6.7 The European Communities reques

6.7 The European Communities requests that in paragraph 7.17 we add a new second sentence including the dates it received the invitation for consultations and the timing of the fixing of the date for consultations to more fully reflect its arguments as they were submitted to the Panel. Mexico makes no comment on this request. We have not made the requested additions. We note that the European Communities did provide additional chronological information in response to Panel question 101, however, the European Communities did not provide any legal arguments with respect to these dates in its written submissions or oral statements before us.
6.8 In respect of paragraph 7.31, second sentence, the European Communities requests that we change our factual finding regarding the date of initiation of the investigation from 17 July 2003, to 16 July 2003, on the basis that Mexico acknowledges this date in certain of its submissions. Mexico disagrees with this comment, stating that 17 July 2003 is the correct date of initiation, as referred to in the interim report, and as indicated in Mexico's Second written submission. We have not made the requested change, as our finding is based on our reading of the relevant legislation of Mexico. We note as well that the European Communities, in submissions before us, identified 17 July 2003 as the date on which the initiation resolution came into effect. (See, e.g., European Communities – First oral statement, para. 17; Second oral statement, para. 5.) Finally, as noted, in its reactions to the interim review request of the European Communities, Mexico confirms the date of 17 July 2003 as the correct date.
6.9 The European Communities requests that we replace "a bona fide one" in the penultimate sentence of paragraph 7.35 with "a bona fides one" or "made in bona fide". Mexico submits no comment on this request. We have changed the reference to refer to "bona fides".
6.10 The European Communities requests that we delete paragraphs 7.37 and 7.38, because its arguments "are not limited to the aim (object and purpose) of Article 13.1 of the SCM Agreement", arguing that it also submitted arguments relating to the context of that provision. Mexico submits no comment regarding this request. We have not accepted this request, as we consider that the report makes clear that we understood the European Communities to be making a textual argument based on the language pertaining to the "aim" of the consultations, not only an argument based on the "aim" (object and purpose) of Article 13.1. Additionally, we address the European Communities other arguments in the subsequent paragraphs. We have introduced certain drafting changes to these paragraphs to further clarify this point.
6.11 The European Communities further submits that paragraph 7.38 contains a denial of implicit obligations under the WTO agreements as well as a denial of the concept of implicit obligations per se. Mexico disagrees with this request, as in its view the paragraph in question does not deny the existence of implicit obligations as such, but rather states that in the specific case it is not possible to conclude that Article 13.1 of the Agreement contains the specific implicit obligation to hold consultations asserted by the European Communities. We have introduced certain drafting changes to this paragraph to clarify this point.
6.12 The European Communities requests that in paragraph 7.42, last sentence, we replace the term "4 July, the date of the invitation to consultations" with "8 July, the date of reception by the European Communities of the invitation by Mexico to hold consultations, which was issued by Mexico on 4 July", as "nobody is really invited before receiving the invitation". Mexico disagrees, stating that even if one cannot consider oneself invited until an invitation is received, the obligation on the importing Member cannot go to such an extreme, as this would imply that Mexico had the obligation to ensure that the specific office of the European Communities in charge of this matter in fact received the invitation. Mexico also submits that the issue under dispute is whether the obligation is to invite for consultations or to invite and hold consultations. We have not made the change requested by the European Communities. We consider that this does not reflect the arguments as presented by the European Communities, which consistently refer to the date on which the invitation to consultations was sent (4 July 2003) (see, e.g., European Communities – First written submission, para. 87), and which focus on whether Mexico was obliged to hold consultations, or at least issue the invitation in time that consultations could be held, before initiation.
6.13 Also concerning paragraph 7.42, the European Communities requests that in the last sentence we change the reference from "17 July 2003" to "16 July 2003". Mexico disagrees, for the reasons as outline in paragraph 6.8, supra,

6.7 The European Communities requests that in paragraph 7.17 we add a new second sentence including the dates it received the invitation for consultations and the timing of the fixing of the date for consultations to more fully reflect its arguments as they were submitted to the Panel. Mexico makes no comment on this request. We have not made the requested additions. We note that the European Communities did provide additional chronological information in response to Panel question 101, however, the European Communities did not provide any legal arguments with respect to these dates in its written submissions or oral statements before us. 
6.8 In respect of paragraph 7.31, second sentence, the European Communities requests that we change our factual finding regarding the date of initiation of the investigation from 17 July 2003, to 16 July 2003, on the basis that Mexico acknowledges this date in certain of its submissions. Mexico disagrees with this comment, stating that 17 July 2003 is the correct date of initiation, as referred to in the interim report, and as indicated in Mexico's Second written submission. We have not made the requested change, as our finding is based on our reading of the relevant legislation of Mexico. We note as well that the European Communities, in submissions before us, identified 17 July 2003 as the date on which the initiation resolution came into effect. (See, e.g., European Communities – First oral statement, para. 17; Second oral statement, para. 5.) Finally, as noted, in its reactions to the interim review request of the European Communities, Mexico confirms the date of 17 July 2003 as the correct date. 
6.9 The European Communities requests that we replace "a bona fide one" in the penultimate sentence of paragraph 7.35 with "a bona fides one" or "made in bona fide". Mexico submits no comment on this request. We have changed the reference to refer to "bona fides".
6.10 The European Communities requests that we delete paragraphs 7.37 and 7.38, because its arguments "are not limited to the aim (object and purpose) of Article 13.1 of the SCM Agreement", arguing that it also submitted arguments relating to the context of that provision. Mexico submits no comment regarding this request. We have not accepted this request, as we consider that the report makes clear that we understood the European Communities to be making a textual argument based on the language pertaining to the "aim" of the consultations, not only an argument based on the "aim" (object and purpose) of Article 13.1. Additionally, we address the European Communities other arguments in the subsequent paragraphs. We have introduced certain drafting changes to these paragraphs to further clarify this point. 
6.11 The European Communities further submits that paragraph 7.38 contains a denial of implicit obligations under the WTO agreements as well as a denial of the concept of implicit obligations per se. Mexico disagrees with this request, as in its view the paragraph in question does not deny the existence of implicit obligations as such, but rather states that in the specific case it is not possible to conclude that Article 13.1 of the Agreement contains the specific implicit obligation to hold consultations asserted by the European Communities. We have introduced certain drafting changes to this paragraph to clarify this point. 
6.12 The European Communities requests that in paragraph 7.42, last sentence, we replace the term "4 July, the date of the invitation to consultations" with "8 July, the date of reception by the European Communities of the invitation by Mexico to hold consultations, which was issued by Mexico on 4 July", as "nobody is really invited before receiving the invitation". Mexico disagrees, stating that even if one cannot consider oneself invited until an invitation is received, the obligation on the importing Member cannot go to such an extreme, as this would imply that Mexico had the obligation to ensure that the specific office of the European Communities in charge of this matter in fact received the invitation. Mexico also submits that the issue under dispute is whether the obligation is to invite for consultations or to invite and hold consultations. We have not made the change requested by the European Communities. We consider that this does not reflect the arguments as presented by the European Communities, which consistently refer to the date on which the invitation to consultations was sent (4 July 2003) (see, e.g., European Communities – First written submission, para. 87), and which focus on whether Mexico was obliged to hold consultations, or at least issue the invitation in time that consultations could be held, before initiation. 
6.13 Also concerning paragraph 7.42, the European Communities requests that in the last sentence we change the reference from "17 July 2003" to "16 July 2003". Mexico disagrees, for the reasons as outline in paragraph 6.8, supra,

0/5000

Từ: -

Sang: -

Kết quả (Việt) 1: [Sao chép]

Sao chép!

6.7 các cộng đồng châu Âu yêu cầu rằng trong đoạn 7,17 chúng tôi thêm một câu mới thứ hai bao gồm các ngày trước, nó đã nhận được lời mời để tham vấn và thời gian sửa chữa ngày tham vấn để phản ánh đầy đủ hơn các đối số của nó như họ đã được gửi đến bảng điều khiển. Mexico làm cho không có bình luận về các yêu cầu này. Chúng tôi không có thực hiện bổ sung được yêu cầu. Chúng tôi lưu ý rằng các cộng đồng châu Âu đã cung cấp thông tin bổ sung thứ tự thời gian trả lời bảng câu hỏi 101, Tuy nhiên, các cộng đồng châu Âu đã không cung cấp bất kỳ luận cứ pháp lý đối với những ngày tháng trong văn bản đệ trình hoặc miệng tuyên bố trước khi chúng tôi của nó. 6.8 trong đối số đoạn 7.31, câu thứ hai, các cộng đồng châu Âu yêu cầu rằng chúng tôi thay đổi chúng tôi tìm kiếm thực tế liên quan đến ngày bắt đầu của cuộc điều tra từ 17 tháng 7 năm 2003, 16 tháng 7 năm 2003, trên cơ sở đó Mexico thừa nhận ngày này trong một số bản đệ trình của nó. Mexico không đồng ý với bình luận này, nói rằng 17 tháng 7 năm 2003 đúng ngày bắt đầu, như được nhắc đến trong các báo cáo tạm thời, và như được chỉ ra ở Mexico thứ hai viết trình. Chúng tôi đã không làm thay đổi được yêu cầu, như tìm kiếm của chúng tôi là dựa vào chúng tôi đọc luật có liên quan của Mexico. Chúng tôi lưu ý cũng như các cộng đồng châu Âu, trong các bài nộp trước khi chúng tôi, xác định 17 tháng 7 năm 2003 như là ngày mà bắt đầu giải quyết đã có hiệu lực. (Xem, ví dụ như, cộng đồng châu Âu-đầu tiên tuyên bố uống, para. 17; Thứ hai báo cáo bằng miệng, para. 5.) cuối cùng, như đã nói, trong phản ứng của nó để yêu cầu xem xét tạm thời của các cộng đồng châu Âu, Mexico khẳng định ngày 17 tháng 7 năm 2003 như là ngày chính xác. 6.9 các cộng đồng châu Âu yêu cầu rằng chúng tôi thay thế "một bona fide" trong câu penultimate của đoạn văn 7.35 với "một bona fides một" hay "made in bona fide". Mexico nộp không có thảo luận về yêu cầu này. Chúng tôi đã thay đổi tài liệu tham khảo để đề cập đến "bona fides".6.10 The European Communities requests that we delete paragraphs 7.37 and 7.38, because its arguments "are not limited to the aim (object and purpose) of Article 13.1 of the SCM Agreement", arguing that it also submitted arguments relating to the context of that provision. Mexico submits no comment regarding this request. We have not accepted this request, as we consider that the report makes clear that we understood the European Communities to be making a textual argument based on the language pertaining to the "aim" of the consultations, not only an argument based on the "aim" (object and purpose) of Article 13.1. Additionally, we address the European Communities other arguments in the subsequent paragraphs. We have introduced certain drafting changes to these paragraphs to further clarify this point. 6.11 The European Communities further submits that paragraph 7.38 contains a denial of implicit obligations under the WTO agreements as well as a denial of the concept of implicit obligations per se. Mexico disagrees with this request, as in its view the paragraph in question does not deny the existence of implicit obligations as such, but rather states that in the specific case it is not possible to conclude that Article 13.1 of the Agreement contains the specific implicit obligation to hold consultations asserted by the European Communities. We have introduced certain drafting changes to this paragraph to clarify this point. 6.12 The European Communities requests that in paragraph 7.42, last sentence, we replace the term "4 July, the date of the invitation to consultations" with "8 July, the date of reception by the European Communities of the invitation by Mexico to hold consultations, which was issued by Mexico on 4 July", as "nobody is really invited before receiving the invitation". Mexico disagrees, stating that even if one cannot consider oneself invited until an invitation is received, the obligation on the importing Member cannot go to such an extreme, as this would imply that Mexico had the obligation to ensure that the specific office of the European Communities in charge of this matter in fact received the invitation. Mexico also submits that the issue under dispute is whether the obligation is to invite for consultations or to invite and hold consultations. We have not made the change requested by the European Communities. We consider that this does not reflect the arguments as presented by the European Communities, which consistently refer to the date on which the invitation to consultations was sent (4 July 2003) (see, e.g., European Communities – First written submission, para. 87), and which focus on whether Mexico was obliged to hold consultations, or at least issue the invitation in time that consultations could be held, before initiation. 6.13 Also concerning paragraph 7.42, the European Communities requests that in the last sentence we change the reference from "17 July 2003" to "16 July 2003". Mexico disagrees, for the reasons as outline in paragraph 6.8, supra,

đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..

Kết quả (Việt) 2:[Sao chép]

Sao chép!

đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..

Kết quả (Việt) 3:[Sao chép]

Sao chép!

đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..

Các ngôn ngữ khác

Hỗ trợ công cụ dịch thuật: Albania, Amharic, Anh, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ba Lan, Ba Tư, Bantu, Basque, Belarus, Bengal, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Bồ Đào Nha, Catalan, Cebuano, Chichewa, Corsi, Creole (Haiti), Croatia, Do Thái, Estonia, Filipino, Frisia, Gael Scotland, Galicia, George, Gujarat, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Hungary, Hy Lạp, Hà Lan, Hà Lan (Nam Phi), Hàn, Iceland, Igbo, Ireland, Java, Kannada, Kazakh, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Klingon, Kurd, Kyrgyz, Latinh, Latvia, Litva, Luxembourg, Lào, Macedonia, Malagasy, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Myanmar, Mã Lai, Mông Cổ, Na Uy, Nepal, Nga, Nhật, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Pháp, Phát hiện ngôn ngữ, Phần Lan, Punjab, Quốc tế ngữ, Rumani, Samoa, Serbia, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovak, Slovenia, Somali, Sunda, Swahili, Séc, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thái, Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ, Thụy Điển, Tiếng Indonesia, Tiếng Ý, Trung, Trung (Phồn thể), Turkmen, Tây Ban Nha, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Việt, Xứ Wales, Yiddish, Yoruba, Zulu, Đan Mạch, Đức, Ả Rập, dịch ngôn ngữ.