Dispute settlement

El 12 de marzo de 1998 la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Comunidades Europeas - Medidas que afectan a la importación determinados productos avícolas”.

El 09 de diciembre de 2002 el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Medidas compensatorias sobre determinados productos de las CE”.

On 12 July 1999 the WTO issued the dispute panel reports in the case "European Communities - Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones) - Original complaint by Canada".

On 13 May 2003 the United States requested consultations with the EC concerning certain measures taken by the EC and its member States affecting imports of agricultural and food imports from the United States. Regarding EC-level measures the United States asserted that the moratorium applied by the EC since October 1998 on the approval of biotech products has restricted imports of agricultural and food products from the United States. Regarding member State-level measures the United States asserted that a number of EC member States maintain national marketing and import bans on biotech products even though those products have already been approved by the EC for import and marketing in the EC.

Le 14 décembre 1999 l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Corée - Mesure de sauvegarde définitive appliquée aux importations de certains produits laitiers”.

Le 16 juin 2020 l’OMC a distribué le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé d’examiner l’affaire introduite par le Qatar “Arabie saoudite — Mesures concernant la protection des droits de propriété intellectuelle” (DS567).

Le 28 avril 2005 l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Communautés européennes - Subventions à l’exportation de sucre”.

On 10 February 1999 Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 15 U.S.C. 72 (1994) (“US 1916 Act”). Japan alleged that the US 1916 Act stipulates that the importation or sale of imported goods within the US market in certain circumstances is unlawful constituting a criminal offence and inviting civil liability. Japan further alleged that judicial decisions under the US 1916 Act are made without the procedural safeguards provided for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Japan stated that a court action had been brought under the US 1916 Act against affiliates of Japanese companies. Japan contended that the US 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles III VI and XI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

On 8 October 1996 India Malaysia Pakistan and Thailand requested consultations with the United States concerning a ban on importation of shrimp and shrimp products from these complainants imposed by the US under Section 609 of US Public Law 101-162. Violations of Articles I XI and XIII of the GATT 1994 as well nullification and impairment of benefits were alleged.

On 25 July 2011 the European Union requested consultations with China concerning the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on x-ray security inspection equipment from the European Union pursuant to China's Ministry of Commerce Notice No. 1(2011) including its Annex. The European Union claims that the measure is inconsistent with various provisions of the Anti–Dumping Agreement related to the process of the anti-dumping investigation (including failure to provide access to relevant information and insufficient explanation of the basis for the determinations) as well as the anti–dumping determination at issue (absence of objective examination of the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market and absence of objective determination of causality). The European Union considers that the measure is inconsistent with Articles 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5 6.1 6.2. 6.4 6.5 6.9 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994.