Skip to main content
Trade

WT/DS27 - European Communities - Import regime for bananas

WTO dispute settlement case - Complaint against the EU

Country or region
  • Honduras
  • Mexico
  • United States
Trade topics
  • Dispute settlement
Context
  • WTO - Complaint against the EU

Summary of the case

  • Complaint by: Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, United States
  • Complaint against: EU
  • Third parties: Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Saint Lucia

DSB recommendations were implemented by EC Reg. 1637/98 and 2362/98 (into force on 1/1/1999). Complainants contended that the new EC regime continued to violate WTO obligations. US requested suspension of concessions (US$ 520 million); EC requested arbitration on this amount; DSB authorized US to suspend concessions (US$ 191,4 million) on 19/4/1999. EC requested a com">EC regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas established by Council Reg. No. 404/93 on the common orgainization of the market in bananas and subsequent EC legislation, regulations and administrative measures, including those reflecting the provisions of the Framework Agreement on Bananas (the "BFA"), which implement, supplement and amend that regime.
DSB recommendations were implemented by EC Reg. 1637/98 and 2362/98 (into force on 1/1/1999). Complainants contended that the new EC regime continued to violate WTO obligations. US requested suspension of concessions (US$ 520 million); EC requested arbitration on this amount; DSB authorized US to suspend concessions (US$ 191,4 million) on 19/4/1999. EC requested a compliance panel which did not issue a ruling. Ecuador requested a compliance panel which found the new EC regime WTO-inconsistent. Ecuador obtained authorisation on 18/5/2000 to suspend concessions (US$ 201,6 million).">DSB recommendations were implemented by EC Reg. 1637/98 and 2362/98 (into force on 1/1/1999). Complainants contended that the new EC regime continued to violate WTO obligations. US requested suspension of concessions (US$ 520 million); EC requested arbitration on this amount; DSB authorized US to suspend concessions (US$ 191,4 million) on 19/4/1999. EC requested a com">DSB recommendations were implemented by EC Reg. 1637/98 and 2362/98 (into force on 1/1/1999). Complainants contended that the new EC regime continued to violate WTO obligations. US requested suspension of concessions (US$ 520 million); EC requested arbitration on this amount; DSB authorized US to suspend concessions (US$ 191,4 million) on 19/4/1999. EC requested a compliance panel which did not issue a ruling. Ecuador requested a compliance panel which found the new EC regime WTO-inconsistent. Ecuador obtained authorisation on 18/5/2000 to suspend concessions (US$ 201,6 million).">DSB recommendations were implemented by EC Reg. 1637/98 and 2362/98 (into force on 1/1/1999). Complainants contended that the new EC regime continued to violate WTO obligations. US requested suspension of concessions (US$ 520 million); EC requested arbitration on this amount; DSB authorized US to suspend concessions (US$ 191,4 million) on 19/4/1999. EC requested a com">EC regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas established by Council Reg. No. 404/93 on the common orgainization of the market in bananas and subsequent EC legislation, regulations and administrative measures, including those reflecting the provisions of the Framework Agreement on Bananas (the "BFA"), which implement, supplement and amend that regime.
DSB recommendations were implemented by EC Reg. 1637/98 and 2362/98 (into force on 1/1/1999). Complainants contended that the new EC regime continued to violate WTO obligations. US requested suspension of concessions (US$ 520 million); EC requested arbitration on this amount; DSB authorized US to suspend concessions (US$ 191,4 million) on 19/4/1999. EC requested a compliance panel which did not issue a ruling. Ecuador requested a compliance panel which found the new EC regime WTO-inconsistent. Ecuador obtained authorisation on 18/5/2000 to suspend concessions (US$ 201,6 million).">DSB recommendations were implemented by EC Reg. 1637/98 and 2362/98 (into force on 1/1/1999). Complainants contended that the new EC regime continued to violate WTO obligations. US requested suspension of concessions (US$ 520 million); EC requested arbitration on this amount; DSB authorized US to suspend concessions (US$ 191,4 million) on 19/4/1999. EC requested a com

Relevant WTO provision: GATT (I, II, III, X, XI, XIII); Licensing (1, 3); Agriculture; TRIMs (2); GATS (II, XVI, XVII)

Status

Understanding reached with the US on 11 Apr. 2001 and with Ecuador on 30 Apr. 2001 on the resolution of the dispute.
Phase 1 of the understanding has been implemented by Commission Regulation No 896/2001.
Phase 2 of the understanding has been implemented by Commission Regulation No 2587/2001.
The request for Article I and XIII waivers were adopted on 14 Nov. 2001.
The case is solved.

  • Consultations requested: 05 February 1996
  • Panel requested: 11 April 1996
  • Panel established: 08 May 1996
  • Panel report circulated: 22 May 1997
  • Appeal requested: 11 June 1997
  • Appeal report circulated: 09 September 1997
  • Panel/Appellate Body report adopted: 25 September 1997
  • Implementation deadline: 01 January 1999
  • Recourse to Articles:
    • 08 November 1999 - Recourse to Art. 22. Ecuador
    • 14 January 1999 - Recourse to Art. 22. US
    • 18 December 1998 - Recourse to Art. 21.5. Ecuador
    • 15 December 1998 - Recourse to Art. 21.5. EC

Documents

EU submissions and other related documents

Full case details and WTO documents on the WTO website