AGENDA POINT 1: ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON
· The EU would like to thank the outgoing Chair for her work in the past year, including for her efforts to address the current crisis related to Appellate Body appointments.
· We also wish to warmly welcome the new Chair. We wish him well in this important and challenging role. In these difficult times, it is all the more important that the DSB continues to properly exercise its functions as envisaged by the DSU. We trust in the new Chair's ability to ensure that, and he can count on full support of the European Union in that regard.
AGENDA POINT 3: EUROPEAN UNION – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN COLD-ROLLED FLAT STEEL PRODUCTS FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (WT/DS521/2)
· The EU takes note of Russia's decision to request a WTO panel on anti-dumping measures imposed by the European Union in 2016 on certain cold-rolled flat steel products from Russia.
· The EU recalls that it held constructive consultations with Russia on 8 June 2017. We had expressed hope that the consultations had provided the necessary information and clarifications and indicated that in case of further questions the EU was ready to provide further explanations.
· Russia and the EU agreed to stay in contact in order to further discuss possible solutions to the dispute.
· We are convinced that our measures are in conformity with the WTO Agreements and therefore in today’s meeting, the EU is not ready to accept the establishment of a panel.
AGENDA POINT 4: UNITED STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT (SECOND COMPLAINT): RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY THE EUROPEAN UNION
A. REPORT OF THE APPELLATE BODY (WT/DS353/AB/RW and WT/DS353/AB/RW/Add.1) and Report of the Panel (WT/DS353/RW and WT/DS353/RW/Add.1)
· The European Union welcomes the report of the Appellate Body issued on 28 March in this long-running dispute, and welcomes its overall outcome.
· The rulings of the panel and of the Appellate Body vindicate most of the claims advanced by the EU. The Appellate Body’s ruling confirms that the United States has not brought itself into compliance with earlier rulings as it continues to illegally subsidise aircraft manufacturer Boeing, causing significant harm to its European competitor Airbus.
· The Appellate Body’s ruling also confirm that the United States has taken no appropriate action to comply with its obligation to withdraw subsidies declared illegal by the WTO back in 2012, or to remove their adverse effects.
· We regret that while on a number of points the Appellate Body overturned the compliance panel’s conclusions, including the characterisation of certain US measures and their specificity, in the absence of sufficient factual findings in the Panel report, it was not in a position to complete its analysis in this respect.
· The EU expects the United States to promptly comply with this final ruling.
· The EU would like to thank the Appellate Body, the Panel and their respective Secretariats for their hard work throughout this dispute.
· The European Union would like to stress the following: for us, there is not a shadow of a doubt that the report we have in front of us is a report of the Appellate Body and we are looking forward to its adoption in accordance with the rules applicable for the adoption of Appellate Body reports under Article 17.14 of the DSU, i.e. by negative consensus – just as was the case with DS316 (Airbus-case).
· The European Union recalls that the rules and procedures of the DSU exclude the right of any particular WTO Member to block the adoption of panel or Appellate Body reports.
· This is a central feature of the DSU.
· Article 17.14 of the DSU is clear: "[a]n Appellate Body report shall be adopted by the DSB and unconditionally accepted by the parties to the dispute unless the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the Appellate Body report […].
· The European Union understands that there is no formal objection today to the adoption of the Appellate Body report.
· The European Union recalls that these provisions are without prejudice to the right of Members to express their views of the report, and such views were expressed at this meeting. However, while there is a right to express a view, there is no right to veto. Any theories attempting to underpin such a right to veto are without any merit.