DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: DISPUTE DS347 European Communities and Certain Member States —Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft (Second Complaint)
This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.
See also: > The basics: how disputes are settled in WTO > Computer based training on dispute settlement > Text of the Dispute Settlement Understanding
Other disputes involving: > Aircraft > United States > European Union (formerly EC) > France > Germany > Spain > United Kingdom > General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 > Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Current status back to top
Authority for panel lapsed on 7 October 2007
Key facts back to top
Short title: EC and certain member States — Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint) Complainant: United States Respondent: European Communities; France; Germany; Spain; United Kingdom Third Parties: Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; Japan; Korea, Republic of Agreements cited: (as cited in request for consultations)
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: Art. 1, 3.1(a), 3.1(b), 3.2, 4, 5(a), 5(c), 6.3(a), 6.3(b), 6.3(c), 7, 2 GATT 1994: Art. III:4, XVI:1
Request for Consultations received:
31 January 2006
Summary of the dispute to date back to top
The summary below was up-to-date at 24 February 2010
Complaint by the United States.
On 31 January 2006, the United States requested consultations with the Governments of France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom (the “member States”) and with the European Communities (“EC”) concerning measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft. (See also dispute WT/DS316).
The United States considered that measures of the EC and the member States provide subsidies that are inconsistent with their obligations under the SCM Agreement and the GATT 1994. The United States is concerned that the launch aid provided by the EC and the member States to Airbus for the development of large civil aircraft and the EIB loans provided to Airbus appear to be subsidies that are inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a), 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.
The United States is concerned that the measures of the EC and the member States that are the subject of their request for consultations appear to be causing adverse effects to US interests within the meaning of Articles 5(a), 5(c), 6.3(a), 6.3(b) and 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement.
The United States is also concerned that the measures appear to be inconsistent with Articles III:4 and XVI:1 of the GATT 1994.
On 10 April 2006, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At the DSB meeting on 20 April 2006, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
At the DSB meeting on 9 May 2006, the DSB established a panel. Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan and Korea reserved their third-party rights. On 7 July 2006, the United States requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 17 July 2006, Deputy Director-General Alejandro Jara composed the Panel.
On 9 October 2006, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the United States had requested the Panel on 6 October 2006 to suspend its work, in accordance with Article 12.12 of the DSU. The Panel had agreed to this request. As the Panel had not been requested to resume its work, the authority of the panel lapsed as of 7 October 2007.