At long last, here is the U.S. "other appeal" in EC - Aircraft. It has two potentially interesting issues.
First up, the issue of whether certain subsidies constitute an "export subsidy":
1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel’s legal conclusion that the United States failed to establish that the French A380, French A340-500/600, Spanish A340-500/600, and French A330-200 launch aid constituted prohibited export subsidies within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) and footnote 4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement").1 These conclusions are in error and are based on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations, including an erroneous interpretation and application of Article 3.1(a) and footnote 4 of the SCM Agreement.2 To the extent that the Panel’s recommendation, pursuant to Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement, that the subsidies found to be prohibited be withdrawn within 90 days, does not include the French A380, French A340-500/600, Spanish A340-500/600, and French A330-200 launch aid, the United States also requests that the Appellate Body review that recommendation.3
Next is the issue of when a series of (allegedly) related subsidy measures constitute a "subsidy program":
2. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel’s legal conclusion that the United States failed to demonstrate the existence of the Launch Aid Program.4 This conclusion is in error and is based on erroneous findings on issues of law and legal interpretations, including the failure to examine properly whether the Launch Aid Program is a "measure" subject to challenge in WTO dispute settlement proceedings.
Both of the legal standards at issue could benefit from some additional clarification.
