VI - ARTICLE III:2, SECOND SENTENCE, OF THE GATT 1994

Summary

184. In this section, we address both the Philippines' appeal and the European Union's other appeal regarding Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994. We begin with the other appeal of the European Union.

European Union's Other Appeal

185. The European Union claims that the Panel erred in characterizing its claim under Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994 as made in the “alternative”290 to its claim under the first sentence of Article III:2. According to the European Union, by failing to address its claim under Article III:2, second sentence, the Panel acted inconsistently with Articles 7.1, 7.2, and 11 of the DSU. Moreover, to the extent that the Panel's failure to address the European Union's claim under Article III:2, second sentence, constituted application of the principle of judicial economy, the European Union submits that the Panel exercised “false” judicial economy in violation of Articles 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU. The European Union requests the Appellate Body: to reverse the Panel's characterization of its claim under the second sentence of Article III:2 as “alternative” to its claim under the first sentence thereof; to complete the legal analysis; and to find that the Philippines has acted inconsistently with Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994.

186. The Philippines does not contest the specific claim raised by the European Union in its other appeal.