicated that in the event that no progress was made at the meeting of the Council of Trade in Goods scheduled for 5 October 2001, the EC and the ACP States would be forced to reassess the situation in all respects. At the DSB meeting on 15 October 2001, the EC recalled that the procedure for the examination of the waiver request had been unblocked at the meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods on 5 October 2001, and expressed its readiness to work and discuss with all interested parties in the course of this examination. Ecuador said that if the waiver was limited to what was required during the transitional import regime then it could be granted quickly. Guatemala said that it would carefully follow the outcome of EC’s actions and requested that the item should remain on the DSB agenda. Honduras noted that the EC had an obligation to describe the measures to be put in place after 2005. It also reiterated its concerns that the rights of developing countries were not being respected. Panama supported the statement by Honduras and urged the EC to take into account the concerns of Latin American banana exporters. The US expressed satisfaction that the examination procedure of the waiver request had started and hoped that the process would be expeditious. Saint Lucia said that the statement by Honduras that the EC disregarded the rights of some developing countries was inaccurate. It welcomed the start of the examination procedure and hoped that any current differences would soon be resolved. At the DSB meeting on 5 November 2001, the EC informed that the Working Party to examine the waiver requests submitted by the EC and ACP had made some progress. Ecuador said that tariff preferences to be applied by the EC would reproduce the same inconsistencies in the banana import regime. Honduras indicated that it was necessary to ensure that the scope of the waiver did not go beyond what was required for the implementation of the new regime. Panama said that even if the waiver was granted, the dispute would not be settled.

At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, the EC welcomed the granting of the two waivers by the Ministerial Conference, which were the prerequisite for the implementation of phase II of the Understandings reached with the United States and Ecuador. The EC noted that the Regulation implementing phase II would be adopted on 19 December 2001, with effect on 1 January 2002. Ecuador, Honduras, Panama and Colombia noted the progress made and sought information from the EC concerning the granting of import licences by one EC Member State in a manner that was inconsistent with the Understandings. On 21 January 2002, the EC announced that Regulation (EC) NO. 2587/2001 had been adopted by the Council on 19 December 2001 and indicated that through this Regulation the EC had implemented phase 2 of the Understandings with the US and Ecuador.

On 30 November 2005, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama requested consultations with the European Communities under Article 21.5 of the DSU concerning the measures recently adopted by the European Communities to address the requirements provided for by the Waiver adopted in Doha Ministerial in November 2001 with regard to banana trade (“Doha Waiver”). The measures at issue are relevant provisions of the recently passed EC Council Regulation governing the import regime for banana. The measures at issues were adopted following two Arbitrations under the Doha Waiver, both of which ruled against previous proposals by the European Communities to address the same matter. According to the requests, the EC Council Regulation is WTO-inconsistent in the following respects:

?The 176€/mt MFN rate is inconsistent with the Doha Waiver in all its parts, the Arbitration Awards

of 1 August and 27 October 2005, GATT Article

XXVIII, and the Appellate Body report and the

Panel report as modified by the Appellate Body

Report in EC-Bananas III; and

?The zero-duty ACP tariff quota of 775,000 mt and over-quota ACP tariff of 176€/mt are inconsistent

with the Doha Waiver in all its parts, the

Arbitration Awards of 1 August and 27 October

2005, GATT Articles I and XIII, and the Appellate

哥伦比亚诉欧盟香蕉案

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION WT/DS361/1 G/L/818 26 March 2007 (07-1254) Original: English EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION OF BANANAS Request for Consultations by Colombia The following communication, dated 21 March 2007, from the delegation of Colombia to the delegation of the European Communities and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU. _______________ My authorities have instructed me to request the European Communities ("EC") to consult with Colombia pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), and Paragraph 3 of the Understanding in Respect of Waivers of Obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 on the regime for the importation of bananas that the EC has applied since 1 January 2006. Background to the consultations requested by Colombia In the dispute EC – Bananas III, certain aspects of the EC's previous banana import regime were found to be inconsistent with WTO law.1The EC reached Understandings with Ecuador 2and the United States3identifying means for the resolution of that dispute. According to these Understandings, the EC was to "introduce a Tariff Only regime for imports of bananas no later than 1 January 2006",4to rebind its import tariff on bananas, and to initiate "GATT Article XXVIII negotiations ... in good time t o that effect …"5 Both Understandings provided for the application of three tariff-rate quotas until 31 December 2005, including a zero duty tariff-rate quota for bananas originating in ACP States

世界多边贸易论文--浅析WTO贸易争端解决机制

东北财经大学网络教育课程考试论文（案例）考核世界多边贸易体制概论作者考试批次学籍批次考点层次专业完成时间

浅析WTO争端解决机制一、关于争端解决机制的几点说明㈠争端解决机制的发展随着经济全球化的日益深入，国与国之间的竞争加剧，贸易摩擦也日益增多。为确保贸易能公平、公正的进行，需要一个有效的争端解决机制。从GATT的争端解决机制条款到WTO的争端解决机制，多边贸易体制日臻完善和成熟。当双边磋商难以达成协议时，争端的申诉方可将争端提请缔约方全体进行处理。为了进一步强化GATT的争端解决机制，乌拉圭回合谈判较全面、彻底的对GATT争端解决机制和程序作了改进，并最终形成了《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解书》）.通过这样一个强化了的机制，WTO希望能更迅速、更有效地处理成员之间的贸易纠纷和摩擦、维护它们之间的权利与义务，督促各成员更好地履行各项协议的义务及其所作的承诺，“实现问题的满意解决”。㈡争端解决机制的基本程序 WTO的争端解决制度是保障WTO多边贸易体制的可靠性和可预见性的核心， DSU对争端解决的基本方法和程序作了极为详细的规定，其基本程序包括：磋商；斡旋，调解和调停；专家小组；上诉视察；对建议或裁定的监督执行；仲裁；补偿与减让的终止以及“交叉报复”。 WTO自1995年成立后，其争端解决机制在处理国际经贸纠纷方面取得了显著成绩，发挥着日益重要的作用。约有80%的争端在建立专家小组之前是通过磋商是争端双方达成一致的，这也表明了争端解决机制的权威性。当然，WTO争端解决机制远不是完美的，年轻的WTO争端解决机制能不能经受真正的考验还有待时日，但是无疑，我们是有理由乐观的。二、 WTO争端解决机制运作过程存在的不足——从一个经典案例看香蕉案㈠案情这是一个被数次诉诸GATT和WTO纠纷解决机制的纠纷。欧盟市场的香蕉主要有三部分来源：一个是直接隶属于某些欧盟国家的海外领土，如加勒比海地区的英联邦成员，法国的海外省等；二是通过《洛美协定》同欧盟保持特惠经贸关系的(非洲、加勒比和太平洋地区的国家,ACP);三是中美和南美洲的国家。欧洲香蕉共同市场组织成立，为国际香蕉市场带来了深刻的结构性变化，由于欧盟（欧共体）404/93规则确立了不同的配额体系，给予ACP国家特惠待遇，导致跨国香蕉企业逐步将投资、经营移出中南美地区，对其造成重大损失。基于此，厄瓜多尔、危地马拉、洪都拉斯和墨西哥以及美国联合申诉专家组技术机构基本接受了申请方五国的主要观点，并要求欧盟应最迟不晚于1999年1月1日修改香蕉进口、销售及分销体制，以同WTO的一般规则相符合。欧盟接受了以上裁决，公布了1637/98号新决议。但是，申请方五国认为新规则仍然保留了原体制的歧视性，ACP国家继续超越“洛美弃权”的限制从欧盟倾斜的体制中获益，因而对质量更优和更具竞争性的“美元香蕉”将继续构成明显的歧视，于是，通过WTO与欧盟进行谈判，欧盟随后公布了2362/98号新规则，对1637/98号规则的某些执行细节作了修改。但美国对此仍不满意，以欧盟拟实施的新体制带有偏向色彩，不能符合世界贸易组织的要求为由，单方面公布了报复清单和制裁时间表；欧盟岂能相让，他们指出，欧盟不否认美国有权对新香蕉机制提出质询，但美国不应单方面以制裁相威胁，双方应在世界贸易组织的框架之内多边协商问题，并宣布新规则的如期实施。美国于3月3日发动闪电报复，单方面对欧盟近20种产品征收100%的惩罚性关税，价值5.2亿美元，1999年4月，专家组和仲裁组的两份报告终于被先后正式作出，欧盟败诉，仲裁组认定美国的实际损失为1.914亿美元。总之至今，争端各方都没能找出各方都满意的解决方法。

近年国际贸易案例一览

1.中国稀土出口配额案例分析 2.欧美荷尔蒙牛肉案 3.中美汇率战 4.英特尔反垄断案 5.美对华薄棉纸反规避调查案 6.中国代工模式分析—满城风雨富士康 7.转基因产品引发的贸易争端 8.王致和商标侵权案 9.黑龙江省猪肉出口成功规避绿色壁垒案例 10.黑龙江省猪肉出口 11.WTO经典案例：欧盟强征IT产品税 12.委内瑞拉外汇管制案例 13.中国-欧盟打火机安全装置案 14.欧盟对我国鞋类产品反倾销调查的案例分析 15.中美清洁能源之争分析 16.中俄过贸易中有关“灰色清关”的案例分析 17.中美出版物市场准入案 18.中国间谍门——力拓案 19.中国首例农产品反补贴案——对美白羽肉鸡案 20.GATS第一案——美国赌博案 21.企业社会责任保护案-迪斯尼代工工厂被取消供应商资格案例 22.中国石蜡蜡烛反规避案 23.中美轮胎特保案例调查 24.中外技术贸易案例--玻璃技术引进中的问题 25.中国在WTO的第一起被诉案件---中国集成电路增值税案 26.ETS诉新东方侵权案 27.一场“三败俱伤”的纠纷案－中国劳务输出案例 28.美对华最大制裁案美对华最大制裁案 29.从“冻虾”事件看绿色壁垒 30.力拓间谍案与中国铁矿石贸易 31.中国出口贸易战——我国稀有金属路在何方？ 32.我国技术引进案例---液晶面板引进热 33.欧盟进口香蕉案 34.中国钢管再遭调查案例 35.加拿大对我国烧烤架反补贴案 36.加拿大对华碳钢和不锈钢紧固件反补贴案例 37.中国彩电对美倾销案 38.美泰公司召回产品案 39.从外部规模经济视角解读义乌模式 40.美国对华铜版纸反倾销案例

欧共体与秘鲁沙丁鱼案

案例：欧共体与秘鲁沙丁鱼案 2002年5月29日，WTO争端解决机构发布专家组报告，裁定欧共体有关沙丁鱼描述的欧共体法规违反技术性贸易壁垒协议。争端涉及的事项本案涉及的产品是沙丁鱼。其实质是关于沙丁鱼类产品描述、命名的争端。沙丁鱼有很多种类，其中一类主要生活在北大西洋东部(西欧沿海和地中海地区)，一类主要生活在太平洋东部(秘鲁和智利沿海)。但欧共体有关罐装沙丁鱼销售的法规，只允许用北大西洋东部的沙丁鱼制作的罐装沙丁鱼以“沙丁鱼”的名称销售。本案申诉方秘鲁向欧共体出口在秘鲁沿海捕获的沙丁鱼制作的罐装沙丁鱼，名叫东太平洋或秘鲁沙丁鱼。据欧共体法规，这样命名的秘鲁沙丁鱼被禁止在欧共体内销售。针对上述措施，秘鲁向世界贸易组织争端解决机构提起申诉，认为欧共体的这一法规禁止“沙丁鱼”这一名称与生产国国名、捕获区域名称、沙丁鱼种类或销售国的产品惯常名称一起使用，违反了技术性贸易壁垒协议第2条第4款。秘鲁主张欧共体的这一法规没有按照该款的要求，以与沙丁鱼产品命名相关的国际标准为依据。联合国粮农组织和世界卫生组织食品规则委员会于1978年制定了有关罐装沙丁鱼和沙丁鱼类产品的标准，1995年进行了修订(与本案直接相关的是1995年的修订，以下简称联合国标准)。该标准规定了沙丁鱼产品的名称，相关产品可以用两种方式命名：“沙丁鱼”这一名称专用于北大西洋东部的沙丁鱼，“X X沙丁鱼”表示某国沙丁鱼、某一地理区域沙丁鱼、某一种类沙丁鱼或符合销售国法律和习惯的产品惯常名称沙丁鱼。依据联合国标准，秘鲁出口的沙丁鱼可以称为东太平洋或秘鲁沙丁鱼。争议问题及其解决 1．争议措施是否是技术性贸易壁垒协议意义上的技术法规欧共体原则上不否认欧共体法规是技术性贸易壁垒协议意义上的技术法规，但不接受秘鲁指控的争议措施(命名要求)是技术法规，因为技术性贸易壁垒协议意义上的技术法规涉及标签而不是命名要求。

WTO+DSB+欧共体香蕉案Ⅲ_summary

European Communities — Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas 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: > 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 Other disputes involving: > Agricultural and Food > Bananas > Distribution > Ecuador > Guatemala > Honduras > Mexico > United States of America > European Union (formerly EC) > Agreement on Agriculture > General Agreement on Trade in Services > General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 > Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures > Agreement on Trade-Related Current status back to top Compliance proceedings completed with finding(s) of non-compliance on 11 December 2008 Key facts back to top Short title: EC — Bananas III Complainant: Ecuador; Guatemala; Honduras; Mexico; United States of America Respondent: European Communities Third Parties: Belize; Cameroon; Canada; Colombia; Costa Rica; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Ghana; Grenada; India; Jamaica; Japan; Nicaragua; Philippines; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Senegal; Suriname; Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of); C?te d’Ivoire; Brazil; Madagascar; Panama Agreements cited: (as cited in request for consultations) Import Licensing: Art. 1, 3 Agriculture: Art. 19 Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs): Art. 5, 2 Services (GATS): Art. II, IV, XVI, XVII GATT 1994: Art. I, II, III, X, XI, XIII Request for Consultations 5 February 1996

浅析WTO贸易争端解决机制

浅析 W T O 争端解决机制姓名：班级：学号：

上课时间：关键词：WTO、争端、社会机制、规则体系、运作过程、贸易争端、世界贸易组织摘要：WTO争端解决机制是多边贸易体制中具有核心作用的机制，它通过定权止纷功能的实现对整个WT O的顺利运行起到了重要的保障作用，已被公认为是“WTO最独特的贡献”。作为WTO 新成员的中国，能否在WTO框架内获得其依据WTO协议应享有的权利，有效运用WTO争端解决机制，妥善处理和解决与WTO成员间发生的贸易摩擦和纠纷，不仅取决于机制自身的发展和完善，而且有赖于我国有关法律、政策及机构的必要改革与调整。前后绵延多年的香蕉案堪称世界贸易组织自成立以来运用多边争端解决机制处理得最为重要和最具影响力的案件之一，本案对于南北关系、欧美关系、贸易和发展，以及欧盟对外贸易制度所将带来的影响仍有待各界学人的共同探讨，本文的着眼点，是放在其对实际组织争端解决机制的影响上。

美欧香蕉大战

美欧香蕉战升级美宣布惩罚欧盟据新华社华盛顿12月21日电（记者袁炳忠）美国贸易代表巴尔舍夫斯基21日宣布，鉴于欧盟未能执行世界贸易组织关于美欧香蕉贸易争端的裁决，美国将对来自欧盟的商品征收数亿美元的惩罚性关税。巴尔舍夫斯基说，这些惩罚措施将从明年2月2日或最迟在3月3日之前开始生效。美国将对一系列来自欧盟国家的产品征收百分之百的关税，这些产品包括奶酪、甜饼干、蜡烛、手袋、毡纸、贺卡、开司米毛衣、纯棉床罩、纸板箱、电动交通工具的电池、咖啡壶和吊灯等。这些消费品在美国市场上的零售价将大幅上涨。巴尔舍夫斯基说，6年来欧盟一直未执行世贸组织及其前身关税及贸易总协定关于美欧香蕉贸易争端的裁决，欧盟委员会副主席布里坦与美国总统克林顿在最近的一次会谈中也未能解决这一争端，因此美国采取上述制裁措施，以抵销欧盟歧视性香蕉政策给美造成的损失。美取消对欧盟惩罚性关税八年香蕉战告一段落【据新华社华盛顿7月1日电】美国贸易代表策利克1日宣布，根据美国和欧盟4月份达成的协议，欧盟从本月1日开始实行新的香蕉进口制度，因此，美国于当天取消了对来自欧盟的1．91亿美元商品征收的100％的惩罚性关税。策利克在一份声明中说，香蕉贸易争端的解决表明美欧双方是按照相互尊重、谅解以及采取建设性行动的精神来解决相互之间的分歧的。欧盟于1993年实行新的香蕉进口配额制度。美国认为这损害了在拉美地区经营香蕉种植园的美国跨国公司的利益。为此，美国向世界贸易组织提起了诉讼并获得胜诉。在世贸组织的授权下，美国于1999年3月开始对来自欧盟的价值1．91亿美元的商品征收100％的关税作为报复。此后，美国与欧盟围绕这一问题举行了多次磋商，终于在今年4月11日达成协议。根据协议，欧盟从今年7月1日起逐步增加拉美香蕉的进口配额，到2006年1月1日将完全取消配额制度。欧盟和拉美国家结束历时15年的香蕉战

世界贸易组织争端解决机制程序

世界贸易争端解决机制的程序世界贸易组织争端解决机制主要包括作为WTO协议附件2的《关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解》及其附件。此外，《关于实施与审议〈关于争端解决规则与程序的谅解〉决定》、《关于按照〈履行1994年关税与贸易总协定第六条的协定〉或〈补贴与反补贴措施协定〉第五部分处理争端的宣言》以及世界贸易组织各项协定及配套或附属协议中有关争端解决的条款都是世界贸易组织争端解决机制的有机组成部分。《关于争端解决规则和程序的谅解》是WTO争端解决机制的基本文件，共有27条和4个附件，其主要目的在于为多边贸易体制提供安全性和可预测性，保障各有关协议成员方的权利义务。 WTO争端解决包括下列基本阶段：磋商、专家组程序、上诉机构程序、争端解决机构决定及其监督实施、制裁等阶段，还包括斡旋、调解和调停、仲裁等选择性争端解决程序。有些阶段基本上是GATT1947争端解决相应程序的重述，有些则是WTO的创新。一、磋商磋商是争端解决的第一个程序阶段，是指两个或两个以上成员为使相互间的争议问题得到解决或达成谅解而进行国际交涉的一种方式。由于磋商解决争端问题是争端各当事方在协商一致的基础上达成一致意见，有利于所达成协议的执行，因此这一阶段是争端解决的必经阶段，也是世界贸易组织所提供的争端解决方式。《争端解决谅解》第4条规定，某一成员方认为另一成员方在其境内采取的措施影响了世界贸易组织所管辖协议的实施，并损害了该成员方的利益，可提出要求磋商的请求，另一成员方应对此请求给予同情的考虑，并提供充分的磋商机会。从该条规定可以看出，任一成员方在被提起磋商请求时，有提供磋商机会的义务。《争端解决谅解》第4条还规定了磋商的具体程序和各个阶段的具体时限： 1、某一成员方提出磋商请求后，接到请求的成员方应白收到请求的10

欧盟香蕉案

欧盟香蕉案 Banana III : European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas HEADNOTE AB-1997-3, WT/DS27/AB/R, Adopted by Dispute Settlement Body, November 17 1997, Ecuador, European Communities, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States, Appellants; Ecuador, European Communities, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States, Appellees; Belize, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, C?te d'Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Jamaica, Japan, Nicaragua, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Suriname and V enezuela, Third Participants; Division: Bacchus, Beeby and El-Naggar. Introduction On 9 September 1997, the WTO Appellate Body (the “AB”) issued its report on the case European Communities- Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas1. This is only the last episode of a long battle and the practical result is still to come2. The EC insisted on separate panel reports for each complaining party. The panel accepted, but made identical sections for factual aspects and party’s arguments. Only the findings were different to the extent that the respective submissions differed3. The four panel reports appealed were circulated on 22 May 1997. In those reports, the Panel concluded that the EC import regime for bananas was inconsistent with obligations under Articles I:1, III: 4, and XIII GATT, Articles II and XVII GATS and some provisions of the Licensing Agreement. Both the complaining parties and the EC presented their claims on appeal. Numerous other Members filed their submissions as third participants, belonging to the ACP group4 or to the Members of the Framework Agreement5, as well as Japan. The number of participants and the length of the procedure and of the reports6 are an indication of the importance of the case. Several issues of both General and Trade International Law were 1WT/DS27/AB/R. The three members of the AB serving on this case are Mr. J. Bacchus (US) as president, Mr. C. Beeby (New Zealand) and Professor Said El-Nagar (Egypt). It is interesting to note that the president is a national of the US, a Member that has a great interest in the case. This will not be possible at the panel procedure, according to Article 8 DSU, unless the parties agreed. 2The EC has been granted a period to implement the ruling of the DSB ending on 1 January 1999. 3Therefore, the claims of Guatemala and Honduras were treated together, since those parties filed a joint first submission. This report does not discuss GATS issues, since their initial submission did not allege infringements of GATS. 4ACP States are those African Caribbean and Pacific States which are parties to the Fourth ACP-EC Convention of Lomé (Lomé IV Convention) signed in Lomé, 15 December 1989, as revised by the Agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995. 5This Agreement was signed as a result of the second GATT panel initiated by Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Venezuela against the EC banana regime. Guatemala was not a member of the Agreement and therefore appears as a complainant in the present case. 6Normally, the AB procedure takes one month. In exceptionally complicated cases, this period may be extended to three months. This period was respected, since the notice of appeal was filed by the EC on 11 June 1997. Each report counts around 400 pages, while the AB report is more than 100.

WTO案例香蕉案解析

香蕉案解析

You have selected to view all the disputes about Bananas 9 case(s) match the criteria you selected. 22June 2007 European Communities —Regime for the Importation of Bananas (Complainant: Panama)DS36421March 2007European Communities —Regime for the Importation of Bananas (Complainant: Colombia) DS36131August 2001Turkey —Certain Import Procedures for Fresh Fruit (Complainant: Ecuador) DS2374March 1999United States —Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities (Complainant: European Communities) DS16520January 1999European Communities —Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (Complainants: Guatemala; Honduras; Mexico; Panama; United States) DS15825November 1998United States —Sections 301–310 of the Trade Act 1974 (Complainant: European Communities) DS15224October 1997European Communities —Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (Complainant: Panama) DS1055February 1996European Communities —Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (Complainants: Ecuador; Guatemala; Honduras; Mexico; United States) DS2728September 1995European Communities —Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (Complainants: Guatemala; Honduras; Mexico; United States) DS16

技术性贸易壁垒-----欧盟香蕉案

WTO-TBT案例－欧盟香蕉案 [2001-01-01] 目前最能代表新的争端解决机制特点的当属拉美五国(厄瓜多尔、危地马拉、洪都拉斯、墨西哥及后来参加进来的巴拿马)和美国联合投诉非加太(ACP)国家及日本、印度等作为第三方参加的欧盟香蕉进口机制争端案。该案涉及范围更广，提出了许多新问题，目前，该案己进入实施阶段。本节将对这一案例展开分析。欧盟香蕉进口机制争端的背景起因：对欧盟香蕉进口机制的争议由来已久。原因是1975年以来欧盟和传统的贸易合作伙伴ACP国家签订了几次洛美协定，其中有一个关于香蕉的协议(现行协议为PROTOCAL5)。1988年以来，美元区的香蕉生产国一直对此抗议，欧盟一再修订这一机制，但始终不能彻底解决这一问题。1993年2月，欧盟通过了在香蕉领域的共同市场规则，这一机制允许ACP国家出口到欧盟的香蕉的数量保持与传统上一致的水平，而给美元区国家和非传统ACP 国家设定了配额，配额内进口的香蕉按100ECU／吨来征税，配额以外的，按850ECU/吨征税。在此配额中，非传统生产国的香蕉可免税进口9万吨，但国家间的分配将由下一步的欧盟规则决定。而且，进口香蕉不论来源于何处，都要受各种进口程序的约束。1994年和1995年，欧盟在抗议声中不得不将配额分别提到10万吨、20万吨。 GATT洛美豁免：考虑到洛美协定的因素，1994年12月，缔约国全体免除了欧盟在洛美协定到期日2000年2月29日前GATTl947/1.1下的义务，允许欧盟为从ACP国家进口的产品提供优惠关税待遇。此外，乌拉圭回合中，哥伦比亚、哥斯达黎加、尼加拉瓜、委内瑞拉作为香蕉框架协议(BFA)的缔约方亦享受优惠安排。 GATT时期的争端解决： 1992年9月，拉美五个香蕉生产国向GATT申诉，要求解决欧盟在香蕉进口上采取的歧视性措施。1992年成立的专家组认为，欧盟的措施不是为了同时限制国内生产，也不是强制性法律规定，显然不符合GATT第11条第1款；洛美协定不是GATT第24条所指的自由贸易协定或关税同盟，因为欧盟对部分国家的优惠是单向的，虽然这一措施对发展中国家是有利的，但GATT第四部分的规定不能违背第一部分的原则。经过理事会多次讨论，直到1994年年底，专家组的报告仍未通过。 1993年2月13日，拉美五国对欧盟新的香蕉进口法令再次向GATT申诉。拉美五国诉称欧盟的关税配额措施违背了GATT第1、2、3、5、8、11、13、24条和第四部分。欧盟辩解说，这一法令是为了履行GATT和洛美协定的双重义务。1993年6月成立的专家组认为，

争端解决机制运作中存在的不足

【争端解决】WTO争端解决机制运作过程存在的不足——从一个经典案例看香蕉案 [提要]本文介绍了WTO争端解决机制运作过程存在的不足——从一个经典案例看香蕉案.，一个被数次诉诸GATT和WTO纠纷解决机制的纠纷。欧盟市场的香蕉主要有三部分来源：一个是直接隶属于某些欧盟国家的海外领土，如加勒比海地区的英联邦成员，法国的海外省等;二并提供专业律师进行免费法律咨询... 【争端解决】WTO争端解决机制运作过程存在的不足——从一个经典案例看香蕉案 2.1案情这是一个被数次诉诸GATT和WTO纠纷解决机制的纠纷。欧盟市场的香蕉主要有三部分来源：一个是直接隶属于某些欧盟国家的海外领土，如加勒比海地区的英联邦成员，法国的海外省等;二是通过《洛美协定》(Lome convention)同欧盟保持特惠经贸关系的(非洲、加勒比和太平洋地区的国家,ACP);三是中美和南美洲的国家。欧洲香蕉共同市场组织(CMO common Market Organization)成立，为国际香蕉市场带来了深刻的结构性变化，由于欧盟(欧共体)404/93规则确立了不同的配额体系，给予ACP国家特惠待遇，导致跨国香蕉企业逐步将投资、经营移出中南美地区，对其造成重大损失。基于此，厄瓜多尔、危地马拉、洪都拉斯和墨西哥以及美国联合申诉(香蕉案1 ，1996-1997) 专家组技术机构基本接受了申请方五国的主要观点，并要求欧盟应最迟不晚于1999年1月1日修改香蕉进口、销售及分销体制，以同WTO的一般规则相符合。欧盟接受了以上裁决，公布了1637/98号新决议。但是，申请方五国认为新规则仍然保留了原体制的歧视性，ACP国家继续超越“洛美弃权”的限制从欧盟倾斜的体制中获益，因而对质量更优和更具竞争性的“美元香蕉”将继续构成明显的歧视，于是，通过WTO与欧盟进行谈判，欧盟随后公布了2362/98号新规则，对1637/98号规则的某些执行细节作了修改。但美国对此仍不满意，以欧盟拟实施的新体制带有偏向色彩，不能符合世界贸易组织的要求为由，单方面公布了报复清单和制裁时间表;欧盟岂能相让，他们指出，欧盟不否认美国有权对新香蕉机制提出质询，但美国不应单方面以制裁相威胁，双方应在世界贸易组织的框架之内多边协商问题，并宣布新规则的如期实施。美国则坚持立场，认为欧盟只不过是在利用争端解决机制中存在的程序漏洞故意拖延时间。

WTO透明度原则在海关法领域的适用——以欧共体特定海关事项案为例

发表于《海关法评论》第1卷（2010年） WTO透明度原则在海关法领域的适用 ——以欧共体特定海关事项案为例黄文旭* （华东政法大学，上海 200042；上海中企泰律师事务所，上海 200122 ） WTO《海关估价协议》是WTO多边货物贸易协议之一，当然对所有WTO成员有约束力，对WTO成员的海关法有直接影响。然而，WTO规则对成员海关法的影响不限于此，如《原产地规则协议》、《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》也与WTO成员的海关法密切相关。此外，WTO的透明度原则要求各成员将其普遍适用的与海关有关的法律、规则、司法决定和行政裁决予以公布，以便各成员国政府和贸易经营者了解。欧共体特定海关事项案是WTO争端解决机构处理的有关海关法律的少有案例之一，其争议的焦点是欧共体海关法律的执行是否违反WTO透明度原则。一、WTO透明度原则在WTO法律框架内，透明度原则是指任何成员对本国制定和实施的与国际贸易有关的法律法规、司法判决、行政决定以及贸易政策都应当予以及时公布，以便其他缔约方政府及贸易商能够及时了解和熟悉它们。1透明度原则成为WTO的基础原则之一，是因为其可以使所有成员方在国际经贸交往中，保持贸易法律、法规和政策的统一性、公正性和合理性。 WTO关于透明度原则的核心条文是GA TT1994第10条，该条的标题为“贸易法规的公布和实施”。该条第1款是透明度原则的核心内容，“任何成员方实施的关于下列内容的普遍适用的法律、法规、司法判决和行政裁定应迅速公布，使各国政府和贸易商能够知晓：产品的海关归类或海关估价；关税税率、国内税税率和其他费用；有关进出口产品或其支付转账、或影响其销售、分销、运输、保险、仓储检验、展览、加工、混合或其他用途的要求、限制或禁止。任何成员方政府或政府机构与另一成员方政府或政府机构之间实施的影响国际贸易政策的协定也应予公布。”欧共体特定海关事项案所涉及到的条款为GATT1994第10条第3款。二、欧共体特定海关事项案简介 2004年9月12日，美国就欧共体特定海关事项提请与欧共体进行磋商。美国与欧共体于2004年11月16日在日内瓦进行了磋商，但未能解决争端。2005年1月，美国要求WTO 争端解决机构成立专家组，争端解决机构于3月21日成立专家组处理该争端。2006年6月16日，专家组报告公布。2006年8月，美国和欧共体均对专家组报告提出上诉。2006年11月13日，WTO争端解决机构公布了欧共体特定海关事项案的上诉机构报告。美国在设立专家组请求书中提出的指控为：第一，美国控诉欧共体对GA TT1994第10条第1款所指的法律、规章、判决和裁决的执行方式是不统一、不公正或不合理的，因而违反了GA TT1994第10条第3款a项。美国在设立专家组请求书中指出，这些法律文件包括《欧共体海关法典》、《欧共体海关法典实施规定》、《共同海关税则》、《欧共体统一关税税率》（TARIC）以及以上法律文件的修订和其他有关措施。美国还提交了欧共体海关法律执行不统一的不同事例，以证明欧共体海关执行制度整体违反了GATT1994第10条第3款a项的统一执行要求，这些事例包括海关归类和海关估价、海关归类和海关估价的程序、商品通关放行的程序、商品进入自由流通领域后的 *作者简介：黄文旭（1982—），男，湖南邵阳人，上海中企泰律师事务所律师，华东政法大学国际法学专业博士研究生，研究方向：国际经济法。

文档之家

WTO+DSB+欧共体香蕉案Ⅲ_summary

哥伦比亚诉欧盟香蕉案

世界多边贸易论文--浅析WTO贸易争端解决机制

近年国际贸易案例一览

欧共体与秘鲁沙丁鱼案

WTO+DSB+欧共体香蕉案Ⅲ_summary

推荐-试析在中国东盟自由贸易区背景下浅谈对第三国服务提供者的保护 精品

浅析WTO贸易争端解决机制

美欧香蕉大战

世界贸易组织争端解决机制程序

欧盟香蕉案

WTO案例 香蕉案解析

技术性贸易壁垒-----欧盟香蕉案

争端解决机制运作中存在的不足

WTO透明度原则在海关法领域的适用——以欧共体特定海关事项案为例

推荐-试析在中国东盟自由贸易区背景下浅谈对第三国服务提供者的保护精品

WTO案例香蕉案解析