Uruguayan recourse to Article XXIII (III)

Other titles

Uruguay - Recourse to Article XXIII (III)


Third Parties

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 flour, barley, rice (peeled), 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
Product sub-type
Mixed ag-products

Related disputes


Key legal aspects

Legal basis
  • GATT Article XXIII
  • GATT Article XXIII:2
Claims raised
  • Defendants' Protocol of Accession
  • GATT (no specific provision)
Defences raised
  • n.a.


Type Panel
Chairperson R. Campbell Smith (Canada)
Other members S. L. Portella de Aguiar (Brazil), M. Itan (Israel), E. J. Biermann (Netherlands), A. Schnebli (Switzerland)


Type Panel
Legal basis at issue
  • GATT Article XXIII
  • GATT Article XXIII:2
Claims at issue
  • GATT (no specific provision)
Defences at issue
  • n.a.
No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) 13
  • -
  • -
  • No conclusion reached
  • -


Outcome of the proceedings
Report adopted
Additional Info Additional Info L/1923 (16/11/1962) Report of the Panel on Uruguayan recourse to GATT Article XXIII: maintenance of measures can nullify or impair benefits of Uruguay , to give immediate consideration to the removal of measures and to report on compliance "or any other satisfactory adjustment" by 01/03/1963, otherwise circumstance to be deemed "serious enough" to justify GATT XXIII:2 suspension of concessions or obligations (7 Contracting Parties Austria, Belgium, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Norway and Sweden).L/2074 (30/07/1963) Second Report of the Panel. The Panel made comments to the replies of the 7 Contracting Parties: Removal of measures complied with the Contracting Parties recommendations; improvement of market access to be judged by Uruguay, if there was a "satisfactory adjustment"; on new contentions, up to Uruguay to challenge; no change; not appropriate to go into new measures; full compliance (Sweden).

L/1662/Rev.1 (29/06/1964) Revised version of table in Spec(61)294 on restrictions applied to imports from Uruguay: according to Uruguay there were 1'576 restrictions applied to the trade of Uruguay before the Article XXIII action, which increased to 1'658 after the action.

C/M/21 (13/07/1964) Minutes of Council Meeting (06/07/1966) At Uruguay's request, the Council reconvened the Panel to consult with countries on their compliance, to examine new measures (in L/1662/Rev.1) and make recommendations, and to take up the question of ruling on nullification and impairment on a number of cases. Panel was to meet on 21/09/1963

L/2278 (27/10/1964) Report of the Panel (Same panelists as original panel and "[a]n observer for Australia attended the formal meetings"). The Panel be reconvened to pursue further the question of compliance with the Article XXIII recommendations made by the Contracting Parties on 16 November I962, to examine certain newly applied trade barriers affecting Uruguayan exports and to re-examine the question of compatibility of certain measures with the General Agreement. The Panel proposed a renewal of procedures in L/1923, so as to be in a position promptly to deal with any Uruguayan proposal to suspend concessions or obligations to compensate for any nullification or impairment arising from the continued maintenance of the trade barriers constituting the recommendations of 16 November I962. With respect to the new measures, the Panel observed that while the comprehensive table showing the obstacles confronting Uruguayan trade could conceivably be of value in indicating the magnitude and complexity of the problems faced by Uruguay in expanding its exports, it did not provide a basis for discussions relating to nullification or impairment and the invocation of Article XXIII. The lack of arguments and evidence presented by Uruguay to the Panel with respect to whether the measures in question were consistent with the GATT or permitted under the terms of the relevant protocol of application, made it difficult for the Panel to proceed. "Uruguay agreed that if it wished to pursue the matter further it would submit the necessary brief."

L/2278/Add.1 (01/03/1965) Statements made in Council meeting (30/10/1964) by the Contracting Parties on actions after L/2278: Austria fully complied; Belgium de facto liberalized; France duty terminated; Federal Republic of Germany liberalized (L/2336); Italian restrictions removed.

SR.22/2 (12/03/1965) Meeting of the Contracting Parties Twenty-Second Session (03/03/1965) Adoption of the second report of the Panel (L/2074 ) and of the report of Panel reconvened to consult on compliance (L/2278 and L/2278/Corr.1).


Outcome of the proceedings Report issued, the Council took note, mutually agreed solution

Additional Info SR.22/9 (06/04/1965) Contracting Parties Twenty-Second Session - Summary Record of the Ninth Meeting (23/03/1965) European Economic Community: Agreement of Association with Turkey (L/2265 and Addendum 1) Contracting Parties had established a Working Party to examine the Agreement of Association of the EEC with Turkey, known as the Ankara Agreement, "to examine the Agreement in the light of the relevant provisions of the GATT." The Report was distributed in document L/2265 and L/2265/Add.1. Turkey: the aim of the agreement "was to facilitate the accession of Turkey to the Community, notably by the institution of a customs union. (...) The Turkish Government considered the Ankara Agreement a vital element in its economic development." UK: "It would be advisable, he suggested, to resume examination of the Agreement so as to appraise the difficulties that had emerged and to obtain a clearer picture of the Agreement's implications, in particular, those relating to the compatibility issue [between GATT Article XXIV:5(a) and Article XXIV:6]. (...) UK stood ready to negotiate under Article XXVIII (...) How would Article XXIV apply in all this? It was the first time in the GATT that such a situation had arisen. It would be appropriate, he suggested, for the Working Party to attempt to clarify such issues and to look at the practical implications and not merely at the legal issues. An examination of this type by the Working Party would be of considerable help to the United Kingdom." UK and Turkey consulted under Article XXII:1 concerning certain technical points arising in connexion with the Association Agreement.

SR.22/10 (06/04/1965) Contracting Parties Twenty-Second Session - Summary Record of the Tenth Meeting (25/03/1965) UK: consultations had been very complex and it had not been possible to reach complete agreement; "would prefer the setting up of a panel or working party to assist the United Kingdom in dealing with the question it had raised and to provide the necessary guidance and interpretation to enable the United Kingdom to complete its Article XXVIII negotiations with Turkey." Discussion on the terms of reference.

SR.22/11 (08/04/1965) Contracting Parties Twenty-Second Session - Summary Record of the Eleventh Meeting (25/03/1965) Agreement reached on the Working Party's terms of reference and membership.

L/2465 (27/07/1965) Report of the Working Party on Article XXII Consultation with Turkey: The UK sought clarification regarding the sequence of two events, one being the existence of a waiver to impose duties in excess of bound rates to respond to certain development needs, and the other being the application of the Ankara Agreement by which Turkey and the EEC agreed to the formation of a customs union. The UK sought clarification regarding its understanding that the tariff increases were made for the protection of Turkish industry and that Article XXIV would be applied to establish preferences only once the MFN rate had returned to the present bound rates. Turkey declared that it would give due consideration to the equitable rights of contracting parties who are not members of the Ankara Agreement when it comes to implementing differential tariff treatment in favour of the EEC on these items.