The U.S. Article 21.5 panel request in EC - Aircraft is here. A key issue will be subsidies to the Airbus A350, a new model. Recall that the panel excluded these subsidies from the original dispute:
7.314 Thus, in conclusion, after carefully reviewing the evidence and arguments advanced by the parties, we are not convinced that a clear and identifiable commitment to provide LA/MSF on the terms and conditions specified by the United States existed on the date of establishment of this panel. While the evidence we have examined does suggest that an in principle commitment on the part of the four EC member State governments to support the development of the A350 through LA/MSF did exist, this commitment did not take the form of LA/MSF on backloaded, success-dependent and below market interest rate repayment terms, as the United States alleges, but rather LA/MSF on terms and conditions subject to negotiation. The United States has therefore failed to demonstrate that the LA/MSF measure it challenges existed at the time of the establishment of this panel. Moreover, for the reasons we have outlined above, we consider that the commitments which did exist, did not confer any of the benefits the United States asserts were enjoyed by Airbus. Accordingly, we dismiss the United States' complaint against the alleged USD 1,700 million LA/MSF measure for the A350.
However, the U.S. nonetheless includes them in the Article 21.5 complaint, as follows:
4. ... In addition, French, German, Spanish, and UK LA/MSF for the A350XWB (i) are measures closely related to the measures the EU has identified as taken to comply and to the EU measures the DSB found to be inconsistent with the SCM Agreement and (ii) replace or continue the LA/MSF for twin-aisle aircraft covered by the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The United States considers these LA/MSF measures for the A350XWB to be inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.
This will be a good test of the rules governing inclusion of related measures in an Article 21.5 complaint.
