G/SG/139  
 
8 July 2015  
(15-3513)  Page: 1/2  
 Committee on Safeguards  Original: English  
 
 IMPOSITION OF A SAFEGUARD MEASURE BY TURKEY ON IMPORTS OF 
WALLPAPER AND SIMILAR WALL COVERINGS 
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 12.3 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
EUROPEAN UNION 
The following communication, dated 7 July 2015, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the European Union. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
1. On 12 December 2014 Turkey notified the WTO Committee on Safeguards under 
Article 12.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards that a safeguard investigation on imports of 
wallpaper and similar wallcoverings had been initiated on 12 December 2014 (WTO document 
G/SG/N/6/TUR/20). 
2. On 26 June 2014 Turkey notified the WTO Committee on Safeguards under Article 12.1(b) of 
the Agreement on Safeguards on finding a serious injury or a threat thereof and under 
Article 12.1(c) on taking a decision to apply a safeguard measure. In the same document Turkey 
offered consultations under Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards (WTO document G/SG/N/8/TUR/15-G/SG/N/10/TUR/15-G/SG/N/11/TUR/20). 
3. Having a substantial interest as an exporter in this case the European Union requests 
consultations with Turkey under paragraph 3 of  Article 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
4. The European Union suggests holding the consul tations as soon as possible and preferably 
with the participation of representatives of the Turkish investigating authorities.  
5. In order to provide elements for the consultations, the European Union submits a list of 
questions in the Annex to this request. This list  is not exhaustive, additional questions might be 
raised during the consultations. 
6. The European Union reserves all its rights under the Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
Organization and its Annexes including the Agreement on Safeguards. 
 
 
 G/SG/139 
 
- 2 - 
 
  ANNEX 
Increase of imports –  Article 2 and GATT Article XIX paragraph 1. 
 1. Please indicate to what extent the Investigating Authorities have examined the conditions of 
imports, in particular the development of the im port prices and how and on what basis the price 
undercutting and price suppression were established. 
Determination of serious injury – Article 4  
 
2. According to Article 4.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards, threat of serious injury shall be 
understood to mean serious injury that is clearly imminent. Based on the information provided in document G/SG/N/8/TUR/15, the EU fails to see how the situation of the domestic Turkish industry 
would point to serious injury that is clearly imminent. Could Turkey clarify what elements were 
taken into consideration in its analysis and on what basis it concluded that the domestic industry is in a position of threat of serious injury?   
Establishment of a causal link – Article 4 
3. According to Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards the investigation has to 
demonstrate, on the basis of objective evidence , the existence of a causal link between the 
increased imports of the product concerned and se rious injury or threat thereof. While imports 
indeed increased in absolute terms, they remained relatively stable in relative terms to the domestic production and even decreased in te rms of Market Shares. Price undercutting also 
decreased since 2011 and, based on the information provided in document G/SG/N/8/TUR/15, the 
investigation did not examine the trend of domest ic prices. Could Turkey explain what elements 
were taken into account for the analysis of causation and on what basis it concluded that the increase of imports and the deterioration in the economic indicators of the domestic industry 
followed a similar pattern?   
Application of safeguard measures – Article 5  
4. According Article 5.1 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards safeguard measures shall only 
be applied to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate 
adjustment. The Turkish authorities did not disclose how the level of the proposed measures was calculated. The proposed measures are of a prohibitive level (equivalent to between 70% and 80%) while the domestic industry does not seem to  be in a position to supply the full demand on 
the market. Could Turkey explain how it ensured that the measures are limited to the extent 
necessary to prevent serious injury (in compliance with)? 
 
__________