Uruguayan Recourse to Article XXIII (II)
Uruguay - Recourse to Article XXIII (II)
Products at Issue
|Products at issue||
Frozen bovine meat, chilled bovine meat, frozen ovine meat, chilled offals (bovine or sheep), preserved meat, meat extracts, wheat, wheat flour, barley, rice, crude linseed oil, boiled linseed oil, crude edible oils, refined or purified edible oils, oil cake, meal resulting from the extraction of vegetable oils, dried and salted cow-hide, dried and salted sheepskins, sheepskins in the wool, tanned cow-hide, sheepskin leather, chamois-dressed leather, parchment-dressed leather, patent leather and metallized leather, greasy wool, washed wool, waste of wool, combed wool, yarn of combed wool, wool textiles.
|Type of product||
Key legal aspects
|Chairperson||R. Campbell Smith (Canada)|
|Other members||S. L. Portella de Aguiar (Brazil), M. Itan (Israel), E. J. Biermann (Netherlands), A. Schnebli (Switzerland)|
|No of Pages (total / legal reasoning)||4 (and 6 annex)|
|Request for consultations|
|Request for establishment|
|Adoption of report|
|Outcome of the proceedings||
|Additional Info||C/M/15 (15/05/1963) Minutes of Council Meeting (25/04/1963-01/05/1963) At Uruguay's request, the Council gave authority to reconvene the panel of experts at a date to be fixed by the Executive Secretary.
L/2012 (06/06/1963) Communication from Uruguay (16/05/1963) to Executive Secretary requesting Panel meeting to consider replies from 7 Contracting Parties requesting a recommendation on their degree of compliance and other compatibility matters.
L/2074 (30/10/1963) Report of the Panel on Uruguayan Recourse to Article XXIII: The Contracting Parties had recommended that Austria, Belgium, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Norway and Sweden give immediate consideration to the removal of measures that nullify or impair benefits accruing to Uruguay. Failure to remove the measure or provide "satisfactory judgment" would entitle Uruguay to suspend obligations or concessions. Uruguay requested that the Panel make a recommendation on the extent of compliance, but the Panel considered its competence was limited to consideration of any proposal by Uruguay regarding the suspension of obligations or concessions. The Panel nevertheless commented on the reports submitted by the parties and stood ready to deal with any proposals from Uruguay in that regard.