RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/179 
20 January 2005 
 (05-0249) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
13 December 2004  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 13 December 2004  
 
Chairperson:  Ms Amina Mohamed (Kenya) 
 
 
1. European Communities – Export subsidies on sugar 
(a) Procedural agreement between Australia, Br azil, Thailand and the European Communities 
regarding the time-period under Article 16.4 of the DSU (WT/DS265/24 – WT/DS266/24 – WT/DS283/5) 
1.  The Chairperson
 recalled that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the 
request of Australia, Brazil, Thailand and the Eu ropean Communities.  She drew attention to a 
communication contained in document WT/DS265/ 24 – WT/DS266/24 – WT/DS283/5, which had 
been circulated at the request of Australia, Braz il, Thailand and the European Communities.  She then 
invited the representatives of the r espective delegations to speak.   
2.  The representative of Australia  thanked the Chairperson for convening the present meeting at 
the request of Australia, Brazil, Thailand and the Eu ropean Communities.  She recalled that the Panel 
Reports in the complaints brought by Australia , Brazil and Thailand in "European Communities – 
Export Subsidies on Sugar" (WT/DS265/R, WT/DS266/R and WT/DS283/R) had been circulated to 
Members on 15 October 2004.  That meant that th e end of the 60-day time-period under Article 16.4 
of the DSU would be 14 December 2004.  Austra lia welcomed the conclusions and recommendation 
of the Panel in this dispute and would be happy  to see the Panel Reports adopted by the DSB.  
Australia noted, however, that the EC had publicly stat ed its intention to appeal these Panel Reports.  
She said that the four parties had reached a pro cedural agreement regardi ng the time-period under 
Article 16.4 of DSU, which had been circulat ed to Members in document WT/DS265/24 –  
WT/DS266/24 – WT/DS283/5.  Australia confirmed th at it remained agreeable to that procedure.  
Australia requested the DSB, at the present meeting,  to agree to postpone the consideration of the 
Panel Reports in "European Communities – Export S ubsidies on Sugar" and to the extension of the 
corresponding time-period in Article 16.4 of the DS U until 31 January 2005.  That extension would 
be agreed on the understanding that the rights of the pa rties to the disputes with respect to adoption or 
appeal of the Panel Reports were preserved, as if such adoption or appeal had been requested within 
the 60 days specified in Article 16.4 of the DSU. 
3.  The representative of Brazil  recalled that on 1 December 2004, Australia, Brazil, Thailand 
and the European Communities, the parties to th e "Sugar" dispute, had reached a procedural 
agreement regarding the time-period under Article 16 .4 of the DSU.  The procedural agreement had 
been circulated to Members on 3 December 2004 in document  WT/DS265/24 – WT/DS266/24 – WT/DS283/5.  The sixtieth day for adoption or appeal  of the Reports in the present case would expire 
on 14 December.  He said that Members engaged in disputes under the DSU were familiar with WT/DSB/M/179 
Page 2  
 
 inconveniences that could arise in procedures running over the months of August and 
December/January.  In fact, the Appellate Body its elf had also called the attention to that matter 
several times, most recently during discussions on possible amendments to the Working Procedures 
for Appellate Review (WT/AB/WP/W/9, pp.7-9).  Brazil,  therefore, together with the other parties to 
this dispute, requested that the DSB agree to pos tpone the consideration of the Panel Reports in 
"European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar" (WT/DS265/R, WT/DS266/R and 
WT/DS283/R) and to extend the corresponding time -period in Article 16.4 of the DSU until 31 
January 2005.  This was of cour se on the understanding that the rights of the parties to the disputes 
with respect to adoption or appeal of the Panel Re ports were preserved, as if such adoption or appeal 
had been done within the 60 days specified in Artic le 16.4 of the DSU.  In other words, Brazil 
requested that the DSB agree to adopt the Panel Reports, on or before 31 January 2005, unless the 
DSB decided by consensus not to do so or a pa rty notified the DSB of its decision to appeal. 
4.  The representative of Thailand
 said that, like Australia and Brazil, his country wished to 
confirm the procedural agreement that had been r eached with all the parties to this dispute, as 
contained in the joint request to which the Chairperson had just refe rred.  Thailand requested the DSB 
to agree to postpone the consideration of the Panel Re ports in this dispute and to the extension of the 
corresponding time-period in Article 16.4 of the DSU until 31 January 2005.   
5.  The representative of the European Communities  recalled that the Panel had circulated its 
final Reports in this dispute on 15 October 2004.   The 60-day period within which the DSB was 
obliged to decide on the adoption of panel reports th at were not appealed (Article 16.4 of the DSU) 
would expire on 14 December 2004.  In order to take  account of the end of year period, and to avoid 
inconveniencing the appeal procedure, the parties to the dispute had agreed that the 60-day time-
period, as applicable to these disputes, would be ex tended until 31 January 2005.  The parties had also 
reached an understanding that the agreement of the DSB to that extension would be sought at the 
present meeting. Furthermore, the extension had b een agreed between the pa rties on the understanding 
that the rights of the parties to the disputes with respect to adoption or appeal of the Panel Reports 
were preserved, as if such adoption or appeal had been requested within 60 days specified in 
Article 16.4 of the DSU. This was without prejudice to the question of whether these rights would not be preserved without such extension.  The EC woul d be grateful if the DSB could accede to the joint 
request of the parties to agree to th e extension of the 60-day time-period. 
6.  The representative of Norway
 said that his country had noted the procedural agreement 
between Australia, Brazil, Thailand and the Euro pean Communities, as set out in the document 
referred to by the Chairperson.  In that document the parties had suggested to the DSB to delay the 
very clear time-limit set out in Article 16.4 of the DSU in order to avoid a situation where the parties 
had to deliver their submissions during the holiday  period.  Article 16.4 of the DSU stated that 
"Within 60 days after the date of circulation of a panel report ......the report shall be adopted at a DSB 
meeting unless a party to the dispute formally notifi es the DSB of its decision to appeal or the DSB 
decides by consensus not to adopt the report."   Norway had noted the procedural agreement between 
the parties to the dispute and wished to underlin e the following issues.  First, earlier in 2004, 
Members had considered a proposal by the Appella te Body for a so-called "court holiday" during the 
month of August and the Christmas holiday where th e Appellate Body would have been allowed to 
extend the 90-day period by three weeks where th e above mentioned holiday were to take place 
during the appeal.  In Norway's view, the approach  of the Appellate Body, albeit drafted differently, 
would have been a better solution for such cases as  it would not disturb the fundamental principle laid 
down in Article 16.4 of the DSU.  Second, in this particular case, Norway would have preferred that 
the parties had adhered to the clear rule in Article  16.4 of the DSU and made an agreement with the 
Appellate Body as set out in Rule16(2) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, which 
provided that a different timetable could be agreed  in "exceptional circumstances".  Third and most 
important, while Norway could go along in this pa rticular case and because it was the DSB itself that 
would take a decision at the present meeting, Norw ay considered that this case should not, in any  WT/DSB/M/179 
 Page 3 
 
 
 way, create a precedent for future case s.  In Norway's view, the rule in Article 16.4 of the DSU was of 
systemic importance in order to safeguard a system  that secured a proper adopt ion of panel reports, or 
an appeal, within a strict time-limit. The adoptio n of that rule was one of the most important 
developments in the DSU that had resulted fro m the Uruguay Round negotiations.  Its functioning 
ensuring that reports of panels were  adopted must not be disturbed. 
7.  The representative of the United States  said that his country was pleased that the present 
meeting was able to consider the procedural agreem ent that the parties had put forward.  As Members 
were aware, the United States was supportive of the pr inciple that parties to a dispute should be able 
to resolve procedural problems amongst themselves fo r the good of themselves, of the dispute and of 
the system.  The United States had also had an opport unity to take a look at the procedural agreement 
and to discuss the issues with the parties concerne d.  The United States was generally supportive of 
the solution that the parties to the dispute had r eached in the dispute under consideration and looked 
forward to the DSB taking an appropriate decision at the present meeting.  
8.  The Chairperson  proposed that the DSB take note  of the request in  WT/DS265/24 – 
WT/DS266/24 – WT/DS283/5 and agree  that it will adopt the Panel Reports, upon request, on or 
before 31 January 2005, unless the DSB decides by co nsensus not to do so or a party notifies the DSB 
of its decision to appeal. 
9.  The DSB so agreed .  
10.  The representative of Australia  said that she wished to take  the floor purely to inform 
delegations that, in the light of the decision just taken by the DSB, Australia, Brazil and Thailand, the 
complaining parties to the dispute, would be taki ng steps to cancel the DSB meeting that had been 
scheduled for 14 December 2004 in order to a dopt the Panel Reports in the "Sugar" case.   
11.  The Chairperson  confirmed that, as had just been indicated by Australia, a special DSB 
meeting scheduled for 14 December 2004 would be cancelled.  She said that a fax confirming this 
would be sent by the Secretariat. 
12.  The DSB took note  of the statements. 
 
__________