EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Document: Notification of an Other Appeal by the United States under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), and under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
Date: 20 August 2010
Document codes: WT/DS316/13
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: EU, France, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom
Third parties: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea
Dispute stage: Retaliation & Arbitration
Agreements cited: Art. 3.1, 3.2, 5, 6.3  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. XVI:1  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. III:4  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES
AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Notification of an Other Appeal by the United States

under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
and under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review

 The following notification, dated 19 August 2010, from the Delegation of the United States, is
being circulated to Members.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , the United States
hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Report
of the Panel in () ("Panel Report") and certain legal interpretations developed by
the Panel.

1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel’s legal conclusion that the
United States failed to establish th at the French A380, French A340-500/600, Spanish A340-500/600,
and French A330-200 launch aid constituted prohibited export s ubsidies within the meaning
of Article 3.1(a) and footnote 4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
("SCM Agreement").
1 These conclusions are in error and ar e based on erroneous findings on issues of
law and legal interpretations, includi ng an erroneous interpretation a nd application of Article 3.1(a)
and footnote 4 of the SCM Agreement.2 To the extent that the Panel’s recommendation, pursuant to
Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement , that the subsidies found to be prohibited be withdrawn within
90 days, does not include the French A380, French A340-500/600, Spanish A340-500/600, and
French A330-200 launch aid, the United States al so requests that the Appellate Body review that
recommendation.
3

2. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel’s legal conclusion that the
United States failed to demonstrate th e existence of the Launch Aid Program. 4 This conclusion is in
error and is based on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations, including the
failure to examine properly whether the Launch Aid Program is a "measure" subject to challenge in
WTO dispute settlement proceedings.5

1See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.689 and 8.3(a)(ii).
2See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.675-7.688.
3See Panel Report, para. 8.6.
4See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.579-7.580, 8.3(a)(iv).
5See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.518-7.520, 7.531-7.532, 7.575, 7.580.