RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/246 
20 March 2008 
 (08-1248) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
8 February 2008  
 
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 8 February 2008  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Bruce Gosper (Australia) 
 
 
Subjects discussed : Page  
 
1. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products............................................................................................................... .........1  
(a) Recourse to Article 22.2 of th e DSU by the United States .........................................................1  
2. European Communities – Anti-dumping  measure on farmed salmon from 
Norway......................................................................................................................... ..............3  
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB.................................................................3  
 
 
1. European Communities – Measures affectin g the approval and marketing of biotech 
products 
(a) Recourse to Article 22.2 of the DSU by the United States (WT/DS291/39) 
1. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the United States contained in 
document WT/DS291/39, and invited the represen tative of the United States to speak. 
2. The representative of the United States  said that, as his country had noted at the January DSB 
meeting, the reasonable period of time for the EC 's compliance in this dispute had expired on 
11 January 2008.  Even though more than four and a half years had elapsed since the United States 
had filed its consultation request in May 2003, the i ssues covered in the dispute remained unresolved.  
On 14 January, the United States and the EC had ag reed to certain procedures under Articles 21 and 
22 of the DSU for the purposes of this dispute.  Those agreed procedures had been notified to the 
DSB in document WT/DS291/38 on 17 January 2008.  The United States and the EC had entered into 
these agreed procedures with the intent of allo wing continued discussions aimed at the goal of 
resolving this dispute and related issues.  On 17 January 2008, the United States had requested authorization under Article 22.2 of the DSU to susp end concessions and other obligations with respect 
to the EC under the covered agreements.  The re quested level of suspension was the annual level 
equivalent to the annual level of nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to the United States 
resulting from the EC's failure to bring measures of  the EC and its member States, concerning the 
approval and marketing of biotech products, into  compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.   WT/DSB/M/246 
Page 2  
 
  3. Pursuant to the agreed procedures between th e United States and the EC, on 6 February 2008, 
the EC had objected to the level of suspension pro posed by the United States, and had claimed that the 
US request had not followed the principles or procedures set forth in Article 22.3 of the DSU.  The EC's objection served to refer this matter to arbitr ation, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, and no 
further action was required of the DSB.  Indeed, Article 22.6 of the DSU did not refer to any decision 
by the DSB.  Nevertheless, the United States had no objection if the DSB wished to take note of that 
fact and confirm that it may not consider the US request for authorization, which was the item on the 
agenda of the present meeting, since the matter was being referred to arbitration. 
4. The United States wished to note, however, that it was unfortunate that the time of the DSB 
had to be wasted to consider this matter at the present meeting.  The United States would have much 
preferred to have withdrawn its request under Article  22.2 from the agenda of the present meeting, as 
Japan had done with respect to its own Article 22.2 request at the previous DSB meeting.  
Unfortunately, the United States had been told by  the EC that unless it had committed to leave its 
request on the agenda of the meeting, the EC would nonetheless require the DSB to meet by itself putting the US request on the agenda.  In light of th is, and in order to spare the DSB, the Chairman 
and the Secretariat needless procedural complications, the United States had chosen not to withdraw 
its request.  
5. Pursuant to the agreed procedures between the United States and the EC, the United States 
and the EC would request the Arbitrator to suspen d its proceedings.  If, and when, the DSB were to 
find that a measure taken to comply with the recomm endations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute 
did not exist, or was inconsistent  with a covered agreement, the arbitration would resume at the 
request of the United States.  His country continued to hope that the EC would take the steps 
necessary to resolve this dispute so  that there would be no need for the United States to resort to the 
withdrawal of concessions or other obligations.   
6. The representative of the European Communities
 said that, by letter of 6 February 2008, the 
EC had objected to the US retaliation request.  As indicated in that letter, the level of suspension 
proposed by the United States was not equivalent to th e level of nullification or impairment within the 
meaning of Article 22.7 of the DSU.  The request did not follow either the principles or procedures set forth in Article 22.3 of the DSU.  Accordingly, as required by Article 22.6 of the DSU, the matter shall be referred to arbitration.  The EC referr ed to the sequencing agre ement concluded with the 
United States and transmitted on 14 January 2008.  Pu rsuant to that agreement, the United States and 
the EC would request the Article 22.6 Arbitrator to  suspend its work.  This would allow the EC and 
the US to continue the constructive dialogue which had started in 2007. 
7. The EC also wished to react to the US's positio n that the present meeting was a waste of time 
of the DSB.  The EC considered that referral to Article 22.6 arbitration was an important procedural 
step that should be subject to the DSB's action.  Such action was automatic.  The DSB's action would 
serve as a basis for subsequent DSB's action under Article 22.7 DSU;  i.e. the authorization of 
suspension of concessions at the level dete rmined by the Article 22.6 Arbitrator. 
8. The representative of the United States
 said that, to be clear, under the terms of the DSU, the 
filing of the EC's objection had automatically resulte d in the matter being referred to arbitration.  
Thus, there was no need at the present meeting for the EC  to request that this matter be referred again 
to arbitration.  As the United States had noted, Article 22.6 of the DSU did not refer to any decision by the DSB in this regard. 
9. The DSB took note
 of the statements, and it was agreed that the matter raised by the 
European Communities in document WT/DS291/40 is  referred to arbitration, as required by 
Article 22.6 of the DSU.  WT/DSB/M/246 
 Page 3 
 
 
  2. European Communities – Anti-dumping measure on farmed salmon from Norway 
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB 
10. The Chairman  recalled that, in accordance with the DS U provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of reco mmendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.  In this respect, Article 21.3 of 
the DSU provided that the Member concerned shall in form the DSB, within 30 days after the date of 
adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  He re called that at its meeting on 15 January 2008, the 
DSB had adopted the Panel Report in the dispute:  "European Communities – Anti-Dumping Measure on Farmed Salmon from Norway".  He invited the re presentative of the EC to inform the DSB of its 
intentions in respect of implementation of the recommendations. 
11. The representative of the European Communities
 said that, following the adoption of the 
Panel Report in this dispute by the DSB at its  meeting on 15 January 2008, the EC would now 
proceed to implement the recommendation.  In doing so, the EC intended to ensure full 
implementation of the recommendation in a manner c onsistent with the EC's WTO obligations.  The 
EC had already begun taking the necessary steps in preparation of full implementation.  Given the 
complexity and highly fact-intensive nature of the dispute and the recommendation of the Panel, the EC would need a reasonable period of time to ensure full implementation.  The EC stood ready to discuss the reasonable period of time for impl ementation with Norway, in accordance with 
Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. 
12. The representative of Norway
 said that his country took note, with satisfaction, of the EC's 
statement that the EC intended to comply w ith the DSB's recommendation and ruling on its anti-
dumping measure against Norwegian farmed salmon;  a measure that had been found incompatible 
with WTO rules.  Norway stood ready to discuss with the EC the question of the reasonable period of time for implementation, namely, the shortest possible time-period for achieving compliance.  Norway noted that the EC's implementation could be  completed very quickly in line with the EC's 
specific Regulation No. 1515/2001 allowing it to "fas t-track" implementation after having been found 
by the DSB to violate its WTO obligations.  With regard to the EC's intended steps for 
implementation, Norway reiterated that it expect ed the EC to repeal the anti-dumping measure on 
Norwegian farmed salmon.  The overall scope, the significance, and the number of infringements of 
WTO rules was such that Norway believed the EC had no choice but to remove the anti-dumping 
measure in its entirety.  Re-calculations could not re move all the violations. As stated in Article 21.1 
of the DSU, "prompt compliance ... is essential in orde r to ensure effective re solution of disputes to 
the benefit of all Members".  He added that a sw ift return to normal trading conditions for salmon 
would be beneficial, not just to Norwegian salmon growers, but also to producers and consumers in 
the EC. 
13. The representative of the European Communities
 said that her delegation wished to react to 
the point made by Norway that the measure should be repealed and that this was the only option for 
the EC to implement in this dispute.  It should be  noted that despite repeated Norwegian requests for 
the repeal of the challenged EC's measure, the Pa nel had explicitly refused to recommend that.  This 
clearly reflected the fact that the Panel had mainly faulted the EC on the facts, not on the law.  The EC 
would be implementing on the basis of the Panel's and the DSB's recommendation.  
14. The DSB took note  of the statements, and of the information provided by the 
European Communities regarding its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations. 
__________