CANADA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE FEED-IN TARIFF PROGRAM MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(B) OF THE DSU
Document: Agreed Procedures
Date: 26 March 2014
Document codes: WT/DS426/18
Complainant: EU
Respondent: Canada
Third parties: U.S., Japan, Australia, China, Taiwan, India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, Norway, Turkey, El Salvador
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 3.1(b), 3.2, 1.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. III:4  GATT 1994Art. 2.1  Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)

CANADA – MEASURES RELATING TO THE FEED-IN TARIFF PROGRAM
MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 21.3(B) OF THE DSU
AND
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CANADA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
REGARDING PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLES 21 AND 22 OF THE DSU
The following communication, dated 24 March 2014, from the delegation of Canada and the
delegation of the European Union to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated at
the request of those delegations.

The European Union and Canada would like to inform the Dispute Settlement Body of the attached
"Agreed Modification of the Reasonable Period of Time and Agreed Procedures under Articles 21
and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding" between the European Union and Canada with
respect to the dispute (WT/DS426).

We request that you please circulate the atta ched agreement to the Members of the Dispute
Settlement Body.

Agreed Modification of the Reasonable Period of Time and
Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22
of the Dispute Settlement Understanding

The Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") adopted it s recommendations and rulings in the dispute
Canada — Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program (WT/DS426) on 24 May 2013.

Pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the Understa nding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") Canada and the Euro pean Union ("EU") originally agreed that the
reasonable period of time (“RPT”) to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings would be
10 months, expiring on 24 March 2014 (). With this notification, Canada and the EU
inform the DSB that they have mutually agreed to modify the RPT to expire on 5 June 2014.

In order to facilitate a satisfactory solution to the dispute, Canada and the EU ("the parties to the
dispute") have agreed on the following procedures for the exclusive purposes of this dispute,
designed to reduce the scope for procedural disput es and without prejudice to either party’s views
on the correct interpretation of the DSU:

1. Should the situation described in Article 21.5 of the DSU exist at the end of the RPT on
5 June 2014, the EU may request that Canada enter into consultations with the EU. The
Parties agree to hold such consultations within 15 days from the date of receipt of the
request. After this 15-day period has elapsed, the EU may request the establishment of a
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU at any time.

2. At the first DSB meeting at which the EU’s request for the establishment of an Article 21.5
panel appears on the agenda, Canada shall accept the establishment of that panel.

3. The parties to the dispute shall cooperate to enable 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 DSB 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 circulate its report to the Members within 90 days
from the date of notification of the appeal to the DSB. Further, 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.

6. The EU may request authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations pursuant to
Article 22.2 of the DSU in the event that the DSB rules as a result of a proceeding under
Article 21.5 of the DSU that a measure taken to comply does not exist or is inconsistent with
a covered agreement. The EU may also request authorization to suspend concessions or
other obligations pursuant to Article 22.2 if the situation described in Article 21.5 of the DSU
does not exist, including when in the course of ongoing proceedings under Article 21.5 of the
DSU it becomes apparent that neither party disputes the inexistence or inconsistency with
the covered agreements of measures taken to comply with the DSB recommendations and
rulings. In no case shall Canada assert that the EU is precluded from obtaining such DSB
authorisation because its request was made outside the time period specified in the first
sentence of Article 22.6 of the DSU. This is wi thout prejudice to Canada’s right to have the
matter referred to arbitration in accordance with Article 22.6 of the DSU.

7. If the EU requests authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations pursuant to
Article 22.2 of the DSU, Canada shall have the right to object under Article 22.6 of the DSU
to the level of suspension of concessions or other obligations and/or claim that the principles
and procedures set forth in Article 22.3 of the DSU have not been followed. In the event of
such objection, the matter will be referred to arbitration pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU.

8. The parties to the dispute will cooperate to enable the arbitrator under Article 22.6 of the
DSU to circulate its decision within 60 days of the referral to arbitration.

9. 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), or any person serving in such proceeding becomes
unavailable to serve, the parties to the dispute will promptly consult on a replacement, and
either party may request the Director-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 panelist is unavailable to serve in either of the proceedings, or a
person serving in such proceeding becomes unava ilable to serve, the parties to the dispute
will further request that, in making this appo intment, the Director-General seek a person
who will be available to act in both proceedings.

10. The parties to this dispute will continue to cooperate in all matters related to these agreed
procedures and agree not to raise any procedural objection 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, 24 March 2014

For Canada For the European Union

(signed)
Bruce Christie
Minister
Deputy Permanent Representative
Permanent Mission of Canada to the WTO

(signed)
Angelos Pangratis
Ambassador, Permanent Representative
Permanent Mission of the European Union
to the WTO