WT/DS316/36  
 
6 June 2018 
(18-3432) Page: 1/10 
  Original: English  
 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  AND CERTAIN MEMBER S TATES – MEASURES  
AFFECTING TRADE IN L ARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT  
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY T HE EUROPEAN UNION  
AND CERTAIN MEMBER S TATES  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTA TIONS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND C ERTAIN MEMBER STATES1 
The following communication, dated 29 May 2018 , from the delegation of the European Union  to 
the delegation of the United States , is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Bod y in accordance 
with Article  21.5 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. The Europe an Union2 requests consultations with the United States pursuant to Articles  4 
and 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  
("DSU"), and, to the extent necessary, Article  XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tar iffs and 
Trade 1994  ("GATT 1994 "), and Articles  7.1 and 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures  ("SCM Agreement "), to the extent that Article  30 incorporates 
Article  XXIII of the GATT 1994.  The European Union also refers to the "Agree d Procedures under 
Article  21 and 22 of the DSU and Article  7 of the SCM Agreement ", dated 12 January 20123 
("Sequencing Agreement "), which apply "for the exclusive purposes of this dispute " and in 
particular paragraph 1 thereof, which governs the procedures for the Parties to consult for 
purposes of compliance proceedings in this dispute.  
2. This request for consultations is made with respect to a "disagreement ", under Article  21.5 
of the DSU, "as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to 
comply with the recommendations and rulings " of the Dispute Settlement Body ( "DSB") in EC and 
Certain member States – Measures Affecting Tra de in Large Civil Aircraft (DS 316) ( "EC – Large 
Civil Aircraft "). 
3. On 1 June 2011, the Dispute Settlement Body ( "DSB") adopted the Appellate Body report, 
and the Panel report as modified by the Appellate Body report, in EC – Large Civil Aircraft .  The 
DSB's recommendations called upon the European Union to secure compliance with its WTO 
obligations in respect of member State financing ( "MSF") for the A300, A310, A320, A330/340, 
A330-200, A340 -500/600 and A380, or their adverse effects.  The recommendations and rulings 
also covered certain infrastructure measures, equity infusions and a number of regional 
development grants.  
4. On 1 December 2011, the European Union informed the DSB of the steps taken to 
implement the DSB 's recommendations.4  A disagreement aros e between the United States and 
                                                
1 As noted in the Compliance Communication, this Consultation Request is relev ant for the "original 
panel " within the meaning of Article 21.5 of the DSU, in the event of compliance panel proceedings, and "the 
original panel " within the meaning of Article 22.6 of the DSU , in the event of arbitration panel proceedings. As 
such, it also supplements and updates the European Union’s "objection " within the meaning of Article 22.6 of 
the DSU.  
2 Unless the context otherwise requires, as a matter of WTO law, references in this do cument (and any 
subsequent document filed in this dispute) to the European Union include the "certain member States " (France, 
Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom) against which the United States commenced this dispute.  
3 WT/DS316/21.  
4 WT/DS316/17.  WT/DS316/36  
 
- 2 - 
 
  the European Union regarding the sufficiency of the compliance steps communicated by the 
European Union to the DSB.  Following consultations, and at the request of the United States, on 
13 April 2012, the DSB referred the pa rties' disagreement to a compliance panel established under 
Article  21.5 of the DSU.  
5. The compliance panel circulated its report on 22 September 2016.  The report of the 
compliance panel was appealed by both the parties, and the Appellate Body circulated it s report on 
15 May 2018.  
6. In the compliance proceedings, the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, 
confirms that the European Union has achieved substantial compliance with much of the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings.  However, the compl iance Panel report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body report, also found that the European Union had not yet fully complied with all of 
the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in respect of adverse effects arising from A380 MSF, and 
added a recommendation in  respect of A350XWB MSF.  
7. Having reviewed the reports of the panel and the Appellate Body, the European Union 
notified the DSB on 17 May 2018 that the European Union has adopted a series of additional 
measures that achieve full compliance, consistent with A rticle 7.8 of the SCM Agreement  ("Second 
Compliance Communication ").  Specifically, the European Union informed the DSB that, with these 
measures, the European Union has (i)  withdrawn the remaining subsidies, and/or (ii)  taken 
appropriate steps to remove t heir adverse effects.  These measures bring the European Union into 
full compliance with its WTO obligations.  These measures constitute the measures taken to 
comply that are the subject of this request for consultations.  
8. The European Union appends its Sec ond Compliance Communication as Annex  A to this 
request for consultations.  The Second Compliance Communication constitutes an integral part of 
this request for consultations.  
9. As required by Article  4.4 of the DSU, the measures at issue are identified in i tems i -xviii 
of the Second Compliance Communication.  The legal basis for this request is that, pursuant to 
Article  7.8 of the SCM Agreement , these measures have resulted in the European Union achieving 
full compliance, by (i)  withdrawing the remaining sub sidies, and/or (ii)  taking appropriate steps to 
remove their adverse effects, as specifically set out in the Second Compliance Communication.  
10. Consistent with Article  7.2 of the SCM Agreement , and to the extent necessary, the 
Second Compliance Communication  also constitutes the statement of available evidence with 
regard to (i)  the existence and nature of the subsidies, or in this case, the withdrawal of those 
subsidies, and (ii)  the appropriate steps the European Union has taken to remove the adverse 
effect s of those subsidies.  A statement of additional available evidence is appended hereto as 
Annex B.  
11. The United States has expressed the view that the European Union has not yet fully 
complied with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.5  Thus, there is  a "disagreement as to 
the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply " with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, within the meaning of Article  21.5 of the DSU.  
12. Accordingly, the European Union requests consultations with the United States, under 
Articles  4 and 21.5 of the DSU, and, to the extent necessary, Article  XXIII:1 of GATT 1994, and 
Articles  7.1 and 30 of the SCM Agreement .6 
13. We look forward to receiving you r reply to this request, and to fixing a mutually acceptable 
date for consultations.   The European Union recalls that, under the Sequencing Agreement, which 
applies "for the exclusive purposes of this dispute ", consultations are to be held within 15  days 
from the receipt of this request, and that the European Union is entitled to request the 
establishment of a panel pursuant to Article  21.5 of the DSU any time after the lapse of the said 
15-day period.  
                                                
5 Statement by the United States at the DSB meeting on 28 May 2018.  
6 As noted in the Compliance Communication, with respect to the additional elements of the DSB’s 
recommendations and rulings, this Consultation Request is without prejudice to the European Unio n’s right to a 
reasonable period of time, within the meaning of Article 21.3 of the DSU.  WT/DS316/36  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Annex A  
Second Compliance Communication  
European Communities and Certain member States – 
Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft  
1. The European Union1 refers to the recommendations and rulings of the WTO Dispute 
Settlement Body ("DSB") with respect to the dispute European Communities and Certain member 
States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (WT/DS316), as well as the compliance 
panel report (WT/DS316/RW), as modified by the recent Appellate Body report 
(WT/DS316/AB/RW),2 in that sa me dispute.  
2. The European Union would like to inform the DSB that it has taken appropriate steps to 
bring its measures fully into conformity with its WTO obligations, and to comply with the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings.  By taking appropriate steps to bring the measures at issue into 
conformity with the European Union 's WTO obligations, as required by Article  7.8 of the Agreement 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  ("SCM Agreement ") and Article  19.1 of the 
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Gove rning the Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU"), the 
European Union has ensured full implementation of the DSB 's recommendations and rulings, and 
has consequently eliminated any nullification or impairment attributable to non -compliance with 
those recommendations  and rulings.  
3. In this communication to the DSB, the European Union uses the term "adverse effects " in 
the same sense as that term is used in Articles  5, 7.8, 7.9 and 7.10 of the SCM Agreement .  
Consistent with those provisions, achieving compliance by with drawing the subsidy or taking 
appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects also achieves the elimination of nullification or 
impairment within the meaning of Article  5(b) of the SCM Agreement  and Articles  22.4, 22.7 and 
22.8 of the DSU.  
4. The relationship , in this dispute, between achieving compliance by withdrawing the subsidy 
or taking appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects, on the one hand, and the elimination of 
nullification and impairment, on the other, is also underscored by:  
1) the specific a nd unique character of proceedings under Part III of the SCM Agreement ; 
2) the specific terms of the Recourse to Article  7.9 of the SCM Agreement  and Article  22.2 of 
the DSU by the United States,3 and the Recourse to Article  22.6 of the DSU by the 
European Un ion;4 and, 
3) the Agreed Procedures under Article  21 and 22 of the DSU and Article  7 of the SCM 
Agreement that the European Union and the United States adopted for the purposes of this 
dispute on 12 January 2012.5 
5. Given that this communication concerns, in part, the withdrawal of subsidies and/or the 
removal of adverse effects, it is relevant for "the original panel " within the meaning of Article  21.5 
of the DSU, in the event that it is called upon, for a second tim e, to adjudicate a "disagreement ", 
within the meaning of Article  21.5. 
                                                
1 Where the context so requires, as a matter of WTO law, references in this document to the European 
Union include the "certain member States " (France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom) against which 
the United States commenced this dispute.  
2 References in this communication to the compliance panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body 
Report, also encompass the compliance Appellate Body Report itself.  
3 WT/DS316/18 ( "[T]he United States requests authorization from the Dispute Settlement Body (‘DSB’) 
to take countermeasures with respect to the European Union (‘EU’) at an annual level commensurate with the 
degree and nature of the adverse effects caused to the interests of the United States  by the failure of the EU 
and certain member States to withdraw subsidies or remove their adverse effects  in compliance with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. This amount corresponds to the annual value of lost s ales, of imports 
of US large civil aircraft displaced from the EU market, and of exports of US large civil aircraft displaced from 
third country markets. The amount will be updated annually  using the most recent publicly available data ".) 
(emphasis added).  
4 WT/DS316/20.  
5 WT/DS316/21.  WT/DS316/36  
 
- 4 - 
 
  6. At the same time, given that this document also concerns the elimination of nullification and 
impairment, it is equally relevant for "the original panel " within the meaning of Article  22.6 of the 
DSU, in the event of arbitration panel proceedings.  
I. BACKGROUND  
7. The European Union recalls that the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, adopted in 
June 2011, cover a number of subsidies in the form of member State financing ( "MSF") from 
France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom ( "UK") for the development of various families of 
Airbus large civil aircraft ( "LCA").  In particular, the DSB 's recommendations and rulings called 
upon the European Union to secure compliance with its WTO obliga tions in respect of MSF for the 
A300, A310, A320, A330/340, A330 -200, A340 -500/600 and A380.  The recommendations and 
rulings also covered certain infrastructure measures, equity infusions and a number of regional 
development grants.  
8. On 1 December 2011, the European Union informed the DSB of the steps taken to 
implement the DSB 's recommendations and rulings.6  A disagreement arose between the United 
States and the European Union regarding the sufficiency of the compliance steps communi cated by 
the European Union to the DSB.  Following consultations, and at the request of the United States, 
on 13 April 2012, the DSB referred the parties ' disagreement to a compliance panel established 
under Article  21.5 of the DSU.  
9. The compliance panel ci rculated its report on 22 September 2016.  The report of the 
compliance panel was appealed by both parties, and the Appellate Body circulated its report on 15 
May 2018.  
10. In the compliance proceedings, the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body repo rt, 
confirms that the European Union has achieved substantial compliance with much of the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings.7  However, the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body 
report, also found that the European Union had not yet fully complie d with all of the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings in respect of adverse effects arising from A380 MSF, and added 
recommendations and rulings in respect of A350XWB MSF (with respect to which the European 
Union has yet to receive a reasonable period of tim e in which to comply, within the meaning of 
Article  21.3 of the DSU).  
11. In considering appropriate steps to bring these remaining and additional measures into 
conformity with its WTO obligations, the European Union took note of all elements of the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings, and the Appellate Body 's guidance on the content and nature of the 
applicable compliance obligation under Article  7.8 of the SCM Agreement .  In particular, the 
European Union notes the Appellate Body 's confirmation that a Member fo und to have acted 
inconsistently with Articles  5 and 6.3 of the SCM Agreement  can achieve compliance under 
Article  7.8 by either (i)  withdrawing the subsidy, or (ii)  taking appropriate steps to remove the 
adverse effects of the subsidy.  The European Union  also notes the Appellate Body 's findings on 
the meaning of the term "withdraw " in Article  7.8.  In relation to the removal of adverse effects, 
the European Union has also given close consideration to the Appellate Body 's guidance on the 
delineation of pro duct markets, the requirements of a proper causation assessment, and the 
preconditions for a finding of displacement or of impedance.  The European Union has also closely 
monitored and assessed LCA product and market developments in the months and years fo llowing 
the period covered by the panel 's review.  
12. Taking all of these factors into account, the European Union has taken appropriate steps to 
address the remaining and additional elements of the DSB 's recommendations and rulings, either 
through the withdrawal of subsidies or the removal of the adverse effects.8 
                                                
6 WT/DS316/17.  
7 Appellate Body Report, EC – Large Civil Aircraft (Article 21.5 – US), paras. 5.1 -5.25, 5.351 -5.383, 
5.384 -5.404, 5.710, 5.716, 5.719 -5.722, 5.731, 5.732 -5.737, 5.742, 6.2, 6.11, 6.12 -6.13, 6.19, 6.26 -6.29, 
6.32-6.35, 6.39 -6.40. 
8 The European Union has done so "immediately " to the extent "practicable ". However, with respect to 
the additional elements of the DSB's  recommendations and rulings, this is without prejudice to the European 
Union's right to a reasonable period of time, within the meaning of Article 21.3 of the DSU.  WT/DS316/36  
 
- 5 - 
 
  13. In Section 0, the European Union lists the measure s taken to comply with the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings.  In Section 0, the European Union explains that these measures 
achieve the withdrawal of the subsid ies at issue, constitute appropriate steps to remove their 
adverse effects, or both, and achieve the elimination of nullification and impairment.  
14. By taking appropriate steps to bring the measures at issue into conformity with the 
European Union 's WTO oblig ations, as required by Article  7.8 of the SCM Agreement  and 
Article  19.1 of the DSU, the European Union has ensured full implementation of the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings, and has consequently eliminated any nullification or impairment 
attributable t o non -compliance with those recommendations and rulings.  
II. LIST OF MEASURES TAK EN TO COMPLY  
15. The European Union sets out below a list of measures taken to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in the present dispute.  
A. Measures that Achieve  Withdrawal of the Subsidies under Articles  7.8, 1 and 2 of 
the SCM Agreement , and Contribute to Removal of their Adverse Effects, under 
Articles  7.8, 5 and 6.3 of the SCM Agreement9 
i. A 2018 amendment to the French A380 MSF Agreement;  
ii. A 2018 amendment to th e German A380 MSF Agreement;  
iii. A 2018 amendment to the Spanish A380 MSF Agreement;  
iv. A 2018 amendment to the UK A380 MSF Agreement;  
v. A 2018 amendment to the German A350XWB MSF Agreement;  
vi. Full repayment of the UK A350XWB MSF in 2018;  
vii. Withdrawal through amortisat ion or otherwise of the "benefit " conferred by the French, 
German, Spanish and UK A380 MSF Agreements; and,  
viii. Withdrawal through amortisation or otherwise of the "benefit " conferred by the French, 
German, Spanish and UK A350XWB MSF Agreements.  
B. Measures that Constitute Appropriate Steps to Remove Adverse Effects, under 
Articles  7.8, 5 and 6.3 of the SCM Agreement  
ix. Withdrawal, through amortisation or otherwise, of the "benefit " conferred by the French, 
German, Spanish and UK A380 MSF Agreements;  
x. Non-subsidised investments in A380 family aircraft;  
xi. Reduced draw down of the loan amounts under the French A380 MSF Agreement;  
xii. Cancellation or completion of A380 deliveries corresponding to the Transaero  2012 and 
Emirates 2013 orders, and delivery of any outstanding A380 aircraft to certain country 
markets covered by the finding of impedance in the Very Large Aircraft ( "VLA") market;  
xiii. Attenuation, through the passage of time and events that occurred during  that time, of the 
causal link between A380 MSF and the launch of the A380 and the A350XWB, as and when 
they were launched;  
xiv. Withdrawal, through amortisation or otherwise, of the "benefit " conferred by the French, 
German, Spanish and UK A350XWB MSF Agreemen ts; 
xv. Non-subsidised investments in A350XWB family aircraft;  
xvi. Reduced draw down of the loan amounts under the French and UK A350XWB MSF 
Agreements;  
                                                
9 As noted at paragraph 16, below, through the withdrawal of subsidies, these measures also contribute 
to the removal of adverse effects.   WT/DS316/36  
 
- 6 - 
 
  xvii.  Attenuation, through the passage of time and events that occurred during that time, of the 
causal link between A350XWB MSF and the launch of the A350XWB as and when it was 
launched; and,  
xviii.  Completion or conversion to other aircraft of A350XWB deliveries corresponding to the 
Cathay Pacific 2012, Singapore Airlines 2013 and United Airlines 2013 orders of the 
A350XWB.  
III. THE MEASURES TAKEN T O COMPLY ACHIEVE FUL L COMPLIANCE WITHIN THE 
FRAMEWORK OF ARTICLE  7.8 OF THE SCM AGREE MENT  
16. As noted above, in its report in the compliance proceedings, the Appellate Body clarified that 
a Member found to have provided subsidies that have resulted in adverse effects, under Articles  5 
and 6.3 of the SCM Agreement , can come into compliance by either withdrawing the subsidy, or by 
taking appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects of those subsidies.10  In part  1.1.1  A, 
below, the European Union explains that measures i-viii listed above achieve the withdrawal of the 
subsidy from A380 MSF and A350XWB MSF.  Through the withdrawal of the subsidy, these 
measures also contribute to the removal of adverse effects, and to the elimination of nullification 
and impairment.  For any su bsidies that have not been withdrawn, the European Union explains in 
part 1.1.1  B, below, that measures ix-xviii listed above constitute appropriate steps to remove 
their adverse effects, which would also contribute to the elimination of nullification and 
impairment.  
A. Withdrawal of the Subsidies  
17. The Appellate Body clarified that a Member found to have provided subsidies that have 
resulted in adverse effects, under Articles  5 and 6.3 of the SCM Agreement , can achieve full 
compliance by withd rawing the subsidy.11  The European Union notes that measures achieving the 
full or partial withdrawal of subsidies at issue would also contribute to the removal of adverse 
effects, and to the elimination of nullification and impairment.  
18. The European Union has procured full withdrawal of the subsidy from French, German, 
Spanish and UK A380 MSF, and of the subsidy from German and UK A350XWB MSF, and at least 
partial withdrawal of the subsidies from French and Spanish A350XWB MSF.  
19. A380 MSF:  France, Germany, S pain and the UK have agreed amendments with Airbus to 
each of the A380 MSF Agreements (Measures i-iv, listed above).  In each case, the parties have 
agreed amendments to achieve prospective consistency with a contemporaneous market 
benchmark.  Therefore, the European Union has procured withdrawal of the subsidies conferred by 
each of the A380 MSF loans.  
20. In any event, the benefit from the French, German, Spanish and UK A380 MSF subsidies has 
been withdrawn through amortisation or otherwise, achieving the withdrawal of these subsidies 
(Measure vii, listed above).  
21. GERMAN A350XWB MSF :  Germany, through Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau ( "KfW"), and 
Airbus have concluded an amendment to the German A350XWB MSF agreement (Measure v, 
above).  The amendment achieves consistency with a contemporaneous market benchmark, such 
that the subsidy conferred by German A350XWB MSF is withdrawn.  Additionally, the Euro pean 
Union also notes that the benefit conferred by the German A350XWB MSF loan has now 
substantially amortised (Measure viii, listed above).  
22. UK A350XWB MSF :  Airb us has repaid in full amounts outstanding under the UK A350XWB 
MSF Agreement (Measure vi, above), such that the subsidy conferred by UK A350XWB MSF is 
withdrawn.  A dditionally, the European Union also notes that the benefit conferred by the UK 
A350XWB MSF loan has now substantially amortised (Measure viii, listed above).  
                                                
10 Appellate Body Report, EC – Large Civil Aircraft (Article 21.5 – US), para. 5.383.  
11 Appellate Body Report, EC – Large Civil Aircraft (Article 21.5 – US), para. 5.383.  WT/DS316/36  
 
- 7 - 
 
  23. FRENCH AND SPANISH A350XWB MSF :  The benefit from the French and Spanish 
A350XWB MSF has now substantially been withdrawn through amortisation or otherwise (Measure 
viii, listed above).  
B. Appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects  
24. The Appellate Body also clarified that a Member found to have conferred subsidies that have 
resulted in adverse effects, under Articles  5 and 6.3 of the SCM Agreement , can come into 
compliance by taking appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects.12 
25. In the present dispute, the United States advanced its adverse effects claim based on an 
allegation that the provision of the subsidies at issue caused the launch of several families of  
Airbus aircraft.  The June 2011 recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB reflected these  
arguments, and were based on the finding that the subsidies at issue were a genuine and 
substantial cause of the sale and delivery of certain Airbus aircraft, and consequently certain 
adverse effects to the United States found to have resulted from those sales and deliveries.  
26. In the compliance proceedings in the present dispute, the panel report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body, found that the MSF subsidies we re a genuine and substantial cause of certain sales 
and deliveries of A380 and A350XWB aircraft that were held to trigger adverse effects.  For the 
A380, these adverse effects were attributed to the "direct effects " of A380 MSF alone.  For the 
A350XWB, the se adverse effects were attributed to the "direct effects " of A350XWB MSF, and the 
"indirect effects " of A380 MSF.  
27. As the European Union has already discussed above, the European Union has now 
withdrawn the A380 MSF subsidies, the German and UK A350XWB MSF  subsidies,13 and has, 
therefore, achieved full compliance in respect of these subsidies (Measures i-vii, above).  
Therefore, the question whether these withdrawn subsidies are presently a cause of adverse 
effects is irrelevant as a matter of law.  
28. Nonetheless, the European Union has also taken appropriate steps to remove any a dverse 
effects attributable to any or all of the subsidies in respect of which the European Union incurred 
compliance obligations in light of the compliance panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body 
report ( i.e., A380 MSF and A350XWB MSF).  Currently , neither A380 MSF nor A350XWB MSF is a 
genuine and substantial cause of any adverse effects.  Below, the European Union explains this 
conclusion with reference to the A380 and the A350XWB.  
29. A380 :  As discussed above, the A380 MSF subsidies have now been wi thdrawn through 
amendments that prospectively align the A380 MSF loans with the relevant contemporary market 
benchmark (Measures i-iv).  Without prejudice to that observation, the European Union considers 
that, in any event, any benefit from A380 MSF has been withdrawn through amortisation or 
otherwise (Measure vii, above).  These demonstrate that the subsidies can no longer be 
considered a genuine and substantial cause of sales or deliveries of A380 aircraft, or any 
associated adver se effects.  
30. The European Union also notes that Airbus did not draw down the full amount of the French 
A380 MSF loan (Measure xi, above).  This shows, once again, t hat the subsidy can no longer be 
considered a genuine and substantial cause of sales or deliveries of A380 aircraft, or any 
associated adverse effects.  
31. Airbus has also undertaken significant non -subsidised investments in the A380, and in A380 -
related conti nuous support and development (Measure x, listed above).  Currently, neither A380 
MSF nor any other subsidy at issue is a genuine and substantial cause of sales or deliveries of 
A380 aircraft, or any associated adverse effects.  
32. The Transaero 2012 order for A380 aircraft, which formed the basis of lost sales findings 
confirmed by the Appellate Body, has been cancelled; many of the deliveries corresponding to the 
                                                
12 Appellate Body Report, EC – Large Civil Aircraft (Article 21.5 – US), para. 5.383.  
13 As discussed above, the European Union has also achieved at least partial withdrawal of the French 
and Spanish A3 50XWB MSF subsidies.  WT/DS316/36  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2013 order by Emirates have already been made (Measure xii, listed above).  These measures 
again constitute appropriate steps for the removal of adverse effects in the form of lost sales.  
33. The passage of time has also attenuated the causal link between the A380 MSF subsidies 
and the launch of the A380 as and when it was launched, such that A380 MSF is no longer a cause 
of sales or deliveries of A380 aircraft or any associ ated adverse effects (Measure xiii, listed above).  
34. A350XWB :  As the European Union discussed above, A380 MSF, which the compliance 
panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, considered to be a cause of the launch of the 
A350XWB as and when it was launched, and of resulting sales or deliveries of the A350XWB 
aircraft and associated adverse effects, has now been withdrawn, either through the prospective 
alignment  of the A350XWB MSF loans with the relevant contemporary market benchmark, or 
otherwise (including by amortisation) (Measures i-iv and vii, above).  
35. As the European Union discussed above, German and UK MSF subsidies for the A350XWB  
have now also been withdrawn (Measures v and vi, listed above).  As s uch, they can no longer be 
considered a cause of the launch of the A350XWB as and when it was launched, and of resulting 
sales or deliveries of A350XWB aircraft or any associated adverse effects.  
36. As discussed above, the European Union has also achieved at least partial withdrawal of the 
French and Spanish A350XWB MSF subsidies (Measure viii, listed above).  
37. While appropriate steps for the removal of the adverse effect s are not necessary in respect 
of subsidies which have been withdrawn, the European Union has, in any event, taken such steps 
in relation to all of the A350XWB MSF subsidies.  
38. The European Union notes that Airbus did not draw down the full amount under the French 
and UK A350XWB MSF Agreements (Measure xvi, above).  This demonstrates that there is very 
little, if any, benefit remaining from the A350XWB MSF subsidies, such that the A350XWB MSF 
subsidies can no longer be considered a cause of the launch of the A350XWB as and when it was 
launched, and of resulting sales or deliveries of A350XWB aircraft or any associated adverse 
effects.  
39. Additionally, any benefit from the  A350XWB MSF subsidies has now substantially amortised 
(Measure xiv, above).  Once again, this demonstrates that the A350XWB MSF subsidies can no 
longer be conside red a cause of the launch of the A350XWB as and when it was launched, and of 
resulting sales or deliveries of A350XWB aircraft or any associated adverse effects.  
40. The passage of time has also attenuated the causal link between the A380 and A350XWB 
MSF subsi dies and the launch of the A350XWB as and when it was launched, such that A380 MSF 
and A350XWB MSF can no longer be considered a cause of the launch of the A350XWB as and 
when it was launched, and of resulting sales or deliveries of A350XWB aircraft or any  associated 
adverse effects (Measures xiii and xvii, listed above).  
41. Additionally, Airbus has undertaken significant non -subsidised investments in the A350XWB, 
and in A350XWB -related continuous support and development (Measure xv, above).  Neither 
A350XWB MSF nor any other subsidy at issue is currently a genuine and substantial cause of sales 
or deliveries of the A350XWB or any associated adverse effects . 
42. Moreover, the Cathay Pacific 2012, Singapore Airlines 2013 and United Airlines 2013 orders, 
which formed the basis of lost sales findings confirmed by the Appellate Body, have been delivered 
or converted to other aircraft (Measure xviii, above).  These measures again constitute appropriate 
steps for the removal of adverse effects in the form of lost sales.  
IV. CONCLUSION  
43. In light of the above, and in light of the "Agreed Procedures under Article  21 and 22 of the 
DSU and Article  7 of the SCM Agreement " adopted by the European Union and the United States WT/DS316/36  
 
- 9 - 
 
  on 12 January 2012 for purposes of this dispute, the European Union notifies the DSB that it has 
achieved full compliance with the recommendations and rulings in the present dispute.14
                                                
14 As noted above, this notification is without prejudice to the European Union's right to a reasonable 
period of time, within the meaning of Article 21.3 of the DSU.  WT/DS316/36  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Annex  B 
Statement of Available Evidence, under Article  7.2 of the SCM Agreement  
Consistent with Article  7.2 of the SCM Agreement , the European Union sets out below evidence 
available to it at this time regarding the withdrawal (and therefore, non -existence) of the specific 
subsidies subject to this request for consultations, as well as steps taken to remove the adverse 
effects of these subsidies.  The European Union reserves the right to supplement or alter this list in 
the future, as required.  
 The Second Compli ance Communication, reproduced above as Annex  A to this 
consultations request;  
 Panel Report, EC and Certain member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil 
Aircraft , WT/DS316/R, as modified by the Appellate Body Report;  
 Appellate Body Report, EC an d Certain member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large 
Civil Aircraft , WT/DS316/AB/R;  
 Panel Report, EC and Certain member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil 
Aircraft (Article  21.5 – US), WT/DS316/RW, as modified by the Appellate Body Rep ort; 
 Appellate Body Report, EC and Certain member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large 
Civil Aircraft (Article  21.5 – US), WT/DS316/AB/RW;  
 Exhibits from the original proceedings in EC and Certain member States – Measures 
Affecting Trade in Large Civi l Aircraft  (Exhibits EC -001 through EC -993 and Exhibits US -
001 through US -691);  
 Exhibits from the first compliance proceedings in EC and Certain member States – 
Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Article  21.5 – US) (Exhibits EU -001 
through E U-550 and Exhibits USA -001 through USA -589); and,  
 Ascend database information on orders and deliveries of A380, A350XWB aircraft and other 
large civil aircraft.  
 
 
__________