GATT Arts Clause Samples

GATT Arts. I:1, III:4, XI:I, XX(a) and (b), and XXIII:1(b) AA Art. 4.2 Establishment of Panel 25 March 2011 (DS400) 21 April 2011 (DS401) Circulation of Panel Report 25 November 2013 Respondent European Communities Circulation of AB Report 22 May 2014 Adoption 18 June 2014

GATT Arts. I:1 and XI:1 Establishment of Panel 31 July 2009 Circulation of Panel Report 29 September 2010 Respondent United States Circulation of AB Report NA Adoption 25 October 2010

GATT Arts. I:1, III:4, XX(g) Referred to the Original Panel 9 May 2016 (United States) 22 June 2016 (Mexico) Circulation of Panel Report 26 October ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Circulation of AB Report 14 December 2018 Adoption 11 January 2019 1. MEASURE TAKEN TO COMPLY WITH THE DSB RECOMMENDATIONS AND RULINGS

GATT Arts. II:1(b), and XIX:1 Establishment of Panel 26 March 2014 Circulation of Panel Report 26 June 2015 Respondent Ukraine Circulation of AB Report NA Adoption 20 July 2015

GATT Arts. I:1 (most-favoured-nation treatment) and III:4 (national treatment – domestic laws and regulations): With respect to the LNG measure, the Panel found that Russia had not demonstrated that natural gas imported from Russia and LNG imported from other countries are like products. With respect to the upstream pipeline networks measure, the Panel noted the parties’ agreement that processed natural gas transported via upstream pipelines and natural gas transported via transmission pipelines are like products, but found that Russia had not established that the measure granted an advantage to natural gas of any particular origin. • GATT Art. XI:1 (prohibition on quantitative restrictions): The Panel found that two of the conditions included in the challenged measure restricted market access for EU imports of natural gas from Russia and limited competitive opportunities for the importation of Russian natural gas into the European Union.

GATT Arts. I:1, II:1(b), XIX:1

GATT Arts. I.1 (most-favoured-nation treatment), XI.1 (prohibition on quantitative restrictions) and XX(b) (exceptions – necessary to protect human life or health): The Panel found that Section 727 was inconsistent with Art. I:1 because the United States treated the like products from China in a less favourable manner than those from the other Members; and with Art. XI:1, because Section 727 imposed a prohibition on the importation of poultry products from China. The Panel found that Section 727 was not justified under Art. XX(b) because it was found inconsistent with Arts. 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.