GD/105
European Economic Community - Restrictions on Imports of Apples from Chile
Other titles
EEC Apples I (Chile) (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
Products at issue |
Apples
|
Type of product |
Agricultural
|
Product sub-type |
Fruits and dried fruits
|
Related disputes
GATT | |
WTO |
Key legal aspects
Adjudicators
Type | Panel |
Chairperson | Dr. A. El Gowhari (Egypt) |
Other members | R. Wright (Canada), Magnus Lemmel (Sweden) |
No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 19 |
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
Request for consultations | |
Request for establishment | |
Establishment | |
Composition | |
Report | |
Adoption of report |
Outcome
Outcome of the proceedings |
Report adopted
|
Additional Info | L/5047 (31/10/1980) EEC Restrictions on Imports of Apples and Chile - Report of the Panel: The matter referred to the Contracting Parties by Chile concerned restrictions applied by the EEC on imports of apples from Chile, namely an EC Commission regulation suspending the free circulation into the Community of apples originating from Chile for the period 25 April to 15 August 1979. The Panel found that the EEC measure was a prohibition or restriction in the meaning of Article XI. Furthermore, this measure could not qualify as an exception under XI:2c(i) because it had not fulfilled the conditions of the last paragraph of Article XI:2. However, the Panel could not conclude that the EEC did not meet the conditions of XI:2c(ii). Furthermore, the Panel found that the EEC measure was not in conformity with the most-favoured-nation type obligations of Article XIII as it had not fulfilled the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2(d) thereof. According to the Panel, Chile's increased export capacity over a recent period should have been taken into account by the EEC in its allocation of shares among the Southern Hemisphere suppliers; the commercial contracts that Chilean exporters had signed with EEC importers should have been taken into account as a "special factor" as well. The Panel also found that the EEC had not conformed to the provisions regarding public notice under XIII:2(a) and 3(b) first sentence. Since the Panel had found the EEC measure not to be in conformity with the above provisions, there was a prima facie case of nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to Chile within the meaning of Article XXIII. |