WORLD TRADE WT/DS12/R
WT/DS14/R
5August 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-3118)
Original: English
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES -TRADE DESCRIPTION
OFSCALLOPS
(REQUESTS BYPERU AND CHILE)
Report ofthePanel
Thisreport ofthePanel isbeing circulated toallMembers, pursuant totheDSU.
Thereport isbeing circulated asanunrestricted document from5August 1996pursuant
totheprocedures fortheCirculation andDerestriction ofWTO Documents
(WT/L/160/Rev.1).WT/DS12/R
WT/DS14/R
Page2
1. On18July1995,theGovernmentofPerutotheWTOrequestedconsultationswiththeEuropean
Communities ("EC") concerning French Order NOR MERP9300051A of22March 1993 andits
amendments, relating totheofficial names andpermitted trade descriptions ofscallops inFrance.
Thisrequest wasmade pursuant toArticle XXII:1 oftheGeneral Agreement onTariffs andTrade
1994("GATT1994"),Article14.1oftheAgreementonTechnicalBarrierstoTrade("TBTAgreement"),
andArticle 4oftheUnderstanding onRules andProcedures Governing theSettlement ofDisputes
("DSU"). Inaccordance withArticle 4oftheDSU, therequest wascirculated toMembers ofthe
World Trade Organization ("WTO") on25July1995 (WT/DS12/1).
2. Pursuant toArticle 4.11oftheDSU, on27July1995, Chile (WT/DS12/2) andCanada
(WT/DS12/3) requested tobejoined intheconsultations initiated byPeru. On31July1995, theEC
informed theDispute Settlement Body ("DSB") thatithadaccepted these requests (WT/DS12/4).
Consultations were heldon10August 1995.
3. These consultations failed tosettle thedispute and,on18September 1995, Perurequested
theDSBtoestablish apanel, atitsnextmeeting, pursuant toArticle XXIII ofGATT 1994, Article
14oftheTBTAgreement andArticles 4and6oftheDSU (WT/DS12/7). Perurequested thatthe
panel consider andfindthattheFrench Order andsubsequent amendments are:
(a) inconsistent withArticles 2and12oftheTBTAgreement;
(b) inconsistent withArticles IandIIIofGATT 1994; and
(c) nullifying andimpairing benefits accruing toPeruunder theWTO Agreement.
4. On24July1995, theGovernment ofChile requested consultations withtheECconcerning
thesame French Order referred toabove inparagraph 1.Thisrequest wasmade pursuant toArticle
XXII:1 ofGATT 1994, Article 14.1oftheTBTAgreement andArticle 4oftheDSU. Inaccordance
withArticle 4oftheDSU, therequest wascirculated toMembers oftheWTO on31July1995
(WT/DS14/1).
5. Pursuant toArticle 4.11oftheDSU, Canada on2August 1995 (WT/DS14/2), Peru on
11August 1995(WT/DS14/3) andJapan on10August 1995(WT/DS14/4) requested tobejoined in
theconsultations initiated byChile. TheECaccepted these requests andconsultations wereheldon
10August 1995, jointly withtheconsultations referred toinparagraph 2.
6. These consultations failed tosettle thedispute and,on25September 1995, Chile requested
theDSBtoestablish apanel, atitsnextmeeting, pursuant toArticle XXIII ofGATT 1994, Article 14
oftheTBTAgreement andArticles 4and6oftheDSU(WT/DS14/6). Chile requested thatthepanel
consider andfindthattheFrench Order andsubsequent amendments are:
(a) inconsistent withArticles 2and12oftheTBTAgreement;
(b) inconsistent withArticles IandIIIofGATT 1994; and
(c) nullifying andimpairing benefits accruing toChile under theWTO Agreement.
7. Atitsmeeting on11October 1995, pursuant totherequests ofPeruandChile mentioned above
inparagraphs 3and6respectively, theDSBestablished asingle panel related tothesame matter in
accordance withArticle 9.1oftheDSU.WT/DS12/R
WT/DS14/R
Page3
8. AtthatDSBmeeting on11October 1995, Peru, Chile andtheECagreed thatthePanel should
havestandard terms ofreference. Theterms ofreference ofthePanel arethefollowing:
"Toexamine, inthelightoftherelevant provisions ofthecovered agreements citedbyPeru
andChile indocuments WT/DS12/7 andWT/DS14/6, thematter referred totheDSBbyPeru
andChile inthose documents andtomake suchfindings aswillassist theDSBinmaking the
recommendations oringiving therulings provided forinthose agreements".
9. AtthatDSBmeeting of11October 1995, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan andtheUnited
States reserved theirrights toparticipate inthePanel proceedings asthirdparties. AlltheseMembers,
except Australia, attended thesession forthirdparties andsubmitted written communications tothe
Panel.
10. Atitsmeeting of19July1995, theDSBhadestablished apanel inaccordance withtherequest
made byCanada (WT/DS7/7) concerning thesame French Order. Chile andPeruhadbeenjoined
intheconsultations ofthisrelated dispute between theECandCanada pursuant totheirrequests made
andaccepted inaccordance withArticle 4.11oftheDSU(WT/DS7/6). ThePanel report ofthisrelated
dispute iscontained indocument WT/DS7/R.
11. AttheDSB meeting of11October 1995, PeruandChile alsorequested theapplication of
Article 9.3oftheDSU sothatthesame panelists serving onthePanel intherelated dispute between
theECandCanada (referred toinparagraph 10above) would alsoserve onthesingle Panel established
pursuant totherequests ofPeruandChile (referred toinparagraph 7above).
12. On12October 1995, thepanelists serving onthePanel inthedispute between theECand
Canada agreed toactaspanelists forthePanel established forthedispute between theECandPeru
andChile.
13. ThePanel established pursuant totherequests ofPeruandChile (referred toinparagraph 7
above) wastherefore constituted on12October 1995 withthefollowing composition:
Chairman: Mr.Michael Cartland
Members: Mr.Peter Palecka
Mrs. Barbara Rigassi.
14. ThePanel metwiththethree parties on11December 1995 andon5February 1996. Itmet
withinterested thirdparties intheafternoon of11December 1995.
15. On6February 1996, pursuant toArticle 12.9oftheDSU, theChairman ofthePanel informed
theDSBthatthePanel would notbeabletoissueitsreport within sixmonths (Article 12.8oftheDSU).
Thereasons forthatdelay areprovided indocument WT/DS12/9, WT/DS14/8.
16. ThePanel issued theDescriptive Partofitsreport on19February 1996. Itissued theInterim
Report on14March 1996.
17. On2April 1996, attherequest oftheEC,thePanel heldareview meeting withtheparties
pursuant toArticle 15.2oftheDSU, tohearthecomments oftheparties onthePanel’sInterim Report.
18. On16,19and29April 1996, theparties requested thePanel topostpone issuance oftheFinal
Report totheparties.WT/DS12/R
WT/DS14/R
Page4
19. On2May1996, theparties again requested thePanel topostpone issuance oftheFinal Report
totheparties until10May1996 (WT/DS12/10 andWT/DS14/9).
20. On10May1996,thepartiesrequestedthePaneltosuspendthePanelproceedingsinaccordance
withArticle 12.12 oftheDSU because theywerediscussing theterms ofamutually agreed solution
(WT/DS12/11 andWT/DS14/10).
21. On5July1996, pursuant toArticle 3.6oftheDSU, theparties notified theDSBandtherelevant
Councils andCommittees thattheyhadreached amutually agreed solution, which wascirculated as
documents WT/DS12/12 andWT/DS14/11 on19July1996.
22. ThePanel takes noteofthismutually agreed solution between theparties tothedispute and
oftheprovisions ofArticle 12.7oftheDSU which provide that“where asettlement ofthematter
among theparties tothedispute hasbeenfound, thereport ofthepanel shallbeconfined toabrief
description ofthecaseandtoreporting thatasolution hasbeenreached ”.Accordingly, thePanel
concludes itsworkbyreporting thatamutually agreed solution tothisdispute hasbeenreached between
theparties.