WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS350/19 
6 January 2010 
 
 (10-0015) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND APPLICATION 
OF ZEROING METHODOLOGY 
 
Understanding between the European Union and the United States
 
Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU  
 
  The following communication, dated 4 Ja nuary 2010, from the delegation of the 
European Union and the delegation of the United St ates to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement 
Body, is circulated at the request of these delegations. 
 
_______________ 
 
  The European Union and the United States would like to inform the Dispute Settlement Body 
of the attached "Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement 
Understanding" between the European Union and the United States with respect to the dispute 
United States – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology  (WT/DS350).  
 
We request that you please circulate the attached  agreement to the Members of the Dispute 
Settlement Body.  
 WT/DS350/19 
Page 2  
 
  Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding
 
United States - Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology  
(WT/DS350)  
  
 The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted its  recommendations and rulings in the dispute 
United States – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology  (WT/DS350) on 
19 February 2009. 
 Pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the Unde rstanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes (DSU) the European Union and the United States agreed that the reasonable 
period of time to implement the DSB recommendations  and rulings would be ten months, expiring on 
19 December 2009 (WT/DS350/17). 
 The European Union and the United States ("the parties to the dispute") have agreed on the 
following procedures for the exclusive purposes of this  dispute. They are designed to facilitate the 
resolution of the dispute and reduce the scope for procedural disputes and are without prejudice to 
either party's views on the correct interpretation of the DSU: 
1. Should the European Union consider that the situation described in Article 21.5 of the DSU 
exists, the European Union will request consu ltations, which the parties to the dispute will 
hold within 12 days from the date of circulati on of such request.  The parties to the dispute 
agree that at the end of such period for consu ltations, should either party so state, the parties 
to the dispute will immediately and jointly cons ider that such consultations have failed to 
settle the dispute. 
  Consequently, the European Union may at any time following the failure of consultations to 
settle the dispute request the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
 
2. At the first DSB meeting at which the Europ ean Union's request for the establishment of an 
Article 21.5 panel appears on the agenda, the United States shall accept the establishment of 
that panel. 
 3. The parties to the dispute shall cooperate to en able the Article 21.5 panel to circulate its report 
within 90 days of the panel's establishment, excluding such time during which the panel's 
work may be suspended pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU. 
 4. Either party to the dispute may request the DS B to adopt the report of the Article 21.5 panel at 
a DSB meeting held at least 20 days after the circulation of the report to the Members unless either party appeals the report.  
 
5. In the event of an appeal of the Article 21. 5 panel report, the parties to the dispute shall 
cooperate to enable the Appellate Body to circ ulate its report to the Members within 90 days 
from the date of notification of the appeal to the DSB. 
 6. In the event of an appeal, either party to  the dispute may request the DSB to adopt its 
recommendations and rulings at a DSB meeting held  within 30 days of the circulation of the 
Appellate Body report to the Members. 
 7. In the event that the DSB ru les, in a proceeding under Article 21.5 of the DSU, that a measure 
taken to comply does not exist or is inc onsistent with a covered agreement, the 
European Union may request authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations in 
accordance with Article 22 of the DSU after the adoption by the DSB of its recommendations  WT/DS350/19 
 Page 3 
 
 
  and rulings and may request negotiations with th e United States with a view to developing 
mutually acceptable compensation pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU. 
 8. The United States shall not assert that the Eu ropean Union is precluded from obtaining such 
DSB authorization to suspend concessions or othe r obligations on the grounds that the request 
was made outside the 30-day time-period specified in Article 22.6 of the DSU. This is without 
prejudice to the US right to have the matter referred to arbitration in accordance with Article 22.6 of the DSU. 
 9. If the European Union requests authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations 
pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, and if the United States objects under Article 22.6 of the 
DSU to the level of suspension of concessions or  other obligations and/or claims that the 
principles and procedures set forth in Article 22.3 of the DSU have not been followed, the matter will be referred to arbitration pu rsuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU. 
 
10. The parties to the dispute will cooperate to en able the arbitrator under Article 22.6 of the DSU 
to circulate its decision within 60 days of the referral to arbitration.  
 11. If any of the original panelists is not availa ble for either the Article 21.5 compliance panel or 
the Article 22.6 arbitration (or both), the parties to the dispute  will promptly consult on a 
replacement, and either party may request the Di rector-General of the WTO to appoint, within 
ten days of being so requested, a replacement for the proceeding or proceedings in which a 
replacement is required. If an original panelis t is unavailable to serve in either of the 
proceedings, the parties to the dispute will further request that, in making this appointment, the Director-General seek a person who will be available to act in both proceedings. 
 
12. The parties to this dispute  will continue to cooperate in a ll matters related to these agreed 
procedures  and agree not to raise any procedural objec tion to any of the steps set out herein. 
If, during the application of these procedures, the parties to the dispute consider that a 
procedural aspect has not been properly addressed in these procedures, they will endeavor to 
find a solution within the shortest time possible that will not affect the other aspects and steps 
agreed herein.  
 
  Signed in Geneva, 29 December 2009  
 
 
For the European Union 
 
(signed) 
Eckart Guth 
Ambassador For the United States 
 
(signed) 
David P. Shark 
Chargé d'affaires, a.i. 
  
__________