Dispute settlement

On 17 March 1999 the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of wheat gluten from the European Communities. The EC contended that by a Proclamation of 30 May 1998 and a Memorandum of the same date by the US President under which the US imposed definitive safeguard measures in the form of a quantitative limitation on imports of wheat gluten from the EC effective as of 1 June 1998. The EC considered these measures to be in violation of Articles 2 4 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards; Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994.

Le 06 avril 1999 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Inde - Restrictions quantitatives à l’importation de produits agricoles textiles et industriels”.

On 11 October 2002 Brazil requested consultations with the European Communities concerning EC Commission Regulation No. 1223/2002 (“Regulation No. 1223/2002”) of 8 July 2002 which provides a new description of frozen boneless chicken cuts under the EC Combined Nomenclature (“CN”) code 0207.14.10. According to Brazil this new description includes a salt content to the product that did not exist before and subjects the imports of these products to a higher tariff than that applicable to salted meat (CN code 0210) in the EC’s Schedules under the GATT 1994.

Le 31 mars 1998 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Japon - Mesures affectant les pellicules et papiers photographiques destinés aux consommateurs”.

On 11 January 2002 India requested consultations with the United States in respect of its rules of origin applicable to imports of textiles and apparel products as set out in Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act Section 405 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 and the customs regulations implementing these provisions. India argued that prior to the abovementioned Section 334 the rule of origin applicable to textiles and apparel products was the “substantial transformation” rule. India considered that Section 334 changed the system by identifying specific processing operations which would confer origin to the various types of textiles and apparel products. In India’s view these changes appear to have been made to protect the United States textiles and clothing industry from import competition. India indicated that the changes introduced by Section 334 had already been challenged by the European Communities on the grounds that they were incompatible with the United States’ obligations under the Agreement on Rules of Origin and other WTO Agreements (WT/DS151). India explained that that dispute was settled through a procès-verbal whereby the United States agreed to introduce legislation amending Section 334. According to India the changes introduced by the amending legislation i.e. Section 405 were aimed at taking account of the particular export interests of the European Communities. India is of the view that the changes introduced by Sections 334 and 405 have resulted in extraordinary complex rules under which the criteria that confer origin vary between similar products and processing operations. India argued that the structure of the changes the circumstances under which they were adopted and their effect on the conditions of competition for textiles and apparel products suggest that they serve trade policy purposes. On those grounds India questioned the compatibility of those changes with paragraphs (b) (c) (d) and (e) of Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.

On 11 July 2019 the WTO circulated two panel report in the cases brought by the United States in “Canada — Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United States” (DS557) and “Mexico — Additional Duties on Certain Products from the United States” (DS560).

Le 27 octobre 1998 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Japon - Mesures visant les produits agricoles”.

Le 25 avril 2017 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial chargé de l’affaire “Chine — Mesures antidumping visant les importations de pâte de cellulose en provenance du Canada” suite à la plainte déposée par le Canada (DS483).

Le 17 mars 2000 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Canada - Protection conférée par un brevet pour les produits pharmaceutiques”.

Le 14 mars 1997 l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Canada - Certaines mesures concernant les periodiques”.