GD/10

Belgium - Family Allowances (Allocations Familiales)

View all disputes

Other titles

Belgium Family Allowances (Source: GATT Analytical Index)

Parties

Complainant
Denmark
Norway
Respondent
Belgium
Third Parties

Products at Issue

Products at issue
General
Type of product
Not specified
Product sub-type

Related disputes

GATT
WTO

Key legal aspects

Legal basis
  • n.a.
Claims raised
  • GATT Article I:1
  • GATT Article III
  • Treaty on Commerce and Navigation between Norway and Belgium
Defences raised
  • GATT Article I Ad Note
  • GATT Article II:2
  • GATT Article II:4
  • GATT Article III:2
  • GATT Article III:4
  • GATT Article III:8(a)
  • Protocol of Provisional Application (PPA) Part II

Adjudicators

Type Panel on Complaints
Chairperson C. M. Isbister (Canada)
Other members Representative of Australia, Representative of Canada, Representative of Cuba, Representative of Finland, Representative of Netherlands, Representative of Ceylon

Report

Type Panel on Complaints
Legal basis at issue
  • n.a.
Claims at issue
  • GATT Article I:1
  • GATT Article III:2
  • Treaty on Commerce and Navigation between Norway and Belgium
Defences at issue
  • GATT Article I Ad Note
  • GATT Article II:2
  • GATT Article II:4
  • GATT Article III:2
  • GATT Article III:4
  • GATT Article III:8(a)
  • Protocol of Provisional Application (PPA) Part II
No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) 3 (and 13 annex)
  • -
  • Inconsistency found
  • No conclusion reached
  • Not in report conclusions
  • Defence found to be inapplicable
  • Not in report conclusions
  • Not in report conclusions
  • Not in report conclusions
  • Not in report conclusions
  • Defence found to be inapplicable
  • Defence found to be inapplicable

Timeline

Request for consultations
Establishment
Composition
Report
Adoption of report

Outcome

Outcome of the proceedings
Report adopted
Additional Info G/32 (06/11/1952) Panel on Complaints - Report on Belgian Family Allowances: The Panel examined a Belgian law levying a charge on foreign goods purchased by public bodies when they originate in a country whose system of family allowances does not meet certain requirements. The Panel concluded that the levy is to be treated as an internal charge within the meaning of GATT Article III:2 and not as an import charge within the meaning of GATT Article II:2. The Panel considered that under GATT Article I:1, which applies to all matters referred to in GATT Article III:2, the Belgian legislation would have to be amended insofar as it introduces a discrimination between countries having a given system of family allowances and those which have a different system or no system at all, and makes the granting of the exemption dependent on certain conditions. The Panel further found that this undertaking to extend an exemption of an internal charge unconditionally was not qualified by any other provision of the GATT and that the Belgian law did not qualify for an exception under the Protocol of Provisional Application. Although the Panel "felt that the legal issues involved in the complaint under consideration are such that it would be difficult … to arrive at a very definite ruling", it found that the Belgian legislation was not only inconsistent with GATT Article I (and possibly with GATT Article III:2), but was "based on a concept that was difficult to reconcile with the spirit of the [GATT]".