EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION, SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF BANANAS - RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - REPORT OF THE PANEL
Document: REPORT OF THE PANEL
Date: 12 April 1999
Document codes: WT/DS27/RW/EEC
Complainant: Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, U.S.
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Belize, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican, Ghana, Grenada, India, Jamaica, Japan, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Suriname, Venezuela, Côte d’Ivoire, Brazil, Madagascar
Dispute stage: Mutually Agreed Solution
Agreements cited: Art. I, II, III, X, XI, XIII  GATT 1994Art. 1, 3  Import LicensingArt. II, XVI, XVII  Services (GATS)Art. 2  Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)Art. 19  Agriculture

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - REGIME FOR THE
 IMPORTATION, SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF BANANAS
- RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES -
REPORT OF THE PANEL
The report of the Panel on European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution
of Bananas - Recourse to Article 21.5 by the European Communities - is being circulated to all Members,
pursuant to the DSU. The report is being circul ated as an unrestricted document from 12 April 1999
pursuant to the Procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction of WTO Documents (WT/L/160/Rev.1).
Members are reminded that in accordance with the DSU only parties to the dispute may appeal a panel
report. An appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered in the Panel report and legal interpretations
developed by the Panel. There shall be no ex parte communications with the Panel or Appellate Body
concerning matters under consideration by the Panel or Appellate Body.

I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 On 25 September 1997, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Appellate Body
report on European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas
() and the panel reports 1, as modified by the Appellate Body (AB) report,
recommending that the European Communities bring the measures found to be inconsistent with the
GATT 1994 and the GATS into conformity with the obligations of the European Communities under
those agreements. On 7 January 1998, the Arbitrator, appointed in accordance with Article 21.3(c) of
the DSU concluded that the reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations and rulings
of the DSB in this case would expire on 1 January 1999.
1.2 On 20 July 1998, the Council of the European Union adopted Regulation (EC) No. 1637/98
amending Regulation (EEC) No. 404/93 on the common organization of the market in bananas. On
18 August 1998, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States acting jointly and
severally, requested consultations (WT/DS27/18) with the European Communities ("EC") in relation
to the implementation of the DSB recommendations in this matter. Consultations were held on
17 September 1998. These consultations did not result in a mutually satisfactory solution of the matter.
1.3 On 28 October 1998, the Commission of the European Communities adopted Regulation (EC)
No. 2362/98 laying down detailed rules for th e implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No. 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community. Regulation 1637/98 as well as
Regulation 2362/98 were implemented as from 1 January 1999. On 13 November 1998, Ecuador
requested further consultations in this matter which took place on 23 November 1998 (WT/DS27/30
and Add.1). Mexico also requested consultations and was joined as a co-complainant.
1.4 On 14 December 1998, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel
under Article 21.5 of the DSU with the mandate to find that the implementing measures of the
European Communities must be presumed to conform to WTO rules unless their conformity had been
duly challenged under the appropriate DSU procedures (WT/DS27/40). The DSB, at its meeting on
12 January 1999, decided, in accordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU, to refer to the original panel
the matter raised by the European Communities. Belize, Brazil, Camer oon, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Japan, Mauritius,
Nicaragua, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines reserved their third-party rights in
accordance with Article 10 of the DSU.
(i) Terms of reference
1.5 The following standard terms of reference applied to the work of the Panel:
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the
European Communities in document WT/DS27/40 the matter referred to the DSB by the EC,
in that document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the
recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements."

1 WT/DS27/R/ECU, WT/DS27/R/GTM-WT/DS27/R/HND, WT/DS27/R/MEX, WT/DS27/R/USA.

(ii) Panel composition
1.6 The Panel was composed as follows:
Chairman: Mr. Stuart Harbinson
Members: Mr. Kym Anderson
Mr. Christian Häberli
1.7 The Panel submitted its report to the European Communities on 6 April 1999.

II. MAIN ARGUMENTS2
A. PROCEDURAL ASPECTS
2.1 The European Communities noted that, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU, it had
provided the DSB with a status report on its impl ementation of the recommendations and rulings of
the DSB at every regular meeting of the DSB since the 23 July 1998 DSB meeting. From the
beginning of the reasonable period of time, the original complainants had not ceased to affirm in the
press and in the DSB their conviction that the measures first envisaged, then proposed, then adopted
by the Council, then finally adopted by the Co mmission, did not comply with the recommendations
and rulings of the DSB in this case.
2.2 On 18 August 1998, Ecuador, Guatemala, Hondur as, Mexico and the United States formally
requested consultations within the legal framework of Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS27/18).
Consultations were held on 17 September 1998. However, the European Communities formally
agreed to those consultations only insofar as they related to measures that had already been formally
adopted and published, i.e. Regulation 1637 of 20 July 1998. The European Communities refused to
engage in discussions concerning import licensing rules which not only had not yet been adopted at
that time but had not even been submitted to the management committee as a preliminary step for
their definitive approval by the Commission. On 13 November 1998, Ecuador requested
consultations within the legal framework of Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS27/30). It was joined by
Mexico. These consultations concerned almost exclusively Regulation 2362.
2.3 Outside these procedures, one of the original complainants, the United States, published three
notices in the US Federal Register
3 of proposed determination of action by imposing prohibitive
(100 per cent ad valorem) duties on selected products from the European Communities. This proposed
action was based on the unilateral determination by the United States that "the measures the EC has
undertaken to apply as of January 1, 1999 fail to implement the WTO recommendations concerning
the EC banana regime". The actions proposed were intended to be in place "beginning as early as
February 1, 1999". However, the United States, supported by three other original complainants,
expressed repeatedly and publicly its unwillingness to submit its own subjective views on this issue to
the objective scrutiny of a panel within the multilateral framework of the WTO, in particular under
Article 21.5 of the DSU.
2.4 On 12 January 1999, the DSB established a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU at the request
of Ecuador, on the one hand, and the present Panel at the request of the EC, on the other hand. The
other four original complaining parties (i.e. Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States)
refrained from requesting a panel or from joining the procedure initiated by Ecuador. On
19 January 1999 three of the original complainants, Guatemala, Honduras and the United States,
expressed their views in a letter sent to the WTO Secretariat "concerning the nature and the terms of
reference" of these proceedings. However, they did not deem appropriate, on the one hand, to state
their position in a formal submission to the Panel in the framework of the on-going dispute settlement
procedure nor, on the other hand, to guarantee their participation in the further proceedings. The
European Communities submitted further that in a letter dated 2 February 1999, the Panel considered,
in reply to a request by the EC, that there was no need to provide in the Panel's timetable for a
submission from the original complainants and that the Panel could not compel the original
complaining parties to participate in these proceedings.

2 If not otherwise stated, footnotes are those of the European Communities.
3 Vol. 63, page 56687, page 63099 and page 71665.

(i) Preliminary issue concerning the establishment of this Panel
2.5 In document WT/DS27/45, the WTO Secretariat officially announced that on
12 January 1999, the Dispute Settlement Body decided "in accordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU,
to refer to the original panel the matter raised by the European Communities in document
WT/DS27/40". This communication contained also the terms of reference of the Panel, which were
expressly referred to as "standard terms of reference", as follows:
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited
by the European Communities in document WT/DS27/40, the matter referred to the
DSB by the European Communities in that document and to make such findings as
will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided
for in those agreements".
2.6 In their letter of 19 January 1999 to this Panel, three of the original complainants -
Guatemala, Honduras and the United States - took the following position :
"the panel finding sought by the EC (…) does not constitute recourse to Article 21.5
but rather constitutes an entirely different matter for which the appropriate procedural
requirements under DSU Articles 4 and 6 have not been satisfied";
"there is no provision in the DSU for a Member to compel other countries to come
forward to serve as complaining parties against its measures at a time determined by
that member";
"any conclusion regarding the conformity of the EC measures cannot bind a non-
party to the process, despite the EC's attempts to achieve this purpose".
2.7 In a letter to this Panel dated 18 January 1999, another of the original complainants, Ecuador,
took the following position:
"in the current circumstances, the invitation of a Member to participate in a meeting
to organize a panel that has only one party does not create or give validity to any legal
provisions that are not included in the dispute settlement procedures";
"the initiative, taken by the European Communities, without any legal justification, to
find a party with which to dispute this issue should not, in Ecuador's view, be allowed
to succeed in that it could seriously undermine the dispute settlement system".
2.8 The European Communities submitted that, as a matter of logic, it was compelled to address
as a first point the question of the competence of a panel to determine the scope of its own terms of
reference. In this respect, the European Commun ities referred to a recent AB report which indicated
that "… as a panel request is normally not subjected to detailed scrutiny by the DSB, it is incumbent
upon a panel to examine the request for the establishm ent of the panel very carefully to ensure its
compliance with both the letter and the spirit of Article 6.2 of the DSU". 4 However, the AB also
noted that the aim of dispute settlement was not "to encourage either panels or Appellate Body to
'make law' by clarifying existing provisions of the WTO Agreement outside the context of resolving a
particular dispute. A panel need only to address those claims which must be addressed in order to
resolve the matter in issue in the dispute". 5 In the present panel proceedings, all four above-

4 Banana III AB report, paragraph 142.
5 Blouses and Shirts AB report, page 19; confirmed by Argentina Footwear panel, paragraphs 6.12 to
6.15.

mentioned original complainants have claimed that they were not parties to this dispute. If this were
true, their unilateral views expressed in their letters could not be considered as "claims which must be
addressed in order to resolve the matter in issue" because a non-party could not address any issue or
claim in a panel procedure in which it was not a party.
2.9 Thus, as a preliminary point, the Panel had to decide whether the questions raised by the
above-mentioned original complainants were to be considered as claims and to do so, it must consider
whether they were presented by a party to the dispute. In case of a negative outcome of this
preliminary test, the European Communities continued, the Panel would not be empowered to enter
into any issue raised by the four original compla inants. Panels were not empowered to determine on
their own initiative the scope of the mandate received by the DSB unless and until such an issue was
raised as a claim by one of the parties to the dispute. There was no scope for a proprio motu
examination, because that would grant panels the role of a kind of "public prosecutor" which did not
however exist in the WTO dispute settlement system.
2.10 By contrast, in case of a positive outcome of the preliminary test, the European Communities
submitted, two out of the three preliminary issues raised by the four original complaining parties
could no longer stand, because their argument was based on their (unilateral) view, expressed in their
letters to the Panel, that the present dispute was a procedure to which only one WTO Member was a
party. As soon as the Panel started considering the objections of the original complainants, this
argument would, in the opinion of the European Co mmunities, become moot. Therefore, in case the
Panel wished to examine the preliminary objections raised by the original complainants in their letters
to the WTO Secretariat, the only remaining objection that really needed to be addressed was the view
expressed by these original complainants that "the panel finding sought by the EC does not constitute
recourse to Article 21.5 but rather constitutes an entirely different matter for which the appropriate
procedural requirements under the DSU Articles 4 and 6 have not been satisfied".
2.11 The European Communities submitted that this position was incorrect in fact and in law. As a
matter of fact, the European Communities indicated in its request for the establishment of this Panel
that the issues raised in the present panel proceedings were already duly considered in consultations
under Article 4 of the DSU. The "matter" concerned in particular "the disagreement as to the …
consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken [by the EC] to comply with the
recommendations and rulings [adopted by the DSB on the basis of the original panel and Appellate
Body reports]".
6 As a consequence of the consultations held with the original complainants,
acknowledging the persistence of the disagreement, the European Communities requested the
establishment of this Panel whose terms of reference covered the "matter" raised in the consultations,
i.e. either a challenge was made by the original complainants, and the claims with respect to the
consistency of the measures taken by the European Communities to comply with the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB were upheld, or the original complainants had to be deemed
to be satisfied and they had to be deemed not to maintain their disagreement.
2.12 The European Communities was of the opinion that, as a matter of law, a procedure under
Article 21.5 of the DSU was part of the dispute settlement procedure which had started with an earlier
panel procedure, and such a procedure therefore had to be confined to the original parties to the
dispute. This was already evident from the title ("Surveillance of Implementation of
Recommendations and Rulings") and the context in which Article 21 was placed. Moreover,
Article 21.3(b) explicitly referred to the "parties to the dispute". Article 21.5 provided for resorting to
"the original panel". The term "original panel" referred, the European Communities submitted, to the
same panel that was originally charged by the DS B with the responsibility to look into a specific
dispute within specific terms of reference concerning only some and not each and every WTO
Member. However, Article 21.5 did not specify in any way which of the parties to the original

6 Article 21.5 of the DSU.

dispute was entitled to have recourse to the dispute settlement proceedings. Article 21.5 did,
however, identify expressly the prerequisite under which such recourse was allowed, i.e. the existence
of a disagreement as to the consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. Consequently, the European Communities was entitled
to have recourse to the procedures under Article 21.5 in presence of a disagreement among the parties
to the original dispute; consultations held in acco rdance with Article 4 of the DSU; and the request
for the establishment of a panel submitted in writing in accordance with Articles 6.2 and 7 of the
DSU.
2.13 The European Communities submitted that a dispute was solved either by a determination of
non-compliance, whether in part or in toto, which opened the door to a recourse by some or all of the
original complainants to the provisions of Article 22 of the DSU; or by a determination of
compliance; or by the acknowledgement that all parties were fully satisfied; or, finally, by a
combination of these. All these routes were open and admissible within the realm of Article 21.5.
The European Communities was of the view that it had complied fully with all the above-mentioned
requirements and there was therefore no reason to cast any doubt on the consistency of its panel
request with the letter and the spirit of Article 21.5 of the DSU.
(ii)
WTO obligations of Members during the "reasonable period of time"
2.14 Referring to Article 3.7 of the DSU, the European Communities submitted that the primary
obligation of the Member whose measures had been found inconsistent with its WTO obligations as
the result of a dispute settlement procedure was therefore to withdraw such inconsistent measures.
Moreover, referring also to the reasonable period of time and arbitration in Article 21.3 of the DSU
and the status report that had to be provided to the DSB in accordance with Article 21.6, the European
Communities considered that it had scrupulously respected the above-mentioned obligations by
repealing the provisions in Regulation 404/93 which were found inconsistent with some WTO
covered agreements, and by entirely repealing Regulations 1442/93 and 478/95.
2.15 In particular, the following issues had been addressed: the so-called B licences had been
abolished and replaced by a single licensing system for all origins; allocation of licences according to
(a), (b), (c) marketing functions had been abolished and replaced by new rights to licences based on
proof of actual imports; tariff rate quota allocations to some WTO Members but not to others,
including allocations to individual traditional ACP countries, had been abolished and replaced by an
allocation only to all substantial suppliers, while the ACP tariff preference had been capped at the
level of the pre-1991 best-ever shipments in accordance with the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB; the transferability of country-allocated quotas had been abolished; the allocation of hurricane
licences only to EC/ACP operators had been abolished; and the special export certificates available to
some exporting countries and not to others had been abolished.
2.16 The European Communities had complied with its obligation to implement the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB by wit hdrawing the measures found inconsistent with
certain covered agreements within the reasonable period of time which expired on 1 January 1999.
As a result of this process, a new regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas was
applicable in the European Communities as from 1 January 1999. Referring to the text of
Article 21.5, the European Communities noted that Ecuador had expressed its disagreement and had
brought this dispute to the DSB under Article 21.5 of the DSU. To different degrees and at different
occasions, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States had publicly criticized the new EC
banana regime and requested consultations on Regulation No. 1637 but these consultations were not
followed-up by an Article 21.5 panel request.
2.17 Thus, while a number of political positions had been stated, a panel established under
Article 21.5 of the DSU could only acknowledge and consider the present legal situation, i.e. that

Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States had refrained from making any further use of
their procedural rights under Article 21.5 of the DSU. Since these original complainants had refrained
from challenging the EC's implementing measures, they had to be deemed and recognized to be
satisfied by the explanations received during consultations and otherwise with regard to the present
EC banana regime.
2.18 Beyond the requirements resulting from the multilateral nature of the WTO dispute settlement
system, there was another fundamental WTO principle involved in the present case. This principle
was related to the "security and predictability" of the multilateral trading system which had already
been recognized in the second AB report as an essential element of the WTO Agreement. 7 T h i s
principle was also reflected in the procedural guarantees of the DSU which excluded in its Article 23
any unilateral determination by individual WTO Members that any other WTO Member was acting
inconsistently with its WTO obligations. In the opinion of the European Communities, a presumption
of inconsistency would gravely affect the security and predictability of the international trading
system because of the ensuing uncertainty. For si milar reasons, the criminal law of all civilized
countries was firmly based on a presumption of innocence, not on a presumption of guilt.
2.19 If it could be unilaterally determined by any Member, outside a procedure under Article 21.5,
that another WTO Member had incorrectly implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB
in an earlier dispute, and if this determination were considered to be legally relevant within the WTO
system, the European Communities submitted that this would be paramount to a presumption of
inconsistency. Such a presumption would mean in practical terms that an implementing measure that
did not satisfy the original complainant could lead to the threat of immediate retaliation through the
withdrawal of concessions or other obligations. A trading system based on a presumption of
inconsistency would not be based on security and predictability of international trade relations and
would thus be the opposite of the multilateral trading system envisaged by the Marrakesh Agreement
on the Establishment of the World Trade Organization.
(iii) Legal
 analysis of Article 23 of the DSU
2.20 According to the European Communities, Article 23 of the DSU was at the core of the dispute
settlement mechanism created in Marrakesh in 1994. Its provisions were an expression of the new
multilateral legal commitments that the WTO Members had decided to undertake and was based on
the fundamental principle of the rejection of any determination or action taken by any Member
outside the rules and procedures of the DSU. Referring to the first paragraph of Article 23 as well as
to (a) of the second paragraph of Article 23 of the DSU8, the European Communities submitted that in
the present case, the EC measures which were found inconsistent with certain WTO covered
agreements under the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, had, as was stated above, been
withdrawn in accordance with the primary objective set out in Article 3.7 of the DSU. Consequently,
new measures had been adopted and the European Communities had put in place, at the end of the
reasonable period of time, a new regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas.
2.21 As a consequence of the above, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States could
not seek redress of an alleged violation by the EC's new measures of its WTO obligations outside the

7 Quotation is near to footnote 67 in that report.
8 "When Members seek the redress of a violation of obligations or other nullification or impairment of
benefits under the covered agreements or an impediment to the attainment of any objective of the covered
agreements, they shall have recourse to, and abide by, the rules and procedures of this Understanding. … "In
such cases Members shall, (a) not make a determination to the effect that a violation has occurred, that benefits
have been nullified or impaired or that the attainme nt of any objective of the covered agreements has been
impeded, except through recourse to dispute settlement in accordance with the rules and procedures of this
Understanding, and shall make any such determination consistent with the findings contained in the panel or
Appellate Body report adopted by the DSB or an arbitration award rendered under this Understanding".

rules and procedures of the DSU, including Article 21.5. Nor could they make any determination to
the effect that a violation had occurred, including the alleged failure to bring any measures that were
found to be inconsistent with a covered agreement into compliance with the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB, or that benefits had been nullified or impaired, without having recourse to dispute
settlement procedures in accordance with the rules and procedures of the DSU as foreseen in
Article 23.2(a). Finally, irrespective of what was the correct interpretation of the deadlines in
Article 22 of the DSU (a matter which was outside the terms of reference of this Panel), that provision
did not in any way authorize any departure from the fundamental principle which found its expression
in Article 23 of the DSU.
B. C
ONCLUSIONS
2.22 The European Communities requested the Panel to find that, since Guatemala, Honduras,
Mexico and the United States had failed to pursue any recourse to dispute settlement procedures under
the rules and procedures of the DSU, the new EC regime for the importation, sale and distribution of
bananas adopted in order to comply with the r ecommendations and rulings of the DSB in the three
dispute settlement procedures (" EC - Regime for Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas "
9)
had to be deemed to satisfy these parties to the original dispute and, in so far as those parties were
concerned, to be in conformity with the WTO covered agreements as long as those original parties
had not successfully challenged the new EC regime under the relevant dispute settlement procedures
of the WTO.

9 WT/DS27/GTM-WT/DS27/HND, WT/DS27/MEX and WT/DS27/USA.

III. ARGUMENTS BY THIRD PARTIES
A. INDIA
3.1 India submitted that although India had only a limited trade interest in the matter before the
Panel, the systemic issues involved were of grea t importance to India. The matter before the Panel
went far beyond the dispute at hand; in fact, it touched on the very core of the principles and the
functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism, the central principle of which was its multilateral
character and which was expected to provide security and predictability to the multilateral trading
system.
3.2 In the view of India the crux of the systemic issue was the meaning, the operation and the
interpretation of Article 21.5 of the DSU, especially in relation to Article 22 of the DSU and in the
light of Article 23.2 of the DSU.
3.3 India noted that Article 21.5 described a situation where there was disagreement between the
parties to a dispute as to the existence or the consistency of measures taken by a party to comply with
the recommendations of the DSB. The provisions of this Article made it clear that such a dispute
should be decided through the DSU procedures, including wherever possible by resort to the original
panel. Article 22 of the DSU set out conditions under which a Member could suspend concessions
against another Member when that Member had either failed to bring the measure found to be
inconsistent with a covered agreement into co mpliance or had failed to comply with the
recommendations of the DSB. Therefore, the ri ght to suspend concessions under Article 22 was a
conditional right granted under the DSU.
3.4 Furthermore, India argued that a Member could not invoke Article 22 directly without
traversing the route of Article 21.5, except in situations where the losing party itself acknowledged
that it had not complied with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. Article 21.5 preceded
Article 22 and was critical in deciding whether or not a Member had complied with the
recommendations of the DSB. Such a determination had to be done under Article 21.5 and indeed
would seem to be the very purpose of the provisions of that Article. If the determination was not
made under Article 21.5, the right under Article 22 became an unfettered right for every winning
party to seek suspension of concessions against the losing party. Such unilateral determination of
non-compliance ran counter to the basic tenets of the multilateral trading system as well as the central
objectives of the dispute settlement system. Indeed, Article 23.2(a) explicitly forbade a party from
making a unilateral determination that a violation had occurred or that benefits had been nullified or
impaired or that the attainment of any objective of the covered agreements had been impeded, except
through recourse to the DSU rules and procedures.
3.5 India submitted further that after the DSB had made its recommendations, the parties were
expected to agree on a reasonable period of time for implementation. Once that period had been
agreed upon, the party expected to comply with the DSB's recommendations had to be given the entire
time agreed upon to make a good faith effort to comp ly with its obligations under the WTO. At the
end of the reasonable period of time for implementation there were two possible scenarios. One, the
party expected to comply made no change whatsoev er and maintained its inconsistent measure. In
this case, Article 21.5 procedures would be confined to confirming the non-existence of the measure
taken to comply and thereafter the winning party could proceed to Article 22 and exercise its rights to
suspend concessions against the erring party. The second scenario was more complicated where the
losing party believed it had taken steps to comp ly with the DSB's recommendations but the winning
party did not agree. In India's view, there was only one way to find out whether or not the losing
party had taken steps to comply in good faith, i.e. recourse to Article 21.5. India believed this could
be done either by the winning party or even by the losing party. Indeed, the latter must be welcomed
as a show of good faith by the losing party which could be eager to prove that it had complied.

3.6 In India's view, it was crucial that the determination of compliance or non-compliance must
be made multilaterally under the aegis of the DSB and in accordance with the procedures of the DSU,
i.e. Article 21.5. It was true that Article 21.5 was silent on whether there was a possibility of appeal
against the panel verdict. It was India's view that there must be a possibility of appeal as well. The
reason for this was that the move to suspend concessions was a measure of last resort in the DSU and
therefore could not be taken lightly. If the right to suspend concessions was granted without due
process, it would spell the end of the security and predictability of the dispute settlement mechanism
and indeed of the multilateral trading system as a whole.
3.7 In India's view there was yet another systemic issue at stake. If Article 22 was interpreted as
being totally de-linked from Article 21.5, there was a danger that the winning party could allege non-
compliance by referring to any matter which was not properly before the Panel or which the Panel had
explicitly refused to consider and suspend concessions on the basis of such alleged non-compliance.
This would be untenable from both a legal and systemic point of view.
3.8 In conclusion, it was India's view that there was an intrinsic and inevitable link between
Article 21.5 and Article 22 of the DSU. India believed that Article 22 should be resorted to only after
traversing the entire route from Article 4 consultations onwards. In this process, Article 21.5 was
critical and indispensable as a step before rights under Article 22 were exercized. Indeed, recourse to
Article 21.5, as the European Communities had done in this case, was a fundamental right available to
all Members of the WTO in the dispute settlement system. Denial of Article 21.5 procedures to any
Member would therefore be both a procedural and substantive injustice under the DSU.
B. J
AMAICA
3.9 Jamaica agreed with the EC's analysis of Article 23 of the DSU leading to the conclusion that
the new EC regime must be deemed to be in conformity with the WTO covered agreements. 10 With
regard to the relationship between Article 21.5 and Article 22, Jamaica submitted that this issue was
outside the Panel's terms of reference and that these Articles should only be interpreted by the
appropriate WTO bodies. Jamaica concluded that the European Communities had complied with the
relevant requirements of the DSU and that ther e was therefore no reason to cast any doubt on the
EC's panel request pursuant to Article 21.5.
C. JAPAN
3.10 Japan submitted that there were a number of systemic issues in this dispute that were of
critical importance to the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO. In the view of Japan, some of
these issues might be beyond the purview of any panel and were the prerogative of collective
decision-making by Members. As a country greatly benefiting from the multilateral trading system
under the WTO, Japan was very interested in ensuring that these attributes of the WTO dispute
settlement mechanism were not in any way compromised. Japan considered that when there was a
disagreement as to whether a party had complied with a panel or AB recommendations and rulings,
the parties must resort to Article 21.5 procedures before invoking their rights under Article 22.
Retaliatory actions must not be taken based on a unilateral determination by the complaining party of
non-conformity of the measures in question without recommendations and rulings of an Article 21.5
panel.
3.11 Implementation of measures in good faith in accordance with the recommendations and
rulings of a panel and the AB, Japan continued, was of prime importance, not only for the settlement
of disputes but also to enhance the credibility of the dispute settlement mechanism. In order to
address the issues raised in this dispute, Japan believed that it was necessary to review them in the

10 Paragraphs 34 and 42 of the EC's submission.

context of Article 21 as a whole, including the roles and functions of a panel established under
Article 21.5.
3.12 In the view of Japan, this Panel proceeding had a number of anomalies. First, the European
Communities was the sole party to this Panel whil e the original complaining parties had remained
non-parties. Article 21.5 provided that the role and function of a panel established thereunder was to
assist in deciding the dispute over the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures
taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings. Article 11 provided that "a panel should
make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of
the case and the applicability of and conformity w ith the relevant covered agreements". Since there
was only one party to this Panel, the question arose how this Panel could fulfil the function given to it
by the above DSU provisions. If the original parties questioned the conformity of the measures taken
by the losing party and subsequently disregarded the panel process under Article 21.5, this was
tantamount to a sabotage of the dispute settlement mechanism.
3.13 Japan considered that, if the European Communities requested the Panel to find that the
implementation measures taken by it "must be presumed to conform to WTO rules unless their
conformity has been duly challenged" under Article 21.5 and did not request the Panel to find that
such measures were consistent with the WTO Agreement based on an objective assessment of the
facts of the case and the conformity with the relevant WTO agreements, responding to the request for
such a simple presumption of "innocence" was not the function of a panel under Article 21.5.
3.14 In a normal panel proceeding, the party asserting a fact or making a legal claim was required
to establish a prima facie case, and once that prima facie case was made, the burden of proof shifted
to the other party which was then required to rebut the fact or claim. Without such procedures, Japan
was not certain how the present Panel could effectively carry out the tasks assigned to it. In the view
of Japan, it was not a responsible attitude of a WTO Member not to participate in panel proceedings
under Article 21.5 while at the same time asserting the failure of the other party to bring the measures
into conformity with the WTO Agreement. Such behaviour by certain original parties would
seriously undermine the credibility of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Japan considered that
as a matter of general principle for the dispute settlement procedures in the WTO, all the original
parties to a dispute, whether or not they had participated in a panel or the AB proceedings under
Article 21.5 must, in accordance with Article 23 of the DSU, be bound by the findings and ruling of
that panel or the AB.

IV. FINDINGS
A. TERMS OF REFERENCE
4.1 As noted above, we have the following terms of reference:
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements
cited by the European Communities in document WT/DS27/40, the matter referred to
the DSB by the European Communities in that document and to make such findings
as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings
provided for in those agreements."
4.2 Document WT/DS27/40 reads in the most relevant parts as follows:
"The EC submits that Article 23 of the DSU confirms that there is a general
principle in the WTO agreements that measures taken by WTO Members are in
conformity with their rules unless they have been challenged under the appropriate
dispute settlement procedures and proven not to conform. Since none of the original
complainants has continued to pursue the procedures under Article 21.5, they must
presently be deemed to be satisfied with the way in which the European Communities
has brought its measures into conformity with the recommendations and rulings of
the DSB in this case.
Within this legal context, the EC requests the establishment of a panel under
Article 21.5 of the DSU with the mandate to find that the above-mentioned
implementing measures of the EC must be presumed to conform to WTO rules unless
their conformity has been duly challenged under the appropriate DSU procedures ."
(emphasis added).
4.3 In our findings, we deal consecutively with the identity of the parties to this dispute, the relief
sought by the European Communities and the relationship of Articles 21, 22 and 23 of the DSU.
B. T
HE PARTIES TO THIS DISPUTE
4.4 Following the establishment of this Panel, the Secretary on behalf of the Panel informed
Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States that the European Communities had
requested the Panel to invite those Members in thei r capacity as original complaining parties in the
Banana III panel proceedings, to an organizational meeting for this Panel. The Panel then sought an
indication from them as to their response should such an invitation be forthcoming.
4.5 Ecuador responded that:
"the initiative, taken by the EC without any legal justification, to find a party with
which to dispute this issue should not, in Ecuador's view, be allowed to succeed in
that it could seriously undermine the dispute settlement system."
4.6 Ecuador emphasized that it considered the panel established by the DSB under Article 21.5 of
the DSU on 12 January 1999, in response to its reque st (WT/DS27/41), as entirely independent from
this Panel proceeding, initiated by the European Communities.
4.7 Guatemala, Honduras and the United States expressed their position that the panel finding
sought by the European Communities in its panel request:

"does not constitute recourse to Article 21.5 but rather constitutes an entirely different
matter, for which the appropriate procedural requirements under Articles 4 and 6 of
the DSU have not been satisfied. Contrary to the EC's oral representations to the
DSB, the EC's request does not constitute a request for an objective review of the EC
measures. Moreover, there is no provision in the DSU for a member to compel other
countries to come forward to serve as complaining parties against its measures at a
time determined by that Member. Furthermore, any conclusion regarding the
conformity of the EC measures cannot bind a non-party to the process, despite the
EC's attempts to achieve this purpose. …"
4.8 Mexico made a similar response.
4.9 Thereafter, the European Communities raised certain concerns with the decisions taken by
this Panel regarding its timetable and working procedures. In particular, it suggested to amend the
timetable under the heading "receipt of written submissions" with an additional item "(a) original
complainants … 2 February 1999". In the event the Panel did not agree with that suggestion, the
European Communities requested that a ruling in limine litis be issued in writing on this issue.
4.10 We responded as follows:
"The Panel acknowledges receipt of your letter … in which you refer to the
timetable and working procedures of the above-mentioned Panel. It has taken note of
your various points. However, the Panel would like to stress, firstly, that, according
to Article 12.1 of the DSU, it has the right to decide on its own working procedures,
including the timetable, after consultations with the parties. Such consultations with
the EC took place on 20 January 1999.
The Panel notes that, in response to a suggestion by the EC, it had sought, in
a letter dated 15 January 1999, a reaction from all the original complaining parties in
the original Bananas III dispute to an invitation to an informal meeting of the Panel,
reconvened under Article 21.5 of the DSU, should such an invitation be forthcoming.
As you know, Ecuador in a letter, dated 18 January 1999, indicated that it was not
interested in participating in this Panel, reconvened at the initiative of the EC. As
concerns Guatemala, Honduras and the United States they indicated at the special
DSB meeting on 12 January 1999 and in a letter, dated 19 January 1999, that they did
not intend to take part in the present Panel proceedings. Mexico responded in a
similar way by telephone and has made a statement in the DSB reserving its right to
initiate a separate procedure under Article 21.5 of the DSU. Therefore, the timetable
for the Panel's work at this point refers to the EC and third parties only, since as a
matter of fact only this party and third parties appear to have the intention to file
submissions on the due dates.
The Panel does not believe that the current wording of the timetable is in any
way contrary to the provisions of Article 12 of the DSU, nor that this Article would
empower the reconvened Panel to compel original complaining parties in the
Bananas III dispute to participate in this proceeding.
The Panel notes that of course it has the right, pursuant to Article 13 of the
DSU, to seek information, at any point of time during this proceeding, from any
individual or body from which its deems appropriate, including the original
complainants in the Bananas III case. …"

4.11 In response to questions by the Panel, the European Communities took the following
positions concerning this Panel proceeding:
- the European Communities considers Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the
United States to be parties to this proceeding under Article 21.5 of the DSU;
- a party that refuses to appear has to bear the consequences of such refusal and
must be presumed to have failed to appear;
- this Panel should rule that Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United
States have not brought their disagreement to the correct forum and thus they cannot
rely on their unsupported allegations in any other legal procedure, since with regard
to them the present EC banana import regime must be presumed to be WTO-
consistent;
- such rulings by this Panel would become binding upon Guatemala, Honduras,
Mexico and the United States after their adoption by the DSB.
4.12 In our view, there is no provision in the DS U that would authorize a panel to compel a
Member to participate as a party in a panel proceeding. Accordingly, we do not have the authority to
compel the original complainants to participate in this Article 21.5 proceeding. We note that the
original complainants have declined to participate in this proceeding, and we therefore find that they
are not parties to this proceeding. As a consequence, we do not find it necessary to address the
procedural issues mentioned in their letters, e.g. whether the European Communities has failed to
comply with Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU in respect of this Panel proceeding.
C. T
HE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
4.13 The European Communities requests us to find that its implementing measures "must be
presumed to conform to WTO rules unless their conformity has been duly challenged under the
appropriate DSU procedures". We agree with the European Communities that there is normally no
presumption of inconsistency attached to a Member's measures in the WTO dispute settlement
system. At the same time, we also are of the view that the failure, as of a given point in time, of one
Member to challenge another Member's measures cannot be interpreted to create a presumption that
the first Member accepts the measures of the other Member as consistent with the WTO Agreement.
In this regard, we note the statement by a GATT panel that "it would be erroneous to interpret the fact
that a measure has not been subject to Article XXIII over a number of years, as tantamount to its tacit
acceptance by contracting parties".
11
4.14 As noted in our Concluding Remarks, it is not clear from the provisions of Article 21.5
whether the original respondent in a panel proceeding is, or should be, permitted under the DSU to
initiate an Article 21.5 proceeding for the purpose of establishing the WTO consistency of measures
taken to implement DSB rulings and recommendations. Assuming such an action is permitted, we
note that in this proceeding, the European Communities presents in its written submission only one
summary paragraph (paragraph 2.15) listing aspects of its prior banana import regime that it has
changed in order to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. We do not believe that a
finding of WTO consistency could be made on the basis of the submission made by the European
Communities in this case, as there is an insufficient discussion of how the previously found WTO
inconsistencies have been eliminated in a WTO-consistent manner.

11 Panel report on EEC – Quantitative Restrictions Agains t Imports of Certain Products from
Hong Kong, adopted on 12 July 1983, BISD 30S/129, 138, paragraph 28.

4.15 Finally, we note that immediately prior (on the same date) to the establishment of this Panel, a
panel was established by the DSB at the request of Ecuador to consider Ecuador's claim in an
Article 21.5 proceeding that the EC's implementing measures are not consistent with its WTO
obligations. The same three individuals are the panelists in these two Article 21.5 proceedings. Since
we have found in the proceeding initiated by Ecuador that the EC's implementing measures are not
consistent with its WTO obligations, it is clear that they cannot be presumed to be consistent in this
proceeding.
D. THE RELATIONSHIP OF ARTICLES 21, 22 AND 23 OF THE DSU
4.16 A main argument of the European Communities in this proceeding concerns the relationship
of Articles 21, 22 and 23 of the DSU. As noted above, the three individuals serving on this Panel
have been charged by the DSB in Ecuador's recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU to consider the WTO
consistency of the EC's measures. The three of us have also been charged by the DSB, pursuant to
Article 22 of the DSU, to consider as Arbitrators the level of the suspension of concessions proposed
by the United States under that Article. At th e time of our appointment as Arbitrators, we were
entrusted with the following task by the Chairman of the DSB:
"There remains the problem of how the panel and the arbitrators would coordinate
their work, but as they will be the same individuals, the reality is that they will find a
logical way forward, in consultation with the parties. In this way, the dispute
settlement mechanisms of the DSU can be employed to resolve all of the remaining
issues in this dispute, while recognizing the right of both parties and respecting the
integrity of the DSU."
In these circumstances, we do not believe it would be appropriate for us to rule in this proceeding, as
requested by the European Communities, that there is only one type of proceeding (i.e. pursuant to
Article 21.5) in which the consistency of its measures may be considered. Rather, the issue of
whether a claim may be made in a particular procedure is best left for determination in that procedure.
4.17 Moreover, in respect of the EC arguments concerning Articles 21, 22 and 23 of the DSU, we
are well aware of the controversy in the DSB over the interpretation of these Articles and their
relationship, but we view that question as one best resolved by Members in the context of the ongoing
DSU review and not in a panel proceeding where there is only one party present and only a few active
third parties.
E. C
ONCLUDING REMARKS
4.18 In fulfilling our terms of reference, we have not considered whether the original respondent in
a panel proceeding, such as the European Communities, is authorized to initiate an Article 21.5
proceeding. In this regard, we would note that allowing such a procedure presents certain practical
problems or anomalies, as cited by Japan in it s arguments as a third party (paragraphs 3.12-3.14).
However, we are also sympathetic to the concerns of India, also expressed as a third party, that in an
appropriate case a respondent-initiated Article 21.5 proceeding should be allowed (paragraph 3.5). In
our view, we would not rule out the possibility of using Article 21.5 in such a manner, particularly
when the purpose of such initiation was clearly the examination of the WTO-consistency of
implementing measures.

V. CONCLUSION
5.1 In light of the foregoing, we do not make findings as requested by the European
Communities.