Thread by @CoppetainPU

OK, @Jim_Cornelius

Does the WTO Airbus case involve only member states’ subsidies (France, Germany, Spain, UK), or the EU’s as well?

The answer lies in the following docs, the main parts totalling 2,535 pages.

Naturally I read the whole lot this morning before lunch:

1/8

Remember, we only want to know:

Do the rulings involve EU subsidies? Or only subsidies by 4 member states (🇫🇷🇩🇪🇪🇸🇬🇧)

The case is here: wto.org/english/tratop…

To find the docs, click “search all documents”. Use the filter buttons on the left of the search result.

2/8

The rulings are very complex. They include eg:

What’s the cumulative effect of several types of subsidies?

If you subsidise in year X how long does the effect last?

What is the state of the market for the types of aircraft concerned and the effect of the subsidies?

etc

3/8

Two broad subsidy types identified:

1. LA/MSF = launch aid/member state financing. This seems to have had the biggest impact, and seems to be member-state only.

2. Non-LA/MSF, including at least two EU items: “EC Framework Programmes” and EU Commission state aid decisions.

4/8

Without reading much detail (OK skipping 99.9%), this is what I have spotted.

Lawyers familiar with the case will know better.

The original panel report identifies “EC Framework Programmes” among offending subsidies, including research and technological development (R&TD)

5/8

The appeal upholds the panel on this.

6/8

After the EU reported it and the member states had altered their programmes to comply with the rulings, the case was put to a “compliance panel”. It ruled that they had not fully complied.

7/8

That was appealed. It’s not so clear which specific EU subsidies were involved but the broad conclusion upheld the panel on both the EU and its member states failing to comply.

So yes, there are EU subsidies involved. To know precisely which requires a bit more reading💤

8/8