REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 13th REPORT OVERVIEW OF THIRD COUNTRY TRADE DEFENCE ACTIONS AGAINST THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE YEAR 2015
Date: 2016-06-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, anti-dumping measure, anti-subsidy proceeding, export (EU), protectionism, third country, trade dispute

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.6.2016  COM(2016) 392 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 13th REPORT  OVERVIEW OF THIRD COUNTRY TRADE DEFENCE ACTIONS AGAINST THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE YEAR 2015 {SWD(2016) 197 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Trade  defence  (also  referred  to  as  Trade  remedies)  is  ensured  by  the  three  trade  defence 
instruments (‘TDI’): anti-dumping ('AD'), anti-subsidy ('AS') and safeguard ('SFG') measures. 
While AD and AS measures aim at counteracting the negative effects of unfair trade practices 
resulting  from  dumped/subsidised  imports  threatening  or  causing  material  injury  to  the 
domestic  industry,  SFG  aim  to  temporarily  shield  domestic  industries  from  the  negative 
effects of unforeseen and significant increases of imports threatening or causing them serious 
injury. It should also be recalled that SFG measures are applied on imports from all origins 
having,  thus,  erga  omnes  effects,  while  AD  and  AS  measures  are  more  targeted  and  are 
therefore country (and even company) specific. 

The  application  of  TDI  is  regulated  under  the  World  Trade  Organization  (‘WTO’)  relevant 
agreements  and  jurisprudence.  Such  rules  need  to  be  scrupulously  respected  for  the  proper 
functioning  of  the  WTO  multilateral  system.  Misapplication  of  TDI  leads  to  unlawful  and 
unjustified measures that have a negative impact on free and fair trade. This is in particular 
the  case  for  the  SFG  instrument,  which  is  the  most  trade  restrictive  instrument  because 
measures  apply  to  all  countries  of  origin,  irrespectively  whether  they  individually  increase 
their  exports  and/or  cause  injury.  This  is  why  relevant  WTO  jurisprudence  has  set  higher 
standards for the imposition of safeguard measures. 

Over the past years, and in conjunction with the global economic and financial crises, there 
has been an increase in the use of trade defence measures against the European Union ('EU') 
and individual Member States. In times of economic slowdowns, when domestic consumption 
in  certain  sectors  decreases,  industries  look  for  other  outlets  in  an  effort  to  maintain 
production/employment  and  control  their  costs  and  naturally  focus  on  export  markets.  It  is 
therefore  crucial  that  these  export  opportunities  are  not  hampered  by  unwarranted  trade 
defence measures, which unduly restrict market access.   

WTO members have the right to make use of TDI. However, it is important that the TDI are 
properly used and do not result in protectionist measures. The EU itself is a regular user of 
these instruments (notably AD and AS) and its system is based on a balanced and moderate 
approach,  with  standards  laid  down  in  the  EU  legislation1  that  go  even  beyond  the  WTO 
commitments. For example, there is a mandatory public interest test and the application of the 
lesser  duty  rule  by  which  measures  are  imposed  at  levels  below  the  dumping  margin  when 
they are sufficient to remove the injury suffered by the relevant industry2. The EU expects its 
trading partners to also strictly follow the agreed WTO required standards in their use of the 
instruments  against  the  EU  or  individual  Member  States.  In  this  context,  the  European 
Commission ('Commission') continues its efforts to promote best practices in the use of TDI 
among its trading partners, and the monitoring activity of third country TDI actions remains 
intense and focused.  

1  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1225/2009  of  30  November  2009  on  protection  against  dumped  imports  from 
countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p.51–73); Council Regulation (EC) 
No  597/2009  of  11  June  2009  on  protection  against  subsidised  imports  from  non-EU  countries  (OJ  L  188, 
18.7.2009, p.93–126); Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on common 
rules for imports OJ L 83, 27.3.2015, p. 16–33; Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 29 April 2015 on common rules for imports from certain third countries OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p.33-49  
2 Note that the Commission has proposed to amend the legislations in order to limit the scope of the application 
of the lesser duty rule under certain conditions (COM(2013) 192 final of 10.04.2013), but this is pending a 
decision from the European Parliament and the Council. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
For  the  above  reasons  the  Commission  intervenes,  whenever  necessary,  in  order  to  address 
systemic  issues  identified  in  third  countries’  use  and  practice  of  trade  defence  and  ensure 
WTO  compatibility.  The  Commission  submits  comments  in  writing,  and  also  regularly 
participates  in  public  hearings  in  third  country  TDI  proceedings,  especially  when  it  is 
considered that EU exporters’ rights and interests are unjustifiably affected. The Commission 
also intervenes in the relevant institutional instances created by our bilateral agreements.  

Furthermore, in an effort to spread its own high standards in TDI investigations and thereby 
increase the quality of investigations carried out by third countries, the Commission provides 
comprehensive  TDI-related  training  to  officials  from  the  investigating  authorities  of  third 
countries. Such training is usually organized once a year, in the form of a one week seminar 
for  up  to  25  participants  from  different  third  countries.  Officials  from  India,  Japan,  Jordan, 
Tunisia and Vietnam participated in the training organized in 2015. In the course of 2015 the 
Commission  has  also  been  in  contact  with  more  third  countries  –  regular  users  of  TDI,  to 
establish  a  best  practice  exchange  regarding  the  use  of  TDI  in  addition  to  the  already 
established dialogues. 

The present report describes the overall trends in trade defence activities by third countries, 
which adversely impact or could potentially impact EU exports (AD or AS measures by third 
countries can target either the EU as a whole or individual Member State(s)). It also gives an 
overview  of  what  third  country  monitoring  means  concretely  with  detailed  analyses  per 
country and detailed figures in annex. 

2.  OVERALL TRENDS 

2.1.  Measures in force at the end of 2015 

The  number  of  TDI  measures  in  force  affecting  EU  exports  in  2015  was  1513,  which 
corresponds to an increase when compared to the 1404 measures in place in 2014. As shown 
in the graph below, there is a clear increasing trend in the number of measures in force since 
2010, and the TDI activity remained quite important.  

Total number of measures in force in 2015 

160

150

140

130

120

110

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

3 The details of the measures imposed by third countries against the EU are available in DG TRADE webpage 
under: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/actions-against-eu-exporters/cases/index.cfm 

4  A  case  opened  against  the  EU  is  counted  as  one  case,  irrespective  of  the  number  of  EU  Member  States 
concerned. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
  
Source: WTO and EU statistics 

India is still the country having, together with China, the highest number of measures against 
EU  exports,  with  19  measures  in  force    (respectively  for  India  4  SFG  and  15  AD  and  for 
China 17 AD and 2 AS measures). Whilst for India this represents a decrease of 7 measures 
(AD) as compared to 2014, for China this is relatively stable since it means an increase of one 
measure since 2014. The United States follow with 18 measures in force, mostly AD, two of 
which are new TDI measure on EU exports (1 AS and 1 AD). Brazil has 16 (AD) measures, 
which  is  a  remarkable  increase  of  7  additional  measures  as  compared  to  last  year.  Finally, 
Turkey has quite a stable (12), but steady number of measures in force. This year however, 
for the first time since a while, Turkey has more AD (7) than SFG (5) measures in force. 

Measures in force at the end of 2015 by country 

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Source: WTO and EU statistics5 

Regarding  the  type  of  instruments  used,  out  of  the  151  measures  in  force,  108  are  AD 
measures, 5 are AS measures and 38 are SFG (it is recalled that SFG measures are imposed 
against  all  countries  of  origin,  and  not  all  of  them  necessarily  directly  affect  the  EU  which 
may have limited economic interest in some cases). 

Indonesia  (8)  in  2015  became  the  most  frequent  user  of  SFG,  followed  by  Turkey  (5)  and 
India  (4).  Interestingly  some  countries  appear  for  the  first  time  as  SFG  users:  Chile,  Costa 
Rica,  Ecuador,  Malaysia  and  Zambia.  There are  however  no  or  limited  EU  exports  to  these 
countries for the affected products. 

2.2.  Measures imposed in 2015 

There was a total of 37 new measures imposed in 2015 (21 AD, 15 SFG and 1 AS), which is a 
slight  increase  than  in  2014  (34).  With  8  new  measures  (all  AD)  Brazil  is  the  main 
contributor.  This  is  a  remarkable  increase  as  compared  to  last  year  when  Brazil  did  not 

5  The  remaining  11  measures  are  spread  over  10  countries:  Chile,  Costa  Rica,  Dominican  Republic,  Ecuador, 
Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Vietnam and Zambia.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
impose a single TDI measure against EU exports, but not surprising given the high number of 
new investigations (7) initiated in 2014. 

2.3. 

Investigations initiated in 2015 

In terms of new investigations, 18 SFG investigations, 18 AD and 1 AS investigations were 
initiated in 2015. This is slightly less than in 2014 (37 as compared to 41). 

The number of new SFG investigations in 2014 showed an increasing trend, but the number in 
2015  went  back  to  its  2013  level.  In  absolute  terms,  this  remains  however  a  significant 
number. 

In terms of sectors, steel was subject to most trade defence initiations. Indeed 19 out of the 37 
new  investigations  initiated  in  2015  concerned  steel  products  (more  than  a  half  of  the  total 
number of new investigations and more than the 12 new investigations on steel in 2014). The 
chemical  sector  follows  with  7  new  investigations  initiated  in  2015  (a  decrease  when 
compared with 11 in 2014). The paper industry, which had been especially targeted in 2014 
(5 new investigations), had 3 new investigations initiated in 2015. 

New investigations initiated in 2015 by sector 

Other; 4 

Agriculture; 4 

Paper ; 3 

Chemicals; 7 

Source: WTO and EU statistics 

Steel ; 19 

As  already  mentioned,  the  vast  majority  of  the  new  cases  in  2015,  concern  the  steel  sector 
which is experiencing a global crisis mainly due to excessive overcapacity. In 2015 the United 
States  imposed  provisional  AS  measures  and  a  few  developing  countries  initiated  SFG 
investigations  (India  initiated  2  cases  and  Chile,  Malaysia  Vietnam  and  Zambia,  each  one 
case).  Given  the  erga-omnes  nature  of  SFG  measures,  they  could  result  in  trade  diversion 
effects,  nevertheless  at  the  time  of  writing  this  report  this  risk  does  not  seem  to  have 
materialised. 

The scale of global overcapacity combined with the falling demand and low prices for steel 
make  the  sector  most  vulnerable  to  attract  third  party  trade  defence  measures.  If  the 
underlying  problem  of  global  overcapacity  is  not  remedied  properly  it  poses  a  threat  of 
proliferation  of  trade  defence.  This  may  also  concern  other  sectors  ,  such  as  aluminium  or 
ceramics. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  RECURRING ISSUES AND MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS  

3.1.  Recurring issues 

In  addition  to  some  issues  recurring  over  the  last  years  -  such  as  the  use  of  SFG  often  by 
emerging  economies  or  lack  of  transparency  in  TDI  proceedings-  in  the  course  of  2015  the 
Commission  observed  a  growing  number  of  anti-circumvention  procedures.  Since  there  are 
currently  no  uniform  rules  in  the  WTO  agreements  regarding  anti-circumvention,  this  is  an 
area  which  requires  particular  attention.  There  were  also  Commission  interventions  in 
procedures involving EU exports of processed agricultural products.  

Safeguards  remained  a  difficult  issue  also  in  2015.  The  SFG  instrument  is  the  most 
restrictive instrument and should thus only be used in truly exceptional circumstances. Even 
though  not  all  SFG  investigations  affect  EU  exports  directly,  the  Commission  intervenes 
systematically in almost all investigations, in order to raise serious shortcomings often already 
at initiation stage. 

In addition to the recurrent flaws seen in several third country SFG investigations, (no clear 
increase  in  imports,  lack of  transparency or  weak and unconvincing injury  assessments)  the 
number of cases and the emergence of new users especially by developing countries remains 
worrying.  

Despite systematic interventions by the Commission, prepared in coordination with industry 
and stakeholders, in most cases measures are nevertheless imposed.  

On  the  other  hand,  such  interventions  have  led,  at  least  in  some  cases,  to  less  restrictive 
measures  (i.e.  lower  duty  rates,  higher  quota,  shorter  duration  or  faster  liberalisation  of 
measures).6  In  some  cases  measures  have  also  been  avoided,  but  the  mere  initiation  of  an 
investigation has nevertheless a negative impact on trade flows due to the uncertainty of the 
outcome. 

In 2015, Chile surprisingly led in the number of new SFG investigations (4 in total; in 2014 
India  had  initiated  7  safeguard  investigations).  Also  Zambia  remarkably  became  active  in 
trade defence and initiated for the first time a steel investigation which led to the imposition 
of  1  SFG  measure  in  2015.  The  steel  sector  has  also  been  targeted  by  safeguards  which  – 
given  the  erga  omnes  nature  of  the  instrument  –  is  always  likely  to  lead  to  trade  flow 
diversions which risk generating a domino effect. 

The  rights  of  defence  of  the  parties  in  the  frame  of  TDI  proceedings  is  a  key  element  in 
each trade defence investigation as the interested parties should be in a position to  consult a 
non-confidential file in a timely manner. It is therefore important that it contains a meaningful 
non-confidential  version  of  each  registered  document  and/or  a  meaningful  summary  of 
confidential information.  

Unfortunately,  in  many  investigations  and  jurisdictions,  in  particular  when  few  or  only  one 
complainants are involved, hardly any information is provided in the non-confidential file. In 
such  cases  the  Commission  intervenes  with  the  investigating  authorities  to  request  at  least 
information in the form of indices or ranges, so that parties can obtain a meaningful general 
picture of the situation.   

6 For more details see below section 3.2 “Main achievements”.  

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
In 2015 the number of cases involving  circumvention7 of AD  measures has increased. The 
objective of an anti-circumvention investigation is to ascertain whether an exporter subject to 
AD  or  AS  or  an  importer  liable  to  pay  those  duties  attempts  to  avoid  them,  often  via 
transhipment through another third country. When an investigating authority finds a practice 
of circumvention, the AD or AS duties may be extended to the product consigned from that 
third  country  or  exported  from  a  specific  exporter  found  to  be  involved  in  circumvention 
(similar  rules  apply  to  parts  or  a  slightly  modified  version  of  that  product).  Whilst 
circumvention is in principle unacceptable and illegal, anti-circumvention investigations may 
become  problematic  when  they  affect  genuine  producers/exporters  which  do  not  attempt  to 
circumvent measures but simply pursue their normal activity.  

Anti-subsidy cases require a rather intense activity due to the discussion related to the nature 
of EU support, notably in cases concerning processed agricultural products. When it comes to 
EU aids, the Commission becomes directly an interested party and has to co-operate by filling 
in a specific questionnaire response. For instance, both in the Canadian case on refined sugar 
and the Egyptian one concerning  Edam cheese,  the Commission  actively participated in  the 
procedure  to  demonstrate  that  such  EU  programmes  are  non-specific  under  WTO  rules  and 
thus  should  not  be  addressed  by  TDI  instruments.  This  was  successful  in  the  latter  case,  as 
outlined later in the report.   

3.2.  Main achievements 

3.2.1. 

Brazil – suspension of measures 

The main achievement in Latin America was the suspension of AD measures against the EU 
on Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber - ESBR (synthetic rubber). Brazil had initiated this 
AD  investigation  in  May  2014.  The  economic  interest  for  the  EU  producers  is  estimated  at 
around € 80 million. 

Even if measures were imposed for five years on 22 November 2015, they were suspended for 
one  year  for  reasons  of  public  interest  -  in  this  case  price  stability.  The  suspension  can  be 
extended for another year, after which the measures expire. They can also be reapplied at any 
time. The suspended measures range from 0% to 36.4%. 

The Commission intervened in an intensive technical and political debate with the Brazilian 
authorities  about  the  suitability  of  the  measures.  Such  a  debate  was  decisive  to  the  duty 
suspension.  

3.2.2. 

United States – decrease of the negative impact of measures on uncoated paper 

In  February  2015  the  US  authorities  initiated  an  AD  investigation  against  imports  of 
uncoated  paper  originating  among  others  in  Portugal  (economic  interest  for  the  EU 
producers  of  about  105  million  €).  In  its  preliminary  determination,  the  US  Department  of 
Commerce  (USDOC)  determined  that  an  EU  exporter  failed  to  cooperate  during  the 
investigation.  Consequently,  the  USDOC  imposed  on  the  company  a  preliminary  dumping 
margin of 29.53% based on the application of adverse facts available.  

7 Anti-circumvention investigations do not appear in the web-engine referred to under footnote 3.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  Commission,  in  coordination  with  the  affected  EU  exporter  intervened  vis-à-vis  the 
USDOC to argue that the company had in fact properly cooperated. The USDOC decided in 
its final determination to reduce the dumping margin to 7.8%.  

3.2.3. 

Turkey – no safeguard measures imposed on printing and writing paper 

Turkey conducted a SFG investigation on printing and writing paper involving a significant 
economic interest for the EU: about € 175 million. The publicly available evidence suggested 
that the case was rather weak. The Commission and the industry in coordination intervened on 
various occasions and the investigation was terminated without the imposition of measures in 
August 2015. 

3.2.4.  Morocco – reduction of the negative effect of SFG measures 

The  Commission,  in  coordination  with  the  industry,  intervened  in  the  SFG  investigation  on 
cold rolled steel sheets and plated or coated steel sheets,  having an economic interest for 
EU exporters of around  € 130  million. The  main objective was to  avoid that  the significant 
EU imports into the free zone of Tangier would be excluded from the investigation and the 
scope  of  the  measures,  and  to  highlight  that  there  was  no  coincidence  in  time  between  the 
increase of imports and any injury of the domestic industry. The Commission’s interventions 
were successful as the negative effect of the measures was reduced. 

3.2.5. 

Egypt – no serious injury in the SFG investigations on automotive batteries and 

white sugar 

In  December  2014,  Egypt  initiated  a  SFG  investigation  on  automotive  batteries,  involving 
an  economic  interest  of  around  €  40  million  for  EU  exporters.  The  Commission  intervened 
with  written  submissions  and  participation  to  public  hearing  and  to  consultations  under  the 
Euromed  agreement  to  point  out  that  the  injury  and  causal  link  analysis  were  inconclusive. 
The investigation was terminated in December 2015 without imposition of measures. 

In April 2015 Egypt initiated another SFG investigation on white sugar, raising an economic 
interest of around € 35 million for EU exporters. Provisional measures were imposed at the 
same  time.  The  case  showed  major  shortcomings;  in  particular  the  domestic  industry  was 
developing positively and there was neither a recent, sharp and sudden increase of imports nor 
serious  injury.  Following  strong  interventions  by  the  Commission  in  coordination  with  the 
industry,  the  Egyptian  authorities  concluded  in  their  report  of  October  2015  that  indeed  the 
industry was not suffering serious injury, which led to the formal decision of February 2016 
to terminate the investigation without measures. 

3.2.6. 

Republic of the Philippines – decrease in duties imposed on newsprint 

In  2013,  the  Philippines  initiated  a  SFG  investigation  against  imports  of  newsprint,  which 
potentially could have affected imports from the United Kingdom, Finland, Germany and the 
Netherlands  with  an  economic  interest  for  EU  producers  of  about  €  8  million.  The 
Commission was involved from the very beginning and closely cooperated with the industry 
and  stakeholders  to  address  the  legal  flaws  appearing  in  the  petition  and  determinations 
disclosed  by  the  investigating  authorities.  Between  2013  and  2015  the  Commission  made 
several interventions, both written and oral ones. The last interventions were made in March 
2015 just before the adoption of the final determination. As a result of the coordinated efforts, 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the level of the SFG duties was eventually reduced by 60% from approximately € 46 to € 18 
per metric ton of newsprint. 

3.2.7. 

Jordan – termination of a SFG investigation without measures 

The SFG investigation regarding imports of A4 Paper, involved an economic interest for EU 
exporters  of  around  €  4  million  and  was  initiated  on  weak  grounds  in  August  2014.  In 
particular, it appeared that the difficulties suffered by the local industry were mainly due to 
inefficiency  and  quality  problems.  The  EU  industry  was  very  concerned  by  this  case  as  a 
'contagion  effect'  had  been  observed  in  this  sector,  namely  similar  investigations  were 
launched  by  Morocco,  Turkey  and  the  United  States.  Following  strong  interventions  by  the 
Commission (written submission, participation in the public hearing and consultations under 
the  association  agreement)  the  investigation  was  terminated  without  measures  in  November 
2015. 

3.2.8. 

Other cases to mention 8 

low 

were 

exporters 

In  2013,  the  Australian  authorities  initiated  an  AD  investigation  concerning  processed 
tomato  products  from  Italy.  The  economic  interest  for  the  EU  was  €  48  million.  The 
Commission supported the Italian industry on several occasions with a number of submissions 
and  45%  of  exports  were  excluded  from  the  measure  while  and  the  duties  for  the  other 
cooperating 
4%). 
relatively 
In  2015  the  Australian  authorities  however,  initiated  a  new  investigation  on  grounds  which 
appear extremely weak only a few months after the end of this investigation. The aim is to re-
investigate the imports from two companies earlier excluded from the measure, meaning for 
the  EU  an  economic  interest  of  about  €  28  million.  In  2015  the  Commission  continued  to 
intervene  strongly  in  support  of  the  Italian  exporters.  Unfortunately,  early  in  2016  the 
Australian authorities  imposed  measures based on a questionable methodology  that presents 
serious  systemic  concerns.  On  13  April  2016  the  Australian  Anti-dumping  Review  Panel 
initiated an administrative review of the measures at the request of the Italian companies and 
authorities.  The Commission, in coordination with industry and stakeholders, at the time of 
writing this report is deeply involved in technical and political efforts to address the issues at 
play.  

average 

(on 

In  2014,  Egypt  initiated  an  AS  investigation  regarding  imports  of  Edam  cheese  (EU 
economic interest € 20 million) from the Netherlands. The Commission highlighted that the 
subsidy  programmes  under  investigation  were  non-specific  and  thus  not  actionable  under 
WTO  rules.  The  Egyptian  authorities  retained  such  arguments  and  in  March  2015  they 
terminated the investigation without imposition of measures. 

South Africa proposed definitive duties for imports of frozen chicken parts from Germany, 
the  Netherlands  and  the  United  Kingdom.  The  case  raised  an  economic  interest  of  €  30 
million.  Both  the  Commission  and  other  interested  parties  questioned  the  dumping  margins 
and their calculations for the UK. ITAC, the South  African  investigating authority, lowered 
those  rates  for  both  individual  UK  producers  (from  18.68%  to  13.07%)  and  for  the  “all 
others” UK rate (from 34.7% to 22.3%) in the final determination of 27 February 2015. 

present 

8  The 
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/trade-defence/actions-against-exports-from-the-eu/ 
formalized in the course of 2015:   

already  mentioned 

section 

annual 

cover 

cases 

the 

in 

report 

2014  
and 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
4.  ACTIVITY AT THE WTO 

The  Commission  is  also  active  in  the  WTO  in  order  to  defend  the  interests  of  the  EU  in 
specific cases, or to address issues of systemic concern. This takes the form of (i) challenge at 
WTO of TDI measures that the EU considers inconsistent with WTO law, (ii) intervention in 
WTO's TDI related disputes as a third party and (iii) active participation in the relevant Rules 
Committees in Geneva. 

(i) When measures are considered inconsistent with WTO law, the Commission may request 
the  establishment  of  a  WTO  Panel.  This  was  for  example  the  case  for  the  AD  measures 
imposed by China on imports of certain steel tubes (DS460) and the AD measures imposed by 
Russia against imports of light commercial vehicles (DS479).  

In the first case, the WTO Dispute settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Appellate Body report 
in October 2015, with a favourable outcome for the EU, and recommended China to bring its 
measures into conformity with the WTO rules. China has until 22 August 2016  to implement 
the DSB recommendations and ruling. For the second case, the Panel started its activity only 
2015 and a decision is expected in the course of 2016. 

(ii)  Furthermore,  the  Commission  also  intervenes  as  a  third  party  in  WTO  proceedings 
requested between third countries, with  the main objective to  address and monitor  issues  of 
systemic interest, which may also impact the EU's use of the trade defence instruments. Such 
interventions  have  also  an  offensive  interest,  since  the  Commission  advocates  for  higher 
standards in trade defence investigations abroad. In 2015, the Commission intervened again as 
a third party in a number of cases. 

(iii)  Finally,  the  Commission  also  actively  participates  in  the  relevant  WTO  committees  in 
Geneva.  In the  AD/AS  Committees,  actions  taken  by  other WTO  Members  are reviewed  in 
the context of the semi-annual and monthly reporting exercises to the WTO. Special focus is 
paid to the SFG Committee, given the increasing use of this instrument, which as explained 
above  is  a  cause of concern.  The Commission  raises individual cases, where  the EU has  an 
economic  or  a  systemic  interest.  In  addition,  the  Commission  also  actively  participates  in  a 
technical  discussion  group  on  SFG  issues,  which  takes  place  in  the  margins  of  this  WTO 
Committee and chaired the 2015 group discussion. The main objective is to exchange views 
on the respective practices of WTO members.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.  CONCLUSION 

The data presented in this report show that throughout 2015 the trade defence activity against 
the  EU  or  its  Member  States  remained  intense  and  required  considerable  effort  by  the 
Commission services.  

The  year  was  also  marked  by  the  increased  complexity  of  the  cases  at  stake  due  to  various 
factors such as the ongoing debate on global steel overcapacities, the political context in some 
third  countries  where  TDI  measures  may  acquire  a  protectionist  connotation.  Moreover, 
producers  in  EU  Member  States  facing  challenges  in  the  internal  market  or  their  own 
domestic  markets  have  made  significant  efforts  to  export  in  order  to  achieve  growth  and 
employment  objectives  and  are  thus  more  often  confronted  with  third  countries’  TDI 
measures.  

Finally,  in  2015  the  Commission  engaged,  with  positive  results,  in  some  demanding 
discussions  with  certain  third  countries  on  the  nature  of  the  EU  subsidies,  with  a  view  to 
clarify that they should not be considered specific under the WTO rules.  

The Commission always aims at a dialogue that usefully contributes to the development of the 
TDI  systems  of  third  countries,  advocating  and  encouraging  compliance  with  WTO  rules. 
Accordingly, in the course of 2015 bilateral contacts took place with Turkey and Brazil (two 
of  the  most  active  countries  in  trade  defence  against  EU  producers)  with  the  objective  to 
exchange best practices and to promote mutual better understanding and cooperation, which 
ultimately helps avoiding that unfair measures are applied to the EU industry. Such a dialogue 
already exists with China. 

The  importance  of  the  Commission's  interventions  has  been  increasing  from  year  to  year, 
given the experience gained in successive interventions and the existent formal and informal 
contacts  with  third  countries.  However,  many  of  the  issues  encountered  over  the  past  years 
still  persist,  and  some  even  in  an  aggravated  manner,  in  particular  the  proliferated  use  of 
safeguards and the questionable way this instrument is used by a number of third countries.  

Trade defence measures imposed by third countries, as well as ongoing investigations, have 
an  important  economic  impact  on  EU  exports.  Therefore,  the  Commission  will  continue  its 
efforts to promote among the EU trading partners the high standards the EU applies as they 
contribute  to  a  market  access  strategy  for  fairly  traded  goods.  It  will  also  intensify  its 
interventions  and  its  provision  of  technical  support  and  advice  to  EU  exporters  especially 
when they are faced with potential abuse of the TDI by third countries. These efforts are fully 
consistent with the Commission’s other efforts regarding market access.  

In carrying out these tasks, the interaction with the Union industry, individual EU companies 
and Member States plays a crucial role, as well as the bi-lateral dialogues and the sharing of 
best practices with third countries. In that sense, the Commission’s activities regarding third 
countries’ use of TDI go far beyond simple monitoring and in fact constitute an intensive part 
of its activity. 

11