   WT/DS246/R 
   Page A-1  
 
ANNEX A 
 
Request for Enhanced Third-Party Rights
 
 
Decision of the Panel 
 
7 May 2003 
 
 1. On 31 March 2003, 11 third parties in this  case (Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, 
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Pana ma, Peru and Venezuela, hereafter referred to 
collectively as "the Applicants") requested that the Panel accord them enhanced third-party rights.  
Specifically, the Applicants request permission:  to  attend all the Panel meetings;  to present their 
points of view at such meetings;  to receive copies of all submissions to the Panel;  to make submissions to the Panel at its second meeting;  and to review the draft summary of arguments in the 
descriptive part of the Panel report.  In support of  their request, the Applicants argue that their 
substantial interest is of special importance in this  dispute, since the measure at issue determines the 
conditions of access of their exports to the European market as beneficiaries of the tariff preference 
scheme established by the European Communities ("EC").  2. On 8 April 2003, the Panel invited the parties and the seven third parties other than the 
Applicants to comment, by 17 April 2003, on the Appli cants' request for enhanced third-party rights.  
India and the EC, along with third parties Brazil, Cuba, Mauritius, Pakistan , Paraguay and the United 
States ("US"), each submitted comments by the 17 Ap ril deadline.  No comments were received from 
Sri Lanka.  
3. In their request, the Applicants draw a para llel between their interest in the present case and 
the interest of the beneficiary African, Caribbean  and Pacific ("ACP") developing countries in the 
WTO dispute on EC – Bananas III (WT/DS27) .  The Applicants claim that as beneficiaries of the 
tariff preferences under the EC's Drug Arrangements, they are very similarly situated to the ACP countries benefiting from EC preferences under th e Lomé Waiver.  They point out that in EC – 
Bananas III , that panel granted certain add itional rights to third parties. 
 
4. In its comments to the Panel, India first argues that it considers the interests of the Applicants 
and other third parties to be amply protected by the rights provided under the DSU and the Working Procedures adopted in this dispute.  However, India considers that, should the Panel grant the 
Applicants' request, it should limit the a dditional rights to those provided in EC – Bananas III  and 
extend them to all developing country  third parties in this case, not only to the Applicants, but should 
not extend such rights to third party US because,  as asserted by India, the US has not advanced 
sufficient justification therefor.  India also cautions the Panel not to permit a blurring of the procedural rights accorded to parties w ith those accorded to third parties. 
 5. In its comments, the EC supports the granting of enhanced rights to all the beneficiaries of the 
Drug Arrangements  (Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecua dor, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Nicaragua, Panama, Pakistan and Peru), arguing that these countries are in a special situation 
analogous to that of the ACP countries in EC – Bananas III .  While the EC does not consider that the 
circumstances invoked by Brazil, Paraguay and the US , if considered alone, justify the granting of 
additional rights to those WTO Members, the EC  indicates that it would not object to the Panel 
granting enhanced rights also to the third parties w ho are not beneficiaries of  the Drug Arrangements.  
The EC expresses no opinion in relation to third par ties Cuba, Mauritius, Sri Lanka and Venezuela. 
 6. In its comments, Pakistan states that as a third party having both systemic and trade concerns, 
it "joins" the Applicants in requesting enhanced third-party rights.  Third parties Brazil, Cuba, 
Mauritius, Paraguay and the US all indicate that while they take no position on whether or not WT/DS246/R 
Page A-2  
 
additional third-party rights are justified in this case,  they all request that, should the Panel decide to 
grant enhanced rights, it should grant such rights to all third parties.   7. Having carefully considered the arguments of the parties and third parties in this case, the 
Panel considers as follows: 
 
 (a) There are significant similarities between this case and that of EC – Bananas III 
(WT/DS27)  in terms of economic impact of the preference programmes on third-party 
developing countries.  Both those third par ties that are benefici aries under the EC's 
Drug Arrangements and those that are excl uded have a significant economic interest 
in the matter before this Panel. 
  (b) The outcome of this case could have a significant trade-policy impact on the US as a 
preference-giving country. 
 
 (c) As a matter of due process, it is appropria te to provide the same procedural rights to 
all third parties in this dispute. 
  (d) In granting any additional rights to third parties, it is important to guard against an 
inappropriate blurring of the distinction dr awn in the DSU between parties and third 
parties. 
 
8. Accordingly, the Panel decides  that, beyond those rights already provided for in the DSU and 
in the Working Procedures adopted for this Panel,  the following additional rights are granted to all 
third parties in this case:  
• observe the first substantive meeting with the parties; 
• receive the second submissions of the parties; 
• observe the second substantive meeting with the parties; 
• make a brief statement during the second substantive meeting with the parties; 
• review the summary of their respective arguments  in the draft descriptive part of the panel 
report. 
 9. The Panel wishes to make clear that it do es not expect third parties to submit additional 
written material other than responses to any questions posed to them by the Panel. 
 
 
 
Julio Lacarte-Muró 
Marsha A. Echols 
Akio Shimizu 
 