EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND ITS MEMBER STATES – TARIFF TREATMENT OF CERTAIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
Document: Understanding between the European Union 1 and the United States Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU
Date: 11 July 2011
Document codes: WT/DS375/17
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Australia, Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Vietnam
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. II:1, X:1, X:2, XXIII  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND ITS MEMBER STATES – TARIFF TREATMENT
OF CERTAIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS

Understanding between the European Union
1 and the United States
Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU

 The following communication, dated 6 July 2011, from the delegation of the European Union
and the delegation of the United States to the Ch airperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is
circulated at the request of these delegations.

 The European Union and the United States would like to inform the Dispute Settlement Body
of the attached "Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding" between the European Union and the United States with respect to the dispute EC and
its Member States – Tariff Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products (WT/DS375).

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

November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon, as of 1 December
2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community.

EC and its Member States – Tariff Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products
(WT/DS375)

Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding
The Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") adopted its recommendations and rulings in the
dispute EC and its Member States – Tariff Treatment of Certain Information Technology Products
(WT/DS375) on 21 September 2010.
Pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the Unders tanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") the United States of America ("United States") and the European
Union ("EU") agreed that the reasonable period of time to implement the DSB recommendations and
rulings would be nine (9) months and nine (9) days, expiring on 30 June 2011 (WT/DS375/16).
The United States and the EU ("the parties to the dispute") have agreed on the following
procedures for the exclusive purposes of this dispute. They are designed to facilitate the resolution of
the dispute and reduce the scope for procedural di sputes and are without prejudice to either party’s
views on the correct interpretation of the DSU:
1. Should the United States consider that the situ ation described in Article 21.5 of the DSU
exists, the United States will request that the EU enter into consultations with the United
States. The Parties agree to hold such consultations within 15 days from the date of receipt of
the request. After this 15-day period h as elapsed, the United States 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 U.S. request for the establishment of an Article 21.5
panel appears on the agenda, the EU 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 circ ulate its report to the Members within 90 days
from the date of notification of the appeal to th e 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 United States may request authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations
pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU in the even t 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 shall not assert that the United States is precluded from
obtaining such DSB authorization because its request was made outside the time period
specified in the first sentence of Article 22.6 of the DSU. This is without prejudice to the
EU’s right to have the matter referred to arb itration in accordance with Article 22.6 of the
DSU.
7. If the United States requests authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations
pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, the EU sh all 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 refe rred 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 availabl e for either the Article 21.5 compliance panel or
the Article 22.6 arbitration (or both), or an y 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 unavailable to serve, the parties to the dispute will
further request that, in making this appointmen t, 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 a ll matters related to these agreed
procedures and agree not to raise any procedural objec tion 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, 6 July 2011

For the United States

H.E. Mr. Michael Punke
Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the WTO
For the European Union

H.E. Mr. Angelos Pangratis
Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the WTO